Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman David Arancio on January 30 presented his fellow ZBA members with a summary from a recent conversation he had with Town Counsel Blair Bailey about granting variances.

            The point, Arancio said, was to clarify exactly what a variance is “and how we really need to look at a variance going forward and what our obligations under the law are with that.”

            Right away, ZBA member Don Spirlet said he did not agree with all the points that Bailey offered.

            Reading from the memorandum, “It is important to note… variances should be sparingly granted,” said Spirlet.

            “Correct,” said ZBA member Richard Cutler.

            “So, we should be denying most variances?” said Spirlet. “Is that what we’re saying?”

            Providing his interpretation, Arancio said: “I think that the applicant needs to do their due diligence to make sure that the three criteria [for a variance] are well explained… It has to be laid out very well. We shouldn’t be pulling it out of the applicant to get us to the finish line.”

            For a variance, the applicant must prove that the topography or some physical aspect of the property would prevent the construction from adhering to the zoning bylaw requirements, that there would be a hardship without the variance, and that the construction would produce no detriment to the public good.

            This discussion continued: “We don’t necessarily have to grant a variance, and we sometimes shouldn’t,” said Cutler. “Just because (the applicants) feel like they have a problem doesn’t mean that we always have to relieve it.”

            “But if the applicant satisfies all the criteria,” said ZBA member Kirby Gilmore, “whether or not we grant a variance shouldn’t be [based on] whether we are granting too many or not granting enough. It depends on the conversation we have amongst ourselves once we close the public portion of the hearing.”

            Arancio said the information was simply a result of the conversation he had with Bailey, and that the purpose of the board’s discussion that night was to ensure a full understanding of the nature of variances, as well as how the courts look at variances and the factors involved when a variance is appealed.

            “[We are] making sure that we are well informed and educated,” said Arancio. “It’s more or less of a refresher – everybody on the same page – everybody knows it so we’re not guessing or looking at it that way.”

            “I just don’t agree that we should be granting the variances sparingly,” Spirlet said. “If we’re looking at ten variances and they’re all well-documented and they satisfy the three criteria, why shouldn’t we grant them?”

            Cutler felt that Spirlet appeared to be “oversimplifying” things.

            “There may be other things that the applicant could do,” said Cutler, “or there may be some of the neighbors who don’t particularly care for it.”

            When it comes to abutters, Spirlet said, “To me, the public – and especially abutters – get two bites out of the apple.” (They may voice their concerns at the public meeting or appeal the variance after it is granted.) “If they don’t do either one of those, why would we… assume that just so we can just deny it?”

            Arancio suggested inviting Bailey to the next ZBA meeting to address the board members’ lingering concerns and questions.

            “I wanted to make sure that we were 100 percent on the same page,” said Arancio.

            Cutler pointed to the original intent of the zoning bylaws and also mentioned how, in Rochester, the lots tend to be on the larger side so it is “easy enough to grant more variances.”

            That being said, Cutler commented, “What’s the intent of the bylaw, and the bylaw is to try to keep things spread out.”

            Gilmore said he welcomes further clarification from Bailey, whose job, Gilmore said, is “to guide us in the right direction.”

            Arancio said he simply wished to foster clear and open communication amongst the board.

            Meanwhile, the representative present on behalf of applicant Jonathan Crowell, 694 Snipatuit Road, witnessed the discussion just before presenting the board with an application for a variance to install an interconnected, ground-mounted solar array system less than 40 feet from the rear property line.

            The board ultimately denied the variance in a 4-1 vote (Spirlet voted in favor) because three of the panels could potentially be relocated to remain within the 40-foot required setback, which could still provide Crowell with the energy input he needs to power his single-family residence.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for February 13 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

            On January 22, Mattapoisett’s Administrator of Assessing Kathleen Costello, along with town counselor Matthew Thomas, presented Home Rule Petition 4244 at the Massachusetts State House. If passed, the petition would grant Mattapoisett the legal right to assess solar developments with fees known as P.I.L.O.T. programs, aka, payment in lieu of taxes. 

            While the town currently has several P.I.L.O.T. programs successfully executed with Blue Wave Solar, Costello has held that a loophole in solar legislation, meant to ease the tax burden of residential taxpayers who install solar energy systems in their homes, could be used by businesses. Costello believes if that were to happen, the town could find land being developed for commercial solar enterprises without the ability to assess new taxes, thereby hindering revenue growth.

            Representative William Straus presented the petition, which was then defended by Costello and Thomas. The petition, Costello said, will now go to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue for debate.

            According to Costello, Mattapoisett is the first municipality in the Commonwealth to attempt such tax-levying protection. 

“If this passes it will go a long way in protecting the town against frivolous lawsuits solar developers could file. We’ve been lucky so far,” she stated in working with Blue Wave Solar. “But Mattapoisett is like a field-of-dreams for solar developers.”

Costello said that Mattapoisett had a great deal of undeveloped property unsuitable for subdivision development. However, when it comes to solar, those same parcels might be permitted for commercial, alternative-energy development. The town does not currently have a solar bylaw.

            Costello expressed concern that any number of solar developers could seek permits in Mattapoisett while trying to circumvent paying any taxes at all. With a Home Rule Petition securely in place, “The town will be able to budget,” using new revenue sources, “…for capital improvement projects and other financial decisions,” she said.

            And budget time is indeed here with the Finance Committee convening on January 29 to begin crafting the 2021 budgets.

            Town Administrator Mike Gagne said that he had been in discussions with Old Rochester Regional School District Superintendent Doug White regarding medical insurance costs. Gagne shared that ORR was able to reduce medical-insurance expenses for 2021 by four percent. Another savings the town will receive is the expense of the high school resource officer. Historically that expense had been solely funded by Mattapoisett. Now that expense would be shared across the towns. 

            Gagne said there were plans to include a Capital Debt Stabilization Fund noting, “…all tri-town administrators agreed on this.” He said that planning for capital expenses at the schools meant that projects wouldn’t have to be totally funded by debt exclusion.

            FinCom Chairman Pat Donoghue asked about enrollment. Gagne responded that overall ORR enrollment was declining with five fewer students from Mattapoisett, 20 fewer from Rochester and 12 fewer from Marion. These figures were contrasted against expected increases at Old Colony with three students from Mattapoisett and two from Rochester. An additional five Rochester students are scheduled to attend Bristol County Agricultural School. 

            The proposed 2021 ORR budget currently stands at $19,612,589, a 2.09-percent increase over 2020.

            The committee met with Highway Superintendent Barry Denham, who said he would be presenting a levelly funded budget with a 2.5-percent increase but was awaiting salary figures from the treasurer’s office.

            Denham discussed the condition of both private and public roads, saying that 26.7 miles were in good condition, 10.7 miles in fair condition, and 9.64 miles in poor condition. Of those falling into the poor category, 3.6 were dirt roads. 

            Regarding the bike path, Denham said that currently, his department spends approximately 108 hours maintaining the asphalt pathways. He said when Phase 1b is completed that figure will rise and that the wooden bridge will require repair and maintenance as well. 

            Donoghue asked if the Highway Department had begun drainage-improvement projects, which had been supported at the October Special Town Meeting. Denham said, “A lot goes into drainage, we may only have enough money to fund the engineering design.” 

            Denham said that currently, the town had one mile of ADA compliant sidewalks and that 20 catch basins out of 700 met new EPA regulations. “The four main outfalls go right into the harbor untreated,” he said, adding that drainage overall hadn’t been worked on since 1979.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Finance Committee is scheduled for Thursday, February 6, at 6:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell