Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/24/1975CITY COUNCIL MARCH 24, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting and work session in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road, on Monday, March 24, 1975. MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, Paul Farrar, Duane Merrill, Catherine Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT Richard Spokes, City Attorney; William Szymanski, City Manager, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; David Ellis, Arlene Krapcho, Ernest Levesque, Frank Lidral, and James Ewing of the Planning Commission; William J. Schuele, Randy Anderson, Robert K. Kessel, Thomas F. Donovan, Walt Levering, Eugene P. Cenci, Paul Graves, Gretchen Graves, David Nicholson, William Robenstein, Jack Tabaka The Council met with the representatives of the Highway Department Union at 7:00 p.m., with the work session called to order by the Chairman at 7:45 p.m. Minutes of March 13, 1975 It was moved by Mr. Farrar to accept the Minutes of March 13, 1975, with the additions received. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Minutes of March 17, 1975 Mr. Dinklage moved that the Minutes of March 17, 1975, be accepted. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were presented to the Council for signature by the members. Lamplough property zone change recommended by the Planning Commission Chairman Flaherty explained that the recommendation by the Planning Commission for the zone change of the Lamplough property had been approved by a vote of 5 to 1, and the member who voted against the motion had questioned the legality of it, therefore he had asked the City Attorney, Mr. Spokes to give his opinion as to whether or not this was spot zoning and whether or not it was inconsistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Dinklage said it had been agreed that the only decision to be taken at this session would be to set the date for the public hearing, although the discussion could be free and open. Chairman Flaherty stated a letter received from Mary Barbara Maher should be part of the record of this meeting. Attorney Spokes then reviewed his letter of March 19, 1975, to the City Manager regarding the Lamplough property rezoning, saying there were two areas of concern, 1) whether the Planning Commission's action constituted spot zoning as such; and 2) whether the Planning Commission's action would require some amendment to the Master Plan. It was recommended by the Planning Commission that the Lamplough property be changed from R-4 PUD district to BPD district. He said he felt that zoning the Lamplough property as such did not constitute spot zoning, but cautioned that was only his opinion. One most important factor, he explained, was the size of the property, a very large parcel of land. There seems to be a trend in spot zoning cases that the larger the property the less likelihood of the court finding a spot zoning situation. He felt the most outstanding physical feature in the area to be the Interstate Cloverleaf; there are already commercial areas on two sides and business retail on the third side; the action of the Planning Commission is consistent with the other three sides of that circle. Mr. Spokes said he didn't think there is spot zoning as far as the entire property is concerned; however there is a spot zoning problem with the area along Williston Road. 150 feet along Williston Road is presently zoned BR and by rezoning the entire Lamplough property it is also rezoning a small piece of that land which fronts on Williston Road. In looking at the permitted uses in BR district as opposed to BPD district, BPD has benefits which BR district does not have. By singling out the small parcel which fronts on Williston Road, that parcel is being given advantages that the owners of other parcels on Williston Road do not have. It would be preferable to retain in its present zone the part of the Lamplough property which fronts on Williston Road. Chairman Flaherty asked if Council could do it or must it go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Spokes said it would go back to the Planning Commission as an amendment to their proposal; that the Council can make any changes to the Planning Commission's proposal as long as those changes are not within 15 days of the Council's last public hearing. Mrs. Neubert asked if Council had to warn the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Spokes that normally when Council has received a proposal from the Planning Commission to amend a zoning ordinance, it has held an official public hearing, then if Council wished to make changes it would so proceed to make the changes, then have a second public hearing. Changes have not been made until one public hearing. He said there doesn't seem to be anything in the enabling act which would prohibit the Council from changing it before a public hearing but he thought it would be cleaner to have a public hearing. Mrs. Neubert asked what leeway the Council had to change it. Mr. Spokes said as long as Council restricts itself to the property in the public warning as such, Council is not hampered at all. He explained the whole process is designed so the Planning Commission has a "whack" at it and Council also has a "whack" at it. Mrs. Neubert said that when the Commission voted on this, the Chairman said the question was whether they approved the BPD or not approved the BPD. She asked if they could have changed the hearing — and chose not to. Mr. Farrar said that finally, at some point, the action has to be warned, and the action approved as warned; the last time it is warned it cannot be changed. Mr. Spokes said the next question raised concerned whether or not the amendment is consistent with the Master Plan, and does the Master Plan have to be amended. He felt the Land Use Map attached to the plan created all the confusion. That map is part of the plan and should deserve the same attention as the text of the plan and the other maps. It is a policy document from which we get the guidelines to enforce. The enabling act requires that the policies be complied with, but it is a very loose requirement. There is no tight guidance as to how strictly these documents must coincide. The City Attorney said he felt that it should be flexible and should not be written in such a fashion that every time there is an amendment to a by-law, there must be an amendment to the plan. He felt there are presently inconsistencies between the land use map and the text, but he did not think it required an amendment to the Master Plan as such. He called it a "grey area" and said he could not offer a black and white opinion on it as there just isn't any guidance. They had tried to make it as flexible as possible. There is some language in the text of a policy nature that certainly supports the proposal. The policy language is broad enough to support the proposal. He said he would like to see a shadier land use map; what we have is just a re-labeled zoning map. Mrs. Neubert asked if it is necessary to have that map at all. Mr. Spokes said the legislation required certain features and one was a land use map. It seemed likely that that amendment would pass, so the City had taken those guidelines from the proposed bill and made sure they had them — but the amendment was never passed. Mrs. Neubert said the legislation says what you may have, but not what you must have. Chairman Flaherty said the City Planner was to have given the Council some thoughts and information at this meeting but was called home because of illness in the family. Mr. Flaherty then read aloud the four points of the summary of the City Attorney's letter of March 19th. He then stated the primary purpose of the meeting was to set a date for the first public hearing, saying there are different routes the Council can take to accept the proposal sent by the Planning Commission or to make any changes we think are necessary. Mrs. Neubert said she thought members of the Planning Commission were unhappy with BPD but approved it even though they didn't want it. She said she had no objection to the proposal, but in a zone change of this size it is like creating a new zoning ordinance, and they should consider all the points in Title 24, all eleven of them, that pertain to the entire community and not just to the development in question. She did not feel the Planning Commission did that sufficiently when they changed the zone. She said she had a great deal of reservation about the BPD which has a minimum of two acres. If this developer should sell the land to someone else, the City would have a zone into which anyone could come and start with a two acre parcel and begin a subdivision. Mr. Dinklage said he was not sure that the Council should hear that at this time. Mrs. Neubert went on to say the Planning Commission loses control of the whole parcel should it change hands. Also if a BPD is put on that property, the adjacent property owners would also ask for BPD. That would open the whole triangle in that superblock to BPD so that anyone could go in and develop two acres. She said that in-depth development had been planned and she didn't feel that BPD would give that. She said she was asking questions about it before the public hearing because she would like the City Planner and the Planning Commission to give Council a better zone for that particular property since everyone is unhappy with the PUD-4. She felt the City Planner had made recommendations which the Planning Commission did not follow; they were unsure of the legality of the thing. They did not ask some of the questions which they themselves have since asked. She said she would like to see a more specific proposal about a zone change for that area which meets the purpose; she did not want to be tied to BPD. Chairman Flaherty said Council can do whatever it wants to do, but reminded them again that the purpose tonight was to set a date for the public hearing. Mr. Dinklage said what he would like to accomplish at this meeting would be to try to see if there is a consensus of the Council as to whether or not they would want to change this recommendation and, if so, should try to make some assessment for the time Council would want to allow itself before first holding a public hearing on the proposal as sent to Council by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage said the City Planner had used the term PCD, and that to him that suggested Mr. Mitchell has some ideas about a new zone that Council might wish to work up. The time that would be required to go through the planning process and hearing process would have to be considered in the time schedule. Mr. Farrar suggested that perhaps no one has come up with the best possible solution. In fairness to the proposal of the developer it would be expeditious to hold the hearing as soon as possible. That would allow Council, if it wishes to make changes, to suggest the changes at that hearing, and possibly from that point to take what action is necessary to implement the changes. Chairman Flaherty said the earliest date would be April 10th — March 11th was the date of the Planning Commission's action — the budget hearing is April 10th, but any time after that would be alright. Mr. Farrar then moved that the Council set the date of April 15, 1975, Tuesday, for the public hearing, on the zone change recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Merrill. Mr. Farrar said he was trying to make the point that Council needs the time, not to get ready for it, but needs the time after the hearing, that basically the way to speed up the process is to warn the public hearing. Mrs. Neubert said Council could do the work before it is warned. Chairman Flaherty explained if changes are made then it has to go back to the Planning Commission and then be warned again. The City Attorney said it would depend on what changes Council had in mind. Changes which are in the existing framework of the zoning ordinance would be fine, but for something not presently in the zoning ordinance, then the question becomes have you deviated to such an extent that it means starting all the way back at the beginning. Perhaps that is another incentive to have the first hearing as soon as possible, the present proposal just covers the Lamplough property, but if Council felt it wanted to go beyond that, then more time would be needed. Asked if there is a different between a zone change and a change to the zoning ordinance, Mr. Spokes said there is none, that a zone change is essentially an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Chairman Flaherty said any zone change has to be made with care, that Council should at least look at the proposal and not jump the gun by talking about what changes we are making. We should see the proposal before we even consider it. Mrs. Neubert said the obligation when a zone change is made is as strong and important as when making a zoning ordinance change — when we wipe out acres of residential area. Chairman Flaherty again reminded that Council has a specific proposal which has been sent to them from the Planning Commission and there is a time limit in which to act on the proposal; the relevant part is that they have a proposal and must set a date and listen to the reasons why there is justification for taking action. Mr. Dinklage said the City Planner has recommended Planned Commercial Development to apply to this property and the surrounding property. If there is a consensus on the Council that it might want to change the zone to something other than what was recommended by the Planning Commission and something other than what is now provided for in the zoning ordinance, then an outline of this zone should be pulled together. There is a question as to how long that might take. Mr. Flaherty said he had expected to hear Mr. Mitchell's opinion on this tonight, that he was expecting some recommendations and some comments from him on the proposal at the hearing. Mr. Spokes said Mr. Mitchell had raised a couple of questions with him such as whether or not it was best to have a PUD district as such. The Lamplough property would be zoned PUD Commercial and it would not be within the existing district as we now have it. On that point he thought Mr. Mitchell agreed with him that from a legal point of view the PUD concept was created to vary the requirements for a given district. It gave the property owners another alternative, the opportunity to cluster within the existing framework of the zoning district. Most districts were designed for strip or straight plat development. The PUD concept arose as being an opportunity to vary the setbacks, side yards, etc., but not so much as a zone in itself but merely another opportunity for the land owner to present a proposal. It should be simply another permitted use within that district, another route the land owners and developers can go in submitting a proposal. But having a district with the designation of PUD only, you are foreclosing the good possibility of other types of development or preventing any development at all. It should be permissive in this district, but he didn't think it should be a district as such. Mr. Flaherty said Council sets the date and hears the proposal by Paul Graves after hearing the Planning Commission's reasons for the change; then the City Planner or any other person can give any alternative plans; then the Council can make the decision. Mr. Farrar said the reason he suggested setting the hearing as soon as possible was because he had heard reasonable discussion to indicate there may be other alternatives that may be considered, and in fairness to the developer things should get started as soon as possible. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to shorten that time by getting everybody to work on it. Mr. Farrar said it might be possible to have further work sessions with interested parties prior to the hearing. Mr. Dinklage said he thought the purpose of this meeting was to hear from all interested parties. Mrs. Neubert said she thought the Planning Commission went into its last hearing with the understanding they had to vote. She said she would hope that they would want to express themselves; and perhaps all four people who voted for the BPD will fight for it to the end. Mr. Graves said the Planning Commission didn't seem to have any question at all that this land was not residential. Even Mrs. Maher agreed that it was not residential land. They then turned to the zoning ordinance and found eleven categories. He said he didn't think any of those really fitted this property, so there are only two designations, BR or BPD; There is no possibility of strip development of the 250 feet on Williston Road; the only way to develop the Lamplough property is by in- depth development. PUD is not a zone. Mrs. Neubert told Mr. Graves he is in that area and he is under the restrictions in the zoning ordinance. Article 12 gives the Planning Commission the flexibility to address to the twelve points to which they are allowed to address. There is no other zone in town which gives the Planning Commission the control over what goes in there. Mr. Graves said his understanding was that the developer can elect to develop as PUD or can elect not to, that he could go in and build houses without ever coming before the Planning Commission under the PUD requirements. The only reason for coming before the Planning Commission would be if he wanted to cluster them. Mr. Spokes said it was not a separate district as such, but PUDS were allowed in this portion of the R-4 residential district. Mr. Dinklage said this is primarily an R-4 district, that Mr. Graves is right. Mrs. Neubert insisted they had to go through the twelve restrictions. Chairman Flaherty said it was not necessary. Mr. Dinklage said the planning process is being overlooked. He suggested looking very carefully at the change which has been requested and weigh the new uses and the lack of controls that Mrs. Neubert mentioned against what was envisioned in the Master Plan. This is really the first major zone change that Council has been faced with, he said, and he was very concerned with the planning process. He felt there were several aspects which have not been adequately addressed in this case such as the question of a balance of commercial and residential property in the city. This land represents the largest undeveloped R-4 zone in the City and by this request it is being eliminated and replaced with some type of commercial. The Master Plan addresses itself, he continued, to a question of low-cost housing, so he would like to see the Planning Commission weigh the elimination of this zone against the provisions for similar housing elsewhere in the City. This One of the objectives of the Master Plan and one that Council should try to implement where possible. Also, he said, this is a large area, 54 acres; there are sizeable areas of the City already zoned for commercial, with some developments already approved but unimplemented. He was concerned that if those developments already approved are developed simultaneously with the Lamplough property, there would be a total impact on South Burlington from the traffic point of view. Traffic activity in the Lamplough property would grossly affect the traffic conditions on Williston Road and Patchen Road. If commercial development was put in merely to serve the residential property there would not be those adverse effects at all. He said that as part of the whole zone change request process he was not satisfied of the compelling needs for this change; that the reasons for a zone change have to be very compelling and he would hope that they be spelled out in the public hearing. He said he was concerned with the planning process, independent of the developer, and he would hope that the Planning Commission and Council could address themselves a great deal to this process before a firm decision is made to approve or reject the proposal made. Mr. Flaherty asked if anyone had any specific request of Paul Graves for anything they would like to have in the hearing, or any information from anyone else. Mrs. Neubert was concerned about the way the Commission is approaching it now, as though they didn't like it any more. She said this was not an accidental PUD but was intended as a PUD. Mr. Spokes said he was not implying that a PUD is an accidental occurrence; it is the vehicle by which the requirements in a given district can be changed to permit clustering. He said he didn't know what the intent of the draftsman was, but it is labeled on the zoning map as Residential - 4 and then has the additional label of R-4 PUD. This is an R-4 zone where PUD is permitted as a serious plan. Mrs. Neubert said this was a PUD area and the 4 was simply to designate density. Mr. Dinklage asked if PUD is not approved in the area designated as PUD-4 in the zoning map. Mrs. Neubert said it is not, that is what is wrong with the whole thing. Mr. Dinklage said his opinion was that this is a permitted use in R-4. Mrs. Neubert replied that if they can't make a PUD as R-4 they can't make one commercial either. Mr. Graves said that PUD as he understood it gives the Planning Commission the power to waive certain limitations for the developer provided he stays within certain parameters of the zoning regulations. This is only common where you allow some greater commercial use, but it is narrowed down to a very limited commercial use. Mr. Dinklage commented that PUD is actually allowed in four different areas. Mrs. Neubert said they had referred to a straight PUD that could have a mix and they were trying to prohibit the mix in the other PUDS, and she did not remember anyone saying that this area should go straight residential. Mr. Dinklage suggested that perhaps not too much time was spent on this designation. The Chairman asked again if there were any requests for other information from the developer or from City employees before April 15th. Mr. Graves said he had one more question, is Council saying that it wants to see a designation other than what is already in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dinklage said his concern was simply because a piece of property is zoned in a way that is not the way the developer would like to use it, is not to him a compelling reason to change the zoning designation. He would want to see all the things he had outlined evaluated in terms of any proposal. Mr. Graves asked, if he follows through and presents all those, then would the land be zoned according to the eleven designations here, or is it being suggested that there should be a twelfth designation. Mr. Dinklage said he was satisfied with the present designations, but had not yet reached an opinion as to whether or not he liked the PUD designation as it represents certain changes from what was contained in the Master Plan. Mr. Farrar said he hadn't heard the arguments either but he could get a feeling of denial that some of the arguments could be compelling enough that a better zone change- could be made for this area than the existing one. It might also be found in the discussions that all of the things allowed in the zone proposed might not be to the best interests of the community. What the developer is proposing could be good for the community and that the zone change might not be good for the community. Mr. Graves said they want to put in a shopping mall, either BR or BPD, and if they are looking toward some other zone he would like to do some preparation on it. Mr. Farrar said he was trying to put it in as good a framework as possible for Mr. Graves, that what Council might want might be a zone change which would not have all the uses in it that would be in the zone Mr. Graves is asking for. Mr. Dinklage mentioned the shopping mall as being something that would alter the permitted use of that land, and the Council has to look at the uses allowed by the zoning regulations. Mrs. Krapcho said she was concerned about the account in the newspaper, the statement that the Planning Commission ignored the City Planner's recommendation on this particular proposal. She said the Commission did not ignore it, that the Planner's recommendation was interpreted in different ways. She said the Planner did have very strong feelings about that specific zone they were considering the night of the hearing, and she was concerned about the action taken because they did not review the merits of BPD vs. BR. She thought the Planner was concerned about this but it did not really come through on the memo that they had looked at and they didn't get around to looking at that specific question. She said she hoped this could be clarified, that the Commission didn't ignore his recommendations, but they didn't explore them as throughly as possible. Mrs. Neubert said she wished to apologize if she had wrongly interpreted the vote of any member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Levesque said that as a member of the Commission he had addressed himself to the issue to accept or reject the request for zone change, from the points of the Master Plan. He proceeded to outline these points as follows: 1)low cost housing - there have been no assessments of what the needs are for housing for low income people or for the elderly; 2) the existing use - the land is almost entirely vacant land; 3) impact to the City - the Master Plan addresses itself to becoming a regional trade center, and this should be capitalized on; 4) compelling needs - the economic section of the Master Plan is concerned with the hope of soliciting industry to broaden the tax base. This development would provide many jobs in the construction industry to residents of South Burlington, a high percentage of whom have been employed in the construction field; 5) the recommendation by Fred Mitchell - the Planning Commission was talking about clustering commercial activities. The issue was either to accept or to reject, he said, so he thought a reputable architect who lived in the community who had been the former chairman of the Planning Commission would have the integrity to design a good project. Mr. Dinklage said this land represents the largest single parcel of land still undeveloped, with Mr. Levesque answering that at $40,000 an acre nobody is going to get low cost housing. Mrs. Neubert said the community shouldn't be penalized because a developer has paid too much for the land. Mr. Schuele said he wished to refer back to the discussion with the City Attorney, saying he had a feeling Mr. Spokes had reversed his original opinion. He read excerpts from previous opinions of the City Attorney referring to spot zoning. Mr. Schuele said he was essentially saying that if a person is big enough he can influence the Council or the Planning Commission; simply because of how much he has he can influence a change favorable to his own interests. The Chairman said the opinion is only the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Spokes said he did not wish to be put in a position of having to support a position and arguing with a layman in support of a legal opinion. He said he could see no inconsistencies in his opinions. Mr. Farrar said he thought one has to look at the different opinions and look at them in context; that with spot zoning one thing that has to be looked at is the size of the parcel; the size is a germane issue. Mr. Spokes said the confusion is that the opinions cited by this gentleman were directed at two general questions. The caution and the "red flag" was to be careful with spot zoning. Each of you is well aware what the opinion we have been talking about is directed toward — a specific proposal with specific facts. He said he applied those facts as he knew them to those questions. The prior opinions were not addressed to any specific proposal. Mr. Farrar said he thought some of the questions raised by Mr. Schuele were valid, whether or not the opinions expressed previously were followed. Mr. Graves said that nowhere was there ever a test of whether or not you had one owner or ten owners; the only question was size of the parcel. Something that was totally inconsistent with what was around it. Consideration is given to whether this is just for the benefit of the owner and is it going to be a detriment to the surrounding area. You can't warn anyone else's property; obviously it has to be just one owner. Mr. Schuele said the Planning Commission had directed the City Planner to look at a considerably larger piece and he asked if the warning is confined to a single owner in that total larger area. He said he was not alone in thinking that this was going to be looked at on a larger scale — the impact on the whole City. That is another criteria for spot zoning. Chairman Flaherty said he had tried to make the point that any zone change is a serious matter. There are procedures to go through and the Council has tried to set a date to follow through. Mr. Schuele asked at what point would the Planning Commission and the Council consider the impact on the City. Mr. Dinklage said his concern was that it hasn't been addressed to a larger area. Mrs. Neubert said all the questions would be taken up at the public hearing. Mr. Farrar said he was trying to get the concerns out into the open at this work session and find out whether or not a lot of time should be allowed for preparation. He said he felt the early hearing to be the best way to proceed, and that this discussion had been long enough. Mrs. Krapcho asked Mr. Spokes if by making this particular zone change, it would be necessary to approve the same zone change for all the property in this so- called superblock. Mr. Spokes said he thought it was more of a planning question, but in talking with Fred Mitchell he feels that there are planning reasons for support of the Lamplough property being a separate district from the adjoining property, and Mr. Mitchell also feels it is possible to consider the drainage ways as another possible district boundary line. Perhaps commercial development on the Lamplough side of this triangle and residential on the Patchen Road side is a logical planning course. Mrs. Krapcho asked if there are steps that the City should take to transfer those ideas into the planning by-laws, or should the Master Plan be amended to incorporate some of these concepts within the text so that they would have to be looked at. Mr. Spokes said there is no specific text in the plan and he didn't think it was necessary. It wouldn't do any harm but it was not absolutely crucial. The plan need not be that detailed. Mr. William Robenstein said in a letter he submitted to the Planning Commission he had asked five specific questions, and he would like to ask the Council to get a copy of that letter and address itself to those five questions. Chairman Flaherty asked that copies of Mr. Robenstein's letter be made available for the members of the Council. Mr. Szymanski said he would take care of it. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Robenstein why he picked out those five points to question. Mr. Robenstein said he felt they would be of advantage to him to understand the processes and for any future process such as this. He said he did have one slight objection, that part of the Planning Commission membership was unaware of the letter he submitted to the Chairman of the Planning Commission. He objected to this, saying that when he addressed a letter to a body such as the Commission, the members should know about it. Mrs. Neubert said these things were not expressed at the meeting, but only after the vote. Chairman Flaherty then called for a vote on Mr. Farrar's motion, that the public hearing be held on Tuesday, April 15th, at 7:30 p.m. It was voted unanimously to approve this motion. Mr. Graves referred to his presentation to the Planning Commission, copies of which were given to the Commission members, saying this would be helpful to the Council also, and that he would be glad to submit any additional information. Contract for engineering of the sewer extension of Shelburne Road. Mr. Szymanski said requests had been made to sewer the motel, restaurant, and gas station, to the end of the town line, in order to put a stop to the present pollution. Federal aid is now available, also State aid. Willis Engineering is completing the final plan at a cost of $10,050 of which the City's share is $1,770. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council empower the Chairman to sign the agreement with Willis Engineering to have the final design for the extension of the sewer on Shelburne Road. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Szymanski said the total cost of the whole project will be $60,000, with the City's share around $10,000. The complaint of pollution was investigated and found to be true. Mrs. Neubert objected to this, saying it is costing the City $10,000 because they allowed people to pollute rather than forcing them to clean up their pollution as other property owners had been forced to do. Mr. Farrar said it was the intention of the City to provide sewers to as large a portion of the City as possible. Mr. Merrill said he thought the people had taken a very logical step in asking that the City put in a sewer in a situation that is very desperate as in this case. The questions was raised of sewers for Bartlett's Bay area, with the City Manager answering that it is too expensive and there is no evidence of pollution there now, but that it will be done eventually. The vote on Mr. Farrar's motion was unanimous. Mr. Merrill moved that the session be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Farrar and voted unanimously. Session declared adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.