Planning Board Railroaded by ZBA

on

Tensions ran high at Tuesday night’s Planning Board meeting as members expressed their concern and frustration at the tabling of the discussion of an article at Monday’s special Fall Town Meeting.

Last night, four out of the five articles on the Warrant were passed by over 150 residents who attended. But the one article which did not pass, regarding the Planning Board’s amendments to the Home Business Bylaw, was not even debated due to a successful effort by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals to table discussion of the article until the next Annual Town Meeting in the spring.

According to Town Planner, John Charbonneau, Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson was about to give a brief PowerPoint presentation about the proposed changes made to the bylaw. Before Johnson could begin, ZBA Chairman Richard Cutler read a prepared statement about the article, which was immediately followed by a motion made by ZBA Member Kirby Gilmore to table the discussion entirely. The motion passed and no public discussion was held for the bylaw.

“Unfortunately, we really didn’t get too far into it and it was pretty much a staged, choreographed thing to take it off the table,” Johnson said. “There’s a lot of misunderstanding out there and I think a lot of it is on purpose. When people choose not to understand or to accept something, they can, for lack of a better term, play dumb. I think the average person in the room at Town Meeting last night didn’t understand [that most of the law remains unchanged] and weren’t given a chance to understand it.”

In order to have a home-based business in Rochester, the current process requires applicants to get a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board made some changes to the bylaw, one of which requires applicants to go through a site plan review process in order to determine whether or not the home is suitable to host a business.

As part of the proposed site plan review process, applicants would have to hire independent consultants in order to verify the information contained in their application and report those findings to the Planning Board. Some considerations in the process include the amount of parking spaces that may be required for the business, as well as ensuring that no more than 25 percent of the home is used for the business.

Despite the amendments to the bylaw, most of it remains unchanged.

“Ninety percent of the law is exactly the same as it what is already in our bylaws,” Charbonneau said. “But the Chairman of the ZBA, in his statement, gave misinformation about changes to the allowed size of farm stands and setbacks. But the zoning laws for the size of those structures remain the same.”

“We did change the definition of a farm stand, but we changed it to match the state definition,” said Johnson.

“The site plan review is meant to help take the applicant’s plans and make them work,” Charbonneau said.

“I think the changes we’re making will enhance the opportunities for people in Rochester,” said Johnson.

The Planning Board also reviewed the list of approved home-based businesses, which Charbonneau said was grossly out-of-date.

“We reviewed the use of this list, but it doesn’t account for all the changes that have occurred because of e-commuting,” he said. The Planning Board decided to eliminate use of the list entirely due, in part, to the difficulty enforcing a limit on the number of employees hired by a home-based business.

The tabling of the discussion of the bylaw amendment came as a surprise to the Planning Board, which has been working for over two years to finalize the amendments. During that time, the ZBA has been absent from the process.

“I happened to be sitting beside Richard Cutler and beside Kirby Gilmore,” said member Ben Bailey. He indicated that Gilmore was there to oppose the changes to the bylaw, said Gilmore facetiously said that “everybody would be home in time to watch the presidential debate.”

“The Planning Board has been working for more than two years on this. We’ve had multiple public hearings in various meetings about it. In those two years, nobody from the ZBA attended those meetings or offered comment,” Charbonneau said. “They have not participated in this process to date.”

“I’m not buying into the fact that there wasn’t sufficient time to make comment,” said Johnson. “There are multiple ways they could have made comment on this.”

Johnson said that he would be willing to add joint meetings between the Planning Board and ZBA to the schedule in order to promote an atmosphere more conducive to cooperation.

“We’ll outline everything on our terms. We’ll send them a certified letter with a date, and we’ll send out a notice to invite them to come. It’ll be the only thing on the agenda. If they don’t come, then we can decide to post up and go to their meeting.”

According to Bailey, members of the ZBA said at Town Meeting that they could not attend Planning Board meetings because “some of us have jobs.”

The article was originally on the Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting held this past spring, but the Planning Board voluntarily withdrew it after hearing concerns from Building Commissioner Jim Buckles and Board Member Bob Francis, who was not on the Planning Board at the time. At the time the article was added to the Fall Town Warrant, the Planning Board received no indication from the ZBA that they would push to table the discussion, nor did they receive any communication from the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals voicing any concern or dissatisfaction with the contents of the bylaw amendments.

Bailey continued to say that he would like to take action against the members of the ZBA for their actions at the Town Meeting.

“I would like to go to the Selectmen and ask them to unappoint everyone who was engaged in this ambush. Perhaps they could find a ZBA that is more amenable to working with the other boards of the Town.”

Bailey plans on attending the next meeting of the Rochester Board of Selectmen as a private citizen in order to voice his opinion on the situation.

“The things that were said by Mr. Cutler are direct insults at all of us and they should [know] that the Board itself acted in an imperious and insulting way. As a citizen, I would point that out because it’s demoralizing and the more things like that are done, the less likely people will want to volunteer to serve on boards. We will drive away the very people who could help us run this town well,” Bailey said.

“I think the insult goes to all of us and I think this whole board should show up,” said Vice-Chairman Gary Florindo.

The Planning Board may file each amendment to the bylaw as separate Warrant articles for the Annual Town Meeting in the spring.

In other business, the Planning Board voted in favor of a plan to create frontage in order to split a lot on Hiller Road.

The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board will be on Tuesday, November 6 at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall.

By Eric Tripoli

101 Dalmatians Coming to Marion

on

Rehearsals are well underway for the Chapel Players of the First Congregational Church of Marion’s production of “101 Dalmatians,” a fundraiser to be presented on October 26 at 7:00 pm. and October 27 at 3:00 pm. in the Community Center, 144 Front Street. Tickets are $10 for all seats and may be purchased at the Marion General Store or from cast members.

This Disney musical includes a large cast of adults and children and is supported by many volunteers in the community. The show is directed by Wendy Bidstrup, assisted by Jamie Wiksten, with musical direction by Sandy Morgan. Bev Peduzzi adds her expertise with music and children, too.

The cast includes Suzie Kokkins as Cruella De Vil with David Pierce and Will Bruno as her bumbling, evil henchmen. Roger and Anita, the “pets” of the Dalmatian family, are played by Mark Tucker and Caroline Blais. Abby Wheeler is Nanny to the family.  arents Pongo and Perdita are played by Hunter Gonsalves and Kelly Fox with puppies Max Tucker, Julia Winters, Lauren Craig, Kelsey Kidney, Kathleen Dunn, Alexia Blais, Elizabeth Foley, Grace Magee and Sam Dunn as Lucky.

The Dog narrators are: Lillian Craig, Caroline Owens, Mason Tucker, Emma Whynacht, Michaela Mattson and Cameron Weaver. The London dogs are played by Kyla Horton, Alexandria Strand, Sara Besancoon, Emma Williamson, Mara Flynn, Erica Judd, Katherine Dwyer, Ella Mennino, Hunter Moreau and Abby Wiksten.

Rounding out the cast is Camryn Kidney as Sergeant Tibbs, the cat, Jeff Hallahan as the dog catcher and Fred Danhauser as the policeman. There will also be a special number by the Show Choir directed by Sandy Morgan and Jamie Wiksten.

Solar Panel Discussion Leads to Dissenting Opinions

on

Members of the Marion Planning Board (PB) met with the Marion Energy Management Committee (EMC) on October 22 at Music Hall in Marion — leading to dissenting opinions on a proposed zoning bylaw for solar panels.

EMC Chairman David Pierce said it was the Joint Committee’s responsibility to provide direction to the Marion Selectmen on how to proceed, but there was generally no consensus between the EMC and PB on the subject.

EMC Member Jennifer Francis stated that the EMC is trying to make any bylaw for solar panels as friendly to Marion residents as possible but were being met with resistance from the PB.

PB Member Ted North said a solar panel bylaw would essentially become a commercial project for land developers to make money off solar panels, which would defeat the intent of zoning.

“Why do you want to treat these things different than any other commercial project?” he asked. “If you open the property for these projects, you are going to attract investors and tax speculators looking for cheap land leases to put these properties on. The solar developers have no allegiance to Marion. These things are tax shelters, nothing more and nothing less.”

But Francis said most Marion residents “could care less” if developers make money if it benefits them by allowing them to purchase solar energy.

“There are people who may want opportunities to participate in a community project so they can put a solar panel on their roof,” Francis said.

She also noted that farmers profit and can receive zoning bylaws.

North and fellow PB Member Sherman Briggs noted that most of Marion is residential, which poses additional concerns.

“If you have a five-acre lot and you put solar panels on three acres of it, that is a huge hit to the neighborhood,” North said.

Despite the dissenting opinions, the Joint Committee agreed to bring the subject matter forward to the spring town meeting; the issue will be discussed further at the Joint Committee’s next meeting.

PB and EMC members also quickly agreed to present a warrant article at the spring town meeting to move forward with a rezoning bylaw for a transfer station site.

“If you look at the plan, it’s Lot 9 on Map 24. If you look at the zoning map, part of the lot is already in a limited industrial area. The suggestion is that Lot 9 become totally an industrial area as opposed to a partial industry area,” said EMC Secretary Norm Hills.

The Joint Committee also discussed whether to designate Marion as a Green Community.

EMC Member Bill Saltonstall said EMC will be attending a Marion Selectmen meeting in the next month and will try to address the various requirements for becoming a Green Community on their merits.

“I think we need to pick away at these things. I don’t know how much support we have among residents and I don’t want to ram it down people’s throats,” he said.

EMC and PB members agreed that residents need a lot more education on what it would mean to be designated as a Green Community, and this would need to be explained to residents when they propose specific projects.

“It sounds like we are moving towards [the Green Community designation],” Pierce said. “As new ideas come forward, we will need to be as clear as we can about what this all means. It’s going to be a step-by-step process as we go.”

The next PB and EMC Joint Meeting is not set, as it has to be rescheduled due to conflicts with other town meetings and Thanksgiving.

By Scott Giordano


Town Hall, Capital Repair Projects Approved

on

135 voters turned out in Rochester Monday evening, October 22, to vote for the five articles on the warrant for the annual Special Town Meeting. The event was held in the Rochester Memorial School cafeteria.

The first article, which was also the hottest item on the agenda, would spend $897,000 of the town’s money on various capital improvement projects around town. 11 items make up the list of projects, with repairs and renovations to the Town Hall being the most expensive.

Town Administrator Richard LaCamera outlined all parts of the project individually. $250,000 of the total cost of the projects would be to renovate the historic building, but only the exterior. New windows, roofing shingles and siding will be replaced on the existing structure; everything inside will remain untouched.

“We are trying to protect the integrity of the town hall,” said LaCamera. “It’s the center of town and it’s a building we must protect going forward. I’m sure most of you have noticed the condition of the town hall right now is in dire straits.”

The building, which is 120 years old, would be renovated to make it more maintenance-free. The current roof would be replaced with 40-year shingles, which require much less upkeep than the present material. Although the building would be renovated on the outside, LaCamera ensured residents that the building’s aesthetic appearance would maintain the historical look.

In addition to the town hall, the roofs on both the Police Department and Council on Aging would be replaced for $35,000 apiece. A handicap lift at the Plumb Library for $25,000 would make it more accessible. A new combined gas/diesel fuel tank for $125,000 would replace the two existing tanks, which are currently 30 and 20 years old, respectively. Renovations to the bathroom at the Fire Department would cost $25,000.

For town vehicles, the warrant outlined $60,000 to refurbish two firetrucks in order to extend their lifespan 8 – 10 years. New fire trucks cost approximately $425,000 each. A new highway dump truck with plow ($55,000), Highway mower ($100,000), Fire Chief Vehicle ($40,000) are all listed under the warrant as well, in addition to $17,000 for new Fire Department radios.

In order to pay for these projects, the town would use $277,000 of free cash in the town’s budget to pay for the first four years of the payments, until more money was made available a few years down the road when some of the town’s debt expires.

Several residents applauded a question raised by one voter, who wondered why all of these projects are being addressed now as opposed to gradually over time.

“I think your tactic about handling this is incorrect,” said the resident. “I’m sorry, it is just ridiculous to spend $900,000 all at once for maintenance items that should have been gradually taken care of over the years.”

Financial Committee Chair Peter Arminetti responded to the concerned resident.

“We are not spending $900,000 in one year. We do not have that money,” said Arminetti. “The reason we are doing them all at once now and we were putting them off before was because we didn’t have the budget.”

Furthermore, LaCamera explained the building projects and vehicle purchases have 3.25 percent and 2.75 percent interest rates, respectively.

“The market is extremely competitive right now,” said LaCamera.

The article passed 94 – 27 for all 11 capital project items.

Articles 2, 3 and 5 all passed unanimously. Article 2 outlined Right to Farm Bylaws in order to help protect the town’s right to farm down the road if and when more residents move into town. Article 3 outlined the details of the installment of the photovoltaic project previously recommended by the Planning Board.

Article 5 approved the town to build new multipurpose and little league fields at the Dexter Lane recreational facilities using money from both a state grant and Little League money. The state will fund 58 percent of the project and the Little League will fund the remanding balance.

Article 4, which looked at agricultural and residential structure regulations, was tabled for further discussion.

By Katy Fitzpatrick

Grand View Project: Withdrawn

on

It was to be another night of debate and argument over the future of Dean Withrow’s plan to build a single-family home at 25 Grand View Avenue. For months, the project has been met with a considerable amount of opposition from abutters in the neighborhood in various public meetings. Their concerns range from the placement of the house, to the design of the drainage system, and property line encroachment.

But Chairman Peter Newton began the continued hearing for the project by summarizing a letter submitted by the applicant, stating that they have acquired new legal counsel and requested a continuance so the lawyer could review all of the circumstances regarding the project.

Newton made it clear that tonight’s continuance would be the last granted for the project, in an effort to push the project forward in earnest and encourage Withrow and his neighbors to come to some sort of an accord on the plan.

“I think that it’s a fair approach and that a warning like this is sufficient,” said Tom Copps.

The members of the Commission were not on the same page, as some made it clear that they were not in favor of continuing the hearing, but would rather vote for or against it.

“To me, it’s really an abuse of process. This Notice of Intent should either be withdrawn or denied. This project is different than what was originally presented in their NOI. Personally, I can’t fathom filing a Notice of Intent knowing that the abutter whose land they’d be grading on doesn’t approve.”

“I’d call for a motion from this Board tonight to approve it or deny it,” said member Ken Dawicki.

“I’m just trying to come up to speed now on the project. What I’d like to let you know now is that the first thing that has been done has been to make sure that the property my client does own is fully in compliance with the previous order of conditions,” said attorney Shepherd Johnson on behalf of Withrow.

He said that they were grateful that the Commission was allowing a full month for Johnson to review the project and promised that the Commission will have new plans to review at least five days in advance of the next continued hearing.

“We understand your time is valuable and we want to try to make this right,” Shepherd said.

Shepherd’s confidence was not shared by the Commission or abutters, who have seen almost four months of vitriolic arguments thrown back and forth from both sides of the project.

“I think they should be denied right now, based on everything they’ve done,” said Leslie Kesselie, an abutter to the project. She felt that there had been too many last-minute project plan submissions, and too many continuances on behalf of Withrow.

Russ Bailey, another abutter, shared Kesseli’s concerns about the many delays to the project.

“There’s been quite a few and now, at the end, they bring in a lawyer. It’s been months,” he said.

“They should have come in with the consent from all the abutters first. We’re being abused a little bit here, we’re being treated as if we’re moderating or facilitating an agreement between the neighbors and what we should be doing is issuing an order of conditions for the construction they’re doing now,” said Rogers. “We’re finding out that the neighbors aren’t finding out about the new plans until the day before or the night of the meeting, so we’re being used to moderate the agreement between them.”

He then made a motion to deny the continuance, which carried unanimously. Rogers then made a motion to deny the project in its entirety, but Newton allowed Shepherd more time to argue his point.

“We’ll withdraw the project without prejudice, we’ll be back before the Commission with new plans, and a chance to start over,” Shepherd said.

The Commission then held an informal discussion with attorney Robert Moore, legal counsel for the Henderson family, abutters to the Grand View Avenue project, regarding non-compliance complaints, but it was short-lived.

“There is still an open order of conditions on this, so compliance isn’t really expected,” said Dawicki.

“Unless there’s actionable items, we can’t, as a Commission, force applicants to complete construction. They can let their order of conditions expire and they can refile or apply for an extension,” Rogers said. “If they’re working towards compliance, that’s one thing.”

The Commission requested Moore submit a letter outlining their specific grievances with the non-compliance issues.

Also during the meeting, the Commission heard from engineer Steve Gioiosa on behalf of Paul and Jayne St. Pierre of 25 Main Street. The applicants would like to install a stone step pathway near their home, but would have to undertake some minor regrading around the nearby public walking and bike path in order to improve accessibility.

“Since part of the project would take place on town property, we’ve been meeting with Town Administrator Mike Gagne for how we can get that done,” Gioiosa said. The project would not negatively impact any drainage flow in the area and would be completed clear of bordering wetland systems.

Newton was concerned about the maintenance and liability aspect of the project, since most of the project would take place on town property.

“I think the liability falls with the town, ultimately,” Gioiosa said. The stone steps would need to be monitored, especially during snowstorms, and cleaned off accordingly.

“I’m worried about a member of the public taking a digger down the stairs and cracking their head open. There should be more stringent legal framework,” Newton said.

The Commission requested assurance that the town of Mattapoisett has considered the liability issue. The members also believed that since the project would take place on public land, the town needs to sign off on the Notice of Intent. Neither Gagne nor any members of the Board of Selectmen have signed the NOI, but Gagne provided a letter of support for the project.

The hearing was continued so Gioiosa could meet further with other members of the town government in order to discuss the liability aspect of the project.

In other business:

• The Commission issued a negative determination regarding a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Pat Richards of 10 Avenue A, who would like to extend the existing porch on the dwelling.

• The Commission voted in favor of an RDA filed by Theresa Sprague of 32 Marion Road, who would like to build a shed on her property.

• The Commission voted to accept the NOI filed by William and Sophia Macropoulos of 12 Howard Beach, who would like to repair an existing concrete seawall and jetty by pouring a concrete cap over the top and sides of the structure.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission will be on Wednesday, November 14 at 6:30 pm at the Town Hall. The meeting has been delayed due to the Veterans Day holiday on Monday, November 12.

By Eric Tripoli

 

ORYF Dance Teams Bring Home the Gold

on

The Old Rochester Youth Football Midget, PeeWee and Junior PeeWee Dance Squads had a great showing over the weekend at their competition on Saturday, October 20 in Providence, RI.  All three teams earned first place in their divisions, bringing home gold medals and trophies.  With the wins, the girls advance to the next stage of competition in Springfield, MA on Saturday, November 3.  Congratulations!

Friends Of Old Rochester Music Cash Calendar

on

Are you thinking about a way to invest in the future? Is there a better way than to support young musicians in our schools?  FORM assists ORR music programs financially providing instruments, trips, professional clinics, and most importantly scholarships. Check your backpacks, the Friends of Old Rochester Music have provided all Junior High and Senior High Band and Chorus students with “Cash Calendar” tickets. There will be 20 drawings during the month of November with a grand prize of $500.00. Tickets are reasonably priced at $5.00 each or 5 tickets for $20.00. FORM students and volunteers will also be out and about our community selling tickets. We look forward to meeting you.  Looking for other ways to support our young musicians? We will soon be printing our 2012-2013 Concert Series Programs. Consider becoming a sponsor of FORM, and you or your business will be mentioned in our program. Sponsorship levels range from Friend for $15.00 to Platinum at $300 or more. Business ad space is also available. Visit our website for details at www.form02739.org.

Friends of Plumb Library Meeting Change

on

The Friends of Plumb Library Annual meeting, originally scheduled for Monday, October 29 at 6:00, has been rescheduled for Thursday, November 1 at 6:30. This is for the business portion of the meeting only. The program portion will be rescheduled to a later date. If you have ideas for fundraising or for the Holiday Open House on December 1, please come to the meeting.

1A Design Plan Completed for Renovations

on

The Marion Capitol Improvement Planning Committee met Thursday, October 18, at Music Hall in Marion. The meeting was attended by Chairman Norm Hills and members Casey Barros, Dick Giberti and Ham Gravem.

A Phase 1A design plan by CDM Smith to renovate South Street and Ryder Lane  has been completed. There are not yet any plans for phases 1B, 2, 3, and 4.

 The total costs for the Phase 1A proposal could reach about $4.7 million, Hills said, but added “There is no fair estimate until we actually have a final plan and a bid to do the work.”

Hills also said that about $2 million could be covered by potential grants.

Committee members expect there will be some discussion before the Phase 1A design plan is approved by the town.

“People are not going to just take in the plan and swallow it. They are going to ask questions,” Sanz said.

If the town approves the Phase 1A design plan, it would then go out for a bid before any work could actually get done.

In other matters, Hills participated in a maintenance inspection of various town buildings including the beach house, Music Hall, the public library, the main fire station and the Point Road fire station, and a water pumping station.

The water pumping station appears to need some maintenance work, he said.

“Structurally it looks fine, but it’s certainly in bad shape and it’s like you can throw basketballs through it in some places,” said Hills, while adding his pleasant surprise by improvements being made at the main fire station.

 “I went to the main fire station yesterday, and there is a lot of work going on there. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. Everything has been painted and they cleaned the electrical room, and they are moving cabinets around,” Hills said.

By Scott A. Giordano


 

New Lot Proposed for Tire Business

on

Murphy’s Junkyard and Used Tire Warehouse were back before the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on Thursday night, October 18, in a continued hearing regarding the use of the junkyard’s single lot for both businesses.  They have been sharing the land owned by Michael Murphy on County Road, but had not acquired authorization from the town to hold two businesses on that one lot.  It’s listed as an agricultural-residential district.

The Board agreed not to shut down the business, but to come back and start from scratch so they could render a decision that could work with their present arrangement.

“The Applicant’s intent is to use the lot for the sale of tires,” said ZBA chairman Richard Cutler, as he read from the appeal.  “The welfare of the public will be served by having available the services offered by the business.”

The junkyard operated prior to the implementation of zoning by-laws in the town of Rochester.  The ZBA issued a special permit, but felt that there have been enough changes at the site to merit a new application for the use of the land.

The proposal before the Board called for the moving of lot lines in order to create two lots for the businesses, with an empty lot left over for a proposed building.  That application has been pending for weeks, pursuant to a decision by the ZBA on the changes to the lot delineations.

Given the residential area of the businesses, the application includes the name of several abutters, but only one, Patricia Fillippini, was present at the ZBA meeting.

She was concerned about the proliferation of small animals such as rats in the area and the visual impact because of the junkyard.  “From my kitchen, I could see all the junk.  I could see the building, I could hear the [construction] trucks at four or five in the morning,” said Fillippini.

Part of the proposal includes moving the location of the contents of the junkyard away from her lot.

Owners of both businesses were present, as were their attorneys, who argued in favor of a plan that would change the lot delineations of the land allowing for the creation of a third lot and for each business to occupy one lot apiece.

“We occupy some space owned by Mr. Murphy.  As I indicated the last time, we were asked to get a Class 3 license, and we did get that license before coming before this board,” said Gregory Koldys, an attorney representing the tire business.  Some of the services they’d like to offer, such as large truck repair, may not be covered under that license.

“We’d like to know which sort of things the Board would allow them to perform and which they’d have issues with,” he said.

“The plan that we’re looking at here seems to be different than what the operation appears to be when we drive by it now,” Cutler said.

“What we’re considering doing, and we haven’t brought this to the Planning Board yet, we want to move the line at 37 [County Road],” said Robert Perry, the attorney who represented Murphy at the meeting. As a result, they would be reshaping the residential lot owned by Murphy next to the businesses.  “The intent is to put the used tire company on the newly configured ’37.’  We’re happy to work with the Board on any modifications you see fit.”

“When all is said and done, we’ll have two lots with two entities running businesses on each,” Cutler said.  “In my mind this would be easier if we had two businesses on two separate lots.”

He said, based on the history of the lot, the more that can be defined about the area, the easier it will be for the ZBA to make a decision.  The Board requested that Murphy submit plans for the extra lot that would be created by changing the current delineations.

“Our goal here is to clean everything up to make everybody happy,” he said.

Cutler then asked the applicants to list some of the proposed site improvements for the area of the property from the roadside.

“This whole plan helps us better organize and use the space we have now.  We’d be able to lose the trailers that are closest to the road.  Landscaping, parking lot safety, improve the fascia of the building,” said Aaron Bates, who runs the tire business.

The hearing was continued until November 29 so that Murphy could have building plans drawn up for the empty lot created by the new proposed delineations.

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals will be on Thursday, November 1, 2012, at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall.

By Eric Tripoli