Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Planning and Zoning Commission
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Planning and Zoning Commission — June 15, 2026

Manchester P&Z split 7-2 and 6-3 on rezoning and firewood amendment opposed by residents citing noise and 2012 denial.

Strong resident turnout and near-unanimous opposition to the Chirico rezoning and firewood amendment produced the only split votes of the evening.

Date Monday, June 15, 2026 Duration 6.0h Speakers 35 Public comments 12 Decisions 12 Spirited
Site plan with proposed building, setbacks, and existing structures Video still
Site plan with proposed building, setbacks, and existing structures Frame from meeting video ▶ 13:15

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 its June 15 meeting, Manchester's Planning and Zoning Commission recorded its only split votes on items tied to 571/599 Porter Street. A 7-2 roll call closed the public hearing on the AA-to-RR zone change. A 6-3 vote continued the text amendment that would allow firewood processing and sales as a special exception in the RR zone.

Twelve residents spoke against both proposals. They cited ongoing industrial noise, prior zoning violations, tree removal, and the absence of changed conditions since the commission denied a similar request in 2012. One speaker supported the business. The board heard the comments but took no immediate action to deny the applications.

All other matters that night, including approvals for a cold-storage building and a medical clinic rezoning, passed 9-0 or 8-0 with 1 abstention. The Chirico-related items return for further discussion on July 6.

Jun 15, 2026 6.0h long 35 speakers 12 public comments 12 decisions Spirited
Notable statements Drag to browse

“Concern that any electrical run might cross wetland area; staff should confirm no off-site lines needed.”

— Unidentified speaker · During Transfer Enterprises discussion ▶ 20:13

“Any future electrical work must follow plan as approved; modifications return via staff or commission.”

— Unidentified speaker · Clarifying conditions on cold-storage approval ▶ 27:35

“The 2012 denial was about horses, not firewood; do not use it to deny this request.”

— Unidentified speaker · Rebuttal during zone-change presentation ▶ 1:48:41

“The regulation change must benefit the entire town and be consistent with the POCD, not just one property.”

— Unidentified speaker · Questioning applicant attorney on text amendment ▶ 2:12:04

“Special exception gives us an opportunity to tailor the regulation... You get one crack at getting it right, and if you fail, well, you're kind of stuck with it.”

— Unidentified speaker · Expressing concern over limited future flexibility once criteria are set. ▶ 2:45:18

“We've got an array of raw ingredients, but no recipe... Every single time there's a question, it opens up two more.”

— Unidentified speaker · Summarizing the number of unresolved definitional and enforcement issues. ▶ 3:04:37

“If you feel it's okay to have a noisy detrimental business on one residential property, you better be ready to apply that across the board.”

— Unidentified speaker · Opposing broad impact of amendment in rural residential areas ▶ 3:33:36

“Why is the existing industrial district not sufficient?”

— Unidentified speaker · Questioning need for RR zone exception ▶ 3:42:29

“I urge the commission to retain these limitations on usages in family mansion zone in order to protect this rare landmark designation our district enjoys.”

— SPEAKER_31 (reading Lynn Ferigno) · Email concerns about expanded commercial uses in family mansions ▶ 4:51:09

“Makes sense, and I think it probably should have been done a while ago when we were looking at these things to differentiate in order to carve out and retain and preserve the mansion district as it is.”

— Unidentified speaker · Support for map amendment 8-2026 ▶ 5:05:08
This meeting — choose a section

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
What was discussed

Potential introduction of regulated industrial-scale firewood operations on residential lots meeting new lot-size and area-cap standards

What happened

Hearing continued 6-3 to July 6 for revised draft language.

Topics ⁠discussed

Each topic expands to quotes and full context.
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Engineer presented plans for a 50x70 ft unheated prefab steel storage building at 140 Progress Drive within the 100-ft upland review area; commission reviewed wetlands and special exception impacts.

What happened

Both the Inland Wetlands Permit 30-2026 and Special Exception Modification 48-2026 approved 9-0; approvals based on no significant wetland impact and consistency with special-exception criteria.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Chair confirmed attendance of nine seated members (including alternate Margaret Brewer) and outlined agenda order to accommodate prior continuances.

What happened

Margaret Brewer seated for all items; Arianna Larson observing; eight full members seated.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Public hearing continued on application to rezone 571 and 599 Porter Street from AA to RR (with applicant-offered amendment carving out a portion along Hickory Lane to remain AA). Multiple residents opposed the rezoning, citing ongoing industrial noise from firewood processing, past zoning violations, 2012 denial of similar request, and lack of changed conditions; one speaker supported the business as locally beneficial. Commissioners and applicant attorney examined adjusting the proposed RR boundary to provide additional AA buffer for the house at 32 Hickory Lane while still accommodating existing farm uses.

What happened

Hearing opened and public comment begun; board voted to close the public hearing on the AA-to-RR zone change (item 0062026) by 7-2 roll call. No decision reached on the zone change itself.

Aerial map showing property boundaries and measurement tools Video still
Aerial map showing property boundaries and measurement tools ▶ 1:20:37
Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Applicant revised proposal from permitted accessory use to special-exception use, adding minimum lot size, 25% area cap, and case-by-case review requirements. Discussion covered classification of the use, special exception criteria, broader regulatory consistency and scale concerns, and public opposition.

What happened

Hearing opened; no consensus reached on specific language. Commission expressed discomfort with shoehorning the use without broader regulation review. Multiple motions to continue or close failed until a successful motion passed 6-3 to continue amendment 27-2026.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Application to rezone B5 property to CUD to permit medical clinic use within existing retail building.

What happened

Public hearing closed unanimously.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Proposed map and regulation amendments to split single Historic zone into separate SM and FM districts. Discussion of proposed separation, concerns over expanded permitted uses in family mansions, and recommendation to remove dormitories as a permitted use.

What happened

Board acknowledged concerns and agreed to modify the proposal by striking dormitory as a permitted use from family mansion area; confirmed no substantive use changes had been made since June of prior year. Public hearing closed unanimously.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
What was discussed

Review of proposed acquisition of cross-easements at 296 Broad Street to facilitate Broad Street Parkade redevelopment.

What happened

Favorable report issued unanimously (9-0).

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Chirico property AA-to-RR zone change and firewood processing text amendment

Twelve residents spoke against rezoning 571/599 Porter Street and allowing firewood processing as a special exception in the RR zone, citing years of noise, clear-cutting, past zoning violations, and lack of changed conditions since the 2012 denial; one speaker supported the business.
Board position: Closed the zone-change hearing by 7-2 and continued the text amendment by 6-3, signaling willingness to consider the applications with possible line adjustments or added conditions.
Internal dissent
Eich and one other member voted against closing the zone-change hearing; three members voted against continuing the text amendment.
high concern

Split votes

Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026
7-2
Continue public hearing on zoning regulation amendment 27-2026 (firewood processing)
6-3

Community vs. board tension

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
12
Total speakers
0
Addressed
0
Partial
12
Not addressed
Jeff Pierce
Not addressed
Opposes any zoning changes at the Chirico property. Notes the property has been clear-cut and turned into an industrial eyesore over seven years. Warns that approval will lead to further expansion like roads and snowballing impacts. Key concern
Aesthetics, noise, and precedent for illegal commercial activity in a residential zone
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Karen Poirier
Not addressed
Opposes both applications, emphasizing 15 years of illegal firewood operations. Highlights the 2012 denial for similar reasons and argues the applications are an attempt to retroactively legalize violations rather than a legitimate request. Key concern
Pattern of noncompliance, enforcement burden on neighbors, and inappropriate location for commercial use
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Don Lappin
Not addressed
Opposes the zone change and regulation amendment. Describes the property as an eyesore due to clear-cutting and visible commercial activity from neighboring yards. Key concern
Visual blight and property value impacts
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Jim McCandless
Not addressed
Strongly opposes the amendments. Details destruction of a formerly beautiful neighborhood property, noise, lights, derelict vehicles, and lowered property values. Argues the business belongs in an industrial zone. Key concern
Noise, visual blight, quiet enjoyment, and inappropriate zoning for industrial-scale processing
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Melinda Haddock
Not addressed
Opposes rezoning. Describes constant chainsaw noise, lies from the applicant about being grandfathered, impacts on family health, and chickens/dogs trespassing. Questions what comes next if rezoned. Key concern
Noise pollution, lack of trust, health impacts, and future intensification
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Susan Chanbaum
Not addressed
Opposes the zone change. Argues the split zoning was intentional to buffer neighbors. Cites legal standards requiring changed conditions or mistake in original zoning; none exist here. Notes environmental damage and POCD conflicts. Key concern
Lack of changed conditions since 2012 denial, environmental harm, and precedent for spot zoning
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Richard Borden
Not addressed
Opposes the zone change. Notes the operation has become more obnoxious since the 2012 denial and warns of declining property values. Key concern
Intensification of use and property value impacts
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Rusty Schulten
Not addressed
Corrects the record on 'veteran-owned' claims and ongoing manure issues. Argues that approving based on proposed restrictions is flawed because the operation would still be larger and more detrimental than in 2012. Key concern
Misrepresentation of business status and scale of impacts
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Chris Adams
Not addressed
Supports the amendments, arguing the business provides locally sourced wood and alternative energy. Key concern
Support for small business and alternative energy
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Rusty Schulten
Not addressed
Responds that the business can only offer lower prices because it operates illegally without regulatory overhead; this is not a community benefit. Key concern
Unfair competition from illegal operation
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Jeff Pierce
Not addressed
Rejects wood as renewable energy due to carbon pollution. Notes many other places sell wood without being next to homes. Key concern
Environmental impact and inappropriate siting
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing
Veronica O'Leary
Not addressed
Defends the property and applicant. States restrictions could appease concerns and asks the board to consider all testimony fairly. Key concern
Fairness and potential for mitigation
Board did not respond to individual comments during the public hearing

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Approve Inland Wetlands Permit 30-2026 for Transfer Enterprises at 140 Progress Drive
Motion by Kennedy, second by Schoenberger; five-year approval with one-year work completion requirement.
9-0
Approve Special Exception Modification 48-2026 for 50x70 ft cold-storage structure at 140 Progress Drive
Motion by Kennedy, second by Schoenberger; meets Article 6 Section 18.10.3 criteria.
9-0
Close public hearing on zone change 0062026 (AA to RR)
Roll-call: Reichelt, Brewer, Luna, Schanbaum, Kennedy, Chair, and one additional aye; Eich and one other nay.
7-2
Continue public hearing on zoning regulation amendment 27-2026 (firewood processing)
Motion by Kennedy, second by Schoenbergerer; roll call confirmed after initial failed attempts.
Passed 6-3
Close public hearing on zone change ZC 7-2026 (medical clinic)
Motion by Kennedy, second by Schoenbergerer.
Passed (unanimous)
Close public hearing
Motion by Mr. Kennedy, second by Chris Schoenbergerer; chair confirmed joint hearing intent.
Approved (aye, no nays/abstentions)
Table Zone Change 6-2026 to July 6, 2026
Motion by Mr. Kennedy.
Approved 9-0
Approve Zone Change 7-2026 (50 Hale Road B-5B5 to CUD)
Motion by Mr. Kennedy; effective July 1, 2026; consistent with retrofit growth policies.
Approved 9-0
Approve Zoning Map Amendment 8-2026 (historic zone split)
Motion by Mr. Kennedy; effective July 1, 2026.
Approved 8-0 (1 abstention)
Approve Regulation Amendment 29-2026 with dormitory deletion
Motion by Mr. Kennedy; deletes dormitory as P use from family mansion accessory uses; effective July 1, 2026.
Approved 8-0 (1 abstention)
Issue favorable report on Mandatory Referral MR3-2026 (296 Broad Street easements)
Motion by Mr. Kennedy.
Approved 9-0
Approve minutes of June 1, 2026 meeting
Motion by Mr. Kennedy.
Approved (aye)

Share ⁠this report

Drafts ready to post — click a block to copy, or use Share to post it.

X / Twitter — by angle

split vote closing hearing despite documented community opposition
Manchester P&Z voted 7-2 on June 15 to close the public hearing on rezoning 571/599 Porter Street from AA to RR. Twelve residents opposed, citing ongoing noise from firewood processing, past violations, and no changed... https://meetingwatch.org/ct/manchester/planning-zoning-commission/2026-06-15/ #MeetingWatch #ManchesterCT
326/280 chars
split vote on amendment with town-wide residential impact
The same meeting saw a 6-3 vote to continue the text amendment allowing firewood processing as a special exception in RR zones. Residents warned this would affect 40% of town land; commissioners noted unresolved enforcement... https://meetingwatch.org/ct/manchester/planning-zoning-commission/2026-06-15/ #MeetingWatch #ManchesterCT
332/280 chars
contrast showing isolated division on contentious rezoning
All other June 15 P&Z items passed 9-0 or 8-0 (1 abstention), including cold storage at 140 Progress Drive and the 50 Hale Road medical clinic rezoning. Only the Chirico-related matters produced dissent. https://meetingwatch.org/ct/manchester/planning-zoning-commission/2026-06-15/ #MeetingWatch #ManchesterCT
309/280 chars

X thread

1
Manchester P&Z closed the hearing on rezoning 571/599 Porter Street 7-2 on June 15. Residents detailed years of chainsaw noise, escaped animals, wetlands citations, and the 2012 denial of a similar request. The board moved forward anyway. #MeetingWatch #ManchesterCT
266/280
2
A companion text amendment to permit firewood processing as a special exception in RR zones was continued 6-3. Eleven of twelve public speakers opposed it, arguing the use does not fit agriculture definitions and risks industrial activity across residential districts.
268/280
3
Commissioners acknowledged definitional problems, enforcement gaps, and POCD conflicts but signaled openness to revised boundaries or conditions. The items return July 6. No other agenda items that night produced split votes. https://meetingwatch.org/ct/manchester/planning-zoning-commission/2026-06-15/
249/280

Facebook — long form

At its June 15 meeting, Manchester's Planning and Zoning Commission recorded its only split votes on items tied to 571/599 Porter Street. A 7-2 roll call closed the public hearing on the AA-to-RR zone change. A 6-3 vote continued the text amendment that would allow firewood processing and sales as a special exception in the RR zone.

Twelve residents spoke against both proposals. They cited ongoing industrial noise, prior zoning violations, tree removal, and the absence of changed conditions since the commission denied a similar request in 2012. One speaker supported the business. The board heard the comments but took no immediate action to deny the applications.

All other matters that night, including approvals for a cold-storage building and a medical clinic rezoning, passed 9-0 or 8-0 with 1 abstention. The Chirico-related items return for further discussion on July 6. https://meetingwatch.org/ct/manchester/planning-zoning-commission/2026-06-15/ #MeetingWatch #ManchesterCT

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Revise proposed amendment and address commission questions/comments
Assigned: Applicant (Attorney Rizer / Ms. Chirico) · Due: July 6 meeting
Schedule aquifer protection area transfer discussion 15-30 minutes early before July 6 meeting (or July 20 if needed)
Assigned: Planning staff · Due: July 6, 2026
Hold special meeting on comprehensive regulation amendments
Assigned: Board · Due: June 29, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Member ⁠positions

2 issues · 5 explicit · 4 inferred
Margaret Brewer
alternate (seated)
Present
Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026 YES
Transfer Enterprises cold storage approvals YES ~
Present
Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026 YES
Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026 YES
Transfer Enterprises cold storage approvals YES ~
Present
Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026 YES
Transfer Enterprises cold storage approvals YES ~
Present
Close public hearing on AA-to-RR zone change 0062026 NO
Transfer Enterprises cold storage approvals YES ~

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.

Report composed by grok-4.3, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-21.