Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/10/1984CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 10, 1984 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 10 December 1984, at 7:00 P.M., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorest Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Leona Lansing, Michael Flaherty, George Mona, William Peters (note: Mr. Mona left the meeting following discussion of Zoning Amendments) Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Bechtel, City Planner, Sidney Poger, Planning Commission, Albert Audette, Street Dept.; Diane Reynolds, Police Dept.; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Alix Blass, John G. Jewett, Vince Bolduc, James Brady, Pat Brady, Steve Freedman, W.W. Daum, Hugh Marvin, Hal Bensen, Pete Crevier Executive Session Ms. Lansing moved that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss the pending grievance. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous consent. Regular Session. Formal Action on Reynolds grievance Mr. Flaherty made the following motion: Regarding the grievance of Diana Sweet Reynolds, the Council finds that neither Chief Carter nor the City Manager acted improperly in handling the matter. However, it is the feeling that fairness dictates that the Council establish a policy for employees who are temporarily disabled. Therefore, the following policy is established: when an employee is partially disabled so that he or she cannot do the job hired to do, the City will attempt to find work for the employee, first in his or her own department and then in any other department of the City. The employee will be paid at his or her normal rate of compensation for up to six months. It is the Council's wish to include this policy in the Policy and City contracts retroactive to July, 1984. If this is agreed upon by the Police union, 93 1/4 hours sick time will be restored to Diane Reynolds and she will be paid for 98 3/4 hours she had not been paid for. Mr. Mona seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. Comments and questions from the public not related to items on the agenda No issues were raised. Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the City Zoning Regulations Ms. Bechtel briefly explained the proposed amendments (text and summaries attached). She noted that a question had arisen as to whether the "group home" and "family" definitions contradict each other. The City Planner says they do not. She recommended, however, that the language adopted by the Planning Commission for Section 21.108b be changed to conform to the wording used by the state to describe a group home: "A state licensed or registered community care home or group home, serving not more than six persons who are developmentally disabled or physically handicapped, shall be considered by right to constitute a permitted single-family residential use of property except that no such home shall be so considered if it located within 1,000 feet of another such home." Following a brief discussion, Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve Sections 11.112, 11.501a, 11.212, 11.502a, 12.119, 12.501a, 13.117, 13.118, 2.00 et al, 19.104, 19.115b as presented in the City Planner's memo. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the language adopted by the State (see above) be approved as Section 18.115. Ms. Lansing seconded. Michael Clapp advised that a number of City residents are very concerned about the meaning of a "group home" in light of a proposal to place in South Burlington a facility called a "group home." He suggested that the City Council try to clarify what is very unclear in the State Statute, noting that the proposed facility would serve 120 to 130 persons during a year. Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Lansing then withdrew their motion and moved to continue the hearing until the next meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Discussion then centered on the Accessory Apartment Amendments (attached). Ms. Bechtel explained that the intent of these amendments was to allow a homeowner to add a small efficiency apartment within certain limitations. Mr. Farrar asked what would be the difference between an accessory apartments and any 5 unrelated people living together in a single family house. Mr. Audette noted that there are a number of single family homes in the City being rented to 5 students, and that these homes do cause problems in the neighborhood because of the number of cars involved. Mr. Crevier asked why homeowners of small sized homes should be discriminated against. He suggested the number of rooms, rather than the size, be the determining factor. Mr. Flaherty said he would like to feel that if there are to be new procedures he would like to know where the old procedures have failed. Ms. Bechtel said it was felt this type of situation was not appropriate to be handled by the Zoning Board. Mr. Farrar said he felt it was a question of whether neighborhoods are being made better or worse. Mr. Mona stressed that the Master Plan calls for preservation of neighborhoods through appropriate zoning. He added that there is also the question of further burdening the Zoning Administrator with approving and then enforcing the provisions. Ms. Lansing said she would be concerned that neighbors would not be notified of proposed apartment additions as they now are through the Zoning Board procedure. Following an informal polling, Ms. Lansing moved that the City Council not approve the proposed Accessory Apartment Amendments. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous approval. Discuss Outstanding Payment Due for the Meadowood Drive Sewer Extension During the following discussion, Councilman Peters left the Conference Room. Mr. Szymanski advised that Hugh Marvin and Mal Bensen had raised the issue of overdue payment for the sewer line put in to extend from Ridgewood Estates to Meadowood Drive. The situation had arisen when it was found that there was a problem with on-site sewage. The City agreed to have Mr. Peters pay what it would cost for a 4ʺ line. The City would then put in a 12ʺ line, with the City paying the difference. To date, Mr. Peters has not paid the $5,400 he agreed to pay. Mr. Szymanski added that both Mr. Peters and the City have turned the matter over to their respective attorneys. Mr. Bensen said he is concerned that the City is, in effect, acting as a bank, extending credit in Mr. Peters. He asked if there was a lien. Mr. Szymanski said there is not because a lien must be gotten within 30 days of construction. Mr. Marvin emphasized that Mr. Peters came to the Council in 1982 and begged for the sewer. He noted that if this were overdue taxes, 8% would have been added and it would have been in the Annual Report. He noted it is not in Accounts Receivable either. Mr. Bensen asked whether any other citizen would have the chance not to pay such an indebtedness. Mr. Farrar advised that Mr. Peters feels that the situation is materially different now, but that the City does not agree. Mr. Marvin asked if the Council can adopt a policy that can prevent this from happening in the future. Sign Disbursement Orders There were no disbursement orders. Minutes of December 3, 1984 Mr. Flaherty moved that the minutes of December 3, 1984 be approved as printed. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. Old and New Business Ms. Lansing noted that Alyce Piche will be retiring and suggested the Council send flowers to her. Mr. Marvin raised the question of an amplifying system for the Conference Room. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet as the Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Szymanski presented a request from Club New England to modify their entertainment permit to include 4 to 6 live dance performances per year. The existing permit allows only a D.J. and live bands. The question was raised as to why the Club can't come in on an individual request basis. Speaking for Club New England, Eugene Ward said that would be cumbersome. Mr. Szymanski said he felt the Board should have some control and should have advance notice. Mr. Ward noted that the request indicated there will be at least 7 days notice and also that the liquor license does have some control over what can be done. He stressed there would be no nudity, profanity, etc. and noted that a recent performance was well received and caused no problems. Mr. Farrar said the question was what to plan for. He suggested possibly approving fewer performances and evaluating the situation again. Mr. Ward said the next performance is scheduled for the end of January but he did not know the particulars. Mr. Flaherty then moved to modify the Club New England's request to allow 3 performances between now and April, 1985. The City Manager, shall receive at least a week's notice of the performances, and said performances will conform with all State requirements and regulations. The motion was not seconded. Mr. Farrar said the request can be rescheduled for the next meeting. Mr. Szymanski then presented a request for a second class liquor license for Healthy Living, a new store at the Dorset Sq. Mall. He said there are no problems with the request. Mr. Flaherty moved the Board approve the second class liquor license for Healthy Living. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Lansing asked about a party at k of c Hall at which the guests provided their own liquor. She asked if a catering permit should have been required. Mr. Szymanski said a permit is required only if the caterer provides the liquor. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council to go into Executive Session for the propose of discussing land acquisition and reconvene only for the purpose of adjourning. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous consent. The Council came out of Executive Session and adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. I "- --, - - MEMORANDUM - - - - -- -- A - - * To: - South Burlington City Councir -/ From: Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner Re : Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments - Set #2 The attached amendments were passed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City Council on November 2, 1984. Any changes made by the Council will require a new Public Hear ing and the changes must be filed with the Planning Commission 15 days prior to rewarned Public Hearing. The Commission may respond to the changes at or prior to the rewarned Public Hearing. The following comments are in response to several questions asked and comments made at the Countil's November 2, 1984 meeting. Definition of Group Home: This amendment says a group home is up to 6 unrelated peksons livinq as a sinqle household unit. State licensed group homes and community care homes serving less than 6 persons must be considered s ingle-family residences under municipal zoning bylaws. Our definition of a family includes "a group of not more than 5 persons who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single houskeeping unit". (Section 21.108, Zoning Regulations) These definitions do not necessarily contradict each other. It may make sense however, to reward the proposed amendment to be identical to the state language as follows: 21.108b "A state licensed or registered community care home or group home, serving not more than six persons who are developmen tally disabled or physically handicapped , shall be considered by right to consitute a permitted single-family residential use of property except that no such home shall be so considered if it locates within 1,000 feet of another such home." Accessory Apartments A) Choice of Zoning Districts: R2 amd R4 zones were selected since 2 family units are permitted and the maximum densities allow for another unit. These 2 Zoning Districts appear most appropriate since the neighborhoods are already zoned at 2 and 4 units per acre and can accommodate an additional unit at this density. The maximum lot size for a building with an accessory apartment will be that of asingle-family dwelling in each zone. Finally, Dr. Farrar's initial request in 1983 for review of 2 family homes was in regard to the R2 and R4 zones, and this concern was carried throughout the drafting of this amendment. B. Type of Review: dwellings be changed zories apparently to IN 1983, Dr. Farrar proposed that 2 family from -permitted to conditional uses hTR2'and- ~4 -' ' limit or monitor the number of 2 famiry' -- dwellings-in these areas. This amendment allows a conversion, but carefully regulates such apartments. Review of accessory apartment proposals can and should be a routine process, given that they meet the requirements. It is not necessary to tie up the Zoning Board, and can be more efficiently accomplished by the Administration Officer. Furthermore, it is not an appropriate conditional use because those criteria are more vague and inappropriate for this type of use such as character of neighborhood, general public health and welfare and capacity of municipal facilities, etc. The criteria explicity stated in the amendment attempt to address the specific concerns created by the apartments such as parking, apartment size, and visual changes, etc. C. Size of additions: The initial purpose of the amendment is to permit a homeowner to convert a portion of the residence to a small- er apartment. It is not intended to create duplexes by a large expansion or addition. Therefore, the size of any addition is limited to 10% of the original building; the apartment must still be at least 300 square feet and up to 500 square feet, or 25% of the floor area of the single-family dwelling, whichever is smaller. This allows a small addition as part of the apartment but will not comprise the entire apartment. Section 11.112 Section 11.501a Section 11.212 Section 11.502a Section 12.119 Sect ion 12.50 la Sect ion 13.117 Section 13.118 - Section 2.00 et a1 - I Sect ion 19.104 Section 19.155b COMPLETE TEXT OF PROPOSED"ZON'ING"AMENDMENTS- - -- . -A - Radio and Television studios .Those uses set forth in Sections 11.101 - 11.112 Taxi companies Those uses set forth in Sections 11.201 - 11.212 Radio and television studios Those uses set forth in Sections 12.101 - 12.119 Warehous inq Light manufactur ing Any use not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional -- - uses Group Home - up to six unrelated people living as a sinqle household unit The following standards for landscaping, screen- ing and bufferyards shall apply during site plan review and for planned unit developments and grid type developments: Each application shall be prepared in accordance with the specifications of the City subdivision requla tions, site plan requ irernents ( including - -- landscaping requirements) , and other such data or information as the Planning Commission may require ACCESSORY APARTMENT AMENDMENTS 1. Sections 8.10 and 9.10 establishing permitted uses in the Residential-2 and Residen tial-4 Districts should be amended as -' Eollows: Section 8.104 Accessory Apartments subject to the provisions of Sectlon 13.80. Section 9.104 Accessory Apartments subject to the provisions - of Section 19-80. - I1 Section 19.80 should be added to create specific standards for accessory apartments as follows: Section 19.80 Accessory Apartments The zoning administrator shall approve an accessory apartment when the applicant demonstrates conformance with the following standards: Section 19.801 Accessory apartments shall only be allowed within a single-family dwellings and only one accessory apartment will be allowed per sinale-familv dwellins. Section 19.802 The owner (s) of the structure in which the access99 apartment is created shall occupy at least one of the dwelling units as a wrimarv residence. Section 19.803 Adequate off street parking shall be provided but in no case shall the number - of spaces for both the single- family residence and the accessory apartment be less than 3. Section 19.804 The single-family residence and accessory apart- ment shall have adequate sewage disposal and water supply. shall consider, without being limited to, the Lo1 (a) Maintenance of a single driveway and car parking area - (b) Minimization or appropriate location of new entrances to the structure. Section 19.806 An accessory apartment shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet. An accessory apartment shall not exceed in size 500 square feet or 25% of the floor area of the single- .- family dwelling, whichever is the smaller amount. Section 19.807 Any addition to a single-family residence to accommodate an accessory apartment shall not increase the Size of the structure by more than 10%. Any such addition must conform with all applicable hcic&t, area, lot coverage, and yard requirements. - -- --- w Section 11.112 makes radio and television studios a permitted use in the C-Indistrict. They are not permitted in any ~istrict in the current ordinance. C-1 and C-2 are the most appropriate locations. Section 11.212 makes taxi companies a conditional use in the C-1 district. Presently they are a conditional use in the Industrial Commercial District. Section 12.119 makes radio and television studios a permitted use in the C-2 district. Section 13.117 and 13.118 makes warehousing and light manufacturing a permitted use in the Mixed Industr ial-Commercial Distr ict. Section 2.00 -- et a1 will add the sentence that all uses not expressly permitted are prohibited unless allowed as a conditional use. This 6 hill apply to ill districts. Section 21.108b adds the State required definition of a Group Home. These must be a permitted use in any district where single-family dwellings are permitted. Section 19.104 and 19.155b are revised so that the landscaping require- ments for site plans apply to planned unit developments and grid-type developments. SUMMARY OF ACCESSORY APARTMENT AMENDMENT The accessory apar tmen t allows sing le- family home-owners to add a small efficiency apartment in R-2 and R-4 districts. It is a practical and frequently necessary way of enabling owners to re- main in homes that otherwise may be too costly to heat and maintain while for some it provides a sense of security. The rental unit provides affordable housing opportunities for people at various stages of their lives for whom conventional housing is functionally and economically obsolete or impractical. Accessory apartments are sometimes critized because of the impact 011 the neighborhood, appearance, the traffic and city services. However, this amendment address each of these concerns, and most importantly prevents undetected conversions by permitting them and then regulating a number oE features. The primary features of the amendment are: 1) Only one is allowed per dwelling; 2) They are allowed in owner occupied dwellings only; 3) There must be at least 3 off-street parking spaces; 4) There must be adequate sewage disposal and water supply; 5) It must have the appearanceofa single-family residence with a single driveway, and new entrances must be mimimized or be appropriately located; 6) The minimum size is 300 square feet; the maximum is 500 square feet or 25% of single-family dwelling floor area, whichever is smaller; 7) Additions shall not increase the size by more than 10%; 8) All other zoning provisions such as height, area, lot coverage and yard requirements apply. I SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION DEPARTMENT RLIN_GTON, VT 05401 TEL: (802)658-7956 I*~SC.T - - BRUCE O'NEILL DIRECTOR THOMAS HUBBARD ASST DIRECTOR TO: City Council FROM: Bruce 0' Nei 11, Recreation Di rector and Jane Bechtel , City Planner RE: Park Acquisition DATE: December 7, 1984 The 1980 Comprehensive Plan makes the recommendation that the City try to acquire up to 250 acres of land in the Southeast Quadrant to serve as a central city park. This site could include multiple playing fields, tennis courts, ball fields, playgrounds, lighted facil i ties and structures such as al skating rink, swimming pool, community center, etc. The City Council meeting of December 7, 1981 authorized the City Manager and Recreation Director to submit an appl ication to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of approximately 120 acres known as The Brand Farm. Initially, Mr. Brand was not prepared to sell, although he verbally said he would give the City first refusal. The application was submitted for consideration in Fiscal Years 1982, 1983 and 1984. The project was not funded by the state because the cost of the land was so high that they did not feel that there was enough state money that could be put into the acquisition. The decision was not appealed as Mr. Brand was not ready I to sell the land. Recently Mr. Brand indicated that because of pressure from developers he did wish to sell. An appraisal for the Federal and State Program valued the land at $835,000, although our initial appl ication requested more than that. Mr. Brand has now indicated the following: 1. the land will be sold to somebody in 1985 2. he has been offered in excess of one million dollars We have once again been turned down by the state and the City Planner and Recreation Director appealed the decision. During the course of the hearing the following points were emphasized by the State Recreation Board. 1. It is a superior acquisition; we should not let it get away. I I I -.I -* " 2. The cost-is so high that the state would not be in a position to allocate -+- - any state funds toward the project. 3. We should explore "creative financing" such as partnership with a developer or work with a land trust. Before we proceed any further in attempting to try to find some method of financing this acquisition we would like to be assured that the City Council is still committed to the project and that the City Planner and the Recreation Director should continue to try to determine a1 ternative methods of finance.