Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/03/1975CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, March 3, 1975, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Fred Mitchell, City Planner; Jack Mack, Mary Barbara Maher, Douglas Tudhope, Joseph Obuchowski, Art Hogan, Arlene Krapcho, Harry Behney The meeting was called to order by Chairman Flaherty at 7:00 p.m. Minutes of January 20, 1975 On page 5, 12th line of the last section, Mr. Dinklage asked that his remark be corrected to read; are sensitive to the tyranny of the majority in a body such as this, and he would like to better understand the objections Mr. Merrill has to a reappraisal at this time, and if an appraisal ... On page 4. 19th line from the bottom of the page, Mrs. Neubert asked that the word discounts be changed to agreements. On page 2, 21st line from the bottom of the page, Mr. Merrill asked that Mr. Smyle's comment be followed by this sentences This was the very first time that Fred Mitchell had indicated that the funds could be used for the industrial park road. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Minutes of January 20, 1975, be accepted as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. Minutes of February 3, 1975 Page 2, line 5 under Community Development Act discussion, Mrs. Neubert asked that her statement be corrected to read: The land could also be used for housing and the City is always tied down by BOR money, so this would be the only way this land could be bought. Page 3, line 14 of second section, Mrs. Neubert asked that Mr. Dinklage's reference to a community services organization be changed to The United Community Services. She also requested deletion of the next sentence. Page 2, discussion of the South Burlington Correctional Center in the report of the legislators, Mr. Merrill asked to have this sentence included: Mr. Merrill said there have already been indications of a change from a two-year minimum. Mr. Profero had indicated it would be changed to 8 or 9 months. Page 6, First reading of Amendment to Firearms Ordinance, within a 500-foot radius of any occupied dwelling by human beings should be changed to read within a 500-foot radius of any dwelling occupied by human beings. Page 6, SECTION 2, 8th line, on the west by Dorset Street should be followed by during the period of September 15 to December 15, provided ... Page 4, under Community Center Study discussion, Mrs. Neubert asked that the words as to population projections be added to her first statement. Under same discussion on page 5, next to last line. Natural Resources Committee should be changed to Recreation Committee. It was moved by Mr. Farrar and seconded by Mrs. Neubert to accept the Minutes of February 3, 1975. with the above noted corrections. Motion approved unanimously. Minutes of February 17, 1975 Page 4, Second Reading of the Amendment to the Firearms Ordinance, Mr. Dinklage said the word have should have been waived. Page 5, priorities for BOR applications, the sentence beginning at the end of the 5th line should read: but the City does have an option on the Dumont Iby Street property and is ready to purchase it except for the mechanics of it. (This is to clarify that no reference was intended for the other Dumont property) Because Mrs. Neubert felt that the condensed version contained in the Minutes of February 17th of her U. S. Task Force report was incomplete, she asked that her memos of February 11th and February 26th be attached to the Minutes. See ** below. It was moved by Mr. Farrar and seconded by Mrs. Neubert to accept the Minutes of February 17, 1975, with the above noted changes and attachments. Minutes of February 18, 1975 - Public Hearing It was moved by Mr. Farrar and seconded by Mrs. Neubert that the Minutes of February 18, 1975 be accepted as presented. Disbursement Orders were presented to the Council members for signature. Budget Hearing of March 6, 1975 was called to the attention of the members by Chairman Flaherty. Copies of the proposed budget should be looked over before the meeting. Meeting with South Burlington legislators Mr. Babcock was unable to be present. Mrs. Maher reported most appropriation bills are still in committee; that the Governor has withdrawn his proposal to change the State income tax method; that her committee (Operations) is spending much time on energy and energy planning Mr. Tudhope reported nothing in the legislature is moving very rapidly; all bills that would cost money are ruled out; budget considerations dominate the legislature and the budget bill is late in being brought out of committee. He was afraid the session might last til May. Asked by Mr. Dinklage about the bottle ban, Mr. Tudhope said he didn't think it would be cut back although certain adjustments might be made. Mr. Flaherty asked about the merging of the highway fund with the general fund, as he was concerned that such a merger might put the highway funds at the bottom, and that State Aid to local municipalities might be cut. Mr. Tudhope said the Governor has recommended merging the two funds and, in effect, has merged them in his budget. If the legislature does not merge them, then the budget will have to be changed back again. ** Page 4, U. S. Task Force report, the word direct is to be deleted in the first line. 5th line, State Environmental Board should be State Highway Board. Mr. Farrar asked, if the funds are not merged, would there be enough money in the highway fund. Transferring to local communities would be the easy way out and he would hope this would not be done. Mr. Tudhope said the principal highway fund does not go for construction; the construction program is a bond program, with the big issue now being what to do about further bonds, continue or try to cut back. The City Manager said that unless the law is amended, a certain amount of the gas tax has to revert to the towns. Mr. Flaherty asked about legislation to use charter bus service outside of Chittenden County. Mr. Behney said there is no limit to where they can go in Vermont, but some favor limiting it to counties with adjacent communities to Chittenden County for charter work. Right now the buses travel anywhere in the State on charter. They are trying to get 100% use out of the vehicles to bring in more revenue. School buses are being used in the same way. He said better revenues would decrease the amount of subsidy requested from the towns. Mr. Merrill asked the legislators about the right of Springfield to condemn property in other towns for construction of the proposed dams for a municipal power system; could this be done by eminent domain. Both Mrs. Maher and Mr. Tudhope felt a town could not take land in another town. Mr. Tudhope called attention to the fact that the Federal government can no longer withhold sewage money, that there is a substantial amount of authorized money due to arrive in Vermont and some of that money will be available. Mr. Tudhope also said the Federal government has apparently passed a very restrictive drinking water regulation which will pressure communities all over the country to do a much better job, but they are not furnishing any funds along with that restrictive legislation. Mrs. Neubert asked about State funding for BOR, such as the Unsworth property. Mr. Tudhope said funding is going to be tough this year and he would not be optimistic about the State's share. Mr. Szymanski asked about H 276 on access to public records as he understood it has a good chance of passing and the liability of the City would be a matter of concern. Mrs. Maher said she would check on this. Mr. Tudhope asked if the City had received the transcript of the ruling on Velco, and was told this had been received. He had been asked at a previous meeting to check on this for the City. Champlain Sheltered Workshops Mr. Jack Mack, Director of the Sheltered Workshops, presented narrated colored slides which described and illustrated the activities and functions of the Sheltered Workshops and the benefits which accrue to the handicapped and retarded adults participating in the program. He said the budget is to be $70,000 for this year. This year for the first time they will get something from Community Services; the rest has to come from private funding. Mr. Flaherty said South Burlington will try to consider this in their budget discussions and will let Mr. Mack know the final decision. Regional Planning Commission — Urban Highway System Mr. Art Hogan of the Regional Planning Commission stated Urban System funds are now added to the list of funds the Highway Department has had for years. To be in the Urban System a town must have a population of 5,000 and up. Mr. Hogan explained two steps are necessary — 1) designate the urban areas, and 2) designate urban systems within that area. The Regional Planning Commission is asking two things — 1) a resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Council to sign with other communities in Chittenden County, and 2) designation of urban systems that relate to South Burlington. These steps are necessary before a community can go to the Highway Department for funds. Mr. Flaherty asked if the Highway Department has set any criteria for the Urban Systems funding. Mr. Hogan replied the Highway Department has indicated it will take all the projects and evaluate these recommendations; they will pick and choose. It will be on a project basis and a project will stand on its own merit in competition with other projects throughout the State, with no allotment by communities. The Department makes the final in-state decision; then it must go to the Secretary of Transportation. He said there was a difference of opinion as to whether or not funds not allocated by the end of June must go back to the Federal government. Mr. Hogan emphasized that these first steps must be gotten out of the way so South Burlington will be in a position to go to the Highway Department with its priority. Asked how much money would be available, Mr. Hogan replied the figures vary. He said one area suggested for expansion is from the South Burlington line through the Steele Griswold area and GBIC industrial park; also in the Essex area. Asked by Mrs. Neubert what the benefit would be to South Burlington to run the CCTA bus route twice as far, and if being in the Urban System made CCTA eligible for expanding the bus service. Mr. Hogan answered the Transit Authority was in a position to expand their area, and they could involve Williston for example in a membership along with other communities. Mr. Dinklage said he was not clear as to whether or not CCTA would be able to extend its bus route out into the industrial area if the shaded areas were not designated as Urban Systems. Mr. Hogan said his understanding was that they could and the voters of Williston could vote to join the CCTA. He repeated that the first thing he was asking for was a resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign; the second thing would be to sign the map after all the urban systems in the area are put on the map. The operating subsidies provided would assist South Burlington and the other communities in the operating of the CCTA. Mrs. Neubert asked about funding for transit under Urban Systems. Mr. Behney said the only project which would qualify is a parking facility. They don't contemplate using Urban Systems. A bill for Federal funding is moving along in Congress which would essentially cut South Burlington's subsidy in half. Mr. Dinklage asked what would happen if South Burlington does not agree to this extension. Mr. Hogan said the benefits of the program are essentially that none of the communities can participate in funding until they resolve these points. He said he was trying to get this region into competition with other parts of the State, that he knew personally of two proposals from other areas in the State. Mrs. Neubert asked about Colchester coming in next year. Mr. Hogan said they do not have the density required even though they have the population. Chairman Flaherty commented that if South Burlington procrastinates, then other parts of the State would be farther along, it would appear. Mr. Hogan said if South Burlington should choose not to participate, then the Regional Commssion would try to bring them together again and try to work out the differences until there was an agreement. Mr. Farrar said that designating the areas seemed to be just basically a bookkeeping or housekeeping type of thing. Mr. Hogan explained that local determination was written into the 1973 Highway Act, with the funding 70% Federal, 15% State, and 15% local. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council empower the Chairman to sign the area designations and the Urban Systems map. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mrs. Neubert said she thought the Council ought to renevaluate and re-examine this; that there are other possibilities. Chairman Flaherty said the motion just empowers him to sign these things when they are done. Mr. Dinklage felt expanding the urban area designations is really a matter of bookkeepings; that these areas qualify under the guidelines now being used. He asked if any of the roads shown differ from those shown on the City's Master Plan as ones which are major traffic arteries Mr. Farrar said that should come under a separate piece of business when the Council discusses with the City Manager what roads should be shown on the map Mrs. Neubert felt the Urban Systems map did not show all the roads that should be on it. Chairman Flaherty said that at some meeting in the future the Council will go over the South Burlington Urban System. The City Manager mentioned that the roads have to be continuous, that they cannot "dead end." It was voted unanimously to approve Mr. Farrar's motion and Mr. Flaherty signed the area designations as presented by Mr. Hogan. Mr. Behney announced that nine brand new buses, paid for by funds already given by the communities, would be in operation the next day. They are 35-passenger buses and a very different style, white, with lots of glass. Asked about providing service out the Industrial Park way, Mr. Behney said that is one of the routes being contemplated; it would be a circular service. Service to the Sand Hill area in Esses will start March 15th. Existing parking places such as church parking lots can be used in Jericho and Underbill and Essex where commuters can leave their cars in the morning and take the bus into work. Chairman Flaherty asked Mr. Behney to come in within the next month or so to give a breakdown on CCTA, a breakdown of the budget. Mr. Behney said the ridership on Essex lines is heavy all day, not just in commuters hours. Mr. Hogan urged the Council to follow through on the next step rapidly in order to get funding for the industrial park road. Continued Public Hearing on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance It was noted that any changes will be sent back to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission rejects them, they are sent back to the Council with their comments. The procedure would be that upon completion the Council would make a motion to return the document with the changes to the Planning Commission for their comments, asking to have it back at a certain time. Council would then vote basically to accept the document and have another public hearing. Mr. Ward explained the City Attorney can take care of this in a very brief warning; 15 days after this there would be a final hearing: 21 days after that it would become law. This procedure goes by State regulations in Chapter 91 and not by the City Charter. Reference was made by the Chairman to a memo from Mrs Maher on January 6, 1975, recommending zoning for the O'Brien property. Mr. Flaherty said the public hearing on the zone change could be continued until a specified time. The proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance were then considered item by item, as follows: 1. Section 2.103 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council accept this amendment as submitted by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. 2. Section 3.30 (2) Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept this amendment. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 3. Section 3.30 (3) Mrs. Neubert moved to accept this amendment as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 4. Section 5.00 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council approve this amendment with a change of language, that the words such as be inserted before Recreation Facilities and Swimming Pools. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. 5. Section 5.10 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council approve this amendment after striking the words Public Utility Power Generating Plants. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage reminded the members that the City Attorney's point was to try to eliminate those issues which might draw fire in court. It would be conceivable perhaps to build a generating plant and screen it from view. Chairman Flaherty asked if, under 91 as a guide, has reasonable provision been made in other parts of the City for power generating plants. Attorney Obuchowski said as long as there is some provision to put them somewhere, this is reasonable. The vote on this amendment was 4 to 1 for approval, with Mr. Merrill voting negative. 6. Section 5.305 Mrs. Neubert moved to accept this amendment as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. 7. Section. 6.004 This proposed amendment caused a great deal of discussion as to the problems of having animals in any residential areas, and various solutions were proposed. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council reject the change to 6,004 as presented by the Planning Commission, and if the vote is to do that, then Council would try to make appropriate adjustments in a later section. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. After more discussion Mrs. Neubert moved that 6.004 be retained, but the first word agriculture be changed to read The raising of agricultural crops. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved to change the title of 6.10 to read Conditional Uses in R-4 District. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Mr. Farrar then moved that a new section 6.11 be created, entitled Conditional Uses in R-1, R-4, and R-7 Districts. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Mr. Farrar then moved that a new Section 6.112 be created to allow churches, educational facilities, libraries, parks, etc. as conditional uses in R-1, R-4, and R-7 Districts. Mr. Obuchowski then stated that the Council was exceeding the scope of the warning, that these things would have to be done separately. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council create a Section 6.111 and insert the entire wording of Item #7. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. 8. Section 6.00 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council accept this amendment. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. 9. Section 6.00 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council accept this amendment as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mrs. Neubert then withdrew her second and moved that Section 6.007 of the Planning Commission's recommendations have the added wording "and tennis courts." This was seconded by Mr. Dinklage. The vote was 4 to 1 with Mr. Farrar opposed. 10 Section 6.10 Mr. Dinklage moved to accept this amendment as presented by the Planning Commission Seconded by Mr. Merrill Mr. Farrar objected to allowing transmission lines. The question was raised as to the difference between distribution and transmission lines, with Mr. Obuchowski saying that a definition would be within the scope, only for clarification. Mr. Farrar then moved to amend the motion by striking the phrase "transmission lines" and replacing it with "distribution lines." This amendment died for lack of a second. Mr. Farrar then moved to amend the motion by striking "transmission lines." This also died for lack of a second. The vote on the original motion was 4 to 1, with Mr. Farrar in opposition. 11. Section 6.302(c)(1) Mrs. Neubert moved that this amendment be accepted as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 12. Section 6.303 Mr. Dinklage moved to accept this amendment as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. The vote was 4 to 1, with Mrs. Neubert opposed. 13. Section 6.41 Mrs. Neubert moved that this amendment be accepted with a change to read "and such recreational facilities as swimming pools and tennis courts." Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 14. Section 7.004 Mr. Dinklage moved that this amendment be accepted as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 15. Section 7.10 Mr. Farrar moved to accept this amendment with the exception of Public Utility Power Generating Plants. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Voted 4 to 1, with Mr. Merrill opposed. 16. Section 8.10 Mr. Farrar moved to accept this amendment with the exception of Public Utility Power Generating Plants. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Voted 3 to 2, with Mr. Merrill and Mr. Flaherty opposed. 17. Section 9.10 Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council accept this section as presented by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 18 Section 10. 101 It was moved by Mrs. Neubert that this amendment as presented by the Planning Commission be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. 19. Section 11.00 Mr. Dinklage moved that this amendment be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage commented that the lot size is having an impact on increasing the cost of lots, and he would like the Council to begin thinking about this. 20. Section 11.00 Mr. Farrar moved that this amendment be accepted. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. 21. Section 11.25 Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council not accept this recommended change as proposed in the amendment of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. It was noted that the City Attorney thought it best to treat each case separately under a hardship area, rather than to do it by ordinance. 22. Section 11,35 Mrs. Neubert moved that no land development may be permitted on an existing lot, as a change for Section 11.35. No Second to this motion. Mr. Obuchowski stated this was copied directly out of Chapter 91, and he didn't feel the Council has the flexibility to make any changes. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section 11.35 as written, be accepted by the Council. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Farrar moved to add to the motion the words "that this section applies only to lots which pre-existed prior to the zoning ordinance." Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Obuchowski said he didn't think this was necessary. It was basically intended in 91 to cover any lot whether it be pre-existing or newly created. This is basically tampering with what is viewed as statutory. Mr. Farrar's amendment was defeated by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted for approval 4 to 1. Mrs. Neubert opposed. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council continue the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance until Thursday night. March 6th, at 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Repaving of I89 and I189 Mr. Szymanski said he had been informed by the Highway Department that they intend to repave I89 and I189. They will have traffic get off at Williston and use 2A and 2 to get into Burlington; they don't want to use any of the other streets in South Burlington, One lane will be closed off at a time, about a week for each one. The plan is to do this repaving when GE is closed for vacation. Mr. Szymanski said he did not object to the procedures, only to the use of the money if it is not necessary. Mr. Merrill objected to the timing in terms of vacation tourist traffic. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council let the City Manager handle this with the Highway Department. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Vote was 4 to 1 for approval of motion, Mrs. Neubert opposed. Liquor Control Board Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council go out of the regular session and go into Liquor Control Board session. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. The Council met as the Liquor Control Board at 11:15 p.m. The City Manager presented the request of Rotisserie Restaurants, 1355 Williston Road, for a first class liquor license. Mrs Neubert commented this is a very small place. Mr. Szymanski stated Chief Carter has no objection to the granting of this license. Mrs. Neubert moved to grant the request of Rotisserie Restaurants for a first class liquor license. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Voted unanimously for approval. Executive Session Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council end its meeting as the Liquor Control Board and go into executive session, and further moved that no other business be considered after the executive session. Seconded by Mr. Farrar, and voted unanimously. The Council went into executive session at 11:20 p.m. and the executive session was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.