Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/24/1978CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 24, 1978 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, January 24, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, Municipal Offices, 1175 Williston Road and in the High School Auditorium. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Frank Armstrong, Martin Paulsen, William Burgees Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Stephen Page, Planner; Fran Brook, Free Press; Cynthia Rubin. The Other Paper; William Wessel, Sidney Poger, George Mona, W. Kirk Woolery, Ernest Levesque, Jr., David Morency, and James Ewing, Planning Commissioners; Hugh Marvin, S.B. Rep to Regional Planning Commission; Joe Slakas, WJOY/WQCR; Peter Jacob, Water Commissioner; Peter Collins, Bob Haney, Yvan Beliveau, Dick Guest, Sylvia J. Smith, Olivia R. Brown, Ethel and Bill Schuele, Bob Larson, Richard W. Posey, Jr., Neil Shepard, Barbara Shepard, George Richardson, Lloyd Kranz, Dick Davidson, Ralph Goodrich, James Lamphere, L. Douglas Meredith, James Draper, Russell D. Chase, Nurelid Simonetta, Robert Perrin, Dan Whitten, Lowell Erassner, Diane Geerken, William Spignesi, Philip F. LaPorte, Samuel L. Calkins, Harry E. Davidson, Harold Brown, Leland E. Calkins, William C. Knoff, Joseph S. King, Bill Morgan, J.J. Coonera, William H. Quinn, Frank Wilder, David Brassard, Rowland Peterson, Michael Brassard, Kendra Herrill, Sandra O'Brien, Daniel O'Brien, Ronald C. Schmuker, David Nicholson, Rene and Lucille Racine, George Voland, Barbara Bull, John Dinklage, Steve Bushey, Bob Watson, Peter Yankowski, Tom Schroeder, Davin Merrill The meeting was called to order by Mr. Farrar at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn until 7:45 p.m. and reconvene at the South Burlington High School auditorium. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. The meeting was reconvened at the High School and the signing of disbursement orders was added to the agenda. Disbursement Orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public hearing on proposed interim zoning regulations Mr. Farrar said that the purpose of the hearing was to consider whether the City Council of the city of South Burlington should adopt interim zoning regulations. These regulations are based on findings of fact and he suggested that the way to proceed was to look at the findings and see if the Council agreed with them. Exhibit A, he said, deals with the Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant, and he went through the findings for the audience. Mr. Faulsen said that he felt that the plant was showing acceptable reduction in the amount of suspended solids and BOD (biological oxygen demand) and that if that was so, he thought the existing discharge permit could be increased with regard to gallonage provided that the present efficiencies are maintained. He felt that the plant could handle more water than it was handling now. Mr. Szymanski said that what the city had to be careful of was the peak loads because that was where the problems were. Mr. Paulsen said that he had a report which lead him to believe that there was an excessive amount of infiltration into the system. If this could be corrected it would lower the gallonage and the peak flows. Mr. Farrar said that he wanted to find out if the Council agreed with the facts in Exhibit A, whether or not they agreed with the conclusions. Mr. Paulsen said that if the amount of gallonage which will be generated by approved projects is 380,500 gallons, with the build-out rate through 1981, the plant would not reach capacity until 1981 and that leaves plenty of time to make improvements to the plant. The actual flow anticipated would not occur until 1980 or 81. Mr. Flaherty said that that was true if one assumed no further approved development, Mr. Paulsen said that if the city used the one year that interim zoning would give them for other uses, it might be possible to expand the existing plant by amendments to the existing permit or by using pre-treatment. Mr. Page suggested that 15 under Exhibit A be taken out because further research had shown that it was not entirely correct. Mr. Burgess moved to strike finding 15 in Exhibit A of the proposed interim zoning regulations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and passed unanimously. Mr. Paulsen said that the next level of treatment would have a more efficient reduction of BOD and suspended solids and with that they could have 1/2 the quantity of those put out from the same primary plant now existing. Mr. Ronald Schmucker asked if finding 10 was legitimate and Mr. Farrar replied that the error if there was one would be that the capacity would be in excess of 2 million gallons. Mr. Schumcker said that the Enabling Legislation allowed the city to enact interim zoning but he felt that if it was ambiguous whether or not there was a problem existing, he wondered if there was a study which could be done to get more conclusive findings. Mr. Schuele asked the present situation with regard to the sewer and the coming bond issue. Mr. Farrar replied that no change to the plant had yet been approved by the voters but that a bond issue would be submitted this fall for it. If passed, it would upgrade the treatment from primary to secondary and add phosphorus removal. Mr. Szymanski guessed that it would cost $4.5 million, of which the city would pay 10%. The bond issue should come to the voters in November and construction will start in July of 1979 if it is approved. Mr. Farrar said that if the bond issue was not passed the city could be liable for a very heavy fine. Mr. Szymanski said that if the city showed the state that it could stay under its limits of BOD and suspended solids, it was likely that they would be able to increase the gallonage. A resident asked where the individual landowner stood and was told that he would just have to get in line. Mr. Peter Jankowski said that he did not like what was happening to the quality of water and life in the area and Mr. Farrar pointed out that all the area communities were polluting the lake and that when treatment is upgraded in all of them the quality of water should be very high. Mr. Bob Haney asked whether, if the bond issue is not passed, the city would definitely be subject to a fine or simply in Jeopardy of one and was told that it would probably be in jeopardy but that the fine would be very heavy. Mr. George Voland said that he would like to have a handle on growth and he thought that maybe the only handle he had was the one on the toilet. Mr. Farrar said that he was not sure that the city could stop growth if the bond issue was defeated, since if the city does not have a Capital Program that it is operating by, people are entitled to use on-site sewer systems. Mr. Morency said that there were holes in the present control procedures and that one was that the Planning Commission did not have sewer control over expansions, or at site plan review. Mr. Barbara Bull asked if the Council would make decisions on development which would exceed the present school capacity and Mr. Farrar said that they would not decide directly and that he did not think it was their intention to do so. Mr. David Nicholson asked Mr. Paulsen about temporary measures to increase the plant capacity and was told that there were treatments, such as using alum, which would increase the efficiency of reduction of BOD and suspended solids. It is a remedial way to get them out of the water. Mr. Horency said that there would have to be a dramatic increase in capacity for it to make any difference and he said that once there is more capacity, it will be used up and allocated before the plant is built. The city will then be in the same position it is in now. Mr. Yankowski asked what happened to the removed solid waste and was told that it went to the landfill. He asked if it was tested for toxicity and leakage and was told that it was not but that there was no industrial waste, so that was not necessary. Mr. James Lamphere asked if the bond issue could be accelerated and was told that the Council had discussed that and that it really did not look like it could be moved up very much. Mr. Szymanski said that it originally had been scheduled for the bond issue in May 1979, so it had been moved up some. Mr. Tom Schroeder said that if the plant had capacity until 1981 and the bond issue was on schedule and there could be some pretreatment of sewage, perhaps an emergency did not exist. Mr. Flaherty said that the capacity until 1981 had already been allocated by the Planning Commission and that any more approved development would put the plant over capacity. He said that he was not sure he wanted to take a chance that there was no emergency. Mr. Schuele said that interim zoning was a drastic step and should be taken carefully and he asked if it would effect the present sewer ordinance. Mr. Farrar said that it would not but that an amendment to that document had been proposed. Mr. Bob Haney felt that it was not right to say that no on-site disposal would be allowed in the city. He said that it was not a desirable way to rid oneself of waste, but that it could be a temporary measure and could be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basic. Mr. Farrar said that if interim zoning was adopted developers would be allowed to apply to the Council for a use not permitted in the document. Mr. Hugh Marvin said that he found it hard to believe that the sewer capacity was a real issue when the Planning Commission did not list it on the survey sent to them by Regional Planning on the communities 5 most pressing needs. He did say that he felt the Commission needed professional help and had not yet gotten it. With it, he felt that they could control the building and expansion that is against everybody's wishes. He felt that interim zoning would be very bad for the city after it tried so hard to get industrial uses and finally got Digital to come in. To turn down expansions of the plant would be bad. He said that with interim zoning the city would see a year or two without issuing permits and then a year or two without any growth in the Grand List and no benefit from taxes. Mr. Steve Bushey felt that the volume of applications before the Planning Commission was due to an anticipation of interim zoning and that if the matter was dropped, applications would fall off. Mr. Schuele said that the Commission has been under a barrage for a year and a half and interim zoning has been discussed for the past 8 weeks. Mr. Lowell Krassner asked if the projects being given approval would tend to add to or detract from the tax rate and was told that this is not known exactly. Mr. Farrar said that it seemed to be about the same ratio as it is now. Mr. Beb Watson felt that the small businessman was being squeezed out and Mr. Farrar said that right now it was a policy of first come, first served. Mr. James Ewing said that he was a member of the Planning Commission and that he did not want interim zoning for the sewer problem. He felt that the Commission should go on as it is and have developers go on a list waiting for capacity. That way, when the issue comes up for a vote, the voters would have a good idea of what the impact of sewer expansion would be and how many residential and industrial uses were in line. Ms. Diane Geerkin said that she did not think that there should be panic over a one year moratorium and she felt that it would be better to underestimate the capacity rather than overestimate it and have to deal with the resulting problems. She felt that the city should look further ahead than one year. Mr. Roland Peterson said that he was not sure there was an emergency and Mr. Farrar replied that interim zoning would not effect a project with current approval. Mr. Peterson felt that the freeze would effect a lot of people and he thought that the Council was waving a red flag before it had to. He said that interim zoning would slow down industry and would freeze property so that it could not be sold. Mr. George Voland said that he would like to take the money that would be spent in increasing plant capacity and spend it on expert people for the planning process so that the city would remain nice. Mr. Bob Larson felt that the meeting was getting nowhere and he suggested a third party to decide if there was, in fact, an emergency. Ms. Ethel Schuele asked what would happen if interim zoning was not passed and was told that things would go on as they are now. She asked what would happen if the capacity of the plant were exceeded and was told that the city would be in violation of its pollution permit. Mr. Ralph Goodrich said that he was against interim zoning for say reason because he felt that the city could come up with an emergency solution to the problem and he also felt that it would be good for the city to design things ahead of schedule, since the federal government had a lot of money to spend just now. Mr. Ivan Beliveau thought that projected growth and the distribution of sewer capacity to developers should be looked into and he said that interim zoning would give the city time to re-think a rational growth policy for the city. Mr. George Richardson asked about the sale of sewer rights and was told that most people did not think highly of that. Mr. Tom Schroeder said that since the bond issue came up in November, he would like the Council to wait on the issue until the issue reached the voters. Mr. Bob Perrin asked if the city had a legal opinion on the impact of interim zoning on land values and Mr. Farrar said that he thought it would be much the same as if the land-owner were told he could not build until there was capacity in the plant. Mr. Davin Merrill asked whether the same zoning and planning procedures would be in place after the one year period and was told that the city documents would be looked over. Mr. Farrar said that one of the reasons for interim zoning was to look at the underlying documents and see if there are any changes which have to be made to them to prevent this situation in the future. He did not anticipate any great changes, although there would be some changes. Mr. Armstrong said that he had studied other areas of the country which had similar problems and the question was generally referred to the voters. He would have no objection to that, he said. Mr. Farrar read the findings of fact in Exhibit B of the proposed regulations. He said that he would like to include the portions of Dr. Adler's study which deal specifically with impact on Shelburne Road. This would be finding 11. Mr. Burgess said that he did not like the word "acceptable" in a finding of fact and Mr. Farrar agreed that the term should be defined. Mr. Moreney said that Dr. Adler had stated that when a highway reaches. 7 volume to capacity (V/C) ratio, then new roads should be planned, or improvements should be made. Williston and Shelburne Roads are about. 8 V/C ratio (and improvements are not even planned), so he felt, and it was the consensus of the Planning Commission, that the roads are unacceptable in certain places and marginal in others. Mr. Poger asked that the Council add findings on traffic on Williston Road as well as Shelburne Road to the document. Mr. Ewing agreed and said that he thought traffic on Williston Road was a much more serious problem than on Shelburne Road. He felt that the city should implement the plans submitted by the Williston Road Task Force and be planning for more road improvements instead of worrying about interim zoning or additional studies. Mr. Steve Bushey agreed with Mr. Ewing that traffic on Williston Road was terrible but he felt that the city could see the situation coming for a long time and had not done anything about it in the way of planning. He thought that Shelburne Road's problems were not as severe and said that a lot of traffic in the city comes from other areas and is going through South Burlington to get to Burlington. Mr. Wessel said that if the Council wanted to add findings of fact on Williston Road traffic, 1975 counts from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission were available which showed many intersections in that area over 75% capacity and two at full capacity. In another 4 years, he said, all the intersections will be at capacity, or beyond it. He also pointed out that these were 1975 figures and the situation has worsened since then. Mr. Merrill asked what 75% capacity meant and from memory Mr. Farrar said that he thought that above 70% one started to see the speed of the highway decrease from what it was designed for and that at 80-85% one had to wait through more than one cycle of the light. He added that the capacity of a road is normally limited by the capacity of its inter-sections. Mr. Bob Larson testified to the fact that Shelburne Road was a dangerous section of road to travel. Mr. Poger said that he would like to add to the findings of fact the tables on pages 11-13 of Dave Morency's High Traffic Generators Report and said that any place which has more than 5 accidents per year is defined as a dangerous situation. The tables list several, and only account for the accidents at intersections, not the ones in midblock, which are numerous. Mr. Morency said that he would like to add the midblock figures. Mr. Schuele asked if there was any finding which indicated that there was not a problem on either Williston or Shelburne Road and was told no. Mr. Goodrich felt that if the city acted on the traffic recommendations it has already received, things would be moving along better. Mr. Farrar said that the city had to do studies to find the proper courses to take to correct problems and then it had to change the zoning and planning documents in order to proceed on the course it decided to take. Mr. Rowland Peterson did not feel that interim zoning would solve any traffic problems. Mr. David Brassard asked when, as a Council, they would decide the issue and was told that due to the lateness of the hour, there would be a continuance of the meeting and hopefully it could be decided very shortly. Mr. Farrar suggested that the staff be asked to provide the Council with more information, specifically that on traffic in the Williston Road area. Mr. Farrar read the findings in Exhibit C and suggested that the packet Mr. Page had given them recently on development pressure in the city be added to it. Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn this meeting to the same place at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1978. The motion was seconded by Mr. Flaherty. The vote on the motion was held until item 2 on the agenda was discussed. Consider appointments to Southern Connector Citizens Committee Mr. Flaherty moved to appoint Martin Paulsen. Frank Armstrong. William Spignesi, James Ewing, and David Morency to the Southern Connector Citizens Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned until next Monday, January 30, 1978 at the high school auditorium by a unanimous vote at 10:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.