HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/08/2020CITY COUNCIL 8 SEPTEMBER 2020
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 8 September 2020, at
6:30 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman
ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City
Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. & L. Smith, K. Epstein, B. Sirvis, B.
Zigmund, D. Bugbee, M. Mittag, M. Abrams, S Dooley, L. Nadeau, K. Ryder, M. Murray, D. Long,
B. Britt
1. Welcome:
Ms. Riehle welcomed members of the public to the meeting.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Smith noted a 7-hour party held next door to her home on Saturday with 20+ people, not
observing masks, etc. They said they were are “relatives.” When the police were called, they
said they don’t respond to parties where COVID is the issue. Ms. Smith noted that the
Governor’s Executive Order (which she read in part) indicates that law enforcement should deal
with this issue. She asked the Council to tell the police to respond to such events and also to
limit the number of people who can attend a party. Ms. Smith said the Governor has allowed
communities to do this. Ms. Riehle said this will be looked into.
Mr. Smith thanked the Council for its efforts regarding the Higher Ground permit application. A
Burlington DRB decision today did not take into account any of the South Burlington concerns.
Their main focus was on traffic after hours. The DRB will be meeting regarding the next steps.
Mr. Smith added that he hoped efforts can be coordinated to mitigate issues of concern to
residents so that there is better protection for the neighborhood before the application is
approved.
4. Announcements & City Manager’s Report:
Members of the Council reported on recent events in which they participated including the
opening of classes at UVM, the Badge Ceremony for 3 new firefighters and a meeting with a
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 2
conservation group and state and federal officials on a collaborative farmland project related to
the Auclair property.
Mr. Dorn: He will be on vacation for the remainder of the week.
Met last week with a neighbor to Overlook Park regarding protection from car
lights when the pine trees come down.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve Minutes for 20 and 28 July and 3 and 18 August
It was noted that Diane Bugbee’s name should be added to the list of those present at the 18
August meeting.
Ms. Emery asked about the $125 to Rice High School for ‘restitution.’ Mr. Hubbard said that is
for the Community Justice Center.
Ms. Emery then moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the addition noted in the Minutes
of 18 August. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a roll call vote.
6. Council discussion and staff recommendations related to citizen concerns over
noise issues in South Burlington:
Ms. Riehle said the goal is not to have a recurrence of what happened on Long Drive.
Mr. Bolduc said that he and Mr. Conner have had a number of conversations as to what can be
done within the regulatory tools and with short, medium, and long-term “fixers.” He noted that
there are both qualitative and quantitative standards in the LDRs. Mr. Conner said the LDR
performance standards deal with on-going noise issues (e.g., generators or machinery in a
building). When an issue arises, the Court gives the noise maker 7 days to rectify the situation.
Mr. Bolduc said the “Nuisance Ordinance” is usually for a one-time event (e.g. a party), and this
usually becomes a police issue.
Mr. Bolduc also noted there are “non-regulatory” tools such as people being good neighbors
which usually resolve 99+% of issues. Long Drive was the first construction noise issue.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 3
There are, Mr. Conner noted, gaps in the “tool box” including:
1. Point in time noise exceeding performance standards
2. Construction noise distinct from operational noise
3. Standards for a mixed residential/commercial area of the city distinct from a
strictly residential or strictly commercial area.
Mr. Bolduc then explained the distinction between “qualitative” and “quantitative” standards:
Qualitative standards are flexible but tend to be vague and subjective, largely based around
cultural norms and historic expectations (e.g., a lawn mower as opposed to loud music).
Quantitative standards are clear and consistent but inflexible and require sound monitoring
which is expensive (and may include training). Mr. Bolduc noted that the Town of Williston has
a hybrid model depending on zoning districts.
Mr. Conner then outlined the proposed recommendations:
1. Immediately use the current LDR standards: staff is informing applicants to the DRB
where ledge removal or something similar is a possibility. Staff has placed a
condition on the zoning permit to home where ledge removal is possible requiring
the applicant to return to the DRB for evaluation under performance standards if
ledge is found.
2. In the short term (within a month) there will be consideration of establishment of an
enforcement and fee schedule for issuance of tickets for violations of the LDRs.
3. In the mid-term (within 3 months), there will be recognition of construction noise as
a separate, ongoing operational noise, and it will be regulated accordingly. There will
be clarification of the distinction between the roles of the LDRs and the Nuisance
Ordinance, means and methods vs. community standards.
4. In the long term (6 months +), a proposal will be developed for a consultant to assist
with review of best practices for quantitative vs. qualitative standards for noise
management, review of best practices for management of lower frequency noise
generation and amended regulations as applicable, and consideration of future
standards.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 4
Mr. Bolduc noted there are some things in the existing ordinances that can be cleaned up, and
he will work on that.
Ms. Emery asked if there is anything being done immediately or already done. Mr. Conner said
there is when there is likely to be ledge or other unexpected noise. When ledge is found,
applicants must come back to the DRB. He noted that it is staff’s understanding that the
roadwork which evoked the concern is finished. There are separate permits for each of the
home sites.
Ms. Riehle asked if there is room for better/clearer contact with neighbors to let them know
what is going to happen. Mr. Conner said when there is blasting, there are very specific Act 250
regulations (e.g., time, distances). Alternatives to blasting don’t usually trigger such notice.
Mr. Barritt asked whether there is history of other “constant noise” complaints. Mr. Conner said
once in a while there is a complaint about work starting early, and that gets resolved
immediately. There have been a few calls when there is blasting. Most concerns are from
people who work non-traditional hours. Mr. Barritt asked if developers are normally reminded
of the rules. Mr. Conner said not usually, but staff can look into that. He added that they
usually try to keep the number of stipulations small so people will pay attention to them.
Developers can be asked that less impactful methods be used and, if not, why not.
Ms. Zigmund thanked the Council, Mr. Conner and Mr. Bolduc for addressing this issue. She
stressed that this was not “ordinary” noise. She asked whether the City Council could have
gotten involved. Mr. Conner said that under Vermont law the power to review development is
with the DRB who are given standards by the City Council and Planning Commission. The
recourse is to appeal to the Environmental Court.
Mr. Mittag suggested that while you can’t limit the noise from jack hammering, you can limit
the number of hours and days. Mr. Conner said that would be an area where some guidance to
the DRB would be possible. The question is whether 1 week, 8 hours a day is better or worse
than 2 weeks, 4 hours a day. He felt they would first look into a different method than jack
hammering. He said staff will look into this and come back with ideas.
Ms. Emery asked how this works across municipalities. Mr. Bolduc said there is a question as to
whether a municipality can be a party to a civil complaint or an appeal to the Environmental
Court.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 5
7. Preliminary Financial Overview for 2020:
Mr. Hubbard said that the fact that the city was in excellent financial shape going into the crisis
helped to manage finances. The local option tax revenue was down only $53,000 from the
estimate. The two most significant things the city did were to freeze the budget and to institute
the furlough program. Mr. Hubbard estimated the city will wind up $14,000 to the good for the
year.
On the expense side, $50,000 was spent for PPE and $225,000 for additional overtime for first
responders. The city has applied for several grants ($370,000 in total applications), and the
hope is to get a substantial amount of that. Some of the grant money will go into FY20, some
into FY21.
All of the contingency money in the budget was used, and there was no transfer made to the
sick bank fund (the city didn’t have to hit that fund this year). Special projects were delayed,
but the work at Overlook Park was done, and Dorset Street was completed.
The biggest hits were felt by the Library and the Recreation Departments, and they are now
rebuilding their staffs. Outdoor soccer is looking good now.
Ms. Riehle asked whether any city employees were lost by going elsewhere. Mr. Hubbard said
not through the furlough program. There were some positions that were not filled, and they are
still looking for an IT replacement for Al Reed when he retires. The budget freeze is continuing.
The Tax Department says taxes are coming in well. There will be mailings to tax payers with the
new education tax rate, probably in October, so people can plan their next installment. The city
is looking to transfer money to the School District on 22 September.
Mr. Barritt asked whether the PPE expense has gone down. Mr. Hubbard said the city should be
fully reimbursed for those expenses.
Mr. Hubbard said one concern will be tax appeals from hotels where taxes are income-based.
The city would them have to re-assess. The assessor is looking at different percentages and
their impact on FY21. The hope is that business picks up.
Mr. Hubbard said that Sue Dorey will probably work till the end of the year and then have to
deal with difficult issues at home.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 6
8. Update on Status of Work of the Planning Commission:
Mr. Conner said the Commission didn’t meet during the spring and summer, but they have now
met twice and will meet again this week. Staff had been working, so the Commission could hit
the ground running. Environmental Protection Standards were reviewed at the first meeting.
The Commission then wanted to look at the development side of a what a PUD would look like,
and last week they considered how to shape PUDs and different ways of looking at density. The
next meeting will continue that discussion, and then both sides will be brought together (e.g.,
new subdivision rules, where development is applicable, etc.).
Ms. Riehle asked about a timeline. Mr. Conner said the hope is for a complete draft in late
October/early November for the public to weigh in on.
9. Council Discussion about the Extension of Interim Zoning Bylaws:
Ms. Riehle noted there is one more chance to extend the IZ bylaws for 3 months.
Mr. Conner said that at the next Council meeting there would be a warning to extend IZ to 13
November. That would be the expiration of the 2 years. The Council could then re-enact IZ for
up to one additional year following a public hearing. Staff’s recommendation is that Council
decide at their next meeting whether to hold the public hearing for an additional IZ year. The
last time the Council could do that is the first meeting in October.
Mr. Mittag said that given the workload for the Planning Commission, it is unlikely to have
things completed by 13 November. He felt the Council should consider extending IZ for at least
3 months. Mr. Conner said it is up to one year in whatever increments the Council chooses.
10. Council Discussion about returning to live format for Council meetings and
authorizing city Committees to re-convene:
Ms. Riehle said 2 committees don’t have city staff but others do. Meetings could be handled via
“Go to Meeting.”
Mr. Dorn said there are staff liaisons for almost all committees, and the door is open for them to
meet if there is something important for them to deal with.
Mr. Kaufman suggested the Council wait before going back to a live format.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SEPTEMBER 2020
PAGE 7
Mr. Barritt said his problem with meeting live would be having to wear a mask which limits good
communication. He suggested remaining with the Go to Meeting format for the foreseeable
future.
Members felt there was no reason for committees not to meet via Go to Meeting. Mr. Dorn
said he would take care of informing committees of that.
11. Council discussion about moving forward with a search to replace the City
Manager upon his retirement and review of job description:
Ms. Riehle said the Council should begin the discussion and consider a timeline. There is a
precedent for have someone selected in April with a start in May, so the new person can work
with existing staff. She felt there should be a committee selected by December. Mr. Chittenden
said he would support having the committee include some staff, Council and long-standing
committee members.
Ms. Riehle said she will work on a timeline with Mr. Dorn. She noted this is a very coveted
position.
12. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments:
Ms. Riehle: The Airport Commission has met. There is some good news regarding FA grants.
Chamberlain School will get money for the HVAC system and sound monitoring. The Airport is
still losing money with flights way down. It is hard to know how things will look after COVID.
Mr. Chittenden said there should be discussion of regional strategies. Ms. Riehle said she can’t
imagine the State allowing the Airport to close.
13. Other Business:
Ms. Emery asked when the discussion re: trash hauling will be finalized. Ms. Riehle said she felt
the Council should take the next steps. Mr. Dorn said Mr. Rabidoux will get with the consultants
regarding costs. The hope is to get back to the Council by the first meeting in October. Mr.
Chittenden noted that Burlington is suspending that discussion for a year, so South Burlington
would be doing it alone. Mr. Dorn said staff wants to see the differential with and without
Burlington. Mr. Barritt said the waste companies would want to participate in the discussions.
Mr. Chittenden said he would like more conversation with Mr. Rabidoux.
CITY COUNCIL
8 SPETEMBER 2020
PAGE 8
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Kaufman moved to adjourn.
Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.