Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/26/1982CITY COUNCIL APRIL 26, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, April 26, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, Howard Perkett, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; David Spitz, Planner; George Mona and Sidney Poger, Planning Commissioners; Laurence Holland, R. Skiff, Elaine & Wilfred Paquette, Leona Lansing, William Schuele, John Belter, J. Everett Reed, Leo O'Brien, Robert Lumbra, Ms. Bartlett Simpson, Nancy Bell, Barbara & Robert McKnight, Norma Pichon, Arthur Greenblatt, Paul Roche, Dr. Clay, Frank Pichon, Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper Continue public hearing on revisions to the City Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. Hearing to include Articles I through X or less Article I - Mr. Farrar said that after the Council went through the proposed wording for the districts, the map would be considered. Mr. Farrar wondered if there should be a district for municipal buildings. That way, if the use in any of them changed, the city could decide the appropriate use of the land. Mr. Spitz said it would be possible to do that. Mr. Marvin noted that on the first page the number in line 22 was incorrect. He moved to change the word "fifteen" in line 22 of page 1 to "sixteen". Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. Article II - There were no comments. Article III - Mr. Schuele asked whether retention ponds were allowed in CO zones. He felt they were not appropriate in that zone, and pointed to the one visible on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Spitz said the city would look carefully at such ponds within 100ʹ of the Interstate or in areas where the setback is intended for esthetic purposes. He noted that so far such things had been handled administratively, but noted that it was subject to review under esthetic and other PUD criteria. Mr. Farrar wondered about court challenges to a Commission denial of a retention pond and Mr. Szymanski noted it would be good to clarify that Commission review can be required. Mr. Spitz was asked to come up with a definition for the ponds and wording which would make them prohibited in the CO zone except with approval from the Commission or the City Manager. Mr. Burgess arrived at this point. Article IV - Mr. Marvin asked about the Allenwood property and was told that was in the Lakeshore zone. He asked which would take precedence. Mr. Spitz said this article applied only to land the city already owns. If the city bought that property, Mr. Farrar felt the zoning map would have to be changed. He felt that would become city parkland only after some action by the City Council to change it. Otherwise it would remain in the Lakeshore zone. Mr. Marvin asked what "facilities" meant here and was told fields, lights, tennis courts, etc. Articles V and VI - Mr. Farrar said he personally would be as happy with be allowed in residential zones. After more discussion, it was the consensus that the acreage in Section 7.202 should be ten, not two. Mr. Perkett moved to change the word "two" in line 20 of Section 7.202 to "ten". Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Burgess then moved that the provision in Section 7.203 be changed to a 10 acre minimum lot size requirement as in Section 7.202. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and carried unanimously. Mr. Perkett then moved to change the 50ʹ setback in both Section 7.202 and 7.203 to 100ʹ in both cases. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Spitz suggested that the two sections be combined and Mr. Farrar said that could be done as a housekeeping measure. Mr. Schuele brought up the question about setting out areas for public utility lines and substations. Mr. Farrar noted that the city could not say where high voltage lines would go, nor did it know where substations would be needed, but he wondered about removing generating plants. He suggested taking them out of this zone. Mr. Marvin noted that the proper word was "distribution" lines, not "transmission" lines. Article VIII - It was the consensus to change Sections 8.203 and 8.204 as Sections 7.202 and 7.203 had been changed. The question in Section 7.204 also applies to Section 8.205. Mr. Spitz was asked what "community facilities" were (Section 8.206) and he said they were private, non-profit agencies, he felt. He noted that so far it had not come up and Mr. Farrar felt the city should know what they were. Article IX and X - The same comments made in Sections 7.202, 7.203 and 7.204 apply to 9.203, 9.204 and 9.205 and 10.204, 10.205, and 10.206. Mr. Farrar felt that it was now appropriate to discuss where the districts just discussed would be on the map. He said he was concerned that the average density in the quadrant had been increased. He noted that last year, when the industrial area was considered, the size was based partly on the way the rest of the community was expected to develop. Those assumptions were based on an R2 zoning in the southeast quadrant and he did not want to increase density beyond that. Mr. Skiff also did not want high density near his area. He felt it would dramatically change the character of the area. An audience member agreed. Mr. Frank Pichon asked why the density was being increased, noting that increased people meant increased taxes. Mr. Flaherty agreed that the city had some obligation here. He noted that they could not guarantee that the zoning would remain the same, but he felt it should be close. He saw no reason to go to R3. Mr. Burgess said the city could not guarantee that things would stay the same forever. Mr. Perkett felt the present zoning patterns provided a reasonable mix of housing. Mr. Poger said the Commission felt that residential development should be contiguous to already developed residential areas. Mr. Farrar asked whether, under the current regulations, a person could develop at R2, R3 or R4 without city services and was told he could if the soils were all right. Mr. Farrar had a problem with that. Mr. Perkett moved that the land east of Swift Estates presently proposed for R3 zoning revert to the original zoning. After some discussion, however, he withdrew the motion. Mr. Farrar mentioned a zone in which only single family homes would be allowed. Mr. Spitz noted that there were about 5 pieces of land slated for removal from AR zoning to R2, R3 or R4 under this proposal, but only 1 of those was 50 acres or more, so for the rest of them there would be no incentive to connect to city services because they would not be able to take advantage of that provision. Mr. Farrar noted that they would buy more land, but Mr. Spitz felt combinations would be hard to make. Mr. Mona noted that it was the City Council which had given the Commission the direction to encourage development adjacent to already-developed areas. The effort to increase densities here is an attempt to satisfy that desire. Mr. Marvin moved that the density in the Swift Street and Dorset Street block of land be reduced from R3 to R2 and that it be zoned for single family dwellings only with sewer and water services. If city services are not present, the density will be 1 in 10. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Burgess noted that the R2 zone in the above area would be different from the R2 zone across the street. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Spitz noted that although most of the recent housing built in the city had been multi-family, there had been a few single family developments. He felt it would make sense to have the above area for single family homes only, but he did not think it made sense to have too much of that kind of land in the quadrant. Mr. Farrar asked how much R4 and R7 land was left undeveloped and Mr. Spitz felt there was about 40% of the R7 left, or about 150 acres. Mr. Farrar felt that would provide enough multi-family units for the city. Mr. Spitz said not much R4 land was left. Mr. Marvin moved to have the same zoning as was applied to the Swift Street and Dorset Street block apply also to the proposed R3 area east of the R1 land on Spear Street. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye. The Council looked at the area proposed for R4 located north of Ridgewood. Mr. Mona felt that land might be better for multi-family units since it slopes and is close to the Interstate. Mr. Flaherty moved that the area north of Ridgewood proposed for R4 zoning be made R2 in the same manner as the existing R2 in the area. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed with Mr. Marvin voting no. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing on the Zoning Regulations until the next regularly scheduled meeting, on May 10, 1982. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. Sign Proclamation designating week of May 2 through May 8, 1982 as "Physical Fitness Week" Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the proclamation on Physical Fitness Week. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. Discussion on pension fund Mr. Minnich noted that the city's insurance agent had proposed on February 15 to switch the investment for the pension fund from MONY to Connecticut General. Service from MONY, which was a problem, has improved somewhat. The other concern was the earnings the city was receiving on its money. The city has, this past year, received 10.02%, but administrative costs have cut that to 6%. Mr. Minnich noted that Connecticut General will guarantee the rate on the short-term money market, which is now about 15%. MONY will only guarantee the long-term interest rate, which is about 7%. Mr. Minnich felt that perhaps the best way to handle a pension fund was for the city to do it itself, but he noted that South Burlington might be too small to do that now, so he felt the best thing to do right now was to go with Connecticut General. He noted that there might be some risks in going short-term. Mr. Flaherty asked what it would cost to take money away from Connecticut General later if the city wanted to and Mr. Minnich said there would be no penalty. Mr. Flaherty suggested getting that in writing. Mr. Burgess moved to accept the recommendation of David Minnich and Ray Stearns to switch the pension fund to Connecticut General from MONY. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and all voted for it. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license renewals Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Szymanski said there were 4 licenses. They are: The Cork and Board, 19th Court, Wesson's, and The Rotisserie. They have been OKed by the police and fire chiefs and the tax collector. Mr. Flaherty moved to sign the above liquor licesnse based on the recommendations of the City Manager, police and fire chiefs, and the tax collector. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.