Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/30/1974CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY 30, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, on Tuesday, July 30, 1974, at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT William Cimonetti OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; William J. Schuele, Paul W. Minch, Hugh Marvin, Jack Tabaka, William Wessel The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 8:10 p.m. Action on the Public Service Board findings – power line across Queen City Park Road The Chairman explained the reason for the special meeting was because the 21 days allowed by the Public Service Board for action by the City Council ends on Monday William Wessel who represented the City at the hearings said the findings allow South Burlington two choices: 1) do nothing, and allow the lines to go overhead across Queen City Park Road; 2) share the differential cost of putting the lines underground with Burlington, South Burlington's share being $16,000. Mr. Wessel stated the electric lines, telephone lines, and TV cable wires will remain above ground; putting the new lines underground would decrease the visual impact by about 30%. The poles will be relocated, will be all on the south side of the street. Mr. Minch said spending $16,000 would only benefit the City of Burlington as it is their street, even the lights are furnished by the City of Burlington. Mrs. Neubert said both the South Burlington and the Burlington Planning Commissions had recommended underground lines. Hugh Marvin said it was dangerous to set a precedent; also that it would be difficult to start putting restrictions on that substation now when South Burlington had been very happy to sell the land to Velco to help in purchasing Red Rocks. William Schuele said if the City doesn't set a precedent, it is saying "Do what you want" and the result will be wires strung all over the place. Mr. Farrar felt the benefit to the City would be marginal; that $16,000 could perhaps be used for something of more benefit to more people. He did recommend consulting with the utility, however, in each case. He also said the people of the two communities would have to pay for this, either in taxes or higher electric bills. Mr. Merrill said he was definitely not in favor of spending $16,000 for this. Mr. Marvin said the City could have been collecting taxes on this facility for three years, but it has been delayed by the City's Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar then moved that although it is the policy of the City of South Burlington that all utility lines be buried where practical, it is the feeling of the City Council that in this case the cost benefit is such that the Council does not wish to invest $16,000 in this particular project and therefore the Council will take no action on this request for appropriation; and the Burlington City Attorney, the utility company, and the Public Service Board are to be so informed. Seconded by Duane Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Discussion of procedure and timetable – proposed PUD review Chairman Flaherty said the developer had submitted his application and the City has 45 days to act on this first development proposed under section 5.30. Mr. Farrar suggested asking the Planning Commission to prepare for the Council a written summary on the 14 points to be considered and submitting it to the Council a week before the hearing; that the Planning Commission and the developer be asked to come to the hearing. The City Attorney said a procedure should be set up which can be used at the present time and in the future and that the only legal consideration of any relevance is the approval of the Council and the Planning Commission of the 14 criteria. This is really the preliminary step to subdivision review by the Planning Commission, keeping in mind that this procedure was set up as a compromise to a capital program which the City does not have at the present time, implemented to give the landowner the opportunity to make a presentation even though the City does not have a capital program under consideration. The two major consideration are that both Council and the Planning Commission have ample time to consider whatever is presented to them and that the developer is not asked to give repetitious presentations continuously to various boards over and over. Mr. Spokes' recommendation was that the subdivision hearing be warned immediately, which he understood had already been done; that a joint hearing be held by the Planning Commission and Council; there should be a presentation of the 14 criteria by the developer; that these be discussed one by one, completing discussion on each. After discussion is exhausted, both the Planning Commission and the Council must act on the 14 criteria separately. Would require two separate votes; separate approval by both boards. For the record, both boards should substantiate their vote as each board might have different reasons for voting the same way. If the 14 criteria are approved, the Council bows out and the Planning Commission takes it up. Mr. Spokes recommended advising the developer exactly what reports and information will be required in preparing his presentation. Mrs. Neubert said she was concerned over the possibility of having to vote to meet a deadline; that the 45 days might not allow time to study the information given by the developer. Mr. Spokes said the present subdivision regulations requires a decision within 45 days of the date of the application while the new regulation will require approval within 45 days from the public hearing; that this will help solve future problems. Mrs. Neubert said the problem is accepting or rejecting the information the developer supplies; that the Council or Planning Commission needs time for that. Mr. Spokes said he felt it was the duty of the members to familiarize themselves with the proposal in advance so that any information wanted could be requested. Mrs. Neubert felt the Zoning Administrator should demand the information of the developer; that these procedures are not new to the Zoning Administrator. Chairman Flaherty suggested that the Planning Commission meet and judge on the 14 criteria; that the Council would attend as participants, but let the Planning Commission decide. If they turned it down the Council would have to take no action. If they act favorably, the Council could meet the next week and either approve or ask for more information. The City Attorney said the aim is to streamline these applications and the Planning Commission shouldn't consider the application until both the Council and the Commission have given the go-ahead. It was noted that the majority vote would rule on each criteria, but where more information was needed on a particular criteria, action could be tabled on that one and the next one then considered. It was also noted that the entire 14 criteria must be approved, not the best 12 out of 14 for instance. The City Attorney emphasized that the subdivision application is not the thing being considered; the real question is whether or not it is wished to extend these municipal services; it is really considering the capital budget. Mr. Farrar felt the developer must show that it is for the benefit of the community, to answer the question of shall we as a community change the capital program basically to incorporate an area which it had not been planned to do, if it can be shown that it is for the benefit of the community to do so. Mr. Wessel asked if findings of facts on each point by both boards would be required. Mr. Spokes said it was necessary to support the votes by something in the Minutes. Mr. Farrar said he would like to see the information on paper supporting these 14 points by the Planning Commission; could be incorporated in the Planning Commission Minutes. He did not feel the Council should vote the same day on it. Mr. Merrill felt that in giving approval on each point, that out of courtesy to the developer it should be indicated to him that there was satisfaction on that point. Mr. Spokes agreed that some thought should be given to the developer; that the 14 points should be cleaned up before the developer files his application. The Chairman said the concern is that everything should be done properly rather than done in haste. Mr. Spokes said the three points are the 14 criteria, the subdivision application, and the site plan review. There would be no legal hang-ups with considering all three at the same meeting. The Chairman said the joint session meeting could be announced at the next Council meeting; that the session could be held Wednesday, August 7th, at 8:00 p.m. At this time the developer will make his presentation on each point, and the Planning Commission will decide when all the information has been heard on a particular point that was wanted; then move on to the next point; that the discussion will not revert back to a point unless there is some good reason for it. The Planning Commission will vote whether the plan meets the 14 criteria. The Council will consider within a week and also may ask the developer for additional information if it is necessary. The question was raised as to what the Commission would do about its public hearing if a decision on the criteria had not been reached by then. Mr. Spokes said they could meet and then adjourn their meeting. They could ask the developer to agree to an extension of time. Motion made to adjourn the meeting by Mr. Farrar was seconded by Mr. Merrill. Meeting was declared adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.