It seems the clouds have not parted completely over the Briggs solar farm project slated for County Road – despite Marion Zoning Board of Appeals approval – now that the Marion Planning Board on December 1 cast a shadow of doubt on the validity of the attainment of the project’s building permit.

Unsatisfied with Town Counsel Jon Witten’s conclusion that Laura and Dale Briggs do not have to file for a site plan review with the Marion Planning Board, the Planning Board majority eclipsed Witten’s finding and proceeded December 1 with a motion to compel the Briggses to file for one anyway, passing with a 3-2 vote.

“Some people believe that the ZBA did a sort of de facto site plan review,” said Planning Board Chairman Stephen Kokkins. “But as a matter of law and obligation of the proper process, … only the Planning Board can conduct such a site plan.” Kokkins and two other board members present that evening asserted that Section 9 of the solar bylaw grants the Planning Board the authority to conduct a site plan review.

Witten’s letter to the board dated November 23 concludes that the scale of the solar project would not trigger site plan review because “the total gross floor area of the proposed project is stated to be 143.2 square feet,” as written in Witten’s letter to the board.

Kokkins and other board members took issue with Witten’s reliance on information he sought from the Briggs’ own project engineer, David Davignon – a conflict of interest, according to Kokkins.

Kokkins explained that Davignon was merely calculating the floor area of the posts that support each individual solar array, and not the total area of the array. Kokkins instead believes that the project consisting of 3,520 solar panels creates a ground coverage far exceeding the 5,000 square-foot floor area that would trigger a major site plan review.

It is the “rational interpretation of the law,” stated Kokkins. Board member Robert Lane, agreeing with Kokkins, compared Witten’s and Davignon’s interpretation of total gross floor area to an overhang at a gas station – only factoring in the posts holding up the overhang and excluding the overhang itself. Lane pointed out Witten’s failure to define the word “structure” as it relates to gross floor area.

Witten, in his letter, does not argue that the ZBA’s granting of the variance “was not a grant of a variance from the requirements of Section 9 et seq. of the Zoning Bylaw.”

“At issue,” Witten’s letter reads, “is whether the … project triggers the requirements of Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw.”

Board members Norman Hills and Eileen Marum agreed with Witten that the prior ZBA approval for a variance to construct the solar energy facility was sufficient enough to allow the project to move forward. Hills went further, though, by pointing out that the main concern here is the result of problems with the Town’s bylaws.

“It’s an example of how screwed up our bylaws are at this time,” said Hills. “There’s a problem with our bylaws.”

Marum said the Town should promote solar energy rather than erect more barriers to stop it.

“I think Jon Witten did the right thing,” said Marum, “… and he wants to probably encourage the Town of Marion to promote solar energy.”

“It’s not a matter of being in favor or not being in favor of solar energy,” stated Lane. He said if it came before the Planning Board for a site plan review, “I can’t imagine that [the board] wouldn’t get them approved most expeditiously.”

Kokkins said the ZBA’s “productive process” of granting the variance would make the Planning Board’s site plan review more efficient.

“But to let this slide by would be a very bad precedent for the town,” said Kokkins.

Lane made the motion to require the Briggses to apply for the site plan review and to notify the selectmen, building commissioner, Witten, the ZBA, and the Briggses of the board’s decision, seconded by Popitz. Hills and Marum opposed.

Kokkins suggested taking whatever action necessary to make the process “expeditious.”

“Well, [this is] certainly not going to make it expeditious,” said Hills.

Later in the meeting, a routine action to amend and approve the meeting minutes quickly escalated into a conflict between Marum and Lane, the clerk for the Planning Board, when Marum confronted Lane about some adjectives he used to describe her tone in the August 4 meeting minutes.

Marum asked Lane to define “forcefully,” a word Lane used to describe how Marum addressed Planning Assistant Terri Santos.

“With firmness,” said Lane. “And this is as sanitized as I can make it.”

Marum maintained that this was not how the conversation happened on August 4.

“I’m not changing it,” Lane told Marum, refusing to reconsider the term and amend the minutes.

Marum implored Lane to review the recording of the meeting, to which Lane responded, “I’d be delighted to watch it with you.”

Lane’s minutes are misrepresenting her views, stated Marum, strongly urging Lane to review the video recording and amend the minutes. She suggested Lane stick to documenting quotes and facts, and not tone as perceived by Lane when writing meeting minutes.

“Well, you won’t like it,” Lane told her.

Hills looked to Lane, saying the question surrounding the use of “forcefully” to describe Marum’s tone was, “Why is it here?”

Lane said he felt it necessary to describe Marum’s tone because he said it resulted in Santos leaving the meeting. (During the August 4 meeting, Santos left the meeting after a tense discussion over the timeliness of member packets with an empty bottle of water, and returned to the room 40 seconds later with a full bottle of water).

            “You are out of line in putting this in here because it’s inaccurate,” said Marum. “Everything in here is subjective. Minutes should be objective.”

Kokkins intervened, and suggested that facts, events, and actual quotes should be recorded, but “editorial comments about tone, nature, or intent are conjectural and shouldn’t be in the minutes.”

Lane said he would review the recording, but changed his mind about wanting Marum present when he did.

Marum speculated that perhaps she was being singled out, and then referred to a Letter to the Editor that former Planning Board member Jay Ryder recently submitted to another local publication that accuses Marum of “verbally abusing” Santos.

“Are you implying that I had something to do with it?” said Lane to Marum, his face reddening. “Please don’t make these kinds of remarks.” Hills suggested Lane stop raising his voice louder.

“Norman, don’t tell me to stop,” Lane shot back. At this point, most of the faces at the table were reddening.

Revise the minutes and confine them to the facts, Kokkins told Lane. “Personal comments of bias are not appropriate,” he said. “Passions run high.” Kokkins continued, “Passionate is okay. Personal is not okay.”

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board will be December 15 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Music Hall.

By Jean Perry

After further discussions on Master Plan community workshops and a few more proposed bylaws to regulate zoning of formula businesses like CVS, it was clear that the Marion Planning Board Master Plan Subcommittee has a lot on its plate, along with many cooks in the kitchen – each with their own recipes – and all of them stirring the pot.

The subcommittee members have multiple tasks ahead of them before the Annual Town Meeting in May, when the Planning Board hopes to have a draft Formula Business Zoning Bylaw polished up in time to appear as an article on the warrant, as well as an article to request further funding, currently estimated at about $42,000, to hire a temporary part-time town planner and complete the Master Plan process over two years.

Subcommittee Chairman Norman Hills presides over the subcommittee of two other Planning Board members, former Planning Board member Ted North, and any other Planning Board members who wish to sit in on the meetings.

On December 1, the group read through a draft formula business bylaw submitted by Planning Board member Eileen Marum, and Hills gave some feedback pertaining to specific language she used or did not use, suggesting that several different phrases such as “designated areas,” for example, needed specifying.

“I thought it was well-written,” said Planning Board member Michael Popitz, despite it being relatively general at this stage of the bylaw development. Subcommittee and board members alike agreed that organizing ideas and intents was paramount to the specific language of the draft bylaw that Hills tended to focus on during the discussion.

“What exactly are you trying to regulate?” asked North, questioning whether it was simply businesses in Marion or how businesses look in Marion. Hills replied that it seemed the intent was to prohibit large chain stores from moving in.

“These (regulations in the draft bylaw) are kind of tough from a legal standpoint because you can’t just keep them out,” said North, as opposed to restricting “how they present themselves.”

The subcommittee during prior meetings deliberated a citizen petition spearheaded by North that proposes limiting the size of commercial structures to either 10-percent lot coverage or 5,000 square feet. At the last meeting, Hills deemed that version of the bylaw as “unclear” and “confusing.”

Talks progressed to a draft nuisance bylaw addressing vacant and dilapidated buildings submitted by North and, again, Hills had issues with defining key phrases in the language, mainly with the meaning of “dilapidated” and “vacant” and whether a structure would have to be both to apply.

“Do you think we ought to have this bylaw or not?” North asked.

“Not as written,” Hills replied. “I think the concept is probably good.”

Hills also suggested identifying specific processes that should be described in the bylaw and suggested defining “nuisance” as well.

“I’m not sure this is the time to wordsmith the document,” said North. Planning Board Chairman Stephen Kokkins proposed sticking with the basic bullet points rather than formulate the language “piece by piece.” The discussion continued.

Afterwards, with only ten minutes to spare before the regular Planning Board meeting at 7:00 pm, North took advantage of Kokkins’ invitation for further comments and started running through further ideas he devised regarding a Formula Business bylaw, starting with “eliminating ‘the window,’” a term which puzzled other members, including Subcommittee Chairman Hills. North specified the window as being the drive-thru window of the proposed CVS project.

“It’s already out,” said Hills speaking over North.

“Oh, shut up,” said North to Hills. “Will you shut up for five minutes … I have the floor.”

Faces around the table reddened.

“Go ahead,” said Hills. North continued.

Prohibit the drive-thru, restrict the size of the structure, and strengthen the language in the site plan review criteria, proposed North, thus regulating the planning of projects directly through the site plan review.

“But you can’t keep these businesses out of town,” said North. “Just like you can’t keep people of other races because of their skin color out of town.”

With only five minutes left before the regular Planning Board meeting was to start, North passed out certain benchmarks for his ideal site plan review criteria.

“We don’t have time,” Hills quietly said. North continued on.

After the meeting, other Planning Board members expressed disapproval of North’s outburst.

“That’s so rude of him,” said Popitz. “That shouldn’t happen.”

By Jean Perry