HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 05/15/2013 ' '
•
0
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
City Hall Conference Room
575 Dorset Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Executive Session 6:00 P.M. Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Consider entering Executive Session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation where
premature general public knowledge would clearly place the municipality at a substantial disadvantage.
Please make sure to say in open session who you are inviting into the Executive
Session (other than Councilors). Please provide to the CM office via email
(jladdsburl.com & cingalls(c�sburl.com ) who made the motion to going into Executive
Session and who seconded it. And who (if any) were invited into the Executive Session.
1. ***Estimated costs for Maille appeal
2. Staff reorganization and transition
Respec -+', Submitted.
Kr in Dorn, Interim City Manager
***Attachments Included
South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines
City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible;
but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings,we kindly request your cooperation
and compliance with the following guidelines.
1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members,staff,and the public).
2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address.
3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public,staff,or presenters.
4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time
for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda.
5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time.
6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard.
7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking.
8. Please do not repeat the points made by others,except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views.
9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations
occurring.
From: Amanda Lafferty [mailto:ALafferty(afirmspf.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:49 AM
To: Paul Conner
Subject: RE: Estimate for Maille Supreme Court
Paul,
The City's participation in Mr. Maille's appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court will include filing
a docketing statement, a brief and possibly a printed case, reviewing Mr. Maille's arguments in his brief
and oral argument before either a panel of three justices or the full court. If the appeal is heard by the
full panel, each "side" will have 15 minutes of oral argument and the City of South Burlington and the
City of Burlington likely will have to split that time. If the appeal is heard by a panel of three justices,
each "side" will have 5 minutes of oral argument—5 minutes is not really worth splitting, so it's possible
that South Burlington could consider leaving the oral argument to Burlington. I don't want to give up
oral argument until we see Mr. Maille's brief, but that's an option. The City's opposition to Mr. Maille's
request that the appeal be heard by the full court will not be lengthy—it's basically up to the Court,
which does not give any reason for its decision. We anticipate that the City's costs for the legal services
of this appeal could range from approximately$1,600 to 2,350. Please call with any questions. Thank
you.
Amanda
Amanda S.E.Lafferty,Esq.
Stitzel,Page&Fletcher, P.C.
171 Battery Street
P.O.Box 1507
Burlington,VT 05402
Telephone:802-660-2555
Fax: 802-660-2552
Website: www.firmspf.com
This Electronic Mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which are CONFIDENTIAL
and legally PRIVILEGED.This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission was addressed,
as indicated above.If you are not the intended recipient,any disclosure,copying,distribution,or action taken in reliance on the contents of
the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited.If you have received this transmission in error,please reply to the sender at 802-660-
2555 or the above e-mail address and delete this message and all attachments from your storage files.Thank you.
so t t .... y tort
VER M O N'
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
City Hall Conference Room
575 Dorset Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Executive Session 6:00 P.M. Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation.
Special Meeting 6:30 P.M. Wednesday, May 15, 2013
1. Consent Agenda: (6:30-6:31 pm)
A. Sign Disbursements
B. Maille Appeal
2. Discuss and possible approval of authorizing the Interim City manager to enter into contract
negotiations with consultant for the Open Space Study.(6:31-pm-6:46pm)
3. ***Discuss future role of the IZ Committees after reports have been submitted to City
Council. (6:46-7:46pm)
4. Discuss the Roles of City Council Liaisons to IZ Committees.(7:46-8:00pm)
5. Adjourn
Resp-=.417 S mitted:
K- -i orn, Interim i�C tY Manager
g
***Attachments Included
South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines
City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible;
but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings,we kindly request your cooperation
and compliance with the following guidelines.
1 Please be respectful of each other(Council members,staff, and the public).
2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address.
3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public,staff,or presenters.
4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time
for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda.
5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time.
6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard.
7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking.
8. Please do not repeat the points made by others,except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views.
9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations
occurring.
05/13/2013 City of South Burlington Accounts Payable Page 1 of 1
09:15 am Check Warrant Report # cingalls
Unpaid Invoices For Check Acct 1(GENERAL FUND) From / / To 05/15/2013
Purchase Discount Amount Check Check
Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Amount Paid Number Date
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21293269 CITY HALL PHONES 1355.63 0.00 . /--/--
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21315662 CITY HALL PHONES 1379.99 0.00 /__/__
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21337917 CITY HALL PHONES 1380.15 0.00 . /__/__
GREEPW GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATI 059950APR13 BARTLETT BAY 10089.49 0.00 . /--/--
Report Total 14,205.26 0.00 0.00
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
' To the Treasurer of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, We Hereby certify
that there is due to the several persons whose names are
listed hereon the sum against each name and that there
are good and sufficient vouchers supporting the payments
aggregating $ ****14,205.26
Let this be your order for the payments of these amounts. Rosanne Greco
Chris Shaw
•
Pat Nowak
Helen Riehle
Pam Mackenzie
STITZEL, PAGE& FLETCHER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
171 BATTERY STREET
P.O.BOX 1507
BURLINGTON,VERMONT 05402-1507
TELEPHONE(802 660.2555)
STEVEN F.STITZEL FAX(802 660.2552)
MITI R.PAGE WWW.FIRMSPP.COM
ROBERT E.FLETCHER ALAFFERTY FIRMSPF.COM
JOSEPH S.McLEAN
AMANDA S.E.LAFFERTY
JOHN H.KLESCH
DINA L.ATWOOD
DAVID W.RUGH'
'(ALSO ADMITTED IN MD)
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
April 6, 2012
City Council
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Studies required for the Interim Bylaw
Dear City Council Members:
We are writing in connection with the above-referenced matter in
response to your request. Specifically, you have asked what is required in
connection with the studies that State Law requires for the Interim Bylaw. The
City Council's authority to adopt the Interim Bylaw is set forth in 24 V.S.A.
section 4415(a), which requires, as a prerequisite to the adoption of an Interim
Bylaw, that the City
(1) "is conducting or has taken action to conduct studies, or"
(2) "has held or is holding a hearing for the purpose of considering a
bylaw, a comprehensive plan, or an amendment, extension, or
addition to a bylaw or plan."
In connection with the Interim Bylaw, while the City Planning Commission was
and is in the process of a complete update of the City's Comprehensive Plan
and of a study/review of a Form Based Code-type regulation, the City had not
undertaken the action provided in number (2) above.
Rather, as set forth in the Purpose of the Interim Bylaw, the City already
was conducting several studies or reviews of the possibility of a Form Based
Code for the City Center and adjacent Williston road area, of the travel
City Council
City of South Burlington
April 6, 2012
Page 2
corridors of Williston Road and Shelburne Road and of a more affordable type
of housing known as "cottage housing", in addition to the complete update of
the Comprehensive Plan. As part of said update, the Council anticipated as
new or revised goals the support of sustainable agriculture, conservation of
open space and promotion of housing for people of all incomes and stages of
life.
. . . the purpose of the Interim Bylaw is to provide the City time to
complete the above-listed work and necessary studies, review the results
of the studies, the Form Based Code and the updated Comprehensive
Plan; to determine whether additional studies are needed to plan for the
development of the City in a manner that is consistent with the City's
goals and objectives; and to prepare and adopt amendments to the Land
Development Regulations that implement the City's goals and objectives.
See the Interim Bylaw, Section I(emphasis added). Prior to the adoption of the
Interim Bylaw, the Council also approved the creation of two subcommittees to
study sustainable agriculture and affordable housing and to prepare reports.
There is a presumption that zoning ordinances are valid. See Town of
Charlotte v. Richter, 128 Vt. 270, 271 (1970). The key constitutional concern is
that the zoning authority be exercised in a manner consistent with the proper
limits of the police power. Galanes v. Town of Brattleboro, 136 Vt. 235, 240
(1978). Courts will not interfere with zoning unless it clearly and beyond
dispute is unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory. McLaughry v.
Town of Norwich, 140 Vt. 49, 54 (1981). Under the "rational basis" test, if there
is a rational basis for distinctions in an ordinance, serving a legitimate policy
objective, there is no equal protection violation. See Smith v. Town of St.
Johnsbury, 150 Vt. 351, 357 (1988).
The main purpose of the Interim Bylaw is to allow the City time to
conduct studies that will provide a basis for changes to both the
Comprehensive Plan and the current Land Development Regulations
(hereinafter "LDR"). If put in the position of defending said changes to the LDR
in a court of competent jurisdiction, the City will be called upon to
demonstrate that the LDR serve a legitimate policy objective and are not
unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory. The main way to
demonstrate a legitimate policy objective is to retain a qualified individual with
City Council
City of South Burlington
April 6, 2012
Page 3
relevant expertise to conduct a study and to reduce his or her findings,
opinions and recommendations to writing in the form of a report. The Planning
Commission then relies on said report to prepare, in the first instance,
amendments to the LDR.
For these reasons, the type of study required by 24 V.S.A section 4415(a)
cannot be just a public opinion poll or a collection and survey of information on
a topic by a group of individuals without expertise. However, such polls and
surveys can certainly be a part of the process of working with a qualified
individual who performs a study and prepares a report'. For the reasons set
forth above, it is our opinion that a study envisioned by the Legislature in
adopting 24 V.S.A. section 4415(a) requires someone with relevant
qualifications, training and expertise to undertake three steps:
(1) Conduct a general survey of the topic or issue, including a review of
relevant sources and other information prepared by professionals;
(2) Identify and compile facts and information specific to the City of
South Burlington;
(3) Relate the more general information to the specific circumstances of
the City of South Burlington, including an identification of the goals and
objectives of the study, an analysis of different approaches in order to achieve
the goals and objectives, and the expert's recommendations.
We hope this letter is responsive to your concerns. Please call with further
questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
OM/4004a k
Amanda S. E. Lafferty
ASEL/ son12-007 IB studies.opn
A good example of such a collection of public opinion is the Community
Design Workshop held in October 2011 as part of an expert's preparation of a
Form Based Code.
Interim Zoning Timeline in regards to creation of the IZ Committees,
Chairs, and discussion of the ED studies
May 10, 2013
Prepared by: Kimberly Murray and Paul Conner
8/13/2010 Initial presentation by City Attorney regarding function, operations,and requirements of
Interim Zoning Bylaws[copy of City Attorney letter enclosed]
5/16/2011 Council initial discussion of Interim Zoning Bylaw, including review of letter issued by City
Attorney 8/13/2010
6/6/2011 Discussion and question& answer with City Attorney regarding requirements of Interim
Zoning Bylaw.
2/2/2012 Creation of AH Committee and SusAg Committee to be chaired by Jim Knapp and Rosanne
Greco respectively(page 5). No mention in the motion specific to serving as IZ Committees but as
committees to discuss these issues. IZ was an agenda topic before and after this discussion.
2/21/12 Adoption of Interim Zoning Bylaw and inclusion of ED studies piece. (bottom of p.6)
3/19/2012 Discussion of RFP for economic study,tasks and roles for the Committees, P&Z Dept.and
Council (bottom of page 5)
3/26/12 Further discussion around mostly staffing needs to support the IZ work, input needed from
Council as to what these committees would be, and where the funding would come from to support
staff and studies anticipated.
4/6/2012 City Attorney Letter to City Council [Privileged and confidential-separate PDF file, not
attached here]
5/15/2012 Council formally appointed Sandy Dooley to chair AH Committee rather than Jim Knapp and
Paul Engels to chair FBC committee. Staff recommended Council charge the Committees with the tasks
needed done and approve the membership.
6/18/2012 Council approved membership, mission and goals of the three IZ Committees-AH,SusAg,and
FBC (bottom of page 9)
9/12/2012—Joint meeting with PC, mentioned Helen Riehie Council liaison with Open Space Committee
(Haven't yet located official minutes)
11/19/12 Council discussed possible repeal of the Economic Studies in the Interim Bylaw, no formal vote
but general conversation was to ignore them at this time and not formally repeal the section. (page 6)
12/17/12 Council reviewed Open Space Committee mission, goals and membership and approved the
membership(page 7)
1/22/13 Joint meeting with Planning Commission,Council approved mission and goals of Open Space
Committee (page 8). Council also approved to deliberate IZ applications in public from now on.
The four approved charges of the four Interim Zoning Committees are attached.
STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
171 BA!IERY STREET
P.O.BOX 1507
BURLINGTON,VERMONT 05402-1507
(802)660-2555(VOICE/TDD)
STEVEN F.STITZEL FAX(802)660-2552 or 660-9119 OF COUNSEL
PATTI R.PAGE W W W.FIRMSPF.COM DINA L.ATWOOD
ROBERT E.FLETCHER E-MAIL(FIRM2SS5@FLRMSPP,COM)
JOSEPH S.McLEAN WRITER'S E-MAIL(SSTITZEL@FIRMSPF.COM)
AMANDA S.E.LAFFERTY WRITER'S FAX(S02)660-2552
JOHN H.KLESCH
WILLIAM E.FLENDER
August 13, 2010
Mark Boucher, Chair
South Burlington City Counsel
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Southeast Quadrant TDRs
Dear Mark:
At its meeting on May 3, 2010, the City Council was asked to
impose a "moratorium" on the use of transfers of development
density (generally referred to herein as "TDRs") in the Southeast
Quadrant Zoning District established by the City' s Land
Development Regulations ("Permanent Regulations") . Based on this
request, the Council has asked several questions regarding its
authority to impose such a moratorium.
Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4423 (a) , the City is authorized to
include provisions allowing transfers of "development rights"
("TDRs") in bylaws adopted pursuant to 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117.
The Permanent Regulations are such a bylaw. In 2006, the
Permanent Regulations were amended to include the provisions set
forth on Exhibit A that allow the use of TDRs.
Any bylaw adopted under 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, and any
provision contained in a bylaw, remains effective until it is
amended or repealed in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §§4441 & 4442,
or declared invalid by a court having jurisdiction. The process
for amending or repealing a bylaw is the same as the process for
adopting a bylaw (planning commission public hearings followed by
city council public hearings and adoption) . There is no
authority under Chapter 117 for the City Council to amend or
repeal a bylaw, or a provision of a bylaw, in any other manner.
Consequently, the provisions of the Perillanent Regulations set
forth in Exhibit A will remain in effect until they are lawfully
amended or repealed.
Mark Boucher, Chair
August 13, 2010
Page 2
The City Council does have authority to adopt "interim
bylaws" under 24 V.S.A. §4415 (a) when the City
(1) "is conducting or has taken action to conduct studies,
or"
(2) "has held or is holding a hearing for the purpose of
considering a bylaw, a comprehensive plan, or an
amendment, extension, or addition to a bylaw or plan."
Interim bylaws may restrict all or certain types of land
development activity in a municipality that a legislative body
believes may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare
or "orderly physical and economic growth." The generally
recognized purpose of such bylaws is to prevent the potentially
adverse development from occurring while the municipality studies
the impacts of such development and, if appropriate, develops
permanent bylaws, such as the Permanent Regulations, to address
such impacts.
Section 4415 (a) provides that interim bylaws "shall be
adopted . . . by the legislative body of the municipality after
public hearing upon public notice as an emergency measure." They
may become effective immediately upon adoption. These
abbreviated procedures eliminate planning commission review and
public hearings and enable adoption to occur within a couple
weeks instead of several months. This is intended to minimize
the number of applications (or prevent them altogether) submitted
for the primary purpose of avoiding possible new regulations.
It is our understanding that the City is not currently
conducting and has not taken any action to conduct a study of the
City' s TDR program.' However, it is permissible for the City
Council to initiate a study of the TDR program and,
simultaneously, adopt interim regulations that address TDR' s. As
a prerequisite to such action, however, the Council should
identify some aspect of the TDR program that it believes is
adverse to the City's public health, safety and welfare or
"orderly physical and economic growth." It should also conclude
It is also our understanding that the Planning Commission
is working on the five year re-adoption of the City' s
Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning Commission were to propose
amendments to the Plan that address TDR's, the Council could
adopt interim regulations consistent with the TDR proposals in
the plan amendments once the Planning Commission begins its
public hearings.
Mark Boucher, Chair
August 13, 2010
Page 3
that the potential adverse consequences for the City warrant
"emergency" action rather than utilization of the customary
process for amending bylaws.
Upon making these determinations, the Council' s stated
concerns provide the necessary guidance for drafting appropriate
interim regulations . Then, in connection with adoption of the
regulations, and assuming the Council proceeds as it has in the
past, it can ask the City's Planning Department and/or the
Planning Commission to develop a proposal to study its concerns
and provide recommendations.
If the Council adopts interim regulations that in some way
limit the use of TDRs, any application submitted after their
effective date2 that involves TDR use will have to comply with
the Permanent Regulations and the interim regulations.' This
will preclude development prohibited by the interim regulations
while they remain in effect (absent Council approval pursuant to
24 V.S.A. §4415 (d) ) . Also, if the TDR provisions in the
Permanent Regulations are subsequently amended, any application
submitted during the pendency of the interim regulations will not
have "vested rights" under the prior TDR provisions.
There is legal precedent that a land use regulation can so
limit landowners' ability to use their property that the
regulation results in an unconstitutional "taking" of private
property. However, it is not clear that a court would conclude
that an "interim" regulation, despite the restrictive effect of
the limitations imposed, would result in a taking. As noted
above, the recognized purpose of interim regulations is to
restrict development to allow time for needed studies and/or
adoption of permanent regulations in an "emergency" situation.
Additionally, interim regulations have limited duration of two
years with the possibility of one extension for one year.
2 There is sound legal basis to argue that the interim
regulations would be applicable to any application submitted
after the date of the public notice of the hearing at which the
regulations are reviewed prior to adoption.
3 Applications not involving TDR use are reviewed under
the Permanent Regulations, alone.
Mark Boucher, Chair
August 13, 2010
Page 4
look forward to discussing these comments with the Council
on the evening of August 17t.
Sincerely,
41:11X
Steven F. St 'zel
SFS/
SON 10-053.COR
EXHIBIT A
9 .13 SEQ Review and Approval Process
C. Transfer of Development rights and Non-Contiguous PUDs
(1) The Development Review Board may approve a PUD application
that involves non-contiguous parcels, regardless of
sub-district, if the following conditions are met:
(a) The applicant shall demonstrate that development rights
have been secured and encumbered from lands lying within the
SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT sub-districts, or adjacent lands on the
same tax: parcel lying within any subdistrict, or from lands
acquired by the City or State for the purpose of providing
public parks in any sub-district, and EITHER that the
sending parcel is sufficiently encumbered against further
land subdivision and development through a purchase or other
agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure
conformance with these Regulations; OR
(b) All encumbered parcels not subject to a permanent
conservation easement or restriction of similar binding
effect shall be reviewed as components of the PUD and shall
be subject to the provisions of this article.
(2) If the conditions of 9 . 13 (C) (1) above are met, the
Development Review Board may then approve the assignment
(transfer) of all or a portion of the residential
development density calculated for a non-contiguous
encumbered parcel to another parcel to satisfy the
provisions of Section 9 . 05 above.
9 .05 Residential Density
A. Maximum Assigned Density: The maximum assigned density of a
parcel or portion of a parcel in any SEQ sub-distric shall be one
point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross acre.
(1) SEQ- VC: Lots in the SEQ- VC district that were in
existence as of the effective date of this Article and that
axe two acres or less in size shall be allowed an assigned
residential density of 4 d.u. to the acre as of right . This
density may be increased to no more than S d. u. to the acre
through the transfer of development rights . Development in
SEQ-VC shall be according to Section 9 . 10 .
B. Average Development Density: The number of dwelling units that
may be located on, or the number of single family house lots that
may be created, within a contiguous development parcel subject to
a single PUD or Master Plan approval shall not exceed all average
density and a maximum number of units per structure of the
following:
(1) In the SEQ-NRP sub-district, the provisions of Section
9. 12 shall apply.
(2) SEQ-NRT: Four (4) dwelling units (du) to the acre
(3) SEQ-NR: Four (4) dwelling units (du) to the acre and
four (4) dwelling units per structure
(4) SEQ-VR: Eight (8) dwelling units (du) to the acre and
six (6) dwelling units per structure
(5) SEQ-VC: Eight (8) dwelling units (du) to the acre and
six (6) dwelling units per structure.
Such average densities may be achieved only under a PUD Planned
Unit Development application. See Section 9. 12 [sic] , SEQ Review
and Approval Process.
The DRE may approve an increase in the number of dwelling units
per structure to a maximum of twelve (12) dwelling units per
structure in the SEQ-NR, SEQVR and SEQ-VC sub-districts only.
Such approval must be granted in conjunction with approval of a
Master Plan, and shall require review and a recommendation of
approval by the Design Review Committee of the architectural
design, massing, materials, landscaping, and other site plan
features for consistency with the Regulating Plan for the
specific sub-district and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for
the SEQ.
8. Consider Approval of Resolution to Allow City Manager to Negotiate Lease of
Office Space at the City Public Works Building:
Mr. Rabidoux explained that the room was going to have a specific use but was never finished
for that use. It is 600-700 sq. ft. The State is doing a project this summer and has asked to lease
the space. The anticipation is that it will be used by the Army Corps of Engineers in the future.
Mr. Rabidoux said there is no inconvenience to the city as the space has a separate entrance
capability and can be totally isolated.
Mr. Knapp suggested an outside limit on this arrangement to be sure it is working.
Mr. Knapp then moved to approve the Resolution to allow the City Manager to negotiate a lease
of office space at the Public Works Building as written and to add to the resolution that it will
expire in 5 years at which time it will need to be reviewed. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
9.Hear Presentation on Champlain Solid Waste District FY2012 Budget. Consider
Approval of Budget:
Mr. Stabler noted that the they have gone to a less expensive health plan.
The budget includes a 1.75%cost of living increase plus merit increases as earned.
CSWD revenues are derived from 3 sources: tipping fees, recycling,and drop-off center fees.
There are no assessments to the city.
Mr. Stabler said this is a very conservative budget with no hidden charges. He added that their
record shows they meet their budgets.
The new facility is under construction in Williston. It will open on 1 July 2011 and will reduce
the cost of operations.
Mr. Knapp moved to approve the FY 12 Champlain Solid Waste District FY2012 budget as
presented. Ms.Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Continue Discussion on Interim Zoning,and if options are determined,decide
when/how Interim By-Law Resolution language will be finalized and approved and
possibly set date for public hearing concerning Interim Zoning Resolution:
A poll of the audience showed 21 in favor of interim zoning(plus 4 e-mails in support)and one
opposed. 4 members of the audience had no bias and were there to learn.
CITY COUNCIL
6 JUNE 2011
PAGE 5
Council members were then invited to make opening comments:
Ms. Greco said she heard from people when she was campaigning that South Burlington is
heading in the wrong direction. People value natural beauty and don't expect noise and air
pollution. She felt it is time to survey the public and to study the impacts of development. After
that,the city can craft a vision and rewrite the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms.Dooley said she feels the population growth constitutes an emergency. She also expressed
concern with the purchase of"affordable"family homes by the Airport. PUD provisions give
the DRB authority to grant waivers and include policies which accelerate residential growth.
She was also concerned that congregate housing units count as zero.
Given the options provided,Ms. Dooley said she preferred open space option#3. With regard to
the west of Chamberlin area, she favored possibly conversion of commercial to residential use at
R-4 with no more than 4 units per structure. She also supported PUD options 9 & 10 but not in
all residential districts. She would nullify the definition of congregate housing.
Ms. Emery said that in addition to population growth,she was concerned with the work load on
the Planning Commission and DRB. She didn't feel changes could happen quickly and felt the
status quo should be protected while issues are worked on. She agreed that Chamberlin School
needs families that live near the school in order to remain viable. She felt that PUD's should be
studied to see how to provide transitions to neighborhoods. She also wanted to look at open
space strategies outside of the Southeast Quadrant(SEQ).
Mr. Knapp said he wasn't yet convinced of an emergency situation. He was also not sure there
are resources available to study the issues or even that this is the best use of what resources are
available. Regarding the area west of Chamberlin,he expressed confusion since noise from the
Airport would still be an issue there. He felt PUD's are important for the construction and
preservation of affordable housing and that the city should identify sources of housing/funding
for affordable housing.
Mr. Engels said when he was elected he knew nothing about zoning. He said that in driving
around the city he was surprised by the density in the SEQ and the large homes on small lots.
He felt the city has to look at PUD's. He felt TDR's were well-intentioned but have resulted in
enormous density. He also said he'd like to see an Open Space plan.
Mr. Conner then reviewed the history of the city's Open Space Strategy.
Regarding PUD's, Mr. Conner noted that in some circumstances PUD's are an option. He cited
the City Center,I-O,Airport and SEQ districts in which all subdivision of land must be PUD's.
There are allowances for increased density. Certain uses in certain other districts must be part or
CITY COUNCIL
6JUNE2011
PAGE 6
a PUD as well. There is also a requirement that development of any land area of more than 10
acres to be a PUD.
Regarding non-conformities, Mr. Conner noted that if buildings were built to the standards at the
time,they are allowed to continue as is indefinitely. Under state law,you can restrict how those
uses can be expanded,rebuilt,etc.
Regarding the area west of Chamberlin, Mr. Conner felt there are innumerable options.
Mr. Stitzel then provided information on interim zoning from a legal perspective. He noted that
what currently exists in South Burlington is the product of over 60 years of regulations and
studies.
He explained that courts use a couple of standards: A regulation has to be reasonably related to a
purpose,and a landowner has to be allowed a reasonable use of his/her land. In addition,the
more a regulation addresses an aesthetic issue,the less likely it is to get court support.
The court begins with what is currently existing on a piece of land. They also look at
"investment backed expectation." People should be able to do something with the property they
buy. The court would question whether a proposed restriction too greatly reduces the investment
expectation of the property owner.
Mr. Stitzel said the Council needs to focus on: who is the expert witness who will give
compelling testimony as to the reasons for reducing density. He noted that while Vermont has
the reputation of being a"green state,"the current Supreme Court is not living up to that
reputation.
Mr. Stitzel said the Council also needs to consider what justifies using interim zoning as opposed
to the normal zoning process. There must be a reasonable belief that the status quo would be so
altered that what the city wants can't be done at the outset. The major question is whether the
pace of development is South Burlington is such that it compromises the ability to put in
amendments via the normal zoning process.
Mr. Stitzel noted that previous interim zoning was institute to prevent a flood of applications
prior to implementation of new zoning regulations. The Planning Commission was beyond the
study stage when those interim zoning regulations were instituted.
Mr. Knapp asked how a rezoned area west of Chamberlin would be accessed. Mr. Conner said
that at present there are no large arteries to access the area. There would have to be 2 accesses
across the brook.
CITY COUNCIL
6 JUNE 2011
PAGE 7
In addressing PUD's, Mr. Stitzel said they are an option in land use planning and have been
allowed for many years. Their use goes back to the question of what is a reasonable allowance
of use to a landowner.
Mr. Stitzel noted that 3 years is as far as you can go with interim zoning. During that time,the
city would have to discuss what to do with PUD's,what problems they have caused. The city
would have to rely on experts to say what occurred that is problematic and then say what to do to
correct that problem. Mr. Stitzel said that the ability to grant waivers is a specific that could be
limited during interim zoning. Density bonuses are as well.
What would also be taken into consideration by the courts is what the justifications were for
creating PUD's and TDR's. Mr.Stitzel cited the problem the city had when regulations were not
clear enough and when there was an unconstitutional "taking"
Mr. Gilbert cited problems in the SEQ with TDR's. He felt it was an emergency situation
because of growth in the past 10 years. He felt that the expectation for use of land also applies to
those who live in an area. He felt neighborhood aspects haven't been taken into consideration.
Mr. Kochman said he favored curtailing PUD's on an interim basis. He felt they have been
abused with respect to height waivers.
Mr. Mittage felt there was an issue of storm water and that more development means more
runoff.
Mr. Scollins felt the city has gone awry with respect to the proposed Farrell development.
Mr. Young felt there were many more issues in the city for the City Council to deal with. He
questioned whether interim zoning would artificially inflate housing prices. He noted that with
the lack of workforce housing, it seems you have to pony up so much money just to live here.
He also felt interim zoning could discourage jobs. He questioned whether changing the rules on
TDR's was a"bait and switch"situation.
Mr. Donahue felt TDR's have allowed densities to go much higher and that interim zoning is a
good idea.
Mr. Stuono said he felt a 2-year interim zoning period was a"blink of the eye" in land use
issues.
Ms. McBride said she hoped"complete streets"would be included in the thinking. She felt that
climate change also needs to be considered.
CITY COUNCIL
6 JUNE 2011
PAGE 8
Ms.Dopp felt that TDR's didn't need to be thrown out but that receiving areas could be studied.
She questioned whether TDR's should be sold from lands that are not developable or sold to
lands that are not developable.
Mr. Seff said he felt the current TDR regulations are unconstitutional.
Ms. Dooley asked Mr. Stitzel what he needed from the City Council.
Mr. Stitzel said he had heard some specific issues that could be molded into an Interim Zoning
by-law:open space protections and prohibiting PUD's in residential and mixed use districts.
What he heard was that waivers and density bonuses may be the problem. He felt that the
authority to grant waivers and to grant bonuses could be suspended during the study. He
stressed that an action must address a specific problem.
Regarding TDR's, Mr. Stitzel said there would have to be a very comprehensive,technical
density review to determine the appropriate density in each neighborhood.
Mr. Knapp questioned whether getting 20 or so houses west of Chamberlin is solving the
problem of the Airport buying up 160 homes. Ms. Emery suggested a possible higher density.
She felt these could be feeder homes to the school. Mr. Stitzel noted that if the Council says
there should be no development on open space,and a big chunk of the area west of Chamberlin
is open space,there is a conflict. Addressing open space would effectively put a freeze on that
property.
Ms. Dooley said she didn't feel the open space aspect should include the SEQ. She felt that
areas has been studied and dealt with. The need is to address open space in the rest of the city.
Mr.Duff noted that maps don't reflect what was done after the open space studies.
Ms.Dooley expressed her concern with congregate housing being considered as zero. Mr.
Conner noted this includes developments behind Shaws,Lime Kiln Rd., Quarry Hill and
possibly along Allen Road. It is treated as a non-residential use and is not subject to residential
impact fees. Mr. Stitzel said they could look at limiting that under interim zoning.
Mr. Knapp said he has been told that as soon as the city accepts federal money, it assumes an
obligation to promote affordable housing.
Mr. Kay suggested a possible study of whether congregate housing has an undue impact on fire
and other services.
Ms. Greco asked if there could be an interim zoning resolution at this meeting. Mr. Stitzel said
there cannot. There needs to be a warned public hearing with 15 days notice. The earliest date
CITY COUNCIL
6 JUNE 2011
PAGE 9
for that would be 3 weeks from tonight. Mr. Miller noted that doesn't work for notice in The
Other Paper.
Ms. Greco said she wanted to introduce a resolution that would start the clock at this meeting.
Mr. Stitzel said it would not cut off vested rights. He stressed there is nothing the City Council
can do at this meeting to start the clock. It requires notice in the newspaper of a public hearing
and of the availability of the text.
Ms. Greco said that what she would like is for 2 years there would be no new PUD's,
subdivisions, or waivers in the city.
Members then worked to craft a motion that would reflect a majority of their thinking.
Ms. Emery then moved to direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution to establish a period of
interim zoning to: protect open space based on an open space strategy everywhere but in the
SEQ,prohibit PUD's in all residential and mixed use districts,prohibit PUD and all other
waivers from the Land Development Regulations in all districts. Mr. Engels seconded.
Mr. Stitzel stressed the need to come up with the money for the studies that this would entail.
Mr. Miller added that this a a very broad set of restrictions. He noted that the 2012 budget was
put together based on revenues from projected development that would increase the Grand List.
The cost for required studies is also not budgeted. He asked where the money for all of this will
come from. He noted that there could be 6-digit costs for each of the studies. There is also the
process of managing a number of studies in a Planning Office that is already reduced by 25%of
its staff. He said he would expect the City Council to address these concerns specifically at the
public hearing.
Mr. Conner noted that there are also development review fees that have been counted on and
which were recently substantially increased. Mr.Conner also noted that any development that is
approved also pays for a zoning permit, and impact fees for roads, fire and recreation.
Ms. Emery moved to direct City Attorney Steve Stitzel to draft a resolution addressing open
space protection based on the Open Space Strategy dated 2002,excluding the South East
Quadrant,to limit land development so no additional dwelling units or construction of
commercial properties or the expansion of existing properties beyond 20%of the existing foot
print(all land lying within low, medium, and high priority outside the South East Quadrant);
prohibit PUD's in all residential and mixed use districts; prohibit waivers everywhere; prohibit
all waivers in the LDR's in all districts throughout the City. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed
4-1 with Mr. Knapp opposing.
CITY COUNCIL
6 JUNE 2011
PAGE 10
Ms.Greco then moved to set a public hearing for July 18 with notice as soon as feasible. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Knapp opposing.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 2 FEBRUARY 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Thursday,2 February
2012, at 7:00 p.m.,in the Conference Room, City Hall,575 Dorset St.
Councilors Present: S. Dooley,Chair; M. Emery, J. Knapp,P.Engels,R. Greco
Also Present: S.Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten,Deputy City Manager; P. Conner,
Director of Planning&Zoning;J. Rabidoux,Public Works Director; A.Lafferty, City
Attorney; J. Dinklage,P.Taylor, B. &P.Nowak, D. O'Rourke,B. Stuono, P.O'Brien, E.
Goldberg,R.Deslauriers, S. Quest,B. Gilbert,C. Shaw,E. Farrell,J. Ilick, &other
members of the public
1. Executive Session:
Ms. Greco moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel,
contract negotiations, and litigation. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Regular Session:
Ms. Greco moved that the Council exit executive session. Mr. Knapp seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
1. Agenda Review:
Members agreed to delete item#3 on the Agenda and add it to the Monday meeting
agenda. _
2. Comments &Questions from the Audience,not related to agenda items:
Ms. Quest gave members information on State objectives regarding prime ag land.
3.Announcements & City Manager's Report:
Ms. Dooley:Noted that the lawsuit asking that she recuse herself from interim zoning
discussions was heard in court this afternoon,and the appellant's request for an
injunction was denied.
4. Discussion of Proposed Interim Zoning Bylaws:
Ms. Dooley thanked people for their input. She noted that 74 people had responded.
There have also been 6 proposals for modification identified.
Mr. Knapp asked Ms. Greco to read from a letter asking that Mr.Knapp recuse himself
from interim zoning discussions because he serves real estate clients from whom he
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 2
receives fees. The sender of this letter did not identify him/herself.
Mr. Knapp then indicated that he is not allowed to reveal his clients' names unless they
give him permission to do so. He noted that his current practice concentrates on
affordable housing and non-profit housing. He is not involved in real estate,and does not
do business in South Burlington. He then identified a number of clients who had given
permission for him to do so. He also reviewed his employment history from service in a
law firm that did represent some developers more than 10 years ago.
Members felt that nothing they had heard should disqualify Mr.Knapp from serving
during interim zoning discussions.
Mr. Engels then noted that Ms. Greco had received some ugly e-mails. He reviewed her
previous distinguished 30-year career in the U.S. Air Force. The sender of this e-mail
also did not identify him/herself.
Mr. Knapp noted that he had received a proposal that would limit the area of interim
zoning to the area being studied for form based codes. Another e-mail concerned large
subdivisions on open land in the 2002 study.
Ms. Dooley then read the proposed modifications. These would eliminate the two
industrial districts(I-OC and I-C), exclude alterations currently approved
administratively and wouldn't deal with landscape credits and parking waivers,could
create an"interim overlay zoning,"increase the square footage allowed for additions
from 750 sq. ft. to a larger number, allow condo owners to add to their units in the same
way as owners of single and 2-family dwellings, and would suspend the effective date of
interim zoning if it is not voted on at this meeting.
Mr.Engels asked how interim zoning would be implemented and what the
responsibilities of the DRB and Council would be. He said it was his understanding that
applications have not been coming in. Mr. Conner said there have in fact been
applications received.
Members were then asked to give their perspectives on interim zoning.
Ms.Emery:Noted that the interim zoning effort grew from a concern over TDRs and
issues of density and where that density should be. People wanted clarity in the
regulations. Ms. Emery said she felt this merited discussion. She noted the Council has
spent hours on this. She personally has come to know people in the community and is
grateful for those experiences. She felt that when interim zoning was considered last
May there was no "combined vision"on the Council. She felt the new proposal
"combined the
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 3
vision."
Ms.Greco; Felt there has been a lot of miscommunication. She thanked those from
GBIC,the O'Briens and Dynapower who have offered to work with the city and also the
public who responded. She said she has been looking at the moral and ethical side and at
long term consequences. She also noted she tends to take a very firm,unyielding
position on things. She cited 3 reasons for reconsidering interim zoning: affordable
housing,sustainable agriculture, and form based codes. With regard to agriculture,she
indicated concern with declining food quality,soil erosion,water pollution, greenhouse
gas production,and diet related illness. Only 2% of food is from local sources. She also
cited loss of prime ag soils. It is feared that by 2090 there will be no farmland left in
Vermont. The Champlain Valley has the best ag soil in the state, and South Burlington
sits on prime ag soils. She also noted that people around the country are turning to local
farming. Such an effort in Hardwick,Vt.,is getting national attention. She felt interim
zoning is an attempt to do something today for our future.
Mr.Knapp:Noted he has been viewed as a person against interim zoning. He said this is
not true;he is against this interim zoning. He hoped for a discussion on how to have a
public/private model for affordable housing,possibly using Lake Champlain Housing as
a model. He felt the current interim zoning is going about things the wrong way: a
discussion of goals should precede any action. The Planning Commission will be
presenting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. That should be followed by a public
process that really works to get input. He agreed that preservation of agricultural land is
important. One of the first things he did as a City Council member involved the
preservation of the Leduc Farm...not by regulation but by a joint effort. The Leducs got
reasonable value for their property, and the public got valuable farm land. Everybody
won. If there is a need to look at TDRs again,look for the right place to put housing so
everyone can find a place to live in South Burlington.
Ms.Emery said she was very swayed by the public/private solution as a win/win solution.
She felt this interim zoning proposal was too broad and consequences would create more
harm than good. She suggested looking at what is viable in the proposal and did not feel
it is wise to attack all goals at once. She felt the community should prioritize goals and
discuss how to get there. Once there is an achievable goal,perhaps interim zoning would
be a consideration. She felt the O'Brien Brothers offer is very tempting and thanked
them for it.
Ms. Greco said she would consider dropping interim zoning if developers would pledge
not to submit plans for development while things are being studied. She said there have
been only 3 affordable homes built in the city in the past 15 years, and if something isn't
done differently,there will never be affordable housing. She noted there are a lot of
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 4
condos but not single family homes.
Mr. Knapp said Champlain Housing has put 500 families into homes they otherwise
couldn't afford. He supports a public/private partnership that does this. Build at market
price and find a way to finance them. But don't regulate it.
Ms. Emery noted that with connected structures there is a savings of energy.
Mr. Engels said he hates to see the divisive effect this is having on the community and is
not happy to vote under these circumstances. He noted that all neighborhoods feel the
pressure of development. He liked Mr.Knapp's idea of bringing the community together
to talk about this. He cited the discussions regarding form based codes that occurred a
few months ago as an example of bringing the community together. He felt it was
unfortunate that with the discussion of interim zoning this never happened. He also felt
sorry for staff with all the work this has brought about. He suggested taking a step back
and bringing the community together before going forward.
Ms. Dooley cited the affection people have for South Burlington and the fact that it was
voted one of the best places to raise a family. She felt action with a"different tool"was
needed to give the city a unique and special identity. She noted that people have said
South Burlington is to be"sacrificed to save the rest of the State." She said it is
regrettable that this has become divisive. She felt there is a strong undercurrent for land
development regulations more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. She cited the
vagueness of the word"should"as an example,which some people equate with"must"
and others as recommended but not required. She said this gives people expectations that
are not fulfilled.
Mr. Engels moved to table the resolution for a future time. Ms. Greco seconded.
Mr. Miller noted that the interim zoning bylaw is in effect until it is acted upon. Ms.
Lafferty added that once the bylaw was warned, applications had to be heard under the
interim zoning bylaw until it is adopted or voted down. If you table the discussion, you
haven't done any of those things,and applications would have to be reviewed under the
interim zoning bylaw.
After a brief discussion,Mr. Engels withdrew his motion.
Mr. Knapp then moved to suspend discussion until after the next agenda item. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 5
6.Discussion of a possible Council sponsored meeting(s)of interested
stakeholders (for example,public,home builders,developers,real estate agents,
funding sources,planning agencies)to explore opportunities for affordable housing
in South Burlington:
Mr. Knapp said throughout this discussion,his objection has been that the Council hasn't
discussed what they want to do. His recommendation is that the city sponsor one or more
sessions with all stake holders,including: Vermont Housing Finance Agency,Vermont
Housing&Conservation Board,Merchants Bank&Northfield Savings Bank,residential
developers,real estate agents,community members and those who would like to be,and
anyone else who is interested in what South Burlington needs.
Mr.Knapp said he would like to be the organizer of this but noted he will not be on the
next Council. He said the objective of the session(s)would be to have a real community
discussion on how to build homes for anyone who wants to live in South Burlington.
Ms. Greco indicated that should would be willing to do something similar concerning
sustainable agriculture.
Mr.Engels moved to empower Jim Knapp to lead that group and work with city
administration to organize it. He further moved to form a separate group on sustainable
agriculture led by Ms. Greco.
It was noted that the business community is very supportive of this. It will takes weeks,
possibly months to organize. Mr. Engels added that Frank Cioffi has offered his
assistance:
In the vote that followed,the motion passed unanimously.
Members then returned to item#5 on the agenda.
Mr. Knapp said that for everyone's peace of mind,the Council should figure out where
everyone stands on interim zoning.
Ms. Emery said she didn't think that in the next month or so South Burlington would
suddenly mushroom.
Ms. Emery then moved to amend the interim zoning by-law to adopt interim zoning only
for the City Center and to have the following process attached to interim zoning: an
application would be filed with the Planning&Zoning Department. It would go first to
the City Council where it would be addressed by the standards of 24VSA4415 including:
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 6
a determination that the proposed project shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
any of the following:the capacity of existing or planned community facilities,services or
lands;the character of the area affected,as defined by the purpose or purposes of the
zoning district in which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and
standards of the municipal plan or the existing patterns and uses of development in the
area;traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity; environmental limitation on the site or
area and significant natural areas and sites;municipal plans,bylaws, ordinances or
regulations then in effect;utilization of renewable energy resources. If the City Council
approves the project, it would pursue under the land development regulations;if the
Council does not approve, the appeal process would be to the Environmental Court. Mr.
Knapp seconded.
Ms. Lafferty suggested leaving it up to the applicant as to whether they go first to the
City Council or DRB. Mr. Knapp was OK with this and withdrew the requirement to go
first to the City Council.
Mr. Conner noted that the City Center area included not only the city center but Williston
Rd. C-I/R-12 district east of the Interstate and a small section on the west side of Dorset
Street(across from San Remo Drive).
Ms. Greco said there is no need for interim zoning there because nothing is happening
there. The urgency is losing land where the city might want housing or agriculture. She
added that the Council hasn't decided whether to approve form-based codes.
Ms. Dooley said she doesn't support the motion as it hasn't be drafted and hasn't honored
the process.
In the vote that followed,the motion failed 2-3 with Ms.Dooley,Ms. Greco and Mr.
Engels voting against.
Ms. Greco said she felt they need to address the proposed modification, and that can't be
done at this meeting. She said it wasn't wise to act in haste.
Mr. Knapp moved to strike interim zoning. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion failed 2-3 with
Ms. Dooley,Ms. Greco and Mr. Engels voting against.
Ms. Greco moved to take up interim zoning at a later date with the full Council is
available to discuss it. Mr.Engels seconded. Motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Knapp and
Ms. Emery voting against.
CITY COUNCIL
2 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 7
7.Executive Session:
Ms. Emery moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel,
contract negotiations and litigation and to resume regular session only for the purpose of
adjournment. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8.Regular Session:
Council returned to regular session. As there was no further business Mr.Knapp moved
for Council adjournment. Ms. Greco seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Council
adjourned.
lerk
CITY COUNCIL
21 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 6
Ms.Dopp asked about adding more signals in the eastern section. Mr.Rabidoux said that wasn't
looked at.
Mr. Dinklage noted that to turn onto Williston Road from Mayfair Park,you have to look at 4
lanes of traffic, and you can think you're pulling into a clear lane when suddenly a car goes into
that lane without signaling. He noted there was no reduction in traffic on Colchester Avenue and
it worked. Mr. Smith said that even with three lanes you would have to wait for someone to let
you in because of the congestion. It may be safer,but... He also noted that turning movements
on Colchester Avenue are very different. Traffic at the PM peak hour at Hinesburg Road is 40%
higher than on Colchester Avenue.
Mr. Ravin said if you give pedestrians and bikers a safer and more pleasant experience,thy will
take it. She also cited the use of TDM to manage traffic on Colchester Ave. Mr. Smith said
transportation management results in only an 8%reduction in traffic.
Mr. Hubbard noted there is a significant drop in traffic from the 'jug handle" to Hinesburg Road
and Kennedy Drive. He asked for a trial period.
Mr. Knapp asked what happens with buses. If more buses are being encouraged,there will be
more stops and starts, and a problem with the buses turning back into traffic. He also noted that
if you do the eastern part of the project area,bicyclists get a safer route to Hinesburg Road and
then they are taking their lives in their hands from there on.
Ms. Emery stressed there is no other potential"cut through"other than the residential area north
of Williston Road, and those people want their neighborhood to be safe for their children.
Ms. Greco moved to implement"complete streets." There was no second.
Ms.Emery moved that for this current project not to go forward with"complete streets." The
motion failed 2-3 with Ms. Greco,Mr.Knapp and Ms. Dooley voting against.
Mr. Rabidoux noted if the Council does decide to implement any part of"complete streets"later
on,there will be a cost to the city to alter the state plans.
6.Discussion of Proposed Interim Bylaws with possible action:
Ms. Greco said they have reviewed all comments and have incorporated some of them. They
have added review criteria and a process for submitting applications. The interim zoning studies
will include land for agriculture,middle class housing and City Center.
CITY COUNCIL
21 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 7
Ms. Greco then moved to approve the Interim Zoning Bylaw dated 17 February 2012. Ms.
Dooley seconded.
Mr. Miller questioned whether this is an addition to the existing bylaw. Mr. Greco said it is a
modification. Ms.Lafferty said it is an amendment to the version warned in December. It
lessens some of the prohibitions in Article 2 (adds exempt districts) and provides exemptions to
Section 4.
Ms.Dooley said the 2 zoning districts that are exempt are Mixed Industrial-Commercial and
Industrial-Open Space. A variety of applications that are currently approved by the
Administrative Officer would not be. Amendments to a site plan for a commercial or industrial
building would be allowed if the building were expanded by less than 6%or 10,000 sq. ft.
Applications received before 31 December 2011 are not covered under interim zoning.
Mr.Knapp asked if the Council would be voting on the amendment or the bylaw as amended.
Mr.Miller said Roberts Rules requires voting on the amendment and then on the bylaw as
amended.
Ms. Greco and Ms. Dooley then withdrew their motion.
Ms.Greco moved to approve the bylaw of 31 December 2011. Ms.Dooley seconded.
Ms. Greco moved to amend the bylaw of 31 December 2011 to include the changes as outlined in
the document"Based on discussion with Dooley&Greco"dated 17 February 2012. Ms. Dooley
seconded. The motion to amend passed 3-1 with Ms. Emery voting against and Mr. Knapp
voting present.
Mr. Engels then moved the following amendment to the Interim Zoning Bylaw:
No later than the first Council meeting in October,2012, Council shall evaluate the IZ
Bylaw. At a minimum the evaluation will be based on the following criteria:
. Council's decisions on development proposals that came before Council.
. Economic analysis of interim zoning,both the financial impact on the city budget as
well as the financial impact on citizens,residents and businesses of South Burlington.
. An economic analysis on: the types of development that cost the city more in services
than revenue generated by that development;the types of development that cost the city no more
in services than revenue generated by that development; and the types of development that
generate more revenue to the city than cost in services generated by that development. This
CITY COUNCIL
21 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 8
analysis to be called,"financial roadmap for future development within South Burlington. An
economic analysis on the costs of all services and infrastructure,including maintenance,
upgrades,replacement, and expansion,based on the total development build-out as allowed
under the current Land Development regulations.
. An economic analysis of the associated costs of pollution control mitigation and cleanup
of the environment and natural resources,including, air,water and land resulting from the total
build-out as allowed under our current Land Development regulations.
.Report of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Agriculture Committees.
At the March 19,2012 staff will present a proposal to Council for discussion,possible
modification and possible approval on:
. The goal of an analysis on the financial impact to city budget of the current IZ bylaw and
the goal of a"financial roadmap" for future development within South Burlington"
.Possible companies that con provide any or all studies
. Estimate cost for studies
. A proposed steering committee to oversee the studies
. Membership
. Authority
.Roles
At the March 19,2012 former Councilor Knapp and Councilor Greco will each present a
proposal to Council for discussion,possible modification and possible approval on their two
subcommittees(Affordable Housing and Sustainable Agriculture). Each proposal will include:
. Goal of subcommittee
.Membership
. Authority
. Assistance expected from staff and or consultants
Ms. Greco seconded.
Mr.Knapp explained his voting concerning interim zoning. He said he believes the Interim
Zoning Ordinance is neither legal nor constitutional and as such will not vote on it.
Mr.Young asked how the City Council plans to pay for the cost of the studies related to interim
CITY COUNCIL
21 FEBRUARY 2012
PAGE 9
zoning. Mr. Engels said cost estimates will be presented on 17 March. Mr. Young asked how
they will be paid for. Mr. Miller said that will depend on the costs. Mr. Young said the budget
will be voted on on March 6 with no provision for interim zoning. He asked under what line
items interim zoning would fall. Mr.Miller said"same answer."
Mr.Knapp asked what will happen if he can't make the 19 March meeting or chooses not to
make a presentation. Mr. Engels said he hadn't considered that.
In the vote that followed, the amendment passed 3-2 with Ms.Emery and Mr. Knapp voting
against.
Members then voted on the amended motion. It passed 3-2 with Ms.Emery and Mr.Knapp
voting against.
Ms.Emery commented that the Council must have money growing on trees that she didn't know
about.
7. First reading of Draft Amendment to the Land Development Regulations-
possible scheduling of Public Hearing for 19 March:
Mr. Conner noted that a table of uses had been left off in the last round of LDR amendments.
The amendments include:
1. Integrating congregate care, medical offices, social services and general offices into the
Transit Overlay District
2.Removing the land use entitled"clinic,medical,dental, or optical" (will be covered
under"medical office")
3. Reclassifying places of worship as permitted uses (state law)
Ms. Greco moved to approve the first reading of the draft amendments to the Land Development
Regulations as presented and to schedule a public hearing for 19 March 2012. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Consider appointment of a third member to the Stormwater Appeal Board per
Stormwater Ordinance:
Mr.Miller noted that a customer may be appealing a stormwater bill. The Appeal Board should
have a third member to join the City Manager and Public Works Director. This could be a City
Councilor or Deputy City Manager.
Ms.Greco moved to appoint Bob Rusten to the Stormwater Appeal Board. Mr. Engels
INTERIM BYLAW
I . PURPOSE:
Land development in the City in the recent past has eliminated
much open space throughout the City, including land designated as
primary agricultural soil. In addition, there are approximately 700
dwelling units approved under the Land Development Regulations, but
not yet constructed. At the same time, there has been an overall
decrease in the affordability of housing within the City. Burlington
International Airport' s Noise Compatibility Program and related
programs have resulted in the purchase and removal from the market
of more than 100 homes that are located near schools, parks, shopping
centers and public transportation. This program is expected to
remove from the market at least 100 additional homes located near the
airport. Without any changes to the current City Land Development
Regulations, these trends are unlikely to change.
In October 2011, the City Planning Commission and Planning and
Zoning Department hosted the Community Design Workshop to develop a
new plan for the City Center and adjacent Williston Road area with
the goal of adopting a Form Based Code-style of regulation for this
and possibly other areas of the City. Two corridor studies, of
Shelburne Road and of Williston Road, are also underway. In
addition, the Planning Commission has established a committee to
study, discuss and report to the Planning Commission on a more
affordable type of housing known as "cottage housing". The Planning
1
Commission is also in the process of a complete update of the City' s
Comprehensive Plan. As part of this update, the Comprehensive Plan
may include as City goals support of sustainable agriculture,
conservation of open space and promotion of housing for people of all
incomes and stages of life.
In light of the above, the purpose of this Interim Bylaw is to
provide the City time to complete the above-listed work and necessary
studies, review the results of the studies, the Form Based Code and
the updated Comprehensive Plan; to determine whether additional
studies are needed to plan for the development of the City in a manner
that is consistent with the City' s goals and objectives; and to
prepare and adopt amendments to the Land Development Regulations that
implement the City' s goals and objectives.
II . DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICTS AFFECTED:
This Interim Bylaw shall apply to all Districts established and listed
in Article 3.01 (A) (1) - (4) of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations except for:
A. Airport Industrial
B. Airport
C. Institutional Agricultural - North
D. Queen City Park
E. Lakeshore Neighborhood
F. Municipal
G. Park and Recreation
H. Southeast Quadrant - Village Commercial
I . Mixed Industrial and Commercial District
J. Industrial and Open Space District
III . LIMITATIONS ON LAND DEVELOPMENT:
Within the areas affected by this Interim Bylaw, the following shall
2
not be allowed:
A. New Planned Unit Developments.
B. New subdivisions.
C. New principal buildings that require site plan approval.
D. Alterations to existing principal buildings.
E. Alterations to any other existing structures used for
commercial or industrial purposes.
F. Amendment of a master plan or any related site plans or plats
that deviates from an approved Master Plan in one of the respects set
forth in Article 15. 07 (D) (3) (a) - (e) of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
IV. EXEMPTIONS:
The provisions of Section III above notwithstanding, this Interim
Bylaw shall not prohibit:
A. Alterations of an existing single family dwelling provided
that the cumulative alterations do not result in a total increase of
more than 750 square feet to the building footprint and the building' s
square footage.
B. Alterations of an existing two-family dwelling provided
that the cumulative alterations to each dwelling unit do not result
in a total increase of more than 750 square feet to the footprint of
the portion of the building containing the subject dwelling unit and
the dwelling unit' s square footage.
C. Alterations of any existing structures used for commercial
3
•
or industrial purposes that do not result in an increase to either
the building footprint or the structure' s square footage .
D. Development for which there is an approved Master Plan.
E. Land Development on property owned by Highlands Development
Company, LLC and JAM Golf, LLC on the eastern side of Dorset Street
that is currently the subject of litigation in Docket Numbers
194-10-03 Vtec and 38-3-11 Vtec, should settlement of said litigation
be carried out as intended and described in Planning and Zoning
Director Paul Conner' s memorandum dated November 23, 2011, and the
land exchange be carried out as approved by the City of South
Burlington voters on December 6, 2011 .
F. Amendments to site plans involving a principal permitted
use, site plans involving an approved conditional use and site plans
of planned unit developments, if the proposed amendment meets one or
more of the following criteria, even if the proposed amendment results
in or requires either or both a request for a waiver under Article
13.01 (N) (2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and
a request for a landscaping credit under Article 13 .06 (G) (3) of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations:
(1) Relocation of site improvements and/or accessory structures
that have been previously approved, provided that such relocations
do not alter the approved coverage for the site.
(2) Re-approval of plans if a permit issued by the Development
4
Review Board has expired within the preceding 6 months and no changes
or alterations of any kind are proposed, including those outlined in
(4) below.
(3) Approval of plans showing as-built adjustments beyond
standard field adjustments , provided that such adjustments do not
require the amendment of any condition of approval in the most recent
findings of fact.
(4) Minor alterations to an approved landscaping plan such as
substitution of appropriate similar species or landscaping or
hardscaping materials, provided that the total value of landscaping
proposed in the amended plan is equal to or exceeds the amount approved
by the Development Review Board.
G. Amendments to site plans involving the enlargement of an
existing building used for commercial or industrial purposes, if the
proposed amendment meets the following criteria, even if the proposed
amendment results in or requires either or both a request for a waiver
under Article 13 . 01 (N) (2) of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations and a request for a landscaping credit under Article
13 . 06 (G) (3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations .
The enlargement of the existing building used for commercial or
industrial purposes must result in an increase in building area and/or
impervious coverage totaling less than ten thousand (10 ,000) square
feet or six percent (6%) of the overall site coverage, whichever is
5
smaller. The cumulative total increase in building area and/or site
coverage permitted through all amendments on any one lot shall not
exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet or six percent (6%) of the
overall site coverage, whichever is smaller.
V. DEFINITIONS :
A. Words specifically defined in the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations shall have the same meaning in this Interim
Bylaw unless another meaning is clearly indicated.
B. New Planned Unit Development shall mean any planned unit
development for which a complete preliminary plat application had not
been submitted to the South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department
before December 31 , 2011 .
C. New Subdivision:
1. For subdivisions classified as "minor", a new subdivision shall
mean any minor subdivision for which a complete final plat application
had not been submitted to the South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Department before December 31, 2011 .
2 . For subdivisions classified as "major" , a new subdivision shall
mean any major subdivision for which a complete preliminary plat
application had not been submitted to the South Burlington Planning
and Zoning Department before December 31 , 2011 .
D. New principal buildings that require site plan approval shall
mean any principal building for which a complete site plan application
6
had not been submitted to the South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Department before December 31, 2011 .
VI . REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
The City Council may, upon application, authorize the issuance of
permits for any type of development as a conditional use not otherwise
permitted by this Interim Bylaw, after public hearing preceded by
notice in accordance with 24 V. S .A. section 4464. The authorization
by the City Council shall be granted upon a finding by the Council
that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, and
welfare of the municipality and the following standards . The
proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
any of the following:
1 . The capacity of existing or planned community facilities,
services, or lands .
2 . The existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
3 . Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
4 . Environmental limitations of the site or area and significant
natural resource areas and sites .
5 . Utilization of renewable energy resources .
6 . Municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances, or
regulations in effect.
VII . EFFECT ON EXISTING REGULATIONS :
This Interim Bylaw shall not repeal or alter any existing ordinances,
7
regulations or bylaws of the City of South Burlington. This Interim
Bylaw establishes restrictions that are in addition to those
contained in any other City ordinance, bylaw or regulation.
VIII. ENACTMENT PROVISIONS:
This Interim Bylaw is enacted pursuant to the provisions of 24 V. S.A.
section 4415 and the South Burlington Charter, is to be administered
in the manner provided for in said section 4415, as amended from time
to time, and shall be effective upon passage.
Adopted this day of February 2012 .
son12-003a 02-21-12 interim bylaw.SONOR4
8
CITY COUNCIL
19 MARCH 2O12
PAGE 5
The City Council serves as both judge and jury in interim zoning hearings. They may ask factual
questions which must be relevant to the application and to the bylaws. Councilors should not
answer their own questions.
The Council has 45 days from the close of a hearing to make a decision. Failure to issue a
written decision within that time results in the application being approved. Should this occur, the
Council should still render a written decision. The appeal time of a decision is 30 days from the
date of the written decision.
Mr.Baxter recommended that the Council deliberate in private. A deliberative decision need not
be warned and no minutes are needed. Three votes(for or against)are required for a decision.
Mr. Baxter cautioned against giving applicants an oral decision at the end of a hearing. The
decision must indicate how the decision was arrived at,and the applicant must be given the
appeal procedure. Decisions should be sent to the applicant via certified mail and to other
interested parties by regular mail.
Mr. Conner noted there will be both City Council and Development Review Board hearings, and
a zoning permit may be issued only if both boards approve an application.
Mr. Engels asked if the DRB ever has split decisions. Mr. Stuono said it is rare but it does
happen. Ms. Dooley asked if the DRB uses deliberative sessions. Mr. Stuono said this is also
uncommon.
Ms. Riehle asked who can be present at a deliberative session. Mr. Baxter said that in addition to
the City Council there can be staff and legal counsel.
Mr. Engels asked who drafts DRB decisions. Mr. Connor said it is a combination of himself,
Ray Belair and Cathy LaRose. Mr. Miller said the Council can ask staff to draft a decision for
them.
Mr. Stuono noted that using the"undue adverse impact" criteria is very challenging. Mr. Baxter
suggested the City Attorney may be helpful in this regard.
6.Interim Zoning Bylaw-Report on Studies and Committees:
A.Economic Analyses and Steering Committee
R. Sustainable Agriculture
C.Affordable Housing
With regard to the economic analyses,Mr. Miller said that for each of the study elements they
CITY COUNCIL
19 MARCH 2012
PAGE 6
have identified at least one firm interested in pursuing the study. Prices range from$7500
(which would involve considerable staff assistance)to $60,000. Mr.Miller noted there is
probably not a lot of staff assistance available with current staffing.
Mr. Miller asked the Council if they want to proceed with studies and whether RFPs should be
issued. He noted that the firms that responses anticipated an RFP process. If RFPs are to be
issued,this should be done in the next few weeks in order to expect a response by early May.
Ms. Mackenzie asked what is the risk of not utilizing an RFP. Mr. Miller said the city might not
be able to negotiate successfully with a firm. Mr.Rusten also noted that they had asked for a
broad scope of costs, and there may be a higher or lower figure. You also don't have a fair
comparison between companies without an RFP.
Ms. Dooley asked if it is clear whether the city will need more assistance. She said she was
uncomfortable dealing with this piecemeal. Mr.Miller said he felt there is a need for at least 3
more studies(form-based codes, affordable housing,etc.). Mr. Engels said he didn't think they
should wait on the RFP until they can do everything.
Mr.Miller cited the need for additional Council meetings to work all of this out,including
additional staff resources. He stressed that they are already short staffed and need additional
resources now. He recommended the Council meet every Monday for the next few months at
least, as this is too much for regular meetings. He added that getting the RFPs out will take a
few weeks and he would report back by 7 April that they are going out.
Mr.Rusten said the question where the money for all of these studies is going to come from.
Mr. Dinklage suggested it would be prudent to decide how much staff the city is willing to
contribute before they do an RFP.
Ms. Goldberg asked what the Council has allotted for studies and the costs of interim zoning.
She said she has heard nothing about the cost of all of this. Mr.Miller said staff identified an
estimated cost of one cent on the tax rate or about$280,000. The City Council did not identify
any cost for this work.
City Council consensus was to issue the RFP.
Ms. Mackenzie said the Council will also need an estimate of staff time. Mr. Miller said they
won't know the full scope until RFPs are received,but they do know some of the needs already.
Ms. Riehle asked if the RFP could include the limited amount of staff time available. Mr.Miller
suggested asking for quotes with 3 different levels of staff support.
CITY COUNCIL
19 MARCH 2012
PAGE 7
Regarding sustainable agriculture,Ms. Greco said there are 31 organizations and individuals
willing to partner with the city on this. Staff assistance will have to be determined.
Mr. Miller reviewed Mr. Knapp's response regarding affordable housing. It will take to the
beginning of April to put together the particulars. A number of individuals have expressed
willingness to serve. The study will include looking at the demand for various types of housing
and at fmancial institutions that are funding the purchase of homes.
Members then reviewed a basic outline of the studies and study groups(staffing and financing)
related to interim zoning. These include:
1. Economic Analysis Studies:
a. Economic analysis of interim zoning(financial impact on city budget and on citizens,
residents and businesses in the city
b. Economic analysis on the cost of development in terms of cost of city services
c. economic analysis of the costs of all services and infrastructure(including
maintenance, upgrades,etc.)based on total build-out now allowed under land development
regulations
d. economic analysis of associated costs of pollution mitigation and environmental
cleanup(air,water,land)resulting from build-out allowed under current land development
regulations.
2,3 &4. Sustainable Agriculture Committee; Affordable Housing Committee,and Form Based
Codes:
a. studies to be completed as required under interim zoning
b.update of regulations
c. additional non-regulatory studies to be completed
d. possible need for consultants to committee
5.Planning&Zoning Department:
a. Project review: application administration,project staff review and Council notes,
preparation of Council decision, appeals management
b. Committee and project oversight(RFP preparation and management,management of
consultants,review of studies, management of public process,project mapping and data analysis,
implementation
CITY COUNCIL
19 MARCH 2012
PAGE 8
6. City Council:
a.finalize goals and activities of subcommittees and steering committee
b. determine required studies
c. review and possibly approve additional staffing needs
d.review and approve subcommittee needs re: consultants
e. review staff recommendations and possibly approve location of money to fund interim
zoning
7.Consider Complete Streets Proposal:
Ms. Greco reviewed the background including a study done by a consultant focusing on"livable
streets."
Mr. Miller noted that one issue that arose is how the city might evaluate the process if it goes
ahead with the experiment.He added there are no funds in the FY13 budget for this.
Mr.Rabidoux said the aim is to try to take advantage of the state's paving project to see if a
"complete streets" concept can work on Williston Rd. east of Hinesburg Rd. Feedback will be
needed by the end of March to get"no cost"changes in the paving project.
Mr.Rabidoux noted that testimony of staff and the Regional Planning Commission is that this
project will induce increased congestion. One option is to implement the experiment and
observe what happens and to assess the public level of tolerance of the increased congestion.
Anticipated problems include people becoming frustrated with the congestion and going off
Williston Road into the residential side streets and affecting the quality of life and the safety of
children on these streets.
Mr.Rabidoux noted that this project has been compared to the Burlington project on Colchester
Avenue. However, in Burlington there were far fewer side streets involved.
Mr. Rabidoux proposed that if the Council decides to implement this,they could direct staff to
come back with a proposal as to how to measure the results (this would be done in conjunction
with the City of Burlington,Local Motion,etc.).
Mr.Engels asked about business on Williston Road and whether anyone has talked to them. Mr.
Rabidoux said they can do some direct solicitation.
CITY COUNCIL 26 MARCH 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 26 March
2012, at 5:00 p.m.,in the Conference Room,City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley,P. Engels,P.Mackenzie,H. Riehle
Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager;R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager;P. Conner,
Director of Planning &Zoning; I. Blanchard, S. Dopp,B. Stuono
1. Agenda Review:
No changes were made.
2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items:
No issues were raised.
3. Announcements & City Manager's Report:
Mr.Miller: Bill#H783 regarding railroad crossings was introduced as a place holder. It
relates to individuals who can't get clear title to the access to their properties. The
Agency of Transportation would like the railroad to give peimanent easements so these
people will not have problems selling their homes.
There will be a pilot program this year in the area of financial responsibility with
10 to 12 municipalities participating. It will be a good way to improve oversight, etc.
Mr.Engels:Met with Debbie Ingram of Vermont Interfaith Action. One thing they
concern themselves with is affordable housing. No one had yet talked to her about South
Burlington's issues, and she expressed interest in being involved in the city's discussions.
Ms. Greco: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting in Ms. Dooley's place.
The annual transportation prioritization was approved. South Burlington has 4 projects
near the top of the list: Staples lane, Market St.,U.S. 2 paving, and U.S. 7 from Charlotte
to South Burlington.
4. Consent Agenda:
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
5. Discussion of Interim Zoning Studies,Staffing,etc.
A. Review of Revised Memo from Paul Conner about Study Groups'
Outline
B. Studies and Steering Committee Discussion:
CITY COIJNCL
26 MARCH 2012
PAGE 2
i.###Update on studies,RFP, etc.
ii.###Review Economic Development, SusAg and Affordable
Housing Steering Committees-Consider adopting or giving additional direction to
staff and committee leaders
C. Staffing considerations-discuss timelines, estimated costs and how
Council might address funding
Mr. Conner said the only change made from his memo is the addition of a#7
"organizational structure."
•
Regarding the possible steering committee,Mr. Conner said this had been envisioned
around the economic development pieces. There could also be a similar group for
affordable housing or sustainable agriculture.
Mr.Miller cited the need for input from the City Council as to what these committees
will be,including studies and staff interaction.
Mr.Engels said he would like to keep this as simple and cheap as possible. He also
would like not to have too many"layers of bureaucracy" in terms of committees and
steering committees,etc. He said that for him, interim zoning is to get the
Comprehensive Plan and new Land Development Regulations done as quickly and
simply as possible.
Ms.Mackenzie said she sees the economic analysis as separate from the others because
this is the impact on the community. While this is being done, she felt there will have to
be people supporting those doing the economic analysis in order for them to get the
information they need. Ms. Riehle said assumed the city will be hiring people well
versed in the things that are needed. Ms. Mackenzie said people will need to know where
the information is in city documents,what developments are currently pending, and what
development was like when the economy was better than it is now.
Ms.Dooley said she was not sure that the economic analysis is part of the purpose of
interim zoning. Mr. Miller reminded the Council that it is part of the interim zoning by-
law that they passed.
Mr.Miller said that from the information they have received,the studies will be fairly
expensive,without much staff support and less expensive with reliance on a lot of staff
support,which,he noted, is not currently available. There will also have to be staff
support for the various committees. Mr. Miller estimated the need for 7 or 8 studies, and
noted that the city does not control those costs. He stressed that there is nothing cheap
about the economic analysis that has been requested. There will also have to be support
CITY COUNCIL
26 MARCH 2012
PAGE 3
for the City Council in their review of development applications that come up.
With regard to current staffing,Mr. Miller noted that one member of the Planning staff
will be going on maternity leave. The department will need at least one other full time
person. He reminded the Council that this is why staff had recommended adding one
cent to the tax rate,which the Council rejected.
Mr.Miller estimated close to$300,000 will be needed for studies and staffing(this
includes consultant costs,loss of revenue,legal costs, etc.). Mr.Miller stressed that there
is no money in the FY12 or FY13 budgets to cover these costs. He asked the Council if
they want to reduce city staff in other areas to pay for this or to look at deficits. He noted
that during budget discussions,members said the did not want to cut staff or services.
Ms.Dooley said she is particularly interested in what there is about the Land
Development Regulations that could be more supportive of affordable housing if the
regulations were different. She suggested they might want to look at what is being done
out of state as well as in other places in Vermont. She noted that the funding package for
affordable housing is very complex.
Mr.Miller stressed that the existing planning staff is hardly able to keep up with things
now. The Council supported adding a staff person to the Planning Depaitirient. They
reiterated their intention that there be no cuts in city staff or-services. Ms.Dooley said
she would be willing to look at the budget to see if there are any possible cuts and also
look at possible grants. She suggested use of contingency money or the undesignated
reserve.
Mr.Rusten said the contingency funds are for unexpected expenses. If the Council had
previously discussed an expense, it is not a valid use of contingency money. Mr.Miller
thought it might be legitimate if it is for something not in the budget.
Ms. Greco said she didn't think it will take a lot of money to do the sustainable
agriculture portion as they are talking of using UVM interns and there are many people in
the community who are qualified. Mr. Conner asked if the sustainable agriculture group
anticipate regulatory as well as non-regulatory things. Ms. Greco said there would be a
number of components. One might work on the LDR language;one might work on
gardens,education, etc. Mr. Conner said that on the regulatory side, they will need legal
input. He also noted that by state statute any regulatory changes must also go to the
Planning Commission before the City Council.
Mr.Miller said he will put together a job description for the new planning position. He
felt they will need someone with a fairly broad skill set. With no staff or budget cuts,
CITY COUNCIL
26 MARCH 2012
PAGE 4
there is still no means to pay for this position.
Mr.Miller also noted that other departments have already been advised to start the
process for hiring staff that has been approved for the FY13 budget so these people can
begin in July. Members felt this process should go ahead.
Regarding steering committees,Ms. Mackenzie asked to join the existing group looking
at Land Development Regulations. She also felt the group should include members of
the Planning Commission and Development Review Board. Mr. Miller reminded
members that these meetings are subject to the open meeting law and must be held in
public with minutes being taken.
Ms.Dooley said she would be willing to serve as a liaison to the Affordable Housing
group that Jim Knapp is heading.
6.Discuss Rules for Procedure for Council Acting as a Deliberative body for
Interim Zoning:
Mr.Miller noted he had given members the VLCT model and the Development Review
Board's Rules of Procedure. He asked how the Council wants to handle public input.
Mr. Conner noted there is a difference between the VLCT and DRB procedures. Those
who have a right to testify are considered"interested"parties. Under the VLCT,
interested parties have prioritization to testify, and there is limited time for others. Under
the DRB interested parties and others are treated equally. Members agreed to use the
DRB procedures.
Mr. Conner then explained what happens in a de novo hearing when a decision is
appealed to the Environmental Board. This process would be the same for a DRB or a
City Council decision.
Mr.Miller said it would be simpler for staff and applicants if the same procedures are
used for the DRB and City Council hearings.
Ms.Dooley then moved that for the purposes of Interim Zoning, the City Council adopt
the Development Review Board Rules of Procedure and Conflict of Interest Policy dated
20 December 2005. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
With regard to staff and legal support,Mr. Miller asked to what extent the Council wants
planning staff to be involved(e.g.writing decisions,etc.). He noted that the City
Attorney is under a retainer to provide legal advice.
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 2
S. Interim Zoning and Related Administrative and Structural Issues:
A.Economic Analyses:
1. Review of responses to the economic analyses' RFP
2. Does Council wish to formalize a structure or committee for
the economic analyses studies and related tasks? If so,how should this be done?
B. SusAg, Affordable Housing and Form Based Codes:
1. Status of RFPs for SusAg,Affordable Housing and possibly,
Form Based Codes
2. Does Council wish to formalize a structure for Sustainable
Agriculture and Affordable Housing Committees? If so, how should this be done?
C.Discussion about affordable housing regulatory approaches:
Mr.Miller said staff has reviewed the responses to the RFP for economic analyses and
has found that none of the applicants were acceptable. He felt there may have been a
lack of clarity in the RFP. He suggested taking a time out on this so staff can
concentrate on the RFPs for Affordable Housing, SusAg, and possibly Form Based
Codes. When the new person is on board, they can then come up with some ideas on the
economic analysis RFPs. At present, there are not the staff resources to do more.
Members were OK with this.
With regard to the SusAg committee,Ms. Greco reported they had held their
organizational meeting last week with 29 people attending. They agreed to form a
process committee to determine how to conduct future meetings.
Ms.Dooley said that she sees Interim Zoning as a time to deal with Comprehensive Plan
goals and LDR tools. She felt a lot of the energy and knowledge of the people in the
SusAg committee will be to "take the goals and run."
Ms.Riehle asked the time-frame to get a regulation into place. Mr. Conner explained
the process, including vetting by the Planning Commission and 2 City Council public
hearings. He estimated a 3-month time period from the time a regulation is first
presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr.Miller noted that Ms. Greco has circulated a vision,etc., for SusAs and this has never
been adopted by the Council. He asked if the Council wants to adopt that. He also
noted that any committee or sub-committee formed by the City Council has to follow the
open meeting laws.
Ms.Dooley said she felt there should be a clear message regarding possible changes to
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 3
the Comprehensive Plan and time frames. She felt a message is needed that the first
priority is how to change the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs.
Mr. Engels asked if the Council can only make changes to the Comprehensive Plan and
LDR's that relate to the interim zoning goals. Mr.Miller said they can consider other
changes,but not in the realm of interim zoning.
Mr. Miller stressed that there will have to be formal studies as well as the committee
work. He asked Council to let staff know anything more they will need as soon as
possible.
Ms. Riehle said what would be helpful for the RFP would be for the Council to review
revisions,priorities, etc,, and adopt them and structure what they want outcomes to be.
She said she would like specific recommendations of changes to the Comprehensive Plan
and LDRs that would make those outcomes happen, She felt the committees could do
research and then task the consultants. Mr. Miller said he wasn't sure what the task
forces (committees) and consultants will be doing because the Council hasn't charged
them with anything specific. He added that if the Council will charge the committee,it
would help staff to draft an RFP. Mr. Rusten added that there are different levels of
agriculture, for example(e.g., farming, vegetables, etc.), It would help to tell the
committee what level the Council is interested in.
Regarding affordable housing, Ms. Mackenzie noted she had spoken with Mr.Knapp. All
but three of the participants have been identified and include: Champlain Housing Trust,
banking, real estate, economic development,rural development,etc. The next steps will
be to finalize the last 3 slots for participants.
Mr. Engels said he felt affordable housing was not working well with Mr. Knapp not
being at the Council meetings. He said there are obvious people for the committee who
are not on the list and said someone from the Council should be overseeing this. Ms.
Dooley volunteered to do this.
Mr. Miller said it needs to be clear if the Council wants to approve membership on the
committees. He recommended they do this.
Ms. Dooley suggested people like Deb Ingram, the Affordable Housing Coalition, and
Champlain Valley OEO. She said the committee needs advocates and developers who
have done affordable housing.
Ms. Mackenzie said people who have ideas
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 4
Ms. Riehle moved to appoint Ms. Dooley as chair cif the Affordable I-Iousing Committee.
Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. .Engels felt there should be discussion on form based codes and how that will evolve.
Mr. Miller said there should be an agenda item to present options on how to proceed with
form based codes and how to pay for it. Mr. Conner said there are 2 parts to the
question: 1)completing the process underway now, and 2) expanding the study of form
based codes to other parts of the city. Mr. Miller asked if the Council wants to expand
the study, do they want staff to negotiate with the current consultant.
Mr. Conner noted that with regard to the current form based codes project, the Planning
Commission felt it got a lot of good information from the community and suggested a
committee with residents, Council, landowners, Commission members as a
sub-committee of the Planning Commission.
Mr.Engels said he was willing to take responsibility for form based codes.
Ms. Dooley moved to appoint Mr. Engels as chair of the form based codes study. Ms.
Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Conner added that the Planning Commission felt it might be appropriate for a single
consultant to work on other parts of the city as well as City Center,but to do it in
segments.
6. Other Business:
Ms.Dooley offered members excerpts from prior Council meetings regarding the
National Gardening Association.
7. Deliberative Session:
Ms.Riehle moved that the Council meet in deliberative session with the City Attorney to
discuss applications under Interim Zoning, and to resume regular session only for the
purpose of adjournment. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Regular Session:
The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Greco moved adjournment. Ms. Riehle
second The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned.
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
18 JUNE 2012
PAGE 9
Sophie Quest-Planning Commission:
Felt this is an amazing time in South Burlington and wants to be part of it. She is a
Quaker and a mediator and would try to serve as many needs as possible to gel to a
win-win situation.
Nancy Simson- Library Board of Trustees:
Has been on the Board for 2 terms, Chair for one term. Wants to follow through on the
process and do what is right for the city library. Felt there are no issues that can't be
solved. Encouraged the Council to fully fill the Library Board as there is now a lot of
extra work for everyone.
Bill Stuono - Planning Commission:
is now on DRB and would like to be on both the DRB and Planning Commission. Felt
Interim Zoning was correct.
Peter Tousley - Energy Committee:
Said that"energy is my life." Has been in energy management for 30 years. Felt
energy use can be reduced so that tax money can be used elsewhere. Has encouraged his
employees to volunteer and wants to lead by example.
11. Review and Consider Approval of Interim Zoning Committees,Missions,
Purposes, Goals,Strategies and Membership:
Committee Members for the three interim zoning committees were announced as follows:
Affordable Housing Committee:
Charlie Baker - Leslie Black-Plumeau
Sr. Margaret Brault Sandra Dooley
Eric Farrell Joe Larkin
Erhard Mahnke Bob McDonald
Larry Michaels Michael Monte
Kenn Sassorossi Ken Schatz
John Simson Kathy Searles
Amy Wright
CITY COUNCIL
18 JUNE 2012
PAGE 10
Form Based Codes Committee:
Ernie Pomerleau Melinda Moulton
Will Rapp Mike Simoneau
Tim Duff Tim McKenzie
Tricia King Anita Germain
Tom Bailey Bill Gilbert
Michael Mittag John Mick
Debra Bell a Planning Commission member to be named
Sustainable Agriculture Committee:
Jenna Antonio de Mare Vince Bolduc
Betty Milizia Sophie Quest
Addison Raap Mollie Silver
Tracey Tapley Ethan Thompson
Ben Waterman Will Robb
Mission and goal statements for these committees were also presented in written form.
Ms. Mackenzie moved to approve the membership,missions and goals of the three
interim zoning committees as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
12. Consider setting the Tax Rate and Tax Due Dates:
Mr.Rusten said they had estimated the tax rate at .4036 and that is what is being
recommended.
The locally voted tax for the veterans' exemption is .0005.
The rate for the Spear Street Northeast Sewer is .1495. The amount for the Spear Street
South project is the same as last year, $732.81.
Tax collection dates would be: August 15,2012, November 15, 2012, and March 15,
2013.
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the tax rates and special assessments and the due dates for
tax collection as presented. Ms. Riehie seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PAGE 6
Ms.Mackenzie said she felt the letters were thoughtful and represented a significant part of
the community. She said she didn't disagree with the letters or the full page ad. She felt
that all the deliberative sessions regarding Interim Zoning should be done in public and that
there have been comments made in executive session that have made her not proud to be a
member of this Council. She specifically noted a comment from one member: "I wish
there were a way to say 'no' to this proposal."
Ms. Dooley said Ms. Mackenzie should raise her concern at the time something is
happening. She added she would be interested in having an open session at which Ms.
Mackenzie would raise these concerns. She also liked Mr. Engels idea of being proactive.
Mr. Knapp noted the Council will be discussing its priorities at 4:30 tomorrow,a time
when just about everyone who signed the letter that appeared in The Other Paper,and most
other residents,are at work, so there can be no public input. He noted there were more
than 100 people who contacted the signers of the letter voicing their support of it.
Ms.Greco said the Council is trying to mesh schedules of people on committees,and there
are only so many hours in the day. She felt the Council could never accommodate all
12,000 adults who live in South Burlington.
Ms.Goldberg said she endorsed the letter and agreed with its content. She hoped the
Council would take it as constructive criticism as there are real concerns with the direction
the City Council is taking the city.
8. Discuss possible repeal of the Economic Studies Amendment to the Interim
Zoning Bylaw:
Mr.Engels thought having a public hearing to amend the bylaw is a terrible idea and that
re-opening the bylaw would be a disaster. He noted the amendment was his,and he didn't
think they needed to anything about it. He noted the attorneys felt they could ignore it.
Ms. Riehle felt that opening that discussion would get them"off task." She was inclined
to ignore it. She felt the timing on the amendment was silly. Ms. Dooley agreed. She
noted that staff did try to carry this out but didn't get anything workable.
Ms. Mackenzie said her concern is that they don't have to money to do these studies. She
noted developers saying how much their costs have increased because they have had to
have meetings with the Council.
CITY COUNCIL
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PAGE 7
Mr.Knapp asked how the Council will know the potential impacts on the Grand list,tax
income,etc., if they don't do the studies. He also noted the impact of pushing growth out
of the city and having people drive through the city. He stressed that the enabling statute
requires that these things be taken into consideration.
Ms.Goldberg said this discussion is part of what The Other Paper letter is about. It is part
of the Interim Zoning bylaw that has not been fulfilled. She noted that Interim Zoning
was adopted before its impact was known.
Mr. Miller noted that the responses to the RFP to do these studies did not fulfill what staff
felt the work should be.
Ms. Riehle said she is comfortable going forward with getting information around the 4
goals of interim zoning. She hoped they would lead to significant changes
Ms. Greco said she would like to see the economic studies done,but there were no good
responses to the RFPs.
9. Other Business
Ms. Dooley asked if there is a workload attached to putting signage at the Police
Department on an agenda. Ms.-Greco questioned if it is a high enough priority. Mr.
Miller said it would not require a lot of time,half an hour or less for some staff people. A
majority of the Council asked to put it on an agenda. Mr. Miller said they would get to it
by the end of the year
Ms. Greco:questioned the room's sound_system. Mr.Miller said it is not the sound
system; it is the acoustics in the room. Mr. Maille recommended getting an"attenuator."
Ms. Greco noted that on Saturday there were 20 cars lined up at the new stop sign at
Kimball Ave.and Gregory Drive and no cars entering from the side street. She felt it was
fine for Monday-Friday rush hours. Mr.Knapp suggested a"Yield"sign on Kimball or a
"please take turns"sign. Mr. Miller suggested bringing in Mr. Rabidoux for that
discussion.
Mr. Engels asked about City Hall renovations. Mr. Miller said things will be starting
soon. They have worked with the company to finalize the HVAC system design. Other
work should start soon.
Ms.Dooley asked about the results of Professor Bolduc's poll. Ms.Greco said they came
in today.
CITY COUNCIL
17 DECEMBER 2012
PAGE 6
Ms.Riehle moved to continue IZ-12-06 to 7 January 2013. Ms.Mackenzie seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
10.Review and Consider Open Space Committee Workplan and
Membership:
Ms.LaRose noted she is the staff person serving this committee.
Ms.Riehle said the committee met several times and feels they need some consultant
work to focus on:
1.Evaluation of natural resources outside the Southeast Quadrant(wildlife,
surface waters, etc.)
2. Reassessment and possible additions to the scenic view corridors(some outside
of the SEQ)
3. Development of open space requirements in PUDs
4. Site specific natural resource conservation standards(e.g.,ratios of open land to
population).
Ms. Riehle suggested possibly connecting with the sustainable agriculture consultant with
the understanding that it may result in an additional person being added for this purpose.
Ms.Riehle then presented a list of committee members including all members of the
Natural Resources Committee(Peter Jones,Patrick Clemens,Russell Agne,Betty
Melizia,Laurel Williams,Mark Depuy,and Jonathan Miller)plus Barbara Benton of the
Planning Commission,Patricia Allen of the Land Trust,Jen Kochman of the Leisure Arts
Committee,and Ms.Riehle.
Ms.Mackenzie said she had a conversation with Marcel Beaudin on this and suggested
Ms Riehle speak with him,especially with regard to wildlife and view corridors.
Ms. Dooley questioned the goals of the committee. Ms. LaRose said she will provide
these. She added that half of the first Natural Resources Committee meeting of the
month and all of the second meeting of the month will deal with open space.
Mr. Simoneau said he was struck by the"big picture"thinking of ECOS and suggested
the need to consider those communities who share South Burlington's borders. He
suggested the possibility of having someone from Regional Planning on the committee
and possibly Vermont Fish and Wildlife and an independent property owner(possibly an
Auclair) and possibly a Shelburne representative.
CITY COUNCIL
17 DECEMBER 2012
PAGE 7
Ms. Greco said she would like to see the vision and goals but did not want to slow the
process.
Ms.Mackenzie then moved to accept the documents and committee members as
presented and expect the vision and goals statements. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
11. Review and Consider Draft Clean Air Resolution:
Mr. Miller said this is a standard resolution in support of reducing green house gas
emissions. He asked the Council to make a policy statement to that effect. The
resolution will include steps the city has already taken.
Members agreed to wait for a completed document before approval.
12.Review the"Encouraging Good Government in South Burlington"
Advertisement in The Other Paper:
Ms. Dooley said she wanted to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
provide more specifics and for Ms.Mackenzie to provide more specifics regarding her
agreement with the ad.
Ms. Mackenzie said she will let her statement that she agrees with the letter stand as it is.
Ms. Greco questioned Ms. Mackenzie saying that things were done or said in executive
session that should have been done in open session. She wanted to hear specifics on this
so it can be stopped. Ms. Mackenzie said if it happens again she will note it. She said
one example she can recall was related to funding for interim zoning which should not
have occurred in executive session. Mr. Miller said the intention that night was to
present in executive session some personnel issues. He felt they were close to following
the line pretty closely.
Ms. Dooley felt the error was"cured"in a couple of hours. She felt there are different
models of Council leadership and that it is important to have a respectful discussion of
what those are. She felt people haven't articulated their points of view.
Mr. Engels said he ran for the Council because he had heard from members of the public
that the city was run by a"clique"of people with business and money interests. He felt
this Council has made changes, some of which may turn out for the worst. He felt they
may not go about things perfectly,but he can see a light at the end of the tunnel. He felt
the Council has broad community support.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLAN 'ING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 4
Comprehensive Plan,and a draft future land use map(not a regulatory document).
Ms. Riehle questioned how to delineate solar arrays. Mr. Conner said that is to be decided. He
added that solar arrays are exempt from local regulations as are agricultural structures.
Mr. Miller noted that there is concern among municipalities that natural resource areas are not
totally in the control of municipalities. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns is looking at
ways in which local priorities can be more of a factor in these areas. There is also controversy
among communities because municipalities are already having problems siting utility
installations.
B. Synthesizing Interim Zoning Products:
Ms, Louisos said the Planning Commission has discussed the fact that many committees are
working on things that will eventually come through the Commission. Before that happens,it
would be good to have a conversation as to how that could happen and how work can be
integrated so groups are not working at cross purposes.
Ms. Riehle questioned how to manage areas where different committees are at odds.
Interim zoning consultants were then introduced and indicated which committees they are
advising.
Mr,Dreyer said the Faun Based Codes Committee(FBC)is endeavoring to write LDRs for the
City Center and eventually the whole city. He felt that stormwater concerns,affordable housing
and transportation mobility all fit into that. The idea would be that the FBC would become the
clearing house for all others so they can write an end product that encompasses everything.
Mr. Dreyer said they are planning a week-long workshop to include meetings with stake holders,
etc. He felt the committees should interface as much as possible.
Ms. Quest commented that this is the first she has heard of what some of the committees are
doing.
Ms. Greco said the Planning Commission needs to speak with Mr. Dreyer about what form they
want information in. Mr. Dreyer said they can write a code from any specific or general
information.
Ms. Greco said she envisioned having the community review options and give their input. Mr.
Dreyer said that makes sense.
Mr. Riehle said his question is how to put all this together. The Planning Commission is in the
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 5
middle and he questioned what they should be doing to avoid"spinning our wheels."
Mr.Dreyer said one thing for sure is getting regular updates,especially from the FBC. Various
subcommittees could report to the Planning Commission. They should all be interacting. He
also felt that other subcommittee members should show up at FBC meetings as much as possible.
Ms.Riehle said there are visions and strategies for the Open Space Committee that interact with
other committees. They haven't started yet to work on strategies or elicit public comment. She
said it might be important for FBC and maybe Affordable Housing to review these to see how it
all interfaces. She asked what the process would be for that.
Ms. Dooley said they need to know how density fits into FBC,so Affordable Housing doesn't
spin its wheels working on density.
Mr. Cole asked what the community would be reacting to.
Ms.Mackenzie noted that each committee has a vision statement and she thought the community
would be asked to respond to that. Ms. Greco said they could also react to work already done by
the committees.
Ms. Saxton said there will be some specific recommendations.
Ms.Louisos asked when this visioning processing would occur. Mr.Dreyer said during the
week-long workshop event,the week of 11 February. He added that anything that comes in to
their committee will be put into the process.
Mr. Stuono asked the time frame for all of this. Mr.Dreyer said they anticipate delivering a
product over the course of the summer for passage in October.
Mr. Stuono asked about development potential. Mr. Dreyer said that should fall into place if they
do their job correctly. FBC is neutral on growth. It regulates where growth happens. Growth
will decrease on"green fields." Already disturbed areas will allow more density. FBC cares
about how growth occurs. If growth occurs will depend on the market. FBC is a"very laissez-
faire thing."
Mr. Riehle asked where the documents like the LDRs and Comprehensive Plan are going to be
after this. Mr. Dreyer said those that don't apply will be discarded. When it makes sense to
merge,they will merge. As far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned,this process will inform
the Comprehensive Plan. It will produce a map of predicted and enabled growth patterns.
C.Process for synthesizing community visioning with Comprehensive Plan:
Ms. Louisos noted that in 2011,the city readopted the 2006 Comprehensive Plan with a few
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 6
changes. It is not that up to date. There has been a huge amount of work done on a new
Comprehensive Plan. She said she hoped to learn how additional community visioning would
get wrapped into all the work done on the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Commission
over the past year. She added that it appears the visioning is not happening at the Planning
Commission level but in the committees. She felt this was a"bit of a disconnect"
Mr. Cole said the LDRs are supposed to flow from the Comprehensive Plan, so the Planning
Commission is stuck. He was not sure how to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan so as not to
waste people's time guessing what other people are doing.
Ms.Louisos said she just learned 5 minutes ago that the FBC is doing a future land use map.
Mr. Cole said it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to hear from the full committees.
He added that it sounds like density is"out the window." He asked if there would be a traffic
overlay district and noted these are the things the Planning Commission has been working on.
The Commission has also identified where it wants density to occur and asked how that aligns
with FBC.
Mr. Dreyer said that"if you say you want density where there is public transit,we can deal with
that." He said they can translate potential LDRs into FBC which is better than traditional LDRs.
Ms. Greco said the question is what the Planning Commission does practically to participate in
the process. Mr. Dreyer said the Planning Commission can get information and decide what to
do with the information and feed that back to FBC. He felt it was critical for the Planning
Commission to learn about FBC because in 4-6 months they will be"taking that FBC and
tweaking it."
Mr. Cole said the process with the stormwater consultants has worked well. He felt the other
committees should come to the Planning Commission because Commission members can't get to
meetings during the day.
Ms. Greco thought it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to identify conflicts in the
LDRs.
Mr. Engles felt they should all meet at least once a month like this.
D. Overall process flow of IZ work between IZ committees,Planning Commissin
and City Council:
Ms.Louisos said her concerns are that things are spread out so everything is not being done at
once. She was also concerned with how best to use the Planning Commission time to mesh
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 7
everything together.
Ms. Greco said she thought the products of the various committees would go directly to the
Planning Commission, then to FBC, then to the Planning Commission,then to the City Council.
Ms. Quest said there should be some fairly close deadlines so the Planning Commission knows
what's happening.
Ms. Henderson-King said she felt the visioning piece needs to happen first and the outcome of
that will help all the committees refine and develop their work products. She noted that
Sustainable Agriculture is not planning a public meeting until March.
Mr.Engels said FBC has been meeting every other week since July. They anticipate coming out
with their City Center work in March, so others can see what it looks like. There will be a
template of what FBC looks like.
Ms.Louisos noted the Planning Commission did a lot of community visioning regarding the
Comprehensive Plan. They have 10 goals, objectives, etc.
E. Are there items that the IZ Committees are not tackling:
Mr.Miller identified a city Energy Policy and noted the city is working on that with the Energy
Committee. He also cited the Stormwater work.
Ms. Dooley noted that the Affordable Housing Committee would like to see smaller houses
which use less energy.
Mr. Stuono questioned how things like traffic, Airport, Exit 12B etc. will be incorporated into
FBC.
Mr. Dreyer said their team includes one of the foremost traffic experts in the world. They will be
addressing that. They also address streets,connectivity and walkability.
Mr. Stuono asked how FBC will affect existing neighborhoods and whether homes will become
non-conforming. Mr. Dreyer said he would prefer to discuss that with the Planning Commission
one-on-one.
Ms. Louisos noted that things like Exit 12B are policy issues. She asked if there are policy
questions that need to be answered to feed into FBC. Mr. Dreyer said not that he is aware of. He
added that FBC is the "regulatory tool kit."
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 8
Mr. Riehle noted that the Planning Commission had a presentation from a developer regarding
land not under interim zoning. They want taller buildings. He asked if the Planning Commission
were to allow them to go to 5 stories,would that be in conflict with FBC.
Ms. Greco said it may not be in conflict,but rewriting the LDRs now,if they're going to be
changed a year from now doesn't make sense.
Mr.Riehle asked how to respond to the developer. Does the Commission"put him off?" He felt
there have to be some ground rules.
Mr. Stuono asked if FBC will affect industrial areas. Mr. Dreyer said that remains to be seen.
They're not there yet.
Ms.Dooley said she didn't want to impeded development.
Ms. Greco asked when there would be something city-wide. Mr. Dreyer said November or
December.
F.Council consideration of Open Space Vision and Goals:
Mr. Miller felt the vision and goals were consistent with what other committees have put together
and are approvable.
Mr. Cole said he is struggling with "environmental stewardship."
Ms. Greco said she liked it the way it is.
Ms. Harrington suggested a definition of what the"score card" is. Ms. Riehle said this is
language used by the Natural Resources Committee.
Ms. Dooley then moved to adopt the Open Space Vision and Goals with the modification that the
language"incorporate Natural Resources criteria"is added in place of"score card." Mr.Engels
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Miller suggested using the actual name of the Natural Resources Committee document. He
said staff will insert that and append it so it is part of this document.
In the vote that followed,the motion passed unanimously.
G. City Council Procedures for Interim Zoning Application Decision-Makin
•
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
22 JANUARY 2013
PAGE 9
Ms. Dooley said she thought the Council is ready to have their decision making process occur in
open session except when legal counsel is needed.
Ms.Dooley then moved that the City Council procedure for interim zoning application decision
making take place in public. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Other Business:
1. Items from Consent Agenda:
There were no such items.
2. Bike Rack:
There was no discussion,
3. Other:
Ms. Harrington noted that the bike path on Kennedy Drive has no street lighting and it is hard to
see when she bikes home from Planning Commission meetings. Also, a street lamp has been out
for months. Ms. Dooley added that it is also dark driving on Kennedy Drive at night. Members
agreed to add this to the bike rack.
Ms. Greco noted that she received a threatening phone call from an individual who is known to
carry a gun. The law says you can't take the gun away from him, even with his history of issues.
Ms. Mackenzie said it might make sense to have a presentation from the Police Chief.
10. Executive Session:
Ms. Mackenzie moved the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel issues and to
resume regular session only for the purpose of adjournment. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
11. Regular Session:
As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Riehle moved to adjourn. Ms.
Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.
Clerk
South Burlington Form-Based Codes Committee
Adopted By City Council June 18, 2012
VISION
By adopting a system of form based codes into the Land Development Regulations and the City's
Comprehensive Plan, South Burlington will become an urban center with the look and feel of a New
England village, including a new city center surrounded by a walkable, affordable, and sustainable
community where people can live, work, shop, and play.
GOALS
The system of form based codes shall:
• create conditions that support quality, context-sensitive,environmentally conscious land
development and conservation throughout the community
• encourage land development that implements the Vision and Goals of the Comprehensive Plan
• establish a predictable, efficient regulatory environment for development within South
Burlington
• reinforce the affordable housing and sustainable agriculture goals for the community
PRIORITIES:
1. Complete a final draft Form-Based Code Regulation for the City Center/Williston Road/Dorset
Street area to replace the existing zoning for consideration by the Planning Commission and City
Council by December 31, 2012.
2. Develop a plan for the overhaul of the Land Development Regulations,identifying components of
the Regulations which are presently functional, components which are functioning poorly, and
components which are contrary to the draft Comprehensive Plan which may benefit from the Form-
Based Code model by June 30,2013.
3. Evaluate implementing Form-Based Codes City-wide on:
a. effectiveness of meeting the City's vision and goals for each specific area as determined by
the Council; and
b. improving predictability, consistency, and fairness of the permitting process.
4. Determine the appropriateness and applicability of Form-Based Codes to implement affordable
housing and sustainable agriculture goals for the City.
5. Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on whether to extend
Foiiu-Based Codes throughout the City by June 30, 2013.
6. Based on Council input, if appropriate, complete the final draft Form-Based Code Land Use
Regulations for the remainder of the City area to replace the existing zoning for consideration by
the Planning Commission and City Council by December 31,2013.
STRATEGIES:
• Establish a working committee representing the interests of principal stakeholders from throughout
the community.
1 Il' a g e
• Have the Committee tour and/or gain training on the use of Form Based Codes elsewhere in the
region.
• Coordinate with the Sustainable Agriculture Committee, Affordable Housing Committee,Planning
Commission,and City Council throughout this process.
• Engage the community in the development of the City Center Form Based Codes, and
consideration and implementation of Form-Based Codes on a city-wide scale.
• In the City Center/Williston Road Area, develop a Form-Based Code that implements the goals,
objectives, and strategies of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Central District Chapter and includes:
o The creation of a central"green"along Market Street
o A mixed-used,high density core adjacent to the central green
o Residential uses and compatible form adjacent to existing single family neighborhoods
along Iby Street
o Compatible form and uses adjacent to existing neighborhoods along Barrett Street, Sherry
Road,Patchen Road,Davis Parkway,and Ruth Street
o Pedestrian-oriented forms, block designs, and streetscapes throughout each of the Transect
Zones
o A coordinated and integrated street and pathway network
o A development pattern, including minimums and maximums for development that are
consistent with the October 2011 /April 2012 Form Based Code Workshop findings.
o Evaluates and recommends to the City Council:
■ Whether a"gateway"at the intersection of Williston Road&Dorset Street should
be encouraged;
■ Whether a"boulevard" connecting Market Street to Williston Road should be
pursued for pedestrian and vehicular linkages between Jaycee Park, Williston Road,
City Center, and Dumont Park;
• How to addresses parking management and stormwater treatment in the area;
■ Whether and how to integrate architectural design review into the Form-Based
Code; and,
• Whether and how planned streets and public areas will be integrated into the
regulatory system.
■ Provide recommendations on the layout of Market Street(intersection locations,
street types)to inform the reconstruction of said street.
• Extend the consultant contract to provide technical support in the completion of the City Center
Form-Based Code.
• Issue a request for proposals to aid in the development of a vision and conceptual designs for each
area of the City and determine appropriateness of the Form-Based Codes model.
MEMBERSHIP
Ernie Pomerleau— Price Chopper Plaza on Williston Road owner
Melinda Moulton— Main Street Landing on Burlington Waterfront developer
Will Rapp— Farm at South Village
Mike Simoneau— Realtor and developer
Tim Duff— Architect and former Planning Commission chair
Tim McKenzie— City Center property owner
Tricia King— SBLT member,resident and landscape architect
Anita Germain— City Center area resident
Tom Bailey— Attorney and Huntington resident developing form based code for Huntington.
21Page
Bill Gilbert— Resident, southeast quadrant
Michael Mittag— Resident and SBLT member
John Illick— Technology Park developer
Debra Bell— City Center neighbor and civil engineer.
PC member (to be determined following appointments to the PC)
Subcommittees—as recommended by the Committee
3f l' age
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
(802)846-4131
www.sburl.com
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
(Approved by South Burlington City Council on June 18, 2012
-Revised and approved, August 20, 2012)
VISION
South Burlington is a City that, each year, increases the availability of safe and affordable rental
and owner-occupied housing especially for households whose incomes, based on family size,
are below 80 percent of the median for Chittenden County and, in doing so, gives highest
priority to promoting availability of affordable housing for household types for which such
housing is in shortest supply.
GOALS
4 Identify the types of households having the greatest difficulty securing affordable rental
and owner-occupied housing in South Burlington and the housing types appropriate for
these households' housing needs.
• Identify land that has positive features (access to services, public transit, etc.) for
development of affordable housing and propose adoption of zoning consistent with its
use for affordable housing.
• Examine known and explore new regulatory mechanisms that promote or require the
development of affordable housing, both rental and owner-occupied, and, based on this
research, propose adoption of ordinances, land development regulations, or other
municipal structures supportive of affordable housing consistent with the VISION.
• Identify public funding mechanisms targeted to affordable housing that the City might
establish.
• Identify potential private, nonprofit, and other public entities willing to partner with the
City toward the retention and development of affordable housing.
• Assess the need for a City task force (or other entity) and staff support that would be
directed to the retention and development of affordable housing.
6 Enhance the City of South Burlington's identity as a regional leader in the retention and
development of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing.
PRIORITIES
1. Raise awareness of how the inclusion of diverse household types, for example, ages,
configurations, disability status, and income levels, contributes to the health, vitality,
and sustainability of a community.
11 Page
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
4�
(802)846-4131
www.sburl.com
2. Raise awareness of the scarcity of affordable housing in South Burlington and
Chittenden County, generally, and in particular to households whose incomes, based on
family size,falls below 80 percent of the median and to particular household types.
3. Consider policies that, inasmuch as possible,give all South Burlington residents and
individuals who develop land in the City a role in supporting the increased availability of
housing that is affordable to households whose incomes, based on family size,falls
below 80 percent of the median.
4. Apply Smart Growth principles in designing mechanisms that support the goals of this
committee.
5. Promote energy efficient rehabilitation and construction practices as a means of
increasing the affordability of housing.
6. Promote placement of affordable housing in areas likely to decrease single-occupancy-
vehicle (SOV)transportation patterns(e.g. in transit overlay district and near recreation
paths).
7. Design policies that promote single developments in which the housing units have a
wide range of prices, including affordably priced units.
8. Propose specific changes in municipal policies to the City Council no later than
December 31, 2012.
STRATEGIES(to be expanded by committee)
• Obtain information for committee as follows:
(1) Overview of housing costs and affordability in Chittenden County, the number of
affordable units in South Burlington and their types (to the degree available), and
measures of unmet need for affordable housing locally..
(2) Overview of how affordable housing is currently being developed in Chittenden
County, including role of municipal or other governmental policies(for example,tax
credits and municipal funding), partnerships, multiple funding sources, permanency
feature,and home ownership versus rental opportunities.
(3) Specific information regarding municipal policies being used in Vermont and
elsewhere to promote the retention and development of affordable housing.
Have committee tour affordable and other housing in South Burlington and elsewhere,
highlighting neighborhoods or developments that demonstrate best practices relative to
affordable housing.
Determine how form-based codes can be supportive of affordable housing.
Pagc
South Burlington Affordable Housing ingCommittee
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
(802) 846-4131
www.sburl.com
Engage City residents in a conversation about their hopes and dreams with respect to
the availability and placement of affordable housing in South Burlington and the mix of
rental and owner-occupied affordable housing. Make sure residents whose housing
options are constrained due to the lack of affordable housing participate in this
conversation in meaningful numbers.
Explore opportunities for philanthropic contributions to bringing about an increase in
the availability of affordable housing in South Burlington.
Subcommittees—as recommended by the Committee
31 Page
South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security
Task Force Steering Group
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
(802)846-4131
www.sburl.com
SOUTH BURLINGTON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE/FOOD
SECURITY TASK FORCE
(Approved by City Council June 18, 2012,
Revised and approved August 20, 2012)
VISION
Transform South Burlington into a City that can provide all its residents with affordable,
locally grown, healthy, organic food.
GOALS
• Use arable lands for growing food
• Attract small-scale farming and family farms
O Increase community gardens, Community Supported Agriculture, and farmers
markets
Increase the amount of SB-produced food sold and served in local grocery
stores, restaurants, and school cafeterias
Incorporate agriculture into existing and future development patterns
PRIORITIES
1. Incorporate agriculture as a high priority use of land in the Comprehensive Plan
2. Re-write the Land Development Regulations to codify agricultural uses for
identified areas in SB
3. Identify the locations of all prime agriculture soils in SB
4. Create opportunities for successful small scale farming
5. Raise awareness of food security issues and the effects industrial food
production methods have on our health, economy, and the climate
STRATEGIES
Conduct guest lecturer/film series
' Page
South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security
Task Force Steering Group
- 575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
,,t �`► (802) 846-4131
www.sburl.com
• Create a resource list (books, articles, films, etc)
• Connect with small farmers and aspiring farmers
• Partner with local schools, colleges, and universities
e Dedicate some city-owned land (and perhaps some willing landowner's land) for
small "demonstration" plots to be used by SB students
® Enlist help of Community Gardeners to serve as teachers/mentors in small plot
farming
• Offer UVM (and other schools) internship projects in small-scale farming
• and more
Task Force Members
Jenna Antonino di Mare Landscape designer, National Gardening Association
Vince Bolduc SB Land Trust member; Sociology Professor at St
Michael's; Resident
Betty Milizia Natural Resource Committee; Community Gardener;
Resident
Sophie Quest UVM Student, Sustainable Horticulture; Resident;
Planning Commission Member
Addison Raap Farmer; Common Roots
Will Robb Burlington Urban Agriculture Task Force
Molly Silver SB Farm to School Coordinator
Tracey Tapley Systems Analyst; Resident; Planning Commission
Member
Ethan Thompson UVM M.S. Candidate
Suggested Subcommittees
Awareness/Consciousness-raising and Outreach/Public Relations
• Current industrial food production practices and its effects
• Implications of reliance on fossil fuels for food production/transportation
Health, economic, and climate benefits of local, organic food
• Involvement of residents, landowners, farmers, students, media, county and state
entities
Research and Land Acquisition Methods
2IPage
South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security
Task Force Steering Group
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
(802)846-4131
www.sburLcom
O Successful small-scale farming business models and best practices
6 Zoning regulations used in other urban agriculture areas
6 Legal rulings and court cases on changing land regulations (re-zoning)
O Conservations easements
6 Leasing
6 Purchase
O Tax Incentives
Land Development Regulation Drafting
Other Possible Research/Work Topics
• Economic implications/incentives for landowners
6 Environmental/wildlife impacts
O Funding sources (grants, private, public, etc)
3 1 Page
Approved City Council January 22,2013
Interim Zoning Open Space Committee
Vision Statement,Goals, Priorities,and Strategies
Vision Statement
The City of South Burlington will preserve, create,and restore adequate public and private open spaces
throughout the city that address needs for recreation and leisure arts, agriculture, habitat,
environmental stewardship,and important public scenic views.
Goals
• Recreation:Create and maintain recreation space adequate and appropriate for projected
population growth
• Agriculture:Leverage the work of the Sustainable Agriculture Committee to further the City's
Open Space Committee goals
• Habitat:Identify and subsequently protect natural resource corridors and individual natural
resource sites citywide.
• Environmental Stewardship:Minimize the human footprint on our community by maximizing
integration with the natural environment.
• Scenic Views: Identify and preserve scenic views.
Priorities
1) Identification and protection of natural resources including wildlife corridors,surface water
corridors,view corridors, and individual,unique natural resources with a specific focus on
resources outside of the Southeast Quadrant.Objectives 40,59,67)
2) Foster a more symbiotic relationship between the city's urban and semi-urban neighborhoods
and the natural environment.
3) Craft or amend LDRs and recommend policies to enhance the quantity and quality of our city's
natural resources.
4) Collaborate with and provide educational resources to South Burlington residents,businesses,
officials, and others who live,work, and play in the city to further our committee's vision.
Strategies
• Establish a land purchase and land development policy based on objective and robust criteria.
[1,3]
• Reassess and, if necessary,add to the current list of important public scenic views and
connected natural areas in South Burlington and craft or amend appropriate LDRs to preserve
these views and corridors. [1,3]{Strategy 127, 146)
• Craft or amend appropriate LDRs with respect to open space within Planned Unit Developments.
[3]{Strategy 136)
• Continue current project which is developing site-specific natural resource conservation
standards{i.e. management plans)including provisions for retaining publically owned natural
areas. [1,3) {Strategy 132)
[]denotes the pertinent priorities for each strategy
{)denotes a reference to the March 2012 draft South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 2012-2016
Approved City Council January 22, 2013
• Propose LDRs which require a minimum amount of recreation space within or in proximity to
new developments and redeveloped sites. [1,2,3](Strategy 162)
• Review and provide input on recommended LDR amendments from other committees and
projects(e.g. Planning Grant and Planning Commission). [3,4]
• Provide incentives to refurbish and repurpose existing parcels,such as FAA bought-out
properties,as opposed to focusing solely on new open space parcels. [2,4]
• Provide incentives to improve the natural integration of properties(residential and commercial)
through improvements such as LEED certification,off-grid energy sources, reduction in square
footage,green roofs, rain capture systems and indigenous gardens. [2,4]
• Provide incentives to residents to refurbish existing properties to reduce their environmental
impact through the creation of natural backyard habitats and provide educational resources to
teach best practices. [2,4]
• Revisit parking space LDRs for commercial properties. [2,3]
• Coordinate and leverage our efforts with other related initiatives and parties of interest,
including other Interim Zoning Committees,transportation and public works bodies,the draft
comprehensive plan,and neighboring jurisdictions [4]{Strategy 1371.
• Create better access natural resources areas in our urban and semi-urban neighborhoods. [2]
• Determine how to better integrate environmental concerns into urban and semi-urban LDRs.
[2,3]
• Promote street trees/native vegetation and eradication of invasive species on both private and
public lands through the creation of educational resources and community activities. [1,2,4]
(Strategy 107)
• Compile data from existing sources to identify natural resource corridors and sites and add to
our inventory of natural resources. [1,4]
• Design a framework to incorporate future information from studies into the natural resource
inventory. [1,4]
• Incorporate Open Space Natural Resource Scorecard (appended) into land purchase and land
development decisions. [1,3](Strategy 143)
• Create a plan for walkable neighborhoods with recreation paths and bike lanes which connect
established and new neighborhoods. [2]
• Coordinate with transportation and public works bodies both within South Burlington and
neighboring jurisdictions to increase public transportation options and improve pedestrian
crossings to encourage less single-passenger car use. [2,4]
• Work with water management officials to find sustainable solutions to managing storm water.
[1,4] {Strategy 105, 116,122)
• Educate residents and businesses on how to reduce the introduction of toxins into the
environment through recycling, proper disposal,alternatives to their use,and consumer
behavior. [1,4] {Strategy 118)
[]denotes the pertinent priorities for each strategy
{}denotes a reference to the March 2012 draft South Burlington Comprehensive Plan 2012-2016
05/13/2013 City of South Burlington Accounts Payable Page 1 of 1
09:15 am Check Warrant Report # cingalls
Unpaid Invoices For Check Acct 1(GENERAL FUND) From / / To 05/15/2013
Purchase Discount Amount Check Check
Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Amount Paid Number Date
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21293269 CITY HALL PHONES 1355.63 0.00 /--/--
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21315662 CITY HALL PHONES 1379.99 0.00 /--/--
BCN TELE BCN TELECOM INC 21337917 CITY HALL PHONES 1380.15 0.00 /--/--
GREEPW GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATI 059950APR13 BARTLETT BAY 10089.49 0.00 /--/--
Report Total 14,205.26 0.00 0.00
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
To the Treasurer of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, We Hereby certify
that there is due to the several persons whose names are
listed hereon the sum against each name and that there
are good and sufficient vouchers supporting the payments
aggregating $ ****14,205.26
Let this be your order for the payments of these amounts. Rosanne Greco
Chris Shaw
Pat Nowak
Helen Riehle
Pam Mackenzie
JLadd
From: Kevin Dorn
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:06 AM
To: JLadd; Bob Rusten
Subject: 5/15 Executive Session
Hi Janice—please create an agenda for the Executive Session for the meeting on the 15th with these two items
1. Estimated costs for Maille appeal.
2. Staff reorganization and transition
1