Planning staff provided routine updates at the Rochester Planning Board meeting on June 2, saying revised rules of procedure will be presented at the July meeting and summarizing active development projects and zoning concerns.

The update matters because staff signaled rising development pressure in the city’s agricultural zone and said planning will prepare recommendations on possible changes to subdivision or zoning rules to prevent undesirable precedents.

Staff said revised Planning Board bylaws and rules of procedure have been drafted following earlier board discussion and will be forwarded to the July planning board meeting for further conversation. Staff noted several active projects, including a large townhouse development near Old Gonic Road with more than 150 units in various construction stages, and a new project at 72 Old Milton Road that is under active site work. Staff also said several older approvals are nearing the state’s five‑year vesting window and the department is working interdepartmentally to provide applicants with punch lists so developers can make the necessary progress to vest approvals.

On zoning concerns, staff and board members said they have been seeing more requests that test the boundaries of the agricultural district — for example, lot splits that create very long, narrow parcels that meet minimum acreage on paper but are difficult to use. Planning Board member Peter Bruckner urged staff to prepare possible rule changes for the agricultural zone to prevent a pattern of thin, elongated lots that effectively remove land from productive agricultural use.

Staff also answered board questions about specific approvals: they explained why one McDonald’s location had a documented 24‑hour approval in the record while another did not, and reiterated that hours of operation are applied where they were specified in an application and minutes. Staff offered to provide specific punch‑list items for board members on request but cautioned that those lists vary in length by project.

The board did not take action on these updates; they were provided for information and for future agenda work on bylaws and possible zoning amendments.