Robert Field of Field Engineering represented his client, Chase Canopy, as they sought permission from the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Planning Board to reconfigure their Fairhaven Road headquarters by building a new 8,000 square-foot building with other modifications to allow the business to consolidate its operation into one location.

Time was of the essence as a financial deadline in December inched closer, a deadline that required the applicant to receive all necessary local approvals before funding would be advanced.

On October 22, the final piece of the permitting puzzle was snapped into place. Field said that a long-awaited response from the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program had been received, and that the agency found the project, as defined, would not constitute a taking of wetlands.

The commission voted to grant the Notice of Intent application as presented with conditions, mandating that notice be given to the conservation office upon the start of construction and a copy of the conditions on site at all times to ensure the contractor adhered to the regulations.

The remaining four cases heard on this night were all represented by David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, Inc.

MJP Realty Trust, for property located at 2 Bay View Avenue, received a Negative determination of applicability for the installation of an outdoor shower, exterior structural improvements, removal of existing chimney, reconstruction of the roof, and relocation of a flagstone walkway.

Also receiving a Negative determination of applicability was Paul Frisco, 9 Second Street, for the relocation of an existing garage and construction of an attached garage to an existing dwelling. Davignon explained that the single-car garage would be repurposed into an accessory outbuilding, and that the majority of the work would take place in the buffer zone. Erosion control materials were included in the conditions ordered by the commission.

Patricia Cunniff, 9 Avenue A, sought permission for the abandonment of an existing cesspool and leaching field to allow for the construction of a new septic tank system. Davignon said Cunniff is selling the property and the new system would allow the new owners to make structural changes to the home in the future. The Notice of Intent filing was continued until November 14 to give Davignon time to prepare a new site plan featuring the new septic system.

Davignon also asked for a Certificate of Compliance for the same property for an expired order of conditions set for a NOI in which Davignon said no work had taken place. The commission approved the request clearing that encumbrance from the deed.

Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold reported that the Indian Cove Association located on Aucoot Cove had removed an unpermitted walkway and floating dock.

Leidhold also reported that an appeal of the Conservation Commission’s positive determination for the paving of Foster Street had been appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but that at the present time the appeal is on hold pending more documentation from the plaintiffs. She said the DEP had deemed the appeal “deficient,” but was giving the plaintiffs more time to prepare their case.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conversation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 14 at 6:30 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

Whether they favored or opposed adult recreational cannabis, Marion Fall Special Town Meeting voters on October 22 adopted an Adult Use Marijuana Establishments Bylaw in order for the Town to maintain control over the siting of any potential cannabis-related establishments.

Both sides debated – those who advocated for free access to buy cannabis, those completely opposed, and those in the middle who simply want cannabis sales restricted to the Limited Industrial (LI) zone in the vicinity of Lockheed Martin off Route 6 where medical cannabis has also been zoned.

Article 7 needed a 2/3 majority vote to pass, which it did, 97-27, and the bylaw outlines the locations, special permit requirements, application process, and general municipal oversight of business operations for cannabis operations.

Resident Jennifer Petersen advocated for sales-related revenue for the town, saying, “They do bring revenue and the communities around us are doing … more progressive bylaws in this area.” She wondered if the Planning Board was attempting to prohibit dispensaries entirely by zoning it where she believed few feasible lots remain.

Planning Board member Eileen Marum replied, “The medical dispensaries [bylaw], which was passed in 2014 was located in the Limited Industrial zone, so it made sense to put the adult use recreational marijuana in the same area – at least 500 feet away from schools, churches, playgrounds, 300 feet away from residences.”

Resident Richard Gregory pointed out that there are no plans in the works for a dispensary and argued that there were very few, if any, lots in the LI zone, saying, “You’re basically ruling marijuana out of Marion. Can you contradict that?”

“It meets the intent of the state bylaws as it is written,” said Planning Board Chairman

Will Saltonstall, because a few lots still remain feasible for cannabis.

Helen Westerguard asked, if voters did not pass the article, then what would happen?

Marum told her that cannabis shops could then “set up on any corner.”

“This bylaw will protect us from any vendor just coming in and setting up shop anywhere it wants in … Marion,” said Marum. She later said that the bylaw had to pass that night in order to meet the December 21, 2018 expiration of the moratorium.

Dr. John Conway opposed marijuana use entirely, saying 18-25 year-olds would be exposed to “risk and side effects” of marijuana, a drug he called “addicting.” He wanted to extend the moratorium instead of adopting a bylaw.

Another resident said she moved here from California and is from Colorado, and rejected Dr. Conway’s claims of addiction and traffic accident increases. She said it was Marion’s loss, since she would be more than happy to travel to Fairhaven and Wareham to purchase her cannabis and bring it home to Marion. She also promised not to give it to kids, saying, “because it’s too expensive to share.”

“Ever heard of reefer madness?” asked another resident. “Because that’s what I’m hearing here tonight. … You should be supporting the residents of Marion who voted yes to legalizing marijuana, and in this town.”

Marum reminded voters that the town was split on the referendum vote, with cannabis legalization passing by just seven votes.

Voters passed Article 6, adopting a new “Stretch Energy Code,” taking Marion closer to state designation as a Green Community.

The code is one of five criteria, said Jennifer Francis of the Energy Management Committee, and grant opportunities result in around $140,000 right away, and up to $250,000 annually for energy efficiency initiatives.

Residents had concerns, most of them aired and addressed during prior public hearings and well covered by the local press, but as Finance Committee member Alan Minard pointed out, the new code is only slightly different than the current code.

“I was very leery about the Green Communities Act,” said Minard. “I’m convinced that this … Act no longer requires huge amounts of money to be spent…. No hidden ‘you have to do this in order to get to that,’” he continued. “I personally would recommend that we move forward.”

Some residents worried about the stipulation that future amendments would have to be followed, but as Francis pointed out, as with all the other state regulations adopted at a town meeting, future state-level amendments must also be followed.

Francis said the average new home construction would cost about $2,000 more, but savings in energy costs would be recouped in 0-5 years with future savings in store.

Sixty-percent of Massachusetts municipalities have achieved Green Community status so far.

Town Administrator Paul Dawson further explained, “At the end of the day, by including this language, you’re not really changing anything that we’ve always done in terms of state laws and regulations.”

“These changes … are not much of a stretch,” said Planning Board member Andrew Daniel. “As a builder, I’m all for this.”

The new code applies only to new home or commercial constructions.

Voters also approved Article 3 for $55,000 to purchase the electric cars presently leased by the Town (three BMW 13s and one Nissan Leaf) at the termination of the leases. Again, Francis introduced the article, reminding residents how much the four vehicles have saved the town over the past two years – about $35,000 in gasoline and maintenance costs.

After some debate, including the Finance Committee’s assertion that buying the four vehicles was likely unnecessary because of the multitude of vehicles the town already owns, the article still passed.

In his rebuttal, Selectmen Chairman Norm Hills countered that the Town only has eight cars, and currently half of them are these electric cars.

“These cars cost us basically nothing for three years – no fuel,” said Hills. “I don’t see the point of not continuing these fuel-efficient, cheap-to-us vehicles going forward. … There’s nothing to replace them with unless you buy new cars, and right now I don’t think that’s a good idea or a sound investment.”

Resident Steve Nojeim pointed out that each car would cost roughly $14,000. “I think it’s a good deal. I think we should do it,” he said.

Daniel disagreed, saying the Town should use Green Community grants to buy cars, saying the technology has evolved and newer ones get more miles per charge.

The usage by our town employees is kind of perfect for the usage that they get,” said Francis. “The price of these cars [is] very low. [We will get] very good deals on these cars because the dealers just don’t want them back.” She continued, “I think it’s going to be well below [$55,000] when it comes to the time when we make a deal with the dealerships.”

The only article to fail that night was Article 13 to amend the Zoning Bylaw to reduce the side and rear setbacks within Residence E, reducing it from 20 feet down to 10 feet.

The article was added to the warrant at the request of resident Sherman Briggs who owns land off Spring Street that he wants to develop into 30 “village-style” housing units, while including three “affordable housing” units in an additional lot, bringing the Town closer to the state affordable housing requirements.

The Planning Board recommended the article and had been working with Briggs for some time to straighten out the path towards an option agreeable to both Briggs and the board, while keeping it from veering off towards a 40B development, which Briggs had threatened in the past.

Planning Board member Steve Kokkins said the amendment intended to provide “quality market-rate multifamily housing” to Marion residents wishing to downsize. “This particular bylaw change is … the type of layout that would be needed to make a development that was feasible.”

Resident Vincent Malkoski said the setback reduction sets a bad precedent, saying the project should go through the appropriate process “instead of amending rules for a developer.”

Bob Raymond asked whether an application for a zoning variance was more appropriate for a setback reduction, saying, “Otherwise, a three-story building could be built 10 feet from the property line.”

In a follow-up with Briggs on Tuesday, he clarified that the setbacks for his preferred 27-unit single-level house development would have varied with eight units at 15 feet, most at 20, and the three separate affordable units at 10 feet.

“The three affordable houses I needed to build is really where I needed the relief,” said Briggs.”

Regulations require developers to set aside 10 percent of units built for affordable housing.

Having to comply with 20 feet throughout will change the project significantly, he said.

“I emphasized that this bylaw is making it very, very difficult to do the right thing with the 10 percent affordable component and the 20-foot setbacks,” said Briggs. “It’s basically forcing the developer to go with a 40B or a 40R.”

Now, by right, Briggs says he can build 39 units and comply with the bylaw, but they would have to be stacked multi-level condo-style units “instead of that village effect we all wanted to do,” he said.

“This is going to bring in families that are going want to live in a condo-style housing,” Briggs said. “It’s really another 40B, it’s just as-of-right … under the residence E [zone]. A mix of market-rate rentals or condos.”

Voters at the Annual Town Meeting accepted an article to amend the bylaw to re-zone Briggs’ property to Residence E in order to develop the land for housing.

Other articles that all passed:

Article 1, requested by the Board of Health, appropriates $500,000 to finance the repair, replacement, and upgrading of failed septic systems. Residents who borrow the funds will repay them in the form of a 20-year betterment, including interest.

Article 2 appropriates $65,000 so the Water Department can buy a 4×4 pickup truck with a plow. The current vehicle the new truck would replace would require extensive work, said selectman Randy Parker, and repairs are no longer cost-effective. This article appeared on the 2018 Annual Town Meeting in May, but was passed over because the article was misprinted in the warrant.

Resident Barbara Sanderson asked why municipal water consumers should be forced to buy a truck to plow town streets, but Finance Director Judy Mooney explained that the Water Department truck only plows areas related to the department, such as water pumping stations.

The funds will come from the Water Department’s Retained Earnings Account, which currently holds $900,606, Mooney said.

“Does that mean that we’re being overcharged for our water?” Sanderson asked, prompting some laughter.

“No,” said Mooney. “You want to make sure that you have your retained earnings in there so that you don’t have to have a huge increase in your water rates.”

The Finance Committee did recommend the article because there are sufficient funds to pay for it.

Article 4 appropriates $160,000 for a new dump truck with a plow and sander for the Department of Public Works. The request for a larger truck to replace a smaller truck was backed by a need to hold larger loads of sand and salt so the truck would not have to return to the Benson Brook Road DPW site to reload.

Finance Committee Chairman Peter Winters said the committee opposed the article, adding, “It’s smarter to get a smaller truck – less money, and come back to the barn when you need to and only sand when you absolutely need to.”

Additional private roads that were accepted by town meeting voters during a prior town meeting have resulted in a higher demand for snow and ice removal, said Interim DPW Superintendent Jonathan Henry. A resident pointed out that the Town contracts a third party to plow and sand roads in Marion, and wondered why contracted help and a new large-size truck would be needed.

“It’s a long-established process,” said Henry, specifying that contractors are assigned a smaller number of roads. “Even with four large plows and four sanders, we don’t have enough to cover the town and do it efficiently, so we have hired private people to do that … and we will continue to do so.”

Resident Lee Vulgaris supported the article, saying, “It seems to me that if you have department heads that you really trust and know what they’re doing, if they recommend something … then I would just go along with it.”

Article 5 appropriates $50,000 for a used six-wheel dump truck with plow and sander for the DPW. The new truck, although used, is in “immaculate condition,” Henry stated, and should last at least ten years.

FinCom recommended the article “because it represents a low-priced alternative to a new vehicle,” Winters said.

Article 8 was a follow-up to the new Adult Use Marijuana Establishments Bylaw, which inserts “adult use marijuana establishments” to the “other uses” section of the Zoning Bylaw.

Article 9 adds a new section “J” to the Zoning Bylaw Additional Special Permit Regulations to include “adult use of marijuana.”

Article 10 amended the Dog Control Bylaw by specifying that kennels classified as “hobby” or “commercial” needed special permits from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the keeping of five to 10 dogs for housing, grooming, breeding, boarding, and training, and 11 or more dogs for the same, respectively.

“Household” kennels were removed from the article language, allowing up to four dogs to be kept at a residence.

Article 11, a follow-up to the Dog Control Bylaw kennel amendment, inserts two new line items – “kennel, commercial” and “kennel, hobby” into the Zoning Bylaw’s Table of Principal Uses.

Article 12 amends the Zoning Bylaw by adding a section “G” stipulating that a hobby or commercial kennel special permit may be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, so long as the following criteria are met: “The structure will provide the basic standards of cleanliness and proper care and confinement of said dogs on the premises,” and “The structure will not result in a health hazard or be injurious to the health of the neighbors by reason of prospective noise or otherwise.”

Marion Fall Special Town Meeting

By Jean Perry