Bill Madden of G.A.F. Engineering, representing the members of Antassawamock Club, Inc., questioned construction methods when a Conservation Commission hearing for Sandy Toes Realty Trust, Scott and Elizabeth Snow trustees, was reopened on April 27.

            The application was first opened in February, at which time the applicant’s representative was not available to explain the scope of the project, a new home planned on an existing foundation and elevated columns in a flood zone located at 27 Nashawena Road. At that meeting, Madden questioned the amount of fill planned for the site and concerns that the plans did not meet current FEMA standards.

            During the April 27 meeting, Rich Rheaume of Prime Engineering was present and explained that the foundation and building site had been previously permitted but the home was never constructed. Now the applicant was prepared to erect the home but wished to do so using drawings that were executed at that time but with minor modification to the amount of fill that would be brought into the site.

            Chairman Mike King said that he and the other members of the commission had reviewed the revised documents and concurred that the amount of fill planned would represent only 5-inches overall. They agreed that it was minimal.

            Madden also agreed that the fill volume as now planned did not represent a problem, but he voiced concerns that adjacent resources areas were not addressed, nor were issues related to the cutting of the concrete foundation and welding of rebar to the elevated columns. “How does the structure comply to building in a velocity zone?” He said he had not seen documents that demonstrated the building itself was meeting standards.

            King responded, “Duly noted, Mr. Madden.” But King went on to say that such concerns and questions were not within the scope of the Conservation Commission but instead were questions for the Building Department.

            When asked about the wetland resource areas that might be impacted by the construction, conservation agent Liz Leidhold said she had not been to the site in “some time.” Rheaume noted that a previously permitted stonewall separated the building site from those jurisdictional areas.

            King asserted that the fill and grading were in compliance with FEMA standards, while also eliciting confirmation from Madden. He said that conditioning orders could include siltation controls to prevent soils from migrating into the wetlands.

            “In the interest of fairness to all parties,” King asked Rheaume to continue the hearing to give the commission as well as the public sufficient time to review the modified plans and respond to any further issues. “We’ll continue to address what Mr. Madden has raised and adequately respond… If no real issues arise, we should be able to write a concise order of conditions for the next meeting.” The hearing was continued until May 11.

            In other business, three emergency certifications were approved, one for a wheelchair lift at 8 Angelica Avenue, and two septic repairs to properties located at 185 Acushnet Road and 14 Melissa Ann Lane.

            Also issued were Certificates of Compliance to Michael Huguenin, 40 Ocean Drive, and Andy Butler, 13 Main Street.

            A negative determination of applicability was issued to Michael Esposito, 18 Ned’s Point Road, for maintenance and repairs to a seawall and jetty.

            An NOI filed by the Town of Mattapoisett for roadway and drainage improvements was continued pending notification from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

            NOI filings by Whitman Homes, 38 Prince Snow Circle, and Stephen Coughlin, 40 Prince Snow Circle were both continued pending plans for protection of endangered species migrations.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for May 11 at 6:30 pm; remote access details will be posted at www.mattapoisett.net.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

            Marion Conservation Commission Vice Chair Shaun Walsh told Brandon Lebrun that the commission could not issue a Certificate of Compliance (COC) for work being done at 20 Front Street during the commission’s April 22 meeting via remote access.

            “A Certificate of Compliance is intended to certify that the work permitted by the order of conditions was completed in accordance with the order of conditions. It wasn’t, not in a number of ways,” said Walsh because of “so many deviations at that site from what was originally permitted.”

            Lebrun, representing applicants Ted and Ann Severance, came on the scene after several snags were discovered and told ConCom he had hoped that the beautification work done on the site would have addressed an enforcement order.

            “I’m trying to find some lemonade in this lemon,” said Lebrun, who had understood ConCom as having said it could live with an impervious driveway after an order of conditions granting an impervious driveway in accordance with what was originally proposed. “It probably did need an amendment. I guess a new Notice of Intent is what we’re going to have to do.”

            Walsh alluded to several deviations from the approved order of conditions, including the placement of boulders and a retaining wall not according to plan, and a path built through the no-build zone.

            “I’m going to assume the property owners did not present an order of conditions to their contractor. There were 13 conditions not complied with,” said Walsh. “The contractors may have carried out a beautiful restoration of the wetlands, but there are numerous problems” with the (February 2018) order of conditions as granted.

            The real problem, said Walsh, was the expiration of the order of conditions. “Now we can’t grant (a certificate of compliance),” he said.

            The property will either go without a COC or need a new Notice of Intent in keeping with the amended building plan.

            ConCom Chair Jeff Doubrava recognized that “the site has grown in well… it’s the state’s rule, not our rule.”

            Walsh said he didn’t have a problem with a pervious driveway, but he insisted that the permit must conform to the project or the project must conform to the permit.

            ConCom member Cynthia Callow recognized “a good job” by the contractor repairing the wetland, but agreed with the denial of a COC.

            “I think they need to go through the procedure correctly. This one was really bad,” said Callow.

            Doubrava reviewed the file for amendment of the order of conditions and announced that the order of conditions is expired so ConCom needs a new Notice of Intent.

            Walsh moved to deny the COC, and ConCom unanimously agreed.

            An appointment with Mark Ross to discuss changes at 195C Converse Road ended with Marion ConCom recommending that the applicant file a request to amend the order of conditions.

            The applicant did not think such a filing should be necessary because, according to applicant Nick Dufresne, “essentially the project is exactly the same, only thing it’s farther from the (wetland) area.”

            The original plan intended to build an entire new house on stilts and had an order of conditions on file with Marion ConCom. According to John Markey, the attorney representing the applicant, three abutters spoke in favor and one opposed. The owner made concessions that were approved, the abutter appealed the decision and there was resulting litigation. After litigation with an abutting neighbor, that disagreement was resolved.

            “She didn’t want the building to be built this year (with her mother living with her), and for privacy reasons didn’t want certain bushes cut down. (Adding) more steps is a cost that wasn’t in their original budget,” explained Markey.

            The current plan is to elevate the existing structure and add to it, with a net result of a slightly smaller structure having moved the footprint two feet farther away from the wetland (currently five feet from the wetland).

            It was unwelcome news that ConCom strongly recommended filing for an amendment to the order of conditions because significant concessions had been made to the order of conditions already granted. Even so, ConCom considered the changes to be far too drastic not to need an amendment.

            Walsh said that abutter notifications and public notice were necessary as prerequisites for the request of a certificate of compliance. “And it has to say the project meets the order of conditions, but without the amendment you will not have that compliance,” he said. “Just accepting a revised plan of record does not show up on the registry of deeds.”

            After discussing the possibility of consulting with town counsel, Markey indicated he will advise his client to file a request to amend the order of conditions.

            In other business, ConCom discussed a citizen’s complaint about work being done on the south side of 675 Point Road regarding wetlands are at the property line. The owner told ConCom he is cleaning up the backyard and cutting down some trees. Walsh walked to the site and said work was being done in the buffer zone. ConCom recommended the property owner file a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) and get a determination.

            A request for a COC for trustee Camilla Matthews at 20 Cottage Lane was issued, despite no work because the project never began. The property instead is being sold. 

            A three-year permit extension was granted to applicants William Murphy and Nancy Edmonds for their property at 296 Delano Road, and a COC was issued to Christopher James Klapinsky at 41 East Avenue.

            ConCom has scratched its May 13 meeting but will convene on Wednesday, May 27. Marion will hold no public hearings until mid-June. There will also be a special ConCom meeting on Wednesday, June 3, to catch up on at least three public hearings.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo

            Rochester’s Planning Board opened a hearing for the Braley Hill Road North Star LLC. The proposed project is approximately 100-acres of which approximately 40 will be developed for a solar array. The board heard from peer-review consultant Ken Motta of Field Engineering and Eric Las of Beals and Thomas, Inc., the applicant’s representative during the April 28 meeting.

            At issue on this night were some 15-line items in two letters submitted by Motta as part of his review. Those issues dealt primary with the entrance roadway.

            Las said, “We have no objection with the peer review comments on this project.” But given that this was the only feature on the site eliciting major comments, Las thought matters could be resolved. He also acknowledged that his team was aware of abutter concerns and that those were being taken into consideration in the design.

            Las said that the conceptual design for the entrance roadway included diverting stormwater runoff into a retention basin which would in effect, he said, result in less water on the site than is currently present during rain events. “We need to work through areas of concern with (Mr. Motta). We are trying to understand the broader implications of the basin, should we stick with that approach or come up with something different.”

            Motta said, “This has to be reevaluated.” He pointed to soil mappings which seemed to be in conflict with the site conditions. “There are limitations of the soils (in terms of drainage), and the abutter’s septic are a concern… We have a workable situation, ideally reducing the run-off. That’s the way you have to approach this,” he told Las, adding that the water calculations used for the current plan needed to be revisited.

            Planning Board member Gary Florindo voiced his concern that if stormwater overtopped the basin, it would spill onto Braley Hill Road, possibly creating a hazard to motorists, especially during the winter months.

            Returning to the abutters’ septic systems, Motta reminded Las that separation might be a problem in the current design. “You may need to look further and see where water is going now,” he said.

            Las responded, “Our design would result in less water, not more.” But Motta said that test-pit data from 2005 needed to be reviewed, even though Las said that data pointed to gravely sandy loam. He said more test pits would be dug in the coming days, prompting Motta to remind him that, “…those have to be witnessed by the Board of Health.” Motta also said that groundwater levels had to be established.

            “We’ll take a look at everything,” Las confirmed.

            In other business, a continuance was requested and approved for Steen Realty and Development for a mixed-use, residential/commercial subdivision located at 22 Cranberry Highway. Rochester Town Planner Steve Starrett said that there had been discussions between legal teams for Seasons Market, located at the intersection of Routes 28 and 58, and Steen, reporting, “Things are moving along.”

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

Rochester Planning Board

By Marilou Newell