In densely busy meeting Chester board picks sidewalk design

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

With the Chester Select Board meeting once a month – rather than twice – during the summer, meeting agendas can grow and sometimes bring together large and complex issues.

Last Wednesday was a perfect example.

The board held a two hearings, discussed and approved a zoning change and a related policy, heard about a traffic study taking place shortly, approved a loan from the town’s Economic Development Fund and kicked off the discussion of a local option sales tax to support the Housing Reserve Fund approved by voters in March. Two of those are being addressed in separate articles you can find here:

• Chester considering local option tax to support new housing initiative
• Chester to test pedestrian solutions on the Green

At the board’s July meeting, Alyssa Gurney of Dufresne Group gave a presentation on a scoping study the engineering firm conducted. The results were several alternatives for laying out sidewalks from the junction of Routes 11 and 103 to the Green Mountain High School.

At last Wednesday’s meeting, the board was asked to select one of the alternatives so Dufresne could complete the study with a final report.

According to the presentation by Dufresne’s Matt Bissell, the town requested two more alternatives – 4a and 4b – which worked out the costs and challenges of putting sidewalks on both sides of Route 103. Those alternatives would increase pedestrian access to the area and increase safety by reducing the need to use crosswalks.

Alternatives 1 and 2 were estimated to cost around $1.8 million each and Alternate 3 (which would use a walking path behind the Mountain View development to reach the school) was around $1.5 million. But Alternative 4 was estimated to cost just under $3 million.

Town Manager Julie Hance said that 4b – with a grass buffer and curbstones – was her preferred option. She has said in the past that if a proposed housing development on town land behind the Chester-Andover Family Center comes to fruition, a sidewalk would be great asset. And while board member Peter Hudkins agreed that the grass buffer and curbs will protect the sidewalks better, he preferred 3b.

In the ensuing discussion, the poor state of the town’s sidewalks came up. Board member Arne Jonynas said the public wants those fixed. Hance agreed, adding that priority has to be given to  existing sidewalks. She also said that it is likely to be a long time before this project is funded and built.

Board members recognized that a scoping study is one of the first steps in such a project and that choosing the “Cadillac plan” would give the town lots of information that it could act on or scale back in the future. Board member Tim Roper agreed, saying that it’s best to have a plan.

In the end, the board chose Alternative 4b but at prompting from member Peter Hudkins added setting gravel on the path along the sewer right-of-way behind Mountain View, which students already use.

Bissell was also on hand as the board — acting as the town’s Water and Sewer Commission — held a “Finding of No Significant Impact” hearing for the town’s sewer project. The project will relocate a sewer main and raise the Flamstead Road pump station above the flood zone.  Bissell discussed the recent archeological dig in that area noting, that there would be monitoring during any ground disturbance.

Jonynas said that the diggers had left piles of dirt rather than putting the site back the way it was. Hance said the piles also make it difficult for the town crew to mow.

Bissell said, “If they left it in poor condition, they’re coming back.”

There were no public comments during the hearing and the board accepted Dufresne’s findings.

Bylaw and policy changes to support housing

Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission chair Hugh Quinn spoke to the board during a public hearing on an amendment to Chester’s zoning bylaws and a draft policy the commission was putting forward. The goal of adopting these two measures was to qualify for a new state designation called a Neighborhood Development Area or NDA.

According to Quinn, there are two main benefits to getting the NDA designation. The first is that it reduces the Act 250 regulations on the area designated for increased housing where there is town water and sewer service. Then it opens the area to increased, alternate funding from the state of Vermont.

To get the NDA designation, the town has to make an application to the Community Investment Board and, according to Quinn and Erin Ladd of the Mount Ascutney Regional Commission, there are benchmarks to meet. The bylaw amendment and the pedestrian policy address those directly.

According to a handout, the proposed changes included creating higher density standards or lot sizes and setbacks in the Stone Village and Neighborhood districts, strengthening language for dead end roads and how utilities can be located as well as consistent driveway standards.

Ladd noted that this is a new process and Chester seems to be the only town currently prepping an application to put before the state board.

“They are excited to see it,” said Ladd.

That newness was a sticking point with some board members. Board chair Lee Gustafson raised the possibility of bugs or unintended problems cropping up.

“If it’s going off the rails can we get out?” asked Gustafson.

Hudkins asked how the change would affect existing properties on Act 250 permits.

“Only affordable housing would be exempt,”  Quinn replied.

After more discussion about details, the board adjourned its hearing and, during the Select Board meeting, passed the amendment unanimously. But a policy on pedestrian facilities in the NDA came in for more scrutiny. The sticking point came in the a heading worded: “Commit to Complete Pedestrian Connectivity.” The question was whether the word complete meant to finish or whether it meant total. Either way, board members were concerned that it might obligate the town to something, with Roper saying that the board doesn’t “want to paint itself into a corner.”

The word “require” also came in for analysis when it was used as “Require Pedestrian Facilities in New Development.” Some members thought that the mandatory nature of the wording was a problem and suggested “pursue” instead. But they dropped their objections when it was explained that changing the wording would take the onus for providing sidewalks off the housing developer rather than the town.

The policy was approved with the word “complete” deleted.