The age-old adages “everything takes longer than planned” and “nothing ever goes smoothly” could have been applied during the June 27 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission as five of the eight planned hearings were continued until July 11.

Before getting underway, Chairman Bob Rogers acknowledged commission member Peter Newton for his six years of service on the commission, many of those as the chairman. Newton elected not to seek another term when his current term expires on July 1.

“You’ll be missed,” Rogers said. “It’s been a pleasure working with you.”

Then it was on to the hearings.

The commission was able to vote on three applications. Two applications – an RDA submitted by Gowing Family Trust for the installation of beach access signage on two stone/concrete jetties located at 1 Avenue A and an RDA submitted by Tanya Sjahfiedin, 44 Crystal Spring Road, for the construction of a second-story deck – both received Negative determinations. The third application was a partial Certificate of Compliance for property located on Fieldstone Drive, Lot 8, filed by The Preserve at Bay Club.

The next five filings all required continuances.

William and Jane Farran propose to build an elevated home on Angelica Avenue on a parcel fraught with technical difficulties given its proximity to saltmarshes.

Represented by Mark Manganello of LEC Environmental Consultants and David Davignon of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates, the team was faced with questions in this continuance from the June 13 hearing regarding the need to bring in fill.

Rogers sought to determine if the fill was necessary to the stability of the structure, if there was a need for large stones to secure the fill in place, and whether or not those elements met FEMA regulations for construction in a flood zone.

Manganello said the fill was not related to the construction of the home but was for drainage under the structure. He confirmed that the house would be a free-standing building raised on pile-driven supports unassociated with the fill, and that a planned slab would meet FEMA requirements for ‘break-away’ during a storm surge.

Manganello said Farran still needed to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals due to issues with setbacks, but could not do so without first getting a green light from the commission.

Rogers said, referring to FEMA’s regulations, “The revised plan still does not conform to the rules.”

Manganello and Davignon continued to try and achieve at least an agreement from the commission that the conceptual project would eventually meet conservation karma. Rogers was unable to agree.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to write a letter to the ZBA,” said Rogers. “You’d be a lot better off with an Order of Conditions.”

But an Order of Conditions would not be forthcoming at this hearing, given the unanswered questions of whether of not the project met FEMA rules.

“You need to come into compliance with the FEMA regulations,” Rogers insisted.

Davignon said that the town’s procedure required that the project receive a blessing from the Conservation Commission before it could go before the ZBA and, yet, Rogers was telling them to go back to the Building Department for confirmation of the FEMA compliance.

“Take it up with the building department,” Rogers said. He also said that if the engineering team could get a report stating the fill and associated rocky buttress was acceptable to FEMA, the commission would request an independent peer review “to ensure the report was correct.”

Manganello said he felt the project currently fell more under the directives of the building department and that the commission didn’t have grounds to request a peer review. Rogers retorted that was why he wanted a response from the building inspector, Andy Bobola.

“We can’t approve this plan. There are more impacts than what you have on this plan,” Rogers said. The hearing was continued until July 11.

An after-the-fact Notice of Intent filing that had also been continued from June 13 still didn’t make it out of the starting blocks when, once again, David Davignon, this time representing William Macropoulos, 12 Howard Beach, came before the commission.

Macropoulos’ concrete jetty project had gone beyond the permitted after-the-fact filing by 10 cubic yards for an area of 10-by 12-feet, causing the commission to seek reparations.

Yet, it was difficult for the commissioners or Davignon to determine what the dollar amount should be. All agreed that the town versus the state should benefit from any reparations from Macropoulos. All agreed that money given to the town could be used to purchase additional shellfish seeds, a direct benefit to the community. But none could agree on how to calculate that amount.

After minutes of haggling over how to go about reaching a figure, Newton asked Davignon, “Have you been authorized to negotiate on his behalf?”

“Well, if it’s a low number,” Davignon replied.

That moment of levity gave way to Davignon sharing his belief that the commission had no jurisdiction over the violation in the first place, while also taking umbrage to a letter from the Marine Fisheries who concurred that the jetties were a violation requiring reparations; but to whom and how much remained unanswered.

In the end, it was decided that Conservation Agent Liz Leidhold would contact Marine Fisheries to secure a reliable calculation for reparations, and that Macroploulos would send a letter to the commission with a solid offer. The case was continued until July 11.

Other continuances until July 11 were: Forrest Neal, 16 Brandt Island Road, RDA for shed construction; John Schmid, 4 Justin Avenue, RDA for shed construction; Dennis Arsenault, Snow Fields Road, wetland delineations; and William Fredericks, 30 Holly Woods Road, for a NOI for the construction of a driveway and land clearing for future agricultural activities.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for July 11 at 6:30 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell

The Meadowatt, LLC solar farm slated for 188-190 Marion Road (Route 105) is closing in on approval after the Rochester Planning Board on June 28 suggested the town planner devise a draft decision to review at the next meeting.

With waiver requests all straightened out and the plan revised to replace a proposed vinyl faux stonewall with a cedar stockade fence, the board felt confident that a few revisions to the plan made by the next meeting, along with the draft decision, would lead to approval by the end of July.

The cedar fence, said engineer Bob Bersin, would be 7 feet high and raised 6 inches off the ground, giving it a height of 7 feet 6 inches. The vinyl wall previously proposed was 6.9 feet. On the rear side of the project, the plan for a black chain-link fence remains.

The board requires that the fence be installed before any work is done on the construction of the solar arrays; however, it has allowed the developer time to cut down trees and construct a road before the fence is built for logistical reasons.

“That will deter any inconvenience to the neighborhood,” said Planning Board member Gary Florindo. He later suggested tweaking the proposed hours of operation during construction from 7:00 am – 6:00 pm down to 7:00 am – 5:00 pm for heavy machinery and noisy equipment, which will also be excluded from the Saturday 9:00 am – 5:00 pm timeframe for work.

With decommissioning amounts settled, screening and landscaping and maintenance plans all submitted, and the existing house at the site planned for demolition, Chairman Arnold Johnson offered the developer reassurance that the board would move forward in the process with the draft decision, but a vote would first require updating of the plans to reflect the fencing changes.

One abutter made one last-ditch effort to sway the board to reject the solar farm plan to no avail, as Johnson explained to Morgan Cecil who suggested that since the Planning Board is tasked with developing and following the town’s Master Plan to keep Rochester rural, it should follow through with that.

“That doesn’t give us the right to deny a project,” said Johnson. If the developer chose litigation, a judge could remand the matter back to the board, Johnson said, if the judge found it unreasonable. “It’s kind of a fine line. Property owners’ rights are property owners’ rights.”

Johnson reassured Cecil that the board does its due diligence in solar farm matters, spending hours at onsite visits and ensuring that screening is effective and decommissioning escrows are appropriate.

Johnson later told the developer that, after approval, the board would revisit the site in the fall after the foliage has fallen to endure proper screening from an abutting property at the rear of the site.

The matter was continued until July 12.

Also continued was the Renewable Generation application for a solar farm proposed on New Bedford Road. That date was scheduled for September 13.

A preliminary subdivision application for Melink Corporation for a proposed creation of a two-lot subdivision at 0 Snipatuit Road was also continued without a specified date.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for July 12 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry