Town of New Haven Back to Home
New Haven Planning Commission
New Haven Town Hall
September 7, 2006
Members Present: Allen Karnatz, Tom Boise, Susie Leonard, Donald Johnston,
Jim Walsh, Stuart MacCrellish, Mike Sweeney
Staff Present: Cris Messerle, Zoning Administrator (ZA)
Guests: Kevin Brennan, Bev Landon, Burt Allen, Mike Dunbar, Christine, Dunbar, Victor LaBerge, Dale Hastings, Pat Colander, Dave Colander, Milo Schaefer, John Madden, Tim Bouton, Amos L. Roleau III, Harvey T. Smith, Paul Meacham
Allen Karnatz, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
There has been a change in tonight’s agenda. Phoenix Feeds hearing has been rescheduled to Wednesday, September 20th with the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA) and Planning Commission (PC).
PUBLIC HEARING
The New Haven PC will hold a public hearing for the purpose to take public comment on a petition to amend the New Haven Town Plan. This hearing is held pursuant to Title 24 V.S.A. Section 4384(d). This notice is pursuant to Title 24 Section 4444(b)(1).
Allen Karnatz explained that the PC can only take public comments tonight. The PC cannot change or amend the petition. The Select Board will hold a public hearing in October and it will be presented to the voters in the Town on the November ballot. This process will be to change the Town Plan. If it passes, the processes will begin again to change the Zoning By-laws. A copy of the public hearing notice is attached.
Michael Dunbar made a power point presentation giving the back ground of the petition. The petition would make possible a change along Route 7 corridor from residential RA10 to highway commercial. The corridor along Dog Team Road would remain residential. Comments received from various individuals regarding the benefits of this change would provide job opportunities which would increase the tax base and reduce personal property taxes; encourage maintenance of historical agricultural buildings, keep commercial development along Route 7.
Allen Karnatz indicated that he was in receipt of a written response from Dirt Works, they are in favor of this petition.
Bev Landon is favorable to the change to the existing zoning plan and regulations. Currently there is not a lot of opportunity at this time in New Haven for commercial enterprises. That section of Route 7 was rebuilt so that access for businesses would be excellent. Makes sense and definitely supports this petition.
Burt Allen supports the proposal. He said the Dunbar’s business (Middlebury Fence Company) grew fast, and the Town can’t deny the growth. It is a great place to have commercial businesses along Route 7. Eventually the town will be forced to have more commercial development along Route 7. Burt Allen supports the plan 100%.
Dale Hastings feels the whole corridor (Route 7) should be commercial zoned. Feels that there will be a lot more commercial development before it is done.
Vincent LaBerg, supports the petition, the town needs to have growth and the Route 7 corridor makes a great place for this growth, keeps growth off other road/streets.
Dave Colander has serious concerns on the petition, he is not against development but there should be a plan with rational decisions made, instead of adjusting zoning to meet individual proposals or issues. There is a serious concern about the look on Route 7 and where the development should go.
Pat Colander feels this is the “cart before the horse” the property is already run as a commercial business and now they are asking for permission to do something that is already done. If it was to be done it, should have been done long ago. Development should have been centered in a place that is already highway commercial as opposed to having the business now and now asking to have the Town Plan changed.
Milo Schaefer feels it is the obligation of the PC to contain development and think in advance of what Route 7 will look like in 10-20-30 years. Route 7 is not the only option available to make commercial zones to attract businesses. The PC needs to put serious thought to where development should occur.
John Madden mentioned that this proposal is called spot zoning and is condemned by the Supreme Court. The Town Plan talks about the value of scenic Route 7 and preserving it. The Jct. of 7/17 should be considered for further commercial development.
Tim Bouton is opposed to the proposal. Considerable numbers of existing parcels already zoned commercial for businesses to move into. This proposal will become a domino effect to add more lots into highway commercial.
Kevin Brennan, Attorney to Mike and Christine Dunbar, has a written response to the PC which he handed out. A couple of concerns he would like to address are, the visual impact of a commercial district and traffic flow. He feels this is an opportunity for the town to regulate traffic flow by making this area highway commercial. Any commercial business would need to go before the PC for a site plan review. There the PC can propose conditions on traffic, parking, safety issues. This allows the PC more control. If this remains residential, the PC has no control over traffic, parking, and safety issues. Also feels this proposal allows the PC more control on keeping Route 7 scenic. The survey shows support for this proposal – 55% of the respondents thought it appropriate to promote commercial development along Route 7. 71% supported additional commercial development, did not feel it was specifically aimed at the Jct., but felt it was for the Route 7 corridor.
Christine Dunbar supports this proposal. She has received positive feed back from the neighbors. She is hearing a lot of comments about uncertainty about the future. We need to trust ourselves and future generations to make the right decisions.
Burt Allen said the Dunbar’s (Middlebury Fence Co) is in RA10. We should not put him out of business, make him move and lose tax status of what he is paying. If 2 or 3 houses are built with 3 or 4 kids in each house and would be enrolled in school at $11,000.00/student on a $6,000.00 tax base. It is easier to do what Mike Dunbar would like to do and keep him there and help his business grow. Becoming residential is not financially advantageous over keeping a business. Burt Allen can see where the Colander’s are coming from, we want to keep Route 7 as viable as we can, but don’t want to have Route 7 fill up with brush.
Kevin Brennan explained the Dunbar’s proposal to split the land into RA2 along Dog Team Road and highway commercial along Route 7, to protect the residential side. In the proposed commercial zone the nose of traffic is so loud a person cannot here another talk on the Route 7 side as it is too noisy.
Dave Colander expressed a comment regarding “more control if it was highway commercial”. If that were true it would make sense to make everything highway commercial. His argument is not against the overall project, but the way the overall structure of the way decisions are made.
John Madden verified that there will be another public hearing by the Select Board. He indicated that the majority of residents do not want Route 7 to become another Shelburne Road. In terms of taxes, development at the Jct is underway and businesses could move down there, the business would still be part of the tax base.
Closing remarks by Mike Dunbar felt this proposal would be a benefit to the town; growth would be managed, he feels it is the right thing to do with this property. Having theatrical worries about what will happen in the future is short sighted. They are operating a business in what used to be a farm that will never revert back to a farm. In the two years he and the business have been located at this spot they have put in a lot of improvements would like to work with everyone in the Town to run the business so it would not impact the neighbors and make it a win-win situation.
7:40 PM this section of the public hear was closed.
1. Harvey Smith wishes to subdivide his property, located at 2516 Lime Kiln Road, into three lots. This is the second of two meetings, for a major subdivision. 2006-SUB-05.
Donald Johnston recused himself as he is the surveyor for Harvey Smith.
Harvey Smith indicated that the State has approved the septic designs and well locations.
Allen Karnatz asked if there were any changes from the preliminary hearing. Donald Johnston indicated no. Explain the two new houses will share a septic field there will be an easement for the pipe line to Lot 2, the pins are in.
Open for public comment
None
Closed public comment.
Harvey Smith indicated that the house located in Lot 2 will be placed where there used to be a house. The house on Lot 1 will be on the east side of the ridge, located below the ridge line.
Susie Leonard asked how this area was zoned. Allen Karnatz indicated it was RA2.
Jim Walsh made the motion to approve the Mylar as presented.
Mike Sweeney seconded
Discussion – none
Vote: Yes – 6 No – 0 Abstention – 1 (Donald Johnston)
Motion Carries.
2) David Colander wishes to subdivide his property, located at 675 Dog Team Road, into two lots. This is the first meting for a minor subdivision. 2006-SUB-10.
Donald Johnston recused himself as he is the surveyor for the Colander’s.
Pat and David Colander indicated that they are dividing their land into two lots; there will be no new buildings. They have permission from the State to divide the land. The Mylar was presented and was complete with septic primary and replacements and well locations.
Allen Karnatz asked about the set back with the existing garage. Donald Johnston indicated that it was greater than 25 feet.
Donald Johnston indicated the only difference from what is presented tonight and what was presented last month is a change in the driveway location due to a change in the property line.
Opened for public comment
None.
Public comment closed
Tom Boise asked how two dwelling were built on one property. Pat Colander explained the original building was the concession stand for the drive in, the Colanders made it into a work shop and an apartment which the Colander’s live in while they built their house. Allen Karnatz indicated that it was permissible at one time to have an accessory apartment on the same lot as a dwelling.
Susie Leonard made the motion to approve the Mylar as presented.
Jim Walsh seconded
Discussion – none
Vote: Yes – 6 No -0 Abstention – 1 (Donald Johnson)
Motion carries.
3) Joe and Tamara Boise request a site plan review, building permit, and sign permit for their commercial property, located at 130 Ethan Allen Highway. They wish to construct an addition to the former restaurant building and operate a motorcycle/ATV sales and service business.
The Boise’s propose a 60x80’ addition behind the existing creamee stand. Parking will stay the same as is now. The Suzuki sign will be at ground level with shrubbery around it. They have spoken with Kate Lampton regarding the landscaping on site and looked at previous PC minutes regarding landscaping and have put in what was requested, Kate’s felt the landscaping was okay and had no further comments. There will be an exterior light on the south side and backside of the building for security purposes.
Opened for public comment
John Madden was in favor of the plan. However, he expressed concern about the scenic value along Route 7 and would like to see as much landscaping as possible with increased shielding trees along the south side hedgerow. The size of the sign should be as unobtrusive as possible.
Bill Shafer a neighbor and former owner, is in favor of the business, and made comments regarding signage. Existing signs along Route 7 are of various plans thus setting a precedence established by the Town and feel the PC should take this into consideration when approving the sign.
Allen Karnatz indicated that the PC doesn’t get involved with the signage issue unless there are other issues. Cris Messerle explained that he was trying to move this proposal along.
John Madden had concerns about non-conforming uses; it would be much better to follow the existing By-laws, and not go with the practices in the past.
Public comment period closed
Allen Karnatz indicated that the PC could request a site visit before approving the plan. The consensus of the PC was that no visit was needed.
Jim Walsh wanted confirmation on the proposal to put in a cedar hedge on the south side. Tamara Boise indicated that the plan should have said “proposed”.
Cris Messerle spoke to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) comments.
Susie Leonard asked why the screening along Route 7 had been removed when it was approved in the past. Tamara Boise that they had removed it from the plan so the parcel would not look “busy”, what they propose will be a more “clean feel”. Susie Leonard indicated that it is the job of the PC to think about what may happen to the land directly to the south of the business and how its character may change in the future.
Susie Leonard also asked if the security light on the south side of the building could be a cutoff light, again since the property to the south is zoned residential. Tamara indicated that the light will be shielded down.
Susie Leonard indicated that the regulations allow 1 business sign and 1 directional sign. The Suzuki sign for in front of the building, is not part of the regulations and would require a variance.
Cris Messerle indicated tonight the PC was voting on a site plan, sign permit and building permit.
There was discussion regarding the PC’s jurisdiction on signage.
Stuart MacCrellish asked if the signage issue could be sidelined for the night and if the Boise’s could proceed with building.
Jim Walsh asked if the PC could approve the site plan tonight with approval for one sign. Cris Messerle indicated they could.
Donald Johnston indicated that he was confused, why was the PC granting permission regarding signs and a building permit?
There was considerable debate among the PC board regarding site plan approval, permission on signage and a building permit.
Donald Johnston made the motion to approve as presented the site plan and building permit as presented except for the Suzuki sign so the Boise’s can come back at a later date regarding signage.
Tom Boise seconded
Allen Karnatz proposed an amendment to the motion – Set a deadline on landscaping installation and planted. Tamara Boise indicated they would be comfortable with a deadline of July 1, 2007 for all landscaping installed and in place.
Susie Leonard seconded the amendment
Discussion on the amendment
None
Vote on the amendment: Yes – 7 No – 0 Abstention – 0
Amendment carries
Discussion on the motion.
None
Vote on the motion: Yes – 7 Abstention - 0 No – 2 (Susie Leonard and Stuart MacCrellish – Stuart voted this way as he would like legal clarification as it is not clear to him if the PC should be voting on a building permit. Susie Leonard indicated that she was not clear that the vote also included the building permit).
There was discussion and confusion among the PC about the motion and vote just made. Some felt it was not proper for the PC to approve building permits as warned in the newspaper. There was also some uncertainty about the appeal periods and whether they can run concurrently. It was decided to rescind the motions and revote the site plan.
Allen Karnatz resubmitted a motion to approve the site plan as presented with the condition the landscaping to be in by July 1, 2007. There was no mention of the PC approving building or sign permits.
Stuart MacCrellish seconded
Discussion – none
Vote: Yes – 7 No – 0 Abstention – 0
Motion carries
Cris Messerle will check with Jim Ouimette, Esq. on legal clarification about the proper timing of when is issue the building and sign permits. Most felt they could be issued by the zoning administrator (ZA) soon after the site plan was approved and the ZA does not need to wait for the 30 day site plan appeal period to expire.
End of public hearing.
Visitors Business
1)a) Amos Roleau, wishes to discuss a boundary line adjustment for his property located on Otter Creek Highway.
VELCO is requesting a new corridor from the substation; Amos is in the process of acquiring part of the property that VELCO owns. The additional land will be attached to property already owned by Amos. Allen Karnatz asked if this was a land swap. Amos replied that was correct and VELCO would obtain an easement across this parcel. Amos wanted PC thoughts if this would be a boundary line adjustment or a subdivision.
Donald Johnson mentioned that a subdivision cannot be done because the lot that Amos Roleau would be acquiring is less than 10 acres and zoning is 10 acres. It would have to be a boundary line adjustment.
Tom Boise indicated that VELCO needs to come to the PC and apply for a boundary line adjustment
1)b) Milo Schaefer discussed issues involving the Addison County Regional Planning Commission.
Milo is on the Regional Planning Commission and has noticed that individual Town Plans coming up for review seem to address difficult but similar issues that all towns face. Addison County Regional Planning Commission (ACRPC) should be able to find resources to help resolve these issues and be proactive in supporting the Towns. Milo is proposing that with the PC approval that he present to ACRPC 3 or 4 issues that the Town would like some help addressing given sufficient resources available.
Jim Walsh asked what the issues were. Milo indicated affordable housing, sewage issues in term s of development, finding solutions to accommodate commercial properties along Route 7; elderly care are only a few items that all town face.
Regional Planning has access to many resources (people, grants, funds, etc.) Milo would propose to the ACRPC, that the Town would like you to spend resources on various items that will make the Town of New Haven a better place.
Susie Leonard indicated that it would be best for Milo to talk directly to ACRPC and Adam Lougee about this matter.
1)c) Cris Messerly gave the background that Paul Meacham owns a repossessed vehicle business and is looking at property in the Town of New Haven to store the repossessed vehicles on. He is actively looking at the Quinnville property on Route 7, directly south of Roland’s Place. This property is not zoning commercial.
Paul Meacham indicated that he is close to purchasing the property but the final decision would be contingent if he can use the property as he intends for this business. Paul proposes no changes to the house other than renovating and painting, the garage would be changed into office space and the two bunkers would be used for storage and put a roof over one to be used as a shop for trucks.
Susie Leonard asked, and it was confirmed that the property is zoned RA10. Donald Johnston asked if it would be a home occupation. Paul Meacham indicated that if he lived there it would be.
Paul is looking to the PC to see if this proposed used of the property is feasible.
Susie Leonard indicated that it is zoned as RA10 and not zoning for commercial use. Also a home occupation shouldn’t have a significant change to the property or a negative impact, the storage of vehicles is not a residential use.
Donald Johnston indicated that if a business was using the house and existing structures for storage it seems to him that it could be classified as a home occupation. If the person was living there and storage of vehicle was out of sight in the bunkers, it seems to him that it could be classified as a home occupation. On the other side, if the business was to grow and car sales evolved, then it would not be classified as home occupation but commercial and the land is not zoned commercial.
Allen Karnatz asked if Paul had looked at other commercial properties in New Haven and in Middlebury. They had but not found anything suitable.
Stuart MacCrellish said that currently the land is not zoned commercial. Paul Meacham could make improvements to the property, but since he indicated that he was not going to live on the property so it doesn’t qualify as a home occupation. The fact remains that this parcel is not zoned commercial.
Paul Meacham indicated that if he lived on the property than this would not be an issue because it would be considered a home occupation.
Susie Leonard indicated that the regulations indicate that a minor part of a residential structure can be used for a home occupation.
Donald Johnston indicated that his previous statement was offered as a scenario, if it was a home occupation it would have to be approved by ZBA not the PC. The PC only reviews commercial site plans.
2) Review minutes of August 3, 2007.
John Madden asked that the word “Suit” be deleted from the top of page 9
Allen Karnatz made the motion of approve the minutes with changes.
Tom Boise seconded
Discussion - none
Vote: Yes – 7 No = 0 Abstention = 0
Motion carries
3) Correspondence
Written testimony from Mary Pratt regarding the public hearing portion of the Dunbar’s proposal.
4) New Business
Regarding tonight’s discussion on the Boise’ application Donald Johnston would like some clarification. Cris Messerly indicated that Jim Ouimette, Esq. will be the answer to clarification.
John Madden distributed a handout.
5) Old Business
None
6) Adjournment
Tom Boise made the motion to adjourn
Allen Karnatz seconded
Discussion – none
Vote: Yes – 7 No – 0 Abstention – 0
Motion carries
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Karen Gallott