Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/12/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, February 12, 1973, in the Conference Room of the City Hall at 1175 Williston Rd. at 7:30 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick G. Blais, Harold P. Brown, Jr., Michael D. Flaherty, Brian Gee and Walter Nardelli. OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager Richard R. Ward, Zoning administrator R. A. Lang Ethel Schuele Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director Kay Neubert Harry Behney Henry Caswell Hugh B. Marvin, Planning Commission A. Krapcho Lou Dellin R. C. Schmucker Jo Chastenay F. C. McCaffrey R. J. Danis Paul S. Zerr Att. Richard Spokes Leo O'Connor, Free Press C. Benfield, Free Press Doug Tudhope, Planning Commission Dean Leonard Ray Stowell Sonny Audette Barbara Bull Steve Oviatt, WJOY Chairman Blais opened the meeting at 7:30 P. M. with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1973 Chairman Blais asked if there were any corrections, deletions or additions to be made to the minutes of February 5, 1973. There were none. Councilman Nardelli moved to accept the minutes of February 5, 1973. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. ADDED TO AGENDA Chairman Blais asked to add to the agenda discussion of the Correctional Center. Councilman Nardelli asked to add discussion of ideas relevant to revenue sharing. There were no objections to adding these items. REVIEW PROPOSED FINE ARTS BUDGET Mrs. Schuele briefed the Council on items for a budget of $7,700 as follows: -Increases number of hours for summer recreation supervisors from two to three per day to allow more time for activities. -Increase of 150.00 for more supplies for more comprehensive program. -Same amount for school buses and field trips, as last year. -$500.00 escrow fund for covering possible damage to the school or equipment (i.e. sewing machines, shop tools, kitchen, etc.) -small amount for publicity -$150.00 buffer to make up for possible shortage in course fees (in order to offer a course which is just short of minimum number of students). -Workshop program in High School; $200.00. -Community Library: Pre-school books, $200.00; increase in phone service; arts and crafts books; literary membership; publicity; library clerk 15 hours per week for 36 weeks; supplies. A listing of all items was given to Council members. Councilman Gee noted that the total cost for the playground leaders was $2,025 not $2,565. Chairman Blais asked Mr. O'Neill to recheck calculations before the final budget presentation. Mrs. Schuele commented that she felt it was important to continue the workshop for the High School as it was the only activity provided by the Fine Arts program for the students in High School. She also recommended that the $150.00 buffer fund (to make up a possible difference between student fees and a guaranteed minimum) would make it possible to maintain a varied adult educational program, which she believed was important to the future of the program. Mrs. Schuele said that the Fine Arts Committee has made out a Project Grant Request for federal funding for the Community Library. She asked the Council to consider using Revenue Sharing funds for non-recurring expenses for the Community Library Councilman Gee asked if the phone for the Community Library was connected to the school switchboard. Mrs. Schuele said no. She said she anticipated a possible 27.9% increase in the phone bill for next year due to increasing rates. Chairman Blais asked if the number was listed in the phone book. Mrs. Schule said it was under the City's listing. It was noted the school library does not have a phone. Mrs. Schuele said Friends of the Library rotate the collection of books from the regional library periodically. She said from July 1972 to November 1972 421 people used the Community Library and there were 155 family memberships, which is almost as many members as the Mobile Unit without much publicity. The number of books circulated was 811. Mrs. Schuele said 6 more shelve units are being built, but she said donations of books have been received which as yet do not have space to be placed in the Community Library. She said volunteers in the summer put a number of paperbacks in good condition. Mr. O'Neill said there were 345 registered forms for the summer program, and the bulk of applicants were ages 8 to 11. Total attendance was 4,845 with an average of 162 a day. Mr. O'Neill said the bill for the school bus service has not been received yet. Councilman Brown suggested that the $850.00 item for adult program be broken down. Chairman Blais asked what kind of a program was being offered for Senior Citizens. Mr. O'Neill said the J.O. house will offer possibilities when it is useable. He said adult courses are offered to senior citizens free of charge. So far three have taken a course. Chairman Blais said he was delighted with the increasing mileage out of the Fine Arts, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee activities. DISBURSEMENTS Chairman Blais reminded the Council members to sign the disbursements. CORRECTIONAL CENTER Chairman Blais asked Mr. Tudhope to brief the Council on the action of the Planning Commission regarding the Correctional Facility. Mr. Tudhope, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said the Commission restricted its discussion to the question of use. He said the Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend to the City Council denial of the use of the Swift-Farrell site for the Correctional Facility. The basis of the recommendation was that the proposed legally warned zoning designates that site as commercial and does not list governmental use as suitable for that area. In addition there are residences in the immediate area and there is a question of the mixture of uses in that particular place. He said the Planning Commission felt it was extremely important to adhere to the Master Plan and accompanying zoning which puts the plan into effect. Chairman Blais said a letter from City Attorney John Ewing advised the Council that it is questionable whether the proposed zoning makes a "reasonable provision for the location of governmental use, as required by Section 4409 of State Statute 24 VSA. The City Attorney also advised the Council of his opinion that Section 4443 regarding procedures during adoption process of new regulations applied to governmental bodies as well as developers; that zoning permits were to be approved by the City Council during adoption process of new zoning. He said the State is subject to the requirements of a zoning permit, according to State Statutes. Regarding changes, corrections or errors by the Planning Commission and the City Council during adoption of new zoning, the City Attorney advised the Council that guidelines were not provided by the State Statutes. It was his opinion that during the adoption process the Council could give consideration to the concepts of the proposed zoning when determining approval of zoning permits. The City Attorney also advised the Council that setback requirements for a zoning permit would include setbacks for streams. Mr. Tudhope said he believed it was reasonable provision to designate governmental uses in Planned Unit Development. He said it is difficult to predetermine an exact location for a governmental use in a zoning map. He believed it was most appropriate, therefore, to allow a governmental use under Planned Unit Development. Planned Unit Development is allowed in the districts of R2,4, PR10, PR20 and Campus Town. It is not allowed in the districts of R1, Airport Industrial, Business Retail, Business Planned District, Flood Plain and Recreation, Conservation and Open Space. Under Planned Unit greater variation in structures is allowed, but special conditions are evaluated and required. Mr. Tudhope said greater flexibility is allowed in Planned Unit Development but only because the Planning Commission is authorized by the requirements of PUD to lock at the development in a more comprehensive way than is required by other some designations (unless a conditional use). Councilman Flaherty asked Assistant City Attorney Richard Spokes what was the reason for the City Attorney's opinion that the proposed zoning may not make reasonable provision for governmental uses. Mr. Spokes said it probably will be difficult for a court to construe that the Planning Act wanted governmental uses to be only in PUD. In addition the philosophy of PUD doesn't seem to include certain governmental uses. Mr. Spokes said if one of the zoning districts made specific allowance for state institutions, then a correctional facility would be subject to the use requirements of the zoning regulations. Under PUD it would be difficult for a state facility to meet the general and specific standards set forth in section 13.20 of the proposed zoning. Councilman Blais commented that it would be a mistake to allow a use in a zone which is not intended to be allowed under the new zoning. Mr. Tudhope asked Mr. Spokes if his office was sure if the State must have a zoning permit. Mr. Spokes said no. He said the office expressed opinions on how solid one question is versus another. Mr. Tudhope said discussion has suggested that many points are not clear. He said courts of law are for deciding questions of law. He said if the State is going ahead without doing what the city wants done, then the question belongs in courts. Mrs. Krapcho commented that a court of law decided totally in favor of the state in the case of Springfield. Mr. Spokes said this decision was made prior to Act 91 when common law was quite clear. He said the Planning Act includes certain sections which seem to override common law to some degree, but it is not known to what degree. Councilman Nardelli asked Mr. Spokes what steps are involved if the Council upholds the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Spokes said it would be up to the State. If the State moved ahead with construction on the site, the Council would instruct the lawyers to file a complaint. The State would have 20 days to respond. He could not give a time table, but he believed there would be a rapid hearing on all the issues. Mrs. Neubert said if the Council denies the State use of the site, the State will not come back for review of other zoning requirements. Councilman Brown moved that since the City Council upholds the use question as recommended by the Planning Commission and since several questions on zoning are not clear, the City Council desires that the following points outlined by the Planning Commission be heard before the Commission: 1. Subdivision Regulations 2. Setback requirements 3. Zoning Ordinance and permit 4. Environmental impact If the State elects to continue with construction without going through normal development procedures before the Planning Commission, the City Attorney is authorized to proceed with an injunction against the State. Councilman Gee seconded the motion. Mr. Tudhope asked to read the report of the Natural Resource Committee concerning the site. The report dated 2-12-73 said the environmental land use plan of 1968 recommended that the site should be zoned flood plain. The site is subject to flooding, it acts as a sponge and stores water, has poor soils for building and the stream banks provide possible trail routes. The report said the recommendation was not followed and the site was designated commercial by the proposed zoning. The report recommended that if the site is to be developed that there be a setback of L00' each side of Potash Brook and 50' each side of the minor stream running into Potash Brook. It also recommended that neither stream be relocated and it offered the assistance of the committee to work with any developer. Mrs. Bull, Chairman of the Natural Resource Committee, said she was disturbed the largest tree on the lot was already cut down which did not observe even a 35' setback. In answer to a question by Councilman Brown, Mrs. Bull said she could not find criteria for differentiation between major and minor streams. Mr. Tudhope said the intent was to record all major streams on the map with green designation and minor with a line above. Mr. Spokes was asked if his instructions were clear according to the motion on the floor. He said yes. The motion was approved unanimously. RECESS Chairman Blais declared a five minute recess. AIRPORT COMMISSION REPORT-MR. D'ACUTI Chairman Blais said that Mr. D'Acuti could not attend the meeting due to illness. He said the item will be put on next meeting's agenda. Chairman Blais informed the Council that a request is before the Burlington Board of Aldermen for 6 officers for the airport. He said this and other questions should be pursued. APPOINT A VOTING MACHINE COMMITTEE Chairman Blais and Councilman Brown were appointed to a voting machine committee. REPORT ON AUXILIARY POLICE Mr. Szymanski read the report from Chief Carter on the costs and requirements for an auxiliary police force. Chief Carter said there were no provisions in the state statutes for a special force. Chief Carter estimated a cost of $5,362.50 for equipment with a new cruiser and a cost $2,122.50 for equipment and a modified civilian car. There would be no cost for training, just for salaries. Chairman Blais asked how the Burlington auxiliary force worked. Mr. Szymanski said it was probably in the Charter. Mr. Ward said Burlington's auxiliary used city equipment as well as foot patrol and doubling up. The Auxiliary purchased its own uniforms. Chairman Blais instructed Mr. Szymanski to find out what the enabling legislation is, and he asked Councilman Gee to talk with the Burlington Chief of Police on the reliability of their program. ADDED TO AGENDA-REVENUE SHARING Councilman Nardelli asked the Council to investigate the possibility of using the revenue sharing funds to make a 5% rebate on the total tax bill. Discussion was on the alternative ways of spending the revenue sharing funds. It was suggested to check with the voters as to how the funds should be used. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P. M. Approved: Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.