Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 11/14/2016 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 14 NOVEMBER 2016 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 14 November 2016, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Richards, N. Longo, Burlington International Airport; S. Cleary, D. Carter, S. Degutis, D. Crandall, consultants; D. Young, Superintendent of Schools; C. Sargent, K. Robison, B. Serviss, G. Maille, B. Nowak, L. Leavens, R. Lloyd, J. Nolan, D. Duell, C. Carlton, J. Valentovic, D. Companion, D. Greenville, M. Bashien, other members of the public 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: A vote on special warrants was added as Other Business. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Presentation by representatives of Burlington International Airport related to the Home Buyout Program and other programs and plans related to Airport-related noise abatement: Ms. Carter explained that the FAA provides funding for airport noise-related projects in a 2-step process: Step 1: a noise exposure map (which was done last year) Step 2: a noise compatibility program (which looks at impacts and how to mitigate them). Ms. Carter said they will be looking at the 2020 maps (she indicated on the map the area that they will be looking at in terms of noise exposure). She noted that 5 homes are currently being acquired, and Burlington has received funding to purchase 39 more homes in the previous acquisition area. In order to establish a program based on noise abatement (e.g., insulation), the purchase grant must first be completed. Ms. Emery read language that requires the 2 communities to “concur.” She said this has not yet happened. Mr. Longo said that requirement is for the $400,000 grant and the program (insulation, etc.) that has not yet started. Mr. Richards said that Mayor Weinberger is passionate about bringing the purchase program to an end, but it is not easy to slow down. They have received $15,000,000 to end the buyout program. Mr. Longo stressed that those funds are only for purchasing homes. He also indicated the 75 dbl line and said there are no options other than purchasing for those homes. Mr. Richards stressed that 25 of the 39 homes were already in a purchase program. Mr. Chittenden asked when the “event” is that will trigger the noise compatibility program. Mr. Richards said they have set 2 years to finish up the purchase process. The consultants feel it can be wrapped up in that time. Ms. Carter then updated what will be involved in the noise compatibility program: a. Will focus on land use measures b. Recommendations will be based on the 2020 noise contours c. The study will incorporate community feedback d. The study is to begin in December, 2016. She said that when the study is complete, it will go to the FAA for approval. What the FAA approves is what will happen. She then indicated what will be looked at in the FAA approved program: a. Land acquisition b. Sound insulation c. Sales assistance d. Purchase assurance e. Easement acquisition for new development f. Real estate disclosure She stressed that the program is completely voluntary. Mr. Richards added that there are no guarantees. If federal funds go away, there would be no program. He also noted there will be “new people in Washington.” Ms. Carter then described each of the a-f aspects as follows: Land Acquisition: involves purchase of property from the owner using federal guidelines and includes relocation benefits, demolishing of the structure, and typically a change of land use. Sound Insulation: of acoustical windows and doors in exchange for an “aviation easement (which indicates that the owner understands there will be planes flying above their home). The insulation will reduce interior noise to 45 dbl. In order to qualify, the existing interior noise level must be above 45 dbl. The owner would remain in the home, and there would be no change in land use. This would be a 2-year process. Ms. Nowak noted that windows and doors are a “minimum.” She asked if there could be more. Ms. Carter said there could. Ms. Emery asked what would happen if, when the F-35s arrive, a home that has not been insulated is pushed into a higher noise contour. She also asked why this is coming from the FAA when the noise issue is from military aircraft. Mr. Richards said he did not have an answer for that. Ms. Emery commented that a lot of land is being taken for “6 minutes of noise a day.” Mr. Barritt asked if there will be measuring of noise in homes. Ms. Carter said there will not be. The noise exposure map has identified an area and there are federal dollars to address homes in that area. The program asks what can be offered to those homes. The first question that will be asked is “what is appropriate for noise mitigation in this area?” Ms. Emery noted that the Airport is increasing in area when commercial flights are decreasing. She felt this makes no sense. Ms. Nowak asked if someone would be able to have a determination as to where they are in relation to the mitigation. Ms. Carter said not at this time. Sales Assistance: The Airport would assist an owner with a sale on the open market. The Airport would not take possession of the property, and there would be no change in land use. The property owner would enter into a sales assistance program through an agreement with the Airport. The homeowner/occupant would not get a relocation benefit. Purchase Assurance: The Airport takes possession of a property and resells it on the open market. There is no change in land use. The homeowner would enter into a purchase assurance program by signing an agreement with the Airport that includes selling of the property at fair market value and conveying of an aviation easement prior to the sale of the home. There would be no relocation benefits. The Airport would maintain and preserve the property during the sound insulation process. Easement Acquisition: The Airport would acquire an aviation easement for dew development within the 65, 70 and 75 dbl contours. Real Estate Disclosure: A real estate disclosure policy would be developed for land uses within the 65 dbl area through implementation of a zoning ordinance with the City of South Burlington. Ms. Nowak asked when the community starts to get involved in the process. Ms. Carter said they will begin meetings after the first of the new year. These will last through spring. Then there will be a draft recommended program by summer. This draft will be sent to the FAA for approval. Mr. Richards added that the FAA was very clear that this program is for the people in the neighborhood. A list of “frequently asked questions and answers” was then reviewed. The following comments and observations were made during this review: a) Ms. Riehle said it seems to be a waste of federal money to have a buyout program now, and by the time that gets played out, there will be a change of use on the military side of the Airport that will require new noise contours that might be “longer and skinnier.” Houses that were torn down may have been torn down for naught. She asked why sound maps are not redone with the potential for the F35s. Mr. Richards said they don’t get a choice. They have to use the conditions that exist today. He said he understood Ms. Riehle’s point, but stressed that he doesn’t make the rules. b) Ms. Emery asked how things went from “no new homes” in 2013 to 13 new homes in 2015. Mr. Longo said they were approached by residents of those homes. Ms. Riehle said the sentiment is that this came on suddenly, and the question is how there can be better communication so the City can be part of the decision-making process. Mr. Richards said he felt the new grant will address that. He added that he tries to talk with Mr. Dorn as often as possible. He also said it’s “hard when you’re being called a liar.” He stressed that their door is “wide open.” c) Ms. Riehle said the Council/city understands the importance of the Airport but stressed that the city has an added aspect: it directly impacts one of the city’s neighborhoods in ways that it does not affect other communities. d) With regard to Chamberlin School, Mr. Richards said he is in frequent contact with Superintendent Young. The School District will be treated the same as a residential property owner. Sound mitigation has been done in schools in Rhode Island, California and Louisiana. The school is currently not included in the buyout program. Ms. Riehle asked if a school has ever been bought. The response was that a private school was purchased in the State of Washington. e) Mr. Richards said there is no anticipated future buyout program based on the current noise map. Ms. Riehle noted this means there is no assurance that land acquisition is over. f) Mr. Richards said there are no walls or berms or the like in the program. It can be discussed as part of the new program. Ms. Nowak expressed concern with keeping communication together. She noted that things can happen quickly at the Airport, and the latest round of purchases was “surprising.” She hoped that going forward there was a greater working relationship. She stressed that South Burlington is the “host city” for the Airport. Ms. Emery felt the city has contributed a great deal through the home buyout program. She would like to see some communication as to whether it was worth it. The city has sacrificed affordable housing, which is important in the region. She was still not sure why nearly 200 homes were destroyed. Public input was then solicited: Mr. Leavens: Commended the “change in attitude.” He was opposed to the “aviation easements.” Ms. Carter said these can be written in many ways, being loose or restrictive. Mr. Richards said they are new to them as well, and they will be sent to the City Attorney for review so there can be something everyone agrees on. Ms. Sargent: Said the process has seemed “like a cancer” with the Airport responding to noise by removing parts of the community. She noted that military personnel had talked about having money for noise mitigation and asked if the Airport had approached them. She suggested that some kind of wall could address ground noise. She stressed the need for a collaborative effort. She also noted that the Airport has been removing trees, which are a barrier to noise. She said that removing homes should be “the last resort.” Mr. Richards said they will have to see if the military was “serious” about their offer. Ms. Nowak noted that the Air Force is helping with the 4-way intersection and volunteered to do that. Ms. Lloyd: (resident of Burlington) asked how the Air Force can decide to increase the sound from afterburners and the city had no say in it. Ms. Riehle said the city had no power to override them…it was a battle the city lost. Ms. Nolan: said she lives on a street where homes were taken, and her property value has decreased from $200,000 to $161,000. She asked how they can be assured of getting “fair market value” when the recorded prices are decreasing. The response was the “comparable data” is taken from outside the acquisition area. Ms. Nolan said that every time a house was bought, their value went down. The response was that they may not be getting the same value they would get with one of the Airport’s appraisers. Mr. Duell: noted that schools in Massachusetts have been soundproofed for many years. He asked if Chamberlin will be insulated. Ms. Carter said it will be part of the discussion in that program Mr. Carlton asked when the home insulation program will go into effect. Ms. Carter said about 3 years. Ms. Robison asked how many decibels insulating doors and windows can lower. Ms. Carter said the FAA requires interior noise levels to be 45 dbl or above in order to qualify for insulation. She didn’t know what other measures could be added. She said a new policy is coming out which would require going to 5 dbl lower than what now exists. A resident asked where the information can from when the new noise exposure maps were done in 2015. Mr. Crandall said the 228 days came from the Air Force analysis, but the FAA said they had to look at 365 days. The resident asked whether this should be re-evaluated because noise is much higher than last year. Mr. Richards said he would check on that. Mr. Greenville noted that their home is just outside the buyout. The line goes into their backyard. He asked why they were not included. Ms. Degutis said the standard is how far the middle of a house is from the contours. Mr. Bashien said noise is louder at his home now. He asked if anyone has actually measured the noise or is it all done by computer. Mr. Longo said with the sound insulation program, the actual numbers will be recorded. Mr. Bashien asked if the number turns out to be 75 dbl or above, would the Airport buy his house. Mr. Longo said it is done on an averaging basis. Ms. Valentovic asked if her house is appraised but sells at less, would she have to wait 3 years before she could get the difference. Ms. Carter said she would. This ended the discussion. 4. Social Services Funding Review and Allocation of available funds: Mr. Chittenden questioned why the city is making “charitable contributions.” Ms. Emery noted that some of the organizations are “home grown.” The decision also involved the number of South Burlington residents served by an organization. Ms. Nowak said some organizations get insurance money or bequests; it was the others that she wanted to see. She noted that some organizations serve city employees (e.g., Police Department). Members agreed to “round down” the numbers to even $50 amounts and to cap the total at $40,000. Mr. Barritt moved to cap the total social services allocation at $40,000, rounding down amounts to even $50 multiples. Ms. Nowak seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sign Disbursements: Mr. Hubbard explained that an unpaid tax of $500 or more goes through several phases before it ultimately goes to tax sale. The property involved was sold. The original owner then had one year in which to reclaim the property, including the cost of auction and other fees. That was done in this case. The disbursement involves no city money. Ms. Emery moved to approve the disbursement as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Chittenden moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.