 Number two How are you peachy? Oh good This is from Matt Kota Yeah, Matt Kota. Yeah, he's the chair right and I guess Everyone signed it Was what unanimous from the derby What's that are you going to be on TV interviewed by Jack Thurston? He's a good guy Like it's going to be winter here Until the very bloody I've been running the bike to work and I had to bear like a pair of like Last Wednesday because it was Still good What are the roadwork signs posted down there for Dorset Street? There's two roadwork signs posted down there when you come on to Dorset from Full from here. Yeah, they're doing some repairs. Oh those those ruts. Yeah Still We should name our potholes The shoe Just open the letter from that photo Okay You've been on I I'm just reading your letter now okay I just got it that's okay I mean I understood that all right okay well I would like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday September 16th 2019 and ask that we stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which he stands one nation undervalued indivisible with liberty and justice for all the item two on the agenda is instructing on exiting the building in case of an emergency we have an emergency this evening and we need to leave the building right away please exit through one of these two doors that will take you outside please leave from here go through the parking lot and around the building to the south and gather in the parking lot on the south side of that building if these two doors are blocked for some reason go back out into the lobby out the main door out the walkway and go to the same parking lot Tom Hubbard and I will be responsible making sure that the building is cleared thank you item 3 the executive session Tim you have some short I move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services pending litigation to which the city is a party improbable litigation to which the city may be a party would clearly place the council in the city at a substantial disadvantage second all in favor I and having so found I now move that the council enter into executive session to consider confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the city council pending litigation to which the city is a party improbable litigation to which the city may be a party and I will second that to inviting Andrew I'm sorry inviting Mr. Warren Mr. Hubbard Mr. Connor and Andrew bulldog and Amanda Laverdean okay we have a motion before us and seconded all in favor I okay we will repair to upstairs for our executive session okay don't yeah call back to order the south rowington city council meeting of Monday September 16th 2019 and we will move on to item 5 a public hearing on proposed land development regulation amendments so Paul Connor who else is Jessica coming up with you open the public hearing right I will move that we open the public hearing second all in favor hi hi so the public hearing is officially open so do you want to go through what you'd like to go through so Paul Connor director of planning and zoning Jessica Luisa's chair of the planning so would you like to stir review some of some of our reasoning behind it as well I think that would be helpful for the council great I like to also say that we have quite a few planning commissioners in the audience we have Duncan McDonald art Michael Miteg and Ted really so for their missionaries sorry yeah I appreciate a little flustered there the commission members attending okay so we have multiple different land development regulation changes we're submitting today I know you had a few questions about the first one so I want to say a few things about that it is to eliminate parking minimum or minimum parking requirements for city uses except for multi-family housing and accessory dwelling units and for those the parking requirements would be reduced this was something that we talked about as a commission over many months and many meetings we considered multiple different options here including keeping the parking as it is reducing parking minimums granting additional waiver ability the DRB has the option to wave 25% of the requirement now to eliminate parking minimums which is what we've presented as well as setting a maximum with or without waivers and we decided that this approach was best we had a 50 vote to pass it on to you and there's quite a few reasons for that and a lot of them are really in line with the goals of the comprehensive plan we have been doing our best to align our LDRs with the comprehensive plan and all of the visioning that we had for both that plan as well as the form-based code where we really heard we did quite a lot of outreach to our citizens and heard back a lot about what the vision for the city was and a lot of those things were to really support the evolving transportation patterns not just focused on a car centric environment reducing stormwater runoff I know that that's a big goal of the city and by continuing to require additional pay of surfaces we're kind of fighting with that goal of water quality and reducing stormwater runoff and kind of changing what appears to be us as a city valuing cars over our businesses other land uses and other modes of transportation and really trying to move away from the current design of having our parking lots really sized for those busiest shopping days of the year so all of that together is really taking some steps towards addressing climate change parking minimums are really interesting there is basically the city making a requirement for developers to install something that benefits themselves there's not really a specific public environmental economic or infrastructure benefit to private parking and you know this change isn't eliminating parking it's giving flexibility for the landowner to make decisions about what makes the most sense for their property there's overall consensus that there's no correct amount of parking the national standards that are you know we use by reference are not really scientific they're specific to specific types of uses which is something that we're actually trying to get away from in general with multi-use development and more compact development and v-trans really specifically did do a study in Vermont showing that those numbers aren't don't really apply well to Vermont we're typically over recommending the amount of parking that would be required we had a study done specific to South Burlington that we heard the results from recently it was done by the Regional Planning Commission and traffic engineers at Stantac in city center they did a whole account of parking utilization so of the almost 7,000 spaces in the city center kind of in surrounding area they found that 35% were used on a typical Saturday 31% were used during a typical midweek daytime 21% during a week weekday evening and during a Christmas midweek day was 37% used so you know with a large amount of kind of extra parking at least in that particular study area of the city you know we're kind of missing out on a lot of other land uses that we feel like might better benefit our citizens our tax base and our city that better align with our specific goals that particular study found in the case where there were over a thousand spaces open that's over eight acres of unused land that we could potentially be doing something kind of that fits our vision vision of the city a little better let's see so I emailed over today I just thought it would be nice for you to have an actual link yourself that I wanted to refer to there's an organization called strong towns that organization is dedicated to making community making communities financially strong and resilient I know this is something that we've talked about you know at the council have been looking at economics of different types of land uses I know specifically more about natural resources but last July when we got together as the council the commission and other committees we saw the video by the economist Joe Minnet cozy and he made a strong point about the relationship between land value taxation the provision of municipal services and walkable communities and a big point of that was that we need to really kind of use our land better and by having just large areas covered with unused parking you're not really getting the tax benefit you know you're spreading out your uses so your utilities have to travel further to serve different uses there you know we had a lot of different examples about what types of land use for really most had the biggest tax benefit to the citizens so what we're trying to do is really remove the barriers that we have in our land development regulations to create better design and really move our regulations to where we want to be I know it might not be always comfortable to have change but if we're continuing to kind of just hang on to regulations that are based on kind of that car centric model where each building has kind of a sea of parking around it you know that might not really line up with the future that we want so in the email that I sent from strong 10 strong towns I know there were some questions about how many areas have actually adopted this kind of parking or eliminated their parking minimums the strong towns website does have a map it includes many many different types of municipalities across the nation not all of which are large some of the ones in the northeast that I noticed that one big cities where bath and Belfast mean Dover, New Hampshire and Phoenixville Pennsylvania near where I grew up which is actually very small small town did those towns eliminate parking minimums they have different levels but these ones did I actually looked at what it's what the notes said so some of the ones on the map had eliminated them in certain areas and maybe not others so when you look at them up you can click around and see kind of the specifics about what they were but nearly all of them in their business centers and there were 95 total is what I saw on that map town names again Dover Dover, New Hampshire, Bath and Belfast mean so it's right on the website for strong towns and there's many other examples I just know there was a question about are they all big cities my hometown of Winona, Minnesota is on that list Councilor Emery's question birth did they remove it city wide or was it just in the concentrated downtown district I you know I don't really speak I'm pretty sure these four I wrote down were all the entire town but you know across the map you can actually click and see there's a variety there's another 80 or something that are have I was looking partial I could find any that were complete oh yeah there were the first the first set under a I think it was I think Winona, Minnesota is complete yeah so we've done some other things to try to move in this direction as well this isn't the first item so a few years ago we changed the location and kind of the parking standards where parking is located on the property trying to move it towards the back so it's not just right up front so when you get to a building or you're along the street you're not walking across a parking lot all of and having standards on layout and and those standards wouldn't be changing this would be kind of just an additional step so I know there was a question about waivers and why wouldn't we maybe just increase the waivers that we have and you know that's something we did consider and we would not recommend that we actually heard from both the City Council as well as the DRB over the last couple years about trying to reduce the amount of waivers it's something that's always a lot of discussion it makes for unpredictability on everyone's part the applicant the neighbors the city on what you're going to get and it's not recommended that we have kind of a site by site analysis on this you know really because we need that predictability let's see and so we did have a public hearing on this and we heard from five members of the public which I can give a quick summary on we had Keith Epstein who's a volunteer for the city and the Energy Committee in support Peter Smire who was an engineer who spoke on behalf of Larkin Realty in support saying that it would reduce resources and automobile related development we got testimony from Corey Godfried the owner of the Parkway diner who wanted to quote here he said the parking requirements made it very challenging to make my part my project happen it took months longer planning than I feel it needed to it was very frustrating in the end because I had to reduce the size of an addition of the building to accommodate the parking we had also heard from Sarah Dopp who spoke in support she often speaks on behalf of land conservation as well as Daniel Seff another citizen so you know we were hearing pretty varied support from varied sectors you know I think it's nice for us when we're hearing from people who typically represent different interests kind of all lining up so those were some of the big highlights on that particular one did you have anything else to add I know you had some notes on the sizes I think we can get into it if there's questions I would note that in terms of public comment I did send it to all the members the development review board did also send you a letter with their express and their concerns so I think that Brian is here and he'll speak in a few minutes but I did want to if you're speaking about the other input to mention that one also so that didn't come directly to us I guess so then those would like to go and this was actually the council like to focus on this one and then move on or hear all of them and go back do you want to have questions on this one now or just go through okay is that sure okay so the second one is to amend the transfer of development rights requirement to be consistent with the enabling statutes so this was a specific ask from the city council we worked with the city attorney on this we are not proposing what we see as policy changes as part of this but as a technical fix to the way that we believe the program was supposed to be working so to become kind of in line with the legal challenges and I know we did have some public comment on this one that were a little unsure of the timeline if this would cause confusion because there's still I guess an appeal with the court and I so I just want to note that we did get some concern that this might cause some confusion you know if you make this change now and then when the work of the TDR interim zoning committee is complete then there would be an actual policy change as a follow-up so we as the planning commission felt like we wanted to pass this on to you were you know we did vote unanimously to pass this on at this point and if you you can make the decision you know if you think it's confusing so you were unanimous in recommending these changes that correct the current language with interim zoning still going on is there a time pressure to pass these tonight or does it just make as much sense to bundle this in with any TDR change we make after this interim zoning and ends I think we felt like we're many months away from the policy change piece and in general it makes sense to have our laws match up with kind of the legal findings as much as we can was the our general feeling I would add there that there there is some uncertainty in the community around from both people who own sending TVRs and those who would receive them as to what what they can do now as an example but not and I didn't speak with the planning commission about this example but a few months ago you saw an application for interim zoning that you decided to allow to move forward as part of that that would potentially use one or two TDRs and so that would be an example of during interim zoning the council and the Commission had felt that it was a small enough project to advance this uncertainty of the TDR program puts another obstacle for there and what the council had asked for at the beginning here was clarity under the current program and similar to the jam golf that we approved recently any changes tonight will not retroactively apply to any pending lawsuit or issues those are going to still be governed by the TDR rules that were in place at the time correct so any time that there's a change in zoning an application that submitted is only under one particular set of regulations so something that was submitted six months ago is under the regulations from six months ago when a new set of regulations are adopted anybody who submits after that date is under those regulations so somebody could theoretically withdraw and resubmit but then they would be subject to all of the current regulations interim zoning and and other and so that's there's always only one set that operates okay so now we have the citywide river corridor overlay district okay so this is the first piece of the kind of beefed up protections to the natural resources that we talked about we gave you the update at the joint meeting this is specific to the river corridors and creating a new protection to limit development and redevelopment within the river corridor area it's defined by the agency of natural resources we would use their same layer and the idea is that that area is the location that the river might expect to move around and cause erosion over time based on river science so this is actually both functioning to kind of protect that riparian area but also to protect our citizens of the hazard of erosion damage that could happen in the future so we worked with the regional planning commission as well as the agency of natural resources that unanimous also okay thank you so for is to eliminate the surface water protection standards for land close to Lake Champlain and the allowances for expansion of pre-existing structures within a hundred feet of Potash Brook and in the Queen City Park zoning area so this is so our city had previously had this protective zone along the lake and some specific language within the park along Potash Brook there and we've had that in place for quite a long time very recently the has implemented shoreline protection standards and rules our standards were very similar but a little bit different and it just it felt like having one standard for that area would be a lot less confusing we compared the two and felt like the states did you know a really very good job of basically doing what ours were also doing so we felt like going with the state standards made the most sense they actually protect up to 250 feet of with of the lake so they're stricter so so the states is stricter in general I mean there's some very small differences but in general it's a bigger area that would be protected and then there's some minor changes minor technical changes here as well any additional questions by the council those are just minor administrative changes do we have other questions or on the first one I do want to double back all right so I just quickly googled and so in Dover they own yeah they own a downtown train station so they have a huge parking lot and that's why they eliminated the parking so that they could just get more utilization out of this huge massive space that the city owns do you see that South Burlington has you gone down Dorset Street lately so we don't own that though no but you can park there and then for Bath and Belfast it seemed to me that it was not the city wide it was just the downtown areas but you said 85 towns and as I was trying to look this afternoon for comparabilities to just see if I do not see it as a dominant a most common thing that was eliminated parking minimums a city-wide would is that a fair statement that that is not the most common approach I couldn't find any when I was poking around there is a mix it's definitely a mix I have one other question on a statement you said I think I heard you say there's no economic benefit to private parking I meant tax revenue specifically I think is what I was trying to refer to all right I just I see economic benefit of private parking is that the public doesn't have to pay for garages and on-street parking and managing so and then plowing and moving cars so there is economic benefits to private parking because it has value to put cars where they need to go and also to the business owner who wants to have clients it's in their interest to have people come sure yeah okay thanks but when you have as much like the you mall for example there's a revenue loss potentially especially if at Christmas time it's or busy shopping time it's 37% filled midday that's what the study said yeah that was weak that was a week day it was a week day so on the weekend at that time if we don't have the numbers on that so yeah I think driving by it certainly is higher but any other questions by council members Tim can we go back to E for a sec so the ability of the administrative officer to approve minor field changes in site plans yeah can you give us some examples of that and why that's a desired change and and how those those changes to those field changes would be recorded and then broadcast to people that would want to know about those changes yep so there's there's two sort of hand-in-hand amendments in here one is the authority currently of the administrative officer to issue of field change is strictly limited to those things that came up that were unknown at any time and were beyond the control of the property owner there are often times when there's little changes to a property that come up along the way that are of no particular consequence one way or the other with the regulations so the a accessible parking space is is flipped from what the original design was so that it can be closer to a building or a parking lot is striped this way instead of that way or a bike rack moves 15 feet because it turns out that there's a pipe underground or something like that the current process for that is if something like this is discovered then an applicant has two choices they can either go and correct the physical out in the ground and restripe it or move the bike put the bicycle parking space or whatever and then come and have a new inspection or they can apply apply for a site plan amendment wait 50 get their approval wait 15 days apply for a zoning permit get their approval wait 15 days and then apply for a new CEO which winds up being about two months and the practical effect of that is that businesses have a hundred other things going on and so they don't get to that and then we wind up sort of chasing for several months and years to get little tiny things corrected so this is the ability to on the fly say we've looked at this the new plan is equally good to the regulations of the old plan it is approved as a field change and then it needs to be a in order for it to get a CEO we need a updated version of the plan that go in our records the accompanying piece to it which is important is speeding up that process that I just mentioned which is rather than to do site plan wait 15 days zoning permit wait 15 days CEO the 15 days is the appeal period mandated under state law this would authorize a site plan and zoning permit to be a single action so if somebody does go a little bit over that threshold to where we say you know this is a material change we think that this is something that is not big but that it is worth you know having an official permit that somebody can appeal on it then it speeds up that process too so that somebody can who's got their act together can submit both the site plan and zoning permit once it saves two weeks in the process the reason that I talk about these together is that one of them creates a little bit of a little bit of authority for the administrative officer to make a judgment call that also presumably will put a little bit more pressure on the administrative officer from somebody who's anxious to get something done so the other one makes it a little bit faster if the decision is that it exceeds that very tiny threshold so we think that between the two of these we can save a lot of time for things that are inconsequential to virtually everybody is there any way to share that decision responsibility among more than one person all four of us in our office are authorized to be administrative officers is that no but I mean like so when that decision has to be made in the field I would feel more comfortable if there if that decision was shared among more than one person in the field doesn't necessarily mean literally on the spot there it means a change absent a new site plan so almost in all cases in our department whenever there's anything of any consequence there's at least two people looking at something before a decision is made so in reality it doesn't mean signed off while we're sitting in the parking lot it means we come back and within a couple days we'll make that determination that it's okay which still saves two months right but it's that's that it boils down to one signature from that administrative officer right but that also would have been the one signature to issue the site plan change also you talked about commercial does it also apply to residential multifamily residential yes single and two family homes don't have site plans generally speaking except in very exceptional circumstances so this kind of thing doesn't come up with about infill projects anything that is anything other than a single and two family typically there could you just answer yes or no because I'm sorry I couldn't understand if that was a yes or no answer what about infill projects what about if there is a tiny house put in the back of the yard or a garage edition or things like this if it's a single if it's a single family home on its own property then things like a garage or shed or all that weren't subject to this process to begin with it was just a simple zoning permit so it's not a tiny house same for a tiny house if it was a accessory apartment it's a conditional use review by the DRB and any changes have to be approved by the DRB and how about a tiny house in the back that would probably wind up being an accessory apartment it's just the type of structure the only time that a tiny house so it would fall into that same conditional use the only time that a tiny house wouldn't get that is if it was the only house on a property and then it's just a house small does that answer your question and with regard to multifamily homes what kind of site changes could the administrative officers approve so let's say so something that we're probably going to see a fair amount of in the next couple years is a property comes in to do some minor changes and they decide to change the location of the dumpster enclosure a little bit and then they realize that act whichever number it is with the composting law has come in and they say oh we didn't think about the fact that we actually need to also save space for a compost bin and so we're just going to make this enclosure three feet wider so that's the kind of thing that today that would mean go back to the beginning apply for a site plan get a site plan approval get a zoning permit it's inconsequential that it's a couple feet wider in order to accommodate this but we can only approve that which was on the plan so this would be a way to speed that up to make that happen little things like that which sound like they're very rare but we actually see a fair number of them every year they're just but not with regard to a garage that would just be zoning as opposed to the receptacle to have your garbage and your recycling would require a site plan for a for a multifamily building would because typically it's its own enclosure it's not just a bin it's a big structure for a single family home it's just a zoning permit and that would not change that's for a multi family home it would be a site plan review for a garage typically yeah because anything that's not a single or two family home is subject to a site plan occasionally you've got some townhomes that just use roll-off dumpster roll off you know that the little wheel things but most of them actually have like a big square pen where the big truck comes in and lowers it and that pen is subject to the site plan I guess my concern is height and and other things that you won't necessarily find with garbage enclosures but you would find within fill projects or or with anything that was material would not be subject to this so it's it's very specifically says minor and I can't remember if it says inconsequential but something like that things that are really so small that the only people who will know about it or the property owner the tenant and staff and that and we have always the authority to kick it over to a full site plan if we feel like it's bigger than that something like height or setbacks or the side the footprint of a building I mean those things are a percentage of impervious surface I think that would all be subject to a site plan the example I was going to use was the the the non window on the pure one building where they had a stairwell and if Ray hadn't gone over there and seen that they hadn't put the window in and it was on the plan and then Mark Bear sat here and said you can put a window in there it's structurally possible to do that and they went back and had to put the window in so that's an example of something that would not fall under administrative it would not fall under it would not fall under that just on in the field change I'm trying to think of an example of something we have recently seen we saw one recently where the there was supposed to be a bike rack and bike rack has to be attached to something concrete the place that they went to do it they measured it out they had measured it wrong the place that made sense to do it was a small piece of grass the size of this table but that's a change in impervious surface but it was literally the size of this table and so that would be the kind of thing of saying we don't need you to go through three months of process to add something this size if it was going to be something half the size of this room that's a completely different situation okay any other questions at this point any other comments from you or members of the planning commission anyone want to add okay and we're like to add that while the the LDR for the TDR ordinance was approved unanimously there was some anxiety it's certainly on my part that one of the fundamental basic flaws in the ordinance namely that the receiving and sending areas all in the SQQ remains in the new proposed ordinance and that is a problem going forward and we may have to redo the whole thing I think that's my expectation if you come if the TDR IZ committee comes forward with proposals for change and they're approved then it would fundamentally change the program perhaps and you would have to develop a new set of regulations to warrant that and presumably we would write them so they're in compliance with state law TDR state law we're sticking around if there's more questions after okay great thank you thank you Jessica so are there I'm assuming there's some members in the public who might want to comment yes so please come up to the table state your name for the record give us your comments hi I'm Brian Sullivan I'm the acting chair of the development review board in Matt Kota's absence I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the full board I believe that you received a letter today and I have to say it's unfortunate that you didn't get it until today because we signed all of it at that desk on September 4th but be that as it may it communicates our position which again was unanimous that we do have an objection to the removal of the minimum parking standards for commercial development I don't know if you've had a chance to review the letter or okay so I won't go through the letter let me move on to responding to the very able and eloquent presentation made by the chair of the Planning Commission and by Paul first of all I think it's worth noting that we have no objection and have taken no position on any of the other four measures that they propose for adoption it's only on the minimum parking standards that we've felt it necessary to comment I would also say that regarding those standards we share the goals that the Planning Commission just enunciated I think it's very important and the board thinks that it's very important that we take all the steps that are feasible to reduce stormwater runoff to make South Burlington less of a car dependent municipality those are laudable goals and again we share them there was also reference made to data data which is supposed to be objective but of course can be interpreted we do not have access as I sit here tonight we have not had access to the study that the Planning Commission was referring to that led to I think the 37% occupancy question I did have Jessica was that included in the LDR I was online the link online had the amendments to the LDRs and there was a table there showing the ratio and the maximum parking and the percentage on you know whatever day of the week it was is that the study okay then I'll have a question later about what that table referred to because that's sorry to interrupt that's okay yeah but it underlines the concern that we have without having seen the data without examining the assumptions that went into it we can't offer an intelligent opinion on the validity of the study similarly and I'm going to defer to my fellow board member Frank Coakman on this for him to speak in a minute the small towns initiative data which we did have access to I think our interpretation of that is a bit different than what the Planning Commission derived from it I think it's strong towns strong towns okay thank you well if someone wanted to look it up or something that's the strong towns map I think I heard okay so and again focusing on interpretation and application we think that it is an overly broad conclusion to reach that there should be no standards at all for parking in commercial developments certainly again the goal of reducing the amount of unused parking the goal of reducing dependency on automobiles the goal of reducing pavement that causes stormwater runoff those are all very valid this though seems like an overly broad solution to a problem that may not be as pervasive as the Planning Commission Commission has concluded excuse me can I just ask you in terms of you said getting rid of all parking standards that doesn't that I think I thought what this referred to was the number of parking spaces not the actual way you build the parking lot with the dirt and the rocks and now I was I was talking about the quantitative so quantity okay all right I just wanted to make sure right you understood it wasn't eliminating no no we're focused solely on quantitative okay okay and we feel it's overly broad we also feel that it it kind of cuts out public participation if there is a nearby business owner if there is a nearby group of residents that feel that by virtue of the particular commercial development not having mandated parking spaces that they will bear the brunt of that that people will park in their areas we don't have a way to factor that into our deliberations we say you know our hands are tied we don't like saying that frankly it's more work for us to have to apply a flexible standard like the one that's in place now but I think it's important work because it allows the public to have their voice and it forces us to look at a kind of a balancing of the laudable goals with the proposed application so we're in in the letter we sent we refer to this as a conceptual defect conceptually it appears to take away our discretion and appears to take away public participation we also refer to an empirical defect which is one that focuses on the fact that we know of no development in which a minimum parking requirement has caused the development to be denied so we don't see that removing that standard is a way is is needed to deal with a problem of arbitrary denials because there haven't been any at that point I think I want to turn it over to Frank Hokeman to talk about those those studies in particular to talk about how comparable the other municipalities that were looked at are to South Burlington so Frank go ahead thank you I'm Frank Hokeman like spoke to this matter before perhaps a little too vehemently but I wanted to comment on a few of the rationales have been put forward particularly the idea that this is somehow part of a wave around the country because I don't think any of the materials that at least I have access to or frankly today that you were given access to demonstrates that at all I spent a fair amount of time looking at strong cities clicking on the dot I don't know how many of you actually tried to deal with the interactive map and if any of you can contradict what I'm about to say specifically I'd like to know it I spent a fair amount of time today clicking on the green and the blue and the orange dots I found no well one city Bury Illinois that has across the board eliminated minimum parking requirements for commercial development one they have 95 on on the site they're all over the map many of them eliminate minimum parking in downtown commercial districts some of them and then there's a there's there are some outliers doing all sorts of strange things most of them that I was able to see reduce the minimum parking requirements they did not eliminate them so Peoria there's another point I want to make about population density if you'll give me time I'll get to that too if you look in Indiana Wisconsin Minnesota and North Dakota which towns where they exactly Bismarck I remember it was the town in northern Minnesota St. Paul has never had minimum parking requirements ever it said that's Madison Wisconsin where Madison Wisconsin Milwaukee Marquette Wisconsin these are all on the strong cities those are all in strong cities on the list if you open the map up to a full screen you could actually see the cities listed I did see all the cities but I always click it on the buttons and I clicked on an awful lot of them what I found was Peoria the rest were qualified in some fashion and there's a fair amount of misinformation to the extent that these kind of precedents matter to you and I gather that they do I don't think they're very strong and I don't think they're comparable for example in an exchange I had privately with Megan weeks ago she sent me an article about Buffalo a Buffalo couldn't be less comparable to Burlington I also spoke to a guy I looked at the Buffalo ordinance and I spoke to a guy at the Buffalo News how's it going well we don't know yet it was a big to-do downtown where a developer wound up putting up a 200 unit multifamily project with 31 parking spaces if you think that's a good idea well you're the city council I also looked at the ordinance and discovered that the absoluteness of it is not is not quite as great as what the planning commission now proposes for example they reserve discretion in their review body to create well if you look it's explained in footnote 4 to the letter that was here they reserve discretion in the review body to force a developer to make sure that his overall traffic what do they call it traffic demand management plan traffic demand management plan right exactly footnote 4 is where it is will not impinge upon public infrastructure will not overload the streets with parking we have nothing there's nothing equally protective in what is being proposed for you yours is the most naked the most absolute of any I've been able to see so far and it is mistaken the withdrawal of discretion from a case-by-case consideration is just a mistake if you think a neighbor has nothing to say about the unilateral plan by the net by next door developer about that developers parking plan I think you are mistaken as a matter of public policy and you're going to have the public down upon you and a few you well whoever's sitting in your shoes is going to have the public down upon them like a storm when the impact becomes clear I'd like to say one more word I'm sorry it's a lot of time about public transportation that was my first instinct about this I no one has really time to do the kind of thing that one ought to do to be sure but instinctively you know that public transportation the viability of trunk of public transportation is a function to some extent of population density well that's not an absolute that's not a one-to-one relationship but I did some work on that today and I'm struck by this statement from an article called the density and transit some numbers I'm sorry it's just an internet item it's the from the from the old urbanist it's an online thing it looks pretty responsible looks pretty respectable the quote that struck me was no city with an overall density of less than 4,000 per square mile and there are many has broken a 10% commuting modal share in other words you don't break the necessity of having a car you don't reduce even by 10% until you get to a density at least 4,000 people per square mile South Burlington has a density of 1182 people per square mile you're going to make no impact on the tendency and the need the need for people to drive their cars downtown to drive their cars into the city and you're going to leave them with few places to park I think anything else I say would be redundant of what Brian had one last thought point that was raised administrative administrative law is always a net the virtue of administrative people like particularly if you're a developer if you're somebody trying to do something I understand it you want a black and white can I do it or can I not do it you know which side of the line am I on I just want to be able to read it in plain English well life and development is not that simple and what we have in America what we have in this state is a body of administrative law because the tradition the American tradition let's not get too rhetorical is to try to do individual justice administrative law is an effort frequently and particularly when it comes to something like development review to do individual justice to consider matters on a case-by-case basis that raises the developer's objection and perhaps the objection that you hear but it's loose that well it's an unguided it's an unguided missile it doesn't have to be an unguided missile the point when you vest discretion in an administrative body is to create standards that are reasonable and that can be understood and that control the discretion by way of example if your wife if the developer comes in and wants to drastically reduce the number of parking spaces he has well let him come forward with a plan from the chairman county transportation authorities saying if you build this here is the service we will provide for you that's the kind of discussion we could have just by way of an example that comes to mind you can't so wouldn't this change enhance that or promote that conversation we have nothing to know there is no conversation when you say I understand that and you think there should be so I'm I'm asking if you don't have a specific number of parking places determined by zoning or LDRs so business comes in and they suggest they need 30 and they have they're at a place where they then might have the conversation with I want to be able to I mean they are completely what you're doing is turning over you're letting the fox loose in the henhouse I'm sorry that's just what you're doing if you think that you can count there were developers and there were developers let us say as a Vermont trueism that on the whole we only have wonderful developers here who have the public interest at heart well we know that that's not the developers job the developers job is to build something he likes to make a profit at it and to meet the standard he's got to meet sometimes grudgingly sometimes less grudgingly but not with the public interest at the forefront you have this body this development review board that is supposed to have the public interest at the forefront you cannot vest that interest in the developer that's what you're doing here when it comes to parking you're saying we're going to leave it up to him he'll take care of the issue of public transportation you know you have seven people seven people who you've considered an appointed all of whom are experienced and who had who required very little discussion to come to a unanimous view about the lack of wisdom involved in this provision it's not just any seven people these are the seven people that work the most closely with these development regulations regularly all the time and the people and the people who apply to build developments many of whom I think well what I would add to this point although this amendment this proposed amendment is proposing to take that authority away from the DRB I don't think it's taking away any governmental oversight and for instance the concern about the neighbors right there is a process to to approach governmental decision makers here in the city that can does not involve the DRB okay so if you have spaces that are designated for the housing for the residents and spaces designated for commercial I've seen signs in many cities and some of these cities that are on this map that say you only allowed you know parking to these residents or they have them here they have them here too and these are things that are that are determined by the city council for instance when we went through the parking regulations throughout the city and I don't think you're in attendance Frank this council decided that there was not a one-size-fits-all for the city and that we wanted to maintain a difference based on neighborhoods and that could be determined based on the practices of users of these roads we have some basic standards but when it comes down to can you park on the road or not and the proposed amendment was you cannot park on the road for more than 24 hours we took that off because we thought that it was not it does not reflect what different users and different residents in this city determined to be almost a safety measure to park in the road in order to slow down traffic it there are things that I think are best left out of law books and that are perhaps more practical in nature and can be determined through a different governmental body so chair really I would just say I have a lot more to say on this topic too but we're running a half an hour behind two public hearings so I don't know what we're going to do here I want to hear from the public though on this because hi well we are hearing from the public we've had heard from two I disagree with me are there other people who would like to comment yes fine up barb and then are there other people as well with the show of hands okay so we have three four more people okay barbie service I live in summer woods I'm coming to late to this dance because I have been gone all summer but I have listened since I've been back to some of this conversation I'm very concerned about doing away with all I you know I live with it's easier to get forgiveness than permission however in this case I think that we need to require developers to get permission we see an awful lot of conflict in funny little places about developers with great intent but they also have to worry about the bottom line and so they cut here I would love to live in a place like I did when I was a kid where I took the bus or rode my bike everywhere the reality is that's not South Burlington I walk lots of places I'd love to be able to see people ride more bikes but you know what Williston Road really isn't working I'm hoping that pennies for paths will make other places for people to be able to bike but I'm also looking at the fact that we have a population that is aging those people are not going to be like me I am really lucky at 73 years old that I can walk from where I live to the mall and back and bring a backpack full of stuff back but a lot of people at 73 and older who live in my neighborhood can't do that we could reduce the number of spaces at the mall there's no doubt about that unless you go there in the middle of a blizzard on December 23rd it's not going to be full but in other places where we're looking at development I think we really need to think about I would about this vision that I hope will happen in my lifetime but isn't realistic for our population I'm also concerned about places where I mean let's face it most most couples now they are two car families but more of them are trying to become one car families but they're not going to become zero car families and they've got demands that require them to drive a car to get their lives done and if we take away all these regulations I'm afraid that it will push people away from South Burlington instead of bringing them here and we're building community and we're doing a great job of building community but I'm afraid this one could push people away because it will be easier to go to the big boxes it will be easier to go to Colchester or Wynuski or wherever because they know they can find a parking place so I would suggest that while this might be an ideal I don't think this is the right time for it yet but it's certainly something to look at but let's at least put a few parameters around not so much that we hamper the developers so they can't build things that are good for our community but a little bit so they at least have to come to the table for the discussion and so there is a forum without having come to the city council every time that when there's going to be a new building people in the neighborhood if they read the paper and they pay attention they know there's a way that they can come to the right forum and say I'm worried that this development is going to cause people to park in my neighborhood and already in my neighborhood there are too many cars on the street but to create that kind of dialogue and some minimums around that that would be helpful and keep that communication open without tying everybody's hands in the process and it's not only biking it encourages parking garages to be built bar this kind of regulation alright it makes it so that it is a shared parking structure as opposed to each business having their own you know off-road parking and that is something that I think is being lost in this discussion I don't like parking garages Megan I don't think they're safe and I don't think they're a good idea that's just me I don't think I don't think they're safe in terms of pardon me this is a stereotype the little old lady who needs to go and go shopping and it's dark and it's cold and she has to go to the second floor of the parking structure and she's not comfortable doing that and I realize that's a stereotype but I think about my mom and I think about some other people for whom it doesn't feel safe to them and I also don't think they're very attractive so there are a number of things around that I think that are for the environment I think we ought to continue this discussion I don't think that we're ready to make this loose a requirement yet can I realize that planning commission is done they're studying and all the rest but I'm still not convinced that we're ready to go thank you sorry all right Dave I didn't mean to smirk at Barbara about Colchester but she just brought the mind exit 16 yeah I mean it's I just picked it out of the air Tim exit 16 should be on everybody's mind good evening folks let me make something perfectly clear Dave will you David Crawford for Concord Green I want to make something pretty clear right at the beginning the thoughts that I'm sharing with you are mine and mine alone they're not anything that has to do with the committees that I have the pleasure of serving the community on so with that in mind a little bit of background about why I'm here my comments are based on my 40 plus years as a municipal administrator and working in numerous commercial on numerous commercial developments also uniquely I happen to be the first manager of Bedford New Hampshire and that was a very unique has that position you had to serve on the planning commission I thought that was really kind of odd but it was there I've also had experience in a in the private sector working with or for developers to do developments so that's a little bit of background now I ought where I came up with this I'm a late starter in this amazingly in the sense of this proposal of parking requirements I happened to learn about by attending a DVR meeting and this was last September on the fourth where they were discussing what they were going to do and I was saying what's going on here I came to the conclusion that I to eliminate parking completely in commercial developments is just not right I'm having trouble getting my head around it now let me say my perspective is a bit dated and it's good to hear that there's new ideas out there and I think we ought to try to encompass them so I don't have all the experience that the planning commission developed as part of their process having said that I still think that we ought to look at not completely eliminating the parking requirement I think the planning or the development review board's idea to reduce it to some percentage I would say give them discretion up to 75% but still keep the discretion watching them go through the process with developers they do get collaboration they aren't denying applications as far as I can tell they are working to make things happen and that's an important ingredient now I'm going to change my hat a little bit as a taxpayer and I may be my some things I'm here I I'm saying I think these are true my understanding is that the city is short of parking places that we are spending a fair amount of time and effort dollars to consider acquiring and building parking facilities I may be in wrong and wrong in that but that's what I've heard it seems like there is a need for parking and if we remove the parking requirements and we're wrong if some of these assumptions and ideas that we are putting forward with 100% you know elimination really worries me because who's going to pick up the cost for it it's a taxpayer if we need to build parking garages that's the right thing to do in retrospect for South Burlington then the taxpayers are going to take the hit and that concerns me I say go forward with caution please that's my plea so questions comments and I'll be happy to try to answer any things in my perspective or why I came to these conclusions I think you were very clear thank you very much I would also say thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak sorry I don't know your name I'm Peter Smire from VHB I'm here on behalf of Larkin Realty so thanks to the the council for taking this up obviously no regulations are perfect and they always require some changes and additional thought to make them better so appreciate your time a lot of what was said earlier was on my notes and I've kind of scratched things off and into trying to not be redundant so bear with me but I think in summary we support the not elimination of parking but elimination of a prescribed amount of parking that is in the bylaw so I feel like we're we're sort of the discussion I'm hearing it seems like there's a lot of discussion about this sort of phantom project of a big box store with no parking you know from having worked for state agencies and developers alike you know no developer goes in with the commercial building without a tenant typically and those tenants have certain requirements that they have to meet for this to be a viable project people don't build empty buildings and then occupy them generally they usually have a certain amount of prospects before they undertake something like that so I think we feel like having some form of letting the market decide what type of parking gets built is a more efficient way of progressing on this issue you know certainly we've seen the prescriptive approach approach that at least is in the form-based code of the two spaces per thousand for commercial uses is certainly a little bit too general in that it has it's not specific enough to certain uses and in my experience it's not by loss can't often keep up with various land uses and so having bylaws try to constantly be amending for different uses that reflect as accurately as they can the parking requirements that are needed is not a very efficient way to go about this either so that's what we support a market-based type of approach I can tell you in the context of one project that we have been working on at exit 14 you know there's talk here of a project not being denied I guess that could be said but we have a project that has a proposed city street a planned street through it right at exit 14 it's the hot current holiday insight it's been a hotel for 50 years and the Larkins are interested in expanding that use and one of the things that we found right away was that under the form-based code we had to provide 380 spaces on that site per the current bylaw the hotel brand required about 200 to 240 spaces depending on the program and so right away we have a project that was designed in the spirit of the form-based code helped to establish a gateway to the city it helped it also is helping to construct a portion of the city street on which public parking will be built by the developer so in terms of this sort of fine line between you know private dollars and public investments it's not always sometimes it's a little bit of a gray area there but that project really just as an example can't really go ahead because there's a big parking lot in the front right now and so that city street is somewhat at risk at least in the short term due to these standards so that's an example of where the parking minimums stand in the way of other provisions and intent of the bylaw in this case so part of why we're here tonight I think that's about all I wanted to convey I guess in terms of process I think that the form base at least in the form-based code district it's already we're already into an administrative process and so sort of doing a little preemptive discussion here but if something like that were to happen and we have to go to DRB now for a waiver or there's a waiver granted that requires the DRB we end up with making qualitative arguments to the DRB about the vet the virtues of the project can we essentially undercut the administrative process of the form base code which our understanding was to allow for some more timely development of city center so we would have concerns if we're back to DRB arguing for the merits of a project solely for parking but it essentially turns into a full review of the project and then the last piece I'd say in terms of demographics in South Burlington I'm not South Burlington resident I live in Burlington but you know affordability I think is a component of this and a lot of you know this is my sort of experience people they don't always want cars and I think that if projects and and developers are forced to pay for these parking spaces and build the parking spaces that's going to affect the affordability of the city too and that may have effects as well thank you great Michael you wanted to speak or not okay this needs to be more market is there anyone else I didn't want to okay so or other well I think we were taking comments on all of them I think there are people here for the TV oh okay I that's why I was surprised there weren't more okay well let's just anyone who wants to speak on any of the issues please raise your hand we can jump back and forth we were good at that I think yes why don't you come up again yeah just like to read a couple comments about the proposed TDR amendment well written from a purely conservation point of view the current South Burlington TDR program is problematic and that the TDR sending and TDR receiving areas are all in the SEQ which is where almost all of South Burlington's remaining open space is located the consequences can be dense developments in areas where our LDRs and comprehensive plan encourage open space preservation scenic view and natural resource protection wildlife habitat preservation and continued agriculture basically we wonder why what's the rush the TDR IZ committee and the interim zoning committee haven't made their final decisions on what they're going to recommend and there's a Vermont Supreme Court ruling that's pending it's very important regarding TDRs so I'm wondering why we're here now and why don't we wait until we get the recommendations and why don't we wait to see what the Vermont Supreme Court says and then make a decision that makes sense going forward thank you anyone else yes my name is Darryl and Peters and I don't want to take a lot of your time I respect the fact that you spend an enormous amount of time for the city these are difficult issues and I'm wondering if when the city council asked the Planning Commission to develop a small change to the TDR that would somehow get us through some period until you heard the result of the Supreme Court decision that there was this sense of urgency that we had to have something and we had to have it right now and my question is why we don't have a lack of development in South Burlington I mean we have the Farrell project we have a Brian firm we have Cider mill 3 we have some more golf course it's not as if people are saying well I want to build this big thing but I don't know how many TDRs I can get and you guys are holding me up it's all moving ahead so I guess what I'm saying is let's try to get it right you very wisely gone into interim zoning you've asked these committees to work they've worked hard I've heard their reports and I think they're very impressive and they're trying to move forward responsibly to come up with something that is in the best interest that respects the comprehensive plan recognizes the rights of homeowner property owners and comes up with a good solution let us respect the process that you created and the people who are working so hard on that and let's just wait let's hear what they have to say let's hear what the Supreme Court has to say and then wisely come up with the policy that everybody can understand I know the rationale that I heard tonight was well there's uncertainty in the community well yes and having yet another interim version of the TDR is not going to dispel that uncertainty so then I heard well there are many months away we can wait we have lots of development going on we're not hamstrung so my request is I think you asked the planning commission to do this in good conscience because you were thinking there was this big vagueness out there but I would ask that you rethink that position and just stop now and wait for all the good work that's in the process to be completed thank you other comments from the public that nobody else okay so close I'll move to close the public hearing second all in favor so we do not need to deliberate right now that's item 8 isn't it pardon me so we're not going to be debating the approval of those until item 8 right we have 6 and 7 before then right okay close to 9 o'clock I just want to point that yes I know I'm yeah an appointment to go to bed okay we will move on to item 6 public hearing on interim zoning application I see 19 dash oh three of Tom and Kim Phillips to subdivide a 2.2 acre lot on spear straight into two lots of 1.1 acre we get Amanda you got to swear these folks yes okay before you begin we have to swear you in so we have to open this public hearing on interim zoning application I move that we open a public hearing on interim zoning application IZ 1903 of Tom and Kim Phillips a second all in favor and in a moment we will swear you in and then we can hear your you can just swear it is basically Perry Mason yeah do you swear to tell the truth do you swear he's got he's got well yeah I think we have the right language okay there's a choice or there let's see the order of events okay so we'll hear this mr. Phillips and then if there's any interested persons we'll hear from them and then we will swear them all in to swear them all in and then we will hear the take the testimony and if there's any written information we'll accept that and then we'll close the public hearing and we can have a discussion okay yes is there anyone else besides mr. Phillips who will be saying anything tonight testify all right so Tom if you'll raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help Scott I do great thank you so why don't you take us through your proposal okay first I get the information so first my wife couldn't make it tonight she did a lot of this work and we have a 17-year-old that's a senior that needed help writing a paper that's doing the morning okay so I elected to be here rather than helping with the paper so we bought 1430 spear last year my wife grew up in Richmond and our brother lives up here and we love Burlington and I happen to be driving by Spear Street so I was for sale sign an old ranch up there enough you're familiar with the building I've been in there in 12 years you know it's really rough and I called my wife and said I think I found it's on spear and she couldn't believe I found someone spear straight we've been looking for a while so I spent six months fixing up the old house and it comes with a you know it's when we closed we are told that it was on 2.2 acres and that it could be another lot so we're thinking of building something small my wife's thinking smaller I mean we're not sure what we're doing but we cleaned up the house and now we're cleaning up the yard next to it and my daughter will graduate in June not sure where she's going but we're gonna live in Wallingford right now south of Rutland we're gonna we're gonna move up in June she graduates June 10th or coming up June 11th I don't know what else say I have Dave your city engineer what's his last name your engineer you're Justin Robbidy what's David do yes I'm sorry he's been over there a lot they just redid a stormwater pond that's a joint it's that little wedge piece you see next to the map and I've been dealing with them on there's two stormwater drains one on each side of the driveway now and I had had them come out a few times and they were out there looking at the other so we've been involved with them on the stormwater they don't seem to think there's going to be a problem because there's two stormwater drains right there on that side of the road on each side of the property the old house had an old septic and we opt to tie into the town sewer lucky you and I'm not sure what else it is we were subdivided now I'm not sure exactly what we're gonna do with it you know with a building permit but you what you're proposing is a single family home yes yes are there questions is the is the available space north or south of the existing house south you there's a picture of it it's like two spaghetti lots so it's basically you've got it would be like a double double thin lot yeah a lot of those lots right on that street or two acre and some I don't want acre lots down through there and the little triangle south of yours is not developable that that's owned by the development next door that's that storm it's all stormwater pond so they're so that in some ways that's a little more space and visually any way to the subdivision where they raise mosquitoes yep and ticks is this lane eligible for TDRs I didn't see how it was zoned on the application the zoning for that district is southeast quadrant neighborhood residential and so there could be one point two dwelling units per acre without TDRs and then under a TDR program it could go up to four dwelling units per acre I believe it's two would be eligible correct we haven't finalized our map yet when we had the previous applicant I actually took it back to the IZ Open Space Committee to have them have them review it our next meeting's the 25th if you would like us to to review it I thought you were looking at four acres and great that's true and this is a 2.2 I don't know as this would be in your correct sorry that's my cold talking yeah what's our choice to approve this right to prove or I think we wouldn't do that yet we won't do that now if you have some other questions I don't I mean I drive past this every day multiple times you know exactly where it is I don't I don't see any but would you see an impact if if TDRs were purchased and there were four houses on this lot potentially because that's a lot of houses on the skinny lot as the gentleman has stated one house on that lot it's set back fairly significantly from the road as well so if we close this and not continue it it goes to the DRB next no no it's separate no there's no right it's not to say that they may go forward and then they come up with a plan right to take two then they go to the DRB but you have to you have ultimately in order for a subdivision take place that need both an approval from you and separately an approval from the DRB they've chosen to come to you first they could have gone the flip way but it needs a yes from both that makes me feel better so the DRB is going to look more closely at this and that would be you've seen a line drawing that would be a it would be proper a plat and all those kind of things it's public water as well so we're in water so you have to drill a well no there's water at the street so that the part that you're going to subdivide off to build the new house it is adjacent to where they're constructing stormwater and doing new stormwater work right it just finished it just finished it okay so so the property that you want to break off to build a house on how wet is that now it's not bad I think what's happened is everything else has been built in that lot is probably one of the last lots there so it's a little low in the front so I did have Dave come out wheeler wheeler stormwater and him and another guy from his office came out and looked at it they didn't seem to think we'd like to shoot grade and get the water to run into that stormwater pond and into those two drains and right now it's not perfect it's not much water but in the spring it's wet down here the road kind of creates a dam and then the big development next door got built and that everything there is up about six or eight feet so this is like the last lot so there's no wetlands there we checked with that and Dave and everybody looked at it and we don't seem to think it's probably just went a little great and to make sure the water does hit your stormwater drains how many trees do you think you'll have to cut down we three or four we took all these little there's a lot of vegetation from the Google map we're trying to save all the pine trees that were planted by the woman before but a lot of it's sumac that's in it's very small sumac that's what we've been cutting out of it yeah okay other questions oh just as a matter of interest or whatever if it's the house I'm pretty sure it is the previous owner I had always talked about the potential for another house on that same lot yeah she bought that lot separately she owned a lot and built the house and then she bought the lot later on is what the family told us oh it had a pre-existing lot huh yeah I just recall that that's all uh-huh well I think you know a single family on this thing seems to be in keeping four homes would be another story I don't think it would work very well are there any other questions okay we'll close the public hearing second all in favor thank you very much thank you you would expect a draft recommended draft back from staff added for a deliberative meeting at the time of your choosing sure I'll say quick is that there's pins there in places and they all seem to work when we did our wastewater you know we had to go through the state and get an engineer in there to just connect to the town sewer and we found them to be correct but to cut that that lines are showing the pins that are there there's metal pins there what I'd really like to do eventually is to get a cert a new survey in there because it's it's kind of old what's been going on in there and just to make sure everything's correct before we either sell the house or the lot or whatever we do so I'm just like you know that I'm planning on doing that if I get the okay on the permits and everything to do this and it's probably one of the first things to do oh well okay so our next meeting is October 7th so that's when you can I guess that's when we'll have a deliberative yes meeting and then within a week or 10 days we have a you would have a proposed decision or a proposed decision from Paul to consider at that okay thank you very much all right item 7 public hearing on interim zoning application IZ 19-04 Scott McAllister to subdivide a 1.23 acre lot currently as a single-family home into three lots and when we open a public hearing on interim zoning application IZ 19-04 of Scott McAllister second all in favor so raise your right hand do you promise any is anyone else going to testify or comment on this proposal all right so do you what's the word no swear swear to tell the truth the whole decision swear you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay thank you so would you please share with us what your hopes and dreams are my name Scott Holmes said I'm a civil engineer for Krebs and Lansing consulting engineers representing here with Scott McAllister the owner of the property in the applicant the proposed properties located at 1430 Hinesburg Road and this parcel is actually between its fronts on two streets fronts on Hinesburg Road and also Highland Terrace and the existing house is accessed from Hinesburg Road and the proposal is to subdivide the property into three parcels and construct two new single-family homes that would front Highland Terrace and so those those lots would be accessed from the Highland Terrace side the existing house is on an onsite wastewater system in a private well the as part of this project we would hook up the new houses to municipal sewer and also at that time connect the existing house to municipal sewers well while we were in there the the new houses would also would have to be on a private water service there's no municipal water would they each have their own well then we'll have to sort that out the current idea is that the two new houses could share one well the existing well that's out there is a very high yield it's a 50 gallon a minute well which if we found something similar that'd be you know more than enough to support several residences is that typical I don't know to share wills is it it's done I it's it's done in my experience it's done when the development is dense like this you know when I do you know one or eight or more a lot subdivisions we typically don't we put each individual well in its own house but each well comes with its own series of separation distances and once you start trying to put them close together they can interfere with one another and I think it actually makes sense in this case to to share it so you know that's that's the concept we have right now we have some concurrently applied to the development review board we're on the agenda for the October 22nd meeting I believe we thought it made sense to come here first and sort of make sure we had a project before we kept going there will this require a TDR it will actually that's the same similar to the prior meeting before you this is in southeast quadrant neighborhood residential district it's a 1.2 acre lot so I under traditional you they could only do the one house with TDRs they could go up to four units we're only proposing three is the idea here one thing I would like to point out that you know we sort of got this idea from the idea from the fact that you know several other lots in this vicinity have done the exact thing you can if you look at the current Google map you can see one under construction two houses down where they're doing essentially the same thing we're proposing here the north of you or south of you the one that's on the map is I think south that's not the one we approved because they're they need a TDR and there was another world yes there is another property that did something similar to the north as well I don't know if that shows you as well what is the minimum lot size for a house in South Burlington it depends on the zoning district I think in this zoning district with TDRs I think you can go to 12,000 square feet so this would be the minimum size so this is yeah that's the way we size the lot relatively small that's good are there other shared wells on that road on that side of the road I have not checked to see I checked some of the yields on the walls but I didn't check the uses of who is like we could look into that how would that be administrative you know being shared ownership of the well I mean you'd have to be on one lot's property but both houses would share the water if the if the pump died how is that determined who would pay and there's typically just a shared well agreement there's such a thing as a shared well agreement okay is that entered into the city deed or something like that or you could do it within you know each deed to each lot or you could do it as a separate separate agreement between the two be similar to a shared septic system which I do all the time you know the the well would be there being easement guaranteeing both properties access to maintain and use it would set out shared costs and repairs that's a party line yes that's a telecommunication that's the party line yes yeah you have to get along with this neighbor don't you not on the board maybe I don't know are there any other questions thank you very much you post the public hearing second all in favor and so the same deal October 7th October 7 thank you very much hey for our secretary here will take a brief break and come back to item 8 7 30 well if you have a public hearing they're pleased never and it's a thriving what you're thinking on this parking thing thriving carve that one out and keep it separate until the planning commission well in Minnesota my right so I want to call back to order the south brogdon city council meeting of Monday September 16th 2019 and we will take up item 8 which is the council's review of the public input impossible action to adopt the proposed amendments to the LDR regulations so Paul do you have any comments you want to make or the council probably happy to answer any procedural questions that you might have about whether you want to take action this evening or want to contemplate it or want to take different actions for any of them happy to run through any scenarios that you'd like but I don't want to preview all the different options I mean I would just say I think it is unusual and uncomfortable to have a committee sign a piece of paper that says we're opposed to the work of the planning commission that's unusual it puts us in a I mean we point all the people to both those committees and have a lot of you know we care about them and respect them and I just want to go on record and I'm sorry they're not here but I I think it's perfectly okay for individual members of a committee to come and comment on something but I think it was I guess the term I would use is inappropriate to have that kind of letter and vote on the work of another committee that's tasked with and has the responsibility of putting forth the LDRs the DRB's responsibility is to carry them out and certainly in the conversation and discussion going to up to the time that the planning council or commission excuse me was working on them I'm sure they were asked or were able to make comments and that was incorporated into the thinking but to then sort of almost attack them publicly I just I'm disappointed and I'm sorry that had to happen and it puts us in a weird situation but given that here we are so council what are your thoughts I'm ready to pass them all my my biggest concern was with e to be quite honest and and I'm happy to explain my reasons I truly think that what mr. Spire mr. Smire the Larkin representative said and what he brought forth was really needed to be heard which is businesses and tenants of these commercial properties count on parking in order to exist it is not going to go away and I I repeat that we have in our city center a huge lot that basically sits unfilled we have in technology park huge lots that basically sit unfilled and it makes sense to me to take something that is in law and takes years to change and to adapt to an existing situation out of the law books and make it more nimble and I am very much persuaded by the argument that the market is is the appropriate place with our oversight if there are people who abuse I find that a much more nimble system that adapts to the situation just like how we asked for the parking to not be citywide no parking on the streets we wanted to be able to adapt it to a situation that was a unique unique to different neighborhoods I see these things as very comparable with regard to the TDRs I understand the arguments presented and Mr. Seth's letter as well as the arguments that the residents brought forward here tonight this is not seen by myself in any case as the last word on TDRs it simply makes it so that we are not sitting here in limbo unable to to have you know a fully functioning set of land development regulations we are still in interim zoning we still intend to go through and see where the TDR IZ committee comes out you know finally and how all of these different studies line up in order to to put forth some regulatory language the Supreme Court decision I was told might not come up for the next eight months we hope to be done of course with our our studies prior to that but the Supreme Court decision could throw everything up in the air who knows right but that's not a reason to not move and I think that we have to act in good faith as a city and people rely on the law in order to to know what to do and we have right now a non-functioning TDR regulation and we have interim zoning and if we can just make it a functioning TDR regulation and interim zoning I think it just gives everybody a fair playing field but I I do respect the opinions C&D I have no issues with E I just really wanted to be sure with regard to the accessory structures that there was not just one or two people out there saying oh okay I think that was my really my biggest problem with that can I ask you a question if if we do Pat excuse me pass the the LDR that would eliminate the minimum parking if a if a developer came to the DRB with their plan and they had a ridiculously low number of parking spots the process could be that the DBR says the DRB says denies that on the basis of could they I don't know that's my question think that there wouldn't be anything against the DRB posing questions about it but it would not if the parking minimums were eliminated it would not be something that they would have the authority to deny a project based on all right thank you other comments Tom why don't you go next you could have planning commission is kind of tasked with two things tactical planning and really long-term vision planning and those sometimes are hard to reconcile especially when people can't see the long-term visions very clearly because they're kind of locked into the here and now and I understand that and that can be difficult and I really appreciate the proposal for no commercial parking minimum I think it it makes sense in the long term there are there's a lot of flux going on right now in the whole transportation model for the way our country works right and over the next 10 15 20 years and a little bit more you're going to see car ownership change and the whole paradigm about watching 50 car commercials in a row you know starting 11 o'clock until 11 30 right in between all of the little breaks of news that's going to start to change it it depends not so much on whether you're in a rural area but on on the models of how we move people between point a point B right and so in urban areas car ownership I think it's going to it's going to go away I mean it already has gone away in a lot of ways right and when you move to rural areas you don't have that that luxury and so depending upon what kind of a suburban suburban environment you're in you know I I don't think that you're gonna the developers are going to shoot themselves in the foot because they know that we're still really are a car centric society and especially from October through March right so and I've never ever I was on the DRB for four and a half years I never saw us like unanimously come out in opposition to a proposed LDR change I've seen you know requests from the DRB to the Planning Commission you know could you tweak this because we've had these problems before right so this is this is kind of new so if we could work with you know request a in such a way where we could find some common ground for the DRB in the Planning Commission that would be great maybe reduced reduce the minimums right maybe not make them zero but reduce the minimums but also preserve whatever the DRB's discretion waiver discretion are the thing I'm worried about is that if you expand the DRB's discretion in wavering percentage that could open us up again to the same type of problem we have the TDRs right where you have ambiguity in DRB discretion whether it is actual or not or perceived depending upon which lawyer or judge looks at it right I I don't want to go down that road with this so I'm open to somehow coming to a compromise on on a for B I'd like to go ahead and pass B for a number of reasons one is that even if B doesn't pass all of the receiving properties in the southeast quadrant can still be built upon they could still try to use TDRs if they want to do but they can still be developed that's my point they can still be developed under an existing TDR that's been amended so that it is it is presumably immune from you know Supreme Court scrutiny the way it has been in the past will ensure that more land in the southeast quadrant from the sending areas actually gets conserved because that's the model upon which that regulation was built but in order to conserve it you've got to pull those those development rights and plant them somewhere else so I see B as a necessary step to get to the point where then that the TDR I Z committee's recommendations can be used to to augment and enhance the TDR program later on down the line I we wouldn't be here tonight if the if the spear meadows neighbors and Mr. Seth had not you know appeal the decision to the e-court and then to the Supreme Court we wouldn't be here when you you don't know how good your regulation is until somebody actually tests it so it got tested and tomorrow they're going to put make some more arguments about you know with the with the appeal the cross appeal but it got tested and it you know that the judge decided that they that he found some discrepancies and some ambiguity and so I think it is the city's duty through our our attorneys to fix those those deficiencies because the original regulation was written with a certain purpose and if it was found to be defective it just needs to be fixed and we'll move on from there and we'll take the IZ TDR committee's recommendations and move them through the planning commission and see what we got. I would essentially echo what Tim what Tim said and I think for the for the parking for a for the parking regulations I think there needs to be better definition and and some additional discussion to come to a meeting of the minds on that it's not an emergency and let's let's get the planning commission and the DRB together and and and work out something that makes logical sense we don't want to we don't want to free for all there either so I echo what what Tim expressed and I'm in agreement on on being the rest or the rest are fine. Okay. Tom. So I have a whole statement but I don't feel like I need to say it but so I'm against a and I can go through the reasons but I love what you guys said I just want a meeting of the minds I'm all for reducing our parking I just don't want to eliminate it I just think it's too drastic a step and I think the DRB statement was very powerful I I'm glad they spoke up because they know these these regulations better than anybody else but I'm not going to suffer you all through my 500 word rationale but I'll say this CD and E are completely fine as for B I think it's it's not going to be bad I don't think it's a problem for the concerns that have been raised but I also am not convinced that we need to alleviate this uncertainty right now because interim zoning produce uncertainty so it seems to make sense to me but I don't know these things as well as Tim does he has served on the DRB so much longer for so long prior to this role I'm a yes on B but not tonight I feel like we should just bundle B into when we pass or when interim zoning wraps up so interim zoning is in place and I I haven't been convinced but I think the votes are there and you guys are good but unless you want to spend three hours with me to really understand the nuances of all these legal cases I'm just I'm a no tonight on B on B on the transfer and a but so you're a no on a and B okay and you support CD and E well my position is I I I support them all and I am I'm certainly I clearly will be outvoted I guess for the parking requirements I guess I would just say I'm I would be happily surprised but surprised if the two committees find a meeting of the minds because I think they've talked about this and they you haven't not officially with but have members have spoken to you I mean not as a committee to committee but they have presented some concerns and you heard them and you talked about them and you as Tim said tried to look at the long-term vision and come up with something that you felt would promote our comprehensive plan and address and push the city in a direction that supports those certainly a big change but I I'm actually a member of strong towns and I read a lot of their articles because I think they've done an incredible amount of research and granted not every community they talk about is just like South Burlington and you can always take everything from one community and just plop it in your own but I think they provide a lot of very progressive forward thinking ideas about how to deal with climate change how to deal with some of the transportation issues but really what captures my imagination the most is the the cases they make about really improving the ability for a community to raise the revenue it needs to support long term the infrastructure that we've built and I think when I look at our current parking requirements they're in place now and you drive around and so many places they're they're over parked or have too many parking spots so please tell me what I'm seeing that isn't a failed plan or policy you know correct me I beg to differ that I mean Joe Larkin's new building down next to the palace nine does not have a lot of parking and it seems to be tuned correctly to the amount of residential that's going to be right and he made that decision I get why and I don't know how many waivers they needed for that building but to me that is a good example of a well-designed you know lot for that particular use for that building you know I mean that the you mall we will never repeat I hope that's not true we I hope it's really we will never repeat that ever again and like the Kmart Plaza right I hope I mean at least they're putting the storm water underneath the parking lot like we're going to do with our new City Hall and the library right but they're making the improvements even though it is a sea of asphalt at least it's going to get some treatment before it goes into Potash Brook which is right underneath it so I mean I understand I'm just saying that but but maybe maybe I am actually arguing on your behalf saying that if Joe Larkin had been told you didn't have a minimum he would have looked at I got a bank coming in I got a restaurant I got you know 20 apartments and I've got this and that I need to like you know 30 spaces whatever it is right and he's got to fulfill the commercial requirements for that that lot to enable that the customers can come to the businesses I'm assuming he did the population for whom he wanted to rent those apartments right and he's also on a bus line right so I get all that so that the question is so why won't other businesses I don't think about that as well I don't know that they won't and I just don't I you know we don't need to tell them that they have to have twice as many parking spots that they then come to the look at Tilly Drive was a disaster because they didn't have enough parking for all of the medical requirements because it was doctors offices right and they didn't anticipate that in the beginning and people were parked up and down the sides of that road and a lot of those people couldn't walk to get to the front door the office in the first place didn't make that better did it well at least they have the parking near the office office buildings now where they have the people have to get inside to get to their medical that was because of our LDRs or was that something that was going to happen no matter I mean I think that's the point we all I think I've met with Mr. Boudoyne who comes you know with various plans and he already knows how much parking he needs for this tenant and that tenant he shows me he explains to me I talked to him about it right because he has all those numbers from his tenants I mean I don't think that we can pull a number out of the air the DRB can pull a number out of the air they don't pull numbers out of the air so the LDRs and the national standards apply an arbitrary number per thousands of square feet for per conditional use right to calculate how much parking is needed the question is what is wrong with that model why does it sometimes provide too much parking and sometimes not enough parking in the print and the question the answer is because it's arbitrary right it's arbitrary for the the location of the building for the uses that are in the building and I don't have the right answer when they have the meeting of the mines where is that number going to come from Tim well it could come from whatever process they want to use to determine what that number is I think all straws and whatever you are short I mean obviously there's got to be some common sense standard if you're going to have 50 seats in a restaurant right and you expect it to be X percent full between these hours these hours you need you know 15 spots but we don't want LDRs that say okay if this building has a restaurant and a shoe store and I don't know a doctor's office then this one is going to need like 10 15 5 and then the next building that's how it's done today right but that's how the developers know it's done by a thousand square feet yeah okay I think anyway I'll give you my statement if I keep going Mr. Spire said really clarified it a reminder me in my conversation with Mr. Badoing Jean Badoing I'm like that's right he came to me yeah the whole plan there he told me these are the number of spots at this tenant requires this is the number of spots that this requires and he explained it all to me I think the numbers are there but not they're not going to be in our LDRs just like Helen said how can we plan for all of these different scenarios that potential developers are going to come forward with just like the Larkin redevelopment of the holiday and how can our LDRs plan for that creative process where they know how many parking space how could the owner of the building were cleaners is ever know that a spinning studio was going to come in and just take up all the parking and make all the other businesses you know howling mad because they didn't have a place for their customers to park I don't know the answer parking north of that building is a ton of parking well but but maybe that is where the owner needs to be trying to figure out how to put their arms around it right to give the DRB the power to be able to wave the amount of parking down to whatever it is that's required in the interest of time I just want to say this deserves more conversation I don't think we should even if somebody switches on this issue vote on it tonight I just think it needs more time so I would just encourage us to continue this conversation and have the planning commission connect with the DRB and come back but that's where I am since it's close to the time one comment very very good thought process Tim we went through that exact discussion the market will determine how many spots are needed because their goal is to pay the bills on their building you're going to run into some situations where you have a building that was built 50 years ago whenever the metal building was built and because over time uses change and maybe they didn't anticipate the number of bikes do a bike count in a spinning class right it's really easy to get to the number of potential cars by counting the bikes in the spin room maybe they didn't do that for whatever reason but a lot of times in those environments you expect shared parking arrangements and that didn't get talked about very much tonight where most people that are going to take the spinning class are going to do it after hours when usually clingers is closed and there's other parking around that building maybe there is some overlap in that particular instance it was a problem maybe they've worked it out I'm not sure really good points but the market will solve all that that was my statement along with two questions for you procedural what I thought I heard up there was that you're asking the DRB to where they had of the planning commission and the planning commission to where they have the DRB and mutually come to some agreement about what the long-term vision is supposed to be my impression is that they've done this before that the planning commission has met with the DRB to talk about priorities what things should be looking at I just want you guys get on the same page if you can convince the DRB members that this is the right thing to do I start you're correct we talk about priorities but we don't intermix policy and procedure which is what you're asking us to do you're asking the DRB what I thought I heard was to take on the role of the planning commission and start to get involved in policy that they're supposed to be administering there's a reason that we have two bodies in South Burlington one is a policy body and one is an administrative body there's two lines of expertise there and you're asking those lines to be crossed so that was my I'm just looking for clarification because that's what I thought I heard the second part I would ask for consideration is the next time an issue comes up like this and you're asked the DRB to go outside of their wheelhouse and act as the planning commission where do we sit in the future when that happens is this really the precedent that the city council is looking to set by having these two bodies work together on policy which is different than working together on priorities I want them to communicate I want them to be working back and forth they're the bodies that know these regulations the best so I would want you guys to meet more so that you you don't become misaligned I echo arts commons and Helen's comments that she made earlier I believe that this letter I read it I read every word of it I read Frank's letter to the other paper I heard him speak in the council chamber the planning commission sets the regulations and the DRB is where the rubber hits the road I Test the interpretation of over but they have approached members of the planning commission the plant members of the planning commission have heard their feedback and they have come back with this I think that we are asking them to do what they have already done and I do find this to be an unfair precedent that we are actually actualizing right here and I disagree with this I will abstain from that vote because I disagree in principle with that the point that I had the point that concerns me and not because I generally agree with a except for there's no safety valve in there so to speak and you just confirm that Paul when you said if a developer comes and and we eliminate minimum parking that's it there's no there's no wiggle room in there within the within the purview of the DRB is that what you that's what you said I think the wording needs to be improved and then I probably will be okay with it but not as it's currently stated I think that can be improved I don't see that as rocket science or terribly overburdening and and I would hope we can do that and come back with it and be okay if I may that's a really good point and Tim you're a really good point too in that what is the safety belt that's the real question right how do we protect residential streets from becoming commercial parking lots big picture at the end of the day the comprehensive plan and the elder LDRs are both vision documents in a way they're both living breathing documents they're intended to change over time as the way we change over time the safety valve is if it doesn't work you fix it then you go back and you fix it just like we're doing with the TDRs just like we do in the back and forth conversations we have with the DRB on many of these issues but to try to make this an issue where we're going to either do it you know 25% this year and 50% next year and then 75% there's no way to test it when that is the process that's fine but but if the word if the wording was improved we wouldn't have to get to making a mistake necessarily before we corrected it you could avoid the mistake in the first I think that's his point though what is the right language you want some parameters and and the Planning Commission is saying you know please trust us we've thought about this and this is a policy change that if it doesn't work I mean we're already working arts on the committee that looks at the form-based code because it was such a great idea we spent a ton of money a lot of talk we all voted for it and then when a couple buildings got built it was like oh we didn't think of that well should we have you can always think about that you design a kitchen and you you know you put some cabinet in the wrong place it's like why did I do that so you change it so they're working on changing the form- based code should we say oh no that's that was perfect when we passed it clearly it was not when you apply it to certain situations you can't unwind buildings that are built and so our future generations are going to have to work with the bricks in the ground that we might lay down without the adequate parking and my fundamental concern which is in this 500 word essay I'm going to give the Madeline for her optional perusal is that this will shift the cost of the very true cost of private parking on to the taxpayer because if we let these buildings come up and sooner or later they're going to be an overbuilt onto the properties I'm seeing Zachary's is going to get swooped up and you're going to put something on that lot I'd already know it's been eyeballed by some developers exactly if I may so as that building comes up they're going to rely on the higher ground parking in the Dunkin Donuts parking and then the higher ground is going to want to build up and they're going to go to David Buster's sure if nobody has to build parking it's going to increasingly put pressure on the city to have to build these parking garages so they're not locked into exactly what the developer chooses I think that's simple I don't see it as complicated and then I think we can move forward with this I'm going to change my mind I'll go with a because I think it's worth taking the risk I I mean I hear the DRB's argument and I appreciate it but Helen is sort of right I mean they they really don't have it's unprecedented to have them all come up at the same time and kind of argue with the planning commission about a possible LDR when really it's their job to administer whatever the LDRs are that we pass my statement okay I will give you that opportunity but thank you Tim but I mean you know I mean just it is I mean there's there are certain roles that people have in the city when they're on certain you know boards and committees and commissions okay but what about the statement that Paul made that if a developer comes to the DRV and proposes a project and for it with with X amount of parking and through the expertise and experience of the members of the DRB they don't agree but because we pass this without giving the DRB any discretionary power conversation and the developer said oh I haven't thought of I don't know but why can't we just write that right can't we just write that option in could you just give it some more time just to ponder I mean why rush tonight does it make sense to write an option like that in so that I think that's a dangerous dangerous step David but go ahead Paul dangerous because the media are no no Paul needs to answer that but yes I'm a small business owner when this was first proposed I kind of went huh you know I'm in the blue mall we've got the DMV across the street you know that that bleeds over into our side parking lot a little bit but you know the more I thought about it I thought to myself you know we have this conversation numerous times as heated as this you know I said I said somebody's gonna say I'm gonna build building no parking but I I firmly believe the market is gonna dictate as a developer when you're gonna build a building you know if you want to attract a tenant say somebody wants to attract me they're not gonna show me a building with no parking I agree completely I just I just don't think that's going to happen and it took me a while to come around to that way of thinking at first I was like I don't know about this is but I just think that this is not residential doesn't have anything right just commercial just only commercial you know the market is going to dictate you're not gonna I firmly believe the developers not gonna come in with a building where he's trying to attract commercial tenants and not have a parking and so Duncan if you let's say you want to move you want a bigger place so you go but you're gonna build your home so there are a whole bunch of condom I guess they're like condominiums or rental you know someone who owns a whole strip so when you go and negotiate I want that building or that that space and I need 10 parking spaces or whatever it is you think you need if the owner says sorry I can't guarantee that don't you go somewhere else to rent I mean is that part of your it's the conversation so that the owner clearly wants happy tenants so he doesn't want the you know biking issue that happened that occurred you know it at where Klingers is that was unfortunate because I don't think the owner was thinking about maybe he never asked how many parking spots do you think you need what's the role so that's part of commerce and if you build it and you screw up then you know you'll lose money because you won't stay there I'd like to make my statement now because really to that it's one of my I just I hope I wish I had done it earlier because Tim I'm really sorry to hear you flip sitting here listening back and forth back and forth there's some arguments I hadn't heard all right so let me just lay out mine and I wish I'd done it earlier right so I just also want to add that former town managers very informed residents in every single city volunteer on the development review board the group most close and familiar with these regulations are warning against this action tonight they're asking for caution they're asking for us to just reconsider and to look at other gradual ways I am all for increasing public transportation options and walkable communities but I don't think eliminating our parking minimums for commercial properties will achieve either of these desired outcomes rather this action if approved tonight would shift the very real cost of parking from the commercial developer onto the south perlington taxpayer while creating countless neighborhood fights and municipal headaches if this passes tonight a developer is going to swoop in and buy a place like Zachary's Pizza on Wilson Road or the Burger King on Shelburne Road and build a Sam's Club sized business with no on-site parking instead customers are going to park at Dunkin Donuts higher ground JC Park then developers and visitors are going to start screaming that SP needs to build parking garages parking garages are very expensive the ones that we were quoted for city city center was at the minimum thirty million dollars I'm going to be an SP resident for the next few decades I don't want to have to build parking garages all over town because of this action tonight this action would also not be fair to all the businesses that have recently put money into their properties they had to pay the very real cost of parking in this drastic action tonight would open the floodgates for their neighbors to over build on their lots forcing cars onto theirs more most importantly we would not be able to easily unwind this action if this stands the development that gets built in the coming years will be bricks in the ground for the generations to come to have to adapt their needs to if this reality proves that our collective public interest this reality proves that our collective public interest in requiring developers to have minimum amount of parking for their commercial developments is true and exists and I got to say each winter the snowfall in Vermont creates all sorts of issues with plowing and towed cars where those cars going to go if there's no required parking no minimum parking standards for these developments we don't have the parking garage that Burlington has had to build over the years for this highly dense development that they have we are not Burlington we're also not Dover we're also not Nedim or bear a bath and so on my last paragraph and I'm sorry to have to do this I hope it's persuading you Tim to reconsider this or at least delay I think that would make a lot of sense lastly I cannot support this action when all members of our development review board and I do not think it's inappropriate that they spoke up I want them to communicate more with the Planning Commission they they should be when our community volunteers most familiar with these standards and their implications have come out so forcefully and out of character against this action we need to listen to the DRB and ask the Planning Commission to get on the same page as them they make very they make a very sound case to approach this policy in a more gradual manner with the reduction in parking minimums not an elimination and as I said the last time on this topic this feels like we're using a sledgehammer when we should be using a scalpel I don't want the SB taxpayers to have to pay for all the damage the sledgehammer is going to do in the years to come so with that being said I'm against these LDR changes eliminating minimum parking requirements for SB any effect Tim I find that fear mongering and Sam's Club would require a set number of spaces and with regard to the Wild West that this is predicting I think you forget that we do have a very stable form of government with division of powers that should be respected and I really am grateful to the Planning Commission members who stated tonight. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there. Yes, David. Thing with the development review board and watching them go through their process. They did not take a vote. They acted as individual members to sign that letter. There was no vote. No vote. It was individual members saying we work with this. We respect that the the process is whatever the council passes. We are obligated to follow. But we were giving advice. And that's what they were doing. They weren't voting. They signed that letter individually and they wrestled with it for several minutes several. I mean a lot of them. And I was very impressed that they came to that conclusion. Don't go over the line here. We're not taking a vote. We're saying this is individual people that have a lot of knowledge. Thank you. Which is ironic because the DRB just enforces the LDR. So in this case, if it passes, they'll have less work to do and so will planning and zoning less work to do. It just means less work, you know. And it'll probably lead to faster turnaround times on certain projects because they don't have to, you know, dicker about parking for like a month, you know. And the spinning never went before the DRB. Let's be very clear that there was, right? If somebody came to me as a DRB member and said, you don't have to worry about this anymore. I mean, forum based code kind of did that, right? They don't have to comment on forum based code. It's administrative at that point, right? So this is kind of like an administrative application for parking. But compare the 240 spots that Holiday Inn is requiring and the hotel requires to do 380 spots that our LDR is required. That's sold it on me. It's just like, come on. And 25% reduction doesn't quite do it. You would never have the problem that they had at the diner. Well, my take on it is, and unfortunately, Tom, I don't agree with most of what you just read. I'm hurting my case. With all due respect, I don't agree with the doom, the gloom and that. And all of that. My only concern is, because I generally agree with eliminating the minute parking for commercial developments. But I think I think the wording can be improved to something to the effect. And I may be mistaken. I may be out to lunch on this or dinner, speaking at dinner, I'm getting hungry. I think that I think that it could have some wording to the effect that the DRB reserves the right to to mandate an alternative and adjustment to a developer's proposal, because the DRB has multiple people with multiple years of experience. And there may be a developer with very little experience that thinks that they've got it right. That the experience the DRB says not quite. And I think we need to, I think we need to, just in one phrase, offer that ability for some, for some I'll explain why I find that dangerous. What's the matter with that? Because it turns them into policy makers. No, it's not policy makers. No, it's not. Yes, it is. But it's not policy. It's worse than that. It's not policy at all. But it's worse than that. No, it's not. Yes, because they are able to overrule the policy that exists based on some, you know, experience and expertise that they believe, you know, and suppose they're right, but they're wrong. But no, judges only interpret the law, interpret the Constitution. They do not write the Constitution of the issues before that, but they do not write it. They just comes back at the next meeting exactly as it is. And nobody wants to put any, any extra language in there. I will then vote for it. I'm not going to vote for it tonight. But I will probably gonna lose unless you want to wait one more meeting to see how it comes back. But I think the wording can be better. And that's that's all I'm saying. I, I generally agree completely with the crowd. We got three more people, barb and then Bob and then art. And then you know what, we're gonna call the question. Okay, I will try to be quick here. I want to say that I have great respect for the work of the planning commission. But I think given the liveliness of this discussion, and usually the council when they disagree votes four to one. Tonight, you're probably going to vote three to two. My suggestion is that you defer on this and consider what David is saying. If the planning commission comes back and says, no, we've reviewed it again, and we can't find the alternative wording that will give the DRB just a little bit of teeth. Then do it your next meeting. Thank you. Bob, I'm just going to say listen to the discussion here on the TV and the TDRs. You can create a much bigger mess by pushing forward before you have those final recommendations and this framework. And it's just going to be a bigger mess. So I would do it the right way. Thank you. On the item A there's David again, I appreciate your thoughts just the planning commission is supposed to be the commission that keeps the body that keeps the community moving forward without forward looking looking at where we should be going adjusting the comprehensive plan. The DRB is supposed to act in the present with what they have today. Their focus, their experience is not to do what you are asking them to do. While the community may like to believe that we haven't discussed this very often, we warn every meeting. This has been discussed a lot. It's challenging. Everybody's got busy schedules, but we shouldn't delay the work because now there's more people that want to get involved in the conversation that's been going on for a long time. We didn't come about this recommendation in a very leisurely way. There was a lot of effort. There was a lot of thought. It was very measured. There was a lot of conversations. There was a lot of back and forth as Duncan suggested. We have a group, a very diverse group. We have business owners. We have planning professionals. We have environmental professionals. We have people that aren't even involved in the profession that are carrying the late person perspective. And through all the work we've done over the year plus to almost two years on this particular initiative, we landed on the recommendation in front of you. Again, I would ask if it does get voted down and you ask us to go back to the DRV and work with them, I would ask for clarification on what these two bodies are supposed to actually do. Because it's a very challenging precedent that would be set if the policymaker now needs to be the administrator and the administrator now becomes the policymaker. I'm not suggesting that it goes back to the DRV. I'm just suggesting that you consider what goes itself. Okay. So are we ready for a vote? I was just saying the Planning Commission has a job to do. They did their job. They made the recommendation. This is a recommendation. All of these recommendations came out of the Planning Commission. This is their work, their hard work. And if they all agree on this, then if we appointed them, I'm going to have to give them the benefit of it out here. But it goes for a reason so that we can hear from other factions, other constituencies, other people that know these things. So this is supposed to happen. And we send things back to them and there have been two and a half hours doing just that. So we're not rubber stamping, I think. I think we should send this back. We're for the ordinance on parking that we have what, eight, nine public hearings on, and we're going to ram this through. I think we should delay to what Dave said. There's no pressing case to do this tonight. But we were the first. This is a mistake. We were the testing ground for that ordinance, whereas they've been testing it for two years. But I think it's the developer who gave it away. I think this is right. This is a developer giveaway. And if Pat Noak was chair right now, that's what people would be. Oh, please do not speak on behalf of Pat. Please, please. Madam chair. All right. I'm in support of a, but I think Dave and I are thinking that we wanted to fur on it. We just wanted to fur from this set of five on that one tonight. So just vote for four and come back to a October 7th. Nothing changes. Okay. There's absolutely no harm in doing that. If that's what we need to do. I'm not, I don't not terribly interested in giving the Planning Commission another duty to please don't think we are. We're just just we're not giving me a directive. We're just stepping back from a for tonight. If it comes back to that way two weeks from now, good. If anybody has, it's too hot. It's too hot. Yeah, let's go with that. Okay. So a motion to what? Approve BCD and E and come back to item A. October 7th. So a motion? We have a motion second. If we can separate out B, I'm going to vote no and B. All right, let's go down the list. We'll start with A. We're putting off to October 7th. All in favor of, oh wait, B. No, A. We're putting off. Would you mind naming them by the numbers? Oh, I'm sorry. But they've got. Okay. Okay. We started to practice so that we don't get confused. Okay. So we have a motion to approve LDR 19-02. So someone's made that. Tim, you made that. Who's going to second? I'll say. Okay. All in favor of LDR 19-02. I opposed. Okay. Can I group CD and E? Yep. Okay. So LDR 19-03 and LDR 19-04 and LDR 19-05. Motion to approve. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. So that's a 5-0. Okay. And do we need to vote to. So for LDR 19-01. Yes. We do not need to vote but an affirmative sort of statement of the council that you're choosing not to take any action to either approve or reject 19-01. Otherwise we've got to re-warning. Okay. You're taking no action. Right. So by taking no action, it remains live. Okay. You can choose to take an action at a future meeting. Perfect. All right. So we'll just remember to put it on the agenda for October 7th. So you want signatures on that by scratching A or one or I'll just come back and give you a clean version. Well, yeah, we're going to be here for a while. Okay. Thank you. So moving on to nine. Comments and questions from the public. Not related to the agenda. Is there anyone? Well, I have one. I was asked by Roseanne Greco to read something. She was planning to be here and thankfully she didn't because she would have been hanging around for so long. But anyway, so I am reading it on her behalf and it's, um, this is her statement. I am concerned for the health and hearing impacts on people, especially children at Chamberlain Elementary School, should they be outside when the F-35s take off and land? The noise charts table BR 3.2-1 in the Air Force Environmental Impact Statement, the EIS report, that the, quote, sound exposure level or CEL, end of quote, for the F-35 is 118 decibels during takeoff and 99 decibels on arrival. The F-16 produced 101 decibels on takeoff and 82 decibels on arrival. Thus the F-13 is 17 decibels louder or almost four times louder than the F-16. How she arrived at that is every 10 decibel increase is perceived as a doubling of noise. The 118 decibels is produced using military power. Using afterburners will increase the decibel level. By the way, I hope you all know that the 65 decibel day night average sound level, DBDNL, is an average noise level over a 24-hour period. 65 decibels is not what people actually hear. They hear various noise levels from complete silence overnight to 118 decibels or greater during F-35 takeoffs. An instantaneous burst of noise of 118 decibels can do severe damage to an adult hearing and could deafen a child or an elderly person. So I am urging you to request that the air guard immediately publish a schedule of their takeoffs and landings and that the schedule be widely circulated so that persons nearby can protect themselves and that teachers and parents can make sure children are not outside during these dangerous noise events. Thank you. Roseanne Greco, South Burlington resident. No other comments? So we'll move on to announce... Oh, I'm sorry. Can I ask you a favor? Yeah. Cindy's here and Paul's here. Oh, yeah, okay. Could you... Would you consider skipping to 13? Sure. Except Paul just left the room. So let me go fetch Paul and that way they can... Okay, all right. But Cindy, you want to... Can you go running at Paul? That way? Okay, sorry. No, no, no. Long night, huh? Democracy in action. Yeah. Okay, so we will skip to seeing no objection. We will skip to item 13. Possible action to approve a settlement agreement on certificate of occupancy for 146 Market Street. Paul Conner. All right. So you have in front of you a proposed settlement agreement that we've worked with Allard Square on Market Street. We're very excited to have them as one of the very first new buildings in City Center. We had some challenges related to operability of doors but staff and the Cindy Reed and the folks at Allard Square have worked together to find a creative and collaborative solution to meet the overall objectives of City Center which is to create an active space that's functional for all users. Okay. Cindy, do you have any comments? It's not ideal but we're willing to do this because we really want to move forward and get the CO. It's been a challenging process. I appreciate your willingness to work hard to find a solution. Are there any other comments or thoughts by Councilor? All right. So I would entertain a motion to approve. Oh, I'm sorry. So I move that the council approve the stipulated judgment order in connection with the Vermont Superior Court matter docket number 53-4-19 VTEC entitled Allard Square Limited Partnership CO and affirm the city's willingness through the Department of Recreation and Parks or others to identify appropriate public or community programs or events that Allard Square might host in its community room. I'll second. All right. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Announcements and city managers report? Any announcements? Tom and I went to the 9-11 ceremony. Very nice. I'm glad they did. Well, Megan and I chatted with John Tracy at Lady's Office concerning the F-35s and hoping that the senator will look at some of the new information that's come forward about the use of afterburners and its potential use or impact. And then what else did I do? We're also seeking him to give us some written affirmation on the information he has received that our F-35s will not use afterburners 50 to 60 percent of the time like at other bases or that it will actually carry nuclear weapons like it will at other bases. So we've asked for that. David Finney? No, I don't know. I also met with Cameron Scott of No Waste Compost and I thought that the information he presented was something that you would all be interested in. So I forwarded his website to you. I think he would be very interested in entering into any kind of RFP for some kind of consolidated waste disposal. At this time, Casella and Myers and the other haulers do not dispose of compost. So I just wanted to pass that along to you. I'm meeting with him this week. Great, thank you. You're an entrepreneur. All righty. Manager's report. A lot. We are going to go up for an RFP for waste disposal services. So we will consider that aspect of it. Very quickly, SBBA has their summer meeting Wednesday at Magic Hat, 5 p.m. You're all invited to that as usual. There will be a public forum on September 30th on the Williston Road streetscape project. So we're continuing on in the design aspects of the Williston Road streetscape project, which is fundamentally a bike path from Dorset Street to Heinsberg Road on the south side of Williston Road. Remember also the committee symposium. All of our committees gathering on 926 from 430 to 9. Now there's a component of that that is the committee's reporting out to the council. 430? If some of you can't, it's the 26th. Thursday, I think. If there are several or one or more of you who cannot make the 430, we will reschedule the meeting. I can't. Okay, so we'll reschedule that meeting to push it that component till 6 or 6.30. 6.30. What's your earliest you can? On Thursday? I come with my daughter at, hold on, I have to get home. I have to pick her up. Thursday to 5.30. Thursday to 5.30. I've got class until 6. But that's without supper. Dinner will be served here. Oh, I can't make any. I got a seal trip. I'm not back until 9 o'clock that night. Okay, we're gonna have to do the best we can but we'll move it till 6.30. Well, can other people make it at 5.30? Tim, what about you? I can, on the 26th? Yeah. I mean, 4.30 is a little hard. No, 5.30. 5.30 is fine. Tom, 5.30 work for you and that works for you, Megan, as well, right? Okay. We'll have to brief you in. 5.30. Also, the ends, so we'll rearrange that schedule to accommodate that. The technical advisory committee for the noise compatibility program meets at the airport 5 o'clock this Thursday. And I can't be there. This is deemed by some to be the final meeting. So I'm on the fence. I'll go if you really think it'll be of value to advocate for it to not be the final meeting, but I have three places I need to be that day. I'm not sure that I'm not sure if it's going to end up being the final meeting. We have our comments in. They have issued a draft. The counselors are there. Am I of any value? I want to learn about it, but I've got like two other things. I think if you've got two other things going on. Yeah, I would do the other thing. I'm in class. I think Kevin can. Paul and I will be there. And they can advocate and certainly speak for the council. I'm looking at everyone that our hope is that our comments are incorporated into the report and that the final this isn't the final meeting because we haven't seen the report yet. And then to get it and then say, oh, okay, or no. I mean, how do you we need to comment on that? We need to comment on it and have a better sense that what we are concerns are included and addressed, hopefully. And not just, oh yeah, we heard you. That was the input and it's in, you know, appendix seven. A resident called me today and was concerned. He's inside the 75 DBL line and I told him I would I would let you know this that he is not eligible for anything other than teardown and he just wants to keep his home but have it insulated and it doesn't appear from the discussions that the FAA will support that. I'm not exactly sure what to do with that. That might be one where the city's funds that we have to expend on airport related issues might go to help there. I don't know. There's been a lot of uproar or not uproar, but there's been some controversy in the state house over the tax increment financing. The fight has broken out between the auditor of accounts and the agency of commerce. What financing? There are things now that that will need to be resolved by legislation that put some TIF related issues of great importance at some level of unknown right now. It's really disappointing and I went to the Joint Fiscal Committee meeting today and multiple different kinds of advice was provided to the VEPSI staff. I have no clear direction as to where this is going other than there will be clarifying legislation introduced by senator Cummings in January and there are some huge issues on the table. Enormous issues on the table. I'd like to know that before we break ground. Well we're already committed to all this. We've already taken out the debt. Anyway I'll be able to let you know more about that over the next few weeks. But anyway we've been active in trying to get parties to work this out. I'm beginning business visits as the request of the Economic Development Committee. We've had several meetings a couple meetings of the Park and Rec Committee including this afternoon to go through the presentation that will be given to the public tomorrow night at the public forum. And so the Park and Rec Committee is very engaged in informed on that. Met with the Energy Committee last night and lastly the community forum is tomorrow night at the police department upstairs in the conference room for the recreation the proposed recreation facility. That's at seven. Yeah. Lots going on. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The consent agenda. I would entertain a motion to approve as offered consider the and the sign disbursement approve minutes of June 17th July 1 July 15th and August 19th approve a license agreement with the University of Vermont for land associated with the jug handle pedestrian facility and designate Coralie home to represent the city of South Burlington as a delegate to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns 2019 annual business meeting. I'll move to approve the consent agenda. I just have two things under discussion. Okay. Second. All right. What's under discussion. Under discussion and this just needs to be in tonight's we don't need to amend the minutes but on page 8 of the June 17th I voted against Ray Gonda and I've made that clear so there was not a unanimous vote for all the committee appointments. I was a no on Ray Gonda and I thought I made that clear as I was walking out the room. So we usually don't. I asked specifically to pull him out so yes but we we usually don't share the the actual votes on the individual people but I thought it was the cat's out of the bag so yeah so I just wanted that to be in the record. Okay and then the other one August 19th page 8 I was I could go back and watch the video but I just want to say I recall being very careful with my words and I did not identify the the RFP bank that contacted me. I just said one of the submitters to the RFP process left me a voicemail. I don't feel that I said the name of the bank. If I did my apologies I was trying to be careful there. Okay so my apologies for outing the RFP bank submission that now in the minutes I was trying to be careful not to do that. They called me the day after which was less than helpful. Those are my comments sorry use your time. Okay so ready for the vote? All in favor? Aye. Thank you. 12 an update on council plans to host two forums on domestic violence in October. Domestic Violence Awareness Month and possible adoption of a resolution designating October as South Burlington Domestic Violence Awareness Month and you were handed out at your places the resolution to approve the resolution as presented. There a second? Second. It needs to be read. Oh I have to read it out loud? Oh okay. Okay whereas since 1989 the United States Congress has annually passed legislation designating October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and whereas one in four women in the U.S. will experience domestic violence in their lifetime most frequently by somebody they know female victims most commonly first experienced domestic violence between the ages of 18 and 24 at 38.6 percent followed by age 11 through 17 22.4 percent age 35 through 44 at 6.8 percent and age 45 and over at 2.5 percent almost one out of five murder victims in the U.S. were killed by an intimate partner and whereas on average more than three women are murdered by an intimate partner in the United States every day and whereas violence against women occurs predominantly behind closed doors at home with most cases never being reported to the police and whereas according to the national center on family homelessness domestic violence is the third leading cause of homelessness among families with 50 percent of all women who are homeless reporting that domestic violence was the immediate cause of their homelessness and whereas the risk of penetration or purpose excuse me perpetration of intimate partner violence as an adult is two times greater for those who were abused or witnessed their mother being abused during their own childhood likewise the risk of becoming a victim of domestic violence as a teen or adult is greatly increased when young people are raised in households where abuse is present and whereas one in 15 children are exposed to intimate partner violence each year and 90 percent of these children are eyewitnesses to violence and whereas while domestic violence happens to people in all walks of life regardless of age gender sexual orientation race religion education profession or socioeconomic status there are statistical predictive indicators of domestic violence probably the most important being exposure to it as a child and whereas the community of south burlington tragically lost Anaka Annette Lumumba one of our own a nurse a neighbor a mother a sister a daughter a cousin a niece and a granddaughter on May 3rd 2018 and whereas the self-pronged city council has identified the exposure and the loss of a community member to domestic violence and violence of any kind not as an isolated incident but as a social ill that impacts us all and whereas the south burlington city council has recognized the need for community action in order to address the causes and support the victims of domestic violence and whereas the south burlington city council's efforts have been strengthened and expanded by the community justice center coordinator lisa bettinger chief of police shon burk city manager kevin doran education and prevention coordinator marla golstein of steps to end domestic violence advocates natanya carter and kathryn duke case is that you pronounce it you cast you cast of hopeworks and community members Gretchen gundrum and jennifer cokeman and whereas the south burlington city council wishes to honor the life of anako annette lumamba through a legacy of active listening caring and giving and whereas the community of south burlington has a moral obligation to work to prevent domestic violence address its brutal and destructive effects and make ending domestic violence a local priority now therefore be it resolved that the south burlington city council calls on community members to gather on thursday october 10th 2019 and on wednesday october 30th 2019 at fredrick h tuttle middle school cafeteria in order to learn more about the existing needs resources and possible local responses in support of members of the community suffering to domestic violence and be it further resolved that the south burlington city council calls on community members to reflect on and organize around possible action steps such as the pursuit of legal and criminal justice reform the establishment of a victims aid fund in annette's honor and other possible initiatives and be it further resolved that the south burlington city council declares that october 2019 shall be designated as south burlington domestic violence awareness month and be it further resolved that the entirety of this resolution be read into the record of the proceedings of the south burlington city council september 17th 2019 oh gosh yep okay a little tight and it's 16th 16th oh and it's the 16th yeah excuse me so it's september 16th right ended okay so we need a motion to approve or we just vote on in favor of this resolution I guess all in favor of there wasn't there a motion was there a motion oh okay so all in favor signify by saying I all right I and Helen would you at least remind those members of the audience who will be watching this that there is an event that steps to end domestic violence is holding open to october 5th taking taking steps right it's in in south burlington correct did you send me the I did send you well I hope that the public will join and attend these meetings I mean thanks to really megan and really stepping up to get this on our take steps in their shoes it's called and you have to register 35 dollar registration fee and you're allowed to speak yeah I didn't think it said in the email so I think you have to go and actually look on the website to know this place in the time well maybe we can put that information on the city website okay number 14 consider and possibly approve the budget calendar for FY 21 Tom thanks Helen so you've all received this hopefully you've had a chance to kind of just look through it but similar to last year's calendar just a couple of notes I've prepared the meetings of january 6 as an official budget meeting with the council and our department managers and also left the 13th as a second date if needed to discuss the budget and then a few down from that january 20th or the 22nd it's just tentative at this point because that has to be coordinated with the school district other than that march comes early this year actually late this leap year I have one comment question may I don't see your eyes I'm just going to say it I would love if the CIP could track changes I don't know if you're doing that but every year when I try to look at last year's CIP to this year is I'm doing a lot of cross tabulation and if there's any way to just draw out where the changes are made that would save me some time okay any other questions or thoughts for Tom hey thank you I'm I'm always pleased that you lay this out so we know and the public knows when and how the budget gets pulled together in our fair city and Andrews validated all the dates with the number of days and everything in regard to the charter so we've we we've double checked that we'll post this up to our website great okay I move to be approved the FY 21 budget schedule second all in favor okay thank you overview discussion impossible approval of the unaudited June financials so I don't have the complete set of financials yet because I still need still need your help but I do have good news and so we're looking the initial analysis of the unaudited estimate to be a surplus of 314,000 in regard to expenses we were able to resolve some of the deficits to some of the special funds some dating back as far back as 2011 that were established never closed out but had small smaller deficits in them we've taken them off the books and closed them out we had to transfer fire impact fees because they were designated for a specific purpose we just can't roll those into the general fund so we have to show them as expended and we accrued them into FY 20 and Terry will continue to utilize those funds to do the improvements to the fire station so there's 51,000 of the 116,000 that he had for improvements to the fire station to work with there we've identified funds for FY 20 for the resolution of the three collective bargaining agreements so we've allotted money to make sure that we have enough to take care of that we also paid the $5,000 to the master naturalist program which was on tonight's warrant and this came off the FY 19 fund balance as approved by the council at a previous meeting so we're in good shape there the guidance that we need in order to properly designate where these funds go is to decide what to do with the $314,000 on the fund balance so we don't need to decide that tonight right we kind of do so I mean it's not that we have to do it by certain point Megan but if we don't then we're three more weeks into not being able to close out July or August so we're kind of anxious to do that and we kind of need your guidance on what to do with the fund balance in order to do that and we have some recommendations so you can get 60 grand, 60 grand, 60 grand so really I have it down to a few things if it's helpful get 14 you can place the whole 314 on the balance sheet okay that can automatically go there that's one option we can utilize the 314,000 to fund the 275,000 of additional paving for FY20 that the council approved back in the FY19 budget that would give us a remainder of 39,000 put on the balance sheet the third option is utilize the proposed cut in FY20 of the funding of the city senate reserve of the 110,000 and fund the balance of the 275,000 for paving from the balance in FY19 requiring 165,000 off the balance sheet reducing the 314,000 to 149,000 on the balance sheet that was a little bit too long of a calculation for me to catch 314,000 on the balance sheet we can put 39,000 on the balance sheet or we can put 149,000 on the balance sheet but what it would have to do with the and we'd pay for paving reserve fund for our city center so one of the options that we talked about back in FY19 was reducing for just this year the 860 back to the 750 and utilizing that money for additional paving so we'd go back up to 860 you're saying we would in 21, yes but no but FY20 we have approved 860,000 the council considered at a meeting back in February I want to say of reducing that amount to 750 and using the 110,000 as additional money towards the 275,000 in paving so I'm just I'm just bringing it up again as that's an option but what did our auditor want us to have on the books for a certain we're around 2.4 we're about 1.4 million yeah oh what do we have that would be 1.7 1.4 we have oh right we have 1.4 he would like 2.4 2.4 and this could go towards that yes but no we don't have to have all of it go towards you and on the balance sheet that's going to push the tax rate up higher for this coming march right because that 275 is going to have to be voted into or put baked into our budget and we would have to find it okay we would have to cut which means the FY20 budget somewhere for 275,000 if you still decide to move forward with that initiative for the paving for paving if you put the whole 3.14 on the balance sheet but you can do that what do you recommend I think paving I mean I really what do we have last year to cancel the decision we had 60 talking about you you're the only body that can dictate what the fund balance goes to so what was it last year what did we what did we bring over last year to towards that 1.4 million it was minimal minimal 10 was like $39,000 $30,000 I need to decide just right well if we put 150,000 on the balance sheet where were you going to put the other we so I need this we can put $39,000 on the balance sheet if we if we utilize the fund balance to take care of the 275 for paving if the council and then what happens to the 110 that's without the one we keep the 110 we keep the 110 in the city's senate reserve reserve stays so this is a way to keep that fund whole but still achieve your goals for additional paving yeah and that only puts $39,000 and still puts $39,000 on the balance sheet and how about the fuel tax is that something that totally that's that's separate totally separate that's a separate already accounted why don't you ask about the rental car how about how about this I'll put this in writing to you I'm I'm assuming what's the next what's the next option we can get a vote from council and let them think about this because I know it's late no what's the next option the next option is is to cut the cut the city senate reserve fund by 110 for paving and reallocate it to the paving fund so that you don't need 200 you wouldn't have to find 275,000 in the fiscal year 20 budget you'd still need to find additional money but you could use some of the fund balance to take care of it oh and that puts nothing on the balance sheet that puts a hundred and oh that puts a hundred and a hundred and forty nine I think that's the I think that's the most responsive wealth that cuts the city senate reserve I'm not in favor of no I thought that remained intact I misunderstood that that's putting 39,000 back on I really feeling like I should just outline this for you I think we're tired send it to you but I I do have to get an answer for us to close the books I just I don't want to wait the three weeks we can email a vote to you that that's what I'm recommending and you'll see if there's three for one thing okay if I get this out tomorrow like by Friday do you think that'd be better hold on I just had a side conversation with Kevin we need to get the paving done so I think the most responsible thing is to put the 275 the paving put 39,000 in the on the balance sheet and get our paving done because we got we got some major needs out there that's what I think I can go anyway on this 39 isn't very much no but but the auditor tends to be over pessimistic probably anyway 1.4 is not bad and this would be 1.439 we gotta get the paving done if you ask people what we need most in the city much of the time they'll say paving I agree so okay there's political utility to that so let's let's do paving paving the streets everyone in favor of paving the streets with gold absolutely we only had 39 last year I'd like to double that for this year into the um what balance sheet fine adjusted that way adjusted that way then fine adjusted to make the measure so why don't you round me off and put the rest in paving does anybody agree with that that's fine right that's fine let's do that so how much goes into paving what's left from 14 minus 79 I don't know cutting it down the middle it's like what are we giving up I want to know what we're giving up giving up anything we're giving up more we're giving up money on the on the on the balance sheet on the balance sheet no no no he wants but more money on the balance sheet so where is that extra money coming from that would come from paving come from paving so are we paid less yes someone have a little less but you're still putting what's the net on that two hundred and forty thousand dollars you're still putting yeah into paving or something still a substantial amount fine double the amount on the balance sheet and put the rest in paving we're good let's go is everyone happy with that yep I can live with that too okay I love the smell of asphalt in the morning I just got to say it yeah all right so the numbers 80 and paving 79 or 80 doesn't oh the reserve reserve reserve is is 70 right or is 80 80 that's rounded up to 80 the rest in paving yep done deal got it thank you okay maybe the trouble well that worth the time to put all right council reports on committee assignments I don't have any I don't have any I'll be really quick GMT's facing not nearly as rosy an outlet we have a very rough budgetary cycle and we're having a meeting tomorrow and we're talking about additional cuts and measures to shore up our shortfalls sell the buses not there yet but we're going to have two electric buses October 16th I'm really excited about it you have a search for a new president or a chair yep so we have an interim and we have an active process we have a committee charge the vice chair Bonnie Wanager who will be the chair starting January 1st unless something terrible goes wrong she will be she's leading that effort she's will be posting the job position soon if you know some people okay don't need new other business absolutely not seeing none a motion to adjourn all in favor aye okay okay well thank you I thought it was a productive meeting we did have some good conversations that was a lively conversation do you know what time those things are for the domestic violence thing on the I can't make the test on both the 10th and the 30th yes yes they're providing dinner I can't make the 10th because I've got a UVM function