Technicalities regarding the application of a special permit in addition to a variance highlighted one of two continued cases before the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals at its February 13 meeting, but the stickiest subject was the letter that the ZBA received from the Assessor’s office regarding a new $50 fee being charged the ZBA for every request a citizen makes for an abutters list.

            The letter dated February 11, 2020, stated that the Board of Assessors had recently voted to implement a $50 fee for all abutters lists distributed.

            The ZBA is Marion’s only board in which the office procures the abutters list. On the other boards, applicants notify abutters.

            Administrative Assistant Anne Marie Tobia explained to the ZBA that applicants currently request the list from her and she procures it from the Assessor’s office. The ZBA’s application fee is currently $300. 

            “And I do all my notifications,” said Tobia. “So, the applicant will go to the Board of Assessors and pay their $50 fee, and their application would consist of the abutters list and the application and the fee. If we decide to knock it down to $250 or not, that’s up to the (ZBA).”

            “I don’t feel comfortable lowering our fee. I don’t think our board should take a hit. But I also don’t feel that we should have to pay for it,” said ZBA Chairman Mark LeBlanc.

            ZBA member Margherita Baldwin indicated concern that the process should remain user-friendly for citizens, but member Tad Wollenhaupt said it was normal for applicants to notify abutters.

            “All the other boards require (a fee); we’re the only board that doesn’t,” he said.

            LeBlanc sought to confirm, given the internal nature of the assessment, whether or not the ZBA will now be charged by the Assessors Office for each application requesting an abutters list. Tobia answered that the ZBA will be charged and suggested applicants submit two checks, one for $250 to satisfy the ZBA and one for $50 to apply for the abutters list. That way, the ZBA would not need to change any procedures. LeBlanc concurred, hoping to avoid having applicants make their own abutters lists and notifications, a scenario he considered “disastrous.”

            “So, let’s put it on the agenda for the next board meeting to discuss lowering our fee,” said LeBlanc. “I just want to make sure it’s publicly noticed because we’re making a vote on it.”

            Board member Christina Frangos suggested amendments for clarity to the January 16 meeting’s minutes, and those amendments were included in the accepted version of the minutes. 

            Town Counsel Jon Witten drafted a decision granting a special permit to Tabor Academy for the usage of field lights. After studying the document, Frangos, an attorney, offered several suggestions. 

Focusing on Footnote No. 1 that states Tabor is permitted to maintain field illumination until 9:45 pm to ensure safe exiting from the premises, providing the lights are lowered at 9:30 pm, Frangos clarified the intent of the permit to define the process as beginning the lowering sequence at 9:30 pm.

            LeBlanc asked, “Do we need to identify a level? Is it that necessary?”

            “I don’t know what a proper level is; that’s not a skillset I have,” said Witten. “The board could certainly limit that – a lumen (maximum). I just don’t know what that number would be.”

            It was agreed that trial and error would be a necessary part of the process of arriving at a fair implementation of the permit.

            Two continued cases were brought before the Zoning Board. The first time hearing the case, two board members were not present so the ZBA applied the Mullin rule to allow the full board to rule and ask any questions. Frangos, who was not present at January 16, abstained from voting on both cases.

            There was extensive discussion over a question in Case 773, in which property owners Raymond Whitley and Natalia Vartapetova, 534 Point Road, sought a variance from Section 230-5.1 for setback relief and a special permit under Sections 230-6.1a, 230-6.1c, 230-7.1, 230-7.2 and 230-7.3 of the zoning bylaws to allow the construction of a detached garage. It is customary that a variance or special permit be required but not both.

            “The existing building is a bit of a disaster so we want to clean that up,” said Whitley, addressing the board. “I spoke to each neighbor, (and) they said they were fine with it. I didn’t see why they wouldn’t be because the garage is an eyesore.”

            Whitley indicated that the house, a 1950s design built on a slab and later expanded, needed the garage for storage.

            Scott Shippey, building commissioner and zoning officer, said, “The whole thing could be considered non-conforming because it’s detached,” and further instructed the ZBA that while a special permit provides more leeway, it does not carry over to a new owner and would be terminated upon transfer. A variance stays with the property forever.

            Originally measuring 13 feet, 6 inches by 10 feet, 3 inches, Whitley plans to rebuild the structure at 26 feet deep so it can garage a vehicle. Since the work will not make the structure any worse and is approved by the neighbors, it was granted a variance as a new, non-conforming structure rather than an expansion of an existing structure.

            In Case 772, Stephanie and Richard Harding were also granted a variance from Section 230-6D and 230-6E of the zoning bylaws for their non-conforming garage at 52 Ichabod Lane.

            After the public hearing was closed and the location of the Harding’s garage was approved by the board, discussion around the operations of the board ensued before the next public hearing. 

            Alternate member Cynthia Callow, who was new to the board, sought clarification on law and process. 

            “The thing with the Zoning Board is we have a very narrow window that we look through, very narrow. And we’re reminded of that quite often by town counsel,” said Board Chairman Mark LeBlanc. “It’s a small town, we know people but we tend to – we have to keep a really small focus as to what we’re discussing as far as the cases go.”

            The next meeting of the Marion ZBA is scheduled for February 27 at Marion Town House.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Mick Colageo

            For over a year, an age-related residential subdivision has been wending its way through the permitting process in Rochester. Long hearings with both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board, site visits, engineering modifications, peer reviews, and continuances have been required by town officials to satisfy their questions and concerns in what will be a very high-profile construction project when shovels start moving dirt near Plumb Corner.

            Thus, it was no surprise when Repurpose Properties, represented by both Brian Wallace and John Churchill of JC Engineering, Inc., when coming before the Rochester Planning Board on February 12, found the hearing once again continued, this time over the matter of surety – the type of surety Rochester was willing to accept.

            The site is located in the heart of Rochester at the intersection of New Bedford Road and Route 105. The 44-unit, over-55 community on property owned by Gibbs V. and Patricia Bray Trustees, has gone through many iterations in terms of drainage designs and protection of contiguous wetlands, but on this night the theme was surety.

            Wallace said that he had responded to all final site-related questions posed by peer-review consultant Ken Motta of Field Engineering. He also noted that he was in receipt of a letter from the Historical Commission indicating there were not issues with the placement of the project at the proposed location. 

            Wallace also discussed how fresh water will be supplied to the residential units, saying that project planners were in discussion with the Town of Marion, which supplies water to that location and that the Mattapoisett River Valley Water District had confirmed acceptance of the plans.

            Then surety was discussed. Churchill suggested holding units would be sufficient for ensuring that the project will be completed as planned. But members of the Planning Board said that was not what Rochester was looking for. They stated that the town had moved away from solely holding units until such elements as roadways and infrastructures were completed to their satisfaction, to cash or bonded sureties up to 50 percent of the value of Phase 1, in this case over $1 million.

            “A fifty-percent contingency is standard,” stated Chairman Arnie Johnson. 

            Discussion continued for nearly 30 minutes, during which Johnson explained that a bond was needed up front, then once the roadway binder was in place along with utilities and drainage infrastructure, a switch to units could be considered. “We can amend the surety agreement afterwards,” he stated.

            Churchill expressed concern that a bond would be a financial burden to the developer, saying “…I don’t want to bond the entire Phase 1; usually the developer starts with infrastructure, then goes as far as you can with financing.” 

            In the end, it was decided that Churchill would return with a surety plan that included bonding for Phase 1. Once that surety is in place and Phase 1 roadway(s) and infrastructure completed, Johnson said the developer could apply for building permits, build model units, and have surety agreements reviewed. The hearing was continued until February 25.

            Also coming before the board was Pedro Rodriguez, Solar MA, regarding a 35-acre solar array planned for 0 Old Middleboro Road. Requested plan modifications were discussed including the protection of historic features such as stone walls and homestead foundations. Construction waivers were also discussed. The project hearing was continued until the next meeting.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for February 25 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Rochester Planning Board

By Marilou Newell