TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commission Attendees: Tina Cutler, Greg Boshart, Chris Glabach, Ana Rahona. Absent: Leon Ward.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson.
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. Planning Commissioners identified themselves each in turn. Hurley identified herself as staff.
1. Minutes from 4-5-2021 were approved by unanimous consent.
2. Report from Selectboard Hearing on Zoning Revisions.
Hurley and Boshart reported that they presented the proposed changes. The Selectboard made one clarification to the Sub-zone C conditional use review language. Determining that this was not a substantial revision, the board scheduled a second in-person hearing for July 13, 2021, at 7:00 pm. Boshart urged Planning Commissioners to attend the in person hearing to lend voice to the reasons for the proposed changes. Hurley reported that there will likely be two new members of the commission appointed by then.
3. Conformance between Town Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Hurley explained that the BCRC submitted testimony in the Act 250 hearing process suggesting that the Manchester zoning bylaws were not in conformance with the town plan. Hurley disagreed with the BCRC assessment, reporting that she read the town plan cover to cover this afternoon and concluded that the bylaws are not out of conformance with the town plan. Boshart offered that the alleged conflict has to do with a resort in the RA district and that the BCRC said that this type of use should not be allowed in the rural area pursuant to the town plan. Boshart also did not find that the town plan specifically disallowed this type of use in the rural areas. He did reference the town plan as saying that rural commercial development should be clustered. Hurley asked Boshart to indicate where this was in the town plan. While Boshart looked for this, Hurley referenced a few other sections of the plan.
Hurley noted that on page 12 in the plan there is a discussion of the diverse geology and topography of its ridgelines and valley hills in Manchester followed by a discussion of development. She read “… the intent is not to prohibit all development; rather, that development … be sited sensitively and appropriately, in ways that fit into the landscape.” She continued adding that on page 15 there is a discussion of use within the Forest Conservation lands should be limited to those requiring a forested landscape and buildings should only occur at very low density. She explained that due to an error in the parcel data, there is a very small portion of the proposed resort property that falls in the FC district.
Boshart indicated that the language to which he referred also occurs on page 15 of the plan. He read: “Other zoning tools include requirements for clustering in residential, commercial, or industrial developments ….” Boshart concluded that in the ordinance that translated over into the zoning standards for residential development but not for commercial or industrial development. Hurley noted that the plan lists tools that could be used, but it did not say the tools must be used. Boshart agreed, but said that specific incentives for clustering of residential development were included in the ordinance. He argued that adding incentives for clustering commercial or industrial development in these rural areas should be pursued. He noted that the paragraph implies that the town will allow industrial and commercial development in agricultural areas. He suggested looking at the uses that are allowed and seeing if, other than residential, there are opportunities for clustering development.
Hurley described how the 2017 Town Plan came to be as an update to previous updates of the town plan. It was due for readoption during the comprehensive rezoning effort when the commission would not have the bandwidth to also pursue a process to produce a new town plan. The intention was to pursue a complete overhaul after 2020 Census data are available. The land use plan section in particular is essentially a transfer of the language that had been in the plan for a number of years, with a discussion that new residential development should fit within the contours and natural forms of the land. Hurley said that a broader discussion, beyond treatment of residential development, within this section would be appropriate in a new plan because clearly other sections of the plan no not limit development to only residential in these rural areas.
Boshart offered that traffic impacts of proposed development in these areas could be considered sprawl even if the architectural impacts may not. Hurley indicated that traffic impacts are explicitly addressed in conditional use review. She added that any development would increase traffic such that residential development in these areas could be considered sprawl too. There was a discussion of how much residential development could occur on the proposed resort property. Boshart concluded that a hypothetically allowed 20 homes would have similar traffic implications to the proposed 46 unit resort. Hurley reported that the DRB decision included conditions on resort events, limiting numbers of events and requiring shuttles for events that included guests not staying at the resort.
Hurley summarized the issue as whether the resort use as allowed in the RA is clearly out of synch with the town plan. She explained that BCRC came to this conclusion after initially submitting testimony to the District 8 Commission suggesting that the resort was not in keeping with the regional plan but that because the town approved it, BCRC policy considered it compliant. Hurley characterized the BCRC input as equivocal. The District 8 Commission asked for clarification and the BCRC then offered that rather than being out of synch with the regional plan, the resort in a rural area of Manchester was out of synch with the town plan.
Hurley said that the BCRC input is problematic on multiple levels. She maintained that these kinds of judgements need to be made in a planning process, not a permitting process in which due process must be provided to applicants and interested parties. Due process cannot be provided when you have a moving target in terms of regulatory language. She said that the BCRC input was incorrect and she felt that the permit process was an inappropriate avenue to express the judgement that the bylaws are not in compliance with the town plan. Boshart asked what the specific basis of the BCRC determination of conflict was. He asked whether it was that the resort constitutes sprawl. Hurley said that the input was confusing, unclear, and a moving target. Boshart offered that the intent for the outlying areas is for them to be open and not over developed, with decreasing density further from the core. He added that the town plan does not say that there should be no commercial development in the rural areas, just that any development should be sensitive to the conditions of the area.
Town staff met with BCRC staff last week to discuss the BCRC input. Hurley reported that BCRC staff said the resort is clearly not in keeping with the regional plan, but in the BCRC’s second letter, staff reversed that position concluding that it was rather not in keeping with the town plan. The basis of that conclusion appears to be a sprawl argument. Boshart said that counterpoints submitted in response to the BCRC input were effective. There are certain activities that cannot take place in the town core, and just because they occur on the outskirts does not mean it constitutes urban sprawl.
Cutler added that she also did not see a conflict with the town plan and that keeping resort use conditional allows for a careful consideration of impacts. Benson suggested that the 70% preservation, 30% developable for residential subdivisions in the RA maybe part of the basis for the BCRC input, as the proposed resorts is spread across the acreage. Rahona agreed with Cutler’s and Boshart’s assessments. Glabach noted that agriculture is on its way out and the town plan seeks to preserve open spaces and to guide development to protect it, allowing for the board to decide through conditional use review.
Boshart wants the commission to consider clustering incentives of other than residential development in future zoning revisions. That being said, he does not believe that not having such provisions in the ordinance constitutes a contradiction. Hurley said the plan is written in a way that suggests development should conform to the land. She pointed to the illustration on page 62 of the plan and suggested that the commission should be careful not to require clustered development because there may be proposals that are appropriate where clustering is not possible. Boshart agreed and stressed that there should be incentives offered.
Boshart asked whether the planning commission should submit its own letter to the District 8 Commission. Hurley said the opportunity to submit had passed. Hurley submitted a rebuttal to the District 8 Commission after conferring with Town Manager John O’Keefe and Planning Commission Chair Tina Cutler. Boshart said he did not hear anything in this discussion that required different input.
4. Zoning for increased Housing Opportunity.
Hurley indicated that housing continues to be a critical need, particularly housing that is affordable to people who live in the community. She reminded that the main focus of the rezoning effort was to try to alleviate restrictive measures on housing to allow development of more housing that is affordable to people who live and work in Manchester. She observed that we have begun to see conversion of retail units to housing in the downtown, a workforce market rate housing development has been begun on Main Street, and the Town continues in its efforts to see a mixed use development that includes at least 40 units of housing in the downtown. Whereas we have seen some pecking at the edges, she said there remains a market for housing in this town that no one project can address. She suggested the town needs to keep thinking about how to adjust the zoning to be sure that it does not have unnecessary impediments to this kind of housing development.
Hurley reported that Minneapolis eliminated single-family residential zoning. She does not know whether Manchester should do that, but said we should think more in terms of density rather than the type of residential development. Hurley noted that the ordinance limits residential development to single-family dwellings in the RA. Boshart added that multifamily development is not allowed in the R4, R1, or RR. Boshart said opening that up and allowing for clustering could offer an appropriate balance. He cautioned that this could lead to changes to the character of the community that attracts people to want to live here in the first place. Hurley countered that the long-allowed two acre zoning could also have led to that. She reminded the commission that in eliminating the two acre zoning, the commission allowed those development rights to be retained with open space protection and clustering, even on a four acre parcel.
Boshart would like to look at allowing multifamily development in at least the R4 and R1. He was surprised to see that the Main Street development was not multifamily development. Cutler added that extension of the sewer line will be key. Hurley noted that the town is working to extend sewer to the Drunsic development on Main Street before he commences construction of the onsite wastewater system that was permitted. Benson questioned whether it is possible to build affordable housing in Manchester. Boshart suggested that rental housing is where the market will be, noting that the downtown retail conversions are rented as soon as they are available.
Boshart thinks we should consider pushing building height a little higher. Hurley recalled public pushback to the increased height allowances. Boshart noted that was because we had renderings of buildings right on the edge of the street, and surmised that if the buildings were appropriately set back, it would not be an issue. Cutler agreed and suggested the rear Langway lot would be conducive to such development. Boshart added that the downhill portion of Depot Street also offers such areas with Center Hill mitigating the impact. Boshart pointed out that this and next year should be considered a wash with materials and construction costs having risen so much due to pandemic. It should not be the metric by which we judge whether our zoning provisions are working.
There was a discussion of the Willow Pond project siting vacant. Nonetheless, Hurley thinks that the adaptive reuse provision is important. Rahona agreed and said some of the other motels could be converted as well. Cutler added that it would be cheaper than new construction right now. Hurley asked about whether allowing corner store type uses or small support service office use in the R10 would be appropriate. Boshart does not see that as a good idea. He thinks we should continue to encourage such uses in the downtown. Cutler lamented that construction costs are where they are and agreed with Boshart that we should not judge progress by the last year. If prices start to come down we have good things in place and opportunity is there. Glabach added that allowing as much density as possible in the downtown is key.
5. Signage Allowance in Rural Districts.
Hurley directed attention to the permanent sign number limits table on page 119 of the ordinance. In some districts freestanding signs are allowed by number of feet of frontage, but in the rural district only one per lot is allowed. She offered the Dene Farm as an example where this may be unreasonable. Boshart asked whether we should allow by lot area or by frontage. Hurley thought it should be by frontage and offered 300 feet as an appropriate measure for the RA. Boshart agreed that would be an appropriate per sign measure, and not lead to visual discomfort or clutter. Cutler asked why Hildene would need more than one. Hurley offered a description of the operation on the farm that would warrant multiple signs.
There was a discussion of whether changing the current allowances matters if the DRB can grant a waiver. The waiver criteria do not suggest that anything gets a waiver, and if the change is made it would avoid having to hold a waiver hearing. Boshart recommended pursuing a change to allow one freestanding sign per 300 feet for all zones that don’t already have the frontage allowance. Cutler, Glabach, Rahona all agreed.
6. Town Plan Rewrite: Census 2020 Data & Attention to DEI.
Hurley indicated that a town plan readoption is not required until 2025, but the intention when the plan was adopted in 2017 was to begin work on a new town plan when the 2020 Census data was available. Hurley would make an application to the municipal planning grant program to hire someone to guide the public process much as we did with the comprehensive rezoning effort. Hurley said there has not been a public effort to devise a new town plan in decades and it is long overdue. She noted that there have been public planning efforts that have garnered public participation, including the Downtown Strategic Plan process. That was only a three day effort, not something that offered the breadth of coverage of issues that a full plan process should. The NEDS garnered a lot public participation, but that was not exclusively focused on Manchester. The energy plan process did not include a concerted effort to include public participation, rather is was more of a data driven plan. Hurley suggested starting the process next year.
Boshart said the commission should set up a framework for a new town plan similar to what we have now and filling it in with town ideals. He mentioned particularly liking a goal and action item format that will point the town in the direction it wants to go. He said it is like steering a big ship with delayed impacts of 4 to 5 years. Cutler suggested putting out action items to and getting public feedback about what the priorities should be (like NEDS). Hurley encouraged a broader reaching out to different demographics within the town. She said we are routinely able to involve dozens in our planning efforts, but they are generally the same faces. It would be important to involve younger people, even school children, different socioeconomic segments other than the standard middle class.
Cutler suggested reaching out to kids is a good way to involve their parents. There was discussion about how to involve local students in learning about local government, particularly through BBA, which has an AP government class. The town still has provisions that allow for student representation on local boards. There was discussion about how best to make that happen again.
Hurley noted that the plan calls for an updating of the town historic district mapping and documentation. She suggested trying to secure a planning grant for that this year and asked commissioners to read that section of the plan. Boshart said he would be happy to help create CAD-based maps. Hurley directed attention to the Manchester Center District imagery based map and asked Boshart whether that was something Boshart could do in CAD. Boshart confirmed that it was. These historic district updates could then be incorporated into the new town plan.
7. Other Business: Departing Commissioners and Return to In-person Meetings.
Glabach expressed interest in staying on the commission despite his move to Winhall. Hurley suggested he speak with Leslie Perra. Boshart thanked Tina for her service on the commission and for being the chair most recently. Cutler appreciated how much she learned. Hurley indicated that we would be returning to in person meetings in July with a remote participation option. Hurley also expressed gratitude for Glabach’s steady, if quiet, presence on the commission with important input. She suggested that the planning has moved mountains in the last five years compared to the last several years before that. Glabach thanked Hurley for her leadership. Hurley thanked Cutler when Boshart stepped back from the role of chair. She remarked that it was a difficult year and Cutler did as well as anyone could have expected in this unprecedented year with this remote format. She added that she hoped Cutler would remain involved in the town’s planning efforts as a participating citizen.
Commissioners discussed moving the July meeting further into the month. It will be the organizational meeting for the year.
Rahona motioned to adjourn. Boshart seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0-0 at 8:53 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date