 Get your head out of the food and get in here so we can have a quorum. Ah, there's Justin. We're good to go. How are we? Well, look at the time. Fashionably. 20 seconds to spare, councilor. We expect that at the extreme. He's always here. He's always here 15 seconds before the meeting is supposed to start. We'll let him settle in here. Okay, we've got a quorum. So we'll get the meeting started. First item changes to the agenda and are we going to change? I think that Chapin is not coming and some other staff are coming. So I think we do not need to move them up on the agenda. Okay. Any other changes to the agenda? Well, it would be nice to put them before act 250. Yeah. So we're going to. Mr. Chair. What's that? You need to motion to change many agenda. We're going to change item. Move item six up in front of item five. So Berlin can get out of here. I'll make that motion. Okay. Is there a second? All those in favor? Okay, the change is approved. Public comment. It's opportunity for anyone from the public to make comments to the board on anything, not on tonight's agenda. So any public. Seeing none. Move on. Agenda. Prove the minutes with edits. Okay. Second. With Catherine's edits. You get that. Burns, you get that. Jeff and Catherine. Yep. Yep. Any comments on the minutes? We're good. Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. He's getting the hang of this. Yeah. I'm sorry. Abstentions. Okay. I thought it was an Africa. Africa. Okay. Yep. Okay. Next is going to be discussion of the Champlain Parkway and other projects from the city of Burlington. Folks all set. You look different. Yes. No facial hair. No facial hair. A little less. One more gray at that point. So introduce myself. Norm Baldwin. I'm the city engineer. I'm involved pretty deeply in the Champlain Parkway and have for many years. Along with me is Susan Molzan who's actually a project manager for the project. And so we're to present the project. Hopefully answer any questions you might have. And give as much details. You'd like to hear. So. I'm going to start with Susan actually walking through. The description of the project. Then I'll jump in at some point. To go through some of the more nuanced details. No. Thank you. Shouldn't be. So Champlain Parkway project. We have. Norm introduced our project team and some more contact information. But this is the layout for the Champlain Parkway project. It starts at the south end. You're in the 189 interchange. So. To the south end. Which is what's known as the C1 and C2 sections. So it comes around to home Avenue with a new roadway. All the way down to Flynn Ave. And over to Lakeside Avenue. This C1 section. Here's the project. So. So. So. This C1 section. Here's the. Cross section. From the interchange. Yes. Correct. Yep. So this is the cross section of that first. Section you'll see it quickly becomes a two lane. Roadway with one lane of traffic in each direction. Separated by a low grassed median. In the C1 section it transitions from the highway speed. Coming off of 189. Thank you. To the. To a 25 mile an hour roadway before it hits home Avenue. So quickly becoming. City street. And then beginning. Beginning at home Avenue. And heading to Lakeside Avenue is the C2 section. Along the section it maintains the two lane roadway. With 25 mile an hour speed limit. And it has a shared use path on the west side of the roadway. So that will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. And there's also on street bicycle facilities with shared lane markings. On this. C2 section between Home Ave. And Lakeside Avenue. And along the roadway on this section will also have new street trees. And transitioning it into a city street. The next segment of the project is referred to as the C6 section. It starts at Lakeside Avenue on the existing street network. And then continues along Pine Street from Lakeside Avenue north up to Main Street. Which is on the far right side. Of this screen. And so the C6 section. Will include. The shared use path continuing along the north side of Lakeside Ave. And then it stays on the west side of Pine Street heading north. There. The Lakeside Avenue section will consist of a full depth reconstruction and the under grounding of utilities. And also sidewalk replacement. Along Pine Street will be resurfacing the entire length from Lakeside Ave. To Main Street. To thicken up the asphalt section. The shared use path continues from Lakeside Ave. Up to Kilburn Street. And will also be replacing sidewalks on the east side of Pine Street under this project. It has raised intersections to improve pedestrian safety. At Home Avenue. Marvel Avenue. And Kilburn Street. Those will also maintain the rapid flashing beacons that are in place today. Yes. I just realized that I know where these people are. They're not here. Yeah. Does this have any pointer? Okay. Thank you. So here is Pine Street. The raised intersections are at Howard Street. Marble Ave. And Kilburn Street. And along this section from Lakeside to Kilburn. As I said, we have the shared use path on the west side. And we also have on street bicycle facilities through shared lane markings in this section. Proceeding north from Kilburn. Where the shared use path terminates. We have on street bicycle facilities with a bike lane designated bike lane from Kilburn to Maple Street, which is here. And then continuing north from Maple to Main Street is on street bicycle facilities with a shared lane. We will also be installing new traffic signals at the intersections with Pine and Maple and Pine and King Street, which replaces the existing four-way stops at those intersections. Will there be a signal at Lakeside and? Yes. There is a signal. The existing signal will remain at Lakeside and Pine. And there's also a signal, a new signal. The new intersection. Yes. Yes. I'm going to miss the existing bike path, too. It'll stay right from the existing bike path. Yes. The Burlington bike path. Because that's closer to the water. Yes. Yes. The existing bike path goes around here. Well, but it comes out by Blodgetoven. We have the old Blodgetoven plant, right? Yes. Blodgetoven is just right up. Yes. Here's the railroad tracks on the railroad bridge with the bike path. I think it actually connects to Central Ave. It's a lot of bridges and it'll have to then back to the long front again. In front of the mobile site. Where does it turn from limited access to? Lakeside Avenue. So from the 189 intersection all the way along until Lakeside Avenue is considered limited access. What do you mean by that? I'll read it. Hang on a second. Sharon, hang on. Sorry. I'll let Norm think about that question. But the, sorry. What does it mean by limited access? Limited access means that there's restricted access in terms of driveway cuts into, so the only access to the Champlain Parkway in the 189 to Lakeside sections are at the intersections, which is Flint Ave, Flint Ave, Sears Lane, and Lakeside Ave. So you'll see these smaller residential side streets. We'll now become dead ends here, as well as Briggs Street, which is adjacent to the new city market becomes a dead end street. Sharon, can you speak up? Yeah, sorry. I was just wondering if those are dead ends or are there any pedestrian access across to get to the grocery store and stuff? There are no crosswalks, but there is pedestrian access to the shared use path at the end of these cul-de-sacs, so we have a connecting pathway where bicycles and pedestrians could get from these neighborhoods onto the shared use path, and then they would be encouraged to cross at the intersections. I think I will... Can I ask a question? Sure. Back to the first, the seat 1 section. Yes. So that is proposed to be a 25 mile an hour speed unit. Right? Yes, it transitions. So it slows down from the highway speed incrementally, and by the time we get to right about here is where it's 25 miles an hour. And then from Home Avenue onward, what's the speed limit? 25 miles an hour. So, but it's same, but it's that width of the highway? No, starting at Home Avenue, I just don't have pictures of that cross section. I was going to say, how are you enforcing a 25 mile an hour speed limit? 25 width wide road. No, this cross section changes when it hits the Home Avenue intersection. So what is the 25 mile an hour cross section? Is it just two lanes with shoulders? Yes. Yeah. Shoulders. Most of it adds to the shared use path. What's the travel lane width on the 25 mile an hour speed limit? It's like 11. Yeah. We've kept it to 11 to contain speeds. Yeah. We kept it consistent with the rest of our Burlington city streets. Commercial traffic, but we don't want to have it too wide that we have excessive speeds. When you said raised intersections, are you talking about the medians there, or is there something else going on? They're right in here. Yeah, when you say raised intersection, what does that mean? Yeah. So it'll be a table. So throughout the roadway travel width, there'll be a little ramp up, and then it'll be flat, which is where the pedestrian crosswalks will be across it, and then it ramps back down. So it's about a three inch different difference. Don't you already have those on Champlain coming off of the Belt Line going into the city? If you're coming in front of 127, do you take that and go down? Those are speed humps. Those are speed humps. Yes, but they're probably similar scales. Yeah. Because you know, on an arterial section, the speed humps are a little longer. Yeah. So it's very similar in terms of grade shifts. Sure. Okay. I'll back down. That goes through the whole intersection. So if you're coming off the side streets, you have to go off when you turn on the table and then you come down. Yeah. And the reason for that? The reason for that is to really have people acknowledge that this is a high active pedestrian area, and they need to be paying attention, and it was part of our concepts or designs that we advanced through to safety. Because what you see there is in that area, there's a lot of traffic from the maltex building to the speed or the rural side back and forth. And it's also where we have course events and those sort of things. So with all the activity that's going on there and activation of properties, we thought it was necessary and important that we include elements to improve pedestrian safety. And is it just raised asphalt? I'm trying to understand how your maintenance crews deal with it. It's in center, it will be, but their approach, I try to move it back and forth on the design. They approach this, I think, maybe a thickened asphalt. So in the center, maybe a little less, but as it approaches, it's thicker. So it takes all that impact. How does a plow truck driver do it? I'll give you an example of what kind of model this is around. We have quite a bit of conversation with our fire department. We have quite a bit of conversation right away. A similar circumstance would be an example of the concrete on furl. There's this slight grade change. That's what you're really kind of modeling us around. That's what it will look like. So if you take a look at that, you can see that it's not just a flat, straight road at that intersection. It goes up a little bit, plateaus, and it goes back down again over a long, gradual dip, but it's noticeable. Is that three inches, really? Yeah. I know what you're talking about. That's about what scale we're going to talk about doing here. Christine? I have two questions. Of course, the college is already set up. Is Pine Street den-ended? Yes. Yes. Down all the way at the southern end, where it connects with, currently connects with Queen City Park Road. That does become a den-end. And the second is, the width of Pine Street, is it being lined to a prominent, so it's got white lanes? Does it say the same way? Nope. The curb to curb remains roughly the same. On the northern section, where we are adding the in-street bicycle lane. I believe the travel lane's narrow, slight curb adjustments, but largely stays the same. Yes. Will the on-street parking remain? The on-street parking on Pine Street remains for portions, so up until Kilburn. This portions of this section between Kilburn and Maple will be removed to accommodate that bike lane. Yep. No, no turn lane in the middle. No, at Maple and King. No, really at any section. There's no. So, Pine Street remains two lanes? Yes. Yes. Divided in the middle? No. So, there's no island in the middle? No. It's just... Yeah, so, at the terminus of Pine Street, how do you get to Queen City Park? It's a route. You could go... You have to go that way? Yep, you could go around. We do have for bicycles and pedestrians a new shared use path, which is intended to make up for that connection as a shelter room. So, the new shared use path comes in front of the Baird Center through here and connects to Shelburne Street. I think you get to... that the shared use... The bike path, you can't go down and under the new highway and get to the park and stuff. Correct. The nearest crossing is home-abiding. Okay. You get to go around to that section. I think I will let Norm continue. What's the schedule? I'm sorry. Yeah. Was that for you? Yeah. You get the paperwork? Yes, I get the paperwork. Bless exciting stuff. So, we are quite frankly near final design on the project. We've gone... made significant progress on right-of-way acquisitions. We are down to two properties who are... we're looking to have them sign property rights agreements. We've gone through necessity and we've gone through condemnation. We have two properties. We have two appeals to the necessity process, of which the two parties are not even have any property interests in this project, but are appealing based on administrative process. So, we are working through that with our legal team, but that our effort there is made for progress more so than ever before. So, we've had a lot of success there. Permits. There are a number of permits that are in play for this project that of course there's a NEPA re-evaluation, there's the individual construction stormwater permit, there's the section 111 permit, there is some zoning permits, and then there's a cap. I think a cap is the soil management plan for this corridor of particular interests that we've had to do significant amount of characterization of the soils along this corridor and how to manage those soils. And this is kind of a... We've, we're the guinea pig I think for soil management as it relates to PAHs and other contaminants that the state has identified as a need to be managed. So, with that we really have a pretty solid sense of what associated costs are. Obviously there's been some conversation between the trans and the city in terms of whose liability that is to manage soils. I think we've settled on the fact that it is the city's liability and we have had some initial estimates which were certainly less than what we had thought in terms of participating and non-participating. And so we're having to go back to our mayor and council with those details as we know more. One thing that we found along the way in terms of advancing this project is as this project's advanced there have been other products that have occurred that have identified different contaminants. For example, city market had significant contamination on that site. The state has expressed concern about that and how it would affect our schedule. So we are continuing to work with our environmental consultant to do further characterization in that area and identify costs. And I think that's important to our mayor and council to know what liability there may be expected to carry in advancing this project. And it's not insignificant. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think our participating, non-participating cost was around 3.28, is that right? So there's a million, right? Yes, correct. So that's a cost the city needs to prepare to bear. And we know and understand that this project is a priority and we really want to make this happen and we've tried to manage to a schedule both from a technical standpoint and also a legal standpoint. And there are opponents of this project that have been successful at every step of the way to kind of interfere this project but we are trying to move ahead as best we can and I think we've made great progress and I am very hopeful that we will continue to stick to our schedule and deliver this thing by late fall 2019. Breaking ground. Breaking ground. That's right. So... People think we're going to be done by then. No, not done by then. We expect this project to at least take two years to construct and we're very mindful of this schedule as it relates to other schedules within the area and how it affects the operation. So we've done this is some background. This project doesn't involve utility improvements. That work has been done in advance of the project through our water resource team to improve our water supply and all those other things that are significant reinvestment in that area that wouldn't destroy what we're proposing to build in our Pine Street corridor. You've also might have seen in our history that we've installed a new signal at Pine Hill Lakeside. That was not an insignificant cost. That was $418,000 to do a project in advance of the project itself. But we see and understand the issue of public safety and we got that done for those reasons alone. We also have a lot of businesses along Pine Street corridor. Dealer.com is a major employer. The state has been kind to install these rapid flash beginnings a number of years ago. I think that has been a boom to how we improve pedestrian safety along that corridor and it's kept that employer in that area. So you can see all the growth within that area and how we've attempted to respond to that. Both city market and we Petrocliffs is looking to redevelop at the former site of Barrett's trucking in their area. We've had to navigate the plan review process it relates to this project and its permits but it's not an insignificant process when it comes to legal challenges and potentials that can impact the project but we are I think we're pre-proudly moving ahead. So I'm going to I don't know if there's really so one of the things that is relevant to here is obviously that affects the CCRPC and other member communities that in terms of transportation priorities and we want to make an understanding that where we kind of land our schedule that we are truly serious about delivering this project on schedule and not have it continue to disrupt other things that this Chittany County is attempting to address all the member communities need. So the construction amount is an increasing based on what's been to adjust them we're changing two other projects that the Shelter Street ran about and X-17 and those projects are matching the schedules that are shown so it has no actual impact on the project a slight delay just to so it's a tack and a board of it it's a tack correct yeah and only yes so as you can see we're really near the edge of final design there are elements that need to be complete in order for V Transit Federal Highway to review that specifically specifications and details that don't exist now but our consultants are working diligently on and if we prevail with all the legal challenges and some those legal challenges don't affect to be bidding in the spring and construction will begin in late fall and as you can see really kind of a two year schedule for construction because it's not insignificant I would note that we believe the sequencing of this work will be to do Pine Street first C6 and then do the balance of the work in the subsequent year following or following that sequence of work over burden placed on certain areas where soil conditions require it to give it settlement and what would be really required to have at long term stable street sections so that's the schedule is there any questions about the schedule in terms of the construction is there any point in time where you just shut down Pine Street so that you don't have to deal with traffic are you going to maintain traffic so we talked a little bit about this today but we won't completely shut down Pine Street because they're going to be simply doing curb work and some minor utility work and traffic will obviously be slowed because of the kind of the rubber-necking that occurs with construction projects but this is Pine Street largely is a paving project with some signalization work so and curb work how bad is the condition of the pavement or won't you know until you bit it out I believe that probably the road is in good condition except for the asphalt surface right so that would have to be demoed and replaced and the under part is built the specs that we need yes it's all been built already so the specs haven't changed in the last 20 years well I'm sure those minor changes that have occurred since then but other than that what's permanent is what we're going to build the only reason I ask is what are the chances that we're going to have a surprise after somebody goes into bit it well I think the only nasty cost surprise we're going to have is largely soils and so we've tried to manage that costs by characterizing soils and that those costs have been project eligible and I think they'll pay dividends in two ways one for the city to understand so I agree yeah just not to stand for so much but was there anything innovative or how are you addressing stormwater stormwater is I can't really speak to a great deal about it but only that a lot of that is being captured in retained within pond systems and improved water quality through those systems itself and there's been some concern expressed by are about stormwater runoff entering into the rail right away and what we what our consultants have shared with VTR and state of Vermont is that this project will improve the existing condition doesn't mean there are still continuing issues but for other reasons for other projects or other properties but we are we think that this project will serve as a significant improvement in ways that were needed to do some of that retention pond work or is it all happening within the right of way? A lot of that was acquired by the state prior to the state of the city taking over acquisition of properties a lot of the property rights that we took over were really kind of either temporary easements or some minor takings of property to be able to complete the work and I think there was how many properties are there so we've knocked it down to only two left and they were just simply non responsive and just not making themselves available to have respond but there's really minor stuff those last two properties it's a silt fence or construction limit fence and a driveway cut maybe a handful of feet into their property to make grade work so those types of things but it wasn't anything substantial or good when that's what are we I know I should memorize the tip how much are we how much are we how much are we what are we carrying for this project and that's it about $29 million a little bit more not sorry I think it's 95% and we still feel good about that as a cost estimate in other words what are the chances you're going to be back in for another tip amendment we are constantly trying to update our numbers and be as accurate as we can and we are going to go back again to our Cloth Harbor and associates our consultant to revise and update the estimates but they are constantly being updated and in real time because we have this whole issue of soils and what our light abilities are and probably in the last two or three months we really have worked closely with VTRANS about what our obligations are what is participating non-participating and to start those conversations that are updated but never say we can't continue to revise and update as we go I'm sure we'll know right away if something material changes hopefully nothing will materially change I don't think a lot of that I said it I did although you may have interpreted it as when because that wouldn't have been an unusual comment for somebody like me to make yeah okay anything else so continuing on so there's no two to see all the details of the project in its history so that's just all the slide is is to kind of take a look if you have questions call us and then our contact information both Chapin the director and myself and Susan Chapin couldn't make it tonight he has a commission meeting at 630 so it just didn't give it justice for him to try to do that and do be here so Susan and I offered to cover it so and then there's okay we still miss yes of course so I don't know if you're interested in all the other questions I think there were some questions about great streets can I interrupt and go back a second on the on the Champlain Parkway is there any discussion or plans or maybe it's in the future of cutting from Pine Street over a battery street that is not part of the I understand that but is there so sorry the way the background noise was a Laney gas thing I have that because she's been I don't know anything about anything besides the parkway so Laney's been managing that project yeah right right okay but there is something out there about connecting that okay that's why wouldn't I don't know if we can even call it a project at this point in time more of an idea of hope yes but I don't want to be negative concept exceptional consideration clean in the eye of the member from Winooski yeah hey you know you got to come out boy you know how to hit nerves don't you but if you recall some of the history I want to say maybe going back like five or six years in that neighborhood where pine streets yes this traffic hits pine street and so there was an agreement between the city and v-trans and us to try to look at alternatives to some of the traffic away from the pine and maple pine and king intersections well I think the general idea was the idea was conceived to be an economic development opportunity for that area to develop that space and or alleviate some of those concerns in the neighborhood in terms of volume of traffic circulating through there but that was part of the original design just it was a while ago it was but then there was historic preservation issues that drove it to that the route that is now established those issues are significant add in to commuter rail and you have the trifecta okay sorry to interrupt the last question was everyone's mind so I had to bring it up the rail yard enterprise part just to continue that thought is in the stages of trying to conclude at least the study aspect the scope which is the second funding so this was the focus of our second scope being so yeah so we are we are going to just try to just finish that come in project right now it's just coming yeah thanks and yeah Norma's about so I asked him I know there were other things going on in the transportation realm in the city and asked for a little update on green streets yeah so the city is the mayor has a very aggressive schedule or he's aggressive in his improvements to the city in general aesthetic of the city this is of course the great streets concept great streets there is a overall kind of trying to create a flavor of consistent flavor of how we redevelop streets and how we improve the quality of our streets in addressing a number of balancing a number of issues whether it be pedestrian improvements supporting different modes of transportation including cycling stormwater and stormwater quality improvements improving our treescape our landscape all these things and so it's it's monumental and it's in its change of how we look and develop streets and one street that's actually underway that you've seen that kind of torn up mess but it's making significant progress is St. Paul Street between Main Street and Maple Street that project is actually underground in utilities it's done significant work to improve the utilities prior to doing all these underground improvements but it's adjacent to Champlain College's project and all these investments really hope to drive greater social interaction better quality of life within those areas and improve business opportunities for adjacent property owners so it's I think it's a great thing it's obviously stepping up our game in terms of how we invest and reinvest the streets but we think this is the direction we need to go through the main streets one that is going to be pursued is of course Main Street between an alternative block sections because we get aggressive trying to do more but Main Street between Pine Street and Church would be potentially the next one and then we're also working on design around the Burlington Town Center or Burlington City Place redevelopment Bank Street and Cherry Street and there is we're at 75% design for those two blocks and we're kind of on some of a whole to it so we understand and sort out where the development projects going but those are two great projects one thing I would note also is that Bank Street is designed to be a at grade street not a curb street and will allow more social interaction a little different than many streets that we've had no curb straight to the building open like a plaza but there's obviously there's things that provide the right protection for pedestrians in those walking areas whether it be raised beds for trees or bollards and those sort of things are broken lines of opportunity for the separate cars from pedestrians it's not unique to not unique to the world but unique to us because we're pretty aggressive in doing so many things in the city in the last five years we created this construction portal it lists and identifies where we're at and what we're doing so that it can be coordinated so the public can understand where they're going next and how do I get from point A to point B and I think we've reached a I think we've reached a point of saturation for the public to contend with us and whether we're doing sidewalk giving major projects we are having to coordinate that in a very active way and this is our way of doing that both to communicate to the public but also communicate internal to ourselves so it's been pretty useful and then bike and scooter share overview I am not going to step into this and offer any sort of details because this is not my thing I've not been able to do it in more detail in more informed detail than myself but know that there's been conversations that I'm going we're funding the study to look at what is happening and how we might move forward with expanding the bike share program particularly into e-bikes and scooters with the city with the hill institutions and Brian on our staff is leading that effort so they heard we had green ride in here we've got a lot more detail than I even have so there you go and that's I think that's kind of okay any further questions I just want to thank the city for coming in this is always very helpful it's good to have people understand where we're at what we're trying to do and not kind of wonder and you can also always follow us and ask questions we're happy to answer as much as we can thanks Norm yep Susan hopefully I did boss justice and presenting this thank you thank you for your time thank you guys is this your question? yes okay so the next item on our agenda is act 250 recommendations Regina's going to take us through this and what we're going to do is have Regina go through and give a little summary of the different recommendations and then we'll take questions we're hoping we don't want to get into the wordsmithing thing but just concentrate on the contact of the document itself before our presentation leaves do we have a copy of that we post that those kind of presentations on our website yeah because I just saw the the device leave make sure that we had an opportunity to put that okay thanks so getting back to the act 250 so Regina's going to take us through we're concerned about content versus wordsmithing if there are some spelling or grammar things that you you see you can bring those to Regina after the meeting and she can incorporate those and I think it's important to note that what this group did so this these comments were gathered by an ad hoc committee Jim was on it Chris Roy was on it Tony was on it Justin was on it and Kurt Carter from GBIC were on it and this this includes their recommendations that went through the PAC and the executive committee and so the stuff it's also important to know that this is consistent with past things that we've done like the 2014 recommendations for improving Vermont's permitting system and the Ecos plan so with that said Regina thank you I just asked one broad question sure thank you go for it we go into the presentation my understanding is that this process has slowed a little bit so what are the chances that something's actually going to happen this session versus we're going to have the whole summer to talk about it because that will frame my level of concern on many of the things that we're proposing versus you know so if it's if the outlook is that this has slowed a little bit because people have raised some concerns about certain things and it doesn't seem like this is going to make it by crossover day and that we might have the rest of the summer to deal with that what crossover day is it has to pass one chamber possibly go through the second chamber in the current session that was the reason for the crossover question that will frame the level of participation I think that members and commissioners need to take Charlie I think can address that oh wow come on you want me to throw Regina we're sure and I'll just take it he's going down to his chest so I'd like to think that as well that it will end up being a two-year bill but from anything I've seen I've not seen that stated for sure clearly so I'm not sure what to make of that and actually there's kind of the big bill that came out of the act 250 commission let me stop me from covering stuff you were going to cover but has not actually been introduced as a bill that was proposed by the commission and a lot of which you'll see kind of the committee was reacting to something that's not a draft bill yet I'm just trying to make it more confusing really there's also the administration's proposed a bill in each house that are similar that is a little more confined to the enhanced designation idea having said all that so there's a lot of uncertainty I tend to believe what you said is true that this is going to end up being a two year bill I think it's in two or three weeks like so and it hasn't even got out of committee yet no and so I think the attack that the ad hoc committee took was let's get some kind of higher level ideas on paper you know so they're not trying it wouldn't be who bus to try to respond to a bill that three weeks from now doesn't even have that section in it so it is a little higher level but it's probably not real high because it is responding to some ideas that were put both in the active 50 commission report in the bill that's not a bill and the other bill that is a bill thank you is that helpful context and oh one last thing I'm scheduled to testify on this at nine in the morning so really appreciate some directional closure out of this conversation tonight okay okay so just briefly what we're going to talk about and what we're asking for tonight so just quickly a little bit of background on why we're talking about this but we really discussed a lot of that at the last January meeting then we're going to do just a summary of the eight statements that are in the proposed position statement and then we'll open up to discussion as Mike said and hopefully we can get to an action so I've only got 12 slides total just so you know where we're at so quick background act 250 was originally enacted in 1970 and in 2017 a commission was asked to think about how act 250 is working and looking forward to the next 50 years so what's currently happening this is essentially what Charlie just said that full commission bill up top with its weird number it's not really actually introduced yet and then there are there is essentially it's a bill from the administration but it's introduced in both sides so it's in the house it's 197 in the senate it's 104 on the house side which committee is taking testimony and really lots of information on both everything concept altogether plus the full big bill and H197 is also in the house natural resources committee also so just sort of stepping back a little bit the intent of these proposed statements in front of you are really they're very much in line with the general concept in that 2014 permit reform statements that we had but also really help move our five of our eco strategies so these are eight eco strategies these are five of them but essentially really trying to get across the concept of smart growth and enabling smart growth to happen in the place other things that the active 50 committee really wanted to sort of focus on is really the system as a whole and just really trying to make it more effective and efficient as Mike said the active 50 committee had two meetings to develop these executive committee reviewed this on the sixth and the pack reviewed it on the 13th so their comments so the summary of the position statements so the first one again is really just trying to reiterate effective and efficient predictable review process what's underlying in here a little bit is really trying to get at better integration between the local and state level so it uses the phrase every hand municipalities A&R and active 50 have to review the exact same thing three times over sorry do you want us to ask questions on each one or just wait the second concept is real the second position statement is really supporting the concept that active 50 would be not exist essentially you wouldn't go to active in areas where we want to see growth happen review is that what we're saying um let's let's get to that yeah yeah okay so you already want to clarify questions we want to get through this is this a hunter or a temporary okay get down yep so essentially the bills that are on the table right now do this in an enhanced designation concept we'll go into that a little bit more detail um but there are some challenges with that um and just to give you a little bit of a quick background about um so you can sort of think about this enhanced designation concept a little bit better currently there are five state designations the three on the top are the core designations meaning you have to have state benefits the base designations are the top three the bottom two are add-on designations so they basically sort of sit on top of those original designations geographically um and uh expand a little bit the enhanced designation in the proposed bill is now a sixth designation that a municipality would have to go back to the downtown review board get approval and it would not get any bigger than these are on the ground right now um to just show you quickly this map in the purple on this map are our current state designations in the county um it's 0.6% of the land area in the county um so this enhanced designation concept where the 50 review would not happen in these areas is limited to those purple areas on the map um only if the town jump the hurdles to get that enhanced designation um this map is also sort of transitioning to position statement number three which really is uh talking about critical resource areas now in the two separate bills that are out there the concept is defined in two different ways um in the big commissions bill they use the phrase critical resource areas and it includes these specific resources river corridor wetlands elevation over 2,000 feet and soils that have steep slopes over 15% and shallow depth um and the concept is that if you're in these green areas you're definitely going to go to act our position statements so far say generally we are in favor of this concept um that would be residential or commercial oh no we're going to come back to it we're going to come back to it position statement number four um this is about um really a little bit more specific to um the process itself of going through act 250 right now it gets to be a very technical process very quick you've got to get your um plans to an engineered state early on and then if there is any um design changes or suggestions of movement at the act 250 level you've got to go sort of all the way back and get those expensive engineering plans redone so the the thought here is to sort of think rethink that a little bit um number five um is a general concept that we should really be thinking about um a lot of the effort um and engagement citizen engagement that goes into mapping at the local and regional level um and if if we go into a place where uh we are mapping either places that should be protected um and go to act 250 um and places that are designated for growth and maybe act 250 doesn't happen there um we really should be thinking and relying on the level of effort that has gone into the local and regional plan maps not that should not just come down from the state level position statement number six uh there are some new concepts in the proposed bill greenhouse gas emissions the concept here is to just for the new concepts take a little bit of a step back think more thoroughly about how those are going to play out before incorporating them into statute uh number seven is uh really think about phasing in this concept so just really quickly back to this map um in the big bill the commissions bill it's pretty clear that there are areas on this map it could very well be that everything goes to active 50 that's in the white areas on this map in the administration's bill it's potentially that we would follow our the paradigm that we're under right now for the white areas but super unclear essentially so the idea here would be some time allowed for the municipalities to get that if it's an enhanced designation or whatever it might be allow the municipalities to define those areas for growth first before active 50 sort of expands more broadly throughout just so that we're not in a place where we've kind of halted development in full for a period of time that has landed is to keep with the current system which has local and state appeals going to the same body there is the proposal is to go back to the environmental review board and there's lots of pros for that as well but this is where the position statement has landed at this stage so again tonight questions and comments hoping for board action as Charlie said tomorrow he's going to be providing some testimony and that will be ongoing and then the ad hoc committee still intends to meet and keep thinking through the more specific proposals that come out and so this is not the end of the conversation but we are looking for some help to figure out what to say at this stage okay do that anyone that was on the ad hoc committee want to add anything Jim or Tony or Justin sure I mean I think it's a great summary big takeaway for me is you've got a really encouraging concept of stimulating smart growth and areas planned for growth at the same time you have some pretty dramatic both expansions of jurisdiction and musing about requirements to be imposed through the vehicle of Act 250 you know because all new buildings will be net zero that wouldn't possibly stifle economic development or affordable housing production that's been tempered slightly to use the best available energy efficiency technologies across the board the best not the most cost effective reasonable practical the best so I think there's a disconnect in some of the drafters understanding of the realities of land use and development that hopefully we see on the jurisdictional changes for designated areas while accomplishing some important goals for resource conservation I mean fragmentation is a real issue dealing with the indirect and cumulative impacts of sprawl is the flip side of the coin so they're talking about the right issues but the language on paper so far it's got some real serious concerns about how implementable it will be thanks Jim I'd like to just I felt that there was a lot of good things they were looking at and trying to do but I'd say my overall summary of what we were thinking of was to when it all possible try to consolidate use existing things that already exist don't create something new don't add on more and as much as possible try to eliminate all duplication and make things as efficient as possible so that we don't make development potentially even harder than it is now I have been echoed what I was thinking so thank you for holding your questions Regina I think is going to go through point by point and ask any questions and comments one clarified over view type of question outside of the purple areas we're not talking about overriding local development review right what do you mean by that? well there would the local planning commissions or development review boards would have input on development in their communities outside of the purple areas okay so there's nothing there's nothing well purple you established the communities established the approach so there wouldn't be any act 250 there but there still would be make sure it's up to standards and things like that even if they're in the purple area right yeah so under the administration's bill that's where there's more detail about what's involved with getting this enhanced designation and as drafted it really to your earlier question that we didn't answer it is basically saying that the municipality will need to show how they locally and then depending on which of those five designations you're in there's some other things that you've got to meet as well I was just looking at it more from our role as a regional planning commission where we are kind of like a local municipal community stakeholder group you know body I just didn't want us to be party to something or without at least discussing it that somehow and completely bypassed local input and I just wanted to make sure that I just wanted to get that on the record that that's what we're not for and that's not what this process is at least currently designed and not on a trajectory to do because that would increase my level of participation the intent is much more that we should be supporting the work done at the municipal level and the you know there's a lot of detail under number two on the position statement which is about this enhanced designation and for the most part what we're saying is it's not going far enough in those municipalities there's a lot of work happening that should be supported and we don't necessarily need Act 250 it's duplicative and outside those design would go outside the commission draft is worth it is that it expands Act 250's roll into a lot more development projects than they currently review so and where that is and how that line is or how much is not clear but you know so some of like right now that you can go under the radar if you do a five lot subdivision you might get pulled into Act 250 but that presupposes development review isn't adequate well it's it's it's agnostic as to whether there's local review or not it's adding state review so that's the important thing I want you to do state review if the local review was already adequate I'm not arguing a position I'm telling you what I'm telling you what is in the draft and I'm trying to push back which I hope that the sense of this board is just want to quickly add that there's no no intent to change party status so the RPCs and municipalities still have status under all ten criteria there's still criteria ten we haven't really talked about any of the proposed changes to that but one of them is that you may only be able to have your plan considered in Act 250 if it's been approved by the RPC and then there's this discussion about improving regional plans for use in Act 250 as well mainly to ensure that they all are consistent with the state planning goals and as Charlie mentioned the other thing that's sort of under consideration is the big white area right now a lot of that's based on whether you're one acre or ten acre town in terms of the level of jurisdiction and it might stay that way but as he noted there's also some discussion about looking at different levels of jurisdiction in those areas but even we still need to participate in the process John we're concerned about the presumption the evidentiary presumption to well Barry do you have that under local Act 250 right now but that's the most we could talk about so I was wondering to Jeff's concern which I share is that when you've got a robust local process as Act 250 needed anymore is this an approach to allow the municipalities to understand outside of those purple blotches where they find their growth centers and then to be able to sort of grow their growth centers if you will so that Act 250 hopefully can stay away from those but before you come in and put it as a default give us a chance first to figure out what our really should be and expand it where needed expanding and then have the overlay is that kind of what I'm hearing yeah that's the idea okay do you have something Jim my understanding it doesn't necessarily change the way Act 250 interacts with local approvals but one of the things that's under consideration is changing it from a project size as a determiner to the resource as the determiner got that so that's why those white areas if there's no resources it's sort of unclear and maybe everything that's in there might suddenly go to Act 250 and it doesn't replace the local it's just it's the same interaction that happens now it just happens on different projects than it does now Dustin I just wanted to I think clarify a point that Regina mentioned but I think is pretty essential to whether this in total represents any movement you know however you might feel about adding Act 250 jurisdiction in critical resource areas there's a sort of a separate discussion of does what you do in the areas planned for growth have a meaningful benefit and is it adopted by towns some of the language that we saw talked about the local zoning shall ensure compliance with the Act 250 criteria which is a shorthand way of saying you will touch all the bases of Act 250 it's a mirroring of Act 250 at the local level and it's unclear how precedent setting decisions by the Act 250 process would then have to filter down to ensure that the towns are insuring compliance so we really tried to hammer that in one of the sub bullets of recommendation too that that is sort of a poison pill in our view I mean that's a waiver without a benefit it's you don't have to go to the Act 250 district commission do it all during your DRB process so that's if I had to put a bold underline you know highlight on something that would be it Justin Thank you Mike kind of with Justin said I cringe to subject local DRB to evaluate the Preachy test it doesn't seem appropriate and also John's point of allowing communities to evaluate the size and the regulations behind their own protection a couple of questions about point number you can page up a little bit so under that by same body do you mean same as they are today or same singular entity? So currently appeals and correct me I'm getting this wrong but both appeals of a local permit and an Act 250 permit are going to the same body environmental coordinate yeah and so is this a statement is this a statement the way number eight reads it just says to one entity doesn't say to the environmental court follow up questions this is a statement on maybe I'm interpreting wrong the RPC promoting DeNovo review across the board I don't think so we had discussions about the DeNovo review and this is separate this is a question of where it goes not how it's treated yeah yeah and the issue where was that if they start as suggested going to different things and appeal at the local level could come up with this answer and if they feel the same thing this it could come up with a different answer so by same singular entity thank you yeah anything else on number eight board appeal board or something like that or a new okay or something new oranges whatever they call each is number eight Catherine I was going to say I mean obviously since there is question over the same body I mean maybe the word should be entity then it is in the actual this is just ignore my words in your packet you have it says entity in the the actual statements are in your packet yeah I read that and I thought I thought but I thought well that's different so yeah anything else on number eight people generally good with the content of that bullet okay as in your packet as in your packet yeah not there I want to thank the ad hoc committee I thought they did an admirable job with not a lot of time and not a lot of actual language to work with I would like to thank the pat also the draft change is easier the executive committee and the packet we're going to go back okay so now we're going to go back through number seven backwards we're going to go backwards since it's fresh in everyone's mind so yep so this one essentially is we talked about this already John asked the question about it so basically what this means is we would like to give folks an opportunity to really think about the purple areas think about whether there's opportunity to expand those purple areas and get the places where we want growth to happen off the act two fifty table before act two fifty expands in all the white and the green that's what this is saying adria so I guess I'm not sure where this would go but it seems like in order to assure that municipalities can truly evaluate the criteria that would be an act two fifty it would be important that the regional planning commission or municipalities have the resources to really develop their regulations so that they have the capacity to meet those needs and really and that the DRBs or planning commissions within those municipalities understand what those criteria are and what they would have to do because I think that there are certain criteria that are ignored at the local level because they are assumed to have to be taking care of it at two fifty and that may be much more in the rural communities but I don't think that our rural towns anyway at this point have the capacity to take that on so part of this should recognize that you have to work towards that Sharon technically we've been supposed to have been incorporating Act 250 criteria in our planning since 1988 when Act 200 was passed it is in the policy state the land use goals that we're supposed to be addressing that said I agree with you I think we often ignore we haven't really paid enough attention to that and this would raise it to another level but I don't think it's a new requirement it's just one no I was just going to say Regina you were saying something about the purple zones in the map there and the designation just going back in the little small dot there in the village that's extreme when we get that village center designation that dot appeared so going back not that long ago so this isn't going to be a stagnant or it's going to be a dynamic it's not going to be a static map it's going to be it's going to change we know that so I don't know and how often is that going to be happening? I don't know to keep things consistent I see the point trying to put more back to the to the town the villages and less of the burden on the state as far as addressing these issues Act 250 issues but the consistency like Justin said brought up the whole thing of who's making sure I mean developers I think are going to come out of the woodwork with appeals hey what about this why is this this community this is happening whatever just keeping things consistent I don't know I see a lot of problems with that consistency yeah Justin couple thoughts on that one there's a notion that if this jurisdictional change were to take place you could have existing properties that have in one of these enhanced designation areas actually remove that jurisdiction from the property and simplify redevelopment efforts of an site with existing jurisdiction so that's you know one thing to your question of consistency the the state would have a bite at the Apple every I think five years right I mean there's a renewal period for these designations so there is a chance that over time it would be an opportunity to be reviewed and reviewed or through interpretations of the downtown board even if the notion that local DRB review would ensure compliance with the criteria interpreted as all the criteria in the same way as an Act 250 proceeding which is very different from practice whatever was intended Would it make it easier to do smart growth or harder? Would it potentially capture all projects with Act 250 criteria within one of those designated areas? If it's interpreted as the local process shall ensure compliance with the criteria, that's in their zoning. That's not just for projects that would otherwise get caught in an Act 250. It's you will do this with your zoning in order to get this designation. So we don't see a way to only have that extra level of scrutiny and practice applied to the projects that would potentially benefit by this. That would be across the board. So the devil's in the details and, you know, there's more concerns than answers at this point. Yeah, clearly it's the other way where you don't have the Act 250 criteria that has to be rolled into your local zoning. Developers now deal with it's a little different to do business in this town and this in that town. And you don't need consistency that way. They're used to that. They know that. They complain about it. Yeah, but, you know, it's more of the same. It's not like that's a difference. Sharon, something else on this one? Well, yeah, I don't want to dominate you, but I've been dealing with this for a year and a half. Yeah, I just wanted to mention that we all know that the current designations were never intended for use in Act 250. So they don't deal with a lot of things that you need to deal with. And I think that's the reason for the enhanced. That said, there is a lot of concern out there that these areas are too small. We presented the Maryland example, which basically defined jurisdiction on water and wastewater areas. For if you have, assuming that you need wastewater infrastructure for higher density development. So they look at where are the existing wastewater service areas and where are the planned wastewater service areas. I also want to just point out that there's a difference between using the mapping, and we've all supported levels of mapping for interpreting the criteria. So there's the proposal to increase all this mapping for use, especially under criterion nine, where the capability and development plan was originally intended to apply, to interpret the nine criteria. And then the local and regional plans would still apply under 10. But the criteria under nine are basically those state interests that are mapped at the state level. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be local input into those, especially when you get into things like existing settlements and things that are defined right now in writing but not mapped on a map. So there's a difference between that and then using the map as a form of jurisdiction. Like we're talking about with enhanced designations. So I think it's, they often get conflated and it's important to keep those mapping roles distinct in terms of how they're used. I mean, they're both valid, but there are different considerations that go into each. So the recommendations with regard to jurisdiction may be more limited than the recommendations for mapping in terms of interpreting the active criteria. That said, I think there is a lot of support for having some kind of vetting at the local and regional level even if it's done at the state. But I know VPA has talked about recommending that they use a similar process they use for enhanced energy planning. That some of the criteria are defined at the state level but then the mapping for that's done from the bottom up. So I don't know if that's something that the ad hoc committee looked at or not. In terms of how to do this within a phase-time process to give towns and regions of time to. Kim, you wanna? I'm thinking though that we weren't sure we saw the value of doing another mapping process when we have a lot of good existing mapping our way into place that was prepared with local input and as opposed to creating still another mapping project. So we didn't necessarily consider what you had mentioned. If they do decide to do another level of mapping again that would be a good way to do it. But I still question the need to do that mapping all over again which is again just spending resources and the state is trying to figure out where we're coming up with resources for everything. So why create another system that has to happen for instituting the old system. The problem is criterion nine doesn't have any spatial context. So when you're saying like under nine now you have to maintain the existing settlement pattern. There's no definition for what that is anymore because the maps that showed what it was are no longer in existence. But they still exist at the local level. Well, but again nine was the state interest 10 was a local regional interest and not that they shouldn't be compatible but there is an interest in saying this is a prime ag soils are important at the state level. They should be shown on a map if the state wants to protect those in Act 250 and they are it's just that you have to go hunt them down. So the intent was at least the commission's recommendation was to bring back those capability and development maps that show where the resources referenced in Act 250 are located on the ground. So it's kind of these are the critical state interests that Act 250 addresses and then nine and 10 these are the important local and regional interests that we want also address. And again there should be some correlation between the two but they are different levels of jurisdiction. They're one lot jurisdiction but again the resource. Okay. Yeah I was just gonna say we were certainly cognizant of the idea that this is a state determination of value. Our suggestion was that the process at least start with what the local and regional planning commissions have put together as their understanding of those baseline resources. And if the state wants to move the lines or add new considerations that's great but at least then the process would identify that divergence between the local and regional planning and the state interest as defined in this process. So let me go back to number seven. We've had a lot of discussion. Kind of I think fold it over into a couple other points but on number seven is everyone okay with that content? A phased approach, a phased approach. Okay, how about six? So six is the general concept about there are some new ideas in the bill, greenhouse gas emissions included and the idea is to just hold on some of those and work out further details before adopting those concepts. So more discussion on that one I'm sure. I can speak for the committee. We sort of reiterated a comment from the 2014 sort of broad permit reform recommendations that state energy policy should apply to all new buildings period and stop. I mean the geographic skewing of whether it only kicks in under act 250 provides a perverse incentive to try to dodge act 250. That thinking hasn't changed. Any other comments? Then is everyone okay with the content of number six? Okay, moving right along, number five. So this is the one that we just talked about. So as drafted, it doesn't get to the specific distinction that Sharon was just talking about but it does pretty broadly explain that there should be some reliance on mapping at the local and regional level, both to define jurisdiction and also define the areas. Could you shift your order back? Oh yeah, sorry. Eddie? Just again, I would say that I think this is a great opportunity for us as a region to be thinking about not just resources in our own local jurisdiction but the resources have a cross political boundaries and that we're thinking in systems and not in resources and we have to do that across political boundaries. So we think about our transportation system. We need to be thinking about what we're calling natural resources as systems and if we can really strengthen our ability at the regional level to do that, incorporating what we know in each of our local areas but to think about it greater, I think that would be something I would really like us to see emphasized as kind of part of this process. I think you said that better than I did, yeah. That's kind of what I was trying to get to, too. There are comments. The only thing I'll add to that is I think we did try to do that when we were doing the energy planning. We were looking at those resources, you know, really, at least for the state identified ones without respect to political boundaries, there were then municipal identified ones that obviously were specific. Could I ask, what do people think about the energy planning process and the mapping? I mean, there were admittedly some bumps and rides with that but in terms of a similar process for use in Act 250 mapping, is that something that would be reasonable? So in that case, we got some direction on this, but the maps were developed long before. Thoughts? Is everyone getting tired of the discussion here? That effort was, being on that committee at the RPC, that mapping effort was a tremendous lift by staff incorporating the various sources and then agreeing on all the colors and so I would just caution against, be advised, know what you're getting into if you're going on that path because that process was substantial. The intent is to kind of make the hard decisions in advance of the permitting process versus during the permitting process. That's why I thought it was a good first start. I'm not sure it was the best, but. Edward, did you want to say something? Well, I mean, I guess I'd rather us be doing the work and working it out and that's what we need to be doing as opposed to kind of putting it off and putting it off and things ending up being vague and then having the courts decide who, you know, they don't really have any stake in the game. We are, so we've got to put in the work and do it. From a process standpoint, I think, at least in our region, like the staff spent a lot of time going back to each municipal planning commission and stuff to kind of gut check the map and try to get it as aligned as possible. And so I think from a process standpoint that worked, you know, without speaking to them, what exactly was on the map? Okay, anything else on number five? Everyone's good with the content? Okay, number four. Okay, so this is the concept of currently in Act 250. You've got to have your ducks in a row, your plans engineered, engineered, sorry, also getting tired. And when, inevitably, there is some suggestions whether from neighbors who are invited to participate in the process or Act 250 commission itself, you have to shift things and move things, you've got to go back to the beginning and get those expensive plans redone. So this is suggesting a little switch in how that happens. So Regina, master planning then just means general, the application process and not specifically the master plan part of Act 250. Because there is the opportunity to submit a master plan in Act 252 separate from. Yeah, so this as originally drafted was much broader than just master planning. It was switched back to master planning, which is how the CCRPC's 2014 position statement describes it. And so I think the original idea is that this would happen for any level of Act 250. Not just the master planning. Not for large phased development. Right, the PAC pushed back on that a little bit. And so the concept now is that is under the master plan review process. So it's the phased development only? Yeah, okay. Just speak to the original, the thinking of the original ad hoc committee before it was softened. The notion is that if Act 250 is intended to be a forum where you're open to making real changes requiring that you not only fully design but also secure permits for all of those technical permits is not the best way to encourage an open dialogue between other stakeholders and the developer who's now, you know, 50, 100, 250 grand out on a limb of stamp drawings that basically are out the window as soon as they're checked off on the application requirements because everyone wants to take a fresh look. So it seems completely antithetical to the notion of encouraging a meaningful participation at the stage that you could actually influence the project without basically ensuring that developer has a very strong vested financial interest in not making meaningful changes to that site plan. So again, it seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect where no, the district commission couldn't possibly consider whether this is good land use without seeing stamped engineering drawings if we're gonna reduce duplication relying on state technical permits as a condition of an Act 250 permit. Even if to circle back to Act 250 to reflect other general site plan changes that happened as a result of getting that technical permit that seems to be a more, an approach that's more conducive to real participation. Do you wanna make that as a specific recommendation that's come up in other areas? So you went that route and then backed off? I would like to know what's the backing off. Okay. You have much to reason for backing off on this. Yeah, so the feedback from the PAC was that, A, they were concerned a little bit about making Act 250. Well, let me step back a little bit further. The PAC felt the real solution to this is better coordination between the local and state levels. Like if we could really create a better, better solution, that's what we would be doing. So you wouldn't be going through an intense level of engineered review at both levels really and getting different feedback and then getting ping-ponged back and forth between the two. So that would be the ideal situation, but we didn't get to a place of figuring out how to work that in. But the concerns I think were about making Act 250 a sort of a complicated two-phase process that that's how it would essentially work out where you just sort of have an okay on the land use level, almost like a preliminary review and then a final review. And then the other concept was just that they feel like at the local level you need that kind of level of detail in order to be able to approve a plan effectively and they felt like Act 250 probably needs that same kind of confidence. Justin. So in the local parlance, is this akin to sketch plan? Yeah. Which is of great value for all the reasons particularly that Justin stated. I would support, if that's what this is saying, I would fully support that. Yeah, Jim. I have a question about that consideration while you're saying that if the locals need the fine detail to make the approval, I have no problem with that, but they don't start with that. They start conceptual and work their way up whereas Act 250 doesn't start conceptual and work their way up. So my feeling is if they're saying it works if the local level needs it, then I'd say that Act 250 needs it the same way. Which to me supports our committee's original designation of going back and saying that you shouldn't start with engineer drawings at Act 250 and then expect to be able to have an applicant be happy and willing to make changes. Right. Jeff. I'm old enough to remember the whole master planning versus piecemeal approach of the late 80s and 1990s and early 2000s. And the struggle was always unless you make it worth the while of the developer to master plan something, okay? You're going to encourage people to break it off in chunks and they're never going to tell you what their full plan is, okay? And so the whole idea between Act 250 review at the master planning level was to see if you can take one of the 27, several of the 27 sub criteria and do them and satisfy the requirements of Act 250 and the local planning before you got into all the, now there's always a, you know, before you got into the details of phase one of a 10 phase master plan. Because if you don't make it worthwhile for the developers to participate in master planning you're not going to get any master planning and you're just going to get piecemeal planning. So I'm kind of hopeful that we could say that we would encourage master planning by at least creating some incentives for people who want to engage in it to engage in it by allowing maybe certain non-controversial criteria to be decided as part of a master planning process and leaving some of the more controversial aspects of what people have to go through for the development including engineer quality drawings and things like that that would be decided as part of one part of the master plan's actual review. But if there was an opportunity to close out 10 of the 27 sub criteria it might make it worthwhile for a developer to actually master plan which would be better for everybody as planners and in the communities and in terms of assessing the regional impact. So I was hopeful that maybe the ad hoc committee and subsequent thing could say we need to devise some way to reward people for going through master planning and we're not going to have any and we're just going to continue to have piecemeal planning which is not at least optimal and I say this as the person who spent 10 years on a master plan at Stratton. And I probably spent more time before the environmental board testifying that anybody in the history of mankind on that. But that was the struggle. And at that time we were only trying to close out like a dozen of the 27 sub criteria in Act 250 and we had at least a half a dozen appeals going forward. So I think unless we can break that nut we are going to encourage bad planning because we are not going to encourage master planning. I think master planning, more inclusive look is always a better way to do it and then you have just have to balance the double edges of the sword in terms of potentially closing out some review criteria versus leaving others open and so people have to at the master planning level be satisfied to argue about those certain criteria without maybe having the engineers and the economists come in and bore everybody. So I just say that as to plant a seed we should at least be doing things to encourage master planning because I think it is good as a reflex of response from a planning commission to encourage master planning. Other thoughts? Is there a wish to amend or add something? Yes. I would like to go back to the original recommendation and not just limit this to master planning with the concept that eventually I think Jeff's points are very, very good. But I think that this is sort of dressing something slightly different. Would it be more constructive? So you kind of use the terms sketch plan? So there's kind of a sketch plan stage where you can, you can take care of whatever criteria can be taken care of without detail engineering. And to Jim's point that provides that avenue to single phase projects that really don't make sense as part of a multi-phase master plan process. As far as the statement of principle, how you do it is gonna be dependent on the details as we all know. And so I think we're at the principle stage in terms of what we're doing to try to reply and arm Charlie with the ability to convey what we feel. And if I could just to be frank, the my only concern with this offening of this proposal is it does sort of set a precedent that we're walking back the recommendation from our previous permit reform task force, which was to say that technical permit should be technical permits and they can happen after a basic land use entitlement decision. And that has carry over to how local communities deem the necessity of having A&R permits in hand out of appeal part of your local application requirements. That is a cart before the horse that anyone who's focused on how genuine the process is gonna be ask yourself if you spent $100,000 how willing you are to tear it up and start over and ask yourself how open and participatory is that process really gonna be? And I think that's sort of a fundamental disconnect in playing through how the supposed rational actor would play out through one of these processes. And that's presuming that you'd be rational to be in development in this environment. Such as it is, that thinking I think is essential that people put the hat on and try to walk through the processes if they were an applicant and not just for this point but for the whole shooting match. And I feel like the first cut at the state level has missed the boat on some of these things. We'll see how tight it can get moving forward but while some of the broader strokes are really encouraging, hey, let's stop sprawl and do smart growth. Like yeah, we've been cheering that for 20 years longer but is this gonna be another shoot and a miss at the state house? I don't see how it's really gelling on something practical yet. So Mr. Acting Chair, short of wordsmithing this, is the appropriate way to do this to encourage staff to capture the essence of this conversation in actual language? Yeah, before we do it, I wanna get a kind of feel for the rest of the board. Is everyone okay with what the suggested change? We're gonna end up with a motion here so that motion will include the wordsmith. No, it'll be, I think you're right, we'll have the staff word it but the motion will be with the change to number four at this point that we discussed. Regina and Charlie, you've got a handle on that. That's a heavy burden before nine o'clock tomorrow morning. Don, all nighter. It's like back in college when you're studying. Okay, so otherwise everyone's good with number four. You are running onto here, aren't you? Yeah, you are. Nicholas Maduro O'Brien. Let's give you something to talk about too. Number three. So number three is just the general concept that we are okay with some shifting of jurisdiction to the resource areas. Again, so this is, oh wait, I'm not looking at it. You guys have this already up here. Number three, support the resource area protections. So those are the green areas on the map and essentially we are in concept okay with this strategy. Can you review the actual criteria again? Sure. This, wetlands, river corridors. They are river corridor, a significant wetland, which is probably class one and two wetlands, land at or above 2,000 feet and this one's a little bit weird. It's land categorized by slopes greater than 15% and shallow depth to bedrock. So this map is really not just 15% slopes. It's, sorry, wait a second, I've messed it all up. I had a little freeze up in the upper right-hand corner. I have a rose, but it's not acknowledgement. Put a road in, you'd have to watch it. On the waterways, what's the distance outside the waterway? For the river corridor, it's not an exact set defined distance. It's originally developed based off of geomorphic assessments of how much the river is gonna shift and move over time plus a buffer. And I don't know that that buffer has a set distance on it in the big rivers, 50 feet. The small streams are definitely 50 feet on both sides. Yeah, they started with bigger things, but they're trying to customize that map depending on most of the geology. Like so if it's bedrock, you're there, it can be very narrow. The other issue of course is where there's built, the village or town is already built like Montpelier. Like that transit station that's getting built right now is clearly in the river corridor. And so I think ANR is trying to, I think they're trying to be adaptable to what's actually out there in the world. So it's some success, some not success. So my question was, how's it basically captured now? If it's not a commercial development, more than 10 acres, active 50 doesn't touch these places at all. So I get in areas that have very limited zoning communities or have no zoning, this is a way to put some land use in some areas that are a little tricky and I can see where that's a good thing. On the other hand, when you bring them down to sophisticated towns, we're saying, well, let's have our local process plus the active 50 process on top of that. And of course you want to get growth in 80% of the growth in our growth centers, which means 20% is okay in other places and this would be part of those other places. So I'm trying to understand for the sophisticated communities. What does this mean? Green areas, John, those green areas, they don't look like they're in the, there's a lot of white in that map. If Regina could get those green areas back up, they look like they're on top of mountains. I thought I heard it coming over 2,000 feet. On top of mountains and stuff like that. There are some communities that are, Justin, I have a question about, hang on a second. No, is there a way to work? We can't get to the map, can we? Question about, particularly in light of some, and which PAM was here because I'm going to mess up my acronyms, but wetlands as defined by who and when, because right now the state and VGCI, they're really walking back their wetland maps. In fact, they might as well have a massive banner on top of it. So they do not consider advisable advisory. So who's defining the, we support the protection of resources, but who's defining them and who's putting the stake in the ground that says as of this day and time, because right now the state is telling us not to take their mapping until you actually map it yourself. Yeah. So how's that, did it play out? Yeah, so there's a lot, the VPA's comments go into much more detail about this and what's the rub between a map that is a resource area that's on a map? Does that kick you into jurisdiction just because you're on this map that was created in 1970s or is there, the map is just an initial layer, you review and verify for yourself, then it figures out how you're. So VPA's commented, I'm sure they've captured it pretty accurately. Well, and again, that's the difference between mapping for consideration under the criteria versus mapping for jurisdiction. And I think there's a legitimate concern about saying, well, if you have a wetland or a river corridor on your property, all of a sudden you're subject to active 50 review versus you've got to get a state wetlands permit. There are other things like forest blocks that they're talking about using for jurisdiction. And again, that's something that you might map based on land cover or whatever the criteria end up being that you would use for jurisdiction and saying in these areas active 50 should apply and same with the 2,500 feet or 2,000 feet. But there are different ways to use that information and I think that often gets lost in this discussion. So I think we should support resource-based jurisdiction for some resources, but not necessarily for all of them. Yeah, and that's kind of my point. I mean, you're going to take individual homeowners who are going to have to go through an active 50 process to build a home on land they've owned forever. And maybe that's good in some places, but maybe it's not. And just I'm troubled by a wholesale everything that meets these criteria. And the criteria aren't that broad. I mean, I'm sorry, too broad that they put a lot of people through a lot of stress and a lot of extra expense. And in some areas, housing is good. I mean, it doesn't all have to be in a growth center. I mean, 20% of it can be somewhere else. The other thing too is like river corridors, if it's sure we want to protect them, but is active 50 the best tool for that given there are nine other criteria. So maybe if it's really important for the state to protect river corridors, they should regulate river corridors separately and not necessarily through active 50. I'm troubled by the state-wide regulations. Right. So if you go by our recommendation here, we're saying we're okay with the concept of just throw act 250 on all those green areas where it doesn't have any jurisdiction now. And I'm saying I'm not so sure that's exactly what we want to say at this point in time. I get it has some advantage, don't get me wrong, but you can have, you know, there's a razor wire to walk there. I'm not so sure. Let me get Brian in. He's been waiting to say something all night. I was just curious of them. So there's those four or five criteria. The map gets too green if you include prime ag soils. The map gets very green if prime ag soils were included. Well in forest blocks too. Yeah. And you had those on there. But again, those are things that are considered an active 50, but they don't trigger jurisdiction. Right. Jim. So I would offer sort of a suggested modification that we support the concept of using resource based jurisdiction. However, we really have to work closely with the state to define which resources actually trigger. Yeah. I think that's what you're saying. Is that the concept is good, but we really need to discuss how we. The devil is definitely in that detail. And I don't have enough detail in order to be able to understand whether it's really a good or a bad thing. Andrea. Yeah. I guess I would word it maybe a little differently that we support the idea of resource area protection, but maybe active 50 is not for all the resources that different resources demand per tax different regulatory needs. Folks thoughts on that? So maybe modify Jim's comment with at the end and with the understanding that active 50 may not be the appropriate mechanism to provide those protections for all those resources. That comment is not shutting the door on active 50. It's raising the question as to whether or not it's the best and I think that's fine. Yeah. You got that. Everyone okay with that? Everyone okay with both those concepts? Everyone's okay? All right. Everyone's okay with number three then. We'll move on to the small number two. Yep. So number two has a lot in it, but essentially it's sort of pointing out the challenges with the existing designation systems as they are now. This is also not, it's freezing again. Sorry. At least it's frozen in the right spot. Yeah. I'm looking at the right thing. You guys are, got nothing to work with. Essentially, Sharon mentioned this before. The original purpose of the designations were not to really define where growth should go and where growth shouldn't go. So they're kind of being, we're using this system that's not quite set up for this purpose and just kind of adding on top of it to try to accomplish this. And so overall it just may not necessarily be the right way to define these areas. Other component of this is that it's really as Justin brought up earlier, it's not a true Act 250 release. It's basically just saying that the municipalities have to meet all of this, all the Act 250 criteria, which is not necessary. The current geographic boundaries are just very small. Again, if you think about our planned areas for growth, which is on this back map, this is about 15% of our land area. This is less than 1% of our land area. And it ignores the concept of where we currently have municipal water and sewer, where we have transit and where we have infrastructure where we'd like to see infill growth happen. Number D under this concept is that this is almost sort of a good thing. That's in the designations, particularly the growth center designation and the neighborhood development area designation. This is just a, we wanted to retain this concept that there are affordable housing incentives in those programs, and so we don't wanna see that lost. The current part E of this is that the current designations do not have an appeal process. This enhanced designation concept includes an appeal process. And again, to Jim's point earlier, if we have systems in place already, let's just work with those. So if the problem is that these designations don't have an appeal process, just add the appeal process to the designations rather than coming up with a whole new system to add that on. And then F, sorry, I have to read it, such as existing neighborhoods surrounding. The English there is tough. You're defining a problem with the last couple of words. I'm like, what are we reading? No problem defined in the sentence. I wonder if I missed something here. Something needs to be adjusted. The problem is that it will expand Act 250 jurisdiction into areas where development is appropriate. So basically the suburban parts of these growth centers. Just needs a little word smithing as well. I think the concept is fine. It's just you didn't quite catch it. Okay. And you're not reading it under duress. Okay, yeah. So that's any. Comments. Issues. Everyone likes the content of number two, A through F. Okay. One is easy. Number one. One is easy. We're almost done. I just have a question. Sorry. Number one. You guys talked about coordination between local region and state, but a lot of the discussion at the commission level was the fact that there used to be a coordinated state review process between different state agencies and different state firms that had since broken down over the years. So that doesn't exist anymore. The development cabinet? Was originally it existed before the development cabinet and it was done under the development cabinet and now that no longer apparently functions either. Really? So it ends up that people have to go to each different state agency because they're in different folks. There's not like one point of contact or one. So I know one of VPA's recommendations was to bring back the coordinated interasities. So VTrans doesn't talk to A and R anymore? Apparently not. Not like they used to anyway. I mean, I would defer to you guys because but from what we... With Michelle Boomerower there? I hope it can't be. There is conversation that happens. But anything that VTrans does more of that now than it used to. Does it do it at the planning level but not the permit level? We used to get one opinion from the A and R attorney when we were dealing with them way back when and not different things from different places. So there was an interagency, a formal interagency review process for a while and I don't know how that happens now but that's what we heard at the commission level. Interesting. Can the ad hoc committee dig into that a little bit more? Cause I mean, that's a real, that's a step back if that's the case. They've actually suggested they bring back the development cabinet and the staff, at least at the staff level. We actually have a monthly coordination meeting with, with A and R. And DHCD and AG and? Not so much with AG but DHCD participates in those on it. So you go through all the active 50 permits? No, not the active 50 permits but whatever sort of the issues de jure are and coordination between our two organizations. So the thought is, is that Act 250? Yeah, yeah. You might remember the old HUD process in the A73 review that we used to do way back when. Yeah. Just real quick with the reality is V-trans review of a project, it's coordinated, it's concise, there's kind of one voice. A and R review of the same project. Folks within the same work group are giving you not just contradictory, direct opposites. So I long for the days that you're discussing of, you can't get folks that sit next to each other. Maybe we're waxing too nostogically. I don't think it was ever that. Just in general, A and R has long ways to go right now in terms of speaking with a voice. Interesting. Yeah, Amy. I did plan this, Justin and I did not co-conspire ahead of this time. But it's a great segue to a comment that I wanted to make on number one. One of the central core missions of Chittenden County RPC is transportation. But yet it's not even mentioned in your most basic sort of mission statement in number one. It says economic development and housing. I would really love to see transportation in there. It is what you exist for. The road for the road's sake, right? I don't know, but just transportation projects in general, because I'll be honest, the scope and scale of the majority of projects in Chittenden County are the very ones that trigger Act 250 reviews. You should have a significant interest in that, in the context of the projects in your region. And another place that it could be is in four. There's just this last little part of four on the sentence that says, again, it's helping to reach affordable housing and economic development goals. You could just add transportation in there as well. So I just wanna, and thank you, Justin, for giving me such a great segue. Is this MPO business? Sorry. Everything should be MPO business. So is there a suggestion to amend number one in some way? Oh, yeah, I think it's a very reasonable thing to do. One in four. Good point. Yeah, with the transportation. Good point. Subcommittee's toes. Otherwise. That'd be a mean to Amy. Geez, I had a good suggestion for a change. Anything else on number one, or are folks good with N4? Well, off the gavel, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Jim. There is also adding the concept of the coordinator review. Maybe. Yeah, right. I guess the review. Adding that in as well. And we did talk about that, our committees, too. Yeah, so we had, so just quickly talk about the process of the ad hoc committee review. We had some other statements that were very specific to some of the proposals, like the development cabinet and that kind of thing. And we felt like, because all of that's gonna be a moving target, we really rose up and got to these higher levels. So some of that stuff was in that original draft that kind of fell out. Yeah, there was earlier a warning, too, about even the municipal and state permitting systems talking to each other, which... The concept of coordinated state review doesn't have to include a specific recommendation. Yeah, and I can mention that for a little bit. Predictable and coordinated, that's what you said. Yeah. I'm not sure how would you put the transportation in there? Just at the end, which is housing, transportation, and economic development goals. Just like in four, put it at the end. So everyone's good with those housing and economic development. Okay, so now we're looking for a motion. I would move we accept the recommendations for approving the Act 250 permitting center, the staff recommendation, what's the deliberations, that staff would capture the specific wording in consistent with the tone and tenor and specifics of the board discussion. So I... And transportation, so that's... Call me, Bernie, tomorrow, and I'll write an email to you, I'll write an email to you. Jeff, so that we discussed, that's item one, three, and four, we had some of the joint... We had a discussion on all the... Right, but we... But specifically, we talked about making it augmentations to those two... One, three, and four. Four, right? Three, and three, and four. One, three, and four, yes. Yeah, right, yeah. Sorry. Memory problem is running in my family. So there were a few other comments, I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead. Did that get seconded? Yes. Sorry, bye, Jim. There were a few other comments I caught notes on that you didn't quite say you wanted to amend the wording here yet, but I'm gonna kind of use those verbally. Yeah. In testimony, so as long as everybody's comfortable and maybe we'll, you know, in a future iteration add some more of those thoughts to these. So thank you all for that. That's not gonna be on a weekend. Yeah. They're taking a lot of time. Further discussion on motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? I'll abstain. You guys did a great job. I'm just abstaining because I'm representing another group on this. Jim. I would also, at least my viewpoint from the ad hoc committee is we'd like to greatly thank the staff for pulling us up together really fast. Thank you very much. Thanks Regina. And also for your work tonight, also to the ad hoc committee. The computer mouth of the leader. And I know it was a bit of a long discussion but I think it was needed tonight. So thank you all for your input tonight. Okay. So let's move right through. What's the next we've got? Chair, executive director update. Chair's got nothing. Chair's up in Quebec City. So I promise not to take 15 minutes. UPWP, we have our second meeting. Tomorrow. Tomorrow? Exactly what I was going to say. Thank you all. Do you know what I was going to say next? So, and we are coming to closure. I think we pretty much have the budget aligned with the requests. So hopefully that committee's work is pretty easy going for it. We like that. Eco-signal report. You got that on the table in front of you. Comments are welcome, legislative update. I think we had enough of that. Other than that, I will mention that there is another bill about RPCs playing a larger role in helping the state, particularly A&R, get water quality funding out to the municipalities and partners in each watershed basin. So just, this is my heads up. Let me know if you hear anything, have any concerns about that. I think it's really enough because DEC has been, their admin office has been overlawed, what's the word I'm looking for? Overbooked, waterlogged, under water, something, so they've really been jammed up with trying to get all the subgrants out. So I think they're trying to outsource some of that. So we'll see where that conversation goes, but that is a conversation that's going. And you personally are good with that? You know, subject to the devil in the details. I mean, it's something actually that our Clean Water Advisory Committee suggested to the state three or four years ago as like it would be good to get the dollars out more locally. And the RPCs have been involved in the development of that language? Yeah, well I would suggest that it not become a different RFP process, there'd be a consistent RFP process for all that money that's coming from the same pot and don't have different criteria if it's coming from the RPC versus ERP versus the district. It really needs to be consistent application process. Yeah, and I think there's the opportunity to make it simpler and also have more local control because it would really be the towns and partners, when I say partners, I'm talking about the watershed groups and conservation district decide the best projects to fund. So I think we can make it even simpler. Well, it would still have to be based on the tactical basin plan. I mean, we're not gonna be developing a whole different set. That's right. Yeah, okay. Committee, liaison activities and reports. In your packet, any questions, comments? I really, on the TAC report, there's a, I guess the contract went to the HB. I read something about the consultant team is gonna develop a new land use model for evaluation. Something about looking at the CERC. And I'm wondering if that, Oh, it's back. Yeah, are they evaluating whether if it had been built, if it would be, or whether it gets built? Which page do you want? I don't know what it would be included and the answer was no. That's a separate question. On page two. The land use question was disconnected from the CERC. I'm not sure how it's worded. It was a comment about the CERC. But the land use point is once some improvements are identified, let's say it's widening or actually more fun. Let's say it's adding exit 12B then we need to do an iteration to look at the land use implications of what does that do in terms of creating development pressure in a place that there may be some now, they would increase accessibility to that location and let's evaluate that. So it was just trying to be thoughtful about making sure we're looking at all the implications of potential investments. The CERC was just something Dennis thought might fix 89. Okay. Members item, other business? Move for your adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? All right. Thanks, everyone.