Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Natural Resources & Conservation Committee - 01/06/2021 South Burlington Natural Resources Committee 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Natural Resources & Conservation Committee Meeting Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 6:00 PM This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting. Participation Options Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928325253 By telephone (audio only): 1-312-757-3121; Access Code: 928-325-253 AGENDA 1) Welcome & Review of Process for Virtual Meetings (6:00 pm) 2) Additions, Deletions or Changes in order of Agenda Items (6:10 pm) 3) Comments from the Public not related to the Agenda (6:15 pm) 4) Adoption of Minutes (6:20 pm) a) See Drafts of Joint Committee Meeting November 30, 2020 Minutes and NRCC December 2, 2020 minutes 5) Presentation/Discussion of the Open Space Funding Proposal - Alan Strong, SBLT (6:30 pm) 6) Discussion of O’Brien Eastview Project and Review NRCC Assessment. (7:00 pm) a) Consider final recommendations/feedback to the DRB & how those will be made 7) Discussion of South Village Projects under DRB Review (#’s: MP-21-01, SD-21-02, & SD-21- 03) (7:30 pm) 8) Members & Staff Reports (7:45 pm) a. Chair –comments b. Staff Report c. Other Committee & Members Comments or Reports 9) Discuss Future Agenda Items (7:55 pm) a) Work Plan review, discussion, possible adoption 10) Confirm Next Mtg Date: 2/2/2021 (1st Wed. of month); 6:00 PM 11) Adjourn (8:00 pm) JOINT COMMITTEES MEETING 30 NOVEMBER 2020 Members of the Bike and Pedestrian, Recreation and Parks, Natural Resources and Energy Committees held a joint meeting to hear a presentation from O’Brien Brothers on a proposed new development, on Monday 30 November 2020, at 6:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote participation. Those Present: A. Parker, City Project Manager; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; H. Rees, Recreation Director; A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, O’Brien Brothers; Committee Members: R. Gonda, Acting Chair; D. Shelter, L. Kupferman, D. Crawford, J. Challot, C. Frank, B. Britt, S. Goddard, N. Anderson, D. Farr, H. Gagne, D. Leban, M. Simoneau, J. Kochman, E. Goldman, M. Murray, J. Pence, A. Chalnick Mr. Langfeldt said that the property being developed is the Old Farm Road property which has been owned by O’Brien Brothers since 1942. The entire property is 140 acres, part of which is already being developed as the Hillside Project. The proposed new development will be about 100 acres bordering on Old Farm Road, over the crest, and down to Potash Brook. The proposal is for a large mixed use development, continuing the Hillside neighborhood with more residential, some mixed residential and commercial, and then some commercial/industrial. The mixed use will allow people to live and work in the same area and will result in efficient use of the land with higher density. Mr. Gill then provided an overview of the proposed development. He identified the main arteries and existing Hillside area on a plan and identified the zoning districts and their allowable uses. He then showed an aerial rendering of what the project could look like at full buildout. He noted that no residential uses are allowed in the commercially zoned area. Mr. Gill noted that the site was reviewed by Gilman and Briggs, environmental scientists. They found no impact on irreplaceable communities. The Class 2 wetland will not be impacted. A slide of the City’s natural resource areas showed that these lined up with what the scientists had found. Mr. Gill said the large stands of trees near the brook and the riparian area will remain untouched. Two wildlife areas will be incorporated into the plan, and the corridor will remain intact. The entire residential area proposed is in the R-1 district which allows for 25% coverage. 25% will also remain as open space. Mr. Langfeldt noted that the residential area includes additional housing to achieve affordable housing and the density bonus that goes with it. Mr. Gill then identified the “green building” practices from the Hillside project that will continue in this neighborhood. These are in excess of current regulations. Mr. Langfeldt added that they will add conduits for solar paneling. “HERS” scores will be in the 20-25 range. JOINT MEETING OF COMMITTEES 30 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 Mr. Gill noted there is an area adjacent to Kimball Avenue with about 95% ledge. They will remove and process that material for sidewalks and buildings. This can save 18,000 truck trips to and from the quarry, about 102,000 miles of trucking. Regarding connectivity, Mr. Gill showed how the site connects with existing neighborhoods. He also indicated surface paths and walkways. There will be 6 green spaces around the development equaling 17 acres of useable open space. Mr. Gill indicated the park spaces including access and parking capability. He also showed a rendering of the park spaces and indicated a playing field large enough for a small soccer field. He also pointed out the historic barn which will be preserved. They are proposing a community garden and a pool for the community. Mr. Gill showed a rendering of that area and noted its event capability. Another flat area could serve as a seasonal skating rink. There is also a “natural play area” which will be maintained for children. Mr. Langfeldt noted that a private residence on the site will remain private. Mr. Gill identified the largest open space which will contain a fenced-in dog park. There will be parking adjacent to it. He also indicated the location of a “fitness loop” with workout stations. In response to a question of whether the green space with be maintained by the development or by the City, Mr. Langfeldt said the barn and one other area will be maintained by the HOA dues. The other green spaces would be given to the City at some point, similar to what is being done with the Hillside project. These spaces would be open to the public. Ms. Kochman asked whether the fitness trail and natural play area would be open to the public. Mr. Langfeldt said they would be. Mr. Langfeldt said they still haven’t come up with a use for the 2-story barn. It has a challenging interior structure. They are open to suggestions. Mr. Anderson asked about a rec path on Old Farm Road. Mr. Langfeldt said there will be a sidewalk on the west side of the road, and they would like one on the east side as well. Mr. Anderson noted there are a lot of “crossing points” and suggested measures so the road doesn’t get used as a cut-through. Mr. Langfeldt said that is a big discussion. It is now a dangerous situation. They have some ideas for traffic calming (e.g., narrowing street widths, no long/clear stretches, etc.) and would be open to any suggestions. JOINT MEETING OF COMMITTEES 30 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 Mr. Gill showed another potential site for a rec path. He also noted there will be more intersections on Old Farm Road and possibly STOP signs to slow things down and make it less attractive for a cut-through. Ms. Kochman asked if there would be restrooms around the barn. Mr. Gill said there would be. Mr. Langfelt described the connection to Tilley Drive as a more desirable commuter option from Hinesburg Road to Kimball Ave. Mr. Gill said they would consider a recreation path on the I/C road. Mr. Chalnick of the Energy Committee noted that the “stretch code” has been updated and asked if they will try to orient buildings to take advantage of solar. Mr. Langfeldt said they are looking into that. Sun Commons helped them with the Hillside development, and a lot of the proposed homes in the new development will be similar, probably with the same capacity. Mr. Gill added that homes with a southwest exposure have worked will at Hillside. Mr. Chalnick asked about considering electric heat instead of running gas lines. Mr. Gill said they have not considered not running gas lines. They will continue to offer heat pump furnaces as an alternative. Ms. Leban asked about the grade down Old Farm Road to Kimball Avenue. Mr. Langfeldt said they are “killing” some of the topography by doing it that way they are. He felt it will be safer. The grade is 8%, and they have leveled it where they can. Mr. Kupferman asked if the playground will be to city standards. Mr. Gill said they will meet the city standards. They have a consultant and will be using a local vendor. Ms. Keene asked to see where the development was improving intersections. Mr. Gill indicated there would be pedestrian beacons at Eldridge and Hinesburg Road as part of the Hillside Development. they are working on a design for the Old Farm Road/Hinesburg Road intersection. They’re planning a signal and turn lanes onto the IC Road. At Old Farm Road, they’re proposing new right and left turn lanes, a signal, and crosswalks. At Two Brothers and Kennedy, they’re proposing a signal and a rec path crossing. In general, at the external touch points, they’re proposing to widen the intersections. A committee member asked about night lighting. Mr. Gill said they are not proposing many lights except in the commercial area. He showed the location of lights at the intersections. Homes will have front porch lights. JOINT MEETING OF COMMITTEES 30 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 In response to a question about the nature of businesses in the commercial area, Mr. Langfeldt said they don’t have any proposed business uses yet. They would like a community-scale grocery store, a bank, possibly a pharmacy, but not a “strip mall.” A committee member asked about the number of people expected to live in the development. Mr. Gill said with 450 dwelling units, there would be 800-1000 people. When the issue of traffic was raised, Mr. Gill said there will be a traffic study done. With regard to tree removal, Mr. Gill said the area where they will be removing ledge does have a lot of trees but they are neither large nor mature, consisting predominantly of 6-8” white pines and buckthorn. Most of the mature trees are around Potash Brook. They are planning on saving trees around the barn and along Old Farm Road, but there are a lot of trees being lost to grading. Ms. Keene noted that a memo has been prepared for each committee with questions and asking for feedback to the DRB. She noted that plans are available for review. The DRB will likely hear the application in mid-January, so comments should get to staff by early January to be incorporated into the process. Ms. Rees noted that staff can send out a recording of this meeting to the committees. A committee member asked how to ensure the landscape management plan is adhered to. Mr. Langfeldt said if it is a permit condition, it is required by the City. Other than that, it is up to the Homeowners’ Association. Ms. Leban expressed concern for 10 houses with driveways on Old Farm Road and felt it could be dangerous and could change the character of that road. Mr. Langfeldt said the character of the road will change, and that is a good thing. There is a challenge re: rear-loading garages. They can’t add an alley without going over coverage ratios. They are looking at different options. When all questions and comments had been heard, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:40 p.m. _________________________________ NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2020 AT 6:00PM Electronic meeting attended by Ashley Parker, Ray Gonda(Chr), David Crawford, Corey Santorello, Colin McIntosh, Jessica Grillo, Jean- Sebastian Chaulot, Larry Kupferman, Drew Shatzer & Lisa Yankowski (phone) Attending: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning for the city of SB 1) Welcome & virtual meeting review done by Ashley. 2) No additions, deletions or changes. 3) No public attendees. 4) Motion to adopt minutes subject to a couple of minor changes from 11/2/20- Lisa, 2nd-Jess. Adopted unanimously. 5) Update &discussion with Paul Conner, on the draft amendments to the LDRs’ Environmental Protection Standards. Paul presented several interactive maps showing the current areas of protection around the city. Rivers & streams, wetlands, river corridors that include areas they may expand into, no build areas and areas where development is allowed. Other maps showed developed areas, areas with restrictions and undeveloped areas with no restrictions. The DRB can allow some incursions into some areas except Class III. Ray inquired if there are any Class I areas in the city- no. - 12/8/20, the Planning Commission is planning to areas to protect based on the Arrowwood Report. This will include areas off limits to development to protect key natural areas that were identified. Concessions will allow denser development in other areas, (ie: cautionary building in with the 500 yr flood zone or slopes). There is no new development allowed in 100 yr flood plains. Jess asked scenic views/corridors are taken into account and what about chemical runoff. -Paul said that communities do not have the ability to restrict uses of pesticides and some chemicals. But SB does have a comprehensive storm water system to help alleviate this issue with the capacity to manage future development. Scenic view protection does have some height restrictions. The Planning Commission wants to add more protection and the NRC should consider this. Larry wanted to know if Interim Zoning affected any of the work. Interim Zoning was to allow the city to step back and re-evaluate natural resources within our boundaries. Lisa asked about interim zoning affecting some of the current development that currently occurring. Areas along Kennedy Dr, Williston Rd, Kimball Ave & Shelburne Rd were exempt for up to ¼ mile on either side, from interim zoning. -Jess inquired about a map with connectivity between natural areas. Are these areas that may be privately owned maintained? -Our charge is to provide feedback on the LDRs and using the maps we saw: What are the areas that need protecting the most? The Planning Commission is waiting for it before finalizing 6) Discussion SD-20-40 500 Old Farm RD- O’Brien Eastview. - The committee will split into working groups to answer the questions on the scorecard for this proposed development. The scorecard was included in materials for this meeting. #1 &2- Lisa, Jean & Drew, #4 & 5- Larry & David, # 3 & 6- Ray, Jess & Drew. Ray feels #7 has been adequately satisfied by the developer. The groups should email their results to Ray for collating and discussion at our next meeting. 7) Meet the Natural Resources & Conservation Committee members Ray- taught high school physics, worked as an engineer at IBM. Has been involved in environmental activities, chaired the Sierra Club, worked on protecting rapids & rivers creating portages to protect the rivers. Larry- municipal experience In Burlington, VT, has volunteered on several committees in SB, has been very involved in the relationship between the private & public sector. Jean- his focus is trees & the canopy. David- has a background as a municipal project manager. He hopes to help make the new NRC Conservation Committee happen & be respected. Colin- resident for 3 yrs, wants to see natural resources protected while learning how the local government & committee work together. He’s been a project manager at Dealer.com and teamwork facilitator. Lots of public speaking experience. Jessie- worked in international development where development intersects with nature. She wants to invest & understand more about where she now lives, how to balance the needs, perspectives of people living in the margin areas. Drew- wants to an advocate for those with no voice, like the environment. Wanted to be an activist and got into environmental studies. Has worked in habitat restoration & environmental policy. Corey- wants to become more familiar with SB since he grew up in Ryegate, VT. Graduated from Lyndon State with degrees in Natural Science & Biology, has interned with Fish & Wildlife, studied animal behavior in the grasslands of the Dakotas. Lisa – grew up Queen City Park, in SB, including Red Rocks Park before the city owned it. Graduated with degrees in Biology & Elementary Ed, classes including Botany, Field Botany, Plant Physiology & Environmental Science. Was usurped into the NRC when the Red Rocks Advisory Committee was disbanded. Has been involved in various issues in SB. Helps oversee Red Rocks Park. Is SB rep to the Scenic Byway Council. 8) Ray has developed a new work plan for 2021 using the 2020 plan with modifications based on the committees charge from the city. Ref the plan included in the information packet. 9) Member & staff reports: see information from Ashley, sent in the information packet. 10) Future agenda items: - The Audubon Society would like to meet with us. - Work on the new work plan for 2021. - Work on the Score card for the O’Brien Eastview Project. - Work on developing & maintaining a vision for conserving the city’s natural resources. - Look at connectivity between areas of habitat areas. Is connectivity lacking? The next meeting is January 6, 2021 at 6pm. Get any information to Ashley and Ray early due to the holidays. David moved to adjourn, 2nd- Lisa. Adjourned 8pm 11/4/2020 1 C4C: Cents for Conservation A proposal for environmental conservation in South Burlington History of South Burlington’s Conservation/ Open Space Fund ➢1960s -1970s Jaycee Park and Farrell Park purchased for recreational purposes ➢1970 Purchase of Red Rocks Park ➢1992 Calkins (now Wheeler) House and 20 acres purchased ➢1999 Citizen concerns raised about rate of sprawling development ○SB searching for an identity ○Public forums held –strong expressions of support for saving more open space ○City moved toward purchase of 100 acres at Calkins (now Wheeler); lease agreement established with NGA ➢2000 From these discussions voters approved a 1 cent permanent tax for a Conservation/Open Space Fund to preserve open land and natural areas (currently raises approximately $300K annually) 11/4/2020 2 History of South Burlington’s Conservation/ Open Space Fund ➢2005-7 Scott Property (40 acres) purchased (SB $970K) ➢2008 Alteration #1:Voters approved use of CF money for purchase of land for recreational as well as conservation purposes ➢2009 Leduc Farm purchased and conserved by partners (SB $500K) ➢2010 Alteration #2:Voters approved proposal to allow use of 5% of CF money for maintenance of open spaces ➢2011 Goodrich property (22 acres) purchased (SB $62.5K) ➢2012 Underwood Property (60 acres) purchased over 3 years (SB $1.66 M) ➢2016 Alteration #3:Voters approved proposal to borrow $1.3 M over 10 years to fund enhancement projects on open spaces and natural areas; debt to be repaid from CF money (not to exceed 50% annually) ➢2018 Auclair Farm project, using partners for conservation and ag use objectives (SB $606K) Above and beyond forest products, forest-based recreation and tourism account for the majority of the forest-based economy. They contribute an estimated $1.9 billion dollars to Vermont’s economy annually. Conserved and working lands provide valuable, nonmarket services to the economy and are a cost effective way of preserving the quality of life in the state, including providing clean air, water, recreation, and more. National studies estimate the economic return on investing in conservation range from 4:1 to 11:1. A Vermont study found that every state dollar invested in land conservation returned $9 in natural goods and services. Land conservation has a positive effect on town tax bases by controlling the costs of community services. Source: Erickson, J., and J. Roman. 2015. Economics of Conservation in Vermont. Final Report to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Available online at https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Recreation/Learn_More/Library/Economics%20of%20conservation%20report%20final7_8_15.pdf Economic Benefits of Conserved Lands 11/4/2020 3 Economic Benefits of Conserved Lands Per acre benefits from ecosystem services provided by various land cover types in Vermont. Source: Trust for Public Land. 2018. Vermont’s Return on Investment in Land Conservation availble online at https://www.tpl.org/vermonts-return-investment-land-conservation Costs of Community Services Studies Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies are a case study approach used to determine a community’s public service costs compared with the revenues raised on various land uses. COCS studies have emerged as an inexpensive and reliable tool to measure the direct fiscal relationships between existing land uses. A meta-analysis conducted in 2016 analyzed 151 communities from 26 states. The analysis showed that residential land uses do not cover the costs of community services and must be subsidized by other community land uses. Source: American Farmland Trust. 2016. Cost of Community Services Studies. FIC Fact Sheet and Technical Memo. American Farmland Trust Northampton, MA. Available online at: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/literature?field_literature_category_tid=3236&field_topic_tid=228&field_state_tid=All&page=13 11/4/2020 4 Costs of Community Services in the U.S. Costs of Community Services in Vermont Source: Brighton, D. and B. Hausauer. 2002. The Land Use –Property Tax Connection: A Guide and Workbook on the Tax Implications of Development in Vermont. Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Montpelier, VT. Data are from all towns in Vermont. In aggregate, these data support the previous slide: increased residential development actually increases per capita tax rates as municipal taxes are inadequate to cover services. 11/4/2020 5 Community Services in South Burlington ➢“Growth in budget is not sustainable. What type of city and what type of services do we want to provide to the taxpayer?” ○Kevin Dorn, City Manager -December 2017 budget hearings ➢“Growth in the budget is not sustainable. Growth in costs of benefits that the city is providing to its employees is not sustainable.” ○Tom Hubbard, Deputy City Manager/Treasurer -December 2017 budget hearings ➢The Council receives consistent messages of budget shortfalls from the Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department Costs of Conserving the land identified by the Open Space IZ Committee ➢In addition to the previously mentioned methods of land preservation, outright land purchase is another viable option. ➢Open Space IZ Committee identified about 1,000 acres of land to be conserved. Using past land purchases, $10,000 is the average cost of an acre. Thus, it would require $10 million dollars to purchase the land at fair market value. ➢Given the current funding in the Open Space Fund, it would take about 70 years to raise the funding needed to purchase all of the identified land. 11/4/2020 6 SBLT Cents for Conservation (C4C) Proposal ➢At the rate that SB’s rural lands are disappearing, almost all will be gone in the next decade. ➢Increasing the yearly Open Space fund contribution by two cents (for a limited time period) would allow the city to purchase all identified lands in 14 years. ➢Adding two additional cents to the Open Space fund would increase the average family house tax by $22.40 per assessment ($67.22 annually); and the average condo tax by $16.07 per assessment ($48.22 annually) ➢Residents have consistently expressed support for land preservation. Citizen Support for Land Conservation Bolduc, V. 2018. South Burlington Exit Poll, Midterm Elections, November 6, 2018. 11/4/2020 7 Cents For Conservation (C4C) Recommendation 1.The SB Land Trust recommends the City Council approve putting on the March 2020 ballot a proposal to add two more cents to the Open Space Fund to be used solely for land acquisition. 2.The SB Land Trust will partner with the city to inform the public of the C4C proposal in advance of the March ballot, and will advocate for voter approval. Conclusion ➢The city has gone through a year-long rigorous process under Interim Zoning to find ways to conserve open lands. ➢The Open Space IZ Committee has evaluated and identified the top areas in SB that should be conserved. ➢The citizens of SB overwhelmingly are in favor of preserving land, even if it costs them more in taxes. ➢The SBLT suggests a simple, doable way of conserving land that is fair to all. IT TAKES CENTS --AND MAKES SENSE -- TO CONSERVE Page | 1 South Burlington Natural Resources and Conservation Committee Initial Assessment Early Natural Resources Considerations Obrien Bros Eastview Development SD-20-40 (Preliminary Report) The observations below are based on approximately 20 man-hours of site visit field work as well as study of satellite photos and project plan maps. All nine members of the NRCC committee working in three separate work groups contributed. In addition, questions were forwarded to the developers representatives and responses obtained. Additional communications will likely be necessary for this phase and definitely for future phases of the project. NRCC work groups will need to continue their work to monitor the development through its development permitting processes. The developers have been forthright in providing information and responding to our questions and working with the NRCC but we will need to see the commitment continue to protect valuable trees, habitat and remaining open space. 1) Protect existing high quality native trees with wildlife habitat and pollinator values. Protect and maintain existing high-quality native trees or tree stands (including even the occasional mature dead tree) that provide food sources, shelter and nesting habitat for birds and other species of wildlife, such as pollinators. The stand of White Pine Trees near Kimball Avenue contains important brushy habitat areas in the NW corner of it and around its perimeter with some invasives interior, perhaps many.. The white pine stand is almost pure and lacks tree species diversity. It has a low canopy due to tree crowding thus stunted growth. Thus its value as resident wildlife habitat suffers from lack of species diversity. However it does provide pleasant scenic views as seen from along Kimball Ave. It is here that several whitetail deer buck rubs were found as well as bear scat. The rubs indicate continual use of the stand by deer. It also is bordered by a wetland on the west which drains through a culvert under Kimball Ave then flows into Potash Brook. Raccoon tracks were observed in the mud at the entrance to the culvert indicating it is used as an under-road wildlife crossing. Also the tree island borders the central wetland and provides vegetated buffer zones important for protecting the wildlife corridor provided by the wetland drainage brook. Such buffer zones are not accounted for or adjudicated in state wetland buffer rules. Here are the words of our biologist: … there is a tree stand along Kimball about halfway between Old Farm Rd & Community Dr that is a little more problematic than the (sic Potash brook forest ) (outlined in YELLOW)... This tree stand is much less diverse than the larger one I described above. I've spent less time at this Tree Stand but at a glance, the majority of vegetation is White Pine (former plantation?). I saw some Birch, Ash, & Box Elder but not a lot more from the edges. There are a TON of invasives in this tree stand too... Page | 2 While this tree stand isn't picture-perfect wildlife habitat, it is still being used by wildlife & should either be maintained or enhanced to accommodate more wildlife use. I have detected bobcat, rabbit, squirrel, & mice during my own observations, & Ray has found even more. Developers should either improve this stand by removing invasives & planting more habitat-enhancing vegetation (pollinator plants, mast trees, etc.) or remove much of the stand, replant mixed-age/diverse natives, & maintain the woodland as a green space that prioritizes wildlife access over human recreation. (Additional comments on the commercial/industrial area appear later in this document. These constitute a “look ahead” or “heads up” for the project developers.) Needs: An inventory of invasive species and native plants should be completed for this stand. 2) Plant a mix of native trees with wildlife habitat and pollinator values where appropriate and possible; remove or manage invasive species. Plant a mix of native trees with wildlife and pollinator values where appropriate. Actively manage invasive plant species, especially during and immediately after the initial ground disturbance and project completion phases. Once established, invasive plants can be difficult to remove. Creating a hedgerow with native trees, shrubs and pollinators in a parallel grassy area would greatly enhance this central wetland areas as a wildlife corridor. 3) Protect wildlife corridors and habitat along wildlife corridors, particularly streams. Protect native vegetation along wildlife corridors and riparian zones, especially where they extend onto or abut adjacent properties. Consider creating, restoring, and/or preserving existing continuous vegetated buffers and increasing the width of protected riparian areas and buffering vernal pools to benefit wildlife and habitat connectivity. This is especially important in the SEQ. Use drought-resistant landscaping to reduce onsite water use during dry periods in all areas. The current phase of the master plan extends from Old Farm Road downhill to the east as far as the central wetland drainage ditch and fence line located about 1/3 of the way to the Potash Brook forested area. To the north of this ditch is the central wetland which is aligned with that ditch and fenceline in a north–south direction. To the south, on the property adjacent to the project area is a fencerow hedgeline about 50 ft wide with over a dozen mature fertile shagbark hickory trees distributed along its length. Page | 3 It is in line with the drainage ditch fence line and wetland. Hickory nuts are a prime wildlife food source. in the trees, along with wild grape vines, another important wildlife food source. Several huge mature red oak trees are present – another important food source for wildlife. All of these things point to this being a resource for predator mammals as well l as hawks and owls. Fox and coyotes tracks were evident paralleling the row but in the field following a well-used trail on one side of it but with some tracks entering the row and some following the opposite side of the row. This is direct evidence of it use by predators. This row is a wildlife corridor as well as important habitat for prey species. The fence line contains more than several squirrel nests with two squirrels being spotted eating hickory nuts while working group members were there. Rabbit tracks and droppings from rabbits were present. To see such a number of such food source trees in a stand is rare in Vermont. Hedgerows such as this were once ubiquitous across the U.S providing outstanding wildlife travel corridors, food sources and protective cover. but industrial farming plowed them under to get a few more square feet of monoculture planting space. Such hedgerows are especially valuable if they contained remnants of loose stone walls.in which smaller rodents live. They provide prey for predators, especially for weasels. which can squeeze into the small spaces between the stones searching for prey while at the same time providing them with protective cover from larger predator species. Needs: A new fifty foot wide hedgerow to connect the hedgerow to the south with the wetland corridor to the north creating a complete protective wildlife habitat corridor across the middle of the property. Such a corridor could be parallel and adjacent to the planned recreation path. Such a corridor would utilize the culvert under Kimball Avenue for road crossings. Need: Tree inventory and percentage of population by species of forest patch adjacent and downhill to the central wetland to include invasives. 4) Minimize production of impervious surfaces. Use light colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to minimize warming of runoff waters. Consider minimizing impervious surfaces on the project site and use rain barrels, rain gardens and swales where practical to slow runoff. Utilize light-colored roofs, sidewalks and pavement areas to decrease the warming of runoff, which can degrade downstream waters and Lake Champlain. • A Gill response: • Heat Island and Surface Water Warming: Our Eastview neighborhood proposes a number of ways to reduce impervious surfaces and heat island effects of development. Some of these items are not listed in your email. For instance, a number of our homes feature drive-under garages, reducing building footprints Page | 4 from more standard garage locations to the side of the buildings and providing living spaces above the garage. With regard to paved and concrete surfaces, we would start by recognizing that our single family and townhome development is located in the R1 zoning district which has extremely low lot coverage limits. Of the 1.7 million square feet of R1 land involved in the project, we are allowed impervious on only 512,000 square feet. This is roughly 30% coverage. This means that 70% of the land involved in the project will not have impervious surfaces. We have worked incredibly hard to accommodate the pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle needs of the zoning regulations and the community within this framework. We have double loaded our roadways to ensure the maximal benefit of impervious surface for serving the housing need. We have reduced our setbacks to be the minimum possible that allows a car in the driveway to not be parked across the sidewalk. We have reduced the widths of our roads and limited parallel parking to the minimum that we feel can facilitate a successful sales endeavor, and comply with fire safety regulations that require access roads of at least 20’. Lastly, we have included shared driveway access for our cottage layout, as well as a shared alley that accesses a number of homes located adjacent to Old Farm Road. Reducing the coverage of individual drives, these changes are in response to feedback received and will be represented in a supplemental submission that is forthcoming. While the goals of shared access are something we value, we were not able to create a layout that provided for shared access in all situations. Among other things our project site is very steep. This hilliness can result in significant grade changes both in the north/south and east/west plane. This means that homes can be 10’ apart, but 5’ different in elevation, making a shared driveway impracticable. We also must be mindful of the market for the homes provided. Not all customers appreciate sharing their driveway and so having a mix is important in achieving the sales velocity needed to complete the project. Roofing Choices: Thank you for your question regarding roofing. We have done some research and identified a product we believe will be suitable for achieving your goals and also allowing for buyers to choose roofing colors that are attractive and coordinated with their exterior color choices. Our understanding is that the reason to Page | 5 choose a light colored roofing material is the reduction of solar reflectance and thermal emittance, which are both measured in the Solar Reflectance Index. 5) Reduce driveway lengths by minimizing setback distances. Minimize driveway acreage by sharing. Reduce driveway lengths by minimizing setback distances. Scale down the dimensions of driveways and parking lots not required for safety purposes and share these where possible with abutting owners. See #4 above from A.Gill: Heat Island and Surface Water Warming 6) Minimize vehicular crossings of wildlife and stream corridors to avoid habitat fragmentation. Minimize the number of vehicular crossings of riparian areas and wildlife corridors in the project area to avoid habitat fragmentation.. Where culverts are necessary, utilize designs large enough to allow for the safe and effective downstream and upstream passage of mammals such as mink, otter, and beaver as well as aquatic organisms such as fish, frogs, salamanders, and turtles .The existing culvers are adequate for resident wildlife transient wildlife: those under Kennedy Drive, Kimball Ave and I-89. – all off-site passageways for safe wildlife crossings. However, interior to the project areas culvert plans need to be examined more closely at a later time. 7) Minimize use of outdoor lighting for both reducing sky-brightness at night and disturbance of nocturnal wildlife. Minimize the use of outdoor lights and use low and shielded lights when lighting is necessary to avoid deleterious effects on wildlife behavior and survival and to ensure the light to be placed is having its intended purpose. Consider appropriately sized onsite solar production for such things as community buildings to reduce the project’s demand for power. • A. Gill response: • In terms of lighting we intend to proceed with the Eastview neighborhood in a similar manner to the Hillside neighborhood now under construction. At Hillside we used minimal street lights (at intersections only), and because the homes were close to the street (reduced setback) we were able to light the streets well with Page | 6 ambient light from homes and the porch lights. This is our plan again for the residential neighborhood that is now before the City for review, we have found this to be more than enough light, and that residents appreciate not having so many street lights. Of course all exterior lights will comply with City specifications regarding light pollution. Some of the larger commercial areas may need more lighting for safety of residents and businesses, but those parts of the site are not currently planned and so it is hard to speak to those needs at this time. Here are additional general concerns expressed based on the project plans as presented to NRCC members by Project leaders Early Natural resources considerations- Obrien Bros Eastview Development SD-20-40 1) Protecting existing high quality native trees w/ wildlife habitat & pollinator values. a. development not built yet b. most of the land is worked farmland, cut grass areas rimmed with trees & shrubs around the edges. c. There exists a Class II wetland and associated habitat that connects into the project as well as some larger trees. These are protected areas. d. steep hillsides on major portion of the property e. parts of the property are within Potash Brook watershed- classified endangered waterway f. the larger trees that do exist Concerns This property is on the opposite side of Kimball Ave from the brook. There are commercial businesses on either side of the brook with trash, broken pavement and runoff that can go directly into the brook and to Lake Champlain. Properties do not appear well maintained behind the buildings. New light manufacturing buildings are built into the plan along Kimball Ave. Who is going to ensure the properties are maintained and not allowed to “rot & fester”? What is going to protect the disturbances from quarrying the ledges from migrating into the riparian zones and to wetland areas. Due to past uses of the property- not really any quality trees and very little pollinator habitat since the grass is cut except in the areas the developer is required to protect. Page | 7 2) Plant a mix of native trees w/ wildlife habitat & pollinator values where appropriate and possible: remove or manage invasive species. a. Green corridors b. Reduced setbacks c. Plans to use rocks from ledges on the site d. Plans for pool e. Protecting & maintaining riparian zones & wildlife corridors f. 2 Green corridors across the project connecting undeveloped areas and not bisected by roads. g. Berms with grass h. A Planned playground i. A pool & clubhouse with an events green 3) Concerns 4) The damage that is going to occur while the site is under construction, have you seen the mess on the other side of Old Farm Rd that has already been created. Did the developer really have to destroy the hill when nothing appears to be happening on the site. 5) What is meant by protect & maintain riparian zones and wildlife corridors? 6) The landscaping and trees planting seems minimal and you are planning for recreational fields, a pool which looks to be surrounded by a non-porous surface. I like the idea for preserving the barn for community activities but then you spoil it by wanting to create an event lawn. Again-not environmentally friendly. Why not just use the recreational fields for events? l do not see anything that would be pollinator beneficial or wildlife beneficial. What pollinators do you think you are trying to make us believe you are providing for? Are you planning to mow along the paths and in the green corridors- these would be excellent areas to plant native trees species and native flowering plants for wildlife & pollinators. 7) You are proposing to expand & enhance an assortment of rec paths. Solid surfaces are not environmentally friendly. The proposed greenspaces programmed with various landscape fitness or playground features. Again we are talking non- environmental and not really what I would call green with equipment and probably surfaces covering any natural soils. Certainly these would not be animal friendly habitat areas. 8) Community garden space is a great idea. Berms with just grass is not a great idea. Dog park is a great idea. 9) I do not see much actual planting of trees and plants. I see mostly grass, grass & more grass. Grass that doesn’t look native or natural but mowed and maintained which costs money and is especially not friendly if it is done with the mentality of having to be “perfect”. Future development plans for commercial/industrial phase of master plan Most of the time during site visits was spent on the evaluation of the Potash Brook stream corridor from the Interstate to Kennedy Drive, concentrating on the habitat block at the eastern end fo the project site. This is where future plans for commercial/light industrial development and use would cover. Page | 8 The environmental consultants for the project stated the following in their report to project the developers. We challenge this report in several aspects. 1) The roads and traffic present a threat so this militates against encouraging the use of this area by wildlife. Our response: This implies that the Potash Book area is isolated from other natural habitat areas. This is simply untrue based on the evidence we have compiled through onsite visits and the study of satellite photos. There are very few places in South Burlington the animals are not faced with having to cross busy roads. That does not negate adjacent habitat blocks from being valuable for wildlife. In the case of this site, it was observed that coyote, fox, fisher and bobcat tracks were intermingled when crossing UNDER Kimball Avenue through a culvert tunnel large enough for a man to walk upright through and - with no more than a couple of inches of frozen water on its floor. These animals have learned where and how to cross to keep safe. The tracks were all less than 24 hrs. old based on when the last snowfall occurred The report mentions Kennedy Drive being especially dangerous. A site visit was recorded with photographs that show no animal trails exist which would have been present if they had been crossing Kennedy Drive. That was easy to assess since a chain link fence stretches the entire width of the stream riparian area at street level parallel to Kennedy drive blocking animal crossings. Not trails were found around the end of the fence. The reason for all this is obvious. There are two large culverts, one wet the other nearly dry that run underneath the road providing safe passage for wildlife. Page | 9 This project areas is an important wildlife corridor for Potash Brook which corridor runs from the solar array in South Burlington near Muddy Brook, north under the interstate then turning west after going under Kimball Ave, flowing through a ½ mile long beaver pond thatn continuing under Kennedy Drive all the way to Lake Champlain connecting wildlife habitat areas like a string of pearls 2) The habitat in the forest is not diverse and is too mature - again diminishing its value as a wildlife resource. It lacks understory thus vegetation diversity. Our response: Habitat diversity is provided by many downed trees which provides ground level cover protection for mammals and creates small sunlit openings. These encourage grown cover growth and the rotting logs and branches provide habitat for insects and fungi – also forms of wildlife. We have biologists on our committee that disagree with the consultants assertion and believe there is a very healthy mix of mature trees in approximately an ideal 50-50 mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. The stand is not primarily hemlock as cited in te consultants report. There is a hemlock grove near the north end of the stand but white pine trees bound elsewhere (and possibly red spruce) and many other deciduous trees including oak trees. Coyote, fox, fisher, bobcat, rabbit squirrel small rodents tracks were all observed in a single field trip in just an hour’s time. This is an incredibly heavy use of an area that is supposedly poor habitat. The tracks of one foolish coyote was seen apparently crossing the road itself. However not flattened fauna were observed on the road. Here are the words f our biologist concerning the forest along Potash brook: I have made multiple site visits over the last month & have noticed many signs of wildlife activity around the property. There are parts of this property that are very accommodating to wildlife and others that need a little human intervention in the form of land management. First, the woodland on the Eastern-most edge of the property must be maintained at all cost (outlined in RED). This is the most biodiverse area of the property (vegetation & wildlife) & has many high-quality, habitat-enhancing trees at mixed ages. Some of the species I have found in the eastern woodland area are: Red Maple Red Oak Shagbark Hickory Eastern Hophornbeam American Hornbeam Eastern Hemlock White Pine Wild Grape There are also some invasives present at this location: Asiatic Bittersweet Common Buckthorn Page | 10 Bush Honeysuckle (Amur Tartarian or Morrows?) Japanese Barberry Supporting Jean-'s suggestion, I think this area must remain untouched (other than intense Invasive Plant Management efforts) & a pollinator corridor should be planted & maintained along the Western edge of the woodland (outlined in PINK). An additional hedge row follows an east-west line up the hill from the Potash Brook forest areas and connects to the hedge row discussed in item 3 near the top pf this report. Coyotes and fox were tracked up this corridor to the where it intersects with the north-south hedgerow. Plans for the commercial development phase should strive to allow it to remain in place. Needs: A game camera study to monitor wildlife use of the culverts at Kennedy Drive, Kimball Avenue, and I-89 - six culverts in total. A formal assessment of the species and population percentages of trees in the foested areas along Potash Brook. Aa 100 yard strip of grassland parallel to this forest should remain undeveloped grassland and provide space for growth of pollinators to round out the diversity of this large habitat block. Additional considerations “Land Management Plans” The NRCC recommends that the developers prepare “Land Management Plans” (with the assistance from a professional Landscape Architect) to provide that there will be appropriate maintenance and an orderly replacement of the approved Landscape Plans. Such plans should become a part of the covenants and Declarations passed on to the new homeowner association or other entities responsible for grounds and landscape management. “Tree Stewardship” (Tree Canopy) The NRCC is very concerned that the City’s mature tree canopy is diminishing. Developers should limit the removal of mature trees. “Scenic Views” The NRCC is very concerned that the City’s “public” scenic views are diminishing. We feel that the developers should design their developments to protect these views. “Climate change” The NRCC recommends that house be equipped with heat pumps and solar energy panels to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the neighborhood. Page | 11 Natural Resources & Conservation Committee Staff Update – 1/6/2021 Open Space Fund Projects – - Red Rocks Park: • The wetland delineation work identified one or two wetlands that are in the vicinity of work proposed near the CWD pump house. This includes a trail relocation project and placement of stormwater facilities. As a result, the project team needed to go back out to survey that area to determine how to adjust the plans to take those wetlands into account. Staff hopes to review plan revisions in the New Year. - Wheeler Nature Park: • Staff met with representatives from Audubon VT and the US Fish & Wildlife Service to discuss habitat management considerations at Wheeler. They have asked to meet with the Committee in February to provide an overview of the work they would like to do. Funding for this work will not be available until next Fall/Winter, when the work would actually take place. Staff plans to work with the partners to conduct outreach related to the project, including invasive plant removal. • Staff are continuing to review and update language and graphics for new wayfinding signs in the park. The goal is to have these signs fabricated and installed in the spring/summer of 2021. • Staff is working on a plan with the consultant for implementing additional trail maintenance work next summer. The goal is to have a contract in place so that work can begin on time next season. Staff hopes to have an agreement lined up after the first of the year. - Underwood Parcel: • Staff provided interested consultants with responses to questions related to the Underwood RFP that was due on December 18th (for design of the viewing area, on-site parking, and associated pedestrian connections). The next step will be for the City Project Team to review the proposals and select a consultant based on criteria outlined in the RFP. We would like to have a firm in place in January. • There were some minor adjustments made to the Underwood shared use path connection based on location of a water line in the City’s ROW in the South Pointe neighborhood. Staff have decided to initiate the permit phase for this project when the viewing area and on-site parking elements are ready for that next step as well. • An agreement is in place for a trail assessment to be completed for this property. The goal is to determine how to best connect the meadow and woods loops so that users can access both. Once the assessment is completed, staff will determine the best way to implement this work (possibly summer 2021). Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership (CVCP): • The partnership met on December 16th. • The state data is still an issue, so the group decided to utilize BioFinder in the interim to help identify conservation opportunities in the region. Jens Hilke did a presentation and a brief overview of the region using some of the layers. The next steps are for members to review BioFinder and identify potential hot spots for projects. Individuals will also continue editing Town data for the CCRPC mapping project. • The partnership began discussing regional land management issues as it pertains to funding, staffing, and various projects (including: invasive removal, trail maintenance/install, and other needs). There is clearly a regional issue with municipalities being able to keep up with the amount of work associated with purchased conservation properties, and the hope is the group can determine a strategy for that. In the meantime, the partnership will attempt to be a clearinghouse for regional events to engage residents in conservation projects. Management Plan Task Force Update: • The Task Force will not be meeting again until possibly March 2021. The revisions/updates to the Red Rocks Management Plan is in staff hands at this point, and will bring in the Task Force to review, provide comment, and add any missing details as needed. Other: • Leave No Trace – Stay on Trail: Staff have been receiving more reports of issues with park trails and dogs (including creation of new social trails and dogs off leash). There is effort to determine how best to move forward and bring about cultural change. Staff asks that Committee members help by talking with other park users about the leave no trace principals, including staying on trail and picking up after your pet. Stay tuned for future details and opportunities, and thank you for helping us spread the word about these important guidelines. • Weed Warrior/Invasive Plant Removal: City staff have received the summary of the invasive plant removal season and are reviewing it to determine how best to present it to the community. There are definitely several community volunteers that need to be thanked for all of their service during the pandemic months. Staff will be working on a piece to put in the newsletter that will highlight all of the good work done this past year. • Community Hike Series: City staff has begun planning for the 2021 Community Hike series. Dates/times still need to be worked out, hikes are beginning to line up that include in-person opportunities and virtual webinars. Obviously, these events will be pending any future health guidance and the COVID pandemic. • Land Ethic Vermont: Staff has been asked to become a member of the Steering Committee for a new conservation group in Vermont called Land Ethic Vermont. The group is currently composed of individuals from Vermont Land Trust, VT Fish & Wildlife, Audubon Vermont, Vermont Coverts, The Nature Conservancy, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. They are committed to fostering and exploring a “land ethic” among Vermont’s residents and visitors. The group is working on getting individuals trained through the Land Ethic Training program, a training put on by the Aldo Leopold Foundation in Wisconsin. Staff has been given permission to be part of this Steering Committee and will be sure to share additional opportunities with the Committee as it continues to take off.