State zoning bylaws now allow greater flexibility to lots previously merged and/or meeting square-footage requirements, and the emerging potential of lots being considered buildable for multi-unit occupation has members of the Mattapoisett Planning Board concerned.

            During the board’s September 16 public meeting in which both ADU (additional dwelling units) and family-related apartments were discussed, hopes were expressed to ensure that zoning bylaws do not end up with homes being shoehorned onto lots.

            “Someone could buy land and build rental units,” that might not be desirable in some locations, stated board member Willam Wennerburg.

            “It could change the character of the town,” Chairman Tom Tucker commented.

            To that end, Mattapoisett Town Planner Victoria Alfaro has been developing language that the board will eventually bring to Town Meeting for consideration.

            After further discourse, the board decided to set a date for a public hearing to get public comment that may ultimately be incorporated into updated zoning bylaws. October 21 is the proposed date that will be posted. More details to follow in a public notice.

            It was noted, however, that the likelihood of the town foregoing a Fall Town Meeting is high, thereby pushing voters’ consideration of such zoning changes until the Spring 2025 Annual Town Meeting.

            Concerns over the development of 0 and 7 Holly Woods Road by Colin LaBrie were aired when Chris Vandenberge of Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. said that clearing had begun on the property. It was questioned by an abutter and the board as to whether or not the Conservation Commission had permitted the work taking place.

            “I’d call conservation tomorrow and tell them what’s going on,” Tucker said.

            LaBrie’s request for a decision on the development and associated covenant had been approved prior to the Planning Board being made aware of site activities.

            In other matters, Scott Snow’s subdivision known as Eldridge Estates received reinstatement of the plan, an extension on the time to complete the project, and agreement of a $48,000 cash surety in lieu of two lots being held.

            The board voted to use 20 hours of Municipal Assistance from SRPEDD to update the town’s Open Space and Recreation Plan.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, October 7, at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

The Marion Capital Improvements Planning Committee got a nose full on Monday at the town’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.

            “This is probably the most-complex thing we’ve got going in town that comes in with capital requests, and it’s good for the committee to know the basic pieces,” said the CIPC’s chairman, Dave Janik.

            On Monday afternoon, CIPC members toured WWTP facilities, including the two Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) bays, the recently relined lagoon and two smaller buildings where critical processing takes place.

            Along the way, Janik and Casey Barros asked questions of Nathaniel Munafo, who runs the WWTP for the Town of Marion, while Steve Nojeim took notes.

            “We always typically do one or two site visits in the summertime. It’s not the same ones every year,” said Janik, whose group was focused last year on the Old Rochester Regional School District. The year before the CIPC visited one of Marion’s drinking-water pumping stations. “The idea behind that is typically to get a look ahead of time at what might be some of the big, capital projects that the department heads are likely to bring in.”

            As the late Paul Naiman would explain in his role as chairman, the CIPC is an advisory committee to the town’s Finance Committee and Select Board. By December, its annual interview process fielding the anticipated capital needs of municipal departments is completed. Each capital request necessarily exceeds $10,000 and has at least a five-year lifespan. When the fact-finding in finished, the committee really goes to work.

            Organizing this avalanche of information is the beginning of an evaluation process that includes funding prospects (and likelihood for success) of each request. The members return to the committee with a personal rankings list of both FY26 capital projects and those related to each department’s 10-year outlook.

            It’s a cumbersome process, but when consensus is achieved the committee puts together a recommendation it will report to both the Finance Committee and Select Board by the end of January 2025. Separate lists will address both FY26 and 10-year outlooks, and all things related to the Department of Public Works get their own rankings lists. In all, 35 to 40 projects are reviewed in any given year.

            Beyond the CIPC, Town Meeting warrant articles will note whether the FinCom and Select Board recommend voter approval. Monday’s visit to the WWTP was the beginning for the committee.

            “In this case, there’s a dual purpose,” said Janik. “Nathaniel gets to tip us off on what he may be thinking about. Now we know there’s a lot of things on his mind, but it really depends on what the regulators are going to drive home that this is what you need to get done.”

            The reason is Marion’s Water/Sewer enterprises present the most involved, layered and complicated process, as some capital projects are driven by the need to maintain compliance with state and federal regulations, and those outcomes leverage which projects will be prioritized.

            “I put in 11 requests last year and I got maybe four or five,” said Munafo, noting that a lot of the remaining several requests are alive. “If I can find that alternative funding source, if I can find a grant that fits it, that’s something we’ll try to do. … If we can do that and not have to present to Capital, that’ll be good.”

            Grant funding is a major driver, and compliance is key to unlocking eligibility. The Creek Road Pumping Station is up for a grant, but if it doesn’t come through the station will probably be on Water/Sewer’s wish list for FY26. A potential Coastal Zone Management grant will determine how Marion will fund improvements to the Silvershell station.

            “The plan is dependent upon what (the regulators) are asking for,” said Munafo. “In the (Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan), we investigated a number of different scenarios and options about how to deal with the bigger-picture issues we’re talking about. This plan that we chose is very dependent on are the regulators going to allow us to do the things we’re asking, and they have their own timetables on that sort of thing, and they can certainly say no.

            “They regulate flow in and of itself as if it’s almost another pollutant. For our standpoint, in order to do some of the things we’d like to do like potentially tying in ‘needs neighborhoods’ that are excellent candidates for being on (town) sewer, we need to have some more capacity that we can discharge.”

            Munafo says the WWTP can treat substantially more flow than it is permitted to discharge.

            “If I really push it, we can push about a million gallons a day through the plant if everything lines up right, but we’re only allowed to average 588,000 gallons a day out the back end,” said Munafo. “In asking them for additional flow, they then start taking into account concerns that additional flow is going to contain additional items of concern.”

            Munafo confirmed that the new residential projects planned off Route 6 near the Wareham line both fit into Marion’s current permit and that their developers agreed to support treatment of the resultant addition of infiltration and inflow (I/I).

            Once fully treated, Marion’s wastewater goes through the woods, cuts across Route 6 near Abel’s Way, enters a drainage ditch and then goes out to sea through the saltmarsh.

            “Nothing from our plant that goes into the harbor and certainly not coming out of here that’s not treated,” said Munafo.

            The Marion Capital Improvements Planning Committee was scheduled to meet on Wednesday night and is likely to set a meeting for October 2.

Marion Capital Improvements Planning Committee

By Mick Colageo

Rochester’s Zoning Board of Appeals on September 12 approved a Special Permit and variances for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit above an attached garage at 48 Pierce Street, but not before debating another town board’s reaction to the plan and whether the applicant should wait until a new law goes into effect.

            ZBA Chairman David Arancio said a letter that the panel received reports the Planning Board strongly opposes approval of the 48 Pierce Street construction because it is on an already undersized lot. This led ZBA member Jeffrey Costa to complain that the Planning Board’s correspondence was too vague and that its members should appear before the ZBA to provide a more detailed explanation.

            Costa also argued that the letter should been copied to the applicant, homeowner Nicholas Carnazza, so he’d be aware of the objection to his plan.

            Carnazza echoed Costa’s comments. He said he never knew his project was being discussed by another board. He would have liked to be able to attend such a discussion.

            “I don’t think that’s fair,” Costa said. “We should have sent the letter to the applicant. We should have informed him better.”

            Arancio explained that sending such correspondence to other town boards for their opinion on ZBA petitions is part of the process and that meeting agenda items are posted online. It is up the applicant to seek this posting information.

            At another point in the discussion, board members briefly suggested but quickly dismissed the idea that the applicant should put this petition on hold because of a pending new state law.

            Board member Richard Cutler noted that in February 2025 a newly approved Massachusetts housing bill will approve such a project by right. The relevant provision of the bill states that no zoning ordinance or zoning bylaw shall prohibit or unreasonably restrict or require special permitting for “the use of land or structure for a single, accessory-dwelling unit or the rental thereof in a single-family, residential, zoning district.”

            Ultimately, the board nearly unanimously approved the construction of what Carnazza’s petition states is a studio apartment above his garage to house his aging, recently widowed father.

            The board granted Carnazza a Special Permit with the condition that the new living space be no more than 700 square feet and approved variances to the minimum required, front-lot frontage and minimum required lot size. The vote, however, was 4-1 with Arancio the lone no vote for both the Special Permit and the variances.

            In other action, the board accepted the withdrawal “without prejudice” of an application for a Use Variance to construct a second-story accessory dwelling above an attached garage at 343 Neck Road. The board had previously discussed that this project could also be affected by the new Massachusetts housing bill when it becomes law in 2025.

            The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals’ next regular meeting will be held on Thursday, October 10, at 7:15 pm at Town Hall, 1 Constitution Way.

Rochester Zoning Board

By Michael J. DeCicco