Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/05/1976CORRECTION TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5, 1976 At the April 19th meeting of the City Council it was voted to accept the Minutes of April 5, 1976, with the following correction; On page 5, at the end of the 5th line under the sewer bond issue. Phase III should read Phase IV. CORRECTION TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION APRIL 5, 1976 At the City Council meeting on April 19, 1976, it was voted to accept the Minutes of the Executive Session of April 5, 1976 with the following correction: On page 3, at the end of line 17, the word misleading should read misled. CITY COUNCIL APRIL 5, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 5, 1976, 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 William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Robert Earley, Debbie Weiner, William Schuele, William Wessel, Arlene Krapcho, R. DesLauriers The meeting was called to order by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of March 15, 1976 On page 2, line 18, 19, and 20, should be deleted, and the following words substituted: Mrs. Neubert said she wasn't sure where we should be taking this, whether it was to reverse the decision of the Zoning Board or whether we needed to clarify the legality. Page 2, line 25, the words not want to ask were omitted after he would, and should be inserted. Page 3, line 28, change period to a comma at the end of the sentence and add the words where legality is a question and the appellant has a lawyer and we don't. Page 4, line 8, add another sentence to read: They were hearing what I think should be a zone change and with a zone change the question of economic hardship would not arise. Page 4, line 26, It makes a very compelling case should be changed to read Attorney Parker makes a very compelling case... Page 6, line 17, Change period to comma at the end of the sentence and add: and not allow them to participate and withdraw permission to participate when the Zoning Board doesn't like what is being said. Page 6, line 25, insert the words at first she said she was a member... Page 6, line 26, after the City Council add on the Task Force to carry information back to the Council. Page 5, 4th line from the bottom of the page, eliminate was not something which could be discussed and substitute he did not think needed to be discussed. Page 5, last line, eliminate the period and add that took place after the tentative executive session. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of March 15, 1976, as corrected. Minutes of Special Meeting, March 18, 1976 It was moved by Mrs. Neubert, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1976, as presented. Minutes of March 22, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Flaherty, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of March 22, 1976, as presented. Minutes of Executive Session of March 22, 1976 It was moved by Mrs. Neubert, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously to accept the Minutes of the Executive Session of March 22, 1976, as presented. Mrs. Neubert commented that she wished there was some way to get the Minutes of the Zoning Board corrected. Mr. Merrill asked to have added to the Agenda a brief discussion of the Correctional Center. Chairman Farrar suggested interchanging Items 6 and 13 on the Agenda because Council might wish to discuss the appointments in Executive Session before making such appointments. Disbursement orders Chairman Farrar noted that the Disbursement orders were ready for signature. Sign resolutions to accept Federal Planning Grant offers for the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant and Phase V Sewer Chairman Farrar read aloud the resolution to accept a Federal Planning Grant for the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign this resolution. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The Chairman then read aloud the resolution to accept a Federal Planning Grant for the Phase V Sewer project. It was moved by Mr. Dinklage and seconded by Mrs. Neubert that this resolution be signed by the Council. Sign Poundkeeper agreement Mr. Szymanski noted there were no changes in the agreement for this year. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the Poundkeeper agreement. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Review of Subdivision Regulations Mr. Page presented a two-page memorandum listing 13 items as exceptions to the corrections to Draft #7 proposed by the Council. He reviewed these items with the assistance of Chairman Wessel and Mrs. Krapcho of the Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage moved that Item 1 be accepted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Item 2 of the memo was the cause of considerable discussion. Mrs. Krapcho explained the initial proposal was to change "modification" to "reconstruction." Then they became concerned about the greater impact and after further discussion passed the following motion which is contained in the March 30, 1976, Minutes of the Planning Commission: "Mrs. Krapcho moved that the Planning Commission add to the definition of Subdivision a separate clause that defines subdivision as any development of a parcel of land such as a commercial or industrial complex, multi-family project, planned unit development or planned residential development." Mr. Page added there was something to be said for the additional review powers the Commission would have under subdivision review as over site plan review. Mr. Farrar felt the Council had the option of making the change the Planning Commission recommended or could revert back to the original language they had. Mr. Page said he had talked with Dick Spokes. When asked by Mr. Flaherty which change Mr. Spokes preferred, Mr. Page said he didn't have a strong preference for either one. Mr. Page referred to the statutory deadline of March 30th and he had taken the liberty of sending out copies of Draft #8 to the surrounding communities, the Regional Planning Commission, etc., because the City Attorney said it need not be the exact word for word version of the final document. The other constraint is the public hearing date in May. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council reject the changed recommended in Item 2. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Passed with four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Council include as #5 under Subdivision on page 3 of Draft #8 the motion made by Mrs. Krapcho found at the bottom of page 9 of the Planning Commission Minutes of March 30, 1976, to add to the definition of Subdivision a separate clause that defines subdivision as any development of a parcel of land such as a commercial or industrial complex, multi-family project, planned unit development or planned residential development. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted for approval with 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation in Item 3 of the memo. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept recommendation #4 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept recommendation #5 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept recommendation #6 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation in Item #7. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. There was some discussion regarding Item #8 referring to cul-de-sac, with Mrs. Krapcho saying the Commission did not have enough time to work out the problem of applying it in a commercial area, but the Commission has the power to waive in situations where it would be justified. They felt this was the best they could do to relate it to density and also to public safety. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council accept recommendation #8 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by a vote of 3 to 1. Mr. Merrill abstained. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendation in #9. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept recommendation #10 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept recommendation #11 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept recommendation #12 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Dinklage moved to accept recommendation #13 of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Council direct the City Manager to warn the document, Draft #8 of the proposed subdivision regulations, as modified, and to send copies to the interested parties as required by law. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by 4 affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Consider Telephone Company's petition to install three power poles on lower Dorset Street Mr. Szymanski explained a house built close to the Shelburne town line and another house 400 or 500 feet to the north, are both served by power from Shelburne. Then there is a strip of about 1,000 feet with no power line until Dick Ward's house. The new house wants telephone service but doesn't want it from Shelburne; they want to be on the South Burlington exchange because there is a difference in the calling area. Because the other house gets service on a cable, the City Manager said he had asked the phone company why this house couldn't be on the same cable, and was told it was only for one house and they don't want to run in another cable because they don't know how much development will take place there. They want to set three poles on Dorset Street; these would not be break-away poles. Chairman Farrar said the previous Council went on record as opposing poles and Mr. Szymanski agreed that had been the policy. Mrs. Krapcho commented it was in the Master Plan. Mr. Dinklage asked if any poles had been set up in town since the Master Plan was adopted. Mr. Szymanski said he could only think of one. He said running this line would take three poles and would begin at Dick Ward's house. Mr. Wessel quoted from the section of the Master Plan that all future phone and power lines be buried at the time of development and that all existing lines be buried as soon as feasible. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council deny the petition from the telephone company. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Merrill stated he was not ready to deny this. Mr. Dinklage said he would trust that Council always had the option of reversing its decision, and he thought this to be an effective way to elicit a response from the phone company. Mr. Flaherty suggesting tabling it and finding out from the company why they preferred this way. He then moved that Council table the petition from the telephone company and ask that a representative of the company attend a future meeting for an explanation of this request. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and approved by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Dinklage suggested getting any comments from the City Attorney which might be appropriate. The Chairman asked Mr. Szymanski to put this on the next agenda. Resolution for proposed Bartletts Bay sewer bond issue The Chairman read this resolution aloud. The City Manager said it was recommended by the consultant that the City bond for $120,000. The actual figures are $110,000 but this would allow for contingencies. The City has approximately $110,000 surplus carried from Phase I, II, and III; about $20,000 of that is committed to the Shelburne Road sewer extension; there is still authorization to sell $40,000 of bonds for Phase III. Asked by the Chairman if it had to be in units of $100,000, the City Manager said he thought any combination as long as it would total an even amount. He said there was one other point to consider. Dawn Court was never sewered and has 4 or 5 homes. Mrs. Neubert questioned if the City should be sewering houses the Airport is going to buy. Mr. Szymanski replied the owners are paying the sewerage charge; they have good reason to ask for this. Also there are two houses on Birch Court, off from Hinesburg Road, that were never sewered. Asked about the warning procedure, Mr. Szymanski said it has to be posted 45 days in advance. Ways of handling the bond issue were then discussed. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council set the maximum bond amount for the Bartletts Bay sewer proposal at $60,000, and that a provision be included in the balloting asking the voters for authorization to transfer any authorized and uncommitted sewer funds to be used for general sewer construction by vote of the City Council. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council approve the resolution for the proposed Bartletts Bay sewer bond issue. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and approved unanimously. Review Planning Commission Comments on Regional Plan Mrs. Krapcho reviewed the Planning Commission's reaction to the latest version of the Regional Plan. Pages 3 and 4 of a four-page memorandum distributed to the Council members contained the two Resolutions passed by the Regional Planning Commission at their meeting on March 22nd which Mrs. Krapcho attended. The first resolution appeared, she said, to have removed the Regional Plan from consideration in the Act 250 review process, and the second resolution would delete the Implementation Section. Mr. Dinklage questioned the use of the word "maintain" regarding airport growth on page 2 and Mrs. Krapcho explained that wording was from the Airport Plan. She added that the Planning Commission expects to review the Airport Plan at the next meeting. Mrs. Krapcho next referred to her motion on page 7 of the Planning Commission Minutes of March 30, 1976, regarding the need for a regional review of all development proposals of a substantial magnitude... This would support, she said, the idea of some mechanism of regional review of a large project. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the City Manager forward this motion to the Regional Planning Commission, the motion approved on March 30, 1976, as follows: "That the Planning Commission communicate to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission that it, as a Planning Commission, does recognize the need for a regional review of all development proposals of a substantial magnitude, a magnitude which it will not at present time define more specifically, as part of the Act 250 review process. It is also felt that the employment needs of the community and the region should be recognized in making determinations of this type. The Planning Commission recognizes that development such as regional malls, industrial establishments, and large residential subdivision or development projects can indeed have a significant impact on regional facilities and services and environmental requirements and should be evaluated accordingly irrespective of their location with regard to the regional land use planning. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't like all those uses included in the Growth Center, and asked Mrs. Krapcho if it was the intent that the southeast quadrant be the regional Growth Center. Mrs. Krapcho explained it was a Growth Unit, not Growth Center. Mr. Schuele expressed concern that the Regional Planning Commission would be dictating large development in an area that the City is considering a residential area. Mr. Farrar said nothing is included about supporting a review, and Mr. Schuele said he didn't think that would hold up. Mr. Farrar said the main concern is around the word "or" and he didn't know what could be done about it — it is so ambiguous. Mrs. Krapcho said she hoped that "dictated by local ordinance" would eliminate any possibility of concern. Mr. Dinklage said the comments of the Planning Commission would be helpful although they do not totally resolve the problem. Mrs. Neubert said she was still hung up on growth centers, if it applies to other communities, whether they really want industrial growth, etc. Mr. Flaherty's motion was passed unanimously. Consider implementing a Taxicab Ordinance — Mr. Early Mr. Robert Early, an independent taxicab driver, made a presentation to the Council recommending that South Burlington adopt a Taxicab Ordinance. He stated most of the business is in South Burlington where the Airport and most of the motels and stores are located. He pays about $20 a year for a license to the City of Burlington. There are three commercial cab companies, with from 15 to 20 cars in each, that are paying Burlington a fee and then working mostly in South Burlington where most of the business is. Also independent cabs like his are not allowed to work at the Airport where there is a Yellow Cab stand. He was told by the State's Attorney's office that this monopoly is legal in one way and illegal in another way. Mr. Early estimated that licensing fees and permits for drivers could bring in at least $800 a year to the City of South Burlington. He displayed a drawing showing the four zones he was recommending and the rates, and said a similar presentation was being made to the City of Winooski, that Winooski should get some of the revenue being taken out of their city. Mr. Early said he had submitted a suggested ordinance to the City Manager, and Mr. Szymanski asked him if what he was basically suggesting was an ordinance, the licensing of cabs and drivers, and setting fees in the City. Mr. Early said the proposed ordinance was patterned after the one in Burlington. Mr. Szymanski said he would give this to the City Attorney to be redrafted and then it would be presented to the City Council. Mr. Farrar suggested having copies of both the map and the proposed ordinance so Council could pursue it within the next couple of weeks and take some action on it. Mr. Early said he had also proposed meters to Burlington, would like to see them for the Greater Burlington Area. They work well in the big cities and screening the drivers can cut down on dishonesty. Mr. Flaherty asked if Council would become the rate-making body. Mr. Early answered that Burlington has a rate-setting board and rates usually last three or four years. A company could come in ask for a zone change and Council could vote on it if they felt it was justified, or they could put it up to a public vote. He then traced the history of the independent cabs, commenting he had been driving for 50 years himself since age 15. He objected to the monopoly being enforced at the Airport, feeling that there should not be any monopoly where Federal funds are used for the Airport. Mr. Dinklage asked if anyone could set up a cabstand in South Burlington, and Mr. Early replied he could set up a stand at his own house. The only stipulation would be that he couldn't have junk cars in the residential area. The requirements would be for insurance, liability, collision, and a jitney permit from the State of Vermont. Asked by the City Manager who sets the rates for going out of the City, Mr. Early explained they check the mileage, so much per mile. Also extra luggage can be charged for. Meet with Police Department Union representatives Mr. Yandow attended the meeting as the Police Department Union representative. Asked by Chairman Farrar if the schedule was satisfactory, Mr. Yandow said they had not had an official vote but everybody he had talked with had indicated there was no problem with it. The Chairman said the question really hinges around the sergeants, whether or not the sergeants are supervisors. It is a question of legal definition. If they are acting in a supervisory capacity they are not eligible to join even if the City wished to let them. Mr. Farrar said the question of compensation for education he would like to turn over to the Salary Review Committee to look at for next year. Mr. Yandow said the reason he decided to bring it up here instead of with the Salary Review Committee was because he didn't think it would be applicable to any other department except this one. Mr. Farrar said that because it was a question of compensation it should be dealt with in that form by the Committee. Mr. Dinklage explained there was no exact parallel but he could easily envision some circumstances where some training and educational arguments could be made. It is something which should be looked at more carefully and try to establish a uniform policy. Mr. Szymanski said the other thing was the boots, gloves, etc., and Mr. Farrar said Council had agreed to leave that in. Mr. Yandow then referred to the minimum number of patrolmen working on a shift. Mr. Farrar said they would not want to get into the position of violating a contract and would like to handle it as an administrative policy this year. If it doesn't seem to work out then it would be taken up again next year. Mr. Yandow said in most cases the situation would occur about quarter to twelve at night. Mr. Flaherty said they would like the Chief to try to get an off-duty officer to fill in but it was also left up to the Chief's judgment. Mr. Yandow said in most cases an off-duty man wouldn't be called in, it would be a man just going off duty, he thought. Mr. Farrar said if that would be a reasonably acceptable alternative to the City Manager and Chief Carter, an attempt would be made to work it up on that basis. Mr. Dinklage said it would be the coverage Council would like to see in effect. Mr. Early asked if South Burlington has an auxiliary police force, and was told they do not but it had been thought of. Mr. Early said the auxiliary force has to be as well trained as the regulars. Mr. Yandow objected to this, saying the regulars get six weeks of training, whereas the auxiliary men only get thirty hours of training. Mr. Yandow asked about compensatory time off and Mr. Farrar said there was no problem. Mr. Yandow asked again about sergeants and Mr. Farrar replied perhaps that should be held up because he didn't know if they could get a quick resolution on that. He said that personally he had no big hang-up on that. He added that if all this was acceptable he would have a contract drawn up, and Mr. Yandow agreed to get a letter back to the Chairman on this. Discussion of the Correctional Facility Mr. Merrill wished to bring up the point again about overcrowding at the Correctional Center, the idea of the State representing that there would be X-number of people there at one time. He had raised the question before when the number reached 120 and he felt a letter should have been written then to Governor Salmon stating that Council felt there was a problem, that this was not the proper use of the facility, etc. Now he had been told by an employee of the Correctional Center that the number has reached 170. He said he was not there to count himself, but he was very concerned about this because if a private businessman did such a thing the Act 250 and the Environmental Board would do something about it. He felt it was time such a letter was sent to the Corrections Department and to the Governor. Personally he felt the Correctional Center is not being used properly; he couldn't see how any rehabilitation is going to take place, and he felt Supt. Wright in his article in the Free Press indicated it had become greatly overcrowded. Mr. Merrill said he felt Council should communicate its dissatisfaction with that type of operation. Mr. Dinklage said he had thought about this a lot and had gotten some input too. He didn't want to pre-suppose that the Correctional Center has changed its policy, had misrepresented its original policies to the City. He thought a couple of policies had changed in response to some public complaints about some past policies. He said he had also been led to believe that the sentencing of cases coming through our court system is increased in terms of length and the probability of someone spending some time there. If, in effect, the substance of the situation of over-crowding has been brought about due to circumstances beyond their control, what would be the intent to accomplish by writing this letter if there is no place else in the State to send these people. Mr. Merrill asked if it was a practical matter to put 170 bodies into that facility and have proper rehabilitation. He said he thought the City was leaving itself open to having some real problems here. Mr. Dinklage asked what kind of problems. Mr. Merrill said he didn't think he needed to elaborate on that area. When you start overcrowding to this degree, you can create problems. He thought the City was in a position where it should say No to this and express our feelings. The door is wide open; they are going to continue to misrepresent the use of that facility; he felt it was the responsibility of the State to do something about that. Mr. Dinklage said the things that concerned him is that he would not wish to pre-suppose that he had either the wisdom or the authority to attempt to hold them to an operational philosophy that they espoused several years back when the institution was designed and the people were informed of its use. Mr. Merrill said he was talking about the result. Mr. Dinklage said he was suggesting that the correctional philosophy with respect to the rehabilitation may be changed. Chairman Farrar said if the State wants to change its policy they should tell people they are doing it. He thought it is just a continuation of what has been seen for the entire year. Mr. Dinklage said this problem isn't costing the City of South Burlington anything except in terms of potential problems. Mr. Farrar said it is a problem for South Burlington, due to the fact that people in there are not being treated as they deserve. Mrs. Neubert said she was not sure what Mr. Merrill was saying was the truth — someone told him this — but Council is aware of the misuse of that facility and perhaps does have an obligation to broadcast that beyond this room. Mr. Dinklage said he guessed he was objecting to the tone of the comment about misuse. He would like to try to flush out the change of the intended use if there has been such a change. He said he didn't like the tenor of the term about misuse. Council has a Liaison Committee and he would like to have them pursue this to get the information. Mr. Merrill said he wanted to know how many people are in there right now. He was not going to let it slide under the table. He thought there was a safety area; Council has the responsibility to look at that and not say that the term misusing a facility is inappropriate, because that is what they are doing. Almost double the numbers is a misuse of the facility and he thought it should be brought to the attention of the people who are responsible and see if the problem cannot be handled in another manner. If there is some other place where they can put these people so they would not be so crowded, he thought that should be looked at. Mrs. Neubert thought Council should try to get some information about the actual count. Mr. Merrill thought the first thing was to find out if that number was correct, and said he would communicate with Al and tell him what we want to know. Mr. Flaherty suggested also contacting the Assistant Superintendent. George Africa. Mr. Flaherty then moved to go into Executive Session for three purposes; 1) Consider a Real Estate Transaction; 2) Employment of personnel in a youth program; 3) Discuss appointments to the Sign Review Board and the Planning Commission; and after that to reconvene the regular meeting if there are any appointments to be made, and then meet as the Liquor Control Board. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. The regular session was recessed at 10:40 p.m. The regular session was reconvened at 11:20 p.m. Mr. Dinklage moved to appoint Sidney Poger to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mary Barbara Maher. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Merrill moved that Council appoint Frank Plumley to the Sign Review Board to fill the unexpired term of William Wright. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Meet as Liquor Control Board Mr. Dinklage moved that Council meet as the Liquor Control Board. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Szymanski presented a list of 15 establishments that are requesting the renewal of their first class liquor licenses (copy attached). Chief Carter stated in a letter that the Police Department finds no reason why these should not be issued at this time. These are all renewals. The City Manager also presented a list (copy attached) of three stores that were asking for renewal of their second class liquor licenses. A letter was also received from Chief Carter saying the Police Department had no objection to these. Mr. Dinklage moved that upon the recommendation of Chief Carter the Council will sign these applications for renewal of first class and second class liquor licenses. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Following a motion by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Dinklage, the meeting was declared adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.