Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/14/2012CITY COUNCIL 14 MAY 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 14 May 2012, at 3:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planning Department; I. Blanchard, City Staff; B. Stuono, R. Provost, A. & A. Irish, L. Williams, R. Myers 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Consider approval of waivers regarding litigation and authorize Chair to execute, with: 1. McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan 2. RHR Smith & Associates 3. Kittell, Branagan & Sargent Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Discuss Procedure for Developing Possible Public Position for City Council re: the F-35 DEIS: Mr. Miller said the question is whether there is time for the Council to draft a position within the response timeline. The Council could ask staff to develop a position or could hold a special meeting. Mr. Miller also noted that because of a hearing to take place in Maine, there may be an extension to the response time until mid- June. This would give the Council more time since there is another Council meeting in between. Ms. Dooley said she got a call from Ed Garvey who noted there is money available for noise-proofing and insulation in affected homes. Ms. Dooley said she told him the money in the noise program can be used for insulation. She then reviewed the history of the switch from the 70 to 65 DNL line. The Airport went to the homeowners first, which put the city in a difficult position. Ms. Dooley added that it looks like even without the F-35s, the F-16s are producing a larger noise area than previously thought. Ms. Dooley said that she didn't feel the Council had to take a position; they could just say that if the F-35s are based here, there should be resources provided for noise mitigation. Mr. Miller said they could say "whether or not the F-35s are based here." Ms. Riehle said she felt the city should take a position. She would also want to know if noise mitigation money is available for schools as Chamberlin School would be involved. Mr. Engels said he didn't feel the Council should take a position as it is a "politically loaded situation." Ms. Greco felt it was the Council's responsibility to take a position because of the neighborhoods involved. Ms. Mackenzie agreed with Mr. Engels. Ms. Dooley agreed with Ms. Greco and Ms. Riehle. Mr. Stuono said the Council should go through the EIS as "the devil is in the details." He also felt a lot of information is lacking. He suggested the Planning Commission also look into this and that they be directed to read the document. 4. Consider dates for iPod Training and iPad set up: Ms. Blanchard said the training would take about 2 hours and would involved working with a trainer from Verizon. This will cover all the software for a "paperless" meeting. Members agreed to hold the training on 22 May, 5 p.m. at Verizon with a backup date of 23 May at 5 p.m. 5. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-03 of Robert L. Provost to subdivide a 0.57 acre lot developed with two single family dwellings into two lots, 27 Birch Street: Mr. Provost said he bought a double lot about 7 years ago and got a PUD approval for his home with an accessory apartment. He is proposing to subdivide the rear lot as the bank says this is the best way to get financing. Mr. Engels asked why Mr. Provost got a PUD. Mr. Provost said he thought it made sense at the time. He wanted to have his daughters come home and have a place to live. They now live out of state, and his thought is to either subdivide and develop it or to sell and move on. He said he should just have subdivided it in the first place. Ms. Dooley asked how it became one lot. Mr. Provost said the PUD process required that. Ms. Dooley asked if Mr. Provost built the garage. He said he did not. Ms. Dooley asked if the structure meets all setbacks/coverages. Mr. Provost said it does. Ms. Riehle asked about the mobile home on the property. Mr. Provost said that is gone now. Ms. Riehle asked if the rear property could be a single residence. Mr. Provost said it is now. Ms. Riehle asked if it could be expanded. Mr. Provost said now that the mobile home is gone and there is less lot coverage, it could be expanded in the future. Ms. LaRose noted that in the original application it was 2 lots. At the time of the PUD, it was one lot in city records. Staff will need to re-evaluate this because of the removal of the mobile home. Ms. LaRose said she was not sure this application will create 2 conforming lots. Mr. Provost had that information and provided it to the Council. Ms. LaRose stressed that each lot has to conform. Mr. Provost said setbacks and coverages will meet the criteria. Ms. Irish, a neighbor, noted there is a bathroom in the rear of the garage. Ms. Dooley asked if an accessory apartment can be a separate structure. Ms. LaRose said it can be. Ms. Mackenzie then moved to deliberate on IZ application IZ-13-03 on 4 June 2012, at 4 p.m. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Mackenzie then moved to continue IZ-13-03 until 18 June 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-04 of Larry & Leslie Williams to amend a planned unit development consisting of a six lots into 10 lots for a total of 11 units, 1630 Dorset Street: Mr. Williams reviewed the history of the proposed project. He noted that in 2007 he got subdivision approval for 6 lots (their existing home plus 5 additional lots). They then went to Act 250 for approval. Then the market "softened" and they waited until last summer to look at this again. The recommendation of the builders at that time was to avoid multi-family buildings. They then met with the DRB which didn't like the lot in the corner. They are now proposing 11 units on 10 lots with a duplex unit in front of the corner lot, leaving that open. Mr. Conner noted that the DRB has seen a sketch plan of this proposal. He noted that any approval by the Council or DRB would have to be mirrored by the other body. Mr. Miller said that if the Council approves and the DRB makes a change, it would have to come back to the Council. Ms. Dooley asked the relationship to the Highlands area. Mr. Conner said he didn't think there was any connection. They are both in a north/south orientation, but this is quite a bit west of Highlands. Mr. Williams said they would connect to municipal sewer and the mound system septic would go. The street would be a public street. Ms. Greco asked if there is an expiration to the prior approval. Mr. Conner said there is not. Mr. Engels asked what the homes might look like. Mr. Williams said they are thinking of a "farm style." Ms. Greco asked if they had considered something other than building because of the prime ag soils. Mr. Williams said the State did not consider they needed any mitigation because the prime ag soils are so fragmented on the site. Ms. Greco asked what the "tipping point" is for water, sewer, schools, etc. Mr. Conner said there is already an approval so there is no increase. Ms. Dooley questioned the wetland buffer where it is only 25 feet. Mr. Williams said this is a class 2 wetland. Mr. Engels suggested a community garden on the open land. A neighbor was concerned that this would bring development closer to them and damage what they've done for their home. The were concerned with storm water runoff into their gardens. Mr. Williams said the slope drains away from that property, and there is a substantial hedge and tree line between the properties. The neighbor said you can see through the chain link fence. Ms. Greco suggested combining agriculture and affordable housing with the project as that is what Interim Zoning is about. Ms. Dooley then moved to deliberate on 4 June 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to continue the application until 18 June 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: No issues were raised. 8. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items: No issues were raised. 9. Executive Session: Ms. Mackenzie moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel and real estate transactions and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Greco moved adjournment. Ms. Reihle seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.