Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/06/1975CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 6, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a work session in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, on Thursday, March 6, 1975. 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; Joseph Obuchowski, Catherine Hayden, Jack Tabaka After the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:40 p.m., it was moved to adjourn to the Assessor's Office where the temperature was more comfortable. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance At the March 3rd meeting of the Council the amendments to the zoning ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission were discussed through Item 22, Section 11.35. Discussion was continued at this session, beginning with Item 23. 23. Section 11.40 Mr. Farrar moved that the Council re-designate #23, Section 11.40, of the Planning Commission's amendments as Section 11.41. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council strike out Section 11.41. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Mrs. Neubert said she objected to garages being within 10 feet as this penalizes neighbors. Mr. Merrill said he preferred to leave it with the zoning board. Motion was passed by a vote of 3 to 2, with Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Merrill opposed. Mrs. Neubert then moved that the Council add part of the wording of Section 11.41 to Section 11.40, beginning with "The density" and ending with the word "apply," Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 24. Section 11.701 Mr. Ward said this was intended to allow the Planning Commission to handle the bond, based on what the site had to offer. Chairman Flaherty said he was satisfied with the original. Mrs. Neubert moved that the changes in Section 11.70 of the Planning Commission's amendment be rejected. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. 25. Section 11.85 Mr. Dinklage said a really well-designed plan making use of the contours of the land could allow flexibility if the PUD area, the only area where buildings of over 21/2 stories would be allowed. Mrs. Neubert objected to the obstruction of the view, particularly of Mt. Mansfield. Mr. Merrill said he felt the Planning Commission to be capable of deciding this and that he liked the requirement for public hearing. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept the amendment to Section 11.85 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Farrar. Mr. Farrar then moved to amend #25 by striking everything after the word "district." Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Vote on Mr. Farrar's amendment was rejected, 2 in favor, and Messrs. Flaherty, Merrill and Dinklage opposed. Vote on Mr. Dinklage's motion was 4 to 1 for approval, Mr. Merrill opposed. 26. Section 12.003 Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept #26, Section 12.003, as written. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously for approval. 27. Section 13.40 Mr. Ward explained the changes made to Section 13.40 by this amendment. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council accept the changes outlined in Section 13.40, #27. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council amend Section 13.40 as submitted by the Planning Commission so that the section entitled Access to Parking reads Access to Parking and Loading Areas. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Vote to approve Mr. Dinklage's amendment was unanimous. It was voted unanimously to approve Mr. Farrar's motion to accept #27. 28. Section 13.70 Mrs. Neubert moved that the Council accept the Planning Commission change in Section 13.70. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Farrar disagreed with the wording of the amendment and moved that the Council strike out "the center line or" so it would read 100 feet from a line. Mr. Farrar's amendment died for lack of a second. Mr. Farrar then moved that a comma be inserted after "center line." Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Both motion and amendment were voted unanimously for approval. 29. Section 13.90 There was lengthy discussion on this amendment proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ward explained all it does is to empower the Planning Commission to establish a design control district. Mr. Dinklage said this was already granted in Chapter 91 but had not been incorporated into the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Neubert read aloud from Chapter 91 the section dealing with design control district and said she did not feel this could be done without a plan being prepared first. Mr. Dinklage said it was a two-step process, with Mr. Flaherty saying it gives the Commission the authority to have discussion and public hearings. Mrs. Neubert said she wanted the design control to be on a specific plan and not a general plan. Mr. Merrill said he could appreciate design control for a group of historial buildings, for example, that should be preserved architecturally, but for a commercial area it would be placing an infringement on the individual who has made the investment on the property. Mrs. Neubert said this would be giving the Planning Commission the power to make a design control district anywhere in town, rather than in one specific place with a plan. Mr. Obuchowski said the intent of this amendment was to enable the Planning Commission to officially think about it and do something like this. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council approve #29, the addition of Section 13.90. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Voted 3 to 2 for approval, Mr. Merrill and Mrs. Neubert opposed. 30. Section 15.125 Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept #30 as submitted by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. 31. Table II Performance Standards Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council approve #31. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council send these changes to the proposed amendments back to the Planning Commission for their comments and ask that they return these to the Council as expeditiously as possible. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Resolution — O'Brien Property — Zone Change The resolution received from the Planning Commission was read aloud by Chairman Flaherty, also the memo from the Chairman of the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning of the southeast corner of Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. Mr. Ward indicated on the map the area involved. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council approve this proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance for the piece of land bordering on Williston Road and Kennedy Drive, the industrial zone, and Old Farm Road. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. At 9:15 p.m. the Council began a work session on the Proposed City Budget. Mr. Farrar said he would get together again with the unions for negotiation and would have a formal recommendation next week, a committee recommendation. Mr. Dinklage expressed the appreciation of the Council to the City Manager and his staff for the completeness of their proposal. Mr. Szymanski recommended staying about on a level with the tax rate of last year. He explained that $18,000 had been put in for the county tax, with $4,000 in this year's budget; also that he had put in half the cost of the reappraisal, which will not be used if it is not needed. Regarding the $7,000 for a bookkeeping machine, it was recommended to the City Manager that he ask consultants from local business machine firms to talk with him and the auditors with a view to setting up a more modern system of procedures, possibly using computers at school by means of a terminal located in the Municipal Offices. After discussing reappraisal, Mr. Farrar moved that the City not do a reappraisal this year; based on Dick Underwood's study it is reasonable to assume a general reappraisal just isn't necessary. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage asked, if this motion was voted affirmatively, if it would preclude the City from encouraging the use of tax abatement contracts. Chairman Flaherty said as he understood it, it would not. Mr. Dinklage suggested some property owners might wish to keep their land open but might not be aware of the possibility of entering into an agreement with the City. He said he was also concerned about is land where a zone change has affected the fair market value. It was recommended that this matter be placed on the agenda for a later meeting. Mr. Farrar's motion was voted unanimously for approval. On page 2, Account 207, Mr. Farrar moved to change $3,000 to $500 for Tax Reappraisal appeals; Change Reappraisal to Appraisal, reducing $12,250 to $3,000; strike $2,400 for printing and mailing; reduce from $1,000 to $500 the updating of tax maps. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to have the question of whether or not the voters want a reappraisal every five years to be placed on the ballot. Chairman Flaherty said ballot items will be taken up at the first meeting in April. Accounts 210, 211, and 212 were approved without question. Account 213 - it was suggested by Mr. Dinklage to increase the Manager's Travel allowance to $1,000. Mr. Merrill felt this was too much. Mr. Flaherty suggested increasing it from $10 to $15 per week, or $780. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Manager's Travel allowance be increased to $780. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Account 215 - no change. Account 216 - Mr. Szymanski said the City may perhaps have to negotiate a new contract. Account 217 was approved as being the cheapest way to provide ambulance service. Account 218, County Tax, was reduced from $18,889 to $14,539, by applying the $4,350 in this year's budget. Accounts 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, and 227 were approved as presented. Account 228 - GBIC - The City Manager said they had asked for $2,000 this year, with $1,000 proposed in the Budget the same as last year. Mr. Farrar moved that it be increased to $1,500. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Vote was 3 to 2 for approval, Mrs. Neubert and Mr. Merrill opposed. Accounts 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, and 236 approved as presented. Account 237 The question was raised as to the benefits received from membership in the League of Cities and Towns in view of the dues being doubled this year. Mr. Szymanski said this is based on a per capita fee; that he would like to retain the membership; that the director is quite a lobbyist; and that he has been very cooperative. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council budget $1,000 for the League of Cities and Towns. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Account 238 was approved. The City Manager explained the City pays the School Department and they contract it. It would cost more for the City to contract it out themselves. Accounts 239 and 240 were approved. Also Account 250. Account 251 - Vermont Extension Service - was questioned as to whether or not the City is obligated by statute to pay for this service. This is to be checked. Account 252 Mr. Farrar moved that the $500 be put back into this account for fireworks for the 4th of July. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously. Account 262 was approved. Account 263 - Data Processing. There was a general discussion as to better ways of handling this work. This is to be checked. Account 264 was approved. Account 281 - Postage It was moved by Mr. Farrah that the $2,800 be increased to $3,000, the increases to be $100 for mailing tax bills and $100 for City budget and report. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Accounts 287, 291, 292, 293, 294 were approved. Account 295 - Visiting Nurse Association Mr. Merrill said this program is doing a lot of good at the present time but he was concerned that it would grow into something very expensive and should perhaps be moved into a referendum for voter approval. Mrs. Neubert objected to voting on the idea of human services. Accounts 296, 297, and 298 were approved. Regarding Account 298, Chairman Flaherty asked about showing the $200 income from the Cemetery Trust Funds separately from the $800 budgeted. Charlotte Marsh had been concerned about the Trust Fund amount being lumped in with the budgeted figure. Mr. Farrah suggested these be shown as two separate items. Account 298-A - Human Services Mrs. Neubert explained the operation and functions of the Retired Senior Volunteers, Champlain Valley Ask Us, and the Alcoholism Referral Center. After the contingency fund was discussed, it was suggested that the entire $3,500 for Human Services be the only amount shown in the budget; that there be no breakdown as to agency. This would give more flexibility. Mr. Merrill, however, favored keeping it as is. Chairman Flaherty recommended holding another work session on Tuesday, March 11th, beginning at 7:00 p.m. and ending at 9:30 p.m. If necessary, another meeting would be set up for Thursday, March 13th. The Council members were in agreement with this recommendation. Attention was called to the Meeting of the Steering Committee on March 18th. The work session was declared adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.