HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/25/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
25 OCTOBER 2022
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 October 2022, at 7:00
p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Macdonald, Acting Chair; M. Ostby, M. Mittag, P. Engels, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; D. Seff, L. Murphy,
L. Bailey, M. Nader, S. Pennington, Mr. Shapiro, K. Easton, C. Trombly, M. Cota, C. Seward, R. Keene,
Stephen L., D. Peters
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Macdonald provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag advised that he attended the Vermont Conservation Summit.
Mr. Macdonald welcomed Ms. Peterson back.
Mr. Conner advised that staff has just reapproved a new building on Garden Street, a 4-story building
with 120 dwelling units, a child care center and play area, and a coffee shop.
5. Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
a) LDR-22-07 to modify the boundaries of the Commercial 1-Residential 15, Commercial 1-
Auto, and Commercial 2 zoning districts in the vicinity of the Shelburne Road corridor, b) LDR-22-
08 Allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District
Mr. Engels moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed with all present
voting in favor.
Public comment was received as follows:
Mr. Nader: Had to go to Latham, NY, to get his Tesla services. This will be a big service to Tesla
owners.
Mr. Macdonald asked Mr. Conner to provide an overview of the changes. Mr. Conner noted there are
two proposed changes. He showed a map of the zoning districts that will be realigned.
Mr. Pennington: He is a Tesla owner who supports the change. He had to go to New Jersey to
pick up his car. He said this will be more convenient and will encourage electric vehicles.
Mr. Shapiro: If Tesla wants a dealership, they should buy property on Shelburne Road that is already
zoned for it. It took him 20 years to own his own property because he “played by the rules.” He also
noted that with the change of zoning to the property south of his dealership, he would now be
precluded from expanding his business. He stressed that Tesla is not a Vermont business and asked why
this is being put through so fast.
Mr. Macdonald said there is a building that has been vacant for a long time and noted that the zoning
change regulates uses of land and buildings, not individual companies.
Mr. Shapiro said a lot of buildings have been vacant for a long time. He also noted that other
dealerships sell electric cars and are sending technicians all over the country to learn how to service
them.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission did not discuss the impact on other businesses when the zoning is
changed.
Ms. Easton: Saw the notice in the paper and it mentioned Holmes Road. She said residents there try
to keep track of what is going on in that area. She was surprised that the Commission hadn’t considered
the impact on other businesses.
Mr. Conner showed the location of Holmes Road and explained what will go on in each district. The Fire
Station and 2 others businesses will be zoned C-2 which allows auto sales. Light industry would now be
allowed. Ms. Ostby said the zoning change would allow whatever can be allowed in C-1. Mr. Conner
said this includes retail.
Mr. Cota: If this proposal goes forward to the City Council, he will recuse himself from the
discussion as one of his businesses involves the sale of cars. He noted that the Auto Dealers Association
doesn’t oppose expanding the C-1 District to bring more car sales to South Burlington. They are nervous
about taking away the key strip on Shelburne Road. He noted that every franchise owner has instruction
to install chargers, and Shelburne Road will become a fast charging network. He urged the Commission
not to take away the land on Shelburne Road from auto use. Allowing residential would be OK as long
as auto use is still possible. He felt that would be the best solution for all.
A member of the audience said he didn’t see every dealership putting in fast charging. Mr. Mittag
responded that they will be required to do so.
Ms. Seward said having Tesla service will be appreciated and a convenience for those who own a Tesla,
but there is a difference between having Tesla come and making a zoning change.
Following public input, Mr. Mittag moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
Mr. Conner noted that 3 emails were received by staff, all supporting the change.
6. Commission discussion of proposed amendments; consider changes following public hearing;
and possible action to approve amendments and submit to the City Council:
Ms. Ostby was concerned that the Commission had not discussed the impact on businesses in the areas
that would be changing or the impact on neighbors. She also noted that as soon as Tesla comes in, the
city will lose the local option taxes that could be generated on that site (she offered to forward to
member an email from City Assessor Martha Lyons regarding that issue). She added that the
Comprehensive Plan speaks to “fiscal responsibility.” Ms. Ostby also noted that the property in question
is right across the railroad tracks from a habitat block, and she wasn’t sure there should be so much
pavement so close to a habitat block. She suggested not changing to C-2 and keeping the potential for
housing density at R-15.
Mr. Mittag suggested creating a C-2-R-15 zone on both sides of Shelburne Road. He felt this would
simplify the whole zoning issue and should be a priority. Ms. Peterson said C-2 and C-1-15 and C-1 have
no maximum of residential by units. There can be as many as can fit with TDRs. And inclusionary units
would come into play as well.
Ms. Ostby asked if anything can be done so there is no building near the buffer to the habitat block. Mr.
Chalnick said he would love to have buffers for habitat blocks, but that is not part of this discussion.
Mr. Conner said habitat blocks in Article do not have a buffer beyond what Arrowwood drew. The
likelihood that this would change is any substantial way is low.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission should know what the local option tax generated before. She hoped the
City Council looks at every zoning change from the point of view of revenue change.
Mr. Conner said that the State does not provide a business-by-business accounting of tax revenue.
Mr. Macdonald asked staff to provide a brief overview of the proposed changes to the table of uses, as
discussed in the staff memo and previously by the Commission at their October 11th meeting. Mr. Mittag
said he agreed with all the changes proposed by staff. Mr. Conner showed that list and noted that while
the bulk of the changes would align the C1-Auto district to the C1-R15 district, kennels would not be
added to the C-1 Auto.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the amendments with the proposed changes and to approve the Planning
Commission report and send both to the City Council. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Mittag asked what the process would be to have auto dealerships pay the local option tax. Mr.
Conner said that would begin with the City’s delegation to the State Legislature as it is entirely in their
hands.
Mr. Murphy noted that the Tesla use will be both sales and service, and service is subject to local option
taxes (e.g., on tires, parts, etc.). That would be more revenue than from a clothing store which is totally
exempt from the sales tax. Ms. Ostby said that according to Martha Lyons there is no local option tax
paid by car dealerships or service centers.
Mr. Trombly said this proposal is locking in impervious surfaces by bending over backwards for Tesla. He
also noted the Commission has been ignoring requests from other entities including Habitat for
Humanity. Mr. Mittag took exception to that statement.
7. Provide feedback as requested to City Council concerning ARPA funds allocation:
Ms. Peterson noted that on 22 March, the Commission suggested 1/3 of the funds go for housing, 1/3
for parks, and 1/3 undetermined. The Council has formally asked for feedback for a special meeting on
30 November. She asked if there was anything further the Commission wanted to provide.
Mr. Mittag suggested the unallocated money should go for staffing and other costs associated with the
Climate Action Plan. Ms. Peterson noted that the funds have to be spent by the end of 2024. Mr.
Chalnick agreed with Mr. Mittag and suggested support for changing heating and hot water systems.
Mr. Macdonald said he would advocate for more open space and parks.
Ms. Ostby would like the city to purchase the TDRs and the land associated with them.
Mr. Engels noted that childcare has been completely ignored and was high on the survey responses.
Mr. Mittag said the survey was flawed as there was no mention of climate change. He felt it would have
had as much response as childcare.
Mr. Conner noted that members are invited to attend the November 30th special meeting.
8. Solar production and energy efficiency: overview of proposed changes to Vermont Residential
Building Energy Standards and Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards; possible
feedback to Public Service Department:
Mr. Conner explained that the changes involve requiring solar-ready roofs for all construction and a
greater requirement for electric cable charging. The comment period is open for feedback.
Mr. Conner said what is confusing is trying to understand various chargers.
Mr. Mittag noted that 100% LED lighting is also in the requirements. Mr. Conner said that will be
required for South Burlington.
Mr. MacDonald asked how this meshes with South Burlington’s requirements. Mr. Conner said State
rules apply, and in some cases a stretch code. South Burlington has said that the stretch code apples to
any local construction whether it goes through Act 250 or not.
Mr. Chalnick said he hoped there can be a movement past solar ready to solar for all commercial
construction. He asked that this be passed along as a comment.
Mr. Mittag said the city should also pass along a requirement for building orientation for maximum solar
gain.
Mr. Chalnick moved to submit comments as presented at this meeting including building orientation for
solar potential and moving past solar ready to required solar. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 4-1
with Mr. Macdonald voting nay. He said he agreed with the first part but not the second part.
9. Industrial Zoning and Housing: Consider requesting review and feedback from the Economic
Development Committee on possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations
concerning industrial zoning districts and possible housing allowances:
Mr. MacDonald noted the Commission has received 2 requests for housing in industrial zones, one from
OnLogic and one from the Wright family. He stressed that the city will have to get very creative with
housing in areas where it is not now permitted.
Mr. Mittag felt the Commission should not do anything until the legal issue on Hinesburg Road has been
resolved. Mr. MacDonald said this is just a request to have the Economic Development Committee look
into this.
Ms. Peterson said this speaks directly to the economic development of the city and is important for
longer term planning that would go into the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is for the Economic
Development Committee to come back to the Planning Commission with its concerns.
Mr. Mittag said there is land in Technology Park and in Meadowland that could be good for housing. He
felt specific land should be set aside for affordable housing of which a large percentage should be multi-
family. He noted that Beta bought housing for some of its staff.
Mr. Conner asked if the Commission want the Economic Development Committee to specifically look at
the OnLogic request and whether they should also consider something like a Form Base Code or areas
that should be only commercial because of potential impact on residences. Mr. Engels liked the idea of
using Form Base Code in these situation. Mr. Conner noted that Form Base Code has grown to include
other activities.
Ms. Ostby said what would be good is an understanding of what kind of housing would be most
beneficial. Mr. Conner said the request was for employee housing of some sort. Ms. Ostby asked if it
was temporary or permanent housing. Mr. Conner noted that temporary housing could happen now;
the LDRs do not allow permanent housing.
Mr. Conner suggested asking for a response by the end of January. Members were OK with this.
Mr. Chalnick suggested asking the Natural Resources Committee to look at changes to Article 12
regarding that area. Ms. Peterson said that is separate from this request. Mr. Chalnick felt they should
be looked at together as there are grasslands in that area.
10. Comprehensive Plan: update and endorsement of approach for requesting initial feedback
from committees and departments:
Ms. Peterson noted that staff’s intention is to reach out to city committees and city staff in various
departments to ask for any information on key topics they would like to highlight in the Comprehensive
Plan. Committees and staff will be provided with the current Comprehensive Plan and Core Values.
Meetings will be set up with leaders of different city departments to learn what they focus on in the
community. Mr. Conner added that the City Manager has had meetings with lower level members of
departments regarding being engaged in this discussion, and they are very excited about this. Mr.
Engels said it would be nice to have residents excited as well. He felt it is important to have facilitators
to interact with the public.
11. Review of proposed change made by the City Council to LDR-22-05 (update of TDR program)
and possible amendment of Planning Commission Report:
Mr. Conner noted that the Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and made one
change in response to feedback from the Vermont Land Trust. Under State law, the amendment
request must come back to the Planning Commission to see if they want to update the report.
Mr. Mittag moved to accept the changes and update the report for resubmitting to the City Council. Mr.
Chalnick seconded.
Mr. Conner explained that the concern had been in the Conservation PUD. If they have conserved 70%
with 30% being buildable, if the property owner comes back in 5 years with a plan to build on the 30%,
will they have to conserve another 70%. This was clarified to indicate they would not have to conserve
another 70%.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-0.
12. Minutes of 11 October 2022:
Mr. Macdonald noted a clarification on p. 2 to read: “…was there before and not there now.”
Mr. Macdonald then moved to approve the minutes of 11 October 2022 with the above clarification.
Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
13. Other Business:
It was noted that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, 9 November, because of the general election
on Tuesday, 8 November.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:39 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk