Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/01/1989CITY COUNCIL 1 MAY 1989 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 May 1989, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michaael Flaherty, John Dinklage, Molly Lambert Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; William Szymanski, City Engineer; Mary McKearin, Business Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Mary Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; James Goddette, Fire Dept; Sonny Audette, Street Dept: Haidee Antram, Lowell Krassner, William Schuele, Natural Resources Committee; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Mike Donoghue, Free Press; Margaret O'Rourke, Anne Ratkus, Bud Yetto, Dorothy Wooton, Jim Dumont, Martha Campione, Barbara Bull, Geoffrey Fitzgerald, Bob Cooper, Bob Hoehl, Cynthia Hoehl, Terry Boyle Introduction of New City Manager Mr. Farrar introduced Chuck Hafter, the new City Manager. Comments & Questions from the Audience (not related to items on the Agenda) No issues were raised. Report on Martins Noise Problem Mr. Yetto reported they have determined that landscaping will not solve the problem. It looks like they will be building a wall as the next step. They are looking into size, composition, etc. Dr. Hundal has said deflection of noise off the wall shouldn't be a problem. As far as load levelers are concerned, they should be delivered by 5/8 and installed by a week later. Fr. St. James said he was concerned about delays on the dock levelers. He said they have been very patient but are running out of patience now. Mr. Farrar also felt that when dates are given they should be lived up to. If not, Martin's credibility is in question. Mr. Yetto said he appreciated that and read a letter from the supplier outlining the delivery plans. Martins will report again on 5/15. Continue recessed Interim Zoning Public Hearing on Application of Robert Cooper for the construction of a single family home in the Spear St. Scenic Overlook District Mr. Farrar asked if Mr. Cooper had anything to add to his submission. Mr. Fitzgerald said they are waiting for their architect to arrive and that Mr. Dumont could make his presentation first. Mr. Dumont introduced landscape architect, Terry Boyle. Mr. Boyle showed a series of exhibits including: A-the Cooper plan superimposed at 330 ft. elevation; B- cross-section; C-the house sited and served by a new city street on the easement; D-the city street serving 4 homes; E- all houses on lots 1-5 set back with a proposed open space/park in front. Mr. Boyle felt his suggested siting would leave a lot of space in the foreground for a view for the public. Mr. Boyle estimated the cost of a 24 ft. road serving the 4 homes at $100 ft. for 800 feet. He also felt that compensating the owners about $70,000 per lot for locating further downhill would be a fair amount. Ms. Ratkus said that when the Milot development went in, the access to the road easement was close and she didn't think a road could be put in there now. She did not feel lot 2 should be asked to build below the sewer line. Mr. Boyle then showed Exhibit F with the a slightly modified version of the Hoehl house placed on lot 2 so if violated the zone by only 5 ft. He felt it could run obliquely to the sewer line and wouldn't require a pump. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how far the homes would be back from Spear St. in Mr. Boyle's plan. Mr. Boyle said an additional 250 ft. for a total of 450 ft. He said this would allow a house of 31 ft. in height. Mr. Fitzgerald said their figures show only a 19.5 ft. house allowable. A question arose as to the distance measurement, whether it was 314 ft. from the edge of the right-of-way or from the property line. This will be checked. Mr. Dumont asked Mr. Boyle what would be the impact of the proposed Cooper house at its proposed location on the lot. Mr. Boyle said it would be another house to block the view. The profile would be a little better because of the hipped roof, but it would be a more significant impact that if it followed the original interim zoning. He said it is always more of an impact when you have a large object in the foreground. Mr. Flaherty asked how Mr. Boyle's siting would affect the view from the park. Mr. Boyle said it would be in the view but could be screened by landscaping. Mr. Cooper said he didn't favor leasing any part of his lot and thought it more important to save the view from the park. He said the house he proposes has no impact on the view driving north to south. The ridge line of the house is only 48 ft. There will be some loss of view south to north. Ms. Campione said it is important that there are alternatives in case the zoning is turned down. She felt there are also opportunities that haven't been looked at. Mr. Fitzgerald asked what the impact of homes in what is now the UVM Hort Farm would be. Mr. Boyle said Ray Lavigne had told him there were no plans to develop the Hort Farm. He added the land falls dramatically 20-30 ft. down to the hort farm. He added that the Planning Commission could determine where homes are sited, if there were ever any development. Mr. Farrar noted the Hort Farm is zoned Agricultural-Rural-Residential. Mr. Szymanski noted the sewer line deed had provided the line remain private. It would now have to become public if the city is to maintain it. He noted that Mr. Cooper and the Ratkuses could not use it until it becomes a public sewer. Mr. Dinklage moved to continue the hearing until a special meeting on 22 May 1989. Mr. Flaherty seconded. A brief discussion ensued as to whether the hearing should follow or precede the upcoming election. Following this discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Continue recessed Interim Zoning Public Hearing: Application of Victor and Anne Ratkus for the construction of a single family home in the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District Ms. Ratkus submitted written testimony that they meet all the criteria to build their home. She also submitted a cross-section of the 2 lots and a picture that shows the view east from Deerfield Road. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Lambert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was agreed that the City Attorney will draw up the findings of fact. Second Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to the Charter of the City of South Burlington Mr. Farrar read the warning and the language of the proposed amendments. He explained that the assessment amendment would save the city from spending $100,000 every four years for appraisals, which he didn't believe was a good use of taxpayers' funds. Mr. Farrar also explained the 2 additional items on the ballot; a sewer bond issue for sewers at Country Club Estates and Swift Estates, and an authorization to spend State planning money (Act 200) and a grant from the Narcotics Assistance Funds. Taxpayers will also be asked to authorize the City to spend impact fees collected from developers for sidewalks. The sewers would be paid for 50% by general taxes and 50% by a special assessment for the two areas being sewered. The authorization to spend the other funds would not result in any new taxes. Also on the ballot are two articles in which the voters will be asked to approve or disapprove amendments to the City Zoning Regulations. Mr. Farrar read the texts of the amendments and noted that the texts and maps will be posted in each polling booth on Election Day. Mr. Farrar noted that if Zone A passes and Zone B does not, Interim Zoning will still apply for Zone B areas. Report on the Hearing on Shelburne/South Burlington Route 7 Improvement Project Mr. Szymanski showed a map of the proposed project. Among its features are the relocation of Harbor-View Drive to create a jughandle. There would be a 14 ft. wide grass median, similar to Dorset Street, except the bike paths would be on the side of the traveled lane. The median would narrow to 4 ft. at Bartlett Bay Rd. then increase to 14 ft. to Holmes Rd. There would also be a jughandle at Holmes Rd. Mr. Szymanski said the only opposition was from Pauline's Kitchen who felt it was too costly a project. The estimated building is 1997-8. Mr. Dinklage moved to issue a formal resolution to the State endorsing the Shelburne Rd. project as presented. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Review Planning & Zoning Agendas No issues were raised. Minutes of 14 and 17 April Mr. Flaherty moved to approve the Minutes of April 14 and April 17 as written. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved the City Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Requests for the following catering permits were considered; 1) Econo Lodge to cater a wedding at Chappel's Garden, 17 June, from 2-8 pm; 2) Deco, Inc. (dba Sneakers) to cater a wedding at K of C Hall, July 29, from Noon-5:30 pm; 3) Econo Lodge to cater a wedding at Chappel's Garden, August 19, from 2-8 pm. Mr. Flaherty moved the Board approve the catering permits as presented. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Picard advised she had received a call from Club New England who want to make their Country Music show an on-going attraction. Board Members asked that a formal request be presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. To: City Council City of South Burlington, Vt. May 1, 1989 My name is Anne Ratkus. My husband, Victor and I, own Lots 1 and 2 on Spear Street in the Scenic Overlook District, We have applied for a Building Permit on Lot 1. In making a determination the legislative body shall consider the proposed use with regard to four (4) criteria under 24VSA-4410. I would like to briefly testify tonight regarding these four criteria: Criteria 1 is the capacity of exising or planned community facilities,services or lands: 1. We have resided in So. Burlington for 14 years and are presently using city services. We have two children. We do not feel we will overburden the community water system,sewer system,fire or police department. 2. When our lots were approved 10 years ago, they were made sufficiently wide and long to not overburden the land in this area. They were designed to be able to handle a mound septic system if necessary and to provide a spacious if acre piece of land that would not be congested. 3. The City of South Burlington has already planned on us being in this location when they gave us permission to install a sewer system. 4. Our house will be used as a residence and we believe the manicipality facilities and services can meet our needs at this time. 5. We believe we meet the stipulations of Criteria 1. Criteria 2 is the existing patterns and uses of development in this area: 1. With no doubt we all can agree our land is in a residential area. 2. There is no commercial area surrounding our property. 3. Below our property is an array of Condominiums called Stonehedge. 4. To the north of our property are numerous beautiful homes that sit on large lots. Most of these homes have been there for 20-30 years. One of these homes has been built 10 years ago and another two years ago. Many of these homes have added family rooms, decks and modernized within this decade. 5. To the south of our property,five lots away, is the infamous to all of - u? Robert and Cynthia Hoehl home which has recently been given a building permit by the City of South Burlington. 6.To the west of our land is '%, iland and 5 more lovely homes. 7.The southwest view from our land has with it another array of Condominiums called Overlook and 2 more new horn6 8.1 would like to present as evidence a picture that was recently taken of a neighborhood within 2500 feet of our property-a subdivision of homes that have been and still are being built on much smaller lots-yet still with lovely scenic views. 9. Our proposed home will blend in with the area as demonstrated. 10. We believe we meet the criteria of Criteria 2. Criteria 3 is the environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites: 1. There are no environmental limitations on this site: no brook...it is not a state historic site...it is not a wetland...,nor a winter habitat for deer... there are no natural resources on the land, that is... no goldssilver or maple trees. 2. No environmental limitations are on this land whatsover. 3. In fact, as you know, over a 1000 trees have been purchased from the State of Vermont and planted on this property to protect the environment. Criteria 4 is the consideration of municipal plans and other municipal by laws, ordinances or regulations in effect: 1. As far as we knoh;, the development of a single family residential home plan on a city approved building lot, with sewer and city water, is not in conflict with any municipal plan,by law, ordinance or regulations in effect. 2. This area is a residential area. Our property and proposed home is to be used solely as a residence. 3. Our lots were subdivided 10 years ago after much consideration and deliberation concerning municipal by laws,ordinances, plans and regulations. We feel we fully comply with 24VSA-4410 and that our proposal meets a11 of the four (4) Criteria. We are hopeful that you will vote to give us a Building Permit this evening. Thank you. h- <& Anne Ratkus