The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIZ-88-0000 - Supplemental - 1535 Spear StreetI CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON i PERMIT NO ........... APPLICATION FOR ZONING PERMIT CODE OFFICER 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER Zone ............ ,, The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. (Plans to be submitted If required by Building inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in effect. CONSTRUCTION T STREET NUMBER OCCUPANCY LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth Lot No. Em San= Apartment No. WATER SUPPLY: Public [V Private E] SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public No Septic Tank El Permit 0 ■c�■ca•� ROAD OPENING: �►� ELEC. WIRING: Underground &30'4 Overhead Ej Permit # mamas■■■ -` . - Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yards. Mark N at Compass point Indicating North IL ■rid■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■i■i ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�-■ ■.� �.. ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■m■=Sion000 c�...........�....... ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■� PRE �■■■t �■ �ii/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ -::: ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ \\ ■■■U■■■/7w'A■■■■■■■■■■■ 1 ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■■��A■��/Ir pis■■■■■■■■ ■■■......■...■..�■■�■■■.�;-��i ............. Wood �■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■III■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■S�ucco Hot Wat. or Vap �'I ■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■are!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■. on Frame Conc. or Cind. BI. Bathroom Toilet Room Terra Cotta Water Closet Vltrolite Kitchen Sink Plate Glass Std. Wet. Heat Insulation Auto. Wet. Heat Weatherstrip Elect. Wet. Syst. Laundry Tubs ROOFING Asph. Shingles No Plumbin Wood Shingles TILING Asbes. Shingles Bath FI. & Wcot. Slate Toilet FI. & Wcot. Tile LIGHTING Metal Electric Composition No Lighting Roll Roofing NO. OF ROOMS Bsmt. 2nd. 1st. 3rd. PROPERTY LINE 9 Remarks ❑ Demolition ❑ Utilities closed ❑ Estimated Cost -35�j 0'9 ® � l /I a C.rC'. FEE COMPUTATION $ Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ SIGNATURE bf OWNER or -GILDER ADDRESS of OWNER GSZI APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED ❑ SIGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO Date ---_._ __- — 19 r 4 E CITY COUNCIL 4 APRIL 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 April 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the Library of Chamberlin School, White Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Molly Lambert, Michael Flaherty, George Mona Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Chris Davis, Ronald Piper, Police Dept; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Ulrich Leppman, Ruth Leppman, Janice Smith, William Schuele, Richard and Paulette Bennett, Dick Underwood, Susan Hardin, Peter Taylor Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss pending litigation of Heathcote Association Parking Study and Dorset Street Utilities. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments & questions from the public (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Review City Manager's Report on Status of 1987-88 Goals Mrs. Lambert asked the City Manager to explain the tax comparison chart attached to the goals status report. Mr. Szymanski did so noting that the chart showed South Burlington taxes had gone up less than those in other communities. Public Hearing: Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farrar read the proposed Resolution (attached). Mrs. Lambert moved that the Council sign the Resolution as read Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Farrar noted that the Planning Commission will hold Public Hearings on the proposed new district; in the meantime, anything that comes in for that area has to come before the City Council as well. A resident asked since the present overlook is now already partly blocked, can the overlook be moved. Mr. Szymanski said the other land is privately owned. Mrs. Poger asked if the overlook could be raised. Mr. Farrar said not enough to make a signif- icant difference. Mr. Mona asked whether the access to the CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 2 overlook could be closed on Spear St. and moved to Deerfield Dr. Mr. Audette said this would create more problems as people would just park there anyway. In the vote on the motion which followed, the Resolution passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved to amend the map attached to the Resolution to show a line parallel to Spear Street 3,000 feet from Spear Street. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Schuele asked whether the Council was considering this type of action in other parts of the City. He thought it was a great idea. Mr. Farrar said he felt it was something to be considered as part of the planning process. Appoint Auditors for the Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/88 Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the Manager's recommendation in memo of 4/l/88 to appoint Urbach, Kahn and Werlin for audit services for the fiscal year ending 6/30/88 and for the two conditional options to renew for 1989 and 1990 Mrs Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. his Review outline of Williston Road traffic study as prepared by Craig Leiner of CCRPC Mr. Farrar suggested that a citizens' committee be appointed to look at design concepts and recommendations and suggested that the City MAnager advertise this. Mrs. Lambert moved that the Council accept the outline of the Wiliston Road traffic study dated 3/8/88 prepared by Craig Leiner with the stipulation that a citizens' committee be appointed to consider the design concepts and other recommendations to be reported to the City Council. Mr. Mona seconded. Motion passed unanimousl Hear Police Union Grievance regarding compensation for Shift Commander work Chris Davis explained the problem: On some occasions an officer is appointed shift commander on a temporary basis when a higher ranking officer is unavailable. Question has arisen as to whether this officer, if appointed for less than a full shift, is entitled to a higher rate of pay for the hours he serves as shift commander. Mr. Davis said there is a conflict between past practice and Article X, Section 2 of the agreement. The City's position is that the officer gets the higher rate of pay only for a full shift. The bargaining unit's contention is that past practice should prevail by which officers have been paid the higher rate for the hours they served as shift commander. Mr. } CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 3 Davis acknowledged this issue never occurred to either side during the bargaining procedure when language was changed to indicate there should be higher pay for a "complete shift". The previous language had said "eight hours." The bargaining unit's position is that the language change was only made to accommodate the fact that full shifts can be 8 or 8-1/2 hours. The bargaining unit is asking for the higher rate of pay for the specific hours the officer worked at the higher position. They feel this is important because of the greater liability of the person in the higher position. Mr. Flaherty asked whether this happens often. Mr. Piper said to his recollection it has happened about 3 times in 4 months. He added that the wording of the agreement means that an officer would have to work 16 hours straight to get the higher rate of compensation. What happens now is that 2 people split the shift and each take 4 hours at the higher rate of pay. Mr. Mona said the question is whether the contract language was changed just to accommodate the fact that shifts can be of in- consistent lengths or whether there was a conscious effort to change past practice. Mr. Davis said that on at least 2 occasions prior to the present incident, officers have been paid at the higher rate since the new contract was in force. Mr. Farrar noted there was an attempt to clear up and define past practices, but this issue was one that was collectively missed by both sides. Mr. Mona said he thought it was imperative that the City and Union document the intent of the language in the contract so the issue doesn't arise again.. He did not feel the language -change had anything to do with past practice and was rather an acknowledg- ment that shifts have varying lengths. Mrs. Lambert said she was concerned that officers had been paid at the higher rate after the new contract which does create a set in the mind of the officers. Mrs. McKearin asked where the line would be drawn. Would an officer be paid for 1 hour at the higher rate? Mr. Flaherty asked what past practice was. Mr. Piper said generally a shift is split in 2 with each officer taking 4 hours. It is a very unusual circumstance when a commander gets hurt on the job and there is less than 4 hours involved. Both Council members and Union people felt they would like to check on the number of hours officers had been paid for in the past. Mrs. Lambert thus moved to continue the hearing until 4/18/88. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Planning Commission Agenda 4/5/88 No issues were raised. CITY COUNCIL 4 April 1988 page 4 Review Minutes of 21 March 1988 Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Minutes of 21 March 1988 as written. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimouslv. Siqn Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Old Business Mrs. Lambert reported on progress of the Employee Rules and Regulations Committee. She noted that 2 major issues being considered are death benefits and accumulation of sick time. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and meet as Liquor Control Board. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a catering permit request for the Windjammer to cater a wedding reception at the NCO Club, Air National Guard, on 4/23/88, from 1-5pm. Mrs. Lambert moved that the Board approve the catering permit for the Windjammer as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before th2 Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. Clerk LESLIE S. LINTON EDWIN L. HOBSON PHILLIP C. LINTON OF COI , EL UNTON & HOBSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 906 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TEL.(802)863-2000 (802) 863-4455 RECENE® JUiN -1 1°88 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY, OF SO. BURUNGTON. OFFICE LOCATED AT: WATERFRONT PLACE 86 LAKE STREET BURLINGTON. Vr Members of the City Council 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 June 1, 1988 Re: Application of Robert and Cynthia Hoehl for building permit Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the City Council: Per the meeting of May 26, 1988, I am enclosing for your consideration revised plans for the proposed Hoehl residence. The changes reflect a move of the house 10 feet in a generally northerly direction, decreased size of the chimney, and fill around what was to have been a walk -out basement. I am also authorized to say that the Hoehls are willing to plant landscaping, (hedge, trees, or other vegetation) which would assist in minimizing the presence of the house to visitors to the overlook park. The Hoehls request that these revised plans be treated as alternative plans, not as substitute plans. They do not withdraw their original proposal and request that your decision reflect a determination with respect to the sufficiency of each plan with findings regarding each. The following issues merit your consideration: 1. General Height Ordinance. It is apparent from the comments o the Council that the existing zoning ordinance is being interpreted in a manner inconsistent with its application throughout South Burlington heretofore. We understand your current position to be that the 35 feet height limitation is measured by locating the highest possible part of the chimney and then projecting this point out to draw a straight line after locating the lowest possible grade around the house. This interpretation is completely contrary to past practice in South Burlington and is unlike any interpretation of height ordinances that we have been able to locate. Please see the detailed comments of Mr. Hoehl and of his architect, Guy Teschmacher on this issue which are enclosed. Page 2 June 1, 1988 Also, please keep in mind that the language of the ordinance in effect at the time of the Hoehl submission did not cover chimneys in the measure of height. This is a change which was not even voted on until after the Hoehl's plans had been submitted and referred to the City Council. The minutes of the April 18 reflect the passage of the revisions and, as Jane L.aFleur noted at that time, would not take effect for 21 days. It is no answer to say that it was customary to include the chimney even before the amendment occurred. Zoning laws are in derogation of property rights and are to be strictly construed in favor of the landowner. Where the language says "peak of the roof' the City council must be bound by the written word. 2. Interim Zoning. I presume that the City Council has verified our previous representations at our initial hearing regarding the Planning Commission approval of the 6 lot subdivision of which the Hoehl lot is a part. The City's files reflect a lengthy subdivision process which went through multiple hearings and culminated in approval of the lots in question. They also reflect that part of the deal that was struck with the landowners was the dedication to the City of a right of way for potential future use as a road, the dedication to the City of a pedestrian easement, and an agreement to allow the City to negotiate for the purchase of a scenic turn-off. The dedication documents were signed as required by the City and the lots thus encumbered by the City's interests as expressed therein. The records reflect that the City did not negotiate to buy the scenic turnout at that time. The one year lapsed without action on the part of the City. It was not until 1985 that the park was conveyed to the City in connection with a large subdivision done by Gerald Milot. The City affirmed its earlier agreement with the landowners when it allowed the landowners to incur additional expense in the installation of their municipal sewage system line across their properties. It is neither legal or equitable that the City retract its approval of the lots in question and further encumber them with restrictions which will make it impossible for the landowners to take advantage of the views they bargained and paid for. You have documentation in your files from earlier hearings which demonstrates the significant expenditures which have been made by the Hoehl family in reliance upon the approvals issued by the City of So. Burlington. A municipality such as So. Burlington cannot appropriate a view easement over these 6 lots by simply publishing a legal Page 3 June 1, 1988 notice in the Free Press of the City's intention to enact interim zoning. Although the City Council passed the interim zoning following a public hearing (unattended by any of the property owners because none of them had notice of the City's designs on their land), the zoning was not in effect at the time Mr. Hoehl submitted his request for a building permit. I understand that the City Attorney relies on 24 V.S.A. Section 4443 �c) in support of his contention that authorization must issue rom the City Council before a permit can be issued. Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission 140 Vt.178 (1981) provides that the zoning in effect at the time of the application should govern. Due process requires that a permit issue to the Hoehls. I submit that the City Council cannot fairly, equitably or legally apply the interim zoning to the Hoehls given all of the facts and circumstances. Municipalities must focus on their legitimate public interests. Zoning power is not unlimited. 24 V.S.A. Sections 4404, 4405. The over -regulation of property interests constitutes an unconstitutional taking. The taking occurs at the time an invalid restriction is enacted against a landowner. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale vas Angele County, 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987). Nollan v. California Coasta Commission, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (19 Even if these had not been pre -approved, subdivided lots, each of which had been encumbered by City rights of way during the subdivision process, the attempt to zone these 6 lots exclusively is not consistent with the equal protection mandates of the zoning statutes and the federal and state constitutions. See our earlier memos of May 2, 1988 and May 10, 1988. Assuming that it was proper to zone view easements for the benefit of the public, for the sake of argument on land which had not previously been subdivided or developed, common sense and decency would require that it be done in a methodical manner, with notice to those landowners whose property will be affected. Our City did conduct such a methodical examination of the City in constructing its master plan. Nowhere in the plan is there reference to the concept of obtaining view easements over property through the use of zoning. The plan specifically speaks of obtaining public access to views through "fee simple acquisition." This the City has done in acquiring Overlook park. There has been much talk of "compromise." The Hoehls are accused of selfishness. The public has enjoyed the benefit of these six lots as a result of the fact that the landowners have not built on their pre -approved lots for a long time. The Page 4 June 1, 1988 public has become accustomed to enjoying these landowners' property. All of the landowners have allowed people to walk and park on their land at will. Now their generosity and good will is being penalized. The City Council is being subjected to pressure from a small group of vocal opponents who submit that the Overlook Park, the pedestrian trails across this land, the existing height limitations and setback restrictions (also scenic corridor restrictions imposed by deed on Lots 2, 3, and 4) are simply not enough. It is said that the public should enjoy all of the land. The Hoehls should content themselves with a 1 1/2 story house 400 feet from the road down the slope with a greatly diminished view and no guaranteed view protection from future development at the present site of the UVM Horticultural Farm. The public should take the top 2/3 of the lot as well as the rights of way already in place at the bottom. I respectfully submit that the application of the interim zoning to the Hoehl lot is completely contrary to So. Burlington's greater interests. We have illustrated to the Council, at length, and the Council has been able to view the site to see that the placement of the Hoehl home in the foreground of the view from the Overlook Park would truly detract from the public's ability to enjoy the park and its lovely views, far more than situating the Hoehl home closer to Spear Street, out of the range of the views. Attractive landscaping could further minimize the impact of the house on the overlook. I submit that a higher public purpose will also be served by respecting the rights of the landowners and respecting the previous commitments made by the City in designing and implementing its master plan and in approving this lot for subdivision. We have a government of laws and protections for a reason. Our representatives are charged with the duty to uphold the law and protect the rights of individual citizens. H:council cc: James Dumont, Esq. Sincerely, Leslie S. Linton To: South Burlington City Council From: Cynthia and Robert Hoehl '�✓ Re: 35' Height Restriction Date: 5/31/88 For almost 2 months and five meetings with members of the City Council, we have respected the City Council's desire to be fair to all. At times it was a tough pill to swallow, but we had to tell ourselves you were just doing your job the best you could under trying circumstances; however, this issue of the way you or someone wishes to measure our house in regard to the 35, limitation, we find to be prejudicial against us at best and downright harassment at worst. We have talked with numerous architects and builders who have built many houses in South Burlington and every single one of them, without exception, state that this is the first time the rules you wish to apply to us have ever been applied. We could point out at least 4 houses just to the south of where we wish to build our home that do not meet the 35' restriction, if it were to be applied (i.e. measured) as you are applying it to our plan. To support this position, we offer the following: 1. Copy of letter from Richard Ward to Attorney Greg Wilson (attorney for Tim Jamieson) that states "Be advised that we agree that the finish grade will be at the top of the foundation for the fireplace". If our house were measured this way, we would have no problem. 2. Our architects also designed another house in the development just south of the overlook. According to the builder, Concord Construction, the complete plans for this house, including elevations, were supplied to the City of South Burlington when applying for a building permit. We have seen the architectural plans for this house and they represent the identical situation as our house. Yet, they were allowed to build and we are being denied. 3. Another property owner just south of us was concerned about the 35' limit when they were building and so they called the City of South Burlington to ask how the 35' limit was measured. They were told that an average of the elevation was used, meaning that on a sloping piece of property, the average of the finished grade would be used. An average is not being applied to us, only the worse case. 4. In each of the above cases, as well as numerous others, the interpretation has not been the same as the one being applied to ours. Additionally, if the interpretation applied to the above were applied to ours, we would not be in the predicament we are in now. 5. From what I've been able to ascertain, the rules being applied to our house now have never before been applied to any other non-commercial building in South Burlington. 6. Our architects, having built a number of other homes in South Burlington, have researched this issue. They cannot find, among numerous other town and city ordinances, any interpretation like the one you are attempting to apply to us now. Please see letter attached. Coupled with the above, can you understand why we feel we are being treated unfairly and prejudicially at this time? 7. If one were to consider this way of measuring, it would preclude, forever, the building of a standard 2 story house with a chimney and a walk out basement or garage underneath. Is this really your intent? 8. Our architects tells us that chopping our chimneys down will harm the aesthetic appearance of the house dramatically. We belive you can see this for youselves from the new drawings. Does this really serve the purpose of the ordinance? 9. It is my understanding, in the statutes that existed prior to 4/18/88 or possibly even 21 days after that date, that the chimney was not part of the measurement. This has been substantiated for me by numerous lawyers, architects and builders, as well as the written word in the way the ordinances read ("roof" not "chimney"). Subsequent legislation has been passed, after our building permit submission, adding chimney to the height restriction. There are those who would say that they always included chimneys. I would beg to differ, given other houses in the nearby area. We also are of the belief that the law comes from the written word and not an individual's desire or interpretation to suit the purpose at a specific time. At the time we submitted our building permit, there was no mention of chimney in the statutes and now there is. 10. BOCA, a widely recognized organization by architects and builders, has established standards for the measurement of the heights of houses. The way South Burlington is wishing to measure my house currently is in complete contradiction to these standards. 11. The ordinance defines height as the maximum vertical distance between the highest point vertically (vertically being a key word, I believe, i.e. not projected) from the finished grade. We believe the enclosed diagram proves that no part of our original house plans is beyond 35' vertically from the finished grade. Please see diagram. 12. We don't understand why, after having our house plans for almost 2 months, someone now decides to measure our house in a totally unorthodox way. All of the many builders and architects we've talked to also indicate it to be unprecedented, both inside and outside South Burlington. We do not believe we have asked for any special favors. We do not ask for any now. We ask only to be treated like everybody else who comes to the City of South Burlington wishing to build their house. It is not we, but others, who have created this situation. Please let this end now with fairness and without prejudice to anyone. y p 1,- WAq I & rd qO v gooi— c4 LY 112 rorra5t/Ue5chmacher - c)rchitect5 May 31, 1988 Robert and Cynthia Hoehl c/o IDX Box C1070 1500 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05402-1070 Dear Bob and Cynthia: Regarding your house design with respect to the South Burlington zoning height regulations: The regulations state that the maximum height shall be 35 feet, or 2 1/2 stories, and as applied to a structure, this is the "maximum vertical distance measured from the finished grade to the peak of the roof." Since the wording does not take into account a varying grade, such as on a sloping site, we have always kept our designs a maximum of 35' from the highest point vertically to the corresponding finished grade on the slope. In our experience, while zoning regulations may vary considerably from town to town, there is no case that we know of where the height of the structure on a sloping site is determined by measuring the projected distance from the lowest elevation of the grade at the structure to the highest point of the structure. Indeed, South Burlington cannot have been using this method to determine allowable height because there are several houses built recently near your site which would violate the regulations if measured this way. In general, any full 2 story house with a walk -out basement on the downhill side and a roof pitch of more than 6" in 12" would have to violate the height restrictions if measured from basement floor to top of roof. I am sure there are many such houses recently built in South Burlington. If we measure the vertical distance from the proposed finish grade up to the top of the chimney of your house, as shown on the North Elevation on Sheet A7, we see it is exactly 35', which, in fact, is how we established the height of the chimney! Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 • 802 229 5774 Robert and Cynthia Hoehl Page 2 May 31, 1988 In any case, I am told that at least two homeowners have been instructed by the town to measure their heights in a manner similar to the method we have used for your house. Incidentally, the inclusion of chimneys in the height restriction requires rewording for clarification of the zoning regulations. I was under the impression that a public vote is required for any such change or addition. From an aesthetic standpoint, if the requirement becomes to measure the projected distance from lowest grade to highest point of structure, anyone like yourself who wants a full 2 story house with walk -out basement will have to build a flatish roof, which on a traditional house design probably seems rather out -of place. Most important, either interpretation of the regulation will not require you to lower your roof ridge; the only consequence is that you may not be able to have a walk -out basement. Thus, the "projected distance" method of measuring height will not affect the visual impact of your house one iota! Here also is the wording of several other towns' height regulations --as I say, we have never run into a situation like yours where the most extreme elevation differences are used to determine the height: an average or vertical measurement is always used, in our experience. Montpelier: 45 feet or 3 stories. Zoning Administrator interprets this to mean height from average grade to highest point of building including chimneys. Shelburne: 35 feet. Vertical distance measured from average elevation of the proposed finish grade to the higher point of the structure. Waitsfield: 35 feet except operating farm silos to a height of 75 feet measured from the finished grade at the foundation to the highest point of the building --Zoning Administrator interprets this to mean average grade on a sloping site. Colchester: 30 feet or 2 1/2 stories. On sloping terrain, the vertical distance measured from the average ground level of the grade at the building to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable roofs. Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 • 802 229 5774 Robert and Cynthia Hoehl Page 3 May 31, 1988 In summation, I think the most important thing here is that the most extreme interpretation of the South Burlington regulations will not require you to lower your roof, only to eliminate the walk -out at the basement, which greatly affects your use of the house but does not at all affect the visual impact of the house on the neighborhood. Since other owners have not been required to meet the regulations in this way, I think this is very unfair to you. Sincerely, Guy Tesc"ac GT/scc Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 • 802 22Q 57/4 City of South Burlinorton 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658.7955 November 3, 1987 658-7958 Attorney Greg Wilson 3 Main Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Jamieson, 13 Deerfield Road Dear Greg: Having recently discussed height requirements with Tim Jamieson and Harold Junger regarding the dwelling at 3 Deerfield Road. Be advised that we agree that the finish grade will be at the top of the foundation for the fireplace and that the maximum from that point will be thirty-five (351) feet, which will include the chimney. - If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Vervv,�,,truly yours, Richard Ward Zoning Administrative Officer cc: Chairman, Planning Commission /l/t 6 n a �✓-� M *T.KlY Uwe Speaf- .Stre . 3 ao - _ l '72- y _ — LAW OFFICLS SESSIONS. KEINER- DUMONT & BARNES WILLIAM K- SESSIONS III ROBERT P. KEINER LAMES A. DUMONT BONNIE BARNES GORDON P. BLACK June 1, 1988 Mr. Paul Farrar Chair South Burlington South Burlington 575 Dorset St. South Burlington, 72 COURT STREET MIDDLEBURY. VERMONT 05753 (802) 388-4906 City Council City Offices VT 05403 Re: Application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl Dear Mr. Farrar: J. CHKISTOPHEK FRAPPIER LEGAL ASSISTANT O eS0 o I have received a copy of the letter dated May 26, 1988 from Attorney Linton to you. It arrived at my office over the holiday weekend, and this is my first opportunity to respond. As I understand Leslie's letter, she is making thwo points. She appears to be claiming: (1) that the interim ordinance was not in effect at the time the Hoehls submitted their application; and (2) that the City Council can grant the permit under 24 VSA S4443(c). Both contentions are incorrect. First, the interim zoning ordinance was in effect. The statute on interim zoning does not incorporate the 21-day waiting period found in the statute on adoption of permanent zoning. I believe I can explain this fairly quickly. Section 4404 contains the procedures generally applicable to the adoption, amendment or repeal of by-laws. Subsection (a) states that a hearing must be held by the legislative body not less than 30 nor more than 120 days after the proposal is submitted by the planning commission under S4403. And the proposal must either be drafted by the planning commission or be studied by the commission before it is submitted to the legislative body. Subsection (b) requires the legislative body to hold additional hearings if the proposal is changed prior to the vote. Subsection (c) states that the proposals may be adopted by majority vote in an urban municipality, after the public hearing, and includes the 21-day delay. But under subsection (d) in a rural town adoption must be by Australian ballot or other popular vote. Subsection (e) imposes upon an urban municipality a 2/3 majority vote requirement if an adequate protest has been filed. Section 4410, in contrast to section 4404: (1) contains no time limits in which the legislature must hold a public hearing -- rather the hearing can be held "after public notice as an emergency measure"; (2) contains no requirement that the proposal either originate in br be studied first by the planning commission; (3) Requires no additional hearings if changes are made (although this might be a good ideal); (4) Authorizes the legislative body to adopt interim zoning even in a rural town; (5) Does not require a 2/3 majority vote when there has been a protest; (6) Contains unique provisions for repeal of interim zoning -- unlike 44041a procedures, which treat repeal the same as enactment or amendment (i.e., first there must be study by the planning commission, etc. ), 4410 allows repeal of interim zoning simply by vote of the legislative body "upon pubic notice". Moreover, a petition of 5 percent of the voters "filed with the clerk of the municipality" (not the planning commission) can force a vote on repeal. In short, the entire procedure for adoption and repeal of interim zoning is independent of the procedures in section 4404. If we were to adopt Attorney Linton's argument -- that the 21-day delay from 4404(c) applies to 4410 -- we would also have to conclude that only the general electorate in a rural town could adopt interim zoning (4404(d)), that interim zoning could only be adopted after review by the planning commission (4404(a)), that interim zoning could be repealed only after study by the planning commission (4404(a)) , and so on. The entire point of interim zoning is that it is an "emergency" measure, to quote the statute. A 21-day delay is contrary to that concept. Such a delay has absolutely no basis in section 4410. SESSIONS, KEINER. XIMONT 6®ARNES Leslie's second point, that the City Council can 72 COURT STREET authorize the permit under section 4443(c), obviously is "OOIEBURV. VT. p,7,Vnfounded, because interim zoning in fact does apply. (e0Z 3e8-4906 Section 4443(c) by its explicit terms applies only to amendments of by-laws before their effective date. And the interim zoning went into effect upon being adopted, as noted above, because the 21-day delay does not apply. If the Hoehls and their attorney truly believed that section 4443(c) governed this case, they should have said so in their application to the City Council. This would have allowed the City Council to duly and properly warn the public hearing as a hearing under that section. This did not occur, through no fault of the City Council. I am providing six additional copies of this letter, so that the other members of the Council may each have copies. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the entire Council for the court (and endurance) you demonstrated throughout the heari ince ly, Jam A:` Du� 41 Es . q cc: Leslie Linton, Esq. Steve Stitzel, Esq. (jadoo7#13) SESSIONS. KEINER. DUMONT & BARNES 72 COURT STREET AIDOIEBURV, VT. 05753 (boa 388-4906 it A, tiOtlLh 13t11•I ington WATER DEPARTMENT 403 QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 TEL. 864-4361 June 22, 1988 District 4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 RE: Robert Hoehl - Residence on Spear St. Dear Sir, The above referenced project will not place a burden on or hamper the South Burlington Water Department from providing service to its existing customers. Sincerely, SOUTH BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT 11�a,v- A - M94-9 Susan A. Messina Superintendent cc: Kris Khatri Bill Szymanski Jane Lefleur "''-- UNTON & HOBSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 906 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402 TEL: (802) 863-2000 (802) 863-4455 LESLIE S. LINTON $DWIN L. HOBSON PHILLIP C. LINTON OF COUNSEL Paul Farrar, Chairman South Burlington City Council c/o William Szymanski, City Manager 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05401 HAND DELIVERED Dear Mr. Farrar: L )PR i98� April 19, 1988 OFFICE LOCATED AT: WATERFRONT PLACE 86 LAKE STREET BURLINGTON, VT Enclosed herewith please find "Notice of Appeal' of Robert and Cynthia Hoehl. I have delivered a copy, this date, to Attorney Steven Stitzel. Sincerely, Leslie S. Linton H:far.ltr Enclosure TON & HOBSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS KF LAW P.O. N)x 9W WO WMIRFRON'I' PIKE. 86 lAKE 5'ru.n, RIJh��rfly, V( S402 IN RE: APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT NOTICE OF APPEAL ROBERT,HOEHL and CYNTHIA HOEHL NOW COME ROBERT HOEHL and CYNTHIA HOEHL, by and through their attorneys, Linton & Hobson, P.C., and hereby appeal to the South Burlington Zoning Board of, Adjustment the following actions: a. Denial of application for permit by City, of South Burlington Zoning Administrator, Richard Ward; said application was submitted on or about "April 12, 1988 and seeks a permit to build a two-story residence at 1535 Spear Street, South Burlington. b. Enactment by the South Burlington City Council on or about April 4, 1988, of an interim zoning ordinance designated "Interim Zoning regulations for the Protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District." This appeal is filed pursuant to 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 and The South Burlington Zoning Ordinances and Master Plan. Appellants request that the permit be issued in the form requested and that the interim zoning ordinance referenced above be invalidated. Defendants grounds for the requested relief are: 1. The Appellants are entitled to issuance of a permit based on historical actions of the city with respect to the affected parcel under the doctrines of estoppel, reliance, equity and law. 2. The City of South Burlington was not and is not empowered by law or the Master Plan to enact the ordinance in question. 3. The ordinance was not enacted in accordance with procedural requirements of the laws of the State of Vermont, the ordinances of the City of South Burlington, and applicable principles of equity and fairness. 4. The ordinance is contrary to the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Vermont, and further is unconstitutional as applied to appellants. MN & HOBSON, P.C. AI )omys AT IAW P.O. Box 906 WO WAITMON'I' PIACE 86 [Au. STw..Er UNCTON, VI' 05402 Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 19th day of April, 1988. Robert Hoehl and Cynthia Hoehl 4 South Hill Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 By: t4-c L,�,S t' nQI== Linton & Hobson, P.C. Their Attorneys By: Leslie S. Linton cc: Steven Stitzel, City Attorney Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Margaret Picard, City Clerk Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, c/o Richard Ward Paul Farrar, Chairman, South Burlingotn City Council Pa 24 § 4409 MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVT. Ch. 117 .1 treatment facility operated by the state, and town could not condition grant of ,idscaping permit on the procuring, by the state, of a sewer construction permit. orse v. Division of State Buildings (1978) 136 Vt. 253, 388 A.2d 371. Where municipal law provided that permitted uses in area in which state sought to ierate facility for juvenile delinquents were: (1) one -family dwelling, (2) professional sidence-office, (3) school, (4) religious institution, (5) public outdoor recreation, (6) (closed accessory building use, (7) home occupation, and (8) community center, the ate facility clearly did not fit any of the categories and lower court's use of diction- ry definition of "residential" and subsequent allowance of the facility under the zon- ig law was clearly inappropriate; municipal board of adjustment could properly nd the use nonresidential, apply the side yard requirements of its zoning law for onreF tial uses and find that the requirements were not met. State Buildings )ivisi(,. . Town of Castleton Board of Adjustment (1980) 138 Vt. 250, 415 A.2d 188. Law Review Commentaries Legislative response to exclusionary zoning of group homes, see 6 Vt. L. Rev. 509 1981). § 4410. Interim bylaws (a) If a municipality is conducting, or has taken action to conduct studies within a reasonable time, or has held or is holding a hearing for the purpose of considering a bylaw, a comprehensive plan, or an amendment, extension, or addition to such bylaw or plan, the legis- lative body may adopt interim zoning regulations, interim subdivi- sion regulations, interim shoreland zoning regulations, interim flood hazard area regulations or an interim official map regulating land development in all or a part of the municipality, in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and provide for ordr physical and economic growth. Such interim bylaws shall be ado, _d, reenacted or extended or amended by the legislative body of the municipality after public hearing upon public notice as an emergency meat Ire which regulations shall be limited to two years) from the date they become effective and may be extended or re- enacted only in accordance with subsections (f) and (g) of this sec- tion. An interim regulation adopted under this section may be repealed after public hearing, upon public notice by the legislative body. The legislative body shall, upon petition of 5 percent of the legal voters filed with the clerk of the municipality, hold a public hearing for consideration of amendment or repeal of the interim regulations. (b) An interim bylaw adopted, extended, or reenacted under this section may contain any provision authorized by permanent zoning, shoreland zoning, flood hazard area regulations, subdivision regula- tions, or official map bylaws under this chapter. Ch. 117 MUN. & REGIONAL PLAN. & DEVEL. T.24 § 4410 (c) Interim bylaws shall be administered and enforced in accord- ance with the provisions of this title applicable to the administration and enforcement of permanent bylaws, except that uses other than those permitted by an interim zoning bylaw may be authorized as provided for in subsection (d) of this section. (d) Under interim zoning bylaws, the legislative body may, upon application, authorize the issuance of permits for any type of land development as a conditional use not otherwise permitted by the bylaw after public earing pre ded by notice in accordance with section 4447 of this title. The authorization by the legislative body shall be granted only upon a finding by the body that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the munici- pality and the standards contained in subsection (e) of this section. The applicant and all abutting property owners shall be notified in writing of the date of the hearing, and of the legislative body's final determination. (e) In making a determination the legislative body shall consider the proposed use with respect to: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services or lands; (2) The existing patterns and uses of development in the area; (3) Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites; (4) Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations in effect. (f) The legislative body of the municipality may extend or reenact interim bylaws for a one-year period beyond the initial two-year period authorized by subsection (a) of this section in accordance with the procedures for adoption in that subsection. A the in- (g) copy of adopted, amended, reenacted or extended terim bylaw shall be sent to adjoining towns, the regional planning h� commission of the region in which the municipality is located and to the agency of development and community affairs. —Added 1967, No. 334 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. March 23, 1968; amended 1969, No. 116, § 9; 1971, No. 61, §§ 1, 2, eff. April 14, 1971; 1973, No. 12, § 1; 1973, No. 261 (Adj. Sess.), § 5, eff. July 1, 1974; 1975, No. 50, § 1, eff. April 15, 1975. HISTORY r. Amendments-1975. Amended section generally. —1973 (Adj. Seas.). Subsection (b): Amended generally. Subsection (c): Amended generally. 56 57 35$ ZID, �ry-, CL `a:�; }�-� U. Boyle and Associates landscape architects • planning consultants 301 college street. burlington . vermont . 05401 '802.658 9 3555 William Szymanski, Manager City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Street Scenic Overlook Dear Bill: May 24, 1988 F' c O/C RECEIVED MAY 2 5 1988 MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY. OF. SO, BURLING?ON. We are enclosing the following exhibits used at last night's hearing: a slide carousel with 31 slides; key to the 31 slides; drawings mounted on foam core entitled. "Sections from plans --existing, proposed and recommended conditions." Plan A - Existing conditions and Scenic Overlook District. Plan B - Potential house sites without Scenic Overlook District. Plan C - Recommended house siting in conformance with Scenic Overlook District. Proposed City of South Burlington Scenic Overlook. Photo board. We are also enclosing a board of mounted prints showing a panorama from Spear Street basement elevation of the Hoehl house (i.e. standing on ground amidst stakes) and the first floor level of the recommended location of the Hoehl house on the ±330 contour. The purpose of these, as I described at the hearing, was to show the degree of reduction in the water surface experienced from the two viewing positions. I think this also helps clarify the houses in the "Hort" farm scenario. These photos were not developed at the time of the hearing. Jim G. no^t suggests you contact Leslie Linton for a review of this information as we had an opportunity to examine Mr. Hoehl's photos presented at the hearing. Sincerely yours, P Terrence J Boyle TJB/cv l rc: Jim Dumont Karen Yacos SOUTH BURL INOTON/SPEAR STREET SCENIC OVERLOOK DISTRICT SL I DE SHOW KEY 1. View across site to Lake Champlain and Adirondacks taken from center of Scenic Overlook District along Spear Street. 2. Section and plan of Scenic Overlook proposed by City of South Burlington. 3. View from north end of City Overlook showing Jamieson and Boardman residences. First slide of a left to right panorama. Boardman house below near shore of Shelburne Bay. 4. Continuation of panorama showing Boardman residence and view across lake and mountains. 5. Third slide of panorama showing house location of Hoehl residence staked out in foreground with view in background. 6. Existing conditions plan with view angles highlighted. Note planting screen potential at Jamieson on City property. 7. View of Scenic Overlook shot from approximately middle of Scenic Overlook District on Spear Street. First of four -slide panorama moving from left to right. 8. View showing Boardman residence and view. "Overlake" beyond does not break near shore of Shelburne Bay. 9. View to the right of last slide showing continuation of view. Small white houses west of UVM Farm. 10. Last slide of panorama showing northern part of Lake Champlain. Burlington Bay with Appletree Point beyond. 11. First of a five -slide panorama, starting at Spear Street, taken from northeast corner on Ratkus property looking from left to right. 12. Second slide showing slope across site and Jamieson residence. 13. Third shows slope from Jamieson and Boardman to lower end of "Overlake". 14. Fourth slide in panorama showing bottom of site with UVM Farm hedgerow and the view across Shelburne Bay and the lake. 15. The last slide of panorama showing view across Horticulture Farm, Bay and lake. 16. Plan of the Scenic Overlook District with proposed residences potentially forming a "wall" along the west side of Spear Street blocking the view. 17. Two sections cut from bottom of the site sloping up to Spear Street. Top section shows the proposed and recommended location and elevation of the Hoehl house. The bottom section shows the same conditions in relation to the Boardman and Jamieson residences. The Scenic Overlook District height limit of structures and landscape are highlighted in red on both sections. These section locations are shown on the plan. SLIDE SHOW KEY, continued 18. Two sections that are cut along the Spear Street center line looking west. The bottom section shows the proposed house set back the distance of the proposed Hoehl house from Spear Street at t360 elevation. The top shows the houses set down the slope approximately 450' set at the 1330 elevation. 19. A photo collage showing homes superimposed along Spear Street at the higher elevation. 20. A photo collage showing homes set approximately 450' to the west of Spear Street at about the 330 contour. 21. Recommended plan showing location of houses and new access road from Spear Street to Deerfield. Screening to the east of the proposed road is also shown as well as screening out Jamieson. 22. A photo collage showing height and screening of recommended Hoehl house on the left. Photo is taken from the frontage of Hoehl property on Spear Street. 23. The first slide of a five -slide panorama showing the recommended houses and plant screening superimposed. The pan starts at the Overlook and turns to the right. The pan is taken from the Hoehl Spear Street frontage and screens the Jamieson house. 24. This shows the screening of the Jamieson, Boardman, and the recommended Hoehl house on the right. 25 - 27. These show the rest of the panorama with houses and plants superimposed and their height in relation to the view across the lake. Slide -17 22 would have preceded 025 if all slides of the recommended scheme were shown in sequence. 28 Property owned by the City in front of the Jamieson residence where new access road would connect to Deerfield Road. First slide of a three -slide panorama. 29. This slide is to the right uphill of the Jamieson residence showing slope of site and the plateau the proposed road would traverse and on which the recommended house sites would relate. 30 Shows the steepness of slope right below Scenic Overlook. 31. This view shows both solutions from Spear Street. You choose. 1 RECEIVED May 24, 1988 MAY 2 5 19A,q MANAGER'S OFFICL• CITY Of S0. BURLINGTON Dear Mr. Farrar, The enclosed articles from The Other Paper this week summarize my feelings about the Spear Street Overlook issue. Once the view is gone, it's gone. Mr. Hoehl knew of the limitations when he purchased his property in 1985 - now he's crying because he can't have things his way. Hopefully, the City Council will represent the people of South Burlington and all of people who find the view inspirational and unforgettable. Must we always sacrifice the needs of the "little" people for the greediness of the " priviledged few"? Mr. Mona couldn't have expressed my feelings any better with the three ad- monitions he charged the Council with before resigning. Please consider his advice when making a decision that will have a life-long impact on South Burlington's future. Sincerely, Kay B lur Sctmokel E-3 Stonehedge South Burlington, Vermont 05403 cc: City Council, Nancy Walsh, Robert Hoehl COMMENTA R Y MfMORIf 8 74R MADE Of... by Ruth Poger The City Council will probably be de- ciding the fate of the Spear S treet Overlook view 8t its May 23rd meeting. ?I would,just like, to quote Council Chair- man Paul Farrar at the time the Council Passed the Interim Zoning - he stated that the:S �islanct'Y' b tic tt lock Mod `"lington Y`'� heg,y�e otter his own Mr Y Interim Zoning was puTm`' 11`at no more buildings would be built or landscaping done that would in- trude upon a wonderous view. When Transitional Zoning was passed on Dorset S treet by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Zoning Board, at its very next meeting, granted a variance which directly contradicted the purpose of the new zone. The City Council wanted to sue the Zoning Board. Isn't this much of the same thing - or is the City Council above following its own rulings? `eater `tlie' horse esca d9U0"UVALl1Ycilgoing to �llow3be,tlo�c'too 2a%epe twice. -:And then will awmft"Wo happened ta e, ih3 l�ti�w' etc.? r I . - - - - 10 THE OTHER PAPER MID- MAY 1988 OTHERWISE by Sylvia Smith Houses, good and bad, are built by man rbdt*besutifulsc=c view tsheelyoffered p.,to'tuo-y Nature. One can be replaced but not the other. Consequently I found it most heartwarming that a goodly number of residents of South Burlington who were sincerely concerned should turn out for a hearing about the Spear Street Overlook and the potential interference caused by future edifices. It frankly is about time we all reaI4 that n%p3attY cm it$.8�411 always£ Remember �the,lost th prop- erty, a few acres ofloxely trees on Kennedy Drive, small wild flower areas bulldozed for roads, etc.?,II'herefore w1et take a f:firin stand a maybe a very fare compro- misdoritwill>Se a>i`otherblad[ttlnticinthe pan -records. So many times I have seen quite a few cars, not all Vermonters, stopped at the Overlook gazing out upon our lovely lake. Yes, indeed, it is our lake and oue view it we do4't givaIt away in chunks andTieoea. A FAREWELL ADDRESS In his farwell, Mona praised the mem- bers of the Council and left them with three admonitions. Don't vote as if you're seek- ing rerekCtign. Don't only listen to the fluent entVakajaW Don't try'to please only the people in the room at a particular meeting, but try to please all of the people. Y4 J6 0/40 -JA IF -- ----- 44- - I I 50 lt4 1AA IqOo + -4 N I T.- lot T'}-j eve May 19, 1988 To: City Council City of South Burlington From: Victor L. and Anne O. Ratkus Topic: Lots one and two - Spear Street - Nowland Subdivision Evidence: We relied on the City of South Burlington in the following manner: 1) We bought two building lots that were zoned Residential in 1979. These lots had numerous restrictions in the deeds. 2)) In 1985, with city approval, we installed a sewer system at a great expense. 3) In 1987 we paid $8,000. for land fill to be put on our building lots with the approval of the City of South Burlington. Therefore, the city, in realizing our reliance should allow us to build on our land according to the restrictions in our deeds which were recorded and approved by the City of South Burlington. Facts: 1) Our Constitutional Rights should protect us from being discriminated against on our own private land. 2) Because a house was built in front of the overlook, we as neighbors, should not be penalized. 3) Our lots should hot be depreciated in value, nor should there be "a -taking" of our land. _Request: If Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl receive their 4pproval to build a house on lot six, their approval should be so worded that this issue is settled once and for all for all six lots of the Nowland subdivision. Possible Solutions: Move the overlook to the west twenty to thirty feet or as far as the city owns. 2) Beautify the overlook with landscaping and an inviting small sign - South Burlington Overlook. 3) Raise the overlook if possible. 4) Remind the residents of the city of the beautiful views of the lake from the 100 acres that the city owns at Red Rocks. We are relying,on your sense of fairness to settle this matter. Signed: /L ��L V 1, /Gf� /,I G7 � 1' / C �(`— Victor L. and Anne O. Ratkus. o o,4 00/ . p O � o. -.92 ivt �0o�4ow foy f s� i i-� oar y� C o1 f J s s E LSP dkl� -,"2' 7 LAW OFFICES OF SYLVESTER G MALEY, INC. P. O. BOX 1053 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1053 HAROLD C. SYLVESTER TEL. 802-864-5722 ALAN F. SYLVESTER JOHN P. MALEY OFFICES AT: 78 PINE STREET H. JOSEPH GAMACHE MICHAEL S. BROW GEOFFREY M. FITZGERALD MARGARET A. MANGAN MAY - i988 May 5, 1988 C7 Z&� Members of the f South Burlington City Council 595 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Spear Street Overlook District Dear Members of the South Burlington City Council: This firm has been retained by Robert Cooper, Anne and Victor Ratkus and Douglas Meredith to represent them in connection with the possible impact of the new interim zoning regulations adopted by the South Burlington City Council on April 4, 1988 on their respective Spear Street properties. At this point, we are proceeding on the assumption that the City Council will grant Bob and Cindy Hoehl's application for a conditional use permit and will accord our.clients similar treatment if and when they decide to build. If, however, the City Council denies the Hoehl permit appli- cation on the grounds that it fails to comply with the so-called "Spear Street Overlook District" enacted by way of temporary interim zoning, the City Council should know that we categori- cally endorse Attorney Leslie Linton's letter dated May 2, 1988 and the legal positions contained therein. Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle of law that zoning ordinances must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals or the general welfare and cannot discriminate against certain individuals so as to impose upon them burdens which should and must be borne by the public as whole. A cursory look at the development allowed by the City in this same general Spear Street area clearly illustrates how the interim zoning discriminates against my clients. I hope that we are able to avoid litigating the validity of the interim zoning ordinance generally and as it specifically relates to my clients. However, we are prepared to do so To: South Burlington City Council From: Cynthia and Robert Hoehl Re: Building permit 1535 Spear Street Rather than repeat all of the information Attorney Leslie Linton and I have submitted already. I hope �ou will consider it also as you approach your final deliberations. If you do need any further copies of any of the material, please let me know and I will be happy to provide it. THE VIEW IS NOT GONE This is simply not so. There are a number of other locations around South Burlington/that afford wonderful views. The South Burlington Comprehensive plan makes reference to five, none of which are actually our land although close ("just south of Swift Estates"). In addition to these there is the knoll to the right of the entrance to the Stonehenge Condos, the views of the lake and mountains (the same view as from Spear Street) from Red Rocks Park, and Allen road also affords a beautiful view at its top. For those who must see the view while they are driving (not safe), or jogging or bicycling by, I suggest Deerfield Drive (see'picture #5 and #6) or Allen Road. Our house will block only 71 of 166 feet (43%) of the view of the lake and mountains (see diagram). While we wish to have vegatation around our house, we are willing to leave some space unobstructed to permit a view of the lake and mountains to be seen from Spear St. Each of the 6 lots along Spear St. already has a minimum of 25 feet on each side as a set back requirement. This means a minimum of 50 feet between houses. In addition the lots are extra wide, 160-200 feet in my case, to allow for views between houses. It is highly unlikely that anyone would build a house 110 feet wide (160-50). Our house is e5 feet wide but only 71 feet of which blocks the view, thereby leaving far more than 50 feet between houses. This was all thought out and planned for during the original subdivision which permitted single family houses to be built on the sir, lots with reasonable restrictions. All else aside, the view from the City'of South Burlington's Overlook is still spectacular. It is far better than any view that exists in the development ,just south of the Overlook. People in that development have paid thousands of dollars to get the view they have. it =_eems to me that a view from the Overlook, which is better than any that people paid thousands of dollars for, but somehow is,j't good enough for those who paid nothinq, isn't reasonable. With all of the views available to the people ,-it mouth Burlington, we believe it is totally unreasonable for the ctv to take the entire stretch of privately OL-ined land as vie1 1 . PROTECT THE OVERLOOK Our contention from the beginninq has been that the city has the right and duty to protect the view from the Overlook. The attached letter from our architects shows that building_ our house where we want is in the best interest of the citizens of South Burlington. In no way does it hinder or detract from the view from the parkinq area of the Overlook. The City of South Burlington owns an Overlook which is 266 feet deep from Spear St. The current overlook is 85 feet deep from Spear St. We understand the back 186 feet (266-e5) is planned as an area for public picnic tables. Pictures #1 and #2 show that if a house were built according to the new zoning restrictions, under the view line from Spear St., it would totally block the view of the lake from the planned picnic area. The top of the pole that the gentleman is holding is 20 feet high which is the height that the proposed interim zoning would permit. The idea of sacrificing the views from the overlook to satisify the desires of a few (see "What the people want") seems to be prejudicial and unfair. We have already indicated that we would be willing to do whatever is necessay with our house and property plans to protect the view from the parking area of the overlook. Picture #7 shows RHH standing in the field where we would be perfectly willing to build our house to the right of. This shows that -our house will not block any of the views from the parking area of the overlook. We feel that the best way to satisfy this issue is for us to grant view variances to the City of South Burlington that, in no way, will our house impinge on the views of the lake and Adirondack Mountains from the parking area of the Overlook. TWO STORY HOUSE I believe it is inportant to first define what a one story house is. The Boardman's house (the one just west of Jamisons') is not a 1 story house; it's a cape. Its roof line is 24 feet and the top of the chimney is 29 feet above the ground. Taking into account covenants in our deed, set back ordinances, and the new zoninq restrictions, we could not build a house like this anywhere on our land. We could build a 20 foot high house 371 feet back. The only alternative that leaves us is a ranch. Mr. Dinklege. when we met at the Overlook, asked me, "What's the hardship, really?" And my answer at the time was, "For me, total hardship, because my family wants a two story house." At the time I wondered if that was a reasonable response so I set out to try and find out. If one was to drive from the overlook and take a right on Deerfield Drive and tnen take the first left follc:ied h•:• the first right and follow on dnwn to thelburne Road, une would find 1 one-story house, c-3 rapes -,(.jhich also can't he _,uilt cn my land) and 45 two stcry houses. Phis indicates *o ilE' 10-J i _ f-nI I `j iEll �- 1-1h 2 ,!l I ; yh0 1'.; ,i -. ..-.,_I �- .pd _ story house. In fact, I _ uld -,ot f,r:(-1 s ,.ngle ! stoi house (ranch) anywhere (n -,:- thed development. The only I story house was an older home on the corner of Spear and Deerfield Drive. We'd be very surprised if they had 6 children qrowinq up in a that one story house. Since the Burlington Free Press has given this issue so much publicity, we have received a lot of letters and material from Real Estate Aqencies who want to sell our current house (Real Estate Aqents are the eternal optimists, I guess). We have enclosed a recent insert from one of these agencies which points out that 2 story houses are "in" (see attached) in today's market. Given what everyone else in the neighborhood and in the know thinks, I don't believe we are unreasonable in wanting a two story house. MISCELLANEOUS The statutes state that zoning is to protect the health,, safety, and wealfare of the people of the community. Hopefully, for all of us, there is no danger to the health of anyone involved. It seems that safety should be a consideration when what the opposition wants, at least in part, is the ability to drive along Spear Street and loot: at the view instead of the road, or park along the curb, which is never a•safe action and against the law in most places, except in case of emergency. When Mr Jamison's house was first raised, we too were taken back by it. As it rose we realizied it would block a portion of our view. We thought about that and accepted the fact that he had a right to build the house that best suited him and his family on the land they bought and paid for. (3)ee picture #3). As mentioned previously, we are very willing to build our house such that it does nothing to block any of the views from the parking area of the Overlook. We are perfectly willing to move our house as far to the north as ordinances allow. We believe this is more than enough to avoid blockinq any views of the lake and mountains from the parkinq area of the Overlook. WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT At the last City Council meeting, I too was impressed by the amount of opposition to the buildinq of our house. It wasn't until I got home that I realized it was 6 people (each talking 2-4 times) who represented the citizens of South Burlington. Subsequent to that we counted 4 letters to the editor in the Free Press. Of those, two of the first three we could not find in the phone book and the last, Kevin Dani-„ listed in the Free Pess as from South Burlington. 15 l sterl from Hinesburg according to the phone hook. The point -je 3r-e tryinq to make is that the number who are '_:vinq to fight this are riot as many as it might at first appear. We co,.lnt o at the rneetinq and 4 letters to the editor makinq 10. If :t would help, or make a oifTerence. Lie �.-iould have no problem with and gladly brinq foward far more than ten people to speak for our side. We have not chosen to do this thus far because we believe that facts and what is right will decide this versus how many want what. Yesterday, a women attemptinq to collect signatures for a petition to protect the view from Spear Street, stopped by Nancy Boardman's house. One of the reasons she gave for stopping the building of and, Douses up on Spear Street was that she might lose her view of the sunrise. Last time we checked the sun rose in the east. The lake and mountain view is in the west. This was certainly a different and scary slant. If someone can circulate a petition to stop someone from building their home because it would block their view, of the sunrise, then alot more people than our family are in big trouble. We understand that some people are circulating a petition or petitions to try and block our building permit. While we understand that it is their right, we also believe that signing a petition does not constitute evidence, which is what the City Council expressly requested. It would not be surprising if numerous people signed a petition that asked simply, "Save the View" without any indication of oihat that entailed or could possibly cost. Why not sign it? It sounds good and doesn't cost a thing right now. ALTERNATIVES We believe there are still a number of alternatives available to the City Council: 1. Continue to fill the existing Overlook westward and raise it approximately 10 feet. If the Overlook were raised to this height, the lake and mountains could once again be seen over the top of Jamison's house. If this were done, fie believe the major cause of everyone's problem would be solved. Is there any question, that if people could see over the jami=_on house, we wouldn't be going through this. 2. Raise the height of Spear Street. If the people of South Burlington want the whole view of Spear Street, they could pay to have Spear Street raised to accommodate this. 3. Buy another Hverlook. If the people truly feel that this overlook is ruined (it isn't, see pictures #B & #4), then the% should consider buying the knoll next to the entrance to Stonehenge, property across the street from the current overlook, or pronerty from Mr. Milot to the south of the current overlook. 4. This aitPrnative vie offer solely as a point of perspective and do not mean to suggest :t as a reasonable thing to do. if the City :s to take someone's land, it -jouid be far less cost!'/ to take ,� single piece of property t,,hich blocks the view than take the six (b) lots alonq Spear Street. rorre5t/Ce5chmacher - clrchitect5 May 18, 1988 Bob & Cynthia Hoehl c/o IDS Box C1070 1500 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05402-1070 These are our thoughts on the effect of your proposed house with respect to the City's Overlook property: The attractiveness of the view for the Overlook is not due solely to the sight of Shelburne Bay, but is also in large part due to the open field in the foreground. Now that the two houses directly in front of the Overlook have been built, anyone standing at the Overlook naturally looks to their right, where the vacant field which is your property, is still open and permits an attractive foreground to the Bay. Any house built on your lot which conforms to the requirements of the Interim Zoning will have to be built about 300' away from Spear Street, which would be directly in the way of the remaining good view from the Overlook. People would be able to look over such a house and see the Bay because it would have to be only one story high to conform to the Interim Zoning, but the attractive foreground would be gone, especially because a one-story house of an area appropriate to such a valuable lot would be much wider than your two-story design. You can see for yourself what effect a one-story house in the foreground has on the attractiveness of the view by looking over the one-story house already built in front of the Overlook. We have proposed to locate your house much higher on the hill (closer to Spear Street) for reasons which are in your best interests, but it turns out that our proposed location also helps most to preserve the attractiveness of the view from the Overlook by preserving the open field foreground. Our proposed location for your house would cause virtually no effect on the Overlook's view, since the house would lie outside of the field of view of Shelburne Bay from the Overlook. For these reasons, we feel that the City should re -think the Interim Zoning regulation, or, at the very least, grant an exception in your case and let you build where we propose, because a house on your lot could potentially cause very great harm to the Overlook's view if built in conformance with the Interim Zoning as it now stands. Y urs tru y, Guy Tes h a her Brian Forrest Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 - 802 229 5774 No Text cLn�c,� GL� ,L -v�-t. eZ'�- ►'yam '-� _ � "�'" `- l��- � I � r� Im May 19, 1988 To: City Council City of South Burlington From: Victor L. and Anne O. Ratkus Topic: Lots one and two - Spear Street - Nowland Subdivision Evidence: We relied on the City of South Burlington in the following manner: 1) We bought two building lots that were zoned Residential in 1979. These lots had numerous restrictions in the deeds. 2) In 1985, with city approval, we installed a sewer system at a great expense. 3) In 1987 we paid $8,000. for land fill to be put on our building lots with the approval of the City of South Burlington. Therefore, the city, in realizing our reliance should allow us to build on our land according to the restrictions in our deeds which were recorded and approved by the City of South Burlington. Facts: 1) Our Constitutional Rights should protect us from being discriminated against on our own private land. 2) Because a house was built in front of the overlook, we as neighbors, should not be penalized. 3) Our lots should not be depreciated in value, nor should there be "a -taking" of our land. Request: If Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl receive their approval to build a house on lot six, their approval should be so worded that this issue is settled once and for all for all six lots of the Nowland subdivision. Possible Solutions: Move the overlook to the west twenty to thirty feet or as far as the city owns. 2) Beautify the overlook with landscaping and an inviting small sign - South Burlington Overlook. 3) Raise the overlook if possible. 4) Remind the residents of the city of the beautiful views of the lake from the 100 acres that the city owns at Red Rocks. We are relying,on your sense of fairness to settle this matter. Signed: � XI Victor L. and Anne O. Ratkus. 191 ,v 9-7 10 l9'I.3 L �ry�i 3 y 1 J 1 o 1 v _ 3 Q J 4 0 0 N 3e, 7 1 3y e 36cl 13 / 3". o 37 0 0 S9 7211.7 i 3`y t(ok �� o / f5 N / 3 4 S o __ 3�5�'_ J �bs / �l O lob ,�e7'7 3b9 S 31i9 40 -- --- —'' 3 or v • I !e � i � o I�° 4� I f( So y Af V, e �v ol, a-*- 3 �a I b o ` -'— —�� I o y I (oo ry --lo.o� s.� S PEA4 R_. 375.-7 STREET {Jotts ; cn Jo Eon.I . Jst!Lu"r �a'Fum Z' IrOT—G�C�o�t t CIS �Cr �r.7�Gr�y du+ijG.r� J' �. -1-"15 •plar, -for Pro osG. 44 Su b - ViV• AjowIanC /Pra ear ST • So , 8u r • VT - too' �UA�YC'n A ').7�.�,;'-f'/fin i=�' �_ar-� '�':rr:"•lor