 You guys can kind of check on things and keep an eye on it. Oh, there you go. Oh, there you go. Oh, there you go. Thank you so much. I know it was a participant in the city's national sports program. So he did it after a session and really nice as well. Yeah. How'd you like it? Very well. We had a second session a few days ago. All right. It was going to be very interesting and informative. I'm sorry. Your hand did you come from the outcome? Yes, I did. I'm going to read it out loud. I'm going to send this for things. Put your name down and if you want to talk. Thank you. And then I'll be out there. So that kind of thing is, I mean, can you give me your hand sign for me. Please take care of me, city park. I will try to especially. I haven't changed the guy mother or whatever. Actually, some people would probably refer to me as a neighborhood bitch. This week you'll be born. What is your remember next time this week? This time next week will be... Oh, absolutely, yeah. This time Friday will be warm. Is that when you go Friday? Thursday morning, but we fly out Thursday night. Yeah. Yep. And what is your destination? Yeah, but it's... It weren't approved. So it's going up the coast, the west coast of Italy and France and then around to Barcelona. Great. Yeah, it should be really fun. Have you been to Barcelona? No. I was there in November and the letter was like in the high sixties. So did you go part of... Well, I'm bringing some warm clothes too, just in case. Because the evenings are supposed to get... Yeah. Yeah. Oh, the park is right there. The galley of parks. These are some places would normally be considered galley. Yeah. Oh, there are... Oh, it's just... The galley floor. But I forget the name of it. It's galley, isn't it? It's all the galley, you know. Plus the houses. And another house is right on the main drive. And then a walking street. Well, we were anticipating doing normal walking. I hope you have a couple days in Barcelona. We took over adding three days in Barcelona. Which I actually already been to with everyone else in the morning. Okay. You're staying in Barcelona? Yeah. I forget the name of the people that really, really like all the buyers and then there's the apartments located right here. The galley. Yeah. I agree with that. Really. You can also buy a cafe. Yeah. A cafe. A cafe. A cafe. Well, there's so much to do. We're not going to be able to do it all, but I know. It certainly identifies places you might want to go back to. The market place. It's part of it. Oh. I don't think that's accurate. Are you sure? I think they called you to be here, right? Uh-huh. Yeah. Alrighty. Well, let's push it. And Tom, I think Tom is probably too. Yeah. Well, we have a few minutes. Roll over. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Oh, we were done. We were done right behind 30. So, we were fast this time. Why are you very slow? You were all like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The numbers I can rely on you go after me like the rest of us. And have Steve Ballans get done right in front. Is that legal? It's legal. Never. Ever. Well, start. I can approach you. I can do that. Yeah. I can. I can do that. Can I get you on the chair? Yeah. Hey. Hey. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I think that would be good. Thank you. We just dropped the ball. I dropped the ball a suit also. No, I just... I think so. And... I think Tom does not need a microphone. So I have to make sure I'm in the right place. Let me ask the lady. Thank you. Thank you. Good to meet you. Me and Pat are real. Hi. She's in here. Oh. Oh. Oh. Yeah. Ted usually has about eight sets all over. And then they end up in one pile. Finally. I put a basket in our bathroom. And I said just throw them in there. Because they were all under the counter. So maybe we can keep that in perspective when you share your concerns. And I also just wanted to note... I took the wrong notebook with me tonight. And I had a really cool quote from Linda Wheatley. She was a woman who does a lot of training. Leadership training her month. So I can't remember the whole quote. It was a very apt quote. Because the gist of it is her thoughts that it's very powerful when a community considers change in a way that helps them identify what they really want that community to be. And I think tonight is a conversation and potentially action that puts us in that position. It's powerful. It's exciting. It's certainly frightening to some people. But I think change often is. And what we're really dealing with or what we hope we'll be dealing with in our own zone is really identifying and planning what we want our community to look like. We had a great vote last week on what we want City Center to start to look like. And this is really expanding that to the rest of the community. And I think that's very powerful, very important. And I'm looking forward to that conversation and discussion tonight. So I would entertain a motion to go into a public hearing with possible action on the adoption of interim zoning by-law. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. So we are now formally in a public hearing. I have a sign-up sheet. And there's another one in the back. So if in the course of the evening someone feels like they would like to speak and they want to sign up, they certainly can. Of course they come in late. And there's not as many people signed up as I thought there might, but I know people as the hearings go along want to say something else that hasn't been said. So we certainly will entertain them. But again, we will ask for a certain brevity of remark and try to avoid a lot of repetition. We've all received, everyone at the council has received numerous emails. So we certainly heard from a lot of people on both sides of the issue. We're going to start with Bernie Gagman, who's the vice chair. Are you going to do it or is Jessica? You are. We're going to do it together. Okay. And Jessica Ruizos, who are the chair and vice chair, Jessica's the chair, Bernie's the vice chair of the Planning Commission. They did send a letter to the city council. And I thought it might be good to start with that. Meeting on the 23rd and have some recommendations for you. I participated by phone and Bernie chaired the meeting in person. So he's going to leave the overview of what our recommendation is. Probably you should both identify yourself for the development of the audience. Jessica Ruizos, chair of the south room to the Planning Commission. And Bernie Gagman, vice chair. Well, thanks for having us. And as Jessica mentioned, in our last meeting, we had a discussion on planning commission members to decide how we were going to proceed for a fine period. And we provided a letter to the city council with some recommendations, which I think you all have. And it's available for the public to read. So we basically broke our recommendations into three parts. Number one is completion of the plan development regulations. We've been working on those for quite some time. We believe that the regulations will help to clarify our plan development regulations in terms of how we want subdivisions to look in terms of density and open space and streets and pedestrian access. So we'd like to continue working on that over the next six months. Try to get that wrapped up. Our second objective is to prioritize open land. And we recommend putting together a task committee with members from Natural Resources, Parks and Rec, Economic Development, the Planning Commission, certainly if someone from the city council wants to participate in that. But the objective would be to look at the open lands in South Burlington and look at them in terms of the resources that are available, whether they be wetlands or wildlife habitat or wildlife corridors, things like that. And to come up with a recommendation is to prioritize those for future conservation. So in doing that, we'd obviously look at previous studies that have been done. I think we recommend having a consultant kind of help lead the team members through the process. And we want to look at how lands can be prioritized, look at future parks as well as rec spaces, as well as open space, and look at a broad range of potential conservation tools to conserve the land. And then finally, we wanted to take a look at the TDRs. The TDRs, I believe, currently applied to the Southeast quadrant. Before, we kind of wanted to take a two-step process with this. We've been told that the current TDRs aren't necessarily working as well as people that anticipated. So our first step in the process is just to try to get an understanding in terms of the current TDRs. What's working? What are the obstacles and challenges to help them work better? And to find that, and then maybe as a second step, look at seeing if TDRs could be applied elsewhere in the city. But I think before we do that, we want to understand what the issues are with the TDRs. So those are the three things that we're recommending that the Planning Commission look at during the IZP. I know you had also in your list had the economics study of different lands. And I think we had heard a lot of great discussion at the council level on that. So we were just deferring to where, how do you felt like that should best be approached? And I think we're open to being involved with that. But it seems like that was kind of a closer driven objective there that maybe isn't necessarily the best student to be housed within the Planning Commission. But would you be happy to participate and do you see the effects of that? Well, we certainly appreciate the Planning Commission's support of this endeavor. Are there any questions like Council Member's clarification or Tom, are you nodding? Do you have a question? I do have two. Okay. Two quick questions, or maybe not quick. Seeing the forecasts listed in the resolution for tonight, could you give me a crystal clear answer as to why interim zoning is needed for us to pursue those forecasts? Could they be done outside of using this tool? All right, well, I'll give it a shot. So there's a couple elements. The plan unit development process that we're working on I think has the opportunity to really improve the way some divisions are put together. And so I think having a time period for us to finish that up and not to have subdivisions, new subdivisions be planned until we finish those will be useful. And secondly, the look at the open spaces in the city. And I know that there's been a lot of concern in terms of how land is conserved in terms of wildlife and wetlands. And I think that it's beneficial to take a close look at that and define some priorities before we allow development of those areas. Second question, or someone connects to that. I understand the original resolution that came out of the Planning Commission recommended six months. And I'm curious what the origin of that was and why six months was an important factor to pass this resolution to constrain the time period and what concerns, if any, do you have in the nine months in this pre-month extension? Why was this six months originally important to pass that out of Planning Commission? Well, in discussions with the Planning Commission, I think we all felt that this was an important issue. And we didn't want the language for one thing. Another, we recognize that this period does impact development. It certainly impacts property owners and property has a value for people. And the longer this goes on, it prohibits people from maybe exercising the value of their land. And so we felt that it was important to try to get this done as quickly as possible in discussions among the Planning Commission. We felt that six months was a reasonable time to, it's kind of on the timeline of what we're doing in the PUD study anyway. And we felt that with the help of a committee that addressing the open spaces could be done in that timeframe as well. So we wanted to set a tight timeline to get it done because it's an important issue. Any other comments? Well, I think it also sets an expectation of urgency. Two years can just feel like such a long time that there's a lot of kind of wasted time wrapping up. I think part of it was setting that expectation that this is a focused period of time that we're really going to be working towards and working with them. The difference between six and nine months is not usually different, I guess. That was part of your question. And part of what we were talking about was that six months is actually very difficult to do something and have something adopted within that time period. I think that that's maybe why you were thinking of the nine months that maybe a lot of the work could try to be done in the six-month mark, but then there's a pretty lengthy process of actually adopting any kind of changes which I think it could take up to three months to come up with draft language and then do the public hearings and outreach required to actually have something go into the rules. Other questions or comments? Sure. I understand item one that makes a lot of sense, the deliverable for that is probably a set of recommendations for changes to the LDRs for cutting dry. The second one, less cut and dry, but it does say that this previous Open Space Report has proposed LDR changes, and you may want to add subtractor modifiers and probably bring those forward for possible vote by the city council to incorporate as well. The third one seems also basically a concrete deliverable. And one thing I noticed is that the three of them kind of interplay with each other too, because you play with one, it might affect the other, and vice versa, right? All three are going to have some effect on each other. So I think it's important that whoever's working on these three problems keeps in communication with the other groups, right? Because if you start to play with TDRs or if you start to play with PUD definitions, it could decrease or change certain types of use of land right in a PUD which could then affect TDR use. The same with Open Space. Questions or comments? Yes. I just wanted to draw your attention to a proposal that I had drafted. Again, a lot of these same lines, but we thought a little differently, and this is certainly, you know, because there's only a proposal or something you can discuss if you're looking to go ahead and act a little. And with regard to the different committees, I thought that the prioritization of Open Space, and this was what was drafted in the first statement of purpose, could be focused in communities, sorry, committees that specifically consider the use of land space and natural resources, but also recreation and parks and bicycle and pedestrians. With the City Councilor as a liaison, potential members of the public, I kind of leave it for the Council to determine if they're to be flexible. With regard to the TDRs, that's where I saw a member of the Planning Commission, Economic Development Committee, the State's Affordable Housing Committee, committees that are looking at our Affordable Housing Goals committees that are also looking at ways to maximize our resources in the city and so the use of TDRs is related to that, I think, potentially. So I kind of divided these two studies with an eye to really thinking about the specialization that these studies would solicit. I also recommended for the first committee, sorry, the second is number two, with regard to the prioritization of conservation open spaces, to this open space report that is over 100 pages long. It's a pretty thorough document along with draft LDRs and appendix D that were completed under the last period of interim zoning, but were never enacted and I think that's a really good working document that could be revisited and considered seriously, possibly with some revisions, but for implementation. And then I also look at the requests for proposals and what I see is that in all of these cases, one, two, and three, four would be combined with none and that's what I would see as where this council intervened in some way. What I see in addition to the needs that Bernie made so clearly is also our tax resources and how development and non-development affects the bottom line of the city and what would be a quest of our citizens and that is the goal of this cost-benefit analysis is for us to actually see in dollars and cents where can our resources be stretched to the most effective degree and where would those tax dollars in fact be outspent. And I think that that's something that comes from the council because we are looking at dollars and cents here. So I would see that all four of these would need to be then brought together and discussed by the planning commission before any final LDRs are drafted and then brought forward to the public and then to the council for adoption. So I see it as a four-part study with some specialization in the beginning but then bringing together in the planning commission so we have all of these pieces. So I just bring that up to you for your consideration. I just wanted to introduce it at the same time but we don't need to discuss it necessarily. But I think that lends itself also to helping us consider what is an appropriate timeline for interim zoning because those four different specialized topics and then bringing them together to actually have an output that is bona fide LDRs that then carry out the summation of these studies and this kind of visioning or belief about what should all this space look like and how should it be developed. Runs up would really hit the wall at six months. I'll do respect. I don't think we could get that done. So perhaps you could, your committee could get some of the initial work done but it seems to me the shortfall or the shortcoming of the last interim zoning was that we never got to a point where we had any concrete changes in the rules and regulations. We had a number of recommendations but then we didn't enact them. And so I think that's a critical piece as we discussed how long does it need to take and what are the expectations. I agree more pressure with the get it done and maybe our volunteer committees are going to be working a little more often than they are now to complete these projects for these analysis but I think that's another piece. I guess just in response to that I would agree so we got to the end of interim zoning the last time and we are still working on those recommendations so in fact some of the things in here the piece is we're saying start with the 2014 open space report it's got great recommendations focusing on them and implementing them is on our work plan we didn't get to it yet so there's just only so much capacity we have on our committee which is I think a big reason why we are specifically recommending at least two additional groups that have representation from both the planning commission and other specialty groups to really be able to work in parallel and bring information back to their committees so I guess in response to what you said I like the idea of the other committees being involved but I do think there may be a separate group where representatives from those committees then bring that information back and synthesize it because there needs to be some way to get from parks focused recommendation and the natural resources focused recommendation to like an open space kind of umbrella recommendation so I think that all of the committees have specific tasks and like and I guess worse than that it seems like it might make sense to have them kind of divvied up and directed by I guess like an open space umbrella committee that would have representation from all the separate committees that we each have their own focuses so if I'm a part of why we've got that type of set up my group and officials I think the folks sitting here I think you did a really stellar job with it I think it captures as Megan just said the four areas that in my notes and in my mind have reverberated over the last couple of few months let's get this PUD study and work completed which is already been prolonged because we don't have time for it we haven't had time for it that's critically important certainly the priority of the citizens and the residents of the city including myself and I think the rest of us that we've got to prioritize the conservation of our open spaces we need to analyze the TDRs and we need to understand economically what that means I see those as the four critical things that have surfaced time and time again over the last couple of months and that has laid out with participation by a group of volunteers that will tackle each issue is the only way to logically approach that it's not going to get done but having said that it's going to take a fair amount of work this isn't an easy job and I don't think we can decide in a vote, I think we can say this is the work that we've got to do this is what we want to get it done by and then we're going to figure out if it's all going to go together understanding there's going to be mixed representation of various groups that's got to coalesce and come together into a final package and I think that can be done it's going to take more meetings than people who are participating are used to it's going to it's going to take more meetings more work probably a fair amount of compromise along the way but as I see that in the city I don't see any reason at all that we can't do this in a reasonable period of time in nine months I think is what I picked because I heard you know six months is one heck of a push especially with a month and a month and a half ahead it's the holidays none ever gets done a whole lot over then which gives us the winter and then some I think it can be done in nine months with a push but I think everybody's got to accept the fact that it's going to be a push if it's not done and it needs another month just like with Andrew all takes the floor to the council to go another month another two months we need no other actions at all we just vote to go a spec longer but I wouldn't want to set the I hope people speak to the fire and get this work done and we've got to do it because without this without a halt to what you're doing and being able to make some great progress here and set everything in sync the city's not going to turn out right and that's I hope that that clarifies a little bit for folks but you know I think we're moving in a very good direction here and we should just we should take these actions and get going so I hope that is reasonably close to what you think we haven't reviewed Megan's proposal so I don't know how to print it but it sounds similar it certainly will help yours but actually in some ways it's a cart before the force I think the hearing tonight and our focus needs to be whether or not we pass the interim zoning proposal as written or we modify it and then this conversation frankly and we appreciate your support for the concept of taking a breath getting a number of studies and information together so that we can move ahead under interim zoning but rather than get bought down on exactly what these committees look like right now we probably should move along to the actual issue ahead because these ideas are something that the council certainly agree on and directs the committee so it's clear to you what our expectations are if we can put a timeline that would be great and continue that discussion help best to deliver that Tom did you have another discussion afterwards it just sort of flowed from your comments so thank you thank you very much you want to give any other comments okay great then I think what would be helpful before we actually open it to public comment is to ask Kathy Ann to come forward because she is a couple oh I'm sorry it's not Kathy Ann I'm sorry I just wanted to do a brief introduction of the interim bylaws that we prepare for the council's direction oh sure I'm sorry can you hear me can you hear me now can you hear me now we're getting closer we can drop that on the floor okay how about now okay I'm the deputy city attorney and I'm just going to do a brief introduction of the interim bylaws that we prepared at the direction of the council and then there's a little bit of an update so there are a few provisions there are six sections in the bylaws there's the purpose statement which is essentially the resolution that you considered and adopted with some modifications there's the listing of the lands to which the interim bylaws apply and I'll let Kathy Ann address some of the map and then I wanted to call your attention in sections three and four the inclusion of new subdivisions and the reason for that was it seemed to be potentially the type of land development that perhaps you would have wanted to incorporate but then also the thought was well it's easier to include it and then if the council decided that it should not be included it's a lot more likely that another warrant public hearing would not be required instead of the reverse where if it was not included in what was worn and the council decided no way you did want subdivisions included so I just wanted to draw your attention to that and then the section five is the review process for those types of developments that are prohibited under section four they can make an application to the city council and then the there's the business the enactment and duration effect on existing bylaws of separability so those are just in some the section in for the inclusion in four C of new principal buildings it's also defined in section three it's stated pretty broadly but it was the question that if there's a project that has been approved that validly brought approved by the DRB and it's pursued in good faith and essentially there's only thing that's required as part of a larger project is a zoning permit for single or two family dwelling units that in likelihood that those zoning permit could be granted without having to come to the city council because again there's vested rights once they have an approval from the DRB that no one has or from the administrative officer that no one has appealed and they're pursuing it in good faith that could continue without application of the interim bylaws and then what about PUDs that have previously been approved by the DRB and they come in asking for an amendment during this interim zoning period what happens then so whatever the proposed amendment is the interim bylaws would depending on where but the interim bylaws would apply to the aspects that's proposed to be changed so if they had 100 units they wanted to come in and propose 120 units because they could that would cause review that's right whatever the changes from the original proposal if they had 100 units needed to pull permits to build five houses because they built 15 and they go to the next five they probably don't need any review probably not now the interim bylaws probably would not apply my understanding is that a question I had was does it make sense to add some kind of qualifying language to that or see for new principle buildings it's possible and I can certainly prepare that I think the idea was going back to the previous ideas stating it more broadly at this point so that if it's a lot easier to take a step back than to take a step forward so that is something that I can would that be under 3D or 4C because 3D depends on the new principle building but that's definitely the recognition well there's two kinds of new principle buildings aren't there it's I own some land and I want to build a house versus I have a development design that allows me to build a hundred homes and I want to build five more of that hundred so the second one would not require would not be a violation of interim zoning first one if I own some land and I want to build a house and then the transit overlay district I would have to wait until interim zoning and those new regulations go in place depending on the council that's right someone can always if there's a question or if they just want to proceed or whatever then they can always come to the council but yes and that's why I said if the project has been pursued in good faith so if big projects can take time so but if the developer or developers or applicants are proceeding with the development then particularly if there's perhaps phases then they can proceed with that and it's likely that they the interim bylaws would not apply to their project and applications for zoning permits for single or two family volunteers provided they're pursuing what was under the original permit not the I want to amend it and add 40 more homes that's right and they wouldn't be able to apply for just a zoning permit for that they would have it would either require further review by the DRB which that would be pretty clear well then for that amendment you require approval from the city council so is there a language that could remove that uncertainty so that if they have it without the amendments that would pull it back as you said no I just don't want to say that it's definite because let's say for a moment that there were so many pullbacks that at some point the bylaw is not they aren't de minimis changes anymore then at some point it may be that look this is a different ordinance I don't see these two provisions that we're discussing as something that require an additional review so that's I just wanted to I don't like to state something as definite when they're being very well be but in this case it was much more if you had added something to section 4 so added another type of planning development I think it's that definitely would have required a more public hearing but when something's already there and removing it that's that does not require another public hearing that's right and it's if you propose to add a different type of land development to the list of permitted then you additionally notice would be required so is there a proposal to alter slightly to narrow this and what is that it's under new principle there are current applications that have already been approved by the DRB that are moving in stages and so for each new stage so say they were approved for 100 homes well that would be for our attorney to say I have my very good opinion but well and I suppose this kind of provides a segue to my next point that this is the public hearing and the main purpose of the public hearing is for the public to have an opportunity to comment provide opinions on and even all aspects of the interim bylaws but the council's not required necessarily to provide responses or to act tonight so that's if there is a proposed change I think the we can discuss that but I think if there is direction in a motion to adopt if that's what is proposed later this evening then that can be accounted for doesn't require no because the proposal is basically narrow the definition of what counts as a principal bill quick follow-up so you're going to stick around and get your comments so I've got a few others that I can comment on anticipating so I'm just going to start over here so if there's just make sure that I have I think that is also thinking are there any other questions for the council first not at this point she'll be here so she can respond okay thank you very much so I will start on the sign up sheet and oh I'm sorry we have Kathy Kathy Ann who needs to clarify a couple things I'm sorry and then we will get to the public input but it seems logical to have it all on the table before you respond so we don't have to say oh I have a conversation what we want oh sorry Kathy LaRose city planner there we go so what we try to do sir you're a warning of the hearing and under the bylaw there is language that refers to that are exempted from the interim bylaw what we try to do to make that easier for everybody is to put that into a map the blue areas that are shown on this map are the ones that we believe reflect a literal interpretation of what you've written into the bylaw the red areas reflect an area that we think may have been intended by your language at earlier points and we wanted you to be able to discuss them and I can go through each one to highlight why we've drawn them on there and you can tell us whether to keep them or not you can also take some time with this map if you'd like as Amanda said there's no rush for this part of it it's your own timeline at this point so basically the blue is the transit overlay district so the blue reflects the transit overlay district as well as the exempted areas as well as some of the other areas sorry loads and layers it'll get there oh I do have credit copies for you so you don't have those so to I'll start on the western side of the city so that is the transit overlay district that runs along Shelburne Road nothing there I think that um had us confused if you work our way clockwise around most of what's included in the big section is the transit overlay district that was adopted by the city half a dozen years ago or so to reflect mostly where certain uses should be that are critical to needing transportation services most of that's included there as well as some of the business parks that you named like Technology Park etc there's two little red outliers there what those are are areas of the form-based code city center form-based code district that are not the same as the transit overlay district for whatever reason but there are such tiny little areas that would otherwise have been treated in many aspects the same as the transit overlay district in those areas that we wanted you to discuss and determine whether or not we want to include them the first one there is a little portion along Corey Hill Road just behind the Staples Plaza that's the one you see just to the left and south of the Jug Handle the one to the north there's just a little back property of the holiday inn the front part of that because the transit overlay district is based on a step back of so many feet this is the portion of the property that is in the form-based code area that would be treated under the form-based code but it lies outside of the transit overlay district because of its depth so that's just a small property there for your discussion the one to do you want me to stop at each one or yeah okay no no I'm just asking you to enumerate each one I have one question do all of these lines follow the property parcel lines property lines the transit overlay district I have to check on I'm not sure but the ones that we've included in the red do follow property lines actually the transit overlay district I don't think does you can probably see an example of that Evan's here I think the O'Brien one on Old Farms sort of cut out you're going up this area there's a notch that I think is one parcel but falls in and out of the transit overlay district I'm not sure again when this was adopted some years ago I was not sure where the lines were going the way that they were and actually it may be that the transit overlay district doesn't actually fall right there I didn't bring a dynamic map I'm sorry but it may be that some of those parcel lines you can see that that's Community Drive that's Technology Park part of that may be outside of the transit overlay district that is included because you gave direction to include the business park so that may not be the that may not be a fault of the transit overlay district the one to the most north that's Barar Drive if you've ever been to Pizza Hut it's the road that's just before it it's a rural area it functions looks and is zoned the same way that Ethan Allen Industrial Park is zoned your language at one point was to include and similar business parks so this wasn't specifically named in the lands exempted but we wanted to give it to you for consideration based on other direction you'd give it further clockwise down to Medellin's Business Park has a legal definition as far as ownership goes so that's why you see the blue line as an ownership line that's what was approved for development in its original development in the late 1980s that's what's shown there the red reflects what most people sort of refer to as Medellin's Business Park and so we wanted to give you something to consider about which you intended if it's a legal ownership issue or if you intended Medellin's and the like and that's why that's a big area that's shown there we are happy to make whatever changes you want to have reflected we do hope that the sooner we have something reflected the better and this was like that we went to Amanda replace or add to the written language because some of these would not be currently listed under to the west of Shamrock Road I'm not this generally people can walk in can point the property they're thinking about for whatever reason and find it quickly and since this narrowed the interim zoning effect we don't need to have another public hearing correct? if we added the red even though it changes and we identify some additional properties at least in my mind I certainly can dig that's what we were thinking that's what I was thinking adding the red means you're exempting more properties right so that which mirrors IZ which you can do if the areas outlined in the red were added to the exempting areas that would not that change would not require another more there's any turn or not expanded so from your knowledge like natural areas and resource areas that are important to the community are there any like forests or wetlands and these or red places spots that are worthy of not exempting that's something I'd have to look into for you I'd have to get you some additional layers it's easy enough to add them we can look at some available data sets again just the available data sets most properties haven't been ground truthed we'd have to look at some state level data that's drawn from aerial photography but I'd have to look into that for you I think I just heard you both say is we can expand the exempted area without an additional public order so if there is any of these lines that don't follow a property line that can be expanded as long as we that's correct we don't have to do it tonight is that what you were also saying that's correct so as we get more information if we wanted some aerial view to find out that it wasn't impacting a wetland or a stream that is already scattered or an area that we developed more we could make that decision later is that correct when the council adopts we can we can well when you say the council adopts can we I guess my question is we have a proposal on the table it's all typed up and my sense was that we might get to vote on this tonight if we did that would that not allow us to add these red places or do we have to do that tonight no I think what basically as long as the motion is clear about the change basically these interim bylaws with the following changes made that's what I mean so if you've said something to the effect of the interim bylaw as warned with the red areas depicted on the map included in the blue area and included in the areas exempted in section 2 and the principal buildings provision so as long as there's very clear direction in the motion there is this does apply at this point to development that as it comes in if it's described in article or in section 2 then the bylaw is applying and so well it has not taken effect it's applying to development that is being proposed after the morning about October 25 so is it possible for you to draw that state map to know where these red areas tonight not likely, no sorry if that's a thing you can just find and put up on the screen right now when it's not available online I don't have the software that I would need on this laptop that is our software thing plus there's so many data sets out there that digging through them does take a little bit of time probably have to give us some direction too as to what type of natural resources you're looking at so this is what we wanted to share with them in its entirety and I think we wanted to share the red areas with you for consideration we also just wanted to do a spot check on the blue areas to make sure that this reflects your intention in the planning and zoning office when somebody walks in tomorrow and says I want to submit an application for development review the first thing we're going to do is to look at this map we don't want to send away people we shouldn't send away we don't want to give the wrong guidance so if there's anything in here that you think is not correct good time to let us know I heard you asked a question chair really that I didn't quite hear the answer to so I just wanted to reframe it so I think what you asked is if we adapt tonight with adding the red areas can we at a later date readjust these lines to then follow the property line and is that a relatively easy process to expand the exemptions after tonight if in terms of these adopted tonight was that the question you asked? so amendments to the interim bylaws after it's adopted would require another warrant public hearing but it wouldn't engage what we see would be in place yes whatever you adopt this evening if you were to adopt interim bylaws this evening whatever you adopt takes effect upon passage but then an amendment to the interim bylaws would require a warrant public hearing but we could do it do you mean an amendment that the expanded exemption would require a public hearing? yes yes once adopted a change to what's been adopted would require an agent yes okay any other questions? alright thank you oh very much this is really helpful okay we will start hearing from the public and the first person I'll call is Patrick O'Brien who probably will shed some light on some of this random blue lines good evening I'm going to try to keep it short to three basic points the first one wearing my hat as an employee of the developer of the south village and all those folks and builders and the quadrants that are affected and I think that the issue I bring forward has already been spoken about earlier and it has to do with clarification of a new principal building so I'm happy to hear that you are going to strive this evening to codify that language always hearing things like probably and likely from an attorney leaves room for interpretation so again I'm glad that you're going to be addressing that the other hat I'm wearing is one of a lifelong resident of south brognton I've been in this development business my entire adult life and I was listening to the chair and vice chair of the planning commission talk about the four areas that they would like to study and that's nothing new we have had boards and commissions and volunteers study do these studies for decades in this municipality and for me I just really am having a hard time understanding why this is any different I don't understand for the life of me why we have to put the skins on everything and divide the city again to do studies that are continually done I mean you folks do update a city plan I mean that's normal operating procedure updating updating these bylaws doing the PUD again that's normal operating procedure that these committees are tasked to do so I don't understand why we have to go into interim zoning to accomplish thirdly actually one thing I would like to add in regards to that the formation of committees is obviously a wonderful tool but unfortunately time and time again I have picked up an ordinance a public work specification etc and I've said where did this come from as a developer it simply doesn't work and maybe it doesn't work because you can't meet that spec because of a right hand turn or it doesn't work because it's going to increase the cost of construction so I really am just asking that as you form these committees I know the public is invited but I strongly encourage you to try to get perhaps a developer or a builder and they can raise those red flags early and often because the last thing we want to do in the city is increase the cost of housing and thirdly it has to do with time you five are going to make a really really large decision later tonight and we were just looking at a kind of had some fuzzy edges on it we are already already talked about the potential for you know maybe rewording an area of this proposal and I just want to caution the board that or the council rather that haste as we know haste makes waste and I think it would be very wise and prudent and responsible of this board to make sure that you get a right so there are no gray areas and even if that means that you don't make the vote tonight and you have to re-word the hearing especially with that there's absolutely nothing wrong with waiting for another two weeks to make sure that you get this correct thank you very much Robin Jeffers and after Robin Robin Jeffers also with SDR London and the South Valley Development and my comment not to say over what Patrick already said but to get more into the nitty-gritty of the language of the proposal where number one where it talks about purpose it doesn't talk at all about where you want to allow development to happen so being that you're having interim bylaws I thought that there should be something the attorney mentioned those projects with vested rights it would be nice if in your statement of purpose that that was covered it seems to be a big omission and then moving over to page three where you get two definitions specifically on B, C and D where you talk about a new plan unit development and a new principal building your definition reads a new plan unit development shall be in any plan unit development for which a complete preliminary application had not been submitted to the city of South Burlund planning and zoning department before October 25th and my question would be could we add the word ever had not ever been submitted to and approved by the city of South Burlund to plan it is that C 1, 3 I'm on 3B B I'm sorry I thought you said C well I said B, C and D so you're starting with B starting with B suggesting ever for all three though I'm suggesting ever for all three ever adding ever after had not ever been submitted and then adding and approved so my understanding is that your intent is that someone who has an approved preliminary application may have bested rights and may continue right I think I just don't understand the impact right now it's very it's vague it doesn't know if you submitted it if you submitted it if you have the comment well if you had submitted preliminary and that had sort of not pursued it let's say and was years ago the question would that count as being exempt from IZ no but if you had never submitted preliminary PUD plan to to the planning zone then if you submit one then you would have to go through IZ it would not be allowed until IZ was over but then that begs the question is there some sort of period of time where there's been no action on the planning plan for two years would you consider that to go back to the starting gate I don't know it's a valid question these are the the points of interest that you start to get to when you have a document and you start coming with a knife well maybe later when we get to that so that every question is the same for both PC and D and then on D again the new principal building for which a complete zoning permit application has not been submitted to the city it's very vague if your attention is that PUDs with approvals may get building permits then an exception needs to be added to that for carved out can you say that one more time I'm sorry do you have language that you would suggest I prepared I do under number four just repeat what you said so I can kind of get up to speed what I said was the way it's written it means that you need to try out new principal building which I mean new building so this reads that no new building are allowed I didn't think that that was the intent for us even in previous PUDs we talked about it earlier but you're saying that the language doesn't you think the language doesn't work the language as it's written doesn't allow it so you have to carve out for all not yet approved PUDs for for already approved already approved already approved okay in number four limitations on land development within the areas the following shall not be allowed new PUDs new subdivisions new principal buildings and my suggestion for language was new principal buildings say for those in existing PUDs which are exempt it could be that simple or it could say new principal building in a PUD for which any plaque has been submitted and approved prior to 1025-18 well doesn't the definition of new principal buildings my understanding is you go back to the definition in the reading you need to redefine otherwise you'd have stuff that's really long to redefine everything every time I mean that's why you have a definitions section under 4C it would need a lot more words to provide the exception that I believe is the intention of the council I would like to bring back to 3D can you make that clear in 3D right you could make it clear if you made it clear in 3D you may not need to amend it in 4C but for sure it needs to be I understand what you're saying which it's currently not if we clarified the definition I don't think we need to clarify it twice I would agree moving on under section 5 there were a few variations I would ask under an item B where it reads the existing patterns and uses of development in the area to strike existing instead of putting the word approved so it would read the approved patterns and uses of development in the area approved well that's a good question because I was reading this as being approved in the existing of the yards why the plan commission is approved in the LGR map well that's the rub I would like to amend the lab for you before an existing you mean existing on the standing so an example specifically in South Village we've been working with the plan commission for over 2 years to be able to have a neighborhood commercial at the intersection of Allen Road and Spear Street and that has been it is an approved use it is not an existing use and my understanding is after 2 years of working together with the city and finally getting that approval but that is a desired use and with the existing language here we would not be able to move ahead to try and get that felt maybe that's your intention I thought a commercial area in South Village wasn't correct but it's not existing so the statement that says existing patterns in the development area would disallow something that is already in existence an application has not been before the DRV is a zoning change that was approved correct okay thank you very much hey Janet Bellavan I'm Janet Bellavan I'm a 25 year resident of South Portland and we've raised our 3 children here and now we have grandchildren being raised here South Burlington is a wonderful place to live, work and recreate in I'm speaking in support of the council in active interim zoning change is inevitable so we need to take the time to make sure the changes in our city meet the needs of the citizens as a whole for today tomorrow and future generations I respectfully request that the interim zoning be enacted in the period of 1 to 2 years to give us the time we need to study and plan for thoughtful limited thank you you're pushing me John Simpson and then we of course John Simpson I'm almost a 40 year resident and I'm chair of the affordable housing committee and our committee is not opposed to interim zoning we have not taken any position on it all however we have an idea that I think makes a lot of sense the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan states that provision of safe and affordable housing that is well matched to resident circumstances is an essential requirement for the city to maintain its quality of life retain existing businesses further economic development and attract future residents that's in the Comprehensive Plan also the Comprehensive Plan includes targets for construction by 2025 of the 1080 new affordable housing units that's an efficient plan and we have made progress on it in the city center one of the things that we have done as a committee is put forward and had approved by the city council a plan to have inclusionary housing inclusionary zoning in the city center it's there now requires 15% of any development over 12 units include being affordable to people in about the middle range of incomes and what we're here to do tonight is actually we'll put a little a small extra burden on the planning commission but we think that we have an opportunity while interim zoning is in place to have inclusionary zoning we have too many ICs here but inclusionary zoning extended out to that transit overlay district that your language would exempt from interim zoning and the reason for that is that I think that developers looking at the barriers and you know the difficulty, added difficulty of developing in self rolling which is the purpose of interim zoning to put a delay on and have a chance to study maybe and probably will be looking at the transit overlay district in the open space and plans that are in that district that are suitable for development and we would think that the city would have lost a great opportunity to and permanently lost if we did not have a way of including affordable housing in any of those developments would take place in the transit overlay district that we could look at the parking property on which is in that district the new building that's gone up that is housing and as far as I know none of it is affordable under the measures that we use we would like to make sure that any future development in this period of interim zoning be subject to the same regulations with some changes that give a little more incentive to developers that in all of the transit overlay district during the period now as far as the planning commission is concerned I understand you've given a big list of tasks but we were part way towards getting inclusionary zoning through the planning commission we've had about four hours of meetings with them as a committee and I think from our sampling of their opinions that they are not opposed to the concept and that I think pretty much everybody in town who thinks about planning could agree that building more housing in the transit overlay district is exactly what people would talk about put the housing near the jobs near the transportation near the facilities where we've already made a major investment in infrastructure so we would like to ask that do consideration be given to the idea of this measure to get more affordable housing along with the protection of open space along with analyzing the cost of development we think this is a really timely opportunity and we'd like to ask that you include this project and we I will say we have an ordinance language all ready to go as invented by the city attorney but we feel it's very close to being exactly what we need and all we need to do is go over that with the city attorney and with the planning commission and then it can move forward so that's our request taken under consideration Any questions? I just wanted to say that I since I drafted the statement of the purpose we see affordable housing is one of the goals that is listed explicitly on that statement of purpose and if there is no other place that comes evidently to anyone's mind it's the transit overlay district as a place where lands, housing and affordable housing close to public transit makes perfect sense Tom I said Tom looking in that direction I supported it as well and what else would you say is that it doesn't need to fall into the same terms on your view of the process and the planning commission and so on is that correct? Well I think what we're looking for is an intent of exigency at the end of the line before the project because I think it can be done quickly and easily and get into a place where we'll all feel good That was the essence exactly I think it's a great proposal I think we should explain how we're going to do that I think it's a good idea I appreciate where the thought is coming from it wasn't primarily why all the people came to our meetings to complain about the city having a lot of construction that was unexpected and then a new development that was proposed that surprised a lot of people the concern was about loss of open space not to say that inclusionary zoning can't aid to some degree in that especially with the planning commission considering their PUD regulations and what they included those PUDs in terms of size of homes and their position on the land but primarily the IZ is all about conservation of open space or regulating new construction to the benefit of the whole community that's why I came here tonight this is new to me for the inclusionary zoning part so there is like Tom said a normal process you can follow with the planning commission I don't want this to slow down the planning commission on the three main objectives that they've enumerated tonight if you can sneak it in somehow I'm generally supportive of it but there's a lot of other discussion because we know the planning commission talked about inclusionary zoning and has some mixed feelings about it the original proposal where we got disagreement was on doing inclusionary zoning in the southeast quadrant but in room zoning we'll take that off the table that's off the table but what we want to put on the table is the area where development if a new development, a large new development goes into any of the available land and the transit overlay distance let's say a hundred units we don't have an opportunity to fulfill the partially fulfilling comprehensive plan by ensuring that and this is housing we're not talking about housing like the cathedral square we're talking about housing for city employees school employees hospital employees people who have businesses in the community you know, junior executives people with families and that's really what we want to encourage in self-rolling I think we all do have an opportunity here to just yes it might slide in ahead but I'm hoping that between our effort and the planning commission that it can be done very quickly and moved on to a public hearing and then on to you my understanding Tim is that they have been discussing this for a long long time and that just in transit overlages with the CY we've got an opportunity of the amendments right here and the the point where there were questions with regard to areas of the city where conservation was seen as a priority that would be competing or where the land cost would be prohibitive to creating affordable housing and so in effect what I understand is that to have this transit overlaid district really pinpointed as a place for the inclusionary zoning discussion move forward it would be like a hot night through butter it would move quickly just to use the Thanksgiving tune use the term planning commission and hot night through butter does it always work like this no one could personally when it's a planning commission if you do they work very hard but if you don't it's more like a hot night stabbed into a glacier but with climate change that might still go quickly so I'm in support of it I'm just trying to iterate the reason why I'm here it's okay if you slip this in I don't want to slow down the planning commission or what their main goal is there are three objectives so don't get me wrong you've got a great idea I think the chair has indicated that she thought they really could attend to this sooner I had a offline conversation whether she can guarantee the success she can't funds but I think maybe it's a lukewarm night through soft butter butter the freezer it's real good yes okay David I don't think we need to take action right at the moment I think when we get to completing our vote on interim zoning and then if that is passed we articulate what we would like these committees to do maybe even at the next meeting maybe tonight we can say before we get to the actual this is a list in the time frame that we want to think carefully about in terms of committees potentially this could be something the planning commission fits in right away so thank you I appreciate it I think it's a good idea we can make it work it seems like we don't want to hold up chair there's a member before the housing committee with a stand up patient link oh I didn't see it yes Michael if I have your permission I just wanted to supplement what John was saying sorry maybe I'm cutting in line here with your permission with my permission okay so Mike Seminoza resident member of the affordable housing committee I'm obviously supportive of what John has had to say here I think I think it's hard to talk about open space without talking about housing and the conversation shouldn't kind of be about one or the other I think it should be about both and I think this is a great opportunity right now for our community to look into both issues and to provide equity to both of these issues because I think they're both equally important we shouldn't be in our silos just supporting our ideological positions about how we feel about things or what we have a right to do we have to come up with solutions and we've got to reconcile our differences when we have issues that are this significant and I mean the medical center does a wellness survey every three years and I think housing was number one on their list of needs it rose to the top above everything I was shocked when I saw it but obviously there are a lot of people who see the significance of housing and its impact on the community on health on everything so I ask that you spend enough time you're fashioning what this resolution is going to be right now affordable housing or the housing agenda into what it is you're doing and find a way of getting all of the stakeholders at the table to come up with strategies that are going to allow for the housing needs to be met with the impacts mitigated on our open space resources and everybody who is going to impact so that's all I have to offer so it's you okay sorry Abby Dury and then Daryl and Peters I'm here on behalf of Daryl and Susan and I'm here on behalf of Daryl and Susan and I'm here on behalf of Daryl and Susan and I'm here on behalf of Daryl and Susan and their request is that the minor subdivision is taken off the list approved by changing part B in section 4 to review major subdivisions instead of just new subdivisions across the board where's the land the land is off of Dorset street we have a parcel on auto until lane is there going to pre limit there hasn't it's not even a puny it's a how many acres 25 acres no plans have been submitted to anybody yet so it is within our scope yes it is and you're asking that it be removed from our scope I'm requesting that just on minor subdivisions in general to be removed from our scope please one at a time trying to get the details so it lives on a parcel that is large and they want to offload some land without development it really doesn't affect any of the items that the planning commissioner is trying to achieve they can still review open space transfer development rights and the other third point but I just don't think it's too much of a new vision but camper any of those issues any other questions thank you Daryl and Peters I would like to thank all of you for all the hard work that you do in the long meetings that you have and in that interest I simply want to reinforce what somebody else said that you consider seriously having this period be one to two years you're now adding work and I just think these things take time if you're going to get public input it's just not something that you want to zoom through you just want to get it done but you want to get it right let me just reiterate a comment I made earlier that in consulting with Andrew our city attorney he said that all it takes is a vote of the council if the work's not done to push it out about a month or two months or whatever we want and so my preference is still a fast time schedule and then gee we need another month and I think that's required an onerous process to happen I think then we need to take a look at maybe we should start with a longer period but it's just going to take a vote of the city council to do that I think we all work together well enough that we would make the right choice should we get that situation that's just a comment based on input from our city attorney thank you Charlie Baker and then Jerry Silverstein good evening thank you for the time on your agenda to address the topic I also really appreciate your dedication to the city of South Carolina and all the effort you put in to reach the best solution possible I'm here speaking with really three hats I am the director of the regional planning commission of the Chittney County Regional Planning Commission also here on behalf of the building homes together campaign which is trying to encourage more housing production and affordable housing production in Chittney County and I'm also a resident of the Southeast Squadron and so I'm just really going to not speaking either in favor or opposed to what you're doing tonight but just want to express some concerns and maybe bring a little bit different perspective from regional planning commission first I'm kind of concerned about some of the precedent that this sets and the impacts on just regional sprawl it's very important to let the objectives and goals of our regional plan that development does happen in the urban area of Chittney County and for better or worse South Burlington is kind of the edge of that urban area and I know that's really what the debate is about here's what's the edge of that area and there's lots of reasons that we're focused on smart growth as I know South Burlington is and certainly as a resident and as a professional planner in Chittney County I've been very proud of the work the South Burlington has done over the years to address smart growth issues and certainly even last week with a vote in city center a lot of positive things have been happening in South Burlington having said that it is important though that we keep focused on smart growth and increasing development and density within our urban core for all those the protection of open space in our region so every house that lands in South Burlington is a house that doesn't land out in Richmond, Huntington, Jericho Namiermore World parts of the county where they all have the same open space issues but we have a broader space of working lands and forest fragmentation and obviously the houses that land here can be less to energy use emissions, climate change all the things that we care about in this county and in this community so I just want to kind of encourage you to keep pushing for the smart growth that I know you are pushing for and figure out how to do that the best way specifically with regard to housing I think John Simpson's suggestion is not a bad one it seems like a pretty good idea we can get more affordable housing along our transit corridors that would be a very positive thing the building homes together campaign set a goal of building 3,500 homes in five years in our county we're on track for building that number so that's 700 a year we've been just doing a little bit more than that in average over the last two years we've been tracking that we're in the third year now so we'll see how 2018 turns out in a few months however we haven't been on track for 20% of the homes being affordable so there still is a high demand for affordable housing just about that housing number because I know there is kind of this is the open space housing balance that we're trying to get right here but the market in Chinne County it's broken, it's been broken for a lot of years we do not have enough housing in Chinne County it's forced we have I think 10% more people so we have about 100,000 people that work in Chinne County 10% more that would have to live outside our county and commute in because we cannot find housing in Chinne County it's not affordable, it's not here, we don't build it up and it's a supply and demand question we don't have enough supply to drive down the price of housing in a way that makes it more affordable and that's not good for lots of things whether it's the environment building emissions all those things so again I just want to encourage the emphasis on building more housing in the right places where we have proper zoning sewer and water and transit and then the third thing, I think on the planning process from our perspective South Toronto certainly has maybe the strongest planning processes in this date and I think I read in some of the maybe lead up to this just comments about how the planning process doesn't work in South Burlington I was kind of shocked to read that because I think you have a really strong planning process you've had a lot of demands on that planning process you've been trying to do a lot of things and you've maybe overwhelmed that system so not everything has gotten done and so that's just a question of priorities so the natural resource regulations in South Burlington has been on the list and South Burlington every year submits a list of things to do to the regional planning commission that we can help with and that has been on your list now for four or five years but it's never been the priority so I'm glad to see it's kind of getting now a top priority and I think on that regard I want to also offer the assistance of the regional planning commission staff if we can help with staff time we're happy to do that I think I'd like to see this process end as quickly as possible and so that we can get through this and get you to the other side I think there has been a lot of work a lot of planning work has gone on your planning commission and your variety of committees to advance these efforts I think this is a great opportunity to pull together and get it done and so the one I think constructive suggestion I have for you in terms of the by-law that's in front of you tonight is I was struck that there's no no one's responsible so it kind of says the city should I suggest that maybe this is just the manager maybe that you really assign this to the planning commission that the planning commission provides you recommendations within six months or nine months or whatever time frame you settle on and so that because all these things do seem like they have to follow through the planning commission to bring you recommendations and that you also instruct them to consult with the other appropriate committees and constituents and staff that need to be considered committees but I'd really have to take any questions I think that's a very good suggestion and that certainly is our intent and as I said we were sort of talking about it before we actually had agreed to do interim zoning I think it's really important to for the council because I think the bug stops with us we are responsible for the end product and we know that we want an end product that actually aligns our LDRs with the conclusions of these committees or this work that to me is the holy rail of there that's what we're aimed for not just have a bunch more studies and some recommendations that sit on a shelf so I think it's really incumbent upon us and really important to make it very clear how we expect our various volunteer committees as well as some consultants to help us with that so I appreciate to help because I think some of the work that we'll be doing particularly around the economic impact would be helpful information and perhaps a template for other communities that are faced with we'll click to have a lot of expertise there but we can certainly help with open space mapping and just on your land development regulations we've been doing bylaw work for other municipalities and we can help your consultant work, happy to do that thank you any other comments or questions? thank you Jared Silverstein I have three comments the first one was in 2011 I actually sent an email to the city council in regard to interim zoning at that time the only one I can recognize is Megan and Roseanne is still here she would have gotten an email it dealt with a program a front line program called the warning it was a program about a woman named brooksley born in brooksley like stream brook sley at the end born as in birth the orn she was appointed in 1994 by bill clinton to head up a committee known as the commodities trading futures commission it was a financial regulatory agency she was very concerned about one area of finance which was not being regulated which made her very nervous because it involved trillions of dollars where the public didn't know how that money was being handled word got out that brooksley was trying to create a program to regulate this aspect of the financial industry and it got out to people known as Alan Greenspan the maestro, federal reserve chair Robert Reuben Head of Goldman Sachs former treasury secretary Larry Summers former treasury secretary and they heard that brooksley was trying to regulate the financial industry and they weren't happy so they called her into their offices and they said now brooksley in their most patriarchal tone regulation is bad regulation will stifle innovation it's not going to happen and indeed it did not happen and the 2008 economic crisis was directly related to the lack of that regulation which brooksley born was advocating for prior to those events occurring so as much as everybody hates regulation no regulation is far worse than regulation keep that in mind the second point I want to make is I'd like everybody for three seconds to think about New York City when I think about New York City what do I think about just take a few seconds when I think about New York City I think about a lot of things lots of buildings, lots of cars but I also think of Central Park and I would ask you to think about what would New York City be without Central Park it would be a totally different place why? because for people open space is spiritually essential to who they are it's part of most people's definition that segues into my third and last point once you develop the land short of a nuclear holocaust it's developed forever you're not going to raise houses once you put them in you're not going to raise developments once you put them in once you develop that land it's developed forever and using the California situation as an addendum to this last point if you look at where the fires occurred it was where developments were built right up to forest of land or open space more and more developments are approaching upon open space and that's creating conflict between the land and development if you don't think of the big picture the big picture is going to think about you in the end Thank you for your time and I just wanted to make one comment about affordable housing and I've done the research just last week and my sources were the Vermont Housing and Finance Agency and the Census Bureau estimates trying to compare different suburban municipalities that are all of the same size and how they're doing with affordable housing versus the housing units that are in each of the communities so I looked at South Burlington Colchester and Essex and South Burlington is doing a really great job we're right on par with our peers and in several categories we are actually exceeding those communities with the affordable housing options that exist today so I just wanted to say I don't think IZ conflicts with affordable housing and the reason I thought IZ was being talked about and discussed is because we want to save rural and open spaces and I don't think they compete at all so I just wanted to make that point Thank you Um, Norton Norton, can I start right? Mollard? Close enough Well, what is it? Mollard? I think how? Oh I'm sorry, the accent will throw a few minutes off I am not being as long a resident of South Burlington as many of you I've only been here for three years I perhaps am speaking for a lost cause here but I am against interim zoning I wrote to all of you with my reasons and I just wanted to kind of repeat them but it's interesting that the gentleman from the Regional Planning Commission stated a lot of the reasons why I think interim zoning is a bad idea we need more houses the setting up interim zoning stops more houses makes them less affordable but the fact is that we don't want to come here I'm your prime example of that I came here because it's such a great place lots of other people want to do that so I think interim zoning is a bad response to people coming to want to live here secondly again interim zoning means people are not going to build houses houses are therefore going to become more expensive we want to make houses more affordable the answer is not to stop building it's actually to build more of it and that's kind of all I have to say back back thank you very much Gwen I'm sorry Gwen Jill I didn't know I signed that last but welcome on oh you do think this was like this was for speaking you don't have to welcome how do you pronounce your last name I thank you all for everything that you're doing I'm very impressed with the care that you're taking going through the process I personally think that it's well worth taking the time to carefully consider all the options and look at affordable housing and open space it's a great community I think taking six or nine months decisions is in the best interest of everybody who loves suffering that's all I have to say thank you and then I have the second list in the back we'll go through that and if there are still some people that want to speak we can hear that Chris Snyder thank you for your time Chris Snyder I have a couple of concerns with regards to interim zoning those in terms of zoning and they're specific and I think they're related to existing conditions and so we understand that approval in place based upon the conversations earlier that as long as the house meets the exact dimensions or criteria as outlined in the original approval that they would be allowed to get a duplex lot that could be converted into a single family lot and in this case we would have to become before the city council to modify a duplex into a single family house so to me that's also one other situation where it's an existing approved project and it previously had a single lot it got subdivided into a duplex and potentially could be go back to a single family lot so I'm not sure that's the intended consequence but based upon what the discussion has been so far that would be an impact for a specific situation can you be a little more specific on the impact I served on the council I inherited IC so we sat and we heard a number of proposals all but two were accepted and then one we worked out the differences of the other they had a pre-existing plan and we went back and they built that so it really didn't stop any current or what was being planned so I guess in terms of so you have a lot for a duplex when you would come in and say you know what I want to do duplex I want to do a single family home you don't know whether we would say yes or no but in terms of the time is that like does that add a bunch of money on to the cost of the house is it permitted it's certainly time because I would assume that it would then the city council would approve it and then it would go to the DRP for their review in a normal process or parallel I don't I can't remember I think it was parallel but it's not clearly stated how that would happen if there was it just says that we come to the city council doesn't say that we could go to the DRP and request that at the same time or it is in parallel well just say it does it say anything about DRP at all? it just says the review if it doesn't say that it's a country there's separate decisions so there's no constraint on whether it's in parallel or not but you would have to go to the DRP in order to get the amendment approved so we had said earlier that if amendments are required it would have to be in this proposal approved by the city council and that's how it was last time so it would go to the city council and it would have to go to the DRP well it went in parallel but I don't think that that's clearly outlined here because technically I'm not sure that we could submit a zoning permit application or modification of the DRP based upon the language but this doesn't nullify any LDR whatsoever so you still would have to go through DRP as last time in IZ as well there's an extra step but it would be it's a timing as proposed we take more time because you have to get an agenda so that's one item and then I also would bring up that one of the items that has not been covered would be a potential challenge is let's we currently have a proposed neighborhood that has been approved by the DRP that project while under appeal now maybe there's some modification that's required by a court and in that case we would have to come back to city council then go to the DRP and I think that the city should consider that it was previously approved and if there's a requirement or an amendment required by a court that there might be an exception to the language is outlined well when you finish maybe Amanda could comment on that the other this is a general item I believe that the use of TDRs is beneficial and that as the planning commission and the different committees review that if you want higher densities the use of TDRs in the receiving zone versus a giving zone is beneficial it is going to improve or increase the amount of open space or reduce the amount of development outside but yet not negatively impact the landowners who are outside of or in the giving zone and actually that's one thing we need to better understand and research because right now the giving zone is the receiving zone so it's almost in South Burlington the TDR so the southeast quadrant is only used for denser development in the southeast quadrant so it seems almost counterproductive so I think they might want to review that and think about are there other receiving areas so I think you raise a good point and that's why we need to study that and then there's been lots of discussion about affordable housing and as the builder of really product in every price point and the largest builder right now building affordable unions within South Burlington I think it's important to realize that just building homes in South Burlington is expensive and if there's a way to reduce the cost of housing I would rather see as reduce it for everybody rather than a few and the way you do that is to reduce impact fees reduce connection fees reduce rezoning permit fees all of those items are out there and in my mind are causing the increase of housing within South Burlington so I think that there's an opportunity for us to reduce the housing through addressing some of those items and then in terms of the interim bylaw I would recommend that the council really vet the language and it seems like there's some little tidbits of parts and pieces here that we want to make sure that we're not adding a red piece or deleting a red piece or whatever in this meeting that we would rather see a comprehensive language before approving something that is going to be as impactful not necessarily just for developers but also landowners and citizens in South Burlington thank you very much thank you Barb Cirrus a service I scribbled, I'm sorry it's alright, I know who you are I said this cheering one and then Evan Landfeld a Barb service resident of South Burlington compared to some people in this room I'm a newbie, I've only been here about 12 years I also wanted to say what a couple of other people had I have seen that in this room and watched you a lot and I am grateful for all of the work that you do and that tonight you were holding this extra hearing I sat in another hearing a while back before I think maybe only Helen was on the council then and watched with this May as the city council did not support the vast majority of people in the room and as a result of that we have lost affordable housing we have seen the area and chamberlain decimated and we are worried about our children so I am grateful that all of you sit here tonight and carefully listen to what we say and so that hopefully we will not see that happen again there are clearly differences of opinion in this room and I would say that I think it's lovely that Richmond has open space but I don't think I should have to drive to get there and so I believe that we should have open space in south Berlin and it's part of the reason that I did because we do have some open space and let us not lose it with respect to affordable housing we are getting more and more $500,000 of cooking cutter houses that look a whole lot alike we could do with some houses that are not so expensive we could also do with spreading them out a little bit so that there is some room and some space and I know that there are cost issues to that I know that there are people who like these huge houses but let's think about people who want smaller houses as well and look at the diversity of our community and at the same time we have to be the residents for everyone I don't want to drive to Richmond to have to go for a walk in an open space I want to be in a community where I live so I will hope that you will not do to the rest of south Burlington what we have open space over in Chamberlain now but it's because the airports refill the houses now and it's not a place where you really want to walk but let us not lose our open space let us not lose the spaces where we have animals living happily and that we can walk or drive carefully and we can see deer and we can see birds and we can see all of that happen let's not take care of those things as well there was when I was much younger a law about education for children with disabilities and it was called no child left behind and there is now a room called no child left indoors let's make sure that we have spaces outside for our kids to play for the adults to walk that would also add as a PS could the dog park committee be recommended to be included in the discussion because that's another thing that needs to there needs to be space for our community and for people to have community and for the voice of places where people come together in all kinds of different recreation in the outdoors thank you that was probably an oversight and that's a good idea we're new so I'm not surprised that was not a criticism or a suggestion Evan and then after Evan is Sophie Mazelita Mazelita thank you Evan Lane Belt I represent the others first just kind of on a high level I've been through interim zoning once the previous iteration that's outgrown to the enacted I think it caused lasting damage to the city I think it was a device of time for a lot of people and I think there's lingering effects there I also don't think that the current case that's being presented passes the test that's put forth in the state statute under 24 BSA 4415 the legislative body may adopt interim bylaws regulating land development and all are part of the municipality in order to protect the public health safety and general welfare provide for worldly physical and economic growth I don't think that any of those are applicable in this current set of circumstances and I think as Charlie Baker the executive director of the Regional Planning Commission pointed out we are one of the best planning processes in the state we have a professional planning staff that does a great job and believe me I've been through countless meetings with them and it's a rigorous process I've been through countless meetings with the DRB with the Planning Commission so I know how intense the scrutiny is for a reference the project that we are currently underway on it was an 18 month planning and permitting process that engaged dozens of meetings with public with the DRB the process designed to be inclusionary it includes the public it includes the health it includes the experts at the table for whatever that's worth I would ask you to think about that under the current proposed bylaw I do have some requested changes if you choose to move forward with it under the existing language under section 2 lands to which the interim bylaws apply under letter A lands overlaid by the transit overlaid district as depicted on the official zoning map in the overlaid district maps as was shown earlier I don't know if Kathy and is your computer still up here would you show that again I don't know if it's necessary to put it up as I think most people probably notice there is an odd sort of peninsula it's a notch it runs basically through the middle of our property at old farm road this property has been zoned a certain way for decades it was always intended to be developed and it's being developed holistically by the O'Brien family it is a mixed use site of us it spans four zoning districts and I think the challenge here which is I think a change that we've seen over the years originally the area north of the north and east of the interstate was referred to as the city core at some point along the way the transit overlaid district kind of took over and I mystified by why this peninsula or notch is located there it's all for the most part it's all owned by the O'Brien family and organization there are some private residences on the south end of old farm road and then there's this other section to the west of it again I'm not sure why that piece was taken out of the transit overlaid district I do have a language that I would suggest would cover it and so it would change that letter A to any lands located to the north and east of interstate 89 extended to the northern boundary of the transit overlaid district in any areas otherwise overlaid by the transit overlaid district as depicted on the official zoning map and the overlaid districts maps so again it encompasses all of the transit overlaid district but just removes this kind of bizarre peninsula alternatively we could just change the map right I mean you just draw the red line rather than just the language I think is is your question with regard to a plan that has already been through the DRB so when we went through the planning process the first time around we permitted we actually voluntarily went through the master plan permitting process which wasn't required of us but we did that it was a longer permitting process more public engagement and we permitted the first 40 acres to the western most portion of the property and primarily the reason for that was that Old Farm Road is a city road and it has challenging egresses on both the north and south sides and we understood that if we were permitting the entirety of the property it was also going to take likely a reorientation of Old Farm Road at some point down the road it being a city process we decided to not hit our wagon to not be able to do a project in the near term to go into a full city process of reorienting a city road the discussion was always we wanted to look at the property holistically it wasn't to develop it as islands and we've already internally been going through a master plan permitting process and we do intend to be putting out a master plan for the balance of the property which has continuous green space it protects views the barn would be protected and it would be a true mixed use development and it's progression scaled as we're developing currently and it's also important to note that the homes that we are developing in this neighborhood span a very broad demographic of buyers we have young professionals we have young families we have seniors that are downsizing first floor masters we have a price point that started in the low 300s and then goes up from there but it's really appealing to a broad demographic and it's creating a much more organic neighborhood and part of that is the density that we can realize but it's also looking at the property holistically that's segmented as this is currently showing would be very problematic to creating a true master plan development so that's really the point of it I don't know necessarily even the target of how this map was put together I think it's just the way the transit overlay district for whatever reason was put together and I thought the Brian property was already approved just a portion of it that's what I'm understanding the second point is a point that's already been brought up on the plan which is the principal building piece which is that on this initial master plan there's actually portions of it that are not located in the transit overlay district there's approximately 18 homes in the first hundred and 18 homes that would actually span from the transit overlay into the non-exempt area which is this little job so if that were the case and the interpretation was that because we don't have specific zoning permits for the buildings even though we've already got preliminary and final and we have a master plan if we had to go back in front of the city council that'd be problematic particularly since we already have contracts on some of those homes they're already contracted with buyers so again I know it's been already spoken of so I think you're aware of that and then another piece of this is where you have a singularly controlled large parcel of land that spans both in-exempt areas and outside of exempt areas how do you control that when you're trying to plan something in a appropriate land in certain circumstances and look at things holistically how do you deal with that is a portion do you, I mean is the recommendation that you would go forward and permit something and just leave this portion out or would you have to go in front of the council for a portion of it I don't even, I think it's there's some lack of clarity on that point again from our perspective the first suggestion would clarify it just reach out the line yeah just north of the interstate essentially the question I have just for my own information is you have split your land into different master plans it appears to me what is the timeline for that that you have sketched out the timeline, well so to provide a little bit of a backdrop to that we have held off on submitting an updated master plan in large part because the city has been going through this PDG and master plan overall it's gone significantly longer than was originally communicated to us and I get the volunteer boards staff has been overworked by a variety of large projects but at some point we need to move forward and the existing plans essentially to do what we want we were trying to sync it with the city's process but at some point we can't be held up forever and while I appreciate you putting the onus on the planning commission to turn around recommendations in six months again I participated in the interim zoning process five, six years ago and I was also on that form based code committee again it was a task that was given to move forward expeditiously I think anybody that participated on that form based code committee wouldn't say it moved along at great haste so best laid plans it's great but we're also trying to run a business and we're also trying to do development the right way development's not good or bad good development's good, bad development should be discouraged what we're trying to do again is plan holistically and do something the community wants and that's appropriate for this site which has been zoned this way for decades is planned this way and the comprehensive plan is surrounded by infrastructure and has public transportation to it as close to schools shopping etc can I get that? you have talked though about having to move a public road a city road and so the timeline I think is I understand your concern of the timeline but I think that this council passed the you know the draft bylaws and to have them warrant knowing that this timeline was part of that decision so that's why I'm interested in your timeline and you know better than I do your timeline and so within a few months is our intent to be presenting the master plan to the DRB with or without the PUT regulations without the updated one I again I just don't see it turning around that fast I could be wrong but you know today we haven't been it hasn't communicated to us as to when that delivery date is going to be it seems like it keeps getting pushed out yeah I think the comment tonight was from Bernie was that they could complete the PUD in six months correct maybe a little faster but it doesn't quickest practice quickest practice well in the conversations we've been having with planning staff is what is we've met with Sharon Murray a number of times and with planning staff to say what is coming down the line what are you trying to do with this so that we can incorporate as much as possible in the plan that we're presenting we're not again not trying to do something that the community doesn't want but we have to be able to move forward because these processes do take a lot of time and a lot of money but the same token we also were from a number of developers to get it right don't rush it through so I think the PUD might be an example of really getting it right and not whipping through just the need of planning although you're also saying you're going to go ahead with your master plan without the PUD's adopted which so I don't know it was like you can't have it both ways either we do it right and then that allows you to plan thoughtfully and effectively and I think you have to date so I'm not critical of what you've done with the O'Brien property but we're also trying to develop LDRs that reflect what we think as a community is important understood I do think that we plan a thoughtful development and that is our intent of Brian's organization that will be around for a long time the intent is again to do something that is thoughtful and that is needed so I don't know that we necessarily need a new regulation to do a thoughtful development well but as you said there's good development and bad development and maybe you epitomize the good development because you've lived here and you care about the land and you have owners that want to save that iconic barn and some other developer would tear it down or turn it into I don't know 200 apartments I don't know but you can't speak for those developers I understand that but we have to deal with all of them understood any other questions or comments that makes a good question so if somebody does have property and they are thinking they do plan on developing it could be like his and we already have enacted this bylaw and we're going to refine it some more does that mean that they are precluded from working with planning and zoning to the degree that they can to shape this thing in lieu of what the planning commission could pump out for POD changes you don't want to waste their time but on the other hand they obviously have a really good feeling from what they're going to do in the first place so in other words if somebody has an idea and they want to work with PNZ to shape it and then also wait for planning and zoning they could be nearly on track when IZ ends to then move forward with their plan so you could say it's a full delay of 9 months a year 60 months a year or you could say they could be in the wings working with it when it finally comes out of the planning commission then they can apply that it's a gamble because you don't know what's going to come out of it they are working with the planning commission to press they take testimony and listen to developers as they discuss is that correct? so it's not like they're in a well I wouldn't want to spend a lot of money and then developers say oh is that what you're doing? if I wanted to get a project started in a year I would be it would be a risk to try and design it and then find out that the rules are changed so that I have to redesign it again it's just a thought but there is probably value to pushing it through as far as you can so you really need to launch when you get out of YZ if it conforms I'm just making that point and I think it's a valid point I guess I would say to the line of the interpretation of the piece on the principal building it's a little bit hard to plan on something that is ambiguous and a fair amount of time and effort and capital when actually into planning based on transect zones that folks had thought were going to be extended to the rest of the city didn't happen but a lot of effort and money was spent on that getting back to that one peninsula or a notch of land I guess I would like to hear some justification from someone whether it's the council or the planning and zoning staff or the planning commission why that area was separate and looked at differently from the rest of the transit overlay district to me it's dead smack in the middle of the transit overlay district and is this outlier it almost seems like an oversight and you know it was right the answer I got when I asked Kathy was that it's just a holdover when the transit overlay district was designed but I don't know if that was before year 89 but it seems to make sense that everything else 89 is the marker for why not just include that to me it's a pretty impactful decision to be moving forward in terms of zoning and so any lands that are included in it should be very thoughtful as to why they are included it shouldn't just be well there was a site plan to add it there how many acres not including the land where the application has been what acres are you talking about in 2 to 3 months before we're the master plan we have 90 acres remaining 90? 90 the whole overall parcel is about 130 give or take how many acres in this little peninsula I don't know some of the peninsula is not even our land yeah it's probably our land because there are other landowners in the south end of old farm ground so really what is ours is the barn we have an old rental house that's sitting up in the meadow area and then there are family members Patrick O'Brien spoke earlier Dan Dan's one of the original brothers he owned my mom's and his daughter Stephanie was on the south side of him there's related parties and then there's unrelated parties but by including that whole section into the developable area that solves your problems it doesn't change your thoughts about helpful or not IZ is for developers but it satisfies your need for your master plan even though there likely will be some PUD changes that would impact it well in some of the PUD changes that come down the line might be favorable and we may want to incorporate them some of them we have to go through the amendment process there may be reasons to want to go through it again I'm not throwing up a stiff arm to it it's just right now it's how many of those 90 acres fall outside of this blue line on the peninsula there I think that was just the question I don't know because some of that land is not ours how much land that belongs to you falls outside of that blue line well there's a vast authority outside within the transit what you want to develop that's much smaller than 90 acres that gets you some of those 90 acres fall inside of that blue land that is exempted correct yes do you know how much falls outside I don't because we haven't done it's a lot it's going to go all the way down are you guys seeing what's exempt or what's not exempt so what's not exempt is a much smaller portion it's essentially the barn property it's Patrick O'Brien's house which again is practically some of the family homes exactly and then the east side of the road that's not currently in the project so I mean here's that's been approved it's been approved these are private so is this the blue line that you like you're on your map already it's this yeah so that's this these don't belong to you so it's really when you're trying to not okay okay okay okay okay thank you very much okay we only have three more people although there might be other people who would like to speak Sophie Hey Al I'm a South Burlington resident and local field naturalist so for those of you who I haven't met I first got familiar with South Burlington when I came on to study bed rocks as a graduate student at UVM and I eventually authored the management plan for that part so I'm here in support of intern zoning for a minimum of nine months I've heard a lot of people say you know we have tens of studies we don't need to be conducting more studies but I think as other folks who've made it clear we have yet to implement many of the recommendations the 2014 open space study being a prime example that's full of really useful recommendations that should be revisited reviewed and potentially expanded upon or are modified I think there's also a really good opportunity for some fine tuning of our data set really and the information that we have about our natural areas in the city and Kathy I mentioned earlier that a lot of the data that we're using to create some of our maps here is based on basically like state source data so that could be from satellite imagery it could be from very old data sets of natural resource surveys or surveys for saber and endangered species and there's a really good opportunity for some additional ground truthing you know and some data verification and more fine tuning involved actually in two initiatives that are attempting to do some of that one of them is the South Burlington master naturalist program which I just started this year so I have a group of 12 candidates who bring expertise in various natural resource areas and they're currently training in both biological and physical sciences to better understand the natural landscapes of South Burlington they're going to be engaging in some project work and they're looking to you know apply some of that knowledge that they're solidifying so I think it could be really helpful for that group to bring that expertise to looking into some of the prioritization of the conservation areas and various conservation values of open spaces in our city so I would urge you to consider people beyond the current membership of the natural resource committee and planning commission and various city committees and you know moving forward with some of these goals of the interim zoning process what's the name of the group again the Vermont master naturalist South Burlington program technically so the South Burlington master naturalist I'm also involved in a wild life tracking initiative which started in the city of Burlington a few years ago and I've expanded it to South Burlington as of this past year so we currently have I think in our open space study of 2014 one wildlife road crossing area identified and just some very broad delineation of wildlife corridors so for example it's often stated that wildlife travels north to south between spear and dorset streets through the green spaces there which is true but we could also identify very specific spaces which fit within this room where there are specific road crossings there's also a lot of riparian areas stream corridors that are significant for wildlife so I've been collecting existing data and also trying to add the needs of wildlife tracking, placement of wildlife cameras working with UVM student groups as well as community volunteers to try to better understand where exactly the large mammals are moving in our city understanding that that's not the full picture of wildlife in our city but if we have habitat that a moose or a fisher or a bear can be traveling towards then you know their travel across the city can tell us a lot about the connectivity of our open spaces and what some of the pinch points and most important road crossings are so I hope I'm supportive in terms of zoning for a minimum of nine months because I'm in the process of trying to collate our current data set and provide some recommendations by June of 2019 and I'd be happy to contribute some recommendations as far as wildlife planning in the city goes I just wanted to comment specifically on a couple of the red polygons as far as the potential additional accepted areas the mellum and drive area does have potash brook that flows through it so that's just something I wanted to mention in terms of the natural resource significance of that area just out of the Vite or of the interstate and then more significantly though that area between Burrard Drive and Lime Kiln Road almost that entire area is marked on our primary conservation area map in the current open space study and for a number of reasons I think partly because it abets the Windy Ski River it contains a natural community of state significance it's a limestone bluff seed or pine forest or to one that's along the close to Red Rocks and it's also an area where there are rare species potentially threatened or endangered species in that area so I would urge you to not include that in the exempted area because of the natural resource significance of that particular site but are you also including this one? that one I don't feel as strongly about so I would certainly advocate to not include the one to the north and then there are levels through there so you had said before that you weren't sure if there was anything of natural resource significance so as far as that site goes there is some grassland or shrubland area as well as the brook do you have any concerns with the adjutment of north of 89 that Mr. Langfell was just discussing? I don't although I haven't studied I'm not as familiar with that area I guess I would say but it doesn't pop out as strongly there are farm fair amount of houses and they were already on derby circles that's a pretty dense densely developed that is my impression as well old farm road not so much but there are houses all along it and most like I drive it along does the interstate go through the Centennial Woods? Centennial Woods is all to the west of the interstate there is forested area in wetland that continues there's a big culvert underneath 89 and then on the eastern side there's more open space there I don't know what the current ownership or protection is I think much of it couldn't be developed because it's wetland area it kind of backs up onto some of the neighborhoods there some of it's owned by UVM I think there used to be a dog park there that's all I have to say thank you very much Elizabeth or Militia no you're all set okay Andrew Chandan and then is Andrews walking up is there anyone else who wishes to testify okay Roseanne anyone else Bob Bob Jennifer Hoff Fred right behind you is Fred and who is that January January okay thank you I'm grateful for all your hard work and I strongly support Roseanne for two critical reasons why I'm a strong supporter the first is that it strikes me as some have said that the current land development regs don't fully reflect what's in the comprehensive plan now I'm a lay person so why do I say that what I did was I took a look at the map 7 in the COMP plan primary conservation area map now according to the COMP plan primary conservation areas are off limits to develop that's what the COMP plan says without going to look to see what all the regulations actually say what I did was took a look at the talent to see okay well what was developed and did we develop or were we proposing to develop in areas that were off limits to develop i.e. that intersected with map 7 and there were a few that it looked like there were and there's honestly one that just glaring that left off the page I just wanted to share this with you as an example where I feel strongly that the regulations do need to be looked at so that this doesn't happen again if I can approach and just I'm just running but I can just share this thanks so what this is what I was able to do is I took map 7 and the blue lines on the page you're looking at are from map 7 what's called the repairing connectivity zones all that blue area the blue lines and the blue shaded area that's a primary conservation area that supports wetlands and movement of rivers and I overlaid that onto what we saw as the sketch plan for one development, the Dorset Meadow Development because it was just pretty glaring that almost it looked like maybe just a little more than half of that development is proposed to be in an area that according to the comp play there's off limits to development so something just seems off that the regulations would purportedly permit that it's not built yet and maybe as it goes through DRD and maybe that will change who knows, but it just seems at least on their face because the developer came in with that plan that there's something that needs to be looked at, right? there's something inconsistent so that's kind of one thing that I wanted to share the second reason why I'm a strong supporter of interim zoning is that's kind of a conservation reason the second is a fiscal reason so I did a lot of Google search and I did studies that asked the question what happens when you take open space and build residential development and well I looked at a lot of them and they all come to the same conclusion they all come to the conclusion that not only do you take this beautiful open space and have all the adverse impacts that you have when you build it but the talent also does work from a fiscal perspective one study was striking this was a large study done by the University of Georgia and the study concludes it says when a community with a base of farm and forest lands begins to convert that land into residential development either as a planned growth strategy or due to market forces local government is virtually guaranteed to head down the path of deteriorating financial stability and increasing local property tax rates there was another study American Farmland Trusted and the exact same study 11 locations around the country and found the exact same thing and there's dozens of these they're all the same and they provide an explanation the explanation is that even though there are impact fees and other fees as Chris was saying those fees are not even sufficient to support what the community will need over time for those developments construction, roads, sewers water treatment, libraries, police stations and all those costs exceed at least in these studies the property taxes that the city gets from building residential development on open space so thank y'all I was here a few years ago and I really appreciate you taking up this issue obviously I'm a great supporter for interim zoning I'm also supportive of affordable housing but as Tim said earlier over the summer months the residents have come forward to talk about saving open space that I think is the emphasis for what you're doing here and I think keeping focused on that there's so much work to be done we could work on inclusionary zoning at another time but to put a whole new reason for interim zoning into it makes it really cumbersome and might drag it out a whole lot longer and make divert focus one of the things I brought my comp plan with me tonight and I was looking at it while the red lions were being shown on the map and Evans was the discussion of a little cut out area so I looked at map 7 and map 8 which are called the primary conservation area and the secondary conservation area in addition to the potash brook that little area in the metal lens also has primed soil on it as Sophie had said the little one up in the north and she said it's a rare species it's a 100 year flood plain in some more natural resource protection areas the little cut out that Evan mentioned the area in Old Farm Road has primed soil on it as well we were doing interim zoning last time there were developers coming in to us and it was a parallel they were going to the DRB they were going to the City Council at the same time and I know we did approve almost every development that came to us and after we approved one of them I won't mention well it was Rai Meadows we found that that was primed soil and so now there's a housing development on primed soil so what I urge you to do is don't take land off into the action know why why we exempt that because you could be doing what we did or building over primed soil or repairing connectivity areas or well ends or impaired waterways so I encourage you to as you said you can leave it in it's easy to take it out if this map is incorrect and there's not primed soil there or rare species or uncommon species of parent connectivity that's what the map says nobody says they're doing more mapping but I encourage you to leave it I encourage you to keep our city keep our trees keep our meadows keep our wetlands we need the pure air, we need the water we need good growing soil once it's gone, as Jerry said once it's gone, it's gone thank you very much thank you yes, I'm sorry Roseanne, you have a question from over there maybe it's just to us not Roseanne with regard to building on primed soils is that where we have to set aside other primed soils what kind of process does that include it's an active 50 related process you'd have to in most cases now I think preserve or permanently preserve two acres for one or I think those are active 50 so the process would be to go to the planning and zoning staff with an application does it go before the DRB before it goes to active 50 or does it go to active 50 but if it's in primary primary is a protected resource for agriculture soils not just primary but it's not active 50 if it's land houses yeah so you could you could build nine houses right it doesn't go to active 50 if it's nine houses that was my understanding pardon me because of the regulations storm water fonds typically require its own lot city street would require a lot so it really reduces the number of homes constructed within that triggers an active 50 the late time I said about the primary soil because we did a study sustainable agriculture and we mapped out where all the primary soil is in south there's not much left so if you built there is not as if you can pave over this because you can find more someplace else there's very little primary soil left in south Burlington and that's why it was heartbreaking when I found out to prove a development that was built over one of the last year making primary soil if you look at it on that you'll see there's not much primary soil left I too would like to thank the City Council for all their hard work and dedication a couple of years ago a lot of time and energy was put into a comprehensive plan for south Burlington and clearly we have wandered off the track of the comprehensive plan and we need to get back on track strong supporter of interim zoning and if it takes two years or one year I think we want to do it right and that's what we should be doing on the entrance point about the cost was an excellent one I heard the builders talk today about they're worried about the cost of housing but the cost of the city is greater than the benefit they're getting from the housing and that should be studied because I think that in the future property taxes are going to end up going up for the people of the community and to offset the cost of all this development going up and we're putting the wrong the wrong development and the wrong housing in the wrong places and we need to re-look at that and get back on track with the comprehensive plan says so that's all I have to say in the interest of South Burlington first thank you thank you Fred yes I'm Fred Kosnicki South Burlington resident and an intrepid trooper and Sophie's master naturalist program as well as a lot of things Helen you had spoken at the beginning of the meeting about the catastrophe of the fires in California and how we are very lucky dealing with something that is not as catastrophic I just wanted to make the point that a lot of catastrophes happen in slow long term incremental ways and that if we fast forward 35 40, 50, 60, 70 years into the future uncheck development so that we have bad development or development in the wrong places will be a catastrophe as well it's not going to be as dramatic as a fire sweeping through or a tsunami or an earthquake but it will be catastrophic in terms of the loss of the nature we have in South Burlington the amenities we have in South Burlington the feel of what it is to be in South Burlington I strongly support the interim zoning proposal I know we need to look at housing we need to look at affordability but I think we need to be building up and infilling rather than building out into areas that not only are beautiful and provide aesthetic pleasure and recreation to people in the community but these are areas that provide us with clean water these are areas that have a lot of value in terms of their ecosystem services it's a term that always I feel a little queasy about talking about ecosystem services because they're really services that the ecosystem gives to us and they have a lot of value so I think if we can not only over this interim zoning period but looking really down the road in terms of generations can figure out ways that we preserve these open spaces the creatures that live in these open spaces the ways that people get so much pleasure and so many values from these open spaces and if we're going to grow let's grow slowly and let's grow by infilling and building taller buildings rather than chewing up the landscape thanks thank you I'm Jen Moorway I'm Jen Moorway I am part of the awkward family and do you say one thing? I'm not hearing this so I've kind of gone back and forth whether or not to get up and I just decided I was going to do it the land it's the idea of interim zoning it's not that looking at zoning is an issue stopping everything continuously in the same areas is unfair we just went through a pretty long process to be able to try to conserve the land in self-round I believe probably the largest chunk of land left we could have sold it to a photographer we didn't because we loved the property and we were able to work something out to be able to conserve it with that being said your interim zoning may have messed that up that's not fair it's also not fair that I continue to hear about how landowners need to be better citizens and better neighbors when talking about developing this idea of PUD but these open lands that everybody wants nobody wants to pay for and nobody wants to help take care of and I know personally there was constantly people dumping trash on their property trespassing going through crops and fields we are on a state road the town isn't plowing it we don't have town water we don't have town sewer we're not taking up a bunch of your expenses but yet it's always the area in the southeast quadrant that continues to be shut down first we personally approached the Eglinton about purchasing the properties and they didn't want but they want to be able to continue to say we want open space we don't necessarily fair to all these other landowners we continue to hold on to properties so that we can personally our failing build to later on and we did that so that we could conserve the rest of the land in order to make it fair with the developers that were coming through and you now know what knows whether or not that could occur it's almost like we got by agreeing to go and conserve part of it that we were told the rest of it we might not be able to do you know we might not be able to build it's like a very unknown thing as to what we would be able to do and I find it unfair personally that's really all I have I would just say that you really it's not as easy as being able to say you're just saying you know zoning know anything without saying at least what your idea is do you want it so that there's you know building at all in certain areas are you just wanting it reduced are you for example the 15 acres we own we would never put the 60 units on it that it can have we would just never do that and I think of the proof and the pudding is that for conservation or in hopes to conserve it and we don't know if we'll even be able to put a house on it so we closed on October 11th and we have no idea how long we'll just have vacant lands that we'll come to and pay taxes on that and be able to put one family home on or if we'll ever be able to so I think you need to make things the interim piece and it's to kind of in my opinion it needs to go away that's my recommendation so if I could just elaborate a little bit and I've been contacted by about 10-15 people with just various concerns about what this means for their personal parcels but what Jen was just raising this is a public document looking at my lawyer the option to purchase conservation he's been recently agreed to this is not protected at all no I believe it was it's a public document so I can pass this around but if you look at number 7 and I'll just read it since it's a public document this is the concern you raised and I don't know the answer to this and this is just something that I was hoping we can go into executive session if you so choose but we'll read to what your concern was in this recent agreement over the Eclair property we reserve the right to acquire conservation easements of the third party their capital not the I'm sorry what are you referring to? capital grant funding on page 6? correct well I just want to back up so my issue is the idea was selling the property that obviously as many people know there's multiple parties that came in to be able to purchase this in a conservation setting in order to do that though there's TBRs and there's other items in land that the land trust was going to be involved in and purchase out and so forth in order to actually conserve it so that the buyer could have open land for them to farm but when you close down the southeast quadrant and you no longer have the TBRs that are there have no value because nobody really knows what they're going to be what the value is going to be for them to be able to go elsewhere therefore they can't sell them to be able to conserve them and land trust isn't going to be willing to pay anything for land they don't know what they're conserving you know it's one thing when they say okay I know as of today that there could be 100 houses there so I'm willing to put in the X amount of dollars to be able to conserve this land but without knowing how many homes they're putting in they really can't do that so then what? we worked very long and hard on this property to be able to sell it this way and I feel like honestly I feel like it's not willing to be able to agree to that I feel like it's not they should allow this piece to be conserved in the way that it was supposed to be and it's kind of unfair we very well corresponded to a developer from way back and didn't for this reason I don't present this as me knowing the answer to this I just want this council to be aware of the concerns so if you read it, it just says that this option that we negotiated before the city agreed to refrain from taking any actions including without limitation on ending the city land development regulations during the option term and this is why I think we're okay but since you raised this concern we can go into the executive session if you so if I'm looking at the lawyer could that happen I just want to raise that if we adjust the land development regulations it could affect different agreements that already exist between the city especially regarding this up there property which means we might not have the option to conserve the property if the grant funding is not raised but again we can go into the executive session and I'm not trying to derail this we're not in the option that gives us 2020 correct this refers to the option that we had on the property before the sale but we have an option initially and then we exercise the option when we and others purchase the property I think that refers to the option term is what that's talking about so the effective date extends until October 2023 term of the option so page 3 item 3 term of the option extends until I think that's a different option so again this is a concern one many I've also heard other concerns if this isn't an issue it's not an issue this was the so are you looking for executive session for advice from our attorney on a legal matter I don't know the clarity of this concern raised if you give me a wink or a nod that we should go to executive session then I will make a motion and so be it I think we're kind of diverting from our original intent here we've got a lot of pieces to consider before we can finalize plans for interim zoning personally I don't want people to get that done tonight because I see us as having three, four, five hours of discussion before we can finalize well there are an awful lot of people that have spoken about an awful lot of pieces and concerns they have we can't approve this without putting it together as a number of people have stated properly and those people are people that we shouldn't have interim zoning and that we should have interim zoning personally my belief is that the planning commission expressed a great concern that they needed to be able to catch their breath and we needed to be able to realign our development future with our plan and to me that's the purpose of why we're going to go forward with interim zoning and we need to do that in an expeditious fashion in order to be fair to everybody I think there are going to be some people that are not totally happy and there are always people that are not totally happy but I think it's something we need to do but we need to do it now to do it properly and that's going to take some discussion so we know which pieces to include which pieces to exclude how the wording goes I think anybody that thinks there's not going to be any more housing that's not going to happen there's going to be housing in the southeast quadrant the point is we need to put it in the right places in the right format and conserve the right amount of open land so we have a good future for the city and that's the purpose in my mind of the interim zoning so we can get back to that vision and just because of the pressures of the planning commission things got moving too quickly and that will happen we're going to do interim zoning we're going to roll that back and get things aligned properly again but if we start talking about every little piece right now tonight we're going to talk until 2 in the morning so let me ask a question if we don't act on interim zoning this evening can we it still effectively is in place since we warned this meeting and we can come back to it soon in the future to finish this off and maybe have a working session that is accurate sorry to have interrupted Europe and it means do that thank you Jen thank you Jen, yes so the interim bylaws do apply to applications for the the types of development listed in section 4 of the interim bylaws have not taken effect once the warning for the public hearing was published and there was a written document the city has been applying the interim bylaws since October 25th and yes it will it will assuming that there is consideration of adoption before the end of the year then yes it will continue to apply to development as it comes in whether or not a motion to continue is here well we don't necessarily continue but we can schedule more, schedule other meetings I think it would be useful to schedule other conversations that's right you fulfilled the obligations under the statute with holding the public hearing award public hearing this evening and there can you can have further discussions at additional meetings and none of that will until you adopt something there's no there's this is going to apply I think it's useful if there are no other public comments for us to close the public hearing we have one more a person who wants to speak are you the last one is that what we were just discussing let's have one final if this is the final person hi my name is Brad the reason I'm speaking now is not in favor against what's happening tonight it's just I want clarification on if I can pick up a building permit tomorrow for a neighborhood that we are developing currently because I don't have an answer for that right now and my fear is that if you continue this I can't pick up a building permit where I've got a neighborhood that I've got infrastructure in roads, water, sewer everything everything's approved but I'm worried I can't pick up a building permit I know it was discussed but I'm also realizing that if you continue this meeting Tim I may not be able to pick up a building permit but I've heard that's right here and I want clarification from this board whether that's the case or not continue versus close is what you're asking about I don't know the bylaw, the draft bylaw as currently presented is in effect whether or not you can tomorrow go get a building permit correct for an approved development I would say yes but our attorney the legal facts of the particular application I would say but the planning and zoning staff would have to consider it but if there is a DRV approval of a project that was not appealed or the appeals finally adjudicated and all that's left are the the zoning permit applications then interim bylaws don't apply to those applications if they were made before and agreed upon before October 25th that's right the way that I read the what's in hand now is that unless I submitted my building permit before October 25th and if that's it was your application approved correct those were all approved correct but I'm still not 100% sure that's right yeah and I don't know that the answer to the particular question would be that I don't know details I can speak generally that prior to if there was an application or project that was approved by the DRV before October 25th and there's been no appeals and the applications now are coming in essentially to implement the DRV approval then the DR planning and zoning staff won't direct you to the city council before they grant a zoning permit for for a use that was part of the project okay all right do you have your answer well you still need to talk to the planning committee speaking to an attorney here but I think I have my answer if you apply for a permit correct correct if you wanted to go in to get your building permit tomorrow you would have to go to planning and zoning and have them absolutely but I'm talking about a project that's fully permitted and yes I have to go to planning and zoning my fear is that I would have to come to this for it too and I'm hearing now that I don't go with the principal building issue then what's the principal building issue then that's new yeah that's new I thought it's in there this is already approved okay this is approved this is a project that's fully approved I don't know what the principal building is I think that's part of the confusion now if you have a phase project that has full final flat approval you wouldn't be pulling your zoning permits you know six months at the beginning yes right we understand that yes and I think this allows you to do that if you've gone through yes as I as I I just wanted to point this out that it is the definitions do define new principal buildings very broadly and again some of that was because it's easier from a process perspective to reduce the types of development that the interim bylaws apply to then it is to add so this is stated very broadly because there was we needed to confirm the city council's intent but then but even though it's defined very broadly but I won't so but for a variety of reasons if there is already a project approved and but they haven't gotten zoning permits for the principal buildings within that development the interim bylaws won't apply to those to those zoning permit applications for those buildings but someone proposed earlier either right something that expressly stated that and that can be accomplished thank you for entertaining me I'm glad it's clarified before you take off the others no you're you're free to go go get your permit tomorrow let me ask we've got a lot of we've got a lot of comments can we meet as a council would we have to meet in an executive session at another time if we want to put all that together because right now we kind of have an executive session is it a public meeting can we meet so we need to just keep working through this yes correct yes so it's an an item on an agenda of your can we go through I mean it's I know it's 20 to 10 oh it soon needs a little bit of a break and I need to close the public hearing so let's close the public hearing there's no one else who is to testify right I need to close the public hearing all in favor aye so let's take a really a five minute break so you can walk around and I think we should be able to address at least some of the issues I think you're right about that we may not get through it all let's just look at it we should I think it did very well it's not different I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something I think it's something We may not be able to vote on the whole thing tonight, but I think there's enough. Possibly is some consensus around some changes so that we could at least give our legal counsel where we want to go and work out what else is left to decide or if we need more information. So maybe one easy thing to start with is a discussion of this map. This is red and blue, red and black and white. It's still sort of slightly clear. And maybe what you're thinking. Okay, what about it? Do you want to start with that little piece near Fawry Hill Road? I said blue. Add the red to the blue. Anything that's crosshatched or red or blue? I did have a citation and it's still clear. If you've been there on Lancome Road and walked along that trail there along Muskie River, isn't it all part of the red valley? Isn't it already part of the Muskie Valley District? It's along that block. It seems okay. I'm just going to get to you. I'm going to pick up a little copy. Are you familiar enough with the area along the lime kiln road where there's paths? Is that already in the Muskie Valley District and conserved? Pardon me? There's a path that goes from the parking lot to the bridge. All along that road. But I don't know where on this whole map that all comes from. It's in the red cast area. It's in the red, but I don't know how much of the red. It's just a very northern tip, right at the property line. You can almost see the river flowing right there. So that's already conserved. The development is very northern. The other part, most of where we're driving. Yes, I have. There's a superb place, there's a dog. There's infrastructure, there's electricity infrastructure too, right? There's a hydrogen. There's a hydrogen. There's a GMP plant there, right? Oh, right, right, right. It's all industrial going down the road all the way down the road. My point is there's not a lot of development. There is some land. There is land that, if you were to go by a story about the school place. There is land back there, there's a really wide easement for telephone and power lines. We've had chat many years ago about potential for that property. But anything there would be far off. Anyway, because of that intersection, you can't add as much of that. You know, you're there to fill that intersection. Right. So I think development there is probably unlikely because... Okay. So then, all right, cut major traffic. So are we in favor of adding all four pieces then? Yes. You heard what Kevin was raising about the O'Brien parcels that are cut off by the transit industry. Do you have any follow-up comments on that? The old farm road, the area of the Derby Circle and Dover Street. I mean, they don't own that, they develop. I was looking on our transit overlay map, aside from this one, because this is a concoction of the transit overlay of those areas that you mentioned. I mean, you can't really see it very well. But there is sort of the aerial photography underneath. A lot of those are sort of our parcels. And I have to check, but I think that what we did was a half-mile buffer, around, or a quarter-mile buffer, around the transit route. And then up here, there was a CCTA transit route. And the development of the transit overlay district was largely to respond to the medical offices, especially Chili Drive, some of you may remember that. The medical office is going in places that weren't accessible to the transit route. So the transit overlay district was never really meant to be an area for growth. It was never meant to line up with certain growth patterns, as much as it was meant to reflect the existing transit lines. There's a reason that it overlapped, because the transit lines are where people are. But it was largely intended to reflect that. I believe, but I have to check, that it's meant to be a quarter-mile buffer around where those transit lines are. I don't know if the transit lines have adopted something I can't find. Do they have? No, they have. Oh, because there is a transit line. And I want to take a look at the transit line. So are you saying a quarter-mile buffer, whichever you can't build on that quarter-mile buffer? Oh, no, no, no. You can't start using it. Oh, all in particular. Again, trying to make sure that, and I think Conrad get care of the same thing, that we weren't putting people most in need of transit services outside of transit access. Oh, right. Oh, okay. So this map was something that Paul chose, because it most accurately represented what he thought the council was interested in. Right. But I think there is, is there a practical reason for the council's purposes tonight, why that O'Brien Peninsula is still in the affected area? That's the direction that we're given. So there's no, there's no reason why that's happening. Well, I would move that we just extend the blue line. Along the interstate. Along the interstate. That's pretty dense in there. When we look at Dover Street. Yeah, I mean it's about as dense as it comes. So we have to go all the way to the interstate? Right. Yeah. So that makes common sense. But at the risk of raising the ire of Mr. Langfield in the back of the room, that is a very choice piece of property that will be developed in the future. The question is, do you want the planning commission's rules to have to be applicable when they come out with something different to that piece of property? I'm not arguing for it again, so I just want you to have the list to think about that before you draw the blue line across the line. Well, Mr. Langfield went on the record as saying that they would most likely want to align it with those PDs of which they don't know yet, but they weren't part of the conversation. And I respect the work that they've done so far. I'm just making that point though, is that if you're going to draw a line in the sand, in terms of the rules, and you're drawing them lines on the map, and you're talking about property, and the love of the people that came here in those previous meetings had either found out about projects that are in the preliminary stage that shocked them, or they've been shocked by the visibility of construction where they didn't expect it. Is that a whole issue about people being surprised by, wow, what's being built here? I didn't know that was going to happen. So before you draw the line, and I'm not saying am I for against it, because it makes sense that you think that have one huge love within the transit district, it kind of makes sense. I get that. Just be forewarned that that's some very pristine property. And the question is what PUD rules won't fly to when they finally come in with a full master plan that includes that acreage. PD changes could still be applied outside. Yeah, that's just fine. On this property, or if they are voted in in two months, they could say, hey, those make sense. We're here in alignment with our master plan, because we want to have larger homes along Wolfarm Road. We want to protect Lisa, Leslie. What it said to me, we want to protect the view corridor. They want to do something with the barn, and not tear it down. So they have in their planning discussion previous. And I know they can change their mind and go back on. But the verbal comments, this is their intention. But, you know, I mean, I just point out something. He also said the line went through the middle of there. That was right. And that was one of his strongest arguments. That makes sense to me. I agree. Well, it goes through. You know, weighing both sides of it. I'm not going to cross the line across the line. Okay. So, do we have a motion to adopt the comment? I asked a question. Yeah. There was a statement about the red parcel potential ad that's south of the 89 and that it's conserved, but it's known as open industrial. Yes. We intend, when we discussed that industrial park, it's more an ownership issue for this map. And while there may very well be prime ag lands on that property, it has been zoned for a long time. Right. But now you're talking about putting it into the exception area or not. Did you say you wanted to? We want to include it in the exception. So they can continue to build, you know, businesses there. Yeah. Yeah. Without IC. That's the discussion. So do we have a motion to include those four plus a straight line along the interstate? Is that what people are interested in? Yes. So moved. Second. Okay. Is there any further discussion? We discussed that and that is a naturally preserved area already. And there are no more entraps allowed at those intersections so that we do not expect development there. So we have a motion seconded. All in favor? Aye. That's five in favor. Okay. So that passes. So the map, we now have a clarified map for the exempted areas in this potential area. That vote included the red areas. I didn't hear it. Yes. The red areas. I just heard north of the intersection. And then we don't have to change any language in them. Yes. Okay. So would you like to replace the language? The cleanest thing. What's the cleanest way? Well, it was what had been stated. He said north of the interstate up to the northernmost border of the transit overlay district. But all of the other pieces will be a little bit difficult to describe, I think, in text. So I think a mendicant, we could just adopt this map. And that's it. And it references the map. At the top of page three. That seems easier to me. Or clearer. Classical peninsula. I do it when the lawyer says I'm clear. Is the map clear or is language and resolution clear? Well, I definitely want it to, it should incorporate the map because maps are part of zoning. But I may go through and see there may be a description that might be because some of it doesn't, is too narrow now. Some of the descriptions of the areas. But for instance, airport district works and airport industrial district. So I think it's okay to name some of them. But I will go through and make them the same. All right. So that was one item. All right. So we also had a lot of discussion around the definition of primary dwelling, principal dwelling. Or not just principal building, excuse me. So what are people remembering or wishing to pre-approve and that would be added to the definition. So you don't have to add it to the limitations. I'm just, I'm just making sure the language is correct. It might not be that simple. I mean, there are purely projects that maybe didn't need or haven't recently gotten subdivision. Or maybe that's it is they were part of a subdivision, which doesn't include necessarily the structures and uses, but they since came in and got site plan approval for a lot. So that they have a site plan approval that, and maybe even a conditional use approval. So that's my thought is to define it so that they're, to the extent that there are previous approvals from the DRB that remain in effect and that all they need is a zoning permit for the structure. So it's, the point is it's not as limited to just PDs. Okay. Okay. Is that, is it limited to subdivisions? Subdivisions? That was the language I came with tonight. There's still 40% of it. No, is it? No. All of it. Oh, it's all of it? No, it's 80%. Any parcel of less than 80% developed is what we call marching orders on. But then it applied to four years ago. Okay. I didn't know. Yeah, that's everything. So is that the direction we want to approve that the command comes up with the language that makes that clear? If they are permitted to build whatever it is, they don't need it. The DRB approved plan that it's only a need of zoning permit, of building permits or, you know, building zoning permits. Is that, all right? What was the difference between zoning and building permit? What do you mean by zoning permit? No, that's how they're referenced. It's how Burlington, it's, it's specifically a zoning permit, but... I'll turn it over. Okay, I'll turn it over. Okay. All right. There's a request for a change in the statement of purpose where we want development. Personally, I don't, I think our statement of purpose is clear. I don't know as we need to say, we also, our purpose is to support increased development. It's, I mean, we talk about... It's in there. It's in there when we talk about the economic impact. We have also sought to encourage commercial development and construction of affordable housing. So it's there. Okay. Then there was the request if someone, if anything was ever submitted. And I'm not interested in going down that road. I don't know what that means. It's like 25 years ago someone said I might want to do something. It was, it was... That was Robin Jefferson. Yes, it was. She was getting... Well, she thought the language in section 3, B, C, and D. And section 4, D. Well, because she was thinking about, you know, somebody came in and got preliminary approval and then one waiver one time. Right. Right. Does that count or not? So I think what she was kind of edging towards is that if you had any kind of an application that it should be grandfathered. Well, under the land development regulations, there are deadlines along the way. For instance, if you, once you get preliminary flat approval, you are required to submit the final flat application unless there's conditions that allow otherwise. But you're required to submit your final flat application. I believe within 12 months. So, you know, there's... We already have rules that... That's right. So the question for Kathy Ann, Kathy Ann, is with your broad depth of historical knowledge, right, are there any preliminary flats that have been filed in the Southeast Quadrant in the last, let's say, 10 years that haven't gone anywhere, but they were at least applied for it? Oh, I'm sure there are. So... So, so... So, class that are submitted under the PD standards, and I want to have two elements to them. They have site plan standards, which do expire, and subdivision standards, which by state statute, cannot expire. So any... Well, but they cannot expire once they have been approved by the Derby and recorded in the South Burlington Land Development Regulation, or Land Rights. So they have to act on this stuff in a timely way. It's possible that the subdivision part of it, so many lines they draw on paper to create new lots, would still be in effect, but that any of the site elements... But those... I mean, once it's been a subdivision flat, a final flat, has been approved and recorded in the land records. It is there. It's done deal. Yes. But it's a preliminary, and it's approved, but it doesn't go anywhere for several years, and it's just left to gather dust on the shelf. I don't think the language in the Land Development Regulation says it expires, but there is a requirement that you submit your application because the Land Development Regulations may change. Right. And so the requirement, and that's why there's an expiration as well for site land is if you've got it, move along with it, otherwise you're going to lose it. So it sounds like we already have in place rules that deal with if ever submitted, and we don't need that language in here because that probably... That's confusing. You've either got approved already or denied or... Right. If anybody wanted to sue by the time they got to court, we'd be out of this anyway probably. That's our goal. Okay. There was a request to take minor subdivision off the list for the Jewels specifically. We interested in... That was the Auto Hill property? Yeah. No. Okay. Tom? You mentioned Robin. Robin, Japanese one, but she raised... I had loads of four different things. I don't know who would want to go through each of those. Well, she had the, if ever submitted, I thought for all four. Yeah. But then she had pre-approved PUDs. Yeah. Well, but we already dealt with that. Yeah. Okay, then the last one, remove existing or replace with approved. And I... No, that's... That's from the state did it. That's one of the review criteria for applications submitted to the ZAP Challenge Board. And so it's... One of the purposes of interim bylaws is to preserve what exists as it is while the city decides what it wants to do. And so... But if you're approved, but not yet filled, you've dealt with that because you're going to change the definition of principal building, new principal building. And then this really only... It's one of the review criteria. So it's not something that... You know, if an application comes in, you have to decide whether, among other things, the application will... is consistent... The proposed use is consistent with the existing patterns and uses of developing an area. So it... I don't think it had to impact it. Just wanted to hear your opinion on it. Thank you. Okay, good. I'm Charlie Baker, but I don't want to jump out of order for you, chair. No, that's right. I was just looking at his. Go ahead. He said no one's responsible and he's encouraged us to assign the Planning Commission to deliver a report for some accountability. Well, I guess I believe they were responsible for the final decisions. And I think we will address that when we... If in fact we support and vote for this interim zoning proposal, then our next item of business is to clarify all the committees and the process that we anticipate both city administration to support as well as those committees and how that they might function. So... And he gave some ideas of some additional people, which I think is... And that was our intent. We just sort of talked about that at the beginning first, but we... It's too early to come to a conclusion about that, I think, because we haven't passed the zoning proposal. That's everything. Just had that issue about what happens if a court requires you to change a project. Hmm. Oh, that's great. So if a UD was approved, gets appealed, goes to the Environmental Court, and the judge rules that it has to go back to the DRB for some kind of a change, then are they allowed to hold permits for buildings if the DRB finally approves it, because now it's gone through a... It has to go through a change. And that's likely to happen in the next nine months? Well, yeah, because Spear Meadows could come out when he alluded to it, right? So, how do we... I mean, from my point of view, it comes back to the DRB, and it's not a fresh application, but it's got some new paint on it, right? So that should probably come through the city council. Well, did it... I guess it would certainly depend on... It acts like a commitment. But they submitted the application at a particular time and vested under a particular set of land atomic regulations. And so... I think that review, depending on what actually happens, that review would remain under the land development regulations that were in effect with a complete preliminary fact. A legal perspective, I can see that. Yeah. And so I don't think that they submitted the application at a time when interval by-laws were not in effect, or when they applied. So I think they would just continue their review. I don't have a problem with that, but... I saw what I read in the paper that the appeal is that the preliminary application was not complete. And one of the courts said... It's not complete, yeah. ...that it was defective. That wasn't spear meadows. That's not spear meadows. Oh, is it dorsum meadows? It's dorsum meadows, yeah. Dorsum meadows. So that's the question I think if the court essentially sort of says that preliminary plan application is sort of non-void. I mean, I think that's what the appeal is trying to bring about. And wouldn't that mean they have to start it all over again? If it was spear meadows in the court... I'm not talking about spear meadows. I'm talking about dorsum meadows. There's a lot of meadows. We're talking about the preliminary plan. Right, right, so they're not even into final yet. Right. It's not ready for appeal. They're sort of... they're exempt from from IZ, I think by virtue of the wording you have in that document, right? Because they submitted prior to October 25th, period. So what if the court says that submission wasn't allowed? It depends on what the defect is, right? Yeah. I'm trying to do a clarify. Are they in or are they exempt? What do you think? Well, for the foreseeable future and based at least in part on the reasons claimed for why it was not complete, I the interim bylaws don't apply. But you know, I can't necessarily tell what's going to happen in the future, but if for now anyway the interim bylaws don't apply to... Is there a cross-out bridge when you come to it? Yes. I guess so, okay. So that's it. The only thing outstanding is this, right? And it sounds like we need to... This is the Eau Claire property, and if I understood you we might need to carve out... We talked to Andrew about... Lot B, or whatever portion of Lot B is still held by the Eau Claire. We're going to talk about this when you go to the executive session, but I got to say, I don't think it's an issue, but I think that should be communicated to the parties that pose the concern. This was brought to me two hours before the meeting today. I wasn't trying to blindside anybody. Executive session, is that what you were talking about? Should we do that in order to... If that's the only outstanding issue, then if we can conclude that... I'm sorry, I don't know what you're planning on. I mean, if you are not going to act on the interim bylaws tonight, then we don't have to hold an executive session tonight. I think we're close. I'm in favor of this. I'm not sure we can act on it without a mental home through them with a fine-tune console, as we can make sure we haven't screwed anything up before we can... That's what she did want to change some of my issues. And then, I guess because we're in Illinois at the next meeting, we have to leave it to the three of you to deal with that next meeting. You're not going to be at the next meeting. I don't know. I have a question. Maybe I don't understand the Claire agreement and everything, but why would you want them under interim zoning? Doesn't the agreement sort of govern the use there? I can explain it more. I'm not trying to waste our time, though. I know it's an issue, so I tabled this, but I thought that the council shouldn't be aware of the concern raised. It's not the intent. Yeah. It's the intent of that keyword, yeah. Do you want to undo that agreement? No. Why not? Exactly. It's not the intent to reduce the value of the property in the future. Some of the other... Sarah? I can't speak for other people, but I'm hearing some concerns in regard to the Eau Claire thing. Not just what Jen expressed for her own family's sake tonight, which is one piece of it, which Tom brought, but I think there's some angst maybe on the part of the people who are trying to conserve the land in life or agriculture, but in Butterfarm and all their associates, that somehow this process of IZ may adversely affect the deal in the future, not just for the family and any homes that they might want to build, but the conservation deal that's being so carefully out with all the parties. And, you know, really, I'm not their focus. I just had a long conversation with Corey though. There's a lot of feeling of anxiety about the future. I kept saying I didn't think that this interzoning discussion had any effect on the deal that was done and is now going to progress through its stages in the coming years. But I don't know that. Maybe I didn't clearly communicate the concern earlier. Would you like me to take one more stab at what it is? Sure. So the concern, this is the option that the city negotiated for. So for the next five years, if the grant funds are not raised by dirt capital to pay down their investment, the city has the option to buy out, buy the land at the market price yet to be determined to conserve that property. So we have the right to do that. If you look at number seven of this option that we negotiated for, which I fully supported, I wanted the city to have more options. If you look at number seven, this is what it says, that this option is a five-year option for the city to buy land if the grant monies don't materialize, which means we would stop it from being developed. So this is an option to protect our city's interests. We wouldn't have to pay for it. We would go away on number seven, okay, transferable development rate for refraining from taking intentional action impacting the market value of block B. The city expressly acknowledges that nothing in this agreement impacts any transferable development rates, this in-term zoning is looking at TDRs, that the landowner requires in connection with their purchase of block B. And this next sentence, the only sentence of this is very important, the city also agrees to refrain from taking any actions including without limitation the option charges five years, specifically with the intent of impacting the fair market value of block B. I know you want to go into the next session, I'll leave it there. All I'm saying is that the concern is that this could negate the city's right to conserve that property, thus giving dirt capital all the rights in the world to develop 65% of that land. So I'm advocating for our interests to be preserved to have the option to conserve the entire parcel. I feel like we spent ten minutes talking about going into a second session. Why don't we just go into a second session? We're not clear on what we're going to discuss. We're going to discuss the impact of the Zine Z bylaw on this. Why can't we leave this out of the interim zoning? Because this land is already planned and that whole deal came together based on a structure that was going to conserve land. So why don't we just add wording to our interim zoning to leave the Eau Claire property out of the interim zoning and then we don't kill it at all. Does that work legally? Add some more red to this matter. You're leaving out your blue cards there. If I legally, if you're adding land to the Zine Z, then but I don't think you need to have another warrant public area. We're adding to the Zine Z area. Narrow scope. I don't think K. So we could just include the Eau Claire property in our and our Eau Claire property. Does that just want to be just want to be well, aren't there some concerns about TDRs and other parts? Oh, well, no, I think I'm going to say something else. While this option agreement only addresses lot B, there were two two other parcels that were kind of part of the entire. So let's think about the implications of that. If you exempt lot B from IZ and so there's a purchase and sale agreement, right? But nothing is transacted. It's as closed as the deal closed. The deal is closed. So at this point then Dirt Capital still has the option to build a few houses, right? On some of that land. So if you exempt lot B then they would not come under IZ with those eight houses or whatever it is. So I'm just telling you that, that's realization. That's what would happen is that whatever you would not have the ability to stop that eight houses on that property or make them adhere to something that IZ would produce in terms of a PUD. That would be our intent because this whole deal came together as a long complicated process. I'm not trying to. I'm just trying. The intent of IZ as asked for by the community, right, was to try and stop development in the southeast quadrant and we've extended to other parts of the city that need examination until the planning commission can do their job. I don't think it was to stop farm worker housing to work out there anyway. We don't know what their capital really wants to do. That's kind of their business but they were being under our auspices and under our LDRs. I think in the agreement it talked about eight houses for farm workers. Well, I just bring I just have to put these things in the hairs that you see them, right? I'm not at first just like I was going to bring the bribe right to exempting lot B from IZ to see it up. Is this a deal breaker for you? No. You're just raising the issue. I just want the full transparency that you're basically giving not a green light but you're not applying the yellow light to whatever those houses are that their capital would propose. However, I still see it together as a land conservation. They are integrated. Okay. Go ahead. One question on that. If the ultimate result of this in-term zoning is to extend the transferability, the use of TDRs across other parts of South Burlington which is a possible outcome in order to dilute it, if we exempt this property that doesn't exempt those TDRs. That TDR change would still be applicable. That's a question. The intention is that the study of the Planning Commission would do I assume would be for all TDRs period. Right. Cool. I'm fine. What if they make any difference if they're included in the interim? If they could be transferred out with other property values and that's not the intention. I know that's not the intent, but the consequences why would they be different for other property in the southeast quarter from the Eau Claire property. So it's a consideration that's going to have to be examined one way or the other. Amanda, do you have them? I don't see how it's specific to the Eau Claire property. I was just about the exemption if the exemption affected. Amanda, then Kathy Ann. In terms of the description in this option agreement of the property Lot B, Lot B was expressly defined to not include nine housing sites which haven't yet been designated because they don't know at the time where they want to put them. Just to be clear about what Lot B consists of. Kathy Ann, did you have a comment? Yes, there are two very quick things. One, I think it's people know this but it's worth reiterating. The exempted areas are only exempted during the period of interim zoning. Regulations that are adopted apply everywhere whether you're exempted or not. That's important to remember. Two, I just wanted to remind you that you did have a motion on the map so if you do want to add a parcel you probably have to take another motion. Okay, we're just trying to define it before we take that motion without getting any emotion. I will move that we add the entire Eau Claire parcel within South Burlington to that map of exempted properties. No, the entire parcel that lies inside of South Burlington. That's in South Burlington. Okay, is there further discussion? Yeah, just one thought. So our action with IZ on any new possible developments is effectively stranding TDRs if they were desired to be used. We all accept that, right? Stranding them in this piece of property. So Claire's had TDRs, they were thinking about selling to somebody who was thinking about buying some property, you know, blah, blah, blah. Then they are effectively frozen until IZ ends. Unless it's out here. Well, within the areas that are affected is what I'm talking about. Well, yeah, but I think that's the whole point. We want to review TDRs and see if we... That's part of what we're going to be doing in IZ, but we don't... Is one of the outcomes proposed to actually change the TDR rules? Are we thinking about doing that? Possibly. Maybe have some additional receiving areas? Well, that's changing the rules, is it not? No, no, no, that's on the table, yeah. Okay. And we may find that we can't legally do it very easily, so they may not change at all. I don't know. Okay. All right, so any further discussion? All in favor of amending the interim zoning exempt area maps to include all of the portion of the Eau Claire properties in the southeast quadrant? Whatever part of B... It's part of the Dirt Capital, South Burlington and Bread and Butter Fund. Yes. Did you get that, sir? Excluding it to the Bread and Butter Dirt Capital would exclude the other lots, would it not? I don't think Dirt Capital is involved in C&A. I would just say a lot, A, B, or C. Just the Eau Claire properties in South Burlington. Yeah, Eau Claire properties, yeah. Is there other properties? Some of it's in Shelburne and some is in... My question is, yeah, so does A, B, and C comprise all of the Eau Claire property except for the barn area that's at the peak, right? Yeah, they kept that. We're only talking about... C&A, I don't think, but it doesn't matter. No, but it doesn't matter. It's the whole parcel, yes? At the second whereas clause? Lot A, lot C. Lot A, lot C. In part of B. Right. She was involved in it, but... I don't know. I like her age. Well, we only can affect what's in our community. Right, I was just trying to say, if there was a question which I don't know the answer to as to the Eau Claire's own other land, this could be the... Okay. Or the expansion. Yes. All right, ready for the vote? All in favor? You wanted me to make... to change the definition for New Principal Buildings, and I understand I just don't know that you adopted a motion for that. Or, sorry? The definition of Principal. Let's vote on this, and then we can go back to that. So, it's Eau Claire lands. That's how it's referred to in the agreement. The Eau Claire lands. Okay. That's what's in the motion. Yes. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so I will move that we approve the language regarding... Just a minute, let me take a look at that. The New Principal Buildings to be just a minute, let me find that. A DRB approved plan. Added. Do you have proposed language? I don't, I'm sorry. But I would say to change the definition to exclude buildings that have already been approved by the DRB. Right. So, I move to exclude from the New Principal Buildings clause. Definition. Definition. Those subdivisions that have been approved, no. Those structures that have been approved by the DRB. Those subdivisions that are part of... Structures that have been approved by the DRB. Are part of an approved... Part of a PUD or... It's not necessarily limited to PUD. I don't think anyway because there is the... Approved plan. We had a DRB approved plan. Do you understand our intent and can draft language for the next meeting? I do. Do we have a stashing up your motion that we support you doing so? It's possible that you're going to proceed right now to act on the interim. Well, if we have all the language, it would be great to not have another meeting. Right. I agree. And that's... I understand your intent and then I can then prepare that and it can be... It can go into effect. I'm also wondering, perhaps also to clarify that the lands to which the interim by-laws apply, I was also going to make some revisions basically to make it match the map. Right. Do we need to make a motion for you to do that? Can we approve something with the understanding that this language will be developed? Yeah. Because your intent is... Okay, let's forget this done tonight. I think so. Okay. So, yes. I move that we authorize Amanda Lafferty to amend the by-law as we have agreed upon tonight. You're not going to have the motion you originally made a moment ago? With the pre-approved DRB? No. Remove... I'm withdrawing that. Okay. I just did sense confidence with the language we were going gravitating around so I wanted you to have time to think about what was the right word. I would advise Amanda Lafferty to clarify or amend the by-law in order to make clear our intent around the new principal buildings and the maps. The map changes. Yes. Good. In favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great. Yep. Okay. So, we come to the big question. Unless there's any other changes anyone has I would entertain a motion to adopt the South Burlington interim by-laws. Well, we need to wait for you to get all that work done. No, we just made the motion to approve. That's fine. But we don't want to review it one more time when it's done. I would do, Dave. I think we could review the final language. It's still in effect. Otherwise with total faith in our attorneys, for we're tossing the ball on their lap, we finalize the wording. That's okay. Megan's just peace with that. I really... Yeah. If you guys are going on the next meeting and if we have an agenda item, we can just approve it then, right? Yes, you could. Wow. Well, you have to have all three. And I'm not sure the three that are attending into... Right. Give you my statement now. Yeah. We approve the South Burlington interim bylaws as amended. But I'm not... I don't support this and I'll give you the reasons. But what I'll say is if it's next Tuesday or the Tuesday after you get back from Hawaii, I'm assuming you're just going for... We're not going to Hawaii. You're just going for a week or so. Then I think that's fine too. And we could even... I'm betting staff would like next Monday off. We could also just reschedule that meeting to the Monday afterwards, November 27th. 26th. And get it all done then. But I don't care. I think this is... I'm probably not going to have any concerns at all with what legal council develops. But if we vote for this this evening, then we just say, you figure out the wording and we're good with it, right? Are you totally comfortable with that? Well, alternatively, if we want to get this... Because it doesn't... The clock starts ticking when we adopt this, correct? For the six months or nine months, I guess is what we have. So if we want to put it off... It buys you two more weeks? It buys us two more weeks to clarify the directions and the process for each of the committees. Well, there may be some merit to that before we start the clock ticking. That's true. You could get it done and send it out to all of us. Which I won't read until right before that meeting. It's on the 26th. With luck. We can read it aloud in the car. That would be a special meeting. You can't drive a car to Hawaii, come on. I know, we're not going to Hawaii. We're also going with our spouses just so you know. I thought you stated it may have taken off. I thought we clarified that last meeting. Yeah, so I just... I'm fine either way. I hear that argument but I will say that I think that closure and clarity from this council will make for a happier Thanksgiving for everybody to be quite honest. That's all I could. As long as legal counsel is totally comfortable. That's fine. I am. So my motion's out there. It would be my normal way of doing something. Okay, so shut up so we can get home. I do have a statement because I am going to oppose this motion. We're still waiting for a second. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? No, not yet. Second. Okay, we got two seconds. All right. Is the council still... Is it the sense of the council that you still want this not-UMP progress on the inclusionary zoning and the transit overlay zone? So I feel compelled to tell the people why I would oppose something and I will just want to make my statement and I got to use a few minutes of time because that's the way this process works. I know we all want to get home. So I'm not in support of this motion for many of the same reasons, though not all of the same reasons as articulated the last time. I just believe that all of these actions can be done without interim zoning. I don't see the necessity to pause and freeze development. I don't see supportive of such a thing, but for nine months I feel that all this can be done without the confusion and the attention of our resources that it's now consuming of staff time and so on. I also believe that our planning for the last four years has sufficiently guided development towards higher density, more desirable housing. I just think interim zoning is a heavy-handed tool that undercuts our responsible and thoughtful and existing planning processes employed by current staff. I heard Charlie Baker, the director of regional planning for this entire community, in the state. So he also said that we also need affordable housing in the county. So that's my other point is I agree. The region needs more housing and I'm concerned that this action might be motivated to stop all new housing in the STQ as much as I agree that that's not very realistic. As stated in our comprehensive plan, we have a commitment to be an affordable community. The housing shortage in South Burlington, the greater community in Burlington area is driving up prices and our landowners have rights to employ their land and their populations. It's also unclear to me what the constant interim zoning will be and this is the new point that I really want to make tonight. These rules that we're going to pass are going to apply to current land uses, but we don't own these lands. The only way to, in perpetuity, protect these lands for open space is to acquire them and that's what the open space fund does. That's why I would strongly support us instead of spending whatever we're going to spend on this, and as you have been given to us, that we spend $360,000 because these committees require consultants, staff time is of value, it adds up, and $360,000 is, we only put $180,000 a year into our open space fund. I would rather, well, half of it's going to that bond for 10 years, so it's about $180,000 right now. So what I'm arguing for is re-instating that full fund to position the city to acquire parcels of land because as the reference was made I do think of Central Park, and I do think of the parks and public spaces. Changing the rules on lands that we don't own will not in perpetuity and protect them. As interests change over the next 5, 10, 20, 50 years, those city councils, because there will be different people sitting at this body, will change and alter those things. So these rules are, I always get this word wrong, ephemeral, they're transient, they change over time depending on the needs of the community. What does protect the city that I want and I think I share the view with you guys, the parks and recreation spaces and open spaces is to acquire the land, to own it, and that's why I think the better approach is to do this prioritization, accumulate funds, acquire properties, and that can all be done without this heavy handed in terms of the tool, which I think under thoughts or planning process. Happy to answer other questions, it's late, I'm sorry I'm keeping you guys here, but I think it's heavy handed. I think it's very even handed because I don't think everybody here disagrees with anything we've said just that we want to be sure we do it right. We don't want to be sure in a different scenario that we don't fill the shopping center on a piece of land that we want for ball fields in the future or something like that. I'm going to give you an example that maybe I wasn't getting for the last week and the only reason that's the best preferred preserved battlefield in the country is because that community has taken the action to not enable encroachment by development, such as out of Walmart or Mcdonald's and there have been proposals to let's carve out a piece of this battlefield to build a Walmart or something else. They've knocked down those proposals and that's come out for the better. All we're trying to do here is make sure we don't enable something to happen that we'll regret in the future and we're saying for nine months we're going to study this and allow everything to come together and facilitate everything to come together so that we're sure we're going forward in the best possible manner and yes, if we identify lands that are going to say oh we're going to have to figure out how to buy them when the landowner wants to sell them we're going to have to figure that out but if we don't do YZ then we're not going to have the time to get our act together and prevent something that we don't want from happening from happening and that's the whole reason. So that doesn't mean you're mine The problem Tom is that the amount of time it takes the planning commission to get through a process to present LDR changes to us to vote on it except right is a long period of time and they get better at a bunch of other requests in a way so it takes too long and the amount of available land in the southeast quadrant that's up for development is a finite amount and it's going to become less finite as time goes on until it's all gone and spoken for and nine months or a year is a fairly short amount of time to try and craft the correct PUD regulations that make the smartest use of that land for housing so that we don't have regrets in the future I mean we don't have strip malls along 116 near Collins House thank goodness right and we have I think some pretty good housing developments in pockets of the southeast quadrant but the the key question is how can we best use those properties so even though those properties are privately owned right they still come under our LDRs they still go through a DRB process they still get reviewed heavily by planning a zoning but they're done through done so by the LDR so how can we best change the LDRs to ensure that that remaining property because once it's developed it's developed forever like was said tonight is done in the most efficient and smartest way at the same time at the same time adding to your point about an open space fund the city should continue to pursue those properties where there are landowners who do want to conserve and I'm sure that they're out there and what I'd really like to have happen is as we go through this process that we start to develop a transparency of LDRs a transparency of landowners a transparency of for those landowners to see that the city is serious about trying to conserve and maybe they'll come to us and say or maybe they'll go to the land trust and see I just don't know what all those parcels are somebody does right and if we can understand where those parcels are who owns them, what their plans are what developers are thinking about getting involved with them when we get through IZ hopefully we'll have a better picture so that the southeast quadrant and other parts of the city don't end up getting all the forests cut down and then what the houses built in the wrong way you can do X but you can't do Y and the city says let's buy this property and then somebody else comes in and says let's conserve this property so that when we're all done we have a nice even smartly developed set of properties that promote recreation livable space maybe some affordable housing which is not going to happen well in the southeast quadrant it's a landslide expensive right and also in those PUDs where you try to preserve enough open space to keep the open meadows to keep you know people away from the wetlands and things like that so it's all got to come together but it's going to take time so that is my point to stand okay okay well I'm not going to make a statement do you need to say anything I'm going to vote for it I support it I think it's something we need to do and I respectfully disagree with your points and I do agree with the other points made I was simply saying something that I voted against in 2012 that I feel it's very different circumstances I feel that this has come from a Francois from the public as opposed to a good idea that didn't yet have a public backing and I also over the past few years have heard our city staff say that we're nearing a tipping point with regard to plowing and sewer fire and police and so I really think that when we're getting that close we really need to think about it carefully I do not expect this to cost $360,000 that we're building on past studies for and using now of our time in order to review them update them if necessary and implement them so I think that we've done this form-based codes for city center we've certainly I think as a council we're very hard to use our power to conserve sustainable agricultural lands and I see this as the last remaining piece, the open space TDRs have long been a question I think not only for those who want it in certain land but also for those who own TDRs will I be able to sell these someday so I think that it is the correct moment for us to study that as well in conjunction with the open space and the cost benefit analysis and the PUDs so so you're ready for the vote all in favor signify by saying aye okay so the vote is 4-1 now I think I think we can have a further discussion December 3 there will be an item this will begin to add maybe some more public members I think some of them will be able to see if you guys can wait for that I think it's great because I have a stack of those right now I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I