Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/05/1976CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 5, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Thursday, August 5, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT Catherine Neubert OTHERS PRESENT R. E. Curtis, Jim Lamphere, G. Brady, David Heim, Mary Barbara Maher, Peter Jacob, Frederick G. Blais, Ralph B. Goodrich, Ray Unsworth The meeting was opened at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Discussion of Subdivision Regulations with the Citizens' Committee Section 412 School Sites Chairman Farrar stated the City Attorney had made the point that it was immaterial whether or not this was in the Subdivision Regulations because this is something granted to the Planning Commission under the Enabling Legislation. The Planning Commission has the power to invoke this under the existing legislation. The consensus of the Council was that this section should be deleted. Mr. Armstrong moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following recommendation: that Section 412 be deleted in its entirety from the Subdivision Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Section 404 Water A question on this section concerned whether or not the City would pay the difference when a developer was required to install a larger water main to allow for other development later. Both Chairman Farrar and the City Manager stated this had been the practice with Mr. Szymanski citing the Potter development as an example where the City had requested a 12" main and Mr. Potter paid the equivalent of the cost of an 8" pipe and the City paying the difference. Mr. Flaherty moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following amendments to Section 404, that the third, sentence in Section 404.1 beginning with The sub divider may be required' and ending with" otherwise be inadequate" and replace it with the paragraph at the bottom of the page beginning "If, due to planning" and ending with "over-designing and over-developing." The second paragraph is to be used, with "City Council" on the second line changed to Water Department." The third paragraph is to be used with the words "on a front foot basis" to be changed to "according to an appropriate formula to be determined by the Water Department." Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Flaherty stated these are the procedures the City has been following for the last few years and all Council is doing is codifying this in the Subdivision Regulations. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Section 406 Sewage Disposal Mr. Farrar stated the procedures had been the same as with the water main: when the Planning Commission requires larger ones, the City pays the difference. Mr. Flaherty moved that in the event the petition is made mull and void the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following amendments to Section 406: that the third sentence in the first paragraph be deleted and be replaced with Section 1 under the suggested 404 as in the previous motion. The second paragraph is to be the same as in the amendment to 404 except that "City Council" is to be used instead of "Water Department" and the third paragraph is to be the same as in the amendment to 404. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously for approval. Sections 401 - 409 Design Standards No motion was made to amend these sections. Mr. Lamphere urged using the set of standards adopted by the State which are used by the Environmental Commission. The City Manager said there would be no problem in doing this. It was felt the Planning Commission has the power to waive some of these requirements such as underground wiring for utilities or for sidewalks. Section 301.5 Proper Installation of Improvements Mr. Lamphere felt the way the section had been written would allow the City to go back to the developer and require that portions of the work be done over. What the committee had tried to do was to require inspections as the work goes along to make sure it is right. The other point Mr. Lamphere made was that it did not allow for the release of the bond the way the section was written, so the committee had included a vehicle for the release of the bond. Mr. Flaherty moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following amendment to the new Subdivision Regulations: that in Section 301.5 the entire paragraph be deleted beginning with "If the City Engineer" and ending with "under the bond" and replace it with the substitute paragraph beginning with "Prior to construction" and ending with "the performance bond." Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong then said he felt this might place an undue burden on the City Engineer. Mr. Szymanski said the only time it would create a problem might be when money is escrowed and the contractor might want to do a little work and release some of the money. Mr. Jacob said the Water Department should be notified upon the start of any construction work. The Chairman felt another draft of this section might be necessary and he recommended either withdrawing the motion or tabling it. Mr. Flaherty stated he would withdraw the motion. Mr. Armstrong withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Armstrong then moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission, the following amendment to the new Subdivision Regulations; that paragraph 301,5 be deleted in its entirety with a substitution for it being the committee's recommended paragraph with an insertion at the end of the first sentence to read "to the City Engineer for his approval" and in the second sentence the City shall make "reasonable" periodic inspections. "The City Engineer shall give his approval or denial within a period of two weeks." is to be inserted between the first and the second sentence. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Goodrich asked about a time frame for notifying the developer of any deficiencies, saying he would like the words "as soon as possible" included in the above motion. By common consent it was agreed to insert "as soon as possible" between "and" and "notify." Mr. Goodrich then asked that the notification of any deficiencies be in writing in order to eliminate any future arguments, saying all engineers are not so capable as Mr. Szymanski. Even though the engineer gives the information verbally at the site or on the phone, he would prefer it to be followed up in writing. By common consent the words "in writing" are to be inserted after "as soon as possible." Section 103 Definitions Chairman Farrar referred to the arguments raised about the definition of a subdivision and the distinction between minor and major subdivisions. Mr. Lamphere said undue hardship is being created, that right now the simplest lot on Shelburne Road would take six to eight months to get it through. Mr. Unsworth felt it was also making an undue burden for the people who have to carry this out, the administrative officers and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is already overworked and the more automatic procedures that can be left in the hands of an administrator, the better. Mrs. Maher said the purpose was to cut down on strip development. Mr. Armstrong felt a landowner should be able to deed a parcel of his land for residential purposes to some member of his family on a one-time basis. Mr. Lamphere objected that the Planning Commission never has any time to do planning — they should be planning ahead of the developer. Discussion on procedures Mr. Farrar said it was important to get public input in the process as soon as possible. There could be a public meeting the first time, not necessarily a warned public hearing, and then the required public hearing the second time. This would shorten the warning periods from what they are now. Mr. Dinklage felt the public interest and the amount of effort they are willing to invest in getting their ideas into the public forum have to be protected. One idea would be that the developer and the Planning Commission, in real quiet, ought to be able to sit down and see if they have basic agreement on concept, with public input welcome at any time if the Board is reasonably going to turn this down. But once the Board passes the point where after some preliminary hearing it says this proposal looks good enough, it ought to get a full public view by holding a regular warned final hearing. He felt this would shorten things up a little and would not tend to get the public out unless there was a reasonable chance the Planning Commission intended to proceed with the proposal. Chairman Farrar felt a procedure should be worked out to give as clear an indication as possible as early in the process as possible whatever the problems are in the specific proposal, with a minimum investment by the developer up to that point. The subdivision approval should be made mainly on whether the developer is proceeding in the way that meets with the set of requirements that have been laid down. That is what the Planning Commission should be determining and the more the procedure can be forced into the format, the better for all concerned. Mr. Lamphere felt that now the Planning Commission can force the developer to do a lot of engineering work first. A sketch plan, he felt, should not be required unless the developer is doing something very different and innovative. Mr. Lamphere strongly recommended a one-step process, 21 and 45 days. If the developer does all his work, it could be finished. Mr. Flaherty commented the developer could be running the risk of a turndown if the process was shortened. Mrs. Maher said the intent of the Planning Commission was to make it easier for the small developer, not more difficult. Mr. Blais that where most subdivision is going to occur, most people would have to come before the Planning Commission and Council both for approval, so the major concern of protecting the City is already covered by zoning. Chairman Farrar said the real questions are regarding procedures and subdivisions and he suggested recessing the discussion until early next week. The Council agreed to meet Monday, August 9th, at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.