HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/23/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
23 SEPTEMBER 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Thursday, 23 September 2021, at
7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Gagnon, Acting Chair; M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dooley, D. Peters
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner: Met with UVM representatives today. They have a question regarding exemptions for
educational facilities under state law. Mr. Conner said he has talked with the city’s legal counsel, and
will be in a position to discuss that with the Commission next week.
The deadline to warn a public hearing is coming up. Mr. Conner asked that the
Commission have everything done by next Thursday with Monday, 4 October, as an “emergency date.”
He noted that the Commission can make changes following the public hearing.
Mr. Gagnon asked Mr. Conner to update the voting rules as there were only 5 members present. Mr.
Conner said that in order for a motion to pass, there must be a majority vote of the whole commission,
in other words, 4 votes. Any 3-2 vote will be “bumped” till the next meeting.
4. Continue review of draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Members reviewed each of the sections as follows:
Definitions:
Person. Mr. Mittag felt that the second paragraph was overcomplicated. Mr. Conner said this is making
it clear about not getting around the inclusionary rules.
Mr. Mittag asked why in the definition of a PUD does it say you can deviate from it. Mr. Conner said the
nature of a PUD is that there can be deviation. What is different in this version is that there are no
specific standards, and these standards deviate from the underlying zoning. Mr. Conner noted that the
legal people will be looking at all of this and will be sure nothing undermines the standard.
2
Mr. Conner noted that Section 3 introduces all the pieces of the regulations. He also noted that Ms.
Louisos had pointed out that the Form Base Code map is missing.
The section on existing small lots has been updated to match the new state laws. If there is connection
to water and sewer, a house can be built.
Under the section on Existing and Proposed Streets and Rights of Ways, Mr. Conner explained that wider
rights of way are required to allow for such things as the future addition of a sidewalk. The text says
that on all of these streets, there is a 50-foot setback. However, on Patchen Rd. there are places where
the minimum setback is behind existing homes. Staff’s suggestion is to narrow the right-of-way and to
reduce the setback. Mr. Gagnon asked what Public Works things about that, and how does it relate to
the master bike/-ped plan. Mr. Conner said he did work with the Director of Public Works in putting this
together.
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with sections that seem to be removing the right-of-way. Mr. Conner
said the right-of-way is not being eliminated. This is saying that if the right-of-way is 66 feet, it will stay
at 66 feet even if there are some places where the existing right-of-way is less than 66 feet.
Mr. Conner said he will check with Public Works to be sure rights-of-way are where the city wants them.
He noted that regulations for Market Street call for a 50-foot setback, and this is being ignored. A 50-
foot setback eats up a lot of property when the aim is to conserve land.
Mr. Engels asked if property owners are responsible for maintaining the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Conner
said that is true in most cases, but not on Dorset Street and a few other streets north of Kennedy Drive.
The city does plow the sidewalks. Mr. Engels noted that if someone wants to do something, like plant
flowers, in the right-of-way, they need to get permission from Public Works. There is a statement in
that permission that if the city has a future project in that right-of-way, the city can remove what the
property owner has put in.
Building Heights:
Mr. Conner noted there are more robust standards for allowing a variation.
Regarding RV’s Mr. Mittag noted that someone he knew had complained about an RV parked in a
neighbor’s driveway which they felt was being used to accommodate guests. They felt the RV should be
hidden. Mr. Conner said that in winter, an RV needs to be behind a house; at other times, it can be
wherever an accessory structure can be located. Mr. Mittag felt there should be difference if it is a
temporary residence.
Multiple Uses & Multiple Structures on a Lot:
Mr. Conner said that today, one must have DRB approval to have more than one house on a lot. The
new regulations simply require meeting the underlying zoning.
3
If you are a PUD, you can have multiple buildings on a lot. With future TNDs, in order for that to work,
staff recommends there not be an allowance for multiple buildings on a lot, unless it is something like
the Airport. Mr. Gagnon noted that on his street, someone built a second accessory residence behind
the house. Mr. Conner said that is not precluded. Vermont law says any lot with a single family home
can have an accessory structure on it. Ms. Ostby was OK with the change as long as it doesn’t create
hurdles for cottage-type housing.
Accessory Structures and Accessory Dwelling Units:
Mr. Conner noted that not every accessory unit is in an accessory structure. The proposed language for
accessory dwelling units matches changes in State law which allows up to 900 sq. ft. or 30% of the
square footage of the principal structure, whichever is greater. The quirk in the city’s regulations is that
the city allows as a condition use, for the accessory structure to be closer to the property line. In the
new regulations there are standards which limit the height of the accessory building to 15 feet and not
allowing the entry to the accessory unit to be pointed toward the property line.
Ms. Ostby said she takes issue with the word “subordinate,” meaning the accessory unit must be behind
the house. She noted a house could at the back of a lot. Mr. Conner said it would be hard to prove a
unit is ‘secondary’ if it is in front of the house. Mr. Gagnon said he would have issues with allowing
something smaller in front of a house.
Accessory buildings such as sheds and garages:
Mr. Conner noted that today you are limited to 2 accessory structures on a property with the total
square footage not to exceed 50% of the square footage of the first floor of the main structure. A
separate garage is limited to half the square footage of the house. An attached garage can have more.
All of that has now been removed. What prevails is the total coverage on the lot. There can be no more
than 2 accessory structures. You can still have a shed with an accessory unit. Square footage is
determined by the underlying zoning. This could be a problem with a very large lot, and there may be
some language added so you don’t have huge garages with a very small house. Language will be worded
(with legal help) so the only time people can live/sleep in a building is if it is approved for use as an
accessory structure.
Mr. Conner noted that today in an R-1 district, there can be one unit per acre; however, with a PUD you
could have 4 or 7 units per acre. The proposal is to remove this and require that if you become a PUD,
you are subject to PUD regulations. This also applies in an R-2 district. The determining factor is which
PUD you would choose.
Ms. Ostby asked whether this is precluding the use of TDRs. Mr. Conner said that is a very separate
conversation. If you want to see mixed development neighborhoods, adding the complexity of requiring
TDRs could preclude that from happening.
Mr. Conner said there aren’t many parcels that will be clamoring to be a TND. Mr. Gagnon said if it isn’t
made mandatory in some areas, there won’t be a market for those TDRs. Mr. Mittag said TDRs should
4
be usable city-wide. Mr. Conner said if you require TDRs in some areas, people will go with fewer
buildings or one large house instead of 2 smaller houses. He added that properties on Shelburne Rd.
are limited today by the allowable number of units per acre. There is a possibility of allowing more units
as this would work better in the higher density areas. He suggested possibly holding off on TNDs in R-7
and higher districts.
Mr. Mittag questioned the prohibition against supermarkets in some areas. Mr. Conner said they are
allowed up to a certain size defined by square footage…10,000 or 15,000 maximum per use.
Mr. Engels asked about drive-thrus. Mr. Conner said they are allowed for banks in Commercial districts.
In the Form Based Code district, they are allowed in the rear in a 2-story building with access in the rear.
Mr. Engels said he was thinking about the pandemic when they became important. Mr. Gagnon said
drive-thrus for a pharmacy might be good.
City Center/Form Based Code District:
Mr. Conner said not much has changed there other than updates to the corners of streets and the
consolidation of street standards.
Southeast Quadrant:
Mr. Conner noted that a lot of the SEQ standards have been moved to other chapters where they apply.
SEQ Residential North has its own standards because of the settlement of the lawsuit.
Mr. Mittag said he did not understand Section 9-3. Mr. Conner said the Commission talked about a
density cap, and this may be the opportunity to do that in an R-1 district. There could be Inclusionary
bonus units or TDRs and would allow for TDRs outside the SEQ. Mr. Conner also noted he was asked to
be sure the density that evolves in the SEQ doesn’t come out more than 4 per acre. He felt this has been
achieved but will check to be sure.
Mr. Conner noted there have been minor adjustments to the NRP District, specifically how the very
limited development that is allowed can take place. You can only subdivide a lot if it was in existence in
1992. You can then build one house on it. If you have more than 15 acres, you can build 3 houses. In
the new regulations, the 3 units can be in a triplex. The regulations say you need a conservation plan,
but they don’t say how much of the land you can do anything on. What is proposed is the requirement
for a building envelope of limited size. Members were OK with this.
Mr. Mittag felt that “primary natural communities” should be included in 9.31.2d. Mr. Conner said that
is not a defined term. What was needed is a defined term that is legally defensible.
Overlay District:
No changes were made here. Things were just moved around.
5
Mr. Conner noted that Article 11 has become the “new home” for street types, civic spaces, etc.
Site Plans:
Mr. Conner noted that under today’s regulations, a person has to call in an engineer for a very small
change (e.g., adding a bike rack). That is expensive, so it has been simplified to allow the change to be
added to the next site plan.
Regarding conditional uses, multi-family units can no longer be denied because they don’t meet the
character of a neighborhood. This is now State law.
In Article 15, Mr. Conner said some of this will be in the discussion for the next meeting.
Mr. Mittag said he would like to discuss requiring solar, not only solar ready.
Mr. Conner noted there is no longer an “affordable housing bonus.” Affordable housing now falls under
Inclusionary Zoning city-wide.
Mr. Conner then addressed the issue of childcare facilities, specifically related to request received by the
Commission where a residence is being replaced by an educational use and the applicant was concerned
with having to provide a replacement residential unit. Mr. Conner noted that in this instance, because
the property is actually in 2 zoning districts, and the unit in question is in the Commercial district,
childcare is allowed there. Mr. Conner noted that there is a State goal to advance affordable childcare.
Ms. Dooley was concerned that childcare facilities tend to be of short duration. She wanted to provide
that if the childcare use ends, the applicant would have to follow the housing replacement process.
Master Plans:
Mr. Conner noted that in South Village, there is an allowance for a small commercial use, one building of
up to 6000 sq. ft. He questioned whether there could be space in a multi-family building for a small
coffee shop of up to 6000 sq. ft.. Members were OK with this but questioned the possibility of security
issues if they coffee shop were open to the general public.
Mr. Conner said that at the next meeting, members will be seeing PUD language, PUD applicability, and
zoning districts.
5. Minutes of 18 August, 24 August, and 31 August:
Members agreed to defer approval of the minutes.
6. Other Business:
a. Update on Spear Street Solar:
6
Mr. Conner said the city received a letter back from its inquiry. They felt it was required to have a fence.
They were OK with small openings for wildlife. It was noted that over a certain voltage, the areas must
be fenced; with lower voltage, a mesh netting is allowed. Mr. Conner noted this use is right on the
border, and they are worried about it becoming an “attractive nuisance.” It is very high voltage. Mr.
Conner suggested the possibility of a fence near the residential area. Mr. Mittag noted that one solar
field has a 16-inch opening at the bottom for wildlife.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:45 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022