The Rochester Conservation Commission reluctantly continued the Enforcement Order and wetlands violations matter for Dustin and Travis Lalli until its next meeting to allow for a site visit, but denied the Lallis’ request for a three-month extension on filing a Request for Determination to delineate the wetlands on their property located off High Street.
The matter of alleged wetlands violations committed by the Lallis was first brought to the commission’s attention back in June 2014, and during the June 16, 2015 meeting, the commission had a second anonymous complaint letter from a resident near the Lalli property with new allegations of wetlands violations in addition to the repeated requests for a RDA that was due back on May 1, 2015.
This time, the Lallis brought attorney Andrea McKnight, who promised the commission that the Lallis would follow through with their responsibilities if given three more months to have the wetlands specialist determine whether or not the wetlands in question are in fact wetlands. The Lallis maintain that several areas of concern are not actually wetlands, calling one of the areas nothing more than “a gigantic puddle” in the middle of the property.
The commission cited the stockpiling of dirt and the digging of trenches that empty into a cranberry bog reservoir as significant areas of concern; however, the Lallis assert that the trenches were dug to reroute stormwater runoff coming from the Connet Woods development that abuts the Lalli property.
“Another is an excavating area Travis Lalli built for the runoff as a catch basin outside the 100-foot buffer zone,” said McKnight. However, she said, an area excavated to build new cranberry bogs was done by the previous owner, not by the Lallis.
As part of their defense, the Lallis also claim the property is agricultural land, and McKnight said the Lallis sell their agricultural products at farmers’ markets and report their taxable income as farming income.
Commission member Laurene Gerrior asked Dustin Lalli what he sells at farmers’ markets, to which he replied, “Eggs, herbs … hops, lettuce, peas … arugula …” When asked at which farmers’ markets he sold his goods, Dustin Lalli corrected McKnight and said he does not sell anything at farmers’ markets, rather, “I do go to festivals to sell them because there’s less competition.”
Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon brought up the most recent complaint letter she received in May 2015, and told the Lallis that they have to follow-up on the letter, even if the claims turn out to be unfounded.
“We have to follow up … we do it every day,” said Farinon. “We take everything with a grain of salt, but we do need to follow up with a site visit.”
The letter alleges that, upon hearing gunshots – “lots of gunshots” – the resident went to see from where they were coming. The resident wrote that the noise was coming from the Lalli property and they observed the following, as written in the letter, during numerous visits to the site:
“A large amount of tree cutting that may be within your jurisdiction, what appeared to be a pump running in a large body of water next to a make shift {sic} building and horse corral, I believe the water was being discharged in the woods to the south, four wheel drive trucks ‘mud bogging’ in this same body of water, and a jet ski in the water. I also observed a dump truck dumping dirt in the area of this body of water.”
The resident continued, “The property is a mess, junk cars, construction debris, beer bottles and what appears to be a large fire pit.”
Farinon later said she believed the Lallis might be confused over which wetlands areas are the actual areas in question and pointed out that the commission has been continuously asking for a site plan and restoration plan from the Lallis to no avail.
Farinon took out a state map of core wetlands and pointed out the areas in question, including a wet area in the center of the property as well as an isolated wetlands spot in the northwest. She also expressed concern that the Lallis were still referring to one particular wetlands scientist who previously stated that she could not take on the workload on behalf of the Lallis at this time. She encouraged the two men to return to a list of wetlands specialist she supplied them in the past and to choose a different one.
Commission members were reluctant to grant the Lallis the three months they requested, given the history of the alleged offenses and the significant amount of time that has passed without results.
“We’ve been discussing this for about a year,” said commission member Kevin Cassidy. “…We’ve extended at least two or three time to get the wetlands delineated.” As for the three-month extension, “I don’t think we should do it,” he stated. Instead, he recommended the commission visit the site and determine how much time to grant at the next ConCom meeting in July.
“Then determine … whether or not we’re going to give you an extension,” said Cassidy.
Town Counsel Blair Bailey, standing in the back of the room the whole time, recommended the same, but added a stipulation that the Lallis include a written correspondence from the wetlands scientist they choose, including a specific amount of time they will need to complete the analysis and generate a report.
The site visit was scheduled for Monday, June 22 and the matter was continued until July 7.
At the end of the meeting, Gerrior brought the commission’s attention to a Mattapoisett Conservation Commission article in the June 11 issue of The Wanderer where one Mattapoisett resident member asked, “Why do we have rules if people are allowed to come in and ask for forgiveness later?”
“And I think we’re seeing this, too [in Rochester],” said Gerrior, referring to after-the-fact filings.
Commission member John Teal concurred, saying, “We (ConCom) don’t want to be bullies. But we want things to get done right.”
The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for July 7 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.
By Jean Perry
