Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/24/1982CITY COUNCIL MAY 24, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, May 24, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Hugh Marvin, William Burgess, Leona Lansing Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Richard Trudell, Carl Cobb, Robert Roesler, Ralph Goodrich, William Schuele, Viola Luginbuhl, Leo O'Brien, Gary Farrell, John Belter, Mark Goodrich, Judy Hurd, Lowell Krassner, Chuck Thweatt, Chris and Ralph DesLauriers, Ron Muir, Planning Commissioners George Mona, James Swing, and Kirk Woolery, The Other Paper reporter Pat Bergmeier Agenda addition The following item was added: Executive session to discuss the police contract. Continue public hearing from May 10 on revisions to the City Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Mr. Spitz noted that during the time the zoning ordinance was being rewritten, the issue of agricultural land surfaced. This has been a part of the Act 250 criteria since 1970 but it has not been applied much, and not in the Chittenden County area at all until the Mitel application. As a result of that application, the city agreed to do a study on agriculture and Mitel agreed to lease some land for farming. Mr. Spitz presented the study to the Planning Commission, and they have come up with a policy statement, which, along with a draft report, have been submitted to the Council. Mr. Spitz went over the major points in his study. He felt this issue was as much one of esthetics as of agriculture. He noted that development in the southeast quadrant could be in a grid, or it could be clustered, in either single family or multi-family units. As far as agriculture, Mr. Spitz felt most people agreed that this was not a nationally significant issue. He said there were few prime soils in the quadrant. He showed a map of the soils in that area, and said much of the land there would fit into the "good" category, which would mean the State would consider what happened to it. Mr. Farrar asked how this soil compared to soil in other parts of the country and was told the "high" category would probably be considered prime anywhere. He felt there were two kinds of agriculture to consider here - one is the garden grown to feed a family, and the other is crops grown for sale for profit. He felt that in the latter category, a comparison would have to be made with farmers in other states. He felt the Council would be very interested in such comparisons. Mr. Spitz said the Belter farm was the best farmland in the city. Mr. Spitz did not feel South Burlington farms would have national significance - probably only state and regional significance (serving the Boston area, for example). Mr. Spitz showed the areas of the quadrant which had grown hay or corn last year, and which were used for pasture. He said home-based farming was declining, and noted that some areas were fertilized, and some were not. Mr. Spitz said his report contained a few options. One was that there are a lot of people and few cows in Chittenden County and that it might be better to concentrate agriculture in other counties, although in 50 years those counties might look like Chittenden does today. He noted that farmers today tended to lease rather than buy land because of the high cost. Mr. Spitz said truck farming could be done on 10 acre pieces, but the soil in the quadrant is not suited for that. If dairy farming is to be done there, larger pieces will have to be left open, and clustering development might leave those areas open. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Belter about the economies of farming in this area, since he runs a large farm. He asked about long-term potential and competition. Mr. Belter did not think things looked good for the next 5 years or so. He added that supply and demand did not apply in the industry. He did not feel that it could be expected that anyone new would come into the area in the next 5-10 years and be able to use the land if it is left open. He noted that a lot of farmers were going out of business, and that he was one of the youngest around. He noted that it was cheaper to use someone else's land than buy his own. When that land is developed, he will have to look for other areas or decrease his size. He added, however, that he did not feel anyone should be told he could only use the land for agriculture, unless the people telling him that were willing to buy it. Mr. Farrar asked whether, if none of the farmland in the county disappeared, Mr. Belter felt it would all continue to be used, and he was told that the best land would still be used, but not all of it would. Today, Mr. Belter said, not all the land is in use. He added that when he looked for land to lease, it was 100 acre pieces he was interested in. Mr. Marvin noted that if the farmers who owned the land that Mr. Belter was farming now had been able to afford farming, they would never have gone out of business. Mr. Belter said that might be true in some cases, but in others the farmers had died or retired, or had seen that there was a higher potential use for the land. Mr. Krassner asked about other types of agriculture on the land in the quadrant, but Mr. Belter said truck farmers looked for sandy soil. Mr. Mona felt that the long range prognosis for U.S. agriculture was good, because the world demand for food would be increasing. Mr. Marvin said experts felt that farming in Vermont was dying. Mr. Cobb felt that when farming became profitable, the land would go back into agriculture. Mr. Szymanski asked how much of the land Mr. Belter used, he leased, and was told they just took the hay from Digital's land, but the rest they paid for. They pay $12 per acre per year, and it is not worth more than that. Mr. Szymanski said he cut hay on 40 acres of land and raised 4 cows and 2 horses. He did not feel that was prime agricultural land. Mr. Belter said he fertilized the land he leased, putting perhaps $25-30 per acre on it. Mr. Farrar noted that the margin between the cost of production and the value of the product was narrow, and prices would only have to go down a little to make it unprofitable, even if the land were free. Ms. Lansing asked Mr. O'Brien to address the issue here and he said he felt that with the exception of the Belter land, the other land was not economically feasible to produce agriculture, whether for dairy products, truck farms, or grain. He felt that the state would continue to be a dairy state, because that is what the land is best for. He felt smaller farms were going to be falling by the wayside. Mr. Thweatt of Mitel noted that the farmer using their land was only interested in it because he used the land adjacent to it also. Mr. Farrar said it seemed that the number of acres in agriculture in Vermont would decline in the future regardless of land use policies of local communities. Mr. Krassner felt the long-range view was that as the world population increased, the need for food would expand, and once land was developed, it was closed off from agriculture. Mr. Marvin noted that land prices had gone way up in the past 25 years and he believed they would continue to go up in this area. Mr. Farrell noted that the cost of cheese from Wisconsin was less than that from Vermont, so transportation costs did not seem to play a large part in final prices. Mr. Mona noted that agriculture and open space both were being discussed here. Mr. Farrar said the Council had to decide how to treat the area - whether to leave open space for esthetics, or maintain part of it for commercial agriculture. Mr. Goodrich said the land he owned could not be farmed. Three people have tried and failed. Industry could use the land because it could invest money to make the land usable. Ms. Lansing agreed with Mr. Krassner and Mr. Mona and the intent of the Planning Commission. She suggested that open space and agricultural land be regarded not as a commodity, but as a finite resource. Mr. Burgess asked at whose expense the land was kept open. Ms. Lansing mentioned transfer of development rights, and tax relief programs. Mr. Burgess said the Commission recommendation did not mention those, and he felt the farmers were being asked to pay for this. He was told the policy allowed a landowner to get full density, or 90% of it. Mr. Spitz noted that a person who owned 100 acres zoned 2/acre could put 200 dwelling units on it with sewer and water. They can use 50% of the land, so they can put the 200 units on 50 acres. The Commission would evaluate the land the developer wanted to build on and would decide which land could be used. Development rights on the 50 open acres would go to the city for a 50 year period, or the life of the project. Mr. Farrar said that, according to what had been said tonight, it seemed unlikely that anyone could farm the 50 acre open piece. Mr. Reosler asked for an explanation of how industrial land would be handled. Mr. Spitz said that the present Commission proposal for coverage is 10%. If that is approved, the person with 100 acres could put all the development on 50 acres, and have 20% coverage on that piece, and no coverage on the other. Mr. Spitz said the Commission had discussed whether to, with multiple pieces of land, allow this on contiguous or non-contiguous land, and the decision had been to allow it only on contiguous land, because the Commission wants land scattered throughout the quadrant, not in one large piece. Mr. Farrar noted that that approach would be better from an esthetic point of view than from a farming viewpoint. Mr. Spitz felt it would do both. Mr. Flaherty asked whether the city would lose tax revenue if it took the extra 50 acres to be left open. Mr. Spitz said that receiving double density would be of value to the person buying the development rights, and the person selling them would know what he was getting into. He felt that with 10% coverage, the city would get 10 acres of building, and the taxes on that would be the same no matter how it was done. On the land, there would be 50 acres of industrial land and 50 without future development potential. Mr. Burgess noted that once a building was built to capacity, with or without this policy, the land around it was no longer developable anyway. Mr. Farrar noted that the policy would not change the tax consequences. Mr. Farrell asked who would maintain the open acreage. He felt that would become scrub land and the quadrant could look like a patchwork. Mr. Farrar asked why the city would be involved in the leasing of the land and was told the Commission felt the land would not be used unless the city were the middleman. Speaking as an individual, Mr. Woolery stated that he did not trust transfer of development rights. Mr. Farrar did not feel it was necessary for the city to be involved in this. He did not think the city owning the rights would make it any harder to change things in the future. Mr. Roesler noted that things could always be changed by mutual agreement at a later date. Mr. Farrar said he had heard no argument that public interest would be served by preserving the land for commercial agriculture. He noted that he felt some land would have to be kept open for disposal of sludge from the sewage treatment plants and he felt the only way to do that would be through transfer of development rights. About 700 acres would be needed for that, at full development of the city. Mr. O'Brien asked whether several small industries would be allowed to share one parcel of land in the quadrant, if the 50 acre minimum went in and was told that would not be allowed under the present wording. He did not feel that was a good use of land. Mr. Farrell was also not sure that was a good use of land. Mr. Farrar asked the Council members if they felt commercial agriculture had a long-term and viable use in South Burlington. Mr. Burgess did not feel it did, and Messrs. Marvin and Flaherty agreed. Ms. Lansing disagreed. Mr. Farrar felt it was going to be less economic in the next 50 years to farm than it has been in the past. He did not think Vermont was going to be more competitive with the rest of the country and the world than it had been in the past, in fact he felt things would go the other way. He did not think the city should plan for it staying with agriculture as a significant part of its economy. Mr. Farrar said he would like to discuss lot coverage. He noted that when the Council decided how much land for non-residential they would eventually need in the city at full development, they had wanted to keep the residential-non-residential at roughly 50-50 ratio in terms of tax revenue, so the new non-residential land would generate about the same amount of tax as the existing non-residential. He asked whether this would be done with the proposed 10% coverage and Mr. Spitz was not sure that goal would be met. Mr. Farrar asked whether the tax potential for an acre of land in the quadrant had the same potential as other land in the city, and if not, what the ratio was. Mr. Spitz said it would take longer than 2 weeks to arrive at the figure. Mr. Farrar said the grand list could be used to figure out the revenue from existing non-residential uses in the city which are at 10% coverage, and whether they were typical of what was expected to be built in the quadrant. Mr. Spitz said he would try to have that information by the June 14 meeting and Mr. Farrar said that if he could not, it could be presented at a later meeting. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue this discussion for another week, to continue with the rest of the document, but not discuss, the southeast quadrant. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion and all voted for it. Sign renewal notes Mr. Szymanski said he had two notes due June 1. One is a sewer note for Phase V for $93,750 and the other is for the Bartlett Bay treatment plant for $69,800. These are until August 26 and are at 9 1/2% today. Mr. Farrar asked about going to the bond bank with the city's bonds. He felt that with the present interest rates, it was not wise for the city to sell bonds. He thought the decision had been to go with the bank, but that the city had been able to pull out if it wanted to later. Mr. Minnich said the rate would be low 12% or high 11% and he said the city had agreed to go with the bond bank if the rate did not exceed 13%. He said that in 5 years the bonds could be called, for a fee. Mr. Farrar asked that the Council be told of its options. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the notes as presented and Mr. Flaherty seconded. The motion carried with Ms. Lansing abstaining. Executive session to discuss police contract. Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet in executive session to discuss the police contract, and to then adjourn without taking any action. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. At 11:00 pm the Council came out of executive session and adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.