MINUTES OF MEETING OF WAREHAM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Date of Meeting:  March 25, 2009

I.	CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.

II.	ROLL CALL

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

Members Absent:	Richard Secher
					
MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation re:  Avenue A – McNealy – 40B Status.

Roll Call Vote:	K. Ferreira – Yes
			M. Scarsciotti – Yes
			D. Sharkey – Yes
			M. Martin – Yes
			W. Engerman – Yes
			T. Weare - Yes

VOTE:  Unanimous (6-0-0)

The Regular Session meeting reconvened at this time.

III.	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

A.	Legal Bill.

There is a legal bill from Kopelman & Paige for services rendered through February 28, 2009 re:  the Point Independence Yacht Club matter in the amount of $726.00.  The bill also includes fees for Velozo vs. ZBA & Gabriel vs. ZBA.  The total amount of the bill is $2,029.50.

MOTION:	M. Martin moved the Board authorize payment to Kopelman & Paige for services rendered through February 28, 2009 in the amount of $2,029.50.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)
IV.	PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#10-09 – Pete Skipper – 43 Fearing Street

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	Pete Skipper

Mr. Skipper noted the location of his property & expressed how he wants to raise the roof line of the second floor of his house.  He is not extending outwards from the footprint.

K. Ferreira feels this is a minor alteration, but State statute requires these types of projects to go before the ZBA.

M. Martin stated part of the house will be torn down, not just a raise in the roof line.  It looks like there would be an expansion of living space.  Mr. Skipper stated he is not expanding the square footage.  The footprint is staying the same.  He stated the new roof line will not extend to what is now the end of the porch.  Discussion ensued.  

The plot plan indicates this property is not in the flood zone.

Audience members had no questions or comments.

K. Ferreira suggested Mr. Skipper hire an engineer/land surveyor to document what is at the property presently so that when whatever is built later can be proved no greater (relative to height & setbacks).  Brief discussion ensued.

MOTION:	D. Sharkey moved to close the public hearing for petition #10-09 – Pete Skipper – 43 Fearing Street.  M. Martin seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved & T. Weare seconded to grant a Special Permit for petition #10-09 – Pete Skipper – 43 Fearing Street w/ the following conditions:  

•	Plan drawn by a professional land surveyor or engineer must identify the current offsets from the property line, the dimensions of the existing building, and the height of the existing structure to the ridge line of the roof.
•	This plan to be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to the permit being issued.
•	A copy of the plan to be filed w/ the ZBA.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

B.	#11-09 – John Fabroski – 47 Oak Street

The public hearing notice was read into the record.

Present before the Board:	John Fabroski

M. Scarsciotti read several letters into the record sent to the ZBA relative to this petition.  (See file for letters).  She also read the Conservation Agent’s letter into the record.

K. Ferreira noted this project was before the ZBA in 2007 & was denied.  Mr. Fabroski is now back after a two year period has elapsed.

Mr. Fabroski discussed the site plan submitted to the Board.  The original plan consisted of extending the living space (kitchen area) out to an existing deck.  The footprint would not have changed.  The ZBA denied the application.  The neighbors do not object to the new application.  The deck will not be moved.  The living area will be bumped out 12 ft. onto the deck.  He discussed the roof line.

K.Ferreira discussed the proposal Mr. Fabroski submitted previously two years ago.  Brief discussion ensued re:  the ConCom letter submitted which doesn’t require a filing of an NOI.  K.Ferreira feels that the site plan is showing crossing into a velocity zone which he explained.  Mr. Fabroski stated he has already spoken to his insurance company.  Mr. Ferreira noted that new flood maps are coming out shortly which may change the zone as well.  Discussion ensued.

Mr. Fabroski discussed the deck to be enclosed.  

K.Ferreira noted the vote previously was 3-2-0 to deny (the previous application).

Audience members were asked for questions or comments.

Present before the Board:	Edward Long, Oak Street
				Mrs. Long

Mr. Long is against this proposal as he was two years ago.  He doesn’t feel any real plans have been submitted.  He went to the Planning Office & couldn’t see anything that has been done.  He noted in the past, Mr. Fabroski had a garage that was to be replaced w/ a similar structure, but now it is a three-story townhouse next to his home.  There is a lack of trust.

K.Ferreira feels the Board may require more detail.  He discussed his understanding of what will be done w/ this project. 

Mrs. Long expressed concern re:  impact to the beach this project may have.  She expressed concern re:  the two 25 ft. lots & having three structures on them.  She noted dissatisfaction w/ the garage that was converted into a townhouse structure.  The property has turned into a compound.  K.Ferreira noted that issues being brought forward by Mrs. Long can be taken up w/ the ConCom agent & the Building Inspector.  The issue at hand is the kitchen/deck project.

Discussion ensued re:  issue of views/vistas.

Present before the Board:	Walter James

Mr. James feels Mr. Fabroski has been a great neighbor & has bettered the neighborhood.  What he has done to his property has increased the value of the neighbors’ property.

Mr. Fabroski added that the beach is for all who live in that area, not just for one family.

Discussion again ensued re:  the roof line to be over the addition/expansion of the kitchen.  Mr. Fabroski stated this project will not inhibit his neighbor’s view.

M. Martin discussed his opinion last time of the project.  He noted the purpose of zoning is to get things more conforming, not less conforming.

M.Scarsciotti doesn’t feel the project will increase the intensity.  It is staying w/in the existing footprint & the structure depth from the property lines will not increase.  She feels the project is need-based due to a medical issue.

D.Sharkey doesn’t see a medical problem as a way of forgiving the expansion of a non-conformity.

Mr. Fabroski discussed each floor & dimensions of each.  T. Weare noted that the issue of a medical condition is now coming forward after the original request when a medical condition was not noted.  She doesn’t follow the hardship.  Mr. Fabroski stated that the medical condition has worsened.

K.Ferreira reviewed pictures submitted by Mr. Fabroski & neighbors.  He feels the deck has become bigger since 2007.  Brief discussion ensued.

M. Martin doesn’t know why this project or any other suggestions is being entertained by the Board when Mr. Fabroski is in violation of zoning presently.

MOTION:	A motion was made & seconded to close the public hearing for petition #11-09 – John Fabroski – 47 Oak Street.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	M. Martin moved to deny the Special Permit for petition #11-09 – John Fabroski – 47 Oak Street w/ the finding that the post structural alteration would substantially increase the non-conforming nature of this structure & as the lot is significantly in non-conformance, any expansion of a non-conformity would be detrimental to the neighborhood & further, finding that the property is currently in violation of existing zoning standards.  D. Sharkey seconded.

ROLL CALL VOTE:	M. Martin – Deny
				M. Scarsciotti – Grant
				D. Sharkey – Deny
				W. Engerman – Deny
				K. Ferreira – Abstained

VOTE:  3-1-1

C.	#01-08 – Bob Brady – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace – 1 year review of Hobby Kennel License

The public hearing notice was read into the record.  A letter from Carl Wood, Animal Control Officer was read into the record.  The letter indicted everything seems to be in order at the property.  Mr. Wood noted receiving one complaint from Mr. Shluter relative to Mr. Brady’s dogs being off a leash on property owned by UMASS cranberry bog behind Mr. Brady’s property.  Mr. Wood notified Mr. Brady of the call & the log in the database.  Mr. Brady indicated he has permission to walk his dogs at this bog.

K.Ferreira explained this is a one-year review of a Hobby Kennel License & the purpose is to make sure the conditions of the permit given are being adhered to.

Mr. Brady stated he has verbal permission to walk his dogs at the bog.  It is not in writing.  He stated other people walk their dogs there also.  He tries to avoid other people walking their dogs when he is to walking his.  He has four adult German Shepards.  He has had puppies come to the doggie-day-care.  He is out walking his dogs every day in the bog.  W. Engerman noted the Town’s leash law when off his own property.  Mr. Brady stated he is on private property w/ permission while walking his dogs.  He doesn’t need to have them on a leash.  If there are other dogs around, he puts his dogs on a leash.  Brief discussion ensued.

Present before the Board:	Craig Shluter, 1 Spectacle Pond Terrace

Mr. Schluter stated in an article in the Standard Times, it states Mr. Brady _________ canines on Spectacle Pond Terrace.  He stated this sounds like a business to him, not a Hobby Kennel License.  He questioned if Mr. Brady has a kennel license or a boarding license.  K. Ferreira believes the definition goes to the number of dogs opposed hobby or commercial.  If someone has a kennel & raises dogs, they sell the dogs & make a profit.  The Town’s Bylaws are structured as the County Bylaws & are the same.  A larger amount of dogs would be a commercial type license.  A hobby license limits the amount of adult dogs that can be bred & raised.  Boarding is a separate issue.

Mr. Schluter expressed concern re:  the boarding of dogs.  M. Martin asked if Mr. Shluter has contacted the Board of Health w/ his concerns.  Mr. Schluter stated he didn’t speak to the BOH, but he contacted the Animal Control Officer who stated he would speak to Mr. Brady about walking the dogs off a leash.  He gave dates where he observed Mr. Brady walking the dogs off the leash on private property.  M. Martin asked if the Animal Control Officer indicated Mr. Brady may be breaking any laws.  Mr. Schluter noted the leash law.  He stated he spoke to the director of the bog station who indicated she would not give anyone permission to do what Mr. Brady is doing.

M. Martin asked Mr. Brady if he has been cited for any violations by the Animal Control Officer.  Mr. Brady stated he has not been cited.  

K. Ferreira spoke re:  the leash law & a valid complaint can be made to Animal Control & the Police Dept.  The purpose of this meeting is to make sure the permit granted is being maintained.  He read the definition of a kennel into the record & the different type of kennels.  All kennels are allowed to board dogs, but they can’t go over the number limit assigned.

Mr. Brady stated he has not been cited for any violations by any Town entity.  He stated he is 100% in compliance w/ the permit that was issued.

K.Ferreira noted the leash law is not part of the kennel license granted.

Brief discussion ensued re:  kennel tags.

MOTION:	M. Scarsciotti moved to close the public review for petition #01-08 – Bob Brady – 6 Spectacle Pond Terrace.  D. Sharkey seconded.

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

MOTION:	The Board made a finding that the conditions of the permit have been maintained & all documentation has been reviewed from the Board of Health & the Animal Control Officer & further, the only outstanding issue is to continue annual well inspections & be in full compliance of all other rules & regulations of the Animal Control Bylaw.
VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

V.	CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

A.	#50-08 – Wareham Plaza Associates, LLC – 127R Marion Road – Hathaway Estates, c/o Attorney Lawrence Winokur.  (Scheduled for April 8, 2009)

VI.	REQUEST FOR PLAN WAIVERS OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

1.	Beth Macoluso – Myrtle Street.

K. Ferreira reviewed the file carefully.  He drafted a letter to address this matter.  He explained the matter briefly.  In 1992 a Variance was granted for an in-law apartment.  In 2005 Ms. Macoluso proposed purchasing the property, she will not live there, but may be used in the summertime, but most of the time will be rental property.  In the minutes of 2005, a motion was made & seconded & voted 4-0-1 upon to remove the condition from the 1992 Variance that would have required the removal of the in-law apartment if the property is sold.  He read his draft letter into the record.

Lengthy discussion ensued re:  this matter & how to proceed.  The Board concurred w/ K. Ferreira submitting his letter to the Building Inspector & Ms. Macoluso.

VII.	ADJOURNMENT

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

VOTE:  Unanimous (5-0-0)

Attest:  ________________________
	Mary Scarsciotti, Clerk
	WAREHAM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Date approved:  _________________

Date signed:  ___________________

Date copy sent to Town Clerk:  _________________