Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/05/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 5, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Monday, August 5, 1974. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; William Cimonetti, Paul Farrar, Catherine Neubert and Duane Merrill MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Jack Tabaka, Kathleen Kelleher, Arlene Krapcho, Harry Behney, Buzz Riley and Police Chief Carter READING OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 15 and JULY 30, 1974 MEETINGS Mrs. Neubert made a motion that the minutes of July 15, 1974 be approved as read. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. There was a brief discussion regarding the minutes of July 30, 1974. Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the minutes of July 30, 1974 as read. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. REPORT ON REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WITH MR. BEHNEY Mr. Harry Behney was present and passed out a report of the Regional Planning Commission. He stated he wanted to chat about the last page, re: activities for the next fiscal year. He also stated there should be a fourth item entitled Solid Waste Management. Mr. Behney stated that a Solid Waste Engineer has been appointed to Chittenden County, and stated that they hope to get a Chittenden County Solid Waste Commission started. He discussed collecting waste oil in the County, and stated they are now looking for a storage tank in which to store waste oil. Mr. Behney asked for any questions or comments from the Council. Mrs. Neubert asked about the Route 7 Chittenden County Regional Planning report. Mrs. Neubert stated she is not happy with the report. She feels it hasn't addressed the problems of So. Burlington, re: traffic coming from the Winooski Bridge on to East Avenue and going down to the jughandle. Mr. Merrill suggested going over this Route 7 thing at another time. Mr. Behney stated that the Regional Commission is going over this themselves. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Behney if he knew that they needed some sort of a recommendation for the Route 7 Task Force by September. There was discussion, re: any letter or report from the Route 7 Task Force about getting a recommendation in by September. Mr. Flaherty stated that they will have to have some imput, re: the Route 7 project. There was discussion, re: public hearings regarding Route 7. Mrs. Neubert stated she would like Mr. Behney to tell her right now what he and Mrs. Krapcho think about this Route 7 study. There was discussion, re: utilizing the corridor where Route 7 now exists. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Behney what the criteria was for the location, re: solid waste disposal and oil storage. He also asked if it might be advisable for So. Burlington to seek to have the location. Mr. Behney stated that So. Burlington was one of the initial sites suggested. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the solid waste system would be desirable to have in the community. Mr. Behney stated they had to look at the advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Cimonetti stated it would be a business wherever it was located. Mr. Behney stated that the study committee would have to come up with recommendations. Mr. Cimonetti asked if they were looking for a place for the oil storage and would it be advantageous to put it in our landfill area. Mr. Behney stated he did not know where it stands. Mr. Cimonetti stated that maybe the Council would want to have an opinion on this. Mr. Flaherty suggested that Mr. Behney send a quick report back giving the Council more information. Mr. Behney stated the storage tank would be put up under the auspices of the Regional Planning Commission and the State Authority. Mr. Flaherty thanked Mr. Behney. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Behney if he would work with the Growth and Development Committee as a member and Mr. Behney stated he would work with them but not as a formal member. Mrs. Krapcho stated she has attended one meeting of the Regional Planning Commission and was amazed at the scope of what they do. She stated that they accomplish a great deal. It was stated that the Regional Planning Commission meets the fourth Monday of every month. Mr. Behney spoke about all the assignments that the Regional Planning Commission covered. At this point Mr. Farrar had a question, re: disbursements regarding the Redhead Supply Company. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO REGULATE SIGNS IN THE CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON Mr. Farrar had a question, re: passage of the Ordinance to Amend the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington. It was stated that the Council vote on each section separately. It was also stated that if they pass all five sections, it can be passed on as a package. If they passed all except one, they would have to have it re-warned for a second reading again. Mr. Flaherty read Section 1. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 1. as read, which is as follows: Section 1. Section 5 (i) of the Ordinance to Regulare Signs in the City of So. Burlington is changed so that the first sentence of the third paragraph thereof shall read: "Every application for a sign permit, not rejected by the Code Officer, shall be reviewed by the Sign Review Board which shall meet at least monthly with public announcement 4 days before the meeting." Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion, which passed unanimously. Section 2. Mrs. Neubert stated that in the original Sign Ordinance, it expressly prohibits signs in the windows. There are signs now being permitted in the windows which is more of a problem, re: measurement of signs and how are they going to enforce it. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 2, which is as follows: Section 9 (k) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is amended to read as follows: "Temporary and Paper Signs. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, signs of paper, cardboard or similar material or signs which are temporary or non-permanent are hereby prohibited. Interior temporary wall signs attached to a window in view of the general public from outside the building or structure, consisting of paper, cardboard or similar material are not prohibited if said temporary signs: (1) Is approved in writing by the Code Officer. (2) Does not exceed in size 25% of the total window area to which it is attached, and also does not exceed in size a total of 40 square feet. (3) Is not maintained for more than seven consecutive days." Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion. Mr. Farrar stated that it is his understanding that this change was made to make the Ordinance enforcible. If this is passed, and they put up a sign without a permit, it is a violation. Even under this new change, if a person puts up a sign in the window, you have to give the person ten days to take it down. There was discussion, re: violations of putting up signs. Mrs. Krapcho read Section 16 of the City Sign Ordinance. There was discussion, re: Sections 16, 17, 18 and 22 of the Sign Ordinance. Mrs. Neubert stated that she understood that they were changing this Section because this law was one that could not be enforced. Mr. Ward stated that the prosecution end of it is let down by the Council. Mr. Farrar stated he didn't think the Council could pass this on the basis of making the present Sign Ordinance enforcible. Mr. Cimonetti asked if they could discuss the size of the paper signs instead of enforcing the Section. He would like to discuss size of paper signs and thinks it should be allowed to have temporary paper signs in a store and is in favor of the change of Section (k). Mr. Farrar stated that he agreed with Mr. Cimonetti. Mr. Merrill stated he thinks there is a need for it. There was discussion, re: temporary signs. Mrs. Neubert stated that the businessman should have the right to advertize certain kinds of sales. She thinks they should find out about the 10 day question. Mrs. Neubert also stated she could not approve this Section tonight. There was discussion, re: having an Ordinance that would be enforced. It was stated that if it is an enforcement by the State for 10 days the Council cannot do anything for the seven days. Mrs. Neubert stated she would like to see it re-addressed. The members of the Council voted 4 to 1 to pass Section 2. Mrs. Neubert was the one who voted against Section 2. Mrs. Krapcho asked about removing Section 16 so the enforcing could be immediate. Section 3. Mr. Cimonetti made a motion to approve Section 3, as read which is as follows: Section 10 of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is amended to read as follows: "There shall be no signs in a residential district (as so classified under the So. Burlington Zoning Regulations as presently in force or hereafter adopted and amended from time to time), except one sign may be erected and maintained for a lot on which a valid non-residential use exists under So. Burlington zoning regulations or for which a non-residential use variance has been granted by the So. Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment, provided that the sign does not exceed 4 square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road having a maximum speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less, or 20 square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road where the maximum speed limit is in excess of 25 miles per hour. In addition all signs must be approved by the Sign Review Board and must be in conformity with any conditions imposed by the Sign Review Board in approving the application." Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, an identification sign not exceeding 20 square feet for purposes of identifying a multi-family complex such as apartment duplexes, condominiums and townhouses, or a dental or medical clinic, is permitted in a residential district upon approval of the Sign Review Board. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, a sign identifying a home occupation as defined by the So. Burlington zoning regulations as presently in force or amended from time to time in a residential district shall not exceed 2 square feet. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion. Mrs. Krapcho asked about Hinesburg Road being one of the streets and discussed heights of signs in residential areas. She also discussed the limitation of a 20 square foot sign. The motion to approve Section 3 passed unanimously. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mrs. Krapcho if the height restrictions should be modified. Mrs. Krapcho stated she thought it should be substantially less than 15 feet. There was discussion by Mr. Cimonetti, re: height and size of signs. Section 4. Mrs. Neubert asked if in the original Ordinance all signs had to have permits. This was not enforced. And, do all the non-conforming signs have permits under the 1973 Sign Ordiance. It was stated that they all start essentially in June or July of 1973. How will records be kept of the non-conforming signs. It was stated that they have a record of all signs - conforming and non-conforming in the City. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 4 as read, which reads as follows: Section 14 (d) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is amended to read as follows: "A non-conforming sign permit shall be issued pursuant to subsection (c) without payment of any fee and without being reviewed by the Sign Review Board with an expiration date of three years from the date of issuance unless sooner revoked pursuant to the provisions hereof or unless the use advertised thereon ceases to exist, and may be renewed in accordance with Section 20 hereof, but in no event beyond the effective date of 1978." Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 5. It was stated that by the 1973 Ordinance, the non-conforming signs had to come down immediately. Mr. Flaherty explained what this section meant. Mrs. Neubert commented on this Section. She stated that we really don't know if the City will have to compensate for the non-conforming signs. There was discussion, re: rehabilitating a non-conforming sign. Mr. Cimonetti stated an owner of a non-conforming sign can repaint his sign at any time. Mrs. Krapcho asked about the Grandway sign and the Holiday Sign. There was much discussion, re: character alterations of non-conforming signs. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 5 which reads as follows: Section 14 (e) of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington is amended by adding the following sentence: "Provided further however that this section shall not be construed to prohibit character alterations of signs lawfully in existence on the date of the original adoption of this Ordinance if said alterations: (1) Are duly approved by the Sign Review Board. (2) Do not include the use of exposed neon and bulbs for illumination. (3) Do not include an increase in size to the existing sign or in any other fashion would increase the non-conformity characteristics of the existing sign. Permitted character alterations to a non-conforming sign under this section shall not be construed to affect the non-conformity classification of the sign." Mr. Merrill seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 6. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 6, which reads as follows: Sections 18 and 19 of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington are hereby deleted. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 7. Mr. Merrill made a motion to approve Section 7, which reads as follows: Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington are hereby renumbered consecutively as Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 8. Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve Section 8, which reads as follows: This Ordinance shall take effect from its passage. Mr. Merrill seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Ward asked about removing the sign at Gasland. Based on the cost, it could be brought to Mr. Szymanski or to the Council. Mr. Farrar made a motion that the City Council, as of this date, August 5, 1974, has approved the second reading of the Ordinance to Amend the Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of So. Burlington, numbers 1 through 8. Mr. Merrill seconded said motion. Mr. Cimonetti, Mr. Farrar, Mr. Merrill and Mr. Flaherty voted in favor of the motion. Mrs. Neubert abstained, as she stated she cannot approve Section 9 (k). Mrs. Neubert stated she does not want to replace one un-enforcible Ordinance with another un-enforcible Ordinance. CONSIDER EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES ON SHELBURNE ROAD It was stated by Mr. Szymanski that this extension is from the Victorian Inn southerly to the Town line. The cost is approximately $60,000.00. Mr. Szymanski stated that $47,500.00 would be eligible for State Aid. He stated that it is possible there can be Federal Aid also. Under Federal Aid, it could be 90% eligible. There would be a net cost to the City of $43,000.00. A formal application would have to be made out for Federal Aid. Mr. Farrar asked about money unexpended in the sewer account. Mr. Szymanski stated there was about $100,000.00. Mr. Szymanski stated he thought it was a worthwhile project for the City. Mr. Farrar stated that it is a reasonable investment for City funds. Mr. Farrar stated the City Manager could prepare the grant for Federal Aid and get information on the income derived from this, etc. Mr. Szymanski was asked about the Bartletts Bay project - if it could be more of a problem. There was discussion, re: legality of overflow going into storm drains. It was stated that this overflow has been going on for years. APPOINTMENT TO STATE MANPOWER AND PLANNING SERVICES COUNCIL This discussion concerned a letter from a Mr. Daniel J. Holland. Mr. Farrar made a motion that the Council table action on this. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISCUSS USE OF GREEN MOUNTAIN PASS FOR USE AS RED ROCKS PASS BY SENIOR CITIZENS It was stated that Mr. Bruce O'Neill recommends that Senior Citizens be allowed to use the park (Red Rocks) with a Green Mountain Pass. It was also stated that there have been requests from City employees who are not residents of So. Burlington to use Red Rocks Park under the residents' fees. Mr. O'Neill recommended that this be allowed. Mr. Farrar made a motion to follow the recommendations of Mr. O'Neill and allow City employees to use the Park at the resident price and that the City accept the Green Mountain pass which is available to Senior Citizens. Mr. Cimonetti seconded said motion which passed unanimously. MEET WITH CHIEF CARTER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT This was Meet with Chief Carter Week. Chief Carter stated that they have 26 men including himself. They are one man short and which they are about to fill. They anticipate a lot of problems with the Corrections Center. He stated that lately they have had a lot of petty burglaries. He also stated that the morale of the department is excellent. He stated that lately they have recruited 3 or 4 very good men and the quality of people applying has improved considerably. Mr. Flaherty asked about hiring no new people since 1971 and Mr. Carter stated that he did need more people. He thinks that within the next year he will need at least five people. There was discussion, re: the Police Dept. in general. Mr. Cimonetti asked what the one opening is now. Mr. Carter stated he is hiring a patrolman. Mr. Cimonetti also asked about motor vehicle arrests, charges, tickets, etc. There was discussion, re: tickets given out, radar, etc. Chief Carter was asked, re: enforcing speed laws on Williston and Shelburne Roads. The answer was "NO". Mr. Cimonetti stated that the speeding on Williston and Shelburne Roads should be stricter in the future. He stated we need a drive to enforce the speed limits on those streets. It was stated by Chief Carter that there had been no deaths resulting from accidents on those streets from quite some time. Mr. Farrar made a motion to address a letter to the State's Attorney and a copy to the Governor to prosecute traffic violators on Williston and Shelburne Roads. Mr. Merrill seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Merrill suggested to Chief Carter that a letter be written to someone who has been robbed as a follow up. Mrs. Neubert asked if on the traffic enforcement, can they do it with the staff they have now. He stated he cannot do anything more than what they are now doing. Mr. Cimonetti stated that if the City is to have stricter enforcing of the speed limits on Williston and Shelburne Roads, something would have to give. He would like to see an immediate and occasional repeat of a strict enforcement of the speed limit on those streets so people will know. There was discussion, re: crack-down to be on Williston and Shelburne Roads and to give warnings. There was also discussion, re: security force at the Airport with regard to the South Burlington Police. RESIGNATION OF MR. SCHMUCKER FROM PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Flaherty read Mr. Schmuckers letter of resignation dated July 24, 1974. The Council unanimously accepted Mr. Schmucker's resignation with regret. DISCUSSION ON SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Dr. Farrar stated that in preparation of impact studies and data as stated in section 12.002 of the City Zoning Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments that the information consider the effect on the entire city of the proposed development and any other proposed or planned development as per section 5.30. This information to be forwarded to the developer of a portion of the Myers property at Dorset and Swift Streets which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council on August 7, 1974. Dr. Farrar made the following motion: That in considering Article V, Sections 5.30 and Sections 12.002A of the City Zoning Ordinance, the City Council will attend the Special Planning Commission meeting and take part in the ensuing discussions indicating where it thinks that sufficient discussions have been held on each of the fourteen points of Section 12.002A. However, the Council shall take no formal action at that meeting. If the Planning Commission approves the information submitted under Section 12.002A, the City Council shall within one week submit in writing to the developer a request for any additional information that any council member might require. Upon receipt of this information the Council shall, within 14 days, schedule a meeting to act upon the information requested. At this meeting the Council shall act on each of the fourteen points of Section 12.002A separately with an affirmative vote required on each of the fourteen points. Mrs. Neubert seconded this motion. It passed unanimously. Dr. Farrar moved that the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and other committees, after which the Council shall reconvene and make the appointments. Motion seconded by Mr. Merrill and approved unanimously. At 10:30 P.M. Mr. Neubert made a motion to reconvene the regular session for the purpose of making appointments for the Zoning Board of Adjustment and other committees. Mr. Cimonetti seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to appoint Howard Shepard to the Red Rocks Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Merrill and passed unanimously. Dr. Farrar made a motion to reappoint Alan Sylvester to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. CORRECTION CENTER LIAISON COMMITTEE The formation of a Correction Center Liaison Committee to work with prison officials was discussed and the following residents were recommended for appointment: Police Chief Richard G. Carter Bradley C. Ferland, Apt. 15, Georgetown Apartments Alexander J. Guyette, Jr., 194 Laurel Hill Drive John F. Grucza, 180 Laurel Hill Drive Attorney Saul Lee Agel, 2 Deborah Drive Paul A. (Joe) Dye, Jr., 1406 Hinesburg Road Richard A. Smullen, 75 Laurel Hill Drive The Council requested Mr. Flaherty to contact these individuals and ask them to serve on this committee. A meeting with the Council will be set up to specify the Committee's charges. On motion made, seconded and passed the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Approved: William J. Cimonetti, Clerks Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.