Eric Medeiros, property owner of four lots located along the private way known as Selha Way, and Steve Gioiosa, vice president of SITEC Engineering, came before the Mattapoisett Planning Board on December 7 with what they believed was a simple request to modify a Form C subdivision.

            Gioiosa explained that the request was merely to make improvements to the existing gravel roadway that serves the structures already in place and future buildings – nothing more, nothing less.

            However, board members voiced concerns that further subdivisions might be proposed in the future and, therefore, more development leading to more roadway use. Such additional traffic, they believed, could find the town with yet another rutted private way. Board member Janice Robbins asked, “If this is a modification, shouldn’t we be receiving full plans?” She thought the submitted documents were insufficient for the request.

            Gioiosa explained that the town lacks a category that more clearly aligns with the proposal of roadway improvements, and thus the filing noted a subdivision change when, in fact, that was not the case. “It’s not really a subdivision; it’s really a road improvement plan. There’ll be no changes to lot lines,” he stated. Gioiosa went on the say that the roadway had been a legal access for three existing residences.

            Robbins pressed on, saying that there was the potential for further subdivision in the absence of the original site plan approval. “Without the full lot information, I don’t know what we are talking about.”

            Gioiosa said the roadway had previously been approved by the Fire Department and that future subdivisions would not be economically feasible, given the wetlands in the area. Robbins held firm that, given the condition of other gravel roadways in town and the resulting problems, more information is needed. “If we amend the subdivision, we aren’t following our own requirements.”

            Medeiros spoke, saying that he was simply following the guidance he had previously received from the Planning Board during informal discussions. He expressed frustration that after following what he had been told to do, the rules were changing.

            In the end, it was determined that Medeiros would supply the needed missing pieces, including a letter from the Police Department concerning the roadway, and that if the amendment was approved, it would include that the private roadway will never become the responsibility of the town.

            The matter was continued until December 21.

            Also continued until the December 21 meeting was the site plan review for a solar array located off Randall Lane. On this night, the board moved to hire peer review consultants BETA Engineering after a review of several proposals. The board also acknowledged receiving a copy of the letter given to Randall Lane, LLC by the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee, in which the agency confirmed there would be no detrimental impact to the freshwater supply by the solar array construction.

            The Planning Board also agreed to engage SITEC Engineering for peer review of the Park Lane subdivision after Gioisa, who was still in the virtual meeting room, agreed to remove language that Robbins said held the town as the client versus the applicant.

            The board members also discussed a draft for a new bylaw governing the construction of solar arrays in the community. Chairman Tom Tucker stated that it was nearing the deadline for scheduling public hearings on the matter, given that the board planned to have the new bylaw on the Spring Town Meeting Warrant. Robbins has taken the lead on writing the text for the new bylaw that the board concurred was a massive undertaking and a well-done effort on her part.

            Mary Crain, Planning Board administrator, said that the first Master Plan subcommittee meeting would be held on Wednesday, December 9, at 7:00 pm. Interested parties should go to the town’s website to register for inclusion in the meeting.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for December 21 at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

Given the last couple of years’ turnover in the memberships of the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee and District Commission, the commission thought it best to ask Koch representatives to reboot its presentation on the water treatment plant project when they visit the committee/commission on Tuesday, January 12.

            Addressing the commission at its December 8 meeting, Tata & Howard Associate Jon Gregory spoke about Koch Membrane Systems’ Puron technology.

            “It’s a new technology in Massachusetts, but a similar installation where they replaced two old Targus stages in a facility in Texas in 2018,” said Gregory, noting that things at the Texas facility are going well as it works in a series with two Puron stages.

            With more questions on the new Puron system, Gregory wants to send questions to Koch by January 7 at the latest.

            “They’re available and in favor of providing any additional information that we would like,” said Gregory, who will try to set up what will amount to a subcommittee call with Koch before Christmas.

            Paul Howard, co-founder and senior vice president at Tata & Howard, told the commission that there are no reserve pumps with the Puron system, calling it a “totally different technology,” offering annual savings in the $70,000 to $80,000 range.

            The commission is still discussing materials with an eye on tweaking some of the costs and, at the same time, trying to be sure that pipes are durable as well. Howard said stainless steel is no longer the industry standard but a requested upgrade.

            Member Paul Silva asked Gregory if he has asked Koch if another community is at the same stage that Koch is with the MRV District. “I’m very hesitant to get involved with something we don’t have enough background on. I’d just like to have a lot more comfort than I do right now,” said Silva.

            Gregory said he had not had that specific discussion.

            Howard said Koch, based in Wilmington, has applied a membrane technology from treating juices. “I believe this technology is superior to what we have now. I don’t think you should be that concerned,” he said, noting that Littleton is home to the first membrane-ozone plant in the country.

            Megan Davis of Marion gave the commission’s Treasurer’s Report with $77,212.86 in invoice totals. That included total chemicals at $7,257.74. Eversource, she explained, had its last billing period in September that the commission paid in full, so the current period covers October and November with two bills totaling $51,592.54. The commission only paid $30,311.04 of that. “We’re not behind by any means; we’re up to what we’ve used,” said Davis.

            Other figures reported included a $17,945.39 ECA credit, $7,657 in maintenance and repairs to Station No. 6 and Koch tech services, and $10,494.70 for Tata & Howard’s combination of FY21 operations and RO8 project.

            The commission voted to accept the Treasurer’s Report and pay the invoices; the commission also voted to accept the FY22 Budget.

            The committee’s Treasurer’s Report included an ending balance on December 1 at $190,990.32. Deposits totaled $19,279.37, including Mattapoisett’s assessment of $19,267.50. Invoices totaled $4,380.05, the lion’s share an invoice from the Tata & Howard engineering firm.

            Water-level monitoring in the Mattapoisett River has proven to be costly. Alluding to questions Silva had asked on the matter of the monthly $5,000 expense for the collection of data, member Laurell Farinon noted in the committee portion of Tuesday’s meeting that the MRV Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee is all about collecting data on the Mattapoisett River, whereas the MRV Water District’s Commission’s concerns are the water treatment plant and the water-quality side. Meantime on the reporting side, Tata & Howard is working to reduce all of the data.

            “It’s really most necessary for the district,” said Farinon, defending the $5,000 figure for data collection and presentation. “I think that the monthly monitoring and the graphing is something this committee would do anyway, but it really comes down to the annual reporting, not just for this committee but for the district. If it’s five or six grand … I’m just defending what the annual charge is.”

            “We could argue that it is being split evenly, they’re paying ($5,000), and we’re paying ($10,000),” said Chairman Vinnie Furtado, in this instance speaking on behalf of the committee as opposed to the commission that he also chairs.

            Farinon said it is something the committee wants to continue with, especially the monthly monitoring.

            The next meeting of the MRV Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee and MRV Water District Commission is scheduled for January 12.

MRV Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee/District Commission

By Mick Colageo

Old Rochester Regional Superintendent of Schools Mike Nelson and Craig Davidson, the district’s director of Student Services, reported to the Rochester School Committee during its December 3 Zoom meeting on preliminary findings of a survey of questions to parents and guardians geared toward helping Central Office take what Nelson called “an important first step in moving forward with the (learning) model.”

            Nelson said with COVID, “every day is a new day,” and considered the survey responses a good first step.

            Upon all the information shared and at the end of a question-and-comment session, Chairperson Sharon Hartley stated her anticipation of a planned or unplanned meeting of a subcommittee as necessary to take the next step in mobilizing toward getting the town’s youngest learners back in the classroom on a full-time basis.

            “I know you have to be cautious about the continuing COVID-19 (pandemic), and I appreciate that very much, but I also know that our children, in order to become the learners that we want them to be and the readers that we want them to be, will benefit from our teachers face to face. And we want them back in school as fast as we can,” said Hartley, asking Nelson what the school committee can do as a next step.

            Nelson acknowledged the survey result in which 78 percent of respondents confirmed their ability to transport their children to school on what are now Hybrid-Out days. Still, he said, “The guidance is the guidance,” and stopped short of considering a full return imminent.

            “We’re going to put down a plan that we can articulate to the School Committee and, if we have it done prior to when our next meeting is scheduled, as I mentioned, I will not hesitate to reach out to … call a meeting and move it up because we agree with you that the sooner we can create more opportunities, that’s our plan,” said Nelson, stressing that this scenario was always in the works since August and aligns with the guidance from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

            Several questions were asked with graphs and charts illustrating percentage and hard-number breakdowns among Rochester’s 292 survey respondents (there are 1,200 district-wide). Parent/guardians were generally agreeable to the level of communication coming from the Central Office regarding the reopening plan.

            On a five-point grading system, Synchronous and Live (Hybrid-Out) sessions were considered by 76 parents/guardians as “adequate” with “helpful,” “very helpful,” and “somewhat helpful,” divvying up most of the rest of the responses. “Not helpful” drew 22 responses.

            “My child enjoys Hybrid-In days” drew a 198-voice confirmation. The Hybrid-Out workload was confirmed with the agreement of 75 percent of responses, the other 62 nearly evenly (32-30) divided between “too much” and “too little.”

            With a small percentage of dissent, most parents/guardians confirmed that their children have “enough connection throughout the day” with teachers.

            Only two out of 34 respondents said they disagree with the survey statement that their children are enjoying the remote learning model, and 28 of 34 considered their child’s remote-learning day workload to be adequate. Furthermore, parents/guardians confirmed in the vast majority that they agree that child has an appropriate amount of instruction and an appropriate amount of interaction with their teachers.

            Based on the current metrics of COVID-19, 53.2 percent of Rochester Memorial School parents/guardians responded negatively to skipping February vacation week in favor of four remote-learning days. A change in the current school calendar would subtract those days at the end of the school year.

            Almost 63 percent of Rochester Memorial School parents/guardians are in favor of increased in-person learning opportunities, provided the school building maintain at least 3 feet of social distance. The district is currently using a 6-foot minimum. Although the most positive response was also returned to the question of increased in-person opportunities, albeit without the same homeroom/classroom teacher, that number was 48 percent, while 33.6 percent were against it and 18.4 percent were undecided.

            Rochester responded favorably to the transportation question, with 78.1 percent of respondents confirming the ability to transport their children to school on what are now Hybrid-Out days for the sake of more in-person learning opportunities. Nelson said ORR schools could safely fit 24 to 25 students on each of its 77-passenger buses, but state updates are anticipated.

            As of December 3, Rochester Memorial School had 442 students enrolled in the hybrid learning model, 60 on full remote, and 26 others who are being home-schooled.

            ORR has had 29 COVID-19 situations relating to its school buildings, but Rochester Memorial has not had a confirmed case in its building since the September 16 opening. There are four people in quarantine and some others awaiting tests after displaying COVID-like symptoms.

            Nelson reported that there had been no in-school transmission in the district and noted his weekly COVID-19 dashboard is continuously updated. Despite rising rates, finding substitute teachers remains difficult, said Nelson.

            Rochester Memorial School Principal Derek Medeiros credited custodial workers and other staff with getting Rochester Memorial School off to a strong start. He said parents have been cooperative in dropoff and pickup, making things run smoothly in and out of school.

            In other business, the Rochester School Committee voted to approve a Tech Replacement Fee as presented by Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Howie Barber. A distribution of iPads will be accompanied by a return of a signed waiver.

            Barber and Facilities Director Gene Jones were at the meeting, also to discuss the revival of a solar project for Rochester Memorial School. The concept has shifted from a roof solar array to a carport solar array. The committee was asked for and agreed to submit a letter of intent authorizing Barber to seek the interconnection from Eversource.

            There would be no monetary obligation on the part of the town or the school. “It’s a win-win all around,” said Jones, pointing out that the carport would be lighted and include charging stations for vehicles, aligning the project with the Green Communities initiative while at the same time lessening snow removal. Barber estimated that, while year-one savings would approximate $2,300, the project could reach up to $400,000 in savings.

            The next meeting of the Rochester School Committee is scheduled for January 7.

Rochester School Committee

By Mick Colageo