Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/04/1985CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 1985 The South Burlington City Council held a Regular Meeting on Monday, March 4, 1985 at 7:30 P.M., in the Conference Room, City Hall, Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Leona Lansing, George Mona Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Bechtel, Planner; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Sidney Poger, Chairman Planning Commission; Douglas Schner, Gloria Yandow, City Bookkeeper; Fire Chief James Goddette, Albert Audette, Street Dept. Supt.; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director; Mike Monte, Queen City Park; Women Helping Battered Women Representative Betty Dye. Additions to the Agenda Chairman Farrar opened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. and asked members present if there were any items to be added to the Agenda. George Mona asked that the Boehm letter be discussed (a copy attached) and Bill Szymanski requested that the Council meet as the Liquor Control Board to consider a catering permit request. Comments and Questions from the public (not related to Agenda items) No issues were raised Public Hearing on Zoning Change - Tilley Property Chairman Farrar read the Warning for the proposed Zone Change. He called on City Planner Jane Bechtel to explain the change that would rezone 7.85 acres from Residential-1 to Industrial-Commercial. Jane explained it on the plan prepared by Donald L. Hamlin, Inc., Consulting Engineers. Doug Schner, representing the Tilley's explained the access to the property, which includes a road easterly and would serve the adjacent property and land to the east. Sid Poger said that the Planning Commission reviewed the change and supported it. Leona Lansing questioned the added traffic the change would generate and Sid said that was not reviewed by the Planning Commission, only access to the property and that this would be done during the site plan review. The possibility of making Old Farm Road a dead end street was discussed, since there has been a request from the residents of the street. This will be looked into in the future. Chief Goddette objected to this, stating that it would create a safety hazard in case of an emergency. George Mona moved that the City Council approve the change in zoning from Residential-1 to Industrial-Commercial on a 7.85 acre parcel as depicted on a plan entitled "Tilley Farm, Old Farm Road, South Burlington, Vermont" dated 11/7/84 as prepared by Donald L. Hamlin, Consulting Engineers. Leona Lansing seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, all present voted in favor. Hear request for funding from Women Helping Battered Women (Ms. Betty Dye) Ms. Dye representing Women Helping Battered Women explained the organization's functions and the need for the City's support. She said the agency receives about 70 calls per month and their facilities house an average of 10 people per day. They have 50 volunteers working and most of their support is from United Way and their budget this past year was $100,000. Mike Monte representing Queen City Park Fire District was present for the purpose of seeking support for playground equipment in the Fire District park. Bruce O'Neill, City Recreation Director explained the request which was originally in the amount of $2,000. He stated that because the area is isolated, there is need for the requested equipment. Bruce said that since the park is Fire District owned it could be considered private and be restricted to the general public. The district furnishes water to the beach house facility and in lieu of paying the district for the water, a donation for equipment could be made. Mr. Monte said that the general public has used the area in the past and were not excluded. Mr. Farrar suggested the Fire District lease the park land to the City and the City then could justify purchase of equipment and maintenance of the area. Mr. Monte said he would discuss this with the Prudential Committee. There are 70-75 properties in Q.C.P. that would use the requested equipment. Work on 1985-86 Budget George Mona made a motion to add $30,000 to the budget for additional personnel. Leona Lansing seconded the motion. George said he would like to discuss his reason in Executive Session. A long discussion followed whether this could be discussed in Executive Session, whether the Council has the authority to add personnel, how the $30,000 addition is handled, i.e. going to the voters for total budget approval or for just the one item as extra, whether other items can be reduced to include the amount in the budget limits. Pros and cons of all was discussed. Paul felt it was a difficult time to increase personnel, in light of the possibility of Federal Revenue Sharing being cut back or eliminated. The coming reappraisal (which will shift additional burden to residential property) would also have an impact. Bill Szymanski said that if there is an increase in personnel it should be in the Police Department, as the Chief has been requesting this each year. Extended maternity and military leaves are making the department short on personnel resulting in complaints from residents and businesses, both to the Chief and City Manager. Police investigations are also behind. Chairman Farrar called for a vote on George's motion, George and Leona voted for, Chairman Farrar voted against. The Council did feel that this should be brought up again at the March 18th meeting when, hopefully, the entire Council would be present. Bill was asked to get legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding discussion of extra personnel in an Executive Session. Continue discussion on the possibility of placing all utility lines underground in conjunction with the widening of Williston Rd. at Gaynes Bill Szymanski reported that he had contacted the large property owners in the area of the Williston Road project, mainly the Sheraton, Gaynes and the Chittenden Bank with the proposal that they share in the cost of placing all aerial utility lines underground during the road reconstruction. The proposal was that they pay 1/2 of the estimated $71,000 in cost. The owners of the Sheraton said they will participate and work toward convincing the others to also participate. The owners of Gaynes and Chittenden Bank said they support the idea, however, would not make a commitment until they know what added expenses they will have to absorb as a result of this construction. Council members stated that the overhead lines should be placed underground. George Mona said other eye sores, such as large signs should be removed. Placing part of the City's cost in the 1985-86 budget was discussed. Mr. Szymanski will investigate to see if the cost can be paid out of the $500,000 bond issue passed two years ago. Leona Lansing made the motion that all overhead lines be placed underground during the road reconstruction on Williston Road at Gaynes. George Mona seconded the motion. Leona and Paul voted for, George voted against. Report on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Bill Szymanski said he had put this item on the Agenda because of the concern of the City's CCTA representatives on the proposed change in the MPO by-laws, regarding the change in makeup of the Transit Technical Advisory Committee. Paul said that we should have our CCTA representatives at the next meeting to discuss this change. Chairman Farrar said that there is strong feeling at the MPO that they, not Regional Planning, should research the regional airport question. Mr. Farrar noted that if Regional Planning does it, South Burlington will have very little input. Ms. Lansing suggested asking Vin D'Acuti to attend the next meeting as he is the City's airport representative. Review Planning Agenda: Mr. Mona called attention to a letter from a citizen questioning the procedures of the Zoning. He noted that the letter says the Board did not follow the law, and he expressed concern about this. It was agreed that a message be sent to the Board suggesting it would be appropriate for them to reply to the letter. Minutes of February 25, 1985 Ms. Lansing moved that the Minutes of February 25, 1985 be approved as written. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed Mr. Mona raised the question of employee reviews in Executive Session, and asked if the City Manager should be present if he is being reviewed. Mr. Farrar questioned whether an Executive Session could be held without the City Manager. This question will be researched. Liquor Control Board Ms. Lansing moved that the City Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Szymanski presented a request from King's Kove Restaurant to cater the Police Association Fundraiser at the Knights of Columbus on March 16, 1995, from 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. No problems have been noted by Police or Fire Chiefs. Ms. Lansing moved that the Board approve the request of King's Kove Restaurant as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Ms. Lansing moved that the Board adjourn and reconvene as the City Council. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval. Executive Session Ms. Lansing moved that the City Council go into Executive Session to hear the City Manager's report on employee evaluation with the understanding that when the Council reconvenes it will be only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Mona seconded with unanimous approval The Council came out of Executive Session and by motion of Mr. Mona and seconded by Ms. Lansing the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. February 25, 1985 PI anni ng Commission So. Rurlington City Hall Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: ~ransitional District Proposal Ladies and Gent1 emen: I would like to express my concerns and thoughts about the new Transitional District proposal. While I expect to be at the March 5th hearing, I would like you to have the opportunity to review my comments before that time so that they may sti.iul;.te some discussion during the hearing. I am a resident praperty owner and businessman in the City. Since my background includes a master's degree in planning, four years experience as a director of a county planning and zoning office, and current professional practice which includes land use work, I hive been interested in the planning and zoning process in South Burlington, since moving here in 1977. The most interesting and concerning situation has been the functioning of the Znning Board, and I feel this is closely related to the new proposed District. Although I gradually became aware that this Board was apparently making arbitrary decisions, without consideration of the laws governing these decisions, it wasn't until the Board heard the variance appeal of L.T.M. Associates, fnr an office building in a residential zone on Williston Road, that I became aware of how serious this situation had become. As you may recall, the applicant requested a "use variance". My own neighborhood, Mayf air Park, sought to have the varia-nce denied. We questioned the testimony on the basis of the five criteria that are required to be met before the Board may issue a favorable opinion for the applicant. My recollection of the hearing is that the Board was very much bothered by the fact that they were being asked to follow the law, and that, instead of following the law, they intended to base their decision on their personal opinions of what the applicant was entitled to do with the land. I suggested that the law should be followed since it was intended to provide comprehensive protection, as well as Transitional District February 26, 1985 opportunities, to all the citizens of the City, as we11 as the owner of the land under consideration. Despite our efforts, the decision was made in favor of the applicant, and Mayfair Park was forced to seek an injunction, and to file a court suit to overturn the action of the Board. These proceedings to overturn an apparently arbitrary decision of the Board cost our neighborhood of taxpayers (and voters) about 82,000.00. It was upsetting that we were forced to spend a significant sum of money to deal with an unlawful decision made by a Board which should be protecting us and serving our interests, as citizens. We were fortunate that we stand organized and had the ability to share the costs. I believe that the Zoning Board's decisions would be opposed more regularly, except that the cost is prohibitive to most citizens. This is an incredible and very disturbing situation! ! Followi.ng this case, I hoped that a change would take place, but I continued to see variance decisions being made in the same manner. I was concerned with the fact that the zoning ordinance should clearly itemize both rights and restrictions, or opportunities and protections. It became more clear that the ordinance was being used to create more opportunities at the expense of less protection to property owners who rely on the safety and assurance of the requirements of the law. I became more involved again when, on the 'property adjacent and south of the above discussed prop,erty, a "use variance" was filed to allow a professional office to be started. I again appeared at the hearing before the Ea;rd and requested that the five criteria, required by State and City law, be discussed, since the applicant had offered almost no comments to cover some of these criteria, and other of the criteria had not been addressed at all. The Board specifically stated that they would not entertain such discussion, and that they knew what they needed to hear to make a decision. Again, the decision was made in favor of the applicant and the citizens were faced with a decision to spend more money or to give up! The "give up" decision was made, and I feel it is an example of the type of situation which breeds apathy and hopelessness amoung the citizens towards the City government. I would like to say that this is an incredible situation also, but it is all too be1 ievable. I have enclosed a copy of the five criteria for your review. Following this case, I was so concerned, that I made a plan to talk (in order) to the City Manager, the City P!anner, the Zoning Board Chairman, the Planning Commission, and finally the City Council to express my views and offer some suggestionsto change the situation. I was particularly concerned with the precedent nature of the Board's continued action. I have since talked to the Manager and the Planner, and when talking to Jane, I learned of the Transitional District proposal. Since Transitional District February 26, 1985 studying the proposal, I have decided to appeal directly to your Commission on this entire issue. I understand that the Transitional District is an attempt to deal with the variance problems described above. While I feel that the Transitional District seems to make some sense on the surface, it doesn't confront the real issue. It is like giving new door locks to all the residents, rather than making any attempt to apprehend a known burglar who always breaks in through the window! The Transikional District will only make it easier to put light commercial uses in the middle of a residential zone, and will do nothing to prevent further "use variances" of any type in these areas. Furthermore, the zone encourages disorderly encroachment of commercial uses in the limited neighborhoods left in the older part of the City, and paves the way for full commercial zones in the future. "Commercial encroachment" should sound familiar. I refer to page 3 of the most recent Comprehensive Plan for the City. The second paragraph from the bottom refers to "The Williston Road Area", and states "Most of the older South Burlington residential neighborhoods are located in the Williston Road area, and ~.t~~s~~u~~Lnf~nti~~~to~e~otect~~xi~tLn~~~~i~~~~ch~~d~ from commgrcial-encroachment ............. These homes ... are refuges for the City's long time residents as well as areas a where some reasonably priced starter homes come on the market for young families". The ~ransitional District and the Zoning Ooard's actions fly directly in the face of this introil?.tctory I+-nguage of the Plan, and the Plan seems sound on the point. A loo!: at the laAd use map for the City will show that the residential neighborhoods to the north, south and directly along Williston Road comprise the largest single contiguous area of residential land in the City. (I realize that the Transitional District applies to more than Williston Road, but I focus on this neighborhood and this section of the Plan, since I am most f~tmiliar with my own locale.) Ra the Zoning Roard should not render decisions which are incoilsictent with the law and the normal due process of such a case, the Planning Commission should not entertain a proposal which is so cl~arly contrary to the Plan. The process for consideration of such a zoning change should start with the Plan, and if the Commission feels strongly enough to pursue this Transitional District, at this time, a Plan amendment should be considered first. The Zoning Ordinance is only one of many possible tools to implement the Plan and it my3t be responsive to the Plan. It is all too easy to focus narrowly on a single issue which will affect a relatively small part of the City or a small number of people, without considering the comprehensive effect. It seems that too many of our specific zoning decisions are effectively made by vote of the few individuals involved, rather than on the broader issues on Transitional District 3 February 26, 1485 which all zoning decisions should be made.' Your 2/12 meeting minutes reference this very type of issue when they refer to a decision to include a parcel in the Transitional District proposal based soley on whether that land owner wanted to be included or not. With regard to the specific proposed language of the draft, I have the following comments: 1. In section I, how will this district provide "protection", when the Board can still approve variances just as they do today? What is the purpose of "offering an alternative to owners of small residential lots"? How will this "not significantly change the character of of the area" when commercial businesses are operated in a residential zone. 2. In section 111, why not put some specific limitations on these uses so as not to give the Zoning Board such control, and to give a more clear indication of what really is intended to be permitted? For example, limit the square footage of the building, or number of employees, or number of cars. 3. In section lV.a., I don't understand the second sentence. 4. In section TV. b., I again suggest that sump 1 imits be stated. For example, I feel that even a home occupation may adverr~ly affect the character of a neighborhood to zpme degree. To what degree does a new use have to adversely affect the "essential character of the neighborhood" to be unacceptable? In the same section, I am totaly confused by the reference to property values. I thought that part of the basis of this proposal was to permit new uses for properties which have alledg~dly been decreased in value because of encroaching commercial uses. Haw can you start with the premise that commercial uses have depreciated adjoining residential property values, and then plan to prohibit new commercial uses if they do the same thing? 5. Section 1V.c. should be more specific. 6. I don't understand 1V.d. or e.. 7. The section between IV and V referring to specific standards should be specific. Some minimums should be set. What is a minimum adequate distance between a day care center and an adjacent single family home? Transitional District February 26, 1985 The variance issue is difficult, at the least. However, the criteria required in South Burlington are the same or similar to the criteria used in most zoning ordinances. These criteria, in fact, are found in the type of model laws which have been developed since the first model zoning law, at the national level, in 1927. Other communities have dealt with this 'same issue. I have personal experience in writing and adminisitering a zoning ordinance that dealt directly with the issue: First, we prohibited the consideration of "use variances". The thought was that the if the City Council made the Griginal decision as to the zoning of each piece of land, then if a change in use not otherwise permitted by the ordinance was requested for even a single small lot, it was important enough, and the consequences were significant enough, that this was not a simple variance, or a minor deviation from the intended zoning, but an important enough change, that the process should follow z~~rrd~r_d~.~ccr-e~~d~criter~~~for_~_a~~:ez.~n_i~q , not a variance, and that the forum for tho discussion should involve the Planning Conmission z.nd the Council, not the Board. This standard rezoning criteria is basically a review of consi:jte~icy with the adopted co~pre:>ensive plan. Usually it waald have to be found that either a change in the character of the nr?i5hbarhood had csccured which w3r-r-?.nted a Fl 2.n %.lid .:or-r-.zsponaii ng .?,.me cliznge, or that ther-e lhad sim:>Iy b-en a f~ist1:e in the roning of the parcel in the f it-ct placr?, ;ind that kl,e Plan, crith no chrrig~s, actc!al l y ::uppc.r."cd the rr?zoning. It is interesting to note that the Board's decisions are often refer-red to as rezonings rather than variances, and it would make sense to treat them as ruch. qcec ~ - ~ . , ';tie zaninq cv-dinance v:as 4-rritt~n to allow many of the petty variances which cone before the So. Burlington Baard now. This allowance could provide for solike review (if actual design, and could allow for requireinents to be set by the Commission in grantillg a permi t. Finally, the Zoning Board was set free to deal with really unusual variance issups which the basic five criteria are really intanded to jddr-ass. In fact, if you look at the variance criteria, you can see that at least some do not apply to a "use variance" or a simple property line setback variance anyway. I believe the variance criteria are really intended for someone one suffers from a specific requirement that treats that person in a restrictive manner, that was not intended by the ordinance, and that treats that person unfairly, compared Transitional District February 26, 1Y85 to the way the same requirement treats most others. The variance proceedure should not be open to those who have no hardship, but wish only to further their own profit. I also believe that p variance should only change the degree of something which is permitted, such as allowing a smaller setback than normally required. I don't believe a variance should be used to actually permit something that is clearly prohibited, such as a specific use. Isn't it still possible to cuntact the AFR's Planning Advisory Service and request some information on how other communities have coped with the same issue? In conclusion, the most overriding, bothersome issue on variances is that the City has a law on the books which is understood, but which is knowingly not followed. While I don't agree. with the Board's handling of use variances, I appreciate the difficulty that the Poard faces in trying to deal with some simple and deserving requests for a variance without a reasonable basis in the law to a1lor.r a favorable and legal finding. However, this issue needs to be confro~ited by eitlier following the law or chanqing the lcw. I Cavor changing the - 1 rw. .. If, on tlie other hand, the law is nnt ch?.riqr?d, I f.;vor ilisistinq that the Poarrcl oeinbcrs fol 1oi.i the law, and if they don't, th~y should be replaced,. as provided for hy the 1z.w. !?+y=~r-di ng t.he Tr-;;nr,i ti onal Di ntr-ict, I ~lijn't l~r~l i:-?l.'* t.ht tlii .; is a step in th~ I-ight dir-c!rrl:icn, !jut if you i-rir;h Co !~rtis:\;~?-l, I ret:cinr::c-nd that a :'Ian a~?:~?r)rj,-,c~~t 12;. jjr.i./713-:,ed f ikst. Th,? r:r2r-r <?t:t pr-ucess wi 11 be followed, arid it i.,i 11 ilien be clear.1 y understood that the proposal is in conflict,with the current plan, and Chat the issue d~serves the attention of the cfitiru City and not jirst tlie neiqhborhoods r.:l>=re it is pr-opused. Finally, ple.'~.e cuid;.r-stand that Cl-,c?_;i. c,-~!.!tn:?fits ;:..r-~ ;i,y !!:!j_r!i.~~g2 on1 y, and that I intend no malice toward any individuals involved in the planning and zoning process in the City. My comments are offered out of si~lcere coriccr-n for tlie welfare of the City, and they are intended as constr-uctive suygestions on a difficult issue. C David W. Boehm 26 Elsom Parkway SO. Burlington, Vermont 05401 copies to: City Council Nembers, City Manager, City Planner, Zoning Board Transitional Pistrict February 26, 1985