TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Attendees: Tina Cutler, Leon Ward, Chris Glabach, Greg Boshart. Absent: Ana Rahona.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson, Mike Nawrath, Shari Siegel.
Hurley initiated audio and video recording. Cutler called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Hurley read the remote meeting script attached to these minutes and thereby incorporated. Planning Commissioners identified themselves each in turn.
Annual Organizational Matters – Rules of Procedure. Boshart motioned to accept the rules as submitted. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0.
Annual Organizational Matters – Election of Officers. Glabach nominated Christina Cutler to serve as Chair. Boshart seconded the nomination. Cutler was elected chair, 4-0-0.
Cutler nominated Greg Boshart to serve as Vice-Chair. Glabach seconded the nomination. Boshart was elected Vice-Chair, 4-0-0.
Ward nominated Ana Rahona to serve as Secretary. Boshart seconded the nomination. Rahona was elected Secretary, 4-0-0.
Minutes from 8-10-2020 were approved by unanimous consent.
APO Regulations. Hurley shared proposed revisions to the regulations on screen. Descriptions of Zones A, B, and C discussed (Section 5.2.2). Commissioners decided to refer to them as “Sub-Zones.”
5.2.2 Protection Areas. The Aquifer Protection Overlay District includes the following zones for active source protection areas as depicted on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources online Natural Resources Atlas:
(1) Sub-Zone A. Sub-Zone A, the Drinking Water Critical Impact Zone, is the area within Zones 1 and 2 identified in a water system’s Source Protection Plan, as well as the area to the west of Richville Road within Zone 3 of the Town of Manchester Sourcewater Protection Area.
(2) Sub-Zone B. Sub-Zone B, the Drinking Water Potential Impact Zone, is generally consists of the area within Zone 3 identified in a water system’s Source Protection Plan, except that which is described as Sub-Zone A above, or as Sub-Zone C below.
(3) Sub-Zone C. Sub-Zone C is that portion of the Town of Manchester Sourcewater Protection Area within Zone 3 that is approximately east of Route 7 and corresponding to an area of glacial till soils.
The list of uses to be prohibited in Sub-Zone A will remain. All uses within Sub-Zone B will be conditional and require comment by Water Superintendent and Town Consulting Engineer. Hurley will work on language before the next meeting.
5.2.5 Sub-Zone B Uses. All uses within Sub-Zone B shall be conditional as allowed as either permitted or conditional uses in the underlying zoning district.
Uses in Sub-Zone C would be as allowed in the underlying zoning district. Hurley will work on language requiring review by Water Superintendent and Town Consulting Engineer. Performance standards were modified to clarify that all new development in Sub-Zones A and B must connect to town sewer.
5.2.8 Performance Standards. Property owners must undertake land use and development within this overlay district as follows:
(1) All new development within Sub-Zones A & B must be connected to the Town of Manchester sewer system. All sewer lines must be constructed in conformance with applicable public works standards.
Brian Benson asked whether new development in Zone C would be required to be connected to town sewer. Hurley answered that it would not be. The conclusion from the information presented and discussed at the last meeting clarified that this area consists of a glacial till that does not discharge into the same aquifer that the town wells draw from. Benson countered that there is no scientific evidence that this is true and that such evidence should be presented to demonstrate that development in this area would not affect the town’s water supply. Nawrath agreed that such proof should be provided through the permit process, accomplished though conditional use criteria specifically addressing protection of the aquifer. There was discussion about the state permitting process for septic systems.
Nawrath asked why the zoning nomenclature should be different from the sourcewater protection plan nomenclature. Hurley displayed the DEC defined sourcewater protection zones as depicted on the ANR Natural Resources Atlas. She explained the different sourcewater protection zones and how they relate to the zones that the Planning Commission is defining for zoning purposes. There was discussion about how sourcewater protection areas are delineated. Hurley explained that the area east of Route 7 was never included in the aquifer protection zoning until the 2018 revision.
Nawrath asked whether number 16 under the list of uses should be changed to clarify that propane tanks should be allowed. Hurley recalled that propane may have been expressly prohibited because of use of PFOA for fire suppression of propane fires. She is reticent to change this list without clear understanding of why it is on the list because the list is recommended by DEC. She will review the DEC recommended list to be sure that it is accurately reflected in the zoning. Hurley will work on further wording of APO regulations before the next meeting.
Ordinance Revisions. Commissioners indicated that they were okay to extend the meeting to discuss the proposed revisions to the sign section. Hurley explained that the issues were mostly related to temporary banner signs and clarifications needed for Tables 10-3 and 10-4. Ward clarified that freestanding or wall should be parenthetical for sculptural signs in Table 10-1. Hurley will provide proposed revisions as drafted to commissioners prior to the next meeting.
Other Business. Hurley invited Siegel to address the commission. Siegel thanked the commission for its work generally and advocated increased bike and pedestrian infrastructure along Barnumville Road. Hurley suggested that this is something that could be addressed with the next Town Plan revision. Boshart added that the increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic is happening everywhere, not just along Barnumville Road. He asked whether there should be a Town-wide project to increase this infrastructure to improve bike/ped safety. Siegel expressed enthusiastic support of this idea. Ward asked if a sidewalk on Barnumville to Canterbury would be possible. Hurley said that it is possible, but it is not in the capital improvement plan and not likely to happen anytime soon. She recalled that there is a discussion in the Town Plan about the numbers of MEMS students that live along the Barnumville Road corridor and that improved bike/ped linkage to the downtown should be pursued. Ward contended that it would have to be on the north side of the road.
Hurley indicated that the first step it to have a discussion in the town plan, but that is not due for an update for a while. There was contemplation to pursue an update once the 2020 census data were available. Boshart indicated that process would not yield anything for maybe ten years, and he suggested looking at other measures to accommodate the increased pedestrian traffic. He asked whether there are other ways to accommodate pedestrians rather than on the roads. Ward said that for any area with a large number of homes, such as the Barnumville corridor, we should be looking for ways to accommodate pedestrians. He mentioned alternative connections to Main Street via secondary roads behind the Northshire Day School. Boshart said we need to recommend how to address this issue in a way that it can be addressed more quickly.
Hurley indicated that she suggested to Siegel that she talk to John O’Keefe about getting the issue on a Selectboard agenda. Siegel said she intends to do that and reported that she has been involved on the Bike Manchester Committee and the Riverwalk group for a number of years and appreciates the comments about how long things can take. Benson suggested in the short term for safety reasons the police department could set up some radar speed traps to slow the traffic down. Boshart said if the situation continues and we see increased density in town, the commission should recommend an acceleration of walkability planning. He thinks it should be addressed before someone gets hurt and perhaps this upcoming winter can offer a time to plan before spring implementation. Hurley suggested the commission could write a letter to the Selectboard asking for acceleration of walkability planning.
Nawrath asked whether the commission is considering other changes to the bylaw and asked for clarifications about Section 6.23 on undevelopable land. Hurley and Boshart explained the history and procedures for calculating coverage and density. Boshart offered the following revisions to clarify the calculations:
6.23.4 Calculating Maximum Coverage and Density. Class A undevelopable land will be included as developable land when calculating the maximum residential density, lot coverage or building coverage on a lot, unless excluded elsewhere in this ordinance. Class B undevelopable land will not be included as developable land when calculating a lot’s maximum residential density.
Nawrath asked whether the cross-referencing to other sections of the bylaw could be minimized. Hurley replied that the Planning Commission has endeavored to simplify the ordinance and it is an ongoing process. Nawrath agreed that the commission has improved the ordinance in this regard. Boshart added that some complexity is inherent. Hurley suggested Nawrath step back and consider this section is about how to understand two classes of land when calculating coverage and density rather than it being a section defining what you can and cannot do on “undevelopable” land. She said the idea of lot coverage is not to overwhelm lands with impervious cover. Boshart indicated that density is about numbers of houses per acre, not necessarily about how far apart houses are. Nawrath said that he did not see these intents in this section upon first reading. Boshart noted that stating intent is not always appropriate within the bylaw.
Nawrath contended that the general conditional use criteria do not follow statute. In particular he said, how the character of the area should be interpreted was revised in statute. He contended that should be updated accordingly in the bylaw. Hurley indicated that the Planning Commission would look at this.
Hurley suggested a meeting in two months on December 14, 2020, for the next meeting. Commissioners confirmed that as a doable date.
Ward motioned to adjourn. Boshart seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 8:39 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date