On June 17, the Mattapoisett Planning Board once again opened the hearing on Scott Snow’s application for a Form C Definitive Subdivision Plan for five lots to be created at 6 and 8-8R Prospect Road.

            At the previous Planning Board meeting held on June 3, the board was not prepared to make decisions on the application, citing that plans had not been received in a timely fashion. There was also confusion on the part of the applicant’s engineer, Richard Rheaume of Prime Engineering, and the members of the Planning Board regarding what plans were actually in hand. Snow was also told that without the approval of the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board couldn’t act.

            Coming forward on June 17 – now with the Conservation Commission decision complete – with what he believed was all necessary documentation and approvals was Rheaume. But before he could even speak, Chairman Tom Tucker, exasperated, said the board couldn’t hear the case because, once again, plans had not been submitted in time for the board members to adequately review prior to the meeting.

            “You had thirteen days,” Tucker began. “… Your office has continually done this. Last time you didn’t have the plans!” He said he was sick and tired of having abutters appear only to find that the applicant’s representative was not prepared. “I told you back in January you could withdraw without prejudice and come back when you were ready,” Tucker reiterated.

            Tucker said that the latest round of paperwork had not been received in the Planning Board office until Friday, June 14, at 3:23 pm, a time when not only was the office was closed, but on the last day of the business week.

            Planning Board member Janice Robbins concurred, saying, “When everything is settled and in final form then we can review. … I’d rather wait until everything is settled.”

            Rheaume said, “Plans have not changed. I feel like I’m being chastised. Last time we got a few requests regarding the covenant but those were minor. … The plans have been submitted.”

            Planning Board member Nathan Kettchel asked, “What about the drainage calculations?” He said that a final set of documents had not been received; instead, piecemeal documents had been provided, making it difficult to keep track.

            “I think the board is getting lost in this project,” said Snow.

            On another matter related to the project Robbins said, “We’re not set with the trust yet, and easement searches are not in or in the right form.”

            There then ensued a discussion regarding surety. The board members had all believed that the five lots would be held until the roadway was completed. Rheaume said Lot 2 had never been part of that plan.

            Robbins said, “I don’t see any justification in not including Lot 2 in the covenant, and I don’t like being held to a schedule for releasing lots.”

            It was determined that the language for the covenant could wait, especially given that the hearing would once again have to be continued and the entire application extended. The extension was granted until July 15 and the case was continued until July 1.

            When Snow returns, his team is to have completed and, in a timely manner, provided a trust, easements, covenant, operation and maintenance plans, and drainage calculations.

            Before Rheaume departed the conference room, Tucker apologized for raising his voice.

            In other business, Robbins will draft new language for a document that is part of an agreement between the developers of Brandt Point Village and the Town for payment conditions.

            The board also discussed plans for resuming a review of rules and regulations governing subdivision of land.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for July 1 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

            Brendan Annett, vice president of Watershed Protection at the Buzzards Bay Coalition (BBC), approached the Rochester Board of Selectmen on June 17 asking it to support an application for a LAND Grant from the commonwealth to permanently place 109 acres of land on Walnut Plain Lane under a conservation restriction.

            Decas currently owns the land, which Annett said contains the headwaters of the Mattapoisett and Sippican Rivers, as well as large swaths of wetlands and forest. It is also the largest area of undeveloped contiguous forest in southeastern Massachusetts.

            According to Annett, Decas agreed to sell the land to the BBC, an agreement Annett said was made over a year ago and contingent upon successful financing.

            “One of the ways that we work to do these types of things is actually … work with towns,” Annett said. “Towns can access state grants for land conservation.”

            Annett proposed assisting the Conservation Commission in applying for a grant from the commonwealth’s land program to acquire the conservation restriction on the land. Applications are due July 11, he said.

            The BBC would acquire fee simple ownership of the land and would manage the acreage while Rochester holds the conservation restriction.

            The property would be accessible to the public.

            There is a caveat, however, said Annett.

            According to Annett, two months ago a solar developer approached Decas with an interest in buying Decas land to install a 30-acre solar farm on parcels north of the property of interest. Annett said the solar developer would need to use the property the Coalition wants to buy for access to its solar farm in order to avoid costly wetlands crossings, which led to a tentative Plan-B of sorts. If the solar farm is ultimately permitted, the solar developer offered to purchase all of the property and allow for the 109 acres to be preserved for conservation land in perpetuity.

            Annett said the two purchase options are currently running parallel, but if the solar farm is approved the grant would not be necessary; however, Annett still urged the town to pursue the grant now.

            The acquisition of the conservation restriction would ultimately be subject to Town Meeting approval, but in order to start the process Annett asked the board to vote that evening to support the moving forward of the grant application, which it did.

            “This is likely not the last you’ll hear about this, but we needed to talk about this now in order to be eligible for the grant,” Annett said.

            In similar news, the selectmen accepted a $45,000 municipal mini grant for the Gifford’s Mill Pond Land Preservation Project. Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon asked the board to accept the mini grant for the purchase of 29 acres on Quaker Lane calling it land with “great conservation value.”

            Also during the meeting, Rochester Water Commissioner Fred Underhill expressed his concern over developer Ken Steen’s request to the Wareham Water Commissioners to permit 45,000 gallons a day of Wareham water for use at the proposed Rochester Crossroads 40B affordable housing development, an amount of water Underhill considers excessive.

            Underhill said although Steen has not made the official request for that amount of water, a letter Steen sent in March estimated a usage of just over 45,000 gallons a day for the 400-bedroom housing development and several commercial establishments.

            The water agreement between Wareham and Rochester allows for a withdrawal of 50,000 galloons per day, with Rochester using roughly 5,000 gallons per day.

            However, according to Underhill, the actual anticipated usage for Steen’s development would be just around 23,000 gallons per day.

            “That’s a big difference,” Underhill told selectmen. “But they don’t explain the difference and they don’t explain what they’re going to ask for.” He said he would oppose the request for 45,000 gallons per day, which Underhill said equates to Steen wanting “every drop of water we have available, as far as I’m concerned.”

            Underhill wondered what would happen to the 208 apartments if Wareham were to terminate its water agreement with Rochester under a provision that would allow Wareham to do so at the end of any given fiscal year.

            “They decide not to give us any anymore, I think we’ve got a real problem at that stage,” said Underhill. “They can terminate the agreement at the end of any fiscal year as long as they give us six months advance notice, so I think that’s a problem.”

            The inter-municipal water agreement term ends in 2037.

            “I know presently Wareham feels they’ve got water to spare, but things change,” Underhill said, particularly Department of Environmental Protection rules and regulations on water withdrawals, he said. “Lord knows what may happen down the pike.”

            Underhill said the Mattapoisett River Valley Water Supply District (Fairhaven, Marion, and Mattapoisett) has received a DEP order to cut back water withdrawals by an average of 12 percent over the last three years. If Wareham was ever ordered to reduce its own water withdrawal, Underhill thinks the town would be inclined to cut back on Rochester’s allowance before reducing its own. Furthermore, he said, he personally knows of one Wareham water commissioner “not thrilled” with increasing Rochester’s water usage, and Underhill does not anticipate Middleboro increasing water usage in its water agreement with the town.

            Selectman Brad Morse said he knows the Wareham water commissioners personally and would reach out to them soon, along with Steen, “So they can firm up their numbers,” he said, adding, “Thirty-four thousand was the state required number generated by scientists in Amherst for what usage should be for the [Rochester Crossroads 40B].”

            According to Morse, Steen’s prior developments only saw an actual usage of half that number. “So I don’t think it’s quite as much of a concern as you think, but I will start the process,” he said, and he thanked Underhill for bringing his concerns to the board.

            In other matters, the board signed the fire truck borrowing authorization note (BAN) for $498,000, signed the warrant for the July 10 special election, and signed an employee citation for Shirley Delima for 28 years of service in the Assessors’ Office.

            The town has been awarded the $15,000 recycling grant from the state.

            The special election ballots are in, and absentee voting is open now.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for July 1 at 6:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry