Engineer Bill Madden of G.A.F. Engineering came before the Rochester Conservation Commission on October 16 to engage in an informal discussion regarding the design and construction needed to repair the Leonard’s Pond Bridge on Mary’s Pond Road.

An accident left a portion of the bridge damaged, now Madden wanted to ensure his design and aspects of the construction are in line with the commission’s oversight.

Madden explained that construction would be required along 75 feet of the bridge’s curbing. He detailed methods that the contractor would use, describing the use of tools for notching and exposing substructures inside the concrete base. He also said that the exterior of the bridge would require a fresh coat of a stucco-like material to cover the repairs.

Regarding issues related to wetlands protection, Madden also described the use of silt socks to catch any falling debris.

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon expressed her concern about the possibility of the mortar material falling into the water saying, “We are having this meeting to discuss best construction practices.”

Madden agreed, adding, “We’re doing as much as we can to keep it together.”

They also concurred there may be the need for G.A.F.’s presence during part of the repair work to ensure adherence to conditions required by the commission.

The commission was satisfied with the direction of the repair project, and Madden said he would be filing a Notice of Intent on Friday.

In other discussions, the commission is planning to meet with Joe Perry, forester for the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Farinon said she has invited Perry to attend the November 20 meeting to answer questions regarding the changes to the Forest Cutting Practices Act and a Forestry Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the DCR.

Farinon also shared a drafted policy, Guidance on Agriculture and Solar Energy Under the Wetlands Protection Act, and SMART program she received from the DEP. She said it would impact the installation of solar panels in cranberry bogs. Farinon said that the DEP is “opening the door to the idea of cranberry bogs” as viable locations for solar panels. She said that the solar panel structural supports are higher than those used in other locations, allowing sunlight through to vines and possibly berries. She thought that the cranberry growers associations would need more outreach.

Earlier in the evening, the commission voted to allow the continuance of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation filed by Borrego Solar Systems, Inc., for property located at 75 Vaughan Hill Road until the November 20 meeting, as well as a continuance to that same date for a Notice of Intent filed by Joseph Longo, CorGo LLC, for the construction of a single-family house on Mendell Road.

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, November 7 at 7:00 pm in the town hall meeting room.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

The Rochester Country Fair (RCF) Committee had its three requests approved by the Rochester Board of Selectmen on October 15, but not without opposition from neighbors near the Pine Street fairgrounds.

In light of a significant financial loss this year due to poor weather, the RCF Committee hopes to recoup the roughly $10,000 lost by adding four additional fundraisers during 2019. The committee also asked for approval to build a permanent structure at the site – a 40-foot by 100-foot pavilion – that could be used instead of renting a giant tent, an expense that suddenly spiked in cost this year.

The committee also asked for more leniency on alcohol consumption while allowing alcohol to be served at specified times during all four days of the fair.

Some residents who live near the fairgrounds opposed adding more fundraising events at the site, with one resident expressing his concern over the “slow creep” of the Country Fair within the neighborhood.

Richard Masciantonio of Quaker Lane said when the fair first relocated from Plumb Corner to Pine Street, the neighbors were reassured that no permanent structures would remain on the site after the fair was over, and the recent agreement between the RCF Committee and the Town provides for only 10 usable days for fairgrounds events, including the four for the fair. Now, he fears the RCF will continue to expand and ask for further exceptions that will affect the neighborhood.

“The fact that the fair didn’t make money shouldn’t be a burden for the neighborhood to assume,” said Masciantonio. “If the fair can’t make money, the fair can’t make money.”

RCF Committee Chairman Kelly Morgado said the RCF account needs to reach $40,000-$50,000 in its account in order to fully fund the fair, but this year it only reached a maximum of $32,000.

“We’ll have to significantly cut back on what we can do for the fair unless we increase some fundraiser dates,” Morgado said.

Leading up to the 2018 RCF, Morgado said the committee was unable to hold all of its six planned fundraisers at the fairgrounds, as allowed by the agreement, due to inclement weather. These fundraisers, said Morgado, are strategically planned to keep noise in the neighborhood at a minimum, which include tractor pull competitions of the quieter antique tractors.

Hartley was skeptical, and referred to the additional fundraisers as potential “Band-Aids” rather than solutions.

“To me, what this is about is a neighborhood who used to look at a field who now looks at a [fairground],” Hartley said. At the start, activities were planned for three days, he added. “[The neighborhood] is now looking at something going on over there one weekend every month. That’s not what was the original idea, in my mind,” said Hartley.

Selectman Brad Morse, who attended a recent meeting with the RCF Committee and spoke with some abutters, made the motion to allow the additional fundraisers, resulting in a unanimous vote to approve.

The proposed pavilion also got 3-0 approval; however, it was only a preliminary approval. The RCF Committee will have to return with a proposed design and a plan, subject to final.

RCF neighbor Jeremy Peck supported the committee’s requests, and cited concerns over development of the open field should the RCF no longer exist. Another abutter, Craig Parker, emphasized that he supports the RCF, but not an expansion of it.

“We were guaranteed that when the fair … was over, we would never know that the fair was there.” Parker said neighbors were also told a green vinyl fence would be put up around the fairground perimeter, but that didn’t happen either.

Resident Brad Correia, concerned about the fate of the fair, said, “The price of things goes up all the time. If we can’t evolve, I think this fair is going to be lost, and I’m not sure that’s what [we want] to happen.”

Scott Hartley wondered how the Town benefitted from the RCF, other than by simply having the event. He said he didn’t see how he personally benefited from the RCF.

“It’s pretty much the only community event this town has,” said Morgado, although Hartley replied that he attends plenty of little league games, equating that to a community event.

Resident Kevin Thompson, who also leads the local Scouts, said the community does benefit form the fair, especially the Scouts.

“The [country fair] is our single fundraiser for the entire year,” said Thompson. The funds pay for the kids to go to camp and host events and activities, he said. “Without that fundraiser, we have to get back to the drawing board. … The fair is extremely important to what we’re doing. … We have a vested interest in the fair succeeding as well.”

The committee also asked to expand alcohol consumption during the fair by adding additional days and opening up the entire grounds as opposed to offering only one small cordoned-off “beer and wine garden” that even had Hartley admitting, “The concept didn’t work.”

Morse said the police chief had no concerns, and an extra detail officer could be added for further security.

Alcohol consumption was unanimously approved for Thursday-Friday from 4:00 pm – 9:00 pm, Saturday from noon – 9:00 pm, and Sunday from noon – 5:00 pm, but the RCF Committee would still need to apply for an alcohol license when the time comes.

Addressing the residents, Hartley acknowledged, “There’s no way we’re gonna make everybody happy.”

In other matters, the board referred several zoning bylaw amendment articles to the Planning Board for inclusion on this Town Meeting’s warrant.

The board also approved and finalized the warrant for the Monday, November 19 Fall Special Town Meeting taking place at 6:30 pm at the Rochester Memorial School.

Also during the meeting, the board approved a renewal for a $192,000 bond anticipation notice (BAN) for the ambulance debt. The original BAN was $240,000.

The Rochester Town Hall Christmas tree lighting ceremony will be held on December 3 at 6:00 pm.

The meeting room that night was filled with local Scouts present to observe the meeting as part of earning their citizenship in the community merit badge.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen will be a special meeting for Friday, October 26, at 9:00 am at the Rochester Town Hall in order to hold a classification hearing.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

During an extensive discussion on October 15, the Marion Conservation Commission dissected the question of the wetland line at a proposed project off Converse Road.

Applicant Mark Ross’ engineer, Nick Dufresne of Farland Corp, as well as the wetland consultant hired to delineate the wetlands, defended the wetland line as Ross’ neighbor spoke at length, requesting more information about the contested wetland line.

The wetland scientist Rodrigue Sinnette stated that the wetland line was moved upland about 5-6 feet during the site visit with the commission. Commission Vice Chairman Shaun Walsh asked if it was moved because of the soils, to which Sinnette replied it was moved due to the dominance of wetland plants, which is the first criteria for defining the wetland line. He said he had first delineated the line in February 2018, and had used phragmites to define the limit of wetlands. Most recently, Sinnette had seen other wetland species in the mowed area and, therefore, despite there being hydric soils further inland, had placed the line where the dominance of wetland plants fell below 50 percent.

Chairman Jeff Doubrava raised his concern from last meeting regarding the project not conforming with the zoning bylaw, which requires a new construction project to make every effort to stay out of the Velocity zone. Doubrava asked the applicant if they had reconciled this issue at all and reminded the commission that he had spoken to town counsel and was told that the commission had “the ability and the obligation that permits [are not] issued that violate a town bylaw.”

Despite not having a building permit, Dufresne stated that he had spoken with the building commissioner, received setback relief, and that what Doubrava was questioning did not fall within the purview of the conservation commission.

Member Joel Hartley seemed ambivalent, saying that it was not the commission’s responsibility to enforce bylaws of other departments.

Walsh agreed, saying, “We are tasked with enforcing the Wetlands Protection Act if it comes before us. … In my opinion, it is not our job to enforce other municipal departments bylaws.”

Member Kristen Saint Don-Campbell suggested the commission send a memo to the building department that they had become aware of this issue.

The discussion moved to the mowing of the wetlands where the wetland line defines an area that includes a portion of the lawn the applicant claims has been mowed continuously for decades, beginning prior to the Wetland Protection Act (WPA), which was established in 1972.

Brandon Faneuf, owner of Ecosystem Solutions, informed the commission, “The use is pre-existing to the Wetland Protection Act. The owner would like to continue to mow the area, even though it is wetland: his use predates the WPA and, therefore, does not apply.”

Doubrava appeared incredulous, replying, “That’s a big loophole to drive through,” giving the example of other activities that had historically occurred that are not currently allowed, such as dumping sewage directly into the harbor.

Walsh proposed a compromise position in which the applicant install a permanent barrier along the wetland line, such as boulders or a split rail fence, which he surmised would result in everything to the east of the barrier revegetating with wetland species.

Hartley suggested the commission consider requiring the 15-foot buffer beyond the wetland line, which Doubrava anticipated would also revegetate with wetland species after three years of not being continuously mowed.

While Faneuf appeared immoveable on behalf of his client’s intentions to mow the wetland area, Dufresne reminded the commission that the limit of work of the project before them did not approach the wetland line; therefore, the issue of mowing had no bearing on their ruling. Hartley suggested a permanent fence with a 5-foot buffer, saying he did not like the idea of a fence on the wetland line.

Doubrava persisted with his concerns, saying “Let’s be clear – [he] plans to cut in the wetland area to the stone wall. … [If] anyone came before us to mow wetlands, we’d say no!”

Walsh countered that the cutting is not part of the project, and that the commission can impose a special condition of the permanent barrier, which the applicant could appeal.

Although Dufresne seemed amenable to this condition, landowner Mark Ross addressed the commission directly and affirmed his position, saying he’s been mowing the lawn since 1976.

“[If we’d] have to give that up, we’d prefer not to, [and] consider what our options would be,” said Ross. “[We’d] ask you to approve it so we don’t have to go to that extent.”

At this time, neighbor to the project, Caroline Elkins of 195a Converse Road, spoke before the commission. She contended that the commission did not know exactly where the wetland line was and that the area had not been mowed continuously as the applicant had stated.

“[What I am] wondering is this, to the degree of what is at stake,” said Elkins, “[should we] hire someone independent to measure the wetland line? We’d all benefit from that. That would give us a baseline. … What’s at stake is this incredible wetland.”

There was reluctance on the part of the commission to hire an outside wetland scientist, which would be an added burden to the applicant.

Elkins questioned the urgency of the decision, suggesting, “With all due respect, there’s really no rush. … [Getting] soil samples would be good – someone independent, not with a vested interest.” She continued, “A small price to pay to have the knowledge of the precise line. … Wouldn’t it be great to have all the info on the table?”

Doubrava interjected that, in the five years he has been on the commission, “I have never had anyone saying, ‘I’m going to mow the wetlands because I’ve been doing it for years.’”

Walsh spoke in favor of the wetland line, and against asking the applicant to hire another wetland scientist, citing the commission’s experience in accurately evaluating the veracity of a wetland delineation.

“Maybe I misheard,” said Elkins. “It wasn’t so much soils as plants were tested. [If it was] mowed for 50 years, plants that would typically be there may be gone. … [It’s] destroyed in its accuracy due to mowing.”

Dufresne reminded the commission that, at the site visit, they agreed where the wetland line was and confirmed that the distance from the wetland line to the limit of work is 45 feet.

Elkins pushed the commission to consider discussing both the wetland and zoning issues simultaneously with the zoning department. She continued to question the assertion that the area had been continuously mowed, which prompted Faneuf to tell the commission that the issue for his client is not the wetland line, but the potential for losing his lawn, adding, “My counsel is to not give up. Upon appeal, [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection] would say it’s a preexisting use and it would hold. … Preexisting use is the issue – that’s where the brick wall is.”

The commission closed the public hearing and will seek further advice from town counsel regarding the zoning issue. They must issue an Order of Conditions or deny the project within 21 days.

In other business, the commission issued an Order of Conditions for a project at 43 Dexter Road to demolish a cottage and construct a new single-family house. The commission required the applicants to install a pervious stone driveway and drywells for roof run-off.

The Tremont Christian Camp submitted a Request for Determination of Applicability to repair an existing seawall located at 45 Oakdale Avenue. The commission had visited the site, and believed the project required the use of machinery and other heavy equipment. They, therefore, issued a positive determination, stating that the work described is within an area subject to the Wetland Protection Act and required the filing of a Notice of Intent.

Annmarie Levins and Linda Severin were granted a three-year extension to their Order of Conditions for the eradication of phragmites at 53 Dexter Road.

The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, October 24 at 7:00 pm in the Marion Town House.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Sarah French Storer