Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/09/1989CITY COUNCIL 9 JANUARY 1989 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 9 January 1989, at 7:00 pm, in the Conference Rooms, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage, Molly Lambert, William Cimonetti Also Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Wendy Schroeder, Business Manager; Joe Weith, City Planner; Stepehn Stitzel, City Attorney; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Robert & Cynthia Hoehl; Victor Ratkus, Robert Cooper, Terrence Boyle, James Dumont, Mark Kelly, John Hausner, Paul Lacouture, Lowell Krassner, Rick Simpson, Peter Serabia, G. Fitzgerald, Marcel Beaudin, Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss Personnel Rules & Regulations. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Public Hearing: Cynthia & Robert Hoehl request to construct a residence in the Spear Street Overlook District Mr. Farrar explained that this matter had been sent back to the Council by the Court. Mr. Flaherty moved to enter en masse all evidence previously taken. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Mr. Dumont said he did not object to this but was concerned that Mr. Cimonetti have the full benefit of that evidence. He asked for the opportunity to summarize through their expert witness the previous testimony. Mr. Hoehl asked if Mr. Cimonetti had the opportunity to look at all the exhibits. Mr. Cimonetti said he had not yet done so. Mr. Farrar said all exhibits will be made available to Mr. Cimonetti. Mr. Farrar then suggested that both the applicant and those opposing the application have 15 each to summarize prior testimony following which the Council would take new evidence. The motion was so amended and in the vote which followed, it was passed unanimously. Mr. Boyle then presented slides of the area and projections of what the area would look like with the proposed house and similar houses on the other lots in question. He also showed projections of what the area might look like if homes were built further down the slope. Mr. Boyle added that he felt the Ratkus Lot #1 could have a house at the road edge. Mr. Hoehl then summarized the history of their purchase of land and the easements given for pedestrian view paths. He felt the interim zoning was not substantiated in the Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed zoning was a "taking" of part of his land. He said if they built lower down, they would be in the foreground of a view from the overlook and if they built at the 330' contour, they could lose their view if something is ever built on the UVM horticultural farm lot. He felt the view corridors work and there are still good views on either side of the house. Mr. Farrar then asked for new evidence. Mr. Hoehl presented a memorandum and findings of fact on building permits dated 12/18/88. Regarding the Judge's order, he said it dealt only with a small part of the issues involved. Issues on legality, constitutionality, etc., were held aside and not included in the Court determination. The Court, he said, did not hear evidence on the reasonableness of the decision. He said the Planning Commission has recommended zoning that would allow their house to be built in its present location. He said the house as built blocks 1/2 of the view that the house west of the overlook blocks. Mr. Dumont noted that the Judge had agreed that Mr. Hoehl was building his house at his own risk. Mr. Dumont asked Mr. Hoehl if he agreed that if interim zoning does become law, his house would be inconflict with that zoning. Mr. Hoehl said that is correct. Mr. Dumont then asked Mr. Boyle to present further evidence. Mr. Boyle showed a diagram of the Hoehl house and said it creates a presence similar to that of the Jamieson house and significantly diminishes the view from the overlook. He said it was like looking through a keyhole between 2 obstructions. Mr. Lacouture asked why this hearing was happening. He understood the Judge had given the matter back to the Council because it didn't take into account the view from Spear St. in its decision. Mr. Farrar said after the Council gets information, it will have the opportunity to present any new additions to its findings of fact. The conceptual design of the overlook park dated 6/29/88 was then introduced into evidence. Mr. Hausner asked if it would lessen the impact of the Hoehl house if the park height were raised by filling. Mr. Kelly said he lives nearby and always knew this land was to be developed. He felt the city should have bought the land if they wanted to preserve the view. Mr. Hoehl said he didn't understood how the house could be screened further down the hill and asked if it couldn't be screened as it now exists. Mr. Boyle said the house is too obvious in its present location. Mr. Cooper said there was a stipulation that the Hoehl house be screened from the park. He also noted the cost to the city if it had to buy 2/3 of the 5 lots in question plus the cost of a road for access to the houses if they had to be built further down the slope. He said Spear St. is a residential street and people who bought the land had the right to believe they could build a residence there. Mr. Krassner noted the Natural Resources Committee had indicated this piece of land provided a view that should be preserved before the Jamieson or Hoehl houses were built. He said they are also concerned about the ridge across Spear St. Mr. Fitzgerald said he felt the scenario presented by Mr. Boyle of the homes forming a wall at Spear St. was not possible because of restrictions on deeds. Mr. Farrar said the Council will get all factual pieces of information such as deeds. He asked the City Manager to submit to the Council copies of deeds and restrictions and copies of any approvals the City has given on these lots in the last 10 years. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Council could visit the site after the hearings are closed. Mr. Stitzel said they could close the taking of testimony then visit the site at a specific time, and formally close the hearing after that visit. He also noted that at the last hearing the Council requested an easement on the back portion of the lot which he said was in existence now. Mr. Dumont asked if that easement wasn't voided by the Judge's decision. Mr. Stitzel said he would check. Mr. Farrar explained the procedure to follow. Following the closing of testimony, there would be a site visit. Both sides will then have the chance to submit any changes they propose to the Findings of Fact. The Council will then deliberate and issue a new set of Findings and a new order. He noted that the Hoehls were not represented by Council and felt they might wish to get legal representation for preparation of findings. Mr. Flaherty then moved to adjourn the public hearing on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl until 7:30 am, January 11, 1989, at or near the city overlook park on Spear Street for the sole purpose of making a site visit and that Findings of Fact will be due at noon on 19 January 1989 at the City Manager's Office. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Continue Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to City Zoning Regulations regarding the creation of the Spear Street View Protection Zone Mr. Weith said he had no further information to present. Mr. Cooper then presented his request. He felt there is an inequity among lots 2-6 in the size of the Zone B area available to put a building envelope on. He suggested narrowing the baseline to 250 ft. instead of 278' which would add 11 ft. to the lots. Mrs. Maher noted the Planning Commission was asked to do the same thing and had chosen not to. Mr. Cooper said a second proposal would change the angle from 157 degrees to 148 degrees which would intercept the division between lots 1 & 2 at 625 ft. from Spear St. A third proposal would be for a 148 degree angle all the way to the 2,000 ft. line. Mr. Cimonetti asked if Mr. Cooper had a visual point in mind when he swung the angle to 148 degrees. Mr. Cooper said it was a point inside Apple Tree Point. Mr. Farrar noted that the problem Mr. Cooper foresaw of someone building a house that would screen the view of other homes does not now happen. Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr. Dinklage said he was quite uncomfortable considering increasing the distance of the baseline from Spear St. He was still not persuaded of the need for a change. He noted that in equitability is inherent in zoning. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the Public Hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting with the understanding that factual information will be gathered at the site visit on Wednesday. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously Report on Progress of Manager Selection Committee Mr. Flaherty said the Committee has done an excellent job. Over 80 qualified applicants had been considered. Seven have been interviewed. The League of Cities and Towns is now doing a background check on these. They hope by the end of month to have 3 resumes to give to the Council Sign Landfill Equipment Note Mr. Szymanski presented a note for the landfill machine for $106,000 at the Chittenden Bank at 6.5% interest. Mr. Flaherty moved the Council sign the note as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Set dates for the following: a) Public Hearing to consider making Interim Zoning for the Spear Street Scenic Overlook permanent and b) Date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission February 6 was recommended for the Public Hearing. Mr. Dinklage moved to warn the Public Hearing on Interim Zoning for the Spear St. Overlook Zone for 6 February 1989. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members suggested Monday, 30 January, for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Review Planning Agenda for 10 January No issues were raised. Minutes of 19 December and 22 December 1988 It was noted that on 19 December, Wendy Schroeder, not Mary McKearin had been present as Business Manager. Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Minutes of 19 and 22 December as amended. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sign Disbursement Orders There were no orders. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a request for a catering permit from Jake's for a dinner dance at Rice High School on 28 January, from 6 pm to Midnight. Mr. Flaherty moved the Board approve the Catering Permit for Jake's as presented by the City Manager. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation with the City Attorney and that it resume regular session only for the purpose of adjourning the meeting. Mrs. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The City Council came out of Executive Session at 11:00 PM and adjourned immediately. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.