but again we can go into the executive session and I'm not trying to derail this we're not in the option that gives us 2020 correct this refers to the option that we had on the property before the sale but we have an option initially and then we exercise the option when we and others purchase the property I think that refers to the option term is what that's talking about so the effective date extends until October 2023 term of the option so page 3 item 3 term of the option extends until I think that's a different option so again this is a concern one many I've also heard other concerns if this isn't an issue it's not an issue this was the so are you looking for executive session for advice from our attorney on a legal matter I don't know the clarity of this concern raised if you give me a wink or a nod that we should go to executive session then I will make a motion and so be it I think we're kind of diverting from our original intent here we've got a lot of pieces to consider before we can finalize plans for interim zoning personally I don't want people to get that done tonight because I see us as having three, four, five hours of discussion before we can finalize well there are an awful lot of people that have spoken about an awful lot of pieces and concerns they have we can't approve this without putting it together as a number of people have stated properly and those people are people that we shouldn't have interim zoning and that we should have interim zoning personally my belief is that the planning commission expressed a great concern that they needed to be able to catch their breath and we needed to be able to realign our development future with our plan and to me that's the purpose of why we're going to go forward with interim zoning and we need to do that in an expeditious fashion in order to be fair to everybody I think there are going to be some people that are not totally happy and there are always people that are not totally happy but I think it's something we need to do but we need to do it now to do it properly and that's going to take some discussion so we know which pieces to include which pieces to exclude how the wording goes I think anybody that thinks there's not going to be any more housing that's not going to happen there's going to be housing in the southeast quadrant the point is we need to put it in the right places in the right format and conserve the right amount of open land so we have a good future for the city and that's the purpose in my mind of the interim zoning so we can get back to that vision and just because of the pressures of the planning commission things got moving too quickly and that will happen we're going to do interim zoning we're going to roll that back and get things aligned properly again but if we start talking about every little piece right now tonight we're going to talk until 2 in the morning so let me ask a question if we don't act on interim zoning this evening can we it still effectively is in place since we warned this meeting and we can come back to it soon in the future to finish this off and maybe have a working session that is accurate sorry to have interrupted Europe and it means do that thank you Jen thank you Jen, yes so the interim bylaws do apply to applications for the the types of development listed in section 4 of the interim bylaws have not taken effect once the warning for the public hearing was published and there was a written document the city has been applying the interim bylaws since October 25th and yes it will it will assuming that there is consideration of adoption before the end of the year then yes it will continue to apply to development as it comes in whether or not a motion to continue is here well we don't necessarily continue but we can schedule more, schedule other meetings I think it would be useful to schedule other conversations that's right you fulfilled the obligations under the statute with holding the public hearing award public hearing this evening and there can you can have further discussions at additional meetings and none of that will until you adopt something there's no there's this is going to apply I think it's useful if there are no other public comments for us to close the public hearing we have one more a person who wants to speak are you the last one is that what we were just discussing let's have one final if this is the final person hi my name is Brad the reason I'm speaking now is not in favor against what's happening tonight it's just I want clarification on if I can pick up a building permit tomorrow for a neighborhood that we are developing currently because I don't have an answer for that right now and my fear is that if you continue this I can't pick up a building permit where I've got a neighborhood that I've got infrastructure in roads, water, sewer everything everything's approved but I'm worried I can't pick up a building permit I know it was discussed but I'm also realizing that if you continue this meeting Tim I may not be able to pick up a building permit but I've heard that's right here and I want clarification from this board whether that's the case or not continue versus close is what you're asking about I don't know the bylaw, the draft bylaw as currently presented is in effect whether or not you can tomorrow go get a building permit correct for an approved development I would say yes but our attorney the legal facts of the particular application I would say but the planning and zoning staff would have to consider it but if there is a DRV approval of a project that was not appealed or the appeals finally adjudicated and all that's left are the the zoning permit applications then interim bylaws don't apply to those applications if they were made before and agreed upon before October 25th that's right the way that I read the what's in hand now is that unless I submitted my building permit before October 25th and if that's it was your application approved correct those were all approved correct but I'm still not 100% sure that's right yeah and I don't know that the answer to the particular question would be that I don't know details I can speak generally that prior to if there was an application or project that was approved by the DRV before October 25th and there's been no appeals and the applications now are coming in essentially to implement the DRV approval then the DR planning and zoning staff won't direct you to the city council before they grant a zoning permit for for a use that was part of the project okay all right do you have your answer well you still need to talk to the planning committee speaking to an attorney here but I think I have my answer if you apply for a permit correct correct if you wanted to go in to get your building permit tomorrow you would have to go to planning and zoning and have them absolutely but I'm talking about a project that's fully permitted and yes I have to go to planning and zoning my fear is that I would have to come to this for it too and I'm hearing now that I don't go with the principal building issue then what's the principal building issue then that's new yeah that's new I thought it's in there this is already approved okay this is approved this is a project that's fully approved I don't know what the principal building is I think that's part of the confusion now if you have a phase project that has full final flat approval you wouldn't be pulling your zoning permits you know six months at the beginning yes right we understand that yes and I think this allows you to do that if you've gone through yes as I as I I just wanted to point this out that it is the definitions do define new principal buildings very broadly and again some of that was because it's easier from a process perspective to reduce the types of development that the interim bylaws apply to then it is to add so this is stated very broadly because there was we needed to confirm the city council's intent but then but even though it's defined very broadly but I won't so but for a variety of reasons if there is already a project approved and but they haven't gotten zoning permits for the principal buildings within that development the interim bylaws won't apply to those to those zoning permit applications for those buildings but someone proposed earlier either right something that expressly stated that and that can be accomplished thank you for entertaining me I'm glad it's clarified before you take off the others no you're you're free to go go get your permit tomorrow let me ask we've got a lot of we've got a lot of comments can we meet as a council would we have to meet in an executive session at another time if we want to put all that together because right now we kind of have an executive session is it a public meeting can we meet so we need to just keep working through this yes correct yes so it's an an item on an agenda of your can we go through I mean it's I know it's 20 to 10 oh it soon needs a little bit of a break and I need to close the public hearing so let's close the public hearing there's no one else who is to testify right I need to close the public hearing all in favor aye so let's take a really a five minute break so you can walk around and I think we should be able to address at least some of the issues I think you're right about that we may not get through it all let's just look at it we should I think it did very well it's not different I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something We may not be able to vote on the whole thing tonight, but I think there's enough. Possibly is some consensus around some changes so that we could at least give our legal counsel where we want to go and work out what else is left to decide or if we need more information. So maybe one easy thing to start with is a discussion of this map. This is red and blue, red and black and white. It's still sort of slightly clear. And maybe what you're thinking. Okay, what about it? Do you want to start with that little piece near Fawry Hill Road? I said blue. Add the red to the blue. Anything that's crosshatched or red or blue? I did have a citation and it's still clear. If you've been there on Lancome Road and walked along that trail there along Muskie River, isn't it all part of the red valley? Isn't it already part of the Muskie Valley District? It's along that block. It seems okay. I'm just going to get to you. I'm going to pick up a little copy. Are you familiar enough with the area along the lime kiln road where there's paths? Is that already in the Muskie Valley District and conserved? Pardon me? There's a path that goes from the parking lot to the bridge. All along that road. But I don't know where on this whole map that all comes from. It's in the red cast area. It's in the red, but I don't know how much of the red. It's just a very northern tip, right at the property line. You can almost see the river flowing right there. So that's already conserved. The development is very northern. The other part, most of where we're driving. Yes, I have. There's a superb place, there's a dog. There's infrastructure, there's electricity infrastructure too, right? There's a hydrogen. There's a hydrogen. There's a GMP plant there, right? Oh, right, right, right. It's all industrial going down the road all the way down the road. My point is there's not a lot of development. There is some land. There is land that, if you were to go by a story about the school place. There is land back there, there's a really wide easement for telephone and power lines. We've had chat many years ago about potential for that property. But anything there would be far off. Anyway, because of that intersection, you can't add as much of that. You know, you're there to fill that intersection. Right. So I think development there is probably unlikely because... Okay. So then, all right, cut major traffic. So are we in favor of adding all four pieces then? Yes. You heard what Kevin was raising about the O'Brien parcels that are cut off by the transit industry. Do you have any follow-up comments on that? The old farm road, the area of the Derby Circle and Dover Street.  I was looking on our transit overlay map, aside from this one, because this is a concoction of the transit overlay of those areas that you mentioned. I mean, you can't really see it very well. But there is sort of the aerial photography underneath. A lot of those are sort of our parcels. And I have to check, but I think that what we did was a half-mile buffer, around, or a quarter-mile buffer, around the transit route. And then up here, there was a CCTA transit route. And the development of the transit overlay district was largely to respond to the medical offices, especially Chili Drive, some of you may remember that. The medical office is going in places that weren't accessible to the transit route. So the transit overlay district was never really meant to be an area for growth. It was never meant to line up with certain growth patterns, as much as it was meant to reflect the existing transit lines. There's a reason that it overlapped, because the transit lines are where people are. But it was largely intended to reflect that. I believe, but I have to check, that it's meant to be a quarter-mile buffer around where those transit lines are. I don't know if the transit lines have adopted something I can't find. Do they have? No, they have. Oh, because there is a transit line. And I want to take a look at the transit line. So are you saying a quarter-mile buffer, whichever you can't build on that quarter-mile buffer? Oh, no, no, no. You can't start using it. Oh, all in particular. Again, trying to make sure that, and I think Conrad get care of the same thing, that we weren't putting people most in need of transit services outside of transit access. Oh, right. Oh, okay. So this map was something that Paul chose, because it most accurately represented what he thought the council was interested in. Right. But I think there is, is there a practical reason for the council's purposes tonight, why that O'Brien Peninsula is still in the affected area? That's the direction that we're given. So there's no, there's no reason why that's happening. Well, I would move that we just extend the blue line. Along the interstate. Along the interstate. That's pretty dense in there. When we look at Dover Street. Yeah, I mean it's about as dense as it comes. So we have to go all the way to the interstate? Right. Yeah. So that makes common sense. But at the risk of raising the ire of Mr. Langfield in the back of the room, that is a very choice piece of property that will be developed in the future. The question is, do you want the planning commission's rules to have to be applicable when they come out with something different to that piece of property? I'm not arguing for it again, so I just want you to have the list to think about that before you draw the blue line across the line. Well, Mr. Langfield went on the record as saying that they would most likely want to align it with those PDs of which they don't know yet, but they weren't part of the conversation. And I respect the work that they've done so far. I'm just making that point though, is that if you're going to draw a line in the sand, in terms of the rules, and you're drawing them lines on the map, and you're talking about property, and the love of the people that came here in those previous meetings had either found out about projects that are in the preliminary stage that shocked them, or they've been shocked by the visibility of construction where they didn't expect it. Is that a whole issue about people being surprised by, wow, what's being built here? I didn't know that was going to happen. So before you draw the line, and I'm not saying am I for against it, because it makes sense that you think that have one huge love within the transit district, it kind of makes sense. I get that. Just be forewarned that that's some very pristine property. And the question is what PUD rules won't fly to when they finally come in with a full master plan that includes that acreage. PD changes could still be applied outside. Yeah, that's just fine. On this property, or if they are voted in in two months, they could say, hey, those make sense. We're here in alignment with our master plan, because we want to have larger homes along Wolfarm Road. We want to protect Lisa, Leslie. What it said to me, we want to protect the view corridor. They want to do something with the barn, and not tear it down. So they have in their planning discussion previous. And I know they can change their mind and go back on. But the verbal comments, this is their intention.  He also said the line went through the middle of there. That was right. And that was one of his strongest arguments. That makes sense to me. I agree. Well, it goes through. You know, weighing both sides of it. I'm not going to cross the line across the line. Okay. So, do we have a motion to adopt the comment? I asked a question. Yeah. There was a statement about the red parcel potential ad that's south of the 89 and that it's conserved, but it's known as open industrial. Yes. We intend, when we discussed that industrial park, it's more an ownership issue for this map. And while there may very well be prime ag lands on that property, it has been zoned for a long time. Right. But now you're talking about putting it into the exception area or not. Did you say you wanted to? We want to include it in the exception. So they can continue to build, you know, businesses there. Yeah. Yeah. Without IC. That's the discussion. So do we have a motion to include those four plus a straight line along the interstate? Is that what people are interested in? Yes. So moved. Second. Okay. Is there any further discussion? We discussed that and that is a naturally preserved area already. And there are no more entraps allowed at those intersections so that we do not expect development there. So we have a motion seconded. All in favor? Aye. That's five in favor. Okay. So that passes. So the map, we now have a clarified map for the exempted areas in this potential area. That vote included the red areas. I didn't hear it. Yes. The red areas. I just heard north of the intersection. And then we don't have to change any language in them. Yes. Okay. So would you like to replace the language? The cleanest thing. What's the cleanest way? Well, it was what had been stated. He said north of the interstate up to the northernmost border of the transit overlay district. But all of the other pieces will be a little bit difficult to describe, I think, in text. So I think a mendicant, we could just adopt this map. And that's it. And it references the map. At the top of page three. That seems easier to me. Or clearer. Classical peninsula. I do it when the lawyer says I'm clear. Is the map clear or is language and resolution clear? Well, I definitely want it to, it should incorporate the map because maps are part of zoning. But I may go through and see there may be a description that might be because some of it doesn't, is too narrow now. Some of the descriptions of the areas. But for instance, airport district works and airport industrial district. So I think it's okay to name some of them. But I will go through and make them the same. All right. So that was one item. All right. So we also had a lot of discussion around the definition of primary dwelling, principal dwelling. Or not just principal building, excuse me. So what are people remembering or wishing to pre-approve and that would be added to the definition. So you don't have to add it to the limitations. I'm just, I'm just making sure the language is correct. It might not be that simple. I mean, there are purely projects that maybe didn't need or haven't recently gotten subdivision. Or maybe that's it is they were part of a subdivision, which doesn't include necessarily the structures and uses, but they since came in and got site plan approval for a lot. So that they have a site plan approval that, and maybe even a conditional use approval. So that's my thought is to define it so that they're, to the extent that there are previous approvals from the DRB that remain in effect and that all they need is a zoning permit for the structure. So it's, the point is it's not as limited to just PDs. Okay. Okay. Is that, is it limited to subdivisions? Subdivisions? That was the language I came with tonight. There's still 40% of it. No, is it? No. All of it. Oh, it's all of it? No, it's 80%. Any parcel of less than 80% developed is what we call marching orders on. But then it applied to four years ago. Okay. I didn't know. Yeah, that's everything. So is that the direction we want to approve that the command comes up with the language that makes that clear? If they are permitted to build whatever it is, they don't need it. The DRB approved plan that it's only a need of zoning permit, of building permits or, you know, building zoning permits. Is that, all right? What was the difference between zoning and building permit? What do you mean by zoning permit? No, that's how they're referenced. It's how Burlington, it's, it's specifically a zoning permit, but... I'll turn it over. Okay, I'll turn it over. Okay. All right. There's a request for a change in the statement of purpose where we want development. Personally, I don't, I think our statement of purpose is clear. I don't know as we need to say, we also, our purpose is to support increased development.  It's in there. It's in there when we talk about the economic impact. We have also sought to encourage commercial development and construction of affordable housing. So it's there. Okay. Then there was the request if someone, if anything was ever submitted. And I'm not interested in going down that road. I don't know what that means. It's like 25 years ago someone said I might want to do something. It was, it was... That was Robin Jefferson. Yes, it was. She was getting... Well, she thought the language in section 3, B, C, and D. And section 4, D. Well, because she was thinking about, you know, somebody came in and got preliminary approval and then one waiver one time. Right. Right. Does that count or not? So I think what she was kind of edging towards is that if you had any kind of an application that it should be grandfathered. Well, under the land development regulations, there are deadlines along the way. For instance, if you, once you get preliminary flat approval, you are required to submit the final flat application unless there's conditions that allow otherwise. But you're required to submit your final flat application. I believe within 12 months. So, you know, there's... We already have rules that... That's right. So the question for Kathy Ann, Kathy Ann, is with your broad depth of historical knowledge, right, are there any preliminary flats that have been filed in the Southeast Quadrant in the last, let's say, 10 years that haven't gone anywhere, but they were at least applied for it? Oh, I'm sure there are. So... So, so... So, class that are submitted under the PD standards, and I want to have two elements to them. They have site plan standards, which do expire, and subdivision standards, which by state statute, cannot expire. So any... Well, but they cannot expire once they have been approved by the Derby and recorded in the South Burlington Land Development Regulation, or Land Rights. So they have to act on this stuff in a timely way. It's possible that the subdivision part of it, so many lines they draw on paper to create new lots, would still be in effect, but that any of the site elements... But those... I mean, once it's been a subdivision flat, a final flat, has been approved and recorded in the land records. It is there. It's done deal. Yes. But it's a preliminary, and it's approved, but it doesn't go anywhere for several years, and it's just left to gather dust on the shelf. I don't think the language in the Land Development Regulation says it expires, but there is a requirement that you submit your application because the Land Development Regulations may change. Right. And so the requirement, and that's why there's an expiration as well for site land is if you've got it, move along with it, otherwise you're going to lose it. So it sounds like we already have in place rules that deal with if ever submitted, and we don't need that language in here because that probably... That's confusing. You've either got approved already or denied or... Right. If anybody wanted to sue by the time they got to court, we'd be out of this anyway probably. That's our goal. Okay. There was a request to take minor subdivision off the list for the Jewels specifically. We interested in... That was the Auto Hill property? Yeah. No. Okay. Tom? You mentioned Robin. Robin, Japanese one, but she raised... I had loads of four different things. I don't know who would want to go through each of those. Well, she had the, if ever submitted, I thought for all four. Yeah. But then she had pre-approved PUDs. Yeah. Well, but we already dealt with that. Yeah. Okay, then the last one, remove existing or replace with approved. And I... No, that's... That's from the state did it. That's one of the review criteria for applications submitted to the ZAP Challenge Board. And so it's... One of the purposes of interim bylaws is to preserve what exists as it is while the city decides what it wants to do. And so... But if you're approved, but not yet filled, you've dealt with that because you're going to change the definition of principal building, new principal building. And then this really only... It's one of the review criteria. So it's not something that... You know, if an application comes in, you have to decide whether, among other things, the application will... is consistent... The proposed use is consistent with the existing patterns and uses of developing an area. So it... I don't think it had to impact it. Just wanted to hear your opinion on it. Thank you. Okay, good. I'm Charlie Baker, but I don't want to jump out of order for you, chair. No, that's right. I was just looking at his. Go ahead. He said no one's responsible and he's encouraged us to assign the Planning Commission to deliver a report for some accountability. Well, I guess I believe they were responsible for the final decisions. And I think we will address that when we... If in fact we support and vote for this interim zoning proposal, then our next item of business is to clarify all the committees and the process that we anticipate both city administration to support as well as those committees and how that they might function. So... And he gave some ideas of some additional people, which I think is... And that was our intent. We just sort of talked about that at the beginning first, but we... It's too early to come to a conclusion about that, I think, because we haven't passed the zoning proposal. That's everything. Just had that issue about what happens if a court requires you to change a project. Hmm. Oh, that's great. So if a UD was approved, gets appealed, goes to the Environmental Court, and the judge rules that it has to go back to the DRB for some kind of a change, then are they allowed to hold permits for buildings if the DRB finally approves it, because now it's gone through a... It has to go through a change. And that's likely to happen in the next nine months? Well, yeah, because Spear Meadows could come out when he alluded to it, right? So, how do we... I mean, from my point of view, it comes back to the DRB, and it's not a fresh application, but it's got some new paint on it, right? So that should probably come through the city council. Well, did it... I guess it would certainly depend on... It acts like a commitment. But they submitted the application at a particular time and vested under a particular set of land atomic regulations. And so... I think that review, depending on what actually happens, that review would remain under the land development regulations that were in effect with a complete preliminary fact. A legal perspective, I can see that. Yeah. And so I don't think that they submitted the application at a time when interval by-laws were not in effect, or when they applied. So I think they would just continue their review. I don't have a problem with that, but... I saw what I read in the paper that the appeal is that the preliminary application was not complete. And one of the courts said... It's not complete, yeah. ...that it was defective. That wasn't spear meadows. That's not spear meadows. Oh, is it dorsum meadows? It's dorsum meadows, yeah. Dorsum meadows. So that's the question I think if the court essentially sort of says that preliminary plan application is sort of non-void. I mean, I think that's what the appeal is trying to bring about. And wouldn't that mean they have to start it all over again? If it was spear meadows in the court... I'm not talking about spear meadows. I'm talking about dorsum meadows. There's a lot of meadows. We're talking about the preliminary plan. Right, right, so they're not even into final yet. Right. It's not ready for appeal. They're sort of... they're exempt from from IZ, I think by virtue of the wording you have in that document, right? Because they submitted prior to October 25th, period. So what if the court says that submission wasn't allowed? It depends on what the defect is, right? Yeah. I'm trying to do a clarify. Are they in or are they exempt? What do you think? Well, for the foreseeable future and based at least in part on the reasons claimed for why it was not complete, I the interim bylaws don't apply. But you know, I can't necessarily tell what's going to happen in the future, but if for now anyway the interim bylaws don't apply to... Is there a cross-out bridge when you come to it? Yes. I guess so, okay. So that's it. The only thing outstanding is this, right? And it sounds like we need to... This is the Eau Claire property, and if I understood you we might need to carve out...  Lot B, or whatever portion of Lot B is still held by the Eau Claire. We're going to talk about this when you go to the executive session, but I got to say, I don't think it's an issue, but I think that should be communicated to the parties that pose the concern. This was brought to me two hours before the meeting today. I wasn't trying to blindside anybody. Executive session, is that what you were talking about? Should we do that in order to... If that's the only outstanding issue, then if we can conclude that... I'm sorry, I don't know what you're planning on.  I think we're close. I'm in favor of this. I'm not sure we can act on it without a mental home through them with a fine-tune console, as we can make sure we haven't screwed anything up before we can... That's what she did want to change some of my issues. And then, I guess because we're in Illinois at the next meeting, we have to leave it to the three of you to deal with that next meeting. You're not going to be at the next meeting. I don't know. I have a question. Maybe I don't understand the Claire agreement and everything, but why would you want them under interim zoning? Doesn't the agreement sort of govern the use there? I can explain it more. I'm not trying to waste our time, though. I know it's an issue, so I tabled this, but I thought that the council shouldn't be aware of the concern raised. It's not the intent. Yeah. It's the intent of that keyword, yeah. Do you want to undo that agreement? No. Why not? Exactly. It's not the intent to reduce the value of the property in the future. Some of the other... Sarah? I can't speak for other people, but I'm hearing some concerns in regard to the Eau Claire thing. Not just what Jen expressed for her own family's sake tonight, which is one piece of it, which Tom brought, but I think there's some angst maybe on the part of the people who are trying to conserve the land in life or agriculture, but in Butterfarm and all their associates, that somehow this process of IZ may adversely affect the deal in the future, not just for the family and any homes that they might want to build, but the conservation deal that's being so carefully out with all the parties.  I just had a long conversation with Corey though. There's a lot of feeling of anxiety about the future. I kept saying I didn't think that this interzoning discussion had any effect on the deal that was done and is now going to progress through its stages in the coming years. But I don't know that. Maybe I didn't clearly communicate the concern earlier. Would you like me to take one more stab at what it is? Sure. So the concern, this is the option that the city negotiated for. So for the next five years, if the grant funds are not raised by dirt capital to pay down their investment, the city has the option to buy out, buy the land at the market price yet to be determined to conserve that property. So we have the right to do that. If you look at number seven of this option that we negotiated for, which I fully supported, I wanted the city to have more options. If you look at number seven, this is what it says, that this option is a five-year option for the city to buy land if the grant monies don't materialize, which means we would stop it from being developed. So this is an option to protect our city's interests. We wouldn't have to pay for it. We would go away on number seven, okay, transferable development rate for refraining from taking intentional action impacting the market value of block B. The city expressly acknowledges that nothing in this agreement impacts any transferable development rates, this in-term zoning is looking at TDRs, that the landowner requires in connection with their purchase of block B. And this next sentence, the only sentence of this is very important, the city also agrees to refrain from taking any actions including without limitation the option charges five years, specifically with the intent of impacting the fair market value of block B. I know you want to go into the next session, I'll leave it there. All I'm saying is that the concern is that this could negate the city's right to conserve that property, thus giving dirt capital all the rights in the world to develop 65% of that land. So I'm advocating for our interests to be preserved to have the option to conserve the entire parcel. I feel like we spent ten minutes talking about going into a second session. Why don't we just go into a second session? We're not clear on what we're going to discuss. We're going to discuss the impact of the Zine Z bylaw on this. Why can't we leave this out of the interim zoning? Because this land is already planned and that whole deal came together based on a structure that was going to conserve land. So why don't we just add wording to our interim zoning to leave the Eau Claire property out of the interim zoning and then we don't kill it at all. Does that work legally? Add some more red to this matter. You're leaving out your blue cards there. If I legally, if you're adding land to the Zine Z, then but I don't think you need to have another warrant public area. We're adding to the Zine Z area. Narrow scope. I don't think K. So we could just include the Eau Claire property in our and our Eau Claire property. Does that just want to be just want to be well, aren't there some concerns about TDRs and other parts? Oh, well, no, I think I'm going to say something else. While this option agreement only addresses lot B, there were two two other parcels that were kind of part of the entire. So let's think about the implications of that. If you exempt lot B from IZ and so there's a purchase and sale agreement, right? But nothing is transacted. It's as closed as the deal closed. The deal is closed. So at this point then Dirt Capital still has the option to build a few houses, right? On some of that land. So if you exempt lot B then they would not come under IZ with those eight houses or whatever it is. So I'm just telling you that, that's realization. That's what would happen is that whatever you would not have the ability to stop that eight houses on that property or make them adhere to something that IZ would produce in terms of a PUD. That would be our intent because this whole deal came together as a long complicated process. I'm not trying to. I'm just trying. The intent of IZ as asked for by the community, right, was to try and stop development in the southeast quadrant and we've extended to other parts of the city that need examination until the planning commission can do their job. I don't think it was to stop farm worker housing to work out there anyway. We don't know what their capital really wants to do. That's kind of their business but they were being under our auspices and under our LDRs. I think in the agreement it talked about eight houses for farm workers. Well, I just bring I just have to put these things in the hairs that you see them, right? I'm not at first just like I was going to bring the bribe right to exempting lot B from IZ to see it up. Is this a deal breaker for you? No. You're just raising the issue. I just want the full transparency that you're basically giving not a green light but you're not applying the yellow light to whatever those houses are that their capital would propose. However, I still see it together as a land conservation. They are integrated. Okay. Go ahead. One question on that. If the ultimate result of this in-term zoning is to extend the transferability, the use of TDRs across other parts of South Burlington which is a possible outcome in order to dilute it, if we exempt this property that doesn't exempt those TDRs. That TDR change would still be applicable. That's a question. The intention is that the study of the Planning Commission would do I assume would be for all TDRs period. Right. Cool. I'm fine. What if they make any difference if they're included in the interim? If they could be transferred out with other property values and that's not the intention. I know that's not the intent, but the consequences why would they be different for other property in the southeast quarter from the Eau Claire property. So it's a consideration that's going to have to be examined one way or the other. Amanda, do you have them? I don't see how it's specific to the Eau Claire property. I was just about the exemption if the exemption affected. Amanda, then Kathy Ann. In terms of the description in this option agreement of the property Lot B, Lot B was expressly defined to not include nine housing sites which haven't yet been designated because they don't know at the time where they want to put them. Just to be clear about what Lot B consists of. Kathy Ann, did you have a comment? Yes, there are two very quick things. One, I think it's people know this but it's worth reiterating. The exempted areas are only exempted during the period of interim zoning. Regulations that are adopted apply everywhere whether you're exempted or not. That's important to remember. Two, I just wanted to remind you that you did have a motion on the map so if you do want to add a parcel you probably have to take another motion. Okay, we're just trying to define it before we take that motion without getting any emotion. I will move that we add the entire Eau Claire parcel within South Burlington to that map of exempted properties. No, the entire parcel that lies inside of South Burlington. That's in South Burlington. Okay, is there further discussion? Yeah, just one thought. So our action with IZ on any new possible developments is effectively stranding TDRs if they were desired to be used. We all accept that, right? Stranding them in this piece of property. So Claire's had TDRs, they were thinking about selling to somebody who was thinking about buying some property, you know, blah, blah, blah. Then they are effectively frozen until IZ ends. Unless it's out here. Well, within the areas that are affected is what I'm talking about. Well, yeah, but I think that's the whole point. We want to review TDRs and see if we... That's part of what we're going to be doing in IZ, but we don't... Is one of the outcomes proposed to actually change the TDR rules? Are we thinking about doing that? Possibly. Maybe have some additional receiving areas? Well, that's changing the rules, is it not? No, no, no, that's on the table, yeah. Okay. And we may find that we can't legally do it very easily, so they may not change at all. I don't know. Okay. All right, so any further discussion? All in favor of amending the interim zoning exempt area maps to include all of the portion of the Eau Claire properties in the southeast quadrant? Whatever part of B... It's part of the Dirt Capital, South Burlington and Bread and Butter Fund. Yes. Did you get that, sir? Excluding it to the Bread and Butter Dirt Capital would exclude the other lots, would it not? I don't think Dirt Capital is involved in C&A. I would just say a lot, A, B, or C. Just the Eau Claire properties in South Burlington. Yeah, Eau Claire properties, yeah. Is there other properties? Some of it's in Shelburne and some is in... My question is, yeah, so does A, B, and C comprise all of the Eau Claire property except for the barn area that's at the peak, right? Yeah, they kept that. We're only talking about... C&A, I don't think, but it doesn't matter. No, but it doesn't matter. It's the whole parcel, yes? At the second whereas clause? Lot A, lot C. Lot A, lot C. In part of B. Right. She was involved in it, but... I don't know. I like her age. Well, we only can affect what's in our community. Right, I was just trying to say, if there was a question which I don't know the answer to as to the Eau Claire's own other land, this could be the... Okay. Or the expansion. Yes. All right, ready for the vote? All in favor? You wanted me to make... to change the definition for New Principal Buildings, and I understand I just don't know that you adopted a motion for that. Or, sorry? The definition of Principal. Let's vote on this, and then we can go back to that. So, it's Eau Claire lands. That's how it's referred to in the agreement. The Eau Claire lands. Okay. That's what's in the motion. Yes. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so I will move that we approve the language regarding... Just a minute, let me take a look at that. The New Principal Buildings to be just a minute, let me find that. A DRB approved plan. Added. Do you have proposed language? I don't, I'm sorry. But I would say to change the definition to exclude buildings that have already been approved by the DRB. Right. So, I move to exclude from the New Principal Buildings clause. Definition. Definition. Those subdivisions that have been approved, no. Those structures that have been approved by the DRB. Those subdivisions that are part of... Structures that have been approved by the DRB. Are part of an approved... Part of a PUD or... It's not necessarily limited to PUD. I don't think anyway because there is the... Approved plan. We had a DRB approved plan. Do you understand our intent and can draft language for the next meeting? I do. Do we have a stashing up your motion that we support you doing so? It's possible that you're going to proceed right now to act on the interim. Well, if we have all the language, it would be great to not have another meeting. Right. I agree. And that's... I understand your intent and then I can then prepare that and it can be... It can go into effect. I'm also wondering, perhaps also to clarify that the lands to which the interim by-laws apply, I was also going to make some revisions basically to make it match the map. Right. Do we need to make a motion for you to do that? Can we approve something with the understanding that this language will be developed? Yeah. Because your intent is... Okay, let's forget this done tonight. I think so. Okay. So, yes. I move that we authorize Amanda Lafferty to amend the by-law as we have agreed upon tonight. You're not going to have the motion you originally made a moment ago? With the pre-approved DRB? No. Remove... I'm withdrawing that. Okay. I just did sense confidence with the language we were going gravitating around so I wanted you to have time to think about what was the right word. I would advise Amanda Lafferty to clarify or amend the by-law in order to make clear our intent around the new principal buildings and the maps. The map changes. Yes. Good. In favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Yep. Okay. So, we come to the big question. Unless there's any other changes anyone has I would entertain a motion to adopt the South Burlington interim by-laws. Well, we need to wait for you to get all that work done. No, we just made the motion to approve. That's fine. But we don't want to review it one more time when it's done. I would do, Dave. I think we could review the final language. It's still in effect. Otherwise with total faith in our attorneys, for we're tossing the ball on their lap, we finalize the wording. That's okay. Megan's just peace with that. I really... Yeah. If you guys are going on the next meeting and if we have an agenda item, we can just approve it then, right? Yes, you could. Wow. Well, you have to have all three. And I'm not sure the three that are attending into... Right. Give you my statement now. Yeah. We approve the South Burlington interim bylaws as amended. But I'm not... I don't support this and I'll give you the reasons. But what I'll say is if it's next Tuesday or the Tuesday after you get back from Hawaii, I'm assuming you're just going for... We're not going to Hawaii. You're just going for a week or so. Then I think that's fine too. And we could even... I'm betting staff would like next Monday off. We could also just reschedule that meeting to the Monday afterwards, November 27th. 26th. And get it all done then. But I don't care. I think this is... I'm probably not going to have any concerns at all with what legal council develops. But if we vote for this this evening, then we just say, you figure out the wording and we're good with it, right? Are you totally comfortable with that? Well, alternatively, if we want to get this... Because it doesn't... The clock starts ticking when we adopt this, correct? For the six months or nine months, I guess is what we have. So if we want to put it off... It buys you two more weeks? It buys us two more weeks to clarify the directions and the process for each of the committees. Well, there may be some merit to that before we start the clock ticking. That's true. You could get it done and send it out to all of us. Which I won't read until right before that meeting. It's on the 26th. With luck. We can read it aloud in the car. That would be a special meeting.  I know, we're not going to Hawaii. We're also going with our spouses just so you know. I thought you stated it may have taken off. I thought we clarified that last meeting. Yeah, so I just... I'm fine either way. I hear that argument but I will say that I think that closure and clarity from this council will make for a happier Thanksgiving for everybody to be quite honest. That's all I could. As long as legal counsel is totally comfortable. That's fine. I am. So my motion's out there. It would be my normal way of doing something.  I do have a statement because I am going to oppose this motion. We're still waiting for a second. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? No, not yet. Second. Okay, we got two seconds. All right. Is the council still... Is it the sense of the council that you still want this not-UMP progress on the inclusionary zoning and the transit overlay zone? So I feel compelled to tell the people why I would oppose something and I will just want to make my statement and I got to use a few minutes of time because that's the way this process works. I know we all want to get home. So I'm not in support of this motion for many of the same reasons, though not all of the same reasons as articulated the last time. I just believe that all of these actions can be done without interim zoning. I don't see the necessity to pause and freeze development. I don't see supportive of such a thing, but for nine months I feel that all this can be done without the confusion and the attention of our resources that it's now consuming of staff time and so on. I also believe that our planning for the last four years has sufficiently guided development towards higher density, more desirable housing. I just think interim zoning is a heavy-handed tool that undercuts our responsible and thoughtful and existing planning processes employed by current staff. I heard Charlie Baker, the director of regional planning for this entire community, in the state. So he also said that we also need affordable housing in the county. So that's my other point is I agree. The region needs more housing and I'm concerned that this action might be motivated to stop all new housing in the STQ as much as I agree that that's not very realistic. As stated in our comprehensive plan, we have a commitment to be an affordable community. The housing shortage in South Burlington, the greater community in Burlington area is driving up prices and our landowners have rights to employ their land and their populations. It's also unclear to me what the constant interim zoning will be and this is the new point that I really want to make tonight. These rules that we're going to pass are going to apply to current land uses, but we don't own these lands. The only way to, in perpetuity, protect these lands for open space is to acquire them and that's what the open space fund does. That's why I would strongly support us instead of spending whatever we're going to spend on this, and as you have been given to us, that we spend $360,000 because these committees require consultants, staff time is of value, it adds up, and $360,000 is, we only put $180,000 a year into our open space fund. I would rather, well, half of it's going to that bond for 10 years, so it's about $180,000 right now. So what I'm arguing for is re-instating that full fund to position the city to acquire parcels of land because as the reference was made I do think of Central Park, and I do think of the parks and public spaces. Changing the rules on lands that we don't own will not in perpetuity and protect them. As interests change over the next 5, 10, 20, 50 years, those city councils, because there will be different people sitting at this body, will change and alter those things. So these rules are, I always get this word wrong, ephemeral, they're transient, they change over time depending on the needs of the community. What does protect the city that I want and I think I share the view with you guys, the parks and recreation spaces and open spaces is to acquire the land, to own it, and that's why I think the better approach is to do this prioritization, accumulate funds, acquire properties, and that can all be done without this heavy handed in terms of the tool, which I think under thoughts or planning process. Happy to answer other questions, it's late, I'm sorry I'm keeping you guys here, but I think it's heavy handed. I think it's very even handed because I don't think everybody here disagrees with anything we've said just that we want to be sure we do it right. We don't want to be sure in a different scenario that we don't fill the shopping center on a piece of land that we want for ball fields in the future or something like that. I'm going to give you an example that maybe I wasn't getting for the last week and the only reason that's the best preferred preserved battlefield in the country is because that community has taken the action to not enable encroachment by development, such as out of Walmart or Mcdonald's and there have been proposals to let's carve out a piece of this battlefield to build a Walmart or something else. They've knocked down those proposals and that's come out for the better. All we're trying to do here is make sure we don't enable something to happen that we'll regret in the future and we're saying for nine months we're going to study this and allow everything to come together and facilitate everything to come together so that we're sure we're going forward in the best possible manner and yes, if we identify lands that are going to say oh we're going to have to figure out how to buy them when the landowner wants to sell them we're going to have to figure that out but if we don't do YZ then we're not going to have the time to get our act together and prevent something that we don't want from happening from happening and that's the whole reason. So that doesn't mean you're mine The problem Tom is that the amount of time it takes the planning commission to get through a process to present LDR changes to us to vote on it except right is a long period of time and they get better at a bunch of other requests in a way so it takes too long and the amount of available land in the southeast quadrant that's up for development is a finite amount and it's going to become less finite as time goes on until it's all gone and spoken for and nine months or a year is a fairly short amount of time to try and craft the correct PUD regulations that make the smartest use of that land for housing so that we don't have regrets in the future I mean we don't have strip malls along 116 near Collins House thank goodness right and we have I think some pretty good housing developments in pockets of the southeast quadrant but the the key question is how can we best use those properties so even though those properties are privately owned right they still come under our LDRs they still go through a DRB process they still get reviewed heavily by planning a zoning but they're done through done so by the LDR so how can we best change the LDRs to ensure that that remaining property because once it's developed it's developed forever like was said tonight is done in the most efficient and smartest way at the same time at the same time adding to your point about an open space fund the city should continue to pursue those properties where there are landowners who do want to conserve and I'm sure that they're out there and what I'd really like to have happen is as we go through this process that we start to develop a transparency of LDRs a transparency of landowners a transparency of for those landowners to see that the city is serious about trying to conserve and maybe they'll come to us and say or maybe they'll go to the land trust and see I just don't know what all those parcels are somebody does right and if we can understand where those parcels are who owns them, what their plans are what developers are thinking about getting involved with them when we get through IZ hopefully we'll have a better picture so that the southeast quadrant and other parts of the city don't end up getting all the forests cut down and then what the houses built in the wrong way you can do X but you can't do Y and the city says let's buy this property and then somebody else comes in and says let's conserve this property so that when we're all done we have a nice even smartly developed set of properties that promote recreation livable space maybe some affordable housing which is not going to happen well in the southeast quadrant it's a landslide expensive right and also in those PUDs where you try to preserve enough open space to keep the open meadows to keep you know people away from the wetlands and things like that so it's all got to come together but it's going to take time so that is my point to stand okay okay well I'm not going to make a statement do you need to say anything I'm going to vote for it I support it I think it's something we need to do and I respectfully disagree with your points and I do agree with the other points made I was simply saying something that I voted against in 2012 that I feel it's very different circumstances I feel that this has come from a Francois from the public as opposed to a good idea that didn't yet have a public backing and I also over the past few years have heard our city staff say that we're nearing a tipping point with regard to plowing and sewer fire and police and so I really think that when we're getting that close we really need to think about it carefully I do not expect this to cost $360,000 that we're building on past studies for and using now of our time in order to review them update them if necessary and implement them so I think that we've done this form-based codes for city center we've certainly I think as a council we're very hard to use our power to conserve sustainable agricultural lands and I see this as the last remaining piece, the open space TDRs have long been a question I think not only for those who want it in certain land but also for those who own TDRs will I be able to sell these someday so I think that it is the correct moment for us to study that as well in conjunction with the open space and the cost benefit analysis and the PUDs so so you're ready for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye okay so the vote is 4-1 now I think I think we can have a further discussion December 3 there will be an item this will begin to add maybe some more public members I think some of them will be able to see if you guys can wait for that I think it's great because I have a stack of those right now I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


So you don't know what mask points do, not a problem. If point actions are set to mask, when your mouse is hovering over a point and you left click it will mask that point. This is basically just an easy way to manually pick what points you mask and what points you don't. And as usual if you hold alt it will unmask instead. Hope that helps and as always I hope you have a fantastic day and I'll see you around.