Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 03/27/1990CITY COUNCIL 27 MARCH 1990 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on 27 March 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Michael Flaherty, Acting Chairman; John Dinklage, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present Charles Hafter, City Manager; D. Simindinger, W. Burt, M. Armstrong, Mr. Park, H. Bensen, M. Senesac, Mr. & Mrs. Baroni, C. Munson, G. Dicovitsky, R. Orvis; Stephen Stitzel, City Attorney 1. Request to add consideration of Act 200 to the Warning Mr. Flaherty read the language proposed by those who wish to add the item to the Warning for the 5/15/90 election. Mr. Simindinger said they felt the voters should have a chance to express an opinion about Act 200. Mr. Flaherty said the Council could take several actions: it could accept the request to put the item on the Warning, it could deny the request, or it could take no action. If the Council does not put the item on the ballot, the citizens could petition and if 5% of the voters sign the petition by 5/April, the item could be put on the ballot. Mr. Cimonetti noted the City does have a Master Plan and has planned development and will continue to do so for managed growth. He said he would prefer to ask voters about specific aspects of Act 200. Mr. Park said the question is whether the City will be bound by the 32 constraints of Act 200. He wasn't sure the proposed language addressed this. Mr. Burt said he knew that the City would receive state funds if it participates in Act 200 and that if the City chose not to, the state might later refuse to approve certain City projects. He said he saw a problem when people from other communities dream up "hoops" for another city to jump through. He said he was very leery of such planning. Mr. Dinklage said he thought conditions in Chittenden County cry out for planning and noted that the Regional Plan has not yet been established. He said at the moment nothing is broken, so he didn't see a reason to fix it. Mr. Burt stressed that South Burlington Planning should be done by S. Burlington. Ms. Armstrong said she had lived in areas where development became a problem and felt the citizens needed some kind of protection. She didn't know if Act 200 was the answer. She said she would hate to see rampant development in Vermont and wanted to keep the state beautiful. Mr. Bensen felt the Regional Planning Commission should be elected, not appointed. He felt the people should have a right to vote on the issue. Mr. Condos noted that by the 15 May election, Act 200 would have been amended by the Legislature. A citizen replied that he didn't feel Vermont Legislators knew what was best for S. Burlington, Mr. Cimonetti stressed that only Legislators can amend Act 200 and felt that what should be done is to instruct the City's legislators that the City does not want Regional Planning to have the right to approve or disapprove the City's Comprehensive Plan. He felt the City should approve Regional Planning's plan. Mr. Flaherty said some regional planning is needed and noted the appearance last week of people in a residential neighborhood bearing the traffic burden of development in other communities. Mr. Senesac felt the City should keep power over itself. Another citizen said she felt people were losing the right to speak in this country. Mr. Cimonetti moved that the City Council draft a resolution to the City's legislators instructing them to immediately work at legislation to modify Act 200 to specifically eliminate language that requires Regional Planning to approve the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty then asked for a motion relative to Mr. Simindinger's request for a ballot item on Act 200. No motion was made. Mr. Flaherty said citizens could get a petition with the required signatures by 5 April. Mr. Stitzel noted that the Council would still have the right to decide whether or not to put the item on the ballot. 2. Continue hearing regarding compensation for Dorset Street widening Mr. Flaherty read the Warning and noted procedures to be followed. Claimants will have until 9 April to submit written evidence. Site visits will be made Saturday morning between 9 and 11 am. a. Property #17 SSL Corporation, owner Mr. Orvis said .05 acre was being taken across the frontage of the property. There is a small maple tree in the area being taken. Also involved are a driveway easement and temporary slope easements. $16,100 has been offered. Mr. Senesac said he didn't mind the land taking. They do have 3 problems: 1) the amount of the appraisal and offer; 2) the affect on potential development of the remaining property (setbacks, etc), and 3) the problem with land gains tax Mr. Stitzel said the land gains tax is applicable in these cases. Mr. Senesac said they also have a problem with their property being devalued because loss of the left turn in. Mr. Cimonetti estimated the land gains tax would probably be less than $100. Mr. Senesac noted that .05% of what they paid for the land in question is double what is being offered. Mr. Dinklage said it would be helpful if the owners could provide a numerical analysis of exactly what they feel their loss will be. b) Parcel #28 Owner: University Mall trust This item was postponed until 30 April. c) Parcel #38 Owner: University Mall Trust; Interested party Irene Delorme who has a lifetime interest Mr. Orvis said .04 acre is being taken which includes 2 large maple trees. There are also temporary slope rights and the right to reconstruct a driveway to come to the rear of the property. $14,700 is being offered. Mrs. Delorme's representative said his client doesn't have the assets to get an appraisal. He noted this is a residential parcel. Mrs. Baroni, Mrs. Delorme's daughter, said her family has lived there 55 years and she wanted to be sure they got all that they should She noted her father had planted the maple trees and they had been told the trees would remain. Now they are told the trees will go. She also noted there will be no barrier between the road and the house. e) Parcel #44 Owner: Merlin Corp. Mr. Orvis said that .02 acre is being taken, a triangular piece with several trees. There are also temporary slope easements and a permanent right to construct and maintain a drop easement, also an extensive temporary drive easement, temporary curb rights, and a temporary right to remove a canopy outside the hotel. $57,500 is being offered. It was noted the offer doesn't include compensation for the canopy. Mr. Munson said Merlin's concern is mainly money. He noted that on Parcel #43, the figure quoted was at $9.65/sq. foot, but on this property which is next door, the offer is $5.06/sq. ft. He didn't feel a difference of 40% in the land value was justified. f) Parcel #63 Owner: Merlin Corp. This parcel has been settled. g) Parcel #11 Owner; Randall Munson Mr. Dicovitsky submitted drawings regarding signage and access considerations. He showed a parking layout they could live with. Mr. Cimonetti noted the Council can only address the existing sign ordinance even though there is a probability it will be modified for this area. h) Parcel #3 Owner; The Willows Mr. Orvis said the piece being taken is .04 acre. Temporary slope and drive easements are also involved. No one was present to represent the Willows. Mr. Flaherty noted that Peter Judge has requested an extension until 3 April to get an appraisal completed. Mr. Condos moved to grant the request of Peter Judge for an extension until 3 April. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Review Planning Agenda Mr. Cimonetti noted the item regarding Village at Dorset and asked whether what is requested will cause the extension of the road. Mr. Hafter said all that is being done is changing some units from single family to multi-family units. It would not cause the street extension. Mr. Cimonetti felt the Planning Commission should still consider the traffic impact on Swift, Spear and the intersection. Executive Session Mr. Condos moved the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss contract negotiations and Dorset Street litigation. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session The Council returned to regular session. Bill Cimonetti moved to accept the proposed amendments to the collective bargaining agreements with the South Burlington Police Officer's Association and to direct the City Manager to prepare a revised contract incorporating the approved amendments. Jim Condos seconded, the motion passed unanimously. Jim Condos moved adjournment, Bill Cimonetti seconded. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.