Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on Longview Spears Street conservation/affordable-housing amendment; plan stalls after 2-2 vote
Summary
The council deadlocked Feb. 3 over a negotiated amendment tied to a VHCB award for the Longview/Spears Street property; motions to accept the proposed terms and to shorten a proposed 50-year condition to 20 years both failed by 2-2 votes with one recusal.
The South Burlington City Council on Feb. 3 could not reach agreement on a proposed amendment to a funding letter related to the Longview (Spears Street) project and a Vermont Housing & Conservation Board (VHCB) award.
Staff and outside partners described a draft amendment that would place approximately 6.2 acres into a conservation easement but designate that land as a "transition zone" allowing a portion to be used for Habitat for Humanity-style affordable housing if regulatory or siting issues required it. The draft also included a provision that would permit consideration of additional permanently affordable development on that easement land after a fixed period; the version presented at the meeting used a 50-year term measured from the date of sale/purchase.
Tom Beldevance (NEAT) and other partners said the amendment was a negotiated way to protect most of the parcel while still allowing the originally contemplated 16 Habitat homeownership units to be built where required. They stressed the project would add permanently affordable homeownership units and extend conservation on the property.
Opponents voiced concern about the 50-year term and uncertainty about future development rights. Councilor discussion centered on whether the term could be shortened to 20 years, the adequacy of the agreement for securing permanently affordable housing, and whether city open-space funding should be spent on the proposal. The council took a series of motions: one to accept the amendment as drafted and then a second motion to change 50 years to 20 years and resubmit to partners for acceptance. Both measures failed: the first did not secure a majority (2-2 with one recusal) and the second motion (change to 20 years) likewise failed by a 2-2 tie.
As a result, the proposed amendment was not adopted and staff said the matter will remain unresolved until partners propose a different approach. Several residents and advocates urged the council to approve the compromise and cited examples of other long-standing affordable-homeownership projects; others said the council should not bind future councils for half a century.
