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

Date of Meeting:  April 9, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:	Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman
			Mike Martin, Vice Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			David Sharkey
			Richard Secher
			Ticia Weare, Associate Member
Wilma Engerman, Associate Member

K.Ferreira explained the meeting procedure.

II.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Minutes to be approved – March 26, 2008

Corrections need to be made.  They are still in draft form.

B.	Set Public Hearing Date – One year review for Wareham Boatyard & Marina.

K.Ferreira stated abutters have called & are asking about the one year review date.  The file needs to be reviewed to see when the permit took effect.  After this is done, a date for a one year review will be set.

III.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	Correspondence dated 3/26/08 from Law Offices of Robert L. Perry re:  petition #23-07.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Robert L. Perry

Attorney Perry stated his client for petition #23-07 had anticipated purchasing two adjoining lots which would have provided enough frontage & area.  This hasn’t worked out because the Building Inspector has issued an opinion that even w/ the combination of the two adjoining lots, it would still not be a buildable piece of property & would require action by the ZBA.  He had reviewed the older file/documentation relative to this property & there was no formal action taken re:  documentation stating the ZBA would allow a withdrawal.  He asked if this matter could be re-published & re-notification done so he can come back.

K.Ferreira had read the letter from Attorney Perry.  He didn’t sit on this case.  The problem is the withdrawal was sent in by the client and it was accepted by the Board w/ a motion.  A decision was never filed w/ the Town Clerk.  Procedurally, this is a defect.  It could be taken up on appeal.  When the Board accepts a withdrawal w/out prejudice it is always explained.

Attorney Perry understood that no action would be taken unless the Board obtains further notice.  The decision was not filed at the Town Clerk’s office.  He feels the matter can be re-published & re-notifications can be sent out.

K.Ferreira noted the information that would be needed for this new application could be taken out of the old file.  Attorney Perry concurred.  T. Weare feels it may be best to file a new application because there are new Board members who haven’t heard the case previously.  M. Martin feels the matter of re-applying is more of a convenience to the client.  He feels this nullifies a long-standing procedure of the Board.  If something like this is allowed, he will, in the future, deny w/ prejudice.

Present before the Board:	Theresa Tello, Anchorage Drive (Abutter)

Ms. Tello stated on 7/11/07 a motion was made & seconded by the Board to accept the withdrawal of the petition for 6 Anchorage Drive w/out prejudice.  She feels the petitioner withdrew because of a challenge to DEP.  She is in the middle of a DEP hearing relative to this property being held in Boston shortly.  DEP has stated the petitioner is in violation of MGL because the application was withdrawn.  Now, the petitioner is trying to get “back in” so they are in compliance before this DEP meeting.  She & other abutters were never notified.  The meeting was continued several times.  In June 2007, when the meeting was continued the first time, Mr. Martin moved to formally open the hearing, discussion ensued, the Board stated they would deny the application w/out prejudice for the 7/25/07 meeting, but it needed to be re-advertised & a waiver be sent.  She never received anything.  Before the next meeting, the application was withdrawn.  There is a DEP appeal & she feels this is an attempt to re-file & to get into compliance before this DEP meeting.  She would like the Board to hold firm to the decision it made prior.

K.Ferreira stated the Board’s decision made on 7/25/07 was to accept the withdrawal w/out prejudice.  He explained this means the case is closed.   Without prejudice means the applicant can re-apply.  There is nothing to prevent the re-application.  The case cannot be re-opened.  A new filing must be submitted.  They can re-apply any time they wish.   Ms. Tello asked if all the information they filed originally has to change.  K. Ferreira stated it will be a whole new hearing, but if the information is the same, ie. topography, lot size, etc., it can be utilized.  He doesn’t know how this affects the DEP adjudicatory hearing re:  being in compliance w/ MGL.  Zoning & Conservation issues shouldn’t be tied together.  The petitioner has the right to re-apply again.  The hearing, if applied for, will not be scheduled until May.

B.	Correspondence dated 3/27/08 from Kopelman & Paige re:  petition #15-06.

This item will be handled in Executive Session.  This deals w/ Pointe Independence Yacht Club.

IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#31-08 – 2786 & 2788 Cranberry Highway – R.B. Machine Co., Scott Burr, c/o Attorney Robert Perry.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Robert Perry
				Mark Gabriel, DSC Group
				David Crispen, _____________

Attorney Perry explained the applicant owns a welding supply store in Plymouth & would like to set up a store in Wareham.  He described the location of the property.  This property was subdivided in 1920.  It is zoned strip commercial.  The issue is the property is below in size based on the current Strip Commercial zoning requirements.  An application for a Variance as well as Site Plan Review is before the Board.

Attorney Perry explained that the property consists of four lots (1A,1B,2A,2B) on Map 128 & 129A.  The Assessors map shows 20,943 sq. ft. w/ 8,990 sq. ft. of frontage.  In reality, there are private ways on either side of the property.  The lot is actually 28,260 sq. ft.  This is slightly lower than the zoning requirements.  He briefly noted the ownership history of the property & that it has been utilized for commercial use for many years.  

Attorney Perry discussed the proposed building.  It will be 56x42.  All Bylaws would be satisfied.  This can be addressed in Site Plan Review.  

K.Ferreira asked re:  the streets.  He is not so concerned re:  square footage of the property.  He doesn’t understand taking the fee in the street unless the streets are discontinued by agreement of the abutters.  If the street goes away, there is an ANR plan that combines one half of the street, & there are no more streets, he has no problem incorporating the area.  He agrees that the fee ownership goes to the center line of a private way.  If the street goes away, zoning doesn’t usually incorporate the square footage of private streets into the lot size.  Even though the fee is owned, it is not included in the lot for area calculations.   Attorney Perry agreed, but it is there now & effectively been used as part of the lot.  These streets were never built.  K. Ferreira doesn’t understand why this is being done.  There will be no building in the street & the plans show no improvements in the street, such as landscaping, or drainage.  Attorney Perry stated part of the setbacks is the ownership area in the street.  To get the setbacks, the street is needed.  They will be fine on the setbacks if the streets are utilized.  A Variance would be required if the street is not utilized on this side.  This is why it becomes important to have ownership interest in the street.

Attorney Perry again discussed the area where the property is located & other businesses in the area.  This project will not have a substantial detriment to the neighborhood & will be an improvement.  A nice building will be constructed w/ landscaping & it may increase the tax base.  There will be less traffic vs. having buses stored there currently.  The lot is unique in that it is situated between the highlands coming down from the top of the hill on Rte. 28 & the lowlands that encompass Garden Homes North & land across from it.  

K.Ferreira noted an estimate was made by Hancock Associates for Site Plan Review.  He asked if a deposit has been made to them & plans submitted to have them review it.  Mr. Gabriel explained that initially a discussion was held w/ the Building Inspector.  The Building Inspector stated in a letter that the property was eligible for a small lot exemption.  Mr. Burke spent significant money into putting plans together based on this letter.  Mr. Burke filed w/ the Planning Board, the package & fee was then submitted to Hancock Associates for the review.  At that point it was decided that a small lot exemption didn’t apply because the property is commercially zoned.  They did meet w/ the Planning Board to obtain a referral to give to the ZBA.  He is unaware of what transpired at the review w/ Hancock Associates.  The fee to Hancock Associates was paid in Nov./Dec. 2007.  The septic system was also approved for this site.

K.Ferreira read the letter from the Planning Board dated 2/12/08 into the record.  There is nothing in the file relative to Hancock’s review.  Drainage & compliance issues will be reviewed by Hancock as outlined in a contract dated 1/28/08.  The Bylaws state the Planning Board has 30 days to comment on the plans.  If no comment is made w/in 30 days, it is deemed that they approve.  The comments from Hancock need to be looked into as to where they are or if they have conducted a review.

Mr. Gabriel discussed the property & what presently exists.  The proposal is for a 22,352 sq. ft. two-story retail facility w/ a proposed driveway & parking area, associated grading & utilities, landscape improvements, & stockade fence around side of property.  Drainage on site will continue to follow the natural grade of the property.  He discussed drainage, the on-site septic system, & on-site propane refueling station.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the rain garden & use of the street.

K.Ferreira noted who the abutters are.  He asked if the attorney has approached the abutters to determine if they wish to discontinue the streets.  Attorney Perry stated they haven’t because Garden Homes on the north has put in their own road.  K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  the fee is to the center line subject to the rights of others.  The rights of others are the Hall & Plenty property.  The Board cannot pre-judge what others may or may not want to do.  Mr. Crispen stated the center line applies to one of the streets.  On the other street, because the way the land was divided, the original property line was on the northern boundary.  Thus, Mr. Burr owns the entire fee.  It is in the title for the property.  He discussed why it was put into the title.  He discussed rights to the paper streets.    

K. Ferreira asked if they are committed to providing an 81X plan that incorporates the street.  He asked if the engineer would stamp that plan.  Mr. Gabriel stated if it still shows the easement of the way on the plan, he would stamp it.  K. Ferreira stated this means the roadway hasn’t gone away.  He asked why.  Mr. Gabriel stated it hasn’t been extinguished to certain parties.  This could be done.  Discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re:  filing a Form C.  K. Ferreira doesn’t like leaving the streets there & using them for utilities.  Attorney Perry feels the applicant has the right to do this.  K. Ferreira stated the applicant has the right to install water, gas, sewer in the way, but drainage is usually subsurface.  He likes the idea of a rain garden vs. a leaching pit, but it isn’t the typical installation of utilities you would find in a way.  It is above ground & will look like a swail.  He feels the abutters need to be heard from relative to the ways/streets.  He would also like an opinion from Town Counsel re:  this matter.  The issue is the Board is advertising a hearing for lots, but included is a proposal to improve private streets.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Lawrence & Laura Plenty, Abutters

Mr. Plenty discussed the area in question.  He feels this property has always been residential, never commercial.  Cars & buses have parked there in the past.   This was acceptable.  However, this proposal is a massive development.  K. Ferreira noted that this property is zoned commercial.  It was never changed back to residential.

Mr. Plenty feels the property in question is undersized for commercial.  He expressed concern as an abutter as to the proposed large development.  It is a residential area.  He feels this property would have been perfect for affordable housing.  He expressed concern re:   placing a business in between all residential properties.  He would be opposed to having a propane filling site on this property as well.  He feels this would be a safety issue.  There are children in the area abutting this property.  More traffic & activity will be created w/ this project.

K.Ferreira understands Mr. Plenty’s concerns re:  mixing commercial w/ what is already residential.  Relative to the propane filling, there are many regulations relative to installation of propane tanks used for filling stations.  The property in question is zoned Strip Commercial.  The ZBA will need to hear an argument for a Variance because the lot is undersized.  The proposal needs to be reviewed for safety, traffic circulation, landscaping, etc.  The Board cannot say a welding shop cannot be placed there.  It is allowed by zoning law & is an allowed use.  The Board needs to determine if a lot that is not 30,000 sq. & doesn’t have 150 ft. of frontage should be allowed.

Mr. Plenty requested the Board reject the proposal.  He doesn’t anticipate giving up or discontinuing half of his lot.  He owns to the center of the street.  K. Ferreira stated if this street was officially discontinued, the land area would go into his deed.  If this isn’t something Mr. Plenty wants to do, he doesn’t have to.

Mr. Plenty asked what the applicant’s recourse is if he doesn’t give up his property to the center of the street.  Mr. Ferreira stated they would have none.  A discontinuance of a way cannot be forced.  Mr. Martin feels it could go to land court.

Present before the Board:	Jeff Callahan, Owner of Garden Homes

Mr. Callahan expressed concerns re:  the project.  He spoke re:  Gonsalves Ave. & the impression that it is a through way.  He is unsure as to whether it is w/in his property line or if he owns to the middle of it.  Gonsalves Ave. is only partially paved.  Mr. Plenty owns part of Gonsalves Ave. to the middle line.  The roads that go through this area are not paved.  K.Ferreira doesn’t believe the applicant will be taking over any part of Gonsalves Ave.  Mr. Callahan disagreed.  He feels the applicant will be exiting onto Gonsalves Ave.  They would be going onto private roads.  He doesn’t know where the property line is.  He proceeded to review the plans submitted.  K. Ferreira stated this area has been surveyed by a professional land surveyor.  Mr. Callahan asked once the applicant gets onto Gonsalves Ave., which he owns half of, how will they get out.  Mr. Martin explained the access ways.  Mr. Callahan disagreed.  Mr. Martin explained that whether a way is public or private, under MA law, anyone can pass & re-pass, not just the owners.  

K.Ferreira asked re:  Heather Trail & if it was developed under subdivision control law or an access way into the mobile home park.  Mr. Callahan stated it is an approved road in a private development under a subdivision plan.  It is totally w/in the bounds of Garden Homes.  Heather Trail is not subject for ownership to the middle of the road.

K.Ferreira expressed concern re:  trucks & commercial vehicles going through a mobile home park to exit out onto Rte. 28.  Mr. Callahan stated this is an emergency exit only.  Mr. Gabriel explained that they plan to gate the back off.  It would be their second way of egress.  K. Ferreira wants to make sure this would be completely closed off & would only be accessible to fire apparatus.  Commercial vehicles should not be exiting through a mobile home park & using this street.  It shouldn’t be utilized by the applicant as the main or secondary access, except for an emergency.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira asked if Gonsalves Ave. is included in the calculation of 28,000 sq. ft.  Mr. Gabriel stated it is.  Discussion ensued re:  Gonsalves Ave. & various other streets.

K.Ferreira explained the Board needs to look to see if there is enough land area to support a commercial business that is 1/3 short of required area.

Mr. Callahan responded to Attorney Perry’s comment that it is 50% commercial in the area.  He doesn’t feel the surrounding area is 50% commercial.  K. Ferreira explained that the Planning Board attempted to reverse the zoning along Cranberry Highway & met w/ opposition.  Strip Commercial is the most liberal of the commercial districts.

M. Martin feels that use of the two private ways in any calculations, will need to be discontinued.  He discussed the uniqueness argument.  At present, he doesn’t see any uniqueness & he doesn’t see a slope as being described.  He feels the site is flat.  K. Ferreira stated the uniqueness of topography needs to cause a hardship.  He doesn’t see this either.  M. Martin noted that the applicant is basing the hardship factor solely on the financial aspects.   There needs to be an addition to the hardship factor in addition to the financial aspect.

R. Secher understands the lot is undersized under zoning.  He doesn’t have a problem w/ the applicant passing the uniqueness & hardship tests.

D.Sharkey would like to see more information on the zoning issues.

T. Weare asked re:  a sub-surface system & possible disruption of drainage.  Mr. Gabriel discussed.  T. Weare doesn’t feel uniqueness is causing any problems w/ the plan.  It also doesn’t appear that the applicant has met the “without substantial detriment to the public good”.  Although it is zoned commercial, it does seem like this is just on paper.  In this area, it is residentially populated fairly densely on both sides of the road.

W. Engerman expressed concern re:  the size of the lot & closeness of the project to the road and the homes.

K.Ferreira suggested speaking w/ Town Counsel re:  the lots.  The applicant will need to present more substantial arguments/explanations as to uniqueness & hardship before commencing w/ site plan review.  He suggested continuing the hearing to gather more information.  M. Martin feels there are uses for this property being zoned commercial.  K. Ferreira would like information on what type of welding will be done at this property.  Attorney Perry explained there will be no welding done.  They will be selling safety supplies for welding.  It will be a retail business.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #31-08 – 2786 & 2788 Cranberry Highway – R.B. Machine Co., Scott Burr to May 14, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#33-08 – 3 Charge Pond Road – YMCA South Coast, c/o Keith Estes, Facility Director.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health has no comment on this matter.

Present before the Board:  Keith Estes
				Jane Gleason, Architect

Mr. Estes is requesting to replace the existing sign at the end of Charge Pond Rd. & replace it w/ another sign.  The new sign would be taller & on two poles.  He spoke w/ the Municipal Maintenance Director re:  said sign.  The YMCA would like to have better visibility of a sign.  

Mr. Estes noted the piece of land the sign is on is owned by A.D. Makepeace.  The expense of building the sign will be on a license that can be revoked.  K. Ferreira noted that an off-premise permit from the Commonwealth of MA will be needed as well.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the denial letter from the Building Inspector.  It speaks about a setback issue & size of the sign.  Brief discussion ensued re:  a granite marker.  K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  the proposed placement of the sign may be in the Town or State highway layout vs. Makepeace property.  

Ms. Gleason suggested getting this quarter surveyed to know what the edge of the State layout is.  The Building Inspector suggested he come out & inspect the proposed location of the sign so sidelines & feasibility can be reviewed.  K. Ferreira concurs that the applicant needs to know if the sign will actually be on Lot 1045 & placing survey stakes to identify where the two posts would go.  Ms. Gleason stated w/ the placement of this new sign, it would eliminate two green signs there presently.  K. Ferreira doesn’t feel this property needs to be professionally surveyed, but having an engineer go out to inspect would be favorable.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

M. Martin asked that the applicant consider increasing the width of the sign to 8 ft. & reducing the height to 8 ft. & put it on a monument base.  He is concerned re:  the proposed height of the sign.  Ms. Gleason discussed the favorable aspects of keeping the proposed height, for example, visibility issues exiting Charge Pond Rd.  K. Ferreira explained the Board has attempted to have monument signs placed which are lower & still allow for the square footage being requested vs. tall pylon signs.

M. Scarsciotti clarified that this sign will not be lit or flashing.

D.Sharkey has no concerns as long is it isn’t a “flashy” looking sign.  Ms. Estes stated the sign will be white & black except for the logo & the Municipal Maintenance portion would be in green.

T. Weare concurred w/ M. Martin’s concern.  She feels the sign seems big & stark.  She feels village like detail type signage is nicer vs. stark bill-board type of signage.  She feels the YMCA is widely recognized in Town & she doesn’t see the need to have the sign so big.  Mr. Estes explained one of the reasons for the proposed height is due to the number of trees at this site.  Discussion continued re:  placement & square footage of the sign.  Mr. Estes added that there will need to be some tree trimming involved.

R. Secher asked if the abutter is aware of the size of the sign.  Mr. Estes stated the abutter is aware of the new sign.  M. Martin wants to make sure the abutter knows the proposed size.

W. Engerman suggested possibly moving the sign back towards the shed on the abutter’s property.  Some questions were raised about visibility issues if this were done.  

K.Ferreira concurs w/ the incorporation of three separate signs (existing) into one sign.  He understands the issues w/ tree limbs as well.

Ms. Gleason will research information on the survey & come back before the Board.  K. Ferreira asked that Ms. Gleason contact the Board or the Board’s secretary when the proposed placement poles for the sign are in place so the Board members can go look at them.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #33-08 – 3 Charge Pond Road – YMCA South Coast, c/o Keith Estes, Facility Director to May 14, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

T.	#34-08 – 2855 Cranberry Highway – Wareham Lodge of Elks #1548, c/o Robert Lavangie, Board of Trustees

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  The Board of Health has no comment on this matter.

Present before the Board:	Mr. Levangie

Mr. Levangie is representing the lodge.  They are looking for new signage w/ electronically changeable phrases for announcements.  

M. Martin questioned why this application is before the Board.  It meets the requirements. K. Ferreira stated if the Bylaw doesn’t specifically allow something, it is prohibited.  M. Martin stated the Bylaw states “outdoor advertising – Strip Commercial District – YES”.  K. Ferreira noted the Building Inspector’s letter that notes the Bylaw doesn’t address electronically changeable signs.  A Variance is needed.  R. Secher feels the Building Inspector wants to make sure it isn’t a flashing sign.  K. Ferreira would be concerned w/ a flashing sign.  

K. Ferreira asked where the new sign will go.  Mr. Levangie stated it will be placed exactly where the old one is.  It is 23 ft. back from the sidewalk.  The would like to put in a 16 ft. post which would go 12 ft. above the street.  M. Martin would like a rudimentary plan showing this.  K. Ferreira stated the Board cannot tell the dimensions by what has been submitted.  Mr. Levangie noted that the existing post is 13 ft., but there is 4 ft. below sidewalk level/Cranberry Highway.  This equates to the sign being 9 ft. above the sidewalk level.   With a 16 ft. post, it would bring the sign 12 ft. above street level due to the 4 ft. below sidewalk.  Discussion ensued.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	A gentleman

The gentleman has no objection to the new sign.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the square footage of the sign.  K. Ferreira stated the Board will need concrete dimensional figures.  

W. Engerman asked re:  how large lettering on the sign will be.  Mr. Levangie stated what is being shown to the Board is what was presented by the sign company.  They want to be able to have the sign that is readable.  Discussion ensued.

M. Martin spoke re:  the height increase.  He likes the height of the existing sign.  It is slightly at the driving level.  R. Secher would prefer the sign stay the same height, but he wants to take another look at the sign there now.

M. Scarsciotti asked what the size of the existing sign is.  Mr. Levangie stated it is 7 ft. between poles.  Thus, it is 8x7.  He will obtain the correct figure & submit it to the Planning Dept.  D. Sharkey would like to see the exact model before approval.  T. Weare stated she is o.k. w/ the sign being lit as long as it isn’t moving.  She feels clarification is needed re:  it is not an additional 3 ft., but more than that.  It is at 13 ft. now & the proposal is for an additional 3 ft.  Discussion ensued again re:  the height of the proposed sign.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #34-08 – 2855 Cranberry Highway – Wareham Lodge of Elks #1548, c/o Robert Levangie to April 23, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

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

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

Brief discussion ensued re:  issues of lots & paper streets discussed in petition #31-08 above.

Mr. Rowley stated as discussed at the last meeting, he was to bringing forth information re:  road construction on Tyler Ave. & cost of septic system.  He supplied the cost estimate for the septic system & plans to show the layout.  The plans also shows placement of visitor parking, the dumpster, mail boxes, & configuration of the buildings.

Mr. Rowley feels he has been able to satisfy the issue of visitor parking.  Four units have been expanded to where there are now two spaces in the garage.  Thus, there are two additional parking spaces outside four units, leaving six additional spaces outside.  The orientation of the street has changed.  He could not change the location of the dumpster.  It is still down at the end.  It was configured so the trash truck can get into it easily.  W/ the orientation of the driveway, it doesn’t need to be one way.

Mr. Rowley explained that the catch basins will be in the public way.  He has spoken w/ the Municipal Maintenance Director.  The Director is amendable to these improvements.  He discussed the plans relative to street improvements, including catch basins, infiltration structures, re-paving, & some reconstruction of a sidewalk.  The catch basins will decrease the amount of runoff that goes onto Mr. Westgate’s property.  Mr. Rowley is trying to maintain the flow patterns as they are presently.  Brief discussion ensued re:  “super elevating” the pavement & water flow.

Mr. Rowley explained the layout plans for the project.  Discussion ensued re:  the location & placement of the dumpster.  Mr. Rowley discussed the location of mailboxes between units 7& 8.   Units 3,4,7, & 8 have been expanded so there are two-car garages & two outside.  The other units gets one space inside & a parking space outside.  There are three additional visitor parking spaces to the west of unit 10.  There would be impervious pavers for the visitor parking & defined on the outside by a decorative fence.

Mr. Rowley discussed the calculations on the septic system.  He is proposing a micro-fast system.  The components for the micro-fast nitrogen reduction is approx. $15,000.  He discussed the remaining components.  Irrespective of whether there are eight or ten units, the size of the system wouldn’t be reduced substantially.  The leaching area could be reduced, but the rest would stay the same.  He feels it would make sense to spread this system out for ten units vs. eight.

Mr. Rowley stated a 24-hour detention timer in the septic tank.  K. Ferreira asked what happens when the power goes out.  Mr. Rowley explained that if the power went out, there would be capacity for 24 hours for ten units w/ 20 bedrooms.  This is also why there is a 3,000 gallon pump chamber.

Mr. Rowley has not submitted anything to Hancock Associates yet because he is still in the process of completing the septic plans.  There is an issue w/ elevation which he discussed.  There may be a need for an additional pump station for elevation.  M. Martin clarified the septic system information.  Concerns were expressed re:  power failure w/ the septic system.

K.Ferreira noted the road improvements on Tyler Ave. for this project.  He asked the Board if they are comfortable w/ a ten unit Variance.    M. Martin feels the off-site improvements proposed are addressing two major concerns.  The improvements outweigh the improvements.  R. Secher, D. Sharkey, & M. Scarsciotti are o.k. w/ the Variance.  

K. Ferreira asked re:  the reserve area plan.  Mr. Rowley stated it will be part of the landscaped area.  There may be some park benches & small landscaping vegetation.  K. Ferreira suggested visitor parking spaces being installed w/ pervious pavers on the inside of the drive vs. not on the sides of the drive or on the front of Tyler Ave.   He suggested having less landscaping there & having four pervious paver parking spaces.  He is still not comfortable w/ the visitor parking.  Discussion ensued.  

Brief discussion ensued re:  status of conservation & Board of Health matters.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #21-08 – 8 Tyler Avenue – Carmen Stroscio Realty Trust to April 23, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#29-08 – 31 Onset Avenue, Andrew Potito

No-one was present to represent this petition.

VI.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.	Set Public Hearing Date – Wareham Boatyard

K. Ferreira noted that an abutter to the boatyard has contacted the ZBA secretary.  In the Board’s decision for petition #149-05 dated 1/27/05 states the applicant must file for a public hearing to be held in April 2008 w/ notice to abutters, publication, and publication to review any complaints filed during the 2007 season.  M. Martin feels the applicant has the responsibility to apply.  K. Ferreira have asked about this.  The ZBA secretary should contact the applicant & tell him he needs to apply for a hearing date.  The Board members concurred.  If there is no response w/in one week, the Board concurred to notify the Building Inspector to send a letter of enforcement.

NOTE:	The Board concurred to enter into Executive Session at this time.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation w/ the Point Independence Yacht Club.  D. Sharkey seconded.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Martin – Yes
				M. Scarsciotti – Yes
				D.Sharkey – Yes
				R. Secher – Yes
				T. Weare – Yes
				W. Engerman – Yes
				K. Ferreira – Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (7-0-0)

NOTE:	The Board adjourned the Executive Session meeting & entered back into open session.

VII.	ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	A motion was made & seconded to adjourn the meeting.  

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  _________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk

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