TOWN OF WAREHAM
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEMORIAL TOWN HALL
54 Marion Road
Wareham, MA 02571

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

Date of Meeting:  September 24, 2008

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.

II.	ROLL CALL

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

Also Present:		John Cronan, BOS Liaison

K. Ferreira explained the procedures to be followed for this meeting.

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Formal Vote (due to tape machine malfunction) on petition #31-08 – R.B. Machine – Scott Burr – 2786-2788 Cranberry Highway.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to withdraw petition #31-08 – R.B. Machine – Scott Burr without prejudice per request of applicant.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  (5-0-0)

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

V.	PUBLIC HEARING:

A.	#50-08 – Property now or formerly of Wareham Plaza Associates II, LLC, located off the northerly side of Marion Road and easterly of Lawrence I. Winokur, Esq. & GAF Engineering, Inc. 

To be handled later in the meeting.

VI.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#45-08 – 22 Onset Avenue – c/o Paul Deligianidis

Present before the Board:	Paul Deligianidis

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

K.Ferriera noted the request is to add second floor additions to two existing dwellings which are located on one lot.  Questions had been raised by the Board & the applicant was to re-think the design.

Mr. Deligianidis explained changes made to the plans.  One is to move the one bedroom cottage to adjoin the other existing dwelling, thus the structures will be combined & be one structure.   He explained where the structure will be located.  

K. Ferreira stated now that the applicant has bumped the other structure in, it will be further from the lot line.  The Board needs to determine how close it actually will be.  Mr. Deligianidis stated it would be approx. 5 ft. from the lot line.  K. Ferreira indicated that a site plan is needed for the file & for the Board’s decision to reference.  The site plan will also be needed to obtain a building permit.

K. Ferreira questioned if the property is in the flood plain.  Mr. Deligianidis stated the whole lot is in the flood plain.  The existing foundation elevation is 15.6.  There is a full basement.  K. Ferreira stated if the second floor is put on, it will be in violation of flood plain regulations.  When a structure is improved where the improvements exceed 50% of the value of the structure, the house needs to come into conformity w/ FEMA regulations.  He suggested the applicant speak to an engineer about this.  He proceeded to explain MA State Building Code & FEMA regulations & how they may impact this proposed project.  Brief discussion ensued.

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Gerald Lorozo, Onset Ave.

Mr. Lorozo is in favor of the project if all the permits are obtained.  The lot is an eyesore presently.  

Brief discussion ensued re:  how to proceed.  The applicant needs to provide a site plan w/ dimensions/offsets.  K. Ferreira suggested the applicant speak to an engineer re:  meeting FEMA regulations.

MOTION:	T. Weare moved to continue the public hearing for petition #45-08 – 22 Onset Avenue –c/o Paul Deligianidis to October 8, 2008.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#42-08 – 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven, Inc. – c/o Allen Sipes

Present before the Board:	Mr. Allen Sipes

K. Ferreira noted this petition is for the reconstruction of a site plan to allow for an additional underground tank of diesel fuel & a diesel fuel pumping station at the 7-Eleven on the corner of Rte. 58 & 28.  The five original members to sit on this case will be R. Secher, M. Scarsciotti, K. Ferreira, D. Sharkey, & W. Engerman.  

Mr. Sipes submitted revised plans.  He noted the plan shows a distinct separation between larger vehicles & existing customers that utilize the facility.  On Rte. 58, the dual access has been blocked off.  This will now be a one-way truck entrance.  He noted the turning templates.  Trucks can come either north-bound or south-bound in from County Rd./Rte. 58 & exit onto Cranberry Highway.  This provides for a fueling position adjacent to the existing dumpster area.  This will provide for some cueing of vehicles on the back side of the property line.

Mr. Sipes continues to propose the two outboard dispenser locations under the existing canopy (closest to Cranberry Highway).  These will be able to accommodate smaller diesel vehicles.  The tanks are in the same location.  The parking has been increased by one.  The Board had recommended maintaining parking adjacent to the court building.  The parking remains very similar w/ the modification of the center island to accommodate truck traffic circulating around.

Mr. Secher asked re:  the entrances.  Mr. Sipes stated there is one truck entrance & the other entrance is for automobiles.  K. Ferreira noted the location of the dumpster on the original plan was to the rear & there were three parking spaces.  Now, the dumpster has moved towards the fueling station & the three parking spaces are gone.  Mr. Sipes explained the location of the dumpster & adding one parking space.

K. Ferreira asked re:  a plan on preventing cars parking illegally.  Mr. Sipes doesn’t have an answer to this.  The restrictions on the parking spaces have been suggested by this Board & the spaces have been adequately striped to indicate this.  There had been a proposal to enhance the parking on the Cranberry Highway side.  It was found that by reconfiguring the way it is now, this enhancement wasn’t necessary.  Brief discussion ensued re:  preventing illegal parking.

K.Ferreira noted an abutter that expressed concern re:   the flow of traffic against his property boundary.   T. Weare noted different noises that will be near this property boundary, such as the refrigerator.  Mr. Sipes stated he can work w/ the abutter to come to a solution, if possible.  He noted the Noise Bylaw of the Town.  He feels the trucks driving on County Rd. & Cranberry Highway are louder vs. the trucks that would be abutting the property line during the fueling operation.  

T. Weare expressed concern re:  the whole plan.  There are very few areas for the trucks to pull in.  She would be in favor of deleting the back parking for cars & have it be more of a rest area for trucks.  This would create less of a problem of trucks cueing back onto Rte. 58.  She doesn’t feel more than two trucks can fit on this site at one time.  Mr. Sipes noted the Zoning Bylaws state that cueing be accommodated.

Mr. Sipes stated the gas pumps & the store are open 24 hours per day.  T. Weare expressed concern re:  a 24 hour per day gas station w/ truck drivers coming in to fuel up, check their loads, stretch their legs, find a place to sleep, etc.  Mr. Sipes isn’t sure the site plan being presented can cure all these issues.  T. Weare feels the site is too small to accommodate this type of business & she is concerned re:  cueing.

K. Ferreira noted receiving comments from two Selectmen.  He asked if this proposal been discussed at any BOS meetings.  Mr. Cronan stated it hasn’t.  The applicant came in & the BOS sent it back to the ZBA for permitting first.

K. Ferreira acknowledged the site is small.  He doesn’t like not allowing someone to “try his trade”.  Diesel fuel is sold regularly at gas stations.    He is concerned re:  cueing as well.  There is a problem w/ tractor trailer trucks hanging out on Cranberry Highway which is difficult to enforce.

M. Scarsciotti doesn’t feel the property can enforce parking.  Trucks do stop outside along Rte. 58 in front of the abutters house.  Mr. Sipes stated it is posted.  M. Scarsciotti stated initially, Mr. Sipes was asking for two pumps, but the revised plan shows four.  Mr. Sipes stated it was always the intention to accommodate a large vehicle.  It was felt that by separating the vehicles, this would be best to maintain traffic circulation on site.  The diesel pump provided under the canopy is more of a convenient aspect for large pick up trucks.  M. Scarsciotti stated that parking can’t be controlled on site, much less accommodating tractor trailers.  

Discussion ensued re:  the four pumps.  Mr. Sipes stated that gas is available on both sides of the pumps.

K. Ferreira explained that Mr. Sipes needs four votes out of five to pass.  He feels the revised plan addressed some parking issues.  He asked if there are other accommodations that could be brought forward.  Mr. Sipes feels a good job has been done to make accommodations.  The proposed use is requested in the community & is allowable w/in the bounds of this property.  It has enhanced safety features re:  the separation & types of vehicles.  He doesn’t feel there is anything else that can be done re:  configuration.  K. Ferreira stated that Town Meeting voters decided that no new gas stations are allowed in Town.  The existing stations are grandfathered.  

K.Ferreira explained that there is 3,700 sq. ft. of land area which is more than the minimum sq. footage for a commercial lot.  

Present before the Board:	John Cronan, BOS Liaison

Mr. Cronan asked if the original application was for a Variance or a Special Permit.  K. Ferreira stated it was a Special Permit because in all Strip Commercial District Bylaws used to say any automotive sales, products, etc. had to have a Special Permit for automotive uses.  Mr. Cronan felt there was a condition for the back of the building relative to no stopping or parking there, just drive through.  K. Ferreira doesn’t have the original file, but he knows the project was built per plan & that area in the back was never meant for anything other than a drive through.  Mr. Sipes suggested restricting the hours of operation for the back diesel pumps from 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.  These pumps could be shut down during these hours.  T. Weare sees the big parking lot across the street as being very attractive for tractor trailers to park.  The abutters will have to deal w/ these trucks.

M. Martin explained this is a Special Permit for expansion of a non-conforming use.  K. Ferreira stated it was a conforming use when constructed, but when the Bylaw changed, it became non-conforming.  M. Martin discussed what the Bylaw states.  Without the abutter present, he is unsure the Board can impose opinions/thoughts of the abutters.  K. Ferreira stated at the first meeting, the abutters were upset w/ parking in front of their property on Rte. 58, cars parked in back of the building, etc.  They felt that any additional tractor trailer traffic would be obnoxious.

K. Ferreira clarified what the applicant is looking for.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public hearing for petition #42-08 = 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to deny the request for a Special Permit for petition #42-08 – 2196 Cranberry Highway – 7-Eleven – c/o Allen Sipes.  D. Sharkey seconded for discussion.

M. Scarsciotti feels the project is non-conforming.  She feels it is an intense expansion of a non-conforming use.  The original application asked for two diesel pumps.  The new application is requesting four.  The existing traffic can’t be controlled & finds it highly improbable that they will be able to control additional traffic.  She feels it is too much for this property & neighborhood.

K. Ferreira explained when this project was built as a gas station & convenience store (as constructed) it was conforming, met the regulations, & came for site plan review.  Now that Town Meeting has stated that no gas can be sold in Town, it is no longer an allowed zoning use, thus it is a non-conforming use.  M. Scarsciotti believes the expansion is the issues.  R. Secher concurred.  D. Sharkey doesn’t object to the project, but he would like a one year review relating to the noise barriers & some agreement to negotiate w/ the abutter.  He feels there is an existing use at this site.  K. Ferreira briefly discussed the landscape buffer.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the use of noise barriers.  W. Engerman expressed concern re:  trucks exiting on Rte. 58 & cars coming in.  She feels there will be traffic jams at times.

ROLL CALL VOTE:  	R. Secher – Deny
				M. Scarsciotti – Deny
				D. Sharkey – In favor
				W. Engerman – Deny
				K. Ferreira – Deny

VOTE:  (4-1-0)
                                                      D.Sharkey opposed

NOTE:	The meeting proceeded w/ item V.  Public Hearings:  A.  #50-08 – Property now or formerly of Wareham Plaza Associates II, LLC, located off the northerly side of Marion Road and easterly of Lawrence I. Winokur, Esq. & GAF Engineering, Inc. 

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Attorney Lawrence Winokur
				Larry Goldstein, Wareham Plaza Associates II, LLC
				Bill Madden, G.A.F. Engineering, Inc.
				Dan Dumas, Traffic Engineer
				Steve Kelleher, Architect

Attorney Winokur submitted green abutters cards & other pertinent documents to the Board.  He briefly noted what documents he has submitted.

Attorney Winokur explained that a Special Permit has been applied for relative to 18 multi-family dwellings under Section 320 of the Wareham Bylaw.  This has been filed in reference from the Building Inspector dated 7/21/08.  Said reference noted the need for a Special Permit for these units.  The parcel is zoned Strip Commercial & consists of approx. 40 acres.  The applicant has also applied for site plan review under Article16 of the Zoning Bylaw.  The applicant purchased the site w/ the Wareham Plaza property in 2001.  The applicant subsequently sought permits for improvements to the plaza which have been completed.  An “approval not required” plan was recorded depicting the property subject to this hearing.  

Attorney Winokur explained the proposed development known as Hathaway Estates is also the subject of several applications & approvals sought from the Planning Board.  They include a cluster Special Permit, site plan approval, & subdivision Form C approval.  The cluster petition, includes five proposed lots on the 39.7 acres.  The 18 units would be divided among four of these lots.  The fifth lot will be dedicated to open space under the Bylaw.  He discussed the two plan sheets.  They are seeking approval under the Cluster Bylaw.  He noted Section 810 of the Bylaw – Alternative Residential Site Development & dimensional regulations for multi-family development.  He noted that the other sections of the Zoning Bylaw referencing multi-family are superseded by the Cluster section.

Attorney Winokur stated the modification of Beaver Creek Lane along w/ the subdivision plan will be subject to a Planning Board hearing.  He noted the original subdivision plan for Beaver Creek Lane & easement.

Attorney Winokur explained that a public meeting was conducted last Thursday for abutters w/in 300 ft. of the property.  Approx. 12-15 residents attended.  The applicant is committed to working w/ the abutters to satisfy any issues, including the potential redesign & straightening of Beaver Creek Lane.

Attorney Winokur explained the advantages of this type of development.  It is a low impact development.  Only approx. 3 acres out of 40 will be disturbed.  He discussed practices to be utilized to minimize impacts to the land.

K.Ferreira explained when the zoning regulations were re-written, it was an attempt to be sure an applicant would only have to go to one board for a public hearing.  There would be comments submitted from other boards.  In the table of uses, it states “Special Permit from ZBA” for apartments/multi-family.  Everywhere else, it states the Planning Board is the permitting authority for alternative residential site development, under residential clusters, etc.  He asked what specific bar is the applicant looking to accomplish under the Special Permit from the ZBA.  Attorney Winokur stated 18 units & Section 320.  K. Ferreira stated Section 320 states a Special Permit is needed by the ZBA.  All the other review processes for residential cluster are under the Planning Board.  Attorney Winokur stated this is correct w/ the addition of site plan review.  

M. Martin asked why the applicant isn’t applying under Section 820.  Attorney Winokur explained that the section under cluster is titled “alternative site development”.  Brief discussion ensued re:  regulations under different sections.  Attorney Winokur noted that no single lot shall be less than 40,000 sq. ft. & the acreage & setback requirements will be met.  The 18 units will be set on four different lots.

K. Ferreira is looking for jurisdiction.  If he wants to change the site plan review, then the Planning Board says something different, he wonders how this conflict would be resolved.  Brief discussion ensued.  Attorney Winokur explained that the Bylaw allows residential use in this commercial zone by Special Permit.

M. Martin stated if Attorney Winokur is stating that the Board only has to address the Special Permit as it relates to Section 320, he believes Section 827 are the guidelines to follow.  K. Ferreira explained how he doesn’t see the benefit of having two boards sit on opposite nights & review a site plan, peer review, etc.  He feels the applicant should come up w/ the best plan that satisfies the Planning Board, Wetlands Bylaws, etc. & then the ZBA can look at it.  The ZBA can then approve or disapprove.  Attorney Winokur disagreed.  The only issue to go before the Planning Board is whether or not they meet the Cluster Bylaw.  It is not a question of whether or not they meet the design standards for 18 units.   The legality is, residential use is allowed by Special Permit under Section 320 in a Strip Commercial Zone.  They are allowed to seek approval for multi-family review.  The Planning Board doesn’t have authority to review all the details of an 18-unit development.  The only thing being sought by the Planning Board is the approval of the five lots.  Discussion continued re:  how to proceed.  

K. Ferreira suggested the process should be to have the applicant go through the Planning Board process & have them a tentative decision issued so it can be compatible w/ the ZBA. The ZBA would then go through the details of the peer review.  He would be willing to run a concurrent hearing w/ the Planning Board to go through the process once.  Discussion ensued.  K.Ferreira stated the Board would be happy to set up a special meeting night to have a concurrent hearing process w/ the Planning Board.

Mr. Madden explained the preliminary plan specifics, in length, for this cluster development vs. a definitive subdivision plan.  He noted open space requirements & what would be provided for this project.  He discussed the proposed roadway for the development.  He discussed septic service & gallons to be utilized for the proposed development.  Discussion ensued.

K.Ferreira clarified that it seems all the technical requirements of the Bylaw.  He asked if there are any variances to be requested.  Mr. Madden stated several waivers will be sought for the subdivision application relative to the construction of the roadway.  T. Weare asked what the regulations are relative to how far back the roadway can go back w/out having a second means to cross.  Mr. Madden explained the roadway will be extended approx. 350 additional ft.  He noted the radius measures of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Madden expressed the importance of only impacting only 8% of this 30 acre site.  It is a modest development & low impact development standards relative to stormwater management have been incorporated, which he described.  He noted parking accommodations.  

M.Martin spoke re:  the Locus & why 18 units are being proposed.  Attorney Winokur explained what the Cluster Bylaw states & dimensional requirements.  Discussion ensued.  

K.Ferreira asked if there is anything in the Bylaw that specifically grants the density being requested.  Mr. Madden stated the amount being requested fits this site.  Brief discussion ensued re:  if there were upland.  Mr. Madden stated if there was more upland, they would be restricted to 25 dwelling units due to the width of the roadway (Beaver Creek) w/out rebuilding it to a wider standard.  Mr. Madden spoke re:  strip commercial zone & by Special Permit being allowed a certain amount of residential units.  Discussion ensued re:  what the Cluster Bylaw states & obtaining clarity on what standards should be utilized.  K. Ferreira feels a ruling needs to be made for clarity.  There seems to be a difference of opinion on what Bylaw sections should be utilized.  Lengthy discussion ensued.  The Board members concurred re:  seeking a legal opinion for clarification of what Bylaw sections do or do not apply.

Mr. Kelleher summarized the project.  There are 18 units.  Six units are two-bedroom units w/ 1.5 baths.  The other are three bedrooms w/ 2.5 baths.  He described the outside details of the units.  Each unit has a one-car garage & parking outside.  All units have rear decks.  All living rooms, dining rooms, & kitchens are on the first floor w/ a laundry.  There are front porches to all units.  All units are 1.5 stories.  The quad units have three bedroom units on the two ends & two-bedroom units in the middle.  All units have basements.

K.Ferreira asked if there are provisions through the Conservation Commission to get over to the open space.  Mr. Madden stated the plan is to utilize the septic area (pipeline).   There are no other plans to cut through wetlands.  Mr. Kelleher stated there are many natural trails.

K.Ferreira asked if there are any other apartments/condos projects that are similar to the one being proposed.  Mr. Kelleher stated the Village in Mattapoisett off Rte. 6 which is similar to this proposed project.  Brief discussion ensued re:  proposed dimensions of the units.

Mr. Dumas gave an overview of the traffic study conducted for this project, such as existing volume, existing conditions, travel routes, & what is being proposed w/ the project.

K.Ferreira doesn’t foresee a lot of peer review for traffic issues, although, due to design changes, there may be some discussion.  Mr. Dumas stated when the project is complete, there will be the ability to park 50 vehicles.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the traffic information.

Attorney Winokur stated he will be meeting w/ the Planning Board on November 10, 2008.  K. Ferreira suggested having a meeting in October to decide how the next meeting will be held.  Attorney Winokur suggested continuing the hearing to 10/22/08 strictly for the purpose of ascertaining a date relative to a joint meeting w/ the Planning Board.

MOTION:	R. Secher moved to continue the public hearing for petition  #50-08 – Property now or formerly of Wareham Plaza Associates II, LLC to October 22, 2008 for the limited purpose of arranging a joint meeting w/ the Planning Board.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

C.	#43-08 – 2880 Cranberry Highway – The Retreat at Union Pond – The Gatehouse Group, c/o Brian J. McMillin, Vice President

Present before the Board:	Dick Heaton, Consultant

Mr. Heaton updated the Board on progress.  This evening, Gatehouse will offer a report on traffic & civil engineering.

Mr. Heaton stated that CDM reported last night to the Selectmen relative to sewer capacity for the Gatehouse project.  The Selectmen indicated they would be supportive of the ZBA making a decision to grant a sewer connection for the Gatehouse project.  Two Selectmen will work w/ the ZBA on the development of litigation strategy relative to sewer as well as working w/ Gatehouse w/ this as well.  Mr. Heaton stated he would be happy to facilitate the discussions.  K. Ferreira stated Selectmen Eckstrom & Cronan will be the two Selectmen who will participate in these discussions.  He feels two members of the ZBA attend as well to report back.  Part of the discussion should be what mitigations for connection to the sewer should be done.  He feels M. Martin should be one of the ZBA representatives due to his expertise.  R. Secher volunteered to be the other ZBA representative.

Present before the Board:	Jim Koningisor, The Gatehouse Group	
				Joe Peznola, Hancock Associates
				Steve Findlen, McMahon Associates
				Mr. Sam ______________________

Mr. Koningisor noted the traffic report.  He has requested input on making a portion of Depot St. a one-way.  He noted the civil engineering study.

K. Ferreira stated the Board had asked Mr. Findlen to look at issues raised by an abutter re:  the traffic patterns that would occur.

Mr. Findlen discussed what traffic issues were looked at as part of the study & results.  He noted that letters submitted were reviewed & responses were drafted.  There were concerns relative to traffic design & safety.  He noted MA Highway standards to be utilized.  He explained issues w/ the lights at Depot Street.

K.Ferreira stated that MA Highway lowered the speed on Cranberry Highway to 35 mph.  He understands this speed is exceeded.  He asked what the average speed on the roadway in front of the project is.  Mr. Findlen spoke re:  the speed study conducted.  The average speed found was 40 mph.  He noted the standards that would need to be followed relative to the project’s driveway.

M. Scarsciotti asked if part of mitigation could include signage after Home Depot indicating a residential driveway.  Mr. Findlen stated there could be a side-street sign to alert drivers that this driveway is approaching.

Mr. Findlen submitted information relative to the proposal to having Depot St. a one-way in the northbound direction.  He stated if it were changed to a one-way, it would help alleviate cueing situations in both directions.  He spoke re:  possible traffic pattern changes if Depot St. was changed to a one-way, for example, possibly cutting through Tyler Ave.  MA Highway will need to be involved if this change is proposed due to traffic signals.  K. Ferreira questioned if making Depot St. a one-way is a good idea.  Mr. Findlen feels it needs more evaluation.  The access to the small strip area (Cumberland Farms, Santoro’s, etc.) needs to be looked at as well.  K. Ferreira will forward this information to the BOS.   Mr. Findlen spoke re:  levels of service that needs to be looked at.

M. Martin noted the existing flow of traffic on Depot St.  He asked what the impact of this development will have on this flow.  Mr. Findlen stated analysis shows an increase of 8-10 cars per hour.  Brief discussion ensued re:  impacts to Tyler Ave.  K. Ferreira noted that if Depot St. is made into a one-way, something will also need to be done for Tyler Ave. to dispel cutting through.  

K.Ferreira explained the issue w/ Cumberland Farms when they proposed having a gas depot there & converting Depot St. into a one-way at that time.  This matter is still in litigation.    M. Martin stated the BOS were to have a hearing re:  changing Depot St. into a one-way.  K. Ferreira will be reporting back to the BOS & state that making Depot St. a one-way does not impact this project.

Mr. Belluci submitted comments he would like to have distributed to the Board members.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to accept the letter submitted by Mr. Belluci dated 9/24/08 & for said letter to be placed into the public record.  R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Mr. Peznola submitted an e-mail/ letter dated 9/19/08 to the Board.  He noted he is in receipt of two correspondence from the applicant (one dated 9/17/08 re:  parking & another dated 9/18/08 responding to Hancock’s 9/8/08 letter).

Mr. Peznola discussed another category which will be things that can wait.  The third are items of clarification or additional information that Gatehouse is looking for.  These items were included in the 9/18/08 correspondence from Hancock.  The additional information submitted was as follows:

•	Status of Old County & Plymouth. A plan was submitted from 1899 showing these roads.  It is believed there are parties who have rights to these roads.  They need to not obstruct physical passage of this road bed.  There doesn’t seem to be an associated right of way w/ these roads.  It is not believed that relief is needed for setbacks from the roadway.  It is a legal issue.

K.Ferreira asked if someone can use their entrance road to get to this road ASAP & if this is allowed w/out getting someone’s permission.  It will be altered.  It needs to be clarified if this is something that can be done.  Mr. Koningisor stated they have agreed to provide the additional access way.  K. Ferreira stated it has to be one record that the right of way was granted.  Discussion ensued.  Mr. Peznola stated he is suggesting that access be provided through the main entrance, after the mail kiosk & landscaping, the physical ability to get off this roadway & onto the old road bed.  This should be formalized by way of an easement.

•	Unit sizes.  There are no requirements under the program to be utilized relative to unit sizes.  The applicant will meet the minimum size requirements & the current building plan will accommodate this.
•	Parking.  A memorandum was submitted on 9/17/08.  The total number of parking spaces would be reduced provided _______________.  Backup & justification was submitted to back this information up.  He discussed, at length, data collected to come up w/ the amount of spaces needed.  The result is that 1.67 spaces per unit will be sufficient.

Discussion ensued re:  parking spaces.  K.Ferreira suggested a few more spaces at the community building.   Discussion continued re:  having adequate parking for the use.

Mr. Koningisor stated they want to make sure (like the Board) that there are enough parking spaces.  They are working on getting to the right answer.   Most zoning ordinances provide for over-parking.  The applicant has decided to look at alternatives.  They looked at three issues relative to parking.  One is car ownership in which an analysis was done for one, two, & three bedroom units.  This ratio was then applied to a mix to get to an accurate number.  This number came out to 1.44 cars p/unit on average.  This doesn’t account for visitors.  The normal visitor percentage added on is 10%  - 15%.  He has never seen over 15%.  15% was added on to the actual ownership figure & came up w/ 1.66 cars p/unit.  Physical counts were also conducted at other sites.  They also looked at ITE statistics.  All three ways of looking at this data came up w/ the 1.67%.   They will also add some shadow spaces.  He doesn’t want to designate any more shadow spaces because it will limit the ability to grade & landscape certain areas.  He doesn’t want the development to be over-parked.

K. Ferreira stated zoning states 274 & the applicant is proposing 240 & ten shadow spaces.  He suggested creating ten shadow spaces (w/in the first 2 years).  The other 24 could be designated on the plan as potential areas that could be built out if necessary.   The other 24 could be set aside for the future if needed.  Brief discussion ensued.

Brief discussion ensued re: other developments done by the applicant & parking.

Brief discussion ensued re:  how to proceed from here relative to next meeting dates.

An audience member asked if his letter will be read into the record.  K. Ferreira stated each member of the Board has a copy of the letter & it will be read into the record & discussed at the next meeting.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to continue the public hearing for petition #43-08 – 2880 Cranberry Highway – The Retreat at Union Pond – The Gatehouse Group to October 22, 2008.   R. Secher seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VII.	NEW BUSINESS/DISCUSSION

A.  Bartlett Pond Estates

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to direct Attorney Jon Witten draft a letter to Bob Devin re:  Bartlett Pond Estates re:  submission of funding & unless more money is deposited, the hearing will be suspended.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

VIII.	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:  ____________________