Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we good to go. Yes, sir. All right, we are in session. Uh, welcome. Instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency. Block the door. Go right. Maybe go right. Elevator's right there. Go downstairs. I know there's another set of stairs. Down the left. Uh, number two, agenda additional solutions changes. Any more of agenda items? Hearing none, we'll move to number three. open to the public for items not related to the agenda. Do we have anybody online? We know uh nope, just meeting TV. Okay. And we just have Tim,

you got any for us? Who's two? Who are two? Is is us and Tom meeting TV? Total of two. Yes, we don't have any voice. You just got cookies. You didn't know what to say. Um uh announcements and staff report. Any commissioner announcements? Oh, it's cold. Yes, cold. [laughter] That happens in the winter by No. You know, uh Kelsey, any staff?

Um the only update is that the plan at the city council last night. Um they did task the planning commission with considering uh updating the LDRs to uh effectively back to the standard that we had required for EV charging. Um if you're unaware, the exe the governor issued an executive order that um reverted back to the 2020 um RVs and CVS, the sort of energy codes um with the effect that we had written our EV charging requirements to refer to the 2024 version of the codes and then and then say and we're requiring this extra little piece of it that is based on the structure of the 2024 code. Um, so what effectively it means is is without the 2024 code being in effect, it takes that that the effect of that piece of the LVRs away. So the city council has asked us to has asked you all to consider um adding a little bit of language back into into the LVRs that would sort of correct that that gap that that now exists. So it be to have the same the same policy as has already been adopted but just to correct how it was how it was done to make it effective again.

And aren't sorry are we not superseding the state on that if we do that? No, we can always go past the state. We can always go higher than the state um with these things. But it uh it just was built on a foundation that now that puzzle piece has been taken away. So it it sort of refers to nothing and therefore it doesn't have an effect. add it back. That's that's what the city council is asking is for the planning commission to consider adding a little bit of language that would make that basically effective again to the same level it was when it was adopted before which was only this this fall. Okay. May I comment? Jim,

thank you for that that comment. [clears throat] Um so the council and the city's attorney are not even sure whether the governor's executive orders have any weight to them or not. and the legislature has pledged to look into that as soon as they go back to the session in January. But to be safe, these changes that we asked for, we'd like to have them codified, which is why we're we're asking in the first place. Um, and of all the things that all the executive orders that the governor wrote up, things only have gone through all of them and found only these things are in danger of not being able to be um, you know, backed up. So that's why we're asking for this this help.

Okay. Are you trying to develop some language for it? So it's my understanding I haven't been part of it. U my understanding is that um councelor Charlene has written up something as a potential draft. Um we would be considering that language and connected with the city attorney and trying to figure out if that's the right language or if it needs to be tweaked at all. Um and we would we wouldn't be bringing it to you for for the next meeting. It would likely be in a couple of meetings because of other things that we have on the agendas. Well, we could just pass a motion saying we're going to ignore the the executive order. I'm joking. It's a different style.

It's a different choice. Okay. Well, that's

well a little little piece of back information because um you know I wasn't I wasn't really surprised when they went back to the 2020 code because this had been there had been some um meetings with legislature builders and architects uh for the last two years. And the complaint was that every time they adopt a code, there's no training. There's no period of training to teach people how to meet the code. And in this particular case, there was a big jump in exterior wall construction. And so it was kind of I mean this the legislature may not recognize this, but this was actually a change that was supported by the architecture and and construction community mostly because the state was so far behind in adopting any kind of training schedule or anything to teach builders who were not in the know. I mean, there are plenty of people who will build to the new the 2024 standard, but the old one is what people know how to do, you know, so it's kind of kind of tough to pass a law and you can't get people to actually do it because they don't know how.

Just can I just clarify? Yeah, just to be very clear, the only thing that this is um related to is the EV charging that the um the planning commission and then city council had gone like a little bit over what the state had required in the 2024 RVs and CVS primarily in the CVS. Um so it is it is not related to the entire code. is related only to the EV um charging what level of sort of infrastructure liquidity versus

yeah and that and that piece of it wasn't that that wasn't really an issue um for for builders and architects it it was mainly the exterior wall construction so now now they have a few more years to figure out how to how to get how to convince builders to actually do what they were asking.

My only comment will be that in 2016 or so there was a meeting at Burlington Electric of developers and some Active 50 specialists especially in RBDs because they were talking about the stretch codes, right? And they were talking about we want you to do a blower door test before and after the windows before after the windows are in but also again after the drywalls up, right? And they were complaining about, oh, we don't have enough people that know how to do blower door tests. How can we ever get this done? Complain, complain, complain, complain. Very limited number one. Well, a limited number of people who who do that work

anyway. So, no matter what you set in front of them, they will complain at some point that they don't have the resources, they don't have the people, they don't have the training, they'll that's my only announcement. All right. Okay. I I I don't agree or disagree with that. We're good with that. On to number five. Act 250 tier one rare threatened and endangered species update.

Yes. Um so everything that I would have to say about this I put in the memo. Um so hopefully you had some time to digest the memo. Hopefully this in combination with a couple two previous meetings that had other memos if you needed to go back and look at some background um that we're all in a reasonable place. But I just wanted to um start with if you had any questions um about anything in the memo, something that didn't make sense to you and then we can u move on to the model uh that we prepared. Yeah, I I do have one question. Yeah, questions. Um on page two, the last paragraph and and again this you in the draft.

No, I'm sorry. I I am in the sorry page two of the me. Sorry. Sorry about that. Um that second the last paragraph there. Um, and again, maybe I didn't fully understand tier 1B. Um, it talks about tier 1A intentionally being a lower level of state review than tier 1B. Yes. I guess I don't fully understand it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so the idea is that um you have act 250.

Act 250 is the state level review that applies and in some cases does some overlap with what local municipalities are regulating. So the tier one areas are the areas that would be um based on the future land use map, the areas where housing development in particular is to be encouraged. So tier 1B is something that South Burlington has already opted into saying, you know, thank you very much, we'll we'll extend extend those um exemptions. Tier 1A um takes makes some of that uh permanent. It makes it permanent and it takes even more of the state regulation sort of out it. So a lower level of state regulation is just is saying in the most developmentoriented areas where we want the most housing development and want to remove the most barriers we will have a lower level of state involvement. We'll still have municipal involvement and you have to as I outlined you have to do certain things at the municipal level but it's lowering the bar um for even less

now. That makes sense now. Yeah. Sorry. Uh, Michael, quick question. The 50 units and the 10 acres Yeah. comes out of act 250. Yes. So, just the current exemption. So, there was interim exemptions that were adopted. So, that went right away. Um, that's where that comes from and um that's what tier 1B is. So, that's all state level numbers. Those are not numbers that we came up with. Yeah. Um I just wondered whether 10 acres is in D1B is a bit big for um protection of of uh natural communities or rare and endangered species.

Yeah, un understood. It's um those numbers are coming from from the state. We are stuck with that effectively. Yeah, I would I would say effectively. Yes. Because what the idea is is you wouldn't if you think of it like when you go up from you know 3 2 1 B 1 A the most development is is ch channelneled towards 1A and by say most development I mean the the fewest barriers to to development still having robust municipal um regulation

but having the fewest things in the way. So the state has already set the tier 1B numbers at that 50 and and 10 acres. So if if we had set a if the model ordinance for tier 1A was tighter than that, then it would be an inverse at the top of that of the top of that pyramid where tier 1A you'd be more likely to have additional review than if you had just stayed in tier 1B, which doesn't in the way that this all the system all works. It doesn't make sense to have more ownorous requirements in tier 1 A than in tier 1 B.

Yeah, this is a question about um how much of the areas that are potentially developable have or have not been um categorized, is that the word? By agency of natural resources. Um, just to go back maybe six years, maybe something like that, six, six, maybe seven years. Um, before before the I one of the earlier planning commissions kind of designated the that the roadway on Swift Street would not go through and that would be a bike path instead, shared use path instead. But prior to that um because I live in that community and several people did some research and found that at that time the agency of natural resources had not categorized the land directly adjacent to Wheeler Park as to you know if it's wetland you know whether it was wetland or what it was you know so there was no designation on any of that and I just wondered um because it did affect the hill property on the opposite side, you know, and how much protection of a wet land,

you know, would you get? And so because at that time there there was no current updated survey from Agency of Natural Resources. So, I'm just wondering how the potential lack of, you know, updated reports in some areas might affect things given that South Burlington has done a lot of work now to designate which areas are developable and which ones aren't. So, there's a few different things. One is there is a wetlands advisory layer at the state level. It is not necessarily that someone has gone out and poked around the ground and looked at the plants and everything and actually delineated the wetlands. It's an advisory layer based on hydraology and their aerial mapping and LAR and all these other things. So remote sensing things where they believe that wetlands are likely to occur. Um so that's the wetlands that's a separate thing than this. This is rare threatening endangered species. the actual like sightings of a rare species are um reported. So it's, you know, there are numerous types of professionals including wetland scientists, but also some civil engineers and others, foresters, things like that that report if they've seen a certain a certain thing in a certain area that can be extrapolated a little bit where it's, you know, it's a certain type of plant that lives in a certain type of um, you know, it lives in wetlands or something and you saw it at this end of the wetlands, it might be sort of on this end of the wetlands. So, if you look at the mapping of the rare threatened endangered species, some circles are this big um because it's a a a mouse or something that doesn't go that far, a caterpillar, I don't well, no, a bug, something that doesn't go travel very far. And then some plants especially might be a very small circle. And then some things are much larger circles like for bats um and other larger mammals, things like that, they'll end up with a bigger circle because that's their area. Even if they were sort of seen over

here, the area that they're likely to be in is this big. Yeah. Birds. Yeah. Exactly. So, there's different sizes of them. Um I ANR has not sort of walked every inch of the state and looked around for every possible species. Well, that was the interesting thing because when the people from our neighborhood contacted them, they were like, "Yeah, that's a significant spot." And they actually did the report. I mean, at at our request. Yeah. and that got filed at the state and it did get filed. So, you know, that that was kind of a little bit of citizen action that made it happen, but I I wondered like, you know, it doesn't it you know, there's a lot of places where I'm sure that hasn't happened.

That's true. Yeah, I would say that that's accurate. Um, but this is also the system that's been in place with act 250 for the last, you know, 50 years. Okay. So, it's the same it's the same structure of system of relying on reported locations. Um and then if any professionals or citizens or whoever see a certain you know species in a certain place they can report it and report it to ANR but um that mapping is is not based on ANR walking every day. Are there any so just are there any circumstances in which the proposed legislation is more stringent than the existing um protections under act 250 or is it basically just replicating it

almost exactly? It's very similar. Um rare species was not included before it was threatened and endangered species. So it does add a slightly different rare more or less than threatened less. less okay more common than threat. How do you define rare? It's simple. There's scientific [laughter] biology adding the rare. What was the rational behind adding rare into the language? They might become threatened. I don't I don't that's just what the state that's that was at the legislative level. That was not part of any of our decision. Oh, so the legislature has changed that recent. Yes. Oh, okay. That's part of act 281 that changed.

Okay. So, basically we press entry. So we're very closely matching 181. Oh yeah. Yes. Okay. So we're not more strict to 181. We're basically exactly we're just rewriting 181 to work.

So the core of it is that tier 1A requires you to um have in your m municipal ordinances or regulations something that addresses and protects rare threatened endangered species and significant natural communities. All of that language about what's required for tier 1A comes out of the state statute. So that's legislative. So what this is for our model is we've been working with ANR for what does that look like for a municipality who doesn't have expertise in you know these in these areas or the you know white tailed bats or white-nosed bats something municipalities don't especially less than South Burlington many municipalities have fewer staff than we do

um how do you write a municipal regulation that is effective to the level that Act 250 was in these areas where it's now exempt from act 250. This is effectively taking saying municipality you have you were required you don't have to do a bunch of other stuff re that mimics act 250 but you do have to address this particular topic because it's still important even if active 50 doesn't apply. Yeah. But so we're not making like any substantial policy decisions while we're trying to figure out how to comply with static.

It's it's mostly process. It's mostly you know what tri like the the taking the tier 1B triggers for for size of development and [clears throat] then saying and then you the application has to go to ANR and they have the opportunity to comment and that sort of the mechanics of it is mostly what this model ordinance is with the idea that if we work with ANR and do it for us then Killington can repeat it can repeat it and ANR is not dealing with 20 different versions of of a similar Okay.

Are the 10 acres and the 50 units linked? So, if I have six acres, I can still build 49 units would be covered by a normal LDR if they're both under that number. Yes. You would not trigger this. So, density isn't an issue. No. Okay. It's one one or the other or both. Yeah. It doesn't have to be both. It does not have to be both. Correct. You could either you could put three houses on 10 on 11 acres or you could put 51 units on two acres. Either threshold,

right? Thanks. Um Kelsey, my question is do we looking at ANR's map? I I don't know if if they're labeling things in a way that is pass intuitive, but everything that I see says rare. Are we aware of any threatened or endangered species from ANR that exist within our municipal boundaries or is it all everything in the rare categories? I I honestly don't know the answer and I can get back to you on that. Um I've been treating it as a pile because they're treated the same way in this in this ordinance. It doesn't make a difference on the municipal side of it. It does make a difference for sort of state and federal criminal penalties like reading like

yeah there's three it is three different levels but in this case it's it's just does it trigger review when it triggers review and it goes to ANR what do they have to say about it so it matters more to ANR what type of of species it is when they're doing that review they're going to be more protective likely of something that's listed as endangered than something that's listed as rare. Gotcha. Thank you. So, it looks like this is pretty much mimicking what act 250 would have done. Um, yeah. Yeah.

For the most part, it just is writing it. And how how does how does a municipal body interact with the state body when before it was sort of state body to state body it was act 250 commission the district commissions and when do they pull in ANR and now it's sort of when does the DRV send an application to that? Well, there is a difference in that the act 250 regional office they have they had eight criteria with which you had to comply. We and I have made a note that we need criteria for what's undue negative impact or undue disturbance because all of us probably have a different opinion of what undue is.

So the eight criteria are related to the application as a whole. Yeah. um it's not on every individual piece of the application you apply all the criteria. So it's um I think of it as our entire LDR is covering effectively um the eight criteria from from act 250 and that's sort of the proxy is we're not trying to duplicate act 250 because then that it doesn't there's not a lot of point in doing that. We're trying to have less regulation in our tier 1A area. So it still act 250 still applies in the other areas in the NRPA and other places.

I think it I'm thinking of the model [clears throat] that undue undue has to have some kind of definition otherwise every member of the DRB may have a different opinion about what is undue and what's accepted. So my understanding from working with ANR on this is that that is a um sort of professional ecological and legal term that they've you've been using for decades in the act. There's there's a definition of it somewhere. There's a not a or is it more of the the ANR to decide what is it?

It's the the ANR AN anr is the are the experts in sort of these ecological impacts and their decision. They decide what that means. There's not a specific like if you there are three specimens and you killed one of them that's okay. Like there's nothing specific like that. Um it h there has to be some wiggle room at some point for this to be able to apply to you know all species plants, animals, birds, bats. Um

it's it's really difficult to write something with tight precision that is um without it having to have exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. So um that's why this is referring to ANR for their professional expertise instead of it saying oh just DRB go decide the DRB looks at it and has their own opinions about it but ANR has in our in the model

specific opportunities to provide their feedback. Um if they decided to throw that out the window then there's all sorts of legal options that that people can pursue for that. But the idea is that ANR being this biological fish and wildlife kinds of experts are aren't making their should be language in here that says that undue disturbance or negative impacts uh would be um reviewed and decided by the AR. So it's the intention that be submitted anyway.

Yeah. So the intention um and what is current what currently happens with act 250 is ANR does not respond to every um request that they get because they are dealing with the entire state. So they don't have the capacity to respond to every single thing. So we had to build it in a way that if ANR has concerns then they can have opportunity to express their concern. Nice.

Yeah. But then if ANR does not respond, that has to have some some bearing that it's not definitionally that they don't have any concerns. It's that they're less likely to. So it's doesn't tie up ANR with having to respond to every single application if they think it's a low-level concern. So that's something that ANR was was concerned about about holding up applications waiting for them when they even now and for decades don't actually provide [clears throat] written feedback to everything that comes across their desks. Did did I understand the draft language um that the um uh design review board could request ANR to look at something.

So if it if it hits the threshold then then the application just automatically goes to Anna. They can as they were discussing it if they needed more expertise. Oh they can no the develop independent technical review and then it goes back to ANR. Okay. ANR would see that the result. So they can so if they're lost or right so that's a that's a power that the DRV already has on it. Okay.

Yeah. So the the DRV has that power already for other parts of applications. If they say we want our an independent traffic study or something else they have the ability to to require that of applicants. So this is mimicking that that we already have in our structure that DRB can say you know what we need more information. and we're going to send it to an independent consultant and then when that report comes back from a consultant then ANR gets another opportunity to review that and decide if they disagree or have any comment on that. So it's a there's a few layers of kind of a flag for the hanging on I mean would they know that was happening? They would be informed. Yeah.

Yeah. So, uh, pretty much what you want from us is the okay that we we agree with where you're going with this. Yeah. So, there's two sort of a twofold thing to it. One, um, we got your okay sort of a few months ago, but just how you're feeling when you've now seen a draft of a model.

Um, we are writing it in a fairly general way that, you know, you can plug in your different, you know, the zoning districts or the whatever that people are using um, in different municipalities. Um, but we think generally we were there was there was a potential that when going through the models the model process of writing this, we'd say it really doesn't work to write the same regulation for South Burlington as for Troy or something like something about it, you know, mechanically doesn't work. We didn't run into that. Um it is our opinion that this model is uh both effective for South Burlington but then also effective to other scales of municipality, other you know types, you know, rural, urban um municipalities. And our intention is that we would then be working with some of the municipalities that are likely to be applying for tier 1A in this sort of first wave. Um so that includes people like um Brattleboroough, Killington, and St. Alban City, Burlington, um, Willist, there's a handful that we're intending to sort of shop this model around to and have the same conversation of

does this structure does this look right to you guys? And with that aim of of simplifying it for everybody. Um, because the idea is if you simplify the process for ANR as much as you can, the more the more likely you are for ANR to have the capacity to respond to requests. So, um, today the first bit is does the model still feel like it works for South Burlington? It's our opinion that it does, but that was the first piece of of feedback.

And B, is there anything that jumps off the page and you go, "Okay, no, no, no. That's not that's not what we're looking for that's not going to work." with the idea that given the end of the year and then getting into January, we'd be working with other municipalities in you know early to mid January of uh 26 and then we'd be coming back to you. This is not any move for to adopt this. This is just um giving us the okay to move it forward and and work with other municipalities. So there may be some tweaks that come back when we do that process. Um but just we promised it. So here it is.

And I I would assume that most sorry I would assume that most other communities that we would be dealing with probably don't have the level of protections that we do uh in terms of article 12 stuff like that.

Probably not. There's there's definitely different ones. Um so you know for example Kington is an interesting one because they're fairly rural but they've got that one long access road that's got a lot of development on it. They have some different sort of environmental protections because they have high elevation and some other stuff. So they don't have as there other municipalities I think is probably a a broad brush to say that don't they don't have as high a level of protection as South Burlington does but they may have slightly higher in certain location specific topics and and lower in others. But I think as a general statement that's that's probably true.

You know I was just going to comment that I thought the ordinance read pretty clearly. Great. I mean I I understood what it was saying much more than the memo [laughter] I was okay

but yeah the ordinance seemed pretty clear hypothetical you have two continuous say six each has RT is mapped on maybe they cross over so Now you have 12 acres. Y what what is each what do we do about predicting the the RGDs or those two?

So we specifically wrote it as development involving a total of more than 10 acres in the whatever district. So that's very first line of B. So we didn't write it as property or lot or parcel. It's if you're doing a de if you have a development that's involving a total of 10 acres or more. And to us in South Burlington, that would include site plan, subdivision, but also master plan, which a larger property would be required to be doing in most cases anyway. Um, so if you have two sidebyside parcels and they're both owned by the same owner and you end up having to you end up master planning the whole thing, that that triggers the T by the same. What about if they

each one would be exempt? True. Yep. So the RTS that are mapped on each of those would not be covered.

Correct. But one, threatened and endangered species have other levels of um protection at the state and federal levels, including criminal penalties that any um developer, civil engineer, forester, wetland scientist who's going out there is under professional obligations to be reporting and to be um monitoring for and reporting in any application. Um, Gen ANR let us know that generally speaking that is they've had very few instances where that was not the case that people do sort of self-report that they were about to cut a tree and then they found a bat or something like they do the professionals in this area do a good job um for that kind of work and then the second is that a lot of as I mentioned a lot a lot of rare threat endangered species are not kind of oneoffs in the middle of developable land there are often especially in South Burlington where there has been a significant amount of development They tend to be in the wetlands, along the lake shore, in the habitat locks, in the contiguous forested areas, things like that. So, the um area along the Muddy Brook has a couple. The area um Centennial Woods a little bit that's in South Burlington um has one or two. Uh Red Rocks Park has one or two, but those are all areas that are otherwise protected. So, there's actually

And the Habitat box probably has some, too. Correct. Yeah. So like like the area uh Hill Farm, Wheeler Nature Park area, that whole strip that goes down south, there's one or two in that area. Um so there are layers of protection that the chances that a sixacre parcel they go to develop the whole thing and that's you know something that's just all by itself in the middle is is pretty low. Yeah. The model looks good, right? No more no more questions, your honor. So you'll come back with Yes. more language when it gets busted up with the other municipalities.

Yes. So, we're going to be working, as I said, into January with um these other municipalities and everybody's on their own schedule. So, that might take longer than we anticipate and maybe, you know, into February. Um, but the intention being that this is able to come back and be in the same pile as a handful of things that we've sort of moved forward in the last couple of months that are all sort of individually too small to have their own um amendment process, but we're sort of building up our little pile to um start moving things through likely in April or so. Great. And at this point, South Burlington is the only one who's applied for the A1.

So, we haven't applied yet. the um right now the regional land regional future land use map and and the accompanying the regional future land use plan those are being reviewed by the land use review board. We can't apply for tier 1A until those are approved and the intent the idea is that is likely going to be just about July when those are approved. So, if we have our regulations in place and adopted by July, we'd be able to apply for tier 1A um July or August. Okay. Any other questions? No. All right. Okay.

On to number six. UPWP project recommendations and approval. So, UPWP, unified planning work program, we talked about this last meeting, it's funding mechanism um through the regional planning commission. Some of the money is uh staffing support from their own staff at the regional planning commission and some is money that comes through the planning the regional planning commission um to the municipality to be able to spend on consultants and and other things. So this is the memo we've landed on. There's a lot of things happening in the city. There's a lot of projects that have been scoped. There's a lot of initial steps that have been taken on a lot of projects. We're actually in a position where we have a lot of information that will go stale if we don't sort of keep moving on those projects. So it didn't make a lot of sense to um you know throw another scoping study in or throw another you know study of how to connect this to that or any these things that are transportation related but are not kind of boots on the ground building infrastructure or changing something. So the idea is uh that we would apply for a single just one UPWP. Other years we've applied for three or four because they're smaller, but this would be a pretty significant one um for a Shelurn Road centers planning. We applied for a municipal planning grant for a similar project in the same area last year and we didn't get it. The idea is that it would be the Shelurn Road area um approximately from where Queen City Park Road comes in to just about Fyet Drive, just south of Fyet Drive. um that area. Sort of really doing a thorough job of planning street networks and bike ped um connections and um potentially, you

know, public amenities options and really planning out that area for what is what needs to go where and how do we set up the structure to really make that a viable um sort of sprawl corridor repair project in in that area of the city. It's kind of a junior city center. You've got IDX Drive. Yeah. To Homes Road. Or is that something else? The crossing. That's That's a crossing. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's the southern end. But don't you Oh, there's two pieces to the memo. There's the stuff they're applying for for the next y

year, which is the Shelurn Road Centers, and then um Paul wrote up a um summary of where other projects that we've been funded for in prior years, what their current status are. Um they're primarily not housed in our department. So, I'm not the most knowledgeable about them. They're they tend to be um Department of Public Works.

Yeah. In our capital improvements program. Um but it was requested that we sort of follow up on instead of just bringing projects and saying hi can we apply for more money for more things like bringing that back around to me and saying this is the status of all these projects and and how we're looking forward. I would think that this the sh the one that Michael just brought up the Shelvin road crossing assessment that would have a pretty major impact on what we're what the one you you want to do now just because I know we had a lengthy conversation about this uh about the der of crossings on road the bike path crossing is yep inadequate um

so I'd be interested to see I'm assuming so what this is supposed to be done next year have you got you guys are meeting about this in Janu by K. I'm just trying I'm trying to figure forget like how that information I'm assuming would filter into one. So this Yeah. So that one is very specific about crossing of Sheldon Road at various places that is has to be between uh the city and the state because it's state um so that project relates specifically to the crossings.

Yeah. And so, yeah, the location of those crossings and how they're signalized and everything will feed would feed into the planning for a greater Shelurn Road Center. But the intention is is that that connectivity will enable the development pattern in that sort of northern part of Shelurn Road that's northern part in South Burlington to expand sort of east west to be more of a sort of square to round center that is more walkable than a long sort of autofocus corridor. So, so yeah, that's kind of the first step to being able to make kind of a rounder place. Sounds a silly thing to say, but a rounder place because then you're not bifurcating it straight down the middle as badly.

The this invisaged village center. Mhm. Um, do we have an can we have an idea of what what it encompasses? I mean, does it have a a kind of boundary in in theory? the Shelvin Road Center. The Yeah. The one around Fyet Drive and the the one that we're talking about. The one we're talking about getting more money for applying for this year. Yeah. Yeah. So, a pro. So, south of 189, so about Queen City Park Road to um south of Fat Drive. So, just about the same as this crossings project. Um and then primarily to the railroad on the west.

That's right. And then a c like you know couple of lots deep on the east. That's right. We cover all those like Lowe's. Yes. Lowe's, Tesla, Olive, Hannerford. The cemetery like Orchard and Yeah. It's a it's a question on the scope on the other side like how deep into that we would be going because we've been doing a lot of work on housing and infill housing that over time will affect Orchard. This is um the grid into the orchards is actually reasonable. There's a you know there's a few different streets like it's not it's not like a lollipop neighborhood where it's one road and then a bunch of stuff and then one road up.

Um so it's that's reasonable. So, I think the scope of the Shelurn Road Center is more of the mixeduse corridor and that being um a bit deeper on the west side than the east side, but definitely to like the um Burlington bagel and then the commercial property behind it like in that by the East R Union like so a couple of lots deep on the east side but then all the way back to the railroad tracks on the other on the west side west of Lowe's and Tesla and so there's quite a lot of protected land Yeah, but the railroad runs pretty close behind Lowe's, so it's a it's a pretty reasonable um stopping point that there's just no more crossings.

I'm glad that's number one. Does that mean it's like the top? It's the only one we're playing. I think I think that's I'm very supportive of that. I think that's a really thoughtful way and a reasonable way to move forward on this, you know. Yeah. Because we we had a few we had a few miss opportunities when which was Kmart. Yep. Down there we had hoped that we could develop housing down there.

Right. Right. Yeah. And Paul also had conversations with the regional planning commission about this and generally they seem to be on board. It's not a guarantee of getting the funding but um to them it's it felt like a a worthwhile project. And it feels like it's kind of the area that we have simultaneously zoned for high growth y and of those high growth zones is kind of the most lagging in a lot of kind of quality of life and walkability indicators. Yeah. And there's a lot of potential like the city owns the cemetery. Most people don't know there's even a cemetery there but you know just north of the Nissan dealership.

Um and there's another parcel behind the Olive Garden that is also open. And then in front of the cemetery is a parcel that's open or part of a parcel that's open between the cemetery and the road. Like there are opportunities for thoughtful public amenities as well as um making sure that the connectivity and the bike that infrastructure is correct. Is there something going on on the parcel that's just east of Tesla because I see moving equipment in there? I'm not sure. No. Um belongs to Hannford I think. And on the other side of the road belongs to Hot Lock. Yes. East of I think so. Yeah. East of Fyet when Fyet Drive comes up into

Yeah. But in Hannip, right? I don't know. I think so because I remember when we had the um blanking on his name the the city manager people Jesse Kevin Kevin had had conversations with them because he had some ideas about how to because Kmart was dead for so long and um they talked and talked and talked but it was a um a Dutch company that owned the property and they were Albertson's is it? Pardon me. Albertson's home. Almerson's own shaws. Shaws. Yeah.

Maybe they've sold it. Who knows? But they they were not interested in housing. Yeah. No, we had community meetings out there and they Yeah. about what to do with it. Well, Mike and Pets struggled with with this for a long long time, too, because, you know, it just seemed like Fat Drive could could be the alternate bike route, you know, to Queen City Park Road and, you know, the Burlington bike path. But, you know, in the the Kmart Plaza when they redid the parking lot,

you know, it's like, okay, there there's a marked bike path through there, but it's it's pretty hairy. That's a that's a pretty hairy spot to get through. I don't think it's particularly well marked. No, it's not. It may be marked, but not well. Not very well. Well, and it's, you know, where do people stop? You know, it's kind of illdefined like how even cars go through that chalk paint. There's space on Drive South Drive if you remove the concrete blocks. Oh, well, there's plenty of space. Yeah. Apparently, that was an ownership issue because trucks were parked there overnight,

right? Yeah, I think the everyone seems agreement that this is a good usage of Very. So, we do need an official motion. You need a motion to Yeah. Yeah. Uh, all right. Do I have a motion to approve the UPW grant? I move that we approve the UPWP grant request. I'll second. All in favor? I I I believe that was unanimous. Thank you.

Um, development update. I'm not sure what that is. That is what is that? I appreciated that. if it's to get a Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Reckoning. It's a lot of projects. It's a lot of projects and sort of to understand where they are and that's pretty amazing. We have the same number of permits both years. Looks like they put together the data. Um so he was just pulling that from our permit logs. Um so 438 permits each year. I'm saying

it does seem suspicious. [laughter] I think the same Friday afternoon. [laughter] Are you looking for prioritizing for the next year?

No. So we um basically what Helen said this was um sort of lightly requested by Jessica the previous meeting just saying like hey it would be great to know like what is this what is what's been happening um this is what they put together about what's been happening. I will say um some of the bigger changes that we've made in the last couple of years have only been in place for a couple of years. Some of the bigger ones about info housing it's only been a year which seems like a long time. um some ways and also very short time in other ways. Um we have frequent calls from people who call us and ask about uh terms and regulations that are no longer part of our regulations and haven't been for two years. So the idea being my point being that there's some catching up to do on the both the development um in the development community and the public for understanding what is allowed. Um I I think we've mentioned this before. I've been I'm involved in a project with the other four cities as extension and us um about public outreach and engagement and low bar education. you know, starting with the very basics of this is what lot coverage means, this is what a setback is, and starting at the beginning so that people who are, you know, homeowners of a of a lot can have, you know, don't have that barrier to entry of thinking like I don't even speak the same, you know, terminology, let alone the same language. That's another barrier. um um trying to do some more education and outreach to encourage some more of the very smallest scale of infill of people, you know, dividing a single family home into a duplex or something like that. But I think it shows a pretty strong the data that you're that you see is a pretty strong trend um that South Burlington has been adding housing, continues to be adding housing, you know, fluctuates with different, you know, market conditions

and tariff conditions and all kinds of things. Um there's a few situations that are kind of one-offs like these buildings here all being built all at once is is a pretty high blip. Um but we're pretty confident that we're going to be continuing to see investment in in South Burlington in city center and potentially on Shelurn Road. So, just wanted to give some some data both on the big projects and on the little ones, but also anecdotally, we get calls from people fairly regularly about, you know, I own this address in this neighborhood and what can I do with my property? Can I add an ABU? Can I add a another house? Can I divide into a duplex? So there is some grassroots level interest in in some of these things that we're hopeful that the the two sets of amendments from November of 24 and then this fall are you know all tied together make things easier for people to be more flexible on their properties. So we're hoping to see even more growth in the um you know small numbers of units being added here and there uh to add up to large numbers but without necessarily seeing you know the hundred unit buildings all the time.

So is there any kind of outreach specific kind of outreach going on or

Yep. So, um we're working on a project that's um coordinated with the RPC about um working through the housing committees of the four cities to set up events and resources and sort of one-stop shopping for if you don't understand what an ADU is, here's some videos about it that other towns have put together. like trying to consolidate a lot of the resources that already exist and make sure that we're all kind of working together instead of, you know, Wooki throws an event and then we do an event that's education and outreach and then Burlington reaches out to their, you know, landlord association or whatever and nobody's talking to each other. trying to rectify that because

it's what what we need to continue to recognize about Chitten County is that people are more it's more dependent on like the day and time that something is available. You know, if it happens to be that the the event, the informational session that's in Wooki is a better day and time for you, you're nobody's gonna it's going to be just as easy to drive over to Wooki as to come to City Hall here or to go over to Burlington or something else. Like that's not going to be what stops people. So trying to structure it more as a comprehensive set of events that kind of builds on its own momentum um will hopefully reach both small homeowners and the potential people who are potentially small developers, contractors and others.

Can I just ask on the um yeah the section that's talking about a banner year for infrastructure yeah investment. What is a new vehicle service pay? B. Oh, it says pay. This is something new. Oh, it's a bay. Well, that Thank you. Oh, b. Yes. Didn't use any. [laughter]

Just flip the be. Kelsey, I did have I had a question about the committee you're on and I'm just wondering I was looking at at red and silver real quick and I was looking at it funny. We were just talking about rare threat and an endangered species and in my mind I'm thinking what's a rare threat and an endangered species in South Burlington? A young family in a single family home. Y affordable. That's a rare threat of endangered species in South and a lot of Vermont. Yeah. So, is there is there any sort of conversations around ways to try to build up that stock? And again, I I know that part of it is land is incredibly expensive. Permitting is expensive around here,

but with ADUs or small devel is is there conversations about how to try to stimulate that market?

Yeah. So that's that's part of the educational part is that we're hoping that what ends up happening is that whether multigenerational or a separate family completely all four municipalities have in the last year or so after act 47 and act 181 changed their regulations that allow for smaller lots um more better access to lots um more principal structures on a single lot without subdivision so avoiding that cost of subdivision. So the idea is that we are we this is directly targeting the people who own you know the single family home on a quarter acre and could build another home behind their home. Um not necessarily the people who are like oh I'm going to buy an acre and build you know three forplexes or or whatever. The people who are adding a single thing or adding a duplex or something else. Um [clears throat] and part of it is a greater need for multigenerational housing. So like the grandparents own the one building and they say I actually want my kids to be near me and the kid wants to be able to take care of their parents as they're aging being able to build that second home in the back. So, um, targeting the people who already own homes and potentially have a lot of equity in their homes and figuring like explaining that this is not a scary world, that this is something that is, you know, if you get a handle on a handful of terms, you could go into the zoning department and talk through like what are your options and what can you do. The big issue, I think, is often money. But the idea is hopefully we're talking about some property owners that have owned their home since the 80s or 90s and have had their property value go from $150,000 to $600,000 because that's not unheard of in that sort of time frame. and being able to take out home equity loans or take out borrow against their

their home equity to be able to invest in that kind of infrastructure. Um I think there's a lot of lot more moving parts to it that make it difficult um for people to be doing that. I think removing the regulatory barriers and improving our education are the first two steps to making people understand that it's an option that it's even something that's on the table that uh we have a lot of people who people who call and they don't know that they could do that. They're like oh I don't have enough frontage and we're like no we just changed the rules like we have you can sort of have a you know a different way of accessing the back the back property. So, um, it is targeting some infill in like three, fourplexes, but it definitely is also targeting some of these small single family homes and and duplexes. So, I feel like I maybe talked in a circle for a second, but did that help?

No, it does. Yeah. I just, you know, it's the single family units. There's just such a derf of those. Yeah.

And we know we need population, young families, just because they can't afford to be here. Yeah. Yeah. The the intention is that you where where we run into issues sometimes with the sort of for-profit developers is it is if you build a single family home, it costs a certain amount of money. And if it's a 1,200 foot single family home, it may only be 10% less than the 2400 foot single family home for for the building cost because it's still a whole building. So, it's like even if it's much smaller, it the cost doesn't scale down by that much, but the price often does. So, you can charge a lot more for the 2400 foot home than the 1,200 foot home and make a lot more profit on that sort of medium to large single family home. So, the idea So, we have that's we run into trouble with commercial developers like saying, well, building 2400 foot homes, which is a reasonable size home. I'm not talking about 4,000 ft, but that's a better profit margin and the commercial space for that. What we're hoping and we're trying to figure out ways to better incentivize smaller homes that end up being naturally affordable because we have our whole inclusionary zoning system and it has, you know, all the deed restrictions and the covenants and all these things about restricting the purchase price for the inclusionary permanently affordable homes. But I think there's a big opportunity for especially for infill housing the the building of the 900 to,200 square foot single family homes that are perfectly adequate especially for small families with smaller kids or even smaller families or whatever it is. Um that end up just staying naturally more affordable because of their square footage and more energy efficient. So, it's sort of a twofur. And when you do it as infill, there's almost no impact on infrastructure because you already have the street, you already have the water and sewer, you're not you already

have police and fire. Like, you're not really adding a lot when you're gaining a lot of tax base even for a small home. So, trying to send that message as well is when you think of a house, you don't need to think of the 2400 foot house. You could think, "Oh, I could fit a thousand square foot house in my in my backyard because that on two floors, that's only a 500 square foot footprint." You know, that's a pretty reasonable thing to be fitting in in like especially a quarter acre backyard.

So, it it seems like the bankers have an awful lot of influence over what gets built. And it's like Mike Simino is probably a good person to talk to about this because he has a long history with this. But it it often seems that the smaller the smaller builders probably would be the ones who would be more likely to build the smaller multif family units, but they have trouble getting financing. Yeah. You know, they have trouble getting loans from banks because, you know, the banks like the big builders who have the long history and we make they know what they make per per house and everything

where they end up going having to go one at a time. So, you know, in in rural Vermont, there's a lot of contractors that build one house, sell the house, that profit goes into buying the next house, sell the house. So, they do it one house at a time. And that's a pretty that's a pretty standard process to see if the bankers have any, you know, to do some creative thinking about, you know, how can instead of just building one house, you know, we could allow a small builder to do four, you know, four at a time, you know, all small houses, but, you know, maybe only two buildings or even one builder.

And, you know, how do how do you make that happen? because I think a lot of small builders just don't know.

Yep. So, that's the intention. There's a couple of audiences for this for the infill housing um project that I'm working on with other city staffs. Um but one is sort of the small builders and the people who have the capability to be small builders who haven't made that leap yet. But then also the um current homeowners and what the people who own property because in most places in the builtout areas of these cities, it isn't one owner that owns a bunch of land in a row that they'd end up, you know, being able to consolidate the backyards and do a whole cottage court or something. It's individuals who own each one all the way down. So, um, some of the other the other the higher level developers like they're more on it and this is the intention is to be reaching the people that are not sort of in city hall applying for permits all the time and are not, you know, on a firstname basis with our development review team. Like there are developers like they call up and they're like, "Oh, hi." Um, but it's trying to reach the other people either who are either not currently not developers but have the skills to be people who are very small developers and maybe want to scale and then people who own the property in the places where we're saying we want the infill,

right?

So, it's it's a a multi-aceted project, but it's all at that scale of a few units at a time and we'll make a lot of progress without and I don't I don't love this, but people are without changing the character of an existing neighborhood. There's a lot of there's a lot more resistance to adding a 12-unit building to an ex a neighborhood that is currently mostly duplexes and single family homes than it is to be adding a couple of extra homes here and there. And you end up with the same number of additional units potentially, but doing it in a way that almost nobody notices or they just notice like, hey, there's more kids around. it's more vibrant and not don't get scared by the oneoff big project on the corner. So that's that's the approach for some of these things. Um so that's the hope is that in you know some of this data we're seeing reflects some of these big projects that have been coming in with hundreds of units in the last couple of years. Um or you know the big projects geographically like like O'Brien that has both big buildings with big numbers but then also single family homes kind of strewn through them. We honestly don't between what is already developed and what is already protected. There's not a lot of big parcels left um for people to be doing things at the scale of O'Brien. Um there's there's very few honestly unless someone came in and bought up a bunch of small parcels and consolidated. Um we're a lot less likely to be seeing that in the future um than we have in the past. And that's by design. We're intentionally have made policy decisions about like this is the area we want to protect. This is the area that's already built. So, we're looking at all these ways to make it easier to do infill where we can. And then hopefully we'll see some a handful of bigger projects in places like the Yumal city center, um the north side of Willist Road, potentially definitely Shelurn Road. Like there's a handful of places where

we're still hoping to see some of that larger scale development, but to meet our housing goals, we need to be doing what what what you all have been doing is and clearing the way for flexibility and people who own these, you know, quarter acre lots, halfacre lots that have a lot more potential on existing infrastructure. Is there any kind of update on the Hill property? No. Are they just still in court? Um, no. I don't think they

I don't think they're still in court. I lose track because there were a few different court cases. I think they're all done. Um but they haven't come in with anything new as far as I know. I'm a little bit down the future. Then the the backyard ADU opportunity is is an excellent way for a niche builder to take pre-fabricated module modular housing, right?

And duplicate that and learn from it as quick as possible. And and are you bringing the banks into this discussion as well, the local banks, so that they can like find products that fit these place, these homes that have a single family home on a half acre or 33 of an acre. they put an AU out back and find out what works best with this. A combination of a regular mortgage and a and a home equity, you know, I mean, they they got to have products to promote this because they they've got cash and they got to they want to, you know, loan it out, but they need to have a competitive product.

Yeah. So, that's a little bit outside the scope of this particular pro product. This project that I was I've been talking about is primarily about the education and outreach of what's already been done sort of regulatory like here are the changes here's what you can do and like this is what it means when we say a triplex or whatever it could look like this or could look like that. Um there is a related but separate project um that's at a statewide level called um homes for all. Um Essex Junction is one of the um pilot communities and uh maybe Manchester and there might be one more. But the idea is developing a set of pre-approved plans. So, you know, here's here's your catalog of plans that then people can use and say like you go in and it it meets height requirements and it meets building code and it meets all these things so they don't have to spend the money on the engineering. Um, and then do some of these things and all kinds of different configuration, single family, duplex, etc. Um, so that's one version of that that's happening at the state level. Um, another is there's there are a few companies that have been pivoting into modular building, including in uh S6 or S6 junction. Um, pivoting from sort of bespoke oneoff buildings into more of a modular um, assembly line kind of structure. Um, I don't know where any of that discussion is with the banking and financing of anything. Um, but there's it's all to say there's a few different things that are all moving. um that cover different parts of it. One is sort of the permitting costs and the engineering costs. Another is um actually letting people know that these opportunities exist and then financing is a is another another layer.

Okay. Uh good on the development update. Uh it looks like we have some minutes to approve. Yes. minutes of 11125. Do you have a move to approve? I move to approve the minutes of November the 12th, 2025. Second with with the one amendment. Yeah. Sorry, I should have asked those. That's okay. Yeah. Under members, they got my name right and every other mention afterward, my name is incorrect. Okay. It's Mosscato instead of Moscatelli, which I've been called worse. But if we can just adjust that then I'll That's correct. You're misco.

I turned into a wine. [laughter] Mustaches. If it makes you feel, that's a wine, too. If it makes you feel better, John, the DRB noticed that you were included in a set of minutes. Oh, recently uh that they had to take you out of um just recently or drafted or something. So, okay. So, we're going to approve the minutes with the correct spelling. It's more fun. I could go with I I get it. Uh okay. Uh so we have that. Uh all in favor? I need a second. I second it. Okay. Helen, sorry. Helen second.

Um other business. Other business. The town of Sheldon is planning. Correct. That's it. That's it. It's just you have received your notice about a neighboring municipality doing a thing. Do if you have any questions, ask any questions. But we only know as much as in the documents. All right. Well, then with all that done, we are adjourned. Yeah. Happy holiday. Hey, Hing.