It was a short meeting on January 22 as far as the Marion Planning Board goes, with two members absent.

Engineer Bill Madden came before the board to present an idea for a zoning change for property owned by Theodore Laycock located at 391 Front Street.

The proposed zoning change to General Business would apply to two contiguous parcels of land: one 9.8-acre parcel currently in Residence C and another 0.2-acre parcel currently in Residence A.

A third adjacent 1.8-acre parcel is already zoned General Business.

The proposal includes the land on which Collision Services of Marion and Ted’s Automotive are currently located. It is bounded on the north by Washburn Park and to the south by the old railroad bed, protected open space, as well as a residence.

Madden indicated that the concept is in keeping with the Master Plan’s objectives of “Pursuing high-end mixed use development on Route 105.”

The parcel has an existing 32-foot curb cut for access and an 8-inch municipal water supply pipe.

Madden presented two examples of how the parcels would be used if zoned General Business – including multiple buildings with retail space on the ground floor and residences on the top two floors.

Board member Will Saltonstall noted that under current zoning in General Business, residences would not be allowed above retail businesses. Madden also suggested there could be construction or landscape businesses located on the site. He pointed out that the owner could provide access from the future bike path, to be located along the old railroad bed, across the parcel to Washburn Park to the north.

Regarding the large pond on the eastern portion of the parcel, board member Norman Hills observed, “…From my experience on the Conservation Commission, I know there’s a lot of wetlands in that area…”

Madden continued to emphasize the proposal’s alignment with the goals of the Master Plan, citing tax and employment opportunities, open space, and connectivity to the bike path.

“There’s a walking path from the baseball diamond [at Washburn Park] to the pond,” added board member Andrew Daniel.

Board member Stephen Kokkins underscored an overarching concern of the board regarding the traffic implications of developing the site.

While the board recognized the evening’s discussion was about a zoning change and not a development proposal, additional development in this location would most likely require a traffic study during the site plan review.

Kokkins inquired if the property owner had done any evaluation of the site for development, to which Madden replied that they had merely done desktop evaluations at this time.

Town Planner Gil Hilario spoke in favor of the concept, saying the idea is an “enticing one” that “provides a good opportunity to [contribute to] a vibrant gateway” from Interstate 195 to Route 6.

Madden and Laycock hope to bring the zoning change proposal before Town Meeting this year.

In other business, the evening was punctuated with an unscheduled presentation on the Complete Streets Program by local resident Ted North.

North, a self-described former attorney, ran down an extensive list of his concerns regarding obligations he says the town would incur if it adopted the Complete Streets Policy, of which the Planning Board has already recommended adoption by the Board of Selectmen.

Planning Board Chairman Eileen Marum interrupted North to say that the board would not be able to take up discussion on the matter since they had not had a chance to read his document. In addition, Jennifer Francis, the board member most familiar with the program, was not in attendance this evening.

North continued with his report, highlighting unknown expenses he believes the town would be contractually obligated to undertake, such as engineering costs and reports relating to different elements of the program. North provided a lengthy written report to the board outlining his concerns in detail. He noted that, “The statewide program is deminimums [sic] and smaller than Tom Brady’s football contract,” implying that there is limited grant funding for what he believes is an undue financial and design burden to the town.

North claimed that all projects within the town that were within the purview of the Complete Streets Program criteria, whether or not they were selected for grant funding, would still need to meet the design guidelines and standards of the program. He used as an example his “Front Street Test,” and wondered aloud what the cost difference would be between just a simple paving project versus the cost of following all the requirements under MassDOT standards.

The board listened attentively to North, but concluded that they would table the conversation until the next meeting so that they would have time to digest his comments.

Saltonstall concluded the evening by reminding residents that the Community Preservation Committee is currently accepting applications for projects that fit the criteria for funding: open space acquisition, historic preservation, recreation or affordable housing.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for February 5 at 7:00 pm.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer

As the deadline looms for applications for the sale of adult use of marijuana, there was some urgency in the discussion at the Marion Board of Health’s meeting on January 23 regarding the imminent Adult Use of Marijuana regulations and their public health implications.

Leading the discussion was Cheryl Sbarra, senior staff attorney and director of the Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards (MAHB). Sbarra provided the board with a draft document outlining the public health issues within the proposed Adult Use of Marijuana regulations, drafted by the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), that were released in late December.

There is currently a Working Group, made up of large and small municipalities as well as rural towns, that is charged with developing comments on the regulations for the CCC.

The Working Group will also be developing model regulations for municipalities to use in developing their local regulations for Adult Use of Marijuana.

Sbarra noted that the current draft regulations are in conflict with the Smoke Free Workplace law, which prohibits smoking in virtually all enclosed workplaces in the Commonwealth.

Smoking is defined as anything that is lighted, combusted, and inhaled, and unless cannabis was eaten, it would be prohibited under this regulation. The Smoke Free Workplace law would need to be amended to allow the smoking of cannabis.

The proposed regulation contemplates a “primary or mixed-use social consumption establishment” at which a consumer could purchase and use marijuana. Sbarra suggested that this could mean restaurants would have cannabis smoking sections and asked the board, “Are we going back to a designated [smoking] area as part of its enterprise a cannabis smoking area, with the second-hand smoke exposure?”

Board member Elizabeth Dunn asked why the CCC would draft conflicting regulations, and Sbarra surmised that the CCC may have thought this regulation would fit into the tobacco permit exemption, which she believes it does not. Additionally, vaping of cannabis would be illegal if the Omnibus tobacco bill, which adds vaping to the Smoke Free Workplace law, is passed.

Sbarra spoke at length about marijuana sales, specifically the conflict with the regulation of the sale of marijuana accessories. She suggested that the way marijuana accessories are defined puts them in direct conflict with the definition of drug paraphernalia, allowing all drug paraphernalia to be potentially defined and sold as marijuana accessories.

There is the question of storefront sales and whether the stores will be entirely adult-only retail stores strictly for marijuana, or would they be adult-only “7-11” type stores, selling other items as well.

Sbarra raised the question of local compliance inspections, similar to tobacco compliance, which is under the purview of local boards of health.

If a community had stricter smoking regulations than the state, board member Jason Reynolds asked, could the new regulations for cannabis override them? Sbarra replied that there are “strong preemption regulations” that would assure stricter local regulations supersede those of the state.

After outlining the lengthy list of public health concerns, Sbarra congratulated the town for the Special Town Meeting regarding the Adult Use of Marijuana moratorium, saying, “What Marion is doing now in moving forward on the moratorium gives you breathing room.”

Applications for permits from the state will be accepted starting April 1. Existing medical marijuana establishments will be given priority. Applicants must each have a number of items to support their application: they must show that their proposal conforms with existing bylaws within the town, have a letter from the Board of Health or the Board of Selectmen stating they do not oppose the application, have a Host Agreement with the town, and must show proof that they have held a community outreach meeting within the town.

Once an application is submitted, the town mayor or Board of Selectmen or Town Administrator is notified. Sbarra said that she did not believe there would be people lining up with completed applications in Marion, noting, “Some municipalities are lining up to be the Napa Valley of cannabis use!”

Regardless of whether or not the town approves the moratorium, the board can begin developing regulations immediately after the Town Meeting vote. Sbarra suggested that the CCC recognizes that municipalities are scrambling to develop and implement new regulations and will give leeway to those towns during the application process.

The CCC’s regulations won’t be finalized until March 15, which only gives towns two weeks to assure their regulations conform with the state’s version.

The Working Group is developing two model regulations for municipalities, one of which is a “placeholder” regulation that is simple and effective in the short term and could be amended over time. She believes that template would be available for use by Marion by the end of February.

Reynolds expressed for the entire board a reluctance to guess whether the moratorium will pass and wanted the town to be prepared in the event that it does not.

Once the Board of Health holds the public hearing on the new regulations, they could vote that night to approve them and they would be effective two weeks later when printed in the legal notices in the paper.

Reynolds expressed dismay at the prospect of undoing the hard work of the Board of Health as it relates to tobacco, lamenting, “What I’m concerned about is things that go against what the boards of health have fought for. There is enough commonality between smoking tobacco and cannabis … that we should be able to regulate it.”

The next scheduled meeting of the Marion Board of Health is February 13 at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Health

By Sarah French Storer

Rochester Memorial School Nurse Ellen Murphy says she has wanted to bring dental health care to RMS students for quite some time, and she is now hoping the Rochester School Committee will consider allowing her to collaborate with Smile Programs of Massachusetts.

Smile Programs, said Murphy, is a comprehensive school-based dental program that can deliver a dental program to the school via a mobile dental van and provide preventative and restorative dental care inside the school building to students in need of the service.

The cost of the dental care is covered for students who receive Medicaid or CHIP, and the services to uninsured students are affordable, Murphy said.

As Murphy summarized for the committee, tooth decay (cavities) is the most common childhood chronic disease, affecting 60% of the population. A child with chronic cavities is four times more likely to have a lower grade point average, and cavities are more common in children than asthma. Furthermore, cavities can lead to further tooth loss, other health problems, and problems with speaking, eating, and learning, she added.

Murphy said Smile Programs contacted RMS, asking if the school might be interested in adopting the program.

“Our free and reduced lunch rate in town has now reached fifteen percent, so that’s kind of how we popped out to qualify for getting this program here,” said Murphy.

In order to establish the program at RMS, a minimum of 15 students are needed to sign up.

The professional dentists and dental hygienists would perform routine teeth cleanings, x-rays, fillings, fluoride treatments, and sealants on the spot.

“I have for a while wanted to kind of do something in the dental area because it is so important,” Murphy said. “I just haven’t been able to get that up and running, so when [the program] approached me with this, I was really excited to have the opportunity to offer it to our families.”

Murphy is not sure at this point whether or not there is a real need at RMS to provide the dental services in school since she receives students’ health records but not dental records.

Principal Derek Medeiros said the dental services would take place during similar time blocks as when the school nurse performs her other health screenings, being mindful of important class times when students must be in class.

“We tend to try to do it first thing before the kids start their day,” said Medeiros. “We definitely try to do it within those areas and not in the middle of an ELA block.”

Murphy said she would gather feedback from teachers about their time preference for dental screenings, and possibly investigate whether services could take place after school as well.

Parents would be allowed to accompany their child during the dental exam, and a letter along with a permission form would be sent home to parents ahead of time.

Murphy agreed to seek the answers to a number of questions the committee had and report back at the next meeting.

In other business, Business Administrator Patrick Spencer said the most recent draft of the Rochester school budget for fiscal year 2019 is at $6,256,000 – an increase from FY18 of about $179,000 or 2.96%.

“We came to an agreement that that was what we would bring forward to the budget subcommittee,” said Superintendent Doug White.

Spencer said a significant reason for the increase is an increase in students considering Bristol County Agricultural High School, with eight students currently included in the FY19 budget.

The cost is roughly $20,000 per student to attend Bristol Aggie.

“[The overall budget increase] has nothing to do with what’s going on in this building,” Spencer said, “but the town and the school budget is responsible for that cost. It’s just something that people should be aware of.”

School Committee Chairman Tina Rood said an upcoming curriculum change in social studies could also affect the budget, as well as unexpected increases in student population.

“We are looking at the needs of our students as they exist right now in anticipation for the next year,” said Rood.

The next meeting of the Rochester School Committee is February 15 at 6:30 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester School Committee

By Jean Perry