The November 4 Fall Special Town Meeting in Mattapoisett was set after a citizen’s petition was submitted proposing amendments to the Medical Marijuana Bylaws already in place.

            The amendments, if carried, would have allowed the cultivation of marijuana destined not only for medical use, but also for recreational adult use.

            The zoning bylaw amendments would not have included any retail medical or recreational sales to have taken place in the town, only the expansion of the cultivation.

            Both the Finance Committee and the Planning Board supported the amendments.

Speaking on behalf of the Finance Committee, Chairman Pat Donoghue talked about the financial benefits the town would enjoy through additional tax revenue via a host agreement. She said that the FinCom also supported placing the projected new revenue stream into the town’s stabilization funds to be used for nonrecurring expenses such as Capital Expenses. She confirmed that the committee did not have “any data to establish fiscal trends”, or data that could give insight into the potential for market saturation that might drive down marijuana’s price per pound. In spite of uncertainties, Donoghue said, “It would be prudent for Town Meeting to pass favorably on these articles.”

            A few minutes later she added that the potential new revenue could have the positive impact of lowering taxes or allowing the town to spend over the Proposition 2 ½ limits.

            Planning Board Chairman Tom Tucker read from a report that detailed the October 7 Planning Board meeting at which time Stu Bronstein, owner of a large vacant warehouse in the Light Industrial zone known as Industrial Drive, proposed the zoning bylaw amendments that would make his building a viable piece of real estate for marijuana cultivation. At that time, he noted that cultivation of medical marijuana alone was not economically feasible.

            “We need the recreational piece,” Bronstein had stated.

            The Planning Board voted 3 to 1 in favor of the amendments during that meeting.

            Representing Bronstein and the 200 petitioners was Attorney Valerio Romano of the Boston-based firm Vincente Sederberg LLP. Romano hit on all the major talking points: job creation, new revenue – which was pegged at over $4 million over a five-year cycle, the security of a cultivation processing plant, and the containment of odors.

            Romano said that the amendments gave control to local boards in terms of ensuring that offending odors and other production-related activities would not become a “nuisance” to residential subdivisions.

            “This would be a thoughtful approach,” said Romano, adding that the cultivator would have to “jump through lots of hoops” before starting production. “If you do this right, it can be good,” in terms of jobs and revenue, said Romano.

            Romano didn’t shy away from the notion held by some that by allowing recreational cannabis cultivation, Mattapoisett’s reputation might suffer a negative impact. He asked if those in attendance thought less of towns nearby that have allowed recreational marijuana businesses to operate. He said that there was no evidence that home values would drop, and asserted they may even go up.

            The first of 10 residents to ask questions was James Dildine, a resident of the Bay Club. He said that a quick Internet search found numerous odoriferous problems with marijuana cultivation in California.

            “People are enraged,” Dildine claimed. He said that the town’s revenue projections made his eyes “bulge”, and said he was “not comfortable” with the amount of due diligence undertaken by the Finance Committee. He said that the Bay Club was the “goose that laid the golden egg” in terms of property taxes and claimed that those and about 50 other house lots waiting in the pipeline may be negatively impacted by marijuana cultivation.

            Several attendees commented on the possibly that if one cultivation facility is permitted then others would follow, and that the town should be looking for others forms of light industrial businesses versus what was being proposed.

            But it was Mike Esposito, Ned’s Point Road, who received a resounding round of applause after asking probing questions regarding the host agreement.

            As noted on a spreadsheet developed by the Assessors’ Office, the town was projected to receive $360,000 in the third year of an agreement that permitted a cultivation facility in 40,000 square feet of Bronstein’s building. That, in addition to another $55,000 for personal property taxes and $111,625 from real estate taxes, would give the town a total of $527,145. The fourth year, with the facility expanded to 70,000 square feet, that figure would be $1,452,705, and by year five with 100,000 square feet in full production, Mattapoisett could get $2,014,686.

            Over a five-year period from start-up to full production, the cumulative revenue was projected to be $4,162,199. But the sticking point was the host agreement.

            Esposito explained that that agreement only allowed the town to be compensated for expenses incurred by permitting the cultivation facility. He said that the town would be expected to keep track of additional expenses associated with the growing production plant such as hiring additional police and fire personnel.

            “This is not new revenue,” said Espositio, “just a recouping of service expenses…” He also said that there was a bill wending its way through the legislature that would remove hosting agreements altogether.

            Town Counsel Kathrine Laughlin said that presently hosting agreements were only based on conjecture, but that it is also a “presumptively responsible fee.” She said that is why most host agreements end after five years but may be renegotiated.

            “We are being asked to vote on speculation,” Esposito said.

            Putting money matters aside, Attorney Robert Moore, life-long Mattapoisett resident and former police detective, personalized his comments, saying that children follow what they see, not what they are told to do.

            “What kind of a town do we want?” he asked. He said that while he respected the work done by volunteers on various town boards, it was “Town Meeting” that set policy. “What price are we willing to sell our town for?” he continued. “Think of our children and forget about the money,” he pleaded.

            Two residents rose in support of the amendments based on marijuana’s potential to soothe those suffering in pain or drug addiction.

             Charles “Chuck” McIntyre said, “Marijuana is a deterrent to the opioid crisis. There are more dangerous drugs in Mattapoisett than marijuana.” He said people his age want “legal access to marijuana,” and that eventually, the “Baby Boomer” opinion of the current majority would be “irrelevant.”

            Frank Sawyer also supported the articles, saying that his wife had benefited from using medical marijuana products and that he simply wanted to give people “a realistic viewpoint” from what he had witnessed with his one loved ones.

            For more than an hour and a half, Town Meeting participants opposed to the amendments spoke out, with many wanting more financial details before deciding if marijuana cultivation for recreational use should be permitted in Mattapoisett.

            It was Linda Moffat who rose and asked that the question be moved. When the vote was taken on Article 1, Adult Use Marijuana Establishments, it was 67 in favor, 214 opposed.

            The failure of Article 1 made the ensuing two adult-use marijuana-related articles moot.

Mattapoisett Special Town Meeting

By Marilou Newell

            Rochester is preparing for its next solar array farm, this time on 32 acres of land off Old Middleboro Road and Walnut Plain Road.

            The project proposed by Solar MA Project Management, LLC would be the eighth solar energy development in Rochester, and the largest so far with an energy generating capacity of five megawatts of electricity.

            The Rochester Planning Board opened up the Special Permit public hearing on October 31 for round one of what will become a series of continued public hearings as the board works with its peer-review engineer to achieve full compliance with the town’s solar bylaw.

            Austin Turner from Bohler Engineering presented the board with a plan that has seen some changes along the way through the Notice of Intent process with the Conservation Commission and after a few informal technical review meetings with the Planning Board.

            “The plan has evolved and, frankly, benefitted from those conversations,” said Turner before presenting a brief history of an informal conceptual review in September.

            The land proposed for solar development is only 32 acres out of the 260-acre property the solar developer purchased in order to acquire an access point to reach the site that is surrounded by a vast system of wetlands.

            The remaining 228 acres, which includes sites that the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program has identified as habitat for rare and endangered species, will be deeded as conservation land to be held and managed by the Buzzards Bay Coalition.

            Old Middleboro Road, which has been deemed an ‘ancient way’ and will provide the primary access to the site, will be widened from 12 feet to 16 feet to accommodate the maneuvering of emergency response vehicles. Some rerouting of the way is also planned.

            As an ancient way, public use of Old Middleboro Road for access to other nearby properties will continue. Turner confirmed this after the developer consulted with town counsel to establish the right of access for those who have historically traversed Old Middleboro Road.

            A stormwater management system consisting of three stormwater basins and a system of perimeter vegetated swales is proposed so that water runoff can infiltrate into the ground.

            Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson noted the presence of a historical stone foundation within the 32 acres, which Turner said would be precisely marked and preserved.

            According to Johnson, Town Planner Steve Starrett did some research on the possible history of the ruins, “And the guy (who once lived there) was kind of a prominent person, so we would probably want to protect that and probably… would like to maintain public access to that part of that site as well,” said Johnson.

            “I think we could accommodate that,” said Turner. “Right now we don’t think that will be a problem.”

            Johnson said he prefers holding a site visit sooner rather than later, and asked Turner to be sure flagging is completed to indicate the limits of clearing, where the edge of the panels will be, and where the access road will be.

            A few abutters new to the solar farm permitting process asked some familiar questions asked by residents before them, such as the extent of any noise or light emitting from the site. As Planning Board member Ben Bailey stated, the humming from the transformers would be audible only from a limited distance, and “quieter than the conversation we’re having now.”

            As for light emissions, the panels contain no other source of light apart from the sun that shines on them during the day. There is also no exterior lighting proposed for the site.

            A representative from Decas Cranberry voiced a concern about the potential for access road improvements encouraging further ATV use into abutting Decas property, but apart from the gate that will secure the actual solar farm, no further gates can go up on Old Middleboro Road.

            “They’re not allowed by law to block an ancient way,” Johnson said.

            Before adjourning, Johnson reassured concerned residents that this was only the first night of the public hearing and that there would be plenty of additional opportunities to ask questions along the way.

            The public hearing was continued until November 12.

            Also during the meeting, the board approved the Special Permit for a large-scale solar farm on Marion Road for Rochester Farms, LLC, owned by Craig Canning.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for November 12 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry

            Marion residents, what would you be willing to pay for a transfer station sticker? Forty dollars, $50, or more? This was the question on the minds of the selectmen during the November 5, Marion Board of Selectmen meeting as they face the pressure of putting a price on the transfer station stickers before they go into effect on January 1, 2020.

            The Benson Brook transfer station is owned and run by the Carver, Marion, Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District. Just recently, the CMWRRDD decided to offer one transfer station sticker to the three towns in the district, but only more recently did the district discover that it was not permitted to do so. Now, the three towns must sell those CMWRRDD stickers at a cost that each town will itself determine. Marion must now impose its own price on the transfer station sticker and also figure out how much to charge for a separate Town of Marion privilege sticker for parking and beach access.

            Bob Partridge, a Marion member of the CMWRRDD Board, joined the selectmen in the discussion and provided as much information as he could to help them wrap their heads around the matter. And as Marion negotiates its ‘Mexit’ from the CMW, the town hopes it can operate the Benson Brook transfer station on its own, but sticker fees will have to cover the operational costs.

            According to the data Partridge presented, a vehicle count of the Marion-based transfer station revealed that the average number of vehicles entering the station is about 426 a week. That is, of course, the calculated average, although in January the number dips as low as 330 and as high as 650 mid-summer. But all member towns of the CMW district are allowed to use the station, not only Marion. Partridge said about 30 percent of those vehicles counted are registered in Marion, while roughly 70 percent were from Wareham.

            That approximate average of 127 Marion vehicles per week (30 percent) is, basically, with a sticker that costs only $10. So if the sticker costs more, would Marion residents still use the transfer station?

            The sticker fee would not necessarily be utilized to fund the 2020 operation of the transfer station, because the district will continue to be reimbursed by SEMASS and offered a $0-per-ton tipping fee until December 31, 2020. The fee Marion collects for 2020 stickers would fund the town’s endeavor to maintain the transfer station as its own and pay for the associated costs, such as equipment and employees to keep the station open at least a couple days a week.

            But Town Administrator Jay McGrail and the board are unsure of the number of residents that would continue to buy the sticker at a higher rate compared to the $10 sticker.

            “If we charge $40 for a sticker… and we sell 100 of them we know it’s going to be a lot harder for us to run the transfer station,” said McGrail.

            Selectman Norm Hills liked the sound of a $40 transfer station sticker with an additional $10 town privilege sticker, which would be in line with surrounding towns’ transfer station sticker fees.

            Still, Board of Selectmen Chairman Randy Parker asked, “Do we really need to charge $40 for that?”

            It’s a good way to find out how many stickers the town would sell at a given price, Selectman John Waterman suggested, adding, “I think we need to find out what the demand is to use the trash station, and if it’s free then we’ll never find out… Because I think we’re testing the market and that’s a good starting point… and we’ll see how many of these transfer station stickers we sell for 50 bucks.”

            Parker said he needs significantly more information before the board can agree on a price.

            “I just feel a little guilty charging the residents 50 bucks for something we’ve been charging them $10 for,” said Parker.

            Waterman suggested it would make the transition easier if the town charged only $50 now before possibly having to hike the price up to $150 in order to keep the transfer station operating for Marion residents. “And,” he said, “we find out if anyone is willing to pay it.” If they won’t pay $50, then clearly they won’t be willing to pay $150 the next year, he said.

            The selectmen agreed they needed more time and information, but McGrail gently reminded them that the decision must be made by early December.

            McGrail is now tasked with formulating an equation to estimate what the transfer station’s operating costs might be and to suggest an appropriate sticker fee.

            Meanwhile, after Town Meeting voted in favor of a Mexit from the CMW district, the town has begun its negotiations with the district; however, if the district decides as a whole that it wants to dissolve its association, Marion would not be forced to continue in its efforts to leave.

            According to Partridge, CMWRRDD board members are seriously considering a full dissolution of the district, save for the existence of a “skeleton” entity to continue to cover the costs of outstanding liabilities, such as one retiree’s pension and benefits.

            “Right now, the ball is in the [CMWRRDD’s] court,” said Partridge. ”…But first, they need to vote on whether the district will remain a district.”

            The CMWRRDD Board could vote on its fate as a district within the next month. Its next meeting is scheduled for November 20.

            “They’re going to have to make a hard decision one way or another,” said McGrail.

            The good news is that, should Marion leave the CMWRRDD, Covanta has agreed to a $77-per-ton tipping fee (with a 2.5 percent escalator each year) for solid waste disposal at SEMASS for a contract period of five years.

            McGrail called it a “great deal,” and said no matter how high trash disposal costs could jump over time, Marion is locked-in. “Doing it now, I think it’s huge.”

            McGrail said the CMWRRDD did not receive a bid from Covanta more beneficial than Marion’s and, in fact, Marion’s negotiations actually led to a better deal for the CMWRRDD, McGrail claimed.

            In other business, the board approved awarding Methuen Construction for the $6,370,198 wastewater treatment plant and lagoon improvements contract.

            The board approved the job description for the new position of assistant director of the Department of Public Works.

            McGrail was given authorization to submit the preservation restriction for the Town House to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for review and approval.

            McGrail will now begin the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to solicit bids for the sale of the Atlantis Drive building.

            The Board of Assessors’ yearly tax rate classification hearing with the board was continued until November.

            The next meeting of the Marion Board of Selectmen is scheduled for November 19 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Board of Selectmen

By Jean Perry