Rochester’s Zoning of Appeals began its June 8 meeting with a discussion of forming a bylaw review committee but spent the bulk of its time with the senior environmental planner for the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) and Rochester’s Master Plan project manager Rhiannon Duggan.
Board member Richard Cutler said a new bylaw review panel should be formed to consist of members of the Zoning board to start. Board Chairman David Arancio admitted there is currently no bylaw review committee but questioned whether such a panel should be simply an ad-hoc board of one town panel. Arancio noted the Planning Board will take up the subject on June 13, and he will talk to the town planner before further action is taken.
When it was Duggan’s turn, she asked the board a series of questions meant to gain their input as to how the Zoning panel can help and be helped with the creation of a new town Master Plan.
Her first question was: What takes up most of the board’s time at each meeting? Board member Davis Sullivan quickly answered that it’s going through applications and finding that petitioners have not applied for the correct zoning bylaw relief. It’s the wasted time that it causes, Arancio agreed.
To a question about the bylaw needs of the town, board member Richard Cutler admitted some people in town ignore the bylaws. They seem to want to get caught and then seek forgiveness instead of upfront permission.
Arancio said this question is an opportunity to suggest the town Master Plan Committee look at the bylaws of other communities, see what is working for those communities and tweak them for Rochester. He noted this is where the previously discussed plan for a new bylaw review committee can be expanded upon.
Can businesses flourish in town under current bylaw conditions? Duggan then asked. Sullivan said a lot of businesses in town are home based, which complicates the kind of zoning relief the board can grant. Arancio noted members are torn between the black-and-white of the bylaw and “interpretation.” Sullivan noted, as an example, a horse farm that wanted to house 25 animals was not allowed to do so in deference to the neighbors, until the petitioner’s attorney argued that the law does not allow that restriction. “So now you’ve got angry abutters,” Arancio said.
Where could a revised Master Plan help the ZBA the most? Sullivan answered he would like to see solar-array regulations revised. The ones that have been built in town, he said, strip the land of trees and soil, he said. “But the state mandate that they must be allowed ties our hand,” he added. “Meanwhile, it is ruining our land and our scenic byways.”
To this issue, Duggan said, unfortunately, this can only be a town-level Master Plan; it cannot rewrite state regulations. Town Administrator Glenn Cannon, who was in attendance, offered that putting in print the will of the people in the Master Plan may positively affect how state officials respond to those concerns.
Duggan concluded by explaining the master planning will look strongly at what the residents want for the development of their town, and an implementation plan will be part of this new document. She said, as SRPEDD’s consultant on the Master Plan, she will soon be scheduling community-engagement meetings for public input on the Master Plan update.
Lastly, the Zoning Board approved a variance of the minimum 40-foot front-setback requirement for the construction of a new front porch and stairs at 178 Clapp Road, proposed by Jon and Jacqueline Hartley. The petitioners explained they need to be allowed a 33.5-foot setback to build a covered entryway on the front of the house because they have two small children. The Hartleys want their children to be safer and covered from rain when waiting for the school bus and other motor vehicle rides.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals was not scheduled upon adjournment.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
by Michael J. DeCicco