It’s a waiting game for several Marion residents, as members of the Marion Conservation Commission chose to continue their appointments until January of 2020.

            Dale and Laura Briggs, 23 Dexter Road, filed a Notice of Intent with the commission to demolish an existing ground-level cottage and replace it with a one-story, two-bedroom house. Engineer David Davignon noted that the biggest difficulty with the lot is that it sits on an island in the middle of the Weweantic River.

            A boardwalk to the mainland was completed in summer 2019, Dale Briggs noted. The boardwalk is constructed to hold the weight of small construction vehicles. In fact, Briggs added, “It could hold a fire truck if it was wide enough.”

            According to the Briggses, the boardwalk was the linchpin to further developing the property. The new house will be on stilts, and Davignon added that, according to the plans, there will be a two-story climb just to get to the first floor. The site has water and sewer line access already, as well as access to electricity.

            “This site is challenging, but less challenging than if you didn’t already have utilities,” said Conservation Commission member Shaun Walsh. “I’d like to continue this just to review any questions we might have and fully understand your answers. It’s always tricky,” he said, “and we want to give this more consideration.”

            The hearing was continued until January 8.

            Davignon also represented Henry and Judith DeJesus, who filed a Notice of Intent to construct a detached garage at 25 Holly Road. Construction of the planned garage will alter 476 square feet of wetlands. To offset the damage, Davignon proposed replicating 500 square feet of wetlands on the same lot.

            “I really want to see this lot re-tagged,” said Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava. “The area you’re trying to replicate wetlands on looks exactly the same to us.”

            “To clarify,” added Walsh, “we need to re-evaluate the land you want to turn into wetlands, because to us that land already looks like wetlands.”

            “The company that tagged it originally is very reputable,” Davignon said, which board members did not dispute. “Plus, with the weather this year, everything looks like wetlands. But if that’s what you want, we’ll have it retagged.”

            The commission voted to continue the hearing until the next meeting in order to visit the retagged property.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission will be held on January 8 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Andrea Ray

            In this next phase of its regional Route 6 study, the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) is looking for a consensus among local Route 6 travelers on what changes, if any, they envision for the South Coast corridor. But still, after an online survey that allowed locals to express their major concerns, attendees at a December 12 SRPEDD community forum at Center School argued that the four options SRPEDD introduced hardly address those major concerns, and learned that even if a consensus could be made, the state might not agree to fund the preferred option.

            Jed Cornock, principal comprehensive planner for SRPEDD, laid out four alternatives to the current state of Route 6, which aimed at accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists while addressing problematic intersections that, years from now, would likely worsen without intervention. Two alternatives reduce the highway from four lanes to two, and two maintain the four-lane roadway while attempting to include at least one lane for walking and biking.

            Alternative 1 keeps the four lanes and adds 6-foot sidewalks to both sides. There is no increase in shoulder width (currently 6 inches), no drainage modifications, and no improvements for bicycle travel.

            Alternative 2 keeps the four lanes and the narrow 6-inch shoulder, but creates a 10-foot wide side shared-use path instead of the 6-foot sidewalks of Alternative 1; however, this project would require the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to acquire land from properties along the road to accommodate the 64-foot right of way, which would add additional costs to the project.

            Alternative 3 drops the road down to two 11-foot travel lanes (lanes are currently 10.5 feet wide) and adds a 5-foot shoulder. Each side would have a 5-foot bike lane and separate 5-foot sidewalk with a 1.5-foot buffer between them, all without needing to acquire land to expand the right of way. The downside, however, is the reduction in opportunities for passing slower cars, utility poles would likely need relocating, and drainage modifications would be needed.

            Alternative 4 drops the road down to two 11-foot travel lanes, increases the shoulder to 5 feet, and adds a 1.5-foot buffer between the shoulder and a 10-foot shared-use ‘sidepath’. Like the third alternative, vehicle passing would be affected, and utility pole relocation and drainage work would up the price tag.

            Some residents were curious about a two-lane alternative and wondered what they would be “giving up” with two lanes instead of four. Would travel time increase? How about safety?

            “It’s difficult to estimate your trip time from one end to the other,” said Cornock, although Route 6 currently operates under capacity, he said, meaning that there remains some wiggle room to accommodate the same number of cars with only two travel lanes.

            Mattapoisett resident Jodi Bauer, who lives on the Mattapoisett strip of Route 6 known as County Road, reminded the group of how unsafe Route 6 became when it was reduced to two travel lanes in the 1980s.

            “There were some horrible car crashes on that period of time,” said Bauer. “And to think, people forget that it was called ‘Suicide Alley’ and it was called Route 6 ‘the killer.’”

            Bauer read from a newspaper article from June 1983 when the highway was reduced to two travel lanes that quoted Highway Surveyor Barry Denham as saying, “I’m happy about it,” which elicited a few chuckles as Denham sat there that evening.

            “We’ve been there, we’ve done that,” Bauer said. “It didn’t succeed then, and I just personally don’t think that going down to a two-lane would be to our benefit.”

            Fairhaven Selectman Bob Espindola asked Cornock, if additional rights of way are necessary, are either of those options even realistic?

            “If it’s not realistic, I don’t think that’s something that we should even consider,” said Espindola.

            Cornock said he hears opinions from both sides – those in favor of two lanes with sidepaths and those in favor of keeping the four lanes – that keeps all the options still on the table.

            “This is how we hear about what that consensus is,” said Cornock. “We can make recommendations, but it’s all about the people who live here and travel here.”

            One resident wondered why there wasn’t an alternative that simply widens the four lanes, adds sidewalks, but excludes a bike lane.

            “You’re squeezed and you feel very uncomfortable,” he said, suggesting an “Alternative 1.5.”

            Cornock said Alternative 1 is clearly the least costly, and residents could push to “do little, or the least amount, or change it entirely.” But if residents in towns from Fairhaven to Wareham can’t agree on a vision, then Cornock said he would have to make that remark in his final study report to the state.

            “What we’re trying to do is bring forward a united or cohesive plan for MassDOT,” said Cornock. “If we can’t accomplish that, I guess it’s back to the drawing board.”

            The public survey SRPEDD conducted last year as part of its first phase of the study was completed by over 700 people. The top concerns included high traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, and the lack of bicycle facilities. But none of the options address speed, one resident pointed out. Cornock commented that adjusting speed limits is always a risk because the speed limit is determined based on the average speed of 85 percent of drivers taken during a traffic study.

            Espindola said the cost of the project and its practicality are what would personally influence his decision.

            “Some of these options really aren’t practical,” Espindola said, pointing out that the expanded alternatives with sidewalks and bike paths have never come to fruition in other parts of the state. So, if he chooses an alternative that is ultimately never going to happen, said Espindola, “Then I just wasted a vote.”

            Ultimately, is this activity all just a waste of time, some asked.

            “It’s a planning study,” said Cornock. “It doesn’t mean that it essentially is going to happen.” And if there is no subsequent consensus, he said, “The community then basically has to pick up the ball… The study itself is more about what you want to see the future of Route 6 look like.”

            “Is this two-lane configuration just bonkers?” one resident asked. “If it is, then that’s what we really need to hear.”

            Cornock told the group that the four alternatives he presented them came as a result of prior community outreach activities.

            “All opinions matter,” Cornock confirmed.

            The online survey showed that 14 percent of participants are happy with the current state of Route 6.

            Cornock encouraged residents from Fairhaven to Wareham to attend a second SRPEDD Route 6 Corridor Study public forum on January 6 at 6:00 pm at Sippican School.

By Jean Perry

            Members of the ‘Joint’ school committees met on December 12 to finalize the criteria and qualifications for the school districts’ next superintendent by reviewing the results of an online survey with Jim Hardy, field director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC).

            Hardy delved into the results of an online survey that yielded 450 responses from school staff, students, town officials, residents, and an “other” subgroup, which revealed a consistent repetition of the characteristics respondents would prefer in a new superintendent.

            “Financial management” topped the list for the question asking respondents what they believe are the five most significant current and future issues the new superintendent will face, except for the “other” group, which identified financial management as its second priority after “educational leadership skills.”

            In descending order, respondents picked communication with parents/community, curriculum development and instruction, educational leadership skills, and facilities management /building construction as the other four top-five significant issues the next superintendent will face.

            Respondents again chose financial management as their pick for the important issue the new superintendent will face, followed by staff diversity, building an administrative team, strong communication skills, and engaging students and families.

             “You’ll see the same thing over and over again,” said Hardy. “There’s a theme that every single group identified… as key criteria as you move through the survey.”

            Hardy also held focus group sessions with staff that identified knowledge of the budget-building development process as a priority, along with the ability to effectively and credibly describe the details of a budget in a public forum.

            “It’s not an indication that’s not currently being done now,” said Hardy. “It’s just simply [something] we want to see going forward…”

            Experience within a regional school district would be an asset; however, not a disqualifier.

            “That would be something that would move someone from this pile to that pile,” said Hardy.

            Classroom teaching experience is another preference for the focus group, as well as administrative experience, preferably as a superintendent or assistant superintendent, or at least some experience in a central office environment.

            A superintendent that is an excellent communicator is a must, with the ability to engage the community and participate in community and school events. Furthermore, focus group participants want to see a superintendent engage in “more interaction with the towns,” and not just those in town government.

            “One person made a comment that the only time you hear from schools is when they need money,” said Hardy.

            Hardy read a statement the focus group submitted, saying it summed up their thoughts perfectly:

            “The superintendent needs to be a visionary leader who will motivate the teachers and staff, provide a direction for the school… [and] develop a relationship with the leaders of all three towns. The superintendent should be able to tackle the specific needs of a regional school system and all phases of budgeting, student learning, and educational practices.”

            Hardy told the school committee members, “So, that’s kind of like the target if you could draft a superintendent that’s what you would be looking for… based off of this feedback.”

            A 15-member search committee will be formed consisting of staff, school committee members, town officials, and parents to review resumes, hold preliminary interviews, and propose no fewer than three but no more than five finalists for the joint school committees to interview in public.

            The superintendent job was posted the following day on December 13.

            The next regularly scheduled joint meeting of Superintendency Union #55 and the Old Rochester Regional School Committee is scheduled for March 5 at 6:30 pm in the junior high school media room.

Joint meeting of Superintendency Union #55 and the Old Rochester Regional School Committee

By Jean Perry

            The Rochester Board of Selectmen on December 16 voted to accept a LAND (Land Acquisitions for Natural Diversity) grant for $345,769 for the purchase of a conservation restriction on 109 acres of wetlands and open space.

            The 109 acres is located in the northeastern part of town off Walnut Plain Road and Old Middleboro Road and is owned by Decas Cranberry.

            The conservation of this particular land is especially important, said Rochester Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon. The state has mapped the land as “highly desirable” for conservation, given the presence of the Eastern box turtle and other threatened species that make this part of Rochester their habitat. According to Farinon, the state favors conservation acquisitions like this one when it considers its grant applications.

            The state’s LAND grant program helps municipalities acquire land for conservation and passive recreational use by reimbursing them up to $400,000 for land acquisition or for conservation restrictions.

            “This particular project rang all the bells and whistles with the state,” said Farinon.

            The Buzzards Bay Coalition assisted in negotiations with Decas Cranberry and will hold the fee in the property while the Town of Rochester will hold the conservation restriction.

            The land will be made available for the use of public passive recreation with the creation of a trailhead and parking area.

            The Board of Selectmen voted to authorize Town Administrator Suzanne Szyndlar to sign the LAND grant paperwork in order for the town to receive the funds.

            The next step will be a formal acceptance of the grant money at the Annual Town Meeting.

            The conservation restriction will be purchased by funds the town will front ahead of receiving the grant, and ultimately will be acquired at no cost to the town.

            In other business, the selectmen set the date for the next Annual Town Meeting for May 18, 2020, at 7:00 pm at Rochester Memorial School.

            The warrant is now open for citizens’ petitions and article submissions and will close at 1:00 pm on Friday, February 21.

            Also during the meeting, Rochester Water Commissioner Fred Underhill gave the board an update on the water main project that will provide water from Middleboro to the Annie Maxim House on North Avenue.

            “Finally, it looks as though it may come to fruition,” Underhill said.

            According to Underhill, the project will be put out to bid in January. He was concerned about an extra $10,000 charge the Annie Maxim House will face due to its agreement to install a bigger 12-inch pipe down North Avenue as opposed to a nearby field along the Middleboro border – a request from the Town of Rochester. Underhill said the $10,000 charge was ordered by the Middleboro Water Department to install a vault in the road with a metering system in order to accommodate any future expansion in water to Rochester.

            During her town administrator’s report, Szyndlar announced that the town has leased two new Chevrolet Volts, two fully-electric cars to replace the Kia Souls that only provided 90 miles per charge as opposed to the Volts that provide 260 miles per charge. At the end of the lease, the town will own the vehicles.

            In other matters, the Facilities Department has received an $8,480 grant to purchase maintenance software to track and schedule town maintenance projects. The software will be installed at the Highway Department office.

            “It will help improve the operations and just keep track of everything,” Szyndlar said.

            The Fire Department received a $5,551 grant to purchase firefighter gear.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for January 6 at 6:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

            Two decades ago, a group of volunteers took on the massive task of crafting a Master Plan for the Town of Mattapoisett. Now, as the Mattapoisett Planning Board begins the process of facilitating the writing of a new Master Plan, the need for fresh ideas and new eyes was discussed.

            During the December 16 meeting of the Planning Board, members discussed the first steps toward creating a document that should guide the town as it moves deeper into the 21^st century – any Master Plan written now will have the potential expiration date of 2040.

            Grant King, director of Comprehensive Planning at the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) has been engaged by the Town to study one particular component of the new Master Plan: affordable housing. King’s recommendation for a Housing Committee suggested that members of existing committees such as the Community Preservation Committee, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and others, should be part of that new affordable housing research community. But Planning Board chairman Tom Tucker felt otherwise when it came to a Master Plan committee.

            “It should be people in the neighborhoods,” said Tucker. “I think we know the town better than SRPEDD.”

            The nine elements of the 2000 Master Plan, generally used as the format for all such municipal plans were: Future Growth and Development Statement, Land Use Goals and Policies, Housing Goals and Policy Statement, Economic Development and Employment, Historic and Cultural Assets, Open Space and Recreation, Public Services and Facilities, and Implementation.

            Tucker also noted that the 2000 document found that barriers to growth were primarily a result of not having access to municipal sewer.

            Another concern is the public water supply. The 2000 Master Plan reads in part:

            “The foremost issue facing the Town is the potential threat to our water supply, both in availability and quality, due to possible overbuilding with overflow of excess nutrients. Based on estimates and usage statistics, fewer than 10,000 additional homes can be built in the four Towns (Fairhaven, Mattapoisett, Rochester, and Marion) that depend upon the Mattapoisett River Aquifer for water.”

            The Planning Board debated the merits of asking volunteers from the 2000 Master Plan Committee to be on the 2020 committee, but Tucker held fast to his belief that “younger” members of the committee should also be considered, saying, “They are the future…”

            And while the board recognized the importance of an historical reference in terms of former committee members, they also suggested high school-aged students might provide a fresh viewpoint.

            There was an eight-member committee in 2000.

            Tucker said the committee should reflect the entire community and all neighborhoods and asked Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain to put out a press release asking for volunteers.

            The board hopes to receive enough volunteers to begin the process of writing a new Master Plan by the beginning of March 2020. To do so they would need the committee to be in place by the end of January 2020, Tucker said. Anyone interested was asked to contact Crain at 508-758-4100 or by email planning@mattapoisett.net.

            To view the 2000 Master Plan, visit www.mattapoisett.net/planning-board.

            In other business, the board met with members of the new Fire Station Building Committee. Committee Chairman Mike Hickey discussed traffic studies, working with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for traffic signals on Route 6, and other fine points of the Planning Board’s written decision.

            Roland Cote, tree warden, also came before the Planning Board and received authorization to remove trees located along 62 North Street, contingent upon the homeowner agreeing to plant new trees.

            Cote said he would send letters to other property owners who had agreed to replant trees after the town removed trees, but have failed to do. He said there is also a program in partnership with the town’s Tree Committee whereby the town will plant trees along scenic byways on private property if the location is deemed acceptable to the town. The program includes the town’s care of these newly planted trees for a three-year period to ensure their survival.

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

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell