ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Wareham Town Hall, Lower Level Cafeteria
54 Marion Road
Wareham, Massachusetts 02571

Date of Meeting:  February 13, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

K. Ferreira called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Ken Ferreira, Chairman
			Mike Martin, Vice Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
David Sharkey
			Richard Secher
			Ticia Weare, Associate Member
Wilma Engerman, Associate Member
			John Cronan, BOS Liaison

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Introduction to/from Town Administrator John McAuliffe.

Present before the Board:	John McAuliffe, Town Administrator

The Administrator noted the positive reputation the Board has, that he is still getting acquainted w/ the functions of the ZBA & Planning, & he is figuring out which Board (ZBA or Planning) handles most of the Special Permits.  K.Ferriera feels it is a 50/50 split relative to commercial Special Permits & development of commercial projects.  He discussed what Special Permits the ZBA handles, how the Zoning Re-write Committee worked to streamline the process, & joint meetings held between both boards re:  the mall project which was unique.

The Administrator stated he has worked w/ Attorney Witten previously & noted challenges w/ 40B projects.  He asked if there are any 40B projects currently.  M. Scarsciotti stated there is only one that is a legal issue presently.  She explained the issues w/ this matter.  Since 1999, there have been seven 40B projects which are all complete.  The Board is now dealing w/ some issues w/ these projects, such as getting units counted as affordable for one project & obtaining copies of audits that are due for each project.

The Administrator noted that w/ issues/cases that require a lot of details, he suggested directing them to one legal entity vs. a larger legal entity (such as Kopelman & Paige).  M. Scarsciotti stated normally, general legal questions went to Kopelman & Paige through the Board of Selectmen, but 40B issues were handled by Attorney Witten.  Brief discussion ensued re:  Attorney Witten taking on 40B issues.  

K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  some of Town Counsel’s actions on various matters in the past due to involvement of the past BOS/Administrator.  The Administrator feels this current BOS shows a commitment to support a Board in an appeal.  Mr. Cronan noted that this current BOS is not deciding who the attorney is either & the Administrator is overseeing legal.  He spoke re:  new legal counsel that will be coming on board.

The Administrator asked who writes the ZBA’s decisions.  K. Ferreira stated that the Board makes a motion w/ conditions, they dictate what should be included in the  decision, the secretaries draft the decision, run it past the Board for approval, & then the secretaries write it up.  Relative to 40B decisions, Attorney Witten handles those.  The Administrator stated the process being utilized currently (for ZBA decisions) can be problematic in some towns, but this doesn’t seem to be the case currently.

K. Ferreira stated one major concern of the Board is enforcement of conditions w/in a decision.  There is an issue w/ enforcement of conditions which he explained.  The Administrator acknowledged there are enforcement issues.

M. Martin suggested possibly having someone present at the meetings to take detailed minutes/notes & write down the conditions so there is nothing lost in translation.

R.Secher reiterated the issues w/ enforcement.

M.Scarsciotti clarified how the ZBA ended up w/ two different attorneys.  

D.Sharkey noted the difficulties w/ 40B projects & the importance of enforcement of conditions.

K.Ferreira explained the process when someone appeals a decision of the Board & issues accessing legal counsel.  He asked how the Administrator feels re:  Special Municipal Employee Status.  He noted how it was helpful in the past having access to an attorney.  He would like to have some sort of relationship w/ the attorney dealing w/ ZBA matters.

B.	Minutes to be approved:  December 12, 2007 (Executive Session) & January 23, 2008.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of December 12, 2007.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve the Regular Session meeting minutes of January 23, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	83 Sandwich Road – Terry Smith – Request to appear before the Board (informally)

Present before the Board:	Attorney Perry
				Terry Smith

Attorney Perry noted the Variance Mr. Smith was granted by the Board previously.

Attorney Perry stated Mr. Smith had storage trailers on the property & when granted the Variance he was told to remove them.  He has not done this.  Mr. Smith’s work is a charitable organization approved by the State & Federal Government.  He hasn’t been able to get rid of the trailers due to money problems.

Attorney Perry stated another matter Mr. Smith has yet to comply with is a buffer zone on the south side of the property.  Mr. Smith’s understanding was that a fence would satisfy this.

Mr. Smith stated he asked for this meeting because he wanted to let the Board know that despite how things look at the site, he is not snubbing his nose at the conditions.  He had understood that a fence would satisfy the buffer zone issue.  There was no heat, electricity, or water on site at the time of the Variance.  The trailers had items in them that have been donated.  He couldn’t abandon the trailers & he has tried to sell them for money.  It took almost a year to get the utilities on site.

K.Ferreira explained there is already enforcement against Mr. Smith by the Building Inspector re:  violation of the Variance.  Mr. Smith needs to work this out w/ the Enforcement Agent.  If Mr. Smith wants to change some of the conditions of the Variance, he will need to apply for a public hearing to modify the Variance.  

K.Ferreira does recall discussion re:  a fence.  This may be something that can be modified.  Relative to getting the trailers off site, this was something that had existed prior & more trailers were added.  Mr. Smith had stated at that time he would remove the trailers, but he needed time.  The trailers are still there.  

K.Ferreira noted that Mr. Smith applied for a sign, but was denied because the Building Inspector stated he was in violation of other issues & wouldn’t issue a sign permit.

K.Ferreira doesn’t feel the Board would be in favor of modifying the Variance until the outstanding issues are satisfied.

Attorney Perry asked if the Board feels the same way about containers vs. trailers.  K.Ferreira stated the difference between containers vs. trailers is that containers have a use on construction/remodeling sites & sites where they will be there for a time & then be removed.  They are not meant to stay forever.  Mr. Smith stated the building is only 20x30 ft.  In order for it to generate any income, storage is needed.  He will always need storage.  He acknowledged that he agreed to the conditions on the Variance because he needed the Variance, but he was unprepared for a lot of the issues that arose.  K. Ferreira asked what conditions Mr. Smith is having problems with.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the conditions.  It seems that the only problematic issue is the trailers on site.  The other issue of a fence can be discussed.  M. Scarsciotti stated there is a fence there.  Mr. Smith stated there is a chain-linked fence to the front of the store & then there is a 6 ft. stockade fence.

Mr. Smith asked if he could build some sort of storage facility.  K. Ferreira stated an addition to the building could be done vs. the trailers.  He doesn’t want containers to replace the trailers.  An application for the addition would need to be applied for.

R. Secher asked how much Mr. Smith is paying for the trailers.  Mr. Smith stated he is paying nothing, they were donated.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the use designated for this site.  M. Martin stated a retail business is not allowed in this area.  He asked if there was a Variance for the use.  It was stated there was.

D.	Informal discussion re:  #25-08 – 59 South Street, c/o William H. Lockwood, R.A.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Margaret Ishihara
				William H. Lockwood

Mr. Lockwood stated this case is still open.  K. Ferreira doesn’t want to get into the merits of a Variance prior to this case being opened as a Variance.

Attorney Ishihara described what she understands transpired at the last meeting when this project was submitted as a Special Permit.  The minutes of this case were reviewed & submitted to Attorney Ishihara.  K. Ferreira explained this case was advertised as a Special Permit.  As the case proceeded, it was determined that a Variance would be required.  This is why the Board asked that it be re-advertised.  Additionally, because the motion didn’t carry for a Special Permit, it was suggested that changes be made to the plan to re-submit.  

M. Martin cited the Bjorklund vs. Norwell case & how it applies to this case.  He is not opposed to re-construction of this structure if it came more into conformity w/ the setback requirements which he discussed.

Attorney Ishihara asked if the Board would be willing to review a revised drawing.  K. Ferreira feels documentation can be submitted in advance, but any discussion should be done at the next scheduled public hearing.  The Board reviewed the proposed house, it seemed fine, but there was a concern that if given the opportunity to make the setback more in compliance then it should be done.  

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES  
(NONE)

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#26-08 – 228 Barker Road – Craig & Debbie Rogers

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Craig Rogers
				Debbie Rogers

M. Scarsciotti noted there is no correspondence from the Board of Health.

Ms. Rogers stated they want to build an attached in-law suite for her mother because ________________ & the house doesn’t have a full bathroom on the first floor.  Stairs will become an issue down the road safety wise.  They don’t have any intention of renting this out to anyone else.  She would sign something to this effect.  

K.Ferreira stated this could not be rental property.  The specific use would have to be for a family member.  Upon sale of the property, the owners would have to take means to discontinue this use so it is not sold as a two-family.  This may require re-modeling & expense.  It would be required, in the deed, that the home be down-graded back to a single family home.

Ms. Rogers stated there is no second floor.  The stairs on the plan lead up to storage.  M. Martin asked why they are not pull-down stairs.  Ms. Rogers stated she has had problems w/ her mother falling w/ these pull-down stairs.  K. Ferreira stated the kitchen would have to be taken out of the in the in-law portion if the home was sold.  

R.Secher asked where the access to the addition is.  Ms. Rogers stated there is entry from the outside & inside.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Phil Murphy

Mr. Murphy spoke in favor of the application.

Present before the Board:	Dave Ronner, Barker Road

Mr. Ronner spoke in favor of the application.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the height of the second floor to the top beam.  Ms. Rogers stated they have gone to the Board of Health & they have well water.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #26-08 – 228 Barker Road – Craig & Debbie Rogers.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved & M. Scarsciotti seconded to grant a Variance for petition #26-08 – 228 Barker Road – Craig & Debbie Rogers w/ the following conditions:

•	Addition to be built substantially in accordance w/ plans submitted (both architectural & site plan).
•	A deed restriction will be placed on the deed re:  the conditions of this Variance & noting the book & page of its recording & noting that upon sale or transfer of title outside of family, the remnants of the in-law apartment, primarily the kitchen, must be removed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.  A copy of the recorded document to be delivered to the Planning Office for the file.
•	At no time shall this apartment be rented or advertised or used as rental property.
•	Parking on-site suitable for the use.
•	All other applicable boards, commissions, & committee requirements & conditions must be met.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#27-08 – 4 Sea Street – Patsy Cheney, c/o Attorney Edward Kiernan

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Edward Kiernan
				Patsy Cheney
				
M. Scarsciotti read from the comments from the Board of Health that require plans be submitted for citing & design construction of an on-site sewage treatment & disposal system.

Attorney Kiernan stated Ms. Cheney obtained a building permit to conduct work on the roof, windows, & doors.  The issue is the roof.   The permit only states roof, doors, & windows.  Apparently, the intention was the roof was leaking & shingling, boards, & some roof material were to be replaced.  Once the project was started, fire damage was found that had not been known to exist.  The fire damage was not visible from inside the house because there was paneling put up on the second story & it was never known this damage existed.  Therefore, after this discovery, it was found that there was a need for greater replacement of rafters & various other portions of the roof.  In the process of removing & fixing the damaged areas, the ridge line was increased by approx. 4 ft. to 23.6 ft.  No non-conformity has been instituted.  There was no extension of non-conformities or setbacks.  He submitted pictures.  The Building Inspector came & reviewed & told the owners they could continue, but they needed to square it away at the Building Dept. because the original permit that said “roof” on it was not inclusive of what was being done.  The owner went to the Building Dept. to apply for an application.  At that point, he received a denial letter which stated he didn’t comply w/ the 20 ft. front setback.  This was never brought forth prior & this home has been there prior to zoning & never has complied.  

Attorney Kiernan stated what has been done at this site complies w/ 1535 (not creating any greater non-conformities, complying w/ all Town building & zoning Bylaws, & not creating any greater intensity of non-conformity than had existed).  He feels the Building Inspector has the authority to approve this matter under those circumstances.  

Attorney Kiernan summarized that he is looking for a Special Permit.  The roof has been raised 4 ft. & has not increased non-conformities that already existed prior.

Mr. Secher stated the date of the denial letter from the Building Inspector is dated 1/11/07.  He asked why this is coming forward now.  Attorney Kiernan stated the reason is money.  The applicant did not have the money to move forward at that time for the appeal (for example, engineering plans).  The construction on the site has ceased.

K.Ferreira stated the initial permit was to replace the roof, but by raising up the roof 4 ft. it has created a second floor living space.  Attorney Kiernan stated there was second floor living space there before.  T. Weare stated the original permit was not to raise the roof, but to only replace the roof.  Attorney Kiernan noted what was stated on the permit re:  what was to be done.  He understands the original intent was not to raise the roof.  This all came about after the fire damage was discovered.  The original intent was just to replace the roof, remove the dormer, etc.  M.Martin summarized that the fire damage was unforeseen & unknown conditions caused the project to continue further than what was intended.

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.

Present before the Board:	Mr. & Mrs. Gardner, 67 Warr Avenue

Mr. Gardner abuts the property in question on the corner.  He has never seen a dormer on the applicant’s roof in the 18 years he has lived there.  Once the roof was raised, you couldn’t see the cove.  When the work commenced, they didn’t just replace the roof, they put up a frame for a second floor.  At that point, they called the Building Inspector.  He was told by the Building Inspector that a stop work order was placed.  They continued to work on the house starting on Friday morning & over the weekends.  He called the Building Inspector again & asked to see the permit.  The Building Inspector was supposed to go out & remind them that there was a stop work order.  This was in the spring of 2006.  During 2006, they continued to work on weekends.  His wife sent pictures to the Building Inspector showing this work, including work being done in 11/06 & 12/06.  The applicant is now looking for a Variance for something that was already done.  

Mrs. Gardner stated she purchased her home 25 years ago so she could see the cove, but now she can’t see the cove out of her bedroom.

Mr. Cronan asked if there are pictures of the fire damage.  Attorney Kiernan doesn’t believe so.  Discussion ensued re:  if the Building Inspector saw the fire damage.  The contractor stated he did see it when the debris was out in front of the house.  

K.Ferreira asked where the pictures that were submitted were taken from.  Mrs. Gardner stated from her yard.  Mr. Gardner explained the section of the house in question which was never there before & now blocks their view.

M.Martin feels that some incremental work did go on over a period of time.  Homeowners have a protected right to live in a home that is safe & livable.  He feels the house had previously unknown structural damage.  The matter this evening is the applicant is seeking a Special Permit to re-build or alter construction of a pre-existing home.  What was done in between the first permit & what they are seeking tonight may not have followed Town procedure, but tonight, the Board needs to decide whether or not the applicant, under the zoning ordinance, permitted to alter, reconstruct, extend, or make structural changes to a pre-existing non-conforming single family dwelling.  The issues the Gardner’s have is an issue for the Town Administrator.  Mr. Gardner stated the Building Inspector told them they had to come to the Board & that the Board was the only one that could do anything about this matter.  M. Martin stated the Gardner’s have the right to come & express their concerns over the project, but to come before the Board officially, they would have had to file a formal application to the Zoning Board.  Discussion continued.  

M.Martin stated the Board doesn’t have the power to issue fines.  The Board has the authority to either grant the permit or not.  K.Ferreira stated by expanding & raising the roof, that is what triggered the Building Inspector’s concerns re:  a second floor being put on & it is an alteration.   

M.Martin stated the Building Inspector must take the person to court to enforce the zoning ordinance.  He is the enforcer.  This Board does not have the power to enforce or issue fines.  The Building Inspector has the power to issue a cease & desist & if it is ignored, the Building Inspector needs to bring it to court.  Discussion ensued.

R. Secher stated besides the one year after-the-fact matter, the project is in the same footprint & the height requirement is alright.  Again, it is under the Building Inspector’s purview to enforce & he chose not to do so.  K.Ferreira feels the Board is being placed in an awkward position because the project is so far along.  D. Sharkey expressed concern that the applicant had money to devote to a significant repair/expansion, but didn’t have money to apply for approval.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the Building Inspector having the authority to charge twice the building permit application for unauthorized work & adjust the building permit application to reflect the actual project.

T. Weare stated the letter states the work continued w/ the knowledge of the Building Dept.  She asked if there was any correspondence back & forth.  Attorney Kiernan stated not to his knowledge.  He feels there was just communication between Mr. Cheney & the Building Inspectors.  Mr. Cheney stated it was all verbal.  When the Building Inspector came to the site, he told him to go to the Building Dept. on Monday to re-write the permit & get it all worked out.  When he went to the Building Dept., the Building Inspector discussed what had to be done, what transpired, & what was done.  Friends did the construction.

T.Weare doesn’t understand how fire damage required Mr. Cheney to raise the roof.  She understands replacement of what was there, but not changing it structurally.  Mr. Cheney stated it came down to a point where he had to take out the ridge board & 75% of the rafters because the rafters that used to be 2x6 are now 1x6.  He made the decision to raise the roof 4 ft. more in the middle to give more room when walking around.  T. Weare clarified that the fire damage did not necessitate the raising of the roof.  It was more a decision on Mr. Cheney’s part.  Mr. Cheney stated this is when the Building Inspector got involved.  Mr. Cheney stated the permit was issued in 6/06.  He went to the Building Dept. at the end of June after speaking to the Building Inspector.  He didn’t get the letter denying the Variance until 1/07.  He stated that not much was done between 1/07 & 1/08 except for tie wrap & shingles (buttoning up the house to keep the weather out).

T. Weare clarified that when Mr. Cheney went to the Building Dept., that is when the Building Inspector stated he wouldn’t be in compliance w/ the 20 ft. setback & he would have to go before the ZBA & then the Building Inspector waited six months to give him a denial letter.  Brief discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira suggested the hearing be continued to gather information from the Building Inspectors.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #27-08 – 4 Sea Street – Patsy Cheney to February 27, 2008 & to have the Building Inspector attend said meeting.  M. Scarsciotti seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#21-08 – 8 Tyler Avenue – Carmen Stroscio, Stroscio Realty Trust, c/o Charles L. Rowley & Associates

Present before the Board:	Charles L. Rowley, Charles Rowley & Associates
				Attorney Jan Wolverton 

Mr. Rowley explained in respect to the last meeting, there were items that the Board asked be looked into.  He noted discussion dealt w/ the status condition in & around Tyler Ave., improvements around this area, & gaining permission for a sewer tie-in from the Sewer Commissioners.  Also, the Board was awaiting comments from Hancock & Associates re:  storm drainage.

Mr. Rowley submitted a summary of information re:  the above.  He spoke re:  traffic observations conducted over a period of three days.  The amount of traffic turning movements in & out of Tyler Ave. are not that many.  Over a period of eight hours on 1/11/08, a total of 42 cars were counted going in over the eight hour period turning in off the bypass or coming across Tyler Ave. from the westbound end of the bypass coming into Tyler Ave.  The same number of cars came out.  The count was then done at the other end of Tyler Ave. at Depot St.  Low numbers were obtained again (24).   The traffic pattern appears to be very small.  They attempted to make a determination what the delays were w/ groups of cars as they came along the bypass.  They found that the gapping between cars (possibly attributable to the lights at Depot. St., number of cars there, & turns they were making) sometimes the gaps were very narrow.  There is plenty of time to get across in between gaps.

Mr. Rowley stated he will appear before the Selectmen on 2/19/08 to discuss the sewer tie-in.  The Superintendent of the Sewer Dept. has asked for changes to the plan, for example, making sure there is a contract between whomever manages the pump station & the condo association to make sure it is maintained on a regular basis & inspections made when pipes are laid in the ground.

Mr. Rowley spoke re:  plan for parking & the widening of Depot St.  He explained improvements that could be made to Depot St. starting at the bypass & running past the entrance to the property in question.  They can get a 20 ft. pavement in there vs. the existing 16 ft.  The sidewalk has been relocated to the property in question.  There would be room enough to take some runoff off the roadway as far as the southerly end of the development.  This runoff could be captured & infiltrated into the ground w/in the layout of Tyler Ave.

Discussion ensued re:  parking & visitor parking.  Mr. Rowley stated the Zoning Bylaw states that there shouldn’t be more parking spaces that what code calls for.  He recognizes the issue of visitor parking.  K.Ferreira noted this is a Variance for the number of units & there is a lot of infrastructure that will need to be built.  The Board needs to feel comfortable w/ the density of the project & if not comfortable, establish a number the Board will be comfortable with.

M. Martin spoke re:  sec.834 – Development Standards.  He stated w/ seven acres available, there is a by-right use of ten units.  He discussed sec. 612 & 615 – Lot Calculations for Zoning Compliances.  Discussion ensued re:  these sections.  Attorney Wolverton feels parts of these sections are ambiguous because it doesn’t apply to principle buildings which he explained.  K. Ferreira stated before the Zoning Bylaw was re-written, much of these matters came out of the old zoning Bylaw.  Development standards of how many multiple family units there can be has always been the same.  Discussion ensued re:  calculations done.  K. Ferreira stated how things used to be done was to look at the usable area of the lot & draw specifications out on a grid. 

K. Ferreira stated this project still needs to go before the Board of Sewer Commissioners for sewer tie in approval.  The Board needs to discuss whether to ask for less units.  He asked if a Variance was requested for recreation area.  Mr. Rowley stated no & explained why.  K. Ferreira noted the regulation that states if the total number of apartment dwellings to be developed at one time on any successive stage exceeds 12, the development shall include an outdoor recreation area.  This project is 15 units & is required to have recreation area.  Mr. Rowley stated it isn’t designated on the plan as recreation area, but there is space around the units that could be construed as recreation.  T. Weare stated this may be considered as open space, not recreation.  Mr. Rowley stated recreation area has not been designated on the plan.  Discussion ensued.

Mr. Rowley stated the units were broken up so it wouldn’t look like one large building & it is easier to construct ( five can be built one year & the rest in another year).  Aesthetics are important as well in preserving the residential character of the neighborhood.  K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  the density.  He feels a basic pro forma needs to be prepared that gives a break even to a reasonable profit.  M. Martin added that the financial hardship argument needs to be proved as well for a Variance.

Mr. Rowley noted a positive report has been received from Hancock Associates.  Hancock Associates have asked to continue the drainage of the developable site (upland).  He gave $2,500 as a deposit for this review.  Brief discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  number of units allowable if the project had on-site sewer vs. public sewer.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #21-08 – 8 Tyler Avenue – Carmen Stroscio, Stroscio Realty Trust to February 27, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#20-08 – Avenue A – Access Partners Development, LLC

M. Scarsciotti did not speak w/ South Shore Housing, Stephen Dubuque.  Her calls have not been returned.  She spoke to a Nancy Farrel in his office & was told to contact the SSH attorney directly.  She spoke to their attorney, Anthony Matera & was told the lawsuit had not been filed per Steve Dubuque’s instructions.  South Shore Housing is trying to find a qualified buyer & work out a deal w/ the attorney representing the current homeowner & negotiate w/ the title insurance company & its agent to pay the difference between what the current owner paid & the affordable price.  There is a question re:  the current condition of the property.  

Attorney Witten had stated that Wareham should be included in the lawsuit.  She has been told that South Shore housing will be the only named party because they were the only named party in the deed rider.  Wareham’s interest was identified in the contract between South Shore Housing & the Developer, but it wasn’t included in the deed rider.

Discussion ensued re:  how to proceed & Attorney Witten’s availability.  Discussion ensued re:  issues that arose w/ this matter & how matters got to this point.  T. Weare asked to have a meeting scheduled w/ MA Housing.  M. Scarsciotti expressed the importance of who oversees 40B projects after completion.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #20-08 – Avenue A – Access Partners Development, LLC to February 27, 2008.   R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	40 B project audit

K.Ferreira stated Attorney Witten has been asked to find out how much it will cost to send out letters to all the 40B projects that have been approved in the past to require them to submit their financial audits & applicable documents.  Some of these 40B projects have not complied w/ the Bylaws relative to this information.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to direct Attorney Jon Witten to send letters requesting an audit of all 40B projects.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.  Wind Turbine

W. Engerman spoke re:  a wind turbine.  Someone put up a wind turbine & owns the property.  The property owner has a wind turbine now in the Rose Point area.  She doesn’t feel there was a permit issued for this.  The noise is loud, like a generator.  

K.Ferreira will contact the Zoning Enforcement Officer re:  a wind turbine operating in a residential neighborhood.

VIII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 P.M.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

Date minutes approved:  _____________________
Date copy sent to Town Clerk:  ____________________