The Marion Conservation Commission on July 25 got a preview of Shea Doonan’s latest plan for another aquaculture farm in Marion waters, ahead of the Board of Selectmen’s aquaculture hearing that following Tuesday.

The commission couldnot issue a determination that night for Doonan’s Notice of Intent, not without comments from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, but they did get the gist of the plan along with details pertinent to the commission’s jurisdiction.

Doonan wants to establish an aquaculture farm off Mitton’s Flats spanning 21,609 square feet – 100 feet by 230 feet in size.

The project would include a series of buoys with a number of floating bags and cages attached that would rise and fall with the tides, with low tide averaging around 2.5 feet in depth, according to Doonan.

“The lowest tide I’ve ever seen … probably has two-and-a-half feet,” said Doonan, but the tide changes and the total he gave would be the average, give or take some inches.

Doonan said there are no moorings in the area he has slated for the aquaculture farm, which is nearby the opening of Hammetts Cove.

Commission member Cynthia Callow asked if all abutters concerned had been notified, to which Doonan said they had – perhaps not for the Conservation Commission public hearing; however, he said that in general abutters have been told of the project.

“They came and gave their arguments,” Doonan said.

Abutters had been notified of the Board of Selectmen hearing on July 31, Doonan said.

According to Doonan, although maps had shown the presence of eelgrass at the proposed site, a state agency arrived to perform a physical inspection of the site, ultimately finding no eelgrass inside the affected area. Chairman Jeffrey Doubrava read the letter from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries confirming that no eelgrass was spotted during the in-water survey.

Doonan’s NOI hearing was continued until August 8.

Also during the meeting, the commission approved the Notice of Intent for Derek Maksy, 7 Bournehurst Road, to add an in-ground pool next to the house, remove a cesspool and install a septic system, a circular driveway, garage, and clear a 12-foot cart way to access a picnic area. The commission’s only concern was accidental clear-cutting by a third party, so the commission issued special conditions to the Order of Conditions: the placement of boulders to mark the boundary of the 15-foot no-touch zone, and to notify the commission once erosion control implements have been installed and before lot-clearing work begins.

The public hearing for the NOI for the Dexter Beach Association was continued until August 8 to allow for the submission of further information. The association is looking to perform some beach nourishment by adding 100 cubic yards of sand above the mean high waterline, as well as east and west of the beach area. The association’s representative said storms cause sand to be washed away, leaving behind craters and extensive erosion.

The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for August 8 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Music Hall.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

The Marion Board of Assessors will be investigating a number of Approval Not Required (ANR) filings of prior years to determine if some properties in town are being undertaxed on underassessed land.

Discussion during the July 25 meeting focused mainly on multiple town maps of various properties which appear to have ANR filings; however, noted on them is the statement: “The purpose and intent of this plan is to provide for tax purposes only.”

“As a result, we’ve combined lots,” said Assessor George T.J. Walker. “However, these aren’t ANRs.”

Somehow lot lines of certain lots deemed “buildable” were not apparent on the tax maps and still appeared as only one parcel. “They can use them as buildable lots … but for some reason haven’t been paying their fair tax on them,” Walker pointed out.

In one example, two lots seemingly approved though an ANR remained on the tax maps as one lot. As Walker explained it, “They’ve got a note on it that says the only reason [they are] preparing this ANR is to show the assessors what we own, so it isn’t a true ANR.”

“So, what should we be doing about this?” Board of Assessors Chairman Bradford Eames asked.

“We should be taxing the two lots,” Walker responded. “We combined it because we received an ANR, but …”

Assessor Patricia DeCosta, appearing perplexed, said, “Well, that would certainly be [during] my time, so I did it. …

“They probably did this so they could get an abatement – and they did,” said DeCosta.

According to Eames, one of the properties reviewed that day should have been assessed at “almost double” the value prior to combining.

“Basically double,” Eames said again looking over the maps. “The land value would basically be double.”

And there are likely many more such properties in town with some dating back over a decade.

DeCosta, looking over the information, wondered how the Planning Board during that time would have accepted and signed such ANR applications. Walker suggested that during the ten years he was on the Planning Board, none of the ANRs the assessors were looking at that day would have been signed.

“To be fair and equal to everyone, we have to [investigate] all of them,” said DeCosta.

Eames wondered how the assessors would identify all outstanding ANR plans such as these, and the board agreed that it would need to meet with the Planning Board to make sense of what was now before them.

“I’m sure that these were done for tax purposes,” said DeCosta. She presumed that the property owners were told they had to remove lot lines because they were told the lots were not buildable lots. “But you have to remove the lot line to get the abatement.”

According to DeCosta, town counsel once advised her not to act on such abatements without a plan. “We assumed this was a plan,” said DeCosta. “I’m not even sure if it’s not. I don’t know,” she said, shaking her head. “I need to think about this.”

“I think we’re going to have to take – I don’t know what we’re going to do,” Eames said. “I don’t know how many there are and we told these people … that if they remove the lot lines – This is not an appropriate ANR – That language … It assures us that lot was created and has to meet new zoning as of that date.”

Walker suggested the board find out just how many of these are out there, “Whether it’s two or 22 because it could be.”

Eames reassured DeCosta that she was right, that this was likely what the property owner was told they could do, saying, “This is what town counsel told us to do, whether it’s a technicality that they didn’t put an ANR on. … The ANR said divided property and it’s done.”

Eames said the plans looked more like “a hybrid that doesn’t lock anyone in.”

“I’d be interested in seeing the Planning Board minutes as well,” said DeCosta, to see what exactly the Planning Board was signing off on.

And as the Board of Assessors gears up for its next reassessment period, “If we’re going to clean this up then this is the time,” said Walker.

“I have the feeling there’s going to be a lot more,” Eames said.

“I’m sure the taxpayer thought this was a legal plan,” DeCosta assumed. “I’m totally stumped on this – I don’t know.”

The next meeting of the Board of Assessors is scheduled for August 8 at 3:00 pm in the Assessors’ Office at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Assessors

By Jean Perry

The Marion Board of Health decided on August 28 that it would start following the State’s code pertaining to pool security fences instead of its own, going back down to a 4-foot height minimum rather than Marion’s 6-foot minimum. But before that consensus was made, the board voted against the health agent’s advice, allowing for a 4-foot pool security fence, a move that Health Agent Karen Walega said would prompt other residents to seek the same.

David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, on behalf of 166 Allen’s Point Road, received a Variance to allow for a 4-foot high perimeter security fence for an in-ground pool, instead of the 6-foot requirement. In addition to the 4-foot fence, Davignon said the property owner would provide an automated locking security cover over the pool.

Davignon pointed out that the State’s code requires a 4-foot fence, while Marion’s code went above and beyond, requiring 6 feet.

“Typically, it’s 4 feet,” Davignon said.

In 1996 Marion amended its sanitary code to require 6 feet instead of 4 feet.

“We were concerned about the children of the town,” Walega said in response to Board of Health Chairman Jason Reynold’s question as to why the Town changed the code.

Earlier in the meeting, Walega defended the 6-foot minimum, saying, “I’ve just heard too may cases of the two-year-old going outside. … It’s a horrible situation.”

Walega told the board that neighboring Rochester’s height requirement was also 6 feet, but later corrected herself, telling the board that Rochester’s code follows the State’s 4-foot minimum.

“I don’t think a toddler can scale a 4-foot fence,” Board of Health member Betsy Dunn said.

But Walega wasn’t yet convinced.

“You’re gonna open the floodgates because everybody is just waiting to see what happens with this,” said Walega.

Reynolds asked Davignon, “Is the reason for the barrier aesthetics?”

“Yes,” Davignon said. He again pointed out that the State’s code calls for 4 feet, reminding the board that the property owner is also willing to install the lockable pool cover.

“I would propose that the 4 feet is acceptable in this case,” said Board of Health member John Howard, making a motion.

Reynolds was hesitant, saying, “For me this is not an issue for the automatic cover because I don’t necessarily see that as a failsafe mechanism.

“My only concern is, are we setting a precedent? As a board, are we willing to essentially rewrite our sanitary code to allow for a 4-foot fence? Because the minute we vote on this variance, in essence, everyone else is going to be coming for it.”

Dunn asked, “Are we prepared to say a 4-foot is okay everywhere?”

Or, perhaps, is a 4-foot fence okay as long as a secondary measure is employed, such as a security cover?

“Who is going to be the pool fence Gestapo to say this doesn’t work or the pool alarm or whatever?,” asked Walega. A property owner might use and maintain a security cover now, but what about two, three years from now, she wondered aloud.

After a brief pause, Reynolds conceded to the 4 feet.

“I think that in this case, I’m willing to go with the Mass building code,” he said.

The vote was 2-0, with Dunn abstaining from voting.

“I just can’t make up my mind,” she stated.

Howard asked that the matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion, and Walega was visibly frustrated.

“So you’re going to go by the state code now?” Walega asked. “It’s gonna happen, they’re all gonna come in.”

Towards the end of the meeting, after Walega reported that Rochester’s code was actually for 4 feet, she expressed her approval of following the State code.

In other matters, the board approved a septic Variance for 32 Ichabod Lane.

The board also approved a Variance to reduce the setback requirement from 10 feet to 6 feet for a new shallow trench infiltrator system for 3 Wildflower Lane.

The board approved two variance requests for Foresight Engineering on behalf of 498A and 498C Point Road.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Health will be September 11 at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Health

By Jean Perry