HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 06/29/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4106
www.sburl.com
Special Meeting Tuesday, June 29, 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/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc‐2021‐06‐29
Telephone (audio only): United States: (646) 749‐3122 Access Code: 837‐935‐061
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. Review timeline for completion of projects under Interim Zoning, including subdivisions & planned
unit developments, environmental protection standards, and others
b. Commission discussion of land use / conservation objectives in the Southeast Quadrant and
citywide.
5. *Minutes: (9:05 pm) May 25, June 8, 2021
6. Other Business: (9:10 pm)
a. Review upcoming meeting schedule and meeting format
b. *Act 250 Hearing Notice for Application #4C0473‐7A of BPLP, LLC, 85 Meadowland Dr. Site Visit 8:30
am July 8, meeting in parking lot. Public Hearing to follow at 9:30 am at Essex Junction District
Office, 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT.
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 29, 2021 Special 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:
• The move to 180 Market Street is underway! P&Z is among the first departments to be packed up
and moved, so our team is working remotely starting this week until the new space is set up. We
should be able to operate in a pretty similar fashion to when we were remote during the pandemic,
but please bear with us if there are any glitches along the way. There will also be a couple of days in
mid July where the servers will be down completely. Our website will be up but otherwise there will
be no access to email, files, and the Laserfiche repository. This will include Commissioners’ sburl
emails.
• This past Friday staff and representatives from South Village hosted a tour from City staff from
Bethlehem New York, looking at the design of the area and how it combined open space, the farm,
and the neighborhood into a “agrihood”.
4. *Continue review of draft Environmental Protection Standards (LDR-20-01) and other amendments to the
Land Development Regulations (7:15 pm)
The items below are the remainder of the agenda from 6/22. Note that the order of items is flipped
so that the Commission can look at the schedule first.
a. Review timeline for completion of projects under Interim Zoning, including subdivisions & planned
unit developments, environmental protection standards, and others
See attached memo
b. Commission discussion of land use / conservation objectives in the Southeast Quadrant and citywide.
See attached memo.
5. *Minutes: May 25, June 8 2021 (9:05 pm)
6. Other Business: (9:10 pm)
We’ll discuss schedule for the rest of the summer!
Also please find the enclosed Act 250 public hearing notice.
7. Adjourn (9:12 pm)
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
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
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
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
8 JUNE 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 June 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; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; D. Hall, Zoning
Administrative Officer; J. Charest, S. Sarepalli, CCRPC; S. Dooley, K. Epstein, L. Ravin, D. Seff, D. Hernberg,
D. Pumo, B. Britt, C. Frank, J. Nick, F. VonTurkovich, N. Anderson, D. Long, F. MacDonald, R. Greco, G.
Sproul, L. Kingsbury, P. Strattman, A. & A. Chalnick, S. Dopp, K. Ryder
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Nick said he remains concerned about the Hill Farm. He has been looking at the Regional Plan, and
what the Commission is suggesting is in conflict with that plan which does not list the Hill Farm as a
prime conservation area.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag suggested introducing the incoming City Manager to the Commission. Mr. Conner said he
will extend that invitation.
Ms. Ostby noted that Governor Scott had signed a bill to allow Tesla sales and service in Vermont which
is a reason for more EV facilities to be available.
Mr. MacDonald noted he was misquoted in The Other Paper as referring to a “taping” which should
have read “taking.”
4. Report on Swift/Spear Streets Study:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted the study was in collaboration with CCRPC and also a
consultant.
Ms. Hall said the study is still at “high level design thinking.” Almost all alternatives involve property
taking, and there are representatives of those properties present at this meeting. Ms. Hall also noted
that there was a community input survey as part of the study.
Mr. Sarepalli then reported on the results of that survey. He noted there was 220 responses, and that
there was generally great support for the redesign of that intersection. A summary of the survey was
included in the meeting packet.
Planning Commission
8 June 2021
2
There are two options being considered: one a regular intersection with a shift to the south or a 90-
degree intersection with a slip lane for right turns; the other a roundabout. There will be a second
survey asking respondents to rate these options. A like was provided for people to respond to the
survey.
In a video presentation, the existing layout was shown and the curve in the alignment was pointed out.
The same layout was then shown as a T alignment and as a roundabout. Presenters emphasized that
these are only concepts.
Another T alignment was shown with a new sidewalk, realigned bike path and pedestrian crossing
signals and then a concept with an exclusive right turn lane.
In a matrix showing different options, the roundabout concept scored high.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is an existing location that members can use as a reference. Ms. Hall said she
would try to find one. Mr. Gagnon suggested Routes 2/302, Route 15 in Jeffersonville
and the one in Waterbury. Mr. Sarepalli said if the Waterbury one is a comparable size, they will bring
that design to the Commission. Ms. Ostby said she can’t imagine bicyclists being safer in a roundabout.
Mr. Mittag said there are dedicated bike crossings. Mr. Charest asked members not to get hung up on
details at this point.
Mr. Mittag said it looks like the roundabout takes up less of the Church property than the straightening
of the intersection.
Ms. Ravin asked whether UVM would use the access to the driveway on Spear St. Ms. Hall said they
haven’t gotten to that level of design.
Mr. Anderson said he would like to see some northbound potential for bike traffic from the intersection
in a future design. Ms. Ostby asked that the Bike/Ped Committee be given the opportunity for input.
Mr. Mittag asked if there would be a pedestrian button for safe crossing. Mr. Sarepalli said these details
can be looked at.
Mr. Sproul, representing All Saints Church, said that straightening the intersection would wipe out the
community garden. He noted he often walks to Church, and it is hard now to do that because of the
poor visibility for drivers. He felt the roundabout option seems not only to be safer but to offer more
access to the Church for walkers.
Mr. Britt was glad to see a roundabout considered. He added that the consultant should keep in mind
that there may be a need for a rec path from the east side of Spear Street to Spear Meadows. He also
noted the need to connect the proposed parallel bike path at Spear Meadows.
Ms. Hall said there will be a link to the survey on the City website and in the City Newsletter.
Planning Commission
8 June 2021
3
5. Consider changes to the Official City Map:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted that the change would replace the extension of Swift Street
with a rec path instead of a road. A second change would remove the link between Deerfield and IDX
Drive. Mr. Conner noted that staff recommends retaining the rec path on Hinesburg Road and
connecting at the Rye property and at the Hill property. Staff also recommends a 60-foot right-of-way
for a rec path to provide for more options.
Mr. Mittag said the Commission asked for a single rec path to replace Swift Street, not a 60-foot right-of-
way. He said people think that is a “back door” to getting a road some day. He was also concerned with
crossing the wetland. He showed an overhead from Swift/Spear Streets with 2 potential rec paths.
Once follows city-owned property and connects at Landon Rd. The other goes to the intersection at
Wheeler then connects in the Oak Creek area all on city-owned land and not bisecting the Hill Farm. He
felt that stocking to boundary lines caused the least disturbance to the core forest.
Ms. Ostby noted that the turn, it is very wet and is blocked off in the spring.
Mr. Nick, owner of the Hill Farm, said he is always supportive of a bike path connection. He added that
the city will still be able to put in a road in the future, even if it is off the city map.
Mr. Macdonald agreed with Ms. Ostby that going straight across has the least amount of impact, and
there is already a path there. Mr. Mittag agreed but was concerned with a 60-foot right-of-way. Mr.
Gagnon disagreed and said all the right-of-way does is define boundaries.
Mr. Conner said this is a Planning Commission and City Council decision. A 60-foot right-of-way provides
more opportunity to meander around the natural resources and preserves options for future
generations. He noted that many rights-of-way, including the one on Hinesburg Road, were established
100 years ago. Mr. Conner added that they are showing 2 connections to be sure the segment on
Landon Road doesn’t disappear.
Mr. Gagnon noted a right-of-way doesn’t have to be for a road. If there were a water capacity issue, a
buried waterline could be installed there. The path would be 10 feet, the other 50 feet would be
undisturbed.
Mr. Mittag said CWD has a right-of-way at Wheeler Park to Hinesburg Rd. He added that the 60-foot
option takes a chunk of the Hill property.
Mr. Engels asked what a typical right-of-way is for a road and for a bike path. Mr. Gagnon said 50 -60
feet for a road and 30 for a rec path.
In a straw poll, Messrs. Engels, Mittag, MacDonald and Riehle and Ms. Ostby favored a 20-foot right-of-
way.
Planning Commission
8 June 2021
4
Members had no issue with the IDX Drive proposal.
Mr. Conner noted that the official map provides a direction. Ultimately, if there is a proposal for the Hill
Farm in a different location with a connection as shown, the DRB would find that OK. The Commission
can give guidance that a path is intended to be outside a habitat area.
Mr. Nick asked if the lines will allow for latitude since he is not sure what they are going to do with the
property. Mr. Conner said it is mainly the connection points that are considered. Beyond that, where
the path goes on the property is up to the owner. Mr. Nick noted that VTrans can weigh in at some
point and trump everyone else.
Ms. Ostby said she thought the Bike/Ped Committee would like to see a direct path to Hinesburg Road.
She favored one connection to the south, one direct to Hinesburg Road, both at a 20-foot width. Mr.
MacDonald agreed and felt the more bike connections the better. Mr. Nick noted that the DRB would
probably ask for multiple connections.
Ms. Ostby then moved to warn a public hearing to amend the Official City Map for amendment OM-21-
01 with a reduction from a 60-foot right-of-way to a 20-foot width and amendment OM-21-02 to go
around the habitat block with a 20-foot right-of-way that is consistent with city objectives for a hearing
date of 13 July 2021. Mr. Engels seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Ostby then moved to approve the Planning Commission report with amending the retained right-of-
way from 60 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Discussion with City Attorney regarding Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Conner said he had asked Ms. Lafferty to provide an overview regarding “takings.”
Ms. Lafferty said the original purpose behind “takings” when it was added to the U.S. Constitution was
to protect people from taking property for a road or a coal mine, etc. The United States Supreme Court
has recognized that government regulation of private property may, in some instances, be so onerous
that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster – and that such “regulatory takings” may
be compensable.
Ms. Lafferty said there are 2 things that automatically require compensation:
a. A physical invasion of the property
b. Regulations that deprive an owner of all economically beneficial use of the property
The factors to evaluate are mostly the economic impact, the extent to which the regulations interfere
with “distinct investment backed expectations” and the character of the governmental action. Only if
there has been a taking, does the question then become what is the property owner owed as
compensation. If the claim is that the regulations is a “taking,” the Court will not rule until the City (or
Planning Commission
8 June 2021
5
other public body) has made a final decision regarding the property. Ms. Lafferty said if there is some
use of the property, then you probably don’t have a taking.
Mr. Riehle asked if someone has a forest on his/her property and the city says “no development,” is that
a “taking.” Ms. Lafferty said if there is a part of the property that is not a habitat block, that is crucial. If
you can still put a single-family home there, that would be crucial. Potential, it could be a “taking” if the
DRB says that the owner can’t do anything with the property. Other options include a variance (with a
set of standards to meet) or selling the development right to the property.
Mr. Macdonald asked if a person has a 10-acre field and the only allowable use is farming, is that a
taking? Ms. Lafferty said she wasn’t sure farming was the only potential use. She added that unless you
have a specific investment plan, with investors lined up, etc., you don’t have a taking.
Mr. Mittag asked whether environmental protection is a “public good.” Ms. Lafferty said the City has
the right to decide that certain resources should be protected and certain areas of the city should be
developed.
Mr. Engels asked if it is correct to say it is only a taking if you lose all economic value. Ms. Lafferty said
that is not true, but the magnitude of the burden is significant.
Ms. Ostby said she felt it was important for the city to process environmental and PUD regulations at the
same time.
Mr. Riehle asked if it would be a better position if the regulations allowed a percentage of grasslands to
be developed. Ms. Lafferty said allowing a minimal use of a property is always an outlet and could make
it difficult to claim a “taking.” Ms. Lafferty noted the flexibility in regulations she has seen to allow
development on 30% of a property.
Mr. Conner said the more obvious it is that there is economic value the better the case that it is not a
taking.
Mr. Chalnick said case law allows for “reasonable” use of a property so the question is how far to go.
Ms. Dooley asked if there is case law regarding “downzoning.” Ms. Lafferty said she is sure there is. The
question would be whether you have a specific investment involved. Ms. Dooley suggested research be
done on this.
Mr. VonTurkovich asked about the issue of regulating a 20-acre treed parcel and not a 19-acre treed
parcel. He asked whether the city has original authority to regulate these types of parcels (forest,
grasslands, etc.). Ms. Lafferty said specific resources are not spelled out in State Law, but she didn’t see
it as a problem for a municipality to regulate. It would depend on the resource and the reason for the
regulations.
Mr. VonTurkovich suggested spending more time on this issue.
Planning Commission
8 June 2021
6
Mr. Gagnon said that due to the late hour, he would wrap this up now and ask for more information on
“downzoning” and the authority to regulate. He suggested members email Mr. Conner with any further
questions.
7. Appointment of neighborhood representatives to the Airport Committee:
Mr. Conner said he reached out to all those who served on the Chamberlin Committee and Chamberlin
school people and also posted information on Front Porch Forum. Three volunteers have stepped
forward: Carmine Sargent, Kim Robison, Isaac Bissell.
Members gave a “thumbs up” to their appointment.
8. Meeting Minutes of 11 May and 20 May 2021:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 11 and 20 May as presented. Mr. Macdonald seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
9. Other Business:
Mr. Conner noted that among the new Burlington amendments are changes to accessory dwelling units
and others to comply with the newly passed state law; South Burlington is working on similar
amendments.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:55 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
ACT 250 NOTICE
APPLICATION 4C0473-7A AND HEARING
10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 - 6111
On June 4, 2021, BPLP, LLC, 85 Meadowland Drive, South Burlington, VT 05403 filed application 4C0473-
7A for partial findings under Criterion 9(B) (primary agricultural soils) to release an existing on-site
mitigation area for primary agricultural soils. The project is located on 85 Meadowlands Drive, in South
Burlington, VT. The Commission intends to narrow the scope of the hearing to Criteria 9B (primary
agricultural soils) unless that scope is expanded by the Commission at the hearing.
A public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 9:30AM at the Essex Junction District Office
of the Agency of Natural Resources, 111 West Street, Essex Junction, Vermont. A site visit will be held
before the hearing at 8:30AM at the site, meeting in the parking lot of 85 Meadowland Drive in South
Burlington, Vermont.
The following persons or organizations may participate in the hearing for this project:
1. Statutory parties: The municipality, the municipal planning commission, the regional planning
commission, and any adjacent municipality, municipal planning commission or regional planning
commission if the project lands are located on a town boundary and affected state agencies are
entitled to party status.
2. Adjoining property owners and others: May participate as parties to the extent that they have a
particularized interest that may be affected by the proposed project under the Act 250 criteria.
3. Non-party participants: The District Commission, on its own motion or by petition, may allow
others to participate in the hearing without being accorded party status.
If you plan on participating in the hearing on behalf of a group or organization, please bring: 1) a written
description of the organization, its purposes, and the nature of its membership (T.10, § 6085(c)(2)(B)); 2)
documentation that prior to the date of the hearing, you were duly authorized to speak for the organization;
and 3) that the organization has articulated a position with respect to the Project’s impacts under specific
Act 250 Criteria.
For additional information regarding participation in this hearing please contact the Coordinator at the
phone number or email address below before the date of the first hearing. If you have a disability for which
you need accommodation in order to participate in this public hearing, please notify us as soon as possible,
in order to allow us as much time as possible to accommodate your needs.
If you feel that any of the District Commission members listed on the attached Certificate of Service under
“For Your Information” may have a conflict of interest, or if there is any other reason a member should be
disqualified from sitting on this case, please contact the District Coordinator as soon as possible, no later
than prior to the date of the first hearing or prehearing conference.
The application can be viewed at the NRB web site (http://nrb.vermont.gov). From the menu at the bottom
of the page, select "Act 250 Database." Then, enter the Project Number “4C0473-7A.”
Dated this 18th day of June 2021.
BY: /s/Rachel Lomonaco, District Coordinator
Rachel Lomonaco, District Coordinator
111 West Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
802-879-5658
Rachel.Lomonaco@vermont.gov
Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C0251-4C0500\4C0473\4C0473-7A\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C0473-7A major notice.docx
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on this 18th day of June 2021, a copy of the foregoing ACT 250 APPLICATION & HEARING NOTICE #4C0473-7A, was sent by
U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals without email addresses and by email to the individuals with email addresses listed.
Note: any recipient may change its preferred method of receiving notices and other documents by contacting the District Office staff at the
mailing address or email below. If you have elected to receive notices and other documents by email, it is your responsibility to notify our
office of any email address changes. All email replies should be sent to NRB.Act250Essex@vermont.gov
BPLP, LLC
85 Meadowland Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
peter.pollak0704@gmail.com
Robert Rushford, Esq.
Jeffrey Polubinski, Esq.
Gravel and Shea
PO Box 369
Burlington, VT 05402
rrushford@gravelshea.com
jpolubinski@gravelshea.com
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
Chair, City Council/Chair, City Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
dkinville@sburl.com
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
c/o Charlie Baker, Exec. Dir.
Regina Mahony, Planning Program Manager
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
permitting@ccrpcvt.org
Elizabeth Lord, Land Use Attorney
Agency of Natural Resources
1 National Life Drive, Davis 2
Montpelier, VT 05602-3901
anr.act250@vermont.gov
Barry Murphy/Vt. Dept. of Public Service
112 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
psd.vtdps@vermont.gov
Craig Keller/Jeff Ramsey/Christopher Clow
VTrans Policy, Planning & Research Bureau
Barre City Place
219 N. Main Street
Barre, VT 05641
aot.act250@vermont.gov
Vt. Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets
116 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
AGR.Act250@vermont.gov
Division for Historic Preservation
National Life Building, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620
accd.projectreview@vermont.gov
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
District #4 Environmental Commission
Thomas Little, Chair
Parker Riehle/Kate Purcell
111 West Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Linda Bullard/Department of Libraries
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-0601
linda.bullard@vermont.gov
NRCS, District Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
68 Catamount Park, Ste. B
Middlebury, VT 05753
marybeth.whitten@vt.usda.gov
Winooski NRCD Office
617 Comstock Road, Suite 1
Berlin, VT 05602
info@winooskinrcd.org
Ethan Tapper, County Forester/FPR
John Gobeille & Toni Mikula/ANR-Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
111 West Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
ethan.tapper@vermont.gov; john.gobeille@vermont.gov
toni.mikula@vermont.gov
Seven Days/Classified Ad Section
255 South Champlain Street, PO Box 1164
Burlington, VT 05402
classifieds@sevendaysvt.com
Green Mountain Power Corporation
c/o Kim Jones
163 Acorn Lane
Colchester, VT 05446
kim.jones@greenmountainpower.com
Vermont Gas Systems
PO Box 467
Burlington, VT 05402
efficiency@vermontgas.com
Efficiency Vermont
128 Lakeside Ave., Suite 401
Burlington, VT 05401
pics@veic.org
Michael Barsotti, Water Quality Director
Champlain Water District
403 Queen City Park Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
mike.barsotti@champlainwater.org
ADJOINING LANDOWNERS
Available via:
https://anrweb.vt.gov/PubDocs/ANR/Planning/4C0473-
7A/Application%20Documents/001%20Act%20250%20Application.PD
F
Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 18th day of June, 2021.
/s/Christine Commo
Natural Resources Board Technician
879-5614
christine.commo@vermont.gov
Y:\NRB\Essex\DISTRICTS\DIST4\PROJECTS\4C0251-4C0500\4C0473\4C0473-
7A\Published Documents\District Commission Documents\4C0473-7A cos.docx