TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 10, 2022
Commission Attendees: Greg Boshart, Ana Rahona, Phil Peterson, Chris Glabach. Leon Ward (via Zoom).
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Brian Benson (via Zoom), Greg Sukiennik (Manchester Journal).
Hurley initiated recording. Boshart called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
1. Minutes for the 11-08-2021 meeting were approved by unanimous consent.
2. Historic District Survey Walk
Hurley reported on the walking tour of the Manchester Center Historic District (MCHD) conducted with Manchester Historical Society members. She indicated that the consensus was that the area of the former Spiral Scoops, Manchester Medical Clinic, TD Bank, and Charlie’s Coffee House properties should be incorporated into the MCHD. Boshart added that the group felt the Long Ago & Far Away (identifying its original location), old bowling alley building, and former Heinel’s building properties should also be brought into the fold of the MCHD. He wondered about some mechanism that would promote maintenance of historic structures and prevent neglect that often leads to demolition.
Hurley suggested that such mechanisms may involve a more general ordinance about vacant and neglected properties. She suggested talking with the Selectboard about a requiring a fee for vacant buildings. Peterson asked what inclusion in the historic district would mean practically speaking. Boshart offered examples of the Manchester Medical Center porch and the Spiral Scoops demolition. He suggested that historic district inclusion would help preserve the downtown character, or prevent loss of architecture to parking lot or vacant lot. Hurley added that demolition would have to be justified and the DRB would explore whether demolition should be allowed. Boshart indicated that the intent of the Downtown Zoning District was to expand the MCHD character. Hurley indicated that she would like to wait to schedule additional walking tours until warmer weather.
3. Regulating Cannabis Production & Sales
Hurley explained that there will very likely be a town vote to opt in for retail marijuana sales. Anticipating that the vote will be in the affirmative, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether marijuana sales should be treated any differently than other retail use. She also explained that even if the vote was in the negative, production and product manufacturing would be allowed under the new state law. So, the commission may also wish to consider whether such production uses should be regulated any differently under the zoning ordinance than other manufacturing uses.
Boshart suggested treating marijuana sales like alcohol sales. Ward indicated that smoking marijuana should not be allowed in public. Hurley indicated that she thought the state law prohibited consumption in public. Boshart indicated that we are looking at this from a zoning perspective. Benson asked for clarification about retail use being different from production and manufacturing. Hurley said that she asked the cannabis advocate at last week’s Selectboard meeting and studied the Cannabis Control Board website to clarify this too. Even if retail sales are rejected, production, manufacture and wholesale will still be allowed after October this year. She advocating getting ahead of this to have some controls in the zoning by October.
Boshart commented on being in Colorado and seeing a few dozen marijuana stores lit up at night like Las Vegas to attract attention. He noted that the new CBD store in town is really trying to attract attention and is counter to the sign regulations. Hurley reminded that we cannot regulate sign content. Boshart said he feels confident that the sign regulations can adequately address the issue. Peterson reiterated the suggestion to treat cannabis sales like alcohol sales. Boshart noted that the ordinance restricts alcohol sales to the Downtown, Town Center, and the Mixed Use 1 districts (conditional use in MU1).
Peterson expressed concern about proximity of cannabis sales to children and schools. Hurley gave the gun shop example that led to a town ordinance prohibiting gun sales within 1000 feet of a school. She noted that Town Manager John O’Keefe has considered a similar regulation for marijuana sales. Hurley suggested limiting sales to the Town Center district. Peterson suggested there is value to that if it means more circulation with the police as well. Hurley noted that Police Chief Owens indicated to her that he would like it to be restricted to help police monitor the use.
Boshart asked if children’s’ exposure to marijuana sales would be different from their exposure to alcohol. Hurley suggested there will be a wide range of opinions on this. She noted that child and adolescent medical and mental health professionals are very concerned the effects of legal marijuana sales on kids. She noted the high potency of marijuana compared to decades ago. Ward noted an increase in suicide due to high potency marijuana use. Hurley added that there is an increase in emergency room visits due to marijuana use. Boshart redirected to suggest allowing only in the TC district, and then if after several years there was a need, it could be expanded to the DN district if it fits within the district character. Peterson asked if there were age limits for entry into CBD stores. Hurley noted that Greener Pastures cards people. Hurley reported that the new CBD store got temporary approval for signage. If successful, the business will apply for higher quality permanent signage.
Ward asked if marketing to children was prohibited. Hurley indicated that the state law very likely prohibits marketing aimed at children (such as the Joe Camel cigarette marketing). She referred commissioners to the Cannabis Control Board website. Ward explained that legal sales of cannabis will normalize it for kids just like alcohol use. Ward agreed with having it occur only in one district. Peterson asked about the Selectboard appointing a town cannabis board and if such a board were to be established after the vote, what its responsibilities would be. Hurley will inquire as to the status of this and report back. Benson asked if the commission was coordinating with the police department on where sales would be best located. Hurley reiterated that Chief Owens would welcome containment of sales.
4. Revising Landscaping Provisions
Glabach offered that he felt the soil volume and EPU columns in Table 9-1 could be removed. He noted that other ordinances provide a native species list. Hurley asked Glabach to share other landscaping regulations with her as examples to study.
Hurley noted that the landscaping provisions include a performance bond requirement. She noted that she does not have the departmental capacity to administer this as a requirement and in fact has not done so. She suggested that the language be revised to allow a performance bond at the discretion of the DRB. Boshart noted that there is an inconsistency between §9.4.3(4) and §2.11.4. Peterson asked what the criteria for requiring a bond would be. Boshart suggested that the DRB could decide to require a bond if particular landscaping features are critical to the approval of a project.
Hurley reported that she continues to see problems with the provisions as she reviews development proposals. Specific standards address front yards, streetscape, and parking lot islands only. She thinks that whole sites should be addressed and that specific standards that screen parking lots from public streets should be included.
5. Short Term Rentals.
Ward reiterated his support for limiting STR because of residential neighborhood disruption, results in increased taxes, drives up homelessness, and leads to fewer available rentals for families. He suggested limiting it to a certain number of days per year as a way to encourage long-term rental instead. Hurley reiterated the need to study the economics of STRs in Manchester. She indicated that she has considered contacting BCRC about securing a grant for a consortium study of the economics of STR for towns in the region. Boshart agreed that it is definitely something the commission should pursue. He added that might indicate surgical strikes that could be incorporated into the zoning that would help address negative effects of the use.
Boshart said there would need to be a way to quantifiably understand adverse effects and a corresponding way to mitigate them. Hurley questioned whether a zoning regulation could do that. She suggested maybe another type of regulation would be appropriate for such an if/then scenario. Boshart clarified that he wanted to be sure if the zoning limited the use to a particular district, the town could enforce its prohibition from other districts. Ward suggested again limiting to a certain number of days and tracking by taxes paid. Hurley questioned whether such tracking would be possible, saying the state returns rooms tax to the town only as a lump sum.
Boshart suggested letting this issue ferment and, as information comes in, to work on deciding how to address it. Peterson said that the evidence is mixed about the effects of STR. He argued it is important to understand what the goal is, asking is the goal to promote affordable housing or is it capturing more money? Boshart said it is a lot of things including maintaining neighborhood character. Ward said one of the goals should be to open up housing for families for long term rental. He relayed an example of a family in Manchester who has been asked to move because the landlord wants to convert the house to short term rental. Boshart said it might be something that zoning can’t fix, but the commission will keep studying the issue until appropriate measures can be formulated to address it.
Benson inquired why STR use is not considered a commercial use. Hurley explained that it is currently not considered commercial use and is treated no differently than single family use of property. She said it is an issue that municipalities all over the country are tackling right now. This commission is considering how to address STR. Ward said maybe limiting the number of days is an answer. Boshart said it is important to identify the concerns – limiting rental stock for example – what are the five things that we are trying to avoid or correct. Understanding that, what mechanisms should be applied to address them. He suggested the commission revisit the issue every couple of months as information comes in.
6. Planning for a New Town Plan.
Hurley indicated that she wanted to keep this on the agenda until the fall when she will apply for a MPG and by which time we will have a clearer picture of how we want to structure the public planning process. At the last meeting she offered an idea about using posters with QR codes to encourage participation. She urged commissioners to think about ways to involve a wide swath of Manchester’s demographic in this planning effort. Boshart noted that public engagement and conducting as many public brainstorming exercises as possible is important. He suggested reducing the current plan to an outline form and filling in where needed, reusing existing pieces where appropriate. Boshart added that help from the Manchester Historical Society on the historic districts will also be ongoing.
7. Other Business.
No other business was discussed.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be February 28, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. due to holidays in February.
Rahona motioned to adjourn the meeting. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 8:04 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date