After the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954 blew away the first and then second home built at 31 Shawmut Road, the latest property owner, Giovanni Cimino, is ready to build a third house with a slightly-altered plan previously denied by the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission but approved by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

Piggy-backing off a prior 2010 plan denied by the commission, appealed, and then approved by the DEP, Cimino went before the commission on November 14 with a variation of that original plan that this sitting commission approved, pending DEP re-approval.

Engineer David Davignon gave a brief history of the property and the Notice of Intent to build a single-family house on the land, and proceeded to go into the details of the DEP-approved destruction of about 6,000 square feet of existing wetlands on the property, according to commission Chairman Mike King, in order to accommodate the project, of which 2,380 square feet will be replicated on another part of the property.

The project was again before the commission after the superseding Order of Conditions the DEP issued had expired, and the plan the new property owners now offer is somewhat different, with the replicated wetlands now proposed at a different location and with 280 more square feet added to now total 2,618 square feet.

This new replication project straddles two properties – Cimino’s and his abutting neighbor’s, who supported the new location given that the prior plan had the wetlands almost encroaching the front entryway to his house.

The DEP still needs to approve this new version of the plan, and Davignon acknowledged that there was just a slight possibility that the DEP might deny the change and enforce the prior plan.

“They more than likely would issue an enforcement order that that plan be completed,” Davignon specified.

“It would defy common sense that they would go back to the original plan just because of the differences in the grade,” King commented.

With the commission’s approval, Davignon was issued special conditions to abide by, including the flagging of the wetlands in a number of areas relevant to the work area, especially since Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold had yet to approve the wetlands line. Another condition is that the wetlands replication must be completed by June 30, 2019.

“I feel good that there’s two neighbors who are willing to work together or have a better result in the resource areas between the two properties,” said King. Usually, he added, it is more common for neighbors to “butt heads” over projects.

            In other matters, the commission rendered a Negative 3 determination for the Request for Determination filed by Mello, 1 North Street, for a mud room addition and garage extension in the Velocity Zone. The commission added one special condition to notify the conservation office before work commences.

Karl Pothier, 2 Holmes Street, received a Negative 3 determination for a Request for Determination to demolish an existing structure and foundation in the Velocity Zone. The commission added one special condition to notify the conservation office before work commences.

The RDA for Gail and Carlos Freitas of Brandt Island Road received a Negative 2 determination to construct a new single-family house and driveway with grading.

Aaron Bates of 9 West Hill Road received a Negative 3 determination for his RDA to construct a 10-foot by 20-foot shed.

Albert Audette, 8 Crestfield Road, received a Negative 3 determination for the installation of a new 15-foot by 34-foot in-ground pool to replace an existing aboveground pool and fence. There remains an outstanding Order of Conditions that the applicant said would be addressed immediately with the assistance of engineer Bob Rogers.

The NOI filed by Patricia Cunniff, 9 Avenue A, to re-permit septic system repair work previously authorized by the DEP was issued an Order of Conditions to upgrade a cesspool to Title V compliance with the installation of a septic tank, pump chamber, and leaching area.

The continued public hearing for the RDA filed by Mattapoisett Land Trust for Hammond Quarry was not heard and was again continued until the next meeting, and the continued public hearing for a Request for Certificate of Compliance filed by Tiffany and John Shokro of Harbor Road was not heard and was also continued until the next meeting.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for December 10 at 6:30 pm at the Mattapoisett Town Hall.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

The Marion Board of Selectmen reviewed a report detailing the estimated costs of three different options for Marion regionalizing with Wareham, Bourne, Plymouth, and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy for sewer services on November 20,

According to Town Administrator Paul Dawson, the study completed by GHD looked at three options: A. connect to the 21-inch interceptor on Burr Parkway in Wareham, B. connect to the Narrows Pumping Station, and a third option, C, that Dawson said the Town had asked GHD to look at – a direct connection to the Wareham Pollution Control facility.

And thank goodness they did ask to include that third option, Dawson said.

“It turns out it worked out to be the most fiscally, financially feasible operation,” said Dawson. “That’s the one that can probably be done the least expensively,” although when he said “least expensively,” Dawson called it rather “tongue in cheek” because, he continued, “There’s nothing inexpensive about it.”

That preliminary cost is $22.6 million.

Dawson said he would be posting the entire report to the Town website the following day, but in summary, the report reads: “Option C is the most financially feasible option. … The preferred proposed force main route … carries an estimated construction cost of $14.5M in 2018 dollars. Including an allowance for a 20% contingency and 30% for fiscal, legal, and engineering, the total estimated project cost comes to approximately $22.6M, in 2018 dollars.”

But, just that very afternoon, Dawson added, GHD sent him an email inviting him to a December meeting to discuss the options again, as one of the others – A or B – might ultimately wind up as the more “financially feasible” option after all.

“So this may not be the final report,” said Dawson, “so stay tuned.”

Also during the meeting, the board approved a request to purchase and install movable partitions at the Community Center. Frank McNamee, Bob Raymond, Recreation Department Director Jody Dickerson, and COA Director Karen Gregory presented the proposal to the selectmen, saying the project would be funded by a $50,000 donation from the now disbanded Friends of Marion Visiting Nurse Association.

The folding, soundproof walls would allow various programs to run simultaneously for both the Senior Center and the Recreation Department.

In other matters, the selectmen appointed Police Chief John Garcia’s pick for special police officer, Peter Bourgault. The board also appointed Sean Day as a permanent full-time police officer.

The board approved the installation of an elevation benchmark on Town property at the northeast corner of Hammett’s Cove for a study project.

Representatives from CDM Smith met with the selectmen to provide an overview and project update on current wastewater and stormwater projects, collection systems projects, and transportation projects.

The board continued the reclassification hearing with the Board of Assessors until December 4 at 11:30 am.

There will be a special meeting of the Board of Selectmen on November 28 at 9:30 am to discuss the imminent hiring of a new town administrator, DPW director, and treasurer/collector. The location will be determined at a later time and duly posted.

The next regular meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen has been scheduled for December 4 at 11:30 am at the Marion Town House, since the selectmen’s Christmas party will be taking place that evening.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

The Marion Planning Board tackled two tough topics on November 19, which was reflected in the late hour of the meeting’s adjournment.

The board first met with Sherman Briggs to continue the discussion about the Residence E project Briggs has proposed for his Spring Street property. At issue is the ability of the board to be flexible in the setback requirements for a portion of the property, where Briggs proposes reducing the setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet.

Chairman Will Saltonstall posed the question to town counsel whose opinion was that it was not in the discretion of the Planning Board to negotiate reduced setbacks. If the board did give Briggs the consideration in a Special Permit, it could be grounds for the building department to turn down a building permit.

Saltonstall lamented that the board has been working hard to find a solution to the problem, and wondered if the solution lay in a conservation subdivision or with an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

While member Norm Hills acknowledged a conservation subdivision was a viable option to pursue for Briggs, he noted there was some risk to that avenue.

Member Chris Collings urged the board to “get this thing over the end zone.

“[This is the] kind of project we say we want to have,” Collings said. “No developer is going to come here if this is how it is.”

Despite being in favor of the project, many board members could not see a way to get over the hurdle of the setback requirement without going to the ZBA. Hills noted the Planning Board cannot make the decision and has no idea how the ZBA will rule.

Briggs, clearly frustrated, asked the board to articulate what hardship the ZBA can use to vote on the project. His hardship is the need for a 10-foot setback on the affordable component of his 27-unit project.

There are few abutters to the project, with a parking lot and the bike path on two sides, and Baldwin Brothers on the third side. Briggs asserted that he could put 42 units ‘by right’ on the site, and may need to return to that concept if he couldn’t get the number of units he is requesting.

Collings explained that the board was elected “because we make good decisions.” He continued, “[You] don’t need a board to follow the letter of the bylaw with inflexibility…”

Hills said the board must work within the framework of the bylaw, and town counsel should be consulted to help determine a solution.

Vice Chairman Steve Kokkins added, “Fortunately, or unfortunately, we don’t have the right to make up the law.”

The discussion was a bit heated as Saltonstall pushed back on the idea that 42 units were “set in stone” on this parcel, and observed that it takes movement from all sides to get a complex project done. Briggs responded, “The more you drive the 27 down: the closer I get to 42 units.”

The group agreed that Saltonstall should reach out to town counsel and the ZBA to discuss the issue. Collings closed by saying, “If we can’t work with this developer, I defy you to find one we can.”

At the continued public hearing for the 21-acre solar project at 78 Wareham Street, the representatives from ZPT Energy reviewed the information they had provided at the last meeting.

Brendan Gove, president of ZPT, reiterated to the board that if the town decided to enter into a community shared solar program, each town resident would receive a floating 10 percent reduction in their entire energy bill each month. This would be in addition to any reduction the town residents receive from the municipal aggregation program in which the town is already participating.

Residents would enter into a one-year contract with ZPT, which would automatically renew annually for 20 years, and from which a resident could opt out anytime with a six-month notice. Gove also reminded the board that ZPT would enter into a PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) program of $1,155,000.00, which could be paid in a lump sum (net present cash value) or be spread out over the 20-year period.

When asked by Collings what happens to the panels at year 21, Gove said he didn’t know – the panels lose 0.5 percent annual reduction in energy productivity. They may stay in production or be removed. Either way, there will be a bonded decommission plan.

Gove intends to retain ownership of the parcel for the 20 years, to which Collings acknowledged that the land would be very valuable by then. Gove noted that in the past four years, solar technology has increased by 40 percent the power production of panels. Gove explained his company’s business model as part of the reason he was interested in owning the land and possibly developing the town’s landfill solar array.

While town residents may enter into a contract with ZPT for energy generated by solar at other sites, the solar company does not have to sell to the town the energy it generates.

Hills acceded, though the board may have “dollar signs in our eyes,” the requirement of the bylaw was a major hurdle.

Member Andrew Daniel said he agreed with Hills that the bylaw, approved by Town Meeting, which prohibits large-scale tree clearing for a solar array, would be violated by this project.

“I don’t think we have the ability to override the Town,” said Daniel. “The people in town are from border to border. There are areas of the solar bylaw that we could work on.”

Kokkins wondered if it was the best use of the property, which is situated near a scenic waterway. He said he has heard from residents that the key to their voting for the solar bylaw was the prohibition for large-scale tree clearing for that purpose. Member Kristen Saint Don-Campbell agreed that without changing the bylaw, this project couldn’t move forward.

Collings commented that the bylaw was well intended, but flawed. He described the Town’s renewable energy efforts with electric cars and other small projects as “the small end of what we should be doing as a Green Community.”

“[I haven’t heard] alternatives how to get this revenue – $1.8 million to the town balanced against the conflict with the bylaw,” said Collings.

Saltonstall agreed with Daniel that the clearing on this project was large scale, and then opened the hearing up to the residents. Joseph Kairys, an abutter to the project, described to the board his concern that the project would disrupt the tranquility he enjoyed on his 10-acre parcel off Delano Road. His house would be located approximately 350 feet from the lithium ion storage batteries used to store energy from the solar array.

Kairys said he was told the sound from the batteries would be constant with a maximum of 85 decibels, equivalent to the sound of an idling bulldozer. Kairys believes this will disrupt his quality of life considerably.

Collings assured him that the board does not want this project to be a “downgrade” for anyone. Gove offered to take Kairys to their solar array in Mattapoisett to experience the sound of the batteries on that site.

Resident Ted North had presented a number of documents for the board’s review, and highlighted portions of them. He described the solar project as the “largest industrial project in town,” but it was located in a residential zone. Responding to the offer made by ZPT as part of the proposal to donate $10,000 to the town for tree planting, North exclaimed, “[There’s] nothing in the bylaw for tree-trading!” He reminded the board, “We are not here to solve their problem.”

The discussion returned to the question of “large-scale clearing,” with Gove pushing the board to articulate its definition. The board members surmised how they might define it, but were decidedly inconclusive on this issue. Despite Gove’s clear frustration, the board decided to continue the public hearing so that they may research the question and return with a more distinct explanation of the bylaw.

In other business, the board approved the Approval Not Required application for Julia E. Love at 387 County Road to create a two-lot subdivision on a 12.71-acre parcel, with frontage on Tucker Lane.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for December 3 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer