TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Attendees: Tina Cutler, Leon Ward, Chris Glabach, Greg Boshart, Ana Rahona.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director), Eric Severance (Water/Wastewater Superintendent), Chrissy Haskins (Town Consulting Engineer).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson, Derek Anderson, Jessie McDougall, Mike Nawrath, Shari Siegel.
Hurley initiated audio and video recording. Cutler called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Hurley read the remote meeting script attached to these minutes and thereby incorporated. She asked participants to mute themselves unless speaking. Planning Commissioners identified themselves each in turn. Staff attendees identified themselves in turn.
Minutes from 10-12-2020 were approved by unanimous consent.
APO Zone Delineations and Use Standards. Hurley shared proposed revisions to the regulations on screen. Cutler asked whether commissioners had reviewed the APO changes. Commissioners indicated they had. Cutler asked for staff input. Severance indicated that he had reviewed the changes and was good with them.
There was discussion about whether underground propane tanks were appropriate within the APO. Haskins advised that the water supply rule allows natural gas or propane within 200 feet of the wellheads (Zone 1). Haskins advised against allowing bulk storage or transfer facilities should not be situated within the APO because that is what would lead to PFOA fire suppression in the case of a fire at such a facility. She explained that propane is a gas and does not lead to the direct contamination that oil or gasoline might lead to. Hurley modified the language to allow underground propane tanks.
Haskins asked whether the proposed language in the performance standards section 5.2.10(1) would allow private systems that are not connected to municipal sewer. She agreed that this would be allowable in Sub Zone C as suggested by Jeff Hoffer at the previous meeting, but she questioned whether this should be allowed in Sub Zones A or B. Hurley explained that the APO includes mapped source protection areas for privately operated community systems as well as the municipal aquifer, and this language would apply to those private systems. Boshart suggested separating these standards into separate numbered statements. Cutler agreed with this suggestion. Hurley separated 5.2.1(1) into three separate statements. She rewrote the third one to read: All sewer linesinfrastructure within the APO must be constructed in conformance with applicable Town of Manchester and State of Vermont public works wastewater standards and regulations.
Benson referred to Jeff Hoffer’s comments that Bourn Brook feeds into the Battenkill and the Battenkill may discharge directly into the town’s sourcewater. He contended that anything in Sub Zone C leads to Bourn Brook. He argued that the commission should do whatever it can to protect the town’s drinking water, and therefore this third Sub-Zone C should not be created. He noted that the area east of Route 7 was not included because of limited development potential. Hurley suggested Benson had a different interpretation and opinion of the totality of what Hoffer advised. Benson rejected that idea and suggested that the commissioners should recognize that this area does have an impact on the wells and they should understand it that way. Cutler pointed out that the changes that the commission is proposing are tightening the restrictions in Sub-Zone B by making all uses conditional uses. She said that the commission is leaving restrictions of Sub-Zone C as they are currently. Hurley explained that in Sub-Zone C, the underlying zoning district determines whether a use is permitted or conditional.
Nawrath explained that the objection is removing the requirement to connect to town sewer. He argued that the proposed change downgrades the protections in this Sub Zone C based solely on a difference in geology, not on actual experimental evidence. He contended that pollution within Sub-Zone C would discharge into Bourn Brook, then into the Battenkill, which discharges into the SPA.
Nawrath pointed out that the five conditional use criteria do not address potential for contamination of the Town’s sourcewater. Hurley pointed out that the proposed performance standard of 5.2.10(4) would apply to all uses in the APO. She read the standard: Discharge from a new or expanded wastewater disposal system shall not be hydraulically connected to the relevant drinking water aquifer, or a two-year time of travel to the relevant drinking water aquifer is demonstrated to be met or exceeded by the new wastewater disposal system. Nawrath expressed approval for this performance standard.
Nawrath proposed adding a requirement for monitoring wells in the Sub-Zone C to insure there is no travel of pollutants off the property. He read his proposed language, which was emailed to commissioners directly before the meeting. The owner of the property would be responsible for replacement of the monitoring wells if they were damaged. Boshart asked how such a monitoring system could determine the source of a contamination. Nawrath indicated the purpose of the monitoring system would be as an early warning system for the town, rather than a system to find the source of a contamination. Boshart asked Haskins or Severance to comment on the use of these types of monitoring wells. Severance noted that the town has a system of monitoring wells tested annually, though none as far from the wellheads as Sub-Zone C. The wells are set up to serve as an early warning system. Hurley asked if location of the monitoring wells was required by the state. Severance confirmed that they were.
Boshart indicated that he was receptive to the idea of requiring monitoring wells if it were tied to the size of the septic system – where the risk/reward is there. Smaller systems don’t have the risk associated with them. The larger the system the greater impact and more risk to the aquifer. He sees that it may be appropriate for commercial systems or systems for multiple households such as at Jennifer Lane. Cutler agreed with this notion. Boshart suggested reviewing Nawrath’s proposal and addressing at the next meeting of the commission. Commissioners agreed. Haskins asked who would have the financial responsibility for continued monitoring of such wells, because that would impact the Water Department budget. Boshart surmised that the town would monitor them because they are for the benefit of the town water supply.
Letter to Selectboard Regarding Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure. Ward offered to draft a letter on the subject to discuss at the next meeting.
General Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Hurley noted that the proposed sign revisions were addressed previously. She has added language expanding the purpose statements for the residential districts, particularly the Rural Residential (RR) and the Rural Agricultural (RA). She felt the spare purpose statements would give the misimpression that these uses in these districts should be limited to only what was mentioned in the statement. She displayed these proposed changes on screen and asked for comment. Commissioners agreed that these revisions were advisable. Hurley explained the reasoning behind choosing the 4 acre requirement for conditional uses in the RR. Boshart, Glabach, Cutler, and Ward all agreed with that rationale. Boshart pointed out that these changes give these sections more importance.
Hurley noted that the minimum lot size for PRDs and PUDs was inadvertently never added to the revised ordinance. The idea was for a minimum lot size of ten times the footprint of a primary structure. She added this proposed requirement accordingly. She noted the change to allow waiver of the requirement for a survey plat in the case of lot mergers. Commissioners expressed support for this change. She pointed out a clarification for development in the water resources setback requiring conditional use review.
Hurley asked whether the commissioners had reviewed the drafted changes to the subdivision section. She explained that the revisions eliminate redundancy and add clarity. The PUD subsections were relocated to the application procedures section, similar to the PRD subsections being located in the housing section. Commissioners had not yet reviewed these changes, so this will be taken up at the next meeting.
Nawrath objected to use of the term “allowed uses” within the ordinance. He argued that permitted uses and conditional uses should not be conflated. Some areas within a zoning district are appropriate for a conditional use, while other areas are not. He advised the commission to remove the term “allowed uses” from the ordinance and replace with “permitted uses or conditional uses.”
Nawrath argued that the action item concerning reworking the zoning ordinance to encourage compact development in the core and protection of the rural areas on page 9 of the Town Plan is akin to Criterion 9L of Act 250. The criterion requires applicants for a development outside of a town core to show that their proposed development would not lead to strip development or could be considered infill development in areas that are already developed. He pointed out that all projects requiring an Act 250 permit would be held to this criterion, but smaller projects would not be. He suggested that the ordinance should be revised to include this standard for all proposed development.
Boshart judged that the recent comprehensive zoning overhaul already accomplished this. Hurley agreed. Boshart disagreed that the 9L standard should be incorporated into the bylaws. He said our zoning encourages compact central development and rural character of outlying areas. Nawrath pointed out that he sees two standards – one for large developments and another for smaller. Hurley pointed out that the distinction between large and small development activity was removed from the ordinance, and the commission already accomplished changes that reflect this goal. She provided examples from the new ordinance that reflected adjustments reflecting the Town Plan action item. Nawrath reiterated that his proposal is in furtherance of that work. Boshart noted that he would be interested in looking at this more. He said he would rather see infill development in the core than on the edges of town. He expressed hope that the drastic increases in residential density allowances would work to prevent or reduce the continued piecemeal housing development in the outlying areas. He suggested that the strip development and infill terminology could be incorporated into the ordinance.
Benson requested Hurley display the municipal source protection area on the screen and asked that commissioners understand that the entire area designated as a source protection area and should be optimally regulated to protect the town’s water source.
Pending Act 250 Applications.
Hurley noted that there are two pending Act 250 applications, both of which have been approved by the Development Review Board: The Green Mountain Resort, and Drunsic’s 20 unit PRD. She noted that the GMR approval was appealed. Generally, she said, the Planning Commission defers to the DRB decisions on these matters. Boshart said he was initially skeptical regarding the proposed GMR development; however, he was impressed with the DRB decision. Regarding the PRD, he said it was sad that the existing historic house would be torn down and he hopes the PRD will not deter from opportunities in the downtown for housing development.
Ward asked if the house could be moved. Boshart surmised that the assessment was that it is just not worth rehabilitation. Hurley confirmed that apparently it would not be feasible. Nonetheless, the DRB decision requires that it be offered to be moved or taken apart and relocated. Cutler said she did not review these proposed development. Rahona said she had no issues with the developments as approved by the DRB. Ward noted that he hates to see something go in when there are people opposing them. Boshart countered that landowner rights should be respected. If the ordinance allows, and the DRB approves, the commission should support it. He added that he has been generally impressed by the DRB’s professionalism and careful approach. He observed that the board really looks for the intent in the zoning in formulating its decisions. He advocated supporting the DRB conclusions.
Hearing no opinion significantly for or against, Hurley asked whether the Planning Commission wished to defer comment on these applications. The commissioners agreed that they would defer comment. There was discussion as to whether the commission should make a motion to this effect. The consensus was a motion was necessary only when the commission pursued an active comment.
Other Business.
Boshart directed commissioner’s attention to the proposed use changes for the Rural Residential and Rural Agricultural districts. Hurley displayed these on screen, then addressed each change in turn. There was discussion about whether Bed & Breakfast should be a conditional or permitted use in the RR district. Commissioners decided it should be conditional. Adding warehousing as a conditional use in the RR was discussed and rejected. Commissioners agreed with the other proposed additional conditional uses.
Anderson explained that he is involved with Vermont Natural Sheepskins and has been looking for a facility to locate the enterprise. He has identified the old Boar’s Head barn on Bonnet Street in the RR as an appropriate location, but current zoning does not allow the use. Hurley confirmed that currently the zoning does not allow the use; however, she said that revisions discussed this evening would enable the use as a conditional use – artisanal or handcrafted manufacturing. She explained that if the changes were adopted, then Anderson could apply for a permit to operate on the site. She described the process of adopting revisions to the zoning ordinance and expressed hope that these proposed revisions would be adopted by June 2021.
Benson suggested that the well that Hurley asked about may have been in the GMNF. Hurley displayed the map Benson provided. It was determined that Benson nor Hurley know what the highlighted circle referred to. Benson suggested it could be the culvert.
The next meeting of the commission will be January 11, 2021. Ward indicated that he emailed a proposal to the commission and asked for feedback for the next meeting.
Rahona motioned to adjourn. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:08 p.m. Commissioners acknowledged that they inadvertently proceeded past 9:00 without a motion to extend the meeting per rules of procedure.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date