After more than six months of hearings and no decision, the developer of a proposed 90-home golf course community in Onset has given the town an ultimatum.

Stonestreet Corp. of Rhode Island on notified the Planning Board Nov. 10 that it would proceed with its construction plans if the board does not file a decision on the development plans by next Friday, Nov. 29.

Another long, sometimes heated discussion of plans for the Bay Pointe Club development on Monday night ended with no Planning Board decision but Chair George Barrett expressing confidence that a decision will be on file by Nov. 29.

“I am sure [Stonestreet] won’t be very happy with some of the decisions we are making, but I think, all in all, it will improve the project, not depreciate it,” he said.

Stonestreet bought Bay Pointe in 2012 for $1.4 million, made improvements to the existing facilities and has been operating the golf course since the purchase. Last April, Stonestreet filed plans to construct a housing development centered around the golf course.

Faced with a lot of questions from Onset residents and the Planning Board, Stonestreet representatives in April gave the town a waiver on requirements that a decision be made within a certain time frame. As hearings continued through the summer and into the fall, often rehashing issues that had appeared to have been resolved earlier, the developer opted to rescind the waiver and force a decision.

In addition to sending the email message to Barrett last week, Stonestreet attorney Richard Serkey informed the board on Monday that the proposed development will go forward Nov. 29 – whether the board likes it or not.

The announcement followed several hours of the Board again discussing several issues, such as lot sizes, that appear to have been resolved months ago.

But rescinded waiver or not, Barrett isn’t quite sure where Serkey got the 20-day deadline for the Board’s decision referenced at Monday’s meeting. Barrett said the section of the bylaw (note: all town laws are bylaws) Serkey quoted to the Board refers to the appeal period that follows a potential Board decision.

“I am not so sure he has done his homework,” Barrett said.

Serkey did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

If the Board does file a decision by Nov. 29, Stonestreet Corp. will have 20 days to appeal the Board’s plan, if it doesn’t like the changes. Barrett said he is confident the Board will submit a decision by the imposed deadline.

But, he noted – and it was clear on Monday – that any decision would modify Stonestreet’s proposal. As it stands, Stonestreet would create 90 units; if the Board has its way, there will only be 80 units created.

Barrett said fewer lots would give property owners more space. At one point during Monday night’s meeting, Planning Board member Robert Reed said more space would allow for side yards – which Stonestreet Corporation co-founder Tim Fay loudly protested to a colleague, saying, “We don’t want side yards!”

Fay walked out of the meeting shortly after that exchange.

Fay said in a later interview that company is not looking for any setbacks or lot sizes that are below the town’s zoning bylaw minimums. Though he said he couldn’t officially comment on the documents the board is using, Fay said the Planning Board seems to be treating the development like “a conventional subdivision.”

“The design we submitted is for a golf course community,” Fay said. “The golf course community is about homes situated around a golf course with lots of views and open space, and amenities being golf-related.”

Barrett did acknowledge the developer seemed to be aiming at a “niche market” of older folks, families whose children had moved away, or those who were just starting families. Thus far, Barrett said, it is the only development of its kind Wareham has seen, and that he doesn’t think Stonestreet’s current plans protect property owners enough.

“I know people have built around the only other golf course in town, Little Harbor, and people are somewhat close to that course, but they are not part of the course,” Barrett said. “There may be confrontations on the golf course … Golfers may forget, sometimes, that they are in someone’s back yard.”

Fay said he had been under the impression these issues and others had been cleared up at previous meetings, saying the company as a whole was “disappointed with the redesign effort [Monday] night.”

“We believe we have followed all the rules, and the plan that we have in front of them meets all the requirements,” Fay said. “We are anxious for the Planning Board to move this along.”