Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/20/2009CITY COUNCIL 20 JANUARY 2009 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 January 2009, at 7:00 p.m., at Chamberlin School, White Street. Members Present: C. Smith, Chair; M. Boucher, S. Dooley, M. Emery Also Present: C. Hafter, City Manager; D. Gravelin, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; B. Searles, R. McEwing, G. Paris, B. Worthen, Burlington International Airport; L. G. Davitian, Channel 17; V. Datillio, G. Kirby, J. Figgisn, L. Leavens, J. Zeitz, H. Lindberg, B. Paquette, J. Durfrsne, G. Palumbo, J. Valetti, B. Stuono, other members of the public and press 1. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 2. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Ms. Dooley: Will attend the first ever National League of Cities "green cities" conference in April. Ms. Emery: Will take part in the "walk to school" discussions at Chamberlin tomorrow. Mr. Hafter: Steering Committee meeting, 22 January, 7 p.m., at City Hall. The Agenda will include review of the City and School 2009-10 proposed budgets. The next City Council meeting, 26 January, 7 p.m., at City Hall will have its only Agenda item the second public hearing on proposed amendments to the City Charter. Mr. Hafter then remembered Mike Flaherty, for City Councilor, State Representative, and Chair of the Airport Commission who passed away on Monday. 3. Continued discussion with Burlington International Airport on Land-Reuse Plan and Property Acquisition Schedule: Mr. Worthen reviewed the history of Airport land acquisition to date. He noted the process began in 1979 with Federal Aviation Rule #150 which allow the Airport to purchase homes that fall within a specified decibel (db) range. The original range was 70 db, but in September 2008, federal authority was given to purchase homes in the 65 db range. Mr. Worthen stressed that these purchases are purely voluntary on the part of homeowners. He also noted that at the first of this year's meeting with the City, the Airport reviewed what it thought the purchase area would look like. At the second meeting, the Airport presented is "reuse" plan, including permanent buffering, relocation of Airport Drive, and possible future use of purchased properties. Mr. Worthen stressed that these are only ideas presented by the Airport, and no plans have been given to the City of South Burlington. At that second meeting the City Council approved proposed 2009 purchases of homes. A member of the audience asked if the homes are considered unsafe because of the noise issues. Mr. Worthen said they are not, and that to be considered unsafe the noise would have to be constant, 24 hours a day. Ms. Emery asked for an explanation of the "25 acres" concept. Mr. Worthen showed a plan indicating this area, including the homes they will probably be allowed to take down. When the houses are gone, the question will be what to do with the properties. One concept is a "holding area" where people can wait for incoming passengers without having to constantly circle the Airport. There will also be a rental car area, and possibly a low-rise hotel of some sort to accommodate passengers with early morning flights. Mr. Paris added that the acreage is the same as proposed 2 weeks ago. He also showed a permanent buffer area on the plan and the path the Airport Drive might eventually take. Mr. Smith emphasized that any proposed plan would have to have City approval. Mr. Worthen then reviewed the differences between the 1997 and 2011 db lines. Mr. Hafter noted that he had many questions as to how the noise studies were done to determine these lines. Mr. Paris said they use specific information such as number of aircraft, types of aircraft, flight patterns, etc., on an annual basis including projections for 2011. This information is then fed into a computer model. He then showed the actual noise line from 2006 and the projected line for 2011. He added that the line has not changed substantially since 1997. Ms. Emery asked how noise was tested since there was no equipment on the ground. She also asked whether taking down houses creates more noise for remaining houses. Mr. Paris said every Airport has a certified noise level. He also noted that the model is not affected by whether there is a house there or not. He said that people may hear noise that is not at the 65 db level, but that doesn't mean they don't hear it. He felt that you would have to measure noise at 15 minute intervals throughout the day in order to get a reading. Mr. Worthen said the Airport has a February deadline to do a plan and get Federal concurrence. In that plan there will be comments from the public and the City. In addition, the Airport will continue to work with the City Planner to identify where housing opportunities can be provided for those who sell their homes. The Airport will also continue to work on a usable noise buffer policy. They will incorporate the FAA approval into a written agreement with the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. They would like to bind both cities to that process. The Airport will also develop guidelines to establish the re-use areas. Mr. Emery asked if the City has to decide on development guidelines by February. Mr. Worthen said "no." Mr. Paris noted that a year ago the FAA came out with guidance for airports that have acquired properties under this process. The FAA wants to know what is going to be done with those properties (including repayment to the FAA when the properties generate money via re-use). Most properties fall into three areas of use: buffer, right-of-way, and reuse (development of some sort). Ms. Emery asked what degree of agreement the Airport is looking for. Mr. Paris said the purpose of the agreement is to formalize what was discussed at the last meeting. There is no commitment on either part as to what any future development might consist of. Mr. Hafter stressed that there has been no request for rezoning any of the properties acquired by the Airport and no discussion of Airport Drive with the City of South Burlington. Mr. Worthen noted that parallel to the purchase of properties, the Airport is working on a Master Plan. There will soon by a 3-day planning workshop for that purpose. The South Burlington City Planner is part of the update committee. There is also a Technical Advisory group which includes Mr. Hafter. Mr. Worthen also noted that this is one of only a few airports in the country that is showing any growth. He said that the Airport will continue to provide South Burlington officials and citizens with a continual flow of information via its website and other means. Mr. Boucher suggested using 4 or 5 real measurement points to see the real readings and to insure the noise level doesn't get louder as a result of house removals. Mr. Paris said that is a fair question and one which Airport staff has to address with the FAA. Mr. Datillio asked what the top priority houses are. Mr. Paris said 10 properties have been identified for 2009 because owners asked for them to be acquired. There is also a line of properties to be acquired in the future. Mr. Datillio asked what happens if he's not in the 2009 group and he now finds a house he wants to buy. Mr. Paris said if he falls in the 5-year out group, they can see what can be done. Mr. Hafter said the city can post addresses and years to be acquired on its website. A member of the audience asked what happens if nobody is willing to sell. Mr. Paris said they have already heard from 40 homeowners asking to be included in the program. Another audience member asked if it is really a noise issue or the Airport's desire to expand. Mr. Paris said the first interest of the Airport is to relieve homeowners in the area. He added that the Airport isn't going away, and the noise isn't going to stop. Ms. Kirby cited homes between Patrick and Airport Rd. which were purchased under a different program. Residents were told these homes would not be removed. Mr. Paris said if homes were purchased for "compatibility" purposes, they still fall under this category. Ms. Kirby said residents were told those homes could be rented. Mr. Paris said that would be "poor policy." Ms. Emery said there is help for those renters who may be turned out when their leases expire. Ms. Figgins said she was told by a realtor that because of noise issues she wouldn't be able to sell her house which is not in the 65 db area. Mr. Paris said if the house is on the border of that area, and there is reason to substantiate the noise claim, the Airport could petition the FAA to make it eligible. Ms. Figgins asked if the Airport is paying a fair value. Mr. Paris said they are paying fair market value. Mr. Leavens read a statement in which he said the Airport is using noise as an excuse to purchase these homes because the only direction the Airport can expand is west. He noted that the Airport enjoys a tax stabilization agreement with the city. He also noted that the purchase program will eliminate 233 starter homes from the city. He felt South Burlington should not be subsidizing Burlington's airport. Mr. Hafter noted that the taxes from every home the Airport purchases are added to what the Airport pays in taxes. A resident noted that the Airport has been talking about landscaping for 18 years, and it still looks terrible. She said she wanted something more than the Airport's promise to do something. She wanted a written agreement. Mr. Zeitz felt that if a house is knocked down, something should be put in its place, not just trees and grass. Mr. Searles noted that the Airport can't do anything with the properties without going through the approval process. Mr. Palumbo asked for either a berm or a "living wall" to be put up to see how it will work. Mr. Searles said they are looking for something to do in the "short run." They can also do something on the airfield by moving traffic in different ways. Mr. Palumbo said he also hears noise from aircraft maintenance in the summer, and that's worse than take-off noise which only lasts a short time. Mr. Forcier questioned how "fair market value" is determined if the value of your house c goes down because they houses around you have been taken down. Mr. Worthen said the value of the house is determined by using a selection of similar houses from all over South Burlington. Mr. Paquette asked that given the projected reuse acreage, it there an expectation of where the 65 db line will move to. Mr. Paris said the 65 db line is created by aircraft noise. The proposed future use of the properties is not expected to generate more noise, though there could be traffic noise from the road. He also did expect the 65 db line to change. Mr. Paquette asked if new development could reduce the noise level. Mr. Paris said it could provide more buffer for homes on the other side of the 65 db line. Ms. Emery suggested an independent consultant to design the "new neighborhood." She asked what the city will do to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said there needs to be a process so that in 12 months time there is something the Airport can be held accountable for. Mr. Lindberg asked if the Air Guard is taken into account with the 65 db line. Mr. Smith said the city has no control over the Air Guard. Ms. Valetti noted she is in the 2013-15 purchase "zone." She asked what the Airport has to do to get funding in the future. Mr. Worthen said they have to submit a plan to the FAA. Mr. Searles noted there has been no discussion of this program not being continued. A citizen liked the idea of measuring noise. He noted that since homes have been taken down, there is a significant increase in noise. He asked the City Council to also get a "secondary noise" measurement and a measurement of increased ground noise because of the removal of homes. He noted that some houses are actually vibrating now because of noise energy. A resident noted that many people in the area are 4th and 5th generation residents who feel their issues are often on the back burner. Mr. Conner stressed that from a planning and zoning perspective there are no preconceived notions on what should take place and no actions have been taken. Ms. Dooley questioned a home being bought where there is a bankruptcy issue. Mr. Worthen noted it is a tenant who is in bankruptcy, not the home's owner. Mr. Smith noted there are "competing interests" involved, people who want to stay and those who want to go; people who want something put up immediately and those who want to wait. There are also issues of buffering and tax dollars. He said it makes no sense to have a noise reduction plan that doesn't reduce noise. 4. Update from Lauren-Glen Devitian, Executive Director of Channel 17 activities; public comment on use of Channel 17 (on TV and on- line): Ms. Davitian noted that Mike Flaherty was also on the founding Board of Channel 17. In 18 months, Channel 17 will be renegotiating with Comcast and are gathering public input for that. Comcast is doing what it can to cut capital budget for public access. Channel 17 is trying to secure access to public communication. A meeting will be held on 12 March to discuss this. Ms. Davitian noted that within a 24-hour period South Burlington meetings have been shown 4 times. Channel 17 is asking to eliminate one of those showings in order to open up more time for other community activities. She also noted that in June, Channel 17 went live to the website for public meetings. There have been 23,000 visits to that website from September to December, including 19,000 "unique" visitors. South Burlington has the second highest use of the website. Ms. Davitian then explained the difference between public access, educational access, and government access channels. The government channel is designed to provide access for government to speak to the public and for the public to speak to government. Mr. Leavens said he finds Channel 17 useful and likes the idea of the "widget" to direct people from the city's website to the Channel 17 site. Mr. Zeitz noted that he has satellite service which does not get Channel 17. 5. Conduct First of 2 Public Hearings on Comprehensive City Charter Amendments: Mr. Smith opened the public hearing. Mr. Gravelin reviewed the history of the City Charter Review Committee. He noted that they held 10 publicly noticed meetings, 2 with the School Board, and 2 public forums. Issues that the Committee focused on included gender neutrality, Vermont Statutes, a reserve fund, form of government, election "at large" vs. by wards, and formation of neighborhood forums. The Committee decided to maintain both the city's form of government and "at large" voting. Mr. Boucher questioned the viability of a reserve fund. He noted that in the year that such funds are used, it "balloons" the budget. Mr. Smith felt that the workings of a reserve fund could be dealt with outside of this process. Mr. Hafter noted the Committee also added 2 meetings a year to be held at each of the elementary schools. There was no public comment. Mr. Boucher moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter noted the second public hearing will be held on 26 January, 7 p.m., at City Hall. 6. Consideration of Approval of Annual Warning of 3 March 2009 Annual City Meeting: Ms. Dooley moved to approve the warning as presented. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Stitzel noted that under State Statute, the Charter amendments are voted on section by section. He said he had talked with the Secretary of State's office which indicated that if that method is unwieldy, the City Council can, by motion, decide to have amendments voted on as a package. Members agreed this would be preferable. Mr. Boucher then moved that since voting on City Charter amendments on a "section by section" basis would be too long and too unwieldy, that those amendments be voted on as a package. Voters would be provided with the full text of the amendments in each voting booth. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Public Comment on Action to Allocate $225,000 from the Rooms & Meals Reserve Fund to the 2009 Budget to Pay for Additional Emergency Repairs to City Hall per Council Policy: Mr. Zeitz asked whether having spent so much money on repairs the City is planning to keep the building. Mr. Hafter said that remains to be seen. He noted that repairs were needed because of health concerns, and that it would have been far more costly to relocate offices rather than do the repairs. Mr. Boucher moved to amend the 2009 budget to allocate $225,000 from the Rooms & Meals Reserve Fund to pay for additional emergency repairs to City Hall. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consideration for a Refunding $400,000 Grant Anticipation Loan for Potash Brook Restoration Project: Mr. Hafter noted this is the second year of the loan which is paid for by stormwater revenues. This funds the city's 35% match. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Grant Anticiapation Loan as presented. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Review Agenda for Development Review Board Meeting to be Held Tuesday, 20 January 2009: Ms. Emery said she asked the Planning Commission to review zoning of an R-4 district so that housing is homogeneous and the character of a neighborhood is preserved. Mr. Boucher noted that the DRB is required to follow zoning regulations as they are written. Mr. Stitzel noted that "character of a neighborhood" is no longer allowed by the State as development criteria. Ms. Dooley noted that affordable housing always raises density issues. Ms. Emery noted she had written to the DRB as a citizen, not as a City Councilor. Mr. Stitzel explained the concept of "undue influence." He noted that acceptance of a position brings with it the surrender of some rights as a resident. Since the City Council appoints members of the DRB, this is a sensitive issue. Mr. Stitzel added that this is not the case where the Planning Commission is involved. Council members have full authority to make recommendations for changes to be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Stuono said he disagreed and noted that in Burlington the Mayor and City Council members do testify at DRB meetings. Ms. Dooley noted her concern of still more amendments to the South Village approval. 10. Review and Approve Minutes of City Council meeting of 22 December 2008: It was noted that on p. 1, "SAFER grand" should read "SAFER grant." Mr. Boucher moved to approve the Minutes of 22 December 2008 as amended. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Review and Approve Minutes of City Council meeting of 5 January 2009: Ms. Dooley noted that on p. 1, item 2, it was she who communicated with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. It was also noted that on p. 5, paragraph 3, the word "only" should precede the words "with noise abatement." Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Minutes of 5 January 2009 as amended. Mr. Boucher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement Orders were signed. 13. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Boucher moved that the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a liquor license application from Two Friends Restaurant, 1210 Williston Road. He indicted that the application was all in order. Mr. Boucher moved to approve the liquor license application for Two Friends Restaurant as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 14. Executive Session: Mr. Boucher moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss real property acquisition and to resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 15. Regular Session: Council returned to regular session. Mr. Boucher moved adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.