The Marion Board of Health wants to regulate and require a permit for private residents to grow recreational marijuana at home, and it approved the draft regulation during its April 24 meeting.

The board has been under the advisement of its casual consultant, Cheryl Sbarra from the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, on possible municipal regulation of recreational marijuana commercial establishments, and in a general “model” regulation she provided to the board there is a policy option to permit and regulate “grow your own” so-called “operations.” This option, however, is marked by an asterisk because Sbarra, and the committee she sits on, is uncertain any board of health has the legal authority to do so.

The law that was enacted upon voters’ adoption of the 2016 statewide referendum Question 4 to legalize recreational marijuana granted to citizens the right to grow six plants per adult, up to 12 plants, within the home without a permit.

The Marion Board of Health’s draft regulation does not specify how much they would like to charge a resident for a permit to home grow marijuana that they are legally allowed to grow, but the regulation does specify that permits would expire on December 31 of every year and need to be renewed.

The board also inserted a section that would require compliance of home inspections. The section reads, “Each applicant shall submit to a pre-approval inspection by the Marion Board of Health or its designated agents, which may include fire officials and building inspectors, to ensure that the location for cultivation complies with public health and safety requirements and practices, including fire safety and building code provisions.”

            Another section states that residents would have to submit to further “reasonable” inspections, while another section states that, should the Board of Health or its agents encounter mold or other diseases infecting the plants, the Town could then destroy the plants, “…as well as surrounding plants, to prevent a threat to the public’s health.”

            In a follow-up after the meeting, the Board of Health was not entirely confident on what it was they were regulating. When asked if the regulations they approved that night would regulate the six plants per adult (12 maximum per house) or some additional marijuana growing operating inside a home, Chairman John Howard replied, “I’m not sure.”

Howard said he was not sure how many plants an adult was allowed to grow at home at this time, and whether a town-issued permit would affect that number.

When asked why the board chose to include a section requiring a home cultivation permit, which is not required in any Massachusetts community, Howard mistakenly stated, “The [Cannabis Control Commission] established that as part of the state regulation.”

The CCC released its comprehensive regulations on recreational adult-use marijuana commercial and retail establishments in March, but it did not include any language pertaining to personal home cultivation that would supersede the referendum vote that permits home growing.

The board’s draft regulation does not state a specific fee it would impose should it find legality in the measure, nor did it state any penalty or how it would enforce its regulation.

The rest of the regulations pertain to commercial marijuana establishment licenses, which do not appear to deviate from the CCC’s regulations released in March.

The Board of Health must hold a public hearing on its proposed marijuana regulations allowing for public comment before voting the regulations into law. That public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, May 22, at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

The next regular meeting of the Marion Board of Health is scheduled for May 8 at 4:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Health

By Jean Perry

The Rochester Planning Board has some upgrades it wants to add to the Town’s solar bylaw, and on April 24 board members discussed the best ways to go about bolstering the bylaw and making it a bit more restrictive.

At the top of the list, the board wants to impose a 300-foot setback from any roadway, public or private, unless existing topographical features would naturally screen the solar panels from view.

“That’s not unheard of,” said Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson. “I think this would help us try to preserve somewhat without being too invasive on property owners’ rights.”

But as board member Gary Florindo pointed out, being too close to the panels is just as important to abutting property owners as it is for people passing by on the roads, sending the conversation in another direction with the suggestion of imposing a setback on property lines.

The state and the ensuing bylaws are relatively accommodating to solar developers, Florindo pointed out, “But we should also be accommodating the taxpayers of Rochester.” After all, added board member Ben Bailey, people don’t move to Rochester so they can look out their windows and see a bunch of steel and glass. And with six or seven solar projects lining up for Planning Board approval, as Town Planner Steve Starrett pointed out, the board should get its proverbial ducks in a row.

Board member Chris Silveira suggested that within the residential/agricultural zone – pretty much most of Rochester – maybe current regulations surrounding those setbacks would already apply, and maybe the same 100-foot setback for a “major farm building” should apply to solar panels.

“They are structures,” Johnson pondered.

“Yeah they are,” said Bailey, “and they’re a major structure.”

The board agreed to pose the legal question to Town Counsel Blair Bailey, and if he did not see it that way then the board may pursue a 100-foot setback from abutting lot lines in the solar bylaw.

The board also seeks to reduce the threshold for defining “large-scale” solar farms from 250 kilowatts to 200 kilowatts.

Johnson said he would prefer to address large-scale tree clear-cutting in regards to solar projects as well, but town counsel advised not to try to make too many changes to the bylaw at one time, at the risk of Town Meeting voting down an article proposing numerous changes all at once – something that has happened in the past.

An article that was sponsored by the Board of Selectmen to extend the recreational marijuana establishment moratorium until July 2019 will be vetted during an imminent public hearing before the Planning Board, but according to Starrett, the Attorney General’s Office has declared that it would not be approving any further moratoriums beyond the December 31, 2018 date of expiration. Johnson was unsure how that would play out on the Town Meeting floor, but the board’s only concern is hosting the public hearing and making its own decision on whether to recommend, not recommend, or take no position on the article.

As Johnson pointed out, if the townspeople preferred to ban all recreational marijuana establishments in town, the article would have to be approved by Town Meeting and then a subsequent ballot question would have to pass.

Another article that will be vetted during a public hearing is an amendment to the Site Plan Review Bylaw specifying that an applicant who needs approval by both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals shall appear before the ZBA before it must seek approval from the Planning Board – a “housekeeping” item, as Johnson put it. This amendment would simply save the applicant money on engineering costs and also time, since a project could not come to fruition without ZBA approval and the Site Plan Review is a lengthy process with the Planning Board.

This matter came up during the Rochester Farms appeal, with the appellant party arguing that the bylaw implies a project should go to the Planning Board first before the ZBA.

“So this clarifies it and closes that loophole,” said Johnson.

The public hearings for all these bylaw change articles will be during the board’s May 16 meeting.

In other matters, Johnson announced that the board’s approval of the Borrego Solar Systems solar farm slated for the corner of Rounseville Road at Mendell Road was appealed and will be heard during a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 24 at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for May 8 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester senior center on Dexter Lane.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry

On April 23, the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission began the process of reviewing a multi-structure project proposed off Marion Road/Route 6 by Stingray City Realty Corporation, William Bachant, for a parcel owned by Rahim Aghai.

Representing the applicant in the Notice of Intent hearing was Robert Rego, River Hawk Environmental, who presented the project described as one single-family dwelling and one two-family structure.

Rego said the project consists of 3.75 acres on the south side of Marion Road with a perennial stream bisecting the property. He said that construction would involve 200 feet of the riverfront area and would totally involve the 100-foot buffer zone with 10 percent of the area being developed.

Regarding sewer access, Rego said the project included three pump chambers that would move sewage to the public sewer service available to the site and that public water was also planned.

Stormwater and drainage management was described by Rego as including collection of roof runoff to surface chambers that would move the water to discharge basins.

It was noted from current photographs that the site had already been disturbed and evidenced dumping in jurisdictional areas.

Rego said that before construction, a permanent fence along the wetlands boundary could be installed and debris cleared.

Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold offered suggestions that included terracing of a severe slope to minimize runoff into wetlands, a pre-construction meeting and subsequent regular updates throughout duration of construction, and monitoring of the site during heavy rain events to avoid and mitigate erosion. She also asked the commissioners to consider whether or not a peer review consultant might be needed.

Chairman Mike King said, “I hope that your project won’t add to sediment flow.” He also said that dumping of construction materials, a problem the commission has had to deal with on other projects, could not be an issue on this one saying, “…That concerns us.” He also said he’d like to see firm start and completion dates for the project.

Commissioner Trevor Francis said he needed time to study the project and the potential for a peer review consultant.

King said, “Personally, I don’t think a consultant will give us anything more.” He asked if the Department of Environmental Protection had “weighed-in” on the project. Leidhold said they had not. “There’s no question we need housing stock in Mattapoisett,” King added.

The hearing was continued until May 15 at which time Rego will return with updated drawings based on the commission’s comments.

Also coming before the commission was David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates for Timothy Eilertsen, 0 Brant Island Road, for the construction of a single-family home.

The lot had previous been conditioned for construction by the commission, but now with a new owner the proposed residence and surrounding area had been changed. Eilertsen’s project would include adding fill and grading within the buffer zone to create a landscaped lawn space up to 5-feet along the 50-foot no-touch zone.

Davignon said that Natural Heritage’s April letter indicated no adverse impact from the project and that a permanent rail and post fence along the no touch zone would be installed. The Notice of Intent filing received standard conditioning by the commission and was green-lighted for development.

Davignon also represented Tom Jackivicz and Pamela Pierce for a vacant recreational lot located adjacent to 17 Third Street. The applicants proposed adding fill to the center of the lot to eliminate ponding during rain events, and construction of a patio and fire pit.

King said the patio would have to conform with standards for construction in a coastal zone; therefore, the patio would have to be dry-block versus poured concrete. The Request for Determination of Applicability filing received a Negative 3 determination.

Upgraded sewer projects filed under Requests for Determination of Applicability were approved for Diane and Susan Zartman, 116 Acushnet Road, and Patrick Diggings, 2 Bay Shore Drive.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for May 15 at 6:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

For one family, the April 18 meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals was like a Christmas morning, waking up to find you received what you had been dreaming of.

Representing the 6R North Street Nominee Trust, Thomas Dugan, was Doug Schneider of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, Inc. as they sought a Special Permit to build a small single-story addition to create a first-floor master bedroom suite to an existing home.

Previously the project had been described to the Conservation Commission as necessary in allowing the property owner to remain at home as health issues made accessing bedrooms and the only bathroom in the home on the second floor impossible. By creating a first floor suite, Dugan could remain in the home.

Schneider said the addition would be constructed on the north side of the existing dwelling with a 22-foot setback.

Representing several abutters whose property is located along Captain’s Lane was Attorney Peter Paul.

He identified his client as Vera Gibbons who he said extended her welcome to the returning family while sharing that the Gibbons wanted to be good neighbors and “…Are in favor of the project.” However, the issue of a drainage ditch came up again as it had during the Conservation Commission hearing the previous month.

Paul asked for assurances that the construction as proposed would not negatively impact the drainage along Captain’s Lane and that the Dugan family would maintain the ditch in good operating condition.

Schneider said construction did not include changes to the topography of the property, no grading was planned, and that Dugan had agreed to maintain the drainage ditch.

“Doug’s word is as good as gold,” Paul said, but he did ask that the ditch maintenance be memorialized in any decision made by the board.

Coming forward to speak in favor of the project was Daniel Briggs of 3 North Street who said historic drainage issues plagued the area, but that he didn’t see a problem with the project.

The project was approved with the drainage maintenance condition.

Also coming before the board was Carlton Veeder Construction for his client Robert Trudeau, 34 River Road, for the construction of a small 4-foot by 6-foot bump out to allow for a washing machine and dryer. The Special Permit was approved.

Finally, also seeking a Special Permit was Andrew Perkins for property owned by Byron Crampton, 10 Union Avenue. Perkins has been hired by the owners to construct a cantilevered deck addition to an existing home on stilts. He said the 4-foot addition would allow the family space to enjoy the home’s views. The request was approved as proposed.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for May 17 at 6:00 pm at the Town Hall.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell