Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/20/1972SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1972 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the Conference Room of the City Hall on Monday, November 20, 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 Robert Fisher Bob Martineau Frank Mazur T. R. Irish B. E. Buley P. A. Irish Bob Morse Tony Salerno Mary Barbara Maher, City Planning Commission Fred Maher The Rev. Paul Gratz Kay Neubert Virginia R. Kelleher Arlene F. Krapcho R. A. Lang Bruce M. O'Neill, Recreation Director Donald C. Duell A. G. MacKay, M.D. Ray Stowell Luis Pryor Frank Jacquemard Henry M. Farmer Douglas I. Tudhope, City Planning Commission Hugh M. Marvin, City Planning Commission Henry W. Caswell, Jr. Paul S. Zerr Ralph Aruzza G. G. Smith Charlotte C. Marsh Albert C. Audette Mr. Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Chairman Blais asked if there were any new items to be added to the agenda. Councilman Nardelli requested that comments on the sign ordinance be added and Bill Szymanski noted that there were notes to be signed. Councilman Gee then requested that comments on zoning also be added to the agenda. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 1972 Chairman Blais asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or substitutions to be made to the minutes of November 6, 1972. Councilman Gee requested that when a vote is taken and it is not unanimous, the names of those who voted in favor or against the motion should be stated. Corrections were made on page 8: Motion to reject the use variance to the Chittenden's - Nardelli, Gee in favor. Brown, Flaherty and Blais against. Motion to grant the variance with the stipulations that the Zoning Board set - Brown, Flaherty, and Blais in favor. Nardelli and Gee against. Correction on page 10: Top paragraph - Gee, Flaherty, Blais and Brown in favor. Nardelli against. The motion on page 8 was seconded by Councilman Flaherty. Councilman Brown noted that on page 2, the motion to accept the minutes should be "to accept the minutes as corrected". On the same page, last paragraph, Councilman Nardelli made the "request" instead of "motion" to allow the Vice-Chairman to chair the Board. Correction on page 18: "Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council settle the account in one lump sum.", omitting the amount of $34,000. Councilman Gee made the motion to adopt the minutes as corrected. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council that there were disbursement orders to sign. ACT ON TAXPAYER'S PETITION AGAINST THE PROPOSED PRISON SITE AT THE CORNER OF SWIFT STREET AND FARRELL ROAD Commissioner Tudhope from the Planning Commission stated that several members from the Planning Commission were present to discuss the matter and that each one would state their views. Commissioner Tudhope felt that the State should have discussed the proposed location of the corrections facility with the Planning Commission and the City Council prior to making it public; as this was not done it created a problem in the community as many people reacted without having any information. He also stated that he felt that the City should bring a proposal before the Emergency Board at their meeting on the 28th of November stating their position that the City is not in favor of the location for the facility. Mary Barbara Maher stated that she felt from a planning point of view, that the facility would best be located down at Lakeside, or the St. Anthony site. Mr. Marvin then read the letter he had written addressed to the City Council as he was not expected to be present at this meeting. The letter stated his feelings of opposition to the prison site location on Farrell Drive because of the park across the street where children would be playing and because as proven by the corrections officials that people of dangerous nature could be detained at the prison until they had a court hearing. He also stated several other reasons opposing the proposed site and felt that more planning should be done to select another location, and that the Council should take a strong stand on the issue. Councilman Nardelli stated that he felt a resolution should be drawn up in very strong language to emphasize the following points: 1) The petition signed by 731 citizens of South Burlington opposing the location. 2) The inadequacy of sidewalks and street widths on Farrell Road and Swift Street. 3) Lack of sewage facilities. 4) Lack of public transportation facilities to implement programs for the corrections center. 5) The increased traffic problems that would evolve to and from Shelburne Road for the bulk of their work. 6) The imposition of the State on the city services in terms of police and fire protection and the use of highway facilities without compensation. Councilman Brown stated that he felt that the location proposed is not a very valuable piece of land as it is swamp area and they propose a great expense to fill the site. He felt it would not be a wise investment for the State of Vermont. Councilman Flaherty stated that the criteria set by the State for picking the new prison site location was not very specific and would fit almost any area in the state. Councilman Gee felt that this matter on the prison site selection was not a moral question; it is a question of proper planning. Councilman Nardelli then made another point stating that once there is a personnel change in the facility, the City would have no control over the expansion program or the internal program of the facility. Mr. Caswell felt that Mr. Marvin's point about the recreation park located across from the proposed prison site should also be mentioned in the resolution. Mr. Tudhope felt that it should be stated in the resolution before the Emergency Board that the City does not wish to exclude consideration of other areas within the community but that it is the proposed site that is objected to. Mr. Marvin mentioned that it should be made clear to the Emergency Board that the petition signed by the public of 731 signatures was taken only in the immediate community of the proposed site on Farrell Drive as opposed to the entire population of South Burlington. Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council adopt the resolution with a number of reasons stipulated in the resolution, but the Council generally resolve that they are opposed to the location of the facility at this proposed site. Vote was unanimously in favor of the motion., which had been seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Chairman Blais made a request that all members of Council who would like to attend the Emergency Board meeting do so. He requested the appointment of Doug Tudhope, Walter Nardelli, Join Ewing, and himself to get together before the meeting to plan a discussion and their points of view. He then requested that Doug Tudhope be in charge of getting the time of the meeting and plan a time for the previously mentioned names to meet before the Emergency Board meeting. DISCUSSION ON SEWERS FOR THE BARTLETTS BAY AREA, REQUESTED BY MR. FRANK C. JACQUEMARD Mr. Jacquemard began by stating that in a letter of October 6th from the State, they had denied the Bartletts Bay area any eligibility for state and federal water pollution control aid as delineated in their November 16, 1971 letter. He then stated his reasons for the need of having a sewer system in that area. He stated that Shelburne Bay is polluted as proven by the many sample tests that have been taken. He felt that the 19 homes and 5 camps in that area are possibly contributing to that pollution with their present septic tank systems as they at times could overflow. The assessment in that area now is $994,000 as stated by Mr. Jacquemard. He made the request of the Council that a committee be assigned to restudy what conditions were placed before the State to make them think that the conditions were inadequate for eligibility for a sewer system, and is there more information to date or is there information that perhaps was not included in the original request to the State. Mr. Szymanski stated that the entire engineering data was submitted to the State with the 1972 request. He mentioned that the present flow is estimated at 3.6 gallons per minute and the anticipated flow after the area is developed is 181 gallons per minute and the State felt that this would be a tremendous increase and that it was over-designed. He also stated that in the State's visual inspection they did not find any visible signs of pollution. Chairman Blais then summarized the aspects of this discussion: 1) The Council will have to make a better case to the State to get their cooperation. 2) Concern of the applicability or inapplicability on the long range plan on HUD as it applies to zoning. 3) If the Council could qualify a better case to the State and to HUD therefore that the City would have to stand 100% of the financing on it, which would be expensive and might make the cost in the area rather expensive for the residents. Dr. Henry Farmer, a resident of the Bartletts Bay community mentioned that he had taken several water sample tests to the State Department of Health that were proven contaminated and after again doing the same last spring the people in the lab told them not to bother bringing in any more samples - they know the water is polluted. He felt there is a definite need to have a sewer system in that area to prevent the pollution. Dr. MacKay questioned what difference there is between Bartletts Bay area and the Queen City Park area, and why should they have a sewer system and not Bartletts Bay. Bill Robenstein stated that it was a mistake to sewer Queen City Park as the land is being bought up piece by piece. He mentioned that the lots in the Bartletts Bay area are not in conformity with the new zone changes, and it might be a mistake to sewer that area unless the area is brought forward to conformity with the new zoning regulations. He mentioned two things that he felt outstanding in this issue: 1) The area probably started out as seasonal use and has changed over the years. 2) If the sewage situation is so bad down there now, why are new homes being built? Councilman Brown asked how much contamination is actually coming from the homes in that area. Mr. Jacquemard answered that it has not been determined from where the pollution is coming from. Councilman Brown felt that it might help in presenting a case before the State to know where the bulk of the contamination is coming from. Chairman Blais then summarized the progress of the situation as discussed: 1) Have the City complete the interviews for an engineer. 2) Select an engineer and have him look in depth into Phase 5 - Secondary Treatment in Bartletts Bay. Chairman Blais requested that the Council entertain instructions to Bill Szymanski to set up the engineering firms as prospects. CHURCH WORLD SERVICES' REQUEST FOR A MARCH ON DECEMBER 3, 1972. Father Gratz stated this would be a walk in which the participants will have sponsors for every mile that they go from the community and friends, and moneys raised will be donated to the Church World Service Organization. The group will include 300 students on the high school and college level. The route will be from Airport Parkway around Dumont Avenue, Airport Drive and then down Williston Road to UVM. Father Gratz also stated that there will be a few banners and sandwich signs and they will be using the sidewalks where possible. Father Gratz stated that he and the Catholic Chaplin of St. Augusta will serve as vouchers for the group. He continued stating that there will be marshalls and two follow-up cars to pick of any litter and that they are hoping to arrange for police escort. Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council allow this request subject to Chief Carter's approval and approval of the Town of Colchester. Vote was unanimously in favor. This motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. CITY GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ITEMS -- REQUESTED BY FREDERICK MAHER, CHAIRMAN A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REPORT Frederick Maher began by stating that the principle point is disclosure - applying to people on councils or boards within the City offices (any employee of the City). He mentioned that the City Council would be the body to whom disclosure would formally be made. Mrs. Neubert questioned whether conflict of interest matters would be handled in Executive Session by the Council. Mr. Maher answered that it could be done in that manner, but that he did not wish to speculate as to what the Council would do. Mrs. Neubert also questioned the problem of having a conflict of interest with a Council member, leaving only four members to vote - what would occur in the case of a tie vote. It was not decided as to what would resolve that problem. Charlotte Marsh asked Mr. Maher to define the term "conflict of interest". He read from paragraph #3, page 1 of CONFLICT OF INTEREST (A STATEMENT OF POLICY). Mrs. Krapcho then stated that she felt the definition is terribly broad and Mr. Maher answered that it was difficult to frame a definition that included all aspects of the term. Mr. Maher mentioned that a great deal of what is in the charter is left unspecific and left for the Council to interpret. Mr. Robert Lang felt that the phrase "substantial conflict of interest", which in stated in the last paragraph of the charter, was too vague. He wondered if perhaps an entirely new charter should be written containing more specific details. Chairman Blais then questioned whether this charter was a Statement of Policy or a recommended charter change or recommended ordinance. Mr. Maher answered that by a vote of eight to one the City Government Committee voted to make it a charter change; to be added to the charter. He stated that this is their recommendation to the Council. B. RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Blais began by reading the statements in the City Government Meeting minutes of November 15, 1972 under "Discussion on Composition of the Planning Commission". Councilman Brown stated that he felt he was in agreement with their findings. Chairman Blais discussed the origin of a Council member being present at Planning Commission meetings and he did agree that there is little necessity of continuing it. Councilman Nardelli moved that the present plan where a Councilman is also a voting member of the Planning Commission be voided. The motion was seconded by Councilman Flaherty. The vote was unanimously in favor of the motion. DISCUSSION ON CHANGING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Blais read the City Government Committee's consideration on the above as written on page 2 of the minutes of that meeting on November 15, 1972. Councilman Brown stated that he felt a shorter term was a good proposal as a five year term is really looking into the future. Chairman Blais then stated that this would be filed with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State notifies the Legislatures that it has been so filed and they have 60 days to challenge it. Councilman Brown questioned the seven member number as to whether it would be a workable number. It has been his experience that five is workable with the exception of when not all members are present or voting. He agreed that seven would be a better number in the case of absenties. Councilman Flaherty made the motion that the Council accept this recommendation of the seven member Planning Commission and have in order for the next election. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gee. Councilman Gee made the recommendation that the appointments he made with geographic representation. The Council decided not to add Councilman Gee's recommendation to the motion. Chairman Blais suggested an amendment be added to the motion to accept the recommendation subject to review of a lawyer for the State statutes. Amendment seconded by Councilman Gee. Vote on the amended motion was unanimously in favor. CONSIDER AMENDING THE CHARGE TO THE RECREATION COMMITTEE AND REVIEW RECOMMENDED CHARGES TO THE RED ROCKS COMMITTEE Chairman Blais summarized their request as a change in the Recreation Department's role from a policy making group to an advisory group. Mr. Donald Duell began by stating that since a year ago before a recreation Director was appointed the Recreation Committee was handling most of the programs. Now that they have a director and since the committee meets only once a month, they would rather have the committee act as an advisory group. Chairman Blais questioned their meaning of "policy making decision". He felt that the committee should serve as policy making body and the director should administer these policies. He questioned having policy making at the director's level. Councilman Nardelli mentioned that as a policy maker, the director would have to go to the Advisory Board. Councilman Flaherty moved that the Council table the request and send it back until the second meeting in December. Motion was seconded by Councilman Nardelli. Vote was unanimously in favor of the motion. REVIEW RECOMMEND CHARGES TO THE RED ROCKS COMMITTEE Chairman Blais suggested that a temporary committee be organized with the fine arts, recreation, natural resources, to set up amongst them what the program potential is for Red Rocks for the various committees. He also suggested they set up guide lines on how the rules should be in using the facility, because the Council will have to ordain rules for the park's operation. The Council requested that this matter also be brought back to them, or that this ordinance be passed with the Council's approval. SIGN TELEPHONE COMPANY PETITIONS FOR A BURIED CABLE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF KENNEDY DRIVE FROM TIMBER LANE TO NEW ROAD Mr. Szymanski stated that the petitions are within the right-of-way and needed the Council's signatures, and he stated that the proposed procedure was acceptable to him. Councilman Nardelli moved that the Council sign the petitions. Councilman Flaherty seconded. The motion was unanimously passed. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE - MR. NARDELLI Councilman Nardelli questioned whether it would be wise for the Council to consider a moratorium on the sign ordinance for three months or when the sign ordinance is approved and signed by the City Council. Chairman Blais questioned the legality of putting a moratorium on a part of an ordinance that is a law. He suggested that John Ewing be asked if this is possible. Councilman Nardelli made the motion to put a moratorium on any further variances for signs of either three months or when it is accepted by the Council as a new ordinance subject to legal counsel. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The vote was Flaherty and Nardelli in favor of the motion; Gee, Blais and Brown against the motion. Councilman Brown moved that the question be put on the next agenda for discussion and action and that legal opinion be obtained on the question. And that the Zoning Board be invited to attend that meeting. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously passed. BANK NOTE RENEWALS TO BE SIGNED Mr. Szymanski stated that these renewals were for the fire station, equipment funds, Red Rocks, and for the old town office, and for the sewers. The notes were signed by Council. The City Council Meeting was recessed at 10:50 P.M. and the Council went into Executive Session at 10:55 P.M. The Executive Session was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. and the regular meeting reconvened. EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN The Council reviewed the two plans under consideration and unanimously agreed to vote by secret ballot. The vote was three to two to accept the MONY proposal for the City Retirement Plan. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.