The Rochester Planning Board introduced a new commission comprised of six men and women who are passionate about agriculture at their meeting on Tuesday, April 10.
“It’s so nice of you to volunteer you time,” said Planning Board Member Ben Bailey.
The Agricultural Commission came to fruition after years of planning with the ultimate goal of balancing small commercial agriculture while helping Rochester maintain its public safety and rights of its citizens.
The Planning Board said that they have been approached by several commercial agriculture businesses in recent years with official proposals to build enterprises in Rochester. However, none of these ideas came to reality because there were no regulations set in place. That’s where the Agricultural Commission will step in.
The commission will ideally create a set of regulations that commercial farmers must adhere to if they wish to start a business in Rochester. The purpose of setting the regulations would be to protect the abutters of the property where these businesses would be established. With commercial farming comes loud equipment, traffic, etc. The Commission wants to know their citizens are protected and as content as possible with the addition of these businesses in town.
Both groups agree that the biggest challenge will be finding a balance of bringing new business into town and preserving Rochester’s rural culture and agricultural character. On one hand, new business would help lower taxes, but the both committees think traffic would become a problem and residents would be upset with noise levels. The Planning Board also worries about the potential for growing storm water problems.
On the other hand, the Agricultural Commission wonders whether or not too many regulations would scare potential businesses off. Both groups recognized that it will be impossible to please all residents, and that they can’t keep businesses out just for the sake of a couple noise complaints. There needs to be a balance.
“We need to make it easier for the agricultural community to do things,” said Agricultural Committee member David Souza.
Since the Committee is in its initial stages, it agreed that the best step to take right now is to define the areas of concern and define what is not wanted in town. In order to draw these conclusions, they will interview local farmers and look to other towns as models. While there are no official dates set in place, the Planning Board said the Agricultural Committee’s first report could happen as soon as the Fall Town Meeting.
In other news, the Planning Board agreed to look into the potential of drafting solar bylaws for the town. The board will look at the towns of Kingston and Dartmouth as models for what they could be looking for, even though the majority of the board feels like solar energy is “unreliable and a waste of money.”
The Board compared solar energy to a phenomenon much like that of cell phone towers, and they worry that after the 20-year leasing period is up, what will happen to the land that was cleared to make the solar farm? If the solar phenomenon is over, irreversible damage could already have been done to the area.
“I don’t think we should get too carried away with it,” said Planning Board member Susan Teal.
The Planning Board also voted to send a letter to the Zoning Enforcement Offer reporting the owners of Sperry Tents are in violation of their site plan. The business had until April 1 to make revisions that the Planning Board made to their original site plans, and they were unsuccessful in making the repairs.
Lastly, the Planning Board contemplated the idea of downsizing to a five-person board in order to better ensure attendance at all meetings. They will reevaluate after the Town Elections to make the best decision.
By Katy Fitzpatrick