It was late into a long night of complicated cases being heard on January 15 when the members of the Rochester Conservation Commission were shown photographic evidence of illegal cutting taking place on property known as the Old Boy Scout Camp located at 0 Mary’s Pond Road.

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon displayed photos she recently took at the property.

“I was notified of cutting taking place at the old Boy Scout Camp,” she began. She said she contacted the owner, Jose Araujo, who confirmed to her that he had in fact cut down trees in advance of construction of a new single-family house. After receiving permission from Araujo to visit the site, she met with the owner’s representative, Richard Charon of Charon Engineering, on January 14 for a site inspection.

Once at the site, she took photos that showed tree clearing within the 100-foot buffer zone and within 25 feet of the wetlands. As the images were displayed, the commissioners had a hard time controlling their horror.

“It’s unfortunate,” Farinon sadly declared, especially given that the previous owners had given the Town the right of first refusal and the commission had supported the purchase. However, the price tag put the proposed acquisition out of the question. Now the virgin woodlands were being cut down without regard for local and state regulations, she said.

Farinon said she had prepared a letter for the commission to consider sending to Araujo that confirmed the illegal cutting as a violation of regulations, but the commission wanted something more.

They discussed whether or not they had the authority to demand a planting restoration plan with fines if not submitted by a requested date or completed within a specified timeframe. They also discussed whether or not they could mandate erosion control measures now, considering that the pond’s bank area may have been compromised in some areas and stormwater runoff becoming problematic.

Farinon was authorized to discuss the matter with town counsel and to prepare to move forward as directed by counsel and the commission.

Earlier in the evening, Bob Rogers of G.A.F. Engineering discussed two filings for the same property, the former U.S.D.A offices located at 15 Cranberry Highway.

As Rogers explained, the first part of his presentation was a request for a Certificate of Compliance for work that either took place in the late 1990s, was constructed but not to the plan of record, or was never constructed at all.

The property owners, Decas Real Estate Trust, are presently planning on selling the property to Schoen and Bonnie Morrison who plan on renovating the existing structures into a daycare center and event rental space. That proposed project was the second application Rogers was representing on this night.

Rogers explained that the current Order of Conditions registered against the deed needed to be cleared in order for the sale to be completed in April.

The commissioners struggled with which should go first, the Certificate of Compliance or the Morrisons’ Notice of Intent filing. Rogers explained that the NOI plans would in essence repair and clean up work that was improperly done with the original Order of Conditions. He launched into a detailed explanation of the stormwater drainage plans, a major component of the current state of the property being questioned. If the certificate was approved, they wondered, and the sale fell through, it would leave Decas with a clear deed to move forward to another plan.

In the end both cases were continued until February 5.

Also continued until February 5 were continued public hearings for: an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Delineation filed by Steve Longo for the installation of a solar array located at 75 Vaughan Hill Road necessitated by a question of wetlands being missed on the far western corner of the property; and a Notice of Intent filed by REpurpose Properties for the construction of 22 duplex units for an age-restricted community located at Rounseville Road owned by Gibbs and Patricia Bray. The continuance was necessary when Commission Chairman Michael Conway asked Brian Wallace of J.C. Engineering where the discharged water eventually flowed. The filing requested upgrades to an existing discharge pipe that currently does not provide any water filtration. Conway thought that, depending on where the water eventually flowed, it might impact which regulatory office was responsible for the work. The hearing was continued until February 5.

Related to the REpurpose filing was another Notice of Intent filed by Sofia Darras, a third owner of the same site. Darras hired G.A.F. Engineering to review water calculations and other aspects of the discharge pipe upgrades with a plan to install a new drainage system. That was continued until February 5.

Also continued until February 5 was a new Notice of Intent filing by T-Mobile for property located at 98 Bowen’s Lane for the installation of a new back-up generator. Questions raised by commissioner Daniel Gagne as to whether or not the filing contained documentation on maintenance and emergency clean up procedures prompted Marty Cohen of Network Building and Consulting to request the continuance.

Receiving a Negative determination for a Request for Determination of Applicability was Kenneth Viera, 54 Vaughan Hill Road, for the removal of fallen trees and the application of new blue stone on an existing driveway.

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for February 5 at 7:00 pm in the Rochester Town Hall meeting room.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

After a brief holiday hiatus, the Marion Conservation Commission tackled a full agenda on January 9, including the sticky issue of a conservation restriction (CR) violation at The Cove.

Vice Chairman Shaun Walsh summarized the prior meeting’s discussion during which the commission gave residents of The Cove time to think about the violation of the Conservation Restriction that the town holds on the open land portion of the property.

The restriction, granted in 1998 during the permit phase of the development, was part of the requirement to restrict a portion of the premises in order to develop the parcel under the Cluster Residential Housing section of the zoning bylaws. At issue is a fence, which The Cove placed along the boundary of the CR in September 2018, apparently to replace vegetation that had been destroyed in a storm.

Walsh stated that he believed the placement of the fence was in clear violation of the CR, and while he appeared to voice some understanding as to The Cove’s motivation for erecting the fence, he said, “[The] commission is charged with protecting the CR, and should not ignore it – [this would] set a dangerous precedent.”

He added that he would like to hear proposals from The Cove for rectifying the issue, noting that the commission had been told the fence was erected to shield houses from the lights of oncoming cars and unsightly automobiles stored on the adjacent property.

“Vegetation used to provide this function,” said Walsh. “[Is there an] alternative to the fence more in keeping with the purposes of the CR?”

Kathy Reed, a member of the Board at The Cove, questioned the commission on the exact violation.

“[T]he Open Land shall be retained predominantly in its natural, scenic, open space condition, for conservation of wildlife habitat and recreational purposes, and for the protection of natural habitat and environmental systems,” Walsh replied, citing the language in the CR. He went on to quote the CR at length, notably in the prohibited acts section: “The construction or placement of … temporary or permanent structure on, above, or under the Premises.”

Reed responded that it was a tough situation, having lost “sixty-percent of the vegetation” during a storm, and that headlights and unregistered cars had been an issue.

Commission member Cynthia Callow suggested The Cove replant trees and take the fence down, while Walsh clarified that there was no way to leave the fence in place and the commission was looking for The Cove to pursue a natural way to achieve the same goal.

Reed suggested that this was a subjective opinion of the commission and that The Cove had taken into consideration the natural scenic beauty of the site, keeping the fence the same size and structure as other fences on the property. Reed also observed that the fence was very expensive, to which Walsh replied, “I hate to sound unsympathetic, but the cost of [abiding by] the CR is not the issue.”

Chairman Jeff Doubrava informed Reed that the CR is attached to everyone’s deed within The Cove. Walsh suggested that Reed may consider speaking with The Cove’s legal counsel as they develop a proposal for the commission; however, he said, “In my opinion, keeping that fence in that location is not an option.”

Doubrava added that Reed might also look into the exact location of the fence, and determine if by moving it slightly, it would be off the CR. Reed said she would consult with other members of the Board and return to the commission in the coming month.

Also during the meeting, David Davignon, of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates presented to the commission three Notices of intent, all of which were continued two weeks, pending more information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The first NOI was for the construction of a residential pier facility into the waterway of Wings Cove, on behalf of E. Byron Hensley Jr. located at 95 Holly Road. A boardwalk had been approved by a prior owner, and Davignon referred to this project as a re-permitting of a prior project. This four-foot wide elevated board walk would be shifted to the north of where it had been originally proposed, to access deeper water. It will begin at an existing deck off the house, slope down to the water, crossing 265 feet of bordering vegetated wetland and saltmarsh. It will connect with a 101-foot pier, 20-foot gangway, and float. Davignon noted that he was unclear where the transition from freshwater wetland to saltmarsh occurred because of the presence of thick phragmites growth. Doubrava remarked that while on the commission’s site visit, they noticed that the phragmites had been clear-cut and branches trimmed, information that clearly surprised Davignon. The applicant has applied to the Army Corps and also to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for a waterways license and received comments from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries with some suggestions. Davignon also stated that the harbormaster had verbally noted that he did not have a problem with the proposal. Portions of the boardwalk would be 5 feet above the marsh, which would provide the required public access across the marsh.

The second NOI Davignon presented was downstream from the prior applicant, located at 51 Holly Road, and owned by Paul and Christine Driscoll. This proposed boardwalk would be 145 feet long following a historic path to the water. The boardwalk will be 3 feet and then widen to 4 feet across the water to a gangway and float. The application includes cutting phragmites. Driscoll commented to the board that he had inadvertently cut the invasive vegetation when he first purchased the property prior to learning that he needed a permit. The applicant will provide stairs on either side of the pier to provide public access over the pier to cross the marsh.

Lastly, the Weweantic Realty Trust filed a NOI application to repair an existing pier at 312 Delano Road. The pier structure is supported with existing boulders and corroded steel pilings. Davignon proposed driving two sets of piles on the outside of the pier and to remove the steel pilings. He also proposed upgrading the planking on the deck of the pier in the same footprint of the current pier, and proposed no change to the ramp or float. No public access is required because this is an old pier and the work is considered “minor project modification”. The applicant did request a widening of the access to the pier to accommodate the removal of the float onto the lawn area in the winter.

In other business, the commission extended the permit at 122 Register Road for three years to finalize any work not completed at the site and they issued a Certificate of Compliance for 41 Dexter Road.

The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for January 23 at 7:00 pm in the Marion Town House.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Sarah French Storer

The developer of a proposed solar farm has filed a lawsuit against the Marion Planning Board for what it considers an “improper denial.”

Solar developer ZPT Energy Solutions LLC filed a complaint with the Land Court on December 28 after the Planning Board denied the special permit request to construct a 21+-acre solar farm at 78 Wareham Street. ZPT is asking that the Court overturn the Planning Board’s decision and order the board to grant the special permit, alleging that the board’s interpretation of its own bylaw unreasonably restricts solar energy projects.

Within the denial decision finalized on December 10, the board classified the clearing of about 18 acres of forest “large-scale” clear cutting. ZPT’s argument was that the Town’s solar bylaw failed to define “large-scale,” and that the clear-cutting of roughly 86 percent of the proposed solar array field site was not large-scale.

The vote to adopt the language was 5-2, with board members Eileen Marum and Chris Collings dissenting, while also lamenting the denial of the special permit.

“There’s no way to quantify ‘large-scale,’” Marum argued. “We don’t have anything that quantifies that.”

Despite their dissenting votes, Marum and Collings have both been named as defendants in the complaint that includes the individual members as well as the Planning Board as a whole.

As of press time on January 15, the counsel for the Marion Planning Board had yet to file a response to the complaint with the Land Court.

By Jean Perry