Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/03/1985CITY COUNCIL 3 JUNE 1985 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 3 June 1985, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, Francis Murray, George Mona Others Present William Szymanski, city Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Jane Bechtel, Planner; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director; Albert Audette, street Department; Fred Blais, Zoning Board; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Lowell Krassner, Vincent D'Acuti, David Boehm, Jim Condos, Jim Bergmeier Executive Session Ms. Lansing moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss acquisition of land. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Regular Session Comments & questions from the public (not related to items on the agenda) Mr. Krassner asked about the sewer bond issue and asked if the funding couldn't be raised by a user fee. Mr. Farrar explained that 2 meetings ago the Council set user fees for all new hook-ups. This will pay the capital costs but not the interest costs. The Legislature has passed enabling legislation allowing tax incremental districts, and the Governor is expected to sign this shortly. This will allow the city to complete its original funding proposal. Mr. Brennan asked if Country Club Estates is still in the sewer plan. Mr. Farrar said it is if financing can be worked out. It is a top priority. Discuss Zoning variances David Boehm made a presentation to the Council expressing his concern with the Zoning Variance process. Mr. Boehm believes that in granting many variances, the Zoning Board is interrupting the orderly growth and the planning process. He said he has tried to get this matter dealt with at several levels. The City Manager was sympathetic, but nothing was resolved. He also met with the Planner and spoke with Mr. Blais. Mr. Boehm said it was his belief that the zoning Board looks at what is "reasonable" rather than utilizing the 5 specific criteria from the state law. He cited 2 specific cases to support this contention. In the case of Gertrude Lawrence's variance request, Mr. Boehm said that what was requested was not a variance but a change in use, a change in the comprehensive plan, in effect, a "rezoning" of the property which will not show up in the zoning map. Mr. Boehm said that the fundamental issue is that when such a decision is made, the burder is shifted from the developer/owner to the neighbors who have to pool whatever resources they can to fight the decision in court. He cited the case of pillsbury Manor in which a variance was granted but the developer later developed the land in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance after the neighbors filed suit. Obviously, he said, there was never a question that the land could be developed in conformance. Mr. Boehm said he spoke with representatives of other communities and got the following responses: The Regional Planning Commission feels strongly that a "use variance" does not meet the 5 criteria, especially #5. In Burlington, "use" is not variable, and an applicant would have to go to the Planning Commission to get a zoning change. Shelburne has never approved a use variance. Charlotte won't accept use variances. In Warren, there is no such thing as a "use variance." In Essex Junction, one can apply for a use variance, though it is effectively not permitted. Mr. Boehm proposed the following solution: The Planner and Planning Commission should make text changes to the Zoning document to allow some changes without an applicant having to go through the variance process. This could be done using a criteria of "reasonableness." The granting of too many variances, he said, indicates a problem with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board should then be instructed to follow the 5 specific criteria for granting other variances. Mr. Boehm stressed that the law should be reasonable, not the application of it. He added that the City Manager should oversee the work of the Zoning Board to insure that the Board and the public are guided by the rules. The City Council should give protection and should advise developers of the law and appoint Board members who follow the law. Everyone, he said, would benefit from good planning; the only people who benefit from what is happening now are short-run developers. Mr. Flaherty said Mr. Boehm had made a serious charge and asked if he felt the Zoning Board was knowingly and deliberately not following the law. Mr. Boehm replied that when he and other neighbors had attended meetings and asked if the 5 criteria would be applied, they were told that is not how the Board would proceed. He added that the 5 criteria were often not addressed in the Findings of Fact. Mr. Condos stressed the burden being placed on the neighbors and added that they may again have to tax themselves because of another development that is being planned. When he spoke informally with a Zoning Board members, he was told the "area is already commercial." Mr. Krassner stressed that the area is still zoned R- 4, not commercial, and that the Superior Court strictly upholds zoning ordinances. The function of the Zoning Board is to enforce the Zoning Ordinance and not to force citizens to spend money to go to court. Mr. Bergmaier added that he had been to several Zoning Board meetings and Board members have said that "one more won't matter; it ought to be commercial." He stressed that the City should fight for what is in the City Plan. Mr. Blais then responded. He said Mr. Boehm had expressed his philosophical opinion. The Zoning Board is not a political body. He said they would not argue each finding of fact for the appellants or defendants. He added that in the time he has been on the Board, there have been only 2 appeals of decisions, and he does not believe there has been a wholesale prostitution of the law. He said the Board believes the "use variance" process is a legal relief process and they do look very sincerely at the opposing side. He added that he felt the interest in Mayfair Park was more political than legal and that the Board would never willingly violate due process. Mr. Murray asked what the Board's practice was with regard to utilizing the City Attorney's office. Mr. Blais said they interact but not on an ongoing, case-by-case basis. Mr. Ward said 10% or fewer of the cases are have homeowners objecting to a requested variance and that on some of these occasions they do consult with the City Attorney. Mr. Mona said there is an appearance that the Board wants to make the area in question commercial and he felt some dialog needs to take place, especially on that area. Mr. Mahoney said that it is his understanding that there is no such thing as a "use variance." Mr. Blais said he is not aware that there isn't. Mr. Brennan commended Mr. Boehm's presentation and added that he also has observed what he called "spot zoning". He also noted that the Zoning agenda always seems full. He added that the logic of the small number of appeals against zoning board decisions seemed fallacious to him. Mr. Murray said that from his observations during campaigning, the feeling in the community, in all neighborhoods, is with Mr. Boehm, and he stressed the need to get it straight. Ms. Lansing asked if a variance that does not meet the 5 criteria is legal. Mr. Murray said it is not, but there is always a question of interpretation. Mr. Krassner observed that Mayfair Park people cannot attend each meeting and obviously attend those which are important to them. He added that there have also been a number of intrusions into conservation zones which also disturbs him greatly. He said he has reviewed a number of Supreme Court decision and it is clear that the Court says all 5 criteria must be met. Following the discussion, Ms. Lansing moved to end the debate and to establish a study committee to look into the zoning process. Mr. Murray seconded and the motion passed unanimously. A decision on the composition of the committee will be made at the next meeting. Report on Airport from South Burlington Airport Representative Mr. D'Acuti advised the Council of a number of present and future airport activities. 1) Regarding an alternate airport commission, there is no provision for this. Burlington has sent a "liaison" who has no voting power. Perhaps South Burlington could do the same. 2. Police Department Bid: South Burlington has bid $173,000 and Burlington $228,000 for the Airport policing contract. The Burlington Police Commissioner says he feels the Burlington Dept. should be picked; however, after hearing of the $53,000 difference in bids, he said perhaps the 2 departments could work together. 3. Task Forces: There are at least 4 task forces studying the airport question: Legislators Transportation Committee, Burlington Committee, Regional Planning, Governor's Committee. Under Bill H-413, the Governor would appoint all commissioners. Mr. D'Acuti said he felt South Burlington should have 2 commissioners. Another proposal would be for the state airport police to control all roads to the airport. He said he felt South Burlington should have that responsibility. 4. Property Tax: The airport appraisal is over $6,000,000 resulting in over $150,000 in taxes. He felt the City Council and Representatives should go over this carefully and work out a 10-year plan. 5. Building: KW Venturs have proposed a hotel at the end of the runway. Airport people are not enthusiastic about this as there have been several accidents near the site. There is also the noise question. 6. National Guard Road: There was an accident on the Road last week. Mr. D'Acuti said the road should be taken over by the City. 7. Terminal Expansion: Work will begin August 1st and will be completed in 12-14 months. 8. Runway: The runway will cost $1,300,000 and was passed on by the FAA till next year. They hope to start work on June 15th and end October 15th. All work will be done at night, and concern will be given to safety and noise. 9. FAA Flight Service Building: This will be started in September. There is a state grant for this, and the work will provide 60 new jobs. They are also buiding an access road from Williston Road opposite Shunpike Rd. This will start in July. Additional traffic on Williston Rd. would be at night. 10. Taxi Problems: The taxi problem has been curtailed. 11. Parking: There is a proposal for a double-tier parking lot. Mr. Flaherty asked why parking rates are not simply doubled or tripled since parking is a problem only several months a year. Mr. D'Acuti said the Board won't do it, even though many people are against a parking lot. Mr. Ward noted that there is an application on next weeks agenda for a 200-car parking lot on Gregory Drive. Mr. Brennan said that he felt airport plans are short-sighted and they ought to plan for the future. He felt the city ought to have an "airport zone" in an attempt to control development. Make appointments to MPO and Transit Technical Committee Mr. Farrar said he would like to reverse the order of representative and alternate with Ms. Lansing. Mr. Mona then moved that Ms. Lansing be appointed MPO representative and Mr. Farrar alternate. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Report on May 28th MPO meeting Mr. Szymanski reported the following: The Colchester representative felt there was not enough work for a Citizen Advisory Committee and the MPO abolished this group and agreed to hold public hearings instead. Apparently this poses no problems with the federal government. A contract was signed for a study of insterstate interchanges. Four students have been hired to conduct a traffic signal inventory. The Regional Map is being prepared and must be to the State by July. Mr. Murray moved that Mr. Farrar be empowered to sign the Regional Map. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Regarding subcontracts, the bylaws were amended to allow subcontracting up to $10,000 to be approved by the MPO. Review Requests of Tax Waivers Mr. Murray moved that the Council accept and file the list of Tax Waivers. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Review Planning and Zoning Agendas The request of KW Ventures for a hotel at the end of the runway was noted. Mr. Farrar felt that if the airport was concerned about accidents in the area, they should buy the land. Mr. Mona said that if the Council doesn't send a message to the Zoning Board against the proposal, it will appear that the Council is approving high density use in a dangerous area. Mr. Mona then moved to recommend to the Zoning Board that this kind of variance not be permitted. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Minutes of May 20, 1985 Ms. Lansing moved that the Minutes of May 20th be approved as printed. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous agreement. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. Old Business Mr. Farrar said that a request has been made to have a South Burlington representative on the Governor's Airport study committee. Mr. Mona recommended that the Council get input from the City Attorney and City Treasurer on the evaluation of the City Manager. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council meet as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous agreement. Mr. Szymanski presented a request from Garfield's to serve liquor and food on their new outdoor deck. Ms. Picard advised that the Liquor Inspector says the approval has to come from Montpelier but they like it to come through the local government. Mr. Farrar questioned whether granting a liquor license doesn't entitle Garfields to serve anywhere on their premises. Mr. Mahoney moved that the request of Garfields be tabled and referred to the City Attorney for a determination of authority. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Ms. Lansing moved to adjourn the Liquor Control Board and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Appointment of Zoning Administrator Mr. Mahoney asked Mr. Ward his feelings about going to the City Attorney where there is a conflict such as that on Williston Rd. Mr. Ward said he had no objections. Mr. Mona recommended that when the zoning study committee is appointed, it also look at the Zoning Administrator's activity as well. Mr. Ward said he had no problem with that. Mr. Mona then moved to reappoint Richard Ward as Zoning Administrator. Mr. Flaherty seconded, and the motion passed 3-2, with Mr. Murray and Ms. Lansing voting against and both expressing their desire to wait until the committee's report is made. It was agreed that committee and commission members up for reappointment will come in to the Council for the benefit of the new Councilman. Executive Session Mr. Mona moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss union negotiations. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. By motion of Mr. Mona and seconded by Ms. Lansing the Council came out of Executive Session at 10:30 P.M., and adjourned immediately. Clerk: Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.