tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7975378762766075422024-03-05T07:36:49.589-05:00Underhill ZoningUnderhill voters defeated 2013 Town Meeting ballot articles 11, 12, and 13.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-36210507156024051672018-03-05T16:02:00.000-05:002018-03-06T21:41:28.063-05:00Vote No -- Again -- on Zoning Articles 9 & 10<br />
<i><b>Déja vu... </b></i><br />
<br />
In 2013, the Planning Commission proposed a new zoning district at the floody, high water table confluence of Clay Brook, Steinhour/Mill Brook, Crane Brook and Browns River in Underhill Center. The wise voters of Underhill <a href="http://underhillzoning.blogspot.com/2013/03/underhill-rejects-upzoning.html" target="_blank">rejected all of the zoning changes</a> proposed that year.<br />
<br />
<b>We need to do it again...</b><br />
<br />
Vote NO on ARTICLES 9 & 10<br />
<br />
<b>The problem...</b><br />
<br />
The proposed changes upzone along River Road and Pleasant Valley Road, making the minimum lot size smaller, which results in more driveways, more parking area, more buildings, more water wells, more septic systems -- in possibly the worst possible location for development, the intervale of Underhill Center.<br />
<br />
There is also downzoning, which is a form of taking, for the rest of Underhill.<br />
<br />
It reflects a constant regulatory churn, spinning a revolving door of consultants, that feeds a growing bureaucracy and is ripe for abuse by rent-seeking developers who have the patience and perseverance to work the machinery of government. Consider the change to the <a href="https://underhillzoning.blogspot.com/2013/02/parcel-be108.html" target="_blank">zoning district boundary along Beartown Road</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>This all goes back more than a decade, way more...</b><br />
<br />
Once upon a time, the good people of Underhill established <i>critical area zoning.</i> Unlike other towns, which zoned against use, Underhill based its zoning on the unchanging natural features of the town. You read that in the titles of some of the zones (Water Conservation, Soil & Water Conservation, etc.) and in the purposes of the zones. We have the unusual situation in Underhill Center of larger minimum lot sizes at the intersection of roads and rivers, while smaller minimum lot sizes exist along the hill sides. That is because the intervale and aquifer recharge area are not good places to build roads, houses and septic systems. In this respect, Underhill is different from all other towns. Read the <a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/%7BE9D3524A-EDE2-4415-B8DA-2CF9ABAD0AB4%7D.PDF" target="_blank">Town Profile</a> for a discussion of the history of zoning in Underhill.<br />
<br />
The current Planning Commission has forgotten all about this. On October 7th the Chair of the Planning Commission was asked about the age and history of the Water Conservation zoning district that she was proposing to change. She had no idea, and thought it was only a few years old, referring the question to surprised fellow commission members David Edson and Carolyn Gregson, asking if they remembered setting up the district. Carolyn was a child at the time. The zoning districts in Underhill have been stable since their establishment in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
Underhill's development review from the 60s on could be described as "anything is possible, but everything is conditional." That's why Underhill could have ski areas in town, and woodworking shops or car repair places -- or a school -- out in the woods. If something was reasonable, it was allowed. It did not rely on a long table of uses. This approach served Underhill very well for decades.<br />
<br />
Then, around 2005, our formerly concise town plan and zoning/development regulations started to get the consultants' treatment. Now there are more than 300 pages between the two documents. Nobody has the time or capacity to read them -- not even the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board. These documents demonstrate the awkward expansion that comes from planning consultants who cut and paste text as they move from one job to the next. Documents develop unnecessary repetitions, subtle loopholes, and internal contradictions.<br />
<br />
Such documents are ripe for exploitation by the one group that does have time to digest and use the regulations to advantage, real estate speculators.<br />
<br />
<b>Underhill Center, really Underhill Waterlogged...</b><br />
<br />
The area of Underhill Center where the up zoning is proposed, at the confluence four streams and Browns River has a history of flooding and high water table. It is possibly the worst the place in town for new development. Flooding in the town office vault, and reliance on a sump pump under the front stairs at Town Hall, ought to be indication enough that there's trouble underground. Or, look in the back yard of the late Underhill Country Store, at its elevated, "best fix" septic treatment structure. The reduced minimum lot size that is proposed for the Underhill Center intervale could create new lots with new rights to construct such less than ideal wastewater systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
No amount of minimum lot size shrinkage is going to change the fact the many of the houses in the Underhill Center intervale are on lots that are too small, with too little room for a replacement leachfield, an enlarged front porch, or even a new shed. Maintain existing is what these buildings of the past should aim for. The buildings have survived these many years from plain old maintenance. smaller minimum lot sizes will not improve their prospects.<br />
<br />
<b>It's not what was promised...</b><br />
<br />
In 2013, the Planning Commission could have taken the no votes seriously and begun proper investigation and planning effort. If they had done so we would see such things as a land capability study, stormwater study, sewer study, utility study, vernacular study, design standards, planning charrettes, traffic studies, public investment planning, and study of the riparian area along Browns River.<br />
<br />
Instead, they have a colorful spreadsheet based on looking at air photos and a property tax map. There's a reason that these maps carry disclaimers and warnings about their accuracy. They are not sufficiently accurate to measure the setbacks and dimensional requirements of this area. The only way to really know is to get out in the field with a surveyor with good technique and good equipment.<br />
<br />
The 2015 Town Plan called for an overlay with relaxed setback standards. This is reasonable. It also called for an alternative variance process -- also reasonable. But the Planning Commission didn't do that.<br />
<br />
Instead it focused on a new district with smaller minimum lot sizes. The 2018 proposal is the same as in 2013: a new zoning district, smaller minimum lot sizes, shrouded in breathless concern about dimensional standards. Don't buy it. The Planning Commission gambled that Underhill voters would forget about 2013, hoping that voters would accept a well-oiled pitch in place of the hard work of good planning.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<b>Unfairness to the rest of Underhill</b><br />
<b><br /></b>The difference between conditional use review before the DRB and permitted use non-review is an important distinction. While the upzoning to the new district with reduced minimum lot sizes, it also increases permitted uses for impermeable surfaces and multi-family buildings, the proposed zoning changes eliminate the possibility for conditional multi-family buildings everywhere else. This would be a blow against responsible development. as it means that most every area will eventually be carved into single-family lots, with all of the attendant roadways, wells, septic systems, etc. It also removes flexibility for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. The Planning Commission has forgotten the Underhill tradition of "anything is possible, but everything is conditional." And it has also failed to understand the negative consequences of its proposal, and avoided applying imagination to work on the many other ways that it could serve the town, as described in the Town Plan.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the Planning Commission has done much to undermine the future of Underhill Center, by underinvesting in public facilities, and failing to plan for area walking and road design.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>If we allow this to continue...</b><br />
<br />
Continued massaging of an ungainly, unreadable regulatory mess is awarded a special label by political scientists: turd polishing.<br />
<br />
The stability of Underhill zoning districts is an important to fairness that has lasted many decades. Any time zoning district boundaries move or zoning requirements change someone is getting a gift or having something taken away. That's the crap shoot of living in other towns. For decades it's been different in Underhill, where stable zoning means predictability and little opportunity for rent seeking manipulation of town government. That is until the Planning Commission started massaging the zoning districts. As in 2013, it is a Pandora's Box. Already there is lobbying for reducing minimum lot sizes in other areas of town.<br />
<br />
Vote for fairness, stability, and an end to machinations.<br />
<br />
Vote NO -- again -- on ARTICLES 9 & 10.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
</style>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-73664445325701084372017-09-20T17:20:00.000-04:002019-03-01T13:01:23.363-05:00Zoning against NatureHow did you like what Houston did to itself with Harvey? Poor planning and a wild west attitude along with poor regulation are blamed for much of the disaster impacts. A <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059425" target="_blank">poor understanding of flood plains</a> has been cited. With global warming, the <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/?ex_cid=story-twitter" target="_blank">past is no indicator</a> of future flooding.<br />
<br />
The Underhill Town Plan is full of deference to Nature and language to protect natural resources and natural areas. The town has zones named "Soil and Water" and "Water Conservation", which give a plain summary of the conservation orientation that town planning has had for decades.<br />
<br />
So, with Harvey in Houston and all of the clucking about the role a lack of zoning had on the resulting floods, one would hope that the latest revisions to the town's zoning regulations, in addition to shortening, clarifying and simplifying the document, would lessen flooding risk and mitigate the impacts of flooding.<br />
<br />
But they've done it again. Despite having previously been turned away by voters, our planners have proposed upzoning in Underhill Center.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that crude hammer of zoning has become a tool of giving and taking, love and hate. Down zoning takes away value from a property, while upzoning is a free gift from the town to the lucky land owner. The Sinex Burlington Town Center project is a first-rate example of rent-seeking and rent-getting, with a $20 million cash boost and big increase in total buildout versus the established zoning.<br />
<br />
Here in Underhill, the planning commission is busy giving and taking, while doing exactly the opposite of conserving and protecting. Yes, they have come again at the voters with another upzoning proposal. And it is virtually a repeat of the last time, when voters said no thank you.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-11250458142858402562015-12-23T15:07:00.000-05:002016-01-15T15:22:13.707-05:00PV109 Access Permit: The Three Speeds<br />
The Albertini subdivision at 109 Pleasant Valley Road is, to put it politely, problematic.<br />
<br />
There are three kinds of speed involved when considering an access permit, and in any situation where road design is at issue: <a href="http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf" target="_blank">design speed, operating speed and posted speed</a>. One of the goals in engineering a road is to ensure that these three measurements are roughly equal. The process is supposed to go something like this: Figure out how fast you want traffic to flow, design the roadway to that target design speed, study the actual operating speed (85th %ile), set the posted speed to match the operating speed.When these three speeds converge, the road is relatively safe and comfortable.<br />
<br />
Especially since reconstruction of the section of Pleasant Valley Road at Mountain Road, the posted speed along Pleasant Valley Road is not <a href="http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/" target="_blank">consistent with the operating speed</a> of the road. It is arbitrarily too low.<br />
<br />
The Vermont Agency of Transportation's <a href="http://vtransplanning.vermont.gov/sites/aot_policy/files/documents/trafficresearch/VTransTISguidelinesOct2008.pdf" target="_blank">Traffic Impact Study Guidelines</a> succinctly explain the problem of arbitrarily low posted speed limits:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Much like installing traffic signals, reducing speed limits is often seen as a panacea for traffic
ills. Speed limits must be set in accordance to the MUTCD. The MUTCD, in section 2B.13,
requires than an engineering study be completed in accordance with established engineering
principles. It states that the speed limit should be set within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed
of free-flowing traffic. Other factors which may be considered along with the 85th percentile
speed are road characteristics (geometry), pace speed, roadside development and environment,
parking practices and pedestrian activity and reported crash experience.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since the 85th percentile speed is quite often higher than the existing speed limit, it is difficult to
justify a lower speed limit. Arbitrarily setting a lower speed limit is not an effective method to
reduce driver speeds – drivers select their operating speed by “feel”, with little regard to the
posted speed limit unless there is active enforcement. Assuming that the majority of drivers are
prudent and safe drivers, the 85th percentile speed is deemed a reasonable speed limit unless
there are factors which strongly suggest that drivers are making poor decisions at that speed. </blockquote>
This idea that design speed, operating speed and posted speed should be equal is a fundamental notion in traffic engineering. A lot of design decisions and traffic analysis rely on -- and flow from --this idea. When these three speeds are not in agreement, bad things happen.<br />
<br />
That is why it is so disappointing that the consultancy attempting to develop a subdivision at 109 Pleasant Valley Road (PV109) did not immediately point out the discrepancy between posted and operating speed.<br />
<br />
Here's how easy it is to discover:<br />
1) Point your browser to the <a href="http://www.ccrpcvt.org/database/" target="_blank">CCRPC database</a><br />
2) Under Traffic Data, click on <a href="http://www.ccmpo.us/data/index.php?count=ATR" target="_blank">Map</a><br />
3) Click on <a href="http://www.ccmpo.us/data/town.php?fips=7075&count=ATR" target="_blank">Underhill</a> in the map of Chittenden County<br />
4) Click on the <a href="http://ccmpo.us/data/town.php?fips=7075&count=ATR&area=NULL&area=3" target="_blank">Underhill Center</a> region of the town, it will look like this:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgphYvUaxJcjMx16CHuvYvgNeiRrEOgfCJDh64WhdTGMxLX3_VilDfxLCQ0c0dbsEJZfMu8-eEL0EeZmuOhDRfi69_I3am0vuISiNpfEbpxecjdDzIVMrHGQw09ok7W1LT-lw2KnFQZebw/s1600/UH16+Map.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgphYvUaxJcjMx16CHuvYvgNeiRrEOgfCJDh64WhdTGMxLX3_VilDfxLCQ0c0dbsEJZfMu8-eEL0EeZmuOhDRfi69_I3am0vuISiNpfEbpxecjdDzIVMrHGQw09ok7W1LT-lw2KnFQZebw/s320/UH16+Map.tiff" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Each of the dots represents a traffic count location. Click on the one near Pleasant Valley Road at Mountain Road, <a href="http://ccmpo.us/data/town.php?fips=7075&count=ATR&area=3&ID=uhil16" target="_blank">UHIL16</a>. Then click on "Speed Profile" (more details available by clicking "Download Count"). You will see that even in 2005, before the straightening, flattening and widening project, the operating speed (85th%ile) is well above the current posted speed of 30mph.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF3vybF4W2LcuuqKUldD_nW2GyBpkLBAHbVKJug2k5fB7T8O97sXCtoNqPLOiWvqL5nUHU6yHH5RgSeMAlr8N4Ba0IxsRXumYKxv66DLSitDYQkgzvFutGjSTPv_cfvhr9uUO67O13wzU/s1600/UH16+Speed+Profile.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF3vybF4W2LcuuqKUldD_nW2GyBpkLBAHbVKJug2k5fB7T8O97sXCtoNqPLOiWvqL5nUHU6yHH5RgSeMAlr8N4Ba0IxsRXumYKxv66DLSitDYQkgzvFutGjSTPv_cfvhr9uUO67O13wzU/s400/UH16+Speed+Profile.tiff" width="282" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
At this point, knowing that the posted speed is 30mph, alarm bells should be ringing in the mind of a traffic engineer. But that's not what happened.<br />
<br />
Trudell Consulting Engineers (TCE) has repeatedly understated the traffic and safety issues with the proposal to construct an intersection for the proposed Applewood Lane. All the while many, many people have expressed concern about the proposal to construct an intersection on the inside of the blind corner south of Mountain Road. Even now, TCE has proposed a close -- too close -- offset-T intersection. At earlier stages of the process, they attempted to substitute posted speed for design speed and argue that a 4-way intersection with Mountain Road is not feasible. Now, with the 4-way design complete, they have concocted a "possible class III wetland" and lean on it as a rationalization to continue to push for the offset-T.<br />
<br />
Sadly, this lapse of engineering judgement and ethics is not an isolated incident.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-76080546582506547572015-05-14T13:45:00.000-04:002018-03-05T20:22:46.675-05:00Upzoning kills villagesThe draft town plan for 2015 shares the same misguidance that the 2010 plan offered, upzoning dressed up without even rationalization to justify it. The bottom line is that upzoning kills villages and hamlets.<br />
<br />
One sad example is Butlers Corner in Essex, where used to stand a collection of houses that marked a stop on the stage route, with a tavern and farmhouses, and in later years a corner market. Along came water, and sewer (to resolve failed septic system problems). Boom. There's a freeway and a shopping mall. Then a planning reaction to make a town center with mixed uses and compact arrangement. The results are clear: failure. Failure to create new humane spaces. Failure to preserve old buildings. Fiske house? Abandoned. Cedar Spring Farm? Abandoned and demolished. Store? Gone. Tavern? Demolished. Derocher house? Relocated and radically transformed. Only one old building remains in use and only because of a very expensive restaurant remodeling.<br />
<br />
Compare with Williston's stable, not-neotraditional zoning, as described in this article:<br />
http://www.willistonobserver.com/a-tale-of-two-developments/<br />
<br />
Upzoning leads to maxed out subdivision and development using short-term profit maximizing style, which is uniform, production housing, built in short period. Whether single-family, duplex or multifamily, or even residential tower, it is not going achieve the difficult to duplicate, subtle qualities of compact settlement in a "traditional" village.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-24639579301885898132015-02-16T13:06:00.000-05:002016-01-15T14:18:53.795-05:00Right to FarmRight to Farm is mentioned in the draft plan. But because Vermont is a Dillon Rule state, the state's right to farm law, which has been in place since 1981, is the final word on right to farm.<br />
<br />
http://vnrc.org/resources/community-planning-toolbox/land-use-law/right-to-farm/<br />
<br />
Underhill's zoning has a role in prohibiting non-farming uses, and permitting farming uses, but it already does that.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-7548829360205383262015-02-16T11:06:00.000-05:002016-01-19T16:38:03.235-05:00It's All About the Nuisance<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.3999996185303px;">Zoning generally overrules nuisance. For example: if a factory is operating in an industrial zone, neighbours in the neighbouring residential zone can't make a claim in nuisance. Jurisdictions without zoning laws essentially leave land use to be determined by the laws concerning nuisance.</span>"[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance#History_and_legal_development_of_nuisance" target="_blank">wikipedia</a>]</blockquote>
<br />
This is a problem because it is impossible to imagine all of the possible future uses of land, much less write prescriptive zoning rules that elegantly address the many conflicts that can arise. And it is terribly inefficient and usually ineffective to try to right the wrongs of harmful, nuisance, noxious uses.<br />
<br />
Underhill had for a long time a very good solution: no-growth policy befitting an exurban fringe town, stable zones with stable densities, limited permissible uses, broad conditional use review. This allowed for the flexibility of nuisance law with the anticipation of zoning. Yes, the regulators and townspeople need to be vigilant. But, in a no-growth town like Underhill, it is not a burden and works well by allowing gradual, ad hoc use conversions and straightforward, conditional control of noxious uses.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-35142005490860464512015-01-16T11:21:00.000-05:002015-07-28T11:21:12.793-04:00Population<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Chittenden Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) wants Underhill to <strike>know</strike> <i>think</i> that the future is booming. In a <a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/March_6_2013.pdf" target="_blank">presentation</a> to the Underhill Planning Commission, we hear: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both;">
"If the past is any indicator, Chittenden County will feel the pressure from a majority of that growth. Woods and Poole estimates that Chittenden County may see <b>50,000 new residents by 2035</b> (refer to the first figure in Section 2.1). "<<a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/March_6_2013.pdf" target="_blank">link</a>></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
And this is reinforced in the ECOS plan with loud graphics:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://www.ecosproject.com/sites/default/files/ECOS_Plan_FINALmerged_20130619.pdf" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv4DHAgs2YkyUFw_5eMwFhdI5YwK6SgOP1km0dOYNBECQCCkWPNTeQ-zKz8EKnu2O_fll5L0w2OoYlXcX6uhOpgfERRXuHrT7sz3XV_R_ELg3Zj7aLVpiC4gLlyKgUZBILGGayjptYYq0/s1600/ECOS+Mural.tiff" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">2013 Chittenden County ECOS plan 1.2 Vision, p.5</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
30% population explosion!!!! Whoa, take it easy. This bears more scrutiny. CCRPC has a history of getting it wrong. In <a href="https://ccrpcvt-public.sharepoint.com/Studies%20and%20Reports/1976_CCRPC_RegionalPlan.pdf" target="_blank">1976</a>, they said the population in 2000 the Chittenden County population would be 182,149, 24.3% above the actual population which was 146,571. In 2001, CCRPC projected an annual growth rate of 1.4%, 2000-2010, which would be a population of 168,439 in 2010. With just a nine year horizon, they still missed the actual 2010 census of <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50/50007.html" target="_blank">156,545</a> by 7.6%. If the past is any indicator, CCRPC has overstated population projections.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
In the final version of the ECOS plan, long after the message of growth had been implanted, and even after long-time planner <a href="http://tonyrvt.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-ecos-population-elf.html" target="_blank">Tony Redington mocked CCRPC</a> for inflated population projections, only an inoculating caveat is added. But the claim of high growth remains -- and the boldface.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both;">
"Woods and Poole estimates that Chittenden County may see <b>50,000 new residents by 2035</b> (see Figure 2 in Section 2.1). These numbers are only projections at two different levels of geography and will very likely be inaccurate, but still they give us a sense of the direction of the market demand for jobs and housing in our region." -- Chittenden County ECOS Plan, 3.0 Introduction, p.78</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The bald face text continues with a tell-tale denial that suggests exactly what the plan is about:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This Plan is not a plan to achieve growth, rather it is a plan that recognizes that there are many external factors over which we have little control locally." -- Chittenden County ECOS Plan, 3.0 Introduction, p.78</blockquote>
</blockquote>
At least, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=245830047" target="_blank">they are not crooks</a>, but they are phishing for suckers. Underhill planning commissioners have been exhorted by regional planners to get more housing -- a lot more. But before swallowing this hook, line and sinker, Underhill ought to look to some other sources and apply some common sense.<br />
<br />
As Art Woolf pointed out in a January 8, 2015 column in the Burlington Free Press, <a href="http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2015/01/08/miniscule-population-growth-business-gets-tough/21402319/" target="_blank">Vermont's population is flat right now</a>. It's a return to normal. "If history is any guide, small towns will certainly experience depopulation, just as they did through most of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. It's very likely to also be the experience of most of Vermont's larger towns and cities, especially outside of northwestern Vermont," he wrote.<br />
<br />
The only state population projection available comes from a <a href="http://dail.vermont.gov/dail-publications/publications-general-reports/vt-population-projections-2010-2030" target="_blank">report</a> prepared by the VT Agency of Commerce and Community Development, which evaluated two scenarios using migration rates derived in two different decades, the 1990s and the 2000s. Using the more recent 2000s data, Chittenden County population increases by just over 4.1% -- not 30% -- while Underhill's population shrinks by 3.3% from 2010 to 2030. Not surprisingly, the greatest growth is in suburban towns near I-89.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="http://dail.vermont.gov/dail-publications/publications-general-reports/vt-population-projections-2010-2030" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUONhKKSu4AnjZ2iUTC76YimH6-de-kO9vsAnqqwhCNmt3ZqwnFarZKVjsqaW2UIvDoiOuBIT7OOkmgH89kR05QGcv8h4dkFUpD7uW3qEpeGOfK-Fhvrl2yqIr3k79N7gZjq6j_b8tMy8/s1600/dail+population+projection+2010-2030+scenario+B.tiff" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;">VT Agency of Commerce and Community Development <<a href="http://dail.vermont.gov/dail-publications/publications-general-reports/vt-population-projections-2010-2030" target="_blank">link</a>></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
For comparison, a similar state <a href="http://dail.vermont.gov/dail-publications/publications-general-reports/vt-population-projections-2000-2020-methodology-report-tables" target="_blank">report</a> (<a href="http://dail.vermont.gov/dail-publications/publications-general-reports/vt-population-projections-2000-2020-methodology" target="_blank">methodology</a>), prepared in 2000, projected 2010 Chittenden County population at 157,471, an estimate error of less than 0.6% for the decade -- an order of magnitude more accurate than CCRPC.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Chittenden East Supervisory Union (CESU) protests (a bit too much, especially given their failure to produce any projections) that school population is dropping, echoing similar claims by the Vermont Agency of Education.<br />
<br />
But the US Dept. of Education thinks that unlike all surrounding states, enrollment in Vermont will rise modestly over the next few years. Not surprisingly, the South and West have strong enrollment growth.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnwQZ7TBbdVgfdy13cDw6qkDY50RPFhxzp6q2mu7JVmL7gdMyRzIpa2Mtk-FlMEva0cUdmwR5CW8bQa_SL7V6ADBSDDukx2mQXFphJASBMtNcLiKzswlOi-OdzpRf479tpbf_Pdv6jD8/s1600/Enrollment+Projection+to+2023-2024+nces.ed.gov:programs:coe:indicator_cga.asp.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnwQZ7TBbdVgfdy13cDw6qkDY50RPFhxzp6q2mu7JVmL7gdMyRzIpa2Mtk-FlMEva0cUdmwR5CW8bQa_SL7V6ADBSDDukx2mQXFphJASBMtNcLiKzswlOi-OdzpRf479tpbf_Pdv6jD8/s1600/Enrollment+Projection+to+2023-2024+nces.ed.gov:programs:coe:indicator_cga.asp.tiff" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">Public School Enrollment</a> -- National Center for Education Statistics</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
And the Vermont Housing Finance Agency has a similar projection for school-aged enrollment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-XAIUwzN41ZbOdaS07RE9AksA-UJvZ8Hi6I3xFa-ThNekMZRmgpGgEPZzlYyNIY0h6LkcEPoOt0XwZej7J9tPrx3qtZLK7q0kek9_oOzdXinVv_-cJ1IOskCW2TJpodgZGxQUQc1fSQk/s1600/School+Age+Children+in+Vermont+--+VHFA+2005.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-XAIUwzN41ZbOdaS07RE9AksA-UJvZ8Hi6I3xFa-ThNekMZRmgpGgEPZzlYyNIY0h6LkcEPoOt0XwZej7J9tPrx3qtZLK7q0kek9_oOzdXinVv_-cJ1IOskCW2TJpodgZGxQUQc1fSQk/s1600/School+Age+Children+in+Vermont+--+VHFA+2005.tiff" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><i><a href="http://www.vhfa.org/documents/housing_education.pdf" target="_blank">Housing and Vermont's School Enrollment</a></i> -- Vermont Housing Finance Agency</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
Note the source for this data, the US Census Bureau. They don't get any more rigorous than that. What's interesting about these numbers is how much lower the state's school enrollment is than the number of school-aged kids. Already, in 2004-5, the statewide enrollment was 93,813, well below the projected bottom of the Census Bureau curve of school-aged kids. Maybe the claimed education crisis is a marketing problem -- not a shortage of kids or excess of schools. If the state's schools could recapture market share, it looks like they'd enjoy increasing enrollments for more than a decade. There are more mysteries to be solved in the enrollment data: The <a href="https://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/stateproj/DownldFile3.xls" target="_blank">US Census</a> doesn't jibe with the Vermont <a href="http://education.vermont.gov/data/enrollment" target="_blank">Agency of Education</a> data, which doesn't agree with the <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.20.asp" target="_blank">US Department of Education</a> data. And we are not talking about small numbers. It's thousands of kids apparently unaccounted.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
All states and the District of Columbia produce and report population projections to the US Census Bureau, except Vermont. What should that tell us about the conflicting population projections of CESU and CCRPC? The projections that they use seem to be very much in line with their respective agendas, school consolidation (pardon me, "redistricting") for CESU, and housing boom for CCRPC (sorry again, "smart growth").</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD0r8Ga2ElDxbnrNPCqxNFc_beoHRs4xco9nwVEZpCtjSFL_kNsqM8k5UdJwolcibc17Ieg9qHkZYF7hoQ_2jyWc8Ou_Oecgc-5nRWfYEb4qIz3G6EnMMAzUMB3Y1DtYmqNAWZYkSaLv4/s1600/State-Produced+Population+Projections+--+US+Census.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD0r8Ga2ElDxbnrNPCqxNFc_beoHRs4xco9nwVEZpCtjSFL_kNsqM8k5UdJwolcibc17Ieg9qHkZYF7hoQ_2jyWc8Ou_Oecgc-5nRWfYEb4qIz3G6EnMMAzUMB3Y1DtYmqNAWZYkSaLv4/s1600/State-Produced+Population+Projections+--+US+Census.tiff" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"><a href="https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/state/st-prod-proj-list.html" target="_blank">State-Produced Population Projections</a> -- US Census Bureau</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
New York has a nice set of charts, including a <a href="http://pad.human.cornell.edu/counties/projections.cfm" target="_blank">sequence of population pyramids</a> that illustrate the passage of baby boom echoes and a projected population decline after 2030.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
With all of the sloppy numbers from CCRPC underpinning the whole regional plan, what should we do?:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>Regional planners lack credibility. Challenge them or ignore them, but don't let them push us around.</li>
<li>Plan for non-increasing population.</li>
<li>Plan for open space and conservation. That is Underhill's true role in the region.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-33721566722939135182013-12-19T18:39:00.000-05:002014-03-04T15:57:34.142-05:00PC to SB Presentation DissectionThe 2014 proposed zoning amendments -- ballot article 10 -- would make the Underhill planning and zoning mess even messier. Vote NO on article 10.<br />
<br />
It would take a lot of time to detail the snowball of problems with the planning and zoning of the past few years, but we don't need to reach that far, and we don't need to uncover every problem in order to see that these zoning amendments should not be approved.<br />
<br />
Let's just dissect the best record we have of the Planning Commission's proposal, Cliff Peterson's presentation to the Selectboard, 19 December 2013:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/82573552">http://vimeo.com/82573552</a><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="375" mozallowfullscreen="" src="//player.vimeo.com/video/82573552" webkitallowfullscreen="" width="500"></iframe> <br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/82573552">Underhill Selectboard Mtg. 12-19-13</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/mmctv">Mt. Mansfield Community TV</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br />
(MMCTV's video recording, Cliff's presentation starts at 30:59 and lasts 16 minutes.)<br />
<br />
The updated slide deck is available at:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/SBBylawAmendmentPresentation.pdf">http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/SBBylawAmendmentPresentation.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Some key moments from the presentation:<br />
<br />
At 00:31:42. Cliff starts by mentioning that "Pat Lamphere attended not as a member of the Planning Commission but as a member the public." I point this out to remind you that the move-along-nothing-to-see-here-just-fixin-an-error spin on these amendments is not quite right. There is more here, and there are more interested parties here, than a first glance would indicate. Although commissioners would quickly dismiss a concern that their opinions are influenced by Pat, it's important to realize that Pat is the beneficiary of the announced and intended change in zoning. At 00:36:43, I'll explain how it won't quite work out the way that they expect.<br />
<br />
At 00:33:09 Cliff makes the claim that there is no 'Town of Underhill Zoning Map.' This not accurate. The 2003 Zoning Regulations (at p.23), in effect until 2010, explicitly cite the May 1984 zoning map (not a June 1985 map). A reference print of the GIS map layer is included in the 2010 zoning regulations. The Town has a letter from Paul Gillies, Assistant Secretary of State, which explains that the <i>de facto</i> map -- used for years -- controls. A mountain is being made out of a molehill.<br />
<br />
At 00:36:43 Cliff makes the claim that the Selectboard moved the boundary of the zones in question to match the Range boundary. But a closer inspection of the text shows that Selectboard adopted the map, and provided the text description only for reference. Here is the text, with no change in punctuation, but indented to emphasize the correct interpretation:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"III. The proposed Land Use Map of Appendiz[sic] C is modified by transfer of the more or less triangular area (shown on the map with red circles) from the Soil and Water Conservation Area to the Water Conservation Area.<br />
<br />
This area is roughly bounded by<br />
Clay Brook to the north,<br />
the Underhill Range to the south and<br />
a portion of the Soil and Water Conservation Area boundary to the west. "</blockquote>
<br />
The second sentence merely provides a general location for the "triangular area" shown on the map. The adverb 'roughly' applies to the verb 'bounded.' All of the bounding description is approximate. The actual boundary is defined by the map, and a strict reading of this section only reaffirms that. <br />
<br />
00:37:20 Cliff presents the '72 Land Use Map with "red circles." This is where the argument falls apart. The red circles don't actually meet the boundary as Cliff describes. It is wishful thinking. <br />
<br />
00:38:04 Cliff makes the claim that the Selectboard adopted this zoning revision in Sept and Oct 1972 and that it should apply ever after. Not so fast. It's important to mention that since 1972 the Selectboard has approved entire zoning ordinances with maps -- several times, including the 2010 Unified Land Use Regulations.<br />
<br />
00:46:08 Dave Rogers says,"It's kind of scary that we don't have a map." But we do have a map, Pat just wants to have a different zoning boundary drawn around parcel BE108. RaMona chimes in with a comment about how much Planning Commission work underlies Cliff's presentation. Powerpoint slides are not rigorous documentation. Cliff didn't bother to write a legal opinion letter, nor request one from the town attorney. The town has mapped itself for many years. A lot of maps were glossed over by Cliff's presentation. We do have a current map and it is valid, the proponents of the proposal are ignoring that fact to create a false sense of crisis.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-31437684663250254442013-03-06T17:12:00.000-05:002018-03-05T18:54:29.488-05:00Underhill Rejects UpzoningUnderhill voters rejected all three upzoning articles on the town meeting ballot.<br />
<br />
What's next?<br />
<br />
Underhill's zoning used to be simple and effective. Now it is a sprawling mess. A complete rewrite of the regulatory code, consistent with previous town plans, to eliminate the huge amount of redundancy and awkward, unnecessary text would be best.<br />
<br />
Voters are looking to maintain the existing zoning districts and the long-standing natural resource conservation basis for zoning. As impenetrably massive as the current cut-and-paste zoning regulations are, there is a lot that could be done to follow the will of the voters:<br />
<br />
* Make a real commitment to stop messing around with density. Every time there is a change in permitted density, some people win and some people lose. It sets up a rent-seeking race that consumes political attention and never ends well.<br />
* Clearly define the size of a development unit.<br />
* Enable transfer of development rights, and establish a market-maker to bank development rights, facilitate transfers, and a regulatory structure that ensures transfers are in the public interest. There should be no sending/receiving zones, only a public interest performance test.<br />
* Get serious about an energy efficiency code with verification and building commissioning.<br />
* Allow density bonuses only for genuinely innovative projects that advance the state of landscape design, site layout and building design and engineering.<br />
<br />
There is a lot of work needed to respond to the climate crisis, and anticipate extreme weather, but the above actions would be a good start.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-83287106968555004232013-02-25T23:21:00.000-05:002015-12-06T19:54:42.474-05:00Parcel BE108<div class="mobile-photo">
</div>
The parcel at 108 Beartown Road has been an item of interest through the two Planning Commission and one Selectboard hearing. A few months into the redistricting project, Pat Lamphere, a Planning Commission member, requested zoning district boundary adjustment (1 August 2012). The request became a proposal to move perhaps 200 acres (the data that I have been given does not balance) from Soil and Water Conservation into the Rural Residential district, an upzoning that would perhaps increase buildout under zoning by 53 lots.<br />
<br />
For reference, take a look at Google Maps, which shows the old roads and roads through the Range:
<br />
<a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.49923,-72.884459&spn=0.007959,0.015557&t=h&z=16">https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.49923,-72.884459&spn=0.007959,0.015557&t=h&z=16</a>
<br />
<br />
Beartown Road residents objected to the proposed changes in the zoning district boundary near the Range and the apparent conflict of interest that these changes represented.
<br />
<br />
At the 17 January 2013 Selectboard hearing on the zoning proposal, the Selectboard voted to remove the zoning districe boundary "snap" (my term) to the Range boundary.<br />
<br />
At the 31 January 2013 joint meeting, Brad Holden, the Selectboard Chair explained that he had special knowledge of surveying issues in the area that caused him concern about the actual location of the Range boundary, and suggested that the Planning Commission might not really know where the existing zoning district boundary is.
<br />
<br />
Brad also talked about confusing horizontal datum. This appears to be a distraction to defuse the Planning Commissioners's confrontation and plumb the shallow depths of their research. The use of NAD27 vs NAD83 seems irrelevant. The Vermont State Plane is used for surveying and mapping. The kind of error that Brad has described does not seem possible as it involves geodetic coordinates.
<br />
<br />
This is a picture of part of Sheet 14 of the zoning map as of 1987, drawn on 1979 orthophotos, which are large scale, high resolution aerial photos projected onto the Vermont State Plane <br />
<br />
Where the district boundary departs from the big curve on Beartown Road and continues in a straight line to the East, it clearly follows the road and driveway, not the range boundary, and not the stream.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKsiAG3Behgb1EFwM4Sm_2G1jIEjI4dc0Wjghz-NxvzAv2iB-S0HgzlEnmA2zNqe6xqYEPqGXxpz1aMm7lY4xsd0ygrYkoCB83k9mKrnz6QfPtyLTYXS0-iXG4sBR6AcG5MHvRypwlhq0/s1600/IMG_2872-768991.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="480" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5849122985131185954" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKsiAG3Behgb1EFwM4Sm_2G1jIEjI4dc0Wjghz-NxvzAv2iB-S0HgzlEnmA2zNqe6xqYEPqGXxpz1aMm7lY4xsd0ygrYkoCB83k9mKrnz6QfPtyLTYXS0-iXG4sBR6AcG5MHvRypwlhq0/s640/IMG_2872-768991.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
It has been scoffingly mentioned by Planning Commissioners and the Zoning Administrator that "the original maps were hand drawn." Well, of course they were. Many great things were drawn by hand: the Washington Monument, Apollo spacecraft, Mount Rushmore. This is a fine map, drawn at a large scale of 1:5000. The printed GIS map of existing zoning is no better, and if you could see the aliasing of the straight lines in this map, you might say that it is worse than the "hand drawn" map. Much has been made about parcel boundaries. GIS mapping makes parcel boundaries appear more accurate than they actually are. In Vermont, surveying is by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metes_and_bounds" target="_blank">metes-and-bounds</a>. Boundaries are by agreement. Parcel boundaries can move.<br />
<br />
<div class="mobile-photo">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2-56oPXDJan6PmwYWA9fb7IJ1mifjO-cbLQiforvoN3H1fKrnLOd9VhHPCuOhupWBdln8I4Yb7zohyOJm59g3BzJtWhfUiGkrIYBsYVLKjiUeR7dv4-qiXryI4UNGn495krFErdNZX2s/s1600/IMG_2873-770370.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="480" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5849122989892769090" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2-56oPXDJan6PmwYWA9fb7IJ1mifjO-cbLQiforvoN3H1fKrnLOd9VhHPCuOhupWBdln8I4Yb7zohyOJm59g3BzJtWhfUiGkrIYBsYVLKjiUeR7dv4-qiXryI4UNGn495krFErdNZX2s/s640/IMG_2873-770370.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-45327414627196728472013-02-13T16:00:00.000-05:002014-03-03T19:20:23.877-05:00Scary UnderhillI write this as we complete a car journey from Underhill to Rockledge, Florida.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha8jG40j_GU_UIFnTZcowCWjhR9oxERyN5MRVe4z9Y4LG8YejFOO89ihlVhQNAcNqIPIPetqzkox3mZKmYpHKRwB69Yf4tKf6ahBctYUuDHiPsf9SubuzeAcjjRY8iroZqeAhKY2RcccQ/s1600/IMG_2535.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha8jG40j_GU_UIFnTZcowCWjhR9oxERyN5MRVe4z9Y4LG8YejFOO89ihlVhQNAcNqIPIPetqzkox3mZKmYpHKRwB69Yf4tKf6ahBctYUuDHiPsf9SubuzeAcjjRY8iroZqeAhKY2RcccQ/s400/IMG_2535.JPG" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
With the expansion and contraction of I-95's girth and the numbing repetition of Waffle House, Starbucks, animated electronic signs, and the big <strike>three burger</strike> five fast "food" chains, I am reminded of the scariest thing about living in Underhill: how close it is to the rest of the United States.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJl8tVxSBqTECAHNaXisrxmkXy2GQdHP0zAqxpCgSbNttZRBYUl2C-SW19RWzgL_KbY4U-sYzYmYzP1Iof5sq1LxbNaWr5Y8cRmP_wxbp42BN6O6dy_nO3tRg7AeDc594MLaJicEGdFfs/s1600/IMG_2411.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJl8tVxSBqTECAHNaXisrxmkXy2GQdHP0zAqxpCgSbNttZRBYUl2C-SW19RWzgL_KbY4U-sYzYmYzP1Iof5sq1LxbNaWr5Y8cRmP_wxbp42BN6O6dy_nO3tRg7AeDc594MLaJicEGdFfs/s400/IMG_2411.JPG" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Among the rationalizations for the upzoning is to match Jericho in its bid to get bigger. I am happy to leave Dollar General, the Yipes Auto billboard, the Showtime tin can, Clark's dangerously distracting animated electronic sign, the Black Walnut Lane duplexes, and all of the rest of it in Jericho for another year. If the upzoning is a good idea (it's not) then it will be a good idea next year. We can vote NO, sit tight, and wait for the Planning Commission to come up with a thorough report.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-87778334570304214912013-01-18T01:10:00.000-05:002017-10-23T13:43:37.600-04:00Buildout Under Zoning<br />
Have you ever seen a significant real estate subdivision where the parcels are substantially bigger than the minimum allowed by zoning -- where the developer has not tried to maximize profits by selling as many lots and buildings as possible? If you find one, let me know and I will show you ten or a hundred other subdivisions that have maxed out their potential under zoning.<br />
<br />
Computing the buildout is an essential first task when considering a zoning change. There are different kinds of buildout analysis, ranging from simple and effective, to complex and detailed.<br />
<br />
CommunityViz, is a policy simulator that uses an agent-based model to illustrate the results of land-use policies over time. It is a complex adaptive system that provides a future history of development resulting from deliberate policy choices, such as zoning changes. It will do a sophisticated projection of buildout, for the purpose of comparing the <i>relative</i> effects of different policy choices. Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) has CommunityViz, data for the entire county, and a staff member (Melanie Needle) dedicated to maintaining data and running simulations.<br />
<br />
A direct method of determining buildout under zoning is: Add up the acreage in each zone, then divide by the minimum lot size to get the ultimate number of lots. Then figure out the maximum building intensity on those lots. It can be done on the back of an envelope if you have a good idea of the land areas of each zone type. Note the differences between 'lots', 'buildings', and 'dwelling units' (frequently abbreviated as 'units'). They each have their role in the density calculations.<br />
<br />
When computing allowed density, the only deduction from gross land area is for public roads.(ULUDR 2012, Article IX, Section 9.6 A, see below). When buildings from a large project are clustered together, the portion of the gross land area used for roads decreases in significance. For example: (assume all roads are 3-rods [49.5 feet] wide) Take a 32+/--acre subdivision in the Rural Residential district. For 10 3-acre lots @ 250ft of road frontage per lot, 2500ft of road frontage will be needed. With lots on both sides of the road or 1250ft of road right of way. 1250ft*49.5ft/43560square-ft-per-acre=1.42acres for the road -- 4.4% of the total area. But with PRD clustering of the buildings, the lots might shrink to 1/4-acre with about 75ft of road frontage (The standards for the UFVCD). The road necessary road length is only 1/3rd the original, and takes just 0.47acres, or 1.5% of the total area.<br />
<br />
Since the Planning Commission's proposal is for straight ahead upzoning, and developers always max out the development potential of a project, buildout under zoning is the obvious choice. But the Planning Commission didn't do <i>any</i> buildout analysis. They didn't even know the size of the new districts that they were creating until long after their second hearing, 11 December 2012. They did not ask CCRPC to simulate the effects of the proposed zoning amendments in CommunityViz.<br />
<br />
17 January 2013, Kari Papelbon, Underhill's Zoning Administrator sent me a summary page for the new district areas.<br />
<br />
On the summary page, the Range area doesn't quite balance, but because the Selectboard modified the proposal package by removing the Range proposal, I didn't use it when arriving at the estimate of 1000 new residential buildings. It looks like the Range proposal would increase buildout by about (596.2acres-395.6acres)*1lot/3acres=330.6 additional lots in RR, less current 5-acre zoning (60.1acres-78.7acres)*1lot/5acres=-3.7units in WC and 15-acre zoning (3710.66acres-3969.8acres)*1lot/15acres=-17.28units in S&W for a net increase of about 310 lots, or 620 units of permissible (no DRB review for buildings) 2-unit housing. With density bonuses of 100%, the buildout could be 620 buildings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhZuu0fEVQbtIZzBBRmThNs5KnFgeshU3xMo8u4g4adlDSCDZBd5Koj0_EAyGpPIYU4eAe-TVNN-PHk-wRpHQl3f8uE3Y2NpsHuyo0RmgCBtAtQ6BwQ5mOqXU00TmGck29d5P5R1AD_w/s1600/Zoning+District+Areas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqhZuu0fEVQbtIZzBBRmThNs5KnFgeshU3xMo8u4g4adlDSCDZBd5Koj0_EAyGpPIYU4eAe-TVNN-PHk-wRpHQl3f8uE3Y2NpsHuyo0RmgCBtAtQ6BwQ5mOqXU00TmGck29d5P5R1AD_w/s320/Zoning+District+Areas.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The buildout under zoning computation goes like this:<br />
<br />
The proposed new UFVCD and UCVD districts allow 1/4-acre and 1/2 acre lots respectively. In the Flats: 77.8acres*4lots/1acre=311lots. We need to deduct for the current 1-acre zoning: 77.8acres*1lot/1acre=78lots. In the Center: 88.3acres*2lots/1acre=177lots. We need to deduct for the current 5-acre zoning: 88.3acres*1lot/5acres=18lots. But lots are not units and different maximum densities are allowed in each district: 8units/acre in the UFVCD and 4units/acre in the UCVD. These densities are easily achieved using 2-unit buildings, which are permissible uses (no DRB review necessary). 77.8acres*8units/acre=622 units in the Flats, and 88.3acres*4units/acre=353 units in the Center.<br />
<br />
The Flats also contains a new UFVRD district, which has 1-acre zoning, 228.9acres*1lot/1acre=229lots, less the portion of the UVRD district that is currently UFVCD as 1-acre zoning, (228.9acres-77.8acres)*1lot/1acre=151lots, and less the portion of UVRD that is currently 3-acre zoning, 77.8acres*1lot/3acres=26lots. There's a little less precision here because the current UFVCD isn't entirely bounded by the proposed UVRD. These zoning district initialisms are hell, aren't they?<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Outliers" part of the proposal would convert 156.2 acres of S&W (sorry, it was clipped from the graphic) to RR: 156.2acres*1lot/3acres=52lots, less 156.2acres*1lot/15acres=10lots. 2-unit buildings are permissible, so the buildout would be 42 lots. Again, 2-units are now equivalent to single family homes, so the permissible buildout is 42lots*2units/1lot=84units.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">Totaling for net new lots:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 311 lots Flats Village Center</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">- 78 lots</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">+177 lots Center</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">- 18 lots</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">+229 lots Flats Village Residential</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">-151 lots</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">- 26 lots</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">+ 52 lots Otliers</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">- 10 lots</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;">=========</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "courier new" , "courier" , monospace;"> 486 new lots</span><br />
<br />
2-unit building buildings are permissible everywhere now:<br />
<br />
486lots*2units/1lot=972 new units<br />
<br />
If bonus densities are applied at 100%, these could be 972 new separate 1-unit or 2-unit buildings. (ULUDR 2012, Article IX, Section 9.6 A, see below)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*********************<br />
References<br />
*********************<br />
<br />
<br />
UNIFIED LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS<br />
Amended March 6, 2012<br />
<br />
Article IX Section 9.6<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Density Calculations<br />
C.(2)<br />
Calculations of the allowed overall density of development shall be based on total parcel acreage, excluding existing and proposed road‐rights‐of‐way, and lot size and density requirements for the zoning district(s) in which the PRD or PUD is located. This calculation of the site’s overall “yield” shall be used to determine the number of building units or lots that may be clustered or grouped at higher densities on those portions of the parcel that are suitable for development. (p.169)<br />
<br />
Article IX Section 9.6<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Density Bonuses<br />
A.<br />
The DRB may, at the request of the applicant, grant one or more density bonuses according to the following schedule for clustered development that meets stated objectives under Section 9.1 and below, if the applicant clearly demonstrates that the developable portion of the parcel(s) and supporting roads, infrastructure, facilities and services can accommodate higher densities of development. Density bonuses, as applied in combination, shall not increase the overall density of development by more than 100%, based on the number of dwelling units for residential development ("yield" density calculated under section 9.5.C), or the maximum building coverage for nonresidential development. (p.170)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-89225561100687873102013-01-09T21:00:00.000-05:002015-09-09T19:57:16.453-04:00StrangerThe zoning amendment situation is getting stranger and stranger. <a href="http://underhillzoning.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-most-restrictive-district.html">ZA's misunderstanding</a> about how to interpret zoning for parcels that span zoning districts at the second PC hearing was glaringly incorrect, and while we were talking about the zoning districts at the Energy Committee tonight it was repeated:<br />
<br />
"The most restrictive district applies to the whole parcel."<br />
<br />
Upzoning of Phil Jacobs' parcel at 16 Harvest Run was described as the only thing that might be controversial and said the other zoning amendments as noncontroversial. ZA's misunderstanding of district boundary interpretation makes her statement about the CCRPC housing target being 2000 units seem like a minor error. Consultant's claim that the high density is needed to support the bus and, as ZA often emphasizes, for <i>compatibility with Jericho</i>, frosts the tail-wagging-the-dog cake of strangeness.<br />
<br />
There seems to be a search on for justifications for the zoning amendments.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-84720075363707765992013-01-03T17:40:00.000-05:002015-09-09T19:56:20.435-04:00TraditionThe PC is using the terms like "traditional settlement" or "historic settlement" to suggest that it is natural for Underhill to have an urbanized village, as if upzoning would be a return to Underhill's past. In Underhill, the historical settlement is just the opposite: scattered settlement in service of unsustainable resource exploitation followed by abandonment. With the extraction of trees, then pasturing livestock, Underhill's buildings have been generally scattered throughout the town along the edges of main roads.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi42WDlxd3K0pq74tEeYLeLOP8ECbstqK57oyQRxE9Vf413z8RZvzjqlbXaS1ULaVUc2cCb4cdLysZNAla3jpUkRqShaxLzaX41fs3Fkv7vn0qCwka2EGrHE6QJfNkkDAaBU3NNmN6wEto/s1600/UND_1869_Beers_50.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi42WDlxd3K0pq74tEeYLeLOP8ECbstqK57oyQRxE9Vf413z8RZvzjqlbXaS1ULaVUc2cCb4cdLysZNAla3jpUkRqShaxLzaX41fs3Fkv7vn0qCwka2EGrHE6QJfNkkDAaBU3NNmN6wEto/s320/UND_1869_Beers_50.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Beers Atlas, 1869</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Beers Atlas is on display in the town office. A quick glance at the roads and buildings will confirm a lack of driveways and access roads. This atlas reflects Underhill's 19th century peak, at a population of about half of our current population. With 14 school districts, Underhill was extremely decentralized -- no street network or grid, just mobility roads running through the middle of farmyards.<br />
<br />
Through the late 1800s, population declined to about 20% of our current population by the 1950s before it began to increase.<br />
<br />
We do not have grand, old homes -- not even old mills. For the past four decades, large lots have protected the hills and mountain, while keeping our water clean. Land has remained open, accessible, walkable. We do have three country stores and two post offices. Try finding another town that can boast that.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-65686754625471451132012-12-30T20:30:00.000-05:002015-09-09T19:52:05.851-04:00Things you will hearSo far, I have heard a lot of unsupported assertions from the Planning Commission.<br />
<br />
"Traditional Development"<br />
The PC is using this to suggest that it is natural to have a substantial village in Underhill. In Underhill, the tradition is just the opposite: scattered settlement in service of unsustainable resource exploitation followed by abandonment. With the extraction of trees, then pasturing livestock, Underhill's buildings have been generally scattered throughout the town along the edges of main roads. With 14 school districts, Underhill was extremely decentralized -- no street network or grid, just roads through town. We do not have grand, old buildings -- not even old mills.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi42WDlxd3K0pq74tEeYLeLOP8ECbstqK57oyQRxE9Vf413z8RZvzjqlbXaS1ULaVUc2cCb4cdLysZNAla3jpUkRqShaxLzaX41fs3Fkv7vn0qCwka2EGrHE6QJfNkkDAaBU3NNmN6wEto/s1600/UND_1869_Beers_50.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi42WDlxd3K0pq74tEeYLeLOP8ECbstqK57oyQRxE9Vf413z8RZvzjqlbXaS1ULaVUc2cCb4cdLysZNAla3jpUkRqShaxLzaX41fs3Fkv7vn0qCwka2EGrHE6QJfNkkDAaBU3NNmN6wEto/s320/UND_1869_Beers_50.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Beers Atlas, 1869</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
"We Need More Services"<br />
Jericho's Riverside is Underhill's service village, while Underhill has always been the town with the mountain. Jericho, with old mills and substantial villages, is the natural place for services.<br />
<br />
"Zoning Is Not Important"<br />
Then why rezone and upset the town's delicate balance of services and resources?<br />
<br />
"We Spent A Lot Of Time On This"<br />
Well, not really. Precious little committee time has been devoted to the amendments.<br />
<br />
"The Trend Is"<br />
Fashions boom and bust. Following trends is foolish. It must make sense in context.<br />
<br />
"The Town Plan Says"<br />
Town plans say a lot of things. Mostly they are work plans for study.<br />
<br />
"The Regional Plan Compels Us To..."<br />
That's baloney. The main purpose for the regional plan is to reduce conflicts between town plans not dictate town development.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-797537876276607542.post-71967372593009163902012-12-11T22:00:00.000-05:002015-09-09T19:46:04.538-04:00The Most Restrictive District<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"The <i>most restrictive district</i> applies to the whole parcel." It seemed like they said that about fifty million times at a recent PC meeting.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
In the attempt to rationalize the gerrymandering of the proposed village districts, and the Range area boundary changes, Both the ZA and commissioners said it. It's nonsense. The zoning districts are where they are mapped. They do not move for parcels.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Zone interpretation is the first thing in the Unified Regs:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"The official zoning map and flood hazard area maps, located in the Underhill Town Office, shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of land and waters in the town." (<a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/ULUDR_2012_woa.pdf" target="_blank">ULUDR 2012</a>, section 2.1.B, p.3)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The district boundary interpretation is clearly spelled in the both old and the new zoning regulations. This is from the new regs.:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"The proposed use must be allowed on that portion of the lot within the district in which the use is to occur. If the use is to occur in both districts, it must be allowed within both districts." (<a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/ULUDR_2012_woa.pdf" target="_blank">ULUDR 2012</a>, section 2.2.E.1, p.5)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
There is also flexibility in interpreting the district boundaries. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"The Development Review Board may allow, subject to conditional use review, the extension of district standards, except for road frontage requirements, up to a distance of 100 feet into either portion of the lot. Frontage requirements for the district in which the road frontage is located shall apply." (<a href="http://www.underhillvt.gov/vertical/sites/%7B4E962BB9-B4BB-4504-A3EE-ED54521A1BCE%7D/uploads/ULUDR_2012_woa.pdf" target="_blank">ULUDR 2012</a>, section 2.2.E.3 p.5).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Eventually, ZA explained the wrong interpretation with respect to parcel PR025 ("most restrictive" zone applies to whole parcel), then the correct interpretation with respect to HR016 (zones apply as mapped). When asked if the interpretation for HR016 would also apply to PR025, the cognitive dissonance created a moment of silence.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
There is an additional fallacy implied by the idea of the most restrictive district: <i>cumulative zoning.</i> We don't have it. There is no ranking of zones. Each standard described for a zone has to be applied separately.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0