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

Date of Meeting:  August 13, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.

II.	ROLL CALL

Members Present:	Ken Ferreira, Chairman
			Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
			Richard Secher
			David Sharkey
			Ticia Weare
			Wilma Engerman, Associate Member

Member Absent:	Michael Martin
			John Cronan, BOS Liaison

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	MAP Plan presentation – James Potter.

Present before the Board:	Jim Potter, BOS Chairman

Selectman Potter stated he will discuss a proposal relative to mobile homes.  This is the same proposal he presented to the BOS in December.

Selectman Potter has designated this proposal as the MAP Plan for Wareham (Mobile Homes As Affordable Housing Plan).  This plan involves other boards in Town requiring understanding of said plan & facets of it that may come before various boards.

Selectman Potter has obtained input from DHCD, MA Housing & Finance, Wareham’s Community Development, & the Wareham Housing Partnership.  

Selectman Potter feels this plan doesn’t just count numbers.  The plan is an investment to improve quality of life in return for getting a unit counted.  It has many avenues in an attempt to get units counted in Town.

Selectman Potter gave a brief history of mobile homes.  He discussed the financial demographics at some of the Wareham mobile home parks.  For example, each unit provides for $12 per month.  At 1,079 mobile homes in Town, it equates to $155,376 which are in lieu of property taxes.  However, the mobile home park monthly rents vary in Town from $200-$400 per month, but it would be hard pressed to find any at $200.  A low sewer usage is charged to park owners based on the number of units.  Both Water Districts treat mobile home parks differently for billing usage resulting in direct relationships to monthly rents.  For example, the Wareham Water District charges water rates at 300 gallons per unit per month w/in a park.  The Onset Water District treats an entire park as one house & the park reaches the upper tier of water usage billing w/in one week, buying water at the highest rate which in turn, effects monthly rents.

Selectman Potter stated very few mobile homes in Town are second homes.  Wareham has an unusual amount of family mobile home parks which are uncommon in the State.

Selectman Potter stated that the amount of mobile homes in Town (1,079) represents 11% of the Town’s entire housing stock.  Many mobile home owners currently meet the median income levels as required by DHCD.  Mobile homes are not categorized as affordable homes because they are neither stick built nor own the land they reside on.  Instead of deeds, there are vehicle registrations & treated more like personal property.  They tend to depreciate w/ age.  He noted the 17 mobile home parks in Town.

Selectman Potter discussed the four-part comprehensive form.  It is a 50/50 program.  Residents of mobile homes could opt in for a new mobile home at 50% of the price based on the new mobile home of $65,000.  A resident could upgrade their current homes for approx. $32,500.  The second part is the housing rehab. program.  Residents owning a mobile home would be eligible for up to a $35,000 loan for an existing mobile home.  The third part is a block grant program.  An entire mobile home park would receive infrastructure improvements w/ a deed restriction of park land as affordable from the improvements.  Lastly, an affordable park program would deal w/ an entire mobile home park which would be purchased by the Town & the deed restriction of affordability would accompany either infrastructure improvements, subsidized monthly costs, or gift in re-zoning the land.  There are four components; options A-D.  With the 50/50 program, 50% would come from funding sources.  With the Housing Rehab program, residents owning a mobile home would be eligible for up to $35,000.  This would be on a limited basis.  With the block grant program, an entire mobile home park would receive infrastructure improvements which in turn, the mobile home park owner would agree to deed restrict mobile homes as affordable.  With the affordable park program, an entire mobile home park would be purchased w/ funding by the Town.  Through the purchase by a management entity or non-profit organization, the Town would deed restrict the land.  The management entity would maintain the property.  This would require borrowing.  He estimates the potential impact of $2.5 million.  He proceeded to explain the four options in depth.

Selectman Potter discussed an estimated cost analysis for each option.

Selectman Potter noted how many affordable units the Town needs to meet the 10% quota.  He discussed how this 10% could be met w/ the options discussed above relative to mobile homes.  He briefly noted the locations of the 17 parks.

Selectman Potter noted that these options are an investment.  He noted that in the past, mobile home park owners & residents aren’t included in any discussions or decision making relative to their parks.  He has spoken w/ many of the owners & residents & gave their opinions on the options.  He noted the one resident-owned cooperative park in Town.

Selectman Potter noted some implications, such as zoning density.  He noted the short-span life of a mobile home & Community Development funds that have been utilized to help rehab some of these homes.  He discussed the potential of changing the type of housing.

K.Ferreira questioned if one of the parks wanted to do infrastructure improvements, they go through one of the options to do this & there are 100 homes in the park, how many would count as affordable if 50% of the residents don’t meet the criteria.  Discussion ensued, namely about assets.  Selectman Potter explained the plan is set up a particular way, but it is not perfect.  He briefly discussed how the option for infrastructure improvements works.  Certain criteria need to be met.    Discussion continued.

Selectman Potter noted conversations held w/ DHCD relative to the options presented.  He is in favor of having condos on park sites as an investment vs. mobile homes.  K. Ferreira noted to make condos affordable, they would have to be three story units vs. one story mobile homes.  Brief discussion ensued re:  which parks have Town sewer.

K. Ferreira doesn’t see anything in the proposals, except for re-zoning, that would require a large amount of the land use boards’ input.  Brief discussion ensued re:  small lots.  T. Weare suggested looking at a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which she explained.  Discussion ensued re:  dealing w/ DHCD, management of these units, & units that may not want to participate.

NOTE:	K. Ferreira noted that petition #31-08 – 2786 Cranberry Highway – R.B. Machine (Scott Burr) has been continued to September 10, 2008.  Petition #42-08 – 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven, Inc. does not have plans ready, thus this will be continued as well.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue petition #42-08 – 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven, Inc. to September 24, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	Minutes to be approved:  June 11, 2008 & July 9, 2008.	

The minutes will be handled later in the meeting.

IV.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

A.	#36-08 – One Year Review – 2 Burfield Drive, c/o Sandi Butler.

No-one was present to represent this application.

V.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#44-08 – 3199 Cranberry Highway – Edsel North Limited Partnership, c/o Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc.

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

K. Ferreira will not be voting on this application.  W. Engerman will stand in.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Leonard Bello
				Wayne Christianson

Attorney Bello read the letter of intent & statutory requirements into the record as to what is being proposed.  In short, earlier this year, Mr. Christianson met w/ Captain Anderson from the Fire Dept. & obtained their approval to erect a fence in order to dispense propane fuel.  Thereafter, Mr. Christianson was contacted by the Building Inspector & advised that even though he had the permission of the Fire Dept., he had to go before the Board to obtain permission for expansion of a pre-existing use of the property.  He spoke to the standards which apply to a Special Permit.  This piece of property, as its primary use, has had a gas station over 50+ year.  Cranberry Highway is zoned Strip Commercial.  There are two other business locations in the neighborhood on Cranberry Highway that currently dispense propane fuel.  Granting the relief being sought would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood.  He discussed the economy & businesses trying to find ways to expanding sources of income.  Mr. Christianson feels by dispensing propane fuel, he can help sustain his business & better serve the public.  Since the facility’s primary function is to dispense fuel it is the most likely place to find a propane filling station.  He noted the expansion of propane uses.  By having a propane filling station on site, it would enable the petitioner to make better use of employees & serve customers.  He requested the Board grant a Special Permit under Article 13, section 1332 to expand the pre-existing use on the property to include a propane filling station.

Brief discussion ensued re:  location of this property.  Attorney Bello described where the propane filling area will be located.  He described who would be able to utilize the filling area, for example, large tankers, homeowners, & campers.  It wouldn’t be a service that would service a homeowner’s underground tank.  

R. Secher asked if there are any residential homes near the property or behind.  Attorney Bello stated behind the property are train tracks & there is a substantial buffer between the filling station & the train track.  M. Scarsciotti asked what is on either side of the property.  Mr. Christianson stated there is a jewelry store, Domino’s Pizza on one side & a package store on the other.  The property is 100 ft. from the road & 100 ft. from the back property line.

M. Scarsciotti asked if the applicant has gone before the Selectmen for permission to add this propane service.  Attorney Bello stated “no”.  M. Scarsciotti stated if a diesel tank is to be added, applicants need Selectmen permission.  Attorney Bello stated this is only needed for underground tanks.  The propane tank will not be underground, it will be above ground.  M. Scarsciotti asked how many gallons the tank will hold.  Mr. Christianson stated it is proposed to be a 1,000 gallon tank.

Brief discussion ensued re:  the fence that has been erected & setbacks.  Attorney Bello stated that certain barriers are also required by the Fire Dept. to be put in front of the fence for safety.  This has been done.

M. Scarsciotti asked re:  hours of operation for the propane filling station.  Mr. Christianson offered proposed hours of operation.

Audience members were asked for comments or questions.
Present before the Board:	Kent Pierce

Mr. Pierce owns the other business w/ a propane filling station near the property in question.  He expressed concern re:  the Zoning Bylaws states that no more propane stations would be allowed.  Years ago it was decided that he would be the last one to have a propane filling station.  When he built his new building at a new location, it was very difficult for him to get permission for the filling station there.

Mr. Pierce doesn’t feel the applicant should be allowed to have a pumping station.  If it is granted, every convenience store that pumps gas will have a right to apply for a propane filling station.  The intent of the Bylaw was to control the amount of propane filling stations.  Discussion ensued re:  Blue Rhino vs. propane.

T. Weare stated the Board doesn’t set precedent.  They take each case individually. 

T. Weare expressed concern re:  expansion of area, but it doesn’t seem to be detrimental.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #44-08 – 3199 Cranberry Highway – Edsel North Limited Partnership, c/o Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  (5-0-0)

R. Secher is in favor of this application.  It is a mild expansion of a non-conforming use, but he doesn’t see anything detrimental.  It goes along w/ what is there.  There are adequate setbacks.  

K. Ferreira stated the only reason this area is non-conforming is because the Selectmen sponsored a policy to prohibit filling stations in Town.  Thus, this makes all gas stations on Cranberry Highway non-conforming.  Discussion ensued.

Discussion again ensued re:  if Selectmen approval is needed.  M. Scarsciotti suggested this be part of the conditions.  K. Ferreira noted the Selectmen’s policy relative to permits of this type.  W. Engerman feels that the permit from the Selectmen should be submitted to the Board before the Special Permit is given.  M. Scarsciotti stated that a condition could be added that the applicant include a copy of the permit from the Selectmen before being stamped in by Town Clerk.  T. Weare stated also that another condition could be to accept a letter from the Selectmen that a permit is not required.  

MOTION:	R. Secher moved & D. Sharkey seconded to grant a Special Permit for the construction of a propane filling station for petition #44-08 – 3199 Cranberry Highway – Edsel North Limited Partnership, c/o Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. subject to the applicant obtaining a letter from the Selectmen stating that a permit is not required by them or a copy of the permit from the Selectmen be submitted to the Board prior to a building permit being issued from the Building Inspector.

VOTE:  (4-1-0) 
M. Scarsciotti opposed

B.	#45-08 – 22 Onset Avenue – Paul Deligianidis, c/o Robert Gremo.

Present before the Board:	Paul Deligianidis
				___________, An engineer 

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Mr. Deligianidis described the property.  There are two buildings on the property.  One is a two bedroom & the other is a one bedroom.   He would like to ____________(inaudible) utilizing the exact same footprint.  (MR. DELIGIANDIS WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR – INAUDIBLE).

K.Ferreira stated the plot plan shows a one bedroom cottage & a two bedroom cottage.  The proposal is to re-build on the same footprint on each cottage (knock them down), put up new structures, & the number of bedrooms will stay the same.  He noted that a new septic system was installed in 2001.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the septic system.  K. Ferreira noted that there is a repair permit w/ Variances granted.  This usually means the number of bedrooms can’t be expanded.  He asked if there is a deed restriction from the Board of Health stating that the bedrooms can’t be expanded.  Mr. Deligianidis noted the only restriction.  M. Scarsciotti asked if Town sewer is available on Onset Ave. & Mr. Deligianidis is not connected to it.  Mr. Deligianidis stated _________________.  K. Ferreira stated the applicant’s property is on a right of way to get on Onset Ave.  Mr. Deligianidis showed pictures of his property & the access road/right of way.  M. Scarsciotti asked how far the applicant’s property is from Onset Ave.  Mr. Deligianidis stated a few hundred feet.  K. Ferreira noted that if you are beyond three hundred feet, there isn’t a requirement to tie into Town sewer.

It was stated that there is no sewer on this portion of Onset Avenue.  It was stated that sewer stops at Lacasse’s.

K. Ferreira expressed concern re:  the plan for septic purposes indicates that the one-bedroom cottage may be on or over the property line.  Mr. Deligianidis stated it is near the property line, but it is not beyond it.  He stated that his neighbor is willing to sell him some land if there are any issues w/ this.  K. Ferreira noted the surveyed plan & this shows the cottage going over the line as well.  Brief discussion ensued.

K. Ferreira noted that what Mr. Deligianidis is stating & what the plans are showing don’t “jive”.  He stated this lot is extremely small.  He understands wanting to expand the two-bedroom home & maybe adding on.  With the one-bedroom, he asked if there was any thought to re-building one-structure on the property that could have a one-bedroom apartment w/in it to get it away from the property line & more conforming.  The law states projects need to be moving in the direction of conforming vs. making conformities worse.  Discussion ensued re:  K. Ferreira’s suggestion of having one structure.

K. Ferreira asked if this property is in a flood plain.  Mr. Deligianidis stated __________.  D. Sharkey doesn’t know how they cannot be in the flood plain.  D. Ferreira stated if the property is in the flood plain, the home would have to be built according to FEMA regulations.  He would like to see elevation information.  Brief discussion ensued re:  elevations.

Audience members were asked to speak in favor of the project.  No-one came forward.

Audience members were asked to speak in opposition of the project.

Present before the Board:	Ed Morse, Abutter

Mr. Morse has issues w/ the property.  There is a Town right-of-way & he has a deeded right-of-way which Mr. Deligianidis has blocked off.  He seeded over the right-of-way & put cement back stops so he can’t drive around & back up on Onset Ave.  He lives across the street.  Brief discussion ensued.  K. Ferreira stated the Board can’t enforce the right-of-way.  The Board’s zoning scope is limited to actions w/in the lot.  The Board doesn’t have powers over the Town ways.  The Selectmen can do this.  He suggested Mr. Morse speak to the Administrator to get on a Selectmen’s agenda.

Present before the Board:	Katherine Hoag

Ms. Hoag expressed concern re:  what the impact this project will have on her little piece of land.  K. Ferreira stated that new home(s) will be built next to her.  There doesn’t appear to be any impact to her lot.  They will not be utilizing her lot to build.

Present before the Board:	Ann Murphy, 25 Onset Avenue

Ms. Murphy stated she is also on the right-of-way.  Her driveway is directly lined up w/ the right-of-way.  She feels this project would change the aesthetics of the area w/ bigger home(s).  She asked how high the structure(s) will be.  K. Ferreira stated it would be a typical second floor w/ a pitched roof.  The engineer stated they aren’t adding a second floor.  They will be utilizing the existing attic space.  The finished pitch will be 4-5 ft. higher than it currently is.  K. Ferreira stated that MA doesn’t protect views, so no-one has the right to oppose because views are lost.  Views are not a protected interest.

K. Ferreira stated that most likely the Board would place conditions (if project approved) that if any construction or re-building was done, all construction activity would need to stay on-site.   There isn’t a lot of room to construct w/out encroaching onto the roads which would impact the right-of-ways for others.  Brief discussion ensued re:  where the right-of-ways are & who owns them.

K. Ferreira again suggested consolidating the two structures to get them away from the property line.  The engineer stated this is a possibility, but there is an issue relative to foundations.  Discussion ensued.

K. Ferreira stated the Board needs to be concerned w/ everyone’s rights involved, for example, the Town’s, neighbor’s, applicant’s, etc.  The only way he can see this project going forward is consolidating to one structure & not go any higher in elevation than is being showed.  R. Secher wouldn’t be in favor of re-building two structures.  M. Scarsciotti feels the project needs to move more toward conformity.  D. Sharkey feels the proposal is a recreation vs. a re-build.  He concurs w/ member comments.  T. Weare concurs.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the area between the living area & the deck.  The engineer stated this is a sunroom.  

Discussion ensued re:  the location of the current bedrooms.  K. Ferreira stated the Board  would require a deed restriction stating the number of bedrooms cannot be changed.  It will have to remain a two-bedroom.  

The engineer will draw up new plans.  D. Sharkey asked to include references to the existing current flood plain.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition #45-08 – 22 Onset Avenue – Paul Deligianidis to September 24, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	The meeting continued w/ item III.  Preliminary Business - B.  Minutes to be approved:  June 11, 2008, July 9, 2008, & July 23, 2008.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 11, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

The Board tabled the July 9, 2008 minutes.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 23, 2008.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

NOTE:	K. Ferreira noted a bill submitted by Dick Heaton for work to date.  The amount is $6,847.60.  The service date commences July 1, 2008.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to approve invoice from Dick Heaton in the amount of $6,847.60.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

It was stated that this money will come out of at 53G account.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to rescind the motion for approval of the minutes of July 23, 2008.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE: (4-0-1)
T. Weare abstained

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#31-08 – 2786-2788 Cranberry Highway – R.B. Machine (Scott Burr). (Continued to September 10, 2008)

NOTE:	M. Scarsciotti departed at this time.

B.	#40-08 & # 149-05 – 73 Leonard Street – Wareham Boatyard & Marina, c/o Don Dugan. 

Present before the Board:	Don Dugan

W. Engerman stated she will be recusing herself from this hearing because she is a resident of Rose Point.

K. Ferreira stated that M. Scarsciotti has departed & M. Martin is not present, only four members of the Board will be able to vote on the one year review.  He asked if Mr. Dugan is comfortable w/ this.  He replied “yes”, but if the Board isn’t comfortable, he can come back.
Mr. Dugan stated an outstanding issue where the property line is.  He has had the property lines surveyed.  There are marks that clarify where the asphalt ends & where the property line is.  

Present before the Board:	Mr. Johnson, Abutter

Mr. Johnson has reviewed the property line stakes & he agrees w/ them.  The Town owns the road that was put in.  K. Ferreira stated this road only goes so far.  Where the layout ends is where Mr. Dugan’s property begins.

K. Ferreira stated another issue was whether or not Mr. Dugan should allow people to utilize the boat launch.  T. Weare feels the issue was Mr. Dugan had stated he would allow this, but then he took it back.  Mr. Dugan stated he took it back because Mr. Johnson was complaining of people parking in front of his home.  He cannot control people parking there if he is not there.  The only way he could control this situation was to limit access to the boat ramp.  T. Weare stated one resident is complaining that Mr. Dugan’s solution affects every resident that would have been able to utilize the ramp.  Mr. Dugan stated that Mr. Johnson is the closest abutter to the ramp.  T. Weare feels that part of the last continuance was for Mr. Dugan to come back w/ ideas to mediate this matter & still allow some usage of the ramp by residents.  Mr. Dugan stated he does allow usage by residents.  There has been no resident that hasn’t requested use of the ramp that he has declined.  The issue is people utilizing the ramp when he is not there.  Many of these people are not residents of the area.  Mr. Johnson understands that no resident in Rose Point has every utilized this ramp.  The issue w/ the ramp was people coming from all over to utilize it.  Mr. Dugan stated a number of residents have come in & asked him to utilize the ramp & he has complied.  If he isn’t present & someone comes to ask him to utilize the ramp, they are blocked out from utilizing it.  K. Ferreira asked if signage could be put up.  Mr. Dugan stated the rules for utilizing the ramp are clear.  Everything (cars, trailers, boats) need to exit before closing time which is 4:00 P.M.

Present before the Board:	Mrs. Furlong

Mrs. Furlong discussed how the boat ramp was utilized back when it was established in the 1960’s & who was allowed to utilize it.  There was no charge & residents of Rose Point could always utilize it.  Mr. Dugan is restricting some people from using the ramp, including her family.  There are others in the Rose Point area that don’t use the ramp because Mr. Dugan is charging people.  Mr. Dugan stated he is not charging anything.  Charlie Wyman is charging _____________.  He noted the woman’s family has jet skis which are annoying to the area & her family goes over the wetlands.  He doesn’t want to be involved w/ jet ski use.

K. Ferreira asked Mr. Dugan if he would allow the Furlong family to launch a boat.  Mr. Dugan stated he would prefer them not launching a boat because Mr. Furlong has written letters to the Board about him, he has create many problems which have resulted in money costs & time.  He doesn’t feel he owes Mr. Furlong anything.

K. Ferreira noted a safety issue brought forward relative to children being required to wear life jackets on the dock.  Mr. Dugan stated there are people in the neighborhood that take walks down to the marina w/ children & sometimes go on the dock.  They are not members of the marina.  He can lock it off & put a gate there, but this would make the marina more restrictive.  The docks go to mud at low tide.  The docks never have more than four ft. of water.  The issue of children playing on the docks are a concern of his also.  He has signage.  He is reluctant to gate it off, but it may become a liability issue.  K. Ferreira is more concerned w/ members’ children on the docks w/out life jackets.

T. Weare expressed concern re:  Mr. Dugan initially presenting his case & stating that residents could utilize the ramp, but now he has changed his mind.  She feels this was a misrepresentation on Mr. Dugan’s part.  She doesn’t feel he has made adequate effort to come up w/ an adequate solution.  Mr. Dugan discussed the limited use of the ramp due to the tides.  Discussion ensued.

K. Ferreira stated the purpose of this hearing was to review the conditions imposed.  He read the conditions into the record.  The Board doesn’t have the right to force Mr. Dugan, for example, to not charge for use of the ramp.  It is Mr. Dugan’s ramp.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to close the public hearing for petition #40-08 - & #149-05 – 73 Leonard Street – Wareham Boatyard & Marina, c/o Don Dugan.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)

MOTION:	R. Secher moved the Board make a finding that Dugan Marine Realty, LLC has successfully managed the property located at 73 Leonard Street in accordance w/ the conditions issued under petition #149-05.  D. Sharkey seconded.

NOTE:	R. Secher stated it is a business & you cannot please everyone.  It is Mr. Dugan’s property & he feels Mr. Dugan has done a lot to fix things.

T. Weare again expressed concern re:  promises made by Mr. Dugan initially to residents & then things changed.  She concurs there have been significant improvements.

K. Ferreira discussed the purpose of one year reviews.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	R. Secher – In favor
				D.Sharkey – In favor
				T. Weare – In favor
				K. Ferreira – In favor

VOTE:  Unanimous (4-0-0)
C.	#42-08 – 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven, Inc. (Continued to September 24, 2008)

D.	#43-08 – 2880 Cranberry Highway – Union Pond Limited Partnership, c/o The Gatehouse Group. (Continued to September 10, 2008)

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:  ____________________