One select board meeting, 3 contentious issues and a glitch

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2024 Telegraph Publishing LLC

The Chester Select Board had its hands full at its Wednesday, Dec. 18 meeting as it again took on controversial changes to rural zoning but put off a vote, handed down a determination in a long-standing Class 4 roads dispute and learned that sometimes delaying a decision is the right choice.

But the 6:30 p.m. start time was pushed back nearly a quarter of an hour due to a technical glitch that left Zoom audiences looking at a black screen and the board and Town Hall attendees forced to use the microphone of one laptop to be heard for the recording of the meeting.

The majority of the 3 1/2 hour session was given over to a public hearing on zoning changes and an agenda item in the board’s regular meeting to vote on it. At a previous meeting, the board had decided that it wanted the Planning Commission to drop density based zoning which is a new way of looking at lot sizes for development. But the board returned to the topic with members saying they had different memories of what they had decided to do and several residents expressed opposition to portions of the change in zoning.

Chester resident Leslie Thorsen – who with her husband Scott Kilgus – have been vocal opponents of the Julian Materials quarries in Gassetts, asked why quarrying had been removed from the Residential 2 district but not the Rural 3 district, which makes up the largest physical portion of the town.

“Is it OK for residents of Dean Brook to listen to excavators and backup beeping and nuisance noise all day long, but over here in the residential neighborhood we don’t want to hear it?” asked Thorsen.

Board members noted that quarrying is a subject to a conditional use hearing and conditions placed on the quarry’s operation. However, Thorsen said that such conditions are not enforced. “If you decide not to follow conditions of your permit, nothing happens,” she said.

The R2 is a recently created residential district and R3 is a proposed rural zoning district. The numbers refer to the minimum lot size in acres. Existing lots that are smaller than those minimums are considered non-conforming but may still be developed.

With regard to the difference between the two zones, board Chair Arne Jonynas said the decision on R2 was made last year and were not up for discussion now. Thorsen countered that the question of quarrying in R3 is open and there should be robust discussion of it before the board votes.

Also at issue was a proposed change that would reduce front yard setbacks from 50 to 40 feet and side yard setbacks from 40  50 to 30 feet. The road frontage would also be reduced from 200 to 150 feet.

Chester resident Amy Mosher said she thought that after the previous meetings, the setback dimensions would revert to their original numbers and pointed to “maximum lot coverage” of 20 percent versus the original 10 percent.  Maximum lot coverage refers to the number of square feet of development allow in any zone. A maximum of 10 percent would allow 4,356 of developed space per acre. Mosher requested that the board discuss these before voting on them.

Board member Lee Gustafson said he thought it was just to be a hearing and not a vote, but had not noticed the possible vote later on the agenda.

With Gustafson and board member Peter Hudkins expressing doubts about the changes and board member Tim Roper saying he was in favor, member Arianna Knapp could have been either the tie or deciding vote. Knapp said she had come to the meeting expecting to vote yes on the amendment, but hearing residents’ objections she wondered what the changes were supposed to fix. She said she is not opposed to change, but was interested in knowing if the changes were needed since residents were against them.

Roper said that it’s human nature to resist change, but that the Planning Commission has to be proactive and ask what Chester is going to look like in 50 years. Pointing to some objections to the changes as “worst case scenarios,” he said those seldom come to pass.

And with some more discussion, the board closed the hearing. When it brought it back up for voting, things got a bit more heated, mostly with interrupting and even a personal comment from the public. This led to Jonynas asking that the remote microphones be shut off while the board discussed. While a public hearing is intended to give the public an opportunity to weigh in on an issue, the Select Board can limit or stop public input during regular session deliberations on a topic. All public meetings are required to have at least one public comment period, but boards are not required to recognize speakers outside those periods.

In the end, the board decided to look at the public’s objections and return to the topic on Jan. 2.

Planning Commission chair Hugh Quinn said that the regulations will never be perfect, but they are 95 percent good and should move forward.

Bailey Hill Road

For almost a year, Massachusetts resident Paul Bidgood, who owns property that straddles both Chester and Cavendish, has asserted that Bailey Hill Road has been discontinued in the past and now belongs to the owners of the land it passes through.

Over Bidgood’s objections, the town in early February listed it as a Class 4 road on its annual highway mileage inventory for the state of Vermont. The board had told Bidgood that they would look at his evidence and other information and consult with town attorney Jim Carroll before getting back to him.

At the end of the Dec. 18 meeting, the board returned from an executive session on the topic, stating that it had found “that a reasonable and good faith basis exists to find that Bailey Hill Road continues to exists as a town highway…” The board went on to say that could be changed by a formal highway proceeding or by a court declaration.

The board then asked Town Manager Julie Hance to send the decision to Bidgood who has sued both Cavendish and Chester in the past.

Driveway for Henry Office Building still undecided

Hance told the board that town attorney Carroll had looked at the question of allowing a curb cut for a new driveway on the east side of the Henry Office Building on Main Street and had advised that the decision belongs to the Road Foreman Kirby Putnam.

The board had heard from Kevin Longo – who owns the building – at its Dec. 4 meeting because Putnam was concerned that Longo had gotten a lawyer involved and wanted to be sure he was on firm footing before proceeding.

The board heard Longo’s lengthy presentation, in which he explained that the driveway easement he shares with his neighbor to the west has been problematic and that a driveway next to his neighbor to the east would fix the problem. They decided to send the question to Carroll who said the board is one level of appeal, but that Putnam should first decide whether or not to grant street access. Carroll will speak with Putnam about the criteria he must use to make the decision, according to Hance. In addition to the ability to appeal the access decision to the Select Board, it could also be appealed directly to the Superior Court.  Town Planner Preston Bristow said that in his experience he would expect that it could be appealed by Longo and by his neighbor to the east.

Jonynas asked Hance to be sure that the neighbors of the building be made aware of the process.