Meeting report · Planning and Zoning Commission
Creating this report cost real money.
Help fund coverage →
Planning and Zoning Commission — June 1, 2026
The meeting featured a large volume of public testimony, heated debate over legal definitions, and a split vote on procedural motions.
Questions about this meeting? Just ask.
Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.
Summary
AI-generated to surface controversy & community impact without bias — always verify against the actual meeting before relying on it.
At the June 1 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a heated debate broke out over proposed changes to the Rural Residence (RR) zone. The proposal (Amendment 27-2026) would allow firewood processing and sale as a permitted 'accessory use.'
While supporters argue this helps small businesses, many residents testified against it, citing concerns over chainsaw noise, heavy truck traffic, and potential impacts on the local watershed. A major point of contention during the meeting was whether this amendment is being designed specifically to resolve a legal issue for a single property owner rather than serving the broader community. One commissioner even questioned if the board was 'bending over backwards' to accommodate one specific lot.
The Commission has not yet made a final decision. They have moved the hearing to June 15, 2026, to allow the applicant to submit revised text regarding noise hours and landscape buffers, and to allow staff to review the actual impact of these changes.
Residents should prepare to attend the June 15 meeting to see if the proposed restrictions are sufficient to protect residential character.
❝ Notable statements
↔ Drag to browse
This meeting — choose a section
Public impact
Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed
Potential change to permitted uses in all RR zones, affecting residential privacy and noise levels.
What happened
The Commission voted to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to submit revised regulatory text and for the staff to review enforceability.
What's next
Applicant/attorney to return with revised written regulatory text including seasonal use, landscape buffers, and operational hours for the June 15, 2026 meeting.
Topics discussed
Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker, Michelle Kenton, Vincent Cherico, Michelangelo Cherico, Kim Gorman, Mary McNamara, Rusty Schulten
What was discussed
A proposal to amend zoning regulations to allow the processing and sale of firewood as a permitted accessory use in the Rural Residence (RR) zone.
What happened
The Commission discussed potential restrictions including sourcing radius, DEP certification, hours of operation, and landscape screening. Moved into public hearing; later voted to continue the hearing to allow revised text and review of impacts/conditions. Testimony highlighted tension between residential privacy and local business utility.
What's next
Applicant/attorney to return with revised written regulatory text including seasonal use, landscape buffers, noise/operational hours, and potential qualifying conditions for further consideration at the June 15, 2026 meeting.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed
The Commission discussed the procedural handling of a pending zone change application.
What happened
The Commission voted 8-1 to continue the public hearing for the zone change to June 15, 2026.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed
The Commission discussed whether members can express opinions or leanings during an active public hearing.
What happened
The Chair noted they would not state personal opinions to maintain the deliberative nature of the body but would indicate if more information is needed.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed
An applicant presented a plan for the adaptive reuse of a historic mill at 176 Hartford Road into a neighborhood-scale brewpub.
What happened
The presentation was completed; the Commission subsequently voted to extend the meeting past the 11:00 PM curfew to continue the proceedings.
Controversy & dissent
Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.
Potentially controversial issues
01
Zoning Regulation Amendment 27-2026 (Firewood Processing and Sale)
The proposal seeks to allow firewood processing in Rural Residence (RR) zones. Opponents fear noise pollution, industrial-scale activity in residential areas, and environmental impacts on watersheds, while supporters argue it promotes small business and land preservation.
Board position: The board expressed significant hesitation regarding whether this qualifies as an 'accessory use' and requested more detailed regulatory text and impact studies before proceeding.
Internal dissent
While the final vote to continue the hearing was unanimous by consensus, individual commissioners expressed sharp disagreement during the debate regarding the classification of the use and whether the amendment was being tailored for a single applicant.
high concern
02
Zone Change ZC-6-2026
This pending zone change is tied to the firewood processing amendment; the applicant is delaying the decision on the zone change until the regulation amendment is settled.
Board position: The board voted to delay the hearing to align with the regulatory discussion.
Internal dissent
The vote to continue the hearing was 8-1, with Commissioner Prowse voting 'Nay'.
medium concern
Split votes
Motion to continue the public hearing for zone change ZC-6-2026
8-1
Community vs. board tension
Ready to share? AI-written accountability posts about this meeting's controversies.
View posts →
Public comment
What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
0
Total speakers
0
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Dori Riser
Addressed
Representing the applicant, she argued for the regulation amendment to allow firewood processing and sale as an accessory use in the RR zone. She emphasized that the use is similar to existing permitted uses like nurseries and agriculture and proposed several controls to minimize neighbor impact.
Key concern
Seeking to amend zoning regulations to allow firewood processing and sales as a permitted accessory use in Rural Residence (RR) zones.
Board responseThe board engaged in an extensive Q&A session, discussing buffers, noise, sourcing of wood, and the definition of 'accessory use.'
The board discussed the specific criteria proposed and held the hearing open to consider further modifications to the regulation text.
Eric Prowse
Addressed
As a board member, he inquired about potential buffering requirements to protect adjacent properties from the operation. He specifically asked about visual and noise separation from neighbors.
Key concern
Request for information on buffering/screening for the operation to protect neighbors.
Board responseThe applicant clarified existing 50-foot setbacks and expressed openness to adding requirements that processing occur behind principal structures.
The applicant directly responded to the specific request regarding buffering and setbacks.
Rose Chirico
Addressed
The applicant clarified that most firewood is sourced locally (within 30 miles) and confirmed that tree companies handling deliveries typically manage their own state certifications.
Key concern
Clarifying the local nature of wood sourcing and compliance with state regulations.
Board responseBoard members discussed adding explicit requirements for DEP compliance and radius limits into the regulations.
The board used her information to discuss potential new regulatory language regarding wood sourcing.
Zachary Reichelt
Addressed
A board member asked the applicant to define 'processing' and describe the specific machinery used on-site.
Key concern
Request for technical details on processing methods and equipment.
Board responseThe applicant explained the use of a brute force processor, wood splitters, and chainsaws.
The applicant provided a detailed sequential description of the processing operation.
Chris Schoenberger
Addressed
A board member asked town staff about the potential number of RR lots in Manchester that could operate under these new rules. He expressed concern about proximity to high-density housing.
Key concern
Impact of the amendment on the number of potentially affected lots and proximity to dense housing.
Board responseTown staff provided mapping information, noting that RR zones are typically larger lots and often abut AA zones.
Staff provided a geographic context and assessment of how the zoning layout functions.
Robert Schanbaum
Addressed
A board member questioned how the operation could be classified as 'accessory' when the examples provided (nurseries, farms) are typically primary uses. He expressed concern that this might actually be an industrial operation.
Key concern
Challenge to the classification of the use as 'accessory' versus 'primary/industrial'.
Board responseThe applicant's attorney argued it is accessory because it is conducted by a resident and is subordinate to the residential use, similar to a home occupation.
The board and applicant engaged in a lengthy debate regarding the legal definition and application of 'accessory use.'
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Asked about the current number of employees involved in the business.
Key concern
Inquiry regarding business scale/employee count.
Board responseThe applicant confirmed it is currently just the owner and her son.
The applicant provided a direct answer to the question.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Asked for clarification on the types of trucks used for deliveries and whether semi-trucks are involved.
Key concern
Concern regarding the size and noise of delivery vehicles.
Board responseThe applicant and her son explained that they use standard dump trucks (F350/F450) and occasionally small log trucks, but not semis.
The applicant provided specific details about the vehicles used.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Inquired about potential restrictions on operating hours to mitigate noise.
Key concern
Request for operational hour restrictions.
Board responseThe applicant stated they would be open to discussing specific hours and currently mostly work 9 AM to 4 PM.
The applicant expressed willingness to accept reasonable hour restrictions.
Zachary Reichelt
Addressed
Asked if the logs could be processed off-site to reduce on-site noise and impact.
Key concern
Suggestion to move processing off-site.
Board responseThe applicant noted it is possible but implied the current on-site setup is part of their established operation.
The applicant addressed the feasibility of the suggestion.
Theresa Eich
Addressed
Noted that previous discussions mentioned seasonal use (Oct-March), which is missing from the current proposal. Also asked about landscape buffers.
Key concern
Omission of seasonal restrictions and landscape buffering requirements.
Board responseThe applicant/attorney discussed the change in demand (year-round campfires) and the willingness to add landscaping/screening requirements back in.
The board and applicant discussed reinstating these specific conditions.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Questioned how the noise-heavy operation fits the 'good neighbor' goals of the POCD and whether it's truly an accessory use.
Key concern
Conflict between noise generation and the town's Plan of Conservation and Development.
Board responseThe attorney argued that setbacks, hours of operation, and screening are the tools to maintain neighborly relations.
The attorney provided a rebuttal to the conflict described.
Unidentified speaker
Addressed
Suggested that instead of a 'permitted' use, it should be a 'special exception' use so it can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Key concern
Request to change use from 'permitted accessory' to 'special exception'.
Board responseTown staff confirmed that 'special exception' is a valid alternative for the Commission to consider.
Staff confirmed the legal mechanism suggested by the speaker.
Theresa Eich
Not addressed
Spoke in favor of the application, arguing that the property should be rezoned as a farm to preserve it from residential development and prevent it from becoming mansions.
Key concern
Preservation of land/farm status and preventing residential sprawl.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the testimony, but the discussion focused on the regulation amendment.
The board did not respond to this specific argument during the hearing, focusing instead on the regulation amendment and the legalities of the use.
Virginia Street
Not addressed
Opposed the amendment, stating the land is not suitable for farming due to wetlands and slopes. Expressed concern that the operation is being introduced only to legalize an existing illegal use.
Key concern
Incompatibility of land for farming and the legality/intent of the application.
Board responseThe board did not provide a direct response to these specific claims during the public comment section.
The board did not directly address the specific claims of land unsuitability or illegal intent during this session.
Jeff Pierce
Not addressed
Opposed the operation due to noise from machines and heavy trucks, especially during weekends. Expressed concern about the environmental impact of two-stroke engines.
Key concern
Noise pollution and environmental impact of machinery.
Board responseThe board did not respond directly to this speaker, but the applicant had previously addressed noise/machinery in the Q&A.
There was no direct rebuttal or response to this specific speaker's testimony.
Jim McAnlis
Not addressed
Argued that the property does not fit the definition of a farm due to poor soil and denuded vegetation. Suggested a permanent easement as a way to protect land.
Key concern
The property does not meet the definition of a farm.
Board responseThe board did not respond to this speaker directly.
The speaker's expertise was noted, but no direct board response was given.
Richard Borden
Not addressed
Expressed concerns regarding public safety and hazardous traffic conditions on the narrow Porter Street, citing recent accidents and vehicles blocking the road.
Key concern
Traffic safety and road hazards.
Board responseThe board did not respond to this speaker.
No direct response was provided by the board to these safety concerns.
Nicholas Cherico
Not addressed
Supported the application, noting the history of the property and its role in recycling wood that would otherwise go to a landfill.
Key concern
Support for the business and environmental benefits of wood recycling.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the testimony.
As a supporter/applicant family member, his testimony was noted but not 'addressed' via a response.
Malinda Haddock
Not addressed
Opposed the amendment, stating that the noise from chainsaws and equipment is unbearable even with windows closed and 100 feet away. Noted that the proposed 50-foot buffer is insufficient.
Key concern
Inadequate noise mitigation and insufficient buffer distance.
Board responseThe board did not respond to her specifically, but the applicant had previously discussed the 50-foot buffer.
No direct response was given to her specific testimony regarding the inadequacy of the buffer.
Dave Azevedo
Not addressed
Supported the application, emphasizing the importance of supporting small businesses in Manchester.
Key concern
Support for small business economic health.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the testimony.
No response was required for a general statement of support.
Sheila Flanagan
Not addressed
Expressed concern regarding the environmental impact of wood processing on the adjacent reservoir/watershed and the effect on local wildlife.
Key concern
Impact on the local watershed and environment.
Board responseThe board did not respond directly.
No direct response provided to the environmental concerns.
Colin Mcnamara
Not addressed
Suggested that if the operation must happen, it should be moved to the other part of the property with better access to avoid neighborhood conflict.
Key concern
Relocating the operation for better access and less noise impact.
Board responseThe board did not respond directly.
No direct response provided to the suggestion.
Veronica O'Leary
Not addressed
Expressed support for the applicant personally and urged the board to find a constructive compromise that allows the business to continue while addressing noise.
Key concern
Finding a compromise between business survival and neighbor peace.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the testimony.
No direct response was given to the plea for compromise.
Karen Poirier
Not addressed
Presented a PowerPoint showing satellite images of property changes and videos of noise levels. Argued that the operation has been running without proper permits for years.
Key concern
Visual impact (denuded land), noise nuisance, and long-term lack of proper permitting.
Board responseThe board acknowledged the videos and images provided.
While the board viewed the evidence, they did not provide a formal response/rebuttal to her specific claims during her turn.
Susan Schanbaum
Addressed
Opposed the amendment, arguing that the use is not 'accessory' under common law because it is not subordinate to the residential use. She also warned of the precedent of allowing industrial-scale activities in RR zones.
Key concern
Legal definition of 'accessory use' and the potential for negative zoning precedents.
Board responseThe board discussed the legal definitions and the 'accessory' test during the session.
The board and staff engaged deeply in the legal debate regarding the 'accessory' nature of the use.
Erica Schulten
Not addressed
Expressed concern about noise from log dumping and potential future issues like manure smells if the property becomes a farm.
Key concern
Noise from deliveries and future agricultural odors.
Board responseThe board did not respond directly.
No direct response provided.
Decisions logged
Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Motion to continue the public hearing for zoning regulation amendment 27-26 to June 15, 2026.
Motion by Patrick Kennedy, second by Zachary Reichelt and Ms. Luna.
Passed
Motion to continue the public hearing for zone change ZC-6-2026 to June 15, 2026.
Motion by Patrick Kennedy, second by Mr. Schellenberger. Mr. Prowse voted 'Nay'.
Passed (8-1)
Motion to extend the meeting past the 11:00 PM curfew.
Motion by Robert Schanbaum, second by Ms. Luna.
Passed
Motion to continue the public hearing regarding the regulation amendment.
The Commission decided to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant to submit a revised, written regulatory text and to allow the Commission more time to review the impacts and potential conditions.
Approved (unanimous by consensus)
Action items
Who owes what, by when.
Provide the previous version of the regulation amendment to Commissioner Ike containing the landscape buffer and seasonal use language.
Assigned: Town Staff (Ms. Bertani) · Due: Immediate/Next meeting
Submit a revised, written regulation amendment including specific text for insertion into the code and potential qualifying conditions (e.g., hours of operation).
Assigned: Applicant's Attorney · Due: Next Commission meeting
Send presentation and audio evidence from the hearing to the Commission and the applicant.
Assigned: Town Staff · Due: Before June 15, 2026
Consult with the zoning enforcement officer regarding the practicality and enforceability of the proposed detailed regulations.
Assigned: Town Staff · Due: Before June 15, 2026
Member positions
5 issues · 3 explicit · 7 inferred · 2 unclear
A split vote in this meeting was recorded without naming the dissenter (e.g. a voice vote). Members whose individual vote could not be confirmed are marked UNCLEAR below — this is not the same as a “yes.” Named votes will be filled in if official minutes record them.
Present
Zoning Regulation Amendment 27-2026 (Firewood Processing and Sale)
YES
~
Zone Change ZC-6-2026
UNCLEAR
Motion to extend the meeting past the 11:00 PM curfew
YES
~
Present
Zoning Regulation Amendment 27-2026 (Firewood Processing and Sale)
YES
✓
Questioned if firewood processing qualifies as an 'accessory use' if wood is sourced off-site.
Zone Change ZC--2020
UNCLEAR
Motion to extend the meeting past the 11:00 PM curfew
YES
~
Present
Zoning Regulation Amendment -1999 (Firewood Processing and Sale)
YES
~
Zone Change ZC--2020
YES
✓
Motion to extend the meeting past the 11:00 PM curfew
YES
~
Present
Zone Change ZC--2020
NO
✓
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”
Support coverage
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Manchester.
Follow Manchester
One email when a new report is published from the Planning and Zoning Commission — or one weekly digest.
Report composed by
grok-4.3, gemma-4-26b, grok-4-fast, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-08.
Ask MeetingWatch
Members
Members feature
Ask questions. Get answers with receipts.
Ask about anything covered on this page and get a plain-English answer that links to the report, the official records, and the exact moment in the meeting video.
Create a free accountFree with a MeetingWatch account — no card, no spam.
Already a member? Sign in
Chat is taking a break
Ask MeetingWatch is switched off right now. The meeting report below has
everything we published.
Ask questions about any meeting
Open a community, board, issue, or meeting and I can answer from its records — with links to the report, official documents, and the exact moment in the video.
Then reopen this button to start asking.
AI-generated from meeting records — verify against the linked sources. Conversations are stored (privacy).