 We want to celebrate Zariah's itinerary today and we'd like to give you a chance to say your piece if you know there's something that you want to say to Zariah. We will have a chance for you there, a piece of plans for you to come and talk to my new relatives. So, Cheryl's going to start us off. So, I met Zariah a little over four years ago and I knew within an hour of meeting her that I really wanted to work on her campaign for City Council and that I would continue to support her work for as long as she was elected and re-elected and then I would support her unconditionally. I had that very strong feeling and it's been true these four years and here's why. So, Zariah began her first term as City Council April 1, 2020, just two years after the COVID pandemic and then less than two months later George Floyd was murdered and hundreds of thousands of people rose up and his young daughter said to all of us that it changed the world and that event changed Burlington at least for a few months and I remember walking with Zariah during that time when I expressed how I hoped there were hundreds of people who wanted to speak during the Front Forge Forum because it would last waited until the middle of the night and Zariah turned to me and said, Zariah, why wouldn't you want to hear from every person who wanted to publicly speak their mind on these issues? And in June of 2020 after much consultation and collaboration with many people in the city and on City Council Zariah coordinated the multi-faceted racial justice resolution which was passed andally by City Council. I texted Zariah an appreciation of her work on the resolution after the meeting when she texted back and now I go home to the hate and I believe strongly that this dynamic multi-faceted June 2020 racial justice resolution helped to open the door for our new mayor, Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, to clearly write and say these words during her campaign. Emma said, while police are part of the solution we will not arrest our way out of the complex challenges facing Burlington and during that period Zariah was working closely with her city councilor colleague Karen Hall who initiated the painting of Black Lives Matter on Main Street in downtown. And as a councilor Zariah has chaired the public safety committee she's worked on the finance committee she now chairs the community development and minimum individualization committee and she serves on the human resources committee and the ordinance committee and I see her collaboration with Ben Travis on the council as they discuss issues that come up in the ordinance committee and beyond. After particularly emotionally charged public forum recently Zariah noted that she was going to be voting for the resolution and she felt that it might be most useful if the city would the city council would organize a forum in which people would be encouraged to listen openly to each other and not be competing for votes and Ben Travis voiced his agreement with Zariah's idea and then they chose to vote differently including some comments to the mayor. And as Zariah went only those five minutes she was asked by the chair of the city council to end her speaking. And Zariah responded that she nearly took the whole five minutes and that she would like to finish her talk and her colleague on the council Milo Grant noted this is not a night to silence Black women. And Zariah finished her comments. And I'm so moved every time I see Tim come in come in I'm speaking your name. So I'm so moved every time I see Zariah and her colleague on the council Tim Doherty presenting together here at our NPA meeting. Early on Tim taking some cues from Zariah and her experience and now the given take between them is clear for all and as always Zariah brings a smile and a friendly chuckle to the work even when she might be voicing a different view than any one of her councilor colleagues or a professional presenter. Zariah's research practices often include writing and adding an amendment for consideration to a resolution coming before the council for their deliberation. She takes this word thoughtfully professional. Zariah thank you for risk taking. Thank you for your capacity to research to listen deeply to collaborate to compromise to speak your mind so clearly. I know you work on the issues. The issues will continue your commitment to housing and the just cause eviction comes to mind for example and maybe we'll show you. I know this shoot it feels huge. So here's a little pocket stone. And I give it to you and other if you want to speak to me. I know you don't want to come up. I'm Ange Jeff so glad that's up on North Plaspec Street and I once we have just recently taken your emails from 2020 not even with your mail mail from 2020 off of our refrigerator door and I was very happy to vote for you that first time but those first two years were challenging and it must have been in particular challenging to be talking to a camera and not to have any kind of conviviality to say nothing of anger when you couldn't see people in there and then the race they came I appreciate your leadership but there are little wins in which I felt discouraged through time by some of the decisions that you made although I have always enormously admired the amount of work that you put into it. I really come to appreciate you Carter how much work it is to do what you've been doing and so the last thing I want to say really is how much I've seen change even at the same time holding on to you and we have to see both and I and I so appreciate it to learn that you started to work with other counselors and not progressives to understand how we could together get the best things in the city and that encouraged me once again I'm so glad that I voted for you two times and I admire your vigor particularly you can be and we all know that and so I just want to say thank you very much I will also invite everybody in celebration of the riot to take which it has no chocolate in it because I don't talk to people you don't want to eat glue there's rice and then for people who want to have natural sugar there's some grapes. Thank you guys come on in thank you thank you anyone else like to say a few words I didn't want this this episode to be thank you to riot but we're doing so much for our board and you got a lot of this space differently about that and I voted for you both and I remember talking to you outside the phone it's kind of the first time you were right and I just got home and I got this thing about laughs you know we have I know she wins we have even learned to read and sing and it's awesome so you always respond to me if I didn't reach out very much but you always it's kind of too it's a call to recall or a text or an email and and I guess I could say it was your work they got my attention what they were saying you need to know more about what was going on and how the things happened and why don't they have and I think it's only seen well and but we're really glad you were here and you're sitting around and buying out on time and right into what you want to do now but thank you so happy once everything seems to be cute and going I don't know what you mean not that you were local you were motherless German and so you were very much in college everyone's allowed to speak to the world think a German cat apple case and cats I but that's not I mean I appreciate that but I also have appreciated so much all that you've done because I you have put up there's so much life and you in the time you've been here and it just makes my heart sick that you actually have to go through that and I never really hadn't thought that this city could produce that type of system and so on one hand I'm curious so of course a white person looking here that you know people are actually are doing that and we haven't gotten to know each other personally but us collectively in this city and not have that happen and I love all the work that you've done I love your spirit and your mind and I just there's so much value that I have appreciated in the 40 years to thank you here so thank you thank you thank you and I hope you're not going to get out of and Burlington's great I don't think we're on top oh those calls would support all of a sudden rationally they don't they don't my name is Sharon Boiger and I'm speaking to the woman that gave me a heart city council and I just wanted to say it's a ride that you know it's a little bit stealthy and I followed the ordinance committee all the time and I really came to really understand the depth of your insights and what you've got to that committee and I really appreciated when you made comments about so many key ordinances that had to do with the south end and trying to make affordability part of that component when you were talking about the energy efficiency and how to make that really target who you want to target I think that you have a keen eye and a very sharp mind and I don't really know what you do outside of your political life it may be that helps you but I think the city and the community really really that's really benefited from all of those skills so I want to thank you very much okay here we are are thank you all thank you all for your support all right we're ready you're ready man uh thanks and I want to say thank you to the right too and signs it's been a while now so I would like to make a motion that we spend and I put a number of $200 which is very early when we just had I think um to be trying to get some sustainable managers in here so that instead of these plastic bottles that we bring every time there will be pharmacies or a drug or something we can fill up in the water you can get some cups that we can get some cups that we can get in the store here catharsis we can store in here um but that would be a motion that $200 and $900 and $900 we have not to spend that way um second I mean second was a discussion all those in favor say aye opposed thank you very much any other announcements I have a slide I'd like to show the way Tim left oh that's so good wait the thumb of this mat with Tim I know and I I've listened on zoom and I know if you don't talk to this people can't hear you so some of us met with Tim a couple times now over in red code and how we can finesse it so it's a little less drastic for our neighborhood because right now the current ordinance would allow eight or ten minutes on any city lot there's kind of a one size fit all amendment out there I guess it's not what's the law but anyway last night here let's see how I can live last night someone from reservation Burlington sent me oh did I do that you're going to come you saw it because it's going to come back it went away okay anyway send me this picture because even though neighborhood code hasn't been voted on it is um warned so people can act on it so an architect would have them to it you know what did you see it quickly anyway this is a separating that has been double up zoned my understanding is this is our arm which is what we are so ready to do except for Tim has introduced an amendment to keep us out oh dear anyway if it comes up again look quickly because there are two buildings the original building and then one that's proposed so it will be seven units on the slot 12 bedrooms three parking spaces and they are very close to the lake and it's such a small lot but let me show quick so the oh dear why is it kept in these are the two buildings here's the lake right here it's down and this is the st. john's club right here so that backyard is gone so the morning we get my own yard and many of our yards if we chose to build eight or ten now you can see it I don't have no yard anymore so this is that's the original building on the front that's the back building this is the lake main space they have because they have 30 percent awkwardness not very much so anyway I really hope we will all support Tim's amendment to at least keep us our L so we would have eight units instead of 10 and more important we would have a bigger green space we could save more trees we could save more grass and my problem with this and I wrote my bike over here today just to see it in person there are two big beautiful trees in that backyard that will be gone that is the building um three stories because that's what's allowed anyway yeah for some reason it won't stay but that's what neighborhood code is and I think it's just very drastic I think it needs more work because it's we should still have some backyards left and I would like to see the original proposal which was two three and four units in our backyards I think it would be much more livable space more desirable space possibly could be you know condos or something but I do think 10 minutes in a backyard inward one will turn into student housing or in the minutes but I think timeliness is important because uh I it's so I'm not sure exactly what the run in April but April is very long next we have uh steering committee or Jonathan you're going to introduce us um so that's when we have student elections everybody lets the minister and they're right here around here to hand those out right I don't know what you're talking about yeah I don't know what I'm going to tell you but I think that we need to remain in section of the boroughs which is out of their frame which describes the student community that I'm going to I'm not going to read it but I'm going to answer it it's uh the station if I should have no two women members and then there will be seven not just there's no two minutes I think they're pretty good to the um which are the thirties um we have a student which I guess you can imagine it's like we uh we we uh we play in a agenda we like adjust the advertise the agenda but we're gathered at the room so I mean sharing the commotion when the students are into their activities when is my mind on the other side when I'm going to attention to actions and I don't know I was at the city department so we can make sure we have good agendas and let people know it's going on as fast as we can we grab that one because on the other side that's um probably some of you take some minutes uh and then and then representation every every NPA should send seven time meetings so our periodic meetings will send those of students from all the all the roads all the roads come together and talk about stuff we've got a conversation we're going to be very very nice but there will be others and we'll be organized by the student community members themselves uh but you're saying Johnson you can't be on the mayor you can't be on the steering committee and those are really the rules it's very simple uh I would encourage everybody who is at all interested in learning a little bit more about their community but in a little bit more of a we should start at the time we typically need second Wednesdays here and then we need for an hour or two to organize the schedule the next um the next agenda and then there will be some folks answering who has to get people to you know to gather and build together but it's not a plenary and um we should have a community to help your community just be a better community so that's the background okay now I can get it back to you when we can get it to find out so yeah I'm right here so I believe the next or uh business is to uh nominate the slate of uh candidates to the uh the word on a steering committee and if you start by just uh permitting the the members of the current committee will be standing on it we have Sam, Harold, Tom and John so that's um that's someone and then to ask the room now is there anyone who would like to nominate someone or do you nominate yourself uh is if there's anyone else who wants to join the steering committee is a thrilling organization that it's a lot to learn about and actually I would encourage even wait or go out and or come to four meetings it's a great way to learn to account anyone else nominations. So C1. Yeah I'd like to nominate my friend Ruby Emilio I think he'd be a really great fit he's uh super passionate about the community and have a lot of really creative ideas. And actually I believe we'll need a second uh to find the slate. I also nominate Emilio. Anyone else? I believe that means the slate is finalized unless anyone has objections. Maybe we have to vote on film and the economy condition. Okay well maybe we should maybe we should get a second for the slate. I have a second for the slate and a second for the nomination uh so we lost uh we're just excuse me but could we meet this new person and where we live and yeah I mean yeah let me say that I'm taking my hi my name is Ruby I'm a trans man so so I'm up my voice is kind of high but yeah I just see him pronouns and I'm just super passionate about the community I came out here for college dropped out we're starting our own business right now we live in grade one I've been clear just your query. I just love Burlington I don't know it's just something that I'm super and I grew up in Seattle which I think has some really similar values and it's been really interesting to live. I thought Burlington in some ways is like a smaller version of Seattle so it's been really cool to see um I don't know just a city that I feel super passionate about that has that really cool small communal feel and I've just taken away big interest and I don't know just helping the community I feel super passionate about it I feel super passionate about sustainable development I think it is a growing city with still small town values which I think is super cool and I think that maybe with people found a really creative way to meld the different parts because there is a it is a growing city and there's a housing crisis but I think we also all deserve to still feel like we got to keep what we all love about Burlington so much in the midst of that so yeah and I don't know if there's a clue I guess so yeah yeah thank you oh yeah it's how you do why is yeah that thing um it's climbing for all right and they are and that yeah yeah it's me okay thank you yeah any other nominations or comments is it just between a series or is it okay they're in the numbers and they're all in the numbers from that part all right so all in favor of the slate and the nominees uh say hi anyone not in favor it's the annual spot how are you guys next time around our agenda is speak out it's a little different from introductions if you have something you want to bring up so this is the same thing as as Karen brought up so last night Karen on my phone and I went to the planning commission and this is in regards to a neighborhood code um as all we know um I'm informing you that the council will be voting on potentially the amendments that I'm going to speak to briefly but also on the zoning amendment um as it was put forward by a joint committee of city councilors and the planning commission and it was a lot of work it was a very efficient process because it during the city council and the planning commission and what I can say about efficiency is it's good but it has a downside normally something would get processed through the planning commission and they'd be an opportunity for the public to weigh in then it would go to the city council and they would refer it to the ordinance committee where it really this is most of the time with significant ordinances and this is significant where it would once again at the ordinance committee would be the public would have an opportunity to weigh in and unfortunately we are living incredibly busy lives so for a lot of people they won't become aware of something until it gets to the council agenda that's just the lay of the world um you know people would like to get involved at the beginning but we can't all we're human and we have limitations so the problem was that the council then just warned it for public hearing didn't refer it to the ordinance committee and I think that short changed the public um so um anyways there has been some feedback to the city council regarding this proposed amendment um it has what was brought out to the public through the NPAs has changed dramatically during the process and then it never circled back I think I call that as um less than a project on the process I think it should have come back through so people would know what was being being sent forward to the city council so the counselors have listened and our counselors have listened thank god um and have put forward some councils have put forward some amendments to this zoning proposal which is Karen referenced um has come forward with we have three zones in the city we have well we have more but three major ones for housing rl which is low density rm which is meeting density in rh rh is not being discussed it's only rl and rm that's being discussed regarding housing at this point rl proposal says eight units per parcel and there's no and all parcels are seen as equal so the size doesn't matter at this point rm the proposal is for 10 units per parcel so housing there's no debate about that and this allows more housing to be built in Burlington everyone's unified on that there's no there's no discussion it is what we do and how we do it and if we set limits that's where it comes down so um and Soraya and Tim I hope you don't mind that I'm going to identify you as the amendments that came forward so Soraya put forward three amendments one she changed though she proposed to change the rot coverage for them and I'm not going to get into that if you want to put into this or if you're going to get into it a slide on it so I don't know if there would be helpful to be able to speak to that while you're reading the I'm going to wrap up I'm just going to talk about the five amendments I'm going to shut up but I want but the city council is going to have to plan commission last night so what I'm sharing with you is not well I don't know I mean it's different so anyways um so Soraya put forward three amendments and and she put to change the rot coverage for rm she changed she wanted to change the number of units in rm also and she also addressed something that was brought up at our last npa about the wildlife corridor and protected that okay so we brought forward of of an amendment saying that what had been supposed to be up zoned in our way to rm should stay as rl and then the last amendment that was brought forward by gene boardman and newer grant was to change just have two zones rm and rh and eliminate rl completely the planning commission discussed this last night there was a lot of feedback um and they supported their original proposal but they could live with the amendments that Soraya and Tim put forward they were not supportive of changing the whole city to rm and I just wanted you to know that and these amendments were beyond the table on the 25th and I fear if you feel strongly one way or the other I'm not telling you yet to think I'm telling you information so you can think and decide when I urge you to come and speak at the council meeting and that's really what I wanted to say and and the slide that Karen showed I I zoomed into everything I zoomed into the DAB because that's a historic place they table that action on that house because it it was problematic and the neighborhood was outraged in nothing about neighborhood code and they were outraged thank you all right uh when you're going to speak out issues Richard I just like to thank on behalf of the whole world Sharon and Aaron and Michael along for all the work they've done to try and um got some sense in the neighborhood code the amount of work that they do is absolutely extraordinary and in much more depth than the planning uh departments and the planning commission could ever dream of doing so the work that they do is absolutely above and beyond and then above again so I just like to recognize that they're working on your behalf volunteering on your behalf and everyone's behalf can I say so thank you very much Sharon Michael wherever you are Aaron what you do is amazing the other thing I'd like to say is uh Zariah and so we've known each other for maybe even longer than yeah yeah and thank you very much for doing so so one of my favorite things to say with people I don't necessarily agree with all the time is is that I'm very glad you say it even if I would agree so thank you and look forward to seeing you in other community events any other speaker items um seeing none we're going to go forward to cool commissioner after you Gary so um my name is Gary Goldin I'm the east district school board commissioner for lives around the night um and really quick just want to thank many of you for voting yes on the the budget last week it certainly helps us move for as a district um please be assured that at least my awareness as your representative about the cost of those taxes um got it I mean you know well if by that the um relevant half of the budget increases will have a lot of control based on you know the real place of um mechanisms within the budget um and then having to close our high school there's a new one um a huge cost I just and I just want to thank you for um voting yes uh it was pretty resounding two percent um but um next year's another year so um my hope is that uh there's like an end of the year rapid activity progress on the different buildings that are being worked on we have three fairly major building projects going on with the high school being the largest for sure um but not tonight so thanks again we in but any questions I have a question okay perfect okay is that okay we have languages yeah well yes you're on here thanks again for all you two um maybe maybe the only position in Burlington that would make people grumpy or at you than uh being on the city council I don't know I'm curious just to whether or not you guys are focusing on the question of retention of school administrators I mean you're not I think that's something you could focus on I have I have three boys and everybody knows in the public school system that this is becoming or has been a challenge it's continuing a challenge I'm thinking I've got one in admins there's I'm not asking you to talk about personnel issues of course specifically but you know is that something you guys are focused on because I'm increasingly worried about this real turnover this constant turnover that we're being in our schools I mean what's affecting my kids and a former life as a public school teacher for a number of years I know how difficult it is to be in a school where there's constant leadership changes is that is that something you could speak on sure if not tonight maybe speak on it some other night I think they would be really versioned throughout and then that could be a topic to add when I have a longer time um the reality is the last um three openings we had three applicants that cleared the first state and that was large and your experience some experience um and just a good first initial form interview so we're already starting under again as far as retention because we're not able to hide from a large enough pool um the last three um and then a third we're hired this is their first principal job and they were the best of those pools of applicants so it says a limited pool with limited experience there are no pipelines through principles in the past um there was scholarship their programs at dvm at johnson state those are gone uh burned so what we're trying to do now is grow them internally um and we've had a couple of good success stories um from that those most of the people i'm thinking about have stepped back because of um one case pregnancy another real payment so that's in a notion to do again there's no money for it even on our plot other than we're sorry built into their contracts as far as the developer professional development but that lives in sure but it doesn't really pay the true cost of getting masters taking time to do the internship as a shadowing of the principal administrative for a semester if not a year so those are the really the bare bones of what we're up against and and yes we're we know the turnover um we're trying to count up i think our daughter had two or three principles her time and at the high school as well so you know we understand the what that means um no there's most of our bird have children in the schools um so that's my answer for the moment we can talk about you know at a later meeting great thanks to show any other questions great thanks Eric sure thank you um just takes us to this this year next to the juniors no um that takes us to city councilor update and introduction of our new city council so oh but Sharon and I had in common is that we're both zoning nerds so I hope Carter and Tim can continue our legacy so I created a site deck for us to talk through um just so that everybody's on the same page I know that there's folks in the room who are as informed on this as the city councilors and there's some folks who maybe aren't as informed so I figured we would just do a slide deck which has one opinion at the beginning for me but other than that it's hopefully pretty neutral but to because there's not there's several amendments on the paper and I just wanted folks to know what those are so I think Tim and I can give the update with those slides if that's helpful well I haven't seen this slide yet but I think it'll be some of it's like your members but it's also that we've seen so I don't know if the first slide is just a blank slide so yeah that's what I thought might happen um so all it is is in some of the this is not a subject which is very okay good hopefully we can again look fast and look good for Karen but this is just so that everybody knows what we're talking about for the current proposal so it's the there's RLRM like Sharon said there's not huge changes proposed RH most of them are technical about like said facts the lot coverage isn't changing there nor the building height and but there are changes too so when people are saying double up zoning that means that all of the zones for RL and RM and a little bit RH are getting up zoned so they're getting some kind of you're allowed to do more there and then some of the areas got up zoned from RL to RM and so I just want to acknowledge just someone who was on the committee the joint committee of ordinance and um and planning commission thank you um that one there's two flaws with the process which I think the first is and I don't think this was great but for timing we didn't have to go to the city council first which I think means that it doesn't get picked up in the news cycle which means that people didn't know about it um and then the second thing is um that we chose an approach on equality over equity so the there was some discussion over it but ultimately the committee decided to upgrade everything a little bit instead of trying to figure out what makes sense across so it means that the areas that have the least development will continue to have the least development that are the most developed are going to continue to be the most developed was the approach that was taken so if you're 20 built up you're trying to get to 40 percent if you're 40 built up you're trying to get to 60 percent and that was the philosophy behind behind what happened not everybody agreed with that but um that was the ultimate decision on like how we did the approach and so if you go down two more slides that means that this was used a lot to decide which what went to RO and what went to RM and so just a bunch of numbers but basically were we kind of and it was like a little bit weird where the cutoff started being but basically we said numbers that are like everything is above 40 percent or maybe at least one thing is above 50 percent already so that ready has that coverage that's around 40 to 50 percent that means that it's getting moved up to RM is basically so this was the decision making I just wanted to know this was why things got up to RM or not is what is currently on the ground how many lots what percent of lots are ready above 45 percent lot cover and then and feel free to interrupt me at any time and so then to look at to the next slide the what the planning commission called the north or the planning department called the north hill section which if you're not a hundred percent sure where you're looking at that's Willard on the bottom Mansfield on the top and so you're kind of looking at the sections in between that and so this is saying what currently non-conforming the vast majority of our lots according to the planning department are non-conforming and so originally they looked at like the 45 and they're like no too much is still non-conforming so they wanted to bump it up to RM what is non-conforming yeah non-conforming means that currently your lot is would not be allowed you're not allowed to build what is under current zoning standards so that means that it is already beyond what is legal today and I'm going to get through the whole presentation but I promise we'll have I asked for extra time so we can also have questions that work question or is it a comment let's skip it but I think we'll have the whole discussion at once um comment when there were discussion rm and rl at this point well how many how many units were proposed for our and the current number or was a different number at this time and you're involved I'm I don't 100% remember it was definitely at least eight all right and then on the next slide doesn't matter so then again I just asked for this build out because we didn't have I'll put this out on um from Fort Form after this is a police consent but we didn't have we only had the information on like was it below was it not below so asked for a little bit more but build out of that coverage and but I didn't have numbers on like amendments that column is going to be important is how many of the lots are above 50% how many are above 55% when we think about how many are what you can currently zone two versus not sorry I know I'm a zoning I know I'm like this is all very simple and then I see a lot of blank faces I'm like many if it's not um but then I want to add one more data point which is what convinced me Tim has been trying working very hard and convinced me on the RL are on his amendment and then I looked at one data point from a study that Sharon talks about a lot um of and so that's on the next slide of where students are living and so as we think about I don't love like I would rather down zone the whole city than make exceptions it feels a little weird to be the counselor that's like yes everything can be RM based on the objective statistic except my ward and I do think that you me as an exception but I didn't have a lot of data to back that up but I think this is a really good data point that that is the part of the city that is 25 to 40% student and so it has so much more pressure anyway this is I'm going to try to keep being objective so that is that's just a data point to look at um the darkest blue has the most students whereas the green has the least and so if we go to the next slide just to help people see a little bit how about little birds that compares to what is proposed and so that obviously lines up pretty well with the RM district and the north hill section okay so now I'm just going to go through the five amendments the first three oh no that's not that's unfortunate I must have not saved the last version so the first it would be helpful to have the visual cue there's five amendments which Sharon went through there's six amendments there's seven amendments there's seven amendments the first one the first three are mine the first one is to reduce slot coverage from six so you said the new rl would be the new rl the new rl so as it is proposed right now rl is 45 percent rms 60 percent my first amendment is to bump it down to 55 to get it closer the second amendment is to have the maximum number of units instead of being six on rm being four like it is an rl so having that be again closer to rl and part of the reason that I do think that's important is if you want to do condos once you go above five you have to get a very different kind of financing that makes it very hard to do condos as opposed to rental units so I think it actually if we want home ownership that is the one way through zoning that we can kind of incentive is keeping units keeping buildings of four less the third amendment is what Jason brought to the npa last time which is the wildlife corridor so changing that corridor that he pointed out and that the death city has data to support from presidential corridor to rl back to rl so that we have a wildlife corridor the next amendment it is to change that block that we saw from rm to rl so leaving everything else the same the next amendment is from jean bergman and um you know grant which is to move everything that is rl in the city to rm there was a similar proposal at the commission level but that would have been more of a compromise where it was all bumped to rm but then the lot coverage would have been reduced for rm this only bumps everything from rl to rm then there's a technical change from karen i'm not going to go into that one um and then there's a combination of changes from ben which changes the lot coverage of rm to 50 percent so getting it closer to rl but and then bumps down the maximum number of units from six to five so getting it closer to rl but not the same as rl which is four being mean for structure not very long for that sure really thank you that is really important so 10 up to 10 units per lot five per structure whereas rl is four per structure eight per lot and then bumping back up the maximum size of the secondary building to be the same as rl which is 1100 and i know that that's a little that's a lot of information when you see any of it but that is where we are and i think we would be useful before we start the discussion well i was going to have everybody vote on all the amendments but when you can't see them that is less oh i could just send it to you again it books can start you can start or tim can weigh in and then we can go okay i just wanted i think i've spoken to most of you um if you know most mostly people know what my position is already um so i'd really like to hear from people i did want to just make one clarification and in Sharon's explanation she said that the amendment that i would put on um would keep us in rl um what what that really means is that we would if my amendment went through we would still be up zoned because we would be going from the level definition of rl which is two units per lot to the new definition of rl which is four units plus the possibility of an additional building with four units so it's i'm not proposing that we stay the same i'm proposing that we only move up one level which is still a dramatic change yep so but i i do i do think that's an important clarification and i thank you though i've got a question quick question is i'm confused about the difference between units and structures can you tell us what that means are there separate i mean separate limit limits for units is a unit limit per structure but you're allowed to have two structures per lot so when Karen was showing us the diagram it's not just that now you can have one quadruplex on a unit you could have two so that would be eight units or but you can't have three structures you can't have three structures and you have a garage though and these two units you can have two structures so if you say four units and a garage into two structures you can do that so no garages anymore no it's separate you can have a garage attached garage okay oh you're just a separate garage but then just the four yeah um Doug Lane of the mega i'll try to make it quick first of all in that zoning map that you used in the chart i'm an architect i uh them on wilson street corner wilson and mansfield there are 13 lots on wilson street i've actually done uh projects on six of them all of them meet current zone and all of them on that chart are shown as over built so the whatever they used to figure out um covered would be wrong none of them are over the 45 percent that's going to be allowed it's 35 percent building plus 10 percent for certain other things including previous paving and other things so uh existing rl if some of it's not you know a building um just make that here so i'm assuming when they say 60 percent you're still allowed that 10 percent so it's really seven percent so i did it real quick and bill um and my lot is uh 48 by 114 if i could have two six foot strips of green on either side and a 45 foot tall building and my neighbors wouldn't get any sun and nobody would have a place to play in the yard or throw a garden or anything with that that's what the rm zoning is looking like um but i believe that there's a way to the that that that this current proposal is a boom for developers that come in well at the moment it's not it's not solving the housing problem it's thinking it was uh and part of the other problems and i don't know if you looked at it um buildings boats a four-story building uh requires a sprayer system and an elevator unless the third and fourth floor are all wouldn't even ever count as a building 50 feet away from the street requires sprayer coverage these are all things that add to the cost that make them uncomfortable again um and the only way they could be affordable you know that the developer has been committed to make it so the rents are so high that they don't qualify for it i think there's some ways to look at the zoning things like shared driveways lots that are not attached don't have street furniture um smell lots i think those kinds of things can help to affordability and increase density and uh and not have some of the same problems that are being uh or i shouldn't say problems same same uh stress that poor developers come in um that would be created by this part of zoning at the homeowner right now um i would be more likely to you know move out of town selling you know sell for the higher price that they get because of the potential for a developer then to build a second or third unit on my problem um we see who's on one if anybody online has a question first and i do see some things on the channel you write this for so okay here we go he's arrived we've spoken to you before about what Doug just said and we've spoken to Megan is there going to be a correction to that because that's a pretty big decision that you all made for our road when it's not accurate yeah and Michael's been talking to Megan you wrote again today i mean basically we're being totally ignored so i don't the only thing that i'm here for Megan is that she thinks the numbers are accurate i do think that ultimately what we should do in part of the reason that i think we shouldn't just i don't think we should just do something award one i do think we should bump down because i think that is true like i think we are and i think we're looking at when we say 55 when you say 60 i think that means a while over 70 percent and so i think that that didn't come up when we're doing this i don't i wouldn't want to if that is really what we're concerned about then we shouldn't just fix it in word one i think we should fix it city-wide and so i mean the r.m. numbers yeah yeah no that's very high if we can we just before we go to like total comments i do just want to get like a hand raise on and i know people like want more discussion before they vote but i do just want to get a general sense on all of the amendments and how people feel about each one of the amendments before we end so one answer to have from your doctor himself is named scott the biases um proper practice it's with the highest property taxes in the league but for cities our size but i'm just a high-sint country which just goes through and we should figure out the rats are 70s able to move out but the most of the units on the property taxes are increased and reassessments take place from which houses are valuable. This can touch it. And zoning and the claim comes in and there's nothing that can be re-assessed to that point. With sales at the rate of excess value, that one should cut something with post-evaluation, code comes in through this test. So in under the hood, there's some properties that would be self-assed. When that property sells for 1.4 million dollars, the most popular category we've assessed here is that some composed properties of similar size and development in years, they average out those prices and the reassessment reflects that. So when that property goes for 1.2 million dollars, this one goes for 1.4 million dollars and this one goes to 1 million dollars, I would put in an accurate survey of status change and that's what we're going to do. We're looking at, we've got the highest probability of excess, I'm going to appreciate that around, it's not so much required, which is a real education system, but if we're going to have a 1.2 million percent increase, I'm not going to add, so we're looking at the highest probability of excess value in the United States. And when this goes through, it is a form of kind of a thing, I believe, so it sources people creating socio-economic pressures on people and that was not a lot of the two techniques. So we were able to sustain living here. And if you are living, you can sell for 1.5 billion dollars. Yeah, that's great. That's not, we're not hearing this. This is one of the most interesting properties for us, it's our homes. So that's not what happens. So to be clear, that's not what happens at this city, I'm not reading. Yes, that's what happens at a neighborhood level. Given that this is a zoning across the whole city, this is actually, I will say in full of the only way to reduce the tax burden on individuals living and growing them. So this is not, let me, this is so when we talk about the whole city going through an up zoning and people, the grand list is the same unless we vote to increase taxes. So if somebody in the next neighborhood builds a development and that is now worse, more than actually reduces the tax burden. That's not correct. That's not what you're supposed to do. Not what you're supposed to do. That's correct. But that's the percentage. It's not the whole city so pays the same amount of taxes. So somebody building something doesn't hurt you. It actually helps you. I don't know. I didn't know the last time I went through this. Yeah. I checked this one out by 100% because I really didn't audition. Yeah. The last, that's what was happening until people used to arrive and the person was rectified piece by piece. It's going to be a city with dark ops. We're going to be in the middle of a house and now it's helping but what's going to happen. But that's how individual property taxes when the individual property was re-assessed. There's no, that's absolutely, it's a risk here. So that's true on the reassessment but especially when we're talking about like the last reassessment, the city-wide reassessment. I don't know about that. But I'm saying on the show, like this policy, I just want to be like, I don't think it's fair to say this will increase everybody's tax. I don't see this. Okay. So if you decide to touch your house and code comes in, your tax will be gone. Okay. So the next reassessment, we're now in 2013, so we'll see you up, right? So I'm just saying, we're trying to put up these in a way that's legal and we're bringing it home again. Because I do think that there is a problem with how we do reassessment. Like it shouldn't be the case that your home gets real. Like that is a whole different like tax thing. It's like, it shouldn't be the case that when you try to fix something on your house, you suddenly get reassessed. And this, yes, it is what happens. I think that that is, but that's a very different problem than what we're talking about here. Can I just finish through that? So I do think that, I think that not being, because any time you have increasing housing prices, which Burlington has had for a really long time, then having the policy that you get reassessed when you move into your home immediately as opposed to at the next year assessment, it's going to cause that problem. That's going to be true regardless of this. This has been true regardless of this comes into place or not. So I don't think that it's fair to say that this is going to be the problem. But when the actual problem is how we do, how we wouldn't do reassessments on individual and community-wide properties. And so that is a problem that I think we need to fix. I don't think we should say we can't do infill because that is a problem. Perfect. That's when you need it. Okay, I'll let you do it. So I'm such a concrete thinker. I had a really hard time with all of this. Yeah. So basically what the concern is, I'm just, I'm asking a question. The concern is that I live in the neighborhood. My neighbor, we actually, I actually have a really nice backyard. My neighbor sells her house to a developer who knocks down the house and puts up 10 units. And that, so that's a concern. Okay. So, how realistic is this concern? I mean, it's happening already. That's why I don't want to say it's happening in that one spot. I mean, how, I guess what I want information about is this really based on reality or is it fear-based? So I don't think we have 100% know the answer to that. I think that in other places that have done this. And I do think it's fair to say Ward 1 is under different pressure. So I think like, I don't know if we want to talk, but it's like, even the planning committee and the ordinance committee, planning commission and ordinance committee were so, like it does look very aggressive, but part that was so aggressive is that based on the consultant who helped with this and the planning committee, they're expecting a couple of houses per neighborhood to get done in the next like three years, five years. Like this is not, this is not a fast process. Like you can, even if you, even if it's house sells, the fact that the next person is ready to under current construction costs, which are like $500,000 a unit, build something. It's just, it's, I think that the claim that it could be faster than we think is valid. It can always be faster than we think. So I think that is something to look at. It's not gonna, the chances of entire neighborhoods in the next 10, 20 years is, I think very unlikely. If I don't know if Tim has a different assessment of that or a current. I mean, I think that, well, I think it's a valid question. And I do think that one of the most powerful arguments that's been made in favor of the neighborhood code writ large is the fact that the development, lots of barriers to development besides zoning. And so I do think that seems that this is going to instantaneously wreak havoc over the city. I'll probably, it's worth pausing and checking in as to whether or not those fears are valid. I think though that we see here in one, a different kind of dynamic. And that dynamic is caused by the university of Vermont undergraduates who because the university has not built housing commensurate to its growth in undergraduate students, lots of those kids. And we all know this because we've had this conversation in connection with discussing the MOU and the University of Vermont's desire to develop its own properties to house more students. I think we see a dynamic here in this part of the city that is not shared formally to say the least by other parts of the city. Other parts of the city face different pressures and face different opportunities. And the neighborhood code was never, as I understand it. I wasn't on the committee. I was involved in this very late, frankly, and I wish that I had been brought into the conversation earlier, I've been part of the conversation earlier about our own words in our neighborhood. But the purpose of the neighborhood code is not to create uniform zoning across the city. It was intended, as I understand it, to take into account, and you've heard the explanations to how they did that, which I think makes some sense, to take into account the different sort of things on the ground in each part of the city. And what I think that if this has failed to do is take into account the unique picture in World One on with respect to student housing, because I do think that units or 10 units of student housing, of undergraduate student housing, will have dramatic impacts on a given street or a section street or a particular neighborhood. And I actually don't think we have to sort of speculate on that. I think a short walk through this neighborhood means that. I mean, our lived experience shows that. I don't believe that increasing just part of World One from residential wealth to residential medium to the refined residential medium will add a single unit for a young professional that's looking to buy a condominium, you know, someone who's looking for affordable housing, an older person who's looking to live in the city. I think the only thing this will do is in our, in this section of is creating an incredible incentive for people to sell their single family homes or their apartment buildings to investors to convert into student housing. And I think that will have, but I think that does have a movement acceptable risk of creating a really, really dramatic change because if one building on a street goes to 10 units of undergraduate housing or the building on the other side of it, are those folks going to be willing to pay $15,000 or $20,000 in property taxes to live next to you? And, you know, I love living in the University town. I love living next to the University of Vermont, but I do think it's a reality that that kind of pressure and that kind of dynamic is different than adding a deep flex or a triplex that is marketed toward different renters. And I just, that's my principal concern. So I'm not reading my kids' stories tonight because I'm here and my kid's asking, why aren't you not going to be here tonight, mom? And I'm like, well, I'm going to this mate. And then what's that about you? And I was trying to explain to my daughter about how you're going to pay the taxes in property like this. They're really simple. You have one apple, then what's the back of it? A lot. You have more apples, how much do they have, but less. And she was like, okay, that makes sense. We need two, three thousand. She's 10 years old and amazing. But I meant it to her. So imagine that a house, and I live on this, in this area, imagine it's turned into 10 apartments. Who would live in them? 10 years old. Student. I'm 18 years old. I love living here. I'm not from Vermont, but I think of Vermont in my home. I live here with my wife, also not from here. And our kids go to the wonderful school that Lindsay teached at, the public school. It is not, this will completely change the neighborhood. We walk around here, we talk to the students. We have parking issue that this does nothing to the dress. This is going to make it so worse. Have you ever tried to park on the limits or Henry or anything? It's crazy. And I'm all about biking and walking and we walk our children to school. But at the end of the day, this is Vermont and it's bloody cold and packed with it here and people need to get in their cars. We go to a store that sells things at a formal premises. Let's face it. So things need to be thought through or difficult or want to make the special consideration of how to leave the first aid. You have a 10 year old can see it. Come on. But maybe we can just be a quick whose supportive of the amendment to change. Lord, do you have the votes if you and I vote for it? I don't know. Okay. We'll have another one. Maybe it was on the table. It was on the table. It was on the table. It was on the table. It was on the table. It was on the table. That was a test. I'm sorry. My question has to do with what? Let us see. Anticipated effect on the infrastructure. The roads, the sew, the water, the electric road. Is that something that's been calculated in consideration? Not. This is a comment. I think it's incredibly short-sighted and very concerning that there's a fund in consideration. And I would have a hard time voting knowing that. So I also have another question which is about the history around this. I lived in one for almost 30 years. And when I moved toward one, this, you know, the war of Wellington was that you couldn't add anything on your property. And that was, with bad trends in somewhere. So it's this understanding that it was very strict about preserving green schools. And I do understand about the need for housing. And they absolutely support that. But I wonder about that old mentality and what was that about? What were we trying to protect then? Yeah. I will say that the number one reason that I would move to postpone this is just the number of amendments that we can't make. And I do think, and I tried to get this in, but it didn't happen. And is that I think I do think, I do think there should be stormwater review. So I think there's a lot, the only argument I've heard for that this isn't gonna be a problem is that new buildings are more efficient, which is true. But that can only be true. There's so many other things that I mentioned, right? That can't be true. I do think that that is an area where we, and I think that the reason is because people are anticipate that this would be so small, that they're like, by the time it becomes, like if we do see a lot of conversions, we can change it. And then the last thing that I would say about that, and Tim can jump in on this, that the green space is because I'm also working on Vermont statewide, 30% of land conserved and 20% of land conserved by 2030 and 2050 respectively, is just like Burlington, I think it's actually quite, I think we've been so, we've been so, I think we have some more problems with Act 250. It's like we conserving doesn't always mean what we thought it did. And like not having info in so many places that we should have had info means that we've got a lot less conserved land in the rest of the state. And so as much as we like to have our yards, it's like we are Vermont's biggest city, we shouldn't just do the bare minimum of that the state's doing on upzoning. We should allow some info, which also, I think the only way to like live our tax burden is to let some other people live here, that aren't, I mean, I lived in a four bedroom house. I would most people consider student housing for the first few years that I lived here. I mean, because that would be the only thing that a young professional can afford. It's on time. It's a roommate situation over by on Culture Street Avenue. So I think that, I think that this is conserving. It's letting us make sure that we can stay to the rest of Vermont as opposed to we're gonna drive past everything else to get to any green spaces. I think people move here and sort of building up the Essex building up everything else which has been building up for the past few decades when we have it. I know what you're doing. You are. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. Hi, my name is Matt Bice. I live on Prospect Hill, Culture Street. I just had a quick clarification question around some of the percentages of lot size. It's I'm trying to have an understanding of what the means of difference there is going from like 60 or 55 to 50 and 40. So if we just sort of, it's many concrete examples we could give about like what that will turn you into practice. Move your head to Chief. Want to take this story? Well, I mean, we don't have to talk about it. We can talk about the percentage. I mean, like in thinking about like how much green space would be especially if we're going from 60% lot size down to 50%, 10% obviously to there. But if we're thinking about whether we should move that could never look like. Well, I think the answer depends upon, obviously depends upon a lot by lot, right? I mean, when we talk about you're saying the allowable percentage on a lot, we are talking about making it either more or less developed with us, if that's a word. So I think that's really where the conversation is and sort of what's appropriate for a particular neighborhood given the particular market dynamics of that neighborhood. And I guess my thinking is in the ways that you've proposed in the amendments, are these shifts that meaningful in going from a 65, a 60 to a 55 or a little proposal with like a 60 to a 50? Yeah, so I think there's to the one, and there's the point that I would if I didn't mind my apologize, but the Wilson Street Architect General that I made, which of that is so when we're talking, like I think we're talking about going from currently most like the average is like 15%, it's a rough estimate, don't put me on the, in the head section according to the diagrams. And so when we allow 60% that a lot of 60%, but then there's actually those buffer and ordinance, which allows another 10%. So like appreciably that means 20% more lot size, more coverage on average. The thing that I can get really means is it means losing backyards is, I think the front buildings aren't going to look way, way different. I don't think in terms of size and feel, but there it'll extend further into the backer than it has in the past. Thank you. That would be a second structure in the backyard. We've got kind of one more question. We can request the help of Spain's staff, please. And maybe before we turn it off, I do just want to do the polling before we totally leave the subject. So Earhart and then a poll, if we can get it on. Sorry, I got a little bit of a fire commitment. Yeah, I thought I was over on Grove Street. So not in the direct area that's affected, but one resident for over 40 years at this week. I'm the general and supporting for development, spent most of my professional career working in affordable housing, and in show is definitely something that we need. But I do think that we've got some real special considerations in the university campus area in the impact of students is real different from a potential greater impact of students is really what value it is. My question is, has anyone actually from a developer standpoint, like, penciled out a project? And what is that show? That's really like what is that show in terms of what is that show in terms of whether or not it's worth it for someone to take on the risk and plan on making a profit as a developer to either add on into the next round existing and build something. So there's a lot of shoes, but unless somebody has actually done that exercise in a couple of different scenarios and looked at whether or not it's worth it for a developer to do it within the next couple of years given corporate values, I think we're back and forth on something in the abstract. And I don't think anyone should be voting on this unless and until somebody has done some real life scenarios. And I would urge postponement of this until such time as those kinds of scenarios have actually been worked out and show us concretely whether or not a developer and whether it's worth it for them to actually view some of the things that the concerns were fearful of. So my understanding is that the consultant that helped the city develop this proposal as a whole did do some of that, which is part of Bayley's student analysis of how likely they thought it was. So that was where the initial, and I don't, we never got back and looked at it is the thing that I will say. So I don't think that's really critical. Yeah, and one second, let me, so, but the assumption about how fast this would happen came from that. So the assumption that the whole planning commission, the ordinance committee members was working off of was that based on that, that they weren't expecting fast conversion. Can you ask a quick question? Did the consultant look at the university adjacent places? I have no idea. We just took that as a given and just, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Sorry, I don't get it. I've never heard anyone here say those words. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, but I feel that was pretty. Yeah, I get it. I thought it would be nice to get some pro voices heard. Yeah. I didn't want to say that. Yeah. That's why we do the voting, that's because then it's everybody's voice. So the first one is the- You're going to jump through each. I'm just going to say which one it is and we're going to raise our hands or not. We're not going to do, it's just to give Tim and I a general sense. Okay. So the first amendment is the reducing RM from 60% to 55%. Citywide. Not covered? Not covered at all. The second one is reducing the maxed voting units in RM from six to four. In the primary, are there any structures? In all growth structures. Any structure? How does it work? In RM. The primary is for an RL. You are. Wait, keep your hands up because what's your thinking? Okay. Oh yeah, can we get it up? So thanks. Removing the high corridor for the wildlife or the corridor, what a residential corridor for the wildlife corridor. The boots. Yeah. Oh yeah. Protecting the wildlife. Protecting the wildlife more. Yeah. Moving North Hill from RM, from residential medium to residential low. Keeping us. Residential low. Keeping at residential low. New residential low. New residential low. Am I moving to the residential area? Yes. We're moving residential low from the whole city. And I'm not going to do this one. That one is too complicated. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Oh, I meant postponing. I'm trying to postpone this. Send that to committee. Yes. Let's go. Yes. No. I think we can do this one. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to show you this one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. It's good to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye bye. Thank you. Thank you. All the Rockets, I'm back to the resolution I'm talking about in December and January and February, that's March. I'm hoping we can vote on it tonight. If you don't have a copy, you're sent on a chair. This has been published in front-page form. It's almost identical to what we've been talking about since December. If there's a will, I can read the whole thing. If there's not will, I can be abstract. The motivation behind this, this is a proposal for a resolution to ask the city council to pass a resolution, okay? The motivation is it's quite unclear what the expectations are, what the MPO has of the city and what the city has of MBAs. This is a very broad thing. Most particularly, there's nothing in any gathered that says when the city council needs to come to an MPA to consult, okay, that's the primary thing. The developers have to come to MPAs to check something off our list. That's the only requirement that the city makes. But the city council has absolutely no obligation to come to the MPA with any issue whatsoever right now. That's against the risks and the principles that were established from the MPAs were established. And that's really what this is about. So it says, whereas the 1922 resolution related to the creation of many of the planning assemblies established the MPO's in part to put a form of familiarity to residents to advise the record that appointed officials on the investment issues as evidence by the resolution in the resolution. But if you have a language that allows very specific states, this is a place for the community to be able to talk to city council and advise city council on significant issues. That's from the original document. Whereas it kind of leaves us no process to ensure that elected and appointed officials consult with the MPAs on any issues. Whereas it is not in frequent that city council resolutions are made public and voted on before discussion of MPA meetings as possible for soliciting. Now, therefore, we resolve with the city council in consultation with the MPAs will establish processes and criteria for determining the municipal issues in order to MPAs must be consulted for advice and input prior to city council votes. And the affirmative is all that said advice and input be considered in city council deliberations and decision making on those issues. The affirmative is all that those processes and criteria be created by commissions that are be created by commissions and city departments for the same purpose. And not just city council but also departments. And what's different than what you've seen tonight is the date that this was supposed to be done by is April 1st, occasion to September 1st, just to be realistic about it. And this is something we've got, we probably hold off to after the first of April to bring us to the new city council to discuss. This has already been passed by modes two and three that's been discussed. I think it was discussed in mode five, I'm not sure. And I think it's fairly straight forward. It's really just to establish something about the relationship between MPAs. This was, to me it was a brilliant example. And I think we often have good examples of when city council has come to the MPA seeking consultation. It's not like this doesn't happen. But it's, but right now, it's arbitrary. It's at the rate of the city council or it's at the rate of the MPA to assist the city council bring something to the MPA. But there's no process that's established. This would request that a process be established to do it. Now, second. Okay, so I was mentioning that as a second there was no other discussions. I have a question. Next. Yes. Captain, so. Yeah. So my question is, well, no, no, no, no. I, so I totally support where you're coming from, but I would imagine there might be a time when there's some urgency in a decision that needs to be made and courage this process to slow down something that needs to go through a shared request. Well, I would hope that the process is developed as an out for urgency. I think that we find those of us who wait anxiously to see what's on the agenda and we have to wait till a couple of days before the city council meeting and see the new stuff. We think that it feels like, I'll just say it feels like a lot of the urgency is contrived that there is urgency because it's a very short time ago. It may be real, who can tell? We just don't know. So hopefully the set of rules that will be put in place will account for anything that needs to be done by a certain way within a month because a month is what it would take to get to every NPA. But those are the reasons it could be determined between the city council and the NPAs, right? They can make that stuff up. Jared. I don't have to make you watch me. So I'm thinking you asked part of my question. My other part of the question is, can the NPA meet the time limit that the departments are gonna put on us to have someone come and allow us to know about it and in time to vote? So it is the urgency, but I know that, I mean, I've been impressed with your agendas. They're packed and they're timely and they're great, but they're complicated issues and sometimes the conversation is curtailed because you've got so much to accomplish. So do you think as a steering committee, you can meet the spirit of this resolution? She's asking about the timeliness. I'm asking if we can actually make this happen. Thank you. I think that's a great question. And I think that's kind of the other side of what would end up in this process that would be defined between the NPAs is one of the obligations. We can talk about obligations at city council, but we also should be talking about obligations in the NPAs. It has to be both. And maybe in having a agenda and clearing the agenda because something's come up. I mean, that could happen, but I think we need to, I mean, I'm asked to make sure that the agreement that this process has that in it. The last little comment is that I have been in and out of these meetings for a long time and right now there are new faces, new people and a lot of lively conversation. I hope that we don't let go of that for the other items, the other items that we want to weigh in on. I think it's a very delicate balancing act and whether or not in the past, I'm just letting people know in the past, sometimes there were special NPA meetings and I don't know if you might have to consider that. And is that something that people want to consider for something that's timely that we care about? So anyways, those are my thoughts. I support this, but I think it's complicated. Yeah, I just want to go through the details. Any other questions or any further discussion on this? Yes. So, I don't know if these meetings are for, I don't know, a couple of years. I'm not certain on people that come to these meetings. How will everyone feel, how will the board in general feel worth it? Fair question again. How do they feel today? I don't know. The point of this is that we had a structure that was established in 1982. We want to try to make it work better. And part of it is making sure that we have a good relationship with the city. Another part of it would be trying to get 5,000 people in this room. So I definitely know that this is a problem, but this isn't an institution that exists around now. I want to see how we can make this institution better. And with that, we have a time limit. Just to make sure that there's no further discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Abstentions? Abstentions. All right. Don't do it very much. Thanks, Jonathan. All right. Thank you for your time. PJ. PJ. All right, next we have PJ who's going to tell us who's the city that's out in the west. He's going to tell us about the path. I'm going to give you a brief update on what's going on in the city in terms of trees and the overall health of our urban forest. So I want to take a quick break. Everybody, my trees. It's been a little contentious to me, so I'm not with a hostile crew there. I've been sitting out for the last six years and I'm out on the streets every day with my crew. I'm talking to residents and I get a lot of questions from residents and at the urging of my director of parks, Cindy White, she suggested maybe I should go around to the NPAs and give them an update on what we're doing. You see us out there all the time. So this is the third one I've been to and red one by far wins the prize for participation. So. So a quick update on the health of Barrington's urban forest. About 14 years ago, the city of Barrington had a first of its kind's urban tree canopy study done in the city. With a special analysis lab that UVM flew over the city with drones and looked at the city's tree canopy from above in the summertime in the relationship to the total land mass of the city. And at the time they found that the city of Barrington had 38% canopy coverage, which is really good overall. When I came to the city six years ago, a year after I got here we got a grant from the urban community forestry program to have that study done again. So about a decade had laps and they did the study again. They had upgraded the equipment. So they actually went back and lifted the data from the previous run using their new technology and they did another flyover and they found that during that 10 year period Barrington's urban tree canopy actually grew by 4%. And I gotta tell you that I've ripped across the nation and in many communities and that is unheard of. We are bucking the trend. I just went into a talk a few weeks ago about the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts that's lost like 17% of its tree canopy in the last 30 years. So we're traveling in the right direction. I know when I started this job was the debate over City Hall Park and my head was on the chopping block from day one. It was not a pleasant entrance into the woods and politics, it's been good since then. So we are planting a lot of trees. Perhaps you've noticed there was higher history you can drive down now in Barrington where you will not see trees that were planted in the last five years. Prior to my coming to the city, my predecessor who had been here for 37 years and built this program from the ground up when he was hired, it was just him. We now have a full-time staff of myself and four certified artists. We have a full complement of the equipment. We are funded in part through a dedicated tax sharing you probably remember this dedicated tax not wrong after the ice storm. There was a dedicated tax supported by the residents of Barrington that went into a streets fund and a portion of that rose to our trees and greenways program. So thank you for that and that ongoing support. We also do all of the utility line plans work for Barrington Electric during the winter months. We'll see our crew out on streets keeping branches and trees away from the power lines. Barrington Electric has reported to us that in the last five years their number of outages during the storms has gone down dramatically because of that work. And they pay our department for that work, its contract. So that goes into our fund to help do what we do. I have also since I've been here I've acquired almost $50,000 in grants over the last four years through the National Arbiday Foundation, the state's urban community and the conservation law foundation. So that's on all into our tree planting efforts over the last few years. A number of years ago, I think maybe 2018 or maybe we're prior to that the city adopted a climate action plan. Climate action plan, there's a really snippet of a new sentence as long as it talks about the importance of trees in the city. And it stated a rule of 50% canopy coverage by 2030 which nobody knows if that's even possible. There's a lot of places we can't plant trees. And in order to reach that rule we've got to plant 588 trees a year. I actually researched the minutes of those meetings and nobody knows where that number came from, 588. But the bottom line is the city for many years has always been planting trees in the spring, new trees. But that number prior to my coming to the city was typically around 120 to 140 trees a year which was great. And as I said, we weren't using canopy in part because we're taking care of the trees we have on streets and a lot of cities don't have that funding. But then I thought, well, we really need to up our game. We need to plant more trees. We know we have emerald ash borer, we've all heard of as a threat to the city, a major threat to the city. Ash make up about 10%. We're less than 10% of our total inventory trees city wide. And we just needed to plant more trees. So how are we gonna do that? So I started researching and I thought, how are we gonna get more bang for the same number of dollars? So we started planting very real trees. We buy trees in the spring. Some come from our tree nursery that we have in partnership with Branch at Burlington down at the UVM Portaculture Farm. And that was the source for trees for many years. So they're planting 125, 140 trees a year. But now we're supplementing that by buying in pretty sizeable and you see them around the streets here, very real trees and they're cheap. We're able to buy in a tree delivered for anywhere from 105 to 120 dollars a piece. And we can go out with two guys with a truck with 35 trees on it and plant them in a day. So, and then we decided, let's also start planting spring and fall because we actually fall is a better planting time. And we have more time in the fall because in the spring, we also take care of all the land states and all the parks. So we got a lot on our plate. So by doing that, we have increased our tree planting from that 120 to 140 a year up to over 400 trees a year over the last four years. So, and we used the data that we got from that urban tree canopy study that was then broken down by word to see, to start and go word by word based on which words had the lowest percentage of canopy coverage. Now, where would you suspect the lowest percentage of canopy coverage to be in the city? Where it's two and three in the downtown core and we ordered eight because it includes a lot of redstone campus and the whole athletic complex and all the big parking lots over there. So that first year, we said, and going back to my predecessor, and I said, he did a great job, but there was always this over 120 trees with one on this tree, one on this tree and it was kind of piecemeal. And it wasn't very efficient. And I thought, if we go into a neighborhood let's plant every available open site in our green belts in those neighborhoods. So using that data, we went word by word and that first year I got a grant of $25,000 from the National Arborette Foundation and when it was two and three and designated all the open sites within our green belts and we planted 214 trees that's sprung in those wards. And we've been systematically going word by word throughout the city. We are at the point now where we're actually we're not gonna be able to plant for 100 trees per year because we don't have that many spaces left. If you drive down any street, whether it's Mansfield, East End and see where we've been filling around our existing ash trees and anticipation of having to remove them because we're not gonna pay to treat them with a pesticide indefinitely. So, we're really up there again. We're at the point now where we still wanna build on our canopy in the city and our options, especially in Mrs. True and the North End, on the west side of the North End, there are a number of streets where the green belt is literally 18 inches wide. It cannot support the growth of the tree but there's a lot of front lawns that have beautiful open space. And we could plant a tree there in the canopy of those trees for the lunchy sidewalks, pass straight over the road and provide the benefits to the city as a whole and to the neighborhoods that you are enjoying here in this ward that haven't saw a lot of trees. So, that's where we're at with, I'm really hopeful that if we did another canopy study in 10 years, we're gonna see a significant increase. It's been a challenging job to say the least. There's some things that are really exciting that are happening in the city. Now is, you know, in the downtown core, obviously it's really challenging to grow street trees where you don't have a green belt. And so you see these trees planted in a four by four cut off a sidewalk. And I always tell my wife when I die, I hope I don't come back as a tree in a sidewalk. Because it's just, I call it our bare side. And when these trees die, I hate to even dig them out and replace them. But the investment that's been made in the downtown and that will continue to be made through the great street standards that were adopted 2018 maybe, Sharon. There's one you saw on St. Paul Street. There's two blocks of St. Paul Street. I don't know if you pay attention what's going on there, but the trees that appear to be planted in a standard sidewalk gray, or the metal gray over it, there's actually this new innovation in soil cells existing underneath the paved surfaces that are providing those trees with the soil by which they need to grow to maturity. And we've actually seen the elements and the different trees that we planted that are triple in size in four growing seasons. Walk around the corner to inform the Flint Theater and you'll see honey bees that are sitting in the four by four cut outs in the sidewalk that haven't grown since I've been here for the last six years. So those upgrades will take place on Main Street and around the blocks of city place once that is completed. So we're gonna see more canopy in the downtown. Our goal now is, and has been, we might replace a tree that we have to remove for one reason or another within a calendar year if it's a viable place to plant a tree. So we're really trying to stick to that. So I could go on, but I know you're short on time. And if you have any questions, comments, further, search. Thanks, CJ. We appreciate it. Just two things. One is just a historical note. So tree planting started actively in the early 80s when burning was made. For folks who may be new to the town, it was a great community burrowing effort and everybody, every spring and sometimes in the fall, planting dozens of trees. And that is part of why the tree canopy is what it is today. I know it's difficult to manage volunteers and you're obviously kind of out of space, as you said, but I guess I would just encourage, I know at some point once there, the predecessor got tired of managing the volunteers and some of the trees that got planted didn't make it and there were issues. But as a community burrowing effort, while you're continuing to do, to burrow out the canopy, I just would urge you to consider me engaging in the energizing neighborhoods, native volunteers to help with this effort. And then the second piece is, I live on Grove Street, we planted an entire row of ash trees. Ash trees on the other side, the diameter there, they're huge. And I know we're going to die soon. So what is the plan? We're affecting the entire street of beautiful ash trees. Grove Street's on our list for replanting between the ash and there's actually on the opposite side of the road, when we were doing the utility line work, we took down a couple of declining ornamental parent trees this winter that are going to be replaced. So how about the Norway Meoples also? Yeah, we were hedge maples, actually, and we're maples, and we're maples. But bring back to a volunteer thing. We, when my first year, when we started doing the interplanting of ash, we started out in the Appletree Point neighborhood because I have five of those streets in there aligned with ash. So we went in and interplanted and we did have a volunteer day. It ended up being pouring rain in like 38 degrees. So about 12 people, brave souls showed up. Our tree planting sentence has been really difficult because we're moving so fast, it literally takes us five minutes to plant a tree. We're trying to coordinate with volunteers and there's a safety issue. I can tell you it's not very safe working on the green belts in this city. People don't pay attention. Well, I would encourage people to get involved with Branch out Burlington because over the years at nursery, there are 1500 plus trees on the streets of Burlington that came from that nursery. And that continues to be a great resource for us. And they have a volunteer planting day. They have workbees during the summer to care for the trees and the nursery. And ultimately those trees are ending up on our streets and parks, so. Good question. Quick, you can do the extension work with private property owners over in the north end. Is that something that you do now or is it something different? Yeah, we've actually, I just went out and identified homes in the northern streets and took down addresses where what we call an easement tree would be a better option because it was no green belt. We have done that in other parts of the city where there just wasn't a good place in front of the house, but there was room on the front lawn. I mean, ultimately, the nursery has the bigger it's gonna get, the longer it's gonna live, and it's still gonna provide the benefits for the neighborhood. But you don't do anything where on property lines, there's just a tangle of no-way napels and- No, we don't do any- Yeah, no, we don't stuff a lot of the properties. So any extension about how to deal with that kind of stuff? No, no, no. I try to stay away from consulting because I can do that nonstop. People always ask me about their backyards. And yeah. Other questions? Go over here first. This is just a start. Has anybody talked about putting trees on roofs, especially on all the new houses in the nightly building? That's super good in Vancouver. Yeah, that's a whole different ball game as far as the construction and a special membrane and, you know, so volumes. And then you've got high wind issues. It's a real challenge and we're not to grow. We can certainly have green roofs with all the plant material, but trees, it's tough one. And very expensive. I would just like to thank you for your report because it's quite a support, a lot of it. And it's just wonderful to hear what a successful program you have on how all of us like green space that we're talking about all the time and you're the man in your department is creating that green space for it. And then you come and tell us this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've said one more question on the last time but I've changed the number of emails with you last year about this removal on behalf of the constituent. This time, I'm here. I was waiting for this question. It says since you're here. Okay, so I'm glad you brought that up because I meant to address it directly with him. So the city of Burlington does not own a stump grinding machine. A decent stump grinding machine is about $80,000. And so years ago, they used to run one occasionally. And to run one, if you've never run one of these things, it's the very cumbersome to run. It's a big learning curve. And so we have to go run the thing. We don't have currently the parks department doesn't have an extra trailer. So we have to buy a trailer to transport it. And then it's just not cost efficient. So three years ago, we did a stump grinding contract with the private tree care company. We put an RFP out to bid. You might have remembered we had the vote on it for the board of finance, I believe, Sharon. And we had a bunch of stumps around. We got a list together and six months ago, I handed off this RFP and the stump grinding unit because it's a potential contract and there it sits. And once a week, I'm asking, where's the stump grinding contract? So please contact the city attorney. Don't tell him I said that. Well, he decided he'd like the stump. You can do stuff here that's a stage. It's probably not a good move. The problem is... He's just gonna reach out to the city attorney to get rid of your stump. So we, you know, if we had to wait into a stump this ground, typically, even when the stump is ground, we can't go deep enough in that exact spot to plant a new tree right on top of that spot. So we're like, we want to get canopy there. So we've been, you'll notice around town we've put a new tree next to it. In some cases, the stumps are not that big and cut and flash and they walk away within a couple of years. Some of the trees are yours. It's a honey-mode this and it's a big stump that sticks up and it's problematic. So we actually prioritize that list too. So this money has been set aside from our capital budget, from money that carried over. And I'm just frustrated as you are at this point. But in my position, I only have so much pool. So that's where that sits. And I apologize. And, you know, I don't know what else that we can do about it. Yeah, you have the last one. Yeah. So it's gotta be quick. It's gonna be quick because I wanted to talk about that, but I didn't want to. Yeah. Yeah, we're talking to Michael. Michael, you look nice tonight. Yeah. Okay, all right. So in this conversation about neighborhood code, but it's relevant, I know that there is an outdated tree ordinance. I worked on it with Councillor Shannon years ago, but I think that the steering committee, I think it would be really important for us to get an update on the tree ordinance because part of what's missing in the neighborhood code is the protection for mature trees. Karen alluded to that in the picture that she showed. And also we need an updated tree ordinance and it's relative because it, and timely because you mentioned planting trees on private property. And so if that happens, there has to be an ordinance that says that they're not gonna cut it down. There has to be some protection for that tree. So if you could come back or however you wanna address this, it would be very valuable for all of us to know. Thank you. Yeah, and just to follow up quickly with that, the code tree ordinance is actually under the code ordinance 29.3. It's called a vegetation ordinance. And if you wanna know how outdated it is, there's actually a sentence in there that prohibits you from tying your horse to a tree. I'm not kidding you. That wasn't your word. You've been around a while. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our name is... Can you just mention the audition code that people can pick up a copy rather than put them on the furniture? Oh yeah, the same auditor has issued a report regarding the student population at UDF and... Thank you. Thank you. It seems very comfortable. Very comfortable. Yeah. If any of you have questions for me outside of this meeting, you may have me right away. Thank you.