HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 11/10/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, November 10, 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-2020-11-10
Telephone (audio only): (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 928-311-013
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. **Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Land Development Regulations: (7:15 pm)
a. LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum building and lot coverage on properties with land in the
Urban Design Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
b. LDR-17-13B: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban Design
Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated Sending Areas
c. LDR-19-06: Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City Center Form
Based Code District
d. LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under the Land
Development Regulations
5. Review input from public hearing on Draft Amendments and possible action to approve and submit
Amendments and Planning Commission Report to City Council (7:30 pm)
6. *Work Session on Land Development Regulation Amendments: (7:35 pm)
a. Review possible standards applicable to the 0.2% (500-year) floodplain zone (7:35 pm)
b. Receive completed draft changes to mapped Habitat Block applicability and Southeast Quadrant
Zoning district boundary adjustments requested by the Planning Commission 10/13 (8:20 pm)
c. Discuss Planned Unit Development types within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District (8:25 pm)
7. Minutes: October 13, 2020 and October 27, 2020 (8:55 pm)
8. 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: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: November 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
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)
Staff Report:
• The City Council Extended Interim Zoning for a period of six (6) months last week, with two possible
3 months extensions beyond that period. Councilors expressed a strong interest in receiving the
updated LDRs in the winter, in advance of the six-month period, but also wanted to set realistic
expectations for all parties given the pandemic and upcoming holidays.
• The City Council also heard a proposed application for a small, compact residential neighborhood at
600 Spear Street under the Interim Zoning Bylaw. The applicant discussed the manners in which
they are striving to meet the objectives of the PUDs. The Council closed the hearing and will issue a
decision in the coming weeks.
• The City Council, thirdly, approved a fine structure for enforcement of the Land Development
Regulations through the Judicial Bureau. This enables an additional enforcement tools for the Zoning
Administrator for violations that are more operational in nature rather than site-plan or structure
based (which would most likely be enforced through the traditional “notice of violation” to the
Environmental Court)
• If you have not been along Market Street recently, take a look! The new Library + City Hall is coming
together!
4. **Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Land Development Regulations: (7:15 pm)
a. LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum building and lot coverage on properties with land in the
Urban Design Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
b. LDR-17-13B: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban Design
Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated Sending Areas
c. LDR-19-06: Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City Center Form
Based Code District
d. LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under the Land
Development Regulations
2
See enclosed memo and draft amendments.
5. Review input from public hearing on Draft Amendments and possible action to approve and submit
Amendments and Planning Commission Report to City Council (7:30 pm)
If Commissioners are comfortable with the amendments as proposed, the following motion could be made:
“I move to approve amendments LDR-17-13A, LDR-17-13B, LDR-19-06, and LDR-20-18A and to submit the
amendments and Planning Commission Report to the City Council.”
Commissioners are also welcome to make changes to the draft and approve them at a later date.
6. *Work Session on Land Development Regulation Amendments: (7:35 pm)
a. Review possible standards applicable to the 0.2% (500-year) floodplain zone (7:35 pm)
See enclosed staff memo.
b. Receive completed draft changes to mapped Habitat Block applicability and Southeast Quadrant
Zoning district boundary adjustments requested by the Planning Commission 10/13 (8:20 pm)
See enclosed staff memo.
c. Discuss Planned Unit Developments within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District (8:25 pm)
In discussing PUD types applicable to the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ), Commissioners have flagged
several topics for future discussion. They include:
• Role of land zoned SEQ-Natural Resource Protection within TNDs and Conservation PUDs.
• Options for Conservation Planned Unit Developments in the SEQ
• Applicability of TDRs in Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs)
Staff would like to start a discussion on these topics and to consider overall applicability of the PUD
types within objectives for the SEQ. We’ve been discussing some ideas that we’d like to share at this
meeting in preparation for a full discussion at your next regular meeting, November 24th.
7. Minutes: October 13, 2020 and October 27, 2020 (8:55 pm)
8. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
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: Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations
DATE: November 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
Enclosed with your packet please find the amendments that the Commission warned for public hearing last
month. Staff received no comments from the public.
The City Attorney provided a legal review. A number of small adjustments in wording are proposed, along
with re-organizing the section on TDR transfer to put the standards for transfer into a single section. The
remainder of the modifications are minor in nature.
For ease of reading, staff has incorporated those proposed adjustments directly into the draft and
specifically noted the changes in the “comments” section of the text.
Please review the final comment on LDR-17-13A & B as there is a policy question for Commissioners to
consider.
Note: The format of the Open Space table does not lend itself to comments outlining the changes. Instead,
those adjustments are noted below.
Plaza/Square
Description & Service Intent:
Provided clarity on term “context sensitive”
Seating, Tables, etc.:
Minimum oOne seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of plaza area, .with a Mminimum of 10 seating spaces. Seating is
encouraged to be of a variety of types and socially oriented.
Courtyard:
Seating, Tables, etc.:
One seating space for each 500 sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a minimum of 10 seating spaces. 3.
Private Yard Space
Description & Service Intent:
Private yard space associated with a residential units.
Location & Access:
Directly adjacent to, and accessible to, at least one entry of the associated dwelling unit it is associated with.
LDR-17-13 A & B
Lot coverage in Urban Design Overlay District
Draft for PC Public Hearing with Legal Review
LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban Design
Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
LDR-17-13B Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban Design
Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated Sending Areas
2.02 Definitions
…
Transferrable Development Rights. The development potential of a parcel of land assigned by these
regulations and measured in dwelling units per gross acre, which may be severed from a parcel, the
sending parcel, and which may be transferred to and used on another parcel, the receiving parcel. To the
extent that the development potential of a sending parcel is used on a receiving parcel, rights or interests
in the parcel created by a legal instrument in perpetuity, conserving the sending parcel and limiting the
possible uses of the sending parcel to agriculture, forestry, natural area and/or outdoor non-motorized
recreation shall be granted to the City, a State agency or a Qualified Organization, as defined in 10 V.S.A.
section 6301a, as amended from time to time.
10.06 Urban Design Overlay District (UDO)
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple
design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the
City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. The Urban Design Overlay District aids in fulfilling the City’s vision for the Southwest quadrant, which
is to enable infill and conversion development, encourage pedestrian movement, serve local and regional
shopping and employment needs, and make use of existing public transportation. The City intends for the
applicable areas to provide safe and inviting access to adjacent neighborhoods.
…
E. Allowance for Increase Lot Coverage via supplemental On-Site Open/Civic Space or Transferable
Development Rights. For parcels with land underlying the Urban Design Overlay District, the maximum
lot coverage may be increased by up to ten (10) percentage points using one of the two methods described
below. Such allowance shall apply only to the subject lot with land underlying the Urban Design Overlay
District and not any adjacent lots and must be approved in conjunction with a site plan or Planned Unit
Development for the subject lot.
Example: For a lot in a zoning district where the maximum lot coverage as identified in Appendix
C is 70%, the maximum lot coverage for said lot may be increased to 80%.
(1) On-Site Open/Civic Space Option. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards as part of any proposal to increase lot coverage under this subsection:
(a) For each additional increment of lot coverage, an area on the site equal to thirty (30)
percent of said increment shall be designated on the site plan for the subject parcel as one or
more Snippets/Parklets and/or Pocket/Mini-Parks as enumerated in Appendix F;
(b) The selected Open/Civic Space type(s) must comply with all requirements and guidelines
for the applicable type in Appendix F;
Commented [PC1]: Add word “Open”
Commented [PC2]: Replace “within” with
“underlying” per legal review
Commented [PC3]: Minor wording changes
per legal review
LDR-17-13 A & B
Lot coverage in Urban Design Overlay District
Draft for PC Public Hearing with Legal Review
(c) All elements of the applicable Open/Civic Space type shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
(d) Where elements of such Open/Civic Space type are pre-existing, they may be used to
qualify under this section; and,
(e) Impervious areas within an approved Open/Civic Space shall not be considered lot
coverage for the purposes of these Regulations.
(2) Transfer of Development Rights Option. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
each of the following standards as part of any proposal to increase lot coverage under this subsection:
(a) Provision of Options to acquire all necessary TDRs from a designated Sending Area as part
of any application to the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer in accordance with
Article 9 of these Regulations.
(b) Recording of required documentation demonstrating completed transfer(s) of all
necessary TDR, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be required prior to issuance of any
zoning permit enabling use of increased lot coverage.
(c) Only the minimum quantity of Transferrable Development Rights necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the site plan or Planned Unit Development application may be transferred to the
receiving parcel. If the minimum quantity of TDRs results in more available lot coverage on the
receiving parcel than is required for the site plan or PUD application, that shall be noted in the
decision and may be used in a subsequent application with no additional TDR transfer.
(3) Combined Applications. In no case shall the options listed above be used in combination or
in addition to one another.
Transfer of Development Rights
9.05 Transfer of Development Rights; Sending & Receiving Areas and Residential Density
The planned maximum residential build-out in the SEQ District has long been limited to approximately
3,800 dwelling units, plus an allowance for affordable housing density bonuses. In order to maintain this
limitation on the overall development of the SEQ District and to encourage both well-planned residential
development in clusters and the preservation or protection of open space, natural resources, scenic views
and agricultural uses, the Transfer of Development Rights is hereby authorized within the SEQ District. To
allow for the redistribution of development to areas priority development areas outside the SEQ District,
the Transfer of Development Rights to land within the Urban Design Overlay District is also authorized as
enumerated in this Section.
A. Sending and Receiving Areas. TDRs are transferred and severed from lands within designated
sending areas and transferred to and used on lands within designated receiving areas.
(1) Sending Areas. Lands within the following areas are designated as Sending Areas:
(a) Lands within the SEQ-NRP and SEQ-NRT sub-districts.
(2) Receiving Areas. Lands within the following areas are designated as Receiving Areas:
(a) Lands within the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts;
(b) Parcels with land underlying the Urban Design Overlay District.
Commented [PC4]: Some rewording per
legal review. Removes purchase of TDRs in
2,500 s.f. lot coverage increments and instead
relies on the table in Article 9 (see below)
Commented [PC5]: Replace “within” with
“underlying”
LDR-17-13 A & B
Lot coverage in Urban Design Overlay District
Draft for PC Public Hearing with Legal Review
(1) Lands within the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts are designated as
receiving areas.
(2) Lands within the SEQ-NRP sub-district are designated as sending areas.
(3) Lands within the SEQ-NRT sub-district area designated both as sending areas and receiving
areas.
B. Assigned Density: For the purposes of the Transfer of Development Rights, all land in the SEQ
District is provided an Assigned Density based on the maximum residential build-out of the SEQ District.
The maximum assigned density of a parcel shall be one point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross
acre.
(1) SEQ-VC: Lots in the SEQ-VC sub-district that were in existence as of the effective date of this
Article and that are two acres or less in size shall be allowed an assigned residential density of four (4)
dwelling units to the acre.
C. Allowable Density for Development that does not Include a Transfer of Development Rights: If
a PUD does not use Transferrable Development Rights, the number of dwelling units that may be
developed, or the number of single family house lots that may be created, in the PUD shall not exceed an
average density and a maximum number of units per structure as follows:
(1) In the SEQ-NRP sub-district, the provisions of Section 9.12 shall apply.
(2) In the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN and SEQ-VR sub-districts: One point two (1.2) dwelling
units to the acre and four (4) dwelling units per structure.
(3) In the SEQ-VC Subdistrict:
(a) For lots that were in existence as of the effective date of this Article and that are two acres
or less in size: four (4) dwelling units per acre
(b) For all other lots: One point two (1.2) dwelling units to the acre and four (4) dwelling units
per structure.
D. Allowable Residential Density for Development that Includes a Transfer of Development Rights
(1) If a PUD in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District uses Transferrable Development Rights, the
number of dwelling units that may be located on, or the number of single-family house lots that may
be created within, a contiguous development parcel subject to a single PUD or Master Plan approval
shall be increased to a maximum average density as follows:
(a) In the SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR sub-districts: Four (4) dwelling units to the acre and four (4)
dwelling units per structure.
(b) In the SEQ-NRN sub-district: Four and two-thirds (4.67) dwelling units to the acre and
four (4) dwelling units per structure.
(c) In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts: Eight (8) dwelling units to the acre and six (6)
dwelling units per structure.
Such average densities may be achieved only as part of a Planned Unit Development application.
Where a structure has been approved as part of a Master Plan prior to January 9, 2012 with a greater
number of dwelling units than those permitted in these Regulations, such approved number of units
in a structure shall remain in effect.
Commented [PC6]: Replace “include” with
“use” per legal review.
LDR-17-13 A & B
Lot coverage in Urban Design Overlay District
Draft for PC Public Hearing with Legal Review
(2) If a site plan or PUD outside the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District uses Transferrable
Development Rights, the maximum development density that may be located on a development
parcel subject to a site plan or PUD approval shall be increased as follows:
(a) In the Urban Design Overlay District, lot coverage indicated in Section 10.06 of these
Regulations.
E. Development Rights Necessary to Obtain Density Increase
(1) To obtain the increased density allowable in a receiving area in the SEQ District, transferrable
development rights must be acquired from 0.83 acres of land in a sending area for each additional dwelling
unit (excluding accessory dwelling units) approved for development on the receiving parcel beyond the
maximum average density that would be allowable on the receiving parcel if the PUD did not use
transferrable development rights.
(2) To obtain the increased density allowable in a receiving area outside of the SEQ District, transferrable
development rights must be acquired as set forth on Table 9-0.
Table 9-0: Density Rights Required to Obtain Lot Coverage Increase
Additional Lot Coverage Approved for Receiving Parcel
beyond the Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed on the
Receiving Parcel is Site Plan or PUD did not use TDRs
TDRs required from land in sending areas
Up to 10,000 SF 0.83 acres
10,001 SF – 20,000 SF 1.67 acres
20,001 SF – 30,000 SF 2.50 acres
Each additional increment of 10,000 SF 0.83 acres
Appendix F: SEE LDR AMENDMENT #LDR-19-06
Commented [PC7]: Replace “amount of”
with “maximum” per legal review.
Commented [PC8]: Section separated into
2: allowable density increase in SEQ, and
allowable density increase outside SEQ.
Commented [PC9]: Proposed table.
Establishes increments of purchase of TDRs
and their requisite TDRs acreage required.
Note: Draft for hearing separated into two
areas of the LDRs and allowed for purchase of
full or partial TDRs, with a single TDR
measured at 10,000 s.f.
Draft for hearing allowed purchase of TDRs in
¼ increments. As drafted, purchase would be
for 10,000 s.f. Commissioners may adjust as
desired.
LDR-19-06 Open Space Types
Draft for PC Public Hearing, following Legal Review
PC Hearing 2020/11/10
LDR-19-06 Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City
Center Form Based Code District
2.02 Definitions
Open space. Land maintained in essentially an undisturbed, natural state for purposes of resource
conservation, and/or maintaining forest cover; or that is enhanced and managed for outdoor recreation
and civic use, working lands, or local food production. Open space must be of a quality and size that
supports its intended function or use. Open space specifically excludes streets, parking areas, driveways
and other areas accessible to motor vehicles.
Open space, common. Land within or related to a development, not individually owned or dedicated
for public use, which is designed and intended for the common use or enjoyment of the residents or
employees of the development, and may include such complementary structures and improvements
as are necessary and appropriate.
Open space, public. Open space owned in fee or by the City, a public agency, land trust, or non-profit
organization and maintained for the use and enjoyment of the general public, health, safety, and
welfare of the general public, habitat preservation, agriculture or urban agriculture, or preservation
of other public goods such as landscape or scenic vista preservation.
Open Space, or Open/Civic Space, Qualifying. Open Space that meets all of the requirements of
Tables 8-1 (Open Space Requirements), 8-2 (Qualifying Open Space) and the requirements of
Appendix F, Open/Civic Space.
Open Space, Qualifiable. Open Space that meets the requirements of Tables 8-1 (Open Space
Requirements) and 8-2 (Qualifying Open Space), and the following elements of Appendix F, Open/Civic
Space: Type allowed in the applicable Transect Zone, Description & Service Intent, Size, and Location &
Access.
8.08 Open Space Requirements
…
C. Qualifying Civic/Open/Civic Space. Qualifying Civic/Open/Civic Space is defined per the palette
of options included in Appendix FTable 8-2, and specifically excludes areas also intended for motor
vehicular use, such as parking areas, driveways, travel lanes, etc.
Table 8-2. Qualifying Open Space
Transect Zone Allowable Open Space (see Appendix F for standards)
T5 Pocket/Mini Park
Plaza/Square
Outdoor café/restaurant seating (not within the public right-of-way)
Sun Terrace (as restricted in Appendix F)
Commented [PC1]: Minor wording changes
per legal review 11/3/2020
Commented [PC2]: Minor wording changes
per legal review 11/3/2020
Commented [PC3]: Reversed title for
consistency per legal review 11/3/2020
LDR-19-06 Open Space Types
Draft for PC Public Hearing, following Legal Review
PC Hearing 2020/11/10
Courtyard
Pedestrian Pass
Indoor Park / Atrium
T4 All Open Space listed as allowable in T5 and;
Playgrounds
Green (residential and campus style development only)
Community gardens
Rain Gardens (as restricted in Appendix F)
Wooded area (as restricted in Appendix F)
Enhanced or recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area (as restricted in
Appendix F)
T3/T3+ Pocket/Mini Park
Courtyard
Green- residential with more than 7 units only
Private yard space (respecting common space requirement indicated in Table 8-1)
Playground
Community gardens
Wooded area (as restricted in Appendix F)
…
E. Open Space Location
(1) Locating Open Space Off-Site
(a) Qualifying open space may be located off-site, or on a parcel other than the one where
the subject use is located, in areas designated in Table 8-1. Designated off-site qualifying open
space must be located within City Center FBC District boundaries and must meet the standards
articulated herein. Designated off-site open space must qualify under the palette of options
listed in Table 8-2Appendix F.
…
G. Landscaping Requirements
…
(2) Within the City Center FBC District, the minimum landscaping budget may be applied to non-
bulb perennial vegetation, or other amenities, as detailed in Table 8-23 and Appendix F, as part of a
cohesive landscaping plan for the site that provides adequate planting of trees and shrubs appropriate
to the site.
…
Table 8-23. Landscaping Options
…
LDR-19-06 Open Space Types
Draft for PC Public Hearing, following Legal Review
PC Hearing 2020/11/10
8.09 Uses Allowed and Changes of Use.
A. General Provisions. Within the Transect Zones, all uses shall be allowed except as specified in
Table 8-34, Table of Uses, these Land Development Regulations, other applicable City ordinances and
regulations and by state statute or applicable state regulation. In Table 8-34 below (Transect Zone Table
of Uses), where a use is not listed as prohibited within a specific Transect Zone, it is allowed in that
Transect Zone pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
B. Nonconforming structures. Table 8-34, Transect Zone Table of Uses, indicates uses that are
prohibited in each Transect Zone for structures that are not in full compliance with the applicable Building
Envelope Standards. See also Section 8.11 for nonconformities.
Table 8-34. Transect Zone Table of Uses
…
APPENDIX F: CIVIC/OPEN/CIVIC SPACE TYPES
SEE ATTACHED TABLE
Commented [PC4]: Reversed title for
consistency per legal review 11/3/2020
APPENDIX F Civic/Open Space Requirements F-1
Plaza/Square Green Pocket/Mini Park Playground Outdoor Café/ Restaurant
Seating
Sun Terrace Indoor Park/Atrium Courtyard Wooded Area Community Shared Garden
Space
Applicability All FBC Districts T3, T3+, T4 All FBC Districts, Parcels with land
in Urban Design Overlay District
All FBC Districts All FBC Districts (must be
associated with a restaurant)
Buildings having 3 or more stories
in T4 and T5
T4, T5 All FBC Districts Onsite in FBC T3 and T3+ unless
counting as off-site open space for
T4 and T5 and meeting all of the
requirements and limitations of
8.08E.
All FBC districts.
Description &
Service Intent
Primarily hard-surface space.
Intended to serve public, allowing
people to congregate, sit, walk, or
access adjacent businesses.
Placement, design, and intended
use should consider relationship to
ajdajcent land uses.
Informal and centralized public,
civic space or common/shared
private space for residential use or
campus-style development.
Small open area. May be tucked
adjacent to or between buildings,
or adjacent to roadway. on a
separate lot or portion of a lot.
Intended to primarily serve public
or residents within 1/4 mile radius.
Programmed space and/or structure that
serves the active recreational needs of
children in the immediate vicinity.
An open-air seating area provided
by a restaurant located on the
subject or adjoining property,
where restaurant
patrons can eat or drink
Accessible and open area on
upper story with seating and
gathering amenities.
Interior open space where at least
one wall facing the street consists
entirely of glass.
Common Open Space area on a
portion of a lot.
Naturally occurring area with
predominance of canopy trees with
enhancement and public access.
Land set aside and maintained for
production of food to be used
primarily for participating
gardeners.
Size Minimum 5,000 sq.ft. Residential: 0.25-2 acres; Campus-
style Development: 0.5-3 acres.
2,000-10,25,000 sq. ft.Total pPlay area shall be a minimum of
1,500 2400 square feet. Play space
should include a buffer area around any
play structures.
Minimum 100 sq. ft.500-3,000 sq.ft; total area shall not
count as more than 50% of the
minimum required qualifying open
space.
Minimum area 1,500 sq.ft.
Minimum ceiling height 20'. Area to
be counted as qualifying open
space shall not exceed twice the
area of the glass wall projected
onto the floor plane.
5,000-20,000 sq. ft.2,500 sq. ft. minimum; Shall
include the land of the
improvement (such as enhanced
path, viewing platform, etc) and no
more than 50 feet to either side;
total area shall not count as more
than 50% of the minimum required
qualifying open space.
Minimum 400 square feet.
Encouraged to serve at least 20%
of units in multifamily
developments.
Location &
Access
Outdoors and within Public Realm.
High Visibility from public rights of
way. Accessible from a public
street at grade or 3' above or
below street level connected to
street with wide, shallow stairs.
May include space for a farmer's
market.
For residential: Centralized;
Accessible to all tenants/residents
via pedestrian walkway or direct
frontage (cottage court
development). For campus-style
development: Centralized;
Accessible from a public right-of-
way via direct walkway; Access
from several locations encouraged.
Fronts on and is accessed from a
street right-of-way. Pedestrian
accessible.
Accessible from Public Right-of-Way or
adjacent to private sidewalk. Should be
centrally located and visually accessible
to the greatest extent practicable.
Highly visible, directly adjacent to
public right of way. See additional
public realm standards below.
Second floor or above. Encourage
location in places which have
spectacular views. Accessible
directly from the sidewalk or public
corridors. For T5 Non-Residential,
must provide adequate signage
about location and accessibility in
hallways and elevators.
Building interior adjacent to
sidewalk or public open space.
Direct access from street level.
Provide several entrances to make
the space available and inviting to
the general public.
Physically defined by surrounding
buildings on three sides (outer) or
four sides (inner)
Must be accessible, at minimum,
by residents, tenants, or customers
of site. Must be onsite. Offsite
wooded areas shall not be
considered qualifying open space
even where the LDR permit open
space to be located off-site.
May not be located in any class
wetland or wetland buffer. Shall
have proper drainage.
Seating*,
Tables, Etc.
Minimum one One seating space
for each 500 sq.ft. of plaza area,.
with a Mminimum of 10 seatings
spaces. Seating is encouraged to
be of a variety of types and
socially oriented.
Provide formal and informally
arranged seating, on sculptured
lawn. Moveable chairs desirable.
Three seats per quarter acre,
rounded up.
One seat for each 750 sq.ft. of
park size. Must include amenities
which differentiate the space from
basic lawn area. Examples include
benches, bike racks, trash
receptacles, gazebos, playgrounds
fixed play equipment, or public
picnic tables.
Must provide benches or formal seating
areas at one space for each 500 square
feet, rounding up, as well as at least 200
square feet of level, grassed, informal
seating.
Seating material shall be of
moderate to high quality in order
for café space to be considered
qualifying open space.
One seating space for every 50
sq.ft. of terrace area.
Provide one seat for every 100
sq.ft. of floor area, one table for
every 400 sq.ft. of floor area. At
least one half of seating to consist
of movable chairs.
One seating space for each 500
sq.ft. of courtyard area, with a
minimum of 10 seating spaces 3.
Light enhancement expected. Must
include improvements, including
cleared paths and benches.
None required.
Landscaping,
Design-
Landscape is secondary to
architectural elements. Use trees
to strengthen spatial definition.
Shall include attractive paving
material or pattern to create unique
space. Encouraged use of lush,
dense plant material. Shall
incorporate art, sculpture and/or
water feature.
Provide lush landscape setting
with predominantly lawn surfaces
and planting such as: trees,
shrubs, ground cover, flowers.
Canopy trees should provide
substantial shade.
Turf and landscape plantings. to
Should promote shade over at
least 25% a portion of the area.
Appropriate ground material- rubber or
woodchips. Plantings for articulation of
space to complement active play
ingredients encouraged. Flat paved or
concrete area for wheeled toys
encouraged. Paved areas including
space for basketball or other sport courts
are encouraged and may be counted
towards minimum required area of
qualifying open space. Shade shall be
provided in consultation with the
Recreation Director.
For optional separated seating
areas, use planting boxes of
interesting patterns of plants, open
fences of less than 3 feet in height,
or decorative and moveable
bollards with decorative chain
connectors.
Terrace may take one of the
following forms: complex
architectural setting which may
include art works; flower garden;
space with trees and other
planting. Planted roofs are
permitted provided area is also a
functional seating space.
Provide attractive paving material
to create interesting patterns. Use
rich plant material. Incorporate
sculpture and/or water feature.
If paved, area shall be amended
throughout with substantial planted
areas or large planters of trees and
lush greenery. If grassed, area
should be articulated at perimeter
with lush greenery.
Majority of area must be covered
with canopy trees. Light
enhancement expected. Must
include cleared paths, benches,
and/or other amenities.
Must have adequate planting soils,
tested for pH balance, drainage,
nutrients, etc. (proof provided prior
to Certificate of Occupancy).
Where they are inadequate, soils
shall be amended for more
suitable farming. Shall have water
service directly to gardens. Raised
planters or other semi-permanent
infrastructure encouraged.
Commercial
Services,
Food
20% of space may be used for
restaurant/cafe seating, taking up
no more than 20% of the sitting
facilities provided.
20% of space may be used for
restaurant seating taking up no
more than 20% of the sitting
facilities provided.
Not permitted Permitted but nNot counted towards open
space requirement.
May serve as seating area for
adjacent restaurant/food service,
or be space provided for those
bringing their own meals.
Dependent on Transect, may
possibly be used up to 100% for
commercial food services. See
Table 8-1.
30% of area may be used for
restaurant seating taking up no
more than 30% of the seating and
tables provided.
Not permitted Not permitted.Not permitted.
Sunlight and
Wind
Sunlight to most of the occupied
area from mid-morning to mid-
afternoon.
Sunlight to most of the occupied
area from mid-morning to mid-
afternoon. Shelter from wind.
No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied area
from mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Mix of
sun and shade.
Sunlight encouraged to most of the
occupied area at lunchtime.
No requirements No requirements except as noted
for street façade to be wall of
glass. Encouraged to be south-
facing.
Sunlight to sitting areas for most of
day.
No requirements Full sunlight.
Other Shall include minimum components:3 low
child-sized swings; 1 toddler sized swing;
2 slides; one or more play houses. Shall
include added amenities specifically
intended for play by toddlers and young
children, to the satisfaction of the
Administrative Officer in consultation with
the Director of Recreation and Parks.
Creativity in design strongly encouraged.
Plan shall be established and
submitted to ensure continual use
and maintenance of the gardens,
whether by residents, association,
property owner or property
manager.
Notes:
Seating
dimensions:
*Required dimensions for one
seating space or one seat are as
follows:
Height: 12" to 36"; ideally 17";
must allow user to bend knees and
have feet below knees
Depth: 14" one-sided; 30-36"
double-sided
Width: 30" of linear seating are counted
as one seat
Materials All products installed in qualifying open spaces shall be of high quality materials intended to be used for
commercial application.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
APPENDIX F Civic/Open Space Requirements F-2
Applicability
Description &
Service Intent
Size
Location &
Access
Seating*,
Tables, Etc.
Landscaping,
Design-
Commercial
Services,
Food
Sunlight and
Wind
Other
Notes:
Seating
dimensions:
Materials
Rain Garden Snippet/ Parklet Pedestrian Pass Streetfront Open Space Enhanced or Recreational
Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment
Area
Private Yard Space
All FBC districts All FBC districts; Parcels with land within the
Urban Design Overlay District
T4, T5 All FBC districts Onsite in FBC T3 and T3+ unless
counting as off-site open space for
T4 and T5 and meeting all of the
requirements and limitations of
8.08E.
T-3 and T3+
A shallow depression planted with
native plants that captures
rainwater runoff from impervious
urban areas.
Small sitting area clearly intended to provide
welcoming respite between or adjacent to
buildings. May serve general public, employees,
residents, or customers.
Narrow pedestrian right of ways
that cut through blocks in
residential and/or commercial
areas.
Liner open space area to secondary streets, as
permitted per the Regulations.
An existing wetland buffer or new
stormwater treatment area which
offers public amenities that exceed
those minimally necessary for
water resource management.
Private yard space
associated with a
residential unit.
Maximum size of 3,500 sf; shall
not count as more than 50% of
minimum required qualifying open
space.
600-4,000 sq. ft.8' minimum width; 24' maximum
width.
50' minimum depth from closest public street
line; or if private, 50' minimum depth from edge
of pavement or sidewalk as applicable.
Shall include the land of the
improvement (such as enhanced
path, viewing platform, etc) and 50
feet to either side; total area shall
not count as more than 50% of
minimum required qualifying open
space.
As directed by
minimum
requirements.
The garden should be positioned
near a runoff source like a
downspout, driveway or sump
pump to capture rainwater runoff
and stop the water from reaching
the sewer system.
Must be directly adjacent to public right of way
and sidewalk or operable building entry.
Applicants are encouraged to consider lighting
and safety in design.
No vehicular traffic. Must connect
two public streets. Storefronts and
restaurants are highly encouraged
to access the pedestrian pass.
Must be immediately adjacent to qualifying
secondary street. See Chapter 8 for additional
regulations. Must be on each side of roadway,
unless a complying building is located on the
opposite side.
Must be visible to public or tenants
and users of building. Direct
pedestrian access from adjacent
public street type.
Directly adjacent to
and accessible to at
least one entry of the
associated dwelling
unit.
The space must serve as a visual
amenity which can be enjoyed
through paths or seating. Adjacent
seating, proportionate with the size
of the garden and number of users,
intended to enhance the garden is
are required and can be counted
as part of the required open space.
Seating must be the main focus of the space.
Seating must be present year-round and
composed of high quality materials. Fixed
seating is required unless the applicant
demonstrates that moveable seating will meet
the stated goals of the type.
One seating space for each 150
sq.ft.
Seating is encouraged, but there shall be no
minimum requirement.
If functional for sitting and viewing,
seating can be ledges, benches,
and/or stairs.
No requirements.
Deep rooted native plants and
grasses.
Landscaping shall also be a primary component
of the space. Because the space is inherently
small, it shall be carefully landscaped in a higher
proportion than larger spaces. Landscaping
should not interfere with seating, but instead
complement it. Spaces should appear warm and
inviting and permanent rather than temporary.
If paved, area shall provide trees
or large potted plants at no more
than 530 foot intervals. If grassed,
area shall be accented with
intermittent trees or public art.
Slight, gentle, and undulating berms from 1-3
feet in height are encouraged to block views of
parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is
required. Include canopy trees whose branches
are above the average visual line of sight,
located throughout the space, with no more than
40 feet between any two such trees or between
a tree and the street or parking area.
Landscaping should aim to distract from parking
beyond, but should not create dense walls of
shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly
encouraged.
LID techniques; no fencing
permitted.
No requirements.
Landscaping, lawns
or planned
seating/dining areas
(patios and decks)
are encouraged.
Not permitted.Permitted 40% of area may be used for
restaurant seating taking up no
more than 30% of the seating and
tables provided.
Not permitted.Not permitted. Not permitted.
Appropriate to the plant species
selection.
No requirements Sunlight to most of the occupied
area at lunchtime. Shelter from
wind.
No requirements. Appropriate to the plant species
selection.
Exterior to building.
See LID language for additional
standards.
Bicycle parking may be permitted within these
areas; however, the space dedicated to bicycle
parking shall not count towards meeting the open
space requirements.
Separate travelled way from parking areas; shall
create pedestrian environment.
Must be located on applicant-
owned property.
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
LDR-20-18A
Technical Amendment - Submission Requirements
LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under the Land
Development Regulations
Appendix E:
Submittal requirement:
Completed application form; one (1) full-sized, one (1) reduced [11" x 17"], and one (1) digital copy of plans; and
a list of the owners or record of abutting property owners
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing November 10, 2020
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at
7:00 pm, via GoToMeeting electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban
Design Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
B. LDR-17-13B: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban
Design Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated Sending
Areas
C. LDR-19-06: Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City Center
Form Based Code District
D. LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under the
Land Development Regulations
Accessing the Hearing:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently passed legislation. There will be no
physical site at which to attend the meetings. The City is presently using GoToMeeting as our service.
Members of the public are welcome to call in by telephone, join by interactive internet service (with
video conferencing and screen sharing capability), or both.
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2020-11-10
Telephone (audio only): (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 928-311-013
2
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
A. LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban
Design Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw
The amendment would allow for an increase in allowable lot coverage of up to ten (10)
percentage points for any parcel with land in the Urban Design Overlay District with the
provision of an on-site Civic Space equal to thirty (30) percent of the area being added as
impervious surface.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The amendment would allow for additional lot coverage in areas designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as priority areas for development and re-development. The
amendment would have limited effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing
other than to provide additional development flexibility, generally, within the Urban
Design Overlay District; if any applicant did make of the provision for affordable housing, a
minimum amount of civic space would be installed to serve users of the property
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives to support
development re-development along the Shelburne and Williston Road corridors and to do
so in a manner than supports pedestrian-scale design and amenities.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
3
B. LDR-17-13B: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the Urban
Design Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated Sending Areas
Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw
The amendment would allow for an increase in allowable lot coverage of up to ten (10)
percentage points for any parcel with land in the Urban Design Overlay District with the use of
Transferable Development Rights. The amendment would designate properties with land in the
Urban Design Overlay District as a Receiving Area and allow existing Sending Areas to direct
TDRs to these locations.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The amendment would allow for additional lot coverage in areas designated in the
Comprehensive Plan as priority areas for development and re-development. The
amendment would have limited effect on the availability of safe and affordable housing
other than to provide additional development flexibility, generally, within the Urban
Design Overlay District.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives to support
development re-development along the Shelburne and Williston Road corridors.
Furthermore, it is consistent with the objective to support conservation of land within
areas designed as “very low intensity, principally conservation” in the Comprehensive Plan
by expanding the market for use of Transferable Development Rights
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
C. LDR-19-06: Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City Center
Form Based Code District
The proposal would amend Chapter 8 (City Center Form Based Code District) and the related
Appendix F to provide for additional qualifying open space types, amend some minor details and
clarify expectations of approved types, and provide for greater organization of the text related
to applicability.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The amendments would not have a direct impact on the availability of safe and affordable
housing. The amendments do continue to further several goals and policies within the
2016 Comprehensive Plan, including objective 33 related to the provision of varied
recreational areas and facilities and objective 35 relating to a targeted open space to
population service standard.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The amendments are not anticipated to impact proposed future land uses and densities
as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
4
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The requirements for qualifying open spaces are largely intended to be private spaces and
not community-funded, though there could be the potential for large projects with
related large open spaces to provide for identified or planned public parks or related
community facilities.
D. LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under the Land
Development Regulations
Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw
The proposed amendment would eliminate requirements for submittal of paper copies of
applications to the Development Review Board and Administrative Officer. Digital versions of all
documents will continue to be required. They can be provided via digital means to any
interested person and can also be sent to a local printer for reduced or full-sized copies upon
request. When the City’s offices are open to the public, applications can also be made available
for review in person on a public computer
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing
The amendments will reduce paper waste, furthering the City’s objectives for energy
efficiency.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The amendment has no impact on proposed future land uses or densities.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The amendment does not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
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: Floodplain 0.2% Zone options and discussion
DATE: November 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
At the Commission’s October 28th meeting, staff provided a brief update on the Commission’s request for
staff to explore options for avoiding future impacts to land within the 0.5% (500-year) floodplain. Staff
reported on the results of discussions with Vermont State floodplain officials and staff from the CCRPC. Staff
reported on the concept of dividing the 500-year floodplain into two categories: unbuilt areas, where land
would be retained in a generally natural state, and built-up areas, where floodproofing/resilience be applied
to future redevelopment.
Staff has prepared an initial draft for Commissioners’ consideration. In the interest of time, staff has shared
this draft with staff with the CCRPC who is a Certified Floodplain Manager and will share their feedback with
you upon receipt. This draft has also not yet been reviewed by the City Attorney, and is therefore intended to
be for discussion purposes only.
The working draft does the following:
1. Separates the 0.2% (500-year) floodplain zone into two categories: Floodplain 0.2% A Zone and 0.2% B
Zone. Zone A would be for identified unbuilt areas, Zone B would be for built-up areas.
Staff has prepared a very rough map indicating 0.2% Floodplain Areas that are “unbuilt” [outlined in
Red] and “built” [outlined in BLUE] throughout the City.
It can be viewed here: https://arcg.is/0CqOHe
2. For 0.2% Zone A (unbuilt areas)
a. Requires substantial improvements to existing structures and replacement structures to meet
requirements the apply to such structures in the 100-year floodplain zones (Section 10.01)
b. Defines all land in this area as a “stream and surface water buffer” subject to all standards
applicable to that resource (Section 12.02)
3. For 0.2% Zone B (built-up areas)
a. Allows for new structures, but requires all new structures, substantial improvements to existing
structures and replacement structures to meet requirements the apply to such structures in the
100-year floodplain zones (Section 10.01) [This generally follows the provisions that the State of
Vermont’s model bylaws recommend for communities with pre-existing structures in the 100-year
floodplain]
2
4. Updates floodplain standards to current best practices (still under review), as the language was last
updated in 2011:
a. Raises the requirement for any substantial reconstruction within the 100 year to 2 feet above Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) (per state model recommendations) rather than 1 ft above.
b. Consolidates all floodplain language into a single section (currently, the100-year and the very limited
restrictions on 500 year floodplain are in separate sub-sections)
c. Makes clear that new Critical Facilities are prohibited in both the 100-year and 500-year floodplain
(likely already the case, but stated directly per State model recommendations)
d. Restricts new encroachments into the floodway itself based on the State model
e. Requires substantial improvements to existing critical facilities to have an access that is at or above
flood elevation (per state model recommendation)
f. Adds a requirement that any new road have its surface 2 ft above BFE.
Questions for Commissioners:
1. Staff requests Commission feedback/direction on this possible approach.
• Does it meet the Commission’s previously-stated objectives?
• Upon review of language, do Commissioners have additional direction/feedback?
2. Staff recommends Commissioners review the map and be prepared for discussion at the meeting
• Staff seeks feedback on which areas should be considered for designation as Zone A and Zone B
• Some streams, brooks, and areas are primarily “built” or “unbuilt”, but also notes that in some
cases, there is a mix of the two, and recommends the Commission discuss how it would like to
address those circumstances.
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
1
Floodplain Overlay and 0.2% Floodplain Zone
3.01 Establishment of Districts and Description of Certain Districts
…
B. Description of Certain Districts.
(1) Floodplain Overlay District. The boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District shall include
those areas that are identified as areas of special flood hazard (Zones A, AE, A1-30, and 0.2%) in and
on the most current flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, as provided by
the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, which are
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of these regulations. The location of the
boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer (AO). If the applicant disagrees with the
determination made by the AO, a Letter of Map Amendment from FEMA shall constitute proof.)
(a) Floodplain Overlay District (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. The boundaries of these
Zones Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict shall include those areas of special
flood hazard designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as Zones A, AE, or A1-
30.
(b) Floodplain Overlay District (sZones 0.2% A and B) Subdistrict. The boundaries of these
Zones Floodplain Overlay (Zone 0.2%) Subdistrict shall include those areas of special flood hazard
designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as Zone 0.2%. They are further
classified into Zone A and Zone B on Map ****, hereby incorporated into these Regulations.
10.01 Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Floodplain Overlay District to:
(1) Avoid and minimize the loss of life and property, the disruption of commerce, the impairment
of the tax base, and the extraordinary public expenditures and demands on public services that result
from flooding;
(2) Ensure that the selection, design, creation, and use of development is reasonably safe and
accomplished in a manner that is consistent with public wellbeing, does not impair flood plain services
or the stream corridor;
(3) Manage the flood hazard area designated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, the
municipal hazard mitigation plan; and make the City of South Burlington, its citizens, and businesses
eligible for federal flood insurance, federal disaster recovery funds, and hazard mitigation funds as
may be available.
B. Authority. In accordance with 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32, and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 §4424, §4411 and
§4414, there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of flood damage in the City of South Burlington
Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington
identified as within the Floodplain Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B).
Commented [PC1]: Updated references
establishing the Zones.
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
2
C. [reserved] Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant portions of
the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth
therein.
D. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas
covered by this overlay district will be free from flood damages. This regulation shall not create liability
on the part of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any flood
damages that result from reliance on this regulation, or any administrative decision lawfully made
hereunder.
E. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this Floodplain Overlay District shall not in any way impair
or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where
this regulation imposes a greater restriction the provisions here shall take precedence.
F. Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict
(F) Development (1) Review in Hazard Areas
(1) Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined
in Section 2.03 (Floodplain Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30)
SubdistrictDistrict.
(a) All land lying within a River Corridor as defined in these Regulations is subject to the
standards of Section 10.07 in addition to the standards of this section.
(b) All land lying within a stream or surface water buffer, and all land within the 0.2% A Zone,
is subject to the standards of Section 12.02 in addition to the standards of this section.
(2) Submission requirements. In addition to all information required for permitted and
conditional uses, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Project Review Sheet to Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources. The Project Review Sheet shall identify all State and Federal agencies from
which permit approval is required for the proposal, and shall be filed as a required attachment to the
municipal permit application. The identified permits, or letters indicating that such permits are not
required, shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer and attached to the permit before work can
begin.
(3) Referrals.
(a) Upon receipt of a complete application for a substantial improvement or new
construction the Administrative Officer shall forward a copy of the application and supporting
information to the State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator at the Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. 4424. A permit may be issued only following
receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application
was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner.
(b) If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies
of the application shall also be submitted to the adjacent communities, the Stream Alteration
Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Copies
of such notice shall be provided to the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator
at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A
permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural
Commented [PC2]: Removed throughout
document as it is redundant to Article 1.
Commented [PC3]: Added as a cross-
reference for applicability
Commented [PC4]: Numbering / lettering is
generally updated and simplified
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
3
Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources, whichever is sooner.
(4) Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and
A1-30) SubdistrictDistrict. Structures associated with any of the permitted uses below shall be allowed
only as Conditional Uses subject to the provisions of this Section 10.01.
(a) Park;
(b) Recreation path;
(c) Outdoor recreation facility;
(d) Non-substantial improvements of existing structures;
(e) Development related to on-site septic or water supply systems;
(f) Building utilities;
(g) At-grade parking for existing buildings; and,
(h) Recreational vehicles.
(5) Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and
A1-30) Subdistrict District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board
in accordance with the provisions of this Section 10.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards.
(a) Substantial improvement, elevation, relocation, or flood proofing of existing structures;
(b) Accessory structures;
(c) New or replacement storage tanks for existing structures;
(d) Grading, excavation; or the creation of a pond;
(e) Improvements to existing roads;
(f) Bridges, culverts, channel management activities, or public projects which are
functionally dependent on stream access or stream crossing;
(g) Public utilities.
(6) Prohibited Uses. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in this section, the following
uses are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay District (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict:
(a) (i) New critical facilities.
(c) Storage or junk yards.
(b) New residential or non-residential structures (including the placement of manufactured
homes) except within Zone 0.2% B of the Floodway Overlay District.;
(ii) Storage or junk yards;
(d) (iii) New fill except as necessary to elevate structures above the base flood elevation; and,.
(e) (iv) Within the floodway:
(i) Accessory structures in the floodway..
(i)(ii) New encroachments, except for minor improvements to existing structures or
relating to bridges, culverts, roads, stabilization projects, public utilities, river and/or
floodplain restoration projects, or health and safety measures. Minor improvements are those
that would not affect base flood elevations, consistent with the provisions of FEMA P-480;
Desk Reference for Local Officials
G. Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-
30) Subdistrict District, all structures shall be subject to the area, density and dimensional requirements
Commented [PC5]: Updated based on state
model
Commented [PC6]: Allow for new buildings
within 0.2% Zone B
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
4
of the Residential 1 District as set forth in Section 4.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards of these
regulations.
H. Additional Standards.
(1a) No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other
development, that would result in any increase in flood levels within the regulatory floodway during
the occurrence of the base flood discharge, shall be permitted unless hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses are performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, by a licensed professional
engineer, certifying that the proposed development will: a) Not result in any increase in flood levels
(0.00 feet) during the occurrence of the base flood; and b) Not increase any risk to surrounding
properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or flooding.
(b2) Within the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) SubdistrictDistrict, excavation of earth
products shall be prohibited in such cases where it is anticipated that such excavation will lower the
level of the water table, interfere with natural flow patterns, or reduce flood storage capacity.
(3) All new Permitted or Conditional roads, utilities and other infrastructure located within a
flood hazard area must be designed and constructed to withstand flooding and result in no adverse
impacts to surrounding properties during flood events. Road surfaces within delineated flood hazard
areas must be elevated at least 2 feet above the Base Flood Elevation (within Zones A, AE, and A1-30)
and two (2) feet above the 0.2% annual flood height (within Zone to maintain access and minimize
highway flooding during flood events
(4 c) All development allowed as Conditional Uses pursuant to Section 10.01(F)(1)(e) above
shall meet the following additional standards:
(a) All development shall be reasonably safe from flooding, as determined by compliance
with the specific standards of this subsection.
(b) All development shall be designed (I) to minimize flood damage to the proposed
development and to public facilities and utilities, and (II) to provide adequate drainage to reduce
exposure to flood hazards.
(c) All development shall be (I) designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure during the occurrence of the base flood,
(II) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (III) be constructed by methods and
practices that minimize flood damage, and (IV) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation,
plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or
located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during
conditions of flooding.
(d) New and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the
systems into flood waters.
(e) On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding.
(f) The flood carrying capacity within any portion of an altered or relocated watercourse shall
be maintained.
Commented [PC7]: Recommendation from
Subdivision consultant, to be included here.
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
5
(g) Replacement manufactured homes shall be elevated on properly compacted fill such that
the top of the fill (pad) under the entire manufactured home is above the base flood elevation.
(h) Structures
(i) Structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, A1-30,
AE, and AH shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least one two (12) feet foot above
base flood elevation; this must be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with
a FEMA Elevation Certificate.
(ii) Structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zones A &
B, and new structures in Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B shall be located such that the
lowest floor is at least two (2) feet above elevation of the 0.2% annual flood height; this must
be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate.
(i) Non-residential structures to be substantially improved shall:
(iI) Meet the standards in Section 10.01(H)(4)(h)(F)(3)(c)(viii); or,
(iiII) Have the lowest floor, including basement, together with attendant utility and
sanitary facilities be designed so that two (2) feet above the base flood elevation (for
structures in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH), or two (2) feet above the elevation of the 0.2%
annual flood height (for structures in Zones 0.2% A and B), the structure is watertight with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy;
A permit for flood proofing shall not be issued until a licensed professional engineer or
architect has reviewed the structural design, specifications and plans, and has certified that
the design and proposed methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards
of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. An occupancy permit for the
structure shall not be issued until an "as-built" plan has been submitted and a licensed
professional engineer or architect has certified that the structure has been constructed in
accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection.
(j) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below grade
on all sides (including below grade crawlspaces and basements) shall be prohibited.
(k) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas that are
above grade, below the lowest floor, below Base Flood Elevation and subject to flooding, shall be
(i) solely used for parking of vehicles, storage, or access, and such a condition shall clearly be
stated on any permits; and, (ii) designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Such designs must be certified by
a licensed professional engineer or architect, or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
A minimum of two openings on two walls having a total net area of not less than one square inch
for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all
openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens,
louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and
exit of floodwaters.
Commented [PC8]: Changed to 2 feet to
follow State of VT Best practices
Commented [PC9]: Applies floodproofing
standards to new & existing structures in Zone
B, and existing structures in Zone A.
Commented [PC10]: Defines elevation for
0.2% Zone)
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
6
(l) In Special Flood Hazard Areas where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have
not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study and
accompanying maps, it is the applicant’s responsibility to develop the necessary data.
(m) In the AE Zone, where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have not been
determined, development shall not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative
effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated
encroachment, will not increase the base flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point
within the community. The demonstration must be supported by technical data that conforms to
standard hydraulic engineering principles and certified by a licensed professional engineer.
(n) All recreational vehicles shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use.
(o) A small accessory structure of 500 square feet or less in gross floor area that represents
a minimal investment need not be elevated to the base flood elevation in this area, provided the
structure is placed on a building site so as to offer the minimum resistance to the flow of
floodwaters and shall meet the criteria of subsection (xik) above.
(p) Critical facilities that are to be replaced, substantially improved, or meet the definition of
substantial damage shall be constructed so that the lowest floor, including basement, shall be
elevated or dry-floodproofed at least two (2) feet above the elevation of the 0.2% annual flood
height, or three (3) feet above base flood elevation, whichever is higher. A critical facility shall
have at least one access road connected to land outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain that
is capable of accommodating emergency services vehicles. The top of the access road shall be no
lower than the elevation of the 0.2% annual chance flood event.
I. Administration and Enforcement.
(a1) The Zoning Permit issued for any development pursuant to this Section 10.01(FI) shall
include: a record of the elevation, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor, including
basement, of all new construction or substantial improvements of structures.
(b2) Upon issuance of a zoning permit, the Administrative Officer shall properly file and
maintain a record of:
(a) Elevation Certificates with the as-built elevation (consistent with the datum of the
elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the community) of the lowest floor,
including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures (not including accessory
structures) in the Special Flood Hazard Area;
(b) All flood proofing and other certifications required under this regulation; and,
(c) All decisions of the Board (including variances and violations) and all supporting findings
of fact, conclusions and conditions.
(c3) Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all new structures
or substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30)
SubdDistrict.
(d4) Enforcement
Commented [PC11]: Newly added based on
state model 11/3/2020
Commented [PC12]: Modified from 1 foot
in state model to 2 feet 11/3/2020
Commented [PC13]: Modified from “no
lower than 6 inches below”, in state model, to
“no lower than” 11/3/2020
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
7
(a) A copy of any notice of violation of this section shall be mailed by the Administrative
Officer to the State NFIP Coordinator.
(b) If any appeals have been resolved, but the violation remains, the Administrative Officer
shall submit a declaration to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program
requesting a denial of flood insurance to the property pursuant to Section 1316 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended.
(c) Any proposed agricultural structure that does not meet the criteria and process in the
Accepted Agricultural Practices will be in violation of this bylaw. Such violations shall also be
immediately reported to the Secretary of Agriculture for enforcement under 6 V.S.A. Section
4812.
(e5) Variances
(a) A variance may be granted by the Development Review Board only in accordance with
Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated and 44 CFR Section 60.6.
(b) Any variance issued in the Special Flood Hazard Area shall not increase flood heights, and
shall inform the applicant in writing over the signature of a community official that the issuance
of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation increases risk to life and
property and will result in increased flood insurance premiums up to amounts as high as $25 for
$100 of coverage. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
G. Floodplain Overlay (Zone 0.2%) Subdistrict
(1) Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined
in Section 2.02 (Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict.
(2) Permitted Uses. Those uses allowed as permitted uses in any underlying zoning district within
the City may be permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict only in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
(3) Conditional Uses. Those uses allowed as conditional uses in any underlying zoning district
within the City may be permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict only in accordance
with the provisions of this section.
(4) Prohibited Uses. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in the underlying zoning district,
new Critical Facilities are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict.
(5) Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone)
Subdistrict, all structures shall be subject to the area, density and dimensional requirements of the
underlying zoning district as set forth in Article IV and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards of these
regulations.
(6) Additional Standards.
Commented [PC14]: Removed as these
standards are proposed to be enhanced an
incorporated above.
Floodplain Overlay
0.2% Floodplain Zone
Initial Draft for PC Discussion 2020-11-10
8
(a) Any Critical Facilities to be expanded or substantially improved in the Floodplain Overlay
(0.2% Zone) Subdistrict shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least one (1) foot above
base flood elevation.
(b) In the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict, where base flood elevations and/or
floodway limits have not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood
Insurance Study and accompanying maps, it is the applicant’s responsibility to develop the
necessary data.
(7) Administration and Enforcement. Administration and enforcement of development in the
Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict shall be subject to all requirements of Article XVII
(Administration and Enforcement) of these Regulations.
12.02 Streams and Surface Waters
…
(1) B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows,
collectively referred to as Stream and Surface Water Buffers:
(1a) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Muddy Brook
and the main stem of Potash Brook from the top of bank or top of slope of major streams, whichever
is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology. Major streams are defined as the Winooski
River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook.
(b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the edge of the channel of the
Winooski River
(c 2) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the centerline from the top of bank or top
of slope of any minor stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of a drainage way
(3) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance from the top of the bank or top of slope of a
natural intermittent stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(4d) All Lland within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for the
purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean seal level datum.
(5) All land within Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone A.
Commented [PC15]: Added for Commission
consideration 11/3/2020
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 changes to mapped Habitat Block Applicability and SEQ NRP
DATE: November 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
The Commission on October 13, 2020 reviewed the mapped boundaries of Forested Habitat Blocks as
identified in the 2020 Arrowwood Environmental Forested Habitat Blocks Assessment and Ranking. The
Commission provided direction to staff to:
- Modify the applicability of certain habitat block areas for regulatory purposes
- Modify certain Southeast Quadrant Zoning Subdistrict Boundaries, between the SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRP
A full summary of these possible modifications can be found in the October 13th meeting packet.
Staff has worked with the CCRPC to update the maps pursuant to Commission direction. A series of 4 maps
can be found at the following link: https://arcg.is/1PLyWW
The maps show:
1. Arrowwood Forested Habitat Block vs with Commission direction on applicable areas
2. Current SEQ-NRP/NR boundary vs potential modified SEQ/-NRP-NR boundary
3. Maps 1 & 2 combined
4. NRP, Forest Blocks, Hazards, and 0.2% floodplain together
Meeting notes:
1. For the purposes of this meeting, staff is only seeking feedback as to whether Commissioners see any
errors from the direction given on October 13th, and to have this map on hand as context leading into the
next item
2. All proposed Environmental Protection Standards will be presented together at an upcoming meeting for
review and feedback.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
13 OCTOBER 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 October 2020, at 7:00
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. MacDonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; J. Weith, K. Wright, C. Trombly, L. Kingsbury,
D. Long, D. Long, C. & A. Long, S. Dooley
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. Trombly, the new Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, asked the Commission to look for
opportunities to convert land to usable housing supply. Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission is
looking at changing some land use in some areas.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted seeing articles regarding energy as a part of smart planning and hoped the new PUD
requirements take energy into consideration.
Mr. Conner two bills passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. The first (S-237) relates
to affordable housing and requires the owner of the property to live on the property but not necessarily
in the main unit. It also allows 30% of the property or 900 sq. ft., whichever is larger, to be converted to
an additional dwelling unit. Bill S-54 relates to cannabis and has new provisions. Mr. Conner said he will
get together with the City Attorney and let the Commission know the specifics.
4. Proposed Amendments to Land Development Regulations: review proposed amendments and
consider and possibly approve Planning Commission Report and Warning of Public Hearing on
same:
a. LDR-17-13A: Allow for increase in maximum building and lot coverage on properties with
land in the Urban Design Overlay District via installation of an on-site civic space
b. LDR-17-13B: Allow for increase in maximum lot coverage on properties with land in the
Urban Design Overlay District via use of Transferable Development Rights from designated
Sending Areas
c. LDR-19-06: Modify Table of Open Space Types (Appendix F) and Applicability in the City
Center Form Based Code District
d. LDR-20-18A: Eliminate requirement for submission of paper copies of applications under
the Land Development Regulations
2
Mr. Gagnon moved to warn a public hearing for 10 November 2020 for changes to the Land
Development Regulations and the accept the staff report that supports these changes. Mr. Riehle
seconded.
Ms. Ostby asked how much land is involved in a TDR. Mr. Conner said a TDR would be 10,000 sq. ft. of
lot coverage, about 0.83 acres. He noted that the City Attorney felt it best to approximate the amount
of lot coverage which is why it is being suggested that TDRs be purchased in increments of not less than
2500 sq. ft. Mr. Conner stressed that the only thing being increased is lot coverage.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0.
5. Work Session on and Development Regulations Amendments:
a. Continue review of Forested Habitat Block applicability and related possible zoning district
amendments:
Mr. Conner showed a map of forested habitat blocks and indicated staff’s recommendations for
each of them as follows:
1. South Point to South Village: In general, staff recommends that forest block areas be
contained in an NRP. The recommendation here is to extend the NRP west to the
north/south roadway, and to remove the applicability of forested blocks west of the
roadway.
2. South Village: Staff recommends aligning the forested block to the approved development
plan.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is any value to removing the “finger.” Mr. Conner said this is what is approved
for South Village. What is approved for conservation is already approved. Mr. Gagnon asked if a
developer could come back in the future to change the plan. Mr. Conner said that is possible, but this
would codify areas approved for development as the only such areas. Members agreed this is the best
way for future protection.
3. Dorset Farms: Staff recommends changing the edge of the NRP at the north end of the map
to add the forested area to the NRP. The house site on the southern parcel, or any other
areas outside the forested blocks, could be redesignated for balance.
Ms. Ostby wanted to be sure there is a connector within these parcels that is protected. Mr. Riehle felt
this is a significant corridor.
4. Hidden Meadow/Cobblestone: Staff recommends the highlighted area be added to the
NRP.
5. Highland Terrace: Staff recommends adding an area to the NRP but removing the “fingers”
from the NRP.
3
Mr. Macdonald asked if there has been any interest in doing infill on those lots. Mr. Conner said several,
and the first Interim Zoning application was for one of those lots. Mr. Gagnon noted the area really isn’t
developable as it has steep slopes. Members agreed to leave it as forest block.
6. Technology Park: Staff recommends leaving the forested blocks as is.
7. East and South of the Airport: Staff recommends leaving the large forested area as is and
considering removing the small one. Mr. Conner noted that at a recent Airport Master Plan
meeting, they identified most of that area as wetland, and it is likely to stay the way it is.
8. I-189 and I-89 Corridors: Mr. Conner noted these are not within the city’s jurisdiction. One
option being looked at in the current I-89 study is redoing the interchange. Mr. Conner
said he will talk with RPC and the City Attorney about this area so as not to cut off potential
solutions.
9. Mayfair Park/High School Woods: Ms. Louisos noted the city is looking at some stormwater
improvements there. Staff recommends retaining the forested areas as they are in Mayfair
Park. For the High School, retain the forested areas as mapped.
Ms. Ostby suggested adding some wildlife crossing signs.
10. North of Patchen Road: Staff recommends retaining the forest block. Mr. Conner noted
the VELCO right-of-way is not treed because of the power lines. There are also 25% slopes
or huge floodplains.
11. Centennial Woods: Ms. Louisos noted there are a lot of ravines and slopes. Staff
recommends no changes to the forested block as mapped except as previously decided by
the Commission. Residential zoned parcels would be eligible for a Conservation
subdivision. Mr. Conner noted the former dog park is now zoned I-Ag. The property owner
could a0pply to be a Conservation PUD. They would have to conserve at least 70% of the
land including any hazards.
Ms. Dooley noted that years ago UVM talked about developing that area as part of their Master Plan.
Mr. Conner said staff has encouraged UVM to share their plans with the city. A number of properties
are designated as “unplanned.” Ms. Kingsbury said UVM has talked about coming to the Planning
Commission for a larger discussion. There are areas designated for future development, including the
former dog park area. They are now beginning to update their Master Plan.
Mr. Conner said staff recommends not doing PUD types for UVM properties at this time.
12. Red Rocks Lakeshore (North): Staff recommends continuing to regulate Red Rocks under
the city’s Natural Areas Management Plan. At Lakeshore, staff recommends removing the
“tongue” that extends into a portion of the land and to consider a requirement that the
4
PUD adhere to the Official City Map. Mr. Conner noted this is a very valuable property. A
significant portion of it is not to be built on, and staff is concerned with the potential for “a
taking.” The area is marginal, and trees south of it are not a forest block.
Ms. Ostby wasn’t sure she would leave Red Rocks to that plan. She felt the Commission should
supplement the plan.
13. Lakeshore South: Mr. Conner noted this area requires future examination of habitat
function and future planned roadways. Ms. Louisos noted the railroad track which can
work as a habitat corridor. The recommendation is to leave the habitat block as it is.
14. Bartlett Brook: Staff recommends leaving the majority of the habitat block but removing a
small area near Shelburne Road as it is otherwise a developable area within the transit
overlay district. All setbacks would still apply.
15. Allen Road: Staff recommends retaining the habitat block as mapped and adding
connecting pieces.
16. Eastwoods/Swift Street Are: Mr. Conner said staff is leaning toward having parcels with
large amounts of forest blocks utilizing a Conservation PUD tool in order to retain the
owner’s value of the land. He added that the City Council could discuss non-regulatory
tools with the owners.
Ms. Ostby suggested allowing higher density in the buildable areas, even more than the underlying
zoning. Mr. Riehle agreed. Members questioned the Edlund property, and Mr. Conner explained what
can be built there. It is currently zoning Inst-Ag. Ms. Ostby asked if UVM would have to follow the city’s
designation of ‘forest block’ for the Edlund property. Mr. Conner said staff is trying to find that out as
there are specific rules for educational facilities. Mr. MacDonald noted it is the second most critical
habitat block, and if the city was in a position to buy it they should. Mr. Conner reminded the
Commission that the owner’s economic value of the property also needs to be retained. Mr. Gagnon
asked if they could broaden the building types in a Conservation PUD for non-residential buildings. Mr.
Conner said the uses would be those allowed in the underlying zoning. That would include a dormitory.
Mr. MacDonald asked where the zoning would fit here. Mr. Conner said if the Commission doesn’t want
to change the zoning, they could apply a TND type of PUD or a Conservation PUD.
Ms. Ostby spoke to the need to give all property owners a chance to discuss any changes the
Commission is proposing.
17. Meadowood: Staff recommends retaining the forest blocks as drawn and adding a
connector.
18. Wheeler/Hill Farm: Staff recommends pulling back the mapped forested areas to form a
better demarcation. In the Nature Park, there is a piece the city is looking at for more
active uses.
5
19. Meadowland: Staff recommends retaining the forested habitat block except for the
removal of the square into Meadowland Business Park.
20. Cheesefactory Road/Dorset Street: Staff suggests the Commission consider the purposes
and applicability of the NRT district as a whole and consider assigning areas as either
Conservation, NRT or NR. Mr. Conner said he believed there is some recent wetland
mapping that would dictate the location for any development. Members agreed to keep it
as it is.
Ms. Ostby felt that after Interim Zoning they should make it a priority to welcome landowners’ feedback
for requests regarding their land. Mr. Rirhle noted they would still have a lot on their plate at that time.
Ms. Louisos said they won’t just ignore people and suggested a possible subcommittee.
6. Other Business:
a. Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on Comprehensive Development
Ordinance Amendments, Tuesday, 13 October, 6:45 p.m. via Zoom
b. Williston Planning Commission public hearing on Unified Development Bylaw
amendments, Tuesday 20 October, 7 p.m., via Zoom
Mr. Conner said Burlington will be codifying some temporary things (e.g., ability to do tents). Williston
will be considering reduced parking standards.
Mr. Conner noted the City Council will meet the day after the Commission’s next meeting and will be
considering extending interim zoning. He suggested the Commission provide a status report. He also
suggested a second meeting in the week of 27 October to consider the language for subdivision and to
finalize natural resources work.
7. Meeting Minutes of 22 September 2020:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 22 September as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:12 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
27 OCTOBER 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 October 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, L. Ravin, A. Jensen-Vargas, T.
Barnes, L. Kingsbury, S. Dooley
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. Barnes asked about proposed protection areas and how this could affect housing in the city. He was
concerned that density could be increased in areas where development is allowed and that affordable
housing would be affected. He was particularly concerned with the Wildwood Drive neighborhood.
Ms. Louisos said the Commission is evaluating habitat blocks that would have limited development as
well as other changes in PUDs. The Commission thinking about the concerns mentioned including the
affects on existing neighborhood.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is a way to bring the community up to speed on what the Commission is doing
to prepare people for what is coming up.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby that on 17 October the girls’ soccer team collaborated with UVM athletes to share
experiences as people of color in Vermont. She noted that in Vermont, only 4% of people of color own
homes compared to 70% of white Vermonters.
4. Work Session on Land Development Regulation Amendments:
a. Draft Subdivision Standards
Ms. Louisos noted the differences between subdivision, Master Plan and PUD standards.
Ms. Ostby asked whether street orientation in subdivision would be carried over to a PUD. Mr. Conner
said generally it would with some more flexibility in some areas. The intent is that the subdivisions are
the foundation.
Mr. Mittag said that in 15A #11, he would also exclude level 2 from the buildable area to keep as much
open space as possible. He also felt that in #15 roads should be built to public standards under all
2
circumstances, not only when connecting to a public road. He cited a problem in neighborhood where
not building a road to public standards has created a problem.
With regard to #11, Ms. Louisos said excluding level 2 from the buildable area creates a potential legal
problem for reducing property values. Mr. Conner added that the standards in Article 12 would apply
regardless, so level1 resources would have to be adhered to. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission
allowed flexibility in level 2, and that it why it was left as part of the buildable area calculation.
Ms. Ostby said she was all for protecting resources, but in terms of calculation of density, she didn’t
know why the number of units, even from level 1, can’t count for density. She felt level 2 could be built
on with restrictions because that is what Articles 10 and 12 are protecting. Ms. Louisos noted that in
PUDs, level 1 resources do count toward density. They don’t in subdivisions.
Mr. Barnes asked if a PUD is more restrictive. Mr. Riehle noted that there is a development planned
where Mr. Barnes lives. Mr. Conner said that is a 6-7 acre parcel with a wide area at the end of
Wildflower Lane. It would be a Traditional Infill neighborhood which allows for single family and
duplexes and some multiplexes if they look like single family buildings. There would also be the need for
a small park in the neighborhood. Mr. Conner noted the DRB saw a plan for a proposed neighborhood
in that area, something like what would be allowed, possibly more creative in how buildings would be
shaped. Mr. Barnes said that plan allowed for only 6 parking spaces, so parking would have flowed
onto the street. Mr. Conner said there was also a dead-end street, which would be discouraged in the
new regulations. The idea is to create a functional neighborhood.
Ms. Dooley said the last she knew you needed at least 4 acres for a PUD under the draft regulations.
Some infill is less than that, so they wouldn’t qualify for a PUD. That seems contrary to what is being
said. Mr. Conner said a PUD is required at 4 acres; it is optional at 2 acres. That is consistent with
current regulations in R-2 zoning districts. Ms. Dooley said then you still couldn’t do Kirby Cottages,
which are built on 1.6 acres, so the PUD is not necessarily the answer as it is inaccessible for a small
development.
Regarding historic sites, Mr. Conner noted that there are a few eligible ones and some stone walls. The
consultant said these should be identified. Ms. Ostby asked if a property owner was willing to tag and
protect a feature, could they get some consideration as an incentive. Mr. Conner said there is credit
given for retaining trees, and that could be extended.
Regarding street networks, Mr. Conner said that currently the city discourages dead end streets and has
a length limit in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). In the new language, dead end streets would not be
accepted anywhere in the city except for a short length with DRB criteria.
Mr. Riehle said he had mixed feelings about dead end streets as kids safely play there. He wasn’t sure
why to preclude them if they are appropriate. Mr. Gagnon questioned the ability to plow them. Also, if
a street is too long and the entrance is blocked, emergency vehicles can’t get there. Mr. Conner said the
big cost is long-term maintenance, including plowing and looping of utilities.
3
Mr. Barnes said he would much rather have Wildflower loop around and connect with Hinesburg Road.
There are many vehicles that come into the neighborhood, get frustrated and speed out at his speeds.
The plow got stuck last year, and trash trucks often get stuck.
Mr. Conner said the critical component is street type, so that streets are appropriately scaled to the
neighborhood. Mr. Gagnon said if you have a large piece of land, the developer or the city might want
streets to go a certain way and suggest saying “as it logically relates to topography, level 1 resources,
etc.” instead of “to the extent feasible.”
Ms. Ostby said they should add having rooftops face in a certain direction. Even if the street doesn’t
face in a direction, part of the roof can.
Regarding sidewalk requirements, Ms. Ostby didn’t necessarily agree with having a required sidewalk on
one side of the street. She said there are areas where people walk in the streets, and you get more
green space without sidewalks. Mr. Conner noted that sidewalks are required on both sides of the
street in City Center and on one side in the SEQ. He felt that where there are more than 4 units per
acre, there should be sidewalks on both sides. He noted there is a Vermont mandate that might make it
difficult not to have a sidewalk on either side.
He also noted there is a street type where the street is 20 feet wide but there is a different texture in
one part to indicate public walking space.
Mr. Gagnon said he favored sidewalks on one side of the street. Ms. Ostby said she would favor
flexibility on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Ms. Louisos said they would have to create a
street type to accommodate that. Mr. Gagnon said accessibility is important for everyone. He would
leave it as written to provide a safe form of walkability. Mr. Riehle added they are also important for
seniors.
Regarding building roads to public standards, Mr. Mittag said the city should never take over any roads
that aren’t built to public standards. Mr. Gagnon noted occasions when HOA run out of money and
can’t maintain private roads. He favored building to city standards. Ms. Louisos noted the City Council
has a policy on this. Mr. Conner noted there are times when a road is built to city standards but the city
doesn’t take it over until it connects to something else.
Members agreed the city should not take over a road not built to city standards.
Mr. Riehle asked if they are talking about a grid system or meandering streets. Mr. Conner said more of
a network as in the Orchards neighborhood. The idea is to create blocks, which can be different shapes.
Wherever it can be done, streets can become the delineator between a park and a neighborhood or a
resource and a neighborhood. Mr. Riehle noted that in Dorset Farms there is a grid inside with more
meandering around it. He felt that was nicer than looking down a straight street. Mr. Conner said
connectivity within the block would be up to the developer.
4
Regarding “blocks,” Mr. Conner noted that 10% of a block must be a “civic space,” usable for people in
the neighborhood. It can’t be something that isn’t buildable per Article 12. This is already required in
the SEQ and in PUDs. The consultant recommended this be part of a subdivision as well. Ms. Ostby
questioned whether a civic space is necessary in a very small subdivision. Mr. Conner agreed there
should be a minimum below which it doesn’t have to happen.
Regarding renewable energy facilities, Mr. Mittag felt the word “shall” should be used instead of “must.”
Mr. Conner said “must” was recommended by the legal department because “must” is a stronger word.
The intent is to be stronger.
Mr. Engels asked about connectivity in relation to Swift Street and other major connections.
Mr. Conner said before the Commission gets to the end of this discussion, they will have to specifically
discuss Swift Street. It is a potentially significant roadway. Mr. Gagnon added it relates to the Official
City Map. Members felt this should be an independent agenda item. Mr. Riehle noted that
“connectivity” can be for vehicles or as a bike path, etc. Mr. Engels noted that neighbors can be next to
each other, and you still have to drive miles to get from one to the other.
Mr. Mittag felt that at the end of the sentence in 15A #17, language should read, “Use of energy
resources must include one or more of the following….”
Mr. MacDonald asked what the unintended consequences of that would be regarding pricing of housing.
Mr. Mittag said they should do everything to ensure the health and welfare of those who live here in the
next century.
Mr. Gagnon suggested adding a 6th item: participation in a community solar project that may be off-site.
He felt that would accomplish the same goal. Ms. Louisos felt those areas should not be removed from
the buildable area. Members agreed that made sense. Ms. Ostby said you could combine solar with a
civic/public space. She added that new homes should have a level 2 capable electric panel. A charger
could be added later.
Mr. Conner suggested making these additions to the buildings section. He also wanted to talk with the
city’s electrical inspector.
Regarding 15A #11, Ms. Ostby asked if they are increasing or decreasing the number of units. Mr.
Conner said today, in a straight subdivision, each lot has to stand on its own. The draft language might
have some reductions that take place. In a PUD, density can be moved around, but because of
resources, etc., that may not be feasible. In a Conservation PUD, units in a Level 1 area can be
transferred to a developable area for the density. In TND and NCD, you take off the Level 1 area but the
ceiling becomes a higher density. Regulations in PUDs in the future will allow for more density than
now, but it won’t feel like more. Where it might be less would be areas with a lot of certain resources,
but using a Conservation PUD could bring that density up.
Public comment was then solicited:
5
Ms. Dooley suggested reducing the minimum size for a PUD from 2 acres to 1 acre and requiring homes
to have enough power for a charger for an electric vehicle.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas noted she had gotten stuck because of a ‘no sidewalk” situation. She was also
concerned with running gas lines to houses that are being added onto. This caused an explosion in New
York. She said she would look skeptically at gas lines if electricity is available.
Mr. Mittag was concerned with opportunities for waivers that might cause deviation from what the
Commission is trying to accomplish. Mr. Conner noted that in order for the DRB to grant a waiver all 4
criteria must be met. He felt that was very tight. What happens now is that if you can’t meet a
subdivision standard, you get a watered down PUD. Mr. Conner added that he will be speaking to the
DRB next week and can bring this to them.
Mr. Gagnon said he was concerned with a sentence that begins “or other…”
Ms. Louisos was concerned with the “ownership” of a civic space lot and felt there should be language
about that.
Ms. Louisos also noted comments in the chat box that members should read. Mr. Conner said he would
download them and forward them to members.
Members agreed to consider Master Plans at tomorrow’s special meeting.
5. Possible discussion of Presentation to the City Council November 2:
Ms. Louisos said she will attend that meeting but hasn’t yet planned a presentation. Ms. Ostby
suggested showing some maps. Mr. Conner noted that the RPC has gotten updated maps to him which
he will share at tomorrow’s meeting.
6. Meeting Minutes of 9 and 29 September:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 9 and 29 September 2020 as written. Mr. Gagnon
seconded. Motion passed unanimously
As there was no further business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:12 p.m.
___________________________________, Clerk