Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Open Space IZ Committee - 07/23/2019South Burlington Open Space Interim Zoning Committee July 23, 2019 The Open Space IZ Committee held a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 2019, at 7:00 pm, in the upstairs conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street . Members present: Vince Bolduc, Alyson Chalnick, Meaghan Emery, Amanda Holland, Duncan Murdoch, Allan Strong, Sam Swanson, and Tami Zylka. Also present: Lisa Alexander, Janet Bellavance, Sandy Dooley, Sarah Dopp, Rosanne Greco, Leo Nadeau, Denise Olsky, Dunia Partillo, Bob Brinckerhoff, Helen Riehle, and Karen Ryder. Absent members: Bernie Gagnon, Sophie Mazowita and Betty Milizia. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Allan called the meeting to order and provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made. 3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda: No comments were made. 4. Analyzing the parcel assessment results: Allan recapped the charge and work of the committee to date. He then shared feedback on his compilation of the Committee’s data. Bob Brinckerhoff asked whether the Committee has been studying individual parcels or large areas. Allan responded that the Committee’s work has focused on individual parcels, informed by data indicating areas previously prioritized. In response to Mr. Brinckerhoff, Allan responded that the Committee is not proposing zoning changes. Sandy Dooley and Rosanne Greco responded to Mr. Brinckerhoff’s question regarding the consistency of the Committee’s work with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, stating the main difference, which is that the Comprehensive Plan does not identify individual parcels but rather areas pinpointed for lower vs. denser development. Mr. Brinckerhoff suggested that the Committee compare its findings to the Plan so that there are no contradictions. Allan reiterated that the Committee’s report will not specify parcels to be developed or not developed but rather prioritize parcels for conservation. Ms. Greco referred to Maps 7 and 8 and chapters in the Plan that explain why development is discouraged on certain parcels. Ms. Dooley expressed her support for the Committee’s review of the entire city. Vince noted that several members of the public have expressed frustration over the question of whether individual parcels will be developable or not after the Committee’s work. Allan explained the Committee’s overall scoring of parcels and showed parcel numbers that scored relatively high. The scoring of viewsheds reduced the number of highly scored parcels, Allan noted. The “strictest,” based on evenly weighted, criteria led to a list of seven parcels, whereas the most “relaxed,” based on two or three of five, criteria led to a list of thirty-something parcels. Allan thought that the sweet spot fell somewhere in between. Ms. Greco suggested that water should be weighted more than aesthetics, and Allan confirmed that the Committee has the opportunity to make these judgment calls. Helen Riehle asked whether parcels could be weighted according to acreage. Ms. Greco also suggested connectivity as a factor that should be weighted. Allan agreed and noted that the Committee’s Tier 1 criteria is being developed to get at connectivity. He also noted that acreage would be helpful in the Committee’s final determination and that assistance from City staff will be helpful in this respect. Vince stressed that proportion of applicability of specific criteria on parcels needs to be considered in addition to overall acreage. Duncan noted that our notes provide this information, and Tami specified that the notes will be available to the Council and to the general public. Tami shared with the group that acreage numbers are not always consistent in different data sets. Vince recommended that acreage figures be taken from the full Grand List, however Allan showed a parcel in which the Grand List provided an acreage that fell below the 4-acre cut-off, which contradicted the Committee’s working base map. Allan distributed a draft prioritization of existing open space for conservation, prepared with Amanda’s help. Amanda shared that the process might not have captured all of the evaluated parcels. Tami noted that Red Rocks Parks should appear and does not. Allan noted that many of the highest scored parcels have already been conserved by easement or regulation. A score of zero (0) indicates that a parcel met only one Tier 2 criterion. A score of “Low” met 2 or 3 of the Tier 2 criteria and scored 70-80, “Medium” met 4 of the Tier 2 criteria and scored 90, and “High” met 5 of the Tier 2 criteria and scored 100. Allan shared some weaknesses of the initial results, one being that Potash Brook is not protected enough, another being that connectivity is not achieved, and the third being a lack of overall prioritization. Duncan shared that he was hesitant to draw conclusions from this initial mapping of the Committee’s results. Meaghan suggested that viewsheds and agricultural land not be weighted as heavily as the other Tier 2 criteria given the importance of the other criteria and the argument of Jens Hilke that the city’s current working farms be considered as social assets as opposed to conserving agricultural lands that are not currently being or projected to be farmed. Members discussed discrepancies between their data and the map and potential fixes. The use of BioFinder’s overall priorities as the Tier 1 connectivity criterion led to some surprises, and Meaghan suggested that the Committee prioritize parcels based on Duncan’s and Sam’s suggestion at the last meeting to weight forests and water more heavily than the other criteria, which Jens Hilke asserted were the city’s two biggest assets. Allan then projected Duncan’s connectivity map that showed connectivity routes based on water resources and forests. Vince thought that Duncan’s map showed roughly half of the city as important for connectivity, and expressed his support for Amanda’s map based on the Committee’s results. Ms. Dooley encouraged the Committee to consider which parcels are already conserved or are more difficult to conserve as useful information. 5. How to improve our rating system to ensure better accuracy: There is a need to proof the data and to learn how to refer to parcels that do not have a regular parcel number. Sam asked Allan to provide a full list of variables that the Committee needs to review. Aesthetics is one, and Leo Nadeau asked how the Committee reviewed aesthetics. Allan explained that viewsheds was one criterion and individual subjective judgment the other. Meaghan noted that the Committee’s charge only included viewsheds, which have been argued as an asset with regard to important viewpoints within the city, e.g., Wheeler Nature Park. Allan said that the first to do is to ensure that all parcels have been reviewed, then identify parcels without numbers, which prevents the alignment of the scoring, and that Tier 3 criteria is the third most time consuming task. Allan suggested that the Committee prioritize Tier 3 criteria, and Sam expressed his reticence to focus on Tier 3, which is more subjective than the criteria for the other two tiers. Allan asked Amanda to walk the Committee through the Committee’s results. Sarah Dopp shared that the 2002 Open Space Report indicates some historical properties, and Tami confirmed that they appear on Map 6. Vince shared his process for preparing Tier 3 notes for the parcels he evaluated. Meaghan expressed her reticence in the Committee spending too much time on Tier 3 rankings since it does not address the Committee’s charge and was intended to be helpful to committees seeking playing fields, dog parks, or solar fields. Members agreed to prepare more general comments under Tier 3. 6. Discussion of Tiers 1-3: Allan suggested that some parcels may not be appropriate for passive recreation but should be conserved and left natural, which could be included in the notes. Members discussed whether addresses were necessary to include. Regarding Tier 1 criteria, aimed to get at connectivity, members discussed the merits of the 2002 Open Space report and Duncan’s connectivity map and decided to include both along with the BioFinder overall prioritization map in the determination of connectivity. 7. Thoughts on Wildlife Connectivity and Mapping: Meaghan preferred to have the Committee consider overall connectivity of forests and water based on Duncan’s map, excluding developed neighborhoods since the tree cover could not equal forests, a process suggested by Jens Hilke. Meaghan was hesitant to include parcels in the business park in connectivity goals for conservation because of established development patterns. Meaghan noted that car traffic and airport noise were dissuasive factors to wildlife. Duncan disagreed and argued that the Committee should establish guidelines that set the future course rather than follow a present course. Ms. Greco supported Duncan’s viewpoint. Allan will send spreadsheets back to members with the two new columns showing the 2002 Open Space report and Duncan’s connectivity map. Allan asked that members proof their work and send updated results to Allan by August 6, in preparation for a meeting on Tuesday, August 13. Members should include barriers to connectivity in the notes. 8. Presenting our work at all committee meeting: All members are encouraged to attend. 9. Review and approval Meeting Minutes: June 19 and July 2, 2019: Tami moved to approve the minutes, and Vince seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 10. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned shortly after 9:30pm. The next meeting is on Tuesday, August 13 at 7pm, in City Hall.