HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 06/22/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, June 22, 2021
7:00 pm
Planning Commissioners will attend this meeting digitally via GoToMeeting. Members of the public
may attend in person or digitally via GoToMeeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-06-22
Telephone (audio only): (669) 224-3412 Access Code: 250-286-661
In person: City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, First Floor Conference Room
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 (7:05 pm)
4. *Continue review of draft Environmental Protection Standards (LDR-20-01) and other amendments to the
Land Development Regulations (7:15 pm)
a. Arrowwood Environmental review of Habitat Block boundary lines as prepared by the Planning
Commission, with guests Aaron Worthley and Jeff Parsons of Arrowood
b. Description and Commission objectives concerning grasslands and agricultural soils based on public
feedback at public hearing
c. Commission discussion of land use / conservation objectives in the Southeast Quadrant and
citywide.
d. Review timeline for completion of projects under Interim Zoning, including subdivisions & planned
unit developments, environmental protection standards, and others
5. *Minutes: (9:05 pm) Mat 25, 2021
6. Other Business: (9:10 pm)
a. Review upcoming meeting schedule and meeting format
7. Adjourn (9:12 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public 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. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently
presenting / commenting will have their video on.
3. 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.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant
in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute
yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. 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 to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint.
Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to
allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. 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 influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulated 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. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning
and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items
specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message
Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages
on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of
Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official
meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently
focused to help guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published
timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda
items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any
expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end
that will be covered “if time allows”.
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: June 2, 2021 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 (7:05 pm)
Staff Updates:
• Preparations for the move to 180 Market Street are in full swing. The P&Z Department’s offices will
move beginning at the end of the month. We’ll be working remotely for a couple of weeks
thereafter as the building gets set up.
• With the Governor having ended the State of Emergency this week, the standard Open Meeting Law
returns to being in effect. The timing of this overlaps with our transition to the new library/city hall
building. Staff will discuss the plan for meetings this summer under “Other Business” on this agenda.
4. *Continue review of draft Environmental Protection Standards (LDR-20-01) and other amendments to the
Land Development Regulations (7:15 pm)
a. Arrowwood Environmental review of Habitat Block boundary lines as prepared by the Planning
Commission, with guests Aaron Worthley and Jeff Parsons of Arrowood
Enclosed please find the evaluation of the boundaries lines prepared by the Planning Commission
for use in the draft Land Development Regulations, as requested by the Commission in May. Aaron
and/or Jeff will be present for an informal discussion of their evaluation and to respond to any
questions Commissioners may have on the subject.
b. Description and Commission objectives concerning grasslands and agricultural soils based on public
feedback at public hearing
Commissioners asked following the May 20th public hearing to discuss grasslands and agricultural
soils in greater detail.
Staff has asked Aaron and Jeff from Arrowwood to describe grasslands in general: what they are, the
management practices that foster their existence and function etc.
Below is quick map showing the prime agricultural soils [in red] and grasslands areas [in purple] as
identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan map focused on the southeastern part of the city. And
here’s a link to a web map that allows you to zoom in more closely. https://arcg.is/14LO4r
2
IMPORTANT:
• Soil types are agnostic to the land uses on top of them. You will see that prime agricultural
soils are shown on developed parcels.
• Grasslands are from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, with their origins in the 2014 Open
Space Study. The boundaries are shown on this map were re-created roughly for planning
purposes only. The data itself is also very rough; on observation, the area shown as
grasslands, for example, in the Meadowland business Park includes some buildings as well
as parking and loading areas that have been in existence for several years
Areas Identified as grasslands and prime agricultural soils in the southern portion of the City
Legend: Red outline: Prime Agricultural Soils; Purple outline: Grasslands from 2015 Open Space
Report; Black outline: SEQ boundary; Blue: Hazards & Level 1 Natural Resources from draft LDRs;
Green: SEQ-Natural Resource Protection Zoning District
3
c. Commission discussion of land use / conservation objectives in the Southeast Quadrant and citywide.
See attached memo.
d. Review timeline for completion of projects under Interim Zoning, including subdivisions & planned
unit developments, environmental protection standards, and others
See attached memo
5. *Minutes: May 25, 2021 (9:05 pm)
6. Other Business: (9:10 pm)
We’ll discuss schedule for the rest of the summer!
7. Adjourn (9:12 pm)
1
To: South Burlington Planning Department
From: Arrowwood Environmental
Subject: Analysis of proposed changes to Habitat Block boundaries for effects on wildlife,
Forest Habitat Block viability and function.
Date: June 11, 2021
Arrowwood Environmental was engaged by the South Burlington Planning Department in May
of 2021 to review proposed modifications to Habitat Blocks as presented in City of South
Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking, Arrowwood Environmental, 2020. The
Planning Commission is proposing several minor modifications to the Habitat Blocks (HB) as
defined and delineated in the 2020 project to accommodate various planning, political, and land-
use considerations. The Planning Commission was interested in understanding any biological
implications for wildlife populations and impacts to the viability of the HB that might be
expected to result from the proposed changes.
Arrowwood ecologists conducted a remote landscape-level review of the proposed changes in
light of the goals and ranking parameters developed in the 2020 project. The proposed changes
are presented below with a brief discussion of the potential impacts to the original HB, and, in
some cases, suggestions for additional modifications or revisions.
2
South Village- changes to Habitat Blocks 1 & 5
Potential Impact: Moderate to High. Mitigation options exist.
The loss of the north-central portion of HB1 effectively removes 1 of 2 possible landscape
connections to the Shelburne Pond landscape and known bobcat source population. The loss of
this area also cuts off the western arm of HB1. This, along with the incursion of the South
Village development along the arm’s north edge limit the functional value of this arm, now an
island, as a Habitat Block. It still has value as a connectivity corridor but will likely see
considerable loss of function as a result of all the surrounding disturbance.
Loss of this area could be mitigated by incorporating the wet, shrubby area east of HB1 into the
block. The apparent wet conditions here may preclude this eventually growing to mature forest,
but it will allow the remainder of the HB to function more effectively if future impacts and
incursions are prohibited. Impacts to this area could be further partially mitigated by building in
design criterium which facilitate wildlife use such as: minimizing additional east to west
development (roads/sidewalks), limiting, or directing outdoor lights, and maintaining as much
natural vegetation as possible right up to the road.
The loss of the 2 areas along the south edge of HB5 are less consequential from an overall HB
and wildlife functionality perspective, but the remaining south-pointing finger will have reduced
viability as home-range territory for many interior forest species. If the removed areas had been
included in the original mapping, this western finger probably would not have met the minimum
criteria to be included in the HB. The available core/interior forest habitat associated with HB5
will be reduced with this change.
3
Bartlett Brook- changes to Habitat Block 11
Potential Impact: Low with recommended adjustments.
The area indicated for removal jaggedly extends into the HB, resulting in the loss of the
minimum width of an HB and encroaching on the steep side slope to the brook. We recommend
revising the exclusion boundary to continue the edge of the adjacent HB to maintain a consistent
width and retain the steep slopes within the block. Removing this revised area maintains the
minimum width of HB11 and does not have a significant impact on the riparian corridor. The
steep slopes to the brook serve to mitigate sound and light impacts.
4
Cheesefactory/Dorset- changes to Habitat Block 2
Potential Impact: Low to forest habitat, Moderate to regional connectivity.
A significant portion of this proposed change is likely wetland and wetland buffer and can serve
as home range, foraging, hunting, and connectivity habitat for aquatic wildlife and potentially for
bobcat. Loss of this area is a very small percentage of the overall HB, but not without impacts to
target species. The retention of a Habitat Connector helps mitigate this impact somewhat, but the
protections offered with this designation are unclear, and the narrow, disconnected rectangular
polygon doesn’t offer much in the way of functional biological support. Removal of this area
will not affect available core/interior forest habitat in the remainder of the HB.
While the presence of wetland may itself limit development potential in this finger, incursions up
to the wetland buffer will result in decreased function as both forest habitat and
connectivity/corridor opportunity between this arm of the block, other portions of the same HB
to the south, and to HB5 located to the east.
5
Underwood- changes to Habitat Block 5
Potential Impact: Low
Neither of these changes will impact available core/interior forest habitat.
Removal of the northern tongue to accommodate the planned roadway results in insignificant
impacts to the HB and its function.
The southern tongue holds a bit more functional shrubland habitat and may facilitate some
wildlife movement in and out of this large block to the smaller blocks to the west. Impacts to the
overall functioning of the block in this location are minor but there will likely be some loss of
connectivity opportunity and foraging habitat that benefit HB5.
6
Meadowland- changes to Habitat Block 7
Potential Impact: Low
Removal of this shrubby extension will slightly diminish available foraging/hunting habitat but is
less than 1/10th of a percent of the entire HB. The change here will result in a reduction in
available core/interior forest habitat within the HB, but overall, impacts to target species and
forest habitat function are likely insignificant.
7
Wheeler/Hill Farm- changes to Habitat Block 12
Potential Impact: Low with recommend adjustments.
Reducing the finger closest to I89 will have minimal impact to the overall HB and will not result
in any loss of available core/interior forest. As proposed, this change results in a finger extending
along the I89 ROW which has limited, to no, value as habitat block and marginal connectivity
function. With the loss of the southern portion of this finger, retention of the remaining strip
along the interstate is not necessary.
To the south, the area proposed for removal from HB12 extends into the available core/interior
forest and narrows the functionality of the habitat block- particularly at this already narrow
location. While removing the finger extending west will not likely pose significant loss of
function to the remaining block, the incursion into the central portion most likely would.
Retaining the portion of the HB closest to the core will help protect the function of this HB.
8
Centennial Woods/I89- changes to Habitat Block 21
Potential Impact: Moderate to High
This change represents an almost 1/3 loss in the HB size including a significant portion of
available core/interior forest habitat, some of which appears to be high-quality wetland habitat.
This area also connects to one of the few available cross-interstate connectivity opportunities in
this area keeping the Centennial woods area from becoming even more isolated from HB21
across the busy highway. The loss of this area will impact wildlife movement, and available
home ranges for both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife- negative impacts of this change are
moderate to high.
As mapped, the proposal appears to include retention of a very narrow finger of HB21 along the
I89 corridor. This area will have near-zero function without the adjacent forest and does not
merit retaining as habitat block without the adjacent forest. If the larger area is removed from
HB21, this finger may be eliminated as well.
9
Potash Brook/Lakeshore- changes to Habitat Block 9
Potential Impact: Low to forest habitat, connectivity value merits consideration.
The removal of this finger on HB9 will result in relatively minor impacts to the HB. No
core/interior forest will be impacted and the riparian/wetland areas that primarily support this
block are retained. The finger does provide some connectivity value between HB9 and HB6 to
the south. Careful consideration should be given to maintain the already limited and tenuous
connectivity HB6 has to the larger Red Rocks area to the north.
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: Agricultural Soils & Grasslands
DATE: June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Commissioners asked following the May 20th public hearing to discuss grasslands and agricultural soils in greater
detail. Staff has asked Aaron Worthley and Jeff Parsons from Arrowwood to describe grasslands in general: what
they are, the management practices that foster their existence and function etc.
Summary
One the next page is quick & simple map showing the prime agricultural soils [in red] and grasslands areas [in
purple] as identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan focused on the southeastern part of the city. And here’s a
link to a web map that allows you to zoom in more closely. https://arcg.is/14LO4r
IMPORTANT:
• Soil types are agnostic to the land uses on top of them. You will see that prime agricultural
soils are shown on developed parcels.
• Grasslands are from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, with their origins in the 2014 Open
Space Study. The boundaries are shown on this map were re-created roughly for planning
purposes only. The data itself is also very rough; on observation, the area shown as
grasslands, for example, in the Meadowland business Park includes some buildings as well
as parking and loading areas that have been in existence for several years
Staff Recommendation: staff recommends that following the discussion of the characteristics of grasslands with
Aaron and Jeff, that the Commission take a step back and discuss goals for conservation and development in the
applicable parts of the City [next item on the agenda, see separate memo].
2
Areas Identified as grasslands and prime agricultural soils in the southern portion of the City
Legend:
Red outline: Prime Agricultural Soils
Purple outline: Grasslands from 2015 Open Space Report
Black outline: SEQ Zoning District boundary
Blue: Hazards & Level 1 Natural Resources from draft LDRs;
Green: SEQ-Natural Resource Protection Zoning District
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: Land Use / Conservation Objectives & Conservation Tools
DATE: June 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Following the May 22, 2021 public hearing on the draft Environmental Protection Standards, Staff was asked to
provide recap of the tools being considered to support conservation.
In the second half of this memo is a table of these tools. These various tools each have different capabilities, and
there is a lot of room to adjust the “radio dials” on how each function as well.
There has been significant review of individual natural resources (habitat blocks & connectors, wetlands,
streams & buffers, floodplains, grasslands, and agricultural soils), available subdivision and planned unit
development tools (Conservation PUDs, Traditional Neighborhood PUDs, enhanced subdivision standards), and
some discussion about the SEQ-Natural Resources Protection zoning district.
Big Picture Questions / Commissioner homework
The tools on the next page can each be used to support the City’s conservation and development goals. That
said, the conservation tools being considered could wind up being at times redundant and at times at cross-
purposes to stated development goals.
Staff therefore recommends that the Commission take a step back and affirm its conservation and
development objectives, in particular the southeast quadrant (and any other area of active consideration
regarding the balance of conservation and land development). Staff considers such an affirmation is needed to
focus the Commission’s efforts and avoid further reevaluation of ground already covered.
In April, Staff provided a mark-up map for the Commission’s use in a memo to the City Council. The Commission
did not have the chance to consider the map, and so we’ve and provide feedback on the Commission’s 10,000-
foot objectives for these parts of the City. We’ve updated this map and included it on the next page.
Commissioner Homework
On the next pages are five maps:
• Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
• Comp Plan Primary Resources Map
• Comp Plan Secondary Resources Map
• Comp Plan Water & Sewer Infrastructure Map
• Southeast Quadrant Numbered Mark-Up Map
Staff requests that Commissioners consider each of the eight (8) areas in the Southeast Quadrant Numbered
Mark-Up Map and answer the following question(s):
2
1) For largely unbuilt land that is presently described as “buildable” in the draft regulations [ie, not in the
SEQ-NRP, and not a hazard or Level 1 Resource in the draft LDRs], which of the following future land
use patterns best describes the Commission’s goals:
a) All buildable land in this area should become one or more compact neighborhoods, with requisite
civic space and (limited) mix of uses, as envisioned by the Traditional Neighborhood Development
(TND) PUD.
b) Some of the buildable land in this area should become a compact neighborhood (via a conservation
PUD or a small TND on allowable land), and some should be designated as additional retained open
space. If so, please specify the characteristics, amount, or features of land that should be retained as
open space.
c) This land should be predominantly open space in the future, with only very limited allowances for
housing such as in the SEQ-NRP or another predominantly arrangement.
2) For existing “rural built areas” (areas with one home on 2-5 acres presently) in the SEQ, what level of
infill development is appropriate?
a) A compact subdivision or PUD (4+ dwelling units per acre) [current regulations]
b) SEQ base residential density at ~1.2 dwelling units per acre
3) Are there any other areas of the City that you would like to review the above questions for?
Summary of Conservation Tools:
Category Resource-Specific Establish Overlay
District
Establish Zoning
District / SubDistrict Conservation PUD
Summary
Provides specific
standards based on
an identified
resource
Creates a mapped district
that places additional
requirements on area
and retains underlying
district standards
Creates a mapped district
that establishes
regulations for that area.
Where applicable, sets a
minimum % of land to be
conserved as part of a
development
Function
Can place limitation
on development and
provide standards for
incursions
Can be focused on a
natural resource or a
planning standard
Applies to a geography
established through the
regulations
Applies to identified
zoning districts or where
listed resources exceed a
proportion of the property
Applicability
Tend to be focused
on resource-specific
geographic areas
Tend to be applied to
larger geographic areas
whose boundaries are
relatively well-defined
Tend to be applied to
larger geographic areas
whose boundaries are
relatively well-defined
Typically used where
priority is land
conservation
Considerations
Mapping or
definition must be
precise. Standards
must be specific to
the resource
District boundaries are
established as policy;
Regulations can give the
DRB some latitude
Regulations (uses, lot
requirements, density)
need to be established for
the district
Can be redundant if
applying in an area that
has overlay districts or
resource-based zoning
districts
Examples Wetlands, Stream
Buffers
Scenic Views Overlay,
Transit Overlay,
Interstate Overlay
Examples: SEQ-NRP,
Agricultural/Rural district
[elsewhere]
As shown in draft
Conservation PUDs
6/18/2021 ArcGIS - SEQ Conservation & Development
https://sburl.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html 1/1
Chittenden County RPC, VCGI, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, EPA | Aaron Worthley, GIS Analyst, Arrowwood Environmental, Huntington, Vt.
802-434-7276 | U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service | Esri, HERE
SEQ Conservation & Development
Analysis Maps of existing and proposed 0.4mi
C O L C H E S T E R
W I N O O S K I
SHELBURNE
E S S E X
WILLISTONB U R L I N G T O N BURLINGTONE S S E X
J U N C T I O N
Shelburne
Bay SHELBURNE RDDORSETSTS W I F T ST
W I L L I S T O N R D
SPEARSTH
I
N
E
S
B
U
R
G
R
D89
189
Map 11
Future Land Use
Comprehensive Plan
City of South Burlington, VT
Fe br uar y 1, 2016
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Future Use of Land Categories
Pl anning Underway
Very Low Intensity - Pri ncipally O pen Space
Lower Intensity - Principally Residential
Medium Intensity - Residential to Mixed -Use
Medium to Higher Intensity - Principall y Non-Residential
Medium to Higher Intensity - Mixed Use
Streams
Waterbod y
Doc ument Path: P:\Plan ning&Zon in g\P la nning\Co mprehen sivePlanM aps\Co mprehen siv ePlan_201 5\M ap11 _Fu tu re Land Use .mxd
Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South
Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not
guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related
to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions
B U R L I N G T O N BURLINGTONE S S E X
J U N C T I O N
Shelburne
Bay
C O L C H E S T E R
W I N O O S K I
SHELBURNE
E S S E X
WILLISTONMap 7
Pr imar y Conser vation Areas
Comprehensive Plan
City of South Burlington, VT
Fe br uar y 1, 2016
Doc ument Path: P:\Plan ning&Zon in g\P la nning\Co mprehen sivePlanM aps\Co mprehen siv ePlan_201 5\M ap7_PrimaryCon servationArea.mxd
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South
Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not
guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related
to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions
Data for this map was created by TJ Boyle Associates (2014).
Rip ar ian Connectivity
20 - 25% slope
25%+ slope
Rare Natural Communities
100 Year Flood
Source Protection Areas - Zone 1
Rare S pecies
Wetland s
B U R L I N G T O N BURLINGTONE S S E X
J U N C T I O N
Shelburne
Bay
C O L C H E S T E R
W I N O O S K I
SHELBURNE
E S S E X
WILLISTONMap 8
Secondary Conservation Areas
Comprehensive Plan
City of South Burlington, VT
DRAFT October 2015
Doc ument Path: P:\Plan ning&Zon in g\P la nning\Co mprehen sivePlanM aps\Co mprehen siv ePlan_201 5\M ap8_Se cond aryCon servationArea.mxd
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South
Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not
guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related
to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions
Data for this map was created by TJ Boyle Associates (2014).
15 - 20 % slope
Uncommon Species
Uncommon Natur al Communities
500 Year Flood
Habitat Block s
Primar y Ag Soil
Decid uous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Grassland and Shru blands
Farm Land
Source Protection Areas - Zone 2
B U R L I N G T O N BURLINGTONE S S E X
J U N C T I O N
Shelburne
Bay
C O L C H E S T E R
W I N O O S K I
SHELBURNE
E S S E X
WILLISTONMap 4
Sanitar y and Water Systems
Comprehensive Plan
City of South Burlington, VT
Fe br uar y 1, 2016
Doc ument Path: P:\Plan ning&Zon in g\P la nning\Co mprehen sivePlanM aps\Co mprehen siv ePlan_201 5\M ap4_Se werWater.mxd
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South
Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not
guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related
to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions
Waste Water Treatm ent Pl ant
Water Plan t
Water System
Airpo rt Parkway Sewer System
Bartlett Bay Sewer System
Burlington Sewer System
PUD/Master Plan / Subdivision Project
Planning Commission Schedule
Working Document 6/18/2021
Working Project Schedule ‐ Interim Zoning Project List
Post IZ
1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐28 1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐30 1‐15 16‐31 1‐15 16‐30
Component Element
Environmental Protection Standards (LDR‐20‐01)X
Post‐Hearing Commission Review
Finalize draft Environmental Protection Stds
Subdivision Standards (LDR‐20‐02)
Commission Review / ok Complete Draft XX
Update with subsequent PC actions
Commission review Final Draft
Add‐In: Transportation standards XX ?
Add‐In: Replace Traffic Overlay District XX ?
Master Plan Standards (LDR‐20‐03)
Commission review / Ok Complete Draft XX
Prepare development review process flow chart
Update with subsequent PC actions
Commission review Final Draft
Add‐in: City Center Form Based Code Master Plan XX ?
Site Plan Standards (LDR‐20‐11)
Commission review / ok Complete Draft X
Update with subsequent PC actions
Commission review Final Draft
Planned Unit Developments (LDR‐20‐04)
Commission Review General PUD Chapter XX
Update with subsequent PC actions
Commission review Final Draft
Finalize Map of Applicable PUD types
TND PUD Draft X
Commission finalize review / direction
Conservation PUD Draft X
NCD PUD Partial
Determine whether to advance now XX ?
NCD PUD Draft
Infill PUD Draft Partial
Stds for Areas without PUDs
Typologies
Street Types (LDR‐20‐07)XX
Graphics
Building Types (LDR‐20‐05)X
Graphics
Civic Space Types (LDR‐20‐06)X
Graphics
Underlying Zoning Districts
Decide which changes are needed (LDR‐20‐13 to 16)
Zoning of UVM Parcels XX ?
Review new designations / maps
Transferable Development Rights (LDR‐20‐12)
Commission decide whether to advance XX
Consider possible receiving areas
Revised standards for receiving areas
Other amendments required for IZ projects
Housekeeping items for PUDs X
Update Inclusionary Zoning Standards
Other amendments for review / action
Setbacks for arterials & collectors (LDR‐20‐08)X XX ?
Planned City Rights‐of‐Way (LDR‐20‐09)X XX ?
SEQ Residential Design Standards (LDR‐20‐17)X XX ?
Eliminate SEQ‐NRN Subdistrict (LDR‐20‐27)X XX ?
Minor Amendments (LDR‐19‐07 & 20‐21)X XX ?
Technical Amendments (LDR‐20‐18)X XX ?
Accessory Dwelling Units / Act 179 (LDR‐20‐22)In progress XX ?
Temporary Uses & Structures (LDR‐21‐**)XX ?
Rooftop Solar Requirements (LDR‐21‐**)XX ?
Construction Noise Standards (LDR‐21‐**)XX ?
Allow Child Care as Housing Replacement (LDR‐21‐**)XX ?
Adoption of Current Round of LDR Amendments PC
Warn
PC
Hearing
CC
Warn
Official Map
Swift St / Deerfield PC Hearing CC Receive CC Hearing
Other?TBD
LEGEND
Staff / Consultant Work
Planning Commission
XX Planning Commission decide whether to include during IZ
Section
Drafted
Task
Complete
July August September October NovemberJune
6/18/2021
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
25 MAY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 May 2021,
at 7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; G. Richards, N. Longo, L. Kingsbury,
J. Nick, R. Greco, S. Dooley, Wayne, B. Sirvis, D. Long, C. & A. Long, J. Davis
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:
Ms. Greco noted that she attended the Vermont Climate Council meeting which dovetails with
what the Commission is doing. They talked about “hazards” but with a “peril” definition. She
felt the Commission is using “hazards” in a weird way, and it can be confusing. She said using
“hazard” for a natural resource is bizarre.
Mr. Nick, owner of the Hill Farm, expressed concern that what he is seeing and hearing from
the Commission gives him the sense of a “backdoor taking.” He said South Burlington is in the
area where the State wants growth to happen. He also said there are unintended
consequences to what the Commission is doing and cited the face that Beta employees are
going to Fairfax to find homes and having to drive 30 miles to work instead of living nearby.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted that the State received $190,000,000 from the COVID relief fund for affordable
housing issues. $51,000,000 of that will got to rental assistance. Ms. Ostby also noted that the
Affordable Housing Committee had an issue with the habitat block language.
Mr. Gagnon said that item #5 on the agenda will relate to comments received by the
Commission. If any substantive changes are made, another public hearing will have to be
warned.
Mr. Conner: Was invited to give the Rotary an update on what the Commission is doing.
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
2
Walked the Auclair property last week to consider the location of trails. There
will be a planting day to plant 300 trees to help with habitat restoration.
Noted that the Commission is not required to hold a second public hearing if
they make substantial changes to the LDRs, but it would probably be good to do so.
4. Introduction and request for Zoning change from Burlington International Airport and
possible formation of a task force:
Mr. Conner said he has talked with Gene Richards and Nick Longo about possible changes to
zoning regulations. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan left an undetermined area up
against the Airport. There is also a general concern for a transition from the Chamberlin
neighborhood to Airport use. The proposed change is for the area where the dog park used to
be. If the Commission is so inclined, staff recommends the formation of a task force to begin to
address the request.
Mr. Richards said the land in question has been vacant since the removal of homes because of
noise issues. They would like to know if there can be some movement. He cited growth of
activities at the Airport (e.g. Beta), and what they would like to propose would also help with
noise issues from the runway.
Mr. Longo noted the map in the meeting packet. He said this is an opportunity to rethink the
Airport Master Plan and to consider what is needed for the whole Airport area. He cited a need
for a maintenance area, storage (for snow removal equipment), etc. He then showed a map of
the area and indicated the possible relocation of the road system and extension of Kirby Road.
Their request is to rezone the area from R-4 to Mixed Airport use and to merge the parcels
together. Mr. Longo said this area is prime for aeronautical/maintenance uses and also to block
noise from the residential area.
Mr. Riehle asked about tax revenue and whether that revenue would come to South Burlington
or Burlington. Mr. Richards said there is an agreement between South Burlington and the
Airport on a “per acre” basis. Mr. Longo said it amounts to about $280,000 value per acre of
land for the acquired “noise parcels.” Mr. Richards said they do pay taxes to South Burlington,
and South Burlington gets all the local option sales taxes from sales at the Airport. Mr. Longo
added that the tax on aviation fuels goes to deal with noise issues.
Mr. Mittag asked if the proposed activities would add noise to the neighborhood. Mr. Richards
said the activities would be on the airfield side with parking on the street side. These would be
the same activities that are there now.
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
3
Mr. Longo showed a map with a plan to connect the taxiway to a maintenance vehicle access.
This would still be buffered from the residential use. There are very few houses there now and
none on that corner.
Mr. Mittag asked about the height of the buildings. Mr. Longo said no more than 2-3 stories.
Mr. Mittag asked if there are plans for the land on the west side opposite the parking area. Mr.
Richards said there are no plans now, and it serves as a very good buffer. Mr. Mittag said it
would be a nice public open space and is beautifully done now.
Ms. Ostby asked about timing. Mr. Richards said there is a current need. He felt the plan
would benefit neighbors noisewise. Ms. Ostby asked if there could be another commercial use
there. Mr. Richards said they are requesting Airport use as that is their greatest need now.
Mr. Longo noted that each parcel of land owned by the Airport is highly regulated by the FAA
which oversees the use of grant money.
Mr. Greco stressed the need to put neighborhood people on the task force. Mr. Richards said
they understand the issues and want good planning. The need is immediate, but they want it
to be good for everyone. He added that leaving the land stagnant is good for nobody.
Members agreed to form a task force consisting of 2 Commission members, a City Council
member, a member of the Economic Development Committee and 3 members from the
Chamberlin community. Ms. Ostby and Mr. Engels volunteered to be on the task force from the
Planning Commission. Mr. Conner suggested trying to get the work of the task force done by
late September when it could be part of a package of amendments to be considered.
Mr. Mittag moved to form a task force with the agreed upon membership and to have the task
force complete its work no later than 17 September 2021. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
Members agreed to let Mr. Gagnon and staff select the community members.
5. Continued Discussion on Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Gagnon outlined the scope of work he suggested the Commission accomplish at this
meeting as follows:
a. The “low-hanging fruit,” easy items
b. The Arrowwood scope of work
c. If time, going through the list in the packet beginning with wetlands
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
4
d. Possibly the “10,000 foot” items (e.g., UVM, grasslands, etc., for the
Commission to think about until the next meeting
He asked that public comment be held until the next meeting.
Mr. Conner first addressed flood plains and the question of what constitutes a “substantial
improvement” and when an entire building must be brought up to standard. He noted that
with the 100-year floodplain, “substantial” is 50% of the building. Given the cost of renovation,
he suggested being generous and making it 100% of the assessed value.
Mr. MacDonald felt that giving the people the most value made sense. Mr. Mittag noted that a
kitchen renovation in his home cost 50% of the house value.
Mr. Riehle asked whether this information is in the land records. Mr. Conner said the 100-year
floodplain is, but he wasn’t sure about the 500-year. He said he will go back to the assessor and
propose a percentage.
Regarding steep slopes, Mr. Conner said there was a question as to whether someone could use
a field delineation. He supported adding that. Members were OK with that.
Regarding how maps are named, Mr. Conner said staff and the City Attorney recommend 3
maps: hazards, Level One Resources, and Level Two Resources. Ms. Ostby wanted to be sure
there is a statement that with habitat blocks “the line is the line.” Mr. Conner said that can be
on the map and in the regulation language.
Mr. Conner noted that in walking the Auclair property, the possibility of creating low-impact
trails came to mind as a way to allow people access to nature. He proposed coming back with
some language. Mr. Mittag felt any encroachments in wetlands should be avoided. He was OK
with a single width path on the outer bounds of the buffer. Ms. Ostby was OK with a footpath
in the buffer as in Wheeler. Mr. Gagnon said with the increased buffer, he was OK with a path
in the buffer, possibly 5-feet wide. He felt that if it is defined, people won’t go where they
shouldn’t. Mr. MacDonald was OK with a path in the buffer. Mr. Riehle was OK as long as the
buffer is 100 feet. Mr. Engels said the “less the better.”
Mr. Conner noted that the UVM comments raised some “unintended complications.” He
suggested removing reference to a Conservation PUD and refining language regarding “publicly
owned.” He also wanted to clean up the language regarding property that is more than 70%
habitat block that allows the DRB to approve an area not more than 50%. The language was
intended to prevent an entity like UVM from applying for that provision and exchanging habitat
for land that is already conserved. Members were OK with those items.
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
5
Mr. Gagnon raised the question of allowing stormwater treatment in the buffer. He had no
problem with it as it is consistent with wetland planting. He would oppose a “big tank.” Mr.
Conner suggested “things that are consistent with the function of a wetland.” Ms. Ostby noted
that Ms. Louisos supported this so she was OK with it. Mr. Mittag didn’t see the need for it.
Mr. Gagnon moved to allow well-defined stormwater treatment in the wetland buffer. Mr.
MacDonald seconded. The motion passed 4-2 with Messrs. Mittag and Engels opposing.
Mr. Gagnon then raised the question of expanding the wetland buffer to 100 feet or staying
with the state standard of 50 feet. A vote on this was 5-1 in favor of expansion. Mr. Gagnon
voted no.
Mr. Conner noted there were comments regarding Class 3 wetlands, either not to regulate
them at all or to increase the area from 300 sq. ft. to half an acre. Mr. MacDonald said 300 sq.
ft. is very small. Mr. Conner noted the State does regulate these at all . The federal standard is
half an acre. Mr. Gagnon was OK with half an acre. Ms. Ostby and Mr. Mittag favored leaving it
at 300 feet. In a straw poll, 4 members favored keeping it at 300 feet. Messrs. Gagnon and
MacDonald favored half an acre.
Regarding Arrowwood, Mr. Conner noted he had spoken with them. He noted that the motion
had been to assess which changes proposed by the Commission would harm habitat.
Arrowwood would like more latitude with the question. The way the core is measures is from
the edge. If the edge moves, the core moves. Mr. Conner asked what is the question the
Commission wants answered.
Ms. Ostby said some fingers they removed are smaller than 300 feet. She asked if Arrowwood
would be comfortable doing a birdseye view as she felt most of what they removed was smaller
than 300 feet. She felt a simple view of the map from an aerial perspective would allow for a
simple answer.
Mr. Mittag felt they should look at the entire block or they won’t get any useful information as
to whether it is being harmed. He asked if Arrowwood could speak to the Commission as to
how they would do this.
Mr. Gagnon said what he feels the Commission is asking them to do is to look at what the
Commission proposes to take out (e.g., the “fingers”) and say whether that is OK.
Mr. Engels said he would like them to come and answer questions. He said Arrowwood is the
science on which the Commission should base its work.
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
6
Mr. Macdonald said is understanding is that they were going to ask Arrowwood to look at what
was removed and say what the effect would be.
Ms. Ostby reminded members that there are things on the Official City Map that go through
habitat blocks, and the Commission made decisions based on other Comprehensive Plan goals.
Ms. Ostby then moved to add habitat block 18 back into the map. Mr. Mittag seconded.
Mr. Conner noted that the southwest corner of the main runway is a wetland, and the area
would be regulated. He showed this on the map.
Mr. Engels then moved to amend the motion to add back in all the other areas the Commission
had removed. The vote on the motion was 3-3, and the motion was deemed to have failed.
Members then voted on the original motion which passed 5-1 with Mr. Gagnon voting against.
Mr. Gagnon suggested having Arrowwood log on so members can speak with them. Mr. Mittag
suggested they specifically ask if removal of those areas will have a negative impact on the
functions for which they selected them. Mr. MacDonald said simply ask whether there are
impacts.
Mr. Mittag noted there has been a lot of talk regarding “takings.” He felt the Commission
would benefit from having the City Attorney come and provide a tutorial regarding “takings.”
Mr. Gagnon felt that was a good idea. He has questions with the fairness of carving out
people’s ability to get economic value from their properties. Mr. Conner said he would arrange
for that discussion to happen.
Mr. Mittag noted there was a second question for Arrowwood regarding grasslands. Mr.
Conner said he previewed that with them. It is a nuance subject. He suggested discussing it
early on the next agenda.
6. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Planning Commission Minutes
25 May 2021
7
Clerk