Marion resident Sherman Briggs was successful in getting his Spring Street property re-zoned for a housing development, but on October 4 during the Marion Planning Board, it was clear that Briggs’ confidence in the cooperative effort between him and the board was still shaky.

During this discussion, Briggs was looking to clarify his responsibilities pertaining to the affordable housing aspect of the development – three apartments slated for a lot separate from the other market-rate age-restricted condos and houses.

Briggs’ concern was over the process for filling those affordable units – the application, the lottery system, meeting state specifications, and fulfilling the Town bylaw as well. He needed to settle whether he would be undertaking that process or the Town.

Planning Board member Eileen Marum pointed out that in the Marion bylaw it states that the developer is responsible for developing the marketing plan for the affordable housing units and describing how the application and lottery system would work.

“It’s fine that I have to carry the whole thing,” Briggs said. “I just wanted to make sure that we’re all on the same page as we go forward in this process. I don’t want any confusion – I’ll carry the whole thing for those apartments. … It’s just that, six months from now, I don’t want to be debating who’s supposed to do what.”

According to the bylaw, Briggs’ housing development must produce affordable housing equal to 10 percent of the proposed market-value units. These three units would satisfy that requirement.

There was also the question as to how smoothly the process would go as Briggs builds the market-value units, completes the affordable units, and then applies with the state so the affordable units could be counted and inhabited. Briggs was still seeking answers as to whether he would adhere to the 40-B requirements that gives the Zoning Board of Appeals the permitting authority or adhere to the requirements of the states’ Local Initiative Program (LIP), giving the permitting authority to the Planning Board.

Briggs asked whether the Planning Board would have the authority to issue waivers for the project, such as waivers for setbacks, which Briggs would need in order to make the three units fit onto the lot.

“I can file under the LIP process or … under the 40-B. Then there’s no setback requirements [under 40-B]. I’m trying to find out where we gotta go to get there as soon as possible because I don’t want to come in showing these three units 10 feet off the lot line and then you say it’s got to be 20,” said Briggs.

“The Planning Board can make allowances for what he is asking for,” said Marum, things such as setbacks, roadway design, and stormwater management.

Yet, as the board pondered it further, it was still unclear as to whether the Planning Board could issue the waiver, or if the ZBA would need to issue a variance.

“That’s a point that town counsel can clarify,” said Planning Board member Stephen Kokkins.

To Briggs, it sounds like the LIP process could take a while to complete, and he asked, “How can I get the support of the board knowing that’s going to happen and go forward with the condos? …How can we tie-in those apartments … and continue to go forward with the condos at the same time?”

Briggs stated that he wanted the board to understand that this project was going to happen, but he did not want to include the age-restricted condos in the same process as the affordable housing units, which could slow down Briggs’ progress.

“That’s why I’m putting them on the separate lot,” Briggs said.

Board member Andrew Daniel replied, “It’s part of the same project. I don’t think we can have it both ways.”

Planning Board member Norm Hills suggested the board let town counsel weigh in, while Town Planner Gil Hilario suggested the Planning Board could specify in the Special Permit that, upon completion of the 30 market-value units, the three affordable units would be provided and include it with the LIP application.

That LIP process could take up to two years to process, suggested Chairman Will Saltonstall, and perhaps occupancy permits might not be issued for the market-rate units until the LIP process is completed for those three other units.

“You see, that part can’t happen,” said Briggs. “That’s the part that’s not gonna work.”

Daniel, however, was more optimistic, offering, “This is hypothetical. How do you know it’s gonna get hung up for two years? It might not.”

“It took twelve years to do the 40-B!” replied Briggs. “And I’ve been sitting here for ten.”

Saltonstall said he would reach out to Briggs that week with some answers for him after discussing it with town counsel.

Also during the meeting, the board briefly discussed its draft bylaw for a kennel license, and scheduled a public hearing for October 1 at 7:00 pm. This kennel bylaw will appear on the warrant of the Fall Special Town Meeting scheduled for October 22 at 6:30 pm at Sippican School.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board will be September 17 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Jean Perry

The Marion School Committee learned on September 5 that data collected by surveys submitted by parents and teachers will result in some changes to the new standards-based report cards implemented last year at Sippican School.

Last year, the report card was reformatted, replacing the old “A,B,C,D,F” letter grading with a new system that emphasizes specific skills in each subject at each grade level, presenting them as benchmarks towards success. After it was piloted, parents and teachers of grades 1-6 presented feedback on how the district might enhance or improve the way the report card is designed, said Dr. Elise Frangos, assistant superintendent.

“Anything that’s great always needs to be modified, revised, looked at, examined, to make it better,” said Frangos. With the data that was collected, Frangos said the original team that devised the new report card reconvened in July to review the survey results and consider the roughly 200 suggested modifications.

“The way that it could be better would be to condense the language of some of the standards, sharpen the language, make them more parent-friendly, and also streamline the data entry,” said Frangos.

One resounding response, Frangos said, “We don’t want to go back to the ‘A,B,C,D,F’ because the omnibus grade doesn’t really tell me much about my child.”

As the group works to improve the report card in time for issuance at the end of the first trimester, Frangos said parents should expect the report card to be revised, … “and hopefully very pleasing to those who are the users of it, as well as the parent consumers of it.”

According to Frangos, the junior high has also been studying the benefits of a standards-based report card and is considering adopting a similar report card. Some parents have expressed a concern pertaining to how eliminating letter grades might affect private school applications and whether their child would have optimal admissions results. Having spoken with some headmasters, Frangos stated, “All of them feel that … you actually learn far more about a child’s capacities and strengths through the standards-based report card.”

Frangos said the school administration would soon schedule a parent outreach session in the junior high school auditorium that will be video recorded and televised for parents who cannot attend.

“I really compliment the team,” said School Committee Chairman Christine Marcolini, pointing out that the new report card development was a huge project that remains an ongoing effort. “We’re still evolving it and we’re still making it better.”

In other matters, the source of poor air quality in an area of Sippican School was identified after a recent air quality test detected elevated levels of fungi in the air.

Business Administrator Patrick Spencer said every year in all tri-Town schools, the administration conducts these air quality tests before the start of the school year that include visual inspections and samples from the entire building that are sent to an analytical lab for study.

One area, science lab 133, had a “slightly elevated level” in what Spencer said was a “raw fungi count.” According to Spencer, the air outside the school tested at 350, while inside the science lab tested at 630, but the EPA guidelines require mitigation efforts when interior air tests at levels above 100.

“We went into the room, used fungicide, did some cleaning … and under further inspection we discovered some dirt and plant material that was stored there so we collected that, … removed it, and disposed of it,” Spencer said.

A recent test of that room yielded a count of just 80, below the EPA threshold.

Marcolini thanked the administration for the attention given to the air quality at the schools.

“Obviously the air quality and the conditions at Sippican is something that’s important to all of us,” said Marcolini. “Our children are here and we care about the staff, so we appreciate that that’s something that you continue to be on top of and to ensure that anything that does pop up with that particular test is remediated and addressed.

Also during the meeting, the committee approved the 25-cent school lunch price increase that is proposed across all Tri-Town school districts. The Rochester School Committee approved its district’s price increase last week to take effect January 1, 2018, and Marion will follow suit with the same date. This is the first school lunch price increase in four years, and Business Administrator Patrick Spencer does not anticipate another price hike for another four years. The USDA sets a minimum lunch cost for school districts to follow, which is currently $2.82. All elementary school districts are anticipated to adopt the increase, bringing the cost from $2.75 to $3 for elementary schools, and from $3 to $3.50 in the Old Rochester Regional school district.

The next meeting of the Marion School Committee will be October 17 at 6:30 pm at Sippican School.

Marion School Committee

By Jean Perry

The residents who appealed the Rochester Planning Board’s approval of a solar farm on Mendell Road have settled with solar developer Borrego Solar Systems and agreed to drop their appeal and lawsuit against Borrego, the Planning Board, and each individual member of the board. However, that agreement was tied to a plan modification the board was asked to approve on September 11, and one board member was displeased with the manner in which it was presented.

Caryl and David Vermilya of 20 Mendell Road, the plaintiffs in the complaint, agreed to drop the suit if the Planning Board approved some landscaping and screening changes to the plan as “minor modifications” that evening.

Changes to the plan deemed significant enough would require reopening the public hearing.

Borrego representative Steve Long described the changes that call for additional grass and shrub plantings and some changes to the original species and height of selected plantings.

“We’re hiding the fence and the berm, so now it doesn’t look like a dirt hill,” said Long. “It’ll look more wild and, like, natural, I think.”

“Modified landscaping?” asked board member Ben Bailey. “Nothing else?”

Attorney Peter Paul explained that the lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice against all defendants if the board would grant this minor modification. “I’ve seen the stipulation of dismissal,” said Paul.

“Shouldn’t we see the settlement document?” Bailey asked.

But the board was not provided a copy, although Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson said he’d seen it, as has the board’s attorney, Town Counsel Blair Bailey.

Ben Bailey was not happy about being left out of the loop and refused to vote on the matter until he’d seen it. Still, the board proceeded with its discussion and considered the at face value instead of as an appeal request.

“Sounds pretty minor,” said board member Chris Silveira.

“If this is something that’ll appease the neighbors,” said board member Gary Florindo, “who are we to sit here and try to make the design different? I think the Planning Board … should just go along with them. They have to live there.”

But that lawsuit was serious, said Bailey. The plaintiffs charged each individual member and sought monetary damages, he added. He wasn’t about to take anyone’s word over reading the document himself.

“I’m sorry,” said Bailey. “Once bitten, twice shy. … Show me a piece of paper and I’ll be satisfied.”

Johnson said safeguards were in place, and no changes to the plan would take effect until the lawsuit was dropped.

“All that aside,” commented Silveira, “it’s still a minor change. It’s still just grass.”

Board member Mike Murphy added, “Putting the lawsuits aside … in front of us is a plan. In my opinion, it’s a minor modification and … that’s what he’s here asking us about.”

“I’m okay with this if I see the documents,” Bailey insisted. Johnson told him the lawsuit would be dropped within five days of the decision, but Bailey insisted on holding out.

Then Florindo whipped out his flip phone and called Town Counsel Bailey.

Bailey chatted with Attorney Bailey for a few minutes as the board continued its discussion. When he was through, Bailey announced that he was not allowed to see the document because it was not yet made public.

“It’s not a public document yet,” said Bailey, “so there’s more to it than this [modification request].”

Bailey wanted to seek counsel from his own attorney at this point and refused to vote to approve that night.

“I’ve seen it,” Johnson said. “They can’t enact the change that they’ve all agreed to …”

“Until we OK this plan,” said Florindo finishing Johnson’s sentence.

“If it helps move things forward,” said Murphy as he made the motion to approve the modification as minor.

The vote was 6-1, with Bailey staying true to his word.

Johnson said Town Counsel Bailey would certify the board’s vote the next day.

Also during the meeting, REpurpose Properties, applicant for a proposed 55+ 22-duplex housing development for the land beside Plumb Corner, was back to tell the board that it is close to reaching an agreement with the owner of Plumb Corner and will be back at the next meeting to discuss the plan.

“I finally think we’ve been making some progress,” said Attorney Peter Paul on behalf of REpurpose. “I think we’re very close to an agreement on fixing that drainage problem over there at Plumb Corner.”

The parties attended a settlement hearing the prior week, Paul said, but they need more input from the owner before making it official. Johnson advised Paul that the Town should take a look at that settlement agreement before it’s signed.

There is still the matter of the playground, which the daycare at Plumb Corner has been using, and the Planning Board is not interested in any easements in the conditions of approval.

According to Paul, the daycare is considering moving its location to Cranberry Highway, but not for some months, so this issue might continue to alter progress. And Paul’s suggestion that the property owner issue a license for use of the playground that would not be transferrable was not received well by the board.

“I’m not real warm and fuzzy about that,” said Johnson. “It either gets carved out, or it gets torn down as a condition for approval.”

Johnson said the homeowners’ association for the proposed development wouldn’t want the risk; and at that, Johnson said the board could not proceed with the project until the playground gets squared away.

The matter was continued until September 25.

In other business, the board approved the Special Permit for a Back Lot for Nancy Fuller, Trustee, Fuller Real Estate Trust, for 356 Neck Road. The board placed a condition on the approval prohibiting any further subdivision on the property.

The board also voted to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that the selectmen forego its right of first refusal for 0 Mary’s Pond Road.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board will be September 25 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry