The Mattapoisett Planning Board convened for their regular meeting on Monday, June 18, to continue the hearing regarding the construction of a 145-foot cell phone tower, proposed to be installed off the end of Jane Lane, near Marion Road.

” The site itself will be 883 feet off of Route 6.  The lease area we have is for a 100 foot by 100 foot compound,” said Kevin Delaney, representing the applicant, Industrial Tower & Wireless.  “At the last meeting, we were asked to conduct a balloon test. We performed that test on Friday May 11th between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm.  Because of the distance from Marion Road, the visual is minimal.”

Delaney provided photographs to the Board of the test taken from different vantage points around town, but the Board was not satisfied with the conditions of the test.  Planning Board member Karen Field said that she looked for it in the parking lot of Turk’s and from the entrance to Jane Lane, but was unable to find the balloon.

Planning Board member John Mathieu spoke sharply about his discontent with the balloon test.

“We all work.  You flew a balloon when most of us were at work.  As far as I’m concerned, this balloon test was wholly insufficient.  I’m not satisfied with this whatsoever.  Right now I have a real problem with this. I haven’t talked to anybody who saw this balloon,” said Mathieu.

“I didn’t get home until after seven o’clock so I didn’t see it,” said Chairman Thomas Tucker.

“I think you need to provide a longer duration balloon test for the people who work throughout the day,” said member Ron Merlo.  “I would like to see a balloon test for the day on a Saturday, so people coming and going can see it.”

Delaney said that the Board did not provide them with any requirements for the balloon test and the town by-law does not include any specific expectations.

In addition to the concerns over the balloon test, several abutters present at the meeting were not convinced that installing the tower was going to be a benefit to the town.

“We are the closest occupied dwelling to that site. We’re not in the fall zone, but we’re pretty close,” said Jane Lane resident Jack Hillier.  “Go to Shipyard Park and see the flagpole.  It’s over 80 feet.  And this new tower is almost 150 feet.  I think this tower is an industrial intrusion on our neighborhood.”

“At the last meeting of the Board, I came here to remind the Board that in 1998, a cell tower was proposed in the Aucoot area of town,” said Aucoot Road resident Brad Hathaway.  “As a result of the meetings that were held and the opposition of the people, the Planning Board, at the Annual Town Meeting, sent out an article, calling for cell towers to be restricted from around 195.  That particular article did not engender any controversy at all and passed unanimously.  But somehow that action has seemed to slip through the cracks,” he said.

David Pierre, who also lives on Aucoot Road, was supportive of the construction of the tower, citing personal security and convenience.

“My wife, my daughter, and I moved to Mattapoisett a few years ago. It’s just a wonderful place to live.  The one big negative, though, for us, has been the cell phone service.  I can’t even get cell phone service in my own house,” he said.  “I think it’s a public safety issue. I think of what might happen if I were somewhere with zero coverage.  And I think it’s a quality of life issue.”

But Pierre’s service issues aren’t relegated to that part of town.  While the tower would improve cell phone and police radio service over a larger area than what exists, the low-lying Village section of town would not see an improvement.  Member Karen Field asked Delaney if any of the other towns would experience better cell service.

“The town of Rochester would not see any benefit from this tower,” Delaney said.

The Planning Board decided to continue the hearing, so that Industrial Tower & Wireless could run another balloon test, this time scheduled for a concurrent Friday and Saturday, from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm so as to give residents a better opportunity to understand the visual impact of the proposed tower.  The continuance will occur at the next meeting immediately after the new balloon test.

In other business, the Planning Board voted to approve an Application for Endorsement of Plan Believed Not to Require Approval to combine two parcels of land at 9 High Ridge Drive, and continued a hearing for a similar application for Sundance Trails, at their request.

The Planning Board also welcomed interim member Mary Crain, who was appointed to sit on the Board for member Robert McNamara.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board will be on Monday, July 2, at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall.

By Eric Tripoli

It’s been a busy day on the roads.

At noontime, Marion emergency crews responded to a roll over motor vehicle accident on Route 6 at Spring Street. The crash involved two vehicles with one ending up on its roof. Two ambulances responded to the scene to treat injuries which were reported to be minor.

Earlier today the Mattapoisett Fire Department closed down Route 6 in front of the fire station due to a truck that had hit a pole and knocked down power lines. The highway was closed for about an hour.

The Marion Fire Department also responded to a transformer fire on Point Road down near the Kittanset Club this morning.

So close, yet so far away. That describes Marion Zoning Board of Appeals’ final decision on the Bay Watch Realty’s proposed affordable housing project.

Bay Watch representatives agreed to yet another extension at the ZBA’s June 14 meeting, postponing a decision on the 40B project that includes 60 rental units and 36 single family homes on a property west of Route 105. The ZBA has postponed a final decision three times since May; the public hearing had closed on April 5.

The final issue holding up a decision is the failure of abutter Sherman Briggs to sign off on an easement agreement. According to Bay Watch legal counsel Ken Steen, the project as proposed includes two emergency access points: one near the future bike path on the southerly portion of the property and the other through two house lots across the Briggs property.

“I think it’s Sherm being Sherm,” said Steen. ” It makes a whole lot of sense for him to do it…There is no indication that he’d not do it; he just hasn’t delivered the documents.”

Steen explained that Briggs would benefit from the emergency pathway when he builds additional lots for his family. Currently he has only one way onto his property.

Given their predicament, Steen presented modified language that allows a waiver so Bay Watch can proceed with a decision. ” I have every expectation that he’ll sign it. I don’ t know why he is dragging his feet,” Steen added.

Chairman Robert Wedge said he would defer to Fire Chief Thomas Joyce. “Let’s confer with him, and let him be the ultimate judge on whether he feels comfortable with that,” he said, promising to get an answer from the fire chief within two to three business days.

Committee member Betsy Dunn commented that in the decision for Bay Watch’s previous 192-unit 40B proposal, the board did not require two emergency access routes. Dunn said she would have no problem accepting the language change.

The board will meet with Bay Watch on June 28 to presumably settle the matter and vote on the project.

In other business that night, the ZBA tabled a hearing for Frederic Rosiak, who is seeking to replace the front porch and car port on his property located at 294 Front St.

Rosiak originally presented his application to the board on May 17, but they needed plans from a certified engineer to  proceed.

However, Rosiak’s renderings at the June 14 meeting also failed to pass muster.

“We need a survey from a licensed engineer that will let us know the accuracy of the dimensions . It’s not complicated,” said Wedge.

The Chairman said he reached out to Police Chief Lincoln Miller on the project, and that Miller requested the removal of a tree on the property due to visibility issues.

Rosiak strongly advocated for preserving the tree, offering to prune it as needed. Wedge said he would speak to Miller on that matter.

In addition to his desire to build a porch that conforms to historical architecture, Rosiak spoke plainly on his reason for pursuing the project. He specifically said he wanted to create a place to sit out front, because the back of his property “smells like rubber.” He was referring to Tabor Academy’s controversial rubber turf fields installed last year.

“It smells like you put your head inside a rubber tire. People run by and say, ‘How do you put up with that smell?’ But I haven’t made a stink about it,” he said, laughing at his pun.

Dunn went on the record supporting the preservation of the tree.

“I don’t know why we’d even consider [removing it],” she said.

In one last hearing scheduled that night, the board heard from engineer David Davignon – on behalf of applicants Henry and Judith DeJesus – on a Special Permit request to raze and reconstruct a cottage at 12 Harley Lane.

At a hearing on May 17, abutters expressed concerns about the project due to its scope and 11-foot setback from a neighboring property.

That evening, Davignon presented a revised plan that is much smaller in scope than the previous proposal. Instead of 2,670 square feet, the cottage would be 2,300 square feet with the originally proposed patio removed from the plans. Most importantly, the house would be rebuilt on a different footprint to  increase the setback.

“We’ve created as much space as possible,” Davignon said.

The board closed the hearing but did not deliberate on the case. It has 90 days to render a decision.

In a final note that evening, Wedge disclosed that a previous applicant – Robert McNamara – filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office that the ZBA had violated the open meeting law.

The board had denied a Special Permit request by McNamara to raze and reconstruct a house at 19 Shawondasse Road on May 10. The proposal was strongly contested by neighbors due to the scope of the project, and the questionable footprint of the structure.

In McNamara’s filing -which Wedge shared to the board – McNamara accused the board of discussing the case outside of the open meeting format. He claimed that board member Thomas Cooper told him to “lawyer up” and discussed the case with him inappropriately before it began.

McNamara also claimed that the board did not properly advertize the deliberation of the case, and said he was told it was May 17 when a decision really occurred on May 10.

The board voted to approve Town Counsel Jon Whitten’s draft response to the complaint, which included the agenda for the May 10 meeting – as posted on May 8 – that listed the McNamara case on the schedule. Wedge noted that the board is not required to state exactly when a decision on an application will be rendered. It has 90 days from the closure of a public hearing to finalize a decision on any case.

By Laura Fedak Pedulli