HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/02/2021SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
2 NOVEMBER 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 November 2021, at
7:00 p.m., in Conference Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote
technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; S. Dopp, S. Dooley, R. Greco, L. Yankowski,
M. Simoneau, J. Bossange; E Langfeldt, J. Chaulot, D. Long, A. Strong, C. Long, D. Seff, C. Trombly, M.
Emery, A. Gill, D. Peters, J. Dahlstrom, M. Cota, J. Nick, P. Tompkins, A. Long, F, MacDonald, L. Kingsbury,
L. Kupferman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Conner provider instructions for emergency exit from the building.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Dopp noted that at the public hearing 2/3 of those who spoke supported the proposed regulations
and asked that the Commission be guided by this.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted that the Burlington Naturalists have some concern with bike paths being built on the
Wheelock property. UVM should be aware of this.
Ms. Ostby also noted that a friend’s 14 year old on a bicycle was struck by a car at 7 p.m. on Dorset
Street. He’s on a ‘minute-to-minute’ basis.
Mr. Conner advised that the City Planner position has been filled by Kelsey Peterson who will begin on
Monday. She is a geographer and also an attorney who has worked on land use issues.
5. Commission review of feedback from public hearing:
Ms. Louisos noted that the city is trying to achieve a balance between a thriving community and
conservation. She felt they can proud of being a leading Vermont. She stressed that some details are
small in comparison to the big changes.
2
Ms. Louisos also said she was reticent to vote tonight on individual items, but she also did not want to
get to the end of the evening and have people be unhappy with the “whole.”
Mr. Mittag spoke to the fact that they have generated a lot of interest in the community.
Ms. Louisos said she would like to focus on 3 issues she felt should be discussed and a few others to be
“flagged” for a future work list. The 3 issues to focus on are:
1. Adjustment to habitat block 12 where the Commission did not accept Arrowwood’s
suggestion to retain a piece as a habitat block
2. Adding more flexibility to Class 3 wetlands
3. PUD types in the C-1/R-12 district and C1-LR possibly being removed as a required
district.
Mr. Mittag asked whether the O’Brien plans would be grandfathered. Mr. Conner said they have a
preliminary plat approval, and the DRB gave them parameters on each of their lots. They are essentially
grandfathered. Mr. Conner added that he would recommend taking it out. Members agreed.
Regarding habitat block 12, Ms. Ostby said she would support going with Arrowwood’s
recommendation. Mr. Conner showed this on the map. Members were OK with supporting
Arrowwood’s recommendation.
Regarding Class 3 wetlands, Ms. Louisos noted that the exemption is now at 300 sq. ft., and there has
been a recommendation from city staff for exempting up to 5000 sq. ft. as Class 3 wetlands are hard to
regulate and hard to verify. This would include allowing for temporary impact during construction and
temporary impacts during undergrounding utilities. Stormwater facilities could also be incorporated
within them. Ms. Ostby cited the Laurel Hill example where stormwater management was enhanced by
work that was done.
Mr. Conner said one option would be to regulate the Class 3 wetlands but not their buffers.
Mr. Gagnon said they went way beyond State regulations, and would support moving closer to the
State. He supported 5000 sq. ft. and temporary impacts to the buffer.
Mr. Mittag said he was OK with everything except the stormwater facilities.
Mr. MacDonald felt 300 sq. ft. was way out of line and supported 5000 sq. ft. and temporary impacts to
the buffer.
Ms. Ostby wasn’t sure about 5000 sq. ft. but was OK with stormwater management.
Members ultimately agreed on 5000 sq. ft., temporary impacts to the buffers, and allowing the
undergrounding of utilities to cross the Class 3 wetland.
3
Regarding the habitat block change at 1720-30 Spear Street, Ms. Louisos said that even if the
Commission puts it back i9n, the provision would allow the owner to encroach on the resource to get
their 30% acreage. She felt it was better to understand what can happen there and to say “this is your
30%.” Mr. Conner noted that by coincidence, the area the Commission chose for the habitat block is
almost precisely 70% of the parcel. Even if the Commission put more into it, this what the owner could
take out for the 30%.
Ms. Louisos said that by not adding it back in, they are actually doing a better job of protecting the Great
Swamp because they are allowing development only in that part furthest from the Swamp.
Mr. Mittag asked about the proposed roadway. Mr. Conner showed the proposed connection from
South Village to South Pointe and noted it is on the official map. He also noted that everything to the
east of the road is either habitat block or NRP.
Members agreed to go along with that.
Ms. Louisos then asked Mr. Conner to explain how the new concept for minimum density would work.
Mr. Conner said he had met with the consultant and with the City Attorney to look at ways to make the
intent of minimum density clear. He noted that in the Conservation PUD, 70% is the minimum that can
be conserved. The owner could then build homes at 4/acre on the remaining 30% of the land. As an
alternative, an owner could “carve out” up to 2 acres to build a home and in the future decide what else,
if anything, to do with the remaining area of the 30%.
The question then arose: what if someone wants to take a portion of the land, subdivide it, and give a
portion to a conservation entity. This become tricky if, in the future, the person wants to develop some
of the land and wants to use that donated portion as part of their 70% conservation piece. He didn’t
feel there was a right or wrong answer to this and suggested possibly allowing that credit for a specific
time period (e.g., 10 years). Mr. Conner suggested taking time to consider this and not do it “on the fly.”
Mr. Conner said if the Commission chooses to retain the minimum density, what they are looking for is
to preserve the accommodation to build at 4 per acre. If an owner chose only to build a few homes,
they would have to be built in such a compact way that they could achieve the minimum density in the
future. This would have to be matched with changes in the Master Plan language. The applicants would
have to show where such things as roads, connections to utilities, civic space, park space, etc., would go.
They would also have to identify natural resources and demonstrate they are doing things consistent
with the regulations.
Mr. Mittag was concerned that this would put a financial burden on the owner. Ms. Louisos said if they
just want 2 houses, they can just go with a carve out. Mr. Mittag felt it was easier to say there is no
minimum density. Ms. Louisos stressed that members only agreed to the 70% conservation because of
the minimum density on the 30%.
Mr. Conner showed a map of properties 4 acres or more and areas where a Conservation PUD would be
required or eligible.
4
Ms. Ostby said this is a 6-month conversation. Ms. Louisos suggested going with the lawyer’s language .
Ms. Ostby asked if the owner built only 3 homes, would they have to meet the “different design”
standard. Mr. Conner suggested leaving that to the discretion of the DRB.
Members generally agreed to add the language provided by the lawyer.
Ms. Louisos then addressed some things from the public comments that she felt would be appropriate
for other committees to work on. These included the width of bike/ped paths (Bike-Ped Committee),
protection of topsoil (Natural Resources Committee). Ms. Ostby felt they should have a dedicated “soil
section” in the LDRs, and that should be a priority in coming months.
Ms. Louisos said there was also comment about “landmark trees.” Mr. Mittag said they also need a
“tree ordinance.” Ms. Ostby asked about viewsheds that are being compromised by tall trees. Mr.
Conner noted the proposed subdivision regulations include consideration of archeological features,
prominent trees, street trees, etc., to be considered for retention (Section 15A12).
Members agreed to put a tree ordinance on the “bike rack.”
Ms. Louisos noted the request to change the name of the document to “Land Use Regulations.” Mr.
Gagnon suggested putting this as a suggestion to the City Council. Mr. Mittag said he spoke to a few
Council members who were receptive. Mr. Conner said it is a time-consuming effort and suggested
delaying it to the next round of amendments and telling the Council that this is anticipated.
Ms. Ostby noted an email received which included mention of a report done by Gilman & Briggs
Environmental that indicates a portion of what the Commission has indicated as habitat block has no
significant habitat and that development would have no significant impact. Mr. MacDonald said he
never agreed with making all of that land NRP. Mr. Mittag said that was the majority vote, however.
Mr. Riehle suggested bringing it up at the City Council. Mr. Gagnon added they could tell the Council
there was interest in making that area a Conservation PUD.
Ms. Ostby then raised the issue of “permanency.” She questioned how a “conserved” portion of land
would be conserved and what would happen if another agency (such as a land trust) was interested in
accepting that land. She also noted it could take years for a permanent conservation easement to be
enacted. She questioned whether there could be a city easement if there are no other takers.
Mr. Gagnon questioned who would maintain the land. He was concerned with putting that burden on
the city. Mr. Mittag felt the owner of the land would still be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Gagnon
noted if the owner can’t find anyone to buy it or give it to, they would be “in a pickle.” He felt the city
should be aware of this potential obligation, and he wasn’t sure they would want to take on that
burden.
5
Ms. Ostby raised the question of what can be done on a conservation easement. Mr. Gagnon said it is a
negotiation, and the language can vary for each property. Mr. Conner read the regulations regarding
the setting up of a conservation easement.
Ms. Ostby noted that people had expressed concern with permanency and suggested that conservation
of Level 1 and Hazards be permanent and that it be 20-30 years for everything else.
Mr. Mittag said the Commission shouldn’t undo what it has done, and it will be up to the City Council to
look at such issues.
In a straw poll Ms. Ostby recommendation regarding permanence was defeated 2-5. Mr. Mittag said he
did not disagree, but he didn’t think it was something they should do now. Mr. Conner stressed that the
regulations can be modified if that is what the Commission decides to do.
Mr. Mittag noted there was a lot of public comment regarding grasslands, but felt the Commission
shouldn’t address that now.
Mr. Gagnon said there were also technical comments that would things clearer. Mr. Conner said if they
are purely technical, not policy, they can go to legal. If they rise to the level where they can be read
differently by 2 people, those could go to the City Council or be brought back to the Commission.
Ms. Ostby said she wants the Council to be aware that an independent report on that NRP land exists.
Mr. Mittag said the report was done at the request of a developer, and the city should decide whether
to do its own report.
Mr. Riehle then moved to approve and submit the draft Land Development Regulations and the
Commission’s report to the City Council along with amendments made at last week’s meeting and at
this meeting. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Mittag said he still has misgivings about minimum density and about Section 15CO5C2B (allowing a
conservation PUD outside the SEQ only if there are 50% resources on the property).
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Dooley noted the significant cost of conservation easements and asked who would bear that cost. If
the city is requiring it, that needs to be addressed.
Ms. Greco said she didn’t hear any consideration of public comment regarding grassland and other
habitat blocks. Ms. Louisos noted those were addressed following the previous public hearing on
Chapter 12.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Conner said there will be no meeting on Thursday.
6
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:55 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission January 11, 2022