Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/31/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 31, 1974 A special meeting of the City Council was held at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, on January 31, 1974, at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Walter Nardelli, Chairman: William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator: Stephen Page, Planning Assistant: Leo O'Connor, Duane Merrill, Rene Berard, Martin Beauvais, Mrs. William Luginbuhl, Mrs. John Frymoyer The meeting was opened by Chairman Nardelli at 8:05 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Chairman announced the purpose of the meeting was to continue going over the amendments proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nardelli then read aloud the paragraphs on Balanced Rate of Growth, Agricultural Lands, and Protection of Residential Neighborhoods. These had been rewritten by Mrs. Neubert and submitted at the last meeting and approved with several amendments. No other amendments were suggested at this meeting. Mrs. Neubert asked to have the record show that she had not voted last meeting on the third paragraph on page 13 — she felt it had gone through too fast for a considered vote. This paragraph was discussed at length with Mrs. Neubert expressing disapproval of the "two times" provision, that it could lead to a disastrous rate of growth, Other members felt it was only fair for South Burlington to take its share of growth for Chittenden County. Mrs. Neubert moved that the City Council reconsider the vote on this paragraph and take it up again after setting more information from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. Seconded by Cimonetti and voted unanimously. Mr. Rene Berard said if this proposed 2% growth applied to an individual subdivision, no developer would dare to start one. Next it was approved to substitute City Council for Planning Commission on page 30, Also to delete the last sentence on page 97. Next, the use of figure 3.8 in the chart vs, the use of suggested figure of 3.5 was discussed. Explanation was given that it relates to residential units at a given point in time and neither figure would make any difference — is a mathematical equation, not a policy at all. No action was taken to change this. Regarding chart on page 29, Stephen Page, upon request, had some new figures to suggest. Mr. Farrar recommended inserting If the mix of houses and apartments is to remain the same (to be written by Mr. Page). This seconded by Mrs. Neubert, Passed unanimously. It was moved by Mr. Farrar that after line 2 of the chart (on page 29) — growth rate — a sentence be inserted saying that if the growth rate remains the same. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Berard again asked about the effect this growth rate would have on a builder. Mr. Farrar reassured him it would only be implemented under a certain set of circumstances and does not have the force of law. As long as the population is coming from within Chittenden County and South Burlington, South Burlington's plan would move with the growth of Chittenden County. Mrs. Frymoyer suggested the Transportation Plan should have the word "safety" used in it; also that the proposals for the use of bicycle paths, use of school land, recreational development, city offices, are not integrated. Mr. Farrar made a motion that once the Council has finished approving or ascending these recommendations from the Planning Commission, that they be submitted as soon as possible to the Planning Commission so that they may begin preparing their responses to them. Seconded by Flaherty and voted unanimously. Recommended to change 1/A to 1/Acre in 2.4; 2.5; and 2.6. No motion necessary. On page 2, section 3.001, a motion was made by Mr. Flaherty to add forestry and to change and/or to include. Seconded by Mrs Neubert. Voted unanimously. Next Mr. Berard questioned the zoning of his land as flood plain. Does not consider this correct — if it is to remain flood plain, then he will request tax reduction on it. Mr. Ward said the flood plain is defined by the Vermont State Water Resources Board, using the flood of 150 years ago as their base. Mr. Szymanski suggested Mr. Berard's home and buildings are actually an island in the flood plain, with the approach to his home at such a low elevation that it could be flooded. The elevation of the property will have to be determined. Mr. Berard said he could see no reason why he should not be allowed to build on his property. It was moved by Mr. Cimonetti, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to add buildings as a conditional use within the flood plain in section 3.101. Next motion was by Mrs. Neubert that section 3.104 be approved. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously. Section 3.20 on page 3 - motion made by Mr. Cimonetti, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, that this section be amended as stated with the provision that R1 be spelled out properly. Voted unanimously. Mr. Farrar asked if utilities in a flood plain should be required to have underground installation because of possible water damage. Mr. Berard said it would not matter at all, that there would be no danger. Motion was made by Mr. Cimonetti, seconded by Mr. Farrar to approve the changes in section 4.30 — typographical errors. Voted unanimously. Mr. Berard asked about being able to build on his five lots in the commercial development that are closer than 100 feet to the river. Was told he would be covered because he had already owned the lots. Section 4.20. The recommendation was to delete the words public or before commercial recreation. After discussion it was moved by Mr. Farrar to retain the words public or and insert the word private. so that it would read private, public or commercial recreation. Seconded by Mr. Cimonetti and voted unanimously. Duane Merrill suggested zoning could be better accomplished by requiring set backs from the interstate rather than by putting such strips into the conservation area. Mr. Cimonetti, after expressing concern over buildings on conservation land, made a motion for the striking out of all after the word recreation. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Mrs. Neubert objected, feeling it to be a matter of pollution control. Mr. Flaherty felt if recreation would be a conditional use, then buildings should be part of that. Mr. Ward suggested the type of recreation permitted would not require a building. Mrs. Neubert suggested sending this back to the Planning Commission. Motion voted 4 to 1. Mrs. Neubert opposing. The meaning of the word forestry in relation to its use in the conservation district was discussed. Motion made by Mr. Farrar to return article 4 Conservation and Open Space to the Planning Commission for revision, with the suggestion that they consider using streamline setbacks or setbacks from the interstate in lieu of placement in conservation districts. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Page 4, section 5.101, motion was made by Mr. Flaherty to delete all wording after amusement park. Seconded by Cimonetti and voted unanimously. After considerable discussion on 5.306 involving the increase of 10% in density allowed to a developer as an incentive for him to put in low cost housing, it was moved by Mr. Cimonetti to send this back to the Planning Commission for explanation as to how one would qualify for the lost cost housing, what the proposal has to be to qualify for the bonus. Seconded by Farrar and voted unanimously. Chairman Nardelli next read aloud from his written presentation, with discussion following, on his thoughts that keeping to the projected capital budget program regarding time projections could be considered excluding developers from putting in the necessary services for a development at their own expense. A developer would have to conform to what the city had projected but would be able to move a little faster than the city could. Mr. Nardelli said he would like to see such a proposition opened for negotiation. Mr. Flaherty felt the conditional use provision would give the city the protection of right of refusal. Mr. Ward questioned whether conditional use could be put on a planned unit development. Chairman Nardelli felt the legislative body would require compatability with the comprehensive plan and with the capital budget. Mr. Cimonetti felt consideration should be given to the man who was willing to cooperate in this way. Motion made by Mr. Farrar to add, after capital budget program, that this would be permitted after it has been determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council that all requirements as set forth in section 12,002 will be met by the developer, taking into consideration any other planned and proposed developments. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted approved 4 to 1. Mrs. Neubert opposed. Mrs. Neubert stated this is not what it should be and not what she wants. Earlier in the meeting it had been recommended to allow conditional uses on major or collector streets. Meeting declared adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.