Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 07/06/1992CITY COUNCIL 6 JULY 1992 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Monday 1 June 1992, at 7:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, John Dinklage, Robert Chittenden, James Condos, William Cimonetti Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Peg Strait, Asst. City Manager; Margaret Picard, City Clerk, Joe Weith, City Planner, Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Dept; Dick Ward, Zoning Administrator; Albert Audette, Street Dept; Lee Graham, Police Dept; Littleton Long, Fran Reiman, Vince Bolduc, Elizabeth Gilbert, Peter Kunin, Fred Hannon, Ray & Pat Jewett, S. Murray, G. Bracuzzi, Ralph Aruzza, Dexter Lefavour, Dick Underwood, Nile Duppstadt, Jill Coffrin, Chris Cavin, Harley Brown 1. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to items on the Agenda: Mr. Flaherty noted that item 3 on the agenda (Queen City Park Fire District) has been postponed at the request of the Fire District. 2. Public Hearing: Interim Zoning By-Laws for the Southeast Quadrant; Consideration of Adoption: Mr. Flaherty summarized the proposed by-laws then read them. One hundred units per year would be the maximum allowed in the Quadrant, apportioned on a first come/first served basis. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned with the procedure. He asked how a developer could be precluded from locking up all development on a continuing basis. He felt the proposed by-laws precluded discussion of the relative merits of other developments because they wouldn't get into the review process. Mr. Weith said he had discussed this with the City Manager and noted that a zoning/building permit is good for only 6 months. Mr. Cimonetti said he would like to see a review of all developments that come in and then have only a certain number of units that can be built. Mr. Dinklage suggested approving the by-laws and then asking that the code officer come back with ideas as to procedure. The question was raised as to whether interim zoning now exists. Mr. Ward said it did not. Mr. Scott noted that there is already the possibility of 600 new units that wouldn't be affected by these by-laws, so there would not really be a cap at 100. Mr. Cimonetti said he was concerned that this action would take an element of control from the City Council and he still wanted the Council to be able to discuss rate of growth issues. Mr. Duppstadt said he thought the whole thing was crazy and would prevent any kind of competition. He also asked whether the further development of Oak Creek and Butler Farms would come under City Council review. Mr. Dinklage said he favored exempting them. Mr. Cimonetti agreed. Mr. Scott then said that was the point he had made before. He then asked whether the small land owner would be kicked out of this proposed process. Mr. Dinklage then moved that under Section 3 wording be modified to: "within the area affected by these By-laws, the City Council shall issue any and all zoning permits at a rate not to exceed one hundred development units. Mr. Condos seconded. Members felt they would prefer to table the item to allow further thought. Mr. Condos moved to continue the public hearing until 13 July. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Consideration of Alternative Routing for Recreation Path to bypass Lindenwood Drive: Discussion of Recreation Path funding: Mr. Flaherty reviewed the history of the project and noted the current approval says people can only walk their bikes down Lindenwood Drive. An alternative route would cost $25,000, but approvals for the project that would create that route are not yet completed. A temporary connection could be created for $3,000. Another alternative would be to do nothing. Mr. Chittenden felt that nothing should be done. Mr. Condos said he had had calls from people asking that the path be finished. He felt something had to be done to give people a safe access to the Burlington bike path. Mr. Chittenden suggested going all the way on Swift St. Mr. Hafter said there are so many curb cuts there. Mr. Dinklage favored completing the path as bid going down Lindenwood. Ms. Cavin said the connection needs to be made, especially for people going to Red Rocks Park. Mr. Cloutier acknowledged there is an Act 250 permit for use of Lindenwood Drive. He felt that was something no one really wanted. He asked whether people will really walk their bikes on Lindenwood. He did, however, say that the temporary use of Lindenwood until the Bonanza lot project is approved, but he asked how long "temporary" would be. Mr. Cimonetti said he would support a very temporary connection at Lindenwood and see what develops in the next two years. He felt if the path were left unpaved it would reduce traffic through the residential neighborhood. He felt that would be a good compromise. Mr. Jewett said he didn't think it was safe to use Lindenwood. Mr. Hafter noted the no riding restrictions applied only to the Recreation Path and not to the sidewalk. Mr. Bracuzzi felt the youth of the community were being served well but the city would be disrupting a peaceful neighborhood. He said there has never been a problem there and the city would be taking that away from the residents. He felt the Council was not telling the truth when it said the use of Lindenwood would be temporary and that the Lindenwood residents were "too poor to fight." He noted the highest density of traffic in the city is on Shelburne Rd. Another resident said he has lived on Lindenwood for 50 years. The street is only 16 ft. wide. With 4 ft. of that for the bike path, a very dangerous situation would exist. He said there will eventually have to be a sidewalk on Swift St., so why not build it now. He said if residents call every time a child is riding a bike on Lindenwood, there will have to be a cop there all the time. Mr. Chittenden felt the people of Lindenwood should be respected and a better alternative found. Mr. Dinklage then moved that the Recreation Path connection be completed from Farrell Park to Lindenwood Drive using the very temporary construction outlined (gravel type base but not paved) for the minimum length consistent with plans for the Recreation Path. Mr. Condos seconded. The motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chittenden opposing. 5. First Reading of Ordinance on Use of Recreation Path and Recreation Path Rules & Regulations: Schedule Public Hearing: Mr. Hafter recommended a public hearing on 10 August. He said the existing Park Ordinance would be used for the Path. He then read the proposed rules and regulations. Mr. Condos asked if these rules would be posted. Mr. Hafter said brochures are planned. Mr. Condos suggested a sign with the key rules on it similar to that on the Stowe Bike Path. Mr. Cimonetti questioned the practicality of the rule that says riders should dismount and walk through intersections and bridges. Mr. Dinklage agreed. Mr. Condos felt it should be recommended that people walk, even if the rule is not made. Mr. Jewett raised the question of Lindenwood Drive. He noted that the rule that prohibits driving on the path would mean that every time they enter their driveways they would be subject to a $500 fine. He also noted the street is not wide enough for two cars to pass. Mr. Flaherty suggested that people bring their comments to the public hearing on 10 August. Mr. Dinklage moved to schedule the public hearing on Rules and Regulations for the Recreation Path for 10 August. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Cimonetti moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. a. Hearing on the revocation of Bambino's Liquor License: Mr. Hafter noted the fence has been erected as required. He also noted that on 10 August there would be a public review of the license. Ms. Gilbert thanked the Board and Bambino's for their efforts. Mr. Cimonetti stressed that all the stipulations made by the Board are part of the Liquor License. Officer Graham noted that complaints have dropped dramatically. Mr. Cimonetti asked Mr. Brown if he could state that all stipulations are being met. Mr. Brown said the only one not currently being met is the one what requires small signs notifying patrons that certain behaviors will bar them from the Club. He noted they are using more security personnel than required. Mr. Cimonetti felt the license could be continued. He stated that he was just as concerned that all stipulations are being met as he is about reduction in complaints. He asked that the situation be monitored for the 10 August meeting. b. Catering permit request from Trip-J-Inc., for an anniversary party at K of C Hall, 25 June, 1 p.m. to Midnight: Mr. Dinklage moved the catering permit request for Trip-J-Inc., be approved. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Condos then moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Discussion of Location of Sludge Pelletizing Facility at the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant: Mr. Barbagallo reviewed the history of the proposed project. After a study by Dubois and King, the Solid Waste District made the determination that pelletizing would be the best method of dealing with the sludge problem. They then began a siting process and an evaluation of marketing potential for pellets. The siting report recommends South Burlington's Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plan as the preferred site. The District is now beginning negotiations for the use of that land. Mr. Barbagallo then noted the concerns the City Council had expressed at a prior meeting. These included the concept of the city hosting a central "dewatering facility" which would affect traffic and sewer capacity. Mr. Barbagallo said they have looked into a mobil dewatering facility and also into contracting out the dewatering process. Centralized dewatering is the cheapest; however, district dewatering is competitive. This would significantly reduce the number of truck trips in and out of S. Burlington. Mr. Cimonetti asked how the District could do this so much cheaper than a commercial company. He noted the city has a contract at 3.8¢ per gallon which is less than the figures given by the district show for a commercial company. Mr. Flaherty noted the difference in cost is only .6¢ per gallon. Mr. Barbagallo said the city's other concern was a re-evaluation of the five sites based on a reduced number of criteria. He noted a second site hasn't yet been chosen and S. Burlington is still #1. Mr. Cimonetti suggested a restriction be placed that would have the site accessible from Patchen Rd. and Airport Parkway and that truck traffic use only these two roads approaching from the north side of the facility. He did not want truck traffic going through the interior part of the city. Mr. Barbagallo noted that trucks couldn't come over the Lime Kiln Bridge. Mr. Audette noted that Grove Street is now prohibited for truck use. Mr. Dinklage asked the weight of trucks handling dewatered sludge. Mr. Audette said about 55,000 lbs. maximum. He felt Patchen Rd. could handle this but Airport Parkway would not be as good. He felt there was no problem on main roads such as Williston Rd. Mr. Flaherty asked what the benefits to the city would be. Mr. Barbagallo referred to the cost/benefit sheet and said there would be a one-time $21,000 sewer hook-up fee, a $10,000 annual rental, and $55,000 annual waste water payment. There would also be $22,500 saved in hauling costs. Mr. Picard said he was impressed with what he saw at the Wey plant. He said he wouldn't want a plant where S. Burlington did the drying and he didn't like the idea of a steel fabricated building. He would want to see cement block construction to absorb noises. He said he was still concerned with the transportation process. He also felt the one-time payment should be used by the city for a sidewalk on Airport Parkway. Mr. Barbagallo felt Mr. Picard's concerns were legitimate and could be addressed. Mr. Moody said they have an in-state firm ready to buy all the pellets they can produce. Mr. Dinklage moved that the City Council give conceptual approval to the location of a Sludge Pelletizing Facility at the Airport Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant subject to the following conditions: a) successful negotiations between the city and Solid Waste District regarding benefits received by the City from the Solid Waste District; b) South Burlington approval of the type of plant and the method of drying, pelletizing, handling and storage of the products to be produced and truck traffic control; c) the plant would accept only dewatered sludge. Mr. Condos seconded the motion. Mr. Cimonetti said traffic considerations are very important and would be dealt with at Act 250, the Planning Commission, Zoning Boards, etc. He also asked for information on similar plants and specific uses of the product. He said he would like to consider discussion of storage and distribution of the finished product. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration of Request for Coin Drop to benefit "Easter Seals": Mr. Flaherty noted this coin drop did have Police Dept. approval. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the coin drop as requested. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Zoning Board Agenda for 13 July: No issues were raised. 10. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 10. Review Minutes of 15 June 1992: Mr. Condos moved the Minutes of 15 June 1992 be approved as written. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.