Rochester’s Planning Board Tuesday allowed a proposal for a floating solar array at 53 Dexter Lane to proceed from informal discussion to the formal application stage, but not before lodging a complaint against the plan’s expansion.

            In an informal discussion of the project in a prior board meeting, Matt Swanberg of New Leaf Energy explained such a design is only allowed on man-made ponds. That means cranberry ponds used for agricultural purposes such as the Dexter Lane site qualify. New Leaf Energy’s original proposal was for a two-megawatt solar array with the panels on a connected series of floating docks.

            On Tuesday, Swanberg said ground-mounted solar panels are now part of the plan for what he called “a slightly larger array.” Board member John DiMaggio objected to that term. “Your output is three-times the size now. Not ‘slightly above,'” he said.

            DiMaggio pointed out that the floating arrays will generate 1,933 kw of power and the ground-mounted panels another 6,000 kw. “You’re adding a lot,” he said.

            Chairman Arnold Johnson said his concern continues to be screening from the view of abutters. Swanberg said New Leaf is not planning only floating fencing around the floating array to get that fencing closer to those panels. But the ground-mounted ones will be fenced in. At the time of the formal application, Swanberg said additional “simulations” on fencing plans will be presented.

            Johnson then asked if the array’s battery-energy storage system will tie into the same utility substation that other solar energy installations in town are planning to tie into. Swanberg said he cannot answer that question right now. He added that question is for other experts on his team.

            Johnson concluded by instructing Swanberg to see the board’s administrator, Dawn DiMaggio, about the formal application and the $5,000 application fee. “You may move forward with the formal application process,” he said.

            Next, the board informally reviewed a proposed preliminary subdivision plan at 34 Doctor Braley Road. The plan here is to divide the residential lot into two, one with the existing house and the other with a new dwelling unit placed above barn-like storage below it. Johnson instructed the applicant’s engineering consultant, Jeff Youngquist, and petitioner Dawn Allen to return with their requests for waivers in writing when they file a formal application.

            In other action, the board approved a plan for five lots at Rochester Crossroads at Cranberry Highway and County Road, endorsing the project’s Approval Not Required application. The applicant’s engineering consultant, Joseph Sanda, said the plan here is to subdivide six existing lots into eight, six of which will be buildable and two of which will not because they lack the minimally required frontage.

            Johnson informed the board that these lots encompass the area the May 19 Town Meeting will be seeking to rezone to expand the Smart Growth Overlay District there. He explained each lot will be built by a separate developer, which will create better financing for developing each. The 508 residential units that will result will still count towards the town’s 10% affordable housing stock requirement.

            The board continued until its next meeting a proposal to modify the Special Permit and Groundwater Protection District Special Permit for Cushman Road Solar, Cushman Road. The new plan here is to construct additional sub-drainage improvements within the existing driveway off Robinson Road. Johnson explained this new requirement is that the utility pipes must be encased in concrete and must now be newly designed.

            The board introduced the new Town Planner, Michaela Shoemaker, as she attended her first Planning Board meeting.

            The Rochester Planning Board’s next meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 22, at 7:00 pm at Town Hall, 1 Constitution Way.

Rochester Planning Board

By Michael J. DeCicco

            On April 8, the Mattapoisett Finance Committee and Select Board sat down with Old Rochester Regional School District Superintendent Michael Nelson and Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Howard Barber. For more than an hour, Barber laid out all the moving parts of the schools’ budgets with PowerPoint presentations and deep dives into what can be a very confusing process.

            The bottom line for Mattapoisett taxpayers is this: Mattapoisett’s portion of the two regional schools, the junior and senior high schools, is $6,484,514, and the town’s portion of the two elementary schools, Center and Old Hammondtown, is $8,785,207. The overall school budgets are increased by 6.89%. A letter from Barber and Nelson to Mattapoisett’s treasurer Kristi Costa confirms, “…the budget of the Mattapoisett School District is $8,785,207.”

            Finance Committee members were interested in understanding the cost and/or value of ORR’s participation in the School Choice program that allows a specified number of students from outside the tri-towns to attend ORR and from outside Mattapoisett to attend Mattapoisett Schools. Barber said that the town receives $5,000 for reach School Choice student, but given that it costs the school far more to provide an education for some 99 such children, Select Board member Jordan Collyer said there is an unmet delta, one that the town is paying for.

            Regarding Mattapoisett students whose educational needs cannot be met in the local schools, Nelson said that the majority of students with special needs can be and are served locally.

            For the last several years, the school district has set aside funding in a capital stabilization fund. Mattapoisett’s contribution to that fund is $35,170 for FY26.

            In other business, Town Administrator Mike Lorenco said that the upcoming spring Town Meeting will have 33 articles, including a citizen’s petition asking voters whether or not they want to increase the Select Board to five members.

            The upcoming elections will include two ballot questions.

            Question One – “Shall the Town of Mattapoisett be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half…the amount required to pay for the bond issued in order to pay for road reconstruction for Oakland Street…”

            Question Two – “Shall the Town of Mattapoisett be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half…the amount required to pay the costs of designing, planning, engineering, bidding, constructing, equipping and furnishing the renovation of the Mattapoisett Highway Building…”

            Later into the proceedings, the board heard from Barbara Gaspar, who sought Select Board permission for the creation of a 250 Anniversary Committee to celebrate the town. Gaspar said she wishes to bring together interested parties to develop plans. Collyer suggested that she gauge community interest first. Collyer said the details could be developed at a later date and thanked her.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Select Board was not announced.

Mattapoisett Select Board and Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell

            The cultural and societal value of history cannot be overstated. Whether it is our family histories, national or even global histories, and yes, local history, it tells us who we are, where we’ve been, and aids us as we plan our futures.

            The Massachusetts Historical Commission, under whose guidance all local historical commissions are charged, provides cities and towns with directives for archiving local history. One of the single-most important aspects of work performed by local commissions is documenting a town’s historical assets. The process of collecting data and then formatting it for inclusion on the state’s commission website is no small task. It requires expertise in architecture, history, and how to navigate aged documents to extrapolate significant data in a building or site’s progression through time.

            Lynn Smiledge has been engaged by the commission, and has for more than a year, been unearthing Mattapoisett’s long history as told by its old buildings and other locations. On March 29 she gave a presentation that thoroughly explained her work thus far. Smiledge discussed how architectural styles date a building while deeds, marriage certificates, and death notices can tell the hidden stories therein.

            Smiledge’s work is being funded by Mattapoisett’s Community Preservation fund as supported by the town at Town Meeting. Phase One is complete; Phase Two is in process and

Phase Three is seeking Community Preservation funding. The full report and presentation is available on the town’s website.

            Identification and documentation of historic resources is the foundation of community. The goal of the survey was to document representative historic resources from major themes in the development of Mattapoisett including agricultural, maritime, commercial, institutional, and an undocumented resource from an underrepresented community. The survey thoroughly documented 112 properties, which included three area forms and 75 individual resources. Additionally, five properties were recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

            The inventory forms have been submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission where they are in the process of being scanned and placed on an easily accessible database, MACRIS. (Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System). The forms will also be available in hard copy at the Mattapoisett Public Library and on the Mattapoisett Historical Commission website.

            A Historic Property Survey Plan, completed in January of 2023, identified approximately 300 high priority resources. The Historical Commission is currently moving forward with Phase Two of the survey and has contracted with Lynn Smiledge to document an additional 100 resources. The commission has applied for another CPA grant to continue with the next phase of research and documentation. A warrant article for the next phase is planned for the Spring Town meeting in May.

            Smiledge has also identified Homestead Court and Barlow Cemetery as sites of historic significance. Many throughout the community are aware that the cemetery contains the remains of Revolutionary Soldiers. But the military significance of this neighborhood (Barlow Cemetery and Homestead Court situated close by one another) may not be as evident.

            The residential homes were built for the benefit of WWII veterans, and the cemetery is the final resting place for local soldiers who participated in securing independence for our country.

            Smiledge notes of the cemetery that while the grounds and fencing are in pretty good condition. The grave markers, headstones and such are in seriously poor condition. They need cleaning and conservation.

            The cemetery was deeded in 1789 to Rochester’s Second Precinct, aka Mattapoisett.

Architectural features now documented by Smiledge are Cape Cod (1700-1840), Federal (1780-1820), Gothic Revival (1840-1880), Greek Revival (1830-1850), Italianate (1850-1880), Second Empire (1855-1885), Queen Anne (1800-1900), Shingle (1880-1900), and Colonial Revival (1880-1955). She pointed out the addresses of homes, primarily in the village area that feature specific styles.

            Here’s an idea, why not take the children (or just yourself) on a walking tour uncovering the types of buildings there are in town. Who knows. Maybe one day your homes will be added to the survey.

Mattapoisett Historical Commission

By Marilou Newell