Town of Manchester, Vermont
Development Review Board
Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2022
Development Review Board Present: Tim Waker, John Watanabe, Ray Ferrarin, Cathy Stewart (via Zoom), John Kennedy.
Staff Present: Planning & Zoning Director Janet Hurley.
Also Present: Pete & Andrea Conrad (via Zoom), Nancy Hadley, Sue Raggo, Norma Saks, Pat Glabach, Tim Ryan (Via Zoom). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hurley initiated recording, Waker called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes of the December 1, 2021, Meeting.
Ferrarin motioned to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2021. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Conrad Property Management, LLC, 345, 347 & 349 Bonnet Street, Site and design plan review for new building addition, relocation of parking lot, and removal of pond with lot merger and waiver request. Application 2021-12-129, Tax Map ID 31-50-06.00 & 31-50-06.01.
Waker administered the oath to Pete & Andrea Conrad, and Nancy Hadley. P. Conrad described the project, which includes plans to rebuild the rear wing of the house at 345 Bonnet Street to serve as the Conrad’s residence, removal of a pond that has become a liability, and construction of a parking lot as was previously approved. He described the landscape buffering that will be planted. Hurley displayed site plan on screen. P. Conrad noted that she was showing the original site plan. Hurley then displayed the revised site plan that addressed some of the issues raised in the staff review and Design Advisory Committee meeting. (There were some technical issues in displaying the plan on the shared screen.) Waker asked about the proposed Boundary Line Adjustment. Hurley explained the project would merge two lots previously subdivided by the stream course.
P. Conrad explained that Ellis Speath had gained approval for the parking lot in the 1990s. Hurley explained that the subdivision approval was conditioned on the construction of this parking lot, but it was never built, and the ZA did not follow up. Hurley described her correspondence with the Agency of Transportation (AOT) which has jurisdiction over the road access. She said her impression is that AOT will want to consider whether only one curbcut would be possible, and if not the access point for the parking lot will likely be from the north side of the parking lot rather than the south side as shown on the site plan so that it is further away from Riverside Townhouses Road. She added it is not considered good access management to have two access points right next to each other like that. P. Conrad said he would meet with AOT next week on site. He added that he does not see how this can be accommodated from one curbcut. The Conrads described the untenable parking situation that they have now. Hurley agreed the state will want the existing parking area to disappear. P. Conrad explained that to put it off of the other drive would impede the scenic views from the Inn.
Watanabe asked whether the Conrads would be willing to wait until the state issued its determination. P. Conrad said he would be okay with that if he could get approval to build the living quarters more immediately. He indicated that the family has been living amongst the guests of the inn and this situation is increasingly untenable. Hurley suggested the DRB could grant an approval contingent on getting the AOT approval and then submitting the site plan reflecting the state approved curb cut. Kennedy commented that the proposed building is about one for one with what is there now. P. Conrad confirmed this saying instead of four apartments it will be one living space for his family. Hurley displayed the architectural elevations. A. Conrad commented that the new wing is prettier than the existing.
Watanabe inquired as to whether the applicant was prepared to move forward if the state were to deny the second curbcut. P. Conrad indicated that he wants to work with the town and the state to get that parking lot off of Route 30, but the house has to be built. Ferrarin asked about the front part of the building. P. Conrad said it is used as a bed and breakfast, and the back wing would accommodate the family on both floors. The Conrads confirmed that they currently park in the rear parking lot and would continue to do so. Waker asked how much larger the new wing would be from the existing. The Conrads indicated that the existing rear wing of the house is 2520 sq. ft. and the new rear wing would be 370 sq. ft. larger.
There was a lengthy discussion about how to proceed before the state issues a permit for road access (curbcut). Hurley suggested that the DRB should make its own determination as to whether a second curbcut is warranted and where it should be located. If the state approves a significantly different configuration, the Applicant should return to seek a permit amendment. Watanabe asked whether the Conrads were okay with a curbcut on the north side of the parking lot. The Conrads confirmed they were. Waker considered the waiver criteria each in turn. Allowing a second curbcut would not alter the character of the area or the use of adjacent property. DRB members felt safety would be improved with the removal of the existing parking area. The reconfiguration would be beneficial to the continued reasonable use of the property. Hurley summarized that mitigation would be provided by the improved access and increased landscaping with multiple trees planted.
The Conrads explained that they no longer seek to add a fence along the frontage and that two existing pole lights are to be removed in the vicinity of the parking area to be reclaimed. The Conrads said there will be no lighting installed for the new parking lot. Existing lighting from the porch and spot lights on the south side of the building will suffice. Hurley and board members indicated that the existing lighting would need to be shown to comply with current standards – shielded, downcasting, and LED not exceeding 3000K color temperature. P. Conrad said lights could be added on the new trash enclosure if they were needed for safety. Hurley said in that case that a permit amendment could be issued to allow such lighting not currently proposed.
The Conrads explained the new trash enclosure would be sided with barn board and appear like a little hen house with rolling trash bins inside. Hurley noted that if the driveway is relocated to the north side of the parking lot instead of the south side as shown on the plan, the proposed walkway will have to be reconfigured. P. Conrad explained that he got pricing for pervious pavement for the parking lot. Hurley noted that the plans should include engineering details for the parking lot and driveway, or these details should be submitted before construction begins on the driveway and parking lot. There was discussion about the tendency for a puddle to form across the existing parking area. Hurley pointed out that the site plan does not include engineering details because it was drawn by a surveyor due to the unavailability of local civil engineers. It was concluded that upon reclamation, stormwater infiltration should occur to prevent such puddling.
Kennedy asked what happens along the streambed during high water events (Spring and heavy rains). P. Conrad explained that the culvert needs to be installed deeper and that the state allowed for removal of vegetation to maintain flow. Kennedy asked about runoff from the hill above the property. P. Conrad explained that runoff from the Stoney Fields subdivision enters his property along the back slope and winds around the building at 349 Bonnet and then courses southerly through the center of the property. He said he is in communication with the Stoney Fields association about the situation. P. Conrad confirmed that there is a pipe under the pavement that directs this flow. Hurley said it should be shown on the site plan.
Kennedy asked whether the pond functions as a buffer. P. Conrad indicated that it does not, rather it fills in with silt. A. Conrad noted the stream flow is minimal in the summer. Hadley expressed concern that the removal of the pond will increase flow onto the Riverside Townhouses property and overwhelm the Riverside Townhouses culvert. Hadley reported that this low area has flooded over the road a few times in recent years. She is also concerned about the health of the wetlands and wildlife that inhabit this area. Hurley noted that removal of the pond will restore the natural course of the stream. Kennedy noted that it appears that the pond does not function as a buffer. Waker surmised that the issues may derive from areas above this property. Board members and Hurley advised Hadley that the Riverside Townhouses Road culvert installed in the 1980s or 90s is likely undersized for today’s more frequent and larger storm events.
There was extended discussion about the removal of the pond. In short, it was explained that the pond removal was a stream restoration project that would not lead to increased flows onto the Riverside Townhouses property. Waker indicated that ponds are often constructed with an impermeable barrier to prevent infiltration and that removal of the pond could improve infiltration on the Conrad site. Hurley explained that the parking lot needs to be engineered properly to prevent increased runoff to the Riverside Townhouses property. Waker asserted that the DRB will require this. Hurley added that eventually having mature trees there will also help take up more water. Hadley asked the Conrads whether the back slope was planted with landscaping. P. Conrad confirmed that it was planted with wildflowers and grass. Raggo asked what will take the place of the pond. P. Conrad answered that it would be lawn. Hurley explained that the proposed tree plantings would also help with infiltration, as trees soak up a lot of water.
Ferrarin and Stewart commented that hemlocks are subject to infestation by woolly adelgid and recommended alternatives to hemlock. Stewart said that spruce are a good choice. Ferrarin suggested avoiding white pine. Kennedy suggested American sycamore as a large tree that grows in wet areas and would aid onsite water infiltration. Waker asked where snow plowed from the new parking lot would be stored. P. Conrad said it would be pushed right off the back. A. Conrad indicated that parking spaces would be striped and she would like to provide a bike rack on site. Waker addressed numbered items in the staff review that had not yet been discussed. Hurley indicated that reserved handicapped parking would need to be provided in compliance with ADA standards.
The Conrads specified that the walkway would be stamped concrete. P. Conrad confirmed that he was in agreement with adding a hedgerow to screen the parking lot from view from Bonnet Street. Hurley indicated that engineering details should be submitted prior to construction. Hurley noted that the specifications of the new trash enclosure should also be provided prior to construction for review by the Design Advisory Committee. Hurley advocated approval with conditions that engineering details are provided before construction of the relevant elements. She reiterated that engineers are not currently available to provide these details. She maintained they are routine engineering details that the DRB can require that they be submitted before construction. Stewart noted that the site plan does not show the proposed footprint accurately. The Conrads confirmed that it will need to be corrected. Stewart noted that the site plan incorrectly identifies Riverside Townhouses Road as Riverside Heights and that should be corrected.
Ferrarin asked the Conrads if they had considered installing solar panels. P. Conrad said that the new construction would meet current energy codes and he would consider solar later in the year if rebates are offered through Efficiency Vermont. Watanabe asked Hurley if she was comfortable with the idea of closing the hearing before the state makes a decision on the access issue. Hurley said that DRB could issue a conditioned approval. If the state approves something different, the Conrads can come back for a permit amendment. Stewart said she was not comfortable closing the hearing with so many outstanding details.
Kennedy motioned to close the hearing. Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-1, with Stewart voting in the negative.
Other Business
Watanabe asked the Conrads to let Hurley know the results of their meeting with the state AOT representative. P. Conrad said he would invite Hurley to attend the site visit.
Hurley reported that a property management company went into the former glass shop on Elm Street on the condition that it get a site plan approval before the end of March. She said that the new Shell station is also working on a site plan application. The board decided that the next meeting should be moved from February 2 to February 16, 2022, since these applications have not come in yet.
In response to questioning from Ferrarin and Stewart regarding the Conrad properties, Hurley explained that the parcel data only identifies one address per parcel, and address data per building is better provided on the Vermont E911 viewer.
Stewart motioned to adjourn. Watanabe seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:17 p.m. Hurley ended the zoom session.
_____________________________________ ______________________
For the Development Review Board Date