Marion Conservation Commission Vice Chair Shaun Walsh told Brandon Lebrun that the commission could not issue a Certificate of Compliance (COC) for work being done at 20 Front Street during the commission’s April 22 meeting via remote access.
“A Certificate of Compliance is intended to certify that the work permitted by the order of conditions was completed in accordance with the order of conditions. It wasn’t, not in a number of ways,” said Walsh because of “so many deviations at that site from what was originally permitted.”
Lebrun, representing applicants Ted and Ann Severance, came on the scene after several snags were discovered and told ConCom he had hoped that the beautification work done on the site would have addressed an enforcement order.
“I’m trying to find some lemonade in this lemon,” said Lebrun, who had understood ConCom as having said it could live with an impervious driveway after an order of conditions granting an impervious driveway in accordance with what was originally proposed. “It probably did need an amendment. I guess a new Notice of Intent is what we’re going to have to do.”
Walsh alluded to several deviations from the approved order of conditions, including the placement of boulders and a retaining wall not according to plan, and a path built through the no-build zone.
“I’m going to assume the property owners did not present an order of conditions to their contractor. There were 13 conditions not complied with,” said Walsh. “The contractors may have carried out a beautiful restoration of the wetlands, but there are numerous problems” with the (February 2018) order of conditions as granted.
The real problem, said Walsh, was the expiration of the order of conditions. “Now we can’t grant (a certificate of compliance),” he said.
The property will either go without a COC or need a new Notice of Intent in keeping with the amended building plan.
ConCom Chair Jeff Doubrava recognized that “the site has grown in well… it’s the state’s rule, not our rule.”
Walsh said he didn’t have a problem with a pervious driveway, but he insisted that the permit must conform to the project or the project must conform to the permit.
ConCom member Cynthia Callow recognized “a good job” by the contractor repairing the wetland, but agreed with the denial of a COC.
“I think they need to go through the procedure correctly. This one was really bad,” said Callow.
Doubrava reviewed the file for amendment of the order of conditions and announced that the order of conditions is expired so ConCom needs a new Notice of Intent.
Walsh moved to deny the COC, and ConCom unanimously agreed.
An appointment with Mark Ross to discuss changes at 195C Converse Road ended with Marion ConCom recommending that the applicant file a request to amend the order of conditions.
The applicant did not think such a filing should be necessary because, according to applicant Nick Dufresne, “essentially the project is exactly the same, only thing it’s farther from the (wetland) area.”
The original plan intended to build an entire new house on stilts and had an order of conditions on file with Marion ConCom. According to John Markey, the attorney representing the applicant, three abutters spoke in favor and one opposed. The owner made concessions that were approved, the abutter appealed the decision and there was resulting litigation. After litigation with an abutting neighbor, that disagreement was resolved.
“She didn’t want the building to be built this year (with her mother living with her), and for privacy reasons didn’t want certain bushes cut down. (Adding) more steps is a cost that wasn’t in their original budget,” explained Markey.
The current plan is to elevate the existing structure and add to it, with a net result of a slightly smaller structure having moved the footprint two feet farther away from the wetland (currently five feet from the wetland).
It was unwelcome news that ConCom strongly recommended filing for an amendment to the order of conditions because significant concessions had been made to the order of conditions already granted. Even so, ConCom considered the changes to be far too drastic not to need an amendment.
Walsh said that abutter notifications and public notice were necessary as prerequisites for the request of a certificate of compliance. “And it has to say the project meets the order of conditions, but without the amendment you will not have that compliance,” he said. “Just accepting a revised plan of record does not show up on the registry of deeds.”
After discussing the possibility of consulting with town counsel, Markey indicated he will advise his client to file a request to amend the order of conditions.
In other business, ConCom discussed a citizen’s complaint about work being done on the south side of 675 Point Road regarding wetlands are at the property line. The owner told ConCom he is cleaning up the backyard and cutting down some trees. Walsh walked to the site and said work was being done in the buffer zone. ConCom recommended the property owner file a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) and get a determination.
A request for a COC for trustee Camilla Matthews at 20 Cottage Lane was issued, despite no work because the project never began. The property instead is being sold.
A three-year permit extension was granted to applicants William Murphy and Nancy Edmonds for their property at 296 Delano Road, and a COC was issued to Christopher James Klapinsky at 41 East Avenue.
ConCom has scratched its May 13 meeting but will convene on Wednesday, May 27. Marion will hold no public hearings until mid-June. There will also be a special ConCom meeting on Wednesday, June 3, to catch up on at least three public hearings.
Marion Conservation Commission
By Mick Colageo