With summer’s warmth waning and boaters thinning out both in and around Mattapoisett Harbor, the harbormaster and his crew, along with the members of the Marine Advisory Board, turned their thoughts to business matters. During the August MAB meeting, Harbormaster Jamie McIntosh floated out several concepts and ideas believed to be needed and possibly essential in maintaining services to the boating public. Some of those were on the September 24 agenda.

            Topping the list on this night was a proposal to have mooring inspections done exclusively by a certified inspector versus the property owners. “Self-inspections are still a problem,” McIntosh stated. He said allowing boat owners to do their own inspections tantamounted to a “loss of control” and was especially problematic with vessels utilizing wharf dockage. He said that the town had invested approximately $10,000 in improvements and that, “I’d hate to see things getting changed or complicated by the owners,” referring to the actual equipment.

            While there was some debate amongst the MAB that bylaw language changes as proposed by McIntosh were not clear enough, the group, in theory, agreed with his assessment for the need to control inspections and levy appropriate fees.

            As he had during the August meeting, McIntosh suggested a fee structure of $100 per year spread over a three-year inspection cycle. The group was unable to reach a consensus on how the bylaw change should read with member Robert Moore offering to meet with McIntosh to achieve a draft that will be presented during their next meeting.

            In other matters related to fee structures, McIntosh said he had not yet received revenue numbers from the town accountant’s office. “They haven’t quite closed the books yet,” he said. In the absence of understanding where the retained earning might land, setting fees would wait.

            McIntosh did want to clear up a previously made point regarding waterfront enterprise expenses. He said that during the 2020 season his staff numbered eight members, not nine as there had been in 2019. Regarding the harbormaster’s full-time position, he said, “When they hired me that was a 20-percent increase, and there have been a number of projects we’ve worked on.” In a follow-up, he said that payroll had increased from $50,000 to $70,000 when his position was expanded to full time.

            McIntosh told the board he had been reviewing fees from other communities and likened Mattapoisett most closely to Dartmouth in terms of size and services but not fees. “Compared to Dartmouth we are way off,” he said.

            “There’s been a lot of work done around the wharves, electrical, water, fendering. We need to increase retained earnings,” McIntosh stated, adding that repairs to Long Wharf are also on the horizon.

While McIntosh said grant monies have been sought, more were being perused but needed to be augmented with matching town funds, funds that need to come from fees. “If we don’t increase rates, we’ll be left with deteriorating structures,” he cautioned.

            In other matters, McIntosh reported that dredging would begin during the fall and that presently permits are being applied for from various government agencies.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board is scheduled for Thursday, October 29, at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board

By Marilou Newell

            When the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission met on September 29 several of the applications both new and those returning as continued hearings contained critical wording, “coastal storm flowage.”

            A quick look at Massachusetts General Law finds wording throughout the text that provides guidance and rules on types of construction that may be permitted in such areas as barrier beaches, sand dunes, and other jurisdictional shore location.

            As noted in Mass.gov 92.1 Coastal Banks, the language goes like this: “When a landform, other than a coastal dune, has a slope that is so gentle and continuous that it does not act as a vertical buffer and confine elevated storm waters, that landform does not qualify as a coastal bank. Rather, gently sloping landforms at or below the 100-year flood elevation which have a slope less than 10:1 shall be regulated as “land subject to coastal storm flowage” and not as coastal bank. Land subject to coastal storm flowage may overlap other wetland resource areas such as coastal beaches and dunes.”

            Such projects are commonly heard by conservation commissions whose oversight includes waterways, beaches, and the like. So it was when Richard Charon of Charon Engineering returned to the commission on this night to complete discussions and hear the verdict on a Notice of Intent filed by Kathleen and William Sylvia for property located at 41 Cove Street.

            The project was described as the razing of an existing one-bed residence and the construction of a new home constructed to meet all FEMA requirements for flood zones. The topography of the parcel, a residential lot on barrier beach, required Charon to explain safety precautions during construction as well as construction standards geared towards minimizing disturbance to the lot itself and the surrounding resource areas. The entire parcel is considered land subject to coastal storm flowage.

            Charon returned to the commission with a construction narrative that would later become part of the conditions imposed upon the project. He explained that the plan of record had been modified since first coming before the commission decreasing the amount of beach impacted from 750 square feet to 450 square feet with only 60 cubic yards of beach nourishment now planned. Charon said that over time the plan would allow the dune area to naturally build-up. He had previously stated that a sieve analysis would be included to ensure similar soils would be brought onto the site matching the existing beach sand.

            Chairman Mike King said that the use of high-density matting during construction was “admirable” and adhered to the credo “first do no harm,” but he wondered aloud about the elevated pilings that would be used to construct the new home.

            Charon described the process where 16-inch pointed steel pipes would be vibrated into the ground to a depth of 22 feet, saying, “It will be less intrusive.” He also commented that beach grasses to be removed and then returned to the lot would receive adequate sun after the home is completed.

            King asked for a beach-grass restoration plan but agreed to accept a condition that directs the planting of grasses in 12×12-inch patches versus the USDA 24×24-inch requirement and annual reports to the commission over a two-year growing cycle to ensure propagation is achieved. There was no public comment when the hearing was opened to such. The commissioners unanimously agreed to condition the project with additional controls such as sieve analysis, 12×12-inch grass plantings, annual growing reports over two years, and construction narratives.

            A Request for Determination of Applicability also for a project deemed land subject to coastal storm flowage, as submitted by Richard Cushing, 13 Beach Street, for the construction of a new shed was heard. The project received a negative determination of applicability, granting the application.

            Virginia Corcora’s RDA filing for property located at 1 Hilton Avenue, land subject to coastal storm flowage, for a septic repair and upgrade also moved forward with a negative decision.

            A new in-ground swimming pool received a negative decision when the RDA filed by Antone and Christine Moniz, 76 Mattapoisett Neck Road, was heard. Represented by Carmelo Nicolosi of Charon Engineering, the project will be located inland, subject to coastal storm flowage.

            Conservation Agent Liz Leidhold reported that the municipality’s planned repair to a culvert and roadway span along Acushnet Road, which was to have been started and completed before September school openings, was on-hold. She said the contract was being awarded to another construction company and that, in the meantime, excavated areas would be stabilized with additional erosion controls and fast-growing winter grasses.

            Leidhold also reported that restoration plans for damage done by herbicides to property located at 37 Water Street were not complete as of yet. She said that the property owner’s environmental scientist, Marc Maganello of LEC Environmental Consultants, has been working with her to complete plans for the revegetation of damaged wetlands. The property in question features a natural stream that empties into and onto the public beach.

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

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

            On September 24, the Rochester Conservation Commission met to review responses to their formal Request for Qualifications for a new peer-review consultant. The request for a new consultant came after longstanding review engineer for the commission, Henry Nover, announced his transition out of the review-consultant role.

            Each member had the opportunity to review the applications sent by numerous engineering firms prior to the meeting. Of the applications sent in, the discussion centered on three top contenders for the position: BSC Group, Environmental Partners, and Horsley Witten Group.

            Rochester Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon began by introducing the application put forth by BSC Group and some of the background of the firm. According to Farinon, the large team offered by BSC would provide a stable source of peer review that could likely meet the commission’s timeline. In addition, BSC is unique in that it offers a subgroup within the firm strictly dedicated to wetlands projects. As many projects within the Town of Rochester deal with wetlands regulations, Farinon felt that BSC Group could provide unique expertise in those types of projects.

            A significant concern of the commission has been related to the amount of time required to properly review proposals put before them. With Nover working as consultant for so long, it will be difficult for the commission to develop the same trust and consistency with a new consulting group. The size of BSC Group may provide an opportunity to fill that void, as their application revealed that they have the manpower to consistently meet the needs of the commission.

            The next firm presented by Farinon was the Environmental Partners Group. The submission from Environmental Partners noted that their firm has experience working with municipalities and is experienced with the commission’s kind of work. This suggests that they will be capable of beginning work immediately and meeting commission timeframes.

            Chair Michael Conway explained Environmental Partners seems like an attractive choice, because they have experience working with surrounding towns. With that, many of their previous projects have related to solar developments similar to current proposals that the commission is reviewing.

            One potential concern surrounding Environmental Partners is that their focus on civil engineering may impede their ability to effectively review wetlands projects. Conway suggested that this particular firm could be used primarily on civil projects with another firm being employed for projects related to wetlands regulations.

            The final applicant to receive the board’s consideration was Horsley Witten Group. Of all the proposed consultants, Horsley Witten seems to have the strongest focus on the design and review of environmental projects.

            Farinon explained that she has worked with this particular firm before and highly recommended them. She told commission members that of all the proposed applicants this firm has the strongest wetlands scientists. Commission member Lena Bourque also noted that the senior ecologist at the firm, Amy Ball, has been on the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association for Conservation Commissions since 2006 and will certainly have the experience to work effectively with the commission.

            Vice Chair Daniel Gagne explained that one potential cause for concern related to the fact that the application only listed the senior members of the office. Gagne explained that, in reality, primarily junior members of the firm will be doing the majority of the work, and the exclusion of those members skews the strength of their resume.

            After the presentation on all of the proposed firms, Conway suggested that each member of the commission rank their potential consultants to determine which engineering group was most favorable among the commission as a whole. The ranking revealed that Environmental Partners was the most favorable, with BSC Group second and Horsley Witten third.

            As the commission has three upcoming projects on its agenda, a unique opportunity presented itself. The commission will assign one project to each of the firms and base its final decision on those results. Conway explained that the trial run for each firm will provide the commission with a more practical approach to determining which group works best for the commission members. The commission would then discuss their interactions with each firm over the course of their future meetings.

            The next Rochester Conservation Commission meeting date was not announced at the time of the meeting.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Matthew Donato