TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Attendees: Greg Boshart (Chair), Tina Cutler, Ana Rahona, Leon Ward, Chris Glabach (arrived at 7:10, departed at 9:00).
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director), Peter Brabazon (Assistant Zoning Administrator).
Public Attendees: Jason P. Morrissey, Bill Laberge, Letitia Scordinio, Craig & Gretchen Hunter, Ron Levene, Linda Benway, Paul Hardy, Tim & Dody Boucher, Jim Hand, Pete Giese, Chris Ponessi, Ramsay Gourd, Robert Rodrick, Debbie Hayes-McGraw, Kenneth T. McGraw, Dom Penge, Kerry McCormack, Brad Buitenhuys, Glenn Cestaro, Slyvia Jolivette, Martin White, Jessica Hanlon, Mark Lenza, Joe Miles, Cynthia Kilburn, Steve Berry, Jonathan Bilshi, John Watanabe, Mike Tuller, Carl Bucholt, Lynn Rawson, Bill Badger, Beth Friedman, Oliver Levis.
Boshart called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. He invited people to sign in and refer to 3 copies of the proposed ordinance on a table at the side of the room and on maps displayed at the front of the room. He requested that people state their name and indicate their town of residence before offering comments.
Minutes from 12-9-2019 were approved by unanimous consent.
Richville Road Solar Project. Pete Giese presented illustrations of the current conditions on the site, and simulated winter and summer views of the site with proposed solar panels. He explained the illustrations depict the view from the intersection of Green Mountain Road and Richville Road. The simulations indicate that the view of the Mount Equinox Ridgeline would not be obstructed by the panels or the proposed landscape screening. Giese said the landscape screening was designed by a landscape architect to provide a randomly spaced mix of deciduous and evergreen species to mimic a natural pattern rather than a monolithic wall as requested by the town. Panels will be more visible in the winter months. Giese explained that in response to concerns about flood hazards, the northern row of panels was removed and the access drive relocated to the southern end of the facility. He said the proposal adheres to all ANR standards for source protection. Giese said his group is sensitive to invasive species issues and will monitor and manage the site accordingly.
Boshart explained that the Planning Commission was asked by the Selectboard to consider this request for preferred site designation and received information on the proposed development at the December meeting. A decision was deferred to allow input from neighbors and to allow the developer time to provide details on what the site would look like and allow the commission to assess whether the view of the Mount Equinox Ridgeline would be impeded. In anticipation of future requests for preferred site status, Boshart reported that the commission is working on drafting a scorecard. The completed draft scorecard for the site was shared on screen and discussed. Residential neighbors Dom Penge, Tim Boucher, Ken McGraw, Martin White, and Glenn Cestaro all expressed concerns about the proposed development, including concerns that it would exacerbate flood hazards on neighboring properties, it would be damaged by regular flood events, it would devalue neighboring residential properties, and there are more appropriate sites that are not near residential neighborhoods. Cestaro shared an article published in the Manchester Journal online on January 1, 2020, which outlined Manchester's biggest news stories of 2019 and included the flood damage caused in this area by January and April weather events. He also questioned who would enforce landscape screening requirements. Penge pointed out that the neighborhood here is the most densely residential in the town.
Carl Bucholt expressed strong support for the proposed facility, asserting that we are in a climate emergency and all of us are called to contribute to addressing it. Bucholt suggested that "preferred site" is a misnomer because this proposed net-metered facility cannot happen without the designation. Bucholt contended that an engineer should address the flood and ice concerns. Boshart agreed that he would like to know whether the facility would exacerbate flooding on neighboring properties. Hurley explained that the only jurisdiction that the town has on this matter is to designate the site as preferred or not. Boshart indicated that the commission would defer a decision until its next meeting on February 10, 2020, at 7:00 p.m.
Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Changes. Boshart opened the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance. He gave some background on the commission's efforts and read the statutory Planning Commission Report. Boshart explained that changes to zoning district boundaries would be presented first, attendees would be invited to comment on the map changes, then an overview of sign changes would be presented, followed by discussion of the proposed sign changes.
Self-storage Use. Boshart explained that the commission had decided to propose adding self-storage as a conditional use in the Mixed Use 2 (MU2), and had intended that it not be allowed in the Aquifer Protection Overlay (APO). However, the draft does not include self-storage as a prohibited use in the APO-B. He asked commissioners whether they wanted to add it to the prohibited list, or keep the draft as is, understanding that the commission would later evaluate all allowed uses in the APO. Commissioners agreed to proceed with the revisions as drafted. Chris Heins presented Boshart with a copy of a petition. Heins said the original petition would be submitted to the Town Clerk. Boshart asked if Heins understood that the commission had just decided to allow self-storage use in the MU2 and therefore in the APO-B as well. Heins responded that he did but would submit the petition nonetheless.
Map Changes. Hurley presented several proposed zoning boundary revisions as depicted and projected on screen. Boshart then invited comment. Chris Ponessi indicated that his clients, the Biederwolfs, would be effected by the proposed change for the properties on West Fields. He submitted an application for a zoning permit to construct a house on the site within the area proposed to be changed to Forest Conservation (FC). Hurley indicated that she would be issuing a permit accordingly. In order to protect rights to develop accessory structures or additions, Ponessi requested that the zoning change not include the Biederwolf parcel. He noted that the Biederwolfs have gone through the process of approval from the homeowners association and state water and wastewater permitting, and that the house will be at the same elevation as neighboring houses. Boshart asked commissioners for a decision on this request. Rahona motioned to retain the Rural Agricultural zoning on the center of the three lots on West Fields. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Jason Morrissey, representing the owners of 246 Bonnet Street, requested that the parcel be included in the Mixed Use 1 (MU1) district instead of the Residential 4 (R4) district currently in effect on the location. Hurley displayed the parcel on screen showing the current zoning and the FEMA-mapped flood hazard area. Nearly the entire parcel falls within the Flood Hazard Overlay, with about half of it in the floodway. This means that much of the site is undevelopable, and any new development in the remainder would have to meet flood proofing standards. Boshart motioned to include the 246 Bonnet Street parcel in the Mixed Use 1 zoning district. Cutler seconded the motion. There was discussion about development limitations due to the flood hazard. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Paul Hardy representing the owner of the Green Mountain Village Shops property on Main Street expressed opposition to the proposed change from Downtown (DN) to Mixed Use 1 (MU1) for the rear portion of the property that was recently approved as a separate lot. He is concerned that the change would adversely impact this new lot and is reluctant to record the final Mylar plat with this proposal looming. He noted that the subdivision was conceived to unencumber the forward portion of the property from the rear portion on which continued environmental monitoring is required after chemical contamination mitigation and clean-up. Over the course of recent years, Hardy explained, the shopping center had deteriorated and the separation of the rear portion might free up financing for, or sale of, the forward portion. Based on values of adjacent commercial and residential properties, Hardy contended that changing the zoning as proposed would significantly devalue the rear portion. He noted that access to this rear piece is from Main Street across the front piece and that it would make no sense to include this in the MU1, the rest of which is accessed exclusively from Bonnet Street. Boshart asked Hurley to explain the impetus for the proposed change. Hurley indicated it was to offer a buffer to the adjacent property zoned Residential 4 (R4). Boshart asked if this was the only instance where the DN district abutted the R4 district. Hurley confirmed that it was by displaying the current zoning on screen. Hurley challenged Hardy's contention that a zoning change would result in a significant change in value. She offered that the value was primarily based on its use and development, not on the underlying zoning. She also contended that finalizing the subdivision would not change any effect a change in zoning would have. Glabach motion to keep the rear portion of the property in the DN district. Ward seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1-0, with Cutler voting in the negative.
Oliver Levis expressed support for the proposed change from Forest Conservation (FC) to Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning for the two Donner Brook Road parcels. He and his brother purchased the property with adjacent acreage based on the old zoning. Levis explained that it is all enrolled in the Vermont current use program and the Levis' have no plans to develop it. In fact, reestablishing the development potential would be important for the value of a conservation easement on the lands. Boshart thanked Levis for his input.
Robert Rodrick indicated he owns 221 Windsor Road and asked for discussion of the implications of the proposed change of a portion of his property from Rural Agricultural (RA) to Forest Conservation (FC). Boshart noted that the original zoning boundary essentially reflected a desire to protect the ridgeline from development, and as such could be considered an elevation line. The 2018 change was inadvertent and the current proposal would reinstate the "elevational" line. There was extended discussion about what development rights Rodrick's parcel may have under current RA zoning. Boshart reiterated that the intent is to keep the long-established vertical development line intact. He read the list of allowed uses in the FC district. Roderick indicated that he came looking for answers to questions. He did not request a change in the proposal.
Hurley displayed proposed River Corridor and Design Review Overlay maps on screen. She explained that River Corridors are part of the Flood Hazard Overlay (FHO), but were not previously included in the mapping, and that they could not be effectively displayed with the FEMA-defined flood hazard areas because they are so coincident. She explained the Residential 10 (R10) district is proposed to be included in the Design Review Overlay (DRO), but that single- and two-family use would be exempt from design review.
Sign Changes. Boshart transitioned to proposed sign changes largely resulting from a mandate for content neutral regulation of signs. Hurley added that revisions also aimed to allow for sign dimensions that were proportional to the buildings on which they are mounted and the lots on which they are located. Boshart read the proposed content neutrality language and reviewed what kinds of changes would not trigger permitting. Hurley suggested that there may need to be a phrase added to indicate changes in sign design within design review districts would require a permit. Boshart then read the proposed new definition of sign. Sylvia Jolivette remarked that we should be careful not to allow too much signage and that in some areas of town the signage is overwhelming. Bucholt questioned why signs painted on pavement should not be subject to permitting. Proposed figures illustrating the various types of signs and how they should be mounted were presented on screen, as was one showing how sign area should be calculated for different forms of signage.
Tables showing allowable numbers and sizes of permanent signs were then shared on screen. Hurley explained that the aim was to try to tie the number and size of signs to facade and frontage lengths. Craig Hunter of Manchester Designer Outlets expressed concern that the proposed rules would adversely affect multitenant properties such as Manchester Square with a 180 foot facade and 6 to 8 tenants, or the Crystal Palace with a 100 foot facade and 6 to 10 tenants. Hurley said the intent was not to make multitenant buildings have to have smaller signs, so the commission is receptive to making changes in the language in response to this concern.
In response to confusion about how sculptural signs were presented in the proposed Table 10-2, Hurley explained that such a sign can either be freestanding or a wall sign. Kerry McCormack of Crosspoint Associates also expressed concerns about how the proposed language might restrict signage on multitenant buildings. Brad Buitenhuys of Crosspoint Associates proposed adding "per tenant" to the astricized explanation of wall size limit calculation under Table 10-2 to read: "Total area of wall signage per tenant must not exceed ...." Commissioners agreed with this suggestion. Hurley suggested that commissioners review the implications of the suggested language before the next meeting.
Boshart directed the discussion to rules for window signs. Currently coverage of 25% percent of the window area for an entire facade is allowed, even if the sign then covers almost all of one of the windows. He asserted that the intent was not to allow this. Hunter said he had always interpreted the rule to be 25% per window. Hurley suggested that would be too restrictive and illustrated three picture windows along a facade, with a large sign in one of them as a common and acceptable practice.
Glabach departed the meeting. Cutler made a motion to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0.
Jolivette asked about the proposed registration process for temporary signs. The process was explained and discussed. Linda Benway questioned whether allowing continual renewal would lead to permanent signage. Hurley suggested that perhaps it is the physical characteristics of such a sign that would define it as temporary. For example, a yard sign is a temporary sign. There was further discussion of the proposed temporary sign rules relative to the 2015 SCOTUS ruling. Boshart concluded the discussion on temporary signs suggesting the proposed rules would allow redress if problems with temporary sign display arose. Boshart then suggested drafting language to limit sign coverage of any individual window to 50% to be considered at the next meeting.
Hunter complemented the work that went into the revisions, unintended consequences of the proposed rules aside. Benway also thanked the commissioners for their work. Jolivette agreed that the commission's work was good. Boshart thanked them and indicated their input was an important part of the process. Cutler motioned to recess the hearing until February 10, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0.
Boshart indicated that the commission would decide the preferred site request before reopening the hearing on February 10. The meeting ended at 9:30 p.m. according to the rules. The next meeting of the commission will be February 10, 2020, at 7:00 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date