Given an opportunity to address the newer members of Marion’s Planning Board during the September 7 Zoom meeting, developer Sherman Briggs attempted to get the message across that the town’s current bylaws are discouraging developers from putting forth the projects most needed by a community concerned with dwindling scenarios in which seniors can avoid being economically leveraged out of their hometown.

            “You have my word that it never will happen,” he said while describing a hypothetical scenario for land at Spring and Mills Streets where he, in concert with Hamblin Homes, Inc., is proposing a residential development of 28 townhouse-style units.

            Theoretically, Briggs said, he could propose 42 units, including 38 at the market rate and four in the category of affordable housing. Doing so, he said, would eliminate the requirement to write the town a $150,000 donation check toward affordable housing as a mitigation measure. In explaining that by state law Marion can only tax a subsidized project $28,000 a year, which translates to less than $1,000 per unit, affordable housing would turn the best profit.

            “It’s a moneymaker, but it’s not what I believe and want to do,” said Briggs, noting that the town already has achieved the 10-percent state requirement for affordable housing. Member Norm Hills confirmed that Marion is at approximately 11.5 percent.

            Briggs said his proposed development of 28 townhouse-style units would bring 10 times the tax revenue, and he is frustrated by a bylaw that limits residential units to six per acre because it constricts the seven per-acre design he prefers.

            Prior to Briggs’ comments, his representative, Steve Poole of Lakeview Engineering, gave an overview of the project’s 10-year history, noting that it originally was conceived to include office space as well as residential. Ultimately, he said, it was decided the land would be used for Residence E multi-family housing. It has town sewer available and has been approved by Town Meeting.

            Planning Board member Eileen Marum, chairing the meeting in Will Saltonstall’s absence, sought to bring the conversation back from its history to the core points of the case.

            “That (zoning) bylaw is what created the history,” said Briggs.

            Planning Board member Alanna Nelson, elected in June along with Jonathan Henry, told Briggs, “I enjoyed hearing the history, so thank you for sharing the history.”

            Marum added her thanks.

            The many-times-continued case was a new filing, purposely reinvented by Briggs to accommodate the Planning Board’s recently rebuilt roster.

            Planning Board member Chris Collings was also unable to attend, but the board will circumvent that problem with application of the Mullin Rule, a state-authorized provision allowing members of adjudicatory boards to miss one meeting and still participate in a decision.

            Before the board voted to continue the public hearing to its next meeting on September 20, Poole further explained that they have reconfigured the roadway and are working with engineering firm Beals and Thomas and the Planning Board on administrative and technical issues while asking for some waivers.

            “I think we’re getting very close to solving the administrative and technical issues on the site,” said Poole, who said the project is under its second review from Beals and Thomas. “Hopefully at the next [Planning Board] meeting we can address the issues that need to be addressed by the board directly.”

            Poole said he will have answers back to Beals and Thomas sometime this week.

            Nelson asked about energy consumption plans, the stretch code, electric, net-zero, and solar.

            “It all comes down to affordability, too, and what the people would want when they go to buy these things. We will meet the stretch code. We talked about the new technology in soundproofing,” said Briggs, who noted that one of the upsides of the half-dozen years it has taken to reach this point in the process is the advancement in soundproofing technology.

            He implored board members to clean up some of the Residence E bylaws. “The bylaws don’t enhance any quality growth that isn’t subsidized,” he said. “Density makes it work.”

            Hills reported that the codification process has resulted in over 200 resolutions to 280 comments while, at the same time, identifying additional problems to solve. He estimates some 50 or 60 items yet to be resolved and said the committee is working on bylaw changes to make a significant number of those go away.

            Comments from the Planning Board were requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals in two cases, one of which drew a strong admonition from Hills where it concerns safety.

            Kenneth and Darla Parsons, 27 Dexter Road, are seeking a Special Permit for the construction of a single-family house and garage to replace their current house and garage. Hills told them that they are located in “LIMWA,” the advisory limit of moderate wave action. While the town cannot require a revision, Hills strongly suggested the Parsons discuss the matter with their engineer.

            “If a storm surge comes through, it’s probably going to go right through that basement and straight up. … You’re probably not high enough for the next 20 or 30 years,” said Hills to the applicants. “Now’s the time while you’re doing this.”

            During open comment, Nelson encouraged the public to attend the September 9 Hazard Mitigation Plan meeting, and Hills did likewise regarding the September 8 Select Board meeting.

            The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, September 20, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Planning Board

By Mick Colageo

            On August 31, the Tri-Town Selectmen met again to revisit and presumably vote for the Tri-Town cable television agreement with ORCTV and to accept the updated Old Rochester Regional School District agreement previously vetted during a July meeting.

            The combined boards represented by Jordan Collyer and Jodi Bauer from Mattapoisett, Norm Hills and John Waterman from Marion, and Brad Morse, Woody Hartley, and Paul Ciaburri from Rochester, quickly dealt with the matter of the ORR School District Agreement but hit a pothole along the way when it came to ORCTV.

            During an earlier meeting, concerns arose over how the towns served by the community cable organization can have some financial oversight, given that the entity is a registered non-profit. ORCTV Director Robert Chiarito said at that time, “We’ve been operating basically on a handshake for seven years.”

            Chiarito said that the agreement had been reinstated year after year without a review process. The cable TV station conducts Board of Directors meetings, but unlike government public meetings, ORCTV’s are not posted and the selectmen from the three towns are historically disconnected. Marion Town Administrator Jay McGrail volunteered to review the proposed contract, develop a list of deliverables to satisfy the needs of the towns for more information, and bring it back to the selectmen for further discussion.

            Addressing the group, McGrail said on August 31 that Marion is now “OK with the agreement,” but there were some areas of concern that Marion wanted added to the record. That prompted Collyer to say he had not seen the letter that McGrail had read into the minutes and needed time to digest its contents, especially given that some items warranted merit by Mattapoisett as well.

            McGrail’s letter listed five areas of concern: 1. Marion provides funding so that ORCTV can provide expert services to the ORR School District, ORR, the Marion School Committee, and to Marion residents with respect to public education and communication of governmental functions; 2. While the agreement allows ORCTV membership to choose two directors from Marion residents, they shall not be called “Town of Marion Representatives.” They are not vested with authority by the Marion Select Board; 3. ORCTV’s Board of Directors is responsible for initiating the ORCTV actions and responsibilities identified in the agreement; 4. Each annual report shall include a certification from the ORCTV Board of Directors that ORCTV is in full compliance with the terms of its contract; 5. Nothing in the agreement confers unilateral change in authority to ORCTV.

            Collyer did not note which areas of McGrail’s letter were significant to Mattapoisett but said that, in all likelihood, Mattapoisett’s board would accept the agreement with some of McGrail’s language included.

            Waterman said that the other towns were not referenced in McGrail’s letter because, after the previous Tri-Town Selectmen’s meeting, Marion officials believed the other boards were not in agreement with their concerns. Marion and Rochester voted to accept the agreement.

            Earlier in the meeting, the ORR School District agreement was discussed, and McGrail said the language in the agreement now “captured the essence and the spirit of conversations between the towns and the district.”

            All three towns’ selectmen will now go to their respective Fall Special Town Meetings planning to recommend the ORR School District agreement as accepted.

Tri-Town Board of Selectmen

By Marilou Newell

            Renewable Energy Development Partners, LLC came before the Rochester Planning Board on September 7 in a first of what no doubt will be multiple meetings to hammer out details on a new solar array project proposed for Neck Road.

            Representing the developer for the Notice of Intent filing was Sarah Stearns of Beals and Thomas, Inc., who spoke about the plan’s uniqueness as a both a canal canopy and dual-use agricultural solar-array project.

            Stearns said that the plan includes some 1,300 linear feet of ground-mounted solar panels that will traverse agricultural canals already located on the property. Regarding the dual agricultural use aspect to the project, she said that approximately 3 acres of previously disturbed land would be used for the construction of a ground-mounted array that allows for agricultural cultivation under the panels.

            Speaking to the new solar designs planned for the site, Henry Ouimet of Renewable Energy Development Partners said, “We are looking at shade-tolerant fruit trees and vegetables – it’s a new area.” He said that his company has made a 20-year commitment to farm the solar array fields. It is an emerging farming practice, Ouimet explained.

            Commissioner Maggie Payne asked about the proposed use of treated timber posts for some if not all of the panels planned. She wondered aloud about the leaching of harmful chemicals into soils that would be used for agricultural purposes. Ouimet responded that chemical leaching presents a “miniscule threat from migration.” He said that a year of research has taken place regarding this concern and that the proprietary nature of the solar design makes it necessary to use timber posts at least for the canal canopy but that metal posts might be used for the dual-use acres.

            Voicing concern for trees was Meg Sheehan of Save the Pine Barrens, a grassroots organization headquartered in Plymouth with the mission of protecting forests and soil removal. She said that a number of Rochester residents have contacted her with concerns. After stating, “Dual use is a hoax, according to our research,” she asked for more engineered plans.

            Also expressing some concern were two abutters, Michael Surace, who was not in favor of a planned berm that would be visible along Neck Road, and Tim Batch, who questioned the number of trees that would be removed for the dual-use array.

            A site visit by the commission was planned and the filing continued until September 21.

            Also coming before the commission was Tess Pagannelli of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority requesting a Certificate of Compliance for work necessitated by an Enforcement Order after unpermitted clearing had been discovered.

            Representing the agency was Jonathan Niro of BETA Engineering. Niro demonstrated through photographic evidence that remediation plantings have survived and that plantings overall are growing in abundance. Conservation Agent Merilee Kelly said, “Things look pretty lush; I’d give them a certificate.” The certificate was issued.

            A Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Douglas Rose received a positive determination, meaning the proposed fence installation planned for 89 Box Turtle Drive will require a Notice of Intent filing. The RDA was deemed insufficient for the project. Commissioner Dan Gagne believes that an RDA would not provide the type of oversight necessary for the project. The other commissioners agreed.

            The RDA filed by Darrell Charron, 15 Wolf Island Road, was continued until September 21 to give the applicant time to work with the Building Department and make a final determination as to the size of structure that zoning will allow.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 21, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

            A Notice of Intent filed by Kenneth and Darla Parsons for the reconstruction and site plan of single-family house and garage at 27 Dexter Road was continued to September 8, but not before substantial discussion that brought out calculators during the Marion Conservation Commission’s August 25 meeting.

            At question was the 10-percent rule, its interpretation in Marion regulations, and the actual arithmetic.

            After representative Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon, & Leone, Inc. presented an overview of the project, “A house that I believe is less intrusive for this site,” project architect Michael Snow explained, saying that the height of the basement is a balancing act between aesthetics and FEMA regulations.

            Having visited the site with fellow commission member Mark Bellanger, Chairman Shaun Walsh called it “a pretty straightforward project.”

            The more complex discussion began when ConCom member Emil Assing sought to clarify the listed 1,063 square feet of impervious area as a total area rather than an increased area.

            Davignon said he needed to review his notes on the matter, but since the proposed surfaces under the overhangs around the house would be made of favorable materials, Davignon asserted that the garage and house should account for impervious surface on the 21,780 square-foot lot, not including the shed.

            Reading from town regulations, Walsh told the stakeholders and commissioners that one of the criteria for redevelopment of previously developed areas is that the area of proposed work cannot exceed the amount of degraded area, provided that the proposed work may alter up to 10 percent if the degraded area is less than 10 percent of the riverfront area.

            After more discussion and estimations, Walsh suggested a continuance. “We all want to be comfortable that we’re calculating it right, and there’s a little bit of math involved,” he said.

            The commission voted to continue the public hearing to September 8 at 7:00 pm.

            A Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Burr Brothers Boats, Inc. to confirm the demarcated boundary of a bordering vegetated wetland (BVW) on one lot (8) and to confirm that the only land on the 305 Front Street property subject to coastal storm flowage is confined to a different lot (2A) will remain open while an ANRAD (Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation) is also filed.

            Walsh and fellow commission members Bellanger, Cynthia Callow, and Jeff Doubrava conducted a site visit but could not understand why the wetlands flags were located where they are. Representing the applicant, Brian Madden from LEC Environmental explained that the applicant thought it better to file the RDA since the case is about more than a wetland boundary. Walsh said the commission would prefer to have wetland boundary delineation approvals done as an ANRAD.

            Pointing out that Marion does not have a conservation agent and that the volunteer commissioners are limited in skills obtained through state-run workshops, Walsh said he would like to hold another site visit where the commissioners can meet with Madden or another LEC Environmental representative for a show-and-tell on the flags. Madden was amenable and asked if the RDA should remain open.

            A conservation agent is likely to be hired by the town by the end of the year, according to Walsh, who said the RDA can remain open and that he did not consider it necessary at the time to resort to a third-party review. “I don’t think we need to go there yet,” he said, noting that the last time such an occurrence proved educational for the commissioners. “None of us are soil scientists.”

            Walsh also asked that a revised plan show the stone wall on the property. The case was continued to Wednesday, September 8, at 7:00 pm.

            An RDA was submitted by Jeffrey J. Doubrava Revocable Trust and Elizabeth M. Doubrava Revocable Trust to install a buried 500-gallon propane tank secured to a poured concrete slab on the south side of their property at 47 East Avenue. Doubrava, a member of the commission, recused himself from involvement as a commissioner for the hearing.

            The case, continued from August 25, was reviewed by Callow, who recommended a Negative 2 (storm flowage) and 3 (buffer zone) determination because none of the actions would alter protected land. The commission, minus Doubrava, voted to approve Callow’s recommendation.

            The negative determination of applicability voted for Frederick Severance’s RDA to remove a large pine tree, replace the tennis court and replace a basketball hoop, and remove invasive plants at Shell Heap Road was issued only in part. The Negative 2 applies only to areas 1, 2, and 3 of the site plan, but no determination was issued for area No. 4, the eastern portion of the site.

            While most of the plan was met favorably by the commission, Walsh told representative Brandon Faneuf that he was hesitant to allow management of vegetation in the No. 4 area of the site plan without a more comprehensive assessment.

            Two public hearings were continued without discussion at the applicants’ request to ConCom’s next meeting on September 8: John and Cynthia Paliotta, 119 Converse Road, for a land-management plan to eradicate invasive species and establish long-term health, and a Notice of Jeffrey and Elizabeth Reed, 25 Holly Road, for the removal of phragmites.

            Walsh concluded the meeting by responding to social media commentary on an Order of Conditions that ConCom issued last year on the proposed dock at 122 Register Road. “It’s frustrating to read the rather significant number of factually inaccurate and sometimes rather insulting comments,” he said. “I really wish that folks would take the time to contact the commission office – and some of them did. … Our permit has nothing to do with navigational interference or potential navigational interference in a waterway. We have to assess a project on its merits [and] whether it complies in its standards to the Wetlands Protection Act.”

            Walsh further stressed that the navigational matters are Waterways Program issues that fall under the purview of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Chapter 91). In response to those concerns, the applicant agreed to amend the design and return to the Conservation Commission for approval on the changes.

            Doubrava said it’s not difficult to read the legal notices in The Wanderer. “I read them every week,” he said. Walsh reminded meeting attendees that The Wanderer is accessible in full at wanderer.com.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, September 8, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo