Adhering to the advice of town counsel, the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals on January 16 deliberated the Special Permit application filed by Tabor Academy for four 90-foot field light poles to form a consensus so that he can draft a decision for the board to vote on at its next meeting.

            The purpose of the non-binding so-called ‘straw vote’ rather than a definitive final vote was to avoid initiating the 14-day period for the ZBA to file the decision with the town clerk and to allow for enough time for Town Counsel Jon Witten to write up a final decision.

            The ZBA closed the public hearing during its last meeting and solicited the input from the police and fire chiefs regarding concerns about on-street parking during night games when the lights would be used. According to Witten, “As long as the board addresses those issues (parking) they (both chiefs) are fine with it.”

            Witten asked the board to deliberate the criteria of the special permit and if the project would fulfill special permit conditions or whether the board should instead refer to the Dover Amendment.

            The Dover Amendment allows educational institutions to build facilities that exceed the maximum size allowed within the local zoning bylaws if the project directly serves an educational use.

            “I’d prefer the board to articulate where you want to go with this, including any conditions that you would like imposed,” said Witten, specifying that he was not looking for a motion that evening or any suggestion of any promise of approval, just direction for him to draft the decision.

            He advised the board to be specific and to provide legitimate findings to defend its decision should the ZBA leans toward special permit approval.

            “That’s just good practice,” said Witten. “You need to articulate why it met the [special permit] requirement.”

            Witten further cautioned the board that it should “spend a little extra time” that night as it deliberated the case, given that it had been remanded back to the ZBA by a Land Court judge.

            “I feel very strongly that we should be considering the special permit rather than the Dover Amendment at this point,” said ZBA member Christine Frangos, “because I think, considering the Dover Amendment, if we were to rule that this met the requirements of the Dover Amendment [it] would open us up – would be a very slippery slope – open us up to potential other…” 

            “It’s precedent-setting,” ZBA member Margie Baldwin interjected.

            Under a special permit, six conditions demonstrating that the lights would in some way serve the needs of the community and not pose a detriment to traffic and safety, utilities and public services, the character of the neighborhood, the environment, or town services must be met for approval.

            “I don’t think… there are any adverse impacts over… the positive impacts,” said ZBA member David Bramberg. “I would say the proposal is acceptable under [a special permit].”

            Chairman Marc LeBlanc identified traffic and safety as the two main concerns, including parking, which neighbors had expressed as a major concern, especially on Ryder Lane.

            ZBA member Tad Wollenhaupt suggested imposing a condition that Tabor must employ an off-duty police officer during night games when the lights are illuminated.

            “A police detail’s probably not out of the question,” said Wollenhaupt. “I don’t know if it’s unreasonable; I don’t know why it would be.”

            The board agreed with Wollenhaupt’s suggestion.

            “I think Tabor has shown that they’re willing to work with us in the town,” said LeBlanc. “I wouldn’t be opposed to putting something in writing with regards to a yearly review to sit down with Tabor and maybe fire and police and to say, ‘OK, we let this play out, where are we lacking, what could we do better?’ That way we’re not just putting it in a special permit and not revisiting it again.”

            The board’s additional conditions would include a maximum of eight games per season – fall and spring – and a 9:30 pm shutoff time for games, 6:30 pm for practices. Furthermore, Tabor is allowed no more than three “community events” requiring night lighting per spring and fall season.

            ZBA associate member Louise Nadler addressed how the lights might impact the character of the neighborhood, saying, “The first house [I] ever bought was next to a school. My feeling is that if there’s anybody who’s been living there for 220 or 180 years, then they have a dog in the fight; but I think that the school is, in fact, part of the neighborhood – and a wonderful part of the neighborhood – and I understand traffic and congestion can be an issue, but when your property abuts an institution of any sort there are pluses and minuses.”

            “I would agree,” said Baldwin. “It’s a matter of coexistence. Tabor is there, the neighborhood is there, and I think that Tabor has made huge strides in reaching out to the neighborhood for their concerns.

            “I think Tabor is part of the character of the town and we’re pleased to have Tabor be a part of the town,” continued Baldwin, “so I think it behooves us to work with Tabor and move forward with this.”

            Wollenhaupt agreed, saying, “Tabor’s there, Tabor exists; the field is there, the field exists; we’ve all looked at the concrete footings for a year or two now and they exist… Yes, they will exceed what we have for a [height] limit; however, this is the better option and it doesn’t really take away for the character of the neighborhood.”

            LeBlanc pointed out that this new special permit application only featured four light poles instead of the original five.

            “That’s a vast improvement right there, just eliminating that other tower,” LeBlanc said.

            He determined that the project was “not out of the realm of this application,” adding, “It seems like a special permit is the way to go, not the Dover Amendment.”

            Witten felt that the board had covered everything he needed to draft a decision he assumed was leading toward special permit approval, and the board clarified some further conditions including quarterly reports certifying the number of games and events held in addition to the annual report, an annual review of safety, and that the building commissioner, police chief, and fire chief all have access to the program that controls the lights in the case of an emergency.

            No parking would be allowed on Ryder Lane, and that will be enforced by a police detail.

            Any changes to the permit would require Tabor to return before the ZBA.

            The board will take a final vote during its next meeting.

            In other matters, the public hearing for Stephanie and Richard Harding, 52 Ichabod Lane, was immediately continued until February 13.

            The public hearing for Raymond Whitley and Natalia Vartapetova, 534 Point Road, was also immediately continued until February 13. The ZBA closed the public hearing 

            Cynthia Callow also appeared before the board seeking endorsement for appointment to the ZBA.

            The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for February 13 at 6:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

The Rochester Conservation Commission on January 21 revisited the Notice of Intent filed by Steen Realty and Development Corporation, Inc., developer of the 40R affordable housing development known as Rochester Crossroads at 22 Cranberry Highway.

            The proposed work that includes stormwater management systems to accommodate the 208-unit housing complex falls entirely within the 100-foot wetlands buffer zone, with some work occurring within the 25-foot no-touch zone.

            Engineer Phil Cordeiro told the commission that he had only a few updates to present this week, but nothing pertaining to the project’s design.

            The commission attended a site visit over the prior weekend to familiarize itself with the location, and Cordeiro said he also discussed the findings from Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon’s own separate walk of the site and its wetlands lines.

            “Nothing has transpired from our side, and we haven’t made any modifications to the plan at this point,” Cordeiro said, adding that Farinon only had a few comments about two wetland flags that needed to be revisited by the developer’s wetlands scientist and a request that the developer remove some old PVC piping and debris from two sites left behind by a nursery that was once located there.

            Cordeiro said he would prefer that the two cleanups be included in the Order of Conditions as special conditions. 

            Assisting the commission is environmental consultant Henry Nover, who provided the commission with his comments on the stormwater management system plan. He recommended two additional test pit sites and a groundwater mounding analysis be performed to test the stormwater management system’s calculations against a 100-year storm.

            Cordeiro said that the project would be appearing before the Planning Board in the following week for its first formal hearing and that they would be presenting a plan that he believes “already captures what is likely to be their comments.”

            “I hope that we’ve checked the boxes, but we’re not quite there,” said Cordeiro.

            The hearing was continued until February 4.

            In other matters, the public hearing for the Request for Determination of Applicability, continued from December 17, for the Town of Rochester for work at the Leonard’s Pond recreation area was again continued until February 4.

            With one recusal leading to a lack of a quorum, the public hearing for Pedro Rodriguez of Solar MA Project Management, LLC was continued until February 4.

            The Notice of Intent for REpurpose Properties, LLC for an age-restricted residential development on Rounseville Road beside Plumb Corner Mall was continued until February 4.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for February 4 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

            The Marion Finance Committee met with Town Administrator Jay McGrail on January 15 for an update on progress toward a balanced fiscal year 2021 budget, which McGrail said is still off by roughly $100,000-$150,000.

            McGrail said a prior shortfall of $300,000 in December is “pretty common for that time of year” in the preliminary stages of the budget-building process, but reducing the rest of the deficit “[depends] on how ORR swings,” he said.

            The budget timeline McGrail set weeks ago has so far been on track, said McGrail, after having met with all department heads to review their preliminary budget requests with just the library and the fire department remaining.

            McGrail has asked each department to submit a level-service budget for FY21 with any additional requests listed separately.

            “To be honest, it’s been a good process,” said McGrail. “We’ve cut already significantly from department… budgets to be able to get where we’re at today,” which included a number of eliminations in requests for additional staff, overtime, new programs, and some one-time funding requests.

            “We combed through requests to get down to what can afford,” said McGrail. “We’re not too far off from being able to submit a balanced budget to you guys.”

            McGrail reported that the town has $1.9 million in certified free cash at this time, an amount that Finance Committee Chairman Peter Winters said was “about average;” however, the town has been striving to rely less on free cash to fund the budget each year.

            “The last piece is really dealing with these last few departments and getting a final ORR number and that would complete our side of it (the budget preparation),” said McGrail.

            McGrail said he would submit the FY21 budget to the Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen on January 30 and publically present it to the selectmen during their February 4 meeting with a February 5 FinCom meeting to follow. Soon after, McGrail said department heads from the Fire, Police, and Facilities Departments would make their presentations to the Board of Selectmen and the FinCom, hopefully during one meeting rather than two.

            McGrail was most excited about not having to propose any overrides to voters at this year’s Annual Town Meeting.

            “That’s pretty dramatically different than last year,” said McGrail. “I think that residents should be happy to hear that.”

            “We certainly want to see a growth rate of 2 percent – or under would be better,” said Winters. “Just because we can afford it doesn’t mean we should spend the money.”

            McGrail said the budget was currently at about 3 percent.

            “The final [ORR] assessment number will determine where that goes,” said McGrail.

            The next meeting of the Marion Finance Committee is scheduled for February 5 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Finance Committee

By Jean Perry

            After a short delay to the start of the January 16 meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals, as hurried outgoing calls were made to alternate members in an effort to make a quorum, the first meeting of the evening was eventually and quickly dispatched.

            Richard and Carol Allen, 7 Highland Avenue, represented by John Panzarella of East Coast Homes, saw their request for a Special Permit to build a new residence on a previously approved undersized lot approved.

            The previous owner had secured a permit to build; however, the Allens failed to act in a timely manner causing that permit to expire. With no objections or questions from those in attendance or the board members, the request was approved.

            Things did not go quite so quickly when an application for a Special Permit and a Variance filed by 13 Shipyard Lane, LLC, and Atkinson, LLC for properties located at 13 Shipyard Lane and 18 Atkinson Way was heard. Represented by engineer Doug Schneider of Schneider, Davignon and Leone, the applicant sought the board’s approval to divide properties not contiguous to one another.

            As was described by Schneider, his client, Sam Waterston, owns both properties; parcels that were once a much larger holding owned by his ancestors. The lot located at 13 Shipyard Lane currently includes a pathway or easement to a beach area, a small undersized lot, and exclusive rights and ownership of a stone pier. And while the plans, Schneider said, would not change deeded easements for beach access, it would convey to the parcel located at 18 Atkinson Way those exclusive rights and ownership to the pier.

            ZBA Chairman Susan Akin and ZBA member Mary Anne Brogan appeared flummoxed and questioned why the applicant wished to have the pier conveyed to the Atkinson Way property when, as things stood now, he owns everything.

            Schneider said that although there are not currently any plans to sell any properties, the applicant wanted “flexibility” for any future decisions. He also pointed out that all along Mattapoisett’s extensive coastline there exist piers absent any “primary structure”, making what Waterston requests not unusual based on precedent.

            Schneider also said that the applicant had conferred with a real estate agent who seemed to indicate that the Atkinson Way property would have more value if the pier off Shipyard Lane could be attached to it.

            “Why does he have to own it, he has an easement,” said Brogan, but Schneider pointed out that the easement to the beach did not include rights to use the pier.

            “Why does he have to do this?” asked Akin.

            “He’s looking to protect the pier and keep it with the ancestral home,” responded Schneider.

            Schneider further clarified that Waterston having to own two properties in order to keep the ancestral pier constituted the hardship. 

            “He should just keep the house (on Shipyard Lane),” said Brogan. “Granny shouldn’t have sold it.”

            In the end, the majority ruled that the filing could not meet hardship standards and the stated hardship had been “self-created.” Akin, Brogan and member Norman Lyonnais voted ‘no’ with members Tony Tranfaglia and Colby Rottler voting to approve.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for February 20 at 6:00 pm at the Mattapoisett Town Hall if there are hearings scheduled.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell