Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/10/1982CITY COUNCIL MAY 10, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, May 10, 1982 at 7:00 pm 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; David Spitz, Planner; Jodie Peck, Free Press; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; Planning Commissioners Sidney Poger, Kirk Woolery, Ernest Levesque, George Mona; John Belter, Bernadette & Robert Goodrich, Mark Goodrich, Jory Berkwits, Chuck Thweatt, C. Harry Behney, Elizabeth Horton, Roberta Coffin, Judy Hurd, Viola Luginbuhl, William Schuele, Leona Lansing, Robert Roesler, Ralph Goodrich, Carl Cobb, Richard Trudell, Arthur Toutant, Richard Painter, John Wychoff, Everett Reed, Lowell Krassner, Ruth, Chris and Ralph DesLauriers Meet with City Attorney to discuss pending Goodrich, DuBois and Mikell application Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session for the purpose of consulting with the City Attorney, City Planner and Assistant City Manager on legal matters. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. At 7:20 pm Mr. Marvin moved to come out of executive session. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and it carried with all in favor. Minutes of April 14, 19 and May 3 and 4, 1982 Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the minutes of April 14 and 19 and of May 3 and 4, 1982. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Continue public hearing on application of Goodrich, DuBois and Mikell for development of residential units and industrial lots on a parcel of land along the east side of Hinesburg Road and south of Mitel industrial complex Mr. Trudell recapped the proposal, which had been presented in detail at previous meetings. He noted that the applicants understood that the Council was in the middle of deliberations on the Master Plan and zoning changes and he said that therefore, the applicants would withdraw the application and ask that it be dismissed now without prejudice. Mr. Marvin moved to accept the request of the applicants to withdraw the application. Mr. Perkett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council would now continue to hear evidence on the zoning ordinance. Ms. Coffin asked when this area would be considered again. Mr. Farrar said it was possible that later this evening that area would be discussed. Ms. Luginbuhl asked whether the Council supported the Comprehensive Plan adopted 1 1/2 years ago and she asked that they read again the areas in the Plan relating to the southeast quadrant, especially pages 72-3 Mr. Marvin noted that since the Plan had been adopted, the city had lost the inventory tax and he felt that revenue would have to be made up elsewhere. Continue public hearing on revisions to the City Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Mr. Farrar said specific boundaries could be discussed at this point. Mr. Flaherty moved to make the area south of the UVM farm all the way to the Shelburne line R2 instead of the R4 it is proposed. The present R1 zoning on Spear Street will remain. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Mr. Flaherty noted that the area in question also extended west to the commercial zone and Allen Road ran through it. It was noted that the present density of that area was R4. Mr. Flaherty noted that the current neighborhood there was built at R1 or R2, but Mr. Burgess noted that that was only because the developer had chosen to build it that way. Mr. Flaherty felt the zoning should reflect the existing neighborhood. Mr. Mona noted that there was approval for a subdivision north of the existing neighborhood already approved under the current regulations, and the Commission has heard another proposal under current zoning for the Bartlett property in the area. Mr. Burgess said that the area in question had been zoned R4 for a number of years and he saw no good reason to change it now. Mr. Jory Berkwits felt that if this number of housing units (on the Bartlett property) were built, and the Commission limited access to Spear St. for them, it would create a traffic hazard and be inconsistent with the neighborhood. He said he lived in the area. He was not sure further development of condominiums should be encouraged. Mr. Krassner spoke against high density in this area because of potential street and traffic problems. Mr. Levesque felt that zoning many of the areas in the southeast quadrant R2 would zone out a lot of people. He said there were students graduating from South Burlington High School every year who would not go on to college and they would not be able to afford to live in the city. He felt that when people bought homes in the city they should look at the zoning on the land around them, and if they do not like it, they should look at other homes. He felt there had to be a place in the city for people who did not make a lot of money to live. Mr. Poger looked with horror on the suggestion that a person who buys a house in a field assumes that the woods around him are his forever because they aren't developed when he buys his house and that he has some kind of contract with the city to that effect. Mr. Flaherty felt that when people bought a house, they assumed that the density of the neighborhood was the density of the undeveloped land. Mr. Spitz noted that if this land in question were changed, it would change the last available land zoned R4. Mr. Marvin agreed. Mr. Krassner felt lower income people could buy condominiums, but Mr. Levesque felt they had a right to single family homes also. The motion carried with Messrs. Burgess and Marvin voting no and the others voting yes. Article XI - Mr. Farrar said the suggestions for power plants etc. which were changed in the other residential sections should be changed in this one also. Mr. Flaherty moved to delete references to "community" services wherever they occur in the document and Mr. Perkett seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Articles XII and XIII - There were no comments. Article XIV - Mr. Spitz said this was a new title. There are a number of commercial uses which have been suggested for this district. Article XV - Mr. Spitz said this was a mixed industrial district with some airport uses added. Article XVI - Mr. John Belter said he owned the Ethan Allen Farm and that he had originally proposed a residential zoning for some land which had been taken out of floodplain zoning by the federal government. That was denied by the Planning Commission because of noise from the airport, so the idea was then to zone the land industrial. He felt he had had approval on that, but the Commission later recommended that the land in question be zoned agricultural. He would like the land zoned industrial, but he would like to be allowed a smaller lot size than 50 acres minimum. Mr. Poger said the Commission had recommended agricultural because that is how the land is being used today. Mr. Belter said it was farmed now because in the past it could not be developed because of the floodplain zoning. Mr. Farrar asked what the most logical non-agricultural zoning would be if the land were to be taken out of the agricultural district and Mr. Poger felt it would make more sense to have it industrial than residential because of the airport approach cone over the land. He added, however, that Mr. Belter has an active, producing farm and that this land is contiguous to it. With the current pressure to retain agricultural soils, perhaps this land should be left in agriculture. Mr. Belter noted that he was a very active dairy farmer in the county and that he rented other farms. He felt that he would be farming a lot less land in the future and said it was important to be able to develop this land so he would have the funds to continue his farming operation. He was not sure South Burlington was an agricultural community and he felt the best use of the land in question was not agriculture. He also said that the State Agriculture Department was in favor of his plans to develop the land, in order to keep the rest of his operation afloat. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission also wanted Mr. Belter to be able to stay in business and that the vote on this issue had been split. Mr. Farrar asked whether the area would be sewered if it were developed for industry and Mr. Spitz said small industrial uses, such as those on Berard Drive would be able to use septic systems. A major development would require sewers. Mr. William Schuele hoped sewer and traffic impacts would be considered before a decision was made. Mr. Marvin felt that the landowner here probably knew better whether the land was needed for agriculture or not than the city did. Mr. Farrar requested information on the effects of development of the land from the Planner, and he told Mr. Belter the information would be available in 2 weeks and a vote would probably be taken at that time. The issue of large lots in the southeast quadrant was discussed. Mr. Poger noted that when the Council and Planning Commission had discussed the Comprehensive Plan, there was discussion about how much industrial land was needed to keep the tax rate between residential and non-residential at about 50-50. The Commission looked at the land available in the city and felt there was a good diversity of property. They felt that they would like to protect some areas for high quality, large lot industrial uses and that there was no rush to develop that land. The owners of the land feel it will develop faster with smaller lots, but Mr. Poger noted that fast development was not the Commission's intent in that area. The proposed coverage figures also would protect the visual aspects of that area even after it is developed. He noted that it had seemed that Mitel was along the lines of what was wanted in the area and guidelines had been worked out with them and the residents of the area. Mr. Thweatt, representing Mitel, said they opposed the 50 acre lot size and the 10% coverage requirement. Mr. Poger noted that when discussions were held with Mitel the 10% coverage was mentioned on several occasions. Mr. Mona noted that Mitel was before the Commission with a 110 acre lot, so the 50 acre size naturally did not come up. Ms. Coffin said that on April 12 the Council had been presented a memo from the Hinesburg Road property owners association with signatures, and she had some signatures to add to that, which she gave the Council. They favor Article XVI as written. Mr. Krassner said he had attended many of the Mitel hearings and that they had been in haste to get the building constructed. He felt the city had bent over backward to accommodate them. He suggested that they had not paid enough attention to what they were getting into because of the rush. Mr. Levesque, speaking as a private citizen, felt that 5 10 acre lots could be as esthetic as 1 50 acre lot, if it were handled properly. He favored smaller lot sizes. Mr. Poger noted that the vote on the issue in the Commission had been 5-2. Mr. Mona felt lots smaller than 50 acres would increase the development rate and would adversely affect the appearance of the city, to say nothing of changing the character of the area. He also felt that large industries were necessary in order to attract smaller satellite industries. He said that once the large lots were lost, they could not be brought back, and he stated that the Commission was following the direction of the Council in this area. Mr. Marvin noted that the minutes of past meetings, before he was on the board, indicate 6-800 acres of industrial land was discussed, but there is not any mention of 50 acre lots or 10% coverage. He felt the taxpayers of the city would be hurt by a 10% limitation, especially in light of the revenue lost by having the inventory tax repealed. Mr. Mona noted that the city had some small lots available. Mr. Schuele, speaking for the Natural Resources Committee and also for himself as a citizen, supported the 50 acre minimum. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had not yet heard the Planner's agricultural presentation and he felt they should do that before they decide on this area. He asked that that be done at the next meeting and Mr. Spitz agreed to do that. Mr. Flaherty noted that when the Plan was discussed 1 year ago, the reference had been to large lots and he felt that 50 acres had been mentioned, as had Digital. He felt the citizens had been given the impression at that time that the lots would be large. Digital, for example, has 200 acres. He felt that without the Digitals and Mitels there would not be satellite industries, and he noted that now, while 50 acres was being considered, the proposal was for 10 acres instead. He felt that if the requirement were 10 acres, developers would be pushing for 1 or 2 acres. Mr. Marvin felt that South Burlington had two major industries and that that was a good batting average. Mr. Farrar said he would like information on the ratio of employees in major industries to employees in satellite ones. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the public hearing until May 24 and have this as the only item on the agenda. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and it passed 5- 0. Discuss appointing a member to South Burlington's Special Service Transportation Agency Board Mr. Szymanski said two individuals had been suggested and Mr. Flaherty suggested that they be asked to come in for interviews on Monday. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider request of Grandvue Corp. for an Entertainment Permit at the K of C Hall on May 20, 1982 from 6 pm to 12 am and an application for May 22. 1982 from T. Ruggs Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as the City Council and convene as the Liquor Control Board to consider entertainment permits for Grandvue Corp. and T. Ruggs. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Szymanski said the Grandvue Corp. wanted an entertainment permit for May 20 from 6 pm to 12 am at the K of C Hall in the city. This is for a bowling banquet. The other permit requested was for T. Ruggs Tavern from Winooski. They will be catering a wedding at the K of C Hall in the city on May 22 from 1 pm to 12 am. Mr. Szymanski said there were no problems with either of the requests. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the entertainment permits as described above. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.