 So it just runs it like this. I can't see the audio appears to be off. The audio appears to be off. That's a good point. Can you guys hear us? I can hear you. Can you hear me? If folks want to sign up to speak, the sheet is out there. Can you guys hear us? Can you guys hear us? I learned my fight was from my mom. Brian was going to help you, but he's not here. She's definitely going to share again. I'm not sure if you can hear me, but I can hear you. We'll start in just a second. We have the sign up sheet here for folks that want to speak in person. We'll start with those folks and then I'll rotate to zoom. Thank you for coming out. I still call it afternoon, but I guess it's evening. I have a question about the house general and housing committee. I have concern to our constituents. So we're excited to host this housing specific legislative forum. And before I introduce myself and then we'll go around. I just. So I'm representative Emily Kraus now and I represent chitin nine. And I also have a comment on the general affairs and housing. Labor related issues and other general affair issues. And I just, before we start, I'm so grateful that representative Tom Stevens who chairs that committee has joined us on the screen and just grateful that you took the time to hear from our community members. to our fabulous timekeeper? Martin Lulonde and I'm the representative for Chittenden 12th. Kate Nugent, Chittenden 10th. Also, I apologize, I have to be just a little before 6th. You forgot my son. Hello, I'm in Chittenden 8th. I'm in human services, so if anyone has anything childcare, you know, that kind of thing, if you want to talk afterwards, I'll be available for a while. And we will also be joined by our fifth representative, Representative Brian Minier, and he serves on house education. I will also point out we are joined by our Lieutenant Governor, David Zuckerman. Thank you so much for coming. Heinsberg resident, not too far off 116. And do we have, I think, are all our city counselors here? Let's, yep. I just also share that this is a Warren City Council meeting as well and where the quorum, all of the council here, they may use the information heard tonight to make decisions in the future. So to meet our open meeting law, just wanted to note that as well. Yeah, and we have some other folks trickling in as well. So I'm going to leave the sign up sheet in an accessible place to folks. Um, I guess here, uh, well then I'll have to get it though. I guess right here would be helpful. Yeah, okay. So we'll just give it one more minute for people signed up. Oh, great. Thanks, Megan. If you could just tell me who's first on the list. All right, thanks. So, um, our, so we're going to keep it at about three minutes per person. Um, oh yeah. And then obviously, um, if we have more time, we can circle back to folks. Oh, there's some folks. Yeah. Okay. So let's start with, um, Mike Siminaw. And I'm going to give a 30 second warning. Thank you, Martin. I never need that. So, uh, first I want to thank you guys for putting all the time and effort, uh, at trying to come up with something that hopefully, uh, the end result can be reconciled and be something that is a win-win for a community in our state. Uh, the concern that I want to talk about is actually come up a few times. Uh, and that has to do with the capacity of, uh, our community or perhaps others to, uh, choose to exceed what the state's requirements or limitations might be, uh, on some things, whether it be, uh, wetland buffer, uh, energy standards or what have you, it just feels to me that, that that would be very chaotic. If everybody had the capacity to do that, it would create an unbelievable amount of anxiety when you think, uh, that you might live in an environment where, uh, you know, because of the, uh, the zeal or the political disposition of those, uh, in charge that, uh, somebody could decide, hey, we're gonna exceed what the state limitations are and we're gonna, uh, impose more on you. Uh, so I just think that that is really something that you've got to, uh, consider not allowing to happen because it just seems that it would be chaos and that, uh, people would be subject to the, the, the zeal and the whims of political dispositions. So thank you very much. Thanks, Mike. Next we'll hear from Andrew Chalnet. Thank you all. Thank you for coming and listening. Um, so yeah, I want to address, um, two particular provisions in S 100. So the first is, um, a provision which would allow five units per acre across any district that allows for residential development and that, um, provides for water and sewer. Um, south road didn't, happens to have districts like that. And, um, the districts that we have, some of those areas are, have environmental protections that have been in place for a long time. So there, so for instance, um, the SEQ, south road to the SEQ, um, designated natural resource protection areas, I think roughly 1500 acres thereabouts, um, a couple of decades ago, those areas are intended to be protected. They allow for very limited residential development on certain lots that don't have any other development potential and are large, but there's been very little development. And that basically encompasses the forest and the buffers in the SEQ that this community made a decision a couple of decades ago are really, really important to protect. And I know that those lands are valued by most of the people in this room. And I don't believe that building over those lands is the way to solve the housing problem that we've identified. It's, it's just the wrong solution. Um, and Chris correct if I'm wrong, Chris and I were chatting and I believe the affordable housing committee also agrees that the protections at article 12, which includes these natural resource protection areas, should not be overwritten. Those protections should remain in place. I don't really think there's that much disagreement in this room. And I'm sure there'll be some disinforces about what should be done with those lands, but I think it's a mistake to think that those lands should be built over. And as written right now, um, they could be, um, Senator Keisha Romsons has proffered a minute that would exclude those lands. I'm not sure the status of that amendment because I'm not a scholar of Senate procedure. I see it on the Senate website. Um, I would, you know, urge that the amendment that she drafted be included in any final version of this bill to protect those NRP lands. Um, there's another, um, set of protections that the city developed for habitat blocks during its interim zoning a few years ago. Habitat blocks are also potentially at risk under this under S 100. And I would urge that S 100 be amended to protect the habitat blocks. These habitat blocks were studied by environmental consultants that South Burlington hired. And again, um, they're, you know, I don't think as much disagreement. Again, I know that for the housing committee agrees that habitat blocks should be protected for work that was done. Um, the habitat blocks are there for biodiversity. They're protect our water, protect our air, particularly protect Lake Champlain. Um, we learned that shouldn't account these are most bar diverse county in Vermont. And that's why we, that's why I protect it. The third thing that we put in place are our conservation plan unit developments where, um, for particular parcels, if, if, if they're going to be developed, the developer needs to conserve a portion and then build densely on the remainder, on the remainder. Uh, Senator Hinsdale also proper amendment that will protect the conservation. And I would urge that that amendment also, um, be included. So that, that's kind of the first thing, the five unit provision that I want to address. I then also want to address. So you're, the time is up. Now if you want to return, if we get through everybody before six 30, because I understand this has one that's six 30, six 20, then we'll come back to you. Thank you. But let's let, because there's a lot of people I think want to speak. Thank you so much, Andrew. Um, now can we hear from Tyler Barnes? I'll yield for, well, okay. I'll be, I'll be brief. Okay. I appreciate, I appreciate all of the work that has been done by the Senate as far and all the work that you have in front of you. Thank you for giving us the time to, to speak with you today, thoughts. I'm not going to lie. This is uncomfortable for me personally, because I respect my colleagues tremendously on the city council and I plug all the hard work that they put into the LDRs. I think every single person is on the city council has had a hand in crafting them, and I applaud them for that. And I respect them deeply for that. And I think that they are all very well-attentioned. It's awkward for me because if I had to choose between whether or not between those LDRs and S 100 and which one better serves the needs of our citizens and our businesses and our community, I'm inclined to lean in favor of S 100 and that does not come lightly. It does not come easily and it does not come in agreement with my colleagues in the council. But it's something that I, as a longtime resident, firmly believe. And for a number of reasons, I will leave the economic reasons to other folks in the room because I think they can speak better to it than I can. My concern is about equity and what's, what's good for some is good for all. And if we are going to impose density restrictions on certain parts of the city, I feel strongly that we should be doing it everywhere and not just in select portions of the city. I have great concerns that that will yield unintended socioeconomic consequences and create divisions in our community at a time when we should all be coming closer together as opposed to being driving one another further apart. And I don't think that these things are intentional, but I think that they exist. I think that they're already happening. And I think that we have a responsibility to stop it and to reverse direction on that. Thank you. Thanks, Tyler. Councillor Barr. Peter. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, everyone. My name is Peter Folo. I've lived in the southeast quadrant of South Georgia for over 20 years. And I'm here mainly to express my very strong support for their S100. Because I think it will do a lot to help Vermont, South Burlington, even County, all parts of the state provide or at least facilitate badly needed affordable housing for all Vermonters regardless of their economic status. That said, I'd like to make two key points that are really derived from my 30 years of professional work in economic development and regional planning. First, the future economic vitality of the state as a whole and South Burlington as part of the Chittenden County region, which is, as we all know, the state's true economic engine. Because we are in the core of the state's economic engine and will likely continue to be re-housing near jobs for all people, not just the output. We need housing for the people that work at ALS and beta and on logic and the UVM Medical Center. Secondly, forcing people to live farther from where they work, where the jobs are, as the current policies in South Burlington and elsewhere in the state will do, will have a negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, as well as on, as I mentioned, the economic health of the region and the state. So I strongly support this and I thank you very much for your consideration. Thanks, Peter. And next we have Tom Bailey. So I've already circulated a memo to you all and to others and I won't labor that point. Andrew, I have a couple of disagreements with you. One is everybody doesn't agree. That's what you had this idea that somehow we're all basically really agreed with the conclusions that you had. So can you do that? Yeah, direct your comments to the board or to the legislature. Thank you. Sorry. I won't direct them to Andrew. Thank you. I'll just comment on Andrew's comment. That's okay. Yeah. And the basically we don't all think there's a real disagreement. That's why we're here. Something that Tyler said kind of cued in with me and that is if we was a discussion about the NRP and how it's actually been in place for quite a long time. Andrew's right about that. That's part of the reason that we have some of the problems we do. We've actually created the circumstance. So we actually have no surprise. NRP as a census district is the highest income in the state. I'm not faulting people for having money, but and I think it's great. But on the other hand, we have that inequality. We've made that land impossible for people to buy into and that's because we set it up that way and it's and it's still being set up that way. S100 very modestly attempts to change the metric a little bit. Instead of having the basically being unbuildable down there, then when there's water and sewer like most places build around it, build, build because we need the housing and we need the growth. We need the development. Beta needs employees and they can't find them now because we don't have any nearby mine. So rather than put a circle around South Burlington and say we're special and we get to set our own water and sewer because it expands beyond the city, the state requirements and we get to set our own other rules because we're special and guess what? There's more land that's taken off from development and because again, it shouldn't happen that way. We're not just a city. We're a region. We're a community and we need to be the economic driver that we can be except change. Let's go for it. Thank you so much. Next. And I just want to let folks on Zoom know we will get to you. I see many hands up. I'm going to go with what I've seen on council meetings for different cities where we go to folks who are in the room first and then we'll get to you. But if you have an urgency and need to speak because you have to depart, just let us know. I think we can see the chat. So thank you. Okay. Next we're going to hear from Roseanne Greco. I'm going to try to keep this really short because I sent you all a memo which I mean an email which I hope you got. I'd like to have you just consider this S100 in conjunction with other bills and with other problems. So we face many problems and you have a lot to do and you have a lot in your plate. I'm urging you just to consider each problem in association with the bigger picture. And what we really need, what science is telling us is that we have to prepare ourselves for what's going to happen with the climate crisis. The more of our environmental resources that we destroy, the less prepared we are going to be in addition to the fact that we cannot live without them and I hope you understand the science behind the necessity for clean air, clean water and a healthy biodiversity and ecosystem. We are fortunate enough in South Burlington to have some of those lands. We had wise legislators in our city that preserve those lands for good cause. They are essential to our well-being. So what I'm hoping is as you look at the housing problem, you do no harm in the environmental crisis we're facing and by that I'm saying I really, really urge you to think about the whole and to protect the environment that we have while we can put housing in already developed places, retrofit, renovate, refurbish, renew, build up, but keep our wild spaces and our natural resources because that's what we're going to need and our future generations are going to need. So thank you for keeping the big picture in mind as you make decisions on individual bills. Thanks Rosanne. Next we'll hear from Chris Trombly. There was a couple different ways of thinking about testifying tonight. First I would like to ratify what Andrew said about Article 12. So Article 12 enhanced our protection of natural resources as defined by riparian connections, our forest, wetlands, expanding those buffers, habitat blocks. I think the affordable housing committee, I'm speaking as an individual not for the committee but we supported those protections. I've been disappointed with the conservation PUD as it's been rolled out because since it's been implemented we haven't seen any homes built using that tool. So we're excited to see a more compact with a minimum density to result in that but we haven't seen the homes associated with that. Another downside is that we haven't seen an opportunity where we could see a duplex or quadplex expanded citywide because of some restricted zoning. I was really encouraged to see S100 put in the place because it would hold all towns accountable to that same standard. So everyone's carrying that weight instead of one town kind of trying to do it on their own but on a more personal note I grew up in a you know not a poor household but my father commuted over an hour every day to work didn't see him much. I now have a sister that moved out of state another sister that was in a hotel housing through homelessness. You know this is this stuff that's deeply deeply personal to me and I see people impacted by it just it hurts to see a community say we don't want that kind of housing here so when my parents want to downsize to something that they can manage that's a little more affordable other than a single family home. I want them to have those kind of options and it doesn't have to be just in one town. It can be whether it's in Lincoln, Vermont or it's in South Wellington but they need something that they can afford single family and then rental only. We can do that in a way that's more compact and protect our natural resources. I don't think S100 went far enough. I'm encouraged that there's an Act 250 study that's coming out next year and I'm excited to see what comes out of that. S100's incremental step forward for long-term zoning progress combined with significant funding for more short-term means so and encourage your support for S100 as presented to the House. Thank you. Thanks so much Chris and next we'll hear from Dan Elberg. Thanks. Just some context for the legislators. When the environmental standards are passed there were quite a few people who testified. Not so much on the environmental standards themselves and as a professional planner and former member of the DRB here no problem with these standards you know if you want to say habitat block or wetland buffer but it was just so darn punitive what the city council did and the planning commission did when they said 70% of the land has to be put in conservation and then it takes out any acreage a parcel has of habitat block or river corridor or wet or all the environmental standards out of the density calculation. We know really what that's about okay because what's ironic is you've identified the part of the parcel that should be developed and now you're knocking the density for no good reason that's not about the environment density is the best thing against climate change building up anywhere there's water and sewer is good to fight climate change my neighborhood two blocks from Shelburne Road we're the model that's where the city wants to put all the development but we're doing our part already it's got water and sewer and it doesn't and there's no significant natural resources then build it and the five acres of it the five units per acre is a great way that's what my neighborhood my lot point one six one of the few neighborhoods although it's crazy what somebody will pay for my house if they want but we're not people should have a ability it's not just about oh we get single family home and everybody else you get shoved in an apartment yeah that's the Vermont friendly way to go way to be welcome that's that's BS I'll say that right now single family housing is good for me and good for all of this it's good for anybody who's not here to speak the people moving here the future residents so just know and I'll say it and it's on the record for many other people that there was concerned about some of those things in the environmental standards because they were just they were just punitive against the amount of houses that could be built on the part of the parcel that said it was okay to build so just keep that in mind as you go forward and you know we municipal water and sewer that is a tool and I'd hate to see another carve out this town the city's been dealing with special carve outs for a certain portion of the city for certain things 20 years ago remember it was prime ag then it was open space and the climate change thing what's ironic is that most of South Burlington is within two miles of major employers two miles dorset swift spear 116 let's use it for crying out we're not talking about like rural commutes from 40 miles away five minutes 10 minutes from major employers with good paying jobs and now we're just going to zone that out and it's it's a silly identified we've already done it with the habitat blocks it's you know whatever the I worry about what Mike said it's about these varying standards to somebody to all the well and buffer should be 500 feet just keep that in mind as you go forward but some uniformity makes sense thanks so much Jan next we'll hear from Fran McDonald yes thank you for coming I think the the bill has originally written did not include enough provision for natural resource protection I think if the amendments that senator ram Hinsdale added about resource protection and habitat blocks those are included in the bill I think that those protections will help maintain our what we look for in terms of climate resolutions and you know the global warming solutions act and the state climate action plan I think it will tie in with with the goals of those plans I think also that that some of the impacts that we talk about in South Burlington about the natural resources those impacts will will also impact other cities throughout Vermont when they extend their their sewer and water infrastructure maybe right now that sewer water and infrastructure and in other cities and towns is restricted to the downtown areas but when those are expanded that they will start to face the impacts of open lands disappearing to develop so I think it's you know it's we're not just talking about what we see in South Burlington but what can happen throughout the state thank you thanks so much uh next we'll hear from Ray Gonda Ray Gonda I'm from South Burlington and I wrote this with the assumption of the amendments that uh Kesha Ron had written has not been part of the bill or is not currently part of the bill that's important to understand what I'm saying now I'm not good at public speaking so I'm going to read this so my apologies the omnibus omnibus housing bill s 100 as written would in one fell swoop disrespectfully destroy the work done it by South Burlington in developing land use regulations it is in effect a slap in the face to the local residents who unselfishly spent thousands of hours collectively thrashing out what would work and what would not work all of this has achieved the best balance possible between continued development and protection of our natural heritage and that balance includes affordable housing denser development not just single family homes and it's directed toward infill development in town centers the very things that this legislation reports to want to happen what kind of precedent will be set that in municipality cannot pass regulations stricter than those mandated by the state when we have already had wetland rules stricter than the states what happens to those regulations we have a regulation that requires new houses to use electricity as an energy source to get in other purposes rather than fossil fuels what happens to that regular regulation that face value appears that this proposed legislation will work against mitigating for climate change and against other proposed legislation in the works how can we protect 30 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050 as forest land if we build over now how can government function in a reasonable manner when legislators working an hours drive away exhibit such overreach this is undemocratic and unreasonable enough as the constitute authoritarianism what incentive will towns have if this passes in its present form to ever do their own planning or zoning or even consider doing so are we about to enter an area of state planning from the top being shoved down the throats of the towns the spill certainly appears to begin that process regardless of the claimed innocence and virtue of the effort I humbly ask you to either trash this legislation all together and start all over or at a minimum to amend it to protect the current land use regulations and building regulations of our fair city self-worth thank you thank you I gotta say every time that goes off I think I'm late for work all right next we will hear from Megan Emery thank you representative Chastop and I'm very grateful also to chair Stevens being present and I just want to reiterate the importance of local authority because Helen really and I were both reelected last year on this very issue no one ran against Helen she won by 100 percent and I won by nearly two-thirds this is simply you know an additional chance for those who who were in favor of this local legislation to to have it overturned by the state and I would say if it is we should all go home because local control has to do with local government and and this is really dispersing local power in the voters by putting it in the state's hands the second thing is is that I have read these regulations a lot of what has been said in this room is incorrect we do allow duplexes through quad flexes throughout the city I have here is a picture of an example of what could be built in every quadrant of our city which includes single family homes duplexes triplexes all the way up to plot flexes throughout the city by right and I would also like to say that there is no carve out of any quadrant into the city of anything the land development regulations that were approved last spring correct the very issues that many of the people in this room have raised I also want to produce here is a map of our water and sewer infrastructure that was put in place decades ago these are reports put together by arrow wood that our city contracted with when preparing the habitat blocks as well as the PUDs which are allowed by state law and as you can put those two maps next to the water and sewer you'll see that there is overlap that that water and sewer in fact conflicts with with what we see as really important natural infrastructure and protection of our lake protection of our residents from flooding so when we talk about equity we have to see that inclusionary zoning in addition to the multiple multiplexes that are allowed throughout our city where we're introduced just within the last two years in order to ensure that equity throughout the city and it makes perfect sense for there to be highs high rise condos or apartment buildings along our high transit zones because that's where our public transit is. Champlain housing trust won't even build where there is in public transit and as someone who is potentially going to live to a ripe old age I hope I may want to live in one of those condos as I age in place here in South Burlington so it is not set aside for a certain group of people these will be market rate as well as all different levels as we see now being developed throughout the city again and I just want to say with regard to MIM and zeal we have a professional planner there's nothing whimsical or zealous about Paul Connor he has put a letter forward I just want to reiterate that that letter is available to you and we really encourage you to look at it. Thanks so much Megan next we'll hear from Gary Winslet. Hi my name is Gary I'm a professor of international political economy at Middlebury College I started living here in South Burlington in 2020 with my wife and our four-year-old daughter my wife is a physician assistant in orthopedics I'm not sure but I may be the first person speaking at rents and would like to buy a house here in Kent there's 251 towns in Vermont there's probably none of them where anti-development politics anti-housing politics causes more harm and makes less sense than South Burlington you know if you moved to the northeast kingdom or Rochester or Alberg and you kind of don't want development around you I'm actually kind of sympathetic to that but you didn't move there you moved to South Burlington where you're a mile two miles away from the biggest concentration of jobs and amenities in the state it doesn't really make sense to think of South Burlington the way we think about 230 to 240 of the other 251 towns in this state we've actually got to think about priorities like the environment's great nobody including myself wants to like pave everything but we can't always say that like keeping the landscape exactly the same has to always be the number one priority and housing only can go in places where it doesn't touch anything about the current landscape right the priorities really should be middle class and working class people being able to forge own their own homes here right so if you go into a lot of places in the sq like four sisters road or whatever you'll see three thousand square foot houses um they're in a nice neighborhood they're cute it's great I want middle class and working class people to be able to to afford that um and that that's just as much a priority as keeping landscapes exactly the way they are Vermont and South Burlington can grow and develop and be affordable and stay a lot the same it can't do those things to stay exactly the same right um and so I'm really asking you to value middle class and working class people being before their own home as an actually a higher priority than keeping every landscape the same s100 has actually gotten watered down a lot the act 250 reforms got completely gutted there's all these amendments uh that sort of slow things down further like that's not good that's contributing to the affordability crisis if you're a middle class person and you want to own your own home there are few places in America more policy hostile to you than here and like that's a problem it's a real problem I will go ahead and say I'll go ahead and say that you know if my job didn't keep us here we would have already left in 2021 2022 um you know that's that much longer it's going to take you to see an orthopedist if you have any problem um we're we're chasing people out and we're keeping people from moving in and that really doesn't make sense for South Burlington to do it really does need to develop uh as much as it can that's better for the region that's better for the Burlington area that's good for South Burlington um we need to prioritize that middle class housing at least as much as we do landscapes thanks thank you so much Gary okay we are down to our last two in person and then we'll switch to zoom um and again if folks feel motivated to add their name they can add their name um sure I'll add you um Michael all right so now we will hear from Julian Kenan hi thanks for holding this event um yeah I don't I'm not quite as familiar with like the lingo and all the all the different designations um I've moved here just over two years ago with my wife and three-year-old son um I don't know all the history everything that's like come to be I know there's been a lot of really hard work to preserve the land um yes we bought a townhouse in South Village which is one of the newer developments and um you know we paid a good amount of money for it but part of what drew us here was the community the culture the healthy food really a healthy beautiful place to raise a kid and we've lived in Boston we've lived in New Hampshire we lived in a lot of places throughout the northeast and part of what drew us here was there's all different types of people and just a lot of that you know uh lots of positivity lots of lots of lots of kids playing outside there's it's it's different here and I think part of what draws people here is the fact that it's different and I don't know if the answer to uh trying to have more I think the answer is to have more housing of course because we need to grow I don't know if the answer is just to put asphalt over lots of areas where our kids might want to play our kids are suffering from mental health problems like they're like they need to be outside we need to be in nature we need to be like we need to have that balance of being having outdoor recreation so we can all be a healthy happy thriving community but also be inclusive and I do think that this goes too far and people are talking a lot about economic development and just saying yeah you know we gotta just build we gotta just build yeah we should build but to just like go over the most beautiful areas that we all rely on to be happy and thrive as a community we're going to kill that community and just be like a flyover just drive in consume and then we're just going to be consume consume how are we different from Boston how are we different from all these places we can still get better we can still grow but I still think we should try to build up build units I live in a townhouse I love the townhouse I can walk five minutes and be enforced other people should have that too other people should be able to do that and there's no reason why we can't like build new units in areas where it's not just going over some of the most beautiful places that we can spend time with our family in our community so let's strike a balance if we can please thank you so much all right next we'll hear Evan Evan Langfield from O'Brien Brothers so I thought it'd just make a couple of general statements and actually I think I'll start off with just responding to the testimony that was provided by the South Burlington City Council to the House and Senate on S100 and I can speak to our experience and I think while the council the planning commission and the various committees that have worked on the update land development regulations have made a lot of effort all good intention I believe over the last several years I think the reality on the ground is actually much different we're coming out of a 40-month permitting process to develop housing here in South Burlington on a site that is zoned for housing this same site which is surrounded by the interstate the airport the biggest employers in the city and some of the biggest employers in the state and surrounded by development patterns was also identified by one of the interim zoning committees for conservation as a wildlife track that same 90 acres that was identified as a wildlife track is actually the same zone that we're building under 55 homes on slated to break ground on next week it's the first 100 percent fossil fuel free microgrid community in the state and one of the first in the country and those are 155 new families that wouldn't be able to occupy those homes but for the fact that we got out in front and actually followed up preliminary plat permit to get vested prior to those changes coming in to conserve that site and the only reason we were able to do that is four years prior to that when interim zoning was enacted and we were included in interim zoning we had to make an argument to not be included in interim zoning so had we not been able to cloud ourselves out of that that entire area would have been conserved and so I think the challenge with some of the good intentions and some of the good changes that have made I think there are good intentions there are good some good changes that have made but some of them aren't actually coming to fruition the way they are touted and I think some of the other ones that were mentioned in there are the affordable housing bonuses that are provided it's great when you provide affordable housing bonus to incentive helpers develop it but if you can't actually achieve those bonuses to offset the fact that you're building affordable housing at a loss what's the point of it if you can't go up which as Dan pointed out is the most environmentally friendly way to build you can't you can't do it because you're still limited to these absurdly low height restrictions in most the vast majority of the city South Bronton you also can't exceed your coverage ratios so you on a single family development or a townhome development you might have gotten these bonuses but you can't build it you can't ever receive that incentive so people just don't do it so while we put these regulations into effect in fact they're not actually achievable so I think it's I won't say it's a disingenuous but I think it's a little bit of of gaslighting to say that the city of South Bronton has made all these notable achievements one in fact they're not really moving to needle and I think what you're still seeing is the fruits of that that we're still underwater in terms of housing prices generally speaking in terms of good land use in addition to going up you got to maximize the investments that you've already made in infrastructure if you have it there build it there so it doesn't get built out in the middle of a cornfield in rural you know a new port or wherever I think the gentleman over there put it very well you're going to see sprawl elsewhere unless you maximize the areas where where you should have density South Bronton is not an island South Bronton is the second biggest municipality in the state is exactly the place we should be developing the one last thing I will say I know more my limit but I believe could be wrong maybe speculation but I think every person that's spoken in this room against s100 is living in a single family home and so I again from an equity perspective I'm not sorry I live in a townhouse lower density I should say I'll correct myself all right thank you so much Evan all right now we're going to move on to our folks on zoom and then we'll circle back to uh yep Sarah did you want to sign up just curious I I put my name on a list outside but I oh you know what I think you put it on just the city sign-up sheet oh okay that was confusing that's okay I'll add you um thanks Sarah okay so first on our screen and Martin if you don't mind um yes I think you're gonna come back to me and yeah we are we're gonna we'll shift we'll shift gears a little bit because these folks have been waiting so patiently uh first I see Donna Leban and uh if you'd like to it looks like you're already unmuted so uh take it away uh yes um hi thanks and good evening um Donna Leban I I am a member of the planning commission a new member so I haven't really done anything much yet but I'm speaking as myself a citizen in south Burlington um president of village Adorcid park which was a fairly early community that was developed at five units an acre adjacent to the southeast quadrant it's a quite a nice place to live because it is somewhat surrounded by natural areas so I'm going to get back to that though the first point I wanted to make is I haven't heard anybody address this and that has to do with um housing development in areas with current currently having water and sewer um that's that's one thing that South Burlington has extended water and sewer lines throughout a lot of the city but it doesn't actually have the capacity I mean none of none of the facilities have the capacity to develop 100 percent of the area that's adjacent to those water and sewer lines and so my question is um how you know I think it's fair to say that not all of the um not all of the areas served by the water and sewer lines can be developed because there just isn't that much sewage capacity and I would I would like to see South Burlington do more work to prioritize um where that water and sewage capacity can go um I think I think you kind of get the drift of what I'm saying um the second point I wanted to make um is that as I said before five units an acre is a very reasonable density um a combination of townhouse development single family on six staker lots um I personally would like to see uh higher height limits um allowed in the city to allow three-story in some cases so that you can have townhouses over an in-law apartment in in a more urban type setting as opposed to only having a center hall or having elevator-served buildings providing higher density housing. I think there's a lot of models that we just haven't seen a lot of architectural design um flexibility or creativity in South Burlington because we keep seeing the same things over and over again and it's not it's not providing for what the the middle ground uh really would be willing to settle for if you can't have a single family house at least have a nice townhouse with with some natural area nearby. So the five units an acre as I said before is certainly reasonable if you also allow for natural resource areas to be protected nearby I think the two have to go hand in hand five units an acre across the entire city uh would be a pretty awful place to live um because it just wouldn't give you any breathing room and I think natural areas for not only um uh flood protection but also to allow plenty of area the the lungs of the city allow it to breathe it's very important. The last point I wanted to make has to do with the energy code. A lot of people seem to be assuming that the energy code has any that there's anything in the energy code that deals with fuel choice there isn't um current energy code in in Vermont does it's fuel neutral. So you know anything that um is there's nothing in the energy code that's going to restrict what you know what South Burlington can say as far as fuel choice in and I think it's done the right thing by um by not allowing fossil fuels as the majority or as the um primary heat source uh in in new construction. So I think that's that's about it. Up there Donna. Pardon? Your time your time is up. Okay I'm done. All right perfect perfect thank you. Thanks so much Donna uh moving over on our screen is Bess. Hi there I'll start up my video for this. Hopefully you can see me okay. Hi and thank you for letting me speak. I've learned a lot being in the room virtually tonight from folks on both sides of this issue. I just want to start by saying that you know that by by pointing out this flaws in S100 that precludes municipalities from enacting building codes that are stricter than the state codes with regards to uh the types of energy that new construction can use. I just want to express the strongest opposition to that clause in the legislation. I don't know how it got there. I don't see how that sort of legislation will help us address the climate crisis which is something that we should all be thinking about um especially the younger folks in the room. You know all of us anyone anyone who cares about anything at all should be uh gravely concerned about this crisis and preventing local municipalities from enacting uh building codes that require a swift move away from fossil fuels is absurd frankly. So I want to express opposition in that in that regard um and also as far as the housing crisis goes um I agree with a lot of what was said in the room I think that denser housing makes total sense. I think that building tall buildings um makes total sense and on that note I I actually disagree with the folks in the room who seem to have the opinion that uh people don't want to live in tall buildings and that's you know just for poor people that that's where we're going to shovel the poor people. I think that's not born out in in large cities. I spent a lot of my adult life living in large cities like New York and Philadelphia um also abroad um and people like living in those buildings rich people middle income people poor people um a lot of people like living close to amenities they like the fact that they're in the downtown centers so I think that we need to uh you know a lot of people in Vermont have this notion of the perfect place to live being you know this this very idyllic uh uh uh sort of um uh location but a lot of folks actually like living in those buildings in fact I would like to one day downsize into a small apartment so I I I have an issue with that sort of thinking I think that's um something that Vermont needs to sort of you know sort of look beyond its borders and see how other people are living in other states um and I also um I also have a comment and a question about uh this legislation which will allow encroachment on the natural areas in South Burlington and my question and my well my comment and my question are these um once we have built out you know assuming we are allowed to to build out um you know into the natural areas in South Burlington where in the legislation does it say that we can't go beyond South Burlington and build more sewer and electricity infrastructure this is what happens this is the slippery slope and there's nothing in the legislation that will prevent that so my opinion and I think this is borne out by a lot of literature that I've seen I have you know I work at the university so I have access to the to the library there um there's plenty of research showing that when you have infrastructure when you build infrastructure you build more infrastructure and you build more housing so there's nothing in this legislation that says okay we're going to wall off South Burlington South Burlington is where all the housing is going to go once South Burlington is built out I'd like the developers in the room to answer this question are you going to put your shovels away and stop there or are we going to build more infrastructure and we're going to spread out into the natural lands that supposedly this legislation is going to address and prevent so Beth you're you're you're a bit over your time so if you just wrap up anyway um that's what I have to say um thank you for letting me speak thank you Beth thank you so much uh next we'll go to John hi everybody I'm the chair of the economic development committee here in South Burlington and as a group we voted to have the new LDRs studied from an economic perspective before enacted and they weren't so I'll just bring up two points that we addressed when we studied this a bit and they seem to be coming home to roost one is that a pipe is a terrible thing to waste it I was a South Burlington voter and long before the nrp and habitat blocks we voted to pass bonds to build this infrastructure and we intended it to be fully utilized uh a sewer main can cost more than $2,000 a linear foot to put in not to mention all the other infrastructure involved so uh you know our current zoning is really forcing millions of dollars of investment to be either underutilized or permanently abandoned and I I think that's a bad decision and I think it's a bad thing for the state to do as well uh another thing we talked about is uh you know we're all excited to try to make a contribution to reduce climate change and CO2 emissions but the biggest contribution we could make right now before the EVs uh you know get get fully in place and before all the heat pumps are installed is to reduce the car trips with existing cars and unfortunately our well-intended zoning regulations are really hurting our regional workforce housing to a point where people are forced to live further away and it's really uh reducing our our progress towards our transportation goals by driving up commuting and increasing our our CO2 emissions so I think those two points are important and I do support uh S100 uh as it's written so far I would like to have the the act 250 um clauses put back in because I do think that it's it's been reduced dramatically but any progress in in my mind is very appropriate so that's all I've got to say thanks so much John all right moving across the screen we have Dan hi uh Dan Jenkins resident in South Burlington um I just wanted to comment and say well I am a pro development guy and I think building is the economic strategy for really for growth here in the county and in the state it needs to be done in concert with considerations to the environment so I would just look at some of the kind of clauses which may have had amendments put to them I think I was hearing Andrew mention that but just we need to be cognizant of what was set up for habitat blocks for corridors for our wildlife and for our our natural resources and kind of the the protected lands that have been set up um previously in this town the other major thing that I would say just about ramming in into this area is our school are already incredibly flooded with people they're at we're putting in modular units right now to offset the population when we're putting in all of the where are these kids going to go to school what's our plan for growing our school system aside from asking for 300 million dollars to build new high schools for the town that don't really take care of the problem that there's you know multiple elementary schools that have problems and our middle schools have maxed out problems so I guess my point is just be considerate as we move forward with this considerate of the environment and considerate of what this town can actually take on for population thank you thank you okay great thanks so much all right moving across the screen we have gene hi thanks um I just want to thank Megan and Helen um and anybody who's worked on the city council who is has tried to preserve as much land as possible um I am a low income person and I would live in a box if I could have more open land um and I just think the human species I have such concerns that all we think about is growth more bigger better and ultimately I have never been in a place more more bigger growth better has equaled better um and I would move out of South Burlington if I could but I can't afford to I bought my house when the housing prices were much lower and I don't think it's ever going to be enough I think we'll develop however much we can and then we're going to want to develop all that much more and the previous speakers spoke of the schools and and I worked in the healthcare system and there's already a huge problem with access to healthcare so again more I don't think it's thought through all it is is we need more housing and I hugely empathize with low income and middle income income people who do need housing I totally empathize with that but I think ignoring the ecological aspect of this which I really I just think as a society we seem incapable of having that as a lens through everything we do and it will be to our demise and it already is to our demise to ignore that um and I don't see much of any of that mentioned um and I see the developments also they're monoculture lawns my lawn is very wild I have so many species of insects bees but I feel like there's very little education about and with developments on how to create more space for any kind of wildlife so it always amuses me to see all the names of the streets like I just saw a new one on Facebook today for a new development spear meadows and I would like all the street signs to be changed to killed off the meadows and created monoculture um bluebird lane killed off all the bluebirds to build more I don't know I just it's so frustrating to me that people do not have an ecological lens and again I just want to I'm hugely empathetic to needing housing but I just don't think destroying things is the answer I also believe we should build up um I don't see why if you're already having a three-story building why not make it 10 stories I mean that space is already used um anyway and I know it's a complicated issue and I do have empathy but it just makes me very sad and I'm glad I'm the age I am so I don't have to see more destroyed thanks a lot thanks okay now we have someone in the overflow room thank you yes my name is James Rustad I grew up in south Burlington and I returned here to Vermont to raise my family as a previous speaker said it is different here it's special I really appreciate all the work that's went into s100 and the housing issue and you all being here tonight I know it's late and a lot of people uh want to speak I did come here tonight with my family um to offer our strong support for an amendment to protect wildlife corridors as Mr. Chalnyk and Ms. Emery detailed I think s100 goes too far and I hope you all support a reasonable amendment that balances the housing crisis with responsible environmental stewardship thank you all right thanks uh Sandy Dooley first I'm going to thank you for doing this um I want to point out that while counselor Emery is correct that there is no place in the city where you can't build a duplex she didn't tell you how much land you have to have in some parts of the city to build a duplex and um if you have um a parcel less than four acres in most of the southeast quadrant you would have to have 1.1 acre parcel to build a duplex that's a lot of land uh that would be very costly uh we the basic zoning in the southeast quadrant is 1.2 units per acre uh if you buy TDRs in these lots that are less than four acres you can now build 1.8 units per acre um if you have a one acre lot you can't build a duplex um this was changed in the rules that were done last year uh you used to if you bought TDRs you used to be able to have four units per acre but that was that was changed now this is this is we have been told that this is on the list to correct by the planning commission it has now been over a year and while when tesla wants his zoning change it can happen very quickly uh it's not happening here and i know that habitat was interested in buying and one acre lot and doing a clock flex four plex in the southeast quadrant but the owner said you can't do it you can't build more than one house per acre uh so anyway as councilor emory said is correct but in some places you have to have a lot of land to do so uh i one of the tragedies that i see out of the rules that were done last year is that some of the most visionary developments in the southeast quadrant could not be done under the new regulations and i cite south village and i cite rye meadows i cite village adores park it doesn't have as much conserved land but it's right next to wheeler nature park um so both south village and rye meadows and also south point have varied and well rye meadows doesn't have as much but it has multiple housing types which is really important so does south village um south village has a lot of conserved land and so and also south point has a lot of conserved land the um i also want to mention that the um the nrp zones that were created 20 years ago are one thing we've had a lot of problems with the tdr is not being bought but what did the city council and planning commission do last year they added more nrp land and on top of that you can't build a traditional neighborhood development pud and the southeast quadrant unless you have a parcel that's at least 13.3 acres which means that your 30 equals four acres which means you can do a pud um we that pud type requires multiple housing types uh it's really something that would be um it's somewhat modeled i believe on south village it's just a tragedy that you can't build a trd pud in the southeast quadrant unless you have a parcel of 13.3 acres uh because the only thing you can build in the southeast quadrant outside of the village area is a conservation pud there i mean it just i'll just say again some of the most visionary housing in south burlington over the last 20 30 years can now not developments can't be built because of these regulations and and so i support s100 okay all right thanks so much danie so we have a few more people left and and we you know we got to go quick i i don't want to uh limit people speaking but we have a time limit um okay uh i can't see is it Daniel's okay daniel hi thank you i'll be uh as quick as i can here uh one i've only lived in south burlington 17 years but the amount of development that we've had in that time uh has been intense and i'm thinking about city center i'm thinking about the orion brothers on kennedy drive i'm thinking about spear meadows i'm thinking about long spear street i mean south burlington has done more than its share to build housing of all different styles and price points and the notion that we're now going to rip up the nrp uh to cram more housing in it just it just doesn't make sense i want to pick up on what mr jenkins said he was talking about overcrowding in schools what about the roads where are all the people where all the car is going to go we got one lane roads going in and out of uh spear street wilson road shelburn road you know the traffic is intense already where are all the people who are going to live in these new houses going to uh put their cars and what's the traffic going to be like lastly you know you talk about a housing crisis i think there are three things that contributed to the housing crisis primarily the current one one houses converted to short-term rentals like air b&b that takes houses out of the market for long-term rentals and sale two second homes i've seen statistics as many as 18 percent of all vermont houses are second homes and three and no disrespect to anybody who fits into this category we've got climate migrants and covid migrants who move to vermont but telecommute to jobs in other states uh there are ways to deal with these situations from a tax policy standpoint that would drastically improve the housing situation without paving over uh the little bits of open space that we have left in south burlington and this this bill this one size fits all bill for the whole state when south burlington has done its part and then some and is dealing with short-term rental second home etc it just doesn't make sense and i just hope that uh our legislative delegation here will will will do the right thing here and protect those parts of south burlington that that need and deserve protection thank you okay thank you and uh before we switched to our last couple online uh i will respect that we had some folks sign up previously in person uh that were missed so um can we hear from michael yep so i'm michael mitag and i've lived in south burlington for about 20 odd years um and i am a planning commissioner i have been since 2017 i don't want to be take a lot of time i'll be quick there's a lot of things that have been said tonight which amount to business as usual um you know the state regulations which my esteemed colleague mike has alluded to were a lot of them were made decades ago before we had any idea about the about climate change and that we needed to mitigate for it so saying that we need to go back to what was enacted back then is a step a step backwards for for the climate and for our the health and well-being of our community so it's not it's not a matter of being inconsistent it's a matter of necessity and south Billington is progressive and somebody said we're special yes we are special we're doing things that other communities haven't had haven't got the wherewithal either the commitment of the community or the skill set that's required to promote these kinds of regulations which are all designed to help us with climate change mitigation and the impacts that they will have on us um somebody said that 70 percent of a plan conservation sorry a conservation tu d is not enough because the uh the sorry the the conservation resources are taken off the density from the part of from the 30 that can be built on that's not correct the 70 includes those resources they are counted in as part of the 70 so it's just a matter of correcting the record yeah um and i know that even i've worked a lot with everyone with planning commission and even was and his colleagues were intimately involved in the writing of our inclusionary zoning ordinance so you shouldn't complain because we did it together and if we made a mistake we shouldn't complain we did it together and uh i'm like 30 seconds is that um so things have changed somebody said nothing's changing here things have changed give me those 30 seconds we've got a lot of development and sef mentioned them spear meters 49 and 50 units um a brian there may be maybe 900 homes in the end when the project is completed um if i if i read correctly uh so you know that's that's a lot of the development yeah we've got south village we've got um south point and somebody and south point use their tdr the ones that they had on their property to conserve space and get high density in the other part of their property and it's something that's been done all over the place it's been done at cider mill it's been done by south village so a lot of tdrs have been used maybe we don't see them as being sales but they are used and these this ordinance i mean these npr zones were made in 2006 purposely we did it to ourselves we did it on purpose the nprs and the tdrs transferable development ordinance is the principal primary way of conserving land in south billington and uh we shouldn't mess with that it's a really good all right he to do it to you next we're gonna have uh our last person in person um sarah dot um hi i'm sarah dot um a lot of what i was going to say has been well expressed by others but um first of all i just want to set the record straight again that not everybody who lives in the southeast quadrant is made of money i'm one of those people i inherited my home it was built in the early 1800s so i didn't exactly have anything to do with configuring the area it was it was a farm um talk about change you know it's a it's a 360 change of course in that period of time um but anyway we do have precious resources in the southeast quadrant that's where they happen to be it's not because people are well off in the southeast quadrant we wanted to save them it's because they are invaluable to our existence i think it's important for us to sort of roll back to the central premise of this 100 when it was first conceived as i understand it if the idea was to concentrate uh housing development in whatever the community has designated in whatever way as village center city center hybrid area whatever the communities of that assessment can determine where their growth should be and i can't say that south brooklynton is the only special community in vermont there may be many others that have unique situations that i don't know anything about but i think that it's important to preserve the the local control aspect of this focus on the idea that we want to put our growth into the areas where there's already growth and can be expanded but not to eat up our resources in the at the same time i think the point that was made about the resources of the city at large is hugely important and we don't have anything i think some communities like williston for instance has an ordinance or a rule zoning rule that defines the pace at which growth can take place so that it can be gradually assimilated and adjusted to and the services can keep up you don't have anything like that so what we do is be experts of 900 here and 300 there and 50 somewhere else kind of all at once so that we always have a ton in the pipeline i don't think that that works very well so i'd like to see we focus on core idea s 100 and to put our growth where our city council has to find it you can maybe make those words a little clearer but um we know where they are and why they're there it's not because all the rich people don't want growth out there that's where the natural all right thanks so now we will shift back to our last two speakers before we wrap up and let's hear from Amanda hi um i wanted to thank you for holding this event um and your time and everybody who spoke many of whom have said things very well and so i was looking for some things slightly different to say um and i just one of the things that i was thinking of is that the developments on spear street and many other places are not really middle working class homes i mean there are some but many times developers aren't building smaller homes because larger homes are more lucrative in the same way that auto companies promote pickup trucks and suvs because those are the most lucrative um there's a lot of studies that show that lack of access to trees and nature makes people less healthy and makes them unhealthy so i think it's incredibly important that we design our city and our housing in a way that protects natural resources wildlife corridors habitat blocks and waterfront buffers someone else who spoke earlier pointed out that they can walk from their condo to a park and wildlife areas and everybody should have access to natural areas um and we don't have control over everybody in the country but we do have control and we should have control over our own community um i would also just like to point out that um many of the houses being built in south berlington aren't and communities aren't well planned by developers again or i don't exactly know all the details but um they don't allow for walking and biking as a matter of fact a bicyclist was killed in october on heinsberg road across from butler drive by a car um for all the housing built on spear street and thoracic and heinsberg they're only accessible by car um even for short trips just because there is there isn't a safe way to get um by foot or by um by bicycle so i think um and i would ask that please make sure that whatever legislation you um you go forward with allows for both protection of natural areas for the health of our people and for the climate and also for walkable bikeable cities thank you thanks so much and our last speaker before i finish this up um is jimmy lee's jimmy you're muted there you go okay so uh s100 i think is doing the wrong thing in south berlington the legislature especially this committee and this committee chair has the opportunity to do something uh where housing existed and where the state has control which is the control over the bermont air national guard whose military jets have caused 44 acres of that was that was housing to be demolished and 3000 units of housing to be degraded and to become unsuitable for residential use according to the air force because of this incredible 115 decibel f35 jet this uh training of the national guard is under the control of the state the state could put a stop to it so that those 44 acres would be required to be restored to housing it's publicly owned land the city of berlington owns it and they would be required under their grant assurances with the f a to sell the land for housing it could be affordable housing it could be high density housing this is the place but this is the place to restore housing before we demolish open fields and pristine lands in south berlington we have by contrast in wheel and nature park a small area of privatized land that's going to do incredible damage to the nature park if that becomes housing for 32 units of housing and some of us are are now in the environmental court to prevent that from happening but this legislation could undermine that act 250 case so we have the opportunity here is the choice before the committee put back the 44 acres it could be hundreds and hundreds of units of affordable housing and protect the open fields in south berlington thank you thanks jimmy and uh i think real quick gary did you want to say something uh no i'll go if other people were going as well but okay um we have so our city counselors have to jet to uh their 630 meeting i know who's crammed in thank you so much uh thank you thank you so i just want to uh quickly say i i'm so grateful and appreciative of the level of engagement that we have from our community we're really lucky uh folks from all across um the city came out tonight and uh you know miss dinner with their families or other things and it truly is a privilege for people that do have the capacity to come out and raise their voice and share their stories and um i will uh continue to work hard to bring in all voices into the process and reach out to folks who may not have the time or capacity uh to come uh for me housing is a top priority and i'm grateful to be on that committee and uh chair stevens had to run off but um just really thankful that he took the time to come tonight and listen to our community's uh experiences and i look forward to continued conversation as uh things evolve and uh where they land uh in the house would anyone else uh like to add to that appreciate my comment thank you all right