Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 12/08/2020SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 DECEMBER 2020 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 December 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; T. Newton, CCRPC; L. Kingsbury, D. Long, R. Gonda, A. Chalnick, L. Nadeau, S. Dooley 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #4 to follow item #7. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No comments were made. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos noted that she had spoken to the City Council last night regarding amendments to Chapters 10 and 12 of the LDRS. Mr. Riehle noted he had listened to the Community Wildlife update which was interesting but not really relevant to South Burlington. Ms. Ostby recommended the book The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. Mr. Conner: The City Council unanimously adopted the amendments presented to them by the Commission. At that meeting, Mr. Conner also gave a brief update regarding getting going with a city Climate Plan. 4. (previously #5) Discuss candidate projects for FY2022, CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) requests; possible recommendation to the City Council: Mr. Conner said he is excited about this year’s list. He asked to add to the printed list the section of rec path on Kimball Avenue as it goes past Potash Brook. Mr. Mittag asked when Mary St. will be opened. Mr. Conner said when Garden Street is finished, but there is a legal challenge to that. 2 Mr. Conner then explained that the City gives CCRPC its priority projects, and CCRPC looks at requests from all across the County. All projects need to relate to transportation funding. Regional projects tend to get priority, but they also hep local communities with projects based on available funds. Ms. Ostby felt there should be a regional policy for animal crossings, which could slow down traffic. Mr. Mittag moved to send the list of potential CCRPC projects to the City Council, including the additional Kimball Avenue project. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. (previously #6): Swift/Spear Intersection Scoping Study, possibly appointment of Commissioner to Project Team: Mr. Conner noted that there will probably be 4-5 meetings over 8 months. Members noted that the project is near where Messrs. Mittag and Macdonald live and both are regular users. Members were OK with Mr. Macdonald serving on the Project Team as he isn’t serving on another committee at the moment. Ms. Dooley noted there was a recommendation for a roundabout there. 6. (previously #7): Commission discussion of communications and outreach: Ms. Louisos said she reached out to the Council Chair who thought it would be good for the Commission to have a monthly update in The Other Paper. Mr. Gagnon suggested using Front Porch Forum which has a link to minutes and audio broadcasts of meetings. Mr. Gonda said they do immediate postings. Ms. Ostby suggested utilizing the City’s Newsletter. Mr. Conner noted that is a bi-weekly publication. All Department heads are asked to provide information of interest to the public. Mr. Conner said he would be glad to provide Commission input. Mr. Gagnon cited the importance of getting information out to the public in advance of the Commission making decisions. He noted that many times people said “I didn’t know that was happening.” Ms. Ostby suggested the 4 January column for The Other Paper be about Articles 10 and 12. Ms. Louisos said she is willing to contact The Other Paper. 3 7. (previously #4): Review Draft Amendments to Land Development Regulations: a. Revised Flood Hazard Overlay District Mr. Conner introduced Taylor Newton, Senior Planner with the CCRPC, who is a Certified Floodplain Manager. Mr. Newton noted he had recently joined CCRPC, having previously served as the Town Planner in Milton. Mr. Newton said the draft is not very different from the previous Section 10.01, but it will now use the term “Floodplain Review,” which will focus on federally required standards. This would be an overlay district on top of the base district. The city is not regulating the 500-year flood plain which has been divided into B1 and B2 districts. In the B1 district, a property owner could expand and/or newly develop under new rules. Ms. Louisos suggested referencing the map on which this is shown. Mr. Newton noted that the kinds of development that are exempted from flood plain rules (based on State regulations) have been specifically identified. He added that any remodeling over $500 needs to have a permit specific to flood plain regulations. Mr. Newton then reviewed the application requirements that would have to be met including: a. Flood plain development plan b. Project review sheet c. Information regarding base flood elevation (this doesn’t necessarily work for the 500-year flood plain) d. Information regarding average grade (building will have to be at least 2 feet above this grade) Mr. Newton noted that the DRB can be asked to waive one of the requirements. Mr. Conner said this would be only for “common sense” things. Mr. Newton added that the DRB can ask an expert (the NFIP Coordinator) for advice. Some floodplain reviews can be done administratively (minor types); everything else would have to go to the DRB for a zoning permit. Mr. Newton also noted that the development standards are essentially the same with added standards for critical facilities and storage structures. 100-year floodplain rules have been prohibiting basements. That same prohibition now applies to the 500-year floodplain. Ms. Ostby asked whether there are things people could do to make basements safer. She noted that the Ethan Allen Industrial Park could have a lot of storage below the retail/work spaces. Mr. MacDonald added that a part of the 500-year floodplain goes through Butler Farms, a 4 residential area, where homes have basements. If they remodel, will they be told to do away with their basements? Mr. Newton said that if people were doing a remodel based on destruction of 50% or more of a home, they would not be able to build a basement and would have to build 2-3 feet above ground. Ms. Louisos added that just be raising utilities up could save a lot of money if there is a flood. Mr. Conner enumerated the areas where there are homes in the 500-year floodplain (12-15 homes in the Chamberlin neighborhood, 15 or so in Butler Farms, and some homes behind Rice High School, about a total of 30 or 40 overall. Mr. Newton suggested possibly allowing existing basements to continue even after extensive damage in the 500-year floodplain. Mr. Gagnon said it would be a shame to have a flood after remodeling and suggested some possible middle ground (elevating the furnace so it isn’t on the floor or requiring a sump pump to minimize the damage). Ms. Riehle said people in flood zones have to have flood insurance. Mr. Newton said that is not necessarily true in the 500-year floodplain. Mr. MacDonald said people may not even know they are in a floodplain. Ms. Louisos said South Burlington has been spared a big flood for many years. The idea is to help guide landowners so they avoid catastrophic damage. Ms. Ostby said it seems like a large burden to put on a small number of households and she was leery of that. Mr. Gagnon suggested changing the language of the 500-year floodplain to say if you renovate a basement (e.g., change from an unfinished to a finished basement) you have to do these things. Mr. Newton thought that could be made to work. Ms. Louisos said anything with those 2 feet should be raised above grade. Mr. Newton said it is important to understand that structures that are substantially improved in the 500 year floodplain have to raise the entire structure to be 2 feet above ground. He asked if that makes sense. Ms. Ostby said it won’t make sense, and it could make it impossible. She suggested it might be a requirement if people were adding a second or third floor. Mr. Newton noted that some communities track three-year intervals, and people could do improvements below the threshold over a 3-year period. Mr. Riehle asked why it should trigger it at all. Mr. Conner said it lies in the purpose of a floodplain – to protect the loss of property value. Mr. Mittag felt they were getting into a “lot of weeds,” and there was a lot more thought required. 5 Mr. Newton noted there is a restriction in the non-conforming structure section clarifying that a floodproofing certificate be filed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Conner said that is an appropriate use of a CO, but South Burlington doesn’t require a CO for 1 and 2-family homes per se. What is proposed would require more administrative cost, and that is something to think about. Mr. Riehle suggested Mr. Newton look at Article 12 before the Commission delves into it. Mr. Conner said he has already asked for that. He will share any feedback he gets. b. Article 12 – Environmental Protection Standards: Ms. Louisos reminded members that Ms. Ostby had some issues regarding connectivity and Mr. Mittag has underlined some issues . Ms. Ostby pointed out 2 areas where connections are not mapped. Mr. Conner said there are one or 2 parcels in front of Butler Farms that could be Neighborhood Development or could be reduced. There is also a possible roadway connector between neighborhoods. Mr. Gagnon asked what is the scientific evidence for the 2 areas. Ms. Ostby said there is no scientific evidence. She is familiar with the area, and zoning is protecting the connection. But if the zoning changes, the connectivity should be identified. Mr. Gagnon said he wanted to be sure they are documented connections as any regulations would have to be defensible. Mr. Conner said he could have Jens Hilke, Conservation Planner with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, take a look at the areas. Mr. Gonda, Chair of the Natural Resources/Conservation Committee, noted that it is one of the major tasks of the Committee for the year to map out connections of habitat blocks. He felt the Commission’s map was a good starting point for that study. He also said he had a problem with citing “scientific evidence.” Mr. Gagnon said there has to be compelling evidence to have a rationale for drawing lines. Mr. Conner said there can be “multiple indicators.” He noted that everyone can see some level of wildlife in their backyards. Mr. Mittag noted that a study of wildlife in South Burlington was done including where it was and how it traveled. With regard to Mr. Mittag’s concerns, he said one thing he would consider is widening buffers. He felt there was good material in earlier reports that should be considered. He said the downside of this would be to make it more difficult for there to be exceptions. He also said it is hard to do this in a virtual meeting on the fly. Ms. Ostby cited the need to be careful with words like “no build” as there are “no build” areas with exceptions. 6 Ms. Louisos suggested looking at buffers and encroachments again. 8. Meeting Minutes of 24 November 2020: Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 24 November as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Members discussed the possibility of a special meeting next week. Mr. Conner will poll members to come up with a day and time. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission January 12, 2021