Now that the Southcoast Working Dog Club has informed the Town that it will no longer be holding any future events at the Rochester Country Fair property, future use of the town-owned property is still under discussion amongst the Rochester Board of Selectmen who agreed on August 21 to appoint a committee to devise specific guidelines on who can use the property and what kinds of events can take place there.

The Southcoast Working Dog Club had been utilizing the RCF site on Pine Street for many months now, but once the selectmen received word back in July that at least one neighbor had been complaining of dogs barking, the dog club’s regular use of the Pine Street field was under scrutiny, especially by Selectman Greenwood Hartley.

Hartley had previously suggested that any one private group should not be granted permission to use the fairground on a regular/weekly basis, arguing that the regular use of the grounds was not the original intent upon acquiring the property to hold the RCF.

This past Monday evening, Hartley suggested the Town inform neighbors and abutters of the Rochester Country Fair grounds of the new RCF property guidelines committee, which will include one RCF neighbor (not already on the RCF Committee) amongst the five members.

“An attempt to make sure everybody knows everybody has a chance to say they want to be on this group,” Hartley said.

One of those neighbors near the RCF, Richard Masciantonio of 93 Quaker Lane, asked if there was ever an original document with specific rules and regulations written down. Hartley told him there was never any such written agreement.

“This group will be the ones who will actually do that work,” said Hartley. “That will be the starting point.”

Selectman Naida Parker stressed the need to charge the new committee with a specific objective, “So that it’s very clear as to what their goal is going forward,” she said, including the maximum number of times a year any singular group could use the grounds.

The board will appoint the members of the new committee during its next meeting.

In other matters, the deadline for article submissions for the October 23 Fall Special Town Meeting has been set for September 13. A draft of the warrant will be presented on September 18, and on October 2, the selectmen will sign the warrant.

Town Administrator Suzanne Szyndlar commented that she did not anticipate any significant number of articles appearing on the warrant.

The public hearing for Verizon was continued until October 2.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for September 18 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry

On August 17, before diving into the hearings before them, Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Susan Akin announced that Verizon’s request for a special permit for property located at 34 Mechanic Street had been withdrawn without prejudice.

The utility had asked during the July hearing for a special permit that would allow the installation of a larger, more efficient air conditioning system that would enable the building to handle more sophisticated computers.

That request received abutter opposition, and the utility was asked to provide other options versus simply installing a larger AC unit on the roof of the structure. The hearing had been continued at the request of the applicant. On August 17, the utility requested a withdrawal without prejudice. That was granted.

Moving on to the scheduled hearings, Tom Brownell, proprietor of Mattapoisett Storage Inc. located at 7 Industrial Drive, came before the board with a request for a variance to construct new storage buildings that would encroach on the side setback requirements.

Brownell explained that before filing his application, he had searched extensively throughout Mattapoisett for commercial property. “There isn’t any!” he told the board members.

“We need to expand. I’m turning people away, people from the Tri-Town area.” He said that other businesses were experiencing the same problem when attempting to secure commercial locations in town.

Brownell said, “I know this isn’t the right board for this, but we need more commercial property in Mattapoisett.” He said his boat storage business was experiencing the same issue and that he was turning away potential business in that category as well.

Akin asked if his hardship – the nearly singular criteria a variance is applied for and considered – was lack of space. He said yes.

Weighing the pros and cons of the appeal, board member Paul Millott said, “Everything looks reasonable.”

Director of Inspectional Services Andy Bobola told the board, “This is a tough one.” He asked Brownell if there was anyway he could reconfigure the boat storage area also located on the parcel. Brownell said it was too dangerous to have storage customers driving in and around areas designated for boat storage.

Brownell said a neighboring business had received a variance based on the same issue – lack of space – and he hoped the board would give him the same consideration.

Attorney John Mathieu, in attendance on an unrelated matter, said, “There is no industrial space in town,” noting his years as a member of the Mattapoisett Planning Board. “…He has good use of his property,” ending his comments by saying the board should issue the variance.

Board member Ken Pacheco said, “I don’t see a problem…. He runs a good business … [and] provides a service to the town.”

The variance was unanimously approved.

Also receiving approval was Daniel Suprenant, 1 Pine Ridge Drive, for a special permit to construct a garage larger than allowed. Suprenant explained that the three-car garage would only be marginally over the allowed square footage and would allow for a storage bump out in the back of the structure.

Suprenant was asked about a comment on the plans that indicated the space above the garage would be a guest suite, but which was not part of the special permit application before them. The board members felt they could approve the garage, but not the second-floor guest unit.

Bobola said the applicant would have to return to the appeals process if he wanted to use the second-story space for anything other than storage. The special permit was approved.

Special permits were also approved for the construction of a 10-foot by 11-foot addition to property owned by Maxwell Pennock, 54 North Street, and to Katherine Minevitz, Freeman Street, for the construction of a 16-foot by 18-foot one-story garage.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for September 21 at 6:00 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell

Despite having no applicant proposals before them on Monday evening, the Marion Planning Board had a full agenda of ongoing projects in preparation for the Fall Special Town Meeting.

Planning Board member Norman Hills introduced the draft Master Plan discussion, citing the complete plan and its impending appearance on the Fall Special Town Meeting Warrant.

“We have submitted an article for Fall Town Meeting; it has been in the works for three years.” Hills said, adding that copies of the draft Master Plan would be available for the public to review at the police station, the Elizabeth Taber Library, the Planning Board office, the Town Clerk’s office, and online.

Board member Jennifer Francis encouraged the public to read the document so that when it comes time to vote on it, the public would be “sufficiently familiar with it so they are comfortable with all of their input….”

Francis also noted that the document has been reviewed by the Planning Board and SRPEDD and is a “heavily analyzed document.”

The public is invited to three meetings at which the Master Plan will be presented: at the regularly scheduled September 18 Planning Board meeting; on Saturday, October 14; and on Wednesday, October 18 in the Sippican School Multi-purpose room.

These meetings are designed to help the public understand the document, but the preparers are not looking for any additional input. As Francis said, “Here’s your plan. Read it and get to know it. This is not a request for input.”

Hills added, “Of course, unless there is a fatal flaw, we’d have to deal with it.”

After Town Meeting adopts the Master Plan, the residents will then develop working groups to implement the plan.

In other business, Planning Board Chairman Eileen Marum informed the board that Patrick Kelly and Zach Copland had visited the planning office in early August to request that they be able to sell pre-packaged ice cream at the Candy Pantry in Rooney’s Barber Shop on Route 6.

Kelly had been granted a special permit on July 10 to operate the candy store, and Marum consulted the Board of Health and granted permission for the pre-packaged ice cream on August 3.

Kelly and Copland returned to the planning office on August 11 to request that they be allowed to bring back to Marion the antique Good Humor truck that has been parked at the Ropewalk Plaza in Mattapoisett. Kelly said they would park it at Rooney’s Barbershop, not for the sale of ice cream, but strictly for the viewing pleasure of the public.

Marum expressed great concern over what she described as a pattern of behavior in which the parameters of the special permit were being challenged. She reminded the board of their concern they had expressed about traffic flow, parking, and loading at the site as reasons the board had not permitted the ice cream truck at the July meeting. She sent a letter to Kelly asking that he be a good neighbor and abide by the conditions of the special permit.

New board member Andrew Daniel expressed reservations about not allowing the truck to be parked, and suggested that the discussion be tabled until board member Chris Collings, who was not present this evening, could participate.

Board member Will Saltonstall questioned whether the issue was in the purview of the Planning Board if ice cream was not being sold, illustrating his point by saying, “If I found a funky architectural truck, I could park it on my property….”

Hills noted that the Marion bylaws state one can park up to two non-moving vehicles on one’s property.

Marum wondered, if the board allowed Kelly to park the truck, “Where do we draw the line?”

The board agreed that if Kelly wanted to sell ice cream from the truck, he would need to resubmit an application, but they made no definitive decision on whether the truck could return to the parking lot.

Also during the meeting, the board concluded its work on bylaw codification review, dispensing with a number of housekeeping issues, bringing the town document inline with Massachusetts General Laws.

In other business, Francis asked if the Town should consider changing the name of the Board of Selectmen to the more gender-neutral name of Selectboard. Hills said he would bring it to Town Counsel. Marum supported the idea, remarking that many other communities in the area had already incorporated this name change.

Saltonstall reminded the board that he had been charged by the previous Planning Board Chairman Robert Lane to investigate the issue of accessory dwellings. Saltonstall met with Building Commissioner Scott Shippey last week to discuss the issue. The two will work on clarifying the bylaw and then bring it to the Bylaw Codification Committee.

The issue of accessory dwellings is discussed in the draft Master Plan, in which the Planning Board is quoted as saying it is unwilling to remove the exception for use of accessory dwellings by family members. Saltonstall commented, “A lot of people [in town] feel we should keep the definition [of accessory dwellings] fairly narrow. Others feel it should be opened up a bit.”

Hills reiterated that the Town would be putting together working groups to implement the Master Plan, at which time these issues can be reviewed.

Marum raised two issues to conclude the meeting. She had attended a preconstruction conference for the Buzzards Bay Coalition’s new construction on the corner of Spring Street and Route 6. She wanted to notify the board that there was some discussion of substituting crushed clamshells for the proposed grass pavers for the surface of the driveways and parking areas at the building. A number of members expressed concern that the grass pavers were on the approved plan for the site, and the possible change would require the project to return to the Planning Board for approval. The stormwater calculations for the site would also need to be reviewed. Saltonstall felt that the idea of the clamshells for the site was being floated as a possibility, but believed that there was no need for the board to take any action unless they were formally notified by the Coalition. Hills urged the board to look at the plan of record to confirm what material was approved for the site.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for September 5 at 7:00 pm at the Sippican School, Park Street entrance.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer