The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals picked up on May 13 where it left off at its last meeting, but this time with the experience of a site visit to 0 Mendell Road for its deliberation of Laurie Whitney-Lawrence’s Special Permit application.

            Whitney-Lawrence wants permission to host large-scale events such as weddings and large catered gatherings at the bucolic setting of her sprawling property, and upon approval by the ZBA must go before the Planning Board for a site plan review.

            Town Counsel Blair Bailey said his role was to ensure the smoothest possible path for Whitney-Lawrence, who already has several events planned for the summer, including a wedding in early June. The ZBA’s concern was avoiding any conflicts between its authority to issue a Special Permit for the use of the property as an event venue and the Planning Board’s authority to regulate the site for such a use.

            Bailey assured the board that the correct order of operations would be for Whitney-Lawrence to go before the ZBA first for approval of the use and then the Planning Board, alleviating prior concerns.

            “It wouldn’t make sense to go to the Planning Board [for a site plan review] first,” said Bailey. The ZBA should first allow the use before the Planning Board acts to oversee the aspects of traffic, parking, lighting, hours of operation and signage among other things, some of which require an engineer.

            “If this board at the end of the day wasn’t going to give them permission to use the property for the use specified,” Bailey said, why make Whitney-Lawrence go through the bother of a site plan review first?

            ZBA Chairman David Arancio displayed some photos from the May 11 site visit of the property’s walkways, gazebo, tent area and designated lawn parking. ZBA member Richard Cutler asked for abutters and members of the public to chime in, but there weren’t any remotely present via Zoom this time around.

            The board then spent close to an hour discussing possible conditions for approval, including making the Special Permit non-transferable, setting event hours to no earlier than 9:00 am and no later than 10:30 pm for music or live entertainment, limiting guests to 240, which Whitney-Lawrence suggested as a maximum, and possibly to no more than three or four large wedding-scale events per month.

            Whitney-Lawrence was amenable to all of the conditions the board proposed that evening, saying that she only hosts one wedding-size event on any given weekend anyway, with fewer than 240 guests.

            When the topic of noise regulation arose, Bailey reminded the board that it would be futile to impose any strict restrictions beyond a timeframe for music or live entertainment.

            “Other than that, they are actually free to do whatever they want from a noise standpoint; anybody is, with few exceptions, because … we don’t have a noise bylaw (in Rochester).”

            The board agreed to allow Bailey to draft a decision for its May 27 meeting; however, in the meantime, as Whitney-Lawrence approaches the likely two-month long process before the Planning Board, the ZBA will include in its conditions language allowing for some specific event dates that Whitney-Lawrence will provide Bailey so that she can move ahead with her schedule.

            The board will be able to monitor the goings on at the business because the Board of Health will be overseeing food safety for catered events, and the town must issue permission for events that will be serving alcohol.

            Town Planner Steve Starrett gave an overview of the Planning Board timeline and said that Whitney-Lawrence could be meeting with him and Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson the next week for a technical review meeting and then the following week with the Planning Board for an informal discussion.

            The hearing was continued until Thursday, May 27, at 7:00 pm, the date and time of the next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry

            During the May 12 meeting of the Mattapoisett Bike Path Study Committee, Chairman Steve Kelleher said that a 1997 Town Meeting article that was passed by the voters was never effectively acted upon by the then seated Board of Selectmen.

            Appraisal of the railroad easement along Fairhaven Road to North Street had never been completed. The committee is in the early stages of planning Phase 2a, a section of the recreational pathway that would bring it from Railroad Avenue across Route 6 and then onto North Street. But in the absence of completion of the easement processes that could lead to the town’s ability to utilize them, progress has slowed.

            In a follow-up with Mike Gagne, former town administrator and current Planning Board administrator, he discussed the nuances of the situation.

            “An order of taking was never executed,” Gagne began. He said that research into existing documents in the matter failed to turn up anything about this necessary first step. “The article was written with the language ‘by purchase or by eminent domain,’ but an appraisal was never done,” he explained. Gagne said appraisals are needed as is a review of any encumbrances that may exist on the property in question. “Are there owners? Did the railroad easement lapse back to the owners?” This is part of what must be resolved now, he said.

            Gagne said that funding obtained and passed at Town Meeting from the Community Preservation Act for bike path matters could be used to pay for appraisals and document research. “We’d have to do another order of taking, we’d have the appraisals, and the (Select) board could bring it back to a future town meeting.” He added that affected property owners have the right to appeal land takings in Land Court if they believe their damages are more than the sum being offered.

            Earlier in the day, the Bike Pedestrian Committee chaired by Bob Teixeira gathered for a delayed kick-off meeting for the projects that will be funded by Complete Street grant monies. Attending the meeting were Kim Craig and Bill Mertz of World Tech, the consulting firm assisting the town in Complete Street matters. After a study (see 2015 Complete Street study available at www.mattapoiset.net/bike-path-study-committee) that in part identified safety upgrades associated with public roadways and other upgrades, a list of projects was developed.

            The committee discussed the installation of traffic calming radar signage along North Street and modifications to the intersection of the bike path at Brandt Island and Mattapoisett Neck Roads. They also discussed necessary documents for construction bidding, a process that World Tech would manage.

            The modifications at the intersection were discussed at length with World Tech, providing conceptual designs of traffic islands intended to alert cyclists on the pathway that an intersection is ahead. A granite raised structure with slanted edges and an interior space for plantings was preferred by the majority.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Bike Path Study Committee will be posted. The next meeting of the Bike Pedestrian Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, June 16, at 2:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Bike Path Study/Bike Pedestrian committees

By Marilou Newell

            Two lots on Brandt Island Road have been through their paces and may finally be moving towards the construction phase after receiving conditions at the May 12 meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission.

            Two separate Notice of Intent filings, one by Ralph Cortellesso and one by Stephen Napolitano for adjoining properties located on Brandt Island Road, were represented by David Davignon of Schneider, Davignon, & Leone, LLC. During previous meetings and again on this night, Davignon had presented the projects, two residential homes including details of intricate stormwater drainage systems. Where applicable, that included turtle protection planning and wetland replication areas.

            Specific to the Cortellesso property, Davignon said that LEC Environmental would prepare the necessary turtle protection plan and that, due to slight increases in disturbance to the jurisdictional areas on the site, the replication area would increase as well.

            Along with standard special conditions issued by the commission, Cortellesso will be required to prepare a two-year replication study and formal turtle protection planning, while the Napolitano property was issued standard special conditions.

            Another project that had seen in-depth oversight was once again continued after it was determined that a revised plan of record would be required. The Notice of Intent filing for property opened by Steve Goulston, 27 Nashawena Road, was reopened with Spencer Lynds of Prime Engineering representing Goulston.

            Davignon was invited into the meeting as the representative for several abutters who had requested certain on-site considerations such as stormwater management systems that would ensure no increase in drainage outside Goulston’s property and height limitations in line with existing bylaws. After some discussion in which Davignon asked that an overflow pipe be removed from the plan, the filing was continued until May 24.

            Receiving approval was an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation filed by Gerald Randall, 0 Route 195, 0 Fairhaven line at the northern boundary. The applicant had funded an independent wetland specialist to confirm wetland boundaries and make any adjustments needed after completing site review. Brian Fanuef of LEC Environmental displayed noticeable joy at having had the pleasure of performing this work. “It’s a wetland’s core habitat,” he said, describing massive sections of sphagnum moss, a clear wetlands indicator, and stands of old growth trees. “This was not a delineation for beginners.”

            An After the Fact Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Robert Humphrey, 76 Aucoot Road, prompted Chairman Mike King to ask Humphrey’s representative, Robert Field of Field Engineering, “How did the town find out about this?” Field was unsure how an unpermitted shed had been discovered by officials, but he said a building permit would be sought after the Conservation Commission’s review. The filing received a negative determination, clearing the way for Humphrey to seek a building permit.

            Receiving approval for an Amended Notice of Intent was a filing by Jesse Davidson, 22 Pine Island Road, for the construction of a 10-foot by 10-foot shed and other landscape features.

            Continued until May 24 was a Notice of Intent filing by Stephen Baptista, 6 Perkins Lane, for the construction of a 12-foot by 4-foot addition to an existing home. All agreed the trees should be cut down for safety’s sake but left where they fall for nature’s sake.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 24, at 6:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell