Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/23/1988SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 23 MAY 1988 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 23 May 1988, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Molly Lambert, Francis X. Murray, John Dinklage Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Mary-Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; David Boehm, James Condos, Zoning Board; Albert Audette, Street Dept; William Schuele, Natural Resources Committee; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Lisa Scagliotti, Free Press; Greg & Carol Lothrop, Jamie Smith, Mr. & Mrs. Leppman; Leslie Linton (representing the Hoehls), Bob Hoehl, Cynthia Hoehl, Guy Teschmacher, Geoffrey Fitzgerald, Robert Cooper, Nancy & Robert Boardman, Aaron Stein, Karen Yacob, James A. Dumont (attorney representing citizens), Gregory Brand, Leon Moszkowicz, Marcia Killam, Patricia Day, Stacey & Jerry Johnson, Cheryl Baldwin, Shelley Snyder, Anne Ratkus, Sue Hayes, Debra Sachs, Kevin Dann, Jim Jamieson, Martha Campione, Rich German, Richard Carter, Philip and Diana McArthur, Raun Calan, William & Kathleen Posey, Richard & Carol Chase, Leonard Tashman, Nancy Walsh, Terrence Boyle, N. Hussels, Al Reyes, Bill Wargo, Richard Underwood, Jack Kane, J. H. Sopher, Jim Donohue, Tanise Adams, Phyllis Carr 1. Update on Airport Odor Problem Mr. Szymanski reported he had contacted Jeff Noyes who recommended the ethylene glycol not be cleaned up but be allowed to disperse. Mr. Noyes felt it was not hazardous and there would be no problem with casual contact. Mr. Szymanski also advised there will be a State investigator here this week. The State also feels it is not a problem and will disperse before it gets to major bodies of water. The City of Denver has had a similar problem. They now intercept the airport runoff and take it to a sewage treatment plant. South Burlington's plant is smaller than Denver's and probably couldn't handle the problem. The DuPont people say the chemical is not a hazardous problem. Fish can survive in up to 6,000 parts per million. George Crooks, retired UVM chemistry professor, looked over the information and felt the chemical would disperse. He also felt the area should be cleaned up. Mr. Dinklage asked whether oxygen levels were measured in the runoff. If the levels were low, Mr. Dinklage felt the area could be aerated. Mr. Szymanski said he thought the oxygen levels had been measured. Mr. Farrar noted that Mr. Crooks had felt the problem might have come from incidental impurities in the ethylene glycol not from the chemical itself. Mr. Flaherty advised he had talked to the Airport Commission and the Airport Manager. They are very supportive and have applied for funding to divert the flow providing it will not cause a problem further down. A meeting will be set up with the City Manager and the City's consultants. The ultimate aim is to contain the chemical on the airport grounds. Mr. Lothrop said he had found out that people must wear special clothing to deal with this chemical. Mr. Farrar said if it is at the levels in the report, it is below the danger level. Mr. Lothrop stressed the stream is still not free-flowing which is a problem. Mr. Flaherty suggested that for the next regular Council meeting they find out how long it would take to clean up the area and how much it would cost. Members agreed. 2. Continue Public Hearing on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl for construction of a single-family home within the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farrar began by enumerating the list of submittals received by the City Manager's Office (attached). He also indicated that he would make any rulings that might be required and where possible these would be made immediately. The first verification required was that Mr. Dumont was, in fact, employed by 10 or more citizens of the city and was therefore entitled to represent them at this hearing. Mr. Dumont said he could make such verification. The second item concerned the make-up of the City Council, and Mr. Farrar ruled that newly elected Councilman John Dinklage could sit on this case if he so chose. Mr. Farrar based his decision on advice of legal counsel. Ms. Linton objected to this on behalf of the Hoehls. Mr. Farrar noted that Mr. Dinklage had reviewed all materials and listened to the tapes of the previous hearings. Mr. Dinklage cited State precedents which he had consulted. These precedents indicate a Board does not have to be composed of the same people during hearing which take place over a period of time. He re-affirmed that he had reviewed tapes and had, in fact, attended all meetings of the Council since this matter arose. He was briefed by the City Attorney on matters brought up in Executive Session. Mr. Dinklage added that he has had experience in quasi-judicial matters having served for 8 years on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He had thus made the decision to sit during this hearing and to participate. Ms. Linton said she appreciated Mr. Dinklage's statement but felt he had been an outspoken opponent to Mr. Hoehl's petition at the earlier meetings and she felt it would be hard to switch from advocate to judge. Mr. Dinklage said the opinion he had expressed earlier was that he would like to find a way to protect views from the overlook and from Spear Street, ways that might be reasonable, defensible and affordable. He believed other members of the Council felt the same way. Mr. Farrar then ruled that 3 affirmative votes would be required to pass on a motion. He further ruled that each piece of evidence enumerated was properly submitted. Ms. Linton objected to the requirement of 3 affirmative votes. It is their contention that the application period has expired and the application has thus already been passed. Mr. Dumont asked Ms. Linton when she felt the application period had expired. Ms. Linton chose not to respond to this question. Mr. Farrar then asked the Council if there was any elucidation they wished on the evidence submitted. Mr. Dumont asked whether the applicant had seen the plan submitted by Terry Boyle. Guy Teschmacher, architect for the Hoehls, said the Boyle plan was actually 1-1/2 floors with a basement since the roof cuts out part of the second floor. The original plan was for a basement and 2 full levels on top of that plus an attic on top. Mr. Boyle was then asked to explain his proposal. Mr. Boyle began by noting there is now a 160-170 degree pan-oramic view from Spear Street blocked only by the Jamieson house. He said he had some slides to show his plan. Question arose as to the admissibility of these slides. Mr. Murray said he would like to see all the evidence Mr. Boyle has prepared and felt it was appropriate since Mr. Boyle was a professional in the field. He also felt the Hoehls should be given the chance to rebut the evidence of Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle said his plan was a compromise which may save both views: from the overlook and from Spear St. He first recommended sitting the Hoehl house further down the hill with access from a service road. This, he felt, would provide a similar or better view than the Boardman house now has. It would also conform with the City's zoning plan. He felt the City should buy the upper portion of the lot (and the other 5 lots in the strip) for a park. Mr. Boyle said this is not a new idea but was recommended years ago and has been considered for a long time. He stressed if the opportunity is lost with this application, it will be lost for all the other properties. Mr. Boyle noted that Fred Sargeant had identified this area as "unique" in a catalog of scenic places, and Mr. Boyle felt it important to maintain the foreground for the view. Mr. Dinklage asked whether the Hoehls felt placement of the house in the alternate plan would be a reasonable house and a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Hoehl said he did not. He said he owns a 600 ft. deep lot, and interim zoning would take the better half of his land. He noted the Boardman house is 2200 sq. ft. and his proposal is for a 4,000 sq, ft. house. He noted he has 6 children, and the proposal would not be reasonable for him. Mr. Boyle continued by saying the proposed service road would involve only 1 curb cut on Spear Street and suggested it be a one way street with access from the north end of the street. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Boyle to describe the impact on the view to people who would live in the proposed home (and houses on the other lots) if the homes were moved to the location Mr. Boyle proposes. Mr. Boyle acknowledged the views would be somewhat diminished. The view of the near shoreline would be lost, possibly some of the bay. The far shoreline and the mountains would still be fully in view. Mr. Murray asked whether construction of homes in the valley would tend to interfere with the view of the proposed Spear St. houses. Mr. Boyle said he would need to extend site lines all the way down to determine this, but his feeling was they would not block the view from the Spear St. houses. Mr. Hoehl questioned the location of the pedestrian easement. Mr. Audette said it is right along the fence. The City Attorney confirmed the pedestrian easement is included in the 60 foot easement. Mr. Farrar asked how high is the proposed Hoehl house. The architect said 31 ft. plus chimneys. Mr. Farrar asked how high the house proposed by Mr. Boyle would be. Mr. Boyle said approximately the same. The City Attorney said he felt a foundation had been laid for the slides to be shown. If there was any objection, he felt they would have to recess to a later date to allow rebuttal. The slides were then shown. Mr. Farrar asked whether the houses as proposed by Mr. Boyle have about the same visual impact as the Boardman house has now. Mr. Boyle said just about. The question of homes being built on what is now the UVM Horticultural Farm was raised and whether such homes would block views from the house sites proposed by Mr. Boyle. Mrs. Lambert noted that the Horticultural Farm is also within the interim zoning district and would have to drop down in size. Restrictive covenants could also be imposed. Ms. Linton asked if there were a picture of what the houses Mr. Boyle proposes would look like from the Overlook. Mr. Boyle said the only house in the view line would be the Hoehl house, but he felt it could be screen by plantings. Ms. Linton asked whether the possibility of filling in the Overlook had been considered and how that would improve the view. Mr. Boyle said filling would only cause the Jamieson house to further block the view. Ms. Linton then asked whether anyone had considered the cost to the city of putting in a city street, buying land for a city park site on Spear St. and putting in plantings. Mr. Boyle said he felt that could be pursued further. He stressed this is the last opportunity to enforce a wise interim zoning plan and that the Overlook Park would be of greater benefit if the land at the top of the hill were not compromised. Mr. Hoehl questioned whether the proposal would leave enough footage for a setback from the proposed right of way. Mr. Farrar calculated that it appeared not to. Mr. Dumont then presented a summation on behalf of the citizens he represents. He said that as he has read the interim zoning and Mr. Boyle's evidence, it would not be a ban on construction. He said that every decision by every court in the country has ruled that interim zoning requirements do not represent a "taking" of land from the owner. The Hoehls would still have the right to use their property, develop it, even sell it at a significant profit. Interim zoning, he said, is a compromise, an accommodation, and what the Hoehls are saying is they will not compromise, not accommodate, and will not answer concerns in the public interest. He said that the Hoehls position is that private property rights exclude all legal rights. He said it is not true that zoning and interim zoning does not have to be followed. A zoning board has discretion, but it must follow the zoning. He said the Board could not grant the Hoehl application unless they have been convinced that it is "consistent" with environmental limitations of the site and with preservation of significant natural resources. It is the applicant's burden of proof, and unless he has shown this, the Board cannot make the finding to grant a permit. Mr. Dumont stressed there is no question of whether a particular design has to be accommodated. He urged the Board, if it feels the Hoehls have a right to a particular design, they should put it in their findings and let another legal body make a determination as to whether this is legally relevant. Mr. Dumont said the Board must conclude that the view from Spear St. and Overlook are both being protected by the Ordinance, and the application must be consistent with this. He felt the application was not consistent with this requirement. Mr. Dumont cited the case of DeWitt vs. the Brattleboro Zoning Board in which the ruling was that the Zoning Board had no authority to amend its Ordinance under the guise of granting an exception or a variance. He added that is the law; if doesn't like it, it can appeal it. But it is now the law. Mr. Hoehl then said he felt the interim zoning was a taking of half of his land. He said a proposal must be reasonable and he felt what was proposed was not reasonable. He felt raising the overlook would help and that his house would do nothing to impede the view from the overlook. He felt he would lose his view if he had to go by the Boyle proposal and showed pictures of what he said was a diminished view. He said the City could build a road on the easement it now owns and let the public have a view from there. Mr. Dumont said he felt it was a question of a small diminishing of the view from Mr. Hoehl's house for the loss of the public's view of the panorama from Spear Street. Mr. Hoehl said only a portion of his house would block the view from Spear St. Mr. Dumont said Mr. Hoehl is already being accommodated by the Council. Most interim zoning rules are a total moratorium on building in a particular area. The Council is making a tremendous accommodation and actually doesn't have to grant any building permits in the area affected by interim zoning. Ms. Linton said the purpose of interim zoning was to protect the view from Overlook Park, and she felt that is a very important priority. She said there will be house on this lot some day, somewhere. Mr. Hoehl's choice of location will not block the view from the overlook. She felt picnic tables could be added to the overlook area to make it a real park. If the house is moved back, she said, it would be in the view line from the Overlook. She acknowledged that the location proposed by Mr. Hoehl would block some portion of the view from Spear Street but contended it won't ruin the view. She said that legally and practically the Council should focus attention on the overlook. She did not feel the Jamieson house ruins the overlook view. She felt the interim zoning was an extraordinary kind of zoning that affects 4 property owners acutely requiring them to change location, heights, to build into the side of the hill, and to compromise their views. She felt that under the statute, the environmentally sound thing to do is to approve the permit as applied for. She noted Mr. Hoehl is willing to move his house 10 ft. north, but didn't agree to move it 10 ft. east as he doesn't feel that is necessary. Mr. Hoehl affirmed he would build the house so it doesn't block the view from the overlook. Ms. Linton said compromises were made in 1977 for the pedestrian easement, setbacks, height limitations and that the Hoehls should now be able to build where they propose to build. Mrs. Lambert asked whether the berm would arouse landscaping questions. Mr. Dinklage said that is one issue that hasn't been explored, and landscaping could be a disaster. The City Attorney said landscaping would have to conform to interim or permanent zoning. Mr. Dumont said they are not sure what other exceptions are being sought here and that they had only promises. He felt they should know what the Hoehls are going to do to be sure it all complies. Ms. Linton urged the Council to vote this evening. Mrs. Lambert then moved the Council meet in Executive Session for the purpose of deliberating on the present application. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. When the Council resumed regular session, Mr. Murray made the following motion; That the Public Hearing be adjourned until Thursday, 26 May, at 7:00 p.m., in order to give the City Attorney the opportunity to provide the City Council with certain information that it needs in order to make its decision and so that the Council can have the advice of the City Attorney at the time it makes its decision. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion. The question arose as to whether the meeting on Thursday would be an executive or open session. Mr. Farrar said it would be an executive session followed by an open meeting. Question then arose as to whether any further evidence would be taken. Mr. Farrar ruled it would not as the hearing has been closed. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. We. the undersigned residents of South Burlington, express our support for the Interim Zoning Regulation, which effectively protects the Spear Street Scenic Overlook Area. We feel that the scenic views from Spear Street, beginning at Deerfield Road and extending 1140 feet north, are a significant natural resource, and should be preserved for future generations. No zoning variances should be granted in this area, and further, the City should incorporate the Interim Zoning Regulations into the Permanent Zoning Regulations. DATE NAME ADDRESS PHoNL May 19, 1988 To: City Council City of South Burlington From: Victor L. and Anne 0. Ratkus Topic: Lots one and two - Spear Street - Nowland Subdivision Evidence: We relied on the City of South Burlington in the following manner: 1) We bought two building lots that were zoned Residential in 1979. These lots had numerous restrictions in the deeds. 2) In 1985, with city approval, we installed a sewer system at a great expense. 3) In 1987 we paid $8,000. for land fill to be put on our building lots with the approval of the City of South Burlington. Therefore, the city, in realizing our reliance should allow us to build on our land according to the restrictions in our deeds which were recorded and approved by the City of South Burlington. Facts: 1) Our Constitutional Rights should protect us from being discriminated against on our own private land. 2) Because a house was built in front of the overlook, we as neighbors, should not be penalized. 3) Our lots should not be depreciated in value, nor should there be "a-taking" of our land. Request: If Mr. and Mrs. Hoehl receive their approval to build a house on lot six, their approval should be so worded that this issue is settled once and for all for all six lots of the Nowland subdivision. Possible Solutions: Move the overlook to the west twenty to thirty feet or as far as the city owns. 2) Beautify the overlook with landscaping and an inviting small sign - South Burlington Overlook. 3) Raise the overlook if possible. 4) Remind the residents of the city of the beautiful views of the lake from the 100 acres that the city owns at Red Rocks. We are relying,on your sense of fairness to settle this matter. a Signed: Victor L. and Anne 0. Ratkus. / May 18, 1988 Dear Mr. Szymanski and Members of City Council: We are presenting to you, in the accompanying package, petitions signed by over 400 registered South Burlington voters. These petitions are proof of the overwhelming public support for preserving the view from Spear Street, in accordance with the interim zoning regulations. Uhderstand too that the voters are ready to draft amendment language, and put their signatures to it, to bring permanent zoning changes before the public in a referendum vote.- We are hopeful that the the city will take the necessary action to protect the view, and make such a referendum unnecessary. Respectfully Submitted, Citizens to Save thespear Street View JANES & JACOB @Better REAL ESTATE, W. 1 , a HO~~S,., and Gardens 205 Dorset Street. PO. Box 2181, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 TELEPHONE (802) 863-5516 May 19, 1988 RECEIVED Mr. Paul Farrar, Chairman So. Burlington City Council So. Burlington, VT 05403 MAY 1 9 1988 Dear Paul: I am writing to you as a member of the So. Burlington Planning Commission who was on the board at the time the Spear Street over- . . look was acquired as part of the requirements layed down by the Planning Commission for approval of the Spear Street project on the westerly side of Spear Street, known as the Nolan property. The Planning Commission did not look at the lots that are now in question for a takeover simply because they were not a part of this project and we had no control of those lots nor did we give any thought of those lots at that time. We tried our best to acquire a piece of land that everybody could enjoy, hence, the overlook. The only mistake that we made is that we gave no consideration, or no good consideration, to what would happen to the lot immediately to the west of the overlook. We thought there was enough pitch that even the lot being built on would not interfere with what we wanted for the people of So. Burlington. Our main concern at the time, as we knew this area would be built up, was to warn whoever owned the property on the east that when that property comes in for development, that we were certainly going to take the ridge of the land where an overlook could be put in and utilized for both lake view and mountain view. So. Burlington is not blessed with an unlimited amount of funds. Personally, I feel that the acquiring of the 200 acre park. hopefully, 300 acres, is a much better situation for So. Burlington and it's generations than five lots or six lots on Spear Street. Yes, I have enjoyed the view also. However, SO. Burlington has always had a reputation of being fair to all, both it's citizens and people who wish to become citizens. I am sure you will keep both in mind on your decision. This letter is just to inform you that we did, through the planning process, the best we could with the land we were discussing. Sincerely, Peter L. Jacob WILLIAM K SESSIONS Ill ROBERT P KEINER I IAMES A. DUMONT BONNIE BARNES CORDON P. BLACK LAW OFFICES SESSIONS. KEINER DUMONT BARNES 72 COURT STREET MIDDLEBURY. VERMONT 05753 (802) 388-4906 I. CHRISTOPHER FRAPPIER LEGAL ASSISTANT May 19, 1988 South Burlington City Council and Zoning Board of Adjustment South Burlington City Hall Dorset St. South Burlington, Vt. 05401 (Hand delivery 5/19/88) Re: Interim Zoning on Spear Street; Request of R. Hoehl Dear Folks: Please note that this law firm has been retained to represent residents and landowners of South Burlington, with respect to the request of Robert Roehl for permission to build within the area covered by interim zoning on Spear St. My preliminary review of the law and the facts indicates that this request should be denied. I will be appearing at the hearing this Monday evening. & Barnes Y JAD/se cc: Leslie Linton, Esq. SPEAR STREET OVERLOOK The viw art mnss Lake Champlain to the Mirondacks is a vary important visual feature that shwld remain as unrestricted as possible (see photo board). This view ba Men eb/antaga of as m drives along Spear Street or chaoses to stop et the -look, wrently proqosed by the City of South Burllngton (refs to Plan A). Each vlan has different &facts m the siting of buildings/houses along the west sida of Spear Street ' In any @SU, uwnprwnisas will have lo ba made by both the City and the landownw?r to rmh asolution that provides the best for both parties and that retains this spectecular view, On April 4, 1988, the City of Wh Burlington desm a section of Speer Street bs a Scenic OverW District, Fm Deerfield Strest na-th 1 140 feet along Spear Strd is wder this protection (ses Plan A). Hwses built along Spw Street and the impact this would have hss to be anal@ and a remnmen&d solution 1s contrasted aht-1~ to the new requfrements. The new ordlm states a maximum buildlng height of 376 feet above H.SL. minus four feet per 100 set bsdc a fmm the Spes St& mtsr line. This is cbly marked in Sediarrs 'AK and '66" UI the secthmsheet - If this were to heppsn as the Hoehi Plans progase, the view fmn'Speer St& would be last w exemplifial by th~ hawa lots to the north. Section M I1 end Plan 6 show these cirmstances. Hmw, the vlew from the Mty werbmk wwlcl be as 11 is today mpmW mly by the Jamison House, with the propased howes up along Spear Street behind Ule view limswcan be~onPlanB(assumingthe~wenrbuiitclosstothefmtysd~ - By setting Ute houses dmvn the slope, the view as seen fm Spw Stresl would be similar to W, elmost unobstructed (see Section M I and Plm C). The view from the ovsrlod: wwld also main unobstructed accept for the\lamison haws. The hatses would sit about the bight of the Boerdman residence and would form a low line of roofs in the forwound The impact of the homes at this rnic@omI location cwld be mitigsted by Planting low trees to screen the buildings fran view. This would also add priw to the reskk?nm The Boardman residence is sensitively set md a1m QlllfWmS to the W1IdlW spear Street etlmk, continued limit elevation (sea Section CC). To maximize the size of the proposed how and dl11 mfwm to the elevation limit, Qrmers muld be added to the attic for usable living spaca. The bwmnt axrld be grdd to umta e third noor es shown in Section 88. The view from the hwm wld be cornpromid e little. Our photglrephs show the view from above the grwnd flmr elevation of the propased buildfngs. It should ba kept in mlnd Vlat this vlew cen only get better as the viewer mares to a higher flar in the house. The proposal of setting the hwsas dDwn Um slope retains the viaw ss $em when driving aimg Spew Street The vlew from the laokout is sllghtly cunpromlsed as is tne vlew fm the hwses. A A IWJ muld be mnslrudsd dccessing Vlese hwsss (Sw Plan C). This would provids fa comm pointsof a;asson and off Spear Street, a safer !iitualicm thm a number of duplex wrbcuts. Epually as imgortant, a Wmai buffer is set up between the hawes ad the M, a that an get cu@d end noisy et times. Most importantly, Um view aaars the Weto New Ywk State wld be avsllable lw oreveryone to enjoy. May 5, 1988 LAW OfFIrn OF SYLVESTER 8 MALEY, INC. E 0. BOX 1053 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1093 HAROLD C. SYLVESTER ALAN E snmsTm lOHNRMALEY H. JOSEPH GAMACHE MICHAEL 5. BROW GEOFFREY M. mZCERALD MARGARET A MANCAN Members of the . . South Burlington City Council 595 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 TEL. 802-864-5722 OFFlCES AT: 78 FTNE STREET MAY - 'i 1988 Re: Spear Street Overlook District Dear Members of the South Burlington City Council: @ This firm has been retained by Robert Cooper, Anne and Victor Ratkus and Douglas Meredith to represent them in connection with the possible impact of the new interim zoning regulations adopted by the South Burlington City Council on April 4, 1988 on their respective Spear Street properties. , At t\is point, we are proceeding on the assumption that the City Council will grant ~ob and Cindy Hoehl's application for a conditional use permit and will accord our clients similar treatment if and when they decide to build. If, however, the City Council denies the Hoehl permit appli- cation on the grounds that it fails to comply with the so-called "Spear Street Overlook District" enacted by way of temporary interim zoning, the City Council should know that we categori- cally endorse Attorney Leslie Linton's letter dated May 2, 1988 and the legal positions contained therein. Furthermore. it is a fundamental principle of law that zoning ordinances must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals or the general welfare and cannot discriminate against certain individuals so as to impose upon them burdens which should and must be borne by the public as whole. A cursory look at the development allowed by the City in this same general Spear Street area clearly illustrates how the interim zoning discriminates against my clients. I hope that we are able to avoid litigating the validity of the interim zoning ordinance generally and as it specifically relates to my clients. However, we are prepared to do So Members of the South Burlington City Council Page 2 May 5, 1988 if my clients are not granted appropriate relief from the terms of the ordinance. If you should have any questions or if there is anything my clients can do to resolve this matter prior to litigation, please feel free to call. Cordially yours, Alan F. ~~lvester cc: Robert Cooper Anne and Victor Ratkus Douglas Meredith Pay UndwortL, Owner P.O. BOX 4060 SOUTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 0540i (802) 862-0480 May 10, 1988 To the City Council SPEAR OVERLOOK First off. let me say that I certainly believe whole- heartedly in private property rights. Here however, we have a serious public concern which is in conflict with the rights of private property. We have here not merely a one house issue. At jeopardy is South Burlington's paramount view. There is no other view like it in South Burlington and perhaps in no other nearby town. If there are similar views, they are from remote dirt roads or inaccessible hilltops, not from a heavily traveled public street. This view is irreplaceable. Twenty five years ago the then town of South Burlington could very reasonably have purchased the Allenwood property on the lake, fully landscaped, with roads, a pier and tennis courts. This was a one time opportunity that was missed. This could significantly have enriched the lives of our residents. In the 1960's with other Selectmen we had difficult aqd protracted negotiations with the State Highway Department to have what is now known as Kennedy Drive built. Think of how our traffic snarl would now be without Kennedy Drive. The point is that this is an irreplaceable asset for the citizens which the city should preserve. But the city should also expect to pay for any diminution of property rights at public expense. I thoroughly believe such expense is justified. Normally similar situations consists of a "takingn by the town and then a lengthy court battle. Here I would like to see this view preserved and the property values settled by prompt arbitration, as a quicker and less expensive means of equity to preserve the very essential Scenic Overview. THE LEDGES. SOUm Wlllm SrRFET AT CHITTEhWN DRIVE. BURLINGTON VILLAGE GREEN APARTMENTS. 75 WNESBUffi ROAD. SOUTH BUGWNGTON COMMEMI!AL.SHOP ANDFORAGESPACE ~ HOWARD SPACE CEMER. PM W€T FROM HOWAD SmEET TO MARBLE AVE.. BURLINGTON 24 Orchard Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Mr. Richard Ward. Zoning Administrator City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street S. Burlington, VT 05403 Dear Mr. Ward: 7 We are writing to express our support for the city's efforts to preserve the scenic overlook on Spear Street. South Burlington . . residents for the last seven years, we have come to appreciate the lake vjew from that section of road as one of the most valuable natural assets in the community. It is a popular spot, enjoyed and utilized by many, many people. It would indeed be a shame for us to lose it to private development. It will take courage and vision to stand up against the forces of "free enterprise" which consume community assets for their own individual gain. Once consumed they are lost forever. The Vermont State Government has recognized that soenio areas are an essential element of the state's charaoter. They have effectively forestalled development in the 1-89 Soenic Corridor where it threatened that character. The City of Burlinaton has taken a strong position in order to preserve their waterfront for the enjoyment of all, not just a privileg.ed few. South Burlington has an opportunity to preserve a pieae of its scenic character, and it should do so with vigor. Frankly, I am upset that so much of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook has already been lost to development. It is a sad testimony to the lack of vision in our civic leaders in the past. The entire tract should be a city park. We will be watching intently to see if the current members of city government have what it takes to succeasfully preserve what is left of this valuable resource. Sincerely, Karen V. Yacos Tot South Burlington City Council I From: Cynthia and Robert Hoehl I Re: Building bermit 1535 Spear Street I Rather than repeat all of the information Attorney I Leslie Linton and I have submitted already, 1 hope Pou will consider it also as you approach your final deliberations. If I you do need any further copies of any of the material, please i let me know and I will be happy'to provide it. I THE VIEW IS NOT GONE I I This is simply not so. There are a number of other locations around South Burlinqtonjfhat afford wonderful I views. The South Burlington Comprehensive plan makes I. reference fofiue, none of which are actually our land . . although close ("just south of Swift Estates"). 1; addition I to these there is the knoll to the'right of the entrance to I the Stonahenge Condos, the views of the lake and mountains (the same wjbw as from Spear Street) from Red Rocks Park, and I Allen road also affords a beautiful view at its tap. I For tk5e who must see the view while they are drivinq (not safe). or jogging or bicycling by, I suggest Deerfield ! Drive tsee.picture Y5 and #b) or fillen Road. I Our house will block onlv 71 of 166 feet (4%) of the view of the-lake and mountains (see diagram). While we wish 1 to have vegatation around our house, we are willing to leave I some space unobstructed to permit a view of the lake and mountains to be seen from Spear St. Each of the 6 lots along I Spear St. already has a minimum of 25 feet on each side as a i set back requirement. This means a minimum of 50 feet between houscs. ln addition the lots are extra wide, 160-200 I feet in my case, to allow far views between houses. It is I highly unlikely that anyone would build a house 110 feet wide (160-50). Our house is 85 feet wide but only 71 feet of which I blocks the view, thereby leaving far more than 50 feet i between houses. This was all thought out and planned for during the original subdivision which permitted single family I houses to be built on the six lots with reasonable I restrictions. All else aside. the ./iew from the City of South I Burlingtan's Overlook is still spectacular. It is far better I than any view that exists in the development just south of the Overlook. People in that development have paid thousands I of dollars to get the view they have. it seems to me that a view from the Overlook, which is better than any that People paid thousdnds of dollars for. L>ut comehow isn't qood enough far those who pald nothlna. isn 't reasonable. With all of the views available to the peonie of soutn Hurl inqton. we ' bel!eve it is totally unre.zon.-,hle for the rtr to take the entire stretch of pr ivatel ; ~vrrien land as vrrl I. PROTECT THE OVERLOOK Our contention from the beqinnlna h35 been that the citv has the riqht and duty to protect the view from the Overlook. The attached letter from our architects shows that buildina our house w-here we want is in the best interest of the citizens of South Burl ington. In no way does i t hinder or detract from the view from the parkinq area of the Overlook. The City of South Burlinqton owns an Overlook which is 266 feet deep from Spear St. The current overlook is 85 feet deeo from Spear St. We understand the back 186 feet (266-85) i5 ~lanned as an area for public picnic tables. Pictures *I .- and 92 show that if a house were built according to the new zoning restrictions, under the view line from Spear St.. it would totally block the view of the lake from the planned picnic area. The top of the pole that the qentleman is ,. . holding is20 feet high which is the heiqht that the proposed . . interim zqninq wpyldpsrmit. The idea of sacrificina the . • views from the overlook. to satisify the desires of a few (see "Uhat the,psaple want") seems to be prejudicial ind unfair. We have al;eady indicated that we wouid be willing to do whatever is necessay with, our house and property plans to protect tKe view fr~iim +ke--ps-rking area of the over look. I Picture #? shows RHH standing in the field where we would be perfectly willing to build our house to the right of. This shows that- our house will not block any of the views from the parkinq ar;ea of -the overlook. We feel that the best tvay to satisfy this issue is for us to grant view variances to the City of So'uth BirIihgton that, in no way. will our house impinqe on the views of the lake and FIdirondack Mountains I from the parking area of the Overlook. I TWO STORY HOUSE I believe it is inportant to first define what a cne Story house is. The Boardman's house (the one just west Of Jamisons') is not a 2 story house: it's a cape. Its roof 1:ne is 24 feet and the top of the chimney is 29 feet above tne ground. Taking into account covenants in our deeds set back ordinances. and the new Zoninq restrictions. we Could not build a house like this anywhere on our land. We Could build a 20 foot hiqh house 371 feet back. The only alternative that Leaves us is a ranch. Mr. Dinkleqe, when we met a1 the Over look, asker1 me. "What's the hardship. really?', And my answer at the time was, "For me, total hardehlp. because my famlly wants a two story house." at the time I wondered rf that was a reasonable response so 1 set out to trv and find out. If one !-as to drive i'rctn the o.,.prloale and take a r lfltlt on Deerr ield Drrve ana tat-.!> rakp tre ilq-st left iol lc:.~ec) 5,. the f l'rst riqht. and fcni in:* 3n enwn !.3 :;n~[burne Road. rlnE would fina I one-storv tlouse. c? capes .,.~n!ih 3150 cd11.t ee !.uii! c.? my lane! and 45 tr.rg :rci-.. houS;ea. IIIIC, 1nclicdt~-~5 '11 - ~nt us,- in, : ':!?I? ,.,,I I, C: .., 1 ,.-+._I-; ., -tory house. lr Toct. 1 c:;uid ?t f itri . . : ;! ! I!:' Iiouse (ranch! -1nvt.rherr I I. : : '50 ,. . trr ,,.I t.3~: ,:,a' a develooment. The anlv 1 storv house was an older home On the - - ,---. corner of Spear and Deerfield Dride. We'd be very surprised if they had 6 children qrowina up in a that one story house. Since the Burlinqton Free Press has given this issue so much publicity, we have received a lot of letters and material from Real Estate Aqencies who want to sell our current house (Real Estate aqents are the eternal optimists. I guess). We have enc lased a recent insert f ram one of these aqencies which points out that 2 story houses are "in" (see attached) in today's market. Given what everyone else in the neighborhood and' in the know thinks, I don't believe we are unreasonable in wantinq a two story house. MISCELLANEOUS _ - The s-tatutes state that zoning is to protect the health.. safety, andwealfare of the people of the community- Hopefully, for all of us, there is no danger to the health of anyone involved. It seems that safety should be a consideration whenwhat the opposition wants. at ledst in part. is the ability to drive alonq Spear Street and look at the view instead of the road. or park along the curbr which is never a safe action and against the law in most placesr except in case of emergency. -. -. ~~. When ,Nr Jamison's house was first raised, we too were taken back by it. As it rose we realizied it would block a portion of our view. We thouqht about that and accepted the fact that he hada riqht to.build the house that best suited him and his family on the land they bouqht and paid for- (See picture *3). .. As mentioned previously, we are very willinq to build our house such that it does nothinq to block any of the views from the Darkinq area of the Overlook. We are perfectly willinq to move our house as far to the north a5 ordinances allow. We believe this is more than enough to avoid blockina any views of the lake and mountains from the parkinq area of the Over look. I WHQT THE PEOPLE WANT At the Last City Council meeting. 1 too 1-)as i~npressed ! by the amount of opposition to the buildina of our house. It wasn't until 1 qot home that 1 realized it was h people (each talkinq 2-4 times) who represented the cltirens Oi South Bur 1 inqton. Subsequent to that !re caul-ted 4 letters to kh~ editor in the Free Press. Of those. two of :he first three I we could #not find in the phone boo): and tne last. '~.'..,IIT L.3a,m.. listed in the Free Pcss as fro,,, Svutn Dur!lilclton. 1.3 l:Ctt-:I from Hlnesbu~-q accordinq to tne phct-,e ilook. !he i>o:.-,r :e ..oe 1 tryinq to make is that the number who rre tcr~no tn f;,iht I this are notas many as it miuht .;t t~v-st apl~eal-. !-le cwtiit 3 at the ineetinq and 4 letters to the edltor ina1:lno 1cl. !t :t I Would heip. or make a dlffcl-encc. we ?.lould h3v~ 110 p~-!?!~lc?#n with and qladly brinq foward far more than ten people to speak for our side. We have not chosen to do this thus far because we believe that facts and what is riqht will decide this versus how many want what. Yesterday, a women attemptinq to collect signatures for a petition to protect the view from Spear Street, stopped by Nancy Boardman's house. One of the reasons she qave for stopping the buildinq of any houses up on Speac Street was that she might lose her viewof the sunrise. Last time we checked the sun rose in the eas.t. The lake and mountain view is in the west. Thls was certainly a different and Scary slant. If someone can circulate e petition to stop someone from building their home because it would block their view of the sunrise, then alot more people than our family are in big .. ., trouble. - . . We understand that some people are circulatinq a . . petition o~r petitions to try and block our buildinq permit. While we understand that it is their right. we arso believe that signing a petition does not constitute evidence. which is what the City Council expressly requested. It would not be sur~risinq if numerous people siqned a petition that asked simply. "Save the View" without any indication of what that entailed or could possibly cost. Why not siqn it? It sounds good and doesn't cost a thing right now. ALTERNATIVES We believe there are still a number of alternatives available to the City Council: 1. Continue to fill the existing Overlook westward and raise it approximately 10 feet. If the Overloot were rarsed to this heiqht, the lake and mountains could once again be seen over the top of Jamison's house. If this were done* we believe the major cause of everyone's problem would be solved. Is there any question, that if people could see over the Jamison house. we wouldn't be goinq throuqh this. 2. Raise the heiqht of Spear Street. If the people of South Burl inqton want the whole view of Spear Straetr thev could Pay to have Spear Street raised to accommodate this. 3. Buy another Uverlook. If the people truly feel that this overlook is ruined (it isn't, see pictures WB W9)* then they should consider buyinq the knoll next to the entrance to Stonehenqe, property across the street from the current overlook. or pronerty from Mr. Milot to the South of the current over look. 4. This alternative ue offer s~lely as a point of perspective and do not mean to suqqest zt as a reasonable thinq to do. If the Cltv is to take someone's land. it -*nuid be far less costlr to take J sinqle piece of property tQhIC!> blocks the view khan rake the SIX (0) lot5 alanq Soear Street. I rorre>t/ie>chmach@r %chitect>' Uay 18, 1988 • Bob & Cynthia Hoehl C/O IDS Box C1070 1500 Shelburne Road Burlington, VT 05402-1070 These are our thoughts on the effect of your proposed house with respect to the City's Overlook property: The attractiveness of the view for the Overlook is not due solely to the sight of Shelburne Bay, but is also in large part due to the open field in the foreground. Now that the two houses directly in front of the Overlook have been built, anyone standing at the Overlook naturally looks to their right, where the vacant field which is your property, is still open and permits an attractive foreground to the Bay. Any house built on your lot which conforms to the requirements of the Interim Zoning will have to be built about 300' away from Spear Street, which would be directly in the way of the remaining good view from the Overlook. People would be able to look over such a house-and see the Bay because it would have to be only one story high to aonform to the lnterim Zoning, but the attractive foregroud would be gone, especially because a one-story house of an area appropriate to such a valuable lot would be much a wider than your two-story design. You can see for yourself what effect a one-story house in the foreground has on the attractiveness of the view by looking over the one-story house already built in front of the Overlook. .. We have proposed to locate your house much higher on the hill (closer to Spear Street) for reasons which are in your best interests, but it turns out that our proposed location also helps most to preserve the attractiveness of the view from the Overlook by preserving the open field foreground. Our proposed location for your house would cause virtually no effect on the Overlook's view, since the house would lie outside of the field of view of Shelburne Bay from the Overlook. For these reasons, we feel that the City should re-think the Interim Zoning regulation, or, at the very least, grant an exception in your case and let you build where we propose, because a house on your lot could potentially cause very great harm to the Overlook's view if built in conformance with the Interim Zoning as it now stands. Guy Tes h %- Brian Forrest I Guy Teschmacher 26 State Street Montpelier Vermont 05602 802 229 5774 ~thatthcsewingnrami~ ~upb~yers,whoareloolringfor ~~'*thing~do."rrpOrr, navdthna"stUdy"wa"r~~mk Lgcr~withmmsmenitier." Amoiarn Dmop@b mapine. fhomaid"mdthcsdbafsmd~ Mom And Mw Baby Boomem Amerfcan Dcmognphics, citing an "eating nook." Are !jayin& *1 Dm" htbtb h.wn the Census Bureau's -.Here h the EM8 National hx&. 1987 Currrnt bpdatlon Survy, tionof~&rg-af%@ b&thepopuladonbul~dbebp re* that rmrrfed coupla r boomas en- ddde q~ and'O~Wforhomcbuppnofcoday. hd and rtuting a counted for nearly 60% of dl -2r- ktmen1%6urd 1987. kr y the second in the lasthrrrnnrvears.thenumberof I I I@ I I I I I I Did You Know.. . New Home Rice. he Up 14% The price of a new home sold last ar was $l&,OW which is 14% & than the 196MX) new home median sales prks in 1986, accord- ing to the most recent research con- duded by the National Assodation of Home Builders [NAHB). The NAHB attributed the rise to an increase in demand. The NAHB report states, "Iko of three new homes bein built day are purchased by Auent What's "In", What's "Out" In New Homes The "Id' Home Design 'Gends Tor 1988 The "Our Home Design ltenda Fat 1988 family &A& inm& more than the number of ringk or "non- family" households. L~st year, families accaunted for 72.1% of aU households and demographera pre- dict with the rend interest in having children that this "family" household percentage will conhnue to move up in the years ahead Lighters, Calculators. Watches And Now Houses?? Double wood Granite counter tops entry doom Sidelights Deadbolts Dormers Six-panel , Second-story balconies interior doors Studies Living moms Maid's quarters Basement rec rooms Masonly fireplaces Stone walls Glass-front cabinets Light cabinehy Curved stairs Tnple-bowl enamel sinks Built-in refrigerators Island htchew wall panels Insulated sheathing Fireplace mantels Smoke detectors Wood casements Chair rails Stucco Specialty windows Four bedrooms Twryhouses Auto Page Side-loading garages door openers Entertainment centers Marble foyers 'Ikrwtwyf~ ~~ting nooks Double wall ovens White appliances Single-piece t~ilets . Vanities Recessed bath lighting European hinges Minured walls White fbaures Ceramic tile Walk-in closets bath surrounds Med plank flooring Fmt floor Wool ciupeting laundry rooms -s Gszebos Central vacuums Quarry tile Cedar closets Six-burner cooktops FJetter landscaping Wod siding savmed porches Step-up tubs Flush metal doors Stoa e sheds Single-bowl sinks Peep oles Single-tab roofing a Wd security system Hallways Shallow roof pitch Sewing rooms Great morns Fold-away Unfinished basements ironing boards Railroad ties Metal fireplaces Dark cabine Built-in wine racks Stepdown tu "E: s Stairwe1ls U-shaped kitchens Ophonal refrigerators Sprinkler systems American hinges Two bedrooms Onecar garages Cheap intercoms Vinyl foyers Snack bars ~0m-p miemwaves Black appliances Stainlew steel Binlrs Bidets Pedestal lava Fluorescent bath Medicine cabinets fktruw plastic tub SU~U~+ COW fiatum Second-floor Wall dosets laundry rooms Dark parquet tlooring Earth tones Ranges SculWd EKpeting hdoor/Outdool -Pet@ Smm--Amdm