Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Listening Notes and Letters March 29 - April 27, 2021Daniel A. Seff 210 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403-7401 April 27, 2021 Via Electronic Mail Ms. Helen Riehle, Chair City Council City of South Burlington, VT Email: hriehle@sburl.com Ms. Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission City of South Burlington, VT Email: jlouisos@sburl.com Dear Chairperson Riehle and Chairperson Louisos: Section 9.06(B)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”) states that “existing natural resources shall be protected through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, [and] conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis added). The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan identifies “primary conservation areas” on Map 7 and the Comprehensive Plan states (at page 2-103) that “Primary conservation areas (Map 7) include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are off limits to development, regardless of their setting or context. . . .” (emphasis added). The Comprehensive Plan also mandates that only “limited encroachment” may be allowed in “Secondary Conservation Areas” (see Comp. Plan, page 2-103 (emphasis added), and Map 8). A planned unit development (“PUD”) must be “consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10). One of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the City, including the Southeast Quadrant (“SEQ”), is “conservation of identified important natural areas” (Comp. Plan, p. 1-1 (emphasis added)). And one of the objectives for the SEQ is prioritizing and conserving existing contiguous and interconnected open space areas (see Comp. Plan, p. 3-38, Objective 60). The Comprehensive Plan has identified important natural areas on Maps 7 and 8. Residential and commercial development in these important natural areas is inconsistent “with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10). Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair April 27, 2021 Page 2 of 4 One of the protected “primary conservation areas” depicted on Map 7 is “Riparian Connectivity.” It is no accident that the City designated these riparian connectivity areas as off- limits to development. “Surface Waters and Riparian Areas” include not only rivers, streams, lake, ponds and wetlands but also the floodplain and land surrounding these water bodies that are impacted by the waterways. See “ANR Fish & Wildlife Department, Mapping Vermont’s Natural Heritage: A Mapping and Conservation Guide for Municipal and Regional Planners in Vermont,” 2018, at p. 48, available at: https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/Get%20Involved/Partner%20i n%20Conservation/MVNH-web.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2021) (hereafter, “ANR Guide”) (“Surface Waters and Riparian Areas maps the entire area impacted by these waterways, including not only the water itself but also the surrounding land. This surrounding area is referred to as the riparian area.”). The ANR explains that the BioFinder tool maps “outline the areas of land that need to remain healthy and intact if we want to provide plants, animals, and natural resources the best chance of survival over time.” ANR Guide, at p. 78. The ANR has instructed as follows: Maintaining a vegetated riparian area may be the single most effective way to protect a community’s natural heritage. The riparian area provides high quality habitat for a great diversity of both aquatic and terrestrial species. . . . Terrestrial animals use riparian areas as travel corridors, while many plant and tree seeds float downstream to disperse. Streamside vegetation helps to control flooding, and it is crucial in filtering overland runoff – which protects water quality – and stabilizing stream banks, which prevents excessive streambank erosion and sediment buildup. What’s more, maintaining the riparian area is one of the most cost- effective ways to provide resilience for a changing climate. ANR Guide, at p. 49 (emphasis added). The ANR goes on to state: Not sure where to begin conserving your community’s natural heritage? Consider starting with riparian habitat. Among conservation actions taken at the community level, maintaining riparian habitat has one of the greatest impacts for wildlife. It’s also an area of great benefit for a community, since conserving the riparian area not only protects wildlife habitat but also maintains water quality, reduces erosion, provides flood resilience, and can support recreational opportunities. ANR Guide, at p. 32 (emphasis added). Map 8 shows additional critical natural resources, including Prime Agricultural Soils, Grasslands and Farmlands. Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair April 27, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The conservation areas depicted on Maps 7 and 8 need protection now more than ever. And yet, the latest draft of the Planning Commission’s proposed SBLDR revisions weakens the protections afforded by existing SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3). In fact, that Planning Commission draft omits completely the reference to protection for the “conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis added). To date, I have not heard any reason – much less a good reason – for removing the incorporation of Maps 7 and 8 into SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3). Section 9.06(B)(3)’s incorporation by reference of the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Vermont Supreme Court case law holding that a municipal zoning bylaw can incorporate aspects of a town plan by reference. See In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, ¶ 16, 185 Vt. 201, 969 A.2d 47 (“Here, the City has chosen to incorporate the city plan into its bylaws. See § 26.151(1) (a PRD ‘will [c]onform with the City’s Comprehensive Plan’). Due to the broad authority granted to towns to implement their city plans, we cannot conclude that § 26.151 is an unauthorized method of zoning regulation.”). The Comprehensive Plan details the protected conservation areas on Maps 7 and 8. These Maps are designed to avoid vagueness issues such as the one that came up in the JAM Golf case. See South Burlington Open Space Committee, Open Spaces, Special Places: Our Legacy, Our Future 13 (Apr. 2014) (in light of JAM Golf, “[i]t is now recommended that regulations clearly identify those resources to be protected – e.g., through maps. . . .”) (emphasis in the original), available at: http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/2014%20Open%20Space%20Report.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2021). Moreover, SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3) is consistent with State statutory law, which provides that municipalities can “identify, protect, and preserve important natural and historic features of the Vermont landscape,” including “significant natural and fragile areas” and “outstanding water resources, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelands, and wetlands.” 24 V.S.A. § 4302(c)(5)(A), (B). In conclusion, I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to maintain SBLDR Section 9.06(b)(3)’s incorporation of Maps 7 and 8. And if the Planning Commission fails to do so, I would urge the City Council to reject the proposed SBLDR revisions. Thank you for your consideration and courtesies. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff dseff@yahoo.com 1 Betsy Brown To:Jessica Louisos Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Listening Session: location, location, location -- a case for open space From: Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:04 AM To: Helen Riehle; Tim Barritt; Matt Cota; Meaghan Emery; Tom Chittenden; Jessica Louisos; Michael Mittag; Monica Ostby; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Bernie Gagnon Subject: EXTERNAL: Listening Session: location, location, location -- a case for open space This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Dear City Councilors and Planning Commissioners, Our City, Our future When I walk in Red Rocks Park with friends or watch my grandchildren play in the streams and sandboxes at Wheeler Nature Park, I am so grateful that someone had the foresight to advocate to keep these once private lands open to the public. We can’t take any open space for granted. With 9,500 existing homes, most of the agricultural soils that at one time existed in South Burlington have already been developed with highways, airport runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or fragmented into tiny parcels. On top of this, there are at least an additional 1150 new homes in the pipeline to be built on mostly rural lands. This is a 12% increase in our housing stock while we are still in interim zoning. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan anticipated and prepared for a growth rate of 1.5- 2% in average annual dwelling units. Our current rate of growth is unsustainable and has serious consequences for the citizens of South Burlington and the quality of life we hope to maintain. A Cost of Community Services in VT study shows that increased residential development actually increases per capita tax rates as municipal taxes are inadequate to cover services. We will need new schools, roads, increased municipal services, etc. The Earth Economics Report commissioned by the City confirmed the vast economic benefits of preserving our remaining open space. Our Interim Zoning Bylaws state: “With the delicate ecosystems and preparedness of both our natural and constructed infrastructure in mind, the City needs to determine what locations, types, and densities of development are most desirable in order to maintain the balance between natural and developed spaces and sustainability and to avoid a fiscal crisis -- not when it is upon us, but before we reach that point.” 2 Our few remaining open spaces provide extensive public health, social and economic benefits. “Science shows us that leveraging the power of nature is one of the most effective tools we have to address the climate emergency. Healthy forests, grasslands and wetlands can deliver up to a third of the global emissions reductions needed by 2030.” (Nature Conservancy) As climate change scientists are imploring, now is the time to act. Yet, we are targeting much of this existing open space for development. Let’s rethink the “location” of development in our city. Why are we building on our remaining open spaces? Why aren’t we incentivising redevelopment of existing structures for housing? These underutilized properties already have infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, utilities). The city should make it easier to redevelop already existing land than to develop on green space. This could be done by making it harder and more expensive to develop green space, by removing barriers/costs to redevelopment, or a combination of the two. In neighboring towns we see many creative examples of redevelopment of commercial space for housing. Now is the time for South Burlington to recognize open space as the asset and finite resource that it is. Now is the time for citizens of South Burlington to speak up and advocate for the strongest Environmental Protection Standards in our new Land Development Regulations. Janet Bellavance 25 Brewer Parkway 1 Betsy Brown To:Jessica Louisos Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Comments for the PC listening session From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:59 PM To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery Subject: EXTERNAL: Comments for the PC listening session This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Dear Commissioners, I drafted a lengthy 2-page email, which I’m including below, but then feared you might not read it all. So, here is a “Reader’s Digest” version. If I am understanding what I’ve seen so far (the text of the proposed changes is still VERY hard to decipher) I’m concerned that you have dropped protections for a critical natural resource: agricultural soils. South Burlington once had a “Path to Sustainability” effort which included protecting our agricultural soils so that we would be able to provide food for our residents. There are numerous references in multiple city- commissioned studies on the importance of preserving the agriculture soils in South Burlington. Key among them is the 2013 South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Action Plan. It reported that “It would be possible to grow enough fruit and vegetables on several hundred acres to provide all city residents with a good portion of the fruit and veggies we should be eating each day. Growing that amount of food could generate more than $9 million in farm revenue each year.” We currently have around 1,400 acres of ag land. Common Roots has since demonstrated we can grow large quantities of healthy produce on small plots of land. Food insecurity (hunger) is a problem in our city. One out of four people in South Burlington struggle to put food on their tables. Half of households experiencing food insecurity ate less fruits and vegetables since the start of the covid pandemic. Scientists report that “Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer. Unlike chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute rivers and groundwater, it preserves soil and it can restore the climate.” Moreover, soil has benefits beyond providing healthy food. From a global perspective, dirt pulls carbon dioxide out of the air. It fosters 99 percent of the world’s food and close to half of our oxygen. Good dirt nurtures vegetables because it is full of minerals and beneficial bacteria. Healthy soil boosts crops, filters water, and stores water during droughts and floods. Soil specialists tell us that soil can help us through the tough times, 2 mitigate nutrient losses, slow down climate change, and soil-friendly practices could improve water quality in the Lake Champlain Basin. This is more important than ever because experts now recognize that the way our food is currently produced is having negative effects on the environment (pollution and soil erosion), human health (obesity) and rural economies (farm consolidation and mechanization). Whereas, a food system that is founded on principles of sustainability and food security has vast potential to improve public health, the environment, and society. But…first you have to save the soil. I believe that you could not possibly have been aware of this, otherwise, you would not have removed protections for South Burlington’s arable soils. Please listen to the science on the value of soil, in particular arable soils, and then take action to preserve as much as possible. When we learn more, we have the opportunity to make better decisions. I ask you to reinstate protections for our agricultural lands. Rosanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ full email follows~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Commissioners, Thank you for offering the training sessions on how to use the maps and for holding listening sessions on the draft Environmental Protection LDRs. I’m sending this in advance of the first listening session for your early review. I’ve read the three papers that the staff prepared, looked at the maps multiple times, and I am part-way through the 45+ pages of text of the draft LDRs. I hope to be able to read them in their entirety before Tuesday. However, my initial reaction—if I am understanding what I’ve seen so far—has me concerned, in particular about a specific natural resource that appears to have lost protection: agricultural soils. During the last Interim Zoning period, I chaired the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Committee. At the time (and since then) I did a considerable amount of reading and research on this subject. As a result, I learned the importance — make that criticality in light of the climate crisis — of preserving arable soil. At the time of the last Interim Zoning period, South Burlington had a strategic vision of a sustainable future. Our now-abandoned “Path to Sustainability” effort was to transform the city for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Part of the vision was to find a way to foster a diet of affordable, healthy, locally-grown food for city residents. To that end, the city hired experts to show us how to utilize our remaining farmland to produce healthful food without compromising future generations’ ability to do the same. Sustainable Agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental health, economic profitability, and social equity (sometimes referred to as planet, profit and people). But it all starts with saving the soil. One of the surprises from the analysis was how a relatively small amount of fertile soil can produce large amounts of healthy fruits and vegetables. They reported: “There are 2,200 acres of undeveloped agricultural soils in the city, 1,400 of which are suitable for cultivating crops. It would be possible to grow enough fruit and vegetables on several hundred acres to provide all city residents with a good portion of the fruit and veggies we should be eating each day. Growing that amount of food could generate more than $9 million in farm revenue each year.” 3 Since that was written, Common Roots, in a few short years, has demonstrated some of those possibilities. They have successfully grown large quantities of healthy produce on small plots of land, and are helping feed South Burlingtonians. In case you think food insecurity (hunger) is not experienced by our residents, one out of four people in South Burlington struggle to put food on their tables. Half of households experiencing food insecurity ate less fruits and vegetables since the start of the covid pandemic. Even before city residents were aware of the threats to our food systems and the impacts it was having on their neighbors, they supported saving our farmlands. Multiple surveys conducted of South Burlingtonians showed their support for protecting agricultural lands. Here are some statistics from a few surveys conducted in recent years: 82% supported protecting agricultural lands; 66% supported keeping farmland available for farming in the Southeast Quadrant; 73% agreed that more of the Open Space Fund should be dedicated to farmland protection; 67% favored conserving farmland. South Burlington used to have a lot of high quality fertile soil. Unfortunately, we paved over most of it. But, what we have left has the potential to provide healthy food for most of our residents. This will become increasingly important as irresponsible ways of industrial farming is depleting not only the amount of fertile agricultural land, but it is also degrading the nutritional quality of the soils. The effects of human-caused climate change is threatening our food sources even further. There are far-reaching benefits of preserving agricultural soil. A recent article in Independent Science News, stated, “Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer. Unlike chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute rivers and groundwater…it preserves soil and it can restore the climate.” Moreover, soil has benefits beyond providing healthy food. There is power in dirt. From a global perspective, dirt pulls carbon dioxide out of the air. It fosters 99 percent of the world’s food and close to half of our oxygen. Without dirt, none of us would be here. Good dirt nurtures vegetables because it is full of minerals and beneficial bacteria. Healthy soil boosts crops, filters water, and stores water during droughts and floods. Soil quality is a really important entity as the climate changes. Heather Darby, an agronomic and soil specialist at UVM Extension said, “The function of soil can help us through the tough times, mitigate nutrient losses, feed the world, and slow down climate change… and soil-friendly practices could improve water quality in the Lake Champlain Basin.” She and other experts are urging decision-makers to educate themselves about soil. There are numerous references in multiple city-commissioned studies on the importance of preserving the agriculture soils in South Burlington. Key among them is the 2013 South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Action Plan. The consultants examined South Burlington’s geomorphic setting, climate, soils and hydrology and identified the soils suitable for agriculture in South Burlington. The analysis showed that most of the city’s best quality agricultural soils have been developed. Of the 10,600 acres of land in South Burlington, 78% were covered with soils that are classified as prime or statewide (the best types of soils). But the majority of these are now under highways, airport runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or fragmented. However, they found that what we still have is enough. Why does this matter now more than ever? The report stated that there was a growing recognition that the way our food is currently produced is having negative effects on the environment (pollution and soil erosion), human health (obesity) and rural economies (farm consolidation and mechanization). A food system that is founded on principles of sustainability and food security has vast potential to improve public health, the environment, and 4 society. Sustainable Agriculture is a way to foster a diet of affordable, healthy, locally-grown food for city residents. But…first you have to save the soil. I believe that you could not possibly have been aware of all of this information, scientific warnings, and expert advice on the importance of saving soil. Otherwise, you would not have removed protections for South Burlington’s arable soils. Please do what global and local environmental experts are urging: educate yourselves on the value of soil, and then take action to preserve it. When we learn more, we have the opportunity to make better decisions. I ask you to reinstate protections for our arable lands. Rosanne Greco 1 Betsy Brown Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session -----Original Message----- From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:24 PM To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> Cc: Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>; Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>; Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com>; Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session Thank you very much, Jessica. I hope the staff is able to produce simple….non-interactive maps…for folks with poor eyesights and/or with poor computer skills in the coming week or so. I have a problem seeing details on a computer screen; and I know others in my age bracket have similar problems. Frankly, there is too much “clutter” on the interactive maps…and …. pardon the pun… but the forest is getting lost in the trees. Given that I think there is overlap between the existing protection areas and the newly protected areas, I think it would be much easier to compare the changes with two (or three) maps as I suggested: one with existing protections, one with only the newly added protections, and one (if true) with any deleted protection areas. Rosanne > On Apr 26, 2021, at 11:58, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote: > > Hi Roseanne, > > Thank you for the suggestions on the mapping. I am going to ask the PC on Tuesday if they agree that the NRP areas and the green parcels that are shown as "conserved/park/ect" on the slide maps be added to the interactive viewer. We would need the NRP to be able to be shown on top of the LDR changes to be able to see this- I believe this is what is missing on the slide maps. I think then all the information would be in the same location. > > It is not possible to produce maps ahead of our meeting, but we can discuss additional map needs at the meeting. > > Thanks, > > Jessica Louisos > > South Burlington Planning Commission Chair > > > > Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. > 2 > ________________________________________ > From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:12 AM > To: Jessica Louisos > Cc: Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted > Riehle; Paul S. Engels; Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Marla Keene > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training > session > > Jessica, > > Thanks so much for your kindness in responding so promptly to answer the questions I asked in this email…and the second email I sent on riparian areas and wetlands. > > I spent time looking at the slides (maps) that you sent. I’ve come to the conclusion that the technology is hindering the understanding of some basic, fundamental facts. The many layers and colors and acronyms make it very complicated. I know you and the Commissioners are very familiar with all of this, as you have been working on it for years. There are zoning and topology terms that you all probably take for granted; but, for the general public, I fear the text will be unintelligible, and the current interactive maps won’t help very much. That is why I tried to ask—what I thought were simple questions requiring “yes or no” responses; such as “Are there any riparian area which were once protected, but are no longer protected?” I confess that I don’t know enough about the various waterways to know how your response on river banks relates to my question. Or Monica’s response that a field delineation will make sure riparians areas won’t be disturbed by housing developments. > > I defer to you on how and when to address my questions (and I know that others have the same questions). I had thought by sending you questions in advance it would save time at the listening session. I do plan on attending these sessions, but didn’t want to monopolize the meeting time. > > Here is a suggestion, which I think will go a very long way in showing the public all the work you have done on adding 974 additional acres of protected land: use a few paper maps of SB without any colors. On one map, draw an outline on all of the previously protected lands. On the second map, draw an outline around all of the newly protected lands. And on a third map, draw a line around all of the lands which once were protected but are no longer protected (if this is the case). We can then see—without any of the colored clutter—where the new 974 areas are located. Would it be possible to show these on Tuesday? > > I confess that often times I do not understand the answers I get from the staff on land planning matters. Too many times in the past, I kept silent after getting a non-answer. I am not embarrassed to admit my ignorance, nor am I going to stop asking about these important matters. How we use our land has huge consequences for the future of our city and our planet. I intend to keep pushing for the answers on whether the new LDRs end up accomplishing what we, the people, requested of our city almost three years ago: stop allowing housing to be built on the rural lands in the SEQ. > > Thank you again for all you and the other Commissioners do for our city. > > Rosanne > > > >> On Apr 23, 2021, at 16:25, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Roseanne, >> >> Great questions. I will attempt to clarify below: 3 >> >> Parks are NOT included in the 974 acres citywide and 142 acres in the SEQ that would be newly protected. >> >> The areas that are both in the LDR protection area AND a city park are included in the numbers called "Area restricted by Article 10/12" = a total restricted area of 4,449 acres. >> >> The next category down on the page then subtracts the areas that are parks or other forms of protection (all the green areas on the mapping) = "Area restricted by Article 10/12 OUTSIDE of Areas in a Form of Conservation" = 2,740 acres. of that 1,766 acres were already covered by the existing LDRS, so the change is the 974 acres you reference. >> >> The map slide show that I presented at the joint meeting with Council is the easiest for me to see the change in area: >> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/presentation/index.html?webmap=c378ecfe8e >> 7a47e69855ba704582861f Slide 8 is a good starting point. The areas >> that show up in blue are the newly protected areas (orange overlap = >> already in LDRS and green has a different type of protection) One issue with Slide 8 is that some of the green NRP land is under the blue and hard to see. To differentiate the blue areas that are on top of the NRP, I toggle between slides 3 and 4. The area calculations do not have this issue. >> >> A lot of the newly protected acreage 142 acres represent areas that could be developed or redeveloped at a higher intensity. Some areas are within existing neighborhoods, this is most common where a buffer width has been expanded. You can see this best on Slide 9 of the presentation I reference above. These locations within existing neighborhoods are less likely to be redeveloped. You can see these where the blue areas overlap with the grey "built" areas. >> >> I hope this is helpful. >> >> Jessica Louisos >> >> South Burlington Planning Commission Chair >> >> >> >> Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> >> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM >> To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; >> Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels >> Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery >> Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training >> session >> >> This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. >> >> >> Dear Jessica and Commissioners, >> 4 >> I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to >> Monica for spending the time helping us understand how to use the >> maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all >> of the papers that Paul Conner prepared, including the “By the >> Numbers” spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages >> of text.) I came away with two basic questions that should be very >> easy to answer. One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres >> citywide; the other has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in >> the SEQ >> >> I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from. >> >> 1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the newly protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading the map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected land. So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected? >> >> >> 2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that the residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing developments. Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been turned into housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them on the map? >> >> Thank you for all of your work on this. >> >> Rosanne >> >> >> <winmail.dat> > > <winmail.dat> Dear Planning Commission, During this past year, technology has given me the opportunity to attend many more city meetings than previous years. I have been regularly attending the PC meetings, and I am grateful for your commitment to the City, your hard work in drafting the new LDRs and the countless hours you spend as volunteers. As a relatively new resident to South Burlington, attending these sessions has been a tremendous education. After carefully reading the proposed Article 12, I am concerned that there is no mention of, or protection for, grasslands. While I am aware that grasslands do not compromise a significant portion of the city, shouldn’t even a small amount of this important habitat warrant protection? It would seem that the smallest important habitats, which are at the greatest risk, should receive a voice and maximum protection so they do not disappear forever. On March 29th, 2021 VPR had a wonderful interview with Scott Weidensaul. He is a leading naturalist who has written over thirty books and has spent decades studying migratory birds. Mr. Weidensaul shared that since 1970, 30% of North American birds have disappeared totaling more than an astounding 3 billion. Even with that staggering number, he was hopeful. At the end of the interview he stated, “and, so for the groups of birds in North America that are in the worst shape today, like grassland birds - species like meadowlarks and bobolinks and upland sandpipers – that depend on natural grasslands, if we did the same thing for grasslands that we did for wetlands, we can bring those birds back. So, I mean, there are ways that we can turn this around. We just need to have the political will and the wherewithal to make it happen.” What he was referring to, with regards to wetlands, was the dramatic increase in water fowl and water birds over the last 40 years because “starting in the 1980’s, we as a society poured a tremendous amount of money and political will into restoring and protecting wetland habitats.” Here in our own backyard, in 2004, the city commissioned a study of breeding birds in the SEQ prepared by Wings Environmental. The study also cites widespread threats to grasslands and their inhabitants, and suggested that grasslands should have the highest conservation priority in the SEQ. The 2016 Biofinder Update Report states the ecological importance of grasslands (and shrublands) “whether of natural origin or resulting from active land management, are critical to the survival of a suite of bird species in Vermont.” Additionally, “with conversion of natural grasslands elsewhere in the Northeast and especially the Midwest has led to the decline of grassland birds in their historic natural habitats. This has given Vermont, and the Northeast in general, greater importance for the conservation of grassland birds. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) has designated grassland birds as a priority suite of species in Vermont.” The Wildlife Heritage Foundation describes Grasslands as “globally important because they are a natural Carbon Sink and natural carbon sinks are an important part of a natural process called Carbon Cycle. In the carbon cycle, earth both emits and re-captures and stores large quantities of carbon dioxide, also known as CO2, from the earth’s atmosphere thereby keeping the global temperature more or less in balance.” Now more than ever this is critically important. Natural carbon sequestration cannot be replaced. The U.S. Forest Service states that grasslands “also deliver other important services that are often perceived to be free and limitless. Taken for granted as public benefits, ecosystem services lack a formal market and are traditionally absent from society’s balance sheet. As a result, their critical contributions are overlooked in public, corporate, and individual decision- making. The Forest Service is working to promote public awareness of the importance of forests and grasslands to human well-being.” Just in today’s Vermont news, Bald Eagles will soon soar off the endangered species list. Margaret Fowle, a conservation biologist with Audobon Vermont also added this to the discussion: “And that’s not the only species [of concern] out there … grassland birds are declining, shrub land birds are declining. So, there’s lots to think about. But it’s basically going to come down to making sure there’s enough habitat for these birds, as well as making sure some of the impacts, like chemical impacts, aren’t there.” The bald eagle's story is a hopeful message that humans can undo damage to nature. It’s also a reminder of our continuing impact on other species. Finally, offering a completely different perspective, in a recent interview the Dali Lama stated “we must develop a sense of universal responsibility-for the earth and all humanity.” Our world is deeply interdependent, and he further explains “we have to appreciate that local problems have global ramifications from the moment they begin.” We now have the opportunity to set an example as leaders on the local level. From President Biden’s new initiatives to the upcoming g7 Summit to the U.N. Earth Economics Report to the Dali Lama, one thing is clear, the world is beginning to focus on our ecology crisis at all levels. What will be South Burlington’s role in confronting this threat? Every decision made in these LDRs will have a significant impact on future generations long after we are gone. My question for the PC is whether South Burlington has the foresight to do what is right for the City, all of our children as well as our neighbors who will ultimately be affected by the decisions that we make today? Thank you for your all of your hard work and consideration of these issues. Respectfully, Alyson Chalnick 1 Betsy Brown Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:06 PM To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com> Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage Jessica – many thanks for the reply. It would be great to enhance the information in the viewer that you linked. To show the “newly” conserved land clearly, I think the viewer would need to be enhanced to be able to show the "conserved/park/etc", the NRP, all the mapped wetlands (with existing buffers), rivers, streams and other currently protected areas on top of the areas protected by the draft. Best, Andrew From: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:54 AM To: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com> Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage Hi Andrew, I don't feel comfortable "approving" the map accuracy. I think the wetlands information is important, as we have draft changes to some of the buffer widths. I am going to ask the PC on Tuesday if they agree that the NRP areas and the green parcels that are shown as "conserved/park/ect" on the slide maps be added to the interactive viewer. We would need the NRP to be able to be shown on top of the LDR changes to be able to see this- I believe this is what is missing on the slide maps. I think then all the information would be in the same location. I am referring to adding this information to this viewer: 2 Current and Draft Environmental Standards (arcgis.com) Thanks, Jessica Jessica Louisos South Burlington Planning Commission Chair Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 9:58 PM To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels Cc: Marla Keene; Paul Conner Subject: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Jessica – A lot of folks – including me – are very confused as to the location of the newly protected 974 acres in the City. I tried all the various mapping tools and just have not been able to get a “clean” version of the new acreage because the new habitat block layer over-writes the current layers in all of the tools that I could find. Without being able to understand with clarity where these acres are I am finding it very difficult to meaningfully comment on the draft regulations. So, I spent a few hours creating my own map (attached, “change”) in which I try to show all the currently protected areas in the City, and then the newly protected areas in a new color (bright green). Can you let me know if you think this looks about right, or do you think there are newly conserved areas not shown on the “change” map in bright green. Two important caveats:  I did not include anything “new” with respect to new wetlands mappings on the basis that wetlands will need to be delineated (and have typically always been delineated), so a new wetland mapping would not actually change any wetland protections on the ground. 3  I also have not tried to show any new areas attributable to the steep slopes or the newly widened buffers around the wetlands and streams as it was just too hard for me to tease those out separately. If the “change” map I created is not accurate, I think the community would really benefit from a map which shows what I am attempting to show. That is, a map which starts with all of the currently protected areas and then just shows just the changes in a new color. FYI, I created the attached maps based off of the mapping layers at the following link: https://ccrpc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0f2e3ae2b7ab41b9a7339a72e9d87add On the first map (“current”), I selected all of the layers which show, I believe, the current zoning, including:  The Major Stream (Muddy/Potash) Current 100’ Buffer  Major Stream (Winooski) current 100’ Buffer  Minor Stream Current 50’ Buffer  Park and Recreation Zoning  River Corridor (2019)  SEQ Natural Resource Protection  Park Zoning  Conserved Land by Type of Conservation On the second map (“new”) I selected, in addition:  Habitat Block Revisions 2020-10-20  Staff Draft Habitat Connectors 2020 Using photoshop, I created a third map (“change”) in which I highlighted the areas shown as conserved on the new map that were not shown as conserved on the old map. I then removed some small amounts of the newly conserved areas to the extent the maps showed wetlands on those areas (since the wetlands would already have been conserved under the current regulations). Best, Andrew 1 Betsy Brown To:Marla Keene Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 9:59 PM To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com> Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Jessica – A lot of folks – including me – are very confused as to the location of the newly protected 974 acres in the City. I tried all the various mapping tools and just have not been able to get a “clean” version of the new acreage because the new habitat block layer over-writes the current layers in all of the tools that I could find. Without being able to understand with clarity where these acres are I am finding it very difficult to meaningfully comment on the draft regulations. So, I spent a few hours creating my own map (attached, “change”) in which I try to show all the currently protected areas in the City, and then the newly protected areas in a new color (bright green). Can you let me know if you think this looks about right, or do you think there are newly conserved areas not shown on the “change” map in bright green. Two important caveats:  I did not include anything “new” with respect to new wetlands mappings on the basis that wetlands will need to be delineated (and have typically always been delineated), so a new wetland mapping would not actually change any wetland protections on the ground.  I also have not tried to show any new areas attributable to the steep slopes or the newly widened buffers around the wetlands and streams as it was just too hard for me to tease those out separately. If the “change” map I created is not accurate, I think the community would really benefit from a map which shows what I am attempting to show. That is, a map which starts with all of the currently protected areas and then just shows just the changes in a new color. FYI, I created the attached maps based off of the mapping layers at the following link: https://ccrpc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0f2e3ae2b7ab41b9a7339a72e9d87add On the first map (“current”), I selected all of the layers which show, I believe, the current zoning, including: 2  The Major Stream (Muddy/Potash) Current 100’ Buffer  Major Stream (Winooski) current 100’ Buffer  Minor Stream Current 50’ Buffer  Park and Recreation Zoning  River Corridor (2019)  SEQ Natural Resource Protection  Park Zoning  Conserved Land by Type of Conservation On the second map (“new”) I selected, in addition:  Habitat Block Revisions 2020-10-20  Staff Draft Habitat Connectors 2020 Using photoshop, I created a third map (“change”) in which I highlighted the areas shown as conserved on the new map that were not shown as conserved on the old map. I then removed some small amounts of the newly conserved areas to the extent the maps showed wetlands on those areas (since the wetlands would already have been conserved under the current regulations). Best, Andrew 1 Betsy Brown Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session -----Original Message----- From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:13 AM To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> Cc: Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>; Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>; Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com>; Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session Jessica, Thanks so much for your kindness in responding so promptly to answer the questions I asked in this email…and the second email I sent on riparian areas and wetlands. I spent time looking at the slides (maps) that you sent. I’ve come to the conclusion that the technology is hindering the understanding of some basic, fundamental facts. The many layers and colors and acronyms make it very complicated. I know you and the Commissioners are very familiar with all of this, as you have been working on it for years. There are zoning and topology terms that you all probably take for granted; but, for the general public, I fear the text will be unintelligible, and the current interactive maps won’t help very much. That is why I tried to ask—what I thought were simple questions requiring “yes or no” responses; such as “Are there any riparian area which were once protected, but are no longer protected?” I confess that I don’t know enough about the various waterways to know how your response on river banks relates to my question. Or Monica’s response that a field delineation will make sure riparians areas won’t be disturbed by housing developments. I defer to you on how and when to address my questions (and I know that others have the same questions). I had thought by sending you questions in advance it would save time at the listening session. I do plan on attending these sessions, but didn’t want to monopolize the meeting time. Here is a suggestion, which I think will go a very long way in showing the public all the work you have done on adding 974 additional acres of protected land: use a few paper maps of SB without any colors. On one map, draw an outline on all of the previously protected lands. On the second map, draw an outline around all of the newly protected lands. And on a third map, draw a line around all of the lands which once were protected but are no longer protected (if this is the case). We can then see—without any of the colored clutter—where the new 974 areas are located. Would it be possible to show these on Tuesday? I confess that often times I do not understand the answers I get from the staff on land planning matters. Too many times in the past, I kept silent after getting a non-answer. I am not embarrassed to admit my ignorance, nor am I going to stop asking about these important matters. How we use our land has huge consequences for the future of our city and our planet. I intend to keep pushing for the answers on whether the new LDRs end up accomplishing what we, the people, requested of our city almost three years ago: stop allowing housing to be built on the rural lands in the SEQ. Thank you again for all you and the other Commissioners do for our city. Rosanne 2 > On Apr 23, 2021, at 16:25, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote: > > Hi Roseanne, > > Great questions. I will attempt to clarify below: > > Parks are NOT included in the 974 acres citywide and 142 acres in the SEQ that would be newly protected. > > The areas that are both in the LDR protection area AND a city park are included in the numbers called "Area restricted by Article 10/12" = a total restricted area of 4,449 acres. > > The next category down on the page then subtracts the areas that are parks or other forms of protection (all the green areas on the mapping) = "Area restricted by Article 10/12 OUTSIDE of Areas in a Form of Conservation" = 2,740 acres. of that 1,766 acres were already covered by the existing LDRS, so the change is the 974 acres you reference. > > The map slide show that I presented at the joint meeting with Council is the easiest for me to see the change in area: > https://www.arcgis.com/apps/presentation/index.html?webmap=c378ecfe8e7 > a47e69855ba704582861f Slide 8 is a good starting point. The areas > that show up in blue are the newly protected areas (orange overlap = > already in LDRS and green has a different type of protection) One issue with Slide 8 is that some of the green NRP land is under the blue and hard to see. To differentiate the blue areas that are on top of the NRP, I toggle between slides 3 and 4. The area calculations do not have this issue. > > A lot of the newly protected acreage 142 acres represent areas that could be developed or redeveloped at a higher intensity. Some areas are within existing neighborhoods, this is most common where a buffer width has been expanded. You can see this best on Slide 9 of the presentation I reference above. These locations within existing neighborhoods are less likely to be redeveloped. You can see these where the blue areas overlap with the grey "built" areas. > > I hope this is helpful. > > Jessica Louisos > > South Burlington Planning Commission Chair > > > > Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. > > ________________________________________ > From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM > To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; > Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels > Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery > Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training > session 3 > > This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. > > > Dear Jessica and Commissioners, > > I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to > Monica for spending the time helping us understand how to use the > maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all of > the papers that Paul Conner prepared, including the “By the Numbers” > spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages of text.) I > came away with two basic questions that should be very easy to answer. > One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres citywide; the other > has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in the SEQ > > I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from. > > 1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the newly protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading the map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected land. So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected? > > > 2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that the residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing developments. Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been turned into housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them on the map? > > Thank you for all of your work on this. > > Rosanne > > > <winmail.dat> 1 Betsy Brown To:Marla Keene Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: An inconsistency ________________________________________ From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 3:20 PM To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery Subject: EXTERNAL: An inconsistency This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Hi, Commissioners, It’s me again. I love map reading (I used to do quite a bit of that in the military). After attending the map training with Monica, I’ve been spending time looking at the maps to see the LDR changes. But, I’ve found what looks to be an inconsistency. It has to do with wetlands and riparian areas. At the map training session on Wednesday, I asked why some of the riparian areas, which were protected under the old LDRs are no longer protected under the new LDRs (the map showed them as unprotected). Monica said it was because anyone who wanted to develop in those areas would have to do a field delineation; so therefore, riparian areas didn’t need to be shown as protected on the map. I take that to mean, someone would have to physically walk around the area to see if there were riparian areas present. And ... if riparian areas did exist—even though they are not listed on the map, then they could not build in that area. I think what Monica was saying, in other words, was that reality rules…not the map. Do I have that correct? But how would a developer know they couldn’t build there? But why then were protection areas shown for wetlands? The same thing applies to wetlands as it does for riparian areas. They have to be field delineated. Moreover, wetlands are protected under state regulations, so, actually there is no need to show them on our maps. (I am not suggesting these protections be removed from the city maps. Personally, the more protections we show for natural resources, the better. I’m just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency.) If both wetlands and riparians areas have to be field delineated, why is one category of water resources shown as protected on the map and not the other? What was the rationale for showing wetland areas on the map (which are protected by the State) but not riparians areas (which are not protected by the State)? Speaking of wetlands. The new maps show a much larger area of wetlands than the previous maps. Did someone walk the land and discover that we had grossly under-shown the wetland areas on the prior maps? And, if there was a field delineation done for the wetland areas, why was it not done for riparians areas at the same time? Both are incredibly important natural resources. Maybe I am not understanding this properly. Would someone please explain this? I doubt I will be the only one with these questions. Rosanne Richard H. Cate Vice President for Finance and Administration OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION  350B Waterman Building  85 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405  phone (802)656-0219 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer       Helen Reihle, City Council Chair City Council of South Burlington Jessica Louisos, Planning Commission Chair City of South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (via email) April 6, 2021 Dear Chair Reihle and Chair Louisos: Thank you for all the work that you and others at the City Council and Planning Commission have put into drafting the new provisions of the Environmental Protections Standards, and all the other components of the South Burlington rezoning process. As a landholder in the City, UVM has been trying to follow the process as closely as we can. As we stated in our letter last March, we are open to discussions about zoning on our land, but we will not support regulations that limit the use and potential use of our land in a manner greater than the current zoning allows. UVM owns four parcels of land that the Arrowwood report identified as containing Habitat Blocks as well as others that contain Habitat Connectors and these are now included in the draft Environmental Protections Standards that you are considering moving forward to a public hearing. Throughout the process, it has been conveyed that the Environmental Protection Standards and the PUD standards would work together to allow property owners to retain a certain level of development rights, including on parcels containing Habitat Blocks and Connectors. We are reviewing the current draft of the Environmental Protection Standards, dated March 26th, on the City’s website, and working to assess what the potential impact will be to the use of our land. Given that the latest draft was posted late last month, we do not feel we have had enough time to fully review and provide comment to the Planning Commission. Further, without the Commission completing its work on the PUD Standards, it is very difficult to have a full understanding of what the impact on our land will be should the Environmental Protection Standards move forward separately from the PUD standards. It is possible that the University is not alone in trying to quickly assess what the intended and unintended consequences of the Environmental Protection Standards might be. These are significant changes to the   Page 2 OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER  350B Waterman Building  85 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405  phone (802)656-0219 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer   existing regulations. It will be difficult to give meaningful feedback at a public hearing before UVM and potentially others have had time to adequately review this draft. Ideally, if we want to address an issue (intended or otherwise) we would like the opportunity to give feedback prior to a completed draft going through the public hearing process. This will save time and effort in that the public hearing will address a more rounded and well-reviewed product. Therefore, UVM requests that the Planning Commission delay the public hearing for the draft Environmental Protection Standards until we can see these together with the new proposed PUD standards. This will give the Commission, the University and others more complete information and the ability to review this more comprehensively as an interrelated package of new regulations. We understand the time constraints that you are under, having been in Interim Zoning for quite some time, but feel that it is more important to ensure that the proposed changes provide a complete and clear picture for you, landowners, and members of the public to be able to assess and provide comment. Sincerely, Richard H. Cate Vice President for Finance and Administration 1 Betsy Brown To:Marla Keene Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Dear Jessica and Commissioners, I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to Monica for spending the time helping us understand how to use the maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all of the papers that Paul Conner prepared, including the “By the Numbers” spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages of text.) I came away with two basic questions that should be very easy to answer. One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres citywide; the other has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in the SEQ I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from. 1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the newly protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading the map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected land. So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected? 2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that the residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing developments. Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been turned into housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them on the map? Thank you for all of your work on this. Rosanne Daniel A. Seff 210 Meadowood Drive South Burlington, VT 05403-7401 April 5, 2021 Via Electronic Mail Ms. Helen Riehle, Chair City Council City of South Burlington, VT Email: hriehle@sburl.com Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission City of South Burlington, VT Email: jlouisos@sburl.com Dear Chairperson Riehle and Chairperson Louisos: I write as a longtime South Burlington resident who has attempted to follow the recent online-only Planning Commission proceedings concerning draft revisions to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”). I am a practicing attorney with thirty years at the bar. My work involves interpreting statutes and regulations, including the SBLDR. The current online-only format for Planning Commission meetings has made it extremely challenging for this experienced legal professional to understand the Planning Commission’s proposed changes to SBLDR concerning the protection of natural resources, both in terms of the changes being suggested and the reasoning behind the proposed changes. By way of example, during a recent online-only Planning Commission meeting, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner gave a presentation. Mr. Conner displayed numerous maps in an effort to show the Planning Commission and the small handful of us watching online which natural resource areas are protected by the SBLDR currently as compared to the natural resource areas which would be protected under the proposed SBLDR amendments under consideration. With the utmost respect to my friend Mr. Conner, the presentation was extremely difficult to follow on a computer screen. The complex color-overlayed maps were way too small to begin with, and the rapid switching from map to map made it impossible for online viewers to refer back to maps that had been displayed earlier. (I can only imagine the difficulties experienced by those who were watching on a smartphone or tablet.) Toward the end of this meeting, I attempted, via a post in the online “chat box,” to encourage the Planning Commission to hold off on any public hearings concerning proposed natural resources-related amendments to the SBLDR until such time as we are able to meet in- Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair April 5, 2021 Page 2 of 2 person once again. Given the seemingly miniscule level of public attendance during the online- only Planning Commission SBLDR amendment proceedings to date, given the even lower level of public participation in those proceedings (the “chat box” is an ineffective public participation tool, as I have witnessed repeatedly), and given the critical importance of the subject matter under discussion, which will have profound effects for many years to come, it is, I believe, a moral and ethical imperative than any public hearings take place in-person. It would be a travesty if SBLDR amendments concerning critical natural resource protection issues were rushed though during this time of widespread ‘Zoom fatigue.’ In conclusion, I want to thank the Planning Commission members for their efforts to date concerning the draft SBLDR amendments. The City is fortunate to have dedicated volunteers who are willing to devote long hours to a meticulous (and I imagine sometimes tedious) process. The Commission’s work deserves a full and robust public discussion – which is something that can occur only during in-person public hearings. Thank you for your consideration and courtesies. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Daniel A. Seff Daniel A. Seff dseff@yahoo.com 1 Paul Conner From:andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 4:15 PM To:Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Jessica Louisos; Monica Ostby; treihle@sburl.com; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Michael Mittag; Bernie Gagnon Cc:Kevin Dorn; Paul Conner Subject:EXTERNAL: 4/6 Special Joint Meeting         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         To the City Council and Planning Commissioners,     South Burlington residents petitioned for IZ out of a concern that the LDRs do not sufficiently protect South  Burlington’s precious natural resources.      While the Planning Commission has done a careful and professional job on the draft LDRs, and the volunteers  on the commission deserve our respect and thanks for their hard work and dedication, the current drafts of  Articles 10 and 12 unfortunately do not adequately address those concerns, and need to be modified before  the end of IZ to provide more protection for South Burlington’s natural resources, including buffers around the  habitat blocks, and protection for rare grasslands and vanishing farmlands.    How much of South Burlington’s remaining natural resources should be protected, and how much should be  developed? What is the right balance?  It’s pretty clear we have already consumed most of South Burlington’s  natural resources, and “balance” was likely achieved some time ago.    With the 9500 existing homes, commercial and municipal infrastructure, around 75 percent of the agricultural  soils that at one time existed in South Burlington have already been paved over with highways, airport  runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or fragmented into tiny parcels (see page 21  of “South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture / Food Security Action Plan, 2013”).  On top of this, there are at  least (even with IZ, and according to City staff) an additional 1150 new additional homes in the pipeline to be  built on mostly rural lands.  Over‐development has left every watershed in South Burlington impaired.      Our few remaining open spaces provide extensive public health, social and economic benefits that include  energy conservation and climate cooling, habitat for pollinators, carbon sequestration, water filtration,  absorption of air pollutants, improved wildlife habitat, recreational enjoyment, aesthetic relief and noise  reduction.   The earth economics report commissioned by the City confirmed the vast economic benefits of  preserving our remaining open space.  Our open spaces provide life and nourish our souls.    More broadly, the world is facing an ecology crisis.  Studies show that 41 percent of insect species have seen  steep declines in the past decade in the US; North American butterflies have declined by 53 percent,  grasshoppers and crickets by 50 percent and bee species by 40 percent.  The planet has also lost nearly 60% of  its mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians in the last few decades.  Human sprawl is top of the list for  2 these declines.  "Only decisive action can avert a catastrophic collapse of nature's ecosystems," the authors of  one report caution.  South Burlington must play its part in addressing this crisis.    To fulfill our commitment to future generations as stewards of the natural resources under our care, and to  protect this precious and special place that we all cherish, I urge that the City strengthen Articles 10 and 12.       Economic development, jobs and housing in the City should then be focused on infill and re‐development of  the failing commercial areas around City Center.  With online shopping, commercial retail will continue to  decline.   Re‐purposing failing commercial areas is a win‐win for the environment and the economy, and can  provide dynamic and attractive housing opportunities for people across all income levels.  “Case Studies in  Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Strategies for Urgent Challenges” (2021) by June Williamson and Ellen  Dunham‐Jones describes how defunct shopping malls, parking lots, and other obsolete suburban development  patterns across the country are being retrofitted to address current urgent challenges they weren’t designed  for: improving public health, increasing resilience in the face of climate change, leveraging social capital for  equity, supporting an aging society, competing for jobs, and disrupting automobile dependence.    Looking forward to the PUDs, I also urge the City Council to consider the impact of new development on  property taxes. Once the number of students exceeds the carrying capacity of our school system, we will need  to pay for new school infrastructure.  That will mean higher budgets – as we saw last year ‐ and higher  education taxes.  We may already be at that point.    Respectfully,    Andrew Chalnick  670 Nowland Farm Rd    1 Paul Conner From:Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 5:24 PM To:Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Monica Ostby; Ted Riehle; Michael Mittag Cc:Kevin Dorn; Paul Conner; Sandy Dooley; John Simson; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Vincent Bolduc; Patrick O'Brien Subject:EXTERNAL: 4/6 Special Joint Meeting         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         To the City Council and Planning Commissioners, We applaud the Planning Commission on developing a map that clearly depicts South Burlington’s natural resources. The map allows for more fact-based decision-making about future land use. Identifying the location of the City’s natural resources will instill more predictability for future neighborhood development. We also appreciate the progress the Planning Commission has made toward completing the revised PUD regulations. As you enter the final stages of interim zoning, we offer these thoughts for balancing the affordability of homes for South Burlington residents and protection of important natural resources. Balance: the proposed rules balance two objectives essential to sustaining the City’s vitality—conservation and growth. Clarity and Goal Alignment: the proposed rules make clear (1) where and how natural resources are to be protected and (2) that new residential developments shall include elements demonstrated to support healthy neighborhoods, including compact development, which uses less land. Inclusion and Diversity: requiring multiple housing types produces homes that vary in design and price, thus, increasing opportunities for households with varying incomes to live throughout the City; inclusionary zoning also increases the variation in housing prices. Stability and Permanence: inclusionary zoning brings stability to households having lesser means because they can count on “forever” affordable rents or mortgage 2 payments; this improves their quality of life. Inclusionary zoning’s perpetual affordability requirement adds to the stability of the City’s housing stock, thus improving the quality of life in the City, overall. Because inclusionary housing units are perpetually affordable, when they change hands, they are not transformed into high- priced units or short-term rentals. The proposed rules incorporate inclusionary housing units without increasing density. Population and Property Tax Revenue Growth: the proposed density minimums are consistent with the proposed PUD-defined neighborhood development patterns; they also promote housing that requires less land per unit, thus decreasing the per unit cost of land while preserving more space and natural resources. Young families are more likely to be able to afford and be attracted to the neighborhoods that the proposed density minimums and PUD regulations produce. These neighborhoods are anticipated to accommodate population growth. In addition, more dense development generates more property tax revenue and is less costly in terms of roads, water, sewer, and utility services and their maintenance. With respect to property tax revenue, a five-acre neighborhood developed on the basis of two units per acre with average assessed value of $600,000 per unit adds $6,000,000 to the Grand List. A five-acre neighborhood developed on the basis of four units per acre with an average assessed value of $375,000 per unit adds $7,500,000 to the Grand List. Best regards, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee: Chris Trombly, chair; Sandy Dooley, vice chair; John Simson, immediate past chair; Leslie Black-Plumeau, Vince Bolduc and Patrick O’Brien     1 Paul Conner From:Ray Gonda <gonda05403@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 5:33 PM To:Paul Conner; Kevin Dorn Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: Letter from Jeff Parsons - Arrowwood Attachments:Arrowwood Parsons SBurlBuffers 3_28_2021.docx         This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening  attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.         Kevin and Paul, My apologies, I should have had you on the original copy list. Attached is the letter from Arrowwood. Best regards, Ray ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Ray Gonda <gonda05403@yahoo.com> To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021, 11:08:33 AM EDT Subject: Letter from Jeff Parsons - Arrowwood Hi Jessica, Listed below are references to accompany the letter sent to you today from Jeff Parsons of Arrowwood Below are several references which point to the importance of forested habitat blocks and the transitional areas from them to other landscape vegetative types such as grasslands and shrublands. The first one is from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, The second one is a research study in the Balkans. The third is management of transitional areas. The remaining articles are from hunting article discussing such areas' importance to hunters - the people most familiar with such transitional areas. because of the needs of the hunting pursuit, i.e., where are the best places to hunt. Now the point of all these is that such areas are conducive to a greater diversity of rodent family prey species including mice, rabbits and often squirrels, (as well as a greater diversity of birds and insect life) providing protection to them while become hunting grounds for predators. Thus all classifications of wildlife benefit from more sustaining landscapes. Please share these with Planning Commission Members. 2 And thank you for all you do. Respectfully, Ray Gonda Chair, South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (802) 264-4886 H (802) 488-4054 C 1) Grassland and shrublands from BioFinder Vermont (a great first-read primer) https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder2016/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/GrasslandsC omponentAbstract.pdf 2) A study of diversity of forested edges in the Balkans Plant composition and diversity at edges in a semi-natural forest–grassland mosaic    Plant composition and diversity at edges in a semi‐ natural forest–grassl...  László Erdős  As key components of landscapes, edges have received  considerable scientific attention in anthropogenic ecosyste...     3) Managing Grasslands, Shrublands, and Young Forests for Wildlife: A Guide for the Northeast https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/neuplandhabgd.pdf 4) The preferred habitat types for various small game species. https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/SmallGameHuntingProspects.pdf 3 5) A hunter article which demonstrates the importance of edge habitats. Creating Habitat for Small Game - The blog of the gritroutdoors.com    Creating Habitat for Small Game ‐ The blog of the  gritroutdoors.com  By Robin Follette Creating, maintaining and improving habitat  for hunting will help small game move into an area...     6) Creating habitat for small game - the prey species for predators https://blog.gritroutdoors.com/creating-habitat-for-small-game/ 7) What Edge Habitat means for whitetails Edge Habitat - by DeerBuilder.com   Edge Habitat - by DeerBuilder.com What Edge Habitat means for whiteatils      To: City Council and Planning Commission, City of South Burlington From: Jeff Parsons, Arrowwood Environmental Subject: Habitat Block Buffers Date: March 26, 2021 This memo is in response to a request by Ray Gonda, the Chairperson of the South Burlington Conservation Committee to provide some general information regarding the wildlife values of buffers as they relate to habitat blocks in South Burlington. In 2020, Arrowwood Environmental mapped habitat blocks for the City of South Burlington (see City of South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking 2020). Within that document forested areas at least 20 acres in size were mapped and their relative values as wildlife habitat were assessed. Each habitat block was assessed for several wildlife habitat elements such as: size, connectedness with other blocks, the presence of wetlands and surface waters, and the diversity of tree canopy types and heights. The habitat blocks were assessed both for their own individual habitat characteristics and for their connections to other blocks. In addition, the supporting habitats surrounding each block were assessed. Ecologists, including those at Arrowwood Environmental, recognize the value of viewing habitat blocks (both in South Burlington and elsewhere) within a broader landscape context. When broadening the context, especially in areas where habitat blocks are relatively small (like those in South Burlington) – the lands surrounding habitat blocks become important. The undeveloped lands adjacent to habitat blocks serve to add wildlife value to the mapped habitat blocks. Undeveloped buffers adjacent to habitat blocks provide a greater separation between wildlife populations and more intense human activities and human intrusions. These buffers help filter out intrusive noise, lights, and on the ground human activities – many of which can disturb and disrupt a wide-variety of wildlife species. Buffers also serve to provide some separation between roaming pets and wildlife. Buffering habitat blocks from disruptive human activities can enhance wildlife diversity within blocks. Undeveloped buffers can also facilitate access to some wildlife habitat elements that can increase overall wildlife diversity within a block. Wildlife may seek out space, cover, breeding, and feeding opportunities in nearby old fields, orchards, herbaceous wetlands, and shrublands. This non-forest habitat potentially provides abundant feeding opportunities for predator and prey alike. In conclusion, providing buffers to habitat blocks goes a long way towards ensuring the success of South Burlington’s habitat blocks in enhancing wildlife diversity and populations within the town.