HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 10/26/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, October 26, 2021
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium
7:00 pm
The Planning Commission will attend this meeting in person. Members of the public may attend in
person or digitally via GoToMeeting. Participation Options:
In person: South Burlington City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-10-26
Telephone (audio only): 1 (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 631-227-341
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. *Public Hearing on draft Amendments to the Land Development Regulations (7:10 pm)
A. LDR-20-01: Replace Surface Water Protection Standards with Environmental Protection Standards, including existing
100-year floodplain, river corridor & stream buffer, wetland & wetland buffer, and stormwater management standards;
establish standards regarding 500-year (0.2%) floodplain, habitat block, habitat connector, steep slope, and very steep
slope standards; establish criteria to evaluate undue adverse effect; and related amendments referencing the above-
listed resources.
B. LDR-21-02: Generally amend or replace existing Subdivision, Master Plan, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Site Plan,
Conservation PUD, Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD, Civic Space Types, Street Types, Building Type, and
related zoning district, procedural, and site plan standards
C. LDR-20-08: Modify required setbacks applicable to arterial and collector roads
D. LDR-21-04: Modify Southeast Quadrant sub-district boundaries including and between Natural Resource Protection,
Neighborhood Residential, and Village Residential
E. LDR-21-05: Change zoning of land to the west of Hinesburg Road, immediately south of I-89, from Industrial-Open Space
to Residential 7-Neighborhood Commercial
F. LDR-21-06: Modify Commercial 1- Residential 15 and Residential 4 boundaries in vicinity of Lindenwood Dr to more
closely follow property lines
G. LDR-21-07: Update city-wide stormwater standards, including for consistency with state regulations
H. LDR-20-10: Establish maximum building envelopes for allowed development in the SEQ-NRP subdistrict, modify allowed
building types
I. LDR-20-17: Extend Southeast Quadrant zoning district residential building design standards city-wide, update standards
J. LDR-21-01 Require Solar-Ready Roofs for new buildings subject to Commercial Building Energy Standards
K. LDR-19-07 Modify landscape requirements to allow for Solar Canopies in Parking Areas;
L. LDR-20-22: Update to comply with Act 179 pertaining to accessory dwelling units, existing small lots, and conditional use
criteria for multi-family housing
M. LDR-20-25: Increase maximum allowed area of accessory structures and update for consistency with Act 179
N. LDR-20-28: Expand inclusionary zoning, offset, and bonus provisions city-wide, replacing existing bonus standards where
existing
O. LDR-21-03: Allow for “limited neighborhood commercial use” within a larger residential building for neighborhoods with
Master Plan
P. LDR-21-07: Exempt the conversion of a dwelling to a licensed child care facility from housing preservation requirements
Q. LDR-20-21 Minor and technical amendments to include: Modify retaining wall standards; Eliminate DRB review of Bus
Shelters within city ROW; Amend RV Parking standards; Amend Traffic visibility standards for consistency; Update Airport
Approach Cones & FAA review; Amend review standards of Earth Products; Amend review standards for Utility Cabinets
and Similar; Re-organize standards for drive-throughs; Update & clarify height of Accessory Structures; Update additional
Height Standards for consistency; Modify standards for structures requiring setbacks; Modify setbacks for pre-existing
lots; Update setbacks and Buffer Strips for Non-Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential Districts for consistency; General
re-organization, definitions updates, and corrections
5. Commission review of feedback, possible changes to draft, and possible action to approve and submit the
draft Amendments and Planning Commission Report (as amended) to City Council
6. *Consider approval of Vermont Municipal Planning Grant application: Climate Action Implementation
Plan - Municipal Governance chapter
7. Other Business
a. *Receipt of proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance;
Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday November 9, 2021, 6:45 pm at Burlington
City Hall, 149 Church St;
b. *Receipt of proposed amendments to Winooski Unified Land Use and Development Regulations;
Winooski Planning Commission Public Hearing Thursday November 11, 2021, 6:30 pm at Winooski
City Hall, 27 West Street;
8. Adjourn
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to ensure
that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting /
commenting will have their video on.
3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with
the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask
for public comment.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence.
To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally
state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure
everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others
when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications
of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other
participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission
meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission
meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and
influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written
comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings.
Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. Email
submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and
Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to
the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as
this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-
Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat
messages will be part of the official meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help
guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a
guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in
the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the
agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”.
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Draft Land Development Regulations – For Public Hearing
DATE: October 26, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Tuesday’s meeting will include a public hearing on the draft Land Development Regulations as warned by the
Planning Commission late last month.
Please use this link to access the following documents, and more:
https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/planning_and_zoning/land_development_regulation_
updates.php
o Draft Land Development Regulations (Clean Version):
o Draft Land Development Regulations (Redline Marked-up version)
o Approved Planning Commission Report
o Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice
o “Spotlights” on individual topics included in the amendments
Enclosed with your packet are the following:
A) Commissioners’ compiled feedback leading up to October 12th PC meeting, as requested by the Chair
B) Public Comments received during this public hearing period (comments received by 11 am on 10/22)
C) Staff review & recommendations on the draft to date, including a status update on the Legal Review.
Process:
1. Open the Public Hearing. Proposed motion: “I move to open a public hearing on the Land Development
Regulation Amendments identified in this meeting’s agenda.”
2. Acknowledge receipt of written comments; invite verbal comments
3. Staff summary of memo, recommendations, and follow-ups on Commission requests
4. Close Public Hearing. Proposed motion: “I move to close the public hearing on the Land Development
Regulation Amendments identified in this meeting’s agenda.”
5. The Commission may then discuss any changes it may wish to make to the draft amendments and/or to
the Planning Commission Report.
6. The Commission may approve the proposed amendments, with or without changes, and submit them to
the City Council. Possible motion: “I move to approve the draft amendments to the Land Development
Regulations warned for tonight’s public hearing, [with the following changes_____], and to submit
them, and the accompanying Planning Commission Report, to the City Council.”
a. Note: If the Commission elects not to take action on a version of the proposed amendments at
this meeting, it may hold a special meeting to consider the amendments. Recommended Date
Tuesday November 2nd
Planning Commission notes
Draft Land Development Regulations
October 2021 [revised]
1
Compiled Commissioner Notes
Draft Land Development Regulations warned for public hearing
Note: these notes are complied from individual emails sent to the Chair in response to the following
question / request made of each Commissioner in advance of the Commission’s October 12th meeting:
“What has tipped or would likely tip the balance for you to support the draft LDRs?
“Please send your bullet list to me ahead of the meeting Tuesday and come prepared to share your
thoughts as part of the meeting agenda. This exercise is not to rehash every item, but to understand key
sticking points. Even if our conversation does not change items within the draft that will go to Council, I
believe that this conversation will help me best represent our collective thinking to the Council.”
Notes have been edited to remove unrelated text and where the Commissioner requested a change.
Duncan Macdonald:
As you know I did vote to move the LDR's along and I think the whole commission should be
commended for the amount of work we put into them. We are being pulled in a couple of different
directions with the need for both conservation and housing. I feel that the work we have done shows a
fair balance between the two and as you said reflects compromises on both sides.
In article 12 we have a much more robust and clear set of standards for resource protection then we
had previously. I know there is a push to add more areas to the Level II resource list, grassland and
agricultural land, but I don't feel that they rise to that level. They can be protected via other avenues
and in some cases represent the only developable land on some parcels. We also added a whole new
level of protections with the habitat blocks, connectors, and 500-year floodplain, so I'm hesitant to over
regulate and further infringe on a landowners property rights.
The PUD work is a little tougher digest, we are trying to cram what should have been a couple of months
of work, into 3 weeks. There are still some issues over density, or excessive density, that concern me. If
developers/landowners have been hesitant to max out density currently, how will the scenario play out
with an even more dense form of development. I do think Monica's idea of allowing some flexibility on
the amount of land conserved, 60-70%, does have some merit. We would just need to make sure it the
same amount of development, over a slightly larger space, but not add more development. As a whole I
would have preferred to spend some more time on the PUD work, but I believe the two that we are
moving forward, along with the new subdivision and master plan regulations, are better than what we
currently have.
In terms of our work plan going forward I would strongly advocate that we finish the other PUD types
that we promised, the NCD and the Infill. I’m not sure if there was a third one but we need to finish
them to complement the work we just did while it is fresh in our mind. Along with the PUD's we also
need to hash out the TDR issue, as it seems to go along with how some of the PUD's will work. I would
not like to take anything else on until we have those two items finished.
Bernie Gagnon:
I think it was an over reach for us to regulate more stringent than the State regulations with respect to
wetlands. I also do not support making mandatory legal and permanent conservation of land in the
conservation PUD, among other things. The main reason I voted to send forward was in recognition of
the hard work that we, staff, and our consultants put in to get us to this point.
Planning Commission notes
Draft Land Development Regulations
October 2021 [revised]
2
Monica Ostby
- Requiring CON PUD [staff note: Conservation PUDs] on parcels that have less than 70% L1/H/NRP,
while we have significantly increased Article 12 natural resource protections, is excessive. [staff note:
L1/H/NRP is Level 1 Natural Resources, Hazards, and SEQ-Natural Resources Protection zoning sub-
district] Landowners should have the choice to conserve more/all or use a TND.
- I disagree with converting the Nowland Farm land parcels to NRP as CON PUDs would provide
significant protection, and provide the middle parcels with fair consideration. This is especially the case
since we have not address TDR market.
- Article 18.03 - Housing Preservation Act language enabling Childcare as an allowable without paying
the penalty is an issue. A suggested alternate is supported by the AHC [staff note: Affordable Housing
Committee]: At the time a home is converted to childcare, lock in what the "housing preservation fee"
would be, keep it connected to the parcel in the event the child care closes. It is important that
language is added prior going to the CC if PC agrees [staff note: CC = City Council; PC = Planning
Commission].
- IF CON PUDs are "required" on any parcel, the City should consider removing the related TDRs from
within the 70% "permanently conserved" and instead add that allowable density to the 30% buildable
area, and allow it to run with the land. This would reduce the overall outstanding TDRs and would
permanently conserve immediately the very important NRP land.
Jessica Louisos
Class 3 wetlands and buffers will be hard for the City to administer. Consider either eliminating
regulation, increasing size threshold, or removing buffer.
I would prefer to have had more visuals and vetting related to the PUDs.
Paul Engels, Michael Mittag, Ted Riehle
Thanks for this opportunity to provide feedback on our draft LDRs tomorrow evening. As you know, Ted
Riehle, Paul Engels and I discussed this over the weekend. We reviewed many items in the draft LDRs
with which we have disagreed or have voted against.
We prioritized these to come up with our 3 most important items as follows:
1. Minimum density for conservation PUDs is inconsistent with protecting the natural resources
in the rural areas. The minimum density should be eliminated or reduced to at most 2 DU/A.
2. The mapped habitat block at 1720/1730 Spear Street should revert to Arrowwood’s original
mapping. The mapped habitat block on the Hill Farm property should revert to Arrowwood’s
original mapping for the portion at the southern end that is contiguous with the Wheeler Park
(the rest remains as proposed).
3. We can accept the proposed zoning of R7-NC for the Hill Farm property but on condition that
any development on this property would have to be a conservation PUD.
The PC has come a long way and both achieved and learned a lot over the last 2 years.
Finding consensus and unanimity on the draft LDRs has at times been challenging and not always
possible. Unanimity would be the best outcome for us.
With these changes implemented in the draft LDRs we could support a vote to recommend them to the
City Council.
1
Betsy Brown
From:Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:49 PM
To:planning
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comments on proposed LDRs
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
The work on the LDR's is expensive and covers so many topics. Here are a couple of specific issues of concern to me, in
no particular order.
1. I have not seen any specific protection of existing specimen trees under habitat protections. The very large oak
tree and nearby shagbark hickory trees on the Park Rd development are examples that still would not have any
protection under the proposed draft regulations. I think it would be appropriate that any development
containing large existing healthy trees do an accurate survey of existing trees and that all proposed land
disturbance is kept completely out of the drip line of such trees. Such trees are a natural living treasure, and
deserve protection. The services of an arborist not otherwise involved in the project is needed to survey and
determine trees worth protecting as a site enhancement rather than being seen as an impediment to
development.
2. For rural connector roads, a 5' bike lane is really minimal for a road where traffic is going 45 mph. Consider
reducing speed limit to 35 for all roads with residential development, or increase width of bike lane to 6'. By the
time the dimension of the striping is taken out, what is supposed to be a 5' lane ends up as only 3'. Rt 17 is an
example where a 5' lane was promised, and in reality you barely get 3', which is clearly inadequate.
3. What roads would be considered support streets, and why would there not be an on street bike lane at a
minimum? Its really not possible for bikes and cars/trucks to share streets when speed limits are over about 25
mph or where roads are not wide enough for a car to pass a bike with on-coming traffic. Sharing street space is
possible only if the volume of traffic is very low. It would be helpful if the expected volume of traffic/hr is used
in defining each of the street types.
4. Vertical faced curbs used in narrow (20-22') neighborhood streets is a hazard to shared use of these roads by
bicycles. The narrow extension of Midland Ave to South Village has a dedicated bike lane, but if it didn't, riding
on the road would feel dangerous when a car is approaching from the other direction. Unlike roads without
curbs, moving cars stay as far away from hard vertical curbs as they can. This puts them closer to the middle of
the road unless a vehicle approaches in the opposite direction. While traffic moves slower with curbs (a good
thing), fear of splitting a tire on a curb makes most drivers more closer to the center. A more gentle mountable
curb design that won't damage wheels and allows an easier escape for other users should be seriously
considered.
5. What is a cycle track? In bike boulevard, would this potentially replace a wider share use path? 4' is too narrow
for an urban bike path. Please define cycle track.
6. Without having a drawing of each road type and the type of situation in which it is used, many design features
for traffic calming such as bump outs, pedestrian cross-walks, rain gardens, benches, street lights and other such
features will be neglected in developer proposals. The urban bicycle handbook is a great resource, particularly
because the drawings show exactly what is expected. The spreadsheet doesn't convey this information
effectively.
2
7. I didn't see anything in the proposed regulations about street lighting. This is a major oversight, even though it
may be in another section. Its all part of street design, along with street tree planting - the 2 so often are in
conflict with each other, it would be best to have a better integrated plan from the start.
8. I may have missed this, but I didn't see any mention of reducing driveways cutting across shared use
paths. New housing at the east end of Market St is a great example of how this can be handled for denser
housing development.
Donna Leban
--
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802-862-1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
1
Betsy Brown
From:Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:49 PM
To:Betsy Brown
Subject:EXTERNAL: Re: Comments on proposed LDRs
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Just noticed a typo in first line. I meant that the work is extensive.
On 10/19/2021 10:29 AM, Betsy Brown wrote:
Hi Donna,
Thank you for the comments. They have been forwarded to the Paul Conner & the Planning
Commission.
-Betsy
Betsy Brown
Planning & Zoning Assistant
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
802-846-4106
From: Donna Leban <lightspd@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:49 PM
To: planning <planning@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Comments on proposed LDRs
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
The work on the LDR's is expensive and covers so many topics. Here are a couple of specific issues of
concern to me, in no particular order.
2
1. I have not seen any specific protection of existing specimen trees under habitat
protections. The very large oak tree and nearby shagbark hickory trees on the Park Rd
development are examples that still would not have any protection under the proposed draft
regulations. I think it would be appropriate that any development containing large existing
healthy trees do an accurate survey of existing trees and that all proposed land disturbance is
kept completely out of the drip line of such trees. Such trees are a natural living treasure, and
deserve protection. The services of an arborist not otherwise involved in the project is needed
to survey and determine trees worth protecting as a site enhancement rather than being seen
as an impediment to development.
2. For rural connector roads, a 5' bike lane is really minimal for a road where traffic is going 45
mph. Consider reducing speed limit to 35 for all roads with residential development, or
increase width of bike lane to 6'. By the time the dimension of the striping is taken out, what is
supposed to be a 5' lane ends up as only 3'. Rt 17 is an example where a 5' lane was promised,
and in reality you barely get 3', which is clearly inadequate.
3. What roads would be considered support streets, and why would there not be an on street bike
lane at a minimum? Its really not possible for bikes and cars/trucks to share streets when
speed limits are over about 25 mph or where roads are not wide enough for a car to pass a bike
with on-coming traffic. Sharing street space is possible only if the volume of traffic is very
low. It would be helpful if the expected volume of traffic/hr is used in defining each of the
street types.
4. Vertical faced curbs used in narrow (20-22') neighborhood streets is a hazard to shared use of
these roads by bicycles. The narrow extension of Midland Ave to South Village has a dedicated
bike lane, but if it didn't, riding on the road would feel dangerous when a car is approaching
from the other direction. Unlike roads without curbs, moving cars stay as far away from hard
vertical curbs as they can. This puts them closer to the middle of the road unless a vehicle
approaches in the opposite direction. While traffic moves slower with curbs (a good thing),
fear of splitting a tire on a curb makes most drivers more closer to the center. A more gentle
mountable curb design that won't damage wheels and allows an easier escape for other users
should be seriously considered.
5. What is a cycle track? In bike boulevard, would this potentially replace a wider share use
path? 4' is too narrow for an urban bike path. Please define cycle track.
6. Without having a drawing of each road type and the type of situation in which it is used, many
design features for traffic calming such as bump outs, pedestrian cross-walks, rain gardens,
benches, street lights and other such features will be neglected in developer proposals. The
urban bicycle handbook is a great resource, particularly because the drawings show exactly
what is expected. The spreadsheet doesn't convey this information effectively.
7. I didn't see anything in the proposed regulations about street lighting. This is a major oversight,
even though it may be in another section. Its all part of street design, along with street tree
planting - the 2 so often are in conflict with each other, it would be best to have a better
integrated plan from the start.
8. I may have missed this, but I didn't see any mention of reducing driveways cutting across shared
use paths. New housing at the east end of Market St is a great example of how this can be
handled for denser housing development.
Donna Leban
--
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802-862-1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
Virus-free. www.avg.com
3
--
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802-862-1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
Andrew Chalnick
670 Nowland Farm Rd
South Burlington, VT 05403
October 20, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
South Burlington Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Public Hearing on amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations
Dear Commissioners:
I applaud the planning commission for all the hard work over three years on the proposed
regulations. I know that this process has been deliberate and careful as I witnessed first-hand
many of the deliberations.
But, some of the decisions that have been made just seem unreasonable and not justified.
South Burlington residents petitioned for IZ out of a concern that the LDRs do not sufficiently
protect South Burlington’s precious natural resources. I don’t believe there is a need to repeat
here at length the reasons why saving our remaining open spaces is so critical, but we know that
meadows, forests and fields sequester carbon, provide a buffer against flooding, filter pollutants
before they can enter Lake Champlain, provide habitat for pollinators, insects and wildlife, filter
our air and nourish our souls. With the climate changing, the need for these environmental
services will only grow.1
How much of South Burlington’s remaining natural resources should be protected, and how
much should be developed? What is the right balance? It’s pretty clear we have already
consumed most of South Burlington’s natural resources, and “balance” was likely achieved some
time ago.
1 The 2014 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Climate Action Guide sets as a priority
strategy for Chittenden County to: “Maintain vegetative landscapes to support carbon sequestration.
Maintaining vegetated landscapes – forests, wetlands, agricultural lands and urban trees and
vegetation – is important for continued carbon sequestration. Vegetated landscapes also help with
climate adaptation by absorbing precipitation, reducing stormwater runoff, maintaining natural
habitats and reducing the urban heat island effect.”
With the 9500 existing homes, commercial and municipal infrastructure, around 75 percent of
the agricultural soils that at one time existed in South Burlington have already been paved over
with highways, airport runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or
fragmented into tiny parcels. On top of this, there are at least (even with IZ, and according to
City staff) an additional 1331 new additional homes already in the pipeline (see attached map
at Attachment A provided by Planning and Zoning). Over-development has left every watershed
in South Burlington impaired.
I am not blind to the need for housing. We need places for people to live. Most caring people
support programs intended to provide affordable housing for those in need and South Burlington
should be proud that it presently has over 800 “income-restricted” homes (including rentals).
We should also acknowledge, that – based on the assessed values shown on the 2021 Grand List
- 64% all housing units in South Burlington have an assessed value of less than $300,000, and
only 3% have an assessed value of more than $600,000. South Burlington certainly seems to be
doing its fair share in providing housing at lower price points.
Responsible development which protects the environment and ensures a high quality of life for
existing residents are not at odds, but housing in the rural spaces is not affordable to those in
need, while in-fill and re-development provide win-win opportunities for all residents. There are
creative opportunities to re-purpose large scale commercial areas that are no longer functioning
as intended. This does not destroy the environment, and it can accommodate truly affordable
housing because of its access to public transit and community services.
So, how should the regulations be changed? In sum:
Eliminate the minimum density requirement for Conservation PUDs
Revert to habitat block mappings identified by Arrowwood for 2 critical areas
Do not prohibit landowners from conserving portions of their land
Require a Conservation PUD along with re-zoning of the Hill Farm
Require commercial buildings to install solar PV systems on the solar-ready zones
Explanation of these points are below.
1. Eliminate the Minimum Density Requirement for Conservation PUDs
The draft regulations require that the buildable portion of a Conservation PUD development
contain a minimum of 4 units/acre. So, a landowner who owns a large parcel in the SEQ would
NOT BE PERMITTED to conserve the parcel along with building a handful of homes for his/her
children or for sale.2
2 There is a small “2 acre carveout” which permits this to some extent, but the carveout is so
small it will likely have only very limited utility
The stated reason for this minimum density is to provide developers certainty in the face of
potential community opposition. But, as staff relayed the concerns of landowners it seemed the
sentiment was the exact opposite. Landowners want to conserve their land, but also carveout
some lots for their families or for sale. I have not spoken to a single land-owning neighbor that
favors the minimum density requirement. Those who spoke at the planning commission
meetings were opposed.
A minimum density requirement in a conservation area in the rural parts of the City is just
inconsistent with protection of natural resources, and there was no good stated reason for such
a heavy-handed regulatory scheme that would likely be opposed by the vast majority of
landowners.
At 4 units/acre the neighborhoods would also be completely out of character with the rest of the
SEQ. I note, for instance, that the sketch plan submitted by the Long family (which is on hold)
contemplates 49 homes on 17.4 acres, which is a density of slightly less than 3 units per acre. The
sketch plan application notes that “the maximum density formula allows as many as sixty-nine
(17.4 x 4 = 69) units on the developable acreage, but sixty-nine units would be too crowded for
our vision of the neighborhood.”
2. Revert to Habitat Block Mappings Identified by Arrowwood for 2 Critical Areas
Arrowwood mapped the forested habitat blocks in the City. Arrowwood defined a habitat block
for this purpose as “contiguous forested and adjacent unmanaged shrubby areas of old field,
young forest, and unmanaged wetland.” In reviews that were undertaken in September and
October of 2020, the planning commission decided to eliminate some portions of these habitat
blocks. Two of the revisions (circled in red on Attachment B) seem particularly inappropriate:
1720/1730 Spear Street: There is a fairly substantial forested area at 1720/1730 Speat
Street that was removed from habitat block protection. This forest is part of the Great
Swamp habitat, which was found by Arrowwood to be part of the most important habitat
block in the City of South Burlington. I also understand from neighbors that this area is
frequented by coyotes and bobcats. Has the planning commission walked this area to see
what would be sacrificed if this area were paved over? It breaks my heart to think we
would consciously elect to sacrifice more of the few remaining really important natural
areas in South Burlington
Wheeler Nature Park/Hill Farm Area: – a shrub area adjacent to the forest was removed
because there seemed to not be trees under the area removed and staff suggested to “tilt
the balance” to a future neighborhood. But, Arrowwood included these shrub areas in
the habitat blocks on the basis that “early and mid-successional old-fields … are known to
contribute, and are probably critical, to South Burlington’s current wildlife diversity.”
This shrub area today also forms part of the protected area that surrounds the Wheeler
Nature Park and should be conserved.
3. Do not Prohibit Landowners from Conserving Portions of their Land
The regulations seem to place severe restrictions on the right of certain landowners to conserve
portions of their land. The sub-division regulations seem to require that most any subdivision of
a parcel over 4 acres be a PUD of some sort and Section 15.C.05 requires, for instance, that a
Conservation PUD can only be elected in certain zoning districts if more than 50% of the parcel
contains specified resources. Among other things, farmland and grasslands are not specified
resources.
So – as I understand it - a landowner that owns mostly farmland outside of certain specified
zoning districts and that wants to effect most any type of sub-division would be required to
develop the non-conserved portion as a “traditional neighborhood” PUD, which requires a
minimum of 65% of the land be residential development with a minimum density of 4
units/buildable acre.
Thus, the landowner could generally not conserve the vast bulk of the farmland coupled with the
sale of a handful of lots.
This seems a bizarre result and an incredibly heavy-handed approach to land regulation. It is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which in multiple places stresses the importance of
conserving farmland (and grasslands). For instance, Objective 30 requires a proactive “plan for a
network of interconnected and contiguous open spaces to conserve and accommodate
ecological resources, active and passive recreation land, civic spaces, scenic views and vistas,
forests and productive farmland and primary agricultural soils” and Objective 36 requires the
conservation of “productive farmland and primary agricultural soils within the City.”
Prohibiting conservation of farmland and other open space is also flatly inconsistent with the
Interim Zoning bylaws which specifically direct further conservation of the City’s remaining large
farms and parcels in the Institutional & Agricultural District:
“Our community values a balance among our natural, open spaces and our developed,
residential and commercial, spaces so that the flora and fauna coexist alongside human
dwellings, schools, industries and services. All of these spaces will sustain our economic
viability going forward. Together these spaces provide, for the benefit of our residents
and visitors, clean, fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink and swim in, recreational
opportunities, homes, jobs, and valuable industries and services. As more homes are built
in South Burlington, we must examine carefully the intensity and nature of development
and its potential impacts on the balance that we seek to maintain. Based on previous
studies, the City needs to review developable lands outside of the Transit Overlay District
and certain business park areas, including undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and
working landscapes such as the City’s remaining large farms and parcels in the
Institutional & Agricultural District.”
I confess that the regulations are so confusing that I may not be articulating the restrictions
perfectly accurately. The bottom line – though – is that all landowners should have the
maximum opportunity to conserve open space and farmland . To not even provide a landowner
an option to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and IZ seems perverse. Any
landowner should have the option to conserve all or some of his or her land without having to
jump through additional hoops or construct homes he or she does not want.
4. Require a Conservation PUD along with Re-Zoning of the Hill Farm
The draft regulations re-zone the Hill Farm from Industrial & Open Space (which allows for only
limited development) to Residential 7 – Neighborhood Commercial. The stated reason for this
re-zoning is that “the 2016 Comprehensive Plan re-designated this area from planned industrial
use (and planned park in the southwest corner of the area) to a planned transition of planned
very low density / principally conservation on the western portion of the property to mixed
density and mixed uses to the east.”
Frankly, this is not apparent to me from my review of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does
have a “future land use” map which is arguably consistent with the stated reason, but it also has
a map which clearly designates the property as farmland that should be conserved with only
limited encroachment. Coupled with the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan around the
conservation of farmlands, the overwhelming sense from the Plan is that the parcel should be
conserved, rather than developed. The regulations seem to dismiss the portions of the Plan
which call for conservation of this parcel. Why not accommodate both objectives by requiring a
Conservation PUD in connection with the re-zoning? (Or – at the least- ensure that all of the
habitat block identified by Arrowwood on this parcel is protected.)
5. Require Commercial Buildings to Install Solar PV Systems on the Solar-Ready Zones
I am pleased that the draft regulations would require commercial buildings to be solar ready. I
note that the South Burlington Energy Committee (the “SBEC”) requested that, in addition,
commercial buildings with solar-ready zones be then required to install solar photovoltaic
systems (“Solar PV”). I anticipate that the SBEC will comment on this proposal.
In my personal capacity, I do think the issues raised by the public when the SBEC presented on
this topic last January can be fairly easily addressed with a provision like the below, and I would
urge the planning commission to include a Solar PV requirement similar to the below in the
regulations:
“Any building required to establish a “solar-ready zone” shall be required to install a
solar photovoltaic (“Solar PV”) system designed to reasonably maximize (assuming the
use of standard solar panels) the Solar PV potential of the solar-ready zone, provided
that:
(a) The requirement set forth herein shall be reduced to the extent the
interconnection with the relevant utility cannot accommodate a Solar PV
system of the size otherwise required, or the Solar PV system otherwise
required would be anticipated to generate in its first year of operation more
kilowatt hours (kWh) than the “Expected Building Usage”.
a. The number of kWh that a solar photovoltaic system is anticipated to
generate shall be determined based on the site conditions by applying
the “PVWatts calculator” published by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) (or an equivalent or successor calculator).
b. The “Expected Building Usage” shall be a reasonable estimate of the
number of kWhs that the building is expected to consume during its
first full year of typical operation.
(b) The requirement set forth herein shall be eliminated if the largest system that
could reasonably be installed on the solar-ready zone would be anticipated to
generate less than [3000] kWh of electricity in the first year of operation
(using the methodology set forth above).3
The City has the power now to protect this one special corner of the earth. I so hope that the
City does not miss this opportunity.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Chalnick
Andrew Chalnick
3 Note that 3000 kWh would typically be generated by about 10 panels.
Attachment A - Homes in the Pipeline
Attachment B – Habitat Block Revisions
1
Betsy Brown
From:jshaw5226@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 6:42 PM
To:planning
Subject:EXTERNAL: Comments for the Draft Land Regulations
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear P&Z and Planning Commission,
Please read the link to this NYT article as you consider your amendments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/opinion/biden-zoning-social-justice.html
Our president is addressing this issue and I don't think South Burlington is aware of its past or is doing enough -- see this
picture of "covenants" that were in effect in South Burlington up until 53 years ago when federal action eliminated them
through the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
There is a confirmation bias to our "good work" in protecting the environment when we enforce new Environmental
Protection Standards on developable land as a "feel good" local action that violates both social and environmental goals.
"Habitat blocks" and "habitat corridors" are not as sacrosanct as the human blocks and human corridors that are being
blocked through certain of these over-reach amendments.
However, using the umbrella of "environment", no one hears the extra traffic and high walls we are building in South
Burlington to protect unnamed, unnumbered and unendangered specious species of wildlife. I mean, come on.
Adjust the over reach of habitat blocks and habitat corridors that is against the larger global environment, statewide rural
landscape and local social justive and income inequity.
Thank you,
Chris Shaw
2
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee
Date: October 22, 2021
To: Jessica Louis, Chair, Planning Commission
From: Chris Trombly, Chair, Affordable Housing Commission
CC: Planning Commission, Affordable Housing Committee, City Council, Jessie Baker, Paul
Conner
RE: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Committee Members (all ten present at the October 18, 2021 meeting; nine voting and one abstention):
Janet Bellavance; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Vince Bolduc; Sandy Dooley, Vice-Chair; Ariel Jensen-Vargas;
Patrick O'Brien; Darrilyn Peters; Minelle Sarfo-Adu; John Simson; Chris Trombly, Chair.
The attached resolution constitutes the Affordable Housing Committee’s comments on the proposed Land
Development Regulations that are the subject of the Planning Commission’s public hearing on October
26, 2021.
Chair’s Comments: Seeking to make a measure of progress in addressing the affordable housing crisis
requires a very large toolbox. We need to assemble lots of tools and put them all to work, even if a single
tool, by itself, does not make a big dent in the problem.
One of these tools is inclusionary zoning regulations. We applaud and appreciate the Planning
Commission’s proposed expansion of the City’s inclusionary zoning regulations to the entire City. A
major feature of inclusionary zoning is that these housing units are perpetually affordable. Inclusionary
zoning also promotes other important goals, such as equity and diversity.
Another tool is higher density development. Higher density typically allows developers to build housing
at a lower per-unit cost. Thus, we applaud and appreciate the Planning Commission’s incorporation of a
minimum R4 (four units per acre) density requirement in the proposed rules for Traditional Neighborhood
Development Planned Unit Developments and the developable area in a Conservation Planned Unit
Development.
Another barrier to more affordably priced housing is the high cost of land. As drafters of our land
development regulations, we ask that you remove the proposed rules that require Conservation Planned
Unit Developments in most parts of the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) for developments of four or mor e
acres and the proposed significant addition to the acreage zoned SEQ-Natural Resource Protection. These
proposed changes reduce the amount of land available for development, putting upward pressure on the
price of the remaining land. Moreover, less developable land means fewer housing units will be built,
thus, forcing more households to live beyond South Burlington, farther from their jobs, increasing their
commuting time, and unnecessarily adding to the region’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Thank you for your ongoing service to our community.
Attachment:
SoBu-AHC-IZ-Resolution 10.18.21.pdf
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE 1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2
3
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED LAND 4
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 5
6
Whereas, the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan vision calls for the City to be 7
affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life; 8
9
Whereas, compared to VT’s other core towns of Burlington and Winooski, South 10
Burlington has the highest median household income ($73,065) and homeownership rate (60%). 11
In addition, it has the lowest number (639) and percentage (2.5%) of Black/African American 12
residents. Though South Burlington’s population is 2.5 times greater than that of Winooski, 13
Winooski’s population includes 730 Black /African American residents while South Burlington’s 14
includes 639; (Sources: Vermont Housing Data website and Census 2020) 15
16
Whereas, while the vacancy rate widely considered necessary for a healthy rental market 17
is 5%, Chittenden County’s current rental vacancy rate is 0.9%, thus, resulting in significant 18
upward pressure on rental costs (Source: CCRPC Building Homes Together) By all measures, 19
the nation and the region are in the midst of a housing crisis for both renters and homebuyers as 20
well as wealth inequality not seen in decades; (Source: PEW Research Center) 21
22
Whereas, the Grand List assessed value increased an average 29 percent for residential 23
properties from 2006 to 2021; 24
25
Whereas, the City of South Burlington is located within five miles of the State’s largest 26
employers and effective climate change standards dictate that density should be highest near the 27
core city of a region to lessen vehicular emissions between work and home; 28
29
Whereas, infrastructure, such as water, sewer, and heating fuel, necessary for residential 30
development at a lower cost is already in place in much of the City’s Southeast Quadrant (Case 31
for Housing appendix); 32
33
Whereas, cars and trucks account for the majority of Vermont’s greenhouse gas 34
emissions — about 45%, according to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; 35
(Source: VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation, “Vermont Greenhouse Gas Emissions 36
Inventory 1990-2016”) 37
38
Whereas, households should spend no more than 45% of their income on combined 39
housing and transportation costs; (Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology) 40
Whereas, experts have linked Franklin and Grand Isle counties’ population growth 41
(about 4.5% over the past decade) to sprawl from Chittenden County — which grew 7.5% — as 42
people opt for longer commutes in exchange for more affordable housing; (Census 2010 and 43
Census 2020) 44
45
Whereas, the environmental protection standards proposed in Article 12 are based on 46
professional scientific review and will increase the portion of South Burlington land removed 47
from potential development from 41% to 50% across the entire City and from 63% to 67% in the 48
Southeast Quadrant; and double the wetlands buffer from 50’ to 100’ in residential and 49
municipal districts, they have gained this committee’s support; 50
51
Whereas, the proposed regulations for SEQ Sub-Districts SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, and 52
SEQ-NRN require that all applications involving four (4) or more acres of land be developed as a 53
Conservation Planned Unit Development and this requirement does not apply elsewhere in the 54
City; 55
56
Whereas, in all other zoning districts in situations in which a Planned Unit Development 57
is required, development as a Conservation Planned Unit Development is elective as long as at 58
least 50 percent of the parcel area (less hazards) comprises level 1 resources as defined in Article 59
12; 60
61
Whereas, density less than three to four units per acre often results in suburban sprawl, 62
developments with a density of four or more units per acre support healthy communities because 63
these density levels support traditional neighborhood development with multiple housing types 64
that provide opportunities to build affordable housing; (Source: Vermont Planning 65
Implementation Manual) 66
67
Whereas, the “Case for Housing Report,” prepared for the Affordable Housing 68
Committee and shared with the City Council notes that most of the large lot parcels remaining in 69
the city are already protected from further development by such means as zoning restrictions, 19 70
City parks, City-acquired conservation parcels, natural hazards and other forms of protection and 71
identified only 15 parcels in the City containing five or more acres and being suitable and zoned 72
for residential development; 73
74
Whereas, the proposed change to the City’s land development regulations to expand 75
inclusionary zoning citywide merits strong support because it is a change that will produce a 76
modest but significant increase in the supply of perpetually affordable housing when 77
developments including 12 or more dwelling units are built; 78
79
Therefore, consistent with its opposition to inequitable and exclusionary zoning 80
regulations and support for zoning regulations that will give property owners throughout the City 81
comparable options in developing land zoned for development and reduce existing and growing 82
household income inequality among City neighborhoods, be it resolved that the Affordable 83
Housing Committee requests the Planning Commission to modify the proposed regulations as 84
follows: 85
86
1. Allow owners of property located in the Southeast Quadrant the choice of Planned 87
Unit Development options for developing their land that would apply if the same land 88
were located outside the Southeast Quadrant. 89
90
2. Consider regulatory incentives for the use of the Traditional Neighborhood 91
Development Planned Unit Development option in all situations in which four or 92
more acres of the parcel to be developed are eligible for residential development. 93
94
3. Allow the proportion of a Conservation Planned Unit Development that is to be 95
conserved to range from 50 percent to 70 percent to enable the property owner to take 96
full advantage of the density maximum permitted under the Conservation Planned 97
Unit Development regulations. 98
99
4. Remove the proposed change in zoning from Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood 100
Residential and Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential Transition to Natural 101
Resource Protection for parcels south of Nowland Farm Road and west of Dorset 102
Street in the Southeast Quadrant because this proposed change is not supported by 103
scientific research and recommendation. In addition, by adding a significant number 104
of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to the TDR inventory, this proposed 105
change exacerbates the current situation in which few TDRs are being purchased. 106
This proposed change would also minimize development options for the owners of 107
these parcels when such restrictions are not being applied to owners of comparable 108
parcels in the Southeast Quadrant and elsewhere in the City. 109
110
5. Change the permanent conservation requirement in the Conservation Planned Unit 111
Development regulations to a requirement for a conservation easement that may be 112
modified at twenty-five-year intervals from the effective date of these regulations, 113
and only at the request of the property owner and with the approval of the 114
Development Review Board on the basis of land development regulations that specify 115
the criteria for termination or modification of such easement. 116
117
Approved on this 18 day of October, 2021. 118
119
Chris Trombly, Chair Yeah /s/ Chris Trombly Nay Abstain 120
121
Sandy Dooley, Vice Chair Yeah /s/ Sandy Dooley Nay Abstain 122
123
Janet Bellavance Yeah Nay /s/Janet Bellavance Abstain 124
125
Leslie Black-Plumeau Yeah /s/ Leslie Black-Plumeau Nay Abstain 126
127
Vince Bolduc Yeah /s/ Vince Bolduc Nay Abstain 128
129
Ariel Jensen-Vargas Yeah /s/ Ariel Jensen-Vargas Nay Abstain 130
131
Patrick O’Brien Yeah /s/ Patrick O’Brien Nay Abstain 132
133
Darrilyn Peters Yeah Nay /s/Darrilyn Peters Abstain 134
135
Minelle Sarfo-Ado Yeah Nay Abstain /s/ Minelle Sarfo-Ado 136
137
John Simson Yeah /s/ John Simson Nay Abstain 138
139
140
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
South Burlington City Council
From: John Bossange
Date: October 22, 2021
Re: Affordable Housing Committee Resolution
As a relatively new resident to South Burlington, I appreciate the work just
completed in rewriting the Land Development Regulations after receiving critical
information from the Open Space Committee. Like others, I remain committed to
the preservation of natural areas for a multitude of environmental reasons and for
addressing the climate crisis, which is impacting us right now.
However, I fear that some of the language in the draft Land Development
Regulations will cater too much to an individual developer at the expense of the
greater environmental good. The implied license to build houses on rural lands will
most certainly increase our use of fossil fuel and will add more impervious surfaces
further polluting Lake Champlain, our air and water supply. I also believe that
building houses in rural areas miles from the city core, in the long run, makes them
less affordable.
Recently I have become very concerned with the statements and positions taken by
our Affordable Housing Committee (AHC). I am a firm supporter of building more
affordable housing units, as I am a donor and supporter of the Champlain Housing
Trust. The wonderful units already constructed in South Burlington (Allard Square,
Country Park, Grandway Commons, Anderson I and II, Lime Kiln and O’Dell), are
excellent examples of affordable housing developments which are near public
transportation lines, stores, schools, and other day-to-day necessities for people
who live on a limited income and probably do not own a car. I have always believed
that constructing homes and apartments near the downtown core makes both
economic and environmental sense.
The Resolution proposed by the AHC to address housing affordability does not
support this type of common sense and responsible development. Instead it makes
a series of inaccurate assumptions and statements to justify development that
harms the environment, does not help mitigate the climate crisis, and strands
people in homes miles from public transportation, schools, stores, and their
workplace.
Specifically, the Resolution falsely claims that South Burlington is an unaffordable
place to live. The data shows the opposite. We are the seventh most affordable
place to live in Vermont when compared to other towns and cities with more than
5,000 residents. South Burlington is more affordable than Barre, Winooski,
Brattleboro, and closer to home Burlington, Colchester, Milton, Hinesburg and,
Shelburne, our neighbors, as just reported in the Burlington Free Press.
Further, if you examine our Grand List of 6883 residential homes, 4,377 are
assessed at less than $300,000. That makes 64% of the homes in our city
“affordable,” a clear example of why we are ranked so well in terms of affordability
when compared to other towns and cities.
This does not mean that we do not need to continue to build affordable housing. We
do, and again when compared to our neighbors, we do very well. In Chittenden
County, South Burlington holds 13% of the population, yet we have built 23% of the
County’s affordable housing units. By comparison, Burlington holds 26% of the
County’s population and has 33% of the affordable housing units, while Essex
Junction has 12% of the population and has built 19% of the affordable housing
units. So we are doing more than our fair share to address this critical need. In fact,
South Burlington has built more affordable housing units (23%) than all new homes
(19%) in the County.
So why does the AHC want to support building in open space areas that will
contribute to more suburban sprawl? We need more affordable apartments and
condominiums, built near the city core where units can be redeveloped in
unoccupied office and commercial space and new homes built in appropriate spaces
if possible. We don’t need any more isolated homes and apartment complexes built
in fields which promote the car culture already congesting our city and polluting the
environment. Rental fees and mortgages combined with using one’s own car is
expensive, and should never exceed the 45% income figure suggested in the
Resolution. So why build where families will be stranded, making cars a necessity?
Clearly the Resolution proposed by the AHC is targeted at development in the
Southeast Quadrant, where developers can continue to more easily construct homes
in defiance of environmental protection standards given to us in the Open Space
Report, and operate as if there is no immediate climate crisis. The proposed
language changes recommended in the Resolution ask for more “traditional
neighborhoods,” and give property owners incentives to sell their land to
developers for homes in the open space. This is not a good policy to follow.
On a personal note, I am far less concerned with protecting an existing homeowner’s
view than I am with protecting the natural environment to address the climate crisis
and improve mitigation issues. I want to see the continued revitalization of our city
core with more affordable living units built in other sensible, city locations.
For some reason the AHC Resolution calls out South Burlington for not addressing
the housing needs of people of color, keeping them from moving into our
community. I understand the history of housing discrimination enforced by land
regulations. We all know Vermont is a white state and as a whole there is work to
be done to address racism in all its ugly forms. But let the facts show that between
2010 and 2020, the population of our City increased 13% from 17,904 to 20,292,
while the Black population increased 83%, from 348 to 639 residents, so people of
color are successfully moving into our city.
For me the lingering, uncomfortable question remains why the AHC seems to be
operating just as a Housing Committee, making it easier and more convenient for
developers, financiers to do business in our city. I was surprised to find that one
member on the Committee is a loan officer at a bank, while another works for the
Vermont Housing Finance Agency, and yet a third is employed by a local
development and construction company with large constructions projects in South
Burlington. Do these members believe in affordable housing? I believe they do. But
it does not look good to see the potential for conflicts of interest, and the City
Council needs to be cautious when making appointments to such important
Commissions.
Finally, true affordable housing is not just a single-family house in a traditional
neighborhood miles from anywhere, as promoted in the language in the AHC
Resolution. We did that decades ago and created sprawl. It’s 2021, and we have the
code red climate reports. We can’t afford any more sprawl, and environmental
destruction. All our housing, affordable or not, needs to be done in areas that are
not environmentally sensitive, not in parcels identified by our Open Space Report,
and of course, closer to our downtown core.
The Planning Commission needs to dismiss the recommendations from the AHC
Resolution and approve Land Development Regulations that strictly control
development for the reasons written in this memo.
Thank you very much.
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: Draft Land Development Regulations – Staff Review and Recommendations
DATE: October 26, 2021 Planning Commission Public Hearing
As discussed earlier this month, staff has been reviewing the draft regulations warned for public hearing for
consistency, clarity and to affirm that the draft includes the policies advanced by the Commission. Below are
items that staff has identified, as well as items the Commission requested be shown draft language for at
the hearing.
Additionally, the legal review is underway. Due to the scale of the amendments, these are in process and
will not be complete prior to the Commission’s hearing and given the Commission’s timeline, will likely be
provided at the City Council stage of review. The City attorney is prioritizing and “red flag” issues and staff
will provide an update on any such issues at the Commission’s hearing on the 26th.
1. PUD/TND applicability in C1-R12 District: The draft includes the C1-R12 district as a district in which
PUDs are required and the TND is enabled. Reviewing past versions of applicability maps, this district
was not included. In other words, the Commission, to staff knowledge, did not discuss this. It was likely
inserted as part of the dialogue of possible zoning district mergers that was ultimately saved for another
time. Furthermore, the Commission’s overall guidance was not to apply the PUDs, yet, in high-density
mixed use districts that could be opportunities for TDRs.
Staff recommendation: Remove C1-R12 district from PUD applicability for the timebeing.
A._____PUD Type by Zoning District. The types of PUD allowed within an underlying zoning district are
specified by district under Table 15.C-1.
Table 15.C-1 PUD Types by Zoning District
PUD Type Underlying Zoning Districts
Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND)
R1-PRD, R1-LakeviewR1-Lakeshore, R2, R4, R7,
Lakeshore, Allen Road, Swift Street, C1-LR, C1-R12, R7-
NC, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC
SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-NRT, only in association with a
Conservation PUD, in a designated Development Area
with a minimum Buildable Area of 4 acres
2. Transit Overlay District relationship to R7-Neighborhood Commercial District. The Commission in a
prior amendment had selected certain “uses” – medical offices, congregate care, and social services, to
only be permitted within the Transit Overlay District. In Zoning Districts containing land outside the
Transit Overlay District, the Table of Uses includes a note that the use is only allowed on land within the
2
TOD. With the proposed redesignation of land south of I-89 from I/O to R7-Neighborhood Commercial,
this same limitation is recommended, as that land is outside the Transit Overlay District.
o Staff recommendation: Add notation that the above-uses, within the R7-NC district, are
allowed only on land within the Transit Overlay District (TO).
Congregate Care: C-TO
Medical Offices: P-TO
Social Services: P-TO
(note: C means allowed as a Conditional Use; P means allowed as a Permitted Use)
3. Definitions: A handful of terms were identified to be defined in the Regulations:
a. Building Lot
b. Infrastructure Lot
c. Conservation Lot
d. Civic Space Lot
e. Building Front Types (stoop, dooryard)
These are relatively standard definitions but would be helpful for future users. They will be provided
alongside the legal review at the Council stage.
4. Density in SEQ Village Residential and SEQ-Village Commercial Districts with NO PUD
Last month, the Commission asked staff to adjust the underlying zoning with the SEQ’s
“receiving districts” to make sure that the amount of development on a parcel that is just below
the threshold for a PUD would not exceed the amount of development on a slightly larger
project that would be required to be a PUD. Specifically, this would be the case on a 3.9 acre lot
(non PUD) that used TDRs, and a 4.0 acre lot (required Conservation PUD in the SEQ-NR, NRT,
and NRN) where 70% of the land must be conserved and the remainder can be built at up to 6
units per acre.
The proposed solution was to cap development, with TDRs applied, at 1.8 units per acre in those
districts. That would assure that a 3.9 acre lot would have no more development allowed than a
4.0 acre lot.
The same language was drafted for the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC districts. In those districts, however,
the math is different since two different PUD types are allowed: the Conservation PUD and the
TND PUD. In addition, the current regulations allow up to 4 units per acre without TDRs on small
lots in the SEQ-VC. The draft warned for public hearing caps “non-PUD” development at this
same 1.8 units per acre.
Commission options:
a) Keep as drafted – maximum of 1.8 units per acre on lots that are below the PUD
threshold. [note, if this option is selected, section 9.05A which allowed 4 units per
acre in the SEQ-VC without the use of TDRs, from the current regulations would need
to be changed).
b) Set maximum to 4 units per acre with the use of TDRs in these districts for Non-PUD
development (ie, parcels less than 4 acres).
c) Retain “current” allowance of 8 units per acre in the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC with the
use of TDRs for non-OUD development (ie, parcels less than 4 acres)
3
5. Private outdoor space within all TND-applicable Building Types:
The Commission asked staff to propose language that would ensure some amount of access to private
outdoor space associated with all new dwelling units through the Building Types (applicable in TNDs).
Staff reviewed the question with our consultant, Sharon Murray. There are presently the following
proposed building types in the TND: cottages, single family homes, duplexes (over-under and side-by-
side), townhomes, small multiplex (3-4 units) and medium multi-plex (5-12 units). In most of these
cases, the building type will have a direct ground-floor access to the outdoors. The exceptions,
depending on building design, would include the over-under duplex, small multi-plex, and the medium
multiplex. Below is a possible addition to meet the Commission’s request:
• “Upper story units, and ground-floor units without direct access to the outdoors, must be provided
access to a useable outdoor space such as a rooftop, balcony, courtyard, or similar space that is
private to the unit or to the occupants of the building”
Note that this does not require that each unit have its own individual space. Doing so would, effectively
require all not such buildings to have balconies, which would then strongly dictate architecture and run
counter to the Commission’s requirement for variety and pose maintenance challenges. The draft also
does not include a minimum size. That is a possibility as well but would require additional consideration.
It may be helpful, further, for the Commission to invite one or more architects to discuss this overall
proposal.
6. Side setbacks for attached dwelling units.
The current (and draft) regulations do not account for lot lines that split an attached dwelling unit types
(most commonly, duplexes or rowhouses). The regulations require a minimum side yard setback and not
not include a provision for attached dwelling units. This is among the leading causes for the existence of
“footprint lots” under the LDRs. The issue becomes exacerbated by the elimination of commonly-used
PUDs, reverting properties to the underlying zoning only.
• Staff recommendation: Add new Section 3.09G. Attached Dwelling units. Side setbacks shall not
apply to shared walls between attached dwelling units.
7. Conversion from housing to child care, housing preservation
Staff was asked to prepare a clarification to the proposed exemption of a conversion of a dwelling unit
to a licensed, non-residential child care facility from the city’s housing preservation standards. The
clarification would require the approval of such a conservation to be accompanied by a calculation of
the financial contribution to the affordable housing trust fund that would have otherwise been applied
to removal of a dwelling unit, and a condition that should the child care use later be converted to
another non-residential use, that the contribution or housing replacement requirement be required at
that time. Proposal:
18.03 Housing Preservation
C. Exemptions. This Section shall not be applicable to:
(7) Conversion of a dwelling unit to a licensed, non-residential child care facility. Any approval for such a
conversion, however, shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) A calculation of the amount of the Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund, as specified in 18.03E(3), that
would otherwise have applied; and,
4
(b) A condition that any subsequent conversion of to another non-residential use will require compliance
with the housing replacement requirements Section 18.03E. If the applicant at that time selects the Contribution
option specified in 18.03E(3), the contribution amount shall be the calculated pursuant to this subsection
18.03C(7)(a).
8. Table of Uses Corrections – Residential 12 district:
The Draft table of uses included one change that was not discussed by the Commission, and omitted one
other necessitated by the change to PUDs. They are:
• Medical Offices in R-12. The draft table of uses eliminated the ability for a medical office to be
placed in the Residential 12 District (along a portion of Kennedy Drive). These areas are presently
largely residential, or approved as such, and contain no medical offices. Staff did not highlight this
possible change to the Commission when you reviewed the draft Table of Uses earlier this fall,
however.
o Staff recommendation: retain the change or keep the current allowance but as a permitted
use rather than with a PUD and discuss a part of a future amendment
• General Offices in R-12. The Table of Uses was updated to remove required “PUD” review for
specific uses, since PUDs will not be used / applied in that manner in the future. This one use was
missed.
o Staff recommendation: to be consistent with the other changes, allow General office in the
R12 as a permitted use within the Transit Overlay District. Change: PUD-TO to P-TO
9. Site Amenity Types: “Enhanced Stormwater or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater Treatment Area”
and “Wooded Area.”
As part of a general tidy-up of the Civic Space / Open Space Types (previously appendix F, now Article
11B), staff had previously recommended removal of the two types listed above as applicable site
amenities in City Center, as they could eventually be replaced by the new Civic Space types. An affected
property owner reached out to the City to inquire. The legal review has recommended they be kept for
now as there is at least one approved and active use of these types in a “large area open space” under
Section 8.08, which remains ongoing.
o Recommendation: Keep the “Enhanced Stormwater or Recreational Wetlands/Stormwater
Treatment Area” and “Wooded Area” Site amenities.
10. Transferable Development Rights for Inclusionary Dwelling Units & Offsets.
The draft amendments retain the current feature of the LDRs that permanently affordable dwelling units
(presently done via an affordable housing density bonus) do not require TDRs to be purchased. The legal
review has identified that with the expansion of Inclusionary Zoning city-wide (and into the SEQ), the
text should be further clarified to make clear that the “offset” market rate dwelling units granted
automatically in exchange for the now-required affordable housing units do not require the purchase of
TDRs. These “offset” units are provided to defray the additional cost to a developer for building
permanently-affordable units; incentives such as these are required under State Law as part of any
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
o Recommendation: clarify Section 9.05F to state that “offset” market rate dwelling units as part
of a minimum Inclusionary requirement do not require the use or purchase of TDRs.
Additional items for follow-up by the Planning Commission:
5
11. Commissioners asked that we examine additional flexibility for Class III wetlands and wetland buffers.
If the Commission wishes to create more flexibility than the current draft (which exempts Class III
wetlands less than 300 s.f. and allows for impacts to Class III wetlands upon a full evaluation of
functions and values), the following could be done:
o Exempt Class III wetlands up to 5,000 s.f. in area
o Allow for temporary impacts to Class III wetland buffers as part of construction
o Allow for underground utilities to cross a Class III wetland and stormwater facilities to
incorporate Class III wetlands
12. Limited Review Authority under 24 VSA 4413.
State Statutes limit a municipality’s authority for review of certain uses. Here’s a link to the statutes.
This subject has come up in a letter to the Planning Commission. At the meeting staff will provide an
update staff/legal counsel’s assessment.
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 0540 1 | tel 802.846.4106 | fax 802.846.4101 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: FY 2022 Municipal Planning Grant application submittal
DATE: October 26, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Proposed Action:
Authorize Planning Commission Chair to sign proposed Municipal Planning Grant application to support
preparation of the Government Operations component of the City’s Climate Action Implementation
Plan.
The Grant application was approved by the City Council on October 18th; the application also requires
the signature of the Planning Commission chair.
Background
The State Agency of Commerce and Community Development has made available funding for towns and
cities to undertake planning activities again this year. The maximum grant award for a single
municipality is $22,000 and require a minimum 10% local match. The proposed match source is the
Planning & Zoning consulting account.
The State awards these grants based on a series of competitive criteria. Those include: application
quality, work plan & budget, linkage to comprehensive plan, citizen participation, statewide priorities,
and bonus points for projects related to neighborhood development areas, of which we have one.
Project Proposal
The proposal is to use the MPG funds to develop the second of ultimately three or four Sector-Specific
Climate Action Implementation Plans as outlined to Council this past summer.
As a refresher, approach discussed with Council in June was to develop a Principal Climate Action Plan,
which will be underway this fall with assistance of the CCRPC and the recently-established Climate
Action Plan Task Force. As stated then, “Where the Principal Plan will lay out a set of clear, measurable
pathways to meet the City’s Climate goals, the Implementation Plan(s) will provide a deeper dive into
the specific actions to be taken to meet these goals. This could include developing specific policies,
incentives, regulations, and partnerships to meet the Climate goals.”
The City has received funding for the first of these Implementation Plans, for the Transportation Sector,
through our partnership with the CCRPC and their Unified Planning Work Program.
This grant application, for up to the full $22,000 (plus local match) would undertake the second Sector-
Specific Implementation Plan, to focus on “Government Operations.”
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: October 12, 2021
RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendments
Enclosed, please find proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus
ZA-22-02: Permitting Adjustments
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on
Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 6:45 pm via a virtual meeting on the platform Zoom.
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 November 8, 2021.
Thank you.
CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair
David White, FAICP, Director, 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
Emily Lee
Harris Roen
Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendment
ZA-22-01 Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus
ZA-22-02 Permitting Adjustments
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, November 9, 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/81115229181 Webinar ID: 811 1522 9181
To join virtually by phone, dial this number and enter the Webinar ID when prompted:
Number: +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 811 1522 9181
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:
ZA-22-01: To correct a conflict in the use of terms regarding adaptive reuse of historic
buildings and applicable development bonuses, and expand such bonuses to the Institutional
District where applicable.
ZA-22-02: To eliminate zoning permit requirement for change in use among permitted no-
residential uses when no other standards apply; allow basic zoning permits for single-family
uses on lots in non-design review district; and enable administrative review for zoning
permits in flood hazard area unless project otherwise requires DRB review.
Geographic areas affected:
These amendments apply to the following areas of the city:
ZA-22-01: Areas of the city located in Residential and Institutional zoning districts.
ZA-22-02: All zoning districts and areas of the city.
List of section headings affected:
The proposed amendments modify the following sections of the Burlington Comprehensive
Development Ordinance:
ZA-22-01: Modifies Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 5.A.; relocates Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 6. B and Table 4.4.5-6 to become
Sec. 5.4.8 (e) and Table 5.4.8-1; Modifies Sec 4.4.5 (d) 6. C; Modifies Sec. 4.4.5 (d) 6. D; and
Modifies Sec. 5.3.4. 2. A
Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing Warning p. 2
ZA-22-01, ZA-22-02
ZA-22-02: Modifies Sec. 3.1.2 (c) 1 and adds Sec. 3.1.2 (c) 18; Modifies Sec. 4.5.4 (f) 1. E; Modifies
Sec. 4.5.4 (f) 6; Modifies Sec. 4.5.4 (f) 7; Modifies Sec. 4.5.4 (f) 8; and Modifies Sec. 5.2.1.
The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance is available online at
www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO. Upon request, a hard copy of the proposed amendments can be
viewed at the Clerk’s Office located on the second floor of City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington
Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Amendments are also available online at
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CDO/Amendments
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: Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: David E. White, FAICP, Dir of Planning, Office of City Planning
Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager, DPI
DATE: September 9, 2021
RE: Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus
The following proposed amendment to the BCDO is a companion to an amendment
approved by the Commission earlier this year (ZA-21-04 Adaptive Reuse Definition) which
revised the definition of the term “adaptive reuse” to be consistent with standard historic
preservation practice. ZA-21-04 currently sits before the Council Ordinance Committee
where it awaits the referral of this proposed amendment and they can be joined.
Subsequent to the Council taking up the Adaptive Reuse amendment, the Planning and DPI
staff noted a potential conflict with Sec. 4.4.5(d) 6. B, and recommends that the BCDO
dispense with the use of the term in Sec. 4.4.5(d) 6. B - Adaptive Reuse Bonus, and instead
move this language to Sec. 5.4.8 where it would be co-located with other provisions related
to historic buildings and to make it applicable in the Institutional District which, outside of
the institutional campuses, also has a predominantly residential character and scale.
Proposed Amendment
BEGIN PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Sec. 4.4.5 Residential Districts, (d) District Specific Regulations:
5. Uses
A. Exception for Existing Neighborhood Commercial Uses.
Neighborhood commercial uses as defined in Article 13 and intended to primarily
serve the nearby residential area shall be considered permitted uses in all
rResidential and Institutional districts subject to the following:
(i) This exemption shall only apply to:
1) Historic neighborhood commercial buildings that are listed or eligible for
listing on the state or national register and originally designed and
constructed for such purpose(s); or,
2) A street level neighborhood commercial use as defined in Article 13 in
lawful existence as of January 1, 2007.
(ii) Neighborhood commercial uses shall be limited to a single story on the street
level of any structure.
(iii) Neighborhood commercial uses less than 2,000 sqft shall be treated as a
permitted use. Neighborhood commercial uses greater than or equal to 2,000
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 2
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
sqft but less than 4,000 sqft shall be treated as a conditional use.
Neighborhood commercial uses occupying 4,000 sqft or more shall not be
permitted.
(iv) The neighborhood commercial use shall not be counted against the
property’s allowable residential density.
(v) The sale of fuel for motor vehicles, or new or expanded gas station canopies,
shall be prohibited.
(vi) Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 11:00pm seven days per
week. Any expansion in the hours of operation of an existing neighborhood
commercial use shall require conditional use review by the DRB.
(vii) All building height and setback requirements for the underlying residential
district shall apply, and the lot coverage shall not exceed 60%.
(viii) Any exterior changes to the building(s) or changes to the site plan shall be
subject to the design review requirements of Article 6.
(ix) To the extent that additional parking is necessary, the parking standards for
Shared-Use Districts shall apply pursuant to Article 8.
(x) The conversion of a residential use to a neighborhood commercial use within
a historic neighborhood commercial building more than 50 years old and
originally designed and constructed for such purpose shall be exempt from
the housing replacement requirements of Article 9, Part 2.
(xi) Home occupations as defined and regulated under this article are not
restricted by the provisions of this section.
(xii) Any aspect of a neighborhood commercial use in lawful existence as of
January 1, 2007 not in strict conformance with any of the above standards
shall be considered non-conforming and be subject to the provisions of
Article 5, Part 3.
6. Residential Development Bonuses.
The following exceptions to maximum allowable residential density and
dimensional standards in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may be approved in any
combination subject to the maximum limits set forth in Table 4.4.5-8 at the
discretion of the DRB. Any bonuses that are given pursuant to this ordinance now
or in the future shall be regarded as an exception to the limits otherwise applicable.
A. Senior Housing Bonus.
Residential development in excess of the density, lot coverage and building
height limits specified in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may be permitted by the
DRB for senior housing provided the following conditions are met:
(i) No less than twenty-five (25) per cent of the total number of units shall
be reserved for low-moderate income households as defined by state
or federal guidelines, including no less than ten (10) per cent reserved
for low-income households. (Projects taking advantage of this bonus
are exempt from the Inclusionary Zoning requirements of Article 9,
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 3
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Part 1.);
(ii) The proposal shall be subject to the design review provisions of Art. 6;
(iii) A maximum of an additional 10-feet of building height may be
permitted in the RH District; and,
(iv) Lot coverage and residential densities shall not exceed the following:
Table 4.4.5-5: Senior Housing Bonus
District Maximum
Coverage
Maximum
Density
RL/RL-W 44% 20 du/ac
RM 48% 40 du/ac
RM-W 72% 40 du/ac
RH 92% 80 du/ac
B. Adaptive Reuse Bonus.
Development in excess of the limits set forth in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3
may be permitted by the DRB subject to conditional use review for the
conversion of an existing non-conforming nonresidential principal use
within a historic building to a conforming residential use subject to all of
the following conditions:
(i) The building shall be listed or eligible for listing in the United States
Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places or
the Vermont State Register of Historic Places;
(ii)(i) The gross floor area shall not exceed the pre-redevelopment gross
floor area of the existing structure by more than twenty-five (25)
percent;
(iii)(i) The density limits of the underlying residential zoning district in
Sec 4.4.5(b) above shall not apply. The intensity and extent of
development shall be limited by gross floor area maximum in (ii)
above and Table 4.4.5-6 below;
(iv)(i) The adaptive reuse and rehabilitation conforms to the
requirements of Art 5, Historic Buildings;
(v)(i) Neighborhood commercial uses less than 2,000 sqft gross floor area
may be permitted by the DRB subject to the applicable requirements
of Sec. 4.4.5(d)(5)(A) above. Neighborhood commercial uses 2,000
sqft or larger in gross floor area shall not be permitted. In
combination, the sum of neighborhood commercial uses shall be
limited to no more than 50% of the gross floor area of the existing
structure; and,
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 4
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
(vi)(i) Lot coverage shall not exceed:
Table 4.4.5-6: Adaptive Reuse Bonus
District Maximum Coverage
RL, RL-W Greater of 50% (62% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
RM, RM-W Greater of 60% (72% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
RH Greater of 80% (92% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
C. Residential Conversion Bonus.
Development in excess of the limits set forth in Tables 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may
be permitted by the DRB subject to conditional use review for the conversion
of an existing non-conforming nonresidential principal use not involving a
historic building to a conforming residential use subject to all of the following
conditions:
(i) Any structure proposed for demolition shall not be listed or eligible for
listing in the United States Department of the Interior’s National
Register of Historic Places or the Vermont State Register of Historic
Places; and,
(ii)(i) Lot coverage and residential density shall not exceed:
Table 4.4.5-7: Residential Conversion Bonus
District Maximum Lot
Coverage
Maximum Density
(dwelling unit/acre)
RL, RL-W 50%
(62% with
inclusionary
allowance)
8 du/ac
(8.75 with inclusionary
allowance)
RM, RM-W 60%
(72% with
inclusionary
allowance)
30 du/ac
(37.5 with inclusionary
allowance)
RH 80%
(92% with
inclusionary
allowance)
60 du/ac
(69 with inclusionary
allowance)
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 5
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
D. Limitations on Residential Development Bonuses:
For projects where the conditions of more than one applicable bonus listed
above and under Sec. 5.4.8 (e) are met, the applicant may use the most
permissive exemption to the underlying lot coverage or residential densities
applicable.
In no case shall any development bonuses and allowances granted, either
individually or in combination, enable a building to exceed the maximum
density, lot coverage and building height permitted in any district as defined
below:
Table 4.4.5-8: Maximum Density, Lot Coverage and Building Heights with
Bonuses
District Maximum
Density
Maximum
Height
Maximum
Lot Coverage
RH 80 du/ac 45-feet
(68-ft in RH Overlay)
92%
RM-W 40 du/ac 60-feet 72%
RM 40 du/ac 35-feet 60%
RL, RL-W 20 du/ac 35-feet 50%
Sec. 5.3.4 Nonconforming Uses, (a) Changes and Modifications:
1. Nonconforming Non-Residential Use:
A nonconforming non-residential use shall not be expanded or altered in any way, other
than to full conformity under this Ordinance, except as follows:
A. Exception for residential conversion.
A non-residential nonconforming use may be converted to a residential non-conforming
use pursuant to the applicable adaptive reuse or residential conversion provisions of
Sec. 4.4.5(d)(67).
B. Existing Neighborhood Commercial Uses.
Existing non-residential uses intended to primarily serve the nearby residential area
shall not be considered non-conforming to the extent they comply with the provisions of
Sec. 4.4.5(d)(56).
2. Nonconforming Residential Use:
A change or expansion of a non-conforming residential use may be allowed subject to
conditional use approval pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Part 5 by the DRB
provided:
A. Such an expansion does not add any additional dwelling units except as may be
permitted for adaptive reuse or residential conversion bonuses approved per the
provisions of Sec. 4.4.5(d)(67), the Historic Building Rehabilitation Bonus under
Sec. 5.4.8 (e), and or for Accessory Dwelling Units per the provisions of Sec. 5.4.5;
B. (remainder as written)
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 6
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Sec. 5.4.8 Historic Buildings and Sites
(e) Historic Building Rehabilitation Bonus:
In order to facilitate the rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings, in
Residential and Institutional districts, dDevelopment in excess of the limits set
forth in Tables 4.4.4-1, 4.4.5-2 and 4.4.5-3 may be permitted by the DRB
subject to conditional use review for the conversion of an existing non-
conforming nonresidential principal use within a historic building to a
conforming residential use subject to all of the following conditions:
(i) The principal building shall be listed or eligible for listing in the United
States Department of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places
or the Vermont State Register of Historic Places;
The gross floor area shall not exceed the pre-redevelopment gross floor
area of the existing structure by more than twenty-five (25) percent;
(ii) The density limits of the underlying residential zoning district in Sec
4.4.4(b) and 4.4.5(b) above shall not apply. The intensity and extent of
development shall instead be limited to an expansion up to a total of
125% of pre-existing gross floor area of the principal building.by gross
floor area maximum in (ii) above and Table 4.4.5-6 below;
(iii) The adaptive reuse and rehabilitation conforms to the requirements of
Art 5, Historic BuildingsSec. 5.4.8 (b) above;
(iv) Neighborhood commercial uses less than 2,000 sqft gross floor area
may be permitted by the DRB subject to the applicable requirements
of Sec. 4.4.5(d)(5)(A) above. Neighborhood commercial uses 2,000
sqft or larger in gross floor area shall not be permitted. In combination,
the sum of neighborhood commercial uses shall be limited to no more
than 50% of the gross floor area of the existing structure; and,
(v) Lot coverage shall not exceed:
Table 4.4.5-6: Adaptive Reuse Bonus
District Maximum Coverage
RL, RL-W, I Greater of 50% (62% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
RM, RM-W Greater of 60% (72% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
RH Greater of 80% (92% with inclusionary
allowance), or expansion up to a total of 125%
of pre-existing building coverage.
END PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 7
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is to correct a conflict in the use of terms
regarding the adaptive reuse of historic buildings and applicable development
bonuses intended to encourage their reuse and rehilitation, and expand such bonuses
into the Institutional District where applicable.
Proposed Amendment
The following amendments to the Burlington CDO are included in this proposal:
1. Move Sec. 4.4.5(d) 6. B - Adaptive Reuse Bonus to become Sec. 5.4.8(e), rename it
to “Historic Building Rehabilitation Bonus,” and make it applicable in the
Institutional District in addition to the Residential Districts.
2. Correct references to Sec. 5.3.4 Nonconforming Uses, (a) Changes and
Modifications:
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is
prepared in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment does not impact the types or density of potential land use
and density.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment has no impact on housing safety or affordability.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Staff Memo - Proposed CDO Amendment ZA-22-01: Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Bonus p. 8
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and
identifies any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Staff
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
9/14/21
Approved for
Public Hearing
Public
Hearing
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
CCOC
Recommends
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
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: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Gustin, Principal Planner & Zoning Division Manager
DATE: September 14 2021
RE: Permitting Adjustments
Overview & Background
Grouped together in this amendment proposal are three changes that facilitate the zoning
permit process. Each one has been identified through routine administration of the
Comprehensive Development Ordinance, and each is based on applicant and staff
experience with the permit process. The proposed changes are:
Eliminate the zoning permit requirement for changes among permitted non-residential
uses (only the use) where no standards apply;
Allow basic zoning permits for single-family uses on lots in the non-design review
district (removing ‘conforming’ from the text); and,
Enable administrative review of flood hazard area zoning permits (unless otherwise
trigger DRB review).
The Planning Commision Ordiance Committee discussed this amendment April 1, 2021 and
unanimously recommended forwarding the amendment to the full Planning Commission for
consideration.
Proposed Amendment
Amendment Type
Text Amendment Map Amendment Text & Map Amendment
Purpose Statement
The intent of the proposed amendment is to facilitate permitting and to reduce unnecessary
burden on applicants.
1. Eliminate the zoning permit requirement for changes among permitted non-
residential uses (only the use) where no standards apply.
Presently, any change from one use to another use requires a zoning permit.
Oftentimes, the only zoning st andard that changes when going from one
permitted non-residential use to another permitted non-residential use is the
parking standard. With the recent elimination of minimum parking
requirements, there have been a number of non-residential changes in use that
have received zoning permits without any standards to meet. In such cases,
arguably, there is no need to require a zoning permit. The proposed
amendment defines a narrow exemption from the need for a zoning permit for
changes in use between permitted non-residential uses.
2. Allow basic zoning permits for single-family uses on lots in the non-design review
district (removing ‘conforming’ from the text).
The Residential – Low Density zone is not within the city’s design review overlay.
That basically means that the design review standards of Article 6 do not apply
within this zone, and only the dimensional standards (height, setbacks, and lot
coverage) of Article 4 apply. A “basic” zoning permit is required where
development is proposed and requires only site plan review. There are multiple
exceptions to this rule. Only detached single family homes are eligible for
“basic” permit review. Anything other than a detached single family home in the
RL zone is subject to Article 6 and “certificate of appropriateness” (COA) review.
Even among detached single family homes, there are exceptions. An historic
home is subject to COA review, and any home on a small lot (one less than
6,000 sf or with less than 60’ of street frontage) is subject to COA review. COA
review is much more extensive than “basic” permit review, it is typically more
expensive, and it may include Board review. The proposed amendment
removes the small lot trigger for COA review. As proposed, a ny detached single
family home that is not historic and is in the RL zone would qualify for “basic”
permit review rather than COA review.
3. Enable administrative review of flood hazard area zoning permits (unless otherwise
trigger DRB review).
Within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), all development presently
requires Development Review Board review and approval. This means
substantially longer timeframes and greater expense for zoning permit review of
things as simple as freestanding signs and tool sheds. The proposed
amendment enables administrative zoning permit review of applications that
otherwise qualify for administrative permit review. Other DRB review triggers
such as development size, scope, and proposed use remain.
Proposed Amendments
Deleted language is crossed out and new language is underlined in red.
[Begin text amendment]
ARTICLE 3: APPLICATIONS, PERMITS, AND PROJECT REVIEWS
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND ZONING PERMITS
Sec. 3.1.2 Zoning Permit Required
(a) Exterior Work:
As written.
(b) Interior Work:
As written.
(c) Exemptions:
The following shall be exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance and shall not be
required to obtain a zoning permit:
1. Exterior modifications to a single family dwelling in a non -design review portion of the RL
zoning district lawfully in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance on a conforming
lot, and not on or eligible for listing on the State or National Register of Historic Places. Such
an exemption shall not be applicable to any of the following changes, which do require a
zoning permit:
A. Increased lot coverage;
B. Increased habitable living space;
C. Changes in setbacks or building footprints; and
D. Construction of additional stories to an existing structure.
E. Improvements in a Special Flood Hazard Area.
2. The removal of trees from any lot containing a single family home or duplex which consists
of no more than three-quarters (3/4) of one acre.
3. Within any city park within an RCO zone or Civic district, regular tree maintenance and
removal not otherwise associated with land clearing for new development or site
improvements, and regular turf maintenance including re-grading and reseeding.
4. Individual tree removal projects that are included under an approved and valid “tree
maintenance plan”.
5. The maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature, or its replacement in-kind,
which does not involve a change in the location, design, material, or the outward
appearance of the feature;
6. Temporary ramps to serve the handicapped or disabled, for a period of not more than 90
days.
7. Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A.
§248.
8. Accepted agricultural and silvicultural practices, including the construction of farm
structures, as those practices are defined by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets
or the commissioner of forests, parks and recreation, respectively, under 10 VSA §1021(f)
and 1259(f) and 6 VSA §4810. Prior to the construction of farm structures the farmer must
notify the Administrative Officer in writing of the proposed activity. The notice must contain
a sketch of the proposed structure including setbacks.
9. The temporary stabilization and securing of any structure, site, or building feature required
to address an unsafe or dangerous condition which poses an imminent threat to public
safety pursuant to a written order of the same issued under the authority of the city building
inspector.
10. Where temporary stabilization is not reasonably available the emergency demolition of
any structure, site, or building feature required to address an un safe or dangerous
condition which poses an imminent threat to public safety pursuant to a order of the same
issued under the written authority of the city building inspector and with the written
concurrence of the city engineer. This exemption does not ext end beyond the required
demolition, clearing of debris, securing or filling cellar holes, and related erosion control
and stormwater management.
11. All structures of 24 square feet or less and no taller than 15 feet, as long as they are located
in compliance with applicable setbacks. This exemption is limited to 1 such structure, or
multiple structures in aggregate up to 24 square feet, per property. This exemption does
not apply to properties located within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
12. Children’s play structures.
13. Seasonal skating rinks
14. Temporary Structures or Uses as per Sec. 5.1.2 (f).
15. Urban agricultural exemptions:
a. Cold frames of 6 feet in height or less. This exemption does not apply to properties
located within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
b. Up to 2 seasonal hoop houses, each 200 square feet or less, without foundations and
as long as they are located in compliance with applicable setbacks. This exemption
applies only to seasonal hoop houses that are sheathed in translucent plastic or similar
material for a maximum of 9 months per year and are maintained in an intact condition.
The frame may remain in place year-round. This exemption does not apply to
properties located in the Special Flood Hazard Area.
c. Urban agricultural uses or structures located on building rooftops.
d. Sale of food produced onsite or at an individual’s community garden plot not to exceed
$1,000 per year. Food may be processed within the individual’s residential kitchen.
16. Family day care homes.
17. Per Act 45: Sec. 15c. 24 V.S.A. § 4413(g), notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,
nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the installation of
solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources.
18. A change in use from one permitted non-residential use to another permitted non-
residential use, provided that no development is included, no minimum parking
requirement applies, and impact fees are not applicable. This exemption does not apply
to uses affected by Article 5, Part 4: Special Use Regulations.
ARTICLE 4: ZONING MAPS AND DISTRICTS
PART 5: OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATOINS
Sec. 4.5.4 Natural Resource Protection Overlay (NR) District
(a) – (e) As written.
(f) District Specific Regulations: Special Flood Hazard Area:
1. Additional Application Requirements
The following information shall be submitted in addition to the applicable requirements
of Article 3 for any development proposed within a Special Flood Hazard Area:
A. Base flood elevation data for all subdivision proposals and other proposed new
developments containing more than fifty (50) lots or covering more than five (5) acres;
B. The elevation, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor, including basement,
of all new construction or substantial improvements of structures;
C. Confirmation if such structures contain a basement; and
D. The elevation, in relation to mean sea level , to which any structure has been flood
proofed.
E. A Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Project Review Sheet for the proposal
should be filled out. The Project Review Sheet should identify all State and Federal
agencies from which permit approval is required for the proposal, and shall be filed
as a required attachment to the City permit application. The identified permits, or
letters indicating that such permits are not required, shall be submitted to the
Administrative Officer and attached to the permit application before work can begin.
In addition, the DRB shall require of the applicant may be required to provide any of the
following information deemed necessary for determining the suitability of the particular
site for the proposed use:
F. Plans in triplicate, drawn to scale, showing the location, dimensions, contours and
elevation of the lot; the size and location on the site of existing and/or proposed
structures, fill or storage of materials; the location and elevations of streets, water
supply and sanitary facilities; and the relationship of the above to the location of the
channel, floodway and base flood elevation where such information is available;
G. A typical valley cross-section showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land
areas adjoining each side of the channel and cross -sectional areas to be occupied
by the proposed development;
H. A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream;
and
I. Specifications for building construction and materials, flood proofing, mining,
dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling, channel improvement,
storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities.
2. Permitted Uses in Floodway Areas
The following open land uses shall be permitted within the floodway areas to the extent
that they are permitted or conditionally permitted in the underlying zoning district, and
provided that they do not require the erection of structures or storage of materials and
equipment, the borrowing of fill from outside the floodway area, or channel modification
or relocation, and do not obstruct flood flows, nor result in any increase in flood levels
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, decrease the water -carrying capacity
of the floodway or channel, or increase off-site flood damage potential:
A. Agricultural uses, such as general farming, pasture, orchard, and grazing, outdoor
plant nurseries, truck farming, and forestry;
B. Recreation uses, such as parks, camps, picnic grounds, tennis courts, golf courses,
golf driving ranges, archery and shooting ranges, hiking and riding trails, hunting and
fishing areas, game farms, fish hatcheries, wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves,
swimming areas and boat launching sites; and/or
C. Accessory residential uses, such as lawns, gardens, and parking areas.
3. Permitted Uses in Special Flood Hazard Areas (including Floodway areas)
1. All those permitted open space uses as listed in Section 4.5.4.(f).2 above shall be
permitted in the Special Flood Hazard Areas.
2. All other uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are permitted only upon
review and approval by the DRB as per subpart 7 below.
4. Permitted Accessory Uses in Special Flood Hazard Areas (Including Floodway areas)
Uses customarily accessory and incidental to any of the permitted uses listed in
underlying zoning district may be permitted, subject to the limitations therein.
5. Mandatory DEC Notification and 30-Day Review Period
A. Prior to issuing a permit a copy of the application and supporting information shall be
submitted by the administrative officer to the State National Flood Insurance Program
Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Conservation, River Management Section in accordance with 24 V.S.A.
§ 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency
or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency,
whichever is sooner.
B. Adjacent communities and the Stream Alteration Engineer at the Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, River Management
Section shall be notified at least 30 days prior to issuing any permit for the alteration
or relocation of a watercourse and copies of such notification shall be submitted to
the VT National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator.
C. No permit may be granted for new construction, substantial improvement, filling,
installation of a residential structure, or the development of land in any area
designated as a floodplain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
prior to the expiration of a period of thirty (30) days following the submission of the
application and a report to the Department of Environmental Conservation. The
application and report shall describe the proposed use, the location requested and an
evaluation of the effect of such proposed use on Burlington’s municipal development
plan and the regional plan, if any.
D. The subsection shall not be applicable to public utility generati ng stations and
transmission lines which shall require the issuance of a certificate of public good
under 30 V.S.A. Sec. 248 prior to any land filling or construction.
6. Evaluation
In reviewing Review of the application, the DRB shall consider shall include the evaluation
of the Department of Environmental Conservation and shall determine that approval shall
be predicated on finding that the proposed use will conform to the development
standards of subpart 7 below.
7. Special Review Criteria
In reviewing each application, the DRB shall assure that the The flood-carrying capacity
within any portion of an altered or relocated watercourse shall be is maintained. Review
and shall consider:
A. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velociti es caused
by encroachments;
B. The danger that material may be swept on to other lands or down stream to the injury
of others;
C. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems
to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions;
D. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owners;
E. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
F. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use;
G. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development
anticipated in the foreseeable future;
H. The relationship of the proposed use to the municipal development plan;
I. The safety of access to the property in times of flood of ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
J. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
flood-waters expected at the site; and,
K. Conformance with all other applicable requirements of this ordinance.
8. Approval Conditions
Upon consideration of those factors in subpart 7 above and the purposes of these
regulations, the DRB shall attach the following conditions shall be attached to any permit
it chooses to granted.
8 A – F As written.
9-11 As written.
ARTICLE 5: CITYWIDE GENERAL REGULATIONS
PART 2: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 5.2.1 Existing Small Lots
Any small lot of record existing as of April 26, 1973 may be developed for the purposes
permitted in the district in which it is located even though not conforming to minimum lot size
requirements if such lot is not less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in area with a
minimum width and depth dimension of forty (40) feet.
A permit for any such Ddevelopment shall require a certificate of appropriateness permit
pursuant to the standards of Article 4 and, where applicable, pursuant to the design review
provisions of Article 3 and the development standards of Article 6.
[End text amendment]
Relationship to planBTV
This following discussion of conformance with the goals and policies of planBTV is prepared in
accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c).
Theme Dynamic Distinctive Inclusive Connected
Land Use Conserve Sustain Grow
Compatibility with Proposed Future Land Use & Density
The proposed amendment does not impact the types or density of potential land use and
density. It reduces some uncecessary procedural and cost burdens in the permitting process
while leaving standards as to land use and density intact.
Impact on Safe & Affordable Housing
The proposed amendment will reduce permitting costs for properties eligible for “basic” zoning
permit review.
Planned Community Facilities
The proposed amendment has no impact on planned community facilities.
Process Overview
The following chart summarizes the current stage in the zoning amendment process, and identifies
any recommended actions:
Planning Commission Process
Draft Amendment
prepared by:
Staff
Presentation to &
discussion by
Commission
9/14/21
Approve for
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Approved &
forwarded to
Council
Continue
discussion
City Council Process
First Read &
Referral to
Ordinance Cmte
Ordinance Cmte
discussion
Ordinance Cmte
recommend as
modified
Second Read
& Public
Hearing
CCOC
Recommends
Approval &
Adoption
Rejected
Memorandum
To: The City of Burlington Planning Director
The City of South Burlington Planning Director
The Town of Colchester Planning Director
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development
From: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning and Zoning Manager
RE: Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations - Appendix B including Parts 1 thru 4 and Part 9
DATE: October 12, 2021
________________________________________
Enclosed with this memo, please find proposed amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations. The amendments relate specifically to:
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 1 – General Provisions
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 2 – Administration, Application Process, & Appeals
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 3 – The Regulating Plan
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 4 – Building Form Standards
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 9 - Definitions
The City of Winooski’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, November 11, 2021
beginning at 6:30pm to take public comments on the proposed amendments. This hearing will be held
in-person at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, Winooski, Vermont; or by electronic means
using Zoom Webinar. Use https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82039278464 to join by computer or
646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 820 3927 8464.
Please ensure this information is provided to the chair of your Planning Commission. Comments
related to these amendments should be submitted in writing to me by the close of business on Monday,
November 08, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF WINOOSKI
UNIFIED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
In accordance with 24 V.S.A §4441 and §4444, the City of Winooski’s Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Thursday, November 11, 2021 beginning at 6:30 p.m. This hearing will be held in-
person at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, Winooski, Vermont; or by electronic means
using Zoom Webinar. Use https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82039278464 to join by computer or
646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 820 3927 8464.
Amendments to the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 1 – General Provisions
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 2 – Administration, Application Process, & Appeals
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 3 – The Regulating Plan
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 4 – Building Form Standards
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 9 - Definitions
Statement of Purpose: The purpose of these amendments are as follows:
Part 1 – Clarifies references to other sections of the code and addresses consistency with
formatting.
Part 2 – Provides clarity and consistency related to requirements for a Certificate of Conformity,
application requirements, issuing of permits, administrative amendments, and references to
other sections of the regulations.
Part 3 – Revises language related to curb cuts and common drives.
Part 4 – Adds new language to address incentives for bonus stories, updates information on
siting of buildings, and provides additional clarity on individual Building Form Standards.
Part 9 – Includes new definitions for previously undefined terms, and amends several definitions
for clarity and consistency.
Geographic Area Affected: The proposed amendments will apply to the City’s Gateway Zoning District
as regulated by the Form Based Code. This zoning district is generally located along the three
main gateways to the City including Main Street, East Allen Street, and Malletts Bay Avenue.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
ULUDR Amendments
November 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Section Headings Impacted: In addition to editorial changes, the following specific updates are
included with these amendments:
Part 1 – Renumbers Section 103 for consistency with other sections and updates references to
the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations as identified in Section 107.H.
Part 2 – Revises the notification requirements to adjacent property owners under Section
203.B., including clarification on the role of the Project Review Committee. Adds additional
details under Section 205 to address amendments to the Certificate of Conformity and the
issuing of a zoning permit. Provides amendments to the administrative adjustments outlined in
Section 206. Corrects references to variances under Section 208.
Part 3 – Add additional language under Section 301 to clarify the treatment of existing and
proposed curb cuts; and adds additional clarification for common drives, i ncluding the location,
connections to adjacent properties, and dimensions of common drives. Revises the options for
amendments to the neighborhood manners setback areas. Adds descriptions for required
building line and parking setback line in relation to the regulating plan.
Part 4 – Updates the requirements for neighborhood manners setbacks under Section 402.D.
Adds additional standards for building heights and the requirements for ground story clear
heights under Section 402.E. Updates the options and eligibility requirements for bonus stories
under Section 402.F. Provides additional flexibility for the siting of buildings as regulated under
Section 402.G. Clarifies the regulations on required elements under Section 402.J. Provides
detailed updates for clarification of the regulations of each individual building form standard
under Sections 403, 404, 405, and 406 related to height, siting, elements, and use.
Part 9 – Includes new definitions for terms that were either not previously defined, or added
through these amendments. Updates existing definitions for clarification of terms included in
these regulations.
The full text of these amendments is available at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, during
normal business hours or by contacting Eric Vorwald, AICP, City of Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
by calling 802.655.6410 or evorwald@winooskivt.gov.
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning & Zoning Manager
RE: Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations including Parts 1 thru 4, and Part 9 included in Appendix B.
DATE: November 11, 2021
________________________________________
This memo provides information related to proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations and includes amendments to this report and associated sections as
discussed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on October 07, 2021. These
amendments specifically impact the following parts:
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 1 – General Provisions
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 2 – Administration, Application Process, & Appeals
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 3 – The Regulating Plan
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 4 – Building Form Standards
• Appendix B – Form Based Code Part 9 - Definitions
Background
In 2016, the City undertook a comprehensive update to the Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations (ULUDR). This was the first update in over 20 years. A major component of this update
included a new Appendix B, which provides regulations for the Gateway Zoning Districts thro ugh the
Form-Based Code. While these changes modernized the regulations, staff has identified additional
amendments to provide clarity and improve the interpretation of the regulations, including updates
responding to community feedback with development projects.
Purpose of Amendments
These amendments are being proposed to provide clarity for interpretation of the regulations, and to
update and incorporate specific changes related to building height, siting standards, and bonus story
provisions. The City developed and adopted regulations related to the Gateway Zoning District,
including the Form-Based Code, through a multi-year public process. The adoption of the Form-Based
Code was done with the understanding that additional changes or amendments may be necessary.
This will be the first comprehensive set of amendments to these regulations since their adoption.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
November 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Proposed Amendments
Included with this memorandum are the proposed amendments to Parts 1 thru 4 and Part 9 of the
Form Based Code. Proposed additional text is shown in red and underlined. Text that appears with a
strikeout is proposed to be deleted. If specific sections are not included, no changes are being proposed
in these sections.
Consistency with the Winooski Master Plan
The following information is provided to address the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4441 regarding
consistency of the proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Master Plan, adopted March 2019.
Specifically, statute requires municipalities to consider three parts when reviewing proposals for new
or amended bylaws. These considerations include:
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.
The City updated their Master Plan in 2019. The master plan includes multiple components that
discuss development density to be located along the gateways, including Main Street, East Allen
Street, and Malletts Bay Avenue. This development density is intended to protect and preserve
the existing stable neighborhoods adjacent to these gateways. The Form-Based Code provides
the mechanism to support this density. The proposed changes will provide clarity to the
regulations and are intended to promote affordability and expand the options for housing
through incentives for additional development density. These changes would all be consistent
with the goals and polices in the Master Plan.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The future land use map included in the Master Plan identifies development density along the
corridors and in the downtown core. The proposed amendments would further clarify the
development options and processes for projects located in Gateway Zoning District, consistent
with the future land uses included in the City’s 2019 Master Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
The City is in the process of finalizing documents to support the Main Street Revitalization Plan.
This includes upgrades to existing community facilities such as water, wastewater, and
stormwater within the Main Street Corridor. This project also includes the undergrounding of
utilities, widening of sidewalks, and adding a dedicated protected bicycle lane on the eastern
side of the roadway. These facility upgrades and other improvements will be to support
development density in this corridor and increase alternative transportation options, consistent
with the intent of the Gateway Zoning District and the goals and policies identified in the 2019
Master Plan.
Appendix B Gateway Districts
Form Based Code Regulations
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC iii
How to Use this Code
Why are some words shown in SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS?
The Gateway Corridors Form-Based Code includes terms with special meanings and their definitions
are included in Part 9. Definitions. Defined terms are shown throughout the document in SMALL CAPITAL
LETTERS.
I want to know what is allowed for my property:
1A. Look at the Winooski Zoning map and determine if the property in question is located within
the Gateway Corridors Form-Based Code District. If not, this Code is not applicable.
2B. Look at the adopted REGULATING PLAN in Part 3. The Regulating Plan. Find the property in
question. Note the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE and the PARKING SETBACK LINE. Note the color of the
fronting STREET-SPACE—this determines the applicable BUILDING FORM STANDARD (see the key
located on the REGULATING PLAN).
3C. Find the applicable BUILDING FORM STANDARD in Part 4. Building Form Standards. (Note the
General Provisions in Section 402 apply to all properties in the Gateway District.). The BUILDING
FORM STANDARD will tell you the parameters for development on the site in terms of height,
siting, elements, and use.
4D. Additional regulations regarding streets and other public spaces surrounding the property,
parking requirements, and building functions are found in the following sections: Part 5. Urban
Space Standards; Part 6. Architectural Standards; Part 7. Parking and Loading Standards; and
Part 8. Building Functions. See also the City’s Municipal Plan for information regarding plans
for the public right of ways.
5E. See Part 2. Administration, Application Process & Appeals for information on the development
review process.
I want to modify an existing building:
1A. If this Code is applicable to your property, determine whether your intended changes would
trigger a level of code compliance by looking at Part 2. Administration, Section 207.
2B. If yes, follow the indicated portions of steps 2-5, above.
I want to establish a new use in an existing building:
1A. Find the property on the REGULATING PLAN and determine the applicable BUILDING FORM STANDARD.
2B. Determine whether the use is allowed by looking at the Permitted Use Table in Part 8. Building
Functions. If the use is listed with a cross-reference in the right-hand column, refer to those
standards.
I have a use, building or site that is nonconforming:
1A. Existing uses, buildings and site configurations that met the rules when they were
constructed, but do not comply with this development code are considered nonconforming.
2B. See Part 2. Section 209 Non-Conformities for further details.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC iv
I want to change the Regulating Plan regarding my property:
See Part 2. Section 207 Amendments to the Form-Based Code.
I want to subdivide my property:
1A. Property can be subdivided in accordance with the procedures in Article VI of the Winooski
Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, referred to herein as "the Regulations".
2B. Any such subdivision shall also meet the standards of this Code.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC v
Contents
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
101. Title 1
102. Applicability 1
103. Purposes 1
104. Other Applicable Regulations 1
105. Minimum Requirements 2
106. Severability 2
107. Components of the Code 2
PART 2. ADMINISTRATION, APPLICATION PROCESS & APPEALS 4
201. Applicability 4
202. Zoning Administrator 4
203. Certificate of Conformity 4
204. RESERVED 5
205. Effect of Certificate of Conformity Issuance 6
206. Administrative Adjustments 7
207. Amendments to the Form-Based Code 9
208. Variances 9
209. Non-Conformities 9
PART 3. THE REGULATING PLAN 11
301. Rules for Regulating Plans 11
302. Regulating Plan 14
PART 4. BUILDING FORM STANDARDS 15
401. Intent 15
402. General Provisions 15
403. Urban General Frontage 21
404. Urban Storefront Frontage 24
405. Townhouse/Small Apartment 25
406. Detached Frontage 29
PART 5. URBAN SPACE STANDARDS 33
501. Applicability 33
502. Intent 33
503. Street Type Specifications 34
504. Streetscape Standards 35
505. Squares and Civic Greens 37
506. Tree Lists 38
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC vi
PART 6. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 41
601. Intent 41
602. General Principles 41
603. Building Walls 42
604. Roofs and Parapets 44
605. Street Walls and Garden Walls 46
606. Windows and Doors 48
607. Signage 50
608. Lighting & Mechanical Equipment 52
PART 7. PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS 55
701. Intent 55
702. Minimum Parking Requirements 55
704. Special Parking Standards 56
705. Surface Parking Lot Plantings for New Development 57
706. Loading Facilities 57
PART 8. BUILDING FUNCTIONS 59
801. General Provisions 59
802. Use Table 60
803. Use Categories 61
804. Development and Performance Standards 62
PART 9. DEFINITIONS 65
901. Defined Terms 65
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC vii
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 1
Part 1. General Provisions
101. Title
This Code is known as the Gateway Districts Form-Based Code.
102. Applicability
The Code is in effect for that part of the City of Winooski, Vermont, designated on the Winooski
Zoning Map as the Gateway Districts.
103. Purposes
The goal of the Winooski Public Design Workshop Vision Plan was to reset the conversation and
provide guidance for future development and redevelopment in these gateway corridors. tThis Code
will implement the purpose and goals of that Plan by providing strong implementation tools for the
City.
The Code shall be applied to new, infill development, and redevelopment within the Gateway District
both in order to achieve the vision set forth and to provide a mechanism for implementing the
following specific goals, using both public and private sector investment:
1A. Capitalize on public investment in existing infrastructure
2B. Stabilize and strengthen mixed-use commercial areas and residential neighborhoods
3C. Create a pedestrian-friendly and multi-modal district
4D. Promote, create, and expand housing options
5E. Ensure a complementary relationship between the Corridors and the surrounding
neighborhoods
The creation of walkable, mixed-use development is dependent on three factors: density, diversity
of uses, and design. This Code places greatest emphasis on design, or physical form, because of its
importance in defining neighborhood and corridor character. All places evolve. —dDensity and uses
can be expected to change over time as the area continues to grow and mature.
104. Other Applicable Regulations
All development must comply with relevant Federal, State and City regulations. Whenever any
provision of this Code imposes a greater requirement or a higher standard than is required in any
State or Federal statute or other City regulation, the provisions of this Code shall govern unless
preempted by State or Federal law.
Where apparent conflicts exist between the provisions of this Code and other existing ordinances,
regulation or permits, or by easements, covenants, or agreements, the provisions of this Code shall
govern, as is consistent with State and Federal law.
105. Minimum Requirements
In interpreting and applying the provisions of the Code, they are the minimum requirements for
development under this Code.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 2
106. Severability
Should any provision of this Code be decided by the courts to be unconstitutional or invalid, that
decision shall not affect the validity of the Code other than the part decided to be unconstitutional
or invalid.
107. Components of the Code
This Code places a primary emphasis on physical form and placemaking, with a secondary focus on
land uses. the principal regulatory sections of this Code are described below.
A. Administration. Part 2. Administration covers application and review process for
development plan approval.
B. Regulating Plan. A REGULATING PLAN is the application key for the Gateway District. Defined
and illustrated in Part 3, it delineates the STREET-SPACE and other public open space and
provides specific information on the development parameters for parcels within the Gateway
District. the The REGULATING PLAN shows how each lot or development project relates to the
STREET-SPACE and the surrounding neighborhood. the REGULATING PLAN may identify additional
regulations and/or special circumstances for specific locations.
C. The Building Form Standards. The primary purpose of the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS (BFS),
located in Part 4, is to shape the STREET-SPACE—its specific physical and functional character—
through placement and form standards on buildings as they frame the STREET-SPACE or public
realm. their secondary purpose is to ensure that the buildings cooperate to form a functioning
and consistent BLOCK structure. the The BFS aim for the minimum level of regulation necessary
to meet these goals. the applicable standard(s) for a development project is determined by
the street frontage designated on the REGULATING PLAN.
The BUILDING FORM STANDARDS establish both the boundaries within which things may be done
and specific things that shall be done.
D. The Urban-Space Standards. The purpose of Part 5. Urban-Space Standards is to ensure
coherent STREET-SPACE and to assist developers and owners with understanding the
relationship between the public realm and their own development project or building. This
part establishes rules and standards for the STREET-SPACE within the Gateway District that are
the responsibility of the developer/owner. They will foster an environment that encourages
and facilitates pedestrian activity and “walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe,
and interesting. Applicants should consult the City’s Municipal Plan, Transportation Plan,
Public Works Standards and related regulations and policies to understand the future/planned
configurations of the vehicular part of the street, including travel-lanes, curb geometry, and
on-street parking, as well as the placement of STREET TREES, sidewalks, and other amenities or
furnishings (e.g., benches, signs, street lights, etc.) within the STREET-SPACE.
E. The Architectural Standards. The purpose of Part 6. Architectural Standards is to ensure a
coherent and high-quality building character that is complementary to the best traditions of
Winooski. The Architectural Standards govern a building’s exterior elements for all BFS and
set the parameters for allowable materials, configurations, and techniques. Materials and
products that are ‘equivalent or better’ than those specified are always encouraged and may
be submitted for approval to the Zoning Administrator, who is authorized to approve them
when they meet the intent of these standards.
F. Parking and Loading Standards. Part 7. Parking and Loading Standards provide goals and
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 3
requirements to promote a pedestrian-friendly, walkable corridor through shared parking and
encourage a “park once” environment. They establish the specific vehicular and bicycle
parking ratios required throughout the Gateway District.
G. Building Function Standards. Part 8. Building Function Standards establishes the range of
uses allowed in the Gateway District. Uses permitted on GROUND STORIES and in upper STORIES
are correlated with each BUILDING FORM STANDARD. Because these standards emphasize form
more than use, they include fewer, broader categories than those provided in the Winooski
Zoning Regulations.
H. Definitions. Certain terms in this Code are used in very specific ways, often excluding some
of the meanings of common usage. Wherever a word is in SMALL CAPITALS format, consult Part
9. Definitions for its specific and limited meaning within this Code. Terms not defined here
may be defined elsewhere in the City of Winooski’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations Zoning Regulations. In such case, the definition contained included in the zoning
regulationsUnified Land Use and Development Regulations shall be used. Where there is an
apparent conflict or contradiction, the definition in Part 9. Definitions shall prevail.
ACRONYM KEY
BFS BUILDING FORM STANDARD
RBL REQUIRED BUILDING LINE
PSL PARKING SETBACK LINE
LBL LOT BUILDING LIMIT
PRC PROJECT REVIEW
COMMITTEE
DRB DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
BOARD
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 4
Part 2. Administration, Application Process & Appeals
201. Applicability
Development proposals within the Gateway District shall be subject to the provisions of this Code.
Subdivisions or lot line adjustments are subject to review under Article VI of the Regulations.
202. Zoning Administrator
A. Authority. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve applications for Certificates of
Conformity and Administrative Adjustments, following public notification.
B. Delegation of Authority. The Zoning Administrator may designate any member of the City
Staff to represent the Zoning Administrator in any function assigned by this Code. The Zoning
Administrator, however, shall remain responsible for any final action taken under this Section.
203. Certificate of Conformity
An application for approval of a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, demonstrating conformity with the
provisions contained in this Code and the regulating plan shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator.
A. Certificate of Conformity Application Requirements. The application for a CERTIFICATE OF
CONFORMITY shall include:
1. A brief narrative describing the Development Proposal;
2. Five (5) sets of completed plans for the Development Proposal to scale [Site Plans at
1”= 20’ to 1”= 50’, Building Plans and Elevations (not including facades) at 1”= 8’,
facades drawn at 1” = 4’, and details as necessary to demonstrate form-based code
(“FBC”) conformity at 1”= 4’ to 1”=10’] prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer,
Registered Land Surveyor, Architect, or Landscape Architect, as appropriate, and
including the following information, which shall be submitted on the above listed or
additional sheets:
a. Location and dimensions of all proposed buildings and other construction;
b. A mid-block access/common drive plan, showing any internal roadways,
streets and/ or street-spaces, common access easements, and accessways to
adjacent properties and public roadways;
c. Location and dimensions of all parking areas;
d. Utility Strategy;
e. Architectural drawings of all proposed building FAÇADES and elevations;
f. A completed Form-Based District Review Checklist, the form of which shall be
developed, maintained, and made available by the Zoning Administrator,
demonstrating conformity with the provisions of the FBC; and
3. Any other documents and/or materials required by the Zoning Administrator to
determine conformity with the FBC.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 5
4. The application materials for a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY may be submitted
electronically at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
B. Certificate of Conformity Review.
1. A pre-application conference with the Zoning Administrator is required prior to the
submission of any application for a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY. The applicant shall
provide a schematic site plan at a scale of 1” = 20’ to 1” = 50’ and schematic drawings
of all FACADES at a scale of 1” = 8’ for consideration by the staff. The discussions and
any conclusions based thereon at such a pre-application conference are not binding
on any party thereto.
2. The Zoning Administrator may administratively provide for submission and review
deadlines for materials and studies required in support of any application for a
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY. The need for technical studies shall be at the Zoning
Administrator’s discretion.
3. Applicants shall be notified no later than 7 business days following the submittal
deadline if additional materials and studies will be required in order for review of their
application to commence.
4. Upon submittal of a complete application, it shall be the responsibility of the Zoning
Administrator to:
a. Schedule a meeting of the PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC).
b. Provide abutting landowners with a 15 day notice of the PRC meeting to be
mailed no less than 10 days before the meeting.
c. The PRC shall, at a minimum:
i. Review and provide input as to the development project’s compliance
with the code;
ii. Recommend any changes or conditions of approval in order to meet the
code;
iii. Request additional information, including studies necessary to make a
determination on impacts to other City infrastructure that might result
from the development.
d. Within thirty (30) business days of submittal of the application, and after the
PRC meeting, the Zoning Administrator shall take one of the following actions:
i. Approve the application as submitted;
ii. Approve the application with conditions; or
iii. Forward the application to the Development Review Board, to be heard
at their next meeting.
5. After the effective date of the Form-Based Code, no property which has been zoned
under the Form-Based Code may be developed or redeveloped without approval of a
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 6
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY and issuance of a zoning permit from the Zoning
Administrator.
6. An applicant or other “interested person” as defined under 24 V.S.A. Section § 4465
and Article VI of the Regulations, may appeal a decision or act of the Zoning
Administrator within 15 days of the date of the decision or act by filing a notice of
appeal with the Clerk or Secretary of the Development Review Board, and by filing a
copy of the notice with the Zoning Administrator. This process is outlined in Article VI,
Section 6.9 of these Regulations.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 7
Page left intentionally blank and Section 204 reserved for the future if needed.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 8
205. Effect of Certificate of Conformity Issuance
Issuance of a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY by the Zoning Administrator allows an applicant to apply for
other necessary permits and approvals which include, but are not limited to, those permits and
approvals required under the City Building Code.
A. Certificate of Conformity Modification. After the Zoning Administrator has issued a
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, any change in the Development Proposal from the plans submitted
to the Zoning Administrator, other than those permitted under Section 206 below, shall be
considered to be a Material Modification and shall be subject to the following review
procedure:
1. Material Modification requests shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for
review and approval, and shall include sufficient information to determine conformity
with the FBC.
a. Any modifications resulting in increases to the number of dwelling units or size
of non-residential space; or an increase building height or the number of STORIES
shall require review by the PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE as outlined in Section
203.B., including notification to adjacent property owners.
b. Modifications that result in changes to approved site plan may require
additional review and approval by City Departments to ensure conflicts with
previously approved infrastructure do not exist. Site plan review by the PROJECT
REVIEW COMMITTEE shall be done at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator
c. Modifications that result in changes to exterior materials or percentages of
fenestration consistent with these regulations, including Section 206, may be
approved by the Zoning Administrator or referred to the PRC for review, but will
not require notification to adjacent property owners or issuing of a new
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY.
2. The Zoning Administrator may administratively provide for submission and review
deadlines for materials and studies required in support of any application for a
CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY.
3. The Zoning Administrator shall determine if the proposal is in compliance.
3. Changes that result in modifications to a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY will require a new
zoning permit, including the posting of the property for the required 15-day appeal
period as outlined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465.
B. Certificate of Conformity and Zoning Permit Expiration. A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY or
zoning permit duly issued by the Zoning administrator will expire according to the following:
1. A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY shall lapse eighteen (18) months from its issuance if an
applicant does not secure a zoning and building permit.
2. Upon written communication by the applicant submitted at least thirty (30) days prior
to the expiration of the CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, and upon a showing of good cause,
the Zoning Administrator may grant one extension not to exceed six (6) months. Upon
an application for extension, the CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY shall be deemed extended
until the Zoning Administrator has acted upon the request for extension.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 9
3. A zoning permit shall be issued once all conditions outlined in the CERTIFICATE OF
CONFORMITY required for zoning approval have been met. The zoning permit shall be
valid for 18 months from the date issued.
a. A one-time extension of 6 months may be granted to a zoning permit upon
showing reasonable cause for delay in starting development. Reasonable cause
shall be based on a determination that:
i. The delay is a result of delays in a state or federal permitting process;
or
ii. The applicant has made a good faith effort to exercise their rights under
the permit and, though the use or actual construction of structures
authorized under the permit has not begun, the permittee is conducting
work at the site in furtherance of the permitted project.
b. If development authorized by the zoning permit is not substantially commenced
prior to the expiration date, the zoning permit will become void and a new
application will need to be submitted.
4. The applicant will be required to pay recording fees only for the issuance of a zoning
permit extension.
206. Administrative Adjustments
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this section is to provide an administrative
mechanism for allowing minor adjustments to limited and specific requirements of the
Gateway District, with the intent of providing relief where the application of a standard
creates practical difficulties in allowing development to proceed. These adjustments are
intended to provide relief for minor construction/survey issues; they are not intended for
designed or intentional variances from the FBC, like those governed by Section 208 below.
This optional process occurs only where an applicant requests an Administrative Adjustment
to a standard specified below.
B. Administrative Adjustment Application and Review Procedure. All requests for
administrative adjustments are required to submit an application to be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator according to the standards outlined below.
1. An application for approval of an Administrative Adjustment shall include:
a. A brief narrative describing the Administrative Adjustment sought;
b. A completed Administrative Adjustment Checklist, the form of which shall be
developed, maintained, and made available by the Zoning Administrator,
demonstrating that the adjustment sought is limited to the standards set forth
below; and
c. Any other documents and/or materials required by the Zoning Administrator to
determine that the adjustment sought is limited to the standards set forth
below.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 10
2. The Zoning Administrator may seek assistance from the Development Review Board
in making a determination under this Section.
3. Within thirty (30) business days of receipt of a complete application, the Zoning
Administrator shall review the application in accordance with the Administrative
Adjustment Standards below, and take one of the following actions:
a. Approve the application as submitted;
b. Approve the application with conditions; or
c. Deny the application.
4. An application for an administrative adjustment may be submitted in conjunction with
an application for a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY as outlined in Section 203.B.
C. Administrative Adjustment Standards. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to approve
Administrative Adjustment applications in strict conformance with the following standards
only:
1. Height
a. Minimum and maximum height – up to five percent (5%) for any cumulative
increase or decrease in building height.
b. STREET WALL/fence requirements – up to ten percent (10%).
c. Finished floor elevation – up to five percent (5%).
2. Siting
a. REQUIRED BUILDING LINE – move up to twelve (12) inches, (but not into the public
ROW).
b. REQUIRED BUILDING LINE minimum percentage build-to – reduction of up to five
percent (5%) of required length.
c. PARKING SETBACK LINE – move forward as follows:
i. Mid-block lots – up to six (6) feet.
ii. Corner lots – up to 6 feet on the primary street and up to 15 feet on the
secondary/side street.
d. Mezzanine floor area – up to ten percent (10%) additional area.
e. STREET WALL requirements – up to ten percent (10%) of the height/
FENESTRATION/access gate requirements.
f. Entrances (maximum average spacing) – up to ten percent (10%) increase in
spacing.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 11
3. Elements
a. FENESTRATION (minimum and maximum percent) – up to five percent (5%).
b. Elements (minimum and maximum projections) – up to five percent (5%).
4. Architectural Standards
a. Primary and Secondary materials – up to ten percent (10%).
b. Window and pane dimensions – up to ten percent (10%)
C. SHOPFRONT entry geometry – up to ten percent (10%).
5. Streets, Blocks and Common Drives
Street center lines (and the STREET-SPACE/RBLs with it) may be moved up to 50 feet in
either direction, so long as:
a. the street connectivity is maintained (no cul-de-sacs);
b. any change to adjacent properties are approved by their owners;
c. no street intersection occurs within 100 feet of another street intersection; and
d. the BLOCK configuration meets the standards defined in Section 301.D.2.
e. the resulting configuration is approved by the Winooski Department of Public
Works.
D. Administrative Adjustment of Unlisted Standards. Any request for relief from a required
FBC standard other than those listed above shall be made through the Variance procedures
set forth in Article VI, Part 2 of the Winooski Zoning Regulations. (See also Section 207
below.)Section 208 of these regulations.
E. Applicability. Any Administrative Adjustment approved under this Section shall run with the
land and not be affected by a change in ownership.
207. Amendments to the Form-Based Code
A. Text Amendments. Any application for an amendment to the Code text shall be considered
an application for a zoning text amendment subject to Article I, Section 1.4 of the Regulations
and any other regulations applicable to zoning text amendments.
B. Regulating Plan Amendments. Any application for an amendment to the Code REGULATING
PLAN shall be considered an application for a zoning map amendment subject to Article I,
Section 1.4 of the Regulations and any other regulations applicable to rezoning. The exception
being that notification shall be made to all parties within 400 feet of the proposed change.
In addition, any amendment to the REGULATING PLAN shall conform to the following
requirements.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 12
C. Application, Building Form Standards (BFS) Considerations. In determining the allocation
and, thereby, the form and mixed-use character of the district, attention must be paid to both
the physical context (what goes next to what) and diversity of allowed/required uses.
1. When amending a REGULATING PLAN, the standards of Section 301 shall apply.
2. CIVIC USE BUILDINGS (those designated on the REGULATING PLAN) are not restricted by these
standards.
208. Variances
Any person seeking a variances from the provisions of the FBC shall follow the variance procedures
outlined in Article VI, Part 2 of the Winooski Zoning RegulationsSection 6.8 of the Unified Land Use
and Development Regulations.
209. Non-Conformities
Non-conforming structures within the Gateway District may be altered or repaired according to the
following schedule:
A. Single-family and duplex structures.:
1. Repairs and remodeling and additions to a single-family or duplex structure may be
made without conformance to the Code provided that they do not encroach into any
NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback.
2. Repairs, remodeling and additions resulting in additional units shall require full code
compliance, except one additional unit within existing structures may be permitted
without full code compliance.
3. Intentional demolition requires conformance to the Code.
4. Single-family and duplex structures destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God, or the
public enemy may be replaced with conformance to a like residential zoning district as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
B. Other Structures.
1. Additions of up to 20% of the square footage of a non-conforming structure (existing
as of the adoption of the Gateway District) may be made subject to conformance with
only the Architectural Standards of the Gateway District relative to the new addition
only.
2. Additions greater than 20% but equal to or less than 50% of the square footage of a
non-conforming structure may be made subject to conformance with the Architectural
Standards of the code and the site requirements of the code relative to the new
addition only.
3. Additions greater than 50% of the square footage of a non-conforming structure shall
be made in conformance with the code. Non-conforming site improvements must also
be brought into complete conformity with the regulations applicable to the Gateway
District.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 13
4. Existing structures destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God, or the public enemy may
be replaced with a structure of comparable height and gross floor area that otherwise
meets the requirements of the code.
C. Non-conforming Uses.
1. A non-conforming use may be extended throughout any portion of a completed
building that, when the use was made non-conforming by this Code, was manifestly
designed or arranged to accommodate such use.
2. A non-conforming use may not be extended to additional buildings or to land outside
the original building.
D. Historic Structures.
1. Historically-designated structures may be specified as a CIVIC USE BUILDING by the
Planning Commission and City Council if they effectively serve the community as CIVIC
USE BUILDINGS. If so designated, they may be added to the REGULATING PLAN.
2. Historically designated structures or properties shall comply with the standards as
outlined in Section 4.4 of the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 14
Part 3. The Regulating Plan
301. Rules for The Regulating Plans
A. Purpose and Intent
1. A REGULATING PLAN is the controlling document and principal tool for implementing this
Code.
2. The REGULATING PLAN makes the development standards place-specific, by designating
the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS (BFS) and delineating the public spaces. The REGULATING
PLAN identifies: the boundaries for the Gateway District; existing and new streets; the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL); and the PARKING SETBACK LINE throughout the Gateway
District.
3. A REGULATING PLAN may identify specific characteristics assigned to a lot or site and
may identify additional regulations (and opportunities) for lots in specific locations, as
well as exceptions to the BFS or other standards.
B. Regulating Plan Key. The Key includes two special circumstances:
a1. *1 indicates an applicant’s choice for the RBL on this parcel, as shown by the two RBLs
on the Regulating Plan.
b2. *2 indicates a 5' deep NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback for this parcel.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 15
C. Building Form Standards (BFS) on the Regulating Plan
a1. BUILDING FORM STANDARDS are designated on the REGULATING PLAN by STREET FRONTAGE.
b2. The allocation and distribution of BFS frontages—which define the form and character
of the district—was based on the Public Design Workshop Vision Plan and determined
by the physical context (what goes next to what) and diversity of allowed/required
uses.
D. Streets, Blocks & Common Drives on the Regulating Plan
1. Streets
a. The proposed Street Specifications for the Gateway District are part of the
Transportation Plan. Street configurations called out there and referred to in
Part 5. Urban Space Standards and/or on the REGULATING PLAN may or may not
be immediately constructed. They shall be placed into the system such that,
when reasonable for the City’s street maintenance/reconstruction plan, they
can be rationally constructed.
ab. Additional streets may be added to the REGULATING PLAN to create a smaller
BLOCK pattern. No streets may be deleted without being replaced elsewhere
within the Gateway District and the resulting configuration must meet the
requirements of Part 3. The Regulating Plan.
bc. Where new COMMON DRIVES or PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS are designated on the
REGULATING PLAN, they are critical to the working of the Gateway District and
shall be considered mandatory. While the street may not be constructed until
some point in the future, the RBL, LOT BUILDING LIMIT (LBL) or PARKING SETBACK LINE,
and other designations of the REGULATING PLAN shall be respected at the time of
redevelopment.
cd. New COMMON DRIVES or PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS shall be public or publically publicly
accessible.
de. All lots shall share a frontage line with a STREET-SPACE.
2. Blocks
a. Maximum Size: No BLOCK FACE shall have a length greater than 350 feet without
a COMMON DRIVE or equivalent access easement, or PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY
301.C Illustrative Intent 301.C Illustrative Intent
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 16
providing through-access to another STREET- SPACE, or COMMON DRIVE. Individual
lots with less than 200 feet of STREET FRONTAGE are exempt from the
requirement to interrupt the BLOCK face; those with over 200 feet of STREET
FRONTAGE shall meet the requirement within their lot, unless already satisfied
within that BLOCK face.
b. Curb Cuts: The creation and/or retention of curb cuts in the Gateway District
shall be dependent on their providing access to, and circulation for, COMMON
DRIVES per Section 301.D.3. and below. No new curb cuts are permitted unless
otherwise specified here:
(i)i. Where the regulating plan shows a NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 20 ft. setback
meeting an RBL, a curb cut is permitted to provide access to a COMMON
DRIVE as indicated in Section 301.D.3.
(ii)ii. For lots with COMMON DRIVE access, existing or in their redevelopment
plan, existing curb cuts other than those necessary for COMMON DRIVE
circulation, shall be eliminated/vacated at the time of redevelopment.
(iii)iii. For lots without COMMON DRIVE access, existing curb cuts may be
maintained in the current location, or relocated to an alternative
location on the site, subject to the restrictions below.
(1)1. No new or relocated curb cut may be within 100 feet of another
curb cut on the same BLOCK FACE or within 50 feet of a BLOCK
CORNER except where the new curb cut provides needed access
for existing or planned COMMON DRIVE circulation, subject to
Zoning Administer approval. New Curb curb cuts for shared
COMMON DRIVES have priority.
(2)2. Where a parking structure (or surface lot with more than 20
spaces) is being provided with at least 30% of its spaces available
to the general public, existing curb cuts that provide access to
the public parking may be retained or relocated (even if the lot
has COMMON DRIVE access.)
3. When a curb cut is relocated, the original location shall be
permanently closed including new curbing, sidewalk, and green
belt as determined appropriate by the Director of Public Works
and applicable Public Works Standards.
3. Common Drives
a. COMMON DRIVES are intended to provide internal block circulation, shared access
to rear parking, access to service areas, and connections between properties.
COMMON DRIVES will be accessed by shared curb cuts thereby eliminating the
need for each property to maintain an individual curb cut. This may result in a
property or properties not having a dedicated curb cut onto the roadway where
the property has frontage. Eliminating curb cuts will prioritize pedestrians over
vehicles and help create a more walkable and active street space; and create
the ability to accommodate more on-street amenities such as bicycle lanes,
transit facilities, or vehicle parking.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 17
b. All properties in the Urban General, Urban Storefront, and Townhouse/Small
Apartment building form standards are required to include a COMMON DRIVE on
the site plan as part of their development unless any of the standards under
Part 301.D.3.f. apply.
c. The following regulations will be used to establish COMMON DRIVES in the
Gateway Zoning District.
i. COMMON DRIVES shall be located as far to the rear of the property as
feasible to enable connections to adjacent properties or developments.
ii. COMMON DRIVES can be incorporated into a NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS SETBACK
or into a parking area drive aisle.
iii. The minimum width of a common drive shall be 20 feet with a maximum
width of 25 feet.
d. The following regulations will dictate the functional utilization of common
drives:
i. COMMON DRIVES shall incorporate measures to limit traffic speeds such as
speed tables, speed dips, or similar methods.
ii. No COMMON DRIVE may have a length of more than 400 feet without a
stop device to control traffic.
COMMON DRIVES provide internal BLOCK circulation and shared access to rear parking and
service areas. They may also serve as fire lanes.
a. COMMON DRIVES must provide access to the interior or rear of all Urban General,
Urban Storefront, and Townhouse/Small Apartment frontage lots that front
Main Street, East Allen Street, or Malletts Bay Avenue, except:
(i) where a lot has streets on three sides and the absence of a COMMON DRIVE
would not deprive an adjacent neighbor of rear lot access;
(ii) or where the rear lot area provides no connection/access possibility to
an existing or reserved COMMON DRIVE area;
(iii) or where the lot is less than 80 foot in depth.
b. For COMMON DRIVES, public access, public utility, and drainage shall be dedicated
via an easement.
C. COMMON DRIVES may be located within the NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS Setback Area.
d. COMMON DRIVES may be incorporated into (rear) parking lots as standard drive
aisles. Access to all adjacent properties shall be maintained or established if not
already connected.
e. Where the development or redevelopment of a property establishes the start
of a COMMON DRIVE, but does not exist extend or continue an existing COMMON
DRIVE and is not feasible to construct at the time of redevelopment of any
propertydue to the existing development pattern of the adjacent properties,
the applicant is required to dedicate the COMMON DRIVE right-of-way or
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 18
easement to the City (for future construction) and maintain the area by, at a
minimum:
(i)i. Providing routine landscape maintenance to the area.Identify the future
location(s) of the COMMON DRIVE connection on the site plan including a
note that authorizes future connection(s) between adjacent properties.
(ii)ii. Keeping the area clear of debris, stored materials, and stored
vehicles.Ensure the designated connection(s) to adjacent properties
remains free and clear of obstructions that would limit a future COMMON
DRIVE connection.
iii. Include pavement or appropriate surface treatment as close to the
adjacent property as practical to assist in creating the connection to the
adjacent property.
f. The area designated for future connections to adjacent properties may be used
for parking until such time the connection to the adjacent property is
completed.
g. A COMMON DRIVE shall not be required if:
i. where a A lot has streets on three sides and the absence of a COMMON
DRIVE would not deprive an adjacent neighbor of rear lot access; or
ii. where the The rear lot area provides no connection/access possibility to
an existing or reserved COMMON DRIVE area; or
iii. where the The lot is less than 80 foot in depth.
h. Any property not required to establish a COMMON DRIVE based on the criteria
herein shall incorporate a setback from the rear property boundary as indicated
in Parts 403, 404, or 405.
4. Any amendment or change to the REGULATING PLAN, beyond those specified above, will
be a zoning map amendment of this code. See Part 2. 207. Amendments to the
Form-Based Code.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 19
E. Neighborhood Manners on the Regulating Plan
1. Intent. NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS provide for a complementary relationship between
residential zoning districts immediately behind new and larger scale development. (See
Section 402.D Neighborhood Manners for specific rules.)
2. Location. The REGULATING PLAN specifies placement of the
NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 20-foot Setback Area and the
NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 50-foot Setback Area.
3. Adjustment. The application of the NEIGHBORHOOD
MANNERS 20-foot Setback Area shall move in concert with
any frontage change per 402. A Frontage Transitions.
The NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 50-foot Setback Area shall
only be adjusted in concert with an amendment to the
REGULATING PLAN. (see Part 2. 207. Amendments to the
Form-Based Code).
F. Required Building Line. The REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL) is designated on the regulating plan
and is unique for each property in the Gateway Zoning District. The specific location is
established based on a property’s location, size, orientation, physical characteristics (such as
slope, sight distance, etc.), and other features. The data supporting the location of the RBL
can be provided by the Zoning Administrator in a digital format to be overlaid on a site plan,
thus ensuring accuracy and consistency with the requirements of the Form-Based Code.
1. Unless otherwise indicated in these regulations, all buildings within the Gateway
Zoning District shall be located on the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE.
2. Specific details related to the siting of buildings are included in Section 402.G.
G. Parking Setback Line. The PARKING SETBACK LINE is designated on the REGULATING PLAN. This
line is located behind the RBL and extends vertically, from the first-floor level, as a plane
unless otherwise indicated on the REGULATING PLAN or in the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS (BFS). The
data supporting the location of the PARKING SETBACK LINE can be provided by the Zoning
Administrator in a digital format to be overlaid on a site plan, thus ensuring accuracy and
consistency with the requirements of the Form-Based Code.
1. For most properties, the PARKING SETBACK LINE is located 30 feet behind the RBL,
however the PARKING SETBACK LINE has been individually designated for each property
and will require specific analysis to identify the exact location of this line.
2. Corner lots will have a PARKING SETBACK LINE on each road frontage that will be
designated based on the specific location of the property and will be established on
the REGULATING PLAN.
3. Vehicle parking shall be located behind the PARKING SETBACK LINE except as designated
in Section 402.G.14.
302301.E. Illustrative Intent
NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 20
302. Regulating Plan
(facsimile only)
This image of the Gateway District Regulating Plan is shown for illustrative purposes only; refer to
the City for specific Regulating Plan information.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 21
Part 4. Building Form Standards
401. Intent
A. The goal of the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS (BFS) is the creation of a vital, and coherent public
realm through the creation of good STREET-SPACE. The intent of these form standards is to
shape the STREET-SPACE—the specific physical and functional character—of the Gateway
District. The form and function controls on building frontages work together to frame the
STREET-SPACE while allowing the buildings greater latitude behind their FACADES. The BUILDING
FORM STANDARDS aim for the minimum level of control necessary to meet this goal.
B. The BFS set the basic parameters governing building construction, including the building
envelope (in three dimensions) and certain required or permitted functional elements, such
as FENESTRATION (windows and doors), STOOPS, BALCONIES, FRONT PORCHES, and STREET WALLS.
C. The BFS establish the rules for development and redevelopment on private lots, unless
otherwise indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
D. The REGULATING PLAN identifies the BUILDING FORM STANDARD within the Gateway District,
establishing the rules for development and redevelopment on all lots, unless otherwise
indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
402. General Provisions
The following apply to all BFS, unless expressly stated otherwise within an individual BFS or otherwise
designated on the REGULATING PLAN.
A. Frontage Transitions. When the BFS designation shown on the REGULATING PLAN changes
along a property’s REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL), the property owner has the option, for that
property’s STREET FRONTAGE only, of applying either BFS for a maximum additional distance of
50 feet, from the transition point shown on the REGULATING PLAN, in either direction along said
RBL. This shall be limited by and within the parcel lines as they exist on the REGULATING PLAN
and shall not be affected through lot line adjustments, lot mergers, or subdivisions—except
through a formal rezoning process. (See 205.B Regulating Plan Amendments).
B. Façade Composition. “FAÇADE COMPOSITION” is the arrangement and proportion of FAÇADE
materials and elements (windows, doors, columns, pilasters, bays). “COMPLETE AND DISCRETE”
distinguishes one part of the FAÇADE from another to give the appearance of distinct FAÇADES.
1.
21. For each BLOCK FACE, FAÇADES along the RBL shall present a COMPLETE AND DISCRETE
VERTICAL FAÇADE COMPOSITION to maintain and/or create the pedestrian-scale for the
STREET-SPACE, at no greater than the following average STREET FRONTAGE lengths:
a. 60 feet for Urban Storefront frontage sites,
b. 75 feet for all other BFS frontages,
c. A longer FAÇADE may be presented, as long as smaller FAÇADE COMPOSITIONS
appear within the same BLOCK FACE in order to achieve the above-stated
average.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 22
32. Each FAÇADE COMPOSITION shall include a functioning street entry door.
43. Individual infill projects on lots with STREET FRONTAGE of less than 100 feet on a BLOCK
FACE are exempted from the overall FAÇADE COMPOSITION requirement for that BLOCK
FACE, but shall still include a functioning street entry. This requirement may be
satisfied by liner shops (small/ shallow shops that sit in front of a larger footprint use
such as grocery stores).
54. To achieve a COMPLETE AND DISCRETE VERTICAL FACADE COMPOSITION (Item 2 above) within
a STREET FRONTAGE requires, at a minimum, Item a. below, and at least two additional
items b-e that differ from one FACADE COMPOSITION to the next:
a. Clearly different ground story FAÇADE COMPOSITION
(both framing materials and FENESTRATION
proportions).
b. Different FENESTRATION proportions of at least 20
percent in height or width or height:width ratio. (See
illustration 402.B.5.b.)
c. Different FAÇADE configurations with a clearly
different ‘bay’ rhythm (e.g. ‘ABA’ – ‘ABB’ – ‘BACB’ –
‘ABC’). (See illustration 402.B.5.c.)
d. Change in wall material (color changes are
insufficient).
e. Change in total FENESTRATION percentage (minimum
difference 12 percent; ground floor FAÇADES are not
included).
C. Building Size. The maximum footprint for a building is 20,000
gross square feet. This shall not limit publicly publically accessible
parking structures built according to the standards of this Code.
D. Neighborhood Manners. For the Urban General and Urban
Storefront BFS frontages sharing a COMMON LOT line with a Detached
Frontage or with a residential zoning district outside the Gateway
District, the following rules apply: (see 402.E. Illustrative intent).
1. The NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback areas are specified in the regulating plan.
2. Each NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback area shall include the following:
a. An uninterrupted GARDEN WALL, or fence between 4 6 to 8 feet in height, and
completely opaque shall be constructed within one (1) foot of the COMMON LOT
LINEthe NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback area.
b. Trees, from the Street Tree List as outlined in Section 506 shall be planted, on
maximum 30-foot centers, between 5 and 10 feet from this wall or fence. At
planting, trees shall be at least 2.5 inches in diameter at designated breast
height (DBH) and at least ten feet in overall height.
402.B.54.b Illustrative
Intent
402.B.54.c Illustrative
Intent
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 23
3. Within 80ft of the RBL:
a. There shall be a 20 foot setback from the COMMON
LOT LINE. COMMON DRIVES, trees, and surface parking
are permitted within this setback, but there shall be
no structures within this area (See diagram
402.D.3.a.).
b. Between 20 and 50 feet of the COMMON LOT LINE, any
structure shall have a maximum height of 30 feet.
This requirement supersedes any BFS story height
requirement. (See diagram 402.D.3.b.)
c. The NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 20-foot Setback Area
shall be adjusted with any frontage change per
402.A Frontage Transitions.
d. This area is specified in the REGULATING PLAN.
4. Farther than 80 feet from any RBL:
a. There shall be a 50-foot setback from the COMMON
LOT LINE. No structures with a height greater than
the required GARDEN WALL maximum (per D.2 above)
shall be permitted within this setback, excepting
automobile-parking shelter-roofs, that are 10 feet
or less in height. Parking, at grade and below, and
COMMON DRIVES are allowed in this area. (See diagram
402.D.1.c.)
b. The NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS 50-foot Setback Area
shall move only in concert with a rezoning per Part
2. Administration as outlined in Section 207
Amendments- Amendments to the Form-Based
Code.
c. The location of this area is specified in the regulating
plan.
5. GARDEN WALLS or fences included in the NEIGHBORHOOD
MANNERS SETBACK area are prohibited from including
FENESTRATION as may be required by this code, except one
pedestrian scale gate may be included as outlined in Section
605.
E. Height. The following identifies specific requirements related to building height including how
building height is calculated.
402.D.3.a Illustrative
Intent
402.D.3.b. and c.
Illustrative Intent
402.D. Illustrative Intent
showing the limits to
buildable area
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 24
1. The height of all buildings is measured in stories, with an ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT in
feet, measured from the average fronting sidewalk elevation to the top of the wall
plate, unless otherwise designated herein.
2. The minimum FAÇADE height that is required at the RBL is
shown on the individual BFS.
a. In the Urban General or Urban Storefront BFS, where
the GROUND STORY CLEAR HEIGHT of a building with
more than two stories exceeds 16 feet, it will be
considered to meet the minimum height
requirements at the RBL.
b. Any stories above a 16-foot CLEAR HEIGHT GROUND
STORY in the Urban General or Urban Storefront BFS
can be set back from the RBL.
3. The ceiling of an ENGLISH BASEMENT shall be at least 3 feet above the average fronting
sidewalk grade with windows above grade. ENGLISH BASEMENT units do not count
against the maximum story limit but do count against the ultimate height
measurement.
4. An ATTIC STORY is not included in the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT or story height
measurement.
5. Any portion of a parking structure within 30 feet of a building constructed under this
Code shall not exceed that building’s primary ridge or parapet height.
6. MEZZANINES that have a floor area greater than 1/3rd of the floor area of the story in
which they are located shall count as an additional full story in the building height
measurement.
7. MEZZANINES shall be set back from the RBL at least 25 feet.
8. The prescribed minimum STORY CLEAR HEIGHT shall be met by at least 80 percent of the
specified STORY area.
9 The GROUND STORY finished floor elevation requirements shall be measured:
a. from the average exterior sidewalk elevation at the RBL, and
b. within 30 feet of any RBL.
10. For Urban General and Urban Storefront frontages the maximum GROUND STORY HEIGHT
shall be measured from the average fronting sidewalk elevation to the second story
floor.
F. Bonus Story. Where an Urban General or Urban Storefront property has been approved by
the City as eligible for a BONUS STORY, it is eligible entitled for to the maximum story limit and
ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT identified in the BFS. in exchange for the provision of affordable
housing or for the following energy efficient construction standards:
1. To be eligible for a BONUS STORY, each project must meet or exceed at least one of the
401402.E.1 Height
Reference
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 25
following:
a. Affordable Housing. (see text box for details) The uppermost FULL story will
be allowed so long as a Gross Floor Area equal to 50% of that additional story
is provided in the same building as Affordable Housing, as defined as 80% to
120% of Area Median Household Income (See Affordable Housing Development
and Performance Standards in Section 804 for further requirements).
b. Sound Mitigation Construction Standards. Construction of the building shall
meet or exceed Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards (VBES) Stretch
Standards. Or current (relevant) equivalent to be determined by the Zoning
Administrator sound mitigation standards to limit interior acoustic levels from
external influences to no more than 45 decibels and incorporate windows and
doors with a minimum sound transmission class rating of 30.
c. Green Building Construction Standards. Construction shall meet or exceed a
LEED rating of no less than Silver as identified by the U.S. Green Building Council
or equivalent green building construction standard.
2. Documentation certified by a Vermont Licensed Engineer or equivalent design
professional shall be submitted with the application verifying the standards under
subpart b or c above in order to qualify for the BONUS STORY.
23. The BONUS STORY shall only be constructed within 80 feet of the RBL.
G. Siting. Siting of buildings is critical to establishing a vibrant and active STREET SPACE. The
following information describes the requirements related to the siting of buildings
1. Building FAÇADES shall be built to the RBL as prescribed in
the BFS.
2. The building FAÇADE shall be built to the RBL within 30 feet
of a BLOCK CORNER, unless otherwise specified in the BFS.
(See diagram 402.G.2.)
3. The RBL, for all BFS frontages except Detached,
designated on the REGULATING PLAN as an absolute line,
incorporates an offset area (or depth) of 24 inches
behind that line (into the BUILDABLE AREA) allowing for
jogs, FAÇADE articulation, etc. unless otherwise
designated herein. Therefore, where the FAÇADE is
placed within that 24-inch zone, it is considered to be
“built to” the RBL.
4. In order to create interest, activate the STREET SPACE, and provide a pedestrian scale in
the Urban General and Storefront BFS, when the RBL is co-located with the front
property boundary on the REGULATING PLAN, the following requirements will apply to
any building with a FAÇADE length greater than 60 linear feet.
a. Up to two-thirds of the building in the Urban General or Storefront BFS may be
set back up to 8 feet from the RBL and still be considered “built to” the RBL. This
offset shall accommodate features such as entry ways, seating, landscaping,
street furniture, or other amenities to enhance the STREET-SPACE as noted under
402.G.2
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 26
Part J. Elements.
b. Each offset shall encompass a COMPLETE AND DISCRETE FAÇADE COMPOSITION (as
defined under Section 402.B.) including at least one functional entry door either
to a SHOPFRONT or to a publicly accessible interior finished space of the building
during commonly accepted business hours.
5. Buildings in the Urban General or Storefront BFS where the RBL is co-located with the
front property boundary on the REGULATING PLAN and have a FAÇADE length of 60 feet
or less may set the entire building or any portion thereof back up to 8 feet from the
RBL
6. Buildings in the Townhouse/Small Apartment BFS may be set back up to 8 feet from
the RBL and still be considered “built to” the RBL provide that:
a. the RBL is co-located with the front property boundary and a setback is not
already incorporated into the REGULATING PLAN.
b. a front porch is not proposed for the development since an off-set between 7
and 9 feet is required in this BFS to accommodate a front porch.
7. The 8-foot offset is a maximum distance and is inclusive of the 24-inch offset
described under 402.G.3.
48. For Detached frontages the RBL incorporates an offset area (or depth) of 10 feet behind
that line (into the BUILDABLE AREA) allowing for jogs, FAÇADE articulation, etc. unless
otherwise designated herein. Therefore, where the FAÇADE is placed within that 10
foot zone, it is considered to be “built to” the RBL.
59. Where a STREET WALL is required, it shall be located along the same plane as the
building’s FAÇADE adjacent to the STREET WALL and parallel to the any RBL.frontage that
is not otherwise occupied by a building, within the 24-inch RBL zone.
610. Buildings may only occupy that portion of the lot specified as the BUILDABLE AREA; within
any LOT BUILDING LIMIT and outside of any NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS setback.
711. No part of any building may be located outside of the BUILDABLE AREA except
overhanging eaves, awnings, SHOPFRONTS, BAY WINDOWS, STOOPS, steps, handicapped
ramps approved by the Zoning Administrator, or BALCONIES. STOOPS, steps, and ramps
shall not be located within the CLEAR SIDEWALK area. For appropriate COMMERCE and
RETAIL uses, temporary displays or cafe seating may be placed in the DOORYARD.
812. There is no required setback from COMMON DRIVES except as otherwise indicated in the
BFS.
913. There are no side lot setbacks, except as specified in Section E. Neighborhood Manners
(above) or in the individual BFS.
1014. The PARKING SETBACK LINE is generally 30 feet behind the RBL and extends, vertically,
from the first floor level, as a plane unless otherwise indicated on the REGULATING PLAN
or in the BFS. Vehicle parking shall be located behind the PARKING SETBACK LINE, except
where parking is provided completely below the MINIMUM FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION,
on-street, or otherwise indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 27
15. The BUILDABLE AREA is defined for each BFS in Sections 403 thru 406 respectively and
represents the maximum area where buildings can be located. If a setback is
incorporated into the design as described in 402.G.3. or 402.G.4., then the BUILDABLE
AREA will be similarly adjusted for each setback to maintain the maximum BUILDABLE
AREA permitted by each BFS but will not be permitted to encroach into a NEIGHBORHOOD
MANNERS setback.
1116. All lots, including CORNER LOTS and through lots, shall satisfy the build-to requirements
for any and all of their RBL frontages, and the DOORYARD and/or FRONT YARD
requirements for each designated BFS, unless otherwise specified in this Code.
H. Private Open Area. The required PRIVATE OPEN AREA for projects regulated by the Form-Based
Code is designated in each BUILDING FORM STANDARD and is generally represented as a
percentage of the buildable area.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 28
1. Any ground level required PRIVATE OPEN AREA shall have at least 1 tree per 800 square
feet, of at least 2.5 inches in diameter at designated breast height (DBH) and at least
10 feet in overall height. Where new trees are planted
to meet this requirement, they shall be no closer than
four feet on center to any COMMON LOT LINE. Urban
Storefront lots, and lots that are reusing existing
structures where there is no existing ground level PRIVATE
OPEN AREA are exempt from this requirement.
2. Species listed on the Vermont Invasive Plant Council list
are prohibited from PRIVATE OPEN AREAS.
I. Garage and Parking. Curb cuts or driveways shall be located
at least 75 feet away from any BLOCK CORNER or parking
structure entry on the same BLOCK FACE. This does not apply to
driveways accessed off COMMON DRIVES.
J. Elements. Each building form standard includes detailed
information regarding required elements. The following
provides additional information on the configuration of the
required and optional elements.
1. FENESTRATION is regulated as a percentage of the FAÇADE
between floor levels. FENESTRATION is measured as glass
area (including mullions, muntins, and similar window
frame elements with a dimension less than one inch)
and/or open area.
2. FENESTRATION shall be distributed such that no 30-foot
section of a FAÇADE violates the BFS percentage
parameters.
3. Windows shall not direct views into an adjacent private
lot where the COMMON LOT LINE is within 20 feet.
Specifically: the window opening and it’sits window
panes shall be at an angle of greater than 90 degrees
to/ with the COMMON LOT LINE, unless:
a. GROUND STORY
ai. that The view is contained within the lot (e.g. by a PRIVACY FENCE or
GARDEN WALL),; or
bii. theThe window’s sill is at least 6 feet above its finished floor level., or
b. Upper Stories
i. The window’s sill is at least 6 feet above its finished floor level; or
ii. The side of the building is adjacent to a permanent access or shared
driveway serving multiple properties, is no less than 15 feet in width,
and recorded in the City’s Land Records.
402.J.3
Plan View Diagrams
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 29
c. otherwise specified in the individual BFS.
4. A GROUND STORY configured with non-residential uses may incorporate windows on the
side of a building for a depth of no greater than 8 feet as measured from the RBL.
45. No part of any building may project forward of the RBL except overhanging eaves,
AWNINGS, SHOPFRONTS, BAY WINDOWS, STOOPS, steps, BALCONIES, or handicapped ramps
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
56. GROUND STORY AWNINGS shall have a minimum of ten-foot clear height above the
sidewalk and a minimum five-foot depth, measured from the FAÇADE. The maximum
depth is to back-of-curb or the TREE LAWN edge, whichever is less.
67. BALCONIES shall not project within 5 feet of a COMMON LOT LINE or encroach within the
public right-of-way.
78. Where an individual BFS includes balconies as a method for achieving the required
PRIVATE OPEN AREA, the BALCONY:
a. shall be enclosed by balustrades, railings, or other means that block at least 55
percent of the view through them;
b. shall not otherwise be enclosed above a height of 42 inches, except with insect
screening and/or columns/posts supporting a roof or connecting with another
BALCONY above; and
c. shall be roofed.
89. BAY WINDOWS shall have an interior clear width of between four and eight feet at the
main wall. BAY WINDOWS shall project no more than 42 inches beyond the RBL and walls
and windows of the bay shall be between 90 degrees (perpendicular) and 0 degrees
(parallel) relative to the primary building wall from which they project.
910. ATTIC STORIES are permitted for all BFS frontages.
a. On the RBL/FAÇADE side of the roof pitch (BLOCK interior elevations are not
restricted) ATTIC STORY windows may only be located in DORMERS and/or gable-
ends.
b. ATTIC STORY DORMERS are permitted so long as they do not break the primary
eave line, are individually less than 15 feet wide, and their collective width is
not more than 60 percent of the RBL FAÇADE length.
c. ATTIC STORIES do not count against the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT or maximum
STORY height as long as they meet the above standards.
1011. For Urban General and Urban Storefront frontages, as an alternate to the ATTIC STORY,
a HALF STORY is allowed above the maximum full story, provided that:
a. its footprint is no more than 50% of any of the STORIES below it,
b. it is set back from the FAÇADE below no less than 15 feet, and
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 30
c. not less than 1/3rd of the building’s total roof area is constructed as a GREEN
ROOF.
d. HALF STORIES do not count against the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT or maximum
STORY height as long as they meet the above standards.
1112. At least one functioning entry door shall be provided along each GROUND STORY FAÇADE.
No GROUND STORY FAÇADE may include a section of greater than 75 feet without a
functioning entry door, unless otherwise specified in the BFS.
1213. All required FRONT PORCHES shall be completely covered by a roof. FRONT PORCHES may
be screened (insect screening) when all architectural elements (columns, railings, etc.)
occur on the outside of the screen on the side facing the STREET-SPACE. The finished
FRONT PORCH floor height shall be no more than 8 inches below the first interior finished
floor level of the building to which it is attached. FRONT PORCHES shall not extend past
the DOORYARD into the CLEAR WALKWAY.
1314. The finished STOOP floor height shall be no more than 8 inches below the first interior
finished floor level of the building to which it is attached. STOOPS shall not extend past
the DOORYARD into the CLEAR WALKWAY.
1415. PRIVACY FENCES may be constructed along and within 6 inches of COMMON LOT LINES,
except those forward of the RBL, and along COMMON DRIVES. PRIVACY FENCES shall have
a maximum height of 8 feet.
16. Any setbacks, as described under Section 402.G.4. that are incorporated into a building
design shall comply with the following:
a. Setbacks shall incorporate methods suitable to control any runoff or erosion.
b. Setbacks shall include landscaping, street furniture (such as benches), bicycle
parking facilities, or other pedestrian scale elements as approved by the Zoning
Administrator or Director of Public Works.
c. Setbacks that are done in conjunction with a SHOPFRONT shall include space that
can be used for seating; temporary display of goods or merchandise; or similar
facilities to support the use associated with the SHOPFRONT.
K. Building Functions. Allowable uses for GROUND STORIES and UPPER STORIES are identified in
each BFS. Additional use standards are provided in Part. 8 Building Functions.
L. Civic Buildings. When CIVIC BUILDINGS are designated on the REGULATING PLAN, they are exempt
from Part 4, except NEIGHBORHOOD MANNERS.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 31
403. Urban General Frontage
ILLUSTRATIONS AND INTENT
Note: These are provided as illustrations of intent. The
illustrations and statements on this page are advisory only and
do not have the power of law. Refer to the standards on the
following pages for the specific prescriptions and restrictions of
this Building Form Standard. Where these photos or statements
may be inconsistent with the regulations, the regulations prevail.
Urban General is the basic urban street frontage, once common
in towns and cities across the United States. The purpose of this
frontage is to develop multi-story buildings placed directly at the
sidewalk with one or more entrances and windows across the
FAÇADE. The uses range from commercial to residential,
municipal to retail and restaurants—and combinations of all of
the above. There could be several buildings lined up shoulder to
shoulder, filling out a BLOCK, or on smaller BLOCKS, a single
building might fill the BLOCK face. This frontage is designated in
the more intense areas of the Gateway Corridors District and it
is anticipated that there will be significant pedestrian traffic
along these frontages.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 32
Urban General
HEIGHT
Building Height
The building shall be at least 2 STORIES in height at the REQUIRED
BUILDING LINE, but no greater than 41/2 STORIES and 58 feet in
height, except where designated 51/2 on the REGULATING PLAN
(south of the rail line). There the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT is 65
feet.
*In all cases, the uppermost full STORY shall only be permitted as
a BONUS STORY. (See also 402. General Provision, F. Bonus Story
on page 19.)
Ground Story Height
The GROUND STORY height of each complete FAÇADE shall be no
less than 12 feet and no more than 22 feet in height for a
minimum depth of 30 feet as measured from the building
FAÇADE, regardless of intended use,
1. COMMERCE, RETAIL and CIVIC uses
(See also Section 404 - Urban Storefront Frontage on page
24.)
a. The GROUND STORY finished floor elevation
of each complete FAÇADE shall be:
i. no lower than the average
fronting exterior sidewalk
elevation; and
ii. no higher than 18 inches above
the average fronting exterior
sidewalk elevation where the
complete FAÇADE is located.
b. The GROUND STORY shall have a CLEAR
HEIGHT of at least 12 feet contiguous to
the RBL frontage for a minimum depth of
30 feet
2. Residential Unitsuses
a. The finished floor elevation shall be no
less than 3 feet above the average
fronting sidewalk elevation.
b. The GROUND STORY shall have a CLEAR
HEIGHT of at least 8.8 feet.
Upper Story Height
The minimum CLEAR HEIGHT for UPPER STORIES is 8.8 feet.
Street Wall Height
A STREET WALL not less than 5 feet in height or greater than
12 feet in height shall be required along any RBL frontage
that is not otherwise occupied by a building on the lot.
SITING
Façade
1. On each lot the building FAÇADE shall be built to
the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE for at least 75% of the
RBL length.
2. Within 8 feet of the BLOCK CORNER, the GROUND
STORY FAÇADE may be CHAMFERED to form a corner
entry.
Buildable Area
1. The BUILDABLE AREA is delineated in the diagram
above.
2. A PRIVATE OPEN AREA equal to at least 15% of the
total BUILDABLE AREA shall be preserved on every
lot. Up to 33% of the required PRIVATE OPEN AREA
may be satisfied through the BALCONIES of
individual units. At least 67% of the PRIVATE OPEN
AREA shall comprise no more than two separate
contiguous areas, as follows:
a. Where located at grade, such PRIVATE
OPEN AREA may be located anywhere
behind the PARKING SETBACK LINE,
including within the NEIGHBORHOOD
MANNERS Setback Area, but not in or
beyond any COMMON DRIVE.
b. Where provided above the second
STORY but below a building’s highest
roof level, the PRIVATE OPEN AREA may be
located forward of the PARKING SETBACK
LINE (such as in a raised courtyard
configuration) and shall open onto no
more than one STREET-SPACE and shall
be set back at least 30 feet from any
BLOCK CORNER or BUILDING CORNER.
c. Where located on the building’s highest
roof level, the PRIVATE OPEN AREA may be
located anywhere on the roof.
Garage and Parking
Openings in any RBL for parking garage entries shall have
a maximum CLEAR HEIGHT no greater than 16 feet and a
clear width no greater than 22 feet.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 33
ELEMENTS
Fenestration
1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear
feet are prohibited on all REQUIRED BUILDING
LINES (RBL) including any off-sets or
setbacks as identified in Section 402.G.
2. GROUND STORY FENESTRATION for each
complete FAÇADE shall be designated by use
based on the following:
a. FENESTRATION for residential uses
shall comprise between 33% and
70% of the GROUND STORY FAÇADE.
b. FENESTRATION requirements for non-
residential uses shall follow the
standards outlined in Section 404 -
URBAN STOREFRONT FRONTAGE for
each GROUND STORY FAÇADE.
3. UPPER STORY FENESTRATION shall comprise
between 20% and 70% of the FAÇADE area
per STORY.
Building Projections
1. Awnings shall project a minimum of 5 feet
from the FAÇADE.
2. * These BALCONY depth parameters are
necessary to achieve any required PRIVATE
OPEN AREA credits.
Street Walls
One access gate no wider than 22 feet and one
pedestrian entry gate no wider than 5 feet shall be
permitted within any required STREET WALL.
USE
Ground Story
The GROUND STORY may only house COMMERCE or
RESIDENTIAL uses. See height specifications above
for specific requirements unique to each use.
Upper Stories
1. The upper STORIES may only house
RESIDENTIAL or COMMERCE uses. *No
restaurant or retail sales uses shall be
allowed in upper STORIES unless they are
second STORY extensions equal to or less
than the area of the ground story use.
2. No COMMERCE use is permitted above a
RESIDENTIAL use.
3. Additional habitable space is permitted
within the roof where it is configured as an
ATTIC STORY.
Urban General
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 34
404. Urban Storefront Frontage
These photos are provided as illustrations of intent. The are advisory only and do not have the power of law.
Refer to the standards below and on the previous pages for the specific prescriptions and restrictions of this
Building Form Standard. Where these photos or statements may be inconsistent with the regula tions, the
regulations prevail.
Where Urban Storefront is designated on the REGULATING PLAN, the Urban General BFS standards (previous pages)
shall apply, except that the GROUND STORY configuration shall be that of a SHOPFRONT with uses, forward of the
PARKING SETBACK LINE, limited to COMMERCE.
a. The GROUND STORY shall have a CLEAR HEIGHT of at least 12 feet contiguous to the RBL frontage
forward of the PARKING SETBACK LINE across the entire GROUND STORY FAÇADE.
b. GROUND STORY FENESTRATION shall comprise between 50% and 90% of the GROUND STORY FAÇADE.
c. Single panes of glass shall not be permitted larger than 10 feet in height by 5 feet in width.
d. GROUND STORY windows may not be made opaque by window treatments (excepting operable
sunscreen devices within the conditioned space). A minimum of 80% of the window surface
shall allow a view into the building interior for a depth of at least 12 feet.
e. SHOPFRONTS may extend up to 24 inches beyond the FAÇADE or RBL into the DOORYARD, but shall
not project into the CLEAR WALKWAY.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 35
405. Townhouse/Small Apartment
ILLUSTRATIONS AND INTENT
Note: These photos and statements are provided as illustrations of
intent and are advisory only. They do not have the power of law. Refer
to the standards on the following pages for the specific prescriptions
and restrictions of the Townhouse/Small Apartment Building Form
Standard. Where these photos or statements may be inconsistent with
the regulations, the regulations prevail.
The Townhouse/Small Apartment frontage is of moderate intensity,
often created by a series of smaller attached structures—configured as
single-family residential or stacked flats. This BUILDING FORM STANDARD
has regular STREET- SPACE entrances, as frequently as 18 feet. The
character and intensity of this frontage varies depending on the STREET-
SPACE and the location of the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE—the buildings may
be placed up to the sidewalk with STOOPS, or further back with small
DOORYARD gardens and/or FRONT PORCHES.
Similar in scale to the townhouse and row house, a small apartment is
of
limited size and can also be used to transition from the more intense
areas of the Gateway District to adjacent, and less intense,
neighborhoods. It is anticipated that the pedestrian activity along these
frontages will vary considerably based on the time of day and week.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 36
HEIGHT
Building Height
1. Each building shall be at least 2 STORIES high
at the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL), but no
more than 3 STORIES with an ULTIMATE
BUILDING HEIGHT of 40 feet, unless otherwise
designated on the REGULATING PLAN.
2. A SIDE WING or ancillary structure shall be no
higher than 15 feet in height.
Ground Story Height
1. The finished floor elevation of each FAÇADE
shall be no less than 3 feet and no more
than 8 feet above the average exterior
sidewalk elevation at the RBL where the
FAÇADE is located.
2. At least 80% of the GROUND STORY shall have
an interior CLEAR HEIGHT of at least 8.8 feet.
3. Main entrances may be at grade, with
transitions to meet the minimum finished
floor elevation within the building interior.
Upper Story Height
At least 80% of each upper story shall have an
interior CLEAR HEIGHT of at least 8.8 feet.
English Basements
The finished floor level of the ENGLISH BASEMENT shall
be no greater than 4 feet below the average
elevation of the fronting sidewalk.
Street Wall Height
A STREET WALL not less than 4 feet in height or
greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along
any RBL frontage that is not otherwise occupied by
a FAÇADE.
SITING
Façade
On each BFS frontage, the FAÇADE shall be built to:
1. the RBL for at least 65% of the RBL length,
or
2. a line an additional 8 feet behind the RBL
(only permitted to accommodate a FRONT
PORCH—see Elements on the next page
for FRONT PORCH requirements) with a
width not less than 65% of the RBL.
Buildable Area
1. The BUILDABLE AREA is as defined in the diagram
above.
2. A PRIVATE OPEN AREA equal to at least 15% of the
total BUILDABLE AREA shall be preserved on every lot
(for each unit where done as a TOWNHOUSE). The
required PRIVATE OPEN AREA shall be located at
grade anywhere behind the PARKING SETBACK LINE
and shall not include any side or rear setback
areas.
a. For lots deeper than 50 feet, up to 33%
of the required PRIVATE OPEN AREA may be
satisfied through the BALCONIES and/or
raised decks of individual units.
b. For all other lots, 100% of the required
PRIVATE OPEN area may be above grade,
via BALCONIES or decks.
Garage and Parking
1. Garage doors/entries are not permitted on any
RBL/FAÇADE.
2. At-grade parking may be forward of the PARKING
SETBACK line only when it is within a garage on a
corner lot, within 40 feet of a rear lot line, and the
parking area’s RBL frontage is less than 25 feet.
Frontage Widths
1. The minimum width for new TOWNHOUSES is 18 feet.
2. Although there are no individual BFS side setbacks,
no individual SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING or
contiguous set of TOWNHOUSES may exceed 100
feet of STREET-SPACE FRONTAGE. A gap complete
separation of at least 15 feet that is open to the sky
is required between buildings.
Townhouse/Small Apartment
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 37
ELEMENTS
Fenestration
1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear
feet are prohibited on all FAÇADES.
2. FENESTRATION shall comprise between 25%
and 70% of the FAÇADE.
3. Each TOWNHOUSE and/or SMALL APARTMENT
BUILDING shall include a functioning STREET-
SPACE entry.
Building Projections
1. Each TOWNHOUSE or SMALL APARTMENT
BUILDING shall include either:
a. a STOOP of not more than 4 feet
deep and 6 feet wide (not including
steps), or
b. a FRONT PORCH, between 7 and 9
feet deep,
• that projects no more than 1
foot forward of the RBL, and
• with a width not less than 65%
of the FAÇADE
Street Walls
One access gate no wider than 15 feet and one
pedestrian entry gate no wider than 5 feet shall be
permitted within any required STREET WALL.
USE
All Stories
1. Only RESIDENTIAL uses and limited non-
residential uses consistent with Part 8 are
permitted. This includes Home Occupation
uses.
2. Individual TOWNHOUSES shall have no more
than two residential units, including the
ACCESSORY UNIT.
3. Buildings configured as SMALL APARTMENTS
have no set limit to the number of units.
The maximum number of units in a SMALL
APARTMENT building is set by limits on the
building’s size.
4. ENGLISH BASEMENT ACCESSORY UNITS are only
permitted in TOWNHOUSES.
Townhouse/Small Apartment
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 38
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 39
406. Detached Frontage
ILLUSTRATIONS AND INTENT
Note: These photos and statements are provided as illustrations of intent
and are advisory only. They do not have the power of law. Refer to the
standards on the following pages for the specific prescriptions and
restrictions of the Detached Building form standard. Where these photos or
statements may be inconsistent with the regulations, the regulations prevail.
The detached frontage is represented by the traditional single family house
with small front, side, and rear yards along a tree-lined street. Structures are
1 to 2 stories in height with pitched roofs and front porches. Its purpose is to
reinforce the character of existing single family neighborhoods.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 40
Detached
HEIGHT
Building Height
1. Each building shall be at least 15 feet tall at
the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL), but no
greater than 2 STORIES with an ULTIMATE
BUILDING HEIGHT of 27 feet.
2. A SIDEWING or ancillary structure shall be no
higher than 15 feet.
Ground Story Height
1. The finished floor elevation shall be no less
than 3 feet and no more than 8 feet above
the average exterior sidewalk elevation at
the RBL.
2. At least 80% of the first story shall have an
interior CLEAR HEIGHT of at least 8.8 feet.
Upper Story Height
1. At least 80% of each upper story shall have
an interior CLEAR HEIGHT of at least 8.8 feet.
Front Yard Fence
Any FRONT YARD FENCE has a minimum height of 30
inches and a maximum height of 40 inches.
SITING
Façade
1. *For Detached frontages the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE
(RBL) shall be ten (10) feet deep/wide, extending
into the lot (see 402.G.4).
2. On each lot the FAÇADE shall be built parallel to the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL) for at least 60% of the
building width. The FRONT PORCH shall be built to the
RBL.
3. For CORNER LOTS the minimum 60% build-to shall
include the frontage within 20 feet of the BLOCK
CORNER.
Buildable Area
1. The BUILDABLE AREA is as defined in the diagram
above.
2. A contiguous PRIVATE OPEN AREA equal to at least
25% of the total BUILDABLE AREA shall be preserved
on every lot. Such contiguous area shall be located
at grade, anywhere behind the PARKING SETBACK
LINE and not include any side or rear setbacks.
Lot Size and Setbacks
1. All lots of record are buildable under this code.
2. Newly subdivided lots shall have a minimum width
at the RBL of 32 feet, a maximum width of 55 feet,
and a minimum depth of 85 feet.
3. The minimum side lot setbacks are 5 feet or as
otherwise designated on the REGULATING PLAN.
Front Yard
1. The FRONT YARD/DOORYARD shall not be paved
excepting walkways.
2. Where through lots or CORNER LOTS exist, any FRONT
YARD standards shall be applied on both STREET-
SPACE FRONTAGES.
Garages, Parking and Common drives
1. Garage doors shall not be located on the
RBL/FAÇADE.
2. There is a 2 foot required setback from COMMON
DRIVES.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 41
ELEMENTS
Fenestration
1. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear
feet are prohibited on all FAÇADES.
2. FENESTRATION shall comprise at least 25%,
but not more than 70%, of all FAÇADES.
3. No window may face or direct views
toward a COMMON LOT LINE within 10 feet
unless:
a. that view is contained within the
lot (e.g. by a PRIVACY FENCE/GARDEN
WALL), or
b. the window sill is at least 6 feet
above the finished floor level.
Building Projections
1. Each building FAÇADE shall include a FRONT
PORCH at the RBL, between 8 feet and 12
feet deep with a width not less than 1/2 of
the FAÇADE width.
2. No building element except the FRONT PORCH
eaves and steps may encroach beyond the
RBL into the DOORYARD.
Doors/Entries
At least one functioning entry door shall be
provided along the GROUND STORY FAÇADE of each
building FAÇADE.
Street Walls and Fences
1. There is no STREET WALL requirement.
2. Any FRONT YARD FENCE shall be within one
foot of the CLEAR WALKWAY/DOORYARD line
parallel to the RBL and along COMMON LOT
LINES to a point at least 10 feet behind the
RBL.
3. A PRIVACY FENCE may be constructed along a
COMMON LOT LINE behind the FAÇADE.
USE
All Stories
1. Only RESIDENTIAL uses are permitted. This
includes Home Occupation uses.
2. Individual DETACHED lots may have up to
two residential units, plus one ACCESSORY
UNIT, provided one unit is owner occupied.
Gateway District Perimeter Frontages
Where a Detached frontage at the perimeter of
the Gateway District is under common
ownership with an Urban General frontage: the
front porch and side setback requirements are
waived. The building may then be attached and
a part of the adjacent Urban General building.
The façade shall then be built to the RBL instead
of the front porch.
Detached
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 42
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 80
Part 9. Definitions
901. Defined Terms
The following terms are defined for the purpose of this Code. Terms not defined here may be defined
elsewhere in the City of Winooski Zoning Ordinance.
In such case, the definition contained in the Zoning Ordinance shall be used. Certain terms in this
Code are used in very specific ways, often excluding some of the meanings of common usage. Where
there is an apparent conflict or contradiction, the definition herein shall prevail.
Accessory Unit. A building or addition for living purposes that is not the primary structure or principal
dwelling unit on a lot, that can be used as additional residential or home occupation space.
Attic Story. Habitable space situated within the structure of a pitched roof and above the uppermost
STORY. They are permitted for all BFS sites and do not count against the maximum STORY height
or ultimate height limits of their BFS.
Average Fronting Sidewalk Elevation. The central elevation of the sidewalk directly in front of a
property (or properties) included in a development proposal as measured along the property’s
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE. The AVERAGE FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION for a property (or properties)
is established by dividing the sum of the MAXIMUM FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION and the MINIMUM
FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION by 2.
Balcony. An exterior platform attached to the upper floors of the building FAÇADE (forward of the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE).
Bay Window. Generally, a U-shaped enclosure extending the interior space of the building outward
of the FACADE/REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (along its STREET-SPACE side).
Block. An increment of land comprised of lots, COMMON DRIVES and tracts circumscribed and not
traversed by streets (PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS excepted). BLOCKS shall be measured at the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE (RBL).
Block Corner. The outside corner of a BLOCK at the intersection of any two STREET-SPACES (the RBLs).
Inside corners, where the resulting angle formed by the BLOCK face is less than 180 degrees
(concave) are not considered BLOCK CORNERS for the purposes of this Code.
Block Face. The outside/public side of the block, coincident with the RBL, between 2 BLOCK CORNERS.
Bonus Story. The full STORY permitted in exchange for the provision of a specifically defined public
benefit, such as affordable housing. wWhere an Urban General or Urban Storefront frontage
property has been approved by the City as eligible.
Buildable Area. The area of the lot that building(s) may occupy, which includes the area of the lot
behind the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE as designated by the BUILDING FORM STANDARD and the
REGULATING PLAN. The BUILDABLE AREA sets the limits of the building footprint now and in the
future—any additions shall be within the specified BUILDABLE AREA.
Building Corner. The outside corner of a building where the primary building mass is within an angle
less than 180 degrees. Inside corners, where the exterior space of the building mass forms
an angle of more than 180 degrees are not considered BUILDING CORNERS for the purposes of
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 81
this Code.
Building Form Standards (BFS). The part of this Code that establishes basic parameters regulating
building form, including the envelope (in three dimensions), placement and certain
permitted/required building elements, such as SHOPFRONTS, BALCONIES, and STREET WALLS. The
BUILDING FORM STANDARDS establish both the boundaries within which things may be done and
specific things that must be done.
Building Face. See FAÇADE.
Certificate of Conformity. A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY is a document issued by the Zoning
Administrator that outlines a project’s conformance with these regulations and includes any
conditions necessary to be met before a zoning permit will be issued. The CERTIFICATE OF
CONFORMITY is intended to document consistency with the regulations, and is not a permit. A
zoning permit shall be issued on a project that is consistent with these regulations, and fulfills
any conditions as outlined in the CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY.
Chamfered Corner. A cut corner (beveled edge), generally at an even 45 degree angle. For purposes
of the Gateway District, this refers to an allowance in the BUILDING FORM STANDARD for Urban
General frontages to have such a ‘cut corner’ extending as far as 8ft away from a BLOCK
CORNER.
Civic Green or Square. A public open space designated on the REGULATING PLAN. The term square is
generally used to describe spaces that have more paved surface area. The term civic green
is generally used to describe a formally configured small public lawn or park that is primarily
unpaved. CIVIC GREENS and SQUARES do not include active recreation structures such as
ballfields and courts. See Part 5. Urban Space Standards for the specific controls on SQUARES
and CIVIC GREENS.
Civic Use Building. Those buildings that house strictly CIVIC USES or historically and urbanistically
significant structures designated on the REGULATING PLAN. CIVIC USE buildings and publicly-
owned public art are not subject to the BUILDING FORM STANDARD prescriptions of this Code. See
also Use, CIVIC.
Clear Height. Within a structure, the distance between the floor and ceiling. For entrances and other
external building features, the unobstructed distance from the ground to the bottom of the
lowest element above.
Clear Sidewalk. The portion of the sidewalk within a STREET-SPACE that shall remain clear of
obstructions and allow public passage. The CLEAR SIDEWALK width is specified in the Street
Type Specifications.
Clearly Visible from the Street-Space. Many requirements of this Code apply only where the subject
is “CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET-SPACE.” (Note that the definition of STREET-SPACE includes
SQUARES, CIVIC GREENS, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, parks, and all public space except COMMON DRIVES
and COMMON DRIVES.) A building element more than 40 feet from a REQUIRED BUILDING LINE or
STREET-SPACE is by definition not CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET-SPACE (such as elements facing
a COMMON LOT LINE). Also, common or party walls are by definition not CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE
STREET-SPACE. This does not exempt vehicle parking lots or parking structures from any
BUILDING FORM STANDARD requirements.
Commerce. See Use, COMMERCE.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 82
Common Drive. The public right-of-way or easement for vehicles and pedestrians within a BLOCK
that provides access to the rear or side of properties, vehicle parking (e.g., spaces and/or
garages), utility meters, recycling containers, and garbage bins.
Common Lot Lines. Lot lines shared by adjacent private lots.
Comparative Pedestrian Crossing. The measured distance, shown on the Street Type
Specifications, that a pedestrian would be within an automobile travel lane (or turning
movement) while crossing a street. A crossing time is calculated based on a pedestrian speed
of 3.7 feet per second (a generally accepted urban average). This distance/time is calculated
to provide a relative gauge of pedestrian comfort level in crossing the street.
Complete and Discrete Facade Composition. The FAÇADE articulation that breaks down the apparent
scale of a large building into smaller perceived pieces. The intent of such a FAÇADE COMPOSITION
is to provide ‘human scale’ for the STREET-SPACE. The objective requirements of the COMPLETE
AND DISCRETE FACADE COMPOSITION section of the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS regulate and ensure
such scalar break- down.
Corner Lot. A lot in which one side lot line is adjacent to a street or STREET-SPACE. Special building
placement, fencing and landscape requirements may apply.
Covered Sidewalk. A roofed or built structure attached to the FAÇADE and extending beyond the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE and over the sidewalk or SQUARE, open to the STREET-SPACE except for
supporting columns, piers, or arches. (See BUILDING FORM STANDARDS for complete
specifications.)
Detached Frontage Building. Building form and functions resulting from/as determined by the
Detached BUILDING FORM STANDARD as indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
Dooryard. The area within the STREET-SPACE between the FAÇADE of the building (generally the
REQUIRED BUILDING LINE) and the CLEAR WALKWAY area of the sidewalk. The DOORYARD area is
designated in the Street Type Specifications.
Dormers. Roofed ancillary structures with windows providing light and air to an ATTIC STORY.
Eave Height. EAVE HEIGHT shall be measured at the bottom of the top layer of roofing material at its
outermost point from the building wall.
English Basement. A unit in a habitable floor level below the first floor in a TOWNHOUSE configuration,
that is partially above and below grade, with direct STREET-SPACE access. An ENGLISH BASEMENT
unit is considered an ACCESSORY UNIT.
Equivalent or Better. A building material or construction technique that has been determined, by
the Zoning Administrator, to be at least equal to, in appearance, durability, etc., or surpassing
those expressly permitted herein.
Façade (Building Face). The building elevation facing the STREET-SPACE or REQUIRED BUILDING LINE.
Building walls facing private interior courts, COMMON LOT LINES, and COMMON DRIVES are not
FAÇADES.
Façade Composition. The arrangement and proportion of materials and building elements (windows,
doors, columns, pilasters, bays, etc.) on a given FAÇADE.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 83
Fenestration. Openings in the building wall, including windows and doors, allowing light and views
between interior (private realm) and exterior (public realm) and/or STREET-SPACE.
First Floor. See GROUND STORY.
Front Porch. The ground floor platform attached to the FAÇADE or REQUIRED BUILDING LINE side of the
main building.
Front Yard. An open (unpaved) space required by certain BUILDING FORM STANDARDS extending across
the entire width of the lot between the FAÇADE and the CLEAR WALKWAY. This area is contiguous
with the STREET-SPACE, and includes any FRONT PORCH.
Front Yard Fence. The wood (picket) fence, wrought iron fence, or masonry wall located along and
surrounding the FRONT YARD. (For placement, height and gate specifications, see the BUILDING
FORM STANDARDS.)
Garage Entry. An opening (with curb cut) in the building FAÇADE and/or street wall where vehicles
may enter into a parking structure in the block interior for general parking and business
servicing.
Garden Wall. A wall defining a property line or delineating a private area. (For placement, height and
gate specifications, see the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS.) A GARDEN WALL may serve as a FRONT
YARD FENCE.
Ground Story. The first habitable level of a building at or above grade. The next STORY above the
GROUND STORY is the second floor or STORY.
Half Story. Habitable space, with a limited footprint, that is situated above the uppermost full STORY.
Lot Building Limit (LBL). A line or plane indicated on the REGULATING PLAN that extends vertically
beyond which no building shall be placed (unless otherwise specified in this code).
Maximum Fronting Sidewalk Elevation. The highest elevation of the sidewalk directly in front of a
property (or properties) as measured along the property’s REQUIRED BUILDING LINE. The MAXIMUM
FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION and MINIMUM FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION are used to establish the
AVERAGE FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION to determine the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT. If no sidewalk
exists, the location of the RBL as designated on the REGULATING PLAN will be used to establish
this value.
Mezzanine. An intermediate level between the GROUND STORY and the second STORY. It may be in the
form of a platform, podium, or wide balcony, with uses limited to a continuation of the GROUND
STORY uses.
Minimum Fronting Sidewalk Elevation. The lowest elevation of the sidewalk directly in front of a
property (or properties) as measured along the property’s REQUIRED BUILDING LINE. The MINIMUM
FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION and MAXIMUM FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION are used to establish
the AVERAGE FRONTING SIDEWALK ELEVATION to determine the ULTIMATE BUILDING HEIGHT. If no
sidewalk exists, the location of the RBL as designated on the REGULATING PLAN will be used to
establish this value.
Mullion. A vertical or horizontal element that forms a division between units of a window, or door.
When dividing adjacent window units, its purpose is as a rigid support to the glazing (glass
panes) of the window.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 84
Muntin. A strip of wood, metal, or synthetic material separating and holding panes of glass in a
window or giving the appearance of individual panes of glass in a window.
Neighborhood Manners. A set of rules in this Code designed to ensure a positive and complementary
relationship between the new and more intense redevelopment under this Code and existing
residential zoning districts abutting the Urban Storefront and/or Urban General frontages.
Open Area. See PRIVATE OPEN AREA.
Parking Setback Line. A line or plane indicated on the REGULATING PLAN which extends vertically up
from the GROUND STORY floor level (unless otherwise noted on the REGULATING PLAN or BFS) and
is generally parallel to the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE. The PARKING SETBACK LINE is a permissive
minimum distance from the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE and parking Parking may be placed
anywhere within the lot behind this line, except where otherwise specified in this Code.
Pedestrian Pathway. An interconnecting paved way providing pedestrian and bicycle passage
through BLOCKS running from a STREET-SPACE to another STREET-SPACE, a COMMON DRIVE or an
interior block parking area. The area within a PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY shall be a public access
easement or public right-of-way.
Plaza. See CIVIC GREEN.
Privacy Fence. An opaque fence made of wood or masonry (not chain link or any other type of rolled
fence) along COMMON DRIVES, COMMON DRIVES, PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, and COMMON LOT LINES
(where behind the required building line). See the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS for height and
placement specifications.
Private Open Area. An occupiable area within the BUILDABLE AREA and generally behind the PARKING
SETBACK LINE, accessible only to occupants of the particular building or site, and (primarily)
open to the sky. Additional specifications for the PRIVATE OPEN AREA may be included in each
BUILDING FORM STANDARD. The PRIVATE OPEN AREA shall not be built-upon, used to satisfy
minimum stormwater Best Management Practice area (if thereby excluding active tenant
use), parked or driven upon (except for emergency access).
Project Review Committee (PRC). The PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE consists of the City of Winooski’s
departments heads, and is chaired by the City Manager. The purpose of the PRC is to solicit
input and feedback on projects that are requesting a CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY as outlined in
Section 203. Comments from the PRC will provide guidance to the Zoning Administrator and
may result in specific conditions that are included as part of zoning approval. The PRC is an
advisory committee only and meetings of the PRC do not include formal recorded testimony
from the public, but do provide an opportunity for the public to comment on projects.
Comments provided during the PRC meeting are non-binding unless specifically included as
conditions of approval as outlined in the CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY and zoning permit.
Regulating Plan. The implementing site plan for the development of the Gateway District under this
Code. REGULATING PLANS allocate the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS and street types and provide
specific information for the disposition of each building site. The REGULATING PLAN also shows
how each site relates to adjacent STREET-SPACES, the overall district, and the surrounding
neighborhoods. Unless outlined in Section 206 of these regulations, adjustments or changes
to any features or elements on the REGULATING PLAN shall only be done through an amendment
to these regulations as identified in Section 207.B.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 85
Required Building Line (RBL). A line or plane indicated on the REGULATING PLAN, defining the STREET
FRONTAGE which extends vertically and generally parallel to the street, at which the building
FAÇADE shall be placed. This is a requirement, not a permissive minimum. The minimum
length and height of FAÇADE that is required at the RBL is shown on the appropriate BUILDING
FORM STANDARD.
Shown on the REGULATING PLAN as an absolute line, it incorporates an area (or depth) of 24
inches offset into the BUILDABLE AREA for all BFS frontages except Detached. This is to allow
for jogs, FAÇADE articulation, etc. For Detached frontages the RBL incorporates an offset area
(or depth) of 10 feet.
Sidewing. The portion of a building extending along a COMMON LOT LINE toward the COMMON DRIVE or
rear of the lot.
Small Apartment Building. See TOWNHOUSE/SMALL APARTMENT FRONTAGE BUILDING.
Square. See CIVIC GREEN.
Stoop. An entry platform on the FAÇADE of a building. (See the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS for
specifications.)
Shopfront. That portion of the GROUND STORY FAÇADE intended for marketing or merchandising of
COMMERCE USES and allowing visibility between the sidewalk and the interior space.
Story (Story Height). That space within a building and above grade that is situated between one
floor level and the floor level next above, or if there is no floor above, the ceiling above. STORY
HEIGHT parameters are as specified by the appropriate BUILDING FORM STANDARD.
Street Frontage. That portion of the lot or building that is coincident with the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE
as required by this Code.
Streetlight. A luminaire installed on both sides of the STREET-SPACE, along the STREET TREE ALIGNMENT
LINE or median centerline, unless otherwise designated in this code, with the design criteria in
the Gateway District giving equal weight to the lighting of the pedestrian areas and the
automobile areas.
Street-Space. All space between fronting REQUIRED BUILDING LINES (streets, SQUARES, PLAZAS, PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAYS, CIVIC GREENS, sidewalks, parks)—including any transit service operator passenger
platform—but not garage entries or COMMON DRIVES.
Street Tree. A tree located in the STREET-SPACE (and required per this code) and listed in the Street
Tree List located in Part 5. Urban Space Standards that is of a proven hardy and drought
tolerant species and large enough to form a canopy with sufficient clear trunk to allow traffic
to pass under unimpeded.
Street Tree Alignment Line. A line along which STREET TREES shall be planted and STREETLIGHTS and
other such infrastructure are to be placed. It is generally parallel with the STREET-SPACE and
mid-way between the back-of-curb and the CLEAR SIDEWALK.
Street Wall. A masonry wall set on the REQUIRED BUILDING LINE which assists in the definition of the
STREET-SPACE in the absence of a building. See the BUILDING FORM STANDARDS for height and
gate specifications.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 86
Townhouse/Small Apartment Frontage Building. Building form and functions resulting from/as
determined by the Townhouse/Small Apartment BUILDING FORM STANDARD indicated on the
REGULATING PLAN.
Tree Lawn (Tree Trench). A continuous strip of soil area—typically covered with grass, other
vegetation, bridging pavement, or sometimes porous pavers—located between the back of
curb and the CLEAR SIDEWALK AREA, and used for planting STREET TREES and configured to foster
healthy STREET TREE root systems. TREE LAWN dimensions are specified in the Street Type
Specifications and in Part 5. Urban Space Standards.
Ultimate Building Height. A height limit for structures in the Gateway District, measured from the
average fronting sidewalk elevation to the top of the FAÇADE wall plate.
Urban General Frontage Building. Building form and functions resulting from/as determined by the
Urban General BUILDING FORM STANDARD as indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
Urban Storefront Frontage Building. Building form and functions resulting from/as determined by
the Urban Storefront BUILDING FORM STANDARD as indicated on the REGULATING PLAN.
Use, Civic. For the purpose of this Code, CIVIC USES include: meeting halls; libraries; schools; police
and fire stations; post offices (retail operations only, no primary distribution facilities); places
of worship; museums; auditorium; arena; transit centers; community center; farmers market;
government functions open for the public; and, other similar community uses. Public
ownership alone does not constitute CIVIC USE.
Use, Commerce. For the purpose of this Code, COMMERCE USES shall be considered to encompass all
of the permitted and conditional uses included under the "commercial uses" category in Table
2.4 of Article II of the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, and all of the CIVIC USES
defined above, except transit centers.
Use, Residential. RESIDENTIAL USES shall be considered to encompass all of the uses listed in Section
803.A of this Code.
Use, Retail. Includes the following:
Retail Service. Establishments providing services, as opposed to products, to the general
public, including restaurants, hotels and motels, finance, real estate and insurance, travel
agencies, health and educational services, and galleries; as well as personal services as
defined in the Regulations.
Retail Sales. Establishments wherein the primary use is the sale of merchandise for use or
consumption by the immediate purchaser.
Appendix B
Gateway Districts FBC 87
this page intentionally blank