[0:13] Hello everyone. Welcome to the public
[0:15] hearing on the master plan on
[0:18] September 30, 2026. Dana Allen,
[0:20] Chairwoman of the Planning Commission.
[0:22] Let me give a short
[0:24] presentation on the
[0:25] zoning plan and
[0:27] then today's hearing.
[0:29] We're recording it. The staff records and
[0:31] we record the online version. There are people
[0:34] online, there are people in the room. So let's discuss
[0:36] how this will work. But
[0:37] quickly, I wanted to introduce the
[0:39] other commissioners. So Billy
[0:42] if you want Billy Big Door
[0:44] Hi everyone. Thanks for coming
[0:46] .
[0:46] Monica Callan
[0:48] Robbie Adler
[0:49] Hello everyone. I'm Katie
[0:51] Gallagher.
[0:51] Neil Wright here. City planner.
[0:54] Hmm, thanks everyone. We have submitted
[0:56] an application for ID cards, but the
[0:58] city council has not approved them yet.
[1:03] So we'll get them one day. But
[1:05] anyway, yeah, thanks for
[1:06] coming. We appreciate it. People, if
[1:08] you drop by, could you
[1:10] sign? Teresa, thank you.
[1:13] Sorry. I will be the Cheryl Casey of
[1:16] today's meeting. Anyway
[1:18] , can we move on to the next
[1:20] slide, Neil? What can we
[1:25] expect tonight? We are here to
[1:27] hear your opinion on the
[1:28] spatial development plan in
[1:30] its current form. This is a draft
[1:32] plan. It is still under revision.
[1:34] Your feedback is an integral
[1:35] part of this process. So we're looking for
[1:37] specific things you want
[1:39] to change, or things you
[1:41] like or support. It's nice
[1:43] to hear things like that. Specific
[1:46] changes are welcome. You know,
[1:47] aspirations, goals and strategies are
[1:49] really the heart of this
[1:50] spatial development plan. And there's
[1:52] something that you think is missing, something that
[1:54] you think needs strengthening,
[1:56] etc., etc. That's what we want
[1:59] to hear about. You can ask
[2:01] technical questions about the process and project
[2:04] . We will provide you with information to the best of
[2:06] our ability about how
[2:07] individual policies and recommendations are developed.
[2:11] So we'll do it. And we are here
[2:13] to listen. We are focused on
[2:15] listening to as many
[2:17] community members as possible. We take in
[2:19] a lot of information. This is our
[2:21] main goal for tonight.
[2:23] Next slide. What is a
[2:27] spatial development plan? This is
[2:28] our shared framework for making
[2:30] decisions about the future.
[2:32] State law requires this. We have to
[2:34] do them every 8 years. It's been a while
[2:36] since
[2:37] we've done such a comprehensive
[2:39] update. I think the last time
[2:41] technically was in
[2:43] 2013. And it has continued
[2:44] administratively until now. So…
[2:46] We did a really big
[2:48] renovation. We changed a lot of things. This is a
[2:50] big change. It gives us a city council,
[2:53] city committees and the like. It gives
[2:55] us goals to strive for.
[2:57] It gives us an overarching framework for
[2:59] making decisions. That's why it's important
[3:02] . This is not a
[3:04] zoning ordinance. And I want
[3:07] to repeat it. These largely
[3:09] regulate the process, but they
[3:11] are not zoning regulations in themselves. This is a separate
[3:14] process. So think of it as a
[3:17] big framework, a lot of ideas and
[3:19] guidelines. Think of
[3:23] zoning regulations as the foundation of how
[3:25] we actually regulate development in a given
[3:27] area or plot of land. Next slide.
[3:35] Hmm, the goals of this were to make the
[3:37] plan more accessible. We We, as
[3:39] many of you have probably seen, um, we have made a
[3:41] map of history. This is a website.
[3:44] We divided it into chapters. It's a
[3:46] bit more graphic. There is
[3:48] much less text than in the old, version. Hmm, we wanted it to be
[3:52] more accessible this way.
[3:54] Hmm, we also wanted it to be a bit
[3:56] more doable. Um, so
[3:57] we spent a lot of time
[3:59] aligning aspirations, goals, and
[4:00] strategies with what we felt was
[4:02] pretty important. We also did something that I don't think we've ever
[4:05] done before in a spatial development plan
[4:07] , which is to kind of
[4:08] recommend who would be
[4:09] responsible for implementing
[4:10] some of these aspirations, goals and
[4:12] strategies. So we try to
[4:13] assign a little bit of responsibility here and there
[4:15] . We say that
[4:16] we recommend that someone take care of it
[4:18] . We try to make sure it's not
[4:20] just a planning document that
[4:22] sits on a shelf, but something that someone
[4:24] can actually dig into and
[4:25] work on. We wanted it to be
[4:28] community driven.
[4:29] We've collected two years of feedback. This is the
[4:32] culmination of two years of collecting
[4:33] feedback. We'll talk about this a little
[4:35] more, but that was really the
[4:37] ultimate goal. Next slide. How
[4:42] did the community shape the plan?
[4:44] We started it in 2024.
[4:46] We have had many consultations with
[4:48] specific committees, partners,
[4:49] groups and the like.
[4:50] We conducted a
[4:52] community survey in the fall of 2024.
[4:53] I think it was open for almost
[4:55] 3 months. Well, and we got
[4:57] a lot of answers.
[4:59] We then organized four
[5:01] visualization sessions. We sent many
[5:03] publications. We invited
[5:05] people such as committees,
[5:07] stakeholders, and the general public to these sessions via email.
[5:09] During these sessions, we asked a lot of
[5:11] detailed questions about what you wanted to
[5:13] see, what you valued, what you wanted to
[5:15] preserve, protect, and so on. Well,
[5:18] we then had meetings
[5:19] dedicated to individual chapters
[5:21] and aspirations, goals, and strategies.
[5:23] You will hear me often talk about
[5:25] aspirations, goals, and strategies. This
[5:27] is the heart of this plan. So when you
[5:29] think about it, it's kind of like a
[5:31] filtered vision.
[5:33] We held six separate
[5:35] chapter meetings,
[5:36] essentially covering two chapters
[5:38] each. Over time, we developed
[5:40] the details of these aspirations, goals, and
[5:42] strategies. We spent a lot of time
[5:45] developing a plan. We met
[5:47] several times a month. These
[5:49] meetings were mainly devoted
[5:51] to development. So
[5:53] we literally wrote this plan in this room with the
[5:55] help of a Meals Help consultant. And
[5:58] then others, you know, came and
[6:00] helped us with specific things. It
[6:02] was part of this whole public
[6:04] process. We published the project on
[6:06] August 4 this year. This brings us
[6:09] to now. The plan has been available in
[6:11] draft form for approximately 8 weeks. This is
[6:13] our public hearing that
[6:14] we are holding to get your
[6:15] feedback on this topic. After this
[6:16] public hearing, we will go
[6:18] through the amendments. So we'll gather opinions.
[6:20] We'll make some adjustments. We will make
[6:22] some changes. And then we'll take this
[6:25] second project basically to
[6:27] elect the board for two hearings
[6:29] that will elect the board, well,
[6:31] dates are still to be determined. We
[6:33] 're not sure how much feedback we'll get.
[6:35] So we will work on it. It
[6:37] will take us some time. And then you
[6:39] will have to elect a board for their
[6:41] trial. Hmm, I think they have about
[6:43] 180 days from the time we present the
[6:45] project to them to hold
[6:46] hearings. They will be publicly
[6:49] announced. Next slide. Here are the five
[6:53] biggest challenges
[6:55] we heard about. These were our “
[6:57] North Stars,” if you could
[6:58] have more than one. Hmm,
[7:01] property taxes, we've heard about that
[7:03] a lot. Hmm, I think we
[7:04] 're all aware of that. Hmm,
[7:06] affordable and adequate
[7:07] housing, I think that's been a hot
[7:09] topic for a long time. Climate change and
[7:11] resilience to storms and floods is
[7:13] another important topic from the survey, from the
[7:15] visualization sessions, from the many pieces of
[7:17] information received. Growth and development is a
[7:19] broad topic, but it is definitely growing
[7:21] . How can we be flood-resilient while
[7:23] also ensuring a level of
[7:25] growth and development in our
[7:27] community? Hmm, and then the
[7:29] school system. And, you know, the note about the
[7:31] school system, that's also
[7:32] very concerning to us. It is an integral
[7:34] part of our community. It's
[7:36] technically a separate
[7:37] entity from the city and the planning commission
[7:39] and things like that. But this is something that
[7:41] we, as a planning commission, as a
[7:43] city, are paying attention to. They simply have
[7:44] their own
[7:46] administrative district. Many decisions are
[7:47] made at this level. So I'll just
[7:50] outline the discussion here. Well
[7:51] , next slide. All right. So,
[7:54] chapters of the plan. Introduction. What is it about
[7:57] ? Planning context. What is the
[7:59] story behind this? What is the general framework
[8:01] we are looking at?
[8:03] We tried to
[8:05] isolate the key themes from what we heard.
[8:06] We created many different maps
[8:08] showing some of these
[8:10] data points and themes. Well, what we're
[8:13] getting at is we've really taken all of that
[8:15] and turned it into
[8:17] these ambitious goals and strategies. Again,
[8:20] that's the crux of the whole matter: what do
[8:22] we do about it, right? And that's what
[8:25] we think we can do about it,
[8:27] right? We've added
[8:29] progress tracking and
[8:30] engagement. This is something new in this
[8:32] plan. Basically saying, "Hey, these
[8:34] are the things we want to do, and these
[8:35] are the people we think can
[8:37] do them, and that's how we can
[8:39] measure progress." So it's
[8:41] quite general. This is a recommendation. We don't
[8:44] appoint someone and say, "
[8:46] You have to do this." But we exchanged
[8:48] names. So if you are one of
[8:51] those people, we would be grateful for your
[8:52] help and support on some
[8:54] issues. That would be great. Hmm,
[8:57] next slide. All right. This
[9:02] now brings us to the interrogation. Hmm,
[9:04] actually a few rules. Hmm, please,
[9:06] when you speak, come to the
[9:07] table. This will help Orga understand this.
[9:09] will help the owl understand. This will make it a
[9:11] little easier for us to see you. Hmm,
[9:13] tell me your name. Hmm, optional,
[9:15] place of residence. We hope
[9:17] mostly in Waterbury. Hmm,
[9:18] we're in person and on Zoom. So
[9:21] we will try to use
[9:22] these two methods alternately. So, we'll try
[9:24] to take, you know, questions from the floor,
[9:26] questions from Zoom, let's try to
[9:28] alternate there. Neil will be
[9:29] monitoring Zoom. If you're on
[9:32] Zoom, raise your virtual hand to
[9:34] be recognized. We will do
[9:36] our best to keep you in the
[9:38] order you raise your hands.
[9:41] If something goes wrong, please be
[9:43] understanding. We try to keep
[9:46] our meetings as
[9:48] separate as possible. And one more thing, please
[9:50] limit your first
[9:52] comments to 3 minutes. Being
[9:55] focused is really good. We
[9:57] won't interrupt you after 3 minutes. You
[10:00] only have 3 minutes throughout the
[10:01] evening. We want everyone to have a
[10:03] chance to express themselves. Therefore,
[10:04] we ask that the first time you
[10:06] come forward and speak, it be for
[10:07] 3 minutes. If you have more,
[10:09] please come back. However, we try to
[10:11] give everyone a chance to
[10:13] speak, at least initially,
[10:14] before we start calling people out a
[10:16] second or third time. I just wanted to
[10:19] mention this. Neil will keep track of
[10:22] time. We will do our best. Neil,
[10:24] if you could let people know
[10:26] when their time is left, you know, in a
[10:27] minute or so, that would be
[10:29] really nice. We are recording it as
[10:31] we said earlier. We'll try to
[10:33] transcribe it so we have all the
[10:35] comments. It will be easier for us
[10:36] to absorb much of what has been
[10:38] said. We will also take
[10:40] notes, but that was just my
[10:42] personal thing. That's all. That's
[10:46] all I have for you. Thank you for
[10:48] coming. And now the vote is open.
[10:54] Does
[10:57] anyone want to comment?
[11:01] I can comment.
[11:03] Great. I wanted to say that
[11:04] if no one speaks in a minute, we'll
[11:06] wrap up and say
[11:09] hello. Good evening. I am Pegine
[11:11] Mulhern. I'm with the Waterbury Land
[11:14] Initiative. I only have a few sections
[11:19] that I think we could
[11:21] add a bit to. One of them is in the
[11:26] social services department, where I
[11:32] believe we have our parks. There is
[11:37] nothing there about the Russell property
[11:39] being open to the public and having
[11:41] trails, so as those of you
[11:51] who follow
[11:53] permit applications know, we are applying for a parking lot
[11:55] , so we will need and
[11:56] want the city to support us as
[11:58] we change the parking lot to make it
[12:00] more accessible, as it
[12:02] is currently only accessible to people
[12:04] who know how to get there.
[12:13] So, um, I'd like the first
[12:15] thing to be done is to add this
[12:16] property, Russell Conservation
[12:18] Property, to the list of parks and things
[12:20] like that; and then, um,
[12:21] of course, we would be happy to
[12:23] sign on there as a
[12:25] participating entity or anything in its
[12:27] entirety where it's not the city, the
[12:29] Waterbury Land Initiative and
[12:31] non-city entities. And that brings
[12:38] me to the natural resources section
[12:40] where we are listed. The
[12:45] first place we are
[12:47] listed is Waterbury Land
[12:49] Initiatives with an S, which shouldn't
[12:51] be an S. And we're not listed
[12:53] specifically in
[12:59] participating entities outside the city, but
[13:01] we should be. It says Waterbury
[13:03] Land Trust. And essentially Waterbury Land
[13:07] Initiatives serves that function in this
[13:08] city. We just have a different name.
[13:12] So we think this correction could be
[13:15] there. And of course, we're
[13:18] happy to help in any other
[13:20] way you'd like us to help
[13:22] . And we will answer any questions
[13:27] if you do and have questions for us.
[13:30] We have a Waterbury Land Gmail account. You can
[13:34] find us on the internet. A
[13:36] clarifying question for you. Uh,
[13:38] Russell property, I assume
[13:40] adding it to the parks map.
[13:42] That would be good. Yes, and you know where
[13:44] you have the parks listed, yes. It was a bit
[13:48] hard for me to tell from the
[13:49] maps. Was there a list too?
[13:53] I didn't see that. I mean I'm
[13:55] looking at parks and you blew it up
[13:57] and but
[13:58] Okay.
[13:58] But I was in a hurry, so. Can
[14:00] you tell us? Can you
[14:02] tell? In case anyone does
[14:03] n't know yet, where is
[14:04] Russell Conservation Property?
[14:06] It's on Blush Hill.
[14:07] Mhm.
[14:09] And uh you can access it via
[14:11] Blackberry Lane or there's uh this
[14:13] property that's behind
[14:15] where the radio towers are. This is, um,
[14:19] west. So, you can
[14:22] reach it through there or through the fields
[14:24] before you get to Blackberry Lane. There's an
[14:29] open field and there's going to be a parking lot there and we're
[14:31] going to put a bench in to
[14:33] honor, uh, Chilia Russell who
[14:34] donated this property. And there are
[14:38] now mowed paths there, so
[14:40] you can walk through those fields
[14:42] . Great.
[14:43] and go in there.
[14:43] Thank you.
[14:44] Can I ask a question?
[14:46] Yes, sir. Would
[14:47] you like us to call it Russell
[14:49] Property? Is that what this is about?
[14:51] I think its full name is
[14:53] Russell Conservation Property.
[14:56] Okay. Thank you. It's
[15:00] actually called William G. and um
[15:02] Chilia Russell Conservation Property,
[15:04] but that might be a little hard
[15:06] for everyone to pronounce.
[15:10] We were actually told it would be difficult
[15:13] for the 911 sign. At least that's what it's
[15:16] called.
[15:17] Thank you.
[15:18] for being here.
[15:19] Thank you. Thank you for all your
[15:21] work.
[15:22] Thanks. Anyone online? Do we have any
[15:25] hands?
[15:28] Not yet.
[15:29] Okay. Um, I don't see anyone online,
[15:32] anyone from the room?
[15:35] I'll stir the pot.
[15:37] Are you good at this, Chris?
[15:39] I am. Yes. So, I picked up a
[15:43] paper copy recently and, um,
[15:45] I haven't read it all the way through, but I'm
[15:46] getting to housing.
[15:48] Could you show me the five
[15:49] headings you had
[15:51] before, social housing,
[15:53] community housing, and adequate housing?
[15:56] And no, the five headlines
[15:58] you had, school, er,
[16:00] economic development.
[16:02] Yes, so this is the one.
[16:03] Yes. Yes. So, I dug a little deeper
[16:06] into the housing chapter. Hmm
[16:09] , my concern was that I didn't
[16:11] see any information there. And I
[16:16] want everyone in this room to
[16:17] know that I've spent 45 years of
[16:19] my career in the housing industry.
[16:22] So, I am not anti-housing in any way
[16:24] . Hmm, but
[16:27] this issue of public housing,
[16:29] property taxes, the
[16:31] school system, all of this is
[16:33] interconnected. Hmm, I was looking for some information
[16:41] that I don't know if anyone
[16:43] can provide, I mean, in the
[16:45] chapter on housing, it
[16:47] suggests that we should build 30 to 40
[16:50] houses a year in this city. My
[16:59] first question is: what is the
[17:01] end goal? You know what we're trying
[17:06] to achieve by doing this? And how does that relate
[17:12] to where there's a
[17:14] tipping point in terms of
[17:16] housing stock, because it seems like
[17:18] we're pushing the narrative that more
[17:19] economic development, more housing, is going to
[17:22] lower taxes, is going to lower school costs, is going to
[17:24] lower affordability.
[17:30] I wish we could do some
[17:32] research to
[17:34] find out what that number is. What goal
[17:37] are we achieving? Where is the line beyond
[17:41] which costs begin to
[17:43] decline? Because this is the same
[17:50] strategy that not only this city
[17:52] has had in the past, but every other
[17:54] city in the state, including the state, keeps
[17:56] pushing and it doesn't seem to be
[17:58] working. We just keep dragging
[18:04] people down. One day I was stacking
[18:07] firewood in the basement and I had an
[18:09] epiphany and I was thinking why
[18:11] , why do things cost so much?
[18:16] And I came to the conclusion that two
[18:18] things are the main factors in the
[18:19] problems we
[18:21] face today. First of all, the value of the dollar
[18:24] is in the toilet. In 1980,
[18:27] $100, what you could
[18:29] buy for $100,
[18:32] now bought you $11.20. And
[18:36] honestly, the second aspect, the second
[18:38] problem I see is that
[18:40] our state government has really put us through a
[18:42] tough test. We have exceeded our
[18:47] budget by a significant margin and there is no way
[18:49] back under the current structure
[18:51] because we simply do not have the money.
[18:56] I called into a radio program recently
[18:58] and there was a guest on there
[19:04] talking about the state
[19:05] pension program. I called and asked,
[19:08] "What is this pension plan like now
[19:10] ?" 5 billion in the red
[19:13] . Four years ago I called and
[19:15] talked to Mike Pieciak about this.
[19:17] It was 4 billion in the red, now it's
[19:19] 5 billion in the red. So we're
[19:21] definitely heading in the right
[19:23] direction when it comes to
[19:24] affordability. So I'll
[19:26] end there.
[19:27] Thanks Chris.
[19:28] Thank you. Just...Can I?
[19:34] Yes.
[19:34] Hello everyone. I'm new to
[19:36] Waterbury. I am Some of you
[19:38] know me from Montpelier, but I have lived
[19:40] here in Vermont for 23 years. I just don't
[19:42] go out much because I'm a writer.
[19:44] I just wanted to say hello to
[19:46] everyone.
[19:46] Name?
[19:47] Carlton Anderson. Uh,
[19:48] Carlton Anderson, thank you. I just
[19:50] want to say
[19:52] thank you all for what you do. That's
[19:53] all. When I look at new people, you
[19:56] know, I try to tell people
[19:58] in these positions that you're
[20:00] like comet shields. Nobody sees that they
[20:03] only see what is here and then they do
[20:05] n't see what is protected, so to
[20:08] speak, because they take it for granted.
[20:12] Um, and I'm new to Waterbury in these
[20:14] roles, but I've been here since Arvard, sleeping
[20:16] in attics and stuff. But uh I just
[20:21] want to say that I appreciate
[20:23] all of you and I have to say
[20:25] that you have a lot of work ahead of you.
[20:27] Eee, but it is it is it is not
[20:29] insurmountable. It's just about
[20:33] connecting worlds in such a way that we
[20:35] choose kindness above
[20:37] all else. And do it with the
[20:42] future in mind. I also try to tell
[20:45] people, you know, um, if you look
[20:47] at it as a fun aspect
[20:49] right now, it's going to be really
[20:51] fun in 20 years for other people.
[20:54] You just won't see it or
[20:55] get credit for it. It's not about
[20:58] us. It's really about, you know, the
[21:00] future and it always has been.
[21:01] That's why we're in this situation, because the
[21:03] future has been neglected in some way
[21:05] . Um, and you know I
[21:10] always have all these floods in my
[21:12] head because they affected me
[21:14] emotionally and physically, and I look
[21:16] people in the eye and I know
[21:18] it affected all of us. Ugh, but I
[21:23] 'm one of those people. Er, well,
[21:25] thank you. I just wanted to say
[21:27] hello. Bye.
[21:30] Thank you.
[21:31] Thanks.
[21:33] Um, anyone online? Hands? Online? NO.
[21:44] Okay. Well, without using your hands. I will take
[21:46] one more person from the room.
[21:50] Hi, I'm Sierra Nogler. I live
[21:53] on Ripley Road in the city centre. I'm here
[21:55] representing Discover Waterbury.
[21:57] I'm on the board of Discover Waterbury
[21:59] and a new initiative called the Waterbury
[22:01] Pathways Initiative that
[22:03] we created with Discover Waterbury and the
[22:05] disaster committee. Together with this
[22:09] group, we looked very carefully at the
[22:11] transportation chapter and what
[22:13] improvements could be made. Well,
[22:19] I sent our, well,
[22:20] combined comments to Neil earlier; but I think the
[22:22] most important achievement
[22:24] was the inclusion of a list of priority
[22:26] projects in this chapter within the
[22:28] goals to identify what has been a
[22:37] priority for the city for years in terms of
[22:39] connectivity of paths, trails and
[22:41] multimodal traffic safety.
[22:45] So, we created this list of
[22:47] priority projects based on the
[22:49] many opinions you requested
[22:51] throughout this process. We've held
[22:54] several trail meetings with a lot of
[22:56] different stakeholders in the area and
[22:59] met with the
[23:00] wreck committee and we think these are projects
[23:02] we can work on.
[23:05] We are also using some of the
[23:06] results from the Better Connections grant, the
[23:08] Better Connections project at the center.
[23:12] And I think having that list, I know
[23:14] we talked to you earlier,
[23:16] and there was a purpose to make certain things
[23:18] a little vague in the city plan, but the
[23:20] way that list is, um,
[23:22] conceived, is quite broad. And it's
[23:26] just setting those priorities to
[23:28] just put into action and
[23:29] hopefully create momentum for
[23:31] some of these projects that
[23:33] we hope to implement, also with the
[23:35] recreation committee. That's all.
[23:38] Excellent.
[23:39] Thank you very much.
[23:43] Well done, because what I'm about to
[23:45] share kind of doubles
[23:47] Sierra's work. I am Elena
[23:49] Steiner. I just
[23:50] moved to Morrisville. I ask for
[23:52] forgiveness. I plan to return someday,
[23:54] but affordability...I am a
[23:55] member of the Waterbury Recreation Committee
[23:57] as well as the Waterbury Water Trails Initiative
[23:59] . We also provided several
[24:02] pages of detailed notes.
[24:04] I apologize in advance. I also want to start by
[24:06] thanking you for the work you have done. The
[24:08] website
[24:09] you created is beautiful. I'm very
[24:10] interested in websites and
[24:12] I find it very easy to
[24:13] navigate, so great job.
[24:14] Rather than go into detail,
[24:16] I just wanted to generalize
[24:17] some of the topics
[24:19] we came across. We analyzed
[24:20] social services, of course,
[24:22] because that's where recreation was heavily
[24:24] concentrated, but we
[24:26] also looked at utilities,
[24:28] transportation, natural resources, and
[24:29] housing. We appreciate that
[24:32] recreation is woven into all of
[24:34] these sections and want to emphasize its
[24:36] importance. Waterbury is a center for
[24:39] recreation, so we appreciate and encourage
[24:41] its inclusion in all
[24:43] aspects of the city plan. When
[24:45] I speak specifically about recreation,
[24:47] I am talking about its accessibility for people of
[24:49] all ages and with a variety of
[24:50] opportunities, both
[24:51] indoors and
[24:53] outdoors. As we began discussing
[24:56] the details, we highlighted a few
[24:58] key priorities. One of these
[25:00] was the development of a comprehensive
[25:02] parks and trails master plan. If it does
[25:04] n't exist, we want it to exist.
[25:06] I think the recreation committee
[25:08] could help make it happen.
[25:10] We wanted to specifically address
[25:11] the issue of replacing the municipal swimming pool and
[25:13] recreation building.
[25:14] We've talked a lot about outdoor recreation
[25:16] , but we've neglected
[25:17] indoor recreation a bit. I think
[25:19] this is a big step forward, especially for the
[25:21] recreation building.
[25:24] As Sierra mentioned, all
[25:26] trail work includes improving
[25:27] pedestrian paths and
[25:29] connectivity. We also highlight the
[25:31] same list of priority
[25:32] projects. I think there's, again
[25:34] , I agree with the ambiguity,
[25:36] but there's a benefit to having the
[25:37] city plan include these specific
[25:39] projects so that when we
[25:40] apply for potential
[25:42] funding, when it's strictly
[25:43] in the city plan, I think
[25:45] it really benefits those
[25:47] who apply for it. And
[25:50] I also wanted to double down because I think there
[25:52] was a map of
[25:54] all the objects, but I think it
[25:56] would be beneficial to write it down on a list too
[25:58] . I know it would be very
[26:01] long. And I think
[26:03] we would all agree that this would be a
[26:05] valuable addition. That was a lot.
[26:08] I spoke very quickly, but thank you
[26:09] for your time. Thank you.
[26:20] Well, online? Yes, ma'am?
[26:22] NO.
[26:24] Zoom Quiet Room. All right.
[26:30] Personally.
[26:35] Hi, I'm Brenda Hedges. I'm
[26:38] alone here. I don't represent anyone
[26:40] else. Well, I was, well, I was a
[26:45] member of the Waterbury Land Initiative,
[26:47] so I'm interested in
[26:48] environmental protection, especially agriculture
[26:51] and our farmland. And
[26:55] I deeply believe that this is a
[26:57] really important issue that we
[26:59] should address.
[27:01] Could you please speak up, madam?
[27:03] I'll try. Well, I believe that our
[27:08] agricultural soils are so valuable that
[27:10] if they disappear, we will not be able to
[27:12] get them back. I'd like to see some
[27:20] real, coordinated action to
[27:22] protect these soils and ensure
[27:24] that development is, um, considered as
[27:26] we implement it. More
[27:31] than taken into account that it is
[27:32] protected as we implement it.
[27:36] I took some extensive notes
[27:38] which I posted online.
[27:40] I didn't want to
[27:41] go through all of this here tonight. But I have a few
[27:44] things. First of all, I want to thank you all
[27:46] for all the work you've
[27:48] already put into this. I know it
[27:50] was a long process and
[27:52] you really put a lot into it. And then the
[27:56] specific things I had for
[27:58] tonight is that in the
[28:00] land use section,
[28:02] goal tool number two supporting
[28:04] land uses, recreational access
[28:06] and natural resource areas,
[28:07] strategy 2.2 says that
[28:11] land use regulations should support
[28:12] the viability of land uses
[28:14] , including agricultural resources and
[28:16] responsible forestry. And I have a
[28:21] question because I didn't see
[28:22] anything below about how we're going to
[28:24] provide this. There is nothing in the plan
[28:28] that says how this will
[28:30] happen. I would like to see concrete
[28:34] steps on how we will ensure
[28:36] the protection of these agricultural resources. Well
[28:42] , the second thing I had was
[28:44] about natural resources. The
[28:50] third objective is to focus development on the
[28:52] protection of natural resources
[28:53] identified in strategy
[28:56] 1.1. Strategy 3.1 calls for limiting
[29:00] development in sensitive areas and
[29:02] redirecting growth to
[29:04] more densely built-up areas and designated
[29:06] rural centers to limit
[29:08] sprawl and protect intact
[29:10] natural and agricultural resources. And in this case
[29:13] , I thought that
[29:15] sensitive areas is a very, very broad
[29:17] concept. Well, if we could
[29:20] define what that means, I think
[29:22] it would be very clear. And the last
[29:28] thing I had was strategy
[29:30] 3.2 talks about updating
[29:33] spatial planning and zoning regulations
[29:35] to take into account the highest
[29:37] agricultural value soils and
[29:38] land use conflicts. And I would like to, well
[29:42] , encourage you to change the word
[29:44] "consider" to "protect."
[29:48] Because I really believe we need to
[29:50] protect our agricultural soils. And that's all I had
[29:52] in mind.
[29:53] Thank you.
[29:55] Can I ask a quick
[29:56] question in written comments?
[29:58] You said what specific steps
[29:59] we should take to protect
[30:01] agricultural soils. Did you throw Did you
[30:02] include any suggestions in your
[30:04] written comments?
[30:04] Yes, I did.
[30:05] Okay, great.
[30:06] Thank you for that.
[30:08] Full page.
[30:09] This is really helpful.
[30:10] Yes.
[30:12] Thank you very much. Is there room?
[30:18] Not yet.
[30:20] Nothing. Is
[30:22] this 604?
[30:23] It's
[30:24] hard to hear you. Is
[30:26] this 604?
[30:28] Okay.
[30:30] Uh if it's still hard to hear us,
[30:32] let us know in the chat. Uhm, I don't
[30:35] see any hands online. Return to the room.
[30:47] Joe Camarota from Waterbury Center and I
[30:49] 'm not here to talk about
[30:51] housing. I'm actually
[30:53] here
[30:53] What?
[30:54] I'm actually here on behalf of the
[30:56] Waterbury Historical Society. And, uh well
[30:58] , especially in the chapter on
[31:00] historical resources. And there is a map
[31:04] that maps the historic buildings,
[31:06] but it does not cover all the
[31:07] historic buildings in the city. It
[31:10] actually takes into account
[31:12] contributing structures that are
[31:13] located in my historic
[31:15] neighborhoods. And in fact, all
[31:17] properties in the city that
[31:19] have been listed on the State
[31:21] Register of Historic Places are
[31:23] available in the state. And they're bigger than
[31:26] just in historic districts,
[31:27] right? They are scattered throughout Waterbury
[31:29] Center and other locations. And I think it's
[31:31] important that these places
[31:33] are included in the plan,
[31:35] especially when you start talking about
[31:36] your goals and strategies, because
[31:38] you mention historic buildings but you
[31:40] don't define them. And you might want
[31:43] to think about a definition that
[31:45] includes those places listed on the
[31:47] state register. So when
[31:51] we delve into the topic of supporting
[31:57] their protection through
[31:59] zoning and the
[32:01] development review board, we might want to be more specific about
[32:03] what types and what types of structures
[32:05] we're talking about. And the only other comment I
[32:08] have is whether you're saying, you know, you're using
[32:10] the word "consider" or "
[32:12] take into account historic values ​​and
[32:16] historic preservation updates." I would rather "
[32:17] incorporate historic values ​​and
[32:20] heritage protection updates into
[32:22] planning regulations and
[32:24] development review processes." Thank you.
[32:28] Hey Joe, I have a question for you
[32:30] about nuts and bolts since I
[32:32] created this map. Is this a
[32:35] map of these structures or that awful
[32:38] PDF database?
[32:40] It's a terrible PDF database, but the
[32:42] historical society is trying to
[32:43] translate it into a form that
[32:45] can be mapped and used.
[32:48] Yes, Okay, I can work on that some more
[32:50] . Um, to be
[32:53] completely honest with you, I took this
[32:54] awful PDF database and got incredibly
[32:56] frustrated after spending
[32:58] hours trying to figure out a clever
[33:00] way to do it automatically.
[33:03] So I'll give it some time and
[33:05] see if I can get any further
[33:07] . Er, yes. So uh, anyway, yes
[33:12] , thank you.
[33:13] Yes, okay.
[33:14] I'll figure it out. So let's skip that.
[33:26] Too many maps. Too many maps. Yes.
[33:30] But if we did, we would have the
[33:32] best map of historical structures
[33:34] in any city. Er, is anyone
[33:38] online yet or not? Okay.
[33:41] I'll carry it.
[33:42] Okay, okay, perfect. Carrie.
[33:45] Hey.
[33:47] Hi. Can
[33:47] you hear me?
[33:48] Yes, very good.
[33:53] Hmm, I have something like...I'm just going to
[33:55] continue on with the definition of
[33:57] sensitive areas. Hmm, I think
[34:02] that's something in the whole plan that
[34:04] I had a question about. Hmm, throughout the plan
[34:10] there are sensitive areas,
[34:12] high risk areas, risk areas.
[34:18] Can we have a definition or dictionary of
[34:20] what this actually means and what is the
[34:22] definition?
[34:27] What would you suggest?
[34:30] Maybe a dictionary. Hmm, I wouldn't want
[34:34] anyone to make
[34:36] such a decision in the future. If this is supposed to be a plan
[34:45] for the next... I don't know how many years
[34:49] we can create a definition, a dictionary,
[34:55] for example, what is high risk
[34:57] and what is risk? What are
[35:00] sensitive areas?
[35:02] Rather, I was asking if you had a list
[35:04] that you would include in these
[35:05] categories. I do
[35:09] n't think it depends on
[35:10] me. I think it's up to you
[35:13] as the planning director and the
[35:15] planning commission.
[35:16] Noted. Thank you. Anything else on
[35:21] this topic?
[35:23] That's all.
[35:24] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[35:29] Is
[35:32] anyone in the room since we had
[35:34] someone on Zoom?
[35:40] Sila Larsen
[35:41] Hello.
[35:42] Hi.
[35:44] My name is Sila Larsen. I am in
[35:47] Waterbury Center and I am also a
[35:48] member of the Waterbury Preservation Commission,
[35:50] but I am here today to speak on
[35:52] my own behalf as an individual, not as a
[35:54] member of the Waterbury Preservation Commission.
[35:59] I know everyone thanked me. I
[36:01] also want to thank you. It's a
[36:03] huge amount of work. I love these
[36:06] visualizations and maps. I'm a
[36:08] map person, so I think
[36:10] they're very accessible in that respect
[36:11] . I wanted to
[36:15] share this. I wanted to share
[36:19] specifically, you know, because I'm on the
[36:21] right track, a few questions. I'll
[36:24] start with the questions. Will we be able to
[36:29] review the revised plan between
[36:31] now and the city council meeting,
[36:32] or is this the only chance?
[36:37] No, the goal is to improve it and
[36:39] present it to the city council for
[36:41] consideration. Then they announce
[36:44] auditions.
[36:45] All right.
[36:47] At this point, the new project is now
[36:49] available.
[36:50] I see. You will be able to
[36:52] see it, and part of our job
[36:54] is to track changes.
[36:56] All right.
[36:56] So this is our next Yes, this is
[36:58] our next task.
[37:00] I see. Okay. Hey Neil, I'll send you
[37:03] my written comments. I haven't
[37:05] done it yet, but I'll pass it on to you.
[37:06] Okay. Hey,
[37:10] so I was focusing on the
[37:12] natural resources part and
[37:14] there's goal number one, strategy 1.2, uh,
[37:16] working with experts and
[37:18] landowners, the
[37:21] environmental commission will propose a management plan for the
[37:25] Shutesville Wildlife Corridor by 2030. I don't
[37:29] think it's a very ambitious
[37:31] plan. And I wish we had
[37:35] something more ambitious here. I wish we could
[37:39] say
[37:41] we are working on
[37:43] zoning regulations or an overlay district
[37:44] to protect this very
[37:46] valuable resource. And I think in the narrative
[37:52] , you have this chart and it's clear that this is the
[37:54] top priority of all the
[37:56] people you surveyed, and yet it does
[37:58] n't have a purpose of its own. You have a
[38:03] wetlands goal, you have a
[38:06] tree canopy goal, but the
[38:07] wildlife corridor is kind of
[38:09] woven into that, um, waterways and
[38:11] habitats. So there's a
[38:20] disconnect between the narrative and the
[38:22] aspirations section that I
[38:24] think needs to be addressed so that what
[38:26] people consider most important
[38:28] is framed under goal number
[38:30] one and becomes its own topic.
[38:38] Can I add something before
[38:39] we go any further? I think…
[38:43] I remember we put it there so we would
[38:45] n't drag it out to 2035 and
[38:48] 2040. We received many
[38:50] comments saying that we
[38:52] gave you too much time. So
[38:54] I think I would say that if
[38:56] you want people involved in this
[38:58] particular environmental protection to
[38:59] give us this task, if
[39:01] you think there's a shorter timeframe, we
[39:02] should do it.
[39:03] Yes.
[39:04] I think we can put it there,
[39:06] and even if we can't, it's something to
[39:08] do by 2030. We could
[39:10] do it faster if we can
[39:11] do it. The question is whether it
[39:13] is realistic to set a one-year
[39:14] timeframe and actually
[39:16] achieve it. So I think
[39:17] we tried to find a balance
[39:19] between not dragging
[39:21] things out and not imposing such
[39:22] tight deadlines. Correct.
[39:24] So
[39:25] I think I understand that. Please
[39:29] correct me if I am wrong, but a
[39:31] management plan is a plan, not a
[39:33] regulatory tool for action. A plan is
[39:38] simply a plan that we are developing now
[39:40] to do something to protect the area in
[39:42] the future, so we are actually
[39:43] pushing protection even further into the
[39:45] future. I wonder if this
[39:49] could be something like what the
[39:50] planning commission thinks about post-zoning
[39:52] regulations
[39:55] ?
[39:58] Maybe we could talk about
[39:59] implementing this, considering it
[40:01] was priority number one. Do
[40:06] any of the other priorities have dates,
[40:08] or just this one?
[40:11] I would have to analyze them all
[40:13] . I don't remember any hand.
[40:15] I think it was one of
[40:16] the few with a very specific date.
[40:20] So it's prioritized, giving it
[40:22] attention, saying this is the
[40:24] deadline.
[40:29] I think then, if we want to
[40:31] stick to 2030, which I
[40:33] still think is not super ambitious,
[40:35] maybe then we'll change that to, we'll discuss
[40:38] other options. This is also a management plan that I
[40:42] disagree with because it is not a
[40:44] regulatory lever. I think we could
[40:48] discuss other options, other tools we
[40:50] have in our arsenal to
[40:52] protect this precious resource before it's
[40:54] too late. I think so, so just
[41:00] to put it in the context of the
[41:03] whole process, city plans
[41:04] typically influence regulations,
[41:06] especially for cities that
[41:08] are going through regulations changes and
[41:10] modernizations, things like that. And
[41:12] we are in the process of doing so. Yes,
[41:15] phase one happened;
[41:16] We were to proceed directly to
[41:18] phase two. Instead,
[41:19] we noticed that hey, our
[41:21] city plan is expiring. That started the
[41:24] process, and then it made sense for us as a
[41:26] commission to go through that
[41:28] process and then develop
[41:29] the rest of the regulations in the city to
[41:31] actually standardize our regulations.
[41:34] Yes. So, to
[41:36] contextualize this, it's referring
[41:38] to this process, so I noticed
[41:42] that, and I think we've had other
[41:44] comments from other members of the
[41:46] environmental committee and the environmental committee itself
[41:47] saying similar
[41:49] things. So yes
[41:52] . Yes, no, and what I was thinking,
[42:02] well, it escapes me now, but, but
[42:04] of course, yes, that process
[42:05] of sorting through the regulations is also a
[42:07] separate process and may not be
[42:09] approved, right? People may not
[42:15] want these restrictions that come
[42:17] with
[42:19] overlapping districts and so on,
[42:21] but at least they have it in the
[42:23] 2018 plan, it says, I think,
[42:25] something like considering
[42:27] protecting high mountain areas
[42:29] with regulations. So it's
[42:33] named and I think now there's
[42:35] protection through the DRB that there has to be some
[42:37] extra control when you want to
[42:39] develop in high-
[42:41] elevation areas. Definitely.
[42:42] We do. Yes, we have an overlay for
[42:45] steep slopes and elevations of 1200 and
[42:47] 1500 feet. I
[42:48] understand you.
[42:49] I wanted to say that you know
[42:50] more about it than I do. So it comes
[42:52] all the time.
[42:52] Okay. So
[42:54] something similar.
[42:56] Yes, rather than just a
[42:57] management plan. Um, is this,
[43:02] um, a technical question, Dana? That this is
[43:05] about spatial development
[43:07] as opposed to a plan?
[43:09] What is it? Sorry.
[43:10] To satisfy what she was just
[43:12] talking about. I think, I think you know,
[43:14] I think you might be confusing
[43:15] zoning with a
[43:16] plan because, as he said
[43:18] earlier, it's not a
[43:19] zoning plan. This
[43:21] is something that guides land use planning
[43:22] .
[43:23] Oh, sure.
[43:24] Yes.
[43:25] I'm talking about you requesting a, um,
[43:27] management plan for the
[43:28] Shutesville Hill corridor. And this is still a plan,
[43:33] not a regulatory lever.
[43:37] What I'm hearing from this, Monica, just to
[43:39] clarify, is that, you know,
[43:41] she sees a difference in the regulations in the
[43:43] city plan and she's requesting a more
[43:44] stringent or more protective
[43:46] , I guess, measure that will be
[43:49] outlined in the plan, which
[43:51] will then influence what happens next.
[43:54] So instead of just a management plan
[43:55] for Shutesville, it's like,
[43:57] oh, we'll try to do this. More like we
[43:59] actually drew the
[44:01] line and established the rules.
[44:03] All right.
[44:04] That's what I hear.
[44:05] All right.
[44:06] Thank you. I think this took my
[44:10] 3 minutes, but I have a few more
[44:12] if I can.
[44:13] You can come back.
[44:15] Thank you. We took it over a bit.
[44:18] Sorry.
[44:22] All right. Zoom Room. I have a Zoom room.
[44:30] Er, in person, next person. It
[44:40] was like, maybe it's C. Leggett. NO
[44:42] .
[44:44] Hello, good evening. Uh, Teresa
[44:46] Wood. Um, I live in Watervliet. Well
[44:49] , I'll just add my
[44:50] thanks to what
[44:52] everyone else has said. It's not just about
[44:55] hard work, but also about the format and
[44:57] interactivity of the document. It seems
[45:01] much more accessible and is
[45:03] oriented towards working in many
[45:05] places. I think the action-
[45:08] oriented side could be improved a bit
[45:10] . I think a few people
[45:13] have commented on the use of the
[45:14] word "consider," and you know,
[45:16] if that's the direction
[45:18] we're going, I think we could
[45:20] strengthen some of those verbs
[45:22] . Since this is essentially becoming
[45:27] part of the story, I have included it in
[45:29] my written comments from the
[45:31] online link. Well, I couldn't
[45:34] find it. I was looking for it
[45:36] tonight but couldn't
[45:37] find it. There is a reference to the
[45:39] merger of the city and the countryside, and that is not what
[45:42] happened. And that's why I think it
[45:46] needs to be explained. The village, uh,
[45:50] surrendered its charter, uh, and,
[45:52] you know, E-FUD was, uh, established,
[45:55] but the town and the village didn't
[45:57] merge. That, uh, would require a vote,
[46:01] which, you know, a lot of us passed
[46:03] that vote, and I, I
[46:05] just, I think that should be
[46:07] , uh, clarified because these things
[46:09] become historical documents and
[46:12] people read them as fact, and I just
[46:14] , uh, I thought it
[46:16] would be important to correct that. Um, the other
[46:20] thing I want to emphasize is that
[46:22] , uh, you know, you appreciate the role of
[46:24] other organizations, other
[46:27] NGOs, and I think that's
[46:28] really important because they add to the
[46:31] vitality and, uh, the sense of community
[46:33] that we have here. So, I just want
[46:37] to thank you for that as well.
[46:39] Thank you.
[46:40] Teresa. Is anyone in
[46:46] online arguments?
[46:49] NO.
[46:50] Nobody from The Matrix.
[46:53] Er, in the room.
[47:04] What, what hat are you wearing?
[47:07] I left them back there. I'm here
[47:12] as Roger Clapp of Railroad Street,
[47:14] executive director of Discover Waterbury,
[47:16] which is still officially called
[47:18] Revitalizing Waterbury. And for full
[47:24] transparency, I also serve on the
[47:26] Waterbury City Council, but I'm here to
[47:28] talk about Discover Waterbury.
[47:33] Our mission is to preserve,
[47:34] promote and enhance the economic,
[47:41] historical and social vitality of
[47:43] Waterbury for residents, businesses and
[47:45] visitors. It gives us a pretty big,
[47:55] working area and we're doing a lot, and
[47:57] I appreciate the fact that you've done a
[47:59] great job engaging
[48:00] the community. Many of the people we
[48:05] work with have already spoken out
[48:07] this evening. Others also
[48:09] submitted comments online, including
[48:11] Gretchen Schizzel, our
[48:14] economic development coordinator. I would like to
[48:18] highlight and support the comments that have already
[48:20] been submitted. And
[48:29] then, uh, just a couple of things of
[48:31] note, uh, in the section on
[48:34] historic preservation, uh, uh, uh, I'd like to
[48:36] note that Revitalizing Waterbury
[48:38] has been directly involved in, uh
[48:40] , several major historic preservation projects
[48:43] , and most notably the Simpson
[48:45] Graves block, uh, downtown, which is
[48:47] why the organization was founded in
[48:50] 1991. Uh, and then, uh, with Green Mountain
[48:57] Coffee Roasters, uh, the renovation of the
[49:00] Waterbury train station. And, uh, that
[49:03] 's still part of our mission. Uh,
[49:09] we're not directly involved,
[49:11] uh, in, uh, historic, uh,
[49:13] preservation projects, but, uh, we do help,
[49:15] uh, businesses and entrepreneurs with, uh,
[49:18] their historic preservation tax credits.
[49:24] One of them received
[49:26] $40,000 last year, and we believe
[49:30] another will be awarded in the next week or two. And we
[49:34] are in a unique position to
[49:36] help leverage some of that
[49:38] support. And so, one of the things
[49:42] you did this year was
[49:44] identify organizations that can
[49:46] implement some of the
[49:48] strategic approaches that
[49:49] you outlined, and I think we
[49:51] should be mentioned in that regard
[49:53] . As our
[50:03] newest board member, Sierra
[50:05] Nagler, noted, we are entering into the
[50:06] Waterbury Pathways Initiative in
[50:08] partnership with WADA and the
[50:13] Wreck Commission and Wreck Department.
[50:24] Last year, we secured a
[50:29] $200,000 grant from the city for transportation to the city center, and this
[50:31] year we want to apply for another
[50:33] $150,000 grant
[50:35] to support the further development of access
[50:37] to more parking spaces
[50:40] , navigation systems, and
[50:41] sidewalks so that residents can
[50:43] use parking spaces
[50:45] away from the city center. This is
[50:57] something that the
[51:00] Waterbury Area Development Commission that
[51:02] we work with supports, and some of
[51:04] Gretchen's comments relate to
[51:05] that. So, um, these are just
[51:13] points that I think are worth
[51:14] noting, and the reason why it
[51:16] 's particularly important is that
[51:18] when this goes into the city plan
[51:21] , and we can cite it in, um, these,
[51:23] um, grant applications, um, it strengthens
[51:25] our, um,
[51:26] comparative competitiveness in receiving these
[51:28] grants, um, um, and it takes some of the
[51:30] burden off the taxpayers of the city. Hmm,
[51:38] I'll leave this here. I did one
[51:42] thing, one thing
[51:44] I wanted to point out is that
[51:46] um, we have another, um,
[51:47] public session on Monday at 7:00 to
[51:50] look at some of what
[51:51] can be done. We are working with the
[51:58] National Park Service on
[52:00] planning the River Meadow and
[52:02] Waterbury trails and river access.
[52:11] Specifically, what are some of the
[52:13] compatible features that will
[52:15] fit with
[52:16] flood mitigation and also take into account
[52:18] some of the interests within the
[52:20] community in the
[52:21] social and recreational interests of the
[52:23] community and we invite people to
[52:24] participate in that. So, thank you.
[52:30] Before you leave, wait. Wait,
[52:32] I have a question.
[52:33] Time.
[52:33] You start.
[52:34] Prerogative of the chairman. I'm
[52:36] starting.
[52:37] Hmm, what would you like to be called on
[52:38] this city map, because I know you're
[52:40] changing names. So, I think
[52:42] we were talking about the revitalization of Waterbury.
[52:44] I know it's changing.
[52:45] Well, yes, we are changing our name to
[52:47] Discover Waterbury, so we will.
[52:50] Hmm,
[52:50] Discover Waterbury should be a
[52:52] cross between "Yes." All right. Noted.
[52:55] Thank you.
[52:55] So, in the transportation section,
[52:57] can we put, "Will you volunteer
[52:59] for Waterbury pathways to
[53:00] be in our, um, our
[53:02] out-of-town groups to help with that?" Yes,
[53:05] or Discover Waterbury. We've
[53:06] already signed you up.
[53:08] All right. Yes.
[53:10] I'm looking at...I'm looking at Ed. You think
[53:13] you can put that in,
[53:17] so I think, you know, we'll
[53:19] continue to work on using this
[53:21] Waterbury pathways brand to signify
[53:23] this focus on developing
[53:24] multi-use, non-motorized
[53:26] paths.
[53:29] All right. Thank you.
[53:31] Any other questions?
[53:33] Thank you. Thank you.
[53:34] Thanks.
[53:36] Anyone online?
[53:37] Not yet.
[53:38] Okay. Uh personally?
[53:41] I and I have one online. to
[53:43] do?
[53:44] Oh.
[53:44] We have Don Snyder. Sorry.
[53:48] Oh, Carrie.
[53:49] You're welcome, Carrie. Oh,
[53:55] she clapped.
[53:56] Oh.
[53:56] I
[53:57] got you. Well, we appreciate that. Um, okay
[54:02] , so I think in, uh,
[54:04] in person, please. If anyone doesn't
[54:07] ...
[54:08] Okay, I'm Josh Lincoln, uh,
[54:10] Brush Hill. And, uh, I've lived there
[54:14] half my life, uh, longer
[54:16] than anywhere else. And I'll limit
[54:19] , uh, one thing, I want to thank you.
[54:21] You've done a lot of hard work. I
[54:22] really appreciate it. That's, uh,
[54:24] amazing. Um, but I'll limit my,
[54:28] uh, comments to one thing. I'll be
[54:32] pretty short, and you've covered
[54:34] some of it. Silla touched on a few of
[54:36] them and, um, sorry, um, my
[54:38] hearing is poor, so I might have
[54:40] missed, um, some of what
[54:42] she said. But my comments
[54:47] will be in relation to the
[54:49] 2030 emergency timeline for, uh,
[54:51] establishing a definitive framework for protecting
[54:53] some of our key
[54:55] resources: uh, the
[54:57] Shootsville Wildlife Corridor, the
[54:59] Sharkeyville Wildlife Corridor. And I think
[55:13] if I have one thing, uh, that
[55:15] I'd like to achieve and I'll limit myself
[55:17] to one, it's that we don't
[55:19] put this off, that we
[55:21] do everything we can
[55:23] because a lot of the reason why,
[55:25] uh, we're happy with the quality of what
[55:27] we have here and people come to
[55:29] see it is because
[55:31] we haven't, you know, or haven't yet
[55:33] allowed for the gradual parceling out
[55:35] , the fragmentation, the development of areas
[55:37] like Williston Road, Shelburne
[55:39] Road, and areas that, uh, have
[55:41] made communities into
[55:43] something other than what they are. I worked
[55:53] in Williston before any of this, you
[55:57] know, was built. There were
[55:59] fields there. I've seen bobcats and
[56:02] coyotes running around there at 6:00 in the morning on
[56:04] my way to work, and you know, obviously it's
[56:06] far from that. And my goal is to
[56:11] do everything we can to
[56:13] not wait until 2030 to
[56:15] protect these areas. And, you know,
[56:20] I think there should be, you
[56:22] know, and again, that's not my area
[56:24] of ​​expertise. So, you know, whether it
[56:31] 's an overlay on the area, which I
[56:33] think would be the most obvious,
[56:35] or enhanced protection, enhanced
[56:37] development review, or, you know,
[56:39] expansion of conservation areas, which,
[56:41] when you talk to Fisheries and
[56:43] Wildlife, you know, they say, you know, 17
[56:45] acres is the minimum area, but
[56:47] whatever it is, that's not my area of
[56:49] expertise. And again, as
[56:54] you said, this is not a discussion about
[56:57] spatial planning. But I would like to
[57:02] do everything we can
[57:04] to avoid anytime
[57:06] something like this comes up, any
[57:08] potential litigation between
[57:10] the city and anyone trying to
[57:12] do anything there. If we can be sure
[57:18] , let's get this done before 2030 and
[57:20] protect what I think is the most
[57:22] important thing we have to
[57:24] do, I think we just have to
[57:26] do it and make it
[57:28] happen. So I'll leave it at that and these are
[57:32] my comments. Thank you. Thank you
[57:34] .
[57:35] Thank you.
[57:35] I appreciate it.
[57:43] Whatever?
[57:45] NO.
[57:46] All right. I ask for
[57:49] peace.
[57:57] I'm Aaron Starmer from Maple Street in
[57:59] Waterbury Center. I'm on the
[58:02] recreation committee, but I think
[58:04] Emma did a great job of
[58:06] relaying what we've already
[58:07] sent you. So I approach it
[58:09] more from the perspective of someone who
[58:11] looks at a city plan and thinks about the
[58:13] future, thinking that it's an
[58:15] eight-year document. All that work
[58:19] you did with the maps
[58:21] is probably not…er…not a
[58:23] living document in the sense
[58:25] that it will be added to over the next 8
[58:27] years as the maps and charts are
[58:29] updated. As a citizen, I want
[58:35] to see this data, and a large part of the
[58:36] city's plan is about tracking it. And
[58:40] you know, there's so much out there about
[58:41] tracking that data. But the average
[58:44] citizen, as we see, is not
[58:46] present here. I don't know if they look at this
[58:50] city plan. I don't know if they'll come back to it
[58:53] after it's finished. But is there
[58:58] some mechanism in the city plan
[59:00] that says, "We'll take this
[59:02] data, we'll take...we've already
[59:03] created this...this framework, we'll take
[59:05] this tracking data and make it available to the
[59:07] public," in that...then the
[59:09] public will know
[59:11] what facilities, um, we're using.
[59:16] Where are the needs, where are the, you know,
[59:18] what are our priorities as a
[59:19] community. Hmm, and I think it's
[59:22] extremely helpful and you did a
[59:24] great job putting it
[59:26] all out there. But I'm afraid it'll get
[59:29] buried in a
[59:31] click-through page, and most people
[59:33] will think, "Oh, it's probably just a
[59:35] PDF with a lot of text
[59:37] that doesn't apply to me," when there
[59:39] 's so much good data there, and
[59:41] your goal is to be great at tracking
[59:43] it all. So that was my
[59:48] main thought while reading and you know
[59:50] , we live in a world now where it's
[59:52] much easier than it
[59:54] used to be when a city map was just a
[59:56] document lying around somewhere. Hmm,
[1:00:00] so that's what I'd like to see
[1:00:02] in the future, because you've
[1:00:04] already done all this great work and we
[1:00:06] all clearly appreciate it. So.
[1:00:09] Can I ask you a question?
[1:00:10] Yes.
[1:00:11] Well, if I understand correctly, and
[1:00:13] you are right, a city plan is a static
[1:00:15] document. We don't
[1:00:16] update, change, etc. We can't
[1:00:18] unless we go through
[1:00:20] this process. So, what you're saying is,
[1:00:23] you know, we take something from this, these are the
[1:00:25] things we want to track, right
[1:00:27] ? The things that we said in the
[1:00:29] plan that we want to track, and the
[1:00:31] organization or something like that, and
[1:00:33] we create some sort of
[1:00:34] dashboard or portal or whatever, where it
[1:00:36] 's like, hey, we said we're going to
[1:00:38] do this for a purpose. Well
[1:00:39] then.
[1:00:40] Here's where we started, and here's what
[1:00:43] we see now.
[1:00:44] And that would be kind of a separate,
[1:00:45] parallel thing. It's simply a
[1:00:47] working, living document that
[1:00:49] is updated.
[1:00:50] It's kind of centralized
[1:00:52] for all the initiatives
[1:00:55] we're working on.
[1:00:56] Yeah, and you know, something that people
[1:00:58] could come back to every year, committees,
[1:01:00] citizens, you know, town meeting day
[1:01:01] , that it's something that we
[1:01:03] all have access to, as
[1:01:05] opposed to, you know, something that's
[1:01:07] talked about at these meetings and
[1:01:08] most people don't come.
[1:01:13] Yes. Okay.
[1:01:14] Thank you. Thank you.
[1:01:16] Good suggestion.
[1:01:19] online
[1:01:20] Okay, great. What do you have?
[1:01:22] Amy. Hi. Can
[1:01:26] you hear me well?
[1:01:27] Yes. Yes.
[1:01:28] Okay, great. For those who do
[1:01:30] n't know me, I'm Amy Marshall Carney.
[1:01:32] I live in Waterbury Center. I am
[1:01:34] the chairwoman of the
[1:01:36] Environmental Protection Committee. Tonight
[1:01:39] I had no intention of talking about what
[1:01:41] I laid out in detail for all of you
[1:01:42] in the document, and it was
[1:01:44] repeated here with Silla and Josh.
[1:01:48] So, when it comes down to it, unless
[1:01:50] you want me to emphasize it, I can.
[1:01:54] Er, what I wanted to talk about here is,
[1:01:55] well, a few things.
[1:01:58] I'll mention, just for those in
[1:02:00] the audience, that some of the opinions
[1:02:02] I shared were about
[1:02:04] natural resources, but some of them were
[1:02:06] also about the time allocation, um,
[1:02:07] for this public
[1:02:09] review. And, and I still have a lot to
[1:02:12] do, and I just felt that
[1:02:13] if we had more time, I think the
[1:02:15] review could have been more thorough.
[1:02:19] Um, so, I just wanted to say,
[1:02:21] um, for everyone to hear. Hmm, I
[1:02:24] should also start by saying
[1:02:26] thank you so much, because I realize
[1:02:29] I had a printed version when I was looking at this document.
[1:02:32] Hmm, that's a lot of work. So, it's a lot of
[1:02:34] work to create it, and I and I know you
[1:02:36] all put a lot of
[1:02:38] time into these creation sessions. So I don't
[1:02:40] want any of these opinions to
[1:02:42] diminish that effort either. Well
[1:02:45] , I'm not myself, when I
[1:02:46] step back, I wanted to look at it through the
[1:02:49] lens of how they fit together and
[1:02:50] I saw some inconsistency
[1:02:52] that I'm not sure how you all
[1:02:54] think to take into account since, well, you're
[1:02:56] taking individual opinions
[1:02:58] by section. But as I read
[1:03:01] each one, each chapter
[1:03:03] individually, and again, I have more to
[1:03:05] do, they all seemed to make
[1:03:06] sense. There were simply
[1:03:08] parts where they were contradictory.
[1:03:11] For example, the chapter on
[1:03:12] housing tells us to plant
[1:03:14] new buildings where
[1:03:16] water and sewage systems already run, i.e. in
[1:03:18] the center, in the centers of villages. Well, but
[1:03:21] the chapter on flood resilience
[1:03:23] uses a city map and tells us to
[1:03:25] build new development away from the
[1:03:27] river corridor. Well, it turns out
[1:03:30] these are the same four districts
[1:03:32] we have, right? Like Union Street,
[1:03:34] Butler, Elm and Randall, and then South
[1:03:36] Main. And when it comes to planning to
[1:03:41] increase population density in
[1:03:43] areas at the highest risk of flooding,
[1:03:45] we also have federal programs that
[1:03:47] help fund that. There's risk
[1:03:54] built into it, and our
[1:03:55] funding plans, and both of them, you know, are
[1:03:57] marked as suspended or
[1:03:59] potentially suspended. I just don't know
[1:04:03] if you looked at it through this
[1:04:05] prism. The bigger problem, from my
[1:04:08] perspective, is
[1:04:09] property taxes. You know, you mentioned
[1:04:13] them at the beginning. And they are listed
[1:04:15] as one of the most important
[1:04:17] community problems. And they weren't just there
[1:04:18] once, but were mentioned at
[1:04:20] least three times in three separate
[1:04:22] chapters. So when I think about it
[1:04:25] through that lens, the plan never
[1:04:27] really works out. These
[1:04:30] are all like land-ownership conservation strategies
[1:04:31] , and it sounds a
[1:04:33] little strange to me from an
[1:04:35] environmental perspective, where we
[1:04:36] 're trying to add some
[1:04:38] protections, but we have a
[1:04:39] river corridor, you know? We have
[1:04:41] ridge overlays, we have habitat corridors.
[1:04:45] And is this also a view of the
[1:04:47] remaining land subject to
[1:04:48] taxation? So, for example,
[1:04:52] you know, a
[1:04:54] $4.3 million flood control project, a new
[1:04:56] stormwater management plan, and on top of that,
[1:04:59] we already have a
[1:05:01] school tax rate increase of about 25% over
[1:05:03] five years? Something like that, 20-25%.
[1:05:08] You know, all of these things
[1:05:10] are reasonable on their own, but I'm not
[1:05:12] sure how it all comes together
[1:05:14] if the goal remains one of the
[1:05:16] community's goals, which is to raise
[1:05:18] property taxes. One other
[1:05:21] specific example that
[1:05:23] might help is the chapter on
[1:05:25] housing, which describes new
[1:05:26] construction as a way to
[1:05:28] get more
[1:05:29] children into school. Well, the
[1:05:31] next chapter says that
[1:05:34] enrollment has already dropped by 5% since
[1:05:37] 2021. The school committee, you know, is
[1:05:39] discussing, as you know or should
[1:05:40] know, at a public level about
[1:05:42] Brookside Elementary School and
[1:05:44] all these other places. Well
[1:05:45] , it just doesn't seem like the
[1:05:47] different units
[1:05:49] agree with each other. So, this is supposed to be a
[1:05:51] holistic plan for the city.
[1:05:52] I would expect some of
[1:05:54] this to be addressed in this way
[1:05:55] . And if all
[1:05:58] costs are not included, they do
[1:06:00] not seem to be
[1:06:02] distributed evenly. Well, every
[1:06:07] division has, I think almost
[1:06:08] all of them if
[1:06:10] I read it correctly, they add layers of
[1:06:12] rule review to the plots. And the
[1:06:16] housing chapter,
[1:06:18] you know, already acknowledges that
[1:06:19] the complexity of the regulations is the
[1:06:21] biggest obstacle. So that
[1:06:24] makes life harder for landowners
[1:06:26] , right? You know, one piece of land
[1:06:29] is trying to divide itself and as I
[1:06:31] think you've talked about in
[1:06:33] your working groups, you know,
[1:06:35] it becomes a little bit more difficult to
[1:06:36] do. So my request is
[1:06:41] , um, if the costs, well, well
[1:06:44] , before the plans are approved, is there a
[1:06:46] way to publish, you know, a
[1:06:48] page or some kind of summary
[1:06:50] that combines all the chapters,
[1:06:52] shows everything added up, you know, and
[1:06:54] what the math of the flood is? That's
[1:06:59] all the math is, right? You have
[1:07:00] tax math,
[1:07:02] flood math, permit math,
[1:07:04] all of that. Um, so as
[1:07:05] residents, it might be a little
[1:07:07] easier for us to see the net, net, how
[1:07:09] all of this really translates to us
[1:07:11] and affects us.
[1:07:15] That would be helpful.
[1:07:17] All right. Uh, yes.
[1:07:19] Thank you.
[1:07:24] Thanks. Would
[1:07:32] anyone in the audience like to speak?
[1:07:38] I'd love to try it again and maybe
[1:07:40] learn something more than
[1:07:41] Oh God, I think everything's
[1:07:43] okay. Round two. You get
[1:07:46] seconds.
[1:07:52] You know, I don't give myself time because
[1:07:54] the problem with 3 minutes is that you have to
[1:07:56] stretch yourself.
[1:08:00] You're trying to get your point across
[1:08:02] , and there are too many things to
[1:08:04] discuss that come
[1:08:09] together to solve these
[1:08:10] problems. If our mission is to
[1:08:13] go back to those five headlines and
[1:08:15] try to solve those problems…
[1:08:19] I’m not sure the plan actually
[1:08:24] has the information to get us there
[1:08:27] . Maybe to Amy, who has
[1:08:31] some concerns.
[1:08:34] I presented the scenario to the
[1:08:36] city council a while back and they probably don't want to
[1:08:38] hear it anymore, but I'll give you something
[1:08:40] to think about. I presented a
[1:08:42] scenario of what would happen if
[1:08:44] Waterbury built 100,000 homes
[1:08:46] a year for the next 5 years. Let's call
[1:08:49] them mid-priced homes. You could
[1:08:53] consider $650,000. But
[1:08:57] I guess it's fairly realistic. Total
[1:09:01] tax revenue from these homes
[1:09:03] would average about
[1:09:05] $8,000. Correct.
[1:09:08] So the city receives $800,000
[1:09:10] a year in additional
[1:09:12] tax revenue, but only 15% of it goes
[1:09:15] to the city. That's $120,000. At
[1:09:20] our last town meeting, the
[1:09:23] annual increase was 3%, which amounted to
[1:09:25] $150,000. So, at
[1:09:30] 100,100 homes a year, we can't
[1:09:32] even keep up with our annual
[1:09:34] budget growth. This is without any additional big
[1:09:38] work, no big positions, no
[1:09:40] bonds, no big projects, nothing like
[1:09:42] that. Only an annual growth of 2 to 4%
[1:09:48] on average. 100 houses a year is
[1:09:54] unthinkable. I think 30 to 40 in the
[1:09:56] area of ​​municipal
[1:09:58] water supply is probably
[1:09:59] unthinkable. First of all, I don't know
[1:10:01] where the hell you're going to put them.
[1:10:05] Land acquisition is a huge part of
[1:10:07] Everyone says that state regulations
[1:10:09] are a major cost factor.
[1:10:13] Having been in the industry for 45 years, I don't
[1:10:16] see this as a major
[1:10:18] cost factor. I look at what
[1:10:21] happened with land acquisitions, which
[1:10:23] really moved the needle towards
[1:10:25] things being unattainable. I don't know how to
[1:10:29] solve this. Hmm, present
[1:10:33] from you, however. The
[1:10:38] current market The current market has driven
[1:10:40] this to the point where people
[1:10:41] are seeing this as, you know, maybe the
[1:10:43] only way to survive with
[1:10:45] all the inflationary problems
[1:10:47] that we've been facing. If someone
[1:10:54] sells a piece of real estate and wants to
[1:10:55] stay in Vermont, they will
[1:10:57] burn through it in the blink of an eye, equal to the
[1:10:59] cost of living here. If he
[1:11:06] cashes out to move somewhere
[1:11:08] else, then he might be better off
[1:11:10] elsewhere, but when it comes to
[1:11:11] affordability,
[1:11:13] no average working-class person
[1:11:15] in this state, or even this
[1:11:17] city, will be able to
[1:11:18] touch those numbers. I wish I had
[1:11:28] more time to invest because it
[1:11:29] sounds like I just come in
[1:11:31] and have a stomach ache, but
[1:11:33] I really appreciate everything you've done, but
[1:11:35] I'm so involved every day,
[1:11:37] not just working with people
[1:11:39] trying to find them a home. Their
[1:11:43] biggest fear after finding
[1:11:45] one is that I'm working
[1:11:47] on a project right now that I could
[1:11:49] get into, but they're a young couple. Their
[1:11:51] biggest fear, even though their
[1:11:56] family helped them with a huge part of the
[1:11:58] project and I do too.
[1:12:02] Diesel prices are rising, I see and
[1:12:04] hear everyone raising prices.
[1:12:07] I refuse. I refuse. I'm willing to
[1:12:11] take it on the chin because I know the
[1:12:13] impact this has on us as, you
[1:12:15] know, citizens. I'll take
[1:12:17] that for granted,
[1:12:19] but if he didn't have the help of the family he
[1:12:21] had, he wouldn't have been able to
[1:12:23] do it. And his bigger concern
[1:12:26] is how the hell am I supposed to
[1:12:28] stick with it once I'm there, you know,
[1:12:30] I can achieve that part.
[1:12:32] Maintaining this later will be the
[1:12:34] main concern. So I think I'm
[1:12:39] looking at part of this
[1:12:41] city plan and I haven't considered the
[1:12:42] economic development aspect of it. I keep
[1:12:51] thinking to myself, how can we, as a city,
[1:12:53] come up with some form of
[1:12:55] economic strategy that, you know,
[1:12:57] just shifts revenue to this
[1:12:59] city without impacting us from an
[1:13:00] infrastructure perspective? From a
[1:13:09] development standpoint, because of those 100
[1:13:11] homes that were built,
[1:13:13] if they were built annually
[1:13:15] for 5 years, those tax revenues in
[1:13:16] meeting the annual budget do not
[1:13:18] take into account the impact of those 100 homes
[1:13:20] on the community in terms of
[1:13:22] additional services. So again, I don't
[1:13:32] know what the answer is, but this
[1:13:34] particular scenario was an effort
[1:13:40] that was constantly tried and maybe, as I said,
[1:13:43] the value of the dollar at that time
[1:13:45] maybe worked back then. But that's
[1:13:48] not the case anymore. So we have to change
[1:13:51] our mindset about what
[1:13:53] we can do to skin the cat
[1:13:55] in a different way, because that
[1:13:57] just leads us down a false
[1:13:59] path. Because you won't solve
[1:14:02] these problems as things stand
[1:14:04] . I have a
[1:14:06] question for you. If there is one
[1:14:08] thing you would recommend we
[1:14:09] include here, what would it
[1:14:11] be? Because we have a lot of
[1:14:12] questions too, right? Like we're
[1:14:13] trying to solve a lot of these
[1:14:15] problems, compromises, etc., So I'm just curious if
[1:14:18] you have any specific suggestion
[1:14:20] that you would put here.
[1:14:21] I'm asking you this question. Has anyone
[1:14:23] seen the latest video that was
[1:14:25] released, um, it showed some
[1:14:33] residents of that area around
[1:14:35] Warren Weatsfield. Paul Hartshorn was
[1:14:40] one of the people in this video. My
[1:14:43] nephew sent me a video. I think it
[1:14:46] was probably published
[1:14:48] by the Republican Party. I
[1:14:51] 'm not sure. He didn't say it
[1:14:54] directly, but Paul Hartshorn said,
[1:14:56] "I had to cash in my
[1:14:58] health insurance, or my
[1:15:02] health insurance, what is it? A
[1:15:05] life insurance policy I've had
[1:15:06] for over 70 years, to pay my
[1:15:08] property taxes this year.
[1:15:11] It made my blood rush to my
[1:15:14] head. I was so angry that
[1:15:17] we'd come to this point. Um,
[1:15:21] maybe I'll try to send you that video so you can
[1:15:23] see it. It was, uh,
[1:15:26] eye-opening. Um, frustrating,
[1:15:29] quite honestly. Um, your question
[1:15:38] again was: Can you
[1:15:39] rephrase that?
[1:15:41] Yeah, what would you recommend we
[1:15:43] put in place here to solve some
[1:15:45] of these problems?
[1:15:47] Okay, so that brings me back
[1:15:49] to why I lost the
[1:15:51] thread. So I said to Senator
[1:15:53] Beck, 'If I were governor, okay
[1:15:55] ? I think this is such a drastic
[1:15:58] problem. If I were governor,
[1:16:02] I would walk in the door on day one
[1:16:05] and tell all the
[1:16:07] department heads, 'Cut the budget by
[1:16:09] 25%, period. I don't care how you
[1:16:11] do it.'" Then I would cut back on
[1:16:16] all our expenses. Roger Clapp was
[1:16:18] just talking about two separate
[1:16:20] grants. I appreciate that, you know,
[1:16:24] you brought up these issues, but the truth
[1:16:26] is that because of the
[1:16:27] circumstances we're in
[1:16:30] , we have to really cut back on all of these
[1:16:32] extra expenses. We have
[1:16:37] enough resources in our citizens to
[1:16:39] take care of this and get through it
[1:16:41] for, you know, five years to
[1:16:43] get back on our feet financially. All
[1:16:49] grants, you know,
[1:16:51] nonprofits, certain aspects are brought up
[1:16:53] in their unpopular discussions. Nobody
[1:16:57] wants to listen to them. So
[1:16:59] , wait a minute. There is one person in the back
[1:17:01] .
[1:17:01] Yes. Well, so much of what
[1:17:05] we do overspends on that
[1:17:07] we need to focus on needs.
[1:17:10] When I spoke with Amanda Jeanue,
[1:17:12] she told me, "We need to get back to
[1:17:14] basics." And I said, "I'm curious
[1:17:17] what you mean by basics and what
[1:17:19] I mean by basics." We return to
[1:17:22] basic needs. We need to get back
[1:17:26] on our feet. Lower those costs from a
[1:17:31] property tax perspective, a
[1:17:33] school tax perspective,
[1:17:38] municipal taxes, you know,
[1:17:40] municipal taxes, and I hate to
[1:17:42] say it, but let's go back to the way
[1:17:44] we old Vermonters used to
[1:17:46] live. Let's get back on our feet and then
[1:17:51] move forward. I emphasized that
[1:17:58] I believed this and asked legislators,
[1:17:59] "When will you admit the state is
[1:18:01] bankrupt and start working backward
[1:18:03] ?" Because we really are
[1:18:12] broke, because I could
[1:18:14] list everything from our poor
[1:18:16] educational facilities to our
[1:18:18] housing problems to our
[1:18:20] infrastructure problems to our health care costs to
[1:18:21] our state
[1:18:23] pension program. And so on, there is a list of at
[1:18:33] least 10 expensive things that we
[1:18:35] , the state, cannot solve
[1:18:37] because we have no income.
[1:18:41] So Chris, I'm going to So yeah,
[1:18:43] I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me.
[1:18:45] Yes, yes, I know. I heard what
[1:18:47] you said. Reduce expenses.
[1:18:50] Yes, we will try to reach this
[1:18:52] compromise. I appreciate this information. I know it's
[1:18:54] complicated.
[1:18:55] Yes, it's complicated, very
[1:18:57] complicated. There's so much involved in this
[1:18:59] and I say again, you
[1:19:00] guys are doing a great
[1:19:02] job. It's just about
[1:19:05] achieving that mission, it's gonna
[1:19:07] take a few different, a few
[1:19:09] different, uh ideas.
[1:19:13] Thank you.
[1:19:14] Do you appreciate it? Comment on Zoom. Do we have a
[1:19:19] hand in Zoom? Zoom member?
[1:19:21] Hand on Zoom.
[1:19:24] Carrie.
[1:19:24] Good, good. Chris,
[1:19:32] thank you so much for all your work. Well, that's
[1:19:36] it, but my concerns about the plan
[1:19:38] are very broad. I look at him as if I
[1:19:47] were a member of the
[1:19:48] city council in 5 years. How do I determine
[1:19:58] what the plan is and who is
[1:19:59] responsible? I think this is where I have a
[1:20:07] problem with the plan, because we have a lot of things
[1:20:09] that might be responsible and
[1:20:11] which might not. Are you hoping to get
[1:20:18] something published with
[1:20:20] responsible parties or are you just
[1:20:21] throwing it around? Well
[1:20:27] , I'll try. As you noticed
[1:20:32] , you know, we have these goals and strategies and
[1:20:34] then we have sort of a
[1:20:36] progress tracking section. At the heart of a lot of
[1:20:39] these goals and strategies is,
[1:20:41] I think, everyone's, you know,
[1:20:44] responsible. So we actually
[1:20:46] give names. So, if you
[1:20:48] were on city council five years from now, you would
[1:20:50] refer to this and ask,
[1:20:51] “What did the planning commission say about
[1:20:53] natural resources?” Oh, they
[1:20:55] contacted this and this and this and this other organization. Do you know
[1:21:02] if we have the authority to appoint,
[1:21:04] bind, and hold them
[1:21:06] accountable in this matter? I don't
[1:21:09] think we have that kind of power
[1:21:11] . I think maybe the city council
[1:21:15] could do this. You know, a
[1:21:17] public vote could do it.
[1:21:19] Consensus could do it. But
[1:21:22] I'm not sure we have the authority to
[1:21:23] say you have any
[1:21:25] say in the matter. And that's why
[1:21:28] we put it the way we
[1:21:30] put it. You say
[1:21:35] you give many NGOs
[1:21:37] a lot of power. And that
[1:21:41] is my question. So you're not saying you're
[1:21:47] not giving us a city plan
[1:21:49] that says someone is
[1:21:51] responsible, that there should be a
[1:21:53] responsible party like the
[1:21:55] city council to give the green light or
[1:22:00] something happened. So this is
[1:22:02] my question. Well, where are we
[1:22:04] ? We just say, "Well, that
[1:22:08] might be the responsible party,"
[1:22:09] but for every action that
[1:22:11] imposes a burden on
[1:22:13] the taxpayer, there should be one party
[1:22:15] responsible.
[1:22:19] Okay, so if I understand correctly
[1:22:21] , the wording that we've assigned
[1:22:23] to these different groups and so on isn't
[1:22:27] strong enough and instead of
[1:22:28] saying, you know, could,
[1:22:30] we should say should.
[1:22:33] Is this what I understand? Do
[1:22:35] I understand this correctly? Are
[1:22:39] you asking me?
[1:22:40] Yes.
[1:22:41] Should it be? I don't think there is such a thing
[1:22:43] as "should
[1:22:44] be." I think there should be a
[1:22:46] specific definition of who is
[1:22:48] responsible. The city council should
[1:22:52] always have the ability to say
[1:22:54] “no” or approve
[1:22:55] any action in the city.
[1:23:01] All right. So you're saying we should
[1:23:03] absolutely indicate who will be in
[1:23:05] charge of this?
[1:23:07] Correct.
[1:23:07] And present recommendations to the
[1:23:09] city council.
[1:23:10] Yes.
[1:23:10] All right.
[1:23:12] Because right now, and I'll say this, we have
[1:23:14] a lot of non-governmental organizations
[1:23:16] that are driving our city plan.
[1:23:23] Well, there are many things happening in our city
[1:23:25] that
[1:23:26] should not necessarily be inconsistent with our
[1:23:28] governance principles. We should
[1:23:36] reinstate more regulations to
[1:23:38] ensure taxpayers understand what is
[1:23:40] happening. If you can
[1:23:46] understand that. And maybe I'm not making myself
[1:23:48] clear, but that's okay. I
[1:23:50] understand what you mean.
[1:23:51] Ok thank you.
[1:23:54] Carrie, Carrie, I actually think it would be
[1:23:56] helpful to clarify what
[1:23:59] you mean when you say that the
[1:24:01] city plan was written as if it were being
[1:24:02] created by NGOs
[1:24:04] , because I don't think our
[1:24:05] process was
[1:24:07] NGO-centric. It was
[1:24:08] largely focused on
[1:24:10] public opinion.
[1:24:12] So are there any areas in the plan itself that
[1:24:14] you think are focused on
[1:24:15] NGOs, or is it
[1:24:17] just about their naming in the plan
[1:24:21] ? Could you clarify this?
[1:24:24] Yes. I think the city plan was
[1:24:27] centered around a lot of...Discover
[1:24:33] Waterbury. And please take this, you know,
[1:24:36] I love Discover Waterbury,
[1:24:38] Revitalize Waterbury. I think
[1:24:41] they have done a lot of amazing things for
[1:24:43] our community. I think
[1:24:47] Roger too. However, I think they have a
[1:24:51] lot of freedom in creating
[1:24:53] spatial development plans. And
[1:25:00] they present their initiatives and goals
[1:25:03] without the city knowing what is happening and without
[1:25:10] its approval. So I think there's a missing
[1:25:13] step in the process, and I think that's
[1:25:15] very clear now
[1:25:17] throughout our land use plan
[1:25:19] .
[1:25:25] All right. Do you have any other
[1:25:27] questions?
[1:25:27] No, I think it's clear.
[1:25:29] But I have a question for you, Carrie.
[1:25:31] If there are parts of this plan
[1:25:33] where we have a goal or a strategy
[1:25:35] that you believe, regardless of
[1:25:37] who proposed it, I don't want to name
[1:25:39] names, isn't that a
[1:25:40] process where you say you think it's the
[1:25:42] wrong strategy and
[1:25:44] shouldn't be in the plan? Is
[1:25:47] n't that what we do? This is the
[1:25:50] time.
[1:25:51] I think the plan is great, but I don't
[1:25:52] think you should single out
[1:25:54] one specific
[1:25:56] NGO. I think they should
[1:25:58] all be there. Instead of saying "
[1:26:01] Discover Waterbury" and everything else, it
[1:26:03] should be "all." Discover
[1:26:08] Waterbury is amazing and we do
[1:26:10] all these things with them. The city does
[1:26:13] all these things to them, right? But
[1:26:16] if we focus on Discover
[1:26:18] Waterbury, what happens if they
[1:26:20] fall apart? We are looking for an
[1:26:24] urban plan that will outlive them.
[1:26:29] Potentially. True? We look to the
[1:26:32] future. I hope
[1:26:35] they last forever, but it's our
[1:26:37] city, not them. That's why I'm asking that
[1:26:42] everything we do and include in the
[1:26:44] urban plan not
[1:26:46] only apply to Discover Waterbury. It applied to
[1:26:53] every
[1:26:54] arts-focused community organization that we support
[1:26:56] as a city. Please remember this
[1:27:00] . We support them as a city just as
[1:27:03] they support us. But what happens
[1:27:06] if something collapses,
[1:27:08] right? We are still a city. And this is what
[1:27:11] I would like to see
[1:27:13] implemented in our
[1:27:15] urban planning process. Well, it's something
[1:27:17] I've learned in my
[1:27:19] business experience that you never
[1:27:21] put your name in
[1:27:22] someone's email address. True? It's
[1:27:25] info@something. As a city, we
[1:27:29] should always do this.
[1:27:33] Thank you. Thank you for your
[1:27:34] involvement. Carried out. I think an
[1:27:38] asset planning committee
[1:27:40] that would help with this process
[1:27:41] would be, you know, specific feedback
[1:27:43] within the plan that we'll
[1:27:45] try our best
[1:27:47] to identify; our choice of words,
[1:27:49] I think it crosses
[1:27:51] the line a little bit where... But, you know, if
[1:27:53] you noticed areas in the plan, you know,
[1:27:55] specific strategies, goals,
[1:27:57] reference documents that you think
[1:27:59] we attribute to, you know, agency, resources
[1:28:01] or authority of the organization, that
[1:28:02] was certainly not intentional.
[1:28:05] So I think that
[1:28:07] level of detail in the
[1:28:08] feedback will allow us to, you know,
[1:28:10] address your
[1:28:12] comment more effectively. So.
[1:28:13] Great. Thank you very much.
[1:28:15] Thank you.
[1:28:15] Would
[1:28:17] anyone in the audience like to
[1:28:19] speak again, Curtis? Am
[1:28:22] I too late?
[1:28:23] NO. Not at all.
[1:28:24] Yes. You have time.
[1:28:26] You still have 25 minutes.
[1:28:28] But only in 3-minute fragments.
[1:28:32] Sorry, of course. So
[1:28:34] far I am very strict. Okay
[1:28:35] , sorry. Continue.
[1:28:37] Good evening, Chairman Allen and
[1:28:39] members of the Planning Commission. My name is
[1:28:41] Myers Mermel and I am
[1:28:42] the owner of Radio Vermont, whose
[1:28:45] main station is WDEV. I'm here
[1:28:47] with my co-owner,
[1:28:48] Caroline MacLane, in the audience. Er,
[1:28:50] my business partner. For 94 years,
[1:28:53] Radio Vermont has proudly served Waterbury
[1:28:55] and the communities of Central and
[1:28:57] Northern Vermont, broadcasting
[1:28:59] flood warnings, local
[1:29:01] sporting events and
[1:29:02] community forums. WDEV itself holds
[1:29:05] daily town hall meetings across the
[1:29:08] state. We serve more than 560,000
[1:29:11] Vermont residents out of 630,000 in the
[1:29:14] state. And we think it's a
[1:29:17] very important public and also
[1:29:18] moral imperative to maintain this
[1:29:20] type of daily dialogue. Maintaining this
[1:29:23] independent, local voice into the
[1:29:25] future, however, requires prudent
[1:29:27] management of our assets, including
[1:29:29] our 44-acre parcel at
[1:29:31] 681 Blush Hill Road. We understand, Mr.
[1:29:33] Chairman, that tonight,
[1:29:35] um, we are talking about strategy, or
[1:29:36] rather planning, and
[1:29:38] land use planning is tactics. But, um,
[1:29:40] if we're being too specific,
[1:29:42] please forgive us. However, we want
[1:29:44] to address three specific areas. Well, we
[1:29:46] advocate for a sensible,
[1:29:49] environmentally conscious approach in the 2026 zoning update
[1:29:53] that directly addresses
[1:29:54] Waterbury's
[1:29:55] housing and environmental goals.
[1:29:57] We have submitted formal correspondence
[1:29:59] proposing specific changes to the
[1:30:00] text in three areas.
[1:30:02] First, as part of our first
[1:30:04] land use goal, we urge the commission to
[1:30:05] establish, as part of the second phase of
[1:30:06] regulations, a
[1:30:08] density ordinance based on
[1:30:09] employee incentives on
[1:30:10] lots of 40 acres or
[1:30:11] larger. Waterbury needs 36
[1:30:12] apartments a year, we've heard, and
[1:30:14] the number of affordable units
[1:30:15] is lagging behind. In large areas
[1:30:17] outside the village, the standard 5-acre
[1:30:18] zoning leads to
[1:30:20] uncoordinated sprawl.
[1:30:21] We propose significant
[1:30:23] density bonuses for developments
[1:30:24] within the development plan
[1:30:25] that permanently protect
[1:30:27] at least 60% of open or
[1:30:29] currently used land, combined with an
[1:30:30] additional commitment of 43
[1:30:32] % of affordable or workforce housing to be
[1:30:35] provided within or outside the
[1:30:36] rural development areas. To
[1:30:38] achieve compact development that
[1:30:39] protects hillsides, this framework
[1:30:41] should also allow for
[1:30:42] flexible heights of up to four
[1:30:44] stories for buildings sloped to the
[1:30:45] topography below the tree canopy,
[1:30:48] context-sensitive site slopes, shared
[1:30:50] decentralised sewer systems where necessary,
[1:30:52] and amenities for private
[1:30:53] residents. Secondly, under the
[1:30:55] third housing objective
[1:30:56] , we propose flexible
[1:30:58] infrastructure pathways to
[1:30:59] expand the missing
[1:31:00] medium-density housing onto large
[1:31:02] rural plots. We strongly support
[1:31:03] partnering with the city through a
[1:31:04] state-based TIF or CHIP program to
[1:31:05] expand the city’s
[1:31:07] water and sewer system to
[1:31:08] eligible
[1:31:09] environmental developments, with private
[1:31:11] developers expected to pay a
[1:31:12] fair, proportionate share of the
[1:31:13] costs of booster pumps and
[1:31:14] line extensions. However, if
[1:31:16] municipal expansion proves
[1:31:17] infeasible or too costly,
[1:31:19] landowners should have the
[1:31:21] regulatory freedom to provide
[1:31:22] their own solutions. Phase
[1:31:24] two regulations should explicitly allow for
[1:31:26] advanced, state-approved,
[1:31:27] shared, decentralized
[1:31:29] water and sewer systems so that
[1:31:30] missing clusters in the middle can
[1:31:32] function without burdening
[1:31:33] municipal utilities.
[1:31:35] Third, under Transportation Goal 6
[1:31:37] , Strategy 6.2, we are asking
[1:31:39] the City to establish clear
[1:31:40] mitigation pathways for the intersection of
[1:31:42] Blush Hill Road and Route 100. The draft
[1:31:44] plan identifies this location as a
[1:31:46] high-crash location.
[1:31:48] Without the city’s active collaboration with
[1:31:50] Vermont Trans and transparent
[1:31:52] fair share fees, this designation
[1:31:54] creates an unintended moratorium on
[1:31:56] any future
[1:31:57] land development proposals
[1:31:59] under Act 250. These three updates
[1:32:01] unlock private investment and the
[1:32:03] state’s housing stock
[1:32:05] while ensuring that 60% of
[1:32:07] our pristine hillsides remain
[1:32:09] permanently protected. Thank you for
[1:32:10] your service to Waterbury and I
[1:32:12] respectfully request that you place our
[1:32:14] official letter, which
[1:32:15] I presented to Monica, on the permanent
[1:32:17] record of the hearing. Thank you.
[1:32:32] Um, uh, my name is Alyssa Johnson.
[1:32:34] I live in Waterbury. Sorry about the
[1:32:36] poor lighting in the office. I wanted to
[1:32:38] start by thanking the
[1:32:40] planning commissioners and city staff for
[1:32:42] all their work on this project.
[1:32:44] I just checked the
[1:32:46] website and in terms of scale,
[1:32:48] for those who haven't been keeping track, it
[1:32:50] looks like this is your 20th
[1:32:52] meeting in 2026.
[1:32:54] They usually last about 2, maybe 3 hours,
[1:32:56] as I often hear. And that's before
[1:32:58] any of you
[1:33:00] planning commissioners edited the feedback survey
[1:33:02] or designed our GIS data maps,
[1:33:04] and I just want the
[1:33:05] public to know how much work you
[1:33:07] put into this and to say thank you. The second
[1:33:10] question was whether there was a
[1:33:12] preferred time for completing the
[1:33:13] online form that would be
[1:33:15] most helpful to all of you,
[1:33:17] other than as soon as possible.
[1:33:21] I will close the online form by the end of this
[1:33:23] week, on Friday.
[1:33:26] Thank you very much. Now I would like
[1:33:28] to add that
[1:33:30] I will conduct a full analysis before Friday. I am
[1:33:33] surprised, and I have heard this in
[1:33:35] some of the comments today, at how much of
[1:33:37] this plan
[1:33:38] reflects the possibility of
[1:33:40] achieving all of the things described here
[1:33:42] . I think there was a recognition that there was a
[1:33:45] really good mix of
[1:33:47] city staff and
[1:33:48] partnerships with nonprofits and other
[1:33:50] community partners. Hmm, I'll say
[1:33:55] as someone who has been on
[1:33:57] city council and involved in the
[1:33:58] day-to-day running of
[1:34:00] city government, and it can be difficult for those
[1:34:02] individuals to talk about who's doing that
[1:34:04] work and what resources are available
[1:34:06] to support them. I don't know where this
[1:34:09] should go. I don't know if this is
[1:34:12] part of, you know, the first goal of
[1:34:14] city government, but I'm seeing more and more
[1:34:16] very intense communication
[1:34:18] about monitoring complex
[1:34:20] coordination between multiple entities.
[1:34:22] I heard about
[1:34:24] the desires for
[1:34:25] reports tonight. Hmm, and apart from the question
[1:34:29] of who does what, I wonder
[1:34:31] where the prioritisation is and whether there
[1:34:32] should be a strategy for assessing
[1:34:34] potential, whether
[1:34:36] it comes directly from the municipality or
[1:34:38] elsewhere. So what next, this is a
[1:34:43] total gaffe, but again, hearing about
[1:34:45] who is responsible for this, I realize
[1:34:46] again that maybe
[1:34:48] it's not the planning commission's job,
[1:34:51] but maybe a few lines could be added like
[1:34:53] "this will be
[1:34:54] reviewed annually by the city council to
[1:34:56] inform planning" or
[1:34:58] something like that, if that's the
[1:35:00] intention of other bodies in the city. But
[1:35:03] thank you all for the welcome.
[1:35:05] Thank you, Leslie. Thank you. Well
[1:35:13] , has anyone else in the audience
[1:35:14] commented or wants a second round
[1:35:19] ? I'll
[1:35:24] do a second round. All right. Here you go
[1:35:28] . Well
[1:35:28] , of course you know
[1:35:30] I'm in the natural resources chapter
[1:35:32] . Well,
[1:35:39] I was just looking at the 2018 plan and it
[1:35:41] includes several action points
[1:35:43] related to road salt pollution
[1:35:44] . With what?
[1:35:49] Road salt contamination. Salt. Oh well. Well
[1:35:51] , well,
[1:35:53] this year during the legislative session,
[1:35:55] bill S218 dealt with managing
[1:35:57] road salt to prevent
[1:35:59] pollution and was vetoed
[1:36:02] by our governor. And so,
[1:36:06] I think my question, maybe a little bit
[1:36:07] related to what
[1:36:09] Alyssa just said, is about
[1:36:11] keeping track of what happened. Have
[1:36:14] we done anything between 2018 and
[1:36:16] 2019 to understand what
[1:36:18] actions we took? And have
[1:36:22] we gotten to the point
[1:36:24] where we don't even need to
[1:36:26] mention it in the new plan? Because we
[1:36:30] won't get much help
[1:36:31] because the bill was vetoed.
[1:36:34] So, if we want to think about
[1:36:35] road salt pollution, it has to
[1:36:37] be at some
[1:36:39] urban level. Do
[1:36:41] you think we should? I think we
[1:36:44] should. Yes, I think so. I think we
[1:36:46] should think about it. And
[1:36:52] mainly because, you know, we have
[1:36:53] people using private
[1:36:55] wells along the larger roads,
[1:36:57] our Route 100 corridor; and there's,
[1:36:59] you know, the state's management of road salt
[1:37:00] , which we might not
[1:37:02] be able to say much about, but
[1:37:04] at least we can, you know,
[1:37:06] manage what we as a city
[1:37:07] use. And there's something about, you know,
[1:37:15] salt flats and I just don't know much about what
[1:37:17] we do in Waterbury. So this
[1:37:22] might be a learning moment for me as well,
[1:37:24] in terms of, did we get through
[1:37:26] this and now it
[1:37:28] no longer exists?
[1:37:30] This might be a question for Bill
[1:37:32] Woodruff.
[1:37:33] Yes. Yes. Definitely.
[1:37:35] Because he's on it, he's on it.
[1:37:37] Yes. Yes.
[1:37:39] Uh.
[1:37:40] That's a good point. Um, and I'm not saying
[1:37:43] it has to be there. I think it
[1:37:45] was more of a question, as I saw it
[1:37:47] mentioned many times in the 2018 plan
[1:37:50] . And the other thing, again, uh, during the
[1:37:54] legislative session we had H727, the
[1:37:56] big data center bill,
[1:37:59] which was also vetoed
[1:38:01] by our governor after
[1:38:02] bipartisan support. And, uh, there's been
[1:38:10] a lot of talk across Vermont about
[1:38:12] municipalities needing to take local
[1:38:14] action to prevent
[1:38:23] data centers from coming in and using these
[1:38:25] resources. And I'm not saying we'll
[1:38:28] put them in the Rando box?
[1:38:30] Yes. And I'm not saying that this will happen
[1:38:36] , but the 2018 plan again
[1:38:38] mentions the extraction of groundwater
[1:38:40] for commercial purposes, which is also
[1:38:42] not in the new plan. So just
[1:38:47] the mention of it gives us the opportunity to
[1:38:49] think about it in terms of
[1:38:50] zoning regulations, if we
[1:38:52] wanted to. So removing
[1:38:57] that completely will make it harder for us in the next phase of the zoning
[1:39:01] bylaw process
[1:39:03] if we wanted to think about that
[1:39:05] .
[1:39:08] Thank you.
[1:39:09] Silas, thank you. Uh, Silas, I know
[1:39:12] road salt pollution
[1:39:14] is close to my heart. It's almost embarrassing
[1:39:18] to admit that we err, didn't
[1:39:19] take that into account. Thank you for
[1:39:22] raising this topic. Ugh, great
[1:39:24] comments.
[1:39:27] Second time? Correct.
[1:39:28] All right. Um, I hear you
[1:39:32] asking what the solutions are, and I
[1:39:34] 'm... I'm a mediator. You know,
[1:39:38] I'm the scapegoat, the
[1:39:40] middle-aged child, the black sheep, always
[1:39:42] looking for peace. I was interviewing
[1:39:45] for a job at Beth's when no
[1:39:47] one was there and everything was
[1:39:49] falling apart. And you know, I just want to
[1:39:52] help. So when you talk about
[1:39:53] solutions, I want you
[1:39:55] all to think about it, and I have a
[1:39:57] business card. I started a new company.
[1:39:59] Well, I'm not sure where this is
[1:40:01] going because I hate
[1:40:03] AI just like everyone else. Well
[1:40:05] , it is an essential entity that
[1:40:07] turns our brains upside down,
[1:40:09] just like Google did before.
[1:40:11] So, I beg you all,
[1:40:13] think of me as someone who is looking for
[1:40:15] solutions when it comes to
[1:40:17] raising new money.
[1:40:21] We need new money, and we need
[1:40:23] international or foreign money
[1:40:25] , instead of taxing
[1:40:27] everyone or creating these brilliant
[1:40:29] ideas and then being burdened with how to
[1:40:31] finance them. I am a person
[1:40:36] who deliberately did not have children. Well
[1:40:38] , two years after 9/11 I
[1:40:39] moved here. Well,
[1:40:41] I made a conscious decision
[1:40:43] not to have children. I am 52 years old.
[1:40:46] I love practicing, but to this day I
[1:40:48] don't have any children, as far as I know.
[1:40:51] So, I'm begging you all, I go
[1:40:53] to city council and I attend
[1:40:55] school board meetings and I don't have
[1:40:57] children. All right. So, I implore
[1:41:03] all of you to look at
[1:41:05] this through the lens of the possibility of change and, well
[1:41:07] , the possibility of not
[1:41:09] necessarily seeing what's
[1:41:11] out there, well, because
[1:41:12] technology is evolving in ways that
[1:41:14] none of us understand, and that's
[1:41:16] fire meeting the
[1:41:18] limbic brain, well, a thousand times over. Well
[1:41:24] , here's my business card, Craft
[1:41:27] Question Works, Carlton Anderson,
[1:41:29] Veracity Quest. Just thank you.
[1:41:32] all. All right.
[1:41:35] I believe there are currently many
[1:41:36] vacancies on various
[1:41:37] boards and committees in the city?
[1:41:39] I know I need a
[1:41:41] job right now, okay?
[1:41:44] And also, if you don't If you want to
[1:41:45] give your time for free,
[1:41:47] yes, we have plenty of
[1:41:49] opportunities. Ugh, I love it. This
[1:41:53] is my top hobby. Er, okay
[1:41:56] .
[1:41:57] Smiling and calling. I am
[1:41:59] willing to smile and
[1:42:00] call.
[1:42:02] Er, okay. Do we have anyone
[1:42:04] online? Okay. Um, is there anyone in
[1:42:09] the room who hasn't spoken yet
[1:42:11] or would like another round?
[1:42:17] Dino, I just wanted to say that
[1:42:19] uh,
[1:42:19] you want to go to the chairman,
[1:42:21] Chris?
[1:42:21] Yes, can you hear me? You must
[1:42:23] approach the chairman.
[1:42:24] Yes.
[1:42:24] You have to step up to the hot seat.
[1:42:26] Yes. Just a quick comment. From what
[1:42:28] I understand, I think the state's Act
[1:42:31] 250 is actually working on new
[1:42:33] regulations regarding the provisions of
[1:42:35] Act 250 as it relates to
[1:42:37] forest fragmentation. I think
[1:42:39] they're trying to control it a little more
[1:42:44] . Um, just
[1:42:46] all I wanted to throw in there,
[1:42:48] um, because there were a lot of comments
[1:42:50] about, you know, critical habitat
[1:42:53] and our open
[1:42:54] land landscape. I think over time, as the
[1:43:00] city grows, if
[1:43:01] that actually happens,
[1:43:03] we're at an impasse. Right now we're at an
[1:43:09] impasse because of the cost of everything,
[1:43:12] but as time goes on, I think these
[1:43:13] critical areas, our open
[1:43:15] farmland, er, forest sections, will come under
[1:43:17] increasing pressure to want to go into
[1:43:20] them. So, you know, creating
[1:43:26] some kind of specific plan to
[1:43:28] really protect these areas, I think
[1:43:30] is very important. Thank you.
[1:43:44] Anyone online? Anyone in the room?
[1:43:47] Nobody online. I
[1:43:50] don't like switching back and
[1:43:51] forth.
[1:43:52] Make sure.
[1:43:53] Secure our bases.
[1:43:57] If no one else in the room wants to
[1:43:59] speak, we can sit here
[1:44:02] awkwardly for 10 minutes. We have never
[1:44:06] ended a meeting
[1:44:08] 10 minutes early before. It's
[1:44:09] actually very nice not to have to
[1:44:12] meet.
[1:44:15] I want to give those in the audience,
[1:44:17] honestly, if you want to come up and
[1:44:19] speak, we still have 10 minutes.
[1:44:22] So, feel free to either
[1:44:25] We also, if you haven't seen it,
[1:44:27] we have paper on the table here if you'd
[1:44:29] rather submit a written, handwritten
[1:44:31] comment, or there's also an
[1:44:33] online form.
[1:44:33] Yes. Let it be
[1:44:35] legible.
[1:44:37] Yes.
[1:44:37] Well, if it's in the online form,
[1:44:39] Carrie has
[1:44:41] We Have Carrie Online.
[1:44:43] Carrie McMillan?
[1:44:45] Uh hello. Can you hear me?
[1:44:47] Mhm. Yes.
[1:44:48] Great. I just wanted to say
[1:44:50] thank you.
[1:44:52] Thanks, Carrie. I appreciate it.
[1:44:54] Um No, really. This is the
[1:44:58] hardest thing you will
[1:45:00] ever do. Um, you make
[1:45:07] decisions and land and
[1:45:09] policy decisions for our entire city.
[1:45:14] So, as much as I press and
[1:45:16] question, um, I want to say
[1:45:17] thank you and I appreciate everything
[1:45:19] you do. So.
[1:45:23] Thanks, Carrie. And um just a
[1:45:25] reminder that we're going to deal with the
[1:45:27] statute now. I'll be
[1:45:32] there. No, but yes. Because if you have
[1:45:37] 10 minutes to kill, I can
[1:45:39] say thank you. You can
[1:45:45] nominate me for another position on the
[1:45:47] planning commission if you like. But
[1:45:50] you know, I really appreciate everything
[1:45:52] you do. And yes, it's difficult. And I appreciate it
[1:45:59] all. So thank you. And I will
[1:46:01] continue to motivate you. I hope
[1:46:05] you appreciate it. Yes, I appreciate that.
[1:46:09] It's part of the process and we need it
[1:46:11] . So, I heard.
[1:46:17] I started to appreciate it. What do you think about this?
[1:46:20] Will you come and talk to us? Yes.
[1:46:22] All right. Short. Great.
[1:46:24] Okay, you have someone in the room. So
[1:46:26] take it away.
[1:46:28] Good night. Good night.
[1:46:33] Yes. And you know, really, most of
[1:46:35] my comments were submitted
[1:46:37] through the recreation committee that
[1:46:39] I participate in. I also want to
[1:46:43] reiterate my sincere thanks
[1:46:45] to this group. I appreciated
[1:46:47] Alyssa's calculations that she made with the hours. I do
[1:46:50] n't know, we're getting to 100 hours,
[1:46:51] maybe just because of what
[1:46:53] you've invested in it. So I'm
[1:46:56] grateful for this, for the visually
[1:46:58] pleasing, easy-to-navigate
[1:46:59] information. Um, for the opportunities that
[1:47:03] I think people have been given
[1:47:05] to contribute. Um, signs,
[1:47:11] radio ads, uh, I think
[1:47:13] you just set a standard that
[1:47:15] I hope others can replicate
[1:47:17] in terms of encouraging, inviting,
[1:47:20] enabling
[1:47:21] public input. Um, finishing up here
[1:47:29] tonight, I wanted to encourage and I
[1:47:31] hope to see, uh, uh, on the Front
[1:47:33] Porch Forum and on the website
[1:47:35] so people can really easily
[1:47:37] find some of the things that
[1:47:39] you've talked about at different times. That
[1:47:45] your next step is to
[1:47:47] take feedback into account. Then
[1:47:49] you send the project to the city council. They
[1:47:52] then have 180 days to conduct
[1:47:54] two hearings. And that these
[1:47:59] hearings, if I understand correctly,
[1:48:01] may result in additional changes,
[1:48:04] corrections to the plan. I don't know if it's you or the
[1:48:09] supervisory board that's concerned about this, but I'd like to understand it clearly
[1:48:11] . Well, there is
[1:48:15] one more thing. And oh, Friday. It
[1:48:24] wasn't clear to me either.
[1:48:28] I heard from one person that
[1:48:32] comments will be accepted at midnight tonight. But now it's the end of the
[1:48:34] week.
[1:48:35] We have extended the deadline. We've gotten
[1:48:37] a few calls asking for an
[1:48:38] extension, so...
[1:48:39] Yeah, that's great. I know I may have
[1:48:41] missed it. Maybe it was on the website,
[1:48:43] but I was looking for the term.
[1:48:45] I hear a lot of people say, "I'm not
[1:48:47] done with, you know, the
[1:48:49] chapters yet." I think it's
[1:48:51] great that people have
[1:48:53] a few more days and Dana, and I appreciate your
[1:48:55] posts on the Front Porch Forum so you
[1:48:56] can say, "Guys, this is
[1:48:58] where we are." So, if
[1:49:00] you can do a few more of these,
[1:49:01] I hope people will give you
[1:49:03] some additional suggestions, but um,
[1:49:05] I really appreciate everything
[1:49:07] . I hope it didn't last
[1:49:09] longer than 3 minutes.
[1:49:10] I think you're in time.
[1:49:12] Thank you.
[1:49:12] Scott, I have 30 seconds left.
[1:49:15] One more person.
[1:49:27] Uh, anyone else?
[1:49:33] No, I just want to say thank you.
[1:49:35] Thank you. Uh,
[1:49:38] okay, it's 7:58. I think we've
[1:49:42] collected comments. So that was the end of the
[1:49:46] interview.
[1:49:49] All right.
[1:49:49] I request that the hearing be closed.
[1:49:51] Great.
[1:49:52] I support this.
[1:49:54] Uh, everyone who is in favor of
[1:49:56] closing the hearing says:
[1:49:58] Me. I.