HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Special Meeting Tuesday, November 2, 2021
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Room 301
6:00 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 Room 301, 180 Market Street
Interactive Online (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc2021-11-02
Telephone (audio only): (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 605-130-829
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (6:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (6:05 pm)
4. * Commission review of feedback, possible changes to draft, and possible action to approve and submit
the draft Amendments to Land Development Regulation and Planning Commission Report (as amended)
to City Council (6:10 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. Other Business
6. 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”.
South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Special Meeting Thursday, November 4, 2021
*If needed*
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/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc2021-11-04
Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3122; Access Code: 247-584-093
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. * Continued Commission review of feedback, possible changes to draft, and possible action to approve
and submit the draft Amendments to Land Development Regulation and Planning Commission Report (as
amended) to City Council (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. Other Business
6. 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”.
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: November 2 [and 4 if needed] Planning Commission meetings
DATE: October 29, 2021
Enclosed with your packet are all of the written comments received for your public hearing last week on
the draft Land Development Regulations.
The draft regulations, as warned for the public hearing, can be found online here:
https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/planning_and_zoning/land_development_regulation_upd
ates.php
The written comments are enclosed and posted online. There is a table of contents to help guide you. They
are also posted online here:
https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/Planning/LDR%20Amendments/2021-10%20Full/A-
Support%20Docs/Combined%20Comments%20all_R1.pdf
We have included all comments received through Tuesday evening, the night of the hearing. Any comments
provided after that time will be shared with you as well, as a separate document or documents.
A reminder that the meeting on Tuesday, November 2nd will begin at 6 pm, in Room 301 of City Hall.
Thursday’s meeting, if necessary, will begin at 7 pm in the Auditorium. Both meetings will also be hosted via
GoToMeeting.
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101
www.sburl.com
Public Comments Received by the Planning Commission
October 18, 2021-October 26, 2021
COMMENT AUTHOR PAGE
Donna Leban……………………… 3
Natural Resources &
Conservation Committee ….. 5
Donna Leban …………………….. 7
Andrew Chalnick ………………. 10
Chris Shaw ………………………… 18
Affordable Housing
Committee…………………………. 20
John Bossange …………………… 24
Andrew Chalnick ……………….. 27
Betty Ellis ………………………….. 29
Sally Howe ………………………… 31
Jeffrey Pascoe …………………… 32
Peter Plumeau ………………….. 33
South Burlington Land Trust.. 35
Therese Donovan……………….. 38
Sandy Dooley …………………….. 40
Louise Hammond ………………. 43
Julie Cadwallader Staub …….. 45
Jackie Weinstock ……………….. 47
David Weissgold ………………… 49
Joanne & Edmund Necrason.. 51
Krista & Andy Corran …………. 53
Nancy Hellen ……………………… 54
Tonia Karnedy ……………………. 56
Loretta Marriott ………………… 58
Tracy Perrapato ………………… 60
Gerry Silverstein ……………….. 62
VHFA ………………………………… 64
Mahmoud Arani ……………….. 66
Page 1
Table of Contents cont.
2
COMMENT AUTHOR PAGE
Ethan Bellavance ……………….. 68
Vincent Bolduc …………………… 70
John Dinklage …………………….. 78
Susan Hartman ………………….. 79
Katie Langrock……………………. 81
O’Brien Brothers ………………… 83
Ann Pugh ……………………………. 87
Cindy Reid/Cathedral
Square………………………………... 89
Douglas Smith …………………….91
Nancy Tracy ………………………. 93
Lynn Vera …………………………. 94
Tom Bailey ……………………….. 96
John Burton ………………………. 102
Peter Jones ………………………. 104
Lynne Poteau ……………………. 106
Karen Ryder ………………………. 108
Penne Tompkins ……………….. 110
Ric Dahlstrom ……………………. 112
Rosanne Greco…………………… 113
Page 2
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.
Page 3
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 privacyMicrosoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Page 4
1
Betsy Brown
From:Paul Conner
Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:16 AM
To:planning
Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Statement from the NRCC for the public hearing of the Environmental
Protection Standard & Conservation PUD Draft
Paul Conner, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in
matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as
public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in
error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Ashley Parker <aparker@sburl.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:13 PM
To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Cc: Jean-Sebastien Chaulot <chaulot@gmail.com>; Larry Kupferman <47central@comcast.net>
Subject: FW: EXTERNAL: Statement from the NRCC for the public hearing of the Environmental Protection Standard &
Conservation PUD Draft
Hi Paul,
Please see the note from Jean below. He asked that I share it with you.
Thanks,
Ashley
Page 5
2
Ashley Parker
City Project Manager
t 802-846-4146
f 802-846-4101
aparker@southburlingtonvt.gov
www.sburl.com
180 Market Street I South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Jean-Sebastien Chaulot <chaulot@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 10:57 AM
To: Ashley Parker <aparker@sburl.com>; LARRY KUPFERMAN <47central@comcast.net>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Statement from the NRCC for the public hearing of the Environmental Protection Standard &
Conservation PUD Draft
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good morning Ashley and Larry,
This is our letter for Paul Conner with our recommendations for the conservation PUD.
1. Process: Include NRCC in DRB Conservation PUD exception review (section 12.01.D).
2. Technical review: assess the effects of the exemptions to the conservation PUD. A technical review should be
undertaken if there are incursions into the conservation area allowed by the exceptions. The technical review
will determine the impact of such incursions. The vendor performing the technical review will be selected by
the city and remunerated by the developer (section 12.04.J).
3. Environmental restoration: projects that maintain wetlands and streams should be included and authorized.
4. Environmental reclamation: removal of unused structures and cleaning of contaminated areas is strongly
encouraged for all development projects. This would exclude historic structures and historical landscape
features.
Thank you,
Jean Sebastien Chaulot
Page 6
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.
Page 7
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
Page 8
3
--
Light/Space/Design 7 Iris Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 802-862-1901 www.lightspacedesign.biz
Page 9
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.”
Page 10
With the 9500 existing homes, commercial and municipal infrastructure, around 75 percent of
the agricultural soils that at one time existed in South Burlin gton 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:
x Eliminate the minimum density requirement for Conservation PUDs
x Revert to habitat block mappings identified by Arrowwood for 2 critical areas
x Do not prohibit landowners from conserving portions of their land
x Require a Conservation PUD along with re-zoning of the Hill Farm
x 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
Page 11
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:
x 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
x 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.
Page 12
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.”
Page 13
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:
Page 14
(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.
Page 15
Attachment A - Homes in the Pipeline
Page 16
Attachment B – Habitat Block Revisions
Page 17
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
Page 18
2
Page 19
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHH
'DWH 2FWREHU
7R -HVVLFD/RXLV&KDLU3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
)URP &KULV7URPEO\&KDLU$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
&& 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHH&LW\&RXQFLO-HVVLH%DNHU3DXO
&RQQHU
5( 5(62/87,215(*$5',1*7+(,03$&72)7+(352326('/$1'
'(9(/230(175(*8/$7,21621+286,1*$))25'$%,/,7<
&RPPLWWHH0HPEHUV DOOWHQSUHVHQWDWWKH2FWREHUPHHWLQJ QLQHYRWLQJDQGRQHDEVWHQWLRQ
-DQHW%HOODYDQFH /HVOLH%ODFN3OXPHDX 9LQFH%ROGXF 6DQG\'RROH\9LFH&KDLU $ULHO-HQVHQ9DUJDV
3DWULFN2
%ULHQ 'DUULO\Q3HWHUV 0LQHOOH6DUIR$GX -RKQ6LPVRQ &KULV7URPEO\&KDLU
7KHDWWDFKHGUHVROXWLRQFRQVWLWXWHVWKH$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHH¶VFRPPHQWVRQWKHSURSRVHG/DQG
'HYHORSPHQW5HJXODWLRQVWKDWDUHWKHVXEMHFWRIWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSXEOLFKHDULQJRQ2FWREHU
&KDLU¶V&RPPHQWV 6HHNLQJWRPDNHDPHDVXUHRISURJUHVVLQDGGUHVVLQJWKHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJFULVLV
UHTXLUHVDYHU\ODUJHWRROER[:HQHHGWRDVVHPEOHORWVRIWRROVDQGSXWWKHPDOOWRZRUNHYHQLIDVLQJOH
WRROE\LWVHOIGRHVQRWPDNHDELJGHQWLQWKHSUREOHP
2QHRIWKHVHWRROVLVLQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQV:HDSSODXGDQGDSSUHFLDWHWKH3ODQQLQJ
&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSURSRVHGH[SDQVLRQRIWKH&LW\¶VLQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQVWRWKHHQWLUH&LW\$
PDMRUIHDWXUHRILQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJLVWKDWWKHVHKRXVLQJXQLWVDUHSHUSHWXDOO\DIIRUGDEOH,QFOXVLRQDU\
]RQLQJDOVRSURPRWHVRWKHULPSRUWDQWJRDOVVXFKDVHTXLW\DQGGLYHUVLW\
$QRWKHUWRROLVKLJKHUGHQVLW\GHYHORSPHQW+LJKHUGHQVLW\W\SLFDOO\DOORZVGHYHORSHUVWREXLOGKRXVLQJ
DWDORZHUSHUXQLWFRVW7KXVZHDSSODXGDQGDSSUHFLDWHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VLQFRUSRUDWLRQRID
PLQLPXP5 IRXUXQLWVSHUDFUH GHQVLW\UHTXLUHPHQWLQWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVIRU7UDGLWLRQDO1HLJKERUKRRG
'HYHORSPHQW3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWVDQGWKHGHYHORSDEOHDUHDLQD&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG8QLW
'HYHORSPHQW
$QRWKHUEDUULHUWRPRUHDIIRUGDEO\SULFHGKRXVLQJLVWKHKLJKFRVWRIODQG$VGUDIWHUVRIRXUODQG
GHYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVZHDVNWKDW\RXUHPRYHWKHSURSRVHGUXOHVWKDWUHTXLUH&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG
8QLW'HYHORSPHQWVLQPRVWSDUWVRIWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW 6(4 IRUGHYHORSPHQWVRIIRXURUPRUH
DFUHVDQGWKHSURSRVHGVLJQLILFDQWDGGLWLRQWRWKHDFUHDJH]RQHG6(41DWXUDO5HVRXUFH3URWHFWLRQ7KHVH
SURSRVHGFKDQJHVUHGXFHWKHDPRXQWRIODQGDYDLODEOHIRUGHYHORSPHQWSXWWLQJXSZDUGSUHVVXUHRQWKH
SULFHRIWKHUHPDLQLQJODQG0RUHRYHUOHVVGHYHORSDEOHODQGPHDQVIHZHUKRXVLQJXQLWVZLOOEHEXLOW
WKXVIRUFLQJPRUHKRXVHKROGVWROLYHEH\RQG6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQIDUWKHUIURPWKHLUMREVLQFUHDVLQJWKHLU
FRPPXWLQJWLPHDQGXQQHFHVVDULO\DGGLQJWRWKHUHJLRQ¶VJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQV
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXURQJRLQJVHUYLFHWRRXUFRPPXQLW\
$WWDFKPHQW
6R%X$+&,=5HVROXWLRQSGI
Page 20
$))25'$%/(+286,1*&200,77((1
&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*7212
3
5(62/87,215(*$5',1*7+(,03$&72)7+(352326('/$1'4
'(9(/230(175(*8/$7,21621+286,1*$))25'$%,/,7<5
6
:KHUHDVWKH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQYLVLRQFDOOVIRUWKH&LW\WREH7
DIIRUGDEOHZLWKKRXVLQJIRUSHRSOHRIDOOLQFRPHVOLIHVW\OHVDQGVWDJHVRIOLIH 8
9
:KHUHDVFRPSDUHGWR97¶VRWKHUFRUHWRZQVRI%XUOLQJWRQDQG:LQRRVNL6RXWK10
%XUOLQJWRQKDVWKHKLJKHVWPHGLDQKRXVHKROGLQFRPH DQGKRPHRZQHUVKLSUDWH 11
,QDGGLWLRQLWKDVWKHORZHVWQXPEHU DQGSHUFHQWDJH RI%ODFN$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ12
UHVLGHQWV7KRXJK6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ¶VSRSXODWLRQLVWLPHVJUHDWHUWKDQWKDWRI:LQRRVNL13
:LQRRVNL¶VSRSXODWLRQLQFOXGHV%ODFN$IULFDQ$PHULFDQUHVLGHQWVZKLOH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ¶V14
LQFOXGHV 6RXUFHV 9HUPRQW+RXVLQJ'DWDZHEVLWHDQG&HQVXV 15
16
:KHUHDVZKLOHWKHYDFDQF\UDWHZLGHO\FRQVLGHUHGQHFHVVDU\IRUDKHDOWK\UHQWDOPDUNHW17
LV&KLWWHQGHQ&RXQW\¶VFXUUHQWUHQWDOYDFDQF\UDWHLV WKXVUHVXOWLQJLQVLJQLILFDQW18
XSZDUGSUHVVXUHRQUHQWDOFRVWV 6RXUFH &&53&%XLOGLQJ+RPHV7RJHWKHU %\DOOPHDVXUHV19
WKHQDWLRQDQGWKHUHJLRQDUHLQWKHPLGVWRIDKRXVLQJFULVLVIRUERWKUHQWHUVDQGKRPHEX\HUVDV20
ZHOODVZHDOWKLQHTXDOLW\QRWVHHQLQGHFDGHV 6RXUFH 3(:5HVHDUFK&HQWHU 21
22
:KHUHDVWKH*UDQG/LVWDVVHVVHGYDOXHLQFUHDVHGDQDYHUDJH SHUFHQWIRUUHVLGHQWLDO23
SURSHUWLHVIURPWR 24
25
:KHUHDVWKH&LW\RI6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQLVORFDWHGZLWKLQILYHPLOHVRIWKH6WDWH¶VODUJHVW26
HPSOR\HUVDQGHIIHFWLYHFOLPDWHFKDQJHVWDQGDUGVGLFWDWHWKDWGHQVLW\VKRXOGEHKLJKHVWQHDUWKH27
FRUHFLW\RIDUHJLRQWROHVVHQYHKLFXODUHPLVVLRQVEHWZHHQZRUNDQGKRPH 28
29
:KHUHDVLQIUDVWUXFWXUHVXFKDVZDWHUVHZHUDQGKHDWLQJIXHOQHFHVVDU\IRUUHVLGHQWLDO30
GHYHORSPHQWDWDORZHUFRVWLVDOUHDG\LQSODFHLQPXFKRIWKH&LW\¶V6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW &DVH31
IRU+RXVLQJDSSHQGL[ 32
33
:KHUHDVFDUVDQGWUXFNVDFFRXQWIRUWKHPDMRULW\RI9HUPRQW¶VJUHHQKRXVHJDV34
HPLVVLRQV²DERXWDFFRUGLQJWRWKH9HUPRQW'HSDUWPHQWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ 35
6RXUFH 97'HSWRI(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ³9HUPRQW*UHHQKRXVH*DV(PLVVLRQV36
,QYHQWRU\ ´ 37
38
:KHUHDVKRXVHKROGVVKRXOGVSHQGQRPRUHWKDQRIWKHLULQFRPHRQFRPELQHG39
KRXVLQJDQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQFRVWV 6RXUFH &HQWHUIRU1HLJKERUKRRG7HFKQRORJ\ 40
:KHUHDVH[SHUWVKDYHOLQNHG)UDQNOLQDQG*UDQG,VOHFRXQWLHV¶SRSXODWLRQJURZWK41
DERXWRYHUWKHSDVWGHFDGH WRVSUDZOIURP&KLWWHQGHQ&RXQW\²ZKLFKJUHZ²DV42
SHRSOHRSWIRUORQJHUFRPPXWHVLQH[FKDQJHIRUPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ &HQVXVDQG43
&HQVXV 44
45
Page 21
:KHUHDVWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOSURWHFWLRQVWDQGDUGVSURSRVHGLQ$UWLFOHDUHEDVHGRQ46
SURIHVVLRQDOVFLHQWLILFUHYLHZDQGZLOOLQFUHDVHWKHSRUWLRQRI6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQODQGUHPRYHG47
IURPSRWHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWIURPWRDFURVVWKHHQWLUH&LW\DQGIURPWRLQWKH48
6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW DQGGRXEOHWKHZHWODQGVEXIIHUIURP¶WR¶LQUHVLGHQWLDODQG49
PXQLFLSDOGLVWULFWVWKH\KDYHJDLQHGWKLVFRPPLWWHH¶VVXSSRUW 50
51
:KHUHDVWKHSURSRVHGUHJXODWLRQVIRU6(46XE'LVWULFWV6(4156(4157DQG52
6(4151UHTXLUHWKDWDOODSSOLFDWLRQVLQYROYLQJIRXU RUPRUHDFUHVRIODQGEHGHYHORSHGDVD53
&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWDQGWKLVUHTXLUHPHQWGRHVQRWDSSO\HOVHZKHUHLQWKH54
&LW\ 55
56
:KHUHDVLQDOORWKHU]RQLQJGLVWULFWVLQVLWXDWLRQVLQZKLFKD3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQW57
LVUHTXLUHGGHYHORSPHQWDVD&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWLVHOHFWLYHDVORQJDVDW58
OHDVWSHUFHQWRIWKHSDUFHODUHD OHVVKD]DUGV FRPSULVHVOHYHOUHVRXUFHVDVGHILQHGLQ$UWLFOH59
60
61
:KHUHDVGHQVLW\OHVVWKDQWKUHHWRIRXUXQLWVSHUDFUHRIWHQUHVXOWVLQVXEXUEDQVSUDZO62
GHYHORSPHQWVZLWKDGHQVLW\RIIRXURUPRUHXQLWVSHUDFUHVXSSRUWKHDOWK\FRPPXQLWLHVEHFDXVH63
WKHVHGHQVLW\OHYHOVVXSSRUWWUDGLWLRQDOQHLJKERUKRRGGHYHORSPHQWZLWKPXOWLSOHKRXVLQJW\SHV64
WKDWSURYLGHRSSRUWXQLWLHVWREXLOGDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ 6RXUFH 9HUPRQW3ODQQLQJ65
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ0DQXDO 66
67
:KHUHDVWKH³&DVHIRU+RXVLQJ5HSRUW´SUHSDUHGIRUWKH$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ68
&RPPLWWHHDQGVKDUHGZLWKWKH&LW\&RXQFLOQRWHVWKDWPRVWRIWKHODUJHORWSDUFHOVUHPDLQLQJLQ69
WKHFLW\DUHDOUHDG\SURWHFWHGIURPIXUWKHUGHYHORSPHQWE\VXFKPHDQVDV]RQLQJUHVWULFWLRQV 70
&LW\SDUNV&LW\DFTXLUHGFRQVHUYDWLRQSDUFHOVQDWXUDOKD]DUGVDQGRWKHUIRUPVRISURWHFWLRQDQG71
LGHQWLILHGRQO\SDUFHOVLQWKH&LW\FRQWDLQLQJILYHRUPRUHDFUHVDQGEHLQJVXLWDEOHDQG]RQHG72
IRUUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW 73
74
:KHUHDVWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJHWRWKH&LW\¶VODQGGHYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVWRH[SDQG75
LQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJFLW\ZLGHPHULWVVWURQJVXSSRUWEHFDXVHLWLVDFKDQJHWKDWZLOOSURGXFHD76
PRGHVWEXWVLJQLILFDQWLQFUHDVHLQWKHVXSSO\RISHUSHWXDOO\DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJZKHQ77
GHYHORSPHQWVLQFOXGLQJRUPRUHGZHOOLQJXQLWVDUHEXLOW 78
79
7KHUHIRUHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKLWVRSSRVLWLRQWRLQHTXLWDEOHDQGH[FOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJ80
UHJXODWLRQVDQGVXSSRUWIRU]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQVWKDWZLOOJLYHSURSHUW\RZQHUVWKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\81
FRPSDUDEOHRSWLRQVLQGHYHORSLQJODQG]RQHGIRUGHYHORSPHQWDQGUHGXFHH[LVWLQJDQGJURZLQJ82
KRXVHKROGLQFRPHLQHTXDOLW\DPRQJ&LW\QHLJKERUKRRGVEHLWUHVROYHGWKDWWKH$IIRUGDEOH83
+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHHUHTXHVWVWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQWRPRGLI\WKHSURSRVHGUHJXODWLRQVDV84
IROORZV 85
86
$OORZRZQHUVRISURSHUW\ORFDWHGLQWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQWWKHFKRLFHRI3ODQQHG87
8QLW'HYHORSPHQWRSWLRQVIRUGHYHORSLQJWKHLUODQGWKDWZRXOGDSSO\LIWKHVDPHODQG88
ZHUHORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW89
90
&RQVLGHUUHJXODWRU\LQFHQWLYHVIRUWKHXVHRIWKH7UDGLWLRQDO1HLJKERUKRRG91
'HYHORSPHQW3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWRSWLRQLQDOOVLWXDWLRQVLQZKLFKIRXURU92
PRUHDFUHVRIWKHSDUFHOWREHGHYHORSHGDUHHOLJLEOHIRUUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW93
94
Page 22
$OORZWKHSURSRUWLRQRID&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG8QLW'HYHORSPHQWWKDWLVWREH95
FRQVHUYHGWRUDQJHIURPSHUFHQWWRSHUFHQWWRHQDEOHWKHSURSHUW\RZQHUWRWDNH96
IXOODGYDQWDJHRIWKHGHQVLW\PD[LPXPSHUPLWWHGXQGHUWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG97
8QLW'HYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQV98
99
5HPRYHWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJHLQ]RQLQJIURP6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW1HLJKERUKRRG100
5HVLGHQWLDODQG6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQW1HLJKERUKRRG5HVLGHQWLDO7UDQVLWLRQWR1DWXUDO101
5HVRXUFH3URWHFWLRQIRUSDUFHOVVRXWKRI1RZODQG)DUP5RDGDQGZHVWRI'RUVHW102
6WUHHWLQWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQWEHFDXVHWKLVSURSRVHGFKDQJHLVQRWVXSSRUWHGE\103
VFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQ,QDGGLWLRQE\DGGLQJDVLJQLILFDQWQXPEHU104
RI7UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW5LJKWV 7'5 WRWKH7'5LQYHQWRU\WKLVSURSRVHG105
FKDQJHH[DFHUEDWHVWKHFXUUHQWVLWXDWLRQLQZKLFKIHZ7'5VDUHEHLQJSXUFKDVHG106
7KLVSURSRVHGFKDQJHZRXOGDOVRPLQLPL]HGHYHORSPHQWRSWLRQVIRUWKHRZQHUVRI107
WKHVHSDUFHOVZKHQVXFKUHVWULFWLRQVDUHQRWEHLQJDSSOLHGWRRZQHUVRIFRPSDUDEOH108
SDUFHOVLQWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQWDQGHOVHZKHUHLQWKH&LW\109
110
&KDQJHWKHSHUPDQHQWFRQVHUYDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWLQWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQ3ODQQHG8QLW111
'HYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVWRDUHTXLUHPHQWIRUDFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWWKDWPD\EH112
PRGLILHGDWWZHQW\ILYH\HDULQWHUYDOVIURPWKHHIIHFWLYHGDWHRIWKHVHUHJXODWLRQV113
DQGRQO\DWWKHUHTXHVWRIWKHSURSHUW\RZQHUDQGZLWKWKHDSSURYDORIWKH114
'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ%RDUGRQWKHEDVLVRIODQGGHYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVWKDWVSHFLI\115
WKHFULWHULDIRUWHUPLQDWLRQRUPRGLILFDWLRQRIVXFKHDVHPHQW116
117
$SSURYHGRQWKLVGD\RI2FWREHU118
119
&KULV7URPEO\&KDLU <HDKV&KULV7URPEO\ 1D\ $EVWDLQ120
121
6DQG\'RROH\9LFH&KDLU <HDKV6DQG\'RROH\ 1D\ $EVWDLQ122
123
-DQHW%HOODYDQFH <HDK 1D\V-DQHW%HOODYDQFH$EVWDLQ124
125
/HVOLH%ODFN3OXPHDX <HDKV/HVOLH%ODFN3OXPHDX1D\ $EVWDLQ126
127
9LQFH%ROGXF <HDKV9LQFH%ROGXF 1D\ $EVWDLQ128
129
$ULHO-HQVHQ9DUJDV <HDKV$ULHO-HQVHQ9DUJDV1D\ $EVWDLQ130
131
3DWULFN2¶%ULHQ <HDKV3DWULFN2¶%ULHQ 1D\ $EVWDLQ132
133
'DUULO\Q3HWHUV <HDK 1D\V'DUULO\Q3HWHUV$EVWDLQ134
135
0LQHOOH6DUIR$GR <HDK 1D\ $EVWDLQV0LQHOOH6DUIR$GR136
137
-RKQ6LPVRQ <HDKV-RKQ6LPVRQ 1D\ $EVWDLQ138
139
140
Page 23
ǣ
ǣ
ǣ ʹʹǡʹͲʹͳ
ǣ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǤ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
ȋ ȌǤ
ǡ
Ǥ ȋǡ
ǡ
ǡ ǡǯȌǡ
ǡǡ ǡǦǦ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ ǡǡ
Ǥ
Page 24
ǡ
ǤǤ
ͷǡͲͲͲǤǡǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ
ǡǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ͺͺ͵ǡͶǡ͵
̈́͵ͲͲǡͲͲͲǤͶΨ
Dzǡdz
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡǤ
ǡͳ͵Ψǡʹ͵Ψ
ǯǤ ǡʹΨ
ǯ͵͵Ψǡ
ͳʹΨͳͻΨ
Ǥ Ǥ ǡ
ȋʹ͵ΨȌ
ȋͳͻΨȌǤ
ǫ
ǡ
Ǥǯ
Ǥ ǯ
ǡ ͶͷΨ
Ǥǡ ǫ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Dz
ǡdz
Ǥ Ǥ
ǡ ǯ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
Page 25
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ʹͲͳͲʹͲʹͲǡ ͳ͵ΨͳǡͻͲͶʹͲǡʹͻʹǡ
ͺ͵Ψǡ͵Ͷͺ͵ͻǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǫ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǦ
ǡ
Ǥ Ǥ ǯʹͲʹͳǡ
Ǥ ǯǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Page 26
1
Betsy Brown
From:achalnick@gmail.com
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 5:39 PM
To:planning
Cc:Jessica Louisos; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: RE: Comments on proposed LDR amendments
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
I have already sent in a comment letter on the LDRs but have two additional, more technical, comments.
1. The LDRS should allow more flexibility as to how land is to be conserved in connection with Conservation PUDs,
consistent with how TDR conservation is described. Suggested revision below:
15.c.05 (E)(1)(d): The Conservation Area(s) must be identified on the PUD Master Plan, and shown and noted as
a “Conservation Lot” on preliminary and final subdivision plats, and in associated deeds and association
agreements, as undivided, permanently protected Open Space to be managed and maintained in single or
common ownership under an Open Space Plan approved by the DRB. Options to ensure permanent protection
and sustainable long-term management of conserved resources include:
(i) A conservation easement that prohibits future subdivision and development, and defines the range of
permitted activities, to be held by the City or a qualified nonprofit organization acceptable to the DRB and
City Attorney, such as a land trust or conservancy; or
(ii) Dedication of land in fee simple to the City, or a qualified nonprofit conservation organization acceptable
to the DRB and City Attorney; or
(iii) such other plan that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and
development in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
2. 15.C.05 (F)(4)(a) seems drafted in a way that is unreasonably difficult for a landowner to satisfy. Also, the
possibility of having well water or septic provide should not be a reason to require minimum density. Please see
suggested revision below:
“The Development Review Board may grant a reduction or waiver of this minimum where an applicant
demonstrates that the Development Area has a lack of available public infrastructure directly adjacent to in the
vicinity of the Development Area and physical site constraints precluding on-site infrastructure which together
make the Development Area not capable of achieving the minimum required density.”
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Chalnick
Page 27
2
From: achalnick@gmail.com <achalnick@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 8:34 PM
To: planning@sburl.com
Cc: jlouisos@sburl.com; 'Paul Conner' <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: Comments on proposed LDR amendments
Please see attached my comments on the proposed amendments to the City’s land development regulations.
Thank you,
Andrew Chalnick
670 Nowland Farm Rd
973 919 2163
Page 28
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 6:53 PM
To:Betty Ellis
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Concerns Regarding Proposed Land Development Regulations
Thank you for the input Betty.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Betty Ellis <bellis4666@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 11:01 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Concerns Regarding Proposed Land Development 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.
Please share my following concerns with all members of your Commission:
I have scoped out the area around the town center--where there is already cluster housing, city offices, library and
senior center.--the town center everyone wanted. It appears there might be more undeveloped areas for housing in this
area even if it means buying some land for this purpose (another good reason to pass the proposed 4% increase in taxes
for land purchase). A great place for developing more cluster housing and more public facilities such as grocery stores,
hardware stores, all within walking distance. So I can't understand the constant push by the Planning Commission to
disrupt the Southeast Quadrant for housing. I remember being at meetings years ago when the regulation was that
nothing would ever be built in this area, a habitat conducive to varied wildlife. It also includes the Great Swamp Habitat
that was declared an important critical habitat for South Burlington by Arrowood--a company hired by So. Burlington to
research and offer suggestions on how to keep natural the few remaining critical areas in South Burlington.
A wake up call was that a huge natural habitat that included Muddy Brook was lost to at least 12 species of wildlife that
used the area until the Duppstedt development of 64 houses was allowed on Van Sicklen Road--more development,
but with no regard for wildlife in the area.
I understand that Arrowood has recommended less building in buffer areas around habitat blocks in the SE Quadrant. So
just because a developer wants to build, does it mean a permit should automatically be granted, especially if the
consequences affect all who live in South Burlington? There are health benefits all residents can glean from natural
areas. From carbon elimination being pulled from the air from by a copse of trees; to having places to connect with
nature for mental health--walking to relieve stress, to observe wildlife and wild places like swamps, brooks, etc.
Speaking of mental health, another example is how stressful it is for many birders who realize the tens of thousands of
birds which have vanished because of habitat loss. We run the risk of losing even more.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters,
Page 29
2
Sincerely,
Betty Ellis
Page 30
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 7:34 PM
To:Sally Howe
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Land Development Regulations
Thank you for the input.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Oct 22, 2021, at 7:43 PM, Sally Howe <sallyhowe72@gmail.com> wrote:
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello. I write to comment on some provisions of the proposed Land Development Regulations to be acted on
by the S. Burlington Planning Commission.
I am concerned that the proposed regulations seem to weaken protections for open space and wildlife
corridors, and cater to the desires of developers. Requiring more dense development in the SEQ makes no
sense at all, unless you stand to profit from development. Weakening protections for wildlife corridors, by
eliminating or reducing buffer zones around developments, and by building on previously protected open
space, makes it even more difficult to maintain our open spaces and protect our wildlife. This provision directly
contradicts the recommendation of the firm hired to evaluate our city's open space needs.Why is the request of
a property owner and a developer being honored in this manner?
Of course, our vanishing wildlife cannot request protection, so we must act for it. We must also remember that
as we see the acceleration of the devastat ing effects of climate change, we are obligated to take action, even on a
local level. Every action taken to enable the land to absorb rainfall and prevent further heating up of the
atmosphere from increased pavement, housing, and construction activity, will contribute to the overall effort
that must be made to keep climate change from accelerating to a point of no return.
Sally Howe
12 Woodbine St.
--
Sally Howe
Page 31
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 7:36 PM
To:Jeffrey Pascoe
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Sandy's Letter
Thanks for the input.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Oct 22, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Jeffrey Pascoe <jeffreypascoevt@gmail.com> wrote:
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 Jessica,
Sandy Dooley has used the Front Porch Forum to ask people to write to you in support of the ideas in her letter in the
Other Paper.
I want to go on record as opposing the ideas she described. Of course I support opportunity, equity, diversity &
inclusion, but in my view, zoning in South Burlington has very little or nothing to do with these goals. Further, the
solutions she envisions will greatly complicate the work of the Planning Commission.
In my view, the ideas Sandy describes are only relevant in large cities, and even then, can be more easily and equitably
addressed with charter schools, school choice, and improved transportation infrastructure.
Thanks for the hard work the Commission is putting into planning for the future of our city.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Pascoe
62 East Terrace
Page 32
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Sunday, October 24, 2021 6:51 PM
To:Peter Plumeau
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Please support the SB Affordable Housing Committee’s
recommendations
Thank you for your input Peter.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Peter Plumeau <peplumeau@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 11:34 AM
To: Jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Please support the SB Affordable Housing Committee’s recommendations
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 Jessica,
As a long-time resident of the SEQ, former Executive Director of the Chittenden County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (now part of the CCRPC), and former member of the
SB DRB, I am asking you to support the recent recommendations made by the South
Burlington Affordable Housing Committee to help ensure our city is part of the solution
to the region's affordable housing crisis rather than adding to the problem.
As our city and region grows and becomes more diverse, it is critical for our collective
economic future, environmental quality, and quality of life that everyone has access to
jobs and economic opportunities. In my current job with EBP, a global leader in planning
and analysis to support sustainable development, we have found time and again that
adding affordable housing near employment centers helps ensure that as many people
as possible can minimize their driving. In Vermont, where vehicle travel is the biggest
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (above the national state average), reducing
people's need to drive can make a real difference in combating climate change (as well
as our region's growing traffic congestion). Making it more difficult to dev elop housing in
SB will only push our region's inevitable land development farther out, thus creating
more roadway traffic and longer commutes, actually making climate change impacts
worse.
Page 33
2
I hope you will join me in supporting sensible policy actions for SB and our region by
supporting the Affordable Housing Committee's recommendations. Thank you for your
consideration.
Kind regards,
Peter
--
Peter Plumeau
33 Knoll Circle
South Burlington VT 05403
802.238.2680 c
peplumeau@gmail.com
Page 34
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ/DQG7UXVW
GHGLFDWHGWRSUHVHUYLQJ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ¶VIRUHVWVZHWODQGVIDUPODQGVDQG
RWKHUQDWXUDODUHDVWKURXJKODQGRZQHUSUHVHUYDWLRQDJUHHPHQWVDQGRWKHU
FRQVHUYDWLRQYHKLFOHVWRPDLQWDLQFLW\UHVLGHQWV¶KLJKTXDOLW\RIOLIH
'HDU-HVVLFDDQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQHUV
7KH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ/DQG7UXVWKDVFDUHIXOO\IROORZHGWKHSURJUHVVRI
WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDV\RXKDYHZRUNHGWKURXJKGUDIWVRIWKHQHZ
/DQG'HYHORSPHQW5HJXODWLRQV:HDSSODXGWKHPDQ\KRXUVRIKDUG
ZRUNDQGWKRXJKWIXOGHEDWHRYHUFULWLFDOLVVXHVLQRUGHUWRFUHDWHWKHVH
QHZUHJXODWLRQV:HWKDQN\RXIRUDOORI\RXUHIIRUWV
2YHUWKHSDVWWKUHH\HDUVWKH&LW\FRQGXFWHGPXOWLSOHVWXGLHV 2SHQ
6SDFH&RPPLWWHH7'5&RPPLWWHH DQGKLUHGHQYLURQPHQWDOH[SHUWV (DUWK(FRQRPLFV
$UURZZRRG(QYLURQPHQWDO WRLGHQWLI\DQGDVVHVVWKHPRVWYDOXDEOHDUHDVRIRSHQODQG
WRSUHVHUYH6SHFLILFDOO\WKH\ZHUHORRNLQJIRUQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDQGZLOGOLIHKDELWDWV
6RPHRIWKHQHZO\GUDIWHGUHJXODWLRQVDUHLQWHQGHGWRSURWHFWWKHVHODQGVWKHQDWXUDO
UHVRXUFHVWKH\FRQWDLQDQGZLOGOLIH
:KLOHWKHUHDUHQXPHURXVEHQHILFLDOSURYLVLRQVLQWKHGUDIWUHJXODWLRQVZHZRXOGOLNHWR
FRPPHQWRQVRPHDUHDVRIFRQFHUQ
7KHGUDIW/'5VGRQRWSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWEXIIHUVDURXQGWKHKDELWDWEORFNV
LGHQWLILHGE\$UURZZRRG(QYLURQPHQWDO$UURZZRRGZDVFRPPLVVLRQHGE\
WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQWRFRQGXFWDQDQDO\VLVRIWKHIRUHVWEORFNVLQWKH&LW\
$UURZZRRGLGHQWLILHGWKHIRUHVWHGKDELWDWEORFNVEXWFDXWLRQHGWKDWIRUWKHVH
KDELWDWVWRWKULYHWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHDVDOVRQHHGWREHFRQVHUYHG7KH\QRWHG
WKDWWKHVXUURXQGLQJKDELWDWVIXQFWLRQDVDEXIIHURUSDGGLQJIURPKXPDQ
GLVWXUEDQFHDQGSURYLGHDQDUHDIRUZLOGOLIHWRIXOILOOWKHLUUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUIRRG
FRYHUVSDFHDQGZDWHU,Q6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQVXSSRUWLQJKDELWDWVDUHQRWDEOHIRU
WKHLUDELOLW\WRIXQFWLRQDVKDELWDWIRUSUH\EDVHGVSHFLHV5DEELWVURGHQWVDQG
WXUNH\FRQWULEXWHWRWKHVXUYLYDORIZLGHUUDQJLQJZLOGOLIHRFFXS\LQJWKHKDELWDW
EORFNV$UURZZRRGUHFHQWO\IROORZHGXSZLWKDQRWKHUOHWWHUFRQFOXGLQJWKDW
³SURYLGLQJEXIIHUVWRKDELWDWEORFNVJRHVDORQJZD\WRZDUGVHQVXULQJWKHVXFFHVV
RIWKH+DELWDW%ORFNV´:HXUJHWKDWEXIIHUDUHDVEHLQFUHDVHGDURXQG$//
KDELWDWEORFNVLGHQWLILHGE\$UURZZRRG
$KDELWDWEORFNZDVUHPRYHGIURP6SHDU6WUHHWLQFRQWUDGLFWLRQ
WRZKDW$UURZZRRGUHFRPPHQGHG7KLVKDELWDWEORFNDQGVHFWLRQRIWKHIRUHVW
FRQQHFWVWRDQGLVSDUWRIWKH*UHDW6ZDPS$UURZZRRGDVVHVVHGWKLVDUHDWREH
SDUWRIWKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWKDELWDWEORFNLQWKH&LW\RI6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ:HXUJH
Page 35
WKDWWKLVKDELWDWEORFNEHUHLQVWDWHGDQGUHYHUWEDFNWR$UURZZRRG¶VRULJLQDO
PDSSLQJ
$KDELWDWEORFNRQWKH³+LOO)DUP´SURSHUW\ZDVUHPRYHGLQFRQWUDGLFWLRQWR
ZKDW$UURZZRRGUHFRPPHQGHG7KLVODQGLQDGGLWLRQWRSURYLGLQJZLOGOLIH
KDELWDWLVFRQWLJXRXVZLWK:KHHOHU1DWXUH3DUN([SHUWVKDYHDGYLVHGWKH&LW\
WKDWPDLQWDLQLQJWKHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQRSHQVSDFHVLVHVVHQWLDOIRUZLOGOLIH
VXUYLYDO:HXUJHWKDWWKLVKDELWDWEORFNEHUHLQVWDWHGDQGUHYHUWWR
$UURZZRRG¶VRULJLQDOPDSSLQJ
7KHGUDIW/'5VUH]RQHWKH³+LOO)DUP´WR51&*LYHQWKHZLOGOLIHKDELWDW
EORFNVQHDUWKLVSURSHUW\DQGLWVFRQQHFWLYLW\WRRWKHURSHQVSDFHVLWLVFULWLFDOLW
UHPDLQVDVRSHQDVSRVVLEOH:HRSSRVHWKHSURSRVHGUH]RQLQJRI7KH³+LOO
)DUP´SURSHUW\IURP,2WR51& :HUHFRPPHQGLWEHUH]RQHGWRDOORZLW
WREHD&RQVHUYDWLRQ38'
7KHGUDIW/'5VUHPRYHSURWHFWLRQRIJUDVVODQGVVKUXEODQGVIDUPODQGVDQG
SULPDU\DJULFXOWXUDOVRLOV,QWKHQHDUIXWXUHLWLVOLNHO\ZHZLOOQHHGIDUPODQGLQ
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQIRUIRRGVHFXULW\*UDVVODQGVDUHDVFULWLFDOO\LPSRUWDQWDV
IRUHVWVDQGZHWODQGVIRUZLOGOLIHVSHFLHVVXUYLYDO:HXUJHWKDWWKHSURWHFWLRQRI
JUDVVODQGVVKUXEODQGVIDUPODQGVDQGSULPDU\DJULFXOWXUDOVRLOVEH
UHLQVWDWHG
7KH/'5VLQFOXGHDPLQLPXPGHQVLW\IRU&RQVHUYDWLRQ38'VLQWKH6(4
7KLVLVQRWFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSURWHFWLRQRIQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVLQRXUUXUDODUHDV
:HXUJHWKDWWKLVPLQLPXPGHQVLW\UHTXLUHPHQWEHUHPRYHG
7KH/'5VFRQWLQXHWR³UHFRPPHQG´VRODUUHDG\URRIV,QDFOLPDWHFKDQJH
HQYLURQPHQWUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\LVHVVHQWLDOIRURXUVXUYLYDO:HXUJHWKDWWKH
/'5VPDQGDWHDOOURRIVRQQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQEHRULHQWHGIRURSWLPDOVRODU
H[SRVXUHDQGWKDWDOOQHZFRQVWUXFWLRQLQFRUSRUDWHVUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\
VRXUFHV
7KH/'5VFXUUHQWO\GRQRWSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWSURWHFWLRQIRUDOOWUHHV
ZRRGORWVDQGIRUHVWVDFURVVWKHFLW\7UHHVDUHDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFHWR
PLWLJDWHFOLPDWHFKDQJH7KH\ILOWHURXUDLUDQGZDWHUDQGSURYLGHQXWULHQWVWRRXU
VRLO7KH\DUHDFULWLFDOSLHFHRIZLOGOLIHKDELWDW:HXUJHWKH&LW\WRHQDFWD
0XQLFLSDO7UHH2UGLQDQFHWRSURKLELWWKHUHPRYDORIWUHHVZLWKRXWDSHUPLW
H[FHSWZKHUHWKH\SRVHDGDQJHUWROLIHDQGSURSHUW\RUDUHGLVHDVHG
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ/DQG7UXVW,QFLVD F QRQSURILWRUJDQL]DWLRQ
7D[,'&KHHVH)DFWRU\5G6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97
Page 36
7KH/'5VGRQRWLQFOXGHODQJXDJHLQFHQWLYL]LQJUHGHYHORSPHQWRIH[LVWLQJ
VLWHVRUEXLOGLQJVIRUUHVLGHQWLDORUFRPPHUFLDOSXUSRVHV5HGHYHORSPHQWLV
UHFRPPHQGHGDWWKH)HGHUDODQG6WDWHOHYHOIRUHFRQRPLFDQGHQYLURQPHQWDO
UHDVRQVEHFDXVHLWXVHVIHZHUIRVVLOIXHOVDQGSURGXFHVOHVVJUHHQKRXVHJDV
HPLVVLRQV,QFHQWLYL]LQJUHGHYHORSPHQWRIH[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJVLVDVRXQGUHVSRQVH
WRFOLPDWHFKDQJH,WDOVRVDYHVJUHHQVSDFHVDQGPRYHVXVWRZDUGDPRUH
VXVWDLQDEOH&LW\:HXUJHWKDWODQJXDJHLQFHQWLYL]LQJUHGHYHORSPHQWEH
DGGHGWRWKH/'5V
,QOLJKWRIWKHRYHUZKHOPLQJHYLGHQFHRISUHVHQWDQGLPSHQGLQJFOLPDWHFDWDVWURSKHVLW
LVLQFXPEHQWRQHYHU\FRPPXQLW\WRGRDOOWKH\FDQWRSURWHFWWKHODQGDQGUHVRXUFHVLQ
RXUFDUHDQGFRQWURO)XUWKHUPRUHWKH(DUWK(FRQRPLFV5HSRUWGHPRQVWUDWHGWKDW
SURWHFWLRQRIWKHVHUHVRXUFHVKDVDKXJHHFRQRPLFXSVLGHIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ )LIWHHQRI
WKHSDUFHOVWKDWZHUHHYDOXDWHGLQWKH(DUWK(FRQRPLFVUHSRUWDUHDOVRFRQWDLQHGLQWKH
KDELWDWEORFNVWKDWZHUHLGHQWLILHGE\WKH$UURZZRRG(QYLURQPHQWDOVWXG\7KHVHKDELWDW
EORFNVSURYLGHPLOOLRQSHU\HDULQHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHV7KHFULWLFDOHFRV\VWHP
VHUYLFHVWKDWWKHVHKDELWDWEORFNVSURYLGHXQGHUVFRUHWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIHQVXULQJWKDW
WKHVHKDELWDWEORFNVDUHFRQVHUYHGLQWKHUHYLVHG/'5V
7KHFLW\GRHVDQLQWHQVLYHUHYLHZRIWKH/'5
VRQO\RQFHHYHU\HLJKW\HDUV7KHUHIRUH
WKHWLPHLV12:WRSURWHFWRXUUHPDLQLQJQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHVDVWKHWLWOHRI&KDSWHU
SURPLVHV7KHUHDUHRWKHULVVXHVLQWKH/'5VWKDWZHKDYHQRWDGGUHVVHGLQWKLVOHWWHU
:HKDYHPHQWLRQHGRQO\WKHPRVWVLJQLILFDQWRQHV+RZHYHUWKHUHDUHH[DPSOHVDOO
RYHUWKH&LW\ZKHUHQDWXUDOVSDFHVFDQEHEHWWHUSURWHFWHG
&OLPDWHFKDQJHDQGWKHSDQGHPLFKDYHXSHQGHGDOOIDFHWVRIOLIHZRUNFRPPHUFH
UHFUHDWLRQWUDQVSRUWDWLRQHGXFDWLRQKRXVLQJDQGEXVLQHVV$VDIRUZDUGWKLQNLQJ
FRPPXQLW\ZHVKRXOGDGRSWGHYHORSPHQWUHJXODWLRQVZKLFKUHIOHFWDQGDQWLFLSDWHQHZ
UHDOLWLHVUDWKHUWKDQIROORZWKHROGRXWGDWHGSOD\ERRN:HEHOLHYHWKDWRXUVXJJHVWLRQV
FRXOGVWUHQJWKHQ\RXUILQDOSURGXFWDQGDOORZXVWREHWWHUFRH[LVWLQRXUQDWXUDO
HQYLURQPHQW
7KDQN\RX
6DUDK'RSS3UHVLGHQW6%/7
DQGWKH6%/7%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ/DQG7UXVW,QFLVD F QRQSURILWRUJDQL]DWLRQ
7D[,'&KHHVH)DFWRU\5G6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97
Page 37
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 2:36 PM
To:Therese Donovan
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Article 12
Thank you for the input.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Therese Donovan <tdonovan@uvm.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 11:30 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Article 12
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 Jessica,
Hello. My name is Therese Donovan and I am a South Burlington resident. I would like to first say thank you for your
service to our community on the Planning Commission. I am certain that it is no small feat!
I’m writing after reading an opinion by Sandra Dooley in the Other Paper, and realized that I was not sufficiently aware
of some items on the table in Article 12. As a child, I watched the very slow conversion of natural lands to development
in the Chicago area such that I no longer recognize my home town as an adult. I am proud to now live and work in a
state that values natural lands and offers strong protection for wildlife, wetlands, and maintaining habitat corridors. In
this time of changing climate and dwindling biodiversity, we should have 0 tolerance for letting our guard down, and my
experiences growing up have proved that once lands are developed, there is no going back. Loosening restrictions on
development indeed is a slippery slope. In reading through the documents, I believe the Council should fully adopt the
recommendations by Arrowwood Environmental to increase the buffer lands around wildlife habitats, as well as fully
protect the Great Swamp as an important resource for wildlife and also climate protection. With climate change, we can
expect to see more “Irenes”, to a greater or lesser extent, in our future. This is the time to consider how the draft
regulations would affect South Burlington’s ability to mitigate weather events, whether they be storms or hot summers,
that will likely touch many who live in South Burlington. With South Burlington’s solid development infrastructure in
place, including a vital downtown area, I strongly favor further development within these existing areas, and allow our
remaining existing natural lands to provide ecological services our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Therese Donovan
Therese (Terri) Donovan
Page 38
2
302 Aiken Center, University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
Ph: 802-656-2516
Email: tdonovan@uvm.edu
Page 39
1
Betsy Brown
From:Paul Conner
Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:15 AM
To:planning
Subject:FW: EXTERNAL: Public comment: FW: seeking policy basis for proposal to rezone land
as Natural Resource Protection
Paul Conner, AICP
Director of Planning & Zoning
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sbvt.gov
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in
matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as
public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in
error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Sandra Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:30 PM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@southburlingtonvt.gov>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>
Cc: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Public comment: FW: seeking policy basis for proposal to rezone land as Natural Resource
Protection
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Jessica and Bernie,,
I do not reference the public hearing in my email to you below. Therefore, I am writing
to request that this email be included among the public comments received relative to
the proposed land development regulations that are the subject of the public hearing
on October 26.
Page 40
2
In addition, based on the fact that I have yet to receive any information from a Planning
Commissioner or Planning staff stating the policy basis for changing the zoning of the
land described below to Natural Resource Protection, I request that the Planning
Commission delete this proposed change in zoning from the package of land
development regulations that are the subject of the October 26 th public hearing that it is
anticipated that the Planning Commission will vote to send to the City Council to warn
for public hearing and subsequent adoption.
Thank you both for your diligent and thoughtful work throughout this long and arduous
process.
Best,
Sandy (Dooley)
From: Sandra Dooley [mailto:dooleyvt1@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:49 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com; 'Bernie Gagnon' <bgagnon@sburl.com>
Cc: 'Ted Riehle' <triehle@sburl.com>; 'Monica Ostby' <mostby@sburl.com>; 'Michael Mittag' <mmittag@sburl.com>;
'pengels@sburl.com' <pengels@sburl.com >; 'Duncan MacDonald' <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; pconner@sburl.com;
Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com>; 'John Simson' <simsonjohn0840@gmail.com>; vbolduc@smcvt.edu; 'CHARLES'
<darrilynp@comcast.net>; Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com >; 'Patrick O'Brien' <pobrien@sdireland.com>;
'Ariel Jensen-Vargas' <ariel.jensenvargas@gmail.com>; Minelle Sarfo-Adu (minelle7070@gmail.com )
<minelle7070@gmail.com>; lblack-plumeau@vhfa.org; 'Jessie Baker' <jbaker@sburl.com>
Subject: seeking policy basis for proposal to rezone land as Natural Resource Protection
Hello Jessica (chair) and Bernie (vice-chair),
I have been reflecting on the discussion at Tuesday evening’s meeting of changing the
zoning of some parcels south of Nowland Farm Road and west of Dorset Street to
Natural Resource Protection (NRP). Perhaps, I missed it but I do not recall hearing
anyone state the policy basis for reclassification of this land.
As a matter of policy, it seems to me that the policy basis for classifying land as NRP
should be relatively consistent from one NRP parcel to another. It is my understanding
that the primary policy basis for classifying the parcels initially zoned NRP was an
earlier Arrowwood study and report. And I have listened, during Interim Zoning, to the
Planning Commission’s plans to change small areas of land to NRP based, in large
part, on the latest Arrowwood report. As I stated above, I do not recall any Planning
Commissioner or staff member setting forth the policy basis for the change that was
discussed Tuesday evening.
Should there not be a policy basis for this proposed change that is comparable to the
policy basis for the classification of the other NRP parcels, I ask that this proposal be
Page 41
3
reconsidered. My first concern is that a change that, from a policy-basis perspective,
is markedly different from the policy basis for other land with the same classification is
not good policy-making. My second concern is that it is not equitable. Some
property owners are having their property reclassified as NRP when others whose land
has similar characteristics are not. My third concern is that, based on the concerns I
have raised herein, this reclassification is likely to generate litigation and I have my
doubts about how well the City could defend this proposed change in court. My fourth
concern is that reclassifying land without a strong policy basis undermines the good
work you have done in Article 12 and City residents’ confidence in the fairness of the
Planning Commission’s work.
In closing, I reiterate my request for reconsideration of the proposed policy change
and. add to it, a request that staff explain the policy basis for this proposed change an d
how this policy basis compares to the policy basis for the other SEQ land that is zoned
NRP.
Thank you for your dedicated and admirable service to our City.
Best regards,
Sandy
Note: This is a statement from me, not the Affordable Housing Committee. My
copying them on the email is for their information only.
Page 42
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 2:36 PM
To:Michael Mittag; Jessica Louisos
Cc:karmakosmo7@aol.com; planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Message from Louise Hammond
Thank you Michael and Louise for the input!
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Michael Mittag <mittag.michael@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Cc: karmakosmo7@aol.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Message from Louise Hammond
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Jessica,
Ms. Hammond contacted me and requested that forward her email to you because it was kicked
back to her as undelivered or undeliverable.
Regards,
Michael.
From: karmakosmo7@aol.com
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Sent: 10/25/2021 12:40:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject:
Dear Jessica (and Planning Commission members)
I am out of town and also unavailable to attend the(zoom version) meeting on Tuesday night. Please accept this letter
as my opposition to some of the proposed new land development regulations.
In reviewing this lengthy document, I see there are a few beneficial changes however I also see there are some that will
do more harm than good, specifically in the South East Quadrant.
Why does the City of South Burlington allow for open meadows and forest and wildlife habitats to be paved over for
more and larger developments? And in some of these regulations even require it? That does not make any sense to
me!
I could write a very long email with many details but the bottom line is PLEASE STOP PAVING OVER OUR MEADOWS
Page 43
2
AND FORESTS!
With all that we know about global warming I am disappointed that we have to keep bringing this to the attention of the
city.
Why does the City of South Burlington seem to have such disregard for the environment?
Does the city really want to add to our current climate crisis? How about we plant more trees instead?
Please do not force development over conservation.
Please save our rural lands.
Thank you,
Louise Hammond
Page 44
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 2:35 PM
To:Julie Cadwallader Staub
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: for tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting
Thanks Julie.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Julie Cadwallader Staub <juliecs1@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 11:10 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: for tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting
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 Jessica
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chair of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your service to our community!
I understand that at tomorrow's meeting, you will be discussing proposed Land Development Regulations. Please share
this email with the other commissioners.
I have two major concerns about those regulations.
One of the key provisions is the requirement that someone who has four or more acres of land in the southeast
quadrant, who wants to preserve part of it, must build at least four housing units per acre. This requirement runs
completely counter to the overall goal of preserving and protecting land in South Burlington. We need to encourage
preservation, whether by private landowners or by the City, and not link preservation to requirements for development.
The minimum building requirement must be eliminated.
Secondly, these proposed regulations must provide buffer areas around the remaining wildlife habitat blocks that we
still have in our city. In order for wildlife to thrive, these buffer areas are critical. They protect wildlife from human
disturbance, and humans from wildlife disturbance. We need to restore and increase buffer areas.
In addition, please note Arrowwood consulting identified the Great Swamp as the most important wildlife area that
South Burlington has left. This area must be completely protected, so that wildlife can continue to thrive there. This
protection is not only good for wildlife, but is crucial to human survival. Climate change is exacerbated by human
development, and is mitigated by intact ecosystems. We must do everything we can to protect our remaining intact
ecosystems in South Burlington, and increase them whenever possible.
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to these concerns, at tomorrow's meeting and in future considerations.
Page 45
2
Julie Cadwallader Staub
60 Brewer Parkway
South Burlington resident for 28 years
Read a few poems or order a collection of my poems at my website, www.juliecspoetry.com. My newest
collection, Wing Over Wing, is also available at your local bookstore, on Amazon, or through
the Paraclete website. Parker Palmer, author of Let Your Life Speak, writes, "This book is a treasure, the work of a poet
who time and again has opened my eyes to my own life and the life of the world."
Follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
Page 46
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 10:25 AM
To:Jacqueline Weinstock
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Land Grant draft proposal concerns
Thank you for the input.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Jacqueline Weinstock <jackieweinstock@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 8:40 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Land Grant draft proposal concerns
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
To: Chair of Planning Commission,
Please share this with the other commissioners.
Dear Commissioners,
I urge the Planning Commission to think carefully about the negative outcomes to South Burlington if
you go forward with the draft of the new regulations. To me, these regulations seem to reflect more
the wishes of developers and business interests in general than the needs of our community for
generations to come. I ask you to put at the forefront of your decision making your role as careful
stewards of the land that we as a city and community are responsible for.
One example of this centering of developers can be seen in the tacking on of minimum building
requirements when someone wants to conserve land! I am strongly against this aspect of the
Conservation Planned Unit Development draft.
I also note that I see very little attention to or recognition of the need for our city to do our part in
addressing climate change; more development and less land preservation will do more harm with
regard to climate change. Again, I urge you to think about the future generations of South Burlington
people, and not just those with current business interests.
Overall I ask you to please remember and act out of the city’s responsibility to the land and the larger
environment that we all share, and to make the best choices for future generations rather than current
business interests. We can most easily do this by following the recommendations that came from the
environmental expert company (Arrowwood) that the City hired. In addition to the points already
Page 47
2
notes, this company stresses that we must preserve the Great Swamp habitat and ensure that there
is enough of a buffer around this and other invaluable natural areas.
Thank you for listening and I hope you will reject this draft of the new regulations.
Jackie Weinstock
South Burlington
Page 48
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 10:26 AM
To:David Weissgold
Cc:David Weissgold; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: David Weissgold comment re: South Burlington land development
regulations
Thank you for the input David.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: David Weissgold <dweissgold@retinacentervermont.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 7:48 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Cc: David Weissgold
Subject: EXTERNAL: David Weissgold comment re: South Burlington land development 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 South Burlington Planning Commission Chairwoman Louisos,
I am writing to voice my concern about proposed new South Burlington land development regulations. I will not be able
to attend tomorrow evening’s Planning Commission meeting. To be purposefully brief, I think it is exceedingly ill-advised
that we would jeopardize our open land. In the southeast quadrant section of the city, where I live, open land is part of
the very fabric of our day-to-day lives. Scores of my neighbors walk in open fields, get into the woods with their dogs,
and are able to enjoy the wildlife and outdoors that we are so fortunate to have at our doorsteps, literally every
day. With our environment under assault, across the country and the globe, we must be responsible and preserve what
we have. Growth for growth’s sake will be our downfall. (Did you watch “60 Minutes” last night? The entire southwest
U.S. has gone way, way too far down a water crisis path of its own making.) We’ve got to reign in development that
encroaches on our natural landscape. Please pass this along to your colleagues and please vote to protect our
environment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Weissgold
142 Four Sisters Rd
South Burlington, VT 05403
Cell: 802-598-6319
Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential and/or
protected health information (PHI) and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). This transmission is intended for the sole use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use,
Page 49
2
dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal
or civil penalties. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to
this email and deleting this email and any attachments from any computer.
Page 50
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 8:44 AM
To:joanne necrason
Cc:nick.necrason@gmail.com; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Potential changes in LDR Regulations
Thank you for the input Joanne.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________
From: joanne necrason <joanne.necrason@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 8:17 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Cc: nick.necrason@gmail.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Potential changes in LDR 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.
Good morning Jessica and thank you for the leadership you exhibit as Chair of the Planning Commission.
My husband and I have just reviewed the Draft Regulations to be discussed at tonight’s meeting.
Please include our concerns in tonight’s deliberations.
It is distressing that the balance between needed land for housing development and the preservation of open spaces
seems to have tipped toward facilitating development.
We are concerned that the draft does not provide enough land buffer areas around wildlife habitat blocks. We request
that buffer areas be increased and that the wildlife habitat blocks which have been eliminated in the document be
restored.
This would also mean that the new stipulation in the proposed PUD o f a minimum building requirement be eliminated.
Thank you for your consideration . And thank you to all members of the Planning Commission for serving our
community.
Respectfully,
Joanne Necrason
Page 51
2
Edmund Necrason
Sent from my iPad
Page 52
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 9:13 PM
To:Krista Corran
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Re: URGENT REQUEST to save our open lands
Thank you for the input.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Oct 25, 2021, at 8:50 PM, Krista Corran <kristabcorran@hotmail.com> wrote:
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Jessica,
We write today with our concerns regarding the proposed new land development regulations /
“zoning” being proposed for South Burlington. As you know, land use is intimately connected to climate
change and preserving natural resource lands helps mitigate climate impacts. The forested area that was
removing from protection in these draft regulations is part of the Great Swamp where we have seen
many animals come from - deer, fox, bobcats. Any support and focus on restoring protection for
shrub land areas that was eliminated in the draft regulations would be greatly appreciated - we
support the recommendations made by Arrowwood Environmental to increase the amount of “buffer” lands
around wildlife habitats. We simply cannot have more homes in the SEQ and other rural lands in our
city, The draft regs seem heavy-handed and they force development over conservation in an area that has
been rapidly growing.
Thank you for your time,
Krista & Andy Corran
Page 53
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 9:15 PM
To:Nancy Hellen
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: City Land Development Proposal
Thank you for the input.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Oct 25, 2021, at 8:47 PM, Nancy Hellen <nbhellen@gmail.com> wrote:
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Jessica Louisos,
As Chair of the Planning Commission, I ask you to share my email with the Planning Commission.
It is time now to protect the open and natural area and our natural resources in South Burlington. Tracks of land that
are used by wildlife are corridors essential for survival, and buffers critical for water runoff and flooding, the importance
for all of us that we are just coming to terms with. There are three areas that I see that the City Land Development
Proposals are steps backward and will not be reversible. I, therefore, ask for the following changes:
1. Wheeler Park Hill Farm, keep as open space. Shrubland is an essential habitat. I recently visited Nordic Farm,
where they are specifically managing for shrubland.
2. 1720 and 1730 Spear Street, protect this vital habitat as Arrowwood mapping shows.
3. Focus development where there are already structures in place for transportation, and other infrastructure. The
minimum density requirement where a landowner who was to sub-divide would be required to build 4 houses
per buildable acre seems to go against protecting open land/farmland. It puts landowners in a situation where
they might just want to add a house lot for a family member in an unnecessary situation.
The city's focus on the need for housing is important. In any way to continue the concept of scattered 'rural;' housing is
not where the focus should be. Use the city core to build housing. There are buildings not being used or not used
efficiently and an opportunity to build housing that supports our city growth and is affordable, convenient to
public transportation, and lessens the impact on the climate crisis.
Page 54
2
Thank you,
Nancy Hellen
--
When we are all able to access the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that support well-
being, we all thrive and our communities flourish. - Vermont Resilience Messaging Project
Page 55
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:59 AM
To:toniakarnedy@comcast.net
Cc:Monica Ostby; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Proposed LDRs will cement inequities
Thank you for the input Tonia.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: toniakarnedy@comcast.net <toniakarnedy@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 7:40 AM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Cc: Monica Ostby
Subject: EXTERNAL: Proposed LDRs will cement inequities
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 Ms. Louisos,
I am writing to share my concerns on restrictions in development in South Burlington, particularly in the southeast
quadrant.
My lens to this is through 10 years working as a civil/environmental engineer, 10 years as a stay-at-home parent and
active school volunteer, 9 years as a realtor, and 18 years as a resident of South Burlington.
My first concern is with regulating non-class II wetlands. Why does SB feel the need to impose a more restrictive
regulation than the state? When I worked on wetlands permitting, we were also required to get a Federal wetlands
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. They looked at every wetland, independent of type or class, determined its
function and value and then decided what would be necessary for the project. Does the SB regulation double the efforts
of other agencies?
My next concern is that in the effort to protect natural resources or structure our regulations to protect large areas in
our city from development, we cause greater environmental consequences like what was formerly known as "sprawl."
The demand for development is at crisis-level. There is no inventory. SB has infrastructure, space, convenient access to
jobs, and fabulous schools. Instead of maximizing what we have for the greater good, the restrictions on development,
particularly the primary protection of the southeast quadrant, will result in new housing in surrounding towns. In these
areas more disruption will occur to add the necessary infrastructure and people will have to commute longer distances
to work. Your protection of one area most likely results in greater overall negatives for the environment.
My final thought is, who do we want to be as a community? Have we decided that we want one section of town to
remain the most wealthy in perpetuity? The concentration of wealth allows for organization and dedication of resources
Page 56
2
to protect the interests of those in that area and it is my understanding this has happened more than once. With this
regulation, we are deciding SB doesn't want residents who can't afford a home less than $500,000.
Thank you for your consideration and for your hard work for South Burlington.
Sincerely,
Tonia
Tonia C Karnedy
(802) 578-1669
Page 57
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 8:00 AM
To:Loretta Marriott
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Comment to SB Planning Commission for public hearing on draft of the
new regulations. Please share with Planning Commission Members
Thank you for the input Loretta.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Loretta Marriott <Loretta.Marriott@uvm.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: Comment to SB Planning Commission for public hearing on draft of the new regulations. Please
share with Planning Commission Members
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
South Burlington Planning Commission,
I urge you to clearly articulate, in detail, how changes proposed by the South Burlington Planning Commission will help or hurt as
climate change unfolds.
2021 is the year that climate change became horrifically obvious in the form of natural disasters causing devastating losses around
the world. "At least 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming seems guaranteed" (NY Times 10/20/2021). What will we do to
minimize the damage, what will we do to cope with a hotter future and who will suffer the most?
Predictably, in South Burlington, powerful money people are allied to undermine efforts to make meaningful change. They skillfully
manipulate politics and media as they claim to value the environment. In fact they value profits.
We need to stop making things worse and get serious about building resilience.
With climate change in mind, a clear eyed look at even well intentioned proposals is necessary.
A minimum building requirement needs to be eliminated. Surely there is a better way. Small, well built centralized housing has many
advantages.
Buffer areas need to be increased, and the wildlife habitat blocks which have been eliminated need to be restored for the same
reason.
We build stormwater basins at great expense that are not very effective and think we have replaced a wetland. We have not!
I appreciate the hard work you all have done and now I ask you to think about who benefits from changes and do proposals really
make sense?
Page 58
2
Thank you,
Loretta Marriott
13 Mills Ave
Page 59
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 7:42 PM
To:thawke5@comcast.net
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting 10/26/2021
Thank you For the input.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: thawke5@comcast.net <thawke5@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 5:05 PM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting 10/26/2021
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mellicent Hawke <mellicenthawke0@gmail.com>
Date: October 25, 2021 at 4:59:58 PM EDT
To: Dr Tracy Perrapato <thawke5@comcast.net>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 10/26/2021
Dear Jessica,
As chair of the PC, I am writing to voice my concerns about the new draft regulations that are
being discussed at the meeting tomorrow.
I am urging the PC to preserve our open land, especially those with the most natural
resources and wildlife habitats. The draft land regulation places development over
conservation. I was led to believe that IZ was done to identify and protect our rural lands. The
following points I believe need to be addressed before passing this new draft:
1: More development leads to climate change along with increased pollution of our water. air
and soil.
2: More development will lead to the loss of our wildlife habitats. The natural beauty of
Vermont is why many people live and work here.
3: We have many new development projects already in place with the loss of our natural
resources.
Page 60
2
4:The PUD in this new draft requires increased density which makes no sense and exacerbates
the above problems.
5: South Burlington has already seen a markedly increased tax burden this last year and this
will continue to be an issue with all the increased infrastructure required for more
development.
Thank you for sharing this information with your committee. Tracy Perrapato 802-318-0461
Page 61
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 7:44 PM
To:Gerry Silverstein
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Sandy Dooley Commentary-Other Paper
Thank you for the input Gerry.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Gerry Silverstein <gsilverst@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 6:45 PM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Sandy Dooley Commentary-Other Paper
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Jessica Louisos
Planning Commission Chair
South Burlington
Hello Jessica (and other members of the Planning Commission)
I write in response to Sandy Dooley's letter in the Other Paper advocating more development to create "mixed neighborhoods" in the
southeast quadrant (SEQ)
I disagree with most everything Ms. Dooley said as justification for increased development in the SEQ.
First let me say that I am a senior citizen and live in the SEQ. My gross income last year was less than $20,000. In terms of income I
am by no means one of the wealthy members of the SEQ.
As a single individual with no children the only social welfare benefit I received last year had a value of $400 (excluding $1400 stimulus
payments that everyone with a heartbeat... and believe it or note many who did not have a heartbeat ...received from the federal
government).
Compare that to the thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, that people in the "less wealthy" parts of SB receive
both from the State and Federal government in terms of social welfare benefits (health insurance assistance, child monetary allocations
of $3,000-$6,000, SNAP benefit, EITC, housing assistance, free education for their children... the list goes on and on). I mention these
benefits to convey that the "inequity" that Ms. Dooley details is far more complicated than she alludes to.
Ms. Dooley's suggestion that people in the SEQ are "far more fortunate" than citizens in other parts of SB focuses on median
income. Median income means half above a certain level and half below. Let me assure you many of the less fortunate SB residents
Ms. Dooley refers to outside the SEQ have income and benefits far far greater than myself and I suspect others in the SEQ.
Ms. Dooley says SEQ homes are worth more. Probably true, but if you understand how education taxes are assessed in Vermont you
understand the greater the value of the house the more the homeowner pays in education taxes (excluding exceptions for lower income
individuals). Those taxes pay for the education of SB children, many of whom live in the "less wealthy" parts of SB.
Page 62
2
I moved to Vermont in 1985 for its natural beauty and the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, most especially cycling which I have been
doing for more than 40 years. I moved to the SEQ in 1987 for a number of reasons, two of which were the open space and very
enjoyable cycling opportunities from my front door.
Now more developments and more cars have changed the sense of place here, and it is getting more and more like the New Jersey
neighborhood that I was desperate to get away from in 1985.
Ms. Dooley details she would like more development in the SEQ in order to promote "diversity, equity, and inclusion". (DEI)
My personal opinion: DEI has been weaponized by anyone and everyone who wants to advocate for anything and everything. All too
many people have adopted the approach of "when all else fails declare that DEI requires that we do ''x" or ''y".
I take the opportunity to remind you of the lyrics in the famous song entitled "Big Yellow Taxi" sung by Joni Mitchell:
"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.... don't it always seem to go you don't know what you got till its gone."
Slowly but surely, Burlington and South Burlington are becoming more and more like the New Jersey I left behind.... and let me assure
you... that is not a good thing.
There is already significant development planned in the SEQ. To open it up for more would be harmful to residents, the environment,
and to the sense of place that Vermont likes to declare itself dedicated to.
Respectfully submitted,
Gerry Silverstein
15 Dubois Drive.
Page 63
2FWREHU
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUKDUGZRUNWKLVVSULQJWRSURSRVH]RQLQJFKDQJHVWKDWUHIOHFWWKHILQGLQJVRID
SURIHVVLRQDOHQYLURQPHQWDOVWXG\'DWDGULYHQSROLFLHVDUHRXUEHVWKRSHIRUVROYLQJWKHP\ULDGRI
SUREOHPVIDFLQJ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQDQGVLPLODUFRPPXQLWLHVDFURVVWKHFRXQWU\
7KLVZHHN\RXKDYHDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRFRQWLQXHWRPDNHGHFLVLRQVEDVHGRQIDFWV7KHUHLVDZHOO
GRFXPHQWHGVKRUWDJHRIKRXVLQJLQWKH%XUOLQJWRQ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQPHWURSROLWDQDUHDWKDWWKH6RXWK
%XUOLQJWRQ/DQG'HYHORSPHQW5HJXODWLRQVFDQVWULYHWRLPSURYH)RUWKLVUHDVRQSOHDVHDGRSWWKH
FKDQJHVSURSRVHGE\WKHFLW\¶V$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHH,QDGGLWLRQWRODQGIRUSRWHQWLDOIXWXUH
KRXVLQJWKHVHFKDQJHVZLOOIUHHXSRSSRUWXQLW\IRUQHZQHLJKERUVEHWWHULQFRPHDQGUDFHHTXLW\DQG
IHZHUFRPPXWLQJPLOHVIRUDUHDZRUNHUV
,¶YHDWWDFKHGVHYHUDOGDWDJUDSKVUHODWHGWRKRXVLQJDQGKRXVHKROGVLQ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQIRU\RXU
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ,I\RXQHHGPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQSOHDVHGRQRWKHVLWDWHWRFRQWDFWPH
7KDQNV
/HVOLH%ODFN3OXPHDX
5HVHDUFKDQG&RPPXQLW\5HODWLRQV0DQDJHU
/%ODFN3OXPHDX#YKIDRUJ
Page 64
6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ¶VKRXVLQJDQGKRXVHKROGV IDFWVDQGILJXUHV
$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOHRQWKH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ&RPPLWWHH¶VZHESDJH
KWWSV ZZZVRXWKEXUOLQJWRQYWJRYJRYHUQPHQWFLW\BFRPPLWWHHVBERDUGVDIIRUGDEOHBKRXVLQJBFRPPLWWH
HSKSDQGDWZZZKRXVLQJGDWDRUJ
6RXUFH %XLOGLQJ+RPHV7RJHWKHU6HSW&&53&
4.2%
3.3%3.0%
2.0%2.3%
1.3%
1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020
Source: Decennial Census counts of occupied housing units.
Average annual rate of growth in homes in
South Burlington
1.3%
3.6%
4.0%
3.6%
33.01 (SEQ) 33.04 36 40.02
Census Tract
Source: 2020 Decennial Census
Inequities in South Burlington:
% of residents Black / African American
$142,218
$74,552
$63,198 $60,781
33.01 (SEQ) 33.04 36 40.02
Census Tract
Source: American Community Survey
Inequities in South Burlington:
Median household income
Live in
SB
3,251
31%
Live
outside
SB
7,375
69%
Adults who work in South Burlington
Source: American Community Survey
Page 65
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:54 PM
To:Arani, Mahmoud T.
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Housing Developments in SEQ
Thank you for the input.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Arani, Mahmoud T. <marani@smcvt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:58 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Cc: Arani, Mahmoud T.
Subject: EXTERNAL: Housing Developments in SEQ
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 Ms. Louisos: I hope this message finds you and your family well. I am writing to express my grave
concern about the new regulations which will allow and perhaps require more housing developments in SEQ,
where I have been living over the past 18 years. More housing will allow open meadows and forests, and
wildlife habitats to be paved over for more and larger developments, which I strongly oppose. That will change
the character of our part of South Burlington forever and will do much more harm than good to the well-being of
our environment and our community’s welfare. I strongly urge you to do everything in your power to preserve
our open lands, especially those which have been identified as having lots of natural resources and wildlife
habitats; we have more than enough housing developments over our rural lands, and it is time to stop paving
over our meadows and forests. I am grateful to you in advance for your attention and consideration in this vital
matter for our community.
Warmest regards,
M. Arani
Mahmoud T. Arani, Ph.D.
Education Department
Professor of Applied Linguistics/TESOL
Coordinator, TESOL Minor
Page 66
2
MA in Teaching English to the Speakers of Other Languages (MATESOL)
TESOL Masters and Certification Programs
TESOL Minor
Phone: (802)654-2277
Fax: (802)654-2595
E-mail: marani@smcvt.edu
Page 67
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:55 PM
To:Ethan Bellavance
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: public comment on proposed land development regulations
Thank you for the input Ethan.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Ethan Bellavance <ebellavance@veic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: public comment on proposed land development 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.
Good afternoon Jessica,
I hope you are doing well today. I’m writing you to share my opinions about the South Burlington proposed land
development regulations.
My name is Ethan Bellavance, I’ve lived in South Burlington since I was 4 years old, and currently live in the city with my
wife and 3 children . As a family of 5 individuals we love to spend a significant amount time in our city 's open spaces and
waterways. These places have been critical to our family for both our physical and mental wellbeing. My 5 and 3 year
old can now hike over 1.5 miles without breaking down. I’d view that as at least something positive that has come out
of Covid. In addition we were surprised to find minnows in potash brook this spring and summer at both east woods
and in the Dorset woods. Open land, and our city’s amazing parks are an invaluable asset to South Burlington which will
benefit both me and future generations who decide to call this lovely city home.
My specific comments on the proposed land use development regulations are as follows.
1. I support the minimum building requirement, dense housing allows for consolidated infrastructure and allows
for more people to enjoy this beautiful city we call home.
2. I urge that the planning commission following the recommendations of Arrowwood and increase buffer areas on
designated wildlife habitat blocks. As part of that the great swamp habitat should be protected as it was
determined to be the most important habitat block in the city of South Burlington.
Please let me know if you have any questions, sorry that I won’t be able to make the meeting tonight, kids bedtimes
tend to put a damper on public engagement.
Cheers,
Ethan Bellavance
Page 68
2
Page 69
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:56 PM
To:planning
Subject:Fw: EXTERNAL: I just sent this letter to the PC--Vince's answers to Meaghan
Hi Betsy, This back and forth occurred by email and should go in the public record of comments. Thanks,
Jessica
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Meaghan Emery
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Bolduc, Vincent L.
Cc: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Paul S. Engels; Duncan MacDonald; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Chris
Trombly; Helen Riehle
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: I just sent this letter to the PC--Vince's answers to Meaghan
Thank you, Vince. And thank you, too, for your thoughtful responses.
I'll add my responses in green.
Meagan, for the sake of brevity, I’ll provide my responses below in red. Your reactions to my letter to
the PC are in black. Thank you for the clear invitation to respond. But first of all, thank you for your
thoughtful comments.
Vince
Dear Vince,
Thank you for this. I have always appreciated your perspective and value your voice. I believe that we
share the same concerns, which gives us a common basis on which to begin. But we are looking at
different solutions to the climate crisis. I therefore ask you to consider the following in your response
to this email:
Would you please account for "heat islands." The more density and loss of green space makes for
very hot cities. Burlington has already been classified in the top 10 heat islands in the country, not far
behind Baltimore. Burlington is more than 7 degrees hotter than surrounding areas. If we become like
Burlington, we will become a heat island, which is a health risk. Heat islands are a real thing and
we’ve all all experienced them. One little correction is that Burlington is not in “the top 10 in the
country,” but 13th among the 159 cities rated by the “Climate Central.” There may be thousands of
cities in the country that could have been rated, but for some reason, the researchers just rated 159,
Page 70
2
including Burlington. The other point I wanted to make is that an article in the publication of the Yale
School of the Environment has also been studying the subject of heat islands and says this: “In an
analysis of 65 cities across North America, researchers found that variation in how efficiently urban
areas release heat back into the lower atmosphere — through the process of convection — is the
dominant factor in the daytime UHI [Urban Heat Island] effect. This finding challenges a long-held
belief that the phenomenon is driven principally by diminished evaporative cooling through
the loss of vegetation.” https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/urban-heat-not-a-myth-and-
worst-where-its-wet. The article by the Climate Central gives a nice list of steps that can be taken to
reduce the effects of urban heat, and one promising technology just released last week sounds
hopeful. However, my main point in supporting greater density in SB has never been that to
make us like Burlington. Paul Engles also seems to misunderstand my note to the PC. I would like
to see the Resolutions proposed by the AHC to be enacted in some form that would slow the amount
of CO2 released into the atmosphere and help address the housing crisis, especially for the missing
middle. That would be enough for me. My gosh, my goal IS NOT to make us into another Burlington!
Regarding the Yale study (and thank you for correcting Burlington's rating -- #13), it would be
important to know if we are considered a wet or dry city. The Yale study refers to the Southeast as
wet, which is where vegetation does play a key role. Climatologists foresee that the Northeast will
become wetter with climate change. According the article in both the BFP and VTDigger, green roofs
were mentioned as a solution for Burlington as were light-colored roofs designed to reflect the sun's
heat. Of course, this would be less desirable in winter. Here is the paragraph from VTDigger: "The
main components considered for the score were greenery and permeable surfaces, which refer to
how much of the ground is dirt, grass, or plants rather than asphalt or brick; building height;
population density, which can sometimes contribute human-caused heat; and albedo, a measure of
how much a city absorbs or reflects solar radiation. . . . Things like green roofs — with flora grown on
the roofs of existing buildings — or even painting buildings lighter colors can increase albedo scores
significantly, reflecting more solar radiation away from the city." It would seem from this report, that
we are considered a "wet city." And here is what the Yale report concludes: "The effects of impaired
“convective efficiency” are particularly acute in wet climates, the researchers say. In cities such as
Atlanta, Georgia, and Nashville, Tennessee, this factor alone contributes a 3-degree C rise in
average daytime temperatures, according to the study, published July 10 in the journal Nature.
The phenomenon could have profound impacts on human health in cities worldwide as mean global
temperatures continue to rise — and as more and more people move into cities — said Xuhui Lee,
the Sara Shallenberger Brown Professor of Meteorology at the Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies (F&ES) and one of the study’s authors."
Would you please account for increased health risks in cities. Due to smog and loss of natural
carbons chains, cities are less healthy than outlying areas because of smog and lack of
sequestration. There is more asthma, more morbidity from COVID and other respiratory diseases.
The Green Mountains act as a barrier to smog, and therefore we are more likely to suffer from smog
here. There is a lot of data on this, but on average, the demographic and public health statistics
reveal that the health of city dwellers is generally superior to those who live in the hinterland. This is
true worldwide, but also in the US. The reasons for this are somewhat complex and involve
standardizing age composition and social and economic differences. When we control for those, city
dwellers are very healthy indeed. In other words, the demographers would not compare a city with a
lot of older people who are poor and poorly educated to a young and affluent small town. Adjusting for
these differences, we see that while cities may have higher death rates and morbidity from selected
causes (such as crimes of violence) but on balance if we want to live longer lives, we should move to
the cities. But again I repeat that I am NOT interesting in making SB into a Vermont metropoliis!
The Yale study suggests otherwise, as does this Harvard study:
Page 71
3
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/coronavirus-and-pollution/
Tailpipe emissions are clearly a factor, and I do not see more people in the bus with expanded
development in the SEQ, whereas there would be more people in the bus if more affordable housing
on or near our transit routes, with adequate green space, garden plots, green roofs, solar panels, etc.
I understand and heed the tonnage of CO2 in the atmosphere. The farther we drive our gas-powered
vehicles, the more CO2 we release. My response would be to not incite more people to move here
and work here in the current organization of home-work (which would bring more cars and more
pollution here regardless of the distance one drives) but rather to have smaller employment centers
distributed throughout the state, and place more emphasis on the value of remote work.
Would you please account for equity. As someone who lives outside of the SEQ and moved into an
affordable house back in 2002, I am so glad that I didn't need to use my car to drive all the way into
the Green Mountains to enjoy and for my children to enjoy nature. I could ride my bike to the SEQ or
go with my family on a short trip to Wheeler or Red Rocks or Muddy Brook reservoir. My children
grew up appreciative of the natural environment. This is sadly not so for some children in Burlington,
and socioeconomics have a lot to do with access to green space, fresh air, and cooler temperatures
in the summer heat. Also, many refugees and new Americans are eager to have green space for
gardens, which is something we all will be turning to more and more -- especially people who will not
be able to afford increased food costs (which are forecast to rise by 30% by 2030). In terms of equity,
new housing would be an invaluable step to creating greater equality of opportunity and outcomes.
This is especially true in the SEQ, the wealthiest Census Tract in the state with lots of room to grow. I
am delighted with the steps that the City has taken to preserve open space and lots of green
opportunities, and I strongly believe that we have to continue our preservation effo rts. Everyone in the
city should be able to bike to one of our 19 parks and enjoy our 1,000’s of acres of open space,
exactly as you describe. I also hope that we can work towards more gardening opportunities for
everyone. Remember, I DON’T want to make us into another Burlington, just a better planned
and more equitable South Burlington that has done all that it can do as part of a larger region to
reduce our release of CO2 by being more hospitable to new migrants to the region.
We need green space with thriving ecosystems (which are not manicured lawns) in order for there to be
insects, including bees to pollinate our gardens. Without ecosystems in place, we cannot grow food here. As
an example, Chicagoans are reclaiming empty lots for garden plots and harvesting bees. It's not easy to
reclaim this land and these Chicago plots are far from making it possible to feed Chicagoans. It's a drop in the
bucket.
Please allow me to give the following feedback on the Affordable Housing resolution:
Affordable cities are not overbuilt cities. As we built more and more homes, our homes prices did not
decrease. Perpetually affordable housing is what we need. Inclusionary zoning will help, but
without protection of our natural resources, it is not a holistic solution. I would add that the “holistic
solution” must be region wide. I agree. The CCRPC needs to embrace climate planning.
Please, as a committee, consider redeveloping our developed spaces with a focus on affordable
housing -- we have room for residential units in areas already containing impervious surfaces. The
resolution does not mention this. You’re right, it’s on our work plan. Glad to hear.
Livable cities are sustainable cities. We are not sustainable, far from being net 0, and therefore if we
grow unchecked by our regulations, we will become less and less livable, and therefore less healthy. I
agree, but no one is suggesting that we “grow unchecked by our regulations.” We already have some
excellent Regulations, but—if I may speak for the AHC for a moment—we are concerned that some
Page 72
4
of the proposals will impede the reasonable growth that Chittenden County will inevitability
experience. When we look at sustainability of the region as a whole, we are especially concerned
about equity and unnecessary carbon emissions from unnecessary commuting.
Reasonable growth is not more of the same. Reasonable growth will allow us to meet our equity
goals and our clean and green goals. Regarding commuting, we need to rethink work in this country.
We need to rethink everything we do. Agreed. International travel is already becoming more difficult,
and I suspect it will continue to become increasingly difficult. There are studies showing that working
from home in some sectors leads to more productivity -- and it keeps cars off the road. I also believe
it is necessary for areas outside of Burlington/South Burlington to develop economically. I hope so
too. Saint Albans is a manufacturing center and a growth center. Ideally, there would be more growth
centers. Broad economic development in sustainable -- i.e., net-0 -- communities will be important for
the state.
There is a fallacy that we can somehow continue to live as we do and reduce use and emissions.
There is a fallacy that if we continue to build out South Burlington, Hinesburg, Richmond, and
elsewhere will be less developed. Both of these are false. All you need to do is go to any major urban
area to know that the latter is false. More population means an increased need for more services, and
7% affordable housing required through IZ will not provide enough housing for our service
employees. The causes and effects of population, economic and urban growth are notoriously
complex and I don’t feel comfortable going beyond what I have already written. By the way, I agree
that the 7% for affordable housing is inadequate.
We need to completely rethink how we organize our society -- and if not, our children and
grandchildren will be forced to do so in a radically different environment and (I fear) political
atmosphere. This is the time to be measured and to heed the public will. Our residents have been
calling for more climate action. If we do not deliver, faith in our democracy will be further diminished. I
agree, but we cannot just listen to the loudest voices in a democracy, but need reasoned, informed,
and trusted voices as well. And yes, we must do more on climate action. Like you, that is my
intention.
I don't think the people addressing the Council represent a minority. I hear my students talking about
climate change. They write about it -- and they're not prompted to do so by my prompts. My daughter
and her classmates, my grown sons, the up-and-coming generation is deeply concerned -- and rightly
so. They do not feel confident in the government, however. There have been studies on this, and I do
not have the links at hand -- and the ones that come to mind are in French. However, in our press,
there has been discussion of what is called eco-anxiety, affecting well over 50% of Americans. Here
is a professional brochure published by the American Psychological Association:
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf
And this website cites a Yale study, showing the 59% feel "helpless."
http://climate.org/eco-anxiety-mental-health-impacts-of-environmental-disasters-and-climate-change/
Take a look again at the APA brochure to see what behavioral symptoms we might see as a result,
and you might understand why I am concerned what kind of political future we will see in this country
and elsewhere.
Respectfully yours,
Meaghan
Respectfully yours too,
Vince
Page 73
5
Thank you for this dialogue,
Meaghan
On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com> wrote:
❚❛❜ External Sender ❚❛❜
Dear Vince,
Thank you for this. I have always appreciated your perspective and value your voice. I believe
that we share the same concerns, which gives us a common basis on which to begin. But we are
looking at different solutions to the climate crisis. I therefore ask you to consider the following
in your response to this email:
Would you please account for "heat islands." The more density and loss of green space makes
for very hot cities. Burlington has already been classified in the top 10 heat islands in the
country, not far behind Baltimore. Burlington is more than 7 degrees hotter than surrounding
areas. If we become like Burlington, we will become a heat island, which is a health risk.
Would you please account for increased health risks in cities. Due to smog and loss of natural
carbons chains, cities are less healthy than outlying areas because of smog and lack of
sequestration. There is more asthma, more morbidity from COVID and other respiratory
diseases. The Green Mountains act as a barrier to smog, and therefore we are more likely to
suffer from smog here.
Would you please account for equity. As someone who lives outside of the SEQ and moved into
an affordable house back in 2002, I am so glad that I didn't need to use my car to drive all the
way into the Green Mountains to enjoy and for my children to enjoy nature. I could ride my
bike to the SEQ or go with my family on a short trip to Wheeler or Red Rocks or Muddy Brook
reservoir. My children grew up appreciative of the natural environment. This is sadly not so for
some children in Burlington, and socioeconomics have a lot to do with access to green space,
fresh air, and cooler temperatures in the summer heat. Also, many refugees and new
Americans are eager to have green space for gardens, which is something we all will be turning
to more and more -- especially people who will not be able to afford increased food costs
(which are forecast to rise by 30% by 2030).
Please allow me to give the following feedback on the Affordable Housing resolution:
Affordable cities are not overbuilt cities. As we built more and more homes, our homes prices
did not decrease. Perpetually affordable housing is what we need. Inclusionary zoning will help,
but without protection of our natural resources, it is not a holistic solution.
Please, as a committee, consider redeveloping our developed spaces with a focus on affordable
housing -- we have room for residential units in areas already containing impervious surfaces.
The resolution does not mention this.
Page 74
6
Livable cities are sustainable cities. We are not sustainable, far from being net 0, and therefore
if we grow unchecked by our regulations, we will become less and less livable, and therefore
less healthy.
We need to rethink everything we do. International travel is already becoming more difficult,
and I suspect it will continue to become increasingly difficult. There are studies showing that
working from home in some sectors leads to more productivity -- and it keeps cars off the road.
I also believe it is necessary for areas outside of Burlington/South Burlington to develop
economically. Saint Albans is a manufacturing center and a growth center. Ideally, there would
be more growth centers. Broad economic development in sustainable -- i.e., net-0 --
communities will be important for the state.
There is a fallacy that we can somehow continue to live as we do and reduce use and emissions.
There is a fallacy that if we continue to build out South Burlington, Hinesburg, Richmond, and
elsewhere will be less developed. Both of these are false. All you need to do is go to any major
urban area to know that the latter is false. More population means an increased need for more
services, and 7% affordable housing required through IZ will not provide enough housing for
our service employees.
We need to completely rethink how we organize our society -- and if not, our children and
grandchildren will be forced to do so in a radically different environment and (I fear) political
atmosphere. This is the time to be measured and to heed the public will. Our residents have
been calling for more climate action. If we do not deliver, faith in our democracy will be further
diminished.
Respectfully yours,
Meaghan
From: Bolduc, Vincent L. <vbolduc@smcvt.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 7:44 PM
To: Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Paul S. Engels; Duncan MacDonald; Jessica Louisos; Michael Mittag;
Ted Riehle
Cc: Janet Bellavance; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Sandy Dooley; Ariel Jensen-Vargas; Patrick O'Brien (SD
Ireland); Darrilyn Peters; Minelle Sarfo-Adu; John Simson; Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt;
Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Chris Trombly; Bolduc, Vincent L.
Subject: EXTERNAL: I just sent this letter to the PC
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
October 24, 2021
Members of the Planning Commission:
The more I learn about climate change, the more I am convinced that every community
has a responsibility to address this vital issue, especially to reduce our greenhouse gas
Page 75
7
emissions. In Vermont these emissions are primarily produced by the transportation
sector, accounting for 44.7% of the damage (Agency of Natural Resources).
For this reason, and because SB is so geographically central to the core of Chittenden
County, I believe that we have a special obligation to allow more new housing in our
community, not less. Regulations that make it more difficult to build new housing in SB
relates to climate change in the following ways:
1. Continuing population growth coupled with the ongoing housing crisis means that
new residents to the region will be for forced to seek housing in the exurbs on
what is now undeveloped land.
2. South Burlington already has urban infrastructure in place to cope with the
challenges of growth. This is an environmental efficiency that exurban towns do
not have.
3. These new residents pushed to the exurbs will have to commute a greater
distance towards the Burlington/South Burlington job and service centers. More
of these households will need two cars and more of their time will be spent
driving. Long trips by garbage trucks, service vehicles and UPS deliveries will
follow. By one calculation, South Burlington households contribute 8.77 tonnes of
transportation related greenhouse gas to the atmosphere per year. Households
in Hinesburg add 10.22 tonnes and households in Jericho add 11.51 tonnes. The
greater the distance from urban centers, the more CO2 generated. Not just in
one year, but forever. To slow climate change, the first thing we need to do is
stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Simply put, South Burlington’s central
location allows our residents to do less damage to the atmosphere than do more
distant towns. https://htaindex.cnt.org/fact-sheets/
Saving trees anywhere is an inherent good, not only for their beauty, but for the role
they play in absorbing CO2. But removing trees for development in SB does exactly the
same damage as removing trees for development in the exurbs. Saving a tree in SB
means cutting a tree in Jericho. It’s a wash. The same may be said for fields and
wildlife, although these have fewer consequences in terms of climate change. I’m afraid
that some of the SB voices who speak so eloquently for “protecting the environment”
are misunderstanding this important fact about the causes of climate change. First and
foremost, we need to stop adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. To do this, we
need to loosen—not tighten—housing restrictions in the core communities of Chittenden
County.
Most of us who live in the SEQ enjoy our open spaces and forests, but it may be a short
lived luxury that future generations on our planet will pay for. Allowing higher densities
in SB will do less damage to the earth’s atmosphere than forcing population growth out
to the exurbs. As the environmental crisis worsens many such environmental dilemmas
will require difficult trade-offs for the good of the whole. The Planning Commission acts
locally, but also needs to think regionally and globally.
Please carefully consider the Resolutions of the Affordable Housing Committee,
particularly any regulations that use the term “permanent.” Earth’s atmosphere is in a
state of flux and LDR’s made today could tie our hands for 100 or more years when we
may be desperate for land use flexibility. As but one example, our Resolution #5 asks
you to consider replacing “permanent conservation” with a 25 year easement when
regulations could be revisited in light of climate changes unimagined today. In a critically
Page 76
8
important time like this, it makes sense to pay less attention to current residents
organized to halt new housing proposals, and pay more attention to our long term future
on the planet.
Thank you,
Vince Bolduc
Cc to City Council and the Affordable Housing Committee
Page 77
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:53 PM
To:Alida & John Dinklage
Cc:Dooley, Sandy - home; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: concerns about lack of balance in the proposed dev reg changes
Thank you for the input John.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________
From: Alida & John Dinklage <jadinklage@MyFairPoint.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:28 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Cc: Dooley, Sandy - home
Subject: EXTERNAL: concerns about lack of balance in the proposed dev reg changes
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Jessica, Let me make this short and to the point. The proposed balance between accommodating development needs
and preservation of natural resources in the SEQ is not appropriate, in my opinion. Way too much land is being
eliminated from potential development. The minimum of 4 units per acre in PUD's is a constructive requirement which I
believe should not be removed.
As has been said before, which I believe, South Burlington is part of the urban core, with infrastructure, and we have an
obligation to allow good, dense residential development in the SEQ so that folks don't build out in Jericho and Hinesburg
and have to commute through our city to get to where they need to go. That is sprawl.
I'm sorry that I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. Please pass these thoughts on to the PC. Thank you for
considering these thoughts. John Dinklage
Page 78
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:56 PM
To:Susan Hartman
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: LDR comments for public hearing
Thank you for the input Susan.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________
From: Susan Hartman <soarlikeaneagle33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:19 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: LDR comments for public hearing
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 Planning Commissioners,
I think nature is in my blood. As a very young girl my father would have me planting seeds with him. He was an outdoor
person and instilled that in me.
Open land is so important to our health, our frame of mind, and our sanity. Many people move to Vermont for our open
spaces and for the chance to participate in so many wonderful outdoor activities without driving for hours.
It’s very important, in my opinion, that we carefully draft our regulations with the environment in mind and with the
understanding of the effect they will have on our town, our schools, and whether it will destroy our wetlands or animal
habitats.
I am not opposed to the building of houses, but I do think sometimes money is the driving force in so many decisions. I
am a retired realtor and know that housing and the housing industry is crucial to realtors. But, even as a realtor, I
supported the preservation of open land. I still support that now.
I strongly support the recommendations made by Arrowwood Environmental to increase the amount of buffer lands
around wildlife habitats. This will help us protect our precious land and preserve it for our children and grandchildren.
Page 79
2
Yes, we still need houses. That is not the issue. Let’s build responsibly. Let’s take the time needed to explore how our
new regulations will affect South Burlington’s open spaces
Thank you for considering my views as you make these important decisions.
Susan Hartman
South Burlington resident
PS please share this with the other Commissioners. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 80
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:53 PM
To:Katie Langrock
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Proposed Land Development Rules
Thank you for the input Katie.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Katie Langrock <katielangrock@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: Proposed Land Development Rules
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 Ms. Louisos,
I am writing in regards to the proposed land development rules that are the subject of this evening’s
public hearing.
I believe that our rules should not perpetuate the current situation of middle and lower income
households not being able to live in the Southeast Quadrant due to the cost of housing.
I have reviewed the affordable housing committee's resolution and what they propose makes
sense. I strongly support the changes the committee requests in the “be it resolved” section of the
resolution.
Page 81
2
Thank you,
Katie Langrock
Page 82
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
October 26, 2021
Ms. Jessica Louisos
Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Public Hearing for Planned Zoning Amendments October 26, 2021
Dear Commission Members:
Thank you all for the time and effort spent to date on working through the details of this
complex amendment to the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations. While our office
has done its best to follow the progress of the Commission over the past many years, including remote
work during the pandemic, this meeting packet and the recent complete drafts made available were our
first opportunity to thoroughly review the changes proposed, and to understand exactly how those
changes are implemented and constructed within the context of the regulations. We hope that the
Commission can consider and make changes responsive to feedback it receives now that these complete
drafts are available prior to putting the regulations into effect. Our specific and highest priority
concerns are outlined below for your consideration.
I.Zoning Districts in PUD Floating Zone:
Previous iterations of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards, reference a
Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) not currently proposed. In a draft of these district standards
on the city website from October 2019, the standard can be seen to include building height of 3-4
stories, maximum density of 8-16 units per acre, and a purpose of promoting compact high-density
mixed-use development.
For all the years that the PUD standards have been discussed, the C1-LR zoning district, located
in one single geography in the city, at the intersection of Kimball Ave. and Kennedy Drive, has been
presumed to be an NCD PUD type. This is primarily because permitting efforts, master plans, and PUD’s
being pursued in tandem with City Staff, City Stakeholders and Committees, and the Development
Review Board since 2015 and actively under construction currently, have exclusively contemplated
higher intensity multi-story mixed use development in this area. This development is in line with the
rules of the C1-LR district, in line with the rules of the adjacent R12 zoning district, and is in line with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan (this part of the city is colored red and indicated for medium to higher
intensity mixed use development on Map 11).
Page 83
We are therefore surprised and would request more information as to why the C1-LR was
included in the TND PUD. This PUD type seems to represent a significant decrease in development
potential for the C1-LR, and is contrary to all of the planning, permitting and design efforts that have
been done to date on that specific zone, both by the landowner as well as by City staff and the
Development Review Board. Specific changes (as we understand them) that result from the C1-LR being
included in the TND PUD type:
1.Height of buildings reduced from 40’ to 2.5 stories maximum (Per Table 15.C.06-1).
2.Size of buildings restricted from unlimited except by height and setbacks, to not more than
12 units per building (at the edge/transition area with a special allowance for context that
can - but may not - be granted by the DRB), and with a by right building size of only 4 units
per building (Per Table 15.C.06-2B TND Building Types, as defined at draft Appendix included
at page 214 of the draft packet redline).
3.Coverage reduced from 70% of all acreage to 60% of buildable area (Per Table 15.C.06-1).
The result of these changes is a significant decrease in zoning density and development
potential, and a complete change to the nature of allowed development, not to mention a significant
decrease in the amount of much needed housing stock that could be located in an area well equipped
and designed to support it. The reality made stark by the fact that this PUD type, being applied to land
currently zoned at 12 units per acre located on major arterial roads in the heart of the city, is also being
applied to land currently zoned for 1 unit per acre, with a 25% coverage limitation (R1 PRD).
We would request that the Planning Commission reconsider the inclusion of the C1-LR in this
TND PUD, and work at developing and adopting standards in line with the current zoning as a NCD PUD
type at a future date. This land has the same density as the R12 land which is not included in the TND.
There does not appear to be any part of the existing zoning district that would be similar to the
characteristics of the TND. We hope that the C1-LR inclusion will be reconsidered.
II.Applicability of PUD and Master Plan, New Subdivision Criteria at Article 15:
Across the City many landowners have existing planned unit developments and master plans in
place. These projects were permitted and negotiated to allow for construction over time of
development compliant with the zoning for the area. In reviewing the draft ordinance, there appears to
be little clarity on how the new regulations interact with these existing PUDs. A few questions to which
we are unsure of the answers might be illustrative of this point.
First, let’s define an existing hypothetical project. The existing PUD is an 8-lot subdivision of
approximately 20 acres of C1-LR Land. The associated roads, parks and infrastructure are confirmed and
under construction. Significant public park space and infrastructure has been invested in, built and set
aside, including playgrounds, streets, recreation paths and open recreation fields, all deeded to the city
by the developer as part of a good faith negotiation and compromise. The eight remaining lots have
density for 240 dwelling units, but no specific structures have been proposed or approved.
Following are three scenarios that in our experience are very common for a long-term
development to require: 1. Adjusting lot lines to allow for buildings of the size/requirements that meet
market demand or that meet an opportunity; 2. combining lots to allow for larger single building
projects when appropriate; and 3. permitting multiple structures on a single lot to allow for phased
Page 84
construction and different housing types. In reviewing the ordinance, we have a number of questions as
to how the review would occur.
1.Scenario 1: Combine 3 lots into one large 6-acre lot and permit a 75-unit multi-family
building with 12 perpetually affordable inclusionary dwellings.
a.Is a PUD required per Section 15.C.02(C)?
b.Is a Master Plan required per Section 15.B.02(A)?
c.In what scenario is a 75-unit building allowed?
d.If this building was 75 perpetually affordable units, would the project be allowed?
2.Scenario 2: Applicant proposes to develop one of the previously permitted lots, which is
3.9 acres, with five, six-unit buildings each on a footprint lot.
a.Is this allowed with the current re-write of Section 3.09(C)(1)?
b.Must this project adhere to the PUD standards to be permissible?
c.Is the DRB provided authority to review this project under site plan review?
d.Is the DRB provided the authority to review this project under subdivision review?
e.If a PUD is required does Article 15.B.02(A)(3) require a master plan as well?
f.Is there any exemption for existing Planned Unit Developments to not need to complete
a new sub-PUD and a new sub-Master Plan within an existing PUD or Master Plan?
g.Is PUD review limited to relevant or impacted criteria as is the case with subdivision
review for amendments?
h.Is there any specific process for PUD amendments outlined in the new regulations?
i.Is the effect of this regulation that any development of a pre-existing residential lot
outside of the Form Based Code district is limited to only one building, or must comply
with the PUD floating zone in effect for that district no matter the size of the lot
involved?
3.Scenario 3: Moving internal lot lines on three lots total of five acres in order to adjust
borders to fit proposed buildings. No expansion of project borders, internal lot line
adjustments and construction of 3-multi-family structures one on each of the adjusted
lots.
a.Is a PUD required per Section 15.C.02(C)?
b.Is a Master Plan required per Section 15.B.02(A)?
c.A Subdivision Amendment is required. Per Section 15.A.09(2) The scope of review will
be limited to those aspects of the approved subdivision plan and plat affected by the
amendment.
i.In this scenario Lots are being affected. Section 15.A.16((B)(4) states that a
minimum of 10% of buildable area must be developed as civic space. Does this
requirement apply even if the PUD already includes civic space and no
modification to Civic space is proposed?
ii.In this scenario does Section 15.A.17 apply? This section requires a mix of
dwelling unit types, cottage, single family, two family and small multi-family be
mixed within blocks and along streets. How is this requirement triggered and
what is the applicability?
Page 85
d.Does DRB Waiver authority include waivers to building type, civic space or unit mix
requirements outlined above outside of the PUD Process?
Moving forward, we hope that the Planning Commission can develop some standards for how
these new rules are applied to existing Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans, to avoid some of
the problems outlined above. We would be happy to work with you in this effort and we hope that this
opportunity presents itself. We would also hope that the Planning Commission can take into
consideration the significant efforts and investment both by landowners and developers as well as the
time and public discourse invested by the Development Review Board and City staff on projects already
vested under existing PUDs.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gill, Director of Development
Page 86
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:55 PM
To:Ann Pugh
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: tonight's meeting and the AHC resolution
Thank you for the input Ann.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Ann Pugh <repannpugh@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: tonight's meeting and the AHC resolution
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 Jessica,
I don't envy you being Chair of the Planning Committee. I realize that you are hearing many different voices
and perspectives . I want to add my voice in support of the resolution submitted by the South Burlington
Affordable Housing Committee. In my various hats-as a long time South Burlington resident, a social worker
and a legislator chairing the Human Services Committee I have become painfully aware how t he region’s
affordable housing shortage has reached crisis proportions. I want to acknowledge the role that you
and the city as a whole has played up to this point in increasing the number of affordable housing
units in Chittenden County and I respectfully ask that our community continues to be leader and that
the committee adopts the resolution submitted by our Affordable Housing Committee .
Gratefully,
Ann
Representative Ann Pugh
Chair, House Human Services Committee
67 Bayberry Lane
Page 87
2
South Burlington, VT 05403
802-863-6705
Please note that written communications with me, including electronic messages, may be subject to disclosure
as a public record under the Vermont Public Records Act.
Page 88
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:54 PM
To:Cindy Reid
Cc:ctrombly@gmail.com; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee Resolution
Thank you for the input Cindy.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Cindy Reid <Reid@cathedralsquare.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Cc: ctrombly@gmail.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee Resolution
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good afternoon Jessica,
I understand the Planning Commission is taking up the issue of affordable housing at tonight’s meeting. I am
unable to attend, but wanted to express my strong support for the Affordable Housing Committee’s
Recommendations in their Resolution dated 10/22/2021.
We have a critical need for more housing, including more affordable housing, and this need will require many
tools and approaches. The Committee’s recommendations will be a strong step forward.
Cathedral Square has close to 1,000 rental housing units (majority for older adults), mainly in Chittenden
County, and we have over 830 unduplicated persons on our wait list. It takes time and investment to bring on
new housing units, and more tools are needed in our “development toolbox” like density and other zoning
changes which support the development of more multifamily housing.
We appreciate the City’s support of our housing communities in South Burlington including Allard Square,
Grand Way Commons, Farrell Street Senior Housing, and South Burlington Community Housing.
We hope you will support the Committee’s recommendations.
Sincerely,
Page 89
2
Cindy Reid
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Director of Development
Cathedral Square
412 Farrell Street, Suite 100
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 859-8805
reid@cathedralsquare.org
PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments are for the designated recipient only and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise private. If you are not the intended recipient, any use or
distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify the sender and delete the original message
and any copies and attachments from your system.
https://www.cathedralsquare.org
STOP THE SPREAD: 6-Foot Spaces, Masks on Faces, Uncrowded Spaces.
https://www.healthvermont.gov/covid-19
Page 90
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:58 PM
To:DOUGLAS SMITH
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Comment on Draft Land Development Regulation Amendments
Thank you for the input Douglas.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: DOUGLAS SMITH <dsmith974@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 9:03 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: Comment on Draft Land Development Regulation Amendments
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 Ms. Louisos,
I’m a South Burlington resident (14 years and counting), writing to provide some feedback on the
current Draft Land Development Regulation Amendments.
My directional feedback is that the draft amendments appear to be weighted too heavily toward
supporting additional development in South Burlington. In my view, the amended regulations do not
place enough weight on the preservation of wildlife habitats, meadows and forests, which I think
contribute significantly to South Burlington’s unique character. Below are a couple of specific
observations and recommendations.
First, my understanding is that the City retained professional expertise (e.g., Arrowwood
Environmental) to identify specific types of areas and habitat blocks that are critical to wildlife diversity
and provide other forms of value to the City. Several of the firm’s recommendation (e.g., increase
buffer lands around wildlife habitats, restore protection for shrub lands). The Arrowwood
recommendations generally make sense to me, but the draft amendments run counter to several of
them. It is particularly problematic that the draft amendments would remove from protection some
areas that are part of or connected to the “Great Swamp” area which Arrowwood identified as the
most important habitat block in South Burlington.
Page 91
2
For context, I don’t object to development everywhere and I am not proposing any sort of moratorium
here. But there clearly is sufficient room in South Burlington to develop substantial additional housing
without compromising these natural areas – particularly Habitat Block and Habitat Connectors in the
Southeast Quadrant. Giving up wildlife habitat and associated natural features is essentially
irreversible, and I predict that residents will have considerable regrets (and probably additional costs)
if these areas are developed. I recommend that forested areas (and any other ecologically valuable
areas) associated with the Great Swamp that were removed from protection in these draft regulations
should be restored to protected status and be off-limits for any new housing; piecemeal exceptions
are a bad idea. I would also recommend that the Regulation fully follow Arrowwood’s
recommendation with respect to restoring protection for shrub land areas and increase the amount of
buffer around wildlife habitats.
The other concern I wanted to mention is the new “minimum density” requirement affecting
developments in the Southeast Quadrant, such as the proposed Conservation Planned Unit
Development. If I am reading the draft regulation language correctly, it would require a landowner
wishing to conserve a portion of his/her land to build a minimum number of houses – at least four
houses per acre - on the remainder of that land. This would essentially flip the current construct of
maximum allowed builds on its head, and in my view is not consistent with protecting the natural
resources contained on these rural lands. I fail to see the rationale for this new provision, and
recommend against it. In general I would recommend that the Commission and the Regulation
maintain the rights of landowners wishing to conserve their property, not limit them.
I trust that this feedback is helpful; thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Douglas C. Smith
97 Four Sisters Road
South Burlington
Page 92
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:57 PM
To:NANCY TRACY
Cc:planning; Paul Conner
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: your hearing tonight
Thank you for the input Nancy.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: NANCY TRACY <nstracy@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: your hearing tonight
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Good morning Jessica,
Best wishes are sent to you and your commissioners regarding the Planning Commission
hearing.
Having read Sandy Dooley's perspective online and talked with a valuable SBLT friend, I
respect your decisions for South Burlington and its future.
I know you are aware of the fact that more affordable housing is needed in our city as well as
the county.
Perhaps, your vow for continued work with the other planning commissioners in Chittenden
County to meet that need as well as protecting the land we want undeveloped for many,
many years will help those on both sides of the question. Our city arguments go beyond our
borders!
As ever,
Nancy Tracy
Cathedral Square Corp. resident
South Burlington
Page 93
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 1:58 PM
To:Lynn Vera
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Tonite’s public hearing
Thank you for the input Lynn.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________________
From: Lynn Vera <lynnveravermont@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 9:11 AM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: Tonite’s public hearing
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 Jessica:
I have lived in south burlington for over 30 years so have watched firsthand our transition from rural to suburban
landscape. Many years ago, I supported the transfer of the Miller barn to The Schoolhouse in the Southeast
quadrant….little did I know what a Pandora’s box of massive housing development would quickly follow
I am a proponent of open space, preserved recreational access land, wildlife corridors and space, and I recognize the
huge need for affordable housing
This can co-exist.
South Burlington has an opportunity to do it better and not just relegate affordable housing to ugly apartment buildings
on busy streets. This new VT trend in Burlington, Winooski and south Burlington is so unfortunate and, frankly, ugly and
short sighted
It is troubling to me that one neighborhood in south burlington differs so markedly from our other neighborhoods in
terms of the socio-economic status of the households there. Now I know that evolution toward wealthier households is
happening in much of our beautiful town. I live in Queen City park….the gentrification here ( mostly driven by out-of-
Page 94
2
state wealthy folks buying former small homes that were once camps ), is frightening as this neighborhood too has
become out of reach. This is relatively new
But the Southeast Quadrant has been that way since we allowed development there. The median household income in
that Census tract is twice that of the other Census tracts in SB! This unfortunate situation - extreme class segregation -
is itself a barrier to opportunities for equity, diversity, inclusion. Any time we create ANY policy In SB, in any area of
governance and civic oversight, shouldn’t we try to use the lens of inclusion, diversity, integration, access?
When it comes to the zoning regs, I understand the rules that the Planning commission has proposed ( for example,
requiring all developments of 4 or more acres in the SE quadrant to be developed as conservation planned unit
developments (PUD). While at first a good idea for space perhaps, this will make it much harder for anyone of modest
or average means to live there. It’s already become a zip code of means….. let’s try to expand that, integrate it while we
have a chance. Better for kids, for families, for our town. The PUD requires 70% of the land that is part of the
development to be conserved permanently- this will reduce the amount of land available for ( much needed) residential
development and likely increase its ( already very high) cost.
This stands in the way of greater opportunity, equity, diversity and inclusion.
Please delete this requirement.
I certainly am not saying “ don’t add any more conserved land” (!!)… I am saying please try harder to do this job in a
more balanced way. To examine zoning regs in a way that transparently examines access ( who lives where, and do we
intend to “protect” that?) and shows an investment in inclusion and diversity while protecting natural resource
conservation.
The SE heats quadrant should not be off limits to innovative and smart affordable housing.it won’t look like the big
expensive single family homes w/ large yards around each ( this is not wildlife friendly, open space respectful or natural
resource smart, as I think the PUD plan is attempting to address). But the PUD would perhaps unintentionally prevent
innovative development that could help with inclusive, integrated community AND be smart for open land conservation
and natural resource protection.
I know Im not at all alone in thinking this way
Thank you for your time, your service, your work on this
Lynn vera
South burlington
802-363-3133
Sorry if I missed my typos!
Sent from my iPad
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
10/26/2021
To: Ms. Jessica Louisos - Chair, South Burlington Planning Commission
From: John Burton
Re: Draft of proposed LDR amendments
I am writing as a longtime resident, businesses owner and involved citizen to express my opinions about
the ramifications of the proposed LDR changes. I have been reading your proposed amendments and
the work of the Affordable Housing Committee’s meetings for the last few years. I have considerable
respect for the difficult work that everyone has done to improve our city. After reading the Affordable
Housing committee’s resolution relating to the LDR changes, I strongly agree with their recommended
adjustments to the amendments. I urge the committee to pause and consider these changes, to
consider shortening the regulations and to understand the long-term unintended consequences of these
changes.
Government regulatory complexity can add costs for all involved. The proposed regulations run 384
pages and will provide additional red tape and thereby costs to new housing and businesses. The
proposed regulations add 8.2% more pages of regulations than the existing regulations and are 38.4%
longer than the average of our neighboring towns. These changes will put South Burlington on par with
Burlington in the length of land use regulations.
Town Pages of LDRs
Burlington 384
Williston 361
South Burlington (existing) 355
Shelburne 283
Essex Town 259
Hinesburg 192
Winooski 186
Average 277
Page 102
The committee needs to also further consider the possible long-term unintended consequences of the
proposed changes. Over long periods of time these changes are likely to impact the economy, our social
fabric and the environment as follows:
Economic
1.reduce available housing space and therefore increase the cost of housing (the
economic law of supply and demand)
2.increase tax burden as taxes are spread over a smaller base
3.underutilize the infrastructure capacity and drive up infrastructure costs in adjacent
towns
Social
1.lower population diversity due to the high cost of housing
2.increase intra-city frictions as the SEQ property costs outpace densely settled areas
Environmental
1.add more transportation emissions of CO2 as housing costs push people to settle in
other towns further from work & shopping
Please take time to review your recommendations in light of the goals of the South Burlington
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
“Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of
life”
“Reduce energy consumption city-wide”
“Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and target
income level”
“Continue to be an economic hub for the region consistent with the land use goals of
the City”
“Maintain a stable and proportional tax for existing and future residents and
businesses”
Thank you for your hard work and consideration,
John Burton
35 year resident of South Burlington
SB Economic Development Committee Chair
SBBA Board Member
Page 103
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:16 PM
To:cerulean171@comcast.net
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Land Development Regulations Public Hearing 26 October 2021
Thanks Peter.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: cerulean171@comcast.net <cerulean171@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Land Development Regulations Public Hearing 26 October 2021
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 Ms. Louisos,
Thank you for your long-term commitment to the Planning Commission. It is hard to believe that you have been
engaged with this City committee for such a long time. From roughly ten years starting in 2002, I sat on the South
Burlington Natural Resources Committee, the South Burlington Land Trust and the South Burlington Energy Committee
and had met with you and the rest of the Planning Commission on several occasions. Wow! Thank you!
Back in those days of the early 2000’s, I would embark on regular “hikes” into some of what were then the “wilder”
parts of South Burlington. On those walks, I would see many species of birds that are no longer found nesting in the
City, such as the Northern Harrier, the Eastern Meadowlark, and the Bobolink, which are absent on those properties due
to development as well as many other undocumented species of flora and fauna. Many of those properties that I used
to walk on are now severely altered from their natural state with housing, roads, and other developments. In my
experience, once properties are developed, they stay developed.
To ensure the survival of any of the remaining natural areas of the city, I believe that we should heed to the
recommendations of Arrowwood Environmental and increase the size of buffers around wildlife habitats. Forested
lands should also remain forested, especially in and around the Great Swamp, a special place in our city.
In terms of development in the Southeast Quadrant, I truly believe that we really should not prioritize development on
any of our existing natural and open lands. We have a vibrant downtown area with existing public transportation routes
which is a frequently forgotten issue. Most of the housing that has been built in the SEQ serve the upper economic
sector of our housing needs. I strongly believe that to address our desperate housing needs, especially for affordable
housing, we should prioritize developing within existing high-density areas, along travel corridors, and the re-
development of properties that are either under-utilized or have fallen into disrepair (there are unfortunately many
examples of this). If we must add housing, let’s rebuild, or build up, not out. A prime example of this is the
redevelopment of the site on Shelburne Road where Bliss Bee, 802 Optician and the Mascoma Bank sit beneath
apartments. Look across the street and see wasted space where the Northfield Bank sits, a tiny building on a huge
Page 104
2
commercial lot, which is a common site along this section of Shelburne Road. These are not complicated ideas, just
common sense.
Our city, state, and country (and planet!) are at a crossroads at this moment and the decisions we make today will have
long term implications on all our futures. Our natural lands provide us with many services, such as filtering water,
soaking up and storing stormwater, cleaning the air, and providing South Burlington residents with gorgeous views and
recreational opportunities. These are solid reasons for maintaining open spaces as is, as evidenced by the expanded use
of SB parks and trails during Covid, and as evidenced by recent flooding events. Our community needs these resources
as much as we need new housing or new business. Please do everything within your power to work through the details
of the new regulations so that we do not imperil our future.
Again, thank you for your commitment to our city. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
All the Best,
Peter Jones
Page 105
2FWREHU
0HPRUDQGXPWR -HVVLFD/RXLVRV&KDLUDQG3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQHUV
)URP /\QQH&3RWHDX *ROI&RXUVH5RDG6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ
5( &RPPHQWVRQ3URSRVHG/DQG'HYHORSPHQW5HJXODWLRQV
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUVHUYLFHRQRXUFLW\¶V3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
,DPZULWLQJWRMRLQZLWKPDQ\RWKHU6%FLWL]HQVWRXUJHWKDWWKH&RPPLVVLRQ
DPHQGWKHSURSRVHG/DQG'HYHORSPHQW5HJXODWLRQVWR
5HVWRUHWKHZLOGOLIHKDELWDWEORFNVZKLFKKDYHEHHQHOLPLQDWHGDQG
LQFUHDVHWKHEXIIHUDUHDVLGHQWLILHGE\$UURZZRRG(QYLURQPHQWDO,WLV
DODUPLQJWKDWVHFWLRQVRIZLOGOLIHKDELWDWEORFNVLQWZRDUHDVZHUHHOLPLQDWHG
DWWKHUHTXHVWRIDODQGRZQHUDQGDKRXVLQJGHYHORSHU7KDWLVVLPSO\ZURQJ
DQGDQDEXVHRIWKHSXEOLF¶VWUXVWLQDVNLQJWKDWWKHUHYLVHGUHJXODWLRQV
SURWHFWRXUUHPDLQLQJSUHFLRXVRSHQVSDFHDVFULWLFDOHQYLURQPHQWDODQG
FRPPXQLW\DVVHWV
5HPRYHWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVWLSXODWLQJWKDWDODQGRZQHURIIRXURU
PRUHDFUHVLQWKH6RXWKHDVW4XDGUDQWZKRZDQWVWRFRQVHUYHVRPHRIWKHLU
SURSHUW\RIXVDOOPXVWGHYHORSDWOHDVWIRXUKRXVLQJXQLWVSHUDFUH:K\WKLV
JLIWWRGHYHORSPHQWLQWHUHVWVDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKHHQWLUHFRPPXQLW\"
$V\RXZRUNWRILQDOL]HWKHGUDIWUHJXODWLRQVSOHDVHDOVRNHHSLQPLQGWKHELJ
SLFWXUHVSHFLILFDOO\
7KDWRQFHDSDUFHORIODQGLVGHYHORSHGWKHUHLVQRJRLQJEDFNDQGWDNLQJWKH
EXLOGLQJVGRZQWRUHFUHDWHRSHQVSDFH
$VDUHVLGHQW,DPVWUXFNE\WKHIDFWWKDWDVWDUNDUJXPHQWKDVEHHQPDGH
WKDWZHDUHPDNLQJDFKRLFHEHWZHHQ2SHQ6SDFH25DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
7KDW¶VVLPSO\QRWWKHFDVHDQGLW¶VUHDOO\TXLWHGLVLQJHQXRXV
Page 106
:HDUHLQWKHH[WUHPHO\IRUWXQDWHSRVLWLRQWKDWZHFDQERWKSUHVHUYHRXU
UHPDLQLQJSUHFLRXVRSHQVSDFHKHUHLQ6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQIRUHYHU\RQH¶V
EHQHILWLQWKHFRPPXQLW\$1'DWWKHVDPHWLPHZHFDQGHYHORSDIIRUGDEOH
KRXVLQJLQRUQHDURXUFLW\¶VFRUH
$QGVR,ZRXOGDVN\RXWRGRWKHULJKWWKLQJIRUWKHUHVLGHQWVRIWKLV
FRPPXQLW\DQGIRUIXWXUHJHQHUDWLRQV3UHVHUYHRXUSUHFLRXVUHPDLQLQJ
RSHQVSDFHZKLOHDOVRGHVLJQDWLQJDSSURSULDWHGRZQWRZQODQGVIRUPRUH
DIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJ
/HW¶VEHDPRGHOFRPPXQLW\WKDWJHWVLWULJKW,OHDYH\RXZLWKWKHVHZRUGVE\
WKHSUHVFLHQW5DFKHO&DUVRQLQSilent Spring:
³:HVWDQGQRZZKHUHWZRURDGVGLYHUJH%XWXQOLNHWKHURDGVLQ5REHUW
)URVW¶VIDPLOLDUSRHPWKH\DUHQRWHTXDOO\IDLU7KHURDGZHKDYHORQJEHHQ
WUDYHOLQJLVGHFHSWLYHO\HDV\DVPRRWKVXSHUKLJKZD\RQZKLFKZHSURJUHVV
ZLWKJUHDWVSHHGEXWDWLWVHQGOLHVGLVDVWHU7KHRWKHUIRUNRIWKHURDG²WKH
RQH³OHVVWUDYHOHG´²RIIHUVRXUODVWRXURQO\FKDQFHWRUHDFKDGHVWLQDWLRQ
WKDWDVVXUHVWKHSUHVHUYDWLRQRIWKHHDUWK´
³7KHFKRLFHDIWHUDOOLVRXUVWRPDNH´
7KDQN\RX
Page 107
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:16 PM
To:kmryder
Cc:Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: New LDRs
Thanks Karen
Get Outlook for iOS
From: kmryder <kmryder@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 5:49 PM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: New 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.
Thank you Planning Commission for all your hard work on the LDRs during the many months of Interim
Zoning. I am proud and marvel at the volunteer spirit in South Burlington given the knowledge and time that
City projects so often require. Your job was one of the most difficult and time consuming and you are to be
commended.
I am well aware of the tug of war between proponents of Affordable Housing vs. Land Conservation. I personally believe
both can be achieved if we adhere to many of the recommendations being made by climate and climate conscious
housing professionals.
Our LDRs should be written with those recommendations in mind as we are hurtling to a crisis point in both. Many of the
draft LDRs address these but, to my mind, some seem to nullify climate concerns.
Specifically, why are the LDRs spelling out a minimum density per acre in the PUDs? There should be no prescribed
mimimum.
Additionally, it was clear in the Arrowood report that sufficient buffers around habitat blocks are necessary for our
wildlife to thrive. Yet some of these have been deleted in opposition to a report the City requested.
Another diminished buffer to a wetland seems to be created to benefit one landowner.
Especially in this critical time which puts SB children at serious climate change risk,
we need to take every opportunity to mitigate that risk in our own city. We have unused buildings, empty parking lots
and a City Center created to provide affordable housiing in SB that will reduce construction costs, travel, and increase
access to necessary services.
I am asking that you make some revisions to the LDRs and view them through this lens.
Page 108
2
Thank you.
Karen Ryder
20 Duchess Avenue
922 4859
Sent from Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Page 109
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:15 PM
To:Penne Tompkins
Cc:Helen Riehle; Paul Conner; planning
Subject:Re: EXTERNAL: Public Hearing on Draft Land Regulations: comment
Thanks Penne
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Penne Tompkins <penarts.tompkins@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:12 PM
To: jlouisos@sburl.com
Cc: Helen Riehle
Subject: EXTERNAL: Public Hearing on Draft Land Regulations: comment
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Jessica,
I am unable to attend the Public Hearing this evening and wanted to submit a few comments to be
shared with the other Commissioners. First, I want to thank you and all the Commissioners for the
incredibly hard work you have put into revising our city's LDRs which will help to shape this
community for decades to come. It is a bear of a job!
Over the last three years I have been following many of the discussions during Interim Zoning about
how our community can address major issues such as climate change, preserving open spaces,
valuing our natural resources, providing more affordable housing and generally improving the
quality of life for SB residents and businesses that are here or want to locate here. It is also clear
that the primary way that we, as a community, will be guiding these diverse goals is through our
revised Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Therefore it is critical for our revised LDRs to reflect
the multiple studies that were conducted by city volunteers and outside expert consultants during
this interim zoning period, with my particular interest being the preservation of open spaces and
mitigating the effects of climate change.
The city conducted multiple studies to help identify our most valuable areas of open land to
preserve and create zoning and standards that allow growth in logical places within the city, while
also fostering needs for affordable housing across the community. And yet, some of the revised
draft regulations, conflict with our community's goals around preserving our natural spaces.
I have learned of an illogical provision in the draft “Conservation Planned Unit Development (PUD)”
which stipulates that someone who has four or more acres in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) who
wants to conserve part of it and develop other parts of it, MUST build AT LEAST four housing
Page 110
2
units per acre. This simply doesn't make sense if the goal is to allow property owners to preserve
and protect their open rural lands, especially those containing natural resources and wildlife
habitats. Requiring many more houses to be built on the very lands identified to be preserved than
exist in the current regulations just makes no sense.
The other area around which there has been much discussion is Article 12, Environmental
Protection Standards, which fall within the LDRs. During this interim zoning period Arrowwood
Environmental identified the key forested habitat blocks in SB and cautioned that for wildlife to
thrive, the areas surrounding these habitat blocks also need to be protected (animals cannot see
invisible borders). Arrowwood noted that the land surrounding the wildlife habitats function as a
buffer against human disturbance and provide areas the wildlife need for food, shelter, space, and
water. Arrowwood advised providing buffers to habitat blocks as an effective measure towards
ensuring that wildlife survive. In the current draft LDRs, wildlife habitat blocks do not have enough
land “buffer areas” around them. Additionally there are important wildlife habitat blocks which
have been eliminated. I believe that the buffer areas need to be increased and that the
wildlife habitat blocks which have been eliminated need to be restored.
The provisions in these two pieces of the draft LDRs are contrary to both the information that has
been learned during this interim period studying the future of our open spaces and
natural environment for SB and the community members expressed concern for protecting our
environment. (It was a strong reason for interim zoning in the first place!) If passed as currently
drafted, these two provisions alone will likely cause more harm to our wildlife, destroy more of our open
lands, and hurt our community's efforts to withstand the climate crisis impacts coming our way.
Please reconsider redrafting these two pieces of the draft LDRs before making your
recommendations to the City Council.
Thank you for listening,
Penne
Penne Tompkins
(she/her/hers)
PenArts Communications LLC
802 373-2787
Page 111
1
Betsy Brown
From:Ric Dahlstrom <ricdahlstrom@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:34 PM
To:planning
Subject:EXTERNAL: LDR -draft
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
I attended your meeting tonight and made a brief statement. Unfortunately, I had only heard of your meeting yesterday
and I was ill prepared.
I’ve since had a few minutes to look at the draft LDR and I realized that you want to take my entire 44 acres.
As the attorney lady said towards the end of the meeting, the application of your conservation plan will affect the larger
land owners unfairly.
I want to have 5 two acre lots including my house. That leaves 34 acres to conservation. How many South Burlington
residents can commit 34 acres to conservation? How many planning commission committee members are willing to give
away 34 acres?
5 lots on a private road is the current zoning for my property or 9 lots if I put in a city road, which I don’t want.
I know I may sound like a NIMBY but I do ask for fairness from the commission.
Ric Dahlstrom
1505 Dorset St
518-573-9350
Page 112
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I went through the entire LDR document, reading some portions more carefully than others. It took a lot
of time to read; so I can only imagine how much time and effort you put into drafting and reviewing
these documents. I applaud you and all those who contributed to this draft.
If I am understanding the provisions correctly (read my comment below), I see a number of
improvements. While I read through the entire document, my main focus was the impact our land
regulations would have on the environment, in particular, its impact on the natural resources and
wildlife we are privileged to have in our city. I also read it with the climate crisis in mind, assessing
whether the draft regulations would exacerbate climate change, or help mitigate its impacts. The land,
and how we use it, is at the center of the climate crisis. How we treat nature, in particular our natural
lands—over which the city has authority—is critical to whether the next generation will enjoy the
benefits most of us now have: clean air and water, sufficient water supplies, fertile soil, relief from heat,
and so much more. Unfortunately, nature has been treated as a commodity, often abused for monetary
profit without regard for how its destruction will affect the quality of our lives and those of future
generations. We often forget that we are part of nature and intimately connected.
Thank you for the new measures which protect our natural resources. And, thank you for changing the
term “hazards” when referring to our natural resources! Hazards are generally thought of as dangers.
Our natural resources are gifts, which benefit us immensely. As welcome as some of the new
protections are, other provisions overshadow them. Some provisions run counter to the city’s intent to
reduce our fossil fuel use, preserve our natural resource lands, and focus development along transit
lines and in city center. Other provisions contradict the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps the
most egregious of which is promoting, and even requiring, development on rural lands. Past
Commissions were against more suburban sprawl. As written, these LDRs do just the opposite.
General Comments
Confusing Language: I and others requested almost a year ago that these regulations be written in
language understandable to the average resident. That did not happen. As a result, the document is
incredibly complicated and confusing. In fact, I’m not entirely certain that my understanding of the draft
is accurate. So, I hope my comments make sense by reflecting the correct interpretations of the
provisions. If pharmaceutical companies and the legal profession are able to draft drug and legal
information in simple terms, certainly zoning rules can also be so written. The draft’s technical and
convoluted manner of writing will stop many people from reading it. We can’t expect residents to
comment coherently on something they can’t comprehend. And, sadly, the “Spotlight” segments on the
website mis-represent the information by omission.
Vague Terminology: Some frequently used words and phrases are undefined, nebulous, and open to
subjective interpretation (which could prompt lawsuits). Some of these include “undue adverse
impacts” “appropriate measures” “minimize” “robust planting plan” “restoration” “best practices” “to
maximum extent feasible” etc.
Unnecessary Latitude: In the past, members of the Development Review Board (DRB) complained
about the vagueness and the lack of specificity of some LDR provisions. Their job is to verify that
proposed developments comply with city land use regulations, not guess at the meaning or subjectively
interpret the regulations. In places too numerous to cite, these draft regulations again punt regulation
Page 113
interpretation to the DRB members. Incredible latitude is given to the DRB to make subjective decisions.
For example, in one provision it states that the DRB “may modify or waive a resource protection
standard.” In another place it says that the DRB is allowed to make decisions they “deem necessary.”
There are many other similar statements throughout the document.
Internal inconsistencies: In a few places the provisions mentioned in one chapter are contradicted or
superseded by provisions in other chapters. Unless the contradictions are removed, or a statement of
priority inserted before every provision so affected, one would have to read the entire document to see
whether a provision is over-ridden by a provision elsewhere.
Specific Comments
I took over six pages of notes from my reading of the draft LDRs. It would be cumbersome and would
take far too long to mention them all in this email. So, I will limit my specific comments to those
provisions which impact the natural environment and the climate crisis. NOTE: I use the word
“provisions” to mean specific wording in the draft, as I am uncertain of the proper term for this.
1. LOSS OF NATURAL RESOURCE LANDS: Most concerning is that the draft will allow further destruction
of natural resource lands, wildlife habitats, and existing connectivity of open lands. In most cases, this is
being done to accommodate more housing.
A. It is disheartening to see how the expert advice on protecting wildlife habitat blocks and
increasing buffer areas was ignored for some land areas. Some of the key recommendations from
Arrowwood Environmental were abandoned in order to allow more houses to be built. Especially
egregious is that housing will destroy more wildlife habitats and disrupt the areas in which they feed and
travel.
1.) In a effort to satisfy one landowner, land connected to the Great Swamp will be
lost! The greater good was sacrificed to accommodate the wishes of a landowner who wants to build a
few more houses on his land. The city has conducted dozens of studies over the decades about what
and how to preserve the natural environment in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). In every single report,
the Great Swamp is mentioned as the environmental jewel of the city that should NEVER be disturbed.
Yet, one provision crushes this jewel.
2.) In another provision, the draft again caters to an individual landowner/developer
and re-zones his land as he requested in order for him to build more houses than is currently allowed.
Past Commissions rejected “spot zoning” as a poor practice. The greater good and the overall needs of
the community should take precedence over an individual’s desires to benefit from a different use of
their land. Un-acknowledged in re-zoning this spot is the fact that wildlife habitat blocks, connectivity to
other preserved lands, and natural resource lands would be destroyed in the re-zoning. On numerous
occasions, state environmental experts told the city that it was essential for species survival that we
maintain land connectivity and not fragment the land.
B. Rather than INCREASING protections for some of our natural resource lands— or simply
retaining the existing protections—this draft REMOVES protections from categories of land like grass
lands, shrub lands, and agricultural lands. Not only will this negatively impact our wildlife, bird, and
insect habitats, removing protections of our fertile lands could jeopardize our food supply. Years ago,
experts warned us of possible upcoming food insecurities because of climate change. The city
Page 114
established the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security committee to address this. Tragically, their
information and recommendations were ignored. If protections for our fertile soils are further removed,
we will be less prepared in the future should we need to grow our own food and sustain ourselves.
2. HARMFUL HOUSING: In the newly written Environmental Protection Standards chapter, the focus in
some areas is not on environmental protections, but rather on encouraging more housing on the rural
lands. The provisions allowing, and even requiring, houses to be built on open lands runs counter to the
spirit and intent of Interim Zoning, and is out-of-step with what is needed in our current climate crisis
predicament. Numerous smart growth organizations, along with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Vermont Climate Council advocate against building houses on rural spaces.
A. Building structures over natural resource lands is triply bad for the climate — and us. It
destroys natural resources, uses massive amounts of fossil fuels to construct and maintain, and adds
more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Even if we mandate only net zero structures (which we
don’t, but should), the construction alone of the buildings will use massive amounts of fossil fuels and
increase our greenhouse gases. Just three materials—concrete, steel and aluminum—are responsible
for 23% of total global emissions. Together, building materials and construction are responsible for
39% of all carbon emissions. Operational emissions from energy used to heat, cool, and light buildings
account for 28%. So, a draft land use regulation that encourages more housing adds to the climate
crisis. It’s another inconvenient truth.
B. Claims that housing built on our rural lands would be affordable are blatantly false. Houses
built in the rural areas will burden the occupants with transportation costs, thus reducing its long-term
affordability. Occupants would be forced to use expensive taxi-like services, or purchase and maintain a
car(s) to reach necessary services, such as food, work, medical facilities, etc., for as long as they live
there.
C. The newly drafted Conservation Planned Unit Development (PUD) is especially problematic.
Conservation development is “doublespeak.” Conserved land is not developed. Developed land is not
conserved. Rather than focusing on conserving the lands, this provision mandates the landowner build
houses on parts of their land if they want to conserve another part of it. No development should be
allowed on the 25 highest valued natural resource areas identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space
committee and economically assessed by the Earth Economics firm. High value natural resource lands in
the SEQ must remain undisturbed if we want our land and wildlife to survive.
Using the word “conservation” sounds like “greenwashing.” While requiring the
protection of parts of the land, its mandate to build an unreasonable amount of housing units on other
areas close by will undoubtedly have deleterious impacts on the adjacent natural resource lands
through fragmentation, encroachment, pollution, runoff, lawn chemicals, road salt, etc. Any benefits of
preserving some parts of the land could be negated by impacts from the impervious surfaces of the
adjacent buildings and their accompanying paved areas.
D. The effort to have—much less expand—village residential in the SEQ is ill-conceived on
many levels. It will destroy more open lands. It competes with the new city center. It is counter to the
city’s intent to concentrate housing in city center and along transit routes. It violates smart, sustainable
and responsible housing guidelines, including those from the EPA and the Vermont Climate Council. To
reduce fossil fuel use and the reliance on cars, housing developments—much less a “village” — should
not be allowed in rural areas. Housing should be built in areas where people can walk, bike, or take
Page 115
public transportation to-and-from necessary services. These draft regulations perpetuate out-of-date
suburban sprawl types of development that currently cover too much of South Burlington’s rural lands.
3. LACK OF RENEWABLE ENERGY: Given the climate crisis and technological advancements in
renewable energy, South Burlington should join other U.S. cities in mandating that all new buildings
(residential and commercial) be constructed with renewable energy devices already installed.
“Encouraging” developers to install solar or other renewable heating, cooling, and water heating sources
has not worked. In Vermont, our residential sector is the largest energy end-use consumer in the state
and accounts for more than one-third of Vermont's end-use consumption. Moreover, all new structures
should be net zero.
4. TDR PROBLEM AND INCLUSIONARY ZONING: The problem with how the Transfer of Development
Rights (TDRs) are used was not solved. Having both sending and receiving areas in the same
geographical rural area is contradictory. An analysis of how TDRs are used elsewhere show the flaws in
our current approach. Given the admonitions against building on rural lands, our regulations should
establish sending areas only in the parts of the city identified for housing: city center and along transit
lines. Moreover, expanding inclusionary zoning city-wide (including the SEQ) provides bonuses for the
developer to build MORE houses on rural lands. Along with being outside the identified growth areas
and running counter to a host of other environmental and climate related issues, inclusionary zoning in
the SEQ will reduce the demand for TDRs. It is incoherent and will make TDRs worthless.
I know this may come across as harshly negative, but I offer it in a spirit of helpfulness and hope. I know
all of you acknowledge climate change and the necessity of taking actions to address it. Unfortunately,
this draft falls far short of establishing regulations which address the climate crisis, nor do they
adequately protect the natural resources of our city, which will enable us to better withstand the
climate impacts coming our way. The good news is that we have the power through wise land use to
make meaningful impacts. We have a chance to enact forward-thinking regulations with the climate
crisis in mind. We can do better. I have faith that you will seriously consider this information and make
climate-crisis-inspired-changes that will benefit current and future residents of South Burlington. Thank
you.
Rosanne Greco
South Burlington Resident
Page 116