Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/09/1975CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 9, 1975 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting in the Assessor's Office in City Hall, 1185 Williston Road, on Tuesday, September 9, 1975. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert and Duane E. Merrill MEMBERS ABSENT John B. Dinklage OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski, Nancy Grucza, Gerald Cadieux, Attorney Fred J. Parker, Barrie Graves, Attorney Paul Graves, Sheri Larsen and Free Press Reporter Jack Tabaka Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1975 Mrs. Neubert said that she did not feel the minutes, on page 7, under the heading of "Discussion of points raised by Mrs. Neubert regarding the proposed contract", did not exactly reflect her thoughts. Chairman Farrar said that he had met with the two attorneys, gone over the notes he had made at the meeting, and he felt that the revisions made at that time would be satisfactory. Mr. Merrill noted that in the middle of page 3, the following should be added to the sentence that begins with "Mr. Merrill.....": after the word "disadvantage", remove the semi-colon and add the following - and it would be a bad precedent for the Council to set. Then capitalize the word Also after the period. Mrs. Neubert pointed out that on page 2, third paragraph, on line beginning with "Mrs. Neubert wanted.....", the period at the end of the line should be deleted and the words as a high speed traffic movement added. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously that the minutes of September 2, 1975 be approved as amended. DISBURSEMENT ORDERS Chairman Farrar announced the disbursement orders were ready for signature by the members of the Council. REVIEW FINAL DRAFT OF THE LAMPLOUGH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Page 1. In considering the draft dated September 9, 1975, Mrs. Neubert requested that the wording for reasons other than a regional shopping mall and be deleted from the last sentence in the next to the last paragraph beginning with the word WHEREAS. Chairman Farrar said he felt the phrase in question was appropriate and suggested that Council continue on and review all the other revisions at this time. Page 2. Chairman Farrar referred to a revision on page two. Mrs. Neubert objected to considering the revision until they all had the opportunity to read the page. The members then reviewed the sections on page 2. The subject discussed was the method to be followed in choosing the firm that would undertake a traffic study. Mr. Graves explained why a revision was made in Section 1. Attorney Parker said he felt the method outlined as to how to select a traffic consultant firm was practical, that the developer would be in a better position to hire or not to hire a certain firm, they would have a list of the Council's objections to follow. Mrs. Neubert said she felt the Council should not be put in a position of having to tell someone that we don't want them to do business here. Mr. Graves said that the firms could be listed, and the Council could tell the developer which are acceptable or unacceptable. After further discussion the following revision was agreed upon. Page 2, paragraph beginning with I., on the fourth line - delete the word "not", before the words "acceptable to it". Place a period after the word "it", and delete the rest of the sentence. Page 3. The Council then considered the fact that the contract did not reflect a change on page 3, paragraph A, to include that the study would also examine the traffic situation at the intersection of Williston Road and East Avenue. Attorney Parker said that in paragraph C, the wording ("Further, the study will examine the projected traffic situation on the areas which will be affected by the existence of a regional shopping mall on the Lamplough property, including the effect of such a mall on Williston Road, in an easterly and westerly direction for such distance as the mall will have a material effect") adequately covered all the area that could be affected. Councilman Flaherty agreed with Attorney Parker, saying that citing the intersection at East Avenue might limit the study at that point. Mrs. Neubert said that the biggest problem was the left turn problem. Attorney Parker said he felt the wording of the Paragraphs A to D would take care of that. Page 3 continued. Mrs. Neubert wondered if the developer would object to inserting the words "to the East Avenue intersection" on page three. Chairman Farrar said he agreed with Mrs. Neubert's concern, but felt that this would be taken care of by the Scope of Services which would delineate the effect of the mall. Attorney Parker said the scope of services would certainly take into consideration all the area affected. Mrs. Neubert said she would go along with the fact that the insertion of the words "East Avenue intersection" was not inserted since the majority of the Council agreed it was not necessary, but she would like it on the record that she felt it should be inserted in either Section A or C on page 3 as follows: "that the traffic study should include the intersection of Williston Road and East Avenue. Page 3. The next revision considered was in paragraph D on page 3. Delete the word "accommodate" in the third line of paragraph D and substitute the word "solve". In the fourth line of the paragraph insert the word "problem" after the word "traffic. The Council was in agreement on these two changes. Page 4. Attorney Parker said the change made in paragraph C on page 4 was made at Council's request. There was no objection to this. Page 5. Chairman Farrar explained that a change was made in Paragraph III on page 5 by deleting the words "Business Retail" and retaining only the Business Planned Development. There was no objection to the change. Page 6. No changes. Page 7. No changes. There was a short discussion on the developer's original application for a zone change. Chairman Farrar remarked that at the time of the original application Attorney Spokes was concerned about spot zoning. There was further discussion on the uses in various zones as well as on the impact of Act 250 on proposed developments. Attorney Parker expressed his opinion that there should be inserted in the agreement a statement to the effect that if the Lamplough property is not rezoned within a reasonable length of time the developer would not have to proceed with the traffic study. Chairman Farrar said maybe the following could be added to the contract "if no zone change is approved as originally requested within six months, the contract is null and void". No action was taken. Mrs. Neubert made a motion to strike the words "for reasons other than a regional shopping mall and" from the next to the last paragraph beginning with the word WHEREAS on page 1. Motion seconded by Mr. Flaherty. After discussion Chairman Farrar called for a vote. The motion was rejected with a vote of three NOS and one YES. Chairman Farrar recapped the situation as it now stood, saying he felt no Council action should be taken at this time because a full board was not present. He would like a motion made to have the revised draft forwarded to Attorney Spokes for review, to have the City Manager instructed to publish the agreement and to schedule a special meeting with the full board present. Before any motion could be made Mr. Flaherty said he wanted to inform those present that he would not vote in favor of the agreement. He said he had talked with the City Attorney and his impression was that the agreement should not be approved until the Planning Commission decides on a zone. Attorney Parker expressed his surprise that Mr. Flaherty had such an impression, and asked him to speak with Mr. Spokes for clarification. Mr. Flaherty said he would do that. Attorney Parker then reiterated that he felt very strongly that a statement to the effect that the developer would not have to proceed with a traffic study if he does not get the proper zone should be included in the agreement. Mr. Flaherty then made a motion that the revised draft be forwarded to the City Attorney for review, and if the full Council could attend, a special meeting be scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. with the City Attorney asked to be present. Mrs. Neubert seconded the motion which passed unanimously. A copy of the draft of September 9, 1975, with penciled revisions, is attached to and made a part of these minutes. DISCUSSION ON REGIONAL PLAN In regard to this item, Mrs. Neubert wanted it on the record that she felt the Planning Commission should be commended for the excellent work it has done in reviewing the Regional Plan. Chairman Farrar wondered how the members felt about the Regional Plan in general. He said he was opposed to the Regional Council having the power to levy taxes. All agreed. Mr. Flaherty said the Council should recomment that the taxing authority be struck from the Plan. Discussion followed on the proposed Regional Council. Chairman Farrar expressed his feeling that there was a lot of merit in having such a council made up of an appointee from the governmental body of each community. He said he did not feel, however, that it would have to be a legislative matter. Mr. Flaherty said he felt the Council should recommend that it approved the concept of a regional council without legislation. All were in agreement. Chairman Farrar asked for a motion expressing the sentiment of the Council on both items. Mrs. Neubert felt it would be better to leave the question until there was a full council in attendance. Chairman Farrar said we would have to be careful if this should go to legislature. We would have to be vigilant in knowing what bills were being presented regarding the Regional Plan. He pointed out that the Council did not approve of the taxing power or the set-up of the Regional Council. Mr. Merrill expressed his view that a regional council with no governmental authority could be very effective. All agreed with this, and Chairman Farrar cited several instances where projects have been established on a regional basis by communities working together without governmental authority, such as the Champlain Water District, the Winooski Valley Park District and the Chittenden County Transportation Authority. Mrs. Neubert pointed out several discrepancies in the plan. She felt the figures used as to population growth, future housing needs, highway needs, etc. were not accurate. She disputed South Burlington being placed in Environ 1, saying that South Burlington and all the other communities in Environ I and II had not been properly researched as to projections and needs, that all the attention was placed on Core I (Burlington). Chairman Farrar said he felt South Burlington was better off overall by being in Environ I. Nancy Grucza ask for an explanation of the 60-40 tax base. Mr. Flaherty said the tax plan suggests that all communities within the region will pool 40% of their net growth in commercial-industrial tax base which would be pro-rated among the communities. Sheri Larsen asked if the Council was against tax sharing as a concept or just as it is outlined in the plan. Chairman Farrar spoke about taxes in general, saying he felt there were many tax problems, that the school tax problem should be solved at the state level and city tax problems should be solved by the city. He was not in favor of the 60-40 tax plan. Mrs. Larsen then said it sounded to her as if the Council was against the Regional Plan. Council members gave general answers stating their thoughts about the plan. Chairman Farrar said in Burlington's case he was not sure what the advantage would be to the region if the city grows. Increasing its population density is only going to create more problems in the region. Mrs. Neubert said she objected to most of the projections in the plan. She did not accept that the population would increase as stated. She objected to all communities being lumped together except Burlington. Mr. Merrill spoke about the housing problem. He felt that Act 250, with its 10 acre requirement was not helping the cause, he felt it was discriminatory. Mr. Flaherty spoke about the make-up of the regional council explaining how he felt it should be organized. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to talk about the full interchange on Dorset Street which Mr. Behney says would aid the Airport traffic. A long discussion followed on the subject of the interchange, Williston Road as a business road, airport traffic, Route 7 developments, lakeshore setbacks, access roads, etc. Chairman Farrar said the Council would defer any action until a meeting was held with full membership present. He said when this is accomplished a letter of recommendations and specific comments should be forwarded to the Regional Planning Commission which should also state that the council will cooperate and work with the Commission. Mr. Merrill made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Motion seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Approved Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.