A superseding order or conditions, long-standing discontent over stormwater drainage issues, and two sets of engineering firms and legal counsels resulted in a long hearing for two conjoined applications during the September 26 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission.

A notice of intent filing by Leslie Keselli and Whitney Renault (aka the Henderson Family) trustees for Grande Vue Beach Trust, 14 Bay View Avenue, and a request for an amended order of conditions filed by Grand Vista LLC, 23 Grand View Avenue, Brandon Westley of Hopkinton, brought together parties who have been attempting to resolve long-standing property issues.

In July, The Wanderer reported that, “Shepard Johnson represented the developers. Sandford Matathia represented the Hendersons. The two attorneys said that their clients would be submitting new notices of intent and a plan to ‘de-link’ the two properties from the single order of conditions that had been issued years ago. The attorneys said by separating the two properties, the Hendersons could then get the modifications that would improve environmental conditions on their property. The proposed concept seemed agreeable to the commissioners.”

            Both counsels were once again present as Al Ewing of Ewing Engineering presented plans for the Henderson’s NOI and David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates represented Westley’s request for amended order of conditions.

            Ewing explained how grading of the Bay View lot would diminish stormwater ponding, which has long been a problem while not creating drainage issues on abutting lots. He also went into detail regarding the applicants’ request to make improvements to revetment areas along a coastal beach.

Davignon then presented his case for an amended order of conditions for the Grand View lot that adjourns the Bay View parcel. He said that changes to the irrigation system, installation of a well, and revetment improvements to match Bay View would fix drainage issues without causing additional water problems for surrounding lands.

Davignon’s presentation brought the majority of the questions posed by Mattapoisett Shores neighbors and invested residents of the private beach community. Paul Silva, 11 Bay View Avenue, wondered if moving irrigation pipes from one location to another wouldn’t prove better than the directional flow proposed by Davignon.

Silva contended that by simply changing that one aspect, the roadway would be spared possible stormwater damage in the future. After consideration, Davignon took that under advisement as a possible solution.

Ewing heard from Lee Estes, a decades-long resident of the beach community, who aired concerns about the beach revetment plans that included the placement of large boulders for the purpose of protecting the two properties in question from wave action. Estes said that the stones and boulders would make walking the beach difficult.

Chairman Bob Rogers asked all parties to consider a continuation until the next meeting to give Davignon and Ewing sufficient time to update plans based on public hearing feedback and to give the commission time to consult with the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that revetment plans were allowed so close to coastal beach resources. Both hearings were continued until October 12.

In other business, certificates of compliance were issued to Sharon Thompson, 9 Cover Street; Jay Duker, 112 Aucoot Road; and William Macropoulos, 12 Howard Beach.

Negative determinations were issued to Justin Sayer for his Eagle Scout project at 0 Old Slough Road, a bridge construction project; and James Hurd, 9 Shore Road, for the replacement of an existing deck and exterior stairs.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 12 at 6:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell

Once upon a time there was an innkeeper in Marion who wished to increase the number of bedrooms at her bed and breakfast from one to three. Seemed like a simple enough request to Kate Hill, 460 Front Street, since the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals had already granted her the first permit for the two existing bedrooms and the bylaw allows a maximum of three.

So, back in August, Hill went on her way when the ZBA closed the public hearing to take the matter under advisement. After she was gone, the board engaged in further discussion on the matter, voicing skepticism over the accuracy of Hill’s recount of her B&B operations.

The board members huddled around Chairman Marc LeBlanc holding an iPad as they browsed two websites and concluded that perhaps Hill was already renting three bedrooms, maybe even a fourth. And, with the public hearing already closed and Hill unable to speak to the board’s assumptions, the board adjourned the meeting with the information they accumulated to vote on the matter at a later date.

It wasn’t long before Hill read in the newspaper about what transpired after she left. She wrote an email to the ZBA and, with legal counsel, asked for the public hearing to be reopened in order to seek further legal counsel on the matter.

On September 22, Hill returned before the ZBA with Attorney Richard Schaffer to address the board’s prior post-public hearing comments, explaining that one of the rooms is only used for four months out of the year due to poor insulation; during the eight colder months, the room is sealed off and another room would be rented instead, currently considered a sewing room. That room would be used as the third bedroom during colder months.

“I was not here at the last hearing,” said Schaffer. “It sounds as if the board was a little off-center with respect to the issues, at least as I see them here.”

Schaffer cut right to the chase, saying that Building Commissioner Scott Shippey made the request that Hill simply provide him with a monthly report detailing which rooms are in use once the ZBA approves the third bedroom. Furthermore, Schaffer said the third bedroom and the inn is not a detriment to the neighborhood, and the inn also complies with the criteria listed in the bylaw.

“I think we meet every one of [the criteria] and we should be able to move forward and increase the use,” Schaffer stated.

Board member Betsy Dunn brought up the assessors’ records, which say the house only has four bedrooms, not including the bedroom Hill and her husband share on the bottom floor that was formerly a family room.

“So you have five bedrooms,” said Dunn.

“We’re not going to be relying on the Board of Assessors (for this legal matter),” stated Schaffer.

The board determined that it has 90 days until it had to make a decision once the public hearing was closed. After a few long-ish periods of silence and pauses for thought, the board chose to continue Hill’s public hearing until the next meeting so that Shippey could attend and give the board his opinion on the matter on his own behalf.

Another discussion ensued as to whether Hill should be able to rent her entire house, like many do on popular networks such as Airbnb, since Hill is a business operating under a special permit and others are simply residential homes.

“It doesn’t seem right to me,” said ZBA member Kate Mahoney. Other ZBA members voiced similar opinions.

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 13 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry