The Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is once again fully loaded, that is, with a full slate of commissioners to handle the growing demands of the community for land use under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. The new commissioners are Trevor Francis and Mike Dubuc. Dubuc is also a member of the Agricultural Commission.

For the new commissioners, it was a fairly smooth and painless first performance.          Coming before the commission of behalf of his client, Lorraine Cottle, was Doug Schneider of N. Douglas Schneider & Associates. The application of Cottle’s Request for Determination of Applicability became the question, should the filing be an RDA or a Notice of Intent?

After describing Cottle’s objective – offering plans for a single-family dwelling with associated infrastructures nearing a 50-foot buffer zone –Chairman Robert Rogers asked why Cottle had not filed a NOI. Noting that the plans did not include any clearing for a backyard and terming the drawing “vanilla,” Rogers stated, “I’m struggling to understand the strategy.”

Schneider said, “We want to get the property to where the owner can sell it…. We need to meet something that can be permitted.”

ConCom member Peter Newton asked, “Why permit the house? Why not delineate the wetlands?”

Commission member Michael King interjected, “To defer the large cost to the buyer.”

During a follow-up interview, when asked what the cost differential is between filing a RDA or a NOI, Conservation Agent Liz Leidhold stated that there is no cost for filing an RDA. There is a $500 fee, however, to file a NOI.

Schneider conceded that he was assisting his client in the most cost effective manner he could and was aware that in the future a new owner would most likely return to the commission with an entirely new plan with a far greater impact on jurisdictional areas.

After fully vetting the pros and cons of the filing, Newton and Rogers voted ‘nay,’ while King, Francis, and Dubuc voted ‘yea,’ granting the applicant a Negative 3 determination (not required to file a NOI) with conditions.

Four Certificates of Compliance were approved for 173 Brandt Island Road, and a certificate of compliance was granted to Ted Gowdy of 15 Fieldstone Drive at The Preserve at Bay Club.

During a discussion period, Rogers told the board that he and Leidhold had recently met with the town administrator to discuss a fee schedule for site visits.

Rogers said the Board of Selectmen wished to evaluate charging for this service in an effort to fund more working hours for the agent and the departmental secretary. Rogers said the workload was more than sufficient to justify a full-time agent and secretary, and fees would help defray the cost.

“We do a good job of getting applications in and out,” Rogers said, but other towns, he added, do charge for site visits and have full-time staffs with lighter workloads.

An implementation of new fees would have to pass Town Meeting, Rogers said, while reminding all that a previous attempt had failed.

Several older jurisdictional matters were also discussed.

Leidhold told the commissioners that a site visit to Brandt Point Village with Environmental Scientist Brad Holmes showed several roadway washouts and the presence of silt leeching into the detention ponds.

Regarding Leisure Shore Marina, Rogers said the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection had not yet approved the clean up plan to date, and a consent order was pending.

And regarding 4 Seabreeze Lane, Rogers noted that an Enforcement Order had been issued.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 26 at 6:30 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell

Developers of a potential solar farm off Snipatuit Road have offered to donate a 108-acre parcel of land abutting the 15 acres of proposed solar arrays to the Town, but the Rochester Board of Selectmen is hesitant to decide whether the Town or the Rochester Land Trust should accept the land donation.

On October 19, the board inched closer to deciding that the land trust should acquire the land, but held off on a formal vote until legal details could be assessed by town counsel.

Rochester Assistant Assessor Charles Shea told the board that tax revenue would be minimally affected if the land were taken out of Chapter 61 designation and converted to town-owned conservation land. Currently, he said, the Chapter 61 land is taxed at $50 per acre and assessed at $5,400.

The 15 acres of solar arrays are what will generate revenue for the town, valued at $500,000. In the agreement, Shea said the developer, Melink Corporation, would make a substantial payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) – the benefit of which will outweigh the loss of the Chapter 61 land tax.

The Conservation Commission once opposed a town acquisition of the land, but then reconsidered their position and advocated for either town or land trust acceptance. Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon said the land would connect to other parcels of recreational land and currently contains various hiking trails, a benefit to the townspeople. In addition, the land abuts environmentally sensitive areas such as Logging Swamp and two aquifers.

“These are the reasons why the Conservation Commission forwarded the memo and voted to recommend the acceptance,” said Farinon.

Selectmen discussed potential uses of the land, such as hiking and possibly hunting, although the board is divided on its stance on hunting, with Chairman Richard Nunes neutral on the issue, Selectman Naida Parker opposed, and Selectman Brad Morse in favor – as Nunes put it, “He’s an avid hunter, he’ll kill anything,” eliciting laughter.

The board agreed the land trust might have more flexibility in the uses of the land, while Town Administrator Michael McCue wondered if the town’s insurance would be affected by an allowance of hunting on a property of such a size.

The board held off on making a decision until all of the “down sides” to town ownership could be uncovered.

Also during the meeting, Rochester Police Chief Paul Magee defended his department to the selectmen in light of comments members of the Rochester Country Fair Board of Directors made at the board’s last meeting about the cost of police presence at the event.

Some facts were not discussed the night of October 7, Magee said, including how the number of detail police officers has not risen since 2010, and detail hourly costs have “only increased by $3 per hour,” a $372 increase in police detail costs for the country fair. Detail cops are one of the highest expenses for the country fair.

“I think for an event of this size … those increases have been very, very mild,” Magee said, adding that the department has made a “tremendous effort in keeping costs in check.”

Magee took offense to RCF BOD Co-Chairman Dave Souza’s assertion that the Fire Department was generous while the police was disappointing.

“In 2015, the Police Department provided 73 man hours to the fair at no cost,” said Magee. “I don’t think we could be more generous and accommodating at this point.”

That is a $3,100 savings to the country fair, Magee stated.

The chief said he thinks the problem lies in the Police Department’s practice of “operat[ing] under the radar.”

“We’re not out making a big deal about it. We’re not patting ourselves on the back,” said Magee.

As for Souza’s comparison of the country fair traffic and parking with the soccer fields on Dexter Lane on weekends, Magee said there is no comparison. The country fair brings in thousands over the course of four days, and with the soccer games only a couple hundred parents come to watch the game for a few hours. Magee compared the number of detail officers at the Rochester Country Fair with the Westport Country Fair, 128 and 230, respectively.

“And I can’t say that [the Westport] fair is twice as big,” Magee told the selectmen, “but know that we are trying to keep that as reasonable as possible.”

Year after year, he said, people comment on how there aren’t any problems at the fair and ask, why do we need so many officers? It is because of the police presence, commented Magee.

“I certainly very much enjoy working with the fair committee,” said Magee, “I don’t think you can find a better group of individuals more dedicated.…”

Later in the meeting, Laurene Gerrior of the Rochester Historical Commission and several fellow members put forth a notion that the historical district of Rochester Center must be preserved for its history, evidenced by many archeological finds, of which there may still be many undiscovered.

The area of focus was the land at and near the old cemetery adjacent to a large lot slated for a solar energy installation, although the solar farm was not specifically mentioned.

Gerrior talked of prehistoric Native American finds, such as a number of arrowheads and a “pound corn rock,” evidence of agriculture in the immediate area. She cited the Dexter Lane soccer fields as a site of significant archeological finds.

“There was a [Native American] settlement not too far from Rochester Center,” said Gerrior. “We need to be concerned with protecting and preserving the historical context [of the center].”

She is not anti-development, Gerrior stated, but the historic nature of the area is “both fragile and irreplaceable.”

“Once lost it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to replace,” said Gerrior. According to Gerrior, state law and the Massachusetts Historical Commission requires projects planned for a historic location such as Rochester Center to appear before the local historic district commission and historical commission for approval.

Parker called the Massachusetts Historic Commission “the big stick” the Town could use to fend off unwanted developments in the town’s historical district.

“It was there before us, and it should be respected,” said Gerrior.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for November 2 at 6:30 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

During the October 19 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board, residents from the Brandt Point Village subdivision were present to have their application heard, a request for public trash collection. One of the conditions in their subdivision covenant states that the neighborhood would not receive public trash collection. On this evening, they were seeking an amendment to overturn that restriction.

The Planning Board during a previous meeting had voted to amend the covenant for a condominium complex, The Villages at Mattapoisett, allowing that complex to receive public trash collection.

Mary Carlson, a resident from the Brandt Island Road subdivision, on behalf of all residents of the subdivision, requested the same consideration the board had previously given to The Villages.

Immediately after her brief explanation, board member John Mathieu asked Chairman Tom Tucker to table the request pending town counsel review. Mathieu’s reason was concern over language in the amendment previously rendered for The Villages, saying he needed comment on the board’s last vote for The Villages to confirm the amended language.

“I’d like the language to match and to confirm that we have legal authority to make the vote regarding our action for The Villages,” Mathieu said.

“We need to make sure we did it right the first time before we do it again,” he told Carlson.

Mathieu then launched into his concern that the town’s legal counsel was nonresponsive. Tucker said the request for legal counsel review had been made weeks ago, and the board had not yet received even an acknowledgement that the request was made.

Tucker said he and the board’s secretary had made several follow-up requests to Kopelman and Paige. He too noted his displeasure with the town’s selected legal counsel.

This prompted board member Mary Crain to comment, “That’s bizarre.”

“This is the sort of treatment we get from Kopelman,” said Mathieu. “I’m very disappointed.” He continued, “I’ve been disappointed for several years.” He wondered aloud if maybe the board should ask the town administrator if they could hire their own legal counsel.

The board moved to continue Brandt Point Village’s request for covenant changes and to request legal assistance through the office of the town administrator.

Continuing on the theme of this subdivision, Highway Superintendent Barry Denham told the board that he was concerned about the ability of traffic to exit and enter onto Brandt Island Road, especially with cars lined up waiting for school buses.

But the three residents present to hear the outcome of their trash collection request were far more concerned with other problems in the subdivision versus traffic flow.

“We don’t get any responses from Joe,” said resident Daniel Scully referring to the new construction manager for the project Joe Furtado.

Carlson, Scully, and Dennis Dimos, another resident of the subdivision, all expressed serious concern over the lack of responsiveness from Furtado after his previously expressed pledge to be forthcoming to the residents.

Tucker asked Denham what the condition of the drainage was in the development, long a bone of contention for the town and the homeowners. Denham replied, “Nothing has changed … water goes wherever it wants to go.”

Denham also discussed the condition of the roadways and test borings – results of which were still pending.

“Why don’t we plan on bringing Mr. Furtado here?” asked Tucker. He said that rather than having bits and pieces of information, it made sense to have Furtado present to respond to the residents’ concerns. The board moved to invite Furtado to the November 2 meeting.

Denham also said, due to the amount of time it takes out of his busy schedule, future subdivision oversight work should be handled by a hired professional. Tucker agreed.

Earlier in the evening, the board moved to accept revised plans from The Preserve at the Bay Club for one lot and from the Split Rock subdivision, also part of The Bay Club, for two lots.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for November 2 at 7:00 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell

On October 15, the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals heard several applications in which requests to allow the use of grandfathered setbacks was the main theme.

The first hearing of the evening was for 7 Fairview Drive, owned by Milton Heuberger. The property was described as having been two lots that were either intentionally or unintentionally joined. Heuberger asked that the original lots with the original setbacks – those prior to 1973 – be recognized so that his daughter could build a home next to his residence.

Heuberger had already received the green light from the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission, as well as approval from the Water and Sewer Department for municipal services.

Acting Chairman Paul Millott asked Director of Inspectional Services Andy Bobola if the application was acceptable as presented.

Bobola responded, “This is a straightforward application in keeping with the laws.” Bobola added, “The plans are in keeping with the neighborhood.”

The application was approved.

The next application also requesting the recognition and acceptance of earlier setbacks was from Corey Bizzaro for 0 Hillside Avenue. Bizzaro’s application was identical to Heuberger’s regarding setbacks and his desire to build a home in keeping with the neighborhood.

That part of the application was not a problem for the board; however, abutter Kevin Tavares told the board that Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program had designated land abutting his property and that of Bizzaro’s, questioning the wisdom of placing a new home near the line.

“I’m not against the project, not at all,” Tavares stated numerous times as he tried to argue that Bizzaro’s plans might endanger wildlife habitat.

The board wondered amongst themselves if this was an issue for their consideration or if they were to simply review the application from a zoning perspective.

Bobola suggested to the board that their purview likely should only be that of the zoning issue and that they could approve the application with the restriction that the Conservation Commission would need to review the project before a building permit could be granted. Tavares was told that the Conservation Commission was the right place to bring up his concern.

The board agreed with Bobola and approved the project with the grandfathered setbacks being accepted.

The third project of the evening looking for setback relief came from Bruce Rocha, Sr. for property located at 0 Wildwood Terrace. Rocha told the board that he had owned the property for 40 years and had made improvements in the form of a Board of Health-approved septic installation and connection to public water.

“I’m just asking for the same thing that Milton got,” he told the board. His application was approved.

Also coming before the board was Charles Van Voorhis of Nick’s Pizza, 27 County Road. Van Voorhis sought and received permission to enclose an outdoor patio space to allow for the expansion of his kitchen and reconfiguration of the restrooms. Abutters did not have a problem with the scope of work planned, although Nancy Perry of Upland Way asked if the larger kitchen would mean more traffic to the narrow side street along the eastern edge of the restaurant.

“I was thinking about adding delivery service,” Van Voorhis responded. The application was approved.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals will be November 19 at 6:00 pm contingent upon applications.

By Marilou Newell

The two scheduled hearings for the Rochester Conservation Commission’s October 20 meeting had to be continued.

The first application coming before the commissioners was filed by Joel and Caitlin Sullivan for property located on High Street for the construction of a four-bedroom residence.

Represented by Rick Charon of Charon Associates, the commissioners heard that the Board of Health had approved the septic plan and that wetlands and other jurisdictional areas had been identified.

But a critical piece – clearance from the National Heritage and Endangered Species Program regarding wildlife habitat – was missing. Charon said an error in addressing documents to the National Heritage office had delayed a response, one that stalls the application until their critical determination is received.

The commissioners were able to approve erosion controls and asked the applicant to return on November 17. They also informed the Sullivans that in the future, land clearing activities needed to be requested and approved by the Conservation Commission before commencing.

Also continued was the application for Melink Corporation of Milford, Ohio, for an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for property located on the westerly side of Snipatuit Pond.

Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon said she had walked about two-thirds of the 4,000-feet of land requiring wetlands delineations. However, since abutters had not been properly notified, the hearing had to be continued until November 17.

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for November 3 at 7:00 pm in the Rochester Town Hall meeting room, at which time no voting will take place due to Election Day restrictions.

The November 17 meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission will be a full meeting scheduled for 7:00 pm in the town hall meeting room.

By Marilou Newell