It was a crowded session at the November 17 Rochester Conservation Committee meeting. The commission had no less than five public meetings and hearings to attend to and bench space was in short supply.

The meeting opened with a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Eagle Scout Corbin Blanchard who was seeking permission to reconstruct the Mary’s Pond Beach canoe and cartop boat access on property off of Perry’s Lane. He briefly detailed the process to the committee: reconstruction would include installation of a 4-foot wide asphalt path, two landing areas, and stabilization of the side slopes with riprap underlain by a filter fabric. Siltation control measures would also be implemented. Blanchard also indicated that construction would be done without any adverse effects on the pond. The commission unanimously granted approval.

Commission member Kevin Cassidy lauded Blanchard.

“This is a wonderful idea, and it’s great for the town,” said Cassidy. “I commend you for taking it on and wish you luck with it.”

Property owners Joel and Caitlin Sullivan requested approval to build a new single-family home on their property on High Street. The building construction and associated site work, if approved, would take place within the 100-foot buffer zone of protected wetland areas.

The couple recently received word from the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) certifying that endangered species within the buffer zone would not be adversely affected by the site work. The commission unanimously voted to approve the building request, with a requirement to pull a large mulch pile away from the wetland areas and spread it out.

Two applicants requested notice of Resource Area Delineation, as both had previously disagreed with Conservation Commission board members on wetland border marking. The first was Melink Corporation for the property located on Snipatuit Road where it proposes to build a solar farm.

The filing was meant to review and properly confirm 4,000 linear feet of bordering vegetated wetland boundary. Melink submitted revised plans to comply with the commission.

“Some of the borders were moved in order to not miss any wetlands,” said Melink’s representative. “We’ve connected several flagging stations in the revised plans to eliminate flagging stations in between.”

The request was granted with unanimous approval.

The second Resource Area Delineation was filed by Clean Energy Collective, LLC of Worcester for property located at 0 New Bedford Road and 268 Mattapoisett Road, the location of a proposed solar farm.

This filing was to confirm 2,750 linear feet of bordering vegetated wetland boundary. The representatives from Clean Energy indicated that they would be asking for a continuation rather than a direct decision, since they do not yet have a formal site plan. They said they were just looking for some feedback.

They acknowledged that most of the border was not in contention, except for one pocket of land in dispute because the land was not tested properly.

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon, after walking the border, requested test pits in the contended area be dug, but the pits were dug with an auger rather than a spade shovel, which is incorrect practice.

Farinon remarked, “There is a broad swath in the middle which is wetland, and isn’t yet recognized as such.” She asked for more testing of the contended area. Clean Energy’s request for continuation was unanimously approved.

The last business order of the day was filed by David Vermette of VCORP for property located off of Vaughan Hill Road. Vermette requested approval for the building of a new single-family home with attached garage, driveway, and associated grading and utilities. A portion of the work would take place inside the 100-foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland.

VCORP representative Corey Medeiros said that siltation measures would be implemented at the property. He acknowledged the difficulty with the property in the past, when former owners had attempted to have building plans there approved.

“We’re open to questions on the wetlands,” said Medeiros. “We’ve spoken to wetland scientists about this.”

Farinon said they could not accept the plans as they currently stood. She requested a more recent perc test – the last one was completed in 2013 – and a re-evaluation by a wetlands scientist. Medeiros agreed, asking for a continuation. “I think we can take care of this in two weeks … hopefully,” he said with a smile. The request for continuance was unanimously approved.

Farinon was also pleased to report to the committee that they had received a $42,000 grant for the Haskell Woods Land Preservation Project. The money will be used to purchase 11 acres of land in the name of the Rochester Land Trust, which would provide public access to the area.

The next Rochester Conservation Committee meeting will be held on December 1 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Andrea Ray

Representatives of Bell Mobile Atlantic, on behalf of Verizon, asked the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals once again on November 12 to overturn an earlier decision made by the building commissioner to deny a building permit that would add 12 new cellular antennas to an existing tower off of Cranberry Highway. The denial means that Bell needs to request a site plan review from the Rochester Planning Board, something that Bell feels will take too long a time considering the encroaching winter and the time already spent discussing the proposals.

The overturn request was discussed at an earlier ZBA meeting, but the ZBA opted to continue the matter into November, citing discomfort with the proposed plans.

“We’re going to hear more about how high our Verizon bills are?” board member Jeffrey Costa jokingly inquired of fellow board member Kirby Gilmore.

“They’ll tell you the only reason they’re so high is because we need so many town meetings to sort this out,” Gilmore replied.

Attorney Victor Manougian clarified that Bell’s plans hadn’t changed at all.

“We’re trying to work with the town to comply with what the building commissioner says we need to do,” said Manougian. “We want to move forward now. We’re asking you to overturn the process only in this instance. It should not become a normal model for future companies.”

“So if we don’t approve this, they need to go to a site plan?” board member David Arancio asked.

Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson sat in on the meeting and offered up clarity on the matter.

“They have two choices. They can appeal in federal court, or they can wait on the Planning Board and submit a site plan review,” Johnson explained. “They chose to subvert the process, hoping it would be faster than using a site plan.” Johnson pointed out that Bell had submitted site plan reviews elsewhere.

“A quick Google search showed me eight towns where Bell has applied for a special exemption grant: Harvard, Oxford, Wilmington, Newton, Concord,” he said, ticking town examples off. “All included a site plan review and a Special Permit request. It’s not an uncommon thing.”

The ZBA questioned, if Bell was attempting to move things along quickly, why had they not filed a site plan review application until October 14?

“That was my own fault,” said Manougian. “It seemed to me that you can’t file a site review until you’ve had an informal meeting and you know what the check amount will be. The month delay was me, but I still feel that we are eligible for exemption.”

This did not ring true with Johnson, who pointed out that for many of the other towns with which Bell had filed, they had submitted a site plan review application alongside the initial building permit request.

“What I am most concerned about,” continued Johnson, “is that if someone is trying to subvert the process and the Zoning Board agrees, everyone else in the future will take the same shot. It is the view of the Planning Board that Bell is not exempt.”

Arancio agreed. “We have objectives which need to be followed.”

The board voted for a unanimous denial of Bell’s exemption request. Gilmore said, “I could go either way. I think ultimately that I’ll take my advice from the town counsel. It shouldn’t have to be this way, but it is. I like to get things done fast, but in this instance I move towards the process we have, which requires a site plan.”

Bell will now be forced to either file a federal appeal or undergo a site plan review with the Rochester Planning Board.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 10 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Andrea Ray

Planning Board member John Mathieu during the November 16 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board stood by his assertion that it was essential to receive “legal written opinion” for many cases and issues the board handles on behalf of the town.

“It is my opinion that we need a little back-up in our file, legal written opinion,” said Mathieu. “I want back-up in the files.” Mathieu was referring to the matter of language changes to the covenant between the town and the condominium complex, the Villages at Mattapoisett, for public trash collection.

The residents had secured a positive vote from the Planning Board after several hearings. Then along came Brandt Point Village requesting the same.

In both cases, the Planning Board was disposed to make covenant changes in favor of their request for trash collection after learning that the new contract with ABC Disposal stated “all residents shall be entitled” to trash collection.

Mathieu noted that during the October 19 meeting, the board had discussed requesting written legal opinion.

Chairman Tom Tucker said that at the last meeting of the board on November 2 – a meeting Mathieu had not been able to attend – the town’s counseling law firm Kopelman & Paige was present and told the board members a written legal opinion on the matter was not necessary.

“I move we table these until we get a written legal opinion,” Mathieu said in response. The board moved to table the signing of covenant changes pending written legal opinion.

In other matters, Mathieu said he had recently visited Ocean Breeze Lane. He said residents had complained about the roadway topcoat in the development that still had not been applied. He also stated that drainage was problematic and that both issues had been ongoing since 2013.

“We decided we would send the matter to town counsel,” said Mathieu. “I don’t know what happened…. It seems like we’ve been waiting for an answer.”

Tucker thought that Town Administrator Michael Gagne might have said the matter was going to court.

“We should at least be kept up to speed,” Mathieu said. “I’m looking for written legal opinion…. I’m a real estate lawyer,” he added.

Mathieu wanted to clear up what he had previously stated during the October 19 meeting, claiming that he did not say the town’s legal counsel was “unresponsive,” as discussed at the November 2 meeting when Mathieu was absent and the town’s attorneys appeared to defend against allegations that they were in fact unresponsive.

“I did not say town counsel was unresponsive; I didn’t say that,” Mathieu maintained. “The discussion was about not getting information quick enough from them.”

“I want the record to be straight, my personal matter with them has no bearing on my work here,” Mathieu stated in response to Attorney Jonathan Silverstein’s November 2 comment that Mathieu might have been reacting to prior litigation taken by Kopelman & Paige against Mathieu on behalf of the town.

Mathieu said individual members of the board should not be reaching out to town counsel on their own, but that information should flow through the chairman to the Planning Board secretary.

“From now on, if Tammy asks a question (of legal counsel), it’s for our next meeting,” said Mathieu.

Tucker said, “I’ll call tomorrow.”

In the ongoing matter of what needs to be completed in Phase 1 of the Brandt Point Village, Building Inspector Andy Bobola requested an opinion from the Planning Board as to whether or not developer Joseph Furtado should be granted building permits for Phase 2.

The question of what type of surety Furtado had in place for Phase 1, which is still incomplete, came into play as the board struggled with whether or not to affirm Furtado’s request of the Building Department to issue permits for Phase 2.

Mathieu suggested allowing Furtado’s attorney time to review a response from Brian Winner, town counsel, in which a suggestion from the previous developer to move funds received from the sale of the last lot in Phase 1 to Furtado didn’t fall into regulatory guidelines for sureties. Mathieu noted that Winner’s email response was not, in his opinion, written legal opinion since it lacked a signature and wasn’t on official letterhead.

Mathieu was in favor of helping Furtado towards completing the project saying, “We are beating a dead horse with Mr. Furtado…. I’d like to see him complete this.” He went on to say, “I hear we are a difficult board to get through. I’d like to help him.”

But other board members weren’t so eager to allow the Building Department to grant permits.

After additional discourse that reflected both a willingness to see the project finished and an attitude of caution, they moved to respond to Bobola by saying that no consent should be given for building permits on Phase 2 until a topcoat is applied to the roadway in Phase 1. They also moved to invite Furtado to their next meeting.

Earlier in the evening, the board approved the removal of several diseased trees along River Road as requested by Tree Warden Roland Cote.

“I want to let you know, I come in here to ask to cut down trees,” said Cote. “I’ve also planted trees.” He said that in a partnership with the Tree Committee, 15 trees had been planted since the beginning of the year.

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

By Marilou Newell

The new owner of a Front Street house that was historically used as a two-family wants the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a Special Permit for an official conversion of the single-family to two-family, but opposition from a neighbor and a cautious ZBA could keep it a single-family house.

Richard Schaffer, the attorney for 444 Front Street owner Chris Shachoy, said history of two-family use goes back a long way, but two years has lapsed since the last time it was used as a two-family dwelling.

Plans for the house include the enlargement of a rear deck plus an additional deck, but the footprint would remain the same and the window arrangement of the house would be the only visible change from the front.

“The neighborhood would not be changed,” said Schaffer, “[we’re] just taking an older house and updating it and making it look more attractive.” The house, said Shaffer, was originally built by the younger brother of Elizabeth Taber. “This particular addition … would not be a detriment to the neighborhood or the character of the town.”

ZBA Chairman Eric Pierce asked if the home would be owner-occupied, and Schaffer said yes, at least in the beginning.

Pierce wanted to do some research on the request before making a decision, saying the board had never dealt with a case such as this. He wanted to be sure the board wouldn’t be “putting our foot in a bucket.”

Resident Helen Hills said that her family sold the house to Shachoy, that the house was built in 1838, and that the entire second floor was made into a separate unit in 1960 when her cousin’s older brother got married. She claimed it became a rental property in 1990 and was rented a long time, and various other families lived there until her cousin died four years ago.

“It’s a beautiful house, and I’m glad to see it fixed up,” Hills said.

There was concern from neighboring resident and realtor Bernadette Kelly over the existence of several other two-family houses on that part of Front Street. She wondered what the Town’s plan was for that stretch of road at “the entryway to our town.”

“It is a lovely house [and] it would be great to see it preserved,” said Kelley, “I’m not particularly comfortable that it’s going to be preserved as an investment property.” It is being lovingly maintained for now, she said, but that is not always the case with rental properties, she commented.

Schaffer brought up the nearby Marion Village Estates, saying this house was only adding one unit, and rental properties in Marion are in demand. The one unit would not burden the town services, said Schaffer, and a house can be run-down whether or not it’s a rental.

“A lot of houses in town that are not rented are run down,” argued Schaffer.

Kelly disagreed with Schaffer’s reasoning.

“How does this actually fit into the existing character of the neighborhood, because the Baywatch neighborhood does not fit into the character of the neighborhood,” said Kelly.

Schaffer replied, “The single-family dwelling could be rented out as it is already. So there’s no difference.”

Hills’ comment was that Shachoy was within his right to tear the old house down, but he chose to renovate it. She argued that the recognition as a two-family would not make any difference.

“We will have to dig a little deeper into the bylaws,” said Pierce, and the hearing was closed for the application to be taken under advisement. When Schaffer asked Pierce to keep the public hearing open in case issues arise that he would like to address, Pierce refused, not even sure if he could re-open the public hearing or not.

The hearing was already closed, the matter would be taken under advisement, the board would render a decision, “…And then you can sue us,” said Pierce.

“Appeal,” Building Commissioner Scott Shippey corrected Pierce.

“Appeal,” said Pierce. “Sorry.”

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 10 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry