David and Laurie Jewett arrived at the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on October 8 seeking permission to construct a storage shed approximately 15 feet away from the property boundary. This runs against town bylaws, which state that a shed of the proposed size must be at least 40 feet from the property line. The Jewetts, who live at 15 Briarwood Lane, face some interesting topographical issues that prevent that possibility, and they sought permission to build the shed closer to the boundary.

The proposed shed will measure 12 feet by 20 feet, or 240 square feet. According to the Agricultural & Residential District Zoning Bylaws, sheds and outbuildings larger than 150 square feet must be built at least 40 feet from the property line; however, the Jewetts face some unique topographical features, which make abiding by these bylaws impossible.

“There’s a situation where the land rolls off to water,” Mr. Jewett said. “There is a flat portion in front, which rolls off to a small plateau in the back, and then tapers off again to the water.” He indicated that from the front of the property to the back, there is 32 feet of topographical change.

Looking for a way to accommodate this, the Jewetts chose to site the shed on the back plateau of the property, which leaves it only 15 feet from the property line rather than the required 40 feet.

“There’s no other place for it other than the front yard,” said Mr. Jewett. “Everything else is just a slope.”

When asked what the shed was to be used for, Mr. Jewett indicated storage.

“We both have antique cars. We’d like to keep one car in this shed, along with yard implements like rakes and shovels.” Mrs. Jewett added that she had the support of a neighbor.

When ZBA member Kirby Gilmore inquired if they had the statement in writing, she replied, “No, I didn’t realize I could do that. Would it help?”

“Well,” Gilmore replied, “it does help to know what the neighbors think.”

Gilmore himself bolstered the Jewetts’ appeal when he recalled that sheds and outbuildings less than 150 square feet could be placed up to 10 feet from the property line.

“This portion of the bylaw is in favor of the applicant because the shed is in the back of the house,” said Gilmore. “If the shed was one hundred fifty square feet, it could be set back as close as ten feet from the property line. This one isn’t much bigger. It’s not a detriment to the neighborhood.”

Fellow ZBA member Donald Spirlet agreed.

“They have no choice,” said Spirlet. “I have no problem with it.”

The appeal was unanimously approved. The board did, however, place two restrictions: the shed cannot be used to house livestock, nor can it be used as a living space.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 22 at the Rochester Town Hall pending the submission of applications.

By Andrea Ray

Since the last public hearing for the proposed solar farm slated for the center of Rochester, Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson said on October 13 that subsequent talks between lawyers for both the developer and the town have led to this: The town cannot tell solar developer NextSun Energy that it cannot cut trees within the 20-foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the project. The Planning Board’s only option now when it comes to trees, said Johnson, is to negotiate with the developer and try to compromise the best it can.

According to the Limited Commercial District Zoning Bylaw adopted by Town Meeting, said Johnson, language pertaining to the 20-foot buffer simply states that a 20-foot vegetated buffer must remain – which means, said Johnson, that a vegetated buffer could literally be a 20-foot field of grass or brush – not necessarily trees.

The main concerns of most board members and abutters to the project remain the cutting down of taller historic trees within the 20-foot buffer, as well as the view from roads and points around town such as the library and police station. But as Johnson stated after about an hour of discussion, “Right now they can go in there and they can chop them down. We can’t stop them from doing it.”

What the board can do, however, is consider NextSun President Jacob Laskin’s suggestion that if the board were to approve of some tree cutting into the 20-foot buffer on the west side of the site, then the taller historic trees by the cemetery could remain. Laskin’s main concern for the project is exposure of the sun on the panels for maximum energy production; however, some trees to the west would cast shade onto the panels and reduce energy production.

According to a study provided and explained by engineer Bill Madden of G.A.F. Engineering, the prime hours would be 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, based on a December 21 sun, the shortest day with the weakest sunlight as a worst case scenario, which Laskin said is the standard for study in the solar industry.

“But if we could get out ten to two (o’clock), that would be a significant compromise for us,” said Laskin.

Planning Board member Ben Bailey, who said meanwhile he had been searching online for information about peak production time, argued that the information he encountered contradicted Laskin’s statement about 9:00 to 3:00, to which Laskin replied, “No it doesn’t,” before clarifying the matter for Bailey.

Johnson lauded some changes to plan since the last meeting, such as the relocation of the inverter, but urged the developer to address the “sensitive aspects of the project.”

“From the heart,” board member Gary Florindo spoke of the personal importance of the historic cemetery and how loved ones who visit their dearly departed should not have to see “solar fields,” while resident Dave Watling questioned why the board would prefer to be “negotiating dead people for live people.”

Sure, people go to visit their deceased loved ones, “But these people are here,” said Watling motioning to the roughly 15 residents present. “They live there and they need screening,” preferring that the focus be aimed at screening for abutters over screening for the cemetery.

Abutter Stephanie Riccardi sobbed as she described how she specifically sought out a historic property like the one she owns and did not want to lose it.

“As somebody who sought out a small town,” said Riccardi, “I don’t want to see solar panels behind my house.”

But the board maintains some control over screening, and the board tossed around some ideas in the spirit of compromise, such as replacing 6- to 8-foot trees for planting with 8- to 10-foot ones and perhaps appropriately staggered wall installations instead of calling for an entire wall for screening.

“We don’t want to see it from day one,” said Johnson, reiterating the board’s insistence on complete screening from sight.

Some board members took issue with the renderings of six different transects depicting the visual standpoint of six different locations looking at the solar farm, with Bailey calling assertions that certain viewpoints would be intersected by trees and fencing “disingenuous” when the renderings appeared to show otherwise.

“Well, there is a cone of vision, absolutely,” said Madden, eliciting some mock laughter from some residents in attendance.

Madden stated that the renderings, although perhaps not in the format the board had hoped for, were a “snapshot in time,” and not the permanent view after vegetation matures.

“I think you really need to try to envision the transect line … with the aerial photograph,” said Madden, again flipping to the overhead photo of the site he provided.

Eventually the board will have to discuss a decommissioning agreement with the developer, and the two parties will continue to come up with ways to satisfy the needs of the project and of abutters and townspeople.

“What I see here is a project … that has … multiple viewpoints in it and it’s not uniform,” said Johnson. “I think we need to treat it like that.…” He later continued, “It’s not a cookie cutter project in my mind.”

Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Richard Cutler who was in attendance said that if the solar arrays can be seen from the road, then he believes the Historic District Commission would come into play and hold a public hearing on the matter.

“They shouldn’t be seen from the road,” Cutler said.

The hearing was continued until October 27.

Also during the meeting, the board told Clean Energy Collective, developers of the proposed solar farm in Marion that would be accessed via Perry’s Lane in Rochester, that the board would draft a decision to approve the project and take the vote at the next meeting.

The project went through months of public hearings with both Marion and Rochester and, after finally reaching a decommissioning escrow account number, got the nod from Marion.

In other matters, the board held an informal meeting with yet another solar farm developer interested in building a solar energy facility off Snipatuit Road and along Quaker Lane. The board issued a number of requested waivers, such as a traffic study waiver, maintenance plan waiver, and a partial waiver for underground utilities. There is no formal application for a site plan review for this project yet.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for October 27 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Senior Center.

By Jean Perry

Rochester Country Fair Board of Directors Co-Chairman Dave Souza lauded the Rochester Fire Department for their accommodation and generosity with resources and manpower during the country fair this year, but expressed disappointment when explaining that police expenses are by far one of the most significant expenditures of the yearly event.

Everything went smoothly during this year’s country fair, Souza told the Rochester Board of Selectmen on October 7, although the heat on Saturday and Sunday during the fair kept many people from coming out, which cut into the fair’s revenue to cover costs of the fair.

“My only thing with the whole fair … is the cost of the fair is getting more and more expensive,” Souza said, with the biggest expenses being police and fire. “I don’t want to fight with police and fire. Fire does awesome for [the fair].”

Souza said the Fire Department charges about half for its support services. “We get a lot, a lot, a lot of stuff,” said Souza. But with the cost for police reinforcement, said Souza, the country fair does not get a break.

“Police are different,” said Souza, acknowledging that with the police “it’s a whole different union system.”

“I just wish that we could get that [cost] down and help a bit,” said Souza. “We’re not out here on [Route] 105 anymore. We’re not fighting highways.…”

When he takes his son to play soccer on weekends, Souza said, “Watch the amount of cars…. Just as many cars go out,” said Souza, but no police presence is required. “We (the country fair) have to have four or five.”

Board of Selectmen Chairman Richard Nunes said the Rochester Road Race is in the same pickle.

“I’m not trying to stir up trouble,” Souza said. “The fair is a very tough thing to run with the money we have…. “Julie [Koczera] and I are very tired … and as the fair continues to grow, you get more tired.”

Nunes questioned whether the parking area of the fairgrounds could somehow double as a ball field to help generate revenue for the country fair, but Souza rejected the idea.

“You throw that idea at us, I’ll walk away tomorrow,” replied Souza. “…But if you want to do it go ahead and do it…. I don’t want any part of it.” He continued, “Where would it benefit the fair? Where are you gonna park everyone?”

“And then, when you get the grass all nice and pretty, you want people to come and drive their cars on it?” added Julie Koczera, co-chairman of the Rochester Country Fair Board of Directors.

And, unfortunately, our whole society revolves around insurance, as Souza put it.

“That’s what’s killing us,” he said.

There will be no parade for next year’s country fair, but the group is working on expanded kids’ activities and adding more tractor pulls and wrestling events.

“As much as I’d like to see [the parade], I can’t justify the cost,” said Koczera. It costs roughly $800 in mainly police details just for the parade.

The country fair spent about $52,000 this year.

The next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen is scheduled for October 19 at 6:30 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

By Jean Perry

Despite its creation of a further non-conformance, the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals was poised to approve the Special Permit for Dale Allison of 359 Delano Road on October 8 when Allison presented an altered plan that increased the non-conformance slightly less than the previous plan and satisfied a neighbor’s concern that the new house to be constructed would be too close to his property.

“Every time you reduce a non-conforming setback it’s a good thing,” said ZBA Chairman Eric Pierce. “So that’s an improvement.”

Allison plans to raze the existing small cottage to build a two-story dwelling, to which several neighbors expressed support during the last meeting of the ZBA.

Allison told the board that his abutting neighbor, whom he referred to as Lucky Evans, expressed his concern at the September 24 meeting that, although the plan was a nice addition to the neighborhood, it encroached structures on his property too much for his comfort. Allison altered the plan to slide the proposed house five feet away from the lot line, the only change to the plan.

“I think that’s a very positive change,” said Pierce. “I’m feeling positively toward this project.”

The board granted the Special Permit.

Also during the meeting, the board granted a Special Permit to Susan Titus of 36 South Street to remove an existing screened-in porch to construct a new 13-foot by 13-foot four-season room.

Titus had submitted two letters of support from neighbors who said the new addition would improve the neighborhood.

“It seems straightforward to me,” said Pierce.

The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for October 22 at 7:30 pm at the Marion Town House.

By Jean Perry