Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/10/1988CITY COUNCIL 10 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, 10 May 1988, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, George Mona, Francis X. Murray Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Jane Lafleur, City Planner; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; John Dinklage, Zoning Board; Mary-Barbara Maher, Peter Jacob, John Belter, Judith Hurd, Ann Pugh, William Burgess, Catherine Peacock, Planning Commission; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Robert Hoehl, Leslie Linton, Ray Unsworth, Victor Ratkus, Ann Ratkus, Carol Chase, Robert Cooper, Cathy Doyle, Len Tashman, Diane Farnum, Bernard Hussel, Leo Roskowitz, Nancy Walsh, Karen Jacobs, Richard Chase, James Maher, Collette Oseroski, Dennis Blodgett, Lance Llewellyn, Sid Poger, Other Paper & Mike Donoghue, Burlington Free Press. Continuation of PUBLIC HEARING on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl for the construction of a single-family home within the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farrar advised this meeting was to consider the specific application of the Hoehls, not to discuss the zoning of the piece of land. The Planning Commission was asked to be present because this discussion might be valuable to them when them make their deliberations about the zoning. Mr. Farrar asked the applicant if he had anything new to add. Mr. Hoehl noted the measuring was correct for the positioning of the house. Mr. Farrar explained that the Interim Zoning Ordinance was put in place to give the Council and Planning Commission time to look at the problem. An overlook had been acquired by the City and construction could take place that would reduce the views from that overlook and would also change the character of the view from Spear Street. The question is whether the proposal that has been made is compatible with the overlook as the City intends to preserve and use it. If it is not, what modification would the Council suggest to improve it. Mr. Mona said on the recent site visit, the comment was made that the applicant could have sited the house 2/3 of the way down the hill and not be in the way of the view. Mr. Mona said he found this is more objectionable than the present sitting from the point of view of the overlook. He would not want the house at the lower end of the lot. He did suggest sitting the house 10 feet further east and 10 feet further north as a more desirable location. Mr. Murray moved that the City Council issue a permit to Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl for construction of their house with the condition as Mr. Hoehl agreed to last Wednesday night that the house be moved ten feet to the north and ten feet to the east. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. Mrs. Maher asked what this motion would do. Mr. Farrar said that from his perspective, if he stood at the overlook, the house would be in such a position he would not see it if he were looking at the lake. He then demonstrated this on the posted plan. Mr. Hoehl said he would be willing to grant a view variance guarantee from the overlook parking area. Leon Roskowitz a resident at the Overlook condos, said he was concerned with the view from Spear Street. Nancy Walsh said she is very concerned about keeping the last panoramic view for everyone. She said she is sympathetic with the property owner but felt he should build further down. A house on Spear St. blocks the view and she felt the whole panorama should be saved. Mr. Hoehl said at the time of subdivision this was considered. There is a road easement at the bottom of the land. Mr. Ratkus added there is 100 acres across the road for sale. Ms. Walsh said it is not a question of money. Mr. Dinklage said all the city bodies had dropped the ball on protecting the view from Spear St. He didn't feel, however, that it was too late. He said he was at the overlook on Wednesday and differed with the motion. He felt it was more important to protect the view from both the overlook and from Spear St. He felt placing the house further down would be preferable. He said it could be possible to allow the owner to use his property and still allow preservation of this valuable natural resource. Mrs. Lambert said she feared if the Council acted too hastily, they may not have looked at every option. Ms. Chase said she was concerned that a precedent would be set for exceptions to interim zoning. The fact that the law exists protects the owners as well as everyone else. Mr. Cooper, owner of the adjacent parcel, said he had owned his land longer than the Hoehls and felt interim zoning did not take into account the property owners. He said he has paid taxes and also paid to put in sewers. He added they didn't know if they were protected from future development of the University property. Mrs. Ratkus said they bought the schoolhouse lot and noted they had to agree to height restrictions. She asked how others would feel in their position. Mr. Unsworth said he sympathized with everyone but stressed that once that view is gone, it is gone forever. It is something that everyone going up and down Spear Street enjoys and is an asset that should be protected. He also felt nothing should be taken away from the property owners. He felt if the Council took its time to make a decision and didn't rush into something, they would have time to come up with a solution to satisfy everyone. If the town makes property less valuable to preserve it for the good of the community, the owners should be compensated for this. Cathy Doyle commented that she used to go to the overlook to see the vista, but she doesn't go anymore because the view is marred by the house already there. She felt it important to preserve the land further north. She did not feel people would go to the overlook because the view is already spoiled. Mr. Hoehl said he did not agree and has seen people parked there. He said the view is incredible from the overlook though it is not what it used to be. He added he felt the compromise was made at subdivision time when views were protected from the overlook. The City got that land for nothing; the same is true of the easement. He felt if he had to move his house to the lower part of the lot he would not be protected from what might happen at the horticultural farm. In addition, he could build only a one story house on the lower part of the land. Mr. Tashman said he has lived in S. Burlington 20 years. He asked the Council to consider the broader view of what the overlook is. He recalled many people stopping, parking, and taking pictures of the scenic vista. He felt the citizens have naturally defined the overlook district. He said it was a heartbreak to see the house that is there rising like a tumor on the land. The Hoehl property would further desecrate the view. He expressed disappointment that the Council let the Jameson house go up and felt they should take steps not to add to the desecration. Mr. Tashman cited an editorial in the Free Press as representative of the citizens' views. Diane Farnum said she has no vested interest in this property but did appreciate the view. She was concerned about stepping on the toes of landowners and felt there needs to be some intimate discussion with landowners. She felt the Jameson house is a travesty. Mrs. Lambert said that is what interim zoning is about, a 6 month period in which to consider every angle. Mr. Hussel said he has no property there but agreed with Mrs. Farnum and was concerned about protecting the views as well. He asked why the City couldn't buy the land across the street and put a road up there for enjoyment of the views. Mr. Dinklage agreed with Mrs. Lambert about the concept of interim zoning as a chance to pause and assess changes happening too rapidly. He asked the Council to turn down the Hoehl appeal at this time to further study the issue and get input from the Planning Commission and the community. Mr. Roskowitz said he can relate to landowners, but this is a minimum amount of people versus tens of thousands who enjoy the views. He felt there should be a compromise but that the view should be protected for everyone. Ms. Walsh noted there is still time (5 months) left in interim zoning. Mr. Farrar said this could be extended up to 2 years if there were a reason to do that, such as a study being done. He said alternatives include legal action which might result in the City paying damages. Mrs. Maher asked if Mr. Farrar was saying the Council might make a decision based on fear of legal action. Mr. Farrar said no, he was just stating the possibility. Mr. Mona said he felt if the Council took action tonight, either to approve or disapprove, they might be acting in haste and recommended not rushing into the matter. Mr. Stitzel said the Statute does not give a time limit in which the Council has to act. He felt the timeframes outlined for the Zoning Board might indicate a reasonable period. Ms. Linton, attorney for the Hoehls, said the law does not give the Council 6 months to hold up the Hoehls. She felt not acting tonight would, in fact, be acting. Ms. Lambert said no hearings have been held on this. Since the 1976 subdivision, South Burlington has changed dramatically. She disputed the notion that not acting tonight would be a denial. Ms. Linton said Mr. Hoehl's children want to know where they will be going to school in the fall. Mrs. Lambert said South Burlington would welcome them. Mrs. Linton said everyone agrees this is a lovely view. Mr. Hoehl is not putting up a string of condos, just his house. She said the Council's choice is to site the house in a position that will benefit the public. She agreed the Jameson house sitting is horrible. Mrs. Lambert said what she is asking is to wait and not let it happen again. She felt the Council could not be driven by Mr. Hoehl's timetable. Mr. Flaherty said the City has a 2 acre overlook and felt the proposed citing of the house would protect views from the overlook. The question is whether Spear St. views can be protected as well. Mrs. Lambert said waiting may produce a solution that is not apparent now. Mr. Hoehl said waiting would cost him money. Mr. Mona stressed the Council is trying to balance all interests involved and felt there should be no action tonight. Mr. Murray said he made the motion and he supports it. It is not, he stressed, a black and white decision. He felt the community is judged on how it treats individuals as well as the whole community. This application is part of a process that began 10 years ago. He was aware the City could have preserved the view by paying for it. The lots were very expensive, and the community has limited resources. He said he hates to see the view go but felt the Council has to be fair and decent to Mr. Hoehl. He added if he had a sense there was anything the Council could come up with as a possible solution that would be fair to Mr. Hoehl, he would support a delay. Mrs. Lambert stressed the Council hasn't talked with the Planning Commission or with the State. Mr. Murray agreed there should have been more in place to prevent the Jameson house, and he wanted to protect the view from the overlook. A citizen emphasized there are people who don't own property, people who aren't even born yet, and he felt someone has to represent them as well. Mr. Tashman said he was disappointed with Mr. Murray's view. He felt there are amenity rights to be upheld and questions to be answered. If there is even a small chance of protecting the community from another eyesore, that chance should be taken. He said he would feel better if his elected officials have done all their homework and considered every angle, even if the community loses. Mr. Murray said he will not feel easy about his decision for a long time, but he would stand by it. A citizen stressed that the City Council is supposed to represent all citizens of South Burlington and has a responsibility to do what is right for the community, even if it costs the community money. He said the Council is responsible for the abomination that now blocks the view, Mr. Flaherty responded that he felt the Council was protecting the greater part of the view. Mrs. Maher said she is concerned there will be further requests for other variances. Mr. Farrar said it is a question of protecting the view from the City's overlook or from Spear St. or both. He said the only way to do this completely is to buy the lot and several others. Mr. Dinklage said he felt a very legitimate use of legislative authority is not only to consider the details of the proposed zone, but also to form other alternatives which could include buying this piece of property. He felt the public might be willing to purchase the property if it were put to a vote. Nancy Walsh felt houses can be blended into a landscape so as not to be obtrusive. Ms. Jacobs said this is a critical issue brought about by a lack of vision previously. Mr. Tashman asked if this request is approved, will others follow. Mr. Murray said it was his sense they would. This is, he acknowledged, a very serious decision as far as other lots are concerned. Mr. Chase said that is why he finds it incomprehensible that Mr. Murray wants to rush into a decision tonight. He said there are opportunities the Council is not aware of and if they act now, they act for all time; if a mistake is made now, it is made for all time. He stressed the cost of time to Mr. Hoehl is far outweighed by the cost to the community. Another citizen noted the community has ideas and no one has asked them. People are angry about the Jameson house and feel the Council should have foreseen it happening. He said if the Council doesn't want to come up with options, the community would do it for them. Mr. Murray said he still felt the individual's rights are paramount because of the history of the matter. Mrs. Maher stated the Council has a responsibility for generations to come. She urged them not to vote for the motion and added it was a sad night for her because she could see where it was leading. Mr. Dinklage suggested laying out in general language a charge to the Planning Commission to hold hearings on the details of the Ordinance, including site angles; also to contract with a landscape architect for further input and to form a citizens' committee to come back in 45 days with specific recommendations. Mr. Mona moved to table the motion for, 60 days so the City Council can gather information from the Planning Commission, property owners and other residents of the City regarding this application. Mrs. Lambert seconded. A recess was called at this point to allow the Council to confer with the City's legal counsel. Councilman Michael Flaherty made the motion to go into Executive Session at 9:15 PM, seconded by Councilman George Mona, all in favor. The Council came out of Executive Session at 9:35 PM and by motion of Mr. Flaherty reconvened the Regular Session, seconded by Mr. Murray. Mr. Mona withdrew his previous motion to table, the withdrawal was seconded by Mrs. Lambert. Mr. Mona then moved to table the action on this application until May 23, 1988, so that the Council could receive additional written evidence from parties that may wish to present such evidence concerning this application. Such evidence to be received by the City Manager's Office by the close of the business day May 19, 1988. Seconded by Mrs. Lambert. All voted. Mr. Mona, Mrs. Lambert & Mr. Farrar in favor. Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Murray opposed. There was no further business to come before the board. Mr. Mona made the motion to adjourn at 9:45 PM, seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.