The Rochester Conservation Commission meeting on June 22 got off slowly as members straggled in. Commissioner John Teal used the opportunity to vent his frustration about the local deer population. ”There are way too many,” he said, frustrated. “They’re not giving the plants a chance to grow back.”

“We need more hunters,” said commissioner Michael Conway from the other corner of the table.

“We need better hunters,” Teal argued cheerfully.

Once the last of the board members had arrived, the commission turned to the agenda. First in line was a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Willow Creek Builders for Lots 41 and 43 at property located at Forbes Road. The application proposed installation of two new private wells on the separate lots within a 100-foot buffer zone of two isolated vegetated wetlands. “We have two clusters of plots, and these two lots are having trouble meeting the requirements set by the Board of Health,” said Willow Creek Builders representative Tim Higgins. “So for these two lots, we’d like to install individual wells.”

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon reported that the wells really were not very intrusive at all and could easily be installed without any ill effects. She recommended that the commission issue a negative determination so that a notice of intent would not need to be filed. The commission agreed with her determination.

A Request for a Determination of Applicability was filed by Deborah Boyd concerning her property at 5 Bennett Road. The application proposed installation of a new septic tank within a 100-foot buffer zone of an isolated vegetated wetland. Boyd’s representative, Rick Charon of Charon Associates, explained that the sewage system had initially been put in over 20 years ago, before more recent bylaws had been passed, and the system was roughly 25 feet from the leaching field. “Now that the property is being sold,” he explained, “the system needs to be fixed. We’ve gotten the max setback that we can on this.”

“This one’s really tight,” said Farinon. “It barely creates a 50-foot buffer.” Nevertheless, she again recommended a negative determination, and the commission agreed.

The third request of the night was a Determination of Applicability filed by Hipolito and Donna Almeida for their property at 464 Walnut Plain Road. Chairman Rosemary Smith noted that the silt fence had a large gap at the bottom, and in such a condition was really a useless fence. “If it rains, that’s not going to do a thing.”

“This was an after-the-fact filing,” said Rick Charon, who was also representing the owners. “Originally, the proposal was an addition outside the buffer zone, so there was no notice. Then it was decided to add a row of large stones and approximately fifty feet of cubic fill to a spot inside the buffer zone.”

“This is an after-the-fact filing. The silt fence isn’t in right, and the pre-existing grading is difficult to see,” said Farinon. She recommended continuing the public hearing at the next meeting, where updated plans with a clearer view of the grading could be shown.

The last hearing of the day was a Certificate of Compliance request from Andrea and Donald King for their property at 425 Neck Road. The representative, for the third time that night, was Rick Charon. “It’s like Groundhog Day!” exclaimed Teal.

“I didn’t notice any erosion on this property,” said Charon. “The outlet to the collection system was originally closer to the pond but was moved further away, and there were some other changes.”

“If the changes were so significant,” said Conway, “why weren’t new plans submitted to the board?”

“The changes came through the contractor,” Charon explained. “He felt his changes were right and went beyond my plans. He didn’t do the paperwork properly, but he did a beautiful job. I don’t want to see the Kings punished for contractor overstep when they’ve done such a good job with this property.”

“The contractor did well,” admitted Farinon. “When a contractor is hired, a certain amount of creativity comes into play. I went to the property, though, and there were some deviations I was concerned about.”

Other members were concerned about a driveway that had apparently been placed inside a 25-foot ‘no touch’ zone.

“There’s a lot of mulch here and the driveway was moved out of place into what looks like the ‘no-touch’ zone,” pointed out associate member Daniel Gagne.

“Well, the area used to be a lawn. I think it had some other functions too,” said Farinon.

“‘No-touch’ doesn’t mean virgin, though. It means no-touch,” Gagne replied.

“Well, it has been touched,” said Teal, surveying Farinon’s photos of the location.

Considering the debate, Smith questioned whether they should continue the public hearing at the next meeting.

Farinon paused to think for a moment before replying. “Yes. I’d like to take another look. I’d just like to make a few adjustments before next time.”

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission will be on July 6 at 7:00 pm in the Rochester Town Hall meeting room.

By Andrea Ray

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