Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/26/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 26 OCTOBER 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 October 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; D. Philibert, R. Gonda, N. Hyman, M. Simonaeu, Rep. J. Killacky, Sen. T. Chittenden, S. Dopp, R. Greco, C. Trombly, M. Transfeld, S. Berman, S. Bartlett, B. Jarvis, L. Ravin, A. MacIlwaine, L. Kingsbury, K. Boyk, J. Bellavance, K. Ryder, R. Dahlstrom, J. Nick, L. Yankowski, A. Strong, N. Smith, S. Dooley, D. Leban, T. Bailey, C. Shaw, A. Chalnick, E. Langfeldt, V. Bolduc, B. Zigmund, C. Hignite, J. Chaulot, T. Zylka, M. Cota, L. Poteau, R. Hubbard, C. Shaw, D. Peters, C. Long, N. Necrason, J. Killacky, T. McKenzie, A. Gill, C. Frank, D. Long, B. Sirvis, Alyson Chalnick, M. Emery, F. MacDonald, G. Kjelleren, F. von Turkovich, K. Van Woert, D. Smith, J. Nick, L. Ravin, N. Smith, J. Larkin, C. Jensen 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Louisos provided instruction 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: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: No announcements or reports were presented. 5. Public Hearing on Draft Land Development Regulations: Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 2 Ms. Louisos noted the Commission had received a number of written comments, and these have been distributed to members. She read the list of those who had provided written comments. Public comments was then taken as follows: Mr. Transfeld, a science teacher at SBHS, introduced 3 members of the school’s “Green Team” who then addressed the Commission: Ms. Berman: Vermont is known for its natural beauty and how we use our land has an impact on that. She noted that species are going extinct and that the bumble bee is now on the endangered list. She also cited the importance of trees as the heat increases. Ms. Bartlett: Significant changes are needed to keep Vermont as it is. Open land is important. She hoped the Commission would take steps to save the future for young people. Ms. Jarvis: South Burlington needs to be part of the solution. The atmosphere will warm enough to create unlivable areas. Renovating buildings is better than using up land for new buildings. Wants to be able to tell children and grandchildren we were part of the solu tion. Mr. MacIlwaine: Represented UVM and lands owned by the University. He outlined legal issues that the city has not so far addressed. The first of these involves the limitations on municipal bylaws 24 VSA 4413. The University’s position is that the designation of habitat blocks on UVM owned land is not legal, and the environmental standards proposed to restrict development on University land is also not legal. Secondly, even if the Statutes did not apply, there is also a constitutional issue. What is proposed would be a taking, leaving a property economically not viable. Mr. MacIlwaine said that unless the proposed LDRs are modified to address this concern, it will give UVM grounds to claim a legal taking. Ms. Ravin: Also representing UVM, she said that in addition to the previous 2 issues there is the issue of a “master plan” that it appears UVM would fall under. It is UVM’s position that they should not fall under this obligation. UVM has its own “master plan” which looks far into the future. She said they have run into this issue in other communities, and “it doesn’t work well.” Ms. Ravin also noted what UVM believes to be errors on maps. In one instance, the property shown as UVM land is not as large as the property actually is. She cited the need to have a constructive conversation. Mr. Simoneau: A number of events this week brought him back to the housing issue. There was a speech by the Beta owners about their growing company. The question is where their housing needs will be met. Then at a brainstorming session with Building Homes Together, 3 there is an attempt to figure out strategies. Market rate housing goals are being met, but affordable housing goals are not being met for Chittenden County. Mr. Simoneau is concerned that some regulations will make it hard to satisfy the housing needs not only at the lower economic end. He noted that the Affordable Housing Committee had generated a Resolution with 4 or 5 recommended changes to the proposed LDRs. These include not mandatin g a Conservation PUD in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) but giving property owners a choice and not making conservation provisions be in perpetuity. He was concerned with not giving future legislators the ability to make wise decisions. Mr. Hyman: Supports the LDRs 100%. Supports what SBHS students said; disheartened by UVM. Ms. Bellavance: Our survival depends on nature. Land use is connected to climate change. She did not feel it is necessary to develop the SEQ to its maximum. It is important to care about the health of future generations and protect natural resources. She added that habitat blocks provide millions of dollars in service and felt there should be added buffers around these blocks. Also referred to the Earth Economics study showing $4-15 million a year in eco-services on 20 parcels. Ms. Ryder: She understands the “tug of war” between affordable housing and conservation and feels we are hurtling to a crisis in both of these areas. She felt some unused buildings could be converted to housing. She also questioned having a minimum density in some areas. Ms. Boyk: A member of the Natural Resources and Conservation Committee which has asked to be included in the consideration of any development th at may encroach on a conservation area. She would like to see environmental restoration activities be allowed in the LDRs. She also felt some plant species should be allowed to be removed in favor of diversity of plantings. In the section on wetlands, she felt allowing some chemical agents to be allowed for removal of invasive species. She also noted a possible typo in Sect. 12.7g3. Mr. Dahlstrom: Was concerned that with the new regulations he cannot build a house on his property for his children/grandchildren. He was also concerned with “changing the rules mid- stream.” Mr. Gonda: The idea of balance between housing and conservation bothers him. He felt the idea of Interim Zoning was that things were out of balance and development had gone too f ar. He felt the Commission had gone “off track” with the minimum 4 per acre proposal. Another member of the Natural Resources Committee: The new LDRs promote conservation, but they also go against the climate resolution because they extend commutes by p eople who 4 cannot find housing in the city. He recommended allowing restoration projects and increased involvement of the NRCC. Mr. Nick: He is a partner in the Hill Farm property and noted that the Regional Planning Commission calls for that property to be part of the growth center in order to maintain the employment base. The city’s map calls for that property to be mostly non -residential with medium intensity use. The proposed LDRs don’t allow for this.. Mr. Nick noted the lack of land in the county for growth which will result in growth leapfrogging to Essex, Hinesburg and beyond. This will cause commuting instead of providing a live/work environment. He also questioned why there are habitat blocks along the Interstate where habitat doesn’t really exist. He noted the consultant did nothing “on the ground” to identify habitat. Ms. Yankowski: Felt UVM should be held to the same standard as everyone else. She noted they have an increased student population with cars that increase pollution. Should d o whatever we can to protect open space. She also understood the need for jobs which results in tough decisions. Ms. Van Woert: Natural resources benefit all of us, but sprawl is also detrimental. She has noticed the disappearance of wildlife in the Cider Mill development where she lives because areas are being mowed. She felt development should be required around trees. She also felt that redevelopment should be subsidized. Mr. Strong: Shrubs and grasslands are important. 15 of the habitat blocks provide important services to the city (e.g., stormwater mitigation). There are currently 1290 new homes in some stage of approval, 26% of which are in the SEQ. There will be a 13% population grow th in 10 years. If 2 people move into those 1290 homes, it will equal the growth in the last decade. Mr. Smith: Didn’t feel building out should be a goal. Building should go up. He didn’t object to development and cited City Center as good development. Stressed protecting the Great Swamp. Ms. Dopp: Proposed changing the title of the document from Land Development Regulations to Land Use Regulations. Favored development in City Center and protecting other areas of the city. She felt that sacrificing South Burlington won’t protect other towns. Mr. Trombly: It is frustrating to hear we want to concentrate those who need housing the most in certain areas of the city. Zoning should decide who lives where. He favored 4 units on a plot that would otherwise have one home. He said one building with 4 units won’t use up any more land than a large single home. Use land wisely. 5 Ms. Dooley: Did not see conserving resources as opposed to providing housing. She noted a Conservation PUD requires conserving 70% of the land and using the base density of the whole parcel in the 30% developable area. She felt having 4 units per acre was necessary to meet that. She also noted that development rights from conserved areas can be used as TDRs. She said TDRs haven’t been used because a developer will take the path of least resistance and build larger houses on larger plots of land. She asked the Commission not to let achieving unanimity be a measure of success, and don’t cast aside judgment to get unanimity. Ms. Greco: You can control how land is used. The devil is in the details. Cited the need to think of priorities, and she couldn’t think of a higher priority than our natural resources. Ms. Leban: Cited the Village at Dorset Park, which is built at 4 units per acre, as “ahead of its time.” It allows for some yards, single family and some duplexes and quads. There was land deeded to the city for a park. It is a lovely community with ponds and trees, wildlife, some swampland. The neighborhood was affordable when it was built. She felt developers should not be allowed to remove topsoil from the land as it make it harder to garden. Mr. Bailey: Urged the Commission not to rush to a decision tonight but read and reflect on comments. He noted that only 30% of city employees can afford to live in the cit y. He felt housing should be planned around employment. Mr. Shaw: Felt the TDR market has been underutilized. He agreed with Ms. Leban about R-4 districts and felt they are just the right size to have a sense of community. He is concerned the LDRs will create expensive communities and people won’t be able to afford to live in South Burlington. A lawyer representing J. Larkin, Inc., expressed concern about conservation areas. He said both housing and conservation are important, and the cost should be borne city-wide, not just by a few land owners. Mr. Hyman: Is 100% for housing but we also have to protect animals and the eco -system. Mr. Chalnick: Things the LDRs fall short of addressing the crisis we are facing. 75% of the city is paved over, and every watershed is impaired. Does not want to see a minimum density. Also feels the regulations are confusing. Landowners should have the maximum ability to conserve land. Mr. Langfeldt: Felt there is a lack of clarity on some issues and urged the Co mmission to review the details. 6 Mr. V. Bolduc: He has yet to meet anyone who wants to pave over the SEQ. He stressed that exaggerating is not good for reaching consensus. Ms. Dooley: Asked the process for here on. Ms. Louisos said the Commission wil l deliberate and maybe make changes, and then get the document to the City Council in the short term. Mr. Conner said that Mr. Trombly noted a technical error to the approved definitions of affordability that the City Council adopted last year. That will be fixed. As there was no further public comment, Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner then reviewed some items from the staff memo as follows: a. C-1/R-12 applicability: members were OK with this b. Allowing congregate care/social services only in the transit overlay district: Ms. Ostby didn’t see the harm. Mr. Conner noted that Tilley Drive is served by a shuttle supported by the Medical Center. Mr. Gagnon asked whether this would affect the future development of medical offices. Mr. Conner said this would be only in a certain area. Ms. Dooley said people with Medicaid would get bus service, and there is service on Rt. 116. You can actually go to Middlebury. Mr. Conner said this is just for consistency c. Terms that staff is working of definitions of (no action was needed). d. In the Village area, the Commission asked that where there is a Conservation PUD required, development on a parcel that is smaller than a Conservation PUD, the question is whether to set a maximum of 4 or keep it at 8 units per acre. This is only with the purchase of TDRs. Members stated they were ok with keeping it as it presently is, at 8. e. Staff was asked that each TND unit have some private outer space. Staff is recommending something that says there must be access to outdoor space. This could be a balcony, patio, etc. There could be a minimum amount of Space. This would be attached to Article 11c. Members were OK with this. f. Regarding side setbacks for attached units, staff suggests creating an exemption to the minimum side setback. Members were OK with this. 7 g. Regarding housing preservation, if the property was converted to something other than childcare in the future, the fee for housing preservation would have to be paid. h. Regarding medical offices in R-12, this has been left as it currently is so the Commission can discuss it. i. This will be left unchanged. j. Regarding TDRs, the legal review flagged that affordable units don’t require TDRs to be purchased in the SEQ, so that with inclusionary zoning you can’t require a TDR for the offset units. k. Regarding limited authority, Mr. Conner acknowledged that 24 VSA 4413 does place limited authority on a municipality. As a general statement, legal feels that State Statutes outweigh what the DRB can do. Those Statutes were written to provide this limitation. Mr. Conner said staff wants to continue the dialog with UVM, but if 24VSA4413 outweighs the LDRs, so be it. Mr. Riehle asked whether this requires changing the zoning of the Edlund property. Mr. Conner said there are no zoning changes. Ms. Ostby was OK keeping the regulations in case the property got sold in the future. Mr. Gagnon said the Commission has a ton of comments from different perspectives. They spent a lot of time talking about these things, and he was concerned with rehashing and ending up with the same thing. Mr. Mittag agreed and said felt they need to read and absorb all the comments. Ms. Ostby stressed the need to be aware of deadlines and said that no matter where they end up, there will be questions. She also felt that the Commission should commit to reviewing what they end up with to see how things are going. Mr. Gagnon noted the City Council will have its own public hearing and questioned whether the Commission should spend time on something and then have the Council say they want something else. He was not averse to a special meeting when they are “fresh and rested.” Mr. Riehle said if the vote is 4-3, it isn’t worth wasting time on. Mr. Conner reminded members that the Council wants materials in time to warn a public hearing prior to the end of Interim Zoning. The last day they can get things is 8 November. He suggested a special meeting on Tuesday with a possible second meeting on Wednesday, if needed. 8 After discussion, members agreed to a special meeting on Tuesday, 2 November and a possible meeting on Thursday, 4 November. 6. Grant Approval: Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the application for a Municipal Planning Grant, for the Government Operations chapter of the City’s Climate Action Plan, as presented. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Other Business: Staff noted that the Planning Commissions of Winooski and Burlington provided notice of upcoming public hearings. Information in the Commission’s packet. 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