As the Board of Selectmen prepares to make Rochester a “Green Community”, so must the Rochester Planning Board, Chairman Arnie Johnson announced on June 26, introducing the two criteria of the five mandated by the Green Communities Act that the Planning Board must assist with implementing.

First, Johnson explained, the board must designate zoning that would accommodate a “by-right” solar zone where a developer could expect to develop a solar energy project with less stringent regulations than those in the Town’s Solar Bylaw.

“They would accept, like, the town dump,” said Johnson, naming one specific area that could be designated by-right for solar. “We would specify the area.”

“Then, when we create that piece of legislation, we would create the criteria that goes along with it, and that would be for by-right solar,” Johnson said. “Or you can designate it for research and development into alternative energies.”

In response to board member Ben Bailey’s question on how townspeople would feel about their neighborhoods being designated as by-right solar districts, Johnson replied, “That’s why we were thinking the town dump.”

Johnson specified that it could be an overlay to an existing industrial zone.

“It has to be like a real [zone],” Johnson said. “It can’t be like an illusion – some swamp land … up in the industrial area,” Johnson said.

The second criterion the Planning Board must address is a “Stretch Building Code”, which pertains to stricter energy efficiency standards for new residential construction. Johnson specified that it would regulate new homes only, not renovations or additions to existing homes.

The stretch code would be close to the existing state requirements in energy efficient heating and cooling systems and insulation, only slightly more stringent, Johnson added.

In exchange for being deemed a Green Community, Rochester would receive grant funding to help Rochester save money by being more energy efficient.

Town Meeting would have to adopt the stretch code before it would be adopted.

In other matters, REpurpose Properties, applicants for an age-restricted residential development on Rounseville Road next to Plumb Corner, again requested a continuance, which prompted Planning Board member Gary Florindo to comment on projects that repeatedly request continuances.

“We’ve been through this a number of times with other projects when they keep bumping it down and bumping it down the road,” said Florindo. “We had this problem with another project in town and they kept bumping it down … and it came back to us as if we were the bad guys.”

Florindo said it has happened three times now, and he just wanted to make that clear, he added.

Johnson said the continuation was just as well, since no testimony had yet been taken and several members of the board were absent that night.

That hearing was continued until July 10.

Also during the meeting, the board approved the application for an Approval Not Required filed by Roger and Laura Pelletier, trustees of the Pelletier Family Realty Trust, along with Bradford and Ruth Correia for lots located on Featherbed Lane. Engineer David Davignon referred to the application as a “land swapping” and … “to balance out the land better.”

The land is a large tract owned by the Correias, with several “fingerlike projections” (lots) that will be conveyed to the Pelletiers, with one of the seven lots to be conveyed to the Rochester Land Trust.

“Very unusual shapes,” said Bailey about the lots. “No objections – just, why?”

Davignon said that was how the lots “perced,” referring to the percolation tests required for septic system development for new residential construction.

The ANR application was accepted.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for July 10 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Planning Board

By Jean Perry

It’s fair to assume everyone in Marion is familiar with Tabor Academy’s athletic fields at the corners of Spring Street, Ryder Lane, and Front Street. For decades, Tabor Academy has occupied prime real estate in the village alongside residences in a mostly peaceful co-existence. However, the application for a Special Permit to construct five 90-foot high light towers dressed with LED lamps to illuminate the sports fields brought out a few abutters who believe Tabor isn’t playing fair.

Tabor’s Head of School John Quirk made his presentation to the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals on June 14. He is requesting the Special Permit for the lighting plan due to the height of the proposed poles — any lighting over 35 feet high requires permitting, according to the Town’s bylaw, stated Marion Building Inspector Scott Shippey.

Quirk said that when the fields were expanded and upgraded some seven years ago, it was always Tabor’s plan to add lighting for use of the fields after sundown. However, given the litigation that found Tabor as the defendant and the Town of Marion as the plaintiff in the absence of an application for permission to do so, the lights were never installed. Part of the Court’s decision required that Tabor file a separate new application for lighting plans.

Now armed with lighting and glare studies, Quirk explained the institution’s rationale.

“We always planned to light the fields,” said Quirk. “It would be advantageous to school activities. Also, the town could use the fields in reasonable ways. It’s exciting and interesting for the community.”

Continuing, Quirk explained that he had been working with the neighbors to allay parking and noise concerns.

“We’ve done our best to make our requests to the town a collaboration with our neighbors,” Quirk said.

ZBA Chairman Marc LeBlanc asked how the study was calculated.

Mike Berry of Musco Lighting, presented a glare study that demonstrated light spillage would not disturb the neighborhood. Berry said that use of LED blubs at that height provides better illumination than older halogen lights, and the increased height would provide the correct geometry for the beams. But concerns remained.

The Planning Board submitted a letter pointing to such issues as parking, pedestrian safety, traffic, and light pollution, all problems they thought required further consideration. Some abutters concurred.

Heather Burke, 68 Front Street, said, “This is a bad idea that continues. There’s no benefit to the town. Initially the town was opposed. Frankly, citizens are tired of this project.” She went on to say that if the permit was granted then it should include language that clearly spells out the availability of the fields for town events. Burke, an ORR School Committee member, added that other fields were available for night games, such as at ORR. Burke said that effective screening of the lights at the height requested would be impossible.

Shelly Richins, 22 Cottage Street, said the light towers would be unattractive and wondered how that could add value to her property.

Bob Sanderson, 17 Ryder Lane, said he currently enjoys a harbor view and that at night the lights would give the area a stadium look. He too questioned the impact on property values.

But not everyone expressed displeasure with the application.

Barbara Sanderson said, “I like the idea of lights. We watch the games; it’s a fun thing to do. I like it. It’s a nice part of the neighborhood.”

Jay Ryder, a former Planning Board member, said that before Quirk’s appointment as head of school, relationships between Tabor and the municipality were strained, but since his appointment things had improved.

“My feeling is there’s been so much litigation, so much money spent we will never know what the lights are like until the lights are up,” Ryder said. “Let’s try them for a year.”

Albin Johnson, 47 Spring Street, said he had reviewed the engineering plan for the lighting system and was satisfied it would not impose a negative impact on the neighborhood.

Quirk said that, at the present time, the plan was to use the lights to allow play to continue after dark and for occasional night games. LeBlanc asked him if he could provide a calendar of events that would show the school’s schedule for night use. The ZBA also asked for visual renderings of the light poles to aid in a better understanding of how they would look once erected.

Debate and discussion continued for nearly two hours as pros and cons were weighed. At one point, Quirk said that there were philosophical questions regarding the lighting plan and asked for candor from the ZBA members and the abutters, saying, “This is very important to us. Can we overcome hurtles?”

ZBA member Katherine Mahoney said she believed she didn’t have all the information necessary and that this wasn’t a power struggle or debate.

The board members said they needed more time and more details. The hearing was continued until July 26.

Also continued was a request for a change of use Special Permit submitted by Teeracai Srisirikul, for property located at 362 Front Street. Currently the structures on the property are permitted for use as commercial condominiums. Srisirikul requested consideration of a plan that would convert the buildings into residential units.

The ZBA members felt they needed bylaw clarifications from town counsel. The hearing was continued until July 12.

A Variance hearing for Constance Dolan, 9 Beach Street, for the construction of an attached one-car garage found Mahoney questioning the hardship Dolan was using in the application – property value in parity with her neighbors’.

There was also a question in Mahoney’s estimation regarding how the bylaw describes a non-conformity. Shippey attempted to explain how a building may conform on one side but not another and thus, if the garage were permitted, that side of the home would now be non-conforming requiring the application to be a Variance versus a Special Permit.

Mahoney was not convinced the applicant had fully checked all the boxes for a Variance to be granted, but the board closed the hearing, telling Dolan they had 90 days to render a decision.

Later in the evening, after the conference room cleared but before the meeting was adjourned, Mahoney circled back to the Dolan application, saying, “I don’t see a hardship.”

ZBA member Betsy Dunn said they had done it many times in the past but wasn’t sure under what type of filing. Mahoney said, “Property values are not our issue.”

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for June 28 at 7:30 pm in the town hall conference room.

Marion Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell