For decades, Murphy’s Auto Salvage has been doing business on County Road in Rochester. On January 26, the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals heard from abutters how difficult it is to live next to the salvage business. The abutters were seeking denial of two special permits requested by Murphy to expand his trucking business and establish another enterprise on contiguous property.

            Appeal Number 1185, filed by Matt Dessert on behalf of Robert Murphy, was reopened for property located at 19 County Road. One Special Permit would be for the operation of a three-person trucking business in the Agriculture/Residential district, while a second application listed the construction of an 80×204-foot metal building with 10 bays for both commercial rental and personal storage, covering 16,320 square feet. In the end, the ZBA’s decision was weighted based on whether or not the application was “harmonious” with the bylaws.

            Attorney Jordan Rodrigues, representing Murphy, detailed plans to run a small, three-person trucking business from the new building and to construct a building 16 times larger than allowed by existing bylaws in an Agricultural/Residential district. He said that the trucking business would not be disruptive to the neighborhood, as a truck or two would leave in the morning and return at the end of the day. No all-day traffic in and out of the property was planned. He further stated that the proposed structure meets all setback requirements.

            Rodrigues also stated that the building, while planned to have three bays for commercial rental and seven bays for business and personal use, would also help to control salvaged materials currently being stored on the property and nearby adjacent salvage areas. Regarding the structure itself, Rodrigues said it was in keeping with other large buildings used for commercial or municipal activities such as the town barn.

            Representing the abutters was Attorney Michael Kenefick saying of the petition, “It got worse since the last time!” He said, with the addition of a three-person trucking business, there would even be more loud noises than currently being heard by abutters, that it was in violation of bylaws and that the plan, “is so vague … not an articulated plan.” Kenefick commented on the noise the abutters would have to endure and that the proposal would negatively impact property values.

            Abutters rose to speak against the project.

            Vincent Barboza, 15 County Road, said, “What’s in the backyard is salvage, some is my uncle’s stuff, pieces of junk aren’t going into the garage … there’s a lot of noise seven days a week.”

            Amy Bennett, 9 County Road, added, “There are a number of infractions already, over 30 wrecked vehicles, five race cars … neighbors are coming here today to stop this.” She agreed that property values would drop with the large building and business proposed, that the safety of children and pets would be in jeopardy and that, “the bylaws are to maintain the rural nature we love of the town.”

            Suren Parajuly, Mary’s Pond Road, complained about stockpiles of sand and gravel and said that the vibrations and shaking from heavy equipment was akin to “an earthquake.”

            Rodrigues was given the opportunity to rebut comments against the petition. He said that sand and gravel was brought to the site to level the property, that no trees were removed from the County Road area, that Murphy had a valid business certificate and that the Agricultural/Residential district allows for businesses run from a home.

            The public hearing was closed and ZBA members discussed the issues they considered pertinent: Namely, did the project meet the bylaws’ expectations? Member Richard Cutler stated the size of the building placed it in a commercial category and that the location is not in the commercial district. Cutler also added that back when the salvage business was granted permission to operate, it was to have been “for agricultural and personal use.”

            Member Davis Sullivan said, “It could hold a hundred cars, it’s over the top for a residential area.” Sullivan also stated that testimony regarding noise was substantial and that people should be allowed the “quiet enjoyment” of their property.

            Vice Chairman Tom Flynn wondered aloud, “Is it in harmony … we’ve been respectful in allowing people to use their property, but … houses go where houses go and business where business goes.”

            Both petitions were defeated unanimously; the decision may be appealed in the following 20 days.

            Also heard was a Special Permit petition filed by JPF Development LLC, 9 through 25 Cranberry Highway, for the construction of a commercial self-storage facility located in the industrial zone. The request was approved.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals was not announced upon adjournment.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

Marilou Newell

The January 26 meeting of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board found the members once again hearing that final construction plans are still pending for Long Wharf.

            A previous joint meeting with the town’s consultant, Childs Engineering, and the Select Board sent Childs on a mission to obtain more material-cost estimates, primarily for stone, as well as the prospect of performing more testing on the existing structure to determine the condition and materials used on the overall foundation.

            On this night, MAB Chairman Carlos DeSousa said that cost estimates could not be pinned down using conceptual designs, a basic concept of what the work might entail. Rather, a schematic design for such finite estimating was needed, a stage the project is far from at this point in time.

            The condition and materials currently in place in the foundation remain an unsolved mystery. DeSousa said that in order to perform sufficient test borings, a Request for Quotation would necessarily be posted and that Childs could assist with that. For now, “there’s a delay on a final decision.” DeSousa said a suggestion brought to his attention that promoted a design he considers more marina-like in scope is not appropriate for the historic-wharf configuration.

            Regarding the reuse of stones that will be removed during construction, DeSousa said it was hard to determine just how much stone was in play, but Harbormaster Jamie McIntosh was attempting to find a local source for future reference.

            Town Administrator Mike Lorenco said that there was some information from test borings completed by Field Engineering a few years ago that was provided to Childs earlier in the process, but that Childs had yet to comment.

            Before moving on to other business, DeSousa said, “There’s no payback from fixing the wharf.” The construction cost is estimated to be in the $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 range.

            McIntosh reported that he is working with Lorenco to secure additional funding from unexpended warrant articles to pay for dredging work. He said that because the spoils from the operation must go into a specialized transfer station, additional costs will be incurred. Timing for executing the work is also pending, given that regulatory agencies won’t allow work to commence during winter flounder season.

            McIntosh also reported that regular maintenance of all wharves needs to be ongoing in spite of any larger construction project pending. “We have to maintain the wharves.” Repairs include eight new and/or replacement pilings at Barstow Wharf.

            A summer event is in the planning, McIntosh stated, when the sailing vessel Arabella takes its maiden voyage around Mattapoisett Harbor. He said he had been working with the boat builder and his team on the logistics and that a small festival is also planned in Shipyard Park. A June 17 launch date is planned.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board is scheduled for Thursday, February 23, at 7:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Marine Advisory Board

By Marilou Newell

            On January 27, the Rochester Select Board convened primarily for a Tax Classification Hearing to determine if a single tax rate would stay in place for FY23. After completing that work, the board heard from Blair Bailey, the town’s legal counselor for more than 20 years.

            Bailey said he was saddened to announce he would be withdrawing from the work of town counsel, citing increasing personal and professional demands on his time.

            The Select Board noted Bailey’s unlimited access, his willingness to take calls and work on issues over and above billable hours.

            “His are big shoes to fill,” said Select Board Chairman Woody Hartley, later emphasizing that Bailey’s institutional knowledge cannot be overstated as it has enhanced his work on behalf of the community and the strong relationships he established over time with departmental heads, union negotiators and townspeople. Those sentiments were echoed during the meeting by board members Brad Morse and Paul Ciaburri.

            Bailey has also assisted the town in finding Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC as a suitable replacement for services. The eastern-Massachusetts firm has offices in Millis, New Bedford and Newburyport. Town Administrator Glenn Cannon said that the group is experienced in municipal matters and that a meeting would be set up with the firm and Select Board to discuss a possible partnership.

            Cannon said with this change, the time is right for establishing guidelines for those boards and committees seeking legal guidance. Cannon will work with Morse to draft a document that sets up management of legal time used and will present to the full board on Monday, February 6. Hartley said in a follow-up that a new contract for legal services would set number of hours within a given timeframe, “This way we can track the hours.”

            Bailey’s personal relationship to the community will also be missed, but Cannon said two members of the New Bedford law firm are also Rochester residents.

            The board thanked Bailey for his service and commitment over the last two decades.

            Earlier in the meeting, the board met with Principal Assessor Karen Trudeau to review property values and tax rates. As found in other Tri-Town communities, the amount of taxable commercial and/or personal property is a fraction of the taxable private property in the town. As such, Rochester, like Marion and Mattapoisett, has held to a single tax rate. The Select Board determined it remains in the best interest of the town to maintain a single rate.

            In her report, Trudeau stated that residential property in Rochester is valued at $1,145,956,316, commercial at $42,508,682, industrial $74,033,682 and personal property $65,445,200. Real estate and personal property total value is $1,327,962,080, she reported.

            The average single-family home stands at an assessed value of $521,872 with an average tax bill of $6,194. The board voted to keep a single tax rate. A printout of the entire Assessors valuation is available from the Assessor’s office.

            The board also reviewed a letter drafted by Cannon to the Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection regarding the agency’s plan to decrease nitrogen discharge into wetlands and other environmental sensitive areas such as the Mattapoisett River Valley by requiring new septic systems that use new technology for neutralizing nitrogen and the impact on Rochester.

            Hartley said he recently attended a conference on the matter and that the lieutenant governor was also involved in helping cities and towns impacted by the proposed new regulations.

            Before adjournment, Hartley urged the public to familiarize themselves with the proposed Rochester Community Electricity Program. Details of the program can be found on the town’s website, townofrochestermass.com, and include the following statement, “Rochester Community Electricity (RCE) is a program offered by the Town of Rochester to provide new electricity supply options and more renewable energy to Rochester residents and businesses. … Rochester Community Electricity does not replace Eversource as our electric utility. The utility continues to deliver electricity, repair outages and manage all billing. The program offers alternatives for the Supply portion of your bill.”

            On the Rochester Community Electricity website, electricity.townofrochestermass.com, residents can learn more details about the program and follow the program development timeline. There is also a form to get in touch with the program organizers and offer feedback.

            Before program launch, the Town of Rochester will conduct an extensive public outreach and education campaign to ensure that the community is aware of the program.

            The next meeting of the Rochester Select Board is scheduled for Monday, February 6, at 6:00 pm at Town Hall, also accessible live via Zoom.

Rochester Select Board

By Marilou Newell