On May 6 David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates stood before the Marion Planning Board in a continued hearing on the merits of a three-lot subdivision proposed for a 3.6-acre lot wedged between Converse Road, Zora Road, and Beach Street.

            Davignon was asked by Chairman Bill Saltonstall to give a shorthand version of the project in question for the benefit of the abutters in attendance.

            Regarding the issue of sewer connections to the property, Davignon said the existing home, which is part of the subdivision located at 213 Converse Road, was connected to the system and that two additional connections were already approved for the other lots.

            But it was the matter of stormwater management, groundwater disruption, and what abutters perceived to be a plan for the construction of an unsightly retaining wall around a retention pond that found Davignon fielding questions for the next two hours.

            During a recent meeting with the Conservation Commission, Davignon said that a number of abutters had questioned the drainage plan and that the commission had asked for clarification on drainage calculations, the manner in which the wetlands had been flagged, and had asked for proof that sewer connections had, in fact, been approved. He said he would be returning to ConCom on May 9 to continue that hearing.

            In detailing the proposed development, Davignon said the owner, identified as 22 Cove Street, LLC, purchased a lot on Beach Street to provide frontage and access to two lots behind 213 Converse Road. He said the Fire Department had no concerns over the plan to construct a 20-foot roadway with a cul-de-sac at the end, and that the plan called for underground utilities.

            Davignon further described the acreage as “mostly uplands.” Although he was aware of a letter submitted by the Town’s peer review consultant JC Engineering, his office had not had an opportunity to review the comments.

            Comments from the Planning Board members followed, with Chris Collings giving voice to his concerns first.

            “I’m not comfortable with the retention pond so near abutters properties,” Collings said. “I hope there is a better way.” He questioned why an underground stormwater management system hadn’t been offered and asked why the retention pond couldn’t be situated in the middle of the planned cul-de-sac instead of a mere 60 feet from an easterly abutter.

            Planning Board member Steve Kokkins wanted to know about the quantity of fill the plan calls for, saying, “Our chief responsibility is to protect the abutters.” He said he shared Collings concerns.

            Davignon said an underground system had been explored, but it would require even more fill than the current plan.

            Brian Wallace of JC Engineering was asked to comment on the water management plan. He said, overall, the plan was not uncommon, was using “best practices”, and that while some calculations were in question, he didn’t think the impact of any increased groundwater flow would be a significant issue.

            Saltonstall pondered if the 4 to 5-foot retaining wall around the retention pond would impede water flow saying, “You are creating a hill that slopes into the neighbor’s backyards.”

            Planning Board member Norm Hills offered his insight, saying, “The water currently flows in that direction. … All this does is slow water down for 24 hours.”

            Davignon said that plans had to demonstrate that water flow post-construction would not be any worse than water flow pre-construction, and that is the case with this project.

            Kokkins conceded that the Planning Board was not reviewing a building plan, but a subdivision plan, but that it was “important to keep these issues in the mix.”

            Board member Eileen Marum asked whether or not water would go into neighboring basements and also asked who would be responsible for maintaining drainage structures.

            Davignon said a homeowners’ association plan would ultimately be tied to the deed, and the Conservation Commission, as part of the proposal, would police drainage. Marum was skeptical and encouraged the abutters to “stay on top” of this.

            Abutters questioned why the applicant would be granted waivers to existing subdivision rules and why waivers were even a possibility. One also questioned whether the Town once deemed one of the lots unbuildable.

            Gary Holmes, 31 Beach Street, said the waivers weren’t minor and that flooding in that area during storm events was common.

            “I’m begging you, if at all possible, do more,” said Holmes. “I beg you to walk the area – please, stand in my backyard and envision it!”

            Another abutter, Bill Wareham, said during the 60 years he’s owned his home, he has had sump pumps running, but Davignon said of his property that the plans would improve the overland flow.

            Abutter John Elliot returned to the issue of a homeowners’ association, asking, “Where are the teeth” that would make such an agreement meaningful?

            Davignon explained the process as one that included deed implications, and that a simple call to the Conservation Commission might impose sanctions on an association that was not maintaining stormwater structures as mandated by the agreement.

            “There is no escaping legal obligations,” Davignon said.

            But Elliot wanted to understand how waivers could be part of the process for granting the applicant’s proposal.

            “If the waiver is to accommodate something because there isn’t enough room, why is it a buildable lot?” said Elliot. He also said that when he purchased his property a Town employee told him that the vacant lots nearby would never be built on.

            “All you had to do was read the bylaws,” said Hills, to understand that was not the case.

            Davignon said of the difference between bylaws and state mandated subdivision rules and regulations: “Subdivision rules and regulations are not bylaws. … They were developed by the state to allow the division of land and to develop roads. … It gives the towns the latitude to grant waivers and they are granted regularly.”

            In his letter to the Planning Board, Davignon listed waivers that included, but were not limited to, a retention pond 62 feet versus the required 100 feet from abutting property, a planting plan instead of hiring a landscape architect, and a gravel access drive around the perimeter of basins 12 feet wide in one location versus the entire perimeter.

            The hearing was continued until May 20.

            The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for May 20 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

            Mattapoisett’s Annual Town Meeting is only a few days away and it should prove to be a meeting that will go down in the town’s history.

            Voters will be facing warrant articles that ask for $9.275 million to fund the construction of a new fire station, and their share of another $2 million for athletic field and auditorium improvements at Old Rochester Regional High School (ORR). 

            On May 7, the Finance Committee members reviewed those articles that needed their vote one last time. By voting in the affirmative on any given article, voters have the assurance that their appointed fiscal oversight committee believes a request can be adequately funded without undo burden on taxpayers.

            Coming in last place was Article 28: ORR Athletic Facilities and Auditorium Funding. The article asks for a total of $2 million from the three towns for improvements – money that would have to be borrowed beyond the limits imposed by Proposition 2 ½.

            FinCom Chairman Pat Donoghue said, “If this is an override, you’ve got to tell people what this will do to their taxes.” She said her research into artificial turfs has found that none are expected to remain viable surfaces after eight years, but that the town is being asked to secure a 15-year borrowing schedule. She thought it wasn’t reasonable to pay for something for that long when its usefulness ends before its paid off. 

            Donoghue said she had a conversation with the school’s facility manager, Gene Jones, and that he told her the track could be resurfaced, and that other big-ticket projects on the horizon included a new roof for the high school.

             “If we do this, we’d need a 10-year note,” Donoghue said.

            Presently, the estimated annual cost to Mattapoisett based on a 15-year note is $76,000. That figure rises to above $100,000 on a 10-year note.

            “The more I read, the more concerned I become,” she said of the borrowing that would be needed.

            FinCom member Paul Amoruso agreed, saying, “I think this needs more work.”

            But FinCom member Kevin Geraghty felt otherwise.

            “Their mindset is the kids,” he said of the school committee and the article’s supporters. “This is for their children; they aren’t thinking about roofs or HVAC.”

             “This is a passion for the parents – they aren’t thinking of paying for it,” said FinCom’s Colby Rottler. But he continued to express his concerns that artificial turfs are being studied for the negative impact they may have on the future health of children who play on them. As for the need for repairs and improvements the school committee is requesting, Rottler said, “I fault the school department. Why weren’t they planning and making repairs?”

            When the vote was taken, three members voted against recommending the Article, one voted for recommending it, and one abstained (3-1).

            The members were unanimous in their support of Article 14 for a new Fire Station. The finance team had been alarmed over unsafe conditions of the fire station. They reviewed for several months the viability of funding a new structure that had been on the Capital Planning schedule for 10 years. The retiring debt schedule was discussed as the main reason the project could be taken on by taxpayers at this point in time.

            Other Articles they voted to recommend were: Article 1: Elected Officers’ Compensation; Article 2: General Operating Budget (which stands at $28,024,603 for FY20); Article 3: Appropriation for OPEB Liabilities, $414,000; Article 4: Revolving Fund Authorization; Article 5: Cyclical Annual Property Revaluation and Town Mapping, $40,000; Article 6: Personnel Schedules; Article 7: Acceptance of Revised Old Colony Regional Agreement; Article 8: Water Reserve Account, $10,000; Article 9: Sewer Reserve Account; Article 10: Reallocation of Funds for Project Funding (water department); Article 11: Funding for Sewer Extension (located at the terminus at the Bay Club, $35,000; Article 13: Appropriation To Debt Stabilization Fund, $100,000; Article 15: Capital Plan Funding, $231,000 for repairs to highway department buildings, $12,457 for the purchase of trench safety box, $310,000 for the Fire Station design, engineering, and bidding, $49,500 for local schools education modules; Article 16: Allocation of Revenues Community Preservation Act; Articles 17 through 20 for individual CPC grant applications totaling $61,500; Article 21: Street Lights; Article 22: Road Improvements, $75,000; Article 23: Authorization of Use of Grant Anticipation Notes For Town Projects.

            The Finance Committee did not schedule another meeting, but Town Administrator Michael Gagne suggested the committee take some time over the summer months to discuss what should happen to the Town Hall building with Capital Planning, saying, “The time has come…”

Mattapoisett Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell

            During the May 7 Marion Board of Selectmen meeting, the board voted to classify a dog 

belonging to Michael and Kate Devoll as “dangerous” during a dog hearing pertaining to an alleged attack on March 3, during which the Devolls’ dog was reported to have attacked two dogs and their owner in the Olde Knoll Road neighborhood.

            Diane Kelly of Olde Knoll Road said she witnessed the attack and, in a letter dated March 16 and signed by several neighbors, described various incidents of dog aggression and barking at the Devolls’ property.

            According to Michael Devoll, although he did not witness the entire encounter, he is uncertain whether it was actually an attack and not a “dog fight.” He said once he came out and picked up his dog, the incident was over. He also stated that his dog had two bites on both front paws.

            “The dog’s no longer at our home, much to the chagrin of a sad nine-year-old boy without a dog,” Devoll said. He reported that the dog was relocated to a farm in Westfield, Massachusetts.

            Animal Control Officer Susan Connor said she was called to the scene on March 3 and saw the woman who was attacked being treated by EMS; however, she did not speak to the victim directly.

            At the Devolls, she said she did not observe any injuries on the Devolls’ dog, and no injuries were reported; otherwise, the other dogs would have had to be quarantined, as well, a standard consequence of a dog attack.

            Connor stated that there were subsequent reports of the dog being loose on the property and of quarantine orders being violated, but there was no proof. 

            Margie Baldwin said her son owns the two dogs (small terriers) that were attacked and she dog-sits them during the day. She did not witness the attack, but described the dogs’ scars and how the owner’s experience was “extremely traumatic.”

            Police Chief Jon Garcia said Town Counsel advised him that should the board determine the dog is “dangerous,” it should be reported to the town where the dog now lives.

            If a dog is deemed dangerous, Connor stated, “That will follow that dog anywhere in the Commonwealth.”

            Before the hearing was over, Devoll stated, “I live and work in the community. I don’t want this played out in the press – and it is. We want to be good neighbors and we want to do the right thing and we think we’ve done those steps.”

            The board ordered that, should the dog ever return to Marion, that it be confined at the property either indoors or in a secure pen, and muzzled and leashed securely when out in public.

            Also during the meeting, the board spoke with Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Marc LeBlanc about televising the ZBA meetings, which will indeed be recorded from now on with ORCTV. LeBlanc wanted to know the real reason behind the request to televise, and Waterman told him the only reason was to open the communication better with the public, not because the board was being “picked on,” as Hills put it.

            In other matters, the board approved a fireworks proposal from Atlas Pyrotechnics for the Marion July Fourth fireworks display.

            The next regular meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen is scheduled for May 21 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry