Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/22/1977CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES CITY COUNCIL February 22, 1977 At the March 7th Meeting of the City Council it was voted to accept the Minutes of February 22, 1977, with the following corrections: On page 4, line 4 from the bottom of the page, the word Committee should be added after the words Correctional Center. CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 22, 1977, in the Assessor's Office, Municipal Office Building, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT. Michael D. Flaherty OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager; Bob Larson, Dave Krieger The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Additions to the Agenda Mr. Armstrong asked to have a discussion regarding the Liaison Committee for the Correctional Center. Mr. Dinklage asked for an executive session following the regular meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposed Police Department contract. These additions were acceptable to the Council members. Reading of the Minutes of February 7, 1977 On page 8 it was noted that or 2% should be deleted in line 21. On page 10, beginning with line 5, the wording should be: Mr. Poger felt that Burlington has the lowest unemployment rate in the State. The Chairman felt there was enough unemployment to fill Digital up four times from the Burlington area, although Burlington has the lowest unemployment rate. On page 11, in the paragraph regarding the notes for Highway and Water Department trucks, the interest rate should be 3.35% rather than 3.5% in both line 3 and line 6 of this paragraph. It was moved by Mr. Armstrong, seconded by Mr. Dinklage, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of February 7, 1977, with the above noted corrections. Disbursement orders The Chairman called attention to the Disbursement orders to be signed by Council members. Public Hearing on Amendments to Zoning Regulations Mrs. Neubert moved that Council dispense with the reading of the Amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council approve these Amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Dinklage asked if this now goes back to the Planning Commission. The Chairman explained that Council had discussed the legality of making some changes in this document and the City Attorney advised it was better procedure not to make the changes because the type of changes Council wished to make was one of those gray area changes. This is the document as presented to us. Mr. Dinklage said he was interested in one of the recommendations involving bookstores, and Mr. Farrar said the Planning Commission could be asked about that. The motion was voted unanimously for approval. Review Amendments to Subdivision Regulations Mr. Dinklage questioned item 4B of the proposed amendments, asking if there would be any way of limiting the number of times this could happen — the creation of one lot greater than 10 acres. The Chairman felt the question was whether this language really says that, and he is to consult with the City Attorney regarding this. The question of reimbursing the developer for his prorata share of facilities installed by him and afterwards used by others was discussed at some length. Mr. Dinklage felt some of the reimbursement should go back to the home owners as they were the ones who had indirectly paid for these facilities in the purchase price of their homes. Mr. Szymanski felt this could be complicated and care should be taken not to include the pumping station in any plan for reimbursement, whereas Mr. Dinklage felt the cost of the pumping station would be part of the cost of the off-site facilities. Mrs. Neubert felt this might be getting into a lot of trouble. The Chairman suggested getting some language put together so Council could discuss this at the next meeting and then send specific language back to the Planning Commission for their comments on this. Discuss composition of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Chairman Farrar referred to the recommendation from the Charter Committee that the composition of the Zoning Board should be included in the City Charter, but leaving it up to the Council to determine whether the membership should be five or seven. Mr. Dinklage and Mrs. Neubert stated they were in favor of a seven member board. Mr. Armetrong stated he would stand on five because that was the recommendation of the Zoning Board. The Chairman explained the problem involved with a five member board in cases where one member could be absent, a second member could abstain because of a conflict of interest, and an affirmative vote from the remaining there members would be necessary to constitute a majority vote, because the law requires a majority vote of the entire board, not just the members voting. Mrs. Neubert agreed this could be unfair to a developer; he could be turned down by one vote because not enough members were voting. Mr. Armstrong felt five members to be adequate and voting otherwise would seem like a lack of confidence in the Zoning Board at this stage, because the Board feels five members to be adequate. Mrs. Neubert felt Council would be making a decision for a better functioning system. The Chairman felt a large weight is placed on the Board in some of their specific decisions and the members could be insulated from the "ire" of Council if their terms were long, such as three or four years, but there should be some way that Council could reasonably change the composition of the Board over a reasonable time. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council request the City Attorney to draft language for a ballot item which would set the number of the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment at seven with the present staggered three and four year terms. This language is to take into account the present terms and when they expire. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert. Mr. Armstrong said it is apparent that all five members of the present Board are in favor of keeping the membership at five and he felt Council should take that into consideration. Mrs. Neubert felt not only a majority of the Council and of the Planning Commission feel it should be seven, but also many members of the public who had contacted her feel it should be seven. Mr. Dinklage said he had also received calls on this and he would like the opportunity to broaden the base of the Zoning Board. The motion was passed by a vote of 3 to 1, with Mr. Armstrong voting against it. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board Agendas Council felt there was no need to take a position on any item on either agenda. Mr. Larson from the audience asked about obtaining more land for open space, and Mr. Farrar explained there are legal ramifications and this matter is properly in the hands of the Planning Commission, but obviously this is something which should be kept in mind. Accept resignation of Frank Lidral from the Planning Commission Mr. Dinklage moved that Council accept the resignation of Frank Lidral from the Planning Commission and that the Council thank Mr. Lidral for his service to the community in that capacity. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and voted unanimously. The City Manager is to advertise this vacancy. It was suggested by Mr. Dinklage that it also be placed in the Spokesman. First Reading of Ordinance Establishing Fire Lanes Chairman Farrar explained this ordinance would give the City and its Fire Chief the power to designate appropriate Fire Lanes and the Police Department the authority to police such lanes. At the present time such lanes are marked off but there is no legal authority to police them. This would be a step forward in the City's safety procedures. Mr. Armstrong asked if this was standard procedure in other places and Mr. Szymanski replied it is. Mr. Szymanski questioned Section 7 giving authority to either the Fire Department or Police Department member to have a vehicle towed away. After discussion a motion was made by Mr. Dinklage that Council amend Section 7 of the proposed Ordinance Establishing Fire Lanes by deleting the words "Fire or" and deleting the letter "s" in departments to make this singular. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and approved unanimously. Mr. Dinklage then questioned Section 8, asking if there was an understanding with a particular garage that this fee would not exceed $25.00. The City Manager stated this involves only a local garage and there is such an understanding. It was the consensus of Council that it was better to have only the Police Department request that a vehicle be towed away because the owner of such a vehicle would naturally call the Police Department first upon finding his vehicle missing and the Police Department would know where the vehicle was, whereas if the car was removed by request of the Fire Department, the Police Department might not even be aware of it. Mr. Dinklage then moved that Council approve the First Reading of the Ordinance Establishing Fire Lanes, as amended. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and approved unanimously. Review revisions to amendments to Transportation Chapter of the Master Plan for forwarding to the Planning Commission The Chairman suggested that Mr. Dinklage extract from the Minutes of the February 7th meeting the points of the discussion and comments and frame these into a memorandum for the Planning Commission. Mr. Dinklage agreed to do this. He then asked if there was a consensus of the group that the majority would favor Williston Road as a "to" route and not a "through" road, saying these were the words used by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Neubert said she was not prepared to say it could be either one; she didn't see how it could be. The Chairman felt this was one of the things to be clarified. Discussion on Liaison Committee for the Correctional Center Mr. Armstrong referred to the memorandum dated January 31st from A1 Guyette and said he felt the committee had done a good job and he felt Council should keep the committee going. He would be willing to serve on the committee himself but it might be well first to advertise in the Spokesman to see if this committee could be revitalized. The Chairman said he would favor accepting Mr. Armstrong's offer to participate, and also to try to find another member. If there was no objection from Council, the Chairman said he would appoint Mr. Armstrong. Council concurred in this appointment. Chairman Farrar felt that the fact that this committee hadn't really been needed was a testimony to the confidence of the citizens of South Burlington and the operation of the Correctional Center. Having this committee actually prevents the need for this committee. Mrs. Neubert felt the committee knows the problems and is receiving the information from the Center and it is being handled very well. She referred to an example of a former member of Council going to the Correctional Center himself with questions when the committee actually had all the answers to those questions. Mr. Larson asked about the possibility of using UVM students on this Liaison Committee. Mrs. Neubert explained there are at least 15 different committees attached to the Center using volunteers as well as professional social service people from Burlington, and students are already involved in some of these committees. Adopt resolution recommended by the Growth Policy Committee regarding park and playground facilities for future developments The Chairman read aloud the resolution prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Armstrong asked about school sites and Mr. Farrar explained this was already covered in a separate State Enabling Legislation and the criteria used is somewhat different. The Chairman said the intent of this resolution is to enable the Planning Commission to say these facilities are not to be private, and the City Attorney says there is plenty of authority for this. We cannot use any criteria under 4417; we cannot make the statement that unless 15% of the land is deeded for public parks, the development will not be approved — but this can basically be done by the Commission's actions. A statement can't be made that every development must contribute 15% for public parks, but in the consideration of whether or not the Planning Commission is going to approve a specific development, if this contribution has not been made then that may be one of the conditions to take into consideration when the Commission turns it down. This could be done in an individual case but a blanket statement can't be made that unless this is done the subdivision will not be approved. Mrs. Neubert said her point was that there is no way to force this land to be made a public park. Mr. Farrar said it was very simple; it was a just a question of what the developer is required to do. Mr. Armstrong asked about a swimming pool for a development; could this be private. Mr. Farrar said it could be permitted; it is up to the judgment of the Planning Commission. It is the Planning Commission's judgment to look at the entire development — if it is best for the community. Mr. Armstrong asked about having 15% for the public and the developer keeping what he wants for himself, if that is what everyone is agreed on. Mr. Dinklage said the Planning Commission could require that the plat show a park. Mrs. Neubert felt if the rest of Council was happy with the idea — they should still satisfy themselves on it — she didn't think it could be done. Mr. Farrar said the Planning Commission cannot say the developer must deed this to the public. All it can say is that it disapproves of this plat. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council adopt the resolution regarding park and playground facilities for future developments as contained in the memorandum from City Attorney Spokes dated February 18th. Seconded by Mrs. Neubert and passed unanimously. Discuss method of allocating reserve capacity of Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant to new development The Chairman referred to a memo from the City Engineer to Mr. Page outlining these allocations. Mr. Farrar suggested that Council ask the City Attorney to draw up a resolution regarding this in order that developers might have a warning that the sewer treatment plant was approaching or exceeding capacity. Tentative wording for such a resolution could be: "Whereas the City Engineer has informed Council that the presently approved projects plus those projects in various stages of approval which would use the Williston Road Sewer Treatment plant, if all constructed, could exceed the capacity of the plant." The mere fact that they have received subdivision approval does not mean that construction will be allowed to begin on the timetable they envision. This would be essentially warning those people that there may be a condition arising so they cannot build. This would apply to any subdivision which is presently in the approval state which has not received final approval. This would apply to the housing for the elderly, the ICV project, or Horizon Heights. The Chairman said this was something which in his judgment should be done to make sure everybody knows what the situation is. Mr. Dinklage commented that Council would be making decisions about who and when. Mr. Farrar said there may be a great deal of plans but nothing built. This has to be put into the proper context. If all the units which are presently planned are built, and built quickly, there would be not only sewer problems but problems with school and other things. It is not incumbent to turn down all these subdivisions but it is incumbent to warn all these developers before they sink too much money that there is going to be a problem. Mrs. Neubert asked how this would affect a developer when he goes to the Environmental Commission. The Chairman said the answer would be that if everything is built, we would not allow this to be built; if everything is not built, then we might. Mr. Szymanski said a letter would be written to the Environmental Commission from the City. Mr. Dinklage said if the City had conditions already in effect, then that burden need not fall on the Environmental Commission. They can approve subject to the conditions the City lays down. The Chairman said that would be one of the vehicles to be used to implement this. The City doesn't want to constrain anybody from building as long as it doesn't negatively impact the community — but it is necessary to let people know now that this might be the case. Mrs. Neubert felt approving so many and they are never built is tying up sewer capacity. Mr. Armstrong asked Mr. Szymanski about the impact of disposals on the sewer system. Mr. Szymanski said there is no question but this has to be removed at the plant but there has never been any adverse reaction from the State. He explained there are two restrictions, the volume, also the suspended solids and BOD. Right now these run about the same ratio as the flow, running about two- thirds of what is allowed. If it was desired to restrict the load of the BOD then disposals could be restricted. The real problem is the leakage from the sump pumps which has to go to the sewer when there is no storm drain. He would like to restrict this by forcing people to have storm drains. Asked about the plans for upgrading the Williston Road plant, Mr. Szymanski said the bond issue would be 1979 and the work finished by the fall of 1980, He suggested getting a commitment from each of the lagging projects for which capacity has been reserved. The Chairman suggested passing the resolution first, and then issuing building permits on a first come, first served basis. It might be necessary to have some additional constraints, not just on sewers. There could be a number of check points. Sewer capacity has to be reserved for some non-residential development to keep the ratio on a solid basis. It would be undesirable to let the entire balance be used for residential development unless there was non-residential development in the other part of town. Mrs. Neubert asked about having the City Attorney give an opinion about the fairness or legality of trying to reserve for Digital. Chairman Farrar explained Digital was already taken care of; plans have been set aside for that. He said his feeling was that as long as the City is proceeding in a way where it is accepting reasonable and rational rate of residential development, it has the right, if necessary, to restrict residential growth. Mrs. Neubert asked if there was the same right to restrict commercial growth. Mr. Farrar said the same thing could be done to restrict that as well, just on the basis of impact on the community. The Chairman is to discuss with Dick Spokes and get an appropriate resolution drafted. Council held a brief discussion with Bob Larson concerning questions he had asked about the Capital Budget Program, the growth rate policy, and assistance for the Planning Commission. Mr. Larson atrongly urged support for the Planning Commission even if it meant an increase in taxes. The Council explained the purpose of the resolution to warn developers of possible constraints, to Chairman Wessel of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wessel urged that capacity of roads be considered, that when a certain intersection is beyond capacity that the Commission could say No until the intersection was improved. He would like to see this made explicit. It was then moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously that the Council adjourn its regular meeting and convene as the Liquor Control Board to act on the request of the Cork and Board; that Council then reconvene in Executive Session; and that no further business be transacted after that. Request of The Cork & Board Mr. Dinklage moved that in accordance with the letter of February 15, 1977, received from the Cork & Board, that their request for transfer of location from one structure to another structure within the 100 Dorset Street complex be granted. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. The Council convened in Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.