Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/02/1982CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 2, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a Special Meeting on Thursday, December 2, 1982, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Poger, the Other Paper; Sidney Poger, Planning Commission; David Spitz, City Planner; George Mona, Planning Commission; Judy Hurd, William Schuele, Lowell Krassner, R. J. Furlong, Bryan Minter, Susan Canosa, Judi Hatin, William Shearer Ruth?. DesLauriers, Ralph E. DesLauriers PUBLIC HEARING: On Revisions to the City Zoning Regulations Mr. Farrar explained the reason for the meeting. He indicated that any changes made in the present document would necessitate another public hearing for approval of the ordinance. Judy Hurd, a resident of Hinesburg Road, indicated that residents from the southeast quadrant area were disappointed with the zoning of that area. They had been told that minimum lot size would be 50 acres but that the present document could result in lots as small as 10 acres. Mr. Farrar explained that average lot size would have to be 20 acres. Mr. Scheule then read a letter from the Natural Resources Committee which had urged the adoption of the Planning Commission's recommended 50- acre minimum lot size. He said that a decision made in the present ordinance was irreversible, whereas a decision made in the Planning Commission's recommendation was not. Mr. Farrar explained that the intention of the City Council was that the average taxable income potential in the agricultural- industrial zone be the same as in the commercial-industrial zone Mr. Krassner then echoed the sentiments of the other residents. He said he did not feel there was a need to balance that much residential density with industrial development. He also said that it will never be possible to open up the area for larger lots once smaller lots are developed. Mr. Furlong, also a resident of the area, said he felt the Mitel development had set the pace for the area and the neighborhood was quite satisfied with this. He felt that promises made to residents were being broken. Ms. Lansing and Mr. Flaherty indicated that although they agree with the area residents, there was an honest difference of opinion. Both sides looked at the facts and came up with different conclusions. Mr. Schuele then commented on the question of permitted additional height. He said he felt there was no reason to allow additional height and that the citizens of the area were not looking for high-rise buildings in South Burlington. Mr. Farrar explained that this was not a question of allowing additional height but of allowing a maximum height as opposed to an average height. He said that this document is intended to be more specific in order to eliminate questions of how such height is measured. Mr. Schuele then asked what the procedure would be for the public to become involved in protesting a particular section of the document. Mr. Farrar said he believed there were two possibilities: 1) a petition against the whole document, or 2) a petition for a specific change. He said he would check with the attorney and advise Mr. Schuele if this was correct. Mr. DesLauriers then questioned the map change in Section 22.117, and Mr. Spitz explained that the wording provided for the revisions which the DesLauriers had requested. Mr. Burgess then moved that the Zoning Ordinance of January 5, 1982 as amended through November 1, 1982 be approved. Mr. Marvin seconded and the motion was passed 4-1 with Ms. Lansing voting against. Mr. Farrar thanked the Planning Commission and the members of the public who attended the meetings and contributed to the effort of producing the new Ordinance. Mr. Marvin moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.