TOWN OF MANCHESTER, VERMONT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 18, 2022
Commission Attendees: Megan Amundson, Phil Peterson, Leon Ward, Chris Glabach, Greg Boshart.
Staff Attendees: Janet Hurley (Planning & Zoning Director).
Public Attendees: Jessica & Tim Rhys, Rita Wright, Mike Nawrath, Bill Drunsic, Greg Sukkienik, Brian Benson (via Zoom), Brian Maggiotto (via Zoom), Paul MacDonald (via Zoom).
Hurley initiated recording. Boshart called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He welcomed Megan Amundson to the commission.
1. Minutes for the 5-9-2022 meeting were approved by unanimous consent.
2. Annual Organizational Matters.
Boshart summarized the rules. Hurley explained that the rules were amended to account for town digital notice boards and remote meeting rules, but no substantive changes to previously adopted rules were made. Boshart noted that minutes are only required to reflect those present, decisions made, and attribution of votes taken, but that it is helpful that they reflect discussion. Hurley confirmed that remote participation will be an option for all meetings indefinitely.
Ward motioned to adopt the rules as drafted. Glabach seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Boshart encouraged another commissioner to serve as chair.
Ward nominated Phil Peterson to serve as chair. Glabach seconded the nomination. Phil Peterson was elected chair, 5-0-0.
Ward nominated Greg Boshart to serve as vice-chair. Glabach seconded the nomination. Greg Boshart was elected vice-chair, 5-0-0.
Boshart nominated Chris Glabach to serve as secretary. Ward seconded the nomination. Chris Glabach was elected secretary, 5-0-0.
Peterson took the chair’s place and role for the remainder of the meeting.
3. Short Term Rentals
Hurley reported that the town will engage Doug Kennedy to conduct a study of STRs in Manchester, but awaits a decision from the village trustees as to whether the village will participate in the study. The next trustees meeting is August 1st. Amundson asked what the study would accomplish. Peterson confirmed that the study would examine the impact of STRs on housing (rental, lease, or sale). He noted that Burlington alone has studied STRs and a few other Vermont municipalities have instituted registry for STRs.
Drunsic asked why these establishments cannot be regulated under our current bylaws. Ward noted that many of them are owned by LLCs, so they are corporate entities and not used as residences. Drunsic added that there is no way to monitor whether taxes are being paid and speculated that one disaster at an STR could put the town in a position of liability. Amundson pointed out that LLC entities often own long-term rental housing so the fact of corporate ownership will not distinguish short-term from long-term rentals. Drunsic asserted that STRs exist in a kind of dark web whereas every other business registers with the town and obtains permits. Amundson pointed out that not all businesses must register with the town. Hurley confirmed that the town does not require businesses to register.
Boshart read the definitions of Bed & Breakfast and Inn from the ordinance. He posited that neither of these definitions fits the STR use and suggested that a study would help determine how to define the use and what implications STRs have for the community. Peterson agreed that a study would explore how STRs exist in Manchester and their impacts on the character of neighborhoods and on the housing market, which will be important to establish before proposing regulation. Drunsic re-iterated that it is difficult for other lodging businesses when STRs are not following the rules and that the conversion of our housing stock to STR use must be stopped. Peterson noted that we do not yet know that conversion to STR takes from the long-term rental market. Drunsic urged the town to act quickly and not delay the study.
J. Rhys offered that she and T. Rhys operated STRs in other states that faced housing issues when localities instituted STR regulation, including in midcoast Maine; Portland area Maine; and Portland, Oregon. In Maine STRs were required to pay the same lodging taxes as other lodging establishments. In the Portland, Maine, area only owner occupied properties could be used for STR, and the same rule was adopted in Portland, Oregon. This cut down on STR business use. Also in Oregon, a permit with inspection was required every few years. The Rhys’ did not feel these were too onerous. J. Rhys added that she looked forward to the results of the study. Drunsic agreed that an owner occupation requirement would be very reasonable.
Hurley said that the town would engage Doug Kennedy as soon as the village confirms whether or not it will participate in the study.
4. Depot Street Project Report
Boshart described the makeup and work of the ad hoc committee. The committee includes: Selectboard representatives: at-large residents; residential neighbors to the site; our two state reps; Janet Hurley, John O’Keefe and Gordon Black from town staff, and Boshart from the commission. Boshart summarized the history of the town’s tackling of the housing issue starting with adjusting the zoning to allow more density and height in the core. Once the zoning was changed, the town pursued study of the market for downtown mixed use development. Focusing on two sites, the one in front of the Hampton Inn and the town owned site on Depot Street, the town ultimately found that such development was not feasible at the Hampton Inn site, but for the town owned site, where land costs would be less of a factor, a project might be attainable Boshart said.
Boshart reported that preliminary engineering and architectural concepts have been explored for a building that would involve a first floor parking garage to elevate the rest above flood level. He said he is excited by one architectural concept so far shared. A Phase II environmental assessment is being pursued to address contaminated soils from tanks that were removed when the town hall and fire department vacated the site. Boshart reported that the regional housing agency, Shires Housing, is working with an architect to develop a concept for the site. The committee is working to provide the Selectboard with the information it needs in order to make decisions regarding whether town hall would move to the site, whether the site would be sold outright, or some other arrangement would be pursued. Ideally, Boshart said, the town would eventually hand off the project to a developer. He said it is promising that at least the rear housing development is a real possibility.
There was discussion about the town hall piece, the costs that may be involved, and the tangible and intangible benefits of town hall being located in the downtown. Hurley posited that town hall could provide a stable presence on the street and lead to increased revenues to the town via the options tax. Boshart asked that the commission develop an opinion on the matter to share with the Selectboard. Peterson remarked that it is a laudable project and there is a lot of talk on both sides of the question of moving town hall back downtown. There are the hard costs, quality of life aspects, and the potential for town hall as a magnet for commerce. Peterson would like to express comprehensive reasoning behind an opinion by the commission.
Wright expressed that it is really important to think about people who want to both live and work in the town, but she disagrees with the solution here proposed. A large building such as the one contemplated, she said, would not be in keeping with the village character of the town that draws people here. She suggested instead converting vacant buildings to residential use. Hurley said that is happening. Boshart countered that the town cannot make that happen because the town does not own the vacant sites. Wright reiterated that she supports housing for the town’s workforce and believes it is important to add diversity to the town, but objected to changing Manchester’s character.
Boshart argued that downtown multifamily housing is the only way that workforce housing is financially feasible. Wright asked whether it would be rental housing and turned over to a developer. Boshart indicated that it would be turned over to a developer and would likely be rental housing. He explained that the town has been working with Shires Housing, the local affordable housing agency as likely the only developer that can get a project across the finish line. He said he did not understand Wright’s objection. Hurley interpreted that Wright does not want to see multifamily structures in the downtown because it changes the town character. Boshart apologized for interrupting Wright, but said that even multifamily development with subsidies is barely doable.
Peterson noted that single family and multifamily development can be integrated in acceptable ways and invited Wright to share any specific ideas she had. Wright emphasized that she was present to express her opinion that the type of development being contemplated would harm the essential character of the town. Hurley summarized the town’s research trajectory that led to the current planning for the Depot Street site, suggesting that addressing housing needs will require multifamily development because the costs of construction cannot result in an affordable product otherwise. Boshart said that he would be okay if townspeople decided that multifamily development was not desired in Manchester, but if the town does want to address workforce housing needs, this is the type of development that would do that.
Nawrath objected to Wright’s treatment saying it is shameful that someone can be “shouted down” for expressing their opinion before the commission. He also admonished the town for not providing commission minutes on the town website since June of last year. Commissioners said they would work to correct that. Hurley indicated that she encountered a technical issue a year ago that prevented her from posting minutes to the website. She submits minutes to the clerk, makes the minutes available to anyone that requests them, and shares recordings with GNAT.
Benson said he has no problem with the idea of multifamily housing on the Depot Street site, but wonders why moving town hall there is necessary for the project to “pencil out.” Boshart explained that town hall does not need to be part of the project, but the town would have to be very generous on the price of the property to make a project feasible. Benson suggested that including 15 to 20 electric vehicle chargers on the site would bring people into the downtown and it should be considered for the site.
Drunsic stressed the need to provide enough parking to accommodate the mix of uses, particularly if town hall were to be located on the site. He argued that the current town hall location is very accessible to citizens because of the ample parking that is provided allowing easy ingress and egress. Amundson countered that a downtown location would be more accessible for pedestrians and bikers. Drunsic said that most residents use cars. Amundson said that is a hypothesis that should be tested and encouraged a more expansive view of accessibility.
5. 2022 Working Zoning Revisions
Hurley asked commissioners to consider whether the Palmer Place properties should be incorporated into the Mixed Use 1 district. She said with the historic structures on the site, it is more in line with the purposes of the MU1 for protecting historic character than those for the Mixed Use 2 district to provide for infill development. She indicated that the Rhys’ were present to speak to this idea. Hurley added that she has also been wondering whether the commission should consider allowing lodging establishments to have restaurants open to the public no matter in which zoning districts they fall. There was discussion about this and commissioners generally agreed that in order to be successful, such restaurants probably need to be open to the public. Hurley provided a summary of the zoning districts that allow lodging.
Peterson asked Hurley about her suggestion to examine whether the ordinance should regulate residential use only by density and not the form of the housing. Boshart argued that multifamily housing development should be limited to the core. Ward agreed and said that multifamily housing in the more rural areas removes residents from easy access to services. Peterson agreed that limiting residential to single family and duplexes in the rural areas is important to maintain the rural character of the rural zoning districts. Boshart noted that the ordinance does exclude single family and duplexes in the Downtown and Town Center districts.
Hurley alerted that little time remained and that the Rhys’ were here to address the MU1 and MU2 zoning question. T. Rhys indicated that his property contains four historic buildings, one in which the family lives and J. Rhys operates a preschool in the lower floor. The structure at 87 Palmer Place is an unpainted historic blacksmith shop. T. Rhys indicated that he is a film producer and hopes to offer a small art theater with coffee house in the building. However, he understands that the current MU2 zoning would only allow coffee service when a film is shown. He noted that single screen theaters are no longer viable and his idea is to have occasional art house showings, but offer a café to be open on a regular basis. Boshart indicated he would support changing the zoning to MU1 and wondered whether the Palmer House property should also be changed. Hurley noted that other than the two historic structures on Main Street, most of the Palmer House property does not have historic quality.
Drunsic asked how the public could provide input before proposed changes are formulated. Commissioners explained that these meetings allow such input. There was discussion about the commission’s process for formulating and proposing proposed changes to the ordinance. Hurley indicated that no proposed changes have been formulated yet, but that the commission could refer to meeting minutes to compile a running list. Peterson asked Glabach as Secretary to officially record-keep proposed zoning changes and the discussions around them. Boshart offered to review past meeting minutes with Glabach to create an up to date list of proposed changes.
6. Town Plan Subcommittee Report
Peterson reported on the work of the Town Plan Subcommittee. Ward advocated for the importance of broad public input. Peterson said that to help organize the commission, he and Ward put a preplan together and invited people to review it. Formation of a broader subcommittee was briefly discussed to include at-large community members. Drunsic offered that he thinks the existing plan offers a very solid base from which to work and estimated that the town is ahead on addressing issues such as housing because of it. Boshart added that a new plan should examine current data and update the historic district information. Ward reported that he read six of the previously adopted town plans dating back to the 1980s. He sees that there need to make organizational improvements. Amundson said that she recently read the current plan and found several policy contradictions that should be addressed.
Boshart motioned to extend the meeting to 9:10. Amundson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0.
Hurley added that recent BCRC input suggested weaknesses in the land use section that should be addressed and the section should be broadened to address more than just residential subdivision patterns. She said that a new state law requires plan updates only every 8 years now, up from 5 years previously. She noted that the demographics section is lacking and 2020 Census data should be incorporated. Amundson pointed out that the census data predates the pandemic. Hurley said that post-COVID updates can be accessed. Nawrath suggested the town should ask how many people we want to live here and choose a target population number. Also, he advocating asking how big the town hall needs to be to serve that target population. Drunsic noted that the town has seen a population decline in the last 30 years.
Hurley noted that she does not have the bandwidth under her current workload to tackle a municipal planning grant application and process right now. Commissioners generally agreed that pushing the plan schedule back a year was acceptable.
7. Other Business.
Benson thanked Boshart for his many years of service as planning commission chair. The next meeting of the commission will be Monday, August 8, 2022.
Boshart motioned to adjourn the meeting. Amundson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0 at 9:05 p.m.
_____________________________________ __________________________
For the Planning Commission Date