Owner of the Silvershell Inn, Kate Hill, told the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals on August 11 that she was currently renting out two rooms to guests, as per her Special Permit to operate the bed & breakfast; however, after Hill left the meeting and the board browsed a website for B&B rentals, they found what they considered a total of four different rooms advertised for the Silvershell Inn.

Hill is seeking a Special Permit to now rent three rooms at her inn, the maximum allowed by the town bylaw. Hill was granted the Special Permit to rent two rooms back in August 2015 and now wants to add a third, which appeared to already be advertised on the B&B’s website, said board members.

The house, located at 460 Front Street, is limited to four bedrooms under the sewer regulation. Hill and her husband, who reside at the house, had a total of five bedrooms, forcing Hill to convert one of the rooms, the “pink room,” into a sewing room, Hill said. Building Commissioner Scott Shippey, present that evening, said that satisfied the four-bedroom sewer regulation.

Hill said she also offers the entire house for rent to guests, which she said was why the website appeared to advertise three bedrooms, which includes a third floor suite and a “family unit,” which consists of the pink room and the “blue room” that connect and share one bathroom.

Before she left, the board considered Hill’s request for a reduced fee for the application. She hoped the board would consider it an amendment to a prior filing instead of a new filing, but later after a board discussion, they decided the fee should be set as a new application.

Board members hovered around Chairman Marc LeBlanc’s iPad as he pulled up the website that features the three rental options: the green room, the third floor “Fo’c’sle Suite,” and the family unit. But they then explored a B&B website and found Silvershell Inn advertising what appears to be four rooms.

“There’s nothing to prevent the owner from booking her two rooms and then getting a phone call … and renting out four or five,” said LeBlanc.

“How do you police it?” asked Shippey hypothetically.

“You can’t,” said LeBlanc.

The board then moved over to the inn’s Facebook page and read the reviews, with one review describing the daily use of the inn’s pool.

“She said they never use it,” said board member Michelle Smith. “Those were her words tonight.”

When the board granted the Special Permit in 2015, one of the conditions was not allowing guest use of the pool until the Board of Health approved it, but the board was not certain if Hill had that approval.

“So there’s some concerns here,” said LeBlanc, who then questioned Hill’s honesty about her inn operations.

Returning their attention back to the number of bedrooms, Smith suggested Hill be ordered to remove the door from the pink room, now considered a sewing room, to prevent it from being considered a rentable bedroom.

Board member Kate Mahoney suggested the board refrain from granting the three-bedroom Special Permit until Hill could prove full compliance with the original two-bedroom permit, and even revoke the permit if Hill was not in compliance.

“My gut would be to not put that cart before the horse,” said LeBlanc, but he suggested the board could deny the permit for the third bedroom if they found Hill in violation of the first permit.

The board had closed the public hearing earlier in the evening and took the matter under advisement. They made no decision that night.

Also during the meeting, the board acknowledged former Chairman Eric Pierce’s resignation from the ZBA, citing future travel obligations that would prevent him from attending meetings on a regular basis.

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for August 25 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry

Members of the Marion Planning Board agreed that they would like the large property currently for sale at 78 Wareham Road (Route 6) developed according to their vision of a “cluster” development rather than the subdivision-style plan presented to them on August 15 during a pre-submission conference with Steve Gioiosa of SITEC Engineering and the prospective buyer of the property, Ron Medeiros.

The 60 acres that abut the Weweantic River has several existing structures, including a main single-family dwelling and several outbuildings, which Medeiros would plan to occupy.

There is 2,500 feet of frontage along Route 6, which Gioiosa commented is not common for a tract of land such as this, and proposed dividing the land into lots for a conventional housing development while conserving significant areas of open space, including the space along Wareham Road.

Gioiosa referred to the town’s Waterfront Compound Bylaw and said this proposed plan would “be ideal for this type of property.”

Gioiosa said he interpreted the bylaw as allowing for this type of development near the waterfront with its requirements for open space protection and preserving some buffers for the public way, all ideal features for the property, Gioiosa said.

“We didn’t want to go too far without input from the board,” said Gioiosa. “We want to be sensitive to what the board would be looking for.”

The buyer refrained from completing any topographic survey of the property and contacted the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program to seek preliminary information about the site relative to NHESP jurisdiction.

Planning Board member Steve Gonsalves commented that Gioiosa had “a lot of houses in there,” when looking at the plan.

Will Saltonstall questioned the original intent of the Waterfront Compound Bylaw and its relation to this particular project, saying his initial thoughts are that it was intended for an entirely different type of use.

“I really see that bylaw not being intended for new development but more of a way to deal with previously existing [development],” said Saltonstall. “While I can see how your thoughts here could justify [it] … the Waterfront Compound Bylaw was not meant to create a new subdivision.”

Saltonstall said his gut reaction was that a traditional subdivision was not “the best use” of the land, suggesting there was a “higher and better use.”

The same idea crossed Planning Board member Jennifer Francis’ mind, she said.

“I really do think that this … bylaw was created … to try to keep these larger estates in this town, keeping them in that sort of feel and spirit … of open space,” said Francis. “It’s designed more to allow families to subdivide land or to allow other family members to perhaps build on it.”

Francis, who has been active in the town’s new Master Plan process, said one very clear message from the community was a desire for alternative types of development, not this traditional subdivision housing development.

“There are other needs that are much more pressing in this town,” said Francis, “that might align you better from what we’re hearing from the community.” She asked the buyer and the engineer to be flexible to meet the community’s vision of Marion.

However, as Gioiosa pointed out, there is currently no zoning bylaw that would allow for this type of alternative development or “cluster” housing, but zoning does currently allow for traditional subdivision development.

“Alternative use zoning,” said Gioiosa, “obviously we would look at that if there was a mechanism that would accomplish that…. I’m not sure the special permit [would allow to] deviate much from what the current bylaw says.”

Planning Board member Stephen Kokkins said there was a need for more “empty-nester” housing, describing a cluster-type development where neighbors could bike and walk, with a “small store.”

“The waterfront compound approach might be unappealing to some,” said Kokkins.

Chairman Robert Lane concurred with the board, saying what Gioiosa had presented was a bona fide subdivision. No question about that, replied Gioiosa.

“To me, it ends up being a subdivision and to me it ends up being totally outside what the spirit of the Waterfront Compound Bylaw [intends],” said Lane. “Way, way, way away” from the intent of the bylaw, Lane said.

The listing broker for the seller, Terry Boyle, said the seller is looking for the best terms and maximum financial benefit from the transaction, pointing out that the property has been on the market for over three years with little interest.

“A development like this is the highest use,” said Boyle. With an alternative conceptual use, Boyle said, there has been no interest from buyers. “We’re down at the bottom here and there’s a difference between the plan that you’re looking at and a subjective plan in the future.”

Lane replied by saying that the interest of the owner and the interest of the community don’t always align and bylaws exist to protect both parties.

“You cannot market it in a vacuum without considering these other factors,” said Lane. “More importantly, looking at the plan in relation to the Waterfront Compound Bylaw and Special Permit [process], I have grave doubts as to whether or not this plan meets those requirements.”

Furthermore, said Lane, the board would not be so eager to entertain a plan that sought to “maximize” the development of the land by maximizing the number of houses that could be fit on the land.

Medeiros was present that evening and told the board he would be willing to work with the Planning Board to come up with a plan more palatable to the board, but he cautioned the board to “be careful what you wish for.”

“I’ve seen Form-A lots…” said Medeiros, alluding to the frontage of Route 6. “It’s not the best interest of the town…. My goal is to keep the density down as much as possible, save the high impact area … the waterfront property, and get some value out of it…”

“I think the board will be as open as it can be,” Lane stated.

The board suggested Gioiosa browse the latest drafts and developments of the Master Plan to acquaint himself with what the board envisions for the town and, ultimately, the 78 Wareham Road property.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for August 29 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry