To the Editor:

A common sense approach to the Marion sewage lagoons is needed.

Selectman John Henry got it right when he said that it is a waste of time arguing whether the lagoons are leaking or not. The most sensible approach is to have CDM work on determining how to line the lagoons and what it will cost. We agree.

The facts are simple. The lagoons were constructed in 1971 and are not lined. These lagoons originally served as the sole treatment of wastewater prior to the construction of the wastewater treatment facility but function now only to capture peak flows that the wastewater treatment facility cannot handle and are an outdated technology. The Town itself has been aware of, and concerned about, the possibility of the lagoons leaking for more than a decade. The Horsley Witten study, an initiative that our Board of Selectmen approved in January 2010 because of this concern, found high levels of nitrogen in the groundwater underneath the lagoons.

The lagoons are leaking. Since groundwater from beneath the lagoons flows underground to the bay, the polluted groundwater is traveling to and polluting Marion’s waterways. We don’t need CDM or any other engineering firm to conduct additional studies in order to tell us the exact amounts these unlined lagoons are leaking at specific times and where precisely the pollution is going. We could certainly spend many thousands of taxpayer dollars to determine just how much, how quickly and the exact paths that the pollution is taking as it makes its way through the groundwater table to Sippican Harbor, Aucoot Cove and Marion’s other waterways. But to what end? Such additional details are both unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue at hand, and will serve to waste both precious time and resources because they ignore what has already been proven, as well as the inevitable. The lagoons are outdated, ineffective holding tanks and are leaking significant amounts of nitrogen into the groundwater and, therefore, must be fixed.

Resources, instead, should be focused on the best way to line the leaking lagoons. This is common sense. We have acres of raw sewage sitting in giant holes in the ground at our wastewater treatment plant. We don’t need to invest in more science. We need to invest in a solution.

Furthermore, from a planning and cost efficiency perspective, now is the prudent and logical time for the Town to incorporate an engineering solution to the outdated, leaking lagoons as it embarks on an $18 million water/sewer upgrade plan. It is not sensible to spend millions of dollars to repair the water/sewer infrastructure only to send wastewater up to the lagoons so that it can leak through the bottom and pollute groundwater again. The Town should fix the leaky lagoons at the same time the Town is fixing the rest of its leaky pipes.

Last month we sent a letter, together with several other Marion property owners, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency urging them to direct the Town to fix the lagoon system. As Marion taxpayers, we recognize that we will share the financial obligation to implement a solution to the lagoons. We have a duty to our children and our grandchildren to take action now to protect Marion’s water resources. The Town has known of the potential leaking lagoons for more than a decade and ignoring the lagoons is no longer tolerable. While we support an investment to fix the lagoons, we cannot in good conscience support wasteful town spending in further study of an already well-documented and obvious problem.

Curiously, in the recent press on this issue, CDM has not denied that the lagoons are leaking. Nor did it deny the lagoons were leaking on November 15, 2011, in its public meeting with the Board of Selectmen about the Horsley Witten results. Instead, CDM attempts to cloud the real issue by focusing on the complexity of the matter. We fail to see the complexity. There are 20 acres of raw sewage sitting in giant holes at the wastewater treatment facility and the Town already has a study by a well-respected environmental engineering firm that clearly demonstrates that these unlined lagoons are leaking and the water under the lagoons is polluted. CDM has a financial interest in doing more studies on behalf of the Town. Unfortunately, conducting complex and costly investigations in order to provide the Town with additional data on this issue will not change the crucial fact that the lagoons are leaking and need to be repaired.

The Board of Selectmen should follow Henry’s lead and direct CDM to determine the most efficient way to line the lagoons. Please join us and contact the Board of Selectmen to urge them not to waste time and money on more studies – invest instead in the solution and fix the lagoons.

Laura Ryan Shachoy

Michael Moore

Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

If you live anywhere in Mattapoisett in a residential zone, don’t think you are safe from business or industrial development next door. Ask those folks on Jane Lane who will now abut an industrial cellular tower.

Shouldn’t that be a good enough reason for home owners in every area of Mattapoisett to support those neighbors of Spring Meadow Farm, in the Aucoot District, who oppose converting the farm’s 3.62 acres of cranberry bog into a full service commercial boatyard?

At 6:45 pm on Thursday night, April 18, the Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a public hearing on the matter at Town Hall. This assault on this rural neighborhood could be your neighborhood next time.

One of the first questions that should be asked is: Has the Planning Board conducted a site plan review? If not, why not?

Brad Hathaway

Mattapoisett

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

The last letter discussed the ramifications of the stretch building code requirement for the Green Communities designation for Marion. A stretch building code can be voluntarily adopted by a majority vote of the Town Meeting. The purpose of a stretch code is to promote energy efficiency in Town construction projects by imposing stricter and more rigorous building standards. Adopting such a building code replaces personal decision-making on how green to build by governmental edict on how green you will build. Cost increases of three to six percent can be expected as the result of the stricter building standards. This not only impacts the cost to Town residents but also Town capital construction costs, including the cost of affordable housing. Replacement value insurance coverage gaps may develop as the result of the cost difference between base building and stretch building code cost of replacement. Green building insurance endorsements may be required for some homeowner’s policies. Insurance cost increase with a green premium.

Marion will also be required to develop and implement a five-year 20 percent energy reduction plan. Energy reduction programs usually require capital spending. The Marion Energy Management Committee “EMC” has done no comprehensive staff work to identify the areas of reduction and the capital and other costs required to implement the 20 percent reduction targets. Once again an EMC cost benefit analysis is lacking to justify Marion joining the Green Communities program.

A vehicle management and purchase program needs to be implemented as one of the five Green Communities qualifying criteria. The Town is required to purchase fuel-efficient replacement vehicles. The Town would not be allowed to recycle the police cars now used as utilities vehicles as is the current practice. The Building Inspector, Department of Health, Assessor’s office and DPW all use recycled police cars. This means the police department’s fleet could not be recycled and would result in approximately $140,000 in additional fleet purchases costs in future years.

Green Communities’ administration costs are significant and would burden the Town’s small staff. First, a baseline energy report needs to be completed. This becomes the baseline to measure the 20 percent energy reductions for the five-year cost reduction target and corresponding progress-reporting period. All the energy-use data for each and all Town facilities, vehicles and the school needs to be compiled including electricity, gasoline, fuel oil and propane. This data is then entered in to a Massachusetts Department of Energy “DOE” model that converts the usage to a single BTU platform for measurement. The DOE estimates a minimum of 500 hours are required to complete this baseline repot. The Town’s administrative cost for this work absent any grant availability can be expected to be approximately $25,000. Annual administrative reporting of the energy reduction achievement targets to the DOE for the five-year reporting period can reasonable expected to be approximately $35,000 or more in the aggregate. Any changes to Town facilities such as the Town House project must be submitted to the DOE for approval. Any grant money received would require incurring additional administrative expenses to hire a program manager to oversee any grant expenditures.

Availability of Green Communities’ grant money is predicated on the Town qualifying for the Green Communities’ designation. The Town then submits qualifying projects to the State in a competitive competition with other qualified communities for grant money. The total statewide grant pool is limited by statute to $10 million. Grant eligible projects are limited to specific Green Communities’ criteria. Marion, because of its small size, will not have many grant qualifying projects. This means expected grant money will be rather limited with regard to the cost incurred to qualify for a Green Community designation. The EMC has made no attempt to quantify this cost burden and the grant award breakeven point, which may range from $300,000 to $500,000. Yet, the EMC’s agenda is to push for material zoning changes to permit “as a matter of right zoning” with expedited permitting for commercial solar farms in Marion and push the adoption of a stretch building code in order to qualify for the Green Communities designation.

Ted North

Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

Marion needs a solar bylaw that serves and protects both its businesses and its residents, while allowing access to the benefits of energy from the sun. At present, the town’s zoning bylaws do not specifically address solar installations, leaving the Building Inspector and potential applicants without definitive guidance. Massachusetts General Law 40A, however, permits solar installations in all zones, limiting a town’s ability to regulate them except to protect the public’s health, safety or welfare. We endorse the idea of the state’s promotion of solar energy but believe that our town’s bylaw should provide a few reasonable guidelines such as size limits, setbacks and screening requirements, particularly in residential zones, for the protection of abutters. Over the last year we have worked with the Selectmen and the Planning Board to draft two bylaws presented in Articles 30 and 31 of the warrant that will be considered at the Town Meeting on May 13.

The first of these two solar bylaws proposed by Marion’s Energy Management Committee provides a legal framework and design guidelines for all new solar installations in Marion. It includes three categories of solar installations, summarized as follows (see the warrant for complete language):

Category #1: Roof-mounted Solar Systems. A number of these roof-mounted systems already exist in Marion and have been producing power for years. For new installations, a building permit is required, and the installation must meet building and electrical codes. Panels shall conform to existing roof contours and not extend more than 12 inches above surface of pitched roofs. On flat roofs in General Business Zoning Districts and Limited Industrial Districts, panels may be installed at angles up to 45 degrees from the horizontal.

Category #2: Ground-mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) or Thermal Systems with Collector Area of Less than 600 square feet or a Combined (PV and Thermal) Collector Area of Less than 900 square feet. A building permit is required, lot size must be at least one acre, and the system must have been reviewed and approved in Minor Site Plan Review. In Residential Zoning Districts, the solar PV system shall not be capable of producing more than 120 percent of the locus’ annual electricity usage. (Note: a new solar array of 600 square feet can produce a little less than 10kW, which is enough electricity to supply a large three-bedroom home.)

Category #3: Ground-mounted Solar Systems with a Collector Area Exceeding 600 square feet (900 square feet combined). A building permit is required, installations are allowed in General Business, Marine Business, Limited Industrial, and the Municipal Solar Overlay Zoning Districts without Special Permit, and system must have been reviewed and approved in Major Site Plan Review. A Special Permit is required for installations in Residential Zoning Districts.

In addition, the following Design Standards and Dimensional Requirements apply to all ground-mounted installations:

1. Installations may not be lighted except as necessary for public safety.

2. Outdoor signage is not allowed except for emergency contact information.

3. All systems shall have setbacks of 35 feet and not exceed 10 feet in height. However, the Planning Board may permit a lesser setback or greater height to better suit existing conditions.

4. Fencing or landscaping of reasonable height and density shall be provided to screen views of ground-mounted systems from neighboring residential properties.

5. Large-scale clearing of forested areas for the purpose of constructing solar arrays is prohibited.

Utility connections shall be in accordance with National Electrical Code and be placed underground if possible.

The bylaw also requires a variety of safety and emergency plans, as well as funding to cover the removal of Category #3 systems in the event of abandonment.

Residents: you will be asked to vote on this bylaw at the Annual Town Meeting. To help you be better informed about this and other energy-related initiatives included on the warrant, watch for upcoming articles that will summarize their key features. Please take time to attend public hearings and come to Town Meeting prepared to cast your vote for solar energy in Marion.

Bill Saltonstall

Energy Management Committee

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.