Nobody Will Notice, Right?

By September McCarthy | Dec 02, 2011
Photo by: Google Aerial view of 3127 Cranberry Highway with neighboring BayPointe Village and part of the golf course.

This past January Thomas Michael Kitchens moved across Cranberry Highway to number 3127 when they purchased the property (the former Robertson dealership across from Barnacle Bills). In June, a recycling company, Atlantic Metal Recycling, appeared at the same location and Cyndi Murray wrote an article about it for Wareham Week (see http://wareham-ma.villagesoup.com/business/story/117595?cid=222844). The business seemed similar to the jewelers who will buy your gold and silver. Wareham needs businesses to come here to provide economic growth, and particularly along Cranberry Highway. This was good news.

 

Fast forward to the present and it appears that Atlantic Metal Recycling has big plans. They have applied to the Town for a zoning variance so that they can install a 45-foot long outdoor scale (to weigh trucks), 6 loading lanes, and 6 recycling bins, each 10-feet wide. Their plan also calls for an 8-foot high chain link fence the full 200-feet depth of the eastern side of the property, and also about 100-feet along Cranberry Highway to the entrance to the scale. This scale is only set back from the roadway 54 feet, and the plan doesn’t provide for any turning radius/room off the roadway into the property. There are several real concerns raised by this proposal, which is due to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals at a public hearing on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Perhaps they truly believed that nobody would notice! It appears that the town officials who should have noticed, did not.

 

The abutters have noticed. Just behind this property is Baypoint Golf Course, and right behind this property are the condominiums known as Baypoint Village. They are noticing, and objecting on solid grounds that the location of this type of business is a violation of the Zoning By-Laws. They’re right! John and Deborah McGonnell of 36 Bay Pointe Drive, Onset, have written a letter which explains their points so well that it would be best to share it here in the hopes that other “neighbors” to this business and its’ proposed growth, as well all concerned citizens, are aware of this issue and can choose to attend the hearing with a better understanding of the issue.

 

Date:    November 29, 2011

 

To:        Kenneth Ferreira, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals

 

cc:        Selectmen Walter Cruz, Stephen Holmes, Cara Winslow, Ellen Begley, Michael Schneider ,           Mark Andrews, Town Administrator,  John Charbonneau, Planning Dept. , Myles Burke, Inspectional Services

 

From:    John and Deborah McGonnell, 36 Bay Pointe Drive, Onset

 

Re:       ZBA Public Hearing – December 14, 2011, Atlantic Metal Recycling, 3127 Cranberry Highway, Wareham

 

Dear Mr. Ferreira:

 

Per notice to us from the Town of Wareham, Atlantic Metal Recycling is applying to enlarge its current operation to include an outdoor metal recycling area with a drive-on scale to weigh materials in an “SC” zoning district.  The plan on file with this request for variance shows the installation of a 45-foot long scale (above ground) as well as six loading lanes and six large “bins” surrounded by concrete block walls for metals of various types. (See attached partial portion of plan.)  One of these bins would be within ten feet of the side line of the property.

 

The property at 3127 Cranberry Highway is in a Strip Commercial (CS) zoning district.  According to our Zoning Bylaws (page 7): “The CS district is intended to promote large-scale retail and service development in defined areas along Cranberry Highway.”  Further (on page 8), regarding Industrial Districts:  “The IND district is intended to promote industrial and office uses and to permit compatible commercial uses.”

 

Under # 358 Industrial Uses / Salvage Yards, our Zoning Bylaws (page 19) state:  “A facility or area for storing, keeping, selling, dismantling, or salvaging scrap metal or discarded material or equipment.”   The business at Atlantic Metal Recycling would fall under Industrial Uses, not Strip Commercial.

 

Under # 371 Junk Yards, our Zoning Bylaws (page 20) state:  “Such use shall be set back a minimum of 500 feet from any lot line or any public or private way.”   Although it might be argued that a salvage yard is not a junk yard, they are quite similar.  Even our Zoning Bylaws (in the Principal Use table on page 13) combine the two in the same line item.  The relatively small lot in question does not come anywhere close to providing a 500-foot buffer on any of the four sides of the property.  According to the plan filed by the petitioner, the lot itself is less than 200 feet deep on its east side from Cranberry Highway to the rear lot line and only 208 feet deep on its west side.  In fact, this proposed operation would be conducted front and center on one of our community’s main thoroughfares with the above-ground scale to be located within 56 feet of Cranberry Highway, a number of homes less than 500 feet from the rear lot line, and one of the concrete block structures a mere 10 feet from the east side line. 

 

Although Myles Burke informed us yesterday that the current work being performed at Atlantic Metal Recycling is supposed to be conducted entirely indoors at this point, that is not the case.  We have heard outdoor work going on for some time now and saw it in progress on November 28, as we expect John Charbonneau did when he visited the Bay Pointe Village property yesterday.  Even though the materials that we observed being dumped appeared to be relatively small in size, the noise (from the dumping and the piercing vehicle back-up alarms), was anything but.  Adding to the overall unsightliness of the property are metal containers, roll-off truck bodies, piles of automotive parts and numerous containers of various shapes and sizes.  The installation of a scale that would accommodate heavy, diesel-powered tandem axle and tri-axle trucks, plus six additional loading lanes and six large concrete-enclosed bins, would allow dumping to increase dramatically, bringing even more noise and other nuisances related to a salvage yard to residential neighborhoods as well as to surrounding businesses. (See attached photos and aerial views.)

 

The Wareham Zoning Bylaws were put in place for valid reasons.  We are very much in favor of recycling efforts, but a metal recycling facility is an undisputed industrial use and should be located in one of Wareham’s industrial districts.  While we recognize and encourage the need to increase business along Cranberry Highway, a metal recycling facility does not belong in a Strip Commercial zoning district, especially one that is a main gateway to our community and in close proximity to several residential neighborhoods.  (See attached neighborhood aerial view.)

 

As abutters, we have tried to ignore the noise issues to date.  That would no longer be remotely possible if this special permit and/or variance were to be granted.  The metal-on-metal din from dumping, coupled with engine noise, rumbling trucks, back-up alarms, etc., would be unrelenting.  Entirely aside from a major increase in noise throughout the area surrounding this parcel, as year-round residents of this community we are categorically opposed to the location of this industrial use business in a strip commercial zone.  This small parcel of land is slightly over one acre and will become even smaller when the roadway is widened by the State.  It is completely unsuited for this type of use.   We respectfully request your consideration and that of your Board of the issues raised in this letter.  We will be in attendance at the public hearing on December 14.

 

Sincerely,

John and Deborah McGonnell

Comments (57)
Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 03, 2011 07:42

These people are operating an industrial business in a commercial strip zone. Myles Burke told several people he would present the company with a cease and desist order until the hearing. Guess what? As of yesterday they were still doing business. How did this happen? Who is watching out for the town. A huge scrap recycler is an eyesore and should be in one of the industrial zoned areas. How did they get a business permit. Who is checking to make sure businesses are in compliance?



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 03, 2011 09:04

Exactly! According to the town By-Laws, the Director of Inspectional Services is also supposed to be the enforcer of the zoning laws. Once again, the job is not being done adequately, and in this case, many residents could be negatively affected, both in their quality of life and in the value of their property.

 

Another consideration/concern is the effect of this kind of traffic on that road. Trucks full of scrap metal weighing thousands of pounds travelling in and out on a daily basis can do a lot of damage to the roadway, not to mention the impact on traffic. I'm sure that the DOT's plan to improve this section of Route 6 does not allow for this type of traffic, and they might also be interested in hearing about this. It definitely argues against the town taking over the maintenance of that road after the improvements. And, the improvements would also widen the roadway, requiring 10 to 15 feet along the front of this property, leaving the proposed scale only set back about 40 feet from the road. Granted the owners of Atlantic Metal Recycling don't live in Wareham, but their proposed plan should take the future roadway improvement plans into consideration.

 

One other aspect to consider is crime. The reason for an 8-foot high fence is to discourage theft, which implies that this business is a target for theft. Metal is worth money these days, as evidenced by thieves pulling copper piping from foreclosed homes. A chain-link fence can be climbed or even cut, so unless there are alarms and/or dogs in addition to the fence, the business is attractive to thieves. If there are alarms and/or dogs, then the nearby residents would also have to tolerate hearing that at night. It would also place additional burdens on our police department, which would not be supported by additional property taxes on this property. In fact, according to our 2011 Assessment Database, the town has realized a significant reduction in tax income related to this property. It was purchased on June 13, 2007 by Robertsons Real Estate for $996,667, and then "purchased" (foreclosed on) by Mayflower Cooperative Bank on April 20, 2010 for $1,350,000. However, on October 29, 2010, Anderson-Ferreira LLC (the real estate holding company formed by Thomas Anderson and Michael Ferreira on October 27, 2010 -- they are the Thomas & Michael of Thomas Michael Kitchens whose official business name is Open House LLC, organized February 8, 2001 and dissolved April 30, 2009, and reinstated August 19, 2009) purchased the property for $335,000, over a million dollars less than its value 6 months earlier. This means the Town of Wareham lost just over a million dollars of taxable property value.

 

Overall, it is not an appropriate business for the area, and is in violation of the zoning laws which are apparently not being enforced. We need them to be, and if that means replacing one or more town employees, then that is what needs to happen. And it needs to happen NOW, before any further damage is done.



Posted by: justin beiber | Dec 03, 2011 13:37

This situation is serious and should be addressed immediately.

I would suggest Ms, McCarthy telephone Myles Burke first thing Monday morning and request an explanation.

Thanks for the alert.



Posted by: Sean Murphy | Dec 03, 2011 17:30

I dont think Myles Burke is going to do anything about this.  Even if its a violation of the zoning bylaws.  If any permits were issued or an application accepted this building dept will not do its due diligence to get it right the first time.  I learned that the hard way.  we have a commercial run property in our neighbor hood that is specifically meant for residential use only but Myles Burke still issued the permits.  I would ultimately say that this business must be important to Mr. Andrews and will go forward.  Myles Burke will do what Mr. Andrews says.  But dont act surprised it is of course Wareham.



Posted by: KAREN SPINKS | Dec 03, 2011 18:16

JB. and Sean.. I'm not sure that Mr Burke is obligated to provide September with an explanation.    However, given that September has consistently been a voice of reason and extremely well informed when it comes to town politics I'm hoping we can encourage her to run for public office.  This is what we need if change is to ever occur at town hall.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 04, 2011 09:50

Thank you, Karen, for the high compliment. You have given me "food for thought."

 

Sean, you have peaked my curiousity as to which neighborhood you are referring to and what commercially run property -- can you provide more information? Your frustration is evident and understood.

 

Generally, Mr. Burke's actions should fall under Mr. Andrews supervision as "day-to-day" activities. However, in regards to blatant violations of zoning laws and the possible involvement of town employees in allowing and/or enabling these violations, it seems clear that the Board of Selectmen are the people that these employees need to answer to and publicly explain their actions/non-actions.

 

If the Board of Selectmen are not willing to fulfill this responsibility as leaders of the town and if the answers provided by the town employees do not adequately explain their decisions which have resulted in the violations of our laws and regulations, then the citizens of Wareham need to clearly understand the lack of leadership and responsibility to their office being demonstrated by both the elected and hired town leadership. I am, as always, hopeful that this will not be the case, and that these violations will be corrected shortly.

 

 



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 04, 2011 10:29

You hit the nail on the head again September. Andrews lets his buddy Myles do whatever. No accountability. So we get into situations like this. Don't hold your breath waiting for the selectmen to take action. They hide behind the not getting involved in day to day rule. Instead the town is falling apart. Andrews answers to the selectmen. They have every right to butt in when something is not being done according to town policy, bylaws, charter, zoning etc. Who is watching the store?



Posted by: justin beiber | Dec 04, 2011 16:29

September,

I would appreciate hearing your take on the following post by Slager: 

By: robertslager on 12/4/11
I would also like to weigh in on the controversy regarding Atlantic Metal Recycling on Cranberry Highway. I have read the letter submitted to the ZBA by abutters John and Deborah McGonnell. It appears they have a strong case. That area is zoned as strip commercial, and Atlantic Metal Recycling's request for a variance (which is scheduled to be heard at a ZBA public hearing on Dec. 14) should be opposed. This type of operation should not be permitted where it is currently located.

That said, the attempts of Wareham Week bloggers to once again turn this into a political issue is nothing short of shameless. "Bigbrother" claimed that Director of Inspections Myles Burke told people he would be issuing a cease-and-desist order against Atlantic Metal Recycling. But in the letter submitted McGonnells it states that "Although Myles Burke informed us yesterday that the current work being performed at Atlantic Metal Recycling is supposed to be conducted entirely indoors at this point, that is not the case."

There is no way in hell that Myles Burke would have told anyone that he would issue a cease-and-desist order against a business prior to conducting an inspection. That would be grounds for a lawsuit by the business owner. This is the kind of nonsense that takes a ligitimate issue and knocks it off its tracks for political purposes.

I am in no way saying that the McGonnells concerned aren't valid. I suspect they are. But no one on Wareham Week has offered a drop of evidence that Burke is ignorning a zoning violation. Perhaps he was just informed of it. Perhaps he has visited the premises and didn't see evidence of a violation. Perhaps he did and is in the process of issuing a cease-and-desist order. At this point no one knows.

But that hasn't stopped the bloggers from suggesting that Burke and Mark Andrews have turned a blind eye toward this problem. September McCarthy went as far as to write "Generally, Mr. Burke's actions should fall under Mr. Andrews supervision as "day-to-day" activities. However, in regards to blatant violations of zoning laws and the possible involvement of town employees in allowing and/or enabling these violations, it seems clear that the Board of Selectmen are the people that these employees need to answer to and publicly explain their actions/non-actions. If the Board of Selectmen are not willing to fulfill this responsibility as leaders of the town and if the answers provided by the town employees do not adequately explain their decisions which have resulted in the violations of our laws and regulations, then the citizens of Wareham need to clearly understand the lack of leadership and responsibility to their office being demonstrated by both the elected and hired town leadership. I am, as always, hopeful that this will not be the case, and that these violations will be corrected shortly."

The above statement came not long after McCarthy wrote that she is considering a run for a seat on the Board of Selectmen. This would be the second time that McCarthy jumped to an uneducated conclusion and used her conclusion to feed a political frenzy. A few weeks ago she claimed that the Gateway Chamber of Commerce filed the incorrect 501c3 designation. It was proven that McCarthy had no clue what she was talking about on this matter. I suspect history will repeat itself once again.

If there is evidence that Burke or Andrews are intentionally allowing a zoning violation, I encourage everyone to present it. That would be deplorable. But I tire of these thinly veiled political attacks based on pure conjecture, which is then taken as fact by other Wareham Week bloggers. It's cheap and dirty and reflects poorly on the Wareham community.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 04, 2011 18:02

Thank you for sharing this with us, Justin Beiber. My initial reaction to it is that, in criticizing the McGonnells, myself, and the Wareham Week bloggers, Mr. Slager is showing himself to be less than accurate.

 

He writes . . . "But that hasn't stopped the bloggers from suggesting that Burke and Mark Andrews have turned a blind eye toward this problem." He also goes on to add . . . "If there is evidence that Burke or Andrews are intentionally allowing a zoning violation, I encourage everyone to present it. That would be deplorable." The fact is that Burke is aware of the business, as evidenced by his response to the McGonnell's inquiry. The fact is that this type of business, whether it is considered a junkyard, a salvage yard, a solid waste facility, industrial or a storage facility, it is not allowed within a Commercial Strip zone. There is no suggestion that an error in judgement has occurred in allowing this business to operate in its present location. It is a fact that this business is operating in its present location and even planning on growing there, in clear violation of the town's zoning by-laws. The fact is that the responsibility for this lies in the Department of Inspectional Services, of which Mr. Burke is the Director, and his manager/supervisor is the Town Administrator, Mr. Andrews. There is no other conclusion to be made from these facts, educated or not. There is no intention to "feed a political frenzy" on my part. My intention, as always, is to discuss public issues (which is the very definition of politics).

 

Mr. Slager also states . . ."The above statement came not long after McCarthy wrote that she is considering a run for a seat on the Board of Selectmen." This is not accurate. What I said/wrote earlier (see above post of Dec. 4 at 9:50 am) was in response to Karen Spinks post to which I thanked her for the compliment (of encouraging me to run) and that she had given me "food for thought." It is Mr. Slager's presumption in interpreting the meaning of my statement as he does.

 

Mr. Slager then goes on to state . . . "A few weeks ago she claimed that the Gateway Chamber of Commerce filed the incorrect 501c3 designation. It was proven that McCarthy had no clue what she was talking about on this matter. I suspect history will repeat itself once again." This is another inaccuracy as my postings regarding the Gateway Chamber of Commerce were related to the addresses provided by the officers of this organization. I believe that the issue of the 501c3 vs. 501c6 type of corporation was raised and discussed by others. The personal insult to me by Mr. Slager, who himself has a history of such actions, is not a resident of Wareham, no longer runs a viable newspaper here in Wareham, and for some reason still believes that his opinions carry weight here in Wareham, is not worth taking seriously. We have never met, and the conclusion that his inaccuracies prove anything is actually laughable.

 

Overall, the fact that Mr. Slager feels it necessary to attack individuals is sad and misdirected. As with all other issues facing the town of Wareham, the focus needs to remain on the issue rather than the individuals involved in the discussion. The exception to this is the public officials who are responsible for decisions relating to the issue. They accept that when they are elected or hired to perform these jobs and make these decisions. All taxpayers and registered voters here in Wareham are entitled to have and express their concerns regarding these issues, as well as to be provided with adequate answers by their elected representatives and paid employees. It is a fact that Mr. Slager does not qualify for any of these roles in discussions of Wareham affairs.



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 04, 2011 19:55

"Mr. Slager is showing himself to be less than accurate."

 

Now there's the understatement of the year!  There's an old saying in Wareham:

 

"How do you know that Bobo is lying?  His lips are moving!"



Posted by: Zephyr | Dec 04, 2011 21:11

There goes that man crush again.



Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Dec 04, 2011 21:27

 

September,


Thanks go out to you and the McGonnell's for bringing this to everyone's attention.  That alone has been a great service.  Let's hope this all gets cleared up SOON.

 



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 04, 2011 22:36

Zeph, you seem awfully preoccupied with defending Bobo's "honor."  Any criticism, there you are two seconds later to defend him.  You sure you aren't the one with the man crush?



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 05, 2011 05:14

Please, let's stay focused on the issue of zoning and American Metal Recycling in this thread. The Wareham Zoning By-Laws have some very interesting information relating to this issue. First is the definition of "Junk:" (as given on page 96) . . . "Any worn out castoff or discarded articles or materials which are ready for destruction or disposal or has
been collected or stored for salvage or conversion to some use. Any article or material which, unaltered or unchanged or without further reconditioning, can be used for its original purpose as readily as when new, shall not be considered junk."

 

Under paragraph 358, Industrial Uses (on page 19), a Junkyard is defined as . . . " A building, structure, or parcel of land used for collecting, storage, or sale of junk," and a Salvage yard is defined as . . . "A facility or area for storing, keeping, selling, dismantling, or salvaging scrap metal or discarded material or equipment."

And further, on page 20, paragraph 370, Conditions Applicable to Special Permit Uses, the Zoning By-Laws specifically state regarding "Junk Yards" that . . ."Such use shall be set back a minimum of 500 feet from any lot line or any public or private way."

 

The lot currently occupied by Atlantic Metal Recycling is only 200 feet deep, so conforming with the By-Law at this location is literally impossible. The fact is that a Special Permit was never requested or issued for this business at this location, so it is not legally operating.

 

Another interesting point to be made here pertains to the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance which has been made by Atlantic Metal Recycling. They submitted a Site Plan (a portion of which is pictured above) and the Zoning By-Laws detail the procedure for the review and approval of the site plan in paragraph 1565 (pgs. 86-87), and specifically paragraph 1565.2 Review by Town Officials which states:

a) The Permitting Authority shall not hold a public hearing on a site plan application until Town Boards, Commissions and Departments have been notified and have been allowed twenty-one (21) days from delivery of site plan documents to submit a written report or recommendations thereon. If reports are not received within the twenty-one (21) day
period, this shall be deemed lack of opposition thereto.

b) The Permitting Authority shall circulate one copy of the site plan documents to the following boards, commissions, agencies and/or departments for their information and to request their review and comments:


1. Board of Selectmen/Sewer Commissioners
2. Conservation Commission
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Water Department
6. Health Department
7. Building Department
8. EMS
9. Town/Consulting Engineer
10. Municipal Maintenance
11. Others as determined to be appropriate

 

It will be interesting and informative to learn at the Public Hearing whether any of these boards, commissions, agencies and/or departments submitted any reviews or comments on this plan.



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 05, 2011 06:21

September, I don't think Mr. Slager criticized the McGonnells.  On the contrary, he said that they had a good case.  He was criticizing the fact that you were throwing political dirt on Mr. Andrews and Mr. Burke.  Please read the first sentence in the McGonnells' letter.  It states, "Per notice to us from the Town of Wareham. . ."  I think that, quite nicely, responds to your accusations and assumptions.  The Town notified adjacent homeowners and residents.  Whether that notification came from the ZBA or from Town Hall, the notification was made.

 

The McGonnells correctly addressed their well-written letter to the appropriate municipal board.  The issue is set to be heard by the ZBA on December 14.  Your comment re: "It will be interesting and informative. . ." puts a bad taste in my mouth.  Instead of waiting around, why don't you follow the lead set by the McGonnells and take proactive measures to find out if the boards and departments have been notified. Why would you want to wait until Dec. 14 to find out? Wouldn't you rather want to feel assured that the boards and departments have weighed in on the issue?

 

I would like to thank you, Mr. and Mrs. McGonnell, for being on top of this issue.  You saw something going terribly wrong in Wareham and you became proactive.  You have set an example which should be emulated by the rest of us.  I am sure I am not alone in my appreciation.  A scrap yard in this part of Wareham is detrimental to those who live near it as well as to all residents of Wareham.  Thank you.

 



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 05, 2011 07:11

September said this, The fact is that a Special Permit was never requested or issued for this business at this location, so it is not legally operating.

 

That's the point people. Burke has the right to shut the place down if it is operating illegally. He hasn't done that. He did tell several people he would do a cease and desist because it was operating outside the current guidelines which is doing work outside the building. But he didn't do that either.I know this from speaking with people involved.  The whole case has been bungled by the clowns in charge. Those of you attacking the posters on this site will learn the truth after the hearing. If the permitting and inspections and such had been done properly this business would not be operating illegaly. Who is to blame for that? Someone has to take responsibility. Shouldn't it be the people in charge?

 

September, thanks for the research on the subject.

 

 



Posted by: KAREN SPINKS | Dec 05, 2011 09:06

September is  only a private citizen.  She has offered an informed opinion which is helpful for those of us who know nothing about zoning bylaws.   Waiting until Dec 14 to address the issues in a public forum seems reasonable given that she is not in a position to make changes on behalf of the town anyway.



Posted by: 99Shoes | Dec 05, 2011 09:25

More of the "not in my backyard mentality".  It seems everyone doesnt want anything God forbid in "West Wareham" and that it should all go to "East Wareham" on the striip where it belongs.  Have any of you noticed all of the run down buildings that are horrible and need to be torn down.  What about the eye sore across from Bennys that now people are dumping old boats out in front.  Or how about across from Sears and the scrap metal place, whats up with that old shack.  Why doesnt anyone spend any energy on making the owners clean up that mess!  Also, have you seen all of the trash too!  I live in this end of town too and see it daily.  It seems like it's ok to dumpy areas as long as its on the right side of town.  File under UGH!!

 



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 06, 2011 09:13

Interesting that a former selectman is saying Myles Burke can't put a cease and desist on this company. Why did Burke tell three different people he was going to do just that? Was he lying to those people? Does he not know what he can and cannot do?

 

By the way, the building inspector put a cease and desist on a neighbor's property when they were building so I guess they have the right to do this. If something is not right they should have the right to do it.

 

This company is operating illegally.  So we just let them continue until they get a hearing? What's wrong with that picture?



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 06, 2011 17:50

Myles Burke has stated that the cease and desist has been issued. Those are his words-cease and desist. In the meantime, a former selectman is lecturing Ms. McCarthy and me.

 

Bruce S wrote this on another blog:

On a seperate matter, "bigbrother" has apparently asked if I am saying "so, a business can't be shut down until it has a hearing"? or words to that effect. Um, bigbrother...YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING !!! It's called due process of law. It is a gauranteed right of all citizens under the Constitution of the United States. There is a reason it's called the Zoning Board of APPEALS. We have an entire eloborate system of both procedural & substantive due process established exactly so that no citizen or business in this community needs to ever suffer an arbitrary & capricious decision by our own goverment giuded by impulsive or reactive politic's and contrary to the established rule of law. What the building inspector was refering too when he said "cease & desist" was an order to prohibit continuing a particular course of conduct. Here, the expansion of operations outside of the internal operations that were being conducted indoors (which created the notice in the first place). NOT to arbitarily shut the business down pending adjudication by the ZBA. The building inspector can issue such a partial notice or a finding of non-conforming use, but that is only to put the business before the ZBA (i.e. due process). The ZBA can actually issue a special permit allowing the activity in contravention of the actual zoning laws governing that zone. That would be very ill advised, but they have that authority. Or they can shut the operation down with a stay of the order pending appeal to the superior court for an order of declaratory relief by the business. The building inspector has no such independent authority. This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong in Wareham; the ability to so casually dismiss the rights of other citizens if thet do not comport with their thinking. The ability to attack individuals and their families as if it were free. Using the law, rules & the political process as a blunt instrument. These are the people that I need to be nicer to Truebeliever? More respect? Shouldn't talk down to them? Really?? If you want to know why i'm running again True, it's to protect ourselves & this community from these small minded, petty, and vicious "fellow citizens". These people are more bankrupt morally & ethically than Greek bond's. The fact that both Bigbrother and Ms. McCarthy are so ill-informed only makes that cause more critical.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 06, 2011 18:18

There are, in fact, many officials in the town who can legally cease the operations of a business, including the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, the Board of Health, and the Building Department (a.k.a. Inspectional Services). Article 14, Administration, of the Zoning By-Laws, specifically states, under Section 1421, Zoning Enforcement Officer, . . .

 

The Inspector of Buildings shall be the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He shall not approve applications of any kind or plans or specifications or intended uses, which are not in conformity in all respects with this By-Law.

 

And under Section 1431, Violations, there are two parts . . .

 

1431.1 The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall serve a notice of VIOLATION AND ORDER to any owner or person responsible for a violation of any structure or lot in violation of any approved plan, information or drawing pertinent thereto or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this By-Law. Violations shall include the erection, construction, reconstruction, conversion, and alteration of a structure or change in use, increase in intensity, or extension of displacement of use. Such order shall direct the immediate
discontinuance of the unlawful action, use or condition and the abatement of the violation.

1431.2 Any owner who has been served with a notice and ceases any work or other activity shall leave the structure or lot in such condition as not to be a hazard or menace to the public safety, health, morals or general welfare.

 

Section 1432 covers the prosecution of violation by stating . . .

 

1432.1 If the notice of VIOLATION AND ORDER is not complied with promptly, the selectmen shall institute the appropriate action or proceeding at law or equity to prevent any unlawful action, use or condition and to restrain, correct, or abate such violation.


1432.2 Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of the By-Law shall be liable for a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each violation. Each day that a violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.

 

It should be noted here that the public hearing on Dec. 14 to be conducted by the ZBA is for Atlantic Metal Recycling's expansion plans and any variance required by those plans. They have never applied for a special permit to conduct their business, which would have been a separate public hearing through the Planning Board as the "Special Permit Granting Authority." If they had, then a copy of their application for such would be on file with the Town Clerk. It is not. Consequently, the decision by the ZBA that will follow the Dec. 14 public hearing may apply only to Atlantic Metal Recycling's request to be allowed to expand the business as per the submitted plan. The question of whether they are legally allowed to be conducting this type of business at their current location may be regarded as a separate issue which the Department of Inspectional Services, the Planning Board, and the Board of Selectmen will need to address. If they do so expeditiously, then there may be no need for the ZBA hearing.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 06, 2011 18:23

It sounds like the ex-selectman needs to read the Wareham Zoning Laws. It is also a shame that he believes it is ever effective to insult people whom he disagrees with.



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 06, 2011 18:52

God, whenever Sweet Brucey blathers on about the law it's hilarious.  This knucklehead can't even pass the bar.  A financial planner that owes $181,000 in back taxes and a guy who says he's a law expert that can't pass the bar.  What a clown.

 

Good luck in the election, Sweet Brucey.  Serving up defeat number 2 will be fun.



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 07, 2011 06:34

The scary thing is that this guy thinks he's going to be back in the selectmen's seat next April when he says stuff like this--

These are the people that I need to be nicer to Truebeliever? More respect? Shouldn't talk down to them? Really?? If you want to know why i'm running again True, it's to protect ourselves & this community from these small minded, petty, and vicious "fellow citizens". These people are more bankrupt morally & ethically than Greek bond's.

 

Are we going back to bos who call people names like gutless cowards and idiots? This guy will never get my vote.

 

September brings up a good point. The hearing is only for a variance and not to deal with the aftermath of the cease and desist order. Wonder what's going to happen with that.

 



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 07, 2011 06:35

WT: and your university diploma is from where?  Still working that job of yours?

 

Bruce, very adeptly, explained the zoning appeals process and the requirement that the Town follow the law regarding due process.  Do you want another lawsuit, WT?



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 07, 2011 08:06

IP, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, which is a constant state you seem to be in.  I'm not sure what your first two wisecracks mean, but I assure you that I live a life much better than yours.  I realize that's pretty easy to do since the bar you set for yourself is so low, but let's face it, someone like you is not in the position to criticize anyone.

 

Another lawsuit?  I have never been sued in my entire life.  You and many of your friends are unable to say the same.



Posted by: KAREN SPINKS | Dec 07, 2011 09:21

I have just read September's posting Re Section 1431 ....VIOLATION AND ORDER.   It appears, as written, to be very clear and concise.  In my opinion, there's little room for mis-interpretation.  



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 07, 2011 09:35

Bobo the Clown, I don't know how you call yourself a reporter, because you're even more clueless than IP is.  You know, you really don't have to take every opportunity to prove to everyone that you're trash.  Everyone already knows it.



Posted by: OTFritz | Dec 07, 2011 10:01

Interested SockPuppet wrote:

Bruce, very adeptly, explained the zoning appeals process and the requirement that the Town follow the law regarding due process.

Putting aside his butchering of grammar & punctuation*, Bruce the not-a lawyer / not-a-selectman got it only half right. In many circumstances, due process is satisfied by a hearing that can take place AFTER an action is taken, as long as the hearing takes place relatively quickly. That's what temporary restraining orders are all about. "Stop doing that right now; we'll have a hearing on Monday to see if the claims that your are doing it illegally are true." 

What's most telling here is that Dark Slager spends one paragraph pointing out how he agrees that there is a problem. And then 10 paragraphs dumping on people in his usual and customary "Look, over there . . . " manner. And, like clockwork, the SockPuppet chorus isn't far behind.

*eloborate-gauranteed-giuded-politic's-What the building inspector was refering too-

 



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 07, 2011 16:24

Fritz, I have never verbally insulted you by calling you names.  Please extend me the same consideration.  In that light, perhaps I should re-assert my praise for the McGonnells.  They saw something wrong and did something about it.  Am I mistaken?  I thought Myles Burke issued a cease and desist order for the non-conforming use, ie., the expansion of business outside the building and other activities.  Atlantic's Appeal and their request for a variance will be heard Dec. 14 by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

 

My question is this:  Has Atlantic appeared before the Planning Board to request an expansion of their current business?  If they have, and if that request was denied, then Atlantic would have filed an Appeal to the ZBA.  I think there is confusion among the posters as to the which issue is being appealed by Atlantic.  Does anyone have a copy of the Appeal?

 

It appears that Atlantic was trying to sneak this by the citizens of Wareham.  It was through the cooperation of citizens, like the McGonnells for reporting this matter, and the Town Department (Myles Burke) for issuing a cease and desist order, that this issue is on the right path to resolution.  Citizens complained and the Town responded.  Looks like the system is working.

 

WT, your narcissistic self indulgence has clouded your thought.  I did not say you would sue.  You have no standing.  I was referring to Atlantic.  A violation of their due process civil rights would expose the Town to litigation.  Fairness must be applied equallly, no matter which side you stand on. I don't like the idea of a recycling center, with all its smells and sounds, cluttering this neighborhood, but I know that they have constitutional rights, the same as you and me.  Let's apply the same rule of law equally.



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 07, 2011 22:25

Sweet Brucey, have you flipped your lid?  I don't know who you're talking about, but it isn't me.  Falsely accusing me of being someone I'm not is a good way to get yourself sued, clown.  Good way to get your lackey sued too.  Bruce, why don't you stick to things you know about, like how the state ethics commission looked into complaints about you, or not paying your taxes, getting your car repossessed, or being voted out of office in disgrace in record numbers.   Those are all things you know a lot more about.

 

There's a reason why you only blog about the selectmen instead of serving as a selectman.  You're a loser and the entire town knows it.



Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Dec 08, 2011 08:34

I again applaud September McCarthy and the McGonnells for their diligence on this.  I further appreciate the legwork that September did to present some legal facts.


When you get right down to it, unless I'm missing something I think the following excerpts from OT and IP seem to sum it up well in lay terms.


==========================================
OTFRITZ wrote:

In many circumstances, due process is satisfied by a hearing that can take place AFTER an action is taken, as long as the hearing takes place relatively quickly. That's what temporary restraining orders are all about. "Stop doing that right now; we'll have a hearing on Monday to see if the claims that your are doing it illegally are true."
==========================================


==========================================
Interested Party wrote

It appears that Atlantic was trying to sneak this by the citizens of Wareham.  It was through the cooperation of citizens, like the McGonnells for reporting this matter, and the Town Department (Myles Burke) for issuing a cease and desist order, that this issue is on the right path to resolution.  Citizens complained and the Town responded.  Looks like the system is working.
==========================================

 

Justin, does this satisfy your curiosity?
 



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 08, 2011 08:40

Back on track people. Keep your schoolyard bull to yourselves. This is a serious issue.

 

Former selectman Sauvageau said this: "On a seperate matter, "bigbrother" has apparently asked if I am saying "so, a business can't be shut down until it has a hearing"? or words to that effect. Um, bigbrother...YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING !!!"

 

September quoted the zoning laws. It clearly states to me that since Atlantic changed their use, then Myles Burke was in his rights to issue what he calls a cease and desist to shut it down. Here is that section again--  1431.1 The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall serve a notice of VIOLATION AND ORDER to any owner or person responsible for a violation of any structure or lot in violation of any approved plan, information or drawing pertinent thereto or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this By-Law. Violations shall include the erection, construction, reconstruction, conversion, and alteration of a structure or change in use, increase in intensity, or extension of displacement of use. Such order shall direct the immediate
discontinuance of the unlawful action, use or condition and the abatement of the violation.

 

Now I'm not a lawyer nor did I graduate from law school, but I think Burke finally did the right thing. The business can appeal this action, but the town can issue the cease and desist according to the zoning bylaw making the business stop what they are doing wrong. The zoning appeal scheduled for next Wednesday will discuss their request to enlarge their business. Maybe they will take care of this issue at the same time or maybe it is a separate issue. It took quite a few complaints and visits to Burke's office, but like I said, he finally enforced the town's zoning laws.



Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Dec 08, 2011 08:44

Big Brother, as your response came in right after mine, I would like to add that I think your response is sound too.

 



Posted by: OTFritz | Dec 08, 2011 11:50

@IP:

My only real point is that the not-a-lawyer does not appear to know what he is talking about. Relying on him for what you described as his "adept" description of due process is a losing proposition.  He simply cannot be taken seriously, and when you do, you invite ridicule as much as if you quoted the marketers of New Coke.



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 08, 2011 12:49

Right back at you Mike. Fritz, don't get me started on reasons NOT to vote for former selectman Sauvageau. His mis-take on interpreting the zoning laws and this situation is just another reason to add to the list.



Posted by: watersprite | Dec 08, 2011 13:35

I suppose if you take the by-law in the most literal way possible, Mr. Sauvageau is remotely correct - the by-law stipulates that an owner can be ordered to immediately discontinue the unlawful action, use or condition (1431.1).  The order doesn't direct a violator to shut down, unless ceasing the offending actions cuts off all revenue, which forces a shut-down.  AMR could stop doing what it is now doing and revert to what it claimed it would do in its permit without shutting down.  In order to do that, it would have to abate (clean up and make whole) the site to it's preoffending-state condition.  It is still subject to penalties until it does so.  The due-process that Mr. Sauvageau addresses can happen at any point in this continuum.  And since there doesn't seem to be any stipulation as to appeal/decision time-frames, Mr. Burke and the BOS seem to be in control.

 

At least that's how I read the by-law.  Is the Town levying a $300/day fine from the point of the order?  Has anybody actually seen the written order?



Posted by: WarehamThinker | Dec 08, 2011 13:35

I'd be happy to get started on reasons to NOT vote for Sweet Brucey.

1) Owes $181,00 in back taxes.

2)  Got his car repo'd

3) The state ethics commission was kept mighty busy looking into claims made about him.

4) Bobo worships the ground he walks on.

5) Is a former columnist for the now out of business Bobo Gazette.

6) Was nasty and rude to a reporter, yelling at one to turn her camera off.

7)  Caught on photo sticking up his middle finger at town meeting.

8) Voted for Mark Andrews to be TA, who has turned out to be a disaster.

Warehamwater has the video of him being nasty to the reporter and the photo of his middle finger up.  I assume that finger stands for "1" as in the 1 vote he'll get next election.  Please spread the word about town, this clown needs big time defeat #2.



Posted by: Jumpa | Dec 08, 2011 23:05

Funny how fast a business can go up & get past the proverbial "Red Tape" when palms are greased with dirty loot by pop up overnight companies when the material salvaged will be sold to the Government how fast the need for the red tape gets pushed by the way side. However  if it was a mom and pop shop that was 100% legit and accordance with every bylaw and stipulation yet no palm greasing  the red tape would be ten miles long lawyer fees abundant. until they strangle the desire out of you till it becomes more of a headache than it is worth That my friends is just one of the problems with running a small business in America today

Just my ¢¢



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 09, 2011 01:21

Wareham Thinker, your childish outbursts are making you look foolish, and well, just silly.  You are way off topic and I resent your wasting space on this thread.



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 09, 2011 02:05

There are two issues here.  First, Atlantic engaged in business activities outside the scope of their permit (recycling materials out-of-doors).  Second, Atlantic also engaged in activities within the scope of their permit (those activities which they did inside their building.)

 

The Bldg Inspector's office can issue a temporary order for those activities which go beyond the company's permit.  The order will be effective until the matter can be heard and adjudicated before the appropriate agency, the ZBA.  If the ZBA rules against Atlantic, the company can appeal the decision to a court of law, but only after the company has exhausted all appropriate administrative remedies.

 

On the other hand, the Bldg Inspector cannot require the company to cease operations that fall within their permit to conduct business.  Doing so would be a violation of Atlantic's due process rights and would expose the town to litigation.  The Town can't just shut down the business.

 

In other words, Atlantic can continue their usual activities, but must stop the "extra" stuff until the ZBA makes a ruling.  The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 14.  I would recommend that residents, whether or not they live near this business, attend the hearing to show their opposition.



Posted by: watersprite | Dec 09, 2011 08:43

Apart from the usual amount of silly name calling (which tends to happen in many neighborhood pubs), this has been an important thread.  Thanks goes to September McCarthy, who started it with a Discussion and supplied almost all of the substantive material.  While most of us are content to express opinions, she consistently backs hers up with substantive citations.  I bow down to her superior approach. :)



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 09, 2011 15:40

An intellectual approach is always preferred to an emotionally laden response.

 

I do, however, disagree with September's statement that the Town did not notice.  Why then, is there a hearing scheduled before the ZBA on Dec. 14?  The hearing is indicative that the system is working.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 09, 2011 19:26

The Public Hearing to be hosted by the ZBA on Dec. 14 is part of the process required because the business, Atlantic Metal Recycling, is requesting approval of their plans to expand the business. These plans, which include the installation of the 45-foot-long truck scale, the 8-foot-high chain-link fence, and the 6 containers with the concrete wall alongside them. The business followed procedure in submitting their request and these plans to the Planning Department. According to our Zoning By-Laws, copies of these plans are distributed to the department/boards/committees (see my Dec. 5th posting above for a detailed list), and they have 21 days to respond with any objections. If they do not respond, then it is assumed that they have no objections. The town has 65 days (including the 21 days already mentioned) to hold a Public Hearing, and it is the responsibility of the requestor (in this case, Atlantic Metal Recycling) to "notify all abutters and parties of interest within 200 feet of the parcel" about the hearing. This request requires a Special Permit and so it is the ZBA which holds the hearing and renders a decision.

 

The appeal, if there is to be one, of the cease-and-desist issued by Mr. Burke, needs to be applied for by the business. I do not know if they have done so or not. If they do so, then it will be heard by the ZBA following the same rules of properly advertised public hearings (that is, 14 days advance notice published in the newspaper, etc.). I cannot speak for the ZBA, but it seems that it will be their decision as to whether the Dec. 14th hearing will or will not have any effect on the cease-and-desist.

 

My earlier statement that the Town did not notice is based on a several things:

 

1. The business does not seem to be appropriate for the zoning of the location it is operating in, and, when I made my statement, no town official had taken any action to correct this. Inspectional Services knew of the business, and has said that it was supposed to be conducted indoors. They did not notice the conflict of this type of business, indoors or outdoors, with the zoning of this location.

 

2. The application for approval of the expansion plans required review of the proposal by the Board of Selectmen, among others. This item has not been on the BOS agenda at any time in the last 60 days, which, if we assume that they received notification and a copy of the proposed site plan as per the Zoning By-Laws, indicates by a lack of discussion that there were no objections on their part. They did not notice the conflict of this type of business with the zoning of the area.

 

3. Even operating indoors, this business, if allowed, would require a special permit to conduct its activities in the Commercial Strip zone they are located in. There had been no application for such a permit, and the Planning Department did not recognize this when the proposed expansion/site plan was first submitted. They did not notice either.

 

4. This business did apply for and was issued a Business Certificate by the Town Clerk's office on March 21, 2011, in the name of Atlantic Recycling (not Atlantic Metal Recycling), with a business address of 3127 Cranberry Highway, E. Wareham. The Certificate does not indicate the purpose of the business, but checking that the location is zoned appropriately for the type of business is part of the procedure followed in issuing a Business Certificate. They did not notice that there might be a conflict, or they were led to believe that there was none.

 

It is not my purpose to find fault with any one individual in this process. What is readily apparent is that there are serious weaknesses in the process. These weaknesses need to be addressed in order for the systems to work well and to the benefit of the townspeople. We have taken the first step by becoming aware of these weaknesses. The question now becomes . . . what will the town leaders do to take the next steps?



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 09, 2011 20:55

September, if the ZBA is "hosting" the hearing, should I bring hors d'oeuvres?  Just kidding.  (Hope you have a sense of humor.)The ZBA is conducting, not hosting, a hearing, but I understand what you are saying.

 

In essence, the hearing will adjudicate both issues regarding the property -- 1. the unpermitted use of the property to recycle materials out of doors, and 2. the company's request to expand their current business to allow recycling outside.  Looks like the same issue to me.

 

The Town notified (required the company to notify) adjacent homeowners that a hearing was scheduled, which prompted the McGonnells to write a response addressing the current violations.  (read the first sentence of their letter.)  The system is working.  The system would work better if the Building Inspector's office had the time and personnel to inspect each business once per year, but that is not the case.  Therefore, citizen participation in the process is necessary and welcomed.  Who, more than a property owner would know what was going on in the neighborhood.

 

As a final note, I don't think the ZBA will look too kindly on the company which has already begun activities (violations) beyond the scope of their permit.  Very presumptuous on the part of Atlantic.



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 10, 2011 07:00

Hey IP. Take a look at at the McGonnells second paragraph. Then take a look at the first sentence in the first post after the article. I wrote it. The issue is NOT that they are doing business outdoors against their permit. The issue is that they are operating ILLEGALLY. I hope that's the reason Burke gave them a cease and desist. It doesn't matter if they are doing business inside or outside. They can't do business there at all.

 

September informed us of the chain of command as you pointed out but in fact didn't accuse anyone. That was me. Who issued the original permit allowing inside use when the zoning laws are clear? 1. Scrap metal businesses are industrial. Period. 2. The zoning maps list the area as strip commercial. Period. We don't need the ZBA to "determine" if this is true. It's fact. And who issued a business certificate? Looks to me like two people were in error here. At least Burke corrected that error.

 

Here's how I see the ZBA meeting going. The meeting will open. Then the chair will say we can't expand an illegal business. If Atlantic wants to apply for a zoning VARIANCE for an industrial business to operate in a commercial strip, they will have to request a hearing and then notify abutters of the variance request. That hearing will have to be properly posted. Big difference from an expansion request.

 

I do have a sense of humor IP and I didn't find your "joke" funny. I found it condescending and petty, something you criticize others for. Hypocrite.



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 22, 2011 13:02

FYI. Just happened to pass by this place today and workers were unloading a big truck of scrap. I guess in Wareham cease and desist means go ahead and keep on working. Who is minding the store? The order was given at the beginning of December. I hope someone is collecting the fine from these people for not obeying the cease and desist. Wareham can sure use the cash.



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 22, 2011 17:34

More FYI. The cease and desist is public record. It is for all operations period. That's a fact. Believe it.



Posted by: September McCarthy | Dec 22, 2011 21:21

Yes, the cease and desist is public record. I have a copy of it and have added it to the other two photos on this discussion. Despite it being issued on November 30th, the business is still operating. I myself saw them operating on Saturday, December 10th and took photographs. Mr. McGonnell met with Myles Burke on December 13th and informed him that the company was still operating. Mr. Burke's response was that he was "on his way over there shortly" to check on the situation.  The fact that they continue to operate speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Burke. There was no discussion about this at the last meeting of the Board of Selectmen whose responsibility it is to impose and collect the penalties for violating the cease and desist ($300 per day x 19 days (through the 22) = $5,700 owed to the Town of Wareham, and counting!), though I suppose that it is Mr. Burke's responsibility to inform the BOS of the situation. Why he hasn't done so is a question I would very much like to know the answer to!



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 23, 2011 11:43

Thanks for proving I was speaking from fact and not from "understanding" what the issue is. September, you said you added the copy of the cease and desist order to the two photos above but I can't seem to see it. Maybe the people who have been bad mouthing us need to see the proof though I don't expect an apology.

 

$5,700 plus another $300 for today. The town should get every fine it is owed. And the inspector should be doing his job. The McGonnell's email is dated Nov. 29. Here it is almost a month later. I saw them working yesterday when I drove by. Maybe I should have taken a picture.



Posted by: Joe Leggett | Dec 23, 2011 12:04

Under the picture of the site plan, click " View more..." I think it's the second picture. Has a sound track of crickets chirping........



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 23, 2011 13:24

Thanks. Image 2. ALL PERSONS ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST ANY AND ALL USE OR OCCUPANCY AND TO NOT DO ANY FURTHER WORK ON THIS LAND OR STRUCTURE.

 

That's a fact.



Posted by: Noseyneighbor | Dec 23, 2011 13:47

My big question is how much is this debacle going to cost me as a taxpayer when the lawsuits start flying. I need to setup my 2012 budget and need to know how much my property taxes are rising due to mismanagement by Andrews and company. Justin, Low of 25 and a chance of flurries.



Posted by: justin beiber | Dec 23, 2011 14:19

Thanks for the weather update, Nosey. I'm headed out now.



Posted by: KAREN SPINKS | Dec 23, 2011 17:42

Thank you September and BB for staying on top of this. The situation leaves me speechless.



Posted by: interestedparty | Dec 23, 2011 19:27

Thought this might be of interest to all.  Simply go to the source, that's all it takes.  Posted on the Wareham Observer:



Good Morning Mr. Slager,

Atlantic Metal Recycling originally came to Inspectional Services and applied for a change of use/occupancy permit to locate an interior only wire recycling business. This permit was granted at a new buildout that was done by Thomas Michaels Kitchens who leased them space they didn't require.

Mr. Tracey White asked me if it was allowable to have an outdoor salvage yard as an expanded use by utiilizing the fenced area and parking lot to the rear of the building. I explained that this is a Commercial Strip Zoning District and he would require a special permit. I also directed him to the Planning Office and issued him a formal denial letter on June 15, 2011 as part of the Zoning appeals process.

Mr. White appeared before Zoning on August 11, 2011 and was asked to provide engineered plans for their review. He was rescheduled for December 14, 2011 at which time the public hearing was postponed at the request of the applicant until January 11 2011. I had received a complaint from the Bay Point Condominium Association that outdoor salvage yard activity was already taking place on November 29, 2011. I issued a Cease and Desist for this activity on November 30, 2011 and also requested the removal of a tractor trailer truck with unpermitted signage.

I eagerly await the Zoning Board Decision and will take whatever enforcement actions that are necessary. I hope this clarifies some of the inquiries you are receiving. I think everyone is in favor of recycling but there are some locations which are better suited for this activity than others.

Sincerely,

Myles E. Burke.

 



Posted by: bigbrother | Dec 24, 2011 09:27

Burke's statement only confuses the issue. The cease and desist order he signed does not say to stop work outside. It says to stop all work. That's what's on file. That's what he told the Bay Point people. His email says he told them to stop working outside. Maybe he needs to reread his order. If he wanted it to say only stop outside work, he should have crossed off the word all and inserted the word outside. He didn't do that. So what gives? I'll go with the wording of the order. That's what will hold up in court. It is a legal document.

 

About the truck I saw. Who said they were just carrying stuff inside? Did that person observe the work like I did? In fact, they were working outside and not just unloading the truck and carrying metal inside. That's a fact. I saw it and I saw them working outside. Either way, all work or outside work the company continues to violate the order. If Wareham is not going to enforce its own cease and desist orders, why bother handing them out? A fair question.



If you wish to comment, please login.