An application for a special permit to construct a cell-phone tower off High Street was heard on January 13 by the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, which after lengthy discussion voted to continue the public hearing to its next meeting.

            The public hearing opening Case No. 1170 involves Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC, which is seeking the permit to reduce the required setback by 50 percent so it can construct a 190-foot, monopole-style telecommunications facility under Chapter 22.30 that addresses Personal Wireless Services Facilities of the Rochester Zoning Bylaws.

            Before the presentation by Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC, representatives Shayna Galinat and engineer/industrial manager Kevin Delaney, ZBA Chairman David Arancio read an abutters list over 30 names long.

            Having received a negative determination of applicability to wetlands confirmed in correspondence from Rochester’s conservation agent and having made a preliminary introduction of the project to the town’s Planning Board, the zoning hurdle was on deck.

            Galinat explained that the Special Permit application seeks relief from the Chapter 22.30 setback rule requiring 100 percent of the tower height, which would be nearing 200 feet including its antenna. The applicant proposes 50 percent or 100 feet, citing the common land ownership of the A.D. Makepeace Company.

            Where the ZBA meets the case is in the matter of the tower’s location to the nearest property line. The applicant hopes the board will allow a 100-foot proximity because the tower would sit on land owned by A.D. Makepeace and be closest to an adjacent lot also owned by the same cranberry company. The closest property not owned by A.D. Makepeace is 521 feet away.

            With a slide presentation, Delaney summarized the proposed construction to include a 2,500 long and 12-foot-wide driveway that would enter from High Street and run alongside the bogs to the site where the driveway will be met by a locked gate.

            Inside the 100-foot square will be an 80-foot square with the tower at the center of the compound. Within the compound, the applicant is proposing 6-inches deep of .75-inch crushed stone. The only clearing is proposed for inside the 100-foot square. Communication shelters will surround the tower, and no cables will exist outside the square. All utilities to the site will be underground.

            The arrays to be placed near the top of the tower will require 10 feet of vertical separation from one another. The tower is not the kind that requires any type of lighting, according to Delaney, who said there will be no beacon or strobe light. Delaney said the applicant has permission from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.

            In answer to ZBA member Davis Sullivan, Delaney said that any antennas extending the height of the 190-foot tower would belong to the Rochester Fire and Police departments and would not result in a tower 200-feet high so as not to require further permitting or lighting.

            Delaney displayed a coverage map illustrating the closest tower being between three and four miles away in Wareham and two other towers in Rochester that are between four and five miles away. The new tower would presumably fill in a significant coverage gap in Rochester.

            “I’d be willing to bet that just about every person that’s been here uses a cell phone, and utilities need to be in place for services like that,” Sullivan would say late in the meeting. “I happen to have two sets of power lines through an easement on the back of my property. You need to have electricity.

            “You have to take into consideration what they’re trying to do here, they’re trying to improve the service in dead areas in Rochester so there would be some benefit to the people in town.”

            Davis’ unofficial endorsement of the project followed several comments made by abutters attending the public hearing at Rochester Town Hall or via Zoom.

            Questions ranged from clarification of the application and concerns about radiation to the necessity of more towers and a written report referencing studies that trace health problems to the proximity of such towers. Arancio asked for the report to be sent to the ZBA administrator.

            Delaney explained that cell-phone towers and the phones themselves have evolved over the decades, and the resultant specifications have meant less height, less coverage and the need for more, smaller towers.

            Abutter John Lund, 43 Forbes Road, was told that the balloon simulation at the top of the tower could not been seen from any spot in between the markers displayed in the slide presentation, but a subsequent comment said that the visibility determinations should be made when the trees are bare.

            After Galinat summarized her confidence in the applicant’s qualifications for the Special Permit, Arancio was quick to predict that the January 13 meeting would not provide adequate time to digest all of the responses.

            ZBA member Thomas Flynn asked Galinat to elaborate on the application, citing “improvement in vision and safety” as the bylaw-prescribed driver that would justify a vote to reduce the setback requirement in the applicant’s favor. He told Galinat that he interpreted the presentation as mitigation rather than improvement.

            Referring to a visual of what a 200-foot property-line setback would look like, Galinat said, “We believe that the 100-foot setback is improving the visual aspect (to abutters.)” She asserted that a plan based on a 200-foot setback requirement would make the tower more visible from area residences.

            Galinat said that while introducing the project to the Planning Board, the initial plan was for the setback to be only 40 feet from the property line on the basis that A.D. Makepeace owns the adjacent lot. Arancio advised Galinat that should the company’s impending full-scale presentation to the Planning Board result in a single change on the plan of record, the applicant will then be required to go back before the ZBA.

            ZBA member Kirby Gilmore’s recusal from the case prompted Arancio to advise Galinat that the remaining four voting members would all need to vote in favor for the permit to be awarded, but that became a moot point when the need to digest substantial feedback and conduct a site visit (Friday, January 21) necessitated continuation.

            The members voted 4-0 to continue the public hearing to January 27.

            In other business, the ZBA voted to approve its FY23 annual budget proposal. The members also voted to approve the ZBA’s 2021 annual report.

            The next meeting of the Rochester ZBA is scheduled for Thursday, January 27, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Mick Colageo

            Oscillating somewhere in between the unprecedented and the ironically familiar, what at first seemed like a molehill grew into a mountain of debate for the Marion Conservation Commission during its January 12 meeting.

            The wrinkle that set off what otherwise would have been a feel-good granting of a Certificate of Compliance to Joseph and Caroline Sheehan for their successful eradication of invasive plants at 17 Nokomis Road was the applicant’s request to include an ongoing condition allowing Land Stewardship Inc., which was retained to perform the work, to treat the few stems of phragmites that may pop up.

            “Over time, those plants are going to continue to encroach on other property,” said Conservation Commission Chairman Shaun Walsh, noting that members of the commission conducted a site visit on January 8. “The site looks great.”

            While Vice Chairman Jeff Doubrava said he has no issue with ConCom awarding the Certificate of Compliance due the Sheehans, he said he is opposed to what essentially would be a “forever continuing condition that allows them to apply chemicals to a piece of property.”

            “Now I think that, if they want to go and treat those, they could file (a Request for Determination of Applicability). We’ve given out RDA’s before for small, invasive plant treatment. That way, if things change in three years’ time, that order lasts for three years. And they can come back to us again and again, as opposed to saying, ’50 years from now it’s still okay to use chemical treatment to treat phragmites.'”

            Conservation Agent Doug Guey-Lee said that if the homeowners do not file another application (RDA,) then the phragmites are likely to reemerge. He noted that every herbicide and pesticide is designed to kill something so there literally is no such thing as a safe one.

            Walsh said that the management plan could include such a condition as requested if it references the land-management plan as previously presented, including hand pulling and targeted herbicide treatment.

            Doubrava reiterated it to be a matter of control. “My issue is not with them continuing to treat the things that pop back up. My issue is forever,” he said. “You know, (if) 20 years from now we figure out that there’s a natural solution of some plant that will outcompete phragmites and we should never have used an herbicide on the saltmarsh again and, guess what, we’ve given them a ‘forever’ for the rest of all time. … That’s my concern, we’ve given all control up.”

            Based on the reasonable assumption that any professional is going to choose the least-dangerous chemical, Walsh said he is in favor of including a perpetual condition that is “very specific and narrowly framed.”

            Like Guey-Lee, ConCom member Emil Assing said he sees both sides of the argument. As a licensed pesticide applicator, he has observed a failure to eradicate phragmites in Brainard Marsh without the use of pesticides. Assing said the invasive plants have made a strong comeback there.

            Nonetheless, Assing agreed with Doubrava, saying it’s not a big deal for the applicant to file a RDA for recurring treatment. “If it’s someone who really cares about managing the land, they’re not going to mind filing an RDA for this,” he said.

            ConCom member Ethan Gerber asked if there is precedent for the kind of conditioning that Walsh favored. He later said he’s not a fan of combining chemicals with perpetuity.

            While Doubrava stuck to his argument that the commission is ceding control by issuing a “forever” condition that theoretically could become detrimental should a safer chemical become the new industry standard, Walsh insisted that the safeguards are already built into the management plan.

            Using the example of adding back sand to areas of beach erosion, Walsh asked Doubrava if the commission should then abandon perpetual conditions in all certificates of compliance. Doubrava acknowledged the point but did not stand down.

            ConCom member Mark Bellanger said that the existing mechanism of three-year decisions come back to the commission on a regular basis. “A quick RDA is not a burden,” he said.

            Walsh offered a compromise of including a perpetual condition but limited to hand pulling only with no use of chemicals authorized. The commissioners held no objection, and they voted unanimously to support the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.

            Two public hearings took place.

            In response to Clayton Bosch’s Notice of Intent filing that proposed a septic-system repair at his 2 Sassomon Trail home, the commission voted to issue an Order of Conditions.

            The new unit incorporates denitrification per the Board of Health, according to representative Dave Davignon of Schneider, Davignon and Leone Inc.

            Davignon said that the house was built in two stages, beginning in 1980. ConCom conducted a site visit on January 8 and Walsh said that according to the plan, the leaching area sits among mature trees. Being a stone-and-pipe field, Davignon said the standard practice is to abandon it in place unless the soil is disturbed or contaminated.

            “We know where the septic tank is, we were able to get an invert out of the tank,” said Davignon, noting the location as next to the driveway. “That’s what we need to pump and remove. As far as the leaching field … if it’s not in the location we’re showing it, all the better as far as I’m concerned.”

            In summarizing special conditions, Bellanger described the work as a buffer-zone project located 57 linear feet from the resource area. Along with general conditions and erosion-control conditions, ConCom added 20 feet of siltation fencing or 10 haybales.

            ConCom issued a Negative Boxes 2 and 3 Determination of Applicability to Diana Markel supporting her proposed plan for a 16-foot diameter stone paver patio on a gravel base at her 2 Lewis Street home.

            John and Pamela Lees, who filed a Notice of Intent for reconstruction of a single-family house, an inground swimming pool, along with repair of a seawall with associated work at 49 Water Street, sought and were granted a continuance of their case to ConCom’s March 9 meeting. According to Walsh, the Lees will be doing additional analysis at the site and need to see that to completion.

            The Planning Board requested ConCom’s comments on the Marion Lands Trust’s application for a Special Permit that would allow a common, 10-foot-wide gravel driveway to serve two lots at 371 Wareham Street, including a future single-family home now the subject of an Approval Not Required (ANR) filing.

            ConCom had recently granted an Order of Conditions in which the driveway was servicing only the existing home. A new plan dated December 21 shows a more complete plan, according to Guey-Lee. According to Walsh, the applicant would need further ConCom approval to complete the new plan.

            The next meeting of the Marion Conservation Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, January 26, at 7:00 pm.

Marion Conservation Commission

By Mick Colageo

            The jewel in the crown for the seaside community of Marion is the Marion Art Center. Over the years the center has striven to provide the region with a place to study art in all its forms and, for visual artists, a place to show their works of art. But at no time in recent history has the center been more vibrant, more expressive, more excellent than it is at this moment as evidenced in the 2022 Winter Members’ Show.

            On January 14, the show’s opening reception was held virtually. With the on-site assistance of Heather Corrigan, visitors were able to “see” the show entries and learn a bit about the processes used to create stunning works of art. On January 15 during regular gallery hours, we were able to get up close to the works and really experience the pieces in their natural setting – a gallery.

            Upon entering the first-floor gallery, one is immediately drawn into a world of perfect artistic expression. There is a bronze sculpture, a little snowman not unlike those made in front yards by very small children. It stands proudly in the far right corner with an expression that speaks its own language.

There is a table titled Shark Table, made of aluminum and steel, painted a vivid blue and positioned as if ready for a summer picnic. There are small offerings that demonstrate the artists’ ability to bring us outside ourselves and into the world they see.

            But let’s pause here for a moment to consider this: The abundance of visual creative expression this show offers is likely one of the most varied the center has shown thus far.

            There are the expected vibrant pastels and gentle watercolors executed by skilled hands to perfection. There is that playful bronze sculpture, along with photography, giclee, wood carving, a wood-fired ceramic bowl, stained glass, acrylic on silver leaf, acrylic on gold leaf, quilted fiber collages, oil on panel, oil on linen, charcoals, and ink-jet printing. Each and every one of these pieces holds a universe onto itself now shared for all to enjoy.

            On the second floor, the framed pieces are tightly arranged to maximize the available space and to give the artists’ works a place of their own. That is no small task when hanging an art show featuring some 80 works. There are also works on display in the front windows of the Marion General Store.

            This floor of delight is like a small shire to human artistic achievement. Here we find large a canvas with a city skyline, a curious cow, a rower in the mist, crashing waves, a boy in summer mode and complex, heavily textured portraits. Amazing, thrilling, and so very much needed.

            We can thank the Marion Art Center for doing what they do so well, refreshing the art thirst of our wanting souls. But I think we should really thank the artists for sharing their gifts and letting us, if just for a moment, enter their imaginations.

            The artists are: Jen Alexander, Carol Bliven, Ashley Briggs, Sarah Calder, Peggy Call-Conley, Robert Dunn, Jane Egan, Deb Ehrens, Anthi Frangiadis, Donna Gagnon, Barbara Geagan, Thomas Geagan, Christy Gunnels, Barbara Healy, Joanne Hickey, Genevieve Hunt, Helen Johnson, Deborah Kuhlman Hussey, John Kurgan, Michelle Lapointe, Jill Law, Don Ledversis, Charlene Mackiewicz, Deborah Beth Macy, David Maloney, Butch McCarthy, Bunny Mogilnicki, Diana Parsons, Michael Pietragalla, Corinna Raznikov, Jay Ryan, Russell Saunders, Alice Shire, Nat Simkins, Janine Simmons, Nancy Skawinski, Charles Stockbridge, Peter Stone, June Strunk, Sharlie Sudduth, Adrian Tio, Jaye Degnan Tirimacco, Lynnette Torres, Peggy Totten, Patricia White, and Elwin Williamson. Thank you all.

            The MAC’s Winter Members Show is now through February 11 with gallery hours Thursday through Saturday from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm or by appointment at 508-758-1266.

By Marilou Newell

Two speculative and conceptual residences were proposed for lots located along Clapp Road when the Rochester Conservation Commission met on January 18.

            Coming before the commission with the two individual plans was David Davignon of Schneider Davignon and Leone, Inc. The first filing was a Request for Determination of Applicability for a lot identified as 3A, owned by Clapp Nominee Trust c/o William D. Clapp.

            As Davignon described the design and overall layout, he said that the property abuts the riverfront area of Sherman Brook but that all planned construction for the proposed four-bedroom home, two-car garage and in-ground pool would be outside jurisdictional areas. As the discussion proceeded, Davignon’s assertion that the wetlands boundary is correct was challenged by member Dan Gagne.

            Gagne said that the plans did not bear an engineer’s certified stamp and that given that independent certification of the riverfront line was not submitted, he was not comfortable with the project as presented in the RDA form. Gagne’s concerns were echoed by the majority of the commission.

            Gagne voiced his opinion that the project should be filed via a Notice of Intent versus RDA and that through that process more assurances including possibly a peer-review consultant would help to clear up riverfront questions.

            Davignon offered to continue the hearing in order to give the commission an opportunity to make a site visit to see the line of boulders that now denote the riverfront line, but Gagne said, “I don’t think we are the right ones to do that.”

            The hearing was continued to February 1 to give Davignon time to work with his client.

            On the next Clapp Road conceptual design also filed on behalf of William Clapp for a lot described as 2-3, the application was a Notice of Intent.

            Again, Davignon described in detail a proposed residence nearly identical to the previously proposed conceptual design. He stated that no work was planned for the riverfront area noted as being 250 feet from the construction area. Although the parcel is 5 acres, only a single-family house lot could be developed due to surrounding jurisdictional spaces, Gagne commented. That point, Gagne said, would be important to point out to potential buyers. “They won’t be getting country living from an urban-sized lot,” he said.

            Comments to Davignon from the commissioners centered primarily on trying new ways to orient the future residence on the lot to maximize its potential. The issue of a shared driveway was also touched on with Gagne saying it could be a problem.

            Davignon requested a continuance to February 1.

            Earlier in the proceedings, the commission approved a Certificate of Compliance for 8 Thistle Lane, owned by Michael Santos and another to Andrew Diagiammo and Donald Look for property located at 15 Elizabeth Drive.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Conservation Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 1, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell