Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/28/1976CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY 28, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting in the Central School Gym, Williston Road, on Wednesday, July 28, 1976, to hear the views of a committee of citizens regarding proposed subdivision regulations. A petition had been presented previously requesting a referendum vote on the new regulations which had been accepted by the Council. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT Catherine M. Neubert OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Jim Lamphere, John Gravel, D. J. Morse, R. E. Curtis, Leo O'Brien, Hal Bensen, W. A. Wheelock, Ray Unsworth, Norma Unsworth, Louisa A. Marvin, Leland E. Calkins, Pat Calkins, Gail S. Lang, Greg Premo, W. K. Woolery, William Wessel, Bill Robenstein, James Ewing, Margaret G. Brown, Marguerite B. Paulsen, Martin B. Paulsen, Fred Blais, James W. Brown, D. F. Cooley, Genevieve R. Morgan, Ralph B. Goodrich, Ivan Beliveau, H. Behney, Ying Linn, Leo O'Connor, Ruth DesLauriers The meeting was opened by Chairman Farrar at 7:40 p.m. Discussion of Subdivision Regulations The organization set up last May by a group of citizens was described by Hugh Marvin, with all work being done by volunteers. The philosophy and goal of their Steering Committee is to have sufficient business growth to cover the increased operational costs of South Burlington as well as inflation. The residential and open space owners it was felt are already carrying all the burden they can handle. Another goal is to provide job opportunities for young people. Mr. Marvin cited examples of industries leaving southern New England and wishing to locate in northern New England; Vermont has to compete with New Hampshire and Maine in attracting these firms. Leo O'Brien, chairman of the organization's Committee to Study Subdivision Regulations, explained the purpose of his committee was to coordinate the thoughts of many people, to put forth the impact of the new regulations on the City of South Burlington, to point out responsibilities as to fair treatment of landowners and those who want to invest in this community. He referred to the recent industrial development in Williston where the town has acted with very little delay and with very concise decisions and regulations. He urged that the Council give very careful consideration to the suggestions to be made by the committee, with John Gravel making the presentation. Mr. Gravel questioned the following sections of the Subdivision Regulations, saying he felt they were felt to be very important — Definition of Subdivision on page 3. He felt the number of lots should have been left at three, and gave examples of why two could be too restrictive. Mr. Farrar explained this was to prevent the first separation of land from creating problems that would be difficult to rectify later. Mr. Armstrong said he had held out against this change when he was on the Planning Commission, that a person should be able to sell a parcel of his land on a one-time basis provided he still has ten acres left, without spending money on an attorney and engineer for subdivision procedures. Article II: Procedure for the Submission and Review of Plans Mr. Gravel said the committee had redrafted these articles, trying to streamline them without sacrificing any of the safeguards of the present document. The time requirements in the present document of six to nine months could eliminate an entire construction season in Vermont. Mr. Lamphere called attention to what is happening in other towns where projects have been completed within a year. Mr. Farrar objected that their suggested change would eliminate the final public hearing. Mr. Gravel said there would be no necessity for a second hearing if all the requirements were met in the first place. Mr. Farrar still objected that there would be no opportunity for more public input. Section 301.5 Proper Installation of Improvements Mr. Gravel said their revision of this section sets out more clearly the time table and each person's responsibility. Article IV: Development Requirements and Design Standards Mr. Gravel said the committee felt the requirements for streets were too rigid and should be more flexible. Mr. Farrar replied this would mean a more specific definition of who would determine what the standards would be, and Mr. Flaherty added that there has to be somebody with a final voice, final authority. Mr. Lamphere said his impression was that the City would be creating massive boulevards in the developments which were not needed and would increase the costs to the developer. Mr. Szymanski explained the intent was to draw up some standards for typical sections of roadway, where the sewer and water goes, the slope of the roadway, which would be adopted basically by a separate By-Law. There might be some changes made which could be beneficial. Mr. Dinklage suggested more clarification in the document as to whether a street is major or secondary. Section 404.1 Water Mr. Gravel felt any over-design or over-building required of the developer by the Flanning Commission should be paid for by the City. Mr. Farrar replied that is the policy now being followed and referred to the Fred Blais development where the over-design of the sewer would be paid by the City. He felt there was no fundamental difference on this point. Section 407 Utility Lines Mr. Gravel felt that underground utility lines should be required only where practical because of the expense. The cost has to be passed on to the purchaser of the home and for a development of lower cost homes it is just not practical and not fair to make it a requirement of all developments. Perhaps in a subdivision for higher priced homes it might be practical. Mr. Dinklage stated the philosophy of underground utility lines is expressed in the City's Master Plan. Section 412 School Sites Mr. Gravel felt this section should be deleted, because it was not clear as to what payment is being talked about and also that it was left to the discretion of the Planning Commission as to when such payment should be made. This could add to the consumer price of a house and could also result in double taxation for the school system. Mr. Flaherty said the intent was that the people already living in the town wouldn't have to pay for the new school, it would be projected to the people coming in. Mr. Lamphere felt the pressure on the school system could come from a lot of small developments where this payment is not required. It was set up in the State Planning Act that a developer could be asked to set aside an area of land for a school so he would not build on it, but the City would have to pay for it. Mr. Armstrong asked if a developer should be required to set aside a certain amount of acreage for a future grammar school in that area, even though it might never be used — set aside for a certain number of years. Mr. Blais felt saying 100 units was discriminatory and arbitrary. Some homework should be done with the School Board as to what is really the projected need of sites for school growth. Mr. Robenstein said the State Statutes say that only with 100 or more units can the City require a site, but it does not automatically say that a payment can be required. Mrs. DesLauriers felt some developments would have few children; the School Board should decide when and where a school would be needed. Mr. Curtis pointed out that several developers with 75 units could "come in free" while a single developer with 100 units has to give land for a school. This, he felt, was most inequitable. Section 605 Expiration of Approval Because of the economic situation Mr. Gravel felt the limit of two years should be changed to five years. Mr. Farrar said he didn't think there was any fundamental disagreement there. Mr. Gravel then repeated that the area of most concern to the committee is the procedural area, the real Number One area. Chairman Farrar then explained that Council by a motion had previously gone on record that unless the petition for referendum is withdrawn prior to the legal warning date, the item will be warned for the September Primary Election. There will be an item on the Council's Agenda for next Monday to consider the revised regulations submitted by the citizens' committee at this special meeting. However, he said, it was not likely that discussion would be completed before the middle of August, but whatever the result of the referendum is, there are certainly things to be changed to make the document better. The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:45 p.m. following a motion by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.