HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 01/28/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, January 28, 2020
7:00 pm
South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street
AGENDA:
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:05 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
5. Continue Review of proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendments: (7:15 pm)
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form
Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are
north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District.
b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards [LDR-
19-13A], and; (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all
remaining parts of the City.
6. Possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council (7:25 pm)
7. Presentation and discussion of Planned Unit Development / Subdivision standards (7:30 pm)
a. Presentation of overall project goals & status
b. Critical path forward and possible phase 2 pieces
c. Natural resources standards & Arrowwood Report on habitat blocks
d. Preparation for February 11 joint meeting with City Council
8. Continued discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report
recommendations (8:35 pm)
9. Other Business (8:55 pm)
a. City of Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, February 11, 6:45 pm
b. City of Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Winooski Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, February 13, 6:30 pm
10. Meeting Minutes – December 10, January 14 (8:58 pm)
11. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to
ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to
call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo
DATE: January 14, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
Champlain Housing Trust Officially Open. The Champlain Housing Trust held its grand opening for their
newest building at 310 Market Street earlier this month. The building, located in the heart of the City
Center FBC area, includes 60 homes ranging in size from one bedroom up to four bedrooms. During
the grand opening, a school bus dropped a group of elementary school kids off who went running
down the sidewalk to their new homes.
Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Draft Final Report. The Open Space Committee delivered its
draft final report this week, presenting to the City Council on Tuesday and then to the community on
Thursday evening. Both presentations were recorded on CCTV and will be available for viewing
shortly!
Representative Welch Toured Market Street. This past week, we were pleased to welcome
Representative Peter Welch for a tour along Market Street, of Allard Square Senior Housing, the City
Hall/Library/Senior Center site under construction, Market Street itself, the new art park/stormwater
facility, the newly-opened Champlain Housing Trust building, and the townhomes at the east end of
the street. When he had last visited, 2-3 years ago, we had shown him all of the proposed projects on
paper. It was a thrill to show how much has been accomplished in the intervening time.
I-89 Corridor Study public meeting 1/30. The CCRPC, in conjunction with member municipalities, is
performing an assessment of the I-89 corridor through Chittenden County, including existing and
possible interchanges. The first of three public meetings in this phase of the project will take place at
South Burlington City Hall on Thursday, January 30th at 6 pm. For more information, visit the project
website: https://envision89.com/
Joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting Feb 11th. Your next regular Planning Commission meeting
will be a joint meeting with the City Council. It will include much of what is being discussed at this
meeting (see below) as well as a City Council hearing to consider a possible extension of Interim
Zoning for 3 months.
Webcam & time-lapse video of the City Hall/Library Site’s construction. The City has installed a
webcam atop the Allard Square building that is providing still images and a really neat time-lapse
video of the construction work at the new 180 Market Street site. Check it out!
5. Continue Review of proposed Land Development Regulation amendments (7:10 pm)
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form
Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are
north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District.
b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards [LDR-
19-13A], and; (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all
remaining parts of the City.
See enclosed memo & draft amendments.
6. Possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council (7:20 pm)
The Commission may elect to approve & submit the proposed amendments and Report to the City
Council.
7. Presentation and discussion of Planned Unit Development / Subdivision standards (7:25 pm)
a. Presentation of overall project goals & status
b. Critical path forward and possible phase 2 pieces
c. Natural resources standards & Arrowwood report on habitat blocks
d. Preparation for February 11 joint meeting with City Council
See enclosed staff memo
8. Continued discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report
recommendations (8:35 pm)
Enclosed are three excerpts from work related to the TDR Inclusionary Zoning Committee’s Report.
The Full Report can be found here. The documents are:
- The Report’s recommendations
- Conceptual map of possible receiving areas
- Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Priority Parcel map
9. Other Business (8:55 pm)
a. City of Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments
to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, February 11, 6:45 pm
Purpose (From the Report): “The purpose of this amendment is establish a new Multi-Modal
Mixed Use parking district, to replace the Downtown Parking District, in which there would be
no on-site minimum parking requirements for new development. The amendment also
eliminates the parking requirement for Affordable Housing, adaptive reuse of a listed historic
building, and Accessory Dwelling Units. The proposed amendment further extinguishes
parking requirements for existing developments within this district to enable greater flexibility
for shared parking, and introduces a transportation demand management requirement for
projects larger than 10 housing units or 15,000 sq.ft. GFA. Finally, the amendment lowers the
maximum parking limits for all parking districts citywide, and incorporates minimum parking
standards for several uses not already incorporated in Article 8.”
b. City of Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to
the Winooski Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, February 13, 6:30
pm
Purpose (from the Report): “Section 4.12 – Provide a mechanism for relief from the minimum
parking requirements and provide options to establish minimum parking for uses that are not
currently listed. The addition of a parking waiver includes the specific submission
requirements to accompany a waiver request. Section 6.8 – Provide guidance to the
Development Review Board on the standards of review for parking waiver requests. This
addition also includes actions available to the Development Review Board when considering
requests for parking waivers.”
10. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Inclusionary Zoning / Affordable Housing post-hearing modifications
DATE: January 28, 2020 Planning Commission special meeting
Enclosed with your packet please find the proposed amended LDR language for Inclusionary Zoning and
Affordable Housing Density Bonus. This draft incorporates the amendments reviewed and/ requested by
the Commission on 1/14 as well as the completion of the legal review.
At the end of your discussion, Robin Jeffers sought to propose some additional changes. The
Commission asked Ms. Jeffers to coordinate with Sandy Dooley regarding the amendments. Several
were technical in nature and have been incorporated in this draft (as noted in the reline version). Ms.
Jeffers did recommend a couple of additional, more policy-based changes. They were (Ms. Jeffers
quoted below):
• “I also would like to see “provided that they have the appearance of a single family dwellings’
deleted. This is a hardship. Similar style, vernacular, etc are viable language options, but from a
builders’ perspective, this clause as a written, is a hardship and will interfere with builders
bringing affordable units on line.”
Staff, Sandy, and John Simson reviewed the proposal. We concurred that a modification was
warranted and that the language could provide better guidance to the DRB, but proposed
different adjustments. Staff’s proposed change would be to replace “in duplexes or ,multi-family
dwellings provided they have the appearance of single family homes” with “up to four (4)
dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through their scale, massing,
and architectural style”
• “Page 14 Section (3) (a) I very strongly disagree with the words ‘in the same proportion as all
other units in the development’ and ask it be stricken, and the line reading ‘unless a different
proportion’ be changed to ‘unless a different distribution’. . In the density bonus areas of
town, this language is an extreme hardship not only for builders, but neighbors and for folks
seeking affordable homes. IN the SEQ for instance, “same” would NOT ever be affordable to
own, maintain, heat, pay taxes on, etc.”
Staff, Sandy, and John reviewed the request. Based on the Planning Commission’s prior
guidance that the language related to the placement, proportions, and distribution of affordable
housing outside the Inclusionary Zoning applicable area ie, within those areas presently under
Interim Zoning) not be substantially modified at this time, staff has not included this proposed
change in this draft. The Commission may elect to take this subject up in a future round of
amendments.
2
Key to the enclosed documents
For ease and clarity of reading, staff has attached the proposed language in two formats:
• Full red-line version. This version shows all changes from the current, adopted language in the
Land Development Regulations. Additions are in red underline; deletions are in red
strikethrough. In the margins, staff has included comments listing change made to the version
that the Planning Commission warned a public hearing for back in October (for the hearing on
12/10); those in yellow highlight are about changes made after the PC meeting on 1/14/20.
• Clean version. This version is a completely clean version of what the LDRs would look like if
adopted.
Summary of changes since January 14th
All of the changes below can be found in the document, annotated.
1. 2.02 - Definitions. Updated definitions of affordable housing and inclusionary dwelling units to
have consistent verbiage. Also added new definition of Habitable Area, and modified the
definition of Mixed Rate Housing Development to clarify that it is referring to Affordable
Housing, a defined term, not “below market rate units”, which were only referenced through a
table.
2. 18.01(B)(1) – Applicability. Adds maps of applicable area
3. 18.01(B)(2)(d) – Previously approved master plans. Minor rewording to establish a cut-off date
of Master Plans approved after Jan 1, 2020.
4. Throughout – replaced “above ground living area” with “Habitable Area”
5. 18.01(C)(2)(b)(iv) – size in inclusionary units. Minor rewording to be more clear.
6. 18.01(C)(2)(b)(v) – type of inclusionary units. Minor rewording to be more clear about what is
meant by the requirement to have the appearance of single family homes.
7. 18.01(F)(1)(c) Offset Unit lot coverage. Per the PC’s discussion, this new section allows for a
minor increase in building and lot coverage in districts with low limitations to accommodate
offset units.
8. 18.02(C)(2) – Density Bonus. Changed “below market rate” to “Affordable Housing” units to
refer to a deinfed term.
9. Minor other wording changes per legal review.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 1
ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS
2.02 Specific Definitions
Affordable housing. A dwelling unit:
(A) Owned:
(1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (Burlington-South Burlington MSA); and
(2) For which the total annual cost of ownership, including principal, interest, taxes,
condominium association fees and insurance, does not exceed 30% of the gross annual income of
a household at 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA at the time of
purchase; and
(3) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase
does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA; and
(4) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA; or
(B) Rented:
(1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA; and
(2) For which the total annual cost of renting, including rent, utilities, and condominium
association fees, does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross annual income of a household
at 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA at the time of initial
occupancy; and
(3) Which is rented by its inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial
occupancy does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA;
and
(4) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA.
This definition, however, does not apply to housing projects covered under inclusionary zoning,
pursuant to 24 VSA Section 4414(7). See Section 18.01 (Inclusionary Zoning).
Affordable housing development. A housing development of which at least fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling
units are Affordable Housing, pursuant to Section 18.02 of this ordinance.
Habitable Area. The finished areas or spaces of a dwelling unit that are heated (and, where air conditioning
is available, cooled) with the rest of the dwelling unit.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 2
Household. A group of between one (1) and four (4) unrelated individuals, or one (1) or more individuals
related by blood, marriage, adoption and/or fosterage, occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single
housekeeping unit. For the purposes of Inclusionary Zoning, the Household Size is the total number of
individuals (adults and children) in the household that will occupy an Inclusionary Unit, regardless of each
individual household member’s relationship, if any, to other members of the household.
Household Income. The household income for an applicant seeking to rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit
is the total combined annual cash income, whether earned (for example, salary, wages, tips, or commissions)
or unearned (for example, benefits, unemployment compensation, interest, dividends) of each household
member.
Inclusionary ownership unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross annual
income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), as calculated using a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) formula that defines a unit-specific household size based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of
bedrooms); and
(2) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase
does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the
household size; and
(3) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the purchasing household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary rental unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA,
to which the unit is targeted, as calculated using a HUD formula that defines a unit-specific household size
based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and
(2) Which is rented by inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial occupancy
does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the
household size; and
(3) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the renting household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary Unit. A dwelling unit that is either an Inclusionary Ownership Unit or an Inclusionary Rental Unit.
Mixed-rate housing development. A housing development that has both market rate and Affordable Housing
dwelling units, pursuant to Section 18.02 of these regulations.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 3
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus
18.03 Housing Preservation
18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
A. Purpose. Inclusionary zoning to provide affordable and moderate income housing in the applicable
locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article of the City
of South Burlington has been adopted pursuant to 24 VSA § 4414(7) for the following purposes:
(1) To be a City that is affordable for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life through the
preservation and development of a variety of housing in diverse, accessible neighborhoods, consistent
with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, as most recently amended;
(2) To implement policies that support achievement of housing goals, objectives, and targets included
in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as most recently amended;
(3) To affirmatively address the current and anticipated need for affordable housing units among low-
and moderate-income South Burlington households that pay more than 30% of their income on housing,
as described in state law (24 VSA § 4303(1));
(4) To mitigate the impacts of market-rate housing development that is unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households on the cost and supply of land and infrastructure available for affordable
housing development in the applicable locations;
(5) To promote the integrated development of mixed-income housing in the applicable locations,
including a range of housing options needed to strengthen, diversify, and contribute to the vitality of the
South Burlington community;
(6) To promote the development of affordable housing opportunities that are available in locations
accessible to goods and services and served by existing or planned public transit services;
(7) To ensure that affordable housing units developed under inclusionary zoning remain perpetually
affordable.
(8) To provide integrated development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of
providing affordable housing units.
B. Applicability
(1) Zoning Districts and Locations. Inclusionary Zoning shall apply in the following areas (see also
Figure 18-1):
(a) All zoning districts that permit residential development and underlie the Transit Overlay
District;
(b) The parts of the Center City Form-Based Code district that do not underlie the Transit Overlay
District;
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 4
(c) The land in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road that does not underlie the Transit Overlay District
and is bounded by Interstate 89 in the southerly direction and the Transit Overlay District in the
northerly direction; and
(d) The entire area of a parcel or PUD, whichever is greater, that includes land located in any one
of the areas listed in Subsections (B)(1)(a)-(c) of this Article.
FIGURE 18-1 INCLUSIONARY ZONING APPLICABLE AREA
(2) Covered Development.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply in the
locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article to
any development, notwithstanding any phasing of the development, that will result in the creation of
twelve (12) or more total dwelling units through subdivision, Planned Unit Development, new
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 5
construction, or the conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to
residential use.
(b) In addition, the provisions of this section shall apply to any development within the locations
defined in Subsection (B)(1) that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more units of permanent
housing as a congregate care facility, with the exceptions in (3)(b) below. These housing units shall
be treated as rental dwelling units for purposes of determining the minimum percentage that must be
Inclusionary Rental Units. No Residential Unit Offset or Density Bonus may apply for any type of
housing unit for which these regulations do not establish a numerical density limitation. When a
development includes both dwelling units and housing units permitted as congregate care housing,
the number of required inclusionary units shall be determined by the sum of the dwelling units and
the housing units contained in the congregate care facility, and distributed proportionally between the
two uses.
Example: in a development with 40 congregate care housing units and 20 rental residential
dwelling units, six (6) of the congregate care housing units are required to be Inclusionary units
and three (3) of the residential dwelling units are required to be Inclusionary units.
(c) For purposes of this requirement, two or more developments shall be aggregated and
considered as one development subject to this section if:
(i) The developments are located on abutting properties; and
(ii) The developments are owned or controlled by the same person; and
(iii) Each of the developments was or is subject to Inclusionary Zoning requirements under
Land Development Regulations adopted by the City; and
(iv) One or more of the developments consists of fewer than twelve (12) dwelling units; and,
(iii) Either:
(I) The developments will undergo subdivision, construction, or conversion of an existing
structure or structures from non-residential to residential use within the same five-year
period, which period shall be measured from the date a proper and complete application is
first submitted, or
(II) A master plan exists, as approved by the City, which includes two or more of the
developments.
(d) Previously Approved Master Plans
(i) The provisions of this section shall apply in the locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) of
this Article to any portion of a Master Plan approved after January 1, 2020, that will result in the
creation of twelve (12) or more total dwelling units for which the City has not received a complete
application for preliminary plat approval and/or site plan approval. The addition of offset
residential units allowed under Section F of this Article alone shall not be considered a deviation
of the master plan pursuant to Section 15.07(D) of these regulations that requires amendment of
the master plan.
(ii) The provisions of this section shall apply in the locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) of
this Article to any portion of an approved master plan proposed for an amendment that includes
an increase in the number of dwelling units and/or adding land to the master plan.
(3) Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from these requirements:
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 6
(a) Projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and
occupancy of its students.
(b) Institutional, group homes or group quarters housing, including long-term care facilities.
(c) The redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that produces no additional units.
C. Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered for
rent shall be Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered
for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership,
shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon request for the Certificate of Occupancy the
applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be Inclusionary Rental Units or Inclusionary Ownership
Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm that the offered rents or sales prices meet these
requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In addition:
(a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional
dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but
less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00
are rounded up).
(b) When a covered development results in 12 or more lots that are sold prior to development,
10% of the lots must include deed restrictions that satisfy these inclusionary zoning requirements.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-
Site Construction) of this Article.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and similar in architectural style and outward
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout,
scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single
building or multiple buildings.
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural
design detail quality as those of the market rate units in the development . The exterior amenities
and landscaping provided for the inclusionary units shall be similar to those provided for the
market rate units in the development. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units
may differ from those of the market rate units.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units;
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities
and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary units shall
be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-
bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area
of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the
Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no
less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 7
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market
rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units developed
as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings
containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through
their scale, massing, and architectural style.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
(vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than
the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more
dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer at each
interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs.
actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the
Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit.
(viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as
bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one (1)
bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The
applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and
occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may
attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation
from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing
non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
.D. Affordability Requirements. The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for
inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary units under
this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and purchase prices is
updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Vermont specific data
is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency,
in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by income and household size”.
Refer to this table in administration of this section.
(1) Maximum rent and purchase prices.
(a) For Inclusionary Rental Units, the maximum monthly rent that may be charged is one-twelfth
of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit
(measured in number of bedrooms). When any component of the rental housing costs is excluded, the
maximum rent that may be charged is reduced accordingly.
(b) For Inclusionary Ownership Units, the maximum monthly housing cost that the owner(s) may
be required to pay is one-twelfth of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to
the size of the specific unit (measured in number of bedrooms).
(c) Maximum rent and purchase price calculation. Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices for
Inclusionary Units are calculated based on three components: housing costs, area median income
targets, and the number of bedrooms in the inclusionary unit.
(i) Housing costs shall include:
(I) For Inclusionary Rental Units – rent and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs).
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 8
(II) For Inclusionary Ownership Units – mortgage principal and interest, annual property
taxes, average annual homeowner’s insurance premiums, and average annual mortgage insurance
premiums, and 50% of annual condominium or homeowners’ association fees.
(ii) Area Median Incomes (AMI) Targets. HUD estimates the Area Median Income for
households residing in the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and,
in addition, for households of varying sizes residing in the MSA. HUD also calculates AMI ratios,
including 80% AMI, for households of varying sizes in the MSA. HUD publishes this AMI-based
annual household income information annually. Maximum rents and sales prices shall be
determined using the most recent HUD-published income guidelines available at the time the unit
is available for occupancy.
(iii) Number of bedrooms. Rental and purchase prices of inclusionary units are not linked to
the size of the household that rents or purchases the inclusionary unit. Number of bedrooms is
used to define a household size linked to the specific unit. The use of “number of bedrooms” for
this purpose is explained under the Vermont Housing Data website’s annual maximum rent and
purchase price tables entitled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by
income and household size”.
(2) Renter and Home-buyer Income Eligibility. Income eligibility for an applicant household is
determined based on three components: Household Size, Household Income and Annual Median Income
(AMI) targets for Inclusionary Units. The AMI amounts for applicants seeking to rent or purchase an
Inclusionary Unit shall be determined using the most recent HUD-published income guidelines available
at the time the unit is available for occupancy.
(a) For renters, households, regardless of household size, are eligible for inclusionary rental units
so long as their combined household income does not exceed 80% AMI.
(b) For home-buyers, households, regardless of household size, are eligible for inclusionary
ownership units so long as their combined household income does not exceed 100% AMI.
(3) Flexibility between maximum rent and purchase prices and eligible renter or purchaser
households.
(a) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit with a rent
or purchase price linked to a household size (derived from number of bedrooms) that is not the same
as the eligible Household’s size.
Examples:
● a two-person household may purchase a three-bedroom house or condominium.
● a three-person household may rent a one-bedroom apartment.
(b) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit with an
AMI target that is higher than the eligible Household’s AMI percentage.
Examples:
● a three-person household whose income is 70% of AMI (for its household size) may rent an
apartment for which the rent is targeted to 80% of AMI.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 9
● a two-person household whose income is 90% of AMI (for its household size) may purchase a
condominium or house for which the purchase price is targeted to 80% of AMI.
(c) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit for which
the housing costs exceed 30% of the eligible Household’s income.
(4) Alternative Eligibility Criteria. When an affordable housing organization is a partner in a covered
development, eligibility may be determined in accordance with program-based eligibility requirements
established by the partner housing organization.
(5) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing
from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase
by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency,
to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager, or their designees, prior to
recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. Any deed restriction, covenant or other instrument
or agreement ensuring the continued affordability of inclusionary units shall include:
(a) Resale Restrictions. Provisions to ensure the affordability of units offered for sale shall include
a formula for limiting the resale price to whatever is the higher of the purchase price the seller paid
plus 2% for each year of ownership (non-compounding), or what is affordable to a household at 80%
AMI at the time of resale. Eligible households are those having incomes no greater than 100% AMI at
the time of purchase. In addition, the City shall have the option to purchase or transfer its option to
purchase Inclusionary Ownership Units at each future time of resale. In addition, any covenant shall
have language to ensure the continuing affordability of Inclusionary Rental Units if the unit or property
offered for sale instead will be offered for rental.
(i) The seller or his/her representative shall notify the City Manager or his/her designee of the
prospective sale of an Inclusionary Ownership Unit;
(ii) The City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust
Fund Committee, shall then have an exclusive option for thirty (30) days to purchase the
Inclusionary Ownership Unit from the seller at a price consistent with the requirements of this
subsection unless the City Manager or his/her designee waives the option by declaring in writing
an intent not to exercise the option or transfers the option as described in Subsection (D)(5)(a)(iv)
of this Article;
(iii) If the City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust
Fund Committee, fails to exercise such option by failing to negotiate and sign a purchase and sale
agreement for purchase of the Inclusionary Ownership Unit, or declaring an intent not to exercise
such option, the seller shall offer the Inclusionary Ownership Unit for purchase to income-eligible
households in accordance with the requirements of subsection 18.01(D)(5)(a) (Affordability
Requirements).
(iv) On or before a purchase and sale agreement is executed between the seller and the City
Manager or his/her designee, s/he may assign the City’s option specified in this subsection to
purchase the Inclusionary Ownership Unit to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary purpose is
the supply of affordable housing in perpetuity. Upon the decision to exercise this transfer option,
the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify the seller of such assignment. The organization
to which the City has assigned the option shall deal directly with the seller and shall have all of the
authority of the City Manager, as provided under this subsection.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 10
(b) Rent Changes. Provisions to ensure the affordability of Inclusionary Rental Units shall require
that annual rent changes not exceed the percentage change in the median household income within
the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, when the change is an increase; and that annual rent changes
match the percentage change in the median household income within the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA, when the change is a decrease. An exception to the limit on increases or required decreases is
permitted to the extent that further increases or delayed decreases are made necessary by
documented hardship or other unusual conditions. Such exceptions may not take effect until
approved in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee;
(c) Sublet Restrictions. Provisions for inclusionary Rental Units shall prohibit the subletting of
units at rental rates and/or to households that exceed affordability limits established pursuant to this
section.
(6) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units
shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary
units and household incomes at move-in, based on documentation provided by tenant for owner’s
completion of form provided by the City, to certify that Inclusionary Rental Unit rent maximums and
household income maximums have been maintained as required.
E. Developer Options
(1) Options (a) and (b) below are available to developers, upon request, as necessary to address
financial hardships based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or physical site
constraints that limit or preclude the incorporation of inclusionary units within a covered development.
Options (c) and (d) are available to the developer at his or her discretion. A payment or contribution in
lieu of constructing required inclusionary units shall be prohibited.
(a) Dedication. The South Burlington City Council, in consultation with the South Burlington
Affordable Housing Committee, may accept as an alternative to the development of inclusionary units,
a dedication by the developer of equal or greater value, including land and expected inclusionary unit
value, that furthers the purposes of this section. An example might be the donation of developable
land in the City Center Form Based Codes District that provides accessibility to transit, employment
opportunities, and services.
(b) Off-Site Construction. The developer of a covered development may comply with the
requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of the date of the decision approving
the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on another parcel within the
same contiguous underlying zoning district in which the covered development is located , or
contracting with another entity to construct the required number of units within the same contiguous
underlying zoning district in which the covered development is located. This condition shall not be
considered satisfied until certificates of occupancy have been issued for all off-site inclusionary units .
Off-site means outside the boundaries of the lot or PUD on which the covered development is located.
(c) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for
three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit
inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
(d) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for
four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit
inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 11
F. Offset for Fulfillment of Inclusionary Unit Requirements
(1) Residential Unit Offset. To offset an applicant’s fulfillment of this Section’s inclusionary unit
requirement is an allotment of one additional dwelling unit for each required Inclusionary Rental Unit that
is constructed; or an allotment of two additional dwelling units for each required Inclusionary Ownership
Unit that is constructed. This offset shall not be provided for any required unit for which the developer
receives approval for the Dedication as described in 18.01(E)(1)(a) herein.
(a) Offset residential units are not subject to the inclusionary affordability requirements.
(b) The offset described above shall be approved as long as the total housing units in the specific
covered development do not result in non-compliance with Section 15.02(A)(4).
Example (1): In a 24-unit owner housing development on a six-acre plot in a R4 district, the
developer is required to build two (2) inclusionary units The developer shall receive an offset of
four (4) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 28 dwelling units.
Example (2): In a 36-unit rental housing development on a three-acre plot in a R12 district, the
developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of
five (5) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 41 dwelling units.
(c) Where a zoning district establishes a maximum building coverage of less than twenty percent
(20%) and/or a maximum overall lot coverage of less than thirty percent (30%), the applicable
maximum coverage in that district shall be increased to accommodate the offset units. For
Inclusionary Ownership Units, this increase shall be twenty percent (20%) and for Inclusionary Rental
Units, this increase shall be fifteen percent (15%).
Example (1): In a zoning district with a maximum building coverage of fifteen percent (15%), the
maximum building coverage shall be increased to eighteen percent (18%) to accommodate offset
Inclusionary Ownership Units.
Example (2): In a zoning district with a maximum building coverage of fifteen percent (15%), the
maximum building coverage shall be increased to seventeen and 25/100 percent (17.25%) to
accommodate Inclusionary Rental Units.
G. Density Bonuses for Exceeding Inclusionary Housing Requirements
(1) Applicability. This subsection applies in zoning districts or portions thereof as defined in
Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article, in which residential
development is allowed. However, density is not a dimensional requirement in the City Center Form Based
Code districts, therefore this section is not relevant in those districts.
(2) Density Bonuses. When an applicant voluntarily includes, in the base zoning density unit-
maximum for the development, more than the number of inclusionary units required under Section
18.01(C)(1), then upon the applicant’s request, the development shall receive, in addition to the offset
units, a density bonus. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for each voluntary Inclusionary Rental
Unit and two dwelling units for each voluntary Inclusionary Ownership Unit, up to a maximum density of
50% more than the base maximum density permitted in the zoning district. In zoning districts where
additional density is permitted via Planned Unit Development, the base density shall be defined as the
maximum density for the district without use of PUDs. Density bonus dwelling units are not subject to the
inclusionary affordability requirements.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12
Example (1): In a 24-unit owner housing development on a six-acre plot in a R4 district, the developer
is required to build two (2) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of four (4) market
rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 28 dwelling units. In order to receive
approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 8 additional units in
this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an additional four
(4) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (24) for which the developer receives
12 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 36 units, 6 of which are inclusionary (17% of
the units) and 30 of which are market rate (83% of the units).
Example (2): In a 36-unit rental housing development on a three-acre plot in a R12 district, the
developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of five
(5) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 41 dwelling units. In order to
receive approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 13 additional
units in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an
additional thirteen (13) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (36) for which the
developer receives 13 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 54 units, 18 of which are
inclusionary (33% of the units) and 36 of which are market rate (67% of the units).
Example (3): In a 40-unit owner housing development on a ten-acre plot in a R4 district, the
developer is required to build four (4) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of eight
(8) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 48 dwelling units. In order to
receive approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 12
additional units in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer
includes an additional six (6) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (40) for
which the developer receives 12 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 60 units, 10 of
which are inclusionary (17% of the units) and 50 of which are market rate (83% of the units).
Example (4): In a 40-unit rental housing development on a 10-acre plot in a R4 district, the developer
is required to build six (6) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of six (6) market
rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 46 dwelling units. In order to receive
approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 14 additional units
in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an additional
fourteen (14) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (40) for which the
developer receives 14 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 60 units, 20 of which are
inclusionary (33% of the units) and 40 of which are market rate (67% of the units).
H. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for Developments with Fewer than 12 Dwelling Units
(1) Applicability. This subsection applies in zoning districts or portions thereof as defined in
Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article, in which residential
development is allowed. However, since density is not a dimensional requirement in the City Center Form
Based Code District, this section is not relevant in that District.
(2) Density Bonus. For applications that include at least three (3) but fewer than twelve (12) dwelling
units (calculated using the base zoning density unit-maximum for the development), where the developer
has opted to construct one or more inclusionary units any approval shall, upon request of the applicant,
include a density bonus over the base zoning density. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for
each inclusionary rental unit and two dwelling units for each inclusionary ownership unit included
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 13
voluntarily, up to a maximum density of 50% more than the base density. The density bonus units are not
subject to the inclusionary affordability requirements.
I. Administration and Compliance
(1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed
projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following information:
(a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary
units in relation to market rate units;
(b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including
inclusionary unit set aside calculations;
(c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs,
and other data necessary to determine unit affordability;
(d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under
Subsection (E) (Developer Options) of this Article;
(e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility;
(f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the
responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability;
(g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability;
(h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and
(i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance
with inclusionary zoning requirements.
(2) Ongoing Compliance. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any; or City Manager or
his/her designee or another municipal entity; or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization, as
determined by the South Burlington City Council, shall be responsible for the on-going administration of
the inclusionary units as well as for the promulgation of such rules, regulations, and/or procedures as may
be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority, or City Manager or his/her designee, or
other municipal entity, or non-profit organization shall define and implement eligibility priorities,
continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures.
(3) Program Evaluation. In order to monitor and track the success of inclusionary zoning in meeting
the purposes of this section and the City’s affordable housing goals and targets, the City Manager or
his/her designee shall:
(a) Collect and maintain income eligibility guidelines, mortgage interest rate information, and
other information necessary to meet the requirements of this section;
(b) Monitor and maintain records regarding the status of inclusionary units developed under this
Section 18.01; and
(c) Prepare an annual written report for distribution to the South Burlington City Council and
Planning Commission and posting on the City’s website, to be considered in a public meeting, that
summarizes the status of covered projects and inclusionary units approved to date, and sets forth
program findings, conclusions, and recommendations for any changes that will increase the
effectiveness of inclusionary zoning.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 14
18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus
A. Purpose. One of the adopted Comprehensive Plan goals is the availability of quality housing and
quality affordable housing to attract and retain a qualified work force. The following provisions are established
to enable the City of South Burlington to ensure a supply of standard housing available at below-market rate
purchase prices or rents. In this way, a choice of housing opportunities for a variety of income groups within
the City can be created in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and these Regulations.
B. Applicability. This section shall apply in any Zoning District in which residential development is
permitted, with the exception of the applicable locations defined in Section 18.01 (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning
Districts and Locations) of this Article.
C. Density Increase. On a case by case basis and as part of the Planned Unit Development application,
the Development Review Board may grant an increase in residential density over the base zoning density, in
order to create below market rate housing. The density increases shall be approved on the following criteria
and standards:
(1) Affordable Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase
of no more than fifty percent (50%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for an Affordable Housing
Development. The total of Affordable Housing units shall be at least half of the total proposed dwelling
units. Where the total proposed dwelling units is an uneven number, the total of below market rate units
shall be calculated as at least the total proposed dwelling units, less one (1), divided by two. Such
application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision
and Planned Unit Development Review.
(2) Mixed Rate Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase
of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for a Mixed Rate
Housing Development. For each additional market-rate dwelling unit produced as a result of the density
increase, one (1) qualifying comparable Affordable Housing unit must be provided. Such application shall
be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development Review.
Table 13-9 Example of Affordable Housing Bonus Calculation
Affordable Project: Mixed-Rate Project:
50% of Total Units Affordable 25% of Bonus Units Affordable
Acres 8.35 8.35
Base Density 12 12
Base Units 100.2* 100.2*
Bonus Units 50 25
Total Units 150 125
Net Density 17.98 14.99
Affordable Units 74 13
Market Rate Units 74 112
*Partial units always round DOWN to the lower whole number of units
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 15
D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and
Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, the following
standards shall guide the Development Review Board:
(1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in
question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or
districts.
(2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall
apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or
without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre.
(3) Development Standards.
(a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the
development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed
among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other
units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board
as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington.
(b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum Habitable Area per affordable dwelling unit shall be no
smaller than 70% of the amount of the Habitable Areas of comparable market-rate units in the housing
development.
(c) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards set forth in Section 18.01(D)(5) and (6) shall
apply.
(4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, the City Manager and/or
his/her designees, or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going
administration of the affordable housing units as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will
determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental
and sales procedures.
E. Housing Types. The dwelling units may at the discretion of the Development Review Board be of varied
types including one-family, two-family, or multi-family construction, and studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom,
three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartment construction.
18.03 Housing Preservation
A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to achieve one or more of these goals:
(1) To promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community by preserving existing housing
stock in residential neighborhoods, particularly the supply of affordable and moderately-priced homes
through the use of housing retention requirements as referenced in South Burlington’s 2016
Comprehensive Plan;
(2) To reduce and mitigate the demolition and conversion to nonresidential use or nonuse of
residential structures, and to maintain housing that meets the needs of all economic groups within the
City particularly for those of low and moderate income;
(3) To meet the specific mandates of 24 V.S.A. Section 4302(11) related to housing opportunities for
safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters and to meet the needs of the diverse social and income
groups in each Vermont community;
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 16
(4) To support the retention of housing units in the City;
(5) To promote the health safety and welfare of the community by preserving the residential character
of neighborhoods; and,
(6) To offset the loss of housing by requiring replacement of housing units with new construction,
conversion of nonresidential to residential use or a contribution to the City of South Burlington Housing
Trust Fund.
B. Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in sub-section C (Exemptions), this Section 18.03 of these
Regulations is applicable to the loss, demolition or conversion to a nonresidential use or nonuse (for example
a vacant lot) of any dwelling unit in the City. This includes without limitation any of the following:
(1) any dwelling unit that is demolished, removed, or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to any
order, decision or other action of the City or State that is caused by unreasonable neglect or deferred
maintenance of an existing or prior owner(s);
(2) any dwelling unit that is demolished or removed pursuant to any municipal, State or Federal
program, including any air traffic or airport noise mitigation and compatibility program; and/or,
(3) the loss, demolition or conversion to nonresidential use or non-use of any other form of
permanent housing, including but not limited to housing units contained within a housing facility that is
permitted as a congregate care facility, except group homes, residential care facilities, or skilled nursing
facilities as defined in these Regulations.
C. Exemptions. This Section shall not be applicable to:
(1) The redevelopment of a dwelling unit or any other form of permanent housing, including but not
limited to housing units contained within a housing facility that is permitted as a congregate care facility,
within a two (2) year period. Any applicant for a demolition permit seeking to avail themselves of this
exemption shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within two (2) years of the date of
issuance of the demolition permit thereby demonstrating redevelopment of the dwelling unit and
restoration of the residential use on the same parcel.
(2) Any dwelling unit ordered demolished or declared unfit for habitation because of damage caused
by civil commotion, malicious mischief, vandalism, natural disaster, fire, flood or other causes beyond the
owner’s control.
(3) Dwelling units existing in the following zoning districts: City Center Form Based Code, Industrial –
Open Space, Mixed Industrial & Commercial, Swift Street, Institutional-Agricultural, Parks & Recreation,
Municipal, Commercial 1-AIR, Airport, and Airport-Industrial.
(4) The conversion of a duplex to a single-family home.
(5) As of the initial effective date of this Section, any dwelling units:
(a) For which the Burlington International Airport / City of Burlington has obtained Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding approval for the
acquisition, demolition or removal pursuant to the FAA’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This
includes the dwelling units identified in FAA AIP grant numbers, AIP-94, AIP-105, and AIP-109 whether
or not these dwelling units have been purchased or removed as of January 1, 2018.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 17
(b) Indicated on the 2009 Burlington International Airport Part 150 Noise Inventory and Re-Use
Plan “Proposed Property Acquisition Program” map, Figure 4: Detailed Acquisition Plan, dated April
23, 2009.
See Appendix H for a complete listing of properties by address.
(6) The removal of accessory dwelling units.
D. Approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Regulations and unless otherwise exempt
under sub-section C of this Section, no dwelling unit shall be removed, demolished, or converted to a
nonresidential use or nonuse, without receipt of a zoning permit in accordance with this Section.
In addition to any other submission requirements in these Regulations, the applicant shall submit as part of a
zoning permit application under this Section:
(1) A statement certifying the number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to
nonresidential use and the number of bedrooms existing within each of these units;
(2) A demonstration of compliance with tenant or occupant notice and relocation provisions of
applicable state and federal law; and
(3) A demonstration of compliance with sub-section E, F and G (if applicable) of this Section.
E. Housing replacement requirement. In addition to any other requirements for approval under these
Regulations, approval of the zoning permit referred to in Sub-section D above requires the replacement of
each dwelling unit that is to be removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential use or nonuse with a
replacement dwelling unit. Any dwelling unit approved under Section 18.01 or 18.02 shall not qualify as a
replacement dwelling unit. This replacement requirement may be satisfied in one of the following ways:
(1) Construction of a new dwelling unit in accordance with sub-section F of this Section;
(2) The conversion of a non-residential building to residential use in accordance with sub-section F of
this Section; or,
(3) Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Payment to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust
Fund for each dwelling unit that is removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential uses or nonuse
in an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the higher of (1) the most recent assed valuation the
premises as modified by the CLA (Common Level of Appraisal) or (2) the most recent sales price of the
premises.
F. Replacement Dwelling Unit Requirement. In addition to the foregoing, all replacement dwelling
units built pursuant to this Section must meet the following requirements:
(1) Each replacement dwelling unit shall have at least the same number of bedrooms as the dwelling
unit being replaced;
(2) Each replacement dwelling unit must be located within the City of South Burlington;
(3) Each replacement dwelling unit must receive a Certificate of Occupancy within eighteen (18)
months of the date on which the zoning permit referenced in Sub-section D above is approved;
(4) Each rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be maintained either as a Group Home or as a
leased “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective
occupants who are income eligible at the time they first lease the unit, for a period of not less than twenty
(20) years from the date of first occupancy.
(5) Each non-rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be offered for sale either:
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 18
(a) At or below the fair market value of the dwelling unit that was removed, demolished, or
converted to nonresidential use or nonuse, as determined either (i) by an appraisal provided by the
applicant, or (ii) by the City’s latest assessed value of the premises including the dwelling unit that was
removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential use or to nonuse; or
(b) As an “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations, to
prospective purchaser/occupants who are income eligible at the time they purchase the unit. Any such
unit shall be subject to a covenant restricting the sale of the dwelling unit for a twenty (20) year period
to an owner/occupant who qualifies by income.
(6) Income eligibility for replacement units described in this subsection shall be determined based on
income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization.
The income eligibility shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a
unit is available for occupancy.
G. Performance Guaranty/Letter of Credit. When an applicant proposes to construct a new replacement
dwelling unit or convert a non-residential building to a replacement residential unit, the applicant must post
a performance guaranty in the form of a letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City Attorney, in
the amount equivalent to the amount the applicant would have been required to contribute to the City of
South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if the applicant had chosen that option pursuant to Sub-section E(3),
above. Such a performance guaranty shall be valid for no more than two (2) years, after which the full amount
due shall be provided to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if a replacement dwelling unit
satisfying the conditions of this Section has not been granted a Certificate of Occupancy as a dwelling unit.
H. Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non-
profit organization approved by the City of South Burlington following demonstration of its qualifications shall
be responsible for the on-going administration of this section as well as for the promulgation of such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to implement this section. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization
will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental
and sales procedures.
I. Violations. In the event of a violation of this Section, an enforcement action in accordance with Article
17 shall commence and the requirements of this Section shall apply in addition to any other remedies available
to the City by law.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 19
NOTE - The following includes Inclusionary Zoning amendments to other LDR Articles:
Article 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
15.02 Authority and Required Review
A. Authority
(6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only
as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing
pursuant to Section 18.01 and 18.02 of these Regulations.
Article 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT
17.03 Certificates of Occupancy
A. Certificate of Occupancy Required. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy
of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or
enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy has been issued therefor by the Administrative
Officer conditioned upon the requirements below.
B. Certificate of Occupancy Not Required. Certificates of occupancy shall not be required for single-
family or two-family dwellings, except as specifically listed below:
(1) Certificates of Occupancy are required for single and two family dwellings within the Floodplain
Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict.
(2) Certificates of Occupancy are required for single and two-family dwellings that are Inclusionary
Units within the applicable locations defined in Section 18.01(B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and
Locations .
(3) Certificates of Occupancy are required for dwelling units constructed in accordance with Section
18.03(C)(1) of these Regulations.
(4) Certificates of Occupancy are required for replacement dwelling units built in accordance with
Section 18.03 of these Regulations.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 1
ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS
2.02 Specific Definitions
Affordable housing. this shall meanHousing that is either of the following:A dwelling unit:
(A) Owned:
(1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development (Burlington-South Burlington MSA); and
(2) For which the total annual cost of ownership, including principal, interest, taxes,
condominium association fees and insurance, does not exceed 30% of the gross annual income of
a household at 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA at the time of
purchase; and
(3) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase
does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA; and
(4) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA;Housing that is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income
does not exceed eighty percent (80) of the median income for the Burlington -South Burlington
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and the total annual cost of the housing, including principal, interest, taxes
and insurance, is not more than thirty percent (30%) of the household’s gross annual income; or
(B) Housing that is rRented by its inhabitants:
(1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA; and
(2) For which the total annual cost of renting, including rent, utilities, and condominium
association fees, does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross annual income of a household
at 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA at the time of initial
occupancy; and
(3) Which is rented by its inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial
occupancy does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA;
and
(4) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South
Burlington MSA. whose gross annual household income does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of
the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as
defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the total
annual cost of the housing, including rent, utilities, and condominium association fees, is not more
than thirty percent (30%) of the household’s gross annual income
Commented [A1]: Minor wording clarifications
per legal review 12/12/2019
Commented [PC2]: Language reworded to
match style for inclusionary definition while
preserving the substance and requirements as
previously reviewed, per legal review, 2020-01-24
Commented [PC3]: Language reworded to
match style for inclusionary definition while
preserving the substance and requirements as
previously reviewed, per legal review, 2020-01-24
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 2
This definition, however, does not apply to housing projects covered under inclusionary zoning,
pursuant to 24 VSA Section 4414(7). See Section 18.01 (Inclusionary Zoning).
Affordable housing development. A housing development of which at least fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling
units are aAffordable Hhousing units, pursuant to Section 18.02 of this ordinance.
Habitable Area. The finished areas or spaces of a dwelling unit that are heated (and, where air conditioning
is available, cooled) with the rest of the dwelling unit.
Household. A group of between one (1) and four (4) unrelated individuals, or one (1) or more individuals
related by blood, marriage, adoption and/or fosterage, occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single
housekeeping unit. For the purposes of Inclusionary Zoning, the Household Size is the total number of
individuals (adults and children) in the household that will occupy an Inclusionary Unit, regardless of each
individual household member’s relationship, if any, to other members of the household.
Household Income. The household income for an applicant seeking to rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit
is the total combined annual cash income, whether earned (for example, salary, wages, tips, or commissions)
or unearned (for example, benefits, unemployment compensation, interest, dividends) of each household
member.
Inclusionary Housing
Inclusionary ownership unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross annual
income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), as calculated using a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) formula that defines a unit-specific household size based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of
bedrooms); and
(2) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase
does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for athe
household size; and
(3) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable atto households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the purchasing household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary rental unit. A dwelling unit:
(1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross
annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA,
to which the unit is targeted, as calculated using a HUD formula that defines a unit-specific household size
based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and
(2) Which is rented by inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial occupancy
does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the
household size; and
Commented [PC4]: Minor rewording per legal
review 1/24/2020
Commented [PC5]: Added per PC discussion
1/14/2020
Commented [A6]: Consolidated existing
definition of “household” and proposed new term
“household size” per legal review 12/12/2019
Commented [A7]: Proposed version included a
new definition, for inclusionary housing. Removed
and consolidated into other definitions per legal
review, 12/12/2019
Commented [A8]: Definition reworded per legal
review, 12/12/2019
Commented [PC9]: Minor rewording per legal
review 1/24/2020
Commented [A10]: Definition reworded per
legal review, 12/12/2019
Commented [PC11]: Minor rewording per legal
review 1/24/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 3
(3) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual
household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington
MSA;
Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of
the renting household do not have to be the same.
Inclusionary Unit. A dwelling unit that is either an Inclusionary Ownership Unit or an Inclusionary Rental Unit.
Mixed-rate housing development. A housing development that has both market rate and below market
rateAffordable Housing dwelling units, pursuant to Section 18.02 of these regulations.
Commented [A12]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [PC13]: Definition modified per
legal review to refer to Affordable Housing (defined
term) and not simply “below market rate” which
was previously undefined but was interpreted as
Affordable in the LDRs. 1/24/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 4
18. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus
18.03 Housing Preservation
18.01 Inclusionary Zoning
A. Purpose. Inclusionary zoning to provide affordable and moderate income housing in the applicable
locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article the City
Center Form Based Codes District of the City of South Burlington has been adopted pursuant to 24 VSA §
4414(7) for the following purposes:
(1) To be a City that is affordable for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life through the
preservation and development of a variety of housing in diverse, accessible neighborhoods, consistent
with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, as most recently amended;
(2) To implement policies that support achievement of housing goals, objectives, and targets included
in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as most recently amended;
(23) To affirmatively address the current and anticipated need for affordable housing units among low-
and moderate-income South Burlington households that pay more than 30% of their income on housing,
as described in state law (24 VSA § 4303(1));
(34) To mitigate the impacts of market-rate housing development that is unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households on the cost and supply of land and infrastructure available for affordable
housing development in the City Center Form Based Codes Districtapplicable locations;
(45) To promote the integrated development of mixed-income housing in the applicable locationsCity
Center Form Based Codes District, including a range of housing options needed to strengthen, diversify,
and contribute to the vitality of City Center and the South Burlington community;
(56) To ensure thatpromote the development of affordable housing opportunities that are available in
the City Center Form Based Codes District, which is or will belocations accessible to goods and services
and served by existing or planned public transit services;
(67) To ensure that affordable housing units developed under inclusionary zoning remain perpetually
affordable.
(78) To provide integrated development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of
providing affordable housing units, including eliminating maximum residential densities, minimum lot
sizes, and minimum parking requirements for residential units within the City Center Form Based Codes
District.
B. Applicability
(1) Zoning Districts and Locations. Inclusionary Zoning shall apply in the following areas (see also
Figure 18-1): Commented [PC14]: Added per PC request
1/14/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 5
(a) All zoning districts that permit residential development and underlie the Transit Overlay
District;
(b) The parts of the Center City Form-Based Code district that do not underlie the Transit Overlay
District;
(c) The land in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road that does not underlie the Transit Overlay District
and is bounded by Interstate 89 in the southerly direction and the Transit Overlay District in the
northerly direction; and
(d) The entire area of a parcel or PUD, whichever is greater, that includes land located in any one
of the areas listed in Subsections (B)(1)(a)-(c) of this Article.
FIGURE 18-1 INCLUSIONARY ZONING APPLICABLE AREA
Commented [A15]: Staff recommended
clarification per 12/17/2019 memo to Commission
1/8/2020
Commented [PC16]: Added per PC request 1-
14-2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 6
(2) Covered Development.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply in the
locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article
within the City Center Form Based Codes District to any development, notwithstanding any phasing of
the development, that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more total dwelling units through
subdivision, Planned Unit Development, new construction, or the conversion of an existing structure
or structures from non-residential to residential use.
(b) In addition, the provisions of this section shall apply to any development within the locations
defined in Subsection (B)(1) that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more units of permanent
housing as a congregate care facility, with the exceptions in (3)(b) below. These housing units shall
be treated as rental dwelling units for purposes of determining the minimum percentage that must be
Inclusionary Rental Units. No Residential Unit Offset or Density Bonus may apply for any type of
housing unit for which these regulations do not establish a numerical density limitation. When a
development includes both dwelling units and housing units permitted as congregate care housing,
the number of required inclusionary units shall be determined by the sum of the dwelling units and
the housing units contained in the congregate care facility, and distributed proportionally between the
two uses.
Example: in a development with 40 congregate care housing units and 20 rental residential dwelling
units, six (6) of the congregate care housing units are required to be Inclusionary units and three (3)
of the residential dwelling units are required to be Inclusionary units.
(c) For purposes of this requirement, two or more developments shall be aggregated and
considered as one development subject to this section if:
(a i) The developments are located on abutting properties; and
(b ii) The developments are owned or controlled by the same person; and
(iii) Each of the developments was or is subject to Inclusionary Zoning requirements under
Land Development Regulations adopted by the City; and
(iv) One or more of the developments consists of fewer than twelve (12) dwelling units; and,
(ciii) Either:
(iI) The developments will undergo subdivision, construction, or conversion of an existing
structure or structures from non-residential to residential use within the same five-year
period, which period shall be measured from the date a proper and complete application is
first submitted, or
(IIii) A master plan exists, as approved by the City, which includes two or more of the
developments.
(d) Previously Approved Master Plans
(i) The provisions of this section shall apply in the locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) of
this Article to any portion of a Master Plan approved after January 1, 2020, that will result in the
creation of twelve (12) or more total dwelling units for which the City has not received a complete
application for preliminary plat approval and/or site plan approval. The addition of offset
residential units allowed under Section F of this Article alone shall not be considered a deviation
Commented [A17]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period, 12/4/2019
Commented [A18]: Reworded per legal review
12/12/2019
Commented [A19]: Added per PC discussion
12/17/2019
Commented [A20]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period to clarify how congregate care
and other dwellings not treated as “residential” for
density purposes in the regulations are regulated
Commented [A21]: Clarified that this applies
only to congregate care (prior versions referred to
“all other forms of permanent housing, including
but not limited to congregate care” and then later
only referenced congregate car. 1/2/2020
Commented [A22]: Added per legal review.
Confirms applicability of the Inclusionary Standard
and precludes two projects, each of which would be
subject to Inclusionary Standards, from having to be
aggregated unnecessarily. 1/10/2020
Commented [A23]: Section added per PC
discussion 12/17/2020 to clarify the point at which
Inclusionary Zoning applies.
Commented [PC24]: Changed “an approved
master plan” to “Master Plans approved after
January 1, 2020” per legal review 1/20/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 7
of the master plan pursuant to Section 15.07(D) of these regulations that requires amendment of
the master plan.
(ii) The provisions of this section shall apply in the locations defined in Subsection (B)(1) of
this Article to any portion of an approved master plan proposed for an amendment that includes
an increase in the number of dwelling units and/or adding land to the master plan.
(23) Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from these requirements:
(a) Projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and
occupancy of its students.
(b) Institutional, group homes or group quarters housing, including long-term care facilities.
(c) The redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that produces no additional units.
C. Inclusionary Units
(1) For covered development, at least five fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units offered
for rent or sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative
ownership, shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of the area median
income (AMI) adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall
be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the AMI adjusted for household size.
An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes
no greater than 120% of the AMI adjusted for household size. Inclusionary Rental Units and at least ten
percent (10%) of the total dwelling units offered for sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple,
shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be Inclusionary Ownership Units. Prior to or upon
request for the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall notify the City whether the units will be
Inclusionary Rental Units or Inclusionary Ownership Units so that the City, or its designee, may confirm
that the offered rents or sales prices meet these requirements prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy. In addition:
(a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional
dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but
less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00
are rounded up).
(b) When a covered development results in 12 or more lots that are sold prior to development,
10% of the lots must include deed restrictions that satisfy these inclusionary zoning requirements.
(b) When the developer proposes to build at least 12 but fewer than 17 housing units, the
requirement will be to include two (2) affordable dwelling units one of which shall be affordable to
households whose incomes are no greater than 80% of AMI adjusted for household size and the other
shall be affordable to households whose income is no greater than 100% of AMI adjusted for
household size.
(c) When the developer is required to build a number of affordable dwelling units where the
number of affordable dwelling units calculated by multiplying the total number of units by 15% is not
evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI level
adjusted for household size and, where applicable, the second “remaining” dwelling unit must be
affordable at 100% AMI level adjusted for household size.
Example: The developer is required to build 13 affordable dwelling units. Four dwelling units
must be affordable at the 80% of AMI adjusted for household size, four dwelling units must be
Commented [A25]: Consolidation of terms and
minor rewording per legal review 12/12/2019
Commented [A26]: Added by AHC as during
public hearing review period 12/4/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 8
affordable at the 100% of AMI adjusted for household size; four dwelling units must be
affordable at the 120% of AMI adjusted for household size; and the “remaining” dwelling unit
must be affordable at the 80% AMI adjusted for household size.
(2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be:
(a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-
Site Construction) of this Article, and integrated among market rate units in the development.
(b) Integrated into the overall project layout and Ssimilar in architectural style and outward
appearance to market rate units in the proposed development.
(i) Inclusionary units shall be physically integrated into and complement the overall layout,
scale, and massing of the proposed development; this criterion may be achieved in a single
building or multiple buildings.
(ii) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural
design details quality as those of the market rate units in the development used in market rate
construction. The exterior amenities and landscaping provided for the inclusionary units shall be
similar to those provided for the market rate units in the development.Similar exterior amenities
and landscaping shall also be provided. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units
may differ from those of the market rate units.
(iii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; inclusionary
units may differ from market rate units with regard both to interior amenities and to gross floor
area. The average (mean) gross floor area of all inclusionary units, however, shall not be less than
70% of the average (mean) gross floor area of market rate units;
(iv) Inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard to both interior amenities
and amount of Habitable Area. However, the minimum Habitable Area of inclusionary units shall
be 450 square feet for studios, 650 square feet for 1-bedroom units, 900 square feet for 2-
bedroom units and 1,200 square feet for three (3) or more bedrooms. If the average (mean) area
of the Habitable Area of the market rate units is less than the minimum area required for the
Habitable Area of inclusionary units, then the Habitable Area of the inclusionary units shall be no
less than 90% of the average (mean) Habitable Area of the market rate units.
(v) Inclusionary units developed as part of a housing development of predominantly market
rate duplexes and/or multi-family dwellings may be of varied types. Inclusionary units developed
as part of a predominantly-single-family housing development may be accommodated in buildings
containing up to four (4) dwelling units that have the appearance of single family homes through
their scale, massing, and architectural style. (iv) Inclusionary Units developed as part of a single-
family housing development may be accommodated in duplexes or multi-family dwellings that
resemble market rate single-family dwellings, as allowed within the City Center Form Based Codes
District.
(vi) There shall be no indications from common areas that these units are inclusionary units.
(vii) The average (mean) number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units shall be no fewer than
the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. For projects involving 50 or more
dwelling units, the applicant shall provide a revised estimate to the Administrative Officer at each
interval of 50 dwelling units; the revised estimate shall account for the differences in estimates vs.
Commented [A27]: This section has been
modified from prior versions per PC discussion as
noted (12/17/19)
Commented [A28]: Added language
“complement the overall layout, scale, and massing
of the proposed development” and reworded.
Replaces prior drafts. 1/8/2020
Commented [PC29]: Replaced “area of above
ground living space” to “Habitable Area” per pc
discussion 1/14/2020
Commented [A30]: This section was reworded
to provide these minimums as the default, and
providing an exception for the 90% rather than a
either/or. 1/8/2020
Commented [PC31]: Removed second use of
the word “however” here 1/22/2020
Commented [A32]: Section updated from prior
versions to clarify intent. 1/8/2020
Commented [PC33]: Added word
“predominantly” and changed “or” to “and/or”
1/22/2020
Commented [PC34]: Modified language slightly
from “in duplexes or ,multi-family dwellings
provided td have the appearance of single family
homes” to “up to four (4) dwelling units that have
the appearance of single family homes through their
scale, massing, and architectural style” per
recommendation at 1/14/2020 PC meeting.
Commented [A35]: Prior version had two
options: to have bedrooms in the same proportion
for inclusionary or market rate, or to meet the
average. The second option (meet the average)
encompasses the first option, so not necessary.
1/8/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 9
actuals for the units permitted to date and shall apply to inclusionary units for which the
Administrative Officer has not issued a zoning permit.
(viii) Unfinished space within an Inclusionary Ownership Unit that is not initially constructed as
bedroom, but which can be converted to such, may count as a bedroom. No more than one (1)
bedroom per inclusionary ownership unit may be counted in this manner.
(c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. The
applicant shall provide a proposed phasing plan demonstrating concurrent development and
occupancy of the market rate units and the inclusionary units. The Development Review Board may
attach conditions necessary to assure compliance with this section and may, based on documentation
from a financial institution denying financing or on physical site constraints, approve a plan allowing
non-concurrent construction of the inclusionary units.
Buildings containing the last 10% of market rate units shall not receive certificates of occupancy until
certificates of occupancy are issued for all buildings containing inclusionary units, including when the
inclusionary units are provided off-site as provided for in Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction)
of this Article.
D. Affordability Requirements. The basis for determining maximum rental and purchase prices for
inclusionary units and applicant rental or purchaser household eligibility for accessing inclusionary units under
this section are described below. The data used to determine the incomes, rents and purchase prices is
updated annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Vermont specific data
is updated annually on the Vermont Housing Data website, managed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency,
in a table titled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by income and household size”.
Refer to this table in administration of this section.
(1) Affordability Determinations. Inclusionary units required under this section shall be affordable
and marketed to income-eligible eligible households as follows
(a) Maximum rent and purchase prices.
(a) For Inclusionary Rental Units, the maximum monthly rent that may be charged is one-twelfth
of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to the size of the specific unit
(measured in number of bedrooms). When any component of the rental housing costs is excluded, the
maximum rent that may be charged is reduced accordingly.
(b) For Inclusionary Ownership Units, the maximum monthly housing cost that the owner(s) may
be required to pay is one-twelfth of 30% of the targeted Area Median Income (80%) corresponding to
the size of the specific unit (measured in number of bedrooms).
(a)(c) Maximum rent and purchase price calculation. Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices for
Inclusionary Units are calculated based on three components: housing costs, area median income
targets, and the number of bedrooms in the inclusionary unit. Housing costs for inclusionary units
shall not exceed 30% of annual household income, adjusted for household size.
(i) Housing costs used to calculate the affordability of inclusionary units shall include:
(I) For Inclusionary Rental Units – rent (inclusive of any condominium or homeowners’
association fees) and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs).
(II) (ii) For sale Inclusionary Ownership Units – mortgage principal and interest, annual
property taxes, average annual homeowner’s insurance premiums, and average annual mortgage
insurance premiums, and 50% of annual condominium or homeowners’ association fees.
Commented [A36]: Reworded per PC discussion
12/17/2020
Commented [A37]: This section has been
augmented to require an application to provide a
proposed phasing plan to the DRB and a specific
allowance for the DRB to attach conditions. With
this in place, we were able to remove the
requirement for the “last 10% of units” which is
problematic in its implementation. 1/10/2020
Commented [A38]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A39]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A40]: Minor rewording in this
section per legal review 12/12/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 10
i. (b) Income eligibility shall be determined based on income guidelines, as adjusted for
household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-
based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The
AMI shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit
is available for occupancy.
(ii) Area Median Incomes (AMI) Targets. HUD estimates the Area Median Income for
households residing in the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and,
in addition, for households of varying sizes residing in the MSA. HUD also calculates AMI ratios,
including 80% AMI, for households of varying sizes in the MSA. HUD publishes this AMI-based
annual household income information annually. Maximum rents and sales prices shall be
determined using the most recent HUD-published income guidelines available at the time the unit
is available for occupancy.
(iii) Number of bedrooms. Rental and purchase prices of inclusionary units are not linked
to the size of the household that rents or purchases the inclusionary unit. Number of bedrooms is
used to define a household size linked to the specific unit. The use of “number of bedrooms” for
this purpose is explained under the Vermont Housing Data website’s annual maximum rent and
purchase price tables entitled “Maximum rent and purchase price affordability thresholds by
income and household size”.
Table 18-1 HUD Formula for Determining
Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices
Unit Size Household Size
Equivalent1
Efficiency/Studio 1
One-Bedroom Unit 1.5
Two-Bedroom Unit 3
Three-Bedroom Unit 4.5
Four-Bedroom Unit 6
1 The maximum allowable rent or sales price is based on the designated AMI level (80%, 100%, or 120%) corresponding
to the “Household Size Equivalent” in the table above that matches the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. The
result is that the maximum rent or sales price for a particular affordable unit is the same for all eligible households
seeking to rent or purchase that affordable housing unit.
For example, the maximum rent or sales price for a one-bedroom inclusionary unit is determined using the average of
the applicable AMI level for one- and two-person households. Note that the applicant household’s income is not used
to determine the maximum rent or sales price of a particular inclusionary housing unit.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 11
(d) With respect to inclusionary units offered for sale, sale prices shall be calculated based on an
available fixed rate, 30-year mortgage, consistent with a blended rate for banks or other lending
institutions offering mortgages in South Burlington, or a lower Vermont Housing Finance Agency
(VHFA) rate if the developer can guarantee the availability of VHFA mortgages at this rate for all
required inclusionary units. The calculated price shall assume a down payment of no more than 5% of
the purchase price.
(2) Renter and Home-buyer Income Eligibility. Income eligibility for an applicant household is
determined based on three components: Household Size, Household Income and Annual Median Income
(AMI) targets for Inclusionary Units. The AMI amounts for applicants seeking to rent or purchase an
Inclusionary Unit shall be determined using the most recent HUD-published income guidelines available
at the time the unit is available for occupancy.
(a) For renters, households, regardless of household size, are eligible for inclusionary rental units
so long as their combined household income does not exceed 80% AMI.
(a)(b) For home-buyers, households, regardless of household size, are eligible for inclusionary
ownership units so long as their combined household income does not exceed 100% AMI.
(3) Flexibility between maximum rent and purchase prices and eligible renter or purchaser
households.
(a) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit with a rent
or purchase price linked to a household size (derived from number of bedrooms) that is not the same
as the Eeligible Household’s size.
Examples:
● a two-person household may purchase a three-bedroom house or condominium.
● a three-person household may rent a one-bedroom apartment.
(b) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit with an
AMI target that is higher than the eligible Household’s AMI percentage.
Examples:
● a three-person household whose income is 70% of AMI (for its household size) may rent an
apartment for which the rent is targeted to 80% of AMI.
● a two-person household whose income is 90% of AMI (for its household size) may purchase a
condominium or house for which the purchase price is targeted to 80% of AMI.
(c) Eligible renter or purchaser households may rent or purchase an Inclusionary Unit whosefor
which the housing costs exceed 30% of the Eeligible Household’s income.
(4) Alternative Eligibility Criteria. When an affordable housing organization is a partner in a covered
development, eligibility may be determined in accordance with program-based eligibility requirements
established by the partner housing organization.
(25) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing
from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase
Commented [A41]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A42]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A43]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12
by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency,
to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager, or their designees, prior to
recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. Any deed restriction, covenant or other instrument
or agreement ensuring the continued affordability of inclusionary units shall include:
(a) Resale Restrictions. Provisions to ensure the affordability of units offered for sale shall include
a formula for limiting the resale price to whatever is the higher of the purchase price the seller paid
plus 2% for each year of ownership (non-compounding), or what is affordable to a household at 80%
AMI at the time of resale. equity appreciation to an amount not to exceed 25% of the increase in the
unit’s value, as determined by the difference between fair market appraisals of the unit at the time of
purchase and the time of resale, with adjustments for improvements made by the seller and the
necessary costs of sale, as may be approved by the City Manager Eligible households are those having
incomes no greater than 100% AMI at the time of purchase. In addition, the City shall have the option
to purchase or transfer its option to purchase Inclusionary Ownership Units at each future time of
resale. In addition, any covenant shall have language to ensure the continuing affordability of
Inclusionary Rental Units if the unit or property offered for sale instead will be offered for rental.
(i) The seller or his/her representative shall notify the City Manager or his/her designee of the
prospective sale of an Inclusionary Ownership Unit;
(ii) The City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust
Fund Committee, shall then have an exclusive option for thirty (30) days to purchase the
Inclusionary Ownership Unit from the seller at a price consistent with the requirements of this
subsection unless the City Manager or his/her designee waivesd the option by declaring in writing
an intent not to exercise the option or transfers the option as described in Subsection (D)(5)(a)(iv)
of this Article;
(iii) If the City Manager or his/her designee, in consultation with the members of the Housing Trust
Fund Committee, fails to exercise such option by failing to negotiate and sign a purchase and sale
agreement for purchase of the Inclusionary Ownership Unit, or declaring an intent not to exercise
such option, the seller shall offer the Inclusionary Ownership Unit for purchase to income-eligible
households in accordance with the requirements of subsection 18.01(D)(5)(a) (Affordability
Requirements).
(iv) On or before a purchase and sale agreement is executed between the seller and the City
Manager or his/her designee, s/he may assign the City’s option specified in this subsection to
purchase the Inclusionary Ownership Unit to a 501(c)(3) organization whose primary purpose is
the supply of affordable housing in perpetuity. Upon the decision to exercise this transfer option,
the City Manager or his/her designee shall notify the seller of such assignment. The organization
to which the City has assigned the option shall deal directly with the seller and shall have all of the
authority of the City Manager, as provided under this subsection.
(b) Rent IncreasesChanges. Provisions to ensure the affordability of Inclusionary rRental uUnits
shall require that limit annual rent changes not exceedincreases to the percentage increase change in
the median household income within the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, when the change is an
increase; and that annual rent changes match the percentage change in the median household income
within the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, when the change is a decrease. An exception to the limit
on increases or required decreases is permitted to the extent that further increases or delayed
decreases are made necessary by documented hardship or other unusual conditions. , and shall
provide that no rent increase Such exceptions may not take effect until it has received the written
approval of approved in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee;
Commented [A44]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A45]: Minor rewording
throughout this subsection of most recent draft per
legal review 12/12/2019
Commented [A46]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019. PC concurred
12/17/2019
Commented [A47]: Clarification added by AHC
during public hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A48]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A49]: Added for clarification by
the AHC during public hearing review period
12/4/2019
Commented [A50]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A51]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 13
(c) Sublet Restrictions. Provisions for inclusionary rRental uUnits shall prohibit the subletting of
units at rental rates and/or to households that exceed affordability limits established pursuant to this
section.
(36) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units
shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary
units and the household incomes at move-in, based on documentation provided by tenant for owner’s
completion of form provided by the City, to certify that Inclusionary Rental Unit rent maximums and
household income maximums haveincomes of unit tenants, and certifies that unit affordability has been
maintained as required.
E. Developer Options
(1) Options (a) and (b) below are available to developers, upon request, as necessary to address
documented financial hardships based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or
physical site constraints that limit or preclude the incorporation of inclusionary units within a covered
development. Options (c) and (d) are available to the developer at his or her discretion. A payment or
contribution in lieu of constructing required inclusionary units shall be prohibited.
(a) Dedication. The South Burlington City Council, in consultation with the entity designated by
the City Council (for example, a permanent South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee or South
Burlington Affordable Housing Board), may accept as an alternative to the development of
inclusionary units, a dedication by the developer of equal or greater value, including land and expected
inclusionary unit value, that furthers the purposes of this section. An example might be the donation
of developable land in the City Center Form Based Codes District that provides accessibility to transit,
employment opportunities, and services.
(b) Off-Site Construction. The developer of a covered development may comply with the
requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of receiving a permitthe date of the
decision approving for the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on
another site parcel within the same contiguous underlying zoning district in which the covered
development is located City Center Form Based Codes District, or contracting with another entity to
construct the required number of units within the same contiguous underlying zoning district in which
the covered development is located. This condition shall not be considered satisfied until certificates
of occupancy have been issued for all off-site inclusionary units in the City Center Form Based Codes
District. Off-site means outside the boundaries of the lot or PUD on which the covered development
is located.
(c) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for
three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit
inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
(d) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for
four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. These credit
inclusionary units earned under these provisions are ineligible for offset or bonus units.
F. Offset for Fulfillment of Inclusionary Unit Requirements
(1) Residential Unit Offset. To offset an applicant’s fulfillment of this Section’s inclusionary unit
requirement is an allotment of one additional dwelling unit for each required Inclusionary Rental Unit that
is constructed; or an allotment of two additional dwelling units for each required Inclusionary Ownership
Commented [A52]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A53]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A54]: Reworded by AHC during
public hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A55]: Minor rewording of this
section per legal review 12/12/2019
Commented [A56]: AL: With addition of
(B)(1)(d) for split lots, should the same contiguous
underlying zoning district be considered whichever
of (B)(1)(a)-(c) is applicable?
Commented [A57R56]: Yes.
Commented [A58]: Added “or PUD” per legal
review 1/8/2020
Commented [A59]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A60]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A61]: Minor rewording of this
section per legal review 12/12/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 14
Unit that is constructed. This offset shall not be provided for any required unit for which the developer
receives approval for the Dedication as described in 18.01 (E).(1)(a) herein.
(a) Offset residential units are not subject to the inclusionary affordability requirements.
(b) The offset described above shall be approved as long as the total housing units in the specific
covered development do not result in non-compliance with Section 15.02(A)(4).
Example (1): In a 24-unit owner housing development on a six-acre plot in a R4 district, the
developer is required to build two (2) inclusionary units The developer shall receive an offset of
four (4) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 28 dwelling units.
Example (2): In a 36-unit rental housing development on a three-acre plot in a R12 district, the
developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of
five (5) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 41 dwelling units.
(c) Where a zoning district establishes a maximum building coverage of less than twenty percent
(20%) and/or a maximum overall lot coverage of less than thirty percent (30%), the applicable
maximum coverage in that district shall be increased to accommodate the offset units. For
Inclusionary Ownership Units, this increase shall be twenty percent (20%) and for Inclusionary Rental
Units, this increase shall be fifteen percent (15%).
Example (1): In a zoning district with a maximum building coverage of fifteen percent (15%), the
maximum building coverage shall be increased to eighteen percent (18%) to accommodate offset
Inclusionary Ownership Units.
Example (2): In a zoning district with a maximum building coverage of fifteen percent (15%), the
maximum building coverage shall be increased to seventeen and 25/100 percent (17.25%) to
accommodate Inclusionary Rental Units.
G. Density Bonuses for Exceeding Inclusionary Housing Requirements
(1) Applicability. This subsection applies in zoning districts or portions thereof as defined in
Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article, in which residential
development is allowed. However, density is not a dimensional requirement in the City Center Form Based
Code districts, therefore this section is not relevant in those districts.
(2) Density Bonuses. When an applicant voluntarily includes, in the base zoning density unit-
maximum for the development, more than the number of inclusionary units required under Section
18.01(C)(1), then upon the applicant’s request, the development shall receive, in addition to the offset
units, a density bonus. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for each voluntary Inclusionary Rental
Unit and two dwelling units for each voluntary Inclusionary Ownership Unit, up to a maximum density of
50% more than the base maximum density permitted in the zoning district. In zoning districts where
additional density is permitted via Planned Unit Development, the base density shall be defined as the
maximum density for the district without use of PUDs. Density bonus dwelling units are not subject to the
inclusionary affordability requirements.
Example (1): In a 24-unit owner housing development on a six-acre plot in a R4 district, the developer
is required to build two (2) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of four (4) market
rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 28 dwelling units. In order to receive
approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 8 additional units in
this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an additional four
Commented [PC62]: Added per PC discussion
1/14/2020
Commented [A63]: Minor rewording per legal
review 12/12/2019
Commented [A64]: Added “maximum” to
density, and added “. In zoning districts where
additional density is permitted via Planned Unit
Development, the base density shall be defined as
the maximum density for the district without use of
PUDs per PC discussion 12/17/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 15
(4) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (24) for which the developer receives
12 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 36 units, 6 of which are inclusionary (17% of
the units) and 30 of which are market rate (83% of the units).
Example (2): In a 36-unit rental housing development on a three-acre plot in a R12 district, the
developer is required to build five (5) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of five
(5) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 41 dwelling units. In order to
receive approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 13 additional
units in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an
additional thirteen (13) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (36) for which the
developer receives 13 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 54 units, 18 of which are
inclusionary (33% of the units) and 36 of which are market rate (67% of the units).
Example (3): In a 40-unit owner housing development on a ten-acre plot in a R4 district, the
developer is required to build four (4) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of eight
(8) market rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 48 dwelling units. In order to
receive approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 12
additional units in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer
includes an additional six (6) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (40) for
which the developer receives 12 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 60 units, 10 of
which are inclusionary (17% of the units) and 50 of which are market rate (83% of the units).
Example (4): In a 40-unit rental housing development on a 10-acre plot in a R4 district, the developer
is required to build six (6) inclusionary units. The developer shall receive an offset of six (6) market
rate dwelling units, and the project now includes a total of 46 dwelling units. In order to receive
approval for the maximum 50% density increase (which equates to a maximum of 14 additional units
in this example since the offset units need to be accounted for), the developer includes an additional
fourteen (14) inclusionary units in the base zoning density unit-maximum (40) for which the
developer receives 14 bonus density units. In sum, the total project includes 60 units, 20 of which are
inclusionary (33% of the units) and 40 of which are market rate (67% of the units).
H. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses for Developments with Fewer than 12 Dwelling Units
(1) Applicability. This subsection applies in zoning districts or portions thereof as defined in
Subsection (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning Districts and Locations) of this Article, in which residential
development is allowed. However, since density is not a dimensional requirement in the City Center Form
Based Code Districts, this section is not relevant in that District.
(2) Density Bonus. For applications that include at least three (3) but fewer than twelve (12) dwelling
units (calculated using the base zoning density unit-maximum for the development), where the developer
has opted to construct one or more inclusionary units any approval shall, upon request of the applicant,
include a density bonus over the base zoning density. The density bonus shall be one dwelling unit for
each inclusionary rental unit and two dwelling units for each inclusionary ownership unit included
voluntarily, up to a maximum density of 50% more than the base density. The density bonus units are not
subject to the inclusionary affordability requirements.
*
Commented [A65]: Minor rewording per legal
review in this section 12/12/2019
Commented [A66]: Staff removed section on
limited parking minimum as they are no longer
relevant 12/12/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 16
FI. Administration and Compliance
(1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed
projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following information:
(a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary
units in relation to market rate units;
(b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including
inclusionary unit set aside calculations;
(c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs,
and other data necessary to determine unit affordability;
(d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under
Subsection (E) (Developer Options) of this Article;
(e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility;
(f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the
responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability;
(g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability;
(h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and
(i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance
with inclusionary zoning requirements.
(2) Compliance Officer. The Administrative Officer (AO) is responsible for certifying, in writing,
whether a development application is in compliance with the inclusionary zoning requirements specified
in Subsection (FJ)(1) (Application Requirements) of this Article. In cases in which the AO determines the
application is not in compliance, he or she shall specify the areas of non-compliance.
(3) Ongoing Compliance. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any; or City Manager or
his/her designee or another municipal entity; or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization, as
determined by the South Burlington City Council, shall be responsible for the on-going administration of
the inclusionary units as well as for the promulgation of such rules, regulations, and/or procedures as may
be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority, or City Manager or his/her designee, or
other municipal entity, or non-profit organization shall define and implement eligibility priorities,
continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures.
(3) Program Evaluation. In order to monitor and track the success of inclusionary zoning in meeting
the purposes of this section and the City’s affordable housing goals and targets, the City Manager or
his/her designee shall:
(a) Collect and maintain income eligibility guidelines, mortgage interest rate information, and
other information necessary to meet the requirements of this section;
(b) Monitor and maintain records regarding the status of inclusionary units developed under this
Section 18.01; and
(c) Prepare an annual written report for distribution to the South Burlington City Council and
Planning Commission and posting on the City’s website, to be considered in a public meeting, that
summarizes the status of covered projects and inclusionary units approved to date, and sets forth
program findings, conclusions, and recommendations for any changes that will increase the
effectiveness of inclusionary zoning.
Commented [A67]: Section removed per legal
review: Since covered developments are reviewed
as part of a PUD, etc., the review and decision
administration is already covered elsewhere in the
LDR. 12/12/2019
Commented [A68]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A69]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 17
18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus
A. Purpose. One of the adopted Comprehensive Plan goals is the availability of quality housing and
quality affordable housing to attract and retain a qualified work force. The following provisions are established
to enable the City of South Burlington to ensure a supply of standard housing available at below-market rate
purchase prices or rents. In this way, a choice of housing opportunities for a variety of income groups within
the City can be created in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and these Regulations.
B. Applicability. This section shall apply in any Zoning District in which residential development is
permitted, with the exception of the applicable locations defined in Section 18.01 (B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning
Districts and Locations) of this ArticleCity Center Form Based Codes District.
C. Density Increase. On a case by case basis and as part of the Planned Unit Development application,
the Development Review Board may grant an increase in residential density over the base zoning density, in
order to create below market rate housing. The density increases shall be approved on the following criteria
and standards:
(1) Affordable Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase
of no more than fifty percent (50%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for an Affordable Housing
Development. The total of below market rateAffordable Housing units shall be at least half of the total
proposed dwelling units. Where the total proposed dwelling units is an uneven number, the total of below
market rate units shall be calculated as at least the total proposed dwelling units, less one (1), divided by
two. Such application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15,
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review.
(2) Mixed Rate Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase
of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for a Mixed Rate
Housing Development. For each additional market-rate dwelling unit produced as a result of the density
increase, one (1) qualifying comparable below market rateAffordable Housing unit must be provided. Such
application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision
and Planned Unit Development Review.
Table 13-9 Example of Affordable Housing Bonus Calculation
Affordable Project: Mixed-Rate Project:
50% of Total Units Affordable 25% of Bonus Units Affordable
Acres 8.35 8.35
Base Density 12 12
Base Units 100.2* 100.2*
Bonus Units 50 25
Total Units 150 125
Net Density 17.98 14.99
Affordable Units 74 13
Market Rate Units 74 112
Commented [PC70]: Modified per legal review
to clarify that it’s referring to Affordable Housing, a
defined term. 1/24/2020
Commented [A71]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [PC72]: Modified per legal review
to clarify that it’s referring to Affordable Housing, a
defined term. 1/24/2020
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 18
*Partial units always round DOWN to the lower whole number of units
D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and
Conditional Use Review, , and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, the following
standards shall guide the Development Review Board:
(1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in
question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or
districts.
(2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall
apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or
without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre.
(3) Development Standards.
(a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the
development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed
among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other
units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board
as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington.
(b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum gross floor Habitable Area area per affordable dwelling unit
shall not be lessbe no smaller than 70% of the amount of the Habitable Areas of comparable market-
rate units in the housing development.
(c) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards set forth in Section 18.01(D)(5) and (6) shall
apply.
(i) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards for Section 18.01(D)(2) shall apply.
(4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, the City Manager and/or
his/her designees, or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going
administration of the affordable housing units as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to implement this program. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will
determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental
and sales procedures.
E. Housing Types. The dwelling units may at the discretion of the Development Review Board be of varied
types including one-family, two-family, or multi-family construction, and studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom,
three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartment construction.
18.03 Housing Preservation
A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to achieve one or more of these goals:
(1) To promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community by preserving existing housing
stock in residential neighborhoods, particularly the supply of affordable and moderately-priced homes
through the use of housing retention requirements as referenced in South Burlington’s 2016
Comprehensive Plan;
Commented [PC73]: Replaced above ground
living area with Habitable Area per PC discussion
1/14/2020
Commented [A74]: Changed by AHC during
public hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [PC75]: Changed “for” to “set
forth in” per legal review 1/22/2020
Commented [A76]: AHC replaced prior proposal
during public hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A77]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 19
(2) To reduce and mitigate the demolition and conversion to nonresidential use or nonuse of
residential structures, and to maintain housing that meets the needs of all economic groups within the
City particularly for those of low and moderate income;
(3) To meet the specific mandates of 24 V.S.A. Section 4302(11) related to housing opportunities for
safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters and to meet the needs of the diverse social and income
groups in each Vermont community;
(4) To support the retention of housing units in the City;
(5) To promote the health safety and welfare of the community by preserving the residential character
of neighborhoods; and,
(6) To offset the loss of housing by requiring replacement of housing units with new construction,
conversion of nonresidential to residential use or a contribution to the City of South Burlington Housing
Trust Fund.
B. Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in sub-section C (Exemptions), this Section 18.03 of these
Regulations is applicable to the loss, demolition or conversion to a nonresidential use or nonuse (for example
a vacant lot) of any dwelling unit in the City. This includes without limitation any of the following:
(1) any dwelling unit that is demolished, removed, or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to any
order, decision or other action of the City or State that is caused by unreasonable neglect or deferred
maintenance of an existing or prior owner(s);
(2) any dwelling unit that is demolished or removed pursuant to any municipal, State or Federal
program, including any air traffic or airport noise mitigation and compatibility program; and/or,
(3) the loss, demolition or conversion to nonresidential use or non-use of any other form of
permanent housing, including but not limited to housing units contained within a housing facility that is
permitted as a congregate care facility, except group homes, residential care facilities, or skilled nursing
facilities as defined in these Regulations.
C. Exemptions. This Section shall not be applicable to:
(1) The redevelopment of a dwelling unit or any other form of permanent housing, including but not
limited to housing units contained within a housing facility that is permitted as a congregate care facility,
within a two (2) year period. Any applicant for a demolition permit seeking to avail themselves of this
exemption shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy within two (2) years of the date of
issuance of the demolition permit thereby demonstrating redevelopment of the dwelling unit and
restoration of the residential use on the same parcel.
(2) Any dwelling unit ordered demolished or declared unfit for habitation because of damage caused
by civil commotion, malicious mischief, vandalism, natural disaster, fire, flood or other causes beyond the
owner’s control.
(3) Dwelling units existing in the following zoning districts: City Center Form Based Code, Industrial –
Open Space, Mixed Industrial & Commercial, Swift Street, Institutional-Agricultural, Parks & Recreation,
Municipal, Commercial 1-AIR, Airport, and Airport-Industrial.
(4) The conversion of a duplex to a single-family home.
(5) As of the initial effective date of this Section, any dwelling units:
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 20
(a) For which the Burlington International Airport / City of Burlington has obtained Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding approval for the
acquisition, demolition or removal pursuant to the FAA’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This
includes the dwelling units identified in FAA AIP grant numbers, AIP-94, AIP-105, and AIP-109 whether
or not these dwelling units have been purchased or removed as of January 1, 2018.
(b) Indicated on the 2009 Burlington International Airport Part 150 Noise Inventory and Re-Use
Plan “Proposed Property Acquisition Program” map, Figure 4: Detailed Acquisition Plan, dated April
23, 2009.
See Appendix H for a complete listing of properties by address.
(6) The removal of accessory dwelling units.
D. Approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Regulations and unless otherwise exempt
under sub-section C of this Section, no dwelling unit shall be removed, demolished, or converted to a
nonresidential use or nonuse, without receipt of a zoning permit in accordance with this Section.
In addition to any other submission requirements in these Regulations, the applicant shall submit as part of a
zoning permit application under this Section:
(1) A statement certifying the number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to
nonresidential use and the number of bedrooms existing within each of these units;
(2) A demonstration of compliance with tenant or occupant notice and relocation provisions of
applicable state and federal law; and
(3) A demonstration of compliance with sub-section E, F and G (if applicable) of this Section.
E. Housing replacement requirement. In addition to any other requirements for approval under these
Regulations, approval of the zoning permit referred to in Sub-section D above requires the replacement of
each dwelling unit that is to be removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential use or nonuse with a
replacement dwelling unit. Any dwelling unit approved under Section 18.01 or 18.02 shall not qualify as a
replacement dwelling unit. This replacement requirement may be satisfied in one of the following ways:
(1) Construction of a new dwelling unit in accordance with sub-section F of this Section;
(2) The conversion of a non-residential building to residential use in accordance with sub-section F of
this Section; or,
(3) Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Payment to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust
Fund for each dwelling unit that is removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential uses or nonuse
in an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the higher of (1) the most recent assed valuation the
premises as modified by the CLA (Common Level of Appraisal) or (2) the most recent sales price of the
premises.
F. Replacement Dwelling Unit Requirement. In addition to the foregoing, all replacement dwelling
units built pursuant to this Section must meet the following requirements:
(1) Each replacement dwelling unit shall have at least the same number of bedrooms as the dwelling
unit being replaced;
(2) Each replacement dwelling unit must be located within the City of South Burlington;
(3) Each replacement dwelling unit must receive a Certificate of Occupancy within eighteen (18)
months of the date on which the zoning permit referenced in Sub-section D above is approved;
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 21
(4) Each rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be maintained either as a Group Home or as a
leased “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective
occupants who are income eligible at the time they first lease the unit, for a period of not less than twenty
(20) years from the date of first occupancy.
(5) Each non-rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be offered for sale either:
(a) At or below the fair market value of the dwelling unit that was removed, demolished, or
converted to nonresidential use or nonuse, as determined either (i) by an appraisal provided by the
applicant, or (ii) by the City’s latest assessed value of the premises including the dwelling unit that was
removed, demolished, or converted to nonresidential use or to nonuse; or
(b) As an “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations, to
prospective purchaser/occupants who are income eligible at the time they purchase the unit. Any such
unit shall be subject to a covenant restricting the sale of the dwelling unit for a twenty (20) year period
to an owner/occupant who qualifies by income.
(6) Income eligibility for replacement units described in this subsection shall be determined based on
income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization.
The income eligibility shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a
unit is available for occupancy.
G. Performance Guaranty/Letter of Credit. When an applicant proposes to construct a new replacement
dwelling unit or convert a non-residential building to a replacement residential unit, the applicant must post
a performance guaranty in the form of a letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City Attorney, in
the amount equivalent to the amount the applicant would have been required to contribute to the City of
South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if the applicant had chosen that option pursuant to Sub-section E(3),
above. Such a performance guaranty shall be valid for no more than two (2) years, after which the full amount
due shall be provided to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if a replacement dwelling unit
satisfying the conditions of this Section has not been granted a Certificate of Occupancy as a dwelling unit.
H. Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non-
profit organization approved by the City of South Burlington following demonstration of its qualifications shall
be responsible for the on-going administration of this section as well as for the promulgation of such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to implement this section. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization
will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental
and sales procedures.
I. Violations. In the event of a violation of this Section, an enforcement action in accordance with Article
17 shall commence and the requirements of this Section shall apply in addition to any other remedies available
to the City by law.
ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations 22
NOTE - The following includes Inclusionary Zoning amendments to other LDR Articles:
Article 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
15.02 Authority and Required Review
A. Authority
(6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only
as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing
pursuant to Section 18.01 and 18.02 13.14 of these Regulations.
Article 17 ADMINISTRATION and ENFORCEMENT
17.03 Certificates of Occupancy
A. Certificate of Occupancy Required. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy or permit the use or occupancy
of any land or structure or part thereof created, erected, changed, converted, or wholly or partly altered or
enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of occupancy has been issued therefor by the Administrative
Officer conditioned upon the requirements below.
B. Certificate of Occupancy Not Required. Certificates of occupancy shall not be required for single-
family or two-family dwellings, except as specifically listed below:
(1) Certificates of Occupancy are required for single and two family dwellings within the Floodplain
Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict.
(2) Certificates of Occupancy are required for inclusionary single and two-family dwellings that are
Inclusionary Units within the applicable locations defined in Section 18.01(B)(1) (Applicability - Zoning
Districts and Locations City Center FBC District.
(3) Certificates of Occupancy are required for dwelling units constructed in accordance with Section
18.03(C)(1) of these Regulations.
(4) Certificates of Occupancy are required for replacement dwelling units built in accordance with
Section 18.03 of these Regulations.
Commented [A78]: Added by AHC during public
hearing review period 12/4/2019
Commented [A79]: A portion of the proposed
language in this section was removed due to
redundancy per legal review 12/12/2019
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Amendments approved by the Planning Commission *****
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 held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 to
consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form
Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are
north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District.
B. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards [LDR-
19-13A], and; (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all
remaining parts of the City.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Planning Commission made modifications to the amendments.
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
2
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw.
The proposed bylaw would extend and modify the Inclusionary Zoning requirements in the City
Center Form Based Code District to encompass all lands within the Transit Overlay District and
portions of land north of I-89 in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road, and would
modify income eligibility & continued affordability standards in the Affordable Housing Density
Bonus standards elsewhere in the City. Where Inclusionary Zoning requirements are extended,
they would replace the Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards.
Specifically, Inclusionary Standards include the following structure:
• Required for projects with 12 or more new dwelling units.
• 10% of homeownership units, 15% of rental units, and 10% of vacant lots must be affordable
in perpetuity at prices/rents affordable to households earning 80% of Area Median Income
(AMI). For ownership units, actual income eligibility would be up to 100% of AMI.
• Developer Offsets and Incentives. One additional market rate unit for every one required
inclusionary unit (rentals) and two additional market rate units for every one required
inclusionary unit (ownership) would be granted above the maximum zoning for the district.
In zoning districts with very low lot and building coverage limitations, these limitations are
proportionally increased to accommodate offset units.
• Developer Bonus: A develop providing a greater proportion of dwelling units at or below 80%
of AMI and meeting inclusionary requirements receiving additional market rate units at the
same ratios as for offset units, up to maximum total increase of 50% density increase. Note:
this figure is unchanged from the current maximum allowable bonus.
• Alternatives available to developer: land dedication in lieu of inclusionary unit construction
and off-site construction of inclusionary units.
• Units must remain affordable at the rates described above in perpetuity upon resale or new
tenants, adjusted for inflation.
Outside of the Inclusionary Zoning applicable areas, the proposed amendment would allow
households earning up to 100% of AMI to purchase a dwelling unit; units would be required to
remain affordable to households earning 80% of AMI, and continued affordability standards
would mirror those for Inclusionary Zoning.
(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 amendments are intended to support the economic integration of housing
in a manner that both supports affordability objectives and is attainable by the
development community. The Comprehensive Plan includes the following objectives and
strategies:
Vision & Goals: Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages
of life;
3
Objective 2. Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options affordable to
households of varying income levels and sizes by striving to meet the housing targets set
forth in this Plan.
Strategy 4. Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to
preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing.
Potential tools should be explored and could include form-based codes that would allow a
variety of residential and mixed use building types, transferable development rights,
neighborhood preservation overlay districts, household definition regulations,
inclusionary zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes,
and/or a housing retention ordinance.
Strategy 10. Develop strategies that can lead to the availability or development of more
housing that is affordable to middle income, working residents and families in the City…
Strategy 13. Target for construction, by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units - 840
housing units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing
units affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendments would replace existing allowances of density bonuses of
either 25% or 50% with an inclusionary requirement.
The requirement is accompanied by an offset allowance of 15%-20% in density increase
(rental & ownership) as an incentive to applicants as required under 24 VSA Chapter 117.
In addition, applicants electing to provide a greater proportion of dwelling units at the
Inclusionary Zoning eligibility thresholds would receive additional market rate units for
each. The maximum total density increase in that instance would be 50%, commensurate
with the current maximum.
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following relevant objective:
Objective 39. The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road,
Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service
area.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The amendments do not impact specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planned Unit Developments, Natural Resources, Etc.
DATE: January 14, 2020 Planning Commission special meeting
As noted in the staff memo, the Planning Commission and City Council will be holding a joint meeting on
February 11th. At that time, the Commission will provide a full status update on the PUD / Natural
Resources etc. project, as well as any updates to related projects.
For the Jan 28th meeting, we’ve worked with Jessica to prepare the first draft of a full presentation on
this topic. This presentation will be a dry run at describing to everyone how the pieces of the puzzle that
you’ve been working on over the past couple of years are to come together, and would include
recommendations for how to weave the work of the other groups together based on the discussions
you’ve had to date (and on Tuesday).
The objective of this item will be to affirm the approach in presenting this massive project to the Council
(and later the community), to identify missing pieces, and to discuss and determine any key policy issues
that may be outstanding.
Arrowwood Report on Habitat Blocks
We are excited to share with you the completed Arrowwood Environmental report (enclosed) on
Habitat Blocks as requested by the Commission last fall. As part of the discussions on Natural Resources,
staff will introduce the Report and provide recommendations on how its results can be inserted into the
guidance provided by the Commission in October & November of this past year.
We’ve also updated the online Natural Resource Map to include both the Habitat Blocks as identified by
Arrowwood Environmental AND the Priority Parcels recommended by the Open Space Interim Zoning
Committee.
Interim Zoning Committee Reports
As part of Tuesday’s dry run presentation, it is staff’s goal to also weave in potential implementation
strategies on the work of the Open Space Committee as begun to be discussed by the Commission last
fall and action on recommendations of the TDR Report as discussed at your last meeting (also the next
item on the agenda).
This may be the completion of a discussion, or the start of one. At this meeting, staff will encourage you
to decide if you feel a need for a special meeting prior to Feb 11th.
Prepared by:
Arrowwood Environmental, LLC
January 20, 2020
City of South Burlington
Habitat Block
Assessment & Ranking
2020
Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1
II. Background .............................................................................................................................................1
III. Habitat Blocks .........................................................................................................................................2
A. Definition .....................................................................................................................................................2
B. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................3
IV. Ranking Parameters ................................................................................................................................5
A. Area ..............................................................................................................................................................5
B. Forested Area ...............................................................................................................................................6
C. Core Forest ...................................................................................................................................................6
D. Surface Water Coverage ..............................................................................................................................6
E. Wetland Coverage ........................................................................................................................................7
F. Cover Type ....................................................................................................................................................7
G. Fragmentation .............................................................................................................................................8
H. Horizontal Diversity (cover type/canopy height) ........................................................................................8
I. Supporting Habitat ........................................................................................................................................9
J. Contiguous Connected Habitat .................................................................................................................. 10
V. Scoring Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 11
VI. Parameter Weighting ........................................................................................................................... 11
VII. Final Ranking ........................................................................................................................................ 11
VIII. Results & Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 12
IX. References Cited .................................................................................................................................. 15
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 1
I. Introduction
In September 2019, Arrowwood Environmental (AE) was retained by the City of South Burlington (SB)
Planning Department to conduct an analysis of “forest blocks” within the city for use as an aid in prioritizing
regulatory and conservation measures. Following discussion with the SB planning staff and consideration of
current conservation biology science, AE proposed to conduct a broader habitat assessment with an initial
focus on forested areas but extending to areas of supporting habitat features beyond the current forest edge
that provide important and/or critical habitat requirements to the species utilizing the forest habitats. AE
developed a methodology to delineate and rank Habitat Blocks throughout the city. The relative ranking of
important habitat areas can provide the SB Planning Department an important tool in protecting wildlife
habitat for a broad suite of species.
A web-based mapping application is available for viewing the results of this project at:
arrowwoodvt.com/sbhb.
II. Background
South Burlington is one of the most populous cities in Vermont at just under 20,000 people and is situated
within Chittenden County with a population of more than 161,000. The land area of South Burlington is
approximately 16.5 square miles (~10,597 acres). South Burlington is most densely populated and urbanized
north and east of Interstate I-89 which divides the city into northern and southern sections. The eastern
quadrant south of I-89 is the least developed.
South Burlington does not contain large areas of continuous forest cover. The area with tree canopy
within South Burlington totals ~ 3,470 acres or ~ 33% percent of the total land area. Not all the areas with
tree cover provide habitat for all species of wildlife found within South Burlington. Some canopy cover
consists of no more than trees lining the residential neighborhoods. While city, street, and park trees do not
function as diverse wildlife habitat, they do support a variety of avian, insect, and small mammal wildlife such
as squirrels and chipmunks. These narrow, and often small areas of forest cover are important to the well-
being of both South Burlington’s wildlife, and its residents. Studies have revealed that collectively the
inhabitants of urban areas experience improved mental health when forested areas, no matter how small,
are present where people work, play, and reside (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).
Habitat Blocks (HB), as defined and delineated by AE in this study, are large enough areas to provide
habitat, either permanently, or seasonally for wider ranging species of wildlife such as bobcat, red and grey
fox, white-tailed deer, river otter and fisher. These species of wildlife require larger areas (than squirrels or
rabbits for example), and a variety of appropriate habitat to fulfill their daily, seasonal, and yearly habitat
needs. These needs include security for breeding activities, a variety of food resources, secure cover for
raising young, and the presence of water- either for drinking or in the case of aquatic species, as a general
habitat.
Habitat Blocks fall within a matrix of land-uses that include urban, residential, agricultural, transportation,
and rural uses. Wildlife utilize habitats other than forests. Shrublands, reverting old fields, forested and
herbaceous wetlands, stream, lakes and ponds, orchards and other undeveloped lands provide vital space,
food, and cover for wildlife. Varying daily, seasonal and yearly food, space and biological needs of some
species such as bobcat, fisher (and even white-tailed deer) may necessitate the movement of animals to a
variety of different Habitat Blocks as well as to other ancillary supporting habitats.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 2
III. Habitat Blocks
A. Definition
Habitat Blocks developed in this
analysis are derived from the idea of
“Forest Blocks” with conceptual
modifications allowing for the unique
habitat situation that exists in South
Burlington. Owing to both the land-use
history and population density, there are
significant portions of land in the city that
are not currently forested but contribute
to the matrix of important wildlife habitat.
Utilizing a broader definition, which is not
strictly “forest” allows the consideration
of these forest-adjacent areas that
contribute to the ability of the Habitat
Block to provide sufficient habitat for
species to live within the city limits.
Forest blocks, as commonly
referenced in Vermont planning are
typically mapped, such as through the Vt.
Agency of Natural Resource statewide-
scale Conservation Design project, as
contiguous forested areas. In 2017, the Vt.
Legislature passed Act 171, directing municipalities to consider forest blocks in the municipal planning
process. The Act 171 definition includes forest in any stage of succession (Vt. ANR, 2018):
FOREST BLOCK: a contiguous area of forest in any stage of succession and not currently
developed for nonforest use. A forest block may include recreational trails, wetlands,
or other natural features that do not themselves possess tree cover and uses exempt
from regulation under subsection 4413(d) of this title.
Since early and mid-successional old-fields, young forests and wetlands are known to contribute, and are
probably critical, to South Burlington’s current wildlife diversity, we concluded it necessary to consider these
forest-adjacent areas in the definition of Forest Blocks. To avoid confusion over terminology, we refer to
these areas as Habitat Blocks for the purposes of this analysis.
Habitat blocks are herein defined as contiguous forested and adjacent unmanaged shrubby areas of old
field, young forest, and unmanaged wetland. In order to be considered a Habitat Block, the area must be
greater than 50% forested. Other considerations were made when defining Habitat Blocks: Developed and
active, or predominantly non-woody, agricultural areas were excluded from the block area. Portions of
contiguous forest or shrubland that could not be connected by an area wider than 50 meters (~160’) were
excluded. Habitat Blocks smaller than 20 acres in total size were excluded.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 3
B. Methodology
Habitat Blocks (HB) were developed for the contiguous land area of South Burlington (excluding Lake
Champlain & Juniper Island). Each HB was later scored and ranked using a set of parameters developed to
identify the best general wildlife habitat value given the existing landscape conditions in South Burlington.
Habitat Block creation and ranking parameter analysis was conducted primarily using high-resolution
land-cover data developed by the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab and released in late 2019
(O’Neil-Dunne, 2019). The landcover data was based on current aerial imagery and LiDAR data with a
published current-ness date of 2016. This landcover data (LC2016) was provided in various geospatial
products including*:
Data* Type Comments/South Burlington Specific
Tree Canopy Vector polygons subdivided by conifer and hardwood cover type
Shrublands Vector polygons Old fields and young forests, no tree canopy
Wetlands Vector polygons Appears to significantly overestimate wetland area,
overlapping shrubland, mowed lawns, etc. that are unlikely
wetland
Agriculture Vector polygons Some inclusions of mowed lawn or developed areas
Impervious Surfaces Vector polygons Generally comprehensive with some misidentified areas
that are typically coincident with other types of
development
Building Footprints Vector polygons Quite good
Water 1 meter raster Streams, ponds, other open water. Appears accurate
*Additional data components were available but not utilized in this project
Some other publicly available geospatial data were included where deemed appropriate including: 2019
Vtrans Road centerlines, Vt. DEC Wetland Advisory Layer, 2019 E911 Driveway lines, Vt. Hydrography Dataset
stream centerlines. All input data was obtained from the Vermont Center for Geographic Information.
Habitat Blocks were constructed in two iterations. The basic initial modeling developed Preliminary
Habitat Blocks to guide early investigations of the South Burlington landscape.
Following this preliminary HB development, AE biologists conducted a windshield survey throughout
South Burlington to visually confirm forest conditions. Each preliminary HB was investigated from the road,
as were areas excluded in the preliminary processing but flagged as of-interest by the investigators. Areas of
note or suggested changes were recorded with GPS equipped field mapping devices.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 4
Subsequent to the windshield survey, it was
decided that a maximum area of shrubland cutoff
was necessary as at least one preliminary HB was
made up entirely of shrubland with no forest area.
While these areas may provide some level of
habitat for certain species, it was decided that
areas of only shrub are not consistent with the
project goals for identifying and prioritizing
Habitat Blocks for a range of wildlife species.
The windshield survey also highlighted a
shortfall in the methodology to date where HBs
were only delineated within the bounds of the city.
It became clear that the relative value of HBs
partially within the city limits should consider the
portions of the HB that extend outside the limits,
notably critical links to the Shelburne Pond area in
the south, Muddy Brook corridor to the east, and
Winooski River basin in the north. Based on this, we opted to extend the study area 1 kilometer beyond the
South Burlington municipal boundary. This distance captured most contiguous forest areas that overlap into
South Burlington. Although the city may have less influence on the overall regulatory protection of parts of
these HBs, it is important to consider that wildlife do not observe political boundaries and invisible town lines
do not limit the current extent or value of a HB.
Some significant areas identified as preliminary HBs were found to no
longer contain forested habitat features due to recent or ongoing
development activity, management changes or inaccurate land cover
classification. In addition, some small areas were noted as having
been excluded which visual observation determined were part of
the HB. A set of Adjustment areas were designated throughout the
study area based on the windshield survey and a review of aerial
imagery in and around each preliminary HB.
The Habitat Block processing model was
reconstructed to extend 1 km beyond the municipal
boundary, to exclude HBs less than 50% forested and
to include/exclude manual Adjustment areas
designated by the investigators.
The processing model for final HB identification
follows the illustrated diagram below.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 5
IV. Ranking Parameters
After final development of the Habitat Block boundaries, a set of ranking parameters were developed
upon which to assess each HB for its relative value in supporting a diverse suite of wildlife within South
Burlington.
Ranking parameters were identified based on current conservation biology principles and the availability
of geospatial data and tools to objectively document, measure and score the biological principle in question.
All ranking was conducted using geographic information software and geospatial modeling tools using
the inputs discussed in Section II.
Other parameters could focus on the needs of specific species or more complex ways of measuring the
HB, but we settled on fundamental concepts, widely accepted as indicative of varying quality habitat
conditions for a range of wildlife species with particular emphasis on those wider-ranging species threatened
by the increasingly urban and suburban landscape in South Burlington.
What follows is a brief description of each parameter measured, it’s biological relevance and
methodology for determining the relative value of that parameter within each HB.
A. Area
Area of the HB as the absolute size in acres. This parameter is most responsive
to the city’s interest in protecting wildlife habitat for a broad suite of species,
including those species that have moderate to larger home ranges (greater
than a couple hundred acres) such as bobcat and fisher. For South Burlington
to succeed in the long-term in maintaining the presence of species such as
bobcat and fisher the city needs to preserve much of its remaining
larger forested areas in a relatively unfragmented and undeveloped
condition. Generally larger HBs provide the template for a greater
diversity and abundance of plant communities extending out to
nearby or adjacent supporting habitats such as wetlands and
shrublands. This abundance and diversity of plants and wildlife habitat
in turn provides food, cover, space, and water for wildlife. The range of
HB sizes mapped in South Burlington vary from 21 to 289 acres in size.
Acreage was calculated for each HB, with larger areas scoring
higher.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 6
B. Forested Area
Forested area is a measure of the relative amount of tree canopy (as opposed
to shrubland) within the mapped HB. This is an important variable for species
that are primarily forest-dwelling species – such as much birdlife. Trees
provide food, cover, and for some species that climb trees, security from
predators. Mast bearing species such as oak, hickory, ash, and maple
are important food sources for many species of wildlife, including
white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, and many other species of birds.
Trees also provide nesting habitat for tree-dwelling rodents such
as squirrels and many bird species.
Forested area was measured for each HB using the LC2016 Tree
Canopy data. Forested area is represented as the percent of total HB
area with canopy cover with larger percentages scoring higher.
C. Core Forest
Core (or interior) forest in the Northeastern United States is
defined as forested habitat that is found at least 100 meters from most human
disturbances. Many human disturbances create habitat edges which can have
negative impacts on some species of wildlife – especially those species that
are wary of humans and under the greatest threat from humans given our
widespread alteration of the natural world. Edges have altered micro-
climates, often contain a non-native and invasive suite of plants and
animal species, and, in many instances their presence leads to
population declines of species sensitive to enhanced predation
and parasitism– especially documented in certain sensitive birds.
Core forest was derived by applying an internal 100M buffer to
the outside edge of each HB and measuring the remaining area as a
percentage of the whole. HBs containing a larger percent Core scored
higher.
D. Surface Water Coverage
The presence of water within an HB provides numerous
benefits to wildlife. Terrestrial wildlife depends on water in streams and ponds to
meet its daily drinking needs. The presence of water can also create rich,
productive, and diverse insect life which some wildlife prey upon (esp. birds)
forming the basis of the food chains. Ponds, streams, and other surface
waters provide vital habitat for aquatic species such as mink, muskrat,
otter, water shrews, and a whole host of water-associated birds and
waterfowl. Many species of amphibians and reptiles including
frogs, toads, turtles, and snakes contribute to species diversity as
well as being food sources for wider-ranging species that inhabit
these waterways and nearby habitats.
Water within HBs was measured from the LC2016 1M resolution
raster data classified as “Open Water”. Water was calculated as a
percentage of the total HB area. Higher percentages score higher.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 7
E. Wetland Coverage
Wetlands are natural communities where water remains near the surface or within
the rooting zone of plants for extended periods during the growing season.
Wetlands are often associated with margins of stream and ponds where seasonal
flooding causes the water to overflow out of its bank, but also result from
upwelling of groundwater or the collection of rainwater. Wetlands may be
dominated by woody plants such as willows and red maple or consist of
largely herbaceous plants like cattails and sedges. In general, wetlands
are fertile and productive, and provide the photosynthetic fuel to
support expansive food chains- starting with insect life all the way up
through South Burlington’s predators such as bobcat, coyote, and
fisher. A wide variety of wildlife, including mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, and birds utilize and rely upon wetlands for the food, cover,
and water resources that they provide.
While the LC2016 data provided a wetland-specific product, our
analysis found it to be highly inaccurate, at least on the South
Burlington landscape. AE has conducted numerous professional
wetland field delineations throughout the city over the course of many
years and comparing some of this past work with the LC2016 product indicated significant discrepancies-
primarily presenting as sometimes significant overestimations of wetland area. The Vt. Agency of Natural
Resources maintains an “Advisory Wetland Layer” which contains wetland mapping of varying detail
conducted at the municipal, or project level. Wetlands for the entire city were mapped by wetland ecologist
Cathy O’Brien in the early 2000’s and this mapping is provided in the Advisory Wetland Layer. While some
significant landscape changes, and improved mapping techniques and technology, have occurred since that
time, it remains the best representation of wetland areas across the city. Since we are only concerned with
currently undeveloped areas in this analysis, the wetland loss or changes to development since the mapping
are irrelevant.
The wetland coverage parameter was calculated as the percentage of mapped wetland within the total
HB. Higher percentages were scored higher.
F. Cover Type
Wildlife utilize both broad-leaved deciduous forest and needle-leaved
evergreen (conifer) forest for cover, nesting habitat, and for the food resources
they provide. This parameter measures the evenness of these two distinct
forest types within a HB. If an HB consists of 100% of either conifer or
deciduous forest – some wildlife may be absent from that HB or have to
move to access food or cover resources elsewhere. Many species
have been shown to prefer a mix of cover types to meet a variety of
their biological needs. Certain bird species preferentially utilize
broad-leaved trees and their food (nuts and fruits) resources while
others may use evergreen trees and the cones they provide. The fruit
of deciduous tree species such as oak, beech, maple, hickories and
dogwoods provide food resources for wildlife including mammals,
amphibians, and birdlife. Cone-bearing trees such as hemlock,
white cedar, and white pine provide food and cover for a variety of
wildlife including white-tailed deer, wild turkeys, and numerous
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 8
species of birds. A balanced forest in terms of these two types of distinct tree groups provides resources that
support a wider range of species.
Cover type was derived from the LC2016 vector canopy data which is classified by conifer/deciduous
cover. Canopy type was measured as the deciduous area divided by total forested area to give a range of 0-
1. Values closer to 0.5 (50%) were scored higher, while values further from center in
either direction, 0 (0%) and 1(100%), were scored lower.
G. Fragmentation
Fragmentation is a measure of the broken-ness or “edginess” exhibited in
the geometry of the HB. Greater amounts of edge result in increased
disturbance penetration into the HB and decrease the ability of wildlife
to live free of exposure to humans and human development. Some
species, such as the skunk, and squirrels have adapted well and thrive
in the presence of humans. Other species such as the bobcat, fisher,
and river otter are more wary of humans and tend to use these
fragmented habitats less than those that remain wilder. This measure is
an index of the amount of human activity located within an HB.
The fragmentation measure borrowed the underlying concept of
“Effective Mesh Size” (Jaeger, 2000), a tool used in some cases to
measure
fragmentation by predicting permeability across broad
landscapes. The foundational concept, generally stated,
is- how possible is movement between any 2 points on a
landscape. For this less complex analysis, we generated
a fixed grid of points within each HB on a regular 100M
x 100M pattern. Lines were drawn from each point
within an HB to every other point within the HB and
those lines falling totally within the HB were tallied. HBs
with more fragmentation (such as an indentation or
fingers extending out from the center) would have fewer
lines fully contained within the HB boundary.
Fragmentation was represented as interior line count
divided by total line count; higher values were scored
higher (less fragmented).
H. Horizontal Diversity (cover type/canopy height)
Horizontal diversity measures the number of structural forest changes across the HB. In this case we
measured structural diversity as a combination of the varying vegetative canopy heights and the diversity of
canopy changes between conifer and deciduous forest communities encountered as one moves across the
HB. This woody plant structure forms the template for the food, cover, and nesting resources for mammals,
bird, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. All things being equal – the greater number of structurally different
plant communities an HB contains – the greater the wildlife diversity the HB will harbor.
Horizontal diversity was measured based on a combination of the cover types described above and an
analysis of high-resolution LiDAR elevation data to construct a normalized digital surface model, or nDSM. A
nDSM measures the difference in absolute measured height of objects off the surface of the earth and “bare-
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 9
earth” elevation- i.e. ground level. The resulting calculation in forested areas provides the maximum
vegetative height at the resolution of the source data (in this case, 0.7 meters square).
Because the resulting vegetative height value for every ~1/2 square meter of area is
too detailed to provide meaningful information for this analysis, it was
generalized to 10Mx10M resolution, meaning every 100 square meter area was
assigned a maximum vegetation height value of low (shrub), medium (sapling),
or high (tree). The longest edge to edge axis within each HB was
programmatically identified, and each change in cover type and
generalized canopy height was tallied along the line. Total number of
changes were divided by line length to give a horizontal diversity
value for each HB. Higher values were scored higher (greater
horizontal diversity).
I. Supporting Habitat
Supporting habitats adjacent to HBs but not meeting the
requirements to be included in the block itself may include streams,
ponds, wetlands, shrublands, agricultural land and orchards. These all
contribute to an HB by providing a range of tangential habitat elements that benefit wildlife. The vegetation
in supporting habitats is more frequently or recently managed than HBs and they exhibit low to moderate
levels of more intensive human disturbance. While supporting habitats do not typically offer the protection
and diversity found in HBs, they function as a buffer, or padding from human disturbance around the HB and
provide additional area wildlife use to fulfill their requirements, venturing into them for food, and to a lesser
degree cover, space and water. In South Burlington, supporting habitats are notable for their ability to
function as habitat for prey-base species, such as rabbits, rodents, and turkey, which contribute to the
survival of wider-ranging wildlife occupying the HBs. Supporting habitat also forms the foundation for
analyzing connected habitats, a separate parameter discussed below, by identifying a matrix of landcover
types preferred for movement between HBs or patches of better habitat- i.e. wildlife
corridors.
The supporting habitat parameter was defined as non-developed habitat
areas directly contiguous with a HB, but still separated from other habitat areas
by roads, development, and impervious surfaces. As documented preferred
habitat areas, especially as movement corridors, streams and a buffered
area around them were combined with tree canopy (LC2016),
shrubland (LC2016), wetland (LC2016), and agricultural lands
(LC2016). Although we did not utilize the LC2016 wetland data in the
wetland parameter analysis, it was included here as much of the
inaccuracy inherent in that data is coincident with shrub and
agricultural lands also being incorporated in the supporting habitat
modeling. Impervious surfaces (LC2016) were eliminated and each
supporting habitat area was then assigned to its adjacent HB.
Supporting habitat was measured as the total combined area of
HB and adjacent supporting habitat in acres. Larger areas scored
higher.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 10
J. Contiguous Connected Habitat
Because of the smaller and already fragmented nature of the HBs in South Burlington, the
ability to move across the landscape in stepping-stone fashion between blocks is a
critically important HB parameter. For species such as fox, fisher, and bobcat,
accessing multiple HBs and their intermeshed supporting habitats to make up for
the smaller, more fragmented nature of the HBs is of vital importance. While
home range sizes of animals such as fisher and bobcat may trend smaller in
landscapes as fragmented and urban as is much of South Burlington – the
ability to move across a patchwork of HBs utilizing relatively wild
supporting and connecting lands is a primary factor in ensuring the
continued presence of these species in this part of Chittenden County.
Four of the six top ranked HBs maintain connectivity to forested habitat
outside of South Burlington in Williston or Shelburne. For bobcat, home
ranges in the wild are often several hundred acres (or larger) in size so the
continued presence of this species in South Burlington is dependent
upon the presence of landscapes that remain permeable and provide
connections for the bobcat.
To measure contiguous connected habitat, a corridor analysis was
conducted to model likely preferred wildlife travel corridors across the South Burlington landscape. The
supporting habitat served as the foundation of the corridor modeling process, with each land cover type
assigned a “cost” value representing the ease or preference of the inherent conditions for traveling between
HBs. A cost-distance analysis combined landscape cost with distance from each HB for every 25 square meter
block of the city. Buildings and a 50’ buffer around them were considered impermeable, interstate highways
were assigned the greatest cost to intersect, followed by the major roads- Shelburne Road and Williston
Road. Streams and 10’ on either side were assigned the least-cost owing to their preference as travel routes,
especially to cross roads. Narrow hedgerows have been shown to provide preferential movement corridors
for bobcats in particular in South Burlington and the surrounding area, so tree canopy was considered a low-
cost option as well (Freeman 2017). The table below details cost scores assessed across land cover and
feature types.
Feature Type Cost Comments
Streams + 10’ either side 1 Least cost/most likely
Tree Cover 2
Shrubland 3
Wetland 4
Agricultural Land 5
Background matrix 10 Assumes wildlife will reluctantly cross lawns, parking lots, roads, etc.
State Highways 20
Interstate Highways 50 Highest cost/least likely
Buildings + 50 NONE Considered impenetrable
A matrix of overall corridor preference value across the entire study area was then evaluated. The highest
20% of the corridor preference scores throughout the study area were extracted and designated likely
wildlife corridors. We then measured the combined area of corridor and Habitat Block that are connected in
acres. Higher acreage was scored higher. There were 6 groups of interconnected HBs resulting, with 2
additional HBs without a connection meeting our thresholds to another HB.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 11
V. Scoring Methodology
In the initial processing, each parameter was assigned a value on its own scale such as acres, percent,
etc. For each parameter, an equal interval scale of 1-10 was established between the highest and lowest
values assigned to that parameter in the original analysis. Highest scoring values in each parameter were
assigned a score of 10, lowest a score of 1.
This provided a consistent scoring approach for each parameter. Since the scores assigned were
dependent upon the highest and lowest values determined in this analysis, these scores are only relative to
the other Habitat Blocks identified and assessed in this study.
VI. Parameter Weighting
Each parameter has varying influence on the ranking of the
importance of an HB to the wildlife population in South Burlington.
With each parameter scored using a consistent 1-10 scale, weights
were assigned to each parameter for the purpose of calculating an
overall ranking among all 26 HBs in the study area. Weights were
assigned as a percent of a whole (100%) representing the relative
importance of that parameter. Weights were assigned based on
our understanding of the project objectives, principles of modern
conservation biology, the unique landscape situation in South
Burlington, and best professional judgement.
VII. Final Ranking
Ranking of Habitat Blocks is derived directly from the weighted scores of each of the 10 parameters
analyzed for each HB. Each of the 26 HBs received a ranking from 1-26, with 1 being the best, representing
the highest weighted score, and 26 the lowest.
17
6
19
4
1
24
2
22 20
12
26
7
15
5
13 10 9
23
14
3
16
21
8
18
25
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Weighted ScoresBlock ID
Weighted Parameter and Total Scores by Habitat Block
Final Rank Listed at Top
Acres Forested Core Water Wetland
Cover Type Unfragmented Horizontal Div.Supporting Hab.Connected
Parameter Weight
Area 20 %
Forested Area 10 %
Core Forest 10 %
Surface Water 10 %
Wetland 10 %
Cover 5 %
Fragmentation 5 %
Horizontal Diversity 5 %
Supporting Habitat 10 %
Connected Habitat 15 %
Total: 100 %
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 12
VIII. Results & Discussion
Twenty-six individual Habitat Blocks were delineated, scored for 10 biological parameters, and ranked
based on their relative weighted scores. As might be expected, the larger, more intact remaining Habitat
Blocks were ranked the highest. A data summary table is provided below.
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 13
While the smallest blocks were generally ranked low on their own, we stress that it remains important
to consider the connectivity of larger HBs when making decisions about prioritization of Habitat Block
protection in South Burlington. Some small patches situated critically between two larger blocks may have
less value on their own, but as a stepping-stone for maintaining functional wildlife population connections
between the higher ranked blocks, the small patch could be critical. We encourage the city to consider not
just Habitat blocks, but critical connections between them, when planning for wildlife habitat protections.
South Burlington is somewhat unique in Vermont for having a bustling urban atmosphere, while also
retaining a network of critical natural habitats that provide a diverse suite of wildlife the ability to maintain
a foothold around the margins of the developed, more urban core. This interface is valued by the residents
of the South Burlington and beneficial on a larger scale for maintaining biological diversity and resiliency at
the landscape level.
In Vermont municipalities such as South Burlington that do not support large swaths of continual forest
cover, smaller habitat patches become vital for maintaining wildlife populations. The Habitat Blocks in South
Burlington range from 21 acres to over 289 acres in size which are likely too small by themselves to support
breeding populations of wide-ranging wildlife species such as bobcat and fisher. It is only through the
interconnectedness of South Burlington’s (and other adjacent town’s) Habitat Blocks and the presence of
supporting wildlife habitats that animals such as fisher, river otter, and bobcat are still found in the town.
South Burlington will long have red fox, skunk, cottontail rabbits, and likely even white-tailed deer – even
if some degradation or loss of Habitat Blocks occurs. These species have proven themselves adaptable to
considerable human disturbance if left fragments of forest for daytime cover. However, if South Burlington
continues to want to be graced by the presence of a bobcat, fisher, the occasional moose or black bear, and
a diversity of birds, amphibians, reptiles and native vegetative communities, it will have to maintain Habitat
Blocks and connections between the in-town and out-of-town forested habitats.
The South-east Quadrant contains both the highest number of Habitat Blocks as well as 5 of the 10 top
ranked Habitat Blocks. Several of these Habitat Blocks are documented habitat for bobcat whose home-
ranges are likely centered around Shelburne Pond to the south. These larger intact blocks also provide some
of the best Core habitat supporting a diversity of bird species that are unlikely to be present otherwise. Other
important Habitat Blocks follow Muddy Brook along the eastern edge of the city, including 3 of the 5 top
ranked HBs. This corridor, if kept relatively unfragmented, can function as a movement corridor and habitat
for both wide-ranging species such as bobcat, coyote, and fisher but also for the more habitat-specific species
such as mink and river otter, several amphibians and reptiles. Muddy Brook also provides important habitat
for waterfowl, shorebirds, and riparian species such as belted kingfisher. The East Woods and Centennial
Woods HBs both rank in the top 10 and are located closest to the region’s urban core. The refuge they
provide, made accessible by some stepping-stone smaller blocks and relatively intact corridors are
responsible for the last remaining vestiges of wildness in closest proximity to South Burlington and
Burlington’s population centers.
A web-based mapping application is available for viewing the results of this project at:
arrowwoodvt.com/sbhb
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 14
Rank: High Low Individual Scores: Highest (8-10) Lowest (1-3) Overall Score: High Low
Block
ID Location Overall Rank Acres Parameter Scores Size Forested Core Surface Water Wetland Canopy Type Frag-mentation Horizontal Diversity Supporting Habitat Connected Habitat Overall Weighted 1 Straddling south-central city boundary. 17 45.93 1 4 1 1 4 9 5 2 5 10 4
2 East of Dorset St, North of Cheesefactory Rd 6 221.12 8 1 3 2 4 10 2 7 4 10 5.45
3 Blueberry/Great Swamp, east of South Village 19 74.76 2 8 2 1 3 8 5 10 2 1 3.3
4 Along Muddy Brook, extending east and south
into Williston. East of Hinesburg Rd 4 257.95 9 3 5 6 4 10 3 4 5 7 6
5 South of Cheesefactory Rd. in far southern
corner of City. Extends to Shelburne Pond. 1 241.27 9 4 10 2 5 10 9 4 5 10 7.05
6 West of railroad tracks, east of Lake, between
Bartlett Bay Rd and Holmes Rd. 24 21.17 1 10 1 1 3 6 7 2 1 2 2.85
7 Along Muddy Brook, Van Sicklen Rd to I-89. 2 289.52 10 2 8 2 6 10 5 8 4 7 6.4
8 West of country club, between Swift St &
Nowland Farm Rd. 22 38.51 1 4 1 1 2 4 4 5 1 10 3.25
9 Potash Brook corridor east of Queen City Park. 20 37.49 1 8 2 2 3 10 9 4 1 2 3.25
10 South of Swift St. Vicinity of Farrell St. Park. 12 83.04 3 10 3 1 1 8 4 3 1 10 4.45
11 Stream corridor south of UVM Hort. Farm to
Route 7 26 25.96 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2.05
12 Dorset Park Natural Area, north to I-89 7 186.97 7 1 7 2 3 7 6 4 2 10 5.25
13 Along Muddy Brook, just north of I-89 15 24.44 1 4 1 4 9 6 5 10 2 7 4.3
14 East Woods Natural Area 5 128.44 4 9 9 1 2 10 10 5 1 10 5.75
15 Red Rocks Park 13 103.62 4 10 7 2 1 9 8 7 1 2 4.4
16 Potash Brook between I- I89 lanes east of Spear
St. 10 21.47 1 5 1 1 9 9 10 4 1 10 4.55
17 East of South Burlington High School 9 47.40 1 4 3 3 6 9 8 7 1 10 4.6
18 Stream and wetland complex between
southern end of Airport and Williston Rd 23 22.10 1 3 1 3 7 5 9 7 1 1 2.9
19 Potash Brook Corridor, northwest of Kennedy
Dr, east of Hinesburg Rd. 14 69.46 2 5 1 3 4 8 4 8 1 10 4.3
20 East of airport, extending east into Williston. 3 257.18 9 3 5 10 4 7 3 4 10 3 6.15
21 Between I-89, Patchen Rd & Williston Rd 16 87.02 3 7 4 3 6 8 6 5 1 3 4.1
22 Muddy Brook Park, along bank of Winooski
River 21 52.55 2 3 1 5 1 4 2 2 10 3 3.25
23 Centennial Woods, extending into Burlington 8 160.68 6 8 8 2 2 7 8 4 1 3 4.7
24 Valley Ridge area, between I-89 and Winooski
River 18 39.65 1 7 3 2 10 1 9 8 1 3 3.85
25 Winooski Gorge Natural Area 25 23.71 1 5 1 3 1 6 7 6 1 1 2.4
26 South of Cheesefactory Rd. in far southern
corner of City. Extends to Shelburne Pond. 11 188.01 7 2 2 4 4 4 1 5 4 7 4.55
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking January 20, 2020
Arrowwood Environmental Page 15
IX. References Cited
Freeman, Mark. 2017. Bobcat Study in Vermont. Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Jaeger, J.A. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape
fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 15, 115–130 (2000) doi:10.1023/A:1008129329289
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Approach. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge, UK.
O’Neil-Dunne. August 16, 2019. UVM Spatial Analysis Lab. Vermont High Resolution Landcover.
https://vcgi.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/portal-pages/VT-Land-Cover-2016-Final-Report-v3.pdf
Vt. Agency of Natural Resources. 2018. Planning for Act 171.
https://anr.vermont.gov/sites/anr/files/co/planning/documents/guidance/Act171Guidance.pdf
TDR IZ Committee Report Recommendations
For Planning Commission Discussion
January 14, 2020
TDR IZ Committee Report Recommendations
A. Expand the TDR marketplace to Receiving Areas outside the SEQ:
• Establish Receiving Areas in zones outside the SEQ using a TDR Overlay District Map or other
mapping tool and/or areas not identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high
priority for conservation. Attachment F provides a draft map for consideration. The map uses TDRs
in conjunction with current zoning to increase residential density and, in some cases, business uses
not currently permitted. Privately owned lots within specific areas have been flagged as
recommended receiving areas. This current draft would add an unknown number of TDRs to the
marketplace.
• If TDRs are sent beyond the SEQ, they will by nature increase density beyond current zoning and
beyond the expectations of affected neighborhoods.
B. Create new definitions for the use of a “dwelling unit”:
• Amend SB LDRs to establish a maximum square footage per dwelling unit. Owners or developers
could build larger units in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs.
• Amend SB LDRs to allow for an increase in Lot Coverage in exchange for the purchase of a requisite
number of TDRs.
• In circumstances where a developer requests a waiver from the DRB for additional building
density/lot coverage and the DRB is inclined to grant such waiver the developer is required to
purchase a requisite number of TDRs in exchange for the waiver.
C. Add new Sending Areas:
• Designate areas in the SEQ that are presently Receiving Areas as Sending Areas to the extent a
parcel is identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation.
• Add new Sending Areas that are outside of the SEQ to the extent a parcel is identified by the Interim
Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation.
D. Certain Receiving Areas in the SEQ would no longer be designated as such:
• Sensitive areas in the SEQ identified by Interim Zoning Open Space Committee that are not “highest
priority” could be developed, but not permitted to add units beyond their base density.
E. Balance Supply and Demand
• There should be an attempt to ensure a balance between capacity for TDR usage and the supply in
order to create a fair and well-functioning TDR market. As such, the Committee recommends that
some attempt be made to estimate the potential total demand under the revised proposal. If
necessary, the City might consider changing the formula of value. This could be done by revising the
current TDR formula of 1 TDR per 0.83 acres in each Sending Area to more than 0.83 acres per TDR.
F. Retire TDRs
• The City could purchase and retire TDRs from select parcels that have the highest conservation value
as indicated by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee.
G. Connect Buyers and Sellers
• The City should evaluate best practices to connect buyers and sellers of TDRs to create a fair TDR
marketplace.
33
Attachment F – TDR Overlay District Map
Recommended Zoning with TDR Overlay
R2 —> R7 = 1. PURPLE
R4 —> R7 = 7, ORANGE
R4 —> “Transition Zone” = A, B 12 & 13
LIGHT BLUE (when R7/C1)
(LIGHT GREEN when R7 only)
(YELLOW When INSIDE Neighborhood
Like Shelburne RD “secondary”)
R7/C1 —> R12/C1 = 6 DARK RED
R7/C2 —> R12/C2 = 3. LIGHT PINK
IA —> R7 = 14a. DARK GREEN outline
Unassigned But Opportunity = 2, 5, 9,
14, 16, RED OUTLINE
Plann Comm considering changes.
Include TDRs? (Paul’s Pink Map) 17
BRIGHT PINK
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=981146b29160450aa194e05f3104d33b&extent=-
73.2422,44.4126,-73.0416,44.4834
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: South Burlington Planning Director
Colchester Planning Director
Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
Chittenden County Regional Planning Director
VT Department of Housing and Community Development
FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington
DATE: January 23, 2020
RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments
Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
• ZA-20-04: Minimum Parking Requirements
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 6:45 pm at the Community Room at the Burlington Police
Department, 1 North Avenue, Burlington.
Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning
Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at
the hearing to me by close of business on February 10, 2020.
Thank you.
CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair
David White, FAICP, Director, City Planning
Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner, Department of Permitting & Inspections
Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
Burlington Planning Commission
149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401
www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz
Phone: (802) 865-7144
Andy Montroll, Chair
Bruce Baker, Vice Chair
Yves Bradley
Alex Friend
Emily Lee
Harris Roen
Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance
ZA-20-04 Minimum Parking Requirements
Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington
Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s
Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 11,
2020 beginning at 6:45pm in the Burlington Police Department Community Room, 1 North Avenue,
Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b):
Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows:
ZA-20-04: The purpose of this amendment is establish a new Multi-Modal Mixed Use parking
district, to replace the Downtown Parking District, in which there would be no on-site minimum
parking requirements for new development. The amendment also eliminates the parking
requirement for Affordable Housing, adaptive reuse of a listed historic building, and Accessory
Dwelling Units. The proposed amendment further extinguishes parking requirements for existing
developments within this district to enable greater flexibility for shared parking, and introduces a
transportation demand management requirement for projects larger than 10 housing units or
15,000 sq.ft. GFA. Finally, the amendment lowers the maximum parking limits for all parking
districts citywide, and incorporates minimum parking standards for several uses not already
incorporated in Article 8.
Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas:
ZA-20-04: Applicable to mixed-use zoning districts, including the Form Districts 5 and 6; the
Downtown Waterfront Public Trust; Neighborhood Activity Center, NAC-Riverside and NAC-
Cambrian Rise; and Neighborhood Mixed Use. Further applies to properties with street frontage up
to a depth of 200 ft. along North Avenue (Sherman St to Plattsburg Ave), Colchester Av e, Pearl St, N
Winooski Ave, Riverside Ave (N Winooski to Colchester), Battery St, Main St, Pine St, St. Paul St, and
Shelburne Rd, and to affordable housing, adaptive reuse, and ADUs regardless of zoning district.
List of section headings affected:
ZA-20-04: The proposed amendment affects Sec 8.1.3 and Map 8.1.3-1 Parking Districts; Sec. 8.1.6;
Sec. 8.1.8 and Table 8.1.8-1 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements; Sec. 8.1.9 and Table 8.1.9-1
Maximum Off-Street Parking Requirements; Sec. 8.1.10; Sec 8.1.11 and Table 8.1.11-1 Minimum
Parking Dimensions; Sections 8.1.12, 8.1.13, 8.1.14, and 8.1.15; and adds a new Sec. 8.1.16
Transportation Demand Management.
The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is
available for review at the Office of City Planning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO/Proposed-Amendments-Before-the-Planning-Commission
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: Burlington Planning Commission
City Council Ordinance Committee
FROM: David White, Director, City Planning, Meagan Tuttle, Principal Planner, City
Planning
DATE: December 10, 2019
RE: Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-20-04: Minimum Parking Requirements
Overview & Background
Burlington did not begin requiring parking for new development through zoning until the 1970s, and
up until 1986, developments within the downtown core were exempt from requirements to build a
prescribed number of spaces. In 2008, three parking districts were established in the zoning
ordinance to ensure that the required number of parking spaces was based on the geographic
context of the development. As part of the 2013 planBTV: Downtown & Waterfront Plan, a
comprehensive evaluation of parking use was conducted which illuminated that 40% of parking in
existing private parking lots and garages was vacant most of the time. It is estimated that if these
existing parking spaces were utilized more fully, they could support an additional 700+ housing units
and 350,000 sq.ft. of commercial space without building any new parking. Since 2013, BBA has been
working with the City to implement a downtown parking management program to better utilize
existing parking resources, and make private parking resources available for public parking needs. In
2019, BBA found that despite the loss of about 500 parking spaces at CityPlace, there are still
hundreds of unused parking spaces available to the public even at peak times.
In April 2019, Mayor Weinberger announced a plan to convene a Housing Summit and advance work
to bring focus, urgency, and resolution to five key areas of unfinished business from the Housing
Action Plan. Reforming local zoning to address the cost to construct, maintain, and lease housing
units was one of these key areas. The framework for amending the city’s zoning ordinances to amend
the requirements for minimum on-site parking in certain parts of the city was included in a resolution
unanimously supported by the City Council on October 7, 2019. The resolution further called for
consideration of Transportation Demand Management measures, a reduction in the maximum
amount of parking allowed on-site, and an update to the City’s Impact Fees to create a more holistic
fund to include alternative transportation capital projects. The resolution referred the Zoning related
items from this framework to a Joint Committee of the Planning Commission and City Council’s
Ordinance Committee.
As such, the enclosed zoning amendments are aimed at reducing a significant factor in the cost to
construct, maintain, and lease housing units, therefore increasing the affordability of those housing
units. Further, these amendments intend to allow more space within new development to be used
for creating housing units, recognize the context-sensitive nature of parking and driving behaviors,
and support a more robust system of transportation choices that enables the city to meet its Net
Zero Energy goals.
More information about Minimum Parking Requirements in Burlington, and the proposed amendment
can be found online at: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/mayor/housingpolicy/parking
Recommended Amendment Details
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement & Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to establish a new Multi-Modal Mixed Use parking district, in
which there would be no on-site minimum parking requirements for new developments. The
proposed amendment further extinguishes parking requirements for existing developments
within this district to enable greater flexibility for shared-parking, and introduces a
transportation demand management requirement for Major Impact projects within this district.
The proposed amendment eliminates minimum on-site parking requirements for Affordable
Housing, adaptive reuse of a listed historic building, and for Accessory Dwelling Units. Finally,
this amendment adds minimum parking requirements for several use types not already
covered, and lowers the maximum on-site parking limits for all parking districts citywide.
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment is intended to support infill and redevelopment that includes new
homes within parts of the City that are planned for growth, including mixed use zoning districts,
and along major thoroughfares into/out of the city that are served by high frequency public
transit lines.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
This proposed amendment furthers the City of Burlington and the State of Vermont’s goals to
expand the availability of safe and affordable housing. This amendment intends to reduce a
requirement of new development that contributes in a significant way to the viability and cost
of new development, and to the ongoing cost of renting and maintaining housing.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
City Staff, with
support of City
Council
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission &
Council
Ordinance Cmte
10/30, 11/12,
12/4, 12/10, 1/14
Approved for
Public Hearing
1/14/20
Public Hearing
2/11/20
Approve &
forward to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance
Committee
discussion
Ordinance
Cmte
recommends to
Council [as is /
with changes]
Second Read &
Public Hearing
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
Memorandum
To: The City of Burlington Planning Director
The City of South Burlington Planning Director
The Town of Colchester Planning Director
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development
From: Eric Vorwald, AICP, Planning and Zoning Manager
RE: Proposed Amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations – Parking Waiver
Date: January 13, 2020
Enclosed with this memo, please find proposed amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified
Land Use and Development Regulations. The amendments relate specifically to:
• Section 4.12: Parking, Loading and Service Areas
• Section 6.8: Waivers & Variance Review
The City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 13,
2020 at 6:30pm to take public comments on the proposed amendments. This hearing will be held
in the Claire Burke Council Chambers at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, Winooski,
Vermont, 05404.
Please ensure this information is provided to the chair of your Planning Commission. Comments
related to these amendments should be submitted in writing to me by the close of business on
Monday, February 10, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF WINOOSKI
UNIFIED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
In accordance with 24 V.S.A §4441 and §4444, the City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Thursday, February 13, 2020 beginning at 6:30 p.m. This hearing will be held at
the Winooski City Hall; 27 West Allen Street; Winooski, Vermont 05404 to consider the following:
Amendments to the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
• Section 4.12: Parking, Loading and Service Areas
• Section 6.8: Waivers & Variance Review
Statement of Purpose: The purpose of these amendments are as follows:
Section 4.12 – Provide a mechanism for relief from the minimum parking requirements and
provide options to establish minimum parking for uses that are not currently listed. The addition
of a parking waiver includes the specific submission requirements to accompany a waiver
request.
Section 6.8 – Provide guidance to the Development Review Board on the standards of review
for parking waiver requests. This addition also includes actions available to the Development
Review Board when considering requests for parking waivers.
Geographic Area Affected: the proposed amendments will apply to the entirety of the City of
Winooski.
Section Headings Impacted:
Section 4.12 – Adds a new subpart #2 under subsection C noting that uses not listed under
subpart #1 will establish minimum parking requirements through the same process as the
parking waiver. This amendment also includes a new subpart #4 which outlines the
requirements for submission of a parking waiver. This amendment also renumbers the subparts
under 4.12 C.
Section 6.8 – Adds a new subsection C (including relevant subparts) to provide information
related to the standard of review for the Development Review Board to consider parking
waivers.
The full text of these amendments is available at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, during
normal business hours or by contacting Eric Vorwald, AICP, City of Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
by calling 802.655.6410 or evorwald@winooskivt.gov.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Eric Vorwald, AICP, Planning and Zoning Manager
RE: Proposed Amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations – Parking Waiver
Date: January 13, 2020
This memo provides information related to two proposed amendments to the City of Winooski
Unified Land Use and Development Regulations. These amendments specifically impact Section
4.12 and Section 6.8 and both amendments are related to parking waivers.
Background
With the comprehensive update to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
(ULUDR) in 2016, changes were made to multiple sections of the code. The most significant
change was the inclusion of Appendix B – Gateway Districts Form Based Code Regulations. Early
drafts of Appendix B included specific provisions related to parking in the Gateway District,
however those provisions were not included in the final draft. Instead, parking for the Gateway
District is regulated through Section 4.12 of the base zoning regulations.
In addition to the amendment adding Appendix B, the 2016 update to the ULUDR made other
changes. One notable change included provisions for relief from the minimum parking
requirements including options for shared use parking, reductions in lieu of Transportation
Demand Management Strategies, and off-site parking options. Another notable change was the
elimination of a provision in the parking regulations identifying the minimum parking requirements
for uses not listed. Specifically, the 2016 update eliminated the following text:
“g. Other – for uses not specified here, the number of required parking spaces shall be
determined by application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.”
While the provisions included in Section 4.12 offer administrative relief from parking minimums,
there is currently no option for additional relief from these minimums or, more importantly, there
is no mechanism to properly identify parking minimums for uses that are not listed in the following
table:
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 2 of 8
Uses Base Parking Requirements
Residential in R-A, R-B and R-C districts 2.0 space/dwelling unit, except 1.0 space/accessory unit
Residential – in all other districts
1.0 space/dwelling unit + 0.50 space/3 bedroom or larger
dwelling unit + 1 space for every 4 units (calculated at
increments of 4)
Commercial (retail, restaurant, etc.) 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Hotel/B&B 1.0 space/room
Theater 0.25 spaces/seat
Industrial 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Office 4.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
The current regulations do not contemplate uses outside of this table, therefore parking may be
over estimated for uses not included.
Purpose of Amendments
While there are two amendments being proposed in different sections of the ULUDR, the
amendments are directly related, therefore one amendment cannot occur without the other. The
purpose of these amendments is twofold. First, the amendment to Section 4.12 includes a waiver
option to reduce the minimum parking requirements below what is achievable through
administrative options and to provide a mechanism for determining minimum parking
requirements for uses that are not listed. The second amendment incorporates standards for the
Development Review Board to consider when reviewed parking waiver requests in Section 6.8.
Proposed Amendments
The following text includes excerpts from Section 4.12 and Section 6.8 respectively. Text that
appears in red and underlined is proposed to be added. Text that appears with a strikeout is
proposed to be deleted.
SECTION 4.12 - PARKING, LOADING AND SERVICE AREAS
A. Intent. These parking standards are intended to:
1. Enable people to conveniently park and access a variety of commercial, residential, and civic
enterprises in pedestrian friendly environments by encouraging shared parking.
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 3 of 8
2. Reduce fragmented, uncoordinated, inefficient, reserved single-purpose parking.
3. Avoid adverse parking impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to redevelopment areas.
4. Maximize on-street parking where available.
B. Applicability. These parking requirements shall apply only to uses and buildings newly constructed,
changed, extended, or restored and shall not apply to those uses and buildings lawfully repaired or
improved where no increase in gross floor area or change of use is made. The regulations in this section
shall apply to all Zoning Districts except the Downtown Core District; and only Section 4.12.C shall apply
to the Gateway Districts.
C. Minimum Reserved Parking Requirements.
1. The quantity of parking spaces to be provided in each development proposal shall be determined
based on the following requirements. When calculating the spaces required, a decimal shall be
rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Uses Base Parking Requirements
Residential in R-A, R-B
and R-C districts
2.0 space/dwelling unit, except 1.0
space/accessory unit
Residential – in all other
districts
1.0 space/dwelling unit + 0.50 space/3
bedroom or larger dwelling unit + 1 space
for every 4 units (calculated at increments
of 4)
Commercial (retail,
restaurant, etc.) 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Hotel/B&B 1.0 space/room
Theater 0.25 spaces/seat
Industrial 3.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Office 4.0 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area
2. Uses not listed under Section 4.12 C.1 shall follow the process outlined under Section 4.12 C. 4 to
determine the required minimum parking.
32. The applicant shall provide a calculation of the parking spaces allocated for each use (including
for employees and for customers/clients) and by time period, and any proposed shared use or
transportation demand management reductions, and the location of the parking spaces. The
required reserved parking spaces may be adjusted, with approval from the DRB or ZA depending
on the application requested, as follows:
a. Shared Use: Sites over 10,000 square feet in non-residential gross floor area, may be
applicable for shared use of the required reserved parking spaces. No more than 60%
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 4 of 8
of the required reserved spaces may be shared. Shared use calculations must be
submitted and approved by the Applicable Authority.
b. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Use of TDM strategies may be incorporated
for a reduction of no greater than 10% of the required reserved parking spaces. Specific
strategies, and the associated single occupancy vehicle trip reductions must be
submitted and approved by the Applicable Authority.
c. Location: The applicant shall demonstrate sufficient parking for residents and employees
are available and reserved for use on the applicant's site or off-site within 1400 feet
from the project site. No more than 20% of the required reserved parking or 10 spaces,
whichever is more, shall be allowed off-site. Each application involving the provision of
reserved parking spaces off-site shall submit written proof of contractual arrangements
with the owner of the lot which guarantees the continuous use of the required parking
spaces for the particular use(s) for the duration of the use(s). The off-site parking
provision is not permitted for development proposals within the Residential Zoning
Districts.
d. Public Parking: The customer or client (non-employee) portion of the minimum parking
requirements may be accommodated in the City's public parking inventory upon approval
of the Director of Public Works or Downtown Parking Administrator. However, the
parking associated with the public parking inventory will not be reserved explicitly for
any one business.
4. Waivers. In addition to the administrative reductions listed under subpart 3, waivers to the
required minimum number of parking spaces may be granted by the DRB as outlined in Section
6.8. Requests for waivers to the parking requirements shall include:
a. A zoning application for a specific use (or uses) requesting the waiver including:
i. a narrative outlining the reason(s) the waiver should be granted
ii. the specific relief requested
iii. how the requested relief from the minimum parking standards will be managed
to accommodate the proposed use(s)
b. A Transportation Demand Management Plan or similar study stamped by a Vermont
Licensed Engineer outlining the justification for the waiver.
c. A site plan identifying the location(s) of the proposed parking.
d. Applicable fees for DRB hearings as outlined in Chapter 28 of the Winooski Municipal
Code.
e. Other information as deemed necessary for review by the Zoning Administrator or DRB.
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 5 of 8
5 3. Handicapped–Accessible Parking Spaces. Parking spaces for handicapped persons shall be
provided for all non-residential uses. The size, number, and location of spaces shall comply with
the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Handicap accessible spaces are required to be eight feet (8'0")
wide, with an adjacent access aisle five feet (5'0") wide. One in every eight (8) accessible spaces
must have an access aisle eight feet (8'0") wide and must be signed "van accessible". The number
of accessible spaces to be provided in each development proposal shall be determined based on
the following requirements. When calculating the spaces required, a decimal shall be rounded
up to the nearest whole number.
Total
parking
spaces in
lot
1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-300 301-400 401-500 501-1000 > 1,000
Number of
accessible
spaces
required in
lot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2% of
total
20 + 1
per 100
over
1,000
6 4. Required Bicycle Parking. Sites and/or projects over 10,000 square feet in land area have the
following requirements:
a. For non-residential uses, the Applicant must provide 1 employee bicycle parking rack (2-
bike capacity) per 5,000 square feet of non-residential gross floor area and 1
visitor/customer bicycle parking rack (2-bike capacity) per 10,000 square feet of non-
residential gross floor area. The employee and visitor racks may be co-located.
b. For residential, the developer must provide 1 tenant bicycle parking rack (2- bike
capacity) per 10 units and 1 visitor bicycle parking rack (2-bike capacity) per 25 units.
Projects under 10 units shall have no requirement.
c. Bicycle parking facilities shall be visible to intended users. The bicycle parking facilities
shall not encroach on any area in the public right-of-way intended for use by pedestrians,
nor shall they encroach on any required fire egress.
************
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 6 of 8
SECTION 6.8 - WAIVERS & VARIANCE REVIEW
A. Applications & Review Standards. The DRB may waive application requirements, and site plan or
conditional use review standards under Sections 6.6 and 6.7, that it determines are not relevant to a
particular application.
B. Dimensional Waivers. The DRB, in association with site plan or conditional use review, or on appeal of
a ZA's determination, may reduce minimum district setback requirements (under Table 2.5) or minimum
surface water and wetland setbacks (under Section 4.8) in accordance with the Act [§ 4414] and the
following requirements.
1. A waiver request, including information regarding the specific circumstances, need and
justification for the waiver shall be submitted in writing with the application for site plan or
conditional use review.
2. A waiver under this section may be granted by the DRB only as necessary to:
a. Allow for the reasonable development and use of a pre-existing nonconforming lot under
Section 4.9.
b. Allow for additions or improvements to a pre-existing nonconforming structure under
Section 4.9.
c. Comply with federal or state public health, safety, access and disability standards.
d. Allow for the siting of renewable energy structures.
3. The minimum required setback distance shall be reduced by no more than 50% under this
provision. Variance approval under Section 6.8 shall be required for any further reduction in
dimensional requirements.
4. In granting a waiver under this section, the DRB shall find, based upon clear and convincing
evidence of a specific need and circumstances that:
a. No reasonable alternative exists for siting the structure, addition or improvement outside
of the required setback area.
b. The reduced setback is not contrary to public health, safety and welfare, stated
objectives and policies of the Winooski Municipal Development Plan, or the intent of
these regulations.
c. The waiver represents the minimum setback reduction necessary to allow for the
proposed development.
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 7 of 8
d. Any potential adverse impacts resulting from reduced setbacks on adjoining properties,
surface waters or wetlands shall be mitigated through site design, landscaping and
screening, or other accepted mitigation measures.
C. Parking Waivers. The DRB, upon application, may grant a waiver to the minimum required parking for
land uses as outlined in Section 4.12 C.
1. The DRB shall consider the specific reasons outlined when considering the waiver to the minimum
parking requirements including:
a. Identified need for parking reductions as outlined in the provided parking study
b. Ability for the proposed development to support the parking needs as indicated on the
provided site plan
c. Potential impacts to surrounding parking facilities including City maintained streets or
parking structures
d. The parking waiver request represents the minimum parking relief necessary to allow for
the proposed development to occur
2. Following review of the parking waiver request, the DRB shall take action to:
a. Approve the parking waiver request as submitted
b. Approve the parking waiver request with modifications as deemed appropriate
c. Deny the parking waiver request
************
Consistency with the Winooski Master Plan
The following information is provided to address the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4441 regarding
consistency of the proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Master Plan, adopted March
2019. Specifically, statute requires municipalities to consider three parts when reviewing
proposals for new or amended bylaws. These considerations include:
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 City updated their Master Plan in 2019. The master plan indicates that there is a
perception that too much parking is required in the gateways which is limiting development.
Memo to Planning Commission
Parking Waiver Amendments
January 13, 2020
Page 8 of 8
Land Use Goal 4 notes that updates to the parking requirements of the Unified Land Use
and Development Regulations should be considered. Also, Municipal Infrastructure Goal 9
discusses implementing components of the transportation master plan related to parking,
and components of the downtown parking plan (completed in 2017) related to parking
management including public assets. These proposed amendments will help further these
goals and others of the City of Winooski Master Plan.
Additionally, parking is often identified as an added cost for development that can decrease
housing affordability. Based on information from the 2018 U.S. Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey, approximately 20% of Winooski’s renter households have no vehicle
and another 50% only have only one vehicle. Providing opportunities for developers to
reduce parking needs beyond the administrative adjustments to meet affordable housing
goals established in the City’s Master Plan can help achieve greater numbers of affordable
housing.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The City of Winooski is almost completely developed and has access to centralized water
and wastewater. This infrastructure has established a pattern of small lots that are
underutilized. Redevelopment of these lots is the only mechanism the City has to continue
growing. Changes to the ULUDR have supported increased density along the gateways, in
the downtown core, and in the central business district. This is also reflected on the City’s
Future Land Use Map.
Due to the existing parcel configurations, it can be challenging to develop a project that
takes advantage of the public infrastructure to maximize density due to the suburban style
parking regulations. The waiver option would allow developers to provide additional
information to establish parking at a more urban scale, take advantage of public parking
facilities, and increase development density.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
While these amendments would not directly impact any proposed community facilities,
there may be an impact to a future parking garage being planned for Downtown Winooski.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
10 DECEMBER 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at
7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, E.
Langfeldt, A. Gill, P. O’Brien, L. Vera, L. Kupferman, J. Wilking, L. Black-Plumeau, R. Mahony, R. Greco, M.
Simoneau, S Dopp
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Vera noted the Burlington project near Queen City Park.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag: Attended the Vermont legislators’ climate caucus yesterday. Found it very well done.
Mr. Conner: Noted the passing of Lynn Fife, who had served on the Planning Commission for a
number of years.
5. Public Hearing on Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs) amendments:
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing inclusionary zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center
Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm
Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District:
b. LDR-19-138: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards
(LDR-19-13A) and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability
for all remaining parts of the City:
Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
2
Mr. Conner distributed written comments and emails received in the past few days, from Nick Andrews,
John Dinklage, Radetta Nemcosky, Nancy Tracy, and State Representatives Killacky, Lalonde, Pugh, and
Townsend. He also noted that the Affordable Housing Committee held a meeting for developers and
had met subsequently to work through their recommendations. Commission members were given a
summary of proposed changes that have not yet completed a legal review.
Ms. Black-Plumeau said this is a “win-win” approach for South Burlington that will create new homes for
moderate income residents. It is aimed at developments of 12 dwelling units or more, a small
percentage of which would be subject to price/rental limits on a continuing basis (10-15%). There is
inclusionary zoning now in City Center. This would expand to areas not affected by interim zoning. Ms.
Black-Plumeau noted they have learned from Burlington’s experiences, and have incorporated that
learning into the proposal.
Ms. Mahony then explained the recent edits as follows:
a. The selling of lots: 10% of lots would have a deed restriction to meet the goals of inclusionary
zoning
b. Regarding congregate housing: These should just meet the rental requirements
c. Unit requirements and how inclusionary units relate to market priced units: The intent is that
the units are physically integrated. The DRB can waive this requirement if there is another
intention met. Units cannot be smaller than 90% of the market value units or a minimum floor
area (set by the number of bedrooms). The number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units
should be proportional to the number of bedrooms in the market units. In ownership units,
there can be one fewer bedroom if an additional bedroom could easily be added.
d. Continued affordability: There are two options:
Option 1: The future seller can sell the unit for what they paid plus 2% per year that they
have occupied it or for what is affordable to a household at 80% of median income at the
time of sale.
Option 2: It is recommended that eligible households are those with incomes up to 100% of
median income.
e. Reporting requirements: Tenants are obliged to provide income documentation. Project owners
are responsible to certify the rent maximums and household incomes.
Ms. Mahony noted there are 2 proposed changes to the Affordable Section of the LDRs:
a. Minimum Floor Area (Section 18.02(1)(3)(b): The recommendation is to add a proportional
standard for the affordable dwelling unit in relation to the market rate units.
b. Continued Affordability: There had been unintended consequences which have been
corrected/removed.
Mr. Langfeldt said there is a question as to how to make an undeveloped lot affordable. Mr. Mittag said
the cost of the land/building would be lower than the others. Ms. Dooley noted that Habitat for
Humanity is always looking for land on which to build homes, and they can certainly build an affordable
house. Mr. Kupferman added that non-profits can buy those lots as their financing is different.
3
Ms. Ostby stressed that the inclusionary unit(s) have a legal requirement that there by an offset (e.g.,
you build one, you get one). Various types of offsets are the realm of the City Council.
Mr. Riehle questioned whether there is a possibility that the 2% could create an “unaffordable”
situation. Ms. Black-Plumeau said if incomes stay flat, that could possibly happen, but it would take a
very long time to appreciate to that point. Ms. Dooley added that these are maximum prices, not
required prices, and the market will determine the price.
Mr. Wilking felt that 2% will be wrong all the time, either too high or too low. He suggested not fixing
that percentage and using a percentage of the CPI. He also noted that every dollar put into a home by
the owner does not get that homeowner a dollar back at sale.
Mr. O’Brien was concerned with how this will affect South Village. He felt 2% was a decent average. He
said they wouldn’t take advantage of a density bonus if it isn’t at least 2%.
Mr. Langfeldt said you will always be governed by who can purchase the home. He said one of their
challenges is that if you are doing a “build to suit” and most buyers want 3 bedrooms but the
inclusionary buyer wants only one or two, it is very complicated. Ms. Black-Plumeau said that is why
they added the smaller unit with the ability to be added onto.
Ms. Dooley noted that income thresholds are based on family size. Larger families can have a higher
income and pay more for a larger home.
Mr. Langfeldt said bedroom size does not determine the cost of the house. It is the foundation, etc.
Mr. Simson asked how they would meet the regulations with a “build to suit.” Mr. Langfeldt said they
would build what the buyer is qualified for. Mr. Gill said needing to create a “predictive space” that
someone might want in a smaller building is very difficult, especially with a permit process two years
before you break ground. He added that they would always build a 3 bedroom home.
Mr. Wilking said there would be more affordable housing if there were more housing. Development
laws slow down development. The DRB slows development. That makes things more expensive. There
is only a 2% vacancy in rentals. Houses turn over very quickly in such a tight housing market. Mr.
Wilking said he had no issue with inclusionary zoning. “You take from one group and give to another.”
But it is not a fix. There needs to be more choice.
Ms. Greco noted that people build 9-unit developments to keep out of Act 250, and that precludes
inclusionary zoning. She was also concerned with raising the percentage of people who can purchase
affordable units to 100% of median income. Mr. Simson said that is still hitting the people who can’t
afford to live in South Burlington now. He added that in Burlington the regulations were so strict for
many years that nothing was built. Burlington has changed its regulations, but there hasn’t been
enough time to see the results. Mr. O’Brien noted that Williston has 3 thresholds of income: up to 80%,
up to 100%, and up to 130% of median income.
4
Ms. Head applauded the work of the committee. She noted this has been considered in the Legislature.
Ms. Greco noted that there is a provision to have the inclusionary units “off site.” She had thought they
were to be integrated. Mr. Conner noted that “offsite” is within the contiguous zoning district. Mr.
Simson said integration is still the goal. They are not talking about building ghettos. Ms. Mahoney said
the DRB can use discretion for an alternate layout. That language has always been in the regulations.
Ms. Dooley read the qualifications for locating offsite (e.g., financial issues).
Members agreed they were not ready to make a decision at this meeting.
Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Review public input on draft amendments, including requested feedback from Affordable
Housing Committee; consider possible policy changes and possible special meeting to review
and ratify modified amendments post-public hearing:
Mr. Conner said the legal review should be available in a few days. Another public hearing would not be
needed.
Ms. Ostby felt a special meeting was worth having to see the language and bring it forward.
Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t think they were that far apart, and he would be happy to work to bring
things together.
Mr. Simson said it sounds like a couple of “tweaks” would do it (e.g., the number of bedrooms in a
“build to suit,” distribution of units, and 2% or something else).
Ms. Greco was concerned that affordable units be in areas where there is public transit.
Mr. Andrews said he was concerned with pushing affordable units into places where there is a “different
expectation.”
Ms. Louisos noted the committee has been working on this for over a year. It has been talked about at
the City Council level as well. There will also be public hearings at the City Council.
Ms. LaRose asked if it would be OK to have a 30-unit “affordable” building in a development of single
family homes or duplexes.
Ms. Louisos summarized the issues being discussed: annual prince increase allowance of 2% or another
figure; integration of inclusionary units into development; and allowance for allowing an ownership unit
to accommodate an additional bedroom. Ms. Louisos requested that Mr. Langfeldt, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr.
Gill provide any recommendations in writing. Ms. Louisos then asked staff to review with Ms. Dooley
5
and Mr. Simson and provide a recommendation to the Commission alongside the draft wit the complete
legal review.
Members agreed to a special meeting on 17 December.
7. Presentation of Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Recommendations:
Mr. Strong reviewed the Committee’s charge to prioritize conservation of open spaces, forest blocks,
and working landscapes. He also reviewed the methods used by the committee. They were given a list
of 190 parcels of at least 4 acres and less than 10% impervious surface and decided to use that as the list
of possible properties. These properties were evaluated on both a regional scale (for connectivity and
resources, through Bio Finder) and a parcel scale (based on water, wildlife, forests, aesthetics, and
agriculture).
The results of the study were as follows:
a. Of the 190 parcels, 127 were in Biofinder
b. Of the 127 parcels, 92 contained resources in 3 of the 5 categories
c. Of those 92, 73 were not already conserved
d. The 73 were narrowed to 25 based on current and planned land use and acreage.
Those 25 parcels include: Farrell property, Edlund property, the property across Dorset Street from
Dorset Farms, Dorset Meadows, property south of Dorset Meadows, Windjammer property, Muddy
Brook, the Winooski River area adjacent to Muddy Brook, property on Allen Road, property south of
Butler Farm, and others. Mr. Strong showed a map highlighting those properties with other types of
conservation areas.
(Mr. Mittag thanked Mr. Strong and exited the meeting at this point and said he would catch up with the
minutes)
Mr. Macdonald asked if all criteria were rated the same. Mr. Strong said they were; however, because
there were 3 “water categories,” these came out as more important.
Mr. Strong noted that in a case where 50% of a property was rated for conservation, they decided to
conserve the whole property. They felt this was more equitable to the owner.
Ms. Ostby asked if there would still be some small development allowed in a “conservation PUD.” Mr.
Strong showed some properties that might fall into that category, some with NRP zoning already in that
parcel.
Mr. Strong noted the committee will be holding a public forum possibly in January.
Ms. LaRose noted that Arrowwood is on target with their work. She asked if there is room to include
that in the committee’s work. Mr. Conner explained issues as all the pieces come together, including
6
economic value. They question is how to structure that conversation. Mr. Macdonald asked if the
Commission is going to be changing zoning. Mr. Conner said possibly. There will also be TDR planning to
take the top priorities from this report and turn those areas into sending areas.
Ms. Louisos suggested passing this report on to the Natural Resources Committee.
8. Meeting Minutes of 12 November 2019:
Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 12 November as written. Mr. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed 4-0.
9. Other Business:
a. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Subdivision
Regulations, 9 January 2020, 7 p.m., 5420 Shelburne Rd.
b. Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to
Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 6:45 p.m.
No action was taken on these informational items.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:00 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
14 JANUARY 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 January 2020, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, A. Klugo (via phone)
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley,
M. Simoneau, L. Nadeau, P. O’Brien, R. Jeffers, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, J. Larkin, R. Greco
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
The Staff report was included in the meeting packet.
5. Continue Review of proposed Land Development Regulations amendments:
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay district, all lands within the City Center
Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm
Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District
b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards
(LDR-19-13A); and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued
affordability for all remaining parts of the City
Mr. Mittag felt the definition of the expanded area is vague and could lead to problems down the road.
He suggested fixing the Transit Overlay District on the map. He noted that Form Based Code is already
in the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Ostby felt that should be looked at in the future after interim Zoning.
Other members agreed.
Mr. Mittag said he also had a question about “above grade living space.” Ms. Jeffers suggested
“conditioned space” as an alternative. Mr. Conner said the circumstances where this would come up
are very small. The 90% was a previous option. Mr. Klugo felt 90% was a very high number. Mr. Conner
said it is relative to the market rate. Mr. Klugo suggested a minimum on the Inclusionary unit of 720 sq.
ft. Mr. Conner said the aim is not to have to inclusionary unit bigger than the market rate, which could
happen. He suggested saying “no less than the average of the market rate units.” He still favored the
90%. Mr. Klugo said they could always come back and adjust it. Ms. LaRose said she favored “habitable
area” over “conditioned area.” Members were OK with that.
Ms. Greco questioned why this would include areas outside the Transit Overlay District and felt
“vicinity” was too vague. Mr. Conner said the legal review was OK with the language. He suggested
adding a map and saying “as shown on map.” Members were OK with that.
Mr. Langfeldt said their concern is that things change, sometimes dramatically. They try to get the
inclusionary units built before the market units. Coverage is also a serious issue. He was also concerned
that it’s been “years” since they were told the new PUD standards were imminent. Ms. Ostby suggested
a 6-month check-in, and if the PUDs are not complete then, to address it at that time.
Mr. Gill said they are already building smaller units, roads, etc., and so much land has to be untouched.
Additional units are not always possible. Mr. Mittag said that problem could be solved by the PUDs.
Mr. Langfeldt said they can’t use the additional unit offset because of the 25% coverage issue. Mr.
Gagnon asked whether the TDR and PU language would address coverage issues. Ms. LaRose said the
PUD language will address how coverage is calculated. Coverage is not based on each individual lot;
they are looking at coverage holistically. Mr. Conner said the R-1 area is the issue. Mr. Gagnon said this
is a very valid concern; they can’t encourage something and then “knock it out.”
Ms. Ostby felt it was important for this to go forward now so it can be used as a “check” when they look
at other things. She felt this gives the Commission the mathematical foundation it needs. Mr. Langfeldt
noted that language can depend on its interpretation.
Ms. Ostby said the Affordable Housing Committee needs to continue to look at this. It is a living
document. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that they support the effort, but the offset is not attainable. Mr.
Simson noted that their issue is the only one in the city where this arises. He felt the committee can
work with staff to address it. He added that the offset is consistent with State Statute. He thought they
should be able to craft a change independent of the PUD.
Ms. Louisos noted that for low coverage districts, coverage could increase by 10%; for the inclusionary
ownership development by 15%, for inclusionary rental development only for the offset units. Mr.
Gagnon said he was on board with that. Mr. Klugo said they would need a test to be sure the numbers
work.
Mr. Gagnon moved to table the discussion and come back with amended language at the next meeting.
Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Ms. Ostby opposing.
Ms. Jeffers suggested some language changes as follows:
At the beginning of Article II, she suggested “purchased by” instead of “owned by.” At the end
of that paragraph, add “with a deed covenant and affordability in perpetuity.”
On p. 6, in the second reference, change “above grade” to “habitable”
On p. 10, item #5, change to “affordable and an inclusionary unit.” (Ms. Dooley noted they don’t
use “affordable” in the inclusionary section).
6. Possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council:
This item was postponed to a future agenda.
7. Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report work session and
recommendations:
Ms. Louisos noted there had not been previous discussion of the report, and the City Council had some
questions. Mr. Gagnon said the Council was on board with the report and recommendations. They now
need to be sure the Commission understands the recommendations and the ramifications. These will be
the foundation of what the Commission uses to go forward with its work.
Mr. Klugo noted there was a lot of work done to clarify the recommendations, and he was generally
supportive. He did question the use of “could” vs. “shall.” He felt the map is a very good took. He
noted that the parcels in pink have been identified by the Open Space IZ Committee as priority parcels.
He felt there should be a mechanism that if the city does not purchase one (or more) of these
properties, it (they) should go back to the property owner with original development rights. Ms. Louisos
felt that was a very good point. She noted there might be other tools to conserve those properties. Mr.
Mittag said some may not be legally possible. Ms. Ostby suggested possibly limiting development on
those properties to certain types of PUDs. Mr. Gagnon said he wouldn’t want to do anything to
negatively impact a property owner’s assets.
Mr. Nadeau said the what he is seeing will have a major impact on the value of people’s property.
Mr. Gagnon noted the Open Space Committee is having a public presentation of its report on January 23
at the High School. Ms. LaRose noted that report is still being drafted.
Mr. Langfeldt asked what is to say that the same thing that happened with receiving areas last time
doesn’t happen again with people being upset at having TDR receiving areas next door to them.
Mr. Conner suggested the Commission first discuss what is meant by each recommendation and what is
needed to advance the recommendation. He added they also need a “magnitude” discussion, how
many receiving areas are being talked about. Mr. Gagnon said they first need to know how many TDRs
are needed in receiving areas, then where to put them, then hear concerns from people in that area.
Mr. Klugo said the first question is how you want an area to look, then decide on how many. He asked
what could happen that can’t happen now. Mr. Mittag said an R-4 could go to R-7.
Mr. Conner questioned whether there are areas in the city that are “underserved,” where more can be
done than is currently being done.
Mr. Klugo also noted that asking developers to spend money on TDRs can make affordability
questionable. Mr. Gagnon said TDRs could go in commercial areas. Mr. Klugo said he would support
that. Mr. Gagnon suggested changing “dwelling unit” to “transfer unit” and getting commercial and
square footage into the definition.
Mr. Simoneau said the properties identified by the Open Space Committee have “an owner.” The
properties were identified because there are characteristics to conserve. They Committee isn’t saying
the entirety of those properties are to be preserved. He noted that there is another group looking at
those properties, and the hope is to get both groups together to create equity for the owner as well as
open space.
Ms. Louisos noted that one of the new PUDs could apply to some of the identified properties.
Mr. Larkin said they should also consider early on issues such as stormwater on site, traffic, etc., as
limiting factors.
Mr. Conner felt “new sending areas” was a good place for the Commission to consider what tools are
available to them.
Mr. Larkin asked whether anyone has contacted any landowners to tell them their property is a high
priority for open space? Mr. Gagnon said “not officially.” He noted that when developers go through a
process, they have to notify landowners what is being proposed. He felt the city should do the same
thing.
Ms. Louisos noted that there could be areas in the SEQ that would no longer be receiving areas, and that
land could be developed at a lesser level. She didn’t think that was an efficient use of land. Mr. Conner
noted this is a massive policy change and has to be carefully thought through.
Ms. Ostby noted that “connecting buyers and sellers” was not in the Commissions purview.
Mr. Mittag said landowners should be contacted to see fi they want to list TDRs for their properties (it is
voluntary).
Mr. Gill urged the Commission to look at which recommended parcels make sense for open space. Mr.
Gagnon said that will be the Commission’s job and may involve changes to the Comprehensive Plan,
LDRs, etc.
8. Review and possibly approve CCRPC Unified Work Program candidate projects to City Council:
Mr. Conner noted that staff had made some adjustments including adding scoping for underground
utilities on one stretch of Williston Road.
Mr. Conner also noted that CCRPC would be willing to assist the Commission with certain projects. He
added that the Council has approved the proposed FY21 budget which includes funding for this.
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the CCRPC Unified Work Program projects and to submit it to the City
Council. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
9. Staff status report on PUD/Master Plan/Subdivision Regulations:
There is a full draft of Master Plan language, and staff is expecting PUD language in the next few weeks.
The objective is to have everything by the end of next month. Ms. LaRose noted the proposed language
is being tested against known projects.
Mr. Gill asked who is identifying Class 1 Agriculture. Ms. LaRose said there is a group dealing with that.
She added that agriculture is “very tricky” and they hope to have an answer soon. It is not likely to
reflect only soil types. Mr. Gill noted that every piece of land in Vermont has been farmed at one time
or another.
10. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:43 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk