The public hearing on a proposed wetlands bylaw drew a steady stream of questions and voiced confusion, as well as support from a packed meeting room at the Mattpoisett Town Hall on April 23.

Chairman Bob Rogers and the members of the Conservation Commission have been at it for several months, debating amongst themselves and the residents who attended regularly scheduled commission meetings, to craft language to put before Town Meeting in May.

Rogers said in his opening statements that the purpose of the special public hearing was to “give townspeople an opportunity prior to Town Meeting to go through the bylaw … provide feedback … and help make-up their minds on how to vote at Town Meeting.”

Rogers said the draft document provided at the public hearing had been modified over the course of working with town council on April 22 and 23, and so earlier versions made available to the public were not the final draft.

That comment inspired several residents to object to holding the public hearing without sufficient time to review a final draft.

Douglas Schneider, 5 Knollwood Drive, said, “I spent four hours going over the draft we had and have four pages of questions…. Now you drop a new one on us tonight.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s fair…. And last week, you voted to go to the selectmen for Town Meeting …”

Rogers responded, saying not very much had changed with the exception of some edits by town council that he described as making the document clearer with procedural and administrative text.

“I’m not going to apologize for where we’re at tonight,” Rogers said, asserting that the only changes between the document the public had prior to the hearing and the one supplied at the hearing were minor in scope.

But some took exception to that description.

Dave Andrews, 49 Water Street, said the edits made by town council changed the context of the language previously written. Specifically, he pointed to the 100-foot buffer zone where text seemed to indicate that all lands adjacent to that were now jurisdictional.

“That would have a tremendous impact on property owners,” said Andrews. “[The Conservation Commission] would have infinite power.”

That point was bantered around with several others agreeing that they read the updated language the same way. Rogers, however, pointed out the superseding text clarified the scope of jurisdictional areas.

“We have to use our judgment on the buffer zone,” said Rogers. “To me, it’s not a land grab; it’s giving the Town control over wetlands – not the State.”

And that was Rogers’ major point for asking the town to consider a local wetlands bylaw.

“Town-level government is more transparent and easier to deal with than state government.” Rogers explained that, currently, residents appealing a ConCom decision can go directly to the DEP, with about 75 percent of the DEP decisions over-turning local decisions, basically taking local control out of the hands of local boards.

The bylaw would allow the Town to have appeals heard in Superior Court. Rogers explained, saying, “Town council would prefer to defend a bylaw in Superior Court versus at the state level.”

Yet some of the citizens in attendance felt that path to resolution would end up costing property owners too much money.

Joe Anzaldi, 3 Seabreeze Lane, spoke up saying, “Superior Court is a road you don’t want to go down.”

In defense of going through court, Rogers said, “We feel a strong obligation not to put people through more than they have to, but that’s an important part of the bylaw.”

Paul Osenkowski, 8 Oaklawn Street, said, “I want to see smaller government…. I think people who live here can control things better…. We have an obligation to protect our town … [and] I want Mattapoisett protected by Mattapoisett residents.” He ended by saying he was in favor of a wetlands bylaw.

When asked how many applications are appealed annually, Rogers ballparked the percentage around 5 percent. Of those, he said the majority were neighbor against neighbor, not applicant against the Town.

Commission member Peter Newton said, during the five years he has served on the commission, nearly all appeals were from abutters.

In support of the bylaws Newton said, “We are your neighbors – not those guys at the DEP. Who knows where they live.”

Commission member Marylou Kelliher said, “This is the least restrictive bylaw you are going to see…. It mirrors the Wetlands Protection Act.”

And the debate is not over yet. Residents still have time to review the latest draft of the bylaw and submit their questions and opinions on the proposed document in advance of Town Meeting.

Visit www.mattpoisett.net to send email directly to the Conservation Commission office. You may also leave your comments at the Conservation Commission office or with the town administrator.

By Marilou Newell

Old Rochester Little League President Derek Mello was called in to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 23 because the current signage at Gifford Park does not comply with the 1993 permit granted by the ZBA.

Mello told the board that Building Commissioner James Buckles contacted him about the outfacing signs, which Mello said he has already removed in response to Buckles’ concern.

“Well, I’m not aware of anyone actually complaining about the signs being up since 1993,” said ZBA Chairman Richard Cutler. But he told Mello he would have to file an application to amend the Special Permit if the league wished to keep the signs as they are now. “We’re not here to hang you,” Cutler later said.

Since the field is town-owned land, Cutler said Mello might be able to waive the requirement of a plot plan, as suggested by ZBA member Kirby Gilmore.

In other matters, Cutler called it “déjà vu all over again” as Stephen and Judy Shepley, owners of S M Shepley, Inc. located at 99 Cushman Road, returned to amend a prior Special Permit to build an over-sized garage at the property.

The only difference in the construction plan, said Mr. Shepley, is the location of the proposed garage, which is now slated for construction behind the house. The garage will be used to house the business’s vehicles, and will also serve as a shop for building cars apart from the business.

Mrs. Shepley questioned the permit’s requirement that the applicant return to the ZBA in two years so it can monitor progress before removing the two-year condition. She asked if it could be removed.

“We originally put a two-year period if there were problems,” said Cutler. “They never built the barn under the permit so now they have to go through the process.” He recommended leaving the condition in, since it is a one-time only requirement. “And there’s going to be different activity on the property,” apart from what was already approved, Cutler said. In addition to that, said Cutler, it is a trucking business within a residential zone.

“We have to be a little bit more cautious,” he said.

The Shepleys were surprised when Cutler told them they would also have to file for a site plan review with the Planning Board for a project that would exceed $25,000. Mr. Shepley maintained that the cost was under $25,000, but Cutler cautioned him anyway.

“I’m not the one to decide that,” said Cutler. “It’s independent of what we do here…. If Jim (Buckles) says you gotta do it, you gotta do it.”

That is a lot of control, commented Mr. Shepley.

“It’s management,” Cutler replied. “It’s not so much control.”

Also during the meeting, the board approved an amended Special Permit for the construction of another over-sized garage for Richard and Christine Nash of 306 Walnut Plain Road.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for May 14 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

“On my fiftieth birthday, my husband gave me a signed purchase and sale agreement for land on the water…” Thus began Laurie DaRosa’s comments about how she and her husband, Daniel, came to purchase the parcel on Goodspeed Island, a location she said was the culmination of years of hard work and the fulfillment of their dreams.

DaRosa was speaking to approximately 200 residents who packed the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 91 public hearing held in the cafeteria at Old Hammondtown School on April 16, at the request of the Mattapoisett Board of Selectmen. She told them that her family’s plan had always been to build a pier from their home out into the harbor “for our grandchildren to run on.” She said, since applying for various permits (Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DEP, Chapter 91, and the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission), she and her husband have had their good name negatively affected by harsh media coverage and by unwelcoming residents.

DaRosa said that when her husband was introduced to another resident during a benefit event in town, the reaction was, ”Oh, you’re the guy who wants to build the dock,” and not, “Thank you for your donation.”

“We have always been kind, generous, giving people,” DaRosa stated, asserting they have taken great pride in all the properties they have owned. She also stated that the property was littered with trash when they first acquired it and questioned why the Town had not cared before then about the conditions on Goodspeed Island.

Next, the public was invited to speak by DEP officials Carlos Fragata, Waterways Regulations Program environmental analyst, and David Hill, DEP environmental engineer.

The overriding concern of the public in attendance was the proposed size of the pier. It took two and a half hours for those comments to be aired.

Representative William Straus was the first to speak after Mrs. DaRosa’s impassioned opening statement.

“This isn’t about you,” Straus said to the DaRosas. “It’s about the harbor … what it means to the people.” He said the outpouring of public sentiment against the pier pointed to the importance of the harbor to all the people and not just a single family. He said to the two DEP officials, “The ability to travel over waters unimpeded depends on the Commonwealth to protect…” He concluded his comments by saying decisions of this sort should “tilt in favor of public use…. This pier should not be licensed under Chapter 91 … it is too large an impact.”

There were supporters of the DaRosas present. Coming forward in support of the pier’s construction was Anthony Campbell, 3 Goodspeed Island. He said, due to the extremely shallow waters in front of the Darosa property, swimming and other water activities were almost never something that he witnessed. He suggested everyone get in bathing suits and experiment to see just how shallow the water was in that location. He said the need to preserve the location for public recreating was not factual. He was not alone in that conclusion.

The DaRosas’ attorney, John Gushue, provided technical printouts and correspondence sent to the DEP last October that supported the project.

In an email printout dated October 21, 2014, Conservation Commission member Mike King wrote, “There are those that would have you believe that this project will infringe upon the right of the public to enjoy the harbor, that it will negatively impact the ability of average citizens to recreate on the harbor … that the area proposed for this pier is of high recreational use and it will prevent them from their enjoyment of this area.” He continued, “I submit to you that this is false testimony.” He went on to describe the shallow water issues he associated with poor recreational quality and concluded it was his belief that the project should be permitted.

Also supporting the DaRosas’ proposal was F. Mitchell Suzan, Jr. of 8 Main Street via written comment.

“In my opinion, the opposition to the DaRosa pier is shamelessly trying to manipulate the permit process by making trumped-up claims of impact from the pier, but it’s really about change and people just don’t like change … plain and simple,” wrote Suzan.

On the other side was the response from the public and some town officials who provided their own technical reasons why the application should be reviewed further to expose any perceived negative impact from the pier construction, as well as personal reasons why they think the pier will be a detriment to the public’s use of the harbor.

Speaking against the issuance of a permit was BOS Chairman Paul Silva and Selectman Jordan Collyer. Silva noted, of the 23 miles of shoreline in Mattapoisett, only half of one mile was open to the roughly 7,000 residents of the town; the remaining 22.5 miles was in private ownership. Collyer said that the DaRosa location was perfect for teaching children about water sports, specifically because it was shallow most of the time.

William Madden of G.A.F. Engineering questioned the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny the project because it found the DaRosa property was not directly on the waterfront but instead was one lot back from the beach.

Madden said the DaRosas have an easement, but that easement specifically called for approval from local agencies. He said bylaws require accessory structures to be on the same property, not traversing easements. He said the ZBA misunderstood that point. He also pointed out what he called “deficiencies” in engineered drawings presented to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Other town-appointed and elected officials coming out to ask the DEP to decline permitting of the project were Ray Andrews of the Assessors‘ Office, Water/Sewer Superintendent Nick Nicholson, Shellfish Officer Kathleen Massey, former Harbormaster Horace Field, and Robert Moore of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board.

Of the residents speaking against approval, all conveyed the importance of the area in front of the DaRosa property as a place where the public used small watercraft, went shellfishing, and generally enjoyed water activities. Many said a smaller pier would not be met with dissent.

Brad Hathaway of Aucoot Cove said at the end of a long evening of residents giving voice to their concerns, “I have never sailed in the harbor, I have never swum in the harbor, I have never fished in the harbor,” but approving the pier, he said, would set a precedent in other areas and therefore, “You’ve got to say no.”

Fragata then asked the DaRosas if they wished to offer any rebuttal. Gushue declined the offer in favor of responding to each written statement submitted to the DEP during the public comment period in writing.

Fragata told the assembled that the public comment period closes at the end of the business day on May 6. He said each person submitting a letter would receive a response with the DEP’s decision. He also said anyone wishing to appeal the DEP decision would have had to submit a letter of comment during the public comment period.

Letters may be sent to: Carlos Fragata, Environmental Analyst, DEP Waterways Regulation Program, MA Dept. of Environmental Protection, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA 02347.

All correspondence should also include RE: Waterways No. W14-4226, Timber Pier, 3 Goodspeed Island, Mattapoisett.

By Marilou Newell