Town of Manchester, Vermont
Development Review Board
Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2021
Development Review Board Present: Tim Waker, John Watanabe, Ray Ferrarin, Cathy Stewart, John Kennedy.
Staff Present: Planning & Zoning Director Janet Hurley.
Also Present: Lauren Engel, Will Davis, Trent Gelo, Tucker Jones, Gina Anzivino, George Williams, Matthew & Courtney Weir, Deb Daniels Mithoefer, Lisa Johnson Schultz, Lynda Johnson Daley, Ed French (via Zoom), Kevin Mullaney, Rolf Biggers (via Zoom), Chris Ponessi, Kirk Moore (via Zoom), Larry Dalziel (via Zoom), Eugene Healy, Slates Snider (via Zoom), Brian Benson (via Zoom), Missy Johnson (Via Zoom), Carmen Napolitano, Greg Harrington (Via Zoom), Ron Rodriguez, Karen Geriak, Adam Dworkin.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hurley initiated recording, Waker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the October 20, 2021, Meeting.
Ferrarin motioned to approve the minutes of the October 20, 2021, as corrected. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-1 with Kennedy abstaining.
Lauren Engle, 1097 River Road, Conditional use and site plan review for event venue with waiver request, continued hearing. Application 2021-08-073, Tax Map ID 22-20-24.03.
Waker administered the oath to Lauren Engel, Will Davis, Trent Gelo, Edward French, Gina Anzivino, George Williams, Matthew Weir, Courtney Weir, and Deb Mithoefer. Engel described the lower profile lighting plan and apologized for miscommunications that led to the previous lighting plan. Hurley displayed lighting details on screen as they were discussed. At patio the lights will face inward only and be affixed to fence posts at three feet height. Davis said there would be 500 lumens total for the whole patio. The location and number of the six wall sconces were discussed. Watanabe asked for confirmation that the lights would be extinguished when events ended. Engle confirmed that. Engel reported that the sound engineer made an error in typing the report, but that the computer program used the correct distance for the Weir location. Engel offered a clarification for Anzivino site from the south engineer as well.
Waker indicated that conditional use review gives the town the opportunity to put restrictions on activities with community input. He acknowledged receipt of 4 letters from neighbors Anzivino, Williams, Mithoefer, and Weir expressing concerns about the proposed wedding venue. He thanked these neighbors for their input and indicated it would help the DRB formulate a decision. French pointed out that wedding events on warm summer evenings would coincide with rural residents’ enjoyment of their properties under these ideal conditions. He indicated that the proposed wedding venue lighting would be inappropriate for the area character.
Mithoefer said that she floated potential conditions that should be placed on the wedding venue, including a prohibition against fireworks. She has large animals and is concerned for the safety of both animals and their caregivers. She thanked the applicant for a lower profile lighting plan. She also recommended requiring added vegetation at the south end of the parking lot, which is elevated above the berm, rather than relying only on existing vegetation. Williams asked the board to consider not setting an undesirable precedent. He is concerned that enforcement of conditions will not be pragmatic and neighbors will have little recourse if events operate out of compliance with conditions of approval.
M. Weir outlined concerns he and C. Weir raised in their letter. He noted that his house is closer to the barn than the 900 feet indicated in the sound study. He also contended that excess runoff from the proposed wedding venue would result in exacerbated flooding issues on his property intended for agricultural use. He argued that having a wedding venue so close to his property would have marked negative effects on his property value. It would degrade the peace and quiet of (as well as his financial investment in) the property.
Kennedy asked Weir how drainage from the wedding venue would affect his property. Weir explained that according to the stormwater engineering for the Engel project, runoff from the venue would enter a town pipe under River Road that discharges onto his property. M. Weir wondered whether there were additional mistakes in the sound study. He also expressed concerns about traffic safety and suggested there were barriers to adequate site distances along River Road. He asked the DRB to conduct a traffic study. He reported a snow board in the road and an electric tow line that is used on the Applicant’s property for snowboarding and questioned whether this was another commercial operation. Engel indicated that it was for personal enjoyment and friends.
Watanabe asked what the distance to the Weir house is and asked whether water from the west side of the road discharged onto the Weir property. Weir said that the distance is 842 feet and that water from the west side of the road crosses over to his property via two culverts. Hurley displayed satellite imagery of the vicinity and indicated the location of the northerly culvert discharge on the Weir property. She measured the distance between the barn and the Weir house as approximately 874 feet according to Google Maps. Referencing noise impacts of events at Earth Sky Time and Hildene, Anzivino expressed her concerns about noise. She said that the slope behind the barn venue would act as an acoustic shell directing sound east across the valley. She recommended restrictions on the number of events to mitigate these impacts.
Ferrarin asked what type of fencing would be maintained around the proposed patio. Engel indicated the existing rail fencing would be extended. Kennedy asked whether Engel had communicated with any of the neighbors. Engel indicated that she had discussions with Anzivino, Williams, and Mithoefer. Waker asked whether there were any further questions or comments. None were offered.
Watanabe motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Manchester Hotel Associates II, LLC, 4595 Main Street, Conditional use, site plan, and design review for microbrewery/restaurant with waiver request, continued hearing. Application 2021-09-091, Tax Map ID 36-50-17.00.
Waker administered the oath to Kirk Moore, Kevin Mullaney, Chris Ponessi, Rolf Biggers, and Slates Snider. Waker asked for confirmation that the Applicant was in agreement with the Design Advisory Committee (DAC) recommendations on the building design. Hurley displayed the recommendations on screen. Moore explained that the finishes offer more contrast between the two wings of the building and confirmed agreement with the DAC recommendations. Waker asked whether there were any further questions on the building design. None were offered. Moore noted that the Applicant agreed to all the numbered items in the staff review. Moore reiterated that no outdoor music is proposed. Moore indicated that the second recessed light has been eliminated from the plan and waste storage will be on a concrete foundation and slab.
Waker asked for an explanation of the mountable curb idea for the north curb of the intersection of the north access drive with Main Street. Moore and Ponessi described mountable curbing as like at the roundabouts. A flare out at the north corner would allow larger turning radius, and a mountable center at the south side to discourage lefthand turns. Waker would like to hear from the fire department on the idea. Ponessi explained that essentially a mountable curb provides a larger turning radius for trucks while maintaining the smaller radius for other vehicles. Kennedy asked whether a larger vehicle could drive over the center mountable curbing. Ponessi confirmed that it could and added that a structural practice to discourage left hand turns will function better than signage. Moore confirmed that the applicant will cooperate with the town concerning any crosswalk changes.
Moore indicated that white ash is still on the recommended tree planting list. Board members suggested that ash should not be used, particularly not along the street due to the presence of Emerald Ash Borer. Hurley indicated that it is no longer recommended in our area. She said that once infested, mortality is 90 to 100% within two to five years. Moore said he would replace the white ash with Sargent Cherry. Kennedy asked whether the proposed landscaping provides sufficient screening of the parking lots. Ponessi indicated that the existing plantings along the south parking area are a mixture of hydrangea and others at about 2-3 feet high. Moore indicated that other proposed plantings would be 3 to 5 feet high.
Ferrarin asked about the plantings proposed along the marble stone walls, suggesting the marble should not be completely obscured. Moore indicated that the proposed creeping juniper would reveal the marble. Moore agreed that the marble should not be obscured by plantings (hostas and summer sweet). Ferrarin asked whether marble blocks or marble veneer would be used for the wall. Moore explained that has not yet been detailed, but the intent is to simulate and old marble wall. Kennedy asked Ferrarin if he had a preference. Ferrarin indicated that solid marble would last and be less likely to require repair. Moore indicated the free standing marble wall along the southside dining patio would most likely be made with solid marble stone while a marble veneer at least 3 inches thick would likely be used along foundation walls.
Waker asked about height of trees proposed under power lines. Moore indicated that the Sargent Cherry would be substituted for the white ash and they are about 20 feet high at maturity. Ferrarin asked how the building would be heated and cooled. Moore said propane fired rooftop units are proposed. Ponessi indicated they would be hidden behind the rear parapet wall. Stewart asked whether the waiver request to not have a functional second story had been addressed. Hurley said it was reviewed at a previous meeting. Moore said that the application narrative addressed the waiver request. Ponessi reported that a draft Act 250 permit on the project was posted for public comment today.
Kennedy asked what the environmental load of the building would be, whether there are energy improvements from when the hotel was built, and whether the best technologies be employed. Moore indicated that the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards present a high bar and the building will meet the standards. He said that the Vermont energy standards have been raised since the hotel was built, so the new building will be higher performing. Kennedy asked whether the building would be able to incorporate new technologies as they emerge. Moore surmised that it would be able to do so. Ferrarin further explored proposed interior energy features with Moore. Kennedy asked if there was any chance to capture energy from the brew process. Moore replied that was being explored.
Benson questioned whether stormwater measures were adequate to address runoff from the proposed building and impervious surfaces. Ponessi said that no pervious pavement was proposed, but that the subsurface system shared with the hotel will adequately treat runoff generated by the new development. Moore indicated new impervious cover would be 1.52 acres. This is a reduction from what the system was previously permitted to treat. Waker and Hurley reported that DPW Director Jeff Williams was satisfied with the stormwater system. Johnson expressed concerns about runoff. She asserted that a building and impervious cover of this size will cause problems. Moore responded that stormwater will be captured and treated on site as required by the state permit. Hurley indicated the town permit also requires this.
Johnson also expressed concerns about fumes, noise and light pollution affecting the Hillvale neighborhood. She said she is opposed to the proposal because it will have negative affects on the adjacent residential neighborhood. Snider addressed the issue of fumes explaining that there will be no vent stack, and that vapors will be condensed and disposed of with wastewater. Mullaney pointed out that the intent is to minimize impacts on neighbors and hotel guests. Benson asked to see the building illustrations (Hurley displayed them on screen) and asked how runoff from the front of the building would be mitigated. Moore said runoff would be captured in gutters and downspouts and routed to the system. Benson offered that he thinks the building will cause runoff issues and asked the DRB to take a serious look at the consequences. Mullaney added that the runoff problem from the power conduit will be resolved with this project. Stewart questioned whether gutters were workable on standing seam roof. Moore insisted they were and confirmed guards would be used on the standing seam.
Waker asked if there were any further comments of questions. Stewart motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Manchester Elementary & Middle School, 80 Memorial Avenue, Site and design plan for parking lot lighting with height waiver. Application 2021-09-097, Tax Map ID 32-50-32.00.
Waker administered the oath to Greg Harrington and Carmen Napolitano. Waker indicated that he would like to conduct a site visit and asked Harrington to mark the proposed light locations in the parking lot. Harrington explained that the lot was recently repaved and to avoid digging it up, fewer taller lights around perimeter were preferred. Sixteen foot height would require two poles in the center of the lot to attain the recommended light levels for safety. The twenty-two foot height eliminates the need for the center poles. Hurley asked whether temporary portable lights could be employed until the matter could be resolved.
Waker asked where the poles would be located and where the one remaining light was. Hurley and Harrington explained the photometrics plan and Harrington described where the existing lighting remained. The board will conduct a site visit at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 9, 2021. Harrington will mark each proposed pole location. He noted that previous lighting was mounted on 6”x6” pressure treated poles that were lost by attrition. Only two lights remain and the parking lot is not safe after dark. Napolitano expressed concerns about the effects of too much lighting on his adjacent multifamily residential property. He wondered whether a solution should be sought that does not exceed the height limit and whether some screening might be called for. Hurley showed the photometric plan and explained disbursement of light shown in lumens. No light would be cast into windows of adjacent properties, but the light would be readily visible.
Ferrarin motioned to recess the hearing until December 1, 2021. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Rodriguez, 4659 Main Street, Site and design plan for shed. Application 2021-09-100, Tax Map ID 31-50-35.01.
Waker administered the oath to Ron Rodriguez. Hurley displayed photos of the shed as installed without a permit and the site plan. Rodriguez explained that the 10’ x 12’ shed was placed on the parking space that he or a tenant has used exclusively for 16 years. He referred to the shared parking arrangement that was established with the High Ridge development and argued that parking that was designated on the south side of the building would never have been approved under today’s standards. He noted that the shed is screened from view from Main Street by arborvitae. He acknowledged that he did this three weeks ago without obtaining a permit to take advantage of a good deal on the shed. He will paint it to match the building as recommended by the Design Advisory Committee. He will remove the dead tree next to the shed.
There was more discussion about the shared parking arrangements. Waker indicated that he would like to conduct a site visit on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, at about 9:30 a.m. directly following the MEMS site visit. Rodriguez indicated that he would be out of town, but welcomed the board to look around the site and said he would ask his neighbor Jeanne Cole to be there.
Watanabe motioned to recess the hearing until December 1, 2021. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Stewart motioned to reopen the hearing for five minutes to hear from Dworkin. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Dworkin swore to tell the truth and argued that the parking lot is shared and the DRB cannot allow the shed to take up this parking space without taking his deeded rights away. He also noted that the shared parking includes two spaces at the south end of the Rodriguez building that have already been taken away by the applicant. Hurley assured that the board will review these deeded parking arrangements. Waker asked that Dworkin send a letter to the board via Hurley about his concerns. Dworkin will share the deed documents with town staff so that they can be provided to board members.
Watanabe motioned to recess the hearing until December 1, 2021. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Geriak, 4645 Main Street, Site and design plan for restaurant. Application 2021-10-105. Tax Map ID 31-50-35.02.
Waker administered the oath to Karen Geriak and Adam Dworkin.
Kennedy motioned to extend the meeting to 9:45. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Geriak described elements of her site and design plan while Hurley display them on screen. The plan includes replacing the 4’ bollard lights throughout the parking lot with pole lights at the appropriate height (this means involving the north lot with buildings at 4697 and 4709 Main Street). Geriak and Dworkin explained that she needs a safer situation for insurance purposes. Geriak clarified specifications of the proposed pole lights. Geriak explained the shared parking arrangements. She and Dworkin control the lot and Rodriguez is responsible for 41% of the costs of upkeep. Rodriguez has rights to use 12 spaces on the site shared with Geriak and Dworkin, who have rights to 17 spaces on the site. There was discussion of the history of ownership and the High Ridge Development while Hurley showed the parcel mapping on the screen. Geriak and Dworkin also have access to 21 spaces at the Battenkill Plaza site, and 16 spaces at the Hampton Inn site. Waker requested a site plan showing the 29 parking spaces.
Geriak continued describing her plans for the Cold Cow site, which include a fieldstone patio and fieldstone wall capped with bluestone behind the building, removing the existing asphalt. Lights are proposed within the wall. A freezer and shed are also proposed to be placed behind the building. There was discussion about plans for the dumpster to be on the northerly site during the summer months but then moved back to the Cold Cow site behind the building for winter months. Hurley pointed out that the dumpster would damage the bluestone. Geriak said that they would have to carve into the bank to place it in that case. Waker asked that the locations of these elements be marked for the Tuesday site visit. In the front of the building Geriak said she plans to remove the center walkway and install four rectangular table pads for four picnic tables. She would like a split rail fence during the summer months only. Kennedy asked if the pink precast concrete barriers would be removed. Geriak confirmed that they would be. She proposed residing the building with hardiboard. She proposed retaining pink and grey color scheme.
Stewart motioned to extend the meeting for five additional minutes. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Waker arranged to conduct a site visit coincident with the Rodriguez site visit at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday.
Ferrarin motioned to recess the hearing until December 1, 2021. Kennedy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Hurley and board members noted that two hearings were closed, Engel and Microbrewery. Kennedy motioned to go into closed deliberative session. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:57 p.m. Hurley ended the recording.
Ferrarin motioned to adjourn. Stewart seconded the motion. The motion carried at 10:22 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________
For the Development Review Board Date