The Marion Bylaw Codification Committee is a subcommittee of the Planning Board, but not all Codification Committee members are Planning Board members.
As the Codification Committee has been grinding through an arduous updating and cleaning up of existing bylaws, some Planning Board members have in their own public meetings articulated frustration with their lack of involvement in the drafting process, at least on the ground floor.
So when the Codification Committee held a public meeting on October 27, two Planning Board members not on the Codification Committee attended, creating a Planning Board quorum of four, including the two members serving on the Codification Committee, Norm Hills and Eileen Marum.
Planning Board member Tucker Burr also took a seat alongside committee members, while Planning Board member Chris Collings sat in a spectator row and did not participate in the meeting.
The October 27 Codification Committee meeting agenda called for discussion with respect to the Village-Style Smart Growth District concept and the Planning Board.
The committee went over changes, including signage regulations, as Hills was preparing a draft to bring before the Planning Board that he chairs.
In Section G, commercial signage was discussed relative to political signage, and a clause stating that no private/political signs are allowed on public property was eliminated. It was noted that treating the two separately could be viewed as a violation of free speech.
This kind of deep dive into a world of detail was only the tip of the iceberg of what the Codification Committee has been doing for several months.
Building Commissioner Bob Grillo offered perspective regarding residential accessory dwelling units, noting that putting certain language into a bylaw does not guarantee it can be effectively enforced.
Hills proposed forwarding the discussed items onto the Planning Board, adding that other items of concern can be addressed as they are identified.
Member Will Saltonstall asked if the document should be addressed in “one big public hearing.” Hills said that matter is up to Planning Board, which can address the bylaws in multiple sessions “as necessary.”
A detailed discussion ensued on the trigger points necessitating site-plan review, projects that can be done by right, and those requiring a public hearing.
Grillo said that site-plan review is viewed “vastly different in the courts” and that the Planning Board’s purview is limited to things affected by the zoning bylaws.
One thing that member Mike Sudofsky said can streamline the vetting/permitting process is to address zoning before the Planning Board holds a public hearing.
“Watch Mattapoisett’s process. They have the same problems, but they approach it a little bit differently,” said Sudofsky. “Start with everyone understands the zoning (via a recommendation for the case from the zoning officer) … it’s just quicker. It’s worth it.”
“The board requires good information before it can entertain an application,” said Saltonstall, interpreting Sudofsky’s message.
Grillo suggested a preplanned (presubmission) meeting.
“If we can get a clear understanding and say this requires site-plan review … from my office … it allows the Planning Board to use common sense and waive any of the engineering requirements,” he said. “If it’s a multiuse complex that’s coming in, we want everything. … so we don’t make somebody spend $20,000 or $30,000 on engineering.
“We do it in Sandwich. We loosely do it here. It’s super helpful. (If) we have to talk to this board and that board and that board, then it’s more questions for me. One downside, if the property goes up for sale, we would have 20 meetings on the same property.”
The Codification Committee did not announce a date for its next meeting upon adjournment.
Marion Bylaw Codification Committee
By Mick Colageo