It was deep into the evening’s meeting before Attorneys Brian Winner and Jonathan Silverstein of Kopelman and Paige, Mattapoisett’s town counsel, were asked to join the Mattapoisett Planning Board at the conference table. But once seated, Silverstein went directly to why he and Winner were present: to defend their responsiveness and attention to the town’s legal matters.
“I was in the unpleasant position of reading in The Wanderer that Mr. [John] Mathieu and the Planning Board said we were unresponsive – that allegation is false,” Silverstein asserted. He said that the Planning Board’s secretary Tammy Ferreira and Chairman Tom Tucker both had the attorneys’ cell phone numbers. “The building inspector has called me on weekends, and I’ve gotten right back to him.”
Silverstein said Mathieu had leveled the same accusations at his firm in 2012 and Silverstein had to come forward with evidence to counter those false statements. He was troubled to find it happening again. “Why would this be happening again?” he wondered aloud.
Silverstein had wanted to address his comments and questions directly to Mathieu during this meeting. Mathieu, however, was not present.
“A few years ago we had to take action against him … that was nothing personal,” said Silverstein. “We were representing the Town.” He then produced hardcopies of email responses and a telephone log as evidence that he and Winner had, in fact, been responsive and provided the guidance requested by the Planning Board in a timely manner.
The issue was Mathieu’s request that town counsel review covenant language changes drafted by the Planning Board for the Villages at Mattapoisett and Brandt Point Village in their petitions for public trash collection.
“We are not perfect, but we strive to be responsive,” Silverstein stated. “But to have to read in the newspaper allegations that this is the type of treatment you get all the time is unfair.”
“All I have in my business is my reputation,” Silverstein told the Planning Board members.
Board member Karen Field offered apologies on behalf of the board. Member Mary Crain said that, as a town planner in another community, her experience with Kopelman and Paige had been excellent and found them very responsive.
“That’s why I said I thought it was bizarre,” Crain told Silverstein.
“I’m in charge of making sure that Mattapoisett’s needs are met,” Silverstein said. Silverstein and Winner told the members to call their cell phone numbers any time.
Tucker thanked Silverstein and Winner.
In other matters, garnering more than an hour of the evening’s meeting was a discussion between Mattapoisett Highway Superintendent Barry Denham, Joe Furtado, the developer of Brandt Point Village, and residents of the troubled subdivision.
Furtado had been invited to attend the meeting by Tucker to afford the residents and the board members an opportunity to publically air their ongoing concerns. The list of issues the residents brought to the meeting contained such things as failing driveways, incomplete stormwater drainage systems, unverified septic maintenance, roadway construction integrity, and various environmental concerns.
Time and again during the conversation, Furtado assured the residents that he would take care of everything that was wrong saying, “I’ve been dealt a can of worms … I’m going to do whatever needs to be done.”
Furtado’s site subcontractor, Bill Milka of Reliable Excavating, received praise from the residents for work he has done thus far, but they remained skeptical that Furtado’s word was sufficient.
Tucker told them that Furtado was significantly motivated to get things done correctly due to his investment in Phase Two of the project.
Attorney Silverstein suggested that the chairman direct the secretary to draw up a letter listing all the items that needed to be done at the massive residential neighborhood to document Furtado’s commitment. Tucker agreed that would benefit all concerned.
The residents of the subdivision also received an amendment to their covenant in the form of an additional item. After petitioning the board for public trash collection and after legal review of language, the Planning Board moved to grant their request.
This prompted resident Paul Osenkowski to ask if public comment was being circumvented. Tucker said, “We’ve talked about this ad nauseam.” He then recognized Osenkowski.
Osenkowski declared, “This is a slippery slope … I don’t think you have any right to change the agreement.” He continued, “Your responsibility is to the whole community!” He said that by allowing this subdivision to opt into trash collection, costs would increase for all residents.
“We take our advice from town counsel,” Tucker told Osenkowski. Silverstein confirmed that the Planning Board did have the authority to make covenant changes, adding, “We don’t comment on the policy … so we don’t comment on whether it is a good decision or a bad decision.”
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for November 16 at 7:00 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.
By Marilou Newell
