Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/06/2011SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 6 JULY 2011 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, 6 July 2011, at 8:30 a.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Councilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; T. Duff, Planning Commission; D. Marshall, P. O’Brien, R. Deslauriers, B. & M. Gilbert, S. Dopp, J. Larkin, L. Murphy, T. & B. Daly, B. Gardner, C. Snyder 1. Agenda Review: Added to the agenda were a discussion on National Night Out and a discussion on reappraisal. 2. Discussion on National Night Out: Mr. Miller reminded the Council that there is no funding in the budget for National Night Out, and most of the sponsors have been lost over the years due to economic conditions. He asked if the Council wants staff to try to figure out a “scaled back” activity. He also noted that there has traditionally been a dinner to honor volunteers, and this could be done. Ms. Dooley suggested the possibility of a dinner and a fair for the different committees to celebrate their work. Mr. Knapp suggested planning something for another night, allowing more time for planning. Ms. Dooley suggested contacting PACT for ideas and help. 3. Additional FEMA Funding: Mr. Miller noted that in order to get additional disaster funding, the Council Chair must be authorized to sign the application. Mr. Knapp moved to authorize the Chair to sign the form to secure matching funds from FEMA. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. For Councilors to discuss areas of concern related to City growth and development and key criteria each has used in determining the components of Interim Zoning he/she supports. To discuss each Councilor’s perception of the role of the Council when making decisions that impact in different ways a large and diverse population. To discuss what additional information each Councilor needs (and by when) and the ease or difficulty in obtaining such information, for Councilors to be able to vote on an Interim Zoning Bylaw: Ms. Greco said she feels the Council needs to listen to residents then align a vision to this. Ms. Emery said she shares that sentiment; however, the City Council is privy to information that the public doesn’t have. She said it is hard to take a public point of view that sounds like a party platform, but there are many different opinions within that point of view. Not everyone is writing or calling Councilors. Ms. Emery stressed the need to be open to compromise and to listen to a diversity of perspectives. She said it is up to the Council to give direction to the public; the public wants the City Council to inspire public confidence. She added that it is important to keep to the rules of civility. Ms. Dooley said this is a pluralistic society with many points of view, and only at the ballot box do we know how people feel. The community has multiple goals. She noted that the public wants the city to get its fiscal house in order, and there is an excellent team working on that. The public wants to roads in shape. There is also a pent up desire to make progress on the City Center. She felt the Council can’t look at a single subject in isolation but has to consider human and fiscal resources, and while growth is a source of some concern, it is also something to celebrate. People want to live in South Burlington. Ms. Dooley noted that the city will be celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2015. She also stressed that the Council has a complicated job, and civility is so important in finding ways to work together. Mr. Knapp identified the role of the City Council as the primary policy making body, not administrative. The Council’s role is to identify areas of concern and to see which ones are “policy.” Once an issue is identified as a policy issue, the Council is obligated to investigate, not just from a “vocal” point of view but from everyone. The Council has to identify legal implications and to be aware of the consequences of any actions it may take. It also has to identify resources. Finally, the Council has to review its actions and determine whether there were any unintended consequences, etc. Mr. Engels said he agreed the Council was a policy-making body for the city. He noted that it is a learning experience to be serving on the Council. Decisions can’t be made prior to the Council meeting together. Thought the Council and City Manager have the power to set the agenda, there are lots of “checks and balances” so individual opinions can be shared publicly. Ms. Emery added that it’s a lot like an impressionist painting, with a lot to keep track of. She noted that this is a very young Council with no one serving more than 4 years. She felt the process is well­devised, so no one can “shoot from the hip.” It is a deliberative process. She stressed that there must be respect for the organization, its structure and its rules of operation. She added that she relies on the opinions of attorneys, accountants, etc., and she has to admit her limitations. Ms. Greco said she agrees with everyone and is fascinated with the outcome and how people come to different decision based on the same information. She believes that all members want what is best for the city. She stressed the need to research because when they know more, the can do better. Regarding growth, Mr. Engels said he is definitely not an expert, but he has been thrust into being one of 5 votes. He has thus had to develop a position. He felt there are three things the Council has to deal with: Open Space, PUDs/TDRs, and waivers for residential and mixed use development. Mr. Engels said he has driven around the city to see some of what is being discussed, how waivers have been used, especially on Spear and Dorset Streets. He said his sense is that there is nothing wrong with PUDs, but that they have possibly been misused. He felt denser areas might be better near major roads with access to everyday services. He didn’t feel they were a good idea in the middle of a hayfield. Ms. Emery said her values have evolved, and she didn’t come with preconceived ideas. She said her concern is not with the basic tools. She noted that she just returned from a vacation where she saw one house on half an acre for mile after mile, using up all the land. She said she preferred clustering. She stressed that she is not a “TDR­buster.” She noted that her respect for the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board has grown and felt that overall their effect has been positive. She stressed the need for housing but also noted a concern with preserving wetlands and with providing gradual transitions between areas of lower and higher densities. Ms. Emery felt the Council needs very precise goals that can be accomplished within the time-frame allowed by Interim Zoning. The amount of work needs to be achievable and should not create unforeseen problems. Ms. Dooley said her biggest concern when she ran for the Council was land development regulations. She had specific ideas, none of which are in the Interim Zoning she is recommending. She felt the Council has to honor the city’s Comprehensive Plan revision process. Ms. Dooley said that in developing her Interim Zoning plan she went back to themes that did not honor the Comprehensive Plan: open space and protection of neighborhoods. She noted that in 2003, the criteria for height waivers were changed, and she felt these changes were not in sync with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a lot of language in the Plan about the preservation of open space, and the city acted on that in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). TDRs are a way to do that. She felt the city dropped the ball on the rest of the city, and she saw a need to preserve open space there as well. Ms. Dooley stressed that Interim Zoning is not the only way to address issues. She noted that the Planning Commission has plans to include the public in the update of the Comprehensive Plan. She stressed that she wants to be true to the plan the city has. Mr. Knapp said he has not identified growth/development as a policy concern. There is a policy for updating the Land Development Regulations and he felt the Council should let the Planning Commission do its job and then deal with the LDRs. Mr. Knapp noted that South Burlington is a “thoroughfare,” and has to deal with that. He is also very concerned with housing options in the city. City employees can’t afford to live in the city, and he felt that is wrong. He stressed the need to act in a way to promote job development in the city as a way to reduce commutes. Mr. Knapp said that if the Council is concerned with the environment, it should not push development out of South Burlington. He felt the Council is premature with Interim Zoning and had legal concerns about that. He stressed the need to identify future consequences of any action the Council takes. He also felt the city doesn’t have the resources to engage in Interim Zoning and to do what is required. He said that interim zoning will have longer effects than its 2­year duration; if the rules are “up in the air,” no developer will start anything during that period. Mr. Knapp stressed that he is not opposed to protecting open space, but he did not think this should be done by regulation. He noted that no other town in the state sets aside $250,000 a year to protect open space. There is also access to national funding, the Vermont Land Trust and the South Burlington Land Trust. They should be allowed to do what they want to do. He felt it should be absolutely the last option to take away value from property by making it open space. Finally, Mr. Knapp felt that waivers are not a policy issue but an administrative issue. Ms. Greco said overdevelopment was an issue for her. She felt there has been dangerous growth as opposed to smart growth and this has had a negative impact on the quality of life. She felt this affects things such as air, water quality, etc. She said that everything that is done affects climate change, and building more has a negative effect. She saw the need to prevent further erosion and to provide food for further generations. She said that even if the city does nothing, things will still happen, and if the city waits, there won’t be any choices down the road because the land will be paved over. She felt there are terms in the regulations that are not specific and that the city has lost in Court because of that. She also said that most of what has been built in South Burlington is not affordable. She felt there are organizations that would help the city through Interim Zoning. Ms. Emery said she is between Mr. Knapp and Ms. Greco. She felt the future would hold a place for small farming but that hubs of activity are the key to economic vitality and viability. She stressed the need to find a compromise. Mr. Knapp said he didn’t advocate paving over the SEQ. He also noted that affordable housing has a specific definition. It also has to be near centers of activity. With regard to growth, Mr. Knapp said that Act 250 has addressed growth in Vermont for 40 years. He also said that if the Council wanted to hear about small farming, he would bring in farmers to explain the economic reasons why you can’t farm in South Burlington. Mr. Knapp stressed that whatever doesn’t happen in South Burlington will happen in Shelburne, Charlotte, Richmond, etc., because for good or bad, people are moving here. He said there is a capacity to do smart growth without creating “big cities,” and that there are opportunities to do the right thing. He didn’t feel Interim Zoning was one of those opportunities. He also felt that the proposal for Interim Zoning doesn’t address the issues that were raised at this meeting. Ms. Emery said she felt that transitional buffers will take some work. She saw the value of the discrete items put forth and saw the need to concentrate on those few things. Ms. Dooley said she is not proposing to do nothing. She said there are many efforts going on to preserve and develop affordable housing throughout the state, and that this needs to be well thought out. She supported the narrowed Interim Zoning and wants it to be done well. She also wanted to honor the process in place. Ms. Greco said she felt the city will be “protecting trees and losing the forest” because big development will go on as it has. She said she can’t support that. Ms. Emery felt the first proposal was much too broad for her comfort and not achievable in one to two year timeframe. She felt the Council has to be realistic about what it can do, and the process needs to be achievable. There are other priority areas that can be tackled in other ways through the normal process. Members then considered what additional information they need: Ms. Greco: Buffering Mr. Knapp: Fiscal impact. He felt the Council was going about things backwards and that you can’t put together Interim Zoning without the information that is needed. Ms. Greco: Wants to know if Resolution 1 or 2 would have captured previous big development. She felt another session is needed before a vote. She wanted to share studies she has read. Ms. Dooley said she feels the city has an open space strategy and has acted on it in one part of the city but not in other parts. She said if the land in those areas is gone, the Open Space Fund will be useless. She also saw a disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan and LDR changes in recent years and that these are situations of risk. Mr. Miller said that in terms of process for getting information, staff will have something for the Council on 18 July regarding fiscal impacts. He questioned how to deal with information that only one Councilor needs. Mr. Engels said that in addition to financial analysis, he would like Mr. Miller’s point of view. Mr. Miller said he takes what the Council decides and implements it. Mr. Engels asked attorneys and developers for their input regarding impacts (written, if possible). Public Comment: Ms. Dopp: Thanked the Council for this meeting and the tone it took. Mr. Gilbert: Felt there is a sense of overdevelopment in the SEQ and the threat to existing neighborhoods is real. He felt Interim Zoning was the right step and was a warning to developers to consider carefully. He looked forward to the data staff will present on the 18th. Mr. Murphy, representing Quarry Hill and other landowners and businesses: Felt the process does not comport with the Council’s stated intent and that they listened only to people living within a mile of a particular development. He asked how there can be a warning for Resolution 2 when the board has never said it is the one they want to bring to public review. He noted that already 2 land closing have not happened because of this. He asked the Council not to make a decision on the 18th as there are unintended consequences they haven’t considered. Mr. Conner noted staff is treating this as if Interim Zoning is in effect, but they are accepting applications and informing applicants that there will be a supplemental City Council hearing. This is based on advice from the City Attorney. Tom Daly said the message the City Council is sending is that the process in place now doesn’t work and zoning doesn’t work. Business people who might want to relocate here will think that development will stop and will go elsewhere. He felt the cart is before the horse. Gathering information will take a long time, and this will go on for a long time. Bill Daly, developer of Dorset Heights, said he has already lost a sale because of this and it is killing him financially, including lost legal and engineering fees already paid. 5 of his employees will soon be gone. Mr. Snyder, resident and builder, said he has no projects planned in South Burlington at this time. He said that if waivers are an issue, the Council should tell the DRB to stop issuing them. They don’t need interim zoning to do that. He felt the Comprehensive Plan should be thoroughly vetted through the public process. He said the planned action will affect property values, and many landowners aren’t aware of this. He said the Planning Department in South Burlington is not easy to get around. If a developer follows the rules, they can build; if they don’t, they can’t. Patrick O’Brien, developer, consultant and lifelong South Burlington resident: Noted that sometimes waivers can be a good thing. He noted that some projects that at first don’t look very pretty will look quite nice as trees grow. He said that Cheese Factory Rd. and the end of Hinesburg Rd. have benefited from the TDR process. He felt that process should be completed. He said that if the PUD process is taken away, the city will have “bowling alley lanes.” He added that the laying off of 5 employees is only the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Gardner: He was raised in South Burlington and owns a few small pieces of land. Now he doesn’t know where he’s at. He tried to get a permit today and couldn’t. His workers will also be going home. 5. Reappraisal discussion: Mr. Rusten noted that there is a City Charter requirement to do a reappraisal at least every three years. The last reappraisal was in 2006, which means they city is in violation of the Charter. The City Attorney has said this does not negate the 2011 grand list, but the city must do an appraisal in 2012. The 2006 appraisal cost $400,000. Mr. Rusten also noted there is a State requirement for reappraisal when a community goes below an 80% common level of appraisal or when it goes above the coefficient of dispersal. South Burlington is not in either of these situations. The question is whether the city wants to change the Charter requirement; however, even if it does, there is no guarantee that the Legislature would act on a Charter change before April of 2012 when a reappraisal would have to be done. Mr. Miller noted that the $400,000 cost of the last reappraisal was just paid off. The state contributed $70,000 toward this. He noted the city can do statistical reappraisals, and that option will be explored. Mr. Miller urged the Council to consider bringing this issue to the City Charter Committee. Members supported doing this. 6. Executive Session: Mr. Knapp moved the Council adjourn and reconvene in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and litigation, and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Mr. Knapp moved for Council adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council adjourned. ____________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.