Engineer Phil Cordeiro and developer Ken Steen on December 17 gave the Rochester Conservation Commission its first introduction to the 208-unit 40R residential and commercial development slated for 22 Cranberry Highway.

            On behalf of Steen Realty & Development Corp., Cordeiro presented the Notice of Intent that includes work proposed entirely within the 100-foot wetlands buffer zone.

            “Clearly, we have a long road ahead of us in the Town of Rochester with the different steps,” said Cordeiro.

            He briefly led the commission through the corners of the site and the areas of the wetlands border that has been flagged and accepted, and focused on where the proposed infrastructure encroaches the 100-foot buffer.

            There are about 86,000 square feet of wetlands on the site, said Cordeiro, and roughly

132,000 square feet of buffer zone area. Cordeiro said he would eventually be asking for the opportunity to grade within approximately 59,000 square feet of that buffer zone.

            No vertical structures, though, are planned for placement within the buffer zone.

            Commission member Kevin Thompson wondered why one enclosed dumpster area could not be moved farther away from the buffer zone to avoid toxic spills contaminating the wetlands, and Conservation Agent later echoed Thompson’s suggestion.

            Cordeiro acknowledged that the Town’s bylaw recognizes buffer zones as equally important as the wetlands resource areas, but asserted that the proposed work would not adversely degrade the wetland system.

            Furthermore, Cordeiro said, the project must file with the Environmental Protection Agency due to the size of its stormwater discharge system and therefore, further oversight will take place on top of the commission’s oversight.

            Chairman Michael Conway asked Cordeiro when the project would be through with the Planning Board permitting process. Cordeiro explained that he and Steen have already held several technical review meetings with the Planning Board chairman and town planner, and the board has already authorized peer-review to begin at the site. However, there is no date yet for a formal appearance before the Planning Board, which he said is due to coordination challenges between the state and the town.

            “So,” said Cordeiro answering Conway’s question, “the short answer is I don’t know. We don’t have a finish line yet; our target is to be in front of [the Planning Board] at their February 13 meeting.” Cordeiro said he thinks the application will be formally submitted to the Planning Board before the end of 2019, saying, “But at this point, it’s just administrative.”

            The commission voted to hire a peer-review consultant, set the fee at $4,500, scheduled a site visit for 9:00 am on January 18, and continued the public hearing until January 21.

            Also during the meeting, engineer Evan Watson on behalf of REpurpose Properties, LLC came before the commission to report on the changes to the plan for an age-restricted residential development proposed for Rounseville Road beside the Plumb Corner Mall.

            According to Watson, the footprint of various units has been decreased in order to increase the setback to the nearby wetlands and away from the 100-foot buffer zone and 25-foot no-touch zone.

            Watson stated that for the application before the Planning Board, he used larger footprints in order to fit in first-floor master bedrooms and decks/porches on some units, but has now changed the plan after seeing how close to the wetlands some of those footprints would bring a number the units.

            Another change entails the implementation of a tree removal schedule for trees slated for felling within the 25-foot no-touch zone and the riverfront area. About 30 tall pines and a few oaks, Watson said, have been flagged for the commission’s inspection during the next site visit.

            “[We’re] putting in an effort to be clear about what we want to do at this particular time and hear what the commission has to say…” said Watson.

            Conway asked Watson if the Planning Board would be requesting any further changes to plan, to which Watson replied, no, except for some possible minor changes to floor plans based on any potential Rochester Historic District Commission comments.

            The project will be a three-phase project, and Watson expects its completion come 2024.

            At the applicant’s request, the hearing was continued until January 21.

            Also during the meeting, the commission refrained from taking a vote on the Town of Rochester’s Request for Determination of Applicability to add dense-grade gravel and re-grade the parking lot and an eroding canoe/boat access path to Leonard’s Pond at the Leonard’s Pond Recreational Area off Mary’s Pond Road. The commission needs further information before it can sign off on the project. The hearing was continued until January 21.

            The public hearing for the Notice of Intent filed by Pedro Rodriguez on behalf of Solar MA Project Management, LLC was continued until January 21 at the request of the applicant.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for January 21 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry

            Marion residents will have additional time to submit comments on Tabor Academy’s request to add lights to a playing field, Marion Zoning Board of Appeals members ruled on December 12.

            Administrators at Tabor have been trying to add light poles to the playing field, located along Spring Street, for several years. The current application seeks to add four 90-foot light poles to the playing field located between Front and Spring Streets. During the hearing, Tabor Headmaster John Quirk stated his intentions to work very closely with the Town of Marion, as board members and community members further scrutinized the lighting plans.

            Quirk clarified that he expected no more than 16 to 18 events on the lighted fields per year.

            “I expect no more than six to eight games in the fall and spring seasons,” he explained. 

            Nearby residents could also expect the field to be used for two weeks of lit practice, as well as two “community events” per season. Quirk defined community events as use of the field by Old Rochester Regional High School sports teams, as has happened in the past, as well as possible third-party events like festivals.

            “It’s important to note that we actually expect fewer events,” he added, “but six to eight games per season is the absolute maximum we would have, as well as possibly two community events per season.”

            The lights of the fields will never be on past 9:30 pm, barring any “unpredictable events,” such as a medical emergency or an exceptionally late game start, Quirk added.

            “In all honesty, night games are rare,” said Quirk. “I’ve coached in our league for 20 years and in that time my team played four night games. But athletic participation is required by our curriculum, and a lot of the lower-level teams lack time for practice when the nights get shorter. Those two weeks of practice under the lights would be beneficial for them.”

            “Would you be willing to share the technology with the emergency departments?” asked ZBA Chairman Marc LeBlanc. “I mean, they wouldn’t be cutting your lights at 9:35 pm, but, say if someone needed to be airlifted to the hospital in an emergency; the responders could just flip the switch themselves.”

            Quirk confirmed that Tabor shares all such technology that they have with the town, and that he would be happy to add the lights to the list.

            “How does the town know that you’re sticking to these limits you’ve set?” asked ZBA member Margie Baldwin. “Will you be alerting anyone in advance?”

            According to Quirk, Tabor circulates a schedule for anyone who would like to review it. He added that neighbors are often notified if there’s a change in schedule.

            One of the biggest concerns brought up by the ZBA, as well as nearby residents, was the issue of parking, and the tight quarters of Ryder Lane, which neighbors the field. Quirk clarified that Tabor would forbid parking on the street or on Ryder Lane, and would work with the town to curb parking at Island Wharf.

            “We would restrict and direct parking to the Spring Street lot, the parking spots near Wickenden Chapel, and the lot at the ice rink,” Quirk said.

            When asked if he needed anything further from the ZBA, Quirk asked for patience and feedback.

            “We’ve tried hard to think about everything, but I’m sure that there’s something we haven’t anticipated,” said Quirk. “If there’s an issue, I want to hear about it, I want to address it, I want to fix it very quickly. I really want the feedback.”

            Tabor administrators have filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals for either a special permit to allow the lighting poles on the field, or an exemption under the Dover Amendment, which exempts educational institutions from certain zoning restrictions, to do the same thing.

            Approving the special permit request would require a supermajority of four ‘yes’ votes from the ZBA members; members would need satisfactory evidence that the lights are “a legitimate public need.”

            If the special permit is denied by the ZBA, members can then debate allowing an exemption under the Dover Amendment. For an exception under the amendment, at least three ZBA members would need to agree that there is an “educational need” for the lights. 

            Marion Town Counsel Jon Witten advised ZBA members to consider the special permit first, and only turn to the Dover Amendment if the special permit cannot be approved.

            “It’s much cleaner for the town in the long run,” Witten explained. “Approving something under the Dover Amendment sort of opens the door for more requests… Not that Tabor would do that, but it just gets messier after the approval is given in the first place.”

            Although the ZBA closed the public hearing, they sought a way to ask for additional comments if necessary. ZBA members amended the closure to allow for additional comments from the public and from different Town departments. Written comments will be accepted until January 9, 2020. Currently, board members expect to announce a decision on Tabor’s application on January 16, 2020.

            With the hearing closed, ZBA members have 90 days to deliberate before issuing their final approval on Tabor’s request.

            The next meeting of the Marion ZBA will be held on January 9 at 7:00 pm. at the Marion Town House.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Andrea Ray

            It’s a waiting game for several Marion residents, as members of the Marion Conservation Commission chose to continue their appointments until January of 2020.

            Dale and Laura Briggs, 23 Dexter Road, filed a Notice of Intent with the commission to demolish an existing ground-level cottage and replace it with a one-story, two-bedroom house. Engineer David Davignon noted that the biggest difficulty with the lot is that it sits on an island in the middle of the Weweantic River.

            A boardwalk to the mainland was completed in summer 2019, Dale Briggs noted. The boardwalk is constructed to hold the weight of small construction vehicles. In fact, Briggs added, “It could hold a fire truck if it was wide enough.”

            According to the Briggses, the boardwalk was the linchpin to further developing the property. The new house will be on stilts, and Davignon added that, according to the plans, there will be a two-story climb just to get to the first floor. The site has water and sewer line access already, as well as access to electricity.

            “This site is challenging, but less challenging than if you didn’t already have utilities,” said Conservation Commission member Shaun Walsh. “I’d like to continue this just to review any questions we might have and fully understand your answers. It’s always tricky,” he said, “and we want to give this more consideration.”

            The hearing was continued until January 8.

            Davignon also represented Henry and Judith DeJesus, who filed a Notice of Intent to construct a detached garage at 25 Holly Road. Construction of the planned garage will alter 476 square feet of wetlands. To offset the damage, Davignon proposed replicating 500 square feet of wetlands on the same lot.

            “I really want to see this lot re-tagged,” said Conservation Commission Chairman Jeff Doubrava. “The area you’re trying to replicate wetlands on looks exactly the same to us.”

            “To clarify,” added Walsh, “we need to re-evaluate the land you want to turn into wetlands, because to us that land already looks like wetlands.”

            “The company that tagged it originally is very reputable,” Davignon said, which board members did not dispute. “Plus, with the weather this year, everything looks like wetlands. But if that’s what you want, we’ll have it retagged.”

            The commission voted to continue the hearing until the next meeting in order to visit the retagged property.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission will be held on January 8 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Andrea Ray

            In this next phase of its regional Route 6 study, the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) is looking for a consensus among local Route 6 travelers on what changes, if any, they envision for the South Coast corridor. But still, after an online survey that allowed locals to express their major concerns, attendees at a December 12 SRPEDD community forum at Center School argued that the four options SRPEDD introduced hardly address those major concerns, and learned that even if a consensus could be made, the state might not agree to fund the preferred option.

            Jed Cornock, principal comprehensive planner for SRPEDD, laid out four alternatives to the current state of Route 6, which aimed at accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists while addressing problematic intersections that, years from now, would likely worsen without intervention. Two alternatives reduce the highway from four lanes to two, and two maintain the four-lane roadway while attempting to include at least one lane for walking and biking.

            Alternative 1 keeps the four lanes and adds 6-foot sidewalks to both sides. There is no increase in shoulder width (currently 6 inches), no drainage modifications, and no improvements for bicycle travel.

            Alternative 2 keeps the four lanes and the narrow 6-inch shoulder, but creates a 10-foot wide side shared-use path instead of the 6-foot sidewalks of Alternative 1; however, this project would require the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to acquire land from properties along the road to accommodate the 64-foot right of way, which would add additional costs to the project.

            Alternative 3 drops the road down to two 11-foot travel lanes (lanes are currently 10.5 feet wide) and adds a 5-foot shoulder. Each side would have a 5-foot bike lane and separate 5-foot sidewalk with a 1.5-foot buffer between them, all without needing to acquire land to expand the right of way. The downside, however, is the reduction in opportunities for passing slower cars, utility poles would likely need relocating, and drainage modifications would be needed.

            Alternative 4 drops the road down to two 11-foot travel lanes, increases the shoulder to 5 feet, and adds a 1.5-foot buffer between the shoulder and a 10-foot shared-use ‘sidepath’. Like the third alternative, vehicle passing would be affected, and utility pole relocation and drainage work would up the price tag.

            Some residents were curious about a two-lane alternative and wondered what they would be “giving up” with two lanes instead of four. Would travel time increase? How about safety?

            “It’s difficult to estimate your trip time from one end to the other,” said Cornock, although Route 6 currently operates under capacity, he said, meaning that there remains some wiggle room to accommodate the same number of cars with only two travel lanes.

            Mattapoisett resident Jodi Bauer, who lives on the Mattapoisett strip of Route 6 known as County Road, reminded the group of how unsafe Route 6 became when it was reduced to two travel lanes in the 1980s.

            “There were some horrible car crashes on that period of time,” said Bauer. “And to think, people forget that it was called ‘Suicide Alley’ and it was called Route 6 ‘the killer.’”

            Bauer read from a newspaper article from June 1983 when the highway was reduced to two travel lanes that quoted Highway Surveyor Barry Denham as saying, “I’m happy about it,” which elicited a few chuckles as Denham sat there that evening.

            “We’ve been there, we’ve done that,” Bauer said. “It didn’t succeed then, and I just personally don’t think that going down to a two-lane would be to our benefit.”

            Fairhaven Selectman Bob Espindola asked Cornock, if additional rights of way are necessary, are either of those options even realistic?

            “If it’s not realistic, I don’t think that’s something that we should even consider,” said Espindola.

            Cornock said he hears opinions from both sides – those in favor of two lanes with sidepaths and those in favor of keeping the four lanes – that keeps all the options still on the table.

            “This is how we hear about what that consensus is,” said Cornock. “We can make recommendations, but it’s all about the people who live here and travel here.”

            One resident wondered why there wasn’t an alternative that simply widens the four lanes, adds sidewalks, but excludes a bike lane.

            “You’re squeezed and you feel very uncomfortable,” he said, suggesting an “Alternative 1.5.”

            Cornock said Alternative 1 is clearly the least costly, and residents could push to “do little, or the least amount, or change it entirely.” But if residents in towns from Fairhaven to Wareham can’t agree on a vision, then Cornock said he would have to make that remark in his final study report to the state.

            “What we’re trying to do is bring forward a united or cohesive plan for MassDOT,” said Cornock. “If we can’t accomplish that, I guess it’s back to the drawing board.”

            The public survey SRPEDD conducted last year as part of its first phase of the study was completed by over 700 people. The top concerns included high traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, and the lack of bicycle facilities. But none of the options address speed, one resident pointed out. Cornock commented that adjusting speed limits is always a risk because the speed limit is determined based on the average speed of 85 percent of drivers taken during a traffic study.

            Espindola said the cost of the project and its practicality are what would personally influence his decision.

            “Some of these options really aren’t practical,” Espindola said, pointing out that the expanded alternatives with sidewalks and bike paths have never come to fruition in other parts of the state. So, if he chooses an alternative that is ultimately never going to happen, said Espindola, “Then I just wasted a vote.”

            Ultimately, is this activity all just a waste of time, some asked.

            “It’s a planning study,” said Cornock. “It doesn’t mean that it essentially is going to happen.” And if there is no subsequent consensus, he said, “The community then basically has to pick up the ball… The study itself is more about what you want to see the future of Route 6 look like.”

            “Is this two-lane configuration just bonkers?” one resident asked. “If it is, then that’s what we really need to hear.”

            Cornock told the group that the four alternatives he presented them came as a result of prior community outreach activities.

            “All opinions matter,” Cornock confirmed.

            The online survey showed that 14 percent of participants are happy with the current state of Route 6.

            Cornock encouraged residents from Fairhaven to Wareham to attend a second SRPEDD Route 6 Corridor Study public forum on January 6 at 6:00 pm at Sippican School.

By Jean Perry

            Members of the ‘Joint’ school committees met on December 12 to finalize the criteria and qualifications for the school districts’ next superintendent by reviewing the results of an online survey with Jim Hardy, field director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC).

            Hardy delved into the results of an online survey that yielded 450 responses from school staff, students, town officials, residents, and an “other” subgroup, which revealed a consistent repetition of the characteristics respondents would prefer in a new superintendent.

            “Financial management” topped the list for the question asking respondents what they believe are the five most significant current and future issues the new superintendent will face, except for the “other” group, which identified financial management as its second priority after “educational leadership skills.”

            In descending order, respondents picked communication with parents/community, curriculum development and instruction, educational leadership skills, and facilities management /building construction as the other four top-five significant issues the next superintendent will face.

            Respondents again chose financial management as their pick for the important issue the new superintendent will face, followed by staff diversity, building an administrative team, strong communication skills, and engaging students and families.

             “You’ll see the same thing over and over again,” said Hardy. “There’s a theme that every single group identified… as key criteria as you move through the survey.”

            Hardy also held focus group sessions with staff that identified knowledge of the budget-building development process as a priority, along with the ability to effectively and credibly describe the details of a budget in a public forum.

            “It’s not an indication that’s not currently being done now,” said Hardy. “It’s just simply [something] we want to see going forward…”

            Experience within a regional school district would be an asset; however, not a disqualifier.

            “That would be something that would move someone from this pile to that pile,” said Hardy.

            Classroom teaching experience is another preference for the focus group, as well as administrative experience, preferably as a superintendent or assistant superintendent, or at least some experience in a central office environment.

            A superintendent that is an excellent communicator is a must, with the ability to engage the community and participate in community and school events. Furthermore, focus group participants want to see a superintendent engage in “more interaction with the towns,” and not just those in town government.

            “One person made a comment that the only time you hear from schools is when they need money,” said Hardy.

            Hardy read a statement the focus group submitted, saying it summed up their thoughts perfectly:

            “The superintendent needs to be a visionary leader who will motivate the teachers and staff, provide a direction for the school… [and] develop a relationship with the leaders of all three towns. The superintendent should be able to tackle the specific needs of a regional school system and all phases of budgeting, student learning, and educational practices.”

            Hardy told the school committee members, “So, that’s kind of like the target if you could draft a superintendent that’s what you would be looking for… based off of this feedback.”

            A 15-member search committee will be formed consisting of staff, school committee members, town officials, and parents to review resumes, hold preliminary interviews, and propose no fewer than three but no more than five finalists for the joint school committees to interview in public.

            The superintendent job was posted the following day on December 13.

            The next regularly scheduled joint meeting of Superintendency Union #55 and the Old Rochester Regional School Committee is scheduled for March 5 at 6:30 pm in the junior high school media room.

Joint meeting of Superintendency Union #55 and the Old Rochester Regional School Committee

By Jean Perry