Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/17/1976CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 17, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Duane Merrill MEMBERS ABSENT Catherine Neubert OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Bob Brand and Robert Yandow of the Police Department The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Additions to the Agenda Mr. Merrill asked that Mobile Homes be added to the Agenda. There were no other additions. Minutes of February 3, 1976 On page 2, 7th line from the bottom of the page, the words if they wished should be deleted and the words for any legal reason should be substituted. On page 4, under Legislation regarding mobile homes, Mr. Merrill's comments should include: that there was a Supreme Court decision also that affected this: that he felt the City didn't have any right to discriminate; he felt the reason this bill was introduced in the Legislature was to help the farm labor problem; it didn't hurt South Burlington because of two reasons, the southeast quadrant with its 10 acre lots, and secondly, the cost of an improved lot in a development. Mr. Dinklage moved to accept the Minutes of February 3, 1976, as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders It was noted that the disbursement orders were ready for signature. Adopt Resolution expressing sympathy on the death of Irving L. Douglas Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council adopt and sign the Resolution expressing sympathy in the death of Irving L. Douglas and that a copy of this Resolution be sent to his widow. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Review of subdivision regulations Chairman Farrar suggested that if Council intends to make changes on its own volition they should try to get these changes agreed upon and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their comments and vote whether or not such changes should be included prior to the printing of the document, so the document which is warned should be at least the one they think they want to go ahead with. The date of May 5th could be set for the hearing or Council could wait until the next meeting to formally set the date. Mr. Dinklage said that Council had some substantial input that it could respond to and he would like to have as much discussion as possible and maybe pick it up one more time before the formal hearing date is set. Mr. Farrar said Council can make any changes it wishes but before they are incorporated they must be sent back to the Planning Commission for their comments. Their Chairman said they would act very quickly on the comments given to them, so the document, at least from Council's point of view, should have all the changes Council thought it should have. Mr. Dinklage then suggested that before reviewing the subdivision regulations the other items on the agenda might be taken care of first. The members agreed to this. Authorize City Manager to sign deed transferring Thompson Court to City of Burlington and accept deed from City of Burlington for sewage pumping station site Mr. Szymanski said Mr. Spokes had asked to have this on the agenda. The pumping station which will serve Phase 5 will be located just east of the intersection of Kennedy Drive and Williston Road. The strip is 100' x 150' plus an easement. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the deed transferring Thompson Court to the City of Burlington and to accept the deed from the City of Burlington for the sewage pumping station site. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Merrill asked the City Manager if he thought this to be in the best interests of the City to do this. Mr. Szymanski replied he thought it was a lot better than paying for it. They want something from us and we want something from them. Mr. Merrill asked if he thought it was an even swap in monetary value. Mr. Szymanski said this is for frontage on Williston Road; he didn't think there was that much difference. Mr. Merrill asked if Burlington was going to maintain Thompson Court and the City Manager replied they are going to abandon the street. Mr. Flaherty's motion was voted unanimously for approval. Appoint a Council member to the Overall Economic Development Program Chairman Farrar asked for volunteers. Mr. Merrill offered to serve and the Chairman said he would appoint him if there was no opposition. Sign engineering supervision agreement for Shelburne Road Sewer Extension Project Mr. Szymanski said this would be about a thirty-day process. They have to get the go-ahead from the Federal government and have not received this as yet. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and is just for the supervision of the construction. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council sign the engineering supervision agreement for the Shelburne Road Sewer Extension Project. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Recess regular meeting and convene as Liquor Control Board Mr. Flaherty moved that Council recess the regular meeting and convene as the Liquor Control Board. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Szymanski explained this application was for a transfer. Ownership of the Swiss Chocolate Pot Restaurant at 1242 Shelburne Road has been transferred to W. & W. Inc. Chief Carter reviewed this and has no objections. Mr. Dinklage moved that upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police the Liquor Control Board sign the liquor license application for the W. & W. Inc. of 1242 Shelburne Road. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the Liquor Control Board be adjourned and the regular session of the Council be reconvened. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously for approval. Mobile Homes Mr. Merrill said the bill regarding mobile homes has passed the House and if it passes in the Senate he would like to make sure that any restriction on mobile homes is removed from the City's Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Farrar said that would require a motion from the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Review of proposed subdivision regulations Mr. Page said Mr. Vessel had asked his to collect and summarize all the public input on subdivision regulations and in checking back at least a year there were only three interested parties involved. He had received comments from Mr. Robenstein and a suggestion from Mr. Graves. Mr. Ward stated Council cannot make any changes unless they do it in a public hearing, whereas Chairman Farrar's understanding was that they could make any changes up to the point of a public hearing on the final presentation. He said this was done when the zoning regulations were adopted. Mr. Ward said that technically what they did was establish when they were going to have the hearing. It is necessary to wait 30 days and then turn it over to the Planning Commission which has 15 days to respond. If amendments are made then it means going through the whole thing again. Chairman Farrar said he would call the City Attorney in the morning to clarify the issue, and meanwhile Council could review the document as presented. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council propose the adoption of the suggestion by the City Attorney on page 2 of his memo of February 3, 1976, that "The term shall include an applicant for subdivision approval," be added to the definition of Subdivided, Section 103, page 3, of the proposed subdivision regulations. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. Most of the discussion on the proposed subdivision regulations concerned page 3. The question of the term easement in Item 4 was raised with Mr. Dinklage suggesting the addition of the word access before easement. Mr. Merrill questioned the 25 acre figure in Item 4, that this was a lot of land for agricultural purposes. Mr. Ward said this was because of the ten-acre lots in the present regulations. Mr. Farrar felt the intent was good but some people would try to take advantage of this, but if the owner ever wants to subdivide or build on it then he must come back for the whole original parcel. Mr. Ward said the applicant has to make a presentation about what he is going to do with the parcel. Asked by Mr. Dinklage if he thought his office would be able to follow this, Mr. Ward it is a problem but they are getting better. He suggested it could be included in the deed that "this is not a subdivision because ...". Mr. Page said the 25 acres is an arbitrary figure but is a safety margin from the minimum of 10 acres required now. Mr. Merrill said he was opposed to putting in a number of this kind. Chairman Farrar said a way could be found to write language in here to prevent it from becoming a subdivision, have it as simple as possible, but making it as difficult as possible to circumvent the subdivision regulations. Mr. Page and Mr. Ward are to confer with Mr. Spokes and work up something for Item 4 on page 3. Mr. Page said Mr. Robenstein had suggested that a correction of boundary conditions should be exempt from subdivision regulations. Mr. Ward said this would not be asking for anything such as a building permit, just swapping land. Mr. Merrill questioned Item 1 on page 3, saying people sometimes divide their land for tax purposes, to liquidate their responsibility for property taxes, to avoid having to sell land to pay the inheritance taxes on it because the land might be the only asset with no available cash to use for inheritance taxes, forcing the heirs to sell the land and give up farming. Chairman Farrar said they can give the land away ahead of time; if a way can be found to allow this to happen it is a good thing to try to work out, but he would be concerned about everyone using it as a vehicle to get around the subdivision regulations. Mr. Merrill said he was objecting to "two (2) or more lots" in item 1. Also that all these things involve costs to the owner. Mr. Page referred to the time frame for minor subdivision, saying this would be a maximum of 2½ months. He thought that was the intent in having minor subdivisions, that it was a much shorter procedure. Council members' reaction was that this was a bit unrealistic, to expect anything to go through in 2½ months, bit Mr. Page referred to a recent application that went through the Planning Commission in two meetings. The word improvement in Item 2 on page 3 was questioned, with Mr. Merrill saying it should be defined better. Mr. Page said Mr. Spokes had felt this particular part needs some work done on it. The meaning of the word re subdivision as used in Item 3 on page 3 was questioned. Mr. Ward said this referred to a change in the plan after some of the development was completed, citing Mr. Potter's development as a recent example. Mr. Farrar said the intent is to make the developer come back to the Planning Commission. Under Sub division, Minor, four (4) lots was questioned as to why it had to be less than four. Mr. Merrill asked why someone with nine lots which didn't require any new street, etc., should have to go through the major subdivision procedure. He suggested allowing the Planning Commission a discretionary power regarding this. Mr. Ward said there has to be a number where you stop. If there is no interior work to be done it could be a minor subdivision. Mr. Dinklage said he was concerned about ending up with lots which are landlocked, but Mr. Merrill felt no smart landowner is going to deliberately landlock any of his lots. Mr. Szymanski commented the Planning Commission would be looking at it anyway. Mr. Page felt this could be refined a bit. Section 203.2 on page 9 was then discussed. In the last paragraph running onto page 10 it was felt the ten percent requirement in line 3 was low as suggested in Mr. Spokes' memo. Mr. Farrar said he agreed with Mr. Spokes, but felt a number such as 50% would be too high. It depends on the size of the development. He suggested each phase should be a certain number of units or 10%, whichever is higher. In paragraph 4 under 203.2, there was concern about the last sentence beginning Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Plat. It was felt there has to be protection for the City but some kind of cutoff point has to be set here. Under 204.1 Application on page 10, in line 12 the time of six months was questioned, with one year suggested as a substitute, or perhaps eighteen months, as being more appropriate. Mr. Merrill felt things such as financing take much longer to arrange now. Mr. Ward said something should say it cannot go on forever, and Chairman Farrar agreed it can't be open-ended. Eighteen months seemed to be acceptable. (7) Cul-de-Sac on page 14 was discussed next. This is to be reworded by the City Attorney. Objection was expressed to the 150 dwelling units, also that the paragraph could reflect a better interpretation of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Page recommended an alternative access for a cul-de-sac but not to be a through street, describing the use of curbs in some instances. Mr. Farrar felt the reason was valid for specifying a number of units for safety, although the number 150 might not be the correct number. Mr. Merrill said he would prefer to leave it to the discretion of the Planning Commission, the City Planner, and the City Engineer. It was agreed that the Council would meet next Tuesday evening for more discussion of the subdivision regulations. Mr. Dinklage asked about a work session with the Planning Commission on the Lamplough property Chairman Farrar said that could take place on March 14th. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council recess the regular session and into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing Chief Carter's memorandum and then reconvene in a public meeting to get together with representatives of the Police Department. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Regular session recessed at 10:10 p.m. The regular meeting of the City Council was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Meet with representatives of the Police Department union The union was represented by Bob Brand and Robert Yandow. Chairman Farrar told the representatives that Council was not yet ready to accept all the things but they do have comments and questions. He asked if sergeants and members of the union in other departments. Mr. Yandow answered that some are and some are not. In the State Police all lieutenants are, all supervisors are. When the union official came, there were no lieutenants here, the sergeants were the only officers at that time. Mr. Yandow described the different kinds of lieutenants such as administrative lieutenant and patrolman lieutenant. A patrolman lieutenant pulls a shift because there is not a full complement of sergeants; in a uniform patrol division his duties do not differ that much; he performs more or less the same function. Asked when a sergeant is on duty, Mr. Yandow said most of the time there is a sergeant and two or three patrolmen on. They would like a set number of patrolmen aside from the lieutenant or sergeant. It is not a sergeant's job to do the patrolman's work. The sergeant has additional duties but he would be available in an emergency situation. Most of the time they do have these on the problem is when someone calls in sick. Mr. Farrar asked which shift is the biggest problem in his point of view. Mr. Yandow said it varies, he couldn't really say one shift is any worse. The 12 to 8 shift would probably be a little more hazardous if they don't have the proper complement. Asked about maximum coverage, Mr. Yandow said they have double coverage on certain hours. Mr. Dinklage asked what Mr. Yandow thought was the major contributor to the inability to fill the regular complement — was it officers being away or in school — or the dispatcher being sick. Mr. Yandow when people are away, you can plan for it; it is more or less the emergency leave sort of thing. Mr. Flaherty asked if, when someone on night shift calls in sick, is any attempt made to call in someone else. Was that a problem. Mr. Yandow said no. He didn't think they had any problem with that. If someone calls in sick, someone on the day shift would be willing to work four hours. Mr. Szymanski said it was an administrative problem. Mr. Farrar said from a legal point of view it is a point which is subject to negotiation; it also can create a supervisory problem. But these gentlemen have a perfect right to bargain for this in their contract. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was a set of procedures or guidelines that would include something like this. Mr. Yandow said there is no set of rules that he knows of or that the Chief has designed. This is just basically what they feel is sufficient and is what they do have most of the time. There are no national standards. The City Manager says Dick Carter knows how much he can pay, he knows how much he has in his budget. Regarding Article IX, the Chairman asked if patrolmen get cash for overtime but if they were serving as detectives they would get straight time. Mr. Yandow explained the patrolmen get comp time as straight time; on rare occasions they might get overtime. Chairman Farrar said there are really two things in the Article; 1) that the detectives would be compensated at time and a half; and 2) everybody would have their choice. Mr. Merrill asked if there was a preference there; would the detectives prefer having time and a half off in lieu of pay. Mr. Brand said one week he worked 77 hours, last week he worked 44-45 hours; it varies with different types of situations. Most overtime involves undercover work or surveillance work; certain leads develop and you follow them up. The preference now is to leave it as is. Asked how this was generally handled, Mr. Brand said in Burlington they are paid overtime, but he was not sure whether it was straight time or time and a half; they work eight hours unless there is an emergency situation. Mr. Brand added that paper work has to be done before any legal action can be taken. Mr. Yandow said something had come out which they really didn't think about, the fact that the detectives were not receiving anything but compensatory time, comparing that with strictly on the basis of receiving one and one-half hours for every hour of overtime work, the overtime pay was not thought of originally. Mr. Flaherty asked about how long the men work as detectives. Mr. Brand said he had been in about a month. Every six months they rotate, trying to give every individual on the squad the experience of being a detective. Mr. Farrar said there were two points for discussion and they want to talk about this some more, but at least they now understand better. Regarding Article X the Chairman said they could see that in general the better educated guy should make the better policeman, but that doesn't mean he will. Obviously he is compensated for what he does, not for what he should be. They would like to encourage people, but it is hard to rationalize paying somebody for what he may be rather than what he might do. Mr. Dinklage asked if it made a measurable difference in the way a police officer performs a service to the community, whether he has had different levels of college training. Mr. Yandow said he thought it does make a difference. College courses can teach you how to deal with people. In just about any program you go through you are going to have psychology, sociology courses which are very valuable. He said he found them most valuable just from the standpoint of making a person a more rounded individual for, having been exposed to that kind of thing. Mr. Dinklage asked if he thought in the system he was operating under, that those who do the evaluating are able to recognize this superior performance that results from such education. Mr. Yandow said that was a difficult question for him to answer. Mr. Dinklage said he thought that it gets to the heart of the matter of a formalized system where you are assured of a certain amount of credit. Mr. Yandow said he didn't know himself how the people do evaluate. He thought some people had been rated somewhat higher who have had college experience, but for desirability of promotion of one man over the other, he didn't know how a supervisor would answer the question. Mr. Dinklage said he recognized it was a difficult question, but he wondered why they felt it was necessary to introduce a formalized structure such as this. Mr. Yandow said initially it is an incentive program — to induce people. They feel it is beneficial to the individual, beneficial to the department and to the City because it is going to greatly influence the individual being exposed to that many more things. A philosophy course might induce an individual to use his mind even though it doesn't relate to police work. It is bound to help. There are extremes where certain courses wouldn't necessarily help out. Mr. Brand said the officer is exposed to that many more people, he is going to meet more people, different types of people. He referred to a learning experience at UVM as different from a classroom situation, that this is helpful, because you are putting something into it and are bound to get something out of it as an individual and to bring back to the job. He described courses available at Champlain College also. Mr. Yandow mentioned the time element and the financial elements as being problems here. Chairman Farrar said there was no problem with Article XIII. He thanked Mr. Yandow and Mr. Brand for coming in and told them that Council would discuss the amendments among themselves, and when they reach the point where it would be worthwhile to discuss again with the union representatives, they will notified. Mr. Szymanski asked about the number of patrolmen with degrees or credits, and Mr. Flaherty referred to the minutes of the previous meeting, reading back the figures given at that time. Mr. Flaherty moved and Mr. Dinklage seconded that the meeting be adjourned. Voted unanimously and the meeting was declared adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Clerk Chairman Farrar announced a meeting of the Environmental Commission was scheduled for Thursday, February 19th. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.