It was a very quiet night for the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on December 8 as four board members, two applicants, and a couple of interested bystanders listened to the clock tick down to 7:30 pm.

Chairman Richard Cutler had put a call out to two board members in the hope of having more than four members hear the one application before them. Except for the clock on the wall and the occasional banter between board members, the room was as silent as, well, an empty town hall.

But just before the stroke of 7:30 pm, Kirby Gilmore arrived having hustled over from church choir practice to give Rebecca Trahan better odds for her request for a special permit to convert her 228 Braley Hill Road property from a single family home to a multi-family dwelling.

Cutler explained that with only four members, Trahan would need to receive a positive vote from all to gain the special permit. With five members she would still need four ‘yes’ votes, but should one member vote in the negative, she might still win.

The property in question was described as a 90,000-square foot lot with 225 feet of frontage. The original home was built in 1986. Trahan said that her family of six now included her parents, bringing the total number of occupants up to eight, which is a rather tight fit. The current home is 1,986 square feet and the garage is 750 square feet.

Trahan said that she had been working with Thompson Farland Engineers but did not have fully developed plans for the proposed 1,000 square-foot addition she hoped to build off the garage.

Cutler pointed out that “there is no such thing as an in-law apartment…”

Board member David Arancio said, “I know this area very well. The house was built with the intention of being a single family home.” He noted that the roadway where the home is situated is a very busy road and that the addition would mean additional cars exiting and entering Braley Hill Road, which is what concerned him.

But Kirby Gilmore pointed out, “It’s Route 105, a state road.”

Regarding the septic system, Trahan said that if the project were approved, improvements to the system would be made.

Cutler said that the size of the parcel was “pretty good.”

Gilmore said that he would not “like to see any further residential development on this property if the permit was granted.”

Cutler said, “And at least one unit must be occupied by the owner at all times.”

Without much further discussion or debate, Davis Sullivan, Jeffrey Costa, Gilmore, and Cutler cast votes approving the special permit. Arancio abstained.

Trahan and her mother gasped with delight and left the meeting room with tears of joy as they embraced each other.

Earlier in the evening, the board voted to allow Travis Lalli to withdraw without prejudice his appeal regarding the placement of a barn at property located off High Street.

In closing out the evening’s proceedings, Cutler said that if the board has business to attend to, then the next meeting would be scheduled for January 12 at 7:00 pm in the town hall meeting room.

By Marilou Newell

The December 13 session of the Rochester Planning Board meeting started off with a bang, as board members blasted ABC Disposal President Mike Camara for not having a definitive timeline for construction.

Zero Waste, off of Cranberry Highway in Rochester, has been operating via special permit for the last year, but board members claim they have been operating in violation of the permit.

“We need a definitive timetable for this, particularly for stormwater drainage and fire alarms,” said Chairman Arnold Johnson.

“Everything’s being taken care of,” Camara assured him.

“So when can I see this timetable?” Johnson asked. “We really need a timeline. We’re getting some complaints. It would be nice if you could come to the first meeting in January with a timeline because we really need to see it and get everything going.”

Camara promised he’d get back to the board, which prompted Planning Board member Ben Bailey to ask him, “Did I hear you say that yes, you’ll be at the first January meeting with the plans?”

“I think being here on the first January meeting with a definitive timeline is a good start,” added Johnson, “and I’d like to ask that you be at the first February meeting with a definitive plan of where you are, in compliance with the plan. Right now, you’re operating outside of special permit limitations and that needs to change.”

“I’ll give you my best guess,” Camara said, “in accordance with what the courts allow me to do. They haven’t approved everything yet.”

“If you can’t do better than ‘best guess,’ we’re going to have to hold you to that guess,” Bailey told him in frustration. “You need to comply with the permit, and you’ve had enough time. We need to hold you to this.”

“What we’re looking for is a plan that will happen at the moment that the courts give you permission to carry it out – not a guess, but a solid plan,” Johnson said. Camara agreed to this statement, and the hearing was extended to the first January meeting of the board, which will be held on January 10.

The board also listened to a number of hearings involving solar arrays. Ed Watson, representative for Clean Energy Collective, was at the meeting to represent Michael and Johnann Forand, who are constructing a large-scale solar array at 268 Mattapoisett Road.

“We met about this a few weeks ago,” Watson said, “and since then there have been a few changes. We’ve re-arranged the panels so that we won’t have to disturb Devil’s Rock, a historical landmark on the property. We’re also extending the stockade portion of the fence to the area behind the abutting Lacey property and adding vegetation. Mrs. Lacey would like to possibly just have white pine planted in the area in place of the fence, and we wanted to bring that up with you.”

“I think the plan should include both white pines and the fence,” Johnson said. “This is a long-term plan; if new people come onto the property and cut those trees down, there won’t be any screening, and then we’d have to wait while the white pines regrew.”

“I’m not opposed to the fencing,” said Sue Lacey, who was in attendance. “I just wanted to add the white pine. I’ve planted some on my property and they grow so quickly that once they’re in place I won’t see anything. Plus, they’re something the deer won’t eat.”

The board decided to continue the hearing until the next meeting in January.

Bill Milka of 241 New Bedford Road stood for the last hearing of the night. Milka is planning to install a small solar array on a former cranberry bog in the back of his property.

“Half of the bog will be a hayfield, and the other half will be the solar array,” Milka said. “Cranberries aren’t very profitable anymore.”

The solar array, which will be fully fenced in, will consist of 780 panels. All power will be carried via underground lines, except over conservation wetland areas and buffer zones, where poles and power lines will instead carry the power.

Planning Board member John DeMaggio, looking over the plans, asked, “All of the electrical equipment will be kept inside this ten- by twenty six-foot metal shed?”

“Yes, it’s an overseas container,” Milka explained.

“That’s the first time I’ve seen that,” DeMaggio said. “I like it. I like it a lot more than the crap that we usually see.”

The board voted to continue the hearing until the first January meeting for additional time to work on compliances and recommendations from the Conservation Commission.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board will be held on Tuesday, January 10 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Andrea Ray

On December 12, the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission reopened a notice of intent hearing for 4 Seabreeze Lane, property owned by Daniel and Lisa Craig. Represented by Brandon Faneuf, the Craigs have been seeking permission to retain a large swath of lawn they installed in violation of agreements the town had placed on the sub-division 17 years prior. They have offered several plans over several meetings in an effort to reach a compromise with the commission. Faneuf and Craig came prepared to try one more time.

The town hall conference room was packed with people with vested interest in the outcome of the hearing. There were residents of Seabreeze Lane, the town’s attorney George Pucci, the town’s independent soil and wetland’s delineation expert John Rockwell, as well as lead attorney for the Buzzards Bay Coalition Korrine Petersen.

As for the commission itself, seated were Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold, Chairman Bob Rogers, and commissioners Michael King, Trevor Francis and Chapman Dickerson.

Before things got started, Rogers announced that the Craigs’ appeal of the commission’s September 2016 enforcement order that had been winding its way through Superior Court ended late last week with the court ruling in favor of the town.

“Is the applicant going to abide by the court’s ruling?” Rogers asked. Fanuef responded that the Craigs would be appealing that decision, continuing litigation against the town. With that declaration, the NOI hearing resumed.

The main issue for the commission as detailed in numerous meetings was the Craigs’ alteration of what had been deemed no-touch zones and other wetland areas, some 20,000 square feet. The issue for the Craigs was having the no-touch zones classified as buffer zones and acceptance of original wetland flagging, as well as acceptance of their restoration plans.

Rockwell presented his findings that pointed to the presence of historic wetlands in areas that had not been previously identified and the fact that jurisdictional areas had all been disturbed concurrently. Rockwell displayed historic aerial mapping of the property that showed the massive area Craig had altered for groomed landscaping.

Pucci told the commissioners that if they accepted a new plan from Craig, the court’s ruling to uphold their enforcement order would be rendered null and void.

Petersen expressed that the plans were moving in the right direction, but urged the commission to ensure that no-touch zones established at the time the sub-division was permitted be memorialized. She also asked again for a conservation restriction on portions of the property.

At the end of two hours of discussion and debate that covered everything from type of vegetation to be planted, fill removal, no use of fertilizers, installation of rail fencing, and whether or not an easement still existed for those sub-division residents lacking water access, it appeared that topic fatigue was setting in.

While Rogers wanted Faneuf to return with fully updated plans for all restoration work that illustrated updated wetlands flagging and buffer zones, commission member Mike King felt he had enough information to make a ruling. Dickerson and Francis echoed King’s position; however, Rogers prevailed in getting Faneuf to request a continuation and in keeping the public comment period open.

It was also decided that Rockwell, whose continued work in this matter will now be funded by Craig, would work with Leidhold and Faneuf to hammer out an order of conditions to present when the hearing re-opens on January 9.

In other matters, a notice of intent filed by Jesse Davidson Interiors, LTD for 22 Pine Island Road for the construction of a new dwelling received an order of conditions. Davidson also received a certificate of compliance for work that was never executed on the same property. A certificate of compliance was also issued to Cliff Thompson, 11 Park Street.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for January 9 at 6:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell

Whispers about change often bring about shouts of opposition. So, as the residents of Rochester caught wind of the Board of Selectmen’s investigation into regionalizing the town’s 911 call dispatch, the town decided to host a public forum night to get residents immediately informed about the possibility of 911 regionalization and how it may benefit the town in the end.

The Council on Aging room was packed with residents and emergency response personnel on the night of December 13 as Duxbury Fire Chief Kevin Nord and Duxbury Fire Captain Rob Reardon gave a presentation on Duxbury’s regional 911 dispatch R.O.C.C.C. (Regional Old Colony Communications Center), which currently serves three towns including Halifax and Plympton. They are hoping to add Rochester to that list.

The facility is located at the Duxbury Fire Department, and recently the Rochester police and fire chiefs, as well as other municipal employees, visited the communications center.

Back in 2011, Duxbury secured grant money for a feasibility study and ultimately, after learning all they could about the proposed project and the benefits to starting a regionalized 911 service, state 911 funding began trickling in to provide money for development and training, as well as upgrades and infrastructure improvements the town would otherwise not be able to afford.

The main reasons for Rochester to make the switch, Nord said, would be better communication infrastructure, more efficiency, and all for a lower cost.

“Regional centers are much better prepared for that because there’s multiple people in the room,” said Nord, who added that for every 911 call answered, two dispatchers respond – one to give immediate instructional support and the other to dispatch help. “It’s a better response time and more efficient.”

Nord addressed some concerns over the distance of Duxbury from Rochester, but he said, with today’s modern technology, “It doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t hamper our abilities.”

Nord said Duxbury would also be accepting 911 calls from cell phones and, with the use of a new mapping technology he called “NextGen 911” that is a fusion between Google maps and the town’s GIS system, there isn’t anywhere in town that they cannot guide emergency response to. Each residence showing on the map would include a house number on the roof.

Cell phone pinpointing technology that would be available, said Reardon, actually allows dispatch to find the caller wherever they are and follow their position around until help can arrive.

Another benefit would be the state funding to upgrade the town’s outdated and insufficient radio and communications antennae and repeaters, which the Duxbury team tested and had nothing good to say about.

“First thing we did was grab the portable radio,” said Reardon. “It barely worked. That’s not right. It can’t happen.” He said, upon further inspection, the response was, “It’s horrible.”

If Rochester were to join with Duxbury, however, the state would fund all the upgrade work. Furthermore, added Nord, R.O.C.C.C. has every antenna, repeater, and generator backed up with additional equipment, as well as generators for emergencies.

Calling 911 would appear no different to a caller than it would today, except with the redundancy and back up that Duxbury provides, service would be more effective and consistent. Staffing is also doubled during storms, said Nord, alleviating some concerns from the audience.

“We believe in it,” said Nord, “It makes sense.”

After listening in on the dispatch of the police, fire, and DPW, Nord said they have a good understanding of Rochester’s call volume and current need. And if Rochester were to sign on with Duxbury, dispatch consoles would be further expanded and multiple dispatch staff members from Rochester could be hired to work in Duxbury as a result. Nord called Rochester’s dispatchers “top notch” and praised the employment benefits offered to dispatchers in Duxbury.

When asked by a resident whether or not he supported the proposal, Police Chief Paul Magee replied, “I am very open to the concept, especially if I think it’s going to benefit the residents.” He continued, “If we can improve what we got … and we’re not doing this because we have bad dispatchers,” he added. “If we can get a better product, then we should investigate.”

Magee said he couldn’t give a more definitive answer until the research has been completed, saying it was too premature for anyone to decide on it now.

“From the police side of the house, let’s sit, listen, and evaluate and wait until we have solid facts,” said Magee. “If it’s not in the best interest of the residents … or the police department, you will have my strong opposition.”

Selectman Brad Morse said the town was still months away from taking any definitive action on joining with Duxbury, and further public forums and information sessions would be held leading up to that point in time.

By Jean Perry

Even with a 3-2 majority vote to grant David Jenney his appeal to overturn Building Commissioner Scott Shippey’s cease and desist order, the appeal was still denied and Shippey’s decision upheld.

On December 8, the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals struggled one last time together as they debated on whether Shippey’s cease and desist order to stop ‘logging’ at Jenney’s 818 Point Road property was warranted.

Although ZBA members Bob Alves, Michelle Smith, and Chairman Marc LeBlanc voted in favor of Jenney, Kate Mahoney’s and Betsy Dunn’s votes against Jenney prevented the appeal from passing due to the need for a 4/5ths majority vote to overturn the building inspector’s decision, according to Town Counsel Jon Whitten.

Things got confusing for the board, as well as for the residents seated in the meeting room, when the board voted 3-2 on a motion that was made ‘in the negative’; in other words, Alves’ motion was to overturn the building inspector’s decision, leaving board members unsure of whether a ‘nay’ was a ‘yay’ or a ‘yay’ was a ‘nay’.

“Negative motions are difficult,” said Whitten standing up from his seat after the vote was taken. “A positive motion is always better than a negative.”

Mahoney then motioned to uphold Shippey’s decision, resulting in the same 3-2 outcome.

The cease and desist order was the result of several residents of The Cove who live on Jenney Lane complaining of Jenney’s processing of firewood at his abutting property.

Outside the Town House after the meeting, Jenney and a small group of neighbors vocally lamented the board’s decision, and Jenney’s wife elevated her voice and made comments about possibly increasing the amount of noise on her property and threats to sue the town.

Also during the meeting, the board denied Daniel Gibbs of 4 Derby Lane his request to convert his house into a two-family on the grounds that the extension of the house does not meet the definition of a “conversion” since it has not yet been built, according to LeBlanc.

In other matters, the board signed the decision granting a special permit to Kate Hill for a third rented bedroom at her 460 Front Street bed and breakfast.

The board also accepted Manuel DeMiranda’s request to withdraw his request for a conversion to a two-family without prejudice.

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for January 12 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry