Another solar energy production facility is on track now for Rochester, making its first appearance before the Rochester Conservation Commission on July 7 for approval of the wetlands line.

A private solar farm, property owners Lynn and Gerald Poineau of 410 Neck Road propose the installation of two 44-foot by 12-foot ground mounted solar arrays on their property within the 100-foot buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland.

The 1,056 square-foot solar project is being developed under the management of Direct Energy Solar, and representative Michael Whalen, without copies of the spec sheet or site plan that evening, secured a negative determination, giving the project the go ahead without the requirement of a Notice of Intent application.

But not so fast – Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon said she visited the site and found everything looking in order, but noted the presence of salamanders and a considerable amount of salamander larvae at the site. She also saw what she thought was likely a vernal pool. Farinon had to contact the Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program to identify the salamander species in case it was endangered and is awaiting a reply.

Some members of the commission had questions, such as why the site couldn’t be moved further away from the wetlands and away from the buffer zone.

“At a certain point, we sacrifice our quality due to shading,” said Whalen, pointing out that an existing garage lies at the site which could inhibit sunlight if the arrays were moved toward it.

“It’s outside the 25-foot no touch zone,” said Chairman Rosemary Smith. “It doesn’t look like it’s going to make any more disturbance than what’s already been done there.”

The commission issued the negative determination with the stipulation that Farinon be notified two weeks before work begins.

Also during the meeting, the Lalli brothers, facing an Enforcement Order for unpermitted activities within wetlands, did not have what the commission requested from the last meeting, but their attorney, Andrea McKnight, gave a number of excuses as to why the Lallis have yet to produce a name of a botanist to survey the wetlands in question at the High Street property.

McKnight said Travis and Dustin Lalli contacted eight of the botanists from a list given to them by Farinon, but one of them declined, one’s quote was too expensive, and five others promised quotes for later next week. Another, said McKnight, wanted to speak to Farinon before issuing the men a quote. McKnight also said Farinon being away on vacation, along with the 4^th of July weekend, slowed the process down for the Lallis.

“I did touch base with that office [today],” said Farinon. “All they wanted was a copy of the Enforcement Order.” Farinon continued, “I said, did you ask the property owner for that, and she said they were told they didn’t have it.”

So that had nothing to do with it, said Farinon. She said the Lallis had plenty of copies of the Enforcement Order to provide to the botanist.

McKnight branded it a miscommunication, saying if that was all the botanist needed, she could have emailed it or faxed it to them.

Commission member Michael Conway was unconvinced.

“What seems to be going on here is another delay tactic,” said Conway. Conway said the commission still needed a date for when a botanist would issue ConCom a report. “Otherwise, we have to push the Enforcement Order.”

McKnight told the commission, “We’re not dragging our feet; we have eight different names … I assure you this is not a delay tactic. It’s Fourth of July weekend. A lot of people go on vacation.”

ConCom member Kevin Cassidy sternly told McKnight that the commission could not keep extending the time frame for the Lallis to hire a botanist.

“I think it’s time we put our foot down and say you have to have it by then, and if we don’t, we’re going to contact the DEP.”

But unfortunately, as Town Counsel Blair Bailey pointed out, whether the commission goes to the DEP or whether it orders Bailey to proceed with legal action in Superior Court, “it’s not a heck of a lot faster than getting done what you want to get done.” And that is, waiting for the Lallis to produce a name. Bailey suggested issuing a “drop dead date” as a deadline for the Lallis to hire a botanist.

“Your patience is thin, mine is … everybody who’s been involved,” said Bailey. “But if you can make steps to get down to that final determination, it makes sense to me to get to it that way…”

The commission decided on a drop dead date of August 18 for a botanist to generate a report. Smith asked McKnight if that date was agreeable or realistic for her and her clients.

“I am optimistic that one of those [botanists] will be able to get us a report by then,” said McKnight. “Can I swear it on my first-born child? No.” Because, who knows? The botanist could die the day before issuing the report. A couple pairs of eyes rolled from the conference room table.

The commission voted in favor of allowing the Lallis to move forward with pushing the earth they moved to dig a trench back into the trench within one week, and allowed the matter to be continued until the September 1 meeting with the stipulation that McKnight provide the commission with biweekly updates to discuss during the meetings leading up to September.

“We’re going to push forward with this,” warned Conway. “We’re not going to let this slide.”

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for July 21 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

Charged with helping the town find a way to improve its harbor plan, David Janik, South Coast regional coordinator for the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM), a branch of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, met with the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board on June 25. The MAB over the years has aided in crafting waterside rules and regulations for boating. Several years ago they developed a harbor management plan, but that document did not protect the town against proposed construction of private docks and piers.

Town Administrator Michael Gagne was directed by the Board of Selectmen to bring some clarity and strength to the existing harbor management plan on the heels of an appeal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of a large private pier that extends into the harbor – an area designated for recreation by the MAB via the harbor management plan. The appeal is currently being reviewed by the DEP after lengthy public hearings.

Over the past months, the pier application has navigated through various town boards and subsequently appealed at the state level. The town’s harbor management plan seemed too weak to be of meaningful use in upholding the town’s assertion that the pier location would be a detriment to public access and rights.

“The selectmen are concerned our plan didn’t have the strength or clout we needed,” Gagne told the board members, adding, “…We need a plan with some substance and teeth.”

Janik then described the plan development process.

For a state approved plan, Janik said, “The state has a detailed process that is time consuming and expensive.” He pointed to the harbor management plan created by New Bedford and Fairhaven several years ago, saying that it cost them approximately $200,000, primarily in consultant fees. He said that consultants are generally used to help cities and towns create a document that would be acceptable for state certification. But he questioned if Mattapoisett really needed something that complex.

For a plan to receive state approval, Janik said that first the town needed to identify “the suite of issues you want to address.” He then said that a proposal is sent to the CZM and, if it meets all the requirements, it would receive approval to proceed.

He again asserted that for plans heading towards state certification, consultants who specialize in this area must be used. However, even after expending time and money, some plans may still not achieve certification, Janik warned.

When asked what the advantages and disadvantages are to developing a state certified plan, Janik responded, “The ability to change a significant number of Chapter 91 requirements…. Things can be manipulated and adjusted through the tool of a state certified plan.” Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 regulates many aspects of water-related activities, including construction of docks and piers.

As for disadvantages, Janik pointed to the time, effort, and costs associated with the process. But again, he questioned if Mattapoisett even needed a certified harbor management plan.

“New Bedford’s Chapter 91 area extends inland,” Janik explained, as Chapter 91 jurisdictional area goes to historic high tide lines. In the case of New Bedford, the harbor line has changed significantly over decades of use and has been filled in to create landmass. He said that Mattapoisett’s coastline has basically not changed or been filled.

Board member Patricia Apperson asked, “So what are the advantages?”

“Probably very little,” Janik replied.

Gagne asked what the town should do to improve the language in the existing document so that it would be viewed as meaningful to the DEP in the future.

Janik said the language in the plan needed to be very specific and not vague, such as simply stating an area should be reserved for “recreational use.” He said piers and docks were not viewed as encumbrances to such activities.

“If you go through a reasonable process to show the DEP where you don’t want docks and piers,” said Janik, “you show your reasoning on it such as the past, present, or future presence of eelgrass, shell fishing beds, endangered species, for these reasons, these sensitive areas … no more docks and piers.” Janik said such language is stronger and therefore has more meaning to the DEP.

According to Janik, public hearings showing public involvement should also be produced to demonstrate resident involvement. Janik told the MAB that a strongly worded letter from the selectmen should accompany the harbor management plan, even if the plan itself is not state certified. The combination of the two documents carried weight with the DEP, he said.

“You must show a process and fairness,” Janik emphasized. He said this process with the letter from local governing bodies is “a tool that very few communities know about or have used.”

Janik also said aesthetics – a desire by the town to keep certain coastlines clear of private docks and piers – can be part of a harbor management plan.

Gagne said, “So we don’t have a problem down the road if we need to perfect this.”

Janik offered his assistance moving forward. The MAB will review the harbor plans from Harwich, Chatham, Marion, and the state certified plan from New Bedford/Fairhaven as they work towards improving the language in Mattapoisett’s harbor plan.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board is scheduled for July 30 at 7:00 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell