Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/17/1973CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1973 The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting in the City Hall Conference Room on Wednesday, October 17, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Council Chairman Walter Nardelli, Michael D. Flaherty, Paul A. Farrar, Catherine M. Neubert and William J. Cimonetti of the City Council. Planning Commission Chairwoman Mary Barbara Maher, Ronald Schmucker, Frederic O. Sargent, William Robenstein, William Wessel and Ernest Levesque from the Planning Commission. MEMBERS ABSENT Planning Commission member Sidney Poger OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski, City Attorney Richard Spokes, Zoning Administrator Richard Ward, Paul F. Froemmino, Paul Lissandrello, Virginia Gluck, Sharen Thompson, Robert Larson, Richard Farnham, Betty Anderson, Frankie Felder, Douglas Chiappetta, Virginia Guarino, Rick Prince, David A. Bean, R. A. Cross, Ken Hood, Richard Laverty, Robert Spaulding and John D. O'Hara. Discussion and work on proposed Zoning Regulations. Chairman Nardelli called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M, and read a memo from Mr. Ward concerning suggestions made by residents at the informational meeting of October 16, 1973. Planning Commission Chairman Maher asked Attorney Spokes to research the question of multi-family occupancy of single family dwellings. Mr. Nardelli than asked Attorney Spokes about the requirements regarding hearings, readings, and transfer of Plan, by the Planning Commission, to the Council, and the eventual procedure for adoption of the Plan. Attorney Spokes suggested simultaneous adoption of the Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, or, alternatively, adoption of the Plan first and the Zoning Ordinance afterwards. Consideration of Chapter II, Growth Control, of September 13, 1973. Chairman Maher questioned the use of attitude surveys for determining citizen opinion on various facets of growth control. The terminology in Chapter II was changed to "attitude surveys and/or open meetings." Councilman Farrar questioned the validity of South Burlington accepting a fixed share of city growth. Commissioner Schmucker felt the city growth rate should be tied to the community's own capabilities, needs, shortcomings, and potential to absorb growth and not to county population. Attorney Spokes disagreed, saying he felt the courts would be much more receptive to tying growth controls into a state and regional framework. He added that he was trying to resolve the apparent differences of opinion on growth control between him and the Attorney General's Office. Chairwoman Maher said she was unalterably opposed to controlling growth by building permits. She said Don Rich of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission had said that planning of construction in large developments would serve the purpose. Commissioner Schmucker and Councilman Flaherty both stated that issuance of building permits is the mechanism of limiting growth, based on capital budget and program. Regarding the Plan, the consensus of opinion was in favor of a growth control policy; the mention of specific methods of implementation, it was felt, should be deliberately vague and non-committal A vote was taken regarding the wording for the means of implementation for the growth control policy to make it vaguer - the vote was in favor. Councilman Farrar will reword it for another definitive vote at a later meeting. City Manager Szymanski and Councilman Cimonetti both wondered if the growth policy chapter referred to population growth only, or all types of growth. The answer to this was yes, Chapter II is concerned with population growth and that other types of growth (commercial, industrial) will be considered more specifically in later chapters. Southeast Quadrant Discussion centered over the provisions of sewer and water services and who would pay for it. Zoning for the southeast quadrant was discussed at length; general agreement was reached on a twofold implementation effort, l, a certain minimum lot size if no municipal services, and 2, if municipal services, a PUD will be considered with a density of _____ residential units per acre and a minimum development size of 50 acres. The City Council and Planning Commission agreed to this concept of PUD provided there are no commercial or industrial uses. Discussion on density, i.e., 1 unit per 10 acres, 1 unit per 15 acres or 1 unit per 20 acres was tabled for further consideration. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Nardelli at 10:30 P.M. Approved Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.