A request from the Recreation Department to perform some beach nourishment at Oakdale Avenue Beach kicked off a conversation during the August 14 meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission on the past, present, and future of a lesser-known ‘beach’ available for public use.

            The Marion Rec had inquired about the possibility of adding some beach sand to what Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava called “a muddy inlet is, really, what it is.”

            Some commission members arrived at the site the Saturday morning prior to survey the area, but no one on behalf of Marion rec showed up. However, to address the question as to whether sand could be added there, Doubrava said, “The answer is, yes, with a permit, they can do anything they want.”

            Conservation Commission member Kristen Saint Don-Campbell said she is aware of some people, Marion Rec in particular, using the spot to launch kayaks and paddleboards.

            One neighbor had reported to the Conservation Office that the beach used to be bigger than it is now and that supposedly the town used to maintain the beach by adding sand intermittently. Another person had told the office that, now, there is “barely enough room for two beach chairs,” reported Conservation Assistant Lissa Magauran. She added that, apparently, when it rains, the water forms a large crevice in the mud leading to the shoreline.

            “It sounds like people down there want to know if the town will undertake some of the improvements down there,” said Conservation Commission member Shaun Walsh. “That’s a question we can’t answer.” He said perhaps the Department of Public Works or the Recreation Department might know more about that.

            Saint Don-Campbell said people are using the spot more and more, which is a good reason to nourish it with new beach sand.

            “It is a great place to launch kayaks,” said Walsh.

            Doubrava emphasized that before any work could be done to alter the area, someone would need to file a permit with the commission.

            In other matters, the commission issued a Negative 2 Determination of Applicability for

Jeffrey Faria, 53 Oakdale Avenue, to elevate the existing house by four feet upon piers and support beams to allow access to the home’s plumbing and heating systems.

            Faria told the commission that he has had “a lot of issues” trying to gain access underneath the house where the floorboards sit just three inches above the foundation.

            The house will be on the original footprint and will not require the filing of a Notice of Intent.

            Also during the meeting, the commission issued a full Certificate of Compliance for work completed at 9 River View Lane.

            The public hearing for the Notice of Intent filed by 22 Cove Street, LLC was continued until August 28 at the applicant’s request. The NOI is to subdivide a 3.61-acre parcel into three buildable lots off Beach Street and Converse Road.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for August 28 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Music Hall.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

Although it doesn’t usually take a vote during the same meeting it reviews a draft decision, the Rochester Planning Board on August 13 found no reason not to for the relatively straightforward application filed by Covanta SEMASS for pollution controls at the solid waste to renewable energy facility at 141 Cranberry Highway.

            The new pollution controls, slated for a number of phases over the next few years, will be located within the existing developed site and will not result in any substantial changes regarding the number of employees or the conditions of the site.

            Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson said he added some language to the decision pertaining to some standard conditions that appear in all draft decisions that in this case do not apply, such as a road opening permit and some conditions related to drainage.

            Johnson asked the board what it thought about taking a vote that night, given that a few board members were absent. After deciding that those members had attended the prior site visit and were present for the previous meetings to deliberate the application, the board favored a vote.

            “They know what’s going on,” said board member Gary Florindo. “They were here with us for other meetings … so they all know what’s going on. We have enough members to make the vote on it right now.

            “I don’t think any of us has any problems with this,” Florindo added.

            The board voted to approve it.

            In other business, the public hearing for a Special Permit for a Special Residential Development filed by REpurpose Properties for 0 Rounseville Road was continued until August 27 at the applicant’s request.

            The public hearing for a large-scale solar Special Permit filed by SWEB Development USA was continued until August 27 at the applicant’s request. The location is 0 Marion Road owned by Rochester Farms, LLC.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for August 27 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry

            The August 19 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board found the panel reviewing two Form A – Approval Not Required requests submitted by the Gingras Nominee Trust, for property located off Randall Road and off Whitetail Run, a total of eight subdivided lots.

            The applicant was represented by engineer Alan Ewing who presented the subdivision plans as two separate projects.

            The first application, the Randall Road lots, features seven lots with Lot 1 being over eight acres. Ewing said that the preliminary subdivision was executed by land surveyors Romanelli Associates and had gone through an 81X filing and complies with the Commonwealth’s general court rulings on land subdivisions as noted in Mass General Law.

            The Planning Board, which on this night consisted of chairman Tom Tucker and members Nathan Ketchell and Karen Field, saw no problem with the plan as presented. The lots would meet current frontage and setback requirements, would have access to public water and sewer services, and would be accessed by a public roadway.

            The proposed seven-lot subdivision was accepted as presented.

            The next filing presented by Gingras Nominee Trust was for an additional two lots, or was that one lot? Confusion was about to muddy the second plan as Ewing began to explain what Tucker deemed “creative engineering.”

            The Whitetail subdivision plan would include Lot 1 from the Randall Road plan, which had just been approved, but now would be further subdivided to create two lots. So, was Ewing talking about eight lots, or nine lots spread over two plans? That was the confusion.

            After some discussion, it was determined that the total number of lots would be eight. Tucker was a bit frustrated that the applicant had not presented one master plan for all versus two separate plans.

            “We wanted to make sure the Randall Road plan would go through,” said Ewing.

            “You should have disclosed Lot 1,” Tucker said.

            Having accepted the Randall Road concept as presented, the board moved forward with discussion on the Whitetail plan and ultimately accepted it as presented.

            Douglas Schneider of Schneider, Davignon & Leone, Inc., also presented a Form A Approval Not Required for Arthur Alden III for property located off Aucoot Road. This request, which had previously been approved for a two-lot subdivision in February 2019, was to amend a lot line. Finding the request minor and having no impact on frontage or setbacks to the zoning bylaws, the request was swiftly approved.

            In other matters, the board tabled the discussion of a request from the homeowners association of the Village at Mattapoisett for the return of a $50,000 cash surety against future environmental damages, a sum viewed by the association as “arbitrary” and unsupported by studies or cost estimates. The Planning Board members questioned whether the maintenance plan for the stormwater management detention ponds was, in fact, being properly handled, and that the sum in question had not been fully funded by the residents in the beginning.

            While the Planning Board thought the association should have control over the funds versus being held by the town, they also thought review of maintenance records was in order prior to releasing the cash. Tucker asked Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain to invite association representatives to the next meeting for further discussion of their request.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for September 16 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell