| January 12, 2009 Meeting Minutes |
|
City Council Meeting
Minutes
January 12, 2009
City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval of the December 8, 2008 meeting minutes. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Liz Hager was not present for the presentation.
Action: Mayor Bouley welcomed the Concord District State Representatives to the meeting and asked that they introduce themselves and indicate what committees they are involved with.
District 10 Representatives (representing Wards 1, 2 and 3): Mary Stuart Gile – Child and Family Law Committee; Steve Shurtleff – Criminal Justice Committee; Bill Stetson – Local and Regulated Revenue Committee. Absent: Fran Potter.
District 12 Representatives (representing Wards 5, 6 and 7): Chip Rice – Labor Committee; Jessie Osborne – Municipal and County Government Committee; Rick Watrous – Judiciary Committee. Absent: Mary Jane Wallner.
District 11 Representatives (representing Wards 4, 8, 9 and 10): Candace White Bouchard – Public Works and Highways Committee; Tara Reardon – Commerce Committee. Absent: John DeJoie – Finance Committee; Bob Williams – Transportation Committee; and Michael Bartlett.
Mayor Bouley welcomed Senate President Sylvia Larsen to the meeting. Ms. Larsen indicated that she is in her 13th year as State Senator and is not only the Senate President but also sits on Senate Finance, which oversees the state’s budget. She explained the challenges the state faces with the upcoming budget. She indicated that because of the court requirements to fund education, additional expenditures were added in the last session to the school funding programs costing an anticipated $100 million additional in the state’s 2010 budget. She explained that this is a court requirement and one which comes as a top priority in state expenditures, one of the first expenditures required out of the state budget. She noted that property taxpayers in the city will hopefully see a continued support for the schools and hopes that it is a relief to hear that there won’t be reductions here. Ms. Larsen pointed out that the state contributes 35 percent of the share to the New Hampshire retirement system for municipal and school employees. She noted that the NH Municipal Association is very anxious for the state to continue this share. She further highlighted other concerns within the retirement systems and the topics of affordable housing and the economic stimulus plan.
Councilor Bennett inquired whether there are any increased revenues that the state would look at for the city to support in order to keep local funding intact. Senator Larsen responded that the NH Senate for Public Policies website outlines the options and some of the moneys that would be raised. She indicated that because the state is still in the drafting phase and doesn’t have the budget yet, there hasn’t been discussion, besides in-house ways and means, of what might get consensus if there were to be some additional revenue raised.
Mayor Bouley thanked the city’s state representatives and Senator Larsen for attending this evening’s meeting. He noted that he hopes that they will be willing to come back to Council as the session goes on to share specific bills that are directly affecting the city. The Mayor recognized Councilor Blanchard as the County Commissioner.
-Consent Agenda
Items--
Note: Items
listed as pulled from the consent agenda will be discussed at the end of the
meeting following
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval the consent agenda, as amended, with items 18, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35 removed for discussion at the end of the agenda. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Referral to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Referral to the Parking Committee
Items Tabled for a February 9, 2009 Public Hearing
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
From the City Manager
Consent Reports
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
29. Report from the Conservation Commission in response to a communication from Richard Uchida, on behalf of Bridgestone Builders, Inc., in support of an amendment to a conservation easement deed between the City of Concord and Bridgestone Builders, Inc. (12-11)
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
32. Report from the City Engineer requesting
that the City Manager be authorized to apply for and participate in the US
Geological Survey Aerial Imagery Cooperative Program to acquire high resolution
aerial imagery of Concord, CIP 297, Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Action: This item removed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
Consent Resolutions
Consent Communications
Appointments
**End of Consent Agenda**
A. Resolution appropriating the sum of $247,370 for the purpose of installing perimeter fencing at the Concord Municipal Airport including $235,000 in grant funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and $6,185 each from the State of New Hampshire Division of Aeronautics and the City of Concord; CIP #384; together with a report from the Associate Engineer. (12-15)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
B. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title V, Administrative Code, Chapter 35, Classification and Compensation Plan, Schedule D of Article 35-2, Class Specification Index, Purchasing Agent; together with reports from the Director of Personnel and Labor Relations, the Purchasing Manager and the Deputy City Manager – Finance. (12-16)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview explaining that for the past several years the Purchasing Division has had one administrative specialist position that provides clerical support to the citywide purchasing process. He noted that staff is suggesting the creation of a Buyers Agent position adding that staff feels that this will save money in the purchasing of many products. Mr. Aspell added that, due to budget constraints, the city does not have the ability to fill this position and that he is suggesting that Council create the position and when there is the opportunity to fund this in the future, the position will then be implemented.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open. There being no public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
C. Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title II, Traffic Code; Chapter 17, Vehicles and Traffic; Article 17-4, Operation of Motor Vehicles; Section 17-4-16, Speed Limits, Schedule XVII, Alice Drive; together with a report from the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee recommending the reduction of the posted speed limit from 30 MPH to 25 MPH. (12-17)
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Stetson asked whether Council would be accepting all of the recommendations outlined within the report if they approve the ordinance. Mr. Aspell clarified that the ordinance pertains specifically to reducing the speed limit to 25 mph. Councilor Stetson stated that he would like to defer some of the recommendations contained within the report to a later date. Mr. Aspell suggested that Council cull out parts of the report that they accept and table or not vote in favor of the others.
Mayor Bouley declared the hearing open.
Public Testimony
Stephen Tipping, Alice Drive resident, spoke in favor of reducing the speed limit to 25 mph. He asked that Council put the gate out for awhile and spoke in opposition to the speed bumps due to the noise factor.
There being no further public testimony, the Mayor closed the hearing.
January 2009 Public Hearing Action
Action:
Councilor Nyhan moved approval. The motion was
duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Coen moved approval. The motion was duly seconded.
Mayor Bouley asked for an example of the potential to save money with this position. Mr. Aspell explained that the city has a new financial system currently in place and many divisions are purchasing services and parts throughout each day. He noted that the idea is to have someone that will take the time to go online to deal with vendors and find the best prices. He added that over time, staff would look at retooling some existing positions to do this therefore increasing their value but also increasing their ability to save the city large dollars over an amount of time.
Councilor Keach inquired whether each department currently does its own purchasing for example paper products. Mr. Aspell responded that it is currently coordinated but if an employee is in the field and an emergency comes along such as a water break, there is the opportunity for that employee to contact the purchasing agent to do the background work and get the product delivered on site.
Mr. Howard added that some products, such as paper products, are easy to identify across the organization but there are still a lot of items that departments go out and buy themselves because they need it at the spur of the moment. He noted that there currently a lot of inefficiencies in the way things are done and that by having a buyer, it saves employees from having to call a vendor and to have to go pick it up.
Mr. Aspell further added that Doug Ross, Purchasing Manager, is always looking at ways to improve the way he does his buying for the city and that this is just one more way to make him more efficient.
The motion to approve passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Lemieux moved approval of the ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Alice Drive to 25 mph. The motion was duly seconded.
Referencing last month’s Council meeting, Councilor Nyhan pointed out that Council did not approve reducing the speed limit on Rockingham Street to 25 mph. He indicated that staff and the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee had pointed out that lowering speed limits does not lower speeds and it had been recommended against doing so.
City Engineer Ed Roberge responded that the easiest comparison is the functional classification of the highway itself. He explained that Rockingham Street is a major collector street that is functionally classified much higher with much more traffic expected. He noted that essentially identifying those streets that are functionally classified that carry more traffic albeit separating the geography of the conditions of the street itself, staff feels that it is important to maintain that travel wanting cars to go where the cars should go. He pointed out that this is one of the reasons why the Traffic Operations Committee and the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee thought that it was appropriate to maintain the travel speed at 30 mph on Rockingham Street. Mr. Roberge indicated that Alice Drive is classified as a local city street with local destinations to residential homes with much lower traffic. He noted that the speed that was analyzed was more appropriate for this reduction. He explained that it is consistent with Council’s past actions of lowering local neighborhood streets.
Councilor Nyhan noted that he does support the motion but still has difficulty understanding the difference between the two roads indicating that he hopes it can be presented in such a way that the residents of Rockingham Street will understand. Mr. Roberge responded that the road characteristics are one aspect but isn’t what is being considered. He explained that Alice Drive is wider and was built under the new city standards, thirty foot wide curb to curb with sidewalks; Rockingham Street as an older collector street in which the width may vary in 24 to 28 feet in different sections of the street. He noted that what is most important is: traffic volume; and the speed. He detailed some of the analysis that was done on these roads.
Referencing Rockingham Street, Councilor Coen noted that as he recalled, one of the recommendations was to stripe the street and bring it in questioning why this was not a recommendation for Alice Drive since the street was wider and may therefore encourage vehicles to slow down. Mr. Roberge responded that this is a good point explaining that what they are trying to separate is the difference between the city’s major collector streets and local streets. He noted that the city does not typically stripe local streets to allow them to be fully utilized; and to control the lane designation and uses in the arterial and collector highways that are pushing vehicles through.
Councilor Lemieux indicated that streets are classified by how they function and noted that he feels that many streets in the city are over classified, classified higher than they should be classified. He noted that he intends to look at this through the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee during the next year.
Following additional Council discussion, the motion to accept the ordinance to reduce the speed limit on Alice Drive to 25 mph passed with no dissenting votes.
Councilor Lemieux moved to accept the remainder of the report. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Stetson moved to amend the motion to accept item 2 and to table items 3 to 6 for three months with a report back to Council to see if items 1 and 2 have corrected the situation. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued in regards to whether three months was enough time to gather the data and whether the winter conditions prevented data collection. Mr. Roberge indicated that data collection usually begins in the month of May and suggested waiting a month after for this data. Mr. Aspell suggested a report be brought forth to Council in June.
Councilor Stetson amended his motion to table items 3 through 6 until June. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux asked whether Councilor Stetson would reconsider item 6 because this item is to conduct a neighborhood survey and doesn’t feel that this needs to wait for any amount of time. Mr. Roberge indicated that the survey was already being done as part of the transportation policy process.
Mayor Bouley asked who was paying for the survey. Mr. Roberge responded that the city is paying for the surveys. Mayor Bouley inquired as to how many neighborhood meetings have been held. Mr. Roberge responded that three public meetings have been held along with one kick off meeting in 2007.
Referencing the survey mailing, Councilor Stetson clarified that this is being done under the Council’s guidelines for traffic calming pointing out that it is in the policy book.
Councilor Keach pointed out that there is no consideration for costs within the recommendations. He indicated that, in the future, he would like reports to examine more in detail as to how much these items will cost.
Mr. Roberge explained the process contained within the Traffic Management Policy.
Following additional discussion, Councilor St. Hilaire noted his concerns in regards to the survey process involved pointing out that surveys were sent out before Council has had a chance to vote on this item with responses due back in two weeks. He asked whether the city should be sending the surveys out at a later date and not before it is implemented. Mr. Roberge responded that the policy is quite specific in terms of its steps. He added that one of the goals that the Traffic Management Policy Committee wants to do is to rewrite this policy and that this evening’s concerns by Council will be taken into consideration.
Additional Council discussion ensued in regards to the surveys being mailed out before Council action being held and on the Traffic Management Policy.
Councilor Stetson’s motion to accept item 2 and to table items 3 through 6 until June passed with no dissenting votes.
Reports
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Stephen Henninger, Planning, indicated that the mapped lines of future streets process is something that Council rarely does with the last one being done in 2005. He explained that mapped lines of future streets is a guidance to the Planning Board, guidance to the developer, and a limited encumbrance on private property explaining that is why there is a need for the public hearing process and the notice to the affected property owners. He pointed out that mapped lines of future streets is intended to guide future development of parcels as they come through in a piece mail manner.
Referencing the map attached to the report, Councilor McClure pointed out those wetlands have been depicted appearing that the road crosses these wetlands and questioned the black dots that appear within the wetlands on the map. Mr. Henninger responded that the Planning Board has asked that the owners clearly identify the edge of the wetland. He clarified that the darker markings are actual surveyed wetlands. He added that there is a little edge of the wetlands that may be impacted in order to do a reasonable route through on the west of the Vineyards but the rest of the alignment avoids all the wetlands that have been surveyed to date. Councilor McClure inquired whether this wetland area is connected to the Great Bog. Mr. Henninger responded that it is the edge of the Great Bog. Councilor McClure questioned whether residential development is anticipated on the north side of this road. Mr. Henninger responded that north of the wetlands yes.
Mr. Henninger identified, in detail, the wetland areas on the map.
Referencing the two hanging maps, Mr. Aspell clarified that the map provided on
the left was related to item 24 on the agenda.
In regards to item 24, Mr. Henninger explained that a request had been made to rezone property north of the Vineyards on Bog Road. He explained that the Planning Board did not want to rezone the Great Bog because they felt it would send the wrong message to people and makes unrealistic expectations for developers. He indicated that the board came up with three recommendations for change which he looks at as more of a readjustment of the zoning boundaries to reflect developable land that lies easterly of the bog and allows this to be developed in a reasonable manner. He provided a brief overview of the three recommendations contained within the report.
Councilor McClure noted her confusion with the recommendation of rezoning the area north of the proposed road which had been indicated earlier as all wetland. Mr. Henninger explained that some of it is wetland and when the zoning line is drawn they have to come across the wetland to pick up most of the developable land. Councilor McClure inquired whether thought had been given to only do that remnant piece next to Sandwood Crossing. Mr. Henninger responded that they do zone parcels for wetlands but don’t try to zone massive wetlands in a zoning district but does do that to ensure that people can utilize the developable land within those areas appropriately.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor Nyhan inquired whether this development is consistent with the master plan. Mr. Henninger responded yes. Councilor Nyhan further inquired whether there was anything to prevent this from connecting Kyle Road to the existing road that goes through the Vineyards. Mr. Henninger responded that it is physically connected but not paved yet. Councilor Nyhan asked whether the creation of this proposed road turns Kyle Road into a collector street. Mr. Henninger responded no. Councilor Nyhan inquired as to who decides where this road should go. Mr. Henninger responded that there had been an alternate proposal and the Planning Board recommended that instead of going north and down through the wetlands they recommended going southerly.
Councilor St. Hilaire inquired whether this proposed road could go in as a private way. Mr. Henninger responded that that would be conceivable noting that this may work out better for the developers and the city. Councilor St. Hilaire noted that it is his understanding that with a private way, the city does not have any authority to enforce any of the laws such as speed limit because it is a private way.
Referencing the road from Alice Drive through the mobile home park to Bog Road, Councilor McClure questioned whether this is a mapped street. Mr. Henninger replied that it is a right of way easement. Councilor McClure noted that as part of the development of the Vineyards, the city required of them to come up with a route for a map street and they came up with a route that off of Emily Way through the wetlands and came down at approximately the same place on Bog Road. She further noted that the Planning Board and Planning staff came up with this alternate route and inquired as to how this new route benefits the Vineyards. Mr. Henninger responded that he believes that the Vineyards would prefer that it not be a public road because it would impact the development potential. Councilor McClure questioned whether the main purpose is to connect the other developments with Bog Road. Mr. Henninger responded that it would connect everybody in a way that would allow access. Councilor McClure asked whether the Vineyards desires to have access to it. Mr. Henninger indicated that the Vineyards developers may not desire to have access to it and it’s not something they particularly want to do to maximize the use of their property. Councilor McClure noted that it is in the city’s interest to do this because it’s been the city’s stated goal to connect developments. Mr. Henninger indicated that to be correct.
Councilor Shurtleff moved to set this item for a public hearing in February. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
New Business
Unfinished Business
Comments, Requests by Mayor, City Councilors
Councilor Coen inquired whether it would be possible to receive a report as to how the overnight parking is working out.
Comments, Requests by the City Manager
Consideration of items pulled from the consent agenda for discussion
Items 18, 24, 27, 28, 31 and 35 were pulled from the consent agenda to be discussed following unfinished business items on the agenda.
Action: Councilor McClure noted that she feels that it’s premature to have a hearing on this without more information. She indicated that she would like to propose tabling this item and wondered if this could be folded into the zoning changes that will be proposed as a result of the new master plan or, if there is another hearing, there needs to be a full presentation to the Council in which she requests that they include the hearing minutes and all the testimonies that was presented to Zoning Board hearings on this proposal. She indicated that she is very concerned about the interpretation that the administrator has given to this proposal and change and could result in some serious repercussions not only in this neighborhood but also other neighborhoods in which this could come up.
Councilor Keach questioned whether this is a recommendation from the Zoning Administrator or the Zoning Board. City Manager Aspell responded that it is from the Zoning Administrator.
Councilor Nyhan noted his agreement with Councilor McClure’s comments.
Following additional Council discussion, Councilor McClure moved to refer this item to the Planning Board and Zoning Board for further study. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor Lemieux inquired whether tabling this item will necessarily stop the development of the CVS project. Mr. Aspell responded no indicating that the developer can still apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a decision. Councilor Lemieux clarified that the developer can still go to the Zoning Board and get an exception so this motion does not stop that development. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct explaining that this can be done on any zoning regulation devised.
Councilor Blanchard inquired whether the developer has already been before the Zoning Board. Zoning Administrator Craig Walker explained that the CVS proposal did appear before the Zoning Board requesting a variance to be allowed to place the buffer at the edge of the extended use district boundary. He indicated that, at that meeting, he advised the ZBA that he was proposing this change to the ordinance and the Zoning Board tabled any decision on this request pending an outcome of a decision from the City Council. Mr. Walker interpreted that if Council’s decision is to wait six months or more for a decision, the applicant could make a request to the board to take it off the table and render a final decision on this.
Councilor Keach inquired whether the Zoning Board was divided on the proposed amendment. Mr. Walker explained that the board was not dealing with the issue of the amendment the board was dealing with the variance request by the applicant to place the buffer at the edge of the use boundary as opposed to the edge of the district boundary, which is where it is required to be placed. He added that the board wanted to see how the Council felt about the proposed amendment before they rendered a decision.
Referencing the second paragraph of the report, Councilor Lemieux read “it recently became apparent that there is a contradiction between the wording of the article and the intent of the article” questioning how it is known what the intent is and what is looked at if not the wording of the article to determine what the intent is. Mr. Walker responded that the intent of the buffer ordinance is to provide protection between a residential and a non-residential use and to have that buffer there to protect against headlights and encroachments. He explained that the way the ordinance is written, is to place that buffer along the district boundary but on the other portion of the ordinance it describes lots transected by a district boundary, allowing the property owner to move that use forty feet into the adjacent district if they own that property. As the ordinance is currently written, they can develop a commercial use in a residential district, place the buffer at the district boundary and not do anything on the side edge of the use that they have developed on the other side of the district boundary. He noted that he feels that the intent of the ordinance would be to have that buffer placed at the edge of whatever that non-residential use is as opposed to placing it at the district boundary just because that is the plain language of the ordinance.
Councilor McClure’s motion to refer this item to the Planning Board and Zoning Board for further information passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor McClure noted that she is not in favor of the rezoning and is very concerned about rezoning the wetlands to RS in the RO district. She indicated that as she recalled when the development of Sandwood Crossing was allowed they were dealing with very high water table, considerable strife, dismay and hardship on the part of all the adjacent landowners as this development was going through. She noted that she feels that it is not in the city’s best interest to allow development so close to wetlands. She moved to refer this item back to the Planning Board to look again at their rezoning proposal to provide better protection to the wetlands. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor St. Hilaire pointed out that it is already zoned for some type of housing unit to be built here just not the proposed way that the Vineyards want to place a building. Councilor McClure responded that not at the density being proposed by the Vineyards. She added that she agrees with the concept but feels that the line is in the wrong place when it comes to protecting wetlands.
Councilor Keach noted that he feels that in some way the density might, in fact, protect the wetlands if those houses can be clustered together closer.
Mayor Bouley pointed out that the question before Council is to whether or not to hold a public hearing on this item. He noted he will be voting against the motion to refer this item to the Planning Board for the reasons stated within the report that after reviewing and considering all the alternatives the Planning Board “voted unanimously to recommend an amendment of the zoning map set forth in the attached ordinance and map”. He indicated that he feels that referring it back to the Planning Board is not going to change their decision that was unanimously adopted less than a month ago.
The motion to refer this item to the Planning Board failed on a voice vote.
Councilor Shurtleff moved to set this item for a public hearing in February. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor McClure asked that item 28 be included within the discussion of this item. She explained that the reason that she had pulled these two items is because she was dismayed to see the proposal to cancel the City Hall Campus Expansion Study without a more thorough discussion of this proposal. She pointed out that this is one of Council’s priorities and would therefore be a change within those priorities and that it also hinges on how the Library Task Force is going to proceed. She noted that she would like to delay making this decision for the reason that City Council needs to have a more full discussion as to how they rearrange and reorganize Council priorities. She added that the city owes it to its citizens to look carefully at how the City Hall space is managed and to make it more user friendly.
City Manager Tom Aspell explained that this is one of the top priorities of City Council pointing out that they purposely delayed looking at it until it can be determined what was going to happen with the library. He indicated that when the needs assessment for the library was done, it was thought that there was going to be a new library constructed somewhere else in the city and it made sense to look at the library as part of the campus study with the Police Department, Green Street Community Center and City Hall. He noted that now the Mayor’s Library Task Force is going to relook at this and make a determination whether or not there will be a new library constructed somewhere else or adding on to the existing library. Being that this will take some time, Mr. Aspell explained that staff looked at taking this campus study money and to use it for something that is needed right now, records management in a building already owned by the city and currently underutilized.
Councilor Black inquired whether the Dewey School could be used for storage. Mr. Aspell responded that Matt Walsh has been working with the school district as part of their assessments of existing buildings.
Councilor Keach moved to accept the report and authorize City Administration to move forward with this. The motion was duly seconded.
Councilor McClure noted her concern with pulling this money and to be able to reserve these dollars for a campus study. She asked whether Council needs to look at where the money is being spent based Council’s priorities as outlined within item 28. She questioned using dollars from other places to accomplish the city’s need for records management without sacrificing the campus study money.
Mayor Bouley noted that he will be voting against the motion asking that if the motion is defeated, that he hopes Council tables this until March giving the City Manager the chance to work with the library task force and come back to Council with another alternative source of funding.
Councilor Blanchard noted that she will be voting against the motion as well.
Councilor Nyhan moved to table this item until the March meeting. He noted that he would like to address the concerns of spending money for a long term plan of the community center without understanding what is going to happen there. Councilor Nyhan’s motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Action: Councilor McClure moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Mayor Bouley asked for a motion to accept the report. Councilor Bennett moved approval of the report. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Action: Councilor Patten indicated that he just wants to ensure that the neighborhood has been properly notified of this possible action. He inquired whether these two items could be separated. Mr. Aspell responded that traditionally the Council has asked that staff make sure that all the properties that the city should not hold on to are on the tax rolls. He explained that in this case, staff was approached by the Hodges Company asking whether the city was interested in selling these. He noted that the city does not send notification to people surrounding the properties but indicated that the city can put out a request for proposal for both of these to see if anyone in the community is interested in buying them. Absent this, he indicated that if the Hodges Company is still interested in the property, they would negotiate with the city and staff would bring this information back to Council in which it would be determined whether or not to sell the properties.
Referencing the property on Village Street, Councilor Blanchard indicated that it is recommended that this piece not be sold until such a time it can be determined whether more cemetery space is needed. Mr. Aspell indicated that to be correct adding that staff would come back to Council to let them know whether or not the city needs to keep this or sell it.
Referencing Pembroke Road, Councilor Bouchard asked that the city consider holding onto this piece of land indicating that she would strongly argue that this is a meaningful buffer for these neighborhoods on the heights. She noted that she sees this as one more encroachment onto the neighborhoods of the heights.
Referencing the map attached to the report, Councilor Coen pointed out that it does appear to show that there is a wooded area that abuts the city property to the west between the houses and the city property. He noted that if this was still developed there would still be quite a bit of buffer zone between the homes and the property. Councilor Bouchard responded that encroachment is happening more and more for the heights neighborhoods noting that she would like to just leave it as it is at this time.
Councilor Keach noted that he is in favor of placing land back on the tax rolls and asked that staff expedite the process on Village Street explaining that several months seems like a lot of time to make a determination.
Councilor Bouchard stated that she is always in favor of placing property back on the tax rolls but feels that the neighborhoods of the heights have constantly been encroached and almost every neighborhood is being surrounded by some type of parking lot or business wanting to expand.
Councilor Bouchard moved that Council split the question and not sell the piece of property on Pembroke Road. The motion was duly seconded and passed 8 to 7 with a show of hands vote.
Councilor Blanchard moved to accept the recommendation within the report for Village Street. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
Consideration of Suspense Items
Councilor Nyhan moved to suspend the rules to consider items not previously advertised. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
1 Sus1 To be set for a February 9,
2009 Public Hearing
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code; Chapter 5,
Public Works; Article 5-8, Solid Waste Flow Control; together with report from
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Nyhan moved to set this item for a February public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
1 Sus2 To be set for a February 9,
2009 Public Hearing
Ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances, Title I, General Code;
Chapter 5, Public Works; Article 5-7, Solid Waste.
Action: City Manager Tom Aspell provided a brief overview.
Councilor Nyhan moved to set this item for a February public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
1 Sus3 Referral to Community
Development
Petition from residents of Alice Drive requesting an emergency gate be
installed at the south side of Alice Drive between the driveway into Windsor
Estates and the entrance to Sandwood Crossing.
Action: Councilor Stetson moved to refer this petition to Community Development. The motion was duly seconded and passed on a voice vote.
Adjournment
The time being 10:35 p.m., Councilor Stetson moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was duly seconded and passed with no dissenting votes.
A true copy; I attest:
Michelle Tiffany
Deputy City Clerk