Better late than never? The Rochester Conservation Commission on Tuesday night approved a Certificate of Compliance for a 12- by 14-foot sunroom built 15 years ago within the buffer zone of wetlands at 68 Bowens Lane.

               “We had no idea the certificate of compliance was not completed,” Diane Delowery explained as the public hearing began.

               Fortunately for applicants Joseph and Diane Delowery, certificate approval was quick and unanimous after Conservation Agent Merilee Kelly gave the board no reason to doubt it was deserved.    “Everything’s evolving down there and settled,” Kelly said.

               But it wasn’t all good news for 68 Bowens Lane. Joseph and Diane Delowery’s son Liam also sought a compliance certificate to approve work to remove a trailer and block storage that he had built at the address within the 25-foot, no-disturb zone adjacent to an intermittent stream and restore 2,735 square feet of that land.

               Diane Delowery was again apologetic. She said her son had wanted to start a business but had gone too close to wetlands to implement it.  His son has now moved out of town.

               “The empty trailer is gone,” she said. “We would like to get this done and the property cleaned up. How do we expedite this?”

               The ConCom’s basic answer was: Show us your restoration plan first. “Your restoration plan in the file was for 2019,” member Ben Bailey said. “I don’t see enough trees. This inventory doesn’t exist. I don’t see the evidence of that.”

               The commission agreed to continue its hearing into this petition until its next meeting, which was scheduled for May 3.

               In other important business, ConCom Chairman Christopher Gerrior announced that board member and Vice Chairman Dan Gagne has resigned. The board approved Bailey as its new vice-chairman.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, May 3, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Michael J. DeCicco

            Developer Matt Zuker, who needs Marion voters to support a zoning change at the May 9 Town Meeting so he can build a 48-unit, residential development on a 30-acre parcel near the Wareham town line, hopes the Planning Board will consider his project eligible for a simple majority vote as opposed to the two-thirds support that the measure failed to garner last fall.

            The vote taken on October 19 in a Special Town Meeting was 34-32 against the town-supported proposal to rezone the land as Residence E (multi-family housing.)

            Zuker’s project once again has the board’s and the town’s support. In his renewed bid this year, he has been holding public, informational sessions to make residents aware of the details and intentions of his project aimed at providing market-rate housing geared toward families, medium incomes and especially seniors looking to downsize so they can age in place.

            “I think we’ve done a better job, my goal is to get two-thirds, but we’re just being prudent about it,” he told the Planning Board on Tuesday night.

            The Planning Board’s decision regarding a simple majority versus the traditional two-thirds majority required for zoning changes is the result of state legislation house bill No. 40, Section 5. The town received letters on April 14 from Zuker and his attorney, Patricia McArdle, seeking the town’s application of the legislation to his case. Town Planner Doug Guey-Lee copied the board on state general laws and guidelines to which Zuker referred in explaining this bid for a simple majority.

            While board members Eileen Marum and Jon Henry enthusiastically supported immediate action, member Alanna Nelson and Chairman Will Saltonstall were hesitant.

            “When (Governor) Charlie Baker signed that law, it was hailed as more development around public-transit area. … I feel like the intent of the legislation was not for places like Marion,” said Nelson, who is in support of Zuker’s project but is not convinced the board’s support of a simple majority is either the intended application of the state legislation. She also aired concern over potential ramifications for the expectation of future applicants.

            “It’s also a precedent,” said Nelson. “We could have tons of projects down the line that say we choose to use it in this case. I think before we use this, we need to talk about this in different ways.”

            Nelson compared the issue to a discussion on zoning maps that transpired earlier in the meeting. The board, especially Norm Hills, did yeoman’s work to update the information, only to hear residents Sherman Briggs and Tucker Burr raise what the board would admit were valid questions heretofore not considered.

            “This extra step is a big change for our Planning Board,” she said.

            Member Norm Hills said, “Something new and different doesn’t mean you should shy away from it. We have a project that for all intents and purposes meets that. Will the next one?” he asked hypothetically.

            Town Planner Doug Guey-Lee suggested that the state has intentionally spread the discretion over to two boards (the Select Board included) and has written the law open ended “to let us design that process.”

            “I think they left it up to us to make that determination,” said Henry. “The Planning Board is solidly behind this project regardless of the methodology we select.”

            Being a neighbor to the project, member Chris Collings recused himself from the proceedings. Member Joe Rocha was absent on business travel and especially seeing this is not a public hearing, Saltonstall said it is important that Rocha be given an opportunity to also weigh in.

            It was agreed upon that the members will email their points to Guey-Lee, and he will craft a decision that the board will vote on at its May 2 meeting.

            Zuker thanked the board for its careful consideration of his latest application.

            In another intense discussion that preceded the voting question, the board held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning change to Section 230-8.2, the Water Protection District, Zoning Map updates.

            Hills explained that the new content from the state Department of Environmental Protection changes the size of Marion’s Water Protection District. “It’s a different shape,” he said, noting that the matter had been brought up prior to Town Meeting last year and then pulled from consideration. He said the board has been working to get the wording and the maps to agree with Town Counsel’s blessing.

            Once Town Meeting approves the changes, letters will go out to Acushnet and Rochester because some Marion water comes from wells in those towns.

            Briggs introduced Marion’s only well and the fact Pheasant Run is entirely inside the well-protection district and was never tied into town sewer. He questioned the purchase of over $300,000 for vacant property to protect the well district when it is offline.

            “I don’t think there’s been enough work done to justify the new line. This is part of my concern,” he said. Briggs also discussed a stream at Benson Brook Road that crosses the Aquifer Protection District and suggested it could be vulnerable to pollution from the town’s abandoned landfill.

            Hills said Marion is soon to receive a report from engineering firm Tata & Howard, Inc. on all the wells owned by the town. “There’s been no conscious decision to abandon that well field (in Marion),” he said.

            Meantime, Briggs objected to a bylaw he says is restricting the ability to build within that district while the town’s greatest source of pollution could be town property. “I think these are questions that ought to be answered on Town Meeting floor. I just want to give you a heads-up,” he said.

            While Hills said he received direction on the bylaws from Town Counsel, Burr considers the change an “obtuse requirement” for instance, should a construction business be looking to satisfy the board’s requirements.

            Collings empathized with Burr’s concern. “I’m hearing what Tucker is saying, and I’m surprised that we’re moving from something that was concrete,” he said.

            Agreeing with Briggs’ concerns, Burr asked if the expanded coverage of the district to include several properties on Route 105 would prohibit the owners of those properties from building.

            “There are septic systems up there, but they were a lot younger than they are now,” said Henry, who said he checked with the Board of Health for records and believes it is now time for those lots to connect to town sewer.

            Hills said the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Program will address 11 needs in town.

            Saltonstall isolated the matter of, “Does the language put the potential use of a property in jeopardy? That’s the question we can ask.”

            The board voted to continue the public hearing to Monday, May 2, at 7:05 pm.

            In other business, the board voted unanimously to approve Kira Srisirkul’s amended application for an Approval Not Required division of lots at 362 Front Street.

            The revision did away with the sharp angle of the lot lines to the same frontage. With curb cuts on both Spring and Front streets, both dwellings now have the required frontage on public ways, albeit different roads.

            The membership voted to pay two invoices, one for $1,144 to The Wanderer and the other for $20 to the CPTC.

            The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, May 2, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Planning Board

By Mick Colageo