The Rochester Country Fair did not amass any profits this year, Kelly Morgado from the Country fair Committee reported on October 1 to the Board of Selectmen. In fact, this year it lost money.

Providing the board with a recap of the 2018 country fair, Morgado reported, “It went extremely well, except for the horrific weather on Saturday evening, so we took a huge financial hit.”

Morgado said the festivities and entertainment planned for that Saturday cost the committee roughly $10,000, and due to the poor weather, there were no proceeds that evening from admissions fees.

“So we actually lost money this year versus what we started with,” said Morgado. “We have money in the account, but we did not make money this year.”

To mitigate the loss, Morgado proposed adding further fundraisers for the upcoming year, beyond the six the committee is allowed as per the committee’s agreement with the Town. She hopes to host a clambake and another antique tractor pull, among other things in 2019.

“That will help us recoup some of the money that we lost at the fair this year,” said Morgado.

Morgado reported on the country fair’s first beer garden, also, saying that, although there were no problems that resulted from serving beer and wine at the event, there were setbacks to how the beer garden was cordoned off from the rest of the fair.

“People were happy that it was there, [but] it was just very awkward how it was set up,” said Morgado. The beer garden had physical barriers with a police officer inside, sometimes with two, Morgado said. “We had absolutely no problems, except if somebody was there with their younger children the children couldn’t go in.”

Morgado has since spoken with police, “And our feedback was to open it up to the fairgrounds and not have a sectioned area,” said Morgado. “If that’s approved, then we can obviously put on more officers for details if that’s one of the requirements.”

The committee also presented a number of maintenance projects, including electrical work that will be done with the assistance of Old Colony students and staff, and some gate and fence work, as well as a well tank relocation.

One proposal for building a pavilion structure at the fairgrounds to save money on tent rentals was a mild concern for Board of Selectmen Chairman Greenwood “Woody” Hartley.

“I’m not sure about the [pavilion] building because that appears to be a permanent structure and I think one of the things we agreed was no permanent structures,” said Hartley.

Morgado said tent rental prices tripled this year to almost $7,000, and a pavilion, which would be built using mostly volunteer labor and donated materials, would bring tent rental needs down to just one tent.

“Many of these things … need to have, in my opinion, the approval and support of the neighbors before I personally would even consider them,” said Hartley.

Selectman Brad Morse sits on the Rochester Country fair Committee, and he suggested to Morgado that they discuss this list of requests at the committee’s next meeting.

“I’m looking at the hit we took this year and trying to figure out how we can make it better,” Morgado said, adding another request: “To not have this [discussion] drag on for months.

“We have got to figure out what were going do – probably now, which I know is not gonna happen,” Morgado said.

Police Chief Robert Small did comment that he would be willing to talk about opening the entire fair up to serving alcohol, saying, “Obviously, my suggestion would be the same thing – have a conversation and figure out what’s best for public safety, but I’m certainly willing to have a conversation.”

Also during the meeting, the board reviewed the seven-article warrant for the November 19 Fall Special Town Meeting taking place at RMS at 6:30 pm.

Article 1 codified the existing zoning bylaws with no change to the substance of the bylaws.

Article 2 pertains to the Green Communities Act: adding a solar energy overlay district to allow by-right use of the town’s capped landfill for a solar array project. Article 3 would provide another overlay district option for voters to consider relative to satisfying the Green Communities Act, this one for alternative energy research, development, or manufacturing limited to the existing industrial zone.

Article 4, another article related to Green Communities, adopts the new building Stretch Code, which Bailey said is already very close to the current building code, according to the building commissioner.

Article 5 is general housekeeping of zoning bylaws that will include multi-family conversion, relocating the table of accessory uses, addressing temporary storage container use on private property, referencing the preservation of agriculture within the Agricultural/Residention zone, and providing a waiver for the use of combustible engines on certain ponds, specifically reserving waivers for scientific survey or study.

Article 6 would appropriate a financial sum to upgrade to the Town’s property evaluation software that will cost at least $15,000, and Article 7 is for $10,000 to hire a grant writer to assist the Town is seeking new grant opportunities.

In other matters, the board will hold a dog nuisance hearing for Liberal and Melinda Teixeira of 368 North Avenue.

Town Counsel Blair Bailey informed the board that there have been several complaints from neighbors about the presence of dogs on the property barking, and the animal control officer has been to the site at least once.

The Teixeiras and their dogs have a history with dog nuisance complaints, first appearing before the Board of Selectmen in 2014 and given specific orders for licensing and a sound-proof kennel building to mitigate noise. Bailey said in 2015 the Teixeiras were found in violation and the matter was taken to court.

“They’re now back to breeding dogs and having dogs outside again barking,” said Bailey, and he requested a new dog nuisance hearing to take place at the next meeting.

According to Bailey, the Teixeiras currently do not have a license to operate a kennel at their residence.

The board will review the WasteZero curbside textile and “soft” recycling program contract and make a decision during a special meeting reserved specifically for WasteZero at 9:00 am Thursday, October 4.

The next regular meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for October 15 at 6:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

The consensus among residents was that the public forum the Marion Board of Selectmen held on September 20 was helpful and should take place more often; however, residents disputed Town Administrator Paul Dawson’s claim that the consensus among townspeople was to renovate the existing Town House instead of building a new one at the Community Center property.

Five discussion topics were chosen based on their imminence – all relevant and definitely important – but none rose to the top of the wastewater and water-related discussion with more vigor than the Town House renovation topic did.

Dawson broached the subject referring it as the “continuing saga of the Town House,” saying that, after considerable discussion and at the suggestion of the Board of Selectmen, the Town would be compartmentalizing the renovation, taking it in “smaller bites” and “more manageable chunks,” as Dawson put it, spreading out renovation projects over time.

“I think the board and I – and I think many, if not most people – I think there seems to be consensus gelling around this idea that the existing Town House is sort of the sentiment – the majority of sentiment – that that’s where the attention should be, so we’re looking at the preservation of our existing Town House through a number of different ways,” Dawson said.

Dawson said he reached out to two members of the original Town House Building Committee, Bob Raymond and Bill Saltonstall, along with the architect of the original Town House renovation project and the facilities director, to look at a “plan of attack” to start with the envelop of the building to seal out moisture and replace exterior features like the roof and gutters.

And once we’ve protected the building from potential leaks, we can then focus on how best to renovate and continue progress of updating the Town House,” said Dawson.

One resident asked why the ball field next to the Town House wasn’t explored for a possible “extended Town House,” to which Selectman Randy Parker replied, “We thought that we could garner some CPC funds … to do what we can do to preserve it.

“The select board doesn’t feel we can afford anything else right now,” continued Parker. “Fix what we got, try to do it right, and fix it for the future.”

Selectmen Chairman Norm Hills added, “Plus the fact that we can’t just keep doing nothing. It’s gonna fall down around us.”

Resident Vincent Malkoski questioned Dawson’s use of the word “consensus,” saying, “Consensus of whom, the selectmen?”

It was the voters at Town Meeting who appropriated funding for a study of the Community Center site for a new building, and then no presentation of the findings were given to the voters during Town Meeting, said Malkoski.

“That is unacceptable,” said Malkoski. “I don’t care what the costs are, and maybe it didn’t work out, but they’re telling us that, in a meeting amongst yourselves, you had the consensus and somehow that represented the will of the town? That is not acceptable.”

Dawson responded, “The consensus I was referring to was not the consensus of the Board of Selectmen, although I think it is, but I think it’s the consensus of the town – it’s a measurement of a number of different votes that happened over the course of time at Town Meeting.”

Hills addressed Malkoski’s assertion that the study’s findings were not presented to the voters, pointing out that the board held a public forum at Sippican School presenting both plans back in March.

“It was a consensus of that meeting of everyone that was there that it was to vote the Town House,” said Hills.

Selectman Jon Waterman defended the notion of the consensus, saying that while he was running for Board of Selectmen earlier this year, many people approached him about renovating the Town House, even going as far as saying Waterman would only receive their vote if he supported preserving the Town House.

“Not one person came up to me and said ‘I want the VFW,’” said Waterman. “Not one person said to me, ‘I want the VFW or I won’t vote for you.’”

It was during a July meeting that selectmen expressed their opinion that a piecemeal-type approach to renovating the Town House would be the direction the Town would take.

“So you did it in a selectmen’s meeting. How many people were there?” asked Malkoski. “It’s not right … it’s not the way to do business. Put it out front, let people discuss it, and then move forward with it.”

Malkoski called it “troubling,” suggesting the Town House renovation was “rammed through” in a non-transparent fashion.

“Town Meeting is where you present that stuff,” Malkoski said. “That’s when we vote – it should not be a backdoor deal.”

Dawson later added, “Never before in my time here have we gone to Town Meeting with choices for construction. It’s talked about; it’s vetted in a series of public meetings and it’s presented.” Referring to the police station project and the Sippican School expansion, Dawson continued, “Never were there competing articles at Town Meeting. It didn’t happen then, and it didn’t happen now, and that’s because it’s imprudent to bring multiple articles to Town Meeting for the same type of project.”

“It’s about the money,” said Waterman, “and this town can’t afford $8 million to go to renovate it, and it can’t afford $5 million to build at the VFW site.

“The most cost effective way to do it is to do it over time by gradually fixing the existing Town House and using CPC funds … which means we can do the renovation for the minimal cost to the taxpayer.”

On a different matter – the Carver, Marion, Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District (CMWRRDD), the town’s regionalized trash service – some residents wanted to know who should have been watching over matters before mismanagement and mishandling of finances became an issue.

What is important to remember, said Dawson, is that the CMWRRDD is a “separate body politic” and not a part of the Town of Marion.

“And I think people think it is,” Dawson said. “They don’t answer to me, to the Town of Marion, or the selectmen. It’s a separate board and they do their own thing.”

Then who supervises them, the public wanted to know. Dawson explained that the CMWRRDD has its own committee, with each of the three towns’ board of selectmen appointing two members. Those members, said Dawson, relied on the information provided to it by former executive director Ray Pickles, whom the committee fired back in February.

“They can only be as good and effective as the information they receive, and if that information is either inaccurate or simply untrue then it’s difficult … to monitor that properly,” said Dawson.

Dawson recounted how earlier this year the three towns became suspicious after Pickles issued them each an assessment for trash disposal after years of no assessments. The town administrators then discovered that Pickles had not performed a single one of the required annual audits since 2012. Funds were missing, as well as supporting financial documents, leaving the district in financial turmoil.

But now, Dawson stated, with the institution of new practices and the hiring of a new executive director, “We hope that we will be able to right the ship and ensure that what we experienced there won’t happen again – can’t happen again – and we’ll continue to march forward.”

The board also discussed the wastewater treatment project and the ongoing efforts to meet the EPA’s stricter limits on phosphorus and nitrogen. Regionalizing wastewater services with Wareham, Bourne, and Massachusetts Maritime Academy was also discussed, but a study is ongoing and further information won’t be available until the two-year study is completed.

The residents also heard a bit about water infrastructure upgrades and well site restoration, and the board briefly described an exploration of fire safety enhancement by adding more hydrants.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

The Marion Zoning Board of Appeals postponed taking a final vote on the Tabor Academy light tower proposal in order to seek advice from town counsel regarding the Dover Amendment.

Under Massachusetts General Law, the Dover Amendment exempts agricultural, religious, and educational institutions from certain zoning restrictions.

The board took up the proposal by Tabor Academy to install five 90-foot high light towers at their athletics field on the village campus. After Chairman Marc Leblanc acknowledged that he and board member Betsy Dunn could not vote that evening, he opened up the discussion to the full board.

Member Tad Wollenhaupt led the methodical review of the six criteria the board uses when contemplating a Special Permit: considering if the proposal fulfilled any social, economic, or community needs – the board agreed it did not.

There was more discussion with regard to the question of traffic flow and safety. ZBA member Michelle Smith appeared to believe that traffic would be increased by night games, remarking, “I feel, having games that are lit, more people are going to show up. … I don’t have a magic ball [but] it’s more inviting.”

Leblanc supported Smith’s idea that there was potential for increased safety issues with increased parking and loading.

“If there’s an apartment building we can gauge the number of cars,” said LeBlanc. “This is wide open.”

The rest of the board felt it was not an issue, observing that the use of the field would be similar to what it already has been.

Everyone agreed to the adequacy of utilities and services, but hit a snag on the question of neighborhood character and social structures. Leblanc noted that the school is located in a neighborhood, affecting the feel of the area, and the larger the school becomes, the more it impacts the character of the neighborhood.

Remarking on the effect of the brilliant lights, member Kate Mahoney said, “You’re going to see these lights from a far distance, lit up or not. [They] don’t fit into the character and social environment. Residentially, there is nothing like it.”

ZBA member Bob Alves observed that these events have been going on for years, to which Mahoney replied, “Yes, without lights!”

Wollenhaupt pointed out that the lights are designed to have minimum light creep, but acknowledged that the towers are still 90 feet tall. Mahoney described the towers as “trying to hide an elephant in a corner.”

The board dispensed quickly with the last two questions of impacts on the natural environment and fiscal impacts to the town, citing little to no impact on either.

Leblanc expressed the overarching concern that the way Tabor describes the use of the towers now does not accurately reflect how they may be used in the future. Mahoney added that if the towers are built, all the restrictions imposed by the board will then need to be enforced, and the approval would be a slippery slope leading to other requests.

Wollenhaupt noted that Tabor could, by right, build 35-foot poles, which he surmised would be far worse, shining into neighbors’ homes and creating glare. ZBA member David Bramley remarked there would be many more 35-foot poles than the five 90-foot towers proposed. Mahoney countered that the 35-foot poles would be more in keeping with the scale of the village. Leblanc commented, “[I’d] hate to take a vote on something so [Tabor doesn’t] do something else.”

Smith reminded the board, with support from Mahoney, that in the past, if an application did not meet all the criteria, it did not get a Special Permit. Mahoney then asked the board to clarify its position on the Dover Amendment, which states in part that no zoning ordinance or bylaw … “prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures … for educational purposes … or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures.”

Mahoney suggested that the educational status of Tabor gives this request “a special twist.” And while Leblanc remarked that he thought the board was done with this particular issue, Wollenhaupt stated that Town Counsel Jon Witten had advised that the question to consider was, did the athletic fields fulfill an educational purpose?

Mahoney made a motion that the Dover Amendment did not apply to this proposal, but it failed with a vote of 3-2, with Wollenhaupt, Alves, and Bramley voting no. Mahoney then sought to clarify the vote.

Wollenhaupt stated he believed the towers provide an educational opportunity.

Mahoney, who appeared frustrated and uncomfortable with the decision, predicted, “This changes everything. I think they just got their lights. I don’t know what to do next. I need legal guidance.”

Leblanc said he didn’t think this meant they had carte blanche on everything, but Mahoney disagreed, saying, “I think it’s a slippery slope – potential extensions are enormous.”

Smith appeared to agree, saying, “[This] changes how they can approach things. … Once we say this and use this for this [it] allows it for the next thing they present.”

After an extended silence, Leblanc expressed a concern about moving forward without legal counsel, saying, “My gut is that we don’t decide if the Dover Amendment applies. We discuss it. It would come into play if we decide against [the proposal]. The Dover Amendment would come into play in court.”

Mahoney made a motion to nullify the previous vote on the Dover Amendment so legal questions could be asked, to be voted on at a later date, which passed unanimously.

Mahoney lamented, “The problem is we look indecisive.”

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 4 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Sarah French Storer