No one could argue that, of all the Snow’s Pond Road variance requests to ever come before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, Jake Goyette’s has been the most controversial. But on October 24 with town counsel on hand, the ZBA granted Goyette his variance to build his single-family house on the unaccepted town road, despite a contentious but unrelated neighborhood dispute over access that remains unresolved.

            The board had Town Counsel Blair Bailey present to help it untangle the issues from the non-issues pertaining to Goyette’s application. Supportive neighbors and Goyette’s attorney argue that Goyette’s variance should be granted like all the other Snow’s Pond Road houses received over the years. After all, it was granted years ago, but then expired in 2012. Neighbors opposed to the variance, however, argue that until access to a right of way is restored, Goyette should be denied the variance.

            Goyette’s application, like the rest of his neighbors’ variance applications in the past, requests permission to build a house on property that lacks frontage on an accepted town road. The last time the board opened Goyette’s public hearing, ZBA members chose to continue until they could research prior Planning Board decisions where the Planning Board weighed-in on the adequacy of Snow’s Pond Road.

            Bailey said he found two such instances, one of them an Approval Not Required application from 1990 that the board granted. By signing that, Bailey said, “The Planning Board effectively weighed-in on the adequacy of the road up to the point when the split (in Snow’s Pond Road) was made.” Having said that, he continued Bailey, “I did speak with the chairman of the Planning Board and he agreed with that interpretation.”

            Although the ZBA ultimately granted Goyette the variance, it came after over an hour of discussion that often veered into the gate that Goyette’s direct abutters – his parents – erected to block all access to a contested right of way across their property.

            On behalf of Lisa Holden, a Snow’s Pond Road resident and seller of the property to Goyette, Attorney Marc Deshaies argued that granting a variance to Goyette would be “denigrating from the bylaw” that a house has to be on a public way or shown on a plan approved by the Planning Board.

            Deshaies was referring to the drive that Goyette’s parents have blocked with a gate. He said that he traced the right of way all the way back to 1811.

            Linda Rounseville, a resident of Snow’s Pond Road, opposed the variance because of the gate on Goyette’s parents’ property, as well as the three-panel stockade fence that sits in the middle of the way on Goyette’s property.

            Goyette’s mother, Bonnie Goyette, the owner of the gate blocking the access, clarified that the gate does not belong to Jake, and also pointed out that Lisa Holden, one of the principal opponents of Goyette’s variance, years ago received the very same variance Goyette now seeks. Holden’s and the others’ variances were all “granted within 10 minutes,” Bonnie Goyette said. She said 10 other houses all have zero feet of frontage on an accepted town road. “What is the difference between Jake’s application and Lisa’s application other than the name at the top of the application?”

            ZBA Chairman David Arancio said all sides have a right to speak at a public hearing, adding that he is “a process guy” and that he was also on the board when the original variance was granted.

            Lauren Francis said she performed the title examination and claimed that the contested right of way was originally named East Snow’s Pond Road and recorded in the past. She said the problem here today was the blocked access.

            “The issue that I have here is that’s not the problem here today,” said Bailey.

            The ZBA cannot decide someone’s property rights, he said, adding that although he understands the issue of the gate, “That’s not anywhere near this board… It’s not in front of this board. I sympathize and I understand, but there’s nothing this board can do to address this problem.”

            According to a letter submitted by Holden, Goyette’s parents put the gate up to block traffic because their grandchildren cross back and forth between the two Goyette family properties.

            “They have caused a detriment to their neighbors as well as a safety concern in that area,” wrote Holden. 

            Goyette’s attorney, however, rose to be one of the last to speak about the blocked access, as Arancio grew tired of the matter he now perceived as unrelated to the application. According to the attorney, Goyette was misled to believe that the original variance was still in effect when he signed the purchase and sale agreement with Holden. He said the variance was written into the deed and also the purchase and sale agreement, despite its expiration prior to the conveyance of the land.

            “That is fraudulent,” he stated. Furthermore, the gate is located on Goyette’s parents’ property, not his, and the stockade fence was put up because drivers would proceed down the right of way and then back up onto Goyette’s land to turn around once they approached the fence. The application is solely for relief of the frontage, he reminded the board, not for access rights.

            Once public comment was closed, ZBA member Richard Cutler read a statement he prepared on how he had voted for that original variance but did not support this latest application.

            “At the time there was no discussion about the rights of others to pass,” said Cutler. “Now [there] appears to be a controversy, indicating to me that there is some detriment to the public good.”

            “I don’t see that,” said ZBA member Don Spirlet. “To me, the detriment is the fence, the gate that they’re talking about,” which is on another’s property. “I have no problem issuing this [variance].”

            ZBA member Jeffrey Costa agreed, and chastised Goyette’s opposition, saying, “Figure stuff out, neighborhood, and let the poor kid build his house.”

            ZBA member Davis Sullivan agreed with Cutler. When he voted for the first variance, there was no detriment to the public, he said. “But at this point, there is.”

            “Just to be clear,” Bailey interjected, “the detriment to the public good has to be tied to the relief he’s asking for,” which is a lack of frontage.

            “Still,” said Cutler, “there’s a lot more controversy associated with this piece of property than we’ve ever had on any other piece of property over on Snow’s Pond Road.”

            “I don’t disagree,” said Bailey, “but what I’m saying is the question before the board is, does granting this relief do a detriment to the public good – that’s the question, and the relief is the frontage on Snow’s Pond Road.

            “I just don’t see how it… is detriment to the public good,” said Arancio. “I have not heard one person talk about this application and him building a house in a negative manner.”

            The vote was 4-1 with only Cutler opposing.

            Also during the meeting, the board granted two variances to Mary and Michael Fitzgerald, Hiller Road, one to allow an accessory structure to exceed 1,000 square feet, and one to allow the accessory structure to be located in the front of the property. The couple also received a Special Permit to allow the structure to exceed the height of the principal structure.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for November 14 at 7:15 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

            A date has been set for the criminal trial of Ray Pickles, the former executive director of the Carver, Marion, Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District (CMWRRDD), accused of stealing over $610,000 from the District over a period of six years.

            After one final pre-trial conference on February 3, the trial by jury will begin on February 24 at 9:00 am at the Plymouth County Superior Court in Plymouth.

            A grand jury indicted Pickles, 85, on March 18, 2019 after a joint investigation of the Office of the Inspector General and the Attorney General’s Office.

            He was charged with six counts of larceny.

            Pickles, the sole signatory on two District bank accounts, allegedly wrote checks out to himself for personal use, and is accused of establishing another two secret checking accounts at two separate banks in the District’s name to deposit checks intended for the District. Pickles allegedly used those funds to make payments on his personal credit cards and make cash withdrawals for personal use.

            Pickles is also accused of submitting invoices to the District for work he did not perform, as well as charging the District for fuel for his private boat.

            The board that oversees the CMWRRDD filed civil charges for fraud against Pickles, his wife Diane Bondi-Pickles, 67, Pickles’ shell corporation Moss Hollow Management, and former CMWRRDD board chairman Robert Tinkham, Jr., 58, who was also the health agent for the Town of Carver.

            Tinkham also faces two criminal charges of larceny and presenting a false claim for allegedly stealing $65,000 in District funds while serving as board chairman, which Pickles allegedly paid to Tinkham from phony invoices for work that Tinkham never performed.

            Pickles was the executive director for the CMWRRDD for nearly 45 years since its conception in 1973. He was also executive secretary for the Town of Marion for 29 years from 1972 until his retirement in 2001, and served as the town clerk for several years until his resignation on September 3, 2019.

By Jean Perry

            The Mattapoisett Planning Board will be engaged in the mammoth task of writing a new Master Plan with the assistance of the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD).

            On October 29, Grant King, director of comprehensive planning for SRPEDD, presented the steps to be taken as the group studies data and engages community groups to flush out the needs of the seaside town, most notably, its housing needs.

            King gave a short presentation that promised to provide the town with much needed information when assessing housing needs. The presentation touched on demographic findings, main barriers to affordable housing, and main strategies to pursue.

            Mattapoisett applied for a District Local Technical Assistance grant to cover the costs of producing the plan, King stated. He said the completed housing production plan would focus on Chapter 40B housing in an effort to “gain more control over the Chapter 40B process and to create local champions for housing.”

            King said that the SRPEDD team would look at affordable housing from two perspectives – one with a small “a” and one with a capital “A”; the latter being more expensive homes.

            Regarding the demographics, King presented data that demonstrated the aging of Mattapoisett and the shrinking of household sizes. The data found that 42.2 percent of residents are 65 years of age or older, up from 29.8 percent found in 2000. Another 22 percent of all households are single-person homes with half of that figure being 65 and older. Households with children 18 and younger came in at 24.9 percent of the whole, down 32 percent from 2000.

            King said the major barrier in buying a home in Mattapoisett is cost. According to King, about 20 percent of the housing stock is seasonal, and there is very little in the way of multi-family units. He also commented that 54.7 percent of housing in town is single-family homes built prior to 1969. With housing that old, he said renovations would be costly and nearly impossible to qualify as affordable.

            The data presented noted that an affordable price tag for a single-family unit stood at $252,300, while Mattapoisett’s median sales price was $423,500 – a gap of $171,200.

            Other barriers to affordable housing in Mattapoisett are its zoning and permitting regulations, King continued, adding that low availability of land zoned for multi-family or small-lot housing was another major barrier. He said that the team would “do a deep dive into zoning to propose changes ranging from new zones and language to tweaks,” which may assist in developing affordable units.

            There apparently is also a lack of incentive for age-friendly, age-restricted developments, said King. He talked about developing zoning that could be put in place for “friendly” 40B units or other subsidized housing.

            King seemed to be assuring the Planning Board when he said, “[Affordable] 40B doesn’t have to be cheap construction.” He said it could be aesthetically pleasing and designed to fit into the village feel of the town.

            To get to the nuts and bolts of plan development and success, King suggested the establishment of local volunteer housing champions. He said it should be a dedicated group appointed by the Board of Selectmen to include members from the town’s Community Preservation Committee, Housing Authority, Planning Board, Council on Aging, and possibly local non-profits.

            King urged that the town take a proactive approach to 40B housing, saying, “Many towns have had success by being involved.” He said his team would seek out municipal properties in town that might be suited to multi-unit construction or the possibility of partnerships with neighboring towns.

            Once that the plan is produced, it would enjoy a five-year shelf life, said King.

            As he drew his presentation to a close, King said that it was critical for the selectmen to be engaged in the plan, and he asked for assistance in getting a short meeting with them. Several Planning Board members said that presently, with only two selectmen and a town administrator about to retire, things were a bit tight. Planning Board Administrator Mary Crain said she would reach out to them on King’s behalf.

            Planning Board member Karen Field wondered aloud at the wisdom of building more housing if the town’s overall population was shrinking and aging. She added, “The beauty of the town is it is little. Why density?”

            King responded, “There are limitations in renovating existing homes to meet subsidized housing requirements,” and he continued, “In my judgment, you will get 40B in the future because you are under the 10-percent threshold for affordable housing.”

            “It’s a catch-22 with aging population and young people who can’t afford to buy… and more people means more services,” said board member Janice Robbins. “We have to make a decision what we want. We could do nothing about 40B housing if we wanted to.” She said that some people don’t want any change in the community while others say “we should try to make things more diverse.”

            King reiterated that by being involved, the town could have a great deal of say about what housing types it wanted.

            “All long-range plans can do is show you what is possible,” said King.

            Planning Board Chairman Tom Tucker said that it was important to engage the entire community and not just a few people. He said he wanted the plan to be a consensus.

            King suggested a workshop to draw in as many voices as possible. According to King, the town needs 190 units of affordable housing to meet the 10-percent threshold. Impact analysis, however, was not part of the housing production plan.

            Residents interested in reviewing the entire presentation can contact the Planning Board for a copy.

            Earlier in the meeting, the Planning Board approved two Form-A Approval Not Required applications. One was filed by the Town of Mattapoisett for a small parcel located adjacent to the bike path, and the other was filed by David Duff for property located at 98A Mattapoisett Neck Road.

            The board continued a Preliminary Subdivision Plan filed by Jay and Julie Duker, 112 Aucoot Road, until November 18 with the caveat that it was the final continuance the board was willing to grant.

            Also continued to November 18 was a discussion regarding the return of “Emergency Repair Work” funds specified in the covenant for the Villages at Mattapoisett.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for November 18 at 7:00 pm in the Town Hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Planning Board

By Marilou Newell