[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.

Waterbury Municipal Meeting - Public Hearing September 30, 2026 - Planning Commission

Transcript