Abutters were out in force on November 18 when the Mattapoisett Planning Board held the Site Plan Review for Mattapoisett’s new fire station planned for 64 County Road next to the existing police station.

            Engineer Katie Enright, architect and project manager Chris Logan, and the Mattapoisett Fire Station Building Committee Chairman Michael Hickey presented the details for the first time to residents learning the full scope of the work, which includes adequate lighting for traffic management on Route 6, and measures needed to ensure that fire trucks could enter and exit the site safely.

            Hickey explained that at the October Special Town Meeting, voters moved to pay the town’s portion of the price tag attached to installing traffic signals on Route 6 for the new fire station, but just what that price tag will be is currently unknown.

            “It’s a very long process,” Hickey told the Planning Board, adding that presently there was a “disconnect” regarding just what final costs would total. “We don’t know what the state is going to require,” he said, in terms of the lighting design, thereby making cost estimations at this time impossible.

            Hickey also said that the town had applied for a grant to cover the majority of expenses, and that the town’s share was approximately 10 percent of the unknown total.

            The topic of a new drainage system at the site was discussed for more than an hour, as Enright explained the plans that include capturing drainage from the police station, new fire station site, Hubbard’s Way, and the skate park.

            A detention pond on the site will receive all drainage and then slowly infiltrate the stormwater into the ground. Enright assured all that the new drainage system will “vastly improve current conditions,” conditions that currently discharge stormwater via a large pipe into wetlands that then drain into the Pepper Bush neighborhood.

            Enright said that soils at the bottom of the detention pond location were analyzed and found to be adequate for retaining and then recharging stormwater into the ground. She said, however, there would also be a control valve that could be manually activated if the pond neared capacity and wasn’t operating properly. She stressed that the town must maintain the pond, and that the task would most likely fall to the Highway Department.

            Some abutters were not convinced.

            Mike Donovan, 3 Pepper Bush Lane, expressed concerns about drainage problems in the neighborhood and laid the blame at several developed parcels along Route 6.

            Enright once again explained the new system and its ability to improve drainage from the fire station site.

            David Fuerman, 7 Pepper Bush Lane, asked, “Why can’t you catch the water and pipe it down to the creek?”

            Enright said that such practices were prohibited and that it wouldn’t improve matters in the neighborhood, whereas the engineered system would slow down water flow, giving it the opportunity to be absorbed into the ground.

            Fuerman concluded that water problems in his area were caused by water flowing as far away at the closed town dump, the Bay Club, a funeral home, and the condominium complex The Villages at Mattapoisett.

            Casey Ferreira, another engineer from Howard Stein Hudson, said, “With every new project there are new problems,” but that every project must prove it will produce less water, not more.

            The Planning Board, however, was in agreement that the drainage plan as presented was an improvement. The board conditionally approved the site plan contingent upon some minor language changes and notations in editorial subtexts.

            The approval now allows the team to submit permit requests to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for curb cuts on Route 6. Hickey stated that the traffic lights are a separate permitting process from the curb cut.

            In other business, the withdrawal of a subdivision plan and Approval Not Required application for property owned by Jay and Julie Duker, 112 Aucoot Road, was thoroughly reviewed after a presentation by engineer Matthew Leone. Leone said that his clients wanted to have a driveway accepted as a way, thereby giving the Dukers the latitude of 125 feet of road frontage, which their legally non-conforming developed lot does not contain.

            Then ensued a debate between Leone and Planning Board member Janice Robbins as to whether or not such a request was legal, given that the driveway belonged to the Doran family and that they, the owners of record, were not part of the application.

            Abutters Brad Hathaway and his daughter, Jane, questioned why the Dukers needed frontage when their home was accessed over the Doran driveway via an easement. Leone stated that the Dukers did not want to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals each time they wished to make a modification on their lot. But Robbins said, “They don’t have a problem,” and added that she had spoken to Marjorie Doran, relaying, “She does not agree with this.”

            The Planning Board unanimously declined to approve the application, citing that the driveway did not meet roadway specifications.

            A meeting with the condominium association for The Villages at Mattapoisett was continued until December 16 to give the association’s chairman, Steve Pickup, the opportunity to submit a detention pond maintenance manual and service reports. The association is asking for the return of a $50,000 “emergency repair work” surety for their stormwater drainage system.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for December 2 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

            It was a long night for the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on November 14, but it managed to wrap up its agenda in under three hours and granted approval for all five applications.

            First up was Alcoza Graubrey, LLC seeking a special permit to allow the operation of an auto repair shop at 15 New Bedford Road.

            Neighbors were mostly in favor of granting the approval, but a couple shared concerns about stormwater runoff and especially, potential oil leaks from clients’ vehicles.

            ZBA Chairman David Arancio read a letter from Town Planner Steve Starrett into the record, which stated that prior discussions held in his office during February 2018 mentioned a Massachusetts vehicle inspection site in addition to the auto repair shop, and that the Planning Board has the authority to oversee issues such as traffic, lighting, and parking and should go before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review.

            The applicant’s attorney, Marc Deshaies, however, argued that the project did not trigger a Site Plan Review because the scope of the project does not exceed 675 square feet or $25,000 in renovations.

            The ZBA did not include a special condition for the applicant to file with the Planning Board, but did mention that the Planning Board does have the right to appeal the ZBA’s decision.

            The ZBA placed several conditions on its approval, including no overnight parking in front area, dumpsters to be located behind building with fencing and a gate, no more than four vehicles allowed outside after hours, no business on Sunday, and the special permit is not transferable.

            Also during the meeting, the board issued a special permit to finish a space above the garage and convert to a multi-family dwelling to applicant Mark Freitas, 273 Snow’s Pond Road, a case that resulted from a Cease and Desist Order issued by the building commissioner for unpermitted work.

            Freitas was seeking to renovate the upstairs garage space to provide an apartment for his daughter and received support from most of his neighbors with the exception of a couple who were concerned about further multi-family residences and how that could affect their property values.

            ZBA member Richard Cutler pointed out that, with the exception of the proper frontage on a town accepted road, Freitas has the lot size to accommodate a multi-family as per the bylaws.

            “I struggle with this one, but that’s okay,” said ZBA member Tom Flynn.

            ZBA member Davis Sullivan proposed the condition that at least one of the units be owner-occupied, which could relieve some of the neighbors’ anxiety.

            The board placed this condition on its approval, as well as restricting the new apartment to one bedroom, completely enclosing the proposed breezeway, and prohibiting any short-term Airbnb-like rentals of the unit.

            In other business, the board granted Brett Eilertsen, 78 Vaughan Hill Road, a variance for an 18-foot by 40-foot in-ground pool closer than 40 feet to the property line.

            Elsie and Jose Araujo, 417 Mary’s Pond Road, received a variance for a structure exceeding 1,000 square feet in size, and a variance allowing its placement in the front yard.

            Jennifer and Matthew Porter, 169 Clapp Road, were granted a variance for an in-ground pool and cabana closer than 40 feet to the property line.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 12 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

            Plans for a multi-family housing development off Spring Street in Marion hit a speed bump at the Marion Planning Board’s initial public forum on November 18.

            Faced with a possible objection to the submitted plan, site owner Sherman Briggs dug in his heels and threatened to pull the entire development plan.

            Briggs and Bill Curley have been attempting to develop a multi-family condominium community off Spring Street for several years now. The plan submitted includes 27 market-rate units (townhouse-style structures with three apartments per building) as well as three affordable housing units situated on an adjoining lot.

            The location of the three affordable units caused concern for some Planning Board members.

            Planning Board member Eileen Marum pointed out that town bylaws require all affordable housing units to be integrated with the regular market-rate units.

            “I’m concerned that they are off by themselves on this adjoining lot,” she said as she pored over the plans. “They aren’t integrated into the other housing.” She noted that she thought the rest of the plan was well thought-out, and said, “I know that there are a lot of older people in Marion looking to downsize. I just want this project to be the best that it can be, for them.”

            “There’s no sense in continuing this if the plan isn’t acceptable,” Briggs told the Planning Board members flatly. “I came here under the impression that this plan was acceptable to everyone. We’ve spent three and a half years coming to an agreement on the housing and now I’m hearing there might be an issue.

            “You were all here at the meetings we’ve had regarding this previously, and we were all in agreement,” continued Briggs. “Now suddenly we’re not on the same page. I’m not spending any more money on this and I’m not putting those three units in the middle of the 27 other units.”

            The integration of the affordable housing was interpreted differently by board members. Planning Board member Andrew Daniel stated that he did not personally feel that the affordable housing lots were segregated.

            “They have access to the same sidewalks, the same roads, the same amenities,” he pointed out. “It’s not as if there’s a wall around those units.” 

            Fellow board members Kristen Saint Don-Campbell and Chris Collings agreed with Daniel, but Briggs was not satisfied.

            “I want a vote stating that board members are okay with the affordable units staying where they are,” he insisted.

            Planning Board Chairman Will Saltonstall told Briggs that the board members couldn’t hold a vote at this point in the hearing process, as there was just not enough information on the development in the plans.

            “We’re just spinning our wheels until we have the landscape plans, details on what the townhouses will look like, and… we know for sure that everything that is planned can fit on this lot,” he told Briggs, Curley, and Lakeview Engineering representative Steve Poole. “We can’t vote until we have that information.”

            “I’m very confident we can fit everything, and we’ll get you all the plans in the world,” Briggs told Saltonstall. “But I need to know that the consensus of the board is that the affordable units are integrated as we’d agreed previously.”

            Saltonstall agreed that in the past the consensus of the Planning Board had been that the affordable units were properly integrated into the rest of the market-rate housing. He indicated that, in the future, board members would continue to lean in that direction.

            It was ultimately decided to continue the public hearing at the December 16 Planning Board meeting. 

            Also during the meeting, the board unanimously approved a proposed subdivision at 213 Converse Road. Engineer David Davignon returned to the Planning Board with two minor updates to the submitted site plan after previously facing some scrutiny. A new earth berm and grass swale had been added to one lot, and a roof runoff recharge system was added to the garages of the proposed buildings. The approved plans for the subdivision include eight dwellings stretching from Converse Road to Shellheap Drive. Residents would access the subdivision via a new roadway, Shelley Drive, off Beach Street.

            “I like this plan much better,” said Daniel, shortly before the board approved the plan. “This is much more favorable for everyone.” 

            The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board will be on December 2 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Andrea Ray

            At their meeting on November 19, the Rochester Conservation Commission wrapped up the three Abbreviated Notices of Resource Delineation filed by Joe Harrison on behalf of Sunraise Investments, LLC for three properties: 0 Featherbed Lane, 0 Cushman Road, and 0 Snipatuit Road.

            Over the course of the last couple months, Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon and consulting wetlands specialist John Rockwell have been working together to confirm a cumulative 9,800 linear feet of wetland boundaries – nearly two miles long.

            All three ANRADs were accepted after the appropriate modifications were made and finally confirmed by Farinon.

            Two abutters were present pertaining to an issue with access, but since these were filings for ANRADs to delineate wetland lines and not for a specific project, the matter was not taken up in discussion.

            “I don’t have an answer for you right now,” Prime Engineering representative Julie Goodwin told the two gentlemen. “That would come at the next step, which would be the Notice of Intent filing.”

            Farinon did caution Goodwin, however, that the engineer would be wise to resolve the matter of access to the site that is slated for a large-scale solar array field before filing the Notice of Intent; otherwise, said Farinon, the matter could become “a very challenging, difficult situation.”

            The commission had to reschedule the public hearing for the Notice of Intent filed by Steen Realty & Development Corp. for the 40R affordable housing development at 22 Cranberry Highway, known as Rochester Crossroads.

            In order to open a public hearing for the project, which entails 208 residential units, a clerical matter involving an abutter notification snafu will need to be rectified, and the hearing will have to be re-advertised and re-posted.

            The commission discussed possibly scheduling a site visit, which was the preference of the applicant in order to “keep the ball rolling downfield” as the engineer wrote in his letter, but town counsel had urged the commission to wait until the hearing was opened.

            The hearing will now be held on December 17.

            The public hearing for the Notice of Intent filed by Pedro Rodriguez for Solar MA Project Management, LLC, 0 Walnut Plain Road and 0 Old Middleboro Road, was continued until December 17, at the applicant’s request.

            The commission is still in need of an additional member. Anyone interested in serving on the commission may address a letter of interest to the Board of Selectmen.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission will be on December 3 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Jean Perry