Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 02/18/1975
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 18, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the South Burlington 1974 Zoning Ordinance on Tuesday, February 18, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; Paul Farrar, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT John Dinklage, Duane Merrill OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Jim Ewing, Arlene Krapcho After Chairman Flaherty called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m., Mr. Farrar moved that the Council adjourn to the Assessor's Office where the temperature would be more comfortable. The hearing which took place was for discussion only, with the hearing to be recessed until March 3rd at which time voting on the proposed amendments could be done with a full Council present. The proposed amendments were considered as follows: 1. Question as to whether or not power generating plants should be allowed in the flood plain was raised by Mr. Farrar. Mrs. Neubert suggested perhaps flood plain was a good place, as it cannot be used for anything else. Mr. Ward said the City Attorney felt it better to allow these things as a conditional use which requires a public hearing than as an outright use: that some provision must be made for such uses. 2. No problem. 3. Question of consulting with Natural Resources Committee, but Mrs. Neubert said this Committee has no power. Mr. Ward said Zoning Board feels stripping soil requires an Act 250 permit. Decided there was no problem with proposed amendment. 4. Suggested changing wording to: Recreation Facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools. 5. Mr. Farrar questioned allowing power generating plants in AR District, saying industrial and airport industrial would be perfect spots for them. 6. Question as to whether or not recreational facilities automatically covered tennis courts and pools. 7. Mr. Ward explained this was to allow people on Spear Street to keep a horse but still protect their neighborhoods. Mrs. Neubert objected that in R-4 districts people would be allowed to have animals in their backyards. Chairman Flaherty suggested this could be a permitted use in R-4 only on lots of not less than one acre. 8. No problem. 9. No problem. 10. Mr. Ward said the Planning Commission didn't want generating plants in any residential area. Distribution lines but not transmission lines to be allowed. This amendment was questioned. 11. No problem. 12. No problem. 13. No problem. 14. No problem. 15. Mrs. Neubert asked about storage facilities. Mr. Ward said they would be allowed as a conditional use under Customary Accessory Buildings, 7.103. 7.102 Outdoor Recreational Facilities not usually in BR District; this would allow them as a conditional use as was done in the case of the two outdoor paddle tennis courts. It was felt that power generating plants, 7.104, should not be allowed in Business Retail District. 16. Power generating plants questioned again. 17. It was felt that Airport Industrial was a proper place for power generating plants to be allowed as a conditional use. 18. Regular Industrial zone was also felt to be a proper place for power generating plants. 19. Mrs. Neubert felt a 15 foot sideyard could create a hazard. Mrs. Krapcho called attention to a paragraph on page 5 of the amendments under Access to Parking which requires that a right of way must not be less than 24 feet and shall extend from the public right of way to the parking spaces. 20. No problem. 21. Reference was made to a memorandum from the City Attorney of January 20th recommending that no change be made in Section 11.25. There was considerable difference of opinion among the members of the Council. A general discussion followed, with no solution. 22 Mr. Szymanski felt this might lead to a series of houses being allowed,with Mr. Ward saying this would be stopped by the subdivision regulations. The City Attorney and the City Planner are to be asked to explain this to the Council. 23. Mr. Farrar suggested adding a section to deal with a lot on a street corner. Mr. Ward said this is to provide protection to owners of small lots which were set off way back, that they may build a detached garage to within 10 feet of a sideline without having to go to the Zoning Board. The Board has had to deal with many such cases. This would save a number of variances but the Board would still be handling the requests for 6 or 7 foot variances. Mrs. Neubert questioned this amendment. 24. Mr. Ward said this paragraph would replace the last paragraph now in Section 11.701. It takes away the one per cent for five years, with the intent that the Planning Commission should make the modifications of the requirements. They want to be able to protect the person who doesn't have to spend any money because the trees are already there. The Council expressed concern that there was no provision for maintenance or replacement; that this should be included. 25. Mr. Farrar said he was opposed to these two amendments, saying that 26. nowhere in a city the size of South Burlington should it be necessary to build more than 2½ stories. Mrs. Krapcho suggested that on the lamplough property with its uneven terrain, it could be more practical to construct more than 2½ story buildings. Mr. Farrar said if so, it should be done by exception rather than by permission. 27. Mr. Ward explained the parking space requirement was formerly for 200 square feet and is now reduced to 160 square feet, but the dimensions have to be 10 x 16. 28. Mr. Ward said the only change in this amendment is the addition of the last three words — on minor streams. Question was raised of how the center of a stream can be defined. Mrs. Neubert moved that this public hearing be recessed, and be reconvened on March 3, 1975. at 7:30 p.m. for further discussion on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, and also to discuss the zone change on the O'Brien property. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Hearing was declared recessed at 9:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.