On August 27, the residents and property owners of Foster Street lobbied the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission one more time to halt plans for the paving of Foster Street, a portion of which is private property.

The issue of who owns the roadway was debated during the July 9 Notice of Intent hearing filed by John and Roger Gibbons that resulted in a continuation until the August 27 meeting. During that July hearing, Kevin and Laura McLean, represented by Attorney Robert Feingold, made the case that the Gibbonses did not own the 675-foot unpaved portion of Foster Street, and that deeds held by abutters demonstrated their ownership rights.

At that time, Chairman Mike King, in agreement with Attorney Peter Paul representing the Gibbonses, moved to continue the hearing until town counsel could review the application and the assertions brought forward by the McLeans, et al.

And now, during the August 27 continuation, King stated that town counsel Matthew Thomas had, in fact, affirmed the Gibbonses’ right to proceed. He said Thomas had spoken to Feingold and Paul, and that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection confirmed the roadway was not located within an endangered species habitat or a flood zone.

On the matter of stormwater management, the applicants’ engineer, Alan Ewing, said there was a culvert along the roadway and that, although its exact location and effectiveness was in question, those issues would be addressed during construction.

“I’m comfortable with the plan,” said King. “I want to affirm that the DEP, highway superintendent, and other public safety departments are all in favor of asphalt to protect natural resources.” He said the abutters could appeal the commission’s decision, but alluded to that being unproductive given a DEP file number had already been secured for the project.

Laura McLean rose to speak, saying, “This sounds like it’s a lost cause,” but asked to read aloud a letter drafted by her husband who could not be present at the hearing.

The strongly worded letter reads in part: “To be clear, the land is individually owned, not communally, the deeds are clear, and we collectively do not wish our land to be blacktopped.”

            McLean also wrote that, last summer, the Gibbonses started the roadway project, but were halted when neighbors protested and law enforcement was called to the scene. McLean also asked that King recuse himself from the hearing, alleging a professional involvement in an asphalt company.

After reading her husband’s letter, McLean repeated previous comments that asphalt contained chemicals and other hazardous materials that would leach into wetlands, and she refuted King’s statements that blacktop was the best choice for roadways near wetlands adding, “Would you put asphalt in your fish tank?”

King responded, “For the record I do not own any asphalt company, I simply work as a … health and safety consultant.”

Karen Fields, a member of the Mattapoisett Planning Board, questioned why the commission would allow the application of asphalt to Foster Street when it favorably allowed a driveway project planned for Snow Field Roads to be gravel. King said that the two projects were not the same, pointing to the fact that Foster Street was an altered area, whereas the project at Snow Field Road was virgin territory.

“It’s not that [the Conservation Commission is] in favor of the project,” said King. “We have no standing to deny it. … All we can do is condition it.”

Paul said the Gibbonses were willing to install speed bumps along the roadway, and they had no intention of extending Foster Street to Route 6. He also said his clients were not intending to ask the Town to take over ownership of the piece of Foster Street they owned.

“I get it,” King said to the abutters. “No one likes change, but you can make it the best project for all concerned.”

The hearing was continued until September 10 at which time the applicants are to return with a new plan of record.

In other business, the commission gave negative determinations of applicability to Richard Pease, 228 North Street, for the construction of a three-season room; Karen Keenan, 63 Mattapoisett Neck Road, for a second-floor living space over an existing first-floor porch; Tucker, Aufranc, Peter and Nancy Anas, and Ross Petersen for lots along Holly Woods Road for the purpose of clearing out deadwood and the removal of dying trees in a former Christmas tree farm; Lawrence Jarvis, 5 Euclid Avenue, for tree cutting; the YMCA, Reservation Road, to rebuild the infield and relocate the backstop of the ball field.

A Notice of Intent filing by Todd Withers, 12 Oliver Street, was conditioned for the construction of a sunroom addition.

Certificates of Compliance were issued to Michael Solimando for new homes constructed on Appaloosa Lane.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for September 10 at 6:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

Coming before the Mattapoisett Board of Health on August 21 was Attorney James Marsh representing local farmer, Michael King.

Before the meeting began Chairman Carmelo Nicolosi explained to Marsh and King that a letter submitted by Marsh dated August 20 had to be submitted to town counsel before the BOH could discuss the matter.

Further, Nicolosi said that Town Administrator Michael Gagne had advised him that if King arrived to the meeting with legal representation then the meeting should be continued until the town’s counsel had weighed in on the matter. Nicolosi said, “We are not in a position to comment until town counsel sees the letter.”

The matter being discussed became clear when King played a July 18 voicemail he received from BOH inspector Robert Ethier. In it Ethier tells King that BOH agent Dale Barrows asked him to “check in with you” regarding alleged catering activities. Ethier tells King that the BOH has questions regarding whether or not he has the proper permits. Ethier also advises King that the state had been contacted.

King told the BOH members that on July 14 he roasted a pig at a residence in Assonet for a private party. He asserted that the sale of a live animal to a private party was outside regulations and that the pig had been transported to a certified slaughterhouse in Rhode Island and then roasted at the Assonet home.

“It was a private function on private property,” King said. He added that he did not cater the event, did not provide anything other than the pig that he roasted for his customer on the customer’s property. Of the inspector, King said, “In his haste to investigate the activity, he notified the DPH and USDA.”

Marsh’s letter in response to the allegations brought by Ethier states that his actions, “resulted in the filing of a complaint with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the USDA. We understand the acts taken were unauthorized, unilateral and without any basis or proof of the “Farm” violating any requirements or regulations. In fact, we understand the acts arose as a result of the Agent observing a photograph of a roasted pig posted on Facebook.”

King said that the sale of the live pig and subsequent butchering at a certified facility were exempt from inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

Marsh’s letter refers to the actions by Ethier as “harassment.”

Nicolosi asked King what his objective was in meeting with the BOH on this day. King responded, “To clear the air – that I’m conducting legal activities.” He said he was not catering food and his only products were the animals. Nicolosi said everything would be passed along to town counsel, “That’s as far as we get today.” He added that the BOH had not received any notifications from the USDA.

In other matters, Barrows told the board members that the town had received a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in the amount of $20,000. He said the funds would be used to educate the community on proper recycling techniques. Barrows said that his office would be planning a program that would engage senior citizens in teams of two to inspect recycling bins to make sure residents were placing the right type of recyclables in them.

Board of Health Assistant Kate Tapper said that the bin inspectors would place tags on those that contained materials unsuitable for recycling. She said that records would be kept over an eight-week period to ascertain if the residents being notified of problems with their bins were improving. Tapper told the board members that the biggest problems were dirty recyclable materials, recyclables being placed in a plastic trash bag and then into the bin, and using the recycling bin for regular trash.

Barrows said the objective was to get the residents to do all they could in an effort to reduce the costs associated with waste management, “Currently we pay between $35 to $65 per ton depending on how dirty things are.” He said that non-recyclable trash costs $60 per ton.

            The board members also discussed increasing education at the grade school level, engaging ABC to assist in that effort, and to send the schools materials about proper recycling practices to be carried home by the children.

Barrows advised the board members that costs associated with the disposal of televisions and mattresses had increased. Presently he said the transfer station is charging $30 for televisions and $20 for most mattresses. He said that ABC was charging the town $35 for such items. The board concurred that increased costs had to be passed along to the public.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Board of Health may be cancelled for the month of September Barrows said. More information will be available at www.mattapoisett.net.

Mattapoisett Board of Health

By Marilou Newell