Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants ask Planning Board to treat multiple 59 Main Street changes as minor; parking and use questions linger
Summary
Developers outlined a package of small site changes at 59 Main Street — canopies, ramps, deck extensions, a small oyster bar and temporary event elements — and asked the board to treat most work as minor modifications; board members pressed on parking, change-of-use and floodplain documentation and asked staff to rule on minor vs. major status.
The Wareham Planning Board on July 13 reviewed a package of proposed changes at 59 Main Street, where the owner and the applicant’s engineer presented a list of modest improvements they want the board to treat as a minor modification rather than as a major site-plan change requiring a public hearing.
Bill Madden of GAF Engineering, who presented the consolidated list, said the first two priorities are metal roofs over the stair and the ADA ramp to improve access and safety: “we're talking about a 160 square feet of roof on the small on number 1, and number 2 is about 410,” he told the board. He said the additions reuse existing footprints, tie gutters into downspouts and are not expected to add impervious area that would change stormwater flow.
Why it matters: whether the board treats the work as a minor modification affects whether the applicant returns to a public hearing and whether new notices are required. Board members repeatedly raised questions tying the physical changes to operational effects — most critically seating and parking calculations — and whether some proposed uses would amount to a change of use that triggers additional review.
Members pressed the applicants about a proposed oyster bar beneath the deck and ownership of floodplain compliance documents. The owner said he sought and received written guidance from FEMA clearing the use for that location. Board member Carl Schulz sought clarity on how added seating would affect parking requirements and noted that “if that waiver is needed, then…that would have to be a major modification” and would require public notice and hearings.
On decks, bandstands and temporary elements: the applicants described two deck extensions intended to improve circulation and provide a transition area that could later accommodate an elevator; a freestanding bandstand designed to let water drain through decking; and a removable artificial-turf dance floor that would be rolled out only for events. Staff reported the plan’s current calculations show proposed building coverage of 21.8% (under the 30% maximum) and proposed impervious surface at 66.8% (under the 70% maximum), but emphasized that final determinations on code, building permits and parking are handled by inspectional services.
The board and applicants agreed on next steps. Planning staff will review the record and the original 2022 decision, confirm which items the historic commission previously approved, and rule on whether specific elements qualify as minor modifications; the board asked for the revised plan set and for staff (Josh) to report back, with applicants aiming to have roof items completed before winter.
The board did not take a formal vote on the site modifications at this meeting; staff will return with a written minor/major determination and the applicant will supply revised plans and FEMA documentation for the oyster bar.
