HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 10/27/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, October 27, 2020
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members
of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be
no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2020-10-27
Telephone (audio only): (408) 650-3123; Access Code: 684-554-853
AGENDA:
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
4. *Work Session on Land Development Regulation Amendments: (7:15 pm)
a. Draft Subdivision Standards
b. Draft Master Plan Standards
5. Possible discussion of presentation to City Council November 2 (8:45 pm)
6. *Minutes (8:59 pm): September 9, September 29
7. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try
to call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Draft Subdivision & Master Plan Regulations
DATE: October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
Enclosed please find Draft Subdivision and Master Plan chapters of the Land Development Regulations for
your review. Both of these sets of standards represent significant overhauls to the existing Regulations.
The enclosed Master Plan standards are based on the outline the Commission had previously reviewed and
ok’d for drafting into full text, and the draft Subdivision standards build on partial sections and prior elements
previously reviewed by the Commission.
Structure and Context:
Under the amended Regulations, Master Plans, Subdivisions, and Planned Unit Developments, and Site Plan
all work together. The sections are separate, however, and have different roles.
Subdivision Planned Unit
Development
Master Plan Site Plan
Purpose
Establishes the
framework (ownership,
settlement pattern) for
subsequent land use,
management and
development
Establishes the
parameters for more
flexible, innovative forms
of development that
offer clear community
benefits
Establishes standards for
the timing, integration
of phased and/or large
parcel development
Specific Design and
layout development
on non-residential
& multi-family
parcels
1. Subdivision
Subdivision standards are the foundation for the layout of lots, including natural resource protection areas,
streets, blocks, lots, and civic spaces. The term civic spaces is new to the regulations and refers to areas
designed for human recreational activity, distinct from resource protection areas and/or working lands.
The enclosed draft shows language that is the same as, or substantially similar to existing text in regular font,
and new or substantially modified text in italics.
Below please find a summary of key changes and key discussion points for the Commission. Staff has also
flagged these items as well as notes to the Commission in the “comments” portion of the draft language
itself.
2
Subdivision Key Changes, Commission discussion points:
[Note: these are also called out in the Text. [Key Questions for Commission consideration are in Blue below]
• Modify/Waiver Authority (15.A.01(B)): This is a new section that consolidates the DRB’s authority to
waiver or modify standards in a single section with specific review criteria. Presently, there are various
sections that include broad language that allow the DRB to alter standards, but it is not consistent or
uniform. This standard is also designed to give the DRB some leeway in a standard subdivision instead of
the current practice of projects that are seeking minor modifications applying to be PUDs.
• Minor Lot Line Adjustments and Lot Mergers (15.A.03): Sets a cap on the amount of land that can be
transferred and still be considered an Administrative action, and specifically authorizes the merger of
small lots to qualify.
• Sketch Plan Review (15.A.05): Provides additional clarity that this process, while a required step, does
not constitute a “complete application” which is the point in time at which an application is vested. As a
result, further clarifies that the DRB’s feedback is guidance only at this stage.
• Subdivision Amendments (15.A.09): Distinguishes between minor and more significant amendments to a
subdivision after approval. The current regulations do not provide a great deal of guidance on this.
• Subdivision standards (overall statement):
o The subdivision standards, as presented in this new chapter, are intended to provide both a guide to
applicants preparing an application (it is structured from “big picture” to “specifics” in order) and
also significantly more clarity in the City’s standards for the identification and management of
natural resources, and the design and layout of streets, blocks, lots, and civic spaces. It also places
an emphasis on connectivity in all manners.
• General Standards (15.A.11): This is an introductory section identifying the principal considerations to
begin with in a subdivision:
o Development suitability: Identifies and set aside those areas physically not suited for the intended
activity on the property.
o Buildable Area: Defined as the area excluding Hazards, Level 1 Resources, and Rights-of-way. This
becomes the basis for future density calculations (where applicable) and minim civic space
requirements
o Context and Connectivity: Requires applicant to provide information on connections within ½ mile
• Resource Protection (15.A.12): This section directly connects the subdivision standards to your work on
Article 10 & 12, and would require that larger natural resources be carved out and set aside as their own
lots.
o For Commission consideration: Resource Identification (15.A.12C): The City’s consultant included a
section on identification and consideration of site features such as historic sites, stone walls,
prominent shade trees. This is entirely optional and up to the Commission as to how you’d like to
address (or not) these elements.
• Subdivision Design process (15.A.13): Lays out how an applicant is to approach a proposed subdivision.
Includes an introductory section on Buildable
• Street Network (15.A.14): A number of changes are included in this section. A purpose statement has
been added. The standards continue to require connectivity of streets and adds additional descriptors
related to walkability and natural resources. The Street Types first prepared for the City Center FBC
District are applied – this replaces 3 existing sets of Street standards in the current LDRs, as presented to
the Commission last year), and requires that functional of proposed street to be evaluated in selection
of street type. Dead end streets are limited to 200’ in length citywide, an expansion from current SEQ
standards.
3
o For Commission Consideration: Street orientation (15.A.14(B)(2)) Applicants would required, to the
extent feasible, to orient streets to maximize solar gain potential for future buildings. This was a
recommendation from the Energy Committee. Does the Commission wish to include?
o For Commission Discussion: The Current regulations discourage dead-end streets city-wide but only
set a strict length limit in the SEQ. These standards would extend the limitation city-wide. Does the
Commission wish to apply this standard across the City? Staff recommends yes.
• Public and Private Streets (15.A.14): Updates these standards. Currently private streets can serve up to 3
lots, 5 single family homes, or 9 total dwelling units. This standard would update this to distinguish
between dead end roads, which could remain private, and connecting roads, for which an Irrevocable
Offer of dedication to become public must be provided.
o Staff recommends that the Commission / Council establish a policy indicating that the Council will
not accept roads not built to public standards, and that encourages the City NOT to take over roads
until they connect to another roadway.
• Complete Streets (15.A.14): Subdivisions along an existing roadway must construct all streetscape
elements required by the Street Type from the curb inward. Staff recommends the Commission review.
• Blocks (15.A.16):
o Requires that new streets in residential & commercial districts be laid out with specific min/max
block lengths and block perimeters and include whole blocks. A similar standard presently applies in
the SEQ, but not city-wide. Lots must be rectangular shape unless unusual circumstances apply. The
Commission concurred with this approach at its 9/11 meeting
o Connectivity: As drafted, the language places a strong emphasis on connectivity. A block may be
defined by a natural resource, railway, etc. on one side but dead end streets leading to those areas
are strongly discouraged.
• Lots (15.A.16)
o A minimum of 10% of the Buildable Area of a subdivision, excluding street ROWs, is proposed to be
required to be allocated to civic space. This would make standard subdivisions consistent with the
requirements of PUDs and the Comprehensive Plan.
o Minimum civic space for subdivision presently only applies in the SEQ, for PUDs. The Commission
should determine whether to apply to developable area and extend city-wide.
o As drafted, this applies to an entire subdivision and must be provided in a manner that is central and
accessible to all users. An alternative would be to require the civic space within each block.
o Lots must be logically laid out with respect to their topography and the streets & blocks on which
they are established
o Building lots must generally be rectangular in shape, with limited exceptions
o As drafted, lots would need to meet a width-to-depth ratio in order to support narrow building lots
along streets. This would also allow for rear-lot parking access. The SEQ currently includes a
requirement for ratios. The ratios are a little aggressive in the SEQ, and are proposed to be less
restrictive Citywide (and replace the SEQ standard). Staff recommends the Commission review.
• Renewable Energy Facilities (15.A.17): Requires subdivisions to demonstrate, to the extent feasible and
within the development context, that the subdivision has been designated to maintain access to and use
of renewable energy resources.
o Recommendation from Energy Committee. Commission should decide whether to include.
4
2. Master Plan
The enclosed Master Plan chapter is proposed to replace the existing standard. The current Master Plan
provisions establish a threshold for review and modification but do not provide significant guidance to the
DRB or applicants regarding the scope of review or vesting in a set of regulations. The enclosed draft is
intended to closely complement the Subdivision and (forthcoming) Planned Unit Development Standards and
provide the Development Review Board with a clear, broad-brush picture of the proposed development.
The draft Regulations provide the DRB with the authority to approve specific elements of a plan or approve
an schema or design palate for a project, both of which could vest those elements of the Plan under the
Regulations in effect at the time of the Master Plan, and/or to determine that elements of the project have
been shown but are not sufficiently provided so as to vest that element of the project under the current
Regulations. The Master Plan is structure to incentivize an applicant to provide detail early. The applicant and
City would then be bound by those elements of the project.
Master Plan Key Changes, Commission discussion points:
As noted above, the proposed Master Plan provision are a significant modification to the current standards
and are intended to provide a full picture of a project’s component elements (though not at the level of detail
of a subdivision or site plan for any phases not proposed for immediate development) and to give applicants
regulatory certainty over the course of a multi-phase project.
• Applicability (15.B.02): Proposed to apply to larger projects, multi-phased projects, or projects with
multiple buildings on a lot. Staff is working through examples on the latter and welcomes feedback on
the thresholds for required Master Plans.
• Review process – Neighborhood Meeting (15.B.03): Recommended by the City’s consultant. This would
be a meeting outside the DRB context. It adds another action required for a Master Plan but gives an
opportunity for neighborhood feedback outside the regulatory proceedings.
o Staff recommends the Commission discuss whether this should be required and if so how notice
should be given.
• Master Plan Components (15.B.04): These are submittal requirements but also become the Master Plan.
Staff recommends the Commission review the list and provide feedback.
o Design Standards (15.B.04): This section is intended to establish the design parameters that will
direct the project through all of the remaining stages of review. The DRB has the authority to
approve a design, to vest the standards in the current regulations, or to determine that the element
must be reviewed under the regulations in place at the time of the subsequent review. Applicants
are therefore incentivized to make commitments early on in order to be vested. Commissioners are
encouraged to review these components and provide feedback.
• Review Standards (15.B.05): The DRB must find that each of the criteria below are met in order to approve
• Master Plan Duration and Effect (15.B.06):
o The Master Plan, as proposed, grants an approval for the overall approach and standards for review.
The DRB is authorized to make findings to vest elements of the project in the regulations in effect at
the time of the Master Plan. This is a significant incentive to applicants and is the principal carrot to
the proposed Master Plan standards. The current Regulations do not provide for vesting.
o The proposed maximum duration is 10 years, after which a new Master Plan would be required.
o Staff encourages the Commission to review these provisions and provide feedback.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 1 of 31
15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW 1
Notes: 2
1. This Article has been prepared as a complete replacement of the former Article 15. 3
2. Text in italics represent changes to existing terminology or language. 4
3. Master Plan and Planned Unit Development are prepared as separate Articles, 15B and 15C 5
15.A.01 Purpose and Authority 6
15.A.02 Applicability 7
15.A.03 Minor Lot Line Adjustments and Mergers 8
15.A.04 Classification 9
15.A.05 Sketch Plan Review (All Subdivisions) 10
15.A.06 Preliminary Subdivision Review (Major Subdivisions) 11
15.A.07 Final Subdivision Review (All Subdivisions) 12
15.A.08 Plat Recording Requirements (All Subdivisions) 13
15.A.09 Subdivision Amendments 14
15.A.10 Subdivision Standards 15
15.A.11 Development Suitability 16
15.A.12 Resource Protection 17
15.A.13 Subdivision Design Process 18
15.A.14 Street Network 19
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and Recreation Paths 20
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots 21
15.A.17 Utilities and Services 22
15.A.18 Required Improvements 23
15.A.19 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit 24
25
15.A.01 Purpose and Authority 26
27
A. Purpose. These Regulations, enacted under 24 V.S.A. § 4418 and § 4463, apply to the subdivision 28
of land, and are intended to implement the following objectives in conformance with the City’s adopted 29
Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, and Capital Improvement Program: 30
• Ensure orderly, coordinated growth and development within the City of South Burlington; 31
• Promote the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of city residents; 32
• Ensure that the rate of development does not exceed the City’s capacity to provide municipal 33
infrastructure, facilities and services in an efficient and cost-effective manner; 34
• Ensure that a proposed subdivision conforms to the planned pattern, density and form of 35
development for the zoning district or type of Planned Unit Development in which it is located; 36
• Avoid undue adverse impacts to natural, cultural, scenic and other open space resources identified 37
for protection under Articles 10 and 12; 38
• Establish and maintain an integrated, multi-modal transportation network that connects existing 39
and planned development, supports adjacent land uses, minimizes vehicle miles traveled, and 40
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 2 of 31
maximizes safety and efficiency for all users including pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit 1
riders; 2
• Foster and reinforce compact, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods. 3
• Facilitate integrated, community-based renewable energy production in locations that do not 4
interfere with the City’s development, open space and resource conservation objectives. 5
6
B. Authority. The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under these Regulations and 7
24 V.S.A. § 4418 and § 4463 to: 8
(1) Review and approve, approve with modifications or conditions, or disapprove an application 9
for the subdivision of land under the standards of these Regulations. 10
(2) Hold one or more public meetings or hearings warned in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §§ 4463 11
and 4464, and Section 17.08 of these Regulations as required prior to the recording of a subdivision 12
plat. 13
(3) Modify or waive a required standard under this article, subject to conditions, if it finds that 14
due to physical site limitations, Hazards or Level 1 Natural Resources, or other legal or development 15
constraints specific to the land to be subdivided, including the lack of existing or planned connecting 16
facilities adjacent to or in proximity to the subdivision: 17
(a) The requirement is not necessary to ensure public health, safety and welfare; 18
(b) The requirement will cause unnecessary or extraordinary economic hardship; 19
(c) The modification or waiver is the minimum necessary to afford relief and represents the 20
least deviation from the standards and requirements of these Regulations; and 21
(d) The modification or waiver, if granted, will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and 22
purpose of these Regulations, the comprehensive plan, or other municipal bylaws and ordinances 23
in effect. 24
The DRB in granting a modification or waiver under this section may impose conditions that in its 25
judgment are necessary and appropriate to meet the objectives or to mitigate the adverse impacts 26
of any modified or waived requirement. 27
28
29
15.A.02 Applicability 30
A. Required Approval. Final subdivision plan and plat approval from the DRB under 15.A.07 is 31
required prior to: 32
(1) The sale, lease, or conveyance of any portion of an existing lot, tract or parcel of land; 33
Note! A Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15C should be considered for more innovative
types of planned development that incorporate modifications in layout, density and design intended to
meet specific community objectives.
Commented [PC1]: NOTE TO PC This is a
new section. Currently, waivers are managed
through PUD. Here the DRB would be given
authority for specific waivers under
subdivision, as authorized under VT Statutes,
and specifically subject to the standards
below.
Commented [PC2]: Note to PC: staff has
forwarded to legal counsel for
clarification/definition of “lease” in this
context – as well as proposed condominium
subdivisions and “footprint” lots
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 3 of 31
(2) Site preparation, grading, clearing, construction or the installation of site improvements 1
associated with the subdivision of land or the development of a parcel to be subdivided, excluding 2
forestry, agricultural and land surveying activities; 3
(3) Recording a subdivision plat or deed for a subdivided parcel in city land records; or 4
(4) Issuing a zoning permit for the development of a subdivided parcel. 5
B. Exceptions. The following may be recorded in city land records without first obtaining subdivision 6
approval from the DRB: 7
(1) A right-of-way or easement such as a trail, conservation, stormwater or utility easement that 8
does not define or result in the subdivision of land. 9
(2) A minor lot line (boundary) adjustment or small lot merger that has been issued a permit by 10
the Administrative Officer under 15.A.03. 11
(3) The transfer of a portion of a parcel to an adjoining public parcel or right-of-way, for a public 12
purpose that conforms to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Official Map or Capital Improvement 13
Program. 14
(4) Technical corrections to a previously recorded survey plat or deed which document or correct 15
existing metes, bounds, elevations, or other known errors or deficiencies, and do not alter a subdivision 16
plat as previously approved by the City. 17
(5) A land lease of less than 400 square feet for the siting of utility infrastructure (electrical, 18
telecommunications, internet, etc.) on a portion of a parcel, in conformance with these Regulations, 19
as long as a survey plat showing the lease area is recorded in the land records. 20
(6) The division, lease or use of a portion of a parcel larger than twenty-five (25) acres solely for 21
agricultural or forestry purposes, which does not require a new highway access or the installation of 22
a permanent road or municipal infrastructure, provided that an instrument which waives 23
development rights, until or unless subdivision review occurs, is approved by the City Attorney and 24
City Council and is recorded in city land records. 25
(7) The notice of a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) issued by the Vermont Public Utility 26
Commission for an in-state energy generation facility with a capacity greater than 15 kilowatts, as 27
required under 30 V.S.A. § 248, which identifies the land on which the facility is to be located by 28
reference to the deed of record for the property as conveyed to the current landowner. 29
15.A.03 Minor Lot Line Adjustments and Mergers 30
A. Lot Line (Boundary) Adjustment. The Administrative Officer has the authority, without prior DRB 31
approval, to issue a permit for the adjustment, relocation or realignment of a lot line between existing 32
lots provided that: 33
(1) The sale or exchange of land is between adjacent property owners, and the application is 34
authorized and signed by the owner of each affected lot; 35
(2) The acreage of land to be transferred between each affected lot is less than the minimum lot 36
area for the zoning district(s) in which the lots are located; 37
Commented [PC3]: Note to PC: adapted
from Hinesburg. Staff has forwarded to legal
counsel to determine is this is a subdivision
under SB’s definitions.
Commented [PC4]: Note to PC: Per more
recent statutory requirements re renewable
energy facilities which are exempted from city
regulations
Commented [PC5]: For PC: Currently under
15.19. Adds mergers as an administrative
option.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 4 of 31
(3) No new, irregularly shaped, or undevelopable building lots, including flag lots without required 1
frontage, are created through the adjustment; 2
(4) The relocated lot line does not result in the creation of a nonconforming lot, structure, or use; 3
increase the existing degree of nonconformance; or affect the ability to develop a lot in conformance 4
with these Regulations; and 5
(5) The proposed adjustment does not violate the terms or conditions of any prior municipal 6
permit or approval. 7
B. Small Lot Merger. The Administrative Officer also has the authority, without prior DRB approval, 8
to issue a permit for the elimination of a lot line between two contiguous, pre-existing nonconforming 9
small lots that come under common ownership, consistent with 24 V.S.A. § 4412(2), provided that: 10
(1) Either or both lots are undeveloped or are proposed for redevelopment as a single lot at the 11
time of the merger request; 12
(2) The merged lot will be served by single water supply and wastewater connections or systems; 13
and 14
(3) Existing highway accesses are consolidated so that the merged lot is served by a single 15
highway access. 16
C. Survey Plat. The application for a minor lot line adjustment or merger must be accompanied by 17
a survey plat prepared by a licensed land surveyor that depicts and references each lot to be modified by 18
the adjustment or merger. 19
(1) The survey plat must clearly indicate the area, metes, bounds and ties of each lot and, as 20
applicable, the merged lot. 21
The survey plat must also clearly depict all existing structures, site improvements, delineated 22
setbacks, parking spaces, lot coverage and other details specified by the Administrative Officer as 23
necessary to determine conformance with this section. 24
D. DRB Referral. Where there is uncertainty as to whether an application constitutes a minor lot 25
line adjustment or merger, the Administrative Officer may refer the application to the DRB for review as 26
a Minor Subdivision. 27
15.A.04 Classification 28
A. Subdivision Classes. For purposes of these Regulations, subdivisions of land shall be classified as 29
by the Administrative Officer as follows: 30
(1) A Minor Subdivision, to be reviewed under Section 15.A.07, which is limited to: 31
(a) The subdivision of an existing lot, tract or parcel of land into two lots, including the parent 32
or retained lot, if the lot to be created is less than two times the minimum lot area for the district 33
in which it is located, and either has required street frontage, or shares highway access with the 34
retained lot; or 35
(b) A lot line adjustment or lot merger which does not meet the requirements for 36
administrative approval under Section 15.A.03. 37
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 5 of 31
1
(2) A Major Subdivision, to be reviewed under Sections 15.A.06 and 15.A.07, which includes a 2
subdivision of land that involves any of the following: 3
(a) The subdivision of an existing lot, tract or parcel of land into two lots, which does not 4
qualify as a minor subdivision under (A)(1); 5
(b) The creation of three or more lots through the subdivision or re-subdivision of an existing 6
lot, tract or parcel; 7
(c) The installation or extension of one or more streets; 8
(d) The extension of any off-tract municipal or governmental infrastructure, facilities or other 9
improvements; or 10
(e) A Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15.C, to be reviewed by the DRB 11
concurrently with subdivision review. 12
(3) A Transect Zone Subdivision, to be reviewed under Section 15.A.07 and Article 8, for any 13
subdivision of land within a designated Transect Zone. 14
15.A.05 Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review 15
A. Purpose. The purpose of a pre-application sketch plan review, required for any proposed 16
subdivision of land, is to acquaint the DRB with the subdivision proposal at a conceptual stage in the design 17
process, prior to the submission of a formal application for master plan, preliminary or final subdivision 18
review. Sketch plan review offers the applicant and DRB the opportunity to consider and discuss a 19
conceptual subdivision plan under relevant regulations, prior to incurring the expense of preparing a 20
complete application and surveyed subdivision plat. Sketch plan review while required, is advisory in 21
nature, intended only to guide the application and review process. 22
B. Submission Requirements. 23
(1) As stated in Appendix E. Submission Requirements. 24
(2) The applicant is encouraged to schedule one or more meetings with the Administrative Officer 25
to discuss the sketch plan, the proposed subdivision, and relevant application requirements, review 26
processes and standards under these Regulations, including whether the project may also require or 27
allow for Master Plan review, or review as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 28
C. Review Process. 29
(1) Classification. Upon receipt of a complete sketch plan, the Administrative Officer shall classify 30
the proposed subdivision as a Minor Subdivision, Major Subdivision, or Transect Zone Subdivision, and 31
refer the sketch plan to the DRB for consideration at a regularly scheduled DRB meeting. 32
(2) Sketch Plan Meeting(s). Notice and participation in Sketch Plan meetings must be conducted 33
in accordance with Section 17.08(F) of these Regulations. 34
D. DRB Review. Based on the information provided the DRB may provide guidance regarding: 35
Commented [PC6]: Note TO PC: Currently,
site plan information is stated here, under
sketch plan, as being required for
consideration at the preliminary plat stage of
review. That is confusing, and therefore has
been removed.
Commented [PC7]: Note to PC: sketch plan
is currently, as is proposed to remain, non-
binding. This has been confirmed by the
Environmental Court.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 6 of 31
(1) Whether the subdivision as presented in concept will also require Master Plan review under 1
Article 15.B, or review as a PUD under Article 15.C. 2
(2) Whether the sketch plan as presented generally conforms to the Official Map, and relevant 3
standards under these Regulations. 4
(3) Considerations for the applicant in preparing their application, including suggested 5
modifications or changes to subdivision design and layout; and any additional information, studies, or 6
supporting documentation to be included with the application. The DRB may also request that the 7
applicant for a minor subdivision provide additional information and materials normally required for 8
major subdivision review, as applicable to the proposed subdivision. 9
E. Effect. Sketch plan review authorizes the subdivider to proceed with an application for subdivision 10
review; it in no way implies subdivision approval by the DRB. 11
(1) Within six months of the date of the final sketch plan review meeting by the DRB, the applicant 12
must apply to the DRB for preliminary subdivision review as required for a Major Subdivision under 13
Section 15.A.06, final subdivision review as required for a Minor Subdivision or Transect Zone 14
Subdivision under Section 15.A.07; or Master Plan Review under Article 15.B as applicable to a 15
particular subdivision proposal. 16
(2) If an application for master plan, preliminary or final subdivision approval is not submitted 17
within six (6) months of the final sketch plan review meeting by the DRB; or the application as 18
submitted differs substantially from the sketch plan as reviewed by the DRB, Administrative Officer 19
may require submission of a new sketch plan for review under this section. 20
15.A.06 Preliminary Subdivision Review (Major Subdivisions) 21
A. Purpose. Preliminary subdivision review by the DRB, required for all Major Subdivisions, 22
including a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15.C, is intended to evaluate a proposed 23
subdivision under the standards of these Regulations, to determine conformance with an approved master 24
plan, to preliminarily allocate available infrastructure capacity, to identify specific issues or concerns that 25
must be addressed or mitigated prior to final subdivision review and, upon preliminary approval, to allow 26
the applicant to seek other necessary permits or approvals that may result in project modifications, prior 27
to preparing a final survey plat, engineering plans, and required legal documents. 28
B. Combined Review. 29
(1) Preliminary subdivision review by the DRB may be combined with master plan review under 30
Article 15.B for one or more phases of subdivision and development, if the application, hearing 31
requirements and standards for each type of review are considered and met. 32
(2) At the request of an applicant, the DRB may agree to combine preliminary and final subdivision 33
review for one or more phases of subdivision and development where either a Master Plan under 34
Article 15.B has been previously approved and is in effect, or where no Master Plan Review under 35
Article 15.B is required. 36
Commented [PC8]: Note to PC: Minor re-
adjustment of process for clarity.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 7 of 31
C. Application Requirements. The applicant must file an application for preliminary subdivision 1
review with the Administrative Officer within six (6) months of the date of the final sketch plan review 2
meeting; or, as applicable, within six (6) months of the date of master plan approval under Article 15.B, 3
unless the time for filing is extended or waived by the DRB in association with master plan approval. 4
(1) The application must be submitted on forms provided by the City, to include information and 5
materials listed in Appendix E, Submission Requirements, additional information requested by the 6
DRB under Sketch Plan Review, and any requested modifications or waivers under 15.A.01(C), 7
including the stated justification for this request and any supporting documentation. 8
(2) The preliminary subdivision application must reasonably conform to the sketch plan as 9
reviewed by the DRB, or the Administrative Officer or DRB may require the submission of a new sketch 10
plan for review by the DRB under Section 15.A.04. 11
12
(3) The preliminary subdivision application must also conform, as applicable, to a master plan 13
previously approved by the DRB under Article 15.B. Any requested amendments to an approved 14
master plan must be submitted in advance of or concurrently with the application for preliminary 15
subdivision review under this Article. 16
D. Application Referrals. The Administrative Officer must refer a complete application to the DRB 17
and applicable entities in accordance with Section 17.09(C) of these Regulations. 18
E. Public Hearing. The DRB must schedule and hold a warned public hearing on the application, as 19
required under 24 V.S.A. §§ 4463 and 4464 and Section 17.08(F) of these Regulations. 20
F. Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing, the DRB must issue 21
written findings of fact and its decision to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the 22
preliminary subdivision plat, supporting plans, and documents. Failure to act within this 45-day period 23
shall constitute approval under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b), as deemed by the court and certified by the City Clerk. 24
The decision, including findings of fact and provisions for appeal, must be sent by certified mail to the 25
applicant. Copies of the decision must also be mailed to all parties who participated in the public hearing 26
process. When granting approval, the DRB shall state the conditions of approval, if any, with respect to: 27
(1) Specific changes required to the preliminary plat, plans or supporting documents for 28
consideration under final subdivision review. 29
(2) The type and extent of any required improvements which, in the DRB’s opinion, may be 30
waived under Section 15.A.01(C); 31
(3) Initial allocations of available water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation 32
infrastructure capacity, and required system connections or improvements needed to serve the 33
proposed subdivision; 34
(4) Requested or required measures intended to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts of land 35
subdivision and development on environmental resources identified for protection under Articles 10 36
and 12; and on existing and planned public facilities, infrastructure and services; 37
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 8 of 31
(5) The timing and sequence of subsequent applications for phased or combined subdivision and 1
development review; 2
(6) Additional information the DRB finds necessary to determine compliance with the Regulations 3
as part of final subdivision review; and, 4
(7) Other municipal, state or federal permits and approvals, performance bonds or other sureties, 5
and development agreements to be obtained in advance of applying for final subdivision review and 6
approval. 7
G. Effect. Preliminary subdivision approval does not constitute final approval of a subdivision plan 8
or plat. It is intended only to guide the preparation of the final survey plat, supporting plans and 9
documents. A preliminary subdivision approval shall remain in effect for twelve (12) months from the 10
date of approval unless, upon written request of the applicant, the expiration date is extended by the DRB 11
for cause, for example due to an appeal of related permits, or other permitting or seasonal site analysis 12
delays. If an application for final subdivision approval or an extension request is not submitted by the 13
expiration date, the DRB may require resubmission of the preliminary plat, supporting plans and 14
documents for preliminary subdivision review under the regulations in effect at the time of resubmission. 15
15.A.07 Final Subdivision Review (All Subdivisions) 16
A. Purpose. Final subdivision review by the DRB is required for all minor subdivisions, major 17
subdivisions including a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15C, and Transect Zone 18
Subdivisions. It is intended to determine whether the final survey plat, supporting plans and documents, 19
and proposed improvements comply with these Regulations and, as applicable, with an approved master 20
plan and the conditions of preliminary subdivision approval, prior to recording a survey plat, deeds, 21
easements and other legal documents in the land records of the City. 22
B. Combined Review. At the request of the applicant, the DRB may combine final subdivision review 23
with Site Plan or Conditional Use Review under Article 14, if the submission and hearing notice 24
requirements for each type of review are met. 25
C. Application Requirements. Unless otherwise extended by the DRB, within six (6) months of 26
sketch plan approval for a Minor or Transect Zone Subdivision, or twelve (12) months of preliminary 27
subdivision approval for a Major Subdivision, including a PUD, the applicant must file an application for 28
final subdivision review with the Administrative Officer. 29
(1) The application for final subdivision review may be submitted in one or more phases, as 30
specified by the DRB under preliminary subdivision or master plan approval, to include only that phase 31
of a subdivision for which final subdivision approval is requested. 32
(2) The application must be submitted on forms provided by the City, to include the information 33
and materials listed in Appendix E, Submission Requirements, any other information requested by the 34
DRB under sketch plan or preliminary subdivision review. 35
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 9 of 31
(3) The application must also include requested modifications or waivers of required 1
improvements under 15.A.01(C), of the preliminary subdivision plat as approved by the DRB, or the 2
conditions of preliminary subdivision approval, and the stated justification for this request. 3
(4) The application must also be accompanied by a Certificate of Title showing the ownership of 4
all properties and easements to be dedicated or acquired by the City, and supporting legal documents 5
of conveyance, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 6
D. Application Referrals. The Administrative Officer must refer a complete application to the DRB 7
and applicable entities in accordance with Section 17.09(C) of these Regulations. 8
E. Public Hearing. The DRB must schedule and hold a warned public hearing on the application, as 9
required under 24 V.S.A. §§ 4463 and 4464 and Section 17.08(F) of these Regulations. 10
F. Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing, the DRB must issue its 11
written findings of fact and decision to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the final 12
subdivision plat, supporting plans and documents. Failure to act within this 45-day period shall constitute 13
approval under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b), as deemed by the court and certified by the City Clerk. The final 14
decision, including findings, must be sent by certified mail to the applicant. Copies of the decision must 15
also be mailed to all parties who participated in the public hearing process. 16
(1) Any conditions of final subdivision approval for performance bonding or other sureties, 17
phasing, construction or inspection schedules, or the timing of required improvements under Section 18
15.15, must be specified in the written DRB decision, or in a separate Development Agreement 19
approved by the City Council, as referenced in or attached to the DRB decision. 20
(2) The DRB decision may also, as a condition of final subdivision approval, stipulate changes to 21
the content of the plat, supporting plans or documents that must be completed to the satisfaction of 22
the Administrative Officer before the plat is approved and endorsed by the DRB for recording under 23
15.A.08. 24
G. Effect. Final subdivision approval by the DRB remains in effect for 180 days from the date of 25
approval, unless extended by the Administrative Officer under 15.A.08. Final subdivision approval shall 26
expire unless, within this period, the subdivision plat as approved and endorsed by the DRB is filed and 27
recorded in the land records of the City under Section 15.A.08. 28
(1) Final subdivision approval by the DRB shall not constitute or be evidence of acceptance by the 29
City of any streets, easements, water and sewer facilities, open space or other public facilities and 30
improvements shown on the subdivision plat or associated plans. 31
15.A.08 Plat Recording Requirements 32
A. Recording Requirements. The final subdivision plat, as approved and endorsed by the DRB or as 33
otherwise deemed approved and certified by the City Clerk under 24 V.S.A. § 4463, must be recorded in 34
the land records of the City within 180 days of the date of DRB approval. The Administrative Officer may 35
extend the date for filing by an additional 90 days if other final municipal or state approvals are pending, 36
and the extension request is filed within this 180-day period. If the plat is not recorded within this period, 37
final subdivision approval shall be deemed null and void, and the plat, supporting plans and documents 38
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 10 of 31
must be resubmitted for final subdivision approval under Section 15.A.07 under the regulations in effect 1
at the time of resubmission. 2
(1) The survey plat to be recorded in city land records must comply with the requirements of 27 3
V.S.A. Chapter 17 (Filing of Land Plats), the DRB decision, including any stipulations or required 4
conditions of approval, and adopted city policies and fee schedules. 5
(2) The locations of all permanent surveying monuments, lot corner markers, and building 6
envelope markers must be identified on the final subdivision plat as recorded in the land records. 7
(3) In addition to the original mylar and required copies of the final plat, the applicant must also 8
provide the Administrative Officer with a digital copy of the plat in a format that meets adopted state 9
(Vermont Geographic Information System)and city data standards. 10
(4) Once properly recorded, the survey plat shall become part of the South Burlington Official 11
Map and shall not expire, except as subsequently amended in conformance with these Regulations. 12
B. DRB Endorsement or Clerk Certification 13
(1) No subdivision plat which requires DRB approval shall be filed or recorded in the Office of the 14
City Clerk until it has been approved by the DRB, as endorsed in writing on the plat. DRB endorsement 15
shall not take place until all required plats, plans, construction drawings and supporting documents 16
have been submitted to and reviewed by the Administrative Officer for compliance with the 17
conditions of final subdivision approval. 18
(2) The DRB endorsement shall state that “This plat has been approved by Resolution of the 19
Development Review of the City of South Burlington, Vermont.” It shall also specify the date of DRB 20
approval, subject to any conditions or requirements specified in the resolution, and be signed by the 21
Chair or Clerk of the Development Review Board. 22
(3) For any subdivision plat that was deemed approved for failure of the DRB to issue a decision 23
under 15.A.07(F), the accompanying City Clerk’s Certificate must be attached to the plat as filed and 24
recorded. 25
(4) Any plat that is recorded or subsequently revised without DRB approval and endorsement or 26
Clerk Certification shall be considered null and void, and the Administrative Officer shall institute 27
proceedings to have the plat stricken from city land records. 28
15.A.09 Subdivision Amendments 29
A. Required Review. As subdivision plan and plat that has received final subdivision approval from 30
the DRB may not be altered, modified, revised or amended without DRB approval. 31
(1) Requested modifications or revisions to a previously approved subdivision plat, plans or 32
conditions of approval must be submitted to the Administrative Officer as an application for a 33
proposed subdivision amendment for DRB review under this section. 34
(2) The scope of review under this section will be limited to those aspects of the approved 35
subdivision plan and plat affected by the proposed amendment. 36
Commented [PC9]: NOTE TO PC New
section, clarifies when an application must
start anew vs final plat only.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 11 of 31
B. Minor Subdivision Amendment. A minor amendment, as determined by the Administrative 1
Officer, includes an amendment to a minor subdivision that does not result in the creation of a major 2
subdivision; or a subdivision amendment that does not result in a substantial change, alteration, revision 3
or modification of the subdivision plat, plans or conditions of final subdivision approval. A minor subdivision 4
amendment shall require only Final Plat Review. Modifications to an approved subdivision which do not 5
result in elements of the plat may be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Officer. 6
C. Major Subdivision Amendment. Any proposed subdivision amendment that involves a substantial 7
change, alteration, revision or modification to an approved subdivision plat, plan or condition of 8
subdivision approval shall be considered a new subdivision pursuant to these Regulation. 9
D. Amendment Recording Requirements 10
(1) If an amendment is approved by the DRB prior to the recording of the subdivision plat under 11
Section 15.08 as previously approved, the amendment must be incorporated on the final subdivision 12
plat as filed for recording. 13
(2) If an amendment is approved by the DRB after the original plat has been recorded, an 14
amended subdivision plat must be prepared and recorded under Section 15.08 which carries a notation 15
that this plat as amended supersedes the original plat as previously recorded, referencing the date and 16
recording information for the original plat. 17
18
15.A.10 Subdivision Standards – Applicability and Compliance 19
A. Applicability. Any subdivision of land subject to these Regulations must meet applicable 20
subdivision standards under this Article unless waived by the DRB under Section 15.A.01(C). The DRB, in 21
determining compliance with these standards, may require: 22
(1) Disclosure of the intended use and development of all land to be subdivided, including 23
subsequent development plans for any retained portion of the existing tract or parcel to be subdivided. 24
(2) An independent technical review of the proposed subdivision under one or more standards, 25
prepared by a qualified professional, in accordance with Section 17.08. 26
(3) Modification of subdivision layout and design, the phasing of subdivision and development, or 27
other measures necessary to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts of a proposed subdivision on 28
adjoining properties and uses; the transportation network; public facilities, infrastructure and services; 29
and environmental resources identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12. 30
B. Compliance with Zoning Regulations. The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision 31
conforms to the planned pattern of subdivision and development as defined by relevant zoning district 32
purpose statements and standards; or as specified for a type of Planned Unit Development (PUD) under 33
Article 15.C. In addition to meeting required zoning district, transect zone, or PUD standards: 34
(1) Overlay Districts. The subdivision must also meet applicable overlay district standards under 35
Article 10. 36
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 12 of 31
(a) In all subdivisions and PUDs in which the provisions of the Traffic Overlay District in Section 1
10.02 of these Regulations apply and in which the Traffic Overlay District provisions conflict 2
with those of this section, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. 3
(2) Multiple Districts. For the subdivision of land located in more than one zoning district, the 4
district regulations specific to that portion of the subdivision within each zoning district shall apply, 5
except as specified for a Planned Unit Development under Article 15C. 6
(a) Subdivision boundaries and lot lines must be located and configured to avoid creating 7
building lots that are split by zoning district boundaries except where the DRB finds such split 8
building lots unavoidable due to pre-existing lot and infrastructure layout. 9
(b) The DRB may approve a request to extend zoning district standards up to fifty (50) feet 10
in either direction beyond the district boundary line as necessary to avoid a subdivision or building 11
lot split by a zoning district boundary. 12
C. Compliance with Regulations. Subdivisions, including building lots, dwelling units, and supporting 13
facilities and infrastructure, must also be designed, configured and constructed to comply with other 14
relevant standards under these Regulations and other city ordinances and standards in effect at the time 15
of application, including those listed below. Where a standard under this Article conflicts with another 16
standard, the more stringent, restrictive, or specific standard shall apply. 17
• Official Map, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4421 18
• Capital Improvement Program, adopted under 24 V.S.A. § 4430 19
• Department of Public Works Standards 20
• Fire Prevention and Safety Ordinance 21
• Water and Cross Connection Ordinances 22
• Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Ordinance 23
• Impact Fee Ordinance 24
• E-911 Ordinance 25
D. Conformance with an Approved Master Plan. The applicant must demonstrate that the 26
subdivision conforms, as applicable, to a Master Plan approved by the DRB under Article 15.B, including 27
the approved development plan, management plan, buildout budgets and phasing schedule. 28
15.A.11 Subdivision Standards – General 29
A. Development Suitability. The applicant must demonstrate that the land to be subdivided is 30
physically suited for its intended use and the proposed density or intensity of development, and that the 31
proposed subdivision will not result in undue adverse impacts to public health and safety, environmental 32
resources as identified and regulated under Articles 10 and 12, neighboring properties and uses, or public 33
facilities and infrastructure located on or within the vicinity of the land to be subdivided. 34
(1) Physical Site Constraints. Land that is physically unsuited for development, including land 35
that is characterized by periodic flooding, poor drainage, shallow soils, landslides, environmental site 36
contamination or other known physical hazards or constraints, must not be subdivided for 37
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 13 of 31
development unless the applicant can demonstrate that such limitations can be overcome, 1
remediated, or mitigated as necessary to allow for subsequent development. 2
(2) Buildable Area. For purposes of these Regulations, including the platting of building lots and 3
the calculation of the density or intensity of development allowed within a subdivision, “Buildable 4
Area” is defined as the total area of the tract or parcel to be subdivided, less the area occupied by the 5
following physical and legal site limitations or constraints, including “Hazards” and “Level 1 Resources” 6
as defined and regulated under Articles 10 and 12, as indicated on sketch and master plans, and as 7
field verified and delineated on preliminary and final subdivision plans and plats: 8
• Surface waters and associated setbacks and buffers 9
• Class I and II wetlands and associated setbacks and buffers; 10
• River Corridors 11
• 100-Year (1%) floodplains and floodways; 12
• Very steep slopes with a natural grade equal to or greater than 25%; 13
• Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Habitat (if applicable by species); 14
• Forested Habitat Blocks and Habitat Block Connectors; and, 15
• Existing and planned street, railroad rights-of way, and transmission line corridors. 16
17
(3) Buildable Area Calculations. The allowed number of building lots or dwelling units within the 18
subdivision shall be calculated based on the Buildable Area of the parcel or tract to be subdivided 19
except as otherwise specified for a Transect Zone Subdivision under Article 8, a Planned Unit 20
Development under Article 15.C; and as provided for the transfer of development rights under Article 21
9, or affordable housing offsets, bonuses, or incentives under Article 18. 22
(1) Any proposed alteration of the existing grade to create developable building lots, including 23
land excavation or fill, must meet the standards of Section 3.12 (Alteration of Existing Grade), 24
Article 16 (Construction and Erosion Control) and other applicable resource protection, flood 25
hazard area and stormwater management standards under these Regulations. 26
C. Development Context. The applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision conforms to the 27
planned pattern of subdivision and development in the area, as defined by district purpose statements 28
and standards, or as specified for a type of Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Article 15.C. 29
D. Connectivity. A subdivision, to the extent physically feasible, must be configured and laid out to 30
maximize connections with adjoining parcels and neighborhoods, and to avoid creating isolated and 31
disconnected enclaves of development, except where necessary to separate incompatible land uses or to 32
avoid undue adverse impacts to resources identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12. Accordingly, 33
the applicant must demonstrate that the subdivision is laid out to connect with and extend existing and 34
planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, transit routes, and utility and greenway corridors located 35
adjacent to or within ½-mile of the subdivision, or as indicated on the City’s Official Map. Off-site 36
improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision must be provided in accordance with 15.A.18. 37
38
39
40
Commented [PC10]: Note to PC: this
section is intended to be consistent with the
Commission’s direction 9/25/20
Commented [PC11]: Note to PC: Staff
reviewing 500-year flood plain and will
provide recommendations
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 14 of 31
15.A.12 Resource Protection 1
2
A. Purpose. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has been configured and 3
laid out to: 4
(1) incorporate significant natural, historical and scenic site features located on the parcel or tract 5
to be subdivided; 6
(2) avoid and exclude Hazard and Level 1 resource areas identified for protection under Articles 7
10 and 12 from parcelization, physical fragmentation, and development; and, 8
(3) minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts of land subdivision and development on Level 2 9
resource areas identified for protection under Article 12. 10
11
B. Applicability. Resource protection standards under this section apply to all subdivisions of land, 12
unless modified or waived by the DRB under 15.A.01(C), resource-specific allowances under Articles 10 or 13
12, and the following: 14
(1) The DRB may consider the context, planned type and pattern of development and necessary 15
extension of proposed supporting facilities, infrastructure, and service of the proposed Subdivision, 16
Transect Zone Subdivision, or Planned Unit Development in reviewing requests for waiver or 17
modifications permitted within Articles 10 and 12. 18
(2) The DRB may modify the requirements of this section for a Minor Subdivision, or the 19
subdivision or re-subdivision of a previously developed tract of land of less than four (4) acres as 20
necessary to allow for fully integrated infill or redevelopment. 21
(3) Notwithstanding a subdivision waiver or modification, other resource protection standards 22
under these Regulations shall apply as applicable, including any requirements for on- or off-site impact 23
mitigation. 24
25
C. Resource Identification. Site features or resources to be incorporated in subdivision layout and 26
design, as shown to scale on sketch and master plans, must be field verified and delineated on the ground 27
by the applicant, as indicated on preliminary and final subdivision plans and plats, as specified in Articles 28
10 or 12 of these Regulations specific to each resource. 29
30
(1) Existing Site Features. Existing site features of significance to the City, to be considered in 31
subdivision layout and design include: 32
33
Note! Application for a Conservation Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C is recommended for
a proposed subdivision in which a significant portion of the total tract area is within a Hazard, Level 1 or
Level 2 resource area, as necessary to allow for a more flexible subdivision layout and design, including
the transfer of development density within the project area, and the clustering of development on building
lots that exclude these resource areas.
Commented [PC12]: This section is for
Commission Consideration. These could be
recommended or required to be mapped.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 15 of 31
(a) Archaeological and historical sites and structures that are listed on the State Register of 1
Historic Places, and historical landscape features such as stone walls and fences. 2
(b) Prominent shade trees, street trees, or documented specimen or witness trees. 3
(c) Exceptional or unique geological features such as exposed ledges, cliffs, waterfalls and 4
cascades. 5
(2) Listed site features must be considered for retention and incorporation in subdivision layout 6
and design. 7
(3) At minimum the DRB may require, as a condition of subdivision approval, that a listed 8
historical site, structure or landscape feature present on the parcel to be subdivided must be 9
inventoried, assessed and documented [by a qualified historic preservationist or architect], before any 10
site development, or any structural relocation, removal or demolition may occur. 11
12
(2) Resource Protection Areas. Resource protection areas to be incorporated in subdivision 13
layout and design include Hazards, Level 1, and Level 2 resources identified for protection and 14
regulated under Articles 10 and 12. 15
(a) Subdivision boundaries and lot lines must be located and configured to avoid or, where 16
deemed necessary by the DRB, to minimize the subdivision, parcelization and physical 17
fragmentation of resources located on contiguous parcels, and on the tract or parcel to be 18
subdivided. 19
(b) Contiguous Hazard and Level I Resource protection areas that exceed the minimum lot size 20
must be set aside and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as 21
“Conservation Lots” to be maintained and managed in single or common ownership, or under a 22
conservation easement held by the City or qualified third party, such as an established land trust. 23
As a condition of subdivision approval, future subdivision of conservation lots shall be prohibited 24
except where all land is being conveyed for conservation purposes, to be noted on the subdivision 25
plat. 26
(c) Hazard and Level 1 resource protection areas must be excluded from the calculation of 27
Buildable Area. Building lots and building envelopes are prohibited within these areas, except as 28
necessary to accommodate resource-dependent facilities (e.g., water and wastewater treatment 29
facilities, public or community recreation facility), as specified under Articles 10 and 12, or as 30
allowed under this subsection. 31
(d) A building lot may extend or encroach within a delineated resource protection area only 32
to the extent necessary to meet minimum lot size or frontage requirements for the zoning district 33
in which the lot is located 34
(e) A building lot may incorporate a Hazard, Level 1, or Level 2 resource area that is less than 35
the required minimum lot size; however in this case the DRB may require the delineation of a 36
building envelope that excludes delineated resource areas, as shown on the subdivision plat and 37
pinned on the ground, as necessary to limit the siting of buildings, other structures, and parking 38
areas to the developable portion of the lot. 39
Commented [PC13]: Commission Option:
“Eligible for Listing”
Commented [PC14]: For Commission
consideration. Keep or remove?
Commented [PC15]: NOTE TO PC This is an
update to Section 15.18(A)(6) which refers to
undefined “open space” areas.
Commented [PC16]: NOTE TO PC This is an
update and replacement to section
15.18(A)(4) that refers to the 2002 Open
Space Strategy, and ties in directly with the
Article 10 & 12 work.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 16 of 31
(f) Encroachments within resource protection areas, including by transportation and utility 1
corridors, are subject to and limited to those allowed under Article 12, or as otherwise specified 2
within Flood Hazard Areas or River Corridors under Article 10. 3
(g) A resource protection area may be incorporated and improved as green infrastructure 4
(e.g., for stormwater management or flood control), or as a public amenity serving the subdivision, 5
consistent with the provisions of Articles 10 and 12, to the extent that this does not interfere with 6
its critical natural functions or intended use. 7
8
15.A.13 Subdivision Design Process 9
A. Design Process. The design process to be followed by the applicant under this Subsection, in 10
preparing subdivision plans and draft plats included with the application, includes the following steps in 11
order of preference: 12
(1) Delineate and set aside resource areas identified for protection, and other existing site 13
features for consideration under 15.A.12 above. 14
(2) Layout and configure the proposed street network to: 15
(a) connect with and extend existing streets; 16
(b) define one or more contiguous blocks that meet applicable block standards under 15.A.16 17
or as otherwise specified for the Zoning District, Transect Zone, or type of Planned Unit 18
Development in which the subdivision is located); and to 19
(c) incorporate allowed Street Types and design standards under 15.A.14, including existing 20
and planned streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, and transit stops. 21
(3) Delineate building lots that front on and are oriented to the abutting street or civic space, and 22
that meet applicable lot size and dimensional requirements by Zoning District, Transect Zone or type 23
of Planned Unit Development or Building Type under Appendix ___, as applicable. 24
(4) Designate within each block, or as otherwise provided within the subdivision, required civic 25
spaces, parking lots or facilities, and infrastructure and utility corridors or easements that meet the 26
requirements of these Regulations, which are to be retained in common or single ownership or 27
dedicated to the City. 28
(5) Incorporate within block configurations, as applicable, one or more alleys or service lanes, and 29
midblock pedestrian passages as necessary to provide rear, side or shared vehicular and pedestrian 30
access to fronting building lots, civic spaces and designated parking areas or facilities. 31
32
15.A.14 Street Network 33
34
A. Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of the City to establish and maintain an integrated, 35
interconnected transportation system that efficiently and safely serves all users, including pedestrians, 36
bicyclists, motorists, transit riders and people with disabilities. Accordingly, the applicant must 37
demonstrate that the proposed street network serving the subdivision is consistent with City objectives to: 38
• Maximize network accessibility and connectivity for all transportation modes and users; 39
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 17 of 31
• Minimize vehicle miles traveled; 1
• Provide adequate emergency vehicle access, and minimize emergency response times; 2
• Limit direct access onto arterial and collector streets, as necessary to preserve and enhance 3
functional capacity; 4
• Create interconnected, walkable pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly residential neighborhoods and 5
mixed use development; 6
• Provide for multiple, direct routes and connections between residential neighborhoods, schools, 7
parks, employment, shopping and other activity centers or destinations; 8
• Incorporate or provide direct pedestrian connections to existing and planned public transit routes 9
for any subdivision and development located within the Transit Overlay District; and to 10
• Accommodate on-street parking where appropriate or required. 11
12
B. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets serving the subdivision must incorporate and extend 13
the network of existing and planned arterial, collector and local streets in the vicinity, including existing 14
and planned streets serving adjoining subdivisions, and as shown on the City’s Official Map. 15
(1) Street Grid. The street layout must establish or extend an interconnected street grid that 16
logically relates to existing site topography, defines walkable blocks, produces useable building lots, 17
reasonable street grades, and safe intersections, incorporates adequate stormwater drainage, and 18
avoids or, where deemed necessary by the DRB, minimizes encroachments within and mitigates 19
adverse impacts to resources identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12. 20
(2) Street Orientation. The street layout to the extent feasible, consistent with the existing and 21
planned pattern of development and local topography, should be oriented to maximize solar access 22
and gain on abutting building lots and block faces. Longer streets and block faces should either be 23
aligned east-west or north-south, within 20 degrees of true east or true north, in relation to anticipated 24
building lot and building roof orientation. 25
(3) Existing and Planned Public Streets. The street network must incorporate existing and 26
planned public streets, recreation paths and sidewalks shown on the City’s Official Map; or as required 27
by the DRB if the location, length or function of a proposed street within the City’s street network 28
warrants public ownership. The right-of-way provided for a public street shown on the Official Map 29
must be of a similar location and alignment as that shown on the map, subject to approval and 30
acceptance by the City Council. Planned right-of-way widths listed for public streets under Table 3-1: 31
Planned Street Rights-of-Way, must also be incorporated in the proposed street layout as applicable. 32
(4) Street Connections. The street network must maximize connectivity and provide for the 33
future extension of streets of equivalent functional class and other connecting rights-of-way or 34
easements through adjoining properties upon future subdivision, development or redevelopment. 35
Street rights-of-way must extend to adjoining property lines to allow for future street, sidewalk, 36
recreation path and utility connections. Accordingly: 37
(a) Right-of-way connections to properties adjoining the subdivision must be provided along 38
property boundaries at regular intervals, spaced according to functional class, street type and, 39
where applicable, required block lengths unless modified or waived by the DRB under 15.01(C). 40
Commented [PC17]: For PC discussion.
Prepared on an Energy Committee
recommendation.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 18 of 31
(b) In making its determination to waive or modify a street right-of-way requirement, the 1
Board shall consider substitution of a recreation path, sidewalk, or trail right-of-way prior to 2
determination that a full waiver of a right-of-way is warranted. 3
(c) The DRB shall require that applicant construct a connecting street or recreation path to 4
the property line; or to contribute a proportionate share of the cost to complete construction, in 5
addition to any required impact fees. Where a street or recreation path is identified in the Impact 6
Fee Ordinance, construction of planned improvements may receive credit pursuant to the 7
Ordinance. 8
(d) For phased development, the DRB may approve a street or other right-of-way shown on 9
the subdivision plat and, as a condition of subdivision approval, require that the right-of-way be 10
clearly marked on the ground with one or more signs that indicate its existence and future use; 11
and that construction must occur before any further subdivision or development may be allowed. 12
(e) The DRB may require temporary turnarounds at subdivision boundaries, designed to City 13
specifications under Appendix __, as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. The applicant 14
must then show on the subdivision plat the right-of-way area to be returned to adjacent property 15
owners when street and sidewalk extensions to abutting properties are constructed. 16
(5) Dead-End Streets. Permanently gated streets, dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are 17
prohibited unless the DRB finds that the presence of physical, right-of-way or other legal constraints, 18
incompatible land uses, or resources identified for protection under Article 10 or 12 preclude required 19
connections. 20
21
(a) Permanent dead-end streets are subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief and City 22
Engineer under these Regulations and other public works specifications and fire codes in effect at 23
the time of application. 24
25
(b) A permanent dead-end street allowed under this provision must not exceed two hundred 26
(200) feet in length measured to the center of the turnaround; and must include a turnaround 27
designed to City specifications under Appendix ___. Hammerhead turnaround designs are the 28
City’s preferred dead-end configuration. 29
30
C. Street Design. The street network must incorporate allowed Street Types under Appendix _, or as 31
specified by Zoning District, Transect Zone or type of Planned Unit Development, which are consistent with 32
the functional class and the pattern and type of development or uses to be served by the street network. 33
Streets must be designed by a Vermont licensed professional engineer, and constructed to City 34
specifications. Proposed street types and functional classifications must be identified on subdivision plans 35
submitted with the application. 36
(1) All streets, including both public and private streets, must be designed and constructed by 37
the applicant or developer to City specifications, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the DRB 38
under final subdivision approval. 39
(2) In reviewing master plan and subdivision applications, including applications for Planned Unit 40
Development under Article 15.C, the DRB has the authority to require the design and construction of 41
proposed streets to City standards; the upgrade or improvement of an existing street as necessary to 42
Commented [PC18]: Note to PC: added the
words “proportionate share” here to clean up
what had been a matter of some confusion in
the past, where it simply said “a portion.” The
section has been interpreted to mean
“proportional” in the past but this codifies
that.
Commented [PC19]: Note TO PC:
consistent with 15.12(A) but more restrictive
to match SEQ objectives.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 19 of 31
serve the proposed subdivision; and the provision of an irrevocable offer of dedication of one or more 1
streets to the City. Any action to accept an offer of dedication shall be the sole authority of the City 2
Council. 3
(3) Public Streets. The DRB shall require a street to be offered for dedication to the City as a 4
public street in accordance with the following: 5
(a) The proposed street will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining unaffiliated 6
property or to another existing, proposed, or planned public street. 7
(b) The DRB determines, upon recommendation from the Director of Public Works and 8
Planning & Zoning Director, that the significance of the proposed street within the City’s street 9
network warrants public ownership. 10
(c) Any street proposed to be public shall be built to public standards as enumerated in these 11
Regulations or associated Public Works Standards and Specifications. 12
13
(4) Private Streets. The DRB may approve, or require, a proposed street to be a private street, 14
as clearly marked on the subdivision plat and in any applicable legal documents, in accordance with 15
the following: 16
(a) The proposed street will serve lots within a commercial subdivision, master plan, or 17
Planned Unit Development 18
(b) The proposed street is a dead end street that cannot connect to an adjacent unaffiliated 19
property or street. 20
(c) Homes built on a private roadway may be required to be sprinklered to the satisfaction 21
of the South Burlington Fire Chief. All proposed sprinkler systems must be reviewed and agreed 22
upon prior to plat approval. This requirement may be waived be the DRB upon recommendation 23
by the City of South Burlington Fire Chief. 24
(5) Street Types under Appendix ___ specify standards that must be followed in designing, 25
redesigning, modifying, or reconstructing a street, except for an existing or proposed public street for 26
which there exists separate engineering plans developed by the City. Street, streetscape, or any other 27
construction or improvements within these street rights-of-way must conform to City engineering 28
plans, as modified by the Director of Public Works. 29
(6) All streets must be designed and constructed with sidewalks, greenbelts, bike facilities, 30
medians, travel lanes and on-street parking as specified for each street type, unless an acceptable 31
alternative is approved by the DRB under Subsection (7) below. The street type standard applicable 32
to a proposed street or section of roadway shall be determined by the Development Review Board, 33
in consultation with the Public Works and Planning & Zoning Departments, based on supporting 34
documentation and the following criteria: 35
(a) Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway, as shown on the Official Map or 36
the Official Zoning Map, shall be the applicable street type for purposes of these regulations. 37
(b) The street type must be listed as an eligible or allowed street type as specified by Zoning 38
District, Transect Zone Building Envelope Standard, or PUD type. 39
Commented [PC20]: Note to PC: Staff
recommends this section be accompanied by
a Resolution to be adopted by the City Council
indicating that Offers of Dedication will not be
accepted until the roadway connects to an
adjacent roadway.
Commented [PC21]: Note to PC: Staff
recommends this section be accompanied by
a Resolution to be adopted by the City Council
affirming that the City will not accept roads
private roads or roads not built to public
standards
Commented [PC22]: NOTE TO PC
Generalized from current Section 11.02 –
Street types in FBC
Commented [PC23]: NOTE TO PC From
Section 11.02 & 11.03 FBC. Proposed to
expand city-wide
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 20 of 31
(c) The proposed street must conform to the stated intent of an applicable street type and 1
intended uses and activities listed for that type. 2
(d) The street type must be consistent with planned, proposed or anticipated connections to 3
or extensions of existing streets. 4
(e) The street type must be consistent with the specified design speed and design vehicle and 5
accommodate projected traffic volumes at buildout. 6
(f) The street type, including associated facilities, must accommodate all anticipated users, 7
including motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders. 8
(g) The street type must conform to Comprehensive Plan policies, and any long range studies, 9
capital plans, and other related city planning and policy documents specific to the street, the 10
location, and the planned pattern of development in the vicinity of the subdivision. 11
12
(7) The DRB is authorized to allow modifications of City street types and standards within a 13
Subdivision, Transect Zone Subdivision or Planned Unit Development, at the request of an applicant, 14
if it finds that the proposed modification furthers stated Comprehensive Plan goals and policies 15
specific to the Zoning District, Transect Zone or PUD type in which the street is located, and that such 16
modification is consistent with provisions for public health, safety and welfare and the orderly 17
development of the City. In no case shall a public or private street have a width of less than (20) feet. 18
In making such a finding, the DRB may consider, as applicable: 19
(a) The stated reasons why a cited standard or specification cannot be achieved; 20
(b) The estimated cost of construction to meet the cited standard in relation to the total 21
project cost, and the cost of any proposed alternative, if cost is cited as a factor in the request; 22
(c) Projected traffic volumes, including projected truck, pedestrian and bicyclist traffic, and 23
the minimum standards necessary to accommodate the stated design vehicle(s); 24
(d) The compatibility of a requested modification with present and anticipated 25
improvements to adjacent street sections or connections; 26
(e) Accident data for the area, to determine the potential impact of a proposed modification 27
on safety and accident rates; and any proposed countermeasures that will be employed to reduce 28
the frequency and severity of future accidents. 29
(f) Recommendations of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Director of 30
Planning and Zoning, and City Committees, with respect to the proposed street design in relation 31
to its development context, functional classification, and the City’s ability to provide emergency 32
and other services within the proposed subdivision; 33
(g) Any other information the Board deems necessary to render a decision. 34
35
D. Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized intersection or 36
those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of service “D” or better, at the peak 37
street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In 38
Commented [PC24]: Note TO PC: combines
language under 15.A.12(E)(4) and 11.06 re
street types as currently applied only to
transect zone subdivisions.
Commented [PC25]: For Commission
Consideration: Are the requirements below
overly strenuous?
Commented [PC26]: NOTE TO PC: This
section is slated to be updated and replaced
with a project to update the City standards to
reflect the different circumstances and goals
in City Center, urban areas, and rural areas. It
is nearing completion but slightly behind this
project.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 21 of 31
addition, the level of service of each through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service 1
“D” or better at full buildout. 2
3
E. Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to 4
meet applicable access management, traffic and pedestrian circulation standards under these 5
Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 8, 6
or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access 7
Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified under 8
these Regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of streets, must be designed 9
to: 10
(1) Provide a minimum of two (2) entrances or access points from an arterial or collector street 11
to a subdivision with more than fifty (50) dwelling units on four (4) or more lots or within four (4) or 12
more principal buildings, unless otherwise approved by the DRB in consultation with the City Engineer 13
and Director of Planning & Zoning. 14
(2) Separate subdivision entrances by a minimum distance of four hundred (400) feet on either 15
side of a public street, as necessary to ensure safe access and traffic movement into and out of the 16
subdivision. Subdivision entrances on opposite sides of a public street may be allowed by the DRB if 17
substantially aligned with each other. Signalized subdivision entrances must be separated from 18
existing, signalized highway intersections (as measured between the near edges of the driveway and 19
the intersection) based on street traffic volumes: 20
21
Table 15-1: Signalized Intersection
Spacing
Projected Peak Hour Volume
(VPH per access lane)
Distance
(Feet)
Below 450 300
450-550 350
551-650 400
651-750 450
751 and greater 500
22
(3) Provide for street intersections as close to ninety (90) degrees as physically possible. 23
(4) Incorporate offset “T” intersections and other traffic calming measures as necessary to reduce 24
through traffic and traffic speeds within residential and mixed use neighborhoods and to establish 25
terminal views. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than two hundred (200) feet on local streets 26
are not allowed unless specifically approved by the DRB, in consultation with the Fire Chief and City 27
Engineer, for purposes of traffic calming. 28
(5) Provide deceleration, acceleration and turn stacking lanes as necessary to meet specified 29
Level of Service (LOS) standards under (3) above. 30
Commented [PC27]: NOTE TO PC Based on,
and expands on 15.12
Commented [PC28]: Note TO PC: intended
to clarify, substitute for existing provision
under 15.12(J) re street end alternatives—as
addressed above, for dead-end streets].
Commented [PC29]: NOTE TO PC From
15.12(I)
Commented [PC30]: Note to PC: newly
added
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 22 of 31
(6) Design intersections and other access points to City specifications under Appendix ___, to 1
include curb radii necessary to accommodate anticipated vehicle types and speeds while also 2
minimizing pedestrian crossing distances. 3
(7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, including 4
safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high- accident locations. 5
(8) Align access points with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access 6
points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible. 7
(9) Minimize vehicular access points (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along 8
pedestrian-oriented street frontage; and provide, where physically feasible, shared vehicular access to 9
frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes, shared driveways, 10
or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels. 11
F. Street Names and Signs. 12
(1) Names. Proposed streets and street names must be identified on the final subdivision plat 13
submitted with the application. Street names and numbering shall be provided and approved in 14
accordance with the City’s E-911 Ordinance. 15
(2) Signs. All street signs and posts will be provided and must be installed by the City at the 16
expense of the subdivider. Street and other highway signs must conform to the South Burlington Sign 17
Ordinance and applicable Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards in effect at 18
the time of application. 19
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Recreation Paths 20
A. Purpose and Intent. As necessary to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation 21
throughout the subdivision, and to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining 22
neighborhoods, public parks, transit stops, and other community focal points or destinations in the vicinity 23
(e.g., schools, recreation facilities, civic buildings, shopping and employment centers), the applicant must 24
demonstrate that subdivision layout and design, including the proposed street network, incorporates as 25
applicable: 26
(1) pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, as defined by Street Type under Appendix __; 27
(2) pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, and mid-block crossings that meet ADA requirements; 28
(3) interior block pedestrian passages and walkways; 29
(4) direct pedestrian access from the street to fronting building lots and civic spaces, and to 30
existing and planned transit stops; 31
(5) bicycle access to all building lots, and existing and planned transit stops; 32
(6) bicycle lanes, as incorporated by street type; and 33
(7) existing and planned pedestrian trails and multiuse recreation paths, as identified in the 34
Comprehensive Plan, or on the City’s Official Map. 35
36
C. Complete Streets. Unless otherwise specified by Zoning District, Transect Zone or PUD type, the 37
subdivision must incorporate sidewalks or recreation paths as required by Street Type under Appendix 38
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 23 of 31
___, and other City specifications, including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements as 1
applicable. 2
(1) Where a subdivision is proposed to front along an existing roadway, all elements of the 3
Street Type from the curb inward shall be installed by the applicant. 4
5
E. Pedestrian Easement. A permanent pedestrian easement twenty (20) feet in width may be 6
required by the DRB, as necessary to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the subdivision: 7
(1) Through any block that is six hundred (600) feet or more in length; 8
(2) As a continuation of a dead-end street; 9
(3) To provide direct pedestrian access to an existing or planned transit stop within or adjacent 10
to the subdivision; 11
(4) In conjunction with a utility easement. 12
13
B. Additional Easements. Additional pedestrian or recreation path easements must be reserved, as 14
indicated on subdivision plans and shown on the subdivision plat, in conformance with planned public 15
trail and recreation path systems included on the Official Map and Comprehensive Plan. 16
17
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots 18
A. Purpose. The layout and configuration of blocks and building lots in relation to the street network 19
establishes the overall pattern of development, including the creation or extension of walkable, 20
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and mixed use developments. As such, the configuration of blocks and 21
building lots represent a fundamental component of subdivision design. Accordingly, the applicant must 22
demonstrate that the proposed subdivision incorporates: 23
(1) A street layout or grid under 15.A.14 above that establishes blocks that meet required block 24
standards under these Regulations, including interconnected, walkable blocks and neighborhoods in 25
all residential and mixed use zoning districts, or as specified by Transect Zone under Article 8 or by PUD 26
type under Article 15.C. 27
(2) Blocks that are configured to accommodate and provide access to building lots that comply 28
with these Regulations. 29
(3) Block faces and building lots that, where feasible, are oriented to maximize solar access and 30
gain; 31
(4) Regularly shaped building lots that front on, and minimize lot frontage or width along 32
abutting streets; 33
(5) Required civic spaces, parking lots or structures, and utility corridors and other facilities or 34
easements that are intended to be held, managed and maintained in single or common ownership. 35
B. Blocks. In all Zoning Districts except the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection, Mixed 36
Industrial/Commercial, Industrial-Open Space, Airport, Airport Industrial, Institutional Agricultural, Park 37
and Recreation, and Form Based Code District, a major subdivision with a contiguous developable area of 38
four (4) or more acres must incorporate one or more blocks defined by intersecting street rights-of-way or 39
Commented [PC31]: Note to PC: added to
be consistent with FBC standards.
Commented [PC32]: NOTE TO PC From
15.12(M)(5)
Commented [PC33]: Energy Committee
Recommendation
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 24 of 31
other defining features such as a lake or river, railway, historic feature, or permanently conserved land. 1
Block configurations must be designed meet the following requirements: 2
(1) Blocks must be of sufficient developable area, length and width to accommodate building lots 3
that meet zoning district, transect zone (building envelope standards) or PUD standards with regard 4
to intended use, lot size and dimensions and, where applicable, proposed building types. 5
(2) A rectangular block configuration that accommodates two tiers of building lots that front on 6
abutting streets (which may be accessed by a rear alley) is the preferred block configuration; however 7
a square block configuration that incorporates a shared interior parking area, parking facility, or 8
courtyard is also acceptable. 9
(3) The DRB may also allow a trapezoidal, triangular or other block configuration as necessary to 10
accommodate existing physical, resource protection, or right-of-way constraints, or to create a design 11
focal point to a neighborhood, to the extent that such a configuration otherwise meets applicable 12
block length and perimeter requirements, and can accommodate regularly shaped building lots that 13
front on at least one abutting street. 14
(4) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, or as approved by the DRB under 15
15.A.01(B); in order to ensure and maintain a pedestrian-oriented scale of development within 16
residential and mixed use subdivisions: 17
(a) The block perimeter must not exceed 2,000 feet 18
(b) The minimum block length allowed is 200 feet; and 19
(c) The average block length (for all block sides or faces) must not exceed 500 feet. 20
(5) The DRB may require, per (C)(3) above, a mid-block pedestrian easement for any block that 21
exceeds 600 feet in length, as necessary to provide more direct and convenient pedestrian access, 22
connections and circulation. 23
B. Lots. All lots must be laid out to logically relate to topography and their intended use or purpose. 24
Building lots must be laid out within existing and planned street and block configurations, in such a way 25
that they can be developed in full compliance with their intended use and these Regulations. Unless 26
otherwise specified under these Regulations as applicable to the subdivision: 27
(1) All proposed lots must be numbered, as shown on subdivision plans and plats. 28
(2) The arrangement and configuration of lots must allow for the further subdivision of any 29
remaining developable land on the tract or parcel to be subdivided. Where proposed building lots 30
exceed minimum lot area requirements, the DRB may require that such lots be configured and 31
developed in a manner that allows for further subdivision and infill development. 32
(3) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the 33
total buildable area within the developed portion of any Major Subdivision exceeding two acres in size 34
must be allocated to functionally integrated civic space lots, as shown on the subdivision plan and plat. 35
(a) Required civic space must incorporate one or more allowed Civic Space Types under 36
Appendix ___ and meet associated type requirements. 37
Commented [PC34]: Note to PC: Per
Commission discussion and direction 9/2020
Commented [PC35]: Note to PC: Based on
current SEQ standards
Commented [PC36]: For PC Discussion:
proposed addition setting a minimum
standard for Civic Space Standard. 10% is fairly
common place and is consistent with current
SEQ standards (7.5 acres per 1,000
population) and Comprehensive Plan goals
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 25 of 31
(b) Designated civic space lots must have frontage on or pedestrian access from an abutting 1
street. The entrance to a civic space that does not front on an abutting street must be readily 2
visible, apparent, and accessible from the street. 3
(4) The arrangement and configuration of building lots within the subdivision must be consistent 4
with the intended use, street type, and the planned pattern of development for the Zoning District, 5
Transect Zone or PUD type in which the subdivision is located, including the existing or planned street 6
and block network. 7
(5) All building lots must front on a public or private street, a designated civic space, or a shared 8
courtyard with pedestrian access to the abutting street. 9
(6) Building lots must be configured to comply with all relevant lot area, dimensional and lot 10
coverage requirements under these Regulations, including as appliable: 11
• Lot requirements under Section 3.05; 12
• Setback and buffer requirements under Section 3.06; 13
• Lot requirements specific to an allowed use under Article 13; 14
• Zoning district dimensional standards under Appendix C-2; 15
• Transect Zone Building Envelope Standards under Article 8; 16
• SEQ Subdistrict standards under Article 9; and 17
• PUD or Building Type standards under Article 15.C and Appendix __. 18
(7) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, building lots must have sufficient 19
developable area to accommodate proposed building types, associated yard or other required open 20
space areas, site drainage, utilities, or other improvements required under these Regulations, including 21
site plan standards under Article 14. 22
(8) A building lot generally must be rectangular in shape, with side lot lines that are perpendicular 23
or radial to the abutting street, and rear lot lines that parallel the street, except as necessary to 24
accommodate existing rights-of-way or other physical site constraints (see Figure 2-1, Lots, Yards and 25
Lot Lines). Irregular or oddly shaped building lots, including flag and through lots, are prohibited, 26
except for: 27
(a) A flag lot, with a minimum of fifteen (15) feet of frontage on the abutting street, as 28
necessary to accommodate a back-lot subdivision and infill development within an existing 29
subdivision, block pattern, or development; 30
(b) A triangular or trapezoidal building lot defined by abutting streets that otherwise has 31
sufficient street frontage and lot area to meet minimum lot requirements; or 32
(c) A through lot with frontage on two parallel or intersecting streets that cannot be further 33
subdivided under minimum lot requirements, provided that front setback requirements can be met 34
on both streets. 35
(d) Building should be oriented and configured to minimize lot width (frontage) along the 36
street. The preferred building lot width to depth ratio is 1:2; however a ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 may be 37
allowed as necessary to accommodate physical site constraints, stormwater drainage, or rear lot 38
access and parking. 39
Commented [PC37]: NOTE TO PC Based on
current SEQ standards, slightly adjusted to be
more flexible.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 26 of 31
1
(9) Building lots must be configured to avoid or, where necessary, minimize rear lot lines that abut 2
side lot lines. Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, corner lots must be configured to 3
meet lot frontage and front setback or build-to-zone requirements on all abutting streets. 4
(10) Temporary or permanent surface parking lots, where parking is the principal use, must at 5
minimum meet the minimum lot area requirement applicable to building lots, to allow for future 6
parking lot redevelopment. Such lots must also be shown on subdivision plans and plats submitted 7
with the application. 8
9
15.A.17 Utilities and Services 10
A. Capacity of Community Facilities, Utilities and Services. The applicant must demonstrate that 11
the proposed subdivision and development will not exceed the existing or planned capacity of, or cause a 12
disproportionate or unreasonable burden on City facilities, utilities and services, including: 13
• Public schools, 14
• Police, fire protection and ambulance services, 15
• Street infrastructure and maintenance, 16
• Parks and recreation facilities, and 17
• Water supply, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management systems and infrastructure. 18
B. Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Systems. The applicant must demonstrate that adequate 19
potable water supply and wastewater facilities exist to serve the subdivision at buildout, and for each 20
phase of development, in accordance with the following: 21
(1) A subdivision within the City’s public water supply and wastewater system service areas must 22
be connected to municipal systems unless physical constraints preclude such connection. For the 23
sewer system this includes any area located within the City Center Service Area, or within 200 feet of 24
an existing sewer line. Each building lot within the subdivision must be served by the municipal 25
system as required under the City’s Water Ordinance, and South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the 26
Use of Public and Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems, as most recently amended. 27
(2) Private community or other onsite systems are not permitted within the City’s existing public 28
water supply and sewer service areas. A community system outside of an existing service area may 29
be allowed only with approval from the DRB, the Department of Public Works and the Vermont 30
Department of Environmental Conservation, under the Department’s Environmental Protection Rules. 31
The applicant must demonstrate that a community system has been designed in accordance with City 32
and state standards, and to eventually connect to the municipal system. 33
(3) Existing or planned water supply and wastewater system capacity must be adequate to meet 34
total water demand and wastewater flows at buildout, and for each phase of development, as 35
evidenced by City allocations of available reserve capacity for projects connecting to municipal 36
systems. The applicant must apply to the Department for a preliminary allocation of available 37
uncommitted water and wastewater system reserve capacity in advance of preliminary subdivision 38
review. 39
Commented [PC38]: NOTE TO PC Per
Section 3.05
Commented [PC39]: NOTE TO PC Currently
15.13, 15.18, and generally updated.
Commented [PC40]: Note TO PC: These
sections have been updated to also
incorporate provisions under other city
ordinances relevant to subdivisions
Commented [PC41]: Note to PC: Added for
clarity
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 27 of 31
(a) Preliminary capacity determinations are not binding on the City but may be used by the 1
applicant and DRB to determine that system reserve capacity, at the time of application, is 2
sufficient to serve the proposed subdivision. Final capacity allocations will be issued by the 3
Department only after the DRB issues final subdivision approval. 4
(b) Capacity allocations are not transferrable, and unused allocations expire with the 5
expiration of final subdivision approval, or within (5) years of the date of issuance, unless a one-6
time extension of up to five (5) years is requested and approved by the Department. 7
(4) Proposed mains, distribution lines and connections to the City’s water distribution and 8
wastewater systems, and associated equipment and appurtenances, must be designed to City 9
specifications by a Vermont registered engineer, and are subject to review and approval by the Public 10
Works Department. 11
(5) Utility corridors and easements must be shown on subdivision plans and plats submitted with 12
the application. Water and sewer mains must be located within the limits of public rights-of-way or, 13
with approval of the DRB and the Department of Public Works: 14
(a) within other property owned by the City; or 15
(b) within a restrictive, perpetual utility easement granted to the City which is of sufficient 16
width to allow Department access for maintenance and repair work. 17
(6) Sufficient water system pressure must be maintained throughout the subdivision, to serve all 18
building lots and to provide for adequate fire protection. 19
(7) A water or sewer main must extend across the entire property, to the adjoining property line, 20
to allow for future extensions through adjoining properties. 21
(8) The DRB, in consultation with the Department of Public Works and Planning & Zoning 22
Department, may also request that the applicant overdesign required system improvements, 23
including pipes and pumping stations, as necessary to also serve adjoining parcels, or to comply with 24
planned system improvements, subject to review and approval by the City Council. 25
(a) If requested improvements are approved by the City Council in advance of preliminary or 26
final subdivision approval, system infrastructure must be installed by the applicant as approved, 27
and the City shall reimburse the applicant or developer for the difference in cost. 28
(b) If the City Council does not approve requested improvements, the applicant will not be 29
required to comply with the DRB or Department request. 30
C. Fire Protection. The subdivision must be laid out to ensure that adequate fire protection can be 31
provided in accordance with City specifications. 32
(a) Subdivision layout and design must also comply with applicable City and state public safety 33
and fire codes in effect at the time of application, including standards for minimum separation 34
distances between structures, street width, water flow and pressure, fire hydrant installation, 35
sprinkler systems, and emergency vehicle access. 36
(b) Fire hydrants connected to the municipal water system must be located and designed to meet 37
City specifications, as recommended by the Department of Public Works and City Fire Marshal. For a 38
subdivision that is not connected to the municipal system, the DRB may require the subdivider to install 39
Commented [PC42]: NOTE TO PC Paul
removed an operational statement about City
maintaining systems before they are taken
over.
Commented [PC43]: NOTE TO PC From
15.18(7)
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 28 of 31
hydrants, fire ponds or other measures necessary to provide adequate fire protection, as 1
recommended by the Fire Marshall. 2
D. Stormwater Facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that stormwater management system 3
serving the subdivision has been designed to meet City standards and specifications under Article 12 of 4
these regulations, the South Burlington Ordinance Regulating the use of Public and Private Sanitary 5
Sewerage and Stormwater Systems. 6
E. Utilities and Services. The applicant must demonstrate that subdivision design has been 7
coordinated with utility companies serving the proposed subdivision, as necessary for the DRB to 8
determine that adequate service capacity exists and that the areas identified for utility installation, on 9
subdivision plans and plat, meet the requirements of these Regulations. 10
(1) Utility connections must be provided to each building lot, and to other subdivision lots on 11
which service is necessary or required. 12
(2) Utilities must be located within street rights-of-way, or within permanent utility access and 13
maintenance easements identified on subdivision plans and plats. 14
(3) New electrical, natural gas, telephone, internet, cable television, and outdoor lighting systems 15
must be installed underground, unless prevented by ledge or other physical constraints that make 16
burying utility lines impractical. 17
(4) Utility lines or corridors must be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with 18
the extension of utilities and services to adjacent properties. 19
F. Street and Sidewalk Lighting. Where provided along local and collector streets, street and 20
sidewalk lighting must be pedestrian-scaled (e.g., 12 to 14 feet in height) to ensure pedestrian safety 21
traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the development 22
patterns and character of the neighborhood, with smooth levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) 23
and light trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. 24
G. Renewable Energy Facilities. The applicant must demonstrate that, to the extent physically 25
feasible, reasonable, and as appropriate to its development context, the subdivision has been designed to 26
incorporate best practices that maintain access to and use of renewable energy resources. , e.g., to include 27
one or more of the following as indicated on subdivision plans and plats: 28
(1) Street and building lots that are oriented to maximize solar access and gain, for passive solar 29
construction or rooftop solar installations. 30
(2) Parking lots or structures that are designed and constructed to accommodate electric vehicle 31
infrastructure, including charging stations and solar canopies or rooftop solar installations. 32
(3) One or more suitable open areas (“solar lots”) within the subdivision that are specifically 33
designated for a ground-mounted community or neighborhood solar installation. 34
(4) Solar access easements, as necessary to maintain solar access across adjoining building lots 35
or properties. 36
(5) Covenants, deed restrictions or other legal mechanisms that require “solar-ready” 37
construction within the subdivision. 38
Commented [PC44]: Note to PC: Moved
from SEQ standards and modified slightly.
Commented [SM45R44]: Is this lighting
provision required or optional (per “where
provided”) —e.g., under Street Type
Standards? Clarification needed…
Commented [PC46]: For Planning
Commission consideration based on meeting
with the Energy Committee. This could be a
“should” or a “must”
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 29 of 31
1
15.A.18 Required Improvements 2
3
A. General Standards. All required improvements must be designed and installed in accordance 4
with the design standards, development requirements, specifications and procedures set forth in these 5
Regulations and other applicable City regulations and standards. Typical plans and sections are attached 6
to these Regulations. Installation and design standards apply to both public and privately owned required 7
improvements. Proposed privately owned streets and other improvements shall be marked as such on 8
the final plat. 9
B. Reference Monuments. Permanent reference monuments, as shown on the final subdivision plat, 10
must be set in concrete for all corners and angle points of the boundaries of the subdivision and as 11
required by the City Engineer for new roads. Lot corner markers shall be set at corners and angle points 12
of all lots, plots, or parcels, and located in the ground to finish grade. 13
C. Modification of Design or Improvements. If at any time after approval before or during the 14
construction of the required improvements, the subdivider demonstrates that unforeseen conditions 15
make it necessary or preferable to modify the location or design of structures, utility cabinets, curb cuts, 16
roads, parking lots, lighting, or landscaping, such minor alterations may be authorized by the 17
Administrative Officer pursuant to the standards in Section 14.05(I) for as-built plans and field changes, 18
upon the advice of the City Engineer. Such authorization may be provided if the proposed changes are 19
within the spirit and intent of the Development Review Board's approval and that they do not waive or 20
substantially alter the function of any improvements previously required by the Development Review 21
Board. The modification of minor engineering or construction details or improvements may be authorized 22
by the City Engineer without further approval, provided such changes do not alter the approved function, 23
location or design of structures, curb cuts, roads, or parking lots. 24
D. Inspection of Improvements. The City Engineer may, at their discretion, may perform inspections 25
as needed during the installation of required improvements to verify the satisfactory completion of 26
required work. 27
E. Proper Installation of Public Facilities and Improvements. Prior to the release of any bond, 28
escrow account, or letter of credit pursuant to Section 15.A.19, the subdivider or developer must submit 29
to the City Engineer as-built construction drawings, certified by a licensed engineer. The City Engineer 30
shall then inspect the required public facilities and improvements. In the event deficiencies are found and 31
are not remedied by the subdivider or developer, the Administrative Officer shall notify the holder of the 32
surety and take all necessary steps to preserve the City's rights under any performance bond, escrow 33
account, or letter of credit. 34
F. Acceptance of Required Improvements. The City Council is not obliged to accept any public street, 35
facility, or improvement. City acceptance of proposed public streets and required public facilities and 36
improvements must conform to procedures established by the City Council. Acceptance shall not take 37
place until after the City Engineer has determined that required public facilities and improvements have 38
been satisfactorily completed and after all bonds, escrow accounts or letters of credit, other than an 39
amount that may be required to cover maintenance and guarantee work for a two-year period, have been 40
Commented [PC47]: Note TO PC:
streamlined from current requirements
following consultation with DPW.
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 30 of 31
released or closed. 1
2
15.A.19 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit 3
4
A. Public Facilities and Improvements. 5
(1) Public facilities and improvements under this Article shall include, without limitation, streets, 6
sidewalks, recreation paths, curbing, water and sewer mains and pipes, stormwater infrastructure, 7
pipes and catch basins, fire hydrants, parks, recreational facilities and other improvements which are 8
public or are intended to become public. 9
(2) Before the issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer must furnish 10
the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient 11
to cover the full costs of all proposed public facilities and improvements and ancillary site 12
improvements and their maintenance for two years after completion. 13
(3) Term. Such bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run until the City Engineer has 14
deemed the work to be complete in accordance with City approvals and regulations and for two (2) 15
years thereafter, but in no case for a longer term than three (3) years. However, with the consent of 16
the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, escrow account or letter of credit may 17
be extended for an additional period not to exceed three (3) years. If any public facilities and 18
improvements have not been installed or maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow 19
account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit 20
shall be forfeited to the City. 21
(4) Partial Release. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that a phase of the construction 22
of public facilities and improvements is complete as provided in Article 15.A.18(E), the Administrative 23
Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve a partial release of the amount of the bond, 24
escrow account or letter of credit equivalent to the phase or portion of the completed construction, 25
up to a maximum of 90% of the original amount. Any amounts that the City Treasurer releases shall 26
not exceed the proportion of the total project that has been built, up to a maximum of 90% of the 27
original amount. The remaining 10% of the original amount of the bond, escrow account or letter of 28
credit only shall be released upon the determination of the City Engineer that the public facilities and 29
improvements have been maintained for two years after the City Engineer determined the public 30
facilities and improvements to be complete. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that the 31
public facilities and improvements have been maintained as provided within the term of the bond, 32
escrow account or letter of credit, the Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer 33
approve the release of the remaining 10% of the original amount. 34
B. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit required by these Regulations, including 35
but not limited to Landscaping and Site Restorations or rehabilitation, Earth Products and required 36
demolition and removal of buildings. 37
(1) Before issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer shall furnish the 38
City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to 39
guarantee all landscaping and plantings as required under Article 14, and any site restorations or 40
rehabilitations as required under Article 3 or Article 13, for a period as described in this section. 41
Article 15.A Subdivision Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
Page 31 of 31
(a) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less, no 1
performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be required. 2
(b) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of over $10,000, the 3
required amount for performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be $10,000, plus 4
fifty percent (50%) of the landscaping budget amount over $10,000. Example: a development with 5
a total required landscaping budget of $20,000 shall have a performance bond, escrow account, 6
or letter of credit of not less than $15,000. 7
(2) Term for Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit for demolition and removal of 8
buildings required by Article 3.09. Bonds, escrow accounts or letters of credit for the demolition and 9
removal of a principal building upon the construction and occupancy of a new principal building, as 10
required by Article 3.09 of these Regulations, shall run for a period of two (2) years. The 11
Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve the release of the bond, 12
escrow account or letter of credit upon a demonstration of compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3). If an 13
applicant, subdivider or developer does not demonstrate compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3) as 14
provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit, then the amount secured by 15
the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. 16
(3) Term for Other Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit required by Articles 3, 13 and 17
14 and 15. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run for a period of three (3) 18
years. However, with the consent of the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, 19
escrow account or letter of credit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed three years. 20
If any required work has not been constructed, installed or maintained as provided within the term 21
of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account 22
or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. 23
C. Bond Amounts. The amount of such bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be established 24
by the Development Review Board and shall be equal to: 100% of the estimated project costs for public 25
facilities and improvements, plus a 15% contingency; or 100% of the estimated project costs for all other 26
types of bonds required by these Regulations. The applicant, subdivider or developer shall be responsible 27
for providing accurate cost estimates. Where amounts are not specified by these Regulations, the City 28
Engineer shall review all cost estimates and provide a recommendation to the Board. The Board may 29
invoke technical review to confirm the accuracy of estimates. 30
D. Form of Bonds, Other Sureties. The form of any such bond, escrow account, or letter of credit 31
shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Council and shall include procedures for the City to make 32
use of such funds in accordance with 24 VSA § 4464. 33
E. "As-built" construction drawings and plans shall be submitted in paper and digital form to, and 34
approved by, the City Engineer, prior to the release of any bonds, or portions thereof, for the installation 35
of all required improvements. 36
15.B MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Notes: 1
1. This Article has been prepared as a complete replacement of the current Master Plan provisions 2
of Article 15. 3
2. Subdivision and Planned Unit Development are prepared as separate articles, 15A and 15C 4
5
15.B.01 Purpose 6
15.B.02 Applicability 7
15.B.03 Review Process 8
15.B.04 Master Plan Components 9
15.B.05 Review Standards 10
15.B.06 Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment 11
12
15.B.01 Purpose 13
14
For purposes of these Regulations a master development plan, or “Master Plan,” is a plan for the 15
integrated, long-term development of a tract of land which prescribes the overall pattern, type, density, 16
form and timing of development, consistent with applicable regulations, the City’s adopted Capital 17
Improvement Program, and Official Map. Master plan review and approval by the Development Review 18
Board (DRB) is intended to: 19
20
• Establish the framework for the orderly, well-planned and integrated development of large tracts 21
of land, and land subdivision and development projects that occur over an extended period; 22
• Identify and address the cumulative and overall impacts of more complex or phased development 23
on the planned pattern and density of development, resources identified for protection under 24
Articles 10 and 12, municipal infrastructure, and existing and planned community facilities and 25
services; 26
• Ensure that the location, timing and rate of proposed development does not exceed the ability 27
of the City to provide municipal infrastructure, facilities and services in an efficient and cost-28
effective manner; 29
• Serve as the basis for development phasing, by specifying the timing and sequence of 30
development in relation to existing and planned infrastructure capacity, required improvements, 31
and the provision of open space, including civic spaces and other public amenities; 32
• Define and clarify respective interests, roles, responsibilities, and management structures for 33
project development under the Master Plan, and for long-term management and maintenance. 34
• Provide assurances to the City, neighbors and other interested parties that subsequent 35
development will be consistent with the approved master plan; and 36
• Provide assurances to the applicant, investors, and developers that, for the duration of the 37
approved master plan, development consistent with the plan may proceed under regulations in 38
effect at the time of master plan approval. 39
40
15.B.02 Applicability 41
42
Commented [PC1]: Note to PC: Master plan
approval is currently required under § 15.07
for 1) land development involving ten or more
acres; 2) development of more than ten
dwelling units in the SEQ; and 3) Development
of more than ten units in a five-year period in
the R1-Lakeshore District.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
2
(A) Required Approval. A Master Plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to site plan 1
or preliminary subdivision review for: 2
(1) Subdivision of development involving four (4) or more contiguous acres, except for a Transect 3
Subdivision within the City Center Form Based Code District;. 4
(2) Subdivision or land development proposed to occur over two (2) or more phases, or three (3) 5
or more years. 6
(3) A Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C, except for a small infill PUD as defined and 7
exempted under Section ___. 8
(4) [Other – e.g., projects with multiple principal buildings/lot, projects >= “x” DUs or GSF?]. 9
(5) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract of land where there 10
exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond what may be presented in an 11
application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed 12
and potential future development. 13
(B) Elective Review. An applicant may request master plan review for any project that involves two 14
(2) or more acres in any zoning district, except within the City Center FBC District. 15
16
17
18
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process 19
The following procedures apply to any subdivision or development project for which Master Plan review 20
is requested or required: 21
(A) Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review. An applicant must submit a sketch plan for review and 22
follow the procedures and submittal requirements of Section 15.A.04. If master plan review is requested 23
or required, the applicant must then file an application for master plan approval within six (6) months of 24
the final DRB sketch plan review meeting. The Master Plan must generally conform to the layout shown 25
on the sketch plan, and incorporate recommendations made by the DRB. 26
(B) Master Plan Application. The applicant must submit a Master Plan that includes the components 27
described under (D) below; and specific submission requirements as listed in Appendix E, Submission 28
Requirements. The applicant must meet with Planning & Zoning Department Staff to review application 29
requirements, relevant codes and standards, and proposed phasing schedules, prior to submitting a 30
formal application. 31
(C) Combined Review. At the applicant’s request, master plan review may be combined with 32
preliminary subdivision or site plan review for the entire development or a discrete portion or phase of 33
the proposed development. Any land proposed for development for which master plan review is secured 34
without preliminary subdivision or site plan review shall require preliminary subdivision or site plan review 35
and approval prior to final review unless the DRB has waived the preliminary subdivision stage of review 36
in an approved master plan. The DRB may review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary 37
subdivision or site plan review simultaneously, and shall issue separate findings of fact under each. 38
Commented [PC2]: For PC Discussion:
Currently there is no PUD or Master Plan in
the City Center FBC District. This tool could be
used to establish a Master Plan if appropriate,
in the future. Perhaps refer to the FBC Sub-
committee?
Commented [PC3]: Note to PC: This
threshold still to be established.
Commented [PC4]: Note to PC: currently as
specified for “elective PUD review,” except for
parcels of land less than two acres in the R1,
R1-LV, R2, R4 and LN Districts.
Commented [PC5]: Note to PC: Note:
reflects current requirements under 15.06.C.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
3
Findings of fact pertaining to the Master Plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all 1
subsequent preliminary subdivision or site plan applications made pursuant to master plan approval. 2
(D) Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant for master plan review must conduct at least one (1) 3
neighborhood meeting in the neighborhood in which the project is located, the costs of which are to be 4
borne by the applicant. The purpose of this meeting is to present the pending proposal, provide an 5
opportunity for public questions and comments, and to allow the applicant to identify and address 6
potential neighborhood concerns in advance of the formal hearing process. 7
(1) The neighborhood meeting must be held within thirty (30) calendar days of filing a complete 8
application, and no less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the first public hearing. 9
(2) The meeting should be held on a weekday evening or Saturday and in an ADA-accessible 10
public building in the City of South Burlington; 11
(3) The meeting should include an overview of the project by the applicant, an opportunity for 12
all members of the public in attendance to offer oral input, and acceptance of any written input. 13
(4) The meeting should not be held on the same day as a regularly scheduled Development 14
Review Board or City Council meeting. 15
(5) A meeting invitation that includes a brief project description, and the date, time and location 16
of the neighborhood meeting must be posted on the development site, and sent by regular mail to all 17
property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed development at least seven (7) calendar days prior 18
to the meeting date. A digital copy of the meeting notice must also be provided to the Administrative 19
Officer in advance for posting and forwarding to the City’s notice list. 20
(6) Following the meeting, the applicant must submit the meeting attendance list and meeting 21
minutes to the Administrative Officer for inclusion in the public hearing record. 22
(E) Public Hearing. Following the submission of a complete application, the Administrative Officer 23
must schedule and the DRB must hold a warned public hearing on the application, as required under 24 24
V.S.A. §§ 4463 and 4464 and Section 17.08(F) of these Regulations. 25
26
15.B.04 Master Plan Components 27
A Master Plan required under this section must include all components listed below and in Appendix E, 28
Submission Requirements, unless waived by the DRB because they are not applicable, to be presented in 29
narrative, graphic, and tabular form. 30
31
(1) Project Description. A map, narrative and accompanying table(s) that describe: 32
• The overall vision for and scope of the proposed development; 33
• The land area and properties to be included under each phase of development; 34
Note! The greater the level of detail provided in the Master Plan, the less need for extensive review
of subsequent phases of development. Conversely, the more general the details provided, the greater
the level of information and review that may be required by the DRB for subsequent phases of
development.
Commented [PC6]: For discussion by the
PC. Modelled after the City Center FBC (where
no DRB hearing takes place)
Commented [PC7]: For PC discussion: the
objective here is positive but logistically this
may be difficult. Perhaps an alternative
requirement such as a newspaper ad or
other?
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
4
• Current property ownership and contact information; 1
• Current zoning district designations; 2
• Project consistency with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations; and 3
• Requested modifications or waivers, as allowed under applicable regulations. 4
5
(2) Context Report. A map and accompanying narrative that describe the area proposed for 6
development in relation to the surrounding neighborhood, and to existing and planned City facilities, 7
services, and infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, to include: 8
• Existing parcels, and existing and planned streets, recreation paths, transit routes, buildings, 9
land uses, open spaces and community facilities located within ½-mile of project boundaries; 10
• Proposed street, recreation path, transit, infrastructure and open space connections between 11
existing, planned and proposed development; and 12
• A description of how concerns raised in the neighborhood meeting will be addressed. 13
14
(3) Existing Conditions Report. A Site Conditions Map for the entire tract and accompanying 15
narrative that depict and describe: 16
• Existing topographic conditions, including elevation contours, surface waters, wetlands and 17
other natural features; 18
• Environmental resources identified for protection under Articles 10 and 12, or otherwise 19
regulated by the City; 20
• Existing streets, rights-of-way and utility corridors; and 21
• Existing land uses and structures, including any historic sites or structures listed or eligible for 22
listing on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places. 23
24
(A) Development Plan. One or more maps and an accompanying narrative that depict and 25
describe the overall pattern, density and type of development proposed for the entire project, and for 26
each phase of development, to include: 27
• Environmental resource areas identified for protection, consistent with adopted Environmental 28
Protection Standards under Articles 10 and 12; 29
• Designated open space areas, including any land areas to be set aside for renewable energy 30
production; 31
• The proposed street grid within and connecting each phase of development, including the 32
location of major streets by street type, and any existing rights-of-way, easements or intersections 33
identified for relocation; 34
• Proposed recreation paths, transit routes, and infrastructure and utility corridors between and 35
serving each phase of development; 36
• Designated development areas, including land use allocation areas by proposed use type(s), and 37
associated acreages for each; at minimum to include designated residential areas, nonresidential 38
areas, mixed use areas, civic spaces, and principal or shared parking areas. 39
Commented [PC8]: Note to PC: This Section
would require the applicant to provide an
assessment of the project’s context.
Commented [PC9]: Note to PC: this is
intended to be shown as maps and
accompanying narrative.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
5
• Proposed transition areas along the project perimeter, in which proposed development will be 1
integrated with or buffered from adjoining properties and development; 2
• Existing buildings to be incorporated in proposed development or redevelopment; and 3
• Public and private transportation, infrastructure and utility improvements necessary to 4
accommodate each phase of development, and the entire project buildout, to include any 5
improvements proposed for future public dedication, consistent with the City’s adopted Official 6
Map. 7
8
(B) Summary Statistics. The following project statistics, presented in an easy to reference tabular 9
format, must be provided for the entire tract or project area, and for each phase of development unless 10
waived by the DRB: 11
• Total acreage; 12
• Open space acreage by open space or environmental resource type; 13
• Development acreage by land use or building type for each designated development area, 14
excluding proposed streets, but including the acreage of designated principal or shared civic 15
spaces and parking areas; 16
• Number of proposed dwelling units by housing or building type; 17
• Gross square feet of building floor area by use or building type for nonresidential and mixed use 18
development; and 19
• Other statistics or data required by the DRB as necessary to determine conformance with 20
relevant standards under these Regulations. 21
22
(C) Buildout Analysis and Budget. Based on projections provided under (E) above, the applicant 23
must also provide an analysis for each of the following based on total projected demand at buildout, and 24
as allocated for each phase of development, for use in determining the project’s total buildout budget: 25
• Minimum and maximum acreage allocations by use type, as percentages of designated 26
development acreage; 27
• Gross and net development densities by use type; 28
• Minimum number or percentage of affordable housing units required per designated residential 29
and mixed-use development area and phasing plan for proposed units, as applicable pursuant to 30
Article 18; 31
• Minimum acreage or percentage of civic space required per designated development area; 32
• Maximum peak hour trip generation rates, by use type; 33
• Maximum water supply and wastewater system demand, by use type; 34
• Maximum total impervious surface (percentage, total square footage) and projected volume of 35
stormwater runoff per designated development area; and 36
• Other measures or parameters required by the DRB as necessary to identify and limit the 37
projected impacts of development on municipal facilities, infrastructure and services, and 38
properties and uses within the vicinity of the project. 39
40
Commented [PC10]: Note to PC: These are
intended to be provided in table-format at this
Master Plan Stage.
Commented [PC11]: Note to PC: this
information is based on the above and
becomes the foundation for the decision and
future amendments.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
6
(D) Design Standards. The application must include proposed standards, specifications, illustrations, 1
best management practices, or other forms of guidance for the following, consistent with City regulations 2
in effect at the time of Master Plan approval, as applicable to all subsequent development under the 3
Master Plan: 4
• Environmental resource protections for identified resources, consistent with associated standards 5
and accepted mitigation measures under Articles 10 and 12. 6
• The mix or allocation of land uses, as specified for each phase of development; 7
• Typical street cross-sections by Street Type, as referenced under Appendix ___; 8
• Typical open space types, including designated civic space types, as referenced under Appendix 9
__; 10
• Typical block and building lot dimensions and configurations, consistent with applicable 11
subdivision and zoning regulations, and zoning district or PUD type, and for designated transition 12
areas as necessary to complement or match the adjoining pattern of development; 13
• Typical building types, as applicable and referenced under Appendix ___, including proposed 14
housing types, and elevations; 15
• Building height and setback standards as applicable by zoning district, PUD or building type; and 16
for designated transition areas as necessary to complement or match the adjoining the form of 17
development; 18
• Parking specifications for on-site, off-site, and on-street parking areas, needed to serve 19
proposed development; 20
• Setbacks, buffering, screening or other mitigation measures necessary to separate incompatible 21
land uses, particularly within designated transition areas; 22
• Overall lighting plan, including typical fixtures, consistent with relevant lighting requirements 23
under Section 13.07 and Appendix D; 24
• Landscaping and screening specifications, consistent with relevant landscaping standards under 25
Section 13.06; 26
• Specifications for the siting and design of new buildings, and the retrofit of existing buildings, as 27
necessary to meet applicable energy standards under Section 3.15, and to promote renewable 28
energy installations; and 29
• Any additional architectural or design guidance for each type or phase of development, and for 30
proposed transition areas, that is intended to integrate existing and new forms of development, 31
and to ensure coordinated and cohesive forms of phased development; 32
33
(E) Phasing Plan. The application must include a narrative or table and map that clearly identify, 34
describe and depict each phase of development, including properties included, designated development 35
areas by use type, major streets, supporting infrastructure and facility improvements, civic spaces, and 36
other public amenities to be provided prior to or in association with each phase; and a schedule for the 37
timing and sequence of development over the period covered by the Master Plan, consistent with the 38
City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program and Official Map. Each phase should account for at least 39
20 percent of the total project area or expected buildout in units/SF, incorporate one or more distinct 40
areas identified for coordinated development and management, and the infrastructure and facilities 41
Commented [PC12]: Note to PC: This
section is intended to establish the design
standards that will direct the project through
all of the remaining stages of review. The DRB
has the authority to approve a design, to vest
the standards in the current regulations, or to
determine that the element must be reviewed
under the regulations in place at the time of
the subsequent review. Applicants are
therefore incentivized to make commitments
early on in order to be vested.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
7
necessary to support that phase of development. Any temporary or interim structures or uses (e.g., 1
buildings, parking, construction or staging areas) intended for conversion or redevelopment in a 2
subsequent phase should also be identified in the phasing plan. 3
4
(F) Management Plan. A narrative description of the proposed management structure 5
responsible for project development, to include all principals or entities with direct control over and 6
responsibility for the financing, permitting, construction, and completion of development under the 7
Master Plan; and, following project completion, for long-term ownership, management, operation, and 8
maintenance of capital and community assets. The management plan must also clearly identify any 9
streets, infrastructure, facilities, civic or other open spaces proposed for public dedication under each 10
phase of development, consistent with the City’s adopted Official Map and Capital Improvement Plan, for 11
consideration in subsequent DRB conditions of approval or development agreements to be approved by 12
the City Council. 13
15.B.05 Review Standards 14
(A) Findings. For Master Plan approval, the DRB must find that: 15
(1) The Master Plan includes all the components required under D above, unless specifically 16
waived by the DRB, in enough detail to provide the framework and standards for future development 17
under the plan; 18
(2) The overall type, pattern and density of development, and allocation of land uses, are 19
consistent with these Regulations and other City regulations in effect at the time of application, 20
including relevant subdivision, zoning district or planned unit development standards; 21
(3) The proposed Development Plan demonstrates the efficient, coordinated and integrated 22
development and use of land which: 23
(a) Considers existing topography and physical site constraints; 24
(b) Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on environmental 25
resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Articles 10 and 12, and as incorporated into 26
the overall design; 27
(c) Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that is 28
consistent with the zoning district or type of planned unit development; 29
(d) Maintains street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or accessible open 30
space with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each phase of development; 31
(e) Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjoining 32
properties and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along the project 33
perimeter; and 34
(f) Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to include 35
guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the surrounding 36
neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land uses. 37
38
Commented [PC13]: Note to PC: The DRB
must find that each of the criteria below are
met in order to approve
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
8
(4) The Buildout Budget sets reasonable development parameters for the entire project and as 1
allocated for each phase of development, for reference in subsequent regulatory reviews, as 2
necessary to identify and limit the cumulative and overall impacts of project development on City 3
infrastructure, facilities and services. 4
(5) Design Standards are sufficiently detailed to provide standards for development that apply 5
for the duration of the Master Plan. 6
(5) The Phasing Plan and Schedule: 7
(a) are consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program; 8
(b) ensure that all phases of development will occur in an orderly fashion; and that 9
(c) infrastructure and facility improvements necessary to support each phase of 10
development will be provided concurrently with such development, as may be further ensured 11
through subsequent or separate regulatory review processes and development agreements. 12
(6) The Management Plan: 13
(a) defines a management structure for the duration of the Master Plan that supports long-14
term project viability through buildout; 15
(b) identifies those principals or entities responsible for securing necessary municipal permits 16
and approvals for development under the Master Plan; and 17
(c) clearly identifies proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term management, 18
maintenance and operation of capital and community assets, including any proposed dedications 19
of land, facilities and infrastructure to the City. 20
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment 21
22
(A) Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing on the Master Plan, the 23
DRB must issue its written findings of fact and decision to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove 24
the Master Plan. Failure to act within this 45-day period shall constitute approval under 24 VSA § 4464(b), 25
as deemed by the court and certified by the City Clerk. The DRB decision, including findings and 26
information for appeal, shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant, and filed in the City land records. 27
Copies of the decision shall also be mailed to all parties who participated in the DRB hearing process. 28
(B) Subsequent Regulatory Review. In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level 29
of review and review processes required for subsequent applications filed under the Master Plan, 30
provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations and the following: 31
(1) Sketch plan review is not required for any application for preliminary subdivision or site plan 32
review that complies with the approved Master Plan, and associated conditions of approval. 33
(2) The DRB may waive preliminary subdivision or site plan review for specified phases or portions 34
of a project. 35
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
9
(3) The DRB may in its decision specify allowed modifications or changes under the Master Plan 1
which require only administrative review and approval by the Administrative Officer. 2
(C) Effect. Once a Master Plan has been approved, all subsequent development must conform to the 3
Master Plan as approved. 4
(1) The Development Review Board in issuing a decision shall make specific findings as to which 5
elements in the Master Plan are vested. The Board may approve elements of the Master Plan for all 6
subsequent applications; determine that elements of the Master Plan are vested; and/or determine 7
that elements are not vested. 8
(2) Master Plan approval is binding upon the applicant, the owner(s), their agents and successors 9
in interest. 10
(3) Once the Master Plan is approved, the applicant may apply for other permits and approvals 11
referenced in the conditions of Master Plan approval, as required prior to the start of construction. 12
(4) Unless the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of Master Plan approval and these 13
Regulations, the Master Plan as approved shall not be modified, revoked or otherwise impaired by 14
any action of the City without the consent of the applicant. For purposes of subsequent regulatory 15
reviews under the Master Plan, for the duration of the plan the regulations in effect at the time of 16
Master Plan approval shall apply to vested elements under Subsection(C)(1). For vested elements, 17
Regulations enacted following master plan approval shall apply only as necessary to address public 18
health and safety or, at the request of the applicant, to incorporate types or forms of development 19
allowed under more recently adopted regulations, in conjunction with an application to amend the 20
Master Plan. 21
(D) Duration. The duration of the Master Plan, as specified in the conditions of DRB approval, shall 22
be determined by the DRB in consultation with the Planning Director and City Engineer. 23
(1) The Master Plan should be approved for a period of time, not to exceed six (6) years, for which 24
the impacts of proposed development can clearly be ascertained from the quality and detail of the 25
information provided; which allows sufficient time for project planning, permitting and development, 26
including required regulatory reviews; and which accommodates full project buildout in relation to 27
the timing of planned infrastructure and facility improvements. 28
(2) The Master Plan shall remain in effect as approved until the development allowed by the plan 29
has been completed, the plan expires, or the plan is amended or superseded. 30
(3) Applicant shall submit a complete preliminary or final subdivision or site plan application (as 31
applicable) for at least one phase of the project within two (2) years of the date of approval of the 32
Master Plan. Concurrent review with Master Plan shall be deemed to have satisfies this requirement. 33
Failure to submit a complete application within two (2) years of the date of approval shall result in 34
expiration of the Master Plan. 35
(4) The duration of an approved Master Plan may be extended by the DRB for up to two (2), 2-36
year periods, for cause, if the request and reasons for the extension are submitted in writing prior to 37
Commented [PC14]: Note to PC: this
section enumerate the DRB’s authority to vest
elements of the plan.
Commented [PC15]: Note to PC: This
duration would be authorized to last a
maximum of 10 years, after which a new
Master Plan would be required. 10 years has
been recommended as a typical Master Plan
duration.
Article 15B Master Plan Review
Draft for PC Review 2020-10-16
10
the Master Plan expiration date; however in no event shall the duration of an approved Master Plan 1
exceed ten (10) years in total, to include all authorized extensions or amendments. 2
(E) Amendment. 3
(1) Minor Amendment. An approved Master Plan may be amended concurrently with the 4
application for preliminary or final subdivision or site plan review, without sketch plan review, if the 5
proposed amendment represents a material change that does not deviate significantly from the 6
Master Plan as approved, including the approved development plan and phasing schedule, and does 7
not alter the overall buildout budget. This may include the reallocation of budgeted development 8
parameters between development phases. 9
(2) Substantial Amendment or Re-Approval. Full Master Plan review and approval under (C), 10
including sketch plan review and required pre-application meetings, will be required to re-approve a 11
Master Plan beyond the duration established in Subsection (D) above or for any development 12
representing a substantial change that deviates from the approved Master Plan in one or more of the 13
following respects: 14
(a) Proposed development that incorporates land or properties that were not included in the 15
master plan as approved; 16
(b) Proposed development that significantly alters the development plan as approved, 17
including a change in the overall pattern of development (e.g., streets, blocks, connectivity), the 18
location and extent of permanent open space, designated development areas and civic spaces, or 19
the allocation of development densities and land uses; or, 20
(c) Proposed changes that significantly alter the parameters and associated impacts of 21
development at buildout as set forth in the approved buildout budget, including but not limited 22
an increase in total site coverage, an increase in PM peak hour trip ends, and other parameters 23
that require additional infrastructure, facilities or services. 24
Re-approval of a Master Plan shall be subject to the Land Development Regulations in effect at the 25
time of application and shall be considered a new application for the purposes of Subsection D, 26
Duration. 27
28
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
9 SEPTEMBER 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 September 2020, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley, M. Abrams, D. Long, F. Von
Turkovich, C. & A. Long, L. Ravin, V. Bolduc
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Abrams said he has lived on Highland Terrace since 1981 when there were large, long lots. He is
concerned with a lot of small houses going in. Trees are being taken down and there are 5 houses that
will be on wells. He asked that construction be halted until his proposal is considered. He felt that
residents need “predictability.” Ms. Louisos said the Commission will review Mr. Abrams’s letter.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby: Hosted a mapping session. Despite ow attendance people left with better
understanding. She is willing to try it again. She also went through it with Vince Bolduc in light of the
housing group he is associated with. The group will probably be back in touch.
Mr. Riehle: The tragic accident on Route 15 got his attention as a biker. Route 15 isn’t too different
from Hinesburg or Shelburne Roads, and the Commission should keep this in mind. He didn’t want
there to be a day when a child in South Burlington is hit and “we haven’t made it safe for every child.”
Mr. Conner: Construction begins this week on the missing sidewalk in the “jughandle.” Public Works
is doing this. Staff is also working on sidewalk connection on Airport Parkway from Kirby Road to Berard
Drive and on Dorset Street near Old Cross Road.
4. Work Session on Land Development Regulations Overhaul:
Mr. Conner showed a chart of ‘Recommended Minimum and Maximum Residential Density by PUD
Type.” He noted the number can be moved around. He showed how 4 units per acre with single family
homes looks using density as the driver (e.g., the Orchards) and a concept with the same density but
with half of the houses being duplexes. The feeling of “neighborhood” is lost in the latter instance. He
also showed the same concept at 8 units per acre with 4plexes, and the “oddly matched” look it creates.
2
Mr. Conner then showed how this changes with “building type” density with at least 3 housing types.
NO one type is more than 50% of the building and none is less than 10%. He showed this with different
mixes of housing. He noted that the DRB could still look at the context and environment to see what
works well. He also said that some of the multiplex buildings could be made to look like single family
homes.
Mr. Riehle asked about “common space” in the building type. Mr. Conner said about 10% of the
buildable land would be a neighborhood park.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether a 4-plex would have enough land for more cars, more children, etc. She
said it felt like there would be less “private space.” Mr. Conner said that is true, but there could be one
and two bedroom units. There would also be a requirement for parking accommodation. Ms. Ostby
asked if the size of the unit can be defined/controlled. Mr. Conner said that is up to the creativity of the
designed. Ms. Ostby felt it makes sense if the number of bedrooms can be limited.
Mr. Macdonald felt this could create a major increase in density, from 16 units to as much as 50. Mr.
Conner said this would require a 10-acre minimum parcel. Mr. Mittag asked if it could be a 4-acre
parcel. Mr. Conner said that would be for infill, and there would be a relationship to what is next to it.
At 10 acres, you can build a neighborhood, and you can adjust the mix of building types.
Ms. Ostby noted that even today you can get the increased density in an R-4 zone with Inclusionary
Zoning. She said they would have to figure out the density bonus piece with this type of development.
Mr. Conner then showed an example of what exists on Allen Road. At 4 units per acres, there are two 4-
story buildings with a single home between them. Ms. Ostby asked what could have been done
differently. Mr. Conner showed where there might have been a street and a park, possible other streets
creating a “neighborhood pod” but with the same density as exists today. He added there wouldn’t be a
hard cap set on the number of homes, and the number of each type of home could be adjusted to
create a desired outcome.
Mr. Conner said staff would still recommend a parcel-based concept in the Conservation PUD.
Mr. VonTurkovich asked whether separate lots would be defined for buildings. Mr. Conner said the
classic approach is that you would assign lots to them. He noted that the DRB allows lot lines to be
drawn but does not count these for development purposes. He added that developers have said they
would like lot lines. Mr. Von Turkovich agreed that the buildings on Allen Road are “unfortunate.” He
felt there would be a much different look if they were 2 stories instead of 4.
Ms. Dooley said that having a variety of housing types is more likely to get a differencing in the pricing
for housing. She encouraged the Commission to think positively about the “housing type” of
development. She felt South Burlington has become a city of 2 districts: the median income in one
district is twice that of the other. She said the city needs to address this.
3
Ms. Ravin asked if the aim is to change the Allen Road type so there will be more buildings with less
open space. Mr. Mittag said it is more a matter of how the density is laid out in a parcel. There might
be smaller buildings but more of them and still have open space. Ms. Ostby added that what is built
would be more efficient. Mr. Conner added that each building would be properly scaled. He also
noted that open space today is not necessarily usable or functional.
Mr. Conner suggested people look at South Village where there is a 10-plex where each unit has its own
entry door. He also noted that the Kirby Cottages could have been a 7-plex, but that wouldn’t have fit in
the neighborhood.
Ms. Ostby asked how the building type approach connects with the density bonus for affordable
housing. Mr. Conner said Inclusionary Zoning could be expanded or “affordable housing” could be a
different “type” of building. There could be a point structure for such things as affordability, energy, etc.
Mr. Conner reminded the Commission that the Kirby Cottages are the only non-multi family building
development in the city to take advantage of the affordability bonus in the last 15 years.
Ms. Ostby asked if people would have deeded outdoor private space. Mr. Conner said municipalities
don’t have authority over that. There could be an arrangement where people on the ground floor have
land with it. Or there could be a condominium concept. That would be up to the developer. Ms. Ostby
felt that every residential unit built should have guaranteed private outdoor space. Mr. Mittag felt
outdoor space can be shared, not necessarily private.
Members then returned to consider the chart of staff recommendations.
Mr. Riehle asked about allowing the total parcel density on the 30% buildable area in a Conservation
PUD. Mr. Conner said allowing that density would forestall the concern of a “taking.” Mr. Riehle said
units would really have to be packed in. Mr. Conner said there could be a limit on the largest building
that could be built (e.g., a 4-plex).
Mr. Conner suggested having the City Attorney com in an discuss the “taking” issue. Members felt this
would be a good idea.
Mr. Gagnon felt that density should be encouraged in transportation routes with more multi-plexes.
Further out, you might have more single family homes. Mr. Conner said you could also look at the
relationships to what is next door to the development. You could wind up with a “transitional” lot.
Ms. Ostby said single family homes are expensive. That’s what drives division in the community. She
felt diverse housing should always be encouraged and noted that multi-family buildings can look
beautiful. She didn’t feel the mindset should be toward a preference for single-family homes. Ms. Ravin
noted that Burlington is encouraging adding a unit onto a single family home. She noted that if you put
more expensive housing further out, you are adding to the rich/poor separation.
Ms. Dooley said that people at median income can afford a car, so housing doesn’t have to be on a
transit route.
4
Mr. Conner said he would like feedback as to whether the “building approach” is the right way to go.
Mr. Gagnon said he looked the overall approach. Ms. Ostby was concerned that density be maximized
appropriately. Mr. Macdonald wanted to see more detail (e.g. percentages). Mr. Conner said what the
Commission decides on percentages is up to them.
Ms. Ravin said the building type approach would be easier to understand if she knew the goals of the
Planning Commission. She added that land owners will want to know whether they will be getting more
with that approach. She felt part of the problem is that what the Commission wants is “beautiful
buildings, not ugly ones.” She said if you want creativity, you should give builders choices, not
minimums and maximums.
Ms. Ostby said she hoped they can clearly articulate the goal. She noted that the community has
thought that R-4 was R-4, but, there are density bonuses that change that. The building type approach
may be a way to make that clearer.
Ms. Louisos said she though Commissioners were in general agreement that a “building approach” to
maximum density in PUDs other than Conservation PUDs, and a “parcel approach” to conservation PUDs
as recommended by staff. Commissioners concurred.
5. Summary and priority of related work:
Mr. Conner said the first priority is Interim Zoning. Another is the Shearer request. He suggested having
sub-groups to work on some things. He showed a chart with PUD projects, City Center/Form Based
Code projects, and stand-alone projects and asked members to think about these. Ms. Ostby noted
there may be some pockets in the city that could be considered for rezoning.
6. Consider possible application for 2022 Municipal Planning Grant:
Mr. Conner felt the Commission has enough on its plate not to be chasing after another grant, and he
recommended not applying this year. Members agreed.
7. Naming of Road:
Mr. Conner noted that staff is recommending the second option (Medalist Drive) instead of Clubhouse
Drive. Mr. Riehle moved to approve Medalist Drive. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
8. Meeting Minutes of 25 August 2020:
The approval of the Minutes was postponed until the next meeting.
9. Other Business:
Mr. Conner noted that the City of Burlington is rewarning its public hearing.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:25 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
29 SEPTEMBER 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 September 2020, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. & A. Long, J. Simson, J. Morway, D. Long
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Riehle spoke to the need to have neighborhoods understand the potential for development so that
people aren’t surprised by what happens. He suggested something to alert people to changes in zoning
(e.g., infill potential) that are being considered. He noted that in Shelburne they are talking about the
undue adverse impact of infill on a neighborhood. He felt the Commission should continue to look into
this issue.
There was no staff report.
4. Work Session on Land Development Regulation Amendments:
a. Continue review of Forested Habitat Block Applicability
b. Discuss applicability of Planned Unit Development Types throughout the City
c. Preview of minor amendment to SEQ-NRP subdistrict design standards to support
conservation
d. Staff update on 500-year Floodplain questions from Commissioners:
Mr. Conner showed a series of maps which were done by Arrowwood. These included forested habitat
blocks as identified by Arrowwood, NRP, parks, privately protected forested blocks, those protected by
Articles 10 and 12, those not regulated, and parcels conserved that are not in the regulations. In regards
to the forest blocks, they show the “core” areas and the outer 300 feet.
Mr. Riehle expressed surprise at the west side of the Hill property. Mr. Conner said it is just outside of
the SEQ and is in the Industrial-Open Space District, and therefore was not part of the SEQ rezoning in
2006.
2
Mr. Macdonald asked about the proposed extension of Swift Street. Mr. Conner showed the proposed
route. He also noted that the Tilley Drive study talks to the pros and cons of that.
Ms. Ostby said it would be nice to get into the details, particularly the lighter green areas, areas of the
transitional habitat blocks. Mr. Conner indicated the drawn in connectors.
Ms. Louisos suggested having a subcommittee come back with suggestions. She noted a lot of overlap
with other protected areas.
Ms. Ostby drew attention to “fingers” of light green that don’t seem connected to anything and don’t
seem to have hazard or core. Mr. Gagnon said he thought there was “wiggle room” with the light green
areas. He added that a buffer around a critical habitat area is important, but what that is is the
question. Ms. Louisos suggested the light green could possibly move to a Level 2 resource or could be
lopped off the map. Mr. Riehle said there is no basis for how deep they go into the light green and
asked if there is a way to get a professional recommendation.
Mr. Gagnon said he is still concerned with invasive species in these areas. He stressed that Arrowwood
did their study from a vehicle, not on the ground. He wanted to be sure the Commission is not “chasing
after invasives.” Mr. Mittag said an area could be reforested after invasives are removed.
Mr. Macdonald asked if land is in the light green, what is not there that is important and where would
those fingers of land lead to. He questioned whether they would be “dead ends” for critters. He cited
one near Spear Street.
Mr. Gagnon said he was OK with identifying areas of concern and what they are looking to conserve and
then to have a developer come back with a plan that shows they are protecting core areas. He noted
there aren’t many of those areas, and like wetlands which are identified, they still have to be delineated.
Ms. Louisos said she has almost the opposite view and felt this is very different from wetlands. People
are trained specifically for forests, and you would never get 2 people to agree.
Mr. Gagnon said a lot of Arrowwood was windshield and aerial surveying, and is not defensible. That
opens it up to experts who are seeing things differently.
Ms. Louisos said she sees these as areas based on size and type of vegetation. They need to put a line
somewhere. She sees them more as an NRP zone. She felt that may be where the light green line
comes into play. She also noted that people could chop down trees in anticipation of a delineation or
trees could grow and expand into a forested area. She felt that requiring delineation could open up a
“can of worms.” She added it might be better to try to preserve the core and come up with language
regarding use of the outer area.
Mr. Gagnon said he agreed with flexibility in light green areas. He asked whether they could decide that
some dark green areas are not so important. Ms. Louisos said if there is something on the official map,
they should take a look at it.
3
Mr. Conner said that one thing that became apparent to him is that the amount of land in the green is
very small in the SEQ. Starting with the SEQ, the Commission might decide whether to just expand the
NRP in those areas or not. He noted that one of these areas is in South Village, and it is either built on or
conserved. Mr. Gagnon said he could buy into that approach.
Ms. Ostby asked if they go that route, should they also look at areas in the NRP to see if there are any
buildable areas without hazards, etc. She felt that adding to Article 12 is the most streamlined way to
go. She also felt that habitat connectors are important but noted they can be moved.
Mr. Mittag suggested using State resources to delineate what is on the ground.
Ms. Louisos suggested protecting the core, but the 300 foot outer areas would become partially
developable (Level 2). Then the land would not be taken away completely from a landowner.
Mr. Gagnon questioned whether the edges and boundaries of the NRP are related to anything on the
ground and whether the edges and boundaries of Arrowwood are related to anything on the ground.
He asked how they can tie boundaries into what is on the ground.
Mr. Conner said the NRP replaced a system where there were developable and restricted areas.
Arrowwood looked at a few core areas, and the Planning Commission added buffers to some of them. It
was entirely policy based, and the intent was to move some boundaries around. Mr. Gagnon asked if
the edges are defined in any way. Mr. Conner said they are defined by the map. Ms. Ostby asked if
anything is staked in the ground. Mr. Conner said it is not. He added that someone could come to the
Commission and ask for an interpretation of where the one is. On any application to the DRB, a plan has
to show zoning boundaries. The DRB can adjust those boundaries 50 feet in either direction. Mr.
Gagnon asked if the green areas could be treated the same way. Ms. Louisos said that is what she has
been thinking. The Commission would be creating a “policy district.” Mr. Conner reminded members of
the possibility of Conservation PUDs.
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of emails regarding the “fingers” that don’t lead anywhere. There is also an
email noting areas where habitat blocks have been found to be appropriate for housing. Ms. Ostby said
they should look at areas that are in the core but have no resources under them to see what is
contained in those areas.
Mr. Gagnon said the light and dark green areas are not otherwise protected, and the Commission should
go through them. He thought the southern half of them could possibly be added to the NRP, but those
in the northern half should be looked at.
Mr. Conner said that in terms of substantive change, there are maybe 6 areas that are consequential.
He suggested having the Commission focus on those and let staff deal with the smaller ones.
Mr. Conner then showed one of the “finger” areas. He asked the Commission whether they felt it was
more important to connect 2 habitat blocks or to connect 2 neighborhoods. Mr. MacDonald said that a
4
“finger” between two developments seems like it could be developed, especially with a road going
through there. Mr. Gagnon agreed. Ms. Louisos suggested using this process with other blocks in future
meetings. Mr. Gagnon said they should indicate areas where there is already protection then see where
to focus the Commission’s limited time. Mr. Conner felt that was reasonable and suggested focusing
time on areas where there is a policy decision (e.g., the Hill Farm area). He said he would put together
information on several of the areas for members to consider.
The Commission then considered PUD applicability. Mr. Conner said that what the staff and consultant
recommend is that lower density areas be traditional neighborhoods. Medium density areas (Kennedy
Drive, Allen Road, etc.) could be either a TND or a Neighborhood Commercial Center. Higher density
areas could be Neighborhood Commercial Districts.
Conservation PUDs would be an option in any low-density areas (e.g., waterfront, R-1 districts, and areas
where more than 70% is covered with natural resources). This does not cover the Industrial areas, and
though they are important, the consultant was asked to focus on more neighborhood areas. Mr. Conner
noted the Hill Farm area would require a zoning change, and staff has some other zoning change
recommendations.
Ms. Ostby said that members of the Affordable Housing Committee asked to be included on an agenda
to see how affordability would fit into all of this.
Mr. Riehle felt the Hill Farm area should be residential due to what is around it. Mr. Conner said a TND
would have very neighborhood scale commercial. An NCD typically would allow more commercial
(offices, grocery, etc.). He suggested there could be R7 zoning along Kennedy Drive with some small
scale offices and the rest residential. It is one of the largest remaining pieces of land in the city.
Mr. Engels asked whether the zoning allows for an Exit 12B. Mr. Conner said that would be a decision
point as to whether that should be a high-intensity area which is common near an Interchange exist. He
noted that 2B is a very active discussion. Ms. Ostby said that for that area, she would give an owner the
option for the most flexibility.
Mr. Mittag felt there should be a transition on the west and south of the Hill property because of the
forest areas and proximity to Wheeler. Mr. Conner said they can do an intensive look at that. Mr.
Mittag said he was OK with some flexibility on the Hill Farm with concern for the forested area and the
piece connecting to Wheeler. He was not OK with the Swift St. Extension.
Mr. Conner then showed the Conservation PUD map. He noted that is a conversation with UVM
regarding defining their properties. The Commission will have to decide regarding any zoning changes
(e.g., Edlund property). Ms. Ostby asked whether there is anything other than hazards and Level 1. Mr.
Conner said the issue is to give an owner the value of the property even if there are significant
resources.
Mr. Mittag said he would oppose any zoning change to Edlund. He felt it is one of the most valuable
natural resources the city has. Mr. MacDonald said it is probably the biggest chank of unprotected
5
forest. Mr. Conner said it could remain Institute-Agricultural zoning. They will have to look at what
would happen if UVM decides to come in with a plan for dorms there to know what laws would apply.
Mr. Conner then addressed potential minor amendments to the NRP area as follows:
a. If someone is not in a developable area, they wouldn’t be required to by a TDR. They would
have to build on a certain portion of the land and conserve the rest. They could bring in
TDRs up to the cap for development.
b. Tweaks to the NRP standards would include how encompassing the area for a house can be.
Staff is suggesting a maximum building envelope (e.g., garage, tennis court, etc., would have
to fit within that envelope).
A member of the public questioned “forcing development on a lot.” Mr. Conner said there are options
for owners:
a. Carving out just one lot
b. Have a couple of lots and conserve the large piece
c. For a number of homes on a property, the owner would have to consider the whole
property
Regarding the 500-year flood plain discussion from the last meeting, it was noted that there aren’t many
towns with a full regulatory plan. There is some reason to have a plan as climate change is bringing
about more storms, and a 500-year flood plan is a potential 100-year flood plain.
Mr. Conner showed a map indicating the city’s 500-year flood plain areas. The biggest is at Ethan Allen
Industrial Park. The question is what to do with new and existing development there. Ms. Ostby said
there could still be building but with certain restrictions. Ms. Louisos noted that most towns have 500-
year flood plains targeted to standards for 100-year flood plains. Mr. Gagnon said they could say “no
new construction.” Where you are replacing a building you would have to use “flood resiliency
standards.”
Ms. Ostby said that in every lot where the Commission is making a change, the city should send a letter
to the landowner pointing out the impact of the change and when there is a public hearing. Mr.
MacDonald agreed noted the number of businesses in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park. He felt business
owners should know they are in a flood plain.
Mr. Conner noted that there are probably a dozen homes in Butler Farms in the 500-year flood plain and
some in the Chamberlain area. Ms. Louisos said she wouldn’t change the zoning, just change what can
go there.
5. Consider approach to review of LDR amendments under consideration:
6
Mr. Conner said there is one amendment related to PUDs, one to Form Based Codes, one to the Traffic
Overlay District. These are not controversial but require review. He suggested that the Form Based
Code Committee might meet again. He also suggested a subgroup of the Commission be formed to deal
with these amendments. Mr. Conner said he would work with Ms. Louisos to see if there are some
amendments that can be done quickly by the Commission.
6. Other Business:
a. Act 250 Notice of Initial Application Filing – Chittenden Solid Waste District, 1021
Redmond Road Williston:
Mr. Conner noted that the City of Burlington has is allowing temporary tents to remain for a longer time.
They are also allowing day cares in more areas.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk