Planning Board member John Mathieu during the November 16 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board stood by his assertion that it was essential to receive “legal written opinion” for many cases and issues the board handles on behalf of the town.
“It is my opinion that we need a little back-up in our file, legal written opinion,” said Mathieu. “I want back-up in the files.” Mathieu was referring to the matter of language changes to the covenant between the town and the condominium complex, the Villages at Mattapoisett, for public trash collection.
The residents had secured a positive vote from the Planning Board after several hearings. Then along came Brandt Point Village requesting the same.
In both cases, the Planning Board was disposed to make covenant changes in favor of their request for trash collection after learning that the new contract with ABC Disposal stated “all residents shall be entitled” to trash collection.
Mathieu noted that during the October 19 meeting, the board had discussed requesting written legal opinion.
Chairman Tom Tucker said that at the last meeting of the board on November 2 – a meeting Mathieu had not been able to attend – the town’s counseling law firm Kopelman & Paige was present and told the board members a written legal opinion on the matter was not necessary.
“I move we table these until we get a written legal opinion,” Mathieu said in response. The board moved to table the signing of covenant changes pending written legal opinion.
In other matters, Mathieu said he had recently visited Ocean Breeze Lane. He said residents had complained about the roadway topcoat in the development that still had not been applied. He also stated that drainage was problematic and that both issues had been ongoing since 2013.
“We decided we would send the matter to town counsel,” said Mathieu. “I don’t know what happened…. It seems like we’ve been waiting for an answer.”
Tucker thought that Town Administrator Michael Gagne might have said the matter was going to court.
“We should at least be kept up to speed,” Mathieu said. “I’m looking for written legal opinion…. I’m a real estate lawyer,” he added.
Mathieu wanted to clear up what he had previously stated during the October 19 meeting, claiming that he did not say the town’s legal counsel was “unresponsive,” as discussed at the November 2 meeting when Mathieu was absent and the town’s attorneys appeared to defend against allegations that they were in fact unresponsive.
“I did not say town counsel was unresponsive; I didn’t say that,” Mathieu maintained. “The discussion was about not getting information quick enough from them.”
“I want the record to be straight, my personal matter with them has no bearing on my work here,” Mathieu stated in response to Attorney Jonathan Silverstein’s November 2 comment that Mathieu might have been reacting to prior litigation taken by Kopelman & Paige against Mathieu on behalf of the town.
Mathieu said individual members of the board should not be reaching out to town counsel on their own, but that information should flow through the chairman to the Planning Board secretary.
“From now on, if Tammy asks a question (of legal counsel), it’s for our next meeting,” said Mathieu.
Tucker said, “I’ll call tomorrow.”
In the ongoing matter of what needs to be completed in Phase 1 of the Brandt Point Village, Building Inspector Andy Bobola requested an opinion from the Planning Board as to whether or not developer Joseph Furtado should be granted building permits for Phase 2.
The question of what type of surety Furtado had in place for Phase 1, which is still incomplete, came into play as the board struggled with whether or not to affirm Furtado’s request of the Building Department to issue permits for Phase 2.
Mathieu suggested allowing Furtado’s attorney time to review a response from Brian Winner, town counsel, in which a suggestion from the previous developer to move funds received from the sale of the last lot in Phase 1 to Furtado didn’t fall into regulatory guidelines for sureties. Mathieu noted that Winner’s email response was not, in his opinion, written legal opinion since it lacked a signature and wasn’t on official letterhead.
Mathieu was in favor of helping Furtado towards completing the project saying, “We are beating a dead horse with Mr. Furtado…. I’d like to see him complete this.” He went on to say, “I hear we are a difficult board to get through. I’d like to help him.”
But other board members weren’t so eager to allow the Building Department to grant permits.
After additional discourse that reflected both a willingness to see the project finished and an attitude of caution, they moved to respond to Bobola by saying that no consent should be given for building permits on Phase 2 until a topcoat is applied to the roadway in Phase 1. They also moved to invite Furtado to their next meeting.
Earlier in the evening, the board approved the removal of several diseased trees along River Road as requested by Tree Warden Roland Cote.
“I want to let you know, I come in here to ask to cut down trees,” said Cote. “I’ve also planted trees.” He said that in a partnership with the Tree Committee, 15 trees had been planted since the beginning of the year.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for December 7 at 7:00 pm in the Mattapoisett Town Hall conference room.
By Marilou Newell
