The Mattapoisett Conservation Commission once again considered and debated whether or not to move forward with a wetlands bylaw document. Chairman Bob Rogers had broached the subject during previous public meetings with the commission members asking each to review the bylaws that Freetown presently has in place as a starting point.
Rogers asked that the commission offer suggestions and said at the February 9 meeting, “I’m not trying to be a one-man brigade here … but it gives us the ability to defend ourselves in Superior Court.” On March 9, he reiterated that point again.
Members Peter Newton and Tom Copps agreed that any wetlands bylaw needed to include language that beefed Town’s ability to engage outside consultants with the costs covered by applicants as allowed in Section 53G of Massachusetts General Law.
“I’d rather have a clear acknowledgement that we can hire (expert) consultants,” said Rogers. He said that a volunteer commission with part-time Town Hall staffing these consultants needs help to protect the interests of the Town by giving the commission expert input.
“…If you say no (to expert consultants),” said Newton, “that is an automatic denial (by the commission).” But such denials then allow the applicant to appeal to the DEP versus going through a Superior Court appellate process.
Commission member Mike King didn’t seem to feel as strongly. He said it “burdens the applicant.”
King said that before he could be convinced the Town needed wetlands bylaw protection, he wanted Rogers to cite past cases where an absence of wetlands bylaws proved a problem for the town.
Rogers noted issues that have arisen from appeals made to the DEP by Leisure Shores Marina and by Daniel DaRosa for the Goodspeed Island Pier. He said that in the absence of wetlands bylaws that would have required the applicants to pay reasonable costs for outside consultants, appeals to the DEP have hamstrung the Town, negating its ability to have their case heard in Superior Court.
Rogers asserted that wetlands bylaws would, “make our process similar to the Planning Board and the ZBA…. Nearly every other town around us has a wetlands bylaw.”
Newton said he was going to reach out to other commissions to find out how having such protections in place have aided their efforts.
King wasn’t convinced. He asked that specific cases be brought to the public’s attention as examples to support the need for local wetlands bylaws. “How would bylaws have expedited an outcome?” King asked.
Rogers felt he wanted to try and keep things more general without pointing fingers at specific residents or businesses.
Resident David McIntire shared his concerns that the commission members of today won’t be the commission members tomorrow, and that this proposed bylaw might give a commission too much power.
“This will give the ability and power to make rules and regulations,” said McIntire. To this Rogers countered, “But it won’t be done in the back room without a public hearing.” Rogers said, “The DEP is in control as to whether or not our conditions are enforced (without a bylaw).”
Rogers said that if the Conservation Commission voted by majority to accept a wetlands bylaw document, he would then go to the selectmen as well as hold a public hearing(s). He also said that town counsel would be involved to help vet and write the articles for the Town Meeting warrant. Rogers continued the discussion to the next regular meeting.
Also on the agenda was a Notice of Intent submitted by Christopher and Veronica Brockwell of 13 Randall Road to clear-cut and grub two acres of woodlands. The applicants want to make new pastures for their farm animals. Abutters were present to voice their concerns that the loss of woodlands would contribute to a growing stormwater flow problem along Appaloosa Lane, Randall Road, and River Road.
Roger Pepin, 14 River Road, said, “On the north side, there’s a creek and a creek on the south that floods … this is going to increase water flow … it’s going to add to flooding on River Road.”
John Duke, 12 Randall Road, added, “They are taking away more of the woods.” He wanted to know if an agricultural exemption allowed them to cut down woods for pastures.
Rogers said the application would be continued until the next meeting to give the Brockwell’s engineer Rick Charon more time to address wetland delineations, and for the commission to determine their scope of responsibility regarding the type of farming activities the applicant may undertake in a RR4 district.
One person in attendance didn’t seem to feel the commission could do much to control the applicant’s scope of work.
Derrick Fletcher, who resides on Appaloosa Lane, has been trying to work with various town boards for many months to enforce stormwater management plans for the subdivision on that roadway. He was perplexed, saying, “Your enforcement doesn’t work.”
Other applications continued until March 23 were: The Bay Club for a Request for Determination of Applicability at 111 Fieldstone Drive; Matthew and Kaitlin Keegan for a Certificate of Compliance at 41 Aucoot Road; and discussions with residents of Seabreeze Lane regarding possible wetlands encroachments.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for March 23 at 6:30 pm in the Town Hall conference room.
By Marilou Newell
