I'll start over and I'll call to order the South Wellington City Council meeting of Tuesday, July 6, 2021. And welcome everyone. Hopefully our, no, our next, will our next one be in City Hall. The 19th. No, that's the day you move. All right, so we'll have one more meeting like this and then August we go full tilt boogie in the new building. So we won't have a pledge of allegiance tonight. And so item two is the agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. Seeing none except we have a special guest who is arriving we believe around seven. 730 or 745. Okay, so we will interrupt wherever we, oh, if it's the public hearing we won't interrupt. That's short hopefully that'll be over at 745 and then we'll add in one small special item between items seven and eight. It's a special welcome for Jesse. So this is kind of exciting to start the, our first meeting with Jesse, fully at the helm. So we're looking forward to years of good work with you and so hope all has gone well so far. And Tim is here so we're at full boat. Tom Chittenden is not able to join us. He's in Florida. So item three then is comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. So if there's anyone in the public who wishes to discuss something like Jason chin you turn on your picture and your microphone and so Jason welcome. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Well, thank you for listening to my comment. I'm here today to express my concerns about the threat of climate change and to encourage the city council to keep climate mitigation measures at the forefront of all of your work. I think one of the big problems that climate change is causing is familiar by now, the rising seas and the melting ice and heat waves and forest fires and so on. And I think I know I have crisis fatigue. So I'm not going to try and list them all off for you. Because I'm sure you're familiar. Maybe you have crisis fatigue to. But I would, I thought I'd start by just talking about the dark humor that did resonate with me recently. There's a cartoon of Barton Homer Simpson.  Homer says, on the bright side son, it's going to be the coolest summer of the rest of your life. And that's it in a nutshell. This is a problem that's getting worse every decade is hotter than the last. And if we're going, it will only get worse for the rest of my life and the rest of your life. But if we act now, there's a chance that the climate will begin to cool down in our children's lifetime. And if we're lucky, maybe in ours too. So that's what I'm asking of you, please act. You're in a position of power. You can make that influence. You can make decisions that make it easier to confront climate change. Or you can make decisions that will put a greater burden on future generations. Of course, I want you to choose the former. I would like to see you plan for a future where South Burlington is a net zero greenhouse gas emitter. Where we contribute no net greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Man, I'm sorry, it's very hot and to prove that point, the room I'm in is very hot. I'm sweating. Where we contribute no net greenhouse gas emissions to the to the atmosphere. And I know that's hard to imagine. It's not the reality we live in today. Luckily, there are experts who have worked on these issues and found a variety of solutions for us. We don't have to do all the imagining alone. So here are some actions that I believe should be part of the solution. One, I'd like to see us transition to net zero buildings. Some of that is is ongoing, but I would like to see it happen that as fast as possible. We need to prioritize ecosystem conservation. We have forests for store carbon. If we cut them down, we lose a critical tool for moving carbon from the atmosphere. And I'd like to see development that reduces vehicle miles traveled. Transportation is a huge part of our greenhouse gas footprint in Vermont. And we need to change this. One of the ways is, I think it would be useful is concentrated development that makes public transit walking and biking practical. So these are a few measures I think will help. And that you have influence over, but there are many more actions you could take. There are many that I can't imagine that you, but that you can. That's why I hope you will keep the vision of a greenhouse gas neutral future with South Burlington at the forefront of your work. That future is possible, but whether we get there or not depends on your choices. So I urge you for the sake of our security and health and economy, and for the glaciers and the forest fires and the droughts and so on and so forth. And I encourage our city on a course that will contribute to climate stability. This might be the coolest summer of the rest of my life. But it doesn't have to be for my children. Thank you very much for listening to me. And I appreciate all your work. Thank you very much, Jason. I think Beth would like to speak and then Donna, would you like to also get so we'll hear from Beth Sigmund first. And then Rosanne Greco after Donna leave him. Hi, and thank you to the city council for hearing my comments. I have to echo everything that Jason Chin said that's also why I'm here tonight. I am a physician at the University of Vermont Medical Center. I also volunteer for the Vermont chapter of the citizens climate lobby. I also volunteer of the Vermont climate alliance and national organization called healthcare without harm.  I think we're at a point where we can maybe hopefully be looking at COVID-19 in the near view mirror. But there is clearly another growing health crisis upon us. In the last two weeks, in the Pacific Northwest, hundreds of patients were seen in emergency rooms and urgent care centers for heat related illnesses, drownings because people were desperate to escape from the heat. There were hundreds more seeking refuge from the heat and air conditioned public spaces. Meanwhile, wildfires are already consuming parts of California earlier in the season every single year. There was flooding in Michigan last week. The governor of Michigan declared an emergency, a state emergency, because of severe flooding. So, you know, I think that we in Vermont, if we're looking to the west, we should be concerned. I don't think that we're immune to such catastrophes and such health related crises. This is fundamentally a crisis that's about our health, the health of our children and our grandchildren. And that's not separate from the health of the planet that we live on, obviously. So I'm here, you know, I could just reiterate everything that Jason Chin said to be, you know, to add emphasis, but I don't think that's necessary. So just, you know, overall, I'm here to urge every member of the city council to please do what you can to confront this crisis and pass the resolution, the climate change resolution that was recently put before you. I think that, you know, if the local government doesn't have specific goals, then we're nowhere. Federal government is consumed with partisan fighting.  You know, the state government is moving as quickly as it can, I think now, but we need to support the state government and have specific targets on the local level that are in alignment with the Global Warming Resolution Act and the Paris Accord. So I'm here to very strongly urge every council member to please vote yes on the climate change resolution. Thanks for letting me speak. Thank you very much. Now we'll go to Donna. Yes. Hi, thanks. And thanks for giving me a chance to just have a say this evening. This is going to be very brief, actually, I've been paying a lot of attention to the work of the Vermont Climate Council. And one of the things they're going to be doing is directing the state of Vermont to consider carbon dioxide reduction planning in the next budget year. Budgeting for the state and hopefully local towns and cities will become a little bit different. It'll become a little bit different because it will consider not only costs and benefits on a dollar basis, but also carbon dioxide reduction. So if you're considering two different contracts or two different choices that carbon reduction becomes a part of each of those choices. And that has to be, that has to start happening at every decision point because, you know, every, every, every project that happens, every planning decision. And every one of those involves choices between do we add carbon or can we create a carbon reduction plan. And, you know, simply that's, that's basically what I think the city can can do and needs to do in terms of climate to climate action. And that's, that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you. And I also echo what Donna just said what Beth said, Jason said, I want to share with you. If you allow me a few paragraphs from a book. I just discovered is called all we can save truth courage and solutions for the climate crisis it's edited by on Elizabeth Johnson and Catherine K. Wilkerson. I want to read a few paragraphs from a chapter written by Kendra Pierre Louise. She is an African American reporter and journalist work for the New York Times. Popular science inside climate news she's the author of the book greenwashed. And she writes writes a chapter and the title of the chapter is Wakanda doesn't have suburbs. You don't know what Wakanda is it's a mythical homeland in the movie the black, a black panther. And this chapter is about the message that we get from this mythical place Wakanda. She starts by saying that she grew up in New York City. And she says and I quote, there was a critical undercurrent of history and science classes, for example, and the idea was perpetual progress. That progress, we are taught has always come at the cost of the environment from smog filled skies to landscapes devoid of birds as chronicled in Rachel Carson Silas spring. And this the idea of progress itself implies that there is something wrong with the present and with our place in it. And the heart of what she says is about Wakanda. She's the message of Wakanda is that there is a country whose greatest technological achievements is maintaining its environment. It's a vision of a modern civilization that looks and feels drastically different from the United States, where an estimated 52% of Americans describe their neighborhood as suburbs. Suburbs emerged in part because cities were polluted with bad air quality and substandard housing. But rather than address those issues, we simply relocated our population and created new issues, not least among them, an increased climate impact. Studies have shown that suburb suburb dwellers have greater greenhouse gas emissions than their urban counterparts. Cities that have more green space are naturally cooler, requiring less air conditioning, lower energy use and making it easier to reduce fossil fuel use and rely on renewable energy. They also reduce the likelihood of minor flooding because unlike cement or concrete hardscaping soil absorbs water instead of having it run off. Green spaces also provide a host of psychological benefits from improving mood and behavior to speeding up healing and increasing students ability to learn. Eliminating suburbs and their longer distant counterparts excerpts, if that's how you pronounce it, could be one way of slashing the country's ecological footprint. No suburbs mean fewer roads to fragment ecosystems, making it easier for animals and plants to survive from promoting biodiversity. Roads also use a lot of cement, which is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as sand, which is often acquired by dredging rivers and other critical ecosystems. These impacts happen regardless of whether or not the vehicle in question runs on gas, electricity, or the hopes and dreams of future generations. It's the whole structure of suburban life and car dependence. That's the problem. And end quote. So what does this mean for South Burlington. We are turning into one big suburb. I moved here about 13 and a half years ago, I started attending planning committee planning commission meetings, about 10 years or so ago. I remember that planning commission at the time were saying the last thing we wanted was more suburban sprawl, while at the same time, writing regulations that encourage suburban sprawl. The development you see in the rural spaces, the Southeast quadrant and other places are suburban sprawl. Since I moved here, I think at least 1000 more homes have been added to suburban sprawl. You're contemplating doing something perhaps I hope on your on our land regulations. Even PUDs, even green PUDs are suburban sprawl. And if we want to get a handle on the climate crisis and actually do something you counselors have the power to do it, put the dots together, protect the ecosystems and stop suburban sprawl. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you, Rosanne. Steve Crowley would like to speak next. Megan, do you need to comment first. My daughter would like to say something to whenever Steve's done. Okay, when Steve's done, then we can listen to Naomi. Thank you. Steve, you have the floor. Great. Thanks very much. I will try to be brief here. I just want to add my voice to the people who've spoken about developing a strong plan on for South Burlington on climate change. It's worth thinking about that question. And I know you've talked about it before in your meetings about, you know, how can an entity like South Burlington play a role in this and I think there are some really important ways that South Burlington can play a role in this. We can't, you know, do the kinds of mandates that could happen at a national level or even state level. But there are things we can do. And I think, you know, some things that need to happen that are going to need to happen can't really be mandated or we don't want to live in a society where we go around mandating people's individual behavior right and left. So, but I think, you know, at low at the local level, we have an opportunity to do some of that work, we can help each other understand we can convince each other we can set up systems where people really start to understand what the challenges are. So I think, I think that's a critical role for local government and other institutions to play. I also want to mention, you know, we have to reduce greenhouse gases certainly, and the faster the better. There's no question about that, but we still will have this challenge to face this isn't going away. It is guaranteed to get worse it's going to keep getting worse and worse for a decade or two. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow. So we've got to figure out a lot of strategies for adaptation. You know the cove crisis gives us some examples of how local people can really step up and help make that happen I just want to mention a few specific examples that I think are particular to place like south front. Well, first of all, our is our infrastructure resilient enough to handle the kinds of changes that are that are in the works for us. Maybe the marsh lab bridge is a good example, but you know, are we really ready for this. What do we have to do to be ready. What about our outdoor workers this is an area that really concerns me a lot and I know we have a lot of outdoor workers since South Burlington people that work for the public works or recreation. What has just happened in the Northwest, hopefully that we don't see that here, but we will certainly see. We will see in our lifetimes, the heat wave that lasts all summer. I'm talking, you know, 8790 degrees that last all summer long. How does that going to affect our RAC department programs how is that going to affect our workers outside. How does that affect our schools you know do we need to have air conditioning or preferably heat pumps cooling every classroom. These are real concerns that we could be thinking about and really, we should be thinking about at the local level. The thing I mentioned is that the impacts that I'm talking about are, and many of the impacts of climate change are likely to be felt unevenly by different members of our population. Food is an example where, you know food prices increase. A lot of us will do just fine with a small increase in food prices but for some people that's just not the case and and so the the lines that we saw during the worst of the COVID crisis to collect food are, you know, we have to be ready so that doesn't have to happen. All of those things are really non regulatory issues that a place like South Burlington can play a big role in so I hope that as you consider rolling out a climate action plan and everything that that those are part of the thinking here as well. So, thank you. Thank you very much Steve Naomi. Are you ready. Yeah, and then then break on to. Hi Naomi. Hi. I would like to read the first stanza of America the beautiful. Of, I would like to read the first stanza of America the beautiful. Good. Oh, beautiful for spacious skies for amber waves of grain for purple mountains, Mount majesties above the fluted plain America America, God shed his grace on the and crowned by God with brotherhood from sea to shining. There you go. Okay. She's just learning that piece. So she wanted to read it. Great. Ray Gonda. And then is there anyone else besides Ray or see the last person looks like it. Okay, you have the story. This is going to be very short and I'm Ray Gonda from South Burlington. This will be very short and my thinking on this is in co it at the moment, but still I just want to plan a seed. Okay, there was an article published in Vermont digger that talks about the nature conservancy. Or is the Vermont let Vermont land trust anyhow Jim shallows, the man who's doing this. A person I've known for some years. About getting credits trading credits for carbon sequestration in protected forests here in Vermont. I don't know if I'm doing this program to see if it works out. But the thought that came to me was we're in the process of proposing to protect forested habitat blocks here. And it probably each one of those separately is is not big enough to join a program like this. Possibly if either landowners got together or there were a city program or even a private program to associate the landowners with each other, so that they could get carbon credits, they could get somebody return on forested habitat blocks that we're reporting to protect. So that's seed I want to plant. I have put a link in the chat box to that article. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no other comments or questions from the public will move on to item four announcements and the city managers report. Do any of the counselors have announcements. I attended the renaming of the wheeler. Sorry, the Underwood Park to the Thomas Hubbard Park with a lot of other people was a really great affair. So proud that we had the opportunity to honor Mr Hubbard with that that name. And so I just wanted to convey that that was a great time. I also attended the economic development meeting. It's Monday and our Google was there to talk about beta technologies and their expansion plans and it's very, very, very hopeful and they're looking to probably build a 200,000 square foot facility out in back of, you know, the Pete's RV area on the quarry area of the airport. So that's all I have. Thank you. Anyone else Megan Matt. We're also at the naming ceremony and Megan was there on a cell phone that her husband was holding so I would agree with you and ironically before that meeting. My husband said, you know that property on Nolan farm road and never can remember it. And I told him well now it has a name Hubbard Park and you'll be able to remember that. So it was a nice thing to do. Okay, our city managers first report to us. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you all here we I do have two guests here in the room with me tonight as well so thank you for joining. I have a few updates I'd like to share with you all in the community tonight. Thank you for your patience with these hybrid meetings as we have two things at the end of the state of emergency and the city hall move collide into one another. We will be doing primarily virtual meetings tonight and net on July 19 with an in person option as required now by state law and really appreciate everyone's patience. I do want to make a quick comment on that about the chat. We like information being shared and community dialogue. If you are using the chat for discussion please know that that may not be part of the public record. And if there's information you want to share, please, you know, on camera yourselves and share it verbally with the full council so it can become part of the public record. So two other quick updates for the council one is because we are our servers will be moving on July 14, we will be warning the July 19 meeting on the 13th so you'll be getting that packet earlier in order to ensure that goes smoothly with the server move. Currently we may need a very short in person special council meeting on the 23rd right before the grant grant opening to both set the tax rate and approve the warrant since we will not be able to do a warrant with the server move next week. So just a heads up about that more to come. I don't know about the server move next week because there will be a day where those of us who work in city hall will be without email and the server we are having a day of service. So all of those employees will be out in our parks doing different clean up activities weeding and painting our dugout so look for city employees running around the city on the 14. A couple of other quick updates last week we were notified by the Vermont economic progress council that we did in the that the governor did sign act 73 that allows our debt incursion period in the TIF district to extend by one year. So that's through March of 2024 that's very good news that we're very thankful to the legislature and governor for doing that it does not extend the end of our debt incurred at the end of our increment increment period so the TIF will still expire in 2037. Later this week Andrew and I will be participating in a briefing for municipalities by the Attorney General's office on his efforts to litigate and settle some of the lawsuits around the opioid crisis. And we hope to bring additional information back to you on what that may mean for us here locally in South Burlington. So as a heads up to the council in the community that we expect construction to start on the Allen Road shared use path on July 12 that will continue through this construction season, likely with small cleanup being done right at the beginning of next construction season. The Wheeler Wayfinding signage is almost entirely installed we're just waiting on the kiosks it looks really great there's never been wayfinding signage there before so encourage folks to get out to the Wheeler house and check out those new trails. And then do a quick last things the city is supporting a Yale University climate change resiliency study at the New Hubbard Park. This will go on for about four years researching different local habitat and how animals and fauna interact. So the public may see about 200 cages set up through that park and to support that effort we will also not be mowing. Most of that park to to enable this study to happen. And then finally, just a reminder to the community that the City Hall 180 Market Street grand opening City Hall and Library will take place on July 23 at 430 and we certainly hope as many community members can come out to that event as possible. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot to mention that I did go to the first Sobu night for the season and I left as the rain started trickling I can't even remember if it got hard or not but there were an enormous number of people there so it was nice I think people really excited to once again be able to gather outside in public with their friends and neighbors and enjoy the music and that beautiful area. And it's every Thursday to August right. Correct. That's my understanding. Yes. Correct. Okay. Let's move on to item five the consent agenda. There's quite a few items. We have the disbursements. Consider and possibly approve an application for better building communities grant from the city clerk, authorizing the city to award public works engineering service contracts and the eight categories outlined to qualify consultants. And then we have the councilor Tim Barrett to the Queen City Park Road bike pet pet stripping study advisory committee approve a resolution honoring the service of Tom Hubbard and naming the park at Spear Street and Nolan farm road that Thomas H Hubbard recreation and natural area. We kind of did that. We didn't quite have a quorum until we were part way through so this makes it more official. And lastly approve and accept the coronavirus local fiscal recovery fund certification, including the appointing of Jesse Baker is the authorized representative and excuse me, Martha may shard as the contact person. I have a motion to approve those what 246 items. I moved to approve and I have one question. We have a second. Okay. Okay, what is your further discussion Megan. Yes, for under Ingalls there's a reimbursement to Ray Ingalls and it doesn't specify for what the disbursements. Oh, so this would be for Andrew. I don't have the invoice right in front of me but be happy to get back to you and other business. That's fine and I'm sorry for. I was, I was stuck without Wi Fi for a portion this afternoon so I apologize. Next time go to one of the parks and start painting or something. They have Wi Fi there. I don't know. So if there's no further discussion, are you ready for the question. Okay, all in favor of approving the consent agenda consent agenda with the six items, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed. So that's four zero with one after so that carries. Moving on to item six. Thank you. Thank you for your question and consideration of the planning. Commission's guidance for the land use intentions in the southeast quadrant. And Paul Connor. Welcome Paul. How's that? He's doing great. 10 weeks and growing. So. I'm here tonight and Jessica. And I believe there might be a couple of other commissioners who are also here this evening. As sort of an update discussion and council feedback. On the subject of land use and and development and open space. So if you recall back in April, the planning commission had provided. You'd had a joint meeting with them and talked about a number of issues and afterwards the commission provided an update letter about where things were with the environmental protection standards. And also had posed some questions about where the council might might be thinking about some areas specifically in the southeast quadrant. The commission has had several, they had their public hearing on the environmental protection standards back in May, and have had a few meetings since that time to work through the hundred plus comments that they'd received. And a fair amount of feedback on various subjects related to different kinds of open space, be it grasslands or agricultural soils or the habitat blocks or other. So the commission worked through individual pieces of that and then over the last couple of meetings had a discussion that was sort of taking a half step back to discuss land use overall, rather than being focused on individual resources and so the chair and staff put a map that was in your packet showing eight areas of the southeast quadrant and these areas highlight portions of the city of the southeast quadrant specifically that are neither that are neither in the current natural resource protection zoning district are not already built so they're not already neighborhoods at least at a large scale are not in the current water quality protection standards of wetlands and stream setbacks and are not in the draft ones that were reviewed by the planning commission of their hearings specifically have a tap walks and steep slopes.  So, as taking a half step back we asked the commission to take a look at eight areas that contained contained buildable land and said commissioners, given all of the worth that you've been doing the last few years. And the council's adoption of interim zoning. Are these, what do you want to see happen in these quote unquote buildable areas. And we pose three questions. We gave everybody a little survey to to think about and then use as a dialogue point for, do you want to see these areas individually or collectively built as neighborhoods with the requisite park space and and housing and various things like that. Do you want to see neighborhoods and accommodation of additional open space that is not otherwise regulated. Or do you want to see these areas be principally open space for the foreseeable future. So, with zoning and or other tools that would see those areas not notice as neighborhoods for the, for the foreseeable future commission had a dialogue on it that looking at these eight areas and what was in your packet is the guidance that they've given to to us, that we're giving to you to see, you know, how well does this align with what you're thinking has been over these past couple of years of interim zoning and and beyond that. So, that's, that's my opening spiel. I will report that this was a robust discussion. The commissioner commission was not unanimous. There were commissioners who felt that that, you know, it on both ends of it. I guess everything that's in here represents a majority of what the commission's opinion was. Okay, Michael has his hand up but I would like to first just ask if Jessica Luisa says chair of the planning commission would like to add any additional comments and then we can take comments. So, I guess, you know, we've been very focused on the environmental protection piece of our task, but you've also tasked us with the, the overhaul of our PUD process or part of the land development regulations as well. So, you know, this discussion is part of what we had brought to you at our last joint meeting. You know, we were interested in some feedback on, you know, where the different PUD tools that we were describing to you might make sense. And if that was really the shared vision that you had as well. So, you know, I know at the time that you had said you weren't really ready to comment on on some of these areas in the PUD at that time. So I think we're, you know, we had this initial discussion and as as Paul said I think that, you know, there were commissioners on both ends of the spectrum and you know the guidance that you have in there is, you know, kind of the result of our conversation but what we haven't done is, you know, work with staff on exactly what this means for for specific tools. You know, so this is kind of a general overview of our discussion and kind of general kind of direction in these areas. Okay. If at any point you'd like to see this in a map. I'm happy to pull it up but I'm also aware that as soon as I pull it up it gets harder to see everybody's face so just if and when you'd like to do that. Okay. Do people want to see a map now or not. Tim, you would like to see the map. Okay. And, and Michael, what you want to put the map up on Paul, and then Chris Trombley said he wanted to make a comment and Michael Miteg has had his hand up so why don't we go to Chris first. Alright, everyone can hear me. Okay, I assume. Thank you. Good evening. So I'm speaking as a resident as an individual. Just when we're thinking about housing and environmental protections and I come back to the question of what kind of community do we want to live in, you know, and for me it's one that provides an opportunity for all to succeed. While maintaining our dormant values, the neighborhoods along Heisberg Road, Dorchester Street and Spirit Street offer those opportunities to preserve our now for resources for all to access and enjoy while making the meaningful impact and housing affordability. Just here's some five real examples of how the affordable housing crisis directly impacts people that I know and love today. You know, my sister who lives in emergency housing, while she waits for such an eight housing. She'd like to live in Chittenden Resting County be closer to her support network, she currently lives an hour away from her guardian. My brother and his family who just bought their first home, you know, a real fixer upper, but it's 45 minutes away from their jobs in South Groenton, right off right on Heisberg Road. And it's more times on the road and it's not time spent with the family and just an electric car just isn't an affordable option. It's my brother who lives with his family while he pays down to student loans, commutes 45 minutes again to his job in South Groenton, renting and saving for a down payment on a home while paying down student loans just isn't an option. And then my sister who graduated magna cum laude from Champlain College and moved out of state for a job that paid about the same but housing was far more affordable. And I asked the city council, give direction to the planning commission for housing the SEC to stick to the Arrowhead report that defines the map as relies on the science and not the subjective opinion of wealthy, not my backyard neighbors who advocacy could make the SEC more unaffordable and exclusionary area to live, prioritize that those scarce building lots as defined in the case for housing, produced by the affordable housing community who reports to the city council. And then just lastly fully endorse the expansion inclusionary zoning citywide to produce more affordable homes that no extra cost taxpayers will be billed by home builders instead of using city resources. The unique opportunity to make a positive impact on Vermonters and future Vermonters by supporting housing affordability while preserving our natural resources that we highly value as a community. Thank you. Okay, thank, thank you. Megan did make a good comment. This was is a council planning commission conversation but I do have Michael Mitag is next up and he's a planning commission member. I just want to remind people this isn't a public hearing, but we did get a letter, we've got two letters from the public late this afternoon so why don't we go to Michael Mitag next. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm what Jessica said that there was by no means any unanimity on the questions that you're being have been asked to comment on tonight. My personal view is that for the planning commission to try to decide where and what kind of housing to build anywhere in the city in the, in the context of the environmental protection standards is is doesn't make any sense. We all did the homework that we were requested to do because the planning commission's work has to continue. But in my view, doing this work in the context of environmental protection standards is wrong. The work that we should be doing is environmental protection, not deciding where and what housing we should build on lots which are not otherwise protected and could be built upon. It's not the planning commission's definition, the word buildable came from somewhere else possibly staff. But that's not a definition that we've used. And I think what we're doing flies in the face of what we're trying what the city is trying to do and what the community is trying to do and what the state is trying to do and what the country is trying to do to mitigate climate change. And having decisions made or recommended recommendations made by the planning commission under the, under the environmental protection standards doesn't, doesn't make any sense and it shouldn't make any sense to counselors either. Okay. Jessica, did you want to respond. I guess, just in the, you know, we've been so focused on the environmental protection standards piece of the task that we've been given by you where we're now trying to transition to also talk about the other tasks that we've been tasked by you, which is the revision of the work in the subdivision and master planning standards. So, you know, I think inevitably there's a push and pull between environmental protection and, and building and, you know, this is a conversation about how kind of both of those fit within our city. So, you know, I think there is a conversation to be had and the question that we've been grappling with is, Okay, we've been talking about environmental protection. Where's the other side of the coin of where might be reasonable to prioritize for, for development, which also is part of our city goals. You know, I think that that's where this conversation starts to come in. For you and maybe I don't know if I said that very articulately, but maybe I'd love to jump in. Yeah, thank you. I would just respond that this map very closely resembles the parcels that the open space committee identified and that we had earth economics do an economic study on, and that both of those pieces were to be provided as direction to the planning commission. And so what I would hope that the planning commission would take from those two studies is that the parcels that were identified as important to the ecosystem that comes from Shelburne pond, all the way up through the southern quadrant up past the actual northwest corner of the southeast quadrant to the potash book goes all the way to red rocks and then into the lake that that is a very precious ecosystem and that is something that the IZ open space committee identified. It is also something that our earth economics report reports on in terms of the value to us. Over 20 years, millions and millions I would say over $200 million at those 20 parcels represent to us over 20 years over $200 million. And I think that that is the direction that the planning commission needs to hear from the council. This was part of interim zoning. I would say that in order to heed that direction from the council, which came through studies it was not arbitrary it was not the five of us meeting in a coffee shop. We had people and citizens bet this we had public meetings we had professionals that Jessica actually pointed out to us from Portland, Oregon, do a study of these 20 parcels. And so if there is going to be a PUD, it should be one that limits the amount of impervious surface to the greatest degree, the one that creates the largest buffer possible between those important natural resources and the buildable impervious area. And I think that it's, I think it's clear, and I'm sorry that it's been difficult for the planning commission to see those studies or to read them or to follow them. But I think it's very clear the direction that this council has provided. Again, not arbitrarily, not the five of us meeting and determining on our from our own, you know, heads. This was done through a thorough public process, as well as through expert and we have dollar figures attached. And so this represents tangible benefits to our city. And I just I think that the dense neighborhoods that commissioners have recommended is out of sync with what this council has provided to you. Through all of this public process and the extensive research done by Earth Economics. Thank you, Helen. Thank you. Other comments from the council. I have, I have some questions. Okay, questions are good too. Yeah. So, Paul, can you help walk me through some of these areas so that if some people don't understand where they are they could visualize in their mind you know looking at this map. Yes, I'm happy to go ahead. So one number one, up right hand corner would be the the southern edge of Butler farms, right, and Heinzberg Road and it's the like that white block of areas probably just north of Claire solar which is the green block between one and two is that is that correct. That's correct. Yeah. And so that is it helpful. Councillor Barrett to highlight what the commission's recommendations were in these areas or do you just want to point out where do you want to just orient at this point I just want to orient first and then you can go back and and I was just suggesting yeah. And then to is the orange area to the left of to is is that cider mill to. That is correct so the cider mill to not yet built but it's fully approved and so for the purposes of the planning commission it was shown as being a neighborhood so the southern end of that, the light green is essentially the to be determined to the final final boundary but the that's the Eau Claire parcel that the city and the Vermont Land Trust have been working to conserve. Okay, and the northern boundary is the clear solar of that one. Okay. And then circle number three, is that mostly Dorset Heights Road, east and west correct it's, it's mostly Dorset Heights Road, the parcels on the west side also touch all the way over to Dorset Street. Right, right, and those are all single family homes at this time right. Yes, except at the bottom left hand corner of the screen you see a little subdivision. Yes, yes, link road and golden rod that has some single families and duplexes on it but the rest are single families. And are those 10 acres where they're full lots. Generally yes there's a couple of five acre lots in there also but the ones that stretch. I'm going to draw out a 10 acre stretch. So that's a 10 acre piece that should be showing up momentarily on your screen. Okay. Yeah. And then there's some smaller ones that are five acres like for example, that's five acres. That's five acres there. Okay. And then looking at number five that's centered mostly on the cider mill market in Delhi right. That's correct. Yeah, that's the orange spot right in the middle here that I'm putting the X over. Okay. And then for is a block of properties that are to the west of Dorset Street and probably bounded to the north by Nolan farm road. Yeah, so on the west side of that is the green blob that's the great swamp the north end of that is essentially Nolan farm road. The south end of it is the doors farms neighborhood, and the east side where you see that blue that's that's where there's a stream and 500 year floodplain going through some of those properties extend all the way over to Dorset Street but not all of them. So that the parcel just north of the number four which borders Nolan farm road was recently purchased by a private individual from a developer right. Yes, that's, I don't know if it's an individual or an entity but yes it was okay whatever yeah and then six is south of cider mill on Dorset Street and those are lots that are on east and west side. I see okay and the Scott property is to the southwest of this number six bubble. Yeah, I'm going to highlight the Scott property this is the city on Scott property here, but I just okay. Yep, yep. Yeah. Okay. And then seven is confused on seven is that on spear street is essentially the long property that is located between both village on spear street. Got it. Got it. Okay. Great. All right then. Thank you very much. I hope that was helpful for other people it was oh and I forgot. Eight is at the very top. Yeah, it's the corner of spear and swift and similar to mill to the orange blob that you see right under the number eight that is. That's the spear meadows neighborhood that has been fully proved right into the north and inside the black lines would be UVM property right. That's correct there's a UVM on parcel that's zoned residential there. Right, right. Okay, thank you Paul. Yeah, would you go ahead with you. Would you just describe number four again. Please. Sure. Number four. Generally represents the parcels that are south of Nolan farm road. Okay. And north of Dorset farms. So that there's four or four or five parcels right in there. The red circle, more or less shows the area between the great swap on the last the left side of the screen. And on the right hand of the screen, there's a stream wetland and 500 year floodplain. Some of those parcels go all the way to Dorset Street, but others don't. Thank you. Sure. And now. Now are you going to tell us what the planning commission came up with in there. Helen, it's okay. Before we get there is have three quick. Sorry, Matt. Sorry. That's right. Paul. I understand that the eight sites all have the three criteria that you listed. Are there other sites that or other parcels either in the SQ or in the city that also fit those three criteria. Meaning that they're not currently protected under certain standards and they're not projected to under the draft regulations and there's nothing currently built buildable as as it were. Yes, there are a number of parcels that are buildable around the city. The commission's focus was really here. Largely because the, there had been some discussion around the comprehensive plan and grasslands and agricultural soils. There may yet be further discussion among on other parcels, but as a general answer to your question. Yes, there are others. Great. Two more quick questions. The second is of these eight parcels. Did you investigate are you aware of covenants that are on the land that would restrict development or of, or commercially if there's any projects that are either at sketch plan, or, or maybe introduced as develop projects that you are considering at the administrative level. It is 730 just wanted everybody to know it's 730 for the hearing. That's right. Well, that should be the public hearing is probably pretty short so. We also have our special guests. Yes, Jesse. My reading is as long as the public hearing starts after 730 after the war and time you can push it back a little so if we if you wanted to pause this conversation. Go to the special guest come back to the public hearing and then return to this discussion, you could. Okay, is that okay with everyone here. Okay, you see me. I would like to welcome our. So thank you Paul for and will continue to that. Okay, thank you. I would like to welcome a former governor Madeline Cune in to this very important first meeting of the first female city manager for the city of South Burlington. You know what it's like to break that glass ceiling because you did it yourself. And I know you have a connection with Jesse so you. We invited you to maybe make a few observations. Before you do that I just want to say I love your book of poetry and encourage everyone on the call to purchase one it was. It was just fabulous and I've shared it with some friends and they've all agreed with agreed with me. It was particularly nice to me because I knew john, but I am we're sort of similar age. So it was really a masterpiece. Thank you. You came. Thank you for inviting me to pop in on your meeting and I don't want to take too much time to take you away from your important civic work. And Megan invited me and told me about Jesse. And that she was the first woman to be a city manager, and that her mother, I knew her mother who worked in the legislature at the legislative council where she helped draft bills. And it also turns out and this is really interesting timing that when I knew her, she was pregnant with was it with Megan or with Jesse. She was pregnant with Jesse, and look what Jesse is now, and that I at the time encouraged her and admired her for working and drafting bills and being pregnant and not letting anything stop her. Jesse, if you're hearing me, I congratulate you and you bring back fond memories of your mother and that whole period of my life and South Burlington has had really good representation and you're working hard on further changes and the growing economy. So the hardest work is still local politics. I think it's harder than being in Congress in some ways, because all your neighbors know all the right answers to all the questions that just struggling with potholes still need to be fixed and needs to be figured out. So it's really where people live and where they're most concerned of Megan asked if I would read one poem. So it was hard to choose, but I decided to read a poem that I wrote during the height of the pandemic. When I felt I felt I was too limited, we had to be very careful, we couldn't socialize. And it was one of those darker days in the pandemic. And then I went outside for a walk and was just struck by the beauty of the day in the blue sky. So this is called blue sky. And I don't have the right pair of glasses, but I'll do my best. So it's called blue sky.  Except now, I stretch my neck and raise my head and keep it there until it hurts to look at the blue sky. Long ago, before coronavirus, I looked at the sky for weather, or at night for stars. The blue sky gave me answers by the hour. I didn't even say thank you. Yesterday I went for a walk and gazed upward, expecting little. I looked up at the blue sky. The longer I looked, I saw more layers of blue. The blue sky had depth, a clean teacup of blue without a crack. I could see through one blue to find another blue. The longer I held my head up, blue became more blue, until I continued my walk and thanked the sky for being blue. Thank you for listening. Thank you. A person, but have a good rest of the meeting and have a wonderful new adventure with your new city planner, city person, and keep on doing the right things for your public for your constituents and thank you so much for including me tonight. Well, thank you. Jesse, do you want to Sure. Governor, thank you so much for being here and, and you're right. Nothing has ever stopped my mom. She's on the phone right now actually listening to you and, and I aspire to live up to her strength every day, growing up and watching you lead our state and watching a woman be able to hold that position. Definitely influenced my leadership and who I am and I will work very hard to live up to your reputation as well. And I hope that there are young people watching the city of south Burlington and watching what the leaders in south Burlington are doing over the weeks and months and decades to come and see themselves in these positions of leadership as well. So thank you governor for being here and your very kind words and I agree with Helen your poetry, your book of poetry is just exquisite. Thank you. Thank you so much. And good luck. And I know you'll do a great job. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's been my pleasure. Thank you. Well, it's been our honor. Thanks. So we will move on quickly then to item seven, the public hearing on the proposed ordinance regulating the use of public and private sanitary sewage and stormwater systems and the stormwater upgrade feasibility analysis. That's quite a transition of topics. So David Wheeler, the stormwater superintendent is David here. There's so many little names have you shown are you. Oh, there's Tom here in the room with us. Oh, okay. All right. Great. So we went through this two weeks ago. Are there any do you want to make some opening comments or should I just open it to public comment. Helen one item can you have David Wheeler totally exactly identify himself because it just says that he was out Burlington. I know you alluded to the fact that that was him but I just rather have him say it. Yeah, it's pretty small. So Dave, why don't you identify yourself for the record. I think we should do something about stormwater superintendent. Okay. And Tom, are you going to be speaking or just back up. I'm just back up tonight but Tom to Petro city shop or and can deputy director of environmental services over public work. Okay. So are there some opening comments or do you want to just go right to this is a public hearing so if there's anyone in the public who wishes to make a comment. So we have a Molly with her, her phone on does that mean you wanted to speak to this issue Molly, or is that just what happens when you're a caller. No, no. Are there any. No comment me. No comments from Molly that's just dialing and why it shows me as not muted. All right. So we have a couple of comments on the spot. Are there any other any rosanne. I don't have a comment I have a question. And I'm sorry I haven't followed this issue. Is there going to be some sort of overview of what you want us to comment on, or where we're supposed to read something first. Well, the whole proposal was in the packet. It's a lot to read. David, maybe you can just highlight a lot of it is, as I understand it is really just correcting things and bringing it up to speed and there's only I think two areas that are significant change is that right. A very quick overview. So basically the state is finalized their state storm water general permit. That was December 1 2020. And so we just want to bring our ordinance with two ordinances addressing storm water. We have ordinance regulating the public and private sanitary sewer and storm water systems and have the city ordinance storm water upgrade feasibility analysis. Some deadlines that we established so that way they're consistent with the state deadlines now. We also want to update their state tiered structure for storm water treatment practice selection at the state is adopted, and we want to have hours be in line with that. We have some various punctuation and etc items. We've also included a formalized cost-bearing policy. So the way that we split cost-bearing with neighborhoods in the city. And then we want to formalize the practice of all property owners going through a super process that's our storm water upgrade to feasibility analysis just for consistency. There are some language included in the other ordinance previous students kind of want to shift process under one documents. And then we've also tweaked the storm water mitigation structure to incentivize folks to implement storm water treatment on their site rather than just pay a fee to get out of that. Okay. That was a good synopsis. Are there any comments or questions by counselors. I would entertain a motion to. Oh, Roseanne. Thank you. And now that was a summary, just a quick question. You're saying you are aligning our regs with the state regs. Is the is doing that making making it more environmentally responsible, or less. I mean, our race. More environmentally friendly or the states and so we're going to increase our sorry this is my curtain blowing from the wind. And it will, will that make us more environmentally responsible regarding storm water and this issue. Yeah, so one of the items was just construction deadlines so that really doesn't have an impact it's just when things need to get done by we want to have one consistent deadline versus two different ones. We are actually more strict than the state previously. And then they brought their standards up to, you know, similar standard as us, but they just had a slightly different layout. And I would argue that theirs is probably better than ours have been it's how you select type of storm water practice on site and so they have prioritized infiltration is the number one which gets the greatest food production. And then moving on to tier two and tier three. So words being consistent with that. And I think anything we're strengthening our regulations and not doing the opposite way. Thank you. Tim, there. Can you, this is, I don't want to drag this out but can, can you and Tom kind of bring us up to speed on the homeowners associations in South Burlington and just roughly, you know how many of the associations are in compliance and are, are validated under the MS for permit with the state, and and how many aren't and, and is there a timeline to get everybody caught up and Yeah, so really, you know, more or less under the state's permit, their 9050 permit, each of those ways that it has an expired permit. They also have a deadline, the state established that that line. So we're just deferring to the state's deadlines. And it all depends on where you're located within the city, which storm or water paired watershed you're in or if you're outside of storm water impaired watershed. But I mean that's also settled down. I don't have my strategy. That helps at all. Well, so the question is so as the state starts tightening the regulations more and more over the next maybe 50 years right for those ways that have have worked to deal with storm water division and conveyed, you know, their, their catchment systems to the city. And as, as those regulations become tighter, will those ways have to share in the cost for changes that need to be made to those now city storm water ponds. Yeah, so there's I think two things to address that one is we adopted for a 20 year period. So if something significant happened during that 20 year period, we wouldn't necessarily have to renew that. Because if everything stays the course, we would just have them reapply and we, you know, continue to maintain their system. But we do have language that if the city or the state wants to roll out some greater standards that we have to meet that they would be on the hook for cost sharing in that. That leads to that. Is that all you have Tim. You know, I might contact Dave separately later on just for some more information. Okay. Thank you. Megan. Thank you, Helen. I was curious to know how long is it take. Let's say that there is a change in the, you know, climate that changes our weather systems and patterns to the point where the current regulations and systems are no longer available. How long would it take to react to. Are we based on, you know, the storm tropical storm Irene currently. Are we based on foreseen conditions. We only treat for pollutants up to one inch storm event. That's the water quality storm. And then there's this channel protection storm which is essentially two inches of rainfall within 25 hour period. And, you know, there's studies showing that that does most significant amount of erosion over time to stream banks. And then you have things like the hundred year storm where you just have to safely convey that storm. You know, completely wash out. And the city actually in our LDR is we have a requirement for me to be 25 years strong currently. So for any new development comes through, they have to have pipes in place that can convey the 25 years storm safety. But it doesn't make sense to remove pollutants from the 25 years storm as the majority are in that first flush with the first one inch. So they have been key performance curves. The greater size storm you designed for the less big bucket in terms of gluten removal, because again most of that pollution concentration isn't the beginning of the storm that first washes off. Right. But if we're looking at the fact that 100 year storms are now going to be our 25 year storms. And we look at what happened with Katrina, right, where we had petroleum products. We had, you know, the amount of pollution was just we, the system in place could not mitigate it. Right. So if we had to plan for Katrina, let's just say that, right, or for tropical storm Irene on a 25 year basis. Are we ready. So for Katrina style events where you have potentially whole neighborhoods submerged, you know, but at that point the storm water conveying systems that the catch basin sites are no longer what's conveying storms completely the topography of the land. So at that point, it would be changes. And then you're into more kind of industrial permits where ensuring that, you know, tanks of patrolling products are properly stored in things like that. And there are other toxins as well, right, that could easily be washed into that that major rush of water. And do you. So this does not necessarily address that that would be addressed by different planning tools. So, Tom, I, this is the setup is like, yeah. So Tom, I see you trying to raise your hand as well. Yeah, I just wanted to know. So we're getting some like the technical standards of storm water treatment system design into Tim's question, we'd love to come back sometime and get into where the state permit stuff stands I think if folks want to hear it would be happy to tell that story because very interesting what we've been doing over the years but to get to Megan specific question, baked into the technical standards Megan is the store as the storms changed kind of the average storm changes with that 25 or 10 year. It's not just changing it updated it's not just set it two inches you know it goes back and looks at a 20 year record, and if it changes over that record then the storm size will increase. How often is it changed Tom. The state switched from doing it on their own to using in Noah Atlas. So I think that's updated like annually but I can get I can look at that. It's much more often than it used to be. Okay, just speaking as someone who lives in the DNL. The day night line for the F 35 do not accurately represent the 118 decibels right so the 20 year span might not be the measure that we should be using right now. I just wanted to put that out there. I think that, you know, I'm ready to pass this but I think that we all would be wise to know that this is not adequate. I think, in my view anyway, for what could come. And then Sarah duck. Yeah, I wasn't able to hear exactly what David said in response to Tim's questions but maybe I have a different question and that is, are there are there are we are there many homeowners associations or other areas of the city that are currently out of compliance. In compliance and therefore the discharges are polluting the lake. Maybe Tom could answer that because I couldn't care David's the audio from from where he is not very good. I'm happy to jump on that one as well. There are a number of neighborhoods who haven't brought their systems up to current standards or compliance right so they're not providing the kind of treatment that newer systems are. And so part of the ordinance is doing right is trying to, there's two pathways people in South Brunken can get into compliance they can come under our MS for they can get a permit from the state. And so we're just kind of aligning those things in the ordinance. But there is more work to be done. Yes. Sarah. Yeah, thanks. First, just a question. I too was not following this issue for this meeting I apologize but does this have anything to do with sewer treatment as well or are you talking purely stormwater here. Okay, I won't be labor it then, but some of us had occasion to be looking at the sewer ordinance, not too long ago, I don't six months or something like that. And just as a piece of writing I thought if you were recrafting some of the wording this might be timely but it doesn't apply. The wording of that ordinance seem to be largely just a procedural list of how to apply for a permit. And, you know, just just as a piece of prose it didn't have any introduction or purpose statement or anything like that that would sort of set the scene for the ordinance and so I was going to throw that in but I can't speak to the stormwater aspect only the only the sewer one so for what that's worth. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments, Rosanne. Yeah, sorry to belabor this, but I find understanding what Megan was trying to get at is that these ordinances were written. There are some embarrassing dramatic impacts from the climate crisis. So, what may have been what happened in previous decades is not what's happening now I mean look at Irene. I mean that could that caught so much of Vermont off guard so, and I think maybe Michael was getting at this. Are we prepared to this ordinance. Does that prepare us for likely events that science says is coming our way. And the more, and we have so much more impervious surface that has to affect the stormwater and the capacity in normal times. It's a general question but boy if we're doing something now's the time we ought to, you know, make sure we're prepared to handle the, you know, the dramatic climate impacts that they say are coming. A question of resilience. Yeah, so break that into, you know, we have the neighborhoods with their store monitor treatment system in place, then they discharge to a stream. Then we have culverts in those streams or bridges. It's almost, you know, what you're just talking about is more matter of are the bridges and culverts adequately sized, which is kind of outside the scope of what this ordinance addresses and where, you know, folks are getting the fire food reduction and then the city's willing to maintain those systems. So I kind of see though this to slightly separate issues. In the future is that something that you think or Tom would be appropriate to really look at for our, our ordinances to really think of it in terms of some of the climate changes and our resilience and preparedness. That one. So we've done a number of things to prepare for these storms that everybody's describing right if we've increased our minimum culvert sizing where we're sizing streams, I'm sorry, sizing culverts and pipes in the road larger than we used to. We're doing detention we're looking at floodplain storage so we are being pretty proactive. And I think we're talking about any ordinance here is helping people get those permits, right. So they don't have those expired, they're going to cause trouble during real estate transactions, so that they are upgraded to provide appropriate treatment like Mr. And happy to talk about kind of the extreme storm event thing and areas of risk and things like that because I know we've done some of that as well with Paul and planning and zoning and our hazard mitigation plans and things like that as well. And one good example, when a market she was being redone, we replaced the culvert that went underneath Market Street, we made it a large box culvert, because we saw the opportunity that we were totally doing Market Street in the best time to replace culvert was before that road project happens. Right, we certainly put in the storm water stuff for the school as well as the 180 Market Street, it was definitely an upgrade in terms of the environment. Right, but when we see the building collapse in Miami, because of the water under the pool. I mean we don't know the exact specifics of it, but we have to be very aware that we could be seeing dramatic changes. And I certainly, you know, knock on wood. We will not see that in South Burlington so it's not, you know, I am concerned that we are not prepared for what is to come and I'm concerned by the, the, the slowness in adapting. Yeah, so. Although that is probably a separate issue than these ordinance updates. Except I hear from these updates that were not ready for what's to come, but it's an update. So I will pass it, but it's hopefully going to be followed by an update with regard to 100 year storms happening every 20 years. Okay. Are there any other comments, questions from the public or the council. I would move that the amendments to the ordinance regulating the use of public and private sanitary sewerage and storm water systems and storm water upgrade feasibility analysis be approved. Second, second, Tim Barrett seconded as are there any other questions, any further discussion. I was never signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. So the motion carries for zero with one absent. Thank you very much, Tom and David. Thank you. And now let's go back to planning commission guidance. I think it's about 186. And I think Paul Connor was about to share with us what the planning commission. Is recommending for changes to the environmental conservation rules related to these eight areas. follow-up questions. So remember, any questions that we have for your commission? Chief Jonah Cota's first and then getting there. Thank you. I'm sorry. You had asked about whether there were any private. E's mints. That were part of the discussion. So the commission did talk about that a little bit. I will note the private easements are, you know, they're outside their private. They're outside of our regulatory tool. That said. Um, it's our understanding that there's a agreement among I believe seven of the, um, homeowners there that four or five of them must agree in order to have additional development take place amongst any of their properties. And, um, uh, on the property in an area number four south of doors, excuse me, south of Nolan farm road, the properties that were at one point under consideration for being Dorset meadows. Our understanding is that there's a covenant that restricts the two northerly properties that you see in a number four to no more than nine homes each. Again, the commission is aware of these, but it's not the guiding. It's a separate level of legal entity. The one other thing that I will say that the commission sort of took note of was the existence of infrastructure and where the limitations of infrastructure are in the southeast quadrant specific to, uh, um, I think it's specifically of waterline and water pressure stuff. So I think you might have had a second question for me. Also the last thing, and I think it is helpful for you to go through the recommendations and for us to ask questions if we have time and the chair allows, um, but the, the conclusion after you go through the recommendations is that the planning commission could look at regulatory tools. Is there certain regulatory tools that are contemplated? Um, and as the planning commission spent time thinking about the different design of those tools or tools that you already have, what, what are they? Yeah, thank you, Matt. Um, so, so yes, the context of this discussion is largely what, what would, what should the regulatory environment look like? And I think that's an important point that I, I wanted to hit. So thank you for asking the question that the, uh, there are a number of recommendations that have been made, um, to the city council, to the planning commission that can look at the other tools and powers of the city, including acquiring land or conserving land, as you have done in the with, um, what is now the Thomas H. Hubbard, uh, park, for instance, or the Eau Claire arrangement. But this is really about regulatory tools. The tools that the commission, so this conversation, we asked the commission to take a step back from individual tools because it's very easy to get sort of stuck into the, you know, what if we tweak the tool this way or that way, but the tools under consideration largely are, uh, the current tools, which are the natural resource protection district, the boundaries of that could be moved. Um, the underlying zoning districts could be adjusted and allowances for TDRs to be used or not used could be adjusted within our existing tools. And of course, the work that the commission's been doing both on the environmental protection standards, which has focused on specific natural resources like habitat blocks, floodplains, wetlands, things like that. And lastly, the use of the tools that have been developed under the PUD work as part of interim zoning, including neighborhoods, um, uh, and, uh, conservative, potentially conservation plan unit developments and how one or both of those tools could be applicable in the right place. But, um, again, we, we asked the commission to take a half step back, um, because it's very easy to get lost at the tool when the big picture question for the council, for the commission, and our read from the staff end of, you know, a part of why you adopted interim zoning was to take a holistic look, take a step back and say, what's the regulatory environment, big picture, um, that you want to create to foster neighborhoods or, uh, and or, um, additional open spaces through a regulatory tool. Matt? Thank you for that, Paul. That was really helpful. I was just, I guess I will, it should ask the point directly, which is, you know, you're considering different PUDs, conservation PUD in the traditional neighborhood design. Um, is, would that be considered under this discussion as a regulatory tool, for instance, in, in one area? No, saying that this is absolutely a conservation PUD, not a traditional neighborhood design or vice versa. Would that be a tool that you would consider? Yes, so that could be a tool. Um, yes, that's an exact, that's a perfect example of a tool. I would say another tool could be if the city is very clear that a certain area should not be a neighborhood and it knows the geography of that. The conservation PUD allows for, for the conservation to be identified at the time of development review. The tool that the city in the past of the natural resource protection is one in which the city identifies upfront. Here's the areas where we want to see open space long-term and here's the areas we want to see neighborhoods. So that tool could also accomplish it if the city is ready to say, yes, we know in this area that we want to have conservation as just a straight geography rather than having it be assessed through the development review process. And that's why we want to take a step back. There's been a lot of feedback, a lot of discussion in front of you, amongst you at the planning commission level of what do you want to be achieving through the end of interim zoning? And so this is sort of a gut check, frankly, of the areas currently showing white would be under the current regulations and under the proposed PUDs and environmental protection standards that were warned for public hearing a month ago. These would all be able to be neighborhoods. That's where the current draft is. And so this is really a, is this the direction that you want to be going? The commission reviewed that and I'll go through what their recommendations were in a moment. I very much appreciate you phrasing that as a question, Paul, because I believe that that was how I understood this agenda item to be and not recommendations that we received from the planning commission, but rather what direction is the council wishing to provide to the planning commission. You and Helen and I sat in with Jesse had a conversation about this agenda item, and that is how I understood it. And I think that, and I'll repeat it because you asked the question, we have, the council has, we have received the open space report. We have approved it. We received the earth economics report. We endorsed it. We have provided that to the planning commission to use in order for them to know which parcels we wish to be prioritized for conservation and for there to be perhaps the conservation PUDs or other, other solutions that are outside of the regulatory environment to, to be used in order to, to conserve that land as much as possible to nothing right is, is absolute here. We're operating in an uncertain world, but I, I do believe that we have provided that we provided it over a year ago. I hope that it is clear and I would hope that the planning commission and perhaps Jessica, if she has questions or other commissioners could ask questions about those reports, what is in clear about those reports? Why are we seeing dense neighborhoods being recommended by commissioners on, on areas where the two reports approved by the council, we have identified for top conservation and we furthermore have a dollar sign attached to that conservation area for what it brings to our community. I, I would just like to, Helen, if it's all right, just respond to that directly. I wasn't on the council and did not approve those reports. Correct. I want to make that clear. I'm sorry, I muted it because the dog was wandering around. Matt, if you would like to respond, you may. And then I know Paul and Jessica wanted to say something as well. Well, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't on the council. I was elected this March. So, you know, I have may have a different opinion than the prior council's opinion and that's fine. I just want to make sure that we don't speak for each other. We speak for as individual counselors. So, you know, I can reserve my comments for the end after I hear more. Okay. Thank you. Paul and then Jessica. Maybe if council really maybe have Jessica speak first and then I'll speak. Okay, Jessica. She's chair. I see you, Michael, but I want to get some other people in. Yeah. So, I appreciate what you actually both said and that is the case that we are interested in council feedback. You know, I do think that some of the reports, you know, you also commissioned an economic report as well that looked at, you know, kind of gave some direction that in areas where we are going to see development, it should be done in a smart way where it's compact. You know, I think we got some initial feedback at our joint meeting from you that I'm sorry. Can I just clarify was that done by I'm trying to recall the name John Stewart. I don't know that we approved or endorsed that, Jessica. He gave it to us, but we did not approve or endorse that report by John Stewart. We did receive it though. Yeah. We have seen it. We have seen it. You commissioned it and saw it. Yeah, we did. So, you know, I guess what we're coming back is, you know, at our joint meeting, we presented one or two. So the TND, which is kind of a dense development as well as the conservation PUD. There's also tools like Paul was saying about underlying zoning. So when we're talking about potential neighborhoods, I don't think the commissioners were making the leap to say that each of these white areas on the map would be that dense neighborhood. And that's part of the feedback that we're interested in. That is one potential outcome, but not not what the commission is saying. This is what we want to go forward. That's why we're having this conversation. We are very interested in your opinion. So the notes about what the commission's discussion was last week are not what I would say a recommendation to you, but a guidance as to what our initial conversation was for feedback and your comment. Thank you. I appreciate that, Jessica. Thank you. Paul. Thank you, Councilor really. So maybe this would be a good point to jump into what the commission's discussion was last week. So again, their starting point was these white areas. Would this be an okay time to talk about what their thinking was as to how to what regulatory tools to look at? Well, unless there are some other counselors who would like to weigh in in terms of what they are thinking about, and I will just quickly weigh in and then we can hear what the commission talked about. My preference would be, and I think the whole purpose of IZ was to looking at these eight circles and the white portions in them is to minimize development there in order to protect the natural resources and sustainability of our community. And so, I mean, I could certainly see a conservation PUD in some places, but I had hoped there would be, I guess, more conservation of grasslands, of long waterways, of habitat, more than you did, frankly. So that's my perspective of this, but I would be interested to hear how what your, I mean, I listened to some of them because Ted's on the committee, but he wasn't able to get into the last one, so I didn't hear your most recent one on the 22nd, I guess it was, or the 29th, but I certainly would be interested in hearing what the commission came up with as their conclusions. Helen, this is Tim, my video is on the fritz. Can I comment? Yes, you certainly may. Yeah. So I appreciate what the planning commission has talked about, and I want to hear the comments soon, but my only commentary is that, you know, they're, as you descend south in the southeast quadrant in my estimation, you get closer and closer to this natural buffer zone around Shelburne Pond, and almost all the land surrounding it has been conserved and moving up into South Berlin with the Eau Claire property as well, and the Scott property is part of the city, and we have, you know, impending conservation easements on the Weether property, and we have the new Thomas Hubbard recreation and natural area that the city owns as well. So there are areas that we've outlined very strongly because of the reports that we commissioned that have hazards that should be avoided at all costs from being developed, but there are also other areas where we have asked the planning commission to provide for us, you know, these new PUDs, these conservation PUDs, where we don't squander land that is buildable, but we do it in a smart fashion where we mix, you know, different types of building types in order to achieve densities that preserve as much open space as possible, yet provide housing for people that want and need it, right? So I mean, if I look at an area just south of Butler Farms, which is the Marceau property, I believe, right? I mean, that was basically a cornfield as so was, you know, the Claire solar field for decades and decades, and I don't know how much glyphosate was sprinkled on that to enhance corn production, but you know, there is some wetland area in the northern area of that property, but you do have an opportunity when you have all city services in an adjacent other neighborhood to extend the neighborhood and create a new neighborhood of a new type, which is what the planning commission is supposed to deliver, which we asked them to do with the conservation PUD. And the question is, as you get into smaller parcels and you head further south, when you get into those sensitive areas near the Great Swamp, I think that the restrictions could get higher so that we don't squander any land if we can avoid it and not make mistakes like we did where we made a connector between South Village and Dorset Farms running right across the Great Swamp. So there are things that we need to do and there are things that there are other things that we need to look at very closely to try and achieve that balance between billetability, livability, and green open spaces. So that's all I want to say. Thanks. Thank you, Tim. So Paul, do you want to? Sure. So I'm going to turn on a layer here that is, again, it's going to be sort of circles because the commission has not looked at specific exact boundaries, but they looked through each of the eight areas and for each of them, they gave some, you know, where they're standing on the subject of neighborhoods, conservation, or a mix. So I'm going to see here in a second this bright pink that I'm about to put on right here. So the bright pink areas here are areas that the commission in their discussion felt should be prioritized for additional regulatory conservation, meaning largely conservation, minimal future development. So you'll see that in area one in the top right hand corner, that shows the area that's essentially above 420 feet elevation, which is where our water pressure ceases to be useful. It also overlaps largely with the prime ag soils in that area. In area number two, you see the northern end of it up against the Marceau Orchard being an area for potential something like adding to the NRP. South of that, you'll see there's sort of a light blue color. That's an area that the commission wanted to target for something like a conservation PUD, but they also gave very mindful that those two particles are both part of the Eau Claire agreement that the city council signed on to and want to be making sure that any tools are not countervailing the whole purpose of that agreement and this city council's significant investment. Area three along Dorset Heights, the commission felt that the wildlife buffer that is sort of on the right hand side of those properties should be widened to essentially the back of the homes that are along Dorset Farms, I'm sorry, Dorset Heights. Area four, the commission, this is again the area between South of Nolan Farm, between the Great Swamp and the flood plain slash stream that runs parallel to Dorset Street. The commission felt that this should be prioritized from a regulatory and non-regulatory perspective of being little to no additional development, something like the NRP. Area five, they felt and also the parts of area three, I guess I'll stick with conservation then come back to neighborhoods. Area six, they felt that the southern portion of that furthest away from the mill market in Delhi should be prioritized for conservation. The areas outside of that, the ones that you see that don't have blue or pink, are areas that the commission felt jived with the city's goals for compact neighborhoods. So around the mill market in Delhi, further north on Dorset Street, the portion on the Marso property south of Butler Farms that is not constrained by the resources that we just talked about, the area that's surrounded by Sider Mill 2, that property there. And then further to the north and east, the commission felt that on the long properties, number seven, that the areas west of the north-south connector roadway would be appropriate for a future neighborhood, whereas east of that roadway should really be protected as part of the Great Swamp. And then for the area at the very far north, UVM has offered to have a holistic discussion with the city about all of its holdings and sort of shared goals. The commission felt that that might be a worthwhile conversation, and so at this time didn't have any recommended changes from the neighborhood designation of that property at the far north end of that. So that's the commission's overall big picture discussion. I guess the last thing that I wanted to say was regarding Councillor Emory's note of the 25 parcels, the 25 parcels are an important consideration in all this for the commission. From a regulatory perspective, the city's responsibility has to be looking at the context and not individual properties. And so whereas there may be an acre parcel right next to a 30 acre parcel that had been prioritized, the city's responsibility is to look at both the three acre and the 30 acre, hence why the conversation is a little bit of a bigger picture. But this is the whole purpose of this conversation of the commission's discussion and then ultimately the council's discussion of what do you want to see built as neighborhoods and what do you want to see from a regulatory perspective remain as long-term open space. So that's my spiel. Okay. Comments. Megan. Thank you, Paul, and I appreciate that. And of course the 25 parcels that were identified were not intended to be fully conserved parcels, but that those parcels should be treated differently. And so I'm glad to hear you say that they were. That's reassuring to me. And what I would say is as far as within the southeast quadrant where housing should go, I think that if we're considering affordable housing, what we must consider is transportation, is economic development, where are the jobs in that southeast quadrant? And I would argue that they're maybe just north of the southeast quadrant, perhaps some other areas, but we would have to look at that. And we have to consider that we have to do more than just build housing. We have to build housing that is a covenant on it to be affordable in perpetuity because this argument that more housing will lower the prices is false. It is self-interested and it is false. And as I said in my meeting with Helen and Paul and with Jesse, where is the affordable housing in Chicago? It's the public housing. That's the affordable housing in Chicago. So wherever government and all of these nonprofits have invested in order to provide affordable housing, that is what will be affordable housing for Chris's sister, for my children, for your children, and also Chris's sister and your children and my children will be able to live in a place where when there are 100 year floods every 20 years, their houses will not be washed away, where their water, their drinking water has the potential of remaining clean, where we potentially could still have farming occur because we don't have perhaps money to buy food that is sent in from other places, which will now be increasingly expensive as we move forward. So we have to think very carefully about the life of Chris's sister as well as the life of the children that we hope will move into these homes. How will they be affordable? It's not just by building market housing. It will not work. We have to invest in affordable housing and we have to have covenants in order for that housing to remain affordable in perpetuity and we have to think about farming and providing local foods, local produce. When my daughters told me she was learning America the Beautiful and that first stanza is the original poem and what happens on those prairies, the fruited planes, well those fruited planes are in drought right now and we might not get fruit or they're burning in California. So when I heard her cite that to me today, it brought tears to my eyes and I said you know Naomi, if you'd like to say it to the council because that song will soon be outdated and we will have to rely on what we have in our gardens and I am being very serious. This is an emergency. It has been declared an emergency and so yes, let us provide for Chris's sister for our children but let us make sure that they have everything they need. Just having a house that will be destroyed and where you will not be able to afford it is not providing for them. So I just wanted to say that and I'm sorry it's emotional because it's very real. I'm talking human extinction. Every day 150 species go extinct. 150, 150 and we're a species and we're not the smartest or the most resilient. Okay, thank you Megan. Are there other comments by council members to help clarify? I would just like to say something Helen. Yes. You know we, in response to Councillor Emory, we are at a certain point in time. We have a certain current state of affairs. We have a common roots organization that grows a lot of vegetables at two or three locations and makes them available to the citizens of our city and also prepares that in farm to table and on certain nights of the week. They grow a lot of food. They have a very productive farm at South Village. We also have bread and butter farm at Southeast Quadrant. It's very productive. They're grazing. They're doing a great job as stewards of the land. So we are working on that or have positive results from those projects and we will continue to have those. We have an excellent storm water division that has done a great job ensuring that our storm, their number one objective is to make sure I think that the water that goes into Lake Champlain meets the state limits on on phosphorus load and other pollutants so that that drinking water which the Champlain water system pulls back up and delivers to our homes is still drinkable. Right now apart from changes in our weather, whether it's drought or or it's deluges in water. I mean we have infrastructure that is doing a pretty good job protecting us right now. We you know you can you can try to plan for the 100-year event or the 200-year event and I acknowledge that but our current state of affairs we have good infrastructure. We have I think we have good bike-ped interconnection among our neighborhoods. The city is still a growing entity. We still have land that that is buildable and can create housing for people that need homes. I think that if you look and see that if you build more housing depending upon what the cost is and whether it's affordable or not that you will end up moving people up that conveyor chain from less from from the lower cost housing to the higher cost housing as these families move up an income and you free up those homes at the lesser cost and so that gives people the opportunity to move in. The hillside O'Brien farm is doing very right well right now with lots of different types of people retirees people with families and that's the kind of thing that we want where people bring and and create neighborhoods that are sustainable. I understand the arguments to try and conserve land and the planning commission is trying to give us those tools for those parts of the southeast quadrant that are the most at risk and that are the most natural within our city and so I think we have to keep our eye on the ball for trying to do that conservation correctly and not waste that kind of of land. So I'd like to keep the discussion going forward and and not put it in a context of being a doomsday scenario counselor Emery. If we can just avoid that a little bit and move the ball forward and get through IZ and come up with the regulations that we asked for in the first place that would be a constructive thing to do. Tim with all due respect it is not constructive to plan for now. It is constructive to plan for 20 years from now and that is what I'm asking that we consider here and with all due respect I will not call you an ostrich putting his head in the sand if you stop calling me a doomsday. I am being realistic. I am reading science reports and I take issue with what you have to say. I understand thank you. But somebody has to say the opposite Megan and give a different perspective. I hear the same perspective and I think that's helpful. Except how much are the O'Brien homes selling for Tim? I don't have the exact numbers but every house is selling for 40% more. My home is valued at 343,000. Let's try to make this a constructive conversation and not firing shots at each other. Matt did you want you put your light on? Did you want to say something? And then I would ask if Jessica or Michael or anyone on the planning commission Paul have any questions clarifying questions for us? My only comment was to say that I see an optimistic scenario here in which we have a inclusionary housing ordinance which we are committed to creating affordable housing in perpetuity. I think that's a good thing. I agree with many people who are talking about expanding that beyond where it currently is and we have seen that as a successful in the O'Brien property hillside development and also in South Village. And I also want to say that we have a real opportunity here. It is unique in that we have so much demand because we live in a wonderful place. We need to preserve it. We need to protect it. But we are also unique because we have a lot of local landowners who have a real connection to the land whether we are talking about Mr. Long or talking about Mr. Larkin or talking about any of the properties we have seen come up during my time at the development review board. And the idea that we can as a city as a planning commission work with these land development with these landowners to develop responsibly to create a conservation PUD where we're ensuring that the environmental hazards the parts that we want to protect are indeed protected but that we are meeting our need here in the student county to provide more affordable housing that we are meeting the need to provide housing close to the employment centers which aren't going away UDM medical center to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and the carbon pollution that comes with it by providing homes where people live. So I see real great opportunity. I think the planning commission and staff has done incredible work. I understand why these eight parcels were selected after reviewing it and talking with Paul and Jessica and I certainly appreciate it. I just think that there's opportunities to not put more restrictions on development but to use the tools that we have whether it's conservation PUD or traditional neighborhood PUDs and to ensure that these environmental hazards are protected but yet we still make space for new neighborhoods and new people. Thank you. Thank you. And Helen or Jessica do either of you have any questions for us? I mean it sounds like I'm hearing some different views you know if you had some any specific feedback on kind of the areas that were circled the white areas within them and then kind of those pink areas we circled or versus I don't know it's hard for me to tell if Matt is saying all of the white area should be one of the PUD types versus setting aside the pink. So I guess if you had some I mean I think Megan was extremely clear but I think some of the other counselors talked about kind of a mix and you know I think that that's why the commissioners kind of landed with a mix like maybe some more of the white area could be additional conservation in some neighborhoods. So if you had feedback on that or what you want the neighborhood to feel like that could be helpful. Well I personally was happy to see some of the pink that was the first time I had seen those maps maybe I didn't go deep enough into the link. Is that on the website that you sent us Paul? The pink represents what I described in the memo. Oh okay. So you this I made these pink ones this evening so this is okay you've seen this this is trying to represent what was written in text roughly in the message was in the council packet. So you didn't miss anything. So so I think that's comforting to me that's more than what I saw before and I'm assuming then that you're thinking that what is not pink but still remains white could be developed using the conservation PUD is that sort of a conversation because some of it still is you know important land. Right so I guess Helen the best way that I can I can describe that is the conservation PUD is a tool right so it's it's intended to accomplish the city's objectives of how to balance conservation or open space and and neighborhoods and so it's possible to achieve what you want out of a conservation PUD without necessarily being a conservation PUD in a in a big in a in a big sense the entire Seq is currently one big giant conservation PUD in that half the land is is in the the natural resource protection district. So using looking at some of these for example you know the properties in number four some of them go all the way to Dorset Street the objective of striving for largely conservation west of the stream would mean that areas east of the stream over by Dorset Street would be eligible to be compact neighborhoods or in area number one the areas that are not in the wetlands or wetland buffers that are not at this high elevation would be potentially able to be full neighborhoods so that the conservation PUD is achieved by having identified the areas that you don't want to build on up front um but no that that's what this discussion is about if if there should be additional or fewer areas that are set aside and and not be planned to be neighborhoods then this is the guidance I think the commission is looking for as they put together the regulations over the next couple months okay comment we have a couple Michael yes I just wanted to say that all these parcels or pieces of land are also land that could be farmed and have you as have you noted in the news recently a large amount of land in the central valley in California from which we get a lot of our food is now being taken out of production because they can't farm it anymore because they don't have any water and when we talk about local food production there's no point in just talking about South Burlington we are not an isolated community here uh if we can grow food in South Burlington for Burlington and Winooski and Williston and Heinsberg uh so much the better you know Tim Barrett was at pains to to explain to us that we've done that we have a little land that can be farmed and can be and we are producing food but really that's very much a drop in the bucket and uh so we should this land can also be used to produce food for healthy food for all of us um and I'm as my my understanding of this evening's meeting was that you the council would give us guidance that's what we're asking you for uh once once Paul has explained everything that uh that the that the commission has done in the last couple of weeks well unfortunately I think you're getting you know mixed guidance and that's kind of where the council is right now so I guess you have to listen to what we're saying and and parse it through um your actions I mean I we have one member who's not here so it's hard to speak for Tom but Megan all respect yeah I think we've given them guidance in the reports that we have endorsed we did not endorse John Stewart's John Stewart's was the initial report until we could get earth economics I'd want that to be heard earth economics is the report that we actually commissioned originally it's in our iz not John Stewart's report that is the report along with the open space interim zoning report that we have provided and not just the five of us together you know talking about you know doomsday and ostriches we're we're talking about people who have given hundreds of hours of their time Jessica and Michael who had this publicly reviewed and vetted before this was brought forward to the planning commission and to the city council and I really beseech you this is reaching a fever point we have developers with with interests we have landowners with interests on both sides of the issue but most importantly you have a public process that is representing the whole community's interest in that open space iz report and in the earth economics report so please take what you're hearing today with the grain of salt I I do have a letter from a community member he lives in my district he really questions again Matt I'm sorry your interests here are not clear and he said Megan I support everything you are trying to do to help our world and people I know that Mr. Kota is completely legal and what he is trying to do but there may be some self-interest that would benefit him I do not go to many public meetings but if there is anything I can do I think it's important for people to understand that the people who came forward today at the beginning of the public comment period they spoke in favor of us being leaders with regard to the climate crisis the climate emergency is now the official term it is not my term and we have to heed the people that public process that we included before the pandemic that was a really broad public process and when I hear Paul say that those pink circles represent those areas that were publicly vetted and were deemed to be important I trust that so I would like to see it I think that was one of the questions in the chats can we see how it aligns to the earth economics report and to the 20 to 25 parcels I think that would clarify some things Paul but otherwise I trust in that process I just I don't think that it's mixed may I respond to you you wanted to wait a minute Michael Matt you wanted to make a comment I just want to reiterate that I own no land I own a carriage home which is called the condominium in the cider mill development I own no land I'm not a builder I'm not a developer no and I I appreciate that and I think we need to be careful with our comments about each other and he asked me to read that he asked me to read that into the record tonight and what I will say is that UVM the Vermont Center for Research did a survey of Vermonters 80 percent want to telecommute 80 percent of survey respondents so we should not think that everyone in these homes needs to have a car to drive to work 80 percent that does not mean that we're going to have servers in our restaurants we're going to be telecommuting so we have to think where should those people be living and I'm not sure that south of south village or north of south village or south of cider mill is where they should be living I think we have to think carefully about where those homes and that dense development and those neighborhoods should go I agree I am not saying you're new neighborhoods Megan I mean I do think the planning commission has looked at all those reports and has considered them they may come up with different conclusions than perhaps you and I would like but I think their process has been both public and included as many different viewpoints as they could get around the table some of during the entire conversation I'm not arguing the opposite Helen I've never said the opposite let me just make that clear that you're I'm using me as a straw man I never said the opposite I lawed the planning commission for their public process but I heard Jessica say that they came here looking for guidance and all I'm saying is that they were the reports we provided does provide that guidance and what Paul had to say I thought confirmed that they had read the reports okay then it descended into you know okay we got that feedback thank you thank you pardon me Jessica we we got Megan's feedback that's great thank you okay thank you we do have I feel we've had a fairly long conversation Michael is this something you haven't said before because they're um Joe Larkin and Sandy would like to make very brief statements and I'd like to hear them and then um you know move on from there understanding it's not a public hearing but Helen could I briefly respond to what some something that Megan said briefly yes yes um the open space report um I'm sorry to say the council's acceptance of the opens report gave it no regulatory um force at all and uh the planning commission has not used the open space report at all fortunately the arrow wood habitat block assessment the habitat blocks that are identified are coincided with many of those 25 parcels that were in the open space report but nothing was done by the commission with that report and nothing has been done to my knowledge by the commission with the earth economics report so yes these reports were commissioned and acknowledged but they don't didn't don't have any bearing on what on what the planning commission has done so far what does have a bearing is that the planning commission accepted a lot of what the arrow wood habitat block assessment recommended but that's one of the best things we did okay thank you um Jessica and then I want to go to Joe and then Sandy well I guess I don't completely agree with what Michael said I mean we read those reports we looked at the areas and you know it's not really appropriate for us to regulate by parcel boundaries um you know like we said that is it's not really the way to go so we use the information in the open space report to delineate um natural resource and science based delineations of the resources that they pointed out and we have looked as part of our mapping exercises at how those overlap with the priority parcels as well um so it is true to say we have not picked out a parcel by parcel boundary and said this is the zoning associated with this parcel because that's not really an appropriate way of of delineating either our our um you know our land in the city but we have used that information um and it was a big reason why we commissioned the arrow head or the arrow wood report in the first place to make sure that we were able to actually create a delineation of those forested areas that was pointed out is very important without having to resort to a parcel boundary line so so and you know all of our mapping um you know we've been able to kind of turn on and off those priority parcels and see how they overlap as well um we also did make the recommendation to you in the council that um if you feel like some of those parcels rise to the top for conservation you know we feel like that's um more the purview of the council to choose land for purchase or conservation um which you've done an amazing job with in the past so I do think there are ways that the council in the city can use the kind of parcel based information as well which we've kind of brought up in the past okay thank you I could just jump in the grasslands were also uh priorities for that open space IZ committee as well as for the earth economics so I know that um that the arrow wood focused primarily on the forested areas but the grasslands and the waterways of course were very much central to to the priorities that were guiding us in that I think some of the pink circles captured some of the grasslands am I incorrect in that no that that's Helen that's that's correct so the folks at arrow wood came to the planning commission a couple of weeks ago to speak about grasslands and how grasslands are a tricky thing to look at from a regulatory perspective because they're a managed state of land if you if you just let them be they'll become forests in Vermont largely and if you farm them very actively they won't be habitat and so that was part of what led the commission to have the discussion about these pink areas that you just saw of um taking a step back from individual resources like a land or a or a river buffer or whatever it might be and say what from a landscape perspective does the city want to see more regulate to be open space versus future neighborhoods okay thank you so Joe you've been very very patient you sent us a letter a little close to the meeting so I could read it quickly but if you would like to make a short comment I would welcome that well thank you can everybody hear me yes great well I did send a letter and I appreciate first I just want to thank everybody the council the commission Paul staff it's um I've heard great arguments tonight and I'm you know um I I just appreciate how hard everybody works at this and I don't um want to come across as having an agenda I suspect I do um I will hit two other points in my letter which is um we have a parcel I think that balancing both creating livable communities and conservation is possible under the PUDs as I've understood them and read them admittedly I've got work to do to dig in further I am concerned about layering on an additional level of restriction to that parcel only because I've walked it so many times that I think that 420 lines a little arbitrary and I think we can do a better job if we just work on it in a PUD on the other extreme I can see it being open lands and I can see it being tremendous resource for the city long term and I get that argument too but it is going to be housing in that community I think we want to limit the number of PUDs um beyond what's already in there and I just I just caution against um throwing a throwing a line on there without really discussing it without really understanding and I apologize I should have done I should have brought this up at the planning uh in zoning and I missed that moment so I'm bringing up here uh expressing that I will bring it up there um and I'll make my argument there as well but I appreciate the time and I hope this is an example of either a great community or a wonderful open land thank you thank you Sandy very briefly because you've sent us a long letter we've heard from you several times I know the planning commission has heard from you several times so I think your um concerns are well understood um this is a different one but first I would like to say I I support the um chair's uh assessment that the council is giving a mixed message to the planning commission tonight it's unfortunate that counselor Chittenden isn't here so that maybe you could have a better sense of the full council but what I I'm coming I'm pragmatic and I do believe that the part of interim zoning that relates to the PUDs and master planning and uh forget that whole labeled um is um right up there with the environmental protection standards and it's my understanding that the planning commission hasn't done any work to date under interim zoning on changing the boundaries of natural resource protection districts except for the mention uh of expanding one in the memo that Paul sent you and they haven't done work on uh changing the boundaries of other zoning districts and interim zoning ends on November 13th and frankly my question is I think we have to get realistic on whether we can add new products um to um the interim zoning um agenda because they haven't been part of the scenario that I've heard at the planning commission so far that's it and and just to clarify what are the new products the PUDs? No the interim um changing NRP district boundaries oh um and new changing zoning that's what I heard Paul say is ways that these are other regulatory methods to achieve the goals that are stated in in his memo because none of these places that he's talking about are covered by the environmental protection standards um draft that is out for public here has had its public hearing that would be new work Paul can contradict me if it isn't but and I don't see that there's any time on the schedule for it okay well I appreciate your sensitivity to that for sure are there any other comments or we haven't already done over I just have a question for you Joe do you often chat with other developers who have a land continuous to land that you or your dad bought and have owned forever thinking about how to um creatively do things that will both make you money which is the bottom line for you I suppose and um support the environment and address some of these other issues I mean it's a lot sure I think uh broadly speaking it's a small community in South Burlington as it is and certainly in the development community even smaller uh we I have discussed a number of projects with folks from time to time nothing specific comes to mind as so relevant to this conversation um but I I think a good if the opportunity comes up I I want to be on the record as cooperative and flexible and I suspect there's other folks like that too okay thank you okay if there's no other comments we'll move on we're a little behind um the time but I think the rest can go pretty quickly um thank you all for your input in your comments Michael what is it our grasslands um grasslands are really not the natural you know I I think we just discussed them a little bit and I know you have no we haven't discussed an important point that I think we we might miss and that is that Paula correctly said that grasslands require maintenance and uh arrow would we asked arrow would when they came to the planning commission what that would involve and they said all it needs is mowing or brush hogging every two years that's all you need to maintain a grassland that's all I want to say I think you have said that before I understand that and I also believe that people who own large tracts of land that are now grasslands and they brush hog it every so often they do that because that's what they appreciate about their piece of property and I don't think they're just going to let it go so it is it's a natural asset and the natural resources committee is also aware about the two-year brush hogging for grasslands right so it's not heavy on maintenance COVID put us behind the eight ball with um maybe brush hogging some of the property that we own as a community just because people weren't outside working but that's part of our stewardship moving on to number eight council consideration possible action on a resolution to establish a committee on common areas for dogs Megan yeah oh it's something when dogs are an easy topic to address um they haven't always been an easy topic for this that's why I'm pointing that out um so I was in conversation with Betty Militia and I haven't seen her here tonight there she is she is here tonight um and she shared with me various conversations she had with Matt when he was chair of the of the DRB as well as perhaps with the O'Brien developers to talk about how a committee focusing on common areas for dogs go beyond just recreation and parks that it is in fact kind of a planning body and she also was talking to me about how it is also something for for them to consider with regard to waste with regard to the environment that it is hugely taxing on the environment dog waste and so we were just talking about how all of the things that the large population of dogs in our community would require of a committee to do and not just a subcommittee of recreation and parks and I was persuaded that it is worthy of its own committee which is why I put together again with Betty Militia's input this resolution which is a revised resolution not tremendously different from the original resolution to establish a dog park committee but here you see that instead of a dog park committee it's a committee on common areas for dogs so it would be uh inclusive of new developments um it would be also inclusive of um parks where we don't have dog parks uh and and all the rules that would go into dealing with waste um but it also specifically has to do with dog parks where there would be I would say a more specialized group uh of knowledge tasked with not only thinking about what goes into a fully functioning and safe importantly safe dog park and environmentally responsible dog park but also keeping an eye on it and uh looking at you know what needs to be done when there are heavy storms uh or when the the gate and the fences um you know are no longer serving the purpose of keeping dogs in and small children out um and that's something that she has shown through pictures that our current dog park down on Swift Street um is this has needed some love and some attention uh and and so it's it's not simply looking at a committee that would focus on that one dog park or now hopefully two uh with one coming in hopefully this fall but also more broadly uh with regard to uh just the common areas for dogs um which okay great as I said our new developments and and new neighborhoods as well as parks where we don't have dog parks good so you have a resolution that you would like to um offer for the council to adopt is there any discussion or questions by counselors matt yes sir I I think this is a fantastic motion um I'm I'm glad that that Megan put this together thank you for doing that um I did have conversations with Betty and attended a dog park committee meeting um a couple months ago and realizing that it's not just about parks it's about making sure that there are spaces throughout the city uh and the opportunity that we have um perhaps to ensure that any new developments use that as a consideration so I applaud the dog park committee for bringing this to my attention and obviously they brought it to council armors' attention I appreciate Megan bringing this forward and I would be happy to uh to support this motion um and um but I'll let any other counselors weigh in okay Helen Tim do you have any comment yes can you hear me yes I can okay um so I support the resolution I just have a question about uh to what degree with this committee attempt to regulate dog spaces within private developments uh for example I mean um so Eric Farrell provided uh dog walking areas at the Olympiad um apartments and also at bacon street apartments because he said the market was demanding of that type of a resource for his his tenants and so I was just curious with I mean and and I don't think the LDRs specify anything about dog you know walking areas within certain size developments at all uh so I was just curious was is the intent of this committee to try to to help provide the planning commission with some potential LDR changes that would govern correct okay okay so so that in conjunction with uh oversight of the existing dog parks and development of future dog parks right okay just like the natural resources committee um and even the recreation and parks committee has has really tried to work to to bring in you know I think that these PUDs came out of a lot of discussions with the recreation and parks committee as well okay thank you okay I think it's a great resolution I think and I think the constitution of the committee makes sense um I would ask Jesse is the staffing issue or Holly Reese is she still here yes Holly would you like to make a oh Jesse go ahead um Holly feel free to jump in if you want so currently the um sorry I might get the wording wrong here the dog park commission is staffed by public works um that is the staffing capacity we have at the moment that will continue I hope that over the next couple of months when we have the prioritization conversation we can think strategically about staff um capacity to staff commissions and how we want to provide that direction moving forward I think on a kind of invited as needed basis I'm sure Holly would be happy to participate in that but right now recreation will not be the group staffing this commission okay do you have anything to add Holly or um nope I would just say you know we've been engaged from the beginning with all things park related and and dog related as well Betty and I have spoken pretty frequently about events and activities that could happen so from a recreation perspective certainly plugged in both with the dog park committee or as it will be renamed and given a new mission I would anticipate staying connected as needed certainly these kind of issues were identified from staff there was conversation of playing a task force together we initiated that and then it kind of worked into this so it certainly worked that needs to be done um and look forward to supporting as we can great thank you we have a a motion made by Matt I believe to adopt this do we have a second second a second okay that's moved in second um further discussion looks like barb service would like to make a comment yeah I would I of course I am delighted to see this moving forward I would really encourage the council and Jesse to move this from public works to recreation as some of you heard my statement a couple of meetings ago events and the kinds of things that will happen at the park are not in public works sort of what they're prepared for and and Holly does it so well and she doesn't need anything else to do but I think that the dog the whatever the new name is um that the new standing committee will will be ready and and Betty Militia gets tons of accolades for friends of the dog parks and however that iteration comes forward I think that they will be helped but I would I would hope that I would hope that number one we're going to see it this year I'm still not convinced but I keep my fingers crossed and that that once it is um once it's it's ready to be open then hopefully that will be the time Holly I know you don't need anything more but you have been so great about events and concepts and all of that so hopefully it will will transition in that direction um but I am I am grateful to uh to Megan thank you and to the council for your support this has been a long time coming um and I have great faith and in Betty and her colleagues that it's going to be a a committee that that really does do some things it will be really helpful um around guidelines for development and that sort of thing and we'll uh we'll deal with also some of the questions the issues that have come forward um from other parts of the city with their concerns so I just want to say thank you okay and Betty it looks like you want to speak and I just note your face looks like you're a painting from the Renaissance with the dark in the back and oh no no it looks great um I really appreciate having a chance to speak here um and I really appreciate all the council members support of uh of continuing the dog park committee and in its in this hopefully proposed new iteration I think um at this up until now people have thought of the dog park committee as just putting together the plans for a park at Wheeler and um we know and we had talked and worked on putting together a way to look at identifying other spots in the city that could be dog parks and after a lot of work in a lot of hours um we came up with very little options and like maybe one other space that isn't already dedicated to something um and then then we you know we were told that the committee wasn't needed because there wouldn't be any more new dog parks and the conversation I had with Matt was uh in hearing that developments you know as the O'Brien development um and like you said I think Farrell Tim uh had put in a dog walking area uh and O'Brien's putting in a dog park but the question was so what does a dog park really look like if you're going to put it in into development if we're going to have you know whether we have 10 or 15 new developments and everybody puts in a little quarter acre park uh people aren't going to want to use them okay because I wouldn't use I went down and looked at the one that's uh at the apartments down on Farrell Street and I thought this is not a place for me to bring my shelter to run and I don't even think it's fenced in um it's just kind of an open small open area um so I think we would like to be able to give some guidance just put together some guidelines and suggested some information for developers so that when they build you know if they do put a dog park in their development um giving them some ideas on where they can locate it what what what's the you know what do you want to put down for materials that are low maintenance and you know just a lot of stuff we've had conversations about that I think everybody thinks a dog park is just uh a place where you throw up a fence and a gate and everybody's happy well it's not that and I think if a developer's putting one in they want to put one in that their people that the people they're selling to or renting to are really going to want to uh you know use and move there and it is there's a lot of research and a lot of information about development and so anyway um but I think Jesse I can't wait to meet you um it's more than just finding a spot for a dog park it is helping developers understand what's uh what's a good dog park not Cadillac just a good dog park and it's also around helping the city figure out what to do around the dog pollution dog um you know dog waste and things like that and that is a discussion that I think it will take uh more than just a committee with no staff because we're going to need to have some discussions that are going to be um are going to need staff buy in um and I think you'll see that in the council we'll see that later on um because we're used to not doing anything that I found out there are eight dog back bag dispensers in the whole city eight in the whole city and two of them are up here at veterans where there are no dogs so um those are the kinds of anyway I will stop here but there's a lot more to the dog park topic or dog's topic than just having a dog park here and there sprinkled out through the city and we will I'm positive I think we can yeah I think we can really tackle these things and come up with some good solutions for the city and ideas for us to all think about anyway I'll get off myself that's great we appreciate all your your efforts so we have a motion that's been made in seconded is there any further discussion ready for the vote all in favor in supporting this resolution to create establish a committee on common areas for dogs love to come up with an acronym or something it's a long name um all in favor signify by saying aye aye aye you opposed okay great thank you very much moving on to the next item um this is a resolution we talked about it at the last meeting what we didn't have this is the resolution related to the city's fair and impartial policing policy I think we are aware of what that says and the history behind that and how much work the fair and impartial policing policy task force or committee worked closely with Sean our chief Burke what we didn't have at the time was actually a copy of what the policy was policy has that was sent out to this to us so I guess I would ask um that was a request of um Councillor Barrett did that address your concerns and are we ready to adopt this resolution it did address it and I and I moved that we adopt the resolution okay is there a second second okay any further discussion I don't know is anyone from that group is here and yeah but oh and and Chief Burke is I I don't know if we need to hear them um from them I'm happy to just vote given the time so because we did I thank you for being on this call but um I'm really pleased that we are finally voting for this reso