Viewing the 2017 eclipse of the sun might have been tricky in the Tri-Town area on August 21. What with the hazy atmospheric conditions, residual smoke from forest fires in Canada, and only partial coverage of the sun as the moon passed over, the event wasn’t as dramatic as one would have wished.

But the photographic evidence presented by Gail Carlson, Planning Board member and resident of the Brandt Point Village subdivision, was crystal clear and left no shadow of a doubt that developer Marc Marcus of Omega Financial has not met established construction deadlines.

As the board members looked at the packet of images Carlson prepared for the meeting, Chairman Tom Tucker called the site “a war zone.”

There have been a number of meetings of the Mattapoisett Planning Board where this subdivision has been a constant theme. Tucker has instructed Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain on several occasions to invite Marcus and his team, along with members of the town’s board of health, conservation commission, and town administration, to meet and try to resolve the problems faced by residents living in Phase 1. To date, those parties have not responded, Crain confirmed.

On this night, Nathan Ketchel, Janice Robbins, Karen Field, along with Crain, Carlson, and Tucker, shook their heads over the photographs with obvious disappointment.

“It looks like Afghanistan,” Tucker sighed. Robbins asked if the development team had responded to Crain’s emailed invitations to meet with the board, to which Tucker interjected, “I’m wondering if we’ll ever see them again!”

Robbins asked, “What’s the remedy?” Tucker seemed at a loss. He asked Carlson if construction on Phase 2 had begun. “They’ve poured footings,” she replied.

“I don’t know why they would build in Phase 2 when they know they can’t get occupancy permits,” Tucker said with raw frustration.

Tucker asked Crain to send the photographs to the Board of Health, Conservation Commission, Building Department, Highway Department, Board of Selectmen, the town administrator, and town counsel, saying of the pictures, “Maybe these will get us some help.”

Also referred to during this discussion was a report submitted by Ken Motta of Field Engineering, the Town’s peer review consultant on the project.

Tucker said Motta’s report was quite detailed and reinforced what the photographs showed. Tucker said the photographs might help with securing the Cease and Desist Order he has lobbied for over many months of discussions.

Earlier in the meeting, the board members dived back into bylaw drafting in advance of the Fall Special Town Meeting. They revisited language on the sign bylaw, attempting to make the text more specific, yet easier to use by both the public and the town departments.

They discussed everything from the types of signs that would be regulated versus those that were exempted, illumination of signs, size and placement for each zoned district, temporary versus permanent signs, and which town department would oversee enforcement based on type of sign in question.

Tucker asked Crain, Ketchel, and Robbins to meet outside the public meeting format to hash out the many text edits the document required and to return to the next meeting with an updated draft for further review. He said that since only two board members would be meeting, it did not require a public notice.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for September 18 at 7:00 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

​At 10:30am Wednesday morning the Rochester Fire Department was called to a structure fire on Bates Road off Mary’s Pond Road.

​First responders reported heavy smoke as they approached and found a “fully involved” barn, approximately 20 feet by 80 feet in size.

​A party at the scene reported that there were two vehicles stored in the barn at the time of the fire.

​As there is no water source at the scene, which was located approximately half a mile down a dirt road, the Fire Department set up a tanker shuttle to draw water from the stream where Leonard’s Pond crosses Mary’s Pond Road.

​Acushnet, Marion, Mattapoisett, and Middleboro Fire Departments assisted with shuttling water to the scene.

By Paul Lopes

The house at 619 County Road has a long history with the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, pointed out Chairman Richard Cutler, but the board and the property owner were intent on cleaning up the circumstances surrounding the house in order to convert the non-conforming two-family house into a conforming two-family house.

On August 10, the ZBA continued the public hearing for the Special Permit for property owner Francis Jones, who had only owned the house for about six months, to convert the house into an accepted conforming multi-family.

Cutler gave a crash course on the history of the house.

In March 1989, the former owners applied for a variance with the ZBA to add a 30-foot by 30-foot second floor addition, which was granted with the stipulation that the house had to remain a single-family dwelling that was at the time situated within the agricultural/residential zoning district. That district has since changed to a zone that allows for some commercial use.

Continuing with the history, Cutler said in July of 1991 a stop work order was issued for work not in compliance with work issue, which included the unpermitted addition of a kitchen and a subsequent tenant was allowed to live in the upstairs unit. The next day, the owner filed an application to convert to a multi-family house, which in September 1991 during the public hearing, the ZBA approved with the condition that the special permit for the multi-family use was not transferable to subsequent owners. Furthermore, the house was limited to only three bedrooms total. Still, there is no evidence of an eventual inspection of that work and no certificate of occupancy was ever issued.

“Lots of good stuff,” declared Cutler.

The house, vacant for now, actually has five bedrooms. The homeowner does not plan to alter the floor plan or the structure, only some interior and exterior cosmetic work.

The two-family would not be owner-occupied, which did not appear to be a top concern of the abutter directly in front of the house, Louise Hebert, who wrote a letter in support of the project and also attended the meeting.

Cutler asked Building Commissioner Jim Buckles, “If we grant this … Special Permit tonight, what about the fact that the house hasn’t been inspected properly?”

Buckles replied, “I won’t sign off on it…. There’s no record of any inspection. We want people to be safe. This is the worst possible way to create a two-family – one on top of each other.”

Buckles said what he would like is a letter from an architect or certified engineer stating that the building meets all code requirements for a multi-family home.

ZBA member David Arancio pointed out his concern: “The plan doesn’t show a true representation of what’s there [or] the right of way.” A right of way is used for the property, but the deed the homeowner had that night had no mention of it. “I have some concerns that to clean this up, we need to have accurate information … of what’s there, what were actually working with,” said Arancio.

Wrapping things up, Cutler confirmed with Buckles that he would want a letter stating that the building meets the required code, to which he replied, “Yes.”

The board also requested two additional copies of the plans and a copy of the deed to include the right of way.

“And if the architect says everything is OK … then I’m assuming at this point our building department would be satisfied,” said Cutler.

In other matters, the board approved the variance request for Paul Estrella of 79 Bradford Lane for a garage exceeding a 1,000 square-foot floor area to be constructed in the front yard of the property.

Estrella said the one-story garage would be used to store cars and tractors and would not be used for commercial use. There are no plans for water service to the garage, but Estrella may install a woodstove and eventually run electricity to the garage.

The project had already received approval from the Conservation Commission.

With no correspondence for or against and no abutters present with concerns, “I guess the neighbors like you, or don’t care,” said Cutler.

The only advice to Estrella was to watch the overhang so that the building does not encroach the property line and violate the setback.

Conditions of approval include no housing of animals, limited to only one-story, no residential occupancy or commercial use of the garage, and no more than a 1-foot overhang along the perimeter of the garage beyond the plan as drawn.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for August 24 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry