Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/05/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, February 5, 1973, in the Conference Room of the City Hall, 1175 Williston Rd. at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick Blais, Harold Brown, Michael Flaherty, Brian Gee, and Walter Nardelli. OTHERS PRESENT James Pizzagalli George O'Brien William Schuele Mrs. Loren E. Avery Robert A. Schell M. G. Wright Russell R. Tilley Mary Barbara Maher, Planning Commission L. Dellin Paul Graves, Vt. Representative Barbara Bull, Chairman of Natural Resources Committee Mrs. Sims William Robenstein Leo O'Connor, Free Press Gerald Hatin Michael B. Clapp A. Krapcho Loren E. Avery Gordon Wright Kay Neubert Mary Roy L. H. Willis F. C. McCaffrey Doug Tudhope, Chairman of Planning Commission Ray Danis Harry Behney Jill Gray William Szymanski, City Manager Richard ward, Zoning Administrator Chairman Blais opened the meeting at 7:30 P. M. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 1973 AND JANUARY 29, 1973. Chairman Blais asked the Council if there were any corrections, omissions, or additions. Councilman Flaherty said that on P. 8 of the minutes of January 22, 1973, the second paragraph should be corrected to read, "Councilman Flaherty said a Holiday Inn in Landisville, Pa., retained its identity with a sign a fifth the size of the one in South Burlington." Councilman Gee said that on P. 3 of the minutes of January 22, 1973, the first paragraph should be corrected by changing the figures of 580-600 to 580,000- 600,000 and by changing the figure of 643 to 643,000. Councilman Brown said that on P. 5 of the minutes of January 22, 1973, the third from last paragraph should be corrected by changing the figure of $1,200,000 to $1,400,000. Councilman Flaherty said that on P. 7 of the minutes of January 22, 1973, the second paragraph should be corrected by adding the name of Councilman Nardelli as the member who seconded the motion. Chairman Blais said that on P. 8 of the minutes of January 29, 1973, the second paragraph should be corrected to show that Chairman Blais abstained from the vote on accepting ARTICLE I. Chairman Blais said that on P. 5 of the minutes of January 29, 1973, the third paragraph should be corrected to read, "The motion was approved by a 3 to 2 vote. Councilmen Nardelli, Flaherty and Gee approved." Councilman Gee moved to accept the minutes of January 22, 1973, and the minutes of January 29, 1973. as corrected. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. ADDED TO AGENDA Chairman Blais asked if there were any objections to adding to the agenda updated information on the Correctional Center. There were no objections. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council members to sign the disbursement orders before leaving the meeting. CONSIDER ZONING PERMIT FOR POWER PETROLEUM AT KENNEDY DR. AND HINESBURG RD. Mr. Ward, Zoning Administrator, said that on January 23, 1973, the South Burlington Planning Commission made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application for a permit be approved with the stipulation that a landscapping plan be approved by the Planning Commission and that should the exit onto Kennedy prove hazardous the City would have the option of closing it. Mr. James Pizzagalli, representing Pizzagalli Co., said that it would be unnecessary to stipulate a closing of the access on the new permit since the original permit (good for 24 months) specified the same stipulation (that the exit would be closed if hazardous) and that the stipulation on the original permit would carry forward. Mr. Pizzagalli said the application complied with the present zoning. He said the plans show a general landscapping plan but not details showing types of trees. Councilman Gee asked Mr. Pizzagalli if he were aware that the application for a gas station at the location of Kennedy Dr. and Hinesburg Rd. would be non- conforming under the proposed zoning ordinance. Mr. Pizzagalli said he was aware. Councilman Gee asked Mr. Ward if the plan met the setback requirements of the proposed zoning. Mr. Ward said it did not meet the 75' setback required on both Kennedy Dr. and Hinesburg Rd. The plan shows a setback of 50' on the front and 25' on the side. Mrs. Mary Barbara Maher, member of the Planning Commission, said that the Planning Commission had not been informed that the application would not meet the setbacks of the proposed zoning, and she asked Mr. Pizzagalli if he would be able to increase the front setback. She asked him to state a definite figure so that the Council would be able to incorporate the figure in its motion. She believed that without a definite figure in the motion, the building would be placed on the property as shown on the application. Mr. Pizzagalli said it might be possible to move the building back 5 or 10', but he hesitated to move too far back in order to maintain a buffer between the parking area and the back lot line. Councilman Nardelli asked if it was the intent to have a drive on Kennedy Dr. Mr. Pizzagalli said that three drive entrances are already in place and were put in between 1971 and 1972 under the authorization of the original permit. He said that one entrance will be closed on Hinesburg Rd. and restored to its former condition. Councilman Nardelli asked Mr. Szymanski what was the intent of designating Kennedy Dr. as a limited access. Mr. Szymanski said that it meant allowing only one curb cut per property. Councilman Nardelli asked if curb cuts were meant to be opposite islands near intersections. Mr. Szymanski said it was better not to. Councilman Brown moved to accept the zoning permit for Power Petroleum with the stipulation that the City Manager work with Power Petroleum and Pizzagalli Const. Co. to provide a 75' setback on Kennedy Dr. and Hinesburg Rd. Councilman Brown amended his motion to require a minimum setback of 65' but working for a possibly 75' setbacks. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. Councilman Gee asked if the stipulations of the Planning Commission will carry forward. Mr. Tudhope, Chairman of the Planning Commission, suggested that the stipulations be incorporated in the motion of the Council. Chairman Blais amended the motion that the stipulations of the Planning Commission be a condition of the approval of the permit. There were no objections to the amendment. The motion as amended was approved unanimously. Mrs. Neubert asked if the proposed zoning had any provisions to prevent a building permit from changing hands from one owner to a new owner of a lot which has been granted a specific permit. Chairman Blais said the permit was for a "plan approval". CONSIDER PROPOSED VELCO ROUTES Chairman Blais said that there was a petition addressed to interested parties listing reasons why the northern overhead route was believed to be undesirable by the petitioners. Chairman Blais said that the Planning Commission had testified at the Public Service Board 3 years ago, requesting the line to go underground, and further that, if it was ruled that the Velco line was to be overhead, then the City of South Burlington would have the perogative of being involved in the routing of the line. Chairman Blais said that neither request has been honored. Chairman Blais said that after PSB mandated that the southern route be used, a modified northern route was plotted by Velco as a possible alternative. The Natural Resource Committee favors the northern route if it does not go through Farrell Park. However, the plotted northern route by Velco shows the line going through the park. Mrs. Bull, Chairman of the Natural Resource Committee, said that following discussion with Velco last Thursday it was apparent that Velco would not consider by-passing Farrell Park and would not consider lower construction of the line along the flight path to the airport and would not consider having narrower rights-of-way. She said the Natural Resource Committee made the motion to go along with the southern route, as a result of not receiving any modifications deemed important by the Committee for the northern route. Chairman Blais asked if the Planning Commission has had a chance to react to the decision of the Natural Resource Committee. Mr. Tudhope said the Commission has not had a meeting since the decision. He said he personally felt that both overhead routes were damaging to the City of South Burlington and that it was a case of choosing the least damaging to the environment. If it were to go along the lakefront he hoped it would not be skyline; he expressed concern for the lakefront. The northern route if it followed existing corridors would be preferred if the Farrell Park could be worked out. Mrs. Maher said she concurred with the Natural Resource Committee. She said she did not have strong objection to the southern route, since there could be no assurances on the northern route. Councilman Brown asked Mrs. Bull how the Natural Resource Committee could approve the southern route without knowing specifics as to exactly where the line will be routed. Mrs. Bull said the Committee approved the route subject to review of the survey route with consideration for property lines and topography. Councilman Brown said he basically would like to look at the problems of the southern route and be able to have specifics before making a decision. Councilman Flaherty moved to direct the Planning Commission to consider the southern route with specifics worked out. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. Mr. James Pizzagalli said that before action is taken on the southern route, he wanted to propose on behalf of Pizzagalli Co. to pay the cost to excavate a trench from the Williston-South Burlington boundary line to Lake Champlain for the purpose of working out an underground, Velco line in the City of South Burlington. He said this would be a way for the residents of South Burlington to demonstrate that they really want power lines underground. He asked the Council to wait a week or two in order to determine if this proposal would be feasible and worth pursuing in detail, or if it has no merit. Councilman Gee said he believed one objection by Velco for putting the line underground was the cost of wrapping the line for underground installation. Mr. Pizzagalli said there were a number of different costs, but that certainly one area was the cost of excavation. Rep. Graves said that it might be possible to give a tax break for the Velco right of way. Chairman Blais said that tax abatements are possible only after referendum vote. Mr. Clapp said that if citizens are interested, he thought the Council should consider the proposal. Mrs. Maher said that the PSB ruled that if the town of Calas, Vt., wanted a power line underground in order to preserve historical features, it would have to pay the cost of putting it underground. Mrs. Bull said that the Overview Report said that the right-of-way along Interstate 89 would be desirable for underground installation, and she said that there would be a possible savings to Velco by using the right of way as opposed to acquiring private property. Mr. Tudhope said that every conceivable effort has been made to have the line put underground, but he said he didn't think Velco would put the line underground even if the whole thing was paid for. Mr. Pizzagalli said that the companies that make up Velco are getting concerned and may realize that with two Supreme Court injunctions pending they may have to bend a little and may change their position. Councilman Flaherty amended the motion that the directive to the Planning Commission be held up for two weeks, subject to the report from Pizzagalli Construction Co. Councilman Gee seconded the amendment. Mr. Loren Avery said that if the Council votes for the southern route, Velco will go for the southern route. Mr. Pizzagalli said that their bargaining power will be strengthened if the Council's motion does not mention either the northern or the southern route. He suggested the Council table action. Councilman Flaherty said that all the Council was doing was backing up the route which had the least social and safety impact. Mrs. Maher asked the Council to at least oppose the northern route as plotted by Velco. Councilman Flaherty withdrew the motion. Councilman Gee seconded the withdrawal. Councilman Flaherty moved to oppose the overhead northern route as plotted by Velco, and to allow Pizzagalli Construction Co. two weeks to discuss its offer to assist Velco for underground installation of the Velco line. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 4 to 1 vote. Councilman Brown opposed the motion. ADDED TO AGENDA-UPDATED INFORMATION ON CORRECTIONAL CENTER Chairman Blais said that construction on the Correctional Center was started on the morning of February 5, 1973, at the Swift-Farrell property. Chairman Blais said that he asked Mr. Weed, State Building Inspector, who was on the site, if the State intended to obtain a Zoning permit as required under State statutes, and if the State was going to abide by the stream setback requirements of the City's warned zoning ordinance. Chairman Blais said that Mr. Weed replied negatively to both questions. Chairman Blais said the City Attorney said there is no question that both requirements are necessary. The City Attorney advised Chairman Blais that a legal injunction should be started if the City wants the State to follow its regulations, and to stop all further construction. Councilman Flaherty said that if stream setback was the only problem, he felt court action was in excess of action needed to work it out. He said that court action was the last step the City could take, and he didn't believe it was called for at this time. Councilman Gee said that their act of entering the site and starting construction was an act against City requirements and believed the injunction should be served immediately. Councilman Flaherty said that he was against variances, but he didn't believe anyone was brought to court immediately. Mr. Tudhope, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said that the State did come before the Planning Commission with data, but it now appears there will be no further review. Councilman Brown said that the State made it clear the data was for informational purposes only and was not a submission of an application. Mrs. Maher said she did not blame the State for not wanting to submit plans when the City officials have not provided consistent actions in this matter. She agreed with Councilman Flaherty to work it out in meetings rather than in court. Chairman Blais said the fundamental question was whether the City's zoning provisions were to be complied with, regardless by whom. He said we either are or are not going to waiver standards. Councilman Nardelli said that the Council cannot stop the State, and he recommended delaying court action until the intent of the State is determined. Mr. Robenstein asked Chairman Blais if 10 to 12 other violations of City regulations will be taken to court by the City. Chairman Blais said those violations were in reference to subdivision regulations not zoning. Mr. Robenstein commented that he thought Councilman Blais was referring to all of the City's regulations, regarding waivers. Rep. Graves asked if the State was complying with existing regulations. Mr. Ward said in some respects no. Mr. Graves said that the City should make the most of the situation as it is, and if streams are the only problem, he thinks the State will cooperate. He said it is a legal question if the State is complying or not. Chairman Blais said the City warned new zoning in early November before the Correctional Center site was located in the City. The warned zoning has the force of law according to legal council. Mrs. Krapcho asked how the City can expect to ask developers to adhere to the new zoning but make an exception for the State. Councilman Flaherty said that the Council was not suggesting to make an exception for the State but to deal with them out of court. Chairman Blais said that the City has been formulating for the past three years a policy to protect the City's streams in order to avoid future growth that will lack natural green areas. He said that the City has been demanding more setback and more open space from developers. Rep. Graves asked Chairman Blais if he believed the streams on the correctional site in their present form will be more of an asset to the city than what the State plans to do with the streams. Councilman Nardelli moved to table action and to instruct the City Manager to contact Mr. Wilson, Mr. Bates and Mr. Weed to ask what procedure the State intends to follow, and to show the City's cooperative attitude. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. Mr. Tudhope said he had been advised by the City Attorney that the new proposed Ordinances which have been duly warned have the effect of law. From the Planning Commission standpoint it makes sense, because it protects the City against mass applications against the old zoning. Mr. Tudhope said the State proposes the following: 1. Use variance 2. Reroute and rechannelize two streams 3. Will not meet setback requirements for streams, according to the proposed zoning which has been warned. -The building will be 40' from a major stream -The parking will be 5' from another stream running on westerly side Mr. Tidhope said the setbacks proposed by the State will not come close to the setback requirements of the proposed zoning. Mr. Tudhope believes the State is proposing substantial variances. While he is prepared to bend slightly on a little point, he submitted that these variances will establish a precedent that the City will very much regret in the future. He said the philosophy of requiring 100' setback from streams is to protect natural green areas in the City. He submitted that other developers will ask variances if it is not uniformly enforced. He said he believed the State would receive an objective hearing. He said there is an issue that transcends even the use variance, which is the whole issue of the relationship of the State and local communities. The State, which is promoting a land capability plan and promoting local planning and decision making, should be setting an example and it is doing just the opposite in this case. Mrs. Stollen said she disagreed with Rep. Graves that the State would make the drainage area more valuable to the City. She said there is deer and muskrat in the area. She said children play there, and it is a beautiful place, but that you have to get out of the car to appreciate it. She accompanied a class of 50 children there, which found crawfish under rocks. She said the people in the area are concerned, and she didn't feel it was right to destroy streams that are beautiful. Chairman Blais read a letter which the City sent to the State on December 26, 1972, which advised the State of the City's proposed zoning which had been duly warned in November, 1972, and which advised the State of all regulations which are required under State and City provisions. Councilman Gee asked Chairman Blais if the City had received written documentation from the State in regards to the letter of December 26, 1972. Chairman Blais said à letter had been received from the State indicating a progress schedule and the intent to comply with newly proposed zoning, to the extent required by Section 4409. Mr. Tudhope said that Section 4409 has been amended with the addition of an opening clause which says that if a community has reasonable provisions for the location of public facilities the State is expected to comply. He said the location of a sewerage plant in Springfield occurred before the adoption of the amendment to Section 4409, by the last legislature. Mr. Tudhope said that the City Attorney said this amendment was the most important area of the City's case. Mr. Tudhope said that the Attorney for the State was not aware of the amendment, until it was pointed out to him at the January 9, 1973, meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tudhope said that at the rate the State was progressing on the site, the green area will be decimated in a very short time, and that unless work is stopped the whole thing will be academic. Councilman Flaherty said if the City goes to court and the City loses, the parking area will be 4' from the stream. However, he said, if the City goes to the State there may be cooperation. Councilman Gee moved to have the motion moved. There was no second to the motion. Councilman Nardelli withdrew the original motion and moved to instruct the City Manager to ask the Secretary of Administration to cease work immediately at the Swift-Farrell site and to set up a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the matter: if the State does not case work and agree to meet immediately, the City Manager is empowered to advise the City Attorney to proceed immediately with a court injunction. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a 4 to 1 vote. Councilman Gee opposed. Councilman Gee believed the injunction should be served immediately. RESOLUTION HONORING JILL C. GRAY Chairman Blais introduced Miss Jill C. Gray as the first place winner of the Vermont Junior Miss Pageant. He said she is a girl who deserves loudly the pride the City has in its youth, school system and parents. He said she is the second girl to win the Vermont Junior Miss Pageant who comes from South Burlington, He said she won the position because of her poise, academic ability and talent. Councilman Gee moved to adopt the resolution honoring Jill C. Gray. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Blais wished her good luck and offered her congradulations. Miss Gray said thank you and said she will try her best in Mobile, Alabama at the national finals. RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HONORING JILL C. GRAY WHEREAS, Jill C. Gray of South Burlington has participated in the Vermont Junior Miss Pageant, and WHEREAS, Jill C. Gray has distinguished herself by placing first among the contestants, earning valuable awards and prizes, and, WHEREAS, she has represented our city in the state finals with distinction and in a tradition exemplary of the fine youth of our city, and will be representing the State of Vermont in the national finals to be held in Mobile, Alabama, in May, 1973. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council, on behalf of the citizens of the City of South Burlington proudly salutes Miss Gray and extends its congradulations on the success she has had and wishes her well in her future endeavors, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a true copy of this Resolution be presented to Miss Gray. EXECUTIVE SESSION Councilman Brown moved to go into executive session at 10:15 P. M. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.