It has been 33 years since the Mattapoisett Planning Board reviewed its fee structure for various matters of permitting and approval for construction projects. On February 7, the board was armed with a draft of updated fees as it took on the task of refining the language contained in the fee schedule and heard from the public.
It immediately became apparent that a list of definitions would have to accompany the fee schedule in an effort to make fee categories and associated documents abundantly clear to the public. The board and the public, primarily engineers Douglas Schneider of Schneider, Davignon and Leone Inc. and Bill Madden of G.A.F. Engineering, discussed when a change would trigger either the need for a fee for plan revisions for Form A, Approval Not Required (ANR) applications or an entirely new plan submitted by the applicant.
That singular category consumed the lion’s share of the discussion. In the end it was determined that the fees (available at mattapoisett.net) are in line with surrounding towns, but the language needed tweaking for clarity’s sake. The updated fees were found to be acceptable to the board and the public. The draft will be edited and returned to the board for public acceptance at a later date.
In other matters, what on the surface has appeared to be a simple Form C subdivision for a modification to an existing roadway and associated easements turned into a debate on the need for a confirmed surety, cash or a bond.
Coming before the board and representing Dandy Realty Trust, Daniel Chase trustee, Madden explained that the applicant was awaiting confirmation from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for the curb cut required for improvements to Nicky’s Lane, located off Route 6. However, on this night the applicant requested local approvals while holding back on a roadway surety.
The issue debated was when a surety or other form of financial device must be established. Is it needed once all the state approvals are in hand, or is it part of the local agreement, therefore needing to be established now?
David Nicolosi, one of the abutting property owners who is also the contractor for the roadway project asked the board to give the project leeway to withhold the surety agreement until work could commence. Nicolosi said he was willing to put up his lot as surety, something he said was regularly done. But member Janice Robbins found that proposal inconsistent with established practices on a subdivision of this sort, pressing for cash or a bond.
The discussion continued in this vein with Robbins impressing on the applicants’ representative the need to have financial matters sealed with a “date certain,” not open-ended. Attorney Patricia McArdle, representing Dandy R.E., argued that the town’s bylaw gives the Planning Board the authority to grant the application with surety for completion of the roadway promised but held until work could begin.
In the end, it was determined that the matter would be continued to March 7 and the project deadline for a decision extended to April 15, giving the applicant additional time to prepare a surety agreement.
Other matters handled included the continuance of a Definitive Subdivision planned for Park Street extension until March 21 with an extension date the same.
Randall Lane Solar LLC sought and received a withdrawal without prejudice for a previously requested ANR.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, March 7, at 7:00 pm.
Mattapoisett Planning Board
By Marilou Newell