Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/09/1976CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 9, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, August 9, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, Michael Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT John Dinklage, Catherine Neubert OTHERS PRESENT Marguerite Armstrong, Urban L. Bergeron, R. E. Curtis, Debra Weiner, Leo O'Brien, Jr., John C. Gravel, Hal Bensen, Ruth DesLauriers, Paul R. Graves, Hugh Marvin, Peter Jacob, Kirk Woolery, Ray Unsworth, Ralph B. Goodrich, James A. Lamphere The meeting was opened by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. No additions were made to the Agenda. Disbursement orders The Chairman noted that disbursement orders were ready for signatures. Continued review of Subdivision Regulations with Citizens' Committee Street standards Mr. Szymanski explained State Highway Department standards are based on anticipated traffic needs and is basically the same set of standards South Burlington now uses; for instance, the minimum street width under State requirements is 32 feet whereas South Burlington requires only 30 feet. Mr. Szymanski will draw up a set of standards to include water, sidewalks, sewers, cul-de-sacs, everything pertaining to streets, for adoption by the City. Chairman Farrar said this would be included in the Subdivision Regulations document. Mr. Gravel asked if Council wanted to tie the City to State standards or to those standards the State has now at the present time. Mr. Farrar said they could be adopted as of this date and therefore would not be changed unless the City changed them; that would be the quickest way. Mr. Unsworth asked about specifications for streets that are not much travelled. Mr. Farrar said there could be one road less than standard, and noted that a 30 foot width allows for parking on one side and the Planning Commission can waive the curbs. Including these standards in the Regulations, Mr. Farrar said, takes out the guesswork for the developer in trying to figure out what it will cost him. Mr. Flaherty moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following recommendation; that the City Manager is to take the State Standards for streets and add to those what he deems is appropriate and necessary to lay out these requirements, plus the determination of a minimum standard of 30 feet in width for streets, to be in Section 401.1 9) in the Subdivision Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Discussion of procedures Chairman Farrar suggested using the procedures as they are now but giving the developer the option as to where he wishes to start in this procedure, either with the submission of a sketch plan or with his complete proposal. The procedures adopted were intended to minimize the cost to the developer, minimizing the risk to the applicant while at the same time making sure the public is protected. If the applicant wishes to come in with his entire package he should have the option to do so. Mr. Lamphere felt the problem with the final phase is the formal documentation as to what has been agreed to before and he couldn't see any reason for having a public hearing for that. He could see more reason for having the hearing earlier. Mr. Farrar said the law requires one public hearing and that may be all that is necessary on some proposals to get public input into the proposal as soon as possible. If the results of that action are completely different, the difference might be so great that it would be difficult to visualize what those changes were going to be from the point of view of the Planning Commission and the developer. If the project was modified to a great degree at that point, then it would be important that there be a further hearing, but if at the first hearing it was just basically tying something down, then it could be an administrative procedure from then on. Mr. Lamphere suggested finding a way to specify the magnitude of change between preliminary and final. Mr. Farrar said the Commission could either approve or disapprove and with their approval they might request minor modifications to be made for inclusion in the final plan. They have the choice of approval or disapproval; with the disapproval the developer could come back for another hearing for major modifications. With minor modifications it would just require certification by the Code Officer that proper modifications had been made; major modifications would require a formal public hearing. This would allow for those cases where the Planning Commission sees some merit in the proposal but would require extensive changes to meet their approval. Mr. Marvin questioned the possibility of the Planning Commission requiring more changes in three or four months, particularly if there were new members on the Commission. Mr. Armstrong said the less time the developer takes to come back, the less chance there is of a turn-over on the Commission. Mr. Marvin said it takes time to rework those major changes and what assurance does the applicant have that they are not going to come back and request more changes. Mr. Armstrong replied it would be a definite possibility, especially if there was a turn-over. Mr. Lamphere asked if engineering changes would be considered minor or major. Mr. Farrar felt they would be minor; major changes would be something that made the development so different from what was presented that one could not visualize what was going to come from these changes. Mr. Lamphere stated he had no objection if that was the way it was intended. Mr. Flaherty cautioned that nothing can be guaranteed where people are involved; the Planning Commission may say No to what Council is changing now. Mr. Farrar said there is no way that Subdivision Regulations can be written where some human judgment is not required. Mr. Flaherty explained for the benefit of the audience the difference between a warned legal meeting open to the public and a legally warned public hearing which must be warned in the legal section of the Free Press a certain number of days in advance. Mr. Marvin asked if, once the project was approved with minor modifications, it need not come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty explained it would be approved with qualifications to be met and the City Engineer or the Zoning Administrator would certify that these had been done. Mr. Marvin then asked if he comes in with those major changes, would it go right down the line Mr. Farrar said the only things the Planning Commission could request after that would be minor changes. Mr. Marvin asked that this be put into the language of the regulations because it costs the developer money and the consumer money to make these changes. Mr. Farrar explained the intent was to adequately protect the public and at the same time to minimize the red tape because everyone pays for the red tape, one way or another. Mr. Flaherty added it was trying to balance the public vs. the private sector. Mr. Flaherty then moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following recommendation; that the following set of procedures be adopted under 203.2 — that at the first formal public hearing the Planning Commission has three options. These are: 1) to approve the plan either with no modifications or with minor modifications; 2) to request major modifications in the plan; 3) to disapprove the subdivision. The Planning Commission shall in writing indicate their approval with any minor modifications they request, or if they disapprove or request major modifications they also do so in writing, and if major modifications are requested, the nature and type of these modifications be detailed. In the case of a plan being fully approved, no further action will be required. In the case of a plan being approved with minor modifications, the developer would submit to the City Engineer or the Code Officer the appropriate modifications which the City Engineer or Code Officer would certify as to whether or not these modifications met the requirements of the Planning Commission in their approval. Upon certification, the plan would be approved. In the case where major modifications were necessary, upon receipt of the appropriate modifications, a formal public hearing would be warned and held. At this formal hearing the Planning Commission would review the document and determine whether or not it met the requirements as laid down and proceed either with approval of the final modifications or disapproval. They would either approve with minor modifications or disapprove; they would not have the option at this point to request major modifications again. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Section 201.1 Submission of Sketch Plan Chairman Farrar cautioned the only risk the applicant would run in not submitting the sketch plan is that the Commission could look at what information was given and automatically say No, whereas they might like the plan if they had more information. 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 Section 201.1: that in the second line the word "shall" be changed to "may" and in the second line from the end of the paragraph "shall" be changed to "may." Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar suggested sending the list of suggested changes received from the Planning Commission back to the Commission, by common consent. Mr. Flaherty suggested that, also by common consent, the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee could be sent to the Commission. Definition of Subdivision Mr. Armstrong felt this pertained to a number of South Burlington residents many of whom have their entire savings invested in their land, and they should be able to deed 10 acres of land without the expense of an attorney or an engineer. Mr. Flaherty suggested sending this back to the Planning Commission for their comments. Leo O'Brien said the major concern of subdivision regulation is with the commercial lots, concern with traffic, etc. By allowing landowners to subdivide one or two lots to members of their family it would really be maintaining the entity of the particular parcel of land rather than forcing the owner into a situation which might not be as acceptable to South Burlington. Under the previous regulations an owner could sell up to three 10-acre lots. Mr. Armstrong moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission that under the definition for Subdivision (1)in the case of land in the AR District where all the lots to be created are of more than 10 acres, the number be three rather than two. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mrs. DesLauriers asked about landowners not in the AR District who have more than 50 acres. Mr. Farrar said that would be looked at to see if it should be extended to more than the AR District. Steve Page will research the matter to find out if there is acreage in that category. There was discussion as to whether or not there might be a time limit set such as a ten-year period, but it was felt best to leave some flexibility for future City Councils to handle this depending on how the City developed. Asked what would be the procedure now, Chairman Farrar explained if the petition is null and void, Council at its Thursday meeting will make a motion to send this entire package to the Planning Commission. The Commission will have a public hearing on the changes. The changes will be put into the document, the entire document will then be codified, and Council will then approve the entire document. Council will have to have another public hearing. The document would go into effect 21 days after the date it is approved (unless someone brings in another petition). He said he would expect this back from the Planning Commission or six weeks or less; the whole process would be two to two and a half months. Hugh Marvin stated the Council had spent a lot of time on this and there had been some meaningful exchange of ideas and suggestions, but his question was what if this goes to the Planning Commission and is not accepted — what then. Mr. Farrar said Council was dealing with changes which they felt should be made, it was not a process of negotiation at all, and he was sure the Planning Commission would approach this in the same manner. Mr. Marvin explained the committee which had recommended all this was made up of 30 people, 50% of whom have no connection at all with planning, construction, architectural work; it is pretty much a cross section of the City of South Burlington; 17 are people who have served or are serving on commissions in the City; it involved a lot of people waking up to the fact that they are all interested in the City. Mr. Marvin then stated that in response to Council's request and in the spirit of cooperation, they would make their best effort to obtain the necessary signatures to accomplish the withdrawal of the petition. The changes Council is recommending to the Planning Commission for adoption, while not encompassing all of the committee's suggestions, they did feel that many of the crucial concerns are being addressed. He expressed the committee's appreciation for the many hours Council members had given and for the Council's assurance that it will give its best efforts to accomplishing these changes. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:25 p.m. following a motion by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.