Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - City Council - 10/17/2022
AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street - Auditorium - Main Floor Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-10-17-2022 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 713-626-925 Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, October 17, 2022 1.Pledge of Allegiance (6:30 PM) 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options –Jessie Baker, City Manager (6:31 – 6:32 PM) 3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:33 – 6:34 PM) 4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM) 5. Councilors’ Announcements and Reports on Committee assignments and City Manager’s Report (6:45 – 6:55 PM) 6.Consent Agenda: (6:55 – 7:00 PM) A.*** Consider and Sign Disbursements 7.Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on ClimateChange (7:00 – 7:15 PM) 8.*** Public Hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations on expanding theTransferable Development Rights – Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning – Warnedfor 7:00 PM (7:15 – 7:45 PM) 9.Potential action on amendments to the Land Development Regulations on expanding theTransferable Development Rights – Paul Conner, Director of Planning (7:45 – 7:55 PM) 10.*** Receive a proposal from the School Board on implementing school impact fees andprovide direction to staff in advance of considering an ordinance update – Jessie Baker, CityManager, and Violet Nichols, Interim School Superintendent (7:55 PM – 8:25 PM) 11. Discussion of possible changes to the Impact Fee Ordinance, Public & Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Ordinance, and Planning & Zoning Permit Fee Schedule regarding timing of payments of fees for affordable housing projects and possible direction to staff – Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning (8:25 – 8:45 PM) 12. Given the Planning Commission's recent vote to maintain the current number of Planning Commissioners, discuss if the Council wants to give additional guidance to the Charter Committee on exploring Commission expansion – Jessie Baker, City Manager (8:45 – 9:05 PM) 13. Other Business (9:05 – 9:10 PM) 14. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of: (9:10 – 10:00 PM) A. Discussing the negotiation of real estate lease options B. Discussing the review of personnel 15. Adjourn (10:00 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Jessie Baker City Manager *** Attachments Included Champlain Water District Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund From 10/18/2022 Through 10/18/2022 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number 10/18/2022 4474 Champlain Water District - Retail Invoices 59,917.56 SBWD-390 10/18/2022 4475 Champlain Water District September 2022 Monthly Invoice 500.02 SBWD-383 10/18/2022 Champlain Water District Water Consumption - September 2022 177,003.01 SBWDCONSUMPT093022 10/18/2022 4476 E.J. Prescott Meter Valves 337.84 6082066 10/18/2022 E.J. Prescott Meter Flanges 685.62 6082362 10/18/2022 4477 South Burlington Sewer Department SB Sewer - September 2022 Billings 426,746.73 SBSEWER-093022 10/18/2022 4478 South Burlington Stormwater Department Stormwater - September 2022 Fees 182,344.77 SBSTORM-093022 Total 70 - South Burlington Water Department 847,535.55 Report Total 847,535.55 70 - South Burlington Water Department SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Page: 1 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council Jessie Baker, City Manager FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: LDR-22-05 & 22-06; Proposed amendments to Land Development Regulations: Expansion of Transfer of Development Rights program applicability and legal/technical corrections DATE: October 17, 2022 City Council Meeting This evening’s meeting includes a public hearing and possible action on the above-referenced amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). This round of amendments includes two components: an expansion to the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, and a series of minor and technical changes. The amendments, categorized in this way, are summarized and assessed with respect to the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the formal Planning Commission Report on the Proposed Amendments, prepared in accordance with State law. A brief description of each amendment, taken from the Commission Report is included below. As of the writing of this memo, staff had received one comment, from the Vermont Land Trust. Staff has reviewed this feedback and recommends that a clarification on how the timing of a conservation action would affect future development on the same parcel is warranted. The Deputy City Attorney is preparing a proposed modification that will be provided to Council on Monday. Making this change would require the Council to hold an additional public hearing, and would require that the Planning Commission review the change in the context of their Report. Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council open, hold, and close the public hearing. Subsequently, staff recommends the Council make this change (and any others it deems appropriate following the public hearing) and warn a new public hearing for November 21, 2022 at 7:00 pm. Proposed motion: “I move to make the changes recommended by the Deputy City Attorney and to warn an additional public hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations number LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06 for Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:00 pm.” Proposed Amendments: A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs, assigning value for TDRs, updating process for sending and receiving TDRs, and clarifying existing applicability in receiving areas Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: 2 This amendment updates the existing Transferable Development Rights program. It expands the areas where TDRs can be received to areas outside the SEQ districts to the City’s medium and higher-density residential and mixed use zoning districts along transit-served areas, establishes how TDRs can be used and maximum use of TDRs in all areas where they can be received, and outlines the process for severing TDRs from a property and receiving them on a property. Specifically, the draft regulations create two new tier for use of TDRs. • Within the City’s higher-density mixed use zoning districts – C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-Auto, C2 – TDRs may used to increase residential density without numerical limitation. The “cap” on maximum density is removed and instead the limitations on a site rely on the physical and dimensional limitations of the site and/or zone, such as building height, setbacks, lot coverage, and civic space requirements. Maximum density is effectively eliminated through the purchase of TDRs, as is the case in the City Center Form Based Code. • With the City’s transitional mixed use districts – Allen Road, Swift Street, C1-Limited Retail, R7, and R7- Neighborhood Commercial, all within the transit overlay district only – TDRs may be used to increase density a maximum of 50% above the base number for the zoning district. In both cases above, the expanded TDR program is integrated with the existing inclusionary zoning options for properties. After meeting their minimum required inclusionary units for a given site, an applicant may use either existing bonus inclusionary option (up to the cap of 50% increase total, in all districts) or TDRs to achieve the additional density. Below is a map of the updated TDR applicability. No changes in applicability are proposed in the southeast quadrant. 3 B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission Requirements, and Section numbering (Sections 13.03, 13.05, 14.11, 15.A.20, 17.04, 17.15, Appendix E) Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: Table in 13.03 of the LDRs related to bicycle parking: In Section 13.03 of the LDRs, the table governing the number of bicycle parking spaces lists “uses” that are not identical to the uses listed in the Table of Uses in Appendix C. The amendment is to clearly indicate which uses require 1 bicycle space per 20,000 SF and which require 1 bicycle space per 5,000 SF. Move Section 15.A.20 (Performance Bonds) to Article 17: This amendment moves performance bonds from Subdivision to Administration to be clear it can apply in circumstances beyond subdivisions, as is the case in several instances. 4 Re-letter Section 13.05 to correct double “A” subsections: In Section 13.05, there are two subsections labeled “A”. In a prior version of the LDRs, when stormwater management standards were contained in Article 12, the “Applicability” section was contained in “B. Scope and Applicability” and the language under that section included internal references that persist in the new 13.05. Delete 17.04C Subdivision Approvals header: Section 17.04 contains a subsection A labeled “Subdivision Approvals. [reserved]” that is no longer needed and is a vestige of former state enabling statutes. It is currently a duplicate “A” that should be labeled “C” as in the previous version of the LDRs. Modify Appendix E to specify submission requirements for Final Plat for Minor Subdivisions, and for solar- ready roofs. The Other Paper • September 15, 2022 • Page 21 THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON are hereby notified and warned that a public hearing will be held at the South Burlington City Hall, 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont, on Monday, September 19, 2022, at 7:30 P.M., for a second reading and potential final passage of a proposed new City ordinance regulating heating systems and domestic water heating systems in new buildings. Participate in person: Auditorium at 180 Market Street, South Burlington Participate virtually: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/ city-council-09-19-2022 Participate by phone: (872) 240-3212 Access Code: 294-438-677 The ordinance will require that all new buildings in the City of South Burlington utilize a renewable primary heating system and a renewable domestic water heating system. The objective is to achieve a high degree of conservation of energy and, where possible, reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. This will be achieved by requiring the heating and domestic water heating systems in all new buildings to meet specified energy efficiency performance standards and maximum allowable heat loss standards. Specifically, the proposed ordinance: • Requires that all new buildings in the City of South Burlington utilize a renewable primary heating system and a renewable domestic water heating system. • Defines new buildings as all new construction of residential, commercial, or industrial buildings with a heating source and/or a domestic water heating source. • Defines renewable primary heating system as a heating system that meets at least eighty-five percent (85%) of the building’s design heating load calculated per the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards energy code and is fueled by electricity, wood pellets or wood chips, or other renewable fuel. • Defines renewable domestic water heating system as a domestic water heating system that is fueled by electricity, wood pellets or woodchips, other renewable fuel, or solar thermal energy. The proposed ordinance also includes a process for obtaining a waiver from the requirements of the ordinance and mandates the appointment of a building inspector. A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at www.southburlingtonvt.gov or upon request at the City Clerk’s office, South Burlington City Hall, 180 Market Street, during regular office hours. www.southburlingtonvt.gov WARNING City of South Burlington September 19, 2022 at 7:30 P.M. Public Hearing PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Public Hearing Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:00 pm PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:00 PM to consider amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The amendments affect all parts of the City unless otherwise specified below. The hearing will be held in person and remotely via GoToMeeting. Participation options: • In Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street • Interactive Online: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-10-17-2022• Telephone: (571) 317-3122; Access Code 713-626-925 The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following: A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs, assigning value for TDRs, updating process for sending and receiving TDRs, and clarifying existing applicability in receiving areas (Section 2.02, 4.04, 4.05, 4.06, 9.05, 14.04, 15.A.11, Articles 15C, 18, 19, Appendix C) B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission Requirements, and Section numbering (Sections 13.03, 13.05, 14.11, 15.A.20, 17.04, 17.15, Appendix E) Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning, City Hall, 3rd Floor, 180 Market Street, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov. Helen Riehle, City Council ChairSeptember 15, 2022 MIKE DONOGHUE CORRESPONDENT A longtime South Burlington resident and lawyer has been selected to receive the Amer-ican Inns of Court Professionalism Award.Michael Kennedy was picked from within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers Vermont, New York and Connecticut.The honor goes to a lawyer or judge “whose life and practice display sterling character and unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing dedication to the highest stan-dards of the legal profession and the rule of law,” according to the organizers.Kennedy, who is known as the “ethics guru” of Vermont, has been bar counsel for the state professional responsibility program since 2012. A component of the Vermont judiciary, the program is responsible for legal ethics and attorney discipline.“He is greatly admired and respected by judges and lawyers in Vermont for his diplo-matic and careful advice to lawyers facing difficult ethical problems,” wrote Geoffrey W. Crawford, the chief federal judge for Vermont, who nominated Kennedy.“I know from friends in the bar that he is their first call when questions arise about a lawyer’s duty to his or her client and their professional obligations,” Crawford said.Kennedy is only the second Vermonter in the past 20 years to win the award. John B. Webber, a Rutland lawyer, received it in 2006.Kennedy was raised in South Burlington and comes from a family well-known for public service. His mother served the city as a state legislator and his father was the principal of the middle school.He was a 1985 grad-uate of South Burlington High School where he was a standout student-athlete. He earned his under-graduate degree from the University of Vermont in 1989 and his law degree from the George Wash-ington University Law School in 1993. He served at South Burlington High for 15 years as the head coach for the boys’ varsity basketball program and the past three years as the assistant head coach for the girls’ hoop team.Kennedy, who now lives in Williston, also is a marathon runner.Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the Second Circuit will present the award to Kennedy next month during a ceremony at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York City. Then, later in October, Kennedy and other circuit recipients will be honored at a ceremony at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. As bar counsel, Kennedy advises attor-neys on issues related to legal ethics and Vermont’s rules of professional conduct. He also screens disciplinary complaints and admin-isters the program for resolving complaints via nondisciplinary dispute resolution methods.Kennedy teaches continuing legal educa-tion seminars on ethics and professional respon-sibility, which often incor-porate trivia quizzes. He produces a popular legal ethics quiz in blog format each week.He is a former presi-dent of the Vermont Bar Association, and currently chairs its pro bono committee and previously served on its governance committee. He is also a member of the Vermont Commission on the Well-Being of the Legal Profession.Kennedy began his career with the profes-sional responsibility program in 1998 as deputy disciplinary counsel. In that role, he was responsible for investigating and prose-cuting violations of the rules of professional conduct. After two years, he was promoted to the role of disciplinary counsel, where his role expanded to include managing the attorney discipline office and providing legal support to the Professional Responsibility Board.Since becoming bar counsel, he has shift-ed his focus to educating both judges and lawyers on legal ethics, civility and profes-sional responsibility.Kennedy also served as assistant attorney general in Vermont’s Department of Health, where he prosecuted the state’s involuntary commitment petitions. From 1993 to 1998, he was a special assistant attorney general in Vermont’s Department of Corrections. Local attorney selected for prestigious award Michael Kennedy 8 Bailey Ave, Montpelier, VT 05602 P (802) 223-5234 info@vlt.org vlt.org Bluffside Farm 171 Scott Farm Road Newport, VT 05855 P (802) 748-6089 The King Farm 128 King Farm Road Woodstock, VT 05091 P (802) 457-2369 226 Bridge Street P.O. Box 850 Richmond, VT 05477 Regional Offices: October 3, 2022 South Burlington City Council (via email) Dear City Council: As amendments to the 5/2/22 Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are currently being considered, the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) requests that the City consider a minor technical clarification: that lands subject to existing conservation easements, held by qualified conservation organizations, are eligible for inclusion in designated Conservation Areas per Section 15.C.05E(1)(a) of the regulations. Based on discussions with Planning & Zoning staff, it is VLT’s understanding that (a) the City intends for conservation easement-encumbered land to be eligible for inclusion in designated Conservation Areas, and (b) without a technical amendment to the LDRs, assurance that such land can be included in a Conservation Area can only come from a DRB finding within the context of a specific application. One clarification option would be to add a bullet point to the existing list under 15.C.05E(a)(a)(iii) of “other locally identified natural or open space resource areas present on the tract or parcel, as necessary to meet the minimum 70% allocation requirement.” A suggestion for such an addition would be: “Land already subject to a conservation easement held by a IRC § 501(c)(3) organization that meets the public support test of § 509(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code to preserve farmland or open space land.” Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Britt Haselton Farm Project Director LDR-22-05 TRANFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 2 DEFINITIONS 2.01 Rules of Construction, Intent and Usage 2.02 Specific Definitions 2.03 Definitions for Flood Hazard Purposes . . . Density increase. For the purposes of the Transfer of Development Rights, tThe allowable increase in the amount density of residential development onf a receiving parcel for TDRs, expressed as a higher maximum average number of dwelling units per acre of a receiving parcel than would be allowable on theat receiving parcel if it were part of a PUD that did not use TDRs; allowing a higher average number of dwelling units for each acre of a receiving parcel also increases building bulk and lot coverage. . . . TDR. Transfer of Development Rights or Transferrable Development Rights. . . . Transferrable Development Rights. The development potential of a parcel of land assigned by these regulations 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, Aas defined in 1024 V.S.A. section 6301a4423, as amended from time to time. LDR-22-05 TRANFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 4 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS . . . 4.04 Residential 7 District 4.05 Residential 12 District 4.06 Residential 7 with Neighborhood Commercial District . . . 4.04 Residential 7 District - R7 . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the Residential 7 District all requirements of this Section 4.04 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15.C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferable Development Rights under Article 19. . . . 4.05 Residential 12 - R12 . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the Residential 12 District all requirements of this Section 4.05 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15.C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferable Development Rights under Article 19. 4.06 Residential 7 With Neighborhood Commercial District - R7-NC . . . C. Lot, Area, and Dimensional Requirements. The lot, area, and dimensional requirements shall be those set forth in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, for C1 Districts, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15.C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferable Development Rights under Article 19. Provisions of Article 3 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, may be modified by the Development Review Board in accordance with the conditions and objectives of this Section 4.06. 5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 5.01 Commercial 1 (C1) . . . 5.04 Commercial 1 with Limited Retail (C1-LR) 5.05 Commercial 2 (C2) 5.06 Swift Street District (SW) 5.07 Allen Road District (AR) . . . 5.01 Commercial 1 - C1 . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the Commercial 1 District, area, density, and dimensional requirements shall be those shown in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15.C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferrable Development Rights under Article 19. . . . 5.04 Commercial 1 with Limited Retail (C1-LR) . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the Commercial 1 with Limited Retail C1-LR District, area, density, and dimensional requirements shall be those shown in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferrable Development Rights under Article 19. 5.05 Commercial 2 District C2 . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the Commercial 2 C2 District, area, density, and dimensional requirements shall be those shown in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15.C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferrable Development Rights under Article 19. 5.06 SWIFT STREET DISTRICT SW . . . D. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the SW District, area, density, and dimensional requirements shall be those shown in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferrable Development Rights under Article 19. 5.07 ALLEN ROAD DISTRICT AR . . . C. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements. In the AR District, area, density, and dimensional requirements shall be those shown in Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, except as provided for via applicable PUD type under Article 15C or as modified by use of Inclusionary Zoning under Article 18 or Transferrable Development Rights under Article 19. LDR-22-05 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 9 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – SEQ . . . 9.05 [reserved] Transfer of Development Rights; Sending & Receiving Areas . . . 9.05 [reserved] Transfer of Development Rights; Sending & Receiving Areas A. Authorization and Purpose: All land within the SEQ District is provided with an Assigned Density, which limits the total number of dwelling units originating in the SEQ District to approximately 3,800 dwelling units less any areas identified as Hazards under these Regulations. The Transfer of Development Rights is hereby authorized in order to encourage the conservation of open space, natural resources, scenic views and agricultural uses, to promote well-planned residential development in clusters within the SEQ District, and to encourage the concentration of development towards priority areas within the City. B. 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. (c) As authorized via Planned Unit Development in accordance with Article 15.C C. Assigned Density: For the purposes of the Transfer of Development Rights, all land in the SEQ District is provided an Assigned Density of one point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross acre, less any areas identified as Hazards under these Regulations. (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. D. Allowable Density for Development that does not Include a Transfer of Development Rights: If an application does not use Transferrable Development Rights, the number of dwelling units that may be developed on the parcel shall not exceed a 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 South Burlington Land Development Regulations (b) For all other lots: One point two (1.2) dwelling units to the acre and four (4) dwelling units per structure. E. Allowable Density for Development that Includes a Transfer of Development Rights (1) Except as provided for in a Planned Unit Development in accordance with Article 15.C, if a zoning permit or subdivision application in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District uses Transferrable Development Rights, the number of dwelling units that may be located on a contiguous development parcel subject to a single application or subdivision shall be increased to a maximum gross density as follows: (a) In the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, and SEQ-NR sub-districts: One-point-eight (1.8) dwelling units to the acre and four (4) dwelling units per structure. (b) In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts: Eight (8) dwelling units to the acre and six (6) dwelling units per structure. 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. (2) A Planned Unit Development submitted and approved under Article 15.C of these Regulations are subject to the density requirements therein and are eligible to use Transferable Development Rights as enumerated therein. (3) 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 10.05 of these Regulations. F. Development Rights Necessary to Obtain Density Increase (1) To obtain the increased residential density allowable in a receiving area, 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 application did not use transferrable development rights. (2) To obtain the increased density allowable for a lot coverage increase 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 South Burlington Land Development Regulations G. Allowances for Affordable Housing. (1) In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts, the Development Review Board may allow residential structures containing one or more affordable dwelling units to have two additional dwelling units, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure. This provision shall not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. (2)(1) Inclusionary dwelling units and Residential Offset Units approved pursuant to this Section and Section 18.01, shall not constitute units for the purposes of calculation of Transferable Development Rights. LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights South Burlington Land Development Regulations 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.01 General Purpose 14.02 Definition of Site Plan 14.03 Uses and Actions Subject to Site Plan Review 14.04 Authority for Review of Site Plans 14.05 Application Review Procedure 14.06 General Review Standards 14.07 Specific Review Standards 14.08 [reserved] 14.09 [reserved] 14.10 Conditional Use Review: General Provisions and Standards 14.11 Site Plan and Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards 14.04 Authority for Review of Site Plans A. Authority, Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB has the authority under these Regulations and 24 V.S.A. § 4414 and § 4416 to: . . . (3) Modify a dimensional requirement under this Article or the Table of Dimensional Standards (Appendix C). . . . (b) Limitations. In granting a modification, In no case shall the DRB permit: (i) the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary; (ii) land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development; (iii) increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit; (iv) an increase in residential density above the allowed maximum in the applicable zoning district, outside of review as Planned Unit Development (Article 15C), Inclusionary Zoning (Section 18.01) or via a Transfer of Development Rights (Article 19); or, (v) the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (A)(2). LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights South Burlington Land Development Regulations 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW . . . 15.A.11 General Standards . . . 15.A.11 General Standards A. Development Suitability. The applicant must demonstrate that the land to be subdivided is physically suited for its intended use and the proposed density or intensity of development, and that the proposed subdivision will not result in undue adverse impacts to public health and safety, environmental resources as identified and regulated under Article 12, neighboring properties and uses, or public facilities and infrastructure located on or within the vicinity of the land to be subdivided. (3) Buildable Area Calculations. The allowed number of building lots or dwelling units within the subdivision shall be calculated based on the Buildable Area of the parcel or tract to be subdivided except as otherwise specified for a Transect Zone Subdivision under Article 8, a Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and as provided for the transfer of development rights under Article 19, or affordable housing offsets, bonuses, or incentives under Article 18. (a) Any proposed alteration of the existing grade to create developable building lots, including land excavation or fill, must meet the standards of Section 14.11 (Alteration of Existing Grade), Article 16 (Construction and Erosion Control) and other applicable resource protection, flood hazard area and stormwater management standards under these Regulations. LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights South Burlington Land Development Regulations 15.C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . . . 15.C.04 Standards Applicable to All PUD Types 15.C.05 Conservation Development 15.C.06 Traditional Neighborhood Development 15.C.07 General PUD . . . 15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types . . . C. Compliance with Regulations. The provisions and standards specific to a PUD supersede underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan standards. In no case, however, shall the provisions or standards specific to a PUD supersede the Environmental Protection Standards of Article 12. Notwithstanding this supersession of the underlying zoning district, subdivision, and site plan standards, any application that includes a density increase that exceeds the Assigned Density of a parcel shall require a TDR under Article 19. D. Development Density. . . . (7) Maximum Development Density. The maximum development density allowed within any PUD except a Conservation PUD shall be determined based on the total buildable area, proposed land use allocations by use category, the allowed mix of building types, and associated building lot standards as specified by PUD type. (a) The DRB may allow for an increase in the overall density of residential development within a designated Residential or Mixed Use area, for example through adjustments or modifications to the required housing mix, allowed housing types, or associated building lot or height standards, as necessary to accommodate the following: (i) The purchase and transfer of development rights from land within designated sending areas under Article 19 the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT Subdistrict (Section 9.05 Transfer of Development Rights). (ii) The incorporation of offset housing units under inclusionary zoning (Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning). (iii) The incorporation of additional housing units awarded as an incentive for affordable housing development under Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning). LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights 15.C.05 CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT 15.C.05 Conservation Development . . . E._____Conservation PUD Sub-Zones. A Conservation PUD must include the following Sub-Zones, as designated on the PUD Master Plan, and as more specifically identified and delineated on preliminary and final subdivision plans and plats: (1) Conservation Area. A Conservation PUD must include one or more designated “Conservation Areas” which at minimum comprise 70% of the total tract or parcel area; and which, to the maximum extent physically feasible, are contiguous or linked to resource or other open space areas located on adjacent parcels or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed PUD. (a) The designated Conservation Area(s) must include and incorporate: (i) Hazards, as defined and regulated under Article 12 (Table 12-01) which, as unbuildable land, are not eligible for or subject to the transfer of development density. (ii) Level I Resources, as defined and regulated under Article 12 (Table 12-01) which, within a Conservation PUD, are eligible for and subject to the transfer of development rights. In meeting the minimum 70% allocation requirement, Level I Resources are to be given priority for inclusion within a designated Conservation Area. . . . (b) In the SEQ District, a Conservation Area may also include and incorporate a portion of the tract or parcel located within the SEQ-NRP Sub-District, as eligible for the transfer of development rights either within the Conservation PUD, or to another designated receiving area under Article 19Section 9.05 (Transfer of Development Rights). . . . F._____Residential Density and Unit (Yield) Calculations. Notwithstanding PUD residential density provisions under Section 15.C.04, for a Conservation PUD: . . . (3) Supplemental Housing Units. Additional, supplemental housing units are allowed by right or may be included within the designated Development Area as necessary to achieve the Minimum Density of residential development required under (4) below; or to achieve the Maximum Residential Density allowed by zoning district under (5). Supplemental Housing Units include: (a) Offset housing units granted by right for any required Inclusionary Dwelling units pursuant to Section 18.01; LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights 15.C.05 CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT (b) Bonus housing units awarded for the provision of additional affordable housing pursuant to Section 18.01; and (c) Housing units associated with the receipt transfer and purchase of transferrable development rights pursuant to Article 19(Section 9.05). . . . LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights 15.C.07 General PUD . . . H. Development Density. (1) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall apply to General PUDs. (2) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development density in the underlying zoning district, except as follows. (a) Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts; (b) Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning and application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically authorized by and as regulated by Section 18.01 or Article 19Section 9.05. LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights ARTICLE 18 HOUSING STANDARDS South Burlington Land Development Regulations 18. HOUSING STANDARDS 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning 18.02 [Reserved] 18.03 Housing Preservation 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning . . . J. Maximum Density Achievable with Inclusionary Zoning and Transferable Development Rights (1) Maximum density in Table 19-1 can be achieved through receipt of TDRs, use of Inclusionary Zoning offsets or bonuses, or a combination of TDRs and Inclusionary Zoning. (2) Total density through use of TDRs and Inclusionary Zoning cannot exceed the limits in Table 19-1. ARTICLE 19 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS NOTE: ALL TEXT WITHIN ARTICLE 19 IS PROPOSED NEW TEXT South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-05 – TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 19. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 19.01 Authority & Purpose 19.02 Severance of Transferable Development Rights 19.03 Receipt of Transferable Development Rights 19.04 Determination of Transferable Development Rights 19.01 Authority & Purpose A. Authority. The City of South Burlington has the authority under 24 V.S.A. § 4423 to establish bylaws governing the Transfer of Development Rights (“TDRs”). TDRs are hereby authorized in order to encourage the conservation of open space, natural resources, scenic views and agricultural lands, and to direct development to priority areas within the City as indicated in Table 19-1. B. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the use of TDRs to encourage preservation of open space. Specifically, it is the intention of this section to regulate the transfer of development rights from areas where land conservation is a priority to priority areas for development within the City. 19.02 Severance of Transferable Development Rights A. Sending Areas and Sending Properties. 1. Sending Areas. Lands within the following areas are designated as Sending Areas: a. Lands within the following districts: SEQ-NRP and SEQ-NRT B. Assigned Density and Severing Rights: For the purposes of Transferable Development Rights, lands are provided an Assigned Density. 1. The Assigned Density is determined by zoning district: a. In the SEQ District, except as provided in 19.02B(1)(b), all land is provided an Assigned Density of one point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross acre, less any areas defined as Hazards under these Regulations. b. In the SEQ-VC Subdistrict, lots 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 per gross acre. 2. TDRs must be severed as whole numbers. Less than one TDR cannot be severed, therefore a minimum of development rights from 0.83 acres can be severed from a sending property. 3. Severance of development rights from each 0.83 acres will equal one TDR for receipt on a receiving property. 4. Any property within a sending area that has not fully utilized its development rights is eligible to be a sending property. C. Process for Severing Development Rights ARTICLE 19 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS NOTE: ALL TEXT WITHIN ARTICLE 19 IS PROPOSED NEW TEXT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 1. Severance of development rights occurs when the owner of the sending property executes a deed of severance of development rights. 2. Deeds of severance of TDR must include the written determination by the Administrative Officer indicating the number of development rights being severed and the number of development rights remaining on the property. 3. The deed of severance of TDR must be recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records. 4. The deed of severance of TDR shall be in a form that is approved by the City Attorney and must recite that it is a conveyance under 24 V.S.A. § 4423 and recites the number of acres affected, as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4423(b)(3). 5. Severance of development rights must include a perpetual conservation easement granted to the City of South Burlington under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 155. a. The conservation easement must be recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records. b. The conservation easement shall limit the possible uses of the affected area of the sending parcel to agriculture, forestry, natural area and/or outdoor non-motorized recreation. 19.03 Receipt of Transferable Development Rights A. Receiving Areas and Receiving Properties. 1. Receiving Areas. Lands within the following areas are designated as Receiving Areas: a. All districts listed in Table 19-1. B. Receiving Development Rights 1. All properties within a receiving area are eligible to receive TDRs, up to the maximum density increases in Table 19-1. 2. TDRs must be received as whole numbers. 3. Density increases on a receiving property may include an increase in lot coverage, building coverage, or allowed residential density (by number of residential units allowed), allowed by zoning district in Table 19-2. 4. TDRs can be used for any combination of density increases as allowed by the zoning district in Table 19-2 on a single property. C. Process for Receiving Development Rights 1. Receipt of transferable development rights occurs when the owner of a receiving property executes a deed of receipt, which shall include or reference a deed from the owner of TDR conveying said TDR to the owner of the receiving property, attaching the development right(s) to the receiving property. 2. The DRB shall have discretion to determine when an applicant must receive development rights on a property to enable approval or construction of additional units. 3. A deed of receipt must be recorded in the City of South Burlington Land Records, including the number of TDRs applied to the property. 4. The deed of transfer shall be in a form that is approved by the City Attorney and must recite that it is a conveyance under 24 V.S.A. § 4423. ARTICLE 19 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS NOTE: ALL TEXT WITHIN ARTICLE 19 IS PROPOSED NEW TEXT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 5. Nothing in this Article precludes combination of a deed of severance of TDR and a deed of receipt. 6. Any transfer of development rights to a receiving property pursuant to this Article only authorizes a density increase. It does not alter any other regulations applicable to the receiving property. D. Maximum Density Achievable through Transferable Development Rights and Inclusionary Zoning 1. Maximum density in Table 19-1 can be achieved through receipt of TDRs, use of Inclusionary Zoning offsets or bonuses, or a combination of TDRs and Inclusionary Zoning. 2. Total density through use of TDRs and Inclusionary Zoning cannot exceed the limits in Table 19-1. Table 19-1 Maximum Density Increases with TDRs Zoning District(s) Max. Allowable Density through TDRs and/or Inclusionary Zoning Max. Allowable Building and Lot Coverage C1-R15, C1-Auto, C1-R12, C2 No maximum 10 percentage points above existing maximum C1-LR, AR, SW 50% more than base density 10 percentage points above existing maximum R12, R7-NC, R7 within the Transit Overlay District only 50% more than base density 10 percentage points above existing maximum SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, and SEQ- NR For development that is not a Planned Unit Development, 1.8 dwelling units per gross acre, and 4 dwelling units per structure For development that is a Planned Unit Development, as authorized within Article 15.C - SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC For development that is not a Planned Unit Development, 8 dwelling units per gross acre, and 6 dwelling units per structure For development that is a Planned Unit Development, as authorized within Article 15.C - Table 19-2 Density Increases per TDR Received ARTICLE 19 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS NOTE: ALL TEXT WITHIN ARTICLE 19 IS PROPOSED NEW TEXT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Zoning District(s) Increase in Residential Density per TDR Increase in Lot and Building Coverage per TDR C1-R15, C1-Auto, C1-R12, C2 1 dwelling unit 10,000 SF C1-LR, AR 1 dwelling unit 10,000 SF R12 with Transit Overlay District 1 dwelling unit 10,000 SF SW 1 dwelling unit 5,000 SF R7-NC, R7 within Transit Overlay District 1 dwelling unit 5,000 SF SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC 1 dwelling unit - 19.04 Determination of Transferable Development Rights A. Recording System. The City shall establish and maintain a system for recording and monitoring the severance, ownership and receipt of transferable development rights. B. Administrative Authority. The Administrative Officer has authority to determine the development rights available. C. Application Requirements. An application for a determination of the development rights available to be severed from a sending property must include: 1. Completed application form(s). 2. A tax map, plat, or site plan showing the boundaries of each lot, tract or parcel from which development rights are sought to be severed. 3. Hazards delineation or affirmation pursuant to Article 12. 4. Determination of the existing zoning of the property. 5. A copy of the deed for the sending property. 6. A calculation of the number of development rights available to be severed from the property and the number of those development rights proposed to be severed. 7. All applicable fees. D. Calculation of Development Rights. Development rights shall be calculated to the nearest whole number. Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS TABLE C-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE IN ALL DISTRICTS (WITHOUT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front(s)Side yard(s) Rear Accessory Principal (flat) Principal (pitched) Stories Facing Street Stories Below Roofline Roofline Stories [see section 3.07(B)] Total Stories IA-N ALL 10 acres 20%40%75 50 50 15 35 40 IA-S ALL 10 acres 10%20%75 50 50 15 35 40 PR ALL none 15%25%40 15 30 15 35 40 MU ALL none 30%70%40 15 30 15 35 40 Single-family 9,500 SF (1.2) 20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF (1.2)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 All other uses 40,000 SF (1.2)15%30%20 20 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Single-family 9,500 SF (1.2) 20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF (1.2)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 All other uses 40,000 SF (1.2)15%30%20 20 30 15 35 40 3 3 1 4 Single-family 9,500 SF (1.2) 20%40%20 40%30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF (1.2)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 All other uses 40,000 SF (1.2)15%30%20 20 30 15 30 35 3 3 1 4 Single-family 7,500 SF (4)20%40%10 5 10 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF (4)20%40%10 5 10 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%10 5 10 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 Non-residential uses 12,000 SF 20%40%10 10 10 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 Single-family 12,000 SF (4)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 R1-Lakeview All 14,000 SF (3)20%40%20 10 30 15 25 25 2 3 1 4 R1 All 40,000 SF (1)15%25%50 25 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Single-family 22,000 SF (2)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 22,000 SF (2)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 11,000 SF/unit (2)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 R2 Maximum Building HeightStandard setbacks (feet): SEQ-NRP, NRT, NRN* and NR QCP District Land Use SEQ-VR LN SEQ-VC Minimum lot size (max. residential density in dwelling units per acre)** Maximum site coverage: South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front(s)Side yard(s) Rear Accessory Principal (flat) Principal (pitched) Stories Facing Street Stories Below Roofline Roofline Stories [see section 3.07(B)] Total Stories Maximum Building HeightStandard setbacks (feet):District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density in dwelling units per acre)** Maximum site coverage: R4 Single-family 9,500 SF (4)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 12,000 SF (4)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)20%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Non-residential uses 40,000 SF 30%60%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 R7 Single-family 6,000 SF (7)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 10,000 SF (7)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (4)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Non-residential uses 40,000 SF 40%60%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 R12 Single-family 6,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 8,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 3,500 SF/unit (12)40%60%30 10 30 15 35 40 Non-residential uses 40,000 SF 40%60%30 10 30 15 35 40 R7-NC All residential uses All non- residential uses 12,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Multi-family 3,500 SF/unit (C1-R12); 2,900 SF/unit (C1-R15) 40%70%30 10 30 15 5 All other uses 40,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 5 C1-Auto Multi-family 3,500 SF/unit (15)40%70%30 15 30 15 5 All other uses 40,000 SF 40%70%30 15 30 15 5 C1-AIR All 40,000 SF 40%70%30 15 30 15 35 40 Single-family 6,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 8,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 3,500 SF/unit (12)40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Non-residential uses 20,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Single-family 6,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 8,000 SF (12)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 AR C1 Same as R7 standards C1-LR South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-05: Transferable Development Rights APPENDIX C USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Buildings only Buildings, parking and all other impervious surfaces Front(s)Side yard(s) Rear Accessory Principal (flat) Principal (pitched) Stories Facing Street Stories Below Roofline Roofline Stories [see section 3.07(B)] Total Stories Maximum Building HeightStandard setbacks (feet):District Land Use Minimum lot size (max. residential density in dwelling units per acre)** Maximum site coverage: Multi-family 3,500 SF/unit (12)40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Non-residential uses 20,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Single-family 6,000 SF (7)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Two-family 10,000 SF (7)30%40%30 10 30 15 25 28 2 3 1 4 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (7)30%40%30 10 30 15 35 40 Non-residential uses 20,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 Multi-family 6,000 SF/unit (7)40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 All other uses 40,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 IC All 40,000 SF 40%70%30 10 30 15 35 40 AIR All 3 acres 30%50%50 35 50 15 35 40 AIR-I All 3 acres 30%50%50 35 50 15 35 40 IO All 3 acres 30%50%50 35 50 15 35 40 City Center FBC District C2 ** Where minimum lot size is established as SF per unit, the per-unit lot size shall automatically be adjusted to accommodate inclusionary offset and bonus units granted via Article 18 and use of TDRs under Article 19 * See Article 9 for additional dimensional standards in the SEQ-NRN subdistrict. Where a conflicts exists, the more restrictive shall apply. Please see Article 8, City Center FBC District AR SW South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-06A: Bicycle Parking ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS South Burlington Land Development Regulations 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS . . . 13.03 Bicycle Parking & Storage . . . 13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage A. Purpose. These standards for short term parking and long term storage of bicycles are intended to recognize and promote cycling as a viable means of transportation and recreation for residents, consumers, visitors, and employees. . . . Table 13-3. Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Activity Short Term Bike Parking Long Term Bike Storage Residential buildings with more than 3 units 1 for every 10 units; minimum 41 1 for every unit Warehousing & distribution, Distribution and related storage, lumber and contractor’s yard, self- storage, and light manufacturingindustry 1 per 20k SF; minimum 2 2 per tenant Retail, restaurant, office, and all other non-residential uses except Educational facility 1 per 5k SF; minimum 4 50% of required short term bike parking spaces. Educational facility 1 space for each 20 students of planned capacity. For new buildings only, one space for each 20 employees. 1 May request waiver from minimum per building for buildings with less than 6 units if Development Review Board finds the need is adequately met for visitors. Table 13-4. Long Term parking – shower and changing room facility requirements Number of protected long term bicycle parking spaces Changing facility Unisex Showers Clothes Lockers 1-3 none none 1 4 - 9 12 12 3 For every 10 12 12 40% of LTB parking 2 if unisex, units available to any gender; otherwise provide one per gender 14-1 LDR-22-06B: Performance Bonds South Burlington Land Development Regulations 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW . . . 14.11 Site Plan and Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards 14.11 Site Plan and Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards . . . F. Alteration of Existing Grade (1) . . . (2 ) Standards and Conditions for Approval. (a) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this Section 14.11(F) and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under this section shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (b) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (ii) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. ii) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.A.20 17.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. (iv) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. LDR-22-06B: Performance Bonds ARTICLE 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW . . . 15.A.20 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit . . . 15.A.20 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit A. Public Facilities and Improvements. (1) Public facilities and improvements under this Article shall include, without limitation, streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, curbing, water and sewer mains and pipes, stormwater infrastructure, pipes and catch basins, fire hydrants, parks, recreational facilities and other improvements which are public or are intended to become public. (2) Before the issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer must furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to cover the full costs of all proposed public facilities and improvements and ancillary site improvements and their maintenance for two years after completion. (3) Term. Such bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run until the City Engineer has deemed the work to be complete in accordance with City approvals and regulations and for two (2) years thereafter, but in no case for a longer term than three (3) years. However, with the consent of the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, escrow account or letter of credit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed three (3) years. If any public facilities and improvements have not been installed or maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. (4) Partial Release. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that a phase of the construction of public facilities and improvements is complete as provided in Article 15.A.18(E), the Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve a partial release of the amount of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit equivalent to the phase or portion of the completed construction, up to a maximum of 90% of the original amount. Any amounts that the City Treasurer releases shall not exceed the proportion of the total project that has been built, up to a maximum of 90% of the original amount. The remaining 10% of the original amount of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit only shall be released upon the determination of the City Engineer that the public facilities and improvements have been maintained for two years after the City Engineer determined the public facilities and improvements to be complete. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that the public facilities and improvements have been maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit, the Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve the release of the remaining 10% of the original amount. LDR-22-06B: Performance Bonds ARTICLE 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations B. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit required by these Regulations, including but not limited to Landscaping and Site Restorations or rehabilitation, Earth Products and required demolition and removal of buildings. (1) Before issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer shall furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to guarantee all landscaping and plantings as required under Article 14, and any site restorations or rehabilitations as required under Article 3 or Article 13, for a period as described in this section. (a) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less, no performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be required. (b) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of over $10,000, the required amount for performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be $10,000, plus fifty percent (50%) of the landscaping budget amount over $10,000. Example: a development with a total required landscaping budget of $20,000 shall have a performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit of not less than $15,000. (2) Term for Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit for demolition and removal of buildings required by Article 3.09. Bonds, escrow accounts or letters of credit for the demolition and removal of a principal building upon the construction and occupancy of a new principal building, as required by Article 3.09 of these Regulations, shall run for a period of two (2) years. The Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve the release of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit upon a demonstration of compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3). If an applicant, subdivider or developer does not demonstrate compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3) as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit, then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. (3) Term for Other Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit required under Articles 3, 13, 14, and 15. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run for a period of three (3) years. However, with the consent of the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, escrow account or letter of credit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed three years. If any required work has not been constructed, installed, or maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. C. Bond Amounts. The amount of such bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be established by the Development Review Board and shall be equal to 100% of the estimated project costs for public facilities and improvements, plus a 15% contingency; or 100% of the estimated project costs for all other types of bonds required by these Regulations. The applicant, subdivider or developer shall be responsible for providing accurate cost estimates. Where amounts are not specified by these Regulations, the City Engineer shall review all cost estimates and provide a recommendation to the Board. The Board may invoke technical review to confirm the accuracy of estimates. LDR-22-06B: Performance Bonds ARTICLE 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations D. Form of Bonds, Other Sureties. The form of any such bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Council and shall include procedures for the City to make use of such funds in accordance with 24 VSA § 4464. E. "As-built" construction drawings and plans shall be submitted in paper and digital form to, and approved by, the City Engineer, prior to the release of any bonds, or portions thereof, for the installation of all required improvements. LDR-22-06B Performance Bonds ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT [ALL TEXT MOVED FROM 15.A.20 INTO NEW SECTION 17.15] 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT . . . 17.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit . . . 17.15 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit A. Public Facilities and Improvements. (1) Public facilities and improvements under this Article shall include, without limitation, streets, sidewalks, recreation paths, curbing, water and sewer mains and pipes, stormwater infrastructure, pipes and catch basins, fire hydrants, parks, recreational facilities and other improvements which are public or are intended to become public. (2) Before the issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer must furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to cover the full costs of all proposed public facilities and improvements and ancillary site improvements and their maintenance for two years after completion. (3) Term. Such bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run until the City Engineer has deemed the work to be complete in accordance with City approvals and regulations and for two (2) years thereafter, but in no case for a longer term than three (3) years. However, with the consent of the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, escrow account or letter of credit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed three (3) years. If any public facilities and improvements have not been installed or maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. (4) Partial Release. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that a phase of the construction of public facilities and improvements is complete as provided in Article 15.A.18(E), the Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve a partial release of the amount of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit equivalent to the phase or portion of the completed construction, up to a maximum of 90% of the original amount. Any amounts that the City Treasurer releases shall not exceed the proportion of the total project that has been built, up to a maximum of 90% of the original amount. The remaining 10% of the original amount of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit only shall be released upon the determination of the City Engineer that the public facilities and improvements have been maintained for two years after the City Engineer determined the public facilities and improvements to be complete. Upon a determination by the City Engineer that the public facilities and improvements have been maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit, the Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve the release of the remaining 10% of the original amount. B. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit required by these Regulations, including but not limited to Landscaping and Site Restorations or rehabilitation, Earth Products and required demolition and removal of buildings. LDR-22-06B Performance Bonds ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT (1) Before issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant, subdivider or developer shall furnish the City with a suitable performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit in an amount sufficient to guarantee all landscaping and plantings as required under Article 14, and any site restorations or rehabilitations as required under Article 3 or Article 13, for a period as described in this section. (a) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less, no performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be required. (b) For development with a total landscaping budget requirement of over $10,000, the required amount for performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be $10,000, plus fifty percent (50%) of the landscaping budget amount over $10,000. Example: a development with a total required landscaping budget of $20,000 shall have a performance bond, escrow account, or letter of credit of not less than $15,000. (2) Term for Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit for demolition and removal of buildings required by Article 3.09. Bonds, escrow accounts or letters of credit for the demolition and removal of a principal building upon the construction and occupancy of a new principal building, as required by Article 3.09 of these Regulations, shall run for a period of two (2) years. The Administrative Officer may recommend that the City Treasurer approve the release of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit upon a demonstration of compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3). If an applicant, subdivider or developer does not demonstrate compliance with Article 3.09(E)(3) as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit, then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. (3) Term for Other Bonds, Escrow Accounts, or Letters of Credit required under Articles 3, 13, 14, and 15. All other bonds, escrow accounts, or letters of credit shall run for a period of three (3) years. However, with the consent of the applicant, subdivider or developer, the term of that bond, escrow account or letter of credit may be extended for an additional period not to exceed three years. If any required work has not been constructed, installed, or maintained as provided within the term of the bond, escrow account or letter of credit then the amount secured by the bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be forfeited to the City. C. Bond Amounts. The amount of such bond, escrow account or letter of credit shall be established by the Development Review Board and shall be equal to 100% of the estimated project costs for public facilities and improvements, plus a 15% contingency; or 100% of the estimated project costs for all other types of bonds required by these Regulations. The applicant, subdivider or developer shall be responsible for providing accurate cost estimates. Where amounts are not specified by these Regulations, the City Engineer shall review all cost estimates and provide a recommendation to the Board. The Board may invoke technical review to confirm the accuracy of estimates. D. Form of Bonds, Other Sureties. The form of any such bond, escrow account, or letter of credit shall be approved by the City Attorney and City Council and shall include procedures for the City to make use of such funds in accordance with 24 VSA § 4464. E. "As-built" construction drawings and plans shall be submitted in paper and digital form to, and approved by, the City Engineer, prior to the release of any bonds, or portions thereof, for the installation of all required improvements. LDR-22-06C: Technical Correction to stormwater numbering ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS South Burlington Land Development Regulations 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS . . . 13.05 Stormwater Management . . . . . . 13.05 Stormwater Management A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is: (1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source; (2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by construction activities and post-construction conditions; (3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site; (4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, rooftops and other paved surfaces; and (5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls. B. Applicability. (1) These regulations will apply to all development within the City of South Burlington where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or parcel. (2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from requirements in this Section 13.05. (3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 13.05(B)(1), and not exempt under section 13.05(B)(2), shall meet the application requirements in Section 13.05(C) and the site design requirements in section 13.05(DE) as follows: (a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 13.05(ED). All new impervious surface area must meet the site design requirements of section 13.05(DE). (b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds 50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 13.05(DE). All new impervious surface area must meet the site design requirements of Section 13.05(ED). LDR-22-06C: Technical Correction to stormwater numbering ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS South Burlington Land Development Regulations C. Application Requirements. Applicants required to comply with Section 13.05 shall provide the following information in their application: (1) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment practices. (2) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed stormwater collection systems, culverts, and stormwater treatment practices. (3) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the location and results of any soil borings, infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing. Infiltration testing shall be completed using methods identified in the VSMM (see section 4.3.3.2 in the 2017 VSMM, or as updated). (4) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques. Where Tier 1 practices are not proposed (see Section 13.05(C)(1)(a)), the applicant shall provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of these practices is not possible before proposing to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 practices. (5) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices. (6) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv storm event, the one-year, twenty-four hour rain event, and the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution). Any TR-55 based model shall be suitable for this purpose. The intent of the twenty-five year storm event analysis is to ensure the proposed project does not overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property. The analysis is also intended to ensure that stormwater infrastructure installed as a part of a development can accommodate future upstream development. (7) The applicant’s engineer must provide such information as the stormwater superintendent or designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage infrastructure. D. Process. (1) Applications for proposed development that solely include development related to stormwater management (Section 13.05) may be reviewed via Administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.04(B)). (2) Applications involving an Environmental Restoration Project may be reviewed via Administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.04(B)). E. Design Requirements - On-Site Treatment. Applicants shall meet the following standards for on-site treatment of stormwater: (1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff and shall be treated using Tier 1 practices as detailed in the VSMM. (a) If it is not possible to treat the volume of stormwater runoff using a Tier 1 practice as specified in Section 13.05(ED)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints: (i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater, (ii) Shallow bedrock, (iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour, (iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A. §6602(16), as amended, LDR-22-06C: Technical Correction to stormwater numbering ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS South Burlington Land Development Regulations (v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in the VSMM, or (vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Board, then the WQv shall be treated on the lot using Tier 2 practices as described in the most recently adopted version of the VSMM. A site with an existing Tier 3 practice is allowed to evaluate retrofitting/expanding this practice to meet the requirements of Section 13.05(ED)(2). Existing Tier 3 practices shall only be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 13.05(ED)(1) in accordance with the Water Quality Practice Selection Flowchart in the VSMM. (2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution) rain event shall not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions existing prior to submittal of an application. (3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff per section 13.05(ED)(1) and 13.05(ED)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per Section 13.28(B) may utilize Site Balancing as defined in these Regulations. (4) New drainage structures shall comply with the following standards: (a) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution); (b) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure elevation. (c) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them. F. Design Requirements – Impacts to Municipal System. Stormwater runoff from sites meeting the requirements of Section 13.05(ED), or sites that are exempt from Section 13.05(ED), may discharge to the municipal stormwater system, or a stormwater system within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, provided that the stormwater system has adequate capacity to convey the twenty-five year storm event from the contributing drainage area. All applicants shall meet the following standards if it is determined that their project may have impacts to municipal stormwater system: (1) New drainage structures connected to the municipal stormwater system, or a stormwater system within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, shall comply with the following standards: (a) New drainage structures should be located within the street right-of-way (b) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution); (c) Drainage pipes must have a minimum diameter of 15” and be connected to drainage structures using booted connections. (d) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure elevation. (e) House footing drains shall only be connected to drainage facilities located in the street right-of- way when a suitable location to daylight the footing drain cannot be found. (f) Footing drains must not be connected to road underdrain. LDR-22-06C: Technical Correction to stormwater numbering ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS South Burlington Land Development Regulations (g) Any footing drains connected to drainage facilities in the street right-of-way shall be provided with a backflow preventer. (h) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them. (2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development. Culverts, pipes, or other drainage facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour rain event (rainfall data to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 and a type II rainfall distribution). (3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures. In instances where the Stormwater Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff incident from a proposed development may overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property. G. Intermittent Stream Alteration and Relocation Standard. Alteration of Intermittent Streams. When a development incorporates Tier 1 or Tier 2 stormwater treatment practices (as defined in the VSMM) to manage the stormwater that an intermittent stream is conveying in pre-development conditions, the intermittent stream may be altered or relocated as part of stormwater treatment, provided the stormwater management system meets all standards in this Section. An alteration or relocation of an intermittent stream is exempt from the Vermont Stream Alteration Rule. LDR-22-06D: Technical Correction to admin & enforcement numbering ARTICLE 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT . . . 17.04 Expiration of Permits and Approvals . . . 17.04 Expiration of Permits and Approvals A. Zoning Permits. A zoning permit shall expire one (1) year from its date of issue unless viewed as a whole, the work, time, and expenditures invested in the project demonstrate a continued good faith intent to presently commence upon the permitted project. B. Expiration of Approvals. All site plan, conditional use, variances, design review, and miscellaneous application approvals shall expire six (6) months from the date of their approval by the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, unless: (1) A zoning permit is issued for the project; (2) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has granted a longer period for a multi-phase development or for other projects that may reasonably require a longer period before commencement of the permitted project; or, (3) The Development Review Board or Administrative Officer has approved a request for extension of the approval. The Board or Administrative Officer may approve one (1) extension to an applicant of an approval if reapplication takes place before the approval has expired and if the Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Board or Administrative Officer may specify a period of time of up to one (1) year for the extension. A. Subdivision Approvals. [reserved] LDR-22-06E: Submission requirements APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Site Plan Sketch Plan Master Plan Major Prelim Major Final PUD Minor Final Subdiv Sketch Subdiv Final DRB Non- subdiv. Admin / Site Plan Submittal requirement √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Completed application form; one (1) digital copy of plans; and a list of the owners or record of abutting property owners √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Name and address of the owner of record, applicant, and owners of record of abutting properties; and name and address of engineer(s), architect(s), landscape architect(s) preparing plans, plan preparation date, and date and description of all revisions shown on all plan sheets √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Date, true north arrow and scale (numerical and graphic). The preferred scale shall be not more than one hundred (100) feet to the inch, or not more than sixty (60) feet to the inch where lots have less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage. √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Narrative accompanying the application to include the following: (a) description of the project; (b) demonstration of compliance with applicable review standards; (c) list of submission elements; and (d) list of any changes made to plans from previous submittals under the same application √ √ √ √√√ √ List of waivers the applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations and accompanying narrative describing the request(s), detailing the City's authority to grant the request(s) and describing why the waiver(s) should be granted √Project phasing plan √ √√√ √ Estimated project construction schedule, construction phasing, and date of completion, and estimated cost of all site improvements. (note: for FBC subdivisions, only public infrastructure information required) √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Any other information or data that the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board shall require for a full assessment of the project pursuant to the Land Development Regulations √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Location map, showing relation of subject property to adjacent properties and surrounding area. √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Boundaries and area of existing subject property(ies), proposed property lines, continues properties, boundaries of all zoning districts, transects, and overlay districts, and all designations on the City's Official Map, and lots within the proposed subdivision numbered. √√√√√√√√√√Location of existing restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. √√√√√√Location of planned restrictions on land, such as easements and covenants. √√√Permanent reference monuments √√√ Copies of proposed deeds, deed restrictions, covenants, agreements or other documents showing the manner in which open space, including park and recreational areas, and school site areas are to be dedicated, reserved and maintained and a certificate from the City Attorney that these documents are satisfactory.√√√ √ In the case of a subdivision or development served by a privately owned and/or maintained street: A completed contract between the landowner and the City regarding the number of lots or dwelling units to be served by the proposed right-of- way or private street and the responsibility for the roadway maintenance and a copy of all proposed deeds, agreements, or other documents which convey or relate to the use of a privately owned street or right-of- way, and a certificate of the City Attorney that these documents are satisfactory.√√√ √ A complete survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land, including but not limited to access ways and utility easements. Where applicable, this information shall be tied to reference points previously established by the City. √ √ √√√ Lot area in square feet and acres, and lot coverage calculations including building, overall, and front yard coverage and the location and layout of any off-street parking or loading areas, traffic circulation areas, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes. √ √√√ Point-by-point lighting plan and cut sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting within the site √ √ √√√ √ √ Preliminary grading, drainage, landscaping and buffering plan in accordance with Article 13, Supplemental Regulations. √ √√√ √ The extent and amount of cut and fill for all disturbed areas, including before-and- after profiles and cross sections of typical development areas, parking lots and roads, and including an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and proposed locations of sediment sink/setting pond and interceptor swales. All Districts Except City Center FBC City Center FBC District PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE INFORMATION South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-06E: Submission requirements APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Site Plan Sketch Plan Master Plan Major Prelim Major Final PUD Minor Final Subdiv Sketch Subdiv Final DRB Non- subdiv. Admin / Site Plan Submittal requirement All Districts Except City Center FBC City Center FBC District √ √ √√√ The location of any outdoor storage for equipment and materials if any, and the location, type and design of all solid waste-related facilities, including dumpsters and recycling bins. √ √ √√√ √ Estimate of all earthwork, including the quantity of any material to be imported to or removed from the site or a statement that no material is to be removed or imported. √ √ √√√ Location of existing structures on the site, and showing all site conditions to remain. √ √ √ √ √√√ √ √ √ Existing water courses & buffers, wetlands & buffers, base flood elevations if located in an area of special flood hazard, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. √√√√√√√√Existing and proposed open space √√√ √ √ By proper designation on such plat, all public space for which offers of cession are made by the applicant and those spaces title to which is reserved by him. √ √√√ √ √ The location of all open space to be dedicated to the City as well as all open space to be retained by the applicant or to be held in common private ownership. √√√√√√√√√√Existing and proposed contours at a maximum vertical interval of two (2) feet. √ √√√ Detailed specifications and locations of planting, landscaping, screening, and/or buffering materials. √A general concept of the landscaping, both in written and graphic form. √ √ √ √ √ A list of existing vegetation, with the location, type, and size of existing trees of six inches or greater in caliper. √ √√ √ A written plan to preserve and protect significant existing vegetation during and after construction. Such plan will be of sufficient detail that the City of South Burlington will be able to inspect the site during construction to ensure that existing vegetation is protected as per the plan. √ √√√ Detailed landscaping plan, specification of materials, costs, and phasing plan, including vegetation to remain, types of new plant materials, identified by common name and botanical name, sizes of all new plant materials by height and/or diameter at time of planting and at maturity, quantities of each of the planting materials, and treatment of the ground surface (paving, seeding, or groundcover) for all plantings, screening, buffering, and stormwater infiltration. √√√√Detailed erosion control plan demonstrating compliance with these regulations √√√√√√Existing and proposed structures √ √√ Preliminary plans, elevations, floor plans, and sections of proposed structures showing the proposed location, use, design and height of all structures, roads, parking areas, access points, sidewalks and other walkways, loading docks, outdoor storage areas, sewage disposal areas, landscaping, screening, site grading, and recreation areas if required. Plans shall also show any proposed division of buildings into units of separate occupancy and location of drives and access thereto. √ √√√ Detailed elevations to demonstrate compliance with Building Envelope Standards and material requirements √ √Plan for achieving required mix of housing types and archictural feastures as required by Section 13.17 (Residential Design for New Single and Two-Family Homes) √√Solar ready roof analysis report √√Elevations of buildings proposed as part of Planned Unit Developments √ √ √ √√√ √ Letter of intent from the Agency of Transportation confirming that the Agency has reviewed the proposed plan and is prepared to issue an access permit under 19 V.S.A. § 1111, and setting out any conditions that the Agency proposes to attach to the section 1111 permit. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Location, type, and width of existing and proposed streets and block layout (including roadways, sidewalk, recreation path) √ √ √ √ Plans and profiles showing location of existing and proposed street pavements, proposed elevations along center lines of all streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, manholes, catch basins, and culverts √ √ √√ Plans showing the location, size and invert elevations of existing and planned sanitary sewers, storm water drains, and fire hydrants and location and size of water, gas, electricity and any other utilities or structures. √√√√√√√Location of existing septic systems and wells. √√√√√Existing and proposed water and wastewater usage √√√√√Location and design of all utility distribution facilities BUILDINGS STREETS AND UTILITIES LANDSCAPE FEATURES - REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations LDR-22-06E: Submission requirements APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Site Plan Sketch Plan Master Plan Major Prelim Major Final PUD Minor Final Subdiv Sketch Subdiv Final DRB Non- subdiv. Admin / Site Plan Submittal requirement All Districts Except City Center FBC City Center FBC District √ √√√ The location and details of all the improvements and utilities, including the location of all utility poles, utility cabinets, sewage disposal systems, water supply systems, and all details and locations of the stormwater management system. √√√Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. √√√√Construction drawings of all required improvements. √ √ √ √ The length of all straight lines, the deflection angles, radii, length of curves and central angles of all curves tangent distance and tangent bearings for each street. √ √ √√√ √ √ All means of vehicular access and egress to and from the site onto public streets, and all provisions for pedestrian access and circulation. √ √ √ √ √ √ Analysis of traffic impacts, if required by the traffic overlay district and/or the DRB. √ √ √√√ Proposed stormwater management system, including (as applicable) location, supporting design data and copies of computations used as a basis for the design capacities and performance of stormwater management facilities. √ √√√ Detailed plans, designs and finished grades of retaining walls, steps, ramps, paving, site improvements, fences, bridges, culverts, and drainage structures. √Master Plan: See Article 15.B √ √ √ √ Initial Site Conditions Map Base flood elevations if located in an area of special flood hazard, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. River Corridors. Existing mapped data for permanent River Corridors; estimates for top of bank/stream where not mapped by VT DEC; estimated locations of intermittent streams. Wetland areas and buffers. Exsting mapped data from Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory, Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory Advisory Layer, Hydric Soils, and other known sources. Applicant-estimated areas for potential Class III areas. [note: Field Verification of all potential wetland areas is strongly encouraged at the earliest stages of revoew] Habitat Block Overlay District: Boundary of Habitat Block Overlay District, of all proposed mofications and exchanges, and supporting materials required by Section 12.04 Habitat Connector Overlay District: Boundary of Habitat Connector Overlay District, of all proposed relocations, and supporting materials required by Section 12.04 and 12.05. Steep Slopes: Existing mapped data of steep and very steep slopes √√√√√Complete Site Conditions Map River Corridors. Field verification/ delineation of top of bank / top of slope for permanent and intermittent surface waters by a qualified professional, where not mapped by VT DEC. All materials required by Section 12.07 Flood Hazard Areas. All materials required by Section 12.08. Wetland areas and buffers. Field delineation and report of functions and values of all wetland areas prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant. All materials required by Section 12.06 Habitat Block Overlay District: Boundary of Habitat Block Overlay District, of all proposed mofications and exchanges, and supporting materials required by Section 12.04 Habitat Connector Overlay District: Boundary of Habitat Connector Overlay District, of all proposed relocations, and supporting materials required by Section 12.04 and 12.05. Steep Slopes: Mapped data of unaffected steep or very steep slopes; Field delineation of steep and very steep slopes with a vertical drop exceeding three (3) feet proposed to be impacted * note: the Land Development Regulations may contian additional submission requirements for specific requests and applications Required maps must be prepared to scale by a qualified professional (e.g. engineer, architect, landscape architect, or urban designer) using the most current data and NATURAL RESOURCES South Burlington Land Development Regulations 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing Monday, August 8, 2022, 7:00 PM 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 Monday, August 8 at 7:00 pm, in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs, assigning value for TDRs, updating process for sending and receiving TDRs, and clarifying existing applicability in receiving areas B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission Requirements, and Section numbering 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.” 2 A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs and updating process for sending and receiving TDRs Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: This amendment updates the existing Transferable Development Rights program. It expands the areas where TDRs can be received to areas outside the SEQ districts to the City’s medium and higher-density residential and mixed use zoning districts along transit-served areas, establishes how TDRs can be used and maximum use of TDRs in all areas where they can be received, and outlines the process for severing TDRs from a property and receiving them on a property. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments (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 proposed TDR program updates are intended to support the land use pattern envisioned by the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This includes increasing residential density along corridors with transit lines and municipal services, and conserving land in appropriate areas of the City. Specifically, the updated program expands the receiving areas for TDRs to zoning districts that already have higher residential densities and/or existing transit, like the districts along much of Shelburne Road and medium-density residential areas in the Transit Overlay District. The designation of sending areas in the SEQ allow for greater conservation of those areas with compensation to the current landowners. These updates are intended to foster greater housing variation and affordability in the City in areas where additional development is supported by infrastructure, and directing it away from areas where it is not. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies, described in the Plan as objectives and strategies: Comprehensive Plan Objectives: • Objective 2: Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options affordable to households of varying income levels and seizes by striving to meet the housing targets set forth in this Plan. • Objective 3: Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden County, and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations. • Objective 4: Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate-income housing, emphasizing both smaller single-family homes and apartments, to meet demand within the regional housing market. 3 • Objective 5: Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed-used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. • Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner. • Objective 31: Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical wildlife resources, and that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open space. • Objective 36: Conserve productive farmland and primary agricultural soils within the City. • Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road, Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service area. • Objective 40: Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas identified within this Plan. Comprehensive Plan Strategies: • Strategy 4: Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing. Potential tools should be explored and could include form-based codes that would allow a variety of residential and mixed use building types, transferable development rights, neighborhood preservation overlay districts, household definition regulations, inclusionary zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing retention ordinance. • Strategy 5: Increase the supply of safe and affordable rental housing by allowing higher- density, mixed- use and mixed-income development within City Center and transit corridors, allowing multi- unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods and commercial/ industrial land uses. • Strategy 7: Accommodate compatible infill and additions to homes in existing neighborhoods. • Strategy 8: Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of residential building and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing, clustered housing and infill residential development. • Strategy 10. Develop strategies that can lead to the availability or development of more housing that is affordable to middle income, working residents and families in the City. Work through the CCRPC with surrounding communities to increase the inventory of housing that is more affordable to families. Consider development of a program that enables “empty nesters” occupying “family” sized housing to comfortably downsize into a multi-family unit that may be available nearby keeping them in their neighborhood but freeing the former home up for new generations of young families. 4 • Strategy 12. Promote the construction of new homes - particularly affordable and moderate- income units - that are highly energy-efficient, and upgrades to existing homes to make them more energy-efficient, which will reduce residents’ overall cost of living and contribute to housing affordability. • Strategy 13. Target for construction, by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units - 840 housing units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI. Comprehensive Plan Ongoing Activities • Continue to refine the City’s Land Development Regulations to promote the Plan’s goals and objectives. • Continue to facilitate the use of transfer of development rights within the SEQ zoning district to achieve the smart growth objectives for the SEQ. • Continue to allow neighborhood areas with a buildable density of between four and eight units per acre, using development rights transferred from areas in the SEQ designated for conservation or protection. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The TDR program updates allow for greater density of residential uses in areas indicated medium to higher intensity use in the Comprehensive Plan, while implementing greater conservation in the areas indicated for very low or low intensity use. For example, many receiving areas are centered on Shelburne Road, parts of Willison Road, Hinesburg Road, and similar, along with associated transitional areas, where “medium to higher intensity – mixed use” and “medium intensity – residential to mixed-use” future land uses are indicated. Sending areas are planned as “very low intensity – principally open space” and “lower intensity – principally residential”. These are all indicated on Map 11: Future Land Use in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. This proposed amendment does not relate directly to any planned community facilities. However, it intends to incentivize development in areas where municipal infrastructure exists and community facilities also exist. B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission Requirements, and Section numbering Brief explanation of the proposed amendment: Table in 13.03 of the LDRs related to bicycle parking: In Section 13.03 of the LDRs, the table governing the number of bicycle parking spaces lists “uses” that are not identical to the uses listed in the Table of Uses in Appendix C. The amendment is to clearly indicate which uses require 1 bicycle space per 20,000 SF and which require 1 bicycle space per 5,000 SF. 5 Move Section 15.A.20 (Performance Bonds) to Article 17: This amendment moves performance bonds from Subdivision to Administration to be clear it can apply in circumstances beyond subdivisions, as is the case in several instances. Re-letter Section 13.05 to correct double “A” subsections: In Section 13.05, there are two subsections labeled “A”. In a prior version of the LDRs, when stormwater management standards were contained in Article 12, the “Applicability” section was contained in “B. Scope and Applicability” and the language under that section included internal references that persist in the new 13.05. Delete 17.04C Subdivision Approvals header: Section 17.04 contains a subsection A labeled “Subdivision Approvals. [reserved]” that is no longer needed and is a vestige of former state enabling statutes. It is currently a duplicate “A” that should be labeled “C” as in the previous version of the LDRs. Modify Appendix E to specify submission requirements for Final Plat for Minor Subdivisions, and for solar-ready roofs. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments (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 proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR. (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” The proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR. From:Violet Nichols To:Jessie Baker Subject:"EXTERNAL"Update from Interim Superintendent Violet Nichols Date:Thursday, October 13, 2022 5:02:05 PM This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. October 13, 2022 Dear Parents/Guardians and Staff, Today was an exciting day as we welcomed Dan French, Vermont Secretary Education, to the District. Secretary French and I had the pleasure of spending time with students and staff at Rick Marcotte Central and Gertrude Chamberlin Schools. I am always proud to showcase the high-quality teaching and learning happening in our South Burlington Schools. I’m grateful to work alongside our exceptional staff and administrators, and I am glad to have had the opportunity for the Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) to see our staff at work first-hand. Homecoming has arrived! This annual fall tradition of holding sports games, a pep rally, and of course, the Homecoming Dance tomorrow night is a great way for students and staff of all ages to celebrate their school spirit. Want to attend a game? You can find more information on the games on the sbwolves website. Go Wolves! Dates of Note: October 11-17, SBHS Key Club food drive to benefit the SB Food Shelf October 11-14, GCS Scholastic Book Fair October 13, GCS Open House 6-7 pm October 13, City of South Burlington East West Crossing Final Design Workshop October 14 SB Homecoming Weekend, Girls Volleyball 4:30pm, Football 7pm October 15, SB Homecoming Weekend, Girls Soccer 10am, Field Hockey 7pm October 16, SBHS George Cannon Annual 5k, 9:30 am October 19, 7 pm, Regular School Board Meeting Transportation Update and Voluntary Form Last week, I felt it was important to update you all regarding staffing shortages impacting transportation. Finding solutions to get our students to and from school safely is a high priority. Our bus driver shortage, as many of you have experienced, has resulted in the need to make adjustments to routes. I have been collaborating with our administrative team, operations manager, and transportation departments to explore a number of solutions. Some conversations have included working with our IT Department to get more information regarding possible add-ons to Transfinder, a technology already in use within the District, to help aid the communication gap between transportation and families. We are utilizing bus monitors, school traffic monitors, and are having conversations with bus drivers and transportation leadership regarding solutions that range from combined routes, fewer stops, and exploring distance requirements for bussing. Private bussing/van options are also under consideration, especially for events such as sports. In addition, we have developed a voluntary form which will serve the purpose of gathering information from parents/guardians regarding their potential ability to transport their student(s) both to and from school. Please note, this is not a request to transport children, but serves the purpose of information-gathering as it may be a potential way to alleviate some transportation challenges. This information will help inform our next steps in resolving our limited bussing capacity as expeditiously as possible. Our teams will continue to look at all options and I will provide updates as they become available. We continue to advertise and recruit for bus and van drivers, both full and part time. I want to thank our dedicated bus drivers, transportation department and operations manager for all that they do every day to perform the critical task of getting students to schools, field trips, and co-curricular events. Zero Energy Modulars (ZEMs) Update While meetings have continued with Dore and Whittier Architects and Engineering Ventures (civil engineer) as well as with the City’s Planning and Zoning Department to review the requirements for the permitting application for both Rick Marcotte Central and Orchard Schools, we have learned of permitting-related delays to the timeline (at Orchard), as well as increased costs of the ZEMs projects. While initially projected to cost $1.3 million for the 8 ZEMs, our latest cost estimates indicate a figure closer to $6 million. The initial figures did not include items such as permitting fees, engineering costs, legal fees, or finishings such as siding, flooring and technology. Supply chain constraints, inflation, and labor and materials costs have impacted the cost of the project additionally. With this new information, we are currently exploring our options for paying for these critical, unbudgeted facilities expenses. One option is to go out for bond on the March 2023 ballot. Impact fees are another way that we can provide facilities for our growing number of students. Going out for a bond vote, coupled with permitting issues, pushes the timeline for installation of the ZEMs from January to the summer of 2023 (anticipated). This is a standing agenda item at regular school board meetings and I will be providing updates in Board meetings as well as in my newsletter along the way. I will add that ZEMs are phase I of addressing facilities needs, due to increasing enrollment, and that our middle and high schools will need facilities attention also. The enrollment projections are based on the work of demographer Jerome McKibben. Impact Fees In August, the Board directed me to move forward a recommendation to the City to institute impact fees so that we, as a school system, can meet the needs of all SB students as the city increases in size, with planned developments underway. These Impact fees will be imposed on property developments by the City for new dwellings, which impact school enrollments. These fees will support continued facilities growth within our system as we adjust to increasing enrollment. In an effort to continue to offer the high–quality of educational programming that we have been known for at SB, and to support the growth in our City, which I believe enriches our community, I am partnering with the City Manager to bring forward a recommendation for impact fees tied to Zero Emissions Modulars (ZEMs) at RMCS and Orchard School, as directed by the Board. These impact fees will go toward enabling the District to provide space solutions for students, linked to overenrollement. I am recommending a phased approach for impact fees tied to elementary, then middle school, and high school spacing solutions.The recommendation will include an affordable housing exemption and ensure moderate impact fees so as not to impact development or home purchasing ability. Jonathan Slason of RSG has finalized his report with recommended impact fee values based on ZEMs project costs. City Manager Jessie Baker and I will be presenting these at the next City Council meeting, Monday October 17. The agenda and participation information will be posted on the City of South Burlington website soon. 10th Annual Cannon 5K Walk/Run in honor of SBHS Science Educator George Cannon This Sunday, October 16 at 9:30 am, the 10th annual Cannon 5k Walk/Run will take place in front of SBHS. While optional, participants are encouraged to wear a superhero costume or the color green in honor of George Cannon's favorite Superhero the Green Lantern. The suggested donation is $5 per person and funds raised support the George Cannon Scholarship. Special thanks to the SBHS Girls XC Team for volunteering to help run the event this year. If you cannot attend, but would like to make a donation, please mail a check to: SBHS, ATTN: Cannon Fund, 550 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. Check should be made out to: "South Burlington Schools Foundation", also place "Cannon" in the memo DRAFT SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE STUDY October 13, 2022 South Burlington School District Cover Image Credit: City of South Burlington © 2022 RSG South Burlington School District SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE STUDY i CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 1.1 LEGAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................................2 2.0 COMMUNITY CONTEXT .................................................................... 4 2.1 POPULATION ..........................................................................................4 2.2 HOUSEHOLDS ........................................................................................5 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD ..............................................................6 BEDROOMS PER HOUSEHOLD ...........................................................8 2.3 LAND USE FORECASTS ...................................................................... 10 COUNTYWIDE CONTEXT ................................................................... 10 FORECAST GROWTH IN HOUSING AND STUDENTS ...................... 11 3.0 SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE DEVELOPMENT .................................... 15 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 15 3.2 SERVICE STANDARD ........................................................................... 16 3.3 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD ............................................................ 17 4.0 BASE IMPACT FEE ......................................................................... 22 4.1 OPTION 1: DISTRICTWIDE IMPROVEMENT ....................................... 22 CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................................. 22 BASE FEE CALCULATION .................................................................. 24 4.2 OPTION 2: PK-8 ZERO-ENERGY MODULAR (ZEM) CLASSROOM FLEXIBLE SPACE ........................................................ 25 CAPITAL COSTS .................................................................................. 26 BASE FEE CALCULATION .................................................................. 27 4.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS ....................... 29 5.0 CREDITS – TO BE DETERMINED .................................................. 30 5.1 CREDITS ............................................................................................... 30 ii INFRASTRUCTURE CREDITS ............................................................ 30 REVENUE CREDITS ............................................................................ 30 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: IMPACT FEE PROCESS ................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................. 4 FIGURE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING PERMITS (HISTORICAL 1980 TO 2021) .................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE (1940–2016) .................................................. 7 FIGURE 5: EXISTING BEDROOM MIX OF SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING UNITS ........................................................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 6: VERMONT PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY BEDROOM .......................... 10 FIGURE 7: CHITTENDEN COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS .............................. 11 FIGURE 8: NEAR-TERM HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM MIX .................................... 13 FIGURE 9: TOTAL ENROLLMENT FORECAST ............................................................. 14 FIGURE 10: VHFA PERCENT OF HOUSING TYPES WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN ............................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 11: SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS (ECONSULT SOLUTIONS) ........................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT .................................................... 8 TABLE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON BEDROOMS, BY HOUSEHOLD UNIT (2020 5-YEAR ACS) ............................................................................................................ 8 TABLE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON 2020 HOUSEHOLD MIX BY BEDROOM ..................... 9 TABLE 4: REGIONAL LAND USE HOUSING FORECASTS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON ......................................................................................................... 12 TABLE 5: SQUARE FEET STANDARDS PER SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL .................................................................................................................. 16 TABLE 6: EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON ...................... 17 TABLE 7: ACS PUMS DATA ON STUDENTS PER HOUSE BY BEDROOM .................. 18 TABLE 8: NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER HOUSING UNIT IN SOUTH BURLINGTON (2022) .............................................................................................. 20 TABLE 9: STUDENT GROWTH BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE ............................................... 21 TABLE 10: CAPITAL COSTS FOR PREFERRED ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION ................................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 11: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) ............................................................................................................... 25 TABLE 12: CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ZEMS .............................................................. 27 TABLE 13: PK-8 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD .......................................................... 28 TABLE 14: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) ............................................................................................................... 28 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACS American Community Survey CCI [ENR] Construction Cost Index CCRPC Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission GFA Gross floor area MSBA Massachusetts School Building Authority MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan PUMS Public Use Microdata Sample VHFA Vermont Housing Finance Agency ZEM Zero-Energy Module iii South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This impact fee study report evaluates how residential land use development in the city of South Burlington places additional demands on the school district and on existing services and infrastructure. Impact fees are a type of land use regulation that local governments use to generate revenue to construct additional capacity to accommodate this demand. The School District retained RSG to develop this needs study to identify a fair and equitable impact fee structure for its capital expansion investments. This study presents the legal nexus between population growth and impacts on the education facilities managed by the South Burlington School District. The base fee derived in this study represents the legal maximum based on the expected capital costs to meet the growth in demand. The base fee and subsequent credits and final fee should be adjusted once the capital costs are agreed and the full mix of funding sources have been identified. Vermont statute authorizes municipalities to levy impact fees on new development. The purpose of these fees is to allocate the cost of new capital facilities to the development that will benefit from those facilities.1 This can include fees to offset the costs of facilities built in the past with excess capacity for anticipated future development, facilities planned to be built to accommodate future development, and marginal expansion of capacity in response to population growth and changes in community expectations. The statute states that the costs of such infrastructure should only include the portion associated with new capacity to accommodate the future land development’s demand. The process is visualized in Figure 1 below. FIGURE 1: IMPACT FEE PROCESS Source: RSG 1 24 V.S.A. § 5200 South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 2 The methodology used in the School District Impact Fee Study follows a “consumption” or standards based approach by expanding marginal capacity based on incremental changes in demand (i.e., student population). The consumption based approach identifies the standards by which the services are currently provided, compares those to expected standards of service, and uses a change in base demand to forecast how much additional capacity may be necessary in the future. The plan based approach uses an established plan or vision to identify the necessary capital investments to meet the needs of the future population. 1.1 LEGAL BACKGROUND The American Planning Association, which is a national organization dedicated to supporting local communities and planning processes, has developed standards for impact fees. These standards are as follows:2 • The imposition of a fee must be rationally linked (the "rational nexus") to an impact created by a particular development and the demonstrated need for related capital improvements pursuant to a capital improvement plan and program. • Some benefit must accrue to the development as a result of the payment of a fee. • The amount of the fee must be a proportionate fair share of the costs of the improvements made necessary by the development and must not exceed the cost of the improvements. • A fee cannot be imposed to address existing deficiencies except where they are exacerbated by new development. • Funds received under such a program must be segregated from the general fund and used solely for the purposes for which the fee is established. • The fees collected must be encumbered or expended within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that needed improvements are implemented. Six years in Vermont. • The fee assessed cannot exceed the cost of the improvements, and credits must be given for outside funding sources (such as federal and state grants, developer initiated improvements for impacts related to new development, etc.) and local tax payments which fund capital improvements, for example. • The fee cannot be used to cover normal (day to day) operation and maintenance or personnel costs, but must be used for capital improvements, or under some linkage programs, affordable housing, job training, child care, transit operations, etc. This expectation has to define costs attributed to mitigating the impacts associated with additional land use development. Typical management activities: 2 American Planning Association. “APA Policy Guide on Impact Fees.” Available at: https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/impactfees.htm. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 3 • The fee established for specific capital improvements should be reviewed at least every two years to determine whether an adjustment is required, and similarly the capital improvement plan and budget should be reviewed at least every 5 to 8 years. • Provisions must be included in the ordinance to permit refunds for projects that are not constructed, since no benefit will have manifested. • Impact fee payments are typically required to be made as a condition of approval of the development, either at the time the building or occupancy permit is issued. Vermont’s impact fee statute does not preclude using funds for administrative duties associated with the management of the impact fee program. Nationally, it is common practice to collect and expend impact fees to cover time and expenses associated with the creation, management, and administration of the impact fee program. These funds often cover the salary portion of the impact fee administrator, staff time in the preparation and review of impact fee studies, consultant or staff time preparing impact fee needs reports, and ordinance support. Therefore, a 5% additional margin has been identified in this study as a reasonable cost for the administration of this program. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 4 2.0 COMMUNITY CONTEXT The South Burlington has played an important role in the growth and development of the greater Burlington region in northwestern Vermont. The city is located at the junction of three critical roadways (I-89, I-189, US2, US 7), traversed by the western railway line, is the home of the Burlington International Airport, and surrounds Vermont’s largest municipality, the City of Burlington. South Burlington covers approximately 16.5 square miles and is a regional employment, trade, housing, and transportation center. South Burlington is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Chittenden County and is poised to add more residents and businesses over the coming decades. The city has taken a proactive approach to planning and has been working with the school district, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders as the city refines, updates, and revisits these plans to remain valuable and insightful guides to the regulatory land use development process. 2.1 POPULATION The city of South Burlington is the third most populous municipality after Burlington and Essex (counting Essex Junction and Town) in Chittenden County, with an estimated population of 20,292 as of the 2020 Decennial Census. The city has experienced a sustained growth trajectory since 1940 as supported by population and housing data visualized in Figure 2. FIGURE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON POPULATION AND HOUSING source: US Census Bureau and 2016 Comprehensive Plan South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 5 2.2 HOUSEHOLDS To minimize adverse effects on housing affordability and build a strong nexus between the need for services and growth in the town, it is important to understand the actual number of people occupying the land uses being developed. Households is an accessible and commonly used term for forecasting growth and one of the few units of growth that is specifically used in the permitting process. Between 2000 and 2020 the city of South Bulington resident population grew by 36.4% while occupied housing stock increased by 46.2%. This aligns with long-term trends of decreasing household size. The land use based approach is informed by the use of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s (CCRPC), which is the regions Federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization, long-range population, employment, and housing unit projections for use in regional planning efforts. The most recent comprehensive review of future growth trends occurred during the 2017 update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The CCRPC projections suggest an additional 719 housing units in South Burlington between 2020 and 2030, an 8% change. The city of South Burlington planning department has maintained that the regional forecasts are too low given the rate of residential construction anticipated over the next twenty years. City planning staff have indicated that annual changes of around 140 housing units is more realistic and consistent with past land use permits and growth patterns as shown in Figure 3. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 6 FIGURE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING PERMITS (HISTORICAL 1980 TO 2021) Bedrooms however is also a frequently used metric, guiding the size requirements for waste water and raw water as well as other land development permits. Both the number of households and the number of bedrooms in those households are known entities at the time a building permit is obtained prior to construction. The number of occupants, however, are not – which is the true source of demand for city services such as educational facilities. While we cannot assess the impact fee on the actual number of occupants, we have sufficient data to associate a correlation between the size of the household and number of bedrooms to the number of occupants. Persons per Household The American Community Survey estimates that as of 2020, there were 9,087 housing units.3 This is an increase of over 2,586 housing units since the 2000 Census and over 1,453 more than the 2010 census. Most of the housing units are owner occupied (59%) with an average of 2.32 persons per household. The remaining 41% of households are renter occupied with 2.00 persons per household4.The citywide average is 2.19 persons per household. 3 The ACS is an estimate based on a sampling of data. The City maintains a detailed record of housing permits and overall housing units. However, it is valuable to compare housing and population using a consistent dataset (i.e., ACS). 4 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (Table B25010) South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 7 There have been attempts nationally to reduce the effect that impact fees may have on housing costs, and especially, “affordable housing.” Changing the assessment on the size of the home or on the number of bedrooms provides a stronger relationship to the number of occupants and the likely impact on the school district. Nationally, over the past half century the average size (number of persons) of the household has dropped from 3.67 persons per household in 1940 to 2.53 in 2016 as shown in Figure 4. FIGURE 4: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE (1940–2016) Source: US Census Bureau5 The number of occupants per household influences the number of housing units necessary to house the population and may also influence the degree to which any household may impact the needs for goods and services. Specifically, as it pertains to the school district, if there are fewer occupants, there may be a reduction in likely number of students that may be living in the household. Traditionally, impact fee studies often separated the fees based on ownership status or other proxies for ownership. Rightly or wrongly, the ownership may been an easier way to capture anticipated or degree of impact on the system. However, as shown in Table 1 there has 5 US Census Bureau. “Historical Households Tables.” December 2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 8 been a trend toward convergence between owner occupied housing sizes and renter occupied housing sizes. Since 2000 the city has seen a decline in average persons per owner occupied unit, and from 2010 to today an increase in the overall household size of rented units. TABLE 1: AVERAGE PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT AVG. PERSONS PER OWNER OCCUPIED UNIT AVG. PERSONS PER RENTER OCCUPIED UNIT 2000 Census 2.44 2.02 2010 Census 2.50 1.75 2015 ACS 2.38 1.84 2020 ACS 2.32 2.00 Source: US Census Data (Table B25010) To move away from ownership status, it is important to acknowledge that the simple metric of household is too gross of a measure. There is a wide variation in the number of occupants and the behaviors of those occupants that should be better accounted for. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan reinforces the notion that policies such as impact fees, should be designed to be avoid unintentional adverse impacts on affordable housing policies. Bedrooms per Household The 2020 breakdown of households and the number bedrooms is shown in Table 2. Note that the total number of housing units estimated by the ACS is slightly different than what the City Planning office considers to be an accurate count of housing units. The ACS aides in the understanding of the relative makeup of each of the units in the city. TABLE 2: SOUTH BURLINGTON BEDROOMS, BY HOUSEHOLD UNIT (2020 5-YEAR ACS) HOUSEHOLD BEDROOM COUNT COUNT PERCENT No Bedroom (i.e., studio or efficiency unit) 202 2% 1 Bedroom 1,137 13% 2 Bedrooms 3,360 37% 3 Bedrooms 2,807 31% 4 Bedrooms 1,340 15% 5 or More Bedrooms 241 3% Total Housing Units 9,087 100% The weighted average number of bedrooms per unit is 2.5. Aggregated into three levels (0 to 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3+ bedroom) units can be helpful and easier for practical applications. The percentages as a share of the overall housing mix is shown in Figure 5. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 9 FIGURE 5: EXISTING BEDROOM MIX OF SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSING UNITS Source: American Community Survey (2020 5-year. Table B250401) The planning department at the city of South Burlington maintains a robust record of the housing permits and based on the local data there are 9,500 housing units as of 2020. Using the ACS percentage of households by the number of bedrooms the 2020 share of households by bedrooms is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: SOUTH BURLINGTON 2020 HOUSEHOLD MIX BY BEDROOM TOTAL 0-1 BR 2 BR 3+ BR Units 9,500 1,400 3,515 4,560 Percent 15% 37% 48% Source: City of South Burlington records using ACS percentages Lastly, the U.S. Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) regularly surveys around 1% of the U.S. population each year across the full set of variables surveyed in the ACS. The 2019 five-year PUMS data was downloaded using the statistical software R and exported for the state of Vermont geography, providing occupancy data on 32,056 households. The data accessed compares persons per household and the number of bedrooms in that household. The relationship is visualized in Figure 6 below. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 10 FIGURE 6: VERMONT PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY BEDROOM Source: Census PUMS data analyzed by RSG A strong linear relationship exists between the number of bedrooms a household has and the number of persons in that household. This is a helpful check to confirm that bedroom count can be a reliable measure of the number of occupants, and therefore, the impact on the city of South Burlington facilities, including schools. 2.3 LAND USE FORECASTS The Comprehensive Plan supports the city’s vision for robust and significant growth in both population and employment. The city is expected to remain one of the faster growing communities in Vermont and in Chittenden County. The 2020 Census data indicates the state population grew 2.8%, or 0.28% annually between 2010 and 2020, while South Burlington grew 13.34%, or 1.25% annually6, from 17,904 to 20,292 residents between 2010 and 2020. Countywide Context The 2018 ECOS Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) produced by the CCRPC developed countywide and municipal forecasts out to 2050. The 2018 projections have countywide 6 Using a natural log growth equation with US Census 2010 and 2020 population estimates South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 11 population projected to increase from 165,000 in 20207 to 183,000 in 2050. The population is anticipated to slow in annual growth rates through the 2020s and then increase again starting in the 2030s as the ‘millennials’ fully enter an age typical of household formation. Figure 7 shows the chart for the projected countywide population growth through year 2050. The chart indicates that annual growth rates between 2010 and 2020 are around 0.56% and forecast between 2020 and 2030 at 0.4%. South Burlington data indicates that the city is adding residents faster than the Chittenden County average. FIGURE 7: CHITTENDEN COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Source: CCRPC 2018 ECOS MTP (developed by Economic Policy Resources, Inc. and RSG) Forecast Growth in Housing and Students The city of South Burlington is forecast to see an increase in employment and population over the coming decades. By 2030 regional growth forecasts8 suggest South Burlington could see an increase in over 2,000 residents and 3,400 jobs from 2015. These forecasts were developed as part of a regional effort in 2017 by the CCRPC to account for New England wide trends in a Vermont context and then work with local agencies and governments to refine forecasts for each community within Chittenden County. The forecasts were completed going out to the future year 2050, the current planning horizon for the regional long-range planning efforts. The growth anticipated for South Burlington in the regional planning effort (shown in Table 4) shows 7 The 2019 ACS data indicates Chittenden County has a population of 163,774 8 CCRPC MTP Forecasts for year 2030. 165,803 172,596 174,764 183,129 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 185,000 190,000 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 12 a significantly slower rate of growth than the historical average of 140 units per year shown in Figure 3. If the 140 units per year remains a long run average, the city could reasonably expect nearly 11,000 housing units by the year 2030. This comparison between the different forecasts is only helpful to provide a perspective on the amount of growth and development expected in the city. TABLE 4: REGIONAL LAND USE HOUSING FORECASTS FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS ANNUALIZED GROWTH RATE 2020 9,500 2025 9,793 0.62% 2030 10,219 0.87% 2035 10,644 0.83% 2040 11,069 0.80% 2045 11,495 0.77% 2050 11,920 0.74% Source: CCRP 2018 MTP Forecasts (pivoted using actual 2020 housing units) However, the overall number of housing units is only part of the story. The City Planning Department identified a near term growth projection using an identified list of known or likely land use development projects to occur within the next decade, by 2030. The size, scale, and bedroom composition of these units are expected to be markedly different than what has been the recent historical housing type within South Burlington. Figure 8 shows the existing mix of housing units by bedroom count along with the type of housing unit anticipated over the next few years in the city. The figure shows a clear shift in the composition of the housing units. This will likely affect the anticipated number of students residing in these units. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 13 FIGURE 8: NEAR TERM HOUSING UNITS BY BEDROOM MIX Source: City of South Burlington Planning Department (May 2022) The number of students residing and enrolled in South Burlington schools has traditionally been based on forecasts from McKibben Demographics to inform key inputs such as school by school enrollment by year. The analysis uses a range of demographic factors such as migration (in and out), births and deaths, and historical data that is used to inform the future rate of change in the student populations by grade. At an aggregate level, the October 20, 2021 McKibben report indicates 2,349 resident students in 2020 and forecasts 2,604 in 2030 (and 2,635 by 2032). This is a 10.8% change over the next 10 years, with an annual average increase of nearly 26 students per year. In addition to simply resident students, there are nearly 200 tuition students from nearby communities who attend school in South Burlington. These numbers are expected to remain stable. It is both a service to the wider community in northwestern Vermont but also a benefit for the additional revenue that can offset local education costs. Figure 9 shows the McKibben total school district enrollment forecast out ten years to year 2032. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 14 FIGURE 9: TOTAL ENROLLMENT FORECAST Source: McKibben Demographics (October 20, 2021) A detailed methodology and assumptions of McKibben’s work is included in the appendix of the May 2019 Phase 2 Master Planning & Visioning report, titled Demographic Study Report 2019 from McKibben Demographics. The analysis is detailed with the many assumptions that are critical to understanding the future forecasts that were made. Foremost among them is the assumed number of new housing units constructed. The 2019 report states an assumed 500 new units by 2028. This is well short of the amount the City Planning Department has indicated based on historical averages (~140 units per year) as well as near term growth expectations. It will be important for city and school district staff to monitor the changes in enrollment as it relates to housing growth and development. The following chapters rely on the attributes of the housing being constructed in the city as well as the demands on the school facility to accommodate the future growth in student enrollment. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 15 3.0 SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION The school district has been proactive in developing plans for additional school capacity. Over the past decade a handful of options have been identified such as consolidation at the K-5 level, rebuilding schools, or building anew. This impact fee study report supports the Master Planning Process that continues today to identify pathways forward to maximize student performance by improving the educational capital facilities. Impact fees can support the expansion of the schools within the district as long as there is a sound nexus between the growth in the community, a unit of growth – being households, the demand for additional school space as a result of that growth, and a capital plan to build the additional capacity. This chapter sets out the necessary components of an impact fee including developing the service standard, developing a cost per unit of growth, and including mechanisms for credits and avoiding issues of double payment. The district has a long-term vision of high-quality facilities that are flexible, adaptable and resilient to the inevitable changes in instructional format. The Master Planning Process has included numerous studies and evaluations of the facilities as well as public engagement activities to educate the community on the conditions and capacity challenges at the schools.9 The Master Planning documents along with others including demographic projections were reviewed and informed this impact fee study report, including the following: • Phase 1 - Master Planning and Visioning Process: Site & Building Assessments, Dore and Whittier. April 24, 2018. • South Burlington School District, Redistricting Study Option Statistics, Cropper GIS. May 2, 2019. • Phase 2 – Master Planning and Visioning Process: Educational Component, Dore and Whittier. May 31, 2019. • School District Enrollment Projections. Cropper GIS/McKibben Demographics. September 23, 2019. • Population and enrollment Forecasts: 2021 Series, McKibben Demographics. October 20, 2021. • Elementary School Building Assessment: Programming Update, Dore and Whittier. November 30, 2021. 9 Master Planning and Visioning site. https://www.sbschools.net/Page/736 South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 16 • Elementary School Building Assessment: Options Analysis, Dore and Whittier. April 26, 2022. 3.2 SERVICE STANDARD Schools are dynamic and flexible spaces within a rigid structural shell. They must respond to evolving educational practices and year to year variations in enrollment. These challenges are among the hundreds of others that have been considered in the Master Planning and Visioning process that the school district organized over the past few years. The process convened working groups and committees to determine the preferred configuration and size of the future schools within South Burlington to meet the expected student population. Vermont has historically used a blanket, one size fits all, 160 square feet of gross square feet per student as the service standard that applies for all schools across all ages in Vermont. The standard has not changed for several decades and is considered inadequate to reflect the changing demands on the educational facilities. Alternatively, Massachusetts provides a current set of design standards that have been identified by the district’s architects as superior to Vermont’s standard and more accurately reflect the desired conditions. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) Regulations apply to all public schools and communities that receive state funding assistance in Massachusetts.10 The architects for the South Burlington school district have pointed out that the Massachusetts standards should not be followed indiscriminately and require context and consideration of the local South Burlington situation. However, they do provide a helpful and powerful source of information for the purposes of establishing impact fees by providing a straightforward rubric as to the amount of space a pupil requires. The MSBA square footage standards per student vary by the age of the students (i.e., different standards for elementary vs. high school) and the total enrollment of the school. Table 5 shows the MSBA standard square feet per student standards for the five schools within South Burlington as well as the weighted average for the elementary schools and the overall weighted average. TABLE 5: SQUARE FEET STANDARDS PER SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL SCHOOL SERVICE STANDARD SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT (USING THE MSBA STANDARDS) Average (weighted by size of student population) 180 10 Massachusetts School Grant Building Program. https://www.mass.gov/regulations/963-CMR-200-school-building-grant-program South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 17 PK-5 Elementary 173 Rick Marcotte School 165 Chamberlin School 178 Orchard School 162 6-8 Tuttle Middle School 173 9-12 High School 200 Source: RSG analysis of the MSBA Standards The service standards for any future condition are compared to the existing condition to understand whether any deficiency exists today. Existing deficiencies are not eligible for funding through impact fees and must be funded with other sources. The existing enrollment and size of each school and resulting square feet per student is shown in Table 6. The MSBA standards and resulting size of each school and the resulting deficiency is included. TABLE 6: EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS IN SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL CURRENT TOTAL ENROLLMENT (2022) EXISTING SQUARE FEET OF SCHOOL EXISTING SQUARE FEET PER STUDENT MSBA REQUIREMENTS (SQUARE FEET) MSBA SQ FT PER STUDENT EXISTING CURRENT SPACE DEFICIENCY PER STUDENT Total 2,536 446,534 176 498,892 180 4 PK-5 1,125 167,440 149 194,540 173 24 RMCS 415 55,526 134 68,299 165 31 CS 269 54,792 204 54,792 178 0 OS 441 57,122 130 71,449 162 32 6-8 492 120,552 245 120,552 173 0 9-12 919 158,542 173 183,800 200 27 Source: RSG The analysis indicates that existing deficiencies are particularly acute at the high school and two of the elementary schools. Interim plans include adding temporary classrooms as well as shifting some of the districts to shift students from one school to another. However, as indicated by the overall deficiency of 4 square feet per student, the entire district is space deficient per the MSBA standards. This is the deficiency at the time of this impact fee study and it is expected to increase if capital investments are not made. 3.3 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD Section 2.3 summarized the expectation that South Burlington and the school district is expected to add over 1,000 housing units (up to 1,400 if long-term trends continue) over the next ten years. A portion of those households and the residents living in them are likely to, or at some point in the future, house school-age children, adding to the overall demand for educational facilities in the school district. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 18 This chapter sets out the methodology for estimating the number of students that any housing unit in the city may generate, and subsequently, demand for additional capital infrastructure. The McKibben Demographics report indicated a total of 2,349 resident students were enrolled in 2020. The City Planning Department has indicated that there were 9,500 housing units in 2020. This produces an average of 0.247 students per housing unit across the entire city. The ACS also estimates that only 23.3% of households in the city have one or more resident under the age of 18. Roughly, these two numbers indicate that 1 in 4 households has a student in the district. These numbers are citywide averages that could be further divided into the types of housing units being occupied. Recognizing that the city is changing and the demand for smaller housing units is also growing as household size has reduced over the last few decades (see Figure 4). The U.S. Census PUMS regularly surveys around 1% of the U.S. population each year across the full set of variables surveyed in the ACS. The 2019 five-year PUMS data was downloaded using the statistical software R and exported for the northwestern part of Vermont, providing data on students per household for 443 households in the study area. The PUMS data shows trend of higher numbers of students residing per unit as the number of bedrooms increases. For instance, single family homes with 4 bedrooms include an average of 0.61 students compared to 3 bedroom units having 0.44 students, and 2 bedroom units having 0.13 students. The data is obviously limited, but provides a local sample to inform this process. TABLE 7: ACS PUMS DATA ON STUDENTS PER HOUSE BY BEDROOM BEDROOMS PER UNIT STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD 0 0 1 0 2 0.13 3 0.44 4 0.61 Source: RSG analysis northwestern Vermont household PUMS data (2019 5-year) The 2019 PUMS analysis is juxtaposed against an alternative picture of historical data using the 2000 Census data analyzed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) shown in Figure 10. The VHFA analysis suggests the current overall average (0.247) is reasonable, albeit lower than historical Vermont averages. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 19 FIGURE 10: VHFA PERCENT OF HOUSING TYPES WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN Source: VHFA: Housing and Vermont’s School Enrollment. January 2007. A more recent analysis of 2015 data (2011-2015 ACS data) prepared by Econsult Solutions titled “Who Moves into Vermont Housing” completed in November 2017 shows an extensive breakdown of school-age children by housing unit by bedroom count. The report states that these are derived from national sample and then further filtered to represent Vermont and not sensitive to specific community conditions. The data analyzes households moving into Vermont within four years of the ACS sample (in this case, the earliest move in date is 2008). South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 20 FIGURE 11: SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS (ECONSULT SOLUTIONS) Source: Econsult Solutions. November 2017. The data sources (citywide average students per housing unit, the PUMS data for Vermont, and the two reports) are used to estimate the current South Burlington specific rates of students per housing unit by number of bedrooms shown in Table 8. TABLE 8: NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER HOUSING UNIT IN SOUTH BURLINGTON (2022) 0-1 BEDROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3+ BEDROOM UNITS WEIGHTED AVERAGE STUDENTS PER UNIT Total district students per housing unit 0.02 0.13 0.41 0.248 PK-5 Grades (~46% of students) 0.009 0.060 0.189 0.114 Grades 6,7,8 (~23% of students) 0.005 0.030 0.095 0.057 Grades 9-12 (~31% of students) 0.006 0.040 0.126 0.076 Source: RSG South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 21 The number of students by grade cohort are based on the proportional share of each grade. For example, K-5 grades, are 6 years out of 13 (~46%) in which the district operates. Over the long run, every home in South Burlington has a probability to generate a student in proportion with these shares. The number of students generated per housing unit is used to relate the necessary amount of school facility space needed in the district to accommodate for additional housing units being constructed. The ratios for South Burlington appear to be lower than the recent PUMS data for northwestern Vermont and lower than the statewide averages analyzed by VHFA and Econsult. The actual number of students added to the district over the coming years will be a function of the number of housing units and the composition of those units. For example, the next few years could look something similar what is shown below in Table 9 based on the expected number of housing units by bedroom type and the number of students per household type. TABLE 9: STUDENT GROWTH BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE YEAR TOTAL HH PER YEAR ANNUAL HOUSING SHARE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY BEDROOM (STUDENTS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE) ANNUAL ADDITIONAL STUDENTS TOTAL NEW STUDENTS 0-1 BR 2 BR 3+ BR 0-1 BR (0.02) 2 BR (.13) 3+ BR (0.41) 2022 169 52% 21% 27% 88 35 46 25 25 2023 333 51% 29% 21% 170 96 70 45 70 2024 284 58% 24% 19% 164 67 53 34 103 2025 142 46% 37% 18% 65 52 25 18 122 2026 140 50% 30% 20% 70 42 28 18 140 2027 140 50% 30% 20% 70 42 28 18 158 2028 140 50% 30% 20% 70 42 28 18 177 2029 140 50% 30% 20% 70 42 28 18 195 2030 140 50% 30% 20% 70 42 28 18 213 This possible configuration generally aligns with the forecasts that were prepared by McKibben Demographics (see Figure 9), however, derived from different data and methodology. Future planning between the school district and the city should seek to monitor the housing units, the type of unit, and ideally the numbers of students based on the housing type. This data can be important to monitor and can identify and possibly predict of enrollment pressures before they occur. Further, comments from the City Council suggested an interest in moving beyond bedrooms and creating a square footage based fee. If there is any survey of student enrollment, connecting that enrollment data to housing type, bedrooms, and square footage would be ideal. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 22 4.0 BASE IMPACT FEE 4.1 OPTION 1: DISTRICTWIDE IMPROVEMENT The base impact fee has been designed to encompass the entire school district, with improvements to each of the three elementary schools, the middle school, and the high school. The base fee is designed for the option to reconstruct, improve, and expand each of the school facilities in the district. Alternatively, a renovation and expansion option was subsequently considered and dismissed by the school board. The basic formula for the impact fee assessment is: Square Foot per student x Cost per square foot x Students per housing unit = Base capital cost per housing unit (-) subtract cost per feet for existing deficiencies = Base impact fee per housing (-) subtract for property taxes that may be paid on future debt for school (see Chapter 5.0 for Credits) = Final impact fee per housing unit This impact fee approach uses the consumption or ratio method as the fee is assessed on the marginal basis of expansion. Each unit of growth (student per household) is associated with a specific amount of additional capacity (square feet of space per student). The school district can collect annual impact fees as the means to pay for the new capacity while using more traditional funding sources such as bonds and grants, to pay for the overall project. Any impact fee revenue from annual housing permits will offset the annual bond payments. Capital Costs The capital costs in 2022 dollars for replacing and expanding each of the five schools are shown in Table 10. The capital costs are estimated after a rigorous and comprehensive process to analyze the various options for shifting students within schools, replacing and consolidating schools, as well as the preferred configuration of rebuilding and expanding each of the schools in the district. The values in this table reflect recommendations from an ad-hoc enrollment committee facilitated and organized by the school district. The preferred option for all new construction treats the overall district as one entity rather than fees for specific schools or grade levels. Developing a school impact fee at the district level that uses a districtwide average cost per foot also provides greater flexibility as to the use and spending of the impact fees to pursue any and all opportunities for capital expansion throughout South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 23 the district. The overall weighted average cost of the new construction option is $587.21 in 2022 dollars. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 24 TABLE 10: CAPITAL COSTS FOR PREFERRED ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION OPTION SCHOOL EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE FINAL CONSTRUCTED SQUARE FOOTAGE ALL NEW PROJECT COST (MILLION) COST PER SQ FOOT (DOLLARS) NEW CAPACITY COST (MILLION) - 2022 DOLLARS % OF COST OF NEW CAPACITY Total 446,534 571,681 $ 335.70 $ 587.21 $ 67.61 20% PK-5 167,440 206,681 $ 134.34 $ 650.00 $ 7.89 6% RMCS 55,526 75,384 $ 49.00 $ 650.06 $ 4.61 9% CS 54,792 55,153 $ 35.85 $ 649.94 $ 0.23 1% OS 57,122 76,144 $ 49.49 $ 649.97 $ 3.05 6% 6-8 120,552 130,000 $ 71.98 $ 553.68 $ 5.23 7% 9-12 158,542 235,000 $ 130.11 $ 553.65 $ 28.35 22% Source: Dore and Whittier (May 2022 estimates) Table 10 shows the existing and proposed square footage anticipated to be constructed for each of the facilities. Overall, an estimated 20% of the total new square footage is expected to be additional space over and above the space in existing facilities. The total cost of $335.70 million includes $5.88 million to address existing deficiencies, $262.21 million to replace the existing capacity, and $67.61 million to increase the capacity of the system. Important to note – at the time of this study preparation – the total cost excludes any financing costs such as interest. Base Fee Calculation The base impact fee is a result of the additional square feet of space needed to accommodate additional students as a result of new students occupying an increasing number of housing units in South Burlington. a) Space per student: The overall average space per student required in the district is 180 square feet. This standard is based on the MSBA given the typical enrollment of the school and the grade levels of students in the school. b) Cost per square foot: The overall average cost per square foot of educational space in the district is $587.21 in 2022 dollars. c) Number of students per housing unit: The number of students that may occupy any housing unit in the city does vary by the size of the unit, typically aligned with the number of bedrooms. The overall average of 0.248 students per household or per the table below by the bedroom count (Table 8). South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 25 0-1 BEDROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3+ BEDROOM UNITS WEIGHTED AVERAGE STUDENTS PER UNIT Students per housing unit 0.02 0.13 0.41 0.248 d) Existing deficiency: The district currently has an average deficiency of 4 square feet of education space per student. This is calculated using the existing square footage (446,534 square feet) divided by the current enrollment (2,536 students) = 176 square feet per student. The MSBA weighted average for the district is 180 square feet per student. The current cost per square foot estimates ($587.21) includes costs to rebuild existing capacity, address the deficiency, and expand the facility. Therefore, the cost of addressing the existing deficiency is removed from the cost per square foot that is embedded in the overall project cost estimates. The net base impact fee cost per housing unit is shown for housing units by bedroom or by the citywide average in Table 11. The fee can be established on either a bedroom bases or on a straight average which would assess each housing unit the same fee regardless of bedroom count. TABLE 11: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) 0-1 BR 2 BR 3+ BR AVERAGE Students per unit 0.020 0.130 0.410 0.248 Sq feet of School Required per housing unit (180 square feet per student x no of students) 3.601 23.403 73.811 44.62 Cost per square foot: $587.21 Base impact fee cost per housing unit $2,114.26 $13,742.68 $43,342.31 $ 26,201 Deficiency (4 sq ft per student x no. students x cost per square foot) ($46.37) ($ 301.38 ) ($950.49 ) ($575) Net base impact fee cost per unit (Base impact fee - Deficiency) $2,067.89 $13,441.31 $42,391.82 $ 25,626 4.2 OPTION 2: PK-8 ZERO-ENERGY MODULAR (ZEM) CLASSROOM FLEXIBLE SPACE This second capital enhancement option will consist of using semipermanent modular structures to accommodate an additional 136 students using an average of 17 students per module. The South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 26 capacity of the units reflects an average number of students given the variety of uses and needs of different classes and activities that could occur within the modules. The number is viewed as a conservatively low value, with higher numbers providing only greater overall capacity to accommodate more students. The district will purchase eight zero-energy modular (ZEM) structures for use within the PK-8 grade facilities – serving as flexible space where acute student capacity constraints are particularly challenging. The eight modules are expected to have a lifespan of ten or more years and can be moved within the district to meet the changing capacity needs of specific community schools. The base impact fee for the ZEM option has been designed to account for added capacity for the PK through 8 grade education facilities. The basic formula for the impact fee assessment is: Cost per new student capacity x Students per housing unit = Base capital cost per housing unit (-) subtract cost per feet for existing deficiencies = Base impact fee per housing (-) subtract for property taxes that may be paid on future debt for school (see future Chapter 5.0 for Credits) = Final impact fee per housing unit This impact fee approach uses the consumption or ratio method as the fee is assessed on the marginal basis of expansion. Each unit of growth (student per household) is associated with a specific amount of additional capacity. The school district can collect annual impact fees as the means to pay for the new capacity while using more traditional funding sources such as bonds and grants, to pay for the overall project. Any impact fee revenue from annual housing permits will offset the annual bond payments and reduce the net burden on the existing tax base. 91.5% of the ZEMs capacity is a net addition to the school facilities and therefore eligible to be paid for through the collection of impact fees. Capital Costs The capital costs for the eight ZEMs are summarized in the table below. The District has retained architects and engineers to design the integration of the ZEMs into the existing school facilities. The costs are inclusive of the full cost to purchase, setup, and prepare the ZEMs for use as shown in Table 12. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 27 TABLE 12: CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ZEMS Construction Cost $4,779,891.00 Soft Costs (20%) $955,978.20 Implementation Costs $230,050.00 Project Costs $5,965,919.20 Unit cost per ZEM installed $745,739.90 Source: Dore+Whittier. 11 October 2022 Important to note – at the time of this study preparation – the total cost excludes any financing costs such as interest. The financing costs can be integrated into the impact fee as a necessary cost line item to implement the new capacity and then use impact fees to return revenue to the district as growth occurs. Base Fee Calculation The base impact fee accounts for the costs of providing additional square feet of space needed to accommodate additional students as a result of land use development generating additional students in the South Burlington School District. The base fee is derived using the following steps: a) Space per student: The ZEMs are self-contained units with a different standard of space than the overall school, which includes common areas, hallways, gyms, cafeterias, etc. The ZEMs are essentially additional core classroom space. It has been identified by the district that each ZEM can accommodate 17 students, using an average daily estimate across the various classes and anticipated uses. b) Cost per Student: The average cost per ZEM is $745,739.90. Using the average of 17 students per ZEM, the average cost per additional student capacity is $43,867.05. This is the base cost of installing additional school capacity (using the ZEMs as the benchmark basis) for each additional student being added to the district each year. c) Number of students per housing unit: The number of students that may occupy any housing unit in the city is shown to correlated with the number of bedrooms in the unit. The overall weighted average of 0.109 students per household reflects the near term expected changes citywide based on expected bedroom counts within new construction over the next 5 years that anticipates the majority being 1 and 2 bedroom units (see Figure 8 for the evolving housing types). The number of students by housing type is summarized in Table 13. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 28 TABLE 13: PK-8 STUDENTS PER HOUSEHOLD 0-1 BEDROOM UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS 3+ BEDROOM UNITS NEAR TERM WEIGHTED AVERAGE STUDENTS PER UNIT PK-8 students per housing unit 0.014 0.090 0.284 0.109 d) Existing deficiency: The district currently provides 287,992 square feet for the PK-8 programs. Per the MSBA standards the PK – 8 program requires 315,092 square feet. This represents a deficiency of approximately 9.5%. This represents approximately 17 additional square feet per student to attain the MSBA standards. Because the ZEMs are a more focused unit of expansion (classrooms vs common area space), it is not appropriate to use that strict definition of deficiency. Rather, discounting the base impact fee by 9.5% to acknowledge that the addition of the ZEMs is not only serving new growth in students, but also existing capacity challenges. The net base impact fee cost per housing unit is shown for housing units by bedroom or by the citywide average in Table 14. TABLE 14: NET BASE IMPACT FEE COST PER HOUSING UNIT (2022 DOLLARS) 0-1 BR [A] 2 BR [B] 3+ BR [C] NEAR TERM WEIGHTED AVERAGE [D] PK – 8 grade students per unit 0.014 0.090 0.284 0.109 Cost per additional student capacity $43,867.05 Base impact fee cost per housing unit $607 $ 3,948 $12,451 $4,781 Deficiency (current 9.5% space deficiency in PK-8 grade facilities) $(57) $ (372) $(1,172) $ (450) Net base impact fee cost per unit (Base impact fee - Deficiency) $550 $3,577 $11,280 $4,331 The results of the analysis suggest that the fee can be structured to be assessed on the number of bedrooms in the housing unit or use the weighted average based on the changing nature and type of housing units anticipated in the city. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 29 4.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS The fee would also be assessed on housing expansions that add bedrooms. If a two-bedroom unit were to be expanded to add another bedroom, it is logical to assess a fee that reflects the greater likelihood that the house will have a student residing in it. The difference between the existing number of bedrooms and the future number of bedrooms could be a reasonable method to calculate the assessed fee. However, in practice the permitting process for additional bedrooms may create a burden on the city. The bedroom fee is a reflection of the data that smaller housing units are likely to house fewer students compared to larger homes or those with more bedrooms. The fee is structured to recognize the smaller degree of impact on the school system that houses with fewer bedrooms have, by assessing a lower fee per household. The impact is that the houses with 3 or more bedrooms are faced with a substantially higher burden per household. While this may be equitable from the standpoint of impact to the school system, it may create a financial burden by increasing the overall cost of housing for larger families. The cost of new homes will likely increase as a result of internalizing the wider community costs (schools, transportation, water, recreation, library, police, fire, etc.) of new housing through impact fees. South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study 30 5.0 CREDITS – TO BE DETERMINED 5.1 CREDITS Credits are adjustments to the base impact fee that a land use would be assessed. Credits are applicable for the school district impact fee developed in Section 4.1. The credits in this impact fee study report have not calculated because the final fee value and the final mix of funding for the capital expenditure items have not been finalized. This chapter will be expanded once the final capital fees and mix of funding is agreed. A final fee would adjust the base fee based on the credits. Two credits are used to offset impact fees: infrastructure credit and revenue credits. The credits are applied after the base impact fee is calculated, as per equation: Infrastructure Credits A land use development applicant that constructs or directly funds any of the capital items funded through impact fees. In the case of the school district, it is unlikely that a private entity may construct additional education capacity and be eligible for an infrastructure impact fee credit. Revenue Credits Revenue credits discount the base impact fee to reduce the chance that a land use development in South Burlington would fund the same capital improvement through two different funds. This frequently occurs when the developer pays property taxes (prior to the development of the land and after the development) and a portion of which goes to fund the capital project that the impact fee contributed toward. In this situation, it is necessary to offset the impact fee by a credit value to eliminate the double payment toward the same capacity. Property tax is paid by a parcel owner on undeveloped land prior to a land use development and future taxes once the land is developed. The taxes on the undeveloped land that contribute to paying the school district bond debt is referred to as the “past tax payments.” The property tax payments on the developed land that will contribute to district debt is referred to as “future tax payments.” The streams of past and future tax payments are translated into net present values using an assumed 3% discount rate. Impact Fee = (Cost per Unit of Growth x New Units of Growth) – (Applicable Credits)