Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/15/1980CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 15, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, September 15, 1980 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; John Towne, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Rob Eley, Free Press; Albert Audette, Highway Department; James Goddette, Fire Chief; David Spitz, Planner; Planning Commissioners Sidney Poger, James Ewing, Kirk Woolery, Ernest Levesque and George Mona; Steve LaRose, WJOY; Richard Valway, Art Shields, C. Church, K. Gillies, P. Heath, George Albee, R. Schmucker, MM Kennedy, Sylvia Smith, Jo & Jim Stead, William & Chad Hollister, Mark Smith, Edgar Balagot, Nicole Chittenden, Doug Schner, Carl Cobb, J. Grzepaet, Tamotsu Shinozaki, Lowell Krassner, Harry Yawney, William & Ethel Schuele, D. EcKenzie, P. Bissette, Rodney Larue, Ying Liu, MM Mann, Barbara Taft, Vincent Bolduc, Dick Deringer, John Jewett, Ivan Beliveau, Steve Freedman, John & Mary Kuda Minutes of September 3, 1980 Mr. Paulsen moved to approve the September 3, 1980 minutes and Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Sign disbursement orders Mr. Szymanski said there were no orders tonight. Public hearing on updated Comprehensive Plan Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had held some working meetings on the Plan and had made some changes to the Plan as sent to the Council by the Planning Commission. Mr. Farrar said that the Council had tried, over the past 6-7 years, to keep the residential-non-residential tax base at the same ratio it is today. Looking toward the time that all of the city is built up, under the present zoning, there would not be enough commercial (anything not residential) land to maintain that ratio and it has been estimated that about 800 more acres of non-residential land is needed. There will be land in the Southeast Quadrant which will be zoned for non- residential uses. Lot sizes will be large and the Council was asked how large they might be. That has not been defined yet, but will be done in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cobb felt that there needed to be some areas for small lots for support businesses for large industries and he did not want to see that kind of business legislated out because they could not afford a 10-50 acre parcel of land. Mr. Farrar said the Council wanted to have some control over what happened to be sure that any industrial intrusion into the Quadrant was carefully investigated. The possibility of a large piece of land being used for a planned development with a number of small locations within it was mentioned. Mr. Krassner noted that, regarding industrial uses, another entrance/exit ramp for the Interstate might be needed and that would generate a lot of pressure for another area like the Interstate/Williston Road intersection. He added that with industry in the Quadrant, there would be people wanting services there and he felt motels and restaurants would be built, creating traffic problems. Mr. Schmucker felt that the present Quadrant chapter in the proposed Plan ran counter to the need to protect existing neighborhoods. He did not feel that area was a clean slate but that there were established neighborhood/agricultural schemes out there which provided green space. He wanted to eliminate the concept that commercial and industrial uses be planned for in that area because they do not exist now and in the future it can be discussed in terms of when, where, how, why, etc. He felt the concept was destructive and not necessary and he said that unless industrial uses were kept next to other industrial uses, they would be put into residential areas. Another issue discussed was the concept proposed by the Planning Commission that there might be incidental commercial uses in the Quadrant to serve the residents, such as a drug store or convenience store. Mr. Schmucker felt that such a store would have to sell beer, wine, magazines, etc. and that it would cheapen the neighborhood. He felt that the people who would be served by it did not want it and pointed out that Chittenden Cider Mill filled that kind of need now. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had not, as a body, come to a conclusion on that issue yet. Mr. Schner asked about sewer capacity in the Quadrant for industrial uses and was told that as far as the Council knew, the sewer and water mains were adequate for the zoning for the total area. The sewer plant is not large enough for it, but it was not intended to be. The sewer and water plans seem to be adequate for the ultimate density of industrial, commercial or residential. Ms. Chittenden asked what would happen to agricultural land when sewers extended into the Quadrant. The Council has discussed transfer of development rights, she was told. Mr. Cobb did not feel the city should depend on agriculture to keep the land open because it is not economically feasible. Mr. Bolduc opposed neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the Quadrant. Mr. Poger felt that as the neighborhoods developed in that area and as the needs grew, there should be some commercial uses allowed. Mr. Jewett felt that it was better for people in the neighborhood to be efficient in their shopping habits than it was to have that kind of store present. He did not feel that anyone living in that area wanted such a store or felt the need for one. Mr. Woolery noted that such a store could be an integral part of a development, Mr. Mona noted that not everyone in the Quadrant would be an efficient shopper, and Mr. Ewing felt that this kind of use should be in the Quadrant so that people from that area did not have to travel to portions of the city which already had traffic problems, thereby making those problems worse. Mr. Beliveau asked who was to say that 10 acre zoning was not a good use of land. Mr. Shields felt that the way the Plan was worded was creating the possibility of strip development and mixing commercial and industrial uses into residential areas. Mr. Mark Smith did not see the pressure to develop the Quadrant, but Mr. Levesque noted that not every person graduating from South Burlington High School could afford a 10 acre lot in the Quadrant. Mr. Towne said he did not want to see strip development, but that the city had to consider people in other neighborhoods, and if the residential-non-residential mix got out of proportion, many people would not be able to afford to live in the city. Mr. Farrar felt there were two questions here - to plan for the right mix of commercial/industrial and to plan where it would be. He felt the discussion tonight had been the question of that area which would be residential - should it be only residential or should other uses be allowed within it? He felt the Council had been told tonight that it should be only residential and Mr. Schmucker felt that was correct - that present residents welcomed residential development of all types but that they did not want commercial or industrial intrusions into residential zones. Mr. Flaherty asked if they wanted to leave things as they were now and was told that was correct. Mr. Beliveau felt that the uses in #6 on page 77 were intensive uses. Mr. Farrar felt that two issues should be separated here - there would be an industrial zone in a specific area and that would be a goal. There would also be a residential area and the discussion tonight had been that area should be residential. Mr. Flaherty moved to put a period after the word "agricultural" on line 20 of page 76 and to remove the rest of that sentence. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Mr. Paulsen moved to put a period after the word "resources" on line 25 of page 76 and to remove lines 26 and 27. Mr. Towne seconded the motion and it carried with Mr. Burgess voting no. He stated that he did not know what it meant after the wording was removed. Mr. Flaherty moved to delete #s 8 and 9 on pages 77-78. Mr. Towne seconded. Mr. Burgess felt there should be some commercial uses in the Quadrant to give relief to already bad areas in the city. He moved to split the motion so that 8 and 9 stand separate. This motion was seconded by Mr. Paulsen and carried unanimously. #8 was discussed. Mr. Burgess did not find neighborhood-serving commercial uses objectionable, especially when they were totally within a PUD and served the residents of the PUD. Mr. Farrar did not feel they were necessary. The vote on the motion deleting #8 carried with Mr. Burgess voting no. #9 was then discussed. Mr. Farrar felt personally that the physical area was not large enough for those community-serving commercial uses. The vote on the motion deleting #9 was unanimously in favor. #6 on page 77 was discussed and Mr. Farrar stated that he felt the community had an obligation to provide for all reasonable types of uses. He felt that a nursery (where trees were grown, not sold) was a reasonable use and he felt it should be defined in the zoning document. Mr. Burgess moved to delete the words "(with accessory retail outlets),etc." from #6 on page 77 and to put a period after the word "greenhouses", and to delete #7 on page 77 totally. Mr. Towne seconded the motion. Mr. Poger noted that #7 had been an attempt to preserve a particular kind of architecture in the Quadrant. The motion carried without dissent. Mr. Schuele noted that the Plan had a lot of technical information taken out of the text and referenced during the last revision and he wanted to be sure that the supporting material was available at City Hall and the library. Mr. Farrar said it was the Council's intent to have the backup information on file anywhere within the community that the Plan was on file. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue the discussion on the Master Plan at the next regularly scheduled meeting, on October 6. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted aye. Hearing on vicious dog complaint Mr. Farrar said the Council had 5 documents on this item - a letter dated 9/3/80 from Mr. Mann to City Manager Szymanski, one dated 8/28/80 to Mr. Mann from the City Attorney's office, a police report dated 8/26/80, a letter dated 8/20/80 from Mr. Mann to Mr. Szymanski, and one dated 9/9/80 from Mr. Szymanski to Mr. Kuda. Mr. Mann said that over the past 2 years some of the people in the neighborhood had trouble with the Kuda's german shepard dog. While the dog was being held by its owner on the Mann's property, it bit their 4 year old daughter, Allison, and the bite required 16 stitches. On August 4, Mr. Mann said the dog had attacked neighbor Ying Liu's dog, which was chained on its own property. Mr. Mann said the neighbors were concerned over what might happen in the future - would the dog attack one of the children or adults in the neighborhood? He said the neighbors had talked to Mr. Kuda about the problem and there had been no response. Mr. Kuda responded that people were paranoid about german shepards and he said he had 3 of the dogs and had lived in 3 states and had always had confrontations with people over the dogs. He had a petition against him in Massachusetts, he said. He said the dog minded its own business and was in the house 22 hours a day but that in the summer he was allowed to be under a tree in the backyard. Mr. Kuda stated that the Ying Liu dog ran free and almost caused his (Mr. Kuda's) car to go off the road into a ditch one time. Mr. Kuda gave the Council 2 pieces of information on the german shepard breed of dog. Mr. Kuda said that in 1978 from June to November his home was under construction and the dog was loose in the area and he had no complaints about it. On November 4 he was exercising his dog and went over to talk with Mrs. Mann, who had her daughter with her. Mr. Kuda said that Allison provoked the dog by twice putting her fingers in his nose. He held the dog and warned Mrs. Mann to prevent the child from teasing the dog, but she did it again and the dog bit her. He felt the dog had been under control but that the child had not been. Mr. Kuda said that in 1979 and 80 the family took the dog walking on Church Street in Burlington and that in 1979 they had lot of visitors, but had no problems. Mrs. Kuda had brought the dog into the conference room to show the Council. Mr. Kuda stated that the Liu dog was never tethered and that it ran up and down the road. One day Mrs. Kuda was bringing the shepard in and the Liu dog charged over. The shepard thought the Liu dog was attacking Mrs. Kuda and he charged the other dog and chased him to the other side of the Liu home. Mrs. Kuda stopped the ensuing fight and took the Liu dog to the vet, brought him home later, and paid the bill. Mr. Kuda did not feel his dog was aggressive. He also said the Liu dog had not been chained at the time of that incident, as the petition stated. Mr. Kuda said he intended to erect a 10 x 20' cyclone pen to keep the dog in. Mr. Rod Larue said that he had been cutting wood on the Mann's property at the time that Allison was bitten and that he recalled that the child had shown affection for the dog. He did not recall that she had provoked the dog, although he said that he did not see the dog bite the child. He said Allison had hugged the dog. Mr. Farrar asked whether he had heard Mr. Kuda tell Mrs. Mann to keep the child from provoking the dog but Mr. Larue said he did not recall that. He added, however, that he had not been part of the conversation although he was within conversing distance. Mrs. Mann said that she had her two children and a 16 year old stepson with her at the time of the incident. She said she asked Mr. Kuda if the dog was good with children, because if he was not, she would keep her children away from the dog. She said the family had always had dogs and that they knew how to treat them. Mr. Kuda said the dog was good with kids, she said. Mrs. Mann said that Allison had been behind the dog and that it turned around and snapped at her, leaving a physical scar and a mental one, in that her approach to dogs has changed. Regarding the Liu incident, Mrs. Mann said the dog was not tethered, but was on its own property. Ms. Barbara Taft said that she was taking care of the Liu dog at the time of that incident and that she had been upstairs in the Liu home in the corner farthest from the Kuda home when she heard the small Liu dog barking. She looked out the window and saw the large dog standing over the small one and saw someone off to the side with something in their hand. Both dogs were unleashed at the time, but the incident took place on the Liu property. Mrs. Kuda said that during the summer the dog liked to $$ under the tree. When it is taken off its leash, it runs back to the door, but on this day she went over to check her garden and the Liu dog came down the bank and the shepard took off after it and chased it to the other side of the Liu home, where the dogs fought. Mr. Liu noted that his dog barked a lot, but that it was just a pet and did not bite. He said that when his house was under construction he had seen the shepard attack another dog who was on the Liu property. He felt the dog was dangerous unless the master was around. Mr. Farrar asked the Manns what they wanted the city to do and he was told that they would like to see the dog chained and muzzled whenever it was out of the house, but that they would still be concerned that the dog would break loose one day. They did not want the dog destroyed. Mr. Farrar said the Council had to decide whether this dog was or could be a menace to the community. If they feel it is a problem, they can require it to be tethered, penned, muzzled, or disposed of. Mr. Burgess had to take the side of the complaining parties because they were numerically superior and their stories were consistent. Mr. Flaherty felt there were 2 sides to the story but he noted that a child had been bitten and another dog attacked. Mr. Towne did not feel it was too much to expect that the dog be under control at all times. Mr. Paulsen felt that because the dog was large and of a defensive nature, it should be confined when outside the home. Mr. Farrar said the tacit assumption was that the situation called for some action and that under certain circumstances the dog was dangerous to the community. Mr. Towne moved that we conclude that the dog has bitten a child without provocation and that it is a potential hazard to the community. Mr. Flaherty seconded. Mr. Burgess moved to split the motion and Mr. Flaherty seconded. The motion passed 5-0. The vote on the first part of the motion, which is that the preponderance of evidence shows that the dog acted without provocation, passed unanimously. The second question, which is that the dog is now a potential danger to the community, carried 4-1, with Mr. Paulsen voting no. Mr. Kuda said he would be building a cyclone fence enclosure for the dog and Mr. Flaherty felt that would be enough while it was in the yard and that it should be chained or leashed when it is outside the pen. Mr. Flaherty moved that the dog when accompanied by the owner outside the dwelling be leashed or within a suitable pen and that it be muzzled when it is off the owner's property. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0, with Mr. Burgess abstaining. Mr. Kuda felt that the dog had been provoked. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider temporary liquor license for Wetherbee's Barbecue and Catering Inc. (dba Valway's Sawmill) to cater Las Vegas Night at University Mall for United Palsy of Vermont, Inc. on Sept. 20, 1980 Mr. Burgess moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board for the purpose of taking action on the request of Wetherbee's Barbecue and Catering Inc (dba Valway's Sawmill) for a temporary liquor license for Las Vegas Night at University Mall on Sept. 20, 1980 and to then reconvene as the City Council. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted for it. Messrs. Richard Valway and Edgar Balagot spoke to the request. Las Vegas Night will be from 8 pm to 1 am on Saturday, September 20. Mr. Farrar asked how it would be handled while the mall itself was still open. Mr. Balagot said there would be a section of the mall to which admission would be charged. The mall's security people will remain until the Night is over. Mr. Valway recommended that an area be cordoned off for the games. Mr. Burgess did not want a bar operating in an open area of the mall and he suggested closing off the bar. Mr. Balagot saw no problem with that. Mr. Burgess moved to authorize the City Clerk to sign the permit if the Police Chief is satisfied with the security as far as the bar is concerned. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted for it. Accept resignation of Karin Larson from the Community Library Board of Trustees Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the resignation of Karin Larson from the Community Library Board of Trustees and ask the City Manager to send her a letter of thanks for her services to the community. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted for it. Consider making two appointments to the Community Library Board of Trustees Mr. Farrar noted that there were 3 interested persons - Robert Walsh, Donald Tetzlaff, and Marjorie Lavalla. Mr. Walsh is a member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Burgess moved to appoint Mrs. Lavalla and Mr. Tetzlaff to the Community Library Board of Trustees. Mr. Towne seconded the motion and all voted aye. Review Zoning Board agenda There were no comments. Old business Meet with firemen - Mr. Farrar noted that there were requests for grade changes here and he suggested that the City Manager handle these with the other requests. Mr. Szymanski said the job evaluation board had met and that they felt that to do the job right they would need at least 6 months. Mr. Burgess felt the employees should be told this and Mr. Farrar asked that representative Dick Ward, of the City Hall Employees Association, be asked to come to the next meeting. This will be the first agenda item that evening. Mr. Farrar felt that when firemen were called in for emergencies they should be paid the same as other employees called in. The police receive 4 hours minimum call-in time and highway people receive 2 hours. He also saw no problem with time lost due to excusable illness not resulting in loss of overtime pay. Regarding in-service training other than that during regular working hours, Mr. Farrar said that the Chief wanted to be able to send his men for that and they wanted to be paid when they were sent. He saw no problem with that. Call-in time was discussed. When full-time firemen are off duty, if there is a fire, they come in as a volunteer and are paid that way. When the Chief needs an extra man because someone is out sick, they want to be paid for at least 4 hours time. Mr. Goddette said that if the men work a full week and have to work another shift because someone is sick, they want overtime pay. Mr. Farrar said the Council would like some time to think about some of the requests in the context of other city employees. It was noted that ISO would be rating the city this fall and the Council said they would like to talk to the inspectors after the inspection. Mr. Szymanski said the City Attorney wanted to talk with the Council and it was decided to meet at 7:00 pm at the next meeting to talk with the Attorney. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.