There was an hour of debate. Those for and those against the passage of local bylaws that would ban retail business activities related to recreational marijuana sales and cultivation in Mattapoisett spoke their minds, pleaded their cases.

There was passion. There was opinion. There was data. But when the smoke cleared and the votes carefully counted, Article 1 proposing a new Zoning Bylaw banning “marijuana cultivators, independent testing laboratories, marijuana product manufactures, marijuana retailers of any other types of licensed marijuana related businesses,” passed, as did Article 2, an amendment to the Town’s General Bylaws.

After the formal reading of Article 1 by Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain, Town Moderator John Eklund invited the public to speak their minds. The first to come forward was Elizabeth Sherry opposing the ban.

Sherry quoted various reports and articles citing marijuana’s positive influence in stemming opioid use and its positive impact on those suffering from pain and anxiety.

“In Colorado, deaths from opioids have been reduced by thirty-three percent.” She said the negative language in the article might deter people from exploring the medical benefits of marijuana and passionately stated, “Alcohol and cigarettes are gateway drugs.… You can’t overdose on marijuana.”

Next came George Randall who spearheaded the article banning marijuana. Randall, a lifelong resident of Mattapoisett, spoke to the negative impact marijuana establishments would have on the youth in the community. As he had at prior Planning Board meetings, Randall pointed to claims of rising public safety issues in Colorado since it legalized pot. He likened the legalized sale of recreational marijuana to an increase in school shootings, saying that there would be “dire consequences.” He urged the passage of both articles as he returned to his seat accompanied by a round of applause.

Police Chief Mary Lyons repeated her often heard comments that marijuana establishments in Mattapoisett would require additional police staffing to monitor such businesses. Lyons said taxes collected would go to the state and not to the town, negating any economic advantage Mattapoisett might receive.* She also reminded voters that there was no conclusive sobriety test that police could perform in the field to determine intoxication from pot as there is for alcohol consumption.

Don Bamberger rose to speak against the ban, saying, “Massachusetts has already legalized marijuana so we aren’t going to stop people from this.… Prohibition didn’t stop drinking,” he said. “Booze has killed more people.” He pointed to the industry’s positive economic benefits providing “good jobs” and that taxes collected in Colorado had paid for schools and infrastructure projects to the tune of $247 million. He ended his comments by saying the town should embrace and regulate marijuana locally.

Sandra Dawson also spoke to the economics involving pot sales, but said that only about two percent of all sales would benefit the town and that those taxes had to be used for additional policing and drug related programs.** Dawson was for adoption.

Richard Bates added his voice against Article 1, saying alcohol was readily available and more dangerous than pot, suggesting perhaps next year “…We can pass a bylaw making Mattapoisett a dry town.”

Former Town Administrator Mike Botelho asked for clarification on how federal regulations that still consider marijuana an illegal drug could conflict with local bylaws and how revenue generated from retail sales was handled.

Town Counsel Jonathan Silverstein said marijuana businesses were most likely using credit unions and private equity establishments for the cash-only transactions.

Chief Lyons inserted the theoretical possibility that federal regulations could still be imposed at the local level.

Eklund and Silverstein had earlier in the debate clarified that Articles 1 and 2 were essentially the same, with Article 1 adding a new Zoning Bylaw prohibiting non-medical pot stores and associated businesses, and Article 2 a new Town General Bylaw doing the same, eliminating the need to debate Article 2.

Article 1 passed 183-52, with Article 2 passing 192-53.

The only other article garnering any serious time-consuming debate came from Article 24 for funding to build a dog park.

After Community Preservation Act Committee Chairman John DeCosta gave the annual report, he read Article 24 that would grant $75,000 from the CPA undesignated fund and open space reserve to build a dog park on town-owned property adjacent to the police station and skate park.

Freemin Bauer, an Eagle Scout whose Eagle project was the inspiration for pursuing the construction of a dog park in Mattapoisett, gave a PowerPoint presentation in support of the article that he said would benefit the 900 licensed dog owners in the community.

Bauer’s presentation included the benefits to dogs running off-leash in a controlled space and the opportunity to socialize. He also broke down how the $75,000 would be used to purchase fencing, pea stone, and other materials needed while noting that labor to build the park would be primarily from volunteers – Friends of the Mattapoisett Dog Park. Bauer’s presentation also noted that ongoing fundraising efforts would contribute to maintenance and clean up needed for the park.

But not everyone was barking up the same tree as Bauer.

Grant Johnson spoke first, saying that he had nothing personally against Bauer but felt the project had “real financial implications.”

Reading from a letter he had previous submitted to the Board of Selectmen, Johnson said that some professional dog trainers were against dog parks because it allowed unrestrained dogs to fight and that unless a person knew how to break-up a dogfight, people could be injured. He said studies suggest dog parks should never be located near residential areas.

Selectman Paul Silva said the article was not about where such a park would be located in town, but whether CPA funds would be granted to build one.

Finance Committee Chairman Pat Donoghue said, “I’m concerned about the financial impact.” She said, with so many other needs in town such as senior housing, that a dog park wasn’t something “we really need.” She also said that a recent property acquisition near the police station had an estimated value of $370,000 that should not be wasted on a dog park.

DeCosta clarified that the CPA forwards to Town Meeting grant applications received by the committee, not generated by the committee. He said the committee discussed housing and other already approved projects such as wharf repairs, but that those monies had yet to be used.

But voters were not overwhelmingly in favor of a dog park as many spoke against spending CPA funds in this manner. It seemed like debate would continue, but Paul Osenkowski called to move the question, noting that the hour was getting late and there were still many articles yet to discuss.

The dog park was defeated 94-49.

All other articles on the warrant passed.

As time ebbed away nearing 11:00 pm, the voting majority continued to decrease, yet a hardy number remained to complete the entire warrant of 35 Articles.

Highlights of the warrant also included the passage of Article 4 General Operating Budget, $26,625,233; Article 3 increasing elected officers’ compensation; Article 5 $434,100 appropriation for OPEB liabilities; Article 6 $260,000 for design and costing for a new fire station; Article 29 a new bylaw that establishes a fine for putting snow onto public roadways ($100); and Article 33 that changes the compensation process for the director of the Council on Aging from a step-grade to a contract negotiated performance-based structure.

Editor’s Notes:*Municipalities are allowed to adopt up to a maximum of 3% local sales tax on all recreational marijuana sales [830 CMR 64N.1.1 Marijuana Retail Taxes section 2(b)]. **Marijuana establishments must enter into a “Host Community Agreement” with the municipality, which may impose a “community impact fee” of up to 3% of gross sales (separate from the 3% local sales tax) “…as long as the fee is reasonably related to real costs imposed on the municipality due to the establishment…operating there.” (Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016 and Chapter 55 of the acts of 2017, and as described on page 9 of the Cannabis Control Commission’s Guidance for Municipalities Regarding Marijuana for Adult Use.)

Mattapoisett Annual Town Meeting

By Marilou Newell

The fate of the Marion Town House is as unclear as ever after two-thirds of the voters at the May 14 Marion Annual Town meeting rejected via secret ballot the appropriation of nearly $7.9 million to renovate the historic building.

Once Article 14 was introduced, the chatter began amongst the people packed into the Sippican School resource room while Selectman Norm Hills read the article and then sped through the reading of a prepared statement explaining the article.

Hills said the decision to exclude an article proposing a new $5.1 million town house construction from the warrant and allow only the Town House renovation article was “the selectmen’s responsibility to take action,” calling the Town House renovation article the only “reasonable, well-considered plan.”

Town House Building Committee Chairman Bob Raymond gave an encore presentation of the one he offered at a Board of Selectmen meeting in January to a room packed with many of the same faces that night, overviewing the proposed renovation and breaking down the costs.

Raymond pointed to accusations that the committee was biased in its preference to renovate the existing town house, saying, “We are biased, based on years and years of studies and, eventually, that this was the best [option] for the town.”

The process to explore Town House construction and renovation options began almost a decade ago in 2009 when 12 options were considered, vetted, and whittled down to four. The committee chose this particular renovation project that was poised to move ahead until the Town acquired the old VFW building and property at 465 Mill Street, prompting some to form a subcommittee to explore a new town house construction option for that site.

With the original Town House Building Committee’s option and the subcommittee’s option both set to go before Town Meeting voters, the two remaining selectmen – Jody Dickerson and Norm Hills – jettisoned the new construction article from the warrant on March 20 and brought forward only the Town House renovation article for a Town Meeting vote, a move that angered some residents.

Former town moderator of 35 years David Titus was the first to rise and take to the town meeting floor, making it clear that his decision to step down as town moderator was based solely on his desire to speak on the Town House matter as he did that night.

“I was shocked, disappointed, and very angry … that the selectmen at the last minute deleted [the new town house construction article] from the warrant,” said Titus. “And they did this at the last minute to avoid the possibility of a citizen petition to reinstate the article.”

Titus called the move “self-serving and underhanded,” accusing Hills and Dickerson of being “single-minded in pursuing the option that they have preferred.”

Titus advocated for a single-story town house construction at the ball field between the Town House and Sippican School, a suggestion that Susan Grosart, the sitting chairman of the School Committee during the Sippican School renovation, later said was impossible due to an agreement between the Town and the state to keep the field intact as a condition of the state’s reimbursement of renovation funds.

Titus that night said Elizabeth Taber herself would roll over in her grave if she knew the town was about to spend $7.9 million to renovate an old outdated building, being the shrewd business woman that she was. Others along the way felt Taber would roll over if she knew the town wasn’t prepared to spend the money to save the building.

Resident Dana Anderson said there was no doubt in her mind that renovating the Town House was the right decision, as the Town House is “the cornerstone of our village.”

“This is a plan put together by a blue ribbon committee composed of experts,” Anderson said. “I do not want to see the Town House handed over to a developer, even with restrictions on construction, and I do not want the building to sit and further deteriorate.

“We have kicked this can down the road far enough,” Anderson continued. “The time for us to rebuild is now. Yes, we will be making an investment, but the soul of our town is at stake and I believe it is well worth it.”

The applause Anderson elicited was slightly less rambunctious than Titus’, an ominous sign of the results on the ensuing vote.

Ray Collum, a member of the Marion Master Plan Subcommittee, said that although he was not against renovating the Town House, he felt the project should be spread out over time – an option he said was a more “planned fiscal approach.”

“It just doesn’t make any sense to me … that we’re not looking at our priorities,” said Collum. “We’re not understanding our priorities…”

At that point, one impassioned resident suggested a motion to implore the use of a secret paper ballot to vote on Article 14, acknowledging the divisive nature of the Town House and the precarious position of some residents – namely business owners and friends – who may feel inhibited in openly expressing their vote, a notion that Finance Committee member Alan Minard, who was also co-chair of the subcommittee exploring a new town house construction on Mill Street, upheld.

Candidate for Board of Selectmen William “Dale” Jones said he was willing to “stick his neck out” in public support of Article 14, “…And I think the other people should be able to do that too.”

“We should respect the views of the people who are concerned about whether they will be subjected to pressures,” said Rob Lane, who also co-chaired the new town house option subcommittee.

A resounding ‘aye’ followed in favor of a secret ballot, and Minard brought the discussion back to Article 14, lamenting the absence of what would have been Article 15 for a new town house construction.

“We will not learn about, discuss, or have the chance to vote on [another option],” said Minard. “[The two selectmen] disenfranchised thousands of voters in Marion, forcing you to vote this article down if you wanted to have a voice…. That to me is a travesty.”

Minard urged voters to reject the article, saying, “This country was founded on the principle that every person gets a vote…. We will send a message that we will not accept that … action [by elected officials].”

Minard again said Marion was ranked No. 7 in the Commonwealth for highest debt per capita and that accruing further debt would bring down the Town’s AAA bond rating, prompting Marion’s Finance Director Judith Mooney to refute Minard’s claim.

Mooney said Minard’s source of information was inaccurate, and Marion ranks 131^stamongst the 351 municipalities for debt per capita.

“We’ve increased our revenue, our reserves … they’ve gone up actually forty percent since 2014. Our OPEB liability has gone up two hundred fifty percent. Free cash … reserve stayed steady…. I don’t foresee any downgrading (of the bond rating) at all.”

Speakers that followed said Titus had stolen the words out of their mouths, upholding that the selectmen essentially took the right of the voters away when they struck Article 15 from the warrant.

“The process is an embarrassment, folks,” said Andrew Santos. “It’s our citizens’ right to govern our future and to govern our community. This right was taken away from us.”

As this point, some had tuned out the discussion as they crocheted, played solitaire on their phones, and browsed store catalogs.

Resident Lee Vulgaris motioned to table the article, which failed 185-142 after a hand count proved less than the two-thirds required vote.

Candidate for Board of Selectmen Joseph Zora proposed putting aside the Town House project until the financial conundrum of the wastewater treatment was solved.

“We don’t have to do this cost right now,” Zora said.

Voters were given an orange paper – the word ‘Yes’ was printed on one half and the word ‘No’ was printed on the other half. Voters tore the paper in two and placed their answer into a cardboard makeshift ballot box. An ‘X’ was drawn onto their orange registered voter cards so that no one could vote twice.

Residents mingled as the lines slowly lessened in length. Many cast their ballots and left the school before the results were announced – 120 in favor, 214 opposed.

Being 10:00 pm, the moderator adjourned the meeting and continued it for the following night.

In a follow-up, Dickerson said that when it comes to capital projects, the Town has only ever put forward one option on the warrant, citing the Sippican School renovation and the police station projects.

“As elected officials, we have to make some tough decisions, and this was a tough decision,” Dickerson said. “We’ve never gone with two plans, and with the information that we received, we believed that this one was in the best interest of the town.

“The people have spoken and I one hundred percent respect their decision.”

By Jean Perry

There was widespread support on Monday night for the so-called Demolition Delay Bylaw at the May 7 Marion Planning Board public hearing. The bylaw is derived from a citizen petition to place the article before Town Meeting in the fall.

Formally known as “The Preservation of Historically Significant Buildings” Bylaw, the regulation would provide owners of structures known or assumed to be 75 years or older with a process that would need to be followed in order to receive a permit to raze the structure.

Members of the Sippican Historical Society, who drafted this bylaw, spoke about the genesis of the document. Historical Society President Frank McNamee emphasized that the bylaw is designed “to save very historic buildings, not ranches from the 1950s,” which would technically be considered under this bylaw. McNamee added, “Right now, anyone can knock anything down without abutters even knowing…. We want to save Marion; we love it and want to protect it.”

Judy Rosbe, the Society’s treasurer, provided a brief history of the town, reminding the board that Marion is one of the oldest towns in the Commonwealth (once considered Old Rochester).

During the fight to protect the Captain Hadley house on the corner of Route 6 and Front Street, Rosbe said, “[I was] astounded that there was no process in place…” to protect the historic structure.

Using this project as an example of how the bylaw would be used, Rosbe described the legal framework that protects the Capt. Hadley house in perpetuity. A deed restriction requires the owner to preserve the exterior of the house with no changes or alterations. The intent of the proposed bylaw is to provide time for the community to develop a creative plan for a significant historic structure to be preserved.

The bylaw would apply to all structures in town, including town-owned buildings.

Planning Board member Jennifer Francis clarified that the bylaw would apply to the exterior of a building, and that interior work would not trigger the regulation.

Board member Chris Collings wondered, “Can we create a list on the front side so people know their structure triggers this [bylaw]?” to which board member Norm Hills responded that there is a list kept by the Sippican Historical Society, and a plan to update it using funding from the Community Preservation Committee.

Francis continued with her concerns, pointing to the section of the bylaw titled “Demolition by Neglect,” and asked, “What if a grandfather left [a house] to someone and they have no money to maintain it as described [in the bylaw]?”

Hills said the bylaw is just a delay and provides an opportunity “to preserve something historic,” but board member Andrew Daniel reiterated Francis’ concerns, saying, “…But what if they can’t afford it? I think a year’s a little long … what if it’s too expensive to repair? …When does it turn into a person being told what they can and cannot do with their property?”

Daniel stated that he liked the burden placed on the buyer to be aware if the structure would trigger the bylaw, but queried if it was obvious the building was not worth saving, should there be an avenue to take to by-pass the year delay.

Board member Will Saltonstall pointed out that there is an appeal process available with the Marion Historical Commission. He also spoke in favor of the bylaw, saying, “[It] establishes a baseline … yes, it is meant to slow the process down, to pause and evaluate the options.”

Board member Steve Kokkins interjected that it was important to make sure property rights were respected.

Saltonstall went on to say, “There are many things you can do in Marion by right. The conflict in Marion is machines show up and take [a structure] down without public input – this [bylaw] provides a forum for discussion. A unique quality of Marion is the significant and beautiful structures.” He pointed out that there is a value to Marion’s buildings, saying, “This inventory provides value to all of our properties, and balances the property rights issue.”

The Historical Commission would administer this bylaw, and there was agreement among the Planning Board members that the commission needs to be fortified because the bylaw will make the commission more active.

The board voted unanimously in support of this bylaw.

The town planner, Gil Hilario, presented information to the board about the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) program that provides a discount to taxpayers on their flood insurance policy. Of the 2,336 homes in Marion, 497 are required to carry additional flood insurance which, as Collings pointed out, is roughly 20% of the town.

In order to qualify for the discount, municipalities must perform flood mitigation activities, which can include public outreach or bylaws pertaining to construction in flood-prone areas.

Collings spoke vociferously in favor of pursuing this program, urging the board to aggressively go after mitigation activities that would provide credits for the program and subsequently benefit the taxpayers.

Saltonstall asked if there was a downside, to which Hilario replied that there would be record keeping and annual recertification, which could be time consuming.

Francis suggested that Collings spearhead a group, possibly under the auspices of the Master Plan Implementation Committee, to research the “low-hanging fruit” and other activities the Town could do to qualify for this program.

This was Jennifer Francis’ last Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Eileen Marum announced Francis has been nominated for an award by SRPEDD for her exceptional leadership and efforts on behalf of the community. In response, Francis said she was “very, very pleased to be nominated.”

“…And I am in good company since Norm Hills received this award a few years ago – we must be doing something right in Marion … I am so glad we have been able to accomplish so much and move us forward.”

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for May 21at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer