What is done is done. At least from where the Marion Conservation Commission sits, even though Richard Costa of 237 River Road will still have to file with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the raised platform he constructed right on the bank of the Sippican River.

The wetlands resource area where the raised deck visually abuts the wetlands line, as seen in some photographs showing where Costa built the illegal deck, is an area protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. When any work within 100 feet of a wetland is required, a Notice of Intent or Request for Determination Application must be filed in advance; however, Costa failed to apply for the NOI before building the deck.

On July 23, Costa sat down with the ConCom at the conference room meeting table to discuss his after-the-fact filing of a NOI for the deck.

Chairman Norman Hills said some members of ConCom visited the site on Saturday, July 19. Hills passed around several color photos that “show how close to the river [the deck] is.”

The 12-foot by 8-foot wooden deck is built on four posts and encroaches the embankment of the muddy estuary floor with towering phragmites alongside.

When Hills asked Costa if he had filed with Mass DEP, he replied no. Hills said that without a number issued by the DEP, the commission could not issue the permit for the deck to Costa.

“It’s close,” said Hills shrugging his shoulders. “That’s the bottom line.” None of the commission members had any comments or questions for Costa at that time.

In his defense, Costa said that before he built the deck, he did go to the Town House to inquire about building his riverside deck. Costa specifically named someone at Town House who told him “as long as you’re above the high water mark.”

Commission member Joel Hartley commented that the destruction of any saltmarsh is a pretty serious offense, but Hills said the estuary edge where Costa built the deck was not a saltmarsh.

“I don’t think we need to do anything about changing the situation,” said Hills, after commenting a second time that he thought the deck was “You know, it’s close.”

Discussion about removing some of the phragmites near Costa’s deck ensued, with Hartley commenting that phragmites tend to “mess up your view,” reminding Costa that he needs to file an application before doing any vegetation removal at the site.

The commission asked Costa to grant them permission to continue the hearing until August 27 to wait for the DEP to issue a file number, and it was continued.

During a follow-up interview, Hills stated, “It’s not something that we’d be 100-percent happy with, but we’ll deal with it.”

When asked if the commission would have granted the permit for Costa to build his deck within the protected resource area, Hills stated, “Hard to say … Probably not.” He continued, saying the deck was probably “not within the actual wetland,” but within the buffer zone.

Also during the meeting, the commission continued the hearing for Thomas Stemberg of 114 Point Road. Stemberg addressed the commission during the July 9 meeting and the hearing was continued until July 23. Hills said he had not received any formal request to continue the hearing another time, but with no one present to represent Stemberg, the commission approved another continuance. Stemberg filed a NOI to demolish the existing structures on the lot and construct a single-family dwelling, a pool, a pool house, a tennis court, a driveway, and walkways.

The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is August 13 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry

Energy Management Committee members were a bit disappointed to hear that the planned Marion solar garden project, slated for the old landfill on Benson Brook Road, could wind up at the end of the line behind larger Mattapoisett projects already “in the queue” with NSTAR.

Committee member Jennifer Francis said on July 28 that, during a July 22 teleconference between representatives from the Town of Marion, NSTAR, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, and the Department of Public Utilities, she learned that Mattapoisett already submitted several larger applications and, when Marion eventually submits its full application for its approximately 500 kilowatt solar project, “We’d go to the bottom of the queue,” said Francis.

“If the projects do go through in Mattapoisett, they’re going to basically max out the infrastructure that is already there,” said Francis. Francis referred to the infrastructure that allows electricity generated by the solar arrays to be fed into the grid, such as the substation bus (electrical substation).

The original purpose for the teleconference, said Francis, was to request more information from NSTAR that the utility company had not yet provided, mainly the cost of connecting the solar project to the grid. Francis said not having this information was affecting the bidding process, and Francis said one potential bid actually pulled out for lack of this knowledge.

“It was not very good news,” said Francis. “To get the details, we have to submit an ‘entire’ application.” Marion has only submitted a pre-application at this point in the process.

The deadline for bid requests is August 4 at 3:00 pm. Francis said after that, if Marion submitted a full application, they would not get the information they wanted about connection costs until at least the end of this year.

Francis commented that the Mattapoisett solar projects will probably go through, but that does not necessarily mean that Marion’s project is in jeopardy. Who knows, asked Francis. Perhaps because Marion’s project is so much smaller than the others, maybe it could somehow just “slide right through,” as Francis put it.

“There’s just a lot of uncertainty,” said Francis. “But maybe it will end up being a good thing.”

The committee agreed that it would continue to do as much as it can to keep the project moving forward until its next meeting on August 25 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Music Hall.

By Jean Perry

There were a couple of tense moments when the future of William and Tamara LaPiere’s plans for an in-law apartment and in-ground swimming pool seemed uncertain. The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals had a lot of questions and concerns about the “unusual” nature of the LaPieres’ special permit and variance requests, and Chairman Richard Cutler was not about to just hand them out that easily.

Due to the irregularly shaped property located at 46 Paradise Lane, the LaPieres would require a variance for a property line setback for their swimming pool, even without the in-law suite addition. When asked which one was their priority, Mr. LaPiere said the pool, but what they really wanted was approval for both.

Board member Kirby Gilmore said his only concern was that a second bedroom could be added to the in-law apartment, and he wanted to place a condition that the addition be limited to just one bedroom.

There was a question as to whether or not the variance for the pool met the bylaw’s three-prong definition of a hardship, and Infinity Construction owner Robert Ferreira argued that in order to build the addition, the shape of the lot would not allow the pool to be installed anywhere else and there would be no room for further expansion on the property in the future.

Ferreira gave Cutler a printed email from the rear abutter to the property expressing support for the project.

“Okay, this is a little unusual,” said Cutler. He added that, so far, everything Ferreira presented that evening had been a little bit unusual.

“We have some discussion when it comes to special permits,” said Cutler. “We have no discussion when it comes to variances,” adding that the bylaws determine if a variance is issued.

At that, the public hearing closed and final deliberation began. Board member Randal Cabral said he concurred with Kirby, recommending a condition to limit the addition to one-bedroom in the future. Kirby rehashed his reasons for granting approval for both petitions, followed by a tense moment of silence until Cutler asked the board which petition they should address first.

The board approved both the special permit and the variance unanimously.

Also during the meeting, petitioners Richard and Lynette Torres had to continue their hearing for an in-law suite addition on their 157 Pine Street property because they only had a rough plan, not a certified plan, to present to the board.

“You don’t get approval without a plot plan,” said Cutler. “We need to see what the as-built is.”

“Including the proposed,” added Cabral.

Mrs. Torres told the board that the couple wanted to present the rough plan to the board for feedback before paying the expenses of having a certified plan developed if their chance for approval was slim.

“I’d say that it’s quite likely that it’s going to be ok, but we can’t vote on this,” said Cutler.

The hearing was continued until August 14, the next scheduled meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals.

By Jean Perry