When workers shoveling snow off of the Old Rochester Regional High School roof discovered a potential structural issue possibly caused by the weight of the snow, school was canceled Monday, February 23 as a precaution.

Students got an extra day of February vacation to allow an engineer to examine the possible deflection, as ORR Facilities Director Gene Jones described the “footprint section” in question.

“Everything was fine,” said Jones on Tuesday during a phone interview. “There was no leakage, no visual damage.

Jones said a crew had been shoveling the roof during vacation week ahead of expected rain for Saturday and Sunday, and encountered the possible deflection on Sunday in the roof above the cafeteria kitchen and serving area of the building.

“It felt a little bit flexible,” said Jones, likening it to walking on a plank and having it slightly bow beneath one’s feet. “It was very minute. But anytime you have a question, you have to check. It’s the norm.”

An engineer was called and subsequently the building commissioner certified the building as safe for occupancy.

The safety of the staff and students is paramount,” said Jones. “It was all a safety factor. That’s what they pay me for. To provide a safe environment and school facility.”

By Jean Perry

After a robust discussion on February 23 between the Rochester Board of Selectmen, bylaw subcommittee, and town department heads, the draft Limited Commercial Bylaw amendment slated for the Annual Town Meeting warrant will head back to the Planning Board for refinement before property owners in and abutters to the affected zones are invited to a pubic forum to share their concerns.

Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson told selectmen the goal was to clean up outdated and irrelevant language from the bylaw and to add a mixed-use capability combining residential use with commercial use.

“That’s probably the biggest change,” said Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman and subcommittee member Richard Cutler.

The zoning change would only affect the two areas in Rochester zoned for limited commercial use: across from the Town Hall and to the side of Town Hall in the town center.

Selectman Naida Parker’s concern was how comfortable residents in or near the two zones would feel about the proposed changes, urging their voices to be heard.

One resident abutting the limited commercial zone, having experienced the Planning Board’s attempt years ago to create an overlay district that some residents adamantly opposed, wasted no time before expressing his skepticism.

“I think you’re putting the cart before the horse,” said David Watling. “We still don’t know what the Town will propose…. We haven’t heard anything for ten years.”

Not true, according to Johnson.

“This is entirely different,” said Johnson to Watling. “Take what we gave you last time and get it out of your mind. It’s entirely different. One hundred and five percent different.”

Johnson said, with the bylaw as it is now, the only option provided to a developer is a residence or a strip mall. As for the language, words such as “typewriter repair shop” and other obsolete terms will be deleted.

“This isn’t going to take away anybody’s right to be notified,” said Johnson. “The village overlay thing is gone.”

Planning Board member Susan Teal said the bylaw changes were good for the town and acknowledged Parker’s mention of abutter concerns.

“This is a draft,” said Teal. “If it gives the selectmen heartburn, we want to know that now.”

Johnson pointed out that both properties affected by the bylaw changes are currently up for sale with interested parties. He referred to amended language in the bylaw that mandates future plans for development be “harmonious with the neighborhood.”

That’s when Planning Board member Ben Bailey voiced his dissent for language he considered “objective” and subject to interpretation.

“There’s language in there that’s unspecific,” said Bailey. “It’s the kind of language that somebody could just say, ‘I don’t think that it is…’”

Town Counsel Blair Bailey told Bailey there was “no way on planet Earth” that he could draft a bylaw with language not subject to interpretation.

Ben Bailey brought up another section of the draft bylaw regarding the 20 percent green space lot coverage that he found unclear, which Johnson and town counsel explained.

“One of the biggest changes is that it allows for a little bit more imagination to take place,” said Johnson. “Which might be a good thing, but it also give us (the Planning Board) the opportunity to say no.”

The boards also discussed the notion of hiring an outside codification service to reorganize and codify the Town’s zoning and general bylaws to make the book of bylaws user-friendlier to residents and board members alike.

A single bid came in at $12,800 with a $1,200 annual maintenance fee from one of the only companies that provide this service in the state.

“It seems that it’s very overreaching for what we really need,” said Johnson. “And the cost is quite substantial to get going.”

Although the annual maintenance fee did not concern Johnson so much, he was not impressed by some of the seemingly frivolous services the company would provide, such as gold embossed bylaw books.

“We don’t need stuff like that in Rochester,” said Johnson.

Johnson also found the manner in which the company organizes topics into chapters, like road construction, for example, a problem.

“Planning Board rules and regs vary according to size and zoning,” said Johnson, arguing that organizing the bylaws in such a way would result in a reader having to “bounce back and forth.”

“It would give me a headache,” said Johnson.

There were other issues with the proposal, including the process possibly taking over a year for the company to complete.

Selectmen and Johnson discussed approaching the company to ask it to pare down the list of services they would provide to fit the Town’s basic needs, which they determined would be the bylaw codification and website maintenance to keep bylaws current.

Also during the meeting, selectmen approved the appointment of Lydia St. Laurent as part-time EMS dispatcher.

The selectmen also set the date of the Annual Town Meeting for June 1.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for March 2 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

A February 18 fire in the residence located at Great’scapes Nursery at 87 County Road prompted police to charge the nursery’s two owners with Class D cultivating and possession with intent to manufacture marijuana after 34 pot plants were discovered and seized, as well as drug paraphernalia police encountered at the scene.

According to a February 20 press release issued by Mattapoisett Police Chief Mary Lyons, during the course of extinguishing the fire, firefighters encountered an apparent grow room for marijuana on the second floor. Once it was safe to enter the building, Detective Craig LeBlanc allegedly observed about 12 marijuana plants lying on the floor, as well as large aluminum-like sheets spread across the floor and lining the inside of a nearby closet.

“Several heating lamps were observed hanging from the ceiling through the open closet door,” states Lyons in the press release. Additional marijuana was then found in the attic, including a small pile of dry marijuana lying beside a melted fan. The press release alleges that the room was used as a drying room for the cultivation of marijuana.

“Detective LeBlanc spoke with [one of the owners] regarding the marijuana cultivation,” states the press release. “[The owner] was unable to produce proper legal documents permitting him to possess or cultivate marijuana.”

The cause of the fire remains under investigation.

By Jean Perry

The Mattapoisett Conservation Commission on February 23 discussed concerns brought by the Buzzards Bay Coalition and Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program regarding a subdivision on Seabreeze Lane next to the Reservation Golf Club.

At the previous ConCom meeting, Chairman Bob Rogers read into the minutes a letter from the BBC and an email from the BBNEP regarding possible encroachments into the 75-foot no-touch buffer zone that skirts three residential lots at this location.

As evidence that the homeowners had violated the deeded restricted wetlands area, aerial images were presented. It appeared that since the subdivision was first permitted 15 years ago, removal of natural vegetation and cultivation of groomed lawns had taken place within the protected bordering wetlands.

Representing two of the three homeowners who were invited by the commission to discuss the possible violations was Brandon Faneuf, principal scientist from Ecosystem Solutions.

On behalf of Lisa Craig of 4 Seabreeze Lane, and John and Cheryl Anzaldi of 3 Seabreeze Lane, Faneuf laid before the commission their plans for investigating the violation claims.

Another resident of the development, Valeria Murolo of 2 Seabreeze Lane, said she was confused by the notice she received to attend the meeting and needed more information.

To begin the process, Faneuf said his clients would be engaging Schneider Engineering to draw a site plan and wetlands delineation reflecting the properties’ current status. He said that given the season they were looking at a spring investigatory period returning with their report sometime in April. Based on those results Faneuf suggested that his clients’ landscaping activities would be found acceptable and further, that wetlands restrictions on the property did not exist.

“What I’m hoping is that people will be willing to do the right thing, come up with a remediation plan,” said Rogers. “I’m not pointing fingers; this is not a blame game.”

He said that historic wetlands delineations would be used to determine if violations had taken place, adding that current wetlands boundaries would not be acceptable. On that point, the commission members were unified.

Faneuf then dug in a bit deeper on the issue of deed restrictions stating.

“From my clients’ point of view, conservation restrictions don’t exist,” said Faneuf. He said that restrictions, which the original developer agreed to and were to have been memorialized via deed restrictions, had never been registered with the county.

Rogers was quick to point out however, “…but those restrictions are part of the order of conditions.”

Faneuf then pointed to the fact that the Town does not have separate and enforceable wetlands bylaws. That being the case, he believed that allowed his clients to file a new Notice of Intent. He said that if the commission denied the NOI, his clients would appeal to the DEP who he said “most likely will side with the homeowners.”

“This commission hasn’t taken any action, but infractions have occurred,” said Rogers.

Korrin Petersen, senior attorney for BBC, added, “In 2000, the Conservation Commission conditions were put in place to protect Eel Pond … the coalition supports the commission’s efforts in trying to get compliance.”

“If anyone needs to plant a tree or move a shed, that is what we are trying to determine,” Rogers told Faneuf and the homeowners in attendance. “We’ll talk to town counsel; we’ll keep this on the agenda.”

Rogers said that he was a Planning Board member when the Seabreeze subdivision, which he called a “controversial plan,” was under development.

“If [someone] was entitled to build a subdivision,” said Rogers, then that was within their rights. He felt however, “People have expanded beyond where they were supposed to … when you come into it with open eyes, it’s disappointing 15 years later to be negotiating.”

He concluded, “Shame on us if we don’t try to enforce the prior order of conditions.”

The matter was continued.

Later in the evening, Rogers broached the subject of developing a wetlands bylaw. He had previously asked the commission members to review a draft document based on one that Freetown currently has in place. That document may be viewed at www.mattapoisett.net (scroll down the homepage to Town News).

“I want the commission to offer opinions,” said Rogers. He said once he received their input, he would sit down with Town Administrator Michael Gagne and see if the Town was interested in pursuing wetlands bylaws. If all that came to pass, then public hearings would be held in advance of Town Meeting.

“I don’t think I should be on the town meeting floor debating this,” Rogers said.

Commission member Tom Copps said, “It’s not clear to me that it’s compelling” referring to the draft document. His expressed concern was that the draft document wasn’t clear about how outside consultants would be compensated when their services were used. He felt that Mass General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53G covered such situations. He also stated, “I’m not sold on whether or not we need a bylaw.”

Commission member Mike King was not in favor of pursuing a wetlands bylaw, while Marylou Kelliher said she would review the document. Commission member Peter Newton was not in attendance.

Rogers added clarity to his request by saying, “It was brought up again tonight that we don’t have a bylaw.” But he said, “If three of five (commission members) don’t want one, I’m not going to swim upstream – I’ll focus my energy elsewhere.”

In other business, Carol Kolek of 112 Acushnet Road, represented by Engineer Rick Charon, received a Negative 3 determination for the installation of a new septic system.

Ted Gowdy of Bay Club Real Estate Holdings received Certificates of Compliance for three lots located on Fieldstone Drive.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for March 9 at 6:30 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.

By Marilou Newell