Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 12/14/1988CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a Special Meeting on Wednesday, December 14, 1988 at 7:30 PM in the upstairs Conference Room of the City Hall on Dorset Street. Members Present: Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, John Dinklage, William Cimonetti. Others Present: William Szymanski, City Manager; Steve Stitzel, City Attorney; Robert & Cynthia Hoehl. Chairman Paul Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM and asked if there were any items to be added to the Agenda. Without opposition the following items were added: (1) John Dinklage - Salary survey for top positions in City government (2) Mike Flaherty - Report on progress in hiring a new City Manager. John Dinklage made the motion to go into Executive Session to review and discuss, with the City Attorney Steve Stitzel, the course of action in the recent Court Decision in the Hoehl House Building Permit on Spear Street. Motion seconded by Molly Lambert, all voted in favor. Upon motion of Bill Cimonetti and seconded by John Dinklage the Regular Session resumed at 9:00 PM. Regular Session: The following action was taken regarding the recent Hoehl House Building Permit Court Decision. (A copy of this decision is attached to these Minutes). (1) Mike Flaherty moved that the City Council request statements from the parties regarding the status of the previously granted approval as a result of this Court remand, including arguments as to whether the previously granted permit should be invalidated. These statements shall be submitted to the City Manager by 12:00 noon on December 21, 1988, motion seconded by John Dinklage. Bob Hoehl asked for an explanation to the motion, which Steve explained. Paul Farrar, Molly Lambert, John Dinklage, Mike Flaherty voted in the affirmative. Bill Cimonetti abstained. (2) Mike Flaherty moved that the City Council request statements by the parties as to whether there is new evidence such that the Hearing should be reopened, and whether there would be any objection by any party if the Hearing were reopened. Also, that these statements be in the office of the City Manager by 12:00 noon on December 21, 1988. Motion seconded by John Dinklage, there was no discussion and Chairman Farrar called for a vote. All voted in the affirmative, except Bill Cimonetti, who abstained. (3) Mike Flaherty moved that the City Council requests statements from the parties as to whether any of them object to Bill Cimonetti taking part in the proceedings, if he listens to all the tapes of the previous meetings and reviews the evidence presented at these meetings. These statements shall be submitted to the City Manager by 12:00 noon on December 21, 1988. John Dinklage seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and Chairman Farrar called for a vote. All voted in the affirmative, except Bill Cimonetti who abstained. Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl stated, they were confused by the Court process to date and Steve proceeded to explain the process. John Dinklage requested that a salary survey of City Department Head salaries, including those of the Planner and Zoning Administrator, be prepared and that data include comparable Cities of the Northeast. Bill Cimonetti requested that this be done by budget preparation time. Mike Flaherty proceeded to update the Council on the progress of the City Manager Selection Committee stating that the Committee received about 80 applications and those were narrowed down to 29. Each Committee member is now reviewing these 29 and each will come up with about 6 of their choice. The entire Committee will then meet and agree on about 6 to 10 to invite for an interview. These interviews will start in January. After the interviews the Committee will recommend 3 or 4 to the Council. That is expected around the end of February or the first of March. Molly Lambert moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mike Flaherty, all voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. . i LAW OFFICES . ,, . . . . ..: . ,;... . . -, SESSIONS. KEINER. DUMONT & BARNES WILLIAM K. SESSIONS. III 72 COURT STREET ROBERT P. KEINLR MIDOLEBURY. VERMONT 05753 JAMES A. OUMONT (802) 368-4906 BONNIE BARNES J. CHRISTOPHER FRAPPIER SANDRA W. EVERITT LEGAL ASSISTANT Hon. David Jenkins - -- Superior Judge CMttenden-Superior -Court--*-. - - -.- - - - Box 189 Re: Hoehl Docket NO. S768-88CnC Dear Judge Jenkins: McNEIL, MURRAY & XIRRELL, INC. /O.'OO + On December 2, 1988 copies of the enclosed proposed Order were hand-delivered to Leslie Linton, Esa. and Steve - Stitzel, Esq. We withdraw without prejudice all our claims for relief except the Rule 75 claim. We do this to expedite this matter, as dishrased at the conference held on December 1st. Since these were hand-delivered on December 2, 1988, the 1 Order will be ripe for signing, if you choose to do so, on FSfdap)Decernber 9, 1988. L.. hrmont, Esq. Dulaant C Barnes Encl. 1 CC: Leslie Linton, Esg. Steve Stitzel, Esq. STATE OF VERMONT I. CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. IN RE: APPLICATION OF - . - . . , . . .. . . . . - 1 $ CYNTHIA-and - ROBERT.-HOEHL * ..).---CHITTENDEN .SUPERIOR COURT - 1 DOCKET NO. S768-88CnC ORDER Based upon the Memorandum and Notice of Decision entered on November 23, 1988 in this matter, and upon : $ plaintiff/appellant's withdrawal without Qrejudice of all claims except the Rule 75 claim, it is hereby ORDERED that the decision of the South Burlington City Council dated June I 14, 1988 in this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATED AT Burlington, Vermont, this - day of , 1988. Aon. David Jenkins Superior Judge SESSIONS. KCINER. DUWOMT .I BAIINnS ncam srnrtr uaomcmu~r. won- CH\TTip:3E:.I COUPiN COURT FILED IN CLESi(S OFFICE kf;'J 2 s;;j;3 STATE OF VERNONT DIANE A. LAVALLEE CHITTENDEN COCNTY, SS CLERK ' IN RE: APPLICATION OF 1 CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT CYNTHIA and ROBERT HOEHL ) ) DOCKET NO. $768-88 CnC * MEMORANDUM AND NOTICE OF DECISION The matter before the court has been determined by this court to be a V.R.C.P. Rule 75 proceeding for reasons stated on the record at the time of this determination. The court deems it to be an appeel in the nature of certiorari from the decision of the South Burlington City Council to issue a conditional permit to Robert and Cynthi~ Hoehl to construct a residence on Spear Street within an area recently subject to an interim zoning by-law as provided by 24 V.S.A. § 4410 in anticipation of a zoning ordinance amend- 1; ! I '1 ment. ! 1 ! / i I! I ! i / The interim zoning by-law was duly adopted on April 4, I 1988, Exhibit B. Ies purpose was to prohibit "inappropria~e // development" that would ". , , adversely affect [. . . orderly I I/ growth1 . , . ~nd substantially impair the 'scenic' 'uniqua' I: )! and 'panoramic' views" available from "Spear Street" and "City 1. i park lands" until a zoning by-law amendmentl could be considered and adopted. The Hoehl's property is in the heart of the area subject to the interim zoning regulations. The Interim Zoning By-law provides: I' . . . 11: Limitations on Structures: No part of any structure within the above-designated Spear Street Scenic Overlook District shall exceed an eleva- tion of 376 feet above mean sea level minus 4.0 feet for each 100 feet that said part of a structure is horizontally distant from the baseline defined below. B. Base Line: The base line referred to in these regula- tions shall commence at the intersection of the pavement for Deerfield Road and Spear Street in the northwesterly quadrant of said intersection and proceed along the westerly edge of the pavemenc of Spear Street in a-northerly direction for 1140 feet. *. * cX 1 i :I 24 V.S.A. $ 4410(d) provides that the legislative body j i may permit any development as a conditional use but only upon a ; I ' (1 finding that the use is "consistent" with the standard to con- // sider significant natural resource arras. \I !I The findings of the City Council fail to indicate that ' ! ! , i I there was any determination that the use was consistent with the standard. The only determination made in this regerd was that the use did not adversely affect the view from the City .! park land. There was no finding concerning the significant naturzl resource Spear Street views. There was no finding or, indeed, little indication that the substantial height of the proposed structure in excess of the zoning requirements was appropriate, reasonable, necessary, or in any way consistent with the scenic natural resource area. There was no finding or, indeed, lirtle indication that the huge mass of the proposed residence of 4,000 square feet living area sited the full 85 feet lengthwise across the lot and blocking the view was appropriate, reasonable, necessary or in any way consistent with the significant nacural resource area. The owners argue that che City Council has wid* discretion in granting conditional uses under an interim zoning by-law. That discretion is not unbridled. The standards must be weighed and considered. Not only must there be a ration61 basis indi- cated but there the basis must relate co the purpose of preserv- ing the significant natural resource as much as reasonably 'i possible under all the circumstances. It does not appear the Council considered all the circum- stances, The findings indicete the focus was solely upon th~? i- Park area and the set-back questions. This is conrrary to the enabling legislation, the permanent zoning, the inrerim zoning, and, it appears, good ~lanning and zoning. The City Council was required to consider relevant factors relating to the significant resource. There can be no doubt that height and mass of the proposal should have been 1 considered. This was not done except to determine the dimensions and require a slight sideways relocation of the building. Thus, critical findings concerning the reasons for the height and mass were not made. Without these necessary findings the determination is inadequate in law and beyond the authority grznted by 44 V.S.A. The proposed structure significantly blocks the view. (Finding 17.) The view from Spear Street is a significant natural resource (Conclusions 3 and Interim Zoning By-law). Height of the building, mass of the building and set-beck are all material factors that need be considered under the statute's criteria of "considering" the scenic natural resource. When such obviotls, critical, and relevant factors are not addressed, the determination is not sufficient. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpd. 915 S.Ct. 814, 825, - 401 U.S. 402. 416 (1971). The City Council Permit was without authority in view of the enabling legislation end the purposes of zoning and planning. y Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 4~ day of November, 1988,