An article to amend a bylaw pertaining to home businesses was misunderstood by Town Meeting members before they struck it down, said Rochester Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson on October 28.
“It was a misunderstanding,” said Johnson. No one was trying to make it illegal to park an RV on the front lawn, said Johnson, because it is already prohibited in the bylaw. “All we were doing was getting rid of the term ‘occupied or unoccupied.’”
Planning Board member Susan Teal said the group sitting near her during the October 20 Special Fall Town Meeting was concerned with the part of the bylaw article about home businesses – not particularly the RV parking – and suggested the board should have drafted two separate articles to address the two issues.
“Had they been separated, we could’ve addressed the questions more specifically,” said Teal. “They thought we were making up a new bylaw.”
Johnson said he was disappointed in the Board of Selectmen for adding to the confusion at Town Meeting and withdrawing their support of the article. “And I let that be known after the fact.”
Johnson said he would seek clarification about amending the zoning bylaws from selectmen during the next Board of Selectmen meeting, adding that Selectman Naida Parker suggested hiring a consultant to codify the existing bylaws and ordinances – a bad idea to some Planning Board members.
“If that’s gonna happen,” said Johnson, “then there’s not much need for the Bylaw Subcommittee … it’s a waste of time.”
And it will not be cheap, either, pointed out Teal. She said the consultant would take up a lot of Town Planner Mary Crain’s time getting informed on the situation because “the consultant won’t know squat.”
Teal pointed out that the existing bylaw does not necessarily mean that having an RV parked on the front lawn is illegal under all circumstances.
“These (bylaws) are general guidelines,” stated Teal. “And if it doesn’t work, then we have the ZBA.”
Planning Board member Ben Bailey said he thinks residents at Town Meeting did not want the RV restriction, but most likely would not be in favor of allowing it had it not already been established in the bylaw.
In other matters, a letter written by Attorney Cary LeBlanc on behalf of Karl Peterson of Peterson Davis Builders – developers of The Pines at Hathaway Pond – offended Johnson. Johnson said he did not like the tone of the letter that essentially implied, according to Johnson, that the developer would sue the board if they did not approve the request to decrease the setback to allow for a deck at one of the units.
Johnson said he thought he understood how the board should proceed after the last meeting when Peterson first approached the board.
“Then I get a letter from an attorney that personally did not sit well with me,” said Johnson.
She meant no harm and the claimed litigious tone was unintentional, LeBlanc told Johnson, apologizing. She said she meant “no bullying or insolence.” Otherwise, she would have sent the letter via certified mail, which she did not, said LeBlanc.
“The way you accomplish that is by asking for a favor,” said Bailey. “You don’t write the words you wrote which are straight out, ‘I’m gonna sue you.’”
Teal said she read the letter, detected no such tone, and was not upset by the letter.
Johnson said the matter would be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting, and Planning Board member Gary Florindo asked LeBlanc to formally retract her letter and essentially wipe it from the public record. She agreed she would formally retract.
Also during the meeting, the board issued an Approval Not Required for Esther-Ann Chamberlain of 493 Mary’s Pond Road, and advised Audrey Barker of 179 Alley Road to file an Approval Not Required application for the subdivision of one of her lots at the property.
The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for November 12 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.
By Jean Perry
