Eileen Marum came away from a state-sponsored, Citizen Planner Training Collaborative session eager to share the concept of design review as the work of a potential committee in Marion.
The mission of a design-review board would be to engage in “a process that municipalities can implement to improve the quality of structures,” Marum told fellow members of the Marion Planning Board during their Monday night Zoom meeting. “Focus should be objectivity and not based on the taste of individual board members.”
A big piece of the lesson in the CPTC program was the importance of objectivity over subjectivity in residential planning.
“It’s a good idea to have the people that live in these (residential developments) get together on styles, what to promote and what is appealing. But be careful not to be subjective but to be objective,” said Marum, summarizing her many notes from a session nearly two hours in length. “This is what the program was appealing to, the objectivity.”
Planning Board member Alanna Nelson corroborated Marum’s takeaway, referencing her own attendance in CPTC classes.
A design review committee would presumably consist of three or four members with diverse backgrounds such as architectural landscaping and historical preservation.
In order for such a committee to successfully influence the work of developers both residential and business, personal tastes must be put aside in favor of informed perspectives buttressed by education, experience and training. The committee should also be well-equipped with computer-generated graphics, aids and drawings, etc.
With three multifamily housing projects pitched and/or planned, the subject is certainly relevant to Marion. Duxbury and Wellesley both have design-and-review boards, and it was noted during Monday’s meeting that Marion’s town counsel, Jon Witten, lives in Duxbury and might be able to provide some insight.
Planning Board member Jon Henry asked Marum to what extent would a design-review board’s judgments be binding. They would not be adjudicatory in that sense but rather offer “something to think about, something to consider,” according to Marum.
Planning Board Chairman Will Saltonstall said he is skeptical of design and review at the residential scale. “As an architect who works on the other side of the table … I just can’t see a design-review board happening at a residential scale,” he said. “I understand it in terms of economic development on a bigger scale, urban development. But on a suburban scale …”
Marum clarified that a design-review committee is “not meant to police what someone can do on their property.”
Planning Board member Chris Collings suggested relabeling such a committee “Residential-Architectural Catalog,” explaining the value in making a large amount of information accessible. “Not everybody has (Will’s) breadth of view. I always feel like our review is better when we have good ideas. Maybe if it was called a conceptual database.”
Town Planner Doug Guey-Lee told the board that he also attended some of the CPTC classes and could share the documents.
Among the many tidbits gleaned from the session, Marum touched on subjects such as the importance of regulating excessive differences or similarities in buildings such as a subdivision of rows of cookie-cutter homes. The conformity of surrounding buildings, relayed Marum, should not be community wide but restricted to neighborhoods, areas and districts.
A design-review committee would be mindful of visual continuity, making sure developers do not break laws, regulations or policies or obstruct existing views of town landmarks. Marion has a neighborhood of history in the Town House, Taber Library and Bicentennial Park, the latter of which Marum feels could be used more than it is.
Urban amenities were encouraged by the CPTC. For example, a pocket park with benches and a fountain would attract people and help form the basis for economic boost.
CPTC attendees were instructed that developers seek certainty, to know what planning boards are thinking and what they can do to achieve a development that addresses the interests of all stakeholders. A big part of that is applicability (i.e. whether a particular building integrates well with its neighborhood.)
Asked for comments by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board had many questions about the application of Jay Flanagan for a variance to construct a covered entry to his house at 26 West Avenue.
Noting that the house is on a separate lot but that the plans do not show where, Planning Board member Norm Hills said he cannot tell if it’s a non-conforming building. “Not enough information,” he said.
The plans also lacked critical information on the location of the septic system in an environmentally sensitive area. Noting that the Board of Health sent a letter denying permission, Hills said the application is incomplete and the plans inadequate.
After discussing the matter, the members voted that the board would send back to the ZBA a letter recommending no further action is taken on this case until information is obtained, including a better understanding of the lot location, its setbacks and understanding the Board of Health statement on the property records card.
Citing a conflict of interest, Saltonstall recused himself from comments requested of the board on the application of Terrence and Kym Lee to the ZBA for a special permit allowing construction of an addition to an existing, non-conforming residence at 43 Holmes Street. The Planning Board recommended the matter staying in the purview of the ZBA, which will hear the case on Thursday, January 13.
Guey-Lee reported, in response to the Planning Board’s request to Witten for comment on 313 Wareham Road, that he was advised the matter should remain under ZBA purview.
The town hired a consultant to review recommended changes to Chapter 300 Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and those proposed changes that have been posted to the town’s website, marionma.gov, were approved by a board vote on Monday night.
The board also discussed potential amendments to zoning laws, and Saltonstall is working on a floor-area ratio idea that he says he derived from a comment made by resident Barry Gaffey during the board’s last meeting of 2021. Saltonstall thinks it’s an interesting kind of scale and can be applied specific to the zoning areas.
“We don’t want to hamper people’s ability to do things on small lots,” he said.
At Hills’ suggestion, Nelson will send an email to board administrator Terri Santos with information she has gleaned from trainings and what she has learned from other towns.
The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, January 18, at 7:00 pm.
Marion Planning Board
By Mick Colageo