The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - City Council - 10/01/2018 CITY COUNCIL 1 OCTOBER 2018 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 October 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; Chief S. Burke, Police Department; T. Whipple, outgoing Police Chief; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Planning Commission Members: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, D. MacDonald, A. Klugo, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, T. Riehle; B. Heiser, J. Dinklage, D. O’Rourke, J. Kochman, S. Dopp, R. Greco, N. Hyman, B. Lamonda, Ms. Hammond, E. Miller, A. Chalnik, D. Albrecht, L. Yankowski, A Crocker, D. Smith, V. Bolduc, F. Burkhardt, C. Peterson, S. Partillo, J. Simson., E. Langfeldt, Ms. Goldstein, L. Kahrs, D. Rosensweig, H. Haylor, B. Heiser, D. & D.Bugbee, R. Gonda, M. Simoneau, B. & P. Wilcke, B. Stuono, P. Shulpaugh, N. Hellen, A. Crocker, T. Gustafson, D. Olsky, D. & S. Mowat. K. & W. Hays, D. Peters, T. & S. Perrapato, E. Kelly, K. Ryder, S. Clark, L. Waters, B. Bless, S. & D. Partilo, S. Saferstein, S. Howe, R. Hubbard, P. & C. Bernhardt, B. Tolnice, D. Murdoch, P. Tompkins, K. Stern, S. Mazowita 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: He and Mr. Hubbard are meeting with staff over the next 2 weeks regarding the CIP. There will be 7 public information sessions regarding the November vote on the City Hall/Library/Senior Center. Fire Prevention Day is Saturday. There will be great things for kids at the Fire Station. The Community Mental Health Collaborative will meet at City Hall this coming week. The City hosted the Governor’s capital event last Thursday. State officials toured the new Allard Square housing project which is scheduled to open in 3 weeks. Ms. Riehle provided a view of the proposed City Center project next door to Allard Square. Officials also toured Market Street (dodging construction vehicles) and saw the excavation for the new housing units near the end of that road. SoBu Life has a 4-page spread on the proposed new City Hall/Library/Senior Center building. The city’s website has been significantly updated. There will be a public meeting in Williston regarding replacement of the culvert bridge at Kimball/Marshall Avenues. Mr. Dorn read the notice of that meeting, as required. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursement b. Approval of submittal of State Municipal Planning Grant application Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Ceremonial South Burlington Police Department Change of Command: Ms. Riehle read a Resolution honoring the service of outgoing Police Chief Trevor Whipple. Chief Whipple said he has been honored to serve the community. He also said the city “won the lottery” with Shawn Burke as the new Police Chief and that he will raise the community even higher. There was a brief recess as the Council and community shared a reception honoring Chief Whipple. 7. Discussion with Vermont Land Trust regarding Conservation Easement options and process related to Wheeler Nature Park: The City Attorney reviewed the history of the task force report and the recommendation for a conservation easement. He noted there has to be a public process in order to proceed with such an easement. Mr. Heiser of the Vermont Land Trust then explained that the organization is an independent non-profit group with over 5,000 supporters. They have conserved over 570,000 acres in the state. Mr. Heiser then outlined the different types of projects as private farmland, large tracts of forest land, family land, and community lands. He enumerated several of their projects including Mills Riverside Park in Jericho, Mud Pond Park in Williston, Casey’s Hill in Underhill, Preston Pond in Bolton, UVM’s Carse Beaver Pond in Hinesburg, Burlington’s Intervale, Shelburne Farms, and the Bread Loaf Campus in Ripton. Mr. Heiser explained that a conservation easement is a deed that gives away certain rights (e.g., development) of a piece of land. It focuses on protecting that land’s key resources. It limits, subdivision, development, mowing, rights-of-way, and transfer of the property while allowing farm/forest management, trail development, and minimal recreation uses. The process for completing a conservation easement includes an ecological assessment, major easement components, a memorandum of understanding including project costs and the memorializing process, a draft conservation easement and a management plan. Mr. Barritt asked if there have been incidents where such an easement was violated. Mr. Heiser said there have, and the goal in those cases is to try to find an amicable way to resolve the issues. This could involve restoration or a monetary payment or removal of a structure. Ms. Emery asked about the use of the park for dogs. Mr. Heiser said that is up to the town to decide. He added that he has never come across a “dog park” issue, but it could be an acceptable use, if the community agreed to it. Mr. Chittenden asked if there were any concerns with the Wheeler report and also about costs. Mr. Heiser said nothing jumped out as problematic. As for costs, there are 2 categories: for every project they set aside an endowment for a heavily used property ($25,000) and there is a $15,000 up front fee. Ms. Riehle noted the report recommends dividing the property with one section for the existing house and one for the rest of the land. She asked if there would be different rules for the 2 pieces. Mr. Heiser said typically they wouldn’t divide something like that. He would see that as a management plan issue/delineation. Ms. Riehle noted there has been talk about using the Wheeler House and land as a venue for events to raise revenue (e.g. weddings). She asked if that could be part of an easement. Mr. Heiser said they do have easements that enable events on conserved land. He said it would be their preference to exclude the house from the conservation easement along with an area around the house. Ms. Emery asked if easements are ever amended. Mr. Heiser said typically amendments add more land and/or more restrictions. Because of controversies, they are very careful about adding restrictions. They will add land. Members expressed their comfort with working with the Vermont Land Trust on this project. 8. Joint Council Meeting with Planning Commission to receive an overview of current status of development projects and growth projections for the future: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission is appointed by the City Council and oversees changes to the Land Development Regulations, updates the Comprehensive Plan, and generally handles city planning. She explained that in 2016, the Commission did a complete update of the Comprehensive Plan with input from various city committees and the public. She drew attention to the visioning goals and noted the objectives and strategies that accompany the goals. She stressed that there are a lot of “competing goods” (e.g. affordable housing vs. development). Mr. Conner noted that in 2017 the Commission began an analysis regarding development. He showed the city’s planning map and identified areas targeted for open space, low intensity, medium intensity and high intensity development, and “employment areas.” He also showed a percentage of housing in each area. From 2010-2017 about 32% of development was in low intensity areas, the rest in medium to medium-high areas. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission has been trying to have a process to prioritize their work. They have identified their work for the current year, all of which is tied to Comprehensive Plan goals. There are items that city committees are working on with the Commission and some items that require funding. Ongoing Committee work includes: a. CIP b. Meeting with the DRB regarding concerns c. Transportation items d. Transportation overlay district e. Traffic impact fee update f. Wildlife standards g. Scenic view protection h. Input on Airport plan(s) i. Official City Map update J. “tweaking” the City Center/Form Based Code standards to be sure they work k. working with the Affordable Housing Committee re: inclusionary zoning Ms. Louisos noted there is a new policy regarding public requests for zoning changes. They will be handled twice a year (one review is in October). The Commission is discussing expanding open space criteria city‐wide, looking toward really ‘usable’ open space. There would be different requirements in different parts of the city. The PUD project is the biggest Commission project. It, too, is based on the Comprehensive Plan and is a re-imagined idea of development based on ideas that numbers don’t address. There would be a creation of different types of communities, each with an imagined type of layout. There would be requirements for each of the areas with specific criteria as to what something would look like (e.g. building types, street types, etc.). The Commission is looking at both minimum and maximum densities. Ms. Riehle asked if there would be LDRs resulting from this. Ms. Louisos said there would. Mr. Conner noted that the grant application that the Council approved earlier in this meeting would put all of the PUD work into a usable guidebook with actual images of what is allowed and/or required. He anticipated the Council would see the PUD work in late winter. Mr. Conner then noted the city has typically had 150 dwelling units developed per year. He stressed that population figures being discussed are an estimate as there has been no actual count since the last census. He noted that from 2010-2016, there has been an estimated .75% population growth. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan objective is a 1.5% average annual population growth and a 1.5% to 2% annual average dwelling unit increase. He said the figure for the last 6-7 years is under 2%. Mr. Conner showed targets for affordable housing units. In some years, there have been significant affordable units built. Thanks to Champlain Housing, there are now 105 permanently affordable units just north of City Hall. Mr. Conner also showed a chart showing sewer capacity in the city’s 2 plants. As of today, there are 5 projects going on in the City Center TIF district including Allard Square, the new building next to Sears Auto Center (dermatology offices/residences on 2nd floor), the new 60-unit Champlain Housing Trust building with 45 affordable units, 4 new town homes including 2 new inclusionary zoning units. Mr. Conner then showed a map of where development has been approved or where development is vested prior to approval. These include: Spear Meadows, Dorset Meadows, Irish Farm, South Village, Rye Neighborhood, Vt. National Golf Course sites, Cider Mill II, Sadie Lane. He also showed a map of open space and natural resource protection areas and what is in the planning stages to be open space in the future. He noted the Council’s vote to contribute toward the preservation of the Auclair property (not yet a “done deal”). He also identified properties that could be developed in the future including lands owned by UVM (zoned as Institutional Agriculture). This land does not allow for non-university activities. There is, however, a property which UVM has designated for non-University development. Mr. Chittenden asked if there is a prioritization of properties for preservation. Mr. Conner said there is a “scoring matrix,” though not a priority list. Some property on the official city map has been identified as high interest. Ms. Riehle asked if the land identified as developable is privately held. Mr. Conner said it is. Ms. Riehle asked if UVM pays property taxes on its lands. Mr. Conner said there is a payment in lieu of taxes on buildings. Mr. Conner then explained how Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) zoning works today including the TDR process. He estimated that of the forecasted 3000 homes in the SEQ, about 1600 exist today with about 800 more “identified.” Ms. Emery asked who owns the land conserved by a TDR. Mr. Conner said the property owner owns the land, the TDR lists the restrictions. He did not know whether the tax situation of a property changes when development rights have been sold. Mr. Chittenden asked the approximate number of landowners for the developable land. Mr. Conner estimated 20. Mr. Chittenden said he would like to prioritize developable parcels so the City could consider buying them. Ms. Emery asked how the new PUD standards would apply elsewhere in the city. Mr. Conner said they would be city-wide. Ms. Emery asked if the Commission looks at what various areas look like to determine what is most appropriate there. Ms. Louisos said the regulations look at buildable area so the open space isn’t just in the wetland. Mr. Barritt asked if there is a percentage of TDRs that will get “stranded” over time. Mr. Conner said that when TDRs were put in place, there were more receiving areas then sending. Development has been well below the maximum. He felt there are TDRs that might not get used. Mr. Barritt felt that was a concern. Mr. Chittenden asked if there is a precedent for inter-municipal TDRs. Mr. Conner said only 3 communities in the state have TDRs. Vermont statute allows for joint planning districts. Mr. Chittenden asked about expanding TDRs to the whole city. Mr. Conner said that is legally allowable but there has to be a demand that exceeds the current allowable development. There are also issues of equity regarding median income. Ms. Emery asked if the Commission looks at economics, where it is more expensive for the city to service. Mr. Conner cited a recent event at Magic Hat that dealt with that. He said there are different concerns for different departments (e.g., Police, Fire, Public Works). The Commission is having those conversations with those departments. Ms. Ostby noted a regulation in New York where agricultural land that is going on the market must be posted a few months in advance. Mr. Hyman expressed concern with sewer capacity. Mr. Conner noted the city has somewhere in the range of 20-25 years of capacity. Average daily flows have actually gone down compared to a few years ago. Mr. Hyman also questioned the viability of the wildlife corridors. 9. Presentation by South Burlington Citizens Group on Matters Related to Growth in the Community: Ms. Miller and Ms. Chalnick expressed concern with loss of open space in the community. They felt the city’s path was unsustainable with too much growth and development. They also feel the population growth exceeds projections. Ms. Miller cited the Fire Chief’s comments that the budget wasn’t sustainable and cited cuts made to both Fire and Police budgets. Ms. Miller showed photos of areas being prepared for development and said they feel development is taking priority over conservation. They are worried about wetlands and building in flooding zones. She said that more impervious surfaces will lead to more runoff and flooding and that the 5 watersheds have been negatively affected. Cleaning up that situation will cost $50,000,000. Residents of the SEQ would like wildlife to continue to live near them. They are also concerned with the loss of tree canopy and with the loss of agricultural soil in the city as it is paved over. They indicated that only 6 of the 17 identified scenic views have been protected. Ms. Miller said she didn’t feel the city is paying attention to the city’s climate pledge. The citizens group asked the Council to act and to give priority to conservation. They want development to happen in the Shelburne Rd., Williston Road corridors. They recommend redoing the LDRs so they don’t allow development on conservation lands and wetlands, forests, and prime ag soils. They asked the Council to enact an interim bylaw to institute a 2-year halt to all development so the LDRs can be aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kaufman said he has had similar concerns but what he heard from the Planning Commission has allayed some of those concerns. Ms. Emery spoke to the level of concern in the community and that this should be on the Council’s work plan. Ms. Riehle said some aligning was done after the last interim zoning. She felt that work needs to continue. She stressed that the DRB has had to approve plans to avoid losing in Court appeals if they reject something that is allowed. Mr. Dinklage spoke to the importance of preserving certain areas of the city but spoke against interim zoning. He felt the current regulations can be tweaked. He stressed that the last interim zoning was very expensive and was essentially a failure. Mr. Albrecht felt that the planning staff should have time to respond to the citizen's presentation. He questioned whether things are being built in flood areas and noted that the city has some of the strongest stormwater regulations in the state. Mr. Dorn cited the need to look at the citizen's report for accuracy. Mr. Conner said Mr. Albrecht is correct. All development is prohibited in flood plain areas. Regarding stormwater, the city’s threshold is below what the state is required to review. The city even regulates Class 3 wetlands which the state does not require. Mr. Conner said staff will review the citizens’ report for accuracy. Ms. Riehle noted that part of the plan for City Center will actually remediate stormwater issues and will mitigate things that are harming Potash Brook. Ms. Yankowski said she has lived in the city all her life and that South Burlington has always tried to preserve as much open space as possible. That takes money. She noted that if the city had had as much preservation as people seem to want, those people wouldn’t be living in the city now. A resident asked how much of what is called green space in the SEQ is actually the golf course. Mr. Conner noted the Golf Course is zoned NPR, so if it ever went under, that land would be in the conservation zone. That same resident asked about traffic increases on Spear and Dorset Streets. Mr. Conner said corridor studies have been done for those roads and a study is now being done for Tilley Drive/Kimball Avenue. He noted that users of those roads include many people from communities south of South Burlington. A new city resident said they chose South Burlington because it is a beautiful community. They don’t mind paying higher taxes to preserve that. She said it is already hard to turn left to take the kids to school. She loved the idea of City Center but didn’t want to lose views and animal habitat. Mr. Bolduc noted the golf course was one answer to preserving land, and everyone was delighted when it happened. Ms. Smith, a new resident said she doesn’t want to live in another area with a “population explosion,” where her 15‐minute commute turned into 30 minutes. She felt higher taxes are worth it. She also felt “guilty because there had to be a house for me.” Ms. Peterson thank everyone for all the information and noted how much hard work is involved in all of this. She recommended a breather to reflect on what impacts. Mr. Burkhardt questioned whether there are sufficient resources to handle the growth. He said the city’s tax rate has increased at 3 times the rate of inflation and the schools’ tax rate has only increased at the rate of inflation. 10. Discussion on possible action on a resolution to request a public hearing on draft interim bylaws: Ms. Emery noted that in 2012 she voted against interim zoning because she was concerned with backlash, and that is what happened. It also did not lead to tangible benefits. She said if there is to be interim zoning, there will have to be studies. She became concerned in 2016 that more and more growth would lead to a tipping point. Since then, that concern has increased. The Council has had to put aside things on the CIP, etc. She also noted that the Council is hearing about the need for affordable housing. The issue is balancing all of the needs. Ms. Emery noted certain types of development are more of a drain on city services. Housing costs $1.31 for each dollar of value while businesses cost $.31 for each dollar of value. For every dollar of conserved land, the city gets back $9. The City Attorney then explained the process for instituting interim zoning. Mr. Kaufman said he would like to hear from staff in response to the presentation and possible inaccuracies. Mr. Barritt agreed and felt the report has to be vetted for accuracy as it contains a lot of "perception". He said they also need to understand the consequences. There is not a lot of land left in the SEQ to be developed; the question for him is how much time and money to spend on it. He stressed that the Comprehensive Plan is a vision; the LDRs are a legal document. He also noted that there is a lot more than development driving the city's budget, specifically the pension fund loan, medical insurance, the City Center Reserve Fund, etc. He said he is not ready to jump off the cliff and get embroiled in lawsuits which cost the city a lot of money in the past. Mr. Chittenden agreed with Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Barritt. He wanted to re-fund the 1 cent open space fund so the city can purchase land that comes available. He also wanted to explore using TDRs city-wide. Mr. Dorn reminded the Council that Mr. Conner will be making a presentation at the next meeting regarding sustainability. There is also a new Zoning Administrator. The Planning Department has a lot on its plate, and things can’t happen ‘immediately.’ Mr. Albrecht suggested revising the previous study and felt it was worth an “all‐day discussion.” He felt interim zoning was a strong measure and maybe they should just change SEQ zoning. Ms. Riehle noted that would result in lawsuits for “downzoning.” Mr. Albrecht said that from an academic perspective, if you care about sustainability, there should be more commercial development in the SEQ. A school and supermarkets would keep people from driving so far. Mr. Langfeldt noted he is a developer with no aspirations in the SEQ. He cited the need to balance needs: wildlife, affordable housing, etc. He noted how long it took to get one of their projects passed and said it was a very democratic process. He noted that people are still scarred from the previous interim zoning. Ms. Goldstein said she felt the city has to act now and it is already too late for some. She didn’t want South Burlington to turn into a Buck’s County, PA. Mr. Simson advised against interim zoning for the whole city. He cited the need for affordable housing and commercial development. Mr. Kaufman asked if interim zoning has to be 2 years. Mr. Bolduc said it can be up to 2 years. Ms. Riehle suggested having the Planning Commission come up with priorities (e.g. the PUD project). Mr. Dorn said they are better positioned than staff to do this. Ms. Emery said her goal for interim zoning is for it to be at an accelerated rate and then bring it to the Planning Commission. Mr. Barritt was concerned that the city just spent $600,000 to conserve 300+ acres. He asked how much more money should be thrown at this. He asked members of the public if they wanted to stop all development in the SEQ. The overwhelming answer was yes. Mr. Conner said the ultimate question for the long term is what does success in the SEQ look like. 11. Council Approval of FY20 General Fund Budget Schedule: Mr. Hubbard noted that the 2 November date has to be changed to 16 November. Mr. Barritt moved to approve the General Fund Budget Schedule as presented with the noted change. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Chittenden moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 a.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 10/02/18 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 10/2/2018 3449 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 1,208.84 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 9/13/2018 VI-14639 5445233 85.49 85.49 9/13/2018 VI-14640 5445088 94.32 94.32 9/14/2018 VI-14641 5445928 77.97 77.97 9/10/2018 VI-14642 5443237 901.44 901.44 9/11/2018 VI-14643 5443797 13.14 13.14 9/20/2018 VI-14648 5448998 36.48 36.48 10/2/2018 3450 Environmental Hazards Management, Inc. 226.60 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 9/5/2018 VI-14645 6823 226.60 226.60 10/2/2018 3451 Ferguson Waterworks #576 151.68 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 9/19/2018 VI-14646 0847187 151.68 151.68 10/2/2018 3452 FirstLight Fiber 40.82 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 9/15/2018 VI-14644 4395694 40.82 40.82 10/2/2018 3453 Samuel Reed 82.72 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 9/26/2018 VI-14647 REFUND 82.72 82.72 Total Amount Paid: 1,710.66 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: September 27, 2018 Page 1 of 1 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Consideration of Municipal Planning Grant application submittal DATE: October 1, 2018 City Council meeting Background The State Agency of Commerce and Community Development has made available funding for towns and cities to undertake planning activities again this year. The maximum grant award for a single municipality is $20,000. Grant require a match of 10% with bonus points awarded to larger match amounts The State awards these grants based on a series of competitive criteria. Those include: application quality, work plan & budget, linkage to comprehensive plan, citizen participation, statewide priorities, and bonus points for projects related to neighborhood development areas, of which we have one. Project Proposal The proposal is to use the MPG funds to develop a guidebook to accompany the Planned Unit Development / Master Plan overhaul that the Planning Commission is finalizing this year. The Guidebook would be an illustrative accompaniment to the Regulations to make them more user friendly for applicants, neighbors, and the Development Review Board. For the purposes of this Municipal Planning Grant, the City would be committing to $8,000 in local match to the $14,000 grant. These funds have already been identified in the FY 2018 budget and are included in the current contract for Phase II of the Planned Unit Development Project. This proposal was approved by the Planning Commission earlier this month. Proposed Action: Approval of the submittal of a Municipal Planning Grant application, for up to $14,000 in grant funds plus at least $8,000 in local match, for the work described above. 0 | P a g e WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK Wheeler Conservation Easement Task Force Donna Leban, Chair (Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) Cathy Frank, (Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) Jennifer Kochman, (Recreation and Parks Committee) Michael Simoneau, (Recreation and Parks Committee) Melissa Cuke, (Natural Resources Committee) Elizabeth Milizia, (Natural Resources Committee) Sarah Dopp, (South Burlington Land Trust) Michael Mittag, (South Burlington Land Trust) Cathyann LaRose, (City Planner) Maggie Leugers, (Recreation & Parks Director) Photos Courtesy of Betty Milizia Prepared By: SE Group | (802) 862-0098 | 131 Church Street, Suite 204 | Burlington, Vermont 05401 Mark Kane, Director of Community Planning and Design Drew Pollak-Bruce, Associate Planner Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction and Project Overview ............................................................................... 3 Task Force Composition ...................................................................................................... 4 3. Conservation Easement Overview ................................................................................... 5 What is a Conservation Easement? ..................................................................................... 5 Process for Developing a Conservation Easement for Wheeler Nature Park ....................... 6 Conservation Easement PROCESS CHART ...................................................................... 7 Elements of a Conservation Easement ................................................................................ 8 4. Task Force Discussions and Recommended Conservation Easement Elements ........ 9 Conservation Element #1 - Identifying Baseline Elements of The Property .........................11 Conservation Element #2 -Purpose of the Conservation Easement ....................................12 Conservation Element #3- Conservation Values .................................................................13 Conservation Element #4 - Ongoing Use of The Property ..................................................13 5. Public Meeting Summary .................................................................................................15 6. Conservation Partners .....................................................................................................17 Potential Conservation Partners .........................................................................................17 Vermont Land Trust Input and Feedback ............................................................................18 7. Summary Recommendations and Next Steps ...............................................................19 Task Force Recommendations ...........................................................................................19 Appendix A. Task Force Baseline Elements ......................................................................21 Appendix B. History of Wheeler Nature Park .....................................................................25 WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wheeler Nature Park (the Park) is an important community asset in South Burlington, Vermont. It was purchased by the City of South Burlington in 1992 and is approximately 119 acres in size. The Park contains two distinct areas: the Natural Area and the Wheeler Homestead Area, the latter of which contains community garden plots, the children’s garden, and the Wheeler/Calkins House. In 2016 the South Burlington City Council expressed its desire to bring together representation from the Natural Resource, Recreation and Parks, and Bike/Pedestrian Committees to help formulate parameters for consideration in establishing a permanent conservation easement for Wheeler Nature Park to assure that the long-term use/benefit of the park remains true to the original purpose of its acquisition and meets the needs of the residents of South Burlington. Early in the process, the Task Force and City Council also recognized the need for the South Burlington Land Trust to have representation on the Task Force. This Strategic Conservation Framework report is the final product of this Task Force and is intended to inform City Council on important conservation issues identified by the Task Force and South Burlington public to guide the City in the formalization of a conservation easement. The report identifies features of four primary elements of a conservation easement: 1) Baseline Elements; 2) Purpose of the Conservation Easement; 3) Conservation Values; and 4) Ongoing Use of the Property. In addition to the findings for these four primary elements, the following recommendations summarize other ideas the Task Force has discussed that may help define the City’s conservation interest in Wheeler Nature Park. These recommendations should be considered throughout the conservation easement process and as the City moves forward with ongoing management of the Park. 1. Recognize that the diverse areas of Wheeler Nature Park—the Natural Area and the Homestead Area—have distinct characteristics and uses and should be managed and protected accordingly. There was consensus among the Task Force that the distinction between the two areas of the park should be recognized and reflected in both the conservation easement and the future management of the park. Further to this point, a distinct delineation between these two zones should be pursued and approved by City Council. 2. The natural qualities of the park and the nature-based passive recreation it provides should be paramount for Wheeler Nature Park moving forward. While the Task Force recognizes the need for public access and meeting community needs within the Park, there was also strong consensus for the idea that Wheeler Nature Park should remain just that—a Nature Park—into the future. The Task Force believes that the Park should be managed and protected to ensure it remains a natural area and not a developed recreation site like nearby Veteran’s Memorial Park. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 2 3. An open, transparent, and thorough public process is needed to effectively manage Wheeler Nature Park for the benefit of all City residents. The Task Force feels the existing management plan for the Park, which was done through an open and public process, is an important City document and should carry significant weight in the generation of the conservation easement. The Task Force also understands that the management plan will likely need to be updated following the implementation of the easement and that the work done in this process should be recognized and incorporated into any future management for the Park. 4. Incorporate the new acreage to be acquired as part of an anticipated land swap into the conservation easement and management plan for the remainder of the Park. There was consensus within the Task Force that this leg is important from both a natural resource and public access standpoint and should be managed and considered in the conservation easement as a cohesive and connected natural area within the City. 5. A local conservation partner is preferred to a more national organization. There was consensus among the Task Force that a local partner would be a better fit for the City and the Vermont Land Trust would likely make a great conservation partner for Wheeler Nature Park. The principal objectives of this grant are to: 1) preserve a diverse and natural ecosystem within the Protected Property; 2) support the long-term professional management of the natural, educational and cultural resources; 3) facilitate public access that minimizes negative impact on natural communities, surface waters, wildlife habitats, and other conservation values; and 4) sustain harmony within the property which consists of both the natural area and the multi-use Homestead area. Draft Conservation Easement Purpose Statement Prepared by the Task Force WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 3 2. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW Wheeler Nature Park is located southeast of the intersection of Dorset and Swift streets in South Burlington, Vermont. It was purchased by the City of South Burlington in 1992 and is approximately 119 acres in size. The Park contains two distinct areas: the Natural Area and the Wheeler Homestead Area. The Natural Area consists of mixed forest, grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, and approximately 2 miles of pedestrian trails for hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. The Natural Area provides benefits to the flora, fauna and residents of South Burlington on many levels. The Wheeler Homestead Area contains community garden plots, the children’s garden, a tree nursery and the Wheeler/Calkins House, which is currently host to two non-profit organizations: Common Roots and The Friends of the Library. In addition to its high natural resource value, the overall park also offers potential uses for agriculture, education and recreation for the residents of South Burlington. It is important to note that Wheeler Nature Park is separate and distinct from nearby Veteran’s Memorial Recreational Area, and that the permitted uses of the two properties are subject to their own individual guidelines. In 2011 the City of South Burlington voted to exchange 7.25 acres of the Park for 21.27 acres of adjacent land (“the leg”) then called the “Wheeler Nature Park Connection Parcel”. The net result will be City-owned lands of about 119 acres. This vote called for the City Council to place the “new” Wheeler Nature Park into a third-party conservation easement. Between 2011 and 2015 the City worked to revise the management plan for the Park and completed this revision in 2015. Following the completion of the management plan, the South Burlington City Council expressed its desire to bring together representation from the Natural Resource, Recreation and Parks, and Bike/Pedestrian Committees to help formulate parameters for consideration in establishing a permanent conservation easement for Wheeler Nature Park to assure that the long-term use/benefit of the park remains true to the original purpose of its acquisition and meets the needs of the residents of South Burlington. Early in the process, the Task Force and City Council also recognized the need for the South Burlington Land Trust to have representation on the Task Force. In establishing the Task Force and pursuing the development of a conservation easement, the City engaged SE Group from Burlington, Vermont to assist in facilitating a process to develop a “Strategic Conservation Framework”. The process for preparing this effort has involved the following steps, which have been completed by the Task Force, City Staff (Planning, Public Works and Parks/Recreation) and the Consultant Team: WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 4 1. Review the existing management plan for the Park to better understand how the Park currently functions, identify issues and needs for use and/or maintenance of the Park, and draft an initial impression on the underlying factors the framework should consider. 2. Review the original ballot measure and associated documents related to the acquisition of the property. Secure base mapping of the facility showing known or likely environmental, cultural and/or historic resources for the property from the City and/or State of Vermont sources. 3. Establish and facilitate an engagement process that brings together members of the relevant city committees, along with relevant City departments (Planning, Recreation, and Public Works) to identify important goals and objectives that might provide direction on establishing conservation language. 4. Conduct one public meeting to present draft ideas for conservation of the Park. 5. Consider long-standing City objectives, plans and regulations for open space management, recreational use and need and land capability when framing opportunities for establishing conservation measures. 6. Review and consider potential conservation partners and gauge preliminary interest from their respective organizations. 7. Filter, organize and structure task force and public input into a framework that allows for both visual expression of ideas and summarization of broad themes. 8. Develop a Strategic Conservation Framework for the Park that coalesces the work of the project into a series of statements with supporting narrative that defines key conservation objectives and strategies for the Park as well as a supporting map/plan that demonstrates specific spatial considerations related to conservation objectives within the Park. This Strategic Conservation Framework is not a conservation easement. As described herein, the development of a conservation easement with an independent conservation partner is both a legal process and a negotiated one. This document and the information it communicates is intended to inform City Council on important conservation issues identified by the Task Force and South Burlington public to guide the City in the formalization of a conservation easement. Natural Resources Recreation and Parks Bike/Pedestrian South Burlington Land Trust TASK FORCE COMPOSITION WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 5 3. CONSERVATION EASEMEN T OVERVIEW WHAT IS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT? A conservation easement is a restriction placed on a piece of property to protect its associated resources. The easement is either voluntarily donated or sold by the landowner and constitutes a legally binding agreement that limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place on the land in perpetuity. Conservation easements protect land for future generations while allowing owners to retain many property rights to use their land. In cases where the land is a privately owned, there is often the potential for tax benefits for the private entity. In the case of Wheeler Nature Park, the landowner is a public entity, and tax benefits do not come into play. In a conservation easement, a landowner voluntarily agrees to sell or donate certain rights associated with his or her property – often including the right to subdivide or develop – and a private organization or public agency (such as a land trust) agrees to bind and enforce the landowner's promise not to exercise those rights. In essence, the rights are forfeited and no longer exist. An easement selectively targets only those rights necessary to protect specific conservation values, such as water quality or migration routes, and is individually tailored to meet a landowner's needs. A conservation easement is legally binding. Conservation easements protect land for future generations Perpetuity pərpəˈt(y)o͞oədē noun 1. a thing that lasts forever or for an indefinite period, in particular. 2. the state or quality of lasting forever. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 6 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR WHEELER NATURE PARK A conservation easement is a legal agreement that must be negotiated and agreed upon in order to be implemented. There are generally at least four parties to every conservation easement transaction: 1. The easement holder (land trust or other conservation partner) 2. The easement holder’s attorney 3. The landowner (the City of South Burlington in this case) 4. The landowner’s attorney Each of these parties has a unique role to play in the negotiation and drafting of a conservation easement. The easement holder or conservation partner’s interest is generally related to their mission and guiding principles regarding land conservation. For example, the Vermont Land Trust’s guiding principles are as follows: “Vermont Land Trust exists so that current and future generations are deeply connected to the land and benefit from its deliberate protection and responsible stewardship. Specifically, 1. Working farms, forests, community lands, and associated natural systems are conserved, and contribute to the cultural, economic, and ecological vitality of local communities. 2. Land is accessible to the public, and working landscapes are affordable and available. 3. Land conservation and stewardship manifest an understanding of the changing nature of environmental, economic, and societal conditions. 4. Land stewardship reflects responsible and balanced care for the ecological integrity, cultural heritage, and economic productivity of conserved properties” The easement holder or conservation partner also has an interest in the long-term sustainability of their organization and in creating easements that are enforceable in perpetuity. The easement holder typically considers the enforceability of the easement in terms of resource allocation (cost and staff time required to manage the easement) as well as the political will and standing of creating the easement (maintaining positive relationships with municipalities, landowners, etc.). The landowner’s role in conservation easement negotiations is also of the utmost importance. The landowner must provide information about the property and its resources as well as be forthright about their goals for the future of the property. As the Wheeler Nature Park is a publicly owned property, the landowner in this case is the City and residents of South Burlington and the City and residents’ interest in conservation of the property must be well understood to craft an effective easement. Understanding and communicating this interest is the primary focus of this Strategic Conservation Framework document. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 7 The attorneys’ roles are also very important to the development of an enforceable conservation easement, as they must understand state and federal laws applicable to conservation easements as well as all of the conservation partner’s standards and practices and the landowner’s goals for conservation that must apply to the easement drafting. The process for developing a conservation easement for Wheeler Nature Park is demonstrated in the graphic below. CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROCESS CHART •This Strategic Conservation Framework document outlines and explains the City's interest in a conservation easement and identifies potential conservation partners who could act as an easement holder. Conservation Framework •Using the information contained in the conservation framework document, City Council and City Staff will need to select a conservation partner to begin development of the conservation easement. Choosing a Partner •Once a conservation partner has been selected, the City may enter into negotiations with the conservation partner around the specific terms of the easement, the conservation values that need to be protected, and the appropriate restrictions and reserved rights created in the easement. Negotiating Terms •Following the negotiation of easement terms and agreement around the defined conservation values, purposes, and restrictions and reserved rights, the conservation partner's and City's attorneys will begin to draft the conservation easement language. Drafting Easement •The conservation partner will document the existing conditions and conservation values to be protected by the easement through the creation of a baseline documentation report. This work often occurs concurrently with the negotiation and drafting of the easement. Baseline Assessment •The conservation easement is formalized and implemented through the closing of the legal agreement, much like the closing on other real estate transactions. Formalizing Agreement •After the conservation easement is formalized, all restrictions and reserved rights are in effect in perpetuity. To ensure the terms of the easement are being upheld, a conservation partner will monitor the property at least annually (often more frequently). A management plan for the property should be updated as conditions change and needs arise. Monitoring and Enforcement WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 8 ELEMENTS OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT Conservation easements are creations of statutory law. Each state has different laws regulating conservation easements, and in order for an easement to be legally recognized (and thus enforceable), any conservation easement must contain certain elements to meet the statutory requirements. Four (4) important elements of conservation were explored throughout this process to help consolidate the collective input of the Task Force members and the public into a meaningful format that will help communicate the goals and objectives of the City to potential conservation partners. These elements are drawn from guidance on drafting conservation easements from the Land Trust Alliance, which represents more than 1,100 member land trusts nationwide and is the authoritative source on conservation easement best practices. These four elements are: 1. I - Baseline Elements of the Property: Documentation of the baseline conditions is critical for establishing the condition of the property at the time the easement is granted, and forms the basis of future monitoring and enforcement. While a conservation partner will typically produce a baseline documentation report prior to closing and signing a conservation easement, it can be helpful for the City to understand the conservation values to be protected by the easement and the relevant conditions of the property prior to easement negotiations. 2. II - Purpose(s) of the Conservation Easement: Often in a standard conservation easement, the “purpose” of the easement identifies the primary (and/or secondary) conservation objectives related to the identified values that will be defined. 3. III - Conservation Values: The next part of a standard conservation easement consists of a series of “recitals” within which the documenting of conservation values occurs. This section should be written with great clarity rather than as broad statements. This section should also indicate the public benefits to be derived. 4. IV - On-Going Uses of the Property: The next part of a typical conservation easement essentially identifies the restrictions placed on the property and the ‘reserved rights” II: Purpose of the Conservation Easement III: Conservation Values to be Preserved IV: On-going Use of the Property I: Baseline Elements WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 9 that the landowner (in this case, the City) maintains with respect to the use of the property. Because such easements must be perpetual in nature, land trusts must assure that the restrictions they craft for their easements are within their capacity to monitor and enforce forever. Good easement drafting often means avoiding restrictions that are only superficially related to the conservation values. 4. TASK FORCE DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION EASEMENT ELEMENTS The following represents the results of the Task Force discussions around the primary elements of a conservation easement. These findings are the direct products of the Task Force meetings, and represent the evolution of thinking in the Task Force throughout the process. Task Force meetings were held on the following dates with the following topics discussed at each meeting: 1. March 16, 2016: Overview of the project (scope, goals, timeline, history of the property), Task Force composition and member introductions, First Impressions "Round Table" and discussion of the "Givens" - what factors must be addressed in the Strategic Conservation Framework for Wheeler Nature Park. 2. April 25, 2016: Discussion of primary elements of a conservation easement, discussion of final product of Task Force and next steps, Task Force member identification of baseline elements of the property, discussion of the legal purpose of the conservation easement, discussion of Potential Conservation Partners. 3. May 18, 2016: Review of potential Conservation Partners projects, discussion of conservation values, discussion of uses within the Property, plan for upcoming meetings. 4. July 21, 2016: Discussion of stormwater management at the park with City of South Burlington DPW, discussion with Bob Heiser, Champlain Valley Regional Director of the Vermont Land Trust, discussion of the mechanisms for addressing various uses (management plan, City Ordinances, or Conservation Easement), review outline of final report. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 10 An overarching theme to the Task Force discussions was the difference in character, natural resource value and community value between the Natural Area and the Wheeler Homestead Area in the Park. Although no precise delineation of the two areas currently exists, the areas identified in the map below reflect the general areas for these two zones. Note: This map depicts the likely delineation of Wheeler Nature Park following the finalization of the land exchange. Although the exchange process is underway, Wheeler Nature Park does not currently legally include the southeast 22 acres (i.e. “the leg”). WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 11 CONSERVATION ELEMENT #1 - IDENTIFYING BASELINE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY  Man-made Features – elements on the property created by people such as buildings, fences or roads  Ecological Features – natural elements within the property including the flora and fauna or their habitats  Scenic Features – elements that define the aesthetics of the property or important views from the property  Agricultural Features – elements related to the use or practice of farming or forestry on the property  Recreation Features – elements related to the use or enjoyment of the property for recreational or leisure pursuits  Historic Features – elements (either natural or man-made) within the property that carry either historic or cultural significance See Appendix A for those identified by the Task Force during discussions. Man-made Features Ecological Features Scenic Features Agricultural Features Recreation Features Historic Features WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 12 CONSERVATION ELEMENT #2 -PURPOSE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT The Task Force evaluated several iterations of potential purpose statements for the conservation easement on Wheeler Nature Park. Through these discussions, the Task Force recognized the importance of both the protection of natural resources and continued public access—considering purpose statements that focused on each—but ultimately preferred a purpose statement that blends both concepts, while leading with protection of the natural ecosystem. The principal objectives of this grant are to: 1) preserve a diverse and natural ecosystem within the Protected Property; 2) support the long-term professional management of the natural, educational and cultural resources; 3) facilitate public access that minimizes negative impact on natural communities, surface waters, wildlife habitats, and other conservation values; and 4) sustain harmony within the property which consists of both the natural area and the multi-use Homestead area. Draft Purpose Statement Prepared by the Task Force WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 13 CONSERVATION ELEMENT #3- CONSERVATION VALUES The Task Force discussed and considered the conservation values of the property at the May 18th meeting. Wheeler Nature Park contains substantial natural resource and public access values and broad consensus was reached among Task Force members around the values identified below.  Natural Habitat Values  Scenic Values  Open Space Values  Agricultural Values  Wildlife Values  Historic and Cultural Values  Public Access and Recreation Values  Educational Values  Forestry Values  Wetland Values  Water Quality Values  Ecological Process Values  Archaeological Values CONSERVATION ELEMENT #4 - ONGOING USE OF THE PROPERTY Following discussions at the July Task Force Meeting (7/21/16), which included suggestions and feedback from City Staff and a representative from the Vermont Land Trust (see Conservation Partners, below), the Task Force recognized that some of the allowed and disallowed uses contemplated in earlier meetings might be better addressed in alternative forms of protection—specifically a management plan or City Ordinance. The lists of allowed and disallowed uses below reflect the Task Force direct input at the earlier meetings to preserve their input and evolution of thinking for future planning efforts, while the parenthesis afterwards reflect the conservation tool the Task Force believes is best suited to address and manage the use. CE=Conservation Easement MP=Management Plan CO=City Ordinance WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 14 ALLOWED USES PROHIBITED USES NATURAL AREA  Education (MP)  Maintenance and upkeep (MP)  Hiking (MP)  Walking (MP)  Passive Recreation (CE)  Forestry and Habitat Management (CE)  Dogs in accordance with City Ordinances (CO)  Bicycles in accordance with City Ordinances (CO)  Stormwater Features (MP requiring approval of Conservation Partner)  Temporary structures (MP, CO)  Motorized vehicles (CE)  Pump track (dirt bicycle park) (MP)  Designated dog park (MP)  Permanent structures (CE)  Mineral extraction (CE)  Water extraction (CE)  Wind and solar facilities (MP)  Alteration of landforms (with restriction of amount) (CE)  Commercial signs, billboards, outdoor advertising (MP)  Residential and commercial development (CE)  Subdivision or transfer (CE)  No new utility right-of-ways (CE)  Overnight camping or fires (CO) HOMESTEAD  Community, municipal and non-profit uses (MP)  Community garden (MP)  Burlington Garden Club (or subsequent organizations) (MP)  Events permitted by the City (MP)  Structures related to existing uses (MP)  Permanent commercial uses (MP)  New roads, driveways, vehicle travelways, and additional designated parking areas (MP) WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 15 5. PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY A public meeting for the Wheeler Nature Park Conservation Strategy was held on the evening of June 16, 2016. The intent of the meeting was to provide an overview of the project, the process and most importantly, provide and receive comment on the draft findings of the Task Force around the four primary elements of a conservation easement: 1) Baseline Elements; 2) Purpose of the Easement; 3) Conservation Values; and 4) Uses on the Property. A total 16 residents signed in. About half of the attendees were members of the Task Force, and many have been attending the Task Force meetings as members of the pubic. A few neighbors of Wheeler Nature Park were in attendance, primarily interested in preserving the park as a natural area and maintaining the high value they place on being adjacent to the park. In general, the public felt what the Task Force had generated thus far was reasonable. Baseline elements identified by the Task Force were deemed fairly comprehensive. Wordsmithing aside, the attendees agreed with the direction of the easement purpose, noting that a focus on maintaining the natural condition was important. Conservation values were also thought to be quite comprehensive, with archaeological resources suggested as a possible addition (accepted by the Task Force and reflected in this report). A number of discussions centered on uses within the park, including allowing/disallowing dogs, limiting the kinds of changes in the Homestead area, and prohibiting commercial activity. Some uses (like dogs and bicycles) were considered to be more appropriately handled by City Ordinances. Other uses were considered to be appropriate to include in the conservation easement. Below is a list of key themes identified during the public meeting:  Maintaining natural conditions: The conservation easement should be aimed at maintaining the natural conditions within the property. This idea was expressed throughout the discussions from baseline elements, purposes, and recreation, to allowed and disallowed uses. For example, people commented on the baseline elements, and strongly asserted the importance of keeping the trails natural and maintaining their natural appearance.  “What if” scenarios: A number of questions were raised around “what if” scenarios and what would happen after the easement is in place. Topics included: What if the intentions of the easement are unclear with respect to a proposed use; how would the conservation partner enforce provisions; what would the City’s and partner’s responsibilities be under the easement; what if the conservation partner were to go out of business? The specifics of these scenarios were discussed and it was decided that the final document should paint the picture of how the conservation easement mechanisms would play out under these scenarios. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 16  Stormwater: Stormwater management was also a theme of discussion. While many noted an interest in preventing Wheeler Nature Park from becoming a stormwater repository for the City, it was acknowledged that this is an ongoing issue of conversation, and that the next Task Force meeting would delve into the topic with a representative from DPW. It was noted that the role the park would have, if any, should be well defined in terms of stormwater.  Ecology: A high value was placed on ecological processes at the park and maintaining natural conditions. The issue of invasive species and how to manage them was also discussed.  Recreation: Participants commented that passive recreation uses should be allowed, as well as uses that conform to Wheeler’s designation as a Nature Park.  Agriculture: With respect to agriculture, the scale of agriculture operations was important. The community wanted to ensure that these uses were “community-scale” or “small-scale” in nature. Specifically recognizing the role of the Burlington Garden Club at the park was an important consideration.  Historic Resources: The Wheeler House was also noted as being an important historic resource that needs to be preserved, and the consideration of archeological resources as a conservation value was also suggested.  Additional Leg: There was also conversation about the soon-to-be acquired parcel (“additional leg”), but at this time mapping for this parcel was not available. The City committed to pulling together a map to identify the additional property and there was agreement that it should also be covered within the conservation easement.  New Roads: A number of residents shared the idea that no new roads should be built on the property (particularly on the eastern side of the property where a “stub” and potentially a public ROW exists).  Mechanisms for Protection: Attendees were interested in ensuring the report provides clarity in mechanisms by which the easement and other Task Force considerations can be enforced. People noted that a conservation easement is a legal process with give and take, negotiations and legal protections built into it.  Management Plan: Participants discussed the role of the management plan in the proposed conservation easement agreement. The existing management plan may need to be updated to reflect the conservation values in the easement and to capture changes that happen naturally (i.e. beaver activity, etc.). There was also interest in ensuring that the management plan is current and updated through the process of regular conservation easement review. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 17 6. CONSERVATION PARTNERS POTENTIAL CONSERVATION PARTNERS Initially, two national organizations—the Trust for Public Land and the Open Space Institute— and two state/local organizations—the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) and the Winooski Valley Park District (WVPD)—were discussed by the Task Force as potential conservation partners. There was consensus among the Task Force that a local or state agency would be a better fit for the City and the Wheeler Nature Park given the park’s local and regional significance. It was also thought that interactions with a local partner might be more efficient. The Consulting Team reached out to both the VLT and WVPD to attend the July Task Force meeting to provide feedback on the findings of the Task Force from the perspective of a potential conservation partner. While the WVPD is not structured to hold conservation easements and thus cannot be a conservation partner on the conservation easement side, the WVPD did express interest in discussing the possibility of the WVPD being a land management partner for Wheeler Nature Park or other South Burlington City Parks. Ultimately, two potential local conservation partners were identified: Vermont Land Trust and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board. Both of these organizations hold conservation easements in the region on public lands similar to Wheeler Nature Park. The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board did not respond to invitations to attend the Task Force meeting. Bob Heiser, the Champlain Valley Regional Director of the Vermont Land Trust, was able to engage with the Task Force. He conducted a site walk with the City Staff and Task Force Members, provided feedback on the draft Task Force findings and provided a background on VLT and their work in South Burlington, the Champlain Valley and throughout the state. While the Housing and Conservation Board might still be considered as a potential conservation partner, following these interactions there was consensus within the Task Force that the VLT would likely make an excellent conservation partner for the Wheeler Nature Park Conservation Easement. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 18 VERMONT LAND TRUST INPUT AND FEEDBACK At the July Task Force Meeting Bob Heiser of the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) provided input and feedback to the process. He first provided a history of the VLT and an overview of the work the organization does, explaining that the organization holds over 2,000 individual conservation easements and has a staff of 46 spread over seven offices throughout Vermont. Mr. Heiser explained the organization’s easement costs, typical management endowments, and mechanisms in place to ensure easements are upheld in perpetuity. Mr. Heiser also discussed conservation easements held on other municipally-owned lands in the region and in the state, highlighting similarities and experiences working with communities and the public. Mr. Heiser explained that the VLT cannot take on restrictions the organization cannot enforce such as dog or bicycle use. Mr. Heiser also explained the importance of the conservation values in the restrictions placed on the land; the VLT would not feel comfortable preventing public uses that are not in direct conflict with the conservation values as that could place them in a difficult political position 50 or 100 years down the road if the community wanted to do something that wasn’t allowed under an easement. Mr. Heiser explained that management plans are typically in place on VLT conserved parcels. He stressed the importance of the management plan and how it works in concert with the conservation easement to protect the conservation values of the parcel. Task Force members asked if the easements typically require approval of the management plan by VLT, and Mr. Heiser explained that they either explicitly require VLT approval or require that management plans must be consistent with the protection of conservation values, which comes to the same. Mr. Heiser also explained that most VLT conservation easements are broad in their restrictions and allowances, typically explicitly restricting only subdivision and conveyance, development, mining, and the stripping of topsoil. Other uses are often allowed, provided they are consistent with the approved management plan and do not significantly degrade the conservation values. Mr. Heiser also explained that VLT conservation easements typically require public process and updates to the management plan for similarly conserved public lands. Task Force members then asked how oversight and compliance is undertaken by the VLT. Mr. Heiser explained that their stewardship specialists are in charge of ensuring the terms of WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 19 the easements are upheld and conservation values are adequately protected. Betty Milizia asked Mr. Heiser if they would have access to the contact information for the stewardship specialist, and how reporting of issues would be handled. Mr. Heiser indicated VLT typically likes to have a single point of contact for any given easement, but that anyone could report violations of the conservation easement to the organization. Mr. Heiser also indicated that having two zones for the conservation easement (homestead and natural area) is not typically common in a VLT conservation easement and that the VLT would not be as comfortable with that as a single easement that could apply evenly across the entire park. He suggested perhaps the easement could be broad enough in its protections and restrictions to cover both areas, and that certain zones could be excluded from the easement altogether. Mr. Heiser did, however, suggest that the management plan could and probably should deal with the two zones differently in their management and allowed uses. Donna Leban asked Mr. Heiser if VLT would willing to provide a conservation easement draft as a starting point for the drafting of this easement, and he agreed. 7. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the findings for the four primary elements of a conservation easement, the following recommendations summarize other ideas the Task Force has discussed that may help define the City’s conservation interest in Wheeler Nature Park. These recommendations should be considered throughout the conservation easement process and as the City moves forward with ongoing management of the Park. 1. Recognize that the diverse areas of Wheeler Nature Park—the Natural Area and the Homestead Area—have distinct characteristics and uses and should be managed and protected accordingly. There was consensus among the Task Force that the distinction between the two areas of the park should be recognized and reflected in both the conservation easement and the future management of the park. Further to this point, a distinct delineation between these two zones should be pursued and approved by City Council. 2. The natural qualities of the park and the nature-based passive recreation it provides should be paramount for Wheeler Nature Park moving forward. While the Task Force recognizes the need for public access and meeting community needs within the Park, there was also strong consensus for the idea that Wheeler Nature Park should remain just that—a Nature Park—into the future. The Task Force believes that the Park should be managed and protected to ensure it remains a natural area and not a developed recreation site like nearby Veteran’s Memorial Park. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 20 3. An open, transparent, and thorough public process is needed to effectively manage Wheeler Nature Park for the benefit of all City residents. The Task Force feels the existing management plan for the Park, which was done through an open and public process, is an important City document and should carry significant weight in the generation of the conservation easement. The Task Force also understands that the management plan will likely need to be updated following the implementation of the easement and that the work done in this process should be recognized and incorporated into any future management for the Park. 4. Incorporate the “leg” of Wheeler Nature Park-which is anticipated to be acquired- into the conservation easement and management plan for the remainder of the Park. There was consensus within the Task Force that this leg is important from both a natural resource and public access standpoint and should be managed and considered in the conservation easement as a cohesive and connected natural area within the City. 5. A local conservation partner is preferred to a more national organization. There was consensus among the Task Force that a local partner would be a better fit for the City and the Vermont Land Trust would likely make a great conservation partner for Wheeler Nature Park. Next Steps The following actions outline recommended next steps for City Council to continue pursuing a conservation easement for Wheeler Nature Park: 1. Review, debate and finalize the City’s conservation interests around the four primary elements of a conservation easement presented in this report. 2. Meet with and choose a conservation partner to engage in the conservation easement.  Bob Heiser Champlain Valley Regional Director Vermont Land Trust (802) 861-6404 bheiser@vlt.org  Karen Freeman Conservation Director Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (802) 828-5067 Karen@vhcb.org 3. Engage a City Attorney and move into negotiations with the Conservation Partner. 4. Review final conservation easement terms with Task Force and collect comment. 5. Formalize conservation easement and close transaction. 6. Update Wheeler Nature Park Management Plan. 7. Consider developing a Historic and Cultural Resource Task Force, with the first directive being a consideration of protections for the historic Wheeler building. WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 21 APPENDIX A. TASK FORCE BASELINE ELEMENTS TASK FORCE BASELINE ELEMENTS WORD CLOUD These features were identified by members of the Task Force during a brainstorming session. They are not intended to represent a comprehensive or ecological study of the property. Man-Made Features:  Homestead  Treehouse  Pavilion  Toolshed  Parking areas (Swift/house)  Fence – barbed wire on Swift  Stone walls – E/W side, north and south boundary  Trails paved/unpaved  Homestead signage  Stormwater infrastructure  Stone steps in stream bank  Winding path  Teaching gardens  Water garden  Water utility – at house  Power  CWD Right of way  Community garden  Tree nursery  Club gardens WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 22  Some fencing  Benches  Signage corner/homestead  Markers (not complete)  Culverts  Puncheons/Bridges Ecological Features:  Wetlands- meadow and marsh  Grasslands – rare species  Mixed forest  Successional forest  Deciduous forest  Non-deciduous forest  Beaver pond  Animals  Birds (heron)  Ducks  Coyotes  Sugarbush  Amphibians  Hawk (red tail)  Ground-nesting birds  Bobcats  Bats  Deer  Turkey  Bees  Moose  Woodpecker  Small mammals  Vernal pools  Internal stream  Off-site streams  Gullies/drainage  Ridgeline and outcrops  Juniper  Big oak  Shagbark hickory  Clay Plain Forest  Milkweed/butterflies WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 23 Scenic Features:  View behind homestead looking east  East side of the homestead  High point on grassland  View corridor on Rec Path  “The Cathedral” canopy  Stone step stream  Community gardens  From Hinesburg Road looking west  Looking south from Dorset Street: structure  Unbroken trail views  Evolving views  View from the bench: Lake Champlain  Beaver pond  Wetlands Agricultural Features:  Homestead encompasses ag use  A portion of the homestead  Community gardens  Educational gardens  Tree nursery  Sugaring  Root veggies  Wildflowers  Livestock  Invasive Species WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 24 Recreational Features:  Trails  Nordic skiing  Snowshoeing  Bird watching  Photography  Astronomy  Painting  Educational  STEM Walks  Trail running  Recreation path  Sugaring  Gardening  Concerts/events  Picnicking  Yoga  Dog walking (on-leash) Historic Features:  Was a farm – As heritage  Historic character  Productive well – remnant well  Long-time town clerk’s home which served as town clerk’s office  State register of historic structures  Wheeler Homestead WHEELER NATURE PARK STRATEGIC CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK | 25 APPENDIX B. HISTORY OF WHEELER NATURE PARK Page 1 of 2 Proposed City Council Resolution for an Interim Bylaw to Study South Burlington’s Remaining Open Spaces Whereas, the South Burlington City Council holds the following to be of critical importance at this time for the following purpose: Purpose: The goals of such a bylaw would be to maintain South Burlington’s livability and economic and environmental sustainability. Within our borders are several compromised waterways: Centennial Brook, Muddy Brook, and especially Potash Brook, which weaves throughout our city. They are conduits for run-off that goes into our lake, and as more impervious surfaces are constructed in South Burlington and elsewhere, the amount and nature of that run-off into our lake are proportionately affected. Policy and regulations designed to curb these impacts partially mitigate what our natural land, the mosses, grasses, and trees, naturally filter and regulate: water flow for flood control, and water purification and temperature for our enjoyment and the viability of our natural ecosystems. Traffic congestion is not only a hassle at rush hour; it and our homes contribute to the excess level of CO2 and other pollutants in our atmosphere. The intensity and nature of our development likewise impact the delicate ecosystems, the flora and fauna, that co-exist alongside our human dwellings, schools, industries, and services. We need to study our current inventory of open and forested spaces as well as working landscapes of four acres and above in order to evaluate the human impact on existing ecosystems as well as these parcels’ economic and environmental use to us as part of a system that naturally regulates water flow, air and water temperatures, and air and water pollution levels. Our population values a balance between our natural, open spaces and our developed spaces. All of these spaces sustain our economic viability from now into the future. Together they provide, for the benefit of our residents and visitors, fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink and swim in, recreation, jobs, and valuable industries and services. As more homes are built in our city -- currently at a rate that has led to population numbers exceeding the forecasts -- we must examine carefully the potential impacts on this balance that we seek to maintain. Our Fire Chief and Public Works Director review developments in order to determine the preparedness of our infrastructure and ensure that the policymakers provide needed oversight. For the past three years, these managers have raised the concern that our resources are being strained to an unsustainable tipping point. If we reach that point where the cost of sewer and road construction and maintenance and the cost of emergency services risk bypassing our revenues, the Council will be faced with the prospect of having to cover the shortfall through an acute increase in the tax burden for our residents and businesses. With the current preparedness of both our natural and our constructed infrastructure in mind, we need to determine which locations, types, and densities of development are most desirable in order to avoid this eventuality -- not when it is upon us, but before we reach a crisis point. And then once we have determined which parcels in the city are most critical to our environmental and economic goals, we can assess whether our current Land Development Regulations require amendment and act accordingly. Page 2 of 2 Therefore, now be it resolved, that the South Burlington City Council calls for a public hearing to be held ___________, 2018, on proposed Interim Bylaws the City Council decides are necessary to temporarily preserve the existing land uses, in order for the following studies to be completed and implemented in permanent Land Development Regulations: - the role of existing open and/or forested land parcels and working landscapes in and/or adjacent to South Burlington in the sustenance of our natural ecosystems and their economic benefit to our residents; and, - a cost-benefit analysis of hypothetical development, including density and type in order to measure the potential draw on our sewer and roads (plowing, paving, striping, traffic flows) infrastructure and services and emergency services, on existing open and/or forested land parcels of four acres or above throughout the city. FY20 BUDGET SCHEDULE *Denotes regular City Council meeting dates October 1* Council Approval of FY20 General Fund Budget Schedule October 2-6 Dept. Manager meetings w/ City Management for CIP Review October 15* Council guidance for FY20 General Fund Budget Preparation October 17 Memo to Department Managers to begin formulating FY20 GF Budgets October 17-Nov. 5 Staff liaison discusses FY20 General Fund Budget with committees and solicits input & recommendations for funding October 25-26 Final consideration of CIP & HRIP by City Management November 2 Proposed CIP sent to Council & Dept. Managers November 16 First Draft of FY20 Budget due from Dept. Heads to Finance November 19* CIP Draft presented to Council- overview for questions, input & discussion November 26-30 Management review of Draft Budget with Dept. Heads December 10-12 Management final review of FY20 budget with Dept. Heads December 14 Council receives Draft FY20 GF Budget December 17* Public Hearing & Potential Council Amendment of CIP (Council) Presentation of FY18 Audit FY20 Budget Overview presented to City Council January 7* Council Mtg. on FY20 Budget Dept. Manager Budget discussion, public input & possible City Council approval January 17 Final date for City Council budget approval (if needed) January 18 Council approved budget sent to Steering Committee (min. 45 days before Annual Mtg. vote) January 23 Steering Committee Meeting (Tentative) January 24-25 Budget book preparation January 28 Budget book finalized and printed Budget books available Council approved budget available to voters (min. 20 days before Town Mtg.) February 1 Post Warnings and Public Hearing Notices (min. 30 days) for March 4 Pre-Town Mtg. & Public Hearing and March 5 Town Meeting Vote March 4 Pre-Town Meeting & Public Hearing on City & School District Budgets March 5 Annual Meeting-Vote on budgets and any other warned articles