Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/09/1981CITY COUNCIL MARCH 9, 1981 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, March 9, 1981 at the new Municipal building, 575 Dorset St., in the conference room. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, John Towne, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; City Hall employees Richard Ward, David Spitz, Betty Bailey, Darla French, Diane Gadhue and Laura Kimball, Thomas O'Connor, Arthur & Barbara Toutant, Richard & Ann Painter, Normand Lavoie, Fran Reiman, Nancy & John Boyd, Hal Bensen, Ann & Edward Emery, Leon Mann, Ernest Levesque, Lowell Krassner, Albert Audette, Mark Goodrich, Sam & Ruth Bogorad, Elizabeth Horton, William & Viola Luginbuhl, Judy Hurd, Janice Hill, Donald Kerwin, Joan & Leo Nadeau, Leo O'Brien, Duncan & Olivia Brown, Virginia Clarke, Mary Roy, Larry & Roberta Coffin, Gwendolen Rye, Bernice & Donald Brisson, Carl Cobb, Richard Lang, Chuck Thweatt, Walter Bruska, Richard Trudell, Bob Watson, William Schuele, Ronald Schmucker, James Goddette, Bruce O'Neill, Pat Burgmeier; Other Paper. Meet with South Burlington City Hall Employees Association Mr. Farrar said the Council had received the written communication from the employees. Mr. Ward noted that last year's contract was never formally accepted and he stated that employees did not know what fringe benefits they were entitled to. Mr. Farrar said the Council wanted to put out a benefit package which would explain all those items. Mr. Ward also noted that he had heard nothing in regard to the Personnel Rules and Regulations and had to assume the Council was proceeding with them. Mr. Farrar felt the police, who had asked to review the Rules, had had enough time with them. Mr. Ward said the employees wanted to ask again for a 1 hour lunch break. He said most people in City Hall worked more than a 40 hour week and many times they did not leave their desks to have lunch because there was no place to go. Many would go home to eat if they had more time to do so. He also said many other communities worked a 37 1/2 hour week and that there was a large enough City Hall staff to cover the lunch hour by staggering. Mr. Ward noted that they were requesting an 18% pay increase. The police have been offered 7-7 1/2% and Mr. Ward said that was not even the cost of the index this year and that the employees were sliding backward. Mr. Burgess noted that the increase last year had been 10% and he felt that was on the high side. Mr. Ward said it was not fair to compare South Burlington salaries with figures from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns because it is not known how many people work in the various communities and what kinds of working conditions they have. Mr. Ward said employees needed certain kinds of equipment and he suggested an equipment fund, but was told it was not legal to do that. Employees are asking for a $5 per week clothing allowance, which everyone else has in some form or other. Mr. Ward asked for a contribution to the annual Christmas party and for some sort of Christmas bonus. Mr. Farrar said the Council would provide a copy of the proposed salary schedule. They are also proposing to increase basic life insurance coverage. Mr. Ward replied that the employees had not asked for more insurance and would rather have the money that would have gone toward that coverage. Mr. Farrar said that could be discussed. He said the Council wanted also to revise the dental plan, but trade-offs could be discussed. Mr. Ward requested some response to each individual request. Mr. Spitz stated that he strongly supported the 1 hour lunch break, which he felt this group of employees needed. Mr. Farrar said the Council would respond next week. Meet with City Attorney to discuss Police Arbitration matter At 7:00 pm Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session to discuss a pending legal situation with the City Attorney. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and all voted for it. At 7:30 pm the regular session was reconvened. Public hearing on zoning change from agricultural to industrial for a 145 acre parcel located south of Interstate 89 and east of Hinesburg Road Mr. Farrar read the notice which appeared in the Free Press. Planner David Spite showed the area in question on the proposed land use map adopted in November. He pointed out other changes to the map as well as an area of about 600 acres which was changed from agricultural to industrial. All these changes were approved as part of the land use plan. It was noted that what was being considered here was a zone change, not a site plan. GBIC has a client which wishes to build on this land and Mr. Farrar asked if the proposed use and the zone change were consistent. He was told they were. He then asked if the zoning change was consistent with the Master Plan as approved and was told it was. Mr. Schmucker represented about 28 affected property owners. He did not feel the proposal was in total conformity with the Master Plan. He noted that area residents were served by wells and were concerned about the chemicals which the operation will use leaching into those wells. They are also concerned about air pollution and residents feel that they do not have the protection from industrial uses which they were promised and which they need. Mr. Schmucker felt some zoning regulations tailored for this project should have been part of the package discussed tonight. He felt the proposal did violence to the Plan. Noting that high quality, large-lot uses were called for in the Plan, he pointed to the small parcel of land which will be left when this company buys the 110 acres it proposes to and he suggested the company purchase the entire area in question tonight. Mr. Schmucker also read from the Plan that the city should insure water quality and drainage and he said that while the company had said it would handle some toxic chemicals, there was no indication that these were the only toxic chemicals it would use. He reiterated that specific regulations should have been set up tailored to the particular applicant. Mr. Schmucker questioned the Planning Commission's procedures of hearing the applicant before the existence of any zoning ordinance which would permit the use. He said the use would affect the level of service figures and that people were concerned that traffic would worsen. Mr. Farrar said Mr. Schmucker was asking that the zone change format be changed to restrict the use or the size of the land and that he was asking that part of the land be deleted from the change. Mr. Schmucker responded that his clients were against the zone change but at the very least they felt that special regulations should have been part of the proposal to safeguard that area in the way they were promised in previous discussions. Dr. Luginbuhl felt this looked like spot zoning and that the cart was before the horse in the proceedings. He was afraid that parcels in the Quadrant would be small and have uses which were not compatible with the residential uses out there. Mr. Walt Bruska, of GBIC, said the company in question was Mitel and he gave some information on them. Mr. Farrar noted that all that was being considered here was the zone change, not the specific applicant. Mr. Brown noted that the city had a new Plan under which all this land was designated industrial and he stated that the zoning was merely a by-law by which the Plan operated. The Zoning Regulations will be amended to bring them into conformity with the Plan. He stated that objections to the change should have been voiced at the hearings on the Plan. Mr. Flaherty noted that the Plan was conceptual. Mr. Kerwin asked how much of the currently zoned industrial land was occupied. Mr. Spitz said it was about 31%, but the great majority of the undeveloped land was owned by two landowners, one of which is Digital. Taking that land out, the rest is a little less than 50% developed. Several residents expressed surprise that Digital should have been allowed to take up so much of the industrial land in the city so no one else could use it. Mr. Farrar said that when the Plan was discussed the Council spent hours trying to avoid what is happening tonight - a change in use after a number of people are living in an area. They tried to estimate how much industrial land would be needed in the future to maintain the same relative tax base balance between residential and non-residential uses and set aside that much land now so everyone would know what was planned for the future. Ms. Coffin said no one on Hinesburg Road knew the discussions were underway at the time the change in use was contemplated. Mr. Schmucker disagreed with the statement that once the Plan was adopted there was a mandate to implement it with by-laws. He said that could be done but it was not mandated. Dr. Luginbuhl said some industrial uses would not be compatible with the residential uses in the area and he asked for some regulations which would be sure the permitted uses were compatible. Mr. Krassner noted that a major problem in the city was traffic and that congestion should be reduced. Mr. Boyd thought this location, with only Hinesburg Road to serve it, was poor for an industrial use. Ms. Judy Hurd said she had two children, and with 900 more trips per day she did not see how anyone with children could live on Hinesburg Road. She also noted that this was prime agricultural land which the city does not have left in abundance. Ms. Nadeau felt this use would create traffic problems which the road could not handle. Mr. Farrar felt the concerns being voiced tonight were whether the zone change considered here would get the city in trouble in the future and, as far as the procedure, he wanted to consult with the City Attorney to see if the proposal could be modified by taking out, for example, the two parcels of land added by the Commission above what the applicant wants. He also suggested urging the Commission to hurry on its proposed zoning for the entire area. He was not sure different rules could be applied to this new zone than were applied in existing industrial zoning. At the next meeting the Council will try to reach a decision on the issue. Mr. Farrar wanted to find out the Council's ability to modify the proposal. Mr. Flaherty asked why the Commission was holding hearings on the application while zone change hearings were going on and was told it was because of the vast amount of information which is needed from the applicant. They wanted to get started taking testimony but they will not yet take action. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 pm at City Hall. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all were in favor. Continue work on the City Budget Mr. Szymanski said some items had been deleted from the budget but that there was still a $31,000 shortfall. It was noted that the CCTA expense had gone from $27,000 in 1979-80 to $80,000 two years later. Mr. Szymanski said insurance costs had risen 18%. He went through the adjustments to the fire department budget. It was decided to use a figure of $1.75 per gallon for gasoline in this budget. Mr. Szymanski then went through the police department adjustments. Mr. Farrar asked how many miles police vehicles had put on them and how much it cost to maintain them. It was decided to think over the budget and discuss it more next week. Mr. Lowell Krassner showed pictures of flooding on Beacon Street and asked for money to fix it. He had a letter signed by area residents supporting the repairs. Mr. Farrar said the governor had decided that apportionment and school aid were separate issues and should be treated as such. He has also said that the statement that property assessments should be 100% should either be removed or enforced. Farrar wondered if appraisal levels could be adjusted yearly to keep them at 100%. Review Planning and Zoning agendas On #3 on the Zoning Board, Mr. Paulsen was not aware of an 8A on East Terrace and Mr. Szymanski said he would check into it. Old Business Mr. Paulsen asked about appliances in the kitchen in the new City Hall conference room. Mr. Szymanski said he would try to get them in by the end of the month. Mr. Farrar thanked Bill Szymanski and Bill Burgess for the work they did keeping track of the City Hall construction progress and stated that they had done a good job. Discuss Old Municipal Building Demolition Contract Mr. Szymanski felt this should be in executive session and Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session to discuss a demolition contract with the City Manager and then reconvene the regular session with the only purpose being to take action with regard to the contract. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and all were in favor. At 10:00 Mr. Paulsen moved to reconvene in regular session. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all were in favor. The Council decided to take no action on the contract. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.