Homeowners whose property abuts Marty’s Driving Range have submitted a request for a rehearing on the zoning amendment approved during this month’s Special Town Meeting.
During its meeting Tuesday a handful of abutters, including Zoning Board Chair Mike Davieau, who spoke on behalf of the group, submitted a request to the Select Board.
“We feel there has been inconsistancies and mistakes,” said Davieau. “This is such an important ordinance for the town, and it is so vague and broad and opens such a large can of worms for this town. We feel it was hurried.”
The group is protesting an amendment that allows up to three “outdoor entertainment” events per week in the summer months by special exception in the GRAF zone, which covers most of town. The article was authored by Martin and Nicole Ruggiero, who have already submitted an application for a special exception to restart a outdoor summer concert series that the town required they stop last year. The Ruggerios own Marty’s Driving Range.
Davieau said that will recuse himself from the deliberations on that application because of his conflict of interest as an abutter.
The Ruggieros first tried to put a petition article on the ballot in March, but were allegedly given bad information from the town office regarding the deadline for zoning ballot petitions, and submitted the petition too late. The Select Board agreed to put forth a similarly-worded article that included the requirement that a special exception be awarded by the Zoning Board in order to avoid potential litigation, and the town ultimately approved the article in a 240-165 vote on June 7.
Davieau protested that while the Planning Board had held a public hearing on April 27, prior to the Special Town Meeting as required by law, the board had given undue consideration to the Ruggieros and their business during the hearing, rather than considering the amendment on its own merits. The abutters pointed specifically to one point in the meeting where Planning Board member Dotsie Millbrandt moved to amend the article to change outdoor entertainment to be more specific to music events. At that hearing, Planning Board Chair Pam Lassen noted that amendments to the ordinances would require a second public hearing and would delay the Special Town Meeting vote. Lassen also pointed out that the Zoning Board would have say over whether a particular entertainment use was appropriate under the ordinance, and could limit potentially harmful uses. Ultimately, the amendment failed with only Millbrandt in favor.
“The driving range is a business, and we feel it has gotten special attention,” said Davieau. “The boards of the town are not here to give businesses special attention. They’re here to protect the interests of the town.”
The petition, which is signed by eight abutters who occupy four properties on Churchill Road and Reed Road, echoes that statement, suggesting that the ammendmetn doesn’t protect the welfare and interests of the community but rather “advances the personal and pecuniary interest of one property owner.”
The petition also suggests that the ammendment is vague and over-broad because of the lack of definition of outdoor entertainment, and that it does not substantially achieve the objectives set out by the Master Plan, among other objections.
The Select Board has 30 days to decide whether to rehear the amendment, which it can do at a regularly noticed board meeting. If the board decides not to grant a rehearing, the petitioners have 30 days within which to file an appeal with the superior court.
The abutters argue that the board should recuse themselves from making a decision on the rehearing because they were the official sponsors of the ordinance, which they allege creates a conflict of interest.
The Select Board did not take any action on the petition after receiving it on Tuesday, and will be consulting with the town’s lawyer on how to proceed.