The following is a letter to the Marion Board of Selectmen from the Marion Conservation Commission to address residents' concerns about what the commission's responsibilities were regarding the Tabor athletic fields project.

Gentlemen,

The Conservation Commission has become aware of a number of statements made by residents and Selectmen at the subject meeting that are misleading or irrelevant with respect to the Conservation Commission and its actions.

It is important that everyone understands the process, defined in the Wetlands Protection Act, for submitting a Notice of Intent to the Conservation Commission.  The Marion Conservation Commission is required by law to follow these procedures:

• A Notice of Intent (NOI) form has to be filled out and submitted to the Conservation Commission.
• Prior to submitting the NOI, the applicant shall provide notification to all abutters.
• The Conservation Commission publishes a legal notice in a local publication notifying residents of the time and place of the public hearing.
• A public hearing is held for each NOI.  Prior to the hearing, the Conservation Commission performs a site visit to review the plans.  At the hearing, the applicant presents his/her proposed project to the Conservation Commission and is required to provide answers to the Conservation Commission until the Commission is convinced they fully understand the proposed project and how it may impact the resource areas.  Comments from the assembled audience are requested and questions are answered by the Commission or the applicant.
• Once the Order of Conditions is issued, there is a 10-business-day period within which participants at the hearing can appeal.

• After issuance of the Order of Conditions, an applicant may request an Amended Order of Conditions if changes need to be made to the project.  This will result in an additional public hearing.

With this background, let us address the issues discussed at the July 12th Selectmen’s meeting:

• After a number of people spoke about the use of crumb rubber, one person asked if the Conservation Commission had addressed their concerns.  The answer is none of the speakers at the July 12 Selectmen’s meeting participated in the public hearings previously held by the Conservation Commission.
• One abutter confirmed that he had been notified of the public hearings and did not attend because he felt that the Conservation Commission would look out for the Town’s interest.  The Commission’s responsibility is to regulate wetlands activity under the Wetlands Protection Act; the Wetlands Protection Act does not address the Town’s interest.
• The same abutter had a back-and-forth with his wife about the amount of time the Commission spent at each meeting on the Tabor subject.  Equating the review time to the size of the project is an erroneous measure.  Subsequently one of the Selectmen thought the plans complex and the Commission needed help.  Presumably the two speakers were unaware of the fact that the Commission conducted site visits with plans in hand and accompanied by the Tabor engineer.
• Another resident compared the time for approval of his ball field project with the Tabor athletic field project.  Though conceptually similar, his ball field project work was closer to a different resource area and the abutters were active participants in the hearings.
• Another abutter suggested that she has the right to request a new NOI.  The decision to issue an Amended Order of Conditions or require a new NOI rests entirely with the Conservation Commission.
• Two of the Selectmen were critical of the Conservation Commission, implying that the process was faulty resulting in the present situation.  The Commission notes that Tabor was treated exactly like every other applicant that comes before us.

In summary, the abutters and other residents are dragging the Selectmen, Tabor and the Town through a knothole because they failed to participate in the established legal process in the beginning.  The speakers have not clearly delineated which questions would be appropriate to address at a Conservation Commission meeting and which are not.  This lack of clarity has resulted in mass confusion and frustration by townspeople. It is evident from the statements made about the Conservation Commission that the speakers do not understand the requirements and the process, or have chosen to ignore them.  We appreciate that the general public is not aware of the specific roles and responsibilities of the Conservation Commission, but for the Selectmen to state in a public meeting that the Conservation Commission is the cause of their discomfort, without first reviewing the situation with the Conservation Commission so that they have both sides of the issue, is a great disservice to the members of the Commission.

Respectfully,

Sherman E. Briggs, Jr., Chairman