Stingray City Reality Corporation got a pass on July 19 when both applicant and representative were “no shows” for a scheduled hearing to determine the merits of an application for a Special Permit; however, on a baking hot August 16 night with the Zoning Board of Appeals populated with two new members, both applicant Bill Bachant and representative Bob Rego of Riverhawk Environmental were front and center.

Making their first appearances on the board were Michael Ward and acting clerk, Jordan Rodrigues. Also seated were Kenneth Pacheco, Gene DesLandes, and acting chairman, Colby Rottler.

Bachant’s Special Permit application, for property located along the Route 6 business corridor, asked the ZBA to allow the construction of a three-unit condominium project. Rego described the residential units as one duplex and one free standing structure that collectively would comprise the three-unit condominium project on one 3.75-acre lot.

Rodrigues asked if the project required a Special Residential District designation with lot sub-divisions and associated regulations. Bachant responded that although one unit would be free-standing and the other a duplex townhouse style structure, the entire project constituted a condominium project with three units on a single parcel.

Bachant was asked if the units would be for rent or sale. He responded, “For sale.”

Rego briefly covered details that were extensively evaluated and received an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission at an earlier meeting – issues such as storm water run-off and drainage systems. Asking those questions was Ward who said he had experience as a member of a conservation commission in another town.

Pacheco said that the property in question had been for sale for a long time and he believed the residential project would be an improvement to the area. Other board members discussed the mix of residential and business properties along the Route 6 corridor, thus Bachant’s project was in keeping with the area. The project received a Special Permit.

Also receiving Special Permits were Robert and Jennifer Trudeau, 34 River Road for the construction of an above ground swimming pool, and Donald and Millicent Carlstrom, 102 Fairhaven Road, for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new home on the pre-existing footprint.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for September 21 at 6 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell

The August 21 agenda for the meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen was packed with weighty line items. Everything from wastewater treatment to sewer extensions, from bike paths to Green Community status and open space – the two-hour meeting touched on them all.

Before launching into infrastructure and suburban planning, the selectmen had the pleasant task of voting to appoint Police Officer Jeffrey Habicht to Sergeant.

Speaking on Habicht’s behalf, Marion Police Lt. Nighelli said that Habicht’s list of accomplishments included a bachelor’s degree from State University of New York, a master’s degree from Canisius College, as well as currently being a Massachusetts Police Training Council Instructor for first responders. Habicht has been a police officer for sixteen years.

After the appointment of Sgt. Habicht, the selectmen also met with John Rockwell, chairman of the open space committee, who gave the board results from a recent public survey. Rockwell said that the results were no surprise and had a 46-percent return rate. He stated that respondents were interested in safe walking and biking recreational pursuits, along with concerns about the quality of the water in Sippican Harbor.

Seguing from open space surveys to the proposed Marion bike path, the selectmen met with Jeff Oakes of Forth-CLE Engineering Group, the engineers designing the Marion Bike Path.

Oakes displayed the route for Phase 1 of the bike path that will extend from the confluence of Route 105 and Front Street to Point Road, approximately 3.7 miles. He said that the plans had reached the necessary 25-percent stage in compliance with a milestone set in the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Mass DOT) who is on track to provide some 3.5 million in funding for the project. Oakes explained that the plans would be presented to Mass DOT on Friday, August 24. Another milestone Oakes discussed was a public meeting in April, which would be led by the Mass DOT, but held in Marion.

On the theme of beautification of public spaces in Marion, Selectman John Waterman asked the other members to consider ways to work with the Marion Garden Group for long-term maintenance of spaces they plan on improving through landscaping. They acknowledged that the town’s Department of Public Works did not have the staffing or expertise in maintaining planted areas. The selectmen asked Town Administrator Paul Dawson to schedule a meeting with Liz Hatch, the prime mover from the Marion Garden Group who spearheaded the effort to spruce up the town, so that plans could be formulated. Waterman also suggested setting up a fund specifically for collecting donations earmarked for ongoing maintenance activities of the upgraded green spaces. Dawson was asked to coordinate the establishment of a beautification fund.

The selectmen spent some time discussing the importance of strategic planning for wastewater treatment and septic systems. Dawson said some of the moving parts for evaluating various aspects of these two systems included a comprehensive amendment to the wastewater plan, identifying areas for future expansion of the public sewer system, and facing regulatory hurtles. Dawson said he would set up a meeting with CDM Smith, the town’s civil engineering consultants, to begin the process of prioritizing future plans.

The selectmen then shifted to a discussion on solid waste issues. Dawson had been asked to research outsourcing of curbside trash removal, currently handled by the town. Waterman said that given the possibility of needing to replace a trash compactor in the near future, outsourcing might be a viable option. He asked Dawson to secure three proposals from contractors providing this type of service. Dawson also mentioned that he had been exploring the possibility of regionalization of solid waste removal with surrounding towns.

On this theme, the selectmen also asked Dawson for an update on the Carver, Marion, Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District in the wake of ongoing litigation leveled against its former director and other parties.

Dawson said that presently the board of directors was reviewing audit options, but he wasn’t convinced that auditing some of the earlier years would yield much, because of missing documents. He said forensic audits could top at more than $100,000. Moving forward, he said that all the necessary checks and balances were in place. “We are using best practices now,” he assured the selectmen.

Dawson reminded the selectmen that a public forum was planned for September 20 at which time such issues as wastewater management, DPW study, solid waste disposal, and renovations to the Town House would be discussed. He asked the selectmen to provide him with any other topic areas for the agenda.

Also meeting with the selectmen was David Pierce, chairman of Marion’s Energy Management Committee. Pierce gave the selectmen an update on where the town stood in relationship to the requirements for becoming a designated Green Community. Such a designation could lead to many thousands of dollars in grant monies, he assured the selectmen.

Pierce said there were five criteria. The first was selecting a site for alternative energy generation. He said the town had completed this by selecting Benson Brook Transfer site as a possible location for a solar array. Number two called for the adoption of expediting alternative energy facilities permitting. According to him, the creation of bylaws governing solar arrays satisfied this point. Number three required the establishment of benchmarks for energy use and reduction. This Pierce said had begun with the purchase of electric cars and energy audits. The fourth objective was purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles – check – the town now owns electric cars used by various town departments. And last, but not least, number five required the minimization of life-cycle costs for new construction. Pierce said that one way to accomplish this was for the town to accept the new state building code known was the Stretch Code. On this point he said there would be a meeting on August 27 in the Music Hall at 7 pm for builders and architects in town to learn more about the state code. He also said his committee would be writing a warrant article for the annual Fall Town Meeting to ask voters to adopt the new building code.

The next meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen is scheduled for September 4 at 7 pm at a location to be announced.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Marilou Newell

Once again the developers for the Brandt Point Village subdivision failed to appear for a hearing scheduled with the Mattapoisett Planning Board. This time, however, they requested a continuation to hear a request for a modification to a definitive subdivision plan at noon on August 20, the same day as the hearing.

Chairman Tom Tucker read a letter submitted by Alan Loomis of McKenzie Engineering, representative for Armand Cotelleso, the developer, and Marc Marcus of Omega Financial, the owner and investor of the project. The letter simply asked for a continuance to September 17, the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Board. The Planning Board previously rescheduled an August 6 hearing when Loomis advised the board that abutters had not been properly notified as required by law. The new hearing date will be September 17 as the request was approved by the board.

Later in the meeting when Tucker was asked how he could be sure representatives for the subdivision would be present at the September meeting, he said, “They had to have everything complete (on Phase One) by August 1. They have 30 days after that date to comply. With the holiday in September they’ll actually have closer to 45 days.” When asked what would happen if they weren’t in compliance by then, Tucker indicated the developer would be in default, “They can’t do anything further.”

Planning Board Assistant Mary Cairn confirmed there are funds in escrow. Tucker said after the meeting that escrow funds could be used by the town to finish Phase One if the developer defaulted. It was unclear what would become of structures already constructed in Phase Two.

Tucker expressed confidence that the developer’s attorney, John McGreen, would be present for the September hearing. Crain had noted that the town’s legal representative would also be in attendance at the next public hearing in this matter.

The board members also discussed a draft of a bylaw change submitted by Paul Madden of G.A.F. Engineering. The discussion focused on the implications the bylaw changes would have on the use of Form A lot inclusion for yield plans in cluster subdivisions. Tucker said that the board already had control to include Form A lots in subdivision yield planning, and, in his opinion, to accept only Form A lots in subdivisions planning, as the draft suggested, would be surrendering the control and flexibility the board currently holds when reviewing multi-unit projects.

Resident Paul Osenkowski spoke on behalf of a project that had been proposed by Madden for his client David Nicolosi during a June meeting of the Planning Board – the impetus for Madden’s bylaw change. At that meeting, informal discussions put a parcel located off Chapel Road front and center with several abutters expressing concern about its possible development.

The conceptual project would have included at least one Form A lot in the yield plan. It became unclear to the Planning Board members that they could mix Form A lots with Form C lots for yield plan consideration. Madden, while not presenting fully fleshed out engineering plans, said that the concept would allow for a creative use of the parcel with no negative impact to the wetlands and, in his opinion, the board had the power to accept such a plan.

On this night, Planning Board member Janice Robbins once again referred to what she called “ambiguity” in the current subdivision bylaw. She was weary of town counsel’s opinion that the Planning Board had the control, returning to her concern that the language was unclear.

Osenkowski urged the board members to act on behalf of the community and not get hung up on the technical language in the bylaw.

Tucker stated, “Town counsel said we could decide on a case-by-case basis.” But Robbins held to a concern that that was only town counsel’s opinion and that subdivision bylaw language, as it is currently written, was not clear enough. He said, “Even with town counsel’s opinion, we should get rid of the ambiguity.”

In the end, the board unanimously moved not to support Madden’s bylaw change with no further action on the existing subdivision bylaws.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for September 17 at 7 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on August 9 gave Adam Rogers, 46 Bennett Road, a variance to allow an attached garage closer than 40 feet from the side property line.

Attorney Rick Manning said, because of the tapered trapezoid shape of the property and the location of the septic system, the only location for an attached garage would be on the right side of the property, placing the 24-foot by 30-foot garage 18 feet from the abutting property line.

Manning referred to a 10-foot by 10-foot connector between the garage and the house as a “breezeway,” but ZBA Chairman Richard Cutler pointed out that the structure was enclosed, so technically not a breezeway.

Anyhow, when asked why it needed to be 10 feet long, Manning stated that, with the egress doors being about 3.5 feet wide each, “You’d literally be banging door to door to get into the house.”

Manning said the requirements of a variance have been met, pointing to the unique shape of the property, the fact that a garage could not be built anywhere else on the lot, and that, without the variance, the hardship would be having to keep the residents’ vehicles outdoors in the winter, and the Rogerses would be “deprived of the opportunity to improve both the value and aesthetics of the property.” Furthermore, Manning said the garage would not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and even benefit it because, with the vehicles safely stored in the garage, visitors would no longer have to park on the road.

One abutter spoke in favor of the project, with no abutters objecting to the garage.

The garage is designed for one-and-a-half stories, with the second “story” being for storage only. Nonetheless, the board wrote into the conditions that no residential space would be allowed in the garage, and the dwelling must remain a single-family house. The garage must also not exceed 18 feet from the side property line.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of appeals is scheduled for August 23 at 7:15 pm at Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry