Harbormaster Isaac Perry proposed to the Marion Resources Commission at its Monday night meeting a tweak to the town’s regulations of commercial moorings.

            An addendum to the regulations states that existing commercial moorings may be transferred to marine-related businesses with the approval of the harbormaster. “This has been done in the past, but I’ve been hesitant without it being in the regulations,” explained Perry in his report to the MRC.

            With the reduction of two grandfathered commercial moorings, Perry says there are now 19 remaining. “There’s not a lot left,” he said. “In talking about this, we’d like to retain what we can.”

            Perry said that some existing businesses use town property for their only access. “It would be nice to support these businesses with the remaining commercial moorings that we have left,” he said.

            Before the MRC voted in the affirmative, MRC Chairman Vin Malkoski led off with a hypothetical scenario for clarification. He asked Perry what if, for instance, Burr Brothers wanted to divest their business of 50 commercial moorings. Perry confirmed that the town would be looking at other commercial interests. Adding one sentence, Perry said, covers what’s been done in the past.

            MRC member Greg Houdelette asked about the process. “Would people be notified who are on some sort of waiting list? What is the process of notification? “I’m certainly not looking to notify anybody, not looking to promote this activity … I don’t feel that’s our responsibility at all,” said Perry.

            Malkoski doubled down on Perry’s stance, saying that the town does not want to be involved in straight business transactions, calling such activity “a conflict of interest.”

            “All we do is transfer that permit, we don’t get into cost or anything like that,” said Perry.

            MRC member Peter Borsari sought clarification on what constitutes marine business. Malkoski gave obvious examples but no definition per se.

            The MRC voted unanimously to accept Perry’s rewrite of Item 7 in the regulations, inserting a sentence that says: An existing commercial mooring permit can be transferred with the approval of the harbormaster.

            Perry had hoped to keep the original schedule for construction of the new Marine Center and break ground at this time next year, but on Monday night he told MRC members that the Seaport Economic Council would like to see some deliverables on the $303,000 grant awarded before Marion submits the first of two $1,000,000 grant applications.

            “This pushes it back to Spring 2023 as the earliest we could break ground,” he said.

            The next opportunity to apply for the $1,000,000 grant is May 1. “We all felt it was best not to push this forward too quickly. … It makes sense, it really does,” said Perry.

            The first $1,000,000 application is geared toward site work and the second $1,000,000 application for construction.

            The placeholder that matching funding has place with the Capital Improvement Planning Committee of $600,000 was bumped up to $700,000 following a meeting with the architect. Perry says the $700,000 capital request headed for Spring Town Meeting via the Waterways Account covers the match for the remainder of the project.

            The town will take over the cleaning, maintenance and purchase of supplies of the public bathrooms that sit underneath the current harbormaster headquarters.

            Some members of Marion’s Energy Management Committee submitted a letter requesting the MRC incorporate as many measures as possible to zero out the energy consumption of the new Marine Center.

            Malkoski told the commission that he responded, saying the MRC would be happy to discuss the matter but that “it would be particularly beneficial if they could identify some funding sources. … It would make for a better conversation.”

            “In talking with the architect … it’s very difficult to achieve net-zero with a building of this size — it’s very small, but … it’s very, very probable that we’ll see a reduction in the operating costs. It may not get to net zero, but it’s going to be pretty close,” said Perry. “I think some of those heating elements in the bathrooms are still original.”

            The heating of the new Marine Center building will be electric.

            “With the town taking over the existing public bathrooms, there’s potential to do something there,” said Perry, indicating that substantial progress in energy saving would have to be “more of a town-wide approach.”

            Perry and Malkoski shared their enthusiasm over the open-house tours of proposed project sites that Town Administrator Jay McGrail and the Select Board recently organized.

            “It’s really beneficial for everyone to go through those questions and actually be at the site,” said Perry, noting it is within the Select Board’s purview to schedule another such tour during the winter months. “It wouldn’t be pleasant, but we could certainly accommodate it.”

            In making his Shellfish Management report, Deputy Harbormaster Adam Murphy thanked the MRC members for their work on the new Aquaculture Regulations.

            “Everybody played a huge part in putting in there what is best for the whole community,” said Murphy, who said there has been confusion over the fate of the sites formerly occupied by Shea Doonan.

            Murphy confirmed that all prior applications to occupy Doonan’s sites are null and void. The town will not advertise. The sites are going to have to be resurveyed and vetted by the state’s Marine Fisheries Department.

            A revised aquaculture application is now available. Murphy told the MRC that some prior applicants indicated that they will not apply based on the changes in regulations, “but I’m sure there will be others,” he said.

            Murphy reported that the Town of Wareham saw another discharge of sewage into the Weweantic River so that area has been closed off to shell fishing.

            Asked by a MRC member if he has seen any scallops, Murphy said, “Negative … we haven’t seen any yet.”

            The next meeting of the MRC is scheduled for Monday, December 20, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Marine Resources Commission

By Mick Colageo

            When Evelyn Hafferty Fischer went before the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals on November 18, seeking permission to connect two structures at 20 Beach Street so that her father can live full time on her property, ZBA members were enthusiastically supportive of her application and at the same time sympathetic toward concerned abutters.

            ZBA member Dana Nilson told the board that he has an in-law apartment on his property and considers it “very important.” He said the apartment did not increase the size of his house’s footprint and applauded this application. “I think this is an excellent opportunity to provide that (senior housing),” he said.

            Citing the existing use of a guest cottage, ZBA member Dr. Ed Hoffer strongly echoed Nilson’s sentiments. Hoffer has been involved in the town’s think tank studying and seeking solutions for seniors to age in place, especially widows and widowers who cannot afford to keep up a large house. “I applaud this, I think it’s a good use. I don’t see how it makes it any worse,” said Hoffer.

            “This thing’s been creeping. … At this point, it’s growing,” said Jim Stewart, 21 Cove Street, an abutter situated directly behind Fischer’s property.

            Designer Stephanie Metz, who represented Fischer to the ZBA, presented a plan to change the second entry to a wall with two small windows, remove the ivy and repair the trim, and add screening to an existing concrete wall.

            While Marion Building Commissioner Scott Shippey acknowledged substantial work proposed on the site, Metz said, “It’s not exactly a porch,” but a structure made of made of brick and stone and shingle halfway up the wall. Only it’s not winterized.

            There were questions about the redesign and parking, but they faded to the backdrop behind questions and concerns about the structure’s evolution.

            Stewart offered some background, saying that Joe Marini built a wall in the late 1990s, then it was a garden shed and “kind of grew from there.” The next step, said Stewart, was the shed’s conversion into a guest cottage. He asked if that conversion was ever vetted by the ZBA, asserting that he never received notice.

            He’s concerned about that a second floor might be next.

            “They would have to dig out a foundation, and that’s just not feasible,” said Metz, explaining that the building is a slab on grade.

            Shippey said that a second floor would necessarily come before the ZBA for consideration of a special permit anyway. The tax assessor’s record indicates that the structure has been in place since 1987. “Over 10 years (there is) nothing we can do. It becomes pre-existing, non-conforming,” he said, explaining that the statute of limitations for anything related to permitting is 10 years.

            That means that, unless the ZBA determines that a project is making a non-conformity worse, it will not reject an application to improve on a structure especially for the purpose of aging in place.

            “There is a history of creep in this town,” said ZBA member Will Tifft, referencing the porch and subsequently enclosed area. “I’m not going to make a big deal if this, but we need to be careful of it.”

            ZBA member Margie Baldwin agreed but said the time with this property has passed.

            “There is this problem of creep, I understand that,” she said. “I don’t feel that we in our position now … we can determine based on years ago that it was built too close to the property (line).”

            The most-affected abutter, Julie Albert, 26 Beach Street, had hoped she could use the occasion of this application to gain more control. She asserted that the wall is on her property.

            “I don’t know how you’re going to maintain that wall, and I don’t want anyone on my property maintaining it,” she said, correcting a reference to ivy. “It’s a climbing hydrangea … that wall continues right to the street. I had it all landscaped and planted to cover that god-awful stuff, and I don’t want it touched. I don’t want any siding there… It’s my property so I hope it’s possible. Hope I’m clear.”

            Baldwin stressed the fact that the footprint will not be changed, calling the driveway adequate and saying it “doesn’t impact the neighbors. … Yes, it’s too close to the property line, but it’s (already) there,” said Baldwin.

            In the open-comment portion of the meeting, Tifft asked the board to “keep in mind an increasing footprint can happen in many ways.”

            Stewart asked for a survey of the property line, asking if it turned out that part of the applicant’s property was on an abutter’s property, would that not affect the applicant’s rights to revise the structure. Shippey said that question remains in the purview of the ZBA because the applicant is not extending the non-conformity of an existing structure.

            Stewart also insisted that the kitchen was installed inside of the last 10 years, and he asked Shippey to research the matter.

            “You’re input is valuable, but it is allowable by the bylaws,” said Shippey.

            In prefacing discussion with a reference to zoning bylaws 230-8.6 and 230-7.2, ZBA Chair Cynthia Callow also said she has an in-law apartment on her property.

            “This is a good thing we’re doing. We have many three-season porches turned into four-season and living space so I don’t see that encroaching footprints. … I think this thing’s already enclosed,” said Barry Gaffey, an interested resident attending the Zoom meeting.

            After reviewing the application, the ZBA voted to approve with no nay votes. Alternate member Tucker Burr did not vote.

            The board discussed voting protocol later in the meeting, and Callow explained that, as alternate members, Burr and Danielle Engwert don’t vote when there are only five votes needed and five are available. Sometimes a 4-out-of-6 vote is needed, and there are also recusals and/or absences. In such cases, Witten says the chair picks the alternate.

            Tifft suggested that the chair lean, rather than strictly deciding on an alternate member’s vote based on their area of expertise, toward a randomness “so that you could never be accused of loading the group.” Hoffer noted that alternate members are still free to offer their opinions without necessarily voting on a case.

            The scheduled continued public hearing with Heron Cove LLC was once again continued, this time to December 23 at 6:30 pm when it is anticipated that Town Counsel Jon Witten and Ken Steen’s attorney Mark Bobrowski will be in attendance.

            A modification to the permit that was originally put forth to the ZBA is anticipated for the 40B affordable housing project on Route 6 near the Wareham town line.

            The board voted to accept the withdraw without prejudice of the application of Jay Flanagan, 26 West Avenue.

            “My belief is he is going to come back (with a revised proposal),” said Callow, who heard Flanagan’s case the night before as a member of the Conservation Commission.

            In discussing how to handle future such scenarios, Callow said she would recuse herself from ConCom votes so as not to biase the ZBA).

            On December 20, ZBA members will be participating in a two-hour training class with Witten on special permits and variances and the differences in roles of the ZBA and the Planning Board.

            Callow asked ZBA members to send suggestions, and Shippey suggested they be sent to Anne Marie Tobia, the Zoning/Building administrator, to avoid any violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law.

            The next meeting of the Marion ZBA is scheduled for Thursday, December 9, at 6:30 pm.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Mick Colageo