A Notice of Intent filed by the Town of Marion, c/o Department of Public Works, to rehabilitate River Road in order to improve roadway infrastructure and roadway safety, brought four residents of the road in for comments at the Wednesday evening meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission.

Shawn Sida and Magdalin Lotsteolt of CDM Smith presented a proposal of what and how River Road looks now and how it will look after the repaving. At issue are the continual flooding of the road during heavy rainstorms and snow piles from plows sitting over a catch basin, thus blocking its use.

The proposal has River Road staying at the same elevation and width, but straightened out in certain places. The entire road will be replaced, a 12-inch pipe will run underground beneath it, and two filtered catch basins will be installed with catch hoods to collect any oil and grease. No berms will be installed. The Department of Public Works will maintain the drainage swales and basins.

After the presentation, several residents weighed in on the proposal. “While we are happy and excited to have this work done, we question why the road can’t be elevated,” said Chris Collings of 13 River Road. “I find it hard to believe that not elevating the road will change this situation with constant flooding,” said Collings.

Paul Hyde of 39 River Road said that his home sits on the river side and water that comes down the road is now running between his home and his neighbor’s home. “I’m in the low spot,” he said, “the road tarmac is wearing away in front of my house.”

Hyde said he thought about putting in a berm, but that would only drive the water onto his neighbor’s lot.

“It’s called River Road for a reason,” said Jim Colageo of 41 River Road. “The bottom line is that if the lower portion of the road doesn’t come up, it’ll flood again.”

The board told the crowd that if a road is in a flood plain, it cannot be elevated. Syde agreed to meet with DPW Chief Rob Zora. The board asked the residents to provide any photos of the flooding so the issue can be discussed further. The hearing was continued until April 23 at 7:40 pm.

A discussion followed regarding a Request for Determination of Applicability to install a gunite in-ground swimming pool and a patio at 52 Water Street for applicant Maryellen S. Shachoy. The property is in a flood plain and the pool would be located approximately 150 feet from a wetland area.

Two employees from Dartmouth Pools represented the client and answered questions from the board. “The impact on the site will be minimal and all soil will be taken off site,” said Norry Alves, of Dartmouth Pools.

The board asked about any potential discharge of pool water. “There will be no discharge. The discharge line will be blocked and there will be no pumping of water into the wetlands. A filter will be used,” said Alves.

A full Certificate of Compliance was issued to Henry and Judy DeJesus for razing the existing house at 12 Hartley Lane and constructing a new dwelling, stone patio and gravel driveway.

Another Full Certificate of Compliance was issued to James and Marie T. Davidian of 21 East Avenue, Planting Island for reconstructing a licensed concrete boat ramp.

Last, the board discussed the replication of wetlands at 154 Spring Street. The applicants, William and Karen Curley, were represented by David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, Inc. The Curleys were seeking a Full Certificate of Compliance for razing the existing dwelling and constructing a new dwelling with an attached garage, replicating wetlands and landscaping. William Curley spoke and said that he planted red cedar trees and rushes.

A question remained regarding the success of the replication of the wetland. The board explained that it was common practice to have a non-partial professional – whether a botanist or other certified professional – make a determination on the success of the replication. The Order of Conditions for the applicant included wetland replication monitoring and an annual progress report, which was not done.

“We’d like a report by a qualified professional that says the replication was successful,” said board member Jeffrey Doubrava.

By Joan Hartnett-Barry

Backlash from the Joint School Committee decision to make Good Friday a regular school day made its way to Mattapoisett on April 14.

Mattapoisett School Committee Chairman James Higgins kicked off the discussion by making it clear that he now has second thoughts about the calendar change in light of the public discourse, reading a prepared statement and clarifying that he did not vote in favor of the change, yet he did not vote against it. Nor did he abstain, Higgins claimed, saying he just simply did not vote either way because he was confused by the calendar discussion during that meeting.

He said he cannot ignore the public’s concerns and, at this point, will ask the Joint School Committee to revisit the matter.

“We cannot make decisions based on political correctness” stated Higgins. He continued, “I do not think people from other religions are offended [by the Good Friday religious holiday].”

Committee member James Muse, who voted in favor of the Good Friday change, said, “I assure you I didn’t vote on political correctness.”

Muse said Good Friday was not a federal holiday or a state holiday, and that the Good Friday decision was based on creating cohesiveness throughout the school calendar.

“I do not believe,” continued Muse, “…that we should be voting for religious holidays in a public setting.”

While some committee members discussed the value of the half-day Wednesday before Thanksgiving and discounted it as an effective learning day, a table of four teachers in the back of the Center School cafeteria spoke among themselves, appeared puzzled, raised their hands in question and shook their heads no.

Mattapoisett resident Tom Aldren asked why Good Friday wasn’t listed on the agenda. He argued that Good Friday was a holiday, pointing out that the New York Stock Exchange is closed that day. He said, as a Mattapoisett tax payer, he resented that the Good Friday change was “Rochester-driven.”

“I’m pretty upset that something this contentious was pushed through without anyone knowing,” said Aldren. He continued, “I feel pretty disenfranchised … and I’d like it to be revisited.”

“I don’t have an issue on how it was done,” said Higgins. “…This is not an issue of squeaking it by.” But that the topic was raised during the joint meeting did “surprise” him. He said he felt unprepared for the discussion and subsequent vote.

“Nothing was done deceitfully. It was an open public meeting,” said Higgins. “There was hardy debate and your position as well spoken for,” Higgins told Aldren.

One teacher joined the debate and asked the committee to also reconsider reinstating the half-day before Thanksgiving, arguing that it was, indeed, a valuable teaching day – and so are the days leading to summer vacation.

The discussion returned to Good Friday, and Muse took a defensive stance when rebutting Aldren’s comment that everything he learned about the Good Friday vote was from what he read in The Wanderer.

            “Not everything in the paper is fact,” said Muse, saying that those “facts” are “up for interpretation.” He continued, “I take offense that there was any inference that this wasn’t an open public meeting with open public debate.”

Aldren bellowed out, “Ha ha ha ha!” as Muse’s face reddened as he spoke.

In a follow-up interview, when asked what part of The Wanderer’s Joint School Committee meeting coverage was “not fact,” Muse stated that he did not read the article. He clarified that what he meant was that newspapers summarize the meetings and that they do not include all of what took place at the meeting.

The discussion ended and Aldren left the meeting.

In other matters, the committee discussed school choice options for the district, touching upon the pros and cons of school choice, but taking no action until next month. The committee asked to see more information – specifically from local real estate agents – before deciding whether to offer any further school choice slots next year or not.

Concerns focused on unexpected students moving into the district, which would drive up the teacher to student ratio. Higgins presented several studies about the benefits of smaller class sizes during early education, and advocated hiring another second-grade teacher for next year in light of some unexpected funding freeing up in the fiscal year 2015 budget.

Superintendent Doug White explained that the funding Higgins referred to is one-time funding, and Higgins suggested a new teaching position could be initially limited to a one-year position.

The second grade next year faces a ratio of 1:23 in two classrooms, and 1:22 in the other. The committee discussed a target class size of 1:17 to 1:19 as optimal.

The next Mattapoisett School Committee meeting will be May 19 at Center School. The time will be earlier, at 5:30 pm, because of the Rochester Town Meeting.

By Jean Perry