So close, yet so far away. That describes Marion Zoning Board of Appeals’ final decision on the Bay Watch Realty’s proposed affordable housing project.
Bay Watch representatives agreed to yet another extension at the ZBA’s June 14 meeting, postponing a decision on the 40B project that includes 60 rental units and 36 single family homes on a property west of Route 105. The ZBA has postponed a final decision three times since May; the public hearing had closed on April 5.
The final issue holding up a decision is the failure of abutter Sherman Briggs to sign off on an easement agreement. According to Bay Watch legal counsel Ken Steen, the project as proposed includes two emergency access points: one near the future bike path on the southerly portion of the property and the other through two house lots across the Briggs property.
“I think it’s Sherm being Sherm,” said Steen. ” It makes a whole lot of sense for him to do it…There is no indication that he’d not do it; he just hasn’t delivered the documents.”
Steen explained that Briggs would benefit from the emergency pathway when he builds additional lots for his family. Currently he has only one way onto his property.
Given their predicament, Steen presented modified language that allows a waiver so Bay Watch can proceed with a decision. ” I have every expectation that he’ll sign it. I don’ t know why he is dragging his feet,” Steen added.
Chairman Robert Wedge said he would defer to Fire Chief Thomas Joyce. “Let’s confer with him, and let him be the ultimate judge on whether he feels comfortable with that,” he said, promising to get an answer from the fire chief within two to three business days.
Committee member Betsy Dunn commented that in the decision for Bay Watch’s previous 192-unit 40B proposal, the board did not require two emergency access routes. Dunn said she would have no problem accepting the language change.
The board will meet with Bay Watch on June 28 to presumably settle the matter and vote on the project.
In other business that night, the ZBA tabled a hearing for Frederic Rosiak, who is seeking to replace the front porch and car port on his property located at 294 Front St.
Rosiak originally presented his application to the board on May 17, but they needed plans from a certified engineer to proceed.
However, Rosiak’s renderings at the June 14 meeting also failed to pass muster.
“We need a survey from a licensed engineer that will let us know the accuracy of the dimensions . It’s not complicated,” said Wedge.
The Chairman said he reached out to Police Chief Lincoln Miller on the project, and that Miller requested the removal of a tree on the property due to visibility issues.
Rosiak strongly advocated for preserving the tree, offering to prune it as needed. Wedge said he would speak to Miller on that matter.
In addition to his desire to build a porch that conforms to historical architecture, Rosiak spoke plainly on his reason for pursuing the project. He specifically said he wanted to create a place to sit out front, because the back of his property “smells like rubber.” He was referring to Tabor Academy’s controversial rubber turf fields installed last year.
“It smells like you put your head inside a rubber tire. People run by and say, ‘How do you put up with that smell?’ But I haven’t made a stink about it,” he said, laughing at his pun.
Dunn went on the record supporting the preservation of the tree.
“I don’t know why we’d even consider [removing it],” she said.
In one last hearing scheduled that night, the board heard from engineer David Davignon – on behalf of applicants Henry and Judith DeJesus – on a Special Permit request to raze and reconstruct a cottage at 12 Harley Lane.
At a hearing on May 17, abutters expressed concerns about the project due to its scope and 11-foot setback from a neighboring property.
That evening, Davignon presented a revised plan that is much smaller in scope than the previous proposal. Instead of 2,670 square feet, the cottage would be 2,300 square feet with the originally proposed patio removed from the plans. Most importantly, the house would be rebuilt on a different footprint to increase the setback.
“We’ve created as much space as possible,” Davignon said.
The board closed the hearing but did not deliberate on the case. It has 90 days to render a decision.
In a final note that evening, Wedge disclosed that a previous applicant – Robert McNamara – filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office that the ZBA had violated the open meeting law.
The board had denied a Special Permit request by McNamara to raze and reconstruct a house at 19 Shawondasse Road on May 10. The proposal was strongly contested by neighbors due to the scope of the project, and the questionable footprint of the structure.
In McNamara’s filing -which Wedge shared to the board – McNamara accused the board of discussing the case outside of the open meeting format. He claimed that board member Thomas Cooper told him to “lawyer up” and discussed the case with him inappropriately before it began.
McNamara also claimed that the board did not properly advertize the deliberation of the case, and said he was told it was May 17 when a decision really occurred on May 10.
The board voted to approve Town Counsel Jon Whitten’s draft response to the complaint, which included the agenda for the May 10 meeting – as posted on May 8 – that listed the McNamara case on the schedule. Wedge noted that the board is not required to state exactly when a decision on an application will be rendered. It has 90 days from the closure of a public hearing to finalize a decision on any case.
By Laura Fedak Pedulli
