Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/01/1973SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1973 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Monday, October 1, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Nardelli opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Walter Nardelli, Catherine Neubert, Michael Flaherty and Paul Farrar MEMBERS ABSENT William Cimonetti OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Norman Myers, Ray Unsworth, Al Guyette, Peter Yankowski, Les Graffam, Charlotte Marsh, Barbara Bull, Ethel Schuele, Arlene Krapcho, Mary Barbara Maher, Ray Danus, Professor Milton Nadworny Mr. Flaherty wanted to add an item to the agenda, it being a statement by Mr. Szymanski, re: sign (scoreboard) at the high school. Mr. Farrar had a question, re: disbursements. He questioned the item of $10,000.00. Mr. Szymanski stated the item was for open space - the Garvey property. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1973 MEETING Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of September 17, 1973. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISBURSEMENT ORDERS Mr. Nardelli reminded the Councilmen that the disbursement orders were on the table for approval and signature. SECOND READING OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST ON PROPERTY ON KENNEDY DRIVE, MR. NORMAN MYERS Mr. Nardelli read the second warning of the Zone Change request on property on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the second reading of the Zone change request on property on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion. Mrs. Neubert stated that this sets a very poor precedent for a Zone change to be made when they do not know what is going to be put on the property or reasons for change. She feels that they have less control with Planned Development. At this time she stated that she abstained. Mr. Flaherty stated that he agreed with Mrs. Neubert but makes an exception in this case because he thinks it is an upgrade from Industrial. He also stated that it is a more desirable use now. Mr. Farrar stated it was the best of two courses. There was a three to one vote, with Mrs. Neubert abstaining. DISCUSSION WITH MR. RAYMOND UNSWORTH, CHAIRMAN OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Mr. Nardelli stated that the Chairman of the Growth and Development Committee mentioned the Council in their report in the 1973 Annual Report of South Burlington, and is present at this meeting because of it. Mr. Nardelli read the article in the Annual Report, and then asked Mr. Unsworth to explain the statement. Mr. Unsworth stated the statement had the backing of all the members of the Committee. Mr. Nardelli asked about the Council lacking understanding, etc. Mr. Unsworth had a prepared statement which he passed to members of the Council, and then read the statement which he stated was prepared by the full Committee. Mr. Flaherty stated he agreed with some of the statements and actions of the Growth and Development Committee. He questioned the "no growth" policy and he stated that he had talked of "2% growth." He also stated there was a distinction between residential and commercial growth. Mr. Unsworth stated that around election time there was no clarification for growth and development. Mr. Flaherty stated that the Growth and Development Committee has had no meeting since last May, and that there has been no communication with the Council. Mr. Unsworth stated he would like direction. Mr. Flaherty stated he thinks they are using the Annual Report for editorializing, and he doesn't think they should have gone through the Annual Report before they went before the Council. Mrs. Neubert asked how many meetings the Committee has had, and asked for copies of the minutes. She stated she called some of the people on the Committee and thinks that the article is misleading. She also discussed work on the new Zoning Ordinance, etc. It was stated the Committee has had no meetings since being reappointed by the existing Council. Mr. Unsworth stated he would like to go on record as not wanting to go on record without the concurrence of his Committee, and he doesn't think the remarks are unjustified. It was stated that it was not the job of the Committee to criticize. Mrs. Neubert quoted some of what the Growth and Development Committee was charged with. Mr. Flaherty stated they had one attendance report of the Committee from last year. Mr. Flaherty then discussed building permits, building done in the past year, increase of building done, etc. Mrs. Neubert then asked Mr. Unsworth if he knew of any business that has been turned down. Mrs. Neubert then stated that the statement Mr. Unsworth gave was untrue. Mr. Farrar stated that there has been a lot of misunderstanding. He thinks that the charge given to the Committee is still a valid one and that they continue. He also stated that communications should be improved. Mrs. Neubert stated that she would like the Committee to come before the Council. Mr. Farrar made a motion that the charge given to them on Page 41 of the Annual Report is the one stipulated to them. The charge reads as follows: A. To broaden the tax base of the community by actively soliciting such industrial and commercial rateables as are compatible with the highest environmental goals, and B. To assure long range stability of this tax base by establishing ten (10) year priorities and objectives for the overall community of South Burlington as the most attractive place in which to live and work. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mrs. Maher stated she was on the Committee at one time. She stated that they felt that they could not get the charge off the ground. At one time they had wanted to put together a brochure to promote those areas properly zoned for commercial and industrial growth. She stated they felt they could not put together a finished brochure if it didn't contain specific items, and were waiting for the City to be permanently zoned. Mrs. Neubert stated this can be clarified when the Committee comes before the Council. Mr. Flaherty stated the drawing up of a brochure can still be valid. Mrs. Krapcho asked about an Industrial Park area that had been proposed at one time. The Growth and Development Committee will come before the Council at the next meeting on October 15, 1973. PROGRESS REPORT ON CITY ECONOMIC STUDY. PROFESSOR MILTON NADWORNY Mr. Nardelli stated they have just received Report #4 which covers school costs, etc. There was much discussion of the reports, re: per pupil cost (total costs), increase in operating costs in grade schools and increase in operating costs in high school. Mr. Farrar questioned the increase being double in the grade school over that in the high school. It was stated that the increase was due to addition on Central School. There was more discussion, re: income projections, growth in property tax yield, tax increase, revenue sharing. Mr. Flaherty asked, re: Page 8 of Report #3 - estimated non school expenditure range - from 1 million to 1.8 million. He also questioned water services - the demand for water would double. He asked Mr. Szymanski if we had facilities to handle the growth. Mr. Szymanski stated there would be no problem with water but there could be a problem with sewage. There was more discussion, re: sewage and sanitation facilities. Mrs. Neubert asked why Dr. Nadworny gave a study on gas and electricity rather than sewage and highways, which we have some control over. There was discussion, re: power use, wiring, more power utilization. Dr. Nadworny stated the City should be aware of its growth. Mr. Farrar discussed, re: growth and use of electrical energy, statements re: same by State - if the State does or does not build more power plants. Mrs. Neubert questioned "retail" on Page 7 of Report #2. She discussed retail being regional in So. Burlington, what kind of retail we should encourage, etc. Mr. Farrar asked what the net balance is to the community, re: businesses. Mrs. Krapcho asked if Professor Nadworny saw a doubling or redoubling of population, re: needs for more retail. Professor Nadworny stated if they had information as to what people spent, it would be a great help. Mrs. Maher asked how we are supposed to use all this information. Mr. Farrar stated the area should be compared with the area zoned with those in the projection. Mrs. Maher stated she didn't see how the report can help the Planning Commission with zoning. Mrs. Neubert stated she thought the reports were useless. There was discussion, re: how this affects zoning. Mrs. Neubert asked about figures of income factors, type of family spending on retail, etc. Mr. Flaherty had a question, re: last page of Report #4 - projection of homes, jobs, estimate of property tax to City, revenue and expenditure figures. He asked if it could be used as a justification. Mr. Flaherty stated this could be used for long range planning. Mr. Nardelli asked what other reports Professor Nadworny had in mind. Professor Nadworny stated there would be further information re: average class size concept, their needs, etc., follow up on power utilization and how it is converted to City needs, water ideas, answers to questions raised by a number of people and groups which are very pertinent. Mrs. Neubert raised the point, re: Industrial zone - she asked about recommendations for types of businesses, types of industry. There was more discussion, re: Professor Nadworny attending public meetings and if he would abstract each paper. REVIEW RED ROCKS PARK RULES AND REGULATIONS Mr. Nardelli asked the Council if they accepted the Red Rocks Rules and Regulations and if so, should it be turned over to the City Attorney for legal language and set it up for a first reading. Mr. Farrar had three questions: Under B. - Fires - he wondered if 1 and 2 are in conflict with each other; Under D. - Firearms - how does this go along with the State Law (this might be directed to the City Attorney); Under J. - Violation of Rules - we do not have the right to put people in jail; they can be fined but not jailed. There was discussion, re: time limits (the time limit is just for cars). Mr. Szymanski asked about supervision for camping. Mr. Yankowski stated it was a very fragile area and fragile soil. He stated that there are other places more suitable - this is a green area and a nature area. Mrs. Bull stated that people such as the Girl Scouts could not use it for overnight camping, but it would be good for day use, nature study, beach use, etc. Mr. Guyette stated he thought the City should set a closing time. Mr. Farrar stated if someone wanted to use it before 10:00 A.M., they should be allowed to. Mr. Farrar suggested we sent this paper to the City Attorney to put it into legal form and the City Manager could find a way to have the park opened earlier than 10:00 A.M. There was discussion, re: fires, firearms, open hours, cars left in parking lot overnight, etc. Mr. Yankowski suggested Guide Lines be posted for the public to see, Mrs. Maher discussed the fragile nature of Red Rocks, re: adjacent to Red Rocks is a proposed 125 Condominium development and should there be a fence around Red Rocks. She thinks it is important to have a fence. Mr. Szymanski will research the question of a fence. Mrs. Neubert asked why Red Rocks did not officially open this year. Mr. Szymanski stated that the bridge was just finished and the walkway is not finished. Mrs. Bull stated that they had a very successful swimming program this past summer and it was stated the students at U.V.M. should be given credit for testing the water. CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON PLANNER'S JOB DESCRIPTION The City Council has received from the City Manager, Zoning Administrator, Recreation Dept. and Planning Commission lists of recommendations as to what the Planner should be and do. Mr. Nardelli read the communications from the above people and departments. Mr. Nardelli stated that they are building up as to how a Planner could assist other departments in the City. He suggested that the Council put these together into one paper so anyone interviewed would know what is expected of him. Mrs. Neubert stated she doesn't see a Planner assisting in the preparation of the budget. Mr. Flaherty stated we should wait until Mr. Cimonetti comes in as he and Mr. Szymanski were going to work together on this. Mrs. Maher stated that the Council could take a vote on each item as to what the departments think the Planner should be. They will go over this and vote on the items and come to a conclusion at the next meeting. Miss Marsh stated that this sounds as though the Planner would be a secretary to the Planning Commission. She stated a Planner should be someone who has authority. Mr. Farrar stated the Planner administratively should report to the City Manager as all others do, and his relationship should be to the Planning Commission like the Recreation Dept. head is to the City Manager. Mrs. Neubert stated that these descriptions might well tell us that we may have other needs besides just a Planner. Mrs. Krapcho asked if Mr. Ward stated anything about the Planner, re: variances, etc. She also stated that it should be included that the Planner would work with developers. Mr. Danus asked if we have money for a Planner this year. It was stated that $15,000.00 had been budgeted for a Planner. DISCUSSION OF THE ROLE OF LIAISON MEMBER TO PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Nardelli read communication from Mrs. Neubert, re: role of liaison and her thinking in the matter. He stated that originally the liaison person was to be a communication agent between the Council and Planning Commission, etc. Mr. Flaherty suggested that the Planning Commission takes a special position as much of their work coincides with the Council. He stated that it would be wise if no particular person represented the Council, but that all who could should attend the Planning Commission meetings, especially until after the new Zoning Ordinance was finished. Mr. Farrar agreed with Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Nardelli read Attorney Spokes' memorandum, re: liaison, and also read Mrs. Maher's memorandu, re: liaison. This question will be reviewed after the Zoning Ordinance is completed. Mrs. Maher stated at this time that the Planning Commission does not resent there being someone at the meetings from the City Council. CONSIDER WAIVER OF TAX PENALTIES Mr. Szymanski stated that each member had a list of the tax penalties. He stated that most were misunderstandings. The penalties are for late taxes - they add up to $81.63 on taxes and approximately $4.00 on Poll taxes. Mr. Farrar stated that based on the report of the City Manager, the explanations are proper and people are not at fault. Mr. Farrar made a motion to waive tax and Poll tax penalties and rebate said penalties. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar suggested that the tax bills be mailed 15 days ahead of what they have been previously, but the due date still be the same. SIGN ON THE SCHOOL GROUND Mr. Szymanski stated he had received a call from the Principal of the High School a month or so ago regarding the sign. He checked with Dick Ward and the attorney and the sign did not fall under the new Sign Ordinance. It did not require sign review. The Planning Commission recommended that some shrubbery be planted around it. As far as the City is concerned, there is no problem the way the scoreboard is now installed. He stated he sent the recommendations from the Planning Commission to the School Board, but has not heard from the School Board as yet. Mr. Nardelli stated he wanted to bring this "thing" to the Council's attention. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Paul Farrar, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.