The Marion Conservation Commission was finally ready to approve the restoration plan by owners of the Marion Golf Club during its September 28 public meeting, setting the table for the removal of the Enforcement Order under which the 10 South Lane club’s owners have been working.

            But a conclusion to the dispute came without the typical sense of celebration and unity between the town and the applicant.

            Once the commissioners finished discussing the latest revisions to the planting plan as presented by Brian Madden from LEC Environmental, the glove ironically came off.

            Representing the club, Will Fulton asked for the floor and introduced his concern with “trespassing issues” and said the process made the part-time Marion resident feel “bullied.”

            “We are doing something here for the public good, and no one here seems to want to recognize that,” he said, noting what he considers the commission’s intrusions on his property to have hurt his “sense of the community.”

            Acknowledging that Fulton was trying to establish the property owners’ side of the story, Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava said that the town has engaged with the golf course for over two years on the case.

            “We don’t issue enforcement orders,” said Doubrava, who in his 10th year sitting on the commission noted that this was only the third such order through a private party, calling it “a rare event.”

            Another course representative, Michael Kane, clarified that the golf course did not perform the work. “We reject the notion that this action against the Marion Golf Course has any standing at all because the golf course didn’t do this work,” he said.

            Doubrava argued that the contractors did not, as asserted by the applicant, remove invasive species, but Kane argued that course owners “engaged someone to remove invasive species from that area,” following state-recommended guidelines.

            ConCom member Shaun Walsh told Kane that there is no exemption from Wetlands Act permitting for invasive-species removal, no matter how beneficial the action to the land. “I agree with Jeff, this was not invasive-species removal, but even if it was, it was subject to permitting,” said Walsh.

            Walsh called Fulton’s assertion of trespassing as “absolutely, factually inaccurate – for the record,” going on to emphasize that Fulton’s topic was not relevant to the business of the Marion Conservation Commission.

            Fulton reiterated his “feeling” that the course has undeservedly suffered the commission’s wrath. He said he and others are pouring money into the course and losing money on it and that the commission members and their families are persecuting the golf course “harder than any other group in Marion.”

            Doubrava reasserted that the Enforcement Order stems from clear-cutting done in the buffer zone and the wetlands area, calling it one of the “more-egregious things” requiring commission response. Fulton vehemently disagreed with Doubrava’s characterization of the activity.

            Kane sought confirmation that the issue is now solved (paving the way for cancellation of the existing Enforcement Order.) Doubrava acknowledged the direction but said, “We seem to be throwing hand grenades in the air right now.”

            Kane apologized, but Fulton reopened his Zoom microphone to protest any apology for his offense to what he considers punishment from the commission for trying to open the Marion Golf Club to all walks of life. “We are trying to do something that’s good,” Fulton stressed, reiterating trespassing accusations against Walsh’s daughter.

            Walsh told Fulton he is sorry that Fulton feels as he does but that bringing someone’s family member into the dispute is “wholly inappropriate, well beyond the scope of this public meeting.”

            Dissatisfied with the narrative of the history of the situation, Kane said that as the Marion Harbor East Trust, his group filed a forestry plan with the state that he said was approved. He said some of the suggested cutting ended when it was learned that the area being cut should have shown up on the GIS map.

            Walsh contradicted Kane’s narrative, saying that the cutting started in a jurisdictional area prior to the filing of a forestry plan. Kane countered that after the course’s forestry plan was approved and before a cutting plan was approved, the property owners were allowed by the state to cut in areas not near wetlands.

            “We thought that area where we started was not close to a wetland, but it turned out it was,” said Kane, noting that the Cease and Desist order from the town stopped cutting “for about a year.”

            Doubrava said the commission was “not going to go point to point” with Kane, who told the commission he was looking to establish common ground in fact.

            Doubrava said Marion’s first Cease and Desist order was issued not for the cutting plan but for the undergrowth in the resource area. Kane disagreed on the history of the project, saying the Cease and Desist was withdrawn because the landowners were found to be doing nothing wrong.

            “You guys filed a Cease and Desist (order) on us when we had a legitimate cutting plan and a legitimate forestry plan,” insisted Kane.

            Kane insisted his goal in discussing the matter was to confirm his understanding of the facts of the case.

            “We understand that you have jurisdiction, that we should have come to you,” he said. “But … we weren’t mowing the underbrush because we didn’t like the way it looked. We’re mowing it to get rid of invasive species.”

            Walsh reiterated the town’s position prohibiting “mowing down to the ground” invasive species and said the commission had held several public meetings devoted to vet the activity going at the course. He said the state could recommend such action “selectively” but not “indiscriminately.”

            Representing the town, attorney A. Alexander Weisheit of KP Law recommended the discussion be ended in favor of a vote. The property owners’ legal representation disagreed with putting a lid on the discussion. She said the goal posts are moved every time the applicant comes back with a revision for the commission’s approval.

            The commission finally voted to close the public hearing and immediately voted unanimously to accept the restoration plan.

            The Enforcement Order will be canceled when the commission determines that the conditions have been carried out. The two sides’ attorneys agreed that any future site visits by commissioners are preceded by 24 hours’ notice in writing.

            In David Davignon’s absence, Deb Ewing represented the Cove in Marion Trust, Jenney Lane, in its Notice of Intent to conduct proposed maintenance of vegetation.

            Ewing: State Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife (aka MassWildlife) said there is no problem mowing the field so long as it is done within the planned time frame of October through April.

            Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee acknowledged the continuance was granted in light of the NEHP letter. “I think we need to discuss the consent issue,” he recommended to the commission.

            Walsh said the commission needed to discuss the NOI and regulations requirements for approval from the landowner (Town of Marion) when the project location is not owned by the applicant. Walsh referenced an Order of Conditions voted according to a 2015 application, but he suggested the current applicants acquire permission from town management.

            “I don’t think we can issue an Order of Conditions until that regulatory requirement is satisfied,” he said.

            Ewing said there have been no changes to the 2015 application, but Doubrava said the NOI needs the signature of the Select Board or himself. He also said he thinks the plan looks different than what was approved in 2015.

            As an example, Doubrava pointed out that the original Order of Conditions sanctioned mowing in the buffer zone, noting that no mowing was planned for the Department of Public Works area. He agreed that the proposal has not changed.

            Acknowledging the proposal’s positive impact on diamondback terrapins, Doubrava questioned the proposal’s assertion of positive impact on the box-turtle health and population.

            “I’m still struggling with the necessity of cutting bordering, vegetated wetland,” said Walsh, disputing the interpretation of the 2015 Order of Conditions as validating the necessity of cutting DPW wetlands for the sake of box-turtle habitat. He cited state-sponsored literature stating that the box turtle thrives in a variety of terrains. “It’s not like the Diamondback Terrapin, that has to have access to the water, unimpeded.”

            Ewing said the applicants have not cut wetlands and citing both Diamondback Terrapins and box turtles nesting in the field, she sought clarification.

            “I’m not saying it’s necessary to cut wetlands … the terrapins don’t just nest in the garden, they do look for other areas, and often they will go up and across roads and into people’s yards and driveways because it’s low growing,” said Ewing. “They do come through that field. … We’re not trying to mow any wetlands.”

            Doubrava shared a map of the 2015 plan with the meeting, and Ewing said the applicants do not mow in the area of concern. “Is it possible to strike that from the condition …” she asked.

            Walsh said Google maps indicated mowing in that area but also said the proposal does not need revision but just an added condition that the Conservation Commission is only sanctioning mowing in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands.

            “I believe that’s all we were asking for,” said Ewing. “When you walk through that area, you do see a lot of nesting sites.”

            ConCom member Emil Assing agreed with the positivity of the project but said the DPW open space being used as meadows would be better served by letting it grow back while the applicants continue maintaining the meadow area as is.

            At Walsh’s recommendation, the commission voted to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, October 12, at 7:00 pm.

            In other action, the Barbara L. Grainger Trust was issued an Order of Conditions for a float-anchor-improvement project at 33 East Avenue.

            Kenneth and Darla Parsons were voted an Amended Order of Conditions for a proposed reconstruction of a house and garage at 27 Dexter Road.

            The commission voted to extend by three years a permit for activity that Robert and Joan Wilson are conducting at 43 Holly Road.

            Guey-Lee said a letter to a property owner whose constructed pier resulted in some destruction of the saltmarsh at 122 Register Road.

            The members voted to appoint Walsh to represent the commission to the Stewards of Community Open Space Committee.

            The commissioners offered no comment to the Planning Board regarding a proposed subdivision off River Road.

            The commission conducted executive session at the start of the meeting to discuss ongoing litigation with regard to Purpose 3 of the Massachusetts General Law c. 30A, Section 21(a)(3).

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo