Walter Hartley had a hard time convincing the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals that it is safe to build a house on 15 acres of property with only 16 feet, 8 inches of frontage during the board’s February 11 meeting. Nonetheless, Case No. 1160 was continued with plans for a site visit last weekend.
Katherine Hartley of 16 Walnut Plain Road applied for two variances for the property at 0 Pine Street to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot with frontage less than the required 225 feet and to build the house in a rectangle plan.
Since 1937, the property came into and went out of the Hartley family before Katherine Hartley bought 15 acres at 0 Pine Street in April of 2019. During prior Hartley ownership, a backside portion of the land was donated in 1955 by the family and is now Sherman Cemetery.
The property, which includes 6 acres of bog, is currently used for agricultural purposes; the applicant seeks to use it for agricultural and residential purposes, including one single-family home at less than 1,800 square feet.
Walter Hartley, the owner of the property, represented the applicant and presented the case.
The proposed house would be located more than 200 feet from the nearest abutter on the southwest side of Pine Street.
Hartley said the plan is “well within the objectives of the Town of Rochester in helping to support agricultural entities and supporting farmers. He said the bog, historically used to grow cranberries, was used to grow hemp last year. He plans to grow in 2021 but had not decided on the crop at the time of the hearing.
ZBA member Richard Cutler asked if the bog on the property is typically wet. Hartley described it as an “upland bog, all upland” from which gravel was removed. “It wasn’t built out of or in a wetland,” he said.
Hartley told the ZBA he can draw a line but cannot draw the 50-foot line to satisfy the zoning bylaw’s rectangle standard. Hartley said the property would continue to use the existing driveway. “Nothing will change as far as from the street.”
ZBA Chairman David Arancio said he owns a non-conforming lot with frontage of just over 30 feet and was approved for a variance. “It’s narrow. I have 30 (feet), and this is going to be just a smidge over half (of that length). Public safety is definitely an issue,” he said, acknowledging the right to farm. “No objection to that.”
ZBA member Jeffrey Costa said, “I’m kind of torn on this one,” citing a struggle of the application “to meet the three criteria” that the board requires in order to grant the requested variances.
An abutter in favor of Katherine Hartley’s application suggested that a home and resultant activity on the property would eliminate vandalism, whereas if it were not approved, the land could theoretically be sold, and a new owner could subdivide it or create a solar farm.
David Menard, Gary Mills, and Brian Sherman, three abutters, signed the same letter in support of the application, but two other abutters, Jeffrey Ponte of 45 Pine Street and Jason Eddleston of 59 Pine Street, expressed concerns.
“It’s not even 10 percent of the required frontage,” said Ponte. “I’ve been here 30 years and a lot of traffic, several times [drivers] have no regard. They go as fast as they can, go as fast as possible, pick up as much dust as they can.”
Ponte told the board he witnessed a box truck hit his rock wall, displacing two rocks. He said he notified the police.
“What I don’t see here is any hardship. I have no problem with the bog…. Where is the actual hardship here?” Ponte asked. “It’s ridiculous. The state limit is supposed to be about 50 feet…. I am against this proposal unless the board can present [a legitimate hardship case].”
Arancio told Ponte that it is “100 percent on the applicant to go ahead and state that hardship.”
“It sounds more like convenience,” said Ponte.
Hartley said, “There is an extraordinary amount of acreage with limited frontage. That’s what the hardship is.” Hartley insisted the property has “adequate access, as wide as any other driveways.” He described the driveway as a 12-foot-wide gravel way that happens to fall within a 16-foot piece of property. ‘If it was 225 feet, it would be the same.”
Ponte said he has seen vehicles back up into Hartley’s property and have a hard time passing, and on October 11, his wall was hit as a result. “Nobody said a thing about it,” he said.
“I can’t speak to previous years and what other people did,” said Hartley. “We’re not talking about (adding) vehicles for agricultural purposes. This is for the residential vehicles.” Hartley further stated that, had he known about the incident with Ponte’s property, “I would have had an excavator there the next day to fix it.”
Eddleston said he has three young sons who like to play outside and that the traffic that “goes up and down that dirt road is not really slow. They’re young, they’re going to play, they’re going to wander, that worries me.” He further stated that, before Hartley bought back the property, he had a run-in with previous owners after trucks cut his corner of the property and that one of his trees was cut down without notice.
Beyond abutters, there was strong opposition from the Planning Board, having cited the 225 feet of frontage required and stating in a letter recommendation the ZBA not grant the variances because the existing frontage will not allow for safe access. Furthermore, the Planning Board said there is no mechanism in Rochester’s bylaws that would allow for it. Town Planner Steve Starrett and Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson recommended against granting the variance on the basis that a favorable ruling would lead to “many bad requests” to the ZBA.
“We are very concerned about the fact that this would get a lot of people coming to the ZBA to develop land that may not have 15 acres back there and would be a hazard to the town,” said Johnson.
The case was continued to Thursday, February 25. The planned site visit had not been arranged before the February 11 session ended; it was not to be a public meeting because there would be no quorum with just two members attending and no additional notification to abutters.
In other business, an amended Special Permit issued initially in 2011 for converting a repair bay to offices with an addition at 92 Pine Street was withdrawn by applicant ILC Development, LLC without prejudice. The proposed project needs Planning Board approval before ZBA approval, so applicant Robert Ferreira told the board in his February 11 request that he intends to reapply at the appropriate time.
The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for Thursday, February 25, at 7:00 pm.
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
By Mick Colageo