Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/06/1972SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 1972 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the Conference Room of the City Hall on Monday, November 6, 1972, at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Blais opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick G. Blais, Dr. Harold P. Brown, Walter Nardelli, Michael D. Flaherty, and Brian J. Gee. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager Norman H. Meyers, Burlington Ray Unsworth, 1700 Spear Street Paul S. Zerr, 42 Logwood Street Mr. & Mrs. Rupert Kingsley, Sr., 42 Oak Street, Burlington Virginia R. Kelleher Tony James Sisti, Mgr., Mammoth Mart Frank Cota, Airport Parkway David J. Merrill, 611 Williston Road George G. Smith, 343 Hinesburg Road Chief Monell, Fire Department Ray A. Stowell, 75 Hadley Road Lewis A. Pryor, 66 Hadley Road David L. Joly, 57 Swift Street Kay Neubert, 52 Elsom Road E. J. Byron, Jr., Williston William Mikell Williston Charlotte C. Marsh Leo O'Connor, Free Press Cheryl Benfield, Free Press Albert Audette Gregory Premo, Redwood Motel Arlene Krapcho George Wilson, WCAX Leon C. Bundy, 35 Myers Ct. Dorothy Guilford Ralph Bruzza Wayne Gibson, 29 Myers Ct. Evelyn Gibson, 29 Myers Ct. David J. Calcagni Bill Robenstein, 16 Mills Avenue Jeanne Hildick Erwin G. Dalgo Bill Mikell, Williston Peter J. Matta Martin Paulsen, Champlain Water District Peter Kyricou Richard Ermick, Champlain Water District Chairman Blais asked if there were any items to be added to the agenda. Councilman Flaherty mentioned that Paul Graves, representative, made a statement on the news of the Garvey property on Williston Road in that he was in favor of the proposal, but he questioned the financing of it. Councilman Flaherty felt that the Council should answer on the matter. He felt that Mr. Graves should have come before the Council earlier about this. Chairman Blais was in agreement with Councilman Flaherty's statement. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 2 AND 16, 1972 Chairman Blais asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or substitutions to be made on the minutes of the meeting of October 2 and 16. Councilman Brown noticed that on page 11 of the minutes on October 2nd the meeting was recessed and it should have been reconvened at the October 16th meeting. Councilman Nardelli made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Motion seconded by Councilman Flaherty and unanimously approved. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council that there were disbursement orders to sign. REPORT OF A PRISON SITE AND THE ANTICIPATED MEETING BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS Chairman Blais stated that it was not the intent to go into a public hearing on this matter due to lack of information, but that he wanted to bring everyone up to date on what the Council did know. Councilman Nardelli made the request to allow the Vice-Chairman chair the Board on this issue. Chairman Brown noted that Councilman Flaherty had called the Corrections Commission and talked to Peter Proferato set up a meeting. Councilmen Flaherty, Brown, and Blais met and found that this was not a maximum security institution and that this site met all of the criteria that the State would like to have in terms of a corrections facility, and had therefore taken option. When asked the question of why it had not come forward to the City when it had taken an option and selected the site, the answer was basically that it did not want to come forward until it was sure that this site would be approved by the Emergency Board which the legislature has stipulated as being the final acting board on site selection. The Council has been advised by the City Attorney that the state institutions and municipal buildings do not fall within jurisdiction of zoning, so land use does not apply. Chairman Blais continued stating that the State has requested that the Council meet with the corrections people. A meeting has been set up for Thursday, November 9th, at 4:00 P.M. in the City Hall. Following that meeting they want to meet with the public in a hearing allowing questions, and this meeting has been set up for Wednesday, November 15th, at 7:30 P.M. The location is to be announced at a later date. Councilman Brown stated that this would be a non-taxable piece of property, which is now a valuable piece of property, and would be taken off of the tax roll. Councilman Brown handed the chair back over to Chairman Blais. Chairman Blais suggested skipping Item #4 on the agenda, request of Champlain Water District for an easement across Farrell Park, until one of their representatives appeared. FIRST READING OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST ON THE BRAND PROPERTY ON KENNEDY DRIVE FROM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL C Mr. Raymond Unsworth began, representing the interests for the zone change, stating that the area lies between Kennedy Drive and the Interstate 89 and is now zoned Industrial C beyond the 500 foot mark from Kennedy Drive. He continued stating that they asked the Board for a Residential C rating throughout. The land is fairly well committed to Residential C, with Forest Park and other apartment projects in the area. He also stated that the new zoning maps showed the area as being residential. He continued that the Planner, Dr. Hollister Kent believes that is should be zoned residential and Mr. Unsworth felt it would be in the best interest of the town to continue it all the way. Chairman Blais then questioned whether it was Mr. Unsworth's attempt to release the use variance given to him some time ago on the eight acres, and he answered that he felt it would be continued on into the residential zoning. Councilman Gee asked what would prevent Mr. Unsworth from waiting until the zoning regulations and maps became official. Mr. Unsworth answered in respect to the urgent need for money. It is difficult to sell the land if it is zoned industrial. Councilman Gee asked if construction had been started on the tennis courts. Mr. Unsworth replied that they had broken ground to put up a city street for 550 feet as quickly as possible, and the building is on the site. Councilman Nardelli asked a question in regard to the use variance given, as to what its purpose was and how much land was it given for. It was answered that it covered 10 acres of land, for the tennis center. Mr. Ward informed the Council that the first 500 feet all along Kennedy Drive from Dorset Street to the Forest Park is residential C. From the Interstate to that point is industrial. Chairman Blais asked Mr. Meyers and Mr. Unsworth that in view of the fact that the city is about to be completely rezoned, was there any possibility of them waiting for the master plan to be adopted, as this could be done by January 1st. Mr. Unsworth answered that he had been having difficulty selling the land as it is now zoned. He stated that he would like to have it zoned residential as soon as possible so that they may start offering the land for sale. Councilman Gee felt that his greatest concern was that of using up all of the industrial sites, and where would the city have any more land available to commercial industry from which to reap tax benefits instead of tax burdens. He felt that he would like to see it postponed until the zoning regulations were adopted. Mr. Unsworth answered that he felt that it is true that the city does need industrial land, but not right in front of the entrance to South Burlington. That piece of land was given an industrial zoning before Kennedy Drive or the Interstate went through as it was almost waste land, Mr. Unsworth continued. He has offered the land to people who wish to put in apartment or condominium complexes. Councilman Flaherty stated his concern over making a change in the zoning when they are so close to having the final plan for the new zoning out. Councilman Nardelli then stated he felt the Council had gone out of their way before with Mr. Unsworth in his earlier request for a use variance, and then moved that the Council turn down the first reading of the zone change. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. Chairman Blais asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response. Vote was then taken on the motion to deny the request and the vote was unanimous. CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT FOR AN EASEMENT ACROSS FARRELL PARK Chairman Blais asked the representatives from the Champlain Water District to come forward with any plan that they might have with them. Mr. Ermick stated that what they were asking for was outlined in the drawing given to them. Mr. Szymanski explained that it was an extension of Lindenwood going easterly and then intersecting the access road into Farrell Park. He continued stating it is a distance easterly of 344 feet and northerly 644 feet. He stated that this route would reverse the access into Lindenwood; make the access into Lindenwood from Farrell Park, first going due east and then north to Swift Street. The Council then broke into discussion over the maps to get a better understanding of the area. Councilman Nardelli then questioned the purpose of the line. Mr. Emerick answered that the main transmission line from the treatment plant on Queen City Park Road east to serve South Burlington, Shelburne, Williston, and the area out and around, carrying the water from the plant eastward through South Burlington, and to distribute water to South Burlington. Councilman Gee asked when construction would begin on this. Mr. Paulsen answered, within a week, so that it would be done before spring. Chairman Blais noted that (for the record) the Champlain Water District had a meeting a year ago when they reviewed their overall plans with the Natural Resources Committee, and at that time they advised the Champlain Water District that they had no objections to the Farrell easement. Arlene Krapcho asked the question as to how wide would this right-of-way be and a question of the Planning Commission's proposal that Lindenwood Drive be accessible only from Lindenwood Drive. Mr. Szymanski answered that you would enter from Swift Street to Farrell Park, eliminating the entrance off of Shelburne Road. The right-of-way is 20 feet wide. Chairman Blais asked if the Champlain Water District would replace the land in the way in which they found it and shall maintain it thereafter in case of any maintenance. They answered positively. Mr. Ermick then gave an explanation as to what has been done to date, using the map for illustration. The line is being built coming up from Queen City Park Road up to Dorset Street; the tank and storage block and the lines from Dorset Street cross-country to Williston Road is in; the line from Williston Road to the river is almost complete; the line into Essex Junction and Williston is completed. He continued that their aim was to have the plant in operation by March 1st. The motion was made by Councilman Flaherty to accept the easement through Farrell Park, subject to Natural Resources approval. The motion was seconded by Councilman Nardelli and the vote was unanimous. SANCTION USE VARIANCE OF MR. CHITTENDEN, DORSET STREET, WHICH WAS APPROVED AT THE ZONING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1972 Chairman Blais began stating that at the last discussion on this, the Council was uncertain as to which house was being discussed, and since that time, pictures have been taken of the house and it has been reviewed. He stated that the use variance granted by the Zoning Board requiring the Council's ratification is to allow a house on Dorset Street to be utilized as a two-family residence as opposed to a one-family residence. The owners have a small efficiency apartment on the second level which they wish to rent because their own children are not living at home any longer. Mr. Ward then went into detail as to some of the stipulations set by the Zoning Board, stating that adequate fire escapes be installed to the Building Inspector's approval, and that the variance would run only with the current owners. Councilman Nardelli asked if there were any other two-family homes in that area. Mr. Ward answered that there was one in the area. He stated that Mrs. Chittenden had informed the Board that her daughter had lived upstairs and has now left. The area of the total house is approximately 2,200 square feet. There are the makings of a small kitchenette upstairs. The house number is #1550. Mr. Robenstien asked if the house had a suitable sewer treatment facility to handle the extra amount that might be created by renting to others. Mr. Ward answered that the system was designed by an engineer and he designed it according to the number of bedrooms rather than the number of people occupying the house. Councilman Nardelli added another comment stating that this was the first use variance in that area that has come up, and if the Council does sanction this use variance, it would be starting a precedence, and he moved that the Council turn down the use variance on Chittenden's property. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. Councilman Flaherty opened discussion on the matter stating that this person owns his home, and it really does not have much of an impact on this particular region (as he owns 180 acres), and he feels that the homeowners should be able to excercise reasonable use of his land. He added that he would favor the condition that the use variance stops if the house is sold. Vote was then taken on the motion to reject the use variance to the Chittenden's. The Council voted 2 in favor of the motion and three against. The motion was defeated. Councilman Brown moved that the Council grant the variance with the stipulations that the Zoning Board set: that a fire escape be installed and approved by a zoning administrative officer; the variance run with the current owners only, and if transferred will have to come before the Board again; and that the sewage disposal system be maintained to adequately handle the possible additional load. Brown, Flaherty & Blais in favor Nardelli & Gee opposed. Second by Flaherty. Chairman Blais called the vote on the motion. The vote was three in favor, and two against. The motion was accepted, to ratify the use variance to Mr. Chittenden. SANCTION USE VARIANCE OF MR. AND MORS. RUPERT KINGSLEY OF 4 DEANE STREET TO OPERATE A DAY NURSERY FROM THEIR DWELLING. THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT ITS NOVEMBER 1, 1972 MEETING Chairman Blais asked the Kingsleys how pressing their request was, and could it wait two weeks as the Council had not had a chance to go over their information earlier. Mr. Kingsley answered that it was his wife's job. Chairman Blais asked if they were operating a similar facility like the one they were requesting in Burlington. Mrs. Kingsley said that she was, and said that they would be moving on the 23rd of the month to South Burlington. The next Council meeting is set on the 20th of November, and Chairman Blais asked if she could wait until that time to meet again with the Council. The Council then decided to go ahead to read the notes on the matter and continue. Mr. Ward then said that depending on whether the Kingsleys got state approval, they had a room 12 x 12 on the main floor and there was also a room in the cellar which could be used for the nursery school. Mrs. Kingsley stated that she is licensed from the State now to run a day nursery. Councilman Brown asked if she felt that she could get by with just the five children that the Zoning Board would allow her, or would she anticipate coming back for an addition. She answered, not unless she was able to use the cellar room also. Councilman Brown asked how many children she had in her program in Burlington, and she replied that she had between 12 and 15 children. Mr. Ward stated the Zoning Board is very concerned with the size of the room and that is why they have put a limit of five children on her nursery, not knowing whether they will get State approval. Chairman Blais then stated the stipulations for the nursery set forth by the Zoning Board as the following: reasonable use of property allowing for a limit of five children maximum; does provide a needed service; is not detrimental to the neighborhood. He also stated that at the Zone Board meeting, a list of neighbors was presented to the Zoning Board stating they were not in opposition to the use, the list being that of three surrounding neighbors. Councilman Brown then moved that the Council approve this sanction, with the stipulations put on by the Zoning Board plus the addition that the variance go with the current owners only. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. Councilman Nardelli then questioned the decision and asked for a legal opinion as to whether or not the Council could stipulate on the variance. Chairman Blais then called the question that the motion be granted with the new stipulation added to the Zoning Board stipulation that it be made purely the Kingsley's. The vote was four in favor and one opposed to the motion. (Nardelli) The motion was passed. FIRST READING OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE Chairman Blais offered copies of the ordinance to anyone who wished to have one. The ordinance was not read at the meeting because of its length of twenty pages. Chairman Blais explained that a first reading would not pass the ordinance, it would merely be passed on to the Planning Commission for their review and comment and for their public hearing. They would hold a public hearing and within 30 days return it to the Council with their comments on the ordinance. At that time Council will hold a second reading and public hearing at which time a vote is taken where amendments can be made and a vote taken, to either pass or reject the ordinance. Dick Ward stated that he felt that this would have to differ in that this comes from the Planning Commission and they have already worked the ordinance, and he did not feel that they would have to have a public hearing. Chairman Blais stated that he felt that the Planning Commission should have a public hearing on it with those people invited, and he felt that he was not ready to defend or accept the ordinance at the time of the meeting, nor at a public hearing. Councilman Nardelli then moved that the Planning Commission do hold a public meeting. The motion made by Councilman Nardelli was that the Council adopt the first reading of the sign ordinance, stipulating that the Planning Commission hold a public meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. Councilman Brown stated that he had questions in relation to definitions within the ordinance. He stated that on page 2, paragraph 3a, he questioned the method of figuring the area of a cut-out letter sign, and Councilman Nardelli explained that you take the total letter area and divide it in one half. Chairman Blais then asked Jeanne Hildick if she could perhaps clear up some of the clarifications that were coming up as she is a member of the committee. Councilman Flaherty asked why a new sign ordinance was being written up. Jeanne Hildick stated that one of the reasons was because there are many signs in the city that were put up before there was ever any sign ordinance at all, and with the new ordinance there would eventually be some conformity between the size. Councilman Nardelli then asked if he could begin taking apart the ordinance with his opinion on certain matters. He stated that he would like to have some amendments added to the ordinance in the following form: If the city is so interested in the safety and the public welfare, he couldn't see why it would take 2,500 days to accomplish this. He began stating the following sections: Section 9, page 10, Maintenance - "All signs and other advertising structures, together with all their supports, braces, guys, and anchors, shall be of substantial and sturdy construction, shall be kept in good repair, and shall be painted or cleaned as often as necessary to maintain a clean, neat safe and orderly appearance; Section 9b in reference to wind pressure and dead load requirements; Section 9c obstruction to doors, windows or fire escapes, relative to safety, signs obstructing those; Section 9d signs which constitute traffic hazards, which means immediately; Section 9f banners and pennants. Councilman Nardelli said that he wanted all of these items to be in conformity by December 31, 1973: Section 9 a, b, c, d, f, i, and k. He continued stating that in Section 9k the wording in the first part of k should be omitted, thus reading "signs of paper, cardboard or similar material or signs which are temporary or non-permanent are hereby prohibited." He went on: Section 11, page 12, in relation to lighting: a, b, and c, that they be in conformity also by December 31, 1973. Section 12, page 13, b and c should also be included in conformity be December 31, 1972. Section 13, page 13, where it states "of Section 8, 9, 11, 12,(b, c, e,) and 16" there is no "e" in that section. He then asked for an explanation of paragraph e in Section 9 on page 11, definition of the word "parapet", to be placed in with that paragraph. Section 8 page 9, "no free standing signs shall be placed in such manner as to obstruct traffic nor closer than five feet to any property line." His question was what part of the sign, as it is not defined in that sentence, and he asked that it be defined. He recommended that on the same page under "Wall Signs" it should read, "There shall not be more than one wall sign for each separate lot except as provided in Section 15." He also requested that in the last two sentences on page 9, the statement end as follows: "street on which it fronts," omitting the remainder of the page, and the last part of the first sentence on top of page 10. Chairman Blais then made reference to Section 8a where it states that there can be no more than three signs on the building regardless of how many businesses there are in there, and referred his question to Jeanne Hildick. Jeanne felt that the intent of that phrase was to prevent a businessman from having one sign with his name on it, and another sign promoting his products, and another sign advertising stamps etc. Councilman Nardelli continued: Page 6 and 7, omit all references to a Sign Review Board and have its place taken by the Planning Commission, making them the appeal board for the Code Office decisions. He felt there was no need for another Board. Chairman Blais agreed with Councilman Nardelli on this point as he felt there are enough layers of bureaucracy as there are now. Councilman Nardelli went on: Page 4, omit in (18) in reference to interior signs on windows, he felt should be omitted. He felt that the definition of wall signs should be meant to eliminate windows. Chairman Blais then raised the question of what to do in the case of someone who wished to have his name in the window, and that is all as perhaps in the case of a doctor. Councilman Nardelli accepted that as being all right; he was referring to the paper type of signs in windows of commercial, promotional types. Chairman Blais then asked about whether he wished to make an exception to notices of benefits and bazaars etc., and Councilman Nardelli restated that he wished to draw the line on commercial advertising in windows. Councilman Nardelli continued: He stated that whatever has not been touched upon in his comments, he wished to have full conformity by December 31, 1975. He felt that 1980 was an unreasonable date to set for conformity. Councilman Flaherty made the point that with the new ordinance, there would be a maximum of 40 square feet permissible for any signs. Under the current ordinance you allow 20 square feet for a wall sign and 60 square feet for a free standing sign. In essence, he feels that with the new ordinance they would be enlarging the size of the signs, and this is his major concern over the new ordinance. Mr. Mikell, representing the business community of South Burlington, presented his opinion and comments on the projected sign ordinance, as well as some information from a report compiled by a committee of the Chamber of Commerce of South Burlington. The report analyzed the ordinance as it was first drafted and contained some of their objections to the ordinance. Mr. Mikell said that this report could be made available to the Council, and Chairman Blais requested that it be done so. Mr. Mikell felt that this type of an ordinance would discourage the commercial growth of the community and Councilman Nardelli challenged his comment. The prohibition of existing signs was the first objection of the business community. The business community felt that there should be a ten-year period to help the businesses in making their changes. He also felt that there should be some allowance made in the new ordinance as to the different needs of different businesses. He also felt that the ordinance should have some provision for public announcements. Mr. Mikell stated that originally the business community suggested that some type of sign review committee be formed and specifically said that it would not be a government bureaucracy and not have any government function at all. It would be a volunteer group to aid the businessman. He felt that the trouble with the Sign Review Board is that it has turned out to be a level of government with the power to approve and disapprove and it has absolute discretion. Councilman Gee asked the question of Jeanne Hildick as to whether or not traffic signs were incorporated into the sign concept. Jeanne Hildick stated that it was not, as it would involve getting into speed regulations and other such matters, and she did not feel qualified to enter into that matter. Councilman Flaherty answered that there is a uniform code for all states in traffic signs. Chairman Blais added that he felt that the municipal government were sometimes the first to violate sign pollution. Councilman Gee then asked the question of advertising homes for sale. He would only be allowed to have one sign, and if he were to contact more than one broker, he would not be allowed to display more than one broker's sign, as stated on page 14 of the sign ordinance, "Signs advising the public that the property on which same is displayed is available for sale or lease provided such signs do not exceed three square feet in area in residential districts and 32 square feet in all other district." He was wondering if this was infringing on the sellers rights, as now he is directed to go through MLS rather than independent brokers. Councilman Gee questioned whether the Council had the right to remove existing signs without reimbursement to a businessmen. He felt that this is not clarified at the state level or in the city level. Charlotte Marsh questioned why the Chamber of Commerce had any involvement in this matter as they are not from South Burlington, even though a few businesses do belong. Mr. Premo stated that he would hope that a public hearing be held by the Planning Commission on the sign ordinance. Mrs. Guilford questioned whether or not streams of lights as in used car lots, were permissible and Jeanne Hildick answered that she would check on it; even though any condition not stated as permissible in the ordinance, was not permissible. Wayne Gibson mentioned the following points which he found in the ordinance: Section 3 #15, Day-glo and illuminous paint are not reflective, therefore should not be included in that section. He felt that more detailed work was needed in order to finalize this ordinance. Mr. Matta stated that he felt there should be some ordinance presented to add to some aspect of the asthetic beauty of the city and 1980 would be a reasonable point of time to make the change--not 1973 or 1975. Councilman Flaherty stated he felt that 1980 was too far ahead in the future to project this ordinance because people could put it away for a few years and not accomplish any goal. Mrs. Kay Neubert asked whether having an eight-year interim was discriminatory against new businesses who would have to compete with the signs such as the Ramada Inn. The motion was repeated by Chairman Blais that the Council adopt the first reading of the sign ordinance, stipulating that the Planning Commission hold a public meeting. Seconded by Councilman Gee. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Chairman Blais suggested that Mr. Pizzagalli attend the hearings on this matter for the benefit of his expertise. SECOND READING OF THE NO BURNING ORDINANCE Chairman Blais read the amended section of the new ordinance: Section 10, Outside Fires - "No person shall build an outside fire contained in an incinerator, receptacle or other enclosure. The burning of fuels for cooking purposes shall not be construed as being included in the provisions of this section." Chairman Blais questioned whether or not gas fires in an enclosed incinerator were permissible as there was no mention of it in the ordinance. It was then decided that this item was covered under another ordinance. Dick Ward presented an ordinance to control air pollution provided for the regulation of the control of the emission into the open air of smoke, dust, gases, and odors. Councilman Brown made the motion to adopt the amended ordinance as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. Councilman Gee stated he wondered whether or not the city should make available a collection service for the public or not get involved in such a situation. The Council's general feeling was not to become involved in that matter. Councilman Nardelli moved the question and it was seconded. Councilman Brown asked whether there would be a problem with people stacking rubbish in their yards, so as to create a health hazard or fire hazard. It was decided that such a problem could be amended by having the Fire Chief deem it a hazard. A vote was taken on the motion and it was unanimous. SIGNING OF STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE STATEMENT Bill Szymanski mentioned that the State Highway Department asked to have the Council certify that the City of South Burlington has been maintaining the roads as they have never received any state aid on Queen City Park area roads. He then read a statement to be sent to the State Highway Department. (See copy of letter attached.) Councilman Gee made a motion that the Council sign the State Highway Department maintenance statement certifying that we in South Burlington have been maintaining the Queen City Park area of South Burlington. Councilman Nardelli seconded. The vote was unanimous. CONSIDER A SETTLEMENT OF OUTSTANDING WELFARE HOSPITAL BILLS Chairman Blais stated that three years ago welfare was taken over by the State of Vermont, however, any bills incurred prior to the take over by the State were to remain the responsibility of the individual community. South Burlington's present outstanding amount of hospital bills is $34,000. Bill Szymanski stated that in 1967 the amount was $79,000 and is now down to $34,000. The city has been budgeting $7,000 a year and the hospital has approached and asked to pay in $10,000 installments or preferably to settle the balance in a lump sum. Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council settle the account in one lump sum $$ $$,000. The motion was seconded by Councilman Flaherty. Charlotte Marsh asked where the money would come from and the Council stated that they would borrow the money. The motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 10:05 in order for the men to meet as the South Burlington Liquor Control Board. LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD MEETING The Liquor Control Board considered the request of the Redwood Master Host Inn and Restaurant for an entertainment license to have a guitarist or folk singer in their dining room for the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Friday, and 10:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. on Saturday, after all meals have been completed. Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council accept the application for an entertainment license for the Redwood Master Host Inn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. The Liquor Control Board meeting was adjourned and the Council went into Executive Session at 10:15 P.M. Minutes of the Executive Session follow on page 19. EXECUTIVE SESSION REPORT FROM JOHN T. EWING, CITY ATTORNEY, ON STATUS OF TAX APPRAISAL APPEALS Mr. Ewing reported that we had about 25 taxpayers who appealed to the courts and a few others that went to the State Appeal Board. He said we were faced with all 25 coming up at the same time so we had a lot of meetings ahead of time with the various people involved with the aim of settling as many as reasonably possible. He met with Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hawthorne and Mr. Lilley, the State Appraiser, and got from them what they thought were reasonable figures to settle on, and on that basis settled 75% to 80% of the cases. He has tried three of the "hard core" ones who insisted on going to court with what he felt were poor results. The three that went to court were Harper (Holiday Inn), Fayettco, and Lash. On these three the Holiday Inn got its appraisal reduced from $2,237,000 to $2,110,000. Our original appraisal was $2,400,000 reduced by the BCA to $2,237,000 and Allard's appraisal for the Holiday Inn was $2,000,000. The judge figured on replacement cost with 10% depreciation. The Lash (Town and Country) appraisal was reduced from $193,000 to $139,500. This was on the steel building, our appraiser figured on $11.60 per sq. ft. Lash's appraiser put in a figure of $6.00 per sq. ft. and the court used the figure of $8.50 per sq. ft. Fayetteco appraisal was reduced from $303,000 to $154,600. The judge accepted our figures for the land in the front. On the back industrial land he used the same figure per acre as was used on some of the other industrial land in the city, but I think the industrial acreage he used for comparison was not comparable land. The judge is willing to accept additional testimony on this and hasn't closed the case yet. I would recommend that we appeal this. Mr. Nardelli said go ahead with the appeal and there seemed to be general agreement that this should be done. Chairman Blais asked if the statutes would freeze the decisions for three years, and Mr. Ewing said that the statutes now indicate that the decision holds for just one year. He said the ones settled in court were for the 71-72 tax year, so in 1972-73 year the tax amount reverts to what it was before the appeal. He felt the owners don't realize this at this point. However, he said that the cases settled out of court were settled with the agreement that the change in appraisal would be in effect for two years. Mr. Nardelli wondered what this means for the Fayettco company and Mr. Ewing said they are being billed at the original figure of $303,000 for this year, and felt we were safe in doing so. Dr. Brown asked if the owners won't reappeal when they find out the decision held for just one year. Mr. Ewing said it is too late for them to appeal for this year, they will have to wait until next year and prove their cases all over again. Councilman Nardelli said that then this means Lash, Harper and Fayetteco have the reduction just for the 1971-72 year and Mr. Ewing said that was right. Mr. Ewing stated that whenever a town or city has a complete reappraisal some hard things can happen, that in the town of Underhill the whole reappraisal was tossed out. There was a short discussion on methods of reappraisal, and changes in the state's formula for appraising. The state in our case was appraising on the reproduction factor as opposed to appraising on the income approach. Mr. Ewing said he felt our appraisals were a little high. In further discussion of the court cases it was brought out that although Mr. Ed Lilley from the state was an expert appraiser he was not a good witness. Mr. Ewing admitted this is a problem and Doctor Brown wondered why we should pay for the cost of Mr. Lilley's appearances as a witness if he was not an effective witness. Mr. Ewing explained that all of his (Mr. Lilley's) work was expert up to the time he has to be a witness. In that last bit he is defective. Mr. Ewing then reported that the court cases are finished for this term, but two or three were continued. He then asked the Council's pleasure on the Howard Johnson appeal saying he was at the settlement stage. He said Howard Johnson's appraiser was the top appraiser in the state, the most experienced and he came in with a figure of $900,000, whereas our present figure is $1,600,000 which is quite a spread. Mr. Nardelli pointed out that the Board of Civil Authority had reduced the appraisal from $1,720,000 and wondered what the Board's attitude toward appeals should be as the Board of Civil Authority. Mr. Ewing explained that the BCA is a judicial body but when it gets to considering property for taxpayers with a lot at stake chances are they are going to appeal anyway, after appealing to the Board. Mr. Ewing said he felt that actually a remarkably few went to court and maybe now that the others know what the courts will do many more may take that route. He further said that it is not fair, it is the wealthy taxpayer that appeals and gets his taxes reduced. The ordinary taxpayer who doesn't appeal is left paying at the higher level. Dr. Brown wonder what the BCA should do when presented appeals. Mr. Nardelli felt the BCA should do nothing - just go through the ropes. Fayetteco Chairman Blais asked Mr. Ewing if it would pay the City to go to the Supreme Court with the Fayetteco appeal. Mr. Ewing said it would pay if we won, but not if we lose, that it would be likely to cost us about $800.00. Our tax loss now with the reduction is around $4500.00. Mr. Ewing said he felt we should appeal the decision because he thinks it is the wrong result and it would be well to draw the line at this point. The Council agreed to make a motion in regular session. Howard Johnsons (Merlin) Mr. Ewing asked for the Council's recommendation on the Howard Johnson appeal, saying he felt the best figure we can get on a negotiating basis is $1,300,000. Dr. Brown said he supposed the judge could drop it below $1,300,000. John said the negotiating figure now was around $1,450,000 but he has hopes of dropping it to $1,300,000. Chairman Blais said that maybe we should try for the $1,300,000 settlement. The other members were in agreement. EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNED AND REGULAR SESSION RECONVENED AT 11:20 P.M. Dr. Brown made a motion to instruct Attorney John T. Ewing to appeal the decision handed down by the Court on the Tax Appeal case of Fayetteco. Councilman Gee seconded the motion which passed unanimously. On motion duly made, seconded, and so passed the regular meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.