Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/02/1975CITY COUNCIL CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 1975 It was moved by the Council to accept the Minutes of June 2, 1975, with the following corrections: Page 5. the last sentence under the section on burglar alarms should read ...sufficient copies be made of the ordinance in order to send one to each person connected with the alarm system, and to be included in a letter to be sent to each businessman. Page 2, Mr. Dinklage's motion should be corrected as follows: ...that the Council deems the animal identified in the petition dated May 16, 1975, by Mrs. Ilene M. Morgan, Mr. and Mrs. Jean Goodell, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard V. Deforge, Sr., to be a vicious animal or a menace to the public on the highway. CITY COUNCIL JUNE 2, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, June 2, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Richard Spokes, City Attorney; William Szymanski, City Manager; Ruth Cirouard, Cynthia A. Rubin, Nancy K. Ginaya, Everett Mitchell, Mrs. Ilene Morgan, Ward E. Brace, Mrs. Wesley Goodell, Mr. and Mrs. R. V. Deforge, Frank McCaffrey, Mr. and Mrs. Ted Sinclear, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Unsworth The meeting was opened by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Interviews Mr. Everett Mitchell was interviewed for a vacancy on the Sign Review Board and Mrs. Geraldine L. Sinclear for a vacancy on the Winooski Valley Park District Board. Minutes of May 19, 1975, and May 21, 1975 Mr. Flaherty moved that the Minutes of May 19, 1975,; be accepted as presented Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Minutes of May 21, 1975, be accepted as presented. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders It was noted by the Chairman that the Disbursement orders had been presented for signature. Public Hearing on vicious dog complaint Chairman Farrar read aloud a petition received by the City Manager signed by Mrs. Ilene M. Morgan, Mr. and Mrs. Jean Goodell, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard V. Deforge, Sr., all of Queen City Park, asking that the City Council take action regarding a vicious dog owned by Mrs. Ruth Girouard of 54 Central Avenue. The dog's owner was present at the hearing, also the petitioners, with some heated dialogue taking place between the opposing sides of the issue. It was claimed that the dog was a child-biter, was constantly running loose, attacked other dogs on their own property with the danger of a child becoming placed in the midst of a dog fight. Incidents were reported where the owner's son had "sicced" his dog onto other dogs. Also the dog was said to have destroyed property, particularly a fence on a neighbor's lot. It was claimed that the police had been called at least ten or twelve times, although Chairman Flaherty had only three police reports. Mrs. Girouard claimed her dog to be very gentle and friendly, will go up to anyone and expect to be petted, but the children provoke him with sticks and hitting him with stones and they are creating the problem, not her dog. She stated she has two dogs, and the complaints are coming from a neighbor who has three dogs. Asked by Mr. Dinklage about the complaint that her dog was not registered and had not received a rabies shot, Mrs. Girouard presented certificates for both dogs. The City Attorney said the issue was whether or not the dog was vicious. He said the State statute gives three alternatives: killing; muzzling; or chaining. The complainants said they would prefer not to have the dog destroyed, but to have him chained at all times. Mr. Dinklage asked what would happen if Council made a directive that the dog was to be chained at all times and the dog is found running loose and complaints are lodged. Mr. Spokes said the City would have complete authority to exercise the order. The order should provide provision that if the dog is found unchained or loose, it should be destroyed, and a person who refuses to comply would be fined not more than $25 or less than $10. The City Manager said the City also has the option of not renewing the license. Chairman Farrar said Council must determine whether or not the dog is vicious, or a menace to travel in the highway; then it must determine what the alternatives are. He thought a motion might be appropriate for this. Mr. Dinklage moved that As a result of the information brought to the City Council through police reports and information presented at the public hearing this evening, that the Council deem the dog a vicious animal. This animal was identified in the petition dated May 16, 1975, by Mrs. Ilene M. Morgan, Mr. and Mrs. Jean Goodell, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard V. Deforge, Sr. Council deems the dog vicious or a menace on the public highway. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage said it is difficult to talk about what motivates a dog to attack someone; it is possible to provoke a dog into doing something vicious. He felt, on the basis of what he had heard, that the dog must be severely restrained. Council has no way of dealing with those who aggravate the dog, so it necessary to deal with the dog. Asked from the floor what would happen if the dog gets loose, Chairman Farrar explained that if the determination is that the dog is vicious, then there would be another motion made as to what would be done in the situation. It is a two-step process. Mrs. Sinclear asked about the leash law provisions, and was told this was a more serious charge. Mr. Merrill said that in discussion with one of the officers and also the person in charge of the kennel, he had received indication that there has been a considerable problem with this dog. He has been off the property a number of times, unleashed. They have been called a number of times to answer complaints. He said he would be inclined to have the dog kept on the premises at all times, and if the dog became unchained and left his property and created another problem, at that time the dog would be disposed of. Mrs. Neubert asked if there was another incident of the dog just running loose could the dog be immediately picked up and destroyed without any hearing. Mr. Spokes stated it could. The motion was voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar said it had been determined by the Council that the dog is in violation of the statutes. Mr. Dinklage then moved that on the basis of the decision Council had just made declaring the dog to be a vicious dog or a menace to travel on the highway, that this Council require that the dog be chained at all times in such a way as to be confined on the Girouard premises at 54 Central Avenue, and that the first complaint verified by the police or pound keeper that the dog is running loose or causing any disturbance outside of said property that the police and/or the pound keeper will seize the dog and have it suitably disposed of. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Spokes suggested the intent was to have the dog destroyed, that he would not like to see it disposed of in such a way that it would end up in the City again. Both Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Merrill agreed to change suitably disposed of to destroyed. Mrs. Sinclear asked what would happen if by the time the police arrived, the dog was chained again; how could it be verified as other than just someone calling in. Mr. Merrill explained this is a frequent problem, but in this case Council has testimony of three individuals. Another complaint would have to be verified. Mr. Dinklage added that because it was a serious matter, Council would be more comfortable in having the fact verified. The motion was voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar asked Mrs. Girouard if she understood the action that had been taken, and she said she did. Chairman Farrar then said he was instructing the City Manager to send by certified mail, return receipt, a copy of the order of Council to Mrs. Girouard. Review of proposed dog ordinance Attorney Spokes said there are supposed to be some health regulations regarding dog bites and ordering that the dog be confined for a ten-day period, but no one in the Health Department seemed to be aware of the regulations or could find them, although they are looking for them. He felt it would be better not to attempt to cover that situation, because it was made clear that they feel that the local health officers have the authority under State statutes to order the dog confined in the case of a dog bite. Chairman Farrar said it had been proposed that the present practice be changed and that the dog be kept confined either by the owner or at the kennel. He asked if it was the Attorney's opinion that they presently have the power to order it confined in a kennel, or merely to be confined. Mr. Spokes replied it was the position of the Health Department that they have that authority. The Health Department will issue an order to the Police Department. The City Manager said he had been told the City had no power to order the dog confined. Mr. Dinklage said he was really concerned that a dog had been picked up that had never been given a rabies shot, as stated in the police report. He asked if the City had the authority to invoke a fine or some action when someone is in violation of our dog ordinance. He would like to be assured that the City would attempt to prosecute someone who was in violation of the rabies shot requirement. Mrs. Neubert cited a case where there are two dogs, but only one is licensed and innoculated. The City Manager said that should be pursued. He then described the method of checking on all dogs who were registered last year and whose licenses have not been renewed this year. Council then reviewed the new draft of the dog ordinance as submitted by Attorney Spokes, dated May 22, 1975. Mr. Merrill asked what section requires a license. Mr. Spokes said the City is empowered to pick up the dog and destroy it for not being licensed. This is covered by State statute so was not a provision in this proposed ordinance. Mr. Merrill said that in the section concerning disturbance by noise, the local State's Attorney indicated that this was ambiguous. Mr. Spokes replied it is a discretionary thing. After further discussion Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept this dog ordinance for the first reading. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council amend Section 9 to read the first two violations shall cost $10.00; the third, $25.00; and the fourth, $50.00. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Flaherty explained his reasons for this amendment, that a dog can be let out accidentally by a child, etc., and a family should be allowed more than one violation in a year before having to pay $25.00. Mr. Dinklage said he was reasonably in favor of the escalation as in the ordinance. Mrs. Neubert objected that people have had dogs in and out of kennels and don't seem to mind paying the $10.00 fee. She also felt that a good dog in the neighborhood whose owner controls him, is not going to be reported to be picked up if he occasionally gets out. Mr. Merrill said he felt the problem was with the more severe things. Mr. Unsworth offered his comment that while cars are the responsibility of adults, dogs are oftentimes the responsibility of small children, and because of that fact. Mr. Flaherty's idea had a great deal of merit. The vote was 4 to 1 to adopt the amendment. Mrs. Neubert opposed it. The vote was unanimous to approve the first reading of the revised dog ordinance. Mr. Dinklage moved to have the final hearing for the first regular meeting after the warning period. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved unanimously. Under Section 11, line 7, the words or 10 are to be added after Section 2 Under Section 10, a first sentence is to be inserted: No person shall harbor an unlicensed dog contrary to State statutes. Next sentence left as is. Review of revised proposed ordinance — burglar alarm systems Mr. Dinklage moved that Council approve this first reading of the ordinance relating to the installation and use of private burglar alarm systems. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Merrill stated he was very much opposed to approving it at this time until Chief Carter had discussed with Council the type of alarm systems that are being considered to see if it would be compatible with this type of ordinance. He said Council has had no instruction from the Chief and he would like to have some information from him on what he has found out in terms of the system. Mr. Merrill said he was also interested in hearing from some of the people who have put these systems in. The City Manager said they had contacted three people and have gotten responses from them. There are quite simple systems and quite sophisticated systems — it all depends on how much money is to be spent. He said at the present time they would go on with what they have. Mr. Merrill said he would like to get this out into the business community. Mr. Dinklage said if Council would like to review the specific details of it and review the bids and specifics, it could so direct the Chief. The City Manager said there is no money for this now without borrowing. There was discussion as to whether any more alarms could be hooked up at the present time. Chairman Farrar said that Mr. Merrill's concern seemed to be that Council take no final action without having a chance to be satisfied on these points, but Mr. Farrar felt it might be good to get it on the record that this first reading, the general language, is the type that is wanted, and then have Chief Carter come in prior to the second reading. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to have this be the first reading. Mr. Flaherty suggested having copies made to be available for the public. The City Manager said it would also be published in its entirely in the Free Press. The vote to approve the first reading of the ordinance was 4 to 1 for approval, Mr. Merrill opposed. Chairman Farrar suggested that Chief Carter attend the next meeting to give Council information as to what type, when available, etc. Also he suggested that sufficient copies be made of the ordinance. Letter regarding meetings of the Zoning Board The Council had received a letter dated May 29, 1975, signed by Cynthia A. Rubin and Sheryl R. Larsen, asking for a change in the time of the Zoning Board meetings to allow for better attendance by interested citizens, and also asking for more publicity regarding the agendas. Mr. Merrill said he questioned the idea of saying there was poor attendance at these meetings; from his experience they had good attendance. Mrs. Neubert said many people had talked to her about this. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council recommend to the Zoning Board of Adjustment that they consider holding their meetings on the evening of the second and fourth Monday of the month. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage said he had received several comments from citizens that they would like to see the agendas of all major public meetings better distributed. He asked if it would be possible to have the agendas of Council, Planning Commission, Zoning Board, perhaps others, posted on the bulletin boards of City departmental offices such as water, fire police, street, etc. in addition to where they are already posted. The City Manager agreed it could be done and he is to take care of it. Sign renewal notes Mr. Szymanski explained these were notes which are periodically renewed every six months, but he has found they can get a better rate by renewing for only two months except for the Water Department note which is a yearly note dating from several years ago and renewed every year at a rate of 4.45% with the Merchants Bank. All others are with Chittenden Trust at a rate of 4%. The notes are: $ 15,000 Welfare note 2,000 Balance on Dutchess Avenue sidewalk 15,000 Red Rocks (both in anticipation of 20,000 Red Rocks Federal funds) 17,000 Garvey property 21,990 Landfill machine 7,772 Street sweeper 22,300 Front end loader 141,000 Sewer construction (aid expected on this) Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve the signing of these notes as presented by the City Manager. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Plan of Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Mr. Merrill referred to the slide presentation of "We are not the Last Generation" shown at the Planning Commission meeting last week, and said the final recommendation for this plan has to be done by July 15th and he would strongly recommend that a special meeting be arranged with City Council and the Planning Commission, with Mr. Hogan presenting the plan to the group so it can start going through the plan and make its recommendations. Chairman Farrar said he had some discussion with Bill Wessel on how we should proceed, and had asked the City Manager to put it on the agenda for the next Council meeting. He suggested taking the next two weeks to go through the plan and at the meeting pick out those sections specially which the Council thinks are most germane to the issue to study, what specific sections to go into in depth. Some should be done by Council and some by the Planning Commission, so all sections would be covered by at least one board. Zone change request Mr. Merrill referred to the request made by Council to the Planning Commission to, within a period of two or three weeks, provide information on creating a business mall zone. Mr. Merrill said he would like to have a report from Chairman Wessel on the progress at this point, not so much because he was concerned with the regional plan, but actually the specific data on the mall zone. Mr. Merrill said he had also learned that Paul Graves had discussed with the City Attorney again regarding a contract zoning on that property. He said he received a copy of this proposal and would like this discussed at the same time as Mr. Wessel's report. He would like it on the next agenda. LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adjourn its regular meeting and meet as the Liquor Control Board and consider the request of Wesson's Diner. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar referred to the request of Wesson's Diner to transfer its liquor license to the Flynn Theater for a benefit on July 2, 1975. He said this was similar to requests which have been granted in the past. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council grant the request of Wesson's Diner to transfer its liquor license to the Flynn Theater for July 2, 1975. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Liquor Control meeting be adjourned and that Council meet in executive session after a short recess. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved unanimously. Recessed from 9:55 to 10:05 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION - HEARING ON PERSONNEL PROBLEM The Executive Session was called to order at 10:05 P.M. After a short discussion Mrs. Neubert moved that the regular meeting be reconvened in order to ask Mr. Rounds these questions. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. The regular meeting was reconvened. Chairman Farrar stated that Council has a personnel problem which has been brought to Council's attention by Mr. Gary Rounds. Unless someone objects the meeting will be recorded on the tape recorder as well as having the secretary take notes in the hopes of preserving a more accurate record of the meeting. There were no objections. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Rounds if he had had sufficient time to prepare his information, and if this date was satisfactory to him. Mr. Rounds said yes to both questions. Asked by Mr. Farrar if he wished to have counsel present, Mr. Rounds said he did not; he would waive the right to have counsel. Asked by the Chairman if he wished to have a public hearing, or an executive session, Mr. Rounds requested an executive session. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council go into executive session. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and approved unanimously. Mr. Spokes reminded Mr. Rounds he could have a public hearing if he chose. Mr. Rounds said he did not. The regular meeting was then adjourned on motion made, seconded, and passed unanimously. Approved Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.