Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/07/1983CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 AMENDMENTS TO MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1983 On page 4, middle paragraph lines 1 and 9 should read as follows: "Section 8.101 of Article 8" and "Section 9.101 of Article 9." The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, September 7, 1983, at 7:20 p.m., in the Conference Rooms, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Hugh Marvin, Chairman; Paul Farrar, Michael Flaherty, Leona Lansing, William Peters Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator; Albert C. Audette, Street Department; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Mary-Barbara Maher, Planning Commission; Representatives Robert Walsh, Robert Chittenden, David Kaufman; Joe Obuchowski, City Attorney; Don Melvin, Burlington Free Press; Stewart Ledbetter, WJOY; Barbara Matta, Gene Cenci, William Schuele, Jane Bechtel, Paul Thabault, Doug Wyand, Greg Primo, John Caulo, Gene Beaudoin; Richard Spokes, City Attorney Executive Session (Mini Conference Room) Mr. Farrar moved that the Council go into executive session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation with the City Attorney. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Following the discussions, Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council terminate the executive session. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Regular Meeting (Large Conference Room) Take Formal Action on Question of Appeal of Sign Ordinance Ruling Mr. Peters moved that the Court ruling on the sign ordinance not be appealed. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Farrar explained that an amended order has been received from the Superior Court which says that it is only Section 14 of the Sign Ordinance which has been nullified. The remainder of the Ordinance remains in tact. Mr. Flaherty then moved that Item 1 on the agenda, "Public Hearing on An Ordinance to Regulate Signs," be dropped. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Discussion on Method of Approach to Consider Amendments to Sign Ordinance Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council appoint a committee of three members, agreeable to both sides, to study the current sign ordinance with a look toward improving it and that the committee be advised to accept public input. Ms. Lansing seconded. Mr. Marvin indicated that the City Manager will discuss with the sign people a very impartial group of committee members and then contact these persons to see if they will serve. Mr. Farrar asked whether the Council will interview the members. Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Lansing felt that an interview would not be necessary as long as they were informed who the members were. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. Meet with Legislators to Discuss Pending Legislation Mr. Marvin read from an aritcle in the Wall Street Journal (attached) and explained that a person buying a house two years ago could sell that house for $20,000 more than he paid for it. All that tax on the $20,000 would go to the State and not the local government. Mr. Kaufman said he had contacted the Property Transfer Tax Division and had been told that the tax was initiated in January, 1968 to provide listers with information and to provide funds for microfilming. He gave the following figures for transfer taxes paid on South Burlington property: 1980 $209,000 1981 125,000 1982 128,000 1983 (Jan. to June) 74,512 All of this revenue goes to the State General Fund. Mr. Kaufman indicated that he had been told by a member of the State Ways and Means Committee that there was a proposal on the table that would increase the tax to 1% with ½ % to go back to the local town. A town which took the ½% would then give up floor funding for aid to education. He added that for a city such as South Burlington the loss of the education money would not be as critical as for a small town. However, he added that this would leave a hole in the General Fund, which is already short. Mr. Flaherty asked what the chance was of State legislation that would give relief to property taxes. Mr. Kaufman said there are many proposals. One would increase the sales tax base and lower the income tax. Mr. Flaherty said he felt that a ½% transfer tax at the local option with no tie-in to education would make more sense. Mr. Walsh said there may be an option that the town could make the transfer tax choice every year. He felt the legislature will be looking very closely to see that their individual towns are not hurt by the tax package. He hoped they could scrutinize proposals and enter into discussions early to see if they could insert something desirable for South Burlington. Mr. Flaherty said that because of formulas, South Burlington always seems to get a little of a large pie. He felt the City would do better under some kind of local option plan. Mr. Farrar said he would agree with taking money now going to the State and give it to local governments, but he would not agree with a new tax. Mr. Minnich noted that the School Aid bill had a provision that required annual appraisal. Towns bear the expense of the appraisal, but the benefit goes to the State. He felt the State should then find revenue to fund the town's expenses. Mr. Chittenden asked if the Council was looking to increase revenues or to stabilize taxes. Mr. Marvin said he would like to see additional sources to help with property taxes in the years ahead. Mr. Kaufman said he felt South Burlington would tend to benefit from any action that allowed money to come back to the City. He said that 30% of the State Fund goes to Social Welfare which benefits poorer areas more than South Burlington. He said it would probably be the City's benefit to keep some of the tax we generate. He said he also felt there should be an option as to whether the buyer or seller pays the transfer tax. Mrs. Maher said she felt that it is because South Burlington is a richer community we have to share some part with the State as a whole. She felt that kind of legislation would never pass. Mr. Kaufman agreed. Mr. Farrar said he felt the real problem is that the State and Federal governments are ever increasing the percentage they are taking. He said if this continues the people will vote against local expenditures which are the only ones over which they have an control. Mr. Kaufman indicated that the Ways and Means Committee must come up with some proposal by mid-October. Mr. Walsh said that when the package is announced they will come to the Council and discuss whether they wish any amendments, etc. Ms. Picard then raised the issue of the City's boundary problem. Mr. Walsh said they have discussed the issue of the line on Dorset Street and the people who were disenfranchised. There was a reluctance to do anything informally. If it is wished to keep those people in Rep. Chittenden's district, there will have to be legislation submitted to that effect. There would be a problem with this since there is a resistance from the Speaker of the House to put on the floor legislation that will change boundaries as it would open the question of reapportionment. He said he would be willing to submit the legislation but it would not be a simple matter. He added that the question has to be resolved by the primary. If no action is taken, those individuals would be transferred from 6-2 to 6-1. Mr. Schuele asked if the Council was going to address the legislators on their concerns before the Ways and Means package is announced. Mr. Kaufman said input could be offered at any time. Mr. Marvin felt this was a good idea and that the Council could think this over for the next meeting. Respond to City Planner's Memorandum of 8/19/83 regarding Dorset Street Improvement Fees for Corporate Circle(memo attached) Mr. Szymanski said he felt the City Planner's proposal was a reasonable approach. Mr. Beaudoin felt $6,00 was a bit high since they have no more sewer allocation left. He said they would be open to paying $1,000 per acre as the land is developed. Mr. Szymanski said this is correct; they are trying to increase the allocation but this may not be possible. Mr. Beaudoin said he would be open to a compromise, perhaps $6,000 now and then on a per-acre-basis. Mrs. Maher said the Planning Commission is in agreement with Mr. Spitz, since the developer chose to use up the entire allotment by bringing in a large restaurant. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the City Council accept the $6,000.00 contribution to Dorset Street improvements for the improved 2-acre lot, as per David Spitz's memo, and that the City Manager sit down with Dick Spokes and Mr. Beaudoin to work out a payment schedule for the remainder of the $34,000.00 for this particular property. Mr. Farrar seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Renewal Note for Highway Road Grader Mr. Szymanski explained that the note was for the balance of $35,200 at 7.2% with the Chittenden Bank. Rep. Chittenden asked what the original cost was. Mr. Audette said $120,000, less a $50,000 trade-in on the old grader. Mr. Farrar moved that the Council sign the note for the Highway Road Grader. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous approval. Discuss possible amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance Mr. Farrar moved that the Council consider housekeeping amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for referral to the Planning Commission with the suggestion that they get back to the Council within 90 days. Mr. Flaherty seconded. The first amendment would be in Section 8.101 or Article 8 dealing with permitted uses in R-2 districts. The present language says that permitted uses are single family and two family dwellings. He proposed striking everything after "single family" and then adding a Section 8.206 with conditional uses being 2-family dwellings. He said that the intent of the section was to allow for new development but that now it is being used to change the character of a neighborhood. He said a similar situation occurs in Section 9.101 or Article 9 where the permitted uses are single family and multi family dwellings. Article 9.101 would be changed to read "single family dwellings" and a new section 9.206 would add as conditional uses 2-family and multi-family dwellings. Mr. Ward said a whole group of amendments have been proposed by the Commission but were being delayed until a new Planner was hired. He felt it was too early for more amendments. Mr. Farrar said he felt the City had left itself open to this kind of situation and that once the dwelling has been altered, it can be used for anything in the future. In the vote which followed, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar then moved that the area known as Country Club Estates which is now zoned R-4 be changed to a more appropriate designation to represent as nearly as possible the character of the area. Mr. Flaherty seconded with unanimous consent. Mr. Farrar then noted that the City Code officer has a difficult problem: If a zoning approval has been challenged in Court, should a building permit be issued? He said there was a possibility that a building might have to be torn down based on the Court's decision. He suggested that when a variance is issued and then challenged in Court no building permit be issued until a determination has been made by the Court. Mr. Ward said that Mr. Spokes has twice advised them to issue the permit and that those going ahead with construction know that the building may have to come down. Mr. Farrar said there are many ways to proceed since State law is unclear in this area. Mr. Flaherty suggested tabling the motion and asking the City Attorney to come in and discuss the question. Mr. Farrar withdrew his motion. Mr. Farrar then suggested a procedural change. In a variance application, the present practice is to notify adjacent property owners. He felt it would be beneficial to expand this in some way, since problems that arise usually involve people who are or think they are involved and who have not known about the request previously. Mr. Ward said he considered it a courtesy issue and that it would be hard to know where to draw the line and where to stop. Consider Lifting the Hiring Freeze for the Purpose of Hiring a City Planner Mr. Szymanski said he has been under considerable pressure, especially from the Planning Commission, to replace David Spitz. He has responses from more than 20 applicants from as far away as California. He felt the work load was there since many developments have occurred in the past week land a lot of personal contact is required. Mr. Flaherty and Ms. Lansing agreed. Mr. Farrar said he felt the budget question should be solved first. Mr. Peters did not agree with filling the position. Mr. Marvin said there was a question of the need for a full-time planner, and that possibly an assistant to Mr. Ward would cover the situation. Mr. Ward stressed that he didn't feel it was right to make him do both jobs and not pay him for his added work load. He added that he had written a memo to that effect a month ago. Mrs. Maher spoke very strongly in Mr. Ward's behalf and indicated that the meeting he had prepared was beautifully done. She felt it was a gross injustice that he was not being paid well for the time he has put in. Mr. Ward said he though that with colleges in session, an appropriate college student might be acceptable as an assistant. Mr. Szymanski said he would consult further with Messrs. Ward and Poger. Mr. Farrar said he felt the budget problem could be solved at this meeting. Mr. Marvin said he thought they would first have to come up with a temporary solution to the City Planner problem. Review Zoning Agenda There were no concerns voiced here. Other Business Mr. Szymanski said that in talking with the Old Board people he learned that despite the fact that they had said they would not serve liquor during the arm wrestling events, liquor had been served in one section where no events were going on. Liquor was then served during the finals of the events after 5 P.M. He said that the police had reported no problems. Read minutes of Regular Meeting of August 22, 1983 and Special Meeting of August 24, 1983 Mr. Marvin noted that on page 3 of the August 22, 1983 meeting, he had voted against the second motion, so that the final vote was 3-2. Mr. Flaherty then moved that the minutes of the meetings of August 22, 1983 and August 24, 1983 be approved as amended. Ms. Lansing seconded with unanimous approval. Sign Distribution Orders Distribution orders were signed. Executive Session Mr. Flaherty moved that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss union contracts and to reconvene only for the purpose of adjournment. Mr. Peters seconded with unanimous approval. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. ~NDEN COUNTY COUa STATE OF VERMONT BLED IN Cw COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN, SS. sfQ 01983 ? II CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 Y : . octet No. S523- nC REDWOOD INN, INC. d/b/a BEST WESTERN MOTEL AMENDED ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiff 's Motion to Amend Judgment and the oral agruments of counsel on September 1 , 1983, this Court's Order of August 11, 1983 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: a. Section 14 of "Ordinance to Regulate Signs in the City of South Burlington" as originally adopted on June 25, 1973, and as later amended, is hereby decl ared i nval id. b. The invalidity of Section 14 shall not effect any other provision of said Ordinance as amended. c. Plaintiff's cause of action against the Defendant is DISMISSED on its merits. 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Presiding Judge # Fred I. Parker Attorney for Defendant By IEon~lw GUPNTHEH erty tax grew, cut, for instance, lcglslators had a choice of either MEMORANDUM ---------- To: South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Corporate Circle Contribution to Dorset Street Date: 8/19/83 Based on the Dorset Street policy adopted earlier this year, Corporate Circle's share of Dorset Street improvements is $34,400. At Corporate Circle's recent approval for their first subdivided lot, the Planning Corranission stipulated that the $34,400 be paid according to a payment schedule to be approved by the City Council. It would be unreasonable to expect all payment up-front, but a signed, guaranteed payment agreement should be executed now. . Contact the City Attorney for details. I rebmmend that the fee be paid on a per acre basis. A reasonable fee muld be $3000 per acre, i.e. $6000 for this 2 acre lot. P 3 cc : Gene Beaudo in e* Attorney Richard Spokes