Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/13/1990CITY COUNCIL 13 AUGUST 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, 13 August 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Small Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Joe Weith, City Planner; Mary Kehoe, Ray Unsworth 1. Continue Public Hearing on IBIS request under Interim Zoning Regulations Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned with height restrictions and future requests for relief. He added the issue for him was less an issue of two building lots than a question of setting a precedent for the tract that is next to these lots and is under interim zoning. With regard to the statements submitted by the appellant, Mr. Cimonetti said there are several points he felt were incorrect and several he would take exception to, but he felt he would have to be on the site to make an accurate assessment. Other members agreed. Mr. Cimonetti then asked if there has been a transfer of the right of way to the city. Mr. Stitzel said there is a recorded offer of dedication which the City can accept at any time. Mr. Farrar asked if the right of way would survive the litigation. Mr. Stitzel said he believed it would. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the placement of driveways was consistent with plans for a city street. Mr. Weith said the north/south roadway over the Nolan property is to the east and didn't front these lots. Mr. Hafter noted the appellant wouldn't be required to connect lot #1 until such time as a public street is built. Mr. Cimonetti felt if the city wants to eliminate a curb cut it should do so as it may be many years before a city street is built. He proposed that lot #1 be served off the conveyed right of way. Mr. Dinklage said he thought this might violate the Zoning Ordinance because it would be three homes served off what is not a city street. Mr. Cimonetti said he would expect it to be a city street. Mr. Dinklage asked at whose expense that would be. Mr. Cimonetti said in a development the developer is expected to pay infrastructure costs. Mr. Farrar felt this was different in that there is a lot with a perfectly good access to a city street and the city is asking them to close it. To ask them then to build a new city street might not be thought to be reasonable. Mr. Stitzel then explained the circumstances under which a subdivision can be approved by the Court. He explained there is a major issue as to whether the original acquisition of the property should have been subject to subdivision regulations. Mr. Dinklage said he was comfortable with the stipulations but was concerned with issues raised by the appellant as where there are and are not views. Ms. Kehoe noted the applicant's intention of coming back and asking for a re-subdivision of lot #3, possibly getting a strip of land from the Nolans to make the lot standard size and thus not require a variance. They would do this as a boundary adjustment. Council members noted that such a procedure is what caused the problem in the first place. Ms. Kehoe asked that the view line be moved in case such a procedure does take place. Mr. Farrar noted the applicant is also asking to extend the date of approval from 6 months to a year. Mr. Cimonetti said he could see no reason to as it would inhibit the ability to put in permanent zoning. Mr. Farrar said permanent zoning can be put in at any time. If the request is in compliance with the permanent zoning, everything remains the same; if zoning is more restrictive the applicant would have to comply with the less restrictive conditions within the time period allowed; if it is less restrictive, the applicant could go with the less restrictive zoning. Mr. Cimonetti said the approval could always be extended upon request at expiration. Members agreed to a site visit on 14 August, 6:30 p.m. Mr. Dinklage then moved to continue the hearing until 6:30 on 14 August at the site, if it isn't raining too hard., Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Findings of Fact and Deliberations of application of Hossein Nemazee, 213 Meadowood Drive, 4 building permit under Interim Zoning Regulations Mr. Condos moved to close the hearing on the Nemazee application, Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved to approve the findings of fact and to authorize the Chairman to sign them. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Information Items Referring to the city map, Mr. Farrar suggested adding proposed Hinesburg Rd. improvements, also Kennedy Drive. Mr. Hafter said drainageways should also be shown. Mr. Dinklage felt the pedestrian trail and bike path should be shown. Mr. Cimonetti felt that Dorset St. the way it is expected to be should be reflected on the map. Members also agreed to add the landfill and all city buildings. Mr. Dinklage felt that input should be gotten from the Natural Resources Committee on the city map. Mr. Hafter said the public comment will be solicited in the Spokesman. 5. Review Planning Agenda 8/14/90 Mr. Dinklage asked the Council to express concern with item #6, proposed expansion of the Gulf Station at Williston Rd/Airport Dr. Mr. Condos noted the Zoning Board approved multiple uses. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.