Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/20/1982CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 20, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a Regular Meeting on Monday, September 20, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Sid Poger, George Mona, Planning Commission; David Spitz, City Planner; Douglas Brink, Vermont EED Environmental Conservation; Stan Wilbur, Dexter Lefavour, Webster-Martin; Donald Whitten, Water Pollution Control Dept., Albert Audette, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus, Frank Mazur; Pat Burgmeier, The Other Paper; David Kaufman, State Representative; Tom Fraga Interview Candidates for Boards & Commissions The Council interviewed James Thibault for the Planning Commission. Mr. Thibault indicated he would also accept a position on the Zoning Board. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes Mr. Flaherty moved to accept the Minutes of August 30, 1982. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Disbursement Orders Disbursement Orders were signed. PUBLIC HEARING - Facility Planning Report for Phosphorus Reduction at Bartletts Bay Sewage Treatment Facility Mr. Farrar read the Warning and then introduced Mr. Douglas Brink of the State Environmental Agency, and Messrs. Stan Wilbur and Dexter Lefavour of the Webster-Martin Company who prepared the report. Mr. Brink explained the history of the matter, beginning with the 1972 order of the Federal Government that all sewage treatment plants achieve secondary level treatment. He then reviewed the 1977 decision of the Vermont Legislature which requires that sewage treatment plants reduce the level of phosphorus to 1 mg per liter. Pursuant to this requirement, the City hired Webster-Martin to research methods of complying with the State regulation. Although the original deadline for compliance was July 1, 1981, this has been extended until July 1, 1985. Messrs. Wilbur and Lefavour then presented a summary of their company's findings. They said that it is possible for the City to reduce the amount of phosphorus at the Bartletts Bay Treatment facility to meet State and Federal requirements. They recommend a three-fold program: 1. the installation of facilities for storage and addition of alum 2. the expanding of laboratory facilities 3. the removal of sludge In their research, Webster-Martin considered three methods of achieving the 1% phosphorus level: 1. chemical precipitation combined with biological process, at a cost estimate of $132,000 (1980 figures) 2. chemical precipitation separate from biological process, at a cost estimate of $2,135,000 3. land application of treatment plant effluent, at a cost estimate of $551,900. Since the first method was most cost effective, they eliminated the other alternatives. Mr. Wilbur indicated that some of the needed equipment (including some alum) has already been purchased and is on hand, so the process can begin almost immediately. He estimated a $7,000 per year cost to maintain the process, with $5,000 of this amount representing the purchase of alum. Regarding sludge removal, Mr. Wilbur noted that there is a regional study now in progress which will no doubt ultimately involve the Bartletts Bay facility. However, as sludge removal was included in their research, he cited their findings. There are four possible methods of sludge removal: 1. stabilization, dewatering sludge to 20% solids, stockpile and land application 2. stabilization, storage of liquid at 2% solids, land application 3. thickening to 6% solids, stabilization, dewatering to a 20% solids wet cake, stockpile and land application 4. thickening to 6% solids, stabilization, storage of thickened sludge, land application. He said that sludge removal will be handled in concert with the airport facility which will significantly reduce costs. Ms. Lansing asked if phosphorus is now liquid, and Mr. Wilbur replied that it is tied up with organic waste. At present, it comes in at approximately 5 mg. per liter and goes out at 2 mg. per liter. Causes of phosphorus include detergents and natural occurrences in the soil. Mr. Wilbur indicated that EPA funds are available to help fund installation of a phosphorus removal system. Maintenance of the system would be at the expense of the City. Regarding ecological factors, Mr. Wilbur said there would be negligible or no affect on water, air and noise levels, and they found no archeological evidence in the area. He said there would be a 19% increase in waste sludge, and indicated that farmers may be willing to pay for this waste as phosphorus is valuable to them. Several Bartletts Bay residents noted that there has been a decline in water quality in the past ten years and that pipes are now overgrown with weeds. They also noted the offensive odors which occasionally come from the plant. Mr. Wilbur said the next step is to forward to them any comments for transmittal to EPA and that there should be a resolution in about a month for endorsement by the Council. Transit Authority Representative's Report Mr. Frank Mazur presented two proposed amendments. The first concerned revision of the clause that states commissioners are to serve without pay. Mr. Flaherty asked why this was being requested and Mr. Mazur said that commissioners incur travel expenses in commuting to and from meetings. The second amendment would eliminate the one-year notice of withdrawal now required from towns seeking to leave the Authority. A number of small towns have expressed interest in joining but are fearful of the cost. If costs do become prohibitive, they should have the option of withdrawing with the consent of other members. This would also benefit other members, since they would have to make up the losses of the financially troubled town. Mr. Flaherty moved that both amendments be approved, with the stipulation that each commissioner's compensation not exceed $500.00 per year. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Continued Public Hearing on proposed Zoning Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Articles X, XI, and XII were accepted without discussion. In Article XIII, there was discussion of the possibility of a tavern (bar) being approved in an area where it would face a residential street (as was the case in the proposed Lindenwood project). Mr. Mona said that although such a project might slip through the first "safety net," the conditions imposed on the developers to insure the rights of neighboring homeowners would be such as to discourage the project (as occurred in the Lindenwood case). Article XIV was accepted without changes. Concerning Article XV, Mr. Flaherty raised the question of why there were such disparate uses of the area instead of only airport related uses. Mr. Spitz said the area was considered as industrial with preference for airport related industry. Mr. Flaherty then raised the question of non-airport heavy industry locating directly across from residential areas, and it was recommended that the section be revised to prohibit certain uses on Airport Drive to Airport Road and in areas where it passes Country Club Estates. Concerning Article XVII, the proposed Lakeshore District, discussion arose concerning the effect on property values. Mr. Spitz indicated that property values would probably double. Mr. Stewart McConaughy, attorney for the owners of the Allenwood property, spoke of the problem rezoning would case the owners when assessors would no doubt reassess the property even before development occurs. Concerning access to the area, the Planning Commission members indicated their feeling that with the new zoning, the value of the property would be enough so that developers would build an access over or under the railroad tracks. Mr. Shearer asked what would happen if such an access were not provided and how the property would then be developed. Mr. Poger replied that they are concerned with the property being developed as a whole, and under the present zoning there is more danger of the property being developed in pieces. Tom Price of the Bartletts Bay Association indicated that there is an acute problem with the amount of development now going on, especially the 48 condominiums which are dumping people onto a small road which is barely adequate now. Mr. McConaughy asked why development was now being considered since in the 40 years the owner has had the property he hasn't developed it or indicated he wants to. He said the added tax burden would thus be unfair. Mr. Poger asked if it would be possible to declare that taxes would not increase until development, and Mr. Farrar said this could not be done without authority. It was agreed to give the matter further consideration. Regarding Article XVIII, Mr. Spitz explained that previously traffic controls were tied to C-1 and C-2 districts; they will now be tied to high use areas. Concerning Article XIX, Section 112b ("Height of Structures"), Mr. Flaherty questioned whether four stories was a sufficient designation to protect views. After discussion, Mr. Flaherty moved to revise this section to read: "40 feet or 3 stories." Ms. Lansing seconded and the motion was approved 3-2, with Messrs. Burgess and Marvin opposing. Since the final zoning document must be completed by January 5, 1983, it was agreed that a special session is needed to complete the process. Mr. Flaherty moved to continue discussion on Zoning until Monday, September 27, 1982. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Accept Resignation of Ernest Levesque from Planning Commission and Fine Arts Committee Mr. Burgess moved to accept the resignations with thanks to Mr. Levesque for his service. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Resolution of Commendation for James Ewing Mr. Flaherty moved that the Resolution of Commendation for James Ewing be signed. Mr. Marvin seconded with unanimous approval. Discuss Bonding for City's Share of Proposed Southern Connector Mr. Farrar stated that the Council has two options: either bonding for the full project or bonding for only the design portion. Mr. Marvin said he felt the people should be presented with the entire proposal either to accept or vote it down, since they might not understand a second bonding question. Mr. Farrar said that according to the City Manager, the City's share of the project will be approximately $2,500,000. Mr. Marvin moved to authorize a bond issue for the November 2, 1982 ballot for the City's estimated share of the South Burlington Southern Connector in the amount of $2,500,000. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar then asked when the Council could meet with the Planning Commission to discuss the Dorset Street situation, and the members agreed on Monday, October 11, 1982. Request by City Employees to Discuss Health Insurance Contract Kevin Hayes stated that members of the Police Association are still having problems with the Connecticut General Insurance. Hospitals are refusing to bill Connecticut General as are physicians. The membership is uneasy because they do not know what the benefits are and cannot be sure they will be happy with the plan in the long run. They have received no booklets explaining the coverage. Mr. Flaherty said that a Connecticut General representative will be coming to address those concerns on October 4, 1982. Mr. Minnich further indicated the benefits are the same and therefore the Blue Cross/Blue Shield booklets can be used until the Connecticut General booklets are printed, in early October. Health benefit questions can be answered by calling a toll-free number to Connecticut General. This number is on the front of the VLCT Health ID card and is also on the l"xl" telephone sticker every employee has. Hospitals will bill Connecticut General directly. If there are problems in this regard, or problems with physician billing, City employees are to contact the Assistant City Manager. Sewer to Swift Estates Mr. Szymanski indicated that he had been in contact with the other homeowner affected by the proposed line, and this homeowner would have no objection provided there is no frontage charge and no hook-on charge. Mr. Szymanski also noted that Mr. Peters had secured a new estimate for a 12 ״ line in the amount of $13,660, plus paving. Mr. Flaherty moved to run a 12״ line from Ridgewood approximately 600 feet into Swift Estates with the City to pay the cost differential between a 4״ and a 12״ line. Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Speed Limit on Hinesburg Road Mr. Farrar noted that some time ago residents requested that the speed limit be lowered to 35 mph, similar to Spear Street. The State law now permits such a change providing there is an engineering cause. Mr. Szymanski said he had spoken with a traffic engineer who said that it would be hard to justify on the basis of topography of road or of population density among other factors. Increase in Sewer Usage Rate Mr. Farrar noted Mr. Szymanski's memo of September 17, 1982 to increase the Sewer Usage Rate in South Burlington from $4.40 per 1,000 cubic feet to $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet, to generate additional revenue into the sewer operating budget, 1982-1983. This new rate to begin with the October, 1982 billing. After some discussion, Mr. Flaherty made the motion to raise the sewer usage rate from $4.40 per 1,000 cubic feet to $5.00 per 1,000 cubic feet beginning with the October, 1982 billing, seconded by Mr. Burgess, with unanimous approval. Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing appointments and reconvene for the sole purpose of making such appointments. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. In Executive Session, the members presented the following slate of appointments: Peter Jacob and John Belter to a four year term and Mary-Barbara Maher to fulfill the unexpired term until 1985 on the Planning Commission; James Thibault to fill Ms. Maher's term on the Zoning Board; Mary Ann Gucciardi and Richard Leopold to be reappointed to the Recreation Committee. Mr. Flaherty moved to return to regular session. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Marvin moved that the appointments recommended in Executive Session be approved. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.