Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - Open Space IZ Committee - 01/23/2020IZ Open Space Public Hearing of Thursday, January 23, 2020 Committee Members present: Alyson Chalnick, Meaghan Emery, Duncan Murdoch, and Allan Strong, and Tami Zylka. Members of the public: Jennifer Decker, David Deslauriers, Andrew Gill, Ray Gonda, Rosanne Greco, Peter Kahn, Donna Leban, Jennifer Morway, Robert Morway, Liam Murphy, Leo Nadeau, Patrick O’Brien, Karen Ryder, Daniel Seff, Lynn Vera. Allan Strong opened the public hearing. He explained the goal of the meeting, which was to receive feedback from the public. He then explained the timeline of the Committee’s work and its charge, which includes the prioritization for conservation of existing open spaces, forest blocks, and working landscapes in South Burlington in the sustenance of our natural ecosystems, scenic viewsheds, and river corridors. Mr. Strong specified that the Committee sought to remain objective in preparing its findings to be presented to City Council. The document is not recommending zoning changes or regulatory changes. It is not a zoning document. The Council will determine how to make sense of the findings moving forward. Mr. Strong explained the different data resources that the Committee used in order to put together its report, including planning documents and online maps (Agency Natural Resources BioFinder and Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission map). With regard to the Committee’s methodology, Mr. Strong explained that the Committee has been looking at criteria within two tiers: Tier 1 focused on BioFinder’s highest priority and greater than 4 acres/less than 10% impervious surface; Tier 2 included five criteria: water, wildlife, forests, aesthetics (viewsheds), and agriculture. Mr. Strong then showed the public five different parcels within Technology Park in order to provide an example of the range of our findings. Riparian connectivity (a buffer along a stream corridor); wetlands; forest blocks; high priority wildlife road crossings; prime agricultural soils were the different layers considered. The Committee chose to look at entire parcels so that the results could be repeatable as opposed to subject to arbitrary distinctions made by the Committee. He stipulated that site visits were made by some members (but not all members of the committee), and that this is a first take at an objective evaluation of all 189 parcels. BioFinder was the first cut which lowered the number to 133. Ninety-four contained the sought-after natural resource attributes, and 3 of 5 Tier 2 criteria were used as the cutoff. Of those, 72 were not already conserved or conserved by NRP designation. Current and planned land use and parcel acreage were further factors that led to reducing the number of parcels to 25. In response to Peter Kahn’s question, Mr. Strong undercored the large acre principle used in Bio- conservation. Jennifer Decker asked why the Committee limited the number of recommended parcels, and Mr. Strong specified that the goal was to provide the Council with a smaller, higher priority list in order to inform their decision-making. Andrew Gill asked a question regarding methodology and the number of attributes within each category of Tier 2 criteria and how the final list of 25 masks the variation of attributes per parcel which first led to a list of 72. Mr. Strong responded that these data are available to the Council and can be retrieved quickly. Robert Morway asked about the date of the data set, and Mr. Strong responded that BioFinder data the Committee used dates from 2016. Jennifer Morway noted that the BioFinder has recently been updated to 2018 data (just two days before), and Mr. Strong acknowledged that BioFinder is regularly updated. Liam Murphy suggested that a parcel of mid-sized acreage (of 15 acres, for instance) might be easier to purchase than a 50-acre parcel. Allan responded that the volunteer committee lacked the time to digitize each parcel in order to determine how many acres to include on a priority list. Ray Gonda noted that there are more vernal pools in the city than the number indicated by BioFinder. Mr. Gonda asked if the report could be amended, to which Mr. Strong said that it is set up to be amended if planners choose to use it as a resource. Jeff Nick asked how the City is going to use this report. Mr. Strong responded that he hoped that were a development to be proposed, city planners could open a discussion with all parties in order to determine how development could match the best interests of the city. Meaghan Emery shared that the goal is for the Council to gather all of the reports, the IZ Open Space report, the TDR report, the Planning Commission’s PUD proposed amendments, and the economic analysis of the 25 parcels in order to have a discussion with the community to determine how future planning can reflect the goals contained within the Comprehensive Plan. She stressed that downzoning, or turning the 25 parcels into sending zones, has not at all entered the conversation. Chris Jensen expressed her satisfaction that this report will not be used as a planning document but is concerned that the report reflects a pre-approved outcome. Mr. Kahn noted that the 2006 regulatory amendments prevented development on 50-55% of the SEQ. Mr. Murphy offered language, a disclaimer, stating that this report or any part of it “shall not be used in any regulatory proceedings before the DRB, Act 250 or any court unless it is formally adopted as part of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan or LDRs.” He also suggested language indicating parcels that “contain environmental or natural resources” as opposed to “high priority areas,” the language used in the report. Ms. Vera thanked Mr. Strong for the hundreds of hours the Committee gave through their work and discouraged the inclusion of a disclaimer. Ms. Morway noted that past reports are still referenced, and she is concerned that the report includes language indicating that realtors could look at the report, especially when BioFinder data can change. She also expressed her concern that parcels containing viewsheds might be penalized for having a viewshed. Ms. Morway was concerned that these reports do have a lasting effect on future development. Mr. Strong said that he sees the importance of showing the Morways’ fifteen acres separate from the parcel that was purchased for third party conservation. Ms. Greco differed that the 2006 study that led to NPR areas led to a positive conservation of land in the SEQ. Mr. Gill asked about percentage of parcel that qualifies as satisfying a criterium. He asked whether the study should be used as a starting point for a scientific report. Mr. Strong responded by stating that any members of the public could do the same assessment as the Committee members and that on-the- ground evaluation is better and also much more expensive. He added that by indicating percentages or ranking some attributes higher than others introduces a level of subjectivity. With regard to Mr. Murphy’s recommended language, members debated the merits, including in which forum and to what end this report could be used. Ms. Decker proposed language stating that no development shall be allowed until all 25 parcels have been scientifically evaluated. Ms. Morway and Ms. Jensen expressed concern that entire parcels were burdened by conservation rankings. Ms. Emery read the passage already included in the draft report stating that “without public ownership or a conservation easement, our priority parcels alone cannot hinder or prevent a land purchase and subsequent development.” Mr. Gill expressed his concern that the DRB is named in the document, suggesting that this document will have disproportionate sway over that body that adjudicates development projects. David Deslauriers lauded the role of the Committees which protect the citizens and the work of the Committee, which may lead to the conservation of additional land, which is a positive. Leo Nadeau requested that all 25 landowners be contacted so that they are alerted to the public hearings, particularly before regulations are adopted by the Council. He also expressed concerns over some of the language in the TDR report is concerning regarding sending and receiving parcels, a concern echoed by Ms. Morway because these designations have an effect on land value and marketability. Mr. Strong continued with his presentation and highlighted the key areas for protection in South Burlington: the Great Swamp, Potash Brook watershed, Muddy Brook and the Winooski River watershed, and UVM properties. Mr. Conner added that the report is already on the City website and will appear alongside all the different pieces of the puzzle to be considered by the City Council. Mr. Nadeau asked whether this information should be posted quickly, especially before property owners are given the opportunity to defend their interests. Since many of the report’s criteria are already included in the LDRs, Mr. Nick asked whether this report is necessary and could lead to sensational headlines that could disadvantage a development. Mr. Strong asked how to approach this problem, and Mr. Nick responded that Mr. Murphy’s suggested disclaimer is desirable. Mr. Kahn asked how the Committee took the charge forward to consider land parcel by parcel. Mr. Strong responded that it was a matter of convenience since the planning maps used parcels. Mr. Kahn would have preferred that regions be considered, so that wildlife corridors and other organizing principles could be at the forefront of the study. Mr. Strong shared the guiding thought that parcel owners might prefer to be approached by the City for acquisition. Mr. Kahn expressed alarm that entire parcels are pink. Ms. Morway shared the concern. Ms. Emery stated that it gives the community the opportunity to put the money where their mouth is. Steve Crowley expressed his support for the methodology adopted by the Committee. Mr. Deslauriers shared that his property value went up and so did his taxes thanks to conservation efforts. People wish to live near the woods. He also stated that he understands the concerns of landowners whose parcels have been divided, and it not appearing on the map, yet he also expressed his agreement with the use of parcels. Ms. Greco expressed disbelief that land values went down since high land values have been cited by developers as a deterrent to some types of development in the SEQ. She also supported the suggestion that the landowners be invited to a future meeting. Mr. Gonda raised the question of whether the city could afford to purchase the properties, and noted a proposed Cents for Conservation initiative that would raise enough money to buy all 25 parcels in fourteen years at today’s fair market value. Ms. Greco stated that it would increase the average homeowner’s taxes by $68 per year. Karen Ryder led people to the South Burlington Land Trust’s website. Mr. Gill asked whether habitat blocks should be highlighted on the map as opposed to individual parcels. Mr. Conner responded that a lot of studies will be coming together and that Arrowwood is working with the City as a Consultant to produce a study on habitat blocks. He added that there are a lot of different uses for these studies, including providing the Council a resource in order to guide them on how to use the Open Space Fund. Duncan Murdoch announced that he was needing to step down from the Natural Resources Committee and that if anyone wished to serve, he encouraged them to apply. Mr. Strong closed by saying that Potash Brook is an impaired waterway and that simply drawing a circle around waterways is not sufficient. Mr. Nick asked whether wildlife corridors are protected, and Mr. Conner suggested that Act 250 might include consideration of wildlife corridors. Mr. Murphy asked whether landowners would be contacted to meet with the Committee, and Mr. Conner responded that this is input that cannot be acted on currently.