Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/01/1990CONDEMNATION HEARING 1 MARCH 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a Condemnation Hearing in connection with the Dorset Street Widening Project on Thursday, 1, March 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. City Council Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager, Stephen Stitzel, Bill Ellis, City Attorney's Office; Reginald Orvis, Review Appraiser, Agency of Transportation; Jim Carroll, Jim Truax, Greg Dicovitsky, Joseph Frank, Peter Fodor, John Anderson, Chuck Munson Mr. Farrar read the Warning and outlined procedures to be followed. The hearing will remain open until 15 March 1990. Oral testimony will be accepted only at tonight's meeting, but written testimony can be submitted up to 15 March 1990. The City Council will give its decision by 15 May. Members agreed on site visits to be held on Saturday, 3 March, from 9 a.m to 11 a.m. a. Parcel #8, Owner Evangeline Deslauriers Mr. Orvis said there are .19 acres being taken plus temporary easements for slope and drive plus a permanent easement for a culvert and ditch. The damages proposed are $56,900. The culvert will replace an open ditch and will be underground. It will be able to be covered over for a road. He didn't think the culvert location was critical. Mr. Orvis felt the culvert work will add to the value of the property. With the present open ditch, it couldn't be covered over for a road. Mr. Truax, representing the owner, said he had heard there are new ideas regarding the swale but he hadn't seen anything in print. Mr. Orvis said the culvert location could be changed for an additional $4,000, but that would not mitigate any damages. Mr. Stitzel noted that in a matter such as this, the Council has a right to discuss a design change. Mr. Carroll said the amount of flow will be much more with the project, and they are asking that the pipe be bent about 6' to the side. It was noted that the engineers said that the original plan interfered with the location of the second building planned for that lot. Mr. Cimonetti moved that discussion be tabled until 15 March 1990 so the Council can have a definite idea of what is being proposed and what is being appealed. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Orvis noted the appraisal is based on a piece of vacant land. Mr. Cimonetti said that since there is just this one chance for oral testimony, he felt it was unfair to the appellant not to have an accurate presentation. In the vote which followed the motion to table passed unanimously. b. Parcel #62, Owner Dorset Land Company, Inc. Mr. Orvis said .12 acres will be taken plus temporary slope and drive easements and a permanent right to install and maintain a conduit and pull box. The parcel is vacant. $16,900 is being offered to the owner. Mr. Truax felt this was not fair market value and would not allow for relandscaping. The owner is asking for $85,300 which represents $14.62/sq. ft. instead of $2.90 which is being offered. He noted that they have added to their presentation opinions of their engineer. The concerns expressed were given to the State which has not yet replied. Mr. Truax noted it is a large lot extending from the Green Mountain Power Substation to Oakwood Drive. He said Dorset St. land is more valuable than land on Oakwood Drive. Mr. Farrar noted the owner will have as much land on Dorset St. when the project is complete. Mr. Carroll noted there is a deed obligation that when the property is developed a right of way must be extended. This will shrink lots with setbacks. He noted the Supreme Court has upheld that in this case the lot should be considered the same as a small property. Mr. Farrar asked that the City Attorney research this. Mr. Dinklage asked if the State was aware of this easement. Mr. Orvis didn't know. He also didn't know if it would affect the State's offer. He felt the easement could be considered an encumbrance against the property. c. Parcel #11, owner Randall Munsun dba South Burlington Realty Mr. Orvis said a .14 acre piece of land is being taken. There is also a permanent easement for conduit, 3 temporary easements for slope, a temporary easement for a drive, and some personal property items to be moved (signs, pole). There will be a direct reimbursement for the relocation of the personal property. Mr. Dicovitsky, representing the owner, said they have been asking about signs. They have 2 businesses on the property. They have been given no indication where signs will be located, and this would affect viability of current businesses continuing on the site. He said that if this question and the question of operations of the earth moving company could be solved, they would have no problem with the offer. He noted they are losing 120 ft. of curb cut on Dorset St. They need a new entry to the San Remo and also have not been able to get an answer on this. It seems to be at the engineer's discretion. Mr. Stitzel said the City has not been involved in this discussion. They have been told the minimum proposal the State would accept is a curb cut 50 ft. from Dorset St. Mr. Cimonetti asked if this is a State or City decision. Mr. Stitzel said the City would normally have this discretion over curb cuts. Mr. Cimonetti asked who would deal with the sign question. Mr. Stitzel said they should start with him. Mr. Dicovitsky noted that if the buildings will no longer support a retail operation, the owner would have a problem with the settlement. Mr. Hafter asked if it can be said that as long as the current operation remains, the curb cut can be in a particular place; if there is a new operation, it may have to be changed. Mr. Stitzel said that is possible. d. Parcel #19, owner Edgar and Betty Ann Welch Mr. Orvis said a .09 acre piece is being taken. There is also a temporary slope easement and drive right and a temporary easement to install a drainage pipe. Personal property is also involved (a sign and 2 light poles). The property now has 2 curb cuts and will have only one at the northern end of the property. There are 3 large pine trees in the acquisition area. $23,200 is offered. Mr. Frank, representing the owner, said that since the state's appraisal was not available to the owner, they got their own appraisal from Fred Blais. Mr. Blais estimated damages at $69,000. He will give a complete report when he's back from vacation. Mr. Farrar reminded Mr. Frank that they have only until 15 March to get it in. Mr. Frank said they are looking not only at the taking but at the affect of the distance between the building and street line and circulation around the building. e. Parcel #40, owner Lodging North, Inc. Mr. Orvis said a temporary drive right is involved. It is the drive that enters Lake Buick. He didn't know what interest Lodging North has as they don't seem to own the property. The offer is $100. Mr. Stitzel said it is possible this land is now owned by Munson Earth Moving. They were negotiating regarding that right of way because Lake Buick does not want the right of way ever to be used. No one was present representing the owner. f. Parcel #41, owner AMI, Burlinton, Inc. Mr. Orvis said .13 acre is being taken. There is also a temporary construction easement, 3 slope easements, 3 drive rights, and an easement to remove and replace topsoil. There is also personal property (signs) and some landscaping. The offer is $46,150. Mr. Farrar noted that the signs which are personal property are included in this appraisal. Mr. Orvis will check on this. Mr. Fodor said the plan shows a median in front of the Anchorage so there will be no left turn into the Anchorage. Traffic will enter from Corporate Way and have to make 3 left turns to get to the office. He felt there should be consideration given to business loss because of this. He said they have retained Robert Flanagan as appraiser and presented the Council with a summary of Mr. Flanagan's appraisal. They do not dispute the value of the land being taken, but a 5% decrease in business is projected. Mr. Fodor noted that 90% of their business comes from I-89 or from the Airport, all of which would be making left turns on Dorset St. If there are other motels easier to get to, they will lose business. The figure set for business loss is $120,000. Mr. Cimonetti asked if business loss was considered. Mr. Orvis noted that legally the City can say "no left turn" without any compensation. They could also put a barrier there with no compensation. Business loss was not considered. He felt that with proper signage, the property would retain its value. Part of the signage award is for this purpose. g. Parcel #43, lessor Round Table Investors, lessee Chittenden Bank Mr. Orvis said .12 acres are being taken. There is also a temporary slope easement, a temporary easement to remove and reset a fence, permanent rights for a loop detector, temporary sidewalk easement, temporary drive right, and permanent rights for a traffic sign and culvert. Personal property (lights, poles, sign) is also involved. The offer from the State is $53,300. Mr. Anderson, representing the Chittenden, said the question they have is what the project will do to the remainder of the property. To the extent that a different design can be made, they are open to that option. They are not, he said, trying to make a profit, but they want the property to work as well after the project as it does now. Mr. Anderson noted that the project for the bank was built in 1971, and they were complimented for the building and the landscaping. They have 3 drive- up windows and a separate lane for driving around the bank. At the time the building was built, they met zoning regulations. They have since added to the building and got a variance. Mr. Anderson said their concerns are: stacking space for the drive-up windows, parking, the need to relocate the entrance to the building, and being thrown way out of compliance with Zoning Regulations. He noted they now have 16 stacking spaces and according to present regulations would now be required to have 18. With the State's proposal, they have to curve stacking around the front of the building and have only 13 spaces. There would not be a straight approach to the drive-up windows. He felt it was a better idea to move the drive-up windows to the back end of the building which would give room for the required number of spaces and would eliminate the stacking in front of the building. With regard to parking, Mr. Anderson said they now have 42 spaces that are well used. Under the State's proposal they would have only 34. He said he thought they might be able to buy some land in back, but this would be an expense to the bank. The bank entrance is now in front of the building, and Mr. Anderson felt it was safe because there is a lot of green space in front. With the State plan, a person would step out of the bank into the middle of the drive-up stacking lanes. They feel this is not safe and propose moving the entrance to the bank, which will also involve interior changes. Mr. Anderson noted they now have the minimum lot size for the C-1 District. With the state plan, they will have less than needed and will be non-conforming because of an undersized lot. They will also not meet the 15ft. required green space in front. Mr. Dinklage asked if the State has been made aware of the options suggested by the Chittenden. Mr. Munson said they have been discussion this with the State for 2 years. Mr. Condos noted the Chittenden needs these alterations now as he felt circulation is now substandard. The third drive-up window is almost never open and that makes stacking even worse. He felt the renovations were wanted by the Chittenden regardless of the road project. Mr. Munsun said they wouldn't be coming in for changes without the road. Mr. Anderson noted the State says there are no severance damage. The Chittenden feels they are considerable. Mr. Dinklage said he felt the Chittenden's business will increase because of the Dorset St. improvements. Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved the Council adjourn the Condemnation Hearing and meet in Executive Session to discuss Dorset Street, Contract Negotiations, and Personnel Issues. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.