Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/28/1974CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 28, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations on February 28, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. The hearing was held in the Central School Gym to accommodate the large attendance. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Nardelli, Chairman; Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, William Cimonetti, and Mrs. Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; William Szymanski, City Manager; Mary Barbara Maher, Chairman, Planning Commission; Steve Page, Joe Chastenay, Rowland Petersen, Edmund Chastenay, Al Guyette, Jack Tabaka, B. Gardner, Ruth Deslauriers, George C. Crooks, Everett Reed, Gary B. Warner, Verle Houghaboom, Robert O. Sinclair, Wilbur Bull, Barbara Bull, Jacqueline Marceau, Gordon Fischer, George Hart, Charles Dennison, Wendell J. Shepard, Glurice Dennison, Fred and Paula Taylor, Lothar Vogel, Russell Chase, Royal Chittenden, Thomas R. Chittenden, V. Luginbuhl, Elizabeth Horton, A. Emory, Catherine Hayden, Arlene Krapcho, Martin Beauvais, Ralph Goodrich, Leo O'Brien, Jr., U. A. Wheelock, Bud Etherton, Barbara Laing, Patricia Calkins, Rena Calkins, Garrow Page, F. S. Gervais, Bill Robenstein, Sidney Poger, Harris Corliss, Janice Hill, Louise A. Demers, Robin W. Milne, John H. Milne, Ruth Bennett. Janice Reyes. Helen Avery, Loren Avery, Anne Bingham, Richard Bingham, George V. Drabble, T. R. Irish, B. E. Buley, Frank Hagar, G. Desautel, Bruce O'Neill, Frederick G. Blais, Barbara A. Blais, Hal Bensen, Ray Unsworth, Norma Unsworth, Littleton Long. Paul S. Zerr, Carolyn Butterfield, Gertrude M. Butterfield, Harvey D. Butterfield, Bruce B. Butterfield, R. A. Irish, N. C. Provencher, Joseph Zajchowski, John Reilly, Duane Merrill, Ronald Schmucker Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and gave a brief explanation of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, saying it was the result of many months of work on the part of the Planning Commission and the City Council, trying to fulfill the wishes of the people of South Burlington. He mentioned the important concepts of the Plan such as the industrial area off Shunpike Road with the hope of broadening the tax base of the city; the residential development in the southeast quadrant requiring a minimum of 50 acres, two units per acre; the R-4 near the cloverleaf to be the only one allowing commercial development: and the prerequisites that must be met before any development can take place, particularly if a developer is to install services himself in a new area. After pointing out these various zones on the large map, Chairman Nardelli declared the meeting open for questions from the floor. The first comment was from John Reilly who declared the restrictive zoning discriminates against those who work for a living; it does not restrict the out-of-town or out-of-state developer who can afford to meet these prerequisites. Mr. Flaherty replied that this actually protects the home owner who would have to pay the higher taxes to provide these services. He cited the rise of over 200% in costs to the average tax payer during the period of excessive growth in South Burlington, to provide water, schools, etc. The conclusion had been reached that this kind of planning is what we need. Mrs. Fred Taylor said she wished to express her appreciation to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their work; that this is what many residents had been hoping to see. Gary Warner of San Remo Realty said he had written a letter to the City Council on February 21st regarding their property located on Kennedy Drive across from the Georgetown Apartments. Under the new zoning this is to be zoned R-7, but due to the size and contour there would be problems to be encountered under that type of zoning. At the present time they have an office building next to this property and would like to be allowed more flexibility in developing this vacant land. He wished to have it rezoned Business Retail, or as an alternative to include real estate, insurance, or similar offices under Section 8.002 on page 13 of the Zoning Regulations. They feel an office building to be the highest and best use of the land and this would give them more latitude. Mr. Ralph Goodrich said his firm is in the same zone, Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road, and would like to remain in South Burlington. Mr. Reilly asked the Council if a percent growth plan had been written into the Master Plan. Mr. Nardelli replied by reading the provisions in the Growth Policy beginning on page 13 of the Comprehensive Plan, then said the Council had received legal advice that the City must take its share of growth in population of the area outside the City, that the Council is not trying to push anything through. Mr. Reilly said the enforcement arm of Act 250 is apparently dying in committee in Montpelier, with Mr. Nardelli replying the Act is still intact. Mr. Reilly insisted the enforcement arm is going to go down because of the vast opposition which has arisen; he quoted the Free Press as saying it will probably never get out of committee. Mr. Reilly felt the majority of people in South Burlington would probably never even read the Plan and Zoning Regulations; they are too complex for the average man to understand. Mr. Flaherty then made a motion that the City Council adopt the proposed 1974 Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Unsworth asked if discussion could take place now and received an affirmative answer. He then expressed his feeling that these two complex documents, the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, will affect the lives of all South Burlington residents for the next ten years; that they were prepared by two persons of extremely liberal and socialistic thinking; that they deprive many residents of their vested rights to their property, in many cases property which has been held for many years by the same family; documents were written in favor of a social group who are not now and never will be residents of South Burlington. Regarding low cost housing, he said the document is written to achieve social objectives which the residents of South Burlington are completely unaware of. He estimated to read and understand the 180 pages of complicated phraseology and the ramifications of these pages would require at least two working days. He believed that many members of the Planning Commission and the Council would be at a loss to give valid answers themselves. Then he mentioned the small percentage of the voters who had obtained copies of the documents, therefore only a small number of voters had any idea of what was in these documents, less than 5% according to his estimate. He asked if the residents wished to commit their life-style for the next ten years on that basis. Mr. Vogel asked who is to be blamed, the Council or the people, for the lack of interest. Mrs. Neubert explained the plan was not necessarily for ten years; that a provision has been written in to re-examine and update the plan in 1977. Mr. Unsworth asked if the town would have to remain stagnant during that three years. Mr. Bensen asked about the zoning of open space along the lakefront adjoining Red Rocks; how was this to be accomplished; would people still be permitted to live there if their buildings were destroyed. Both Mr. Nardelli and Mrs. Neubert explained the guide line of the Plan is to look into the future; the intention is to maintain this open space if possible; but present property owners can live there and replace their homes if destroyed. It would be the hope that sometime in the future the City might acquire some of this property. Rev. Harvey Butterfield questioned the differences between the Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. Chairman Nardelli explained the Land Use Map indicates guide lines for the future while the Zoning Map implements the proposed Zoning Regulations. The Chairman explained the motion to adopt the two documents also included the adoption of both the maps. Bruce Butterfield asked if selling the property in the lakefront zones would make any difference, and was told the buyer would have the same rights as the previous owner. Everett Reed thought the map showed some of Queen City Park and Bartlett's Bay areas in the conservation district. Mrs. Maher explained that this particular land use map was not done to scale as closely as it should have been, and shows a little more conservation area than it should. Mr. Reilly then brought up the subject of conflict of interest which he had raised at a previous meeting, namely, that Mr. Nardelli of the Council and Mr. Levesque of the Planning Commission, being employees of the School Department and members of the Education Association, had no right to sit on the Council and Commission and vote on a Comprehensive Plan which is tied to the Capital Budget. He then read from a legal document to substantiate his claim. Mr. Flaherty said this had been brought up before and the City Attorney did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Mr. Dennison said the policy read by Mr. Reilly had never been approved, with Mr. Reilly answering it had been approved by Council in 1973. He said he was not questioning the right to sit on the Council, only to vote in matters where where was a conflict of interest. Mr. Dennison said Mr. Nardelli is not voting on his salary When Mr. Reilly persisted in expressing his opinion, he was ruled out of order by the Chairman. Chairman Nardelli then asked that the discussion be on the original motion before the Council. Mr. Bensen asked when the zoning map would go into effect and was told in twenty-one days. Fred Blais inquired as to the meaning of Section 9 on page 22 of the Zoning Regulations where it refers to the most imminent housing needs; what are the most imminent housing needs in South Burlington. Mr. Nardelli replied consideration should be given to the many social groups in a community; the needs of one group are different from the needs of a more affluent group. Mr. Blais then asked where the Council or Planning Commission felt that low cost housing or even middle cost housing could be developed under this zoning document. Mr. Nardelli said it is going to be very difficult in today's economic situation. No one can easily afford a house being built today, but they are attempting to find an answer to resolve this problem. Mrs. Neubert mentioned the 10% bonus to a developer as an incentive to low cost housing; also that density can be figured on gross rather than net land, giving a higher density per acre. Mr. Blais admitted there are many good things in the document, that the planners mean well in providing a balance of social and economic growth, but in practice have not accomplished this. House costs added to the lot costs are not within reach of middle income people, much less the low income people. Starting costs of home in R­2 would be $45,000 — just a starting cost. Average income is slightly under or over $13,000. With a recommended investment of two and one­half times yearly income in home ownership, this high priced home is out of the question for middle income. Certainly is not accomplishing anything for low income people. He contends the kind of people now living in South Burlington are being zoned against and are not being allowed in any more; if we had had this zoning ordinance ten years ago many of our residents would not have been allowed in at that time. Our children will not be able to live in South Burlington unless in an apartment or Federally subsidized project. Mr. Etherton suggested the availability of older homes in R-4 on the market; that a person does not necessarily have to build a new home. Mr. Duane Merrill said he agreed with Mr. Blais. The young married people are being zoned out of South Burlington. He has three children and has been hunting for a lot in the City; wants his own house and land. Only a doctor or lawyer can afford it, not the average working man. Ronald Schmucker said he didn't really see any tremendous saving to the home buyer by having a lot reduced to 1/4 acre; the saving would go to the developer rather than the buyer. Mr. Farrar said they had not zoned out 1/4 acre lots in the southeast quadrant. Average density does not prevent a developer from building more units by counterbalancing, taking into account the topography of the land as well as the market. Mr. Unsworth said the bonus permitted for low cost housing is typical of the kind of mathematics that is going on. Property zoned 7 to an acre and now reduced to 2 units per acre, being allowed a 10% bonus is completely uneconomical and unproductive. The reason given that soils will not support a septic tank system properly is not a consideration at all when the city sewer system is near the property. He questioned any mathematical formula by which the 10% bonus would become useful. Mrs. Neubert replied that his property, zoned three to an acre, could actually have four or more. Mr. Bensen stated he felt that a moratorium is being put on building in South Burlington, particularly in relation to the southeast quadrant. In today's market and with today's soil samples, it is highly impractical to develop without city sewers. If a developer wanted to put in services here himself, a $7,000 lot would become a $70,000 lot at that rate. He cited a community in Maryland that put a moratorium on building a year and a half ago, and where houses that formerly sold for $30,000 are now selling for $45,000 because there is a supply and demand market. If we cannot increase our supply, and our demand is going to increase because of South Burlington's good facilities, housing will be out of the market and beyond the reach of middle income people. Mr. Vogel said prices also depend on monetary conditions; that we cannot help inflation. Mrs. Luginbuhl asked to have the moratorium explained by Mr. Bensen. Mr. Bensen replied it was his interpretation that there is permission for building, but requirements for doing it mean going out further, making it very difficult for an individual develop to afford the necessary investment in services. Mrs. Neubert stated they City could not do this for Mr. Bensen or for Mr. Unsworth; they can only do for the rest of the people, for the whole community. They can run a sewer line themselves, however. Rev. Butterfield declared the nation has a very sick economy at present, but carving land up into little bits of lots because it is cheaper to build that way today is not the answer to our problems. Leo O'Brien asked if a developer taking on the burden of paying for municipal services had to do it in relation to the Capital Budget Projections. Mr. Nardelli answered that that was correct. Then Mr. O'Brien asked about a case where the developer wished to put in the services himself in an area not included in the Capital Budget Projections. Mr. Nardelli explained that the developer can put in services with the approval of the Council and Planning Commission if the Capital Budget is projected for the area. But if he wants to move to an area that is not projected by the Capital Budget the Capital Budget would have to be amended and a public hearing held for this. This could be done but would be a long procedure. Mr. O'Brien complained that the language is creating a problem; that the Capital Budget is not a criteria is being implied. Mr. Nardelli said there could be a process of amendment. Mrs. Maher said the answer is that if the Planning Commission and the Council determine that all requirements are met, it can be accomplished. She felt the intent is very clear. Mr. Reilly commented that there is a moratorium on building everywhere because of the economic situation. He cited the increased cost of groceries in 1973 as being 23%, with another increase the first two months of 1974. He then stated he was going to read a copy of a letter he had written to the State Legislature. The Chairman said he refused to recognize such a letter, with Mr. Reilly replying he would read it anyway. Mrs. Fred Taylor said she objected to Mr. Reilly having already taken up so much of the evening with his remarks and complaints. The Chairman declared Mr. Reilly to be out of order, banging his gavel when Mr. Reilly persisted in reading his letter. The City Manager then went up to Mr. Reilly and quietly asked him to stop reading or he would be obliged to call for the police, whereupon Mr. Reilly resumed his seat without completing his reading. The Chairman then brought the attention of the Council back to the motion made earlier in the evening by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mrs. Neubert calling for the adoption of the proposed 1974 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and called for a vote on this motion. The Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion to adopt these documents. Mr. Farrar then read aloud a resolution prepared by the City Attorney regarding the Municipal Development Plan, and moved that this resolution be adopted by the Council. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. Voted unanimously by the Council to adopt this above mentioned resolution. This resolution will be incorporated in the Minutes of this Hearing. Next, Mr. Farrar read aloud a second resolution regarding the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, and made a motion that this second resolution be adopted by the Council. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously by the City Council. This second resolution will also be incorporated in the Minutes of this Hearing. Ralph Goodrich inquired about the amendment process and this was explained to him by Chairman Maher of the Planning Commission. Mr. Goodrich then stated the Council had said "No" to 26 land owners in the southeast quadrant, that "You have taken our rights away from us." Mr. Reilly added "You have zoned us out." The Chairman then called for a motion for adjournment. Mr. Flaherty moved that the hearing be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti. The public hearing was declared adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.