Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/02/1976CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 2, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, August 2, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; James Lamphere, Martin Paulsen, R. E. Curtis, Wm. J. Schuele, P. Jacobs, E. Wilkins, R. Berard, J. Cressey, E. G. Valgot, Mike Brown, J. Everett Reed, Gus Calkins, Diane McDonald, Max Galuch, David Heim, Robt. J. Methot, George Voland, Bill Robenstein, Leo O'Connor, Fred Calcagni, Curtis Carter, Richard Myette, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Blais, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Unsworth, John Gravel, Harry Behney, Hal Bensen, Vincent D'Acuti The meeting was opened by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Minutes of the joint meeting of July 15, 1976; the regular meeting of July 19, 1976; and the special meeting of July 28, 1976 In the Minutes of July 19th it was noted that in the 4th line from the bottom of page 8, Burlington should read South Burlington. It was moved by Mr. Flaherty that the Minutes of July 15, 1976; July 19, 1976; and July 28, 1976 be accepted with the above noted correction. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Disbursement orders Chairman Farrar called attention to the disbursement orders to be signed by the Council members. Discussion with Airport Commissioner D'Acuti Mr. D'Acuti strongly recommended that the Airport Master Plan be read by the members of the City Council. He then referred to the noise problem, saying he had received only one complaint himself, and he felt that by prohibiting any maintenance work at the airport between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the noise problem was taken care of. He was then questioned by Mr. Schuele and Mr. Voland about the necessity for expanding the east-west runway which would increase traffic and noise over their residential area. Mr. D'Acuti said the runway has been there right along but big planes cannot use it now. With the expansion it is expected there would be more traffic bit the noise is expected to be lower and lower. Mr. Voland suggested more information would benefit the people living in the area. Mrs. Neubert asked what people could do to protect their property. Mr. D'Acuti said there is nothing the Airport Commission can do outside of stopping the air lines from entering. The north-south runway will get the biggest use. Mr. Farrar asked if the Airport Commission does not have the responsibility to in some way compensate those people who are going to be inconvenienced. Mr. D'Acuti said they had the same problem in Winooski and Williston; the airport has to operate. Mrs. Neubert felt expanding the east-west runway so jets could use would have an impact on our community, and Mr. D'Acuti replied the bigger planes would still use the north-south runway. Mrs. Neubert asked if there was any other land that could be used, and Mr. D'Acuti said the land is all being used, the 750 acres the Air Guard owns is all used. Mr. Flaherty asked if the need for increasing the east-west runway was based on expected increased use of the airport, are these predictions coming true. Mr. D'Acuti said they were short right now; last year they were down because of the fuel crisis; this year is better. Mr. Flaherty suggested perhaps the need is not there to begin with. Mr. Cressey questioned where the money would come from for increased construction costs in the area to compensate for the noise factor, was it being suggested that South Burlington taxpayers would have to subsidize that. The property values in the area will diminish, he felt, and if the area is not to be suitable for residential construction, then that means talking about the rezoning of South Burlington. Mrs. Neubert said there are two cones where the City does not recommend residential use; the airport is now adding another cone in an area which is zoned residential. Mr. Dinklage said he was still puzzled as to the need for expanding the eastwest runway. It would be convenience to have an alternate runway, but is it necessary. It would certainly have a tremendous impact on the community. Mr. D'Acuti said financing is also another factor; they have to expand the north-south runway first. He emphasized that the Master Plan, like all Master Plans, is only recommendations. Chairman Farrar said the important question that the Airport Commission should be looking at is how they are going to compensate South Burlington and other communities. The South Burlington Master Plan and the Airport Master Plan are not synchronized with each other. There are no plans for compensating people for increased insulation in their attics, etc. There is some serious thinking to be done. The proposed Airport Task Force was then discussed. Mr. D'Acuti had no objections to the Task Force but said the Airport Commission meets every month. The meetings are public. If the noise factor was to be the only objective of the Task Force, he could see no gain being accomplished. However, he would not object to any charge that might be given to the Task Force. Mr. Armstrong suggested discussion about disaster coordination, the responsibility shared by the Burlington police, South Burlington police, and the National Guard. He said he was interested in having better cooperation, trying to devise a method of getting along well together. Mr. D'Acuti said that had been his objective. There was nothing wrong with a Task Force and the Airport Manager would be pleased to discuss the subjects of disaster cooperation or of noise. The airport has its own police force; also has its own zoning. It would be wise for the City of South Burlington to really become educated about what is going on at the airport. If a Task Force is needed to do that, that is alright. Mrs. Neubert said she wanted to meet with the Airport Commission; it would be easier to lay a charge on the Task Force if Burlington understood South Burlington's concern. Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Armstrong felt this would be more effective after the committee had a chance to work for awhile. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. D'Acuti if she could be on the agenda to present to the Airport Commission the concern of some of the members of the community. Mr. Berard asked if the town had any recourse once the level of noise is beyond that recommended for the area. Mr. Cressey mentioned legal controls which can be imposed to restrict the growth of airports and insure the noise levels cannot exceed a certain limit. Mr. Berard said there was nowhere near the noise problem fifteen years ago; is it fair that people would have to move out if it continues at this rate for another fifteen years. Mr. Robenstein asked if the Commission had come to any conclusion as to just what point it would become economically unfeasible to expand the airport any more. Mr. D'Acuti replied No. It was suggested that the Task Force consist of 5 to 7 member. Mr. D'Acuti suggested 5 as a good number to work with. It was also suggested that he work with the committee. Copies of the two-page Annual Report of the Airport Commission were distributed, to members of Council, with the report being reviewed briefly by Mr. D'Acuti. Chairman Farrar thanked Mr. D'Acuti for coming in to the Council meeting. Discussion on Subdivision Regulations Chairman Farrar referred to the special meeting at which Council received a series of proposals for modification of the Subdivision Regulations. He explained the legal situation: after the Subdivision Regulations were adopted by Council in May a petition was received, legally drawn up and signed by a legal number of residents of the community, asking for a referendum on this. Council cannot formally adopt at this time any changes in the document; it can, however, if it wishes to consider proposed changes, proceed basically under the following type of motion. In the event that the petition is withdrawn, the Council can forward to the Planning Commission suggested amendments to the new Subdivision Regulations. If the petition is not withdrawn, those motions would become null and void, there would be an election as warned (for September 14th), at that time there would be a vote and the new Subdivision Regulations would be approved or disapproved. If approved, they would take effect; if disapproved, the City would continue under the old regulations being used presently. It Council should receive a petition retracting the call for an election, signed by a sufficient number of the people who signed the original petition, to reduce the number necessary to hold an election, then the new Subdivision Regulations would be in effect as presently approved, until such time as they are amended. Mr. Farrar said he would assume that if the petition was withdrawn then Council would at its next meeting make a general motion to refer to the Planning Commission for their perusal any amendments Council had discussed in the previous motion. Mrs. Neubert questioned the legality of taking back a petition, that it was not in the Statutes. Chairman Farrar said the City Attorney's position is that petitions can be withdrawn by a petition signed by the same people who signed the first petition, withdrawing their signatures from that petition. Mrs. Neubert objected to a group being able to nullify a petition which other people wanted, people having their signatures, withdrawn by someone else. She repeated it is not in the Statutes. Mr. Dinklage said he willing to agree with the City Attorney in this case. Mrs. Neubert said the Attorney's ruling was clear, but where was the Statute to back up his ruling. Mr. Schuele asked, if it went back to the Planning Commission, would there be public hearings. Mr. Dinklage said the Council doesn't have the power to force the Planning Commission to do anything. Mr. Farrar said it would be just like any other amendment; Council has the prerogative to send any amendment to the Planning Commission to have it considered. Mr. Voland questioned how a petition presented to Council for a referendum could be subsequently brought back; if that was the case, he felt, then Council would be able to accept other petitions. Mr. Farrar explained a citizen, under the Charter, always has the right to petition for referendum on a variety of questions. Mr. Voland felt it would make sense to have it go to referendum if that is what some people want. He asked if amendments didn't have to come from the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar explained Council always has the right to bring up and refer to the Planning Commission specific amendments it wishes the Commission to consider. Mr. Voland asked what would be the effective date of the regulations if the people rescind their petition. Chairman Farrar replied the regulations, if passed, will take effect immediately. Mr. Voland asked if that was iron-clad, and Mr. Farrar replied it was, as far as he knew. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council consider the proposals from the citizens' committee received last Wednesday with the understanding that if Council determines there is agreement on any recommended changes it will forward its recommendations to the Planning Commission, asking that they initiate amendment proceedings provided that the petition calling for a referendum is made null and void prior to the legal warning date for the September Primary Election. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Chairman Farrar explained the intention was to indicate good faith on the part of the Council to the committee, to go on record as to which changes Council would support as part of the amendment process to the Subdivision Regulations as they now exist, provided the petition is cancelled. Mrs. Neubert asked why the whole thing can't be sent back to the Planning Commission and let them do this. Mr. Dinklage replied Council had these recommendations before them and might as well review them; there may be some areas of agreement. He did not see the need for this to go to referendum and would prefer not to have it happen because he thought the regulations passed were generally good ones and there is a possibility that the people submitting these recommended changes would prefer to take the changes Council was willing to go along with and forego the petition — but that is their decision. Mr. Flaherty said he didn't consider the referendum very important. If the Council hasn't finished its deliberations by the 15th, it is going to have to consider them regardless of the referendum. Council can't say it won't listen to people just because they didn't come in six months ago. He said he wanted to see if these recommendations are good or not good, but he was not concerned with the date. Mr. Armstrong said even if it goes to referendum there are one or two points on which he is in agreement with the committee. Mrs. Neubert said she could find some points of agreement but they are minor and would really not affect one side or the other side. There are major points she could never go along with. She said she felt that by Council discussing changes to statutes which may go before the voters this will create confusion for people going to the polls. She said she didn't know how the voters could ever have confidence in that vote, what we are giving them or what we are taking back, and the referendum vote would mean absolutely nothing. Mr. Dinklage's motion was voted for approval by three votes. There was one negative vote and one abstention. Mrs. Neubert left the room after stating she would not negotiate those bylaws approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council — she would not negotiate those documents. She did not wish to proceed with this. Section 605 Expiration of Approval Mr. Ward said he would rather leave it at two years with some extension by approval, with the extension being given for something other than just trying to sell the project for five years. If a vested right is created, then five years could be alright. Mr. Lamphere said two years is too short, it doesn't give time enough to get things together. Mr. Schuele felt if somebody is going to build, he has to make sure he has the money to build, and some developers come in with letters from banks showing they already have financial support. Mr. Dinklage moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following amendment to the new Subdivision Regulations: that the time limit be changed from two to four years in Section 605. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously by the four members present. Section 412 School Sites Chairman Farrar read aloud the section in the new Regulations. The discussion at the previous meeting, he said, had centered around the discretionary power this gives to the Planning Commission and the burden that would fall on the landowners, and he felt there was reasonable merit in some of the points which were raised. Mr. Dinklage said there was a great deal of arbitrariness in the whole process of zoning; the attempt is to make it as reasonable and effective as possible. The point was well made that this could cause inequities but it is a matter that is allowed in the State Enabling Legislation, and he said he had no quarrel with the wording in the document. Mr. Flaherty said he could see a need for some control or payment to the City but he would be open to any other suggestion. Mr. Farrar suggested looking at this with the open space requirements in general so landowners are treated as equally as possible. Council felt this was something to be pursued but not to be decided at this meeting. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Blais if that was any more inequitable than asking for the extension of sewers at the developer's expense which would be used by others. Mr. Blais replied developers are paying their way in the cost of supporting their development, but a school site for every 100 units was absurd. The result could be 20 school sites and would be a waste of consumers' money as they would have to absorb the cost of the sites. To say that Ridgewood Estates would constitute a school site was wild. He recommended a realistic relationship to the needs of the school system. Mr. Farrar said he had been thinking in terms of proportion, putting it all into open space with each developer required to set aside 15% of his land or the equivalent in value. Each developer would know exactly where he stood. It would apply to everybody and the money could be used to purchase a school site or open space. Mr. Marvin felt this section should be eliminated and the School Board should have a solution. He would not go along with the 15%. Mr. Curtis asked about a percentage until a point where a school was needed, and at that time the land would be purchased from the developer. Mr. Farrar said an Official City Map is needed and then school sites would be designated on the Map by the School Board and everyone would know where there are and they could be purchased with the funds accumulated from each area. Mr. Curtis replied that would answer his objection. Mr. Lamphere suggested excluding housing for the elderly. Section 407 Utility Wires After reading aloud the proposed substitution, Chairman Farrar said it was not the intention to require them to be put in where it was not practical. He felt it was not a question of aesthetics but was an engineering problem, something for the City Engineer to determine. Mr. Dinklage moved that in the event the petition is made null and void, the Council forward to the Planning Commission the following amendment to the new Subdivision Regulations: that Council recommends that Section 407 be amended by adding the sentence "The Planning Commission shall waive this requirement if it is determined that the cost is unreasonable or the installation impractical." Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted for approval by the four members present. There is to be further discussion of the Subdivision Regulations at the Council meeting on Thursday, August 12th. Discussion of traffic concerns of the Environmental Commission on the Rand Corporation and Lamplough property applications Curtis Carter of the State Environmental Board said the Board had reviewed the application of Rand Industries for the final phase of University Mall and also an application for the Lamplough property. Traffic was considered, evaluating whether or not the proposed development would create traffic congestion and unsafe conditions. Also the impact of growth on the municipal burden and public investment. The Commission cannot deny the application on traffic alone, he said, but can impose restrictions to alleviate the burden. Mr. Carter said he would like input from South Burlington. The hearing is to be reconvened this Wednesday at 2:30. He said Mr. Page and Mr. Ward had been very helpful but he would like more input, what is the position of South Burlington on making improvements in the area regarding traffic. The additional traffic would make a bad situation worse, he felt. Chairman Farrar said the problem is really created by the people going to downtown Burlington. Mr. Dinklage felt any new development is expected in a sense to pay its own way, that the additional tax revenue should at least pay for the additional municipal cost required in services. By balancing the estimated cost of services against the additional tax revenue, the City could get some feeling as to whether or not a developer should be asked to contribute something toward the solution of the traffic problems. If the cost of the improvements is many times the tax revenue, then clearly the City should not have to bear this burden. Mrs. Neubert said that the community gave Rand approval to build exactly what they are now proposing to build and that was taken into effect when the City made its Plan and its zoning ordinances. Rand had to buy additional land; it did pay for the deceleration lane. What has happened since then is that the City has permitted other things to go in — the theatre and 100 Dorset Street. Mr. Farrar said he was trying to point out that the problem is not with the businesses located in South Burlington but that Williston Road is trying to do two jobs it cannot do. An access to Burlington has got to be provided from the east. South Burlington can outline what it has projected but it cannot outline the full and long-term solution to Williston Road. The Urban Systems Map shows the construction of the industrial road connecting up to Kennedy Drive and sometime a four-way interchange at Kennedy Drive and the Interstate, the interchange being something of a State undertaking. Mr. Carter asked that the District Environmental Commission not be confused with the State. Mrs. Neubert referred to a letter dated June 28th which stated there was no adverse comment about traffic. Mr. Carter said the District Commission does not try to go into any community and say it will solve the town's problem; it may say if it can be of assistance it would like to help. He recommended keeping that in mind, that this is a vehicle which can be used. Mr. Ward said there had been testimony by a Mr. Gordon McCarthy that in his opinion the two projects would put an impact on the Interstate by stacking traffic on the eastbound ramp, and Art Hogan had said that was tough testimony for us to fight. Art Hogan had suggested giving a time frame for some of the things in the Williston Road Task Force report to counter-balance Mr. McCarthy's testimony. Chairman Farrar said that would not be determined for at least another two or three months. There is no way that can be speeded up to give that information. Mr. Schuele asked if there was any way the Rand Corporation could help solve this problem. Mr. Farrar replied the City Manager had been asked to find out if one of the conditions to be put on the approval could be that the local share of the Urban Systems funding could be paid by the developer. Mrs. Neubert felt that one answer to the question is right in the Master Plan, that Mr. Hogan probably was not aware of the plans for transportation in the Master Plan. Mr. Farrar said the question is when. There is an answer to what but not to when. Mr. Carter said the Commission is still faced with a shopping center with a certain amount of traffic — is it going to cause undue confusion. Mrs. Neubert said South Burlington doesn't have anything to do with the real problem of Main Street; it can't solve everyone's problems. It can only solve one small part, not the whole problem. Mr. Farrar said Council had been asked for a piece of information it cannot answer directly; he didn't know how it could be answered directly. Mr. Szymanski said he did explain just exactly what the Task Force suggested and he intends to take this up with the State Highway Department. Mr. Ward suggested starting with things that wouldn't cost anything, such as getting a uniformed man out there to move the traffic; that could be started tomorrow. IBM and GE have recognized their problem and are doing that, at the peak hour. Mr. Armstrong said the Planning Commission had recommended to the Council that Phase I be implemented as soon as possible. Council is waiting until it can put the Capital Budget together. Chairman Farrar felt there were certain pieces of this on the Urban Systems Plan which, if the developers who may be responsible can be asked to pay the City's share of the Urban Systems cost for these improvements, could be started as rapidly as the engineering could be done and as rapidly as the funds would become available. Mr. Ward commented there were two applications; discussion couldn't just be about Rand Corporation. Mr. Farrar said the traffic experts would have to judge whether or not this would be an adequate solution. Mrs. Neubert asked if the Environmental Commission could ask Mr. McCarthy to review these solutions and comment on them, the proposals by the Williston Road Task Force. Mr. Carter asked about the availability of Urban Systems funds for this project, and Mr. Farrar said they could say this would be done under Urban Systems projects, they are in the Urban Systems, and next to the Industrial Road this would be the first priority. If the local government is relieved of nearly all the cost of this, it can go ahead. Mr. Ward said one question was the lights and George Khouri would be prepared to negotiate something on this. Review Grand List projections for Capital Improvement Program Mr. Szymanski explained the projections he presented were based on the high, low, and average Grand List. Mr. Flaherty moved that for planning purposes only the $760,000 — 2.6% projection he used by Council for Capital Budget projections. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Review Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission agendas Mr. Ward referred to the application of Mrs. Kingsley for expansion of her day care center, explaining the Zoning Board tabled this and asked her to come back with more supporting material. Chairman Farrar suggested taking a position on this, that any use variance of this type be for a specific limited time. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council pass a resolution to be forwarded to the Zoning Board that any use variance of the type requested in Appeal #3 of August 2nd for expansion of a day nursery be limited in duration subject to periodic review by the Zoning Board. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Dinklage added to his motion: That Council recommends that the Zoning Board pay particular attention to the safety considerations of loading and unloading of this and all similar applications for day nurseries. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Entire motion voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Planning Commission had ever considered making day nurseries a conditional use in some parts of town and then spell this out in the zoning document. Mr. Farrar suggested putting that on a future agenda and sending it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ward mentioned there was also need for nursing homes. Mr. Ward then proceeded to review the appeals for the August 16th meeting of the Zoning Board, none of which Council felt the need to participate in. Date of next regular meeting Mr. Dinklage moved that Council set the date for the next regular meeting on August 12, 1976. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. The meeting was declared adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.