Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/19/1982CITY COUNCIL APRIL 19, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, April 19, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Michael Flaherty, Vice Chairman; Hugh Marvin, William Burgess, Howard Perkett Member Absent Paul Farrar, Chairman Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; David Spitz, Planner; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Donald Whitten, Water Pollution Control Dept; Albert Audette, Highway Department; Sidney Poger, Kirk Woolery and George Mona, Planning Commission members; Pat Burgmeier. The Other Paper; Stan Wilbur and Jeffrey McDonald, Webster-Martin; Paul Gormsen, State of Vermont EED; Richard Trudell, Carl Cobb, Judy & Vernon Hurd, Jacqueline & J. Edward Marceau, Mark Abrams, Janet Dunn, C. Harry Behney, William Mikell, J.C. Ray, Robert Furlong, T.F. O'Connor, Leona Lansing, Joan Nadeau, Jody Gormsen, Dotti Simone, Edith Hendley, Roberta & L.H. Coffin, Ann Painter, Nancy Boyd Minutes of February 24, April 2, April 6, April 7, April 8, April 12, April 13 and April 5, 1982 On page 2 of the April 7 minutes, the sentence after the second motion on the page should be changed. The second motion is the one to amend Mr. Burgess' motion. After the motion itself, the sentence should read "Mr. Marvin seconded the amendment and the vote on the amendment was. . . ." Mr. Marvin felt that an amendment to a motion was an amendment, not a motion as the minutes read. Mr. Marvin moved to approve the Minutes of April 7 as amended and the minutes of February 24, April 2, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 5 as written. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and all voted aye. Sign Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Public hearing - facility and environmental assessment report for Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrading Mr. Flaherty read an explanation of the purpose of the hearing (see attached copy). Mr. Gormsen stated that the State provides technical services in this project to be sure that what is built meets the guidelines. He added that financial help was also provided. The upgrade is needed because federal and State regulations require that municipalities meet minimum levels of discharge into State waters. The Airport Parkway plant, which is a primary treatment facility, has a temporary pollution permit. He noted that the Bartlett Bay plant, which is not in question here, was a secondary treatment facility. Mr. Gormsen said there was a study underway to determine how much pollutant would be allowed to be discharged. The level established is 10 milligrams per liter, although that may later be relaxed, which will not cause drastic changes to the design as proposed. He stated that the engineering design suggested a level of 10. Mr. Gormsen said the city was on the list for final design in October and construction in October of 1984. He said he could not tell much about funding at this time, although in the past projects have been funded 75% from the federal government, about 15% from the State and the rest from the municipality. The 75% figure may decrease to 50%, or it may be grandfathered at 75%. The costs in the report are based on 75%-15%-10%. Mr. Jeff McDonald showed the 4 planning areas of the city - the Williston Road area, served by the Airport Parkway plant; the East Woods area, served by the Burlington plant; the Shelburne Road area, served by Bartlett Bay's plant; and the Southeast Quadrant, served by individual septic tanks. Mr. McDonald said federal regulations required alternate plans to be developed, studied and evaluated to be sure the best solution is chosen. A preliminary screening was done to evaluate possible other solution. Mr. McDonald went through a list of these possible solutions and stated why many of them were not feasible. For example, the option to take no action is not feasible, since action is required, and the option to use physical/chemical treatment is not economical for a project of this size. After eliminating some of the options, the feasible systems were studied. Mr. McDonald said an extensive study was done on land treatment. They looked for a suitable site for rapid infiltration lagoons, and found one, but it is not available, and there were questions about wastewater percolating into the groundwater. This left 3 biological alternatives and the lowest cost one was conventional activated sludge - adding alum. After deciding that was the best alternative, the study looked at sludge handling. Dewatering and land filling it would require too many sand drying beds to be feasible. Dewatering and land spreading it seasonally would be expensive. Storing liquid sludge and land spreading it would have a high cost for the container, but operating costs would be lower. What is recommended is secondary conventional activated sludge with liquid sludge management. Mr. McDonald showed what would have to be added to the present site to provide this treatment. The tank would be large enough to store 6 months worth of sludge. Environmental concerns were evaluated. As far as water quality, the project would improve the quality of the river. The present plant removes 50% of the suspended solids and BOD, and the new one would remove 95%. The river is not used as a water supply, although it discharges into Lake Champlain, from which the Champlain Water District draws water. The upgrade will use the existing site. Regarding air quality, Mr. McDonald said odor would be a concern. In terms of noise, some of the equipment is loud, but it will be designed to be as quiet as possible. There are no archaeological treasures on the site which will be disturbed, the plant will be designed to be as esthetically pleasing as possible, and although the new plant will use more energy, that will be partially offset by the increase in gas production at the plant which can be used for heating. Dust, erosion and siltation will be controlled during construction. Mr. McDonald said the design load for the plant would be 2.3 mgd, compared to the 1.2 mgd now. He said that 90% of the total cost would be eligible for federal aid, and if the aid is 75%, it will be 75% of the 90% of total cost. Mr. McDonald went through the estimated costs (copy attached to these minutes). Ms. Leona Lansing asked how the Camp, Dresser, and McKee study fit into this and was told that there was some overlap. Mr. Flaherty asked how long construction would take and was told 2-3 years. Mr. Furlong asked about using the landfill to construct sand drying beds on, so the same technique the plant uses now could be continued. Mr. Szymanski said the present landfill area would not be used up for some time. 2-3 years ago a study was done which said the landfill had 20 years of life left. Mr. McDonald added that he was not sure sand drying beds were the most economical way to go for a plant this size, and Mr. Audette noted that the State would not allow sludge in landfills. Mr. Wilbur said that the report would be finished, with a summary of this hearing. It will come back to the Council and will go to the Agency of Environmental Conservation. After that, application will be made for funding for preliminary design. Public hearing on application of Goodrich, DuBois and Mikell for development of a Planned Unit Development consisting of residential units and industrial lots on a parcel of land along the east side of Hinesburg Road and south of the Mitel industrial complex Mr. Richard Trudell said this proposal provided an overall plan for the rest of the undeveloped part of the southeast quadrant. Total land involved is 355 acres, in several parcels. Mr. Trudell said it was the intent of the applicants to present an overall plan for the area which would provide an opportunity for them to realize a return on their investment and coordinate road and utility layouts in the area. It would provide for growth in the area and it considers the present zoning. It would allow people to live near their places of employment, thus encouraging an efficient use of transportation. Mr. Trudell noted that the plans were not cast in concrete. There are 100 acres in the Agricultural-Residential area (AgR) and 228 in the Industrial-Agricultural (IAg). Using the allowable PUD density of 2/acre with water and sewer, both of which are available in this area, 200 dwelling units are proposed. In addition, the plan indicates industrial lots sized from 10 acres to 60 acres. These lot sizes are not cast in concrete, Mr. Trudell said, noting that smaller lot sizes might be a good idea. Mr. Trudell said that one purpose for developing a concept like this is to respond to questions raised during the Mitel hearings. This would take pressure off adjacent land by not using such low density development. Mr. Trudell said the original Green Acres parcel was bought 17 years ago for the purpose of development in housing units and that has been the owner's intent all along. The city's wish now is to consider industrial uses on that land, so this plan combines the wishes of both. For illustration purposes only, Mr. Trudell showed a plan of the area as it could be developed now - with 656 dwelling units. The owner has looked into using part of the land for industrial uses, but feels that the large lot restriction and the low density allowed are a hardship. The applicants have looked at the saleability of land and they have testimony on the viability of large lots. Mr. Flaherty read a petition from the Hinesburg Road Property Association. He said it had about 40 names on it. They support the current wording of the IAg zoning in the 1982 zoning ordinance, and they note that during 1981 they worked on the wording with the Planning Commission. They do not like any industrial lots, but feel that they do not want a reduction in size to 10 acres. Mr. Flaherty also read the Planner's 4/15 memo on this application. He asked where this differed from the current and proposed zoning. Planner David Spitz said the 1980 Comprehensive Plan indicated changes in this area, but the zoning changes have not taken place yet except in the Mitel area. The AR zoning presently allows 1 house in 10 acres, except that 2 units per acre are allowed with the extension of water and sewer lines. The Planning Commission has presently proposed an IAg zone for the west side of Hinesburg Road as well as the east side. The proposed minimum lot size in this zone would be 50 acres with building coverage of 10% and parking and road coverage of another 10%. Mr. Trudell said one concern of the owners of the land was the lot size. He said he was involved with the Mitel project and that they ruled out a site in another community because its restrictions were too high. He felt that restrictive zoning would cause businesses to look elsewhere for land, and he noted that there were some very fine small businesses which did not need and could not afford 50 acres. Mr. Trudell asked Mr. Behney to talk about lot sizes. Mr. Behney said that he had no personal involvement with this property, nor does he work for anyone who does. He stated that he had 10 years experience in industrial development work and he felt that if the city wanted industrial development in the southeast quadrant, he suggested that the concern for open space be addressed by restrictions on lot coverage instead of lot size. He felt the proposed zoning was exclusionary and that the owners might make a legal case on exclusionary zoning. He said that in the past 11 years, in the entire state, only 22 new industrial projects had come in per year on the average. The major growth comes from existing companies, and those are usually small in size to start out. In Chittenden County there are only 3 industrial complexes with 50 acres or more, and South Burlington has two of them. Mr. Cobb felt the proposed coverage would be a waste of land and that the cost of development under the circumstances would make it impossible. He noted that the difference between the proposed and the present zoning for industrial areas was very great, and he felt that this would take pressure off some land and move it to other land. He felt that without flexibility to develop the land, it would lie fallow. Mr. Flaherty told the audience that the Council had to consider any application submitted, on its merits, under the current ordinance. Mr. Spitz noted that he felt that if the Council granted a variance on this land before it even considered the proposed zoning, he thought that would be taking a step too early. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Cobb if he would still be concerned if the lot coverage allowed changed but the lot size remained the same and was told he would. Both concepts trouble him. Mr. Spitz said the proposed lot size for industrial lots in the rest of the city was 40,000 sq. ft. The Comprehensive Plan indicated that 35% of that land was used at that time - the figure might be 40-45% now. There are now 50+industrial lots on Kimball Avenue, Williston Road, on the Willis land, etc. Allowed coverage on lots in those areas is 30%. Mr. Mona said that as a member of the Planning Commission he would like to speak against this plan. He felt it went against the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan which the city has approved. He said the Commission had tried to follow City Council instructions to maintain the tax base between residential and non-residential land in the city. When the industrial zone was first proposed in the quadrant, the citizens were concerned because they did not want development such as is proposed tonight to occur out there. The Commission, therefore, proposed large-lot high-quality industrial uses. He felt the proposal was an affront to the wisdom of the Council and the Commission as well as the citizens of the city and he suggested that it be rejected. Ms. Leona Lansing read a statement from the Champlain Valley League of Women Voters opposing the change (see attached copy). Mr. Abrams felt the proposal would disrupt the character of the area and he wondered about increased truck traffic. Mr. Robert Furlong brought up the question of the airport approach cone on this land. He also wanted to know the breakdown in terms of acreage of the lots. He noted that there seemed to be no lots between 12 and 60 acres. Ms. Nadeau favored the 50 acre minimum, noting that the residents wanted quality industry. Ms. Hurd noted that just because land was not built on did not mean it was wasted. Ms. Ann Emery agreed with Mr. Mona's comments. She felt the 50 acre concept had been hammered out at Commission meetings. Mr. Marvin asked when the 50 acre lot size and 10% coverage had come in. He noted that that was not the coverage when Mitel came in. Mr. Poger said it was; that coverage was discussed with Mitel. Mr. Trudell objected to that, saying that he did not think Mr. Thweatt of Mitel had the same feeling. He said the figures were discussed, but never agreed to by Mitel. Mr. Spitz said that in the work with Mitel the city had tried to help Mitel locate here. The choice at the time was to develop the new industrial zoning at that time, or use what was on the books. The decision was to use what was on the books, but in discussions with Mr. Trudell and Mitel representatives, the city told them what the preliminary thoughts on the new zoning were, and those included the 10% coverage. Mr. Cobb gave Mr. Flaherty a letter from Mr. Thweatt of Mitel addressing that issue. The letter is dated January 5, 1982 and Mr. Flaherty read it. Mr. Thweatt stated that he did not agree to the restrictions, in the letter. Mr. Furlong said he attended Commission meetings and that this was brought up and everyone seemed to agree on it. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting - on May 3 at 7:30 pm. Mr. Marvin seconded the motion. Mr. Flaherty said the Council would talk to the City Attorney about the options here and a decision will probably be made at the next meeting. He said the item could be put first on the agenda. The motion passed unanimously. Review and consider for first reading the amended Dog Control Ordinance Mr. Szymanski said the sections on biting and on complaints had been clarified. Mr. Burgess asked if those were the only changes made since the ordinance was considered for changes the last time and was told they were. The ordinance was reviewed and approved by the police and the City Attorney. Mr. Burgess moved to accept this as the first reading. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. Review Zoning agenda There were no comments. Old business There was none. Meet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license renewals Mr. Marvin moved to adjourn this meeting and open the meeting as the Liquor Control Board to consider liquor license renewals. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. Ms. Picard noted that 6 applications were being held because they were incomplete and 2 or 3 have not been received yet. The applications the Council has have all been approved by the fire and police chiefs and the tax collector. They are first class and second class licenses. The licenses up for renewal are as follows: The Old Board (Club New England), Lums, The Windjammer, Solomon's, Grand Union on Shelburne Road, Spillane's on Shelburne Road, P & C on Williston Road, The Sheraton, The Airport Grocery, Pappas' Restaurant, Grand Union on Hinesburg Road, The Sizzling Steak, Howard Johnson's, The Cork and Board, Spillane's on Williston Road, The Ground Round, Martin's on Dorset Street, The Five Reasons (the May family), U-Save Beverage Center, The Redwood, Colonial Mart, Octane, The Net Result, Pauline's Kitchen, Robert's Sav-Mor, Gaynes Department Store, Gracies, Ramada Inn, Martin's on Shelburne Road, Vinny's Hot Spot, Kinfolks (formerly Riby's), The Parkway Diner, Morgan's (formerly Twitchell's), Big Ben Pizza, The Tower Restaurant, Pizza Hut, Brothers Two, Holiday Inn, Benes Inn, The Brick Oven, The Airport Restaurant, and Bonanza. Mr. Burgess moved to approve the above liquor licenses on the recommendation of the City Manager. Mr. Perkett seconded the motion and all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Public Hearing on the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment for the City of South Burlington, Vermont, ~irport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade. 7:30 and I will 11 t is ?/ PPq 1 3 This public hearing is being conducted as a requirement of the United States Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 11, dated Wednesday, January 17, 1973. The purpose of this hearing is to allow the public and interested environmental/conservation groups, industries, and individuals to assist the City of South Burlington in identifying valid project and environmental issues which must be considered in the development of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities on Airport Parkway which serves the Williston Road area of South Burlington. At this time, I wish to introduce Stan Wilbur and Jeff McDonald of Webster-Martin, Inc. and Paul Gormsen, representative of the Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation. A public notice of this hearing was posted on March 5, 1982 in South Burlington as well as being printed in the Burlington Free Press. Posting of this notice is considered adequate notice to all interested parties. For the record, and as part of the proceedings of this public hearing, I wish to enter a copy of the public notice' as Exhibit A. A Facilities Plan including an environmental assessment of the project was recently completed by our Engineer and this has been available for review at the La Clerk's Office and the City library. At this time I will enter into the records as part of these proceedings, Exhibit B, a copy of the Facilities Plan which contains the environmental assessmerit entitled " Facility Planning Report for City of South Burlington, Vermont, ~irport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade, March 1982" prepared by ~ebster-Martin, Inc. Next, I would like to enter into the record as marked Exhibit C, a list of the organizations and conservation groups to whom a copy of the notice of this public hearing was mailed. A transcript (or tape recording) of the proceedings of this hearing is being taken and will be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency. Since this is a public hearing, each and every person here has the opportunity to present his own testimony, views or opinions as to the proposed project and environmental effects. I encourage you to present your views. • 1 Prior to opening the floor to questions, Paul Gormsen, from the hgency of Environmental Conservation shall discuss the necdssity of the project and summarize the source of planning and condtruction funds; Jeff McDonald of Webster-Martin will present the/ alternatives evaluated, the recommended project , and the I . environmental considerations of the proposal. You are reminded that each time you wish to speak you must gike your name prior to asking your question. If you represent ar/ organization or group, please name the organization or group. Mr Gormsen: - ESTIIIATED LOCAL SHARE OF PROJECT COST Total Project Cost $8,100,000.00 Fed. Basic Grant 0.75 (7,157.256.00.) - - 5,367,942.00 State Basic Grant 0.15 (7,103,256.00) - - 1,065,488.00 State Phos. Grant 0.10 (1,022,900.00) - - 102,290.00 State Administrative Allowance 3,000.00 6,538,720.00 Local Share ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Item - Estimated 1. Labor $ 87,100 2. Power ~7.~300 3. Equipment Maintenance 13,700 4. Chemicals for Phosphorus Removal 12,800 5. Alkalinity Addition 5,000 6. Disinfection 3,300 7. Sludge Thickening 3,500 8. Administration 15,300 9. Sludge Management Total Operating Costs ESTIPIATED AVERAGE FAMILY USER COSTS Current -Proposed Tax Assessment User Rate User Charge Operation and Maintenance $ 41.23 Property Taxation $ 31.00 $ 53.50 Total Estimated Average Annual User Cost $ 72.23 $109.16 CHAMPLAIN VALLEY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS Burlington, Charlotte, Hinesburg, St. George. Shelburne, South Burlington, Williston April 5, 1982. The Champlain Valley League of Women Voters wishes to go on record as being opposed to the proposed zoning change for the South East Quadrant which would reclassify a large portion of South Burlington's remaining agricultural land for industrial and commercial use. In the past twenty-five years, we have seen vast areas of this community transformed from open meadows, woodlots and farmland to residential, commercial and industrial development. In the quest for an ever expanding tax base, consideration must be given to the secondary land use demands of large-scale development and its apact upon the physical, social and economic envirokent; for example, Support facilities, housing and the expansion of public services. Each day, twelve square miles of farmland are removed from the r agricultural rolls--- three million acres per year. For our own sake - - - - - - -- -. - - -- 4 and that of generations to come, we must preserve our renewable resource lands and prevent further loss of productivity. Once farm land is paved over and developed, it is lost forever. Unfort~ately, the ever increasing burden of property taxes forces many farmers to sub-divide their lands. Rather than re-zone to make this land more valuable, we atrongly urge the city to explore and develop mechanisms to provide economic relief for these land owners. om8 mechanisms to be eonaidered are properby tax relief and the 9 transfer of development rights. In 8108i8g, I would Llka to state that the Obmplrin Vallej Eeagu@.of WoPea Voter@ believes that land is mora than a E co~lppodity; we believe that it is a finite resource, t@ be maintained md pro teo ted. -- Sincerely, Leona f. Lansing Chuaplain Valley LWV