On September 4, Marion Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava joined the Mattapoisett Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold at the site of the former Aucoot Cove Marina, now known as Indian Cove.

Ruth Nicolaci, a resident of the waterfront neighborhood, had contacted Marion’s ConCom with concerns over the widening of a footpath leading to the water’s edge. The officials, upon their site visit, also found a boardwalk and floating platform that had been constructed over and in marshlands without permits. Doubrava contacted Leidhold after he determined that the majority of the area in question was, in fact, located in Mattapoisett.

During the September 10 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conversation Commission, Leidhold presented photographic evidence of the offending structure that included a wooden walkway leading to a floating dock and a wide footpath.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King said, “This is not in compliance and is a hazard.” He said that a storm could easily dislodge the wooden structures, sending them sailing through the air or floating further into the sensitive marshlands.

King asked Leidhold to send a letter to the Indian Cove Association asking them to appear before the Mattapoisett ConCom to discuss removal of the unpermitted structure and damage to the marshlands from the expansion of the footpath and to file a Notice of Intent.

In other business, Alan Ewing of Ewing Associates, along with attorney Peter Paul, representing John and Roger Gibbons, returned to the commission with a new plan for record for the paving of Foster Street, a section of which the applicants own.

Ewing presented plans for the replacement of an inadequate stormwater drainage system under the roadway and the placement of rubberized speed bumps.

King said he had visited the site concluding, “I saw nothing that would give me concern in doing my job,” as he continued to support the filing.

During previous meetings, King stated that blacktopping the historically gravel roadway would aid in protecting wetlands in the area versus harming them as several homeowners had suggested.

Ray Silveira, 4 Oakland Street, an abutter to Foster Street, said that the Gibbonses had, over many years, conducted unpermitted widening of the roadway, filling in some areas, and using materials on the roadway that were inferior. “How are they getting away with filling in wetlands? Everything is swept under the rug.”

Leidhold asked if anyone had ever contacted the conservation office. Silveira said not until this summer.

“It’s in everyone’s best interest for improvement to the drainage system,” said King, going on to say that changes north of Foster Street – changes along Route 6, including the development of the Bay Club and commercial businesses, had all impacted stormwater flow along Foster Street.

The commission conditioned the Notice of Intent filing that included Leidhold performing an on-site review of the drainage system before and after new pipes are installed.

After the hearing closed, abutter Laura McLean lamented of the hearing: “We waited too long.”

Also during the meeting, Elizabeth Inglis’ Request for Determination of Applicability filing for the construction of a new entranceway for property located at 104 Aucoot Road received a Negative 3 determination allowing the project to move forward with notice to the conservation office before commencing.

A Notice of Intent filing by Chase Canopy, 117 Fairhaven Road, for the construction of a new 8,000 square-foot storage building was continued until September 24. While the commissioners did not have any questions or concerns when informally polled regarding their acceptance of the project, a pending review by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) required the application to be continued.

Robert Field of Field Engineering representing the applicant asked if the commission would send written confirmation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that, barring any negative review by the NHESP, the commission would condition the project, thus allowing it to continue forward in the permitting process. The site includes a residential structure that Field said would have to be subdivided from the commercial-use parcels. The commission agreed to that request.

Leidhold had requested that the applicant be required to hire a peer review consultant, given the wetlands surrounding the site. However, King told the commission, “Bob is hired by the town as a consultant. It’s a little disingenuous [to ask for a peer review consultant] since the town hires him.” The rest of the commission agreed with King.

The commission agreed to cancel the October 8 meeting of the Conservation Commission due to the Columbus Day Holiday. The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission will be held on September 24 at 6:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

Marion resident Sherman Briggs was successful in getting his Spring Street property re-zoned for a housing development, but on October 4 during the Marion Planning Board, it was clear that Briggs’ confidence in the cooperative effort between him and the board was still shaky.

During this discussion, Briggs was looking to clarify his responsibilities pertaining to the affordable housing aspect of the development – three apartments slated for a lot separate from the other market-rate age-restricted condos and houses.

Briggs’ concern was over the process for filling those affordable units – the application, the lottery system, meeting state specifications, and fulfilling the Town bylaw as well. He needed to settle whether he would be undertaking that process or the Town.

Planning Board member Eileen Marum pointed out that in the Marion bylaw it states that the developer is responsible for developing the marketing plan for the affordable housing units and describing how the application and lottery system would work.

“It’s fine that I have to carry the whole thing,” Briggs said. “I just wanted to make sure that we’re all on the same page as we go forward in this process. I don’t want any confusion – I’ll carry the whole thing for those apartments. … It’s just that, six months from now, I don’t want to be debating who’s supposed to do what.”

According to the bylaw, Briggs’ housing development must produce affordable housing equal to 10 percent of the proposed market-value units. These three units would satisfy that requirement.

There was also the question as to how smoothly the process would go as Briggs builds the market-value units, completes the affordable units, and then applies with the state so the affordable units could be counted and inhabited. Briggs was still seeking answers as to whether he would adhere to the 40-B requirements that gives the Zoning Board of Appeals the permitting authority or adhere to the requirements of the states’ Local Initiative Program (LIP), giving the permitting authority to the Planning Board.

Briggs asked whether the Planning Board would have the authority to issue waivers for the project, such as waivers for setbacks, which Briggs would need in order to make the three units fit onto the lot.

“I can file under the LIP process or … under the 40-B. Then there’s no setback requirements [under 40-B]. I’m trying to find out where we gotta go to get there as soon as possible because I don’t want to come in showing these three units 10 feet off the lot line and then you say it’s got to be 20,” said Briggs.

“The Planning Board can make allowances for what he is asking for,” said Marum, things such as setbacks, roadway design, and stormwater management.

Yet, as the board pondered it further, it was still unclear as to whether the Planning Board could issue the waiver, or if the ZBA would need to issue a variance.

“That’s a point that town counsel can clarify,” said Planning Board member Stephen Kokkins.

To Briggs, it sounds like the LIP process could take a while to complete, and he asked, “How can I get the support of the board knowing that’s going to happen and go forward with the condos? …How can we tie-in those apartments … and continue to go forward with the condos at the same time?”

Briggs stated that he wanted the board to understand that this project was going to happen, but he did not want to include the age-restricted condos in the same process as the affordable housing units, which could slow down Briggs’ progress.

“That’s why I’m putting them on the separate lot,” Briggs said.

Board member Andrew Daniel replied, “It’s part of the same project. I don’t think we can have it both ways.”

Planning Board member Norm Hills suggested the board let town counsel weigh in, while Town Planner Gil Hilario suggested the Planning Board could specify in the Special Permit that, upon completion of the 30 market-value units, the three affordable units would be provided and include it with the LIP application.

That LIP process could take up to two years to process, suggested Chairman Will Saltonstall, and perhaps occupancy permits might not be issued for the market-rate units until the LIP process is completed for those three other units.

“You see, that part can’t happen,” said Briggs. “That’s the part that’s not gonna work.”

Daniel, however, was more optimistic, offering, “This is hypothetical. How do you know it’s gonna get hung up for two years? It might not.”

“It took twelve years to do the 40-B!” replied Briggs. “And I’ve been sitting here for ten.”

Saltonstall said he would reach out to Briggs that week with some answers for him after discussing it with town counsel.

Also during the meeting, the board briefly discussed its draft bylaw for a kennel license, and scheduled a public hearing for October 1 at 7:00 pm. This kennel bylaw will appear on the warrant of the Fall Special Town Meeting scheduled for October 22 at 6:30 pm at Sippican School.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board will be September 17 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Jean Perry

The Marion School Committee learned on September 5 that data collected by surveys submitted by parents and teachers will result in some changes to the new standards-based report cards implemented last year at Sippican School.

Last year, the report card was reformatted, replacing the old “A,B,C,D,F” letter grading with a new system that emphasizes specific skills in each subject at each grade level, presenting them as benchmarks towards success. After it was piloted, parents and teachers of grades 1-6 presented feedback on how the district might enhance or improve the way the report card is designed, said Dr. Elise Frangos, assistant superintendent.

“Anything that’s great always needs to be modified, revised, looked at, examined, to make it better,” said Frangos. With the data that was collected, Frangos said the original team that devised the new report card reconvened in July to review the survey results and consider the roughly 200 suggested modifications.

“The way that it could be better would be to condense the language of some of the standards, sharpen the language, make them more parent-friendly, and also streamline the data entry,” said Frangos.

One resounding response, Frangos said, “We don’t want to go back to the ‘A,B,C,D,F’ because the omnibus grade doesn’t really tell me much about my child.”

As the group works to improve the report card in time for issuance at the end of the first trimester, Frangos said parents should expect the report card to be revised, … “and hopefully very pleasing to those who are the users of it, as well as the parent consumers of it.”

According to Frangos, the junior high has also been studying the benefits of a standards-based report card and is considering adopting a similar report card. Some parents have expressed a concern pertaining to how eliminating letter grades might affect private school applications and whether their child would have optimal admissions results. Having spoken with some headmasters, Frangos stated, “All of them feel that … you actually learn far more about a child’s capacities and strengths through the standards-based report card.”

Frangos said the school administration would soon schedule a parent outreach session in the junior high school auditorium that will be video recorded and televised for parents who cannot attend.

“I really compliment the team,” said School Committee Chairman Christine Marcolini, pointing out that the new report card development was a huge project that remains an ongoing effort. “We’re still evolving it and we’re still making it better.”

In other matters, the source of poor air quality in an area of Sippican School was identified after a recent air quality test detected elevated levels of fungi in the air.

Business Administrator Patrick Spencer said every year in all tri-Town schools, the administration conducts these air quality tests before the start of the school year that include visual inspections and samples from the entire building that are sent to an analytical lab for study.

One area, science lab 133, had a “slightly elevated level” in what Spencer said was a “raw fungi count.” According to Spencer, the air outside the school tested at 350, while inside the science lab tested at 630, but the EPA guidelines require mitigation efforts when interior air tests at levels above 100.

“We went into the room, used fungicide, did some cleaning … and under further inspection we discovered some dirt and plant material that was stored there so we collected that, … removed it, and disposed of it,” Spencer said.

A recent test of that room yielded a count of just 80, below the EPA threshold.

Marcolini thanked the administration for the attention given to the air quality at the schools.

“Obviously the air quality and the conditions at Sippican is something that’s important to all of us,” said Marcolini. “Our children are here and we care about the staff, so we appreciate that that’s something that you continue to be on top of and to ensure that anything that does pop up with that particular test is remediated and addressed.

Also during the meeting, the committee approved the 25-cent school lunch price increase that is proposed across all Tri-Town school districts. The Rochester School Committee approved its district’s price increase last week to take effect January 1, 2018, and Marion will follow suit with the same date. This is the first school lunch price increase in four years, and Business Administrator Patrick Spencer does not anticipate another price hike for another four years. The USDA sets a minimum lunch cost for school districts to follow, which is currently $2.82. All elementary school districts are anticipated to adopt the increase, bringing the cost from $2.75 to $3 for elementary schools, and from $3 to $3.50 in the Old Rochester Regional school district.

The next meeting of the Marion School Committee will be October 17 at 6:30 pm at Sippican School.

Marion School Committee

By Jean Perry