Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/22/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JAN. 22, 1973 APPROVED FEB. 5, 1973 WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS On page 8 of the minutes of the January 22, 1973 meeting 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 of the size of the one in South Burlington." On page 3 Correct the figures of 580-600 to "580,000-600,000" and the figure of 643 to "643,000". Page 5 - correct the figure of $1,200,000 to "$1,400,000" Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, January 22, 1973 in the Library of the South Burlington High School on Dorset St. at 7:00 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Frederick Blais, Harold Brown, Michael Flaherty, Brian Gee, and Walter Nardelli. OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager Richard Ward, Code Officer Michael J. Dattilio David Keefe Kay Neubert J. Plauffe Clayton DeGraff Irene Quenneville Geraldine Plauffe Ernestine DeGraff Nanci Casey Genevieve Noryan Elaine Bassett Murray Edelstein Thomas Hubbard Anne Hubbard James Menard William Beauvair Steve Orrit, WJOY Walter Dauglas Margaret Douglas Ray Danis Leo O'Connor, Free Press John T. Ewing, City Attorney Art Hogan, Regional Planning C. Benfield, Free Press Rep. and Mrs. Paul Graves Gene Cenci, Holiday Inn Fred Calcagni Ray Unsworth Patricia Fiske Claire Gabso James Nuovo Don Spawn A. Krapcho George Smith Albert Audette F. C. McCalfrey Clayton Holmes Thomas Breen Richard Smullen Ruth DesLauriers William Murphy William Vail Charles Butler, Ramada Inn Wesley Pickard, Wes Rae Kennels Sylvia Laramee Maria Gravelle Roberta Stys Lola Jean Danis Paul Zerr Charles Halunn Ducore Clurtin Duanne Merrill, Ethan Allen Motel Ann Johnston Chairman Blais opened the meeting at 7:00 P. M. in the Library of the High School in order to inspect the Municipal facilities of the Library. The League of Women Voters sponsored this portion of the Council Meeting from 7:00 to 7:30 P. M. in order for Council members to become informed on the availability of the High School Library facilities to the general public. At 7:30 P. M. Councilman Gee moved to adjourn the meeting to the Cafeteria. Councilman Nardelli seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. ADDITION TO AGENDA Chairman Blais asked the approval of the Councilmen to add to the agenda the submission of a petition regarding the location of a Correctional facility. The Council approved. There were no other items to be added. DISBURSEMENTS There were no disbursements to be signed according to Chairman Blais. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON LEGISLATIVE DRAFT FOR TRANSIT AUTHORITY Chairman Blais said that Mr. John Ewing, drafter of the legislation, and Mr. Art Hogan, acting coordinator, were present at the meeting and asked for questions from Councilman. Councilman Nardelli said that, according to the consultant's report, 40% of bus customers are under the age of 18 and that the majority of these young people come from B.H.S. and the University of Vermont. He further said that the other highest source of customers was from Burlington proper. He said the costs to South Burlington for a transit authority for the region would not be related to the number of the city's residents using the bus but would be related to the number of miles covered by bus service. He said there will be a deficit for at least five years being assumed by the city, and it is not known if this prediction is underestimated. He said inflation is one known cause of rising costs, and yet once a city is bonded, it cannot withdraw from the authority until the bond is satisfied. He therefore stated he did not want to see South Burlington incur costs for bus service that would be used primarily for Burlington proper, and that he did think it wise to ask the State to put on the books an act that may burden a region with rising costs for a service that will not benefit every community equally. He reiterated that private enterprise should be investigated thoroughly. Councilman Nardelli asked Mr. Ewing if there was a need for an enabling act. Mr. Ewing said there are other possibilities, such as a contractual arrangement as the area communities have now with BRT. He said this arrangement couldn't be done on a permanent basis however. Councilman Flaherty and Councilman Nardelli asked questions concerning the procedures of joining an authority and of bonding. Mr. Ewing said the process of joining an authority is done by the individual legislative bodies. Upon joining, the legislative bodies appoint two representatives from each community to the Board governing the authority. The Board has the authority to adopt annual budgets. He said a bond issue for major purchases, such as for buses or depot, would have to be voted upon by the voters of the district and the issue would be determined by a simple majority vote. Chairman Blais asked what will be the future after the June 30, 1973, termination date for service from BRT. Mr. Hogan said it is known that BRT definitely does not wish to continue service on any basis. Chairman Blais asked what information is available on the feasibility of continuing bus service by an independent private business other than BRT. Mr. Hogan said that it is improbable based on lack of interest so far. Councilman Nardelli asked Mr. Hogan if to his knowledge has any public authority managed to make a profit. Mr. Hogan said a public authority is not allowed to make a profit. He cited an article which says that public corporations, in 50 cities around the country, have reversed the trend of loses, with proper management. He mentioned grants made for studies on management because of the need nationally for public authorities. Councilman Gee asked Mr. Hogan if it would be possible to write into Section 8 of the draft a provision that a community could withdraw if it paid off its share of bonded debt. Mr. Hogan and Mr. Ewing said it would be possible, but Mr. Hogan said that early payments result in an increased rate of interest paid by the community based on the back-out provision. Councilman Gee asked Mr. Hogan what is the total yearly miles being served now. Mr. Hogan estimated 580-600 miles. Councilman Gee commented that Alternate #2 in the consultant's report suggests 643 miles. Councilman Gee said that the only school district being served now is Burlington. He asked Mr. Hogan what would happen to the total mileage if other communities in the district should elect to have their schools served. Mr. Hogan said there are already other school districts within the County which have a subsidy arrangement. He said the Board of Directors of the Authority would have the final say on policy, and the decision probably would be based on renumeration viable with the mileage. Councilman Gee asked if it was necessary for the Board of Directors to have the extent of powers as outlined in the Draft. Mr. Hogan said that any corporation with assets of $800,000-$1,000,000 requires business expertise and the powers similar to any other corporation with the same assests. Mr. Ewing said he didn't see any reason why the interests of the people wouldn't be represented. He said the revenue would come basically from fares. Councilman Gee asked what will happen between the time of the June 30 deadline and the time when there will be another means of service. Mr. Hogan suggested that enabling legislation be passed early in order for the individual community legislative bodies to act on it by February 15. He said he is meeting already with Federal officials, and is investigating feasibility of an interim fleet of buses, the location and design of a terminal, and a market for staff of the authority. Councilman Brown said bus service will cost the taxpayers in the future, so he wanted a feeling from taxpayers if they want to pay for this service and if they approve the legislative draft. However, he did not see much choice other than for the draft to be acted upon for now, and then look to the people later, or there would be no bus service in the near future. Councilman Flaherty said the Council was only being asked to show support for the enabling legislation. He said the nationwide trend was that private transit businesses have difficulty making profits. He stated the community has an obligation to provide alternate means of transportation for older people, young people and others who do not have cars. Councilman Nardelli asked if there was a State assessment procedure if the Authority sustained heavy losses. Mr. Ewing said no. Councilman Flaherty moved to support the enabling legislation for a transit authority. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. Chairman Blais said it would be the job of the legislature to look at all possibilities. Councilman Gee asked if the information would be available. Mr. Hogan said the basis for determination is already in the consultant's report. Chairman Blais said it could be the perogative of the Council to investigate other means of financing and other alternatives. Chairman Blais commented that the region stands a chance of reasonable growth and the region should be prepared for mass transit. The motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote. Councilmen Brown, Flaherty and Blais supported the motion. Councilmen Nardelli and Gee opposed it. ADDITION TO AGENDA-RECEIVE PETITION REGARDING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Chairman Blais asked if there was a spokesman for the people wishing to submit a petition regarding the location of the proposed correctional facility in the north end of the city. Mr. Ray Danis, Patchen Rd., introduced himself as the spokesman and thanked the Council for adding the petition to the agenda. He said the residents of South Burlington were under the assumption the Correctional center was to be definitely located on Swift and Farrell St., and it was not known until Thursday or Friday of last week that the north end of the city was being reconsidered. Since there had been no duly warned hearing concerning the possible location of the facility in the north end, a petition was circulated in a day and a half in order to indicate the feelings of people to the Council. Mr. Danis said there were 1,071 signatures with 35 of the signatures from residents of Burlington, the remaining 1,041 signatures from residents of South Burlington. The petition contained the following basic points: Because: 1. The Patchen Rd. site was not suitable from a program point of view, 2. There was a negative feeling to locate the facility near residential areas, 3. There were no sidewalks on Patchen Rd. 4. There was no duly warned hearing 5. The controversy of choosing a location pitted one side of the city against the other It is concluded that: All possible sites in Chittenden County be reassessed by the Governor. Mr. Danis said the petition was addressed to Governor Salmon and to the South Burlington City Council. Chairman Blais said he was going to meet with Governor Salmon tomorrow, and he said he would convey the concerns expressed in the petition. Councilman Flaherty said that availability would make the Patchen Rd. site a prime site, but that with community resistance and with the fact that the Corrections people think it is a poor site from a program point of view, the Patchen Rd. site therefore rates poorly overall. He said he hoped expediency would not be the only criteria for selection of a site. Councilman Gee reiterated that he would not like to jeopardize the program for the sake of land availability. Councilman Gee also said the Patchen Rd. site was poor in the respects of community acceptance and program. Councilman Brown said that the Council and the Planning Commission were opposed to the Farrell St. site and originally recommended that all of the possible sites be looked at in Chittenden County. Mr. Danis said that the city now has two petitions with a total of approximately 1,800 signatures expressing disapproval of two sites in the city. Chairman Blais admitted that the Correctional Center is not very popular, but he said there is a need to solve the location consistent with a program and with minimum social impact. He said there probably is no area that would not have some impact. He said he thinks that Governor Salmon is interested in not forcing a facility on a community, but the Governor hopes the community will assume some responsibility to accepting the facility. It is important to have social acceptance in order for the program to function successfully. Chairman Blais said to the members of the Council that if there were no objections, he would indicate to Governor Salmon the following sites in order of preference for the location of the facility in the city. 1. East Avenue 2. Lamplough property 3. Patchen Rd. There were no objections, but there were several comments made by a member of the Council and by members of the audience. Councilman Nardelli said that he wanted other sites in Chittenden County to be reassessed as well as the above mentioned sites. Mr. Danis said that the majority of the reaction of people was that all sites in Chittenden County should be reconsidered. Mr. William Beauvair, 77 Kirby St., suggested that Fort Ethan Allen which has barracks be considered. Chairman Blais said that the fort was unacceptable to the correction program because of its location. Mr. Murray Edelstein, 30 Clover St., asked if the new facility was to replace the S. Wincoski facility. Chairman Blais said the building but not the program. He said the new facility would be only for minor offenders and not for serious offenders. Mr. Edelstein suggested the old Strong Hardware site for a possible location. Chairman Blais said the property was not of minimum size, which is supposed to be minimum of 3 acres and optimum of 5 acres, but could go as high as 8. Mr. Paul Graves, Representative to the Vermont legislature, said that since the Swift St. and Patchen Rd. sites both received similar objections from residents, that both sites should be rated equally as unacceptable. Mrs. Anna Johnston questioned if the policy of not accepting serious offenders at the facility could be changed in the future. Chairman Blais said that only one year at a time could be guaranteed, but he believed this possibility would not happen, since it would be prohibitively expensive to renovate the facility for maximum security, and that probably a separate building on a different location would be the course of action. Mr. Clayton DeGraff said that he understood the State had already bought the Swift St. property and he therefore stated the State must be sure of putting it there. Discussion ended and Chairman Blais said he would indicate to Governor Salmon the order of preferable sites and the concerns expressed in the petition. DISCUSSION OF RENOVATION OF CHITTENDEN COUNTY COURT, AND BOND ISSUE Chairman Blais turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Brown, since he is a member of the architectural team. Vice-Chairman Brown said there are plans on display at the County Court for the renovations to be made for new County Court facilities. He said the voters of Chittenden County must vote by ballot to approve or disapprove authority to make improvements not to exceed $1,200,000. If approved, 10% of the operating budget will go for part of the Bond Issue. Councilman Nardelli commented that the majority vote in the County will prevail regardless if one community should reject it. He said the city is already paying $9,000 yearly for operating costs and that it will cost another $9,000 to pay for the bond issue, each year for 20 years. Vice-Chairman Brown said there is money in the bank account, but if the improvements are not approved by January 1975, the money will go back into the operating budget. Mr. Szymanski said there will be a public hearing at 7:30 P. M. on Tuesday January 30 at the Court House at 180 Church St. Councilman Flaherty asked what percent will be South Burlington's share. It was estimated at 10-12% of $1,200,000. Mrs. Krapcho asked who determined that the renovations were needed. Mr. Ewing said it was determined by the County Side Judges and County Clerk and the County Bar Association resolved that the changes were necessary. Mr. Ewing said there is are problems of space and antique facilities. Councilman Gee moved to call for a special election for the bonding of renovation for a County Court House not to exceed $1,200,000. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF CITY ORDINANCE FOR CARE AND CONTROL OF DOGS-SECOND READING Vice-Chairman Brown turned the meeting over to Chairman Blais. Chairman Blais said the following changes to the Ordinance passed in 1963 and amended in 1968 will revise Sections 4 and 6 to authorize the City Manager and the Police Department to delegate authority to a designated person for impoundment and fines for dog violations. Mr. Picard expressed concern about the provisions relating to warnings for first violations. He said that the procedure should be clearer. For example, if the police should pick up a dog should the police or the dogkeeper issue the warning, and if the police issue the warning, that he should be informed of the warning for his own records. Also he stated that it is a personal risk at times to tempt a dog into custody and then to be able to only issue a warning is a questionable procedure. Mr. Spawn expressed concern for issuing only warnings for first offense especially for vicious dogs. Mr. Ewing commented to the suggestion, that one public warning be issued, that he didn't believe this could be done. Councilman Nardelli moved to amend the original ordinance incorporate additional fees to cover the keep of impounded dogs. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. Councilman Gee commented that there are no warnings given in some surrounding cities. Mr. Picard said there is an astounding number of dogs at large which do not have rabies shots. He said the dog problem is very serious. The motion was passed by a 4 to 1 vote. Councilman Gee was opposed. POSSIBLE FIRST READING ON SIGN ORDINANCE Chairman Blais said that an ordinance that has been changed after the first reading cannot receive a second reading. In order to incorporate changes it is necessary to rescind the first reading and start over. Councilman Nardelli moved to rescind the first reading of the proposed sign ordinance. Councilman Flaherty seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Chairman Blais said the Council will go through the proposed draft section by section. On P. 2 string lighting was added to the section referring to Banners and Pennants. Councilman Gee said after review he felt eliminating the bonus for cut-out letters would be an injustice; he said it is good to regulate free standing signs but some thing should be given in return. He said the sign consultant Mr. Ewald encouraged cut-out letters, since cut-out letters are more pleasing than letters on a plastic background. Councilman Gee moved that on P. 2 the phrase "one-half" should be put in Section 3A, and that Section 3C be eliminated. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a 3 to 2 vote. Councilman Gee, Brown, and Blais approved, and Councilmen Nardelli and Flaherty were opposed. Councilman Flaherty moved to delete Section 3D since it no longer is applicable. Councilman seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. The question was raised if the definition of a shopping center included the situation where one businessman operated two businesses such as a motel and a gift shop. It was suggested that possibly the number of curb cuts would be a criteria. Some businessmen said that did not approve the idea that each separate business would not she entitled to a separate free standing sign, regardless if only one owner or one lot. Chairman Blais asked if the present draft outlawed or limited Reader Boards. City Attorney John Ewing said that the ordinance does not prohibit them. Mr. Gene Cenci asked what was so wrong about Reader Boards. Councilman Flaherty said that the critically reader boards would be allowed all up and down the highway, and that this situation would be a hazard for drivers. Mrs. Hildick commented that the sign consultant's model ordinance limits items of information to ten(each syllable of a word is one item), and that a general allowance of Reader Boards would be inconsistent with his recommendation, unless they were pedestrian oriented as suggested in the definition written by City Attorney Ewing. She said the signed whose not to limit items to ten, but did ask the Sign Review Board to give consideration to the number of items which provided a little more flexibility than the absolute limit of ten. Mr. Wayne Wilson said that he feels the speed of cars on Williston Rd. and Shelburne Rd. is more than 35 miles per hour and that therefore the square footage for free standing should be increased from the proposed 40 sq. ft. Chairman Blais asked Mr. Cenci if he was aware of any significant accident rate at the corner of Williston Rd., Dorset St., And the Holiday Inn intersection. Mr. Cenci said the majority of accidents are caused by a car in the slow lane going west having its view obstructed, of a car turning north into the Holiday Inn, by vehicles in the fast lane. Rep. Paul Graves said that open land would last longer if the businesses keeping it open such as a golf course were to be allowed more signs. Mrs. DesLauriers asked the Council why the golf course is not allowed to have signs on Williston Rd. and near the Interstate in order to give directions to the entrance on Spear St. She said she was given a variance, but that the sign was taken down by the City. Mr. Ward, Code Officer, said there was a misunderstanding on the location. Chairman Blais informed Mrs. DesLauriers that any questions relating to variances must be asked of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Wilson said that it is a traffic hazard when signs aren't large enough to assist transient people looking for the golf course. Chairman Blais said if there were no objections from the Council, the definition of Reader Board would be taken out of the draft. There were no objections. Chairman Blais said the section on reflective materials had been modified. Mr. Calcagni asked if the definition of cut-out letters included painted-on letters. Mr. Ewing said the definition would have to be changed. Chairman Blais said the section 8A was modified to include the phrase "no part of a free standing" shall be closer than 5Ft. to property lines. Mr. Gene Cenci said he did not want his free standing sign to be of such size that would make it look different from the present one. He said that the Holiday Inn would lose its identity if its sign would be essentially different. Councilman Flaherty said that a Holiday Inn in Palm Beach has retained its identity with a 5 sq. ft. free standing sign. Mr. Wilson said that since South Burlington is competing with older communities that South Burlington should be allowed to compete on a similar basis. He said that smaller signs are the trend in newer areas, but that South Burlington was already established. Mrs. Krapcho said that large signs was never an inducement for her to stop at a particular motel. She said South Burlington has a problem of clutter especially since many properties on Shelburne and Williston Rd. are relatively narrow. She said that smaller signs don't interact so badly and can be eye-catching. Mr. Calcagni suggested flexibility for newer areas, and he said he was concerned about rigid laws, and wants the encouragement of new thoughts and creativity. Mr. Audette commented that the wall sign for the Plaza I and II theater is too small and the reader board is hard to see, causing traffic hazards. Chairman Blais ended discussion and reminded the Council of a work session Wednesday night. The last item on the agenda was tabled, which was a discussion on the use of Federal Revenue sharing funds, as they may apply to budget limitations. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P. M. Approved Brian J. Gee, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.