Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/10/1976CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MAY 10, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a public hearing on Monday, May 10, 1976, on Proposed Amendments to the 1974 South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was held in the gymnasium of the Central School, Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Farrar, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; William Wessel, Chairman, Planning Commission; Sandra Sissel, Joe T. Hawkins, Joyce H. Hawkins, Laurice Farrell, Ronald Farrell, Roberta Stys, Marie Gravelle, Doris M. Torrey, Joe Medved, L. M. Field, J. Dion, Kathy Dion, N. J. Kenyon, Shirley Mitchell, George Mitchell, Bernie Smyle, Michael J. Dattilio, Art Dorey, Wm. C. Murphy, Robert J. Methot, Jim Wallace, Mary B. Pcolar, Barbara Toutant, Marion Crabtree, Walter Sherys, James Sherys, Robert Carruthers, Elizabeth Carruthers, Catherine Purington, Ellie Morency, David C. Morency, Amy White, Peter Harvey, Richard Pepperman, Russell D. Chase, Mary A. Connolly, Ann Manazir, Bonson Ho, Vivian Ho, Lois Duell, Don Duell, Paul A. Grenier, Raymond Milhous, Robert Guiduli, Claire Guiduli, Judy Cote, Leo Cote, Alice Emery, W. Kirk Wooley, Fred H. Taylor, Abe Klavan, Charles H. Marschke, Dan Scribner, Richard Sweterlitsch, Sue Sweterlitsch, Olga Ouellette, Mike Pcolar, Sandra Canero, Anne Voland, George Voland, Susan Bell, Cynthia Rubin, Charles Turo, Pamela Turo, William Meyer, Leona Meyer, Charles LaPlant, Gwen LaPlant, William J. Schuele, Ethel Schuele, Sheri Larsen, Mary Barbara Maher, Thelma E. Tilley, Dale E. Macomber, Susan T. Macomber, Richard Picard, James Ewing, Robert Babcock, Debra Weiner The meeting was opened at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Proposed Zoning Amendments for the Triangle Chairman Farrar stated the only item on the Agenda was the formal public hearing on the proposed change to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Farrar explained three affirmative votes from the Council would be required for a motion to be passed. He asked that all motions be made in the positive form in order that a "Yes" vote would be to approve the motion and a "No" vote would be to turn it down. He explained the document to be considered at this hearing could be amended by deleting portions of it or by changing the boundaries of the various districts, or by changing the density in a district. If any amendments are made the document would have to be returned to the Planning Commission for their comments and rewarded for a subsequent public hearing. The proposed document basically establishes a new district, outlines the area where the new area would lie, modifies and changes the zoning of a portion of the land within the Triangle from R-4 PUD to R-7, and changes the dimensions of the Business Retail District. Mr. Dinklage moved that the proposed change in the Business Retail District along Williston Road and White Street is in conformance with the South Burlington Master Plan. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Dinklage said he felt the extension of the Business Retail from 200 feet to the proposed 500 feet does match the sense of the Master Plan and there was merit to this change in that it would allow more orderly development of the Business Retail commercial activity that is already zoned along Williston Road. He felt the Planning Commission had made a valid point that a change to this depth would also help eliminate some of the existing problems with nonconforming use in lots that now exist on Williston Road in that area. A map of the Triangle was displayed on an easel and Mr. Page indicated on this map the existing Business Retail district and the proposed boundaries for Business Retail. Mr. Schuele asked about the suggested feeder road, if that was considered for the new area. Mr. Page explained it is not part of the zoning: there could be a number of alternatives. Mr. Dinklage said this proposed zone does not prevent nor does it require such a road. Mr. Schuele felt it should be considered in expanding the zone. Mrs. Neubert asked about the residential lots and Mr. Page explained they would have to be treated as pre-existing lots and the uses allowed in that district would be allowed on those lots but they couldn't conform as far as the minimum lot size goes. Mr. Klavan asked about the City's plans for providing services such as sewers to this area. Mr. Szymanski said the Airport Sewage Plant is operating at about 60% capacity but this would be a case of first come first served; the City would have to choose between expanding the plant or limiting development. Mrs. Neubert said she was not opposed to continuing commercial development in the area but she would like to see the commercial take place off the new road which is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and not off Williston Road or Patchen Road. The boundary lines could very well remain as they are now. Mr. Medved asked about the road again, its location, and Mr. Farrar said the position of the road was not determined in the boundaries proposed. When the Official City Map is completed such road areas could be designated in undeveloped land, and anyone developing that land would have to put that road in. A road through this area would be one of the desirable things to show in the Official Map. Mrs. Neubert said the road is on the Transportation Map in the Comprehensive Plan; simply a line on the map. Mr. Flaherty indicated on the map the location of a road talked about years ago coming from Patchen Road to where the Butcher Block is now and explained the road considered in the Transportation Section of the Master Plan would come across from Mary Street, cutting through the Triangle, and coming out somewhere near the dump. This would be a feeder road or by-pass. Mr. Dinklage read aloud from the section on land use through zoning and said the Planning Commission is attempting to set up a zone here to provide for this, and in giving the relationship of this land to the BR uses this seems like a reasonable step to him because he personally likes what has happened in the area around the Butcher Block where a greater depth of development allowed for a better circulation of traffic. This encourages organized development. He added that any development must come before the Planning Commission for site plan review. Mr. Flaherty asked how far back was the drop-off, and Mr. Ward replied around 300 feet. Mr. Flaherty said then most of the land would be in the gully and would have to be filled to make it usable for commercial development. Mr. Wessel presented a topographic contour map to the Council and pointed out the present usable depth of the lots. A member of the audience referred to a section of the Master Plan preventing unplanned and uncontrolled growth, saying the presently existing R-4 district should not be changed to BR, there is no reason for this to be changed. Mr. Voland asked if there is anything that the City presently needs in Business Retail for that land, that should be provided by this land. Chairman Farrar replied the question is somewhat broader than that; the question is would this be the best use for the land in the long run, even though it may not be needed now. He added that this particular zone change request is not one that is coming from a specific request of a developer; it is coming because some problems were seen on the previous zoning question and the Planning Commission felt that the present zone was not the best zone. Council had before it, several months ago, a proposed zone for this area and Council turned it down. During the discussion the Planning Commission went on record that the present zone on this entire area was improper. Now the Planning Commission has told Council what they thought was the proper zone. Mrs. Schuele commented that most of the people at this hearing do live in this area and do have to drive on Williston Road. To have more Business Retail means lots of people going in and out, with traffic jams caused by traffic backing up; there will be more of this by making it desirable for business to be there. Also the price of the lots will go up and then the City is going to have to buy the land for a road at a higher price and this will have to come from the taxpayers — to build a road so other people can come and shop. There should be some provision for a service road. Chairman Farrar said the time when a service road can be allowed in an area like this is when the Official City Map is adopted; the areas can be delineated specifically and the roads outlined. Mr. Schuele asked if this wouldn't be an "after the fact" kind of thing. Mr. Farrar explained that under the present zone someone could build houses and have some commercial; it is zoned for a mixed commercial and residential. Mr. Farrar said the mixed commercial is only to service the homes in the area. Mrs. Schuele said again that a commercial lot would cost more for the City to buy than a residential lot. The Chairman said Council might be in trouble by using that kind of argument. Mr. Wessel pointed out on the map where the proposed BR was put on top of the existing BR, saying it may have even been reduced by an acre or two. Mrs. Neubert asked about the use variance granted and Mr. Wessel replied a use variance doesn't fall in the purveyance of the Planning Commission. Mr. Flaherty said even the lines would be changed to some extent. These businesses are existing and it still would look the same to the people driving down the road. The zone would be expanded to meet the conditions which have been put there by variances; it would be legitimizing what has been done by other people. Mr. Dinklage presented figures and statistics prepared by Mr. Page at the request of Council, showing how much of the land zoned for commercial use was already developed, and said the Planning Commission feels there is going to be some pressure for commercial development that is not provided for in the acreage now zoned for this. Mr. Harvey asked for the percentages of land zoned for residential. The figures were given for R-4, R-1, and R-7, also for the area zoned for agricultural in answer to this request. Mr. Harvey asked if the taxpayers really needed such commercial zoning, and is so, why, adding that he just visualized South Burlington "going to pot." Mr. Pepperman referred to what Planning Commissions have done in New Jersey and elsewhere. Mrs. Connally said people came here to have the country to enjoy and that kind of viewpoint is needed to be considered. Mr. Picard said if the property is left just the way it is and these people are backed into a corner, there could be a 400 unit mobile home park there under the new State law. The owners would be making more money doing something like that and he would rather see the land developed for something other than for mobile homes. Chairman Farrar read aloud the present law allowing mobile homes in residential areas. Mr. Voland suggested it would be better not to raise another emotional issue at this time to combat the present issue. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to elaborate on another line of thinking; his comments, he said, are a matter of public record on some of the actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment recently. From the point of view of the best operation of the City it is wise to have our laws, our zoning regulations, in conformity with reality with what exists, because, when this is not true, it is forcing the situation where one has to take action to ask for variances or appeals or exceptions. The Chairman of the Planning Commission stated that in fact most of the businesses existing in this district do go back about this far; they go back substantially further than the 200 feet boundary of the presently existing provision. Philosophically it is a good thing because then we would not always be forcing things to the Zoning Board. Mr. Voland suggested tightening up the operation so the Zoning Board is not in the position to grant zoning variances. Mr. Dinklage said the prerogatives of the Zoning Board are granted by State law, not by Council. Mrs. Neubert said she thought some vision was needed, some control; the growth of the community has got to be channeled in a way that people can live with, and in doing that, the developer can be allowed to make his profit; there can be some residential and some commercial. She would like to see the City start doing it the good way. Mr. Morency asked if Mrs. Neubert proposed not to allow this Business Retail to expand because he would agree that it is existing and it should be honored. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't want to see it expanded on Williston Road; she would like to see it expanded on a new street that all the developers would cooperate in and provide; there can't be any added congestion on Williston Road. If it is wanted to develop that land commercially it should be developed from the interior. She said she would also propose the same thing for the other side of Williston Road so there wouldn't be all the traffic coming out on Williston Road. New entrances and controlled traffic lights are needed. Mr. Morency said he still felt the existing business in the Business Retail area should be legitimized. Mr. Ward referred to Butcher Block and Garden Way going back 300 feet, saying they are nonconforming but they do exist. There are certain provisions that would prevent them from alterations and additions. Mr. Flaherty said there is no way a nonconforming use can be taken away unless it burns down; by changing the zone the man's uses are expanded. He then referred to the use variance received by Paul Graves, saying this was giving him something, expanding his ability to use that land. Mr. Morency said he would assume that if the zone is not expanded to 500 feet then the people who own the property can lay row after row of mobile homes in there. Mr. Flaherty said that was simplifying it; they would have to meet the residential requirements for that area. Mr. Morency said it could be done. Mr. Flaherty felt the people might not pay the price for the lots for mobile homes. Mr. Picard said there are mobile homes now that cost ten or fifteen thousand dollars. Mrs. Neubert asked if he was suggesting that all that area go commercial so no one can put a mobile home there. Mr. Picard said this is what everybody is forgetting about; he has seen it happen in other areas, larger areas. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Picard where he would put them, where would he like to see then. Mr. Picard replied that her attitude seemed to be anti-business. He didn't care where the mobile home goes, but with the State law there isn't much that can be done about it; they could fill the whole place with mobile homes. Chairman Farrar said the point has been made and it was time to move along; this was only going over the same ground again. Someone from the audience asked if there was any money in the City budget to hire a non-partisan person to prepare an environmental statement. Chairman Farrar said he was not sure what such an environmental statement could say; if one were to actually build on this land he would have to have such a statement. Mr. Farrar said what should be discussed now is whether this specific change is in agreement with the goals of the Plan. Council has to vote on whether it does wish to implement this change or whether it wishes to not implement it because it is not in the best interests of the community. A plan is for the benefit of the community as a whole but in starting to look at specific things some of them may be for the benefit of the community and some may not be. A plan is a very broad and general outline of a goal. Mr. Voland asked about the lack of the City Official Map, if such a map would fix, for example, the issue being discussed; would this issue being talked about now be discussed in that case. Mr. Farrar replied that once that street is placed on an Official City Map, then no matter what the land is zoned, the Planning Commission can say to the developer who comes in for what would be a legal proposal, it could say he can't put his structures here because that is where the road is supposed to go. Mr. Wooley asked how much of the area is not developed. Mr. Ward said the cinema complex is beyond the 200 feet, goes back to approximately 400 feet. The undeveloped area was indicated then indicated on the map. Mr. Russell Chase commented it would not be easily developed where it goes down into the ravine. Mr. Ward said each person with property on Williston Road has a developed piece of property; all this would be doing would be to add 200 or 300 feet more to their commercially zoned lots. Mrs. Neubert said then each lot would have 400 feet more of BR to be developed with an exit on Williston Road, and those small houses could be sold and another McDonalds be put there. Mr. Ward said in this area the only houses existing are on White Street, one or two behind the Tower Restaurant. Mr. Dinklage indicated the area on the map, pointing out that no houses would be affected by the proposed expansion of the BR District. Mr. Ward agreed that any houses existing are not being discussed at the moment. Mr. Medved asked about the section between the green and red sections on the map, if that wasn't already developed. Chairman Farrar said he would prefer to hold that question until that area was under discussion. Mrs. Maher asked about a philosophy for filling because it is known that some of the land isn't too deep and they are already filling in there. Presumably if this is adopted, it is really saying that filling will continue to be encouraged. Is this in fact what is being encouraged. Chairman Farrar said he was not sure the question was relative to the zone change. Someone from the audience asked what was the sense of having zoning; it seemed to him to be a variance farce. Mr. Farrar repeated that the question is whether the Council finds the proposed zone change to be consistent with the Master Plan, or not. Mr. Dinklage said the reason for going through this exercise is because this is really the first very large controversial zone change that the City has had to deal with under the present Master Plan and the question has been asked if the proposed zone change is in conformity with the Master Plan. Council wishes to establish some precedent here in making sure this question is addressed specifically. Chairman Farrar then called for a vote on the question of whether the change to Business Retail is in conformance with the Master Plan. The result was three affirmative votes (Mr. Dinklage, Chairman Farrar, Mr. Merrill) and two negative votes (Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Flaherty). Mr. Flaherty recommended speeding things up a little. He then moved that the Planned Development proposal is in conformance with the Master Plan. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Voland read aloud a petition which he said had been signed by 396 residents protesting the proposed zone change. He said there are larger issues at stake and he would question whether the Zoning Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council are really committed to the Master Plan because the Zoning Board was unchallenged in granting the use variance. He referred to page 3 and page 9 of the Master Plan, and said any developers get exactly what they want from one body or another, in one way or another. The citizens do not need or want anything built there. They don't want to become just another shopping center suburb; they don't want that kind of a city and want to take whatever steps are necessary to assure this won't happen here again. Referring to the provision to zone land to its highest and best use, Mr. Voland said city officials are needed with enough courage to say "No" to those who come in just to make money. Mrs. Neubert explained that no matter what the vote is at this hearing, the use that Mr. Graves has he will continue to have no matter what Council does here. There is nothing that Council can do that will change the use variance that Mr. Graves received from the Zoning Board — and it is not fair to blame Council for this. Chairman Farrar said the present district allows for both commercial and residential but with a quite different mix than is presently proposed. Mr. Page outlined the boundaries of the district and what would be allowed in it. The minimum lot size would be five acres in contrast to one-half acre because of the consideration the Planning Commission gave to the impact of traffic and problems of traffic turning into the Triangle area. A variety of office uses would be allowed. Residential of 7 units per acre would be allowed for a PUD configuration only. Hotels and motels would be allowed, also indoor recreation, and certain types of schools. Conditional uses would have to satisfy certain requirements before being allowed — outdoor recreation, outdoor theaters, and places of public assembly. Mr. Dinklage asked, for the record, if under the new proposed zone would a regional shopping mall of the type proposed awhile back be permitted. Mr. Page replied absolutely not. There would be Business Retail uses because the Planning Commission feels these uses are among the most conducive in terms of least traffic impact. They would be allowed in a Planned Development only as accessories to the primary use. Mr. Medved asked if there was a limitation of size in banquet facilities. Mr. Page said they had not categorized the size, only the use. The developer would have to meet the area and dimensional requirements. Mr. Babcock said he was disturbed to hear that Council could no longer say No to this proposed developer. Chairman Farrar explained the specific use variance was not to be considered tonight; that was a use variance granted by the Zoning Board; it is a separate issue from the Planned Development. Mr. Babcock asked if the access of the road was solved, and Mr. Farrar said it was not. Mr. Babcock then said if Council voted yes, it would not have solved the road problem but would have considerably changed the Master Plan for that particular area. The Chairman explained Council was trying to make a basic determination as to whether this is consistent or inconsistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Babcock asked how Council was going to solve the traffic problem if it is now saying it cannot change the Zoning Board's agreement to the motel. Mr. Merrill explained the operation of the Zoning Board under State law, saying the Zoning Board of Adjustment is similar to a court of law in Vermont. The developer went to the Zoning Board with his appeal; he could also have gone to the court; he could have taken it to either the court or the Zoning Board. Chairman Farrar said Council could have appealed the decision. Mr. Merrill said one of the reasons he voted for that 500 feet depth is because the Planning Commission has a handle on that-right now it does not have. Mrs. Neubert explained again that the Zoning Board granted a use variance to Mrs. Lamplough and Paul Graves on 9 acres which are now in that white part shown on the map along Williston Road. Nothing that Council does will change what they have been granted. Mr. Farrar said it would create different uses under this change from what they were granted in the use variance. Mr. Farrar asked that the discussion focus on the point in question. Mrs. Schuele asked about the Conservation Open Space District, how it was defined, the streams and the very deep gully off Patchen Road. Mr. Farrar explained that is independent of this zone change or any other zone, with Mr. Dinklage adding that it is an overlay of what is already specified in the zoning document regarding setbacks from major and minor streams and drainageways and would not be changed by this proposed change. Mr. Farrar said he could not seem to reconcile this proposal with what the plan says; it doesn't seem to be consistent. Mr. Dinklage said one of the things that troubled him was that the language in the Comprehensive Plan seems pretty clear, as he reads it, that the City at the time this plan was adopted intended to control significant growth north of Williston Road. The reasons for that have become painfully obvious. How to handle the entrances and exits for any significant development north of Williston Road is going to cause headaches and expenses to the taxpayers. He said the audience might recall that from the very beginning, when intensive use north of Williston Road was proposed, he and Mrs. Neubert spearheaded the objections to the original zone change request which came before them, and he hasn't heard anything that has caused him to change his original position, and he hoped people would grant him a certain flexibility in possibly disagreeing with him on the BR expansion, but he said he did view this proposed Planned Development area is not consistent with the Master Plan and not desirable at this point in time for South Burlington. The City has substantial problems relating to development south of Williston Road and he would like to see those problems solved first. The result of the vote on the motion that the Planned District is consistent with the Master Plan was: no affirmative votes; five negative votes. Mr. Merrill moved that the proposal to enlarge the R-7 District to a 750 foot depth parallel to Williston Road is consistent with the Master Plan. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Chairman Farrar stated they were discussing now the part of the map that is in yellow. Mr. Page indicated the boundaries and explained the uses under the proposed R-7 area, also the density, and said it would be comparable to what is now on Kennedy Drive. The land is presently zoned R-4 PUD which allows residential planned development with some limited business uses as well. With 7 units per acre there would be no commercial development. Mrs. Neubert said there could be a low density of apartment townhouse type of development and what is left over on the acreage would be open space. That was the low density she would like very much to have. Mr. Farrar reminded Council that the question is whether or not the specific proposal is in keeping with the Plan. Mr. Flaherty remarked (facetiously) that if leaving it R-4 meant mobile homes, having 7 per acre could be twice as dangerous. Mrs. Maher said mobile homes cannot be put into an R-7 area. Mr. Voland asked about preserving the integrity of the neighborhood on the other side of the road, was this not in keeping with the Master Plan. Chairman Farrar said he thought he had voted against all the high density areas the City now has and he didn't see that this was any time to change it. He then called for a vote. The vote on this motion was: no affirmative votes; five negative votes. Mrs. Neubert then moved that Council approve the requested zone change. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Chairman Farrar said he thought the Master Plan was important. The Master Plan is the thing that should drive the Council. If it is found that changes should be made, Council should make them in the Master Plan because that is dealing with the philosophy. Mr. Flaherty said all five of the members on the Board have been involved in the writing of the Master Plan when it was put through and that does show Council is committed to it, but like any other governing body Council has to be open to new ideas and listen to any proposals. Mr. Dinklage said he thought the present zone in this Triangle had been much maligned. The Planning Commission feels it has a certain albatross all its own in making the statement in the record that it was an inappropriate zone. He said he hoped that after having the opportunity to air the proposed zone at this public hearing that they would possibly remove that statement from the record — if they so choose. The Vote on this motion was: no affirmative votes; five negative votes. Mr. Flaherty moved that the public hearing be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. The hearing was declared adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.