After several hours of debate and the sharing of technical data regarding stormwater flooding that recently occurred at the Buzzards Bay Coalition’s Bogs site and the concern that possible hazardous chemicals were transported to freshwater wells, Tuesday night’s public hearing with the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission resulted in a continuation.

            Early in the Enforcement hearing, members of Luciano Contracting described measures put in place that would assist in controlling future stormwater-runoff events in an effort to keep soils and water on the site. The commission was satisfied with those plans, expressing appreciation for their efforts to keep the site conditions under control.

            As the hearing went on, abutters along with members of the commission asked probing questions about the possible movement of dangerous chemicals leaving the site. Gerald Randall, who first rang alarm bells when he witnessed the flooding near his Acushnet Road property, said he could see sediment in the Mattapoisett River.

            Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King said he has reached out to a number of agencies requesting information on agricultural chemical issues and more specifically whether or not testing was merited. He said he wasn’t sure how to move forward, given that the advice he received seemed to discourage testing as inconclusive at best. The other commissioners in attendance, David Lawrence, John Jacobson and David Nicolosi, were in favor of testing.

            Mike Huguenin spoke from prepared notes on behalf of the Buzzards Bay Coalition. His comments were, “…MassDEP does not require chemical testing based in part on past chemical assessments at other Massachusetts abandoned cranberry bogs.” This was in response to a question asked at the previous meeting when Sarah Quintal of the BBC was asked why testing had not been done. Her response at that time was that soils were not intended to leave the site.

            Huguenin’s narrative spoke to construction workers being able to work on such sites due to only trace amounts of contaminants being found. He also said that contaminants are tightly bound to soil particles and are not volatile or soluble.

            Concerns over transported soils polluting freshwater wells seemed unsupported, as Huguenin said Water Department testing was not showing any evidence that this was the case.

            There had also been questions about the depth of study and agency review that preceded the Bog project. Huguenin pointed to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Ecological Restoration, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program. A local peer-review consultant had not been required or engaged to oversee the town’s interests, however.

            Conservation Agent Brandon Faneuf expressed his concern over the amount of sediment that may have migrated from the site during the first flooding event. There had apparently been two flooding episodes. He said that in his next weekly site review to check on Enforcement Orders he intends to check for sediment along Acushnet Road opposite the site entrance.

            As the clock ticked on to 10:00 pm, the commissioners continued the hearing. In the interim, the question of whether or not to test the Bog site will be considered with possible collaboration with the Select Board.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 20.

            On February 5, the Mattapoisett Planning Board met informally with engineer Andy Stackpole of Field Engineering to discuss two potential subdivisions. Chairman Tom Tucker referred to both as “pork chop developments” that bylaws currently prohibit. Stackpole spoke to why they didn’t fall into that category. Stackpole will take a few small recommendations back to the drawing board before returning with more fully fleshed-out plans.

            The board also approved the acceptance of the Mattapoisett Master Plan. The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, March 4, at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

            Including a condition the petitioner had wanted excluded, Rochester’s Conservation Commission Tuesday approved the Order of Conditions for BWC Snows Pond LLC’s plan to build a 2.39 megawatt, solar-energy array on 12.55 acres of a 31.23-acre parcel at 0 Cushman Road.

            In a previous meeting, the commission requested that the conditions should include the use of biofuels, which are biodegradable hydraulic oils for the construction equipment used there. In a January 26 memo, however, Weston & Sampson engineers asked that this not be made a project condition because the petitioner “could not commit that the selected contractor will be able to supply installation equipment that is compatible…”

            On Tuesday, BWC Snows Pond LLC’s representative had to give up on that request when informed by Conservation Commission Chairman Christopher Gerrior that the use of biofuels is a standard item in the board’s Order of Conditions.

            “We don’t want to be hamstrung by that condition,” Weston & Sampson engineer Rob Bukowski said, explaining that construction wouldn’t take place for another year and that it was not certain that any potential contractors would be able to comply.

            Commission member Ben Bailey said placing this condition on town projects happens all the time, and in fact, the Planning Board will likely place the use of biofuels in its own conditions for the project. He and Gerrior noted biofuels are required for the Cushman Road project because of the steep slope at the site.

            After reading the Order of Conditions that the board would set for the Cushman Road project, which included the bio-fuels requirement, Gerrior asked Bukowski if he had any comment. Bukowski said he had none, and the OOC was approved.

            In other action, the commission approved a letter it will send to Mattapoisett officials regarding its concerns over Rochester’s rights to the water on Red Brick Farm East land. The property is part of a 241-acre, regional Conservation Restriction giving Rochester no rights to the groundwater that Red Brick Farm East might produce. The CR led to a Mattapoisett Land Transfer Agreement that has yet to become reality.

            On Monday, the commissioners asked for the Select Board’s help with the issue, saying the latest correspondence from Mattapoisett listed the reasons why it would be difficult for the town to do such a transfer. The Select Board responded they needed Mattapoisett’s “no” in print before moving forward with any help.

            Tuesday, the commission endorsed the letter Bailey has written to prod that response. Addressed to the Mattapoisett Water Board, the letter reminds that panel that the Water and Sewer Department originally committed to “make every effort” to transfer the 13.06-acre Rochester parcel to the Town of Rochester “for $1” It continues, “Please accept this correspondence as a formal request for: 1). A list of all of the actions taken to date to demonstrate this effort to abide by this agreement and 2. A list of all actions anticipated to fully abide by the agreement.”

            Also, the commission approved a proposed new building and building addition at 340 Rounseville Road on land that is under an Agricultural Preservation Restriction. Engineering consultant Walter Hartley said the petitioner needs ConCom’s approval before the plan goes for state approvals because the town board holds the APR on the property. The plan is to increase the space for winter storage of farm equipment and hay.

            The board approved three-year extensions of the Order of Conditions for Cushman Road Solar LLC’s plan to build a solar-energy array at 0 Cushman Road to include work within the 100-foot buffer zone and the previously approved bituminous, concrete-production facility planned by Edgewood Development Co. LLC on Kings Highway.

            The commission noted the Notice of Intent hearing to build a 15-acre, self-storage facility at 0 and 25 Cranberry Highway and 0 Kings Highway has been continued to February 20.

            The commission agreed to meet on February 10 at 8:00 am for a site visit on Snipatuit Road at the starting area of the Rochester Boat Race, where river conditions might soon impede the herring run. Bailey said the public is welcome to attend to add their own comments and information.

            The Rochester Conservation Commission will meet next on Tuesday, February 20, at 7:00 pm at Town Hall, 1 Constitution Way.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Michael J. DeCicco

The Rochester Council on Aging adopted the town’s Personnel Bylaw as written in a January 31 public meeting that town officials attended to allay fears that attempts were being made to take away the COA’s authority to hire its own employees.

            A January Special Town Meeting article proposed revising the town’s Personnel Bylaw to say that the Select Board rather than the COA “shall appoint such Council employees as it may require.” This change was defeated on Town Meeting floor to a loud, decisive round of applause after COA Friends Chairman Michael Cambra complained the town was trying to take away the council’s power to govern itself.

            The January 31 COA board meeting began by reviewing for approval a copy of the town Personnel Bylaw with a handwritten revision that the COA rather than the Personnel Board “is empowered to make hiring decisions.”

            Personnel Board Chairperson Kristine Nash and former chairman and current Select Board member Adam Murphy explained that the board’s right to recommend hires is still in the bylaw and that the problem at Town Meeting was incorrect language that he said Town Counsel placed in the article.

            Murphy said that’s why officials had wished to table the article rather than see it go to a vote that ultimately disapproved the measure. Officials needed to discuss the article with COA members first, a move he realized too late had not been done. Murphy said he wants to see a discussion between the COA board and Town Counsel to iron out details before the proposal returns to Town Meeting floor in May. “We want to work with you collaboratively,” he said.

            Council on Aging Director Eric Poulin said the board’s and the seniors’ issues with the Special Town Meeting article were its language and that the town had not discussed or informed seniors about it in advance. Murphy admitted he was unaware that this advanced notice had not been received, and he regretted being unable to attend the previous COA board meeting.

            Nash said the new Personnel Bylaw is still under review, and she advised the board wait until the final edit to vote to adopt it. The Personnel Board, she explained, is writing protections for town employees not covered by unions or contracts. But the language in state regulations left the COA and the library off the Personnel Bylaw for these employees. “You are on your own island now,” she said.

            But that is what the Personnel Board would like to fix to treat all nonunion, noncontract employees equally, Nash said. She emphasized that town boards may hire their own employees; the Personnel Board must review potential hires for the sake of checks and balances and to make sure their compensation and rules and regulations are equal to those of contract workers.

            As the bylaw is written now, Nash said, the Personnel Board is “empowered to make the hiring decision” but along with the department head, who together shall be the judge of the applicant’s qualifications etc. Murphy further explained that “Select Board” were the words in the Special Town Meeting article because that’s the appointing authority when a town has no Personnel Board, and the town created such a board only recently.

            “You recommend who to hire,” Nash said to COA board members. “That has not changed. And that right will remain for all departments.”

            She noted the Personnel Board is now working to “radically revise the pay classification system and include additional step increases.” These revisions should be ready for the May Town Meeting, she said.

            Select Board Chairman Paul Ciaburri dispelled the perception that the Special Town Meeting article was a power-grab. “We have no interest in being involved in the hiring for any town board or department,” he said. “Zero interest!”

            The COA board ultimately followed Town Administrator Glenn Cannon’s recommendation that it adopt the bylaw as written but acknowledge the town will work on the bylaw language later.

            In a follow-up interview, Cannon elaborated that state law says libraries “shall” vote on their own hiring and councils on aging “may” vote on their own hiring.  The new town Personnel Bylaw was following that language by excluding those two town entities. With the COA board’s vote on January 31, he said, both town departments have voted themselves into the new bylaw.

Rochester Council on Aging

By Michael J. DeCicco