Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/17/1977CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 17, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday. January 17, 1977, in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road. MEMBERS PRESENT Paul A. Farrar, Chairman; Frank H. Armstrong, John B. Dinklage, Michael D. Flaherty, Catherine M. Neubert MEMBERS ABSENT None OTHERS PRESENT William J. Szymanski, City Manager: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator: Peter Judge, Dave Krieger, William R. Wessel No additions to the agenda were requested, but the Chairman stated he and the City Manager met with the Transportation Board in Montpelier to present the case for the Corset Street-Williston Road interchange and the Board voted to add this to their program for this year. The Chairman also announced the City was to get the funding for the sewer project. Reading of the Minutes of January 3, 1977 It was moved by Mr. Dinklage, seconded by Mrs. Neubert, and voted unanimously to approve the Minutes of January 3, 1977, as presented. Disbursement orders The Chairman called attention to the disbursement orders to be signed by Council members. Discussion on rate of growth policy Chairman Farrar said some questions had come up as to the interpretation and meaning of some of the language in the Master Plan as it refers to the rate of growth. From the discussion he had with Mr. Wessel and Mr. Page he felt there were a couple of things that could be clarified: first, the application: and second, how it should be interpreted. The first question would be when is "time zero." He referred to Mr. Page's memo, saying the end of 1974 could be time zero, or if the adoption of the Master Plan was used, then time zero would be 1973. Mr. Farrar then referred to the Master Plan, the impact on the community and what is happening throughout the area, and said the language in the Master Plan refers basically to units. The impact of a single family house on community service requirements he felt was obviously somewhat different than from a one-bedroom senior citizen apartment. He asked if the Council wished the Planning Commission to add some detail in these areas. Chairman Wessel of the Planning Commission stated the Master Plan calls for the Planning Commission and the City Council to come up with a policy to control growth, but it doesn't say how to do it: it is very vague; there has to be much more specific policy considering that by this summer South Burlington will be over the two standards it has, 2% or 2% of the average growth of the county. He also called attention to the point that the years listed in Mr. Page's memo are fiscal years, not calendar years. Mr. Wessel said he would hope to solve two or three questions at this meeting and then ask Kirk Woolery's committee to work on it. Mrs. Neubert said the growth chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, by vote of Council, was deliberately made vague, and three of the members are still on the Council. She said to her it was obvious that it cannot be used the way it is. The thinking at that time was that they didn't know how to control it, and they were going to have the same problem now. They had watched cases that had been turned in to the Supreme Court or the District Courts, and she felt if the City is going to have a growth policy, they must know how they are going to be allowed to proceed with it. It is apparently allowable if it is not being discriminatory. Asked by Mr. Dinklage what bothered her in terms of vagueness, Mrs. Neubert said it was because it doesn't tell how to implement that statement, it doesn't say anything except that we should like to have a 2% growth policy. Mr. Dinklage said some resolutions could be adopted about the way we intend to do it, that it be controlled by the issue of the building permits. Mr. Farrar said the point is that it is not vague in that sense; it was that there were certain implementary actions outside the Plan that the City hadn't taken. Mrs. Neubert said some wanted to put it in there and risk the court case. Many proposals were put forth, but the decision was that they would rather not risk it. She thought the City Attorney should be asked now if he had anything more to say on this. Mr. Farrar said the means of control is one of the points Council has to discuss; what they have to ask the committee of the Planning Commission to discuss. He thought there were two points to be clarified by Council, the time zero, and the shortfall to be carried forward, and this would give the committee of the Planning Commission some basis on which to operate. Where are we now, where would we like to be in the near future, and what methods they might wish to recommend to us. Mr. Armstrong pointed out that there was a big difference in his opinion between the developer who wants to build a large complex and the person who wants to build a house, and this has to be considered before considering a limit on building permits. Mrs. Neubert suggested instead of referring to units, they could refer to units up to 10, or up to 5. Mr. Woolery mentioned the natural limits that are going to hamper further growth such as capacity of sewer plants, water lines, capacity of schools, and it is necessary to be careful with each new addition. He spoke of the southeast quadrant in particular, saying growth must not precede the City's services there. Unless some of these services are planned in Capital Budgets there is a natural limit to growth. Mrs. Neubert explained building is allowed under the ordinance if the developer builds the services himself; anybody can put almost anything out there if they build the sewer. She felt the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed to see if it still fits the needs of the community, and would Digital have such an impact that the Plan might have to be changed. Mr. Farrar felt the implementation to be purely academic because the City was under any limit contemplated from 1970 - 1976, but now the building situation is going to improve and if there is no negative impact on the community now, we don't want to wait until there is a negative impact before doing something. Mrs Neubert said growth can be limited by permits as well as by sewers, but can it be implemented the sewer way right now. Mr. Farrar said probably it is realistic from the work that was done in preparation of the plan. Mr. Dinklage referred to population projections that started from the 1970 census, giving a projected population of about 12,000 by 1980. Our population has not grown much since 1970. The Chairman said if 1970 was the date Council felt comfortable with, he would accept a motion. Mr. Dinklage moved that for planning purposes, in order to allow the City and the Planning Commission to establish a growth policy, that Council choose July 1, 1970, as the point in time on which population and dwelling unit projections are made. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Regarding the application of the policy, the Chairman suggested the short fall in any year could be carried forward to subsequent years and used in that manner. Some of these points are somewhat ambiguous and Council, by resolution or vote, could establish procedures to clear up some of these ambiguities. Mrs. Neubert objected, saying this was talking about clarifying the Comprehensive Plan, and she didn't think Council should make these things up as they go along. The public should be notified of what is being done to the Comprehensive Plan, that it will change what it says now. She didn't want to be arbitrary about implementing the Comprehensive Plan. She suggested to Mr. Farrar that he had already made up his mindon what he wanted to do. The Chairman replied that if Council was going to change the language of the Plan, that would have a different procedure. Mr. Dinklage suggested asking the Planning Commission for input. Mr. Wessel said that regarding the time, there was no problem, but his recollection was that they were talking about 2% each year, but not added to each year. It is what we want to make it, so let's do what we want, not what we think the Plan says. The Chairman said guidelines should be established so that an administrator can come and tell us when we may be going to have a problem. Mr. Flaherty said the City's services should be studied to find out when they will be strained. The sewer is one Council should find about now. Mr. Farrar said the City is not to the point yet where City services are being taxed but the number of units could come to that point where there would be a strain. Mr. Szymanski said it was a matter of not only talking about units but also of motels and restaurants, etc Mr. Dinklage said Council should be setting in place a system whereby staff can alert the Planning Commission and the Council when it appears that we are reaching a rapid growth period, and then some determination would have to be made on what to do. At the moment it is not clear what Council may want to accept. Mr. Ward said there are 500 or 600 units right now. Mr. Wessel referred to his proposal for quarterly growth reports which he wanted to turn over to Mr. Woolery's committee. These reports would tell the Planning Commission and the Council the status of such things as whether the 2% growth had been reached and the capacity of the sewer, the water supply, the schools, the recreation facilities, etc. This could also be used for Capital planning, and it would give an early warning system. Mrs. Neubert asked what would be done with something like that when it was received. Mr. Wessel said first, decide if it is such a situation; second, decide what to do. It should be known what is meant by growth, is it an arbitrary figure or is it a more sensitive measure of the impact case of the City's services. In court cases a City has had to prove there is a severe strain on the City's services. He asked if that aspect should be looked more carefully rather than having a 2% of county growth. The Chairman said it was basically his feeling that South Burlington had a certain obligation to the other communities to provide its share of necessary new housing and certainly the facilities for them. It was defined in the Master Plan that our share was 2% or 2% of the county growth, that this community has an obligation to provide the necessary services to support that. It could be a reasonable demand on the community and if the rate of growth was in excess of the demands it could be deferred until the services were ready. The question is should we adjust the Capital plans to allow more growth or when should we not. There is no problem in exceeding these growth projections if there is no impact on the City's services. He said he felt the Plan was trying to outline for the community the plans to provide the services necessary to do the City's share in supporting the growth of the greater community. Mrs. Neubert said she didn't read it that way. She thought they were going to provide the services through a Capital Program and Budget and they were going to limit development to that extent. The Chairman said Council must determine that the excess of this would have a negative aspect on the City's services. Mr. Flaherty referred to the allowance for limiting the building permits. Mrs. Neubert asked if the statement says that if the facilities are used up that the City was more or less obligated to provide the sewer. Mr. Farrar said the community could be requested to look at the Capital Plan and see if under those circumstances the extension should not be accelerated. The City has Capital Plans even if it doesn't have a Capital Budget program. Mr. Armstrong commented the time involved in programming the change is much longer than the time involved in building residential units. Mr. Farrar said that is why it is necessary to have these things planned far enough in advance. Mr. Dinklage said one way to approach it is the immediate impact on sewers, etc., the engineering position that comes into play. The Chairman felt there was adequate protection at site plan review, that the Planning Commission can reject any proposal which would have an adverse effect on services. A method should be worked out jointly whereby we would be alerted to the plans for large subdivisions and deal with those plans before the developer got to the stage of having received approval. A way should be found to alert us when the rate of growth exceeds a certain point or level at which time the Council would begin to take different action. He said Council doesn't want to make a statement on every application that comes before the Planning Commission but there would come a point in time that Council would want to get involved, and the mechanism should be established to determine on what it wants to get involved had on what it doesn't. He felt the Planning Commission committee should have an opportunity to study this a little bit more after hearing Council's input, but he would like to see a cumulative growth rate established, and an attempt to translate that into either or both population and dwelling units. If South Burlington is willing to accept the 2% rate a year, it should be willing to pick up the slack of the years this was not used. Mr. Dinklage referred to the number of people per unit being changed drastically now. Mrs. Neubert asked if the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to count the number of people, or to control the quality of life in this community by not permitting urban sprawl, congestion of streets, etc. Every unit is going to have an automobile. The purpose was to central the qualify of life in the community, and it was not known how else to prevent the open land being gobbled up. Mr. Dinklage bought that from a practical point of view when the rate of building of units exceeds a certain number, that is the time to begin looking at it. Mrs. Neubert felt it is necessary to look at the way the development is going, is it going to the southwest quadrant. If the pressure is to build a lot of units, would Council be willing to add the sewer installations or improve the streets. How is the idea conveyed that there should be a bond issue if there is pressure there. We can't have a whole bunch of units planned and Council not be able to get funding. She said she was looking for a policy. Mr. Dinklage asked if it was going to be possible to specify what kind of growth was wanted. He thought it was the intent of the Master Plan that growth should be monitored and judgments are to be made about the kind of growth that is going on and the growth the City wants to encourage by its Capital Plan. That is why there must be some administrative procedure. Completing a residential neighborhood that is all layed out is quite different from beginning development out into the southeast quadrant, and by extending City sewers and water it is making it easier for the next developer. The effect on the community would be reflected. Council must be independent of any particular developer's plans in trying to put together a Capital Program which makes sense, and if a proposal comes that requires an alteration in that, Council has the opportunity of saying it does make sense or it does not, to accomplish this developer's ideas. If it doesn't require a change in the Capital Budget Program, that is quite different. A growth rate policy must be established and a Capital Budget; decisions only need to be made when these two plans are in conflict. Mr. Woolery said that taking the current zoning as it is and allowing it all to be built up, that alone would exceed the capacity of services. Mr. Farrar remarked that the burden of proof for this is on the developer. If the Planning Commission found additional services were needed, would they come to the Council. His answer would be that if it was in the plan as far as the growth which we said was our fair share, and the Planning Commission felt there was going to be a shortage in some municipal services, he would expect Council should do something about it. If the reverse was true, then he would say No. Mrs. Neubert said Digital is coming in and using up the sewer. Mr. Farrar said the sewer is a very limiting process, but other services are different and the house could still be built. If they exceeded the growth rate, Council could say No. Mr. Dinklage felt the people who drew up the Master Plan accepted the 2% growth rate in population as a target. The point Chairman Farrar is trying to make is that we want to leave it to the free market process to determine how much growth, and when and where. We are trying to provide the mechanism to alert the municipality to provide additional services to support the growth or to take action to limit the growth if we feel it is greater than the community wants or should bear. In some cases saying Yes to allow certain growth would involve additional expenditure of City funds or it might not, but we could tell at that time whether the growth was going to occur in an orderly process where the developer pays for all the increases in the services or whether they are going to make demands for services in areas where it is not being planned for. If the growth rate is reasonable the City would certainly have to react and would certainly have an obligation, if reasonable, to supply those services. Mr. Armstrong felt it would be well if Council instructed the Planning Commission that in the event it appears that the compounded growth rate as measured in units appears to be exceeding 2%, that they bring it to Council's attention as soon as possible although we would not promise to take any action at that time. Mr. Armstrong then moved that at any time it appears that the growth rate as measured in housing units and determined from July 1, 1970 is going to exceed 2% cumulative compounded rate of growth, that the Planning Commission bring this to the attention of the Council. Seconded by Mr. Dinklage and voted for approval by 4 affirmative votes. Mrs. Neubert said she was abstaining because she felt the motion didn't do anything. She felt these projects are coming down 400 at a time, and asked if the zoning ordinance and Capital Budget gives the power to control the way the City is going to grow. She felt it does not and there is nothing in there to implement a policy. She didn't think the community would accept that. She would like Council to give the Planning Commission more specific guidelines on what is expected from them and that those guidelines will then be implemented legally. She said she was not sure what was needed but she felt the City is going to get a period of great economic development, that it is going like wildfire. Mr. Ward agreed that we are. Mr. Dinklage said if Council doesn't know what is needed, then it is not in a position to give instructions. There should be a recommendation from Mr. Woolery's committee, from the Planning Commission to Council, some recommendations they would like to see the City adopt. He would agree that he would hope for a larger public participation in the process of formulation of this policy. At the time the recommendations come to Council it should be advertised widely that there was to be a work session on this, that there would be a discussion on the adoption of a policy. The Chairman said the next question is how to implement the policy and what procedures are necessary to implement the policy. Mr. Flaherty said everyone is talking Master Plan and talking 2% growth to answer our fair share of the Chittenden County growth rate, but nobody talks about South Burlington taking its fair share. He asked if a growth rate was a method of keeping people out or was it a method of accepting our fair share of the Chittenden County growth. Mr. Dinklage felt one of the qualitifications was not having too rapid a change. Mr. Flaherty replied South Burlington had been getting a free load for five years now. Mr. Flaherty said he just wanted to call attention to the fact the services may not handle the development. The Chairman said it would be incumbent on the Council that if it was found the services are not sufficient to handle our fair share, that Council would recommend those changes which would make that possible. Mrs. Neubert said she was not going to change it until the public knows about it. Mr. Dinklage said the responses would be different depending on their impact on the community. Mrs. Neubert asked, if 500 units came into the southeast quadrant and came in before Digital, what is going to be done if the City gets hit with something like that. Mr. Farrar answered such a development could only come in before something else is unknown; it couldn't come in after something is known. Mr. Ward said there are units on the drawing board that no one knows about. They have never been presented to anybody. Mr. Dinklage said these are known and one coming next year would get a different response. The only way it can be dealt with is openly and honestly, first come, first served. Mrs. Neubert felt first come, first served, is not good planning. Mr. Dinklage replied all proposals don't have the same impact, but they are dealt with one at a time, first come, first served. If something is not made public, it is simply not part of the planning. Mr. Flaherty asked the City Manager to project something about the sewer capacity. Mr. Farrar said there are two different sewer plants in town, with quite different capacity, so a proposal which exceeds one could be built in the other area. Mrs. Neubert said she only wanted to know how something could be turned down that Council didn't like. Mr. Wessel said they were probably over the county growth rate already, but I think it is important to separate out the two things, what is to be the point when the bill rings, and what is to be done when the bell rings. Now something a little more sensitive is needed. Mr. Farrar said this is not put together to play games or to give developers a hard time. The sense was to try to determine when an obligation to change our plans and when we felt we didn't have an obligation, to determine whether or not it would have an impact on the services. Mr. Ward said the Planning Commission knows the units that have been seen in the last two months, but what happens when they are approved but not built. There are 1,000 units coming in a year, but we don't know whether they will be built. He enumerated some of the developments presently under way. Mr. Woolery asked if it would be possible to put some of these projects together, perhaps with an on-going file to keep them up year by year. Mrs. Neubert suggested setting aside one Steering Committee meeting and inviting the Planning Commission to attend, and have a review of the community facilities. Mr. Dinklage referred to a request from Council awhile back that the Planning Commission find ways to keep this information up to date quarterly. Mr. Wessel replied there is a proposed format for this and rather than trying to adopt it he gave it to Mr. Woolery's committee. Discuss survey on non-conforming signs and possible amendments to Sign Regulations Copies of a survey report had been received from Mr. Ward who stated that some of the freestanding signs on the list would go right off with a 15-year life. A grandfather clause could be for 10, 15, or 20 year life. He said he had talked with every business and they were receptive to that idea. Chairman Farrar suggested a grandfather clause could be inserted in the ordinance, that anything built before '63 or before would have to go in '78. Mr. Ward said he had talked with Dick Spokes about how that could be implemented. There would have to be another questionnaire and the owner would have to testify to all the facts. Mr. Flaherty said most of these people would be coming down in '78 and there would be no problem. Mr. Ward stated the people are not ready to fight like they were before. Some signs were put up in '56 and the owners think it is great and don't want to ever take it down. Mr. Wessel said a more complex formula had been looked at and they came to another decision. He asked about increasing the square footage of freestanding signs. Mr. Flaherty explained it originally was 60 square feet, then it was dropped to 40 square feet, making them non-conforming, and by moving it back to 64 square feet these would be conforming. Mrs. Neubert felt this was unfair to those who had put up a 40 square foot sign. Mr. Ward said the owners don't seem to be protesting that, and the amendment giving 12 more square feet for another sign, they think is great. He explained to Mr. Wessel the proposed amendments the Board had been working on. The purpose of the promotional sign is to try to get the gas stations to take their signs off the street and put them on a pole and have it all uniform. Mr. Wessel suggested they have something different on the facade sign and the freestanding sign. He said the Planning Commission had rejected very early the idea that signs are for advertising; they are only to be for identification. Mrs. Neubert said the pressure is coming into the advertising areas and the illegal signs from the gas stations. What she sees is a move to accommodate the business community with some of their problems. This is going to have to go to public hearing. She felt something has to be done about all the signs coming down because of the State compensation case; we have to make allowances for that. Mr. Farrar explained the State case is not based on compensation; it is because they would lose their funding. He felt a change in the wording which would allow 15 years from the time of the ordinance would have a considerably higher probability of being upheld. It would allow the sign owner to get the depreciated value of the sign out. Mr. Ward said the business people know what is being worked on because they have been to the meetings. The 64 square feet was mutually agreed to by everyone who came. The businesses were asked for a size for a promotional Discuss survey on non-conforming signs and possible amendments to Sign Regulations Copies of a survey report had been received from Mr. Ward who stated that some of the freestanding signs on the list would go right off with a 15-year life. A grandfather clause could be for 10, 15, or 20 year life. He said he had talked with every business and they were receptive to that idea. Chairman Farrar suggested a grandfather clause could be inserted in the ordinance, that anything built before '63 or before would have to go in '78. Mr. Ward said he had talked with Dick Spokes about how that could be implemented. There would have to be another questionnaire and the owner would have to testify to all the facts. Mr. Flaherty said most of these people would be coming down in '78 and there would be no problem. Mr. Ward stated the people are not ready to fight like they were before. Some signs were put up in '56 and the owners think it is great and don't want to ever take it down. Mr. Wessel said a more complex formula had been looked at and they came to another decision. He asked about increasing the square footage of freestanding signs. Mr. Flaherty explained it originally was 60 square feet, then it was dropped to 40 square feet, making them non-conforming, and by moving it back to 64 square feet these would be conforming. Mrs. Neubert felt this was unfair to those who had put up a 40 square foot sign Mr. Ward said the owners don't seem to be protesting that, and the amendment giving 12 more square feet for another sign, they think is great. He explained to Mr. Wessel the proposed amendments the Board had been working on. The purpose of the promotional sign is to try to get the gas stations to take their signs off the street and put them on a pole and have it all uniform. Mr. Wessel suggested they have something different on the facade sign and the freestanding sign. He said the Planning Commission had rejected very early the idea that signs are for advertising; they are only to be for identification. Mrs. Neubert said the pressure is coming into the advertising areas and the illegal signs from the gas stations. What she sees is a move to accommodate the business community with some of their problems. This is going to have to go to public hearing. She felt something has to be done about all the signs coming down because of the State compensation case; we have to make allowances for that. Mr. Farrar explained the State case is not based on compensation; it is because they would lose their funding. He felt a change in the wording which would allow 15 years from the time of the ordinance would have a considerably higher probability of being upheld. It would allow the sign owner to get the depreciated value of the sign out. Mr. Ward said the business people know what is being worked on because they have been to the meetings. The 64 square feet was mutually agreed to by everyone who came. The businesses were asked for a size for a promotional sign and they came in and said 12 square feet. He added that the Sign Review Beard had held five or six meetings with the business people. Mrs. Neubert asked Mr. Ward if he was telling the business people that was what they would get, the 64 square feet. Mr. Farrar said he felt most of the larger signs would disappear. Mr. Wessel questioned if this proposed change was right. Mr. Flaherty explained these people put their signs up in conformance with the 60 square feet, then the rules were changed and this made the signs non-conforming. The owners didn't do it themselves, they were following the rules at the time the signs were put up. Mr. Wessel said he understood that signs were depreciated very rapidly and 15 years was very long. Mr. Flaherty said he thought that was a normal lease period. Mr. Wessel asked if this was legal. Mr. Farrar explained that with 15 years for a sign, it was felt that if it was taken to court the City could win. Mr. Wessel suggested 6 years. Mr. Farrar said the practical effect is what we are all trying to achieve one that doesn't get us into a position of losing a case and having the whole ordinance thrown out. It is better to be in a position of having a good possibility of winning. Mr. Wessel asked how did Council know 15 years was right. Mr. Farrar replied that all the information they had been able to get is that 15 years is more than adequate. If it is possible to demonstrate that the compensation by time is more than adequate, the City is in a strong position to win. If the position is definitely inadequate, you are going to lose, and he said that to him it is not a smart position to go in with a marginal position because what is going to be lost is a lot more than what is going to be won. Mrs. Neubert stated the 15 year provision happens to solve Council's problem. Mr. Ward asked if Council wanted to have the City Attorney prepare something with a 15 year life, or 5 years, and have a public hearing on it. Mr. Farrar said he would suggest that there is enough interest in something like that, that Council would like to look at it. He said he didn't personally have any thoughts on the 64 square feet, but it would make those between 40 and 64 basically conforming. Mr. Ward said he would put the amendments together and have a hearing. He was asked by Mr. Dinklage if he would do some research into the cost of 60 square feet vs. 64 square feet. The 64 square feet had been stated so often, he said, but he was not ready to accept that yet, the 64 square feet, Mr. Ward said Everett Mitchell, who makes signs, said the material dimensions are that size. Mr. Dinklage asked Mr. Ward to get an estimate on this. Adopt 2 resolutions re: Phase V Sewers The first resolution was read aloud by Chairman Farrar who then explained it was necessary so that in the future when the City Manager determines it is an appropriate time to sell bonds for this project. Council has certified that the conditions of the vote have been fulfilled. Mr. Szymanski said this would be one of the conditions of the bonding company, and Mr. Farrar added that one of the conditions of the purchase is that the City has to let the contract. He named the three conditions as 1) the sewer contract; 2) the road contract; and 3) that GBIC provide temporary space which has been done. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign this resolution as read by the Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. The Chairman then read aloud the second resolution. Mr. Szymanski said research by some attorney stated that because South Burlington's sewer plant is a primary plant, it is in violation of Federal guidelines to authorize extensions of primary plants, so the Federal government people asked that the State draft up an agreement. The record of this agreement is what they are asking South Burlington to approve as a condition of this grant. Referring to a copy of the agreement he explained several additions he had made to it to protect the City and they have accepted the additions. Also something that was to have been omitted, the City Attorney had recommended leaving in. Another point brought out by the City Attorney was that this was rather meaningless because this Council can't commit a Council two years from now. Mr. Szymanski said there is a schedule now and he could see no problem in meeting it. Mr. Dinklage moved that Council sign this second resolution as read by the Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. Sign certificate of Highway Mileage Mr. Szymanski explained this certificate defines the mileage of each class of highway and this has to be certified to each year for State Aid. Mrs. Neubert moved that Council sign the Highway Mileage certificate. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty and voted unanimously. Review Planning Commission and Zoning Board agendas Mr. Ward said the only item on the Zoning Board agenda was Green Mountain Power's request to relocate the transmission line to construct a substation. There is no regular meeting for the Planning Commission. Consider forwarding a statement to the Public Service Board not opposing the relocation of the power lines across the new Digital site The Chairman explained there was a request from the Public Service Board to have Green Mountain Power remove a power line that crosses the Digital site. It can remain on the site but in a different position. This is a request from Digital to the Public Service Board and Council has been asked to concur or not concur with this. The City Manager presented a drawing showing the proposed location which was studied by the Council members. Mr. Farrar said it would require the approval of the Zoning Board. Council cannot grant approval; it can only take a position of approval or disapproval, or no position. Mr. Ward said this is a 33 KV line with 80 foot poles. The use is conditional so this is not a variance. Mr. Farnar said he could see no visual impact on the community. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council state it is not in opposition to the proposed relocation of the Green Mountain power line at the Digital Equipment site. Seconded by Mr. Flaherty. The motion was carried by 4 affirmative votes. Mrs. Neubert abstaining, saying this was setting a precedent. Mr. Szymanski said it would be worse if it was put in the right of way on Shunpike Road. Mrs. Neubert felt Council has gone on record as not opposing this, if this ever comes up again. The Chairman said the City Manager would forward a notice to the Public Service Board regarding the motion just passed. Convene in Executive Session to review a proposal for the acquisition of a parcel of land Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of reviewing a proposed contract for acquisition of a parcel of land, after which Council will adjourn without doing any other business. Seconded by Mr. Armstrong and voted unanimously. The regular meeting of the City Council was ended at 10:10 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.