Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/02/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1973 A public hearing was held by the City Council on April 2, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. in the Central School gymnasium on Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont. Chairman Blais opened the meeting. All the members of the Planning Commission and City Council were present. City Attorney John Ewing, William Szymanski, Richard Yard and Ronald Schmucker were also present as were approximately 200 members of the public. The meeting was held to discuss the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. City Attorney John Ewing explained that the City is operating under a previous enabling statute which is no longer in effect except to continue the previous 1964 ordinances. In 1968, the State Legislature adopted a new enabling statute which required towns to update their zoning and plans. The deadline to do this was March 23, 1973, but had been extended to March 23, 1974. The Vermont Planning and Development Act, adopted in 1968, required every city and town in the state to update their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances for subdivision regulations. South Burlington has been involved in this for several years. The plan, sometimes known as the Master Plan or Comprehensive Plan, is not a zoning map and does not have the force of law. It provides the framework which other ordinances follow. It represents a general description for city development and the type of growth which the city will take. In South Burlington the Comprehensive Plan was proposed in 1969 and adopted in 1970 and is still in effect. The Zoning Regulations have the force of law. Mr. Ewing pointed out the Zoning Map on the board. The process of drafting the zoning regulations has gone on for several years. Initially Mr. Boyle was assigned to draft this. In November it was passed or to the City Council for its consideration. The Council held public hearings; nor it can adopt or reject the proposed Zoning Ordinances. At the last meeting, there were other items discussed which will not be considered at this meeting: 1) the "official map" which is simply a depiction of the public easements, highways, right-of-ways, etc., and which has some force of law and 2) the subdivision regulations which have to be prepared and adopted. As to the proposed Zoning Regulations, there are three alternatives: 1) adoption, 2) rejection or 3) the proposed Zoning Regulations could be adopted along with the Comprehensive Plan and immediately amended. There would be a time element of 66 days in which the Council could adopt the regulations and amendments, send them through the Planning Commission and back to the City Council. If the Zoning Ordinance were rejected, the town would be back with the 1964 Zoning Ordinance until 1974 at which time the old one would expire and the town would be without zoning. The old Zoning Ordinance is outdated and does not comply with the requirements of the Planning Act which is a more sophisticated type of zoning permitted for cities and towns. A member of the audience asked if it would be possible to start a new plan immediately as an alternative. Attorney Ewing said that it would be possible but that the preparation and drafting have proven to be the most difficult part of the process. Mrs. Neubert suggested that the zoning map be adjusted to accommodate the way the people feel and keep the book part of the Zoning Ordinance. She suggested changing the incorrect pages and said that the people do not trust the City Council to amend the Ordinance. Mr. Nardelli suggested the City declare a moratorium which would not allow the issuance of building permits, zone changes, etc. and suspend the other functions of the Planning Commission so they could concentrate on amending the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ewing said a moratorium is not permitted by law. The Zoning Administrator would have to pass an application on to the City Council for action immediately. If he didn't, a court case could ensue. A member of the audience asked when the town stopped using the 1964 Zoning Ordinance. It was explained that under the Planning Act, once the first hearing for the new regulations is warned, the new regulations are applicable. The first hearing of the Planning Commission was advertised on November 15. Mr. Nardelli said that about one year ago the City has a moratorium relative to no zone changes. Mr. Ewing explained that it wasn't a moratorium; the City Council decided it wouldn't make any further amendments to the ordinances. Mr. Tudhope gave an overview of the proposed Planning Map. He said that any time one attempts to change or amend a zoning ordinance one will have a guaranteed controversy. The Planning Commission attempts to look at the constitutional guarantees of citizens. The Zoning Ordinances are often looked at as being restrictive but they should be protective. The Planning Commission and City Council are here to listen to the public. If there are amendments, Mr. Tudhope would want to guarantee that they would become a part of this Ordinance. In the plan of the City there were some serious questions about the southeast quadrant. A professional planner was hired to give ideas on what would happen to that area of the city. The planner suggested that before the City developed agricultural land in the community, it concentrate developing within the blocks of the city, using facilities and utilities in existence. These blocks would be pedestrian oriented. He suggested the superblock concept if agricultural land is developed, the cluster concept, action to control strip development and an indepth study of the city. Mr. Tudhope went on to say that the Planning Commission and City Council have agonized over the density factor. He said many professional planners suggested higher density in areas to protect open space, prevent urban sprawl, eliminate highway clutter, allow people to walk to work and to keep the number of cars down. He said the City Council and Planning Commission have agreed that density rates could be lowered due to the public protest. A member of the audience said that zoning can be a protection by saying that the City wants to grow to only 40,000 people and that the City can declare more land agricultural RCO. One doesn't need to zone high density areas for protection. Mr. Tudhope said that the Legislature and House have passed the Vermont Capability and Development Plan (Act 250) which has provisions for controlling growth in communities by adopting a capital projection plan which will allow a considerable amount of control over development. Mr. Flaherty said he took the proposed map to the Regional Planning Office and they said the saturation population was felt to be in excess of 180,000 people; the southeast quadrant is zoned up to ten per acre which might result in 100,000 people in that area. A member of the audience asked if the Zoning Ordinance passed and if the map were not changed, how can a builder be rejected if the incorrect lines on the map allow the proposed use. Mr. Tudhope said amendments could be warned and become effective and the zoning map could be corrected. Mr. Tudhope said a 150 foot set back is required along the interstate and that there is a 150 foot set back for major streams and a 50 foot set back for minor streams. He went on to speak about the lakeshore and limited shore line in South Burlington. In the future the lake shore will become a very important part of the future of the City. In Newport, Rhode Island, where there are a great many estates, the public is allowed to go down to the shore. He said it was not the intention to take private property on the lake shore. Future developers would be required to built 300 feet away from the shore. The new Ordinance allows PUD to control developer. In the 1964 Ordinances there is no provision for RCO designations, no developer is required to set off land, blacktop can run up to streams and there is no control over apartments. The 1964 Ordinances compute density on the entire parcel instead of the developable portion. The 1964 Ordinance allows no site plan review of individual commercial enterprises. The Planning Commission has been successfully using this for the last three months. The 1964 Ordinance allows retail business on 8,000 square feet; the new Ordinance will quadruple that requirement. Mrs. Krapcho said Dr. Kent didn't want South Burlington growing to 100,000 people. Mr. Tudhope said Dr. Kent used those figures to show the City what could happen if it did not exercise controls. Mr. Tudhope personally felt that the City can control growth through a capital projection program. Mr. Lamphere explained that the density in the new document and old ordinance are two different things. Under the new Ordinance, density is based on good, usable land rather than the whole parcel, resulting in less density. A member of the audience asked why the southeast quadrant is proposed for superblock in the next thirty years. Mr. Tudhope said that would give the City control over that area, otherwise it would develop in the typical grid pattern housing development. Mrs. Neubert asked why, after so much input, does the City still have the same Zoning Ordinance. She felt that the plan is regressive because it does not protect the community. Good neighborhoods are going to be industralized and commercialized. There is no protection in the southeast quadrant. The high density zoning around the intersection by Gaynes makes no sense. The people don't want Campus Town or heavy trucking on the lakeshore. Mr. Tudhope said the Planning Commission received a letter from Richard Kline with four pages of amendments as well as a letter from Mrs. Krapcho. Mr. Tudhope felt that amendments could be worked out and presented next Monday. Mr. Flaherty warned that if the Zoning Ordinance is passed and amendments are made, they will go to the Planning Commission for their recommendation and then back to the City Council for a vote. This process could take up to sixty days. In forty-five days there will be a city election which might "muddy the water." Mr. Ewing said as of last Monday a ninety day period had elapsed and it is too late to amend this particular draft. He felt rewriting the Ordinance would take a longer time than the remaining 66 days. Mr. Blais said the present document had been worked on for two years. The Planning Commission held a meeting in November at which 30 to 40 people attended. In 1965, Mr. Burgess was hired as a planner and after a nine month period he had to go on to another job. In 1968, Mr. Moore was hired as a planner and he designed the 1968-69 Master Plan which was presented to the public in 1970. In 1970, Terry Boyle was hired to put Mr. Moore's plan into law but recognized that it was obsolescent. In 1970 it was decided to redo the whole Master Plan. Thirty-nine articles have appeared in the Free Press since 1972 and there were 18 television reviews. Six public meetings were held under Messrs. Allard, Tudhope and Lamphere. There was a public hearing in November. Six work sessions were open to the public and four to six meetings were written up. Mr. Blais said Dr. Kent would meet with the Planning Commission, City Council and the public on Thursday afternoon. On Monday amendments could be made to the Zoning Ordinance. He said tonight's meeting is to hear specific points from the public. Mr. Nardelli asked the public to keep in mind that a yes vote means the Zoning Ordinance will go into law; the map on the board will go into law. Amendments will be considered later and soon there will be a complete change of personnel. He noted that the input of the public so far has been greater in the last two weeks. He said there has been only one warned public hearing by the Planning Commission and one warned public hearing of the City Council. He felt there should be a study of the Master Plan to reflect future plans. He didn't believe we should hurridly make amendments. There should be more time and further study. Mr. Nardelli moved to reject the proposed zoning law and the concurrent maps used for zoning and planning. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. A resident of Queen City Park questioned the RCO district along the shoreline. He was assured that residences would not be evicted or condemned. He was told it would be the hope of the City that if a resident wanted to sell his home, it would be sold to the city or someone who owns land behind the house so that the home sold would be open space. Attorney John Maley submitted a petition signed by members of the Bartletts Bay Association in opposition to Section 6.40 of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from the audience, it was determined that Heath Street is zoned residential. Steve Schuester asked if 2% of the voters filed a written protest, the proposed Zoning Ordinance would require a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Mr. Ewing said such a petition should be addressed specifically to the two-thirds vote Mr. Gee said last week he made a motion to hear the public at three meetings and he still took that stand to allow one additional meeting. He said he was not in total agreement with the density factors. He felt there were good ideas in the Zoning Ordinance and it should be given a chance. A member of the audience asked why strip zoning was extended from Patchen Road to the lower part of Williston Road. Mr. Tudhope said the change only appears on the Planning Map, but it is not changed on the Zoning Map. In the future, as Williston Road becomes a high density collection road, resale will not be in the best interests of residential homes. Mr. Tudhope said he favored that designation being changed to residential in nature. Mrs. Neubert said the only reason it is zoned that way is because businesses want to be on public arteries. Mr. Brown said the Comprehensive Plan should be changed to look like the Zoning Plan. He said the people should meet on Thursday to discuss these changes and the other problems brought up tonight. Mr. Blais submitted that there would be no way a developer could submit a plan with all the requirements (site plan, soil conditions, etc.) and have it approved in sixty days. He said that next Monday night six individuals would come before the City Council for building permits which, under the old law, could be issued without review by the City Council or Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty said no one on the Planning Commission or City Council could guarantee that the amendments would be passed. A member of the audience asked that a straw vote be taken to measure the feelings of the people before the Council took its formal vote on the motion. Mr. Blais said he would rather take a straw vote next Monday. He called the question and it was defeated 3 to 2 - Flaherty and Nardelli voting in favor of the motion and Brown, Gee and Blaid voting against the motion. A straw vote was then taken. Approximately 105 people voted to completely reject the Zoning Ordinance. Approximately 25 people favored the Zoning Ordinance. A majority of the people favored definite amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Tudhope outlined some of the new protections of the new Ordinance: The 1964 Ordinance does not provide a RCO designation, no developer is required to set off land for recreation, developers could relocate and pave up to streams, no control over apartments, substantial differences in set back, no requirement for site plan reviews. Mr. Lubo Dellin felt that the people should trust the ones they elected to pass amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Duncan Brown, a member of the District Environmental Commission No. 4, spoke in response to questions raised about Act 250. He said Act 250 was not a substitute for town or regional planning. If a town does not have a zoning ordinance by which the Environmental Commission can reject a developer's plan, it is helpless. In regard to Campus Town, it was recommended that Campus Town and East Terrace be separated. Mr. Blais said that there would be a public meeting on Thursday at 4:00 P.M. to discuss amendments. Suggestions for amendments for this and the previous meeting would be extracted from the tape recordings and all written suggestions for amendments would be considered. Additional written suggestions should be submitted to Mr. Ward before 4:00 on Thursday. The City Council, Planning Commission and Mr. Kent would attend. Mrs. Bull asked that her three letters be considered. Mrs. Deslaurier submitted written recommendations as did Miss Charlotte Marsh letter. Mr. Gee moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Adjournment at 10:45 P.M. The City Council reconvened to do business as the Liquor Control Board. LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD MEETING The Liquor Control Board unanimously approved and signed the following applications for liquor licenses: First Class: Redwood Motel and Coffee Shoppe Old Board Restaurant Bid Ben Pizza Pub Airport Restaurant Holiday Inn of Burlington Roostertail, Inc. Shakey's Pizza Parlor of So. Burl. Tower Restaurant Wesson's Diner Swiss Fondue Pot Second Class: Martin's Foods of South Burlington, Shelburne Road Martin's Foods of South Burlington, Dorset Street Solomon's Market Gracey's Airport Grocery Twitchell's There being no other business to come before the Liquor Control Board the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.