HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 01/26/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, January 26, 2021
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone.
There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-01-26
Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 655-698-269
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
4. Presentation of upcoming March Ballot item for Tax Increment Financing: Garden Street section
completion, Kevin Dorn, City Manager, Ilona Blanchard, Project Director (7:15 pm)
5. *Continued Planning Commission work session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
(7:30 pm)
a. Updated Environmental Protection Standards, Review with Taylor Newton, CCRPC (7:30 pm)
b. Review Summary and Status of Complete Working Draft of LDRs(8:30 pm)
6. *Minutes: January 7, 2021, January 12, 2021 (8:55 pm)
7. *Other Business: (8:58 pm)
a. 30 VSA Section 248a(k) de minimis T-Mobile 1200 Airport Drive, South Burlington VT
8. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: January 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
4. Presentation of upcoming March Ballot item for Tax Increment Financing: Garden Street section
completion, Kevin Dorn, City Manager, Ilona Blanchard, Project Director (7:15 pm)
Kevin and/or Ilona will give a brief overview of the ballot item that will be on the March ballot for voters to
consider.
5. *Continued Planning Commission work session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
a. Updated Environmental Protection Standards, Review with Taylor Newton, CCRPC (7:30 pm)
See enclosed memo from Taylor, as well as the updated draft Article 12 [Environmental Protection
Standards]
b. Review Summary and Status of Complete Working Draft of LDRs [and link to complete text/maps]
(8:30 pm)
Here it is, the full list of amendments and their status. In addition, per the Commission’s request, we
have compiled a COMPLETE WORKING DRAFT of the LDRs as discussed in the memo. It does NOT
include the strikethroughs where entire articles or sections are proposed to be replaced. And there
remain certain sections under development, notably, the NCD, Conservation, and Infill PUD types, as
well as any possible changes to the Inclusionary Zoning Standards and/or TDR provisions of the
Regulations.
A few key questions for Commissioners:
1. Do you wish to proceed with the zoning district changes?
2. Do you wish to proceed with the expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, to replace the Affordable
Housing Density Bonus?
3. Do you wish to see the residential building design standards expanded from the SEQ to city-
wide, or keep them only with the SEQ (for non-TND or NCD Planned Unit Developments]
6. *Minutes: January 7, 2021, January 12, 2021 (8:55 pm)
7. Other Business: (8:58 pm)
a. 30 VSA Section 248a(k) de minimis T-Mobile 1200 Airport Drive, South Burlington VT
8. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Page 1 of 5
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Taylor Newton, Senior Planner
Date: January 20, 2021
Re: South Burlington – Article 12
The following is a review of remaining Article 12 policy questions and a summary of edits to Article 12,
by section, as completed by CCRPC.
Remaining Policy Questions
1. Stream and Surface Water Buffers – Section 12.02. Should this vegetative requirement of the
Stream and Surface Water Buffers in Section 12.02 apply to all River Corridors? This could ease
administration of the vegetative buffer rule removing one “layer” of regulation while not
compromising the strong vegetative requirement. CCRPC recommends taking this approach to
requiring a vegetative buffer.
This approach could be coupled with local delegation of the State Shoreland Protection Act.
This would enable greater local control and enforcement of vegetative buffer standards on Lake
Champlain although CCRPC does not advocate for this approach given the additional staff time
needed to properly implement the standards.
Alternatively, could the Stream and Surface Water Buffer standards could continue to exist in
their current form, yet the buffer size could vary by zoning district (or groups of zoning districts)
to more accurately reflect the goals of each respective zoning district.
2. Wetlands Buffers – Section 12.0 – Buffer Width. Should the wetlands vegetative buffer
standards in Section 10.03 vary by zoning district (or groups of zoning districts) to more
accurately reflect the goals of each respective zoning district? CCRPC recommends this
approach. Here are the specifics of the CCRPC recommendation:
a. Maintain existing Class I and Class II wetlands and wetlands buffer regulations (50 feet)
in Commercial Districts, Form Based Code Districts, Municipal & Institutional Districts,
and Industrial & Airport Districts.
b. Expand jurisdictions of Class I and Class II wetlands and wetland buffer regulations in
Residential Districts and Southeast Quadrant Subdistricts as currently proposed (200
feet for Class I wetlands and 100 feet for Class II wetlands).
c. Eliminate Class III wetlands and wetlands buffer regulations.
3. Wetlands Buffers – Section 12.03 – Class III Wetlands. Regulating Class III wetlands may not be
advisable planning policy and may be difficult to effectively and efficiently regulate.
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404-2109
802-846-4490
www.ccrpcvt.org
Page 2 of 5
From a policy perspective, it is difficult to gauge how much of an impact regulating Class III
wetlands may have upon the amount of potentially developable land may exist in South
Burlington. There is no existing mapping of Class III wetlands in South Burlington. In addition,
Class III wetlands are currently regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), but only to the
extent that a project impacts the “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act (33 CFR
328) and “navigable waters of the U.S.” under §10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 CFR
329)” according to the “Errata Sheet” for ACE General Wetlands Permits. It is unclear how this
does or does not impact Federal regulation of Class III wetlands in South Burlington. Further,
the ACE regulation does not include any clear regulations about buffer width or vegetative
requirements. Per the “Errata Sheet,” here is a summary of ACE’s regulations:
Activities must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize direct, indirect,
secondary, and cumulative adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of
the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site).
Consideration of mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating)
is required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are no more than minimal. (p. 26).
Some permitting Class III done by ACE is completed through a “self-verification” process
completed by the application.
With Class I and Class II wetlands, applicants and the City of South Burlington can substantially
rely on the wetlands delineation approved by the State of Vermont to assist with properly
implementing local regulation. This may not be the case with Class III wetlands because it is
unclear which Class III wetlands may or may not be regulated by the ACE. Further, the “self-
verification” process means there is no Federal approval of Class III wetlands delineations for
some projects. This would leave City staff and the DRB (likely with the assistance of an
independent technical consultant) with the responsibility of determining if a Class III wetlands
delineation is correct.
Summary of Edits by Section
General Edits Throughout Article
1. Replaced “adverse impact” with “undue adverse impact” to reflect more common legal standard
used in Vermont. The accompanying “test” is included at the end of the draft article.
2. Replaced the term “development” with term “land development” to provide consistency with
state statute and throughout the document.
Section 12.01 General Protection Standards
1. Revised to clarify purpose statement.
2. Add a Development Review Process subsection to clarify that all encroachments to natural
resources regulated in Article 12 shall be subject to Site Plan Review. Also, edited corresponding
section in Section 14.09.
Page 3 of 5
Section 12.02 Streams and Surface Water
1. Clarified in the “Applicability” subsection that “land development” is subject to the standards in
this section.
2. Edited the standard for landscaping and/or fencing along the edge of the perimeter of the buffer
to provide clarity to the applicant and to ensure the buffer is clearly identifiable on site. Added a
waiver provision for existing forest or landscaping along the border of the buffer. Also removed
subjective aesthetic standard and language related to “encouraging” split rail fences.
3. Added to “Exemption” section to clarify that maintenance of pre-existing non-conforming land
development in the buffer may continue into perpetuity. Also added an exemption for the
removal of invasive species.
4. Clarified that newly proposed land development on lots with pre-existing non-conforming land
development shall trigger a requirement that at least 50% of the pre-existing non-conforming
area within the Stream and Surface Water Buffer shall be re-seeded and returned to natural
vegetation. This requirement shall not apply to lots with single-household or two-household
dwellings.
5. Moved “Erosion Control Measures” in Section 12.02 to Section 10.01. Moving these standards
to Section 10.01 expands the jurisdiction of these rules for all land development between 95.5
feet and 98 feet elevation (ordinary high water mark) to all land development between 95.5 feet
and 101.5 feet elevation (base flood elevation).
6. Removed language related to regulation outside the City’s jurisdiction. This includes references
to the regulation of certain types of activities outside the definition of “land development”
(agriculture, horticulture, stream alteration of perennial streams) and the Vermont Shoreland
Protection Act (subsection G).
Section 12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
1. Clarified that “land development” is generally prohibited in wetlands and their buffers and is
subject to the requirements of this section. Also clarified that wetlands buffers shall be
naturally vegetated.
2. Clarified in the application requirements that for applications involving Class I and/or Class II
wetlands, the DRB may defer to any wetlands delineation approved by the Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources as a part of the State Wetlands Permit.
3. Removed the application requirement for a State Wetlands General Permit from the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation. This is a separate permitting process with different
rules outside the City’s jurisdiction.
4. Edited the standard for landscaping and/or fencing along the edge of the perimeter of the buffer
to provide clarity to the applicant and to ensure the buffer is clearly identifiable on site. Added
a waiver provision for existing forest or landscaping along the border of the buffer. Also
removed subjective aesthetic standard and language related to “encouraging” split rail fences.
Section 12.04 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Page 4 of 5
1. Added a reference to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department's Natural Heritage Inventory’s
(NHI) database of rare, threatened and endangered species in Vermont to the purpose
statement.
2. Removed the requirement to have VT Fish and Wildlife Department provide assistance to the
applicant. The City cannot require a State department to help administer a local regulation.
3. Added an application requirement that the applicant confirm that the Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department has been informed of any potential impact to rare, threatened, or endangered
species.
4. Added language stating that site conditions shall be assessed by private consultants and their
work may be reviewed by independent technical consultants hired by the City.
Section 12.05 Habitat Blocks
1. Revised the standards to clarify that those choice of modification method shall be selected by
the applicant, not the DRB.
2. Separated the standards regulating Substantially-Habitat Block-covered lots from the
modification methods.
3. Reformatted to clarify the types of land development may be allowed within a habitat block or
habitat block buffer provided all applicable standards are met.
Section 12.06 Habitat Connectors
1. Substantially revised the standards related to the relocation, and restoration of Habitat
Connectors that do not meet the width standard when development is proposed on those
parcels, to provide clearer guidance to the applicant and DRB.
Section 12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA)
1. Edited to clarify the purpose of the section and the content requirements of a HDA.
Section 12.08 Stormwater Management
1. None.
Section 12.09 Steep Slopes
1. Removed duplicative standards for erosion control and stormwater management
2. Added an exemption for Quarries and Natural Resource Extraction land uses.
Section 12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
1. Added a purpose statement and clarified the types of land development may be considered
“restricted infrastructure” and may encroach upon natural resources regulated in Article 12.
2. Separated criteria required in order to qualify as a Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
project and the standards that need to be met in order to receive approval from the DRB.
Page 5 of 5
Definitions
1. Added a definition for “Environmental Restoration Project” and for “intermittent stream.”
Other Questions/Comments/Suggestions
1. State Permits v. Local Permits - I generally advise against any municipal development regulation
that requires an applicant to show the municipality a State permit. Municipalities have their
permits. The State has their permits. They are separate under law and are not reliant upon
each other because of the separate jurisdictions established in statue (there are exceptions like
NFIP regulation and Wastewater permitting that are specifically laid out in statue and in state
rules).
The statute for zoning permits (24 V.S.A. 4449) further reinforces this point of view. That
statute says that all local permits “shall include a statement, in content and form approved by
the Secretary of Natural Resources, that State permits may be required and that the permittee
should contact State agencies to determine what permits must be obtained before any
construction may commence.”
2. Several sections in this article regulate tree removal when trees are a part of a stream setback,
within a wetland, or a part of an identified Habitat Block or Connector. This is all within the
City’s jurisdiction, but please note that silviculture is exempt from local zoning regulation and
may still happen in the above-regulated areas. There may be a possibility of requiring a “Letter
of Determination” from the Vermont Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation certifying
that removal of trees within a Habitat Blocks a part of an exempt silvicultural use that his in
conformance with the Accepted Management Practices (similar to a “letter of determination”
for an agricultural use). However, this possibility requires additional investigation.
3. I recommend having stormwater staff review Section 12.08 again. The section needs to more
clearly explain when stormwater is required to be treated on site and when stormwater is
allowed to enter into the public stormwater system.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
Note: This Draft (Jan 26, 2021) shows proposed revisions from the December 2020 draft. These
revisions are shown in italics and are based on Commission feedback/direction as well as
requested review by Taylor Newton of the CCRPC. Deletions from the prior draft are noted in the
comments.
Changes from the current standards will be noted in the next working draft.
MAPS:
• MAPS DEPICTING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS 12/2020
• INTERACTIVE MAP OF POSSIBLE EXPANDED STREAM AND WETLAND BUFFERS
12.01 General Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.02 Streams and Surface Waters
12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.04 Stormwater Management
12.04 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
12.05 Habitat Blocks
12.07 Habitat Connectors
12.08 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment
12.09 Steep Slopes
12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
12.01 General Protection Standards, Classifications and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Article to implement, from a regulatory perspective, the
Comprehensive Plan’s goal of “emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington” and objective to “promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces,
aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and
recreational assets” in balance with the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
This Article establishes application requirements and development standards designed to avoid or minimize
undue adverse impacts to these natural resources. The natural resources regulated in this article may also be
subject to specific subdivision or planned unit development standards. Where there is conflict between
subdivision or planned unit development standards, and the standards in this article, the standard that
imposes the greater restriction shall apply.
B. Classification. For the purposes of subdivision and Planned Unit Developments, resources are
grouped into Hazards, Level I and Level II resource areas.
Table 12-01 – Classification of Natural Resources
Location in
Regulations
Buildable Area Initial Identification Field Verification
/ HDA
Hazards
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-2
Floodplain (1% and 0.2% B2), Floodway 10.01 No FEMA FIRM Yes
River Corridor 10.07 No ANR Atlas Yes
Surface Waters, Buffers 12.02 No ANR Atlas Yes
Class I, II Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 No ANR Atlas Yes
Very Steep Slopes (25+%) 12.09 No ANR Atlas If impacted
RTE Species Habitat 12.04 Species Specific Site Mapping If Impacted
Level I Resources
Habitat Blocks 12.05 No City LDR Map HDA Optional
Habitat Connectors 12.06 No City LDR Map HDA Optional
Level II Resources
Floodplain (0.2% Zone B1) 10.01 Yes FEMA FIRM If Impacted
Class III Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 Yes NO ANR Atlas If impacted
Steep Slopes (15 to 25%) 12.09 Yes ANR Atlas If impacted
Intermittent Streams, Buffers 12.02 Yes Site Mapping If impacted
Note: Per PC Request, add footnote regarding exceptions that may be granted to buildable area
C. Applicability of Standards. All land development must comply with the provisions of this Article,
unless otherwise exempted, in order to prevent undue adverse impacts on ecological resources, water quality
and working lands, unless explicitly waived or amended in this section. Exemptions include:
(1) Uses and structures exempt from local regulation pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4413.
(2) Construction of fences (i) that enclose cleared areas, such as lawn areas surrounding a residence,
provided the clearing occurred prior to [effective date of this provision] or was approved by the DRB in
accordance with this Article; or (ii) erected for standard agricultural purposes or, (iii) lower than 4 feet
and that have at least 16 inches of clearance between the lowest horizontal part of the fence and the
ground. In all cases, proposed fences must comply with section 13.17 (Fences) of these Regulations.
(3) Exemptions as specified elsewhere in these Regulations.
D. Development Review Process. All land development that may encroach upon a natural resource
regulated in Article 12 shall be subject to Site Plan Review by the Development Review Board (see Article 14).
However, if the proposed encroachment is proposed as a part of a subdivision or Planned Unit Development
application, the proposed encroachment shall be reviewed under those standards instead of Site Plan Review.
Other exceptions include:
(1) Applications for proposed land development involving stormwater management (Section 12.08) may
be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09).
(2) Applications involving land development on Steep Slopes between 15% and 25% grade (Section 12.09)
shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the application is for a
single-household dwelling or two-household dwelling, in which case the application may be approved
via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer.
(3) Applications involving an Environmental Restoration Project may be reviewed via administrative Site
Plan Review (Section 14.09).
12.02 Streams and Surface Waters
Commented [MM1]: NO
Commented [PC2R1]: For PC discussion
Commented [TN3]: I have one overriding
question: Has the City considered just requiring the
River Corridor to be subject to the standards in this
section? That would be more straightforward and
simple from a regulatory prospective. I worked with
the Town of Georgia last year on a bylaw
amendment that took this approach (the bylaw
amendment will be considered for adoption in early
2021).
The mapped River Corridor has been specifically
developed by ANR to allow all rivers to meander
according to their relevant size. I advise the PC to
trust ANR’s judgement in regards to mapping and
focus on crafting strict standards (like those in this
section) very strongly protect areas near rivers and
streams.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-3
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect and improve the quality of surface waters and
streams within the City of South Burlington, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay, and the watersheds
contained wholly or partially within the City. These regulations establish and protect natural areas (Stream
and Surface Water Buffers) along the City’s surface waters to provide improved protection for water quality
and the provision of open space areas and wildlife habitat. It is the further purpose of this Section to provide
for the retention of preexisting residential neighborhoods located along Lake Champlain and Potash Brook in
a manner consistent with the resource protection purposes of this Section.
B. Applicability. All land development in the City of South Burlington shall comply with the requirements
of this section. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows, collectively referred
to as Stream and Surface Water Buffers:
(1) All land within one hundred (100) This should be increased to 300 feet to provide for additional
flood resilience – carrying capacity - and stream/river edge recovery feet horizontal distance from the
top of bank or top of slope of major streams, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial
geomorphology. Major streams are defined as the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of
Potash Brook.
( 2) All land within fifty (50) feet This should be increased to 100 feet to provide for additional flood
resilience – carrying capacity - and stream/river edge recovery horizontal distance from the top of bank
or top of slope of any minor stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(3) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance from the top of the bank or top of slope of a
natural intermittent stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(4) All land within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for the purposes of
these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level NAVD88 datum.
(5) All land within Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B2.
C. Exemptions. The following types of land development are exempt from the standards of this section:
(1) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails and puncheons not to exceed
ten (10) feet in width.
(2) Maintenance of Existing Gardens, Lawns, Roads, Driveways, and other public infrastructure.
Maintenance of existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, roads, driveways and other public
infrastructure within the buffer area in existence as of the effective date of these regulations shall be
considered pre-existing non-conforming land development and may be continued in perpetuity.
(3) Invasive Species, Nuisance Plants, and Noxious Weeds Removal. The removal of invasive species,
nuisance plants, and noxious weeds, as identified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets,
within the buffer is an exempt from these regulations.
D. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions
Map (as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix F.
E. Land Development within Stream and Surface Water Buffers. New land development activities in
the City’s Stream and Surface Water Buffers is prohibited. However, the DRB may allow the following types of
land development within stream and surface water buffers, subject to the standards in subsection (F) below:
Commented [TN4]: Need some consistency
regarding what this buffer is called.
Commented [MM5]: This should be increased
to 300 feet to provide for additional flood resilience
– carrying capacity - and stream/river edge recovery
Commented [PC6]: Note 12/15: PC would like
to see mapped.
Commented [TN7]: See above comment. I
would rely on the River Corridor boundaries
developed by ANR instead of developing a specific
distance from a stream (which may, or may not,
actually improve flood resilience and carrying
capacity). It very much depends on soils,
topography, size of stream – characteristics
considered in the development of the River Corridor
maps.
Commented [MM8]: This should be increased
to 100 feet to provide for additional flood resilience
– carrying capacity - and stream/river edge recovery
Commented [PC9]: Note: 12/15 – PC would like
to see mapped.
Commented [PC10]: Replaces former section
on new uses and encroachments
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-4
(1) Encroachments necessary to repair damage from a Federally-declared disaster and necessary
for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
(2) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities.
(3) Stormwater treatment facilities, either:
(a) meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VANR) stormwater treatment
standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and
dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable
permitting requirements will be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream
buffer, or
(b) treating an area of land that falls below the VANR review thresholds and which are
demonstrated to only be affecting impacted buffer areas, such as approved and maintained lawn,
parking, or paved surfaces.
(4) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, upon demonstration of compliance with Section
12.10 of these Regulations, and the following supplemental standards:
(a) The facility must be located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of
the surface water for all water bodies listed in section 12.02(B)(1) and (2) 10.01(C)(1)(a) and (b)
and ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams. This standard
shall not apply to the intake of municipal or community water system, or the outfall of a municipal
wastewater treatment or stormwater treatment projects, all of which are functionally dependent
upon access to surface waters;
(b) Stream crossings shall provide sufficient space for the passage of small amphibian and
mammalian wildlife typical to the environment in water and on land beneath the structure; and,
(c) Additional mitigation such as reduction or elimination of curbing to promote wildlife
passage as applicable to the environment are strongly encouraged and may be required by the
Development Review Board.
F. Standards. All applicable development must be designed to avoid undue adverse impacts to major,
minor, and intermittent streams and associated Stream and Surface Water Buffers.
(1) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to avoid undue adverse impacts from
development on these resources and promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native
vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, promote
carbon sequestration, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.
Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.02(F)
below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above must be left in an undisturbed, naturally
vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to
achieve these objectives will be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of
stream and surface water buffers are as follows:
(a) All lands within a required stream buffer defined above must be left in an undisturbed,
naturally vegetated condition.
(b) All land development, including the creation of new lawn areas within stream and surface
water buffers is prohibited. The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within
the stream and surface water buffer is also prohibited.
Commented [PC11]: 12/15 Michael’s proposal.
Have Taylor review.
Commented [TN12R11]: It is difficult to
determine if a stream is “intermittent” or not. When
local River Corridor standards were first adopted by
municipalities, ANR staff became inundated with
questions from local ZAs and DRBs from around the
state about whether or not streams were
“intermittent.” ANR has subsequently stopped
making these determinations. ANR also revised the
River Corridor Rule. Large watersheds >2 square
miles in size are still mapped. Smaller watersheds
between 2 square miles and .25 square miles are
subject to a 50 foot setback from top of bank/slope.
All streams with a watershed area of less than .25
square miles are no longer subject to the River
Corridor Rule. This size was chosen because areas
with this small of a drainage area are typically
“intermittent.”
Commented [TN13R11]: I’ve added a
definition of “intermittent stream.”
Commented [TN14]: Not new. Combined two
existing standards.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-5
(c) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events,
or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in
conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to subsections(E)(2) or (E)(3) below.
(d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review must not be located
within stream buffers.
(e) Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the stream and surface
water buffer to clearly identify and protect stream and surface water buffer. The DRB may waive this
requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or landscaping along th e
border of the Stream and Surface Water Buffer.
(2) Expansion of Pre-existing Land Development. The following section pertains the applications for
new land development on lots with pre-existing non-conforming structures located within the Stream and
Surface Water Buffer.
(a) Structures. The expansion of pre-existing structures within stream and surface water buffers
is permitted only in accordance with the standards for non-complying structures in Article 3, Section
3.11 of these Regulations.
(b) Single-Household Dwelling and Two-Household Dwelling Land Uses. Land development on
lots with existing single or two-household dwelling uses, and pre-existing non-conforming land
development in the Stream and Surface Water Buffer, shall not be required to brought into
conformance with these regulations.
(c) All Other Land Uses. Land development on lots with any other land use (beside a single or
two-household dwelling), and that also includes pre-existing non-conforming land development in the
Stream and Surface Water Buffer, shall only be approved if the land development application conforms
with the following standard:
(i) At least 50% of the pre-existing non-conforming area within the Stream and Surface Water
Buffer shall be re-seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, must
not be mowed, and shall be brought into full conformance with these regulations.
GF. Watercourse Intermittent Stream Alteration and Relocation Standard.
(1) The alteration or relocation of a watercourse is permitted subject to the approval of the
Development Review Board provided the alteration or relocation:
(a) Is needed to accomplish a clear public purpose or objective;
(b) Will not reduce the ability of the watercourse to carry or store flood waters adequately;
(c) Will not have an adverse impact on downstream or upstream water quality;
(d) Will not affect adversely the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties;
(e) Will not affect adversely the habitat value of the watercourse or immediately adjacent areas
or wetlands.
(2) In making findings relative to these criteria, the DRB will invoke technical review by a professional
in hydrology or geomorphology, or will rely on the issuance of a Stream Alteration Permit issued by the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources as evidence that the above criteria have been met.
Commented [TN15]: Move this language to
more clearly explain how to deal with pre-existing
non-conforming land use.
Commented [PC16]: Note from Taylor: City
does not have jurisdiction over alterations to waters
of the State.
Commented [PC17]: NOTE TO PC Standard has
been replaced with a broad authority in Article 17
and DRB guidance in their procedural docs
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-6
(13) Alteration of Intermittent Streams. Where a land development will incorporate Tier 1 or Tier 2
stormwater treatment practices (as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual issued
by VANR) to manage the stormwater that the intermittent stream is conveying in pre-development
conditions, the intermittent stream may be altered or relocated as part of that infrastructure,
provided the stormwater management system meets the requirements of Article 12.04. Alteration or
relocation of an intermittent stream is exempt from the Vermont Stream Alteration Rule.
G. Protected Shoreland Area. All development located within 250 feet of the mean water level of Lake
Champlain is subject to the provisions of the Vermont Shoreland Protection Act. Applicants for development
in this area shall demonstrate compliance with the State of Vermont prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
H . Erosion Control Measures and Water-Oriented Development along Lake Champlain.
12.0 3 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s wetland resources in order to protect
wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, stormwater treatment, wildlife
habitat, and flood control.
B. Applicability. All land development in the City of South Burlington shall comply with the requirements
of this section. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows, collectively referred
to as Wetlands Areas and Related Buffers:
(1) All Class I and Class II wetland areas and related buffer areas measured in horizontal distance from
the boundary of the wetland two hundred (200) feet for Class 1 and one hundred (100) feet for Class II
wetland), are subject to the provisions of this section [MICHAEL MITTAG].
(2) Class III wetland areas exceeding 300 square feet in area, and related one hundred (100) foot
[MICHAEL MITTAG] buffer areas measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland, are
subject to the provisions of this section.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions
Map (as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E.
(1) Per Section 17.08, the DRB may require independent technical review of any field delineation and
wetlands report.
(2) For applications involving Class I and/or Class II wetlands, the applicant’s application may include
a wetlands delineation approved by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources as a part of the State
Wetlands Permit. The DRB may defer to this delineation in their review of the application and now require
an additional or separate delineation.
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, land development is generally prohibited in Class I
and Class II and Class III wetlands and their associated buffers as enumerated in this section.
(2) All lands within a Class I, Class II, or Class III wetland, and their required wetland buffer defined
above, shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition.
Commented [TN18]: Alteration of an
intermittent stream is exempt from the VT Stream
Alteration Rule, but that does not necessarily mean
that the municipality has jurisdiction. I’d review
with the City Attorney.
Commented [PC19]: Note from Taylor: City
regulations cannot make issuance of a permit
contingent upon receipt of a State permit.
Commented [PC20]: Section moved to Article
10
Commented [TN21]: I highly encourage the PC
to think about these standards by zoning district.
The proposed standards may be very appropriate
for rural, residential districts, but would be perhaps
too restrictive in zoning districts where
development is planned. I’d begin by reviewing the
impact of these standards on the commercial,
industrial, and form-based code districts.
I have seen good, dense projects in areas where
development is planned either die, or need
substantial revision, due to restrictive local wetlands
rules. For example, that Town of Westford is now
revising its land development regulations to remove
local wetlands regulations in their form-based code
district. This is needed in order to accommodate a
potential public/private partnership project that will
include affordable housing and new municipal uses.
Please remember that State Wetlands permits are
still required regardless of the local standards. The
permits require buffers OR payment of a mitigation
fee for impacts to buffers and wetlands.
Another important thing to consider: where does
the City (or VTrans) currently have stormwater
infrastructure and is (or how) is that stormwater
treated? Do those areas with municipal stormwater
infrastructure need to necessarily have wetland
rules apply?
Commented [TN22]: Expanding this means that
State will no longer be relied upon for technical
assistance. On local DRB and staff.
Commented [PC23]: 12/15 PC somewhat split
here.
Members would like to see Class I & II and buffers
mapped with MM’s changes.
PC decided not to change Class III from staff draft
(ie, not accept MM change)
(Duncan keep as is. Bernie, see if state rules are
changing. Ted, Michael, Paul expand. Monica keep
Class III as drafted by PC.)
Commented [PC24]: Prior draft had sought to
prioritize Class I and Class II wetlands by prohibiting
development in those locations and limiting in Class
III. Michael Mittag recommended treating all the
same.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-7
(3) Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the wetlands buffer to clearly
identify and protect wetlands buffer. The DRB may waive this requirement, if petitioned by the applicant,
if there is existing forest and/or landscaping along the border of wetland buffer.
(4) Land development in a Class I and Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland
buffers, may be allowed by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall land development,
erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the property to
carry or store flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in
the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, or other mitigation measures.
(5) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be allowed within Class I or Class II or Class III
wetlands or their buffers, provided that the applicant shall demonstrates the project’s compliance with
this Section 12.03, Section 12.10 and the following supplemental standards:
(a) Roadway paved surface shall be no wider than 20 feet; and,
(b) Roads that bifurcate a wetland or wetland buffer shall propose appropriate mitigation such
as reduction or elimination of curbing and installation of cross culverts to promote wildlife passage.
12.04 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s rare, threatened or endangered plant
or animal habitat, as identified by 10 VSA Chapter 123, and mapped and delineated on the Vermont Fish and
Wildlife Department's Natural Heritage Inventory’s (NHI) database of rare, threatened and endangered
species in Vermont, in order to prevent further population loss of these species.
B. Applicability. All land development subject to site plan or subdivision review is subject to the
standards below where rare, threatened or endangered species habitat is present.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as
applicable for the stage of review) pursuant to Appendix E.
(1) For Preliminary Site Conditions Map, if the data layer showing “Rare, Threatened and
Endangered Species” on the Vermont Natural Resources Atlas indicates the potential for such species in
an affected area, a written opinion confirming the presence or absence of rare, threatened or endangered
species will be required from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department or a qualified professional. The
applicant must provide the Development Review Board with a map and site plan showing the mapped
location of the rare, threatened and endangered species in relation to the proposed land development.
Per Section 17.08, the Development Review Board may require independent technical review of any written
opinion. The applicant shall also confirm in their application that the Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department has been informed of any potential impact to rare, threatened, or endangered species.
(2) For Complete Site Conditions Map, if a rare, threatened or endangered species is present, the
applicant must obtain a written opinion from a qualified professional, or the Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Commented [TN25]: Existing standard that was
modified to be more specific. This standard mirrors
a similar standards in the surface waters section.
Commented [MM26]: or Class III
Commented [PC27]: Note to PC. MM had
propose to delete (a) and (b) and PC was to return
to this section after reviewing Restricted
Infrastructure Encroachment. PC decided on 1/7 to
keep the Infrastructure Encroachment language and
so staff has kep this accompanying text as well.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-8
Department, indicating what measures must be taken to assure that the proposed land development will
not result in undue adverse impacts to the rare, threatened or endangered species. Per Section 17.08, the
Development Review Board may require independent technical review of any written opinion. The
applicant shall also confirm in their application that the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department has been
informed of any potential impact to rare, threatened, or endangered species.
D. Standards. Land development must not cause undue adverse impacts to any rare, threatened or
endangered plant or animal habitat. To avoid undue adverse impacts, land development subject to these
regulations shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Building envelopes must be located to exclude identified areas supporting rare, threatened and
endangered species.
(2) Specific mitigation measures identified by a qualified professional, or by the Vermont Department
of Fish and Wildlife, may be required by the Development Review Board.
12.05 Habitat Blocks
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of these Habitat Block standards to avoid undue adverse impacts from land
development on these resources, promote the natural succession of vegetated areas of native vegetation in
order to support wildlife habitat and movement, promote carbon sequestration, filter air, and increase
infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.
B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to all land development proposed in areas
indicated as “Habitat Blocks” on the Habitat Blocks and Connectors map, except as follows:
(1) On lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre in size existing as of the effective date of these
Regulations;
(2) On land located within 50’ horizontal distance of a principal building on the subject parcel existing
as of the effective date of these regulations;
(3) On land authorized by the Development Review Board to be removed from or added to a Habitat
Block pursuant to the modification options of this section or as part of a Conservation Planned Unit
Development.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as
applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. Where an applicant elects to perform a
Habitat Disturbance Assessment, the submittal requirements of Section 12.07 shall apply.
D. Modification of Habitat Block. An applicant may request approval from the Development Review Board
to modify a mapped Habitat Block in any of the following manners. An applicant may select any one of
the options three modification methods below. An applicant may not select more than one option for any
application.
Land located with the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously approved as open
space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting land development, subject to a
conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public entity shall not be eligible for any of the
modification methods for habitat blocks subject to this section.
(1) Minor Habitat Block Boundary Adjustment. An applicant may apply to modify the boundary of a
mapped Habitat Block by up to fifty (50) feet in any direction to account for site-specific conditions,
upon written request by the applicant as part of the requisite application. Any proposed modification
in Habitat Block area must be offset with an equal addition elsewhere within the same subject parcel
Commented [TN28]: This still too open ended
for my liking. I encourage working with the City
Attorney to make more specific.
Commented [PC29]: 12/15. PC asked to have
this be clear this is on the subject parcel only. PBC
edited to meet this 1/8.
Commented [TN30]: Mostly existing language.
Just moved to clarify it applies to all potential
modifications.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-9
or Planned Unit Development that is contiguous to the Habitat Block. In no case shall the Board
approve a net reduction of a Habitat Block.
(2) Small On-Site Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat
Block area not to exceed three (3) acres or ten (10) percent of the application’s total land area, whichever
is less, for an equal amount of land within the same Planned Unit Development or Site Plan upon written
request, without requiring a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment. Such land exchange must not include
Core Habitat Areas and shall not eliminate existing Habitat Connectors. To approve a small on-site habitat
block exchange, the Board shall require the applicant to:
(a) Retain a similar or greater quality and maturity of vegetation within the proposed areas for
exchange;
(b) Retain mature and/or prominent tree stands; and,
(3) Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat Block
area in exchange for an equal amount of land within the same Habitat Block upon written request, and
pursuant to the standards of this Section.
(a) Supplemental submittal requirements.
(i) Indicate, on the Master Plan and all subsequent plans, all proposed alterations to the
Habitat Block.
(ii) Submit, as part of the preliminary plat application, a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment
(HDA) pursuant Section 12.07 and a written assessment of compliance with the standards
contained within this subsection.
(b) Supplemental Standards of Review. The Board may approve a re-designation of a portion of
a Habitat Block if it finds all of the criteria below to be met:
(i) The HDA demonstrates that the alteration will not result in a reduction in the Habitat
Block’s function as a significant wildlife habitat as defined in these Regulations;
(ii) Wildlife movement connectivity is retained between mapped Habitat Blocks; and,
(iii) Proposed adjacent land development and infrastructure must be designed to have no
undue adverse impacts on habitat functions.
(c) Exchanged Land. Land to be added to the Habitat Block pursuant to this section must be set
aside and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as one or more
“Conservation Lots” as established in Section 15A, to be maintained and managed in single or common
ownership, or under a conservation easement held by the City or qualified third party, such as an
established land trust, that is contiguous to the habitat block and unseparated by roadways, railways,
or other impeding infrastructure.
(i) Land located with the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously
approved as open space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting land
development, subject to a conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public
entity shall not be eligible to be used for a land exchange.
(ii) Any land proposed to be added / conserved shall be accompanied by a restoration plan,
prepared by a landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist, or equivalent, that will result in
the land functioning as a significant wildlife habitat such that within a period of ten (10) years and
being classified as transitional forest / forest by a land use / land cover assessment at that time.
Commented [PC31]: 12/15 PC asked staff to
look to see if 1 acre would suffice..
Commented [PC32]: Note to PC. Changed from
“sever” for clarity
Commented [PC33]: Note to PC: removed “or
connector” per PC guidance 1/7
Commented [PC34]: Note to PC: eliminated
reference to connectors here per PC guidance 1/7.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-10
E. Substantially-Habitat Block-covered lots. A lot or parcel containing a combination of Hazards and Level 1
resources exceeding seventy (70) percent of the total lot area is eligible for relief from Habitat Block
standards as follows:
(1) As a Conservation Planned Unit Development, for parcels meeting eligibility standards.
(2) For lots or parcels not eligible for review as a Conservation Planned Unit Development, the
Development Review Board may approve exclusion of an area of land within the Habitat Block not to
exceed thirty (30) percent of the total lot area. Where applicable, land shall be excluded in the following
order:
• First: Land not otherwise listed in this subsection
• Second: Land NOT identified as forest in land use / land cover
• Third: Land identified as forest in land use / land cover data, avoiding core habitat block
areas to the greatest extent possible.
• Fourth: Land within Habitat Blocks, excluding Core Habitat Block areas or which would
sever a Habitat Connector.
(i) Calculation: Land shall be selected from first to fourth If all applicable land on the lot or
parcel from one category is excluded, and the twenty (20) percent allotment has not been
reached, then land from the next category land shall be selected next.
(ii) Special Circumstances: Where the DRB finds that exclusion of land pursuant to the priority
order above is in conflict with the purposes of this section, or where it finds that strict adherence
to the priority order does not allow for a unified PUD consistent with the purposes of intent of
these regulations, it may approve modifications to the land selected. Any such modifications shall
be minimized in terms of land area and modification to the priority order.
(iii) Any land excluded from Habitat Blocks under this subsection shall remain subject to all
other provisions of these Regulations.
F. Standards for Habitat Block Protection.
(1) General standards. Except as specifically exempted pursuant to Subsection (2) below, approved
by the DRB pursuant to subsection (3) below, or modified in accordance with Section (D) above, all lands
within a Habitat Block must be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Specifically:
(a) The clearing of trees and understory vegetation is prohibited except as specified in this
section.
(b) The creation of new lawn areas within Habitat Blocks is prohibited.
(d) Snow storage areas within Habitat Blocks is prohibited.
(e) Pursuant to section 15.A.12, lot lines shall be configured to avoid Habitat Blocks.
(f) Pursuant to Sections 9.** and 15.A.12, building envelopes shall not contain any land within
Habitat Blocks.
(g) Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve the
objectives of this Section is permitted.
Commented [PC35]: Have Legal review to
minimize while retaining takings.
Commented [PC36]: FROM MONICA
OSTBY: Can we require forest management
including removal of invasives? And where is the
list of invasives to be removed?
Commented [TN37R36]: The City does not
have the jurisdiction to require removal of invasives.
The list of invasives is available from the Agency of
Agriculture.
Commented [PC38]: PC idea: consider whether
there could be a tax incentive for having a
management plan, something along the lines of the
state’s current use program. 1/7 and/or grant
programs.
Commented [TN39R38]: Maybe. A City
Council policy to accompany this standard that
could outline the terms of a potential tax
stabilization agreement between the land owner
and the City may have merit.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-11
G. Exempted Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are exempt from review under this
section:
(1) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails not to exceed ten (10) feet
in width, or their width prior to adoption of these regulations, whichever is greater;
(2) Removal of invasive species, diseased vegetation, and dead or dying trees posing an imminent
threat to buildings or infrastructure; and,
(3) Uses and activities enumerated in Section 12.01C.
H. Land Development within Habitat Blocks. The encroachment of new land development activities, clearing
of vegetation, establishment of lawn, or other similar activities into Habitat Blocks and Habitat Block buffers
is prohibited. However, the DRB may allow the following types of land development within a Habitat Block
where a modification option has been approved pursuant to 12.05(D) and subject to the standards in Section
12.05(F):
(1) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, pursuant to Section 12.10 and the following
supplemental standards:
(a) The facility shall be strictly limited to be minimum width necessary to function for its
intended purposes;
(b) The clearing of vegetation adjacent to the facility shall be strictly limited to the minimum
necessary width to function for its intended purposes). Street tree requirements shall not apply
in these area). Street lighting shall be prohibited in these areas except as necessary to meet
State or Federal law; and,
(c) Appropriate measures shall be taken to promote safe wildlife passage, including the
reduction or elimination of curbs, reduced speed limits, and/or signage altering users, and
underpass or culverts.
(2) Outdoor recreation uses, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways)
appurtenant to such use is located outside the habitat block.
(i) Within a public park, small structures are permitted only in accordance with the
management plan for the public park.. parcel. If no such plan exists, the applicant shall demonstrate
that the proposed use, structure, or forest management practice is consistent with the purposes of
this Section.
(
(3c) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and
driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the Habitat Block.
(a) Research and educational structures not exceeding 500 square feet gross floor area, such as
seating areas made of natural materials, storage sheds, or climbing structures, may be allowed
within a Habitat Block or Habitat Block buffer.
12.06 Habitat Connectors
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to maintain the functionality of identified Habitat
Connectors, allowing species to travel between identified Habitat Blocks, wetland areas, water bodies, and
other natural resources within and adjacent to the City.
Commented [PC40]: Note: Michael Mittag had
made reference to a habitat block buffer. The PC
has not established a buffer outside the Habitat
Block.
Commented [PC41]: Note: Michael Mittag had
made reference to a habitat block buffer. The PC
has not established a buffer outside the Habitat
Block.
Commented [PC42]: For PC: Staff added the
word “small” and removed “forest management
activities.” PC did not discuss MM’s
recommendations to eliminate ability to approve
unless there is a management plan. Staff notes that
only 2 of our parks currently have management
plans.
Commented [PC43]: Note: Michael Mittag had
made reference to a habitat block buffer. The PC
has not established a buffer outside the Habitat
Block.
Commented [PC44]: Note: reworded per PC
request 1/7.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-12
B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section will apply to all areas indicated as “Habitat
Connectors” on the Habitat Blocks and Connectors map, except as follows:
(1) Lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre existing as of the effective date of these Regulations
(2) Land located within 50 feet horizontal distance of a principal building existing on the same parcel as
of the effective date of these regulations. t
Standards.
(1) The applicant shall retain a 150 foot wide Habitat Connector where indicated on the Habitat Blocks
and Connection Map.
(2) Contiguous Hazards, or other contiguous protected natural resources regulated in Article 12, may be
used to count towards the connector width.
(3) Habitat Connectors shall be subject to the provisions of 12.05(E) Habitat Blocks Standards.
(4) Relocation of Habitat Connector. An applicant may apply to relocate a Habitat Connector from its
location on the Habitat Blocks and Connection Map but must connect to mapped Habitat Connectors
or Habitat Blocks on adjacent parcels. Any relocated portion shall be accompanied by a restoration
plan, prepared by a qualified consultant (e.g. landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist or
equivalent). The restoration plan shall consist of planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in
caliper) within areas of the relocated Habitat Connector and shall result in the land functioning as
wildlife habitat within a period of ten (10) years time.
(5) Restoration of Habitat Connector. The DRB shall require restoration of a Habitat Connector on parcels
where development is proposed and pre-existing conditions consist of Habitat Connectors that are less
than 150 feet in width along their entire length of the Habitat Connector. Restoration shall consist of
planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in caliper) within areas of the Habitat Connector less
than 150 feet wide. The applicant may request, in writing, to waive this requirement. The DRB may
grant a waiver only if restoration of the Habitat Connector is not possible due the placement of pre-
existing structures on the subject parcel.
12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA)
A. Purpose. The Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA) is a tool to inventory and quantify significant
wildlife habitat within subject properties with mapped Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors (Section 12.05
and Section 12.06) where an applicant is seeking to relocate a portion of the Habitat Block or Habitat
Connector.
B. HDA Content Requirements. Where an HDA is required by these regulations, the applicant shall
contract with a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist to prepare the HDA. The HDA prepared for the
Development Review Board shall include the following information:
(1) Site Conditions Map including all Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors as indicated on the
Habitat Block and Connectors map on or within 200 feet of the project site.
(2) An inventory of existing (pre-development) wildlife habitat found on the site, including the
presence of significant wildlife habitat, the specific types of habitat found on the parcel and their relative
importance to the various wildlife species that rely on that habitat for one or more life-cycle function;
Commented [TN45]: Not new standards. Just
moved.
Commented [TN46]: This should be reviewed
by Dori Barton or another qualified professional.
Commented [TN47]: This should be reviewed
by Dori Barton or another qualified professional.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-13
(3) An assessment of the relationship of the habitat found on the site relative to other significant
wildlife habitat present in the City (e.g., does habitat found on the parcel provide for connectivity between
mapped habitat blocks; is the parcel located contiguous to other significant wildlife habitat, or part of a
habitat block);
(4) Identification of the distance of all proposed land development activities (as permitted), including
clearing, driveways and infrastructure, and areas of disturbance, from the significant wildlife habitat and,
if significant habitat is proposed to be disturbed, the total area of disturbance and the total area of the
remaining (undisturbed) habitat;
(5) An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed land development, including associated
activities (e.g., introduction of domestic pets, operation of vehicles and equipment, exterior lighting,
introduction of non-native species for landscaping) on the ecological function of the significant wildlife
habitat found on the site. This shall include an assessment of whether travel between areas of core
habitat will be disrupted;
(6) An assessment of the anticipated functionality of the Habitat Block with proposed mitigation
measures and a statement identifying specific mitigation measures taken to avoid or minimize the
proposed land development’s impact on the habitat, including buffers of habitat for specific identified
species, possible replacement or provisions for substitute habitats that serve a comparable ecological
function to the impacted habitat, and/or physical design elements to incorporate into the project.
12.08 Stormwater Management
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is:
(1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology
through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate,
filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source;
(2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural
aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by
construction activities and post-construction conditions;
(3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from
improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site;
(4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots,
rooftops and other paved surfaces; and
(5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in
removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent
damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls.
B. Applicability
(1) These regulations will apply to all land development within the City of South Burlington where
one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or
parcel.
(2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial
reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from
requirements in this Section 12.08.
Commented [PC48]: Note to PC: Updated with
support from Stormwater division. Complete April
3, 2020
Commented [TN49]: This section should be
relocated to a section of the regulations where it
makes more sense from an organizational
perspective.
Commented [PC50]: Stormwater division is
reviewing this language as it relates to a PUD. How
much of a PUD, when amended, is subject to the
current stormwater standards. 12/2020
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-14
(3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.08(B)(1) and not exempt under section
12.08(B)(2) shall meet the requirements in section 12.08(C) as follows:
(a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than
50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are
being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.08(C). All
new impervious surface area must meet the requirements of section 12.08(C).
(b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds
50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious
surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.08 (C). All new impervious surface area must meet
the requirements of Section 12.08(C).
C. Site Design Requirements for New Land Development
(1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual
(VSMM) for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff, and shall be
treated using Tier 1 practices as detailed in the VSMM.
(a) If it is not possible to treat the volume of stormwater runoff using a Tier 1 practice as specified
in Section 12.08(C)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints:
(i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater,
(ii) Shallow bedrock,
(iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour,
(iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A.
§6602(16), as amended,
(v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in the VSMM, or
(vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and
approval of the Development Review Board,
then the WQv shall be treated on the lot using Tier 2 practices as described in the most recently
adopted version of the VSMM. A site with an existing Tier 3 practice is allowed to evaluate
retrofitting/expanding this practice to meet the requirements of Section 12.08(C)(2). Existing Tier 3
practices shall only be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 12.08(C)(1) in accordance with the
Water Quality Practice Selection Flowchart in the VSMM.
(2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (rainfall amounts to be
determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution) rain event shall not exceed the
existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions existing prior to
submittal of an application.
(3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff
per section 12.08(C)(1) and 12.08(C)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per
Section 12.03(B) may utilize “site balancing”.
D. Additional Site Plan Requirements
(1) Applicants required to comply with Section 12.08(C) must include the following information in
their site plan submission:
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-15
(a) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment
practices.
(b) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed
stormwater collection systems, culverts, and stormwater treatment practices.
(c) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the location and results of any soil borings,
infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing. Infiltration testing shall be completed using methods
identified in the VSMM (see section 4.3.3.2 in the 2017 VSMM, or as updated).
(d) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management
techniques. Where Tier 1 practices are not proposed (see Section 12.08(C)(1)(a)), the applicant shall
provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of these practices is not possible before
proposing to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 practices.
(e) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices.
(f) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv and
the one-year, twenty-four hour rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14
data and a type II rainfall distribution). Any TR-55 based model shall be suitable for this purpose.
E. Drainage Structures
(1) Removal of Runoff – The applicant shall remove any impervious surface runoff that exists as a
result of the proposed land development. Drainage facilities shall be located in the street right-of-way
where feasible. All drainage facilities in the street right-of-way must comply with the following standards:
(a) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour
(4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall
distribution);
(b) All drainage structures must conform to the provisions of Section 12.01 General Stream and
Surface Water Standards.
(c) Drainage pipes in the street right-of-way must have a minimum diameter of 15” and be
connected to drainage structures using booted connections.
(d) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage
structure elevation.
(e) House footing drains shall only be connected to drainage facilities located in the street right-
of-way only when a suitable location to daylight the footing drain cannot be found.
(f) Footing drains must not be connected to road underdrain.
(g) Any footing drains connected to drainage facilities in the street right-of-way should be
provided with a backflow preventer.
(h) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them.
(i) The applicant’s engineer must provide such information as the stormwater superintendent or
designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage infrastructure.
(2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development – Culverts, pipes, or other
drainage facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream
Commented [TN51]: All of the standards in this
section deal with municipally-owned right of way,
correct? If yes, why aren’t these regulations located
in the Public Works Specifications? Why are these
standards located here?
Commented [TN52]: This says the exact
opposite of what the standard in subsection (C)
says: “shall not leave the lot via overland runoff, and
shall be treated using Tier 1 practices as detailed in
the VSMM.” When can stormwater leave the site?
When can stormwater not leave the site? This isn’t
clearly explained in this section.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-16
drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject
to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities
must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total potential
development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be designed to, at a minimum,
safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour rain event (rainfall data to be determined using NOAA,
Atlas 14 and a type II rainfall distribution). The applicant’s engineer shall provide such information as the
Stormwater Superintendent or their designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage
structures.
(3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures – The applicant shall provide such information
as the Stormwater Superintendent deems necessary to determine the effects of the application on
drainage structures located downstream of the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the application,
notwithstanding whether these structures are located on land owned or controlled by the applicant. This
analysis shall be conducted using the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event (rainfall data to be
determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution). In instances where the
Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff incident to the application may overload an existing
downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property,
the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these
conditions, notwithstanding whether such improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property.
12.09 Steep Slopes
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s areas of steep and very steep slopes, as
mapped and delineated for this purpose, in order to:
(1) Prevent erosion and avoid stream sedimentation that may cause undue adverse impacts to water
quality.
(2) Prevent hazards to life and property resulting from slope instability or failure, including rock falls,
slides, slumps and other downslope movements of materials or structures.
(3) Maintain and re‐establish vegetation on steep slopes to stabilize soils.
(4) Ensure that development on steep slopes is constructed and maintained in conformance with best
management practices for construction, stormwater management and erosion control.
B. Applicability. All land development is subject to the standards below where steep slopes or very steep
slopes are present.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as
applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. An analysis of slope stability prepared by
a licensed engineer shall also be submitted to ensure that no erosion hazards are created that would have
an undue adverse impact on surface waters, wetlands, areas of special flood hazards, or downstream
facilities, and any recommended mitigation measures
D. Review Process. Per Section 12.01(D), applications involving land development on Steep Slopes between
15% and 25% grade shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the
application is for a single-household dwelling or two-household dwelling, in which case the application
may be approved via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer.
E. Standards.
Commented [TN53]: Moved from standards to
application requirement.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-17
(1) Very Steep Slope Standards. Land dDevelopment other than Restricted Infrastructure
Encroachment is prohibited on slopes greater than 25%.
(2) Steep Slope Standards. All applicable land development must be designed to avoid undue adverse
impacts to slopes between 15% and 25%. Clearing of vegetation, excavation and filling on steep slopes
shall be minimized.
F. Exemptions.
(1) Quarries and Natural Resource Extraction. Slopes exceeding 15 percent that are created by an
natural resource extraction or quarrying use approved per Section X.X shall be exempt from the
regulations of this subsection
12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to define specific types of “restricted infrastructure” that may
be allowed to encroach upon a natural resource regulated in Article 12 and to define the standards that shall
be met in order for an encroachment to be allowed.
B. Types of Land Development. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments are limited to the types of land
development listed in this subsection:
(1) Underground public utilities systems (e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, broadband,
telephone).
(2) Public sidewalks and recreation paths including bridges intended to connect parcels and
neighborhoods.
(3) Public and Private Streets.
(4) Public and Private Driveways
(5) Stormwater Facilities specifically identified as a part of an Environmental Restoration Project.
C. Qualifying Criteria. Encroachment into the resource may only be allowed if there is a finding that the
proposed Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment meets one or more of the following qualifying criteria:
(1) Is necessary to repair impacts from a Federally declared disaster, mitigate the future impacts of
hazards, and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare;
(2) Is for a functionally dependent purpose or use;
(3) Is a part of an Environmental Restoration Project; or
(4) Is for purposes of crossing a natural resource area to gain access to land on the opposite side of
the area; or
(5) For purposes of providing safe access in accordance with City roadway and connectivity standards
to an approved use.
(C) Development Review Process. Applications involving Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall be
subject to the development review process outlined in Section 12.01(D).
(D) Standards. All Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall meet the following standards:
(1) The encroachment shall not have an undue adverse impact on the subject natural resource and meet
all specific, applicable standards for Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments into Stream and Surface
Water Buffers (Section 12.02), Wetlands Buffers (Section 12.03), and Habitat Blocks (Section 12.05);
Commented [TN54]: How is this defined in
South Burlington? Add appropriate definition of use.
Commented [TN55]: Add correct reference.
Commented [TN56]: Moved this language from
the Streams and Surface Water Buffers section. Now
applies to all “Restricted Infrastructure
Encroachment.”
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS Draft 2021/01/26
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-18
(2) Crossings. For Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment projects that involve crossing Stream and
Surface Water Buffers (Section 12.02), Wetlands Buffers (Section 12.03), and Habitat Blocks (Section
12.05, the encroachment may be allowed only upon determination by the Development Review Board
that both the following overall standards, and any resource-specific standards, have been met:
(a) There is no feasible alternative for providing safe access within the property;
(b) Alternative accesses through adjacent properties have been considered and, where fewer or no
constraints exist, property owners have been contacted;
(c) The requirements of the applicable restriction will cause unnecessary or extraordinary economic
hardship;
(d) The area served by the encroachment represents more than thirty (30) percent of the total
developable land on the parcel; and,
(e) The encroachment represents the least impact feasible to the specific resource.
.
Figure X.X - Determining Undue Adverse Effect
The following test shall be used by the Development Review Board when the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations requires the Development Review Board to determine whether or not an
undue adverse effect is being created.
1. First, the Development Review Board shall determine if a proposed project will have an adverse
effect upon the resource, issue and/or facility in question. The Development Review Board shall
determine such by responding to the following question:
a) Will the project have an unfavorable impact upon the resource, issue and/or facility in
question?
2. If it is determined by the Development Review Board that an adverse effect will be being created
by a project, the Development Review Board shall then determine if the adverse effect is “undue.”
To determine whether or not an adverse effect is undue, the Development Review Board shall
respond to the following two questions:
a) Will the project conflict with a clear, written standard in these regulations or the Municipal
Plan applicable to the resource, issue or facility in question?
b) Can the unfavorable impact be avoided through site or design modifications, or mitigation, or
other conditions of approval?
The Development Review Board shall conclude that adverse effect is “undue” if the answer to 2(a) is
YES OR the answer to 2(b) is NO.
Commented [PC57]: Note: Proposed “undue
adverse effect” standard. This could be applied to
only Article 12 or throughout the Regulations. Staff
to review for possible use where the term is applied
elsewhere.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 0 5403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Summary of Proposed Amendments, Winter/Spring 2021
DATE: January 26, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Below please find a summary of each of the proposed topics contained within the draft Spring
2021 amendments to the LDRs, the status of each, and an index. A full version of these draft
regulations is available on the City’s website.
1. Subdivisions/Master Plans/PUDs
LDR-20-02 Replace Subdivision Standards
Summary: Update and re-write of Subdivision Standards & Procedures. Proposed subdivisions
identify buildable areas and areas unsuitable for development. Regulated natural resources are
identified with larger resources on their own lots. Sets forth design process: streets, blocks, lots.
Standards similar to current SEQ standards for connectivity, block scale, lots, as well as designs to
support renewable energy. A portion of buildable area must be planned civic space. Streets
designed for intended function based on street types. Establishes procedures for modifications.
Status: Planned Commission has reviewed complete draft. Staff working on updates to reflect
Commission feedback.
Affected Sections: Primary: New Section 15A, replaces former Article 15.
Other affected sections: Article 9 (SEQ street standards, block layout, civic space), Article 15
(current subdivision), Section 2.02 (definitions), 3.05B (lots on a private road), 17.08 (hearing
procedures), Article 11 (street types), Appendix E (submission)
LDR-20-03 Master Plan Standards
Summary: Proposed replacement of existing Master Plan standards. Intended to closely
complement the draft Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Standards and provide a clear,
broad-brush picture of the proposed development. The draft standards require a context
assessment, demonstration of connectivity of resources and infrastructure, buildout budgets, and
the standards to be applied to assure consistency in design. The DRB is authorized to approve a
schema or design palate for a project, both of which could vest those elements of the Plan under the
Regulations in effect at the time of the Master Plan for a certain number of years, and/or to
determine that elements of the project have been shown but are not sufficiently provided so as to
2
vest that element of the project under the current Regulations. The Master Plan is structure to
incentivize an applicant to provide detail early. The applicant and City would then be bound by those
elements of the project.
Status: Draft presented to Planning Commission November 2020. Staff is preparing the adjustments
requested by the Commission.
Affected Sections: New Article 15B, replaces Article 15 (current master plan). Additional affected
sections: 2.02 (definitions), 17.08 (hearing procedures), Appendix E (submission)
LDR-20-04 Planned Unit Developments
Summary: Proposed replacement of PUD standards; establishment 3-4 PUD “types” for different
settings, integration existing SEQ standards into city-wide PUD standards. The proposed bylaw
would set a threshold (4 acres) above which a PUD would be required for subdivisions or multiple
principal buildings. Building from the subdivision and master plan standards, PUDs establish
modified standards for lots, building types, and other lot arrangements, providing flexibility within a
range. Further modifications as “alternative compliance” for certain standards are authorized where
the applicant demonstrates an equal or better outcomes based on the specific purposes of the PUD.
Initial PUD types include Traditional Neighborhood (TND), Neighborhood Commercial (NCD),
Conservation, and Infill. Each includes an allocation of land uses (residential, non-residential, civic,
resource, reserved). Permitted uses within the PUD type include those from the underlying zoning
district plus a limited set of additional non-residential uses authorized within the PUD. Within the
TND and NCD types, maximum density is determined by the allowed Building Types within the PUD
and the specific dimensional standards that accompany each type. Minimum density within the TND
and NCD is based on the underlying zoning district or a minimum threshold applicable to the PUD
type. Within a Conservation PUD, density is measured based on the underlying zoning district and
building types do not apply. Street types and civic space types are identified by PUD Type.
Status: Draft of PUD general standards and TND PUD Type presented to Planning Commission
January 2020. Staff is preparing the adjustments requested by the Commission. NCD, Conservation,
and Infill PUD types are under development. See the City website for the detailed outlines of these.
Affected Sections: New Article 15C, replaces Article 15 (current PUD) and significant portions of
Article 9 (current SEQ). Other affected sections: 2.02 (definitions), 3.06 (lots), 3.07 (heights of
buildings), Article 11 (street types, building types, civic space types), Section 13.28 (Neighborhood
Commercial Use), Section 17.08 (hearing procedures), Appendix E (submission requirements),
Appendix C (table of uses). Articles 5-7 (establishment of zoning districts);
2. Environmental Protection Standard Update
LDR-20-01 Update Environmental Protection Standards
Summary: Generally revises Environmental Protection Standards and criteria for impacts, including
specific standards for infrastructure. Key provisions:
• Streams: Stream buffers measured from top of bank/slope. Commission is considering possible
expansion of buffers for major and minor streams
3
• Wetlands: Commission is considering possible expansion of buffers for major and minor
streams, and distinguishing relative priority / role of Class III wetlands and buffers.
• Floodplains. Commission proposal to establish regulations for the 500-year floodplain, divided
into “undeveloped” and “developed” areas of the City. New structures would generally
prohibited in the undeveloped areas. New structures and substantial improvements to existing
structures in developed areas must meet floodproofing standards. General clean-up of existing
100-year floodplain standards to match State of Vermont recommendations
• River corridors. Adopted standards in 2019. Minor amendments for consistency of language.
• Steep Slopes. New development on slopes over 25% is generally prohibited. New development
on 15-25% slopes must demonstrate stability and erosion control measures
• Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. Mapped RTEs must be verified and if found,
protected.
• Habitat Blocks and connectors. Development is generally prohibited in mapped habitat blocks,
with authority to seek re-alignments under specific circumstances. Habitat connectors must be
maintained and may be adjusted from mapped areas.
• Infrastructure encroachment. New section providing standards for determining overall
appropriateness of the encroachment of infrastructure (roads, utilities, stormwater) into areas
regulated by this Article.
Status: Commission reviewing updated complete draft of Articles 10 & 12 on 1/26/21.
Affected Sections: Primary sections: 10.01, 10.06, Article 12. Other sections: 2.02, Appendix E
(submissions), maps
3. Related to PUD/ Subdivision/ Master Plan
LDR-20-11 Site Plan Review Standards; modifications
Summary: Updates general site plan standards to ensure that cross-references to related standards
are included. Revises waiver standards to allow site plan review to stand "on its own" [currently
many properties use PUD as a tool to seek waivers from standards]. Sets guidelines for modifications
to zoning district standards to the DRB; establishes standards for when adjacent streetscape
improvements are needed. Also allows for very minor site changes to be approved via zoning permit
only if standards are met.
Status: First version of updated draft ready for PC review January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: Article 14 (site plan & conditional use review), Section 5.08 & 6.05 (supplemental
standards for commercial & industrial districts), 17.08 (public hearing procedures)
LDR-20-05 Building Types (PUDs)
Summary. Establishes specific building types for applicability in certain Planned Unit Development
types. Each building type (eg, single family, small multi-family, etc.) includes building characteristics
and a permitted range of lot and building dimensional standards. Where applied, these standards
replace underlying zoning district requirements.
Status: First draft had been reviewed by Planning Commission and Affordable Housing Committee
late 2019/early 2021. Scheduled review of updates with Affordable Housing Committee Jan/Feb
2021.
4
Applicable Sections: New Article 11A. Applies to Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and
Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) Planned Unit Development Types.
LDR-20-06 Civic Space Types
Summary. Modifies/Expands Civic Space Types. Civic Space types are applied to meet minimum
space allocations in the City Center FBC, PUDs, and Subdivisions, and as an offset for lot coverage
bonus allowance in the Urban Design Overlay District.
Status: Initial drafts reviewed by Recreation & Parks / Natural Resources Conservation Committee
late 2019. Some additional revisions under development to match the PUD Types; planned review
with Committees February/March 2021.
Applicable Sections. Move to new Article 11B, replaces Appendix F. Applies to FBC, Urban Design
Overlay, Subdivision, PUDs.
LDR-20-07 Street Types
Summary. Replaces street three sets of standards from City Center FBC, Southeast Quadrant, and
General with a single set of standards for the cross-sections of allowable street types across the City.
Status: Previously reviewed by Planning Commission and Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee.
Applicable Sections: New Article 11C, replaces sections in Article 9, Article 11, Article 15. Cross
references in Articles 15A (subdivision), 15B (Master Plan), 15C (PUD), and Article 8 (City Center
FBC).
LDR-20-10 SEQ-NRP building & envelope standards
Summary: Establishes a maximum building envelope for any allowed development in the SEQ-NRP
district; allows homes to be in buildings containing up to three dwellings (current requirement is for
single family homes only), but does not change allowable total dwelling units.
Status: Commission reviewed October 2020.
Affected Sections: Section 9.12 (NRP).
LDR-20-08 Modify Required setback on Arterials & Collectors
Summary: Separates required setbacks from the subject of Planned Rights-of-Way (previously
required together). Eliminates larger setbacks (50') from most streets and relies on underlying
zoning. Removes conflict with SEQ standards.
Status: First Draft for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: 3.06 (setbacks and rights of way), Article 9 (SEQ)
LDR-20-09 Modify Planned City Rights-of-Way
Summary: Provides greater clarification for how a planned ROW is to be measured, and notes that
"existing" ROW is a typical and not necessarily the actual existing along all roadways. Eliminates
planned ROW from road segments not anticipated for future widening.
5
Status: First Draft for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Affected Sections: Section 3.06 (setbacks and rights of way)
LDR-20-17 Update SEQ Residential Design Standards, apply citywide outside PUDs
Summary: This amendment expands the applicability of basic residential face standards to new
single and two-family homes in the city which are not subject to Building Type standards under the
TND or NCD PUD Type. This would include homes on existing lots, homes built on subdivided lots
without a PUD, and homes build through Conservation Planned Unit Developments. The current
standards apply to all development involving a subdivision or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant. The
standards themselves would:
• Continue to require that buildings are designed with a focus on sun-facing windows, but replace
the minimum percentage of all windows facing south with a design standard of orientation of
living space;
• Continue to require front-facing garages to be set back from the principal façade of the building
• Establish a maximum of 40% of the front of the building to be garage doors. This replaces a
minimum “non-garage” façade requirement for two-family homes.
• Continue to require a variety of styles of homes in subdivisions.
Status: First Draft for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021.
Note 1/26: As not all future development in the SEQ would require a PUD review (ie, small
subdivisions <4 acres], standards would need to apply at least to all subdivisions in the SEQ in order
to retain a similar standard. Expansion to citywide applicability is recommended but not directly
connected to the PUD updates.
Affected Sections: Replace Sections 9.06, 9.07, 9.08 with New Section 3.16
4. Zoning District Amendments [related and unrelated to PUDs]:
Below are a series of proposed amendments to zoning districts. In some cases they are directly related
to and necessitated by the PUDs (ie, where the zoning district itself references density bonuses for
PUDs) while others are not specifically required by the PUD project but have been discussed by the
Planning Commission. Each is noted below.
LDR-20-15 Revision to Residential 2 (R2) Zoning District
Summary: Removes density increase granted through a PUD to the R2 district. Density is established
instead by PUD type. No district boundary changes.
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: These changes are a direct component of the update PUDs.
Affected sections: 4.02 (R2 District)
LDR-20-16 Revisions to Residential 1 (R1) Zoning Districts, including R1, R1-LV, R1-PRD
6
Summary: Consolidates subdistricts of R1 (R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, and R1-Lakeshore), removes
density increased granted through PUD, and instead applies, where allowed, through PUDs.
R1-PRD and R1-Lakeshore become R1-PUD.
R1-Lakeview is consolidated into Lakeshore neighborhood.
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: Changes addressing density increases in R1-PRD and R1-Lakeview are a necessary
component of the updated PUDs. Zoning district consolidation is not required at this time, but
Commission may elect to proceed.
Affected Sections: Section 4.01 (Residential 1 zoning districts)
LDR-20-13 Updates to C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-Air, C1-Auto Zoning Districts
Summary: Eliminates C1-R12 zoning district and C1-Air zoning district. C1-R12 west of I-89 becomes
C1-R15, C1-R12 near Kennedy Drive and C1-Air become Transition Commercial. Purpose statement
for C1-R15 revised. C1-Auto purpose statement revised; possible realignment and clarifications re
display vehicles
Status: Planning Commission reviewed generally September 2020 and previously. Specific language
available for PC review 1/26.
Note 1/26: These changes are not required in order to complete the PUD project but do aid with
consistency.
Affected Sections: 3.01 (zoning districts), Article 5 (commercial and mixed use districts)
LDR-20-14 Transition Mixed Use and Neighborhood Mixed Use Districts
Summary: Establishes two new zoning districts to replace Allen Road, Swift Street, R7-NC and C1-LR
districts, and apply per zoning map.
LDR-20-14A: Converts portions of R7, C1-LR to Neighborhood Mixed Use
LDR-20-14B: Converts C1-LR, R7-NR, Allen Road, Swift Street, portion of I/O to Transitional Mixed
Use
Note: changes zoning on 3 parcels from Industrial-Open Space to Neighborhood Mixed Use. This
change would enable larger parcels to quality for an allowed Planned Unit Development type of
mixed use and align the zoning for this area with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map.
Note 1/26: With exception of I/O district amendment, these changes are not required in order to
complete the PUD project but do aid with consistency.
Status: Commission reviewed conceptually and with maps. Draft language available for review 1/26.
7
Affected Sections: 3.01 (zoning districts), Article 5 (commercial and mixed use districts), Appendix C
(table of uses and dimensions)
LDR-20-26 Update Table of Uses and Table of Dimensions
Summary: This amendment updates the Table of Uses to be consistent with the updated PUDs and
zoning district amendments. Specifically:
• Individual uses previously listed as “PUD” are changed to be permitted (or conditional).
Previously, properties proposing these uses (such as multi-family residential in certain districts)
were ONLY allowed as part of a PUD review. PUD review is no longer tied to individual uses.
Instead, if the use is allowed, it can be reviewed as a permitted use under site plan review.
• PUD Types, and any uses specifically enabled by the PUD itself. A PUD type also may include any
use that is permitted within the underlying district. However as certain PUD types are intended
to become small nodes of activity in our community, PUDs are proposed to bring with them a
handful of supplemental allowed uses. This allowance replaces the “limited neighborhood
commercial” provision added a few years ago that was crafted as a bridge to the future PUDs.
• Updated table of uses and table of dimensions to reflect consolidated districts as described
above
Status: Initial draft available for review by Planning Commission January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: Appendix C
LDR-20-27 Eliminate SEQ-NRN Subdistrict
Summary: Possible elimination of SEQ-NRN subdistrict, and conversion of the parcel to SEQ-NR. This
subdistrict was established in 2016 as part of the master plan settlement agreement with JAM Golf,
to enable up to 32 dwelling units on exchanged land that had previously been city-owned. The
property owners have submitted a complete application for development and as such are subject to
the current regulations. This district applies only to this parcel and so the district itself may no
longer be needed.
Status: Available for Commission Review January 26, 2021
Note 1/26: This amendment is not required in order to complete the PUD project, but does save
space and remove complexities of district-specific standards that are otherwise proposed to be
removed for other SEQ subdistricts as they become integrated with citywide PUD standards.
Applicable Sections: Section 9.08 (SEQ NR, NRT, NRN).
A NOTE REGARDING ARTICLE 9 / SEQ
A result of the proposed amendments above is that Article 9, currently dedicated to the SEQ and
including the standards for Transferable Development Rights, is mostly removed. Open Space standards
have been integrated into Article 12 (Environmental Protection Standards). Lot, block, and civic space
standards have been integrated into Article 15A (subdivision) and Article 15C (planned unit
developments). Street and sidewalk standards have been integrated into Article 15A and citywide Street
types. Building design standards have been integrated into Article 15C (planned unit development) and
Article 11A (Building Types) for PUDs, and are proposed, as noted above, to be applied citywide under
Section 3.16 for all development that is not using Building Types.
8
Following all of these amendment, there are only a handful of remaining elements in Article 9 proper.
Staff is recommending, for ease of use, that the remaining pieces be assigned as such:
Create new Section 4.08 [within residential zoning districts] to contain the Establishment of SEQ zoning
district & subdistricts and the SEQ-NRP standards
Dedicate Article 9 entirely to Transfer of Development Rights (thus untying it from being “rooted” in the
SEQ and being more clear as to the fact that it can apply citywide).
5. Minor Amendments – LDR-20-21 and LDR-19-07
Summaries:
• LDR-20-21A Retaining walls, 13.25. Allows approval of a retaining wall within 5’ of a property line
subject to DRB review as a conditional use.
• LDR-20-21B Bus Shelters, 13.09. Removes requirement for review through LDRs if located within a
public ROW [note: all other projects within the City’s right-of-way are not reviewed under the LDRs
unless they are part of a development application; bus shelters are an anomaly. Structures in the
ROW are the responsibility of DPW.
• LDR-20-21C RV Parking, Section 3.09. Amendment would allow RVs to be placed (parked) in the
same locations as an accessory structure on that same property, plus of course the driveway.
Currently RV parking areas are more restrictive and limited only to being behind all facades of the
house (ie, there is no guidance/allowance for unusual circumstances such as through-lots or corner
lots).
• LDR-20-21D Traffic visibility 3.06(E): Change from 30’ to 25’ to be consistent throughout Regulations
• LDR-20-21E Airport Approach Cones & FAA review (3.07, 6.02, 6.03, 13.03): Updates language
pertaining demonstration of submittal of project to the Federal Aviation Authority. New language
was prepared in consultation with the FAA.
• LDR-20-21F Earth Products (13.17): Clarify that maintenance of approved stormwater facilities does
not require permits; tidies language concerning exempted activities.
• LDR-20-21G Utility Cabinets and Similar (Section 13.18): simplifies language, updates landscaping
requirements
• LDR-19-07 Solar Canopies in Parking Areas (Section 13.06). Commission had previously reviewed and
provided direction to be more clear about applicable areas (Summer 2019). Updated text included.
Status: The amendments above are available for review January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: See references above.
6. Technical Amendments – LDR-20-18
• LDR-20-18A Re-Organization of Sections (Throughout). Relocates several sections and chapters for
better flow for users and to place “like” standards in proximate parts of the LDRs. Note: This is not
yet reflected in the 1/26/21 draft.
• LDR-20-18B Establishment of Zoning Districts (3.01): Revise district section and map references
• LDR-20-18C Structures requiring setbacks (3.06(F)): Remove redundant text.
• LDR-20-18D Setbacks for pre-existing lots (Section 3.06(J)): Clarify administrative / DRB review.
• LDR-20-18E Setbacks and Buffer Strips Adjacent to Residential Districts (3.06(I)): clarifies language,
makes exception for PUDs and Master Plan as those are reviewed separately.
• LDR-20-18F Height of Structures (3.07): clarifies process and links requests for waiver of maximum
heights to Site Plan waiver standards.
9
• LDR-20-18G Height of Accessory Structure (3.07): clarifies applicability of standards for accessory
structures exceeding the height of a principal building.
• LDR-20-18H Additional Height Standards (3.07): updates cross-references to other sections of the
LDRs addressing Height of structures and buildings.
• LDR-20-18I Comprehensive Plan implementation references (throughout): removes redundant
references to “implanting the Comprehensive Plan” from each individual zoning district (the
statement is included in Section 1.01 of the LDRs); streamline wording for uses;
• LDR-20-18J Drive-throughs (Section 5.01, 5.02, 13.11, Table C-1): consolidate standards and improve
clarity as to when drive-throughs are permitted / prohibited
• LDR-20-18K Fence requirements (Article 9, Section 13.17): Relocate standards for fences in the SEQ
into Section 13.17, fences
• LDR-20-18L Typos, numbering, & spelling (throughout) Corrects misspelled words, incorrect cross-
references, subsection misnumbering.
Status: The amendments above are available for review January 26, 2021
Affected Sections: See references above.
7. OTHER AMENDMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT, NOT IN PRESENT DRAFT
LDR-20-28 Expand Inclusionary Zoning Citywide; eliminate affordable housing density bonus
Summary: Proposal from Affordable Housing Committee to expand applicability of Inclusionary
Zoning requirement to all residential/mixed use areas, for site plans, subdivision, and Planned Unit
Developments. Expansion would replace the affordable housing bonus provisions that apply in these
areas presently.
Status: Affordable Housing Committee has recommended. Planning Commission has discussed
conceptually but has not formally determined whether to include. Article 18 Amendments are ready
for review; Standards under development within PUDs.
Applicable Sections: Sections 18.01 (Inclusionary Zoning), 18.02 (Affordable Housing bonus). Related
amendments in Article 15C (PUDs) - Not yet included in draft amendments.
LDR-20-12 Expand Use of TDRs
Summary: Would expand applicability of TDRs to including sending and receiving areas throughout
the city
Status: Initial expansion adopted December 2020. Additional expansions to be developed by the
Planning Commission based on February 2020 Commission guidance and TDR Interim Zoning
Committee Report. Not yet included in draft amendments.
Applicable Sections: Updated Article 9.
LDR-20-22 Accessory Dwelling Units; Pre-Existing Small Lots; Conditional Use Review Criteria for
3-4 unit buildings
Summary: Amendments designed to implement Act 179, enacted in fall 2020. Accessory Dwelling
Units minimum allowances have increased, to greater of 900 s.f. or 30% of size of principal building.
10
Lot must be owner-occupied. ADU must be regulated in same manner as a single family home on the
same parcel (city may be less restrictive as well). Amendments to this section were reviewed by the
Affordable Housing Committee and required updates to LDRs regarding accessory structures in
general as well. Other legislative changes modify allowances for buildings on pre-existing small lots
and limit conditional use review authority for 3- and 4-plexes. The new statutory language is
updated in the draft LDRs.
Status: Affordable Housing Committee to review draft language February 2021 for possible inclusion
thereafter. Not included in draft
Applicable Sections: 3.05 (lots), 3.10 (accessory structures), 14.10 (conditional uses)
LDR-20-25 Accessory Structures
Summary: Modifies allowance for the number of accessory structures on a lot and references total
footprint of accessory structures as part of total lot building coverage instead currently limitation of
of 50% of ground floor area of principal building; removes special reference to garage connection.
Coordinates with accessory dwelling unit amendments (LDR-20-22)
Status: Under development, to be proposed alongside LDR-20-22. Not included in draft
Affected Sections: Section 3.10 (Accessory Structures)
LDR-20-** Temporary Uses & Structures:
Summary: Clarifies allowance for structures associated with temporary, exempt activities and
codifies allowance for temporary a winter temporary carport. Would also create more allowances
for multi-month tents, etc. to allow for flexibility in businesses.
Status: Under development.
Affected Sections: Section 3.08
LDR-21-** Rooftop Solar Requirements for buildings subject to CBES
Summary: Would require solar-ready roofs, and possibly solar installation, on new or substantially
altered non-residential building and residential buildings of four or more stories.
Status: Planning Commission requested staff research questions and provide draft of solar-ready
roof requirement.
Section: Section 3.15(D)
LDR-21-** Construction Noise from blasting / drilling
Summary: would set standards for review of construction noise associated with blasting or drilling of
ledge or similar activities
Status: Staff has discussed conceptually with City Council based on their guidance. Presently
researching options.
Section: Possible New Section 16.04
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
7 JANUARY 2021
1
PLANNING COMMISSION 7 JANUARY 2021
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, 7 January 2021, 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; D. Albrecht, D. Wheeler, S. Dopp, A.
Chalnick, J. Belevance, C. Trombly, K. Ryder, S. Dooley
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Albrecht suggested that under “equity impact assessments,” there by an item to look at the social
and racial impact of plans. This concern was brought to the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr.
Albrecht suggested this be put on another Planning Commission agenda. He said there are intended and
unintended impacts of plans, and it is the unintended impacts that are of concern. He did not want the
Commission to focus on natural resources to the exclusion of other important interests. He then
showed a slide of a presentation made by Xusana Davis, and noted that the State is trying to look at
equity in a more systematic way with regard to unanticipated consequences (e.g., who is impacted?,
who is the targeted impact? How to mitigate unanticipated impacts? etc.). Mr. Albrecht encouraged the
Commission to think about equity impacts. He stressed that the whole city has to share the burden of
housing and share the open spaces.
Mr. Conner said he would be sure that all members get the materials offered by Mr. Albrecht.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos noted that the Library will be holding a discussion group on “The Color of Law” next month.
Copies are available at the Library. Mr. Conner said it is one of the most informative books he has read
on the subject. He added there are things we accept as “standard” that may have been intentional
years ago and copied into cities and towns’ regulations across the country.
Ms. Louisos also noted that she had submitted the annual report of the Commission’s work to the City
Council. Mr. Conner said he would share that as well as his department report with all members.
Ms. Ostby said the Affordable Housing Committee continues to have questions about the impact of
“building types” in PUDs. She said she tried to explain that it is a better building tool. They want to
2
know if it has an impact on density. Ms. Ostby felt it would be important to address this in public
hearings.
Ms. Dooley said she has concerns with an “either/or” of ways to calculate density in a PUD. If the intent
of the Commission is to enforce “community,” building types are a better choice. She was ready to live
with the concern with the number of units.
Mr. Conner said he thought they will find the number of units is equal to or greater. Current regulations
ignore resources on the land. There is a theoretical number of units allowed which cannot be achieved.
In the future, development will be more compact, with more homes per acre than previously.
Ms. Ostby said it was suggested the Commission provide a “sample build-out.” Ms. Louisos said the next
meeting will focus on the subject of PUDs.
4. Continued Planning Commission work session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development
Regulations:
a. Updated Environmental Protection Standards: Rivers & Streams, Wetlands, Stormwater,
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species, Habitat Blocks, Habitat Connectors, Steep Slopes,
Floodplains:
Ms. Louisos noted she had gotten a document from a wetland scientist at the State. The information
will be compiled for members for the 26 January meeting. She also received questions as to when the
Commission will have official public comment. Ms. Louisos said she is hoping that will also be by the
26th of January.
Mr. Conner said staff just got mapping regarding wider buffers. Taylor Newton of CCRPC is looking
through Article 12 to possibly consolidate language. He did provide some comments on what the
Commission will be discussing now.
In Section 12.05, Mr. Conner said he will make sure the language indicates “50 feet within the same
parcel.” Mr. Conner also noted the Mr. Newton is tidying up language regarding forestry.
Mr. Mittag said that in section (d), he would like the word should to be replaced by “must” and add the
word “contiguous.” Ms. Ostby reminded members they had agreed not to reduce the total area.
Mr. Conner cited a situation where there is a transitional forest area. Across the way there is a mature
tree stand. Neighbors want to keep the latter. Ms. Ostby said if you take from the transitional, you
minimize the size of it. If multiple parties take from the transitional, what is happening to the habitat
block. Mr. Mittag noted that when a habitat block near him was moved, they are now overrun with
rabbits because their habitat is gone.
Ms. Louisos said that a line on the map could be moved because it is not representation of the habitat
block. The total area would stay the same, but the edge could be adjusted to contain better habitat.
3
Where the line is moved to should be equal to or better than what was there before. Mr. Conner
suggested language such as “expanding or revegetating” habitat.
Regarding habitat assessment, Mr. Mittag said he didn’t think an adjacent connector is adequate
compensation for an exchange. He suggested saying “contiguous connector.”
Members then considered the case where a parcel is more than 70% covered with resources and is not
eligible to be a PUD. He said there are not many examples of this in the city. He thought to delete it
entirely, but the catch is a circumstance where the property couldn’t become a Conservation PUD
because it is too small (less than 2 acres) or because there is one building on a pre-existing parcel
without a subdivision. He said he has now decided to try to rewrite that section. Mr. Mittag said if you
allow development in the buffer, it is no longer a buffer and the core has no protection. Ms. Ostby said
there are so few of them, and if someone has a property of less than 2 but more than 1 acre all in the
buffer, you have to be able to honor that. Mr. Conner said he will check with the City Attorney to be
sure they are not getting into a “taking” situation. He noted that Mr. Newton suggests this be an
exception rather than an option.
Regarding habitat protection, Ms. Ostby asked if there is anything they can do to require forest
management. Mr. Conner said that at next Tuesday’s meeting Sharon will float a point system, and
there may be a “carrot approach” for that. He added that you can’t require forest management if
they’re not touching a forest area. Mr. Mittag suggested some tax relief.
Ms. Dooley noted that the State would have an issue with that from the point of view of the education
tax. Mr. Conner said the rest of the taxpayers would have to make up the difference. Ms. Louisos
suggested some option related to the landscaping budget.
Regarding encroachment, Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton felt this is a good place to define and
include a standard of “undue adverse impact,” and he suggested a tie-in to some federal language.
Regarding crossing a resource, Mr. Mittag felt it shouldn’t be encroached on and the resources remain
unfragmented. He cited the crossing of the Great Swamp and did not want to see that again.
Mr. Gagnon said if the only way to get to a property is through a forest block, they have to be careful of
a “taking.” If you prohibit access to a property, you are essentially taking it. Ms. Louisos noted this
applies not only to forest blocks. Mr. Gagnon stressed that they have to look at the whole package and
allow for roads, utilities, public paths, etc., to be able to access a property.
Mr. Conner said to imagine a property with a wetland crossing near the road. The State and the DRB
have criteria to value that. But there isn’t guidance as to whether circumstances merit the crossing,
when to allow, when not. The road Mr. Mittag referred to was required by the official city map. He
wasn’t sure the applicant wanted to build the road, but it was required. Mr. Conner noted that the
official map needs to be updated.
4
Ms. Dooley cautioned the Commission to be aware of big picture and whether the effect would in fact
be a taking. She noted that some developments require two modes of ingress/egress for emergency
purposes, and the crossing could be needed to meet that requirement.
Mr. Wheeler of the City’s Stormwater Department said that he was asked to review Section 12. Mr.
Conner noted that Mr. Wheeler and his team are the technical source staff goes to when reviewing
stormwater issues. They are also actively working on improvements to historic water quality issues.
Mr. Wheeler said the city has many impaired watershed issues and is doing projects to restore them.
Those projects are subject to the city’s LDRs. Mr. Wheeler said there is no life in the streams now
because of high flows off neighborhoods, and when they go into those neighborhoods, it is hard to put
in something to address problems because often the problems are in buffer areas.
Mr. Wheeler stressed that not all undeveloped land is pristine, and there are outfalls that are not in
good condition. He showed photos of some problems areas and said the Stormwater Department has
plans to go in and fix some of those areas. He also showed pictures of an area where they were able to
put in a project. There were trees and a stream on that property that had to be dealt with, also a sewer
line. The issue he raised is whether that project would have been possible if they couldn’t have cleared
those trees.
Mr. Wheeler also noted they are not working through a grant on an outflow stabilization project. He
showed a photo of a gravel wetland they have put in to control the flows upstream.
Ms. Dooley questioned whether increasing the buffer to 100 feet would be a concern regarding city
city’s stormwater work.
Mr. Conner said that Mr. Wheeler had indicated to him the section on infrastructure which assumes that
all infrastructure is negative. He cited the need for language that allows for restoration to correct pre-
existing conditions.
Members agreed there is a need to address restoration in the regulations.
Mr. Riehle asked whether there is still pollution in the streams. Mr. Wheeler said they are making
progress and are putting together a plan to control phosphorus, and he felt they will meet that goal. He
then showed a chart of neighborhoods where there are problems regarding phosphorus and the
projects that are planned there. Some are residential areas, some commercial.
Mr. Conner said he will work with Mr. Wheeler to craft language for the Commission to review on 26
January.
Members then continued the discussion regarding encroachment. Mr. Conner said with a habitat block
there is additional language with supplemental standards (no requirement for street trees, no lighting,
eliminating curbs, etc.). He recommended keeping those standards. Mr. Gagnon agreed.
5
Regarding educational use, there is language to allow for limited seating, a small shed, etc., to allow kids
to interact with nature.
Regarding expansion into a habitat block, Mr. Conner questioned whether to leave that or not to allow
it. He doubted it would ever come up. Members agreed to delete it. Buildings located in habitat blocks
will not be allowed to expand.
Regarding habitat connectors, members agreed to keep Mr. Newton’s recommendations.
Regarding habitat disturbance, Ms. Ostby said she heard that landowners are challenging the existence
of habitat on their land. She asked what if a person hires an expert who disagrees with what the
Commission lists as a habitat. Mr. Conner said the total area of the habitat block could not be removed,
but it could be moved. If a biologist says there is no value, the DRB can hire someone else to give a
second opinion. An owner can also come to the Planning Commission if they believe there never was a
habitat block on the land. There is also a suggestion to hire a consultant to update these areas every 5
years. Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton is also looking at this section.
Mr. Conner said the challenge is that the DRB will see various extremes/opinions, and there isn’t enough
case law yet. This could lead to the next JAM Golf appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ms. Ostby asked how landowners can be educated about their rights. Mr. Conner said the city has no
enforcement if people take down a tree or 2 on their property.
Mr. Conner also noted the Mr. Newton has some comments regarding steep slopes.
Ms. Dopp noted that in some cases people have regulations via individual forest management plans
related to their property for things such as clearing of invasives. Mr. Conner said that will be addressed.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
12 JANUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 12 January
2021, 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; S. Dooley, K. Epstein, T. Barnes, A.
Chalnick, B. Murphy, M. Reale, S. Murray, C. Trombly
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business an update on scheduling and some outreach
information.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Dooley was concerned with not being able to get the meeting materials. Mr. Conner said
he will get that sorted out.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos said she spoke with the Editor of The Other Paper who said she would welcome
articles from the Commission. I suggested we would try for something quarterly. The Editor
also indicated that the paper would report on something the Commission felt should be
communicated.
Mr. Macdonald noted he could not attend the first meeting of the Spear /Swift Street Scoping
Study Project Team. They will meet again in February. He will forward to members a list of
what they committee will be doing.
Mr. Conner advised that last week the City Council approved the proposed FY22 budget for
voter consideration. It contains the full budget for consulting. A number of city positions will
remain unfilled including the City Planner position. The Council also approved the Garden
Street TIF project for voter consideration. The project would include the missing sidewalk in
front of Healthy Living and the connection of Garden Street to Midas Drive.
4. Energy Committee proposal for requirement of Solar-Ready Roofs on new buildings
subject to the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards:
2
Mr. Conner noted that the Energy Committee has been looking at the possibility of requiring
solar-ready roofs. He then introduced Barry Murphy from the Vermont Department of Public
Service..
Mr. Chalnick said the energy stretch code has included solar-ready roofs for residential
buildings, but it has been hard to get financing for solar through the banks. The topic for this
meeting will be commercial buildings.
Mr. Chalnick said we are already seeing the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is
important to reduce them. Electrifying will require a lot of solar. The Commercial Code was
updated in September, but it did not include solar-ready requirements although communities
were told that they could have that requirement. The Code also includes residential buildings
of 4 stories or more. There are specifics that would allow buildings to meet the requirement
including the requirement that 40% of a roof should be a “solar ready zone.” Mr. Chalnick then
showed language that could be adopted.
Ms. Ostby asked if this would be for new buildings. Mr. Chalnick said it would apply only to
new buildings.
Mr. Conner asked Mr. Murphy if this is a “self-certification” situation similar to the stretch code
or would the municipality do it through the development process. Mr. Murphy said the
responsibility would lie with the municipality because it is an appendix to the Code. Mr.
Murphy added that the reason it was not required was that they would have had to go back too
far to rewrite the code, and that would have delayed implementation.
Mr. Murphy said the city could require it, but compliance could depend on the building. There
is the possibility that you could end up with a building with a very strange roof line or the roof
might not be sound enough to support solar. Mostly it is a question of aesthetics.
Mr. Mittag said a lot of commercial buildings have flat roofs. He felt the city could require it.
Mr. Epstein said requiring solar-ready roofs would also ensure that solar panels do not take up
land.
Mr. Gagnon asked if there is any thought given to retrofitting existing buildings, possibly during
a major remodel of a building.
Ms. Ostby suggested requiring solar-ready for new commercial buildings and retrofitting for a
remodel of a certain percentage of an existing building. Mr. Murphy said there would have to
be assurance that the roof can take both snow accumulation and the solar equipment.
3
Mr. Conner noted that in the City Center Form Based Code district, there is a standard for when
a building must meet the regulations. He recommended keeping exemptions for unusual
circumstances. Mr. Conner also noted that South Burlington might be the first municipality to
adopt this Appendix.
Mr. Riehle asked whether there is a minimum or maximum number of panels and what kind of
criteria there would be. Mr. Chalnick said they would like to require solar panels, but he didn’t
think it was a big step to ask for as much solar as possible. He added that it also makes
economic sense.
Mr. Barnes said the rate that you get reimbursed for power you don’t use isn’t worth it. For
smaller businesses it is onerous.
Ms. Ostby noted that credits with GMP do expire. She felt they should look to see what can be
done so those credits don’t expire. Mr. Chalnick said you can sell your power to someone else.
Ms. Ostby said that puts another burden on the business. Mr. MacDonald agreed that for a
small business it can be very onerous. Mr. Barnes said that retrofitting costs can skyrocket, and
that’s “sink or swim” for a lot of owners. And, he added, you can’t sell or upgrade the buildings
because of these onerous regulations.
Mr. Gagnon suggested requiring solar ready but not the panels for less than a certain amount of
square footage. He said there has to be a reasonable amount of square footage to make it
reasonable. Ms. Ostby agreed. She also noted that as we move into the future, the tiles will
get smaller. Mr. Chalnick said costs will get better over time.
Mr. Gagnon said he wants to know if there is a break even point in terms of square footage on
buildings with solar ready. He would want to see numbers to see where that break even point
is so this makes economic sense. He noted that the tax credits today may not be there
tomorrow.
Mr. Conner said he would do some work for the Commission on that.
Mr. Murphy said the cost per commercial system is less than for residential, but it is larger, 15-
20 kw in size. It takes up about 120-150 sq. ft. for 10 kw. There is also a minimum size that is
cost effective to install. What you have to do depends on the type of building and its energy
demands. Requiring people to do it can have a negative impact. Encouraging them can go
farther than what would have been asked.
Mr. Conner noted there are some commercial buildings with pitched roofs. When the
infrastructure is already there, you’re dealing with architectural design.
4
The question of running out of electricity was then raised. Mr. Chalnick said the State has
already acknowledged that will need to be an increase in electricity. Mr. Murphy said the
State’s goal is to be ready by 2030.
A straw poll of members indicated that all favored adopting Appendix CA to require new
commercial buildings to be solar ready. They also favored applying Appendix CA to retrofitting
over a certain percentage of a building. They also agreed to request the Energy Committee to
further explore a mandate to install panels subject to commercial viability.
Mr. Conner noted that the Commission has included in the subdivision regulations a
requirement for new lots to be oriented toward solar.
Mr. Mittag asked for parameters where it is not practical to require panels on a roof (e.g. where
there is shading). Mr. Murphy said that is hard to do. It depends on the commercial entity in
the building. It is different for an office use and a manufacturing facility. He noted that shading
is included as one of the exceptions.
5. Planning Commission work session with Sharon Murray of Front Porch Community
Planning & Design: Draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
a. Planned Unit Development General Standards First Draft
b. Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD Type Initial Draft
Ms. Murray said this is the first 5 chapters of the PUD Article. The PUD can extend over more
than one zoning district. Given that it is tied to a zoning district for density, the question is how
to treat the PUD. Options include extending one of the zoning districts, allowing for a transition
zone or having something to apply in both districts. The major issue is density. Mr. Conner
elaborated and said the issue is establishing a minimum density. Ms. Murray said they might
have to vary building types per zoning district, which is not now being done. Mr. Mittag
suggested applying the higher density to both districts. Ms. Murray said that was reasonable.
Mr. MacDonald asked if a PUD is a “floating zone,” would the rules of the PUD supersede
zoning? Ms. Murray said generally yes. What relies on the underlying zoning are generally
minimum density and allowed uses.
Ms. Murray said that originally the directions were that everything that is 4 or more acres
should be a PUD. She asked whether the Commission might need or want PUDs for smaller
acreage now that there is master planning. She asked what the added value would be. Ms.
Louisos said building types.
5
Mr. Conner asked Ms. Murray to describe the advantage of doing only a master plan at 4-10
acres. Ms. Murray said they could reserve a large portion of the parcel, but the DRB could still
review the portion they are developing. It would only go through a site plan review. In this
instance, master planning becomes regulatory.
Mr. Gagnon asked if a master plan was used for part of a parcel whether the owner could later
do a PUD for the rest of the parcel. Ms. Murray said they could if there was enough acreage.
Mr. Gagnon said he felt the developer should state in the beginning what they intend for the
whole parcel.
Mr. Mittag asked if a developer is obliged to complete a master plan. Mr. Gagnon said they
could amend it later to consider a PUD.
Ms. Louisos said she was concerned with not applying PUD standards to smaller parcels. Ms.
Murray said they just have to figure out how PUD types apply to smaller PUDs. Mr. Conner said
you would have to recognize that not everything that could be done on a larger PUD could be
done on a smaller PUD.
Mr. Conner asked Ms. Murray to describe how flexibility is incorporated and the point system.
Ms. Murray said this has been a real challenge…to get back to a planned development with its
own standards. Questions include: how much flexibility, is there a range of dimensions, is there
a range of civic space types, is there a range of building types, etc.
Ms. Murray noted that in a TND, there are design standards to be met (e.g., sidewalk on both
sides of the street). She felt the standards are typical of that type of PUD. However, there can
be alternate forms of compliance, and a developer could come in with another way to comply
with a standard. She felt that was legitimately allowable.
Mr. Conner said that another approach would be “points based.” Some things would be
mandatory, but there would be flexibility. The negative in this approach is the amount of work
to calibrate it correctly.
Mr. Mittag said he was torn. Too much flexibility loses the idea of the PUD they are trying to
allow, but flexible compliance would allow for more creativity. He felt that with a point system,
you could lose what you’re trying to do because people would choose the easiest/cheapest
way.
Ms. Ostby said there was a discussion in the Affordable Housing Committee regarding
prioritizing what is most important in each PUD…what has to happen immediately and what
can happen down the road (e.g., if you know where the bike path is going to go, would they
have to build it immediately?).
6
Mr. Gagnon said he liked the alternative approach.
Mr. MacDonald asked what is different between modification and alternative compliance. Ms.
Murray said they are similar. In Vermont, towns typically address modification and waivers.
The question here is how to get away from waivers. Modification is a change of design. In
alternative compliance, you want to substitute one thing for another (e.g., you can put a
sidewalk on both sides or one side could be a rec path). Mr. Conner said a “modification” is an
“accommodation.”
Members favored alternative compliance and favored deleting item “e.”
Mr. Mittag was concerned that the DRB doesn’t want to be put in a position to have to do
waivers. Ms. Murray said there may be issues where they would want them. Mr. Conner
suggested they may have to narrow the term “waiver,” to make it very specific to something.
Mr. MacDonald said he still had an issue with building types and density. Ms. Murray said there
is a minimum density (she noted developers are very supportive of that). You could have 4
units in various building types, depending on the types you allow. There is no maximum density.
Mr. Conner provided the following example: a traditional neighborhood might say 70% of the
land will be residential. There are 7 to 10 buildable acres. Several building types are allowed.
If half the units are single family and half duplexes, that would be the density. The smaller the
lot size, the more you will need rear-loaded garages. Mr. Conner noted they have charted the
Southeast Quadrant. With only residential building acreage at 8-15 units per acre would be
your maximum (after roads, resources, etc. are taken out). Ms. Murray added that this also
allows for flexibility with the market.
Mr. Riehle noted that on p. 9 the DRB would be allowed to increase the height of buildings. He
asked if this would result in 4-5 stories in the SEQ. Ms. Murray said not with a TND.
Mr. Mittage cited an instance of a property owner with 30 acres who wants to give each of his
kids an acre and leave the rest undeveloped. Ms. Murray said at some point in time you might
not want to have PUDs, just a simple subdivision.
Ms. Ostby raised the issue of TDRs. If a building can build to the density, why would anyone
buy a TDR?
(Mr. Engels left the meeting at this point)
7
Mr. Conner cited the need to explain this to the public and asked members to let him know
their questions/concerns within the next week.
6. Meeting Minutes of 8 December 2020:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 8 December 2020 as written. Mr. Gagnon
seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
7. Other Business:
Mr. Conner noted that the next meeting will include a memo summarizing other changes that
the Commission hasn’t yet seen. Most of these are housekeeping items.
Regarding outreach, Mr. Conner said a question is how to quantify what the Commission has
been working on. He felt they can’t do this on a parcel by parcel basis, but they can do it on a
zoning district basis. Ms. Louisos said she would like to see an existing project and how it would
look with the building-based concept. Mr. Conner said he would try to provide that.
Ms. Ostby said people should know what “big changes” they can expect.
Mr. Riehle felt there should be a maximum density for a particular parcel/developable area so it
won’t come as a surprise to people.
Mr. Gagnon suggested showing what you could do now and what you would be able to do with
the new regulations. That’s the concern he’s heard. Mr. Conner said for properties that are
largely buildable, the opportunity is for more housing but in a more compact area. This would
make the infrastructure more affordable for the city as well.
Ms. Dooley spoke in support of a focus on neighborhoods and creating rules to require more
neighborhood design, rather than sprawl that didn’t inspire neighborhoods. She felt this asks a
developer to be more creative.
Mr. Conner reminded members that the next meeting is 26 January.
Mr. Conner also advised that he and his wife are expecting their first child in April.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:48 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk