On February 10, the Mattapoisett Board of Health received the good news that COVID-19 vaccines had been distributed to the first group of 100 residents lucky enough to have their application drawn from the first pool.

            Public Health Nurse Emily Field and soon-to-be-retired Public Health Nurse Amanda Stone reported that the town had received its first batch of 100 vaccines and that inoculations had gone smoothly. But as they spoke to the lottery system employed to select residents age 75 and over and/or healthcare workers employed in Mattapoisett, they were also cautiously optimistic about the state’s distribution system.

            “We are awaiting news … vaccine will trickle in,” Field said.

            Of those who were selected for the first clinic, Field said people were receptive to information about the virus and the vaccine itself. She also said that those receiving their first vaccine would be guaranteed the necessary second dose. But when another group of 100 may receive their first dose was anyone’s guess. Field said that large shipments were going to the state-run clinics and that, since receiving the initial shipment, a second shipment had not come through to Mattapoisett. “We used all 100 doses but got nothing this week,” she told the board.

            Field said that registration for future first doses could continue to take place and explained the process. She said people could fill out a paper form or go to the town’s website, Mattapoisett.net. Those completed medical forms are then placed in a box located in the police station lobby. Each Wednesday at 2:00 pm and with an impartial witness on hand, 100 forms are selected from the pool. Those not selected from the pool become part of a second drawing until all registration forms from the first pool have been selected. Subsequent pools will follow the same protocol, it was explained. The pools are not combined.

            When asked how many registrations had been received in the first pool, Stone responded, “When we have a breathing moment, we’ll tally them up. It wasn’t an overwhelming number.” Stone also shared the delicate manner in which the vaccine must be handled. In order to ensure there was sufficient medication for all invited to the first clinic, several doses had to be kept in reserve. She explained that a dropped vile could not be used and that, unlike other viral serums, these new medications cannot be shaken. She said that after the first clinic, the few remaining doses were offered to other members of the first pool.

            Stone also explained that some first-pool applicants were turned away due to unforeseen circumstances such as having a surgical procedure scheduled too closely to receiving an inoculation. “Screening was important to make sure people were eligible,” she said.

            When asked if she had received the vaccine, Stone stated that she didn’t believe she was vulnerable, that given her age and general health, ability to maintain 6 feet of distance, and wear a mask, her risk assessment was very low. Board member Ken Dawicki wondered if Stone would have to be quarantined if her work put her in the path of the virus. “I would not be considered a close contact,” Stone responded, adding that no one is immune. She said that her physical presence is not necessary and that “I can be working from home.”

            Managing the flow of vaccine once received by the community health department is key, the nurses said, making sure a second dose is available is critical and would supersede the distribution of a first dose to the second pool. And the timing is tight. Every Monday, communities receive a survey from the state health department. “By Saturday, we are advised how many we’ll receive,” Field said. Stone said the state-run clinics were receiving the majority of available vaccines.

            That comment elicited a strong response from BOH member Russell Bailey who exclaimed, “That’s just Big Brother saying shut-up and take what you get.… If we get 100 shots every two weeks, we’ll be vaccinating people ‘til the cows come home!”

            Stone said that more sites like local pharmacies and medical groups will begin to open up but that currently, “It’s not an easy process.” She said that if someone in the community secures an appointment at an out-of-town location, the Council on Aging will provide transportation.

            In other business, draft changes to the sanity standards were discussed. Most significant was a change that would now require new construction to have basements below established and certified groundwater levels.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Board of Health is scheduled for Wednesday, March 10, at 10:00 am.

Mattapoisett Board of Health

By Marilou Newell

            Walter Hartley had a hard time convincing the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals that it is safe to build a house on 15 acres of property with only 16 feet, 8 inches of frontage during the board’s February 11 meeting. Nonetheless, Case No. 1160 was continued with plans for a site visit last weekend.

            Katherine Hartley of 16 Walnut Plain Road applied for two variances for the property at 0 Pine Street to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot with frontage less than the required 225 feet and to build the house in a rectangle plan.

            Since 1937, the property came into and went out of the Hartley family before Katherine Hartley bought 15 acres at 0 Pine Street in April of 2019. During prior Hartley ownership, a backside portion of the land was donated in 1955 by the family and is now Sherman Cemetery.

            The property, which includes 6 acres of bog, is currently used for agricultural purposes; the applicant seeks to use it for agricultural and residential purposes, including one single-family home at less than 1,800 square feet.

            Walter Hartley, the owner of the property, represented the applicant and presented the case.

            The proposed house would be located more than 200 feet from the nearest abutter on the southwest side of Pine Street.

            Hartley said the plan is “well within the objectives of the Town of Rochester in helping to support agricultural entities and supporting farmers. He said the bog, historically used to grow cranberries, was used to grow hemp last year. He plans to grow in 2021 but had not decided on the crop at the time of the hearing.

            ZBA member Richard Cutler asked if the bog on the property is typically wet. Hartley described it as an “upland bog, all upland” from which gravel was removed. “It wasn’t built out of or in a wetland,” he said.

            Hartley told the ZBA he can draw a line but cannot draw the 50-foot line to satisfy the zoning bylaw’s rectangle standard. Hartley said the property would continue to use the existing driveway. “Nothing will change as far as from the street.”

            ZBA Chairman David Arancio said he owns a non-conforming lot with frontage of just over 30 feet and was approved for a variance. “It’s narrow. I have 30 (feet), and this is going to be just a smidge over half (of that length). Public safety is definitely an issue,” he said, acknowledging the right to farm. “No objection to that.”

            ZBA member Jeffrey Costa said, “I’m kind of torn on this one,” citing a struggle of the application “to meet the three criteria” that the board requires in order to grant the requested variances.

            An abutter in favor of Katherine Hartley’s application suggested that a home and resultant activity on the property would eliminate vandalism, whereas if it were not approved, the land could theoretically be sold, and a new owner could subdivide it or create a solar farm.

            David Menard, Gary Mills, and Brian Sherman, three abutters, signed the same letter in support of the application, but two other abutters, Jeffrey Ponte of 45 Pine Street and Jason Eddleston of 59 Pine Street, expressed concerns.

            “It’s not even 10 percent of the required frontage,” said Ponte. “I’ve been here 30 years and a lot of traffic, several times [drivers] have no regard. They go as fast as they can, go as fast as possible, pick up as much dust as they can.”

            Ponte told the board he witnessed a box truck hit his rock wall, displacing two rocks. He said he notified the police.

            “What I don’t see here is any hardship. I have no problem with the bog…. Where is the actual hardship here?” Ponte asked. “It’s ridiculous. The state limit is supposed to be about 50 feet…. I am against this proposal unless the board can present [a legitimate hardship case].”

            Arancio told Ponte that it is “100 percent on the applicant to go ahead and state that hardship.”

            “It sounds more like convenience,” said Ponte.

            Hartley said, “There is an extraordinary amount of acreage with limited frontage. That’s what the hardship is.” Hartley insisted the property has “adequate access, as wide as any other driveways.” He described the driveway as a 12-foot-wide gravel way that happens to fall within a 16-foot piece of property. ‘If it was 225 feet, it would be the same.”

            Ponte said he has seen vehicles back up into Hartley’s property and have a hard time passing, and on October 11, his wall was hit as a result. “Nobody said a thing about it,” he said.

            “I can’t speak to previous years and what other people did,” said Hartley. “We’re not talking about (adding) vehicles for agricultural purposes. This is for the residential vehicles.” Hartley further stated that, had he known about the incident with Ponte’s property, “I would have had an excavator there the next day to fix it.”

            Eddleston said he has three young sons who like to play outside and that the traffic that “goes up and down that dirt road is not really slow. They’re young, they’re going to play, they’re going to wander, that worries me.” He further stated that, before Hartley bought back the property, he had a run-in with previous owners after trucks cut his corner of the property and that one of his trees was cut down without notice.

            Beyond abutters, there was strong opposition from the Planning Board, having cited the 225 feet of frontage required and stating in a letter recommendation the ZBA not grant the variances because the existing frontage will not allow for safe access. Furthermore, the Planning Board said there is no mechanism in Rochester’s bylaws that would allow for it. Town Planner Steve Starrett and Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson recommended against granting the variance on the basis that a favorable ruling would lead to “many bad requests” to the ZBA.

            “We are very concerned about the fact that this would get a lot of people coming to the ZBA to develop land that may not have 15 acres back there and would be a hazard to the town,” said Johnson.

            The case was continued to Thursday, February 25. The planned site visit had not been arranged before the February 11 session ended; it was not to be a public meeting because there would be no quorum with just two members attending and no additional notification to abutters.

            In other business, an amended Special Permit issued initially in 2011 for converting a repair bay to offices with an addition at 92 Pine Street was withdrawn by applicant ILC Development, LLC without prejudice. The proposed project needs Planning Board approval before ZBA approval, so applicant Robert Ferreira told the board in his February 11 request that he intends to reapply at the appropriate time.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for Thursday, February 25, at 7:00 pm.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Mick Colageo

            As outgoing Mattapoisett Highway Surveyor Barry Denham came before the Mattapoisett Board of Selectmen on February 16, he reminded all that the FY22 budget will be “the new guy’s budget.” Denham had previously announced his retirement when he came before the Finance Committee earlier this month, and, as he had with that committee, he suggested staffing changes.

            Denham said that on the heels of his retirement, the new surveyor would benefit from having an in-field foreman to assist with the numerous large and small-scale projects facing the department. He also said that the current foreman should be moved up to director of operations and a part-time administrative assistant to full-time hours.

            Selectman John DeCosta offered that the new highway surveyor should be given the opportunity to make staffing decisions after he or she has had the chance to evaluate the department.

            Selectman Jordan Collyer framed his response to Denham’s suggestions this way. “One ask is okay, two maybe, but three is a bit much.” He pointed out that any staffing changes would require either opening a previously negotiated union contract or beginning negotiations sooner than October. So while some of what Denham was proposing might be worth review, Collyer said, “Our hands are tied.”

            Collyer then took the discussion in a more expansive direction. “We need to look at the bigger picture and long term. I’m on board with an elected surveyor, but should we bring in a full-time engineer who could assist with water, sewer, and highway?” He said the town is now paying for outside engineering services, encompassing everything from buildings to roads to bidding contracts. “We are paying through the nose. We could be doing it ourselves.” Selectmen Paul Silva and DeCosta agreed. Town Administrator Mike Lorenco was asked to do a cost-benefit analysis for the three departments.

            The selectmen also took a moment to recognize Denham and his many contributions over the 15 years he has been the highway surveyor. DeCosta said, “Barry and I go way back; I worked for him when I was in high school. Thank you for your service to the town and the country.” Collyer said, “You and I have had our share of disagreements, but you’ve done a phenomenal job, made it your own, been accountable, taken ownership, you’ve accomplished a lot.”

            The Highway Department proposed FY22 budget total is $765,250.

            Earlier in the evening, the board met with Water and Sewer Superintendent Henri Renauld. As he had recently with the Finance Committee, Renauld said that the budget was level-funded except for contractual employment raises. He also said that given the number of new homes requiring meters, he had added a new line item for this expense, beginning with $15,000. The cost of the meters will be recouped from usage revenues, he explained, but the initial outlay was needed.

            Renauld was asked about expenses that eventually are received through revenue but cannot be easily seen on an accounting spreadsheet. Silva asked why a credit couldn’t be noted. Lorenco said he was looking into how those numbers could be expressed but that currently, “This is how the water district works.” Silva said, “We have to make sure we are getting the money back.” The proposed FY22 budget for the Water Department is $1,559,960, a 0.18-percent increase, and the Sewer Department $826,336, a 0.2-percent increase.

            The selectmen also discussed the need to look at constructing a new building, a home for the Water and Sewer Departments. Renauld may have been having a bit of déjà vu since the Finance Committee addressed the topic a few days earlier. Renauld said he would be securing financing for study and conceptual designs for town-owned properties. DeCosta asked for a debt retirement schedule for the next 10 years as part of a package of financial data needed for such a large-scale project.

            Rounding out their discussions, Lorenco reported that the Plymouth County Retirement Association had increased the town’s share by $132,000. Silva commented that was likely due to poor earnings of the trust. Collyer said he’d like to know what the town is paying currently in fees and would also like to look at other funds such as Plymouth County OPEB Trust. The town currently has an estimated $9 million in other post-employment benefits (OPEB). “More than just about any other town,” Lorenco said.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Board of Selectmen is scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, at 6:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Board of Selectmen

By Marilou Newell

            The Marion School Committee on February 8 voted to reopen Sippican School to full-time in-person learning for Kindergarten and Grades 1 and 2 beginning after the winter break on Monday, February 22.

            The committee approved an action plan to prepare the school building for educating its early learners last month, and Sippican School Principal Marla Sirois briefed the committee last Monday on the resulting changes that will allow those students to return to school safely.

            Sirois said the Kindergarten classrooms only needed a few desks moved to allow students to remain in the same rooms that they currently occupy for hybrid learning. Both first-grade classrooms had to be moved, Sirois said, to two larger rooms — the school library and the band room. Second graders will also attend class in different rooms, one room that was made bigger by removing a partitioned wall and another more extensive classroom beside the Project Grow classroom. All the needed technology for Grade 2 is in place, she added, but some desks still need moving to the cafeteria for space for larger groups to meet and, potentially, for lunchtime.

            “Safety remains the top priority,” said Sirois. The school has added some plastic traffic cones to help delineate spaces and added additional floor markers to reinforce social distancing.

             “We truly have tried to think of as many things as possible to make sure this goes smoothly,” said Old Rochester Regional Superintendent of Schools Mike Nelson. “I’m proud to announce that Sippican School is ready to pivot.”

            Nelson said the school has been “transformed,” bus routes have been established, and the food service staff is prepared for the influx of students.

            “With the Board of Health, we are in support of bringing back the K-2 students,” Marion Public Health Nurse Lori Desmarais told the committee. Although there have been some COVID-19 cases in the K-2 age group, Desmarais said, “We’ve seen that the transmission is more in the household and not in the school.”

            The committee voted to adopt a five-day schedule over the option for a four-day schedule, following the same decision made by Rochester and Mattapoisett already operating their in-person full-time K-2 programs.

            Nelson said Marion waited until after the holidays and the anticipated COVID-19 surge before making its decision to reopen. There were no active COVID-19 cases linked to Sippican School as of press time.

            “I hope everyone is excited about this — we are,” said School Committee Chairman Michelle Smith. “I know people are nervous; it’s not an easy decision.”

            According to Sirois, none of the parents of the current hybrid students have expressed concern about their children returning to full-time in-person learning, but added that none of the parents of fully remote learners had expressed a desire to switch to the full-time, in-person option either.

            “I’m feeling very hopeful that this is going to be very successful for our students and our staff,” said Smith.

            The lines of communication should remain open, Smith added, emphasizing the importance.

            “We are excited; this is a good thing,” said Nelson. “I feel confident that the plan in place has been thoughtful and that we should be able to have a pretty seamless transition …”

            One parent asked via Zoom whether the district would consider soon welcoming Grades 3-6 back to full-time in-person learning.

            “It’s absolutely not off the table,” Sirois stated. Much like most things this year, Nelson said, echoing Sirois’ statement. “Nothing is off the table,” he said.

            Nelson said he anticipates further guidance from the state in the coming weeks to determine when in-person full-time learning is possible for all grades at Sippican School.

            In budget news, the committee’s budget subcommittee has acquiesced to the town’s request to pare down the 3.5-percent increase in the school district’s Fiscal Year 2022 budget. Smith said the district could reduce its budget down to a 2.4-percent increase without any significant detriment.

            “We think the budget will allow us to still be able to provide what we need to the teachers,” said Smith. “We’re confident with what we’ve come up with at this time.”

            School Committee and budget subcommittee member Jody Dickerson said the school district, like all town and school departments all over Massachusetts, are facing the same budget conundrum. He added, though, that no cuts to staff are needed at this time.

            “We’re just being very conservative on the town’s budget, and also the school administration is doing the same thing, as well, as fair and best as we can,” he said.

            The next meeting of the Marion School Committee will be on February 24 at 6:30 pm.

Marion School Committee

By Jean Perry