Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/13/1977CITY COUNCIL JUNE 13, 1977 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, June 13, 1977 at 8:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Rd. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Frank Armstrong, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Helen Paquin, City Clerk; Stephen Page, Planning Assistant; Peggy Pioard, Fran Brock Minutes of June 6 and 8 Mr. Paulsen moved to accept the minutes of June 6 and 8 as printed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Appointment of Interin City Clerk Mr. Flaherty said that, in view of the fact that Helen Paquin is leaving on July 1, and that is a very busy time of year, it is in the best interests of the City that an Interin City Clerk be appointed until a special election can be held. He then moved that the City Council appoint Richard Ward as Interim City Clerk and Treasurer until the special election. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. At this point, Ms. Peggy Picard came in and said that she was interested in the job. She is a resident of South Burlington and has worked in the civil service, General Electric, the University of Vermont and is currently the office manager for the Vermont Lung Association in South Burlington. Mr. Farrar explained the nature of the job to her - that at present it was an interim job. Mr. Flaherty moved to close the nominations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed unanimously. The Council voted unanimously to appoint Richard Ward as Interim Clerk. Setting date for Special Election After some discussion on this point, Mr. Armstrong moved that the City Council have the election of the City Clerk on Tuesday, August 9, 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. The City Manager was instructed to have the City Attorney prepare the proper warnings. Discussion of E. D. A. Projects with James Lamphere Mr. Farrar said that Mr. Lamphere could not make it tonight because of schedule conflicts. Mr. Flaherty said that the government sets priorities and standards that the towns and cities have to live up to, but which the government does not. He said that he felt that the program was very poorly run and that they should protest that. Mr. Armstrong added that he felt that the State, Region and County should have more input into the priorities. Mr. Flaherty moved that the City Council empower the Chairman to write a letter to the two Senators and the House Representative giving them the feelings of the City Council on the Public Works funds and also to call Mr. Graves (representative to Regional Planning) and give him the same message. The motion was seconded by Mr. Armstrong and passed unanimously. Review of Planning Commission Agenda Mr. Farrar said that he would like to discuss item #5 on the agenda for June 14, which is 160 condominiums at 800 Dorset St, proposed by Flanders Lumber and Hickok and Boardman. The Council looked at a set of figures for the sewer capacity of the Airport Parkway plant which Mr. Szymanski had compiled for them. Mr. Farrar asked Mr. Szymanski how much capacity would be left in the plant if everything except Brand was built and was told they would have 93,500 gallons left. He asked the Council how they would like to allocate that, and said that he would like to take action to influence how that will be used. Mr. Armstrong said that the priority should be granted on the date of the first application, and Mr. Farrar said that the Planning Commission had set the date of preliminary plat approval as a more definite time. Mr. Page said that the Commission was receptive to holding the door open on later phases in terms of sewage, schools, and traffic, but Mr. Farrar said that he would like to head developers off at the earliest possible point, because that way he has much less time and money invested. He suggested that the Council think carefully about asking the Planning Commission to delay the phasing on some of these projects until a more appropriate time in terms of impact on the community. Mr. Paulsen said that the figures were based on gallonage only and that is only one of the 4 major issues involved in capacity, and he pointed out that the State can modify the numbers based on some of the other factors. Mr. Farrar said that he was not sure that the State would do that or if it in fact was in the best interests of the City. He also pointed out that, while everyone is counting on the expansion of the sewer plant in 1980 to increase capacity, no one is sure that the voters will vote yes on that issue. If they do not, a lot of developments would be in trouble. Mr. Szymanski said that the vote would be in 1978, construction would begin in 1979, and it should be done in 1980. Mr. Farrar said that he did not like tying the sewer plant to allowing large increases in housing starts and that he did not want people voting down the sewer as a means of insuring that there is no more growth. He pointed out that, by law, they have to update the plant even if no one wants to build, and that, if there is no sewage capacity when a builder wants to build, Act 250 will not let them build. Mr. Armstrong moved that for the Brand project that the City Council request the Planning Commission to defer the first phasing construction until 1980. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty, who then added an amendment as follows: or until such time as there are city services available based on the non- construction of prior approved multi-family dwellings. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and accepted by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Farrar said that the Council was responsible to the City to see that the balance of growth is maintained so that it does not put an unfair tax burden on the community through too much of one type of development. He said that the Master Plan set out certain goals for the City and that they could say that a development was not in conformity because it would impact on the ability to maintain a balanced growth. Mr. Burgess said that it was very important to have a good reason for saying no to a developer, and that it is very hard to assess that kind of impact from one developer in a community. He also felt that a possible or potential impact on taxpayers was not a very strong reason for turning someone down. Mr. Farrar said a rapid rate of growth impacts the City in areas that have not even been sized up yet, such as recreation needs. Mr. Szymanski said that the Brand people had done as much if not more than everyone else and that he would like to see at least their first phase built. The amendment to the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Paulsen said that he did not think that a condominium produced as much waste as a single-family unit. Mr. Szymanski said that he thought that his figures were probably conservative, but that he felt that it was better that way. The motion passed unanimously. On the subject of ICV and Twin Oaks, Mr. Armstrong said that it might be better to stretch their phasing out 4-5 years rather than building one phase and having to wait several years to build the others. He moved to extend ICV and Twin Oaks from 3 year to 4 year phasing with the first year phasing to be unchanged. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty and passed unanimously. On the subject of 435 Dorset Common, Mr. Farrar said that they had requested to retain jurisdiction of the second phase. Consideration of amending Red Rocks Park entrance fees. Mr. Flaherty moved that, based on Bruce O'Neill recommendations, Council revise the schedule for the Red Rocks fee as on the memo dated June 10, 1977 The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess. Mr. Armstrong said that he was opposed to lowering the fee for non-South Burlington and out-of-state residents. He said that he did not think that the people of South Burlington wanted that, and that the charm of Red Rocks was that it was not terribly crowded in the summers. Mr. Burgess said that from the memo, it sounded as if Mr. O'Neill were trying to keep the Council out of trouble over whether the fees were discriminatory. Mr. Armstrong said that he would rather see the South Burlington fees raised than the others lowered. Mr. Farrar said that they could try it for a year, but Mr. Armstrong felt that once people became used to using it, they would continue to do so. Mr. Szymanski went to get Mr. O'Neill, who was downstairs, and while they were waiting, the Council suggested that the Steering Committee meet the 30th of this month. Mr. Szymanski said that he had looked into the curb for Brewer Parkway and that there was an elm tree that he would like to save there, but that he would curb on both sides of it and when it dies, the curb can be finished. Mr. Armstrong suggested that the people living in the immediate area be told that they will have to park elsewhere. Mr. O'neill arrived, and told the Council that fees could be differential but not discriminatory, and that he thought that a more than double fee could be considered discriminatory. He did not have a definite answer on the question but did not want to have trouble. Mr. Flaherty asked what would happen if the fees were out of line, and Mr. O'Neill replied that they would probably be changed. He added that he did not think that a large number of people would rush to get them if the prices went down. The motion was withdrawn. Meet as Liquor Control Board This item was withdrawn. The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:45 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.