HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/21/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
21 MARCH 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 March 2023, at 7:00
p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, P. Engels, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; M. Korpos, S.
Dopp, A. Chalnick
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
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:
Ms. Louisos welcomed now Commission members Lawrence Smith and Francis MacDonald. All
members introduced themselves.
5. City Plan 2024: Vision and Goals
Ms. Peterson provided background on the Comprehensive Plan/City Plan. She noted there have been 11
public input sessions with about 200 attendees. There is also an on-line poll which has 200 responses to
date. This will be kept up for a while. Staff is also engaging various city departments, the School
District, SBBA, and will meet with seniors on 5 April. The intention is to have the 2024 plan be an
extension of the 2016 plan but with more “teeth.”
Ms. Peterson then showed the Vision and Goals statements which have been updated. Mr. Conner said
that to the average person, this is the key piece along with the Land Use Map. The City Council also uses
it, and it is filtered down to the various committees. At the recent meetings, this resonated well with
the community. He suggested that as discussions move along, members challenge themselves as to
whether these values are being held to.
Mr. Smith asked why there are no specific words like “shall.” Mr. Conner explained that this section
doesn’t give measurable pieces; it is visionary. The next sections get into the measurable objectives. He
stressed that the Comprehensive Plan is largely a visionary document; it doesn’t make policy. Mr. Smith
said Burlington’s plan doesn’t use “shall,” and in litigation, it was deemed “toothless.” Mr. Conner said
2
the LDRs speak to the “shalls” and “musts.” Ms. Peterson added that any changes to the LDRs must be
rooted in the Comprehensive Plan. She also noted that the objective are measurable goals.
Ms. Peterson stressed that there are things the city can’t plan for (e.g., COVID), so the plan needs to be
“nimble” in places. She then explained the 2 sections to be reviewed at this meeting. It will be the
Commission’s first crack to see if the policy statements are accurate.
She also stressed that these are rough first drafts. In May and June, the Commission will see a more
formal draft.
6. City Plan 2024: Community Facilities/Services
Ms. Peterson said that input from City departments will be filtered in, including services available to all
residents, including public safety and funding of the Community Justice Center.
The 4 sub-heading in the section are:
a. Inclusive Fair and Just
b. Human focused
c. Climate Resilient
d. Community oriented
Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Mittag had suggested mentioning shared services (e.g., Dog Park). Ms.
Peterson said that will be in another section of the document.
Mr. Conner asked members to think about how the city needs to evolve in the next decade as the
population evolves, including the expansion of human services needs. He suggested a possible
objective: city events/participation reflects demographics of the city.
Mr. Conner asked Mr. Engels if the City Charter Committee would have anything to add. Mr. Engels said
the Committee has just produced a “pros and cons” document related to potential changes to the City
Charter in areas such as City Council and School Board membership numbers, potential election by
wards, and the possibility of a weak or strong Mayor model. Ultimately the City Council will make any
decisions. One of the issues that the Committee has considered is that 4 of the 5 City Councilors are
from the same area of the city (SEQ). Mr. Engels added that anything the Committee and Council do will
have to be approved by the State Legislature as Vermont is a Dillon Rule state.
Mr. Mittag suggested that one objective could be to fully fund the Community Justice Center. This
would have to be budgeted by the city. Ms. Peterson noted the Center is currently funded by grants. To
solidify its position in the city, it would have to be funded by the city.
Ms. Louisos noted that at one of the public sessions, public safety people reported that they are seeing
more mental health and social services issues which are not being addressed elsewhere. She said the
City Plan needs to mention the need for more services for the city, not only for mutual aid. Mr. Mittag
questioned whether burdening the Police Department with all of that may not be realistic, but the
3
question remains where to address those needs. Just saying it’s a need isn’t a plan. Mr. Smith said it is a
plan; the question is where to address the need.
Mr. Mittag suggested cutting the paragraph on how many police officers there are. Mr. Smith suggested
an objective: Keep the Police Department fully staffed.”
Regarding flood resiliency, Ms. Louisos suggested they could say “wetlands” instead of “primary
conservation areas.” Ms. Peterson said there are other utility-related sections. This section is more
related to emergency response.
Mr. Mittag suggested enumerated all the Level 1 and Level 2 protected areas.
Ms. Louisos recalled that one big issue in the listening session related to snow removal on both
sidewalks and bike lanes. Ms. Peterson said that could be in either the transportation or public works
section.
Mr. Conner suggested that instead of going into the specifics, saying something like “In order to meet
transportation goals the city will need to provide maintenance.”
Ms. Leban said that public safety aspects of controlling traffic (e.g., speed limits) does fall into this
section. Mr. Conner suggested “Identify opportunities to address speed limits and enforcement of
speeds.” He felt it would be more appropriate in the transportation section.
7. City Plan 2024: Energy Section
Ms. Peterson said this section is taken mostly from the Climate Action Plan. It does not mention things
already adopted.
Mr. Mittag asked why Act 174 is being used instead of the City’s own standards. Mr. Conner explained
that if a city meets all of the Act 174 standards, that city can get a higher level of input into a State
proceeding. He suggested language: “It is an objective to get substantial deference.” Mr. Conner also
noted that the hardest part of Act 174 for the City to meet is to demonstrate it has enough energy to
meet the community’s needs. He thought South Burlington can get approval, but staff will be working
to see if that requirement can be met.
Mr. Engels asked if all buildings in City Center are net zero. Mr. Conner said all buildings meet the
State’s energy code and are solar ready at a minimum.
Mr. Smith said that under “building thermal,” there should be language to provide support to
homeowners to meet the standards. He said he has heard repeatedly that this will place a burden on
lower income people, and that has to be addressed or it could bankrupt people. Mr. Conner said that in
addition to the cost of a transition away from fossil fuel, there are operational costs which can be higher
than gas. Mr. Mittag said some words of comfort are needed for people regarding costs.
4
Mr. Smith said the way we live in American is not equitable, and it is not sustainable. Even if we do
everything we talk about, the way we live still needs to change, and this needs to be brought into the
conversation. He noted that during the pandemic, there was the greatest reduction in greenhouse
gases. Mr. Mittag said people have to learn to live without some things.
One member of the public said he didn’t see anything about solar thermal. Mr. Smith said that 15 years
ago, it was the most affordable way of heating. But heat pumps with solar are doing a better job today
in this climate.
Mr. Mittag noted that energy storage is a crucial element of transitioning.
8. LDR Amendments: Discuss and possibly move for public hearing:
a. LDR-23-01 Solar requirement to require installation of solar photovoltaic system in
association with any new buildings required to establish a solar ready zone as defined by
the Vermont Commercial Energy Standards or Vermont Residential building Standards
b. LDR-23-02 Minor and technical amendments; clarify a contradictory authority for setback
standards in Section 3.06J and correct numbering errors throughout the LDRs
Mr. Conner noted that there has been talk of requiring that solar ready zones on new construction by
installed with solar. Today, any building that falls under the state energy code would be required to do
this. The question is one of lead time. Also, every few years, the State updates the Energy Code. The
2023 code is now out and will take effect in November or December of this year. It will require a solar
ready zone with a 600 sq. ft. roof to install solar. This theoretically applies to mid-rise buildings, but in
practice it probably won’t. It will probably kick in only with large commercial buildings. The next
generation of the code could have more changes.
Mr. Mittag felt the city should get as much solar as it can get. Mr. Smith said that for people trying to
get financing, there is a problem. It’s another $20,000, and it is not included in the appraisal of the
house. Mr. Chalnick said his neighbor, who is an appraiser, said they are now including it in the
appraisal. Mr. Smith said there needs to be funding, so the burden doesn’t fall on people who can’t
afford it.
Ms. Louisos recalled that when this came to the Commission, it was just for large complexes, not
individual homes. What is being talked about now sounds different.
Mr. Chalnick said extending this to individual residences will result in significant pushbacks. Ms. Louisos
said it also sounds “sneaky.” She suggested having it apply only to commercial buildings now and see
how it goes, and then see what happens when new codes come out. Mr. Conner said they could do only
commercial buildings now and then amend it. But there is an unknown in all of this. Bill S100 has a
provision that a municipality cannot adopt regulations that are stricter than the energy code, and future
authority may be limited.
Ms. Leban noted that a number of homeowner associations have said “absolutely no solar on the roofs.”
She also noted that S100 encourages 3 and 4-family buildings, and the question is whether these are
5
commercial buildings or residential properties. Mr. Mittag didn’t think a homeowner association could
prevent putting something on a roof. Ms. Leban said they are doing it.
Mr. Smith said that they have to use “carrots not sticks,” incentivize so that people don’t think it is being
jammed down their throats. There has to be a response to “You’re bankrupting us.”
Members leaned toward requiring commercial now and possibly coming back to reconsider residential.
Mr. Conner said he was comfortable if it applied only to buildings subject to the commercial energy
code. He will write something up for the public hearing.
Mr. Mittag said that in response to staff’s question of applicability, that ground-mounted solar systems
should demonstrate that they are producing an “equivalent” amount of solar as a roof-mounted one for
that same building would be, using the solar-ready zone calculations in the CBES. Commissioners
concurred.
Mr. Chalnick expressed concern over the use of the term “maximize,” that it could push requirements
past readily-available technology. Mr. Doyle recommended the term maximize refer to maximizing the
use of the physical solar roof area. Commissioners concurred and added that the language should also
reference standard solar panel sizes.
Ms. Louisos then moved to hold a public hearing on 25 April at 7:00 p.m. on amendments LDR-23-01 and
LDR-23-02 with the amendment that solar applies only to commercial buildings, making the other
changes agreed upon, and to approve the accompanying report as discussed at this meeting. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
9. Meeting Minutes of 24 January and 31 January 2023:
Mr. Engels moved to approve the Minutes of 24 and 31 January 2023 as written. Mr. Mittag seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
10. Other Business:
Mr. Conner announced that work was just received that the city is fully approved and funded for the
Municipal Planning Grant regarding equity.
Mr. Conner reminded members that the next meeting is on the 28th; they will then go back to the
regular schedule. He thanked the new members for joining at such short notice.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission April 11, 2023