With a word of warning to all in attendance at the March 14 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission, acting Chairman Peter Newton said that due to the absence of Chairman Bob Rogers, Environmental Agent Liz Leidhold, and Secretary Teresa Austin, some hearings might have to be continued. He asked for everyone’s understanding and patience as the meeting got underway.
During the hearing of Lucas Grant’s Notice of Intent filing, it became apparent that the applicant and his engineer, Michael Koska, would have to return.
Grant is proposing to construct an elevated residence in a VE19 flood zone on Dupont Drive. Koska’s drawings and his narrative detailed the scope of work to take place and why the majority of the parcel was not jurisdictional. Koska has performed calculations that demonstrated for the commissioners why the home would be at a specific elevation versus one higher.
Newton questioned the calculations and noted he didn’t want Grant to have to build a house higher than necessary.
An error on the drawings caused Newton to request a new set for the record. There ensued a discussion between the other commissioners and Newton as to whether or not they could simply vote on the application now and let Koska submit updated plans in the following days.
“We’ve gotten burned before,” Newton said. He explained that in the past, the commission had allowed after-the-fact filings of updated drawings, but that created an administrative nightmare for the office staff including documents that were never received.
Commission member Michael King felt they could make a decision and wait for the updated drawings, but Newton wasn’t comfortable with that. He also noted that the lack of a file number from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection meant the hearing had to be continued.
Grant requested and received a continuation until March 28.
Later in the evening, this decision would become the focal point for a less harmonious continuation.
Engineer David Davignon presented a NOI filing on behalf of Fred Schernecker, 1 Goodspeed Island, for the construction of a new private roadway. Davignon gave an in-depth historical review of the property from when the lots were first approved at town meeting until current sales and home constructions.
Davignon explained that the current owners of the property, Anthony Campbell and Norah Cross, had joined two lots years ago and had recently sought to have the lot lines re-established allowing the return of individual parcels – a bid that had been denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the lack of frontage for the undeveloped section.
Schernecker’s engineers and architects had gone back to the drawing board and designed an “elaborate” private roadway, Davignon said, that would provide the necessary frontage.
He said that if the Planning Board accepted the latest concept, then Schernecker would be closer to getting the lot restored. Davignon said the applicant had a hearing scheduled with the Planning Board on March 21, but needed the Conservation Commission’s green light before the plans could go any further.
Although the roadway plan itself wasn’t a problem, in the purview of the commissioners, the plan submitted contained too many details.
Newton said that anyone looking at the submitted plans would think that the ConCom had approved not just the roadway, but everything including the proposed new home and various landscaping features.
Davignon thought that anyone looking at the filing simply needed to read the documents for clarification of what had been reviewed on this night.
“I’d love to have a handle on the BVW … make sure the delineations are valid,” Newton said. He said he wanted input from Rogers and Leidhold.
Davignon dug through his documents to find an earlier order of conditions the commission had approved for a Request for Determination of Applicability the site had received – those conditions he said showed the delineations now in question. However, he did not have that document with him.
“With all due respect, this is kind of important enough to continue the hearing,” Newton concluded.
Davignon countered, offering to fetch the missing paperwork if the commission was willing to give him a brief adjournment. Newton said the plan also needed to be modified.
That took the hearing back to Newton’s earlier statement – if new plans were requested, a continuation was necessary.
“I’m giving you my word on camera,” Davignon said when Newton refused to accept an after-the-fact filing of new plans.
“If we do it for you, what about someone else?” Newton pleaded.
Commission member Mike Dubuc told Newton, “I think you have to be consistent.”
“Yeah, it wouldn’t be fair to everyone else,” Newton said.
Davignon’s disappointment was evident as he said, “I reluctantly request a continuation.” The hearing will be reopened on March 28.
In other business, negative determinations were issued to several RDAs. Those applicants were Earl Miranda, 11 Meadowbrook Lane, for the construction of decks and placement of a shed; Kaitlin Keegan, 41 Aucoot Road, for tree removal; and David Daniels, 115 Acushnet Road, for the construction of a new septic system.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for March 28 at 6:30 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.
By Marilou Newell