Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/04/1985CITY COUNCIL 4 NOVEMBER 1985 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 4 November 1985, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, George Mona, Francis Murray, Leona Lansing Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; David Boehm, Fred Blais, Donald Graf, Alex Guyette, Daniel King, James Thibault, Zoning Board; Mary-Barbara Maher, William Burgess, Planning Commission; James Goddette, Fire Chief; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Barbara Thompson, J. R. Thompson, Byron Hills, Louis Calarco, Jim Goodrum, Paul Godard, Hugh Marvin Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to items on the agenda) No issues were raised. PUBLIC HEARING: Zone change residential (R-4) to Industrial-Commercial of two parcels located at the southeast corner of Williston Rd. and Shunpike Road Mrs. Lafleur explained that other surrounding properties are zoned Industrial-Commercial. The Planning Commission approved the request unanimously and no neighbors have raised any objections. The properties are owned by the Hills and Thompson families. Mr. Farrar asked if there were any proposals for development of either property. Mrs. Lafleur said she hasn't heard of any. Mr. Godard of #4 Shunpike Rd. said he has no objection but questioned what would happen if the vacant lot next to him were developed how close to his house would an industrial-commercial building be. Mr. Ward said the set-back requirement is a 65 foot buffer. Mrs. Lafleur added that at the site plan review, Mr. Godard could request any additional buffer he might wish. Mr. Mona said the Planning Commission has been very concerned with screening between residential and commercial uses. Mr. Farrar added that the City Council doesn't control that. Mr. Flaherty moved that based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission the properties at 3065 and 3069 Williston Road from R-4 to Industrial Commercial. Ms. Lansing seconded and the motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Revised Comprehensive Plan Mr. Farrar noted that the state requires the Comprehensive Plan to be updated every five years. Mrs. Lafleur added that the Council can make changes in the proposed plan, but if these are substantial changes, a new Public Hearing would be required. The old plan expires 17 November. The Council could adopt the proposed plan and then amend it or could delay adoption and operate without a plan for a very short period of time. The problem with the latter is that in the absence of a city plan, the regional plan would be in force and all Act 250 items, for example, would be subject to the regional plan. Mr. Farrar said that this meant there was no way to make substantial changes without going past the November 17 date. Mrs. Lafleur then summarized the changes in the proposed plan as follows: Introduction: reference to the traffic problem on Shelburne Rd. has been added (p. 9). Also, on p. 12, the transitional zone on Dorset Street is set forth. The Population section (Chapter 4) has been updated. In the Housing section (Chapter 5), there is a recommendation for providing affordable housing (p. 34) There is also (p.36) a strong recommendation for stronger building, plumbing, electrical and fire codes In the Natural Resource chapter, the committee included information from an older plan indicating what the City's Natural resources are. The Recreation chapter (7) updates data, provides a list of parks and trails. On p. 56, the annual appropriation for open space is mentioned and on p. 59 a recommendation is made to increase that figure from $18,000 to $25,000. A ballot item is recommended to all for development not only procurement of land on an "initial expense" basis (in other words, for the building of basketball courts but not the running of the basketball program) The Aesthetics chapter (8) which used to be all text, now contains recommendations. The most significant addition is the recommendation for the Dorset Street/City Center concept. The Transportation chapter (9) has been updated and stresses the Shelburne Road traffic problem. Chapter 10, Economic Development has been updated. The School chapter (11) has been reviewed by the School Board and does include the need for a new school site at some point in the Southeast Quadrant. The Public Utilities and Services chapter (12) has been updated. Recommendations include new landfill sites, acquisition of land for a fire sub-station, a sewer allocation plan to monitor future development, remedial action on the Bartlett Bay watershed problem, and alternate sites for sludge disposal. Mr. Murray asked if the Bartlett Bay problem hasn't already been addressed by having developers that care of the erosion they cause. Mrs. Lafleur said this is true and that an outside consultant is being used and on-site water retention is being employed. However, existing problems are not getting any better. Mr. Murray asked if it's possible to go back to older developers. Mrs. Lafleur said no, unless they come back for additions or changes. Mrs. Maher added the Planning Commission has no legal right to do that. Mr. Murray asked if the Commission has sought advice from legal counsel. Mrs. Maher said no. The chapter on the Southeast Quadrant (13) contains the most important discussion and recommendations. Mr. Murray asked what was included in "support services" on p. 116. Mrs. Lafleur said a "mom and pop" type store. The section also recommends a new fire sub-station. The Development-Management Policy (14) sets priorities for making planning decisions, including reserving land for east-west connector streets. Mr. Calarco raised a questioned on "protection of neighborhoods" (p. 35). He said that he lives on Laurel Hill Drive and recently the vt. Credit Union building has allowed the next door motel to park large trucks in their lot adjacent to his house. The trucks often run all night or start up at all hours. Mr. Ward said they are in conformance and there is nothing that can be done. Mrs. Maher said that Mr. Premo is a good person to deal with. Mr. Szymanski said he had spoken with Mr. Premo. Mrs. Lafleur said that part of the approval motion was a stipulation that trucks not be parked against the fence by Mr. Calarco's house. That part can be enforced. Members then debated whether or not to approve the Plan or to delay approval until they can review it thoroughly. Ms. Lansing moved that the Council accept the 1985 Comprehensive Plan as presented by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray voting against. Meet with Zoning Board to discuss appeal procedures Mr. Farrar acknowledged the Council probably did the Zoning Board a disfavor on the Dorset Street variance and probably should have send a letter indicating concern. Mr. Murray stressed that there was no way the Council wanted a conditional use granted unless lots were combined. He felt that to grant a variance in that case was not justified under the criteria. He said there is a difference of opinion between the Council and Zoning Board as to how to view variances. The Zoning Board feels there is room to apply a reasonable approach. The Council feels the 5 criteria are not always applied with vigilance. Mr. Mona felt the Zoning Board was operating in a bit of a vacuum to grand a variance right after a zoning change. Mr. Blais noted they get no City Council or Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Farrar said that situation will be remedied. Mr. Blais noted they are not always a unified Board. Mr. Boehm has created good dialogue. They have met with legal counsel to get guidance with problems. They view "use" variances as most difficult to obtain. Small dimensional variances get more tolerance. They considered Dorset Street a dimensional variance. Mr. Murray said if the Zoning Ordinance is to mean anything in the city, you have to apply the 5 criteria, and findings have to be in compliance. The Vermont Supreme Court has been very conservative in applying those criteria. He continued that if you grant variances on the reasonable approach, it become a situation where people cannot rely on protection from the Zoning Ordinance and are ruled by men and not by laws. Mr. Farrar felt there has to be some reasonable approach, but felt those things have to be very narrow. He said the Council's hope had been to incorporate a transitional zone where there were problems to solve where the Zoning Ordinance didn't fit reality, and the Zoning Board's action may have negated that. He said that in places such as Mayfair Park, where lots are narrower than allowed (since they predated the ordinance) and people cannot achieve what they need with their lots...these are cases where it is reasonable for the Board to look at dimensional requirements and say there is a hardship. Mr. Boehm added that Section 18.110 of the Ordinance allows provisions for such lots and in those cases the Board would not be restricted to the 5 criteria. Mrs. Lafleur said she checked with the City Attorney to see if Section 18.110 applied in the Transitional Zone issue, and the attorney said it was for permitted uses only. Mr. Blais said that the dilemma they find themselves in is are they really and truly to evaluate the backyard pool that needs a few feet to get in or a few feet for an additional room for a growning family without using common sense in terms of social reality. Mr. Flaherty said if the Council is constantly looking of the shoulders of the people it appoints, they can't do their job. Mr. Murray said the Board is responsible to the Council, and if the Council feels it is not acting in conformance with the law, the Council has to act. Mr. Farrar said the reason for zoning is to protect the kind of neighborhoods people live in, and the Dorset Street transitional zoning was to allow a change to take place in a very controlled manner. Mr. Blais cited the case of the fire station variance and said the same kind of judgment call had been made there. A literal interpretation of the law would have necessitated a "no" decision, but he felt the end result was proper. Mr. Boehm said he felt there is some way to address the minor dimensional changes without going to the variance procedure. Mr. Farrar said if Mr. Boehm has a specific proposal, the Council would like to see it. Mr. Boehm said the use variance is more serious and that Dick Spokes aid there are very few cases where a use variance would meet the 5 criteria; the same is true of subdivision variances. He felt the Ordinance protects people who don't come to hearings to speak out, and that the real bottom line is that the impact of what the Board is doing falls on people whom the Zoning Ordinance should be protecting and is not. Mr. Guyette said that if the Board followed the law specifically there would be no need for a Zoning Board. Mr. Boehm replied that if the Board used only its reasonable judgment, there would be no need for a Zoning Ordinance. He added that he felt frustrated that in cases he had asked for the 5 criteria to be discussed and they haven't even been discussed. He felt this was a serious breach of responsibility and the law. Mr. Farrar concluded that if there are ways the Council can fix the Zoning Ordinance, they owe it to the Zoning Board to do so. Sign Fire Department Sub-station lot Agreement Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council empower the City Manager to sign the fire department sub-station lot agreement. Ms. Lansing seconded. Mr. Murray said he didn't feel the agreement should be signed as it creates a double standard. He added that there may also have been an overstatement as far as need is concerned. He said it had been called to the Council's attention that it was taking 15 minutes to get from here to the south end of town. He said the average is more like 7 minutes, with the longest time about 10 minutes. He stressed that once you apply the 5 criteria rule, you should apply it equally and fairly and should take advantage of the position of being the City. Mr. Flaherty noted that traffic is increasing, and if the City doesn't plan now, four years from now there will be no station when it is needed. He added that you have to give money where it will do the most good. Not signing the agreement could cost everyone in the city $4.00. Mr. Murray replied that you can't bend the rules because it will cost people more money. That creates a double standard. Mr. Mona said he felt the need for the station had been demonstrated sufficiently for him. Mr. Murray said he felt a station could be placed somewhere between the proposed location and the southeast quadrant. Mr. Farrar said the Council would be signing an agreement to buy a parcel of land which in the future would allow it to build a fire station there. If the station isn't build, the land could be sold back to the current owner or, if he doesn't want it, be sold to someone else. The Council would only be deciding whether to keep open the option to build a fire station there, and he felt it reasonable to preserve that option at that price. Mr. Murray said he felt the Council would be making a decision to build the station, otherwise why did they need the variance. Mr. Farrar said that it was needed in order to convey the deed, not to purchase the land. He felt Mr. Murray's argument was cogent and that consistence is important. In the vote which followed, the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Murray voting against. Review and approve amendment to the Police Union contract Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council approve the amendment to the Police Union contract. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Report on meeting with interested parties on Shelburne Rd. traffic and on Williston Rd (at Gaynes) utilities. Mr. Murray said that with respect to Shelburne Rd, it seems that everyone wants a solution but not on their property. More analysis is needed and another meeting has been set. Ms. Lansing added that the MPO is taking a look at the problem as well. Mr. Szymanski reported that the utilities wouldn't budge on their price of $109,000 to put utilities underground, so it appears that issue is settled and he will inform the State officially tomorrow that utilities go above ground. Review Zoning Agenda Ms. Lansing raised the question of a proposed small engine show at 10 Maplewood and noted that's strictly a residential area. The Council agreed to transmit its concerns to the Board. Mr. Flaherty added that to be consistent, a letter should be sent regarding the proposed gas station on Dorset St. Members agreed. Sign Disbursement Orders There were no disbursement orders. Review Minutes of 28 October 1985 Mr. Flaherty moved that the Minutes of 28 October 1985 be approved as written. Mr. Murray seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Other Business Mr. Farrar said he met with the Secretary of Transportation and others on the proposed Interchange. Priorities include Exit 13. It will be stressed that the design not impact anything on this side of Dorset Street. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council Meet as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Lansing seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a request for a first class license for Perry's Fish House on Shelburne Rd. He said there were not problems with the request. Mr. Murray moved that the Board approve the first class liquor license request for Perry's Fish House as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Mona seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Members agreed to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, 12 November at 7:00 pm. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.