Even though the work was unpermitted, the property owners at 425 Neck Road will be allowed to keep their illegal hot tub and patio that encroaches the ‘25-foot no-touch zone’ along Snipatuit Pond Road, after the Rochester Conservation Committed voted to approve the after-the-fact application for an Amended Order of Conditions on October 21.

Andrea and Donald King went beyond the scope of their original Order of Conditions issued back in 2011 before the start of the renovation in a number of ways, including underground utility installation, driveway improvement and extension along the pond side, and the addition of a storm drain for the driveway runoff, in addition to the hot tub, patio, and stone apron.

The Kings, who reside in the U.S. Virgin Islands, purchased the property in early 2011 and restored the old existing dilapidated stone house as a second home over the past three years. (Andrea King gave a presentation to the Rochester Historical Society on September 17, documenting the restoration process of the historic home. See the September 25 issue of The Wanderer)

At Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon’s recommendation, the commission approved the amended Order of Conditions as presented by Engineer Rick Charon, allowing the hot tub and patio to remain; however, the driveway storm drain must be removed and rebuilt farther back from the resource area within 30 days.

Farinon stated during her report earlier in the meeting that the driveway work was completed even after her site visit to view the illegal hot tub.

“And that raised a red flag with me,” said Farinon. Farinon pointed out that the commission would not have allowed the work to be done if the Kings had followed the proper procedures for filing, saying the Kings had enough of a usable area to accommodate a hot tub, patio, and driveway improvements away from the pond.

Later, during her recommendation, she said the fact that the Kings promptly produced a revised plan within a short time frame “showed good faith.”

“A lot’s been said tonight,” said Farinon, commenting that residents may be “feeling frustration with the commission.” She continued, “For whatever reason, people (residents) have gotten ahead of themselves [lately],” referring to a number of after-the-fact filings in Rochester.

Farinon emphasized consistency and acknowledged those residents who follow the proper procedure.

Commission member Michael Conway, the only dissenting voice in the vote, spoke out against allowing the hot tub and patio to remain, citing poor project management and bad oversight.

“Nobody’s taking responsibility for messing up the job,” said Conway. “Nobody’s taking responsibility for not following the order of conditions.”

Charon excused the Kings by saying that a three-year project is “a long time” and some of the details get lost over time.

Conway asked if anyone could demonstrate that there was no practical alternative to the chosen location two feet into the 25-foot no-touch zone.

Charon again defended the Kings by questioning the threat the hot tub poses to the wetlands.

“It’s not a source of pollution,” said Charon, and the only way to rectify it would be to tear up the hot tub and disturb the area further, he stated.

Conway said the owners were fully aware of the work that could and could not be done.

“But they went ahead and did that anyway at their risk, and at their risk they may have to tear it up,” said Conway.

Chairman Rosemary Smith addressed Ms. King seated in the back of the room, saying that any work within the 100-foot buffer zone requires approval from ConCom. Smith said she did not think the owners “got it.”

King said being an absentee owner was difficult and she was unaware of the need to file, telling the commission, “It just never entered my mind, because it’s not what I do for a living … Obviously we learned our lesson.”

The vote was 4-1 in favor.

After the meeting, commission member Chris Post said she felt the matter was “pushing it.”

“And other people are going to look at it and say, ‘Why can’t I do that?’” said Post.

Smith commented that it was “only two feet into the 25-foot no-touch zone,” but added that residents still have to file with the commission before beginning any work within the 100-foot buffer zone.

Also during the meeting, the commission voted 4-1 to approve a Notice of Intent for Gloria Doviak of 356 Snows Pond Road to raze the existing house and build a new one within the 100-foot buffer zone. The matter was continued from October 7.

Immediate abutter Desmond White voiced concerns over the proximity of the proposed septic system to his existing well, asking if the septic could be moved farther away to protect the quality of his drinking water.

Farinon pointed out that the Board of Health would have to decide if the septic could be moved farther east, calling the matter conflicting interests between ConCom and the BoH.

White said he thought the sandy conditions of the soil would lead to the contamination of his well and then added that the proposed 1,120 square-foot house is over twice the size of the existing 350-square foot house.

“This is someone with a size ten foot that’s trying to put it in a size six shoe,” said White.

Commission member Laurene Gerrier voted against the motion to approve.

In other matters, the commission approved two Abbreviated Notices of Resource Area Delineation, one for Chris and Jennifer Gerrior of Perez Smith Lane, and one for Reg Schonborn of BWC Agawam River for a property off Braley Hill Road with a plan for a proposed solar energy facility. The commission did not dwell on any details pertaining to the proposed use of the land and focused solely on the acceptance of the wetlands delineation.

The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission could possibly be on November 4 at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall, but since it is Election Day, legally there can be no public hearings held or votes taken. The next scheduled meeting to include public hearings will be November 18 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

With a unanimous vote, Marion Planning Board members approved a draft letter addressed to developers Robert Korff and Dean Holt of Mark Investments, LLC in response to recent pre-submission conferences, one of them attended by about 150 residents.

Board members agreed that during the last meeting, the representatives of the proposed CVS at the corner of Front Street and Route 6 provided sufficient information for the board to make an initial response to the plan.

The letter lists the requirements for when and if the developers proceeded with the application process, including all types of analyses and studies, and also a major site review. The list of requirements involved stormwater drainage assessments, environmental and engineering assessments which encompass traffic, visual impact analyses, and hydrologic and a hydro-geologic analysis, including impacts to wetland and surface water resources. Not to forget legal counsel.

The project would also have to move through the various town boards and committees, such as the Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Department of Public Works, Marion Resources Commission, Fire and Police Chiefs, and the Master Planning Subcommittee, among others.

“We urge you to seriously consider the recommendations made by the PB and members of the public at the October 6^th, 2014 meeting when planning any such applications,” the letter states.

Current concerns in the draft letter remain consistent with those addressed during the October 6 Planning Board meeting held at the Marion Music Hall, where many residents shared the same concerns as the board.

Maintaining the character of Marion, storm drainage, flood plain issues, traffic, and of course, the relocation of the Captain Hadley House were all touched upon in the letter.

“This list is not to be considered as all-inclusive of the PB’s concerns and is provided to be instructive as to the general issues this proposed application raises, and to summarize the PB’s initial comments,” the letter reads.

The Planning Board also affirms in the letter that the board has taken no position either for or against the proposed plan “regarding the project at either pre-submission hearing.”

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for November 3 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry

Mattapoisett’s voters zipped through 15 articles at the Special Town Meeting on October 20 until they reached Articles 16, 17, and 18 dealing with changes to the current zoning bylaws regulating cluster housing projects.

Those articles, which had previously been vetted through the public hearing process by the Planning Board, were brought to the voters by Brad Saunders of D + E Management LLC, a Bay Club Partner.

Article 16 would allow for “zero-lot line lots in cluster subdivisions served by public sewer,” Article 17 would include “limited industrial district lands” in open space requirements in subdivisions, and Article 18 would “allow development of land for single family housing, to encourage the preservation of open space and promote the more efficient use of the land in harmony with its natural features.”

But before Articles 17 and 18 could be considered, several voters stood to voice their concerns regarding Article 16.

Bonnie DaSousa questioned why bylaw changes were inserted in the Special Town Meeting Warrant versus the Annual Town Meeting, and asked for their indefinite postponement.

Brad Hathaway said, “Friends, I don’t think we have all the information we need.”

Resident William Cantor said that more information was necessary, including maps of the town that would help illustrate the districts affected by the proposed bylaw changes.

Mattapoisett Highway Surveyor Barry Denham spoke to act on the articles in the Special Town Meeting forum, noting that in previous years such articles had been handled at this venue.

Selectman Paul Silva asked if any members of the Mattapoisett Planning Board were in attendance, but none were there to support or shed light on the articles. The Planning Board had submitted a letter to the selectmen that was read into the evening’s proceedings in support of the changes. The absence of any members from the Planning Board didn’t help Saunders’ presentation.

One by one, DaSousa made motions to indefinitely postpone acting on each of the bylaws. When Article 18 came up, she said, “I have particular concern (with this article) because of the sizeable tracts of land along the Route 6 corridor…” She said she was not comfortable making these motions and that she understood how difficult it was to construct anything in town, but felt it was necessary regarding these articles.

In the end, all three bylaw articles were postponed.

Those articles passing easily were:

Article 1: Property tax deferrals for active duty residents enlisted with the U.S. National Guard and Reserves until their return home, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, section 5L.

Article 2: Interest reduction on senior deferred taxes from 8% to 4% beginning on or after July 1, 2015 for eligible taxpayers, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, section 5, clause 41.

Article 3: Petition for special enabling legislation that would allow the Board of Selectmen to credit 100% of collected boat excise taxes to the municipal waterways fund instead of only 50%.

Article 4: Prior year bills that would allow the appropriation of $10,416 from free cash for the purpose of paying outstanding legal expenses from FY14.

Article 5: Regional agricultural school expense appropriation for the sum of $72,000 from the Regional School Expense Stabilization Fund to pay tuition to Bristol Agricultural High School for Mattapoisett students.

Article 6: Funding of road repairs in the amount of $275,000 from free cash for roads, drainage and sidewalks, including engineering and incidental costs.

Article 7: Contribution to capital equipment stabilization fund in the amount of $100,000 from free cash.

Article 8: Contribution to stabilization fund in the amount of $50,000 from free cash to support funding of this account.

Article 9: Funding of easement for bike path in the amount of $25,000 from free cash to pay compensation for taking land for the purpose of the multi-use bike path.

Article 10: Supplemental budget appropriation for the water and sewer department in the amount of $9,200 for FY15 annual operating budget of which $4,600 will be transferred from water retained earnings and $4,600 from sewer retained earnings.

Article 11: Sewer operating budget FY15 to transfer $261,000 from sewer retained earnings to cover projected revenue shortfall.

Article 12: Fairhaven sewer apportionment of sewer costs for Mattapoisett in the amount of $185,915 from Sewer Enterprise Retained Earnings to Sewer Enterprise Fund Budget as voted on May 12, 2014 annual meeting to pay Town’s share of annual sewer system costs to Fairhaven.

Article 13: Sewer project and grant for Industrial Drive in the amount of $1,200,000 by borrowing or transferring from any available state, federal or grant sourced monies to pay for the costs of installing sanitary sewer to Industrial Drive; 100% of the cost of the project shall be assessed as betterments and shall be borne by the owner(s) benefitting from the project.

Article 14: Water main design and engineering costs of unspecified amount from water retained earnings for the purposes of engineering and designing the replacement of the water main on Mechanic Street.

Article 15: Authority to negotiate “PILOT” agreement with solar power generation companies for the purpose of having a ‘payment in lieu of taxes’ as governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, subsection 38H.

In a supplement handed out at town meeting from the office of the Selectmen was a report of the current fund balances listed in two categories: ‘Free Cash and Retained Earnings’ and ‘Stabilization Funds.’ In the first category, the following were listed: certified free cash – $842,135; waterfront retained earnings – $18,347; sewer retained earnings – $2,468,537; water retained earnings – $186,227; solid waste retained earnings – $22,325. In the second category, the following were listed: general stabilization fund – $1,725,494; capital improvement stabilization fund – $200,272; regional schools assessment stabilization fund – $409,840; SPED cost stabilization fund – $190,755.

By Marilou Newell

An article to appropriate $20,000 towards a feasibility study for the construction of a new Town Hall Annex failed after a majority voted against Article 5– and against all three selectmen.

Questions arose despite Town Administrator Michael McCue’s explanation of how the Town needs an annex of its own in order to circumvent an imminent increase in the cost of leasing the current location on Marion Road.

Interest rates are good, said McCue, and financial assistance from the State is available, so the time to begin studying the feasibility of constructing a new annex on Town-owned property between the Council on Aging and the Police Station on Dexter Road was now; however, Town Meeting members thought that later would be a better time.

One Town Meeting member said he himself leases land to towns in New Hampshire, and never is it better for a town to quit leasing in order to build, saying the price would be “astronomical.” Just look at the Rochester Memorial School project, he said.

“I thought we did a study already on the existing town hall,” wondered resident Nancy Mello. She asked how much the lease costs the Town annually, and got conflicting answers from the panel of town officials on the stage. Someone said it costs $38,000 annually, causing a bit of a stir amongst residents, until McCue stated the correct number was $2,300 monthly or $27,600 annually. McCue estimates that the next lease term would cost $2,500 monthly or $30,600 annually.

Other Town Meeting members who spoke said the Board of Selectmen should have appointed an ad hoc study committee to form a more concrete plan before asking for the money so that residents would have a clearer idea of what the Town wanted to pursue. And that is exactly what the Board of Selectmen will do at its next meeting, stated Chairman Brad Morse later during a follow-up interview.

The vote was 19 in favor, 22 opposed.

Town Clerk and Selectman Naida Parker’s Article 4 to appropriate $10,000 to purchase a new voting machine ultimately passed, but not until a resident’s request for clarification turned into an unnecessary “civics lesson” as Steve Burke himself put it.

Burke asked why the article stated two options – to either purchase or lease the equipment, asking which one it would be. Parker proceeded to describe the sorry state of the current machine before describing the one she wanted to purchase.

Parker said it took over five years for the federal and state government to approve this new class of voting machines, and she listed the upcoming elections for the next two years.

“Hey, you and I are high-fiving each other,” said Burke, assuring Parker that he was in favor of the article, but not needing too many details. He said all he wanted to know was whether the Town would buy the machine or lease it.

The chairman of the Rochester Finance Committee said FinCom recommended the Town purchase the machine. The vote to approve was unanimous.

Article 8 to amend the existing Home Business Zoning Bylaw, which the Planning Board and Zoning Bylaw Subcommittee worked on for months, was struck down, falling short of the required two-thirds vote to pass the proposed amendments.

Resident and Rochester Constable David Hughes initiated some doubt amongst voters when he challenged the Town’s ability to enforce one particular part of the proposed amendment that would restrict storage of vehicles on the property of a home business to locations not visible to abutters.

“If it’s registered, you can’t touch it,” said Hughes, asserting that the Town could not regulate the locations of stored vehicles.

Town Counsel Blair Bailey argued that the Town was perfectly within its right to enforce stored vehicle placement, as it currently does under other circumstances.

The vote was 29 in favor, 20 opposed, but the article failed without the two-thirds majority vote.

The Planning Board during its October 14 meeting voted to withdraw its Article 7 that would have amended the table of contents of the Zoning Bylaws, changing section numbers from Roman numerals to Arabic numerals. The board was not satisfied with the final result, and chose to hold off until the Annual Town Meeting to reintroduce the article.

The other five articles passed unanimously, including Article 1 to appropriate an additional $30,000 for Veteran’s Services, and Article 2 to transfer $36,900 from the Special Education Costs Stabilization Fund to defray unexpected SPED costs for fiscal year 2015.

Article 3 allows the Cemetery Commission to transfer $800 from the Cemetery Lots Fund to buy back a cemetery plot from a purchaser who no longer wants it, and Article 6 will appropriate $15,000 toward the Town’s Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB).

Article 9, another Zoning Bylaw-related article that simply grants “Flexible Development” its own section within the Zoning Bylaws passed unanimously with no questions from residents.

By Jean Perry