Despite Marion Planning Board Chairman Will Saltonstall’s statement insisting that he supports Sherman Briggs’ proposal for a 28-unit townhouse-style development off of Spring and Mill Streets, progress was at a standstill during the September 20 continued public hearing.

            “I am pretty frustrated. I am an advocate for this project … but there’s ton of information we need,” said Saltonstall.

            Briggs’ representative, Steve Poole of Lakeview Engineering Associates, appeared before the Planning Board on Monday night expecting to read a list of waiver requests for the board’s consideration, but the conversation didn’t get that far.

            “When I look at the applicant’s request to weigh in on some of these waivers, I’m not sure we can at this point. Obviously, this is a density issue, we’re talking about density,” said Saltonstall. “My opinion, there’s some really big issues here. … There’s a direct relationship between the density and the stormwater. … I’d rather take that up now than give the impression we’re moving towards closure.”

            Planning Board member Norm Hills said that, of 44 concerns brought to the board by peer-review consultant Beals and Thomas Inc., 27 of those matters remained unresolved as of Monday night.

            Referencing serious concerns about stormwater management relative to the residential density of the project, Saltonstall suggested reviewing Fire Chief Brian Jackvony’s comments individually. Saltonstall also complained that the PDF files submitted by Poole were losing too much resolution upon magnification. Board member Eileen Marum concurred.

            Marum reported that Jackvony said the 18-foot proposed access road is too narrow for emergency access. Regarding the stormwater report, Marum said that no location was listed for the two defined discharge points.

            Poole said that the site will contain the majority of the runoff and that a small amount of runoff will flow onto Spring Street, but most will run off-site to an area north and northwest of the project into the woods and into a low area between the site and the future rail trail. Poole did not dispute that runoff will be greater in a 100-year storm, but he insisted it “won’t go anywhere where it’s going to affect anything.”

            Saltonstall asked Poole to produce more drawings. Poole told the board he was in the process of finishing up his response to Beals and Thomas but had been delayed by problems with the computer-automated drafting program on his computer. Poole said the CAD problems are hopefully resolved and he anticipated sending back a response by the end of the week.

            When the floor was opened to the public, Joe Falconieri, 15 Pitcher Street, asserted that the area of Briggs’ project “floods more with standing water more than any area between here and Mattapoisett. I think it’s a standing (water) issue. … I’d be very concerned with density at this site.”

            Hills said there is a vernal pool in the area.

            John Rockwell, the chair of the Open Space Acquisition Committee, suggested during open comment that the rate of stormwater runoff is not as important as the volume. “Infiltration structures always clog up,” he said.

            The board voted to continue the hearing to Monday, October 4, at 7:10 pm via Zoom.

            The Community Outreach segment of the meeting quickly turned into a contentious argument between, on one side, Hills and Marum (the latter acting as chair because Saltonstall had to recuse himself from participation) and on the other side several abutters who were furious over the board’s approval of construction of a pier at 122 Register Road that they say is interfering with the safe passage of boats in Wings Cove.

            Earlier on Monday, the town posted at marionma.gov a report from Harbormaster Isaac Perry concluding that the dock project, with reduced length, would have little to no impact on navigation to and from the Wings Cove boat ramp.

            The abutters attending Monday night’s Zoom meeting disputed the report’s findings, and multiple attendees accused the applicant’s engineer of misrepresentation.

            Describing himself as a merchant marine officer and marine engineer, Chris Madden, 323 Point Road, said, “There’s no way I could get past that dock as in the plan. … You have to hug the southern side to get out.”

            Peter McManmon agreed, asserting that the safe way for a motorized boat to leave Wings Cove is to hug the right side. “The notion that there are other ways in and out of that cove is frankly irresponsible,” he said.

            When Hills’ efforts to explain that the public hearing on the matter had closed months ago were met with a barrage of interruptions, comments, and more questions, Marum asked for a motion that the public hearing not be reopened. She cited February 11 and February 18 as the two dates a legal notice advertising the public hearing appeared in The Wanderer and stated that abutters had been notified, that the Division of Marine Fisheries made no recommendation, and that the Army Corp of Engineers, DEP, Conservation Commission, Perry, and Building Commissioner Scott Shippey all approved the plan.

            Some of the abutters insisted they were not notified.

            Marum’s efforts to put a time limit to the discussion were met with more arguments, and Hills stepped in.

            “This is not supposed to be a free for all…. Get your act together and have a representative. … The Planning Board has a process,” he said. “The point is we can go further, but it has to be at a scheduled meeting. … This is not to get your grievances; this is to bring out comments.”

            “Let’s be reasonable. [Hills is] offering us an opportunity,” said Madden. “We could try again to collectively present our thoughts.”

            Board member Chris Collings encouraged the group to present a coherent argument. Hills instructed them to contact administrative assistant Terri Santos to schedule a meeting for discussion, but such a discussion would not constitute reopening the public hearing.

            In answering another abutter, Hills said of the dock project, “They can do construction on the dock so long as it’s not out on the water.”

            In other business, the board voted to pay Beals and Thomas, Inc. $1,384.81 for peer-review work and $126 to The Wanderer for legal notices.

            In a 7:05 pm public hearing, the board voted to approve the Codification Zoning Bylaw changes for Marion’s October 19 Special Town Meeting.

            In other business, the board voted to accept the Approval Not Required (ANR) application filed by Washburn Electric to create two small parcels of land from a larger parcel.

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

Marion Planning Board

By Mick Colageo

            As engineer David Davignon of Schneider, Davignon, & Leone, Inc. ended his commentary on why the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals should grant his client a variance, emotions bubbled up and over.

            Coming before the ZBA on September 16 was David and Lois Monteiro, 35 Mattapoisett Neck Road, with a request for a variance that would allow a contiguous lot owned by the couple to be developed for residential living.

            Davignon explained that the lot had been a buildable lot for more than 30 years before a zoning bylaw change rendered the usage of interior measurements to meet frontage requirements null and void. He said the frontage was shy a mere 2.8 feet or 147 feet versus the current zoning requirement of 150 feet.

            “In 2008, zoning changed,” Davignon stated. But earlier regulations had allowed a lot that met frontage requirements deeper into the lot to be permitted. He said the change had been made to eliminate what were considered oddly shaped lots or “pork chops” from being built out. He said his clients had purchased the potentially three-lot parcel that sits on the corner of Locust Street and Mattapoisett Neck Road in good faith that the lot could be sold and developed.

            Continuing on with his pleadings on behalf of the Monteiro family, Davignon said that the lot is being taxed as a buildable lot and that, even though there is adequate frontage on Locust Street, that cannot be factored into the plan. Davignon explained that it would be possible for the lots to be developed if his client chose to put in a paper road to meet the needed frontage requirement but that they simply wanted to sell off the single lot.

            Director of Inspectional Services Andy Bobola said, “The Monteiros, through no fault of their own, have always believed it was a buildable lot.” He said plans could be filed for a Form C subdivision.

Both Davignon and Bobola confirmed that the plan in question would not include a driveway with access to Locust Street.

            Abutters were not pleased.

            Diane Medvec and Ted Nolte of 9 Locust Street, located at the end of a cul-de-sac,

questioned the variance filing based on the stated financial hardship of high taxes, saying that if the appeal was denied, the assessor would change the tax rate to that of an unbuildable lot.

            Lois Monteiro said that they purchased the property because they had been told by their realtor that the lot being discussed was, in fact, buildable, that taxes were making it impossible to remain in their home (an existing structure on the parcel), and that they had always planned to sell it for financial reasons.

            This line of questioning was too much for David Monteiro, who swung around in his front-row seat to face Nolte, angrily saying, “What’s the benefit to you, Ted? You’ve been nothing but a (inaudible) since we moved in! What’s the benefit, Ted?” ZBA Chairman Sue Aiken interceded, saying, “No, Mr. Monteiro, no; we don’t do that here,” admonishing him several times before Monteiro faced forward, composing himself and remaining silent for the balance of the proceedings.

            Another abutter, Wendy Lessard, said that she had invested in the community solely because her realtor had said that the Locust Street lot could never be built upon, that it would always be a green space.

            Davignon countered that realtors say many things that might not necessarily be true.

            In the end it came down to the size of the variance, the 2.8-foot difference. The board unanimously approved the request with the condition that a line of trees along Locust Street remain in place for screening from the proposed development.

            In other business, Keith Silvia, 3 Hunter’s Lane, sought a variance for relief of a road setback for a bedroom addition needed for the homeowner for medical reasons. The request was unanimously approved. Also approved was a Special Permit as submitted by Jessica Nicolosi, 5 Perkins Lane, for an oversized accessory structure.

            If hearings are planned, the next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals will be scheduled for Thursday, October 21, at 6:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell