Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 04/05/1982
CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 5, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, Howard Perkett, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Albert Audette, Street Department; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Planning Commission members Sidney Poger, George Mona, James Ewing and Ernest Levesque; J. Everett Reed, Leo O'Brien Jr., Ralph DesLauriers, Bartlett & Margary Simpson, Frank & Carolee Boerger, Bill Robenstein, Lee Lansing, Ethel & William Schuele, Lowell Krassner, William Schroeder, Leo Nadeau, Roberta Coffin, Sachi Rowley, Viola Luginbuhl, Robert Furlong, Ralph Goodrich, Robert Larson, Ruth, Chris and Ralph DesLauriers, H.M. Farmer, George Brady Minutes of February 24, March 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 30 and 31, 1982 Mr. Szymanski said he would like to hold off on approval of the February 24 minutes, as he believed there was an error in them. Mr. Marvin moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 18, 23, 24, 30 and 31, 1982. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the minutes of March 15, 1982 and Mr. Flaherty seconded. All voted aye. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public hearing on revisions to City Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Mr. Farrar noted that this meeting was for the purpose of receiving public testimony on the proposed changes to the documents. Ralph DesLauriers Jr. said he would like to propose a change to the document. He showed a map of the land in question, located in an area bounded by Williston Road at Gaynes, the Interstate, East Terrace, and the Horizon Heights area. He showed the present zoning line dividing the commercial from the R7 land. They would like to move that line north, increasing the residential land. He said he would like the land from East Terrace east to the crest of the hill to be zoned R4 and the rest of the residential land to carry an R7 zoning. Mr. Farrar asked that a copy of the map be given to the City Manager or Zoning Administrator. Mr. Ewing said that as a citizen and resident of East Terrace, that there were covenants on this land which were under dispute and in court now. He felt the land should be left as it is until that dispute is settled. He noted that of the 4 corners of the Interstate with Williston Road, 3 were zoned commercially and it did not seem reasonable to have the remaining one carry a residential zoning. He was also concerned about traffic, noting that East Terrace had some traffic constraints. Mr. Farrar pointed out that commercial traffic would also use East Terrace, but was told that when the landowners came in for permission to put Horizon Heights on the land, they were told that the Planning Commission would not allow commercial traffic to go through a residential area and that unless they could find some other access, they would be unable to have commercial uses on the land. Mr. Poger noted that the landowners had agreed to this at the time. Mr. Farrar asked whether the case here was that the area was zoned commercial, the Planning Commission recommended that part of that be changed to residential, and the DesLauriers request is that only part of what the Commission has recommended for residential become residential. He was told that was correct. Mr. Schuele brought up the question of the proposed height limitations in the document. He felt there were a great many residents of the city who did not want to see 4 story buildings in the city. Mr. Bob Larson added that, although there might be areas where 4 stories were feasible, he did not feel that along Shelburne Road was such an area, nor did he feel they were appropriate near the airport or on the Quarry Hill land. Mr. Poger, Planning Commission Chairman, replied that 4 stories would only be allowed under certain circumstances and with Commission approval. He also noted that the Commission might allow higher buildings if setbacks were greater. Mr. Krassner felt the 1ʹ greater setback to be gained by having a 1ʹ taller building was not a reasonable compensation for the greater height. The provision is a 1ʹ greater setback for every 1ʹ greater height. Mr. Ewing noted that the Planning Commission decision on height had not been unanimous. He did not feel the city was ready for higher buildings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no fire codes. Mr. Levesque disagreed, noting that a good architect could take advantage of terrain and put up some esthetically pleasing buildings. Mr. Robenstein wondered why the document did not provide for utility corridors, power substations, etc. He also noted that on page 48 there was a list of planned rights of way. He wondered why Dorset Street north of Swift Street was to have an 80ʹ right of way. He asked how the determination had been made to widen that street. Mr. Spitz said the widths were to be sure enough room was left so that if the street had to be widened later, it could be. 80ʹ is enough room for 4 lanes, sidewalks and snow storage. Mr. Robenstein asked for the facts which would indicate a need for 80ʹ and was told to check in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. That in turn is based on a traffic study of the north part of the city. Mr. Robenstein felt that if Dorset Street were to be widened, he felt Swift and Spear and other streets in the city should be checked also. Mr. Schuele noted that some areas of the Plan map and proposed Zoning map were different and was told that this hearing had been warned as changes to the Land Use map as well as to the ordinance, so that any changes could be made simultaneously. Mr. Larson felt the proposed uses in the Lakeshore zone were a radical change in the character of the area. Mr. Spitz felt these were the type of uses which would enhance the value and enjoyment of the lakeshore. Some land will first have to be set aside as open space, and after that, 40% of the land can be used for the type of uses listed. Mr. Schroeder asked how long the process would take and was told it might be finished by 2 months from tonight. Mr. Poger stated that the Commission had felt that the present zoning of lakeshore would preserve more public access and use of the property. Mr. Simpson asked why land east of Dorset Street had been zoned R3 and was told that when density was considered in that area, the original proposal had been for densities in a range of R2 to R4. The Commission settled on R3, but felt that there were some areas which should be zoned otherwise for specific reasons. The area around Swift Estates, for example, was zoned R1 because that is how it is developed. For the same reason, the area around Ridgewood is zoned R2. The 1974 zoning allowed 2 units per acre throughout the quadrant, if sewer and water lines were extended. Mr. Simpson wanted to know why the zoning around his home had been changed from R1 as it was when he bought it, to R3. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission wanted to encourage housing close to existing services. Mr. Leo O'Brien noted that the area at the corner of Old Farm Road and Kimball Avenue was proposed for a change from business to R7 zoning. He is part owner of that land and feels it should remain in the business zoning, to be compatible with the rest of the land there. He also pointed to pages 60-61 in the proposed document. He felt this was different from the practice now, and felt section 20.151 gave the city enough protection without it needing to have section 20.152a. Ms. Luginbuhl supported the Planning Commission recommendation for creation of a 50 acre minimum lot size in the AgI zone, and Ms. Coffin agreed. Mr. Schuele felt there was strong public opposition to heights of more than the present limits, and he wondered about putting the question on the ballot. Mr. Farrar felt that if that were the right thing to do, it could go on the September ballot. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the public hearing on revisions to the city Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan until April 26, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. to receive motions for changes from the Council on articles 1-10. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Mr. Farrar said that at that meeting the Council would go through the document page by page and he encouraged citizens to attend. He felt it was possible the Council might be able to get through as many as 10 articles. They may not get that far, but in any case they will go through no more than the first 10. The motion carried unanimously. Review draft of warning of special appropriation issues for the May 18, 1982 elections Mr. Farrar asked when the Council had to act on this item and was told it was between the 12th and the 16th. There were no problems with the warning wording on Articles I and II. There was no problem with Article III, except Mr. Perkett still had a problem with not being able to solve the entire road problem. Mr. Marvin felt a bond issue would be easier on the citizens, but Mr. Farrar disagreed, feeling that would cost the taxpayers more. Mr. Perkett noted that the items listed were the type of thing the city wanted to do, but he hoped that at a later date the city would be more aggressive about solving the road problems. This item will be separate from the general budget and will not raise the base. This article was agreed to. Mr. Farrar felt Article IV was unnecessary - he felt it did nothing, and noted that the city would not be running a deficit this year. Mr. Flaherty noted that perhaps the Charter language should be clarified, since there seem to be some different interpretations of it. Mr. Farrar said he would speak with the City Attorney on Article IV to see if it could be cleared up. On Article V, the Fire Chief had submitted a letter dated April 5 with estimated costs to upgrade fire department equipment. Mr. Burgess asked whether rebuilding the body was essential. Mr. Goddette said this body was in about the same shape as Engine #2 but he felt he could live with it for another year. The figure for the department upgrade is now $210,000, instead of the $270,000 previously mentioned. Mr. Marvin asked whether it was necessary to put the pumper/tanker on the ballot now instead of waiting until the fall election. Mr. Goddette replied that the ISO report said a pumper/tanker was needed and Mr. Farrar added that the Chief had requested such a truck for the past 3 years. Mr. Goddette said there had been times when he had felt he should send two trucks to a fire, but had not, because he had felt he should have one in the station to cover the rest of the city. Mr. Brady wanted to be sure the truck, when it came up from New York, was put into good working condition so it would be safe. Mr. Goddette said it would be certified and he said there would be no trouble in getting it certified. He said he would like to have the article as it is written be on the ballot, even if he had to take a chance on it passing. Mr. Szymanski suggested looking at the truck before the city decided to spend $40,000 on it, so it was decided to continue this discussion on Wednesday, when the Council meets with the City Hall Employees Association. Review draft of Amendments to City Dog Control Ordinance and consider for first reading. Since no one had had time to read this, it was tabled until the April 26, 1982 meeting. Review Zoning Board agenda There were no comments. Approve City 1982-1983 budget for presentation at April 8, 1982 public hearing Mr. Burgess moved to approve the City 1982-83 operating and capital budgets for presentation at the April 8, 1982 public hearing, with a correction on the highway salaries. The figure should be $247,700, not $747,700. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Any old business There was none. Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn the meeting until Wednesday evening. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.