Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 12/15/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 15 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 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; R. Gonda, D. Seff, S. Dooley, R. Greco, J. Bellavance, S. Dopp 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. Gonda noted that the Natural Resources Committee is working on identifying habitat connectivity. They will assign a priority to the areas they map. The result would be a satellite map. They hope to finish this be mid-February/early March. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Conner said that in the next few meetings, the Committee will see a recommendation from the Affordable Housing Committee regarding matching the city’s regulations to the new State regulations regarding accessory dwellings. The Energy Committee is considering having the city adopt the energy stretch code for commercial as well as residential buildings. 4. Continued Review of Land Development Regulations changes: Mr. Gagnon suggested the information sent out by Mr. Conner regarding stream buffers be part of any discussion regarding changing stream buffers so as to be consistent with state and federal standards especially where setbacks are measured from (e.g., the top of the banks). Mr. Macdonald asked whether the figures in Article 12 prior to Mr. Mittag’s proposal are those from the state. Mr. Conner said that generally speaking, South Burlington standards mirror State Class 1 and Class 2 wetland standards. The State does not regulate Class 3 wetlands and South Burlington does. The Army Corps of Engineers does regulate Class 3 wetlands of an acre or more, but they do not regulate buffers. Ms. Louisos said changing the regulations to measure from the top of the stream bank results in a wider buffer. She added that 50 feet is relatively consistent in State regulations. Fish & Wildlife recommends 100 feet from larger streams. 2 Mr. Mittag said his suggested buffers are because of climate considerations and what can be expected. Buffers do more than prevent floods. They reduce volumes of overland flow, provide shade and maintain habitat and corridors for species. He said he didn’t care about what the State does but what South Burlington should do. Members then reviewed specific passages. Ms. Ostby said she had a concern with 12.1(b). She felt it may be oversimplifying and be of concern to the public, especially if this is the only thing some people read. Mr. Conner suggested coming back to it, and he would make a note to make it clearer. Ms. Ostby asked whether the 500-year flood plain protects buffer areas. Mr. Conner said in some cases it does. He said he would be willing to map what is in some of the proposals. Mr. Gagnon felt it was “apples & oranges.” The flood plain measures flooding. Buffers are a measurement from the top of the bank. Ms. Louisos said many areas overlap. She said there are other benefits of flood storage and are concerns with where the water may migrate to. Benefits overlap as well. There is a wide range of stream functions (water quality, shading, flood storage, etc.), and there are suggestions as to what the buffer number should be to protect each function. Some say just protect the 500 year flood plain and you’ll be good. Very few articles talk about intermittent streams. Ms. Louisos felt some of the areas should overlap. Mr. Gagnon said he felt the numbers were a little arbitrary, and he would like to know their basis. Mr. Mittag said he just looked at Arrowwood because it is specific to South Burlington. The 50-foot and 100- foot were arbitrary, he added. He also noted that a flood plain is mainly to protect property. Ms. Louisos said there is new national literature in which FEMA notes that there are other values to flood plains, not just to protect property. Mr. Gagnon asked what are considered major streams. Mr. Conner said that in South Burlington the major streams are the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook. Ms. Louisos said she was not convinced that intermittent streams need that much more buffer. Mr. Macdonald agreed. He said he would like to see what 300 feet looks like on the 3 major streams. Mr. Gagnon said he would like that as well. Mr. Mittag said there may be places along the major streams where a 300-foot buffer in not available. Ms. Greco said they should save as much as possible because climate change is accelerating much more quickly than was thought. She was concerned with paragraph 2 which says other provisions could supersede these provisions. She felt that made things “murky.” Mr. Albrecht said the Commission also has to think about land use patterns. He noted the challenge of mixing residential with commercial, specifically with a lot of residential areas not near the core so people have to drive for groceries, the Post Office, etc. That is not good for global warming. 3 Ms. Bellavance asked how the standards are addressing the Open Space Committee report and the recommended 25 parcels. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Gagnon was on that committee. She stressed that what is different about the Land Development Regulations is that they do not go “parcel by parcel.” The Commission can talk about the resource, regardless of where the parcel lines are. Ms. Ostby said that the habitat blocks complement the Open Space Report. Mr. Conner said the work done by the Open Space Committee helped inform the Commission to hire Arrowwood. On regulatory rules, the Commission can’t look at parcels because zoning has to be “blind to ownership.” They can look at resources. He also stressed that a property could have resources on only 10% of the property, and the Open Space Report identified the whole property. Members agreed to send the buffer recommendations to Taylor Newton at CCRPC to review and comment on. Regarding snow storage in the stream buffer, Ms. Louisos said she agrees it is not a reliable location. Other members agreed as there could be toxins in the snow. Members discussed the possibility of paths in the buffer. Mr. Gagnon noted the path at Technology Park that crosses the wetland. He could see some clearing for a path. Mr. Conner said crossings are identified elsewhere. He was concerned with a path having to be 25 feet outside the buffer which could discourage a path from ever being there. Mr. Conner noted that unpaved trails are not subject to rules and he recommended allowing them. Members agreed. Regarding crossings, Mr. Conner said there are general standards that apply to stream buffers. Ms. Louisos said she liked how it was written before Mr. Mittag’s comments. There are times when a crossing makes sense, if it done correctly. She also noted there are strong criteria when a crossing is allowed. Members agreed. Members then considered the question of recreation uses in buffers. Mr. Mittag felt they should remain natural buffers. Mr. MacDonald felt there could be an issue with prohibiting someone from walking along the stream or fishing. Ms. Ostby felt people would create their own paths by walking there. She felt it was OK if they put down a blanket and had a picnic, but not to allow structures. Mr. Conner stressed that the clearing of vegetation would not be allowed. Mr. Gagnon said if a rotten tree fell, it would be allowed to be cleared as “maintenance.” Mr. Conner said it would. Regarding wetlands, Mr. Mittag said the guidance is that “bigger is better.” Restoration can happen naturally if the buffer is big enough. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Mittag’s proposal is more stringent than State or Federal regulations, and the city’s regulations were already more stringent because the city regulates Class 3 wetlands. Mr. Gagnon asked if the State is considering any more stringent regulations regarding buffers. Ms. Louisos said she did not believe so. Mr. Gagnon said he was hesitant to change if there are no State plans to expand the regulations. 4 Mr. Conner noted that Class 3 wetlands have a significantly lower function/value. Requiring a significant buffer around Class 3 wetlands would bump up against what the Commission is trying to do with other design standards. He suggested eliminating the buffer around any Class 3 wetland of less than 300 feet. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald supported keeping the regulations as written before Mr. Mittag’s changes. Mr. Mittag said Vermont has lost half of its wetlands. If you widen the buffer, you make it more resilient over time. Mr. Gagnon said he wants to be consistent with current State regulations. He noted that developers are often required to get State permits, and he wanted to stick with what the State has. Ms. Ostby said that makes sense. Ms. Louisos noted there were notes in the “chat” regarding balancing protection and development. She said she favored leaving #1 as is to get public comment and having #2 with a 50-foot buffer for Class 3 wetlands more than 300 feet. She also indicated she would like to see this mapped to see what it looks like. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to map it but noted that mapping wetlands on a city-wise basis is not a perfect science. Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible to contact land owners involved in this to be sure they go to the public hearing. Ms. Louisos said they are widely spread across the city. Mr. Conner noted that currently the DRB can look at Class 1 & 2 wetlands and buffers more stringently than Class 3. Mr. Macdonald asked what getting a wetland permit from the State involves. Ms. Louisos said wetland scientists are very strict in the state. It has to do with function and value. They look at other ways to avoid impact. Mr. Gagnon said there is a mitigation piece as well. Mr. Conner noted there are times when impacts to buffers are allowed. He cited City Center development which was a Class 2 wetland. Mr. Riehle asked if there are cases in South Burlington where permits were denied. Mr. Conner said it is hard to say. If an applicant didn’t get a State permit, they did not apply to South Burlington. Mr. Riehle asked Ms. Louisos if she had seen development that shouldn’t have happened. Ms. Louisos said she hadn’t. Wetland scientists are so committed to their work. She felt they were doing a good job. Ms. Ostby said where they can keep things streamlined for owners where the State is doing a good job, she felt they should leave things as they are. Mr. Mittag felt they should lead the State. Ms. Louisos felt they are already doing that by regulating Class 3 wetlands. Under Section 12:05(b) Mr. Mittag what if it is an environmentally sensitive piece of land. Ms. Louisos said this means that someone can clear a tree that is threatening a house. This is allowed only to 50 feet around an existing building. Mr. Mittag asked what about a tree on another owner’s property. Mr. Conner noted that any land within 50 feet of a house can be cleared. He said there is significant case law regarding a tree threatening another person’s property and the responsibility for removing that tree. 5 Mr. Conner then noted that there are about 10-12 privately owned parcels that are more than 70% forested. The regulations could say “here is an area where we are OK with an impact” rather than just say 30% is OK. Ms. Louisos asked how that would work with other resources that aren’t mapped. Ms. Ostby felt the land-owner should make the decision. Regarding modifications/possible exceptions, Mr. Mittag said he added a few qualifications. Ms. Louisos said that in #1, you would not be able to reduce the amount of land. Ms. Ostby said they had discussed that depending on the layout of the blocks, an owner should be able to alter the block as long as the whole of the block remains. Mr. Conner suggested keeping some judgment for the DRB for a quirky situation. Ms. Louisos said one instance could be to get a well. Ms. Ostby felt it was important to say that Arrowwood removed anything less than 20 acres. She felt that as long as there is no net reduction to a block and a buffer is added elsewhere on the block, the net effect would be the same. Mr. Mittag felt it was a huge job to create a habitat block elsewhere. Ms. Louisos said they don’t have perfect mapping, and it might actually be better habitat if the line is moved over. Mr. Gagnon said the purpose was to allow latitude for what is on the site, especially invasives. Ms. Louisos agreed. Mr. Gagnon noted that at the beginning of the meeting Ms. Ostby had drawn 2 lines of possible connectors. He felt it would be good to see that mapped. Mr. Conner said he spoke with Jens who said those 2 specific ones were not at the same priority level to restrict development there. It could be a city goal to work with the landowners on those areas to restore the connections, but that would be separate from the regulations. Jens also cautioned about “sightings” being used to determine regulations. Ms. Greco said she has hundreds of video clips of wildlife in her backyard. Mr. Mittag noted that where her house is was once a major connector and habitat block. Members agreed to hold a special meeting to continue the discussion during the first full week of January. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission February 23, 2021