Abutters criticized a proposal to replace a house at 694C Mill Street (end of Giffords Lane) but not before Marion Conservation Commission Vice Chairman Emil Assing aired his concerns during the commission’s February 22 public meeting.

            S&S Ventures, LLC filed a Notice of Intent for reconstruction of a single-family house at 694C Mill Street (end of Gifford’s Lane.)

            Represented by Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon & Leone, Inc., the applicant sought permission to demolish a 1939 house that straddles the wetland line and build a two-bedroom, single-family home with an attached garage in the southwest corner of the property.

            Assing indicated belief that the plan for vegetation may not be adequate, that restoration should be done and suggested that the homeowner in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act in preparing the site should become subject to some form of enforcement by the Conservation Commission.

            “I’m pretty upset and disappointed that what was done on the site and especially – we don’t know what was there, I’ve never been down this road before (February 18),” said Assing. “There clearly was a lot of junk in that wetland going back to, probably, previous owners. Trash and appliances and tires and just a bunch of … nasty stuff … so it just hasn’t been treated with respect in the past and that this project is certainly a positive project.”

            Noting that the proposal would move the house away from the wetland, remove a cesspool and install a septic system, Assing acknowledged the land is headed in the right direction.

            “I like this project as proposed, but I also feel like a wetlands violation was done on this property, and I think we need to address it with a real enforcement order that would allow us to get a real restoration company to come in here and see what needs to be done in order to get the wetland restored. That’s my opinion,” he said.

            With that, Assing asked Davignon when all the work had been done.

            “I don’t know the total history of the project. I know that my client did go to the site early on in the process,” said Davignon, who indicated it took some time to get LEC to flag the wetlands.

            Acknowledging it may not matter at this point, Assing reasserted that the property included a “very interconnected wetland that goes all the way down to the harbor,” may have included a pond or vernal pool and was a “very productive wildlife habitat.  … I feel like some habitat has been destroyed on this property.”

            Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee said he had been out to the site and found it to be “junky” and “overgrown.” Having missed time normally devoted to a site visit for family reasons, Guey-Lee had not seen the recent disturbance.

            “It’s a little disappointing because we’re faced with how much forgiveness rather than permission we should give,” said Guey-Lee, who advocated for management over what area has not been disturbed.

            Guey-Lee stopped short of endorsing an enforcement order, preferring a restoration plan.

            Having been out of the country at the time of the site visit but having seen the photos, Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava asked if this is an enforcement order or not. He told Davignon there must be a long-term restoration plan and suggested the public hearing be continued to give Davignon the time to ask the applicant if it wishes to add a long-term restoration plan or an enforcement order to follow.

            Davignon’s preference was to have his client engage LEC Environmental to produce a report addressing the commission’s concerns. Guey-Lee said he was also willing to meet with LEC on the matter.

            Assing reiterated his opinion there should be an enforcement order so the commission can regulate the project to its conclusion and that the NOI should remain a separate matter, being a positive project as an environmental improvement.

            Before the hearing was continued to Wednesday, March 8, Doubrava invited public comment. An abutter said significant tree clearing has taken place at the site and since the clearing, their own property has been beset with water-collection problems.

            After an abutter’s comment, Davignon clarified that it was the property owner and not he who contacted the abutter.  He took offense at the implication of his own involvement in any of the disputed actions at the site.

            Michael Moore was voted a Negative Box 2 Determination of Applicability for repair of a cement cap of granite pier on the north side of an island and reinstall a wooden pier bridge at 1 Ram Island.

            The December 23, 2022 flood caused damage, Moore explained, namely the loss of the bridge that connects the piers. Before replacing the bridge, Moore wishes to replace the concrete cap, which has cracks. The supporting rock is “in good shape,” according to Moore.

            Moore is considering adding elevation, to which Doubrava suggested requires no permitting. Going out farther over the water would require additional permitting, he said. Moore said there are no plans to expand the footprint, only to consider elevation to mitigate storm surge.

            One possibility being considered is an adjustable elevation, as Moore noted a permanent elevation is less convenient for the user of the bridge.

            Rusting out of bolts remains a concern. Commissioner Emil Assing said he and associate commissioner Millie Seeberg visited the site and said he supports the project. The plan is to break up the existing cement cap and install a prefabricated replica.

            Guey-Lee suggested checking on any elevation proposals with “the agencies,” including the Waterways Department.

            The Joyce J. Patten Trust – 1994 filed a Notice of Intent for a proposed residential pier facility at 83 Holly Road.

            Represented by Davignon, the applicant sought permission to extend a 20-year-old boardwalk across a saltmarsh into Wing’s Cove with an 80×4-foot, pile-supported timber pier further extended by a 19-foot float.

            No work was proposed within the saltmarsh area. The first set of piles would be seaward 20 feet from the last existing piles. There would be a seating bench at the end of the proposed pier.

            Davignon said that he met in December with the harbormaster to discuss the plan and sent the department documentation.

            Given ongoing correspondence with the Harbormaster Department and the state Division of Marine Fisheries, Davignon and the commission agreed with Guey-Lee to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, March 8.

            Confirming a reduction but no change in approved work, the commission voted to grant Village Way Realty Trust/Indian Cove Trust two full Certificates of Compliance for work done at 49 Holly Pond Road.

            James and Carolyn Rubenstein were voted an Amended Order of Conditions for a float-improvement project at 163 Allens Point Road.

            The original OOC was granted in February 2022 for replacement of an existing gangway. The applicant sought a minor change, proposing relocation of a four-pile float and addition of a fifth pile. The applicant went through the Waterways permitting process before seeking the Conservation Commission’s approval for the changes.

            Cheryl Farrell was voted a Negative Box 2 Determination of Applicability for removal of a pine tree measuring approximately 80 feet in height at 97 County Road.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo

            The Old Rochester Regional School Committee’s scheduled discussion on committee-sponsored social-media accounts and access nearly resulted in the takedown of the committee’s Facebook page before a last-second support of a motion resulted in only a temporary shutdown pending internal review.

            Committee Chair Michelle Smith read a prepared statement during the committee’s March 1 public meeting in response to a February 25 Facebook post publishing the Open Meeting Law complaints recently made by Mattapoisett resident Kathleen LeClair.

            “It has come to my attention that there has been a post on the (Old Rochester) Facebook page that is not agenda related or discussed with this body as a whole. It has been my understanding of the OR School Committee page is that its function is to share school-committee meetings, our public-meeting posts, or school-related information that the school committee had voted on and approved. … With that said, the post on Saturday, February 18, does not fall into any of those categories. … As the chairperson, I find this very concerning, and the issue needs to be addressed immediately for clarity and direction,” read Smith.

            Committee member Margaret McSweeny asked who manages the page. Smith said the page is managed by Joe Pires, who, given the floor, then explained that the Facebook page was the brainchild of the Communications Subcommittee.

            “The intention of the page was to create awareness of everything that was going on, not only with the school board but also happenings within the school. It was intended to get a push in terms of communication,” said Pires. “I understand in listening to Chairperson Smith, but the outline that she gave in terms of the intent or the purpose of the page isn’t 100 percent accurate. It was intended to be well rounded, and anything related to the school board that’s relevant can be posted on that page.

            “The idea of posting the complaints was basically to tell the community that we’re going to pull through this and stand by it. It’s public record that that information is made available to the general public.”

            Having noted that the Communications Subcommittee had not met this academic year and had last planned to meet with ORR Superintendent of Schools Mike Nelson to establish policy, Pires proposed taking the Facebook page down until the committee could meet and agree on a content policy moving forward.

            McSweeny recommended the page allowing private messaging but not public comment. “I would suggest making it not an area for dialogue but just getting messages out and having an updated list of committee members … that would be helpful,” she said.

            Pires was the page’s lone administrator as of February 22, having succeeded former ORR School Committee Chairperson Heather Burke in the role.

            Committee member April Nye expressed concern over the anonymity accompanying posts on the Facebook page and a general lack of knowledge as to how the page is managed. Pires countered that the common practice of such a page is to post information as having emanated from the committee and no one individual.

            Nye expressed further concern of a singular person deciding what gets posted and asked Pires if the Open Meeting Law complaints filed earlier in the school year (by Amanda Baptiste) were also posted. Pires said the complaints were posted on social media but did not commit to saying they had been posted on the ORR School Committee page.

            McSweeny corroborated with Nye’s inability to find the earlier Open Meeting Law complaints on the ORR School Committee page and took issue with a lack of consistency in presentation.

            Pires told Nye that the page has been live for six years. He said that Burke and he had made all posts of anything considered by either administrator to be public information. He reiterated his contention that the subcommittee should meet and “go over everything that you’re talking about.”

            Nye acknowledged that the video of the committee meeting in which Baptiste’s Open Meeting Law complaints were read was posted but noted the text as was the case with LeClair’s complaints. Nye reiterated her issues with consistency in presentation of the “transparency piece.”

            Member Jim Muse, attending the meeting remotely via Zoom, asked for confirmation as to the members of the Communication Subcommittee. Committee Secretary Melissa Wilcox said Pires, Smith and Rose Bowman are the three subcommittee’s members.

            Muse said school committee discussions should occur before such public posts are made on social-media platforms.

            “The committee should have decided if we want to post something there,” he said. “If things aren’t … somehow benefiting the students that we’re working for, then I don’t see why we’re spending time with it. In my opinion, I’d just as soon see the Communications (subcommittee) disbanded.”

            Pires alluded to a similar post last year and asserted self-contradiction on the part of his critics. Muse said the committee posted and then deemed it inappropriate and took it down.

            “The place where we should be having our discussions is right there, right now, in this format and public and under control,” said Muse. “Social media is not controlled and, as such, when anything other than the school calendar or other things of that kind of nature are put there, very little can be non-controversial. … The Communication (Subcommittee) hasn’t even met or had discussion, and this page is just a runaway train.”

            Muse reiterated his opinion that the School Committee does not need a Communications Subcommittee.

            Committee member Frances-Feliz Kearns referenced individual, school-based social-media pages and suggested those might be more suitable platforms to discuss “what’s going on in the district.” With that, Kearns supported Muse’s viewpoint on the Communications Subcommittee.

            Nye stopped short of agreeing with a move to disband the subcommittee and taking down the page altogether but reiterated her representation concerns and suggested more people be involved.

            Pires stuck by his motion to temporarily take down the page until the issues can be properly vetted by the subcommittee. At the last second before Muse motioned to take down the page altogether, Bowman seconded Pires’ motion, and the School Committee voted to take down the page pending a Communications Subcommittee meeting.

            As recommended by Nelson, the ORR School Committee voted to delegate its response to Open Meeting Law complaints filed with the state by LeClair to legal counsel as arranged by the superintendent.

            On February 14, the district received notice of three Open Meeting Law complaints filed with the state by LeClair. One of the complaints was updated on February 16 with additional information for the committee’s consideration, according to Nelson.

            The first of the three complaints addressed all four district school committees (Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester and ORR.) A second complaint was addressed to the Equity Subcommittee, and the third complaint was addressed to the Policy Subcommittee.

            Per rules, the complaints were distributed to all the committees, and Nelson explained to ORR School Committee members that they needed to decide how to respond within the required 14-day timeframe, with a report forwarded to the attorney general.

            Rochester and Mattapoisett school committees and the Equity Subcommittee had completed those processes by the time the ORR School Committee would meet. All three entities also delegated response to legal counsel as arranged by the superintendent.

            Nelson provided the committee with an update to the proposed FY24 budget, including news that the Budget Subcommittee has supported a FY24 draft budget by proposing certain decreases (relative to FY23) on technology and academic resources. The ORR School Committee will vote on the budget in “the near future,” according to Nelson.

            The committee voted to appoint Christina Gagnon as the committee’s treasurer, pending negotiations.

            The committee began with an executive session.

            The next meeting of the ORR School Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, March 15, at 6:30 pm.

ORR School Committee

By Mick Colageo