To the Editor,
I’m writing in response to the February 6, 2023 Planning Board meeting and to the subsequent article in the Wanderer’s February 9 Issue. I would like to set the record straight regarding the Planning Board’s concern with the proximity to Route 6 of the new houses being built on Chapel Road. In Jan of 2018 I decided to develop my property on the North side of Chapel Rd. I consulted my engineer, attorney and the zoning enforcement officer at that time. By mid-Feb.we concluded that the best way to move forward was through the Towns Zoning by-law Article 3.11 Special Residential Development (SRD), I chose this development model because I wanted to do a project that allowed for smart development and also minimized the impacts to the existing neighborhood and Rte 6 corridor. The Intent of SRD as stated in the by-law is “to permit the maximum flexibility for developing land for residential purposes, broaden housing opportunities, encourage the preservation of open spaces and promote the more efficient use of the land in harmony with its natural features”. To be considered for a Special Permit, an applicant must provide the board with a “Yield Plan”. The “Yield Plan” simply proves how many units can be built under conventional zoning. This forms the basis from which the Planning Board determines how many units can be allowed under SRD. In May I decided to move forward with an informal discussion with the Board to see if they would allow my project to move forward using the SRD development model. I was placed on the agenda for May 7th under the label “Chapel Street informal Discussion/ Special Residential Development. I submitted two plans showing what the project might look like under “Conventional Subdivision”. I also submitted an SRD plan showing a huge reduction in the overall disturbed area (by more than half), preserving 2.5 acers of “Green Way” along RT.6 (To be donated to the Mattapoisett Land Trust) all in keeping with the intent of SRD as stated above. To put it another way, there would have been a large area of open space and a natural wooded buffer between the homes and Route 6. During that meeting it became evident that some of the board members had reservations as to whether we could qualify for SRD permitting, it seemed the yield plan was their main source of concern. In an effort to resolve the matter, the Board decided to have Town counsel review the application to ensure its consistency with the requirements and intent of the SRD’s Special Permit and the meeting was continued. Town counsel reviewed the matter and in a formal letter dated May 21st, he opined that either yield plan as presented met the intent of the regulation and could be considered, as he repeatedly stated in the letter a total of 6 times. He also stated that the Board has great discretion and broad authority to grant or deny a special permit. Upon receiving a copy of the letter, I was convinced that the Board had the answers they needed and that we would be allowed to move forward with our SRD application. Wrong. At the subsequent meeting (our last), three members of the Board chose not to heed Town counsel’s advice and decided not to support our application. Janice Robbins, Karen Field, and Arlene Fildago all indicated for the record that they would not support our request. That was in 2018. In 2022 I sold the land to a builder along with plans for each individual lot permitted under conventional zoning and signed by some of those very same individuals. Under the conventional zoning regulations, the builder is limited to where he can build within each lot, which reduces the open space and natural buffer along Route 6. Although the builder is building some beautiful homes, it’s unfortunate that the result is void of any of the intent of an SRD to facilitate smart, low impact development and ensure open space. To this day I cannot fathom why they chose not to support a plan that was clearly a much better option, potentially avoiding what we have now, massive clearing and no green space. In retrospect I hope that in the future the Planning Board will keep an open mind and work with developers to permit projects that reduce sprawl, permanently preserve open space and better serve the community.
Respectfully, David Nicolosi
The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.