TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 8, 2021
Commission Attendees: Greg Boshart, Ana Rahona, Phil Peterson, Chris Glabach. Leon Ward.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson (via Zoom).
Hurley initiated recording. Boshart called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
1. Minutes for the 10-11-2021 meeting were approved by unanimous consent.
2. Historic District Mapping & Inventory
Hurley reported that she scheduled a walking tour of the Manchester Center Historic District with Manchester Historical Society members for Monday, November 15, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. Boshart encouraged commissioners to attend. Hurley suggested meeting at the button roundabout. She will send 1986 survey information to commissioners via email and post the walking tour on the Town Calendar.
3. Review of Waivers
Hurley reviewed waivers that were issued in the last year and a half. There have been four setback waivers, three sign waivers, one curb cut waiver (and DRB considering another curb cut waiver now). Hurley noted that Hildene was granted a waiver to allow more than one freestanding sign. Boshart asked whether there was much deliberation on the curbcut waiver. Hurley said that there was for the Pearls Place waiver to allow retaining the three existing curbcuts. Boshart surmised that the DRB may allow waivers where there is an existing situation like this, but probably would not for new development. Hurley agreed.
There was discussion about the proposed barn wedding venue on River Road. Rahona indicated that she’d been contacted by concerned neighbors. Hurley explained the conditional use review process and rights to appeal. She argued that conditions could be imposed that minimize impacts, whereas conditions cannot be imposed on residential use, which could have more impacts. Boshart offered the Pearls Place example in which the DRB conditioned the use of a pickup window on the applicant paving Butternut Lane. Hurley noted that the applicant will not pave the road and therefore will not be able to use the pickup window. Boshart characterized such a conditional decision as a give and take and stressed the importance of abutters attending conditional use hearings to voice concerns and maintain rights to appeal.
Hurley said the question for the Planning Commission is how many wedding venues in Manchester is too many. She said the tricky thing is that some of those venues are in the village and we don’t know what the village standards and conditions might be. The town standard is that sound should not be higher than background at the property lines. Background changes throughout a day and year, but there is a limit and if it is quiet then the venue needs to be quiet. Time limits and other conditions can also help mitigate impacts.
Hurley continued with the waiver analysis and reported a coverage waiver was granted on the Benson Road project and a fence waiver was applied for but withdrawn. One of three setback waivers was withdrawn. One was for a garage addition, one was for putting a roof on an existing staircase, and one was for a deck on the back corner of a house. Ward asked why that would need a waiver. Hurley explained that the back corner of the house was in the setback. She summarized that there were 10 waivers in a year and a half, two of which are not being pursued, and two are being considered by the DRB right now, one for the curbcut on the wedding venue and one for a functional second story on the microbrewery. Boshart said that the functional second story waiver should be carefully considered. Hurley indicated there were specific criteria that must be met for that one. Hurley added that the DRB is considering a pole light height waiver for lighting in the MEMS parking lot.
Boshart asked whether Hurley felt that there should be specific limits added to the ordinance based on the waivers issued in the last year and a half. Hurley did not suggest any specific limits and noted that a zoning revision was made to allow multiple signs on large lots and a coverage revision was made as well. Boshart argued that the commission should look at strengthening the waiver criteria.
4. Zoning Revisions
Boshart noted that the zoning revisions went into effect on Tuesday after a 3-2 vote by the Selectboard. He suggested soliciting comment from those who voted against the amendments. Hurley noted that the concerns were about the town aquifer and whether there is an adequate understanding of the surficial geology given recent study of the geology of the Vermont Valley. She said it is something that Town staff and the Water Board would need to follow up on. The town cannot change the sourcewater protection area boundaries without going through the Department of Environmental Conservation. Boshart agreed that questions about the surficial geology need to be answered but expressed support for the APO standards put forth and now in effect as appropriate given our current understanding.
Boshart would like to get comment back from the hydrogeologist and address any Selectboard concerns. Hurley noted that one of the Selectboard members wanted a “second opinion” from another hydrogeologist. Boshart suggested a next set of zoning revisions should be considered after town plan activities or in tandem with them if significant enough to warrant earlier attention.
5. Landscaping Standards
Boshart asked Hurley if she was able to put anything together on landscaping provisions. Hurley said she was not, but that she reviewed the microbrewery landscaping plan against the current ordinance provisions and characterized them as not workable. She said determining Equivalent Planting Units (EPA) is cumbersome. She thinks it could be more of a qualitative analysis rather than an entirely quantitative analysis. She noted that the current standards focus on front yard and streetscape, but that other areas are not addressed. She also noted that quantity of landscaping in small front yards in the downtown needs to be re-examined, and that parking lot islands for large parking lots versus general parking lot screening for smaller parking lots should be looked at. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative standards should be devised. Hurley asked Glabach to analyze one of his landscaping plans against the current provisions.
6. Short Term Rentals.
Ward reported on his research into the matter which revealed that there is a direct relationship between STRs and housing shortages and costs. He argued that neighborhoods also suffer due to disruptive activities associated with STRs. He said some towns limit STRs to owner occupied units, and limit the number of days that units can be rented, which may result in owners making the calculation that the long term rental market is more profitable. Boshart conducted a hypothetical exercise to explore how limits on STR might make long term rental more profitable. He and Ward suggested this would limit nuisance days and open up the housing market. Ward noted that higher priced homes are only offered for STR on the weekends.
Peterson summarized that Ward’s justification is that STRs remove property from the residential market. He warned against implementing regulations without data. He noted that STRs fulfill a need when area hotels fill up. Limiting STRs could disallow visitors, which could negatively affect the local economy without necessarily opening up residential units to the long term market. He urged the commission to look at the economics of both the housing market and the lodging market. He asked whether we could get data through the state rooms tax information.
Ward noted that Airbnb and VRBO websites show numbers of units available in Manchester. Hurley cautioned that some units may actually be in surrounding towns but identified as Manchester. Ward noted that studies indicate that STRs hit resort towns the hardest. Boshart argued that fulltime residents do not necessarily support the local restaurants to the degree that they need. He argued that we need to find the right balance. Peterson added that whether long term rentals would be affordable to the people who need them is not a given and that there are those who reside in STRs for short term working gigs. Ward indicated that the research shows that the more STRs there are the higher rental housing costs go up and it drives tax values down in neighborhoods.
Hurley put forth that Manchester has always had a substantial second home market and there are many nuances to this STR issue that the town does not have the staff to examine. Ward added that a Harvard study showed that lower income households are able to buy some of these second homes because they can subsidize ownership with STR. So STRs are changing the demographics of second home ownership, but it is still primarily white. Boshart asked whether STRs could be limited in certain zoning districts, perhaps limiting them to the rural areas would open up the downtown for lower income households and STRs would have less nuisance impacts in larger lot rural areas.
Hurley suggested seeking grant funding to do the necessary research. Boshart urged determining what percentage of STR units results in negative impacts. Hurley suggested that the flip side is to determine how many lodging units our visitor based economy requires. She noted that Manchester has always had a problem housing people that work in this community and it has been a second home community for decades. She said the recent zoning changes allow denser residential development that would be cheaper to build, but that housing still cannot be built at an affordable price. She asserted this problem is not due to just STRs and that there are a lot of reasons that it is expensive to build housing (energy codes, land costs). She said we need to find out how much STRs are affecting the development of new housing in this town.
Peterson asked if the problem is not having enough places for people to live or visit, perhaps there should be a limit on vacancy. Ward said that he would support a vacancy tax. Hurley pointed out the Planning Commission doesn’t write or institute tax policy. Peterson supports the idea of conducting an economic impact study. Hurley said it would be something suitable for the Municipal Planning Grant program next year. Boshart does not want to dilute the town plan process, so suggests keeping an eye on the issue.
7. Public Outreach Idea for Town Plan Effort.
Boshart reviewed Hurley’s idea to have 11” x 17” posters around town that asks people to be involved in Manchester’s future. A QR code on the poster would lead to a survey to solicit feedback. Perhaps there could be publicity around installing these posters to indicate that the commission was beginning a planning process. Boshart suggested this would open the process up to comments from people who are not the usual stakeholders. Ward noted that there are companies that will produce an app for $75. There was discussion about conducting a public planning process, with public meetings, working groups, and walking tours. Hurley confirmed that a Municipal Planning Grant should be pursued, as the town is due for a new plan, not just a rewrite.
8. Other Business.
Peterson noted that commissioners were to look at the primitive camp issue. Boshart confirmed that we would keep that on the list of potential revisions to be considered over the course of the next few months.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be November 8, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. Glabach motioned to adjourn the meeting. Rahona seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 8:16 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date