TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Attendees: Tina Cutler, Ana Rahona, Leon Ward, Chris Glabach. Absent: Greg Boshart.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director), John O’Keefe (Town Manager) Eric Severance (Water Superintendent), Christina Haskins (Town Consulting Engineer), Jeff Hoffer (Consulting Hydrogeologist).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson, Chris Ponessi, Jim Dingley, Mike Nawrath, Victoria Silsby.
Hurley read the remote meeting script attached to these minutes and thereby incorporated. Hurley initiated audio and video recording. Culter called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Minutes from 3-9-2020 were approved by unanimous consent. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves in turn. Leon Ward had some technical issues.
Sewer Line Extension. John O’Keefe shared his map on-screen to illustrate where the line extension is proposed along Main Street. Selectboard functioning as the Sewer Board authorized feasibility study for extensions along Main Street and Richville Road. O’Keefe proposed addressing Main Street from Cemetery Avenue to Hunter Park Road first. He pointed out existing and proposed uses that could connect, as well as sites that could support potential future development that could connect. Along Main Street, the very flat pitch presents a challenge, necessitating a number of lift stations. Severance suggested an alternative route that would follow an old railroad spur that would function as a gravity line without pumps that would connect to Spruce Street line. Severance indicated that the Town is at about 250,000 gpd. O’Keefe said the town is permitted for 600,000 gpd, and this extension would generate around 100,000 gpd as anticipated.
Ward asked what would be the incentive for people to connect. O’Keefe said the town could cap the amount of service and allow first-come-first-serve. If users do not connect early, there may not be capacity later. Hurley asked if a grant would be sought to fund the study. O’Keefe said there is money (about $25,000) in the sewer budget to conduct the study. O’Keefe asked commissioners whether enough anticipated or planned for development that would make the extension advisable. Severance noted that larger systems include Hunter Park, the trailer park, and the industrial park all have to have licensed operators. Replacement of these systems would be cost prohibitive. Hurley noted that Hunter Park is definitely interested in connecting to town sewer. O’Keefe pointed out that the permitted hotel would have to have an operator.
Cutler indicated that in order to make the development of workforce house affordable, sewer is needed and the feasibility study is therefore worth doing. O’Keefe asked whether the town should consider offering incentives for workforce housing – offering a lower rate or right of first refusal for certain uses. Sewer connection fees are more affordable than designing, permitting, and installing an onsite sewer system. O’Keefe pointed out that having multiple septic systems on the west side of Main Street may threaten the Battenkill. He asked commissioners to comment on the proposed extent. Commissioners thought extension to Hunter Park Road made sense. Hurley confirmed that the Dailey Pit and adjacent driving range parcel under one ownership are both zoned for industrial uses.
O’Keefe posited setting this up as a separate sewer district and asked whether the commission felt that incentivized fees should be established. Cutler suggested that incentives may not be needed. O’Keefe calculated that the permitted hotel would need about 11,000 gpd, which is one tenth of the proposed capacity. The 100,000 gpd may go faster than anticipated. Permit fee for the hotel would be $150,000 in permit fees for sewer connection, whereas a septic system would cost at least double that. Ward asked whether the town can require connection. O’Keefe said the town could do that. Hurley confirmed that the sewer ordinance as drafted includes a requirement for connection in the downtown. Ward noted because it is an environmentally sensitive area, we would want to get as many users to connect as possible.
Hurley asked what kind of time frame is anticipated for this. O’Keefe said he expects to wrap up feasibility study this year and construction as soon as 2022. He suggested this corridor is the most prime corridor for economic development in Bennington County. O’Keefe suggested the engineering is very possible and the bigger challenge is figuring out the financing. He posited establishing a new sewer district and finance the work through a bond to be paid off with user fees. Commissioners agreed that the study makes sense. O’Keefe will update the commission in several months. Cutler concluded that it would be a good positive for affordable development along that corridor. Rahona agreed. Hurley noted that when the commission pursued the rezoning this corridor was seen as ripe for development.
APO Use Standards. Hurley shared Jeff Hoffer’s letter to the commission on screen. Based on Hoffer’s letter, Hurley wondered whether the commission should consider three zones in the APO and asked Hoffer to comment on that idea. Hoffer said it was instructive for him to listen to the discussion about the sewer line extension because he has also been asked to evaluate a parcel for a town well site, and he wondered what the potential for sewer was for this parcel. In response to Hurley’s question about whether the APO prohibited uses list should be modified, Hoffer said it is difficult to say because it is so dependent on distance of use to the wells. He noted that for the existing source protection area, the huge area to the east of Route 7 offers only remote possibility of listed uses impacting the wells. He says delineating a third zone here would be something to consider.
Cutler asked where exactly Hoffer would delineate a Zone C. He confirmed that the glacial till soils indicated in the pink versus green on the map in his letter would be appropriate for this third zone. O’Keefe noted that Hoffer is evaluating whether the town should establish a backup well at the rec park. Currently the town’s two wells are right next to each other drawing from the same source, which O’Keefe felt is not ideal in terms of contamination issues. He noted that the next sewer study will involve sewer extension down Richville Road to Cass Terrace. Hurley pointed out Cass Terrace, Union Street, the Hayes pump station, and town sewer ponds on the map. O’Keefe indicated the environmental benefits of sewer line extension in this area. O’Keefe noted that the town wells have functioned very well with exceptional flows.
Cutler asked whether we could be stricter in Zone B while relaxing standards in a new Zone C. Hoffer confirmed this as a good idea. Hurley asked what zones should be allowed in Zone B. Cutler had asked whether some uses such as golf course, salvage yards, and auto repair should be removed from conditional use in Zone B. Hoffer replied that his main concern would be proximity to the wells. He would be more concerned with something proposed to the south or west of the wells in Zone B versus 3000 feet away where Zone A and B come together near Route 7. He said he was comfortable with keeping them as conditional uses. Hurley suggested placing the section of Zone B to the south and west of Zone A into Zone A, using Richville Road as a demarcation between Zone A and B. O’Keefe said there are not many opportunities for development in the area west of Richville Road. Hurley noted that it was likely flood hazard. She asked whether the commission wanted to add self-storage to the conditional list. Hoffer said he would want to know the scale of it and distance to wells.
Hurley summarized that it would be important to examine proximity to the wells and scale of the operation in the conditional use review. O’Keefe urged consistency for uses with similar risks. Haskins agreed that any use that should be examined for distance to the wells and scale should be a conditional use. Cutler suggested all uses should be conditional other than the prohibited uses. Cutler added, given the problems with the Hayes system, even residential uses should be conditional.
O’Keefe asked whether new septic systems were prohibited. Hurley explained there is an internal inconsistency in the ordinance. One section allows them as a conditional use while the standards section says all new development must connect to town sewer. In such a case, legal rules dictate that the town must rule in favor of the applicant (i.e., the less restrictive prevails). O’Keefe asked whether small scale septic systems could be allowed. Hurley reiterated Cutler’s suggestion that all uses be conditional and examined for the proximity to the wells and the scale of the use. Then it wouldn’t matter what the use is. All would be assessed for their potential threat to the aquifer. Haskins and Hoffer agreed that would be an advisable approach. The prohibited use list would remain. Hoffer suggested the Zone C would not be necessary in that case.
Haskins asked whether self-storage should be prohibited in Zone A. Ward asked whether self-storage facilities that are completely enclosed (accessed internally) would be looked at the same as self-storage that is accessed from outside. Hurley noted that the prohibited list is for the whole APO. Cutler asked whether uses in Zone C would be conditional or whether Zone C should be recombined with Zone B. Hurley said she felt it would be overkill. There is not that much land outside of the GMNF in the APO on the west side of Route 7. She said there is a 53 acre parcel on which a resort is currently proposed and a few residential properties along Benson Road. Benson expressed concern about allowing a resort dumping hundreds of thousands of septic into the aquifer in proximity to his and his brother’s wells on Benson Road. He asked why allow any risk, even if minimal, to the aquifer. He suggested a more restrictive bylaw to minimize such risk.
Hoffer explained that the proposed resort will have to go through the state permitting process and the issue of being in the town’s sourcewater protection area will be examined as part of that process. Benson expressed skepticism that the town should defer to the state. Hoffer explained that he has less concern for this area of the sourcewater protection area than that on the other side of Route 7. Benson suggested the town should err on the safe side. Hoffer explained that it is not Route 7 but the surficial geology that corresponds to it that gives him less concern. Hoffer concurs that one way to be entirely protective is to maintain the current list of prohibited uses.
Hurley noted that septic systems are not on the prohibited use list. She explained the internal inconsistency again and said the legal question is not up for discussion. Nawrath asked whether Section 5.2.6 should prevail is up for discussion. Hurley suggested it was, and that the hydrogeologist is suggesting that there isn’t a concern about septic systems that far away from the aquifer. Benson asked if it is not a threat to the town wells so far away, what about his wells not 3000 feet away from the proposed systems. Hurley said the state Division of Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal rules would evaluate that. Hoffer clarified that he is making recommendations with respect to the town system only and agreed that threats to Benson’s well from proposed systems would be assessed by the state. Hurley said the state looks at wellhead protection areas. Benson pointed out the proposed development is not residential. Cutler said the she is not considering specific projects at this time, but what to allow in Zones A, B, and C.
Nawrath asked if there have been any scientific advances in the last 25 years enable us to let down our guard in protecting this aquifer. Hoffer indicated he would rephrase that question to ask if we have more data that would allow us to better refine this area that we show on the map and are they defensible and meaningful. In areas of Zone B to the east of Route 7, a particle of water that recharges into the ground may never reach the town wells. He explained that the town wells are in a sand and gravel aquifer composed of reworked glacial sediments (sand and gravel) that extend up to Route 7 where they give way to upland soils that are derived from unsorted glacial till deposits with some sand deposits.
Nawrath pointed out that the resort system would generate 6500 gpd. Hoffer reiterated that the developer would have permitting requirements that include assessing existing wells as well as the town’s aquifer. Hoffer explained that he cannot assess the risk without seeing the plans. It comes down to a distance issue. If it was planned for west of Route 7, the effluent would discharge into the same aquifer that the wells draw from. In the upland areas above Route 7 the effluent would be dispelled into a separate aquifer from that which the town wells draw from. Nawrath asked why was it mapped like this in 1990. Hoffer said it has to do with the rules required for delineating a municipal sourcewater protection area that are applicable to the entire state and not based on site specific criteria. Hoffer would not have extended the sourcewater protection up the mountain that far.
Nawrath asked whether any testing was done to determine whether the area east of Route 7 was involved in the aquifer. Hoffer explained that would have involved a very expensive drilling and testing program. Hoffer based his determinations on the surficial geology as mapped, as evidenced by drill logs, and surface topography. Nawrath asked where effluent in the area east of Route 7 ends up. Hoffer explained it would end up in the underlying bedrock aquifer which is what most private wells in that area are drilled into. Nawrath said one of the wetlands in the area recharges Boorn Brook. He asked Hoffer whether that is a concern for him. Hoffer said the wells were tested to see if they were under the influence of the surface water pooling from the Battenkill. The data showed there is sufficient filtration between surface water and intake of the wells so it was considered groundwater.
Benson asked if demand on the aquifer has increased significantly from 30 years ago. Hoffer indicated that the aquifer can produce more than current needs. Ward asked whether the resort had been approved. Hurley said it is in DRB hands, but it is not relevant to the questions that are being asked by the commission. She explained that the DRB must make its decision based on the current ordinance as written. The planning commission is not discussing any particular proposed project. O’Keefe asked if the ordinance changes, would it change the status for the proposed resort. Hurley explained that the resort would be reviewed only under the ordinance as written at the time of application.
Hurley explained the planning commission is addressing the inconsistency in the ordinance regarding septic systems in the APO. She suggested what we are hearing is there is not that much concern about new septic systems in this area east of Route 7. Nawrath pointed out that there is no particular language in the conditional review that pertain to the aquifer. Hurley agreed and said that is why the commission is considering this issue right now. The suggestion is that two questions should be asked: what is the distance to the wells and what is the scale of the operation. That is what Hoffer is advising the commission about. Hurley indicated that there were only twenty minutes remaining in the meeting, and that the commission should take this up again at a future meeting.
Cutler summarized the issues with the proposed change to Zone A and Zone B, adding Zone C, and the wording of how the conditional use review should happen. O’Keefe suggested that the town water operators should be involved in the review of proposed development. Commissioners agreed that discussion should be continued and thanked Hoffer, Haskins, O’Keefe and Severance for participating.
Ordinance Revisions. Hurley indicated a list of other inconsistencies or issues with the ordinance, including banner and wall sign inconsistencies in the temporary sign tables. Ward asked whether a poster would be considered a banner. Hurley said that is part of what she asked the commissioners to consider. Another issue is the size allowance for wall signs as defined only by the street side of the building. She suggested that the calculations should involve the length of the side of the building on which the sign is mounted rather than street side length. She asked commissioners to consider whether 16 sq. ft. should be allowed even on a small building since we have allowed it historically.
Another issue is that the PRD language does not clearly state that the dimensional standards can be suspended. Rather it refers to the PUD definition. Also the PUD and PRD definitions are not in alphabetical order in the definitions section. Another issue is development within the water resources section and whether it should be conditional, and if so what questions should be asked in the review. Hurley added that the ordinance language now requires all fencing, even far from the property line, to be built finished side facing out. She asked commissioners to consider whether this is necessary.
Hurley proposed rearranging sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 to follow the district descriptions. She suggested locating them close to the use table and the dimensional standards table. She also asked commissioners to consider moving section 1.3 through 1.9 to follow Section 2.2. Hurley said she would draft some revisions accordingly. She added that there is one additional issue that came up relative to the proposed resort. Lot coverage allowances are a percentage of land area “or one acre.” It seems somewhat nonsensical. The larger the lot, the more limited lot coverage is; so to get around that, the lot could be subdivided. Perhaps it should be rewritten such that it would not incentivize subdivision to get around the rule.
Annual Organizational Matters. This was postponed until the next meeting. Hurley proposed an October meeting allowing her time to draft up revisions.
Rahona motioned to adjourn. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 9:03 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date