HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 05/03/2021AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
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: Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council-meeting05-03-2021 You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 533-467-277
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO PARTICIPATE BY THE INTERACTIVE ONLINE MEETING TOOL ARE ASKED TO MUTE YOUR MICROPHONES WHEN NOT SPEAKING AND TURN OFF YOUR CAMERAS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL ON A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, TURN YOUR CAMERA ON TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THAT TIME.
ALL TIMES LISTED ON AGENDA ARE APPROXIMATE; THE COUNCIL MAY GET TO ITEMS SOONER OR LATER THAN THE TIME LISTED FOR THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. INTERESTED PARTIES IN ANY ISSUE SHOULD PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, May 3, 2021
1.Welcome & Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:30 – 6:31PM)
2.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:31 – 6:41 PM)
3. Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:41 – 6:51 PM)
4.Consent Agenda: (6:51 – 6:55 PM)
A. *** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.Award bids for annual paving contract and Kimball Ave culvert project*** Award memo will be sent by separate email to Council on the morning of May 3rd. C.***Designate and convey a burial plot at the City Cemetery on Shelburne Road
5.Report and discussion on the Summit Employers Health Center/Captive insurance model – CoraleeHolm. (6:55 – 7:15 PM)
6.***City Center: Update and consider approval of the submittal of an application to the Vermont BondBank for the summer round – Ilona Blanchard (10 minutes); [ILONA & TOM TO DISCUSS ADDINGADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ITEM: instrument to finance dark fiber] (7:15 – 7:30 PM)
7.***Public hearing and possible Council action on the extension of the Interim Zoning Bylaws. (warnedfor 7:30 PM) (7:30 – 7:45 PM)
8.***Council follow-up from joint meeting with Planning Commission and questions posed by theCommission (7:45 – 8:15 PM)
9.***Council discussion and possible action related to qualifications to serve on a South Burlington Board, Commission or Committee – Kevin Dorn, City Manager (8:15 – 8:25 PM)
10.Interviews with applicants for appointment to South Burlington Boards, Commissions and Committees (8:25 – 9:25 PM)
11.*** Consider and possibly take action on a resolution related to Climate Change – Councilor Emery (9:25 – 9:45 PM)
12.***Possible reconsideration of vote taken by the Council on April 19, 2021 related to making a recommendation to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission on their I-89 Corridor
Study. (9:45 – 10:05 PM)
13.Council discussion related to the so-called Swift Street extension. (10:05 – 10:15 PM)
14.Consider and possibly appoint Auditor for FY21 – Tom Hubbard, Deputy City Manager (10:15 – 10:20 PM)
15.Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (10:20 – 10:25 PM)
16.***Convene as Liquor Control Commission to consider the following: (10:25 – 10:30 PM)
•Duke’s Public House, Outside Consumption Permit
17.Other Business (10:30 – 10:35 PM)
18.Adjourn (10:35 PM)
Respectfully Submitted:
Kevin Dorn
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
*** Attachments Included
Champlain Water District
Posted General Ledger Transactions
70 - South Burlington Water Department
Document N...ID Name Effective ...General...Debit Credit Invoice Number
4237 EJPRESCOTTEJPRESCOTT E.J. Prescott 5/4/2021 1015 9.90 5842815
E.J. Prescott 5/4/2021 1015 256.68 5843196
4238 FWWEBBFWWEBB F.W. Webb Company 5/4/2021 1015 634.11 71211497
4239 MASTERSONMASTERSON Masterson & Son Excavation...5/4/2021 1015 8,700.00 5117
4240 SBCITYSBCITY City of South Burlington 5/4/2021 1015 676.70 244
Total 70 - South
Burlington Water
Department
0.00 10,277.39
Report Total 0.00 10,277.39
Date: 4/26/21 12:35:58 PM Page: 1
April 30, 2021
MEMO
TO: South Burlington City Council
FROM: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
RE: Sue Alenick – request of Cemetery Commission for burial plot
Sue Alenick has approached Donna to request a burial plot at the City Cemetery on Shelburne
Road. Below is a note I received from Donna asking that the Council serving in its role as the
Cemetery Commission, to provide a plot to Sue free of charge in recognition of her decades of
service to the City. The value of this is $400. I have placed this item on the Consent Agenda.
By approving the Consent Agenda you will be authorizing the City to provide a designated plot
to Sue. The Sextons support this request. Staff recommendation is to approve the consent
agenda item.
Good morning, the cemetery sextons just met this morning and are asking to go before the
cemetery commission (by default is the City Council) to discuss giving a plot to Sue Alenick in the
Shelburne Rd cemetery for all of her years of service to the City. Sue had approached me and we
have walked the Shelburne Rd cemetery as this is where she wants to rest and has picked out
the area she would like. I told her that I would get in touch with her when the payment was due
as we need to determine the lot number she wants. It should be a very quick action item and
hopefully there is room on May 3rd?
Thanks.
Donna
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.SouthBurlingtonVT.gov
TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
FROM: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Application to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank for voter
authorized debt related to Garden Street and improvements at 180
Market Street
DATE: April 30, 2021
BACKGROUND:
In 2018 the voters authorized the Council to issue debt for up to $20.4
million for the construction of a library, senior center and city hall at
180 Market Street. The South Burlington Public Library and City
Hall is nearly complete. The City has already obtained debt ($19
million) to fund the $14M of the City share of project costs and $5M
of the TIF District financed portion. Approximately a quarter of the
project may be financed using TIF District revenues.
In March of 2021, the voters authorized the Council to issue debt for
up to 4,002,550 for Garden Street and related costs. This project is
still in the design phase, with construction planned for 2022.
The Vermont Bond Bank (VBB) has issued a call for applications for
the summer bond issue.
Prevailing interest rates are at historic lows, and indicators are that
they will begin to rise slowly. The application is prepared for
submittal at this moment as the next VBB bond pool will be in the
winter of 2021-22, and it is unclear what interest rates will be at that
time.
Prior to issuing, the City will be consult with the VBB who is
watching the market very closely, and will also complete additional
financial calculations to ensure that the amounts and terms are
appropriate.
In consideration of lower borrowing costs offered by the Vermont
Municipal Bond Bank and anticipated fund needs, an application at
this time is advised if the City is to have the option to take out debt
for a portion of the remainder of building costs and segments A and
C for Garden Street at today’s rates.
The City Council will need to provide approval for the issuance
Background, Continued, Page 2
separately. The City will have until June to continue modeling
interest rates, amounts, and term and to finalize the amount and
terms (length of term but not interest rate).
The City has prepared an application for two bonds:
1) a $3.52 M, 15-year bond with five years of delayed principal
payments. This debt will be serviced with TIF District
increment.
2) A $700,000 bond with a term of 18 years. This debt will be
serviced with City Center Reserve Funds.
These terms and amounts may be changed closer to the time of
issuance (mid- to late-June), including the option not to issue debt at
in the summer bond pool.
At the completion of the 180 Market Street building when all costs
are known, the final TIF District financing debt and remaining City
share of the 20.4 M authorized will be issued.
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the submittal of an application to the Vermont Bond Bank
for the summer bond pool.
ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATION
The application was due Friday April 30; the Bond Bank will accept
the signature page on the Tuesday following the May 3 Council
meeting.
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
Members: Chris Trombly, Chair; Sandy Dooley, Vice Chair; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Vince Bolduc; Patrick O’Brien; and John Simson
To: Jessica Louisos, Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission (PC) From: Chris Trombly, Chair, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
Date: April 27, 2021
Subject: Comments re “DRAFT Questions for Council [Follow-up to Joint PC/Council Meeting]”
First, we commend and appreciate your ongoing work to complete the major projects envisioned for the City’s Interim Zoning period. Second, we provide context for our positions with respect to proposals to confine future residential development to infill and redevelopment and prohibit future residential development in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Third, we describe the bases for our
positions. Fourth, we share our comments and recommendations.
Context: Some residents propose limiting new residential development to infill and redevelopment in previously developed areas of the City, thereby prohibiting new residential development in areas considered suitable for residential development and served by existing infrastructure in the SEQ. The
committee unanimously supports using infill and redevelopment as methods for new residential development in the City. However, the committee unanimously opposes prohibiting new residential development in the various areas considered suitable in the SEQ. We believe that adopting any land use regulations prohibiting new SEQ residential development contradicts goals in the South
Burlington Comprehensive Plan; violates Vermont law; and disregards how zoning regulations have restricted BIPOC and lower-income households’ choices regarding where they live.
Bases: As an underlying principle, the committee asks that the PC’s options reflect the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Vermont’s “Unfair housing practices” statute (copy attached).
The Comprehensive Plan’s first goal stated under the Plan’s Vision & Goals: Here and into the future, South Burlington is... Affordable & Community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place
and opportunity for our residents and visitors. ♦ Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes,
lifestyles, and stages of life. (p. 1-1). Moreover, in the Plan’s Housing chapter, on page 2-10, the first key issue and need identified is: “Preserving and promoting the development of additional housing
that is affordable to households of all income levels throughout the City.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the Comprehensive Plan includes numerical targets for new affordable housing by 2025, which we are not on track to achieve.
The Comprehensive Plan also includes a paragraph on “Affordable Housing in the SEQ.” (pp. 3-
3233) The challenge of the high cost of SEQ land is cited as well as the fact that affordable owner
homes are part of the Dorset Farms and South Village Master Plans. Two statements address the challenge of SEQ affordability: “The SEQ Concept Plan has evaluated how increased ‘buildable’
densities might increase the opportunity for affordable housing as well.” (p. 3-33) “With the completion of the SEQ planning process, there has been strong interest in building neighborhoods at higher
densities in order to conserve more of the SEQ’s priority open space lands.”
AHC Memo to PC Chair, Jessica Louisos: April 27, 2021 Page 1
In addition, the Vermont statute relating to “unfair housing practices” disallows land use regulations
(LDRs) that would discriminate because of (among other factors) income, or receipt of public assistance (full text attached):
“(12) To discriminate in land use decisions or in the permitting of housing because of race, sex,
sexual orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, disability, the presence of one or more minor children, income, or because of the receipt of public assistance (emphasis added), or because a person is a victim of abuse, sexual assault, or stalking,
except as otherwise provided by law.”
With regard to land use regulation as a vehicle for discrimination against BIPOC and lower-income households, a wide body of research documents this tragic component of our nation’s history. Notable are the book, The Color of Law, and a recent New York Times op-ed, “The ‘New Redlining’ Is Deciding Who Lives in Your Neighborhood”, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/opinion/biden-zoning-social-justice.html. Overly restrictive land use regulations will likely perpetuate inequities among City residents. As of the latest data available, 2.5% of South Burlington’s population was Black or African-American, compared to 4.7% in Burlington and 8.1% in Winooski. Furthermore, the median household income in the SEQ is higher than any other Vermont Census tract.
Comments/Recommendations: Selection of the Conservation PUD as the only vehicle for future
SEQ development is among the options in the DRAFT “Questions for Council...” document. We recommend/request removal of this option as it (1) conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan and fair housing statutes, (2) would greatly limit new residential development, and (3) provides no assurance that homes developed would be affordable to households with low and moderate incomes.
With regard to the option of allowing both the TND and Conservation PUD as vehicles for development in the SEQ, we support this option only if Conservation PUD use is limited to suitable parcels. Conservation PUDs should be limited to parcels in which no less than 63% of the parcel (excluding only land zoned NRP) comprises hazards or level I resources. Also, a minimum density requirement should apply to the 30% available for development. New PUD LDRs must balance the
proposed Environmental Protection Standards, which remove 974 additional acres from potential development, rendering 50% of land in the City conserved or preserved. Also, because natural resources change, “preservation” of land in a Conservation PUD should be reviewed every 25 years, allowing the City Council to modify its status based on LDR-defined changes in the ecology of the “preserved land.”
Consequences of the option entitled “Related Consideration: Conservation” would likely be grave. The City would be supporting removal of land from availability for residential development necessary
to promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and a more inclusive community.
In short, SEQ land use regulation that unnecessarily decreases opportunities for housing development undermines Comprehensive Plan goals and Fair Housing statutes. Instead, we should embrace this occasion to increase LDR compatibility with important and complementary Comprehensive Plan goals, combat SEQ exclusivity, and strengthen diversity, equity and
opportunity in our City. Please “carpe diem.”
Thank you for your attention.
AHC Memo to PC Chair, Jessica Louisos: April 27, 2021 Page 2
Planning Commission Questions for Council [Follow-up to Joint PC/Council Meeting]:
1. The Commission has been wrestling with the “big picture” of future development in the SEQ.
The Commission is fully in agreement that land should be used efficiently; that single homes on
large lots consuming the majority of the parcel does not achieve City goals. There are a few
distinct paths to promote different City goals, though.
TND PUD: One path promotes and requires compact, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. Land
that is not otherwise restricted from development (the SEQ-NRP, and areas subject to the
Environmental Protection Standards) would largely become part of the neighborhood, as
housing, active parks, and a small non-residential component. South Village and the Rye
neighborhood are examples. The tool being developed by the Planning Commission for this is
the Traditional Neighborhood Development, which sets an active goal of using land for future
compact neighborhoods.
CONSERVATION PUD: The second path promotes enhanced conservation of land, with an
allowance for a limited amount of housing in a compact manner within a portion of the
property. As drafted, a Conservation PUD would require that a minimum of 70% of the parcel
(excluding any portion of the property in the SEQ-NRP) be conserved. This 70% could include
hazards and habitat blocks, however. The remaining 30% of the land could be built upon based
on the underlying zoning. In the SEQ, this would likely be set at a maximum of 1.2 dwelling units
per acre (measured for all land on the parcel that is outside the SEQ-NRP and excludes hazards).
In this scenario, such a development would not allow the use of TDRs from off the property, and
so the 1.2 units per acre would become the maximum (plus any allowances for affordable
housing).
CHOICE OF TND OR CONSERVATION PUD: The third option is to allow the landowner to select
from either the conservation PUD or TND type PUD for these areas. This is the approach that
the Commission has been operating under for the last few months. The Commission had a
unanimous positive straw poll 4/27/2021 to continue to support this approach.
The Commission notes, however, that having both options available for a given parcel or parcels
could lead to a lack of clarity in the community about what can be expected to be built and
could lad to future debate and contention over this issue. Furthermore, the choice of one parcel
to become a TND or Conservation PUD could place pressure on adjacent parcels to do the same.
RELATED CONSIDERATION: CONSERVATION: A fourth option, but separate from zoning, is for
City with partners pursuing conservation of these areas in order to not see additional
development. The 2020 Interim Zoning Open Space Committee Report could be used as a
guide. This option could employ the Official Map as a tool, but any property must have a zoning
designation in addition to any goals that the City may have for acquisition.
In practice, there are a limited number of properties in the SEQ that these options could apply
to, but they do represent fundamentally different approaches to land development and meeting
City goals of housing and/or land conservation.
There are essentially 5 areas affected by this choice: areas where there are parcels exceeding 4-
5 acres in size, excluding the SEQ-NRP and Environmental Protection Standards. They are:
1. The parcels south of Butler Farms and north of the Claire Solar array.
2. The areas immediately east and south of Cider Mill II (now called Edgewood).
3. The Dorset Street Corridor, south of Nowland Farm Road and north of Dorset Farms [note
that private easements have limited the northernmost two of these parcels, the former
Dorset Meadows, to only 9 homes each].
4. The small planned “village” area in the center of the Dorset Street corridor, centered
roughly around the Mill Market & Deli
5. The parcel at the SE intersection of Spear Street and Swift Street
These represent, broadly, the bulk of the larger “undeveloped” and “otherwise unencumbered”
land in the SEQ.
Figure 1: Red = approximate SEQ zoning area, Blue = approximate proposed LDR protections,
Green = approximate “conservation” areas. See slides presented at the April joint meeting for
further definitions of these areas.
The Future Land Use Map & associated descriptions in the Comprehensive Plan contemplate
neighborhoods in these areas. But the Plan also shows natural resources of value in these areas
that could be further protected via the use of a Conservation PUD. The TDR IZ Committee
weighed in, broadly on this subject and recommended that parcels identified by the Open Space
IZ Committee asthe “highest priority” be prohibited from using TDRs as a receiving area.
Finally, if the City does elect to pursue a Conservation PUD approach to one or more of these
areas, that will place additional emphasis on the need to establish new “receiving areas” for
TDRs outside of the SEQ, and will place an important challenge to the City to find other, creative
ways of meeting the City’s housing objectives outside the SEQ, through compact development
of greenfield areas, re-development of higher-density areas, and likely small-scale infill in
existing neighborhoods.
The Commission is very interested in the Council’s feedback on these larger questions.
2. Related to question #1 above, there are several points where the existing and proposed Land
Development Regulations leave some grey areas in implementation of the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan. Largely this is due to tensions within the Plan itself: for example, geographic areas that are
both envisioned as compact neighborhoods and identified as containing natural resources of
significance. There are additionally some outdated elements of the Plan, including planned
roadway connections, that are in the process of being revised through regulatory means such as
an update to the Official Map. And finally, depending on the direction the City ultimately takes
with regards to overall planned conservation and development patterns in the SEQ, such
decision may warrant or necessitate an update.
The Commission is considering a strategic update to the Comprehensive Plan, to have the City’s
Regulatory tools and Plan be aligned. This would not be a full-scale update to the Plan – that
remains scheduled for 2024, but could be very important nonetheless since a municipal plan has
a formal role in Act 250 proceedings and an inconsistency between zoning regulations and a
plan could lead to regulatory uncertainty and appeals. An update to the Plan does not need to
be an all-consuming effort, but it would invite continued debate over the issues under
discussion presently.
Staff is recommending that the Plan be updated. The Commission welcomes Council feedback
on the subject.
575 Dorset Street, VT 05403 802-846-4107 www.sbvt.gov
Commission, Board, and Committee Application Form
Note to applicants, including incumbents: After submitting a completed application to the City Manager’s Office you will be
required to attend a City Council meeting to be interviewed. You will be advised of the date and approximate time of the Council
meeting when you will be interviewed and your application considered. Please type or print legibly below.
Legal Full Name: ___________________________________________________ Date of Birth: _________________
Other Names/Nicknames Used: ____________________________ E-mail:______________________________________
Present Mailing Address: _____________________________________________ Years at Address? _____________
Legal residence :( if different from above) ___________________________________________________________________
Home Phone:___________________Business Phone:_____________________ Cell Phone:___________________________
Employer:____________________________________________________ Years of Service:____________________
Employer Contact Person and Phone: ______________________________________________________________________
Are you a legally registered voter in the City of South Burlington? Yes No
Position (Commission, Board or Committee) applying for: 1) _____________________________________________________
2)_____________________________________________________
Please tell us how you want to serve in this capacity. List qualifications which may be beneficial to this position.
(Use space below or attach additional sheet.)
By signing here you acknowledge: All information provided is accurate and complete to the best of your ability; and, you understand the City Council has the
authority to remove members appointed by them in accordance with the City Charter and Vermont State Statue, as applicable, for misrepresentation of any
statement made on this application.
Sign here: _______________________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________
City Manager's Use Only
Notified by (phone, e-mail, etc)_____________________________ to attend Council meeting on ___/____/____ (date)
Notification by (staff)_____________________________________ Term of appointment (to-from)_______________________
Voter registration verified by(staff person)_________________________________ Date___/___/____ For incumbents—attendance during the past year (provide numerical information)______________________________________________
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF MINORS AND NON-CITIZENS TO BE
VOTING MEMBERS OF OUR CITY COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington (City) bylaws provide for the membership of volunteer
City committees, which serve in an advisory role, non-exclusive of age or any other personal
identifier or attribute; and,
WHEREAS, South Burlington is a welcoming community, home to a diverse population,
including residents of all ages, nationalities, and backgrounds; and,
WHEREAS, the work of our City committees benefits from a diversity of viewpoints; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to appoint a diversity of residents to volunteer City
Committees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council hereby allows
for the appointment of both non-citizens and citizens of either major or minor status, in which
case they are to be enrolled in our area high schools, career and technical centers, or pursuing a
secondary education in a home-school setting, to any of our advisory City Committees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the number of non-citizens and minors shall be set at a
maximum number of two each and be voting members counted toward the quorum of each of the
City’s advisory committees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the volunteer non-citizen and minor members of the City’s
advisory committees shall not participate in executive sessions or participate in votes based on
executive session discussions.
Signed this _____ day of May, 2021.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, South Burlington City Council Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, South Burlington City Council Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, South Burlington City Council Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, South Burlington City Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, South Burlington City Councilor
RESOLUTION FOR POLICYMAKING TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND
COUNTERACT CLIMATE CHANGE
WHEREAS, the mission of the City of South Burlington (City) is to “enhance the quality of life
and sense of community for our citizens, businesses and visitors by providing high quality,
efficient, well managed and cost-effective public services for their safety and enjoyment”; and,
WHEREAS, the City’s vision is to “set the standard of excellence in providing innovative and
valuable municipal services that are an essential factor in making our City the most desirable
place to live, work and play in Vermont; and,
WHEREAS, the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan (Plan) provides for the following
vision to guide city planning for the ensuing twenty years, stating that: “Here and into the future,
South Burlington is .......
• Affordable & Community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for
our residents and visitors.
• Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
• Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green
South Burlington.
• Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan “recommends a number of actions and practices that should be undertaken
by the City and community to help achieve the goals and objectives therein. This plan and its
recommendations are intended to aid the City as it prepares and adopts regulations, prepares
capital budgets and annual work programs, and forms citizen committees to study a particular
concern; and,
WHEREAS, the recommendations included in and formalized by the Plan includes land
acquisition, for the purpose of “the construction of public facilities including parkland, schools,
sewer and water facilities, roads and recreation paths,” of which the Open Space penny on the
annual municipal property tax is but one tool; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan’s recommendations are to be based on “Population Forecasting and
Planning,” specifying that “trends in absolute population be monitored closely, and also be
monitored together with equally important trends in housing construction, commercial
development, and employment. Separately and together, these four subject areas have a
significant impact on municipal and school services, financing, and needs”; and,
WHEREAS, a particular concern cited in the Plan is “housing” and specifically “affordable
housing,” for “all income levels,” for “single-person households and seniors,” in “support of
quality of life in the City’s residential neighborhoods,” and in order to “complement new
development areas with redevelopment of low-density, single-use commercial areas to higher-
density mixed-use areas and appropriate infill within existing neighborhoods”; and,
WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Committee’s recommendations as cited in the Plan specify
that “by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units - 840 housing units affordable to
households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units affordable to households
earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI”; and,
WHEREAS, a particular concern cited in the Plan is adequate resources for Police, Fire and
Rescue as the City’s population grows, specifying the “increasing pressures on the City caused
by population growth, traffic, commercial and residential development”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan’s section titled Fire and Rescue stipulates the use of “ISO survey
recommendations as a guideline for budgeting future operating and capital costs for fire
protection,” in addition to the inclusion of “fire protection as a criterion in the review of new
development (i.e. roads and access, building locations and materials, hydrant spacing, etc.)” with
particular concern for (1) “new development that is far away from existing stations [and] places
greater demands on time and equipment than development that is nearby,” (2) the “need to be
prepared for moderate annual increase in calls due to population aging and increased population /
businesses,” and (3) needed adjustments to equipment, policies, and training “as the more mixed
use, higher-density development takes place”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan also includes among the City’s concerns and recommendations “improved
transit service”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan cites a number of suggested improvements, the existing recommendations
for our road infrastructure are specific to US 2 / Williston Rd Corridor improvements to
“capacity, access management, safety, transit service, intersection improvements, turning lanes,
streetscape, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure, signalization adjustments”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan specifically recommends “flood resiliency” as a “goal and element,” per
the Vermont State Hazard Mitigation Plan and the City’s All Hazards Mitigation Plan, whose
requirements include the “identification of flood hazard and fluvial erosion hazard areas (areas);
designates those areas to be protected, including floodplains, river corridors, land adjacent to
streams, wetlands, and upland forests, to reduce the risk of flood damage to infrastructure and
improved property; and recommends policies and strategies to protect these areas and mitigate
risks”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan calls for a “comprehensive approach to stormwater management,” i.e.,
“avoiding new development in these areas and eliminates exacerbation of flooding and fluvial
erosion, encourages protection and restoration of these areas, and plans for flood emergency
preparedness and response”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan identifies “potable water” as a main concern of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan stipulates in its “Future Needs and Trends” for “Wastewater Treatment”
that the “City has recognized that there are certain planned conservation areas where the
installation of sewer lines is not an appropriate investment,” specifying that “sewer lines are not
recommended for extension in or through any of the Primary Natural Communities identified in
the Arrowwood Assessment, in ‘The Bowl’ area identified for future conservation,” and further
that the “limited number of housing units and low densities planned for this area can be served
by on-site septic systems if development occurs”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan refers to specific recommendations for properties that should be conserved,
“ranging from potential scenic view protection areas, a park gap analysis, mapped primary and
secondary resource conservation areas, [relative to] land cover, bio-diversity, and working
lands”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan cites “air pollution” as a main concern of the City and recommends the
“maintenance and improvement of air quality,” further citing the Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission’s ECOS Plan, which identifies traffic as the primary contributor to air
pollution, and the City’s Energy Committee’s assessment, which confirms the ECOS report on
“vehicles fueled by gasoline and diesel in the City [as] “a significant contributor to airborne
pollutants”; and,
WHEREAS the 2019 ECOS Plan identifies traffic as the primary contributor to air pollution,
stating: “There is a significant link between transportation choices and public health. Physical
activity in our communities has a cross-cutting societal impact and is directly dependent on
transportation opportunities, infrastructure, and community design. A lack of safe and convenient
alternatives to automobile travel disproportionately affects vulnerable populations”; and,
WHEREAS, the 2019 ECOS Plan identified the need for investment in public “transit, walking,
biking, car-sharing and ride-sharing” to “reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel”; and,
WHEREAS, the Plan, the 2020 Interim Zoning Open Space Committee Report, the 2020
Arrowwood Report, and the 2020 Earth Economics Report make recommendations for properties
that should be conserved out of concern for ecosystem resiliency and biodiversity; and,
WHEREAS, the State of Vermont (State) has confirmed that “the extent of climate change is
linked to how much carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases (GHG) we emit into
the atmosphere”; and,
WHEREAS, though not mentioned in the Plan, the Plan’s planning goals are increasingly
contingent on climate change, requiring a change in human actions and practices; and,
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued warnings on “more rain and
extreme storms,” “flooding,” and “extreme temperatures,” exacerbating “heat waves, algae
blooms, and increases in tick- and mosquito-borne diseases,” and requiring the “protection and
restoration of floodplains, wetlands, and areas of contiguous forest”; and,
WHEREAS, State legislators adopted in 2006 goals that “call for a 50% reduction of the state’s
greenhouse gas emissions below their 1990 levels by 2028, and a 75% reduction by 2050”; and,
WHEREAS, the State’s 2016 Comprehensive Energy Plan “established new planning goals for reducing the emissions from our energy use,” i.e., 40% reduction below GHG levels in 1990 by 2030, and 80% to 95% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050; and,
WHEREAS, the State is falling far short of these goals and recommends that each and every person, business, and visitor to our state assess and then reduce their carbon footprint and, by
weatherizing their homes and businesses, making their transportation modes “low carbon,”
protecting “Vermont’s nature-based solutions,” making our “communities green and resilient,” buying or leasing electric or fuel-efficient vehicles, recycling and composting, advocating for “low carbon” workplaces and neighborhoods, and investing in environmentally responsible companies and mutual funds; and,
WHEREAS, in 2017 the City Council pledged to meet the targets of the State of Vermont and of
the Paris Climate Accord and South Burlington is a member of the Vermont Climate Communities coalition; and,
WHEREAS, the City has hired an energy projects manager and pursued a number of key projects reducing our energy and carbon footprints, the next step being the creation of a climate action
plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council adopts as its
principal guiding mission and moral requirement, on the basis of equity with regard to vulnerable
populations, the reduction of the City’s carbon footprint in all actions and practices that should
be undertaken by the City and community to help achieve the goals and objectives of the Paris
Climate Accord and State’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff and the Council, with the help of its advisory
committees, prepare and adopt regulations, prepare capital budgets and annual work programs,
and form citizen committees to study a particular concern, with this mission and this requirement
foremost in mind.
Signed this _____ day of May, 2021.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, South Burlington City Council Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, South Burlington City Council Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, South Burlington City Council Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, South Burlington City Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, South Burlington City Councilor
STATEMENT BY THE SOUTH BURLINGTON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
RELATED TO
Councilors,
At its April 13, 2021, meeting the Affordable Housing Committee passed the
following motion, for transmission to the City Council, regarding Interim
Zoning application #Z-21-01 for a development on lots located 1720 & 1730
Spear Street. The motion passed unanimously.
The South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee endorses Interim Zoning
application #Z-21-01 and encourages the City Council to approve it. The
bases for the Committee's endorsement are as follows: the application's (1) adherence to the proposed Environmental Protection Standards, in particular
the conservation of the Habitat area (29 acres) located on the property; (2)
its adherence to the draft Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD
regulations, in particular the presence of different housing types; (3) its
voluntary inclusion of affordable dwelling units; (4) its establishment of a
the physical connection between the South Pointe and South Village
developments; (5) its elimination of two curb cuts on Spear Street; and (6)
as a result of collaboration with City staff, its reflection of the work
being done under the City's Interim Zoning bylaw.
Thank you,
Chris Trombly
Chair, Affordable Housing Committee
THE CCRPC I-89 CORRIDOR STUDY
STATEMENT BY THE SOUTH BURLINGTON ENERGY COMMITTEE
RELATED TO
THE CCRPC I-89 CORRIDOR STUDY
April 14, 2021
The SBEC recognizes the tremendous amount of work that has been done to arrive at metrics and to
score those metrics. Ultimately, though, we believe that the scoring leads to "false precision" and -
while the scoring may provide some relevant indicators - we don't really think the metric scoring should
be the principal means of decisioning around this project.
The metrics and scoring are false precision for a few reasons.
One, the differences between the metrics projected out to 2050 are likely - in most cases - too small to
be statistically significant. It is likely the case that the differences are simply not bigger than the
uncertainties in the inputs. Placing discrete scores with meaningful differences on small differences
significantly amplifies those small differences beyond what is likely appropriate.
Also, the ultimate score is (in a sense) pre-determined by the particular goals that are chosen, and can
be significantly biased by how those goals are weighted. For instance, if more goals are
"environmentally sensitive", there may be one result, whereas if more of the goals are "development
oriented", there may be a different result.
One neutral way of weighting all of the criteria would be to "dollarize" every criteria so that there is an
apples-to-apples comparison of each criteria, eliminating the bias that would be introduced by
weighting (ie., figure out the dollar value of preserving an acre of wetland, reducing a certain of traffic,
reducing GHGs, etc...). But, this may not be practical for this exercise.
So, how should this decision be made? It's a question of what is consistent with the City's vision.
Putting aside the particular criteria, it would seem clear that building 12B will induce demand around
that exit, creating demand for more dense housing around that exit and creating pressure to extend
Swift Street.
Conversely, the Exit 13 construction will make travel easier for existing residents - fixing an exit today
which really does not work too well - and induce less demand City-wide.
The SBEC prefers neither of these alternatives. We think the money that would otherwise be spent on I-
89 would be better used on enhanced biking, pedestrian mobility and public transport. Biking,
pedestrian mobility and public transport will enhance the health and safety of residents, promote
tourism, provide equitable access to transportation for all (not just those who own vehicles), reduce
GHG emissions and reduce congestion/noise in the City.
If we had to choose between the two, we prefer exit 13 to be re-done to be a more sensible exit, rather
than building a new exit at 12B. If feedback on metrics is still desired, we would prefer to weight the
"environmental stewardship" goal more highly than the other goals and would elevate the fuel
consumption and bide/ped connectivity and safety metrics to provide more weight to those
metrics. Our broader suggestion is to step back from the decisions as currently framed, and decide in a
more transparent way what the City envisions for development in South Burlington.
March 18, 2021
South Burlington City Council,
The South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee would like to recommend to the Council
that they select the following alternatives be regarding the Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study.
Exit 12B or 13 (Hybrid or SPDI):
• We recommend upgrading Exit 13 to a Single Point Diamond Interchange (SPDI)
o Additional notes:
We recommend the design be updated to extend the multi-use path on the north
side of the interchange to extend over the Spear St bridge and connect down to
the future Spear St multi-use path on the west side of Spear St.
We recommend that all multi-use path-crossing points be signalized for safety.
o Primary reasoning:
This design keeps major highway traffic in South Burlington restricted to three
hubs – 1-89 Exit 14, I-89 Exit 13, and the 189 outlet on Route 7.
Exit 12B would create a new hub in a section of the city that has significant
residential zoning. The traffic volumes at exit 12b would require significant new
infrastructure outside of the scope of the I-89 Interchange proposals and would
negatively affect the bike-ability and walkability of South Burlington in this sector.
Overall, Exit 13 provides a better balance between improved accessibility and the
goal to maintain Livable, Sustainable, & Healthy Communities.
Exit 14 (Enhanced Cloverleaf or DDI):
• We recommend upgrading Exit 14 to a the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
o Additional notes:
We recommend that all multi-use path-crossing points be signalized for safety.
o Primary reasoning:
This design significantly improves the safety and usability of this extremely busy
section of Williston Road for bikers and pedestrians by reducing the # of
dangerous crossings as compared with a Cloverleaf design.
March 18, 2021
This design would maintain a direct path for walkers and bikers using this
corridor, which is an advantage over future investment in a bike/ped-specific
bridge over I-89 (which would require a diversion from the main travel corridor).
Thank you for allowing us to provide input on your recommendations to CCRPC for these projects.
South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Chittenden County I-89 2050 Interchange Study
South Burlington Planning Commission
Input on Interchange Options
Compiled based on April 14, 2021 Commission Discussion
The City of South Burlington Planning Commission passed two motions, both unanimously 7-0:
1. To support the Exit 13 Single Point Diamond as the top priority of the Planning
Commission.
2. To state that the Planning Commission firmly supports continued study and
implementation of the pedestrian crossing at Exit 14.
Additional comments from Commissioners:
• A full Exit 13 interchange would serve the community better than upgrades at Exit 14.
• Exit 14 is already a full interchange including all connections, while additional mobility
and connections would be gained at Exit 13.
• Exit 13 upgrades are preferable to a new interchange at Exit 12B from the perspective of
impacts to the existing community, traffic, and environment. Specifically, the footprint
of environmental impacts is lower at Exit 13.
• Improvements to Bike and Pedestrian safety is critical at Exit 14. The Commission
strongly supports continuing to pursue a separate crossing at this exit. It is suggested
that this crossing be made as safe as possible and consider being enclosing it.
South Burlington Economic Development Committee
Statement of Support for I-89 Exits 12B and 13 Upgrades
Passed Unanimously 4/15/21
The South Burlington Economic Development Committee has reviewed the I-89 2050 Study (Envision89,
2021), as presented to the City Council as well as through its advocacy by the CCRPC as the I-89 Corridor
Study. This committee looks to the development and improvement of I-89 exits as an opportunity to
foster new economic development in South Burlington in the areas surrounding the current Exit 13 and
the proposed Exit 12B. From this extensive review, the Economic Development Committee is in support
of Exit 12B as the highest potential for economic growth. The EDC is also supportive of the
improvements to Exit 13. Both potential projects offer opportunities for the immediate areas
surrounding them to help the City of South Burlington increase the tax base and become a stronger
regional economic hub.
Reasons for our support of the projects are listed below:
• Recently released metrics for economic access show 87-90% of land within 1 mile of either
interchange is classified as an ECOS Growth Zone.
o The growth in these areas will be promoted by convenient access to the interstate.
o The committee believes there will be subsequent growth opportunities for areas further
than 1 mile from these interchanges as these areas currently have much longer
commutes to get to existing interstate interchanges.
• Recently released metrics show estimated increases of 2,400-3,000 new jobs within 1 mile of
each option of improved or added interchanges by 2050.
o The committee recommends both projects as the combined total is over 5,000 new jobs
within 1 mile of both interchanges.
o These jobs carry estimated mean wages of $50,000 - $57,000.
The committee believes that added wages earned in South Burlington will
translate into more dollars spent in South Burlington on food, lodging, gasoline,
and other merchandise items.
• Exit 12B represents significant opportunity for industrial growth based on the existing business
park areas and currently zoned land proposed for such development.
• All increases in jobs, housing, and industry due to the addition or improvement of the I-89 exits
mean better operational efficiencies for businesses.
• Airport access is more direct for travelers, especially those traveling from the South.
Smart economic growth in South Burlington is within reach, and the interchange improvements at Exit
13 and addition of Exit 12B will help to make that growth more effective. It is in the best interest not
only for the City of South Burlington, but for the greater Chittenden County region to move forward with
these projects.
These projects have the full support of the South Burlington Economic Development Committee
members.
References:
Envision89, (2021) Chittenden County I-89 2050 Study. Retrieved from: https://envision89.com/
Envision89, (2021) I-89 Draft Interchange Evolution Matrix. Retrieved from: https://ehq-production-us-
california.s3.us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/ad01ada466643d0ddf0aadd93f1b1d9fc2f758a4/original/1616779542/5d97d
ec906e3c388602ad97322b375cf_I-89_Draft_Interchange_Evaluation_Matrix_-_2021-03-
26.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-
Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20210413%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-
Amz-Date=20210413T134958Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=7b82b0a1d04021ef126a14fcbd04abb37329c8e3d1b577247416b38637d9b9ee
May 3, 2021
The following 2021 outside consumption permit was approved by the South Burlington Liquor Control Board after review by the City tax, fire and police departments:
NAME DESCRIPTION
Duke’s Public House Outside Consumption Permit
SOUTH BURLINGTON LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD
Helen Riehle Meagan Emery
Tom Chittenden Tim Barritt Matt Cota