Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/25/1977SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL APRIL 25, 1977 CORRECTIONS On page 3, line 5 up from the bottom, the word "if" should be taken out. The sentence should read; "equal to 2% per annum compounded. . ." The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting in the Conference Room at the City Hall on Monday, April 25, 1977. MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Catherine M. Neubert, John B. Dinklage and Frank H. Armstrong. MEMBERS ABSENT Michael D. Flaherty OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski, Mr. John Rock, Richard Ward and Scott MacKay, Free Press Reporter. Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA It was agreed to add the following items to the agenda: 1. Discussion on Highway Urban Funds 2. Discussion on the Legislative Session PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER Chairman Farrar read all the amendments. Mrs. Neubert asked about the poll tax item. She said that there were many cases where it was necessary to have the information that is listed on the poll tax cards. It was generally agreed that some listing of residents should be done and it was noted that this could possibly be accomplished in conjunction with the school census. There were no comments from the audience. URBAN HIGHWAY FUNDS Chairman Farrar read a letter from the Regional Planning Commission Transportation Engineer, Bruce Houghton, dated April 22, 1977. Mr. Szymanski was instructed to review the items in Mr. Houghton's letter and come up with some recommendations. The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting at 7:30 Monday, April 25, 1977 in the City Hall Conference Room, Williston Road. Members Present Chairman Paul A. Farrar, Frank H. Armstrong, Catherine M. Neubert, John B. Dinklage Member Absent Michael D. Flaherty Others Present John Rock, Scott MacKay, Dick Ward, William J. Syzmanski, City Manager Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations Before dealing with this topic, the Chairman discussed the bills that had passed in the State Legislature and asked what impact they would have on the city of South Burlington. The Chairman read through the proposed amendments and asked for comments. It was agreed that several typographical mistakes had been made and that if these were corrected, the amendments would be acceptable. On page 18, Section 404. I Water, the first sentence of the third paragraph should read; If it is necessary for the developer to install off-site water lines or facilities, and other lot owners shall thereafter avail themselves of these facilities, they shall reimburse the developer for their prorata share use of the improvements according to an appropriate formula to be determined by the Water Commissioners. On page 19, Section 406 Sewage Disposal, the first sentence in the third paragraph should read; If it is necessary for the developer to install off-site sewer or drainage lines or facilities, and other lot owners shall thereafter avail themselves of these facilities, they shall reimburse the developer for their prorata share use of the improvements according to an appropriate formula to be determined by the City Council. On p. 30. Section 605 (page 3 of the Proposed Amendments, dated 12/30/76, revised 1/11/77) the word "diligently" shall be spelled correctly. Mr. Dinklage moved that, with the correction of the typographical errors and the misspelling, the City Council approve the Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington Subdivision Regulations unless the City Attorney notifies the Council otherwise. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Minutes of April 18th meeting Mr. Armstrong moved that the City Council approve the minutes of April 18, 1977 as printed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Review of Planning Commission and Zoning Board agendas Mr. Ward pointed out that the Zoning Board agenda had been reviewed the week before. The Chairman suggested that a blanket authorization from the Council for him or a representative to attend Planning or Environmental Commission meetings as major subdivisions come up might be in order. After some discussion, Mrs. Neubert moved that the City Council delegate the Chairman of the Council or his representative to attend any Planning or Environmental Commission meetings that he deems necessary and to represent the city at such meetings. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dinklage and passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council adjourn and meet as the Liquor Control Board. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. It was pointed out that several of the applications had been returned because of incorrect information and that these were now correct. Mr. Szymanski said that the application of Arthur's had been delayed because of the problem of them completing their landscaping commitments. He said that he had been assured that they would get it done. Mr. Dinklage moved that, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Council sign the first class liquor license applications before them with the exception of Arthur's, which they will hold for approval until the City Manager is satisfied that their landscaping obligations are satisfied. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Council sign the second class liquor license applications before them. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. The applications being signed, Mr. Dinklage moved that the Liquor Control Board adjourn and reconvene as the City Council. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Discussion and action on growth policy Mr. Farrar began the discussion by saying that he had several recommendations to put forward and he would like conceptual approval on them. He said that it is important to discuss this now because of what is happening in South Burlington right now, and said that what he wanted was a clarification of policies already set down and that this revolved around the interpretation of the language in the Master Plan. The policy would be that they will plan for and support a rate of residential growth in South Burlington equal to 2% per annum if compounded, or the County Growth rate, whichever is greater. This plan is consistent with the County Master Plan. The Chairman said that he wanted to clarify for the Planning Commission how to project these figures into the future. The number of proposals they are dealing with now is far above this plan and they need to know how to space these proposals so that the city can cope with the demands on their facilities. Mr. Farrar said that for the purpose of putting in the plan the Council should authorize and request the Planning Commission to use growth rate figures of 2 1/2% for the years 1975- 76, 1976-77, and 1977-78, 2 1/4% for the past three (3) years succeeding, and 2% after that. He said that these figures mean that the city will grow at the same rate that they have in the past five years. He pointed out that if the County Growth Rate changed in the next years, these figures could be adjusted. He said that what this amounted to was that in the year 1976-77, 151 building permits would probably be issued, out of which there would be 119 starts and 71 completions. In 1977-78, there would be 275 permits issued, 255 starts and 194 completions. In 1978-78, 87 permits would be issued, 129 starts would be made and 233 units would be completed. Mr. Dinklage clarified the issue by saying that if the Planning Commission takes these figures as a reasonable basis for projection into the future, they can tell a developer that his development does not make sense in the light of what South Burlington can allow as far as growth goes. These figures are a guideline for the Planning Commission to use. Mrs. Neubert asked what would happen if the Planning Commission approved the total units allowed and Mr. Farrar said that the development would have to be spread out over a long period. She pointed out that very few developers would be willing to do this and Mr. Farrar replied that if they weren't, they could not build. Mrs. Neubert said that she felt that it was reasonable to set some guidelines for growth but that she did not like the form in which it was proposed. Mr. Ward was in favor of not using the surplus number of housing units the city has accumulated in past years because of the low number of proposed building projects but Mr. Dinklage pointed out that when the cushion is used up, every development will impact on the city's ability to provide services, and that fact will be a good argument for refusing development beyond certain limits. Mr. Farrar said that when the Planning Commission has allowed the total number of units for any particular time span, a developer wishing to build will have to come before the Council and tell why he wants to exceed the growth rate. Mr. Dinklage said that he liked this approach to the problem. Mr. Farrar said that he wished to reserve about five permits a year for single-family residential building on pre-existing lots. Mr. Armstrong said that the Planning Commission should be told that the Council will give these a high priority and asked if they could accumulate. Mr. Farrar felt that the city should get firm commitments from the people who have gotten approval with the understanding that if they do not do what they have said they would, they will have to begin all over again. Mr. Dinklage moved that for planning purposes the City Council forward the proposed Growth Rate figures to the Planning Commission to assist them in establishing an appropriate development schedules for the proposals before them. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong. Mrs. Neubert abstained and the motion carried with 3 votes. Mr. Armstrong noted that he wished to discuss commercial growth sometime in the near future, and the Chairman agreed. He said that for the health of the community, he felt it was best to keep the ratio of residential to commercial growth at the present 50-50 split. He noted that school expenses make up about 75% of the total budget and that the commercial sector thus helps pay for the schools. Mr. Dinklage pointed out that this ratio could be taken into account when the City Council looks at proposals to build beyond the limits. He said that the Council could, under some circumstances, turn down residential builders in favor of commercial or industrial builders. Mr. Farrar said that it was hard to predict the future, but Mr. Dinklage replied that this was a reasonable start. Mr. Armstrong asked about implementation of this plan and Mr. Farrar said that he would talk with the administration. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.