The Rochester Planning Board used several minutes of Tuesday night’s public meeting to discuss the progress of the Plumb Corner Village housing development where it concerns its March 17 request for the town’s judgment of “substantial completion” so Units 1, 2, 21, 22 and 43 can become occupied.

            Based on engineer Ken Motta’s peer-review letter, septic inspection occurred on Tuesday, and other necessary work was scheduled for completion on Wednesday.

            According to Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson, Motta suggested that the board should condition the letter to the building inspector the developer’s submission of the spacing plan before conveyance of the units requested is authorized.

            According to Johnson, Phases 2 and 3 of the project cannot start per the agreement until Phase 1 is 100 percent completed with the exception of topcoat paving. Phase 1 includes the community center, landscaping, basins, etc. “I think they’re finally catching on that the project has a lot of eyes on it,” he said.

            “I noticed that they gave us the schedule that we asked for,” said board member Ben Bailey.

            Johnson said he was lacking the Plumb Corner narrative from the ZBA decision on parking spaces and any kiosks planned for the parking lot.

            A construction schedule came in Tuesday, according to Town Planner Nancy Durfee, who also noted that Plumb Corner Village developers are due to pay the town $6,000 toward its peer-review account.

            The board voted to approve John Hall’s Approval Not Required (ANR) application seeking to create a second lot on 66 acres of woodland and upland property located at 453 Snipatuit Road.

            Durfee told the board that she has gotten her grant-writing applications out of the way and can now write a presentation to Select Board and Planning Board regarding the MBTA project that is due by the end of May.

            Ben Bailey told the board that a MBTA representative was disrespectful to the town in the past and recommended consulting with Town Counsel Blair Bailey in upcoming meetings. Johnson, also put off by MBTA representation in the past, advised Durfee to put her time into local rather than state issues.

            The Planning Board reviewed the draft decision approving the solar array approved for Renewable Energy LLC at 109 Neck Road and recommended only minor tweaks. Applicant Henry Quimet sought clarification on the groundwater-protection permit; Johnson explained that there are two permits requiring separate votes. The vote will take place at the board’s next meeting after Town Counsel Blair Bailey has reviewed the decision. The board reviewed the draft decision and made only minor tweaks.

            The board members signed the Matthew Fernandes ANR decision.

            Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC’s site-plan review application proposing the construction of a 190-foot, monopole design cell-phone tower at 0 High Street was continued to April 12. The matter was on the March 22 agenda by mistake.

            In other business, the board approved payment of three invoices to Field Engineering: $2,750 for peer-review consulting for the Plumb Corner Village project, $2,000 for peer review of the solar project at 109 Neck Road and $375 for the solar project on Old Middleborough Road.

            Durfee announced that the town has hired Dawn DeMaggio as the board’s new administrator. Dawn DeMaggio, who is the wife of Planning Board member John DeMaggio, is scheduled to start on March 30.

            Durfee also told the board that an evaluation of her computer led to advice that it needs to be replaced for lack of operating capacity.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Planning Board

By Mick Colageo

On March 21 the Mattapoisett Planning Board voted to establish a committee of seven to nine people to evaluate the current solar bylaw draft or start from scratch. Two Planning Board members and Administrator of Assessing Kathleen Costello, along with others yet to be named, will spearhead this latest effort to bring a new solar bylaw to the voters, possibly in the fall.

            Also on March 21, the board held a public hearing on the proposed solar bylaw draft that could have been dubbed a “lame duck.” During the previous Planning Board meeting held on March 9, public input and questions raised by the town’s assessing office regarding the drafted solar bylaw found the document lacking in clarity and possibly risking future revenue growth. Desirous of additional public input, the Planning Board decided to go forward with a planned March 21 public hearing on the topic.

            Once again in attendance was Russell Chase, a resident who had concerns that the drafted bylaw language would be too restrictive for those property owners wishing to construct small (less than 17,000 square feet) arrays for personal use. He also noted it might limit farmers’ abilities to subsidize their earnings. He further considered clauses mandating the planting of pollinator mixes as unnecessary and costly, a $2,000 permit too costly, and the need for monitoring of planted areas onerous.

            Planning Board member Janice Robbins, who has led the way for a local solar bylaw, responded that planting areas where native plants had been removed during construction is necessary. “We have to balance the needs of solar and natural habitats,” she said, adding that most homeowners would be entitled to install residential systems but wondered “where is the cut-off” between small and medium installations.

            Speaking on behalf of the town was attorney Matthew Thomas who, along with Costello, was instrumental in Mattapoisett’s Home Rule Petition (July 2020) that granted the town authority to negotiate P.I.L.O.T. programs that allow solar developers to pay a fixed fee over the life of an array in lieu of taxes. Costello’s position has been that these programs have been successful in securing new revenue for the town; Mattapoisett is more than 90-percent dependent on real estate property taxes with very little in the way of commercial venues.

            Thomas stated, “I advise you to proceed with caution.” While he agreed that a solar bylaw is necessary to “protect the health and safety of the public,” Thomas said that pending decision(s) from the Supreme Judicial Court regarding zoning versus site-plan reviews could find the town defending its solar bylaw in court.

            “You need a bylaw especially during decommissioning – there is a need,” Thomas said. But while noting that the current draft would not be moving forward to the Spring Town Meeting, he suggested the board, “wait for the SJC decision so you don’t run afoul … then you can craft a bylaw for the safety of Mattapoisett.”

            In a follow-up with Costello, she said that state solar regulations take into consideration kilowatt hours versus square footage of array sites and that it would be important for all regulating agencies including the town to be “speaking the same language.”

            Thomas also favored a bylaw based on kilowatts versus acreage. “We are going to need solar … we need to see how that fits in neighborhoods. It’s a hot topic, but solar can be good for passive reuse of some lands,” he concluded.

            Speaking for the Mattapoisett Land Trust, Michael Huguenin brought up the issue of inspecting solar arrays post construction to ensure conditions imposed on the site are being upheld by the developer and operator. He also expressed concern that recent FEMA updates to flood-zone mapping did not take into consideration Category 3 and 4 hurricanes. He urged the Planning Board to consider restriction of solar arrays both medium and large being installed in flood zones. Huguenin pointed to the construction of the Bowman Road array as an example of where not to grant solar permits. Robbins noted that the recently permitted Randall Lane LLC array is at least in one location in a hurricane-impact area.

            Huguenin then asked, “Have you seen any reports?” Part of the permitting process for Bowman Road was a condition that the owner/operators give an annual written report on the functioning and maintenance of various systems such as drainage. “And they should be signed and stamped by a civil engineer,” he said.

            “We are concerned about ongoing operation over 20 years,” Huguenin stated. “What happens if they just stop, who maintains the drainage and vegetation? What recourse does the town have?” Continuing in this vein, Huguenin pointedly asked the board, “Have you asked for reports?” Robbins responded that there was not any administrative help for the board at the present time with Chairman Tom Tucker saying, “We are volunteers.”

            The establishment of a committee will be revisited at the next meeting of the Planning Board.

            In other business, the Park Lane Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan Form C owned by Andre Rieksts, Scott Atkinson and Margo Wilson-Atkinson received an extension until April 4, at which time the property owners will have the required authority from the Select Board to complete Park Lane from its current public termination into a private roadway.

            The board also approved the release of one lot located in the Eldridge Estates subdivision planned by Scott Snow.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, April 4, at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

The March 17 meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals was short and sweet with just one case scheduled, and short and sweet is just what the property owners Michael Esposito and Cynthia Redel, 18 Ned’s Point Road, needed after a devasting fire consumed their large, seaside home on April 6, 2021. That property was the former location of the much-loved Silver Gull Inn, which had served as a summer retreat and dining venue for decades before being converted into a 9,000-square-foot private residence.

            Represented by architect Will Saltonstall of Marion, the couple sought a Special Permit to develop an adjacent lot that would feature an upside-down floorplan.

            Saltonstall said that the lot size was 12,000 square feet with 81 feet of frontage in the R30 zone. He said the original plan was to build a detached garage, for which they had previously received building permission, but now wished to develop the site with a structure that would feature a first-floor, three-stall garage and single-bay workshop with a one-bedroom residence on the second floor.

            The floor plan Saltonstall pointed to also showed a Cape Cottage aesthetic in keeping with the neighborhood and that the lot when first created in 1960 would not meet current setbacks but should be grandfathered and a Special Permit granted.

            The ZBA members were well pleased with the project with one member, Colby Rottler, inviting the couple to his home so he might show them the lift system he installed in his home, which is on stilts.

Another member called it a “nice project.”

            The vote unanimously approved the Special Permit.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals was not scheduled upon adjournment.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell