not on the Titanic because hopefully you approve it um the third um amendment before you tonight has uh has three pieces to it um the first component um enables a greater applicability for what's called basic zoning permits so we have basic zoning permits in the non-design control areas of the city there's a few out there uh the new north end is probably the biggest one as opposed to in design control areas where we take a closer look at what buildings look like what the materials are uh lighting and whatnot in a basic permit all we do is look at a site plan so your typical single family home on a lot in the new north end uh if they want to do in addition we simply look at the site plan it's pretty it's pretty easy for the applicant it's inexpensive and it's a quick turnaround once we get into design review it's a more involved review we can involve uh going to boards architectural design what this first piece of the amendment does it removes a couple of triggers pertaining to lot size um that presently trigger design review so setting plan english if that single family home in the new north end is on a substandard lot so 5000 square feet as opposed to the minimum required 6000 that goes from a basic permit to a design review permit so all this does is it removes that substandard lot size um and lot frontage trigger so a basic is the basic the other piece of this amendment it removes the zoning permit requirement for non-residential permitted changes in use only so for a long while we've had instances wherein we have one permitted change and or one permitted use changing to another nothing else is going on and the only standard that we really consider is parking well parking has gone away in the downtown and may go away in the rest of the city depending on what happens with the pending changes to article eight so for example in the downtown if you have a cafe and somebody wants to change it to um I don't know retail they're both permitted uses right the policy decision has been made that we're going to allow both of these they're not conditional not special uses uh they're both permitted uses and there are no standards that apply at all so this amendment simply says in those cases you don't need a permit for us to say you're okay um seems like i'm sitting the obvious there um the final piece here enables administrative permit review for small scale development and the flood zone so the city has a fair bit of flood zone area uh and some of it's developed like out at north cove road and along the downtown waterfront uh the fairy docks in particular and right now the standard says that any development in the flood zone even if you're putting up a freestanding sign or a fence something really small you need to go to the development's review board which seems uh onerous it seems overkill so this amendment simply enables administrative review of those permits when it would go to administrative review otherwise so it slams down the permitting burden for these smaller scale projects in the flood zone and uh i'll leave it there or i'll leave it at that if there are in case there are questions uh let me know great thank you for that let's hold questions until we get into the actual items themselves for counselors um i want to transition to and open the public hearing now so if there are any members of the public who are interested in speaking to the three zoning amendments that were just described please use the raise hand function you can use that um at the bottom of this of your your screen and again you're only able to speak to these specific proposals that were just described nothing else so again i'm not seeing anyone sir any the public hearing is open anyone interested in commenting on this going once twice three times okay did not see anyone interested in commenting i'm using the raise hand function so i will close the public forum and i mean the public hearing that is and we will um transition to the next item which is item 5.07 which is the first of those items on adaptive reuse counselor mason may please have a motion thank you president fracy i would move to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance as presented and do not need the floor back at first second thank you council mason is there a second seconded by council carpenter any discussion okay not seeing any we'll go to a vote all those in favor please say aye hi hi hi hi any opposed that carries unanimously brings us to our next item which is item 5.08 the historic preservation rehabilitation bonus that was described by um just now counselor mason may please have a motion uh thank you president fracy forgive me one second i'm trying uh city attorney pointed out an error and i'm trying to make sure this is the one and whether the language got captured no it did not okay so i will make a motion to waive the second reading amend the proposed ordinance by retraining the words conditional use in line 28 and striking the n in many in line 88 so it reads may and adopt the ordinance as amended thank you counselor mason um is there a second second okay not seeing any so we'll go to a vote all those in favor please say aye hi hi hi any opposed that carries unanimously brings us to the last of those three zoning items um the item 5.09 which was a permitting adjustments um amendment uh counselor mason thank you president tracy i would like to make a motion to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance and don't need the floor back but would like to thank the efforts of both scott and megan both in terms of the explanation but to get us to this point thank you thank you counselor mason we have a motion is there a second is there a second seconded by counsel jane thank you any discussion okay not seeing any let's go to a vote all those in favor please say aye hi hi hi any opposed that too carries unanimously brings us to the last item which is on our deliberative agenda the um the zoning um or the ordinance change regarding short term rentals counselor shannon uh president tracy i'd like to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance with the amendment noted as uh chapter 18 short term rentals ordinance post occupied section eight voucher mickey is how it is noted in board docs okay thank you for that and i'll ask for the floor back after a second okay so we have a motion um is there a second seconded by counselor mickey you have the floor counselor shannon thank you president tracy i just wanted to um go through some of the the details of this particular version of the short term rental regulation this will allow anybody to rent um a whole unit or partial unit for up to 14 days without triggering this regulation it allows um for anyone to rent for 30 days uh or more without trigger triggering this regulation it um it does not require an annual lease or anything like that seasonal homes as defined by the assessor are exempt there's been some concern that um homes that people don't occupy the entire year would be exempt as a vacation property but that is not the case it's only uh properties that are not built as year-round homes uh things like the camps at star farm would be exempt um they would be allowed to short term short term rent a whole unit um anyone who is the our eviction regulations don't apply to short term rentals um the rental of rooms within your primary residence whether it's your rental primary residence or the primary residents you own are still allowed so the main requirements are that um your short term rentals have to be within your primary residence that you can't rent more than three rooms and you have to register the property the amendment that was offered by counselor McGee and offered with my motion also allows for a short term uh rental in a duplex or multi-unit building where you have in excess of your inclusionary zoning you have a section eight rental you may then offset that section eight rental with one short term rental um I think it's important to kind of reflect on on why we're why we're doing this and the intent of this regulation is about preserving our long term housing stock and restoring unpermitted illegal short term um rental units to the housing stock I think that I certainly feel the pressures of our current housing crisis and while we have talked about our housing crisis for the entirety of my tenure on the city council I have never seen anything like what I have been experiencing in the last two years in in two ways one is um what we all saw at Sears Lane where people tragically had have no place to go and this situation exists throughout the city where people are camping throughout the city because they have no housing they have no housing options and while there were a small group of people at Sears Lane that really wanted to live independently outside the bounds of the law the vast majority of people who were living at Sears Lane were there because there simply was no housing for them and they were grateful when the city provided the option for hotel rooms and safety in my professional experience I work with a lot of people who are moving to this area who have jobs here and they need to find homes and it's becoming impossible for workers to find housing you can't find rental housing you can't find housing to buy and the housing that we're talking about with short term rentals some people have said it's not really going to affect the market well it's not going to affect the market in as far as it's not going to solve the problem but it's some of the lowest hanging fruit we have in creating or just preserving rental units according to um Megan Tuttle's uh slide deck from some time ago I think that it dates back to July of 2020 um we had we have 17,000 housing units we have over 400 short term rentals and um I couldn't find the exact numbers I'm taking it off the the graph but it was about 280 of them were whole unit short term rentals that is a lot of units to bring online and that's a lot of units to take offline which is what happened these are units that were long term housing units and they have been converted into lodging units and taken out of our housing circulation I feel passionate that we need to do this for our economy I know that some people are concerned that we won't have tourists coming here well we'll still have tourists you can still rent a room in somebody's home if you want to do that you can still rent the entirety of your home when you're on vacation or you choose to leave your home to rent it as a short term rental you can still do that and people can still come and stay in the hotels and yes it will be more expensive but I don't the trade off is that some of our workers will get housing and we have seen that a lot of our restaurants downtown have been closing or limiting their hours because they don't have staff at the restaurants I have been working with people who work at the hospital and they work at UVM and the other colleges and they can't they're reluctant to take jobs because they can't find housing the crisis has has peaked in a way that is it's dire and I don't I don't have anything against short term rentals and I do want to also say that the people who are are who've created this opportunity for short term rentals have done so with the best of intentions and they have created a wonderful service in our community and they have upgraded the housing stock in ways that I have to say the long-term landlords don't so that's definitely in the plus column for the short term rentals and they're good people who take great pride in the service that they're providing and the product that they're providing and in a different environment and if we can get past the point we're at now I have no objection to loosening up these requirements and allowing more short short term rentals and allowing some conversions but where we are at this point in time I don't see how in good conscience we can continue to pay lip service to affordable housing and allow these conversions to continue to happen so I'll leave it at that for now thank you President Tracey thank you Councillor Shannon for Councillor Carpenter go ahead thank you I appreciate Councillor Shannon's sentiments certainly I've spent my entire professional life in affordable housing but I think it is still um quite short-sighted and I think I would like to propose an amendment I have posted the amendment on board docs and would like to present that now and walk through it sure go ahead Councillor Carpenter which um are you just able to clarify yeah um Director Tuttle said actually that they're exactly the same what she had and jump in Director Tuttle she'd renamed the one just for clarity um and they in somehow they got posted twice but they're really the same amendment um Director Tuttle they say the same thing so that's exactly right Councillor Carpenter both of the documents that have Councillor Carpenter's name in them are the exact same documents okay so are you just able to read the title of that amendment which one are you proposing I recommend is there is there a protocol to that no just I just wanted for reference and for the record which version you're introducing well I guess we can take the first one amendment to chapter 18 short-term rentals Councillor Carpenter okay great say the same thing okay thank you for that so we have a motion on an amendment is there a second to that motion Councillor Jang seconds Councillor Carpenter would you like the floor back yes thank you go ahead um so this is this is moved fast and and moved quickly and in somehow I think it's also been somewhat confusing as you always call really now over two years ago as is noted in Director Tuttle's memo we were asked to create a joint committee to come up with a regulation framework for short-term rentals it came with several requirements and the planning commission and a joint committee with the ordinance commission spent almost 18 months reviewing it the charge to that group was to limit the number of housing units converted to short-term rentals ensure the conversions contributed to expanding affordable housing provide flexibility for homeowners to earn income and to recognize that the short supply of short-term rentals benefits they brought in economy in I think it was August or September we were presented with those recommendations we had a work session on it spent quite a bit of time on it it was clear then that not all councils were in agreement but we spent a good amount of time on it sort of moving through the fall we were then presented with an additional alternative and I had assumed we would get the opportunity to discuss that but that didn't happen that that was really at our December meeting and council Shannon's proposal was an amendment was presented which gave us no opportunity to discuss what I feel was it was a middle ground and really was a good alternative to meet all of our goals and really the the version that I'm presenting tonight or in the amendment the remainder of the ordinance pretty much stays the same covers a lot of territory and I think the planning staff and the amount of work they did on that and we need all of that detail but this really focuses primarily on what and who would be allowed to serve in a short-term rental like um council Shannon's proposal it would allow someone to short-term rental their own unit but that's the only option that is presented um under that consideration that the amendment I want to offer really would also allow the owner of a their own primary residence to short-term rental another unit on their property either in their home or on their property and I think in addition to that I would I support council McGee's intent and the amendment that was added to councillor Shannon's what would broaden that a little bit to include other programs that receive federal rent assistance as well as units offered under IZ rents and I think that's a good balance and something we need to consider the concept from my point of view on the owner occupancy I agree there are issues with how non-owner occupied units may affect neighborhoods I'm suggesting that we do limit the whole house single family rentals to owner occupants but if they have a unit on their property I think we should give them the opportunity to be able to short-term I see that as a real advantage and and perhaps an incentive to people becoming homeowners if you have that opportunity it may provide almost like a second job for your family and it allows you to remain in your home and pay all your expenses there's also an incentive to encourage people to build accessory dwelling units they're expensive you know seventy five a hundred thousand dollars to add a unit we want to encourage it and I I literally have heard from individual people I know and I respect about their ambivalence about adding a unit to the market if they don't have some flexibility I know several people that have already built units and use them primarily for family but in the off season or when it's unoccupied they'll offer them to the public why would we not want to offer those to the public I have another friend who's a retired woman and lives near UVM she offers her unit during the academic year long term but to sort of off balance that short terms it in the summer so I think we're by not allowing owners more flexibility which was one of our goals to allow homeowners flexibility we're selling ourselves short and taking a product off the market that I don't think necessarily adds to long-term affordable rentals the other piece of the amendment really is for non-owner occupants who could and are willing to offer an offset unit at either the affordable inclusionary zoning rates which are set by the CETA office and based at about 65 percent of our of our rental system and make that available that available in return for allowing an str and we again heard from a lot of owners who said I have an str in my building and allows me to keep my rent slow pulling that opportunity away just incentivizes the owners of those apartments to just raise the rent to the max and if there's no offset there um you know why wouldn't I raise my rent for the max they'd have to document this I think it is in fact going to cause a little bit of work for somebody but I think like we do with the IZ rents you produce a lease or a document that says the rent is set at this and the same thing would be true with occupants receiving federal renters federal rent assistance or state assistance I think that's a fair trade-off and allows some units to be on the market it doesn't pull them all off the market which I think the other proposal does I mean strs aren't a horrible thing they do contribute I'm sure we've all stayed in them but what we want really with an amendment is to stop the speculation and I think this would stop it it would um you know where we've seen I think a big impact is pulling single family homes off the market and not making them available to homeowners when we talk about people wanting to move and live in burlington buying a home is is a problem and this is an opportunity to um assist with that 55 percent of the strs were single family homes uh so again I think this proposal addresses that I think it's time for us to adopt an amendment there's a lot in there particularly including the registration um that we need to get started right away I don't think we need to leap to the most restrictive option now as opposed to the more tiered approach which we were actually charged to do um as it is with this amendment um we're still going to tell people that have uh purchased single family homes and they're not all occupied they can't do that anymore but it will allow owner occupants to continue the opportunity and I would hope with the trade-off on the affordable union that we could actually create some more affordable units because it'll now be regulated so I encourage us um to pass this and you know as we've said several times this is the year to get the data because of we're shifting this into minimum housing we'll have the opportunity to change it we're not locked in forever with this but I think this is a reasonable program to start with and allow um both owner occupies to do some strs and allow those that are um non-site based to offer us an opportunity to give us another affordable unit so that is my proposal and I'm happy to answer any questions as I said we unfortunately didn't discuss the whole ordinance earlier in the fall when it was first presented thank you Councillor Carpenter the floor is open for comments on the amendment Councillor Shannon thank you President Tracy I just want to say that the reason we didn't discuss this when it was presented and it was on our agenda previously was because nobody chose to move it and I questioned that I offered to not move my version forward I did not rush this and gave everybody the opportunity to move this version and nobody chose to move it so that is why the version that I have moved again tonight came forward and that the other version was not discussed at great length in terms of the opportunity for home ownership I again want to remind you that when if you are looking to purchase a duplex with the intention to owner occupy it and rent out the second unit the mortgage company will not consider your short term rental income unless it is already a short term rented unit so they will only count the long-term income so you need to be able to qualify with that unit as a housing unit not as a lodging unit and I think there is sometimes we are conflating affordability with profitability you have to be able to afford it as a long-term rental according to the bank you can then choose to a more profitable route and do the short-term rentals also people who have been in their home for a long time and the financing isn't an issue I won't argue that a short-term rental is not more profitable than a long-term rental but it is removing our housing stock and I think if you live in a neighborhood of single family homes it's easy to perceive this as a problem of single-hand family homes being rented but to push that problem onto owner-occupied duplexes and the neighborhoods that have more multifamily housing doesn't really seem fair I don't think that there is any evidence that allowing short-term rentals keeps rents low there may be anecdotal situations where somebody has a short-term rental and that is subsidizing their long-term rental and that individual case is it is subsidizing that long-term rental and that one person's rent is low but as policy makers we can't look at these individual situations the the effect on the market of the short-term rentals is not to keep the rents low it's directly the opposite it takes units off the market and pushes rents up as far as offering flexibility sure some people want to rent their place for the summer and go someplace they can still do that but and if it is their it's their primary residence they can do that without limitations but if it is not their primary residence you can still rent it for for 30 days in the summer you just can't do the short-term rentals and that's all thank you thank you councillor shannon i think it's councillor hightower did i see a hand yes um i've you and then councillor mason i see you as well great um i think i've had a hard time with this i think if folks remember it came out of ordinance with the owner occupancy allowed um which i was planning on supporting i was not planning on supporting councillor shannon's amendment um and and then most of us did now i don't really know what to do because this feels like going back on what we all just supported a few weeks ago um i am definitely supportive of the mix of inclusionary and section eight vouchers um i think well i don't think a section voucher section eight voucher allows up to around 1600 dollars of right covers inclusionary zoning allows up to around 1400 dollars in rent um and i think i'm really supportive of having both of those options i think section eight is the most important and the most needed and should be prioritized but 1400 dollars all utilities included is still pretty low income and i don't really see the need to put the two against each other i think it's really better to give folks the option if we're giving this as an option i think i think having both would be nice um so i might try to divide the question at the end of this um but i think the other thing to say we've had folks talk about some other things over the last two years as well as tonight um and i think the first comment that this isn't eating into the housing stock you know last year is the pandemic we've had air bean bees at an all-time low um and it's still full rental units are still 1.1 percent of our housing stock which is starting to compete with our vacancy rate and then if we imagine what happens in a few years when folks are more incentivized to air bean bees especially once it's not in the legal limbo that it is um i just i'm regardless of how i guess that is to say regardless of how we what this ordinance ends up looking i think like i think it's going to be incredibly important to pass and then to councillor shannon's point you know on the affordability of hotels versus not the most affordable way to visit burlington the way that i first visited burlington um before i moved here is to stay in a um room an airbnb room which is something that is still at that summit that is owner-occupied um and that is still very much allowed under this ordinance so i think it's very important that we keep that in place and that we allow allow in unit rentals um still torn on the owner-occupied buildings um but i think i would like to see us i think i would like to see us um consider at least including the inclusionary zoning and i think i'll wait to see how this shakes up and i so i guess maybe president tricey i don't know if there's a preference between me trying to divide the question here or wait to see since we're already on two amendments i don't want folks to get confused um with me trying to amend the amendment or divide the question um you couldn't you can amend the amendment because we're only on the amendment itself so it hasn't been further amended so you can do that um at this time um i might instead if i may try to divide the question um um with the inclusionary zoning piece versus the rest of it um oh great i'll try to do that and then i actually have a question before actually i'll have a question before i do that for the maker the resolution if i may for councillor carpenter which is the difference between the section eight and the state councillor mcgee's amendment had specifically section eight vouchers your amendment has state and federal housing assistance and i guess i just wanted to know what the difference was between those two before probably not a lot the primary rent assistance program is section eight federal rent assistance but for example we got millions of dollars in vermont emergency rental assistance program dollars which is really arpa dollars which is not section eight so i was just it was really just an intent to cover all the bases um sometimes there are tenants that get specialized vouchers through the agency of human services so it'd be a state rental assistance voucher not a section eight section eight is a particular federal program and i was only trying to broaden it to the section eight like programs that are being paid out of arpa or agency of human services right thank you and then i'm actually going to hold off if that's okay and get my ducks in a row before i try to divide the question if folks have other thoughts on the amendment sure thank you councillor hi tower i have councillor mason to be followed by mayor weinberger and councillor barlow i'm glad to answer mason thank you president tracy um i i want to thank councillor carpenter for coming forward with these proposed amendments i also want to thank excuse me both the council and the public for staying involved in this discussion for two plus years um i feel strongly that we need to do something um and it's up to us tonight to figure out what that something is i i want to acknowledge and and i would concur that even though we may come down in different places on this it is a false false flag the state that you know strs don't have an impact on the housing stock they do we know that every unit that's an str is not available for long term um renting i want to take us back though the challenge has been and we've been struggling with this as a council you know there are two competing policies here you know one is you know the impact on the housing stock but the other two aspects or policies that we recognize in 2019 when we put this to the joint committee was strs do have some benefit to the economy like it or not you know and i've done it too if i go to a you know another city i might look first to see if there's an str before going to a hotel those they do serve a purpose and the concern is that you know go too far whether that's you know the requiring full owner rock as councillor shannon has proposed that might have an impact on you know clearly will have an impact on my view on the number of strs available the other piece and we heard this for those of us that were on the two on the committee for two plus years you know we also when we passed this wanted to provide some flexibility for homeowners to earn income we heard from countless people who have testified that you know they're relying on this income in order to be able to pay you know their property tax bill whether it's their own home or second home go too far in one direction you know we're negatively impacting that so you know what we're seeing play out is in essence a competition among policy goals and from my perspective it's a question of how far do we go one way or the other i think what councillor carpenter has done is provide a little bit of a compromise it doesn't go as far as i would have liked but i am i can count and fully know that you know whether the montal control compromise or other that wasn't going to fly so you know that that that is no longer on the table what councillor carpenter has proposed which does address a number you know the a big concern that we've heard from a number of lakeside and other neighbors is whole house strs that's not permitted under what councillor carpenter has put forth so i appreciate it's not perfect i don't think there's anything that will be perfect but from my perspective you know this is a better start and if if it is determined a year from now or at some point in time that this is doesn't go far enough this body will be able to make an adjustment but i think going too far out of the gate is going to have very adverse consequences you know on our constituents and on the market as a whole so for that reason i'll be supporting councillor carpenter's amendment thank you thank you councillor mason i have councillor i have mayor weinberg to be followed by councillor borough and councillor jane thank you president tracy um i've been concerned about the impacts of short-term rentals on the housing market on the availability of permanent housing for a long time i think i played a role in um bringing us to this decision by putting this issue of short-term rentals explicitly on the mayor's housing summits back in 2019 because it was clear to me we we needed to grapple with this and we have grappled with it for a couple years um and i certainly fully believe we we need to be regulating this area uh much more significantly than we have up until now and need to be taking action to ensure that we do not see actions happen in this community that we had that have happened in many other communities where sustained old buildings with multiple units overnight are lost long-term rentals market and become short-term rentals and i think we want to make sure that there are very limited number of of these units because of the threat they present to a community that simply doesn't have enough housing um i'm i asked to be recognized uh to speak to council carpenter's amendment um because i do want to weigh in on this amendment i didn't i did not support this language that council carpenter is bringing forward um when we made the action uh a couple months ago to warn this uh ordinance for public hearing um i that night um was uh wrestling um as many of us have throughout this where the where the right place was to land but was very moved that night with councilor uh shannon's arguments about um how far we need to go in the midst of a housing emergency um and uh was persuaded that that that night that uh we shouldn't take that action and warn that language for a public hearing um but uh in the time since then um i've done what i think we are tasked explicitly by the uh by the way the ordinance creation process works by the the uh the process itself which calls for that step of warning and public hearing um i've done what i think we're we're as hard as possible to do is i've kept listening and i've stayed open to new information and um uh and i've kept an open mind on on where on where we should uh ultimately land with this and i have through the formal public hearings and through my public meetings that i have on a weekly basis where many people who care about this issue have come on to continue talking to me about this um i've come to uh be in a different place uh tonight um i understand the data a little bit differently than i did uh when this we first took this action my uh understanding is it's pretty clear um we don't have as definitive data as we would like but that the actual number of short-term units has reduced somewhat over the course um of the pandemic uh i also sort of came to think that the way that i don't think it really works to we are we are setting we're in the process of setting long-term um housing policy here and i think it is uh challenging to a really a difficult way to go about it i i don't think we really have in our ability um through this long-term policy setting system to create policy just for this current particularly acute moment i think our job really is to get the policy right for at least the medium to long-term that was something we went into this uh effort with a major goal of was to uh was to um provide a sense of stability um back to this policy and i'm not confident that um we will get it right if we set uh long-term policy based on the acuteness of this particular moment i don't trust that our systems work such that um when we are a different moment that we will go back and fix a policy that we haven't gotten wrong i think we have to try to get this right for burlington now and um i've come to the conclusion that's what council carpenters um amendment uh does uh at least the best we can um at this point um i believe that the uh current the hearing version final uh version the unamended version of the ordinance would be one of the most restrictive short-term rental ordinances in the country i think it is it it goes too far and is too intrusive um into the decisions of some of our residents face and i do believe that we'll have significant negative community and economic consequences as written i i will say that um i our work is not going to be uh done that i am um i don't think we are going to be able to finish this debate uh however the council comes out on this i do think we need better data ultimately to get this policy right i think we also um i need to uh seek greater legal authority to potentially collect revenue from short-term rentals to create significant new affordable housing resources i think that there's the possibility of almost you know perhaps doubling or more the funds that we have available local funds for affordable housing if we get this right um and uh i think that there are increasingly examples of other communities that have more effective methods to directly relate regulate the number of short-term rentals that we want um as opposed to the ways in which we've tried to do it through this policy and so regardless of where we end up i do think that's an issue we're gonna need to continue working on um going forward and i'm committed to doing that um i um just to summarize again i do support the councilor carpenter's amendments appreciate all the work that has been put in into this um and um i'm hoping the council seriously consider accepting these amendments because it's going to be very challenging uh for me having grappled further with this to uh sign off on the non-invented version uh of of this ordinance thank you president tracy sorry but that i have uh counselor barlow to be followed by counselor jane thank you president tracy um counselor mason and the mayor have covered some of my remarks so i'll be brief um there's no doubt that we need to put some boundaries on what's allowable as an str and we need to establish protections for neighborhoods and limit the impact on housing stock but the ordinance under consideration without counselor carpenter's amendment is just too limiting um um bad ordinance would essentially end the str business in brolington um airbnb the rbo and other str platforms are ubiquitous now most of us probably use them while traveling and visitors to our city expect them in the same way they expect to be able to get an uber when they're here um and those people that are visiting most of them want whole unit rentals not a room in someone's house um we need to find a way to address the negative impacts of strs while also providing some support for strs in our city and i think counselor's carpenter counselor carpenter's amendment does this so i will be supporting it thank you thank you counselor barlow i have counselor jane to be followed by counselor handsome yep um thank you president tracy and um you know i think it will be also important for us to remember that whenever we talk about data let's not just focus on one aspect of data data always is quantitative and also qualitative right from what we have heard from the people during these hearings it has been very clear that you know without the amendment of sera carpenter counselor carpenter this will affect them you know negatively and we do not want it we do not want that um i think also counselor mason and also the mayor just like my counselor barlow just basically you know summarize everything that i wanted to say so to be short i would be supporting the amendment of counselor carpenter thank you thank you counselor jane counselor handsome great thanks i'm still where i've been at you know largely throughout this process i think so i don't i don't support this amendment and becoming more permissive i i'm uncomfortable even with counselor mcgee's amendment i you know i've been very on the fence about that but i'm ultimately i'm planning to support that um but i don't want to go any more permissive than that and i think i just want to the aspect i guess that i want to push back on is that the airbnb market is going to go away as a result of this we're still allowing a significant chunk of people to participate in that market and to earn revenue um and to supplement their ability ability to live in burlington through this airbnb income and provide um those short-term rentals for visitors so even under the policy as proposed with counselor mcgee's amendment yeah i mean just to reiterate any anyone who lives in burlington can can rent out a room in their dwelling unit or their home and they can also rent it out when they're out of town as well um and then additionally with with counselor mcgee's amendment someone who doesn't even live in the unit could rent out the full unit but what they have to do in exchange for that is is provide this benefit to people who actually are trying to live in our community and again that that's the trade-off that we're trying to solve is that we're these short-term units are pulling away from long-term units and and preventing folks from being able to live in burlington directly by pulling those units offline or not having them online in the first place this trade-off of you can you can do um even if you're you don't live there you can do an entire unit for airbnb or for short-term rental you just have to provide you you have to make available for section eight housing the other rental units so that we hit that bottom end of the market for the lowest income folks and there is that waiting list right now of people who have section eight vouchers who don't have access to housing right now and and these folks who are who are using housing units as a business to to generate income um can still do that and i think counselor high tower pointed out you can still these folks can still bring in a good amount of income from the section eight units as well as from their airbnb unit that they would have at the same time so i feel like there's plenty of opportunities for people to create short-term rental units in burlington we're just trying to restrict the number of off-site landlords who are doing that to to limit the damage to our long-term housing stock i think it's already plenty of a compromise as is and we need to let it play out and we can make changes in a year if we somehow went too restrictive i'm skeptical that we did because as others have pointed out we've been in a pandemic for for you for a few years now and we don't know how this market's going to explode as this moves into potentially an endemic and even this summer we could see an explosion of of that market so i just think this is already a compromise and we need to be cautious about this given how tight our housing market is um and let's let's be safe to start with here thank you thank you counselor hanson i don't have anyone else on the queue to speak to the amendment council carpenter go ahead i just want to clarify as i said one of the reasons i am proposing that an owner occupied also be able to str the unit on their own property is in fact to give them flexibility of income and councillor shannon mentioned the complexities of mortgage lending it is true that in qualifying for a mortgage there's nuances i looked at the fanny may selling guide you can in fact count part of it if it's an owner occupied str but also more important the way they do mortgage lending with ratios up to 45 percent of your income um people just need the extra income to afford life childcare health care retirement so it's not always an issue of mortgage qualifying it's an issue of allowing you to stay in your home by not approving an owner occupant to do it we're going to we're going to pull that away from them now and maybe they can go back to it maybe they can't but um rather than letting them do it now we don't even know how many of them there are and i think this will after we enact this in a year from now we'll know how many of them there are um and hopefully we can deal with issues but it's still owner occupied base thank you councillor carpenter i did see councillor shannon and then i see director tuttle getting in as well so councillor shannon i would defer to um director tuttle sure director tuttle i only had a point of order to offer about the motion that councillor carpenter made um when we were helping councillor carpenter organize her proposed amendment it was based off of the version of the document called hearing alternative or hearing version final um if the moved version is um the McGee alternate councillor carpenter's amendment would amend lines 89 through 97 of that version just a point of clarification okay thank you for that clarification i appreciate that councillor shannon um thank you so if if we were to allow short-term rentals in owner occupied duplexes i thought it might be helpful to have some information about how many units are we talking about um according to the the data from director turtles um information to us which is dated july 2020 um we have 2002 and i've extrapolated these numbers from the percentages that were given to us but um i think the numbers sound small when we're talking about percentages when we're talking about housing units we can um better appreciate what we're really talking about um there are 2210 duplexes in the city 353 owner occupied units so we are talking about allowing up to 353 uh owner occupied units um um turning their only rental unit into a short-term rental under this proposal taking that off the market and becoming a short-term rental the idea that we should not legislate for this moment um i disagree with that i think that uh we absolutely need to legislate for this moment and we are in crisis this has been a trend we've been heading in this direction for a long time it's gotten worse and worse and worse until we are here at this moment we don't have any reason to believe that this is that our housing crisis is going to be changing anytime soon i haven't heard anything on the horizon that gives me hope that this is changing anytime soon maybe there's something i don't know um the way this was structured was brilliant by our planning department it was put into chat after 18 which is much easier to amend than our our code of zoning ordinances so yes it's a fairly nimble process and we can amend this uh if something changes or we need to tweak this one way or the other it it can be amended as for being intrusive into the decisions of our residents we have always been intrusive in the decisions of our residents we have always regulated bed and breakfast and it's only in recent years we've decided to ignore what's on the books in terms of that regulation it's zoning zoning regulates what our residents can do and we we regulate them in ways um far more onerous than this we tell them what kind of windows they can put in we tell them what kind of siding they can use we could we tell them where they can put a window and where they cannot put a window so i don't see this as more onerous than the vast majority of our zoning regulations and we don't really know if pulling this back is going to affect our rooms and meals tax it certainly might but the other possibility is that it increases our hotel vacancy or it reduces our hotel vacancy it fills in more of of um those units and it might not be that big a hit on our meals and rooms tax but we didn't get into this in an effort to increase rooms and meals tax that was never really a motivation and as others have said we still allow this in your primary residence thank you thank you council shannon i don't have anyone else in the queue on the amendment you're ready to go to a vote okay so we will go to a vote on the amendment will the city please call the roll councillor barlow yes councillor carpenter yes councillor jang yes councillor freeman no no councillor hanson no councillor hightower yes councillor mege no councillor mason yes councillor paul yes councillor shannon no councillor strongberg no city council president tracy no six eyes six nays the amendment fails we are back to debate on the underlying motion there is there further discussion of that motion councillor carpenter to be followed by councillor mege and hightower um i'd like to amend the portion that um councillor spannon and adopted councillor mege's language and i'd like to replace that with language that says um um running to section eight as well as i'm trying to read this here um rented uh that meets affordable requirements identified in article nine inclusionary and replacement housing of comprehensive development ordinance or rented to attend at receiving federal or state rent assistance uh which line are you on councillor carpenter um oh dear um hang on here i think that's um let me just find that someone wants to pop in they can do that but i'm trying to find the original amendment the original one that we're working on i'm not sure which which line um okay here it is um councillor shannon adopted councillor mege's amendment but i'm not sure what line she was going to put that on to tell you the truth it's we're looking at lines 87 to 92 um did councillor mege's have a specific line i guess is my question of the day kind of information i think it's line 92 through 95 okay so it would be uh replacing line 92 to 95 with what what is your amendment let me get councillor mege's up here um okay replacing line 92 with language that says one whole short-term unit is permitted only if the str is located within a two-family duplex or multifamily dwelling owned by the host that contains at least one dwelling unit in excess of any required inclusionary units that is rented to or that is rented this is the main at a rate that meets the affordability requirements identified in article nine inclusionary and replacement housing and comprehensive development ordinance or rented to a tenant receiving federal or state rental assistance okay so can you read that line again just so that folks are clear because we don't have it in writing right i'll try to it it is online but i'll try to send it to you shortly okay so um the dwelling unit is located or excuse me one whole unit short-term rental is permitted only if an str is located within a two-family dwelling or multifamily dwelling owned by the host that contains at least one dwelling unit in excess of any required inclusionary units that is rented at a rate that meets the affordability requirements identified article nine article nine or rented to a tenant receiving federal or federal or state rent assistance okay thank you council carpenter or folks clear on what council carpenter is seeking to amend councilor shannon i isn't that what we just voted on no the one that you loaded on or added only was limited to section eight vouchers holders um the one that i proposed had two pieces really to it it had that piece and then it had the ability to rent an owner occupied another unit and owner occupied property but this adds in what you proposed which is what we just voted on no a portion of it it does it changes changes lines 92 to 95 of what you adopted which is really the mickey amendment and it effectively it allows rentals to both section eight holders and those that are offering an iz grant clear council shannon i guess clear enough thank you okay all right councilor hanson did you have a clarifying point of clarification yeah i guess a question that's okay okay sure i just want to before i get a second i just want to make sure that people understand what what the amendment is go ahead oh yeah it's just so it's a process question i guess for the city attorney is just i i think i understand you're just doing a scaled back version of the amendment that failed but is that is that allowed i i don't know that i've ever seen us do that where an amendment fails and then we bring just one section of that amendment back immediately attorney richardson sure um yes it is because it's a fundamentally a different question so if you took uh councilor carpenter's amendment which you know had four or five pieces um that failed as a whole so what she's essentially proposing to amend is to take one piece um and use that to substitute in a specific piece of language um in in the existing the the current proposal um so that's allowed in the sense that it is a separate and new um amendment um where you would not be able to do that would be um you know if it was um essentially uh something that was a a single piece um that you attempted to revive but i think it's it's uh fair enough to be able to distinguish between you know this the three or four different things councilor carpenter's original amendment was trying to do and saying that taking one piece out of it is um fundamentally different for purposes of a second amendment thanks okay any other clarifying questions people clear on what the amendment is okay is there a second to that seconded by councilor hightower council carpenter did you want the floor back okay discussion on this amendment councilor McGee thank you president tracy um i just want to sort of speak to um this amendment uh and in so doing sort of address the reason for the less permissive version in the underlying um you know i i think the important thing to note here is that we have 94 households currently on a waiting list that qualify for section A vouchers but cannot find uh units or landlords who will accept those in conversations with the housing authority who serve as the area in and around burlington they are constantly struggling to landlords who are willing to accept section eight vouchers um so i think when we consider that and consider the of units that this will ultimately impact i think to be more permissive with this exemption would undercut the intention of of the underlying um provision um so i just wanted to say that in that you know i'm under no illusions that they're going to solve the housing crisis that 94 families are facing right now waiting for housing to accept the section A vouchers that they have um and and hopeful that this might open up a few more units to accept those vouchers but um you know for that reason like i can't support this amendment tonight thank you councillor McGee councillor carpenter this is the point um uh council please write about the 94 waiting waiting on waiting lists but we have no sense of one of the groups that waits on the section A waiting lists are people looking for large units so this one-to-one substitute isn't going to serve the needs of a lot of people on that waiting list is my guess and i felt that including the iz gives you just a broader opportunity to get some more affordable units potentially out there in the market thank you councillor carpenter councillor paul was that a hand okay sorry about that um anyone else speaking to the amendment okay we will go to a vote on the amendment uh will the city clerk please call the roll councillor barlow yes councillor carpenter yes councillor jeng yes councillor freeman no councillor hanson no councillor high tower yes councillor McGee no councillor mason yes councillor paul yes councillor shannon no councillor strongberg no city council president tracy no six eyes six days the amendment fails and we are back to debate on the underlying i think there were a couple of hands trying to get in for that um i but i missed it um so the floor is open for folks wishing to comment on the underlying resolution councillor high tower yeah and i'll be brief which is just to say i'm probably the only person who was um okay with either one of these versions um and i just i think that i really again all of the things that we said in favor of the owner occupied i think is even more true of this underlying version i think it definitely is easier to open it back up than it is to restrict it again later so um i just i hope that we can pass this um on a on a much more supportive level than a seven five vote in that in the future if we want to allow owner occupied especially if that is with some kind of champion housing trust support um that that's still something we can look at so thank you councillor high tower are there any others who wish to comment councillor paul to be followed by councillor mason um thanks president tracy um i just sort of would like to get an idea i mean i feel like we have uh you know we're sort of sort of would have to agree with councillor high tower this has been a rather stressful hour um and um you know to to vote six six six is uh rather unfortunate it seems to me that probably there what we really should be doing isn't voting on this at all tonight but probably going back and and having several people who aren't who aren't both in both camps on this discussion to try to work out something um i think it's really unfortunate that we're in a position like this um and would like to know whether or not um you know where this is going to go if this is uh if this is successful given um you know where the mayor is are we going to find ourselves back you know a couple of weeks from now talking about this again and i think we're we should i just i just think it would be great if we could maybe just take a step back and try to figure out some other common ground other than seven to five or six to six um i think what we're showing the public is that we can't really agree amongst ourselves and that we're not really really willing to really try to figure it out and i think that's unfortunate thanks thank you councillor paul councillor mason uh thank you president tracy um first i have a question for them i think councillor magie if you're willing and that that relates to i'm hoping for an explanation about the requirement in line 93 of host ownership we got we we've got had so many permutations i'm just trying to exactly understand i mean i appreciate it's no longer host owned but i'm trying to figure out what's the benefit of host excuse me not owner occupied but host owned so are you intending to preclude you know a non-owner from serving as a host and i'm trying to understand why that matters this uh specifically um relates to instances where a host would be exempt from hosting offsite if you know say they own a duplex one unit could be a short term rental if the other unit is rented to a household receiving section eight measures or if they owned a building of three or more units um so i don't think this necessarily means uh and i would look to director total maybe to answer this but necessarily means that it couldn't be an owner occupied um building if it were three or more units let me i'm missed i'm not articulating my question better if it's a multi-unit building for example i appreciate you know what this says is it doesn't need to be owner occupied if there's um at least one unit above and beyond what's required under our iZ ordinance that's rented to an occupant but it also requires that the owner be the host and the host in the air b and b world has a certain meaning you know you're the person that shows up and rents the apartment and collects the money and make sure that it's clean i'm just trying to figure out what if that was the intent and what the benefit of requiring the host also be the owner is adding to this well i think uh at least my intent it would be difficult to enforce uh uh short-term rental existing building where a unit might happen to be rented to a section a voucher holder uh the host is a tenant in the other unit i don't think that um is that well no that's that seems to say it doesn't have you don't have to have this is an exception to the owner occupancy requirement but it does right it doesn't i don't want to get bogged down in the details i just that that's that's a very specific requirement i was trying to haven't been bogged down in this for two plus years understand what was the policy justification behind that um thank you let me sort of shift to what council paul was just alluding to and and more of the legal question and forgive me and i'm not sure whether it's kim or or who this is an interesting um no not this this whole process given the bifurcation between our you know ordinance and and uh chapter 18 i know we're coming up on some deadlines you know we have a new council being seated maybe someone could sort of speak to the lay of the land and the concern that if this were vetoed are we out of runway like i'm i'm not remembering exactly what deadlines we're bumping up against director total or kim or attorney sort of it i i can let kim start and i can add if there's anything i can add is in addition sounds good um so just to lay as a counselor mason asked to lay out the timeline um basically the chapter 18 ordinance changes when they get approved will get worn to the newspaper and then they're effective 20 days later that the zoning amendment need to be staggered from that because they become in effect in the sense that they can be applied under once they're warned for public hearing the difficulty that you're running against up against the time frame is that they will expire uh i believe it's april 13th um so the zoning amendments if not passed by then we'll need to start over and um they can you know we're expected to be a quicker process because we've spent time on it already but um they would have to go through the planning commission again and come back up through thank you that answers my question um from my count this is likely to be a seven five vote um which will pass i appreciate it will not have well and maybe more than seven five but um based on earlier statements i will not be supporting this i for the reasons i've already articulated i think this goes too far in one direction and i i disagree that you know we'll just change it i that that ignores the practical reality of the dozens of people who have you know this will materially impact their life and and what their current existence is so i i don't agree that it's as simple as just we'll change it a year from now um i'm not confident i appreciate council pollas always you know the push for trying to achieve compromise i am a little bit concerned you know we've had five different compromises and and do not seem to be able to land in a place that generates either you know other than a six six or seven five um so i'm prepared to go back to the table if that's the will of the council and do my damnness to achieve a compromise i'm not convinced it exists though unfortunately thank you thank you count for mason anyone else on the underlying council right tower i think i just what councillor carpenter proposed is i'm pretty sure we came out of the ordinance committee um and then a lot of us voted for what we're calling the councillor shannon amendment including myself including others and so i would find it very frustrating and the mayor supported it so i think we got to a point where the majority of us not a simple majority like a true majority of us supported a stricter version than what we are currently voting for so i think it's not exactly what i wanted i think it's not exactly what a lot of us wanted but it is what most of us supported at some point in the last this year and so um i think that moving forward with something that most of us were willing to support even a month ago after we've already talked about this for two years um is much better than not moving forward with anything at all when we know that we need this regulation and again i say that having supported the amendments that failed and having supported the way that it came out of ordinance which was a looser version of this thank you thank you councillor hi tower councillor carpenter just a point um i i didn't support this last time and and it was only two of us but i will say and i can't speak for other people i think there was some confusion around people not understanding that that middle option was then going to be off the table and i just can't speak for the people but i think there are people who feel that they didn't understand that that was going to be totally off the table thank you don't have anyone else in the queue councillor shannon um thank you i'll just say that this has been postponed several times there has been plenty of opportunity to figure this out and it doesn't really look like that is happening um as far as changing people's lives everybody who is operating legally today will be able to continue operating legally and um should this be vetoed i would expect either we override the veto or we revert back to the existing zoning laws um and start enforcing them so i hope that that is not the case but we do regulate bed and breakfast today there are regularly it's not it's not an unregulated area there it's regulated so i hope that this passes and i am happy to make adjustments to it as as is needed and as our um circumstances in burlington change thank you thank you um councillor paul but we are at 10 30 so we do need a motion to suspend the rules such a motion in order i'll come to you councillor paul after that councillor strongberg was that a hand yeah i was just going to say um i'd move to suspend the rules to finish out the rest of our deliberative agenda this evening so you're that means you're cutting mayor weinberger's comments sorry to include the the mayor's comments as well thank you okay we have a motion to suspend the rules to complete this item and the mayor's uh remarks are is there a second seconded by councillor shannon any discussion all those in favor of suspending the rules please say aye aye aye any opposed that carries unanimously and we have suspended our rules to complete this item and the mayor's remarks councillor paul thanks um so uh i've you know i've gone back and forth back and forth um i i did support councillor carpenter's amendment mostly because i felt that it would it did it did offer a bit of a middle ground and i'm sorry that um seven of us didn't see it that way um i don't think that we shouldn't regulate um uh and i mean listen that there's that that is true we basically we regulate a lot um so that that argument really doesn't doesn't really hold with me i mean obviously we we all know that we regulate plenty um uh i guess all i can say is that if this does pass and it does become part of our ordinance that those people who have been who have been talking about how it will be revisited if things change i really truly hope that they really mean that and time will tell whether or not they really mean that whether or not they're going to then go back and say you know we're not we're no longer in a pandemic we need more units um or there is a new property that is built in burlington that has 400 housing units and all of a sudden we don't see the significant strain on our housing stock i mean those are just obviously hypotheticals but what i'm saying is that i really hope that people mean what they say um thanks very much thank you don't have anyone else in the queue counsel hanson and if we can just start moving towards a vote i appreciate that go ahead counsel hanson yeah i mean i just wanted to respond i think to counsel's paul's comments about revisiting yeah we've set this up in a way to revisit it but i want to be clear i agree with counsel shannon that i don't expect the housing crisis to dramatically improve in the next year so it's not that i'm and i think others have said others have characterized it as we're planning on amending it in a year i'm not planning on amending it because i think that this is necessary i think this policy is necessary giving the housing crisis and i don't expect that to change within a year what i'm saying is if it does and if we're wrong about what the impact of this and or if we're wrong about what the impact of this policy is we have the flexibility to change it but that's different from from this idea that um you know we're doing this policy and we expect to change it in a year that's not really where i'm at personally i think this is the right policy but i'm but i want to see it play out and i want to see how the conditions change and i'm open to changing the policy if things do fundamentally change or if we find that we were wrong thank you thank you counsel hanson anyone else okay not seeing anyone so we'll go to a vote will the city clerk please call the roll councillor barlow no councillor carpenter no councillor jeng no councillor freeman yes yes councillor hanson yes councillor high tower yes councillor miggy yes councillor mason councillor mason i can't hear you're sorry about that no no councillor paul yes councillor shannon yes councillor strongberg no i mean yes sorry city council president tracy yes eight eyes four nays the motion carries thank you very much appreciate all the work that was put into this from the ordinance committee as well as city staff really appreciate that thank you for all your work on this director title i know you've worked very hard to provide lots of counsel to counselors regarding a variety of different amendments and just appreciate the really strong sense of collaboration that you brought to this process and likewise i i also just want to thank scott gustin and kim sturdivant who have worked on this every step of the way as well okay sorry sorry about that i appreciate that worked as well thanks for mentioning that appreciate that great so that concludes our deliberative agenda and brings us to the last item of the evening which are the mayor's remarks on general affairs thank you president tracy first i just would like to remind everyone that time meeting day is one week from today and their continue to be many ways in which people can return their ballot um if they have received one the we at this point are not recommending that people send their ballot back through the mail but 24 hours a day they can drop off their ballots in the four outboxes that are located throughout the city they can come to city hall during working hours and on election day you can bring your ballot straight to the polls you can also go to the polls in the awards um if you've not received a ballot and register that day and get a ballot there in person i hope um that uh pro-enthonians will be spending large numbers in this election that has so much of its take to the council races as well as five ballot items um i also did want to take this opportunity to reiterate um number of the comments that i made uh with the announcement last week that director taisha green would be living the city director taisha green has been a outstanding first leader of the reid department i am grateful for taisha's service to brolington and for her dedication towards making brolington a more inclusive and equitable city for black and brown brotonians taisha has been a tireless fearless leader throughout her time in brolington and i will greatly miss having her perspective and candor on the city's leadership team racial equity work is challenging it will be even harder without taisha here but in her nearly two years with the city she built a very strong foundation for the reib department and will continue to push forward with racial justice and equity work on many fronts i'm committed to working with taisha through her main remainder of her time with the city through march 10th to ensure a transition to new reib leadership so that this team can continue to do support work thank you president tracy thank you for that mayor we are now done with our agenda so motion to adjourn is in order so moved moved by councillor jeng seconded by councillor stromburg any discussion all those in favor please say aye any opposed passes unanimously we are adjourned at 10 40


My name is Eugenia Fagan. In 2008, I was diagnosed with Pyrrhic gland cancer and this cancer is a rare type of cancer and it is the Pyrrhic gland is actually the main salivary gland and it is what produces the saliva in the mouth and in 2007 I Felt this pain in the back of my ear. There was a small lump growing and I Went to my doctor For a whole year and a half and he said there was nothing happening to me and that I should take champagne killers But I persisted I said no it began to Trouble me so much that I was unable to sleep properly and to actually do my work at my desk But with the help of of my employer I was able to go overseas get the time off get some finance and I had a sister in Connecticut where I went and she helped me quite a lot where I was I Was at the hospital. I had this surgery done and They this they detected that it was parotid gland cancer and I was scheduled for Radiation therapy. I did 34 rounds of radiation and it changed my whole life around because that radiation there was strong doses and after this I Was not the same person, but I went into into remission and Thankfully I went for second opinion. I just want to encourage people to actually seek help wherever you can find that help and We should never sit back and do nothing about our situation Never let somebody tell you it's all in your mind But because you are the one feeling it you should go ahead and look for help So I want to encourage the government along with all the cancer Cancer groups to come together To collaborate and to sensitize people out there bring that awareness drive to people out there to let them know that Cancer is real, but it can be detected early so that we can live a normal life And right now I'm at stage for cancer, but I am a conqueror. I have said that I'm going to make myself Strong without fear and just to live my life so that I can be able to help somebody else make it through This is what I want to share with you today. God bless


This is stock number 11476Z. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Your new and used sports car headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2017 Chevy Camaro ZL1. This vehicle has the 6.2 liter V8 supercharged motor which puts out 640 horsepower. This car has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop for the state of Wisconsin inspection process. It has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. The car has been gone through mechanically 100% and is 100% ready to go. Mosaic black metallic is the color. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p, 60 frames per second. So if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet or smartphone device, turn them on right now because it is definitely your best way to check out the quality and condition of the car before seeing it in person. And if you'd like to check out all the photos on this car in the upper right hand part of your screen is a link to our website. Click that and check us out there. This one comes with the 20 inch painted alloy rims and it has Michelin Pilot Sport AS tires. These are 285 30 ZR20s in the front and they have I'd say probably about half the tread left on them. You don't really get much tread until you get into the center of the tire there. Front fender is in nice shape. I didn't see any dents or dings on that. You get the HID headlamps, the LED running lights and the LED fog lamps down there. Front bumper and valance is in pretty nice condition. Get that ZL1 hood. Looks really good. Didn't see any dents or dings on there. And the passenger side front fender. No major dents or dings on there. Passenger side rim is in excellent condition. No scuffs or scrapes on there. And note you do get the Brembo ZL1 Brinks. As you go down this side of the car, take note of how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror like that paint is. We take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and you just cannot make the trip down. But you're still interested in purchasing the car. You can see the car, hear the car and have confidence in what you're looking at before you even get here. So that when you do get here there's absolutely no surprises. And that's why we offer the Summit Auto Fastpass option in the upper right hand part of your screen. And a link right to our website where you can apply for financing. Get pre-approved, see a payment quote, even appraise a trade all from the comfort of your own home. So when you get here all you got to do is drive the car, love it, you'll be all set to go. You can see those back tires get a little bit better idea of how that tread works on there. And on the back they are 305 30 ZR20s. So a little bit wider tires in the back. As we come around to the back of the vehicle, rear bumper is in great shape. You do get the quad tipped dual rear exhaust, back up parking sensors, the ZL1 spoiler. On the deck lid there, deck lids in really nice shape. And the back storage area is very, very clean.  I think this was the last year that they put the RPO codes back here. And I believe those seats do fold down for extra storage. See the deck lids in really nice shape. And as you go down the driver side, just as clean as that passenger side. No dents or dings on the rear quarter. And for full disclosure, this back rim is in excellent condition as well. Down the rest of this side of the car looks really good. You can see any dents, you can see any dings. You do get blind spot monitoring. In the rear veneers they are heated as well. Inside the ZL1 package gives you the black leather and suede Rakaro seats. Both of these seats are heated and cooled. And both of them are power factory floor mats throughout. Power windows, power locks, power mirrors, memory driver seat, Bose sound. You get the suede inserts on the door. Take a quick look at the back seats. You do get a cell phone charge pad there. And the back seats are just as clean as the front seats. No rips or tears back there.  And then you do get the red seat belts as well. Flat bottom steering wheel will hop inside. I think we actually have to start it up to see the instrument cluster and everything. You can see that this car has 18,211 miles. You do get a digital speedometer. Instrument cluster is very nice and clean. You get a compass up there as well. Comes with the heated suede wrapped steering wheel. Bluetooth and information center controls on the right. Cruise controls and more radio controls on the left. That flat bottom steering wheel. This one does come with the Chevy MyLink system. You get the factory navigation system there. And then you also have projection where you can project your cell phone to the screen. And then it has your performance data recorder on there. Which is a pretty neat system as well. You do have to have a memory card to put in there. But this is also where your backup camera shows up. This one has the 10 speed automatic transmission. There are your heated and cooled seat buttons.  You have your different drive modes here. So you got tour, sport, track, snow and ice. So that you can select there. And that will change the handling characteristics of the vehicle. Pass and decide, floor mat and seat are an excellent condition. You get the ZL1 badge on the back as well as the Recaro. And you can see the colors on the inside of the doors. You can change those colors. So if you go to lighting here. Just for a quick change of light strip color. Say we want it orange. It will change it to orange. Say we want it blue. Change it to blue. So pretty cool stuff right there. I'm going to turn the car off for just a second. But the interior is very nice and clean. Actually I'll start it up again. And then we'll check out under the hood. Bear with me for one second here. Sounds really good when you stare it up. I'd personally like to thank you for checking out the video today. And hopefully from this HD video. You will have been able to tell just how clean this car is all the way around. Inside and out under the hood. Here's a 6.2 liter LT4 V8 Supercharge engine. 640 horse power. The engine bay is very clean. It runs very smooth. Once again this car has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop. Has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked. And topped off. And this car is 100% ready to go. I'd highly recommend this car from a quality and condition standpoint. And to see more pictures of this car. One of our other 450 new and used cars. SUVs, minivans, Wranglers. Sports cars, Camaro's. Challengers, Corvettes. Chargers, Mustangs, GT500s. You name it. We got to go to that website right there. www.summitauto.com Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations. All at www.summitauto.com. If you'd like to check out more HD videos. You can go to www.youtube.com. Remember to like, subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. In fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left. Chevy Camaro videos like this one on your right. If you have a nap in our website on the bottom. Link to this video on our website. Click those check us out. Or this vehicle on our website. Click those check us out. We really look forward to helping you with this super clean 2017. Chevy Camaro, ZL1 and Mosaic Black Metallic. Thanks again for checking out the video.