Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 10/22/2012CITY COUNCIL 22 OCTOBER 2012 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 22 October 2012, at 5:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, J. Knapp, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Ilona Blanchard, Project Manager; K. Murray, Planning Department; S. Stitzel, City Attorney; R. Cassidy, School Board Chair; J. Knapp, M. Simoneau, G. Wood, C. Ford, L. Levitt, S. Meckler, G. Carnedy, I. Ludow, V. Hunt, R. Fair, I. Cohen, J. Larkin, A. Harmon, S. McClellan, G. Rabideau, T. Barritt, B. Stuono, S. Quest, N. Simson, A. Germain, T. Kane, T. Bailey, J. Highcamp 1. Executive Session: Ms. Mackenzie moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation, and to continue deliberation on interim zoning applications. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Following the executive session, Ms. Riehle moved to exit executive session. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session: 1. Agenda Review: No issues were raised. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda items: Mr. Knapp read into the record an open letter to the Citizens of South Burlington signed by 31 concerned community members. The letter expressed concern with the direction South Burlington is taking and noted concern that the policies and decisions reached by the current Council do not seem to reflect the will or opinion of the majority of citizens and businesses in the city. The letter quoted a former City Councilor that "all discussions of policy should start with a question, proceed through a discussion, and result in a solution that takes into account the input from a broad range of ideas." Those who signed the letter feel that the current Council begins with a statement of their desired result and ignores the concerns of the broadest group of citizens and arrives at answers to questions the Council never bothered to ask. The signatories felt the Council does not focus on broad city-wide impacts of their policies and make decisions without adequate study and with limited understanding of the long-term effects of unintended consequences. Specifically, the signatories cited the Council holding meetings during the day and early evening hours when most residents work; many meetings are not televised; decisions are made in executive sessions or deliberative sessions without proper public oversight or press coverage. The signatories cited the need for more open sessions and the need for the Council to engage the public, and to listen to what is being said, regardless of whether it disagrees with their personal opinions. Mr. Knapp said the letter will appear in The Other Paper and encourages public response. Ms. Highcamp said she is one of the property owners who signed a letter of concern with parking at the intersection of Meadow Rd. and Hadley Rd. Ms. Greco said this will be on a future agenda. 3.Announcements & City Manager's Report: Mr. Miller: Attended the International City Manager's conference with Mr. Rusten. Also attended the VTCMA conference where discussion included economic development, health concerns, etc. Is also on the ICMA conference planning committee. Represented the city on the Airport Steering Committee. Discussion focused on "thrive and survive." Mr. Miller noted that for the Airport to thrive and survive, the community around it must thrive and survive as well. Heard from a resident with concerns about security of the properties around the Airport. Received resignations from Lou Breese (Bike Path Committee) and Marie Ambusk (Natural Resources Committee). Later this week the city's TIF plan will be presented to the Vermont Economic Council. This will include formal testimony. Ms. Riehle: Has attended Natural Resources Committee meetings which are beginning to focus on an open space plan. Ms. Dooley: Part of a 5-person team to visit empty houses/lots at the Airport. Found the loss of housing depressing. The Affordable Housing Task Force will hold focus groups on 30 October. Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting where discussion centered on the ECOS project. Ms. Greco: Attended the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force meeting and First Sustainable Agriculture Film Series. The task force interviewed 3 potential candidates to serve as consultants. Attended the UVM President's installation. Talked to the Chamber regarding the F-35s issue. Attended the Airport Steering Committee meeting with Mr. Miller. 4. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of 1 October 2012 B. Sign Disbursements C. Review September Financials D. Consider Approval of Swift Water Rescue Part 2 Grant E. Consider Approval of Fire Ground Safety and Survival Grant Ms. Greco asked that the Minutes of 1 October be taken from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the 1 October Minutes. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Review City Council and Administrative Authority Related to Certain Non-Interim Zoning Development Proposals such as the methadone clinic: Ms. Greco said the City Attorney has been asked to speak to the Council's authority with regard to the proposed location of the Methadone Clinic. Mr. Stitzel said the DRB is regarded under Vermont law as a quasi-judicial body, serving as both judge and jury. They are expected to act independent of any other city officials. The must apple the appropriate legal standards and be completely impartial. Even though the DRB is appointed by the City Council, once appointed, the members of the DRB act independently of the Council. If the Council is not pleased with a member of the DRB, they can remove that person for cause. The appointing authority cannot attempt to influence the decisions of the appointed body. The City Council's participation in any proceeding of the DRB with the goal of directing an outcome would taint the decision of that Board. Mr. Stitzel noted that courts have set aside decisions of a Board when such tainting has occurred. Decision of the DRB are reviewed de novo by the Environmental Board. That Court has the effect of setting aside the decision rendered by the DRB. Mr. Stitzel stressed that the Council does not want the DRB process to be tainted. By attempting to influence or direct a decision of the DRB is in conflict with the responsibility the Council, has placed with the DRB and can expose the city to a charge of compromising the civil rights of those who are entitled to a fair hearing. Ms. Greco asked if the Council can change the LDRs to prevent a methadone clinic from coming into the city. Mr. Stitzel said there are some issues associated with that under federal and state law, to protect people with some handicapping disabilities that restrict the ability of a community with regard to certain facilities. There is a question as to whether a methadone clinic is a medical facility. Mr. Stitzel said he can provide a more definitive answer to that question. His immediate response was that this could have "suspicious aspects" because it discriminates against a portion of society. He cited similarities to AA, where meting places are not necessarily known to the general public. Public comment was then received as follows: Mr. Cassidy: Felt the Council has a role that they can exercise without being discriminatory. He gave a copy of a Resolution adopted by the School Board to the Council. As a private citizen, is aware of the needs of people who struggle with addiction, but he has serious concerns with locating a facility so close to the Middle School. He cited the School's long history of working with the Howard Center, but noted they did not consult the School Board when making their decision to locate the methadone clinic near the schools. He added that the facility is expected to serve 300-400 patients a day, possibly going as high as 1000. Mr. Wood: Though he cares about people, he has concerns as a parent with the proposed location. Was troubled that there has been only 'legal talk.' Would like the Howard to get everything it needs but not in proximity to the schools. Was also troubled that the Council might not have this issue "stick to them." He felt they could approach the Howard Center and suggest they find a better location. Mr. Carnedy: Wants the City Council to protect children. Asked if they can get an injunction to stop this in the best interest of children. Felt it was incumbent on the Council to do something. Ms. Ford: Thought there was a law about how close this kind of facility can be to a school. Mr. Stitzel said there is not. Ms. Levitt: Spoke with Rep. Ann Pugh, head of the House Human Services Committee in the State Legislature. She said there never was a law about proximity to schools. The existing law says such a facility cannot be just for dispensing dosage; there must be a lot of social services provided at the same location. Noted the proposed facility is also close to senior housing, Central School and the High School. Questioned the possibility of 1000 additional cars a day in the area of what will be the City Center. Ms. Medlar: Presented a petition with 800+ signatures expressing opposition to the location of the facility. Noted traffic from the facility would be at peak hours and would be 7 days a week. Said this is different from a typical medical facility. Ms. Ludow: Concerned traffic will slow down fire response time. Said the law as she understood it says these facilities can be only in a hospital or medical school. Ms. Greco explained that that law has expired. Ms. Hunt: Said a number of communities have opposed meth clinics in sensitive areas. In Philadelphia, there is a judgment that meth clinics are not medical facilities. She noted that Social Services is a conditional use in this area. Also concerned with parking. Mr. Cohen: Urged the Council to do what it can to delay and then halt the clinic in this location. Concerned with safety and exposure of kids to heroin addicts. Ms. Dooley said she understood that the Administrative Officer's decision has been appealed. Mr. Conner reviewed the history, noting that staff issued a permit to renovate. That decision has been appealed to the DRB by the School Board. A first hearing was held last week, and the hearing was continued. Mr. Wood: Challenged the idea that the Council can't get involved until there is a DRB decision. Ms. Fair and her son: Asked not to put the facility near his school. Mr. Stitzel said he was not aware of a federal statute prohibiting opposition to these facilities. He said the project could go forward during an appeal, unless there were an injunction rendered by the Environmental Court or Supreme Court. He noted the typical E-Court appeal period is a year to 18 months. The same is true for the Supreme Court. Ms. Harmon: Noted there are city programs for kids near this facility. She questioned the city's liability when it invited kids into these programs. Ms. Greco said the Council has taken no position. They will do their best to see what they can do. 6. Interim Zoning - Public Hearings: A. Interim Zoning #IZ-12-13, Queen City LLC, amendment to PUD to add two new dwelling units, 428-434 Shelburne Road: Ms. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that this hearing should be continued as there was inadequate notice to abutters. Ms. Dooley moved to continue IZ-12-13 to 5 November 2012. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. B. Interim Zoning #IZ-12-12-14, Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, raze existing Liberty Inn and Suites and construct 32,000 sq. ft. general office building and parking, 462 Shelburne Road: Mr. Engels moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. It was noted that this hearing should be continued as there was inadequate notice to abutters. Mr. Engels moved to continue IZ-12-14 to 5 November 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Interim Zoning Continued Public Hearings: A. Interim Zoning #IZ-12-06, John Larkin, 40-unit PUD (phase 1 of 71 unit project), 201 Allen Road: Mr. McClellan said they were waiting to see if the Council had any more questions. He added that they stand on what they presented before. The Council indicated they had no questions. No audience comment was made. Mr. McClellan said they would like a decision so they can continue with the DRB. They want to know if they're on the right track. Ms. Greco said the application doesn't meet any of the 4 reasons for interim zoning. Mr. Larkin said all of the units will be affordable at 239,000 (the phase 140 units). Ms. Greco said to put that in writing. Mr. McClellan said they are trying to focus on what the Council wants. Ms. Greco said they are trying to preserve open space and land for agriculture. Mr. McClellan showed the space for gardens. Ms. Riehle said they would like some single family homes. Mr. Engels said they are looking for form based codes for City Center and then city-wide. Mr. Simoneau asked if the Council could provide some guidance on form based codes so the developer doesn't have to "guess and wing it." Mr. Engels said they haven't decided yet whether form based codes will be recommended city-wide. He added "Who knows what we have?" Ms. Riehle said maybe the developer can have a goal of 20% affordable housing and see if that works for them. Mr. Engels then moved to continue IZ-12-06 to 19 November with possible deliberation in between. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Interim Zoning #IZ-12-11, Larkin Realty, amendment to existing PUD, demolish existing two story, 89 unit hotel replace with four story, 89 unit hotel, 5 Dorset Street: Mr. Rabideau reviewed the project. He noted that the new hotel would be an extended stay hotel. With regard to traffic, there is no increase in density or traffic, so that shouldn't be an issue. They are improving circulation and do have an off-road connection to U- Mall. It is also more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Dooley asked if there will be conference facilities. Mr. Rabideau said "not really." There will be a "board room" with a maximum of 10-12 people. Mr. Engels then moved to close the hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Complete and Sign the Group Net Metering Agreement to Purchase Power from The Farm at South Village, Inc: Ms. Blanchard said some regulations have changed since the original approval. The owner is now losing money and is renegotiating with the city. Three changes are being asked for in the new contract: A. 5% below market B. the city can use up to 100% of the power C. the contract would be renewed annually. Ms. Riehle moved to authorize the City Manager to complete and sign the new agreement. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consider Approval of Renewable Energy Initiatives between City of South Burlington and Encore Redevelopment: A. Possible Approval of Resolution to Establish an Umbrella Renewable Energy Agreement: Ms. Blanchard reviewed the history and noted the city has negotiated an umbrella agreement. This will involve a minimum of 2 projects a year. Each project would reduce the net cost for the city. Ms. Riehle asked if this would set the scene for a lot of future solar farms that might not financially benefit the city. Mr. Miller said it would not. Each project would have to be approved individually. Ms. Blanchard said this could involve rooftops in addition to open land. Ms. Riehle moved to approve the resolution and authorize the City Manager to sign. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. b. Possible Approval of Dorset Park Solar Array Project in Partnership with Encore Redevelopment: Ms. Blanchard explained that this will be a 60kw project with 6 ground-mounted solar panels in Dorset Park adjacent to the storm water pond. The city got a renewable energy incentive from the state ($97,500). The overall project cost is $211,000. This would be funded by a promissory note to the Water Pollution Enterprise Fund at 1% interest, to be paid back in 10 years. Each payment would be below the estimated revenue generation. Yearly maintenance would be $1,000- 2,000, and insurance would cost $250.00 a year. Ms. Mackenzie asked where power is being stored. Ms. Blanchard said it will go straight into the grid. She added that this is easier than building a new transformer. Mr. Miller suggested considering item "c" before making a decision on "b." c. Authorization of Promissory Note for Interfund Borrowing between City Funds: Mr. Miller explained that WPC benefits slightly and the general fund pays slightly less than it would from another lender. He added that the auditors had no issue with this. Ms. Riehle moved to authorize the promissory note for interfund borrowing in an amount up to $125,000. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Dooley moved to direct the City Manager to negotiate and sign the agreement for the Dorset Park Solar Array project in an amount not to exceed $125,000. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. d. Supplemental Warrant Authorizing Initial Payment to Encore Redevelopment: Ms. Riehle moved to approve the supplemental warrant authorizing initial payment to Encore Redevelopment as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Review SusAg/Food Security Task Force recommendation regarding consultant selection and consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute contract: Ms. Greco reviewed the process. All three respondents to the RFP were interviewed, and the choice of David S. Connor, Place Sense, and Lamoureaux & Dickenson was unanimous. Ms. Mackenzie expressed concern with where the money is coming from. She said she will vote against this expenditure. Ms. Simpson asked where the money is coming from. Mr. Miller said there is $75,000.00 in a reserve fund. The total for this and the previous consultant is in the range of $60,000. The city is applying for a $15,000 Municipal Planning Grant and is being recommended to receive $50,000 from ECOS steering funding. There are also some contingency funds from FY12. Mr. Miller added that some expenses will run into FY14 and will have to be budgeted. Mr. Rusten added there is $250,000 in the contingency fund and also money that Planning & Zoning doesn't anticipate spending ($25,000). Ms. Riehle moved to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the contract with Lamoureaux and Dickenson, David Conner and Place Sense for a figure not to exceed $34,946. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Mackenzie voting against. 11. Review Form Based Code Committee recommendation regarding consultant selection and consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute contract: Mr. Engels said they got 5 proposals. All members felt one was superior and interviewed just that one, Dreyer Design (Newport, VT) /Project for Public Spaces (New York City). The choice was unanimous at a cost of $172,630.00 (including $22,000 for design review, if needed). Ms. Murray said $55,000 of this amount would be spend this year. Ms. Mackenzie expressed the same concern as with the previous item and said the Council should have had information on funding prior to this point. Mr. Engels said it is not anticipated that design review would be needed. Ms. Greco was concerned with the dollar amount and with the fact that only one applicant was interviewed. She also felt it was not clear what the outcome would look like. Mr. Bailey said he will be moving to South Burlington in a month and has worked with Paul Dreyer in Huntington (he served on their Planning Commission for 5 years). He recommended approval. Mr. Knapp noted this applicant has a major commitment in Newport and asked if they would have time for South Burlington. He also wanted to know why this costs so much more than the other consultants. With regard to cost, Mr. Engels said this is a 2-year project for both City Center and the rest of the city. Mr. Knapp explained that it is still not known what the affect of law suits will be on the taxpayers. Mr. Simoneau echoed this concern and had a fundamental issue with spending this kind of money. Ms. Germain, who serves on the Form Based Codes Subcommittee, said Dreyer has been coming to their meetings and went on the "walk-around." The committee wanted someone who understood Vermont. Ms. Dooley moved to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a contract for Form Based Codes consultant Paul Dreyer at a cost not to exceed $172,600, with $22,000 conditional on the need for design review work, with normal vetting by staff to include hourly costs. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-1, with Ms. Mackenzie voting against. 13. Discuss Council Considering Whether to Initiate a Process to Seek Applications for One or More Additional Library Trustees: Mr. Rusten reviewed the history. He noted that the by-laws say there can be 9 Board members. Ms. Simson enumerated the issues the Board is dealing with, including: flooding, space constraints, budgets, rewriting by-laws, advocating for a new library, etc. She asked for a full 9 members. Council members felt that community members who applied for that Board or who listed it as an additional choice should be re-contacted to see if they are still interested. 12. Discuss Option Related to the Interim Zoning Amendment regarding Economic Development Studies: Mr. Miller reviewed the history and noted that 1 October deadline to do something regarding the economic impacts of interim zoning. He said that responses to the RFP were not considered sufficient by staff. He did not feel re-issuing the same RFP would result in better responses. He suggested the following possible options: 1. Do nothing 2. Reissue the same RFP 3. Discuss the broad intent of Interim Zoning Ordinance and make amendments to the RFP 4. Amend the amendment to Interim Zoning Mr. Engels said his concern is that there is no long range planning. Ms. Greco disagreed with this. Ms. Riehle asked why the Council would want to do this now. She said it didn't make sense to her. Ms. Dooley said she believed the majority of residents are not happy with how the city is developing. She was not sure how interim zoning will affect development, but she believed it would be better in the future. Ms. Mackenzie cited the cost to developers for additional hearings and the cost of interim zoning. She said the Council owes it to the citizens to be as transparent as possible on the first two components of interim zoning and on the impact on developers. Ms. Greco cited hidden costs of development to residents including having to pay for things a developer didn't do. She didn't see how the Council could do the economic piece and didn't see how it is tied to interim zoning. Mr. Miller said he could consult with the City Attorney as to how to do it. Mr. Engels was concerned they would get a "barrage of criticism." Ms. Dooley supported getting legal advice. She felt the economic piece didn't "seem like a prudent investment." Ms. Mackenzie felt there are elements of the economic development piece that can and should be done now. She felt the Council is walking away from its responsibility. Mr. Knapp said he was pleased to see that the Council is now testifying to his objection to interim zoning. He said they are "bailing out" of the basis on which they put through interim zoning. He then read from the State Statute and said the Council has failed to meet the test for interim zoning. Mr. Simoneau noted that interim zoning was contested and that 2/3 of the public comment on the city's website was opposed to interim zoning. The economic study was an attempt to appease the opponents as a justification for interim zoning. He said that the fact that the Council hasn't done that raises the question of credibility. 14. Discuss South Burlington Legislative Breakfast Meetings: Members agreed to continue the legislative breakfast meetings as in the past. 15. Other Business: A. Items from Consent Agenda: Ms. Greco felt there was some discussion omitted regarding interim zoning items. This will be researched. B. Bike Rack: Members agreed to consider signage at the Police Department, traffic light sequencing and paving roads at future meetings. C. Other Members agreed to put the Meadow Road/Hadley Road issue on the 19 November agenda. It was noted that this involves city land that has turned into a "parking lot." Ms. Dooley noted that at the Region Planning Commission meeting a new grant for sidewalks was authorized. The deadline for application is early November. Ms. Dooley asked whether the city can pay for committee members to attend an annual housing conference ($75). She noted that for some members, this would be a hardship. Mr. Miller said the city doesn't typically do this. He noted it is not a "budget buster." Members were OK with paying for those committee members. 16. Executive Session: Ms. Dooley moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss negotiations. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 17. Regular Session: Ms. Riehle moved to adjourn. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.