An age-restricted housing development slated for the vacant lot beside Plumb Corner Mall is essentially at a standstill after some drainage issues from 30 years ago resurfaced during a Conservation Commission meeting last month, and as Rochester Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson pointed out on July 24, “You guys are kind of stuck for the time being.”

As Attorney Peter Paul described the situation during an informal discussion with the board, the property is going to need some work before the subdivision can be finalized and the 55+ housing development built.

“It may seem like we’ve been dragging our feet on this, but there’s been lots of work trying to find a solution,” Paul said. The problem: “lack of cooperation” from the owner of Plumb Corner Mall, as Paul put it.

A pre-existing drainage issue originates on that property, Paul said, and the developer and his engineer are trying to come up with a cost-effective way of dealing with it, but as Paul reported to the board, “…She’s basically said, ‘I’m not gonna be part of the planning and solution – go ahead and fix it – and by the way, I don’t want to pay for it.’

“We need her input in order to get this job done,” said Paul.

The plan, though, will have to satisfy both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission in order to proceed. For the Conservation Commission, an un-discharged Order of Conditions from about 30 years ago is still out there, which the developer knew nothing about when he began his plan for the housing development.

“We need a Certificate of Compliance to get this project back on track,” said Paul. “My client is willing to go the extra mile … halfway to help out with the cost – and [developer] Mike LaCava has been very cooperative … but we need some input from the owner of Plumb Corner in order to … make peace with [the Conservation Commission].”

According to Paul, the property owner of the land slated for subdivision, Gibbs Bray, wants to get this problem solved, get the subdivision built, and get the drainage fixed.

“As engineers, we’re sort of at a stalemate here,” said John Churchill of JC Engineering. For now, he was simply looking for guidance from the Planning Board on how to solve the problem of stormwater discharge being directed into an isolated wetland on the property. That solution could include catch basins and retention ponds along with a couple waivers from the board. But without permission from the Plumb Corner property owner, nothing like that can happen.

There wasn’t much input Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon could give the engineer either, she said, at least not without first presenting the new proposal to the commission.

“We can’t give you any advice on this for two reasons,” said Johnson. First, he said, the board’s peer review engineer can’t review a plan for someone else’s property. Second, it’s not their property and there is no written authority giving the engineer permission to devise a plan.

“You might as well be saying you’re talking about doing some work at Ben’s house right now,” said Johnson referring to board member Ben Bailey. “I will say that the cover’s off the box. It doesn’t matter whether or not your project happens or doesn’t happen,” Johnson said. That drainage will have to be addressed. Furthermore, the board has no money in an escrow account to pay their peer review engineer to look at it, “So he can’t work on that drainage thing until the applicant comes in, which is the person who owns that property,” Johnson clarified.

“You can’t back up stormwater onto someone else’s property, which essentially is what it is…. That’s something that we can’t even entertain,” said Johnson. “And we’re not gonna do easements – easements are a headache further down the road.”

“Convoluted and confusing” is how Johnson summarized the situation.

It’s unlikely that the developer will have a viable plan before the next meeting, so for now, the Planning Board will wait to hear whether Bray wants to start an escrow account in order to provide funding for the board’s engineer to review possible plans.

“That would actually keep the ball rolling on this while you work out the legal thing, because right now he owns that property,” suggested Johnson.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for August 14 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry

With humid swampy air lazily wafting across the harbor, the Notice of Intent hearing for a proposed two-lot development located deep within Haskell Swamp off Snow Field Road continued, during which engineer David Davignon presented an update on technicalities associated with stormwater flow, swamp water movement, and roadway construction practices.

Taking into consideration Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection requests to minimize wetlands disruption while providing access for traversing the swamp to reach approximately five-acres of uplands, Davignon spoke for nearly 90 minutes.

The major changes now proposed to assuage local and state wetlands and building questions were: 1) the omission of a paved cul-de-sac at the end of the public way; 2) inclusion of a cul-de-sac in the shape of a pentagon located at the end of the private driveway in the upland parcel; and 3) a decrease of approximately 3,000 square feet of wetland taking.

Davignon said soil testing of both the area where the driveway will be constructed and where recharge basins will be located were completed and ready for peer review.

For nearly 30 minutes Davignon read and clarified comments from the developer’s hydrological consultant, Terry Williams, providing layers of technical abstractions in an effort to address board members’ questions.

Chairman Tom Tucker reminded the members that a peer review consultant would be hired to assist the board through the process.

Regarding the board’s request that the fire chief weigh in on whether or not the driveway layout is sufficient to accommodate emergency vehicles, Davignon said that his client had met privately with the chief and presented an email presumably written by the chief to the client accepting the plan as submitted.

Tucker said the board needed a formal letter from the chief on department letterhead versus a cut and pasted copy of communication between the developer and the fire chief.

Tucker also said the board would need a similar sign-off from the police chief, too.

There was also a great deal of discussion regarding the topographic flatness of the swamp area; so much so that actually witnessing water flow was difficult, Davignon said. But using GIS maps and other computer programs, Williams was able to calculate the size of the culverts necessary to allow water movement in a north to south direction, given that the driveway will act as a dam.

Planning Board member Janice Robbins responded to an abutter’s question regarding how a homeowners’ association covenant would benefit the neighbors. Her response was, “Indirectly.”

Abutter David Markowski asked how long the driveway construction would take and where would the staging area be for heavy equipment. Davignon gave a ballpark of anywhere from two weeks to a month, depending on seasonal conditions. That led to more discussion of exactly how disruptive that construction phase would be. Highway Superintendent Barry Denham pointed out that equipment would likely fill up the lower end of Snow Field Road.

Denham asked Davignon for a construction proposal and some type of surety in the event that the contractors damage the public way.

With still many open-ended issues to be resolved, Davignon asked for and received a 90-day extension to the Notice of Intent filing and acknowledged that he would likely ask for a continuation after the September 3 deadline when the extension terminates.

Gail Carlson of Brandt Point Village along with several neighbors also met with the board to discuss the upcoming “drop dead” date for developer Armand Cotelleso and lender Marc Marcus of Omega Financial to complete Phase 1 of the residential development.

Carlson presented a list of additional items of incompletion and concern to a long list of things still to be done before the August 1 deadline. The new list includes no building permits displayed, no on-site sanity units for workers, construction trailer in a dilapidated condition, exposed pipes in pits, construction debris, and missing landscaping.

Tucker asked that the Board of Selectmen be apprised of the status of Phase 1 as he anticipates the necessity of putting legal actions into motion after August 1 if the developers fail to meet the deadline.

In other matters, Denham asked for a letter of support for a grant application his department is working on for securing roadway improvements associated with the construction of Phase 2 of the Mattapoisett Bike Path. The grant money would be used to make improvements to Industrial Drive and a crossing over North Street from the park-n-ride to the opposite side of North Street. Tucker and the other board members approved the request.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for August 6 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell