The Mattapoisett River Valley Water Supply Protection Advisory Committee and the Mattapoisett River Valley Water District Commission met for a dual, group meeting over the Zoom video conferencing platform on May 12.

            The committee and commission, consisting of members from Fairhaven, Marion, Mattapoisett, and Rochester, met to tackle the meeting’s large agenda while continuing to combat the unique challenges of remote-access meetings.

            In his treasurer’s report to the committee, David Pierce reported the income for the current fiscal year (beginning July 1, 2019), including the addition of $443.29 in bank interest. Pierce noted invoices to be paid totaling $13,499. After the conclusion of treasury reports, the committee voted to pay all outstanding invoices, including an invoice for Tata and Howard that amounted to $11,919 of the total payments due.

            Jon Gregory provided updates to the committee regarding the purchase of a Hach-brand water-testing instrument. The meter was successfully delivered and steps to begin training with the device have begun.

            “The Snow’s Pond Association has been doing online training through webinars,” said Laurell Farinon. “This particular unit has the ability to add additional probes for depth, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.”

            Gregory continued by following-up on a potential Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection grant that offers $200,000 to fund district water quality assessments. The possibility of attaining the grant, which is predicated on a strict set of conditions, was ultimately questioned by the committee. The grant is primarily distributed for water quality assessments to expand on the DEP’s existing database of water quality. “Snow’s Pond is a private pond that does not really fall into the DEP’s guidelines,” said Gregory.

            Gregory also noted that the application for the grant would be costly and time-consuming. The process involves a detailed statement of the problem, a quality assurance project plan, and the inclusion of minority and women-owned business in the contracting plan. After a review of the necessary requirements, the committee concluded that the cost of application could amount to $7,000.

            The potential cost of the application and no guarantee of successfully meeting the required conditions dissuaded the board members. The committee concluded that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection grant should not be pursued at this time.

            “I don’t think this is the right route to go for at this time. It’s something we should investigate further next year or the year after,” said Farinon.

            With the business of the grant concluded, the committee spoke on the proposed solar array projects on Featherbed Lane and Snipatuit Road in Rochester. A subcommittee working to review those plans explained that they were only extensions of past projects. With that, the conservation committees expressed satisfaction with the current proposals and the delineation of current buffer zones.

            The committee voted to approve both projects provided they adhere to the stipulations set forth by the Rochester Conservation Commission.

            In more light-hearted matters, the committee went on to discuss the farewell party for retiring members. The party was previously scheduled for June 18 at 6:00 pm, but after discussion, the committee decided to postpone the farewell party with no new proposed date. This decision came after Pierce advised a delay to the party due to the current COVID-19 crisis.

            In a discussion with the commission, Rick Charron questioned why the signs posted around Snipatuit Pond warning about potential mercury were not also placed around ponds in the nearby area. Member Sandy Geese agreed and added that signs warning about the consumption of fish from the ponds should also be placed around the area.

            Gregory provided further reports to the commission pertaining to the Tata and Howard risk and resilient assessment due to the Environmental Protection Agency in June 2021. Gregory recommended that the commission begin as soon as July in order to ensure that the workload is spread out effectively.

            Member Henri Renauld submitted a report that clarified that the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Treatment Plant is running as intended. This came after a reported overflow of the plant on April 4. Renauld’s report indicates that the plant is currently being closely monitored for further problems.

            The commission’s final topic of agenda dealt with the forthcoming reorganization of the group that will take place after the retirement of Chairman Pierce. Vice Chairman Vinnie Furtado will inherit the role currently held by Pierce. That change in position will leave the vice chairman role unfilled on the commission. The topic of new vice chairman will be addressed in future meetings.

            The next meeting of the Water District Commission is scheduled for June 9 and will likely be held remotely over the Zoom video conferencing platform.

MRV Water Committee & Commission

By Matthew Donato

            Mattapoisett Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King said several times during the commission’s May 11 meeting that cases would or should be continued to give abutters and other interested parties full opportunity to review documents associated with a filing affording them “ample time” to express their concerns or ask their questions either at a re-opening of a hearing or by sending comments via email. He expressed that there are limitations to the remote meeting process and believes it is important to have some meetings continued for the benefit of public discourse.

            The application of Scott Snow, aka Sandy Toes Realty Trust, 27 Nashawena Road, has been one such case. The new home planned for the site has met with many questions funneled through William Madden of G.A.F. Engineering. Madden was hired by the Antassawamock Club, Inc., a private collective whose members include abutters to the project site.

            Madden, over the course of several meetings, raised on behalf of his clients’ questions regarding construction methods for the extension of rebar in pilings used to evaluate the home planned for the flood zone, introduction and volume of fill, stormwater systems, and compliance with the most recent issue of FEMA regulations. On this night many of those same questions were raised, along with a pool foundation that had been previously permitted.

            King expressed awe at the number of emails received by the Conservation Commission office given that the “neighborhood” had hired a “licensed engineer.” He also said that many aspects of the project have been previously permitted, such as the home’s foundation, and intimated that had the FEMA regulations not been modified since 2014 when the project was first planned, it would be moving forward now. “We are here now because of FEMA,” he said.

            Madden commented that several items were still missing from the plan of record, although a new plan had been submitted. He questioned if a buried propane tank and septic tank had been secured using the newest guidelines. He questioned if the concrete pavers were allowed and if identified resource areas were properly shown on the plans.

            Conservation agent Liz Leidhold said when asked that she had not been to the site to ensure that jurisdictional areas were being adequately depicted on the plans.

            King said that the tanks in question had been previously permitted. Madden said he had been raising these sort of questions since January but did not see them being completely addressed. King asked, “What do you want him to do; dig them up?” It was settled that confirmation of compliance would be provided by the Board of Health and the Fire Department.

            Regarding construction methods, King responded to those questions as he had in past meetings. “That is not in the purview of the commission… that’s the (jurisdiction of the) Building Department.”

            Time and again through the proceedings, Rich Rheaume of Prime Engineering, the applicant’s representative, responded that the project would meet current FEMA regulations and that issues brought to the fore by Madden would be on the plan of record.

            King said that several emailed comments questioned if the project would be in harmony with the neighborhood, to which he responded it would while adding that inherent issues in the neighborhood were not problems that the applicant needs to solve. He pointed to drainage problems offering that those issues could be a result of ditches dug for mosquito control.

            After going through the lists of issues raised by Madden, King said, after polling the other commissioners, that, “…I think we have a consensus for the issues under review by the commission… other issues belong to other boards.”

            King opened the hearing to public comment but cautioned those wishing to speak to, “not waste time going over issues addressed by your licensed engineer… if you have anything, take it up with the (Department of Environmental Protection).”

            After asking three times if anyone wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. King said documents would be made available to anyone wishing to see them, but that at the next meeting an Order of Conditions would be ready for the commission’s approval. The hearing was continued until May 27.

            David Davignon of Schneider, Davignon, and Leone, Inc., representing James and Sharlene Craig, Aucoot Road, outlined a timber pier plan. He said that the pier would extend some 17 feet into bordering vegetated wetlands and another 47 feet across marshlands. He said that at low tide the “cove” was basically a mudflat.

            Davignon said that the DEP had forwarded “numerous comments” including long- and short-term impact on the salt marsh. He said, “The cove was dredged in 1973,” and had been filling with sediment ever since, resulting in an area that wasn’t supporting plants or animals. That was confirmed, he said, by a marine scientist.

            Opening the meeting to the public, King added, “We’ll open the public meeting, but ask the applicant to continue to give the public and abutters time to review the plans.”

            Technical issues with background noise made it impossible to hear an individual voice clearly. Once all microphones were muted, an abutter, Daicey Richardson, asked how far into the cove the pier would extend and if it would hinder other boaters. Davignon said that the pier was not near a channel between Aucoot Cove and the town of Marion, but that it would extend 50-feet across the water.

            The meeting was continued until May 27 to give the applicant time to respond to DEP questions and the public additional time as well. The public hearing was not closed.

            Other hearings continued until the May 27 meeting were: Notice of Intent filed by Richard Jarvis, Beach Street, for the construction of a single-family home; Notice of Intent filed by Andrew Bishins, 20 Winnatuxet Beach Road, for the construction of an addition to an existing home; Notice of Intent filed by Town of Mattapoisett for improvements to Industrial Drive, Bart O’Brien of Whitman Homes, 38 Prince Snow Circle, and Christine Coughlin, 40 Prince Snow Circle, for turtle protection plans, and Jesse Davidson, 22 Pine Island Road, for changes to the original plan of record.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for May 27 at 6:30 pm, however attendance details are pending Governor Baker’s emergency orders.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell