Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/06/1975CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES October 6, 1975 At the City Council Meeting on October 20, 1975, it was voted to approve the Minutes of October 6, 1975. with the following corrections. On page 1 under Disbursement orders the words orders were should be included. On page 8 the heading at the top of the page had been omitted. This was the Agenda Item #4, Meet with Peter Bergh — Amendment to Zoning Ordinance. CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 6, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, October 6, 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 Byron Hills, Robert Snyder, Gordon Bassett, Elaine Bassett, Nancy Fisette, Edward R. Fisette, Joyce Zajchowski, Joseph Zajchowski, Peter Bergh, Carl Lisman, Paul M. Godard, Nancy Godard, Carole Harvey, Peter W. Harvey, Betsy Pepperman, Richard Pepperman, Henry Jacques, Nancy Baker, Spencer Baker, F. McCaffrey, Harry Behney. Art Hogan, Paul Graves The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of September 15, 1975, September 9, 1975, and September 16. 1975 It was noted that on page 5, in Mr. Dinklage's motion, the amount should be $6,000 instead of $5,500, in the Minutes of September 15th. Mrs. Neubert moved that the Minutes of September 15, 1975, be accepted with the above noted correction. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted for approval. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Minutes of September 9, 1975. be accepted as read. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted for approval. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mr. Flaherty to accept the Minutes of September 16, 1975 as read. Voted for approval. Disbursement orders It was noted that the disbursement available for signature. Meeting with residents of Shunpike Road Atty. Carl Lisman said he had been retained by residents of Shunpike Road to appear before the Council at this meeting, to participate in other meetings, and to take appropriate action. He stated Shunpike Road as it branches from Williston Road has approximately fifteen homes with approximately twenty school age children. There are no sidewalks; no curbs; the quality of the road is no better and no worse than any other residential street. He said he had been asked by the residents of Shunpike Road to express their concern about the proposed access from the Willis property, the GBIC site, to and from areas where people might be coming and going, suppliers might be coming and going. They do not object to the concept of the GBIC site nor do they object to the existing zoning. The concern is a concern for safety of the children and the residents of Shunpike Road as well as for the operators and passengers of motor vehicles which might meet the traffic coming from Shunpike Road onto Williston Road. Mr. Lisman pointed to a schematic drawing he had made on the board showing the interstate, the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road, also Brownell Road in Williston. He said there are only two ways to get to the site, from Brownell Road or from Williston Road, and he felt it was reasonable to assume that all initial work and perhaps most traffic will flow over Shunpike Road to get to the facility. That is not a good pattern; there is no traffic facility at the corner of Shunpike Road and Williston Road and traffic is forced to merge from two lanes into one; a bad curve in one direction and a steep hill coming from the other direction. A traffic light would not be a particularly good solution as it would be difficult to stop the traffic any length of time. Also the intersection is a school bus stop at least nine times a day, at least four of which are in prime traffic hours. There are children walking the length of Shunpike Road to get to the bus. He repeated that there are no sidewalks, no curbs, and also ditches on the sides of the narrow road. Atty, Lisman said he talked with Harry Behney last week; he was most helpful and willing to see what he could do to solve problems people feel will exist, and his indicated that there was a proposed roadway to go from Old Farm Road and Kennedy Drive and then there would be access into the site from that point. Mr. Lisman said the plan that exists now won't solve the problem, it will make the problem worse. There is no guarantee that people on Shunpike Road will have the degree of safety that any citizen should have; there is no guarantee that the roadway will ever be built. There might be no roadway until the site was developed to the extent of 100,000 square feet and 200 employees; there is no guarantee this will ever take place. He said he understood the City was depending on urban systems money with no guarantee the City will get it. The citizens will have to spend money to build that road and there is no indication that the City Council has made any firm commitment that the City will spend its own money to build the road. Even if built, there is no guarantee that the road will be used to exclude Shunpike Road, no guarantee that the road will be attractive enough to make people use it. What the impact will be, nobody knows. There is a condition in the District Environmental Commission permit that the GBIC will covenant with occupants of the site to use that new road, but Shunpike Road residents have no authority to enforce it, the City has no authority to enforce it. Atty, Lisman summarized his presentation by saying there is going to be a mess and the mess is going to be on Shunpike Road, and will slow for the potential of serious injuries or death on Shunpike Road. Before the roadway is complete Shunpike Road may be torn up; the site will require sewer and water; there will be site work, and equipment going up and down. Mr. Lisman said he had been authorized to propose the following: 1) as a matter of public safety the City ought to see that the connecting road is built before anything is done to the site: 2) something has got to be done almost immediately about traffic on Shunpike Road, reducing the speed limit, imposing a more stringent gross weight limit, something done to serve as a negative inducement to keep people off Shunpike Road. Chairman Farrar asked if there were any questions. Mrs. Neubert asked if they were complaining about traffic as it exists now. Mr. Lieman said the existing traffic is not objectionable, the quantity is not objectionable. Mr. Fisette said on two occasions he had to call the police because trucks carrying top soil were travelling at high speeds and the same condition could exist later on at construction time. Mrs. Neubert recommended that they keep calling the police any time they saw speeding. Mr. Flaherty asked Art Hoban if he had any idea about the progress of the urban systems funds. Mr. Hogan explained the processes involved in applying for the urban systems funds and said the preliminary steps had been taken by South Burlington, and the priorities of all the eligible communities had been delivered to the Vermont State Board and the Board would be meeting shortly to decide the priorities and allocate funds. The program has $3,860,000 to match State and local funds for projects. The funds have to be committed for construction by July 1, 1976, or the funds will revert back. He said there will probably be some very definite answers from the Vermont Highway Board soon and the engineering must be done so the road can be in construction by July 1st. The engineering will not be too detailed and will not involve a long delay; by making decisions this fall the City could award contracts by June. The State will have to determine those contracts which can be awarded contracts by June and that should be an advantage to South Burlington. Mr. Flaherty asked if it would help if the Council directed itself to the representatives to the legislature from South Burlington. Mr. Hogan suggested asking the Vermont D.O.T. Board to let the City know the dates and times of meetings. Asked by Mr. Flaherty how long it would take to build the road, the City Manager said it could be finished the next summer. Chairman Farrar said the City's intention has always been to build the road as soon as the Federal urban systems funds were available irrespective of whether or not there was a tenant on the property. The bond issue was for the sewer and not for the road. Mr. Zajchowski said it was the understanding of residents of Shunpike Road that the premise of the industrial park was that the road would be built and that all traffic go that way, and that was why nobody every spoke up before. It was just learned at the environmental hearing that it was intended to use Shunpike Road, temporarily or not, as an access. It had always been understood that Shunpike Road would still be residential. Mr. Flaherty explained that Shunpike Road was originally designated industrial but in the new zoning it was made a residential street. It was suggested at one time to make Shunpike Road a deadend road and that would solve the problem. The first thing is to get the Federally funded road built; the money has been sitting in Montpelier for well over a year; the intent was to do the industrial road. Chairman Farrar explained that Williston included a plan to extend the road because to get urban systems money it had to go through into Williston; it could not end in the industrial park. Mrs. Neubert was concerned that it would make a short cut throwing all kinds of traffic onto Kennedy Drive, and she had not anticipated this and didn't think it had come before the Council. Mr. Merrill said this had been discussed at the time of the purchase of the right-of-way over the O'Brien property Mr. Dinklage said the process of obtaining the Federal funds moved slower than Council had hoped but there should be an answer by late fall or next spring as to whether or not the City will get those funds. It was worth the endeavor to try to get the funds; it is the consensus that this is the number one priority of any construction in the City. If for any reason these funds do not become available, that bridge will have to be crossed then, but he personally would be in favor of doing whatever is necessary to build the road. It is important from a sales point of view to have that road in place for a prospective client and he said he didn't wish to wait until there is a firm contract for the first tenant. Barricading the road had been discussed and he said he would be willing to consider that possibility if the matter gets out of hand, but he didn't see any way to avoid some traffic going down Shunpike Road to help in the construction process of the road; he would hope that it would be limited. It would only be for one construction season. He asked for suggestions of what Council could do beyond that. Mrs. Neubert suggested a commitment not to use Shunpike Road after the new road was built, but Chairman Farrar said he didn't think such a commitment could be made because that decision would have to be made by whatever Council is in authority when that decision is made. Mr. Flaherty said Council couldn't vote today to close Shunpike Road but in two years there might be five different people on the Council; the guarantee Council could give is as good as the people here now. Mr. Dinklage asked about having the engineering done in advance and Mr. Saymanski explained there is a problem of spending funds before getting Federal approval. Mr. Dinklage asked if the residents would be satisfied with a resolution by this Council that it would look favorably upon a request by residents of Shundpike Road to close it. Mr. Merrill said he agreed with that, that he had a great deal of concern for the safety of the children on the road and the need to upgrade the road but he would hate to think the road could be closed now until it is found out what kind of situation is there right now; it might be more convenient to close off the other end of the road as the situation is developed. He said he thought a resolution would be more appropriate at this time expressing concern for the safety of the individuals who live there and also to study the situation once the road is built into the site. Mr. Pepperman said every hearing always starts off that Shunpike Road is going to be used until some stipulation is made, the people are given the feeling that Shunpike Road is not to be used, and then it comes out that Shunpike Road is being used. He said the residents are present to say they do not want Shunpike Road used one day, one year, or five years. He felt it was absurd to start a road into the site with no prospective client yet, that would go absolutely nowhere in the park until someone comes in there. The Council should consider spending the money on sidewalks instead of building the road going nowhere. Council should wait until the client says he will come into the park. Mr. Merrill said that at no time has it ever been Council's intention to have Shunpike Road the access into the industrial park or it wouldn't be considering the expenditure of $200,000. A different route into the park is wanted for the clients that would go in there, to make it more attractive to them. Shunpike Road is not the appropriate road. A good quality highway or road is needed to handle the traffic to be created. Mr. Harvey said the word "main artery" is used in all the drawings that were presented at the District Commission hearing showing Shunpike Road going into the park, all part of the landscaping, then they talked about the road they hoped to have. Everyone is saying they never intended to use Shunpike Road but some architect has shown the road going in and turning around and coming out. Mr. Merrill said the road Council is considering is the one going across the O'Brien property, and he couldn't say today that he wanted to see Shunpike Road closed down. A member of the audience then asked if Council would be willing to say that Shunpike Road be not used as an access into the industrial park. Mrs. Fisette asked what would happen if the Federal funds don't come through. Mr. Lisman said the crucial question is Shunpike Road and the GBIC site; all along the South Burlington City Council has been assuming that the urban systems money will be available. It has been anticipated also that it will be done quickly with perhaps only minimum disturbance to the people of Shunpike Road. If the urban systems funds are not available, how can Harry Behney sell the property to the client, saying it would be necessary to use Shunpike Road as an access. Mr. Flaherty said Council is being asked how it can guarantee the road without funds available. Originally the City had the bond issue for the sewer which was felt important, and when Federal funding came available it was felt that this was the first priority for the City in roads. He said he didn't see how the City could continue without going somewhere to have the funds for the road. He asked if a resolution would be acceptable saying Council has no intention of using Shunpike Road as an access and at that time it will become a deadend street depending on the wants of the people at that time. Mr. Pepperman said the deadend street issue has nothing to do with why the people are here, that is not the issue. They want the Council to say that Shunpike Road will not be used ever as an access road. Mr. Flaherty said that in building the industrial road there may be times when they will have to use Shunpike Road. Mr. Dinklage said they do have the right to use the street and nothing can be done except to enforce the speed limit and the gross weight limit. Atty. Lisman suggested a resolution that the sense of the City Council is that Shunpike Road will not be used as an access road to the site and will only be used during the building of the industrial site road. An area resident said they had been under the impression that South Burlington didn't have money to put in their sewers and now that the park is going in they are all of a sudden going to have sewers. In the meantime they had been second-class citizens paying first-class taxes without the facilities other people had. Chairman Farrar explained there was no way the City could afford to build the sewers until there were more users. Mrs. Neubert added that the building will be taxable and will bring in taxes; the taxes brought in by Shunpike Road houses was not enough to make it feasible to run the sewer line out there. Mr. Dinklage said he was not sure whether they had the authority to make a resolution that would have any meaning. Mr. Pepperman suggested a resolution: That Shunpike Road not be used as an access into GBIC Industrial Park area other than for the purpose of building a permanent access road. Mr. Dinklage moved that the above statement be adopted as a sense of the Council. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Graves said if the City doesn't get urban systems money, nothing was being said by Council about a bond issue to build the road, and asked where that road would fit in the priorities, where the Regional Planning Commission would set the priorities. Mr. Hogan replied they are not a priority setting element; the priorities are set by the City, then the State Highway Department, then the Federal D.O.T. The City has established theirs; the State Department is now in the process of establishing theirs. Mr. Graves asked if South Burlington would be in conflict with the Regional Transportation Plan, and if so, where does the City stand. Mr. Hogan replied the County Transportation Plan has nothing to do with urban systems funding. Asked by Mr. Dinklage about applications from other communities for urban systems funding, Mr. Hogan said Essex Town, Essex Junction, South Burlington, Winooski, and Burlington have all set urban systems funding as their #1 priority. The total cost of all these projects would be $12,380,000. Not all could be accomplished in the first year. The appropriation is a ten-year appropriation. Mr. Dinklage said he would be willing to add to the resolution that in the event urban systems funds are not available, it would be the intent of this Council to go to the voters for a bond issue if necessary. Mrs. Neubert asked why the road is to be twice as long as was anticipated. Mr. Szymanski said the project only goes to the intersection, and Mr. Farrar said it had to be shown that way in order to get the system completed, but it doesn't say it would have to be built. It is a long range plan. Mrs. Neubert asked why it has to be connected, why does the entrance to the park have to connect with Shunpike Road. Mr. Dinklage answered it doesn't have to, they can close Shunpike Road. Mrs. Neubert said that to her the whole concept of the road had changed. Mr. Dinklage explained that if the City accepts Federal funds, then it is obligated to connect it as shown on the drawing on the board; it has to be connected. Mr. Merrill asked Mr. Behney about the advantages in getting clients in terms of having an industrial park road. Mr. Behney said they had always had it tied in, going east and west. Mr. Dinklage asked if a cul-de-sac in the park were built, how would that affect the sale ability of the property. Mr. Behney said it would have an effect compared to what is there now; Shunpike Road as it exists now in its present condition is of no advantage to anyone. He said they had been discussing the access from Kennedy Drive. Mrs. Neubert said she couldn't see any benefit in having traffic from 2-A dumped onto Kennedy Drive. Chairman Farrar said it would be a big advantage in getting traffic off from Williston Road. Mr. Behney said Mr. Willis will move his office, but as the resolution reads right now it prohibits them from entering the site to do anything. He suggested it be related it to construction which is what the real intent seems to be. The planning of the access road had been discussed ever since the begining of it. It will enable GBIC to do a better job of selling the area; nobody of any magnitude is going on that site with the existing road. Mr. Dinklage moved that the resolution be amended by restricting the application to the construction. Mr. Farrar said the only practical resolution is that it is the intent of Council that the road be closed as soon as the industrial road is completed. Mr. Lisman said the problem is that there is no indication of when it would be. The question is what can be done to reduce traffic. Mrs. Neubert said Council doesn't have the answers to that and asked Mr. Lisman if he would like to come back in when they have reached another step in the process. Mr. Lisman said the problem is a mechanical one. If the people are satisfied with the results of this meeting, then the next step to appeal to the District Environmental Commission would not be necessary. Mr. Lisman then suggested a resolution to the extent that when any action is taken to develop the GBIC site including site preparation work that all such traffic be routed through a roadway to be constructed to connect the site with the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road. Mrs. Neubert said that is restricting the ability of a private owner to use his private property. Mr. Lisman said either the Shunpike Road is an access road or it is intended that it won't be — one or the other. Mr. Dinklage said a resolution of this type has no binding but he would like a sense of the Council. He felt it would make the residents feel more comfortable about Council's intent. Mr. Lisman said none of the Council may be here when traffic is running up and down to the site, but if there was something in the Council Minutes saying that this was the intent of the Council that this road wouldn't be used as an access, it would be very persuasive to any subsequent Council. Mr. Dinklage withdrew his previous motion and moved that the Council accept as the sense of this body the following statement; that to the extent that any action is taken to develop the GBIC site including site preparation, where practical, all such construction traffic be re-routed other than on the north-south portion of Shunpike Road. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert asked how they could stop people. Mr. Dinklage said there is no legal authority but at some future point it will represent some precedent. Mr. Farrar asked if this is going to create a problem next spring if GBIC starts some site work. Mrs. Neubert asked if the City doesn't get the money, is it really going to build the road. Chairman Farrar said there are these points: 1) is it the sense of this Council that if urban systems funds are not available that a bond issue would be proposed to build the road; 2) a legitimate concern that when the road is built that people will find this portion of Shunpike Road is more convenient; at that point Shunpike Road should be made into a deadend street with the determination to be made at some future time as to which end would be deadend and that it should not be used as access to the industrial park; 3) the effort to make sure that traffic which is necessary prior to construction, as much as practical, shall not use Shunpike Road. Mr. Dinklage this precludes the use of Shunpike Road for heavy equipment but cautioned some large pieces would not be able to get across the bridge from Williston. Mr. Lisman said it pretty much insures having traffic for one construction season, with one of the area residents saying he didn't consider that to be unreasonable. Mr. Merrill said he felt they were wasting a great deal of time and not being very honest with themselves in trying to find some phony resolution, in fooling around with words which do not have any authority. He felt Council should wait until December, until it is known whether or not there will be funds to construct the road; then Council can think more positively as to whether it will approach the voters with a bond issue. Mr. Merrill added that each person on the Council is very sympathetic with the situation, that at a future time Shunpike Road would probably be closed off according to the determination of the residents on that particular road. Atty. Lisman said if Council doesn't adopt a resolution to formalize the sense of every member of the Council, then the only way the residents of Shunpike Road can proceed would be to take it to the Environmental Commission. Mr. Lisman then offered the following resolution: It is the sense of the City Council in connection with the GBIC industrial park, as follows: 1) the City Council is committed to the construction of the industrial road way to the site; 2) Shunpike Road should not be used as an access road to the site once development of the site is commenced; 3) the use of Shunpike Road should be restricted to the construction of the industrial road way; 4) commencement of development of the site should coincide with the construction of the industrial road. Spencer Baker suggested amending by saying should coincide or follow. Mr. Dinklage moved that this statement and amendment be accepted as the sense of the Council, with all previous motions withdrawn. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Motion voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Fisette asked about deadending the road, if this would require the consent of the other communities. The City Manager said it would require a public hearing. Mr. Behney said GBIC will accept the sense of the motion just passed as to the restriction on any of their activities unless they bring this back and ask for a variance, and he will recommend to the Board of Trustees that this be considered the law of the community. He said he would recommend to the area residents that they think of this new road in terms of emergency services, that the quickest way to get a firetruck would be over the new road. Also, he said, GBIC would greatly concerned if anything they did caused harm to anyone physically. Chairman Farrar thanked everyone for their interest in attending the hearing. Meeting with Peter Bergh regarding amendment to zoning ordinance Mr. Bergh stated that Council had reviewed and voted against the amendment to include the cluster benefits in R-7 District for planned unit development, and he was asking that it be reopened for discussion. He said he was one of the owners and the architect of Twin Oaks Tennis Center consisting of about 40 acres in total, 35 of which is in the process of being planned for cluster development of attached houses. With R-7 District allowing 7 units per acre, they are proposing 125 units, or less than half the allowable R-7 density. The balance of the land would be in the homeowners association and be tied up in open space for probably the next 50 or 100 years. He said there seemed to be a problem in the way the zoning regulations are written that it doesn't follow through for a clustering provision. The change is being requested not only for themselves, he said, but for R-7 in other parts of the City. Chairman Farrar said the reason he voted against the proposed change was not to discourage anyone from clustering, but that he felt that a change in the language was necessary. There is sufficient merit and benefit to clustering that no bonus to the landowner need be given to do this. He personally would be willing to allow an amendment which would allow clustering but would not change the density. The other point was that the provision used wasn't only for residential planned unit development but the enabling legislation point referred to in the amendment was the one for the regular business retail development which gave the Planning Commission the right to waive. One section pertains to planned unit development in general and the other for residential. With a PUD you can go to the Planning Commission and get a waiving of the density to allow a person to increase the density. It would not be quite 7; that is without the streets. Adding streets and taking out the 15%, makes it a little over five units per actual acre. He would have no trouble supporting that particular development but would not like to see effective density increased over what it is today. Mr. Ward asked if he was not objecting to R-7 density but didn't want to see it exceed the density it has today, that he was not objecting to the existing 5 or 6 in R- 7. Mr. Farrar said that was right. Mr. Ward said it is possible to build under the existing R-7 in grid, but no clustering or townhouses or condominiums, so therefore R-7 has no purpose in good design. Also if the developer comes in with R-7 density here, he is allowed to build 280 dwelling units if he wants to build them all under one roof. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for a clustering instead of one building. He can't build 7, but if he can design a building to accommodate 280 units he can build it. Mr. Bergh said all they were asking was that they build the gross density. Mr. Merrill said he agreed with Mr. Bergh; he was in favor of clustering to cut down on housing costs. Mr. Ward explained that once a developer clusters he is not allowed 7 units, he is allowed 5. Mrs. Neubert said it doesn't give that density, but the question is how high density would it go. Mr. Dinklage referred to Manor Woods, saying there was not as much open space as they would like. A discussion of density followed. Mr. Ward explained a sit of 40 acres would have to be perfectly flat with no Problems whatsoever, and with the 15% out, then you might get 280 units, but 280 units on that site would not be accepted. He said a new provision has to be inserted somewhere in the R-7 District only, that says that in order to cluster the Planning Commission is allowed to waive but in no case to exceed 5 gross density. Mrs. Neubert felt changing it would permit other uses and she didn't want the residential zones to go that way. Mr. Ward suggested tabling it. A discussion of density continued. Mr. Bergh said R-7 is multi-family, but the difficulty is three or more units being under one roof. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council reconsider the proposed amendment, Section 6.30, to the zoning ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously to reconsider. Chairman Farrar asked if Council could pass the amendment at this meeting and Mr. Ward explained it could be done, that it was duly warned for a public hearing Permanent action to adopt it could not have been taken until tonight. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council approve Section 6.30 as recommended by the Planning Commission and as proposed in public hearing on September 15, 1975. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mrs. Neubert stated she didn't like it. She also said there had been a lot of discussion going on about who promises what to whom and those promises have no legal statutory position for the City. No employee of the City can make any promises to anyone. Mr. Bergh said they had expected no problems, they were trying to go along with a development which they felt would be an asset to the City. The motion to approve Section 6.30 was voted unanimously. After a short recess the meeting was reconvened. Official action on Lamplough zone change request Chairman Farrar said the recommended change from residential to business planned development has been tabled previously. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council consider the zone change request for the Lamplough property. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council reject the zone change request for a BPD on the Lamplough property which was forwarded to Council from the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Chairman Farrar said Council had spent a long time in discussion, and one of the points was whether or not Council would enter into a contract to protect the City's concern for traffic and concern for other uses than a shopping mall. It was his personal position, he said, that it would be effective if those two issues could be settled; he didn't think they had been grappled with at that point, and Council had never heard those arguments necessary to make an intelligent decision on this. He said he didn't want the fact that their discussion basically has centered around traffic to give anybody the mistaken impression that there is any commitment that if the traffic problem could be solved it would be felt that it was an acceptable use. A vote has never been taken to indicate that. Mr. Merrill said he felt the same way basically. He was very much in favor of the contract to seek the information that was necessary to make some kind of an objective decision based upon some facts as to whether the road could warrant such a mall for the City of South Burlington. Without this information being available, he said he could not make the decision in his own mind whether he could justify a mall in there or not. An elected official has to look at the facts and the contract was to him a way of doing something so that some kind of decision could at least be made and documented. He didn't think that had all been done and in some ways people have pre-judged it and thereby defeated the contract which was a way of accomplishing it. He said he felt this was unfortunate for the City and for all the individuals involved. In terms of voting against the Lamplough zone change, Mr. Merrill continued, the BPD is not what he would desire on the property at this time. He would like to have seen the Planning Commission make a zone change for the highest and best use; they are still working on it; it is the 11th month now and it will be another year and they will probably still not have come up with the appropriate zone. He felt this was not the right way. He did not feel that it should be necessarily broken up into small individual lots for commercial purposes. It has a high commercial use for the particular location and he questioned seriously that the property could ever be developed for residential use because of the nature of the topography. He said he had gone over it many times in his mind but he looked at it the same way as the industrial park; it is not really known what kind of traffic problems would develop from that; there could be three or four thousand employees. The City is spending a few hundred thousand dollars and hopefully this will solve the problems, but it is not know what the City is getting into. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted unanimously and the zone change request was defeated. Discussion of delinquent taxes Council members received copies of a letter from the Deputy Tax Collector listing the delinquent taxes. Referring to the possibility last year of increase in the interest charge on delinquent taxes, Mr. Szymanski said the Charter Committee researched it and felt it was not to the advantage of the City to adopt this as it could result in the City paying more interest out than it was collecting. If the Council wished to consider this now, it would mean a change in the City Charter. Mr. Merrill said he was more concerned that the City is not collecting and has nobody enforcing it. Council could explore the possibility of getting somebody else to do this. Mrs. Neubert asked why the City Manager hasn't pushed on it. Mr. Szymanski said there is no grand juror at present; he would like to get an active one. Mr. Farrar felt the only way to proceed is with a tax sale; a grand juror wouldn't collect anything. Mr. Ward said a grand juror does not have to be a lawyer. A deputy sheriff was suggested as another possibility. Mr. Dinklage said he would prefer a salaried employee. The City Manager was instructed to look at the possibilities and report back to Council. Policy on sewer line extensions by private developers on city streets The City Manager said basically what was proposed was very similar to what is done with water whenever a developer extends the lines, whoever taps on to it pays a footage feet; an agreement entered into with the developer to the effect that he gets reimbursed. When somebody taps on they pay the City and the City reimburses the developer. An agreement is made before construction takes place stating how much footage is reimbursable. Chairman Farrar said there were two points to consider, one, that one individual might have an unusually large frontage, and second, that an extension might serve a number of dwellings with a very small frontage. The fee could be paid in proportion to their frontage or in proportion to the number of users. He said he had no objection to front footage but it might be an unreasonably high burden on some individuals. Council should also consider, he said, whether it would be made mandatory to hook up. The City Manager was asked to come back with a resolution for consideration at the next meeting. Meet as Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved to adjourn as City Council and reconvene as the Liquer Control Board. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage moved to confirm the liquor license for Hospitality Inn. Inc. of 870 Williston Road, and to approve an entertainment permit for the Hospitality Inn, Inc., of 870 Williston Road. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.