Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 05/03/1976CITY COUNCIL MAY 3, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, May 3, 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; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Peter B. Cooper, Albert C. Audette, Stuart D. Ireland, William J. Schuele, R. E. Curtis, Thomas Sherrer, Russell Agne, Henry M. Farmer, Thomas R. Thompson, Mary Ann Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. Ottar Indriason, Debra Weiner, Jim Wallace, William Wessel, Arlene Krapcho, Ray Stearns, Henry Behey, Robert S. Babcock, Ray Unsworth, Cynthia Rubin The meeting was opened at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Farrar. Council agreed to add to the Agenda a discussion with representatives of the Chittenden County Transportation Authority; a discussion regarding flags; and comments on the Regional Plan. Minutes of April 19, 1976 A typographical error on page 10, line 12 from the bottom of the page, should be corrected from 5 to 1 to 4 to 1. On page 7, the public hearing on the proposed zone change for the Triangle is to be held in the Central School gymnasium and not in the Middle School. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council accept the Minutes of April 19, 1976, as corrected. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously for approval. Disbursement orders It was noted that disbursement orders were ready for signatures. Report from Dr. Russell Agne on the Winooski Valley Park District. Dr. Russell Agne introduced himself as South Burlington's representative on the Winooski Valley Park District, replacing David Boulanger. Dr. Agne traced the history of the development of the Park District and the purposes in developing it. He explained the funding comes from contributions of the towns, with South Burlington's share being 13%, or $1,470 for this year. The total budget is $11,000. He described the acquisition of the Ethan Allen Farm as one of the activities the District is involved in; a nature trail was developed there; also the area has been popular for cross country skiing; a parking area was built for a fishing access with the aid of the Chittenden County Fish and Game Club. The District has lease arrangements with Green Mountain Power; an arrangement with Forest Hills in Winooski; also 17 acres is leased from Colchester near the mouth of the river. Dr. Agne said a Master Plan is being put together by Fred Sargent with the help of his students; each student is writing a component chapter which is reviewed by District members. The natural Resources Committee of South Burlington will receive a copy of the draft. The District is now interested in acquiring the Sullivan Farm in the Town of Colchester. This is 360 acres and could be financed through BOR for $138,000 with the local share to be $25,000, or $3,325 for South Burlington's share and this could be broken down to a three-year basis, $1,100 per year for three years. Dr. Agne then asked Dr. Farmer to provide the details about the negotiating process. Dr. Farmer indicated the location on the map, described the separate parcels and said their first offer did not include the farm land. The Sullivans turned this offer down, so then the District considered taking the whole package for $162,000 as it was felt this appraisal was reasonable. The City Manager asked about the buildings and Dr. Farmer explained they were not interested in any buildings. Twenty-eight acres with a barn and two residences are being held out of this purchase. Mr. Wessel asked if any of the land would stay agricultural rather than just completely park land. Dr. Farmer explained they could not develop farm land with BOR funding with the idea of leasing it back to anybody. Dr. Agne explained the present arrangement on the Ethan Allen land where a farmer leases part of it for corn land and is required to leave part of his crop there as food for wild life, and they would like a similar arrangement for the Sullivan property. Mr. Thompson said a substantial part of the upland is in pasture and from a maintenance point of view putting cows there would save hiring a tractor and cutting it down, reducing the costs of operating and does have some benefit. Dr. Farmer indicated the location of the 100 acre parcel which was appraised for $50,000, or $500 per acre. The plan had already been taken to Colchester where it was approved by a vote of 3 to 2; it has just been presented to Winooski and they will advise later what the status is to be there; a presentation was made to Burlington and they have to go back again. Mr. Ottar Indri son is conducting a field trip of the property on Monday at 6:00 p.m., meeting at the McCray Road, with everyone welcome. Mr. Flaherty asked when the District would take possession of this land and was told most likely by this Fall. He then asked how well used are the properties the District already has. Dr. Agne said the nature trail is a big step; they will have some brochures on canoe trails; the salmon hole site has attracted people; a slide presentation will be developed showing the resources. They will have to work harder to get the information out and he can't give any figures now on the number of people using the areas. Mrs. Neubert commented the District has done a wonderful job and has a lot of land under control; she was in favor of getting land and worrying later on about how to use it. $3,325 over a period of three years she thought was very reasonable. Mr. Dinklage said he would like to second what Mrs. Neubert said. Mr. Merrill said he was not convinced that this is needed at this time and he questioned the $5,600 appraisal for the 39 acres of flood plain; it seemed high for a flood plain zone. Mr. Szymanski asked if this was done by appraisers approved by BOR and was told it was and that an actual purchase had been made by someone about a year ago of very similar flood plain land for $475 an acre and inflation made the price of $500 seem justified. Chairman Farrar thanked the District members for coming in and presenting the information to the Council. Public Hearing on proposed Subdivision Regulations Chairman Farrar said they would be working with Draft #9 of the document, and referred to comments received from the City of Burlington, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and the Vermont Agency of Development and Community Affairs, saying no major points were brought up but Council might wish to consider them. Mr. Farrar thanked Ray Unsworth for his previous comments and his work in that area. Mr. Roger Curtis asked if the document had been cleared with the City Attorney, was it legal. He questioned the process of preliminary approval and final approval and felt the City was getting into too involved things and making development very expensive. He felt the process should be consolidated to avoid going over the same thing twice. Chairman Farrar explained the intent, as he saw it, was to allow the developer to come in before investing money in his plans, to get the general feeling of the Planning Commission, so he won't be told when he presents his final plans he has to start all over again. The intent was to do exactly what Mr. Curtis had pointed cut. Mr. Curtis expressed concern about the tax base in South Burlington, with taxes reaching a point where it is prohibitive for the average person to own and maintain a home; the tax base should be broadened to include some commercial. A developer should be able to come to the Planning Commission, lay his plan on the table, have that reviewed, then come back and make changes and then feel "this is it." He can do his homework and come back for final approval. Finding it necessary to come back several times means a lot of lost time. He would like to see something a little more definitive. In reading over this subdivision document it seems to him that it is a planning process by a committee as opposed to a statute. Mr. Wessel said he had no response to this. Mrs. Krapcho said she questioned it. She described the process to be followed, saying the Planning Commission works quite specifically on various problems which must be attended to in the requirements of the subdivision regulations and the developer goes back and works further on the construction drawings. At that point the Commission is more interested in specific documents giving an accurate picture of streets, sewers, etc., deeds, covenants, the legal submissions that are necessary. The regulations have not been constructed with the idea of giving anyone a hard time or creating unnecessary delay, and the procedure should not necessarily be a long one. Ray Unsworth said the thing is the result of a great deal of work but the whole implication is abhorrent to him. He thinks of the word subdivision as being the creation of a neighborhood, not building a gameroom where a garage used to be. Interpreting this document strictly it would be impossible to put a gameroom where a garage used to be without getting into a subdivision. A subdivision is for the creation of new streets and houses; this thing is for just anything that is connected on to a City sewer or water supply. The implication is that it is a subdivision. Mrs. Krapcho asked Mr. Unsworth to be more specific. Mr. Unsworth then referred to page 3, paragraph 2, also page 5, section 201.4. He said he felt any regulations should be evenly interpreted and apply to everybody. This has the Planning Commission letting one person go through the procedure for a major subdivision and other people go through minor subdivision; he thought that was unfair. Mrs. Krapcho explained that a small subdivision could have drainage problems, grading problems, site problems, so the Commission would like a little more control over it. Mr. Unsworth insisted a regulation should be evenly applied to all people and not just under certain circumstances. Everyone with a minor subdivision should go through the minor subdivision process and everyone with a major subdivision should go through the major subdivision process. Mr. Dinklage said that was a point well taken. Mr. Unsworth referred to page 7, 202.3, Action, saying the action of the Planning Commission is very important to developers, subdividers, or just plain builders. They can't wait 45 days to know whether or not they are going to get approval. Mr. Ward explained the statutory requirement is that the Planning Commission has to act within 45 days or the application is deemed approved. It could act within 15 or 20 days; it isn't necessary to wait 45 days. Mr. Szymanski commented that the old regulations said the same thing. Mr. Unsworth next questioned Section 605, page 30, Expiration of Approval. He felt a landowner could go through all the engineering work and all of the time consuming work to get approval of a subdivision only to find there is a recession with bank financing unavailable, he has put his last dollar into it, it is approved, he is waiting to go ahead with it — and two years go by and he has to go through it all over again. Mrs. Neubert asked about renewal procedures. Mr. Ward explained there has to be a period of time to protect the City; there are a number of subdivisions in the City that were never developed. The City's plans can change. He didn't think, however, that there was anything magic about 24 months. Mr. Unsworth felt building a subdivision involves a tremendous organizational procedure. Mrs. Neubert suggested a one-time renewal, asking if that is legal. Mr. Ward said he was not sure. An environmental permit is good for 10 years and can be renewed every 10 years, but the person definitely has to appear. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was a similar expiration date in the previous regulations and Mr. Ward said it was two years. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Ward if, to his knowledge, this had caused any developer to be unable to complete. Mr. Ward said there is a lot of financing involved from different sources today, a developer expects to take over a year, but if he doesn't get going the next year he is done. There was no renewal provision in the old regulations. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Wessel why it was two years. Mr. Wessel replied he thought they just duplicated what was in the old regulations. The developer could begin some small part of the development. Mr. Ward said that was a recent ruling of the courts; the developer creates a vested right. Mr. Flaherty asked what would be more acceptable. Mr. Unsworth replied four years. Mr. Flaherty said he understood Mr. Unsworth's point, but the City's point is that it has to protect the City's growth. Mr. Ward explained the developer tends to put a package together and then take a year to try to sell it, referring to the Anchorage Motel as an example. Experience has shown that the new party doesn't really buy it wanting to do the same thing, and then it has to start all over again. Mr. Unsworth asked if there was anything wrong with the developer getting an approved subdivision and then offering it for sale. Mrs. Neubert said that has happened several times — going through this long process and then the new man wants something different. Mr. Curtis asked about a corrected deed, where a property line is given wrong and a corrected deed is later put through the records, or a division of property by bequest or will is recorded — would that be a subdivision. Mr. Ward said if it is not developed it would not be a subdivision. If a property line is just being straightened out, it is a division of land but it is not a subdivision if it is not being developed. This would not even be caught unless someone came in and said he wanted to develop it. Mr. Curtis asked about adding to a piece of land, referring to a case where a wrong angle was turned in a deed. Mr. Ward said legally that would not be deemed a subdivision; it is only a correction of the line. Mr. Curtis suggested a clarification to cover this. Mr. Graves said he had the same question, that there should be something put in saying you are correcting a deed. He referred to page 3, Section 4), conveying more than 25 acres of land, saying that is not treated as a subdivision. The situation Mr. Curtis was talking about should have something for protection such as a covenant not to develop the parcel. Mr. Ward thought it was a good point and didn't see anything wrong with putting it in. Mr. Dinklage asked what happens if Council decides to incorporate these amendments now, or if this were to be approved with the understanding that these would be housekeeping amendments. Chairman Farrar said the draft could be approved as is; it can be approved with the understanding some corrections are going to be made to it; it can be disapproved with the understanding that the reason for this disapproval was to have these housekeeping amendments made. Mr. Ward said if amendments are made it has to go back to the Planning Commission; this can't be considered the final hearing. Mrs. Neubert suggested approving the document and then go through the amendment process for the specific amendments. Mr. Ireland recommended the option of another two-year renewal for Section 605 on page 30. Mr. Ward said if this was done the developer should come back in and explain why he wanted a renewal for another two years. He said he didn't mean a resubmission but just to come in, because there could be a drastic change in the two years and there should be an option of reviewing it. Mrs. Krapcho said that in terms of the larger subdivision the Commission would be more interested in seeing that action had been taken to construct a portion of the total project. Mr. Farrar felt the point Mr. Unsworth brought up was that it does take time, takes at least 6 or 9 months before you can start and if anything comes up in the economic situation it could be held up for another year. Mr. Ward said a developer could have put everything together and is just attempting to sell it, he could come in after two years and say he needs two more. He said he didn't feel that trying to sell it would be a legitimate argument. Mr. Dinklage said he agreed with that. Mrs. Neubert asked how many subdivisions now were undeveloped. Mr. Ward said probably five. Mr. Curtis felt that from the developer's point of view there should be some feeling of security when he has put in a lot of time and money to secure approval. The Planning Commission owes him some security; in return he owes them something and should communicate his intentions. He did not like the idea of cutting it off at two years. Mr. Dinklage felt this was a significant enough issue to be put before the full Planning Commission. Mr. Graves asked about the enabling legislation and read aloud from Chapter 117, Section 4414, concerning approval of plats. He asked if this permits the setting up of the two step process which could add up to 81 days, and suggested getting an opinion from the City Attorney on this. Chairman Farrar referred to page 10, Section 203.2, explaining the meaning of this section. It is not required to wait a specific time but it does have to be done within a certain time. Mr. Graves felt if Section 202.2 on page 7 fits right into Section 203.2, the difference of opinion was worth getting an opinion from the City Attorney. Mrs. Krapcho referred to Section 204, saying the larger issue at the final hearing is the way the Plat had been prepared. Mr. Farrar said he appreciated Mr. Graves' point. He referred to the State Statues and said it seems ambiguous as to how long the subdivider can continue on the road of preliminary hearing; it is not clear to him there is any time limit, any maximum time limit. Mr. Graves said it could be stretched to six months and in talking about a short building season the delay of a couple months could mean a delay of six months. Mrs. Neubert felt the ordinance would give more protection, requiring an answer within 45 days, whereas the State Statute leaves it wide open. Mr. Wessel said Steve Page and Dick Spokes got together on this section, spending about two hours on it, and the subdivision review procedure was the result. That procedure will not become a part of the By-laws but it is an outline, step by step, of how many days are required, after and before, according to what the Commission has proposed. It was not something overlooked by the City Attorney. He may want to look at some aspect of it more specifically. Mr. Curtis referred to a situation in another town which has taken over three years thus far, placing the developer in a different situation moneywise in the matter of increased interest rates, and he has to go back to the municipality and secure another approval. There are far reaching developments just from delays. Mrs. Neubert asked if this might not be the developer's fault, and Mr. Curtis replied not in this case. Mr. Curtis emphasized the developer should be able to place his cards on the table and the Planning Commission should place their cards on the table at the preliminary hearings or work sessions, and not at each successive time come up with some new factor that entirely changes the direction and the planning. This would save time for the Commission and the developer. Mrs. Neubert asked what he meant by delaying action; was he saying they make things up. Mr. Curtis said the Planning Commissions at times have been less than candid with the developers in laying things on the table. Instead of coming forth with all the questions they have, they take a few at a time. Mrs. Neubert said the developer may have spent six months getting ready for the hearing and the Commission has that one night; they get it all at once, cold. The developer has had all kinds of professional people working with him on it. The Commission can't do everything possible in one night. Mr. Curtis said he was trying to bring out there should be a better understanding between the Planning Commission and the developer so they can work closely together and have confidence in each other. He felt that at some times this may have been lacking. Mrs. Neubert said she would like to criticize many of the developers that have come into this community — the Planning Commission has been criticized. Chairman Farrar asked Mr. Curtis if he had a specific suggestions as to how the procedure should be changed. Mr. Curtis said it would be along the lines he mentioned originally. He said he realized the Planning Commission puts in long hours; it is a hard job. He was trying to simplify some of this and not have the wait as long, on the one hand; and on the other hand give a developer a feeling of confidence in the Planning Commission so the two can work together. Chairman Farrar said that is the intent of the procedures set up here, so say that the preliminary hearing can be one where the discussions do take place. This may take more than one evening; Then you are going down the road to a completed project, barring some unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Curtis was asking for good faith from both parties, and Mr. Farrar said he thought this procedure will allow that. Regarding the assurance of 66 days, Mr. Curtis said there was no assurance to the developer that there would not be another 66 days — there could be 132 days then. Mr. Dinklage said he was satisfied that this document has received substantial legal assessment and study, and having read the responses from the various communities around, he thought there had been some good suggestions made but none of them striking. His disposition would be to approve it as submitted and start the amendment process. Mr. Flaherty said some of the regulations are new, but he didn't think the document should be turned down; he thought Council should move on it. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision regulations for the City of South Burlington, Draft #9, revised April 5, 1976, with the understanding that the comments received at this public hearing and the written comments received from our adjoining community and municipal agencies will be forwarded to the Planning Commission to initiate the process to amend the regulations where appropriate. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. The motion was approved by four affirmative votes, Mr. Merrill abstaining. Chairman Farrar said the intent basically is to incorporate some of the suggestions received at this hearing as amendments. Report from Chittenden County Transit Authority Mr. Behney and Mr. Stearns attended the Council meeting as representatives of the Chittenden County Transit Authority. Mr. Stearns stated he would not vote for any curtailment of service as far as the system is concerned. Communities have to look at public transportation as similar to other public services such as sewer and water. He said CCTA does feel it has accomplished what it was attempting to do; it has improved the service over what it was before; has serviced areas which were not serviced before; has provided better service. CCTA wants to stay in business but will never be profitable. Service has to come first before any increase in ridership results. A more agressive effort must be made in selling this service. The selling has to come to the communities, to the business leaders in the communities. There must be incentives to get this ridership they want. One problem is the use in peak hours, with the equipment not being used in the off-peak hours. He mentioned municipal parking requirements and construction of parking garages as not being conducive to people riding public transportation; the inconsistency between the subsides to CCTA and other things that are counterproductive. Questions were asked about the various runs and schedules and the possibilities of increased ridership through changing of routes or times. Asked about express buses, Mr. Behney said they have express buses to serve IBM and GE, but these have a guaranteed ridership. Mrs. Neubert said she had no criticism of the service but she would like them to take a look at a bus going directly downtown, that she was interested in getting people to take the bus during the daytime. The suggestion was made by Mr. Dinklage that the merchants might be willing to provide free delivery of packages; could UPS be approached to see if something could be worked out that CCTA and the merchants could jointly publicize. Mr. Stearns said they have suggested working with the merchants similar to what is being done with the parking garage and have asked for a mention of CCTA in just a small portion of their ads, but nothing much happens. Mr. Behney mentioned a 100% increase in fuel, 200% increase in parts. Mr. Farrar said it is unrealistic to expect public transportation to be run and pay for itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, with Mr. Flaherty adding that people want to be sure it is run as efficiently as possible. Mr. Steams said he would like to see an attempt made for someone from the City Council to attend the Commission meetings, on a rotating basis. Mr. Szymanski asked what they really have to have, and Mr. Stearns said if the ridership is doubled, the expenses are increased; there is really no number they can come up with. They can't cut out the evening service; it would be unfair to the public working nights. Asked about the fares, Mr. Behney said they were 35¢ cash, 30¢ bus token, 25¢ for students, and from 9:30 to 3:30 25¢ for everyone. Comments from William J. Schuele, Chairman of Natural Resources Committee Mr. Schuele stated he had attended the meeting that afternoon of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the statement was made that the Board had no obligation to be concerned about the City's viewpoint. This was the result of permitting building in the CO zone. He said this had upset him greatly and he wondered whether it mattered if have subdivision regulations or not since anything can be done by going to the right people. He said he was concerned about the Conservation Open Space District, what can be done about it. He asked that Council read that statement in the Zoning Board Minutes carefully and the members ask themselves if that is really what they want. Mr. Schuele said he understood Council doesn't give them a charge; they do appoint them but they don't tell them what to do. He would like to know if in fact that is the way that has to be; he thought there would be a lot of upset people if in no way can the City's point of view be presented. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Schuele if it was his impression from the data given that this tennis court could have been placed elsewhere on the lot. Mr. Schuele described the process that took place, that when the Planning Commission objected to the courts being in the CO District, the developer agreed not to have the courts. Then he went to the Zoning Board and received a variance. Mr. Schuele felt this was a game. Mrs. Neubert said their judgment is in considering the whole City's wishes. Mr. Schuele said the only input the Board gets is from the developer or from the neighbors immediately affected. Mrs. Neubert said Mr. Schuele takes the trouble to represent our ordinance before other bodies of the City; he is simply asking people to abide by the ordinances and the will of the people in the Plan. Somebody has got to do it and he has taken the responsibility all by himself. Mr. Schuele said the developer made no attempt to show hardship. Consider appointments to the Regional Planning Commission Chairman Farrar stated Mr. Behney is not interested in being appointed again to the Regional Planning Commission. He will continue to serve for at least the next year as a member of the commission but no longer as chairman. Council should direct the City Manager to place an appropriate ad for this three year term. Mr. Behney will serve until there is someone to take his place. Comments on the Regional Plan Chairman Farrar said he talked with Art Hogan about the approval of the Plan. Their executive board has agreed to the suggestion that the board sit down with representatives of the community and see if the differences in the Plan could be worked out so that one or the other of the Master Plans could be approved. Mr. Farrar suggested appointing a committee of three or four people to meet with their executive board. Mr. Dinklage felt this should wait until after the May election. Appointments to the Fire Department Advisory Board Mr. Szymanski said he had been asked to contact Mr. McGuire. He is willing to serve although he way have a little problem with attendance. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council appoint to the Fire Department Advisory Board Mr. John McGuire, Mr. Martin Paulsen, Mr. Arthur Dorey, and Mr. Richard Sheil. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Discussion on the Flag Chairman Farrar referred to the picture in the paper of the flag painted by children on Hanover Street which had resulted in complaints to members of the Council. Mrs. Neubert she felt two points of view were valid: that the children really thought they were doing something terrific for the Bi Centennial and there is no way she would want them to be hurt; but things like this cannot be done, cars cannot drive over a flag. Supt. Audette of the Highway Department said a child called him and said they wanted to paint a flag on the street. They did a good job and he didn't think too much about it. They did this with no malice at all, they thought they were doing something for the neighborhood. Also it is the Bi Centennial flag, not the official flag. He said he would rather see that than what has been done the last few months around the City. Mrs. Neubert suggested Mr. Audette put up some sort of cording around it, that cars just cannot be allowed to drive over the American flag. Mr. Szymanski asked if there was any place the children could be allowed to paint another one. Mrs. Neubert continued with her suggestion, saying it is really in the parking lane and two metal posts could be put up and a chain hung. Mr. Flaherty objected that the poles would be knocked down. Mr. Merrill said he had received several calls, with suggestions that the street be paved or the flag be painted out. He said he was concerned about this being done all over the City, but he was sure there was no intent to do any harm. Mr. Audette said it had been there for about a month and a half and nobody had said anything about it until now. The only alternative is to paint it over although it is fading and would be gone in another month. Several suggestions were made about providing a sheet of plywood to be painted, or the possibility of having a paper mural painted for Chamberlin School. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council pass a resolution stating that it does not wish to see flags painted on streets. Seconded by Mr. Merrill and voted for approval. Mr. Dinklage then suggested that the City Manager find out if there is some alternative which would give the children another opportunity to paint a flag in a more appropriate location, this to include the removal of the flag from the street. Meet as Liquor Control Board It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously to adjourn the regular session and meet as the Liquor Control Board. The City Manager presented a request from Wesson's Restaurant for an entertainment permit for a singer and guitarist between 8:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. Wednesdays through Saturdays. Chief Carter said there was no reason why it should not be approved, according to Mr. Szymanski. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Manager be authorized to sign the application for an entertainment permit for Wesson's Restaurant. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert asked what kind of a lounge does Wesson have. Mr. Szymanski said they have a good-sized addition. Mr. Merrill asked about the sound down there, and suggested making the permit for a shorter time. Mr. Dinklage asked what was necessary in order to revoke it. Mr. Szymanski said he thought the Liquor Control Board had the authority. Motion was voted unanimously. The City Manager also presented an application for a first class liquor license for Kohala Mauna, saying the previous application was not completed so it was not signed. Mr. Dinklage moved that upon the recommendation of the Police Chief the application for the renewal of the first class liquor license for Kohala Mauna be approved. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously for approval. It was then moved by Mr. Dinklage that the meeting of the Liquor Control Board be adjourned and the Council go into Executive Session. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The regular session was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.