Effective March 1, the minimum age to purchase tobacco and nicotine products in Marion will be 21.

On January 26, the Marion Board of Health voted to raise the minimum age for purchasing tobacco and nicotine delivery products, including electronic cigarettes and other devices that create a nicotine-containing vapor for inhalation. This process is also known as “vaping.”

The goal is to reduce underage smoking and vaping, which is seemingly marketed towards and appealing to kids because of its fruity flavors.

“Kids are coming out of middle school and trying to decide what they’re going to be, what makes them cool,” said Robert Collett, director of the Cape Cod Regional Tobacco Program. The board hopes that raising the minimum age, along with the high price of cigarettes that is now over $10 a pack, will lower youth access and prevent nicotine addiction.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control reports that e-cigarette use among middle and high school students tripled from 2013 to 2014.

The board also voted to abolish the sale of Blunt wraps, which are often flavored and used for rolling marijuana cigarettes. The sale of single cigars will no longer be allowed; however, the town will allow the sale of a minimum packaging of four cigars, priced at no less than $5.

The sale of roll-your-own cigarette rolling machines is also prohibited under the regulation.

Statistics show that 80% of adult smokers started before their 18^th birthday. Roughly 15% of students nationwide who currently smoke cigarettes started before the age of 18, and 14% usually obtained them by buying them in a store.

The penalty for selling to an underage person starts at $100 for a first violation, and increases to $200 for a second and $300 for a third or subsequent violation within two years of the second violation.

The town itself will enforce the new minimum age since the legal age to purchase tobacco or nicotine products in Massachusetts remains at 18.

Six businesses in Marion will be affected by the sanitary code changes. Health Agent Karen Walega said these stores will be notified of the changes via registered mail.

The Board of Health also added e-cigarettes and vaping devices to the regulation prohibiting smoking in public places and workplaces. The penalties for violating the no smoking in public law are the same as selling to an underage buyer.

During the public hearing for the smoking and tobacco regulation changes, no residents were in attendance to either support or oppose the new measures.

According to Collett, Marion is joining 90 other Massachusetts municipalities – about 43% of the state – in changing the regulations. Wareham, he said, just passed their new smoking and tobacco regulations last week, effective April 1.

“I want to talk to Rochester about it,” said Walega, who is also the health agent for Rochester. “But I want to add the flavored tobacco ban to it. I think that is the key to the whole thing.”

During previous meetings, some Board of Health members in Marion opposed regulating the merchandise sale of flavored tobacco, preferring to stick only with the age minimum increase and public smoking prohibition.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Health is scheduled for February 9 at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry

The agenda for the January 21 meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals contained only three hearings, but two of the three required plenty of time to air questions and concerns before action could be taken.

Nils Johnson, owner and innkeeper of the Inn on Shipyard Park, petitioned the board for a commercial special permit.

Flanked by his partner, Andrea Perry, and attorney Marc Deshaies, Johnson discussed the scope of renovations proposed for the porch of the historic inn.

He said the porch was difficult for patrons and waitstaff to navigate and looked shabby. Johnson said he planned to expand the porch space by 3 feet and rehabilitate the front façade.

Another part of the repairs and improvements, he explained, would be a new entranceway that would eliminate the now awkward and unsafe steps through the front door. He said the porch expansion would allow up to 10 more seats in this highly-coveted seasonal location for patrons.

Deshaies discussed bylaws that allowed the board to grant Johnson a special permit and said the overall occupancy would not change.

When ZBA Chairman Susan Akin opened up the hearing for the public comment phase, several abutters were prepared to challenge the application.

Neighbors Maureen Butler, 9 Water Street, and Randy Smith of 8½ Water Street, clearly weren’t pleased with a porch expansion.

Butler, represented by Attorney Thomas Crotty, launched into all the reasons why the board couldn’t approve a special permit, citing what he believed was a state statute superseding local bylaws. However, the underlying reason for Butler’s and Smith’s objection to the plans was their concern that more seats on the porch would equate to more noise from the inn.

“My client can’t cooperate with Johnson because he hasn’t cooperated with them,” said Crotty regarding noise complaints. “This is not a legal project within the set back requirements.”

Director of Inspectional Services Andrew Bobola explained that the special permit was, in fact, appropriate for the repairs and improvements Johnson was proposing. He read from zoning bylaw 3.2 which he said clearly allowed a special permit for alternations, expansions, and renovations.

“This is a lawfully nonconforming structure,” said Bobola, noting again that a special permit was in order. “We’ve never had a challenge in the 31 years I’ve been on this board,” he said referring to special permits previously granted.

Later in the evening during the board’s deliberations, there was little resistance to the application.

One ZBA member, Mary Ann Brogan, thought that town counsel should be consulted and the hearing continued until clarity could be shed on whether or not a special permit was appropriate. The other members were more than satisfied to accept Bobola’s opinion.

Board member Ken Pacheco went further saying, “Mattapoisett has three things: Salty, Shipyard Park, and the inn…. It is vital to the community!” He went on, “Parking – park down on the wharf and, as for noise complaints, I bet ninety percent of the noise complaints have come from the Butlers.”

Directing his comments to the audience, Pacheco said, “You live beside an inn. It’s a young couple. They have their whole life ahead of them. Let them build this up.”

The board unanimously approved the special permit for Johnson.

There is an appeal process for any ZBA decision. An aggrieved party has up to 20 days to appeal to either the court or to the town clerk.

Another application taking considerable time to evaluate was a variance by Fred and Caroline Schernecker for 1 Goodspeed Island. They are currently under a purchase and sale agreement with current owner, Anthony Campbell. The contract is contingent upon the applicant being able to return the parcel to its original two buildable lot status.

Campbell had the two parcels joined as one when he purchased the properties in 2010, with the intention of building a pool and pool house on one of the lots. That project never came to pass.

Now, Schernecker is ready to buy the property and said he wanted two separate lots, explaining, “So our friends can build on the other lots.” The issue for the board was that sectioning the land into two lots would result in the vacant parcel not meeting current zoning bylaws.

Marc Deshaies, also representing Schernecker and Campbell, said, “They are simply looking to go back in time…. You have to figure out how to undo this through a variance.” He continued, “We can recreate what was there in 1984, but can’t meet current bylaws.”

Akin questioned, “Where is the hardship?” Akin referred to the hardship necessary to approve a variance. Deshaies responded, “The hardship could be the unusual shape of the lot.”

The board debated the case, but in the end, they were unable to find a hardship worthy of creating a lot unable to meet current zoning bylaws.

Akin repeated, “I have a problem seeing a hardship,” and Brogan said, “He (Campbell) should have known he was taking a chance doing it,” in reference to joining the two parcels. In the end, the board unanimously denied the request.

Earlier in the evening, the board approved a special permit to David Jones, for property located at 38 Fairhaven Road for the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Board of Appeals will be scheduled for February 18 at 6:00 pm at the Mattapoisett Town Hall if there are cases to be heard.

By Marilou Newell