Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/14/1975CITY COUNCIL JULY 14, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday, July 14, 1975. In the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Duane Merrill, Michael Flaherty, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Leo O'Connor, A. C. Audette, Gary Rounds, Jim Goddette, Sr., J. Goddette, Diane Rounds, Theresa Audette, Sheri Larsen, George C. Crooks, Bob Sherman, George Smith, M. A. Monell, Charles LaPlant, Bill Yendzecki, Howard Shepard, F. McCaffrey, K. Marston, C. Smith, R. Stevens, J. Ploof, L. Hance, Bill Fary, Mel Wolfel, Wm. J. Schuele, W. C. Bohlen, Jim Wallace, Randall Munson, Brian J. Gee, Dennis Johnson Following an executive session at 7:30 p.m. to discuss a personnel matter, the regular meeting was opened by Chairman Farrar at 8:35 p.m. Chairman Farrar announced that Disbursement Orders were on the table for signature; also that an item was to be added to the agenda, signing of a Water Department note. Statement of Fire Department Volunteers Dennis Johnson read aloud a statement of intent prepared by the Action Committee of the Fire Department Volunteers. Mr. Johnson then explained there were twenty-eight members involved in the statement, that everyone knows what it is. They are asking City Council to establish some kind of work program with the Fire Department, set up rules and regulations so the department can be operated fairly. Chairman Farrar said he understood that they were asking that Council appoint a committee made up of members of the Action Committee and members of the department which would work with the members and the officers of the department to see if they can get a set of procedural rules and regulations which might help. Mr. Johnson agreed that this was what was wanted. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council appoint such a committee. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Johnson if they wanted this group set up and then to come back to Council. Mr. Johnson replied they wanted it to be in partnership with the Council. Mr. Flaherty said they had been talking about the possibility of a Fire Commission, and he asked that Mr. Johnson be thinking about this. Mr. Johnson said it was a real possibility. Chairman Farrar said the committee would be appointed within a week and he would be in touch with Mr. Johnson. Minutes of June 16, 1975, and July 7, 1975 Mr. Merrill asked that the reading of the above Minutes be postponed until the next regular meeting. This was agreeable to the members of the Council. Review of the draft of contract - Lamplough property City Attorney Spokes suggested that because of the nature of the contract it might be more appropriate to entertain the possibility of an executive session. Mr. Merrill said he would be inclined to do that. Mr. Dinklage said he was prepared to discuss this in public, that Council needs all the ideas it can get. Mr. Merrill said the actual discussion on the contract would be concerning what might be advantageous to the City. Mr. Spokes said it might be inappropriate for an open session because it is a contract; he didn't mean to exclude public input but some of the legal items and issues are more appropriately discussed in executive session. Mr. Flaherty mentioned the way the meeting had been warned, saying some people apparently came because of the contract being warned. Mr. Spokes replied it would be almost impossible for him to discuss the contract in open session. Mr. Flaherty asked if Council could just go over the contract and question certain parts, and Mr. Spokes replied they could. Mr. Merrill said it would be very advantageous if there could be a copy of the contract for the press and anyone here at the meeting, so they could read it over; at no time has any actual news release included the material in this contract. Mr. Spokes explained that was part of his reason; the document before Council is simply a draft submitted by Mr. Graves' attorney; it has no input from Mr. Spokes Both Mr. Dinklage and Mrs. Neubert said they thought the draft was from Mr. Spokes. Mr. Spokes said he had submitted a memorandum and he had discussed his suggestions with Mr. Parker on the phone but Mr. Parker did not have time to incorporate them in his draft. Chairman Farrar said he saw no harm in opening this up for comments by the Council and comments by the audience, and then go into executive session as to how Council members feel. Mr. Dinklage said he would respect the wish to have comments discussed in executive session but the public should be aware that Council has just received the draft this evening. Mr. Spokes said many of the points raised last week are involved either in the draft or in his memo to Council. He said the developer's representatives did call him today and asked if the discussion would be open discussion or would it be an executive session, and he told them it would be probably by executive session, so they are not represented. Chairman Farrar said he would like to give a chance to the people in the audience who have comments on this to voice them, get their input, then sit down with the City Attorney and discuss how this could be incorporated into effective language, to see if the City can or cannot have a contract. Mr. Schuele said he had a basic concern about the democratic process, that what is supposed to be planning process is being substituted and brought behind an executive session. The whole planning process is gone. It sets a precedent to drop it behind executive session if it is not especially popular. He would like to maintain the democratic process. Chairman Farrar explained that prior to any agreement being completed, the final text would be completely discussed at length, and if at that point it was found that there were points that should be changed, they would be changed at that point. Mr. Schuele said that Council calls on the attorneys in private, in executive sessions that exclude the public in the maneuvering. Mrs. Neubert asked if there was any reason that the contract could not be released. Mr. Spokes said he didn't see how it could be released, being a draft. He said he would like the points brought out in discussion; he didn't mean to exclude the public. However, he said, Council is trying to come up with a contract that protects the City and obviously the developer has certain interests and it is just impossible to draft a document with input from the entire public. In any type of contract it is necessary to discuss the techniques among yourselves, and he thought the public would be deceived if they were given this draft. He said he was not criticizing the draft, but it is a draft and if it is presented to the public, the public would misinterpret it. Sheri Larsen said she thought the public input to be very important. It is difficult to have public input without their knowledge of what is going on. Chairman Farrar said he would like to make sure that the public knows what Council is attempting to do. Mr. Merrill said he thought it was extremely important that Council get the input from the public. There is quite a packet on the Lamplough property; the Planning Commission spent 61/2 months on this; the Minutes are available any time if anyone wishes to examine them; there are a lot of Minutes on it; it is not a situation where anything is being covered up. Council didn't get a decision the other night on how this property should be zoned. Now, after 6½ months, Council is looking at it from a different angle. Mrs. Neubert said a little mistake was made in publishing this meeting tonight; if Dick Spokes wanted an executive session it should have been indicated. Council has a perfect right to have an executive session, and none of these people would have come. She said she was sorry they came if Council is going to have an executive session. Mr. Spokes explained that in order to properly advise Council, he has to have the chance to discuss the proposal and his legal recommendations to Council and then it is up to Council to do as it wishes and present it to the public and receive public input. Chairman Farrar suggested letting Mr. Spokes assume the responsibility in this case. Mr. Flaherty said he thought in this particular case when the meeting has been warned, he would be very uncomfortable if Council didn't have a little discussion. Mr. Merrill said at the last meeting the Council had, he had outlined his reasons as to why he was interested in at least pursuing this contract and from the standpoint of the City they have some validity. Basically, he said, what the developer is proposing is to assume the responsibility financially for the possible reconstruction of the interchange here on Williston Road, based upon the degree of increase in traffic that a shopping mall might cause on Williston Road, and proportionately the developer is suggesting that he might be willing to pick up this expense. He said that was briefly why he was looking at the contract. The City is going to be faced very shortly with the problem of the reconstruction of the interchange at Dorset Street. The City is going to be faced with the reconstruction of Williston Road which is owned by the City – Shelburne Road the City does not own. The City is going to be responsible for this reconstruction and that is why he is personally interested in looking at this contract. The City has never before gotten a developer to assume financial responsibility in this area; it is a new conception but it does have some feasibility in saving the taxpayers money. Mrs. Neubert said she disagreed. The City has had other developers solve traffic problems and she enjoys having developers fix our streets for us, but what she objects to the in the contract is the condition of the zone change. Council should base its consideration for a zone change on other reasons than the fact that he is going to make this kind of contract. Mrs. Neubert said she was concerned about environmental impact on the community; the general impact on the business community and on adjacent landowners, about the other streets that will carry the 16,000 mall shoppers to this one places; she was concerned about residential areas such as Patchen Road. She said those were the questions she didn't really have the answers to and she didn't think having the contract to get a free traffic remedy was a good basis for a zone change. Mr. Flaherty asked if they could discuss their concerns in public and then have the City Attorney's comments later. Mr. Dinklage said he felt they should at least paraphrase this draft. Chairman Farrar said Council would assure itself that if it be the pleasure of the Council to approve the recommended zone change that many of the uses which would be allowed under this planned development would not be allowed in the area. The situation was that Council still has a recommendation before it to consider a zone change for business planned development, but also has a recommendation that business planned development is not suitable. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't think anyone on the Planning Commission has voted in favor of a BPD. That was not a vote for or against the shopping center; it was a vote for or against the zone. Chairman Farrar said he sensed that if a vote were taken just on that zone change as warned that the vote would be negative; he also felt that froz the vote Council took last time that there was at least some sentiment for exploring whether or not the mall would be desirable. Mrs. Neubert said the motion was to investigate the contract, not whether or not the mall was desirable. Mr. Farrar said the reason for the vote was because there was a sentiment that it might be desirable for the City under some circumstances to have a mall go in there; there are also considerable reservations about whether or not it would be desirable. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to know the procedure. Council has a contract which it is going to deliberate on; it will vote on the contract after getting it in shape. The contract will eventually in public be voted on. At what point is the relationship of the contract to the zone change determined. Mr. Flaherty said that would be one of the questions to discuss, whether or not Council predicates the zone change on a successful contract or vice versa. Mr. Dinklage said the zone change is predicated on a signed contract. He suggested that Council discuss for the sake of the public the essentials of what is in this draft. Chairman Farrar said he had no objections. He explained basically the developer will pay for the traffic study to see if there are acceptable ways to solve the problem; to waive his right to construct if it were to be zoned for other than a shopping mall; this time criteria would be until such time as it was brought back to the consideration of the City for a final zone; also that the City would have the option to come in with a zone which would perhaps zone the entire triangle in some way different than it is now which would incorporate in that area the provision for the regional shopping mall, and that upon completion of the traffic study if it was decided to proceed with the project that the developer would be responsible for paying for the cost of highway improvement necessitated by increased traffic by the proposed shopping mall. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council would give him the zone change and then have the traffic study. Mr. Farrar said Council would sign the agreement by which the developer would give up certain rights he may have if a zone change as proposed would be approved. Because the opinion is coming from the attorney of the developer, it is not necessarily one which is so clear it cannot be argued with. Some further protection for the City is necessary. Mrs. Neubert asked if the traffic study is not in exchange for the zone change. Mr. Farrar replied that it was not in exchange for the zone change; he didn't read it that way. Mrs. Neubert asked if the Council didn't get the traffic study unless there is a zone change. Mr. Dinklage said that is true. The developer is contracting to pay for the improvements required and the Council is the one to determine what those improvements are. He is going to pay for the traffic study. The City will have the option of doing its own study if it is necessary. He said the City is concerned about this property passing into different hands and there is language in the contract that binds this; this is one of the things to be discussed in private with the City Attorney to make sure that this protects the City from all the contingencies such as bankruptcy; the developer and any future owner is going to be bound by the contract. Sheri Larson asked if the City signs the contract there would be no way anything else could be done. Mr. Farrar answered that whatever would be done there would still have to come to subdivision regulations, site plan review, Act 250, and all the other normal procedures. Mrs. Larsen asked if the City couldn't say "No" because of the traffic study. Mr. Flaherty replied that if Council felt the proposal wasn't adequate or the situation was so bad no solution could be made, the Council could turn it down. Mr. Dinklage said if the traffic study shows nothing short of a limited access six-lane highway accomplishes that, there might well be a majority of the Council not in favor of it. Mr. Merrill added that if the developer says it is going to cost his ten million dollars to construct that interchange, he is not interested. Mr. Flaherty said the traffic study would have to meet the approval of the City or some knowledgeable person who knows traffic conditions. Mr. Schuele asked for an explanation of whether or not the proposed change would essentially eliminate the planning requirements which define streams, would they still be in there. Chairman Farrar said the proposed change would be from R-4 to the planned development overlay of Business Planned Development. What is being proposed here is basically a way to limit what could be done if that zone was passed. It would restrict the rights of the owner of that piece of property to something less than what his rights would be if we just voted "Yes." We are going to have to make sure that we write in the zone the restrictions we want there, to get language so phrased that the restrictions that we think we are asking for are really the ones we are getting. Mr. Schuele said he just wanted to make sure that the natural resources would be still involved in the planning process. Mr. Farrar explained this would not affect the stream setbacks. Mrs. Neubert said she thought this contract was to be temporary until a new zone is made. Mr. Farrar said that is the understanding, that it would be a completely separate thing voted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage said it is the intent that the new zone change would be initiated in the Planning Commission process. Mr. Farrar said the words being given to Council by the Planning Commission say "We don't think the present zone is the proper one; we are not satisfied with the other seven zones in the zoning ordinance; we think some new language is essential for this entire triangle, treating the entire triangle in some way different than what it is now. Mr. Schuele asked if each zone has the same things concerning streams. Mr. Farrar replied the Conservation Open Space zone is a separate district. Mr. Dinklage said the intent is to have the developer come forth with a proposal for a regional shopping mall. The majority of the Planning Commission and the Council had said they wanted to look at it a little further. The developer has requested only a zone that would permit this; he has not held out for a specific zone, only one that would serve his purposes. Council has said it would consider giving him a zone but before doing this Council wants an understanding with the developer that any traffic improvements will be paid for by the developer. The purpose of this contract is to have the developer initiate and the Council will review and be the sole judge of those results, and go further from there if the developer is willing to satisfy the Council he is paying for the implementation of those results, then a zone satisfactory to allow for a shopping mall will be found, and then the planning process begins anew. Mrs. Neubert said that neither the City Council or the Planning Commission has ever given, during the seven months, an opinion on whether or not they want a shopping mall; it is simply whether the zones the City now has or the zone that could be made would permit a mall. She suggested settling whether or not both bodies would want a mall before going into a contract. Chairman Farrar said he didn't think there was enough information to make an intelligent decision on it. Mrs. Neubert wanted to know at what point the Council could deny the mall. Mr. Flaherty said the developer could request a change to BPD and there is a recommendation which says the land is not properly zoned. It is not properly zoned BR or BPD. Mrs. Neubert said that is because you are not trying to put a mall on it. Mr. Flaherty recommended that a directive be given to the Planning Commission, and Mrs. Neubert said she agreed with him. Signing of Water Department note Chairman Farrar said there was one other piece of business, the signing of the Water Department note for $20,000, which is an extension. The City Manager this was the note taken out two months ago for $25,000; The City has paid $5,000 and now it is down to $20,000. Mr. Farrar explained the Water Department does not have the power to contract for debts so therefore the Council has to approve any notes they issue. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council authorize Mr. Flaherty to sign the note for the Water Commission. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mrs. Neubert insisted on having a reason for the borrowing, saying they had a slight surplus last year. Mr. Szymanski said the department didn't have enough operating funds, although there was a slight surplus last year. This was used up and the rates have since been raised. There also had been a meter problem, some material problems when they started, and the Champlain Water District is going to give the City credit to adjust this. Mrs. Neubert asked if they are to get this money, why they still need $20,000. Mr. Farrar explained they originally borrowed $25,000 and they paid $5,000 they are now going to be extending the $20,000. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council members could have a paper telling what the Water Department does with its money, saying she did not like to borrow money if she didn't know why they were borrowing it. Mr. Szymanski said that it was because the department had run out of funds. Mrs. Neubert replied that there was something wrong. The motion made by Mr. Dinklage was approved by a vote of 4 to 0, with Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Dorset Street - Williston Road intersection Someone in the audience asked if Council had considered changing the sign at this corner, allowing a right turn onto Dorset Street on a red light. Mr. Szymanski answered that the sign came in the other day and they would put in some left turn signals. The Police Department was a little reluctant because of the problem of getting out of Howard Johnson's. Mr. Schuele asked about the pedestrian, he never has a chance. Pedestrians should be considered when traffic is considered. Mr. Farrar said a solution is needed and it does have to take into account pedestrians and bicycles; they each require a unique solution. Mr. Dinklage then moved that upon the advice of the City Attorney the Council should go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the draft of the contract with the developers of the Lamplough property and that Council not conduct any further business after that. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously. Mr. Leo O'Connor of the Free Press said he had serious reservations about the executive session as Council was considering the draft of a contract and the Right to Know law says contract. Mr. Spokes answered that Council has the right. Council went into executive session at 9:25 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.