In most cases, a majority vote in your favor gets you what you want; but not if you’re Christian Loranger, the voters are the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals, and to win your appeal you need a ‘supermajority’ – at least four ‘yeas’ amongst one ‘nay.’

On March 15, the board agreed 3-2 that Loranger only ever intended to continue the original two-family use of 120 Front Street, continued activity over the years that perpetuated that two-family use, and never abandoned that two-family use. But Loranger needed a 4-1 vote.

Members Betsy Dunn and Kate Mahoney said that while he did not abandon the use, Loranger failed to timely act over four years to keep from losing that two-family use. For Dunn and Mahoney, no haste made waste.

Loranger, who bought the uninhabitable 120 Front Street two-family house in 2013 to raze and rebuild as a two-family home, heard the ZBA back in October 2017 say that the two-family use of the home was ‘grandfathered’ according to the bylaw, and no special permit for a two-family was necessary.

That was overturned by town counsel who told the ZBA that vote had no legal standing, for Loranger had no building plans proposed at the time.

Now, about five months later, Loranger’s house, which was intended to house his family and aging in-laws, has lost its two-family status.

With the appeal in its third session, the board still struggled with the issues before them: abandonment and non-use, two separate matters for the board to ponder. Was the non-conforming (two-family) use ‘abandoned’ within a two-year timeframe and was there a period of two years where two-family use was discontinued? Building Commissioner Scott Shippey thought so, which is why he denied the building permit prompting Loranger’s appeal.

Dunn was steady in her finding of non-use, but after some discussion Mahoney wavered a bit.

“My feeling is … this home was built as a two-family, has never been anything but a two-family,” said Chairman Marc Leblanc. “[and] Mr. Loranger purchased it as a two-family with the intent of either renovating or removing the structure … but his intent all along was to have it remain a two-family…. I didn’t see anything brought in front of us that it was at any point going to be a one-family.…”

“I agree with [LeBlanc] that the intent was [two-family use],” said Dunn, “but I don’t see on the other side the action needed to protect that use.…”

LeBlanc disagreed, emphasizing that the house was fire-damaged and uninhabitable. “Different avenues were taken. It wasn’t always … a singular direction … over a long period of time.”

“The speed at which this moved was not one of a person that was protecting [the two-family use],” said Mahoney.

Alternate member Tad Wollenhaupt, voting that night in ZBA member Michelle Smith’s absence, asked the board, “Does anybody see Mr. Loranger’s intent to abandon this use?”

“I don’t see abandonment,” said LeBlanc. “…The intent from the beginning never wavered … from it being a two-family.…” Action may have lagged at times, he added, “[But] conduct is consistent that there was always something moving forward one way or another.…” Non-use, to him, was never more than simply not being able to live in the house.

Mahoney, once poised, shifted to perplexed. “I don’t think we ever suggested that abandonment would apply, and this intent … I don’t think non-use has to apply, to what?” she asked, exasperated. “Non-use in the sense of non-use, how much action is enough action?

“It is in the same non-livable condition … six years after purchase,” Mahoney said. “That to me does not speak of use…”

“Sorry, but I see non-use as an issue,” Dunn said.

“They simply stretched it out way too long,” said Mahoney. “What constitutes action, writing some emails? I don’t think an email or whatever…. At what pace is reasonable?”

As the discussion ensued, Loranger said in an aside, “I don’t stand a chance here.”

“Who’s to say that an email shows [action], who’s to say it doesn’t?” said LeBlanc. “Are we the body that says you need to do more than this?”

Mahoney paused. “It just isn’t at a pace…” she trailed off. “It’s five years and nothing has changed….”

“But it’s a dangerous statement that says nothing has happened on that property,” said LeBlanc. “I don’t think that we’ve seen that the property owner has washed his hands of it for a long period of time…. It may not be ideal, and it may not be what we would like to see, but I think it’s there.”

“One email a year,” said Mahoney reticently. “That constitutes an action, but I don’t think that’s the intent of the bylaw.”

Round and round went the board. LeBlanc defended Loranger’s action of continued use, as did Wollenhaupt.

Dunn whispered to Mahoney in an aside, and Mahoney, visually doubtful, replied, “I know, but he did stuff.”

Having discussed it ad naseum, as LeBlanc put it, he suggested an informal poll. As Town Counsel Barbara Carboni explained how the question should be posed, Mahoney stared ahead with a pained expression. A finding of either one – abandonment or non-use – would uphold Shippey’s denial.

Shippey, with white knuckles, wringed an invisible lump of dough with his fists and Mahoney paused to vote.

“Abandonment?” LeBlanc asked Mahoney. ‘No,” she replied. “Non use?” asked Leblanc.” “Yes,” she said, wincing.

The board was split. Mahoney’s head lay face down on the edge of the table for some time as Carboni explained at length how to form the formal motion – to overturn the building commissioner’s denial of the building permit. She sighed as the motion was seconded, and then paused before giving the second ‘nay’ that denied Loranger’s two-family.

After, the board argued politely. As she left the town house, Dunn called out, “Whatevah!”

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for April 12 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

During the presentation of her report on the Citizens Planning Training Collaborative Seminar that Chairperson Eileen Marum and other planning board members attended, discussions during the March 19 meeting of the Marion Planning Board veered off to the issue of marijuana regulations, which have been approved and will be printed and released on March 23.

Marum is concerned about a 500-foot buffer from existing K-12 public and private schools. This regulation would not apply to pre-schools or daycare facilities, she said. This buffer, like the other regulations promulgated by the state, can be made more lenient by the town, but not more restrictive.

“My other concern is … they said it was safer because of security [at commercial marijuana establishments] – but if it’s a cash business … people desperate for money [will go where the cash is].”

Andrew Daniel, a board member who also attended the seminar, said he agreed with Marum’s assessment.

Marum suggested to Karen Walega, the Marion health director, that perhaps the Board of Health could incorporate a buffer in its bylaws similar to the existing buffer defined by the medical marijuana regulations.

Marum pointed out that the Cannabis Control Commission has held off on regulations regarding “mixed-use” or on-site consumption establishments. Marum gave examples of mixed-use establishments as being “a restaurant with cannabis salad dressing or a massage parlor with cannabis infused massage oil.”

“This is a growing process … not going to come out of the gate with everything right,” said Daniel. “We have a five-year interval to re-assess [our by-laws].”

Board member Will Saltonstall asked what the next steps were for the process, wondering aloud if there should be an open dialogue on the front end. Board member Norm Hills replied, “Someone has to develop a bylaw, which the bylaw codification group [will do] with the Board of Health input – to put in people’s hands to look at … we will have to have a public hearing in preparation for Fall Town Meeting.”

The board briefly discussed an Approval Not Required application presented by Chris Gilbert of Farland Corp. on behalf of Great Hill Marion LLC. The application, specifically on Map 4 Lots 1, 1A and 2-8, requested a land swap with the Town of Marion relating to the water tower reconstruction on Delano Road. The board unanimously approved the ANR, and Saltonstall remarked, “Thanks to Great Hill for helping [the Town of Marion] to provide water.”

The board then addressed a request for comment from the ZBA regarding 460 Front Street, a bed & breakfast that was recently sold to George and Jean Linzee. Hills observed that the ZBA in its request is still referencing the old bylaw section numbers. Marum questioned the use of the swimming pool by the guests at the location, which the board agreed was a Board of Health issue.

In concluding the discussion, Saltonstall said he thought there might be differing building codes for public and private pools, but that his personal feeling was to not recommend any comments, which the board affirmed.

No town residents attended the public hearing regarding the codification of an additional nine bylaws by the codification subcommittee. The board briefly reviewed the changes and closed the public hearing. Board member Jennifer Francis remarked that the bylaws still reference the “Board of Selectmen,” and suggested that this be changed to “Selectboard” all the way through the document, saying, “It could be part of the definitions … let’s keep with the times, or push the times.”

In other business, Town Planner Gil Hilario described a grant that he was working on with the Buzzards Bay Action Committee and the National Estuary Program. The grant would provide funding for the collection of water quality data at discharge points, the chemical analysis of the samples, and the report of the findings. Five other local communities have just completed this project under the grant program. The data points collected will be mapped using GIS, and the results will help inform future water quality and watershed improvements.

Hilario underscored the importance of developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan for the town, which he described as one of his top priorities. Previously, the DPW had administered this plan, and was required to hold workshops to get public input. Hilario described the value of the workshops in which information about problem flood areas in town, for example, could be identified.

Hilario also provided the board with a list of suggested committee members for the Master Plan Implementation Committee, which the board will discuss further at its next meeting.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for April 2 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer

Marion’s two-member Board of Selectmen has jettisoned the article for the new town house construction design from the Annual Town Meeting Warrant, deciding on March 20 that the Town Meeting warrant will feature only one option for voters – the $7.8 million Article 14 to renovate the existing town house.

“Stop right there,” said Selectman Norm Hills when Article 15 came up during the board’s review of the draft warrant. Reading a prepared statement, Hills criticized the subcommittee’s associated cost estimate of a $5.1 million Mill Road town administrative building option, saying that the plan lacks detail and would result in a higher price tag in the end. Hills said the subcommittee did not factor in a $300,000 sewer upgrade cost and another $200,000 Hills claimed it would cost to digitalize town records as per the plan’s storage concept.

According to Hills, the original Town House Building Committee in its three years of work has produced a town house renovation design that is refined and better detailed with a more accurate cost estimate, saying, “I have more confidence in the renovation cost estimate than I do in the new construction cost estimate.”

“It’s logical that the center of government remain in the village,” said Hills, citing the “village style” prioritized in the Master Plan. “It is not logical to destroy the fabric of the village by abandoning one of the key architectural buildings.”

Hills continued in defense of a town house renovation, and when Hills said, “…Old is not useless,” that’s when the new construction subcommittee co-chairman Rob Lane shook his head ‘no.’

“Remember,” said Hills, “the least costly option often is not the most cost-effective one in the long run.”

Board of Selectmen Chairman Jody Dickerson agreed with Hills, saying, “This [building] has been the fabric of our community for many, many years – the heart of local government.”

Dickerson said he had received numerous calls, emails, and comments asking that the town government continue to reside at the town house.

“I think it would destroy the Town of Marion,” said Dickerson, if the town house was moved to the senior/community center site.

Dickerson then said that only the town house renovation article would be on the warrant, and residents could argue over it on the Town Meeting floor if they must.

At that, Lane left the town house.

The selectmen also had the question pertaining to a Proposition 2½ exemption for funding a new town house construction removed from the ballot for the May Annual Town Election. The question for a Proposition 2½ exemption for a town house renovation remains.

After the meeting, candidate for Board of Selectmen John Waterman approached Hills and Dickerson, telling them to expect pushback from supporters of the new construction. Before leaving, Waterman told the press, “The voters should have both on the ballot. For those two guys to pull it off the warrant is the ultimate in arrogance to think that it’s their decision and not the voters’ decision.”

To the other residents in the room, he said, “Those guys think they know what’s best. They don’t know what’s best.”

Resident Joe McDonough submitted a letter dated March 6 to the selectmen, saying he heard the board would be making this move.

“Town Meeting has voted funds for each of the two alternatives being considered,” wrote McDonough. “How could you consider not respecting these votes?” He asserted, “The results of each taxpayer-funded alternative must be placed on the Town Meeting warrant.”

Leslie Dole in her letter to the selectmen dated March 10 wrote, “The selectmen have the responsibility to present both of these choices on the upcoming Town [Meeting] warrant. It is imperative that all 3,800 active voters have the opportunity to vote on this very important subject, not just the 2.5 percent that attended the March 1^st meeting.”

David Pierce, a member of the Energy Management Committee and other town entities, in his March 6 letter urged the board to list the board’s preference – the renovation option – first on the warrant, followed by the new construction option. “If the first choice is turned down, then we face the next choice on the agenda. This saves having to wait for a special town meeting down the road. I see that we have nothing to lose by this plan, and a great deal to be gained.”

The selectmen have closed the Annual Town Meeting Warrant with the omission of the new town house construction article, bringing the total number of articles down from 45 to 44.

In other matters, Dawson said the new heating system at the Town House should be operational by the end of the day on Wednesday, March 21. As of the meeting, the wiring had been completed in the basement, the boiler installed, and all the wiring throughout completed that day. The temporary exterior heating system will be removed on Thursday – “…And the saga ends,” said Dawson, who thanked Town House employees for their patience (and suffering).

The board tabled the appointment of Amy Tamagini to the Registrar of Voters to confirm that Tamagini lives in Marion. The address she stated on her correspondence does not match with residency records at Town House. Dawson said a member of the Registrar of Voters must be a resident. However, the selectmen approved the Marion Water Committee chairman’s request that the board allow retired DPW superintendent Rob Zora to remain on the committee until his term expires on June 30. Zora is no longer a Marion resident, but the Water Committee chairman requested that Zora remain on the committee because of his “expertise.”

The board also appointed interim DPW superintendent Jon Henry to the Water Committee as a voting member.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen is scheduled for April 3 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry