Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/04/1976CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 4, 1976 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, Ocotober 4, 1976, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Farrar, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, John Dinklage, Michael Flaherty, Catherine Neubert OTHERS PRESENT William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Richard G. Carter, Chief of Police, Brian Searles and Jay Fish of the Police Department; Debra Weiner The meeting was opened by Chairman Farrar at 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Neubert asked for a addition to the Agenda, a discussion of parking problems on Patchen Road near the O’Brien building. Chairman Farrar suggested this could be incorporated with Item#3 in the discussion with the Chief of Police. This was agreeable to the Council. Minutes of September 20, 1976 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mr. Flaherty, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of September 20, 1976, as presented. Disbursement orders The Chairman called attention to the Disbursement orders to be signed by member of the Council. Meet with Chief Charter about recent criminal incients Chairman Farrar referred to a recent visit by a group of citizens from the south end of town to call the Council’s attention to what they perceived to be at least vandalism, as well as more serious activities. He then referred to the report from Chief Carter outlining the incidents and activity in that portion of the town as compared to the rest of the community. He then asked the Chief what percentage of the town’s population was in that area. Chief Charter said it was about 12% to 14%. Asked if the increase had been more rapid than in the community as a whole, Chief Carter said they didn’t have any, then they had a lot. Mrs. Neubert asked if this report included the commercial, or just the residential. Mr. Searles said it just considered the residential Laurel Hill area and the Orchard School. Mr. Armstrong called attention to the fact that the incidents listed in the report only added up to half of the total incidents noted at the top of the page, and asked about the other half. Mr. Searles answered the other incidents would be robbery, armed robbery, things that were not included in this report. Chief Carter said he could honestly say there was not crime rate in Laurel Hill. Mr. Dinklage asked about the response from parents in that area as compared with other sections. Mr. Fish explained the problem with vandalism is identifying the ones who are doing it. The parents are concerned but he cannot truthfully tell them it is their kids doing it. After the worst weekend they had he talked with parents; they were interested and concerned and agreed to keep their sons in for the weekend, and the next two weekends there was no vandalism. The problem goes from brother to brother. He is now talking to the younger brothers of the kids he talked to two years ago. The opening of school affects the rate of vandalism, he had no complaints in September and only one in October, October 1st. Mr. Dinklage referred to the complaint made by residents about not being able to get any information from the Police Department about what was done after the incident of burglary was reported. He asked if the Department put information on its reports that it would not like the public to see, such as names of suspects who might be involved, and if it would be possible for the officer to have a separate form for his report which could be made available to the public. Chief Carter explained these reports are used for the Department’s own advantage, the reason they are investigating the complaint. These reports have to be private. There was a Supreme Court decision on that not long ago in Massachusetts. He said they can’t answer questions if they don’t have the answers themselves. Unless somebody says what actually happens at the time the Department doesn’t know what takes place. Two people are involved in an investigation and there is a preliminary report which they do use. The first officer there puts it on the log. If it is not that important then it says on the log, but if there is another complaint then they can go back to the log. Mr. Fish referred to the incident Mr. Dinklage had asked about, saying the only reason the people attempting to break in didn’t get in was because a 400 lb. sofa had been placed against the door. When the owners returned they wanted to know what had been done and he was unable to explain what was being done. Juvenile records are locked in a separate file and no one gets that tuntil the child is 18 and the record is destroyed. That has been a Vermont law since 1968. He described the problems in dealing with juveniles, such as having to get permission from the child, not from the parent, before searching a child’s room for stolen property. Mrs. Neubert asked if anyone had let the people from Laurel Hill know that the Police Chief would be at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Szymanski said No. Chief Carter said he had personally talked with some of the people who were at the previous meeting. Mr. Fish said they usually know who does 905 of the vandalism but proving who does this 90% is a different story. The way the law is set up now, they can’t touch anyone under 12. Chief Carter said if it is anything more serious than vandalism they usually get them. Mr. Fish said shoplifting constitutes about 1/5 of the larcency, most of it comes from getting into parked cars. Mr. Dinklage said he personally was very pleased with the way the Police Department goes about these things very quietly. It may cause a problem with public relations if it is too quiet and that was the concern that some of those residents felt because they didn’t kow what was being done so they felt nothing was being done. Chief Carter admitted there had been a lack of communication; they are going to try to do alittle better on that. Asked by the Chairman how much he felt the Department was being hampered in this area by the juvenile law, the Chief said they should be revised and go back about 20 years to be effective, they need more freedom with the juveniles. The question of responsibility of the parents for destruction by juveniles was discussed. In the case of children breaking a window, for instance, it would be impossible to give the names of the children even though it was know who did it, to the person whose window was broken and who might wish to try to collect from the parents of the children. Mr. Dinklage expressed surprise that in the case of direct evidence the law does not give the flexibility to take legal action, or when a free and willing confession has been received. Mr. Fish explained the confidentiality forbids them from releasing the name of any kid who did it, he can’t ask the child to go over there and talk with the person. Mr. Dinklage suggested asking the child for permission. Mr. Fish said he could not release the name of any juvenile at all. Mr. Searles added that technically the law says that information cannot be released to any other police agency. The only people who get that information are the prosecutors and the judge. Chief Carter said when people ask him, he doesn’t have any information until he contacts Jay. Mr. Fish said he felt there would be a drastic change in the law concerning juveniles because they are getting into problems with 15 and 16 year old kids who are breaking and entering. They have to categorize them now; they are either delinquent or unmanageable. There is talk of closing the Weeks School; there aren’t that many foster parents around. Five percent of the kids are really hard core and there is no place for them, or for kids who are having problems at home. Mrs. Neubert felt there was a difference between someone who does the sme thing over and over again and someone who does something once that is not malicious, and asked Mr. Fish if he felt there had to be some form of punishment for the tomato throwers. Mr. Fish described an incident which took place last year where the kids went back and repaired the damage done to a man’s property and now the owner has nothing but good to say for the kids. Mr. Armstrong suggested that Chief Carter and his staff knew the specific laws that need changing the Council could pass a resolution to pass this information on to the City’s representatives in the General Assembly to recommend these changes. Mr. Dinklage asked if the Department had any effective lobbying association at the level; if the Vermont League of Cities and Towns would be a useable vehicle for them. Chief Carter said he rather not answer that. Mr. Armstrong asked about Halloween. The Chief said there is very little trouble on Halloween. Mr. Dinklage asked about a curfew and if enforcement would be a problem. The Chief didn’t think it would be very effective; it would be a new game to play; but if there is to be curfew they would try to enforce it. Mr. Searles felt a lot of other areas in town would suffer if they had to attempt to enforce a curfew. Mrs. Neubert called attention to the fact that cars are often parked in front of the O’Brien building, thus preventing two­way traffic and allowing only a land and a half for driving. She had driven through there at night with a long stretch of parked cars, leaving no room for two cars to meet, a bad situation. Mr. Flaherty suggested that sometimes the parking lot will not hold all the oars, and Mr. Szymanski felt that many people do not wish to park in the lot at night and walk to the building so they park on the street as near the entrance as possible. Mr. Flaherty suggested telling Bruce O’Neill to tell people to use the parking lot. Mr. Ward mentioned the fact that four teams were there at the same time on Saturday; that was the cause of the congestion that day. It was noted that there was adjoining land for sale, but Mr. Falherty questioned the need to buy a parking lot to be used perhaps ten times a year. The Police Chief said there had not been any accidents there. Chairman Farrar asked the City Manager to look into it and try to find a solution for it. Mr. Dinklage asked Chief Carter if Council could do anything to help him. The Chief replied he had no complaints; when he does have problems he talked with Bill Szymanski. Authorize the City Manager to sign Ridgewood Estates development agreement Copies of the contract had been received by the Council members. Mrs. Neubert objected to aligning a contract with CBC now because it is to be incorporated as Ridgewood Estates. Mr. Ward explained the contract will be changed by either an addendum or by changing the name in each place where it appears. It will not be signed right away anyway. He noted this contract was the final draft, prepared by Mr. Spokes. Mrs. Neubert then questioned Section 8 regarding a clear title to the land except for developmental loans. Mr. Ward explained the banks will have something like a second mortgage; the collateral is the land. While he had not seen any written material on this, Mr. Ward said he understood they had secured two bank loans. Before the developer signs the contract he will furnish us with necessary paper work. Some of the bonding provisions are more restrictive than the City would ever be; this is a Federal program, brand new to Vermont. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council authorize the City Manager to sign the contract with the Ridgewood Estates developer. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. Mrs. Neubert stated she would abstain because there was something that bothered her but she didn’t feel it was right to bring it up in a public session. She would have to discuss it with mr. Spokes. If the wording of the contract satisfied the other members she suggested they approve it at this meeting and she would talk with Mr. Spokes. If she has to come back to Council on it, she will. The motion was voted for approval by four votes, Mrs. Neubert abstaining. Consider amendment to Zoning Ordinance making restaurants a conditional use Mr. Flaherty said that because five restaurants came in during the last few months, the Planning commission was put at a disadvantage, and he would suggest that Council consider whether restaurants should be a conditional use. Chairman Farrar said what was needed was good ideas; just making it a conditional use wouldn’t be any help unless some criteria could be established under which the conditional could apply. Mr. Dinklage suggested simply saying we don’t want any more because there are too many. Mr. Flaherty said it would mean going back to the Planning Commission under the amendment procedure and have them write the zoning amendment and put in criteria. Mr. Ward said there is criteria now; the criteria for the conditional use is in the zoning law now. Mr. farrar suggested it should be under subdivision review; what bothered him was increasing the number of curb cuts. Mr. Ward said the applications reviewed recently have reduced the curb cuts from what was allowed before, but the uses that were there were not the uses that caused problems. He noted that Section 13.10 is the conditional use area of the regulations. Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council request the Planning Commission to consider an amendment to make restaurants a conditional use in the Business Retail District. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was any other uses Mr. Ward like to see made conditional. Mr. Ward replied not as conditional, but there are many uses that are going to have to be incorporated in the document that are not considered in it now, some of the things that have come along this past year. The document has never really been reviewed in two years. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment agendas Mr. Ward explained the variance issued that day by the Zoning Board for Bonanza Sirloin Pit and Pizza Hut. He then reviewed the agenda for the October 20th meeting. Appeal #2 by the Disabled American Veterans was discussed. Mr. Dinklage felt the issue of public health, safety, and welfare being maintained was a concern. Chairman Farrar said the City still owns the land; it can do whatever it wished. Mrs. Neubert asked if somebody like this could apply for a zoning variance. Mr. Ward said they had made a presentation to Council and Council encouraged them to go to the Zoning Board. He felt the Zoning Board would have some serious problems with this. Mrs. Neubert suggested that Mr. Ward convey to the Zoning Board that the Council has not yet made a decision to go through with this. Mr. Ward then suggested that the Council become a party to Appeal #4 by Northern Terminals as it concerned the setback. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council become a party to Appeal #7. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Flaherty stated he was a little apprehensive about appearing in the case of #7; he would not want to oppose the use as such because the City has gone on record as being in favor of housing for the elderly. Mrs. Neubert asked what would prevent these apartments from turning into condominiums. Mr. Ward said he understood it would be Federally funded, and Mr. Flaherty added this couldn’t happen without getting Federal approval. Mrs. Neubert asked what would happen if they get approval from the City and the Federal government doesn’t come through. Mr. Ward said it would depend on what the presentation was. The motion was voted for approval by four votes, with Mr. Flaherty opposed. Mr. Dinklage then moved the City Council become a party to Appeal #4. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council authorize the Chairman to represent them at the Zoning Board proceedings. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Mr. Ward then reviewed the agenda for the Planning commission for October 5th, explaining the site plan review for Sambo’s had been withdrawn from the agenda. Council felt it was not necessary to take any actions on this agenda. Sign Town Highway annual Financial Report Mr. Szymanski explained signing this report is necessary in order to get State Aid money. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council sign the Town Highway Annual Financial Report as recommended by the City Manger. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted unanimously. Adopt resolution in memory of Consuelo Northrop Bailey It was moved by Mr. Flaherty that Council sign the resolution in memory of Consuelo Northrop Bailey. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Reappointment of Mrs. Neubert to the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity Mrs. Neubert explained that OEO sponsors CETA for this area and that CETA does the bookkeeping for the whole state. OEO has CETA labor doing winterization projects; there are buyers’ groups; emergency clothing; a canning center; gardens, with seed and rototilling provided. There is an energy program operated on a pay-back basis, and they do pay back in the summer. There is a wood cutting project. This is not a welfare program, it is for people who are trying desperately to hand on, people who want to work. Asked if there were many people in South Burlington involved in these programs, Mrs. Neubert said No. But she had discovered there were people in South Burlington who were not applying for the rent or real estate tax rebate because they didn’t know about it. OEO will send out-reach workers to help such people. Mr. Dinklage asked if they had tried to use students to go around and counsel older people about income tax, refunds, etc. Mrs. Neubert said the concept had been rejected; people in South Burlington don’t want someone knocking on their doors with that kind of questions. When there is reason to think is a problem, something is simply stuck in the person’s mailbox. Most of the contacts in South Burlington come through RSVP; they do a lot of work in South Burlington. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council appoint Catherine Neubert as its representative to the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Chairman Farrar told Mrs. Neubert she was doing a good job and to keep it up. She replied she just loved it. Review amendments to sewer ordinances Council members received copies of the proposed amendments. The City Manger explained most of these were Federal requirements the City has to conform with. Amendment #5, for Page 11, Article V, Sec. 3(b) was questioned by Mr. Dinklage. Mr. Szymanski is to look into this further. Amendment #9, for Page 16, Article V, Sec. 8 in the second paragraph the word Secretary is to be changed to Secretary of State. Amendment #13, for Page 18, Article VIII, Penalties is to be sent to the City Attorney for clarification. It was felt the language here should be the same as used in the Subdivision Regulations to be consistent. Mr. Flaherty moved that Council send the proposed amendments to the sewer regulations to the City Attorney for review and clarification. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage congratulated the City Manager on the excellence of the City Report. He also suggested establishing a permanent file of City pictures in a notebook. The meeting was declared adjourned at 10:00 p.m. following a motion by Mr. Flaherty and seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.