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)
Public Attendees: Brent Herrmann, Debbie Hayes McGraw, Ken McGraw, Brian Benson, Mike Nawrath, Jim Hand, Paul Carroccio, Bill Drunsic, Christian Heinz, Marek Kovac, Hilary Hall, Darren Marcy (Manchester Journal).
Hurley initiated recording. Cutler called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Hurley read the remote meeting script attached to these minutes and thereby incorporated. Hurley asked participants to remain muted unless speaking. Planning Commissioners identified themselves each in turn.
Minutes from 2-8-2021 were approved by unanimous consent.
Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps. Hurley read the Planning Commission Report, which is attached to these minutes and thereby incorporated. She reviewed proposed map changes while displaying the maps on screen. A proposed change on Johnnycake Road will put a residential lot in the RR rather than the FC and an expansion of the MU2 is proposed to incorporate the Rec Park and adjacent properties. Hurley suggested that the Commission should consider extending the MU2 across the street to cover the Barnstead Inn and Dorr Oil lots.
Hurley displayed the proposed APO map and the new subzone definitions and boundaries. D. McGraw asked for clarifications about the APO boundaries and Hurley explained that the boundary between Subzone A and Subzone B would not change for her neighborhood or her family’s airstrip or gravel pit properties, and that the new Subzone C would correspond to a change in surficial geology at the easterly edge of her family’s property and that of the town-owned property. Hurley summarized that the standards for subzone A and B would be tightened.
Hurley then displayed the proposed ordinance language for the Aquifer Protection Overlay and reviewed the proposed language. D. McGraw asked for clarifications about existing wastewater systems as prohibited uses. Hurley confirmed that replacement or repair of existing facilities would be allowed. Hurley continued reviewing the Apo language concerning uses within each subzone. Every proposed use will need to evaluate the potential effects on the relevant water supply. All uses in subzone B will be conditional. Large wastewater system in subzone C would require this conditional use review. All application would be reviewed by the Administrative Advisory Group (AAG). McGraw asked when this would go into effect. Hurley explained the adoption process. She said it would be a few months at least. She continued by describing the proposed performance standards.
Heinz argued that applicants should not be encumbered to pay for an independent engineering evaluation per proposed Section 5.2.9(3) unless the applicant’s engineering evaluation (per Section 5.2.9(1)) was disputed by the town engineer (per Section 5.2.9(2)). Drunsic asked why the town should have the authority to cause landowners the extra expense of complying with these proposed standards for the private sourcewater protection areas. Nawrath expressed opposition to creating the Subzone C, which he characterized as an “Aquifer Nonprotection Overlay.” He maintained that the Town Plan calls for enlarging the protection area, not reducing it.
Nawrath suggested that each of the 90 instances of the use of “this section” be revised to indicate the actual section number to avoid any ambiguity. Hurley indicated she would make these revisions. Nawrath commended the commission for eliminating the use of the term “allowed uses” in favor of “permitted or conditional uses.” Nawrath expressed dismay about the commission’s process for offering these APO revisions, which he characterized as a reaction to a development application rather than being guided by the Town Plan. Ward expressed understanding the concerns of Nawrath and Benson and agreeing with their urging protections of ground water resources (there was considerable audio distortion from Ward’s connection)
Boshart pushed back against Nawrath’s characterization of the process, explaining that unintended consequences come to light that call for adjustments to the ordinance, not to accommodate a development project. He reported that he reviewed closely the DRB decision on the project in question and was impressed with its process. He reiterated that re-evaluation is the result of the focus that development projects put on particular provisions of the ordinance, not in response to a proposed project.
Boshart also responded to Drunsic’s suggestion that the APO provisions should not cause added expenses to projects by pointing out that in the interest of the public good, zoning and other codes such as state energy codes necessarily add expense to projects. He added that after consulting professionals, commissioners felt that there was less risk east of Route 7 and that placing the restriction that these properties must connect to the town wastewater system is just impossible.
Hurley addressed the impression that these proposed revisions were written by her and presented to the Planning Commission. She explained that they are the Planning Commission’s revisions articulated after consultation with the hydrogeologist that devised the town’s source protection plan among other of the town’s professional staff and consultants. Boshart agreed that Hurley is tasked with speaking for the commission, but that it is wrong to see these as Hurley’s recommendations.
Benson offered that clean drinking water is a worldwide priority and protection of the public water supply should be the biggest concern. He said that loosening protections for the town sourcewater protection area makes no sense to him. Referring to Boshart’s being impressed with the DRB decision on the proposed resort, Benson suggested that the DRB members did not have the credentials to write the decision; it was rather written by staff and legal counsel.
Drunsic said that Boshart was correct to say that zoning is about protecting the overall public good, but he does not agree that the town should be enforcing protections over the private water supply systems. Hurley explained the idea behind including the private systems in the APO. It would have been counterproductive for a zoning administrator to issue a permit for a use that was not allowed under the state protection plan. Drunsic asked if the private source water protection areas reflected state drawn boundaries. Hurley confirmed they did. Drunsic reiterated that the owners of these private systems should be encumbered with the costs of protecting the systems, not other landowners whose property is encompassed by the protection area boundaries.
Boshart asked Drunsic if he could suggest a particular change in language that would address his concerns. Removing the burdens of engineering review from the landowners who are encompassed by the protection area but do not rely on the water system. Drunsic said that the owners of the water systems should be responsible for costs associated with protecting their systems. Hurley reread the proposed requirements confirming that all applications must contain an engineering review that evaluates the effects of the proposed development on the relevant water supply. Specifically this is the proposed application and review procedures for use and development proposed in the APO (Section 5.2.9). Boshart suggested that this would be required anyway when the applicant seeks a wastewater permit.
Boshart offered that he would be okay with removing 5.2.9(1) pertaining to the private systems, saying we could rely on the state to manage the private ones. His main concern is the town aquifer. Drunsic suggested that these kinds of protections give cover for the owners of these systems that allow them to avoid doing what they should be doing to protect their systems. Drunsic pointed out that the one affecting his property is in an area where they could and should connect to the town water system.
D. McGraw asked how these proposed regulations relate to the Hayes Estate sewer system and questioned why these standards would not suggest that the town take ownership and responsibility for the Hayes Estate system. Boshart apologized for not being aware of this history but indicated that the Planning Commission is not the body with jurisdiction over the Hayes system dispute. He directed McGraw to the Selectboard. Cutler concurred. McGraw expressed dismay at the added requirements for existing development within the aquifer. She asked if anyone could be grandfathered from needing to meet these standards. Hurley clarified that the proposed changes were unrelated to the legal dispute over the existing Hayes Estate system.
Carroccio asked the commission to consider releasing development from these standards if sewer service were extended through this area off of Richville Road and the development connected to the municipal sewer system. He reported that he with others had proposed funding a sewer main through here with federal funds in conjunction with a proposed development, but that the town rejected the idea. This devalues property in the zone without any relief. Could some of these be lifted when town sewer goes through the area. Hurley said that some could be, but not all of them and gave examples. Carroccio agreed with this point.
Hurley reported that Drunsic raised an issue with the proposed minimum lot sizes for PUDs and PRDs. The proposed language limits minimum lot size to ten times the footprint of a primary structure on the lot. Commissioners agreed this was intended only for the RR and RA districts. Hurley will make these clarifications accordingly. Hurley reviewed the proposed additional five conditional uses (on farm business, contractors’ yards, light manufacturing uses) for the RR and one more (boarding houses) for both the RR and RA zoning districts while displaying the use table on screen. Drunsic expressed concern about subjective review of uses and grey area between these uses and customary home occupations. Hurley explained the criteria for conditional use and for CHOs and that the board is obligated to review according to the criteria set forth in the ordinance. Boshart added that the idea is there are defined criteria and we rely on the DRB to make judgement, with input from applicant and abutters. There were no other comments on these proposed conditional uses.
Drunsic expressed concern about the new language describing the purpose of the RA and RR districts in terms of agricultural housing. Hurley indicated that housing for agricultural workers is not exempt from zoning, and the ordinance does not separate out housing for agricultural workers in any way. Hurley noted language change to clarify that new development within the water resources setback requires conditional use review. Hurley summarized and displayed revisions to the subdivision section to eliminate redundancy and clarify standards. Hurley characterized these as delayed improvements that we did not include in the comprehensive zoning rewrite in 2017. McGraw asked if she could get a copy of the proposed ordinance. Hurley said she would make one available for McGraw.
Drunsic expressed concern about driveway standards as presented in Table 6-1 in Section 6.8. Commissioners agreed that the “paved” standard was an unintentional change that occurred with the 2018 comprehensive rewrite of the ordinance. Hurley added strikethrough to the word “paved” to indicate it would be proposed for elimination. Drunsic also asked for clarification of Class A and Class B undevelopable lands. Hurley explained that Class B was not to be included in calculations of coverage and density. Cutler suggested indicating the Class A and Class B in bold type to help this clarification stand out in Section 6.23.3.
Drunsic asked how the commission would address the take out and eat restaurant parking standards. Commissioners explained that this is a topic for future discussion, not this hearing. Boshart argued that the zoning is clear on the distinction between take out and eat in restaurants. Hurley responded to Marcy that she could provide him with a digital copy of the proposed ordinance. The commission revisited Drunsic’s concerns about burdening landowners with property falling over the private water systems. Hurley gave an example illustrating why it might be helpful from the zoning administrator and DRB perspective. Boshart said if the concern is storing hazardous chemicals over an aquifer, he is unsure how this would be addressed by including these private systems.
Boshart motioned to extend the meeting to 9:15. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0. Ward indicated that he would have to leave the meeting at 9:00 to put a child to bed.
Boshart noted that these concerning uses would have to get DRB conditional use review and attain state permits. He does not think that we need to be there. He suggested that these uses should be conditional over these private systems. Drunsic agreed. Hurley reasoned that including these in the APO would insure the town is adequately informed. D. McGraw asked whether the railroad would have to meet the APO standards since it passes over the town aquifer. Hurley deferred to Drunsic on this. Drunsic explained that only the federal government had the authority to limit the activities of the railroad. He suggested that safety standards were made more rigorous after relatively recent Canadian rail explosions. K. McGraw asked about plans for new sewer pump station near Carlan Street. Hurley explained that she is not involved in those plans and referred McGraw to Town Manager John O’Keefe. K. McGraw asked whether the town would force connections to expanded sewer system. Hurley explained that this hearing was not related to sewer expansion planning.
Drunsic asked about the language of Section 4.12.1 and suggested that “housing for people engaged in agriculture” not be included. Hurley explained what the purpose statement was for and distinguished it from development standards that would have to be met regardless of what type of housing is proposed. Commissioners agreed that it was appropriate to keep the language as a part of what the RA district is intended to be. D. McGraw how a family is defined in the ordinance. Hurley read the definition family given in the ordinance and distinguished single-family use from boarding house. Cutler noted the definitions for dwelling types makes these distinctions.
Hurley asked commissioners to consider whether they would like to close the hearing or whether they felt the need to continue it to seek more public input before forwarding revisions to the Selectboard for consideration. Commissioners agreed that they would close the hearing and finalize revisions at the next meeting before sending them to the Selectboard. Boshart motioned to close the hearing. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 9:15 pm. Ward was no longer present.
Other Business.
Drunsic commended the commissioners on a job well done and thanked them.
Boshart motioned to extend the meeting another five minutes to 9:20 p.m. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0.
The next meeting of the commission will be Monday, April 5, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., instead of April 12 to avoid conflict with spring break.
Glabach announced that he would be moving to Winhall in the next few months and would thus resign from the commission. Cutler indicated that she would also be resigning from the commission in the coming months.
Boshart motioned to adjourn. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 9:19 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date