Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/17/2012CITY COUNCIL 17 JANUARY 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 January 2012, at 6:30 p.m., Orchard School. Coucilors Present: S. Dooley, Chair; M. Emery (arrived late), J. Knapp, P. Engels, R. Greco Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; I . Blanchard, Project Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Hubbard, Recreation Director; T. DiPietro, Stormwater Superintendent; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; P. & B. Nowak, K. Donahue, E. Knudsen, R. Deslauriers, Sr., P. O’Brien, E. & J. Goldberg, T. Duff, D. Seff, L. Yankowski, D. O’Rourke, J. Simson, J. Ilick, F Murray, M. Cloutier, L. Llewellyn, J. Larkin, M. Young, E. Farrell, S. Dopp, T. Cutler, L. Williams, D. Wilbur, M. Mahoney, M. Sykes, M. Barrows, M. Simoneau, F. Kochman, J. Bilodeau, B. Gilbert, D. Leban, D. Burke, J. Russell, S. Austin, Mr. York, M. Goodrich, L. Michaels, L. Murphy, F. Coffey, E. Biggins, J. Fuesner, E. Pomerleau, T. Finard, J. Jaeger, B. Stuono, other members of the public 1. Executive Session: Ms. Greco moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations, and litigation. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: Ms. Greco moved the Council exit executive session. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Ms. Dooley: The House Committee on Operations approved the proposed changes to the South Burlington City Charter 11-0. This will go to the Senate Committee on Thursday. Mr. Miller: The FY2011 audit is not yet complete. It will be rescheduled so that findings can be presented in a public meeting. The VLCT Legislative Day is 15 January in Montpelier. Council members who wish to attend should let Mr. Miller know. There will be a special City Council meeting tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. regarding the FY13 budget. Mr. Miller introduced Ilana Blanchard, the new city Project Manager. 4. Consider approval of funding a Management Study to be conducted at Red Rocks Park: Ms. Yankowski, Vice Chair of the Red Rocks Park Advisory Committee said the Committee would like to use some of the Open Space Fund to do a study of Red Rocks Park. The study would be done by UVM. The aim is to plan to better care for the park. Ms. Yankowski directed attention to the “objective list” which will be given to UVM. The work will be done by a graduate course and would start in the spring and run through next spring. Mr. Hubbard said the application is due by the end of January. Ms. Yankowski said the study would not require any supervision by city staff. Ms. Greco asked if the Wheeler Park study was done with Open Space Fund money. Mr. Conner said that study was done prior to the vote which allowed Open Space Fund money to be used for this purpose. Ms. Greco moved to approve funding from the Open Space Fund for a Management Study of Red Rocks Park, as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider Giving Approval of the City Manager to execute the Project Participation Agreement for Bartlett Brook North Stormwater Project: Mr. DiPietro directed attention to the agreement copy. He noted this has been budgeted in this year’s budget. The project is ready to go. Ms. Greco moved to allow the City Manager to execute the Project Participation Agreement for Bartlett Brook North Stormwater Project as presented. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Public Hearing on Proposed Interim Bylaw; second reading of same with possible action by the Council: Ms. Dooley explained that the Council would need to meet in a brief executive session prior to the public hearing. Ms. Dooley moved the Council meet in executive session with the City Attorney to discuss potential litigation. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the executive session, Ms. Greco moved that the Council exit executive session. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley advised that she had received a request from attorney Liam Murphy asking her to recuse herself from participating in the interim zoning discussion by the Council on the grounds of a conflict of interest. A letter was also received from Ralph Deslauriers to this effect. Ms. Dooley indicated that she had written a response to The Other Paper. She also noted that City Attorney Steve Stitzel says this claim is groundless. Ms. Dooley read from Attorney Stitzel’s letter to this effect. Ms. Dooley said she felt the best thing she can do is not recuse herself and to serve the citizens of South Burlington. Ms. Dooley then noted that a complaint was filed today against her and against the city. The City Attorney has said that there is nothing in the complaint that should prevent her from serving on the City Council at this meeting. Ms. Greco then moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Greco moved to waive the first reading of the interim zoning bylaw. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Knapp opposing. City Attorney Lafferty then explained the two situations in which a city can adopt interim zoning: 1. The city is doing a study of the area(s) proposed for interim zoning 2. The city has held meetings regarding a plan, addition to a plan, etc. Ms. Lafferty said interim zoning is adopted as an emergency measure. It would become effected upon passage. Ms. Lafferty noted that under interim zoning the City Council would hear applications for developments and could approve them as a conditional use. The proposed use would have to be consistent with the health, welfare and safety of the community. Ms. Dooley explained that the Council is considering this measure to address issues of affordable housing, sustainable agriculture, and form based codes. She noted the city has contracted for a study on form based codes for City Center and is interested in seeing if this could be applicable elsewhere in the city. Ms. Greco said there have been a lot of comments about interim zoning. People say the timing was inappropriate in December. She said that all the Council did in December was decide to discuss interim zoning. People also said it was inappropriate because of the budget process. Ms. Greco said that was a good time to discuss it. People have also said it was “unprecedented.” Ms. Greco noted that interim zoning has been imposed 5 times in past years. People have also cited the cost to the city. Ms. Greco said there may be a surplus this year that can be used to fund interim zoning. People have said the Planning Commission should address the issues. Ms. Greco said the Council has asked the Commission to address certain issues, but these are low on the Commission’s work list. People have also cited the current economy. Ms. Greco felt that it is a good time to plan when home sales are low. People have cited the jobs that were lost during the previous interim zoning. Ms. Greco said there are 700 approved homes on the books that could be built during interim zoning. People say “South Burlington is closed to business.” Ms. Greco said that would be true if construction were the only business. But there are many businesses in the city. People have cited “uncertainty.” Ms. Greco said there is already uncertainty because of lack of specificity in the Land Development Regulations. Regulations can be written for more specificity. People have said it is short-sighted to think we can have smaller homes. Ms. Greco said if we don’t try, we will never accomplish anything. Ms. Emery said she is open-minded. She felt it was important for the Council to state that were this to pass, projects would still come forward and could be permitted. There would be just another set of eyes to look at them. Ms. Emery stressed that her vote to consider this did not mean she would or would not vote for this proposal. She said she was here to listen. Mr. Knapp said he was uncertain about an ultimate goal. He felt that studying affordable housing, form based codes, and sustainable agriculture were legitimate goals (even though sustainable agriculture is economically doubtful in South Burlington). But he felt that interim zoning is going about this the wrong way. In the past, Mr. Knapp said, there were discussions among all stake-holders prior to interim zoning. It was done in a careful, thoughtful process. He added that he didn’t see a reason for interim zoning and felt that the Planning Commission should be allowed to do the work it is empowered to do. He also added that he hadn’t heard from anyone that the city’s planning process is not functional. These boards have developed an expertise, and he didn’t see a reason to short­circuit the process. Mr. Knapp also noted that the study of cottage housing is being done by an ad hoc committee, not a professional, funded study. It is looking at only one kind of affordable housing, and there are many. He was not aware of any study being done regarding sustainable agriculture or the conservation of open space. Mr. Knapp agreed that the study of form based codes is appropriate. The city will get a report from a study being done; if doing this for the rest of the city is deemed appropriate, let’s study that. Mr. Knapp said he didn’t see where the interim zoning statute allows you to impose interim zoning first and study it afterwards. He was also concerned with certain “protected classes” which are excluded from the proposed interim zoning bylaw. He felt this was discrimatory as these were “higher end” properties where affordable housing won’t be built. Mr. Knapp said he didn’t see how affordable housing, sustainable agriculture, and open space relate to alteration of existing buildings. He did not see how what is proposed would protect the health, safety and welfare of the city as it does not provide for “orderly physical and economic growth.” Mr. Knapp also felt it was incumbent on the policy making body to have a clear economic analysis of what the ordinance will cost, and he felt this should be done by a professional organization. He cited potential budget impacts, and appeals of taxes by landowners who can’t develop their properties. Public testimony was then taken, with South Burlington residents permitted to speak before non-residents. Testimony included the following: Ms. Dopp: Was concerned with time. There is a current process with the Planning Commission and the DRB, and it is a good process. But there is a huge body of work to get through, including the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. During that time there could be a number of proposals from the development community. Mr. O’Brien: Felt the city should do the studies first and then come back with interim zoning, if necessary. Mr. Cutler: Has one small seasonal business but has to go through the planning process every year. The city doesn’t lack rules to protect its citizens. Interim zoning would affect his ability to open his business. He felt the city would be “risking the future in the name of protecting the future.” Unintended effects could do irreparable damage. Mr. Scollins: Has a daughter looking for a home, and there is a paucity of affordable housing. Is sensitive to the concerns of developers and builders. Appreciates the ambiguities in some regulations. Thinks the DRB and Planning Commission need better guidelines. Ms. Williams: Took issue with the language of the bylaw citing the vagueness of words such as “much,” “affordability,” and “trends unlikely to change.” She cited the loss of 200 homes taken by the airport. Felt the bylaw was poorly written Asked if interim zoning will be in effect for 3-6 years as that is the time cited for completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Young: Concerned as a taxpayer with the unfunded cost. Interim Zoning is not part of the budget process. Felt that municipal spending is as “runaway” as development. Mr. Wilbur: Dismay at congestion and loss of open land. Hinesburg and other places have kept their original nature. Cited 20.3% growth in 10 years which is disproportionate to surrounding communities. 30% of the growth in Chittenden County has been in South Burlington. This puts stress on city services. The city can’t find money for a community center, library, etc., which other communities have. Ms. Quest: There could be shortfalls in oil. Food could have to be grown locally because of lack of transportation. Recommended the book: “The Very Hungry City.” Felt action is required now. Mr. Mahoney: Opposed to interim zoning, particularly with this City Council. Felt it would have a “chilling affect” on the Grand List. Felt this Council is not equipped to deal with zoning questions objectively. Developers need guidelines and regulations, but that is why there are bodies in place to do that. Felt the issue should be put on the ballot. Ms. Goldberg: These are the worst economic times. Government needs to encourage employment. There is also a cry across the nation for fewer regulations, but South Burlington is talking about more. Every regulation in the past has studied affordable housing. Every home in South Burlington has the ability to have a garden for sustainable agriculture. Felt interim zoning was a blatant abuse of power. Mr. Donahue: Is on the fence about interim zoning. Feels the city got here because of the TDR issue. He might favor a limited scope for interim zoning. Didn’t think the City Council could do the job without the DRB. Cited the need for building inspectors in the city and hoped that would be studied. M. Sykes: South Burlington is a very successful community and people should be happy about that. Felt there are inconsistencies in what the Council is saying. Interim zoning will actually restrict affordable housing. A small house on a large piece of land is not good environmentally. The city is supporting road connections that will eliminate the most beautiful open space. Can people appeal the decision of the City Council? Ms. Dooley said she believed the appeal was to the Environmental Board. J. Barrows: Not in favor and agrees with Mr. Knapp. There is confusion among people in town and disagreement with facts. Felt there is lack of leadership by the Council, and that this is not being presented in a clear way. There is lack of trust in the Council. People think there is a ‘hidden agenda” with some members. Interim zoning should be a ballot item. M. Simoneau: It is hard to step into an environment where there is disagreement. Unfortunately, this is a “for” and “against” conflict which has divided the city. It was a hasty action by the Council. The question is how do people want to be governed. Three people can “hijack a democratic process” without concern for the outcome. Felt this is an abuse of power. J. Larkin: Many people think of development as a disease. His company employs 300 people, and those jobs would not exist without development. Plumbers, electricians, etc. will be affected by this. His company has done a lot of affordable housing, and he is proud to be a developer. The costs of this are unknown and could be substantial. The reasons are unclear. It “collapses the checks and balances and puts responsibility in the hands of a few.” More explanation and more documentation is needed. J. Bilodeau: Represents a lot of businesses as a CPA. Businesses are job creators. He has seen enough red ink in South Burlington and Chittenden County to last a lifetime. Developers have “gotten it in the seat of the pants.” “If you put one person out of work, you will have one more reason for an affordable house.” B. Gilbert: Many citizens have expressed concerns which brought about interim zoning. Some members of the DRB and Planning Commission support it. Thanked the Council for turning around the budget issues and was sorry to hear people attacking Council members personally. Felt interim zoning should be done right. Asked the “nay­sayers” to come up with better language. Mr. Kochman: Concerned with personal attacks on the Council. Asked the Council to listen to small business owners. Felt the Council should rely on staff which was hired for its expertise. Would like to see suspension of waivers. Thinks PRDs are abused. D. Leban: Would like a legitimate alternative to interim zoning that would result in affordable housing, energy efficient buildings, land for gardens, wildlife corridors, and small lot development. Felt this can be done without interim zoning. J. Russell: Cited the number of people who want to change their housing footprints in order to sell their homes. This will extend the time needed for closings on houses for people who have lost their jobs and can‘t afford to pay their mortgages. S. Austin: A “lower class” citizen who felt she was not represented. Felt interim zoning does not need to happen. There is a board in place to handle things. If what the Council wants isn’t high enough on the Planning Commission list, get them to change the list. Mr. York: Neither for nor against. Asked the Council to consider if further and give citizens more information, including a large map showing where interim zoning might apply. Designate what would be “open land” and what would be “developable land.” Come up with specific objectives. D. O’Rourke: This is a lot broader than the City Council thinks. He couldn’t understand why someone would have to come to the City Council to build a garage. Felt this will result in a lot of litigation against the city. Stressed that “non­residents” contribute to half of the city’s Grand List by investing in the community. They shouldn’t be vilified. D. Burke: Noted that paragraph 2 cites the importance of sustainable agriculture, but municipal lands and agriculture north lands and other potential agricultural lands have been excluded from interim zoning. Noted that almost all projects had to go through a “prime ag” review and had to mitigate the use of these lands in order to build. L. Murphy: Represents a number of interests in the community, many of whom have lived in the city for 50 years or more. Noted that the lawsuit filed today had another element: the lack of a standard for the City Council to decide on a project. The only standard is “health, welfare and safety.” Asked if the Council would ignore 600 pages of zoning regulations. Noted the city lost this lawsuit once in the J. M. Golf case because of a lack of standards. There are no standards to the proposal, and that is why people are concerned. Ms. Dooley read from the statute as to what the Council will consider. Mr. Murphy said that is still not a standard. M. Goodrich: Interim zoning would have a detrimental affect on a piece of land his family owns. The only viable action for them would be to demolish and rebuild rather than sell the land, which was their first choice. Redevelopment of the property would be better for the city by making it more beautiful, creating jobs and adding to the Grand List. R. Deslauriers: This is a total moratorium in certain parts of the city. To say otherwise is disingenuous. L. Michaels: Represents the O’Brien Brothers who grew up on a farm in South Burlington which is now the community center in J.C. Park. The O’Briens have served the housing needs of the city for many years, especially affordable housing and housing for the elderly. They are committed to meeting the present and future needs of the city and want to work together with the city in a cooperative manner in a way that is responsive to citizens and business goals. He cited possible unintended consequences of interim zoning and noted that though he doesn’t live in South Burlington, he shops, eats, and spends a lot of money there. F. Coffey: Representing GBIC and the Regional Chamber of Commerce. Is working with people to increase business. Interim zoning could result in a situation where people choose to move elsewhere by creating an environment of uncertainty for employers and potential employers thinking of moving here. It would also further curtail already hard hit industries. Feels this goes against the principle of “orderly growth.” Felt there are better solutions. E. Biggins: Felt like a second class citizen because he doesn’t live in South Burlington. Has a business and pays taxes here. Felt interim zoning belies the concept that the city is “open for business.” He employs 24 people and would like to expand and hire more. Feels that at least several people on the Council would be hostile to his company’s aims. Felt “cottage housing” seems “faddish.” The market can tell you what areas need; if cottage housing was needed, it would be built. “You scare me.” Ms. Emery said the focus on “residents” had to do with “local control.” Mr. Biggins replied that his investment in South Burlington is greater than that of many residents. J. Ilick: Employs working people in South Burlington. Bought their property at a very depressed time. The City Manager and City Council were happy they chose to develop here. Have built LEAD certified buildings and walking trails. Green Mountain Coffee employs 600 people. People have told him that any business reading this bylaw would “make skid marks to get out of town.” The bylaw is already doing irreparable damage to the city. J. Feusner: Has built many residences over the years, from high end to affordable. Feels this interim zoning is not appropriate to achieve affordable housing. He currently builds $250,000 units in the city, a modest sum. The best way to make housing more affordable is to reduce impact fees. For 3 units in South Burlington, it cost $17,000 in impact fees. Drop impact fees, and house prices will drop. E. Pomerleau: Has worked with South Burlington for 40 years. A few hours ago, he got the last building permit he will get for a long time. It took 3 long meetings to get through a tiny addition to commercial building. South Burlington has one of the finest planning staffs, very diligent and professional. For the City Council to take this on would be very problematical. This is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Let’s work together. Unidentified speaker: Affordable housing and sustainable agriculture are very laudable. He said he was speaking for sustainable jobs. They are at the maximum of their building and are dedicated to staying in South Burlington. Under interim zoning they would have to look at leaving the city and going elsewhere. Asked for a vote tonight. T. Finard: Represents the family which owns Umall. A good idea to go through a thoughtful process, but a moratorium will shut down development. To the real commercial world, South Burlington will be closed. The system is arbitrary and biased. J. Jaeger: Has been dealing with the Planning and Zoning staff and the City Council for many years. Respects their hard work. This seems like a “slap in the face” to say the system has failed and you have to shut everything down. Zoning is supposed to support the town plan. Interim zoning will bring a screeching halt to affordable housing and high-paying jobs. South Burlington has one of the shortest commutes in the country. Its economy is characterized by diversity. It has been a good place to start a business. There is no reason to shut it down. Ms. Dooley noted that last year they extended the public hearing to allow for public comment by e-mail, etc., and to give the Council time to digest what they heard tonight. Ms. Greco said she thinks very highly of the staff that serves the city. They are top notch. Ms. Emery said she has 3 issues: a need for clarity, a need to look for specific objectives, and the possibility of developers coming forward to help the city with this. Ms. Dooley said she only asked that residents speak first because last year some residents left because they didn’t have a chance to speak. She was sorry people felt they were being disparaged. Mr. Knapp suggested tabling this discussion and putting it on hold, then gathering stakeholders and going forward with a collaborative effort instead of in a combative methodology. He made this in the form of a motion which was not seconded. Ms. Greco moved to extend the public hearing to 31 January 2012 for the purpose of soliciting more written input. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Knapp and Ms Emery opposing. 7. Other Business: Members discussed whether to close the public hearing and when. Mr. Miller said there has to be a vote to close it. It can be closed as of 31 January, if members choose. Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet on Thursday, 2 February 2012 at 4:30 p.m., to discuss interim zoning and to take action. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to close the public hearing and the period for public comment effective 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 31 January 2012. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review and Approve Minutes of 3 January 2012: Ms. Greco moved to approve the Minutes of 3 January 2012 as written. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Knapp moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.