Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/06/1992CITY COUNCIL 6 APRIL 1992 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Michael Flaherty at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: William Cimonetti, James Condos, Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage and Robert Chittenden. Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager, Peg Strait, Assistant City Manager, Margaret Picard, City Clerk, Albert Audette, Highway Superintendent, Steven Stitzel, City Attorney, Joe Weith, City Planner, Sid Poger, The Other Paper. Harold Woodaman, Al Cummings, Frank Mazur, Fran Reiman, Barb Hibbitts, Sue Thurber, Nancy Moyen, Elizabeth Leonard, Phyllis Lee, Mary Barnes, Robert Barnes, George Fontaine, Ernest Benoit, Virginia Benoit, Christine Benoit, Pete Crevier, Andrew Price, Tony Cairns Vince Bolduc, Mary-Barbara Maher, Brian Searles, Police Dept., Dick Underwood, Nile Duppstadt, Irene Fredette, Richard Pecor, Janice Wilkens, Robert Wilkens, Jackie Burke, Tim Hopper, Laura DeMaroney, Dupter DeMaroney, Tom Macren, Alfred Thimm, Patricia Thimm, Charles Scott and Robert Holdridge. 1. Comments and Questions from the Public (not related to the Agenda). Nothing. 2. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Fred Tuttle and Appointment of Council Representatives to Committee. John Dinklage moved they waive the reading of the Resolution. Mr. Cimonetti stated the Resolution is short and there is a good audience and proposed that they allow it. Mr. Flaherty read the Resolution. Mr. Cimonetti moved for adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flaherty appointed himself, John Dinklage and Bill Cimonetti to a joint committee with two School Board representatives to study an appropriate long- term commensuration of Fred Tuttle's achievements. 3. Request from Residents of Davis Parkway for City Project to Improve Storm Water Drainage. Chuck was asked to give necessary information. He stated that residents of Davis Parkway presented a petition requesting that a drainage system be installed on their street. Harold Woodaman, a resident of Davis Parkway, stated they need catch-basins on the upper end of the street. There are two catch-basins on the lower end. Mr. Flaherty asked how long was the street flooded. Mr. Woodaman replied it was flooded for a week to 10 days. Mr. Flaherty asked if this happens only when the snow melts or also when it rains during the summer. Mr. Woodaman replied it happens when there is heavy rains and during the snow. Mr. Flaherty asked if he has brought this to anybody's attention prior to now. Mr. Woodaman replied yes. William Cimonetti asked Chuck what is the adequacy of the storm drainage system that this would feed into if they put in 1250 feet of drain and catch-basins. Chuck replied the storm drain system is very close to capacity and is very heavily loaded. Sonny Audette stated the drainage system is presently overloaded. It is the system that crosses over to Heath Street down to Gracey's and through Grand Union. Mr. Chittenden asked Chuck if they were to put the storm drains in do they plan on repaving and doing reconstruction work. Chuck replied yes but they would follow procedure where they put the storm drains in and patch it and wait a year for the ground to settle. Beth Leonard, a resident of Davis Parkway, presented photographs to the Council. She stated this problem has been going on for several years. Mr. Cimonetti asked what is going to happen if they put in 1250 feet of pipe and 10 catch-basins and feed it into a storm sewer that is overloaded. He stated they need to find out what they need to do to satisfy the need for capacity. Mr. Dinklage asked how long the puddle exists at Gracey's or the puddle at Helen Avenue before it gets drained. Sonny Audette replied it one hour or a little longer. Beth Leonard stated that the reason the water finally did subside is because they opened up the sewer drain and pushed the water down and she feels that is not appropriate. Rick Simpson, a resident of Davis Parkway, stated one of the reasons the water seems so high this year is because the snow banks were high. One morning before they opened the manhole the water was 22 inches deep. Once they opened the manhole it dropped to 16 inches. When the water freezes the road is unpassable and unsafe for foot traffic. Davis Parkway is 50% foot traffic. Chuck stated his interpretation of the way the system will work is in periods of storms with normal rain the system will work fine. In periods of snow melt it will drain at a slower rate. It certainly will drain the street within a couple of hours. It will be an improvement but it will not be an automatic free-flow because of the capacity. Mr. Chittenden asked Sonny if the overflows are only in the spring of the year. Sonny replied no, they occur during the summer during any heavy downpour. Mr. Flaherty asked Chuck where he would get the funding. Chuck replied the City would receive additional money from the Agency of Transportation for street projects based on two factors; the City added 8 miles to the system in its recordkeeping which would add an increase of $8,000; the State has increased their transportation appropriation to $2 million dollars for the entire state. Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) could be added to street maintenance throughout the City from that fee. Mr. Flaherty asked Chuck what he planned to do with the $25,000 before this meeting. Chuck replied they were looking at routine street maintenance, more patches and more curb cuts. Mr. Dinklage moved that the Council place the proposed drainage work for Davis Parkway and Woodbine Street very high on its priority list, attempt to do this with the additional state funds that we expect to receive and if they are not sufficient, we work to find ways from within this current next year's fiscal operating budget funds to complete the work. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. Mr. Cimonetti moved to table this request until the Council gets the information as to what projects are going to be displaced if we advance these projects. Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion to table was defeated. Sue Thurber, a resident of Davis Parkway for ten years, stated it is not the first time that this problem has been brought to the attention of the Council. It is not only a issue of water but it is getting dangerous. Rick Simpson, a resident of Davis Parkway, asked if the Council can give the residents assurances that the Street Department, especially in times of cold weather and a lot of rain, can patrol Davis Parkway to make it passable. Mr. Flaherty guaranteed attention from the Street Department. Mr. Flaherty asked for more comments. No comments were made and they voted on Mr. Dinklage's motion. The motion passed 4 to 1. 4. Consideration of Items related to May Ballot: A. Resolution for Inclusion of Southeast Quadrant Zoning Question on the May Ballot; Presentation of Three (3) Options for Working of that Question. Mr. Flaherty read the first option. Mr. Dinklage stated the word "of" should be deleted in the second sentence and he would like to see the word "approximately" be added in front of 3,500 in all the options. Mr. Cimonetti stated he is in support of Option No. 3. Mr. Flaherty read the third option. Mr. Dinklage favored Option No. 1. Mr. Chittenden supported Option No. 3. Mr. Condos supported Option No. 1 but feels the length of it will confuse people. He stated he would like to see the words "up to" or "approximately" added before 3,500 new residential units. He also would like to see the words "and open spaces" added after scenic views. Mr. Flaherty supported Option No. 3. John Jewett, a resident of Dorset Street, stated that it would not be in the spirit of the petition that the Council accept Option No. 3. Option 1 informs the citizens. They asked the Council to put before the public a number, not a question of do you support the actions of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Cimonetti responded that the question that has been delivered by the Planning Commission in accordance with the statute and 5 members of the City Council is do you approve or disapprove of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance in the Master Plan. That is the question and that question will get voted by the City Council and to ask the informed voters of the City a different question would be inconsistent. The question that has to be answered in order to be in compliance with the statute is whether or not the proposed changes to the Master Plan and amendments to the zoning ordinance will be adopted. Fran Reiman, a Dorset Street resident, stated that having a yes and two no's on Option No. 1 gives you the question of do you support or do you not support. Laura DeMaroney stated that when they circulated the petition it wasn't asking people to vote for a lower number or a higher number, it was just asking them to put their names on a petition saying that they would like to have the right to choose. Vince Bolduc stated that in Option No. 1 and 2 they use the number 3,500. At the Planning Commission hearings the petitioners asked for a specific number and the number they came up with was 3,600. Joe Weith, City Planner, stated it is actually 3,550. Mr. Flaherty stated they will use the exact number, 3,550. Mary-Barbara Maher of the Planning Commission stated she is in favor of Option No. 3. She feels Option No. 1 will be misunderstood by a lot of people. Niles Duppstadt, of Hinesburg Road, gave the Council members a result of his survey which he passed out a few weeks ago at the public hearing. Charles Scott stated his concern is that a total build-out of 3,600 units is too much and the citizens feel that 2,300 should be the maximum. The question to have on the ballot is whether they like the higher number or the lower number. John Dinklage moved that the Council find suitable language and adopt conceptually Option No. 1 for the ballot item. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. The motion failed 3 to 2. Mr. Cimonetti moved that the ballot item be as prepared in Option No. 3 with the addition after the word Bylaws "and the 1991 Comprehensive Plan..." Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 2. 4. B. Resolution Authorizing Ballot Item on South Burlington Recreational Arena Bond to be Included on May Ballot. Mr. Flaherty read the Resolution. Mr. Dinklage had a problem with the wording in the first WHEREAS. It should say we desire to present to the voters the option of. Patricia Thimm, a resident of South Burlington, stated she is in support of an open space park, not an ice arena. Mr. Condos replied that piece of the park was never intended to be maintained as open space. It was bought five years ago to be a major recreational arena. The piece we just bought in January was the piece to maintain as open space. Alfred Thimm, a resident of South Burlington, stated this was not made clear to the voters. Charles Scott encouraged the Council to go ahead with the arena. It is a great thing for the City. Tim Hopper, a resident of South Burlington, stated he played varsity hockey for South Burlington during 1977-1981. They had to get up at 4:00 a.m. every morning and go to Leddy Arena to play hockey. He is in favor of the recreational facility. Pete Crevier, a resident of South Burlington, discussed the income and expense figures with Council members and compared it with Leddy Park. Tony Cairns, a resident of South Burlington, stated that it is more than Just a hockey rink and could be used for many other activities. He explained that the cost estimates should not be compared to other area rinks, including Leddy Park, because they put all of their operating expenses for the whole park into one budget. The voters deserve a chance to vote on it. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Stitzel if they need the words "the public interest and necessity" in the Resolution. He checked the statute and stated yes. The language in the first WHEREAS clause does include the language that is set forth in the statute so it is required in the Resolution. It states "the legislative branch of the municipal corporation shall determine by resolution passed by a majority of those members present voting that the public interest or necessity..." Mr. Dinklage asked if they could drop the word necessity and still meet the spirit of the statute. Mr. Stitzel stated yes. Mr. Condos moved that the Resolution be accepted as presented with one correction in the second line to strike the words "and necessity." Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 2. 4. C. Resolution Authorizing Inclusion of Bond Issue for Landfill Closure on the May Ballot. Chuck stated Nancy McGowan, the engineer on this project, said it is the correct price based on the size of the landfill and the cover that is necessary. The reason we asked for the bond is that the landfill will hopefully be able to operate for a longer period of time. The City will have to have the financial documents in hand on July 1st to close the landfill whether it operates or not. We will have $550,000 in escrow and this money will give us that documentation. Mr. Chittenden asked why there was such a discrepancy between landfills of comparable size. Mr. Condos replied there was one landfill on that list which was Salsbury which had a higher cubic footage of waste coming into it. However that landfill has a smaller footprint. Our landfill has a very large footprint. You have to cap the entire landfill from one end to the other and beyond and that is where your added costs come in. Mr. Cimonetti stated the current legislation that is likely to pass states unless the landfill is polluting, upon application it will be granted an extension through December 31 of 1992 and that it will be eligible for an extension through October 1st of 1993. He thinks it is prudent to bond this with the usual stipulation saying this bonded money could only be used for this purpose and there is no related purpose other than closing the sanitary landfill. It has nothing to do with the subsequent improvements, the construction and demolition debris or anything else. It should be very specific. The last WHEREAS should say "...the cost remaining to pay for said closure, may be too great to be paid..." I have a feeling the entire WHEREAS can be dropped and the Resolution would still stand. Chuck replied certainly the first clause is incorrect and he would take that out. The second language has its legal language. Mr. Cimonetti stated it should not say that the cost remaining to pay for said closure, will be too great because it may not be too great. If we get the appropriate time of extension, it is possible that they will close this facility with a combination of tipping fees and grants. It should say "WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the cost remaining to pay for said closure, may be too great to be paid out of the ordinary income and revenue of the City of South Burlington..." He also made a typographical correction on the second page. It should read polls instead of poles. Mr. Cimonetti moved to adopt the Resolution with the change in the last paragraph to read "WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the cost remaining to pay for said closure, may be too great to be paid out of the ordinary income and revenue of the City of South Burlington;" and place it on the ballot. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. D. Consideration of Approval of Warning for Annual Meeting May 19, 1992. Mr. Cimonetti asked Steven Stitzel on the proposed Article III are we being as restrictive as we can be with respect to this bonding for closure. Mr. Stitzel stated they could include the specific closure plans which have been developed at this point if they wanted to be more specific. He felt the language does limit you just to closure costs of the Patchen Road landfill. You could not use this for a recycling program or any other related improvements on the landfill. Mr. Condos asked Mr. Stitzel if he felt comfortable with the way it reads. Mr. Stitzel replied yes. Mr. Dinklage moved to accept these Articles as amended in the previous discussions. Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. First Reading of Proposed Amendments for the South Burlington Zoning Regulations - Section 1.6022, Central District Ordinance; Scheduling of Public hearing on Same. Joe Weith stated what is being proposed here is to incorporate the 80 foot building envelope concept which already exists in the CD-1 and the CD-3 zone. This would be brought into zone CD-2. The 50 foot setback along Dorset Street is still being maintained. There is a 32 foot setback from San Remo Drive. Mr. Dinklage asked if there was any significant minority report on the Planning Commission with regard to these proposals. Mr. Weith replied no. Mr. Dinklage moved that we set the public hearing for May 4. Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 6. First Reading of Proposed Amendments to the South Burlington Zoning Regulations - Southeast Quadrant District and Scenic View Protection Overlay District; Consideration of Scheduling of a Public Hearing on Same. Mr. Flaherty stated Mr. Weith said the public hearing may be held anytime between April 17 and July 17. Chuck has proposed a public hearing on May 4. John Dinklage asked if they can schedule the first of two public hearings for May 4. Is that a legitimate process to commit ourselves in advance not to take action on May 4. Mr. Stitzel stated if the Council changed its mind, he is not certain that such commitment at this point would be binding. You could warn two public hearings at this point and then there would be a further element in not proceeding to the second public hearing. It is Mr. Dinklage's preference that they not take final action until the May 19th balloting is completed. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Dinklage why he wants to commit the City to that. Mr. Dinklage stated it is only for the purpose of conveying intent. Mr. Dinklage moved that we establish the first of two public hearings on May 4. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. Mr. Flaherty asked Mr. Weith if they need two public hearings. Mr. Weith replied only one public hearing is required for zoning amendments but there will be a minimum of two required for the Comprehensive Plan. Chuck stated the Planning Commission just approved the Comprehensive Plan which he just received and they requested to schedule public hearings. They could schedule them the same date since they deal with the same issue. Mr. Flaherty stated they could warn them both tonight and that could be the first of two meetings for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dinklage withdrew his motion. Mr. Condos withdrew his second. Mr. Chittenden asked if they were committed to making a decision at that time. Mr. Flaherty replied no, they can table it or vote on it. Mr. Cimonetti moved that they have a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations and the 1991 Comprehensive Plan on May 4. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chuck pointed out that when you approve setting a public hearing date, that means when interim zoning expires in the western block of the Southeast Quadrant, these regulations will be able to be used as criteria. Everyone understood this. 7. Presentation of SCORE management Audit of CCTA; Frank Mazur, Chairman of CCTA Board. Mr. Mazur stated he was very appreciative of the SCORE organization for doing this study. They did come to some major conclusions; 1) they are very financially sound; 2) they operate according to our legislation; and 3) we are a credit to our communities. That is an important message to get out to our constituents. From industry standpoint they are rated high. They received their second national award for being tops in their category in terms of size. He mentioned the following critiques: 1) The CCTA Board itself is a very demanding role in terms of areas of responsibilities of what is expected of the Commissioners. 2) There is not much communication between local brds. and Commissioners in terms of what they want. That is something they are working on with their CCTA brd. to make sure they do report back to their respective local brds. and it is important that that communication be two ways. He discussed the three-phase study which will be completed at the end of May and he will come back in June to discuss it further. Mr. Flaherty stated it was a very good and very positive study. Mr. Mazur discussed the financial condition of their operation. They received three of their new buses and they will be on the road within two to three weeks. He does not have the manual on the fare boxes. It should collect data and it will help in the survey. Ridership has increased 20% from the prior fiscal year with no increased mileage. They retained 30% of the airport route riders. The free-fare program for school children has increased 85%. The capital improvement for CCTA will be around $886,000 and will be used to improve their building and internal equipment. Mr. Condos asked if there are shelters being built as part of the Dorset Street project. Chuck replied no. Mr. Mazur stated if more shelters are required, they can put it into their plan. They do set funds aside on an annual basis to handle this type of situation. 8. Item for Information: a. Supreme Court Decision in Mobil Oil Corp. vs. City of South Burlington. Mr. Condos commented it was very good news that the Supreme Court upheld the City's traffic overlay district. 9. Review Zoning Board Agenda: April 13, 1992. No comments. 10. Read Minutes of Regular Meetings: February 2, 1992 and March 2, 1992. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the Minutes of February 2, 1992 and March 2, 1992. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. Sign Disbursement Orders. Disbursement Orders were signed. 12. Mr. Condos made a motion to adjourn as City Council and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion and Council passed unanimously. A. Request for Catering from W.F.W. Co., Inc., Wetherbee's Catering, 135 Pearl Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452. The following functions are being held at the Knights Hall, Bedard Drive, South Burlington. 1. Lutman Wedding, 7/4/92, 12:00 noon - 8:00 p.m. 2. Pelchot Wedding, 5/30/92, 11:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. 3. Picard 25th Anniversary, 5/23/92, 6:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. 4. Bacon Wedding, 5/16/92, 12:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 5. Towne Birthday, 5/1/92, 6:30 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. 6. Garland Wedding, 4/11/92, 2:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. Mr. Flaherty asked Chuck if he had any problems with the first six catering permits. Chuck replied no. Mr. Chittenden made a motion to accept the liquor requests on Section A of item 12. Mr. Dinklage seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Request to Consider the following Entertainment Permit from Bambino's, 520 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, VT.: 1. "Male Review Show", April 16, 1992, 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. C. Request to Reconsider the following Entertainment Permits from Bambino's, 520 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, VT.: 1. "Female Review," every Tuesday, starting March 3, 1992, from 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. 2. "Live Band," every Wednesday starting March 4, 1992, from 9:00 p.m. - 12:00 midnight. Chuck stated the Male Review Show is a one time show. The other two shows were approved in March for one month. They have not had a problem with these shows on those nights. He doesn't feel they need to be discussed further. Mr. Cimonetti stated he would like to go for not more than one month of approval rather than having them be open-ended. Mr. Cimonetti moved that they approve B, the one time event on April 16 and approve C. item 1 "Female Review" and item 2 "Live Band" for Tuesdays and Wednesdays in the month of April. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Request for Approval of Annual Beverage Licenses from 20 establishments. List attached in Agenda package. Mr. Cimonetti asked if they were all renewals. Chuck replied yes. Mr. Dinklage asked if there were any that have had a problem. Chuck replied no. Mr. Dinklage moved that they be approved as presented provided that they are complete and accurate to the satisfaction of the City Manager. Mr. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dinklage moved the Liquor Control Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in executive session to discuss litigation and contract negotiation. Mr. Chittenden seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Chittenden moved adjournment. Mr. Condos seconded. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.