Trombly: We can’t simply rely on building government subsidized housing and then market rate housing that sells at a high price without addressing the missing middle housing that offers many a path to homeownership and building wealth for themselves.
VOTE: Middle income housing stock is well represented in South Burlington. Based on the latest re-appraisal, over half of all residential homes in South Burlington are valued under $325,000.
Trombly: We’re not building enough to meet demand.
VOTE: South Burlington has over 9500 residential homes and 1465 new homes are in the planning stages (click here for a map of pending homes). Hundreds of additional homes are contemplated on the Hill Farm and the Long family parcels. We will never be able to build enough to satisfy demand! We must keep climate change front and center in our approach to housing and look first to opportunities for redevelopment. Once our forests and meadows are cleared for development, we will never be able to recoup the environmental and health benefits they provide, and we will be left even more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Trombly: I will work with city councilors to reprioritize city staff to leverage our professional city staff and incredible volunteers who are subject matter experts to recommend a plan that makes meaningful gains in housing affordability in a way that is compatible, not in conflict, with the Vermont Climate Change Council’s Plan.
VOTE: Yes, the Climate Action Plan clearly contemplates tight dense building in urban cores and massively more conservation of our remaining natural resource lands.
Trombly: The Affordable Housing Committee recommended, with a super majority of its members, to amendments to article 15, which addresses the housing portion of the land development regulations (LDRs). These five changes recognize the housing shortage and its impact on low- and middle-income households and disproportionally marginalized communities.
VOTE: We respond further below to the specific AFH recommendations which you mention in your responses.
You did not mention that the AFH resolved to “remove the proposed change in zoning from Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential and Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential Transition to Natural Resource Protection for parcels south of Nowland Farm Road and west of Dorset Street in the Southeast Quadrant because this proposed change is not supported by scientific research and recommendation.” The AFH’s resolution is flawed. Because of its proximity to the Great Swamp and because the area is almost entirely a riparian zone, these parcels are identified by the City’s Comprehensive Plan as off-limits to development, by the State as the “highest priority for conservation”, by Arrowwood as areas which should remain as “unfragmented as possible” and by the City’s IZ Open Space Committee as highest priority for conservation.
You also did not mention that the AFH also resolved to “change the permanent conservation requirement in the Conservation Planned Unit Development regulations to a requirement for a conservation easement that may be modified at twenty-five-year intervals from the effective date of these regulations.” We strongly disagree with this recommendation to redefine conservation as a development hiatus. The point of a conservation PUD is to ensure for future generations that natural resource lands are conserved in perpetuity.
Trombly: Allow the Conversation PUD to build up to 50% of the land as long as there no existing natural resources as defined in article 12 as originally proposed by the city planner… We could add more affordable housing without impacting natural resources while still conserving the other half of the parcel.
VOTE: Your response is based on a misunderstanding of Articles 12 and 15. The planning commission and City Staff designed Article 15 on the basis that Article 12 does not address all the important natural resources, including meadows, grasslands and farmlands and does does not provide for the natural resource buffers recommended by the City’s consultants. Conservation PUDs are the “tool” used by the City to address these items. Also, the SEQ is very likely never going to truly support affordable housing because of the cost of land and distance from services.
Trombly: Allow Conservation or Traditional Neighborhoods on suitable parcels.
VOTE: The point of requiring Conservation PUDs in the SEQ is to address the resources that are not addressed in Article 12, as above. Also, developers have the option of designing a traditional neighborhood on the portion of a conservation PUD that is developable. So, the developable portion can be a great neighborhood.
Trombly: I believe the housing crisis is so compelling that we should not remove any land now zoned for residential development and not restricted by article 12 from the map of where housing, including affordable housing, may be built.
VOTE: As above, Article 12 only addresses a portion of South Burlington’s natural resources. Article 15 addresses the remaining resources. The planning commission, with these two articles, wisely recognized that we need to conserve our meadows and grasslands, forest canopy and habitat buffers to sequester carbon, filter pollutants from our water, provide habitat for pollinators, insects and wildlife, clean and cool our air and mitigate the intense weather impacting our lives and worsening every year. VOTE strongly supports the creation of affordable housing for ownership and especially apartments for renters, near public transportation, schools, and other municipal services in the core of our City that make living for those on modest incomes truly affordable. We believe in the importance of protecting and maintaining open spaces and natural areas so everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from and regardless of their income, can experience the joy and beauty these common areas bring to our community.
Trombly: Why is the “Report on the Additional Revenues Generated from New Housing Developments vs. the Additional Costs to the City”, also generated by IZ, not in your list?
VOTE: This report is mentioned on our “Do you Know” tab. But, the report is fatally flawed because it entirely neglects to take into account the impact of a growing population on homestead education taxes. By neglecting this, the report fails to factor in that as South Burlington’s population increases the need for more school infrastructure will increase. This then increases the City’s budgeted spending per pupil which – under the State’s funding formula – leads to a proportionate increase in education taxes. This is exactly the concern that led to the debate – and defeat – of the $209 million bond proposed in March 2020 for a new high school in South Burlington.