There was only one hearing on the agenda for the Rochester Planning Board on October 9. Continued from September 25 was the Special Residential Development proposed for Rounseville Road. The 22-duplex residential development planned for senior housing has been slowly processing through legal and regulatory entanglements associated with an existing conservation Order of Conditions, drainage issues associated with the Plumb Corner Mall, and the need for land legal swaps.

Coming before the Planning Board on this night was John Churchill, Jr. of JC Engineering, and Mike LaCava of REpurpose Properties to explain the current status of the project.

Churchill said that matters have been progressing slowly behind the scenes with Attorney Peter Paul working with the sellers. He also said that, based on feedback from people involved with historical preservation in town, they are working on new conceptual designs. He said that by Monday, he should have a letter from the trust granting REpurpose the right to move forward based on the execution of a pending agreement.

Churchill did share the positive news that soil at the Plumb Corner Mall had passed septic soil percolation testing and that they would have a formal submission by mid-November.

Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson said that the Planning Board was unable to review anything until a previously noted letter was in hand. He also asked that conceptual drawings be forwarded so the board members could review those in advance of a continuation of the hearing.

All agreed that, should the letter be received by the time of the January 8 meeting, more formal discussions could ensue on the conceptual plans and an escrow account for peer review consulting fees could be established.

Churchill said, “You guys have been great to work with.” Johnson thanked him for the update.

Also coming before the board was an Approval Not Required Application outlined by Bob Rogers of G.A.F. Engineering. Rogers said the 6-acre site is planned to be subdivided into two building lots and one non-buildable lot. He said one lot is proposed to be the location of a new daycare facility. The application was approved as submitted.

The biggest conversation of the evening came when Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Richard Cutler began discussing proposed changes to Zoning Bylaws. The Planning Board, as well as the ZBA, has been drafting new language for seven sections of the Town’s regulatory document, all in the effort to make the text easier for those charged with enforcing the bylaws and for the applicants. Collectively, they began to review and decide what they were ready to send to the selectmen for their review and inclusion in the warrant for the upcoming November 19 Special Town Meeting.

But they got stuck when Cutler proposed a specific sentence to one bylaw.

Titled “Agricultural/Residential Guiding Principal and Objectives,” the changes Cutler proposed didn’t sit well with several Planning Board members.

Johnson asked, “How does this interact with our right to farm?”

Cutler said he wanted to have an opening statement to this bylaw section that would give people a clear idea of the intent of the bylaw. Calling it a “non-enforceable” principal, he said that adding the words “protecting the values of residential properties” to the agricultural residential district rules wouldn’t conflict with the Town’s Right To Farm status.

“I hate that language,” said Johnson. “The farmer has a right to farm as long as he is using good practices on his property. … Maybe someone doesn’t like dust when the farmer plows his field in the spring,” he added.

Cutler said, “Remember, it’s agricultural and residential,” with an emphasis on ‘and.’

Planning Board member Chris Silveira said, “You can’t have it both ways.”

“Yes, the farmer does have the right, but doesn’t have the right to infringe on residents,” Planning Board member Gary Florindo said. “It’s a balance, each have their share of duties to each other.”

Planning Board member Ben Bailey said, “There are times when farmers go over the line.”

Florindo opined, “We can argue this till the cows come home.”

Johnson said that in his 19 years on the board, “No one has ever presented evidence of devalued property (due to a farm in close proximity).”

Johnson said he would ask town counsel to review the proposed language and try to come up with something everyone could agree with, but that it was not going to happen before the Special Town Meeting.

They also had difficulty accepting language changes in the form of definitions for “kitchens” and “living spaces.” Cutler offered a kitchen as a room or any space in a room in a residence or commercial building where food is prepared. A living space was defined as any space that could be used year-round, was heated, and had electric service.

Bailey and Silveira both thought the language could be used by a zealous code enforcement officer who wanted to call their heated garages living spaces, especially if they contained a microwave, or as Silveira said, “[When] a guy puts a pot of chili on his wood stove in the garage.”

Johnson said they would have to work on this, but also not before November’s town meeting.

They did agree to send the following sections to the selectmen with language changes that all agreed were necessary: Ground-mounted solar Photovoltaic Installations Overlay District,

Renewable or Alternative Energy Research and Development District, Table of Accessory Dimensional Regulations, Temporary Storage Units, Multi-family Zoning, and Codification Renumbering. These will be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen during the Monday, October 15 meeting.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for October 23 at 7:00 pm in the town hall meeting room.

Rochester Planning Board

By Marilou Newell

The Old Rochester school districts have a new Strategic Plan, with three main goal areas to strive towards over the next five years.

The joint school committees of Old Rochester Regional and the three towns accepted the 2023 Strategic Plan on September 27, which addressed three areas: 21^stCentury learning, social-emotional learning, and global citizenship.

“We know that this document hopefully captures the direction the district needs to move, … and if we do that we feel like we will be preparing our students for the future,” said Superintendent Doug White.

For 21^stCentury learning, initiatives address career and technology skills, integrating them into the general curriculum, while providing more project-based learning experiences, at least twice a year.

“If we provide all students with life and career skills and innovation skills … and create district environment leadership skills [and] social-emotional approaches, then we will … strengthen social and emotional competencies and prepare them to be engaged citizens.”

The social-emotional learning goal focuses on relationships, behavior management, partnership, and safety and security.

White brought up “restorative justice,” a more contemporary social-emotional-based approach to behavior, saying the “old way” of dishing out detentions is no longer the approach for ORR.

“We’re looking for our students to have an understanding and a voice when their behaviors may be out of line,” said White, while adding that there is yet a sense of cohesiveness in this approach across all Tri-Town districts. “What happens in Mattapoisett may be different than what’s happening in Rochester, and is there a way for us to become consistent in that approach as they move to junior high school and high school, and that the expectations are very similar [throughout each grade] and are we helping kids manage this area of their life.”

There is also much talk about safety and security, said White, as well as the responsive classroom approach to social-emotional learning, which the high school wants to adopt while adapting it appropriately for older students.

“We recommend that there is a consistent approach … through the district, and why would we go in a different direction?” asked ORR High School Principal Mike Devoll.

For the global citizenship goal, educators will look to raise cultural and diversity awareness, foster civic knowledge locally, statewide, and nationally, and encourage an understanding of others’ perspectives.

The individual school improvement plans will detail more about how each school will implement the goals consistently, White said, “And make some headway in all of this coming to fruition.”

The committee lauded the plan as presented, which White said had hours of hard work behind it.

“All three [goals] are very much intertwined … and support each other,” said Devoll. “It’s an exciting plan.”

In other matters, the committee adopted a one-dollar an hour raise for substitute teachers and substitute cafeteria workers, hoping to attract more people willing to take the positions as they arise.

“Right now, we’re not getting people,” said White. With $11 an hour instead of $10, he said, “Hopefully we will be able to recognize individuals who would be able to fill those spots.”

The next meeting of the Joint School Committees is scheduled for December 13 at 6:30 pm in the junior high media room.

The Joint School Committees

By Jean Perry

There was one thing on the minds of the members of the Marion Planning Board Monday night: the zoning amendment put forth by Sherman Briggs.

On September 18, the Marion Board of Selectmen allowed the last-minute addition to the Fall Special Town Meeting warrant of Briggs’ article proposing 10-foot setbacks in the Residence E zoning district.

Briggs joined the conversation as the Planning Board tried to sort out their position on the amendment.

The board had been wrestling with their role in providing relief to Briggs in his development plan for the Spring Street property. Briggs contends that, in order to develop the property with the 27 units he needs to be profitable, he needs leeway with the setback requirements for the mandatory three affordable housing units to be included in the development.

Vice Chairman Steve Kokkins summarized the board’s position, saying, “[The] general sentiment … was that in this particular case, there is no issue or problem with setback reductions…” because the development does not intrude on other property owners and abuts unoccupied land. Kokkins continued, “How do we handle changing the bylaw that may be used in a way we don’t intend?”

At issue is whether changing the setback requirements in Residence E zoning district would then apply to all future developments in the district.

Chairman Will Saltonstall supported Kokkins’ position, saying, “There’s a difference going through a process for a particular property as opposed to changing zoning for all land in this zone.”

Board member Eileen Marum pointed out that the Residence E zoning district makes up roughly 0.03% of the area of the town, so this amendment would apply to very little property, to which board member Norm Hills later added that there are no other undeveloped properties in town currently zoned Residence E.

Saltonstall suggested that a more appropriate bylaw would give the planning board the ability to give leeway on the setback requirement.

“I have grave concerns,” stated board member Chris Collings. “Town Meeting is unpredictable [on this project]. I don’t see these votes at Town Meeting as a guaranteed solution to these things…

“[There are] disconnects of the overlap of the Master Plan and zoning,” Collings further stated. “I was hoping we could come up with a way to get past these hurdles. … I think it is important that the Planning Board is more involved.”

Board member Kristen Saint Don Campbell suggested that a change in the zoning bylaw for this project made sense, saying, “We know what Sherman Briggs intends, [but] what is another developer going to do – they may not be as reputable. … The developer may not have our best interests in mind.”

If the project were to go to the ZBA, it would have to demonstrate a hardship, among other criteria, to get relief for the setback requirement. Collings suggested that the conflict between the Master Plan and zoning requirements could be considered a legitimate hardship. Saltonstall was skeptical, contending this was too liberal an interpretation of the criteria.

Kokkins then suggested a more assertive approach, proposing, “We take a proactive stance in terms of the law that we favor the setback plan that is shown … with the existing setbacks on the affordable apartments. The developer has taken steps to reduce impacts. We could approve those setbacks and let the chips fall where they may.”

Although Saltonstall thought this idea was too risky, Kokkins suggested it would be made in good faith.

Collings said, “If I was selling this idea, I’d reduce the idea to a few salient points.”

The board seemed to agree that Collings would be the best at presenting the idea to Town Meeting.

Saltonstall concluded the discussion with a recommendation, saying, “Under the Residence E zoning district, the Planning Board – as the Special Permit granting authority, has the authority to grant setback and dimensional requirements in multifamily projects. … Given this authority, we will be reviewing all parts of this project.”

Collings agreed, adding, “[The] resolution of conflicts in planning is in our wheelhouse. Getting the power into the Planning Board cleans up a pathway to get things done.”

Saltonstall will speak with the town administrator and town counsel on the viability of the idea before the public hearing on October 15.

In other business, the board discussed the proposed changes in the kennel licensing bylaw appearing on the Town Meeting warrant. Town Planner Gil Hilario informed the committee that the town administrator wanted the language defining household kennels to be removed entirely from the bylaw. Anyone with up to three dogs would be regulated simply as a pet owner. Residents with four to 10 dogs would be considered a hobby kennel, and anyone with 11 or more would be considered a commercial kennel. Kennels will be allowed in the Residential, General Business, Limited Business, and Limited Industrial zoning districts.

The board voted to endorse the bylaw.

Thenext meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for October 15 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer