Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/23/2017 CITY COUNCIL 23 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 23 January 2017, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; J. Louisos, T. Harrington, Planning Commission; Brig. Gen. Clark; D. Bolger, E. Michaud, P. Taylor, B. Nowak, C. Sargent, J. Dinklage, S. Dooley, D. Deslauriers, L. Kynoch, J. Bluto, J. Hart, K. McGlothlin, J. Leas, R. Greco, G. Maille, S. Dopp, J. Kernan, J. Tucker, J. Marcotullio, E. Andriolli, other members of the public. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no comments or questions. 4. Consider and possibly approve a resolution related to the Burlington International Airport Noise Compatibility Program and Land Acquisition Program, noise modeling and involvement of the City of South Burlington in decision making by the Burlington International Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration on matters that affect the City and other related matters: In presenting her resolution, Ms. Emery said the Airport acted without thought to the consequences. She noted that according to the latest exposure map, 961 homes, including her own, are within the noise contour area. She also noted that the last demolition program razed 14% of the neighborhood’s housing. Residents within the 73.3 DNL have been offered a buyout. Some of these residents didn’t sell during the last buyout because of lack of buyout funds. Two of these homes have sold; some have contracts for sale. Ms. Emery said that others who live beyond the 73.3 DNL face a diminished neighborhood. The city faces loss of tax revenue and affordable housing. Ms. Emery said that other residents in the city are paying the price with diminished services because of lack of tax dollars. This includes road striping. Ms. Emery said her resolution can’t answer all the questions. She wanted the expectations to be realistic. This includes updating the noise exposure map, evaluating the goals of the Airport Master Plan, and providing noise buffers to protect residents from ground noise. Ms. Emery said it was the use of afterburners on the F-16s that gave rise to this situation. She then said that F-16 operations will be decreased until they are phased out prior to the coming of the F-35s. Ms. Emery then enumerated the points in her resolution, including: The City of South Burlington was not informed of the possibility of a public hearing, and as a result no public hearing was held regarding the current buyout program. The current buyout program is a prerequisite for the new insulation program. Ms. Emery said she believes that the lack of a public hearing allows the City of South Burlington to request suspension of the current buyout program. Mr. Chittenden said he agrees with some of what Ms. Emery has said. He added that he still has an open mind. He was contacted by 8 homeowners or their relatives, and after hearing from them, he doesn’t support any action that intervenes with the sale of any homeowner’s property. Mr. Chittenden felt this was not an economic issue for the city; it is a governance issue. He felt there are alternative collaborative actions that would better serve the city down the road. With regard to the resolution, Mr. Chittenden said he supported not tearing down the homes after they are sold so that the housing stock remains on site for residential use during deliberative considerations in the coming 6 months. He supported updating the documents and in defining a clear expiration date for the buyout program. He proposed that a third party, such as Champlain Housing Trust, be engaged to fully consider the possibility of maintaining the acquired parcels as affordable housing. Mr. Chittenden said he also supports the request that the City of South Burlington be fully engaged during the decision-making process of all noise mitigation programs. Ms. Emery agreed that homes that already have contracts should be allowed to proceed with those contracts. Ms. Nowak said it was her understanding that once a home is purchased by the FAA, that home must be demolished or moved. She said that unless there is a negotiation with the FAA, she knew of no other way to keep a home on site. Ms. Nowak noted that an FAA representative is due to come to Vermont, and she wanted to explore the possibility of working with the FAA on issues. Ms. Nowak said she could not support stopping the buyout as it would limit the rights of owners and may deprive them of the opportunity to move or to keep their homes. She stressed that she supports affordable housing and did not want to lose those homes, but not at the expense of the 39 homeowners. She said there may yet be a way to save the Kirby Cottages. With regard to Ms. Emery’s belief that there will be less military activity as the F‐16s are phased out, Ms. Nowak said that when the F‐16s return from their current deployment, they will still be flying, possibly with fewer flights. When the F-35s arrive, there will be daily flights. She also corrected Ms. Emery’s statement that there is a new “runway” being built and said it is a taxiway, not a runway. Ms. Nowak said she also looks forward to working with the FAA regarding the 900 homes in the 65 DNL. She noted it can cost between $10,000-$20,000 per home to insulate those homes. She also noted that about half of the homes in Country Club Estates would be eligible for the insulation program. Regarding the tax loss, Ms. Nowak said the City of South Burlington does receive a payment in lieu of taxes, so that the difference between what the taxes would be and what the City receives is actually about $20,000. Mr. Chittenden noted that on of Gov. Scott’s platforms was affordability. He said the Airport has “blindsided” the City many times and has never offered any viable solution to the noise issue. He noted that in Europe, you see sound walls around airports. He felt that tearing down virtually brand new energy efficient homes with 10-inch walls based on a faulty map was a travesty. But he was loath to stand in the way of a property owner’s right to sell. Ms. Emery stressed that she didn’t propose interfering where there are existing contracts. Ms. Riehle said the proposed resolution is a response to the Burlington International Airport Land and Reuse Plan. Both the City Council and Planning Commission are obligated to respond to that plan. She noted that in other parts of the country, different approaches have been used to address noise issues. She felt this is a request to the FAA to change how they do business with South Burlington, and that it can’t hurt to ask. The public was then invited to comment: Mr. Dinklage: Urged the City Council to do what it can to protect the Chamberlin neighborhood. He felt the City could refuse to issue demolition permits. He suggested this might have been done earlier, but it was never too late to “do it right.” Mr. Deslauriers: Noted he is the last resident of Delaware Street. The Airport has yet to talk to him. He noted the precarious position that residents are in: if the homes don’t come down, the home insulation program doesn’t happen. He didn’t know if this has legal implications. He also questioned what “voluntary” sale of homes means. He wanted a reasonable financial solution and didn’t want to be under the time pressure. He added he would like the City of South Burlington to tell the Airport to “contain their noise within the Airport.” He felt there should be a sound acoustical structure. If FAA money can’t be used for this, there should be other money. Ms. Dooley: Supported the resolution. She noted that federal regulations said that below a 65 DNL, residential use is OK. From 65-70 and 70-75, it is not OK, with footnotes. One of those footnotes said that where the community determines residential use must be allowed, there should be measures to require sound standards in building codes. Ms. Dooley noted there was a perception that Champlain Housing Trust could pay to keep the 3 affordable Kirby Cottages and move them. It would cost about $66,000 to move each of the cottages, but this would not pay for the cottages. The only way the FAA would allow the homes to be moved would be for them to recoup their entire investment (i.e., the purchase price). Ms. Dooley said she would have no problem with the 39 homes being sold if the FAA would say the land is allowable for residential and school use, the mandate for the FAA to recoup its losses would be eliminated, and there is an investment in sound mitigation. She felt those homes should be available to the community for other uses. She asked the Council to attach conditions that serve the community’s goals. Ms. Louisos and Ms. Harrington: As Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, they explained that the mid- to long-term Airport Vision (the 2030 plan) shows an Airport access roadway in place of some of the 39 homes. Mr. Leas: Felt that there was notification of the new home buyout (6 homes) as early as May 16, 2016 at the Airport Commission meeting, and that Ms. Nowak seconded the motion to allow the demolition of those homes. Ms. Nowak: Checked the records and responded that the 6 homes voted on that day were the last homes in the original buyout program that the City Council was already aware of. She indicated the addresses of these homes and noted that none of them were part of the 39 homes in the new buyout program. Ms. Sargent: Noted that the vision of the Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee’s vision was to maintain/enhance the neighborhood. When she heard about the additional 39 homes to be destroyed, she felt it was a “slap in the face.” She felt the city needs to take a stand at some point as this is a decimation of a way of life. She asked the Council to protect the neighborhood from the “predator the Airport has become.” Mr. Tucker: Asked why the buyout program didn’t begin on his side of Kirby Road. He questioned whether the resolution considers “everyone.” He felt it is ignoring them and telling them they have no future. He felt the Council shouldn’t tell them they can’t sell their homes. It is voluntary, and they should have the right to sell. If they don’t sell to the Airport, no one else will buy their homes, and no level of sound mitigation will help them. He also noted the buyout program must be finished before there can be sound mitigation. Ms. Nowak explained that the buyouts started with Lily Lane because those homes had the highest level of noise exposure. Mr. Marcotullio: Said his family is just months away from relief. He asked what the City of South Burlington has to offer them. Ms. Emery said the city has nothing to offer. Mr. Kernan: Said he lives on Lime Kiln Rd. and can see the Airport tower from his home. He noted that planed often queue for long periods of time, emitting a high frequency pitch that creates headaches and makes windows rattle. He disputed the notion that there are only 6 minutes a day of noise, and said it can be from 20-40 minutes a day. He urged passage of the resolution but felt the homeowners have a right to sell their homes. Mr. Bolger: Thanked the Council for trying to make this right and also those for whom this is a grievous issue. He noted that he teaches his students to be “safe, kind and responsible.” He urged the Council to release the Kirby Cottages as they are not safe to live in. He felt the city would be “complicit” in supporting substandard housing not to do so. He didn’t see allowing those sales would be setting a precedent. He noted that 20 months from now, those homeowners could be stuck without a buyout program and the money would be all gone. He asked the Council not to be complicit in the “destruction of lives.” Ms. Gaboriault: Said they were in the previous buyout program but didn’t sell. Things have gotten worse, and they are still in the “red zone.” Ms. Michaud: Said they live on Lily Lane, and hate the situation they are in. They plan to sell. She said the damage is already done to their homes. She felt the resolution is too late and should have been done after the last round of home demolition. She added that if she tried to sell her home on the market, she would have to reveal it is “deemed uninhabitable.” She noted this is the first home she ever bought and as that it not be the last. Ms. Emery said that a letter was issued in 2011 seeking assurance that the boundaries of the buyout area would not expand. She also quoted from the Airport’s re‐use plan that the land they are acquiring is “for Airport development.” Mr. Chittenden said that the Resolution only responded to a symptom stemming from the root issue of governance. Mr. Chittenden said that the Resolution only responded to a symptom stemming from the root issue of governance. Mr. Hart: Said they were told they are within the 75 DNL area. He added the reason they were offered “incentives” was to make them “whole.” He urged the City Council to join hands with the City of Burlington, Mayor Weinberger, and the FAA and invite a cooperative atmosphere. Ms. Emery responded that the other parties have been invited, and there have been meetings. She also cited comments from employers that the cost and availability of housing is a detriment to economic growth in the area. She noted that the cost of housing has risen 70% since the year 2000. Ms. McGlothlin: Said she is a strong advocate for affordable housing; however, the situation on Lily Lane is a “human, not a political” one. (The meeting was interrupted for about 20 minutes to attend to a medical emergency) Ms. McGlothlin then continued. She felt it was unreasonable that the Council was considering not releasing the covenants on the 3 affordable Lily Lane properties. Mr. Gjonda said he supports the resolution and believes the problem between South Burlington and the Airport is more related to military aircraft noise than governance. Ms. Andriolli (Winooski resident): Said this is a very heart rendering issue, and people in Winooski are looking down the “same barrel.” She wondered about the possibility of fraud if the Airport buys homes where the future data does not support it. She felt it was critical to get an updated noise exposure map. She noted that Nick Longo had said people would be “confused” by too many maps and that the FAA won’t provide an updated F‐35 map. She said this isn’t true. It has been done for Boise, Idaho and Great Falls, Montana. She also noted that the FAA statement that 900 homes should be purchased reflects 10% of South Burlington’s housing stock. She felt this is a “noise cancer” that will eat into South Burlington, Winooski and Williston. Ms. Nowak noted that Gene Richards had said absolutely no to buying 900 homes. Ms. Emery questioned whether the new grant had to do with the Noise Exposure Map. Ms. Riehle said the Council would discuss this a t a future meeting. Mr. Bluto: Noted from the Airport Commission meeting minutes of 16 May 2016 that the Commissioners went on to discuss the purchase of 30 more homes. Ms. Kynoch: Asked why the Airport applied for the grant. Ms. Nowak said the new exposure map was due to a change in the F-16 which resulted in a change in the noise contour lines. The last house that was bought in the previous buyout was at the 73.3 DNL line. She further noted that the motions she seconded at the Airport Commission on 16 May 2016 did not include a request for the 39 homes which were subject to a “secondary motion.” Ms. Emery repeated Ms. Nowak’s words that the new Noise Exposure Map required the new grant. Ms. Riehle said her understanding is that the 73.3 DNL was set according to the noise contour in which sat the last house bought under the old buyout program. Ms. Emery questioned why Ms. Nowak did not report to the City on the substance of the motion made in the Airport Commission meeting of 16 May 2016. Ms. Nowak said she would come back to the Council with additional information. Ms. Emery cited the need to keep in mind that this Airport is unique, and that the FAA has one guideline for all airports in the country. She said those rules are disproportionate to what this Airport looks like. She asserted that the noise envelope is not increasing due to commercial, and noted that military aircraft do not fly frequently nor daily. She then referred to the CNAPC recommendation that Chamberlin Elementary School remain since it is key to the neighborhood’s identity. She stressed that each home that is lost is a 100% loss to the state education fund and a loss to the school district because of a decrease in student numbers. She cited the Chamberlin Elementary School Principal’s comments that there is an increase in children enrolled at the school who live in multi-generational households. She also said it has been said that children who lack affordable housing have less chance of being successful. Mr. Chittenden said he felt what Mr. Dinklage said makes sense. He wanted to see a wall built, to know what it will cost, what it would look like, etc. Ms. Bluto (from the City of Winooski): Would like to see some homes in Winooski bought out. She said that Gene Richards had said the buyouts were the result of the old noise lines and could have been bought years ago. She asked to have new lines for the F‐35s so “they can buy us out in Winooski.” Mr. Barritt said the houses involved in this buyout are “the American dream.” What is being built as “affordable” today is mostly high rise apartments. He felt this is the kind of neighborhood you will never get back again. But he did not want to get in the way of contracts. He asked to reword the resolution so as not to inhibit the sale of the 39 homes. If they want to go, they should be allowed to go. Ms. Emery cited the need to make a clear statement to the FAA and that in negotiation you ask for more than you can get. She said she was willing to add language that there be an exception for homes already under contract. Mr. Barritt said he would add “or eligible.” Ms. Emery rejected this. She felt there are ways for some of those homes to be reused (e.g., cafes, etc.). Mr. Barritt said he would hold to allowing the sale of the 39 homes that have been approached. Ms. Emery asked how to stop the demolition. She didn’t want those homes sitting empty and then being demolished. Mr. Barritt again stressed that he couldn’t support the resolution if it doesn’t exclude the 39 homes. Ms. Nowak said the 39 homeowners deserve the Council’s attention. They are not being forced out. Some of the homeowners have children and may choose to stay because their children are in a wonderful school. She felt the Council should be trying to solve the issues not exacerbate them. She stressed that she would fight for sound mitigation and noted she had called the meeting with the Airport Manager and South Burlington’s City Manager and Council Chair. She wanted to see a peaceful conclusion to this situation. Ms. Riehle suggested adding a condition that the City of South Burlington is willing to negotiate and set a day. She agreed that the city’s previous attempts to get attention have been ignored. She noted that it is believed that Senator Leahy’s office contacted the FAA in Washington and there was supposed to be a letter on its way to South Burlington. It has not been received. Ms. Emery said she would like the resolution also to go to Senators Leahy and Sanders and to Congressman Welch. Mr. Chittenden suggested speaking with Chittenden County legislators as well. Ms. Riehle agreed. Ms. Riehle said the city needs to be assertive about where it stands. There are decisions made in Washington that have a huge impact on the City. She then said she was willing to strike #4 (the stopping of the current round of home buyouts) from the resolution. Mr. Chittenden said he felt #1, #2 and #3 still put homeowners in jeopardy. Ms. Emery then moved to approve the Resolution in Response to the 2016 Land Use Plan with the striking of #4 and that the City request that by 7 February 2017, the FAA agree to begin negotiations concerning these requests with the City of South Burlington and other officials of the state and of any public agencies and planning agencies whose area, or any portion of whose area, of jurisdiction within the Ldn 65 dB noise contours is depicted on the NEM, and other Federal officials having local responsibility of land uses depicted on the map. Ms. Riehle seconded. Mr. Barritt said the motion addresses his concerns and he felt it should satisfy the 39 homeowners. He didn’t think the first three points put them in jeopardy. Ms. Nowak said she would like to see something the whole Council could sign onto. Ms. Emery said this is not the time to “be complacent or do nothing.” She felt the document was good. She spent, tough, long hours on it. Mr. Chittenden asked that #11 language be changed from “redirect” to “consider using.” This was approved as a friendly amendment. Council discussed Ms. Riehle’s suggestion that Councilors agree to specific clauses if not all. Councilors Nowak and Chittenden declined, stating that the resolution was not necessary. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 3-2 with Ms. Nowak and Mr. Chittenden voting against. 5. Consider and possibly approve Council comments on Burlington International Airport 2016 Land Use Plan: Ms. Riehle asked Ms. Louisos and Ms. Harrington when the Planning Commission would be approving the final draft of the feedback on the BIA Land and Re-Use Plan Update. Ms. Harrington said the Commission was meeting the next evening and asked for any feedback for the Commission. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t anticipate major revisions. Ms. Emery and Mr. Chittenden said they agreed with the comments in the Planning Commission’s draft feedback letter. Ms. Riehle said her hope is that the Council would fully endorse the Planning Commission’s feedback. Ms. Nowak asked for clarification. Mr. Chittenden said the Council was voting to approve the cover letter to be included with the approved Council Resolution. Ms. Emery added that the cover letter would include a sentence stating the Council’s full endorsement of the Planning Commission’s feedback letter. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the cover letter including the endorsement. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Riehle said that the Planning Commission had the Council’s permission to include in their feedback letter the Council’s full endorsement. 6. Develop, discuss and possibly approve a directive to the City Manager related to covenants on real estate related to Kirby Road/Lily Lane properties: Mr. Barritt said he would vote to approve releasing the covenants as he felt the spirit of the affordable covenants was met with the sale price. Mr. Hubbard said the city has all the numbers except the insurance numbers. Mr. Bolduc said they were able to find today the family income requirements under the covenants. This is $84,000. Comparing the number from 2010 to today’s number, there is a percentage of increase. Using the same ratio for the price, it comes out in the $260,000 range. He said this number has not been confirmed. He added that in the covenant, part of the mechanism is that a Certificate of Compliance be filed with the City of South Burlington confirming the house is being purchased within the affordable rate. Ms. Emery said they need to know what the $260,000 figure represents. She would like to have a notion as to how these houses remain affordable (including closing costs, etc.). Ms. Riehle said they have the numbers from 2 of the sales. The third person has agreed to provide the numbers. Ms. Nowak noted there can be a differential added to help with such things as moving expenses and utility hookups. That is between the purchaser and the seller. One of the Lily Lane affordable homeowners said that using the 2009 median income numbers they came up with $267,000. She noted that mortgage rates are less than when she purchased her home. Insurance is about the same. She said that her offer can be brought down to the $265,000 guideline. Ms. Nowak confirmed that if the homeowners don’t buy a new home, they forego the differential and if they buy a home that costs less than what they received, they have to return the differential. The differential is not part of the sale price. Mr. Barritt said differentials may not be known for a year. The homeowner confirmed that they have a full year to find a new home. Ms. Riehle said the 2 of the homeowners have not agreed to share their differential information. She felt that since this is public money, that number should be provided. Mr. Barritt noted that all 3 homes are already over $200,000, and what the FAA wants to recoup is not the homeowners’ problem. He said he wanted to view this as if “someone else” was buying these homes. Ms. Emery said she believes the city has shared equity in the homes. Ms. Nowak said she did not believe the city has shared equity. Ms. Dooley felt the only way to deal with this is to repeal the covenants and she felt it was the Council’s duty to get the full amount of the stipends so the city will know the full amount it has to pay if it were to buy back the houses. Ms. Riehle said that according to Gene Richards, the stipend is 10-20% of the sale price. Mr. Barritt then moved that the Council hold a special meeting on Monday, 30 January 2017, 6:30 p.m., to take up the issue of the 3 Lily Lane properties after hearing the calculations properly done by the City of South Burlington and confirmed by Steve Cleary. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Nowak moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO 2016 BIA LAND AND RE-USE PLAN* * This Resolution constitutes the City Council’s comments on “DRAFT Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update/ Burlington International Airport (BTV)/ FAA AIP NO. 3-09-0000- 094-2012/ December 2016." WHEREAS, South Burlington is home to the Burlington International Airport (“Airport” or “BIA”), an important contributor to the local, regional, and statewide economy; and, WHEREAS, the South Burlington City Council believes it is imperative that it act in response to the following circumstances: * The City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the development and preservation of affordable housing within proximity to schools, parks, services, and amenities and the enhancement of the quality of life of existing neighborhoods among the top four priorities under the Plan’s stated Vision & Goals. * The City of South Burlington City Council has recognized the development and retention of affordable housing as a top municipal priority and has instituted an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and an Affordable Housing Committee in addition to existing land development regulations, such as those governing the Kirby Cottages at 10, 12, and 18 Lily Lane, and new rules proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee in order to preserve the City’s affordable housing stock. * The December 2016 deployment of the Vermont Air National Guard to the Middle East, ongoing runway construction that will be intermittently halting regular operations over the next two years, and phased departure of all F16 jets ending in March 2019, have resulted in a significant decrease in Vermont Air National Guard operations at the Airport from now into the foreseen future until late 2019 when the first F-35s are scheduled to arrive. * The BIA 14 CFR Part 150 Update 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure Map does not take into account future F-35 operations that are scheduled to begin in October 2019. * The decrease in military operations at the Airport indicates a high probability that the 39 parcels now deemed eligible for the Land Acquisition Program by the FAA and Airport no longer lie in the 73.3 DNL contour. * In January 2017 the FAA Washington Bureau expressed its willingness to buy the homes (“Kirby Cottages”) on Lily Lane and sell them or transfer them to a third party, potentially the Champlain Housing Trust. A condition of this offer is that the price at which the FAA would sell enables the FAA to recoup its investment. This offer is untenable. Accepting this offer would require that contributors to Champlain Housing Trust and/or South Burlington taxpayers subsidize the unusually generous provisions of the FAA’s purchase of homes under the Part 150 Program. The FAA offer further specified that these homes could remain on site as long as they have an avigation/noise easement attached to them or that they could be moved off site within a negotiated period of time. NOW THEREFORE, the City of South Burlington does hereby state the following: 1. We request that the FAA withdraw its grant approval for the current NCP and Land Acquisition Program given that the acquisition of the 39 parcels is based on obsolete noise levels and will result in irreparable harm to the City through the loss of affordable housing, loss of property tax revenue, and loss of peace of mind for our residents; and, 2. We request that the FAA withdraw its approval of the most recently approved NEM and NCP and Land Acquisition Program due to cited deficiencies in the draft 2016 Land and Re-Use Plan, such as (1) the decline in commercial air passengers that contradicts the Airport’s premise that additional land is required for future airport development, (2) the inconsistency between the 73.3 DNL contour governing the current Noise Land Acquisition Program and the 75 DNL contour cited in the draft Land and Re-Use Plan, and (3) the accelerated arrival of the F-35 from fall 2020 to October 2019; and, 3. We request that the FAA withdraw its approval of the most recently approved NEM and NCP and Land Acquisition Program due to the extraordinary decrease of military operations at the Airport until late 2019, which constitutes a significant change in the noise conditions and makes it highly probable that noise contours in the 2015 NEM are no longer accurate; and, 4. We request that the City of Burlington and the Airport suspend immediately further acquisition of homes and parcels under the current Part 150 program relating to the purchase and demolition of homes within the 73.3+ DNL contour on the NEM; and, 5. We request that the FAA recognize the City of South Burlington’s determination that residential and school uses be allowed on all land in South Burlington located within the current NEM and the NEM the City has requested that incorporates F-35 operational data, whether purchased or not purchased through the Land Acquisition Program; and, 6. The City of South Burlington is very concerned that the integrity and quality-of-life of the most impacted residential neighborhood, including Kirby Road to the north and Chamberlin Elementary School in its center, be preserved. If it is not possible to suspend the Noise Land Acquisition Program, we request that the FAA grant the City of South Burlington/Airport an exemption so that the housing stock remain on site for residential use; and 7. With regard to said exemptions, we request that each deed be transferred at no cost or at a reduced cost to a third party, such as the Champlain Housing Trust, in order that the properties may be maintained as affordable housing for residential use; or to another third party for a mutually agreed upon use in line with the City’s planning goals for preserving and enhancing the character of this existing neighborhood; and, 8. Because a particular term of the January 18, 2017, FAA offer regarding its resale of FAA- purchased homes to the City, an appropriate nonprofit, or a private individual would undermine the City’s efforts to increase the number of affordable homes in the Chamberlin neighborhood, we request an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the FAA’s offer so that this provision is removed and substituted in its place is a sales-price provision that advances the City’s goals relating to increasing its stock of affordable housing. (Note: we believe that the FAA does not understand the negative implications of this particular requirement of its offer.) 9. We, therefore, propose that determination of how the City should act vis-à-vis the affordable housing covenants applicable to the three Kirby Cottages at 10, 12, and 18 Lily Lane, be addressed under a separate Council resolution since this situation relates to only three of the 39 properties included on the Noise Land Acquisitions Parcels list and their circumstances differ from those applicable to the other 36 properties on the list; and, 10. We, therefore, request that the FAA not approve the Airport’s plan to acquire noise land for the purpose of constructing an “airport access roadway” where the homes on Kirby Rd. and Lily Lane now sit (3.1 Short-Term Plan); and, 11. We request that the FAA redirect NCP funds to construct passive or constructed Noise Buffer, including berms or other landscape improvements, sound walls, including along the Airport’s southern concourse, and an engine run-up enclosure, in order to mitigate ground noise impacting residents within the 70 DNL and greater contour; and, 12. We request the financial and other assistance of the FAA and Airport in contracting with a qualified consultant to run the approved FAA noise model substituting F-35 data for the F-16 data that was used for the current map in order to be able to plan for the arrival of the F-35s in late 2019; and, 13. We request that the City of South Burlington and Airport enter into a legally binding agreement that states that the Noise Land Acquisition Program will no longer be considered as a mitigation program for BTV unless there are circumstances that warrant one following an environmental impact or sound review that shows the homes and parcels are definitively impacted. We pledge to incorporate measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB into building codes and to consider these measures in individual approvals; and, 14. We request that future consideration of noise mitigation programs include the participation of the City of South Burlington prior to the submittal of grant requests, applications for FAA approval, and notification to eligible residents/property owners. 15. In the event that noise levels become deleterious to residents’ health and quality of life and negatively affect home values, we request that the FAA work with the City of South Burlington and the Airport in order to find a mutually agreeable solution for our residents and the City’s finances; and, 16. Since our residents naturally look to the City of South Burlington for answers to their questions and concerns, we request that the implications of future noise mitigation programs on our residents and our city be carefully explained to the City of South Burlington prior to submittal of requests to the FAA for approval and Airport implementation of such programs, whether these implications include home acquisition, buyer/seller agreement terms, avigation easements, real estate disclosures, or some other possible form of encumbrance; and, 17. We request, therefore, that a person designated by the South Burlington City Manager receive copies of all communications, including draft documents, related to the Airport’s NEMs, NCP, etc.; and Airport presentations to the South Burlington City Council, including sharing of draft documents relating to Airport NEMs and its NCP prepared for submission to the FAA. These presentations would take place before these draft documents are conveyed to the City of Burlington’s Finance Board and City Council. DATED this ______ day of ______________ 2017, SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL ____________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair ____________________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair ____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk ____________________________________ Thomas Chittenden ____________________________________ Pat Nowak BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION * In 1990, the Airport prepared its first Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Part 150 Noise Study, and has periodically updated its component Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Plans through present day. * The City of South Burlington City Council issued a letter in February 2011 in response to the Airport’s 2012 Vision 2030 Master Plan and in it stated, “The Council seeks assurance from BIA that the boundaries of its NCP program will not expand. This is necessary to protect the adjacent neighborhood from BIA purchase and removal of more housing units than are currently planned” and further, “the South Burlington City Council hereby states that it disapproves of the BIA Vision 2030 Master Plan Update as currently written due to its lack of a pledge to fund and build noise mitigation devices (such as blast deflectors, sound walls, and engine run-up enclosures) and/or put in place practices whose result is that the noise experienced by the adjacent South Burlington residential neighborhood is no greater than it is today and, concomitantly, the geographic area in the City of South Burlington covered by the NCP is not enlarged.” * According to the 2012 ECOS Report, “Chittenden County Housing Needs Assessment,” page 24, one finds the following correlation between housing affordability and the County’s and, therefore, State’s economic vitality, according to area employers: “The cost of housing was rated a serious problem by most area employers surveyed during this study. Adverse effects include losing recruits for job openings and higher expenditures when non local candidates take positions here -- for sign-on bonuses and reimbursement for relocation expenses.” Further, on page 56, “VHFA (Vermont Housing Finance Agency) collected surveys from 47 Chittenden County employers asking their opinions about housing availability, cost, and location -- and about the impact of those factors on their businesses. The cost of housing was regarded as a serious problem by 74% of employers for rental housing and 62% of employers for owner housing. In fact, 83% of employers said that the cost and availability of housing was an obstacle to economic development.” In addition this survey, the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation (GBIC) and a team of economic development consultants conducted a separate employer survey for their analysis work which produced similar results. * The scarcity of affordable housing is the source of major hardship for the one in three South Burlington households, which spend more than thirty percent of household income on housing. Of these one in three households, thirty-six percent pay more than fifty percent of household income on housing. The housing affordability standard is paying thirty percent less of household income on housing (these data are from the 2013 South Burlington Affordable Housing Task Force Report). The loss of an additional 37 or 39 housing units in the most affordable neighborhood in the City will add to the number of households whose budgets are stressed by the scarcity of affordable housing in the City. This assertion is supported by the 2012 ECOS Report, which cites, on page 37, that low vacancy rates – along with rising fuel costs and a tightening of mortgage credit – are likely to contribute to increased homes sales prices (“The median price of homes used as primary residences has risen 70% in Chittenden County since 2000,” and “Despite the prevalence of large owner homes, large units that are rental and/or affordable can be challenging to find,” p. 38, 47). * The FAA released updated Noise Exposure Maps in late 2015 reflective of the then current operations at the Airport and, using an updated model, identified 961 homes within the 65+ contours. * The Airport’s consultants unveiled the new NEM in November 2015 during a neighborhood meeting, followed by a public workshop at the Airport; however, according to our understanding of public hearings within our governance rules, these open public meetings do not meet the FAA requirement of a public hearing in impacted communities (and no known meetings were held in Colchester, Williston, or Winooski, although these communities are also impacted). Nor was opportunity to request a public hearing offered on the noise insulation program, a pre-requisite to the noise insulation grant request, nor one offered on the new round of home acquisitions, required by the FAA before the Airport can begin a noise insulation program. As a result, the ramifications of the noise insulation program were not clearly communicated to the communities in question nor did the impacted communities have an opportunity to respond to the Airport’s grant request for more FAA-funded home acquisitions. * The Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee has identified Chamberlin Elementary School as integral to the Chamberlin Neighborhood’s identity and vitality. * Enplanements in each of the years 2010 through 2015 have been declining to a figure of 594,034, the City of South Burlington is somewhat skeptical of projections of an increase to 670,947 in just 4 years and to 781,216 by 2030. * Based on the 2015 Noise Exposure Map, the Airport has identified on its website 39 parcels in the City of South Burlington within a 73.3+ DNL contour that the FAA and the Airport have determined are eligible for the noise mitigation home buyout program through the FAA’s Noise Compatibility Program (“NCP”). * The Airport and City of South Burlington signed a 10-year Tax Stabilization Agreement in July 2016, the terms of which determine that the purchase of the 39 parcels eligible for acquisition would represent a $66,253.54 annual loss in property tax, which represents a 73.5% loss of revenue for the City. The remaining $96,870 represents a loss to the State Education Fund. Overall, this would be an extraordinary loss for the City and would compound our tax revenue loss due to recent prior home acquisitions since 2006, which number more than double the amount of eligible parcels under the current Part 150 Program. * In view of regional and state studies, there is a probability that these 37 or 39 housing units, which include both affordable and workforce housing, are highly sought after by families with school-age children. Of these units, owner-occupied homes currently figure among the existing housing stock in the County deemed most desirable to families according to the 2012 ECOS Report, “Chittenden County Housing Needs Assessment”: “On average, more ‘family’ households own their home than ‘non-family’ households” (16). Should these housing units be purchased and demolished, families are likely to have to move out of South Burlington due to the scarcity of affordable housing in the City and new families unable to move in. We further keep in mind that state aid for education is based on the number of children attending the City’s public schools. Thus, the loss of these 37 or 39 housing units would potentially cause loss of revenue to the School District. Additionally, the Chamberlin neighborhood is home to Chamberlin Elementary School whose enrollment numbers have fallen ten percent, from 253 to 229, since 2010. The School’s Principal notes that the lack of affordable housing and the state of the current economy might also explain the increased number of Chamberlin students living in multiple- generation households. On page 24 the ECOS Report cites a study done by the Vermont Child Poverty Council, pertinent to this expressed concern: “A recent study of the Vermont Child Poverty Council examined a variety of data related to the greatest problems facing the state’s children. The Council noted that ‘without stable and safe housing, children may change schools frequently or may not be ready to learn in school.’ This means that children who lack affordable housing have a reduced likelihood of becoming successful adults.” * The 73.3 DNL contour used as the threshold for determining the current properties eligible for home acquisition appears nowhere in the Airport’s draft 2016 Land and Re-Use Plan, which, under 3.1 Short-Term Plan, cites 75 DNL as the contour within which properties “should be reserved for future airport development.” * The City of South Burlington was not notified of the current FAA Noise Land Acquisition Program grant request for acquiring 39 additional parcels until the FAA had already approved it and before the program was before the Airport’s municipal owner and government body for approval. * Upon review of the 2016 Airport Land and Re-Use Plan, the South Burlington Planning Commission prepared a draft letter reiterating the Council’s position in 2011 that, “Land within the 75 dB DNL can also be suitable for Noise Buffer. The City of South Burlington requests that this option, for passive or constructed Noise Buffer, be added to this area. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood.” The Planning Commission’s draft letter further stated, “the City of South Burlington does not support a limited access connector to I-89” and especially one that “could have a significant impact on Kirby Road being used as a cut-through for non-airport related traffic coming from or headed to Route 15 in Colchester.” SoBu City Letterhead January ___, 2017 Gene Richards, Director of Aviation Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 and Mary T. Walsh, Manager New England Region Airports Division Federal Aviation Administration 1200 District Avenue Burlington, MA 01803-5299 RE: Comments on DRAFT Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update/ Burlington International Airport (BTV)/ FAA AIP NO. 3-09-0000-094-2012/ December 2016 Dear Mr. Richards and Ms. Walsh, First, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the DRAFT BTV Plan Update (as cited above). Second, we appreciate the time and effort put forth by BTV airport personnel and their consultants, CHA Consulting, Inc., in preparation of the Plan Update. Third, due to the urgency of the matters discussed herein, we have chosen to submit these comments to the two of you simultaneously. We believe doing so will serve the best interests of all parties involved. We submit to you the Council’s comments in the form of this cover letter and attached Resolution. The submission of these comments was approved by a motion of the City Council of the City of South Burlington at its January ___. 2017, City Council meeting. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and express our gratitude for your attention to these important matters that have a direct impact on our City. Sincerely yours, Helen Riehle, Chair South Burlington City Council