TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (DRB) MINUTES
October 4, 2023
KILBURN MEETING ROOM
Board Attendees: Tim Waker, John Watanabe, Ray Ferrarin, Catherine Stewart & Mary Shoener
Staff Attendees: Zoning Administrator Peter Brabazon
Public Attendees: Mike Beyer, Todd Beyer, Lauren Schott, Lisa & Merrick, Counsell, Sharry & Chris Rutken & Sylvia Jolivette
Brabazon initiated audio recording. Waker called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of the September 6, 2023, Meeting.
Motion to approve as submitted by Ferrarin seconded by Watanabe motion carried 5-0.
246 Corp, 4572 Main Street, Applicant wishes to open a restaurant at the new location that was at one time retail and requires a hearing due to parking requirements.
Application 2023-08-068 Tax Map ID 36-50-42.00
Waker asked if anyone was present for the application for 246 Corp restaurant application?
With no one present a motion was made by Watanabe to continue the hearing until next meeting scheduled for November 1st.
Watanabe made a motion to continue until the next scheduled meeting on November 1st.
Ferrarin seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
Jai Mataji, LLC, 2187 Depot Street. Application 2022-08-093, Tax Map ID 39-50-81.00.
The applicant has withdrawn their application to amend permit conditions related to item #7 on decision 2022-07-074 to install a total of four new washers and dryers.
With the amendment application withdrawn, the Chairman asked for a motion to close the hearing. Motion made by Watanabe and seconded by Ferrarin to close the hearing. The motion carried 5-0
Heidi & Geoffrey Chamberlain, 353 Pine Tree Lane, Applicant wishes to amend Condition # 7 of the DRB Decision 2022-07-074.
Application 022-09-081 Tax Map ID 14-20-41.02
The hearing has been moved to the next scheduled meeting set for November 1st.
Chairman asked for a motion to continue the hearing until the next scheduled meeting. Ferrarin made the motion and it was seconded by Watanabe. The motion carried 5-0
Todd C. Beyer 5261 Main Street. Applicant wishes to appeal the Zoning Administrator decision to deny adding covered wrap around porch. Application 2023-09-082 Tax Map ID 32-50-20.00
Michael Beyer & Todd C. Beyer gave an over view of the project at 5261 Main Street.
The applicant wishes to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the application to add a covered wrap around deck. The applicant had been denied a permit by the Zoning Administrator on the basis that the structure would intrude in to the Town owned Right of Way.
The applicant represents that the existing front porch is pre-existing non-conforming.
The proposed work is adding a new deck that will wrap around from the side to the front of the house. The applicant intends to match the pre-existing nonconforming building lines & distances.
The applicant represents that the set back for the zoning district for MU1 is 10 feet where the main building is located. This means that the existing porch is encroaching in to the existing setback and considered to be pre-existing non-conforming.
The applicant respectfully submits that the setbacks for the decking will meet the ordinance in that it will not encroach any further in to the setbacks than what already exists with the porch area, for either building line or height. Therefore, it meets the intent of the ordinance.
The applicant is also proposing eliminating one of the two existing driveways.
There are two constraints involved, the first one mentioned is that the existing structure has a 10’ set back and the second constraint is that the Town Right of way that is located on the property would prohibit any building of any structure within 18.6 feet of the curb line.
The Zoning Administrator has pointed out that the Town Right of Way is 18.6’ from the curb line. The applicant proposes to build the deck that would encroach within the Town Right of Way by approximately 2 feet. The proposed wrap around deck will be only 16.5 feet from the curb line.
The applicant is here only to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the denial of the application. If the determination from the DRB is that they agree with the interpretation of the applicant there would be a potential for a waiver for the setback.
The applicant’s interpretation for the non-conforming building line, is the line that is made by the front of the existing porch structure. This front line is parallel to the building and the applicant assumes that this line would define the entire width of the building that would allow expansion.
In contrast, the ZA believes that the width of the porch should also be considered and no additional expansion of width would be allowed for expanding the width of the porch. No further encroachment per 2.8.1 (3) (a)
The language for the nonconforming structures reads as follows:
CHAPTER 3: MANCHESTER LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, Revisions Adopted October 12, 2021
2.8.1 Nonconforming Structures
2.8 Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots
2.8.1 Nonconforming Structures
(1) A nonconforming structure that lawfully existed when the Town of Manchester adopted or
amended this ordinance may continue to exist unchanged indefinitely.
(2) A landowner may obtain a zoning permit, and any applicable development approvals, to use a
nonconforming structure for any land use allowed in the zoning district.
(3) The Zoning Administrator may issue a zoning permit for land development that would change the
exterior dimensions of a nonconforming residential structure provided that the proposed
development:
(a) Will not result in any portion of the nonconforming structure encroaching further beyond
the existing nonconforming building line or height;
(b) Will not convert a nonconforming porch, deck or similar feature to enclosed or
conditioned building space;
(c) Is not subject to conditions from prior approvals or permits that would otherwise restrict
the proposed development; and
(d) Would not otherwise require a development approval from the Development Review
Board.
(4) The Development Review Board may approve a waiver to allow a change in the exterior
dimensions of a nonconforming nonresidential structure upon the applicant demonstrating that
the proposed development:
(a) Will not result in any portion of the nonconforming structure encroaching further beyond
the existing nonconforming building line or height than is necessary to accomplish the
intended goal (e.g., an expanded, improved entry deck);
(b) Will improve the property and will be helpful or necessary to allow for the continued
reasonable use of the property; and
(c) Will not alter the character of the neighborhood, impair reasonable or appropriate use of
adjoining properties, nor cause harm to the public welfare.
(5) Except within the special flood hazard area (see Section 5.3), a landowner may obtain a zoning
permit to repair or reconstruct a nonconforming structure that has been unintentionally damaged
or destroyed by any cause provided that:
(a) The owner submits a complete zoning permit application or a request for an extension
within 12 months of the damage or destruction occurring. The Development Review
Board may grant an extension upon the applicant demonstrating that factors beyond
his/her control have created an unanticipated delay (e.g., insurance claim or litigation).
(b) The repair or reconstruction does not change the exterior dimensions of the structure in a
manner that would result in the repaired or reconstructed structure or portion of the
structure encroaching further beyond the previous nonconforming building line or height.
2.8.2 Nonconforming Uses
(1) A nonconforming use that lawfully existed when the Town of Manchester adopted or amended
this ordinance may continue to exist in its current location and configuration unchanged
indefinitely.
(2) A landowner must not move a nonconforming use from one location to another where it would
also, be a nonconforming use.
(3) A landowner must not resume a nonconforming use that he/she abandoned, discontinued or
replaced with another use for more than 18 months.
(4) The Zoning Administrator may issue a zoning permit to allow a landowner to extend or expand a
nonconforming use to fully occupy space within the associated structure as that structure existed
when the use became nonconforming. The Development Review Board may approve a greater
extension or expansion of a nonconforming use as a conditional use.
(5) The Development Review Board may approve the change of one nonconforming use to another
nonconforming use as a conditional use upon the applicant demonstrating that the proposed
nonconforming use will be less intensive in nature and more compatible with the character of the
area than the existing nonconforming use.
The Zoning Administrator is of the opinion that no further encroachment would be allowable to enlarge a pre-existing non-conforming porch. Notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that he can expand as long as it does not exceed the line formed by the existing non-conforming porch.
2.8.1(3)(a)
(a) Will not result in any portion of the nonconforming structure encroaching further beyond
the existing nonconforming building line or height;
The ZA is of the opinion that the increasing the width of the pre-existing non-complying use would constitute further encroachment.
In addition to the setback encroachment the preliminary sketch plan shows that the wrap around deck would intrude in to the Town Right of Way and therefore would not be allowable.
In summation the ZA believes that the deck as proposed would not be permittable unless the applicant can demonstrate there would be no intrusion in to the Town Right of Way and is able to receive a waiver to expand the deck further in to the front setback. The applicant will be looking in to the State regarding their ROW requirements to present to the Board at the next meeting scheduled for November 1st.
Other Business
Having no further business, the motion was made to adjourn by Watanabe and seconded by Ferrarin. The motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:56
___________________________________________ _____________________________
For the Development Review Board Date