Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/07/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7 JANUARY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, 7 January 2021, 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; D. Albrecht, D. Wheeler, S. Dopp, A. Chalnick, J. Belevance, C. Trombly, K. Ryder, 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. Albrecht suggested that under “equity impact assessments,” there by an item to look at the social and racial impact of plans. This concern was brought to the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Albrecht suggested this be put on another Planning Commission agenda. He said there are intended and unintended impacts of plans, and it is the unintended impacts that are of concern. He did not want the Commission to focus on natural resources to the exclusion of other important interests. He then showed a slide of a presentation made by Xusana Davis, and noted that the State is trying to look at equity in a more systematic way with regard to unanticipated consequences (e.g., who is impacted?, who is the targeted impact? How to mitigate unanticipated impacts? etc.). Mr. Albrecht encouraged the Commission to think about equity impacts. He stressed that the whole city has to share the burden of housing and share the open spaces. Mr. Conner said he would be sure that all members get the materials offered by Mr. Albrecht. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that the Library will be holding a discussion group on “The Color of Law” next month. Copies are available at the Library. Mr. Conner said it is one of the most informative books he has read on the subject. He added there are things we accept as “standard” that may have been intentional years ago and copied into cities and towns’ regulations across the country. Ms. Louisos also noted that she had submitted the annual report of the Commission’s work to the City Council. Mr. Conner said he would share that as well as his department report with all members. Ms. Ostby said the Affordable Housing Committee continues to have questions about the impact of “building types” in PUDs. She said she tried to explain that it is a better building tool. They want to know if it has an impact on density. Ms. Ostby felt it would be important to address this in public hearings. 2 Ms. Dooley said she has concerns with an “either/or” of ways to calculate density in a PUD. If the intent of the Commission is to enforce “community,” building types are a better choice. She was ready to live with the concern with the number of units. Mr. Conner said he thought they will find the number of units is equal to or greater. Current regulations ignore resources on the land. There is a theoretical number of units allowed which cannot be achieved. In the future, development will be more compact, with more homes per acre than previously. Ms. Ostby said it was suggested the Commission provide a “sample build-out.” Ms. Louisos said the next meeting will focus on the subject of PUDs. 4. Continued Planning Commission work session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Updated Environmental Protection Standards: Rivers & Streams, Wetlands, Stormwater, Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species, Habitat Blocks, Habitat Connectors, Steep Slopes, Floodplains: Ms. Louisos noted she had gotten a document from a wetland scientist at the State. The information will be compiled for members for the 26 January meeting. She also received questions as to when the Commission will have official public comment. Ms. Louisos said she is hoping that will also be by the 26th of January. Mr. Conner said staff just got mapping regarding wider buffers. Taylor Newton of CCRPC is looking through Article 12 to possibly consolidate language. He did provide some comments on what the Commission will be discussing now. In Section 12.05, Mr. Conner said he will make sure the language indicates “50 feet within the same parcel.” Mr. Conner also noted the Mr. Newton is tidying up language regarding forestry. Mr. Mittag said that in section (d), he would like the word should to be replaced by “must” and add the word “contiguous.” Ms. Ostby reminded members they had agreed not to reduce the total area. Mr. Conner cited a situation where there is a transitional forest area. Across the way there is a mature tree stand. Neighbors want to keep the latter. Ms. Ostby said if you take from the transitional, you minimize the size of it. If multiple parties take from the transitional, what is happening to the habitat block. Mr. Mittag noted that when a habitat block near him was moved, foxes which had controlled the rabbit population, disappeared. Now they are now overrun with rabbits. Ms. Louisos said that a line on the map could be moved because it is not representation of the habitat block. The total area would stay the same, but the edge could be adjusted to contain better habitat. Where the line is moved to should be equal to or better than what was there before. Mr. Conner suggested language such as “expanding or revegetating” habitat. 3 Regarding habitat assessment, Mr. Mittag said he didn’t think an adjacent connector is adequate compensation for an exchange. He suggested saying “contiguous connector.” Members then considered the case where a parcel is more than 70% covered with resources and is not eligible to be a PUD. He said there are not many examples of this in the city. He thought to delete it entirely, but the catch is a circumstance where the property couldn’t become a Conservation PUD because it is too small (less than 2 acres) or because there is one building on a pre-existing parcel without a subdivision. He said he has now decided to try to rewrite that section. Mr. Mittag said if you allow development in the buffer, it is no longer a buffer and the core has no protection. Ms. Ostby said there are so few of them, and if someone has a property of less than 2 but more than 1 acre all in the buffer, you have to be able to honor that. Mr. Conner said he will check with the City Attorney to be sure they are not getting into a “taking” situation. He noted that Mr. Newton suggests this be an exception rather than an option. Regarding habitat protection, Ms. Ostby asked if there is anything they can do to require forest management. Mr. Conner said that at next Tuesday’s meeting Sharon will float a point system, and there may be a “carrot approach” for that. He added that you can’t require forest management if they’re not touching a forest area. Mr. Mittag suggested some tax relief. Ms. Dooley noted that the State would have an issue with that from the point of view of the education tax. Mr. Conner said the rest of the taxpayers would have to make up the difference. Ms. Louisos suggested some option related to the landscaping budget. Regarding encroachment, Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton felt this is a good place to define and include a standard of “undue adverse impact,” and he suggested a tie-in to some federal language. Regarding crossing a resource, Mr. Mittag felt it shouldn’t be encroached on and the resources remain unfragmented. He cited the crossing of the Great Swamp and did not want to see that again. Mr. Gagnon said if the only way to get to a property is through a forest block, they have to be careful of a “taking.” If you prohibit access to a property, you are essentially taking it. Ms. Louisos noted this applies not only to forest blocks. Mr. Gagnon stressed that they have to look at the whole package and allow for roads, utilities, public paths, etc., to be able to access a property. Mr. Conner said to imagine a property with a wetland crossing near the road. The State and the DRB have criteria to value that. But there isn’t guidance as to whether circumstances merit the crossing, when to allow, when not. The road Mr. Mittag referred to was required by the official city map. He wasn’t sure the applicant wanted to build the road, but it was required. Mr. Conner noted that the official map needs to be updated. Ms. Dooley cautioned the Commission to be aware of big picture and whether the effect would in fact be a taking. She noted that some developments require two modes of ingress/egress for emergency purposes, and the crossing could be needed to meet that requirement. 4 Mr. Wheeler of the City’s Stormwater Department said that he was asked to review Section 12. Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Wheeler and his team are the technical source staff goes to when reviewing stormwater issues. They are also actively working on improvements to historic water quality issues. Mr. Wheeler said the city has many impaired watershed issues and is doing projects to restore them. Those projects are subject to the city’s LDRs. Mr. Wheeler said there is no life in the streams now because of high flows off neighborhoods, and when they go into those neighborhoods, it is hard to put in something to address problems because often the problems are in buffer areas. Mr. Wheeler stressed that not all undeveloped land is pristine, and there are outfalls that are not in good condition. He showed photos of some problems areas and said the Stormwater Department has plans to go in and fix some of those areas. He also showed pictures of an area where they were able to put in a project. There were trees and a stream on that property that had to be dealt with, also a sewer line. The issue he raised is whether that project would have been possible if they couldn’t have cleared those trees. Mr. Wheeler also noted they are not working through a grant on an outflow stabilization project. He showed a photo of a gravel wetland they have put in to control the flows upstream. Ms. Dooley questioned whether increasing the buffer to 100 feet would be a concern regarding city city’s stormwater work. Mr. Conner said that Mr. Wheeler had indicated to him the section on infrastructure which assumes that all infrastructure is negative. He cited the need for language that allows for restoration to correct pre- existing conditions. Members agreed there is a need to address restoration in the regulations. Mr. Riehle asked whether there is still pollution in the streams. Mr. Wheeler said they are making progress and are putting together a plan to control phosphorus, and he felt they will meet that goal. He then showed a chart of neighborhoods where there are problems regarding phosphorus and the projects that are planned there. Some are residential areas, some commercial. Mr. Conner said he will work with Mr. Wheeler to craft language for the Commission to review on 26 January. Members then continued the discussion regarding encroachment. Mr. Conner said with a habitat block there is additional language with supplemental standards (no requirement for street trees, no lighting, eliminating curbs, etc.). He recommended keeping those standards. Mr. Gagnon agreed. Regarding educational use, there is language to allow for limited seating, a small shed, etc., to allow kids to interact with nature. 5 Regarding expansion into a habitat block, Mr. Conner questioned whether to leave that or not to allow it. He doubted it would ever come up. Members agreed to delete it. Buildings located in habitat blocks will not be allowed to expand. Regarding habitat connectors, members agreed to keep Mr. Newton’s recommendations. Regarding habitat disturbance, Ms. Ostby said she heard that landowners are challenging the existence of habitat on their land. She asked what if a person hires an expert who disagrees with what the Commission lists as a habitat. Mr. Conner said the total area of the habitat block could not be removed, but it could be moved. If a biologist says there is no value, the DRB can hire someone else to give a second opinion. An owner can also come to the Planning Commission if they believe there never was a habitat block on the land. There is also a suggestion to hire a consultant to update these areas every 5 years. Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton is also looking at this section. Mr. Conner said the challenge is that the DRB will see various extremes/opinions, and there isn’t enough case law yet. This could lead to the next JAM Golf appeal to the Supreme Court. Ms. Ostby asked how landowners can be educated about their rights. Mr. Conner said the city has no enforcement if people take down a tree or 2 on their property. Mr. Conner also noted the Mr. Newton has some comments regarding steep slopes. Ms. Dopp noted that in some cases people have regulations via individual forest management plans related to their property for things such as clearing of invasives. Mr. Conner said that will be addressed. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 26, 2020