HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 06/05/2023AGENDA
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/citycouncil-06-05-2023
You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (646) 749-3122 Access Code: 484-482-333
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday June 5, 2023
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
B.*** Approve minutes from the April 3, 2023, April 17, 2023 and May 1, 2023 City
Council Meetings
C.*** Approve the transfer of up to $40,000 of FY24 CIP funding from the Lead Service
Line Inventory to Valve Replacement on Spear Street
D.*** Approve a Bike/Ped Grant Application for the Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path
which will include moving two CIP projects to provide the match
E.*** Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Paul Frank +
Colins P.C. for legal services in support of City Center right-of-way acquisition
7.Interview candidates for the Development Review Board – Jessie Baker, City Manager (7:00
–7:30 PM)
8. *** Warned for 7:30 PM: Public Hearing on Land Development Regulation Amendments
#LDR-23-01 (Solar PV for new buildings subject to Vermont Commercial Building Energy
Standards) and #LDR-23-02 (minor & technical amendments) – Paul Conner, Planning &
Zoning Director (7:30 – 7:55PM)
9. *** Possible action on Land Development Regulation Amendments #LDR-23-01 (Solar PV
for new buildings subject to Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards) and #LDR-23-
02 (minor & technical amendments) – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (7:55 –
8:05PM)
10. Interview candidates for the Planning Commission – Jessie Baker, City Manager (8:05 –
9:05PM)
11. Consider process and recommendations from the Council Subcommittees on appointments
to all City Boards and Committees – City Council (9:05 – 9:15 PM)
12. *** Convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
Quarry Hill Club, First and Third Class Restaurant/Bar, Outside Consumption
Farmers and Foragers, Third Class Commercial Kitchen
Myer’s Wood Fired, First Class Restaurant/Bar
(9:15 – 9:25 PM)
13. Other Business (9:25 - 9:35 PM)
14. Consider entering a possible executive session for the purpose of discussing appointments
to Boards and Committees
15. Adjourn
Respectfully Submitted:
Jessie Baker
City Manager
*** Attachments Included
Champlain Water District
Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund
From 6/6/2023 Through 6/6/2023
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number
6/6/2023 4575 Blackrock Construction LLC Refund Overpayment on Account 9811 99.82 REFUND-051523
6/6/2023 4576 Colchester Fire District #1 Meters 3,402.00 6800-172
6/6/2023 4577 Colchester Fire District #3 Meter Horn 102.52 6800-111
6/6/2023 4578 E.J. Prescott Dig Safe Markout Supplies 102.52 6164841
6/6/2023 E.J. Prescott Service Boxes 473.05 6167724
6/6/2023 E.J. Prescott Curb Box and Rod 473.05 6169634
6/6/2023 E.J. Prescott Hydrant Parts 261.07 6172201
6/6/2023 4579 Got That Rental & Sales, Inc.Equipment Rental 255.00 111949
6/6/2023 4580 Ferguson Enterprises LLC #3326 Materials 1,893.45 WW041224
6/6/2023 4581 City of South Burlington FY23 Liability Insurance 6,290.00 LIABILITY-052223
6/6/2023 City of South Burlington FY23 Principal and Interest 96,239.92 PRINCIPLE-051823
6/6/2023 4582 Ti-Sales, Inc.Meter 1,485.00 INV0155796
6/6/2023 Ti-Sales, Inc.BETA 39.28 INV0155894
6/6/2023 Ti-Sales, Inc.BETA Meter 3,165.62 INV0156029
6/6/2023 Ti-Sales, Inc.Meter Upgrades 18,474.00 INV0157393
Total 70 - South Burlington Water
Department
132,756.30
Report Total 132,756.30
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
70 - South Burlington Water Department
Page: 1
CITY COUNCIL 3 APRIL 2023
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 3 April 2023, at 6:30
p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, Acting Chair; T. Barritt, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; C. McNeil, City Attorney; D. Kinville, City Clerk; Deputy
Chief, T. Francis; D. Brayton, HR, P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; S. Reeves, CSWD; Fire
Chief B. Soter and S. Kelly, Vermont Air National Guard, J. Stephens, C. Trombley, P. Stabler, D.
Peters, J. Holliday, B. Sirvis, C. McDonald, A. McHenry, S. Dooley, Anna O, B. Companion, J.
Bellevance, J. Louisos, L. McDonald, S. Connelly, C. Easton, N. Senecal, E. Spooner, J. Abrams
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2.Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Mr. Barnes asked to add discussion of concern about City Center housing to Other Business.
3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
No issues were raised.
4.Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended.
Ms. Baker: Announced the appointment of Fire Chief Steve Locke as the new Deputy City
Manager. Chief Locke will continue to serve as Fire Chief. A Deputy Fire Chief position is now
being advertised.
A site plan application has been received for Lot A in City Center (between the
Poon property and Garden Street). The application is for 213 residential units and first floor
commercial space.
The Transportation Implementation Group is continuing to meet as part of the
Climate Action Plan.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 2
Green-up day is 6 May.
The City has been awarded 2 transportation grants and also received initial
approval for $1,000,000 toward the water tower.
The winter parking ban is now over.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve Minutes from 9 March and 20 March City Council meetings
c. Appoint Laurie (Lawrence) Smith and Fran (Francis) McDonald to the Planning
Commission for terms ending June of 2024
d. Appoint John A. Moscatelli to the Development Review Board for a term
ending June of 2025
e. Approve request for Exemption to Connect to Public Wastewater System for a
proposed ADU at 1505 Dorset Street
f. Approve submission of a State of Vermont Municipal Highway Class 2 paving
grant to fund paving a section of Spear Street and approve the Certificate of
Compliance
Ms. Emery noted that in the Minutes of 20 March, top of p. 10, Mr. Barnes did not vote against.
He abstained.
Mr. Barritt asked when the section of Spear Street was last ground down and paved and asked if
this is normal wear and tear. He noted that a freeze-thaw cycle does cause havoc. Ms. Baker
said Mr. DiPietro will be at the next meet and can address that question then
Mr. Barritt also asked if Senate bill S-100 passes, will the city be required to force the applicants
in item e to connect to the sewer system. He supported the exemption under today’s rules.
Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the noted amendment to the 20 March
minutes. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Receive and approve the Chittenden Solid Waste District FY24 Budget:
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 3
Ms. Reeves reviewed the history of CSWD. She then showed a pie chart of their sources of
revenue including tipping fees, sale of products, and a management fee collected from haulers.
She stressed that they do not receive any revenue from member towns.
CSWD administrative offices have just moved into 19 Gregory Drive in South Burlington.
Ms. Reeves said they are doing very well at diverting materials from the landfill. About 61% of
materials is recycled, but they feel that even more could be diverted.
The proposed budget includes an estimated $15,400,000 in revenues and $14,400,000 of
expenses. The balance will go into the reserve account.
Haulers are charged $27 a ton which has not changed in 10 years. The hope is that this number
will go down because they want to see trash go down.
At the Materials Recycling Facility, there will be increase in the tipping fee from $80/ton to
$85/ton as the contract to run the facility has increased. They are budgeting material sales
conservatively as the markets are stable but still depressed.
The Organic Diversion Facility tipping fee will increase from $65/ton to $70/ton. They lost a lot
of money to a facility in Williston that handles packaged food that cannot be consumed.
The drop-off centers are budgeting in the red. They will increase the cost of a small bag to $3, a
medium bag to $8, and a large bag to $11. They will also be changing the schedule from
Tuesday through Saturday for the drop-off centers, except for Hinesburg.
Ms. Reeves noted staffing challenges. They are seeing a 7% COLA adjustment, and
compensation for employees is up 1.4% compared to FY23. They have also moved employees
to a higher deductible medical insurance package.
There is a healthy balance in the capital reserve except for handling the potential landfill closing.
They do not know what treatment will be required, so they do not yet know the cost.
Mr. Stabler thanked Ms. Reeves and her staff and thanked Ms. Baker for finding them their new
offices. Ms. Baker noted that the move-in began today.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 4
Mr. Barritt asked how they measure “what could have been recovered.” Ms. Reeves said this is
through a state study. They can see what should have been diverted and measure that against
the population. Ms. Reeves also explained what might happen if the bottle bill is expanded. It
would increase the cost of recycling in the State, but because it is only paper and cardboard, it
won’t have that much of an affect.
Mr. Barritt then asked when they will be accepting credit cards. Ms. Reeves said she has been
told that will happen this summer. She noted that the fees are enormous.
Mr. Chalnick asked what is being done to keep things out of the landfill. Ms. Reeves said she
could provide examples of success stories. The real opportunity lies with the commercial sector.
Mr. Barnes said some praise could help. Ms. Reeves said they have talked about it, and there
are many possible approaches. Ms. Emery suggested reaching out to such entities as restaurant
associations. Mr. Chalnick asked if they could charge more to those restaurants that don’t
comply. Ms. Reeves said they prefer to educate instead of enforce.
Mr. Barnes asked how much the Williston closure would cost. Ms. Reeves said it is money for
any possible extensive treatment, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are
still some “unknowns.”
Ms. Riehle asked how long the landfill in Coventry can be used. Ms. Reeves said it is owned by
Casella, and they have 20 years left. The concern is they will be approved for another “cell.”
Landfills take a long time to permit and build, so that conversation is beginning now. There is
also not a lot of available land, and hundreds of acres are required.
Ms. Riehle then moved to approve the CSWD budget as presented. Mr. Barnes seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
7. Receive an update from Vermont Air National Guard Fire Chief on community
engagement and mutual aid:
Chief Soter reviewed the city’s history with the Guard. He said that as Fire Chief he is looking to
build on the robust relationship with the city. He noted that they are a cost-free resource. They
are also filling more and more of the city’s needs, and Chief Soter anticipated that will be even
more into the future.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 5
Chief Locke said the city’s Fire Department and the Guard Fire Department are almost one Fire
Department. The city relies on the Guard almost every day. Chief Locke explained that he can’t
deploy 15 Firefighters to a fire, which is a requirement, without the Guard Firefighters. He
added that they are looking at GIS data to see if there is an area of the city for which the Guard
can be responsible. They may also be looking at adding a Burlington unit for structure fires.
Mr. Kelly said the Guard provides advance life support, hazmat response, extrication, public
outreach and education. They host Skills USA and proctor exams. He said South Burlington-
Guard relationship is a “dream relationship.” 50% of the Guard participants volunteer in
communities, so the Guard brings a high level of service to the community.
Ms. Emery said she has heard of a need for mitigation around the base because of a foam issue.
Mr. Kelly said the foam they use was approved by the EPA. They are now trying to secure a
chlorine-free foam which will replace what they currently use by October of 2024. Regarding
the clean-up, drinking water is a priority, and they are not involved in that phase. Mr. Kelly
added that they use foam only in an emergency. They do not train with it.
Mr. Chalnick asked about the potential hazard of an F-35 crash. Chief Soter said they are trained
and ready for any aircraft crash. He stressed that there is no difference between the crash of a
commercial air crash and an F-35 crash.
Mr. Barritt asked what the Guard responds to at the Airport. Chief Soter said they respond to
inflight emergencies, crashes, aircraft fires, medical emergencies, etc.
Mr. Barnes asked what the ramification would be if the city and Guard relationship were to end.
Chief Lock said the city would need another fire station. Mr. Barnes then asked how to make
the relationship better into the future. Chief Locke said he and Chief Soter want to
Maximize the relationship and help it to grow. Chief Soter stressed that they are present
because of the F-35s.
Ms. Emery asked what foam South Burlington uses. Chief Locke said it is the same as the Air
Guard’s. He noted that South Burlington relies on the Guard as the city does not have the
ability to put out a car fire. Mr. Kelly said the Guard is the only entity in the State with the
ability to handle a large Class B fire. They are also the only entity with the federal exemption to
use the foam.
Ms. Riehle said it is reassuring to hear of the mutual relationship the city has with the Guard.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 6
8. Consider signing on to Settlement Agreements with Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walmart
and Walgreens that would enable the State to maximize the return to Vermonters:
Ms. Abrams of the Office of the Vermont Attorney General reviewed the history of opioid
settlement in the State since 2021. She noted that the proposed Settlement Agreement is
structured in the same way as the previous settlement. The aim is to abate the opioid crisis,
and Ms. Abrams noted that however much they receive, it won't be enough.
Ms. Abrams noted that Vermont uses a “default mechanism” to appropriate funds. 15% goes to
municipalities, 15% to the State, and 70% to the Opioid Abatement Council. In order for
Vermont to get the maximum amount of money, the settlement is structured with a base
amount and then “incentive payments.” Eight municipalities with large populations must sign
on to get those “incentive payments.” There are also several municipalities that have sued the
companies independently. Signing on means a community agrees to use the funds to abate the
opioid crisis. Ms. Abrams noted that last year South Burlington received 2 payments of $15,000
each plus one payment of $60,000 as part of the first settlement. Ms. Baker noted that the
funds are ready to be allocated, and staff will be bringing recommendations to the Council for
that allocation. Mr. Barritt said the School Board should be involved in that conversation.
Ms. Abrams noted that there is a document which outlines the many ways to spend the funds.
There is no time limit for when the funds must be spent.
Ms. Riehle said there is no down side for the city to sign on, and these funds are very important.
Mr. O’Neil said all that the city gives up is the right to sue the companies independently.
Mr. Barritt said every place in the country has been touched by the opioid situation. Those
companies have damaged and killed many, many people nationwide, and they need to answer
for that.
Mr. Barritt moved to sign onto the settlement agreement with Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walmart and
Walgreens as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. The motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Barnes
abstaining. When asked why he had abstained, Mr. Barnes said he cannot be objective. He has
lost family members to opioids, and $39,000,000 doesn’t seem adequate.
9. Discussion on the City Clerk’s retirement and filling the position until Town
Meeting Day 2024:
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 7
Ms. Brayton said Ms. Kinville will be leaving in August prior to the end of her term. The City
Council has to appoint a person until the March election. A strategy and plans have been put
together for a timeline. The job description will be finalized in April, and the position will be
advertised locally. Human Resources will compile applications for the Council to decide which
candidates to interview. The intention is to have a person on board to overlap with Ms. Kinville
in May and June. Ms. Baker said there will be many opportunities to celebrate Ms. Kinville. She
also said that she, Ms. Brayton and Ms. Kinville would like to be involved in the process.
Ms. Riehle said the job description should include the fact that the City Clerk is part of the
Leadership Team, despite the fact that it is an elected position.
Ms. Kinville stressed that there is not a lot of experience in the Clerk’s office at this time, so the
hope is to have someone on board by June 1. Ms. Baker said she is holding time on the 1 May
Council agenda for interviews. The Council would then identify its first choice. Negotiations
with the candidate would then follow. The appointment would be announced at the 15 May
Council meeting.
Ms. Riehle suggested that depending on the number of applications, there might be a smaller
group to screen applications. Ms. Emery and Mr. Barritt agreed to do this.
10. Receive an update from staff on regulating rental properties, short-term rental
properties, and enforcing and educating on these requirement and provide
direction:
Mr. McNeil reviewed the history. He said it was felt that the best way to address the issues was
to provide the Council with a draft ordinance and have them make any changes they suggest.
Mr. McNeil noted that the ordinance creates a registry of all rental properties.
Chief Locke said there is also increased capacity to inspect all rental housing. Other elements of
the ordinance include the requirement that there be a “building contact” located in South
Burlington, and a provision that there can be up to 2 weeks of rental per year without being in
the registry. There is a $100.00 per unit fee. For a new building, that fee would be waived for 3
years. A 40-unit building owned by one owner would have a reduced fee. The inspection cycle
will be similar to that in Burlington. If there are no violations, there would be no inspection for
5 years unless there is a complaint. A tenant could also sub-let an accessory dwelling unit.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 8
Mr. Barnes asked why this is happening. Chief Locke said this is what other communities are
doing, and it puts the homeowner and the tenant(s) on an equal footing.
Mr. Conner said about 20% of rentals involve room(s) within a building and 40 or so the rental
of a whole house. There are about 4000 rental units in the city out of a total of 10,000 units.
Ms. Riehle asked about summer rentals along the Lake. She did not believe there were many.
Mr. Conner said he couldn’t think of any.
Ms. Emery asked if owners have to provide liability insurance. Mr. McNeil said they do or they
can use Airbnb insurance. They also have to sign up to pay the rooms & meals tax or have
Airbnb do that for them.
Ms. Emery asked whether renters can hold weddings, parties, etc. Chief Locke said the owner is
required to provide information to the tenant about the Noise Ordinance. Mr. McNeil said this
becomes an enforcement issue. Ms. Emery also questioned whether the fines are stiff enough.
Chief Locke said there are some rentals that people should not be living in, and those people do
not call in to complain. There have been 55 complaints in 2 years.
Mr. Spooner said that electrical would be the most expensive thing to get up to code. Chief
Locke said that problem would be mostly in conversions. Newer apartment buildings are mostly
up to code.
Ms. Emery said one of the Council’s goals is to incentivize home ownership. Ms. Baker added
that the city wants to ensure that half of the population is in quality rental stock for their own
health and well-being.
Mr. Barritt asked what the requirements are when a single family home changes hands in the
city. Mr. Spooner said that depends on the year of the home. It would have to be hard-wired,
and most newer stock is. Mr. Barritt said that ethically if you take money from someone to live
in your building, you need to provide up-to-date electric and lead abatement.
Mr. Conner noted that the project team on this issue had a 2-point discussion: the core issue
and orbital issues (building codes, energy codes, Certificate of Compliance, etc.). In the short
term they are focusing on the core issues. Mr. Chalnick said he supports the short-term part of
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 9
this. He would also like to know what the State is doing. Chief Locke said he believes the State
would expect a community to do its own inspections.
Mr. Chalnick asked whether the fees would cover administrative costs. Chief Locke said a “back
of the napkin” estimate says they will. One person for administrative support and 2 or 3
inspectors would be needed. They can go back and do some projections.
Ms. Senecal said airbnbs are only 1% of the housing stock. She didn’t think the city would gain a
lot. She said she owns a house and rents a room in it. It’s not short-term. It’s the only way as a
single parent that she can afford to own a home. She is concerned with the “over-regulating”
approach. She said there is a need for short-term housing (3-6 months) in the city, and she is
often approached for space. She was concerned that getting everything to code could be
expensive. She also asked if this ordinance would include “roommates.”
Mr. Trombly noted that a lot of long-term rentals are now month to month. He questioned
whether those are still “long-term.” Chief lock said “probably.”
Ms. Dooley thanked those who worked on this and noted it has been on the plan for the
Affordable Housing Committee to preserve long-term rentals. She felt short-term rentals should
be regulated before this becomes a bigger issue. She did not feel there should be an exception
for lakefront property.
Ms. Baker said staff can provide cost projections for the second meeting in May or early June.
Chief Locke asked if the Council wanted to prohibit “gatherings.” Members indicated they
would support that.
11. Receive and accept amendments to the Land Development Regulations #LDR-22-09
and possibly set a Public Hearing for 1 May 2023 at 7:30 p.m.
Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission worked on the language the Council asked for. If the
Council wants to adopt that language, they will have to warn a public hearing.
Ms. Emery expressed concern regarding reverting to a 50-foot buffer for some homes. She said
there were sound reasons to go to a 100-foot buffer. She also didn’t want to create new
situations like the damage to the home they heard about. She had no problem with the
retaining wall or steep slopes.
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 10
Mr. Chalnick reviewed the history of the amendment at the Planning Commission. He said that
initially he agreed with Ms. Emery, but he was persuaded because of coverage ratios. He also
cited the need to maintain the community’s good will. He noted that the Planning Commission
unanimously approved sending this to the Council. Mr. Chalnick also noted that a handful of
lots become undevelopable under the 100-foot buffer rule.
Ms. Louisos said there were some other pieces to the discussion. When the Commission
discussed going to 100 feet, there were already areas with small lots where that extra 50 feet
was lawns, and the city wasn’t getting more of a buffer with the 100-foot rule. The Commission
also had a conversation as to what the impact is to a wetland from a patio and/or shed.
Typically, the impact is very small and water flows off them. They are not as critical as a parking
lot. The Commission felt the impact didn’t match up with what they were hearing from the
landowners, and they preferred to have those landowners “on our side.” Ms. Louisos stressed
this does not involve going into a highly vegetated buffer.
Ms. Emery was concerned that 50-60 years from now when there could be stronger storms.
She was also concerned that the rules wouldn’t have meaning any more. She didn’t want to see
a porch that could turn into a habitable space.
Ms. Riehle said she supports accepting the language presented at this meeting and scheduling a
public hearing. She said Mr. Conner responded to the Council’s directions, and it appears this
language is in keeping with the Planning Commission’s discussions.
Mr. Barnes said these homeowners have been going through hoops for a long time. They are
trying to do things right. He felt the Council has a responsibility to be responsive and timely. He
favored setting a public hearing.
Mr. Barritt said hearing from Mr. Chalnick and Ms. Louisos, he was comfortable with the
language. He didn’t feel it would have much impact at all.
Ms. Easton said that when she comes to the Council she feels like she is fighting against an
injustice. She also feels she is in a "catch 22” because of contradictory regulations. For
residents in those small lot homes, their home is their biggest investment. She hoped the
Council could come up with regulations people can accept.
Mr. Chalnick wondered if adjusting the language to state something like “as long as the repair
doesn’t have a negative effect.”
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 11
Ms. Riehle then moved to ask the Planning Commission to take this up at their next meeting
and come back at the 17 April meeting with potential language to address concerns. Ms. Emery
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
12. Approve the use of up to $30,925 in General Fund Fund Balance to support one
crossing guard at the Rick Marcotte Central School for the remainder of the 2022-
2023 school year and purchase a speed radar sign at the Gertrude Chamberlin
school zone:
Ms. Baker said immediately after the last Council meeting, Public Works and the School people
spent significant time discussing traffic concerns in City Center. The items presented tonight
require City Council action. At the 17 April meeting, the Council will get a traffic manual that
Public Works has been working on for many months.
Mr. McHenry thanked the Council for attention to this concern and its urgency. School people
are very nervous that another tragedy will happen, and they are trying to prevent it. He asked
for better communication with construction people so the school can know when there will be
trucks coming and going, especially if this is at times when students arrive and leave.
Ms. McDonald said she has communicated with the developer. They have also had training
from the Police Department as to how to handle children crossing streets.
Ms. Emery asked if there has been thought of crossing guards in future years. She said she has
heard there may be a traffic light following the results of a traffic study. Ms. Baker said they
should have those results by October, so any need could be built into the FY2025 budget.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the use of up to #30,925 of the general fund fund balance to
support one crossing guard at Marcotte Central School and the purchase of a speed radar sign
for Chamberlin School. Mr. Barnes seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barnes asked if there is anything else the Council can do now. Ms. Baker said there are
other things that don’t require Council action. Two parking spaces have been removed, and the
developer has installed a path behind the project and removed the screening at the corner.
13. Approve the 2023-2024 Council Liaisons to Committees assignments:
Council members agreed to the following assignments:
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 12
Ms. Riehle: Airport Commission; Common Area for Dogs, and Planning Commission
Ms. Emery: Continuing her 3 current assignments
Mr. Barritt: Public Art, Economic Development, Green Mountain Transit (shared with
Mr. Chalnick)
Mr. Barnes: Bike/Ped and Recreation and Parks
Mr. Chalnick: Energy Committee and Green Mountain Transit (shared with Mr. Barritt),
Natural Resources
Ms. Baker noted that the representative to Channel 17 does not have to be a Council member,
so she will be advertising for that position.
Ms. Riehle moved to approve the assignments as discussed. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
14. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
802 Cocktails, LLC, 1st & 3rd Class Commercial Caterer; Always Full Asian Market, 2nd
Class License; Applebee’s 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar; Barnyard 1st & 3rd Class
Restaurant/Bar & Outside entertainment permit; Bueno Y Sano, 1st Class
Restaurant/Bar; Catering by Dale/Copper at Dorset, 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar
& 1st Class Commercial Caterer; Cheese & Wine Traders, 2nd Class License; Club 35,
1st & 3rd Class Club; Double Tree by Hilton, 1st & 3rd Class Hotel, 2nd Class; Eagles
#793, 1st & 3rd Class Club & Outside Consumption; Eco Bean and Greens, 1st Class
Restaurant/Bar; Healthy Living Market & Cafe, 2nd Class License; Higher Ground, 1st
Class Club; Jiffy Mart #145, 2nd Class License; Klinger’s Bread, 2nd Class License;
Marco’s Pizza, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar; Mill Market & Deli, 2nd Class License; Moe’s
Southwest Grill, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar & Outside Consumption Permit; Moose
Lodge #1618, 1st & 3rd Class Club, annual entertainment permit; Old Post, The
Entertainment permit – annual; Rotisserie, 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar & Outside
Consumption; Target Store #T-3306, 2nd Class License; Trader Joe’s #527, 2nd Class
License; Vermont National Country Club, (2) 1st Class Restaurant/Bar, 3rd Class & 2nd
Class; Waffle Chalet, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar; Walgreen’s, 2nd Class License;
Zachary’s Pizza, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar; Zen Garden, 1st & 3rd Class
Restaurant/Bar:
CITY COUNCIL
3 APRIL 2023
PAGE 13
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council meet as Liquor Control Commission. Ms. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the license applications as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
15. Other Business:
Mr. Barnes said he spoke with residents of the apartment building adjacent to the path near the
new construction. They are concerned with safety in and around the building and feel that they
are being forced out because they don’t feel safe. They have spoken with the management, and
their issues fell on deaf ears. Mr. Barnes said he didn’t know what action the Council can take.
He was particularly concerned because children are now being directed that way to get to
school. One of the major concerns, particularly among senior residents, is that there is no place
for children to play, and they are running through the hallways. One person spoke of feeling
“terrified.”
Ms. Emery suggested contacting Summit regarding the insecurity concerns.
Mr. Chalnick suggested some after school programs for the children.
Ms. Baker said she has heard similar concerns from the CHT building. It seems like there are
some service needs that the city can look into including encouraging a “neighborhood” in the
buildings. It was noted that one of the concerns in the CHT building is that garden plots are
being dug up by kids. One suggestion is to fence off the area with a keyed entrance.
As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:52 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 17 APRIL 2023
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 17 April 2023, at 6:30
p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Barnes (arrived late), A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk; C. McNeil, City Attorney; P. Conner,
Director of Planning & Zoning; T. DiPietro, Public Works Director; E. Quallen, Public Works
Department; I. Blanchard, Community Development Director; D. Peters, R. Greco, M. Mittag, J.
Louisos, P. Thompson, O. Peron, F. MacDonald, J. Burton, S. Dopp, J. Booth, J. Nadeau
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Ms. Greco said that she had been told that part of Hubbard Park property was going to be
paved for a bike path. She asked that if this is true, it should be reconsidered. She noted the
property contains an organic farm, wetland, wildlife, etc., and felt that the area shouldn’t be
damaged. The land is costing the city nothing, and a bike path would cost the city for
maintenance.
Ms. Greco also said the traffic lights in the city are inefficient. In Burlington, the lights become
flashing late in the evening. She suggested that South Burlington lights become flashing after 8
p.m. when there is less traffic.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended.
Ms. Baker: A Community Grant for which the city applied has been deferred to the next
round of funding. Another grant has also been recommended.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 2
Green-up Day is the 6th of May. Bags can be obtained in the City Clerk’s office.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve minutes
c. Approve the settlement reached between the City and Paul Washburn and
authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to effectuate
this settlement
d. Approve an application for a Northern Borders Regional Commission grant to
fund future water tower capacity
e. Approve an application for a Teen Lit Mob grant to support programming at the
Library
f. Approve an application for a Vermont Department of Libraries Summer Grant
Program to support the Library
Item “b” was removed from the Consent Agenda as minutes were not yet available.
Ms. Emery asked to remove item “c” as well.
Ms. Emery then moved to approve Consent Agenda Items a, d, e, and f as presented. Mr.
Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Emery said she understands the reason for the settlement in item “c,” but she did not
believe justice was served in all cases.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve Consent Agenda item “c” as presented. Mr. Chalnick seconded.
Motion passed 3-1 with Ms. Emery voting against.
6. Select the City’s Top Dog and First Feline:
Ms. Kinville noted that there has been an increase in dog and cat registrations (26 more dogs
and 35 more cats) and cited the contest as one reason for this success. She thanked the
sponsors who contributed the prizes for the contest including: Pet Food Warehouse, Guy’s Farm
& Yard, Brown Animal Hospital, Hannaford’s, Doggie Style Salon, and Kim Provost who will paint
pictures of the winners.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 3
The winners were then drawn. Jillian Randall and Sarah Dopp were First Feline winners, and
Robin Cooley and Kathy Hatch were Top Dog winners.
Ms. Riehle suggested a sign in dog parks reminding people to register their pets.
7. Receive a Presentation on needed water storage capacity and discuss plans for
Town Meeting Day 2024:
Ms. Baker said this is an information item, and no action is needed at this meeting.
Mr. Lewis explained the nature of the city’s water system. CWD provides water treatment, and
the city’s water comes from them and goes into storage tanks to meet the day-to-day needs of
the city as well as fire-fighting, storage for power outages, and needed water pressure. The city
is currently using 98% of the water capacity in the large storage tank, and State rules require
adding additional storage when that percentage reaches 90%.
Mr. Lewis showed a map of the area being served by this water tank and reviewed the history of
the siting. The only available land for a second tank is on the same site as the existing tank. Six
alternative sites were reviewed and rejected.
Mr. Lewis then showed two types of tanks that were evaluated. The standpipe tank was the one
chosen. The recommendation is for a 2.1 million gallon tank which would serve both the short
and long-term needs of the city. This tank would increase the total capacity to 4.2 million
gallons. The estimate is that the city will need 3 million gallons by 2070. This includes the
agreement to store water for the town of Shelburne.
Mr. Barritt asked why a second tank is needed and why they can’t just refill the existing tank
when it is empty. Mr. Duncan said there is a requirement to have 24 hours of water stored in
case of a pumping failure.
Ms. Riehle asked if Shelburne is satisfied with their allocation. Mr. Lewis said they said they are
satisfied but may need more in the future. Ms. Riehle asked if the additional tank would be able
to help another community if they had a problem. Mr. Duncan said it would if there was a
break in their system. He noted that there is already such an agreement with the City of
Burlington.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 4
Mr. Chalnick asked why there is so much “fire flow” needed. Mr. Duncan said there is a “per
minute” flow requirement. The requirement now is 135,000 gallons which could increase in the
future.
The total cost of the new tank would be $5,400,000. The city has applied for grants to offset
that cost. A 2% loan is available through the VTSRF Program. The estimate is that the average
water user would be $19.80 a year more.
The plan is to start the final design in May and begin construction in April 2024. Construction
would be completed in December 2024.
Mr. Barritt asked if this project is a candidate for an impact fee. Mr. DiPietro said when a
development is built, the developer pays for capacity; that is their impact fee. He added that
the city’s rates are very low, and this is being looked at.
(Mr. Barnes arrived at the meeting)
Mr. Barritt asked if the tank can be a different color. Mr. DiPietro said the project will go
through Act 250 which will consider “aesthetics.”
Ms. Greco said people are wasteful as to how they use water and this should be discussed
further.
8. Receive Public Works’ Traffic Request Evaluation Guidance and provide input to
staff
Ms. Baker noted this item is related to constituent requests.
Ms. Quallen then provided a general presentation on how traffic requests are handled. She
noted that the department gets many such requests, usually related to speed and safety. The
department’s goal is to provide an expedient, equitable process for identifying, evaluating,
prioritizing, and implementing requests. Ms. Quallen then outlined the 8-step process:
1. There is an on-line form which applicants complete. This process does not
apply to stop signs and signal issues.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 5
2. Initial Screening – The department evaluates traffic conditions, the amount of
traffic on the road, safety (crash data). Points are given for each item.
Additional points are given for an accident involving a pedestrian or cyclist.
3. Preliminary Scoring – takes into account the environment (bike path/shared
use path, crosswalks, high density housing, numerous/large employers, etc.).
Additional priority is given for the presence of a school. If the required
number of points is not achieved, the situation is reviewed in 3 years.
4. Community Outreach #1 – Discussions with the Bike/Ped Committee and
with neighbors.
5. Technical Evaluation – data collection regarding speeds and whether 85% of
traffic is moving at or below the speed limit. Initial design recommendations.
6. Final Scoring
7. Community Outreach #2 – Second meeting with Bike/Ped Committee with
potential treatments.
8. Design and Implementation – If it is a low-cost solution, it can be added to
the list of what can be done internally as budget and capacity allow. For
projects requiring funding, the project goes to the city’s budgeting process.
Ms. Quallen then showed photos of potential design treatments (e.g., speed bumps, median
islands, pavement markings).
Mr. Barnes noted the process seems “reactive rather than proactive.” He asked about areas
where there are school children. Ms. Quallen said children are always taken into account. Mr.
Barnes said he would hate to see a project not happen because there hasn’t been an accident
yet, and then have an accident happen. Ms. Quallen said she very much hears that, and that is
why they are asking for the Council’s thoughts.
Mr. Barritt said the structure seems pretty fair for prioritizing. Ms. Quallen noted that a lot of
situations are interconnected, and there are situations that increase the number of vehicles in
an area. Mr. Barritt said a way is needed for Public Works to come to the Council regarding
numbers of projects that need attention. Ms. Baker noted there is data regarding “bumper to
bumper,” crashes and police data as to possible causes of accidents.
Ms. Baker noted that Mr. DiPietro has spent most of his career in South Burlington, and she has
never seen a person like him who can “hit the ground running.” She said the development of
this procedure is a major improvement.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 6
#9. Receive an update on City Center development, the Tax Increment Financing
District and the Form Based Code:
Ms. Baker noted the successful bond vote. She also noted that the audit is ongoing, and she
thought there would be an exit in May, which is great sign.
Ms. Blanchard said this is an exciting point in City Center development with a lot happening in a
lot of places. She showed a city map and identified the City Center and Form Based Code
districts.
Mr. Conner said the Form Based Code is a commercial/mixed use part of the city where new
and redevelopment is happening.
Ms. Blanchard showed a map identifying natural areas in City Center, including City Center Park,
public natural areas and private natural areas. She pointed out the forest owned by UVM,
property owned by the School District, and a wetland, all of which are protected.
Mr. Conner identified properties that can be redeveloped and areas that would be an amenity
for those sites. He said that connectivity is a key element. Ms. Riehle asked if Open Space
funds can be used. Mr. Conner said they can as can impact fees. Ms. Blanchard noted that the
City Center “downtown” area includes shade trees, sidewalks, facilities for bikers, walkers,
strollers, and wheelchairs. She identified the bike/ped infrastructure.
Ms. Blanchard then showed a map of occupied buildings, those under construction, those
approved to be built, and commercial space. There are 19 new buildings.
Ms. Blanchard then reviewed the city’s TIF investments. She showed other projects that
support City Center including the Dorset Street signal project, Potash Watershed pond and box
culvert (which supports aquatic natural life and addressed stormwater), Allard Square and the
Garden Street apartments (built with city support), the bike share and Illuminate Vermont.
Mr. Conner said that to date there are over 500 residential units in City Center, 128 of which are
affordable. There is 29,475 sq. ft. of potential commercial space within the TIF district and
another 58,482 sq. ft. in City Center but outside the TIF district. The building at 112 Garden
Street will have a café and day care on its first floor. The building under construction next to
City Hall will also have commercial space on its first floor. There is an application for the south
side of Market Street for 213 residential units and 27,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. This will
allow
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 7
for smaller, more “downtown feeling” commercial spaces (with a requirement for a door every
30 feet).
Mr. Barnes asked what percentage of housing allows for ownership. Mr. Conner said the Habitat
for Humanity units are ownership. Most of the rest of the units are designed for rental, though
that is beginning to turn a bit. There are building owners showing an interest in turning existing
buildings from rental to ownership.
Mr. Chalnick said that City Center does not look like what people had in mind when they spoke
of buildings around a “central green.” He suggested possibly making the parking lot across from
City Hall into a green park area and building a parking deck behind City Hall. Mr. Barritt noted
the property on which City Hall sits cost about $1,000,000 per acre. Ms. Riehle added that the
property taxes are needed to pay off the TIF. Ms. Baker suggested talking with the UMall folks
about their vision for that property. The effort now is to get the 4 TIF projects done.
Mr. Barritt said he thought the “green space in City Center ship has sailed.” He added the 4
projects should be done first. Other redevelopment will happen, and that could include
significant green space.
Ms. Emery noted concerns that there isn’t a lot of variety in the buildings that are being built.
Variety was recommended in the LDRs. Ms. Riehle said it is always challenging to get variety
when you have 4 or 5 stories. Mr. Conner added that architecture goes through eras, and most
of City Center is being built in one era. He stressed that the materials being used meet the
energy code and there are restrictions on the number of windows, etc. He did note that the
rooftop area of one of the new buildings will have views of the Green Mountains.
Mr. Barnes felt this should be part of a larger discussion.
Ms. Greco noted that the consultant warned against little patches of green, and that is what
there is. She felt “regreening” would help, and that the Council should think of ways to do that.
Ms. Emery added that many people are disappointed that the center green didn’t happen. But,
she noted, the city would have had to buy the land.
Ms. Riehle said this would be a good topic for discussion at the Council retreat.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 8
#10. Discuss the remaining $2M in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and a
process for making final decisions:
Ms. Baker asked the Council what information they need in order to make decisions. One
possible use is the $320,000 match for the shared use path. That is due on 9 June, so there is
some time to think about it. Mr. Barritt thought that would be a good investment as the path is
not in good shape. Ms. Emery asked why they would use the ARPA money for that when they
could use the Pennies for Paths money. It was noted that using the ARPA money would move
up the timeline for that project. Ms. Riehle said they should have the fund balance from
Pennies for Paths before making a decision. Members agreed.
Mr. Kilacky said he would like to see a community discussion regarding the ARPA money. He
noted that plugging a budget gap is also important. He also noted that they have to be sure
whatever they decide is a proper use for ARPA money. Ms. Thompson agreed with the need for
a community discussion.
Ms. Riehle said the ARPA money needs to be spent by 2026, so there is time to consider how to
spend it. She suggested having a discussion earlier on an agenda.
#11. Discuss S.100 “An act relating to housing opportunities made for everyone” and
potentially take action:
Mr. Conner advised that he is scheduled to testify on Thursday morning to the House Natural
Resources and Energy Committee. He will bring them more specific language and concerns.
Ms. Riehle said she is also testifying, representing the conversation the Council has had.
Mr. Barritt asked what the “temperature” is at this point. Ms. Riehle said she had a very good
discussion with the Natural Resources Counsel and Katy Gallagher, and they were both
supportive of what she had to say. Ms. Riehle noted there will be many people testifying, and
she was more optimistic that the House has slowed things down a bit. Mr. Barritt asked what
the Governor’s opinion is. Ms. Riehle said he doesn’t like the changes to Act 250.
Mr. Kilacky said that coming to the House Natural Resources Committee with specific language
is very important. They are concerned with the effect of the bill on the environment. He said
the city should focus on energy and the environment to have most impact. Mr. Kilacky also
noted that South Burlington is quite different from most communities, and it is hard to be
equitable across the state. He did not think the decision would be given back to local control.
C ITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 9
Mr. Chalnick said the State has been paralyzed regarding climate action, and for the Legislature
to stand in the way of what municipalities are doing is hard to understand.
Ms. Emery said she doesn’t know how this will work with TDRs because so much is up in the air.
She added that what South Burlington has done is based on State Statute.
#12. Receive updates to amendments to the Land Development Regulations and
possibly set Public Hearing for May 15, 2023 at 7:30 p.m.:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history. Ms. Louisos said the Planning Commission has made the
amendment clear that any redevelopment cannot increase the impervious surface. She also
noted that the Commission also looked at the “stabilization” situation. They were unanimous in
their decision.
Ms. Riehle said she believed that responds to the Council’s concerns.
Mr. Chalnick suggested adding that “the encroachment is necessary,” but said he would vote for
the language as it was written. Mr. Barritt said he would leave the language as it is because this
is what the Planning Commission approved. Members agreed to leave the proposed language.
Ms. Easton supported leaving the language as written.
Ms. Riehle then moved to set a public hearing on amendments to the Land Development
Regulations #LDR-22-09 for 15 May 2023 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
#13. Discuss the process to make FY24 appointments to policy and regulatory
committees:
Ms. Baker noted there are 37 committee openings. She presented 4 possible options for
holding interviews. The Planning Commission and DRB interview process would be as usual as
those are policy committees.
Mr. Barritt liked option 4. Ms. Emery said she would like to see 3 Council members on each
subcommittee. Members agreed. Ms. Baker added that relevant committee chairs would be
invited to participate as well and to provide what is required of members.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 10
Ms. Emery asked if there are the same number of applicants as there are openings, and the
committee doesn’t want one or more of those applicants, are they obligated to appoint
someone they don’t want. Ms. Baker said they are not.
Ms. Riehle suggested adding a question to the application: What other committees would you
be interested in?
Mr. McNeil noted that with a 3-person committee, 2 members is a quorum, and with 3 Council
members, there can only be discussion about the interviews.
Ms. Riehle then moved to create 3-person sub-committees for the sole purpose of interviewing
candidates for committees. Mr. Barnes seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
It was agreed that Ms. Riehle would chair both sub-committees. Ms. Baker will provide a
composition of the two sub-committees and the questionnaire.
The full City Council will interview for the Planning Commission and DRB on 5 June 2023. The
Council will also make the final decision on all appointments.
#14. Convene as the South Burlington Liquor control commission to consider the
following:
Chicken Charlie’s 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License; Dave’s Cosmic Subs, 1st Class
Restaurant/Bar License; Farmers & Foragers, 1st Class Commercial Caterer; Parkway Diner
(contingent upon payment) 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License & Outside Consumption
Permit; Pauline’s Cafe & Restaurant, 1st & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the list of 1st and 3rd Class licenses as presented, with Parkway
Diner contingent upon payment. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Emery moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
17 APRIL 2023
PAGE 11
#15. Other Business:
Council members agreed to the following schedule to write the “Councilors’ Corner” column for
The Other Paper:
May – Mr. Chalnick
June – Mr. Barnes
July – Mr. Barritt
August – Ms. Riehle
As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:28 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 1 MAY 2023
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 1 May 2023, at 6:30
p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of
Planning & Zoning; M. Machar, Finance Officer; D. Peters, C. Trombly, B. Sirvis, J. Burton, R.
Greco, C. McDonald, R. Venkataraman, M. Simoneau, L. Bresee
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Ms. Greco addressed the Council regarding climate change issues and the need to protect the
city’s ability to provide clean water and food. She urged the Council to pan lawn pesticides or, if
that is not legal, to educate the public as to the harm they can do to the water/food supply. She
also asked the Council to remind people to conserve water and use tap water on their lawns.
She urged the city to support local farming which can provide food to feed a significant portion
of the city’s population. Finally, she said that the city’s new Comprehensive Plan should not be
a “business as usual” plan but should stress the need to become a sustainable city, particularly
in terms of food and water.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Ms. Riehle particularly
noted that at the end of the presentation she and Mr. Conner made to the House Environment
and Energy Committee, Committee members said to Mr. Conner that we should come back and
educate the Committee.
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 2
Ms. Riehle also reminded the Council that they had been discussing whether to meet on June
19th (“Juneteenth”). She will be coming back to the Council with a plan for a possible
celebration following a short meeting.
Mr. Barritt noted that a federal court had rejected Berkeley, California’s law against connecting
to natural gas lines. That will be something to keep an eye on.
Ms. Baker: There will be a total solar eclipse on 8 April 2024, at 3:24 p.m. (the South
Burlington peak), and the expectation is that 250,000 or more people will be descending on the
area. Local communities are already planning for security, etc.
The FY23 pre-audit will start next week.
Chris Corbin has been promoted to Deputy Fire Chief. He is a proven leader in
the Department.
The City has purchased 1270 Williston Road which will be demolished. It is
currently being used by the Fire Department for training exercises.
The Dorset Street signal project has begun. There will be some interruptions in
traffic flow with minor delays, and probably more impact when the work gets to Williston Road.
The City Charter Committee will be holding public forums on May 10th and 25th.
There is also a survey posted on the city’s website.
Green-up Day is on Saturday. People can pick up bags at City Hall.
Last week, the South Burlington Library Foundation presented its last check for
$50,000 to the city for the new Library bringing their total raised to $418,000. With other
funding, the total Library funding reached $1,000,000.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Award contract to Dirt Tech Company, LLC, for the construction of the Kennedy
Drive Stormwater Pond 2 Improvement Project
c. Award contract to Don Weston Excavating, Inc., for the construction of the
Williston Road Pedestrian Crossing Project
d. Approve a Proclamation Recognizing Arbor Day 2023
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 3
Mr. Barritt read the Arbor Day Proclamation.
Mr. Barritt then moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. First Reading of LDR Amendment #LDR-23-01, Solar PV for commercial buildings,
and LDR-23-02, minor and technical amendments, and consider holding a public
hearing on these amendments on 5 June 2023 at 7:30 p.m.:
Mr. Conner said that the Solar amendment was brought to the Planning Commission by the
Energy Committee. A previous amendment had required a solar-ready zone of no less than 40%
of the roof for commercial buildings. This amendment requires a commercial building to
include a solar PV system maximizing the solar ready zone. There is no requirement to attach to
a grid. Also, the solar system cannot exceed the capacity of the building. There are exceptions
which come from the State Energy Code. The amendment is worded to allow for future
technology changes. It was passed unanimously by the Planning Commission. The Commission
also decided to hold off on residential uses.
Mr. Barritt asked if the amendment defines a minimum. Mr. Conner said the minimum is to
maximize the use of the solar ready zone.
Mr. Barnes asked whether a developer would have to do solar elsewhere if they can’t meet the
40% on the roof. Mr. Conner said “not exactly.” You only have to put solar in your solar ready
zone.
Mr. Riehle noted that Hinesburg was trying to put in a system for people to buy into, but they
couldn’t get enough support. She asked if that is an option in South Burlington. Mr. Conner
said this amendment talks about on-site only. It is possible for existing buildings to make use of
what Mr. Riehle was asking about. He also said if there were a 3-building development, they
could possibly have one big unit in a central location that could cover all three buildings.
Mr. Barritt asked about 4-story apartment buildings. Mr. Conner said they are included as are
residential buildings of more than 3 stories and less than 6 stories. Mr. Barritt asked if there is
an opportunity to create a co-op to net meter excess and give a credit to GMP customer entities
like non-profits. He noted that the co-op could get a block of net metering and make an
arrangement with Green Mountain Power.
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 4
Ms. Emery moved that the Council hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
Monday, 5 June 2023 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Discuss remaining $2M in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and process
for making final decisions:
Ms. Baker said the city has until December of 2024 to allocate the funds and until December
2026 to spend them. They can be used for any municipal purpose. The intention at this
meeting is to have a discussion of a process to use to make a decision and assure that staff will
be able to help to make that decision.
Ms. Riehle said there are submitted suggestions totaling $10,000,000, so the Council can’t do
everything the public wants. She reminded members that they wanted to identify things that
make a difference and maximize the funding as much as possible by leveraging possible
matching funds. At the moment, there is no information on matching funds, but people have
said that the State has money that may be available as grants, though this has not been
confirmed.
Mr. Barritt suggested creating a matrix indicating a dollar amount requested. If it is a small
number, grant it, then look at what is ‘match-able.’
Ms. Riehle then reviewed what has already been allocated/spent.
Ms. Emery felt that the money that is already in the CIP should not come out of there. She
favored using a large amount for climate action and questioned whether there is staff available
and how the city might find more staff. She also noted that City Center is not getting the level
of enthusiasm hoped for, and there are little things that might not cost a lot that could add
some distinctiveness and aesthetic pleasure. She suggested a possible competition. Mr. Barritt
noted the issues of design dealing within the Form Based Code. Ms. Riehle also noted that if
the permitting for a project is complete, the design is finished. Ms. Baker said some permits
have been issued and some are to be issued.
Ms. Baker noted there are still parcels that will be developed. She suggested bringing in
architects that have worked on existing buildings to discuss what Form Based Code has dictated
regarding those buildings. Mr. Barritt said 80% of what has been built in the past few years is
“boring.”
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 5
Mr. Chalnick agreed with the need to do something about the facades that can be folded into
the next iteration of Form Based Code. He said he would like to use the money for something
regarding climate. He felt the money should be spent with the same caution as taxpayer funds,
possibly using it to fill in the city budget. He stressed that the city can’t reach climate targets
without funds.
Ms. Riehle asked whether the city can use the money for existing expenses and then use budget
dollars as people are suggesting. Ms. Machar said they can do that. Ms. Emery was concerned
the money would just be folded into the budget and not happen. Mr. Barnes agreed with Ms.
Emery.
Ms. Emery said she feels the ARPA funds need to do something “transformational,” possibly as
seed money for affordable housing. She asked what can be done with the City Center
streetscape to make it more attractive. That would be a gift to the city that the public can see.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to pursue something along those lines as a “gift to residents.” He
also felt the Council should go back to what the public has already said they want to see. He
said that child care and income disparity jump out at him. He asked how funds could be
invested to make South Burlington more affordable, things people are hurting for.
Ms. Riehle questioned what the Council can do regarding childcare. She understood the need
but didn’t see how the ARPA funds could address the need. She noted that the Medical Center
has built childcare into their housing project. She also stressed that the city doesn’t own the
City Center land; they own only the sidewalks and the park.
Mr. Chalnick said some people felt the survey was constraining and didn’t capture the sense of
the community. Ms. Baker said the Council spent more than 3 meetings working on the survey.
There were options and then there were open-ended sections. Mr. Chalnick noted that
recreation space overwhelms all of the “open ended” responses. Ms. Emery saw the need to
work on “gathering spaces” to address the theme of isolation.
Mr. Barritt suggested having someone look at available sites to generate ideas that are possible.
Ms. Riehle said they would have to act quickly and change the Form Based Code quickly before
permits are pulled.
Mr. Barritt noted there are proposals for real dollars to be spent on real things. He asked if the
money can be put into a reserve fund. Ms. Machar said it cannot.
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 6
Ms. Riehle suggested possibly buying land for a downtown park. There could be funding for a
long-term plan for all the public parks. There could also be funding to help people make
conversions to address climate concerns. Mr. Barnes said a park would be there for everyone
while $2,000,000 could help only a few individuals. He said even if the city provided half the
cost of a heating pump, people would still hot be able to put food their tables. He did not want
to do something that would require additional investment by taxpayers.
Mr. Barritt said he didn’t want city staff to have to administer a fund for heat pumps, etc. He
stressed that there is a list of items that are ready to go. Ms. Emery said most of those are in
the CIP. Mr. Barritt said if they get removed from the CIP, so be it. He added the CIP is a plan,
and some items in the plan get pushed down. If this money can help, especially if there are
matches, let’s get them done.
A member of the Parks/Recreation Committee said one problem is that they don’t have enough
money to take care of all that exists. She said she is pleased with what has gone into Market
Street. There are a lot of affordable units, and those limit what a developer can spend. She felt
some developments should offer ownership. She did like all the connecting bike paths and felt
the city should honor what has been done in City Center.
Ms. Sirvis stressed the need to pay attention to “today.” She said not to do affordable housing
or climate change but to do things that will enhance the quality of life today. Kids need places
to play today, and seniors need places to walk and sit.
Mr. Trombly said there are websites as to how other communities have helped to support child
care needs (e.g., capital investment). He urged the Council not to abandon that concern.
Ms. Greco spoke to the need for green space in City Center as it is what the public envisioned.
She cited the need for a place for people to meet and enjoy each other. During COVID, people
went to green spaces and got together outdoors. Now there are just apartment buildings in City
Center. She suggested using the ARPA money together with Open Space funds for something
everyone can enjoy.
Mr. Barritt said the Economic Development Committee is willing to do some work regarding
child care, but not if it is going to be dismissed as he has heard tonight. He urged people to
keep an open mind.
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 7
Mr. Simoneau asked how many people benefited from the $1,000,000 spent on affordable
housing. Ms. Baker said there were 60 new homes from CHT and a total of more than 130. Mr.
Simoneau said progress will be incremental in whatever efforts are made. He said that to each
of those 130 people, it was “transformational.” He also noted that the Parks/Recreation
Department serves thousands of people. He also said that all the committees feel that their
ideas for use of the ARPA money feel their ideas are transformational. He would like to see
their efforts addressed. He stressed that there will be no losers, whatever is decided.
Ms. Baker asked what the Council would like her to bring back.
Ms. Emery said she would like to know more about staffing, particularly a person to administer
the Climate Action Plan and look at leveraging funds.
Ms. Riehle was interested in the grid Mr. Barritt had suggested to get an idea of what fund
might be accessible to afford or match. Ms. Baker said they have done a little leveraging
regarding fund and can continue to explore that.
Mr. Barritt said that once they have a spread sheet, they can begin to whittle it down.
Regarding City Center, Ms. Baker stressed that thousands of human hours went into what City
Center looks like. She urged people to talk of what can be done in the future, not blame.
8. Receive the Quarter 3 Financial Report and provide direction to staff:
Ms. Machar said there is now a clear projection of how the city will end the year. She noted
that the local option tax income is significantly over the projection, and permit fees are more
than double projections. It is also projected that budgeted CIP funds will be spent by the end of
the fiscal year.
Ms. Machar reminded the Council that last year the surplus was over $1,000,000, and the
Council added some of that money to the fund balance and allotted some to projects. This year,
the recommendation is to add enough to the fund balance to reach the targeted amount.
Other recommendations include adding to the pension plan as they did last year. Staff is also
exploring some one-time costs. Ms. Riehle noted that there is always more paving to be done.
Mr. Barnes questioned the cost of the rental registry. Chief Locke said they will have that for the
next Council meeting. One issue will be space for staff as there is no existing office space
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 8
available, and it is important to have all the inspectors located together. The ultimate cost
would be budget neutral; however there will be some heavy up-front costs.
9. Discuss the next steps related to the electric vehicle charging stations at City Hall
and consider approving a resolution setting fees for public use:
Chief Locke said the existing stations were from a grant which required the city not to charge for
the first year. It is now costing the city money for electricity ($5,000 a year), the vendor fee, and
the fee for cars that remain in a spot after they are fully charged.
Mr. Barritt said Burlington charges 19 cents per kilowatt hour. The resolution is proposing 22
cents. He would like to see them the same. Mr. Barritt also noted that City Market’s stations
are free. He was OK with 22 cents if that is what it takes to cover the cost.
Chief Locke said there is a difference with Burlington because it has its own electric utility. The
22 cents will cover the city’s cost. He also noted that there were 88 users last month.
Mr. Barritt suggested putting a notice on the machines to indicate that they will no longer be
free.
Ms. Emery moved to approve the resolution as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion
passed unanimously.
10. Receive a recommendation for the FY24 Policy Priorities and Strategies process and
provide direction to staff:
Ms. Baker suggested the following changes:
a. Review items for the Council to add/remove from the plan in May
b. Use the 10 July meeting for the Policy/Strategies discussion. Ms. Emery
noted she will not be at that meeting. Ms. Baker will do a poll regarding a
change to that date.
c. Be more intentional about committee work people
11. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
Pulcinella’s Outside Consumption Permit, Walgreen’s (Store #11526) Tobacco
License:
CITY COUNCIL
1 MAY 2023
PAGE 9
Ms. Emery moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Barnes
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve Pulcinella’s Outside Consumption permit and Walgreen’s (Store
#11526) Tobacco License as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
12.Other Business:
No other business was brought forth.
As there was no further business to come before the Council Ms. Emery moved to adjourn.
Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
MEMO
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Jay Nadeau, Water Department Superintendent
CC: Tom DiPietro, Public Works Director
Date: May 30, 2023
Re: Transfer of Approved Lead Service Line Capital Funds to Valve Replacement
The City’s approved FY24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains $193,000 for Lead Service Line Inventory (LSLI)
work. The City is in the process of approving a $545,000 contract with MSK Engineers to complete and submit the
required LSLI report to the State of Vermont before the October 16, 2024 deadline. In addition, the South Burlington
Water Department is eligible for a no-interest loan from the VT Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) with a
portion of the funding qualifying for loan forgiveness. Under this program, we anticipate that the City will receive loan
forgiveness in the amount of $446,230.
Based on this, we anticipate that the amount of funding required for LSLI work in FY24 will be closer to $140,000 as
opposed to the $193,000 included in the currently approved budget. This would leave a balance of $53,000.
Based on this, I am requesting that Council approve reallocation of up to $40,000 in CIP funding to replace old water
valves on Spear Street and a fire hydrant on Black Lantern Lane. The gate valves on Spear St either leak when operated
or do not close tightly, and the fire hydrant on Black Lantern Lane is obsolete and it’s functionality is questionable.
These water assets are all within streets that are scheduled for paving this year and need to be replaced before paving
begins.
If you would like additional information on this proposal, please contact Jay Nadeau, SBWD Superintendent, at (802)
861-4817 or at jay.nadeau@champlainwater.org .
104 Landfill Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 www.southburlingtonvt.gov tel 802.658.7961
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Erica Quallen, Deputy Director of Capital Projects
Cc: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Date: June 5, 2023
Re: 2023 VTrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program Application
Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path
The Hinesburg Road shared use path from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive has been presented to
Council as a priority project to fund by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee on November 3, 2022
and by myself on April 17, 2023. We plan to seek funding for this project through the 2023 VTrans
Federal-Aid Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant program, should Council approve the grant application. In
lieu of ARPA funding support, the approximately $192,000 match (20% of total project cost) is
proposed to be funded by Penny for Paths. This estimate is lower than what was presented
previously to Council since cost estimates have been revised to reflect more recent prices for
consultants. In order to meet this match requirement, the Council-approved FY24 CIP for this funding
source requires adjustments.
The Hinesburg Road shared use path project is presented in the approved FY24 CIP to be
completed from FY26 – FY28. Since this has since been deemed a higher priority by the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Committee and is the preferred project to apply for in the upcoming round of VTrans
Federal-Aid Bike/Ped Grants, the following funding reallocation is proposed.
Shift Airport Parkway Sidewalk Phase I from FY26 – FY27 to FY27 – FY28 and move Hinesburg
Road Shared Use Path from FY26 – FY28 to FY24 – FY28.
This option allows for the balance for Penny for Paths to remain a net positive and the timeline for the
Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path matches the VTrans grant program suggested timeline.
Attachments:
Grant Request Form
2023 Bike/Ped Grant Application
City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Finance Director.
Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not
permit two weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Finance Director as soon as possible.
Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed
Erica Quallen, DPW Deputy Director of Capital Projects June 5, 2023
Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date
1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date:
Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path (Williston Road to Kennedy Drive)
2023 VTrans Federal Aid Bike/Ped Grant, due June 9, 2023
2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose?
From the Grant Program Guide: “The intent of the VTrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Program is to
improve access and safety for people walking and bicycling through the planning, design and
construction of infrastructure projects. This is in direct support of the Agency of Transportation’s
Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategic Plan 2021, Objective #1: Fund, promote, and implement
appropriate infrastructure which will encourage people to walk or bike.”
South Burlington’s application this year is for approximately 1-mile of shared use path along
Hinesburg Road from Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. This project has undergone a scoping
study and the preferred alternative is to replace the existing 5-foot sidewalk on the western side of
the road with a 10-foot shared use path.
3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)?
The grant funds design, permitting, right-of-way, and construction of the project for up to 80% of
the project cost.
4. Total Project Cost:
a. Amount of grant:
$960,000 (total project)
$192,000 (requested grant)
b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)?
$192,000 (20% match) to be spent in FY24 – FY28/29.
c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are
matching funds for this grant?
No
5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it?
The match will be paid from Penny for Paths. There is adequate funding to provide the match, provided
the Airport Parkway Phase I sidewalk project is pushed out to a later date in the CIP, as described in
the attached memo.
6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe?
No
7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in
some detail)?
The grant is for a single shared use path on Hinesburg Road from Williston Road to
Kennedy Drive, however this ties into the larger shared use path network. The path will
connect the existing Kennedy Drive path to the Williston Road path which is scheduled for
construction in 2024-2025. It also provides access to the growing bicycle and pedestrian
network in City Center.
8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)?
The length of the grant will depend on the speed at which design and right-of-way can be completed.
The project will likely take approximately 4-5 years from design consultant procurement through
construction.
9. Who will apply for the grant (name/title)?
Erica Quallen, DPW Deputy Director of Capital Projects
10. How much time will it take to complete the grant application form?
The grant application will take approximately 8-10 hours to complete.
11. How likely is it that we will receive the grant?
South Burlington has been successful in receiving funding from this grant program in the past.
Given that this is an important shared use path in the City’s network and located in City Center, it is
likely to receive funding from this competitive grant program. The grant program can also partially
fund projects and if partial funding is received, the scope of the project can be reduced.
12. Who will manage (project manager) the grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person
than who is filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time
will this take and how is that time available? Are there funds available in the grant to pay for
our administrative costs? Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match?
The Project Manager for this project would be Erica Quallen, DPW Deputy Director of Capital
Projects.
13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow:
The grant funding is received through reimbursement from VTrans.
14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request?
If yes, please update status:
20ʹ͵VTrans Ǧ Bicycle and Pedestrian
Application
3URMHFW7LWOH
$SSOLFDQW1DPH V
3URMHFW&RQWDFW,QIR
D 1DPH
E 0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV
F7RZQ G=LS&RGH
H (PDLO$GGUHVV
I 3KRQH1XPEHU
$XWRPDWHG 0DQXDO &RPELQDWLRQ
)LVFDO,QIRUPDWLRQ
D$FFRXQWLQJ6\VWHP
E 8QLTXH(QWLW\,GHQWLILHU
F)LVFDO<HDU(QG0RQWK
53& V
3ULPDU\)DFLOLW\7\SH 6LGHZDON%LNH/DQH
6KRXOGHU
2WKHU 3OHDVHGHVFULEH
$SSUR[LPDWHSURMHFWOHQJWKLQIHHW
6KDUHGXVH3DWK
Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path
City of South Burlington
Erica Quallen
104 Landfill Road
South Burlington 05403
equallen@southburlingtonvt.gov
(802) 658-7961
✔
QLSMM3HYJJP1
June
Chittenden Co. RPC
✔
5200
ʹͲʹ͵Ǧ
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 3OHDVHJLYHDEULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW ZRUGVRUOHVV
'HWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQVKRXOGEHVXEPLWWHGDVSDUWRIDGGUHVVLQJWKHVHOHFWLRQFULWHULD%HVXUHWR
LQFOXGHLGHQWLI\LQJVWUHHWVRUODQGPDUNVWKDWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWOLQNVDWHLWKHUHQG HJ1HZ
FRQFUHWHVLGHZDONZLWKJUDQLWHFXUELQJRQ0DLQ6WIURP(OP6WWR0DSOH6W
The project for which the City of South Burlington is seeking funding is the design
and construction of a shared use path to replace the existing five-foot sidewalk on
approximately 1 mile of Hinesburg Road (VT 116) from Williston Road to Kennedy
Drive. This project is located directly adjacent to City Center (which includes an
elementary school, multi-family housing buildings, retail establishments, and civic
resources like City Hall and the Public Library), connects to numerous existing and
planned shared use paths, and provides access to multiple transit stops.
ʹͲʹ͵Ǧ
1Ϭ.+DYH\RXUHFHLYHGDQ\RWKHUJUDQWIXQGLQJIRUWKLVSURMHFW"3OHDVHGHVFULEHDQGLQFOXGHWKHVRXUFHRIIXQGLQJ
ϵ.(VWLPDWHG3URMHFW&RVWV
(QJLQHHULQJ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ3URMHFW0DQDJHU &RVWV
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKVXUYH\GHVLJQSODQVGHYHORSPHQWSHUPLWWLQJ
GHYHORSPHQWRIELGGRFXPHQWVELGDQDO\VLVDQG0XQLFLSDO3URMHFW
0DQDJHUW\SLFDOO\DURXQGRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ
55LJKWRI:D\ &RVWRIDSSUDLVDOVSURSHUW\RZQHUFRPSHQVDWLRQ
DQGDVVRFLDWHGOHJDOIHHV 0LQLPXPRIUHFRPPHQGHG
&RQVWUXFWLRQ &RVWRISD\LQJFRQWUDFWRUVWREXLOGSURMHFWV
LQFOXGLQJDUHDVRQDEOHFRQWLQJHQF\3OHDVHDWWDFKDVPXFKGHWDLO
EDFNXSLQIRUPDWLRQDVDYDLODEOHWRVXSSRUWWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQ
HVWLPDWH
&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QVSHFWLRQ &RVWWRSURYLGHRYHUVLJKWRIFRQWUDFWRU
GXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQW\SLFDOO\DURXQGRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ
727$/'(6,*1&216758&7,21$02817$33/,(')25
LQFOXGLQJORFDOVKDUH
(QJLQHHULQJ
$GPLQ030&RVW
52:&RVW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVW
&RQVW,QVS&RVW
$ 175,000
$ 10,000
$ 697,000
$ 78,000
$ 960,000
No other grant funding has been received for this project.
ʹͲʹ͵Ǧ
.HHS6FRSHRISURMHFWWKHVDPHDQGPDNHXSVKRUWIDOOZLWKRWKHUIXQGV
5HGXFHSURMHFWVFRSH±'HVFULEHDQGSURYLGHFRVWEUHDNGRZQ DWWDFKEDFNXS
ZLWKVXSSRUWLQJPDWHULDOVLIQHFHVVDU\
1RWH ,IWKHSURMHFWVFRSHLVWREHUHGXFHGGRFXPHQWZKDWSDUWRIWKHSURMHFW
\RXZRXOGDFFHSWSDUWLDOIXQGLQJIRUDQGEUHDNRXWWKHFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
WKDWSDUWRUVHJPHQW$WWDFKDGGLWLRQDOSDJHVLIQHFHVVDU\,IDGHTXDWH
LQIRUPDWLRQLVQRWSURYLGHGSDUWLDOIXQGLQJZLOOQRWEHFRQVLGHUHG8VH
3DUWLDO)XQGLQJ7HPSODWHSURYLGHGE\97UDQV
,)<(6SOHDVHLQGLFDWHEHORZZKHWKHUORFDOIXQGVZLOOEHXVHGWRPDNHXSWKHVKRUWIDOO
RULIWKHSURMHFWVFRSHZLOOEHUHGXFHG
:LOO\RXDFFHSWDQDZDUGOHVVWKDQ\RXDSSOLHGIRU"<(612
The City of South Burlington would be willing to accept a partial funding award to
construct a smaller segment of path on Hinesburg Road. The proposed reduced
scope would be to design and construct the ten-foot shared use path from WIlliston
Road to Barrett Street, which is a distance of roughly 1,900 feet. This reduction in
scope would still provide access to and from Williston Road, Market Street, and the
primary neighborhood on the west side of Hinesburg Road. See the partial funding
worksheet provided as an attachment to the Design and Construction Project
Criteria form.
✔
✔
2023 VTrans Bicycle/Pedestrian Program - Design/Construction Criteria
Applicant Name: City of South Burlington
Project Title--Design/Construction: Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path Design and Construction
Application Checklist – If any elements are missing, application may not be
considered.
Make sure everything is included and pages numbered.
܈ (1) Project Application Form (separate PDF file)
All other materials noted below to be provided in the same order as below.
܈ (2) Project Evaluation Criteria Documentation for the project (completed BELOW)
܈ (3) Project Map(s)
܈ (4) Budget support information (e.g. detailed cost estimate)
܈ (5) RPC review confirmation letter
܈ (6) Current letter of support from the municipal governing body acknowledging their
willingness to provide the local match and future maintenance responsibility
܈ (7) Documentation of contact with VTrans District office if project is on the state
system
܈ (8) Supporting Documentation (scoping study or equivalent report, maps, and
drawings) Note: If the scoping study is in a publicly accessible location online,
applicants may provide a link with reference to relevant pages as appropriate.
ProjectEvaluaƟonCriteriaDocumentaƟon
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
SouthBurlington,VT
DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1. Community Need—25 Points: How does the proposed project contribute to an
existing or planned bicycle and/or pedestrian network? If the proposed project is
a sidewalk along a street that already has a sidewalk, explain why the redundant
facility is needed. What destinations or populations are served? What walking
and/or bicycling access or safety problem are you trying to solve?
The Hinesburg Road shared use path would serve as a primary connection for
pedestrians and bicyclists in our City Center between the existing Kennedy Drive
shared use path and the Williston Road shared use path which will be constructed
2024/2025. This section of road was scoped in 2020 as part of Phase 2 of the South
Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study, and the replacement of the
existing sidewalk with a shared use path was deemed the preferred alternative.
Additionally, a shared use path in this area has been included on the City’s Official
Map since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
In the vicinity of the project, there are neighborhoods on both sides of Hinesburg
Road and this route serves as a major connection to Market Street, Williston Road,
Kennedy Drive, and City Center. Market Street is home to City Hall, the Public
Library, Rick Marcotte Central School, and a growing number of multi-family
residential and commercial buildings. The current shared use path network in the
area includes paths on Kennedy Drive, Dorset Street, and Market Street. By 2025,
there will also be paths on Garden Street, through City Center Park, and on Williston
Road in the area at which Hinesburg Road intersects.
South Burlington residents have made City staff aware of issues regarding the
condition of the sidewalk, concerns for riding on the road, and have expressed
interest in a shared use path here so they can travel by foot or bike to the many
nearby destinations. By constructing a shared use path, there will be a more
welcoming and accessible route for walkers and bikers to commute, get to school,
recreate, and run their daily errands.
Scoping Study (relevant pages provided as Appendix to this application):
2020_SouthBurlington_PedestrianAndBicycleFeasibilityStudy_FinalReport.pdf
2020_SouthBurlington_PedestrianAndBicycleFeasibilityStudy_Appendicies.pdf
16-25 Points – Project is an important part of a pedestrian or bicycling network
and serves obvious bike/ped generators and/or the project includes measures
identified in the FHWA STEP initiative.
6-15 Points – Project is in an area of low land use density or not clearly
contributing to a local network.
0-5 Points – Unclear how proposed facility contributes to a network or solves a
safety problem
2. Economic Development—10 Points: How does the project contribute to broad
local community and economic development goals? How does the project
contribute to ongoing local placemaking or economic development initiatives?
The project is located directly adjacent to the City Center District of South Burlington
which is a focal point for the City’s community and economic development goals. In
this area, the City is actively growing the affordable and multi-family housing stock,
range of retail and commercial services, childcare facilities, and open space
opportunities. The draft Vision and Goals for the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan
(2024 Vision and Goals Outreach.pdf) are to be “Inclusive, Fair, and Just”, “Human-
focused”, “Climate Resilient”, and “Opportunity Oriented”. The Hinesburg Road
shared use path helps to move these goals forward by providing safe and accessible
transportation for a wide range of users, emphasizes human-scale infrastructure,
encourages shifting away from vehicular travel, and provides access to housing,
retail, and employment opportunities.
6-10 Points – Specific references to community planning or economic
development documents that support the project.
0-5 Points – Vague or non-existent references to community planning or
economic development documents that support the project
3.Well-supported budget —20 points: How were the project costs developed? Are all
required project elements (admin, engineering, construction, inspection) adequately
budgeted for? Be sure to include backup documentation for project costs. Include
reasonable contingency for inflation over the life of the project.
The project quantities and costs were originally developed in 2019 for the
scoping study and have since been updated based on estimates received by the
City on similar shared use path projects. Both the scoping study and updated
cost estimates are attached to this application. Preliminary Engineering and
Project Management was estimated to be approximately 25% of the
construction estimate, Construction Inspection was estimated at 15% of
construction, and a 15% contingency was also included to account for unknowns
and potential future inflation.
11-20 Points – Cost is well documented/detailed and consistent with bid history
on similar projects.
0-10 Points – Cost is significantly less than similar projects, no detail provided or
missing costs.
4. Complexity—10 points: What complexities does your proposed project have and
how do you plan to address them? Response must address need for right of way,
anticipated permitting, natural resource constraints or identified cultural resource
(historic or archaeologic) impacts anticipated for the project. If a scoping or
planning report is attached, please highlight or reference the applicable sections.
The primary obstacles that may be encountered are outlined in the attached
“Alternatives Comparison Matrix” from the 2020 scoping study. These include utility
impacts for both existing aerial utilities and potential underground service lines, the
presence of prime agricultural soils (although the area does not currently include nor
is it planned to be used for agriculture) and rare, threatened, or endangered species,
and the need to accommodate stormwater.
The primary complexities for this project will be utility conflicts and finding adequate
space to treat stormwater. Utility conflicts can be addressed by working with GMP
and other utility providers on the poles to relocate to the east side of the road
where they are currently on the west. To treat stormwater, the design consultant
will work directly with the South Burlington Stormwater Utility staff and designers to
find space either directly in the project area or in an adjacent area where an offset
can be provided. The City has recently designed stormwater facilities which treat
runoff in chambers located under shared use path which may be explored as an
option in this area as there is no existing closed drainage system through which
stormwater can be conveyed and treated in a separate location.
Right-of-way is not anticipated to be a large hurdle for this project as there appears
to be sufficient space for the path to avoid requiring permanent easements from
adjacent property owners. Temporary easements will need to be acquired for
construction and potentially small permanent easements, but there appears to be
no major right-of-way concerns. This will be verified during design through field
surveys and property research.
6-10 Points – Fewer complexities, or thorough identification of multiple
complexities and specific efforts taken to address them.
0-5 Points – Complexities include ROW acquisition, significant permitting
challenges, design constraints, significant structural components such as bridges
or retaining walls, etc.
5. Project coordination – 5 points: To your knowledge, are there other state or local
projects in the same area that might impact the project timeline and schedule for
completion? Is the project on a state-maintained route? Is the funding being used
for elements of a larger project funded through other sources?
In the vicinity of the project, the City is planning two small-scale Flow Restoration
Projects in the Potash Brook watershed. One of these projects is an expansion of an
existing detention pond and the other is a new infiltration basin in a neighborhood
off Hinesburg Road. Both are minor in their anticipated impacts and would require
limited coordination.
A review of planned VTrans projects showed a planned resurfacing of Hinesburg
Road through this area. This project is scheduled for 2025 so the path project would
likely still be in the design phase. The resurfacing would be within the existing
roadway and the path would remain outside the edge of pavement so there are no
anticipated conflicts with these efforts.
3-5 Points – No conflicting projects.
0-2 Points – Several conflicts or coordination needs.
6. Equity—10 Points: How does your project directly address the needs of more
vulnerable populations, specifically the needs of children, older persons, people
with mobility challenges and low- or moderate-income households? What
outreach was performed to include disadvantaged communities, especially low
income, BIPOC, people with disabilities and others, in the planning of this project.
This project is strategically located and has been prioritized to serve a wide variety
of individuals from different backgrounds, income-levels, ages, and abilities. In the
project area there are neighborhoods which are home to many moderate-income
families and City Center is rapidly increasing its affordable housing stock which is
aimed to meet the needs of low-income individuals and families. Additionally, Allard
Square, located on Market Street next to this project, is an affordable senior living
facility with 39 units, many of which are available to individuals using Section 8
assistance.
The 2 census tracts located adjacent to this project both have at least 10% of their
population being foreign born or speak a language other than English at home
(higher than the average for Chittenden County). The median household income in
these tracts is between $13,000 and $19,000 less than the average Chittenden
County household. Lastly, these two tracts have the same or slightly above average
rates of individuals with disabilities (11.2 – 13.4%). These households
These New Americans, low- and moderate-income individuals, or disabled
individuals likely have different transportation needs and are more likely to use
forms of transportation other than vehicles. Providing a shared use path connection
in this densely populated area provides safe and accessible options for
transportation for people who cannot or choose not to use a vehicle so they can
walk, roll, or bike to their destinations to meet their daily needs.
The scoping study which led to this project involved public outreach which included
a public work session and discussions with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee at
their publicly warned meetings. As with most projects taking place in the City,
additional public outreach, particularly with the nearby neighbors, will be conducted
to ensure all voices are heard and the project does not place an undue burden on
these households.
6-10 Points – Project that provides direct access to a vulnerable population e.g. a
sidewalk from an underserved community, a senior center, or community center
to a downtown or clear documentation of outreach to disadvantaged
populations.
1-5 Points – Equity is only addressed in broad terms.
0 Points – Equity not addressed.
7. Multi-modal potential —5 points: How does your proposed project coordinate
with other modes of transportation? Will it improve walking or bicycling access to
transit, rail service or park and ride facilities?
Along Hinesburg Road, Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive, there are multiple GMT
transit stops to which this shared use path would connect. The routes which travel
along these roads are the 1 (Burlington to/from Williston), the 11 (Burlington
to/from the Airport), and the 46 (The 116 Commuter).
5 Points – Project provides direct access to another transportation mode e.g. a
sidewalk that connects directly to a transit stop or park and ride
0-4 Points – Project is part of a larger plan to connect to another transportation
mode in the near future
8. State designated centers —5 points: Is the proposed project within a state
designated center?
The project is located directly adjacent to a State Designated New Town Center, as
shown in the attached base map.
5 Points – Project is contained primarily within a state designated center (such as
downtowns, villages, or neighborhood growth centers recognized by the
Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development).
0-4 Points – Project leads to, but is not primarily within, a state designated
center.
Designated centers can be confirmed on the state Planning Atlas -
http://maps.vermont.gov/ACCD/PlanningAtlas/index.html?viewer=PlanningAtlas
9. Project Management—10 Points: Describe your plan for keeping this project
moving forward. What management practices do you now have, or plan to put in
place, to successfully administer the project from design through construction?
Who will manage the project (municipal staff, RPC, consultant, or other)?
The Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path is similar to numerous other South Burlington
projects which have been successfully managed by the Department of Public Works.
DPW staff would serve as the project management team for this project as well. Our
staff believes in open communication with consultants and contractors to ensure
that the project stays on track in schedule and budget, and if this does not appear to
be the case, conversations occur early and often to find ways to get the project back
on track.
City staff have strong working relationships with VTrans Project Managers and have
successfully navigated many complex projects such as the Dorset Street and Spear
Street shared use paths and the I-89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge.
The Municipal Project Manager is anticipated to be Erica Quallen (DPW Deputy
Director of Capital Projects), with oversight from Tom DiPietro (DPW Director). As
needed along the life of the project, the team will coordinate with other City staff
from the stormwater division, Planning and Zoning, and Community Development.
6-10 Points – Plan outlined for managing the project, including adequate or
additional staffing.
0-5 Points – Vague or ill-defined management plan.
WƌŽũĞĐƚDĂƉ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
SouthBurlington,VT
'256(7 67
:,//,
6
7
2
1
5
',17(567$7( 6,17(567$7( 1
:+,7(
6
7
0
$
5
.
(
7
6
7
,%<
6
7 (/620 3.:<6+(55< 5'3$7&+(1 5'
,17(567$7
(
:0$5< 679,&725,$ '5
$63(1
'
5
,17(567$7(
(9,&725< '52$.:22' '57,0%(5 /1
6,03621
&
7
3,1(
7
5
(
(
7
(
50<(56 &7
7:,12$.6
7
(
5%,5&+ 67+23.,16 67
35287<
3
.
:
<*,/%(57 670,'$6'5%$5%(5 7(5
0$<)
$
,
5
6
7&+$5/(6 67
%522.:2
2
'
'
5 '$9,6 3.:<
/,/$&
/
1 +($7+ 67+(/(1 $9(+$<'(13.:<'($1(
6
76/2&80 67
6287+9,(:
'
5
:22'/$1'
3
/:5,*+7 &768%85%$1 64
+,&.25<
/
1
$/
/
<
6
5
8
1
62
8
7
+
5
'
(VUL +(5( *DUPLQ F 2SHQ6WUHHW0DS FRQWULEXWRUV DQG WKH *,6 XVHU
FRPPXQLW\ &KLWWHQGHQ &RXQW\ 53& 9&*, (VUL +(5( *DUPLQ
*HR7HFKQRORJLHV ,QF 86*6 (3$
/HJHQG
%LNH3HG,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
([LVWLQJ6LGHZDON
3ODQQHG6LGHZDON
([LVWLQJ6KDUHG8VH3DWK
3ODQQHG6KDUHG8VH3DWK
([LVWLQJ%LNH/DQH
3ODQQHG%LNH/DQH
+RXVLQJ
6LQJOH)DPLO\
0XOWL)DPLO\
6WDWH 'HVLJQDWHG 1HZ 7RZQ &HQWHU
3URMHFW $UHD
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97
+LQHVEXUJ5RDG 97 6KDUHG8VH3DWK
m
0LOHV
Rick Marcotte
Central School
Frederick H.Tuttle MiddleSchool
South Burlington
High School
.
City Hall
Library
University
Mall
ƵĚŐĞƚ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
SouthBurlington,VT
Item QTY UnitUnitPrice(RecentlyReceivedConsultantEstimate)Estimate RoundedEstimateClearingandGrubbing 1.1 acre 33,800.00$37,180.00$40,000.00$UnclassifiedEx 3100 CY 15.00$46,500.00$50,000.00$ExofSurfacesandPavement 500 CY 30.00$15,000.00$20,000.00$RetainingWall 50 CY 190.00$9,500.00$10,000.00$GravelSubbase 1900 CY 40.00$76,000.00$80,000.00$SandBorrow 1100 CY 30.00$33,000.00$40,000.00$VertGraniteCurb 600 LF 50.00$30,000.00$30,000.00$SuperpaveBituminous 800 ton 90.00$72,000.00$80,000.00$PCCSidewalk,5inch 95 SY 90.00$8,550.00$10,000.00$Ramps 12 each 3,300.00$39,600.00$40,000.00$DWS 810 SF 46.00$37,260.00$40,000.00$PavementMarkings 1 LS 49,000.00$49,000.00$50,000.00$Signs&Posts 24 each 170.00$4,080.00$5,000.00$Seed 1100 SY 18.00$19,800.00$20,000.00$SUBTOTAL515,000.00$ROW10,000.00$PE&MPM(25%)175,000.00$TrafficControl(10%)52,000.00$Mobilization(10%)52,000.00$Contingency(15%)78,000.00$ConstructionInspection(15%)78,000.00$TOTAL 960,000.00$HinesburgRoadSharedUsePathSouthBurlington,VTJune2023
ApplicantName:CityofSouthBurlington
ProjectTitle:HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
Description:
Designandconstructionofreplacing5'sidewalk
with10'sharedusepathonHinesburgRd
(VT116)fromWillistonRoadtoBarrettStreet
(~1,900feet)
MunicipalProjectManagementand
Administration $15,000
Engineering $45,000
ROWestimate $10,000
Construction $250,000
ConstructionInspection&Engineering $37,500
TotalforPartialFundingProject $357,500
PartialProjectFunding
AttachmentF:
2023PartialFundingDocumentation
ZWZĞǀŝĞǁŽŶĨŝƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ>ĞƚƚĞƌ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePathSouth
Burlington,VT
May 30, 2023
Peter Pochop
Project Delivery Bureau, Project Manager
VT Agency of Transportation
219 North Main Street
Barre, VT 05641
Dear Peter:
This letter is in support of the City of South Burlington’s application to the VTrans Federal Aid
Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program for replacing a sidewalk with a shared use path
connecting Williston Road to Kennedy Drive. This project will close a gap in the City’s shared
use path network by providing a path from the existing path on Kennedy Drive to the planned
path on Williston Road. This important corridor is also identified in the 2022 Regional Active
Transportation Plan as part of the regional walk/bike network.
This project is supported by several sections of the CCRPC’s ECOS Plan. One of the four broad
goals established at the beginning of the document states:
“Make public and private investments in the built environment to minimize environmental
impact, maximize financial efficiency, optimize social equity and benefits, and improve public
health.” ECOS Plan page 8
In the transportation discussion of key issues there’s this finding:
“More robust investment in transportation options – transit, walking/biking, carsharing and
ridesharing – could reduce congestion, vehicle miles traveled, use of single occupancy vehicles,
social exclusion, and could improve public health, and enhance the economic well-being of our
residents, businesses and visitors.” ECOS Plan page 63
Under future transportation investments, one of the identified focal areas is to:
“Expand walking and biking infrastructure to support active transportation and to provide
interconnection with the region’s transit system.” ECOS Plan page 93
The Public Health section also includes this as a priority strategy:
“Obesity -- Create policies and environmental supports that increase access to active
transportation, active recreation, and healthy foods.” ECOS Plan Page 103
The financial section of the transportation element of ECOS also notes a recommended shift in
new transportation funding away from roadway investments and more into transportation
alternatives like walking and cycling projects (see ECOS Plan page 180).
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404-2109
802-846-4490
www.ccrpcvt.org
The Plan section on implementing transportation corridor improvements identifies this priority:
“Expanding the bicycle and pedestrian networks with on- and off-road facilities and more
sidewalks.” ECOS Plan page 181
This project is also supported by the following goals from our 2017 Active Transportation Plan:
x “Provide accessible, safe, efficient, interconnected, secure, equitable and sustainable
mobility choices for our region’s businesses, residents and visitors.”
x “Encourage walking and biking in local communities through work with towns, schools,
businesses and community walk-bike groups.”
x “Expand walking and biking infrastructure to provide interconnection with the region’s
transit system.”
Thank you for your consideration of this project.
Sincerely,
Bryan Davis
Senior Transportation Planner
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů>ĞƚƚĞƌŽĨ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
SouthBurlington,VT
sdƌĂŶƐŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϱEŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePathSouth
Burlington,VT
1
Erica Quallen
From:Kane, Alysha <Alysha.Kane@vermont.gov>
Sent:Thursday, June 1, 2023 2:21 PM
To:Erica Quallen
Cc:Cota, Jim
Subject:'EXTERNAL'FW: VTrans 2023 Bike/Ped Grant Application - Hinesburg Road (VT116) Shared Use Path
Attachments:Hinesburg Road Project Area Basemap.pdf
ThismessagehasoriginatedfromanExternalSource.Pleaseuseproperjudgmentandcautionwhenopening
attachments,clickinglinks,orrespondingtothisemail.
Good Afternoon Erica,
Sounds like this was discussed before I joined D5 but the District is still in support as long as everything Jim
mentions below is followed.
Stay Safe and Have a Great Day,
Alysha Kane | Project Manager
District 5 | Maintenance Bureau
District Maintenance & Fleet Division
Vermont Agency of Transportation
189 Troy Ave Colchester, VT 05446
802-461-6556 | alysha.kane@vermont.gov
https://vtrans.vermont.gov
ȱ
From:Cota,Jim<Jim.Cota@vermont.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,May30,20231:00PM
To:Kane,Alysha<Alysha.Kane@vermont.gov>;Patnoe,Ernie<Ernie.Patnoe@vermont.gov>
Cc:Cota,Jim<Jim.Cota@vermont.gov>
Subject:FW:VTrans2023Bike/PedGrantApplicationͲHinesburgRoad(VT116)SharedUsePath
Thiswasdiscussedinthepast.TheDistrictremainssupporƟveaslongascivilengineeringpracƟcesare
followed.Meaningnoslopestoosteep,noaddiƟonalDistrictmaintenance,atotalseparaƟonofmaintenance
responsibilityonthehighwaysideofanysidewalkorpathetc.
JimCota
VTransMaintenanceDistrict5
VTrans District 5 Webpage
2
From:EricaQuallen<equallen@southburlingtonvt.gov>
Sent:Tuesday,May30,202310:26AM
To:Patnoe,Ernie<Ernie.Patnoe@vermont.gov>;Cota,Jim<Jim.Cota@vermont.gov>
Subject:VTrans2023Bike/PedGrantApplicationͲHinesburgRoad(VT116)SharedUsePath
EXTERNALSENDER:Donotopenattachmentsorclickonlinksunlessyourecognizeandtrustthesender.
HiErnieandJim,
TheCityofSouthBurlingtonisplanningtoapplyforthe2023VTransBike/PedGrantProgramforasharedusepathon
HinesburgRoad(VT116)fromWillistonRoadtoKennedyDrive.Comingoutofascopingstudyafewyearsback,the
preferredalternaƟveistoreplacetheexisƟng5Ͳfootsidewalkonthewesternsideoftheroadwitha10Ͳfootshareduse
path.ThiswouldconnectthesharedusepathonKennedyDrivetothesoonͲtoͲbeconstructedsharedusepathon
WillistonRoad,aswellasprovidingaccessfornonͲvehiculartravelerstoCityCenter.WhiletheCityownsandmaintains
thesidewalkandwouldconƟnuetoownandmaintainasharedusepath,thiswouldinvolveimpactstotheStateͲowned
highway.I’mreachingouttoseeiftheDistrictissupporƟveofthisprojectand/orhasanyconcernsabouttheCity
movingforwardwiththisapplicaƟon.TheprojectareabasemapisaƩachedforreference.
Thanks!
Best,
EricaQuallen
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business,
concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon
request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
^ĐŽƉŝŶŐ^ƚƵĚLJ
HinesburgRoadSharedUsePath
SouthBurlington,VT
South Burlington, VT
Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
Volume 2
September 2020
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
2
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
P 802.846.4490
F 802.846.4494
www.ccrpcvt.org
Submitted by:
Toole Design
2 Oliver Street, Suite 305
Boston, MA 02109
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
3
Project Steering Committee (PSC)
Peter Keating, Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission
Justin Rabidoux, City of South Burlington
Paul Conner, City of South Burlington
Katelin Brewer-Cole, Local Motion
Amanda Holland, City of South Burlington Bicycle &
Pedestrian Committee
This scoping study was a collaborative effort of the City of South Burlington, Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission, Local Motion, and Toole Design, who possessed a wealth of combined
knowledge and expertise regarding project background, history, local insight, and existing conditions.
Their valuable insight and assistance were instrumental in developing the implementation strategy.
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State
Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title
23, U.S. Code, as well as matching funds provided by Chittenden County’s municipalities and the
Vermont Agency of Transportation. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
7
Figure 1: Project Study Area
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
8
1.3 Project Oversight
This scoping study project was conducted and coordinated with public involvement through workshops,
presentations, and meetings with the steering committee.
Project meetings and public involvement included the following:
x Kickoff Meeting: October 16, 2017 – Steering Committee Members and Toole Design staff
met to discuss project scope, study area limits, and schedule.
x Preliminary Alternatives Discussion: May 3, 2018 – Steering Committee Members and
Toole Design staff held a conference call to discuss design alternatives and to develop a purpose
and need statement.
x Working Group Conference Call: July 17, 2018 – Steering Committee Members and Toole
Design staff held a conference call to discuss design alternatives and the preparation needed for
the Public Work Session.
x Public Work Session: July 25, 2018 – Toole Design staff presented the design plan
alternatives to members of the public.
x Project Team Conference Call: October 9, 2018 – Steering Committee Members and
Toole Design staff held a conference call to discuss comments received from the Public Work
Session.
1.4 Project Purpose and Need
1.4.1 Purpose
The purpose of the South Burlington Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study is to provide analysis,
evaluation, and recommendations for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities at the four (4) identified study
areas in support of the City of South Burlington’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan, as enumerated below:
x Goal: Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit options while accommodating the automobile.
x Objective 17: Provide a transportation network that complies with Complete Street mandates
and maximizes efficiency and safety for all types of users (pedestrians, cyclists, transit,
automobiles, trucks, rail, and air).
x Strategy 45: Develop and build a City-wide sidewalk and recreation path plan that identifies and
prioritizes gaps to link various neighborhood and community focal points.
1.4.2 Need
Specifically, this feasibility study is needed to:
x Create a preferred alternative for walking and bicycling through the Spear Street, Hinesburg
Road, Allen Road, and Fayette Drive corridors within the identified study areas;
x Maximize safety and ease of use for current and future users walking and bicycling in these
corridors;
x Support future connections in the City of South Burlington; and
x Provide an estimate of probable construction costs of the preferred alternatives to serve as a
basis for the City to apply for funding grants.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
19
2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Historic and Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) was not conducted as part of this study because there
are not considered to be any areas of historic or pre-contact sensitivity within or adjacent to the right-
of-way.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists primarily of single-family residential
development with multi-family housing located below the escarpment at various points along the
roadway.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties
Section 4(f) properties include publicly-owned park and recreation areas, publicly-owned wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and publicly- or privately-owned historic sites. Historic sites include prehistoric and
historic districts and sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in, or eligible for, the National Register
of Historic Places.1
Section 6(f) properties are properties acquired with Land and Water Conservation Act funds and
coordinated with the Department of Interior. Usually replacement in kind is required.2
The following properties may be subject to Section 4(f) designation:
x 1400 Spear Street
x 1435 Spear Street
x Overlook Park (1575 Spear Street)
No properties were identified that may be subject to Section 6(f) designation.
2.5 Hinesburg Road
This study includes a segment of Hinesburg Road between Williston Road/U.S. Route 2 and Kennedy
Drive. Hinesburg Road is relatively level topographically. Near the southern end of the study area, there
is a downward slope into the Potash Brook valley, then back upwards on the approach to Kennedy
Drive.
2.5.1 Roadway Characteristics
Hinesburg Road is a Principal Arterial that runs north-south. Refer to Table 2 for roadway
characteristics of Hinesburg Road. Within the study area, it is signed as Vermont Route 116. Hinesburg
Road is a two-lane roadway that carries two-way traffic. Refer to Table 2 for typical roadway
characteristics. Additional lanes for turning traffic are provided at the Price Chopper driveway, Market
Street, and Kennedy Drive. The typical cross section includes 11.5-ft travel lanes with 3- to 4-ft
shoulders. Parked vehicles were noted on the northbound shoulder near Market Street during a field
visit.
A sidewalk is located along the west side of the roadway for the entire length of Hinesburg Road within
the study area. It has a typical width of 4.5 ft and is offset from the roadway by a 5-ft grass buffer. There
is a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway starting at Kennedy Drive and extending northward to the
1 FHWA Section 4(f) Tutorial: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/section4f/properties.aspx. Accessed February
2018.
2 Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Act. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/wadiv/envir/section6f.cfm. Accessed
February 2018.
2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Historic and Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) was not conducted as part of this study because there
are not considered to be any areas of historic or pre-contact sensitivity within or adjacent to the right-
of-ff way.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists primarily of single-family residential
development with multi-family housing located below the escarpment at various points along the
roadway.
Section 4(f) and 6(f)Properties
Section 4(f) properties include publicly-owned park and recreation areas,publicly-owned wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and publicly-or privately-owned historic sites. Historic sites include prehistoric and
historic districts and sites, buildings, structures or objects listed in, or eligible for, the National Register
of Historic Places.1
Section 6(f) properties are properties acquired with Land and Water Conservation Act funds and
coordinated with the Department of Interior. Usually replacement in kind is required.2
The following properties may be subject to Section 4(f) designation:
x 1400 Spear Street
x 1435 Spear Street
x Overlook Park (1575 Spear Street)
No properties were identified that may be subject to Section 6(f) designation.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
20
550 Hinesburg Road driveway. The Awasiwi Trail is a walking trail that parallels the Potash Brook and
crosses Hinesburg Road near 550 Hinesburg Road.
No dedicated bicycle facilities are provided on Hinesburg Road. The typical cross section features
marked shoulders that vary in width along the length of the corridor from 2 to 4 ft. A shoulder
narrower than 4 ft is too narrow to be considered a bicycle facility. No shoulders are provided on the
approaches to Williston Road or Kennedy Drive. Given the high traffic volume and speed and lack of
consistent shoulder width, conditions for bicyclists can be considered “high stress.”
The intersections at both ends of the study area at Williston Road and Kennedy Drive are signalized.
Several unsignalized intersections are located along Hinesburg Road consisting of three- and four-way
intersections where the minor approaches are stop-controlled.
Table 2: Hinesburg Road Roadway Characteristics (source: VTrans Route Log Data)
2.5.2 Land Use
Land use along the corridor consists mostly of low- to moderate-density residential development. A
cemetery is located on the east side near the middle of the corridor. The northern end of the study
area at Williston Road features one-story commercial uses. Several office buildings and multi-unit
residential developments are located near the southern end of the study area at Kennedy Drive.
Hinesburg Road is adjacent to a development project called City Center, which aims to create a new
mixed-use downtown area for the City of South Burlington. The project site is located directly to the
west of Hinesburg Road. Modeling conducted for the 2010 South Burlington, Market Street Improvements
STP 5200 (17) Revised Environmental Assessment predicted an increase in traffic on Hinesburg Road and
intersecting streets with the proposed development. Market Street, the envisioned main street of City
Center, ends at Hinesburg Road near the northern end of the study area. It is reasonable to assume that
future development of the City Center site will increase travel demand for all modes along the
Hinesburg Road corridor.
2.5.3 Natural Resources
Water Bodies, Wetlands, and Floodplains
As shown in Figure 9, there are two streams that cross Hinesburg Road in the study area. In the north,
there is a stream with an associated FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area between Williston Road and
Village Green Drive. Between Prouty Parkway and Kennedy Drive in the south, Potash Brook is a
Priority Stream and its associated Special Flood Hazard Area crosses the study area.
There is also a VSWI wetland on the east side of Hinesburg Road at Barrett Street.
Hinesburg Road
Functional classification Principal Arterial
Length within study area 1 mile
Jurisdiction Municipal
Right-of-way width (feet) 67 - 70 ft *
Roadway width (feet) 30 ft typical. Widens to 40 ft at some intersections
2016 AADT** 10,295
Posted speed limit 35 MPH
*Approximate Right-of-Way
**AADT= Average Annual Daily Traffic
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
21
Agricultural Lands or Soils
Although the study area does include Statewide and Prime Agricultural Soils (Figure 10), it does not
include land currently used for agriculture and the area is unlikely to be used for agriculture in the
future.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
Figure 11 shows that there is one location in the Hinesburg Road study area that contains an
Uncommon Species. This site is at the southern end between Deane Street and Kennedy Drive.
2.5.4 Built Environment
Utilities
Figure 12 indicates that there are water, gas, and sewer lines present along this section of Hinesburg
Road, as well as overhead utilities. The intensity of utilities in this area means that there may be utility
impacts if a new facility is constructed.
Stormwater Management
At either end of the study area (that is, the intersections with Williston Road and with Kennedy Drive),
there are high concentrations of stormwater lines. At the Williston Road intersection there are multiple
catch basins that accompany these lines, but the GIS data for the area around Kennedy Drive (Figure
13) did not indicate as many catch basins. The data show there are small segments of stormwater line
crossing Hinesburg Road at various locations between Woodcrest Drive and Kennedy Drive, but as
they do not appear to be connected to a larger system, they may actually be culverts. The stormwater
line extending from Barrett Street crosses Hinesburg Road, and there is a segment along Hinesburg
Road that is approximately 1,200 ft in length extending south from Wright Court.
Hazardous Waste
Parcels within the study containing hazardous waste are located at 26 Hinesburg Road, 290 Hinesburg
Road, 620 Hinesburg Road, and 110 Kennedy Drive. See Figure 13.
2.5.5 Cultural Resources
Historic and Archeological
An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) was not conducted as part of this study because there
are not considered to be any areas of historic or pre-contact sensitivity within or adjacent to the right-
of-way.
Architectural
The building stock located within the study area consists primarily of single-family residential
development and some one-story commercial/retail buildings. There are some office buildings and multi-
unit residential buildings near the intersection with Kennedy Drive.
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties
The following properties may be subject to Section 4(f) designation:
x St. John Vianney Church (160 Hinesburg Road)
x 400 Hinesburg Road
No properties were identified that may be subject to Section 6(f) designation.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
22
Figure 9: Hinesburg Road Wetlands
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
49
3.2 Hinesburg Road
3.2.1 Evaluation of Concept Alternatives
Alternative 1: Bike Lanes
Alternative 1 envisions improvements that could be implemented in the short- to medium-term as part
of a corridor repaving and/or restriping project. It features bike lanes along the entire length of
Hinesburg Road within the study area with the exception of the approaches to the signalized
intersections at Williston Road and Kennedy Drive at either end. At both intersections, bike lanes are
terminated prior to the approach to accommodate existing turning lanes and shared lane markings are
provided to indicate which lane bicyclists should use to proceed through the intersection. The typical
cross section along the corridor features travel lanes narrowed to a width of 10 ft and the bike lanes
would be at least 5 ft wide. This amounts to total cross section width of 30 ft which is what typically
exists today but may require minor widening by a foot or two in certain sections. A typical cross-section
within the study area corridor is shown in Figure 31. Refer to the Appendix for conceptual design
roll plan for all recommendations. Alternative 1 includes the following spot recommendations:
x Upgrade existing crosswalks and curb ramps to meet ADA standards;
x Provide crosswalks and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) across Hinesburg Road at
or near Ruth Street, Wright Court, Prouty Parkway, and just north of the 550 Hinesburg Road
driveway to improve connectivity along the Potash Brook hiking trail; and
x Install RRFBs at existing crosswalk in front of the St. John Vianney Church. Maintain accessible
parking spaces to preserve access to the church (Figure 32).
Alternative 2: Shared Use Path
Alternative 2 envisions improvements that can be implemented as part of a longer-term reconstruction
of the corridor. In this alternative, a shared use path with a typical width of 10 ft is proposed for
construction along the west side of Hinesburg Road. At the northern end, it would connect with the
planned shared use path to be built as part of the reconstruction of the Williston Road/Hinesburg Road
intersection. At the approach to the intersection with Kennedy Drive, the path would bend westward
to connect with the existing shared use path on Kennedy Drive at a right angle. A typical cross-section
Figure 31: Hinesburg Road
Alternative 1 Cross Section Figure 32: Proposed Recommendations at
St. John Vianney Church
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
50
within the study area corridor is shown in Figure 33. While this can be accommodated within the
City’s right-of-way, it would require substantial widening. Refer to the Appendix for conceptual design
roll plan for all recommendations. Alternative 2 includes the following spot recommendations:
x Upgrade existing crosswalks and curb ramps to meet ADA standards;
x Provide crosswalks and RRFBs across Hinesburg Road at or near Ruth Street, Wright Court,
Prouty Parkway, and just
north of the 550 Hinesburg
Road driveway to improve
connectivity along the
Potash Brook hiking trail;
x Install RRFBs at existing
crosswalk in front of the St.
John Vianney Church.
Maintain accessible parking
spaces to preserve access to
the church; and
x At the intersection of
Market Street, connect the
proposed shared use path to
shared use paths on both
sides of Market Street
planned as part of the Market
Street/Hinesburg Road
intersection reconstruction.
3.2.2 Preferred Concept Alternative
At their October 10, 2018 meeting, the South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee indicated
preference for upgrading this area in phases starting with crosswalks and striping followed by the
addition of bike lanes (Alternative 1) and the eventual construction of a shared use path (Alternative 2).
At the time of finalizing this report, a formal decision on a preferred alternative had yet to be made by
the City.
Alternative 1 could be completed as part of a paving/restriping project and would likely add
some bicycle facilities long before funds become available for Alternative 2. Alternative 2
upgrades the existing sidewalk network to become a shared use path for both pedestrians and
bicyclists. It not only benefits bicyclists by providing a connection between Williston Road and
Kennedy Drive, but pedestrians will also have a more comfortable facility to use. At the same
time, these roadway users will be separated from vehicular traffic.3.2.3 Opinion of Probable
Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs for Hinesburg Road Alternative 1 is $180,000 and
Alternative 2 is $560,000. The cost of constructing a shared use path is higher than retrofitting bicycle
facilities onto an existing roadway. However, the safety and comfort level benefits are substantial for all
roadway users. The cost estimate was developed from the concept alternative plans and account for the
anticipated construction costs which include engineering, construction, construction administration, and
a 20% contingency. The cost estimate does not include potential environmental permitting, easements,
or property acquisition. The property acquisition would only be a factor for Alternative 2 and can likely
be designed to be avoidable. If not, there are up to 7 properties where narrow slivers (~1 ft wide)
would be needed.
Figure 33: Hinesburg Road Alternative 2 Cross Section
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
51
3.2.4 Evaluation Matrix
All of the anticipated costs, resource impacts, and permit requirements for Hinesburg Road Alternative
1 and Alternative 2 have been summarized in the evaluation matrix below in Table 6: Hinesburg Road
Alternatives Comparison Matrix.
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
52
Table 6: Hinesburg Road Alternatives Comparison Matrix
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study
63
4.0 Project Summary
4.1 Conclusion
The South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study was prepared at the request of the
CCRPC and the City of South Burlington to analyze and evaluate all concept alternatives for sidewalk
and shared use path connections. This report presents the existing conditions data, conceptual design
alternatives, selection of the preferred conceptual design alternative, and opinion of probable
construction costs for each project study area. While decisions on preferred alternatives had not been
made official at the time of this report’s publishing, the South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee were interested in pursuing the following alternatives listed below as of either their
10/10/18 or 12/10/18 meeting:
x Spear Street – Alternative 2 (Shared Use Path north of Swift Street and Bike Lanes south of
Swift Street)
x Hinesburg Road – Alternative 1 (Bike Lanes) followed by Alternative 2 (Shared Use Path)
as funding permits
x Allen Road/Baycrest Drive/Harbor View Road – Undecided as of publishing
x Fayette Drive – Alternative 2 (Shared Use Path)
The South Burlington, VT Pedestrian and Bicycle Feasibility Study is an important step in advancing a
more walkable, bikeable, and vibrant community. The process which crafted this document is only the
beginning and the conversation must continue to real project implementation. It is worth noting for
project implementation, individual recommendations may be broken out as smaller projects separate
from the entire preferred design alternative project. It’s recommended the City collaborate with the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to develop an action plan that identifies potential project timeframes
for the recommended improvements. This may be advantageous from a development, funding, and
phasing implementation perspective.
The proposed recommendations and design alternatives align with the transportation goals in the 2016
South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and will continue to develop walking and bicycling infrastructure
within the community.
Prepared By: Toole Design Group
Date: April 2019
Alternative 2 - Preferred
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Clearing and Grubbing 1.1 Acre $33,800.00 $37,200
Unclassified Excavation 3100 CY $20.50 $63,600
Excavation of Surfaces and Pavements 500 CY $22.00 $11,000
Retaining Wall 50 CY $189.00 $9,500
Subbase of Gravel 1900 CY $25.00 $47,500
Subbase Sand Borrow 1100 CY $20.00 $22,000
Vertical Granite Curb 600 LF $36.00 $21,600
Superpave Bituminous Concrete Pavement 800 TON $77.00 $61,600
Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, 5 inch 95 SY $69.00 $6,600
Accessible Ramps 12 EA $3,300.00 $39,600
Detectable Warning Surface 810 SF $46.00 $37,300
Pavement Markings 1 LS $48,976.00 $49,000
Traffic Signs & Posts 24 EA $170.00 $4,100
Loam & Seed 1100 SY $15.00 $16,500
Annual Maintenance 5200 LF $0.30 $1,600
Erosion Control 1 EA $3,661.94 $3,700
Traffic Controls (3%) 1 LS $12,861.00 $12,900
Mobilization (3%) 1 LS $12,861.00 $12,900
SUBTOTAL = $460,000
CONTINGENCY AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (20%) = $92,000
TOTAL = $560,000.00
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction
Hinesburg Road | South Burlington, VT
Alternative 2 - Shared Use Path
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.SouthBurlingtonVT.gov
To: Jessie Baker, City Manager
From:
Cc:
Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director
Colin McNeil
Subject: Award Contract to Provide Legal Services for ROW Acquisition in City
Center.
Date: June 1, 2023
Background: Several transportation projects are underway in City Center that
require right-of-way to accommodate transportation needs. To provide
appropriate connections, increase capacity, and facilitate pedestrian
and bicycle travel, the engineers on each project have identified areas
where acquisition of right-of-way is needed – both permanent and
temporary.
The City follows State and Federal process to acquire right-of-way.
Once plans and have been developed the City will need title searches,
warranty deeds using VTrans approved language, and support with a
necessity hearing, follow-up with attorneys (particularly with mortgage
companies or other parties with an interest in the property) to obtain
signatures and a final opinion regarding the whether the City has
acquired the required rights, and all in compliance with the Uniform Act
(the federal law regarding acquisition of property).
The RAISE grant agreement requires right-of-way clearance (clear title)
for the East-West Alternative Transportation Crossing (the walk bike
bridge) by December of this year.
Proposals
The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on May 3, 2023.
Proposals were due on May 23. Notice of the RFP was listed on the
Vermont Bid System and on the City’s website. The RFP was also sent
out to a few firms. At least one recipient responded they would not be
bidding.
Two respondents, Paul Frank + Collins and Primmer Piper Eggleston &
Cramer provided a response on May 25. VTrans and the City’s legal
staff assisted in reviewing the proposals.
The firms were evaluated on knowledge and experience as well as the
capacity to complete the work in a timely fashion. While the firms were
fairly evenly matched, Paul Frank + Collins has specific experience with
VTrans in acquiring roadway right-of-way which was reflected in the
slightly higher scoring (85 versus 81.6). The difference in labor rates
between the two firms was not significant.
Projects
These services are proposed to be used for the East West Alternative
Transportation Crossing (Walk Bike Bridge). The City is also exploring
whether this contract may used for similar work on additional projects.
Attachments: •Request for Proposals
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with
Paul Frank + Collins P.C. for legal services in support of City Center
right-of-way acquisition.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager & South Burlington City Council
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Kelsey Peterson, City Planner
SUBJECT: City Council public hearing and possible action to adopt LDR Amendment #LDR-23-01, Solar PV
for commercial buildings and and LDR-23-02, minor & technical amendments
DATE: June 5, 2023 City Council meeting
Enclosed with your packet please find two sets of amendments, LDR-23-01 (Solar PV for new buildings subject
to Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards) and LDR-23-02 (minor & technical amendments). The
Council held its first reading on May 1, following a 5-0 approval from the Planning Commission in April.
The Council is invited to open and hold the public hearing, receive a summary of the amendments from staff if
desired, and invite public input. Following the hearing, the Council may take action to adopt the amendments
or consider changes.
Council motion to open Public Hearing: “I move to open the public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Land Development Regulations #LDR-23-01 and LDR-23-02”
Council motion to close Public Hearing: “I move to close the public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Land Development Regulations #LDR-23-01 and LDR-23-02”
Council motion to adopt the amendments, if desired: “I move to adopt amendments to the Land
Development Regulations #LDR-23-01 and LDR-23-02 as presented”
Brief summary of the amendments
LDR-23-01 -- Solar PV for buildings subject to the Commercial Building Energy Standards
The proposed amendment would require the installation of a Solar PV system affiliated with a required “Solar-
Ready Zone” for new buildings subject to the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES). The
system would be sized to maximize the use of the Solar-Ready Zone and can be reduced in scale where the
output of the Solar PV would exceed the expected building usage or where the applicable power utility states
that it cannot accommodate the scale of facility. The Solar PV is, additionally, not required to be interconnected
with the utility.
This amendment is included among the current year’s Planning Commission Policy Priorities and was
additionally a recommended action from the Climate Action Plan. It stems from a presentation made to the
Commission from the Energy Committee in January 2021. At that time, the Commission elected to separate the
two components of the recommendation: requirements for establishment of a Solar-Ready Zone as defined in
the CBES (adopted by the City Council in February 2022), and the present Solar PV requirement. The
Commission reviewed this amendment at meetings in November 2022 and March 2023 prior to warning its
public hearing. The amendment would
LDR-23-02 – Minor and Technical Amendments
These are a series of corrections to numbering and cross-references in the LDR.
Enclosed with this memo are the amendments as approved by the Commission as well as the Commission’s
Report on the amendments.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Public Hearing Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:30 pm
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2023
at 7:30 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
Zoom. Participation options:
• In-Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
• Interactive Online: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncil-06-05-2023
• Telephone: (646) 749-3122; Access Code: 484-482-333
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following:
A. LDR-23-01: Required installation of solar photovoltaic system for new buildings subject to Vermont
Commercial Building Energy Standards
B. LDR-23-02: Minor and Technical Amendments
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 Chair
May 11, 2023
LDR-23-01
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
LDR-23-01: Required installation of solar photovoltaic system for new buildings
subject to Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards
NOTE: ALL TEXT BELOW ARE PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE LDR.
3.19 On-Site Solar Photovoltaic Systems
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to implement renewable energy objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan by providing for the installation of on-site solar photovoltaic,
or other renewable energy generation, on new buildings in concert with Solar-Ready Zone definitions
established by the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES).
B. Applicability and Standard. This section shall apply to the receipt of a zoning permit for the
construction and subsequent alteration of any building that, beginning [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF LDR]
is required by these regulations and/or the CBES, as amended from time to time, to establish a “solar-
ready zone”. For any such building required to establish a solar-ready zone, there shall be installed a solar
photovoltaic (“Solar PV”) system designed to maximize the use of the area of the Solar-Ready Zone
employing typical Solar PV panel configurations, provided that
(1) The requirement set forth herein shall be reduced to the extent:
(a) The interconnection with the relevant utility cannot accommodate (i.e., due to limited
plant capacity) a Solar PV system designed to maximize the use of the area of the Solar-Ready
Zone employing typical Solar PV panel configurations, or
(b) The Solar PV system is anticipated to generate in its first year of operation more kilowatt
hours (kWh) than the “Expected Building Usage.”
(i) The kWh that a Solar PV system is anticipated to generate shall be estimated based
on the building site conditions by applying the “PVWatts Calculator” published by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, or an equivalent or successor calculator.
(ii) The “Expected Building Usage” shall be an estimate of the number of kWhs the
building is expected to consume during its first full year of typical operation, based on building
type and uses, building technology, devices and appliances in the Northeastern U.S. (such as
the “Baseline Energy Calculator” tool of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy).
(2) The requirement set forth herein shall be eliminated if the Solar PV system design that
maximizes the use of the area of the Solar-Ready Zone employing typical Solar PV panel configurations
is anticipated to generate less than 3,000 kWh of electricity in the first year of the building’s operation
as calculated above.
(3) It is not the intent of this section to require that a Solar PV system interconnect with an
electric utility or to require installation of a net metering system.
(4) Where a permanently-installed, on-site renewable energy system, as defined within the CBES,
is provided in lieu of a Solar-Ready Zone, the applicant shall demonstrate that said system will
generate a number of kWh that is equivalent to the number of kWh a Solar PV system is estimated to
generate if a Solar-Ready Zone were established.
C. Submission Requirements: The application for a zoning permit shall include:
LDR-23-01
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
(1) Certification by a qualified professional of the Expected Building Usage and of the anticipated
kWh generation of the Solar PV system, and
(2) As applicable, a written statement from the relevant utility or other evidence sufficient to
determine the extent to which the requirement for a Solar PV system is reduced under
Subsection B (1-2).
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
1
LDR-23-02 Technical and Minor Amendments
ARTICLE 3
3.06 Existing and Planned Rights-of-Way; Setbacks; and Buffers
…
J. Exceptions to Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements for Lots Existing Prior to February 28,
1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units
that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and
the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling.
(1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a
distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district. In no event, however, shall
a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet except as provided for in unless approved by the
Development Review Board in accordance with subsection (3) below.
(2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average
distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage. In
no event, however, shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. unless approved by the
Development Review Board in accordance with subsection (3) below..
(3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a
required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the
Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall
a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a
front property line. No such additional encroachment shall be approved unless the Development Review
Board finds that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse effect on:
(a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties or principal buildings located thereon;
(b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
(c) adequate on-site parking; and
(d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.
L. Side Setbacks for Attached Dwelling Units. Side setbacks do not apply to lot lines co-existent with
shared /party walls between attached dwelling units.
3.09 Multiple Structures and Uses
…
G. Attached Dwelling Units. Side setbacks do not apply to shared /party walls between attached
dwelling units.
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
2
3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses
…
E D. Accessory Uses in the IC and IO districts. In the IC-Mixed Industrial Commercial and IO-Industrial
Open Space districts, those uses designated ‘P-ACC’ in Table C-2, Table of Uses shall be subject to the
following standards and limitations:
ARTICLE 4
4.01 Residential 1 District - R1
…
D F. Planned Unit Development.
For the purposes of assigning applicability of Planned Unit Development Types pursuant to Article
15.C, the Residential-1 Zoning District is further classified in the following sub-districts, as depicted on
the Official Zoning Map:
• Residential 1- Planned Residential Development
• Residential 1- Lakeshore
• Residential 1 - Lakeview
E D. Additional Standards. Except as specifically authorized by Planned Unit Development Type under
Article 15.C, multi-family dwelling units shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per
structure.
ARTICLE 8
…
8.08 Open Space Requirements
…
E. Civic Space / Site Amenity Location
…
(2) Large Development Area Civic Space Option
…
(b) Requirements: At the time of site plan application for any building proposed to make use of an Civic
Space under this sub-section, or, at the applicant’s discretion, as a separate miscellaneous application,
the following shall be submitted:
(vi) (i) Effect: Approval of a Large Property Civic Space Option shall afford the applicant the following, in
addition to the options available in Table 8-1:Designated civic space within the Area Affected may be used
to provide the qualifying open space required by these regulations for any buildings within the Area
Affected that are located within ¼ mile walking distance of the designated civic space within the Area
Affected. Distance shall be measured from the nearest corner of the building to the entrance to the civic
space via the pedestrian connection; and,
(vii) (ii) Any designated civic space within the Area Affected shall be eligible to account for up to 50% of
the total qualifying civic space/site amenity required for a building within the Area Affected.
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
3
ARTICLE 9
…
9.05 [reserved]
9.06 [reserved]
9.07 [reserved]
9.08 SEQ-NRN Sub-Districts; Specific Standards
9.09 [reserved]
ARTICLE 12
…
12.08 Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
…
G. Floodplain Review Standards. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be reviewed
to ensure that it complies with the following standards:
…
(3) Development in the Floodplain Overlay District. All development in the Floodplain Overlay District
shall comply with the following standards:
…
(g) Structures.
i. Residential Structures
(I) a) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, A1-30, AE,
and AH shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least two (2) feet above base flood elevation; this
must be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate.
(II) b) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zones B1 &
B2, and new structures in Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1, shall be located such that the lowest
floor is at least two (2) feet above the average grade level on-site; this must be documented, in the
proposed and as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Average grade level means the average
of the natural or exiting topography at center of all exterior walls of a building or structure to be placed
on site.
ii. Non-residential Structures. Non-residential structures to be substantially improved, and new non-
residential structures in the Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1, shall meet the following standards:
(I) a) Meet the standards in Section 12.08(G)(3)(g)(i) Residential Structures; or,
(II) b) Have the lowest floor, including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be
designed so that two (2) feet above the base flood elevation (for structures in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH),
or two (2) feet above the average grade level on-site (for structures in Zones 0.2% B1 and B2), the structure
is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. A permit
for flood proofing shall not be issued until a licensed professional engineer or architect has reviewed the
structural design, specifications and plans, and has certified that the design and proposed methods of
construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this
subsection. An occupancy permit for the structure shall not be issued until an "as-built" plan has been
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
4
submitted and a licensed professional engineer or architect has certified that the structure has been
constructed in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this
subsection.
ARTICLE 13
…
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
…
B. Landscaping of Parking Areas.
…
(6) Solar Canopies. Where canopies that serve as solar electricity generation facilities are proposed
over surface parking areas, the requirements of this section shall be modified as follows:
(a) The requirements for interior landscaping and planting islands shall not apply to any area covered by
solar panels or their support structures, and;
(b) (ii) The requirements for perimeter trees shall not apply where such trees would interfere with the
installation or function of the panels; instead, alternate means of providing screening and reducing glare
from parking area perimeters, including hedges, fencing, or art installations shall be provided.
ARTICLE 14
14.05 Application Review Procedure
…
J. Bonding Requirements. The owner or developer shall provide a performance bond, escrow
account, or letter of credit in accordance with Sections 15.15 and 15.16 17.15 of these Regulations.
ARTICLE 15.A
15.A.01 Purpose and Authority
15.A.02 Applicability
15.A.03 Minor Lot Line Adjustments and Mergers
15.A.04 Classification
15.A.05 Sketch Plan Review (All Subdivisions)
15.A.06 Preliminary Subdivision Review (Major Subdivisions)
15.A.07 Final Subdivision Review (All Subdivisions)
15.A.08 Plat Recording Requirements (All Subdivisions)
15.A.09 Subdivision Amendments
15.A.10 Subdivision Standards
15.A.11 General Standards
15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards
15.A.13 Subdivision Design Process
15.A.14 Street Network
15.A.15 Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, and Recreation Paths
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
5
15.A.16 Blocks and Lots
15.A.17 Mix of Housing Types
15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities and Services
15.A.19 Required Improvements
15.A.20 Performance Bonds, Escrow Accounts, Letters of Credit
…
15.A.07 Final Subdivision Review (All Subdivisions)
…
F. Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing, the DRB must issue its
written findings of fact and decision to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the final
subdivision plat, supporting plans and documents. Failure to act within this 45-day period shall constitute
approval under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b), as deemed by the court and certified by the City Clerk. The final
decision, including findings, must be sent by certified mail to the applicant. Copies of the decision must
also be mailed to all parties who participated in the public hearing process.
(1) Any conditions of final subdivision approval for performance bonding or other sureties, phasing,
construction or inspection schedules, or the timing of required improvements under Section 15.15
17.15, must be specified in the written DRB decision, or in a separate Development Agreement
approved by the City Council, as referenced in or attached to the DRB decision.
…
15.A.19 Required Improvements
…
E. Proper Installation of Public Facilities and Improvements. Prior to the release of any bond,
escrow account, or letter of credit pursuant to Section 15.A.19 17.15, the subdivider or developer must
submit to the City Engineer as-built construction drawings, certified by a licensed engineer. The City
Engineer shall then inspect the required public facilities and improvements. In the event deficiencies are
found and are not remedied by the subdivider or developer, the Administrative Officer shall notify the
holder of the surety and take all necessary steps to preserve the City's rights under any performance bond,
escrow account, or letter of credit.
ARTICLE 15.C
…
15.C.07 General PUD
…
G. General PUD Dimensional Standards.
(1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district dimensional
standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall apply unless modified, reduced,
or waived by the DRB under (2) below.
(a) The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in order to
modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site Plan application
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
6
requirements using 14.05(G F), Subdivision requirements using 15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay
District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or (K).
(b) The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3).
(c) Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived as allowed in underlying zoning
districts identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below, except as noted in 15.C.07(C)(2)(b)
above. The standards of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply.
(d) The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3).
(2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the DRB
may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as necessary to:
(a) Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or redevelopment,
that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional standards; or
(b) Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that advances
the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,
particularly in response to existing site limitations that cannot be eliminated; or
(c) Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with existing
or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under 15.C.07(F) and to
Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or
(d) Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building design, or
otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated
August 7, 2017.
(3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning
Area under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G).
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 19.
I. General PUD Design Standards
(1) Design Standards, Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing Site
Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for variations from
applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development context within the Planning
Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section 15C.09(G)(4) 15.C.07(G).
(2) Streets. Streets within a General PUD must be compatible with and connect to existing and
planned public street, sidewalk, and path networks in the Planning Area.
LDR-23-02
Approved by Planning Commission April 25, 2023
Warned for City Council Public Hearing June 5, 2023
7
(a) Street and block pattern requirements of the Subdivision regulations shall apply unless
waived by the DRB under Section 15C.09(G)(4).
(3) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying zones
and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2).
(4) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be compatible
with the development context in the Planning Area as described under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G).
(5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible with
the existing or planned development context. General PUDs must comply with applicable Civic Space
and/or Site Amenity requirements in Subdivision (Section 15.A.16(B C)(4)) and Site Plan (Section
14.06(4)).
(a) Section 15.A.16(C)(4) requirement for minimum 10% of the total buildable area to be civic
space lots apply to General PUDs only for PUDs that involve subdivision of land resulting in three
(3) or more lots, not including the resulting lots that only contain civic space(s).
(b) In a General PUD, Civic Spaces required under Subdivision Regulations (Section
15.A.16(C)(4)) and under Site Plan Regulations (Section 14.06(4)) can be satisfied by a combination
of Civic Spaces, Site Amenities, or a combination, applied across the PUD area.
(6) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix of
two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must be provided as
described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated by either housing type under
Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more than four (4) dwelling units, by number of
bedrooms per unit.
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 April 25, 2023, 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 Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:00
pm, in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-23-01: Required installation of solar photovoltaic system for new buildings subject to
Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards
B. LDR-23-02: Minor and Technical Amendments
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendment
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:
A. LDR-23-01: Required installation of solar photovoltaic system for new buildings subject to
Commercial Building Energy Standards
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The proposed amendment would require installation of a solar photovoltaic system (Solar PV)
associated with any new building required to establish a Solar-Ready Zone as defined by the Vermont
2
Commercial Building Energy Standards and applied therein and within the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
The Solar PV system must be designed to maximize the Solar PV potential of the solar-ready zone, but is
reduced where the electric utility cannot accommodate a system, or where Solar PV system is expected
to generate more than the expected building usage. Additionally, a system that is designed to maximize
the solar ready zone but has an expected total output of less than 3,000 kWh annually is exempt from
the requirement.
(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 amendment furthers goals and policies enumerated in the 2016 Plan, as listed
below:
Clean and Green Goal: Reduce energy consumption city-wide and increase renewable energy
production where appropriate.
Objective 23. Achieve a reduction of 20% in carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions from 2009
levels by 2020 through an increase in renewable energy production and reductions in energy
use in the following sectors: transportation, commercial/industrial, residential,
municipal/school.
Objective 24. Facilitate and encourage community-based renewable energy production in
locations that do not contradict or interfere with the City’s open space and resource
conservation objectives, specifically as identified in Section 3.2D of this plan.
Strategy 59. Encourage installations of photovoltaic electric and solar hot water heating for
residential and commercial buildings, and the development of medium-scale photovoltaic
electric generating facilities within the City.
Further, in 2022, the City Council adopted the City’s first Climate Action Plan in furtherance of
these same goals, establishing targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy
generation consistent with Vermont Act 174. The Climate Action Plan includes a proposed
action to require qualifying new buildings to be built with solar or other renewable net
metered systems.
Regarding affordability of housing, while there is an installation for Solar PV, those who opt
for net metering programs are paid a premium for the power generated and multiple solar
providers have created financial models that meet different market needs. Very small systems
generating less than 3000 kWh annually are exempt from this requirement.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendment does not affect future land uses or densities as the requirement is
tied to existing solar-ready roof zone standards.
3
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The proposed amendment does not affect any specific proposals for planned community
facilities. The bylaw includes an allowed modification where the public utility finds that it is
not able to accommodate the PV system.
B. LDR-23-02: Minor and Technical Amendments
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The proposed amendment clarify a contradictory authority for setback standards in Section 3.06J and
correct numbering errors throughout the LDR.
(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 amendments are technical in nature and have no effect on the goals or policies of Plan.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The amendments are technical in nature and have no effect on proposed future land uses or
densities of the Plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The amendments are technical in nature and have no effect on planned community facilities.
180 Market St South Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4105
June 5, 2023
The following 2023 first and third class liquor licenses and outside consumption permit were approved by the South Burlington Liquor Control Board on June 5, 2023 after review by the City tax, fire and police departments:
NAME DESCRIPTION
Quarry Hill Club First and Third Class Restaurant/Bar Outside Consumption Farmers and Foragers Third Class Commercial Kitchen
Myer’s Wood Fired First Class Restaurant/Bar
SOUTH BURLINGTON LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD
Helen Riehle Meagan Emery
Tim Barritt Tyler Barnes
Andrew Chalnick