HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 02/25/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
25 FEBRUARY 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 February 2020, at
7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Dorn, City Manager; City Councilors H.
Riehle, T. Barritt, D. Kaufman; A. Worthley, J. Parsons, D. Crawford, M. Simoneau, A. Gill, A. Strong, R.
Greco, S. Dooley, S. Dopp, D. Murdoch, H. Godin, R. Gonda, other members of the public
The initial portion of this meeting was a Joint Meeting with the City Council.
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. Greco showed a brief video regarding “natural climate solutions” that can help eco-systems bounce
back.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
No reports were presented.
5. Presentation and Commission/Council Discussion of completed 2020 South Burlington Habitat
Block Assessment and Ranking:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the study and noted that the Planning Commission has given broad
guidance on the use of this tool but has not decided specifics. Ms. Ostby added that there is currently
no specific forest block protection in the LDRs.
Mr. Parsons said Arrowwood’s task for this study was to conduct an analysis of forest blocks which they
expanded to “forest habitat blocks.” They looked at wilder species (bobcat, grey fox, occasional moose
and deer, bear, etc.). They looked at the smallest block that can provide habitat. They settled on
twenty acres, the lowest unit for the State, but some species require more for breeding females. Some
species also require water for support (e.g., wetlands, shorelines attached to forested areas, etc.). Some
species also have very specific requirements such as special trees, heights of trees, etc. These have been
mapped when they are associated with forest blocks, which is what the State is doing.
2
Mr. Worthley then noted that Act 171 defines a forest block. It is not necessarily wilderness and can be
a young or regenerated forest. He showed a State map of forest blocks in the South Burlington area and
said the map is not suited for municipal and parcel level planning. It is also out of date as site-specific
conditions can change. He then showed a map done in the 2004 Arrowwood study and the 2019 Open
Space Committee rough mapping of valued forests.
Mr. Parsons said that what they mapped had to have a forest there to begin with. They added
supporting habitat such as unmapped wetlands and looked at how forest blocks were connected to
other forest blocks.
Mr. Worthley said they identified 26 habitat blocks and forest areas adjacent to shrub land. They
eliminated agricultural and herbaceous areas including ballfields. He noted there are other habitat
types, such as grassland and aquatic areas, but those did not fall into this study. Each of the 26
identified blocks was then scored on a range from 1 to 10. The parameters for each included the
following:
1. Size: the larger the area, the greater the size of species
2. Percentage of Block that was Forested: He noted that the Great Swamp doesn’t score high
on this criterion, even though it is the largest block.
3. Percentage of Core Forest: The farthest from human habitation. This is important for some
species. Forest areas with “long fingers” have less habitat.
4. Percentage of Surface Water: This benefits aquatic animals. In South Burlington, this refers
mostly to streams or to one area near the Winooski River.
5. Percentage of Wetlands: benefits waterfowl and a wide variety of wildlife for food sources.
6. Cover type: Refers to the number of deciduous trees vs. evergreens. A more equal mix
provides for greater species diversity.
7. Fragmentation: the amount of “forest edge” each block contains.
8. Horizontal Diversity: The number of cover types and forest canopy height changes along the
longest axis
9. Supporting Habitat: refers to available habitat fragments adjacent toeh forest blocks (e.g.,
shrub land)
10. Connecting Habitat: Interconnectiveness/isolation relative to other blocks. This is important
for wildlife movement. Streams have the highest values followed by shrublands.
3
Mr. Parsons said they did a drive-through to see where things had changed since the air photos were
taken. He noted that both City Center and the O’Brien property were no longer viable forested areas.
He also noted that some of the smaller habitats continue into surrounding communities, and they didn’t
want to eliminate those.
Each habitat was scored by the 10 parameters. The two that scored the highest were Area and
Connecting Habitat. Mr. Parsons showed a map of the final rankings. He noted the “hot spot” areas in
the Southeast Quadrant and Muddy Brook area.
Mr. Worthley said it is important to thing of the connection between the units for the movement of
wildlife. If those areas are gone, what is being said is that it isn’t important for bobcats to make their
way through the city.
Ms. Ostby asked what the “red” and “pink” areas need to look like and what could be developed. She
noted South Burlington has a need for housing. Mr. Worthley said the most important thing is to
protect the forest blocks. Even if you build in them, development should be clustered to allow the
movement of wildlife. The length and width of driveways should also be limited. Mr. Parsons added
that riparian buffers should be maintained at a minimum of 50 feet. He added that chain link fencing
does not allow for movement of wildlife.
Mr. Riehle noted that 3 roads are planned in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He asked what wildlife they
will inhibit. Mr. Parsons noted a cut-through planned by South Village which would break up a habitat
block. Mr. Worthley said a lot of east-west roads in the SEQ will inhibit movement of wildlife. He added
that if the city wants those roads, there are things that can mitigate the problem to some extent. Mr.
Parsons said that most wildlife movement in South Burlington is north-south. Mr. Worthley said
appropriate committees should be involved regarding the planned roads. Road crossings will be very
important. There could also be dry culverts. Ms. Louisos noted that is easier to achieve with new roads.
Mr. Riehle said South Burlington is a suburban town that has been identified as a “growth area.” He
asked if the city would be potentially creating a situation with wildlife conflict problems in
neighborhoods. Mr. Parsons said there will always be a problem with skunks. He added that having a
place for wildlife to eat and live can mitigate that to some extent.
Mr. Barritt asked if there should be a 20-foot buffer between housing in areas where you can’t cluster.
Mr. Parsons said “the wider the better.” He added that you have to know where animals come from
and go.
Mr. Worthley suggested possibly eliminating one of the planned roads and enhancing the others.
Mr. Worthley also noted that they didn’t go on the ground for this report. He felt sites, especially
corridors, should be investigated individually and the city should come up with a standard for what it is
looking for. Asked about the detail of the data included in the forest block mapping, he indicated the
resolution was 1 meter.
4
Ms. Dooley noted a number of areas where there is a lot of development that has wildlife corridors
shown on the map. She asked what allows them to co-exist. Mr. Parsons there may possibly be some
deep ravines. He suggested ground exploration to find out why.
Ms. Gordon spoke to the need to protect “hazard areas.” She asked what happened to a study of
wildcats. Mr. Worthley said some studies were written up.
Ms. Greco asked about cutting off access to animals outside the city limits. Mr. Worthley said what is
left in the city isn’t enough t support breeding of wildcats, so the there is dependence on land outside
the city.
Mr. Murdoch said there are people who feel South Burlington is a city, so these things don’t matter. He
asked how Arrowwood would respond to a statement such as that. Mr. Worthley said it’s up to the city
to do what it feels is important.
Mr. Gill asked whether something like wetland standards is envisioned or something more field
delineated. Mr. Worthley said historically, there were features that could be identified on the ground.
More and more thinking is moving to consider things more organically, both statewide and community-
wide. He added if you think forest blocks are important, don’t think you can go more deeply into the
edges than what has been done.
Mr. Long was concerned that the State-designated areas will be put into the South Burlington LDRs, and
these are not accurate. Ms. Louisos said the city currently regulates wetlands based on field delineation.
“Remote designations” are not used.
Mr. Conner inquires as to whether mapped wetland areas were used in determining the boundaries of
the forest blocks, or only in estimating the amount of wetland within a forest block. Mr. Worthley stated
that land cover data was used to determine boundaries. Wetland maps were only used to estimate the
amount of wetland within a forest block.
A member of the audience asked about the value of forest blocks in terms of air quality. Mr. Worthley
said it is “the main thing.” He added that this doesn’t happen with street trees.
Ms. Louisos said there will be a follow-up item to this presentation on a future Planning Commission
agenda.
City Council members left the meeting at this point.
6. Review Planned Unit Development/Natural Resource Project Completion Timeline and
Commission Tasks:
Ms. Louisos drew attention to the draft completion timeline. Mr. Gagnon asked if the Commission is on
track to begin work on a full draft. Mr. Conner said the consultant is working to get a full draft to the
Commission. Ms. Ostby cited the need for very precise language. Mr. Conner said this could be done by
5
the whole Commission or by a working group. Staff will provide the needed resources. Mr. Gagnon
suggested a full discussion with the Commission then a small group to work out the details.
Members agreed to hold a special meeting on Election night (March 3rd).
7. Discuss/approve pubic outreach plan for Planned Unit Development/Natural Resources
amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Conner distributed information regarding public outreach and asked the Commission what kind of
input they want.
Members liked the idea of the “listening sessions.” Mr. Conner suggested sessions regarding a
particular topic or user group. There could also be specific groups such as large land owners, engineers,
the development community, etc. The regular Commission meetings could then be for discussion on
what was heard from the public. Staff will meet with various committees to urge their input.
Mr. Conner noted that CCTV will be coming to as many meetings as possible.
Mr. Gill said they would like to be involved in the process early as there is a massive amount of detail.
He suggested possibly segregating out various elements so people can work through the details.
Ms. Ostby suggested that a listening session the day before a Commission meeting could make the
meeting more productive.
8. 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 9:40 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 10, 2020