After months of review and debate, the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board is still plugging away at trying to find a happy medium on the issue of ‘grandfathered’ moorings. At the May 29 meeting, a draft document of the “Wharf, Mooring and Anchorage” rules and regulations was reviewed with specific concentration on this issue of grandfathered moorings.

Chairman Alan Gillis opened the discussion by telling the members that the work done on the draft was actually to bring in the language that had several years ago been adopted by the town. Apparently a new document had never been executed and distributed, so therefore the draft before them had already been vetted. Gillis said “our intent was to clean up the definition of grandfathering” and bring in those changes that had been made in 2008 and 2009 but never edited into the rules and regulations.

However, that didn’t stop the continued discussion regarding grandfathered mooring. They agreed to disagree and that the new language they are proposing is an attempt to find a middle ground between those mooring holders who have enjoyed the privileged status for years and those on the mooring wait list. Some members referred to past practices that might have ended up becoming expectations and passed down like folklore.

They circled around again at various points, with members injecting that grandfathering exempted the mooring holder from all rules and regulations, to the loss of a mooring after one year if a boat is not moored on the grandfathered spot. No one seemed particularly pleased, but Bob Moore noted that town counsel would be reviewing the document and that then it would be sent to the Board of Selectmen for their input and review before being presented to the public.

The proposed grandfathering language is: “Grandfathered Mooring” shall mean moorings set prior to April 24, 1989. They shall continue to be considered grandfathered moorings as long as the current owner owns them and during the ownership by the next subsequent owner, after which it ceases to be a grandfathered mooring. A transfer to a spouse shall not be counted as a transfer to a subsequent owner.”

Harbormaster Jill Simmons said that she will remove all ‘for rent’ signs she finds on moorings because, “it is illegal to rent a mooring in any way shape or form … I’ll take down every single ‘for rent’ sign.” She added, “We are not in the business of supplementing someone’s income.” Simmons told the board that of the approximately 1000 moorings, 230 of them are grandfathered.

Simmons also reported to the board that she is concerned about the financial health of the waterfront enterprise she is responsible for managing. She noted that of the boat excise tax, only 50 percent goes into the waterfront account with the other half going to the town treasury. Of fees, she said that those “hadn’t been touched” in years and that now might be a good time to recalibrate all fees to help offset rising expenses. Gillis suggested – and the board agreed – that she would work with Town Administrator Mike Gagne to forge a plan on increased fees that might help balance the growing deficit the enterprise fund is facing. Simmons said that through the month of April, the deficit was approximately $25,000. Member Carlos DeSousa made a motion to have the board send a letter to the Board of Selectmen supporting Simmons on fee increases. The board approved the motion. Gillis will send the letter.

Under new business, Moore brought to the board a document he had found while investigating the background of ‘grandfathered’ moorings in the state. In his letter to the board, Moore wrote, “….while researching how other cities and towns define the term “Grandfathered Moorings” I came across a report issued in 2011 by the Massachusetts Inspector General…how the Town of Newbury was falling short in their handling of the assignment of moorings to private businesses.” He went on to write that the IG’s recommendation to Newbury was, “The Department of Environmental Protection is requested to reexamine the efficacy of regulation 310C.M.R. 9.07(2)(d) which can be construed by recreational boating facilities to give them carte blanche authority to place whomever they wish on moorings issued to them by municipalities. DEP is urged to clarify the language in this regulation to make it clear that persons being considered for an open vacancy on one of these moorings must be taken from a list maintained by the Harbormaster that is maintained in a fair and equitable way.”

            Moore asked the members to take the time to read the full report, not because he felt Mattapoisett was doing anything wrong, but to help them more fully understand and appreciate all the details concerning this issue while they are in the process of perfecting the rules and regulation language.

Members present during this meeting were: Jack Duff; Carlos DeSousa; John Cornish; Patricia Apperson; Jeff Swift; Robert Moore; Marc Lareau; Alan Gillis; and Walter Reid.

The next meeting of the Marine Advisory Board is scheduled for June 26 in town hall at 7:00 pm.

By Marilou Newell

Late into the evening’s agenda, the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission discussed the growing issue of storm water drainage problems. To the surprise of the ConCom members, the Planning Board during their last meeting had said it was the responsibility of ConCom to handle storm water drainage problems. However, Chairman Peter Newton and member Bob Rogers disagreed.

Highway Supervisor Barry Denham said that during the Planning Board’s last meeting, Chairman Thomas Tucker said it was the responsibility of ConCom to respond to and deal with drainage issues. Denham said that the two boards needed to get together and settle the protocol on this so that drainage projects didn’t fall between the cracks. Noting that residents reach out to him when there are drainage problems, Denham said, “…these people have all been in to see me…”

Newton said that every Planning Board he was familiar with had the responsibility of dealing with engineering plans for storm water management and drainage. He said regarding Mattapoisett’s Planning Board, “I was not aware that was their opinion.” Newton said that they needed to figure out how to work with the Planning Board, and it was determined that he would attend that board’s next meeting to engage them in conversation. Newton will send a letter to the Planning Board outlining the need to discuss this matter with them.

Specifically on the evening’s agenda under ‘other business’ were the two housing developments that have come before both boards of late: Appaloosa Lane and Brandt Point Village. As evidence that things weren’t going well with the engineered drainage plans, photographs of standing water in drainage swales were shown from the Appaloosa project. Of the engineered drainage at this development, Denham said, “…it is a disaster.”

Regarding Brandt Point Village, Denham said that he had researched the developer’s plans further and found that a brook in question is on their property and therefore, is the responsibility of the developers. He said, “…the stream needs to be cleaned out badly … it is not the town’s responsibility … it is the main drainage for the development.” He felt they should be held responsible for cleaning out the brook so that water could properly flow through it and out to the ocean rather than backing up into the backyards along Gary Lane.

Rogers said that it would be unusual for ConCom to mandate the clear cutting of vegetation, but that it could possibly be included in an order of conditions. Denham said that intermittent streams and brooks have become an integral part of drainage plans for developments and home construction and that there weren’t any easements in place for maintenance. “It is a problem throughout town, and somehow we need to learn how to deal with it.”

Earlier in the evening the commission approved certificates of compliance for: William Marinone, 29 Nashawena Road; Cassandra Morgan, 35 Cove Street; and Daniel DaRose, 3 Goodspeed Island.

Kenneth Shwartz, 49 Mattapoisett Neck Road, requested and received permission to remove a cherry tree located in a wetlands area on his property and to install native shrubs to provide additional screening on the east side of the lot.

Ken Motta of Field Engineering represented two clients who were each submitting notices of intent. The first was for Peter Lesco of Industrial Drive Trust, located at 11 ½ and 13 Industrial Drive, for removal of stockpiled soil materials in a 100-foot buffer zone. This was continued until the June 9 meeting to give the applicant time to confer with Natural Heritage. The second client Motta represented was Christine Gibbons-Richards, 37 Water Street. The applicant is seeking to build an addition that will connect the duplex structure on the parcel. This was approved with standard conditions.

A continuance for Blue Wave LLC’s application for a solar farm on Crystal Spring Road came to a standstill when the commission’s peer review environmental engineering consultant, Gary James, reported to the board (via email) that he had not received sufficient response from the applicant on a number of issues under his purview. Rick Charon, representing the applicant, and Aidan Foley of Blue Wave both expressed their surprise since they had provided comprehensive responses to James also via email. It was determined that Charon would follow-up with James and provide him with hardcopy documents for his review. The issue at hand is erosion due to storm water run-off and associated drainage issues into wetland. Also, Foley reported that although they are awaiting a response from Natural Heritage, it has been his experience that they view solar fields as providing a sufficient, albeit different, habitat for native wildlife. ConCom had also received a report from James that day but did not have enough time to study it prior to the meeting. A continuance was scheduled for June 9.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conversation Commission is scheduled for June 9 at 6:30 pm.

By Marilou Newell

A presentation by Jon Gregory, an engineer from Tata & Howard in Lakeville, on the replacement of the existing water tower, located in East Marion, engaged the Planning Board for over an hour at Monday’s meeting held at the Marion Town House.

The $1.5 million cost of replacing the tank, with associated expenses, was approved in 2013 at Town meeting.

At issue is taking down a water tower holding two million gallons of water and replacing it with a water tower – adjacent to the existing tower – that holds one million gallons of water at a cost of $1.5 million

Also at issue is the right of way to service the tower and who will service the mowing and maintenance of that road, or ‘right of way’.

Rob Zora, Superintendent of the Department of Public Works, attended the meeting and assured everyone that the Town would service the access road (grass mowing) and plow it in the winter.

The original water tower was built from concrete in 1965 and has served its ‘useful life,’ according to Gregory, who represented the applicant, the Town of Marion. The tower is located on land owned by Great Hill and the Town of Marion and serves not only as a source of household water, but also a source for water pressure in the event of a house fire.

Zora and Water Commission member David Pierce both attended the meeting and answered questions regarding the project. Both voiced approval of the project.

Next up was a discussion and approval of the combination of two lots located at 57 and 59 Holmes Street. A quick, but efficient discussion of the history and future of the lots was agreed upon.

On the agenda next was a pre-submission conference of a Site Plan/Request for Determination of Modification of Site Plan, PHB Realty Trust, Hiller Corporation, 635 Mill Street in Marion.

After much discussion, the board agreed that the applicant needed more information to get approval for the project and agreed that the applicant and the engineer would come before the board at the next scheduled meeting.

By Joan Hartnett-Barry