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

Marion Town Clerk Ray Pickles denies any wrongdoing in his answer filed July 23 to a complaint alleging that he defrauded the Carver, Marion, Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District (CMWRRDD) while serving as the district’s executive director, blaming old age and the lack of professional support for the various discovered financial discrepancies pertaining to the district.

“In recent years, due to my age and limited professional support, my record keeping has not been what it was during my time as Town Manager in Marion and during my early years with the CMWRRDD,” wrote Pickles, 84, in his signed affidavit. “I deny the alleged wrongdoing. I believe that all of my actions were taken in the best interests of the CMWRRDD.”

Pickles further stated that over the years he had presented the CMWRRDD Committee with monthly warrants for committee approval and that, to the best of his knowledge, “[all] payments made from the budget were approved by the Board and were made for legitimate CMWRRDD expenses.”

According to Pickles, although he was authorized to sign checks as executive director of the district, checks were “generally” drafted and signed by the CMWRRDD bookkeeper after the committee approved the amounts.

Stating that the allegations made against him for Fraud, Conversion and Civil Theft, and Civil Conspiracy, amongst others, are false, Pickles denied ever withdrawing district funds for personal use, did not receive unauthorized checks, and did not steal cash from the district.

“In recent years, I may not have followed all of the technical procedures for approving contracts,” his affidavit reads. “But, I kept the District Committee informed of all business matters involving the CMWRRDD and I consistently provided valuable services to CMWRRDD. I do not believe that I have received any money that was not approved by the … Committee for services provided.”

In his affidavit, and that of Pickles’ wife, Diane Bondi-Pickles, also named as a defendant in the civil complaint, it states that the couple lives month-to-month living off Pickles’ pension, his social security, and the income he still earns as Marion’s town clerk, and have accrued $30,000 in credit card debt. Bondi-Pickles in her affidavit claimed she has no income of her own now that she was asked to resign from her real estate position at a Marion-based agency due to the “negative publicity associated with this case,” she wrote.

Bondi-Pickles claims that, although Pickles named her president of Moss Hollow Management, the corporation he founded in her name in 2000 and used in order to continue to receive payments for his CMWRRDD position after retirement, for about 10 years she has not taken part in Moss Hollow business affairs and was unaware that the Secretary of the Commonwealth involuntarily dissolved Moss Hollow on June 30, 2017.

“I have no knowledge of my husband … wrongfully taking money from the CMWRRDD,” Bondi-Pickles’ affidavit states. “Based upon my family’s financial position which is seriously compromised with credit card debt and limited monthly income, I do not believe that the allegations claiming large amounts of money be [sic] taken are true. I am completely unaware of any withdrawals of money for personal … any unauthorized checks being received … [or] any cash being taken from the CMWRRDD by my husband, myself, or Moss Hollow.”

Robert Tinkham, Jr., the retired Carver health agent and part-time employee of the district who is also named as a defendant in the complaint, filed a motion on July 26 to dismiss the charges against him and the company he owns, 33-35 Wareham Street LLC, also named in the complaint.

Tinkham also served on the CMWRRDD Committee from 1996-2017, stating in his affidavit that he also served as chairman of the committee several times over the years.

“I do not, and have never had any check writing authority on behalf of the district,” Tinkham’s affidavit reads. Tinkham also denies having ever received misappropriated district funds in any form.

Cumulatively, the three are accused of defrauding the district of $838,458.22 between 2012-2018: $294,548 by Pickles, which includes $150,000 allegedly made in cash withdrawals between 2016-2018, $113,321 in unauthorized checks, $31,227 in mileage reimbursements, and an alleged $13,793 in fuel reimbursements, which the district committee alleges were used to fuel Pickles’ private boat.

Pickles and Bondi-Pickles on behalf of Moss Hollow Management are allegedly responsible for another $281,909 from 2012 up until January of 2018 when Pickles was fired, bringing their cumulative total to $576,477.

Tinkham allegedly received about $262,000 in misappropriated district money, which the complaint says Pickles conveyed to Tinkham without committee authorization and discovered in district financial records.

An attachment of real property remains in place for all three defendants for the respective amounts each defendant is accused of embezzling.

Pickles was the executive director for the CMWRRDD since its formation in 1973 until January 29, 2018, and the executive secretary from 1972-2001. He was on the Board of Assessors until he lost the 2018 annual election, and Pickles remains the town clerk, which he has since 2006. He was also the building commissioner for the Town for a number of years.

The district continues to investigate and is undergoing a forensic audit of the district’s finances dating back to 2012, which was when Pickles ceased conducting the required annual audits of the district.

The case is slated for a trial by jury at the Plymouth Superior Court, and The Wanderer will be following it closely as it unfolds.

By Jean Perry