City Council

ioAj southburlington VERMONT MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 29 September 2025, at 6: 30 p. m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Zoom. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; E. Fitzgerald, L. Smith, A. Chalnick, A. Pugh ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; C. McNeil, City Attorney; D. Ruhe, Attorney; E. Quallen, Deputy Director of Capital Projects for Public Works; L. & S. Demaroney, I. Maynard, Stantec Engineer; R. Chittenden 1. Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 3. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 4. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no public comments or questions. 5. Consent Agenda: PAGE 1  a. AP Warrant for 9/ 19/ 25 Mr. Chalnick moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Pugh seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Public Hearing per 19 V. S. A. Section 709, Dorset Street ( T. H. # 5) Shared Use Path: The hearing is for the purpose of receiving testimony and hearing from all persons interested in whether the public good necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the City of South Burlington warrant the layout and condemnation of certain rights and easements and whether a person, through whose land the Dorset Street Shared Use Path passes or abuts is entitled to compensation damages for the taking of said rights and easements on the parcels of land known as 1580 Dorset Street ( Parcel 6), 1550 Dorset Street ( Parcel 7) and 1520 Dorset Street ( Parcel 10), as shown on Right- Of- Way Detail Sheets 1 and 2 and Layout Sheets 2, 3, and 4 of the plans entitled " City of South Burlington, County of Chittenden, Proposed Improvement, Shared Use Path, Dorset Street Path," Project No. STP BP19( 4) (" Transportation Project"), prepared by Stantac Consulting Services, Inc. (" The Right of Way Plans"): Mr. Ruhe, outside Counsel for the City, explained that this project has been worked on for many years. The purpose of this hearing is to hear from interested parties and testimony from the City. Mr. Ruhe noted previous testimony and exhibits which he said he believes will be all the information the City needs to determine that the project is necessary. Ms. Quallen, said the project was identified in 1996. It was made a priority in 2014. A scoping study was then done ( Exhibit 1), and the preferred alternative received a grant from the Vermont Agency of Transportation. There has now been a preliminary design with compensation to be determined. Ms. Fitzgerald asked about the City Council' s role and responsibilities. Mr. McNeil said the Council is serving in a quasi- judicial capacity and will be the decision maker. At this hearing, the Council is to receive testimony from the City and from interested parties. The Council must then issue a written decision within 60 days. Mr. McNeil noted that offers to all affected property owners have been accepted with the exception of the owners of the properties identified in the Warning. CITY COUNCIL 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE 2 Mr. Chalnick asked how property values were determined. Ms. Quallen said the waiver evaluation process was used based on the land value on the City' s assessed value. Permanent easements were valued at 95%, and temporary easements were valued at 20%. Ms. Quallen noted that Exhibit 2 shows the full set of plans, easement by easement. This was also outlined in the offer letters. Mr. Smith asked if any counter- offers were made. Ms. Quallen said there were no counter- offers. Mr. Chalnick asked if property owners have sent letters asking for information. Ms. Quallen said they have, and there have been conversations and communication with those property owners. Ms. DeMaroney said she was hesitant to accept the huge stack of papers what was handed to her just 5 minutes ago. Mr. Barritt asked if there is anything new in those papers. Mr. Ruhe said the newest things are the Minutes of the meeting regarding the layout of the project and a letter to Mr. Chittenden. Ms. DeMaroney said she never received the information she asked for relating to their " mound system" square footage. She then read a prepared statement. Their mound system is close to the proposed path, and they are not able to determine whether the project will damage this mound system. They have been told that the City won' t have the exact square footage numbers until they are in the final process. The Stantac engineer said they did receive a permit package for the mound system. It was his opinion that the project design would not affect any of the conditions for the mound system. The plans have not been " reconciled with reality." Mr. Ruhe said they have to assume that the mound system was built to the design. There is signed documentation that the system was built to the design. Mr. Smith asked what would happen if it was discovered that the mound system was not built to the design. Mr. Maynard said the mound system would have to be relocated. Ms. DeMaroney said their concern is whether the " wiggle room" is compatible. Ms. DeMaroney then asked whether Green Mountain Power knows their pole will have to be moved. Mr. Maynard said they have seen the plans and agree to the relocation plan. The new pole will be 2 to 3 feet back from the present location. CITY COUNCIL 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE 3 Ms. DeMaroney asked about possible interference with a wetland. Mr. Maynard said if there is a wetland, they will work with the State on mitigation; however, this is a Class 3 wetland which is not regulated by the State. Ms. DeMaroney asked about survey markers across the road and said if there is a development there, those residents will need to access a rec path. Ms. Quallen said there have been no development applications for the property across the road. Ms. DeMaroney questioned whether the path wouldn' t be more feasible on the other side of Dorset Street. Ms. Quallen referred to Exhibit 1 and noted the options that were considered. It was determined that the West side of Dorset Street was not feasible because it would require multiple crosswalks, and the speeds on Dorset Street are not conducive to crosswalks. The majority of people travel at 46 miles per hour ( speed limit is 40 miles per hour), and that is a safety concern for people crossing the road. In addition, the east side of Dorset Street connects to existing neighborhoods. Mr. DeMaroney said they need the area to be staked so that their engineer can tell them the proximity to their mound system. He added that there is plenty of room in the right-of-way, and there is no need to condemn people' s property. Mr. McCarthy, owner of the Mill Market, said he didn' t know about this until a month ago. It is costing them 2 parking spaces. He asked if anyone considered the economic impact on businesses. Ms. Quallen said that was not considered. Mr. McCarty asked how this can be made so it is good for everyone. Mr. Ruhe said the City is willing to discuss his concern outside of this hearing process. Property owners were then invited to make their presentations. Ms. DeMaroney said they have 3 major concerns: the moving of the power pole, damage to their driveway and damage to their mound system as they have been able to get the City to give them exact square footage information. She added that she did not feel the alternatives had been given fair consideration. Mr. Chittenden said the information they got at the beginning of this hearing was new information he had not seen before. He said he is being forced to give up 24 feet of his front yard, property that has been in his family since the 188O' s. The property was not staked until today. There is currently a path that connects across the back of his property. This path respected the property and the residents. He said he has asked for clarity and gotten no responses. The maps CITY COUNCIL 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE 4 are nearly impossible to interpret. Until this morning, he didn' t know where the path would go. He stressed that removing half of his front yard is not a public need. He asked that the route of the path be reconsidered as well as the way this has been handled, which has caused him sleepless nights. Mr. Ruhe noted that Mr. Chittenden did not sign for a certified mail delivery. He asked Ms. Quallen what efforts were made to talk with Mr. Chittenden. Ms. Quallen noted she has been with the City only since 2022. On 13 July of that year, she explained the project to Mr. Chittenden and the potential impact. The City' s offer to Mr. Chittenden was made in December of 2023. Ms. DeMaroney said the whole part of their concern is they don' t think it is necessary to put the path on their side of the road. It involves so many homes in a very small section as well as 2 businesses. There is a lot of impact from Link Road down. The other side of Dorset Street doesn' t impact homes. She felt the city was not " open- minded" enough. Mr. Chittenden said property owners were never taken into consideration, and this dramatically affects a lot of people. Mr. Barritt said there can be written testimony submitted. Mr. Ruhe said the hearing is being kept open until Friday at 4 p. m. for additional testimony. He stressed that the City is willing to continue to speak with property owners. Mr. Chalnick then moved to close the necessity hearing but to keep the submission of evidence open until this Friday at 4 p. m. Mr. Smith seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Chalnick moved to adjourn. Ms. Pugh seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 28 p. m. Clerk CITY COUNCIL 29 SEPTEMBER 2025 PAGE 5