John O’Rourke of Good Energy came to the Rochester Senior Center on February 15 to explain a plan that will lower the townspeople’s electricity bills.

            His company has helped Rochester and five other towns in the region reach a Community Aggregate Agreement with electricity supplier Direct Energy that will charge residents a lower fixed rate for electrical service. The town’s rate will be 16.31 cents per kilowatt hour, rather than Eversource’s current Basic Service rate for residential customers of 25.649 cents per kWh.

            O’Rourke emphasized last Wednesday night that residents now face a deadline to decide on whether to opt out of this new program. Otherwise, residential and business customers in town will be enrolled automatically.

            A letter has been sent to all Rochester residential electricity customers that this is the new program’s Launch and Customer Notification period for what is called the Rochester Community Electricity program. Residents had 30 days, until February 20, to notify the company that they wish to not join in.

            The opt-out options were: Postmark and mail the card enclosed with the notification letter, call Direct Energy at 866-968-8065 or submit an opt-out form at Electricity.TownOfRochesterMass.com.

            The 16.310-cents-per- kWh rate will be for Standard residential service, O’Rourke said. The rate will be 17.850 cents per kWh for Rochester Plus customers who add renewable energy to the supply mix. The electricity generator will remain Eversource.

            The new rate will appear on the March meter reading and will be valid until December 2024, said O’Rourke, adding that his company will seek going out to bid for a new supplier contract months earlier, in the summer of 2024.

            Direct Energy was chosen under a competitive bid process that involved both town officials and Good Energy personnel in the decision-making, Select Board Chairman Woody Hartley explained.

            The other five communities under this agreement are Cohasset, Marshfield, Scituate, Westwood and Uxbridge.

            Hartley then elaborated on why such a program was not pursued sooner. He said the Select Board opposed the idea in 2016. He urged reconsidering that opposition when he became a Select Board member, and the proposal passed overwhelmingly at a recent town meeting.

            “Massachusetts has the highest tax rate in the nation,” O’Rourke noted. “At a 14-, 16-cent rate, you’re still below average with this program.”

Rochester Select Board

By Michael J. DeCicco

            A new Plan of Record was presented by David Davignon of Schneider Davignon Leone representing James and Sharlene Craig, 12A Aucoot Road on February 13 to the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission.

            The changes from the original plan now call for a smaller footprint for a new residence, and a place for future septic upgrade. Davignon said the Craigs wondered if they should put in the newest type of denitrification system now in advance of new regulations being put forward by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Davignon counseled his clients to put in a qualifying Title 5 system but to wait before installing another type of system because, “It may not meet the regulations.” The updated plan was approved.

            MassDEP has been rolling out their proposal to require denitrification systems in areas where nitrogen is at unacceptable levels. Mattapoisett as well as others in the tri-town area have sent letters expressing concern.

            Mattapoisett’s letter reads in part, “The proposed regulations have prompted vast anxiety from our residents.  Several residents are concerned about the cost, impact, and timing of this proposal.  Approximately 70% of all homes within our community use standard septic systems.  Many are struggling with the possibility of affording and installing a denitrification system, which is an expensive solution that not only fails to eliminate nitrogen entirely, but also uses more energy than a conventional Title 5 system while requiring annual maintenance.  Additionally, many of the other nitrogen reducing solutions (such as permeable reactive barriers and LSTA treatment systems, etc.) being applied in other communities are in early experimental phases, leaving many to question whether a sustainable infrastructure option related to wastewater treatment is truly available at this time.

            The Town of Mattapoisett is full of residents who understand the importance of watershed protection and the Town has been doing its part by purchasing vital parcels for conservation and supporting the expansion of stormwater and sewer improvements.  We know that our community will continue to do its part to protect its waterbodies, but we contend that the current DEP proposal will hurt our residents in the pursuit of this common goal. 

            While we appreciate the extension of the public comment period, we believe more time and local collaboration is needed to properly inform residents and be better equipped to construct an appropriate plan as to how best to counteract the effects of nitrogen by not over burdening the residents of Massachusetts.” The letter was written by Town Administrator Mike Lorenco at the request of the Select Board. In a follow-up Lorenco said that the town is also pursuing grant funding to test waterbodies in the community in advance of testing by the DEP, “We don’t want to wait a year or more.”

            In other business Requests for Determination of Applicability received negative decisions and were filed by Mary LaPointe, 4 Ocean View Avenue for the installation of a shed, and Chase Wingate, 2 Tara Road for a septic upgrade.

            Notices of Intent being conditioned were filed by Kenneth Ackerman, 4 Grove Avenue for the construction of a two-story garage, Christopher Oliveira, 107 County Road for the construction of a single-family home, and, David Wilson, 15 Fieldstone Drive for the construction of a porch and deck.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for February 27 at 6:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

            Asked if he had a demolition timeline on Marion’s existing harbormaster building, Derek Redgate, civil engineer and project manager with Coastal Engineering, said he has been told the town is in the process of revising the project cost that would be brought before this spring’s Town Meeting. All permitting, he said, will be in place when funding is sought. After that, presumably, construction on the new Marine Center would begin.

            The Marion Conservation Commission got its opportunity to vet the revised project during a February 8 public hearing and voted to issue an Order of Conditions formulated by Commissioner Ethan Gerber.

            Conditions include prevention of harbor pollution and stormwater damage by the installation of a minimum of 20 feet in additional siltation fencing or 10 hay bales prior to disturbance. Roof runoff shall discharge via structure devices, and impervious surfaces shall be sloped so as to collect any runoff.

            The town filed a Notice of Intent for the proposed demolition, construction of the new harbormaster facility and related parking and site improvements at 1 Island Wharf Road. The new office would move its location and expand in size to cover 15,000 square feet, a drastic reduction over the original plan.

            “Basically, anything on the water is going to be in Conservation’s jurisdiction, but the entirety of our site is in land subject to coastal flooding. That and within 100 feet of coastal bank,” said Redgate.

            In displaying the site plan, Redgate confirmed with a blue dashed line the 100-foot buffer zone and with a red dashed line the required 30-foot setback. The northern tip of the new Marine Center extends almost 8 feet closer to the north-facing seawall than the allowed setback.

            Commissioner Ethan Gerber would later ask if the new construction can be relocated so that it does not encroach that setback.

            Redgate said it took a lot of design work to get it so that the north-facing side of the building comes no closer than 22.2 feet from the seawall. He added that originally, the side setback was found to be in violation of the zoning bylaw, but the building commissioner found it to be adequate.

            “Could it be moved? I think it would be very difficult for us to move it, and I think we would prefer to ask for that waiver,” said Redgate, noting that the site had been previously developed.

            Commissioner Matt Schultz asked about the stability of the seawall itself and added a question about the number of pilings to support the new building and how they will be installed.

            Redgate said that the deterioration of the seawall is not part of the construction project, and he considers the new construction to be at a safe distance from it, also pointing out that the areas of deterioration are to the west of the new construction. He anticipates approximately 20, helical, drilled piles.

            Redgate further noted that there was much discussion as to the building’s location and views of the harbor from a safety-function standpoint.

            The site map presented also included a green dashed line to mark a 15-foot No Touch zone, but Vice Chairman Emil Assing, acting as chairman in Jeff Doubrava’s absence, said Marion has no bylaw defining a hard, firm setback.

            “It’s more that we have guidelines that we prefer to see,” said Assing. “The 15-foot ‘no touch’ would be like a ‘no disturb’ zone, where we want to see no new proposed structures and things like that. The 30-foot (buffer) is more of an area where we would allow modest changes.

            “With a project like this, it’s … my opinion that being the harbormaster station, it’s vital that it’s close to the water, has access and views of the harbor itself. It makes sense where it’s located.”

            Assing asked Redgate if the shell walkways will remain or be restored. Redgate said the building will be installed, followed by landscaping.

            “The intent is to keep a lot of the features that are here but fix them up postconstruction,” said Redgate. “I think the walkways will come out, some of the crush shells up against the wall will probably stay. Then we’ll blend everything in with landscaping.”

            With increased in height over the existing facility, the lowest structural member will sit only 2 feet below the 22.25-foot floor elevation.

            While the old harbormaster building will be demolished, the two bathrooms and concrete slab will remain. Town sewer runs to the bathrooms, and a new connection will be established to the new building.

            Other improvements will include handicap-accessible parking, new curbing and walkways. The plan to improve the bathrooms will be part of a separate project further into the future.

            Redgate outlined “during construction” erosion-control measures, a black dotted line on his site plan indicating where the bank will be lined with a straw wattle and silt fence around the perimeter of the construction area.

            The temporary entry point for vehicles will be gravel and have wheel washing to stop sediment from being carried away from the site.

            “We’ve looked at the site carefully so we’re not adding any more runoff to those (detention basins) already in place,” said Redgate, noting the existing stormwater-detention basins along Island Wharf Road. “We haven’t expanded them, we haven’t made them smaller, we haven’t added any new grates or pipes to those existing detention basins. We’re essentially saying, ‘We’re designing this project so that it models what’s already flowing into those basins.”

            The new construction will have its own underground, dedicated filtration system that will take the roof drains and fully infiltrate the new roof and not allow runoff. An overflow drainage pipe will run to the north-facing seawall.

            In answer to Commissioner Shaun Walsh, Redgate said the existing drainage pipe will remain in place and experience a “modest” reduction in discharge.

            “There will certainly be an improvement in addition to groundwater recharge and fully treated,” said Redgate, who said the system is sized to a 25-year storm.

            Island Wharf Road will serve as access to the construction site.

            Before the commissioners voted to close the public hearing, Select Board member Norm Hills suggested that the demolition is highly unlikely to happen prior to the completion of the new construction.

            The Estate of Alexander Harcovitz received an Order of Conditions to proceed with a proposed seawall repair/improvement at 17 Seaside Lane.

            Before deliberation and vote, project representative Dave Davignon submitted a revised plan based on the commission’s feedback from the last public hearing on the case. He highlighted revisions, including the face and rough texture of the sloped seawall, designed to anticipate as much wave action as possible. The height of the seawall was also increased to match the level of the patio.

            Davignon said 10,000-pound boulders are being used at the seawall.

            Mark Brown, in attendance, was invited to speak, but his participation functions froze. Shaun Walsh said an email was received from Brown notifying the commission that he did not plan on making any comments.

            Steve Wymer and Hope Sidman were also issued an Order of Conditions for the removal of nonnative plant species and planting of native species to create a new landscape area on a coastal bank at 137 Allens Point Road.

            Hills attended to represent the Planning Board and gather feedback from the Conservation Commission on the Draft Municipal Storm System MS4 Bylaw being authored by DPW engineer Meghan Davis with Hills’ assistance. The town used existing bylaws in other towns for reference.

            The Zoning bylaw will primarily require any project covering over 10,000 square feet to go before the Planning Board. “‘Cutting’ may be going a little bit too far,” said Walsh.

            Hills said the word can be edited out so as to avoid overstating the intention of the bylaw. Assing asked that Doubrava get an opportunity to comment. Hills assured the commission that this was not its only opportunity to comment and that the Planning Board still needs to hold a public hearing on the bylaw before it can go to Town Meeting.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo