Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/10/1978CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, April 10, 1978 at 7:30 pm in the Middle School library. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Frank Armstrong, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Officer; Stephen Page, Planner; Fran Brock, Free Press; Cynthia Rubin, The Other Paper; Chris Johnson and Joan Philbrick, WJOY; Joe Slakas, WJOY/WQCR; Jean Cochran, WYMT; Peter Collins, Ken Jarvis, Rowland Peterson, Edward Cashman, Ray Unsworth, Russell, Chase, Mary Thompson, Ethel and Bill Schuele, Sidney Poger, George Mona, James Ewing, Mark Kennedy, Peter Yankowski, Viola Luginbuhl, Barbara Lewis, Margaret Slajchert, Erwid and Erika Valgoi, Gordon Hurley, Steven Bushey, Bill Rowell, Eileen Hennessey, Bill Short, Joe King, Dick Ceto, Diane Geerkin, William Spignesi, Paul Graves, Lowell Krassner Public Hearing - Proposed Interim Zoning Regulations Chairman Farrar said this was a special City Council meeting to discuss an interim zoning proposal. He asked if there were any additions to the agenda but there were none. Mr. Farrar outlined the proposal and the purpose for it, saying that the city would use the interim zoning provisions in the State Statutes to protect 4 thoroughfares from increased traffic congestion: Shelburne and Williston Roads, Kennedy Drive and Dorset St. between Williston Road and Kennedy Drive, and for 400' beyond the intersection of those two roads. He outlined the area of proposed interim zoning and said that the permitted uses in the zone would be very limited but that the Council could grant a conditional use permit for any structure lawfully belonging in the district if it saw fit. The period will be 1 year unless it is amended, he said, but can be for no more than three years total time and it can be terminated at any time during the period. Mr. Farrar read the findings of fact. In #13, Mr. Poger asked what those links were and was told that they were on Williston Road between the Jughandle and the Cloverleaf, the Cloverleaf and Hinesburg Road, and Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive. Mr. Bill Short said the Adler report mentioned Patchen Road as a trouble area and asked if that had been considered but Mr. Farrar said that would not be a problem unless the Mall in Williston is built. Mr. Steve Bushey said that there was little doubt that there was a lot of traffic on Shelburne and Williston Roads but he was not sure the area between Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive was a bad spot - nothing has been built there for a long time and the zone is residential. Mr. Farrar replied that this was one of two areas, the other being the west side of Shelburne Road, which were included so that the city can protect its ability to solve the traffic problems being caused by development. Mr. Bushey said he did not like interim zoning because he did not think the city had a plan of action to make improvements during the period. He said he would like to see a proposal similar to the Williston Road Task Force and then if interim zoning is enacted, it can be in order to carry out the recommended improvements to the roads. He felt that property owners paid high taxes on their property even if the land was vacant and he felt interim zoning was a hardship. Mr. Farrar replied that the city had already taken steps to deal with the problem - it is working with the State on the Southern Connector and is also working on two Williston Road improvements. Mr. Page suggested some clarification of Finding of Fact #4, saying that this data proceeds the data in Exhibits B & C, and that should be stated. The following was also suggested as an addition to #2 at the end of the last line "or for which plans have been submitted." In response to a question, Mr. Poger said the Commission felt that the traffic in the city was such that a small increase would be too much. They feel the city services are not acceptable and will not bear additional development. Until they can be brought up to date, he said, any additional strain is not in the best interests of the city. Mr. Bushey said that traffic would increase in the areas which were already bad and Mr. Flaherty replied that that was the basis for interim zoning and he added that people from Digital and all the new housing in the city would also create traffic. He said he would like the Commission to sit down with the Adler report and plan sensibly for the future. Mr. Bushey felt interim zoning on Williston Road would not do anything but hurt a few property owners and Mr. Flaherty replied that the Council would be able to approve development which does not have much traffic impact. Mr. Poger read the Council the four motions the Commission passed at its March 28 meeting concerning interim zoning, saying that they support it and offering three amendments; that it be limited to 2 years, that the dimensional requirements be lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. and frontage of 200', and that the date of March 28, 1978 be used as a point after which applicants would be warned of impending interim zoning. Mr. Paulsen said it was too early to tell but it was his opinion that the two planned improvements to Williston Road would make a great deal of difference in the traffic situation. Mr. Farrar said that one of the things interim zoning would allow the city to do would be to have time to evaluate the impact of projects in the planning stage. By this time next year, he said, the city will know more about Burlington's Southern Connector and its location, for example. Mr. Poger said that the Regional Planning Commission had estimated that when the improvements to the Dorset St. - Williston Rd. intersection are complete, and University Mall opens, the city will be in exactly the same situation as far as traffic as they are now. Mr. Paul Graves asked if the city was going to use interim zoning to preserve rights of way for future roads and Mr. Farrar answered that part of the reason for interim zoning was to allow for the study of two proposed road projects to take place and to get the results of those studies. Mr. Armstrong said the Preamble to the document set forth the intent. Mr. Paulsen asked if the Planning Commission was ready to discuss what action it wished to take during the interim zoning period and what the time frame for that action was Mr. Poger read the last paragraph of the Commission's April 4, 1978 meeting to him (see those minutes) and said that they need time to see what they have and try to find a solution to the problems. The Commission has made some recommendations which are in limbo because it has not had the time, opportunity, or leisure to discuss specific plans. He estimated that the Commission met 6--7 times a month from 7:30 - 11:00 pm. Mr. Paulsen said he could not buy any part of interim zoning to establish where the city is today, feeling that was established already and that the problem was what to do about it. He said he did not hear any concrete plans as to the action the Commission would take. Mr. Mona said that if the Commission had any definite plans he did not think they would be discussing interim zoning and said that they needed time, lacking professional services, to work on plans. Mr. Armstrong said that as a past member of the Planning Commission he and the city appreciated the amount of time, effort, and work the Commissioners put in on a difficult job. He said it was incredible that they worked so hard and indicated that they and the Council had the same goals and that he felt the Council would support the Commission, if they received a little more information, in its quest for more help. Mr. Bushey seconded that sentiment. Mr. Paulsen asked how much time the Commission had devoted to discussing interim zoning and was told that it was not much, although they have been reviewing additions to the city Master Plan as well as chapters of the Regional Master Plan, which ties into interim zoning. Mr. Mona said that at the previous hearings the Commission established it would work on growth control, the Capital Budget, the City Map, and zone changes. Mr. Graves said that everytime the city had a problem, they studied it and hoped it would go away. He cited several studies of the Williston Road area and said that he did not think any more studies were needed. He felt the city had to balance the cost of improvements with the amount of inconvenience people now put up with. Interim zoning would affect the entire business community, which pays high taxes, he said. Mrs. Schuele said that at noon, 5:30, and 5:00 there are traffic jams on Williston Road and she knows people who avoid driving on that road whenever they can, which hurts the business community. She felt that businesses had as large a stake in improving traffic as the rest of the city and felt it made good economic sense. Mr. Lowell Krassner said that he rides the bus to work and has to cross Williston Road when he gets home, which is a very dangerous situation when visibility is low. He also suggested adding a Finding to the effect that traffic backed up in some of the businesses on Williston Road spills onto the road and causes congestion and perhaps there should be interior design criteria. Ms. Diune Geerkin said that the chaos on Williston Road was dangerous and she did not see any logic in rejecting interim zoning because planned improvements might improve the Dorset St. intersection. Mr. Rowland Peterson supported what Mr Graves had said and felt interim zoning would not help the city. Mr. Farrar said that the changes on Williston Road were three and were specific. They have moved from the "whether" stage to the "how" stage, he said, and the Commission will be able to see if the improvements are enough or if more are needed. Mr. Ewing said that he disliked interim zoning because it deprived landowners of a lot of their rights, but he felt the traffic on Williston Road particularly was bad and presented a safety problem which the city had to consider. Digital and the Mall traffic will worsen the situation, he said, and he felt something had to be done now. For that reason he supported more or less the City Council's proposal of interim zoning. Mr. Paulsen asked if the Planning Commission had considered mandating another citizen's committee like the Williston Road Task Force to study Kennedy Drive, Hinesburg Road, and Dorset St and Mr. Ewing replied that they had not. He said that Williston Road had presented more of a safety risk than Kennedy Drive does and Mr. Poger added that the problems were different here. The Williston Road Task Force looked for simple solutions to the problem, leaving the more long-range solutions to people with more expertise. These other arteries also need expert solutions. He pointed out that a citizens committee would be working without benefit of suggestions made in other reports covering the area, which the Williston Road people had had. Mr. Farrar read the preamble to the document. Mr. Valgoi said that he agreed with Mr. Graves that the city did not need any more studies, since the real problem was where to get the money to compensate people for taking their land for road widenings. He felt a freeze was discriminatory against people operating businesses in the area and he said it could hurt someone trying to sell his land during the period of interim zoning. Mr. Joe King felt the traffic generators were outside the city of South Burlington and that the traffic was through traffic. He said it was unfair to hurt the city because of things outside its borders. Mr. Peter Collins recognized there were traffic problems but felt the laws already on the books were sufficient to control the growth and did not think the burden of reviewing projects should be spread to yet another city body. In the Savings Clause he said he was bothered by the wording, saying that he would like to have it read that people with pending appeals and applications who have been in process for some time would be protected. Mr. Farrar said they would look at it further. Messrs. Russel Chase and Dick Ceto voiced their support for interim zoning. Mr. Graves suggested having interim zoning only on those sections of road with capacity in excess of 75%. Mr. Bill Rowell seconded that but Mr. Krassner opposed it on the grounds that if the city did not control growth in entire areas they would force it onto less congested areas, making sure they also reached 75% of capacity. Mr. Peter Collins felt the city was unduly putting the burden on people who owned land along the affected arteries. Mr. Farrar said the Commission had suggested minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. and 200' frontage and he asked why. Mr. Page responded that a large part of the area covered by interim zoning was BPD and those were the BPD dimensional requirements. Mr. Ward felt lot dimensions should be left the same in the interim zoning as they were in the permanent zoning. Mr. Page did not like that idea, saying that the City Attorney wanted to sever this from the permanent zoning as much as possible. Mr. Farrar said that he felt the Council should outline the changes they wished to make and refer them to the City Attorney, making a final decision on the document at the next meeting. Mr. Flaherty moved that based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Planner, we make the minimum lot size 80.00 square feet and the minimum lot frontage 200'. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Mr. Paulsen was not sure they needed to have another set of lot area and frontage requirements and Mr. Farrar said this would wipe out the existing requirements and be substituted. Mr. Paulsen said he would like to have the present zoning remain and Mr. Burgess added that he did not want to make interim zoning much more restrictive, which he felt this would do. Messrs. Flaherty and Armstrong withdrew the motion and the second, and Mr. Flaherty then moved that the dimensional requirements would be the same as those in the current Zoning Ordinance enacted on March 21, 1974 as amended April 29, 1975. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed with all in favor. Under the Conditional Use section, Mr. Paulsen felt police and fire protection should be included as a standard. He moved that the City Council, in Section 5, paragraph A, number 1 of the interim zoning regulations, amend that to read, "including sewage treatment plants, roads, highways, police and fire services, and schools. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Armstrong then moved that the Savings Clause be amended to read: "shall not apply to any development for which application has been made on or prior to March 28, 1978, to the planning commission or zoning board of adjustment, provided that. . ." etc. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar asked for clarification of the motion and a discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong moved that an application either before the Planning Commission or the Zoning Board of Adjustment or the Code Officer prior to March 28, 1978 shall be honored. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Paulsen felt they were making the document retroactive but Mr. Farrar said that date was 4 days after it was warned and he felt it was a reasonable date. The motion passed unanimously. The Council also added the word "engineering" to Section 4, paragraph 3b, after the word "accounting". Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until next Monday, April 17, 1978 at 8:00 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Mr. Armstrong felt it might help the Commission if the Council gave interim zoning preliminary approval subject to the concurrence of the City Attorney. Mr. Burgess felt he had not had enough time yet to reflect on the comments and changes made at this hearing. Mr. Farrar had no objection to Mr. Armstrong's suggestion. Mr. Burgess withdrew his motion temporarily and Mr. Armstrong moved that the City Council give preliminary approval to the plan as modified this evening subject to approval by the City Attorney and that the Council vote on it next Monday. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar said that Mr. Paulsen felt they might want to make changes to the document and would not like to preclude the possibility. Mr. Armstrong accepted that and withdrew his motion, then moving that the City Council give preliminary approval to this plan. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar said that any and all modifications would be considered at the next meeting and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Burgess said they had approved the concept but would work on some more changes. He then moved to continue the public hearing to 8:00 pm on Monday, April 17, 1978 in the Conference Room, City Hall. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion, which passed with all in favor. Sign Warning for Annual City Meeting Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the warning of the city of South Burlington Annual meeting 1978 to vote on the following articles: Election of City Officers and Charter amendment. (see attached copy) Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Discussion of pedestrian traffic signal installation Mr. Szymanski said he had several proposals on how to pay for these. Mr. Farrar suggested asking the State if it would fund them but Mr. Szymanski did not think it would. The Council decided that if they could not get any money for them it could be put on the November ballot. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:20 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.