Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Natural Resources Committee - 09/04/2019 NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE September 4, 2019 6:00 PM Attending: Ashley Parker, David Crawford, Linda Chiasson, Duncan Murdoch, Jean Chaulot, Lisa Yankowski, Tim Hess & Ray Gonda Missing: Alyson Chalnick & Laura Williams 1. Review of Emergency Evacuation Protocol Ashley review emergency procedures. 2. Additions, Deletions or Changes in order of Agenda Items David added there is a tool to access information in the meeting packets we received on the city website. David included in the information packets a memo regarding "Explanation of Changes to the NRC Agenda & Meeting Process" Special thanks to Ashley &Linda for all their help. A group picture was taken for the Annual Report. 3. Comments from the Public not related to the Agenda From Michael Mittag, a copy of his letter to the SB Planning Commission Natural Resources Working Group, regarding climate change. 4. Adoption of Minutes David motioned to accept the meeting minutes from August 7. Jean 2nd- minutes approved. 5. Consent Agenda Refer to the documents from The Champlain Water District (CWD) about tree removal and replanting at their SB West Tank Site. Lisa motioned to accept the changes to the plans. 1- Nay, 2-Abstain, 4- Approved and 2 absent. a. The discussion of Ray's draft email to Justin Rabidoux, Manager of SB Public Works moved to later in the agenda- time permitting. 6. Meet as City Tree Board at Request of City Arborist Craig Lambert Ray made the motion and Tim 2nd to convene a meeting of the SB City Tree Board with Craig Lambert- SB City Arborist. The property owner of 9 Pavilion Ave. would like to remove several cedar trees along her property line. The intention is that there would be some trees replanted at the site. (Ref: the printed information we received.) Craig reviewed the homeowner’s reasons for removal. Lisa was able to provide some of the history of the area and Ray gave input from his visit to the site. Duncan is opposed to the action- mature trees, Lisa expressed approval of the plan. Craig will have the final determination. The city will not care for any new plantings as they did not care for the original tree planting. Tim motioned to end the session, Duncan 2nd. We reconvened as the NRC Committee. 7. Approve Process for Reviewing DRB Development Projects Per Tim and agreement by other committee members: We need to figure out how to begin the process to review new proposed development projects before they have moved through planning and to the DRB. It would be best to get involved at the first sketch plan. How do we find out about the new plans? a. Ray motioned to form a working group to work on a solution to get involved sooner. Jean 2nd. Ray, Tim & Jean will be the working group members. Lisa will also aid with ideas she had to begin the process. 8. Items for To Be Discussed if Time Allows We combined part of the goal for this discussion with agenda item #7. B. Ray wanted to discuss the Expectation & Protocol for Committee Operations that had been adopted by this committee 11/7/18. How are discussions of topics relevant to the NRC supposed to be able to happen outside of the formal meetings. Linda felt this topic did not warrant further discussion at this meeting since it had already been adopted. We need to send Ray a copy of the original discussion. Confidentiality needs to be maintained when discussions happen outside meetings. Ray will send David and Ashley a written memo to add this topic to the next agenda for discussion. 9. Members & Staff Reports a) The chair's report was not received- David will resend. b) Allyson was absent and Duncan had to leave for another meeting. c) Per Duncan- the IZ Committee is getting close to finishing their goal. d) Per Linda- the new dog park is awaiting wetland delineation reports for the site. e) Tim liked the information Duncan had sent about the importance of trees. f) The Regional Partnership Committee is starting get information together and maps done. Ashley wanted to make sure everyone got the invitation for the symposium on the 26th. The other NRC groups need to get their work in. She wants time in the next meeting to review how Open Space Funds are being used. Holly Rees, (Manager of Recreation & Parks), wants to know if the NRC is interested in helping develop a Herbicide use policy. Ray motioned to continue the meeting for discussions. No one 2nd. 10. Review of Agenda Pending Items Ashley – We need time for to review Open Space fund use and work that has been done. Ashley - We need to decide how we want to use the NRC google drive folder. Tim asked if we need an agenda item for the new group. Discussion about the symposium by those who were able to attend. Ray would like to go review the SB Tree Ordinance. 11. Confirm Next Mtg Date Wednesday 10/2/2019 12. Adjourn The Meeting Adjourned at 8:03 PM. AGENDA South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:00 p.m. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. 4. Announcements 5. Continued final plat application #SD-19-21 of Rye Associates LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and three commercial buildings. The amendment consists of an after the fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for Lot 7, containing seven (7) single family dwelling units on Fall Street, from 20-feet to 13-feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road. 6. Final plat application #SD-19-27 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two-family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi- family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off-site through the purchase of 68 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street. This item will be continued without being heard to October 15, 2019 7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-22 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five (5) lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into four (4) lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres (Lot 11), and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), and eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center, 635 Community Drive. 8. Continued site plan application #SP-19-28 of SunCap Property Group to construct a 144,000 sf, 35 ft high warehouse building, paved equipment storage and parking areas, and associated site improvements on a proposed 43.8 acre lot, and widen and signalize the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue, 635 Community Drive. 9. Conditional use application #CU-19-06 of SunCap Property Group to allow a fence approximately sixteen (16) feet in height for the purpose of supporting a gate for a warehouse and distribution center, 635 Community Drive. 10. Sketch plan application #SD-19-25 of Neagley & Chase Construction to create a three lot planned unit development for the purpose of a two-building commercial/industrial campus, including the construction of a 21,570 square foot light manufacturing facility, 39 Bowdoin Street. 11. Minutes of January 29, February 19, September 4, 2019 12. Other business Respectfully Submitted, Marla Keene Development Review Planner Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting Participation Guidelines The Development Review Board (DRB) presents these guidelines for the public attending Development Review Board meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. The DRB is a Quasi-Judicial Board that oversees the adjudication of development projects within the City. It is made up of citizens appointed by the City Council. The role of the DRB is to hear and review applications for development under the applicable regulations. The DRB can only approve applications that comply with the applicable bylaw or state law, and the board can only levy conditions that are permitted under the bylaw. By the same token, if a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, the DRB is bound by law to grant the approval. 1. The Board asks that all participants at meetings be respectful of Board members, staff, applicants and other members of the public present at the meeting. 2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Board and the applicant. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all Board members first. After the Board members have discussed an item, the Chair will open up the floor for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. 3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Board. 4. If the Board suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Board to hear all items on the agenda. 5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully. 6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. The Chair will direct responses from applicable people as needed. 7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others and keep your comments germane to the issue before the board. 8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Board for a second time. 9. Comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the Planning and Zoning Department. All comments should identify what application the correspondence is in reference to. All written comments will be circulated to the DRB and kept as part of the official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. 10. Please note that once a public hearing has been closed by the DRB, no further comments can be accepted, in accordance with state law. To: The South Burlington Planning Commission Natural Resources Working Group. Jessica Louisos, Bernie Gagnon, Allan Strong From: Michael Mittag. Every day we hear more distressing news about global warming and our rapidly changing climate. We all recognize that reducing GHG emissions to slow global warming and climate change will require massive interventions and changes in the way we live on a local, national and global scale. Planning Commission Our draft regulations provide that “riparian connectivity” and “surface water and riparian areas” are both Secondary Conservation areas. The term “riparian connectivity” is something that only SB uses (it appeared first in the Open Space Plan and then was repeated in the Comp Plan Map #7). The Open Space Plan defines “riparian connectivity” as “the undeveloped sections of mapped surface water and riparian areas”, so, the two terms cover the same concept. I suggest that we retire the term “riparian connectivity” and rely just on the term “surface water and riparian area” (which is what the State uses). This is particularly important given the draft requires the resources to be identified from the ANR’s atlas, and the ANR does not have a “riparian connectivity” layer. With respect to “surface water and riparian areas”, the State divides the layer into areas deserving the “highest priority” of protection and areas that only deserve “high priority” protection. The “highest priority” areas are all the undeveloped surface water and riparian areas (the “high priority” areas include potentially developed surface water and riparian areas). I would suggest that the highest priority “surface water and riparian areas” as designated by the State should be Primary Conservation areas. (Note that the entire “riparian connectivity” layer – including both the high priority and highest priority areas - are Primary Conservation areas in the Comp Plan, although this may not have been entirely intentional).1 The draft above contemplates delineation of certain resources by the applicant. I would suggest that the resources be delineated in advance by the City to avoid disputes/litigation in the DRB. For “surface water and riparian areas”, in particular, I am aware that delineation is not difficult and could – I think – with landowner permission be accomplished at relatively low cost and quickly. 1 Note that, confusingly, the “riparian wildlife connectivity” layer also is defined in the 2016 biofinder report as the “non-developed cover classes within the Surface Water and Riparian Area dataset”. This is in error. This layer does not include undeveloped agricultural land, such as hay fields or fallow farmlands as I confirmed with Robert Zaino of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Dept. and as explained in the 2018 “Mapping and Conservation Guide For Municipal and Regional Planners in Vermont” prepared by that department and the ANR. Jens Hilke In SB surface waters and riparian areas are THE highest priority natural resources in your city and are the glue that holds everything together. Surface water and riparian network buffers are most predictive of the health of local species. The larger the buffers the healthier the species. All the forest blocks in SB ought to be a focus of preservation. And riparian areas are vitally important, though some have been encroached upon already. Climate change represents a profound existential threat to life on earth.2 We must plan for the consequences of climate change and understand the public health implications of a warming climate. Development According to The Nature Conservancy we're losing 1.5 million acres of land to development each year — that's about the size of the entire state of Delaware! Landscapes that have been cherished and protected for generations are now threatened by development. You may ask, like so many people I have spoken to, what impact our small, local interventions can have on such a global problem? The answer is a significant impact. The cumulative effect of many small interventions add up to a big impact. At the town or city level, i.e. the level at which we can have an impact, mitigation using our LDRs is at this time the only effective planning tool we can deploy. We must use those tools to the fullest extent possible to expand the buffers and the protection of our surface waters, expand riparian buffers and preserve forest blocks as “no development”, “no encroachment” zones, i.e. protect the highest priority and high priority areas as Primary Conservation Areas which is already written into our Comprehensive Plan. I’m asking you to do more. I’m asking you to be very aggressive in defining our Natural Resource Protections. Propose the maximum possible, not minimums or those mandated by the State. We need forests, grasslands, wetlands as habitats for the survival of all kinds of living organisms from humans and other mammals to fish to mollusks to bivalves to amphibians to insects (pollinators) to reptiles and others. 2 The October 8, 2018 IPCC report on climate change concludes that we need to rapidly and immediately reduce GHG emissions (45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and 95% to 2050) to maintain temperature rise below 1.5°C. If the global temperature rises by 1.5°C vs. 2°C, humans will face unprecedented climate risks and extreme weather events, arctic ocean ice will melt once per decade, 99% of corals will die, coastal cities will flood and there could be severe food shortages.