Questions to Candidates and Their Responses in the 2022 South Burlington Municipal Election

Tim Barritt. That all depends on where the development is located. In general I think it’s about right but there has been too much pressure on natural areas in the SEQ. This is what drove us into Interim Zoning: the perception of too many trees being cut down and proposals for development in green fields.

Meaghan Emery. I am concerned that we are outpacing our ability to fund the need for more municipal service (especially roads, police/fire/EMS, and schools). Interim zoning has slowed down the level of construction to some degree, but even during IZ, we saw hundreds of new homes built. It is important for South Burlington to consider what development potential we can adequately serve now and also how to time the implementation of zoning rules that will increase our housing supply.

Chris Trombly. I hear from residents that they’d like to see more progress on the redevelopment of the space at the University Mall and recognize the significant and broad opportunities. While this is not city owned land and we cannot compel the owners to act, we can be an agile and responsive partner to realize those opportunities. An innovative mix of residential, commercial and recreational development that could be affordable for people with a wide variety of incomes, lifestyles and stages of life would be my preference. In combination with the buildout of city center and Dorset St upgrades, we can have a strong mixed neighborhood—a walkable, climate resilient, and opportunity-oriented super block. An urban core to be proud of.

I also hear from residents they see pockets of opportunity for adaptive reuse of commercial real estate. COVID-19 has accelerated the transition in this area as more employees prefer to work from home, advances in technology, changing preferences for younger generations. How can the city seize the opportunities to allow developers flexibility to provide smaller commercial space with rents more affordable for small business owners while also providing compatible housing? I think of the HULA makerspace in Burlington that occupies the former Blodgett Oven building. Might the former Pier 1 building be converted to a smaller version of HULA in South Burlington?

As South Burlington’s city center matures, now is the time to increase the availability of alternative transportation. The pace is too slow to build out bicycle infrastructure that offers a higher level of security than bike lanes and is more attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. I look forward to a discussion with the bike and ped, as well as the energy committee, and an equity officer about getting more cars off the road and the resources needed to sustain year-round alternatives. Do we need a fixed budget for this or upfront investment?

I also hear from residents who feel SB has been too slow to provide housing that is affordable for a range of incomes. “Why don’t I see more housing built for people like me?” or “I don’t see the same opportunities for my kids in this community.” These statements highlight how market rate housing underserves low to middle income households. 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.

Unfortunately, South Burlington has lost more naturally affordable homes than we have gained. Instead of falling further behind and pricing out more residents, we need a holistic approach to housing to build back what we’ve lost. Adopting the Affordable Housing Committee amendments will help build back those losses while preserving our protected natural resources.

We have a supply problem.

According to the CCRPC report Building Homes Together, we still face the following housing challenges:

– A lack of affordability is a problem for many.
– A low vacancy rate means housing is not available.
– Lack of housing stymies job growth.
– The housing crisis is even more urgent for BIPOC residents, and particularly Black Vermonters.
– We’re not building enough to meet demand.

We can do better and if elected, 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.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. The Planning Commission voted in favor of these changes 7-0 after 3 years of IZ work. Neither parties on either side of the equation are happy so I think it’s just about right. You are not going to stop development in the SEQ but we can certainly create boundaries to preserve the most needed areas and then create dense smart pockets of housing in it.

Meaghan Emery. I am better placed to speak about this from a political viewpoint when I answer somewhere between about right and too little. However, I am inclined to follow the environmental science when educated. I believe that the draft LDRs are a marked improvement, because they promote dense housing, particularly near our city center, along the major roads like Rte 116, Spear Street, and particularly Dorset St. along Cider Mill (near Dorset Farms and the Great Swamp). This development near Dorset Farms has long perplexed me because it is so far away from employment centers and city services. I can only think that this development grew from lack of forward-looking planning. The same can be said for the treescape, where there is little biodiversity. And so the fact that the draft LDRs direct dense housing to that area is in keeping with our current Comprehensive Plan as regards development density, but I find it a regrettable historical mistake.

Chris Trombly. Based on public testimony and input from both the energy and natural resource committees, the draft LDRs include opportunities for improvement. Interim zoning was three years long, numerous environmental studies were completed, and we will soon have a draft climate action plan. I’d like to praise and recognize the volunteers on the Planning Commission, as well as the planning staff and city manager (s) who devoted much of the last three years of their lives to present these progressive and state leading changes in article 12 of the LDRs. As chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, our committee was an early endorser of article 12. As a resident and candidate, I publicly endorsed Article 12 in its current draft. I value the enhanced protections that is are based on science to expand buffers to our wetlands, establish habitat blocks, preserve old growth tree canopy, recognize 500-year floodplains, and more. These are not incremental changes. These are meaningful changes. Perfection cannot be the enemy of meaningful change. I do not support setting aside these changes and doing so would be a step back. Continual improvement does not stop in April when interim zoning comes to an end.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. We have to fix the ambiguity in the PUD definitions and add some new types to promote redevelopment in certain areas of the city. No doubt other issues will arise but we will deal with them as needed. The important task now is to vote to accept the new regulations.

Meaghan Emery. (1) I would like to see implemented what I see as the most important of the NRCC’s recommendations, which is that any proposed alteration of a habitat block or habitat connector be reviewed by an independent wildlife biologist or ecologist. As they are drafted, the developer can select the scientist to perform the study, but this is a mistake (and I have an example I know of first-hand). Since the draft LDRs are intended to be so predictable as to prevent the need for Act 250 Review, the environmental analysis should be done independently.
(2) There are a few parcels in the SEQ that are less than 4 acres, and are currently zoned at 1.8 units per acre. I would like to find a way to ensure that the rules promoting smaller footprints and energy efficiency be applied to these parcels.
(3) I would like community gardens to be included as an idea for “civic space” in TND PUDs, just as the Conservation PUDs conceive of gardens.
(4) For landowners who choose to develop a Conservation PUD, the rules require that they also develop an access plan and management plan for the 70% of land to be conserved. I would like to know what standards will be applied when reviewing the Conservation PUD for approval.
(5) I would like us to review the requirement of a master plan for landowners of parcels greater than 4 acres. If they choose to develop one or two homes, rather than a full Conservation PUD or TND PUD, what would be required of them in terms of engineering and cost?
(6) We need to continue to pursue a solution for the absorption of TDRs so that landowners in the NRP areas receive what they are due and natural resources are protected.

Chris Trombly. First, Thank you to the Planning Commission’s unanimous support for two changes recommended by the Affordable Housing Committee: Expansion of Inclusionary Zoning city wide and a minimum density of 4 units per acre in the developable area of new Conservation Planned Unit Developments. These changes are important and likely to adopted by the City Council.
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. I fully endorse these recommendations to improve housing affordability city-wide and point out that they would not impact a single natural resource protected by the progressive and state leading environmental protections defined in article 12.
As currently drafted, we would actually potentially lose more than 400 units of housing in areas that have existing city services, such as bus services, water and sewer service in close proximity. This 400-plus-unit-loss limits housing opportunities for both inclusionary housing that is perpetually affordable as well as more compact housing that is built at today’s energy standards and a higher density that reduces the cost to the city.
The most significant changes that I (and the Affordable Housing Committee) propose are:
1. 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. It was recognized that 30% will result in oddly designed housing that may be inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods because you are squeezing density into such a small place. Also, a builder may not be able to recognize the full density that would incentivize more affordable housing to be built, including perpetually affordable housing. We could add more affordable housing without impacting natural resources while still conserving the other half of the parcel. Win, Win.

2. Allow Conservation or Traditional Neighborhoods on suitable parcels. The traditional neighborhood development PUD is exciting because it requires the use of multiple housing types, dedicated civic space, connecting neighborhoods that are currently disconnected. I’m very excited about this type of housing because it values a sense of community and being connected. It is the opposite of suburban-sprawl–type development, which reinforces a car-oriented mentality when we only see our neighbors driving by in our cars. The variety of housing types also encourages small and more units that would have more inclusionary units and more affordable housing types. The opportunity is still limited as a parcel would have to be a certain size. It’s a shame that, so far, three of our city councilors are ready to place the traditional neighborhood development option off limits in some areas of the city. This option is a blueprint for more desirable neighborhoods for a range of incomes that meet all of goals in the comprehensive plan. Win, win.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. No, the penny increased its revenue by 31% for FY ’23 due to the reassessments of properties. It is raising a significant amount of money now. The City spent $606,000 in its first installment on the AuClair properties to facilitate their conservation or maintenance in agriculture. We spent another $300,000 2 years later to further assist. We have money available now and will keep adding more each fiscal year for possible future purchases. The City was going to mail letters soliciting interest from those landowners thinking about conservation.

Meaghan Emery. In the absolute, yes. I believe that this is natural infrastructure that the City needs to invest in just as we invest in stormwater ponds drainage systems. Budget considerations will have to be balanced with many increasing needs as we go forward. However, because of the savings in the long run (as we learned through the Earth Economics consultants’ evaluation of the 20 parcels identified by the IZ Open Space Committee and can expect from reducing the demand on our municipal services), this should be seriously considered. I would consider using these funds to purchase TDRs — i.e., buy the NRP land from eligible landowners, although I see potential uses for them on commercial parcels (see #10 below).

Chris Trombly. Yes, I support the substantial increase that resulted from the recent reappraisal. I do not support adjusting the number down as suggested by one councilor. I think it reasonable to think residents understand that that 1 cent of the grand list will adjust as values increase and decrease. If land costs more, more money would be needed to buy at the higher price. The current open space allotment has been disproportionate to one area of the city and residents in other areas, especially our increasingly dense city center would value the benefits of open green space in an increasingly paved neighborhood. Naturally cool place to relax in the warming summers. I would like to give the voters an opportunity to consider a 1-cent penny for the housing trust. The cities of Montpelier and Winooski have established similar programs to fund ADU programs, weatherization, contribution towards building costs, grants to residents. I am thankful for the $50,000 yearly contribution. This would give the city a penny program for parks, open space, and affordable housing, an excellent balance.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. While we wait on the task force to help define those actions, we should think about measuring the city’s own gas and fuel consumption in order to understand where to make improvements. We should be thinking about how to reduce future growth’s dependence on natural gas and improve on our solar deployment as well. We should ask the Stormwater division for their thoughts on this, too, to see what plans they might have for dealing with 100 and 500 year rain/flood events.

Meaghan Emery. Short-term: pass these LDRs and approve and implement a Climate Action Plan, including state funds to use for weatherization and electrification of utilities, contracts with environmental (university) experts to study the resilience of the ecosystems in our habitat blocks, investments in the restoration of our wetlands, actions promoting and protecting biodiversity through a tree ordinance, for instance, and other recommendation they will make.

Medium-term: pass new draft LDRs for redevelopment (infill and commercial) to include green space for gardens for our residents living in or near our busiest corridors; continue to invest in energy efficiencies at our two wastewater plants; incentivize people to take the bus and shared-use vehicles; work diligently with businesses/Air Guard to remove PFAs and educate the public on pesticides/fertilizers (or ideally ban those that are harmful) to clean our impaired waterways; incentivize businesses to place solar panels on their buildings, allow for remote work when possible, and invest in child care for their employees (to reduce vehicle miles traveled) — which the state/federal government should ideally support.

Long-term: amend LDRs to allow for shared use of land for agriculture use and energy generation (solar, wind); create and staff a stand-alone centralized resource for new entrepreneurs seeking to build our climate economy.

Chris Trombly. Adoption of the final climate change report from the State of Vermont with a priority placed on a just transition that would prioritize low- and middle-income households. I don’t want to see more subsidies for Teslas. Marginalized communities should be the priority. I’d look to a final recommendation from the Vermont Climate Action Plan.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. We certainly should have that discussion and if not now or in the near future then as soon as technology makes it more economical. GMP’s sources are very “green” (if you like hydro and nuclear and dislike coal and natural gas turbines) so going all electric on their grid system is better than other parts of the country. At the very least, indoor spaces should be held to a higher energy efficiency standard and solar requirements should be broadened for new construction. Not just solar-ready roofing, but some base solar requirement to at least peak shave summer air conditioner use.

Meaghan Emery. YES, but we need to ensure reliability. In the winters, we live in a very cold state, and our summers are increasingly hot.

Chris Trombly. I’d look to a final recommendation from the Vermont Climate Action Plan.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt.
If you are talking about the remaining areas in SEQ that are not already PUD’ed or permitted or at least partially planned then I have to say no because there really isn’t that much land left. It shouldn’t have that much more of a tax burden
Meaghan Emery. Higher: more roads and demands on services and increased vulnerability to catastrophic flooding, which will require more public funds to rebuild. Big cities are not inexpensive places to live, and they’ll be even more expensive as they prepare for climate change and rising sea levels (or the unknown for Chicago — a place I know well — where they’re concerned the water level in Lake Michigan might drop, creating a problem with their drinking water in a city of millions of residents).

Chris Trombly. Density, existing infrastructure, and second life cycle costs the city will be responsible for are all factors in that assessment. A recent report presented to the city council demonstrated some of these variables.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. SEQ land is too expensive to provide affordable units above and beyond what inclusionary zoning will provide. The draft LDRs will protect more forest and habitat blocks and increase buffer spaces around hazards. If you want to build affordable units you need to build up, or side-by-side, and in more dense urban core areas especially where there is mixed use to preclude the need for a car all the time.
Meaghan Emery. I definitely prioritize re-development of existing built-up areas. When done in a way that protects our natural resources, good quality affordable housing can remain good quality affordable housing: good = in proximity to green space and natural areas/parks; quality = energy efficient; affordable = accessible to new homeowners into perpetuity. This question touches on environmental justice. Overbuilding and removing the needed open space to sustain our ecosystems leads to heat islands and disease: blue algae in our lake, parasites and bacteria in species left unchecked by their natural predators, loss of pollinators for our food supply.

Chris Trombly. I support article 12 and its protection of our natural resources. Then, with what land is remaining, is that land suitable for housing? If it is, what type of housing might make sense there and does it meet our housing goals? 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.

There is no conflict. As a community we have shared values of clean air, clean water, and being an inclusive and welcoming community that is opportunity oriented. South Burlington is fortunate to have engaged and informed community members. Our representative democracy is well suited to handle these matters and works out imbalances over time. Wherever strained relationships have developed, I pledge to work to heal them so we can work together on other challenges that come our way.

We need re-development existing built-up areas and build on undeveloped ground. Since city government does not control the decisions of folks that own property in SB, we need to have prudent policies that are the foundation for both and we need to support both. City staff will be reporting to the City Council later this month on how to invest the city’s ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds. It will be interesting to see whether the recommendations prioritize redevelopment over new development.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. 1) get ready to adapt to climate change impacts, 2) preserve as much natural space as feasible, 3) grow our commercial areas so we are not overly dependent on residential property tax income.

Meaghan Emery. (1) Addressing climate change and the economic pressures stemming from it — the state will be offering funds because it is a crisis; conservation is part of the solution, for sure! (2) Investing in perpetually affordable housing — the federal government has identified it as a crisis, and we’re getting ARPA funds to do just this. (3) Investing in our city staffing to address economic development, maintenance of the level of city services that we provide.

Chris Trombly. Having a reliable and sufficient source income, their children having opportunities at least a good as theirs, identifying ways to personally help stop climate change, in no particular order.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. I think the climate action report and its recommendations will heartily take those into account.

Meaghan Emery. That’s partly what the draft LDRs do: the habitat blocks and habitat connectors were based on the Arrowwood report. The Arrowwood report confirmed the Open Space Report and the Earth Economics report, which were studies commissioned by the City Council to help us determine which parcels should be purchased through the Open Space fund. The TDR report opened other areas in the city to TDRs, but it is this last report that has not yet led to an adequate solution. I believe that one avenue to consider is allowing TDRs to be used for expanded business developments — allowing them to have a larger footprint, for instance, or some other waiver.

Chris Trombly. I believe all of these reports were generated by the Interim Zoning (IZ) process and have been considered by Planning staff and planning commissioners in their IZ work. These are official reports published on the Planning and Zoning Department’s website and resources in the library. 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? It is on the Planning and Zoning Department’s website. I would like to see a more holistic library of reports available.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. We can’t turn back the clock on the 200 lost homes in that neighborhood. That was a real blow to affordable housing. But since we can’t go back, we can make use of that adjacent land for commercial enterprises as long as the local residents there are included in the process and the result is not more noise; less noise would be preferable if new buildings act as sound barriers. Commercial space will help the airport be sustainable and create more jobs for the City.

Meaghan Emery. I was expecting it to come and am glad to be on the Council when it did. I believe that past practices of BIA’s leadership have generated a lot of mistrust they they have yet to overcome with this community. The Airport does not have a good track record with honesty, and we have yet to see the noise insulation program get started. I believe that the City needs to place parameters and conditions on any rezoning that would be granted. The residents in the Chamberlin neighborhood enjoy the natural open space that is currently there, and this natural area should not be sacrificed. Is there room for developing on a portion of the 10-11 acres they wish to rezone? That is what the task force will consider in the coming months. In my view, it cannot go forward without strict restrictions: no new noise generation (noise pollution); no industrial/commercial uses that pollute the air or ground water or creates excessive traffic; the viewshed should be maintained and the trees and green space conserved for residents’ enjoyment. This means that to my mind the City of South Burlington should not grant rezoning of all 10-11 acres, and that what changes if any are allowed should be kept to a minimum in a way that enhances the residents’ quality of life and economic opportunity.

Chris Trombly. Chamberlin neighborhood has been though a lot. They lost over 200 affordable housing, still adapting to Air National Guards new mission, and some are frustrated with the lack of capital investment in that area. My children attend Chamberlin School and my brother lived in one of the homes torn down. I have reached out to the airport director to discuss airport business and look forward to hearing how the city of Burlington will incorporate resident feedback and improve livability for this important affordable neighborhood.

Linda Bailey. No response.

Tim Barritt. I am in favor of 12B because I think it’s a huge lost opportunity to not connect Rt 116 and I-89 where there is already a crossing. There is too much housing and commercial activity directly adjacent that could be shunted to the interstate: Tilley Drive is a destination for medical appointments, Meadowland Park is an IO area, Cider Mill 2, Rye, Hill Farm, O’Brien Bros, Butler Farms, Oak Creek and southern commuters will all want access to I-89 and this will keep them off Kennedy Drive and away from the High School and Fire department. And, there is currently very poor bike/ped conduction across the overpass. This would cure that. I bike commute that route and it’s not fun.

Meaghan Emery. I am not in favor of Exit 12B, and the recent CCRPC update on I-89 2050 indicates that traffic on the interstate needs to decrease not increase in order to meet the state’s climate goals. One of the recommendations they made on 1/26 is remote work. I support this initiative, in addition to increased public transit. Specifically, Exit 12B will alter the current conditions on Rte 116 in a way that will be detrimental to the quality of life of our residents who live off of Rte 116. The CCRPC forecast that Exit 12B would increase traffic on 116 by 30% and that most of that increase would be traffic redirected from Rte 2A. This is not a benefit to our community. I prefer that that area remain the housing/conservation mix that we see in the Village at Dorset Park/Wheeler Nature Area, with close access to medical facilities and employment centers there as well as bike paths through to Kimball Ave. A highway interchange is not compatible with this type of mixed-use development.

Chris Trombly. I’m keeping an open mind and look forward to hearing from Hinesburg Road residents and businesses about if this is net good as compared to the other three options. The environmental impact study has not been completed, and frankly what would this area look like after completed? Do we really need another gas station and McDonalds? The location is close to our industrial and commercial parks as well as Tilley Drive. Would this offload truck traffic from our residential streets, or make it worse? I attended a session with CCRPC to consider housing impact. The conversation was focused on how to score the impact of each option as it relates to housing.

Linda Bailey. No response.