Town of New Haven Back to Home
New Haven Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 2005
New Haven Town Hall
Members Present: Allen Karnatz, Tom Boise, Art Sherman, Keith Hall, Don Johnston
Members Absent: Jim Walsh, John Evers
Guests: Rita Booska, Kevin Brennan, Kevin LaRose, Denton Lyon, Dave Weissman, Steve Delphia, TammyDelphia, Margaret Meachan, Paul Meacham, John Meshna, Pat Colander, Will Pyle, Kate Lampton, Pete Norris, Sr., Greg West, John Mitchell, Paul Wamsganz, Dave Colander, John Madden, Bert Sargent, P___ Munson.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
Public Hearing
1) Denton Lyon wishes to subdivide his land located on Main Street (Route 17) east of the Fire Station into 6 parcels. This is the first of two hearings for a major subdivision. SUB 6-04.
Denton gave an overview of his plans for the subdivision. The parcel would be subdivided into 6 parcels, 2 on the south side of Route 17 and 4 on the north side of Route 17. Of the 2 parcels located on the south side, 1 parcel (14 acres – the ridge to the west opposite Tanner's house) would be undeveloped, at this time, because there is no highway access permit to access this lot. Denton would like to put this in as an undevelopable lot at this time, but in the near future Denton is hoping to create an access to this lot that will be acceptable to the State, thus making this lot developable.
On the north side of Route 17, 4 lots. 1 lot is undevelopable because the only place to put a septic system is up by the road near the Sear's residence. This lot also has a dug well which Lyon's, Sear's and Fair Brother's all have rights to it. At this time this lot is verbally committed to the Fair Brothers as pasture land.
On the 59 acre lot, most of this is located in the flood plan but there is 13 acres in the northeast section that is not located in the flood plain and is available for building on. There are another 2 lots, 12 and 13 acres each, the survey has yet to be completed for. There is a change on the remaining lot since Denton's last visit to the Planning Commission, and the 1acre section will now become part of one of the lots.
As basic access to these lots is only being provided, Denton questions the need for a secondary access to all lots, as mentioned on the State regulations, would it apply to his subdivision. If it did, then Denton is proposing the 2nd access off the roadcut that is being installing. Allen Karnatz indicated as long as the 2nd access was specified in the deed, it would be OK.
Allen Karnatz asked if the wetlands area was overlaid on the map presented. Kevin LaRose , from Lincoln Applied Geology, Inc., indicated that it was. Tom Boise asked if the septic was approved, Denton mentioned it wasn't it this time, and that would be the next step.
John Madden asked that the scenic areas be maintained as per the Town Plan. Denton explained that the houses built won't be seen, or see each other, when the leaves are in full. John also pointed out that traveling east on Route 17 and coming down the hill (Fireman's hill) is a real traffic concern as to any roadcuts for the 14 acre lot (lot #5) on the south side.
Denton indicated that he would like Lot #5 approved pending State access approval. Tom Boise questioned why Denton couldn’t subdivide with a deferment for the driveway. Allen Karnatz mentioned that it was the Planning Commission's call, but Allen Karnatz has talked with the Select Board, their feeling was that access should be shown prior to subdivision, but it was the decision of the Planning Commission. If there were any change in access, then Denton would have to come back to the Planning Commission.
Don Johnston asked if the access could be shown through Lot #6 (i.e., Denton's driveway), would that be ok? If access was shown coming in from a different access than the driveway, then Denton would have to come back for Planning Commission approval.
Tom Boise made the motion to accept the plan as presented, with the condition that prior to final approval the access to lot #5 is shown as a right-of-way from Denton's existing driveway and house, with no direct access off Route 17.
Donald Johnston seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.
Vote: Yes = 5 No = 0 Abstention = 0
Motion carries.
2) Sue Perna and Jamie Hutchens – No show.
Tom Boise made the motion to dismiss/deny this hearing, and that Sue Perna and Jamie Hutchens would need to rewarn this minor subdivision SUB-7-04.
Don Johnston seconded the motion.
Discussion – none
Vote: Yes = 5 No = 0 Abstention = 0
Motion carries.
3) Pete Norris, Sr., continuation of the first plat hearing on a major subdivision for the parcel of land located on the west side of Route 7 (Ethan Allen Highway) SUB5-04.
Pete Norris gave a brief update on the proposed 6 lot subdivision. Norris has rethought out the possibility of a one way access directly off Route 7 across from Green Haven Gardens and a Campground Road access for this development. This would give 2 alternatives: the Campground Road access would be a gravel road that would be plowed with signage saying for emergency purposes only, or a cul-de-sac would come in near the division of the south lot and the next lot to the north. Norris also mentioned that he had discussed these plans with Mike Dykstra, New Haven Fire Department Chief. The fire department would be happy with either alternative.
Another item that was discussed at the January 2005 Planning Commission meeting was the ownership of the right-of-way in front of the John Meshna property (Dirt Works). Norris said that according to the State, in 1958 the State turned Dog Team Road over to the Town of New Haven. But from the centerline entrance onto Dog Team, 223 ft north to Meshna's is owned by the State. Norris proceeded to ask the State for a 2 way access off Route 7. The State indicated that Norris needed to use the existing accesses. Norris would very much like to do the one way access directly off Route 7.
After explaining the road access issues Pete Norris, Sr., told the Commission that he was withdrawing the entire application. He intends to reconfigure certain aspects of the proposal, specifically the access to the interior house lot.
4) Greg and Paula West. Site plan review for an expansion to their restaurant on Route 7.
Greg West explained that they downsized the addition (formerly a proposed banquet area) to 15'x 85', and they want to add a play area to compliment the approved go-cart track. By creating a smaller addition/play area they won't need to increase the parking area, as this seemed to be a controversial aspect of the previous proposal that was denied in October 2004. West believes this revised proposal has adequate parking.
Allen Karnatz indicated that this is a Site Plan Review Hearing, which is required under the New Haven Zoning regulations. Any new construction or change of use of a commercial property requires approval from the Commission. Traffic flow and parking issues were the primary reason the last proposal was denied.
Kevin Brennan mentioned in looking back through his files, the Commission requested the applicants hire a Site Engineer to design and substantiate that the parking and traffic flow was reasonable. There are many requirements that are not on the current site plan (i.e., details as to the hours the business would be open, set back requirements, traffic egress/access, handicap parking, lighting, etc.), these are all concerns that need and should be addressed on this current plan. Again, Kevin stressed that the applicant's use a Site Tech/Civil Engineer to address all of these concerns/problems and provide to the Town a more detailed concrete site plan.
Greg West said that they have no idea how many parking spaces they will need for this proposal.
Kevin Brennan also mentioned that the State has severe wastewater concerns with this parcel and the capacity and history of this parcel and the septic capacity is very minimal. West mentioned that he has also talked with the State and the State is aware of what he wants to do, "and it’s all within want I want to do".
John Madden referred to Site Review Procedures, Section 352, Page 10, of the New Haven Zoning regulations and agreed with Kevin Brennan's comments.
Pete Norris, Sr. indicated that all, pre-zoning, non-conforming uses are grandfathered for their existing size and use and can stay grandfathered indefinitely. However, any changes to the site triggers State and Town jurisdiction according to the current rules. Without State approval it is unwise to proceed. Pete recommends that the West's get an approval letter from Dave Swift, Agency of Natural Resources before proceeding any further with the project. West's response was the State "won't do it". Kevin Brennan indicated that he spoke with Dave Swift and Dave's comments indicated that increasing the size of the building takes away from the replacement area for a septic system.
Kate Lampton passed out written comments for everyone to review (SEE ATTACHED). These comments were based on the plan that was warned. She urged everyone to keep this in mind. This sheet mentions many concerns associated with this project. A major concern is the size of the lot in relation to the size of the building. Other issues are: parking concerns, truck parking will take away from normal car parking; lack of lighting specifications either not shown or insufficient, and inadequate or lack of landscaping and screening.
Don Johnston asked if Greg West had read or seen the current Site Plan Review Procedure regulations. West indicated he had not. These procedures list everything that needs to be presented on the plan. Don indicated that one of the biggest items missing on the plan was site grading. Existing contours are shown, but there are no proposed site grading contours shown when the project is completed. These must be shown on the site map. Greg indicated that no site grading was to be done, there would be no changes. Don asked if the Planning Commission could assume that the existing contours (1995 contours) are the future contours as well. Greg indicated "yes". Don mentioned that parking was inadequately addressed. How does the Planning Commission know there is adequate parking? What is it based on?
Greg indicated that the State has no jurisdiction over the septic as long as he does not exceed the existing capacity. This septic is good for 1,600 gallons per day (gpd) as per the document Greg presented to the Planning Commission a year ago that he received from a site tech from CT. The letter says what Greg can and cannot do with the restaurant with this capacity (39 seats for 3 meals per day or 59 seats for 2 meals per day) and 2 meals per day is what they are going to do which is 59 seats, which is want they want to put in half of the building. Greg explained that the existing dining area will no longer be used for seating. All the dining will be in the new addition and half of the addition would be used for an arcade or play area.. Allen Karnatz asked how the go-cart track plays into this scenario. Greg indicated the go-cart track has nothing to do with the septic, because it is outside and as long as food is not being served outside does not influence the septic system.
Don Johnston asked about the reasoning for the replacement septic system that is shown on the site map. Greg mentioned that they didn't need a replacement because the State indicated that they are grandfathered. But they put in an area for a replacement just in case they ever need it. Don indicated that just because they drew a line around an area doesn't mean it’s a replacement septic disposal area, the soils must be tested to accommodate a replacement system. Greg indicated that it was the only place that they could put it.
Keith Hall explained that the rear yard setback requirements are 30 feet from the property line in the commercial district. Greg mentioned that the parking lot is grandfathered so the setback does not apply. Allen Karnatz mentioned that the grandfathered exemption is no longer relevant when the use has changed. Greg indicated that he was not changing the use. Keith Hall said the use has changed with the addition. Karnatz said that because of the setback requirements the parking spaces on the northern edge of the property (~20 spaces) cannot be allowed without a variance from the New Haven Zoning Board of Adjustment. West then scratched those off the plan and said, “I don’t need those”.
John Madden urged the Planning Commission to look at the regulations with regards to the landscaping and parking issues.
Kate Lampton indicated that when looking into what is grandfathered or not, look at the Highway/Commercial Regulations. The West's currently have 2 different categories of use restaurant and indoor recreation and the later is a substantial change of use.
Allen Karnatz reviewed the parking and indicated that the 7 spaces (by the island) cannot be considered part of this plan as stated in the letter from VTrans. The 7 spaces cannot be attached to this proposal because they are within the State Right-of-Way. Greg indicated that since he is not changing the parking lot configuration, it should be grandfathered. Allen Karnatz mentioned that it was a change of use on the commercial site and to remain grandfathered everything must remain the same with no new uses or construction. The change of use comes in with the addition of indoor recreation. Greg indicated with regards to the indoor recreation, that he would like to "take it right off the table, its just dining that he came in for". Allen indicated that Greg is changing the scope of the operation because he is adding more patrons. Greg argued that he was not changing the use of the property - it is still dining. Karnatz stated that even though the use maybe the same it is somewhat irrelevant since new construction is also being proposed.
Kevin Brennan re-explained the meaning of "grandfathered", and that property (as one unit) is grandfathered for a certain size building for a specific use, with certain parking and acreage. Once the footprint of the building or anything related to this property changes the grandfather goes away. Kevin mentioned that this discussion has been had before and Greg needs to have a competent engineer show parking on a good site plan. Until the West's can show a good plan with all required information, nothing should be approved.
Rita Booska indicated that in the past, the Planning Commission requested an engineered plan. Rita asked if the Planning Commission had received that plan. Keith Hall indicated that they have not received it.
Allen Karnatz indicated that there are 3 options for tonight: 1) approve the site plan as presented, 2) continue this hearing and request that the West's come back with more detail, or 3) deny the plan,
Tom Boise asked if Keith Hall would explain the setback requirement from Route 7. Keith indicated it was 75 feet from the building to the road. 50 ft back from a side, or whatever the set back is, which ever is larger. This means that the back of the parking lot needs to be 75 feet from the centerline.
Don Johnston indicated that the Planning Commission had a previously discussion regarding the presentation of an engineered site plan. Greg denies not having previous knowledge of this request. Greg also wondered why they weren't notified of the meeting in October that denied this plan. Greg emphasized that fact that he never got notice of the October meeting, and was wondering why the meeting was held on October 27, 2004. Keith indicated that it was the date the letter was written, there was no meeting held on that date. Greg mentioned that he did not get either, that letter and/or the letter denying the project.
Don Johnston wondered what the West's really want to do, as it changes every time. He asked Greg to tell the Planning Commission what it is he wants from the plan presented tonight. Greg indicated that he wants a 59 seat dining facility. Keith Hall asked about the arcade? It was indicated to Keith that the current area that is now a restaurant would be changed to a waiting area with a bar. Someone asked if this area would have an arcade in it. Greg mentioned that eventually they might do that and knows that he would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. During a past conversation, Keith Hall told Greg that he needed to be clear on what it is they are planning on doing. Greg mentioned that at this time all they are doing is asking for an addition to the dining.
Allen Karnatz indicated that there seems to be a lack of parking and he needs to know if the parking facilities are adequate. Greg West asked how many parking spaces can he have? Kate Lampton indicated that the use has to be defined. It is the responsibility of the applicant to tell the Commission how many parking spaces are needed. Allen Karnatz indicated that there are plenty of people that could provide the parking space information as it relates to the size of the building and proposed use.
Don Johnson reviewed the July 2004 minutes and said all of the concerns that people are listing here tonight were mentioned in the July minutes.
Don Johnston made the motion to continue the discussion to the next meeting with the following conditions: 1) Obtain a Site Engineer to draw up applicable parking area and proper parking with proper set backs as it relates to the proposed business 2) Obtain a statement from Rick Oberkirch, State of Vermont, indicating that the replacement septic area is, or is not needed, and shown it on a new site plan. 3) clearly state the size and use of the facilities on the plan and how it relates to the parking issues. 4) landscaping needs to be shown on the site plan and 5) lighting should be shown and indicated on the plan.
Don Johnston said Greg should review Section 351, Page 10 of the Zoning Regulations, and go through the check list.
Kevin Brannan clarified that the Planning Commission is not only looking for a letter but is requesting a full Site Plan that shows everything on it that is needed/required and it should be signed and stamped by the engineer, The engineer is encouraged to attend the meetings.
Keith Hall will send a copy of these minutes to Greg West.
Seconded by Keith Hall
Discussion – none
Vote: yes = 5 no = 0 abstentions = 0
Motion carries.
Public Hearing Section Closed at 9:05 PM
Visitors Business
John Mitchell and Paul Wamsganz from Champlain Oil Company (COC) presented their plans for the 7/17 intersection at the Junction. A month ago COC purchased the lot (Monty lot - 4.16 acres) directly across Route 17 from the current 7/17 store. They are proposing to bulldoze the 7/17 property and move their entire operation over to the new lot with a 4800 sq. ft. store with gasoline in the front, diesel on the side and truck parking in the rear. As the lot is very long and narrow, they are presenting this plan to the Planning Commission to obtain a feel for this proposal.
There are options on the current 7/17 lot, COC's intent is to tear down the existing building and open up that corner if they are able to proceed with the proposed idea. They would not continue the same use on the old 7/17 lot, it would be used for something else, but not for retail.
Allen Karnatz indicated that COC would have to go to the ZBA first, to obtain a conditional use permit because it is not a permitted use.
Don Johnston mentioned that the existing regulations show that the original 7/17 store is in the flood hazard district, and it is therefore a non-conforming use. He asked what would happen if the use was changed, could anyone else build on the lot? Wamsganz said the floodplain elevations maybe in error as he has talked with Carl Jurentkuff of the VT ANR Water Quality Division. Even if the flood maps are wrong, the zoning on the parcel north of Route 17 is still clearly Flood Hazard District.
Review of Minutes for January 2005
Allen Karnatz made the motion to accept the minutes as presented. Art Sherman seconded.
Discussion – none
Vote: yes = 5 no = 0 abstentions = 0
Motion carries.
Correspondence
Letter from Kevin Brennan relating to the West proposal.
Conditional Use determination on Peter Norris project
Jim Ouimette to Environment Court. RE: Banquet Hall – West Project
Potable Water Supply/Deferral Permit for 760 Main Street for new control building at the VELCO substation
Condition Use Permit for buried waterline under a wetland
New Business
A realtor (Story Jenks) working on the sale of the Potter Estate (17 acres), wanted to know what the options are for this property since this property fronts both Dog Team and Route 7 and is in two zoning districts. No definite decision was made by the Planning Commission but it was decided that most appropriate access is from Dog Team Road and several 2 acre lots could be subdivided according to current zoning.
Pike Industry wants to install a portable asphalt plant. This would be a temporary facility. If it is a temporary, a permit from the Town is not needed. The Planning Commission has no jurisdiction and it would have to be referred to the ZBA first.
Brandy Saxton, Regional Planning Commission will come and meet with the Planning Commission for a Town Plan work night on Wednesday, February 16, 6:30 PM .
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM
Respectfully Submitted By:
Karen Gallott