Four Bay Watch Realty representatives presented their sophisticated and revised plan for a 96-unit development near Route 105 and Route 6 at a Marion Conservation Commission meeting on December 14.
The plan showed two, 30-unit apartment buildings, positioned south, toward Route 105, housing 60 units in total, in one area of the parcel, which was declared “affordable housing” and the remaining 36 homes, situated north in the parcel in an area beyond the apartments.
When asked about the proposed cost of the apartments or houses, the representatives said that the issue was not in the purview of the Conservation Commission.
When asked about the proposed Marion Pathway/Bike path that was proposed to “snake” its way through or alongside the complex, representatives from Bay Watch said that “it was a not conservation commission issue”. The plan presented did not show a pathway/stroller/bikeway area into or out of the complex where as many as 250 people might live.
“We don’t want another continuance,” said Mr. Millen, “we want to conclude this part of the process.”
When Mr. Millen and James Holding spoke, they asked if the Marion Conservation Commission board had looked at the revised plans.
“We have not seen them… when did you send them?” asked Wendy Carreau.
“We sent them this week,” replied Mr. Millen.
Each board member looked among themselves, and concluded that none had received the plans that were to be discussed that evening.
Board member Norman Hills said that the board needed time to ‘digest’ the new proposal and possibly get a peer review of the effects of the changes proposed.
Bay Watch Realty representatives questioned whether there was any money left in the Marion project to afford another peer review. Mr. Hills, of the board, said that he felt that it was needed, “because this is a totally different proposal” than the one that was originally proposed.
“What about the wildlife that now crosses that area and has crossed it for decades?” asked Mr. Hills.
Bay Watch Realty Trust representative Mr. Millen thought for a moment and replied… “we only addressed the wetlands issue and the vernal pools in the parcel.”
Board members looked among themselves and said that the neighbors abutting the property would have to deal with the deer and other wildlife that travel over the land.
Board members looked at the proposal and told Bay Watch Realty representatives that they needed time to review the new proposal and possibly have a peer review of the new plans.
“We want to conclude this project and go forward,” said Mr. Millen repeated.
The board agreed to continue the hearing until December 28 at 7:30 pm and reserved time for a continued hearing, if needed, on January 11, 2012.
In other business, the board reviewed a Request for Determination for Jeffery and Cheryl Faria, 53 Oakdale Avenue to reconstruct a 13-foot by 20.5-foot shed on an existing slab with stairs to access the upper storage level.
“You know that this unit can never be habitable,” said member Norman Hills.
The board approved the request for the new shed with three conditions including that the area cannot be fertilized, thereby eliminating any nitrates entering the waterway, that the boat removal and entry must be over the rocks on the property thereby eliminating disturbance of the wetlands and that the existing metal shed be demolished, because existing storage will be accommodated in the new shed.
Next up was a Request for Determination for Fannie Mae at 693 Front Street for an after-the-fact filling to replace a leaking septic tank. Mr. Briggs had recently visited the site and found that there was no vegetation on the site but that the recent repair, along with rocks and “seed and straw”, meaning hay bales on the driveway area would put the property back on the market.
“If we didn’t agree that the owner could repair the damage and get it back on the market, the property would soon be buried in snow… let’s have them sell it and move on,” said Chairman Briggs.
By Joan Hartnett-Barry