Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/05/1973 (2)CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION APRIL 5, 1973 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a public work session on the Proposed Zoning Regulations and Master Plan on Thursday, April 5, 1973 at 4 P.M. in the Conference Room, City Hall, on Williston Road. Frederick G. Blais, City Council Chairman, called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT Frederick G. Blais, Council Chairman; Dr. Harold P. Brown, Michael D. Flaherty and Brian J. Gee, City Council members, and Mary Barbara Maher, Arthur Bailey, Ronald Schmucker and Hugh Marvin from the Planning Commission. MEMBERS ABSENT Walter Nardelli, Councilman and Douglas I. Tudhope, Acting Chairman of the Planning Commission. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Frank Mazur, Bartletts Bay Harold G. Woodruff, 1972 Williston Road G. Myrle Woodruff, 1972 Williston Road Mrs. Mary E. Tarte, 5 Woodbine Street Mrs. Marilyn J. Dunn, 45 Clover Street J.P. Chaplin, 1741 Spear Street Paula Taylor, 38 East Terrace Fred H. Taylor, 38 East Terrace Glenice Denison, 45 East Terrace Elizabeth Dawson, 21 Charles Street Barbara Bull, 17 East Terrace Viola Luginbuhl, 1559 Hinesburg Road T. A. Irish, Bartletts Bay T. W. Schmidt, Burlington International Airport Dr. H. M. Farmer, Bartletts Bay Road Thedore R. Irish, Bartletts Bay Road Luther Vogel, Queen City Park Cheryl Benfield, Free Press Reporter Frank C. Jacquemard, Bartletts Bay Road C. Hayden, Secretary PUBLIC WORK SESSION Chairman Blais announced that this was a public work session, called to solve mutual problems, saying we have had a great many submissions for amendments to the proposed zoning regulations and master plan, and he detailed where the greatest differences were, as follows: 1. Concern about the RCO designation on the lakefront. 2. Concern about the Campus Town designation. 3. Inconsistencies between Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. 4. Concern about the retail stripping along Shelburne Rd. and Williston Road. Mr. Blais had several letters and petitions before him and said he would read them in full, but where there were duplicates of the same problem or problems he would go on to the others. He then read Mrs. Ethan Allen Sims' letter of April 5, 1973 and Mrs. Arlene Krapcho's letter of April 5, 1973. Both letters are filed with and made a part of these minutes. Barbara Bull of the City's Natural Resources Committee read a letter of Mr. Mitchell from the Planning Division of the State Agency of Environmental Conservation, which gave the state's minimum setback requirements for lake front property. Mr. Ward said their set-back has already been changed, that there is a bill before the House on this and he would keep informed as to how the bill reads if and when passed. Mrs. Maher wondered if the State's lake front set-back requirements would take precedence over ours, and Mr. Ward said yes, unless ours are stricter. Mr. Blais then read a letter from the residents of Queen City Park. This letter is filed with and made a part of these minutes. Mrs. Maher wondered why the Natural Resources Committee had never been asked to the Commission's meetings on the proposed zoning regulations and master plan, and asked Mr. Schuele as to whether or not the Natural Resources Committee had a recommendation on a set-back for lake shore property, both developed and undeveloped. Mr. Schuele said the Committee did not have such a recommendation, but he pointed out the RCO designation does not change the residential use that is already on the lakeshore. He felt a band of open green area along the lake is beneficial to the city. Mr. Blais then read in full a letter from the residents of Bartletts Bay. This letter is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Blais said there are two types of RCO overall, and read from the proposed zoning regulations, page 6, section 6, section 6.40. He said there are no specific provisions for public use in some RCO areas, and public use is proposed along the lake frontage. Mr. Frank C. Jacquemard spoke in regard to the Bartletts Bay letter, saying residents did not want high density or public access in their area. He said the Bartletts Bay Association has considered all the alternatives and would like the area to be classified as R1 and R2. Mr. Blais asked Mr. Jacquemard if he had any recommendations for the use of the large lakefront tracts of land like the Unsworth, Farrell, and Meserole property. He said the Association had no recommendations on the use. There was a general discussion as to how many units could be built on these tracts of land. In another discussion regarding the number of units per acre, Mr. Blais pointed out that in the RCO designations on lakefront property there was a 300' setback. In developing the area not designated RCO 15% of the gross acreage from the developer, acreage for roads, public parking, etc. is taken from the total and then you get the number of acres on which you can compute the density. Mr. Schuele wondered how many acres of lake front land is in South Burlington. Mr. Szymanski made a quick calculation of approximately 100 acres. A resident asked if we had considered the rate of increase in population with the proposed density. He felt the zoning regulations should take population growth into account. Mr. Flaherty said in 30 years at a 2% annual growth, we would increase about 7,000 people. Mrs. Neubert said South Burlington figures we have 3.5 persons per family. Mrs. Maher said the only way we can control growth is with a capitalization program. Mrs. Bull asked if the city has considered private commercial developments for the shore area. This would provide a tax base and revenue for the owner. She said she meant in the area between the tracks and the lake. Mr. Blais said that RCO allows nothing new and and Mrs. Bull said she was thinking of the area north and south of Bartletts Bay. Mr. Blais repeated that the first 300 feet of the lake shore property shall not be used. Mrs. Neubert asked if there were any provisions for private commercial use in there. Mr. Blais said no. Mr. Irish then said, we have such a little bit of lake shore, why change the zoning, why don't you leave it like it is. The large tracts can be changed. Mr. Schuele said the concern of the city is to have access to Lake Champlain. We have tracts of land there. I would not like to see someone buy two or three cottages and open the area to the public. Mr. Blais said we cannot go in and take the land. Mr. Irish asked what would happen in case of a natural disaster such as a fire or earthquake which could demolish a home. Would they be able to get a permit to rebuild. Mr. Blais said the proposed zoning regulations could read that in case of a natural catastrophe the owners would be able to rebuild. In speaking of the RCO designation in Bartletts Bay, Doctor Farmer said as far as he was concerned the RCO designation meant park property. Mr. Blais said the only piece of property to be designated as a park was the Farrell land. If the city does not buy it Mr. Farrell can do what he wishes with in according to its zoning. Mr. Vogel from Queen City Park asked if he could sell his property to anyone he wished to, and Mr. Blais said yes, he would not have to come to the city for permission to sell. Even if it is in the RCO zone it is still a residence, and it also could be rebuilt in case it was demolished through a catastrophe. Mr. Flaherty wondered if the Queen City Park and Bartletts Bay classification would be acceptable if added to the zoning regulations was the following: 1. Homes could be rebuilt in case of a natural catastrophe. 2. Residences would not be considered in RCO, they would remain residential. Mr. Jacquemard replied saying we have the privilege to sell the houses, we can rebuild if we need to, so why should it be zoned RCO if we still own our property. What we have heard certainly validates what we want. Eliminate the RCO zone there. What would the city do if a home were sold with 75' frontage and neighbors on each side. It would not be suitable for public use. Mrs. Maher said we are trying to change peoples' feeling about the lakeshore. Philosophically the lake front should be open and available in the future. Mr. Jacquemard said having the RCO designation is meaningless at this time. We happen to feel that it might leave us open to something else. It is residential now - leave it residential. You can designate it differently sometime in the future. Doctor Brown said they have had considerable discussion on the RCO designation. He said he felt the homeowners need some protection. If it is designated, it is not a park - you own it and have complete control. Doctor Brown, Mr. Jacquemard, Mr. Schuele, Mr. Marvin and Mary Barbara Maher had a discussion about the philosophy of designating the RCO areas, the wish to have the lake front available to the public, discussion of the setback from the lake to the homes, the wish to have public trails through the areas, and other related matters. Mr. Jacquemard noted that the master plan and zoning regulations are always subject to improvement, that looking ahead and the philosophy of the RCO designation was all very fine, but right now it was affecting the homes at Bartletts Bay and Queen City Park. Mr. Blais pointed out that the State Statutes, Act 91, require a revision of the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations every 5 years. Mr. Unsworth and Mrs. Ruth DesLauriers spoke about the amount of acreage on their parcels of land that are designated RCO, emphasizing the use was very limited, except possibly for farming. Mrs. DesLauriers spoke of the loss of opportunity to improve the area around the Quarry Hill Colf Course, saying it was beautiful property with an outstanding view and it would be an asset to the city to build around it. She requested that her property be zoned R20 or R15. Mr. Blais explained just what improvements could be made to the Club property under the RCO designation. Mrs. Bull spoke in favor of Mrs. DesLauriers' property being designated as RCO, and enumerated her reasons. Mrs. DesLauriers again requested a different designation, mentioning the fact that she paid a large sum in taxes and the RCO zone limited her use. There was mention of lowering taxes in RCO zoned property. Mrs. Bull then mentioned that high rise buildings would not be suitable in the area, and Mrs. DesLauriers replied that 2 1/2 story buildings was the maximum height ever considered. Mr. Blais said a piece of land could not be zoned so as to render it useless. If Mrs. DesLauriers owns 40 acres and 20 are zoned RCO, the other 20 acres would have to be zoned otherwise in order to compensate. Mrs. DesLauriers said she felt her investment has been rendered useless under the proposed zoning regulations. Mrs. Bull pointed out that developments cost the city money in terms of schools, roads, services, etc. She said she looked to the community to buy property or to set up a contract with the owners to keep it in the same use and lower the taxes. Mr. Gee recapped Mr. Jacquemard's remarks and requests saying what was wanted was a change in the proposed zoning of Queen City Park and Bartletts Bay from RCO to Residential. Mr. Jacquemard said that was right. Kay Neubert then started to read the public notice of the Public Hearing, questioning whether it was a notice for a new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations or a notice for amendments to the present Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. Mr. Blais said that was a legal question and it would be brought to the attention of the City Attorney. Mr. Gee moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Flaherty and so passed at 5:40 P.M. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.