Having been stuck in the weeds of a backstory that dates back to the early 1980s, the Marion Planning Board finally found its way to a solution on Monday night by voting 4-2 to lift a cease-and-desist order and grant developer Sherman Briggs the Special Permit he requested to complete cleanup of a mostly dirt lot between Mill and Spring Streets.

            At the recommendation of Building Commissioner Bob Grillo, the board had issued the order because evidence of activities on site had risen to thresholds triggering his concern for the surrounding properties.

            The Special Permit that would free up Briggs to finish his work at property identified on Map 24 as Lots 36A, 37, 37A and 38, zoned Residence E (multifamily housing) addressed erosion control.

            Appearing before the Planning Board on Monday night, Briggs insisted that all the fill brought onto the site had happened prior to 2021, and he asserted that, since the fill on site remains at less than 19,000 square feet, the case should not fall under Marion’s erosion-control bylaw.

            Grillo corrected that assumption, noting that the erosion-control bylaw is not triggered by the amount of fill on site but the one acre of activity clearly exceeded.

            Briggs has long asserted that his property is lower than the surrounding properties concerned with runoff, but Grillo and the Planning Board were caught because abutters were unhappy with dust flying at the site and no apparent recourse to prevent the property owner from hauling in more fill and raising the grade to levels the abutters would consider dangerous.

            Without grounds to take action over that concern and apparent clearance of vegetation on the land, the town stopped Briggs’ activities based on the potential for silt runoff rather than clear (water only) runoff. After visiting the site, board member Andrew Daniel reported that water has only collected toward the center of the property, a condition Briggs told the board he designed so as to avoid posing a threat to his neighbors.

            “I agree there doesn’t appear to be any runoff on that site, but that doesn’t mean any fill to be brought in won’t cause an erosion-control bylaw,” Grillo said.

            “I don’t want to do any more than I have to because I intend to sell the property,” said Briggs, who told the board he intends to taper off the land as it abuts the nursing home and not disturb property belonging to the Open Space Acquisition Commission. Briggs said he needs to get rid of tree stumps on site. “I don’t plan on raising what’s there at all. It’s just disposing of the fill and leveling it off.”

            The only remaining piles, he said, will consist of the topsoil already on site.

            “The concern is that without some stopgap limitations … it just sort of feels like you’re going to keep spreading it all over the property, well exceeding the acre that we’re talking about. We just want to make sure that it gets capped in a way,” said Planning Board Chairman Tucker Burr.

            Member Ryan Burke felt that the Special Permit “doesn’t have a plan, doesn’t have grading, doesn’t have runoff … nothing we can approve.”

            The quandary left the members in search of some way to ensure Briggs’ activities are capped.

            “Something has to be in writing,” said board member Eileen Marum, referring to her study of Google Earth images over different time periods. She disputed Briggs’ account and asserted that he cleared massive amounts of vegetation without authorization. Briggs disagreed and said there has not been a tree at the site in over 10 years.

            Member Alanna Nelson asked for more detailed information, including project history.

            “It’s pretty much on that plan that I submitted,” said Briggs, alluding to his crushing and removal of concrete at the time he petitioned to change the zoning from light business to Residence E for the purposes of a market-rate housing development. “I cleaned all the piles out of there and got rid of that material. The disturbance was cleaning … that material was in there … the bulk of that material was in there under Baldwin’s permit to get into their lot.”

            Briggs said he had a day’s work to finish removing stumps and leveling off the remaining area. He said no fill would be brought in and that the grade has always stayed the same.

            In attendance, MOSAC Chairman John Rockwell verified that the board had received his letter outlining the commission’s position. His concern is that the Special Permit applied for left the board with “no idea how much fill that is. The bylaw clearly states that the applicant must demonstrate that there won’t be any impact on abutting properties,” said Rockwell.

            “That plan that I submitted shows what’s been done up to 2021. That plan goes out to the lot lines,” said Briggs, who estimated there are 200 yards of fill in the pile. “The other advantage to me getting it cleaned up (is) it won’t give people the idea they can dump excess fill, because that’s what’s been happening. I’m going to lock that place up.”

            In the end, the motion for the Special Permit stipulated that there be no new fill introduced, and if there was to be any new fill beyond 10 yards, Briggs must apply once again for a Special Permit. With that, the public hearing closed. Burr, Daniel, Burke and Jon Henry voted for, and Marum and Nelson against.

            After a presubmission conference, 133 Wareham Road LLC may be able to avoid Major Site Plan Review in favor of Minor Site Plan Review if the site plan can be revised to include 10 or fewer parking spaces. The initial proposal was for 11 spaces.

            The two triggers for Major Site Plan Review are: a construction covering 2,000 or more square feet or more than 10 parking spaces.

            The 1,600 square-foot construction (Map 11, Lot 121A) next to the hair salon at the western-most corner of Point Road and Route 6 will abut wetlands, but representative Jamie Bissonette of ZLC Consulting Engineers told the Planning Board on Monday night that no construction will occur within 30 feet of the wetland border and no area within 15 feet will be disturbed.

            Bissonette had already met with Town Planner and Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee in anticipation of this appearance and having filed a Notice of Intent, a public hearing later this month with the Conservation Commission. Guey-Lee was under the weather and not in attendance Monday night.

            Bissonette summarized several waiver requests that will be made in public hearings, including an infiltration study because the project will include an infiltration unit requiring relief from setbacks for installation. Bissonette noted that the town has additional setbacks for development.

            Grillo noted that if the existing parking lot has more than an adequate number of spaces, it might be reason for the applicant to reduce the spaces proposed in the new lot.

            “We do have more than enough parking off site,” said Bissonette.

            Burke asked what provisions exist if the ownership is not continuous at some point. Bissonette said his group could come up with an easement plan for that purpose.

            “Compared to what was over there … beautiful addition to the town,” said Daniel.

            Two public hearings were continued to the board’s October 16 meeting, the Department of Public Works new operations center at Benson Brook and the Chapter 220 Stormwater Management Bylaw.

            Even as the deadline to be included in the Warrant for the Special Fall Town Meeting to be held on October 23, most members felt that the Stormwater Bylaw requires more scrutiny. It will wait at least until Annual Town Meeting in May.

            After a public hearing, a Zoning Codification Bylaw was approved and sent forward for consideration at Special Town Meeting.

            Grillo outlined four proposed changes, recommending that the Planning Board pass on the use-variance change brought on by prior Town Counsel. He stated that the new Town Counsel recommends further study into language at the beginning of the use table and that wording needs more flexibility. Grillo suggested leaving the matter alone and possibly tackling it in time for the spring Town Meeting.

            Listening in, Town Administrator Geoff Gorman tweaked Grillo’s recommendation for housekeeping purposes, recommending the board not vote but to not take it up at all. That way, the proposal will not make the Town Meeting Warrant with or without a board recommendation.

            Per the board’s vote, a clerical correction will be included in the warrant article regarding lot, yard and height only to include all the residential compounds (A, B, C and D but not E) affected by the bylaw. The board also voted to endorse two other “housekeeping” changes.

            Henry asked to be relieved of his duties of representing the Planning Board to the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD.) It is anticipated that duty will be asked of William Dale Jones, who was not in attendance on Monday night.

            The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, October 16, at 7:00 pm at the Police Station.

Marion Planning Board

By Mick Colageo