As is the case on many local boards and commissions, those volunteering their time to aid municipalities in such important matters as subdivisions do not always possess technical backgrounds or experience in complicated issues such as soil analysis or threshold rainfall depth for groundwater saturation. Yet, given sufficient total immersion through the public vetting process, crash courses if you will, these board and commission members absorb knowledge. And then there are the peer review consultants who are hired by the Town and paid for by the applicant to oversee weighty technical matters on behalf of the towns.

            But some town board volunteers are, in fact, lawyers, contractors, and engineers bringing with them vast understanding and experiences; thus, the ability to grapple with construction-related impacts on neighboring lands.

            That was the case on February 4 when the Mattapoisett Planning Board invited Richard Rheaume of Prime Engineering to informally discuss, one more time, Scott Snow’s proposed Form C Subdivision Plan for parcels off Prospect Road now dubbed Eldridge Estates.

            Snow and Rheaume have both been before the Planning Board during previous meetings going back nearly a year. With each meeting, the applicant and his representative have presented at least two subdivision conceptual layouts, finally deciding on the one that will ultimately see the property divided into five lots – three existing and two new.

            The topic of stormwater runoff has been a slippery one for Rheaume, with the primary issue of rainfall saturation and runoff including methods for calculating water flow being questioned by board member Nathan Ketchell, himself a civil engineer.

            As the other board members listened intently, Rheaume explained how he had used two methods to demonstrate that the stormwater runoff from the proposed subdivision would not increase the amount of water flowing across abutting properties via a stormwater management system.

            Rheamue said he had used Technical Paper 40 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other methods also recognized by NOAA, for the purposes of hydrological modeling of 100-year storms and other timeframes.

            Rheamue explained that with the NOAA model, in a 24-hour period, during a 100-year storm, 8.42 inches of rain would be discharged from the Prospect Road subdivision, while the TP40 standard calculated the rate to be 7 inches.

            Rheamue also said that such matters would be further studied by the Conservation Commission when the application came before that governing body. He explained that the plans included the construction of a swale along the southerly edge of the property to deflect stormwater running in that direction to a detention pond.

            For more than an hour, Ketchell and Rheamue discussed water flow, with Rheamue concurring that stormwater would not necessarily increase but that flow would; therefore, it would be collected in the detention pond where it could be discharged slowly into the ground. He also said that any existing stormwater problems on abutting properties would not be solved with stormwater plans being drawn-up for his client’s project.

            Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain said that G.A.F. Engineering would be the peer review consultant for Snow’s filing.

            A date of March 4 was set for the applicant to return with a plan of record and the formal public hearing is planned for March 18 if the applicant files in time. The project was granted an extension until March 31.

            Also coming before the Planning Board was David Andrews of Bay Club, LLC with a request to extend the existing roadway covenant that is expiring.

            This time board member Janice Robbins, an attorney with a background in real estate law, questioned the language in the covenant and wondered how the Planning Board could grant the request in the absence of technical reports on the completion of the roads in questions.

            There was some discussion on the manner in which the massive subdivision’s documents were executed with Andrews saying that former Highway Surveyor Wes Bowman and former Water and Sewer Superintend Nick Nicholson had overseen the roadway construction for years. Crain said that more recently the current department heads had been following up, but that written reports were not submitted.

            In the end, Robbins was successful in gaining an agreement that six lots would be held versus two as part of the awarded extension.

            The board members also confirmed a previously agreed upon surety reduction for the Bay Club neighborhood of Shagbark from $250,000 to $50,000.

            And lastly, Crain said that the Split Rock neighborhood within the Bay Club subdivision was not up for renewal or extension until later this year.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for March 4 at 7:00 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

The Rochester Board of Selectmen is in no hurry to enter into a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with Clean Energy Collective (CEC), the solar developer of a solar array field at 268 Mattapoisett Road.

            On February 4, Principal Assessor Charles Shea told the selectmen about the disparity he sees between the PILOT revenue the Town receives from the solar array field on Snipatuit Road owned by Melink Corporation and what Shea anticipates the Town will receive from Clean Energy Collective.

            According to Shea, Melink pays $23,000 annually under its PILOT agreement for the valuation of personal property and $28,000 for the valuation of the real property.

            “So there’s about $50,000 coming in from a 1-megawatt system pretty much identical to the solar system [on Mattapoisett Road] and, as an assessor, I’m seeing a disparity.”

            Shea said, “I’ve heard $20,000 a year” from CEC’s 5-acre, 1-megawatt solar field. “I just see, as an assessor, a differentiation in outcome and I wondered what I might have done wrong in the first one and how … I’m supposed to approach them in the future.”

            “There’s a lot that’s changed since we signed that first one,” said Town Counsel Blair Bailey.

            Bailey explained the situation, saying that the two sums from the two solar array fields differ because the Melink PILOT was formed under a previous state program that allowed municipalities to include both the valuation of personal property (the solar array equipment) and the property tax. Now, Bailey said, the law has changed and solar companies have found a loophole in the tax code that Bailey said in a follow-up that CEC wants to take advantage of.

            “A recent batch of cases in front of the ATB are about whether they took a provision of the tax code meant for one thing and made it apply to another,” said Bailey, further clarifying, “The tax code says any solar facility that provides power to a taxable facility is not in and of itself taxable.” Bailey said this new law was designed to encourage solar energy development and consumption in the state.

            Taking all that into consideration, Bailey told Shea, the average agreement price that he could find in the state right now on a megawatt basis was $10,000 per megawatt on property, while other states average $20,000 a megawatt. The question is then, said Bailey, is a PILOT agreement in the best interest of the Town?

            “We can certainly say no, we’re not going to agree to a PILOT,” said Bailey. But, he said, if CEC gets a tax bill from the Town, “The next step is the ATB.”

            Shea argued that the Assessors’ Office should take CEC’s revenue into consideration when targeting a sum for a PILOT agreement, but according to Shea, CEC refused to provide it.

            “I want to see some data,” said Selectmen Chairman Greenwood “Woody” Hartley. “I want to see some numbers – the difference between the two [solar projects] … so that we establish a standard that we can stand behind.”

            Bailey, however, cautioned that this was not the legal way to assess the value of property. When the Town assesses the value of property for any other business in town, he said, it is not based on how much money the business makes.

            “There is no other commercial property that you assess on the basis of profit,” Bailey said.

            Selectman Brad Morse suggested tabling the discussion until the next meeting in order to gather further information before a vote.

            “We really want to see some data,” said Hartley.

            During the follow-up with Bailey, he said a PILOT agreement is something that benefits both the solar company and the municipality because both parties can accurately anticipate the sum it pays and the sum it receives, respectively, over the term of the 20-year long agreement.

            In other matters, the board is concerned about the rising cost of tuition for Rochester students to attend Bristol County Agricultural High School. The Town anticipates 12 students will attend Bristol Aggie this next fiscal year at a cost of $25,000 per student, the rate the school will charge for out-of-district students.

            Bristol County students’ school districts pay just $1,900 tuition.

            Hartley said the legislation allows agricultural high schools to “charge us almost whatever they want,” and he wondered if that legislation adopted in the early 1900s was no longer fair to towns like Rochester.

            Morse commented that when he was first elected to the board 15 years ago, the tuition was $12,000 per student. Rochester has more students per capita attending Bristol Aggie than other towns, Hartley pointed out, which affects the Town’s budget to the tune of 29% in the Bristol Aggie line item.

            “And with Proposition 2 ½, that doesn’t work,” said Town Administrator Suzanne Szyndlar.

            But both Morse and Hartley emphasized that Bristol Aggie is a good school and that the board was in no way unsupportive of Rochester students attending the school.

            The selectmen also approved two upcoming events that will pass through Rochester: the Tour de Crème on May 19, and the On Your Left Racing Triathlon event on July 27.

            The board accepted the resignation of Robert Mogilnicki from the Historical Commission, which leaves one opening on the commission. Anyone interested may submit a letter to the Board of Selectmen.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19 at 6:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry