HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/28/2021 (2)SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
28 SEPTEMBER 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 September 2021, at
7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Murray, Consultant; L. Ravin, S. Mathias,
C. Trombly, S. Dooley, M. Simoneau, A. Mack
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Mathias advocated for more open land and reduced impact on land and water. She felt Net Zero
should be required for all new buildings along with a reduced footprint to cover the cost. She was
concerned with the increase in impermeable surfaces (e.g., sidewalks on both sides of a street).
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner noted receipt of the supplication for the solar array at 600 Spear Street along with
comments regarding the Commissions feedback. This will be on the next regular agenda.
5. Continued Review of Draft Land Development Regulations:
Adjustments to the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection sub-district (NRP):
Mr. Conner noted the possibility of expanding the NRP into the area west of Dorset Street. He indicated
this on a map. Ms. Ostby questioned how this lines up with areas where Conservation PUDs are
required. Mr. Mittag said the Commission already voted on these as areas for additional conservation.
He then recommended areas west of the floodplain as NRP with a 200-foot residential buffer to
development at Nowland Farm Rd. Mr. Gagnon noted There is a small village residential (VR) area at the
south end (he identified this on the map). Mr. Conner said that area has also been identified as a
potential habitat block connector. Ms. Ostby said the connector can be moved to the north. Mr.
Gagnon said that might actually be a better connector in that location.
Mr. Macdonald asked whether the city has had any conversations with these property owners. Mr.
Conner said that has not happened. Ms. Ostby said the parcels in the middle of the high resource area
2
are hard to access without a reasonable connection. Mr. Mittag said there are 4 or 5 landowners who
might make their own arrangements. He felt the Commission should make a proposal and see what
people think about it.
Mr. Conner said the line between the Village Residential (VR) and Neighborhood Residential (VR) is in
the middle of the hazards. East toward Dorset Street is VR or Village Commercial (VC). The
northernmost parcel has land on each side. The 2 middle parcels are only on one side. They would
become entirely NRP. The southernmost parcel has land on both side. Ms. Ostby felt this was
worrisome as the Commission hasn’t addressed TDRs. They don’t know how the middle parcels would
have access, so NRP may be the only option. She added that density would have to go someplace.
Mr. Macdonald said he was not keen on using that method to conserve that land.
Ms. Louisos said the Commission doesn’t have to do anything here. If someone wants to change the
zoning to NRP, put a motion on the table. Mr. Gagnon asked what the current zoning is. Mr. Conner
indicated the NR areas which could have up to 4 units per acre. In the draft, the middle areas would
have to be a Conservation PUD. The question is how to address the subdivision regulations which
require connectivity. Ms. Ostby asked where the 30% development would fit. She felt they would have
to fit connecting to each other. Mr. Conner said what you would get over time is a set of small
neighborhoods in there, and it would be difficult for the “middle” to find a point of access.
Mr. Gagnon then moved to make the northern lot 200 feet from Nowland Farm Road Neighborhood
Residential (NR). Also that part of the property line of property #0570-01675, from the northern point
of that property down to Dorset Farms would be NR. In addition, move the wildlife connector north to
the northern property line of parcel #0570-01675. Mr. Mittag seconded.
Mr. Conner noted that everything east of the stream is Village Residential (VR) with a small Village
Commercial (VC) piece.
Ms. Ostby noted that along the road there could be up to 6 units per acre and connection to the
neighborhood below. Mr. Gagnon said that is what he intended.
Mr. Mittag wasn’t sure moving the connector was a good idea as there is a home there. He suggested
moving it to the south.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-2.
Ms. Ostby then moved that in the area just voted on, in the remaining parcels to the north and south, to
allow a TND rather than to require a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos seconded.
Ms. Ostby said this would give landowners more flexibility and would allow for more of a neighborhood
feeling which they may not get in a Conservation PUD.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Mittag abstaining.
3
Other SEQ NRP Boundary Changes:
Ms. Louisos showed a map of what was agreed on at earlier meetings. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. MacDonald
said since these things were already agreed on, they would hesitate to go back. Mr. Gagnon suggested
using the map they have for the public hearing. Ms. Ostby agreed. She added that at some point she
would like to know how many units of TDRs they have added.
Mr. Engels moved to include all the “blue areas” on the map as NRP. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
Parcels on the west side of Hinesburg Road zoned Industrial-Open Space:
Mr. Conner identified this area on a map. Ms. Louisos noted that staff is recommending changing the
zoning district to align with a more mixed use. Mr. Gagnon said he would like to see a TND of NC
allowed. Mr. Conner said the proposal is for a Neighborhood Commercial 7 which would allow offices,
smaller retail, etc. He also suggested the possibility of an area to reserve for light industry. Mr. Riehle
asked if any part of that is in the SEQ. Mr. Conner said from a zoning perspective, no. Mr. Riehle asked if
the potential change would allow for a hotel. Mr. Gagnon said a hotel is not allowed in the R7NC.
Ms. Ostby asked what the Comprehensive Plan envisioned for this area. Mr. Conner said the “blue” area
was mostly non-residential; the “orange” was medium density mostly residential; the “yellow” was
lower density residential; the “green” was primarily conservation.
Mr. Conner moved to change the zoning for this area to R7NC. Mr. Macdonald seconded.
Mr. Mittag felt that this area is within the conservation area on maps 7 & 8. Mr. Gagnon said it looks
like the Commission has already protected the resources. Mr. Mittag questioned making it R7 all the
way to the south with no buffer to the nature park to the south.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is a way to make sure if the motion passes to follow the Comprehensive Plan as
to where residential would be. Mr. Conner said commercial activity would like up to Hinesburg Road.
Ms. Murray added that this is what would typically happen. Mr. Engels asked if a Conservation PUD
could be allowed there. Mr. Conner said it could, but it does not allow for a mix of uses. It would be
entirely commercial or entirely residential.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-3.
New items from this meeting packet:
Mr. Conner said the first big question is the applicability of PUD types outside the SEQ zoning district.
Mr. Mittag said they had discussed eliminating the 50% threshold. He felt this would make it impossible
for someone to have a Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby noted that anyone can conserve 100% of their land
4
on their own with the Land Trust. She felt the Commission needs to be sure they are not eliminating the
benefit of having a neighborhood (e.g., walkability, etc.). There could be just a row of 9 houses to get
under the Act 250 requirement.
Ms. Louisos stressed that in the higher developed areas, they need to be sure of following the
development standards.
Ms. Ostby noted this is the offset for having taken off the areas with a lot of resources. Ms. Murray said
that is especially true with Level 1 resources and it offsets the impact to the landowner.
Ms. Ostby moved to accept the underlying zoning districts per the upper part of Table 15C-1. Mr.
Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 4-3.
Mr. Gagnon then moved to accept the second part of the Table 15C-1 for the TND development. Mr.
Mittag seconded.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is still the possibility to enable these areas to accept TDRs. Mr. Conenr said yes
for parcels below the TND threshold. Above that, you are close to what a TND can be, especially with
Inclusionary Zoning. Ms. Ostby asked if that is a concern. Mr. Conner said there aren’t that many places
where a TND is likely to exist until you get to an infill TND, which is another conversation. He added that
the most significant opportunities for use of TDRs will be along Shelburne and Williston Roads. He then
stressed that the more places the Commission takes out of being TNDs, the more the Commission’s
work on TNDs doesn’t happen.
Ms. Ostby was concerned that if there isn’t a market for TDRs, they will have to reduce the NRP
protection. Ms. Murray noted that on page 9 there is a provision to allow TDRs into a PUD. The only
place there would be an issue is where density is capped.
Mr. Conner asked if there is any reason for a developer outside the SEQ to buy TDRs under the current
draft. Ms. Murray said more density. Mr. Conner said there is no density limit. Ms. Murray said the
DRB could adjust height to allow this. Ms. Ostby felt it should be a priority to take this up once they are
past the public hearing.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Mittag felt that on p. 2, line 7, the word “styles” should be changed to “types.” Mr. Conner said in a
PUD, you have both. Mr. Riehle felt both should be kept and cited 15 duplexes in Dorset Farms that are
all the same color. He felt they need to encourage something else.
In Section 15.CO4 Ms. Ostby moved to change “riparian” to “waterways.” Ms. Louisos seconded.
Mr. Gagnon supported the motion noting that there has been previous concern with the word “riparian”
and people have been misusing that word.
5
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4—3.
Ms. Ostby wanted to be sure the development portion of a Conservation PUD is contiguous. Mr. Conner
noted there could be a parcel with 2 roadways with development adjacent to each. Ms. Murray said this
is addressed at the top of p.5.
Mr. Mittag felt they should reconsider what they did with carve outs. He recommended one carve out
of no more than 4 acres. Mr. Gagnon noted the vote to approve what they have was 6-1.
Mr. Mittag then move to return to the original text as drafted by Sharon with one carve out of 4 acres
for any parcel of 10 acres or more. Mr. Engels seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-5, and the
motion was deemed to have failed.
Mr. Gagnon asked if they will be able to get this wrapped up on Thursday. Mr. Conner said he felt they
could get to everything except Infill PUDs.
Mr. Conner then updated members on a letter received from UVM. There are 2 areas of issues:
The first relates to changes in Article 12, which Mr. Conner felt the Commission has already addressed.
The second is more significant. State Statute 24.VSA4413 places a limitation on regulatory authority of
municipalities on “educational land.” The only things the municipality can control are height, bulk,
parking, and setbacks. The DRB map impose reasonable conditions to protect wildlife and natural
features as long as they don’t impair the function of the educational facility. It was pointed out that city
tradition does not “pre-apply” to 4413.
Mr. Conner said that after speaking with the City Attorney, it was recommended that the regulations be
updated and clarified to indicate that 4413 does apply and modifies the Land Development Regulations
to comply with that Statute.
Mr. Conner said that if UVM comes in with a plan, the DRB could review it in light of the regulations and
they can approve it as long as it does not disagree with UVM’s plan. Mr. Conner stressed that it is the
use that is the determining factor. The educational uses are allowed under state law. The DRB can
impose reasonable conditions as long as they don’t preclude the proposed function/use/intent of the
development. He also noted the city can’t regulate style.
Ms. Ostby asked if there could be a 1500 room dorm in a habitat block. Mr. Conner said he can’t answer
that on the spot.
Mr. Mack, attorney for UVM, said depending on the language proposed for the LDRs, they may have
some additional comments. Mr. Conner said he will try to send that language out tomorrow. UVM can
comment immediately or at the public hearing.
6
Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission meet on Thursday, 30 September, at 7 p.m. to
finish discussion on the PUDs and wrap things up to warn for a public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Meeting Minutes
Members agreed to postpone action on the minutes.
7. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:50 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022