The much beloved Leonard’s Pond was discussed during the October 1 meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission. Before the commission was a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by the town for the purpose of making improvements to a gravel boat access path and to consider options for making the area ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.

            Speaking on behalf of the town, Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon explained that she has been exploring design options for the access path, everything from asphalt paving to timber planks to simple grading and applying more gravel to the access point.

            Farinon explained that the path has been a source of concern as erosion has caused sediment flow into the pond.

            “The area needs to be stabilized,” she began. She said that the best solution would be “a low-key plan.”

            Access for people with mobility issues made finding a simple resolution and design rather difficult, Farinon shared. She said that most ADA compliant designs would require the removal of forested bank, something she said made the recreational area special and unique given its undisturbed state. 

            Continuing on, Farinon suggested the best course of action would be to maintain the access path as it currently exists using dense crushed gravel “to keep it as simple as possible.” She said the town wasn’t under any time constraints, so if the commission wished, she would continue to pursue design concepts looking for the best fit for the location. The filing was continued until November 5 to allow for more review.

            Coming before the commission with a Notice of Intent filing was John and Michelle Vinagre of 7 Ginny’s Drive for the construction of a 40×36-foot garage and associated driveway within a 100-foot buffer zone.

            Represented by engineer Stephen Chmiel, the project was described as including a 200-foot swale and permanent boundary markers. After Chmiel’s brief presentation, Farinon remarked, “The owners have been good stewards of the property.” She suggested that a positive Order of Conditions be issued. The project received conditioning.

            Also briefly coming before the commission was Sarah Rosenblat of SWEB Development USA representing Rochester Farms LLC and owner Craig Canning. Canning’s solar array project has been slowly working its way through the Conservation Commission review process for several months. All that came to a head on this night when the commission accepted the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation of 3,850 feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands after Rosenblat pointed out the last remaining comments the commission requested on the plan of record. The project received the issuance of an Order of Resource Area Delineation.

            Another project receiving an Order of Resource Area Delineation was also for a solar array project. The filing of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation by Erica Buster, Quaker Lane, for 10,100 linear feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and 1,600-feet of riverfront area met with approval after Jon Connel of SITEC, Inc. made the final presentation. Farinon suggested the approval and commented that peer review consultant John Rockwell of Marion had spent considerable time in the field making recommendations.

            Continued filings were two ANRADs, one for 0 Featherbed Lane and another for 0 Cushman Road filed by Joe Harrison of SunRise Investments. The hearing was continued to October 15.

            Also continued until October 15 was an NOI filed by REpurpose Properties for property located at Rounseville Road abutting Plumb Corner.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 15 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall meeting room.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

            The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on September 26 had no issues with Mary and Michael Fitzgerald’s variance application to build a single-story barn/accessory structure when it came to square-footage and its location in the front yard, but the request to allow its height to exceed that of the principal house raised questions.

            Mary Fitzgerald said she and her husband were looking for the “perfect property” as they planned for their retirement, and this past June they bought their place at 83 Hiller Road.

Variance, over 1,000 square feet in size and in front yard. What they need, though, is a big garage to store all their many belongings, which includes several trailers, a boat with a trailer, a camper, salvaged architectural pieces, a fireplace, table saws, and a tractor. But they also want it to enhance their property and match the style of their house.

            ZBA member Richard Cutler thought it sounded a bit like they would be running a business from the residence, but Fitzgerald assured him that they would not.

            The board then turned to the three conditions required to justify a variance: unique shape or topography of the land, financial hardship, and whether the proposal would negatively impact the neighborhood. ZBA member Kirby Gilmore suggested the hardship could be that the couple’s belongings would be subject to the outside elements.

            “Normally the applicant is supposed to tell us what the hardships are,” said Cutler to Gilmore who promptly proceeded to point out the topography element of the location of Leonard’s Pond preventing the siting of the garage anywhere else but in the front yard.

            ZBA member Tom Flynn said he understood the need for variances for the square footage in excess of 1,000 square feet, and the need to locate the garage in the front yard, but he could not find the need for the garage to exceed the height of the house at 33 feet.

            “I’m struggling with that,” said Cutler.

            Cutler also thought building height should be addressed through a special permit.

            The plan, however, never specified the height of the proposed garage. Without an engineer’s notation on the plan, the board had to continue the hearing to allow the Fitzgeralds to satisfy the board’s request.

            “That would be a reasonable request,” said Fitzgerald.

            “My fear is that… we fumble something and it creates a hardship,” said Chairman David Arancio.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 10 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

            Volunteer and member of the Friends of the Mattapoisett Bike PathRobin Lepore came before the Mattapoisett Finance Committee on September 26 at the request of Town Administrator Michael Gagne to give a presentation outlining the very large public works project planned for Industrial Drive off North Street.

            While Lepore, assisted by Bonne DeSousa, and Highway Surveyor Barry Denham have worked collectively for more than a year on finding grant opportunities to fund Phase 2 of the bike path, the volunteers have also found economic grants and public works grants in the process.

            All those funding sources need to be bundled together, explained Gagne, as the town seeks to make roadway and infrastructure improvements to Industrial Drive, the artery that feeds the town’s light industrial zone.

            Lepore said that during the Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 Town Meetings, voters had approved funding the Industrial Drive’s design and engineering studies that brought the project up to 15 percent design completion. She said that a grant was applied for in the amount of $1.87 million that would partially pay for the multi-pronged project. The timeline for this project, she said, includes having final designs and permitting completed by early 2020 with an anticipated construction start date in late 2020 or early 2021.

            The private sewer project currently taking place at the business park will allow businesses to tie-in to the public sewer system, thereby freeing up much needed land for future growth in the business district. The full scope of the project as outlined includes sewer, utilities, bike path, and roadway construction. Gagne said that the roadway redevelopment would also fix historic drainage issues along the roadway.

            Lepore said the bike path would unite Phase 1b, which is currently under construction, with Phase 2, which is yet to be fully designed. Phase 2 will eventually link to the path still underway in Marion. Bike path proponents, Lepore said, were planning for the day when a recreational path will extend from Providence, Rhode Island all the way to Provincetown.

            In the meantime, Lepore pointed out that roadway and infrastructure improvements in the business park will generate new business for the town in the form of tourist dollars and new businesses offering employment at the business park.

The price tag includes the town bonding $1.665M, transferring $500,000 from free cash, and anticipation of grants totaling approximately $2.585M. 

            Timing was an issue, Lepore pointed out, saying that it made fiscal sense to do all the work at one time to keep costs in line versus doing a project of this size piecemeal.

            Lepore suggested bringing this project to the voters during the Fall Special Town Meeting in October.

            Gagne emphasized that the cost of the project would not all be funded by town money. He said that economic opportunity grants are available and that conversations with federal grant representatives have been favorable towards Mattapoisett’s plan. He also said that members from the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) have been assisting the town through the economic development strategy process.

            Finance Committee member Colby Rottler got to the meat of things when he asked how much a warrant article would be asking the voters to fund. Gagne said $3 million, but not all that would be at once; rather, it would be bonded over time as retiring debt freed up borrowing. Gagne maintained that grants would offset the bond, saying, “We have to spend the money first, then the town gets reimbursed.” 

            Also during the meeting, Denham gave the FinCom details related to bridge construction necessary at an Acushnet Road location. A bridge situated some 800 feet south of Hereford Road is in immediate need of repair.

            Denham said the original bridge was built in 1933 for $250, promoting Gagne to quip, “Well that didn’t work out bad, then – it lasted 95 years.” That gave everyone in the room a bit of comic relief. But the seriousness of the situation was present as Denham handed out a Massachusetts Department of Transportation field report from May 2017 that indicated the bridge was in poor condition with the additional narrative, “…advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour…”

            Denham said the town’s portion of the project would cost $1.2 million and be funded with a $500,000 grant and $460,000 in future Chapter 90 funds from 2020 and 2021 that would be earmarked to complete the bridge. The balance, Denham said, would come from other sources within the town’s budget.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Finance Committee was not yet scheduled as of press time.

Mattapoisett Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell