A logistical oversight brought the Buzzards Bay Area Habitat for Humanity back before the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals for a brief meeting on September 25.

The project to construct a single-family Habitat for Humanity home at 185 Wareham Road was already approved by the ZBA, but the wording in some of the paperwork brought Buzzards Bay Area Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors Vice-President Robin Ragle-Davis and Attorney Janice Robbins before the board one last time.

The project required a variance to build on the non-conforming lot, which the board granted, and as Marion Building Department Clerk Ann Marie Tobias put it, “It was all buttoned up in one night.”

Also during the meeting, the special permit application for Sippican Preservation LLC to add an addition to its existing five-unit condominium complex was continued until October 9 to allow the board time to gather more information before rendering a decision.

Sippican Preservation is seeking to square off the corner foundation and add a sixth condominium unit for the 16 Cottage Street high-end condominium complex.

The board is seeking information to address its concerns pertaining to the parking lot configuration and the egress point on Spring Street.

The Tabor Academy matter concerning the backstop on the athletic field was continued again until December 11.

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 9 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry

All signs point to approval for the proposed lit signage for the Rochester Crossroads LLC commercial development off Cranberry Highway.

Members of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on September 25 considered the special permit request presented by Lisa Mann of Sign Design, Inc. of Brockton for five proposed signs, with one of them being an LED face-lit main pylon sign visible from Interstate 495 southbound.

Mann said that after the Colbea Enterprises, LLC ZBA hearing to approve their proposed signage, the plan was scaled back slightly in order to preemptively conciliate some of the same concerns the board had with Colbea and its face-lit and halo-lit signage.

The sign of most concern for the board and to abutter Louise Hebert of 167 County Road was a 20-foot high face-lit sign by the entrance that will list the future tenants at the Rochester Crossroads development. Hebert said her property is already lit up on one side by a preexisting neon light.

“Now we’re going to be lit up on this side because of this and the gas station,” said Hebert. “How lit up are we going to be?”

Mann said setbacks could be adjusted if needed, but Rochester Crossroads is seeking to put up the main pylon sign visible off Interstate 495 sooner, rather than later, in order to attract prospective commercial tenants.

Currently, Rochester only has one larger face-lit sign in town at Lloyd’s Market on Hartley Road.

The problem with too many signs is, said ZBA Chairman Richard Cutler, “Once you start putting signs everywhere, no one reads them anymore.”

Cutler wondered if turning the lit signs down or off when businesses are closed could mitigate the light pollution to the surrounding residential zone.

“We could certainly make that a condition or a point of discussion before sign [usage] is granted,” said Mann.

ZBA member Davis Sullivan asked if the amount of light emitted and the total affected area could be studied. Mann stressed that the halo-lit lighting would mitigate light pollution, having a softer glow, and Cutler again emphasized that having the lights turned off after business hours was “a big deal.”

Cutler stated that he did not see any reason why the board could not make a decision at the next meeting, leaving Mann a little time to deliver more information about the light emission amounts before then.

“If I could have my way there wouldn’t be any signs anywhere,” said Cutler.

Also at the meeting, the board approved a 15-foot variance for Philip and Jessica Whittaker of 281 Neck Road to build a 16-foot by 26-foot addition in order to accommodate their growing family and add a master bathroom.

Cutler commented on how the developers built the house in such a location that would inhibit future expansion of the property, which now requires a setback variance.

The board found the hardship it was looking for in the layout of the house, the location of the septic system, and the shape of the property that left no other location to build the addition, before approving the request.

In other matters, the board granted a special permit to Richard and Lynnette Torres of 157 Pine Street to convert their house from a single-family to a multi-family and build a 26-foot by 36-foot in-law suite behind the existing garage. Board member Kirby Gilmore suggested adding a condition that the new addition must remain a one-bedroom apartment, and the board approved the request.

The next scheduled meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is October 9 at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

The Marion Department of Public Works built an unpermitted 100-foot by 150-foot rock seawall in the vicinity between Sprague’s Cove and Silvershell Beach, which the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and now the Marion Conservation Commission have ordered removed.

The seawall, which consists of about 250 rocks and boulders, was placed without prior authorization below the high tide line within a saltmarsh and is in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the Clean Waters Act.

A May 29 letter from Lieutenant Colonel James Hughes of the Army Corps of Engineers and addressed to Harbormaster George Jennings, refers to an application the Town submitted on May 8 seeking authorization to remove the rocks. Hughes ordered the Town to relocate the rocks to an area adjacent to Sprague’s Cove about 125 feet south of an existing groin structure. It also ordered the Town to inform the Corps before work is started.

The Corps issued another letter from Acting Chief Brian Valiton of the Permits and Enforcement Branch, this time to DPW Superintendent Rob Zora dated August 14, confirming that the unpermitted seawall construction was performed by the DPW.

“We have not found any record indicating that portions of the work has been authorized,” the letter states. “Therefore, we must assume work was performed in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and in violation of Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act.”

In the letter, Valiton orders the DPW to either remove the seawall according to the Corps’ conditions, or file for an after-the-fact permit. A follow-up site visit from the Corps will come after the seawall is removed to ensure that the saltmarsh vegetation affected by the seawall re-vegetates itself. If not, the Town will have to mitigate the damage through restoration of the vegetation.

The Conservation Commission was first notified of the incident back on April, but took no action until July 29 when now Chairman of the Conservation Commission Norman Hills accompanied Richard Kristoff of the Army Corps of Engineers on a site visit of Sprague’s Cove and Silvershell Beach. The ConCom finally issued an Enforcement Order to the Town of Marion during its meeting on September 24, but did not discuss the matter during the public meeting.

Zora could not be reached for comment to explain why the DPW performed the unpermitted work, who ordered the construction of the unpermitted seawall, or when the seawall will be removed.

Town Administrator Paul Dawson did not respond before deadline Tuesday night.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction fact sheet, violations of the Clean Water Act are punishable by civil or criminal fines – up to $25,000 per day of violation and up to $50,000 per day for criminal fines.

By Jean Perry

Proposed bylaw changes as submitted by Brad Saunders of D + E Management LLC – a Bay Club Partner – came before the Mattapoisett Planning Board in a final vetting ahead of the October Special Town Meeting.

Before getting underway with the proposals, Chairman Tom Tucker said, “We are not voting on anything, I want to make that clear … we are just the venue for these changes.”

When the proposed bylaw changes do go before the voters on October 20, it will be Brad Saunders standing before the voters making his case for changing zoning bylaws. Tucker read the full text changes to three sections of the zoning bylaws. After each, Saunders clarified how the changes would impact the Town. The following are the changes and Saunders’ explanation of each.

Article 3.8 Cluster Subdivision – Subsection 3.8.9.5 shall read: “Such open space may be in (1) or more parcels of a size and shape appropriate for its intended use as determined by the planning board. Such open space may include lands located in the Limited Industrial district, as well as lands located in districts within which cluster housing is permitted.”

Saunders said, “This change came about as a result of issues arising over the last decade at the Bay Club.” He went on to say the change would improve the ordinance and be beneficial to the Town more than the Bay Club.

The specific issue arises from a parcel of land deep within the property lines of the Bay Club that is owned by the Town and had been the location selected for a water tower. The tower was later built at another location. This parcel is zoned Limited Industrial and as such may not be used in open space calculations. It also straddles both the LI district and the residential district. As it presently stands, only one house lot could be made from the parcel because of the LI district bisecting it. The LI section could not be considered for open space calculations. The change would allow the piece situated in the LI district to be used for open space calculations, thereby allowing the Town to sell it off as two buildable lots versus one.

Saunders made it clear that only the Town would benefit from the acceptance of the text change since the land it not owned by the Bay Club or its partners at the present time.

Brad Hathaway expressed concern that sweeping bylaw changes would have a negative impact on the entire town and wondered if there weren’t other courses of action that could be taken to accomplish the same goal without implementing regulatory changes. Saunders explained that there wasn’t any other way to reasonably make this change, given that the Zoning Board of Appeals can only grant special permits, not make zoning changes.

At this point, Saunders made it clear that the Bay Club property will never have more than 189 residences within its boundaries as mandated by the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife due to the endangered species act.

Board member John Mathieu said that this change would “make the lots legal.”

The next change discussed was Section 3.8 proposed to read: “In order to permit maximum flexibility for developing land for single family housing, and to encourage the preservation of open space and promote the more efficient use of the land in harmony with its natural features, tracts of land consisting of eight acres or more in districts R80, RR45, R40, RR40, R30, RR30, and GB shall be made available for cluster housing subject to the requirements of this section.”

            Saunders explained that, “…everything is allowed in a GB (general business) district except cluster housing … every other type of residential building is allowed.” Mathieu said that the GB district runs along Route 6 and could be used for cluster housing if so proposed.

Finally, the third proposed change was read which would add a new subsection, Subsection 3.8.4.4 Zero-Lot Line Lots 3.8.4.4.1, which reads: “Up to twenty percent of the lots in a Cluster Subdivision may be designed as zero-lot line lots, provided the entire Cluster Subdivision is served by a public sewer system. A zero-lot line lot is a single-family residential lot created with no side-yard setback on one side of the lot, thereby creating a shared building envelope between two adjoining lots. This shared building envelope shall only be used to build a duplex where the common wall between the two units is the common boundary line separating the two adjoining residential lots. No lot can have more than one side yard with a zero setback.”

            Zero-Lot Line Lots 3.8.4.4.2 reads: “The following minimum dimensional regulations shall apply to zero-lot line lots in lieu of those identified in Article 6, for conventional single-family developments: Minimum Lot Area – 10,000 sq ft; Minimum Lot Frontage – 45 ft; Minimum Front Yard Setback – 25 ft; Minimum Side Yard Setback – 0 (shared side)/20 ft (unshared side); Minimum Rear Yard Setback – 10 ft; Maximum Lot Coverage – 25 percent; Maximum Building Height – 35 ft.

            “This is the only one (of the proposed changes) that affects marketing of the Bay Club,” Saunders stated. “There is a desire for a product (residence) with a smaller footprint.” He explained that buyers are looking for smaller homes than those presently built or being built at the Bay Club and that a duplex would meet that need. “This would allow design flexibility.” He also said it might impact other parts of the town if passed.

With respect to the Bay Club itself, he again stated that no matter what, 189 residences are all that will ever be on the site, even with duplexes added into the mix.

Again, Hathaway expressed concern and commented on sewers. Saunders said that the change would only allow zero-lot line lots where there would be public sewer service and public water supply.

Tucker closed the public hearing and moved on to the next agenda item – the continued hearing to consider modification, amendment or rescission of Form C granted to Michael Solimando for the Appaloosa Lane subdivision. Ongoing storm water run-off issues have plagued the site for many years, bringing abutters to various boards complaining of damages to their property. The Planning Board had given Solimando the opportunity to make changes to the drainage system.

Brian Grady of G.A.F. Engineering, Inc. presented the long-awaited update on those improvements. Grady said that his firm has been working with the Town’s engineers (Field Engineering) and with Barry Denham of the Highway Department to determine storm water flowage on an adjacent piece of land that seems to be contributing to the problem. Grady showed a conceptual drawing of improvements to the drainage system that would take the extra flowage away from the site treating it and then diverting it into the Town’s system at River Road.

This plan is not without its challenges, however, Grady explained. There are underground utilities near the proposed collector location. Grady felt confident that these issues could be worked out and that neighbors would benefit from the plan.

Steve Hathaway, 13 River Road, was on hand and has been present at every board hearing discussing this development. His property and septic system have been overwhelmed with storm water run-off problems for years. He asked, “But what if it fails?” He wanted to know what his recourses would be in the event of more problems after the updates are constructed.

Tucker told him that a homeowners’ association would be responsible for maintenance and problems should those arise. Hathaway expressed that would leave him vulnerable and might require an attorney to help him protect his property interests. Board member Ron Merlo said, “We are using new data (to plan the improvements) and that should resolve the problems.”

Tucker said, “We can tell him (Solimando) to cease and desist, but then nothing gets done … we are heading in the right direction. They are using state standards.” The hearing was continued until November 3 to give Grady sufficient time to complete the plans.

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

By Marilou Newell

An outpouring of support for the Mattapoisett Bike Path was demonstrated at the September 25 public hearing hosted by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation when a crowd of approximately 400 concerned citizens packed Old Hammondtown School. They came to see the 25 percent engineered conceptual drawings drafted by CLE Engineering of Marion. They came to hear from state and local officials about the next steps in the process of bringing this nearly two decades long dream to completion. And they came in mass to unite behind and voice their hopes that this piece of the Southcoast Bike Way will move from concept to reality.

Chairman William Chi of Mass DOT, flanked by Bill Travers from DOT District Five, Linda Walsh of Railroad Bureau/Department of Right of Way Procedures, and Lou Rabito of Mass DOT Engineering, guided the hearing through its formal process.

Also present and giving a fully fleshed-out presentation of the conceptual drawings was Susan Nilson of CLE Engineering, who has worked with both the Bike Path Committee and Friends of the Bike Path to bring this phase of the project to this point.

After opening statements, Chi turned the meeting over to Nilson. She went through all the major design elements of the project in detail. She displayed and discussed systems for crossing marshlands, traversing the barrier beach on Goodspeed Island and modifications to Goodspeed Island Road. The project, as described by the state in a document handed out, reads: “The path begins at Mattapoisett Neck Road. The alignment will cross an existing footbridge over the Mattapoisett River. The path then proceeds north over the existing salt march on a proposed elevated boardwalk. After crossing the salt march, the path proceeds to Reservation Road. It will then proceed south along reservation Road to rejoin the Old Railroad ROW along the barrier beach to cross the breach at Eel Pond, also known as the West Channel. The path then continues across West Channel to Eel Pond (a tidal channel) onto Goodspeed Island on a pile supported, steel reinforced timber structure where it transitions to a path at grade across Goodspeed Island to reach the public parking area at the corner of Railroad Avenue and Depot Street. Environmental factors include the crossing of several wetland resource areas: riverfront area, salt marsh, bordering vegetated wetlands, barrier beach, land under ocean, land subject to coastal storm flowage. The typical cross section of the path through this phase will be 10 foot wide with a 2 foot shoulder on both sides of the path.”

This is titled Phase 1B of a multi-town, multi-use path system that will eventually connect Mattapoisett village to Fairhaven and Marion. The finished bike way would ultimately unite a vast stretch from New Bedford to Wareham, with long-range plans connecting Providence, Rhode Island to Provincetown.

Phase 1B is not without challenges, Nilson said. However, she assured the crowd that each concern could be managed to the satisfaction of oversight committees. She said that governmental agencies and regulations such as MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act), Mattapoisett’s Conservation Commission (Wetlands Protection Act), National Heritage, Army Corp of Engineers’ Coastal Zone Management and possibly even the U.S. Coast Guard will govern the construction of this project. There are complex features and issues to this phase of the project, she explained, from environmental to historical to abutter impact. Each of these areas will require careful consideration, cooperation, and coordination between all parties involved.

Funding for the project will come from the Federal government agency for highways (80 percent) and Mass DOT (20 percent) for a total of $4.7 million through a two-year construction cycle.

Nilson left the podium to rousing applause as the public was then invited to speak. First up was Representative William Strauss, who has championed this project since the beginning. He said, “I give strong support of the project and the general design that has been offered … I have supported this project in all three towns … the only negative comments I’ve heard are ‘why is it taking so long’… this will be a unique, remarkable addition to the natural landscape.” Strauss said he hoped that after the meeting, the state would move quickly towards 75 percent design that would complete the design phase of the project. The construction documents would then come next.

Steve Kelleher, Chairman of the Mattapoisett Bike Path Committee, thanked his committee for their unflagging dedication to the project over the last two decades, along with Selectmen, Town Administrator Mike Gagne, Chairman of the Community Preservation Committee John DeCosta, and Bonnie DeSousa of the Friends of the Mattapoisett Bike Path. He stated that without their support, the project would not have gotten this far. He also thanked Gary Skylar and the YMCA for their courage to move forward with the plan.

Michael Gagne then stood to speak to the right-of-way issues, saying the town had an agreement with the YMCA and thanked the board of directors of the Reservation Golf Course for the agreement that is currently being scoped out between legal counsels. He said property owners who will be impacted had been very cooperative and spoke of the voters’ support through town meetings.

Bonnie DeSousa came forward to expression her appreciation to Ken and Sue Akin, whose involvement early on had been critical to the Friends of the Bike Path. She reported that research has proven that when cities and towns have bike paths, they help to drive economic opportunities, bring people into towns, and keep them there longer. She said that not only do bike paths bring visitors, but they also help bring in good workers, calling it “essential” in establishing a vital, healthy community. Future generations will also benefit, DeSousa told the assembled, and that most young people are very much focused on ‘saving their environment’ by using bicycle transportation versus automobiles. She said that the Buzzards Bay Coalition, Eastcoast Greenways and the Greater New Bedford Chamber of Commerce have all submitted letters of support.

Gary Johnson, President of the Mattapoisett Land Trust, said that his group has spent the last 15 years focused on “protecting land between here and Fairhaven,” with 165 acres now in protected status. “This will be a blessing,” he stated and will help people utilize the many trails and natural lands the trust has secured.

Several speakers, while in support of the bike path, were concerned about the impact on wildlife, vegetation and with people abusing public spaces by littering. Nilson responded that all those issues would be dealt with through careful analysis with various agencies and educating the public through signage along the way such as “leave no trace.”

Everyone coming forward was positive about the future with the bike project and spoke passionately about what such a recreational feature will mean to them personally, as well as for the greater public. Each speaker received rousing applause as they returned to their seats.       However, one speaker did toss a bit of a dark cloud in an otherwise blue sky.

Attorney John Gushue, representing Goodspeed Island abutter Daniel DaRosa, addressed the group saying that the private dock DaRosa wants to build had received “adverse comments” which he deemed “unfair” to his client. He went so far as to call it “hypocrisy” that the bike path should have such wide support as opposed to a private dock. He said, “…there are impacts to any project … we will be contacting the DOT with our concerns.” He said his client will want to know how many people are expected to use the bike path, will it meet FEMA guidelines, and will it negatively impact property values or the environment. At the September 22 Mattapoisett Conservation Committee hearing, the DaRosa’s heard from a standing room only crowd that the raised pier as proposed was troubling with many believing it would change the character of the harbor, not only aesthetically but also from a public safety aspect. That hearing was continued until October 15. As Gushue left the podium, an unsettling quiet followed.

Peter Trow was the last to come forward, saying that opposition to the pier involved a matter of public trust. The audience agreed with a round of applause.

There is still time to provide the Mass DOT with your comments. You can write to Patricia Leavenworth, Chief Engineer, MassDOT – Highway Div., 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973, Attn: Roadway Project Management. Please reference: Mattapoisett, MA, Multi-USE Path Phase 1B, Project File No. 605677. Deadline for comments is October 2.

By Marilou Newell

Endangered turtle populations near Sprague’s Cove have declined, and continue to decline, according to Wayne Ferguson, a resident on Jenney Street who represented 21 other Jenney Street residences on September 24 before the Marion Conservation Commission.

“That nesting habitat was lost to the [Sprague’s Cove] system,” said Don Lewis, a wild life expert, sea turtle rescuer, and founder of Cape Cod Consultants. Unbeknownst to the developers and the Town, said Lewis, the nesting habitat of the diamondback terrapin and the Eastern box turtle was converted to another use, and now residents are uniting to restore a small area at Silvershell Beach to lure the turtles back – a turtle garden of sorts, at no expense to the Town.

The turtle garden would consist of a 1,800 square-foot sandy rectangle in the middle of the field, on conservation land owned by the Town to the south side of the walkway. The area would be in full-sun exposure, and the sand eight inches deep.

“That seems to be their original nesting area,” said Lewis. “The goal is to get all of the gals to migrate to that sand.”

Providing an area as close to the salt marsh as possible, while preventing the need for turtles to cross the road, is essential. Lewis said turtle experts would gather any eggs from the Silvershell Beach/Sprague’s Cove vicinity and relocate them to the turtle garden where they will hatch, with the new location imprinted on the new generation so they will return there to lay eggs in the future.

Lewis stated that this method was successfully applied off Swift Beach in Wareham and at other areas on Cape Cod, resulting in the restoration of the species.

“It will guarantee the survival of the species in [the] cove,” said Lewis. “We really think it’s a win for the Town,” continued Lewis. “A win for the habitat, a win for the cove.”

ConCom members had no objections to the proposal; however, more details are required, as well as a Notice of Intent application in order for the project to move forward.

“Conceptually, I don’t have a problem with it,” said Chairman Norman Hills. “I guess I would say let’s proceed and see what some of the details are.”

The Jenney Street residents have agreed to cover the cost of the planning process, establishment, and maintenance of the turtle garden, which the residents hope to have completed next year.

In other matters, the commission granted a negative determination for David and Linda Nielson of 203 Front Street to repair a seawall.

According to Engineer David Davignon, work undertaken by Tabor Academy affected a Town-owned drainage pipe that contributed to the erosion of the seawall. The seawall is now in danger of collapsing on the pipe. In addition to the seawall repair, proposed work includes removing the pipe Tabor Academy installed, and replacing it with a new pipe of a smaller size.

The commission also granted a negative determination to Shawn Nolan of 55 Bullivant Farm Road to install a 20-foot by 40-foot in-ground swimming pool, with the condition that the pool is never drained into a nearby pond.

A request for determination for Kathleen Mahoney of 40 Dexter Road to construct a 12-foot by 15-foot patio, install a row of boulders along the wetlands line, and other yard work was continued until October 8 due to the lack of a quorum. Steven Gonsalves, an abutter, recused himself from voting, leaving only three remaining commission members present.

The matter of Thomas Stemberg of 114 Point Road to demolish several existing structures to construct a single-family home, pool, pool house, tennis court, driveway, and walkways was continued until October 8 at the applicant’s request.

The next scheduled meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is October 8 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry