Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/08/2021CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 8 November 2021, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Sirvis, L. Kingsbury, G. Greco, L. Yankowski, A. Rowe, J. Nick, J. Bellevance, M. Mittag, M. Burns, M. Simoneau, A. Crocker, S. Dopp, J. Chalot, M. Ostby, C. Trombly, F. MacDonald, C. Jensen, A. Jensen-Vargas, D. Peters, B. Milizia, K. Stapernick, J. Louisos, A. Strong, A. Chalnick, A. Sacco 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options: Ms. Baker provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: Ms. Greco spoke of concern with speeding traffic on Nowland Farm Road. It is a very wide road with no obstructions and a straightaway where people speed up. Last night someone hit and uprooted a tree. There are also alcohol bottles strewn along that stretch of road. Though the speed limit is 25 mph, traffic is easily going 40-45 mph. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Members reported on meetings and events they had attended Ms. Baker: Housing has been found for the homeless who had been camping at the Shelburne Road Cemetery. She suggested the possibility of a “camping ordinance.” A communication was received regarding the filling in of a quarry. The hope is to keep trucks off city roads. CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 The technology of the camera system in police vehicles is no longer supported by the dealer. Staff supports upgrading that system and also providing body-worn cameras. This will appear in the FY23 budget. 5. Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments: Mr. Cota noted an issue where passengers on GMT vehicles who do not wish to comply with the mandatory mask requirement. This has been a source of strain on drivers. Mr. Conner noted the appointment of Kelsey Peterson as the new City Planner. She began work today. Ms. Peterson has a law degree and has been working on land use planning in a law office. Ms. Baker added that Ms. Peterson has also done a lot of community building activities. She also noted that this is one of the previously ‘frozen’ positions that is being fund in part by COVID money. Mr. Barritt asked the status of the bridge. Ms. Baker said it is due to be finished after Thanksgiving. Ms. Baker also noted she attended an equity forum sponsored by CCRPC. 80 people were involved remotely. The forum focused on the history of racism and the tools that can be put in place to allow more minority peoples to own homes. There will be a report from CCRPC regarding actions that can be taken. Ms. Emery noted that Governor Scott is allowing recent immigrant arrivals who were professionals in the country of origin to become professionals here rather than starting as custodians. Mr. Barritt noted that the State Legislature had failed to enact a renter registry, and there are a lot of complaints regarding one landlord who has “new arrivals” at his mercy. 6. Public Hearing: Interim Zoning Application #IZ-21-04 of 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC (applicant) for development of a primarily undeveloped 113.8-acre parcel at that location. The development consists of 24 commercial and industrial use buildings with associated parking and loading areas on 5 lots and new public streets, including one 57.5-acre lot containing 10 buildings, an 8.5-acre lot with 4 buildings, a 12.4-acre lot containing 4 buildings, a 17.6-acre lot with 5 buildings, and a 9.9- acre parcel containing one building: CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Riehle explained the hearing process and the right of appeal, then asked if any Council member had a conflict of interest or had an ex parte communication. No Council members had any such issues. The appellants were then sworn in. Mr. Rowe explained that a sketch plan had been submitted on 30 August, and they are still waiting for DRB review. The property is located in the Industrial-Open Space District near the future site of Exit 12B (which would require some portion of the appellant’s property). There is city-owned land to the south, and the property is bisected by a utility easement. A proposed street could be eliminated, and there will be more detail on this as the project progresses. There are no impacts to streams, buffers, or flood plains. Mr. Rowe noted that a list of potential uses was included with the application. He also noted that the regulations anticipate this property would have non-residential uses. Office use would have higher parking needs than a manufacturing use. Mitigating measures would include phasing of the project, traffic signals, and extended transit service to this area. The anticipation is that full build-out would occur in 10 or more years, according to market demand. Mr. Rowe stressed that the Comprehensive Plan includes uses as these on this property. The anticipation is that uses will be high-quality, large lot, with access to the Airport, etc. Utilization of solar will be considered as the project advances. Two intersections with Hinesburg Road are planned, and traffic signals may be warranted. Mr. Nick said he has been involved with the Interim Zoning (IZ) process for 3 years. He got no hint of what kind of zoning was coming for this property which he has owned for 20 years. He noted that 20 years ago, it was this type of development that was expected. A transition to residential uses was well-received at that time as well. A wetland and soil analysis was also done. Mr. Nick went on to say that in 2012, this plan showed up as a question of which way the city wanted to go. In 2015, a mixed use project was shown to the Planning Commission which included residential, office, hotel, cottages, agriculture, and a solar array. The minutes of the Planning Commission indicated that the Commission liked the concept. In 2016, they went to a higher intensity, mostly non-residential concept, gradually going down to a lower intensity and some residential as a transition. In 2018, the Regional Plan mimicked what the city had put forth. No forest or habitat was shown on this property. CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Nick said he has been shocked by the IZ process. It started with an open space plan that was thrust on many owners, and the city tried to use that as a regulatory process. Mr. Nick noted that 42 acres of his property was identified by a researcher as habitat, but that researcher never set foot on the property. The proposed regulations would not allow any use on those 42 acres and would deny applicants to present their own studies. Mr. Nick said he sees this as a “taking,” and he felt he had to present this plan in order to preserve his property rights. Mr. Nick then outlined some of his legal positions as follows: a. The way the habitat blocks are laid out is a “taking” b. This is spot zoning c. South Burlington’s “habitat blocks” are different from the State’s “forest blocks, and the researcher (Arrowwood) did not look at or identify any species on the land. Mr. Nick said the only reason the property was identified as a habitat block was that it is a very large piece of land, and that is not a good reason to call anything a forest or habitat block. Mr. Barritt asked if the 2015 plan was ever submitted as a sketch plan. Mr. Nick said it was not. He added that they were encouraged when the Comprehensive Plan mimicked their plan. The neighbors were also pleased that there would be some residential use near them. Mr. Cota then asked how the 2015 plan would be impacted by what is proposed today. Mr. Nick said the TND (traditional neighborhood development) is highly residential and does not allow for any mixed use. He added that he is shocked at how little land there is for industrial use in the city. He also noted that walking paths compromise habitat. Ms. Emery asked why there is no residential use on the plan now submitted. Mr. Nick said he felt they had to move under the current zoning, which is Industrial-Open Space. Ms. Emery said an R-7 use would allow some value. It was noted that the R-7 use is very narrow in what it allows. Mr. Rowe said the zoning now is all commercial/industrial. Where it is going allows no industrial use. He stressed that there is no room for compromise under either scenario. Mr. Nick then read from a printed report citing the “scarcity of centralized industrial lots.” He said the city is creating sprawl by having people drive to jobs in Essex. CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 Mr. Barritt asked how the application adheres to the IZ principles. Mr. Rowe said it is in a municipal water/sewer area and in an area identified for high-level industrial uses. He then showed the proposed plan and identified parking area. He said there could be some structured parking as well. Ms. Riehle asked what percentage of the land would be impervious surface. Mr. Rowe said 38%. Ms. Emery asked what type of soil is involved. Mr. Rowe said it is mainly clay. Ms. Emery asked how stormwater would be handled. Mr. Rowe said first through infiltration or filtering through a bio retention area or gravel wetland. Mr. Cota stressed that the City Council is not going to be approving or disapproving the project. They will only decide whether to allow it to go forward to the DRB. Public comment was then solicited and was received as follows: Mr. Sacco: Owns the Allen Brook development to the south. He said that for once the city should consider the developer’s side as they all pay the same price to get land developed. He was concerned that he had just been notified of this process and was never told that the zoning of his land would be changed. He noted that the Planning Commission has been working for 3 years on this, and the City Council will be meeting to consider this the day after the New Year’s holiday and will make a decision a week later. Ms. Riehle said there will be a long explanation in December, but to meet certain deadlines the schedule has been set up. It is unfortunate that it is so close to the holidays. Mr. Sacco noted that the December meetings also fall close to the holidays, especially the one on 20 December. Mr. Sacco said it also doesn’t make sense that Interim Zoning happened in order to stop residential development, and now the Council wants to change industrial use to residential. Ms. Yankowski: Questioned why industrial use is being planned when Burton couldn’t find an industrial user for their building. She asked whether the applicant has industrial users to put in the buildings he is proposing. Ms. Crocker: Hoped the city would not let the application go forward and suggested on more in line with the proposed LDRs. Ms. Dopp: Reviewed the ownership history of the property. CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 Ms. Greco: Would prefer no development at all. She cited empty commercial buildings and questions who would occupy those being proposed. She questioned what the development would do to the carbon footprint. Mr. Chalot: Asked if the applicant has done a review of what habitat is on the site. Mr. Nick said the regulations do not allow them to do that. Ms. Milizia: Has “quality of life” issues and view protection issues. She was also concerned with noise pollution from loading docks, truck traffic, etc., as well as light pollution. Mr. Stapeneck: Agreed with Ms. Milizia and suggested requiring some green space to protect views. He was concerned with increased traffic on Hinesburg Road. He also didn’t see the value in large industrial uses. Following public input, Ms. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Riehle said the Council will deliberate and issue a written decision within 45 days. 7. Receive Draft Amendments submitted by the Planning Commission on the Land Development Regulations and Accompanying Report and set Public Hearing for 3 January 2022, at 7:30 p.m.: Mr. Conner reviewed what was sent to the Council, including some stand-along amendments. He also noted a schedule of what is included in the meetings of 6 December, and 20 December. On 3 January, the Council will hold the formal public hearing and can then either adopt the proposed amendments, not adopt them, or make changes. If significant changes are made, a second public hearing would have to be warned. Mr. Conner noted that as soon as the public hearing is warned, the draft regulations are temporarily (150 days) in effect. If the new regulations are not adopted, project submissions would be reviewed under the old regulations. Ms. Louisos then provided an overview of the new regulations. She said the object was to move the regulations closer to what is in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a major overhaul of environmental standards, going beyond what other communities and the state are doing. There is also master planning required for development. She stressed that the Commission CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 7 tried to provide a balance. She noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing last month and reviewed public comments and made some adjustments. Though not all members agree on all issues, they did vote unanimously to forward the document to the Council. Ms. Louisos also noted there are items the Commission would have liked to include (e.g., TDRs), and they will be revising their schedule to prioritize their next pieces of work. Ms. Riehle and Ms. Emery cited and appreciated the hundreds of volunteer hours of work that have gone into this project. Ms. Louisos also noted the tireless work of staff on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Emery then moved to acknowledge receipt of the Amendments to the Land Development Regulations and to warn a public hearing for 3 January 2022 at 7:30 p.m. on the amendment included in the packet. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Cota noted that he participated as an observer in several Planning Commission meetings. He has made a graph of “what I love” and “what to change.” He said there are a number of changes he would like to see. Ms. Riehle pledged a robust conversation. Mr. Mittag noted the significant amount of public participation including 46 written submissions and 29 spoken comments. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. 9. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of discussing pending litigation to which the City is a party and receive confidential attorney/client communications regarding the same: Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the pending litigation to which the City is a party would clearly place the city at a substantial disadvantage. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. CITY COUNCIL 8 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council enter into executive session for the purposes designated and invite into the session Ms. Baker, Mr. Bolduc, and Ms. Lafferty. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The Council entered executive session at 8:40 p.m. Following the executive session, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed 4-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.