Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/16/1973PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEETING OCT. 16, 1973 A combined Planning Commission and City Council informational meeting was held in the Central School Gym on Williston Road at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 16th, in order that members of the community might have a chance to obtain information or express opinions regarding the new Master Plan and Revised Zoning Ordinance. Mimeographed preliminary copies of both the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan were available as well as copies of the Zoning Map of the City of South Burlington. As was explained later, this map was not the finished official map of the City; did not indicate green belts, pedestrian trails, etc. Mr. Walter Nardelli opened the meeting with the assertion that the evening was to take the form of a Progress Report on the work done by the City Council and the Planning Commission on a comprehensive plan for South Burlington. Criticism and guidance would be most welcome. Mrs. Mary Barbara Mahar asked that residents of South Burlington become more involved, that they would study the material carefully and put in writing any suggestions to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fred Sargent was called upon to explain the chapter on the Lake Shore. He stated that Lake Champlain is one of our greatest assets and worth several million dollars to South Burlington, should be so recognized and considered, to protect and preserve this asset and make it accessible to the people of South Burlington, and prevent development close to the lake shore. Red Rocks was purchased in 1969. At that time many people were afraid we could not afford it; however, some people persevered and South Burlington acquired Red Rocks without any money from South Burlington. Allenwood and the South Shore offer more possible lake front to provide for a future possible population of 10,000 additional City residents. Soil suitability is a basic consideration. Report on soil condition by Bruce Watson shows very low percolation rate – unsuitable for sewage disposal. Any buildings should be on sewage lines, which is now standard procedure for all cities. No reason to think South Burlington cannot acquire additional lake front property. Chittenden County Planning Commission recognizes this as a major need of the area. First step in acquisition is to adopt a plan for the proposal; next step is to appoint a special committee to start the follow-up and make the necessary applications. Many steps would be involved before acquisition, is complete. Mr. Unsworth questioned the need for more land when Red Rocks has been used so little, and that he could not understand what Mr. Sargent meant by saying the shore was worth millions of dollars to South Burlington. Mr. Mosher stated he was not so impatient, that he was sure Red Rocks will have a good recreational usage. Because some Vermont towns do not have a lake at all, we should appreciate our good luck of having a shore front on Champlain, not for our own people but for people in other towns not so fortunate. Mr. Unsworth then asked if the economics of the situation had been considered, also taxes. Mr. Sargent replied studies made show that well planned parks tend to increase the value of property adjacent to them. Mr. Unsworth then asked (facetiously) just how the value of Shearer Chevrolet, for instance, would be increased by having a park next to its property. According to Mr. Sargent, an industry wishing a good location will look for several things, and will locate where local amenities are the best. The results would increase demand for land and increase property values. He cited IBM as an example. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Unsworth what he would propose for use of the land, after ascertaining that he is a property owner in the area. He replied the City should make use of the land it already owns, that Red Rocks has not yet realized its potential; that the community as a whole wants a realistic amount of lake shore preserved for community use; and that we should negotiate in an honorable manner with the owners of the land and not take it by condemnation. The City should have some realistic goals and not try to own 100% of the lake shore; it now owns 38% which is not being used. His own property is shown on the map as one house per acre, whereas it presently has a density of seven. He bought the property several years ago with the intention of building condominiums on it and feels the developer should be able to suggest what he feels is an appropriate use of his land. Mrs. Neubert replied that Red Rocks is intended primarily as a conservation areas; that we need more of the shore front for recreation. The Master Plan is based on acquiring as much shore front as possible and if we don't plan for it now we will never get it as the cost will be prohibitive later. Mr. Sargent said he felt planning in the past had been in the nature of reacting. We should look forward into the future and plan for it and not just react to development as it comes. Mrs. Mahar explained that if a piece of property is zoned for open area on an official city map, then if it is placed on the market the City has 90 days in which to try to purchase it. There would be no condemnation proceedings but the City would have the right of first refusal. Mr. Sargent said purchase would depend on when property came on the market and what funds were available. Mr. Myette asked why a section of the lake shore is zoned R-4 and was told by Mr. Sargent the goal is to respect the integrity of present neighborhoods. Mr. Myette said he felt this was contradictory – to be preserving people's access to the lake but also to leave a shore area zoned R­4 "ad infinitum" even though he understood it was for the convenience of present owners. Mr. Bensen then asked why an individual should be allowed to build one house but a developer has to build a cluster, and was told by Mr. Sargent this is a new concept to this area. Mr. Roger Curtis commented that Mr. Unsworth had raised some good points and that he shared his views. We have some worthy goals; property has had certain values; the value is tied in with what can be done with that property. One unit per acre is not an economical method of development, Sewage, water, and road costs would make the cost of developing exorbitant. Also a 90-day option or first refusal immediately places the owner in a holding category and places the City in a position to acquire the property at a much cheaper price. He does not approve of the R-1 definition. If this land has the capability he would like to see it zoned according to its capability. Mrs. Jean Hildick commented that no complaints are made when a new road goes through, but when will we recognize the value of lake shore? Mrs. Krapchko commented that the people of South Burlington want to see all the remaining open land preserved. Mrs. Neubert said the Allenwood proposal is nothing new. Perhaps what is new is the zoning proposal. It is only a matter of timing and funding. Several other comments were heard from the floor, approving the forward looking act of making the lake shore available to the people, and approving the concern felt by our community in terms of the quality of life. One resident stated his willingness to pay increased taxes to preserve these areas that he could be proud of. Mr. Myette suggested it is a matter of how much we can afford as a city; that we should specify those areas we consider to be most desirable and then zone other areas for other uses. Bishop Butterfield then asked for information regarding the Bartlett's Bay area. He understands the purpose of protecting the area, but needs to know the City's plans for water and sewer. Bought property two years ago and was told water and sewers would go in within 12 months, but nothing done yet. Mrs. Mahar called on City Manager Symanski, who explained that water is strictly a matter for the individual; water lines are ready to be put in when property owners are willing to pay for them. However we were turned down for State participation in sewer lines. Had planned for higher density. Now if it is to be zoned for low density we will have to redesign and submit new plans to Water Resources Board. Bishop Butterfield then said he felt he was living in one of the highest areas of taxation, yet not receiving the services that other South Burlington areas receive. Mr. Symanski explained that other areas were still without sewers too. Mrs. Mahar then announced a joint meeting on Wednesday night, October 17th, of the City Council and Planning Commission, with only one item to be considered, i.e., Should the City of South Burlington adopt a controlled rate of growth? She said they had been getting legal opinions and getting information together. Mr. Nardelli stated they were trying to encompass all the suggestions given to them back in May. They wish to preserve existing neighborhoods. Also a new approach to zoning is to have areas of low taxes where all services are in and there is nothing more needed. R-4 reflects what is going on in the city now. R-7 was formerly C zone which represented multiple dwellings. R-1 still exists along Spear Street but is new in the lake shore area. Dorset Street would R-4. The large map on the wall was used by Mr. Nardelli to clarify his explanations. Mrs. Mahar stated the R-4 zone on Dorset Street would encourage cluster development instead of a grid pattern, allowing, with the approval of the Planning Commission, for a great deal of innovation in design although the density could not be changed. Mr. Bingham expressed concern that zoning single family neighborhoods as R-4 might encourage property owners to remodel their homes into two family dwellings. He was told that it would be impossible to have a duplex house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. However, a property owner could come before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and request a variance to convert his residence into a two-family. As the ordinance reads now, this is a permitted use. Next came a question from the floor as to restrictions on boarding houses. Mr. Nardelli replied there is nothing on boarding houses at this time, but the matter will be looked into. Another question from the floor as to the three new roads on the map, with Mr. Nardelli replying that these are still being worked out. Mr. Nardelli then gave his explanation of the AGR land use. Mr. Dan O'Brien stated that while he had not had the opportunity to study the material at hand he wished to express his concern over any kind of zoning that could be directly or indirectly interpreted to be confiscatory. It has been said that the soil conditions in the area would not support on-site sewage disposal. This is something that would be covered anyway by State Health Dept. regulations. Some contend there should be no construction at all. He feels we should realize the only reason we have this beautiful area is because there have been people in our community engaged in agriculture, many of them for generations, working so they could have a legacy for their families, with their total life savings tied up in the land. With the passage of a zoning ordinance we are effectively stripping from these people 50% to 75% of their life's earnings. There should be planned residential development within those areas. One single family dwelling for 25 acres is totally unreasonable. Mr. Farrar commented that zoning could be phased over a period of years, with a certain amount of land allowed to be developed in any one time. Mr. O'Brien's opinion was that most of these properties would not be developed, but if a family should have to dispose of its farm it would be unfair to insist on 25 acres per house. In case of a fire for instance, it would be economically unfeasible for the farmer to attempt to replace his buildings and he would be forced to sell. Mrs. Neubert suggested they might ask for tax abatements specifically on the land value. Some property has been bought for speculation and the owners are asking for tax abatements. A request was then made for more information on the Southeast Quadrant, in order to help the Commission in making reasonable changes; They are trying to balance the rights of the land owners against keeping development from going "willy nilly." Mr. O'Brien insisted one house per 25 acres is unreasonable; that planned development could properly be brought in for approval. Mr. Blair said the age of the people on the land should be considered; many can no longer farm, neither can they sell. State regulations make it almost impossible to keep farming today. Mr. Mikell, after stating he owns 40 to 50 acres in the Southeast Quadrant, said the question arose 10 or 12 years ago and the answer then was that it was too difficult to look that far into the future. We should try to preserve this area for agriculture but should allow for consideration of applications of well developed plans. One house on 25 acres seems staggering. Do we want 25 acre estates ‒ or do we want to prevent it from being developed at all? Mrs. Neubert expressed the opinion that with a lesser density the land will be taken up and that the City cannot extend sewers, water, buses, and schools beyond its capacity which is why advantage was taken of the State law of 25 acres. Mr. Mikell did not think the City should tie the property to a definite density limit. Mrs. Neubert suggested giving some creative thought to avoiding strip development but not for 25 acres. Mr. Myette then asked if the Commission would like to sit down and listen to suggestions. He was told that the Commission meets every Wednesday night at 7:30 p.m. and residents are welcome to come and participate. Mr. Robinstein then gave his opinion that requests for variances should be considered in regard to what it will demand for services and its effect on the tax rate. Any proposal for fluctuating density or any planned development which leaves a density up in the air should also give the information of what it will do to the tax rate. That is, in what time frame could this community take that amount of people and absorb it without massive tax increase. Consideration is due the land owners, but also to the tax payers. He would like to see some data on this. Mr. Myette said he felt in regard to Act 250/Chapter 91, this was best done at the local level. The State has given certain controls and regulations but South Burlington is our problem and we should decide what to do and maintain control, especially maintain control over our density. Mr. Curtis then requested more consideration for the farmers who have contributed so much to the economics of the community over a period of years. He knows their problems, having been a farmer himself. Labor shortage, high prices of machinery to replace labor are causing small farms to pass out. Land comes on the market of necessity because it is economically unfeasible to continue to farm it; one by one these farms are going to change and the land has got to be used for other purposes. What can we do that is going to be fair to these people is the problem. Suggestion made from the floor that planned development be allowed; thus allowing for expanded service and small businesses which would increase tax base. A question was asked as to why airport approach zones are zoned industrial when so much agricultural land would be available for industrial use. Explanation was given that it was impossible to have a residence area in the approach zones while an industrial area is completely compatible. Mrs. Hildick asked if the Council had considered the capacity of our schools, how many more students the high school for instance could absorb. The answer given was that 130 more students could be taken in to replace the students now attending on a tuition agreement with other towns. Mr. Calcagni asked if any members of the Planning Commission and Council would care to explain their individual views as to how they see these areas. Mrs. Mahar said they would like to keep the land for the next five years in agricultural use if possible and to consider what means we might use there for farmers who might be willing to enter into tax agreements with the City to enable them to continue farming. Five acre or ten acre sites are bad use. Would rather planned use than that. Must prevent too large a segment being developed at one time. Mrs. Neubert felt we should hold the land until we see how the population is going to grow. We are not going to take on more than our share of Chittenden County's burden. Mr. Mikell asked if there were any growth projections for the County. Mr. Sargent said the proposal is to control the growth rate to a certain 2% of Chittenden County's growth rate; this rate selected because it seemed to be the only one that will stand up. South Burlington's rate of growth during the 60's was faster than we could plan for and it outran the planning concept. Must be controlled by zoning regulations because of municipal services required. Would divide the city into two areas, the presently developed area and presently agricultural area. The next five years it is proposed to restrict development to the growth area which would be the areas already developed and not to permit growth in the agricultural area. Not permitting growth means allowing one house for 25 acres or whatever formula is sound. There is a question as to legality of this. Cannot be done by limiting building permits only, but could be done by limiting municipal services. Received opinion from Asst. Attorney General that in regard to South Burlington's willingness to accept a fair share of Chittenden County's growth, a goal must be stated and a specific plan for low cost housing will have to be submitted. Mr. Blais said that a proposal made some two years ago on property in the Southeast Quadrant in which he is a part owner seemed to be far more appropriate to an approach growth than to 25 acre zoning. 25 acress is extremely smobbish. Land was purchased when the '63 ordiaance was legal. One unit per acre. '68 Master Plan allowed two units per acre. An investor was looking in good faith to a possible alternative by allowing a sort of planned district approach for large acreage and a half-acre block if a single unit was being built. This area has water, highways, and sewers, and has not been farmed for 18 years. After two years of holding a decision was made to rent it for horse pasture and have it considered along with any other rental property for tax abatement. The purpose of "91" was to preserve active farms. There is not a single active farm on Dorset Street until Shelburne. Mr. George Bosworth raised the question of lot size. A variance was recently granted for lot size less than the required size. He feels the open ended zoning regulations do not give property owners enough neighborhood protection and he feels a concerted effort should be made to control the amount of variances allowed. Variances will be made but need to be more closely controlled. He was told that the Commission and Council want as few variances as possible but the Zoning Board of Adjustment must be allowed to grant variances for any sufficient reason such as hardship. This is according to State law. Mrs. Krapcho suggested consideration be given to planning retail development as to size of land, also the question of multifamily development. At 10:25 p.m. Mr. Nardelli closed the meeting with an expression of appreciation to those who had attended. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.