The Rochester Conservation Commission began the process of reviewing current fee structures and the implementation of new or additional fees during the October 3 meeting.

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon provided fee structure data from surrounding cities and towns as a starting point for the commissioners, saying “Fees are all over the place.”

Farinon said that currently there is only a $25 fee to cover the cost of publishing public hearing notices in The Wanderer for Requests of Determination of Applicability.

Regarding Notices of Intent filings, depending on the type of construction being proposed and whether the project fell into the commercial or residential category, fees are anywhere from $100 to $500 with the state taking a portion of those fees collected.

Farinon suggested that the commission consider instituting a new “after-the -act” filing fee, possibly double the regular filing fee. She said that any suggested fee changes would have to go before the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee, but not Town Meeting.

Commissioner Laurene Gerrior asked, “What are we trying to do with fees?”

Farinon said the commission could be proactive with fees to cover operating costs incurred by the commission.

Gerrior thought that funds collected might be used to help manage and maintain Town-owned open spaces, while commissioner Daniel Gagne thoughts funds should be used in the management of wetlands, such as invasive species eradication.

The commission asked Farinon to prepare a spreadsheet of possible fee changes for their review and further consideration.

The commission also discussed the new part-time position of recording secretary that they had previous voted to move forward with and request funding for.

Farinon had been asked to provide supporting documentation regarding overtime and what work wasn’t getting done.

Farinon responded, “The position is treading water,” and, although work was getting done such as meeting minutes and agendas, the crush was very real and of a long-standing nature. Currently the same secretary is responsible for attending Conservation Commission and Planning Board meetings as the recording secretary.

A sum of $2,500 had been suggested by Farinon for the position, and this would come in front of voters at Town Meeting, she said. Rochester’s Fall Special Town Meeting is scheduled for October 23.

Earlier in the evening, Daniel and Deborah Clark of 240 Mary’s Pond Road came before the commission to defend their request for a Certificate of Compliance that had been originally requested during the September 19 meeting, but declined pending their appearance.

Chairman Michael Conway had asked the homeowners to come before the commission to explain why the plan of record had not been followed and why modification had not first been vetted with Farinon.

Mr. Clarke said, “We thought we were following the rules, but mistakes were made.” He continued, “The first mistake was not checking the plan of record.” He said, if he had he done that, the issue of a lack in sufficient coverage for a portion of the foundation would have been noted.

The second mistake, he said, was “I didn’t fully appreciate the Order of Conditions regarding the one hundred-foot buffer zone.” Clarke listed four changes to the plan: steps to a shop; placement of a generator; openings in a stone wall; and slight relocation of parking area. “I should have come to Laurell … I’m sorry.”

Conway asked if he had read the Order of Conditions. Clarke replied, “Not fully.”

Conway commented, “People take these permits too lightly.”

Mrs. Clarke asked, “We had no intention to do anything wrong … What can we do now?”

Conway turned to Farinon who said, “We’re here for a Certificate of Compliance. Changes were made, but the project turned out well… There’s no other way to travel on this … I recommend a Certificate of Compliance be issued.”

The commission approved the request.

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 17 at 7:00 pm in the town hall meeting room.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

When Mattapoisett Tree Warden Roland Cote recently passed a construction site on North Street, he was surprised to find all the trees and a historic stone wall removed. On October 2, Cote went before the members of the Mattapoisett Planning Board to describe the clear cutting, accompanied by Tree Committee Chairman Sandy Hering and Highway Superintendent Barry Denham.

Coming forward on behalf of the contractor performing the work at 167 North Street was Lee Castagnetti of Long Built Homes. Castagnetti began first by saying, “I’m here with deep apologies. We were not aware it was a scenic highway or that we’d violated any regulations. My apologies can’t reverse that, but we are here to provide a remedy.”

The degree of damage was then brought to light as Cote said at least nine mature pine trees and two ash trees along with a stone wall he described as having been in place since “King George’s time” had been removed.

Acting Planning Board Chairman Nathan Ketchell asked Castagnetti how many homes Long Built had constructed in Mattapoisett. Castagnetti was unsure.

Cote said, “I was surprised what happened to the trees. I brought Mike Gagne (town administrator) to look. He knows someone at Long Built.” He said the Town was looking at having the trees replaced along with the stone wall.

Denham presented a driveway plan that the Highway Department had approved showing the stone wall and trees were to have remained in place. He also explained that a drainage swale critical to proper stormwater management on the roadway had been disrupted. “It looks strange when you drive down the street now with the stone walls and trees all gone,” he said.

Hering said the Tree Committee was ready to work with Cote and Long Built to develop a planting plan to “naturalize the site.”

Cote said that first the swale and stone wall would have to be repaired, and then the trees planted.

Planning Board member Janice Robbins asked, “Who’s the responsible party?”

Castagnetti responded, “It was our action. We accept responsibility for the misdeed. We should have understood what was to have been done.”

Robbins asked, “What about the property owners?” It was ascertained that the property owners had not been contacted regarding the matter, but Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain said she would contact them.

Ketchell suggested that Castagnetti look at historic pictures of the area to determine how the stone wall should be placed along the property line and North Street, and asked him to return on October 16 with a plan for the stone wall and swale and to move forward working with Cote and Hering on tree planting.

Earlier in the evening, the board re-opened a continued hearing for a single lot subdivision off Randall Road owned by Gingras Nominee Trust.

The board spent two hours discussing waivers requested by Al Ewing of Ewing Engineering that would have approved the construction of a 16-foot wide gravel roadway with a hammerhead turn-around for the single-family home planned for the lot.

But forward movement slowed to a snail’s pace as the board members labored over regulations governing lot subdivision, the proposed waivers, and future development that might take place beyond the scope of the current application.

Robbins was insistent that the proposed road necessary to give the lot frontage was adequate, especially when considering any future additional development that might take place on the large parcel. “Why should we be approving a driveway as a road?” She said there were no guarantees that 40B housing would not be planned in the future that would ultimately render the proposed roadway insufficient.

Board member Gail Carlson voiced her concerns as well, saying, “I’m looking at the slope of the gravel road and the width.”

Ewing said the approved zoning and permitting had been for a single lot, single-family home, and that included water and sewer permits.

Robbins countered, “But that’s not cast in stone. The road could be extended to create frontage.” She said, “We’re signing off on a sub-standard road … It’s a driveway.”

As the hearing continued, the board members debated the merits of four pages of waiver requests, returning repeatedly to the topic of the lack of a stormwater drainage plan.

Crain shared a letter she had received from Fire Chief Andrew Murray commenting that the roadway with hammerhead turn-around was acceptable as proposed. But Robbins said she needed clarification regarding clearing around the hammerhead and the need to ensure that area could support heavy emergency vehicles.

Regarding other requested waivers, the board members allowed underground utilities to be placed in the middle of the roadway, while waiving parking, sidewalks, easements, and open space requirements.

Ewing was asked to return with drainage calculations for stormwater management, and plan modifications that included swales and clarification on clearance for the hammerhead.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for October 16 at 7:00 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell