HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 07/13/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, July 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Planning Commissioners will attend this meeting digitally via GoToMeeting. Members of the public
may attend in person or digitally via GoToMeeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-07-13
Telephone (audio only): (786) 535-3211 Access Code: 211-500-245
In person: City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, First Floor Conference Room
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm)
4. Welcome to City Manager Jessie Baker (7:10 pm)
5. *Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Official Map: (7:25 pm)
a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a
planned 20’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg
Road at two (2) locations
b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive /
Deerfield Drive.
6. Review and possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments to Official Map and
accompanying Planning Commission Report to City Council (7:35 pm)
7. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations , with Sharon Murray, Front
Porch Community Planning & Design (7:45 pm)
a. Environmental Protection Standards: receive and confirm that updated habitat block boundaries
match Commission direction (7:45 pm)
b. Review proposed approach for completion: PUDs, Subdivisions, Master Plans, Site Plans,
Inclusionary Zoning, TDRs, Zoning Districts (7:50 pm)
c. Function and thresholds: Master Plans, Planned Unit Development types (8:30 pm)
8. *Minutes: (9:05 pm) June 22 & June 29, 2021
9. Other Business: (9:10 pm):
a. Review upcoming meeting schedule [July 27, August 18, August 24] format, and topics; consider
holding date of August 31 for special meeting if needed
b. Proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance; hearing date
Tuesday, July 27th
10. Adjourn (9:20 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conn AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning * item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings
to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently
presenting / commenting will have their video on.
3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant
in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute
yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint.
Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to
allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning
and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items
specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message
Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages
on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of
Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official
meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently
focused to help guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published
timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda
items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any
expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end
that will be covered “if time allows”.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: July 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:05 pm)
Staff updates:
• A reminder that I will be out on parental leave from July 12 to August 16. Jessica Louisos, who is
generally included in Planning Commission-related work, will continue to receive questions and will
coordinate the agenda directly with department administrative staff and with Sharon Murray on the
PUD/Subdivision/Master Plan work. For general inquiries to the Department, members of the public
are encouraged to use the planning@sburl.com email address, which is checked throughout the
week.
• SoBu Night out is back! Head over to Wheeler Nature Park Thursday evenings this summer for food
trucks, music, and fun!
4. Welcome to City Manager Jessie Baker (7:10 pm)
Welcome and introductions with our new City Manager, Jessie Baker!
5. *Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Official Map: (7:25 pm)
a. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a
planned 20’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg
Road at two (2) locations
b. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive /
Deerfield Drive.
See enclosed memo & draft Official Map.
6. Review and possible action to approve and submit proposed amendments to Official Map and
accompanying Planning Commission Report to City Council
Following the public hearing, the Commission can review public input received, make changes to the
draft, and then can vote to approve the amendments and submit them and the accompanying Report to
the City Council for their consideration.
7. *Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations, with Sharon Murray, Front
Porch Community Planning & Design (7:15 pm)
2
a. Environmental Protection Standards: receive updated habitat block boundaries, status update on
text amendments requested by Commission
b. Review planned approach for completion: PUDs, Subdivisions, Master Plans, Sit Plans, Inclusionary
Zoning, TDRs, Zoning Districts
c. Function and decisions for of each Planned Unit Development type
See attached memo
8. *Minutes: (9:05 pm) June 22 & June 29, 2021
Enclosed.
9. Other Business: (9:10 pm)
a. Review upcoming meeting schedule: format, and topics; consider holding date of August 31 for
special meeting if needed
We’re very excited to be transitioning to the new City Hall this month. A quick schedule run-down:
o Tuesday July 27th: Regular PC Meeting, Commissioners will be attending remotely. A
physical space for the public will be available at the Police Station for members of the public
who choose not to attend by video
o NEW: August 2nd or August 3rd [date to be finalized by Jessie Baker]: Joint
Council/Commission meeting on land use and equity. Location TBD.
o Wednesday August 18th: PC meeting [instead of the prior week). This meeting will take
place in person at the new City Hall, 180 Market Street. We are working on a system to also
allow remote access for members of the public.
o Tuesday August 24th: PC regular meeting. In person at 180 Market Street
o Tuesday August 31st: Staff asks that you consider holding this date for a special meeting if
needed to help complete the LDR amendments you’re working on.
10. Adjourn (9:12 pm)
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Official Map Amendments
DATE: July 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Enclosed are the proposed amendments to the Official Map as warned for public hearing by the Planning
Commission last month.
The Commission has proposed two amendments as described in hearing notice and detailed in the Planning
Commission’s Report.
Following warning of the hearing, staff reached out to the Police Department and Fire Department for
comment. The Police Chief indicated he had no comment on the proposed amendment. I haven’t received
comment from the Fire Chief just yet but will share if provided in advance of the hearing.
Enclosed with your packet is one public comment received on the proposed amendments. We will provide
any additional ones received between now and the public hearing itself to Commissioners.
*Note: the version of the official map you are seeing at this public hearing differs slightly from the version
warned for hearing. Under State Law, an Official Map is revised automatically when final plats are recorded
and infrastructure is constructed. Following warning of the public hearing, we asked staff to look for any
automatic updates we had missed previously, and these were incorporated. No action is required of the
Commission on these updates.
Recommended motions for Opening / Closing the public hearing:
1. “I move to open the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Official Map, #OM-21-02 and
#OM-21-02”
2. “I move to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Official Map, #OM-21-02 and
#OM-21-02
Following the public hearing, the Commission may make modifications to the proposed amendment and
then may vote to approve the amendments and submit them and the accompanying Planning Commission
Report to the City Council.
Possible Commission motion to approve & submit the amendments:
“I move to approve amendments to the Official Map #OM-21-01 and #OM-21-02, and to submit the
amendments and accompanying Planning Commission Report to the City Council.”
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON
OFFICIAL MAP
Public Hearing Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7:00 pm
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at
7:00 PM to consider amendments to the Official Map. The amendments are proposed in two areas of the
City, specified below. The hearing will be held in person and remotely via GoToMeeting. Participation
options:
Interactive Online: https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-07-13
Telephone (audio only): (786) 535-3211 Access Code: 211-500-245
In Person: South Burlington Police Department 2nd Floor Community Room, 19 Gregory Drive,
South Burlington
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following:
A. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a
planned 20’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg Road
at two (2) locations.
B. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive /
Deerfield Drive.
Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning,
City Hall, 575 Dorset Street, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov.
Bernie Gagnon, Planning Commission Vice-Chair
June 24, 2021
§¨¦89
§¨¦89
§¨¦189
¬«116
SWIFT ST
CHEE
S
E
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
WHITE
S
T
MARCY STP
A
TCH
E
NRDMILLHAM CTHARBOR
V
I EW RD
WILLISTON
R
D
KAREN DRNOWLAND
F
A
RMR
DIR
I
SHCOVERDKI
MBAL
L
A
VMIDAS DRKIRBY RD
M
A
R
K
E
T
S
TMARY STVA N
S
I C K L EN R DBARTLETT
B
A
Y
R
D
KE N N E D Y D R
ELIZABETH ST
I B Y
S
T
PATRICK ST
SHUNPIKE RDMEA D O WL A ND
D
RSPEAR STALLENRD
GREEN MOUNTAINDREAST TERRMOUNTAINVIEWBLVDAIRPORT
DRDORSET STGREG O RY DRAIR PO RTP K W Y
WHITEFACE S T
NATIONAL
GUARD AV
QUEEN CITY PK RD
GREEN
TREE
DR
£¤2
£¤7
Block Standard
Applicability
Non-Exempt
UVM Hort.
Farm
#4
#7
#1
#5
#6
#8
#9
#10
#11
Legend
Commuter Rail Station
Policy Change
Proposed Road
Planned Street Right of Way
New/Changed Road Network
Common Open Land
Golf Course
Institutional & Agricultural Lands
Proposed Park & Open Space
Existing Park and Open Space
Tax Parcel Boundary-2021
Form Based Code Area (346 acres)
Municipal Boundary
Recreation Paths
Easement
Existing Recreation Path
Existing Trail
Proposed Rec Path or Trail
The following notations are hereby incorporated into the Official Map:
1. Blue circle #1 refers to the proposed realignment and reconstruction
of Airport Parkway to facilitate circulation between Lime Kiln Road and the
Airport.
2. Blue circle #2 refers to the provision of a dedicated off-ramp at Exit 14
to serve the Hill institutions.
3. Blue circle #4 refers to provision of a northbound on-ramp at Exit 13.
4. Blue circle #5 refers to creation of an appropriate internal roadway
network for development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of
between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an
immediately adjacent area.
5. Blue circle #6 refers to development of Exit 12B at Hinesburg Road
and a dead-end at Old Farm Road. Blue circle #6 also refers, along with
blue circle #7, development of an appropriate roadway network to service
Exit 12B and facilitate connections to Williston Road, Kennedy Drive and
Kimball Avenue.
6. Blue circle #8 refers to development of an internal roadway network
linking Queen City Park Road with Fayette Drive through the Martin’s
Foods and Southland properties.
7. Blue circle #9 refers to development of an appropriate roadway system
between Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street through the Marceau and
Chittenden properties.
8. Blue circle #10 refers to acquisition of right-of-way and completion of a
reconfigured intersection at Spear Street and Swift Street.
9. Blue circle #11 refers to proposed recreation paths within 20’ of
planned City rights of way” (i.e., should be within the ROW itself, not
within 20’ OF the ROW).7/5/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
City of South Burlington
Official Map (Citywide)DRAFT
1
Paul Conner
From:Alida & John Dinklage <jadinklage@MyFairPoint.net>
Sent:Thursday, July 8, 2021 3:45 PM
To:Duncan MacDonald; Jessica Louisos; Monica Ostby; Ted Riehle; Bernie Gagnon; Michael Mittag; Paul
S. Engels; Paul Conner
Cc:Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Helen Riehle; Matt Cota
Subject:EXTERNAL: Please keep Swift St. extension on the official City Map
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Greetings Planning Commissioners, Please keep Swift St. extension to Hinesburg Rd. on the official City Map.
A well‐designed extension would be an example of rational, practical planning. It need not be an arterial road, just a
neighborhood connector.
For years the lack of E‐W connectors in the SEQ has been recognized, and solutions planned. There is no E‐W connector
between Dorset St. & Hinesburg Rd. south of I‐89 until Cheese Factory Rd.
The residents of the Village at Dorset Park will not experience significant additional traffic on Swift St. because Swift St.
extension can be designed to be a low volume, low impact road, like Midland Ave. which connects South Village and
Dorset Farms.
It was clear from the beginning, to the original occupants of the Village at Dorset Park, that an extension of Swift St. was
planned.
The extension has not been built previously because it was expected that developers off Hinesburg Rd., on the Marceau
& Rye properties, would pay for and build the road when development occurred.
Thank you for considering these thoughts.
Respectfully, John Dinklage
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Official Map
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday July 13, 2021
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Official Map.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7:00
pm, via GoToMeeting electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South
Burlington Official Map:
A. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a
planned 20’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg
Road at two (2) locations
B. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive /
Deerfield Drive.
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
2
A. OM-21-01: Replace planned roadway connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road with a
planned 20’ wide right-of-way and extending the planned multi-use path to connect to Hinesburg
Road at two (2) locations.
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
This amendment would remove the planned roadway connection from Swift Street Extension to
Hinesburg Road via Landon Road depicted on the present official map.
This planned infrastructure would be replaced on the Official Map with a 20’ wide right-of-way and
planned paved multi-use path maintaining this same link to Landon Road and adding a second link
to Hinesburg Road north of this point as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies that relate to transportation
infrastructure in this area:
Maps & Analysis
• Map 10, Planned Infrastructure Improvements, shows a “planned roadway” in this location
connecting Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road.
• Summary of Proposed Transportation Improvements, cross-referenced to Map 10, discusses
the planned roadway as follows (p. 2-69):
• Map 6, Planned Rec Lanes and Paths, shows a “Proposed Rec Path” connecting Swift Street
Extension to Hinesburg Road via Langdon Road.
3
• Map 11, Future Land Use, depicts the area immediately east of Swift Street Extension and
the Village at Dorset Park / Veterans Memorial Park as “Very Low Intensity, Principally Open
Space.”
• Maps 7 & 8, Primary and Secondary Conservation areas, indicate the presence of water
features, deciduous forest, and habitat blocks in the area immediately east of Swift Street
Extension and the Village at Dorset Park / Veterans Memorial Park.
• The Southeast Quadrant Future Land Use section discusses the subject of east-west roads as
follows pp 3-36 to 3-37):
“East-West and Neighborhood Connector Roads: One of the most difficult issues for South Burlington
has been the provision of east-west connector roads between Spear Street, Dorset Street, and
Hinesburg Road, and provision of connections between adjacent subdivisions.
“Despite the fact that a network of east-west roads has been shown on the City’s Official Map and
included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 40 years, at the present time, the only full connection
between the north-south roads in the SEQ is Cheese Factory Road. Nowland Farm Road terminates at
Dorset Heights; Swift Street terminates at the Village at Dorset Park; and Midland Avenue terminates
within Dorset Farms.
“The lack of east-west roadways means, effectively, that the SEQ presently has over 1,000 housing units
and regional traffic moving through a farming community’s roadway network. The lack of east-west
connections increases travel times and miles traveled between, for example, Butler Farms and Village
at Dorset Park, or Dorset Farms and Shelburne Road. When east-west and neighborhood connector
roads are lacking, school bus routes and emergency service responses also are lengthened, and there
is less physical connectivity between neighborhoods, creating an isolating development,
transportation, infrastructure and social network in the SEQ.
“The flip side of this discussion relates to the potential environmental impacts of new roadways on
wetlands and other environmental resources, and the desire of many residents to have as little
“through traffic” as possible able to drive through their neighborhoods. Proposed roadway connections
between new and existing neighborhoods are a frequent source of conflict in the development review
process, and, against the policy of the City, the DRB has in some cases allowed one-way or “emergency
only” roadways as a way to allow projects to proceed.
“Also, wetland regulations are often interpreted in a manner that considers connector roads an
“unnecessary impact” or an easy way to reduce wetland impacts. This interpretation is often self-
defeating from an environmental perspective, since it leads to greater vehicle miles traveled by new
residents when neighborhoods do not connect to other neighborhoods and the street network.
“One key issue where there has been increasing agreement on all sides is the need to design east-west
and neighborhood connector roads with narrower profiles and other environmental design features,
such as box or open-bottom culverts instead of pipes for wetland and stream crossings, narrower road
profiles (especially at crossing points), wildlife-friendly landscaping, and other traffic-calming features.
Th ese approaches, which can be incorporated with the City’s public service and roadway maintenance
practices, should become “standard operating procedure” for new development in the SEQ.
“With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission evaluated the planned crosstown roads on the
Official Map in 2003 and proposed a series of amendments that were adopted by City Council in
December, 2003. This Comprehensive Plan reaffirms that the remaining proposed roadways through
the SEQ that are shown on the Official Map should be constructed.”
4
Comprehensive Plan Goals:
• Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
options while accommodating the automobile;
• Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air
quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational
assets;
Comprehensive Plan Objectives:
• Objective 18. Connect neighborhoods with one another via road segments and with commercial
areas for local, slow speed circulation.
• Objective 31. Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site
planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical wildlife resources, and
that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open
space.
• Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas
within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.
Comprehensive Plan Strategies:
• Strategy 37. Due to increased development and the desire to protect natural resources, update the
South Burlington Planned East-West Roads Analysis
• Strategy 43. Work with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission to complete
transportation network analyses and network studies for areas anticipated for development and
transportation need, including examination of an I-89 Interstate interchange at Hinesburg Road or
other location.
• Strategy 45. Develop and build a City-wide sidewalk and recreation path plan that identifies and
prioritizes gaps to link various neighborhood and community focal points.
• Strategy 67. Substantially restrict new subdivision and development from primary resource
conservation areas to include hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas identified, mapped and
regulated by the City. Minimize the adverse impacts of new subdivision and development, including
resource fragmentation and encroachment, within secondary resource conservation areas, to include
those resources of state or local significance as indicated on available resource maps, identified in
available inventories and studies, and confirmed through site investigation.
• Strategy 68. Redefine open space in new developments such that usable, quality open space shall be
required. Qualifying open space should include civic spaces, recreation, wildlife habitat, and usable
agricultural lands.
• Strategy 137. Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives, and
development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition of supplemental
conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands.
• Strategy 138. Maintain measures in the LDRs and SEQ zoning map to ensure that open spaces in all
developments affecting secondary natural areas be designed in a manner to ensure continued
connectivity between other open spaces and the preservation of “stepping stone” or other pockets of
important wildlife habitat.
• Strategy 139. Consult the Arrowwood Environmental SEQ Environmental Assessment regarding
environmental resources, conditions, and possible strategies for protecting wildlife habitat values
through conservation, restoration and development.
5
In the time since the adoption of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the City has completed planning studies
which have further informed the transportation and natural resources subjects referenced above. These
include:
• 2020 VT 116 / Kimball Avenue / Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan, prepared by
VHB
• 2020 South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking, prepared by Arrowwood
Environmental
The Tilley Drive study provides an analysis of the impacts of a Swift Street Extension connector to
Hinesburg Road both being constructed and not being installed. The report identifies pros and cons of
each and concludes that a final decision on the connection should be based on a wide range of factors:
“As shown in the above figure, the addition of the Swift Street Extension pulls traffic away from
Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road and increases volumes along upper Dorset Street and Swift Street
as traffic takes advantage of the new east-west connector. Traffic volumes along Kennedy Drive
between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road are expected to decrease by approximately 24% while
volumes on VT 116 adjacent to Tilley Drive are expected to decrease by approximately 15% with the
Swift Street Extension in place. Future evening peak hour traffic volumes on Swift Street east of Dorset
Street are expected to increase from approximately 125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200
PM peak hour trips with the addition of the Swift Street Extension.” (p. 25)
…
“With the Swift Street Extension added in as an additional connector road, additional east-west
connectivity would be provided in this area. The need for east-west connectivity, which has been
identified in South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, would be enhanced by this connection. In
addition to meeting the east-west connectivity need, the Swift Street Extension would also enhance
emergency vehicle access to the area.
“However, the extension of Swift Street would also have implications for residents of the Village at
Dorset Park who would see evening peak hour volumes along Swift Street increase from approximately
125 PM peak hour trips to approximately 1,200 PM peak hour trips with full land use build-out of the
study area. The Swift Street Extension would also draw traffic off adjacent arterials designed to handle
higher traffic volumes (e.g. Kennedy Drive is expected to see traffic volumes reduce approximately 24%
with the Swift Street Extension in place). Additionally, as shown previously in this report, the Swift
Street Extension would also have environmental impacts to potential wetlands, habitat blocks, and
threatened species.
“The Swift Street Extension could be designed and constructed in a manner that discourages cut-
through trips (i.e. through traffic calming and/or curvilinear features), however the environmental
impacts would remain. The decision of whether to proceed with the Swift Street Extension should be
based on a wide-range of factors including both traffic and environmental impacts, along with broader
policy implications (e.g. merits of enhanced connectivity vs. concerns over cut-through traffic,
connectivity to a future educational complex, future development of the Hill Farm parcel, emergency
vehicle connectivity), costs, and public input.” (pp 36-37)
The 2020 Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking identifies 26 habitat blocks of at least 20 acres in size in
the City and provided an evaluation of their relative value in supporting a diverse suit of wildlife within
the City based on 10 different evaluation criteria. The Habitat Block that includes a portion of this planned
6
infrastructure ranks #7 and received high individual rankings for size, connectivity, and amount of core
habitat.
Upon review of all of the information above, the results of recently-completed reports, and an
assessment of the competing objectives within the Plan, the Planning Commission concludes the
following concerning removing the Planned Roadway shown on the present Official Map, retaining a 20’
planned public right-of-way, and extending the recreation path to two connection points at Hinesburg
Road:
• The amendment, on balance, conforms with the goals and policies contained in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• The amendment will not affect the availability of safe and affordable housing and is compatible
with the proposed future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan as no changes to
those subjects are proposed.
• The amendment continues to carry out proposals for planned community facilities in a manner
that reflects the Plan’s overall goals and priorities while reserving options for the future.
The recreation path finally, will provide connectivity for pedestrians & cyclists between neighborhoods
as well as to Veterans Memorial Park and Wheeler Nature Park.
B. OM-21-02: Remove planned roadway connecting IDX Drive and Sebring Road to Overlook Drive /
Deerfield Drive.
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
This amendment would remove the planned roadway connection between IDX Drive /Sebring Road
and Overlook Drive / Deerfield Drive. This proposed changes was previously considered in
development of the Comprehensive Plan and is no longer proposed in the Plan that was adopted in
2016.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
As noted above, this proposed connection was eliminated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This
amendment therefore directly implements that policy decision.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The removal of this connection will not have an effect upon proposed future land uses and
densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
As noted above, this proposed connection was eliminated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This
amendment therefore directly implements that policy decision
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Land Development Regulations – Habitat Blocks, PUDs, schedule
DATE: July 13, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Sharon Murray, of Front Porch Community Planning & Design, will join the Commission for this week’s
meeting as well as the upcoming meetings, to help wrap up your work on Planned Unit Developments /
Master Plans / Subdivisions.
Three topics are on this evening’s agenda:
A. Environmental Protection Standards: receive updated habitat block boundaries, status update on
text amendments requested by Commission
Enclosed please find a revised map prepared by the CCRPC based on your guidance. The changes
include, as indicated via vote or straw poll by the Commission:
• Add Habitat Block #18 (south of the Airport, previous had been removed). [Commission
vote 5/25)
• Modifications to Habitat Blocks #1 and 5 (SEQ by South Village / Midland Ave) [Commission
straw poll 6/22]
• Modification to Habitat Block #11. (Shelburne Road near Allen Road). [Commission straw
poll 6/22]
• Modification to Habitat Block #7 (Meadowland Drive) [Commission straw poll 6/22]
• Modification to Habitat Block #21 (North of Williston Road, east side of I-89). [Commission
straw poll 6/22]
• Modification to Habitat Block #9 (Shelburne Bay / Lakeshore area]. [Commission straw
poll6/22]
Please review the updated map and confirm that these boundaries reflect the Commission’s
direction. Text updates following Commission guidance are under development.
B. Review planned approach for completion: PUDs, Subdivisions, Master Plans, Sit Plans, Inclusionary
Zoning, TDRs, Zoning Districts
Staff and Sharon Murray have met a few times in the past couple of weeks to present a “game plan”
and recommendation for the Commission to be able to complete the key elements of your work
under Interim Zoning. What you’ll see below is an outline of an approach that we believe meets the
Commission’s overall objectives, and for which we’d love your feedback on at this meeting. We’re
aware that some of the recommendations differ from some of the individual pieces of guidance
2
provided to staff at various points in the development of this project, but they differ only in order to
provide a strategy and approach we believe meets the goals you’re striving to meet.
Staff/ Consultant recommendations:
General:
1. All development would be subject to the proposed Environmental Protection Standards as
applicable in Articles 10 & 12.
2. All subdivisions would be subject to the proposed Subdivision Standards [with modifications as
allowed within a PUD type]
• Includes lot arrangement to avoid Hazards & Level 1 resources, transportation
connectivity requirements, block & lot standards, and a minimum civic space
requirement
3. All development above a certain threshold would be subject to the proposed Master Plan
requirements [current draft is 4 acres, but this may be modified]
Southeast Quadrant:
1. Within the SEQ’s neighborhood-residential areas:
a. For properties with smaller buildable areas, apply present zoning district standards and the
proposed subdivision standards. TDR transfers would remain eligible as they are today.
• Allow, as an option, a Conservation PUD.
• For Commission consideration: allow an option for a “partial-TND PUD” type
[Commission to decide after drafting the partial-TND standards].
b. For larger properties, require a Conservation PUD in most cases.
2. Within the SEQ’s village commercial/residential area:
a. Applicants could use the present zoning district standards, the proposed subdivision
standards, and the proposed environmental protection standards. TDR transfers would
remain eligible as they are today, and inclusionary zoning would apply.
b. For medium & larger properties, the partial-TND and TND PUD types would be eligible
Citywide:
1. In residential / medium density mixed use districts:
a. For smaller parcels, apply present zoning district standards & proposed subdivision
standards
• Allow as an option a “partial TND” for parcels with a buildable acreage above 4 acres
• [alternatively, the Commission could allow for limited use of “Infill PUDs”, to provide
flexibility to from the subdivision/zoning district standards while retaining the current
basic zoning in these areas]
b. For parcels with a buildable area over 10 acres, require a TND PUD
c. For parcels with more than 50% Hazards & Level 1 Resources, allow Conservation PUD as
option
2. In Commercial / Industrial Areas:
a. Apply present zoning districts standards & proposed subdivision standards.
• In built-up areas, allow for an “Infill PUD” to allow for flexibility to address unique
circumstances of infill / redevelopment sites
3
Related Subjects:
1. Site Plan Standards, Underlying Zoning. Some basic modifications to these areas are tied into the
Commission’s work, including providing limited ability for dimensional waivers under site plan [as
allowed under state law] so that minor adjustments to a project don’t need to become a PUD, and
eliminating requirement for certain land uses to be a PUD.
2. Inclusionary Zoning: The Commission has provided guidance that future development should be
subject to the inclusionary zoning standards
3. TDRs: For Commission consideration: Along our major commercial corridors (northern half of
Shelburne Road and portions of Williston Road), the current regulations allow for a mix of uses.
These areas have a maximum building height and coverage. Within a building, the current
regulations allow non-residential uses, up to the maximum bulk of the building, and residential uses,
up to 15 dwelling units per acre.
• For discussion: the Commission could enable TDRs to be purchased to allow more residential
units, up to a higher cap OR to remove the cap altogether and instead place residential uses
on the same plane as non-residential uses, that is, allowing residential uses up to the
maximum building bulk permitted. The Commission could start with a just 1-2 zoning
districts (eg C1-R15 and C1-Auto), and could later consider additional areas such as C1-R12,
C2, C1-LR, R7-NC
C. Function and decisions for of each Planned Unit Development type
Staff & Sharon have recommended three PUD types be installed initially. The Neighborhood
Commercial PUD is not included in this list. The NCD does have a place, but with the limited time
available, staff is recommending it be considered after the completion of Interim Zoning as the
design enhancements is creates can be achieved via other means presently.
We are proposing that in the short-term (ie, for completion during Interim Zoning), the Commission
target putting into place the following PUD types. Below is a BRIEF summary of each. For more detail
on each, visit the project website:
https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/planning_and_zoning/PUD_/_Master_Plan_Project.php
Included below is the proposed schedule for the detailed review of each PUD type. After the PC has
completed its review of the standards for each PUD type, staff recommends the Commission circle
back for a “final” check on the applicability of each throughout the City.
1. Conservation PUD.
Basic elements:
• Minimum of 70% open space, including all hazards and land within NRP. Additional open
space would include Level 1 natural resources, and then other resources such as Level 2,
additional buffers, prime agricultural soils, grasslands, higher elevation areas, areas
identified through the development review process
• Development area subject to underlying zoning & subdivision regulations, with certain
modifications
• Max Density based on base density of underlying zoning district; can be re-located from
non-hazard areas to the development area; No minimum density.
• Option: Commission could allow a density bonus for retaining additional open space
Applicability: Within the SEQ neighborhood areas (optional on smaller parcels, possible required
on larger parcels), and optional on parcels citywide that exceed 50% hazards and level 1
resources
4
PC Review Timing: To be reviewed at 7/27 Planning Commission meeting
2. Traditional Neighborhood PUD.
Basic Elements: [as reviewed this past spring]
• Hazards and Level 1 Resources excluded
• Principally residential, plus civic space and a mixed-use or non-residential component
• Layout focused on walkable neighborhood, using the subdivision standards as the basis
• Maximum Density based on allowed building type. Min density 4 units per acre
• Min 3 building types, with maximum amounts for any one. Additional building type guidance
as provided earlier this winter
Applicability: Full TND required for 10+ buildable acres in residential / medium density mixed
use areas outside the SEQ; option for a “partial TND” on parcels 4-10 acres outside SEQ; optional
within SEQ-Village areas.
Timing: Commission has reviewed; additional review at 8/24 PC meeting
3. Infill PUD.
A note: the term “infill” has been used in a few different contexts. The Commission provided
guidance that parcels of 2-4 acres in size for residential development did not need to be
prioritized for PUDs. That guidance is carried through here. However, in its most traditional
sense, an “Infill PUD” is meant to provide some flexibility to largely-built up parcels, or parcels in
largely built-up areas. They provide some room for the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations to be implemented in areas where the existing built
environment may not allow full adherence to the site plan & subdivision standards.
Basic elements:
• Incorporate related design standards, uses, building types, etc. to extent physically feasible
• May also be used to waive/modify underlying zoning district standards as specifically
applied to infill or redevelopment sites – as long as related community objectives, design
standards are also addressed
• Provides flexibility needed for infill, retrofits, needed to accommodate site constraints,
(physical, structural, legal), while ensuring that new development is a good “fit” and meets
other community objectives.
• Reduced or waived grid, block requirements
• Reduced or waived land use allocations [if applicable], in relation to context (available uses,
housing, civic space, connections, amenities within walking distance of project site)
• Frontage reductions, waivers – e.g., to allow for irregularly shaped building lots (e.g., flag
lots), limited dead-end streets
• Lot area, frontage, setback, building height reductions or averaging for compatibility with
adjoining areas
• Retention, modification of existing structures, including adaptive reuse of historic or
culturally significant buildings
• Standards for teardowns
• Other incentives… including public/private partnership agreements
Applicability: In mixed use districts and commercial districts. Possible application in residential
districts.
Commission review timeline: August 18 PC Meeting
§¨¦89
§¨¦89
§¨¦189
¬«116
£¤2
£¤7
SWIFT
ST
WHITE
S
T
WILLISTON
RDAIRPORT
P
K
WY
CENTRALAVEP
AT
CHENRDSPEARSTDORSET STKI
MB
A
LL AVEKENNEDYDRAIRPORT
DR
C H E E S E F A C T O R Y R DOLDFARM RDHabitat Block & Connectors
South Burlington, Vermont
Effective INSERT DATE
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.38
Miles
Disclaimer:
The accuracy of the information this map
presents is determined by its sources.
The City does not guarantee accuracy, but
in designating certain lands as Habitat
Blocks and Habitat Connectors, the City
relies upon and presumes the accuracy of
the field data and assessments underlying
the information this map presents.
The Chittenden County Regional
Planning Commission is not responsible
for any errors or omissions. Users
release the City from all liability related
to this map and its use. The City shall
not be liable for any direct, indirect,
incidental, consequential or other
damages.
Note: Parcel Line data is provided
for reference purposes only, and there
may be new parcel data that is not
depicted. The City reserves the right to
update this map with new parcel data as it
becomes available.
Data Source:
Parcel Boundary-South Burlington
(2018)
Habitat Blocks + Connectors-Arrowood
Consulting, City of South Burlington
Map Prepared by M. Needle using
ArcGIS Pro. All Data is in VT State Plan
NAD 1983.
Date: 7/7/2021
DRAFT
Legend
Parcel Boundary
City Boundary
Stream or River Centerline
Level I Resources
Habitat Connector
Habitat Block
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
22 JUNE 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 June 2021, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. Trombly, L. Ravin, T. David, R.
Greco, D. Long, R. Gonda, A. Chalnick, J. Parsons, A. Worthley, L. Kingsbury, F. MacDonald, S.
Dooley, J. Nick, J. Simson, C. & A. Long, A. Jensen-Vargas, K. Pfeiffer, E. Long, K. Ryder, S. Dopp
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Davis of Davis Studio said they are planning an expansion of their programs and would add
a child care use to 1803 Shelburne Rd. They can get a $30,000 grant to do the expansion, but
the donor wants to have assurance the permit would be granted and that the LDRs would be
amended to allow a waiver for not replacing a residential unit that is being eliminated. Mr.
Conner said the issue is that if you remove a housing unit, you must provide a new one or pay a
fee. The City Council can’t waive that. There might the possibility of some kind of Planning
Commission “pending action.” Ms. Ostby noted the Commission had agreed to allow child care.
Mr. Conner said this could be added to the next round of LDR amendments. Ms. Louisos said
there is a time-line issue for the Davises, and it would be a few months before a change could
be enacted. She suggested possibly having the City Council postpone the fees. Mr. Mittag
asked if it would be enough to state the Commission’s intention to make the change. Mr.
Conner said he would talk with the City Attorney and Ms. Davis in the next few days.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby said she noticed a number of roundabouts in the Saratoga area, but the hotel she
was at was warning guests not to run near the roundabouts.
Mr. Riehle noted that on a trip west, it was disheartening to see where the water line had been
and said there is a need to address global warming implications. Mr. Riehle also noted there
are half a dozen residential units going into what was a commercial site on Kimball Avenue. He
suggested that possibly the third floor of business buildings could be residential and a
percentage of those could be affordable.
Ms. Ostby noted receipt of a letter from members of the public regarding a UVM study of
environmental issues as they relate to people of color.
Planning Commission
22 June 2021
2
Ms. Louisos noted the new City Manager Jessie Baker has reached out with a doodle poll
regarding a joint meeting of the Commission and City Council on the subject of land use and
equity.
Mr. Conner noted he has extended an invitation to Ms. Baker to attend the next Commission
meeting.
Mr. Conner also asked to include in Other Business a schedule discussion and the transition to
“live” meetings. He also noted that he had provided an update to the City Council on
sustainability.
Mr. Nick noted he had taken a bike ride to Monkton where he noticed 8 homes in the middle of
a former hayfield miles away from anything. He urged the Commission to keep in mind that if
you limit inhabitability close to Burlington, you will be pushing people out where you don’t
want them.
4. Draft Environmental Standards:
Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission had asked Arrowwood to look at adjustments the
Commission had made in the draft regulations. She introduced Aaron Worthley and Jeff
Parsons from Arrowwood to respond to members’ questions.
The specific areas the Commission had expressed interest in were then reviewed as follows:
a. Midland Avenue/Allen Road East [Habitat blocks 1 & 5]:
Mr. Conner reminded members that the approvals for South Village are fully in place and that
portions of the neighborhood have already been built.
Mr. Worthley said the Commission’s elimination of this area cut off a chunk of forest, but there
is an area of wetland that can increase the connectivity. He added that the isolated area to the
west has a function but would be too small to qualify under the original parameters on its own
because of the construction. Mr. Worthley said he didn’t know exactly how the crossing of
Midland Avenue was designed. Mr. Parsons said the area may have value for small mammals.
He said the isolated area is not critical but could fulfill a roll. Mr. Conner noted that the isolated
is largely wetland.
In a straw poll members agreed to keep this piece and add the recommended additional piece.
b. Habitat Block #11
Planning Commission
22 June 2021
3
Mr. Mittag felt they should keep the whole piece because it supports the habitat area. Mr.
Worthley said there are a few mature trees there, mostly shrubs. Mr. Parsons said it would be
a buffer for more developed forest, but it would not have significant impact on wilder species.
He didn’t feel a loss of that piece would significantly impact species. Mr. Conner said if it is a
steep slope or 50 feet from the top of the bank, it may already be covered. Mr. Riehle asked
about the necessity to preserve the southern part of that area which just goes into a field. Mr.
Conner said that is presently developable and close to Shelburne Road. The priority would be
for housing.
In a straw vote, members added in the “yellow part,” but not the southern “purple” part from
Arrowwood’s memo.
c. Sadie Lane Area [Habitat Blocks #2]:
Mr. Conner noted the marked area is a wetland. He indicated the location of where 2 homes
would be located. Mr. Worthley said this is not a ground delineation and does not include a
buffer. Mr. Mittag said if the City Council has already approved the 2 homes, there is nothing
the Commission can do. Ms. Ostby said that since there is a wetland, there is connectivity, and
she supported leaving it off the draft.
In a straw vote, a majority favored keeping it as the Commission drafted them last fall (Mr.
Mittag abstained).
d. Underwood Area [Habitat Blocks #5]:
Ms. Ostby supported leaving the changes as the Commission drafted them. Mr. Mittag said the
public supported it as habitat. There is a wetland and it is heavily wooded. Mr. Parsons
indicated a little piece of land to the west which is not completely developed and said that area
may provide some landscape for wildlife to move to the west. Mr. Engels said removing it
would be a favor to the people who want to develop it. Mr. Riehle asked if the 2 stubs of road
could be joined by a rec path. Mr. Conner said the City Council would have to work with the
property owner as it is private land. Ms. Dooley noted that South Point and South Village are
planned to be connected by that road. Mr. Gagnon said he hasn’t heard anything that would
change his mind about the Commission’s previous action. Ms. Jensen-Vargas said the trails
there are used by hikers and skiers. Mr. Chalnick opposed developing a parcel that is used by
wildlife. Ms. Louisos said it is not only development they are considering but wildlife crossing
the road. Ms. Ostby said the Commission’s request was whether removing any of it would
harm the core. The answer was that it is of low value. She noted that wetland value is
increased and the core is protected.
In a straw poll, a majority of members indicated they would like to add it back in.
Planning Commission
22 June 2021
4
Mr. Long, owner of the property, reminded members that crossing that land is at the owners’
pleasure. Ms. Ostby suggested changing the block to a “connectivity band across Spear.” Mr.
Riehle said he would support what Ms. Ostby suggests. Mr. Parsons said when they did some
connectivity scoring, this area did not rank high in connectivity modeling. It is broken up by
existing development and they feel connectivity is compromised by the existing large house.
Ms. Louisos said she was “not excited” about how she had indicated in the straw poll and does
not support adding it back in. That would make a 3-3 vote, and there would be no change to
the proposed draft as determined last fall.
e. Meadowland [Habitat Block #7]:
Ms. Louisos said the analysis shows the potential for habitat is low. Mr. Worthley said it was
added as a contiguous shrubland, a very small piece of the habitat block.
A straw vote to add it back in failed.
Ms. Ostby asked if there is something else that would protect the core, by perhaps splitting the
distance and drawing a north-south line outside the area shown as “core” on the map. Mr.
Parsons thought that was a good idea. Ms. Ostby noted Arrowwood’s re-drawing would
protect the core. Mr. Parsons showed 100 meters from the edge of the forest which provides a
healthy buffer.
A straw poll on adding back in a portion of habitat block along a north-south line outside the
“core” on the map (“split the difference”) passed.
f. Wheeler / Hill Farm Area [Habitat Block #12]
Ms. Louisos noted the impact is low, and there are 2 suggested adjustments. Mr. Gagnon said
he would go with the changes recommended by Arrowwood. Mr. Nick said they had a plan
which showed much of this area retained but not as much as the Commission is planning. He
noted that the Regional Plan does not consider this land to be conserved. He felt it was
counter-intuitive to encourage wildlife along the Interstate. Mr. Conner noted the piece along
the Interstate and said Arrowwood recommends removing that from the habitat block. Mr.
Parsons said they recommend the piece to the east not be protected. He indicated the most
important piece to protect. Mr. Nick asked if he could bring in his own experts. Mr. Riehle
asked how many acres are in the retained area. Mr. Gagnon estimated 4.25.
In a straw poll, a proposal to make the two changes recommended by Arrowwood in their
memo was 3-3 and therefore deemed to have failed. There was no change to the draft.
Planning Commission
22 June 2021
5
g. Centennial Woods / I 89 [Habitat Block #21]:
Mr. Conner noted this area is within the Form Based Code area, and it contains steep slopes.
Ms. Mittag favored adding ack in the original habitat block. Ms. Ostby noted they had agreed
to remove anything within City Center. Mr. Conner noted the Official City Map has a roadway
on the north side, and there may be sections that could be built on; however, there are steep
slopes and wetlands. He added that a lot of city policies come together here. Ms. Ostby asked
if the core would remain if the finger was removed. Mr. Worthley said it appears so. Mr.
Mittag favored adding back everything north of the road. Mr. Conner questions what
incentives would exist to support the construction of the roadway which is on the city’s official
map. He showed the path of that road and noted it creates a more formal edge to the park and
allows for residences. Mr. Worthley drew a line showing what could be cut off. Mr. Gagnon
said when you add a 100-foot wetland buffer and steep slopes, it would take up much of the
“purple” area. He supported leaving off the map everything south of the lines Mr. Worthley
drew.
In a straw vote 5 members supported Mr. Worthley’s suggestion.
h. Potash Brook/Lakeshore [Habitat Block #9]:
Mr. Worthley noted a potential park designation on the Official Map for a portion of the
property. He said removal of the finger does not impact the core. Mr. Conner noted there are
a number of other resources the Commission prioritized there.
In a straw vote, a majority of members voted to put the “finger” back in.
5. Discussion with Arrowwood regarding grasslands:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history and the Commission’s interest in understanding grasslands.
Mr. Worthley said grassland could be a “non-native habitat.” They are now used by birds,
pollinators, and other wildlife. Grasslands are by definition unmanaged. Left on their own,
they would return to forests.
Mr. Worthley said that if the intention is to protect grasslands, he was not sure prohibiting
development there was the most effective thing. What has been effective have been programs
that pay farmers to cut at only specific times, such as every other year.
Planning Commission
22 June 2021
6
Mr. Gagnon said there would have to be a management plan in order to be effective, and the
Commission can’t mandate that a landowner manage the land. Mr. Mittag said that doesn’t
mean they’re not important.
Ms. Ostby noted on Map 8 of the Comprehensive Plan there are 2 areas of grassland. The new
map does not include protection of that area. She was curious as to Arrowwood’s thoughts on
that. Mr. Worthley said he wasn’t familiar with Map 8. He added that grasslands are a
different type of habitat. He stressed that protecting grasslands involved specific human
intervention. Ms. Ostby said she felt the most effective thing the Commission can do is to
educate people regarding land management of grasslands.
Mr. Conner cited the challenge of mapping grasslands and the challenge of enforcement. He
cited alternatives such as Conservation PUDs, NRP, or a neighborhood.
Mr. Engels said grasslands are important because they provide views of the mountains.
Mr. Conner said the Commission could provide incentives for a landowner to manage open
space. He noted that farming is exempt from local control. Whether the city could require
management is “tricky.” Mr. Worthley noted that the State is requiring a developer of a solar
operation to pay into a program which locates farmers to follow certain management practices.
Ms. Ostby said the city can’t require management. You can’t circle an area on the map and say
it is “grasslands.” She also wasn’t sure there were any grasslands that were more than 20
acres. She added that by not maintaining Underwood, the largest grassland in the city was
being destroyed. She didn’t see making a change to articles 10 and 12 based on what she has
heard. She proposed the Commission move on.
6. Other Business:
Ms. Louisos noted that since there are 5 Tuesdays in June, it would be possible to add a
meeting on the 29th. Mr. Gagnon agreed and suggested sending out a doodle poll. Mr. Conner
will do this.
Mr. Conner noted that at last night’s meeting, the Council expressed interest in having the
Commission tell them where things are at.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:55 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
South Burlington Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
29 June 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 June 2021, at 7:00
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology and with a physical location at 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; L. Kingsbury, D. Peters, A. Chalnick
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag noted research done by UVM students regarding the effect of loss of natural resources on
minorities.
Mr. Conner noted that the move to 180 Market Street has begun and just about everything pertaining to
the Planning Department has been moved.
4. Continued Review of Draft Environmental Protection Standards and other amendments to the
Land Development Regulations
a. Review timeline for completion of projects under Interim Zoning, including subdivisions
and planned unit developments, environmental protection standards and others:
Mr. Conner noted that the work related to Interim Zoning has to be completed by 18 November
[editor’s note: the correct date is 13 November]. That includes completed Commission public hearing
and warning of the City Council hearing. This means that the Commission should have a full finished
draft warned for public hearing by the end of September. Mr. Conner also noted that at the last
meeting in August, there will be a “go/no go” on items, some of which are ancillary to Interim Zoning.
He warned the Commission that he will become a bit “pushy” in order to meet those deadlines. Ms.
Louisos added that she will also push things ahead.
Mr. Mittag said that taking on more than the environmental standards, PUDs and TDRs would jeopardize
the ability to finish on time.
Mr. Conner said that in order to do the PUDs, the Commission must first finish up subdivisions, Master
Plans and Site Plans, some of which just needs “sewing up.” He noted that the Commission hasn’t
talked about site plan standards, and they are critical. He felt members should look at those and give a
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
2
“thumbs up/thumbs down.” There is also the issue of potential zoning district changes including those
which give density bonuses.
Regarding TDRs, Mr. Conner said that Mr. Mittag did a first draft of what this could look like. The only
thing not included is where to have additional density. He asked if members wanted staff to take a stab
at that. Mr. Mittag suggested anywhere but where the Commission doesn’t want development. Mr.
Conner said it will be a tough decision as to whether to go with all of it, some of it, or none of it. And, he
noted, it all has to tie in with Inclusionary Zoning.
Ms. Ostby felt the discussion of whether to allow TDRs outside the SEQ was most strategic at this time.
Mr. Conner then advised that when he is away for mid July-mid August, Sharon Murray will be working
with the Commission (13th, 27th of July and the first meeting in August). Mr. Macdonald ask what Mr.
Conner felt were the priorities. Mr. Conner noted the “double X” items on the work chart, particularly
things that are non-controversial (e.g., childcare), as items that useful but perhaps not critical. He
recommended the Commission review the items when they are brough forward and decide simply
whether to include or not at this time, and if not, they can be followed-up upon at a later date following
the conclusion of Interim Zoning.
Mr. Gagnon asked whether TDRs could wait till after Interim Zoning. Ms. Ostby noted that the City
Council had put TDRs on the Interim Zoning list.
Ms. Ostby then asked about “infill PUDs.” Mr. Conner said Ms. Murray has some things that she thinks
might be critical as to what best meets the needs of the community.
Mr. Mittag felt TDRs was the lowest priority among the items he’s like to see move forward. Mr. Conner
said the question is mainly where new receiving areas would be.
Ms. Louisos cited the need to cut down on extraneous dialog.
Ms. Kingsbury, Associate Director of Planning for UVM, said she thought the Commission was interested
in hearing from UVM while they were working on environmental standards. Mr. Gagnon said his
understanding was that the UVM discussion would take place before the Commission finalized
everything. Mr. Conner noted that the Commission did address 3 technical issues raised by UVM. He
felt the remainder of the discussion is the vision for the various parcels owned by UVM, big picture
things. Ms. Kingsbury said UVM does have some concerns, particularly 3 large parcels heavily covered
with habitat blocks. She said she would follow along with the upcoming discussion and comment
appropriately.
b. Commission discussion of land use/conservation objectives in the Southeast Quadrant and
citywide:
Members then viewed the “big picture” map and indicated the areas under consideration and asked
members what they wanted to achieve in each area. He said that he and Sharon Murray would try to fill
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
3
the Commission’s objectives as to what each of the areas becomes (e.g., a Conservation PUD). Mr.
Conner said the City Council will have a discussion on this at their next meeting.
Area #1: Hinesburg Road south of Butler Farms and a small area of Highland Terrace
Mr. Conner noted that in their “homework” 4 members felt the area should be mostly conservation;
other suggested a possibly mix but preserving the prime ag area or a full neighborhood.
Ms. Louisos suggested that the area along the road is possibly different from the area further back. Mr.
Macdonald said he was OK with development on the edges but trying to preserve as much open space
as possible.
Ms. Ostby said all but block 2 have city water/sewer, and some areas are not buildable because of
topography. Mr. Conner said the prime ag area is very high elevation. Development there would have
to be with wells. It would probably not be a full TND. Ms. Ostby said she was open to it being a
combination, part conserved, part built.
Mr. Gagnon said he had a similar thought to Ms. Ostby. He was not in favor of wells. He favored
development if it was contiguous to an already developed area; if it is not, then conserve it.
Mr. Mittag didn’t feel water/sewer should be criteria. He said he was talking about conserving and they
were talking about development.
Ms. Louisos said that in the big picture they go hand-in-hand, and the homework was to think about
both. She said she favored conserving the prime ag area and having some clustered development
adjacent to the existing development.
Mr. Mittag suggested that if they go with that compromise, expanding the NRP to the piece they want to
conserve.
Members agreed to let staff and Ms. Murray propose the “tools.”
Mr. Mittag then said that he would expand the NRP eastward to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Macdonald said
they had just agreed t let staff and Ms. Murray decide on the “tool.” Mr. Mittag said why not do that
and move on to something else.
Ms. Ostby said she would prefer to see as little changes to zoning districts as possible. She reminded
members that they had talked about not making zoning changes in IZ.
In a show of hands that followed 4 members agreed to the concept as discussed by Ms. Ostby and Mr.
Macdonald and to let staff and Ms. Murray decide on the “tools.”
Area #2:
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
4
Mr. Conner said this area is further to the south along Hinesburg Road, and there are 3 or 4 parcels at
play here. Some have single family homes on them, some with steep slopes. Also, the north tip of the
Auclair property is in this area, and it was separated from the parcel for which the conservation
investment has been made and was retained by the Auclair family. Mr. Conner then indicated the
location of Cider Mill 2 which is now being constructed and also the property that is subject to the
conservation investment and limited on-site development. Ms. Louisos said she wanted to be careful
not to disrupt the conservation agreement. She asked whether additional conservation would renege
on the agreement.
Mr. Conner said that there would be approximately 10 acres left out of the Federal NRCS Conservation
of the parcel. There will be an update to the City Council on that agreement at an upcoming meeting.
Ms. Ostby felt there should be a neighborhood in this area. Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Louisos favored a mix.
Mr. Gagnon felt any conservation should be via city purchase of the land. He added that he wasn’t
aware of what the previous agreements were, but felt they should be honored. Anything else the city
should buy or it could be a Conservation PUD. Mr. Macdonald agreed, but said he would not renege on
any agreement to develop some land.
Ms. Ostby asked if there will be water and sewer to the area. Mr. Conner said there will be sewer, but
water is tricky because of the high elevation in parts. Mr. Conner indicated the piece retained by the
Auclair family and noted that the DRB has seen a sketch plan for development of that piece. Ms. Ostby
felt that any place there can’t be a water line should not be developable. Mr. Gagnon agreed in general
but felt there have to be criteria beyond that. He said things are different for one house with a well as
opposed to 50 houses on wells. He was not opposed to one or two houses on a well.
Mr. Mittag said the owners of Cider Mill have plans to expand about 60 or 70 acres south of the solar
farm. Mr. Conner indicated the area of Cider Mill 2 which is fully approved and under construction. Mr.
Mittag asked about the area for Cider Mill 3. Mr. Conner said the full buildout of Cider Mill is within
what he drew. Mr. Conner then indicated the area of the Auclair agreement and the outline of the
piece that can be developed. There is also a parcel retained by the Auclair family. To the north, Mr.
Conner noted the area with 2 homes could be a possible Conservation PUD or NRP, keeping the homes
on single family lots. Mr. Gagnon felt that was a good starting point. Ms. Ostby cited the need to honor
the agreement with the Auclairs and not hinder what they can create there. Ms. Louisos said they all
agree on that and that in general beyond that she felt the Commission was seeking some additional
conservation in the area. Five Commissioners concurred with that statement when asked.
Area #3: Largely on Dorset Heights
Mr. Conner noted that 7 of the properties have a covenant with each other that 5 of them must agree to
any additional development. Mr. Conner added that this covenant has nothing to do with the city’s
regulations.. He indicated the area that is in the NRP and also those lots with single family homes on
them. In the “homework” ratings, 3-4 members felt there should be some mix of conservation and a
neighborhood, 2-3 people supported a full neighborhood, 1 person was largely for conservation. Mr.
Mittag said any development should be very low density.
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
5
Mr. Gagnon said he rated this more developable as it is between 2 developments and development
could expand into the middle. Ms. Louisos agreed with both Mr. Mittag and Mr. Gagnon and suggested
possibly expanding the NRP to be wider and keeping development between the neighborhoods. Mr.
Conner drew what this would look like on the map. Ms. Ostby said the landowners have a lot of control
to protect the land despite the underlying zoning. She felt it was buildable land.
Mr. MacDonald agreed with Ms. Louisos to conserve the land furthest from Dorset St.
Mr. Conner asked about the piece along Dorset Street. Mr. Gagnon said he could see additional
development there.
Ms. Ostby said this seems subjective to her. They are protecting land without a resource, and that
doesn’t seem strategic or fair. Ms. Louisos agreed there is no scientific basis for that. Mr. Gagnon and
Mr. MacDonald agreed. Mr. Conner suggested this could be an area to think about options for a
landowner, possibly adding 2 or 3 homes but not 20. The area is zoned R4, so a 10-acre piece could
have 40 homes, but that would not really be achievable.
In a vote, 4 members favored the ability to have neighborhoods in buildable areas, with some additional
conservation on the east side of Dorset Heights to the east of the existing homes.
Area #4: South of Nowland Farm Road down to Dorset Farms
Mr. Conner indicated the area covered by natural resources. He said that 3-4 members favored
principally conservation, 2-3 felt a mix with some neighborhood, 1 said anything not protected could be
a neighborhood.
Ms. Louisos said she would add to the Great Swamp area for more of a buffer.
Mr. Conner noted the area of natural resources on either side of this piece with a swath of housing
down the middle. He noted that the northern 2 properties have a covenant for a limited number of
additional homes.
Mr. Gagnon said he could see a Conservation PUD but nothing beyond that.
Ms. Ostby said she doesn’t want to see sprawl of McMansions which she felt was harmful to the
community.
Mr. Mittag felt members should walk this piece which he feels is second to the Edlund piece in
importance. Mr. MacDonald agreed it should be conserved to the maximum possible. He stressed that
he was not thrilled with just taking the land via a regulatory manner. Ms. Louisos said a Conservation
easement would still allow some value to the owner. Mr. Mittag suggested talking to the owners and
see whether they are interested in conserving land. He felt 3 of the 4 landowners want to conserve, and
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
6
he felt the city should facilitate that as they can’t do it on their own, and they don’t want to lose the
land’s value.
Mr. Conner said if there are 8 homes on each property there is a question of how they would be
accessed and the amount of roadway needed. Ms. Louisos said any homes built there should be
clustered. Ms. Ostby opposed any new cut-throughs. She said if it becomes a Conservation PUD, there
is a question of a road that doesn’t harm any resources. She wanted a neighborhood size for anything
that is built. Mr. Conner noted there can be only 9 homes on 2 of the lots. Mr. Gagnon felt that was
good.
Commissioners generally agreed to prioritize additional conservation in the areas between the great
swamp and the stream / floodplain
Area #5: Zoned Village Commercial or Village Residential
Mr. Conner said development can be at 8 per acre. Bits are being built but not to that number. He
noted that 4 members felt this was a spot for a full neighborhood, 2 favored a hybrid, 2 favored
conservation on the west side. Mr. Mittag said he wanted conservation west of Dorset Street except
for the Yawney property which is OK for development.
In the vote that followed, a majority favored neighborhood/village on both sides of the road.
Area #6: Zoned SEQ Neighborhood Residential Transition
Mr. Conner indicated properties already built on and noted most of the northern portion is wetland. To
the south, it is either NRP or an offset for Dorset Farms with Act 250 restrictions. So there are really just
some small properties to the north that could be neighborhoods as they are up against what is already
developed as neighborhoods.
Mr. Conner noted that 2-3 members favored neighborhood development, 2-3 favored a mix with
clustering, 2-3 mainly conservation.
Mr. Gagnon felt the northwest corner could extend a neighborhood, and the rest is already protected.
Ms. Louisos agreed.
A majority of members agreed with Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Louisos.
Area #7:
Mr. Conner said most of this is built as South Village or South Point. He noted that the last time
members discussed this piece, they agreed to retain resources to the east of the road and have some
neighborhood to the west.
Five members agreed to that.
Planning Commission
29 June 2021
7
Area #8: Northwest corner of the Southeast Quadrant
Mr. Conner said there are 2 parcels here. He indicated Spear Meadows and a future city park.
Mr. Conner noted that 3 members favored a neighborhood here, 2 favored a mix with clustering near
the existing neighborhoods, and 2 favored conservation.
Mr. Mittag felt what is used for agriculture now should continue to be used that way.
Mr. Conner noted the top parcel is UVM land but it is zoned R4. He imagined UVM will want to discuss
all of its properties. There are some 3-4 acre parcels and the question is what kind of infill to have there.
He said this would make a good discussion with Sharon Murray.
Members felt that was a good approach.
Mr. Conner said he will write up noted for the City Council.
5. Meeting Minutes of 25 May and 8 June 2021:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the minutes of 25 May and 8 June 2021 as presented. Mr. MacDonald
seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Ostby and Mr. Mittag abstaining.
6. Other Business:
a. Review upcoming meeting schedule and meeting format:
Mr. Conner said he will be at the 13 July meeting, then on leave. Ms. Murray will be at the 27 July
meeting. Mr. Conner suggested the August meeting be on the 3rd week when he will be back.
b. Act 250 Hearing Notice for Ap0plication #4CO473-7A of BPLP, LLC, 85 Meadowland Drive
Site4 Visit 8:30 am 8 July, meeting in parking lot. Public Hearing to follow at 9:30 am at
Essex Junction District Office, 111 West Street Essex Junction, VT:
Mr. Conner said this is a largely an “information” item, but that the Commission & Council have the
ability to have party status.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:43 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7144
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan
TO: South Burlington Planning Director
Colchester Planning Director
Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
Chittenden County Regional Planning Director
VT Department of Housing and Community Development
FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington
DATE: July 8, 2021
RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments
Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
x ZA-21-07: Height Measurements, Dormers and Eaves
x ZA-21-08: Act 179 Changes
x ZA-21-09: Updates and Corrections to Article 14
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 6:45 pm. The meeting will take place virtually, on the platform
Zoom, with an in-person option available in City Hall.
Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning
Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at
the hearing to me by close of business on July 23, 2021.
Thank you.
CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair
David White, FAICP, Director, Office of City Planning
Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner, Department of Permitting & Inspections
Kimberlee Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney
The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of
birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.
Burlington Planning Commission
149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401
www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz
Phone: (802) 865-7144
Andy Montroll, Chair
Bruce Baker, Vice Chair
Yves Bradley
Alex Friend
Michael Gaughan
Emily Lee
Brynne Martin
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendment
ZA-21-07: Height Measurements, Dormers & Eaves
ZA-21-08: Act 179 Changes to Ch. 117
ZA-21-09: Updates and Corrections to Article 14
Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington
Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of
Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place during
the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 27, 2021, with the hearing starting at Time
Certain 6:45pm. You may access the hearing/meeting as follows:
To join virtually from a Computer, please click this URL to join, and enter the Webinar ID if
prompted:
Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88316224232 Webinar ID: 883 1622 4232
To join virtually by phone, dial this number and enter the Webinar ID when prompted:
Number: +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 883 1622 4232
To join the meeting in person:
Sharon Bushor Room, Room 102, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT 05401
Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b):
Statement of purpose:
The purpose of the proposed amendments are as follows:
x ZA-21-07: To clarify building height measurements, when and how dormers affect building
height, and defines dormers and eaves.
x ZA-21-08: To incorporate recent changes to state enabling statute regarding ADU’s, existing
small lots, and small multi-unit dwellings.
x ZA-21-09: To make a range of corrections and updates to Article 14 based on its application.
Geographic areas affected:
These amendments apply to the following areas of the city:
x ZA-21-07: All areas and zoning districts within the city.
x ZA-21-08: All areas and zoning districts within the city.
x ZA-21-09: Form Districts 5, 6, and Civic located in the downtown area of the city.
List of section headings affected:
The proposed amendments modify the following sections of the Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
x ZA-21-07: Modifies Sec. 5.2.6 (a) 1.; adds Sec. 5.2.6(a) 2.D and Sec. 5.2.6 (b); Modifies Sec. 6.3.2. (a)
2; and Modifies Article 13: Definitions
x ZA-21-08: Modifies Sec. 5.2.1; Modifies Sec. 5.4.5; Modifies Sec.13.1.2; and Modifies Appendix A-
Use Table
Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2
ZA-21-07, 21-08, 21-09
x ZA-21-09: Modifies Sec. 14.1.3; Sec 14.3.4-C; Sec.14.3.4-E; Sec.14.3.4-F; Sec.14.3.4-G; Sec 14.3.5-C;
Sec.14.3.5-E; Sec.14.3.5-F; Sec.14.3.5-G; Creates Sec. 14.3.6.-I Water Dependent; Modifies Sec.
14.4.13; Sec. 14.5.15; Sec. 14.6.4; Sec. 14.6.7; Sec. 14.6.8; Sec. 14.7.1; Sec. 14.7.2; Sec. 14.7.3; and Sec.
14.8; and Modifies Article 14- Map 3 Shopfront Required
The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance is available online at
www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO. The proposed amendment can be reviewed in hard copy posted
on the first floor of City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington or online at
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO/Amendments