Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/20/1974SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 20, 1974 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road, on Monday, May 20, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. Chairman Nardelli opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Click here for Zoning Board of Adjustment Procedures MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Walter Nardelli, Catherine Neubert, Paul Farrar and Michael Flaherty MEMBERS ABSENT William Cimonetti OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Jack Tabaka, Walter E. Douglas, Margaret Douglas, Yvette MacArthur, Everett Mac Arthur, Mary Barbara Maher, Sonny Audette, Charlotte Marsh, John Dinklage, Hawkie Shepard, Mr. Vogel, Dave Greenhaus, Wright Caswell, James W. Murdoch, Hugh Jeffries. Mr. Nardelli asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Mr. Szymanski stated he would like to discuss union contracts in an Executive Session. All the members of the Council agreed to have an Executive Session after the regular meeting. DISBURSEMENT ORDERS Chairman Nardelli reminded the Council members that there were disbursement orders on the table to be signed. READING OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 6, 1974 Mr. Flaherty made a motion to accept the minutes of the meeting of May 6, 1974. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. READING OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1974 Mr. Farrar made a motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 1974 as presented. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF CITY CENTER WITH CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION Mrs. Maher stated she was present at the request of the City Council. She also stated that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the City Center was discussed at length. She stated it would be to the benefit of the City to have a City Center. There was discussion, re: general location, land acquisition, etc., sites for City Center which included are in so-called Super-Block which is bounded by Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, Hinesburg Road and Williston Road. She stated that the Planning Commission agreed with this site in concept. There was discussion of a governmental center near the Police and Fire Stations. Mrs. Maher stated the Planning Commission wants to know: will it benefit the City to have a City Center and what would the City do in the way of land acquisition. Mr. Nardelli asked several questions: What is the overall plan that could be developed by the School Board and Council?, what is the actual forecasting of the budget?, and is there a larger concept that should come first? Mrs. Maher stated she would like to get it off the ground and get the Council's support. She would like the Council to give direction and support. Mrs. Neubert stated she agrees with the plan, but she does not care for the way it was handled by the Planning Commission. There is a great deal to be done - negotiation, discussion with the School Board and planning with the community. The people should be asked if they want a library, a swimming pool, a new City Hall, etc. There should be an opinion poll stated Mr. Nardelli. He stated the idea is fine but to start buying without a plan is defeating our purpose. It was asked if the School Board is working as a unit. Mrs. Maher stated that what they see is the City owning the land jointly with the School Board. Mr. Flaherty stated the Steering Committee meets next month and they could set up a plan or criteria. There was discussion, re: when the idea of this City Center started, and the whole plan of the City Center. Mr. Farrar stated there are a number of questions to be answered before we can decide that this is the right plan for South Burlington. The concept of tieing school, etc. services together is good - is any plan at this time feasible. Mr. Farrar does not think the City is in any position at this time to purchase that piece of property. There is not enough information to make any commitment at this time. There was discussion, re: how the Planning Commission can help. Mr. Nardelli stated that the Council would like questions to be answered by the Planning Commission, re: this City Center. Mr. Szymanski asked if Mr. Flinn had reviewed other sites. Mrs. Maher stated the Planning Commission wanted to stay close to the schools. Mrs. Neubert stated she had talked to Mr. Flinn and likes the idea of this site. She-feels it is important right now to find out what the community wants at this point in time. Charlotte Marsh stated that the City Hall should be in the middle of the plan. She stated the people should take part in it. Mr. Dinklage stated that perhaps the Planning Commission is asking for a philosophical opinion, re: City services that may be needed, etc, and how alive is the interest in a City Center. Mrs. Neubert stated that she had difficulty in getting the School Board members to commit themselves. Mr. Flaherty stated the Steering Committee should hear about it and look into it. There was discussion, re: how a library would fit in and other alternatives. Mr. Everett MacArthur stated that Mr. Dumont is starting to build ten houses a year on this property. It was stated that time is of the essence. It was also stated that BOR funds could not be used fully on this project. There was discussion, re: using time between now and when the Steering Committee meets to look into this property and the development of a City Center. Mrs. Neubert asked about getting a City Planner. Mr. Szymanski stated he has contacted three gentlemen, two of whom are still available. At this time, Mrs. Maher stated it has been a great pleasure to work with Mr. Nardelli and we all will miss him. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE Mr. Nardelli read the proposed Ordinance amending City Ordinance for the care and control of dogs. Mrs. Neubert asked about changing this re: notifying the police. She also asked who shall decide the amount of the fine. There was discussion about the law we have now, the amount of fines and how it works, if it goes to Court and what the cost will be. Also, there was discussion, re: a single fine. Mr. Szymanski stated that our City Attorney stated every case would have to be handled by the Grand Juror. Mr. Farrar asked if there is a vehicle where a fine could be part of the first offense without going to Court. Mr. Nardelli stated that it is not stated here. Mr. Douglas stated that this may get people to enforce the Dog Ordinance. There was discussion, re: adopting this amendment. The point brought out is that if we have an Ordinance and do not enforce it, we should not have it. Mr. Flaherty stated that $35.00 is excessive for the first offense for a fine. He stated he didn't think there should be any fine except the $10.00 pick-up fee for the first offense. Mr. Farrar suggested adding on to Section 4 the following: "who shall then issue a warning to the owner of the dog that any future violation would be subject to fine, and also notification of the warning should be filed by Mr. Szymanski with the City Clerk." Mr. Farrar also suggested that Section 7 thereof should read: "Any person who shall permit a dog owned or kept by him to run at large in violation of Section 2 hereof or shall keep or harbor any dog in violation of Section 3 hereof, after due warning, shall be fined $25.00 for the first offense and not less than $50.00 nor more than $75.00 for any offense thereafter." There was discussion, re: present Dog Ordinance and enforcing the Dog Ordinance and fines. Mr. Nardelli stated this will have to go to the City Attorney for new terminology. Mr. Farrar asked for a consensus. This should be warned as a new Ordinance completely. Mr. Flaherty stated again he thinks this is excessive. Mrs. Neubert asked about a habitual offender clause. There was discussion again, re: new Ordinance or enforcing the old Ordinance. Mr. Farrar asked if this could be handled like traffic tickets, etc. to save money. Mrs. Neubert suggested that if a person had a second offense, is there some way he could pay $75.00 for his dog license. It was stated that the State sets the price of a dog license. Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the Ordinance changes as presented with the modifications to Section 4 and Section 7 as we have talked tonight and we instruct the City Attorney to codify the Dog Ordinance for the first reading as a Dog Ordinance. Mr. Nardelli read the amendment sections. There was no second to Mr. Farrar's motion. Mrs. Neubert stated she found it very confusing - she thinks a dog-at-large is worse than barking dogs. She would like to start with a rewritten Ordinance. Mr. Flaherty stated he would like Mr. Spokes to be present. Mr. Douglas stated the Dog Ordinance should be put on one sheet of paper. He stated there is a lack of communication. Mrs. Neubert stated she thinks there are degrees in crime here. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to postpone the first reading of the Ordinance Amending City Ordinance for the Care and Control of Dogs to the next meeting with the City Attorney present. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion. There was a second part added to Mrs. Neubert's motion, it being to get copies of all the Dog Ordinances to the City Attorney and members of the Council by the next meeting. The motion passed with a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Farrar voting against the motion. Mr. Douglas stated he will be at the next meeting with a petition to show how some people in the City feel about dogs and the Dog Ordinance. Mr. Flaherty stated there is a problem and wasn't sure about the penalties and that we need better communication. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE POSTING SPEED LIMITS ON STATE ROADS Mr. Nardelli stated that whatever fines levied, we are preparing a City Ordinance on State roads. This is a duplicate Ordinance to the State Ordinance and we will collect the fines. Mr. Nardelli read the Ordinance to amend the So. Burlington Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulation Ordinance. There was discussion, re: all streets posted at 25 miles per hour and none lower except close to the jughandle. Mr. Farrar made a motion to accept the Ordinance to Amend the So. Burlington Motor Vehicle and Traffic Regulation Ordinance with a correction in Section 1: (b) that Ellen Road be changed to read Allen Road. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. REVIEW RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO SIGN ORDINANCE This is not a first reading of the Sign Ordinance but could be, so stated Mr. Szymanski. Mr. Farrar asked if the amendments should be acted on individually. Mr. Nardelli read the proposed Ordinance to amend the Ordinance to regulate signs in the City of So. Burlington. Section 1. It was suggested to change bi-monthly to monthly and then to read as follows: Section 4 (i) "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. Flaherty made a motion to accept the revised Section 5 (i) with the suggested change. Mrs. Neubert seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 2. Section 9 (k) - "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 sign: (1) Is approved in writing by the Code Office, according to Criteria 2 and 3. (2) Does not exceed in size 25% of the total window area to which it is attached and in no case is it to exceed 40 sq. ft. (3) Is not maintained for more than seven consecutive days or more than 7 days within a 30 day period. There was discussion by Mr. Flaherty, re: approving one person and not giving a permit to anyone else coming in. It was stated that each one would be reviewed. There was discussion, re: size of signs, length of time signs are up, etc. Mr. Ward stated that there are problems with (3) of Section 9 (k) - there was discussion, re: make-shift signs, sale signs as at Zayre. There was discussion, re: temporary signs, Mr. Farrar stated we are trying to draft something that is enforcible. Mr. Flaherty stated we should go through this and have Mr. Spokes come in for advice before a first reading. Mr. Farrar moved to accept Section 9 (k) as amended. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 10. - There was discussion, re: allowing non-residential use to have a sign up to 20 sq. ft. Different circumstances warrant a larger sign than 2 sq. ft., i.e. used at Auclair's Riding Stables on Hinesburg Rd. where there is a 50 m.p.h. speed zone. A 2 sq. ft. sign could be a safety hazard. Another example would be a business along Williston Road such as Chappell's where a larger sign is necessary because of the traffic. Mrs. Neubert objected to this change simply to accommodate two businesses. Mr. Farrar stated we should consider conditions in general. There was discussion, re: putting up a 20 sq. ft. sign in a residential area. Mr. Flaherty made a motion to table this section until the City Attorney is present at the next meeting. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 14. - Mr. Flaherty made a motion to accept the change of 14 (e) as presented. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Section 18 and 19. - Mr. Farrar made a motion to table action on Sections 18 and 19 until the next meeting when the City Attorney will be present. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. DISCUSSION REGARDING A CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR CORRECTIONAL CENTER Mr. Flaherty stated Mr. Profera wanted a Citizens Committee, re: the Correctional Center. The Citizens Committee member would act as a Classification Officer in the Corrections Center. The Council should consider appointing a committee. It was decided that this will be done at the next Council meeting. CONSIDER WAIVER OF PENALTY AND INTEREST CHARGES Mr. Flaherty made a motion that the Council accept the cancellation of these entries in the total of $31.95 for Poll Tax penalties. Mr. Farrar seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar made a motion that on the recommendation of the Deputy Tax Collector and the Tax Collector, the Council waive penalties on real estate and personal property taxes in the amount of $254.65 as shown on the City Manager's memorandum dated May 20, 1974. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. SIGN CLAIMS FOR STATE AID Mr. Szymanski stated this was for maintenance on Williston Road and other State Aid roads in the amount of $1928.83. Mr. Farrar made a motion to sign the claim for State Aid as recommended by Mr. Szymanski. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. SET TIME AND PLACE OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING The Organizational Meeting will be on May 22, 1974 at 4:00 P.M. in the Conference Room at City Hall. RED ROCKS PARK There was discussion, re: recommendations for operation of Red Rocks Park. Mr. Farrar made a motion that these papers be sent to the proper people for their comments. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting as City Council and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. This was to consider application of Arthur's, Incorporated of Queen City Park Road for a liquor license. Mr. Murdock and Mr. Jeffries were in attendance. It was stated that there will be a restriction as to size because of limited parking spaces. Mr. Szymanski read the memo from Mr. Ward. Mr. Farrar made a motion to grant a liquor license to Arthur's, Incorporated with stipulation attached which is Mr. Ward's communication dated May 20, 1974. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar made a motion to adjourn the Liquor Control Board and reconvene for Executive Session. Mr. Flaherty seconded said motion which passed unanimously. The time of adjournment was approximately 9:50 P.M. Paul Farrar, Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.