It’s fair to assume everyone in Marion is familiar with Tabor Academy’s athletic fields at the corners of Spring Street, Ryder Lane, and Front Street. For decades, Tabor Academy has occupied prime real estate in the village alongside residences in a mostly peaceful co-existence. However, the application for a Special Permit to construct five 90-foot high light towers dressed with LED lamps to illuminate the sports fields brought out a few abutters who believe Tabor isn’t playing fair.

Tabor’s Head of School John Quirk made his presentation to the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals on June 14. He is requesting the Special Permit for the lighting plan due to the height of the proposed poles — any lighting over 35 feet high requires permitting, according to the Town’s bylaw, stated Marion Building Inspector Scott Shippey.

Quirk said that when the fields were expanded and upgraded some seven years ago, it was always Tabor’s plan to add lighting for use of the fields after sundown. However, given the litigation that found Tabor as the defendant and the Town of Marion as the plaintiff in the absence of an application for permission to do so, the lights were never installed. Part of the Court’s decision required that Tabor file a separate new application for lighting plans.

Now armed with lighting and glare studies, Quirk explained the institution’s rationale.

“We always planned to light the fields,” said Quirk. “It would be advantageous to school activities. Also, the town could use the fields in reasonable ways. It’s exciting and interesting for the community.”

Continuing, Quirk explained that he had been working with the neighbors to allay parking and noise concerns.

“We’ve done our best to make our requests to the town a collaboration with our neighbors,” Quirk said.

ZBA Chairman Marc LeBlanc asked how the study was calculated.

Mike Berry of Musco Lighting, presented a glare study that demonstrated light spillage would not disturb the neighborhood. Berry said that use of LED blubs at that height provides better illumination than older halogen lights, and the increased height would provide the correct geometry for the beams. But concerns remained.

The Planning Board submitted a letter pointing to such issues as parking, pedestrian safety, traffic, and light pollution, all problems they thought required further consideration. Some abutters concurred.

Heather Burke, 68 Front Street, said, “This is a bad idea that continues. There’s no benefit to the town. Initially the town was opposed. Frankly, citizens are tired of this project.” She went on to say that if the permit was granted then it should include language that clearly spells out the availability of the fields for town events. Burke, an ORR School Committee member, added that other fields were available for night games, such as at ORR. Burke said that effective screening of the lights at the height requested would be impossible.

Shelly Richins, 22 Cottage Street, said the light towers would be unattractive and wondered how that could add value to her property.

Bob Sanderson, 17 Ryder Lane, said he currently enjoys a harbor view and that at night the lights would give the area a stadium look. He too questioned the impact on property values.

But not everyone expressed displeasure with the application.

Barbara Sanderson said, “I like the idea of lights. We watch the games; it’s a fun thing to do. I like it. It’s a nice part of the neighborhood.”

Jay Ryder, a former Planning Board member, said that before Quirk’s appointment as head of school, relationships between Tabor and the municipality were strained, but since his appointment things had improved.

“My feeling is there’s been so much litigation, so much money spent we will never know what the lights are like until the lights are up,” Ryder said. “Let’s try them for a year.”

Albin Johnson, 47 Spring Street, said he had reviewed the engineering plan for the lighting system and was satisfied it would not impose a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Quirk said that, at the present time, the plan was to use the lights to allow play to continue after dark and for occasional night games. LeBlanc asked him if he could provide a calendar of events that would show the school’s schedule for night use. The ZBA also asked for visual renderings of the light poles to aid in a better understanding of how they would look once erected.

Debate and discussion continued for nearly two hours as pros and cons were weighed. At one point, Quirk said that there were philosophical questions regarding the lighting plan and asked for candor from the ZBA members and the abutters, saying, “This is very important to us. Can we overcome hurtles?”

ZBA member Katherine Mahoney said she believed she didn’t have all the information necessary and that this wasn’t a power struggle or debate.

The board members said they needed more time and more details. The hearing was continued until July 26.

Also continued was a request for a change of use Special Permit submitted by Teeracai Srisirikul, for property located at 362 Front Street. Currently the structures on the property are permitted for use as commercial condominiums. Srisirikul requested consideration of a plan that would convert the buildings into residential units.

The ZBA members felt they needed bylaw clarifications from town counsel. The hearing was continued until July 12.

A Variance hearing for Constance Dolan, 9 Beach Street, for the construction of an attached one-car garage found Mahoney questioning the hardship Dolan was using in the application – property value in parity with her neighbors’.

There was also a question in Mahoney’s estimation regarding how the bylaw describes a non-conformity. Shippey attempted to explain how a building may conform on one side but not another and thus, if the garage were permitted, that side of the home would now be non-conforming requiring the application to be a Variance versus a Special Permit.

Mahoney was not convinced the applicant had fully checked all the boxes for a Variance to be granted, but the board closed the hearing, telling Dolan they had 90 days to render a decision.

Later in the evening, after the conference room cleared but before the meeting was adjourned, Mahoney circled back to the Dolan application, saying, “I don’t see a hardship.”

ZBA member Betsy Dunn said they had done it many times in the past but wasn’t sure under what type of filing. Mahoney said, “Property values are not our issue.”

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for June 28 at 7:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell

The Marion Planning Board dove deep into the proposal for a solar farm on Wareham Road on June 18, despite the best efforts of the chairman to focus on the big picture of how the project fit with the Town’s solar bylaw.

Zero Point Energy Solutions representatives Harold Reader and Brendan Gove returned to the board this evening prepared to answer questions raised at the previous meeting regarding the proposal for a solar farm on a 22-acre parcel at 439 Wareham Road just west of the Weweantic River.

Reader presented a revised plan in which stormwater retention ponds were added on either side of the array field, along with a vegetative berm along Route 6, and a stone swale to the east on the river side.

The size of the array remains 15 acres of cleared area, but the number of panels has been slightly reduced due to this plan. The generation capacity remains the same.

Reader reviewed a list of questions he had prepared in response to the board’s concerns at the last meeting, assuring the board that the panels will be designed by an engineer and rated to withstand the wind and weather associated with the site. He also reiterated the minimal traffic impact of the project, with construction taking six to nine months, and subsequent traffic limited to semi-annual maintenance inspections.

Reader stated that there were no health or environmental risks from the panels, as all the chemicals are enclosed in the weather-proof glass panels.

The over-arching question was whether the proposal complies with the Town’s Solar Bylaw with respect to the size of the clearing for the array. The bylaw states, “Large-scale clearing of forested areas for the purpose of constructing systems is prohibited.”

The debate centers on the definition of ‘large-scale.’

Reader contends that, compared to other projects the company has done, this project is considered a medium size project. He also referred to the state regulations which require projects of 25 acres or more to request Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office approval. The state Department of Energy Resources describes a large solar array as having a 5-megawatt capacity; this project has a 3-megawatt capacity.

In response to the data provided by Reader, board member Andrew Daniel described some of the research he had done since the last meeting. Daniel suggested the state had not clearly defined what it considered “large-scale,” and contended that large-scale in western Massachusetts is different than in a seaside community like Marion.

“It’s dangerous to start making exceptions,” said Daniel. “We have the bylaws for a reason.”

Chairman Will Saltonstall noted that he had spoken with town counsel who had observed that the board had latitude in interpreting the bylaw and the definition of large-scale.

Norm Hills added, “[We are] here to see if the project fits in to the bylaws, not to make an exception – it’s important to remember that.”

Board member Chris Collings weighed in, saying, “I’ve given this a lot of thought … I want to hear about the other side of the coin – the payments to the town. I want to hear more sizzle …”

Gove responded by describing the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) program that his company would enter into, pending negotiations with the Town. Gove estimated approximately $35-$40,000 annually over a 20-year period. He also touched on the possibility — not the guarantee — that his project may facilitate a solar project at the town landfill.

Board member Eileen Marum raised the issue of climate change, asking if the site is better for clean energy rather than residences. She highlighted the extreme weather events seen in other parts of the country and questioned the wisdom of building on this site. She described sloping land toward the Weweantic River, which could put the houses and their owners in danger of “sliding into the river” after a major rain event, saying, “It would be harmful to lose their homes, to lose their families.” She added there would be fewer school children impacting the school system if this were a solar farm versus a housing development.

Gove informed the committee there would be battery storage on site that could be made available to the town during power outages, with a four-day capacity, depending on the load. There is also the possibility of the Town and individual businesses and residents purchasing the electricity directly from the project.

Saltonstall brought the discussion back to the larger issue of the project conforming with the solar bylaw, saying, “Personally … I’m a huge proponent of solar…. My gut is trying to make peace with forest to solar.” He suggested the board needed to be rigorous in its review during the Major Site Plan Review and Special Permit phase with regard to the project’s impact on the community.

Daniel asked for the board to take a vote on the project, but Saltonstall, as well as Collings, said they did not have enough information to make that decision. Instead, the board voted on the two requests for waivers. They approved the traffic study waiver but did not approve the waiver for the environmental assessment.

Gove sought clarification from the board, describing the financial risk his company would undertake if he moved forward with the project. Hills made it clear there was no guarantee it would be approved, saying, “It is our job to see what you want to do fits in with what our bylaws say.”

As the discussion came to an end, resident Sherman Briggs asked to address the board. He spoke passionately against approving the project, saying, “I was on the Planning Board when the bylaw was created. … It was not created to help solar, but to hinder solar! [I am] concerned that town counsel said the Planning Board can [determine] large or small.”

In other business, the board approved an Approval Not Required application at 439 Wareham Street next to the Wells Gas Station, creating two conforming lots. Hills pointed out that the upland portion of the new lot was entirely in the 100-foot wetland buffer zone.

The board inched closer to forming the Master Plan Implementation Committee, settling on the members of the committee and agreeing to schedule a meeting. The board will be sending comments to MassDOT regarding the Marion-Wareham Bridge replacement on Rt. 6.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for July 9, 2018 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer

For most Marion residents, water rates won’t be going up at all, with the exception of a 1 percent increase on the base rate, which will now be $41. But for Tier 3 water users, you will see an additional 2.5 percent increase averaging about $46 more per year.

But as for sewer, this is the highest rate increase since 2007, according to Finance Director Judy Mooney. In addition to a 5 percent base rate increase, bringing the new base rate to $115.33, the Tier 1 rate was increase 3 percent, and Tiers 2 and 3, 10 percent.

Tier 1 users, roughly 45 percent of Marion sewer users with an average usage of a one-person household, will see an approximate increase in their sewer bill this year of $27. Tier 2 users, about 40 percent of sewer users, on average may see an increase of around $65.52 next year, and Tier 3 users could see an average increase of $207.76.

The Marion Board of Selectmen approved the recommended rates on June 19, conceding that almost all of the costs involved in running the water and sewer departments are fixed costs, leaving no opportunity to cut back to try and keep rates low.

The committee charged with the annual task of proposing the water and sewer rates broke down the water and sewer enterprise budgets, and factored in estimated new debt when setting the next year’s rate.

“As you can see, the current rates are not gonna’ swing it,” said Mooney. “We’re going to have a deficit no matter what.”

Mooney said the committee kept residents on fixed incomes in mind and tried to keep both the water and sewer rates as low as possible. The committee attempts every year to stick to a 2.5 percent increase, but as Mooney told the selectmen, “That did not swing it.”

“You’ll see, even with our proposal, there’s really not a lot of income in there, but it’s probably the least amount of damage to the fixed income [residents].”

Mooney said the committee is trying to shy away from the past practice of relying on something called “retained earnings,” unforeseen revenue that is generated as a consequence of unanticipated circumstances, such as an increase in water usage during an especially dry season.

“We tried to keep the [rates] as low as we can, but enough to support the actual budget and, as you can see, the sewer is going to be a tricky one,” said Mooney.

Selectman John Waterman lamented the rate hikes, but said, “We’re seeing rates going up pretty dramatically and it’s no one’s fault here…. There really aren’t many expenses that we have any control over.”

In other matters, the board was just about to give Jon Howland and Matt Glynn permission to move ahead with the State permitting process for an aquaculture license about 100 feet from the shore at the eastern side of Planting Island Cove, until Harbormaster Isaac Perry reminded the board of the proper procedure.

In order for the Board of Selectmen to allow an aquaculture applicant to move forward in the State permitting process, the board must hold a pubic hearing and properly notify the public. Once the state and the associated agencies grant approval, the license request then returns to the selectmen a second time for final approval of the license.

Howland and Glynn’s plan calls for a smaller-scale startup of up to 75,000 oyster seeds inside about five to six floating cages. As the oysters grow, the operation would expand to about 400 floating oyster bags inside an area of about a half-acre.

“We’re not looking to start this with a bang,” said Howland, whose family’s land surrounds much of the area overlooking the proposed aquaculture farm, in addition to Sippican Lands Trust properties nearby. “We’re looking for sustainably.” Less intrusive, he clarified.

As Glynn put it, “[We’re] keeping the optical integrity in tact so that it’s less intrusive to folks that might be wandering by…. We want to be good stewards of that area, and that property

is something that is treasured and is beautiful and we want to maintain that.”

“This unique opportunity would give us the most minimal visual impact for anyone,” said Howland.

Selectman Randy Parker said, “That’s a perfect spot. It’s out of the way … and it doesn’t get any use for boats, so it’s a good spot to use, actually, if it works.”

The public hearing for the aquaculture license will likely be July 31.

Also during the meeting, Liz Hatch et al. from the Marion Garden Club proposed a town-wide beautification project that would include a new “Welcome to Marion” sign on the property of the Captain Hadley house, and various “lush” landscaping sites around town.

There were some issues pertaining to who owned which of the proposed locations for plantings – the town, the state, or private residents –, which Hatch will have to investigate further. However, the selectmen voiced their support and appreciation for Hatch’s proposal, and even Finance Committee Chairman Alan Minard supported providing Hatch with $3,000 from a supposedly unused $20,000 budget line item that once funded a part-time grant writer and is now included under the line item “Contract Services.”

“We’ll have to look into that,” said Board of Selectmen Chairman Norm Hills.

Town Administrator Paul Dawson said he had a couple issues in his head that he wanted to vet before advising the selectmen, including zoning requirements for signage.

“I don’t imagine it would be a problem,” said Dawson, but it would be safer to investigate before approving the project, he suggested.

In other business, Dawson told the board that there would be no fireworks this Fourth of July in Marion, which is why he says he hasn’t heard much talk about fireworks this year.

Today, the fireworks account only holds exactly $9,548.52, about 20 percent of what is needed to fund the ‘annual’ event.

“Nowhere near the amount necessary,” said Dawson.

The July selectmen’s meeting schedule was changed slightly, with an additional meeting being added for July 31 to prevent too many weeks from passing between meetings. The next meeting after that one will be August 21.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen is scheduled for July 10 at 7:00 pm at the Marion police station.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry