2021 Lamoureux Music Scholarship

on

The New Bedford Symphony Orchestra is pleased to announce that applications are now available for the 2021 Lillian B. Lamoureux Music Scholarship. The scholarship competition is open to all music students ages 14–21. Two $1,000 scholarships will be awarded, one high school student and one college student. The deadline for application (including two letters of recommendation) is Friday, April 30. Students will be asked to submit a video of their audition performance via Dropbox by May 4. Questions may be directed to Education Director Terry Wolkowicz at twolkowicz@nbsymphony.org.

            The scholarship, established in 2000 to support young musicians who intend to pursue their music education, continues to recognize the legacy of former President Emerita and longtime NBSO board President Lillian B. Lamoureux.

            To download the scholarship application form, visit www.nbsymphony.org/scholarships.

            The NBSO is a professional orchestra that annually presents a concert series of classical and pops music with internationally acclaimed guest artists, as well as an outstanding chamber music series. In addition, the NBSO’s innovative and nationally recognized educational programs reach 8,000 students each year. The NBSO is dedicated to building a community of music in the South Coast. Visit www.nbsymphony.org today!

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

on

            We take them for granted. They have become so completely part of the local landscape that they probably don’t even register on our conscious minds as we motor along, taking care of our 21st century business. Stone walls are everywhere.

            But a mere heartbeat ago in geological time, stone and rock walls served the useful purpose of marking property lines, not because wooden fences couldn’t be constructed, but because the stones were in the way of agricultural fields and pastures needed for livestock. Ever resourceful, the stones moved out of necessity were conserved as walls by the settlers.

            We know the history, that the rocky soils of New England came about when the glaciers receded and melted away. Millions of tons of stone were left behind. The stone supply was endless.

            Tossed stones, known as two-handers because they could be thrown one person using both hands, were piled about thigh high in meandering strips that became walls. Fields required the clearing away of stones each spring as a new unwanted crop of stones seemed to sprout up by black magic. Our forebearers called them “devil stones,” believing that Beelzebub himself was pushing them up from the bowels of the earth. In reality, their emergence was the result of heaving created by frost that gave the stones their upward mobility.

            Increasingly more land was cleared as demanded by the beef-butter-bacon economy of the 19th century. So writes author and landscape geologist Robert Thorson of the University of Connecticut. Thorson has been studying, educating students and the general public about the importance of stone walls for decades. His fascination with the history, archeology, and geology of stone walls in New England puts him in a unique position as an authority on the topic.

            Thorson says that by the mid-19th century, a whopping 70 percent of the New England countryside had been deforested for fuel, buildings, and farmlands. He said that if we could wander back in time, what we would find as far as the eye could see would be small farm holdings surrounded by “dump walls.” Another whopper of a statistic from Thorson’s research is that some 240,000 miles of stone walls have been erected. That’s 400 million tons, “enough to build the Great Pyramid of Giza 60 times over.”

            Speaking of “dump walls,” Thorson has identified several types of stone wall construction. There are the simple dump walls, a classic mounding of stones to mid-thigh in a casual, “I’m tired of moving rocks,” manner. There are the tossed walls, basically the same as dump walls but a bit tidier. There are the neatly fitted single walls, the neatly fitted double walls and, finally, laid walls, which utilized slate and flat stones in a linear fashion.

            Thorson writes in his book, Exploring Stone Walls, that the tallest stone wall feature is located in Newport, Rhode Island, along the Cliff Walk, and the oldest, built in 1607, has been found in Popham, Maine. He also noted that stone walls provided protection for the minutemen during the Revolutionary War.

            Given his rock-solid (pun intended) love for stone walls, Thorson founded the Stone Wall Initiative in 2002 for the continued education and conservation of stone walls in New England.

            Both Thorson and researcher Susan Allport, who wrote Sermons in Stone: The Stone Walls of New England & New York, said of the stones in their plentitude, they just kept coming.

            Here’s a fun fact: The most common stone in New England is granite, but the stone walls of the area are primarily made of gneiss containing banded coarse grains of feldspar, quartz, and mica and/or schist, which is comprised of mudstone or shale with sheet-like grains of muscovite, chlorite, talc, sericite, biotite, and graphite.

            Allport’s research discusses the geological history of the stony ground beneath our feet, commenting that their size ranges from massive boulders that seem to have suddenly stopped rolling towards the sea – think Witch Rock in Rochester or the massive boulder behind that home on Church Street in Mattapoisett – to tiny pebbles along the beach. These stones are known as melt-out till. Logment till is the term used for the rich soils beneath the melt-out till.

            While stone walls were continuously built throughout the time of the early settlers until the Industrial Era, Allport reports that most walls were being built in the latter half of the 18th century. She says that by the time Industrial Era walls were abandoned, economic development moved away from an agrarian society to industry, the manufacturing of goods.

            The need for heating fuels has had an environmental impact over the centuries that precipitated even greater deforestation than farming had. Changes in the earth’s rotation and ocean currents, as well as volcanic winters, episodes that darkened parts of the planet, all contributed to times of extreme cold weather, including years without a summer growing season.

            There were approximately 500 years of weather impact on mankind and its need to survive the cold. As more and more land was cleared, widespread deforestation exposed the soils, causing them to freeze more deeply, thus creating frost heaves that lifted billions of stones to the surface.

            The single most pronounced period of stone wall building came between 1775 and 1825, Allport has stated. Thorson agrees, calling it the “golden age of stone building.” After the Revolutionary War, Thorson believes property owners returned to their homes with an increased sense of pride of ownership and rebuilt many dump-style walls into more uniform features.

            But what becomes of those remaining stone walls hidden hither and yon throughout our Tri-Town area, walls that haven’t been disturbed by modern day subdivisions or new home construction?

            Massachusetts General Law Chapter 266 provides protection for stone walls that have been constructed along designated scenic ways, primarily in municipal easements. Walls on private property appear to have no protection, save for that provided by the property owner. They are, after all, on private property. There are walls yet to be discovered in our region, most assuredly.

            Allport’s research included the use of laser mapping technology to locate wall features deep within reforested areas. The visual emergence of long forgotten walls are truly archeological finds, giving us a better understanding of how our ancestors were using the lands. Allport believes the walls hold the key to New England’s social history, including settlement patterns and farming styles, a backdrop against which human activity can be measured.

            Each stone was once held by a person, a farmer, a native American, a slave. “What remains are countless individual acts etched upon the landscape – those labors, hundreds of years later, they endure,” Allport wrote.

            We have always found poetry in our natural world. Robert Frost wrote of “fences making good neighbors” in his poem, “Mending Wall,” inspired by a wall dividing his property from his neighbors. Stone walls make us stop and wonder, “Who put this wall here … when was it built … what animals are using the crevices as shelter … will it remain here forever?”

            “Stone walls are the most important artifacts of rural New England,” Thorson says. “They’re a visceral connection to the past. They are just as surely a remnant of a former civilization as a ruin in the Amazon rain forest.”

            Stone walls are works of art and feats of engineering. They are also a thread to our collective past, like breadcrumbs leading us to a deeper appreciation for those who have gone before us.

            To learn more about stone walls of New England visit stonewall.uconn.edu, roberthorson.clas.uconn.edu, or ask your library for Allport’s books on the subject.

By Marilou Newell

Koch Closing in on Pilot Test

on

            Reporting on the status of pilot testing for Koch Separation Systems upgrade of the water treatment plant, Jon Gregory of Tata & Howard told the April 13 meeting of the Mattapoisett River Valley Water District Commission that he was surprised to learn that Koch has received new technology approval prior to the pilot test.

            “We thought it was going to be conditional, but it appears from the letter (from the state Department of Environmental Protection) that they have their approval in place,” he said.

            After working with Koch, Tata & Howard submitted its proposal to the DEP, and Gregory said, “It appears we have met their expectations.” He said he contacted Koch on Tuesday morning to discuss logistics and expects Koch could possibly be shipping it to Mattapoisett by the end of the week. “Realistically, early next week,” said Gregory, outlining a four-week pilot-testing period that would be followed by a report sent to the DEP. By the time the commission meets in May, Gregory said, the pilot testing program should be well underway.

            Commission member Paul Silva asked if the MRV should develop a timeline for all the pieces necessary, noting that there are, at best, two opportunities to get the funding. “Just one miss on that, and it could delay this thing a whole year,” he said, suggesting a meeting with the four participating towns’ selectmen and finance committees. “One community stumble, and we’re sitting here another year waiting; [I’m] just concerned about that.”

            Chairman Vinnie Furtado, the Fairhaven representative, said that, pending the commission’s direction, “Do what I can do to get it into my capital plan” upon completion of the pilot study. He said that for Fairhaven, it is a choice between a $3 million or $4 million upgrade, “and we pay 60 percent of the bill…. We have to decide how we’re going to move forward with this.”

            The MRV has reached a crossroads in its decision on whether to upgrade to the newest Koch technology or, for less cost, continue maintaining its current setup. The problem with sticking with the old technology is its replacement parts will be phased out.

            Furtado said, from a financing standpoint, “This fall or a year from now should be our target.” He encouraged the commission to think progressively and not take for granted the job Renauld has done to get several more years of life out of the existing system than what was projected. “We’re really taking a shot; Henri does a great job.”

            Renauld said in his Treatment Plant Operations Update that a compressor check valve let go. He also replaced the transducer on a lost compressor, lost a motor on a lower compressor, and replaced a blown gasket that required a chemical cleanup. “Due to age,” he said, “if we’re looking at these (old) filters, we’re going to be doing a lot more valves going forward.”

            In his Tata & Howard Report, Gregory discussed a risk and resiliency assessment and would send a quality-control report to Renauld and Furtado next week for their review.

            With the fiscal year coming to an end and town meetings on the horizon, Gregory said that it is time for the commission to consider FY22 chemical bids. He said that he would start preparing documents over the next couple of weeks and get some bids in by early June. Blair Bailey suggested making sure potential bidders know about their opportunity.

            The commission discussed the ongoing herring run, and what Renauld said was a mild drought with rain down 3.5 inches off its normal pace. But he did add that the rivers are running well, and herring are on their way up. Laurell Farinon said the Mattapoisett River is looking low and that Dave Watling reported that herring migration is significantly off.

            In her Commission Treasurer’s Report, Meghan Davis gave a total figure of $101,990.37, itemizing $7,800 in invoices, $21,001.75 in total electric, $16,950.37 in total maintenance and repair; and $6,830.61 in total charges associated with Tata & Howard.

            Member emeritus David Pierce asked Vice Chairman Henri Renauld about the commission’s solar panel program. Renauld reported that a $14,199.84 electric bill was reduced to $11,389 at 80 cents on the dollar in addition to smaller bills. Renauld also reported that wiring is now underground, allowing for fewer interruptions in service and less impact from trees knocked down by storms. “Eversource is going to be taking care of the repairs from now on,” he said.

            Davis told the commission that she plans to resign as treasurer but remain a member, citing the impending retirement of David Willett as Marion’s DPW director and her expectation of an increased workload. Davis noted that respective Marion and Mattapoisett town administrators Jay McGrail and Mike Lorenco had discussed possibly maintaining an outside bookkeeper; Willett stated that the commission needs to fill the spot.

            Willett will stay on with Marion to help see the town through its costly wastewater lagoon project. Furtado said he would put the treasurer’s position on the agenda for the commission’s next meeting on May 11.

            The MRV Water Protection Advisory Committee voted to send a letter approving a Form C subdivision off Gerrish Road and Longbow Lane in Rochester, pending the vetting processes standard to the town.

            The committee’s level loggers are apparently running out of life at the same time so, with multiple failures, its members voted to buy three new units at $592 each.

            In his Committee Treasurer’s Report, Jeff Furtado reported a net total of $240,139.41 as of April 1. He listed invoices totaling $3,893.75, $3,405.03 of which is from Tata & Howard. The committee voted to pay on three new invoices reported by Vinnie Furtado: $251.72 to Watling, $50 to Bailey, and $5,973.49 to Tata & Howard.

            The committee and commission members opened their meetings with a moment of silence to remember engineer Patrick O’Neill, who passed away two weeks ago. “Good guy, sorely, sorely missed,” said Vinnie Furtado.

            The next meetings of the MRV Water Supply Protection Committee and Water District Commission are respectively scheduled for Tuesday, May 11, at 3:30 and 4:00 pm.

MRV Water District Commission

MRV Water Protection Supply Committee

By Mick Colageo

Marion Natural History Museum

on

The Marion Natural History Museum will have open hours Wednesday, April 21, from 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm, and Friday, April 23, from 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm. If you’d like to schedule time on the virtual reality set during these times, please contact the director at Director@marionmuseum.org. Masks and social distancing will be required. Space is limited to observe COIVD-19 protocols.

            If you’d like to sign up for our upcoming after-school programs, please go to marionmuseum.org and submit registration with payment to hold a space.

From the Files of the Rochester Historical Society

on

There are no doubt many differences between our Rochester and the other American Rochesters, like the ones in Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri, to name a few. One difference that comes to mind is the iconic New England stone wall.

            In Rochester, we are fortunate to have an abundance of them. Driving around town they can be spotted on New Bedford, Vaughan Hill, Mendell, and Rounseville Roads, as well as many others. These are stone walls that separate homes from the street, divide fields, and create boundaries. Some walls show their age, while others are of newer construction, and still others are mostly the scattered remnants of past walls. The oft repeated reason for the stone walls found throughout New England is that farmers had to find something to do with the plentiful rocks that appeared as they carved fields out of their land. Probably Rochester’s most planned and extensive stone walls are at Eastover Farm on Mary’s Pond Road.

            The Leonard family began its ownership of the lands at Eastover in 1812 with the purchase of a single share of the Rochester forge by three Leonard brothers. Between then and 1848, when George Leonard died, he had added property, buying the surrounding land from previous owners – Handy, Haskell, Basset, Hammond, and King. Upon their father’s death, Charles and Theodore Leonard, already successful businessmen, inherited the property. Theodore took care of the Rochester business interests and lived on the south side of Mary’s Pond Road. Charles was established as the New York connection for the family’s businesses, which included whale oil trade, oil refining, and candle making. Also, through his connection with his father-in-law, he participated in several commercial ventures and was a part owner of some whaleships. In 1853, Charles and Elizabeth, his wife, began the transformation of Eastover from a rural enclave to a gentleman’s estate.

            As part of this transformation, Charles commissioned long stretches of stone walls to be built. Their purpose was to outline and break up the land. He hired a master mason, Isaiah Smith of New Bedford, who along with six local workmen, among them J.S. Ryder, Abram Parlow, Rufus Savery, Elisha Nye, and Alphas Bishup, constructed the two miles of wall. At a height of five feet and a thickness of two feet, the wall took over 1,000 days to complete. L.C. Humphrey, in his memoirs, wrote that the boulders used came from the farm itself. They were spilt, and every block carefully squared, and the entire wall was faced. No mortar was used in the building of the wall, which cost $60,000.

            Stone walls in Massachusetts are protected by law. Specifically, General Law Part IV, Title I, Ch. 266, Sec. 105 speaks to the unauthorized removal of stone walls. In short, anyone who willfully or without right pulls down or removes any portion of a stone wall will be fined. Like many historic sites, stone walls are an endangered species. While many street-facing walls are protected by being on town-owned land, not every new homeowner is aware of this. Some towns have bylaws to protect their walls. In Rochester the town relies on an owner’s respect for history. Unfortunately, as he wrote in his poem, “Mending Wall,” by Robert Frost: “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” so we must all do our part to protect them.

By Connie Eshbach

House Project Sparks Wetland Debate

on

            Robert Malm’s Notice of Intent for the construction of a three-bedroom, single-family home on Aucoot Road was met with fierce opposition during the April 12 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission via Zoom.

            The dispute centered around condition of the 6.3 acres of land.

            After the proposal was summarized for the commission by project representative Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon & Leone Inc., abutter Julie Craig, 77 Aucoot Road, described herself as a civil engineer formerly with G.A.F. Engineering and questioned the wetland delineation.

            Craig said that in 1993, Robert Hiller, the property’s owner at the time, asked G.A.F. to ask if the property was buildable. In overlaying the 1993 wetland delineation line with the site plan presented on Monday night, Craig cited three wetlands flags consistent with 1993 findings but also several others that show new wetlands delineation lines coming away from Aucoot Road, placing the house in the wetlands and its septic system in the buffer zone.

            “I strongly disagree with this line,” said Craig, who said she is certified in reviewing soils and after gaining permission, went onto the neighboring property. “I dug a hole and that is wetlands soil, I can tell you,” she said.

            Commission Chairman Mike King cited the work of Brandon Faneuf from Ecosystem Solutions Inc., calling Faneuf “a qualified wetlands scientist” whose work, King said, was reviewed by Mattapoisett Conservation Agent Liz Leidhold and witnessed by ConCom member David Lawrence. Their observations, said King, resulted in pulling the project away from Aucoot Road based on soils.

            “As a member of the commission, I have every confidence in the agent as well as Mr. Phaneuf,” said King.

            Leidhold said the commission’s representatives did look at the soil and as a result changed delineation in the area of A8-11. “We did not look at the other property,” she said.

            “If you extend your line A10, 11, 12, that’s not uplands soils. That line is not correct,” insisted Craig.

            The proposal calls for construction of a single-family home on the southern end of the property within the 100-foot buffer zone. Elevation, Davignon said, is 20.1 feet, while the base-flood elevation is 18 feet. He alluded to an October 2020 wetland line survey and described an onsite septic system with denitrification (a town requirement for properties within 100 feet of the wetland boundary), and a 5:1 slope ratio to alleviate impact. The house is to have a crushed stone driveway that leads into a drive-under garage. The house would be served by municipal water and be built with an erosion control barrier one block high, a utility shed and, upon completion, loam and seeding. Davignon said the proposal received a state DEP file number without comments.

            Craig also disputed the site plan’s omission of a river/stream behind the property, saying it was approximately 200 feet from her stone wall. King said that if the stream is more than 200 feet from the project, it is not jurisdictional for the commission. Davignon suggested overlaying the USGS map that would show the limits of the riverfront “just to put it to bed,” but Craig disputed the accuracy of the USGS map used in the presentation.

            King said ConCom would take Craig’s remarks under advisement and noted that her comments are in the record. “We generally try to encourage that applicants and abutters come to an understanding prior to public hearing so we can build a consensus,” he said.

            Hugh Kelly, 98 Aucoot Road, spoke for himself and family members at 80, 82, 84, and 96 Aucoot Road, urging a redetermination of the wetland delineation and a survey of the stream.

            Brad Hathaway, 87 Aucoot Road, said, “Some consideration ought to be given to what’s happening to runoff in this town.”

            Jonathan Craig, 77 Aucoot Road, asked why the overall layout was pushed to the south whereas the north end is higher and dryer. While confirming Jonathan Craig’s suspicion that the intent of the plan is to create the ability to split the lot, Davignon said that there are no plans to develop a second lot.

            After the case was continued (to April 26) in keeping with the town’s policy on newly introduced NOI’s, King encouraged all parties to get together in the next two weeks and “work out your differences.” He also encouraged the abutters to check Faneuf’s credentials and described Leidhold as “a very conservative wetlands scientist.”

            In separate votes, the commission issued its standard special Order of Conditions for both Cases SE44-1425 and SE44-1426. Both were notices of intent filed by CJC Construction Corporation for the construction of adjacent, single-family homes on Windward Way on Mattapoisett Neck.

            The public hearings, continued from March 23, once again drew criticism despite plans improved to add several drainage basins to each lot meant to capture runoff from two, 10, and 25-year storms.

            “Mr. (David) Davignon has submitted a very well thought-out, improved plan,” summarized King, citing storm surge, more specifically sea surge, as the challenge for the entire area. Noting that several abutters requested the applicant hire a stormwater consultant under Chapter 53G, King said that is not required. “I don’t want to set a precedent for that.”

            Abutter Tim Kelley insisted he can show significant standing water where it was said there is none. He also said that the applicant did not reach out to abutters despite being encouraged to do so by the commission. “Good advice by you and they did not take it up,” said Kelley.

            King countered that, although not required, the applicant spent a significant amount of money “because of the concerns that were raised by the entire neighborhood. They kind of went above and beyond what we asked them to…. We all have a high degree of confidence in the design plan.”

            ConCom member Chapman Dickerson agreed with King that the applicant should not be forced into a 53G consulting application. “I wouldn’t support anything that costs this owner more, they’ve already done enough,” he said.

            King reminded the project’s opponents that, if they can appeal the decision to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

            In a continued public hearing, N. Douglas Schneider presented updates to Alexander Bauer’s NOI at 7 Nashawena Road for reconstruction of a single-family house. Commission members and abutters noted improvements. The case was continued to April 26.

            Two other new NOI’s were heard and continued to April 26 per town policy, including Barry Sturgis’ proposed repair of an existing failed septic system at 34 Meadowbrook Lane and Conrad and Janice Roy’s proposal to demolish a fire-damaged house and construct a new home at 56 Ocean Drive.

            ConCom voted to issue a Negative 3 Determination in three Request for Determination of Applicability cases. New Rustico LLC at 62 Marion Road can move an existing cooler and expand a deck to 17 feet, 3 inches long by 15 feet wide; John Cornish can replace his existing deck at 18 Tupola Lane; and 9 North Street Realty Trust, c/o Annette Ewing, can demolish an existing house and remove part of a flagstone patio and turn it into lawn. Representing Ewing, Davignon explained that the historic structure once on the property was demolished 20 years ago in favor of the current structure. The intent is to divide the property between two bordering lots in the same family.

            Two continued public hearings were continued without discussion, an ANRAD filed by Aaron Halimi for property owned by Gerald Randall at Route 195 (to April 26) and a NOI filed by Randall Lane Solar LLC for a proposed solar array at 29 Randall Lane (to May 10).

            The commission voted to issue certificates of compliance to Robert B. Hiller II for work at 70 Aucoot Road and to Brian and Betsy Andrade, also listed at 70 Aucoot Road, for completed beach nourishment work. Jay Malaspino, Shagbark Circle, proposed moving his construction slightly farther away from the wetlands, resulting in a minimal change to the plan of record. The case was approved.

            In other business, ConCom unanimously approved a request from Buzzards Bay Coalition and the Mattapoisett Land Trust to amend an existing Conservation Restriction to include an additional 8.7-acre parcel acquired in December 2020.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 26, at 6:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo

Updated Information for Proposed Marine Facility in Marion

on

            This past September, the Town held a meeting to review a proposed new Marine Facility to be located at Island Wharf. Based on the discussion and comments received at that meeting, the design of the proposed facility has been revised. Attached are “Before and After” drawings showing the original design from September 2020 and the updated design from April 2021.

            Below is a narrative regarding the design of the proposed new Marine Facility.

            Current Facility – In 1982, the Town of Marion undertook a study of its responsibilities for oversight of Marion’s Waterways. As a result, the Department of Marine Resources was created and became operational on May 18, 1983. A full-time director was appointed to serve as both harbormaster and shellfish officer and tasked with maintaining an orderly and secure harbor, control of shellfishing, and oversight of the roughly 880 moorings. The study also resulted in the construction of the 225 square-foot Harbormaster’s Office atop the existing Island Wharf Bathhouse. The following year, the appointment of a full-time assistant was approved.

            A lot has changed in the nearly 40 years the department has been in operation. The department today is comprised of three full-time employees with an additional seven employees during the summer months. Total mooring numbers now stand at nearly 1,300; coupled with vast increases in public access opportunities, the total number of vessels using Marion waters during the summer months is around 1,700. Oversight and responsibilities of today’s operations is tenfold what it was in the mid-1980s.

            Why/Right Size – The Marine Department is tasked with many responsibilities and duties, our most critical being the safe use or our water-related recreational and commercial opportunities so that life, property, and resources are protected. To support these, this new facility is being proposed to remain at the waterfront. Rapid access to the department’s vessels, lifesaving gear, and equipment is critical to the fulfillment of our mission throughout the entire year. Currently, the Marine Department operates out of three separate and individually inadequate locations: Island Wharf, Town Hall, and Atlantis Drive. This arrangement results in a number of inefficiencies that hinder every facet of day-to-day operations. The current Island Wharf facility simply does not provide adequate storage for lifesaving gear, equipment, supplies, tools, and materials crucial to the success of this mission. It does not allow for meeting space or code required accessibility for the citizens of Marion and visitors being served.

            Consolidating our administrative functions to a single location is another important step toward ensuring that we maintain and continue to improve our level of service. Additionally, the General Services Administration Guidelines designate an average of 190 square feet as the optimum workspace per person, leaving our office well short of meeting the federal benchmark. Lack of adequate workspace, as with storage, results in a very inefficient working environment. Phone calls, radio transmissions, and in-office meetings all overlap in the same space. Reconfiguration of some of the current interior spaces has taken place; however, these changes have proven to be short-term fixes for these problems.

            Simply put, the department outgrew the existing facility years ago. Working in conjunction with the Marine Resources Commission, as well as multiple Town departments and boards, we have been very successful at maximizing public access opportunities through a variety of projects. Coupled with the ever-increasing uses of Marion’s Waterways and the availability of grant funding for projects such as this, we feel this is the opportune time to get the community involved and develop a consensus to move this much needed and overdue project forward.

            What Changed in the Design? (Original Design vs. Revised Design) After the preliminary design was made public, concerns were expressed by some about the size. We reevaluated the design with the goal of reducing the size while still meeting the needs of the Marine Department. The following changes were made:

•Total footprint of 5,343 sf was reduced to 2,685 sf;

•Building footprint of 2,528 sf was reduced to 1,790 sf;

•New elevated public bathrooms deleted in favor of renovating the existing two ground-level restrooms/showers (will be two stand-alone 9’x13’, 117 ft structures);

•ADA ramp removed in favor of a handicapped accessible lift accessible at ground level;

•Elevated Observation Deck removed. These areas will remain open space with the potential for future deck/patio construction;

•Harbormaster/Shellfish office space reconfigured and large storage room eliminated;

            New renderings illustrate how these changes visually reduced the building’s scale to better blend into the fabric of the waterfront and the town. The reduced scale of the building has allowed for compliance with local height requirements without needing to seek a variance.

            Why Can’t We Renovate? – Any expansion of the existing building must meet or exceed FEMA and state building code regulations. In short, any addition would have to be elevated out of the flood zone. Additionally, any renovations to the existing building exceeding 50 percent of the building’s value would trigger the entire structure, including those areas only being renovated, to be made code compliant. The gross inadequacies of the existing facility, along with flood zone and code requirements, make a renovation/ expansion of the existing structure unfeasible. This includes meeting ADA requirements for handicap access and fire code such as sprinkling the building.

            The proposed new harbormaster facility is situated in the NE corner of the property to allow for safe traffic flow to and from the facility, parking lots, and other recreation activities supported at the site. This new building location better accommodates storage of department vessels, trailers, and equipment under the building while opening up the site to the greatest extent possible for views to Sippican Harbor.

            Funding Sources – We intend to apply to the Seaport Economic Councils Grant Program. This Program has funded a substantial portion of the cost of similar projects in several waterfront municipalities around the Commonwealth. Additional funding, including any matching funds, will come by issuing new debt. The annual debt service, including principal and interest, will be paid from the Waterways account, which has not carried any debt since FY16. We believe this can be done with little or no impact to current and future waterways fees.

Mattapoisett Land Trust

on

The Mattapoisett Land Trust Education Committee has new and updated family activities such as story walks and scavenger hunts ready and waiting for your participation at MLT properties.

            On the Bowman Road “Grace Pond” property, you will find a new installation of Kate Butler’s ORR Visual Design art students’ work that corresponds with the “Monarch and the Milkweed,” by Helen Frost and Leonid Gore story walk. The walk is alongside a beautiful wildflower meadow where milkweed grows.

            All family activities will teach you about many of our Mattapoisett Land Trust Properties. Visit mattlandtrust.org to obtain trail maps for hikes. And watch for our ‘Staycation’ banner at the (Dexter) Tub Mill property off Route 6!

FY22 Schools Budgets Discussed

on

            Coming before the Mattapoisett Finance Committee on April 7 were Old Rochester Regional School District Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Howie Barber and Superintendent Mike Nelson to discuss the FY22 budgets that have been unanimously approved by the school committees.

            Barber spoke expansively on the details of the budget and the bottom line. For Center School, the FY22 budget is $3,041,951, or $109,585 over FY21, and Old Hammondtown School’s FY22 budget is $2,293,418, or a $13,500 increase over FY21. For these schools, the all-in number, which includes transportation and other institutional expenses, is $7,823,908, an increase of $312,035 over FY21.

            The ORRHS FY22 budget is $7,205,699, an increase of $109,585 over FY21, and the ORRJHS FY22 budget is $4,674,923, or $144,658 over FY21. The all-in number, which includes transportation and central office expenses, is $21,174,638, a 2.423-percent increase over FY21.

            FinCom Chairman Pat Donoghue asked about increases to line items covering utility costs, wondering if those had been paid by funding from the CARES Act. Barber said that, given the necessity to run ventilation systems continuously, grant monies had been used but moving forward were no longer available. “Day-to-day operational costs are up.” He went to say CARES Act funding, which reimburses municipalities for non-budgeted, pandemic-related expenses, had paid for such materials as masks, HVAC filters, cleaning supplies, and cleaning services. Barber also said that Chromebooks were purchased for remote learning and that more substitute teachers were hired as well. “CARES funding paid for one-time things and didn’t pay for staffing,” he said.

            Donoghue said that each year the schools’ budgets went up, “but it doesn’t tell me if those increases are warranted.” She said that per-pupil costs are 25 percent higher than nearly all other public schools on the south coast or south shore. “Most schools are at $13,000 (per student), Mattapoisett is at $18,000.” She asked Barber for a per-student breakdown.

            Regarding reduced student enrollment, of the 41 students exiting the system, Donoghue asked if those students would be returning when district schools fully reopen later this month. Nelson responded that at this time no one knows. But, as if acknowledging there is a bigger question regarding student enrollment, he said, “We know this needs to be looked at, needs to be examined.”

            Donoghue dovetailed off Nelson’s response, saying, “We tend to gloss over our aging population, but we need data to decide how we are going to spend our dollars.”

            There was some discussion about ORRHS offering a vocational-type curriculum as an incentive to stay in the system for students seeking certificate courses such as for daycare positions.

            Donoghue also asked if the long-awaited capital needs list had been drafted yet. Barber said he had forwarded it to Facilities Director Gene Jones but would send one out to the committee. Nelson interjected, “We need to have a high-level discussion about capital needs.” Donoghue said, “We need to see the whole list of needs.” She said that she was aware that the “field people” (i.e., the committee formed to pursue improvement to the high school playing fields) would be coming back, but in the absence of a complete list of capital needs, that singular item could not be considered.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Finance Committee was not scheduled upon adjournment.

Mattapoisett Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell

Outdoor Classroom Exceeds Imagination

on

            Little could Joanne Smith and Kirsten Jimenez realize in January 2020 just how significant their little idea would be to the children attending Rochester Memorial School a year later.

            Entrenched in a normal winter, Smith, an art teacher at the town’s elementary school, and Jimenez, the Parent-Teacher Organization president, began discussing and planning an outdoor learning space that they envisioned would open in Spring 2020 in one of the school’s courtyards.

            “We had no idea what was to come about with COVID in March of 2020 and schools closing. We had already begun planning ideas and needed funding,” said Smith, who serves as project coordinator. “When the Tri-Town Education Foundation Learning Grant came up, we decided that this would be something to apply for to help fund student benches and a teacher workstation.”

            Smith and three other Rochester Memorial faculty members associated with the project were awarded $2,000, according to Tri-Town Education Foundation member and Old Rochester Regional School District Web Coordinator Erin Bednarczyk.

            Two months after Jimenez and Smith began discussions, Massachusetts had shut down school for the duration of the 2019-20 academic year, and only recently have Old Rochester Regional district schools reinstituted a full, in-person learning model for grades K-6. Over a year later, plans are in place for a full return for all grades later this month.

            Despite a pandemic that knew no end a year ago, Kate Duggan, Melissa Weigel, Cindy Baronas, and Tracey Forns helped Jimenez and Smith form a committee representing grade levels and parents to enact the project that is known today as the Nurse Thayer Memorial Outdoor Classroom.

            The space is dedicated to the late Joanne Thayer, who served as school nurse at Rochester Memorial. Thayer’s body was claimed by cancer, but her legacy belongs to Rochester students.

            “Nurse Thayer was a caring and dedicated nurse. Also, her grandchildren attended RMS and her daughter, Karin Henry, still works in our Project Grow (program),” said Smith. “It was appropriate to name it after a nurse in (light) of the (pandemic) and all the medical workers who are caring for COVID patients.”

            Classes in all grades and specialist classes like art and music, from primary to upper grades, have used the space this year.

            “Mr. Edmund and Pat O’Connell from Marion heard about the story and it touched their hearts, as his wife was also a retired nurse and their grandchildren attended RMS,” said Smith. “They then reached out to help fund the rest of the money needed for the teacher workstation.”

            Equipped with a dry erase board, the teacher workstation, along with the benches, was custom designed and handcrafted by local woodworker Rodney Fielding in Wareham. In all, the project was completed for under $3,000 and will be completed with mulch, flowers, and garden boxes.

            “You never know, you get these ideas. We started to have lunch and talk about it,” said Smith. “The Tri-Town Education Foundation learning grant was awesome; we’ve definitely been using it. The benches were set up in the fall until it got too cold, and when it warmed up, we started using it again.”

            The teacher’s station was completed a week ago, making for what Smith called “an easily accessible” site capable of “getting all the kids outside where they can have a mask break and snacks. It’s a comfy little space.”

            There is a sign-up sheet on location, but cooperation has not been outdone by competition.

            “Not yet,” said Smith. “Right now, everyone’s been good to each other, sharing the space.”

            With the next application deadline extended by five days, the next Tri-Town Education Foundation Meeting has been rescheduled for April 27.

By Mick Colageo