HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 10/25/2022South Burlington Planning Commission
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.southburlingtonvt.gov
Meeting Tuesday, October 25, 2022
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Auditorium
7:00 pm
Members of the public may attend in person or digitally via Zoom. Participation Options:
• In Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
Interactive Online: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674559726
By Phone: (929) 205 6099; Meeting ID: 876 7455 9726
AGENDA:
1. Welcome, instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
5. *Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations: (7:15 pm)
• LDR-22-07 to modify the boundaries of the Commercial 1-Resdential 15, Commercial 1- Auto, and
Commercial 2 zoning districts in the vicinity of the Shelburne Road corridor (8:45 pm)
• LDR-22-08 Allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District
6. *Commission discussion of proposed amendments; consider changes following public hearing; and
possible action to approve amendments and submit to the City Council (7:25 pm)
7. *Provide feedback as requested to City Council concerning ARPA funds allocation (7:35 pm)
8. Solar production and energy efficiency: Overview of proposed changes to Vermont Residential Building
Energy Standards & Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards; possible feedback to Public Service
Department (8:00 pm)
9. Industrial Zoning and housing: Consider requesting review and feedback from the Economic Development
Committee on possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations concerning industrial zoning
districts and possible housing allowances (8:30 pm)
10. Comprehensive Plan: update and endorsement of approach for requesting initial feedback from
Committees and Departments (8:40 pm)
11. *Review of proposed change made by the City Council to LDR-22-05 (update of TDR program) and possible
amendment of Planning Commission Report;
12. *Minutes: October 11, 2022 (8:55 pm)
13. Other Business (9:00 pm)
14. Adjourn (9:02 pm)
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 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”.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Kelsey Peterson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission meeting memo
DATE: October 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting
1. Welcome, instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Announcements and staff report (7:10 pm)
5. Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations
• LDR-22-07 to modify the boundaries of the Commercial 1-Resdential 15, Commercial 1- Auto, and
Commercial 2 zoning districts in the vicinity of the Shelburne Road corridor (8:45 pm)
• LDR-22-08 Allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District
See enclosed memo
6. Commission discussion of proposed amendments; consider changes following public hearing; and possible
action to approve amendments and submit to the City Council (7:25 pm)
See enclosed memo
7. ARPA: Provide feedback as requested to City Council concerning ARPA funds allocation (7:35 pm)
As it moves forward with the ARPA fund allocation process, the City Council has now invite each Committee to
present your ideas for the use of the funds at a Special City Council meeting on November 30, 2022 at 6:30 PM.
As you know, the City received $5.6M in ARPA funds and has allocated $2.5M of these funds to stabilize staffing,
fund one-time capital projects, and incentivize the development of affordable housing in South Burlington. The City
Council is now considering how best to use the remaining approximately $3 million in funds and has asked for input
from the City committees including the Planning Commission. For reference, the City Manager has provided the
results from an ARPA survey that the Council performed in the Commission this past summer and response from
other committees over the summer through mid September.
At the March 8, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission had a discussion of its recommendations for use of the
3
ARPA funds. The Commission unanimously (4-0) approved a motion that the Planning Commission suggest the
funds be used 1/3 for housing, 1/3 for open space/parks, and 1/3 for a future undetermined use. The Commission is
invited to affirm its prior recommendations or to update them based on the updated information or new
Commission ideas. The minutes of the 3/8/22 meeting are attached.
8. Solar production and energy efficiency: Overview of proposed changes to Vermont Residential Building
Energy Standards & Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards (8:00 pm)
The Vermont Public Service Department is currently proposing changes to the Vermont Residential Building Energy
Standards (RBES)and the Vermont Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES). This is generally done on a 3-year
basis. In the past, the “stretch code” has served as a starting point for the future “base code.”
The RBES and CBES apply to all new construction and to certain forms of additions and alteration statewide. The
“stretch code” is applied in projects subject to Act 250 statewide and, here in South Burlington, to ALL new
construction. Finally, the 2020 CBES included an additional component – a solar-ready roof zone that applies to Act
250 projects under that code and was adopted locally for new construction subject to the CBES.
There are some significant updates included in the draft 2023 RBES and CBES. Links to the full documents and to
resources prepared by the Department of Public Service are below.
• Department of Public Service RBES / CBES website & complete list of documents
• Markup version of 2023 Draft Residential Building Energy Standards
o Major changes from 2020 Residential Building Energy Standards
• Markup Version of 2023 Draft Commercial Building Energy Standards
o Major Changes from 2020 Commercial Building Energy Standards
In particular, Kelsey & Paul wanted to draw your attention to a few key changes that relate to our work here in
South Burlington:
• The standards, as they have in past iterations, increase the required levels of energy efficiency.
• Within the CBES AND RBES, the “Solar Ready Roof” standards are proposed to be REQUIRED in the 2023
iteration
• Within the RBES, projects are scored on a points system. The “Stretch Code” is proposed to be met in the
2023 iteration not by having “higher” standards but instead by requiring more total “points” across several
sectors
• The RBES and CBES both substantially upgrade the minimum requirements associated with electric vehicle
parking. The tables below show these. There are three categories of readiness for EV charging. All are based
on preparedness for “Level 2” chargers (ie, those that provide a full charge overnight).
o EVSE: Equipment for plug-in power transfer including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment
grounding conductors, and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, personal protection
system and all other fittings, devices, power outlets or apparatus installed specifically for the
purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.
o EVSE SPACE: An automobile parking space that is provided with a dedicated EVSE connection.
o EV READY SPACE: An automobile parking space that is provided with a branch circuit and either an
outlet, junction box or receptacle, that will support an installed EVSE.
o EV CAPABLE SPACE [CBES]: A designated automobile parking space that is provided with electrical
infrastructure, such as, but not limited to, raceways, cables, electrical capacity, and panelboard or
other electrical distribution equipment space, necessary for the future installation of an EVSE.
4
o EV CAPABLE PARKING SPACE [RBES]. A parking space with all the requisite infrastructure in place
within five feet to allow electrical wiring and connection to power for EVSE.
• Draft Residential Building Energy Standards:
Draft Commercial Building Energy Standards:
The “groups” above are defined in the CBES and are various types of land uses, with R being residential and the
numbers representing taller/bigger buildings and the other groups being different non-residential uses.
All of this is included in the Commission’s packet for two reasons:
• First, the public comment period on the draft CBES and RBES is now open; the Commission is welcome to
provide feedback
• Second, and relevant to our local work, the draft 2023 RBES and CBES cover topic areas that have been
previously discussed by the Commission. Staff has found it helpful to review these statewide changes (and
automatic local applicability) to help frame out what areas – if any – the City/Commission may wish to
examine further for local action.
9. Industrial Zoning and housing: Consider requesting review and feedback from the Economic Development
Committee on possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations concerning industrial zoning
districts and possible housing allowances (8:30 pm)
The Planning Commission has had two requests (from OnLogic and from the Wrights) to allow housing or additional
5
housing density in areas that are not currently zoned to either allow any housing or to allow additional housing.
These requests raised both those specific cases, but also a broader question about the viability and desirability of
housing in primarily industrial or commercial areas. This is an important issue for the future of South Burlington and
for areas that are currently primarily or totally industrial and commercial, like the Tech Park area. It involves both
the need for future housing and the potential need for areas zoned for industrial uses that are incompatible with
nearby residential use. The question has been raised in the past whether there should be areas of South Burlington
zoned only for industrial use, to reserve areas for more impactful industrial uses away from residential and mixed
use areas. To allow residential use ad hoc in industrial and commercial areas may eat away at the City’s ability to
reserve industrial areas in the future. However, this need is balanced with the need for further housing and a
recognition that many commercial and light industrial uses may actually be compatible with housing. Further
consideration of these offsetting concerns is warranted.
Because this issue directly implicates the economic development of South Burlington and the needs of the business
community, Staff recommends the Planning Commission request review and feedback from the Economic
Development Committee. This would be both on the two specific requests from OnLogic and the Wrights, and on
the broader question of industrial zoning and its compatibility with housing. This may also continue into a larger
conversation about industrial zoning in the City and how it should be addressed in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan.
Action: Discussion and decision by the Planning Commission whether or not to request review and feedback from
the Economic Development Committee, scope and expectations of the request, and requested timeline to provide
feedback to the Commission.
10. Comprehensive Plan: update and endorsement of approach for requesting initial feedback from Committees
and Departments (8:40 pm)
We are moving forward with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan process. Our next step is to task our other City
Committees and Departments with providing feedback on their particular areas of focus and expertise. We are
drafting a letter to be sent to all Committees and Departments seeking three pieces of information. First, we want
to know what they see are the key topics in their area of focus to be highlighted in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan.
We have emphasized that this is intended to be an update to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and that the key topics
can be areas fully addressed in the current plan, areas that were addressed but need more emphasis in the next
plan, or areas that were not addressed. Second, we want to know what information they need from the public on
those key topics that would assist them in providing substantive feedback. This is with the eye to having a
professional facilitator running public outreach sessions and needing to know what to ask the facilitator to glean
from the public. Third, we want to know what information the City has or could easily compile that would help in
their areas of focus. This does not include any requests for in-depth studies or plans to include in the Plan itself for
future work – it is only what information do we have that could be reasonably easily obtained, like housing
statistics, updates to existing numbers like rec path miles, or recreation program usage, for example.
For context, we are providing the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the recently-updated Core Values, Vision & Goals, and
some information about “knowns” like population growth, housing growth, etc.
Additional requests for feedback will be made in the coming months seeking specific feedback on draft objectives
for the 2024 Plan, requests for additional plans and studies to be completed under the 2024 Plan, and feedback on
drafted sections.
Action: Brief discussion by the Planning Commission - As of now, are we missing any initial information that we
need to set-up the rest of our work before getting that more direct feedback on Comprehensive Plan drafts?
6
11. Review of proposed change made by the City Council to LDR-22-05 (update of TDR program) and possible
amendment of Planning Commission Report
At its public hearing last week, the City Council received one public comment, a letter from the Vermont Trust
seeking a clarification on the sequencing of conservation in a Conservation PUD. The Council considered and
approved a proposed clarification prepared by the City’s Deputy City Attorney. This change requires the Council
to hold a second public hearing and for the Commission to consider whether any changes to the Planning
Commission Report are necessitated.
Enclosed is a transmittal memo regarding the change approved by Council, VLT’s letter, and the Commission
Report on the original amendments. The full amendments can be found on the City’s website.
In reviewing the Report, staff does not consider it necessary for the Commission to make any changes, but it is
welcome to do so.
12. Minutes: October 11, 2022 (8:35 pm)
Enclosed
13. Other Business (8:40 pm)
14. Adjourn (8:45 pm)
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: LDR Amendments #LDR-22-07 & LDR-22-08
DATE: October 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting
The Planning Commission has warned a public hearing on amendments to modify zoning districts along the
Shelburne Road corridor and to allow municipal facilities in the Commercial 2 zoning district. This evening the
Commission is invited to hold and close the public hearing, make any appropriate changes, and consider
approval of the amendments and submittal of the package to the City Council.
Public Hearing
To date, staff has received no public comments on the draft amendments. Proposed motions would be as
follows:
“I move to open the public hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations numbers LDR-
22-07 and LDR-22-08”
At the hearing, staff will highlight the possible change discussed at your last meeting, regarding allowed uses in
the C1-Auto zone. Following the hearing,
“I move to close the public hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations numbers LDR-
22-07 and LDR-22-08”
Action to Follow
The Commission is invited to make changes following the public hearing. At its October 11th meeting, the
Commission identified that with the re-alignment of the C1-R15 and the C1-Auto zoning districts, there would
be some discrepancy is allowed uses in the area becoming C1-Auto. The Commission reviewed these and
provided direction to staff to make changes to bring these two districts into closer consistency. The proposed
changes are shown on the next page. The Commission is welcome to make these changes and include them in
the package to be submitted to the City Council.
With these proposed change, staff has prepared a brief addition to the Planning Commission Report. Staff
recommends the Commission review and consider approval of this amended Report.
Possible action: “I move to approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations #LDR-22-07 and LDR-
22-08, with the proposed changes presented in this meeting’s packet, to approve the amended Planning
Commission Report as presented in this meeting’s packet, and to submit both to the City Council.”
LDR-22-07: Zoning District Re-alignment
Key to Maps:
• Commercial 1-Residential 15 (RED);
• Commercial 1-Auto (BLUE);
• Commercial 2 (PURPLE)
Map 1: Current Zoning
Map 2: Proposed Zoning
C1-R15
C1-R15
C1-Auto
C1-Auto
Commercial 2
Commercial 2
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2022-10-25
USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R15 C1-
AUTO
C2
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling
Two-family dwelling
Multi-family dwelling P PUD P P
Accessory residential units
Group home or Residential Care Home
Agricultural Uses
Public & Quasi-Public Uses
Cemeteries
Community center P P P
Congregate care, assisted living, or continuum of
care facility
C C C
Cultural facility P P
Educational facility P P C
Educational support facilities P(5)P(5)
Food Hub P(6)P(6)P(7)
Funeral homes, mortuaries, and crematoriums C C C
Hospice P P P
Municipal facility P P P
Parks
Personal instruction facility P P P
Place of worship P P P
Recreation paths
Skilled nursing facility C C C
Social services C C C
Commercial & Industrial Uses
Adult use
Agriculture & construction equipment sales, service
& rental
P
Airport Uses
Animal shelter C
Artist production studio P P P
Auto & motorcycle sales P P
Auto & motorcycle service & repair P P
Auto rental, with private accessory car wash &
fueling
P
Bank or Credit Union with drive-through P P P
Bed & breakfast
Cannabis dispensary (dispensing only)P P P
Cannabis dispensary (cultivation only)
Car wash P
Child care facility, licensed non-residential P P P
Commercial greenhouse P
Commercial kennel, veterinary hospital and pet day
care
C P
Commercial or public parking facility C C C
Exempt from local regulation
Conditional in all districts
Commercial 1 Heavy
Commercial-
Please see Section 3.10 for
Permitted in all districts
Permitted in all districts
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2022-10-25
USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R15 C1-
AUTO
C2
Commercial 1 Heavy
Commercial-
Contractor or building trade facility P
Distribution and related storage, with >15% of GFA
in office or other principal permitted use by same
tenant
P
Equipment service, repair & rental P
Family child care home, registered or licensed
Financial institution P P P
Flight instruction
Hotel P P C
Hotel, extended stay P C
Indoor theater P P
Indoor vehicle storage, maximum 10,000 square feet
Junk yard
Light manufacturing P
Lumber and contractor’s yard P
Manufacturing & assembly from previously prepared
materials & components
P P P
Mobile home, RV and boat sales, repair & service P
Motor freight terminal
Office, general P P P
Office, medical P P P
Personal or business service P P P
Pet grooming P P P
Photocopy & printing shops, with accessory retail P P P
Printing & binding production facilities P
Private providers of public services, including vehicle
storage and maintenance
P
Processing and storage P
Radio & television studio P P P
Recreation facility, indoor P P P
Recreation facility, outdoor C C C
Research facility or laboratory P P P
Restaurant, short order P P P
Restaurant, standard P P P
Retail sales P P P (9)
Retail warehouse outlet P
Sale, rental & repair of aircraft & related parts
Seasonal Mobile Food Unit P P P
Self-storage P
Service station C
Shopping center C
Taverns, night clubs & private clubs P P P
Transportation services P
Warehousing & distribution
Wholesale establishments P
Key and Notes to the Table above:
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2022-10-25
USES and DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS C1 R15 C1-
AUTO
C2
Commercial 1 Heavy
Commercial-
P = Permitted
C = Conditional Use
(1) "N" refers to the Institutional-Agricultural North sub-district.
(3) No minimum lot size for bed & breakfast in the SEQ-VC district
(2) R7 and SEQ-VC as classified as non-residential zoning districts, but are included
in this table for purposes of efficiency
(5) Educational support facilities in C1 are subject to the dimensional standards of
the IA-North District. See Article 7.
(13) Unless otherwise enabled or restricted, all uses within a Planned Unit
Development are allowable under the same provisions as for the underlying
district;
(12) Allowable only as a municipally-operated facility.
(11) Use is allowed only as an Educational Support Facility. See Section 7.01(E)
(7) Use is limited to 5,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 15,000 SF GFA total
footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another
and no direct passageways from one to another.
(8) Use is limited to 15,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 25,000 SF GFA total
footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another
and no direct passageways from one to another.
(9) Use is limited to 30,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 30,000 SF GFA total
footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another
and no direct passageways from one to another.
(6) Use is limited to 3,000 SF GFA per tenant with a maximum 9,000 SF GFA total
footprint for the building. Tenants shall have separate entries from one another
and no direct passageways from one to another.
(10) Use is restricted to not-for-profit organization whose primary purpose is the
provision of educational or research services related to agriculture, horticulture,
forestry, natural resource preservation, arts or recreation
(4) Permitted within a structure existing and approved for use as an 'educational
facility' as of July 1, 2013. The structure existing as of July 1, 2013, may be
PUD = Allowable
within a Planned
Unit
Development
ACC = Allowable
as an accessory
use
TO =
Allowable
only in the
Transit
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 7:00 PM
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will held hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 2022
at 7:00 pm, in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-22-07: Modify the Zoning Map in a manner generally described as follows:
1) Redesignate land immediately north of Holmes Road from Commercial 1-Auto to
Commercial 2
2) Redesignate land north and south of Fayette Road, immediately west of Shelburne Road,
from Commercial 1-Auto to Commercial 1-Residential 15
3) Redesignate land beginning ~75’ west of Fayette Road and ~280’ west of Fayette Road’s
planned extension, north of Old Orchard Park and south of the Chittenden County Humane
Society, from Commercial 1-Residential 15 to Commercial 1-Auto
B. LDR-22-08 Allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District and allow the following uses within
Commercial 1 Auto District: Congregate Care, Assisted Living, Continuum of Care; Educational
Facility; Educational Support Facilities; Hospice; Municipal Facility; Skilled Nursing; Social Services
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
2
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
A. LDR-22-07: Modify the Zoning Map in a manner generally described as follows:
Area 1: Redesignate land immediately north of Holmes Road from Commercial 1-Auto to
Commercial 2
Area 2: Redesignate land north and south of Fayette Road, immediately west of Shelburne
Road, from Commercial 1-Auto to Commercial 1-Residential 15
Area 3: Redesignate land beginning ~75’ west of Fayette Road and ~280’ west of Fayette
Road’s planned extension, north of Old Orchard Park and south of the Chittenden County
Humane Society, from Commercial 1-Residential 15 to Commercial 1-Auto
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
This amendment would modify the boundaries of three zoning districts on the west side of Shelburne
Road as described above and shown on the draft Map. Specifically:
In Area (1), allowed uses would be modified and residential base densities reduced on the subject
properties. Lot and building coverages and setbacks would not be affected. Two of the three involved
properties are presently approved for auto sales in the C1-Auto district; this use is allowed in the
Commercial 2 district as well. The third property is a municipal fire station. LDR-22-08 would continue
to permit that use.
In Area (2), auto sales would no longer allowed following a change from C1-Auto and C1-R15. No auto
sales uses are presently approved in the affected area.
In Area (3), auto sales would be newly allowed following a change from C1-R15 to C1-Auto. No auto
sales uses are presently approved in the affected area, but would become eligible.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The change would facilitate the re-use of properties presently laid out as large format retail
spaces to allow re-use or re-development for auto sales in an area removed from the primary
transportation network, Shelburne Road, disallow new auto sales in a portion of land
immediately west of Shelburne Road where mixed residential-commercial redevelopment is
ongoing.
3
The proposed changes are generally neutral to the availability of safe and affordable housing,
with both the C1-R15 and C1-Auto districts allowing a base residential density of 15 dwelling
units per acre. The re-alignment of these two districts would modify where auto sales are
permitted, away from Shelburne Road, to west of Fayette Road. Shelburne Road is served by
transit. Parcels proposed to move from C1-Auto to C2 would have a reduced base residential
density, however two are currently auto sales and the third is a municipal fire station.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies, described in the Plan as
objectives and strategies:
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives & Strategies:
• Goal: Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional
and statewide community.
• Sub-Goal: Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity
areas identified within this Plan;
• Objective 9: Be a good partner with business in helping them locate in South Burlington or
continue to grow here.
• Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road,
Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service
area.
• Objective 54. Promote higher-density, mixed use development and redevelopment along
Shelburne Road and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas.
• Objective 55: Maintain Shelburne Road as a roadway for both regional and local circulation.
• Strategy 124: Review the city’s Land Development Regulations in key transition areas:
between the Southwest and Southeast Quadrants; between Swift Street and adjacent areas;
between Allen Road and adjacent areas.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendments would re-align zoning districts along the Shelburne Road corridor.
The amendments better align proposed future land uses with existing and planned
infrastructure, such as transit services, by re-locating allowable area for future auto sales and
repair, which tend to be land intensive, to areas further removed from Shelburne Road. Base
residential densities are affected on three parcels as noted above, however maximum density
through the use of TDRs (presently before City Council) and Inclusionary Zoning are unaffected.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
This proposed amendment does not relate directly to any planned community facilities.
B. LDR-22-08 Allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District and allow the following uses within
Commercial 1 Auto District: Congregate Care, Assisted Living, Continuum of Care; Educational
Facility; Educational Support Facilities; Hospice; Municipal Facility; Skilled Nursing; Social Services
4
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The proposed amendment would allow Municipal Facilities within the Commercial 2 district, located
in the southern half of the Shelburne Road corridor, a portion of Dorset Street north of Kennedy
Drive, and a portion of Patchen Road near Landfill Road.
The proposed amendment would allow several additional uses within the Commercial 1-Auto
District, located along a portion of Shelburne Road, in the same manner as they are permitted
within the adjacent Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The proposed changes would provide additional opportunities for congregate care facilities in
the Shelburne Road corridor, an area served by transit and services. The amendment will also will
not affect housing and will ensure that existing municipal facilities along Shelburne Road
implicated in LDR-22-07 remain allowed uses.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed changes would enable new uses, including municipal facilities, within the
Commercial 2 and C1-Auto Districts District. The majority of the Commercial 2 District, and all of
the C1-Auto District, is well served by public transit and infrastructure, while the one area not
served by transit is located adjacent to the existing public work facility. The proposed allowed
uses are already allowed in adjacent districts along Shelburne Road.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The proposed changes do not implicate any specific proposals for planned community facilities.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Survey
Results
Andrew Bolduc, Deputy City Manager
South Burlington City Council Regular Meeting
September 6, 2022
Background
•Final Council Survey Approval: June 6
•Survey Live: June 16
•Survey Closed: August 26
•351 Responses
o City News
o City Website
o Other Paper
o WCAX story
o Event pamphlets
Who did we hear from?
•Affiliation Ethnicity
o Residents –95% (327)
o Property Owners –62% (211)
o Work in South Burlington –21% (71)
o Business Owners –8% (29)
•Gender
o Female –56.3% (192)
o Male –36% (123)
o Non-binary –2% (7)
o Prefer not to say –5.6% (19)
•Age
o 15-30 –6% (21)
o 31-45 –30% (103)
o 46-60 –22.5% (77)
o 61-75 –31.3% (107)
o 76+ -6% (21)
Responses
Caucasian 81.82%279
Black/African-
American 0.29%1
Latino or Hispanic 1.47%5
Asian 0.59%2
Native American 1.17%4
Pacific Islander 0.00%0
Two or more 0.59%2
Other/Unknown 0.59%2
Prefer not to say 13.49%46
Respondent Location
South East Quadrant
33%
Kennedy Drive / City
Center / Quarry Hill
24%
Chamberlin /
Mayfair Park / Lime
Kiln 18%
Shelburne Road /
Lakeshore / Orchard
24%
Outside South
Burlington 1%
Education Level
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
High school/GED Bachelor's degree Graduate degree or higherRESPONSES
EDUCATION
Survey 2020 Census
Who did we not hear from?
•2020 SB Census Over 65:18.5%
•Survey Over 61:37.3%
•Ethnicity
Responses 2020 Census
Caucasian 81.82%83.0%
Black/African-American 0.29%3.1%
Latino or Hispanic 1.47%
Asian 0.59%6.7%
Native American 1.17%0.1%
Pacific Islander 0.00%0.0%
Two or more 0.59%5.8%
Other/Unknown 0.59%1.2%
Prefer not to say 13.49%
Q1: COVID-19 has impacted our daily lives in many ways. In which of the following ways you have been most impacted by the pandemic?
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Financially Socially / Loss of
Social Connection
Personal Health Access to Services Other (please
specify)
Q1: Selected Responses -Other
•“Housing vulnerability”
•“Challenges scheduling mental health services or
appointments with doctors”
•“Engagement with professional community”
•“Access to entertainment, shopping, local
businesses”
•“Able to more safely bike with less roadway traffic”
•“Spent more time recreating outdoors”
•“Inability to travel”
Q2: In a few words, describe how the pandemic has most affected you and your family
Q3: COVID forced a number of changes in the way we live, work, and play. What, if any, of these changes would you like to see continue into the future?
Q4: ARPA identified six key purposes for use of this federal funding. How would you prioritize the importance of these purposes for South Burlington? “1” most important “5” is least
Q5: The City has identified a number of projects eligible for these once-in-a-generation federal funds. How important do you consider each of these to be for our community?
Q5: The City has identified a number of projects eligible for these once-in-a-generation federal funds. How important do you consider each of these to be for our community?
Q5: The City has identified a number of projects eligible for these once-in-a-generation federal funds. How important do you consider each of these to be for our community?
Q6: Do you have any other ideas on how YOU would like to see this once in-a-generation funding spent to support the community?
Q6: Do you have any other ideas on how YOU would like to see this once in-a-generation funding spent to support the community?
•Selected unique responses:
o “Noise mitigation along I-189 & I-89”
o “Noise mitigation along BTV”
o “Arboretum/botanical garden at Wheeler Homestead”
o “State-of-the-art playground in City Center”
o “Reparations”
o “More benches along high-use stretches of City rec paths”
o “Mountain bike trail”
o “Skate park”
o “Transform abandoned Pier One retail space into “SAVVY AIR” virus-
scrubbed arboretum with air filtration and light therapy”
o “Solar pavilion workspace amenity in a city park.”
o “Improve sidewalk at White Street bus stop”
o “Housing Trust Fund to develop a land bank for affordable housing”
Q6: Do you have any other ideas on how YOU would like to see this once in-a-generation funding spent to support the community?
Q7: Rank the following options for spending the City’s ARPA funds, 1 (highest) to 13 (lowest) priority?
Q7: Rank the following options for spending the City’s ARPA funds, 1 (highest) to 13 (lowest) priority?
Q7: Rank the following options for spending the City’s ARPA funds, 1 (highest) to 13 (lowest) priority?
Summary Trends
•COVID impacts: Dire need for increased access to
childcare services
•COVID impacts: Isolation & increased use of green
& recreational spaces
•Broad range of responses
•While it did not rank highly overall in prioritization,
overwhelming individual feedback on the desire for
improvement and development of community
recreation spaces
•Concerns with aging school district infrastructure
Next Steps
•Council value statements 3/21:
o Transformational “one-time” investments
o Biggest “bang for our buck”
o Community engagement in decision making process
•What ideas haven’t we thought of?
•Question 1 –Any additional outreach?
•Question 2 –Based on data, any changes in value
statements?
•Question 3 –What transformational projects do you see in this
data? Are there investment areas or categories you would like
staff to provide additional information and
recommendations?
•Question 4 –Timeline. Part of FY24 budget process? Hold any
portion of funds for future decision making?
1
Jessie Baker
From:Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 2, 2022 3:00 AM
To:Helen Riehle
Cc:Jessie Baker; Sandy Dooley
Subject:'EXTERNAL'ARPA recommendations from the Affordable Housing Committee
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 Helen,
Please see below for two recommendations from our committee which were unanimously approved
on August 17, 2022. These one-time expenses will fund two of our FY2023 priorities and is
consistent with purpose of the funds by assisting in an equitable recovery. We will have a member
available for the September 6 meeting for any questions or follow up. Thank you, Chris
Conduct a Housing Needs Assessment
Motion: The Affordable Housing committee recommends that the
South Burlington City Council budget $15,000 - $20,000 to pay an
external consultant to conduct and prepare a report about the
housing needs assessment.
(8/17/22 Meeting). The motion was passed unanimously. (See
attached for additional information)
$15,000 - $20,000
Weatherization Funding
Motion: The Affordable Housing Committee recommends that the
City Council earmark some of the remaining ARPA funds for
initiatives that would supplement existing programs whose purpose
is to make homes owned or rented by low-income residents more
energy efficient in climate-change-friendly ways and therefore less
expensive to maintain.
The Affordable Housing Committee would work with the Energy
Committee to identify investments that would accomplish this
objective. This investment would support the Climate Action Plan
Task Force’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a
manner that advances equity in South Burlington.
(8/17/22 Meeting). The motion was passed unanimously.
Council’s discretion
**************************************
2
Housing Needs Assessment
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee | September 1, 2022
Background
A housing needs assessment is a critical planning tool for identifying local policy solutions for a
community’s most urgent needs. It involves using data and local voices to identify gaps
between a community's existing housing stock and the current and future needs of residents.
It is ideal to update a town's housing needs assessment every 5-10 years, due to ongoing
changes that affect the demand for and supply of housing, such as population demographics,
impacts on housing quality, changing state and federal resources and housing market
fluctuations.
The last South Burlington housing needs assessment was conducted almost 10 years ago
The housing section of the municipal plan should provide current information and guidance
regarding local housing needs, including how much housing is needed in the community and
regulations proposed to meet local needs. The Housing Needs Assessment will provide the
needed data for the City to set sustainable targets, types, locations and goals for housing
growth in South Burlington.
South Burlington has experienced unprecedented changes in the last five years, including
groundbreaking of the City Center, the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to establish federal
state and local goals regarding climate change.
Action recommended
We recommend that the South Burlington City Council task the Affordable Housing Committee with
developing a scope of work and an RFP for hiring a consultant to conduct this assessment.
We recommend that the South Burlington City Council budget $10,000 -$15,000 to pay an external
consultant to conduct and prepare a report about the housing needs assessment.
Data obtained through City, state, and Census Bureau sources, including on the Vermont Housing
Data Website, by the consultant will be used to analyze the current conditions of South Burlington
housing market and assess future housing needs. The types of data analysis to be conducted by the
consultant will include, but will not be limited to availability, affordability, and future needs for owner
homes, rental housing and perpetually affordable housing.
Both raw data and the results of the data analysis will be provided to the South Burlington Affordable
Housing Committee in a written report or similar format. The consultant will review this document
with the Affordable Housing Committee at a regular Affordable Housing Committee meeting.
This document will include data, data analysis, and recommended implementation measures to
address identified housing challenges in the city of South Burlington.
Model scope of work outline
1. Demographic, geographic and economic data review - The consultant will gather and analyze
information through city, state and Census Bureau data sets regarding population, households,
housing and employment including, but not limited to, historical and population growth trends,
demographic data, household data, and employment data.
3
2. Housing Stock, Trends and Projections this will include information about new residential
units, types of building permits issued, trends across the City and estimated rental and owner home
vacancy rates.
3. Market Analysis- The Consultant will study residential real estate trends of all types of housing
including an analysis of past residential sales prices, length of time on the market, and other relevant
real estate metrics.
4. City housing levers - review of land development regulations and other city requirements that
affect housing affordability and availability.
5. Implementation Strategies and Recommendations-The Consultant will develop
recommendations for specific types, rate and other housing needs based on the data review,
projections, market analysis and regulation review.
Bike Ped Committee ARPA Requests
Excepted from Meeting Minutes of 6/8/22
ARPA funding‐ final recommendations
a. Discussed last month
b. Donna noted Climate Action Task force comments on need for bike ped master plan and
how we get people out of cars, asking the question why we drive so much. Also one of
the Bike Friendly Community comments was needing a master plan.
c. Amanda – If conversation is on ARPA funding. Planning is well documented in SB but are
there one or two bike ped projects that we could accelerate. One thing that could be
used for is school maintenance. Spear Street is also a key corridor for safety.
d. Nic – Pitched Hinesburg Road as having the biggest need for connection to services,
schools and housing.
e. Donna agreed that it is shovel ready.
f. Nic asked what Andrew needed.
g. Andrew doesn’t need a motion but just ideas from all the different parties.
h. Amanda asked if we could do Airport Parkway and Spear Street widening because both
don’t have access to sidewalks so would provide a new connection.
i. Donna – Mobility and micro‐transit for seniors to get places would be great.
j. Amanda – VTrans and CCRPC do have a working group to try and address elderly and
disabled transit options. The E&D committee does focus on SSTA and transportation.
There are working groups that do discuss meeting the needs of elders.
k. Cathy – There are senior transportation services. Supports Hinesburg Road proposal
which shouldn’t be that much overall.
l. Donna need to know where the dis‐affected communities are. We don’t know where
they are. General problem around the state. Equity concern. Tend to not know where
they are.
m. Andrew – Surprised at the lack of data the City has. Mainly just census data. Equitable
community outreach is thought about a lot and working to get better at.
n. Amanda (from Chat) Re disadvantaged groups. Let's invite Marshall Distell from CCRPC
to a future meeting. He leads the elderly and disabled regional transportation group. I
can help to coordinate it.
o. Havaleh – Detailed pockets of disadvantaged people.
p. Nic is hearing that the Hinesburg Rd project and Airport Parkway project both rise to
the top. Airport Parkway would be providing infrastructure that doesn’t exist yet, so
does in fact connect communities at Lime Kiln.
q. Andrew will take those two projects forward
1
Jessie Baker
From:jrbipad@gmail.com
Sent:Saturday, August 27, 2022 1:36 PM
To:Tim Barritt; Meaghan Emery; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Helen Riehle
Cc:Jessie Baker; 'Thomas Bailey'; 'Michael Biama'; kenlinge@gmail.com; 'Linda Norris';
slsrinivasan@gmail.com; charleswjohnston14@gmail.com
Subject:'EXTERNAL'South Burlington Economic Development Committee poll on use of ARPA funds
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 City Council Members,
In addition to participating in the online community survey about the city use of ARPA funds, the members of the
Economic Development Committee decided to compile a priority list of what the committee thinks would be the best
way to spend the ARPA money for the long‐term benefit of the South Burlington economy. We just completed a “blind”
internal survey where each member submitted their top 3 topics that I compiled to determine the overall top 3
priorities.
The top three topics that they picked for funding were:
Investing in child care centers to support working residents
improving transit services
Support local businesses
Additional topics in rank priority order are:
Improving city sidewalks and recreation paths
Smart Growth in City Center
Water, Sewer, Stormwater Infrastructure
We thought this result might be of interest as you work through the process of determining the use of these funds from
an economic perspective.
Feel free to reach out to me If you have any questions about these results
Sincerely,
John
John Burton
South Burlington Economic Development Committee Chair
South Burlington Energy Committee
180 Market Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846‐4107
www.SouthBurlingtonVT.gov
facebook.com/SouthBurlington
MEMORANDUM
TO: Helen Riehle, Chair of South Burlington City Council
FROM: Tim Perrin, Chair of South Burlington Energy Committee
CC: Jessie Baker, South Burlington City Manager
DATE: September 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Energy Committee Recommendations for ARPA Funding
The City has received about $5.6 million in federal economic relief funding through the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021. These funds were awarded to:
● Fight the pandemic and support families and businesses struggling with the impacts
● Maintain public services
● Build a strong, resilient, and equitable recovery
This funding presents a unique opportunity to transform aspects of South Burlington’s infrastructure and
services to align with the City’s climate goals, drive the transition to a more equitable and sustainable
energy economy, and improve the resilience of our community. The Energy Committee would like to
submit these recommendations and examples for how ARPA funding can be utilized in the most impactful
ways for our energy systems and climate utilizing current technologies in high‐visibility projects.
Support the electrification of heating systems and vehicles
⮚ We recommend ARPA funding be used to hire a partner organization to develop educational
materials, conduct outreach and community engagement activities, and accelerate heat pump
deployment across South Burlington. ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability has determined
that 10% of South Burlington’s housing stock needs to be transitioned off fossil fuels each year to
hit our greenhouse gas reduction targets.
⮚ The City should consider purchasing at least one electric ride‐on lawnmower for Public Works to
use and promote as a technology demonstration. All types of lawn equipment now have
electrified options and the City can help validate performance and stimulate adoption by
households and businesses across the community.
⮚ To help promote the transition to electrified lawn equipment, funding could be applied to buy
back existing gas‐fired equipment from income‐qualified households as an incentive for early
retirement of legacy lawn mowers, weed wackers, and leaf blowers.
⮚ To help promote the transition to electric vehicles across the city, offering grants to businesses,
affordable housing, and institutions to invest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure on their
property.
Reduce barriers to utilizing mass transit
⮚ Vermont’s weather can serve as a major deterrent to the utilization of mass transit, as most bus
stops do not provide adequate protection from the rain, snow, and wind. We encourage the City
to buy and install small shelters or simple covered areas for all the bus stops in South Burlington.
Offering this refuge from the elements can help increase bus ridership with a nominal investment
by the community. This project has been discussed with Green Mountain Transit leadership and
they are supportive of the concept and open to a partnership. Details of the partnership would
need to be finalized once this project receives approval from the City Council.
⮚ While mass transit can be an attractive option for individuals who live close to a bus route, many
have to travel inconvenient distances to access a bus stop. ARPA funding could be utilized to bring
on a consultant to assess pathways for increasing access to public transit. Many communities are
exploring micro‐transit using smaller vehicles like vans to help accommodate more customized
service for individuals who do not live near a bus stop. The City can invest in a pilot to better
understand the role that micro‐transit services can play as a more sustainable transportation
option for community members.
Create more pedestrian and bike‐friendly transportation options
⮚ Accelerate the timeline of the "Penny for Paths" project plan to build more bike & pedestrian
paths and sidewalks. This will give people more options for how to get around South Burlington
safely and conveniently without a car. The result will be reduced traffic, reduced emissions,
reduced noise, improved health, and better personal connections between people as they see
each other on the path and sidewalk system.
⮚ Add sidewalk or multi‐use paths in targeted areas across the city to better accommodate
pedestrians & cyclists and provide faster and safer bike travel to locations across the community.
Connecting the separated sidewalks on Hinesburg Road between Tilley Drive and Rye Meadows
and extending the multi‐use path on Williston Road to Kennedy Drive are two examples.
⮚ Partner with appropriate organization(s) and subsidize the purchase of electric bikes and any
necessary charging equipment income‐qualified households to accommodate local
transportation needs.
Support formulation of the budgeted implementation program plan for the South Burlington Climate
Action Plan
Hire a consulting firm to follow up on the Climate Action Plan and subsequent implementation
plan to create a fully‐fledged budgeted program. This would include identifying funding sources,
methods, and timelines to obtain funding. This plan would be to the level of detail of
administrative and overhead cost budget for the city and the salaries of the program management
unit.
Natural Resources & Conservation Committee ARPA Requests
Excepted from Meeting Minutes of 8/3/22
ARPA Funds
a. Larry motioned we accept the memo John sent to Tom DiPietro using ARPA funds. Lisa
2nd. Approved, Andrew will send this from the minutes.
The South Burlington Natural Resources & Conservation Committee recommends
to the South Burlington City Council that $100,000 of the Federal ARPA Funds be
used to enhance the city tree canopy. In the following ways.
Accelerate the city’s existing plan for Ash tree replacement across the city and
purchase a suitable number of trees of various types to diversify the tree
selection: And/or Consider adding a tree treatment program for selected Ash
trees after a bidding process for suitable treatment applicators.
South Burlington Cultural Plan – ARPA Recommendation from the Public Art Committee
Approved unanimously by the Public Art Committee August 30, 2022
During Covid, arts organizations were often the first to close and last to reopen and they are still
not back to delivering many pre-pandemic programs. Artists lost all opportunities for public
engagement with their work and are still struggling while juggling multiple jobs to continue
living in our city. A South Burlington Cultural Plan will identify our cultural assets, articulate a
vision and action plan for strengthening our creative economy, and position it to grow.
A plan is essential to understand how we can support the needs and aspirations of our creative
and cultural sector. An RFP will be developed to engage consultants to work with the Public Art
Committee (PAC) to define a cultural plan that includes working with artists, organizations,
libraries, schools, parks, and the community. The plan will encourage the creation, appreciation,
and understanding of the arts to nurture a vibrant inclusive community, foster artistic excellence,
and bring people together for powerful shared experiences that inspire a creative exchange of
ideas. The arts touch people’s lives in profound ways, providing enrichment for everyone –
children to seniors, stimulating creativity and innovation, and enhancing and strengthening our
overall community.
A plan can also be integrated into all facets of local government to advance broader objectives in
the areas of economic prosperity, social equity, the environment, and cultural vitality. As the
Vermont Art Council’s Action Plan for Vermont’s Creative Sector states:
● Creativity is essential to the cultural and economic vitality of Vermont.
● Arts, culture, and creativity are just as essential to Vermont’s future as roads, bridges, and
broadband.
● Theaters, museums, libraries, parks, and community centers are essential for creative
activity.
The consultants and PAC will convene stakeholder artists and arts organizations in focus groups,
take public testimony, and research how other cities support cultural engagement. Lessons will
be drawn from The Creative City Network of Canada and plans from Bennington (VT), Chicago
(IL), Chattanooga (TN), Portland (ME), and other municipalities. Surveys and asset mapping
will identify South Burlington creative sector enterprises and compare them to state numbers. In
2018, data indicated that 41,000 Vermonters were employed in the creative sector, representing
9.3% of all Vermont jobs in 2018. (Source: Mt. Auburn Associates Report, Assessing Vermont’s
Creative Sector, December 2019)
Timeline for completion of a proposed plan to present to the City Council is projected to be one
year from the approval of the use of the funds and hiring of consultant(s) to work with the PAC,
with an estimated cost of $50,000.
In the development of this cultural plan, mission, values, operational and financial possibilities,
and strategies will be developed and refined with the community as to how South Burlington
can:
● Provide the widest variety of opportunities for artists and arts organizations in all
disciplines to thrive and build capacity.
● Provide quality, diverse arts and cultural opportunities in all South Burlington
neighborhoods for shared artistic expression, inspiring participation in the creation,
understanding, and appreciation of the arts.
● Collaborate across artists and arts organizations, community partners, schools, libraries,
recreation departments, and businesses in pursuit of richer cultural experiences.
● Explore opportunities to access tax credits and other permit or funding benefits available
in the City’s two State Designated areas (New Town Center and Neighborhood
Development Area) to support infrastructure rehabilitation, accessibility upgrades as well
as new cultural facilities.
● Explore grant programs to directly support local artists and arts organizations.
● Identify and prioritize locations, areas, and other opportunities for new and temporary
public art.
NOTE: The Vermont League of Cities and Towns reports creative industries often kickstart
local economies. Strengthening this sector will help make our city more resilient and a place that
more people will want to visit and live. Its suggestions for the use of ARPA funds includes:
● Investment in community-driven creative projects.
● Revitalize downtown areas and created artful spaces.
● Improve and/or increase digital capacity.
● Direct assistance.
● Improvement for disaster recovery and resilience.
The outline for the development of a South Burlington Cultural Plan is congruent with these
suggestions and align with quality-of-life objectives and strategies outlined in South Burlington’s
Comprehensive Plan.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
8 MARCH 2022
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 March 2022, at 7:00
p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Riehle, M. Ostby, Acting Chair, M. Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; D. Peters, N.
Hyman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Ostby provided instructions for emergency exit.
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:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Mittag advised that the Climate Action Committee will meet on March 10th. Ms. Ostby said she
heard that at the State level there is enhancement to the current use program. People don’t have to
forest or harvest their land, just take care of it.
Mr. Conner: The City has hired Tom DiPietro as the new Public Works Director. He is the top
stormwater person in the State
UMall is under new ownership with some very dynamic people who are excited to
something great there. They are the same people who own Staples Plaza (not the land). They are
looking at 24/7 mixed uses.
The City Council has let the mask mandate expire. Masks are still “encouraged” at City-
owned buildings.
5. Commissioners’ Reports from Committees:
Mr. Engels: The Airport Rezoning Task Force has asked the consultant to provided 3 scenarios: a
“no” response, a “do nothing,” response, and a “what can be done” response. The City’s legal staff is
being asked to look into the “taking” issue. Ms. Peterson advised that she is working with the Deputy
City Attorney on this.
2
6. Official Map: Review proposed updates to Citywide Official Map and possible action to
approved Planning Commission Report and warn public hearing on proposed amendments:
a. OM-22-01: Add bike/pedestrian connections between planned I-89 bike/pedestrian
bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road, and Quarry Hill Road
Mr. Mittag moved to warn for a 12 April 2022 public hearing amendment to the Official Map OM:22-01
to add bike/ped connections between planned I-89 bike-ped bridge and Dorset Street, Williston Road
and Quarry Hill Road. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
7. Discussion of possible use of ARPA funds:
Mr. Conner explained that the city received about $4,500,000, some of which has already been
allocated. Committees have been asked to provide any specific interests for use of those funds. He
asked members if they had any thoughts on this.
Mr. Riehle suggested lighting on Kennedy Drive and a place to plant trees. He suggested 3 “buckets”
with 1/3 for housing, 1/3 for parks, and 1/3 allocated for the future.
Ms. Peterson suggested members consider who/what they are targeting to support with these one-time
funds.
Mr. Engels suggested something completely new such as an anti-poverty program so no one is hungry
and everyone has a place to live.
Ms. Ostby suggested looking at the aging infrastructure in the city in conjunction with the schools. She
also suggested something the community could use in its “off hours.”
Mr. Mittag suggested more school buses so fewer kids are driving to school.
Mr. Mittag said that money wouldn’t go very far, and the city probably couldn’t spend it by 2026.
Mr. Engels said it would be nice if they could say no money for studies or consultants.
Mr. Hyman suggested concentrating on incentivizing/promoting the new City Center, helping to
revitalize UMall, and demolishing the parking lot and Sears. He suggested it could be zoned as
residential with beautiful apartments.
Ms. Ostby suggested something that would promote job creation.
Mr. Conner suggested something like a commercial kitchen where home-based kitchens could grow
incrementally.
3
It was noted that the City of Burlington is providing a one-time property tax credit to those who meet
certain qualifications.
Mr. Riehle moved to suggest a 3-bucket plan for ARPA funds with 1/3 for housing, 1/3 for open
space/parks, and 1/3 for a future undetermined use. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
6. Begin 2024 Comprehensive Plan process: discussion of areas of focus and update:
Ms. Peterson asked what areas they might emphasize or de-emphasize.
Mr. Mittag said they are out of sync and should have done the Comp Plan first, then the LDRs. He felt it
would be hard to get in sync now.
Ms. Peterson said the Comp Plan can direct changes to the LDRs in the future. She suggested setting
priorities and a structure in place during May and June, then using July ’22 through July ’23 for
information gathering, tasking committees, writing drafts/getting feedback, and public outreach
(including workshops). She noted the new plan has to be adopted by February, 2024, so the City Council
should adopt it by the end of 2023. This means the Planning Commission should have a draft by August,
2023.
Mr. Engels felt the plan should be more definitive and authoritative. Mr. Mittag said it is “inspirational”
for the community, but he didn’t feel it had served the community well enough.
He felt the core of it should focus on climate mitigation and land use changes to support that as well as
focusing on safety/health of the community.
Mr. Riehle suggested they address other things on their plate (e.g., TDRs) first. Ms. Peterson said they
are very high on the list for the next few months.
Mr. Riehle said they should make it clear that with regard to the Regional Planning Commission, South
Burlington is making its own decisions.
Mr. Engels questioned whether Williston Rd. should be a priority since it provides a route for people to
drive through South Burlington.
Ms. Peterson noted that the Comprehensive Plan is also used by those who are funding grants to
determine what the city’s priorities are. She emphasized that policy statements should be made clearly.
Mr. Riehle cited how difficult it is to get speed limits lowered. Mr. Conner said the state will move the
needle a little if the community is clear.
Ms. Ostby cited two points. First, the comp plan needs to provide more "teeth" stating the importance
of the Chamberlin neighborhood as a critical affordable and cherished neighborhood. It is an important
part of SB and the comp plan should state that clearly. Second, that she would like to see South
4
Burlington be a city that can offer a forever home to all residents as their residential needs change, from
providing starter homes, through retirement homes, and every phase in between.
Mr. Mittag cited what immigrants have done to revitalize Burlington’s north end. Mr. Conner noted that
equity will be a key piece of the plan.
8. Consider Street Name Requests for the O’Brien Eastview Neighborhood:
Mr. Conner suggested switching Mabel Way for Barn Way and shortening Potash Brook Way to Potash
Way.
Mr. Mittag moved to accept the applicant’s proposal with staff’s recommendations. Mr. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
9. Minutes of 11 January and 25 January 2022:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 11 and 25 January 2022 as presented. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed 4-0
10. Other Business:
Notice of Shelburne Selectboard on Interim Zoning Amendment
Mr. Conner noted that Shelburne is considering an Interim Zoning to limit the height of buildings in their
Form Based Code area to 2 stories.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:44 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission April 12, 2022
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Donna Kinville, City Clerk
South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: South Burlington City Council, c/o Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Changes to draft Land Development Regulations #LDR-22-05 and LDR-2206; public hearing
November 21, 2022
DATE: October 17, 2022
The City Council on October 17, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing on amendments to the Land
Development Regulations #LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06. Following that hearing, the Council approved a
modification to the text based on public input.
Pursuant to 24 VSA 4442(b), a copy of the changed proposal, shown below in redline, is hereby provided to
the City Clerk and to the Planning Commission. In accordance with the Statute, the planning commission is
requested to review and amend the Report prepared pursuant to subsection 4441(c) of this title to reflect
the changes made by the legislative body and to submit that amended Report to the City Council at or prior
to the public hearing.
The City Council will hold its second public hearing on LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06 on Monday, November 21,
2022, at 7 pm.
--------------------------------
15.C.05 Conservation Development
. . .
E._____Conservation PUD Sub-Zones. A Conservation PUD must include the following Sub-Zones, as designated on the PUD
Master Plan, and as more specifically identified and delineated on preliminary and final subdivision plans and plats:
(1) Conservation Area. A Conservation PUD must include one or more designated “Conservation Areas” which at minimum
comprise 70% of the total tract or parcel area; and which, to the maximum extent physically feasible, are contiguous or
linked to resource or other open space areas located on adjacent parcels or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
PUD. Any tract or parcel area, or portion thereof, which is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits or otherwise
limits future subdivision and/or other development held by the City or a qualified nonprofit organization may be included
in and incorporated into a designated Conservation Area so long as said tract or parcel, or portion thereof, and the
proposed Conservation Area otherwise meet the requirements of this Section 15.C.05.E.
(a) The designated Conservation Area(s) must include and incorporate:
(i) Hazards, as defined and regulated under Article 12 (Table 12-01) which, as unbuildable land, are not eligible for
or subject to the transfer of development density.
(ii) Level I Resources, as defined and regulated under Article 12 (Table 12-01) which, within a Conservation PUD,
are eligible for and subject to the transfer of development rights. In meeting the minimum 70% allocation
requirement, Level I Resources are to be given priority for inclusion within a designated Conservation Area
8 Bailey Ave,
Montpelier, VT 05602
P (802) 223-5234 info@vlt.org
vlt.org
Bluffside Farm
171 Scott Farm Road
Newport, VT 05855
P (802) 748-6089
The King Farm
128 King Farm Road
Woodstock, VT 05091
P (802) 457-2369
226 Bridge Street
P.O. Box 850
Richmond, VT 05477
Regional Offices:
October 3, 2022
South Burlington City Council
(via email)
Dear City Council:
As amendments to the 5/2/22 Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are currently being considered, the
Vermont Land Trust (VLT) requests that the City consider a minor technical clarification: that lands
subject to existing conservation easements, held by qualified conservation organizations, are eligible for
inclusion in designated Conservation Areas per Section 15.C.05E(1)(a) of the regulations.
Based on discussions with Planning & Zoning staff, it is VLT’s understanding that (a) the City intends for
conservation easement-encumbered land to be eligible for inclusion in designated Conservation Areas,
and (b) without a technical amendment to the LDRs, assurance that such land can be included in a
Conservation Area can only come from a DRB finding within the context of a specific application.
One clarification option would be to add a bullet point to the existing list under 15.C.05E(a)(a)(iii) of
“other locally identified natural or open space resource areas present on the tract or parcel, as
necessary to meet the minimum 70% allocation requirement.” A suggestion for such an addition would
be: “Land already subject to a conservation easement held by a IRC § 501(c)(3) organization that meets
the public support test of § 509(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code to preserve farmland or open space
land.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Britt Haselton
Farm Project Director
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing Monday, August 8, 2022, 7:00 PM
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 8 at 7:00 pm,
in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not
limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs, assigning value for TDRs, updating process for
sending and receiving TDRs, and clarifying existing applicability in receiving areas
B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission
Requirements, and Section numbering
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency
with the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted
February 1, 2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as
enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
2
A. LDR-22-05: Update the regulation of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), including, but not
limited to, expanding the receiving areas for TDRs and updating process for sending and receiving
TDRs
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
This amendment updates the existing Transferable Development Rights program. It expands the
areas where TDRs can be received to areas outside the SEQ districts to the City’s medium and
higher-density residential and mixed use zoning districts along transit-served areas, establishes how
TDRs can be used and maximum use of TDRs in all areas where they can be received, and outlines
the process for severing TDRs from a property and receiving them on a property.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The proposed TDR program updates are intended to support the land use pattern envisioned by
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. This includes increasing residential density along corridors with
transit lines and municipal services, and conserving land in appropriate areas of the City.
Specifically, the updated program expands the receiving areas for TDRs to zoning districts that
already have higher residential densities and/or existing transit, like the districts along much of
Shelburne Road and medium-density residential areas in the Transit Overlay District. The
designation of sending areas in the SEQ allow for greater conservation of those areas with
compensation to the current landowners. These updates are intended to foster greater housing
variation and affordability in the City in areas where additional development is supported by
infrastructure, and directing it away from areas where it is not.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies, described in the Plan as
objectives and strategies:
Comprehensive Plan Objectives:
• Objective 2: Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options affordable to
households of varying income levels and seizes by striving to meet the housing targets set
forth in this Plan.
• Objective 3: Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and
target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden
County, and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations.
• Objective 4: Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and
moderate-income housing, emphasizing both smaller single-family homes and apartments,
to meet demand within the regional housing market.
3
• Objective 5: Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of
life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that
will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed-used transit corridors, and
compact residential neighborhoods.
• Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality
of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive
manner.
• Objective 31: Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through
careful site planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical
wildlife resources, and that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife
habitats as conserved open space.
• Objective 36: Conserve productive farmland and primary agricultural soils within the City.
• Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road,
Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service
area.
• Objective 40: Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher
intensity areas identified within this Plan.
Comprehensive Plan Strategies:
• Strategy 4: Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to
preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing.
Potential tools should be explored and could include form-based codes that would allow a
variety of residential and mixed use building types, transferable development rights,
neighborhood preservation overlay districts, household definition regulations, inclusionary
zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing
retention ordinance.
• Strategy 5: Increase the supply of safe and affordable rental housing by allowing higher-
density, mixed- use and mixed-income development within City Center and transit corridors,
allowing multi- unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods
and commercial/ industrial land uses.
• Strategy 7: Accommodate compatible infill and additions to homes in existing
neighborhoods.
• Strategy 8: Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of
residential building and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing,
clustered housing and infill residential development.
• Strategy 10. Develop strategies that can lead to the availability or development of more
housing that is affordable to middle income, working residents and families in the City. Work
through the CCRPC with surrounding communities to increase the inventory of housing that
is more affordable to families. Consider development of a program that enables “empty
nesters” occupying “family” sized housing to comfortably downsize into a multi-family unit
that may be available nearby keeping them in their neighborhood but freeing the former
home up for new generations of young families.
4
• Strategy 12. Promote the construction of new homes - particularly affordable and moderate-
income units - that are highly energy-efficient, and upgrades to existing homes to make
them more energy-efficient, which will reduce residents’ overall cost of living and contribute
to housing affordability.
• Strategy 13. Target for construction, by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units - 840
housing units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units
affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI.
Comprehensive Plan Ongoing Activities
• Continue to refine the City’s Land Development Regulations to promote the Plan’s goals and
objectives.
• Continue to facilitate the use of transfer of development rights within the SEQ zoning
district to achieve the smart growth objectives for the SEQ.
• Continue to allow neighborhood areas with a buildable density of between four and eight
units per acre, using development rights transferred from areas in the SEQ designated for
conservation or protection.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The TDR program updates allow for greater density of residential uses in areas indicated
medium to higher intensity use in the Comprehensive Plan, while implementing greater
conservation in the areas indicated for very low or low intensity use. For example, many
receiving areas are centered on Shelburne Road, parts of Willison Road, Hinesburg Road, and
similar, along with associated transitional areas, where “medium to higher intensity – mixed
use” and “medium intensity – residential to mixed-use” future land uses are indicated. Sending
areas are planned as “very low intensity – principally open space” and “lower intensity –
principally residential”. These are all indicated on Map 11: Future Land Use in the 2016
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
This proposed amendment does not relate directly to any planned community facilities.
However, it intends to incentivize development in areas where municipal infrastructure exists
and community facilities also exist.
B. LDR-22-06: Minor and Technical Amendments to Bicycle Parking, Performance Bonds, Submission
Requirements, and Section numbering
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
Table in 13.03 of the LDRs related to bicycle parking: In Section 13.03 of the LDRs, the table
governing the number of bicycle parking spaces lists “uses” that are not identical to the uses listed in
the Table of Uses in Appendix C. The amendment is to clearly indicate which uses require 1 bicycle
space per 20,000 SF and which require 1 bicycle space per 5,000 SF.
5
Move Section 15.A.20 (Performance Bonds) to Article 17: This amendment moves performance
bonds from Subdivision to Administration to be clear it can apply in circumstances beyond
subdivisions, as is the case in several instances.
Re-letter Section 13.05 to correct double “A” subsections: In Section 13.05, there are two
subsections labeled “A”. In a prior version of the LDRs, when stormwater management standards
were contained in Article 12, the “Applicability” section was contained in “B. Scope and
Applicability” and the language under that section included internal references that persist in the
new 13.05.
Delete 17.04C Subdivision Approvals header: Section 17.04 contains a subsection A labeled
“Subdivision Approvals. [reserved]” that is no longer needed and is a vestige of former state
enabling statutes. It is currently a duplicate “A” that should be labeled “C” as in the previous version
of the LDRs.
Modify Appendix E to specify submission requirements for Final Plat for Minor Subdivisions, and for
solar-ready roofs.
Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including
the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The proposed changes are technical in nature and service only to clarify the LDR.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 OCTOBER 2022
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 October 2022, at
7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P. Engels, A.
Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; D. Peters, C. Trombly
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instruction on leaving the building in an emergency.
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:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby: Attended the City Council meeting last week with the mother of the student bicyclist who
suffered major injuries when struck by a car in a poorly lighted area near the school. They expressed
concern that nothing has been done to address the situation.
Mr. Conner: This edition of Zoning Practice focuses on EV charging and questions whether it should be
its own use or an ancillary use. He cited the possibility of a parking lot where all spaces are EV charging
spaces.
Ms. Ostby: Noted that cannabis is now legal to be sold. Mr. Conner said that in South Burlington it can
be grown (light industry), but sale is not permitted as a retail use. It would have to be voter approved.
5. Minor differences between C1-R15 and C1-Auto; consider guidance for post public hearing on
LDR-22-07 and LDR-22-08:
Mr. Conner noted they had essentially said the only difference was auto sales; however, there are some
other differences (identified in his memo to the Commission). The Commission can
make changes after the public hearing. Mr. Conner suggested making the two districts more similar and
allowing additional uses in C1-Auto, leaving out animal shelter and kennels because of noise issues near
where people live.
2
Mr. Mittag said he didn’t see a lot of places where they could zone C1-R15 on Shelburne Road. He
suggested combining C1-Auto with C2 in the future. Mr. Conner noted there are some C2 uses that
might be an issue such as heavy industry. Mr. Mittag read the list of uses that could be allowed. He said
he wanted to protect as much of C1-R15 as possible.
Commissioners concurred with staff’s recommendations and asked to have the complete proposal at
the 25 October meeting.
6. Feedback to City Charter Committee regarding expansion of the Planning Commission:
Mr. Engels advised that the Charter says the Commission shall have 7 members. State Law allows for 3
to 9 members, so the Commission could expand to 9. The voters would have to agree to remove the “7”
from the Charter.
Mr. Conner said there are 2 options:
a. The voters could delete the “7” and default to State law (3-9 members)
b. The number “9” could replace the “7” in the Charter
Both options would require a public vote.
Ms. Ostby said there are a number of instances where South Burlington differs from the State (e.g.,
under State law, the city can set speed limits in school zones; South Burlington doesn’t). She felt the city
should reflect what the State says.
Mr. Riehle said he was originally leaning toward 9, but now favors remaining at 7. He felt 9 could get
unwieldly, and he didn’t see a benefit.
Mr. Mittag didn’t favor 9. He felt 5 was the best number, but 7 is OK.
Mr. Macdonald said there is some perspective on the Commission now that wasn’t there before which
was what made him think 9 would be a good number. But “more isn’t always better.” He was
concerned that geographically the Commission is not diverse.
Mr. Conner said not many communities in Vermont have 9 Planning Commission members (Richmond,
Hinesburg). The problems is sometimes they can’t find 9 people willing to serve.
He has heard that a 9 member board can have a more robust discussion, but it is also harder to get a
quorum.
Ms. Ostby explained that she had asked the City Council not to reappoint her because she was
concerned with having diverse perspectives. It was the Council that said more people can be added to
achieve diversity. She had no preference between 7 and 9.
3
Ms. Louisos said that with the 7 members they have there is a high level of investment from everyone.
She felt there should be variety in backgrounds of members and could suggest to the City Council that
there be more “targeting of choices.”
Mr. Mittag moved keep the number of Planning Commission members at 7. Mr. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed 5-1 with Ms. Ostby abstaining.
Ms. Ostby said diversity of opinion is so important and she strongly encouraged finding diversity in
candidates.
5. Debriefing on City Council/Planning Commission meeting and discussed revised
Values/Visions/Goals:
Mr. Conner said he tried to incorporate all of the feedback. He added that if the Commission feels it is
at 90%, accept it as a working document and share it with committees. Adjust anything that is really
critical.
Mr. Mittag said he would add recognition of the historical perspective of indigenous peoples. He felt
that was an omission that should be addressed, possibly under “Inclusive, Fair and Just.”
Ms. Ostby noted there could also have been farmers of color and was concerned with “tokenism.” She
also said they have to look at what is important to protect but also look at what is coming. She felt the
document is at the 90% level but that there are things that could be added under “Climate Resiliency” to
prepare for what will happen. She noted that the city of Buffalo has a good system in place to welcome
“climate refugees.”
Mr. Mittag said that regarding “tokenism,” there can be more detail later in the document. He also said
the city can’t accept “climate refugees” now because there is no place to put them.
He said South Burlington should declare itself a refugee receiving city and cited the vibrancy of
Burlington’s Old North End. He added it is unfortunate the South Burlington doesn’t have the stock of
older buildings to accommodate people.
Mr. MacDonald said in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the economy is mentioned only once. He said it is
an important part of the city, and he would like to see the word “robust” used in connection with the
economy. There are 1600 businesses in the city. Mr. Mittag suggested adding something under
“Opportunity Oriented.” Mr. Conner suggested “investing in an economy that supports Vermont.”
Mr. Chalnick said he felt the document was at 90% and agreed with other comments as well. He
suggested possibly adding something like “fiscal discipline” or “fiscally responsible.”
Mr. Engels said they should acknowledge that South Burlington is a business engine in the State and
continue that way.
4
Ms. Ostby said that part of “dignity” is that you can have a dignified professional experience. The city
needs people that can fill all kinds of jobs and respect that. She felt that ties in with having a strong
economic base.
In a straw vote, members agreed to add recognition of indigenous peoples.
Mr. Conner said he would add “local, nearby” under “Opportunity Oriented” and “economic
engine/entrepreneurship.” He will send revisions to members then get the document out to the
community.
Mr. Riehle questioned the meaning of “quality job” and felt it could be very subjective. Ms. Louisos said
it could be any job as long as people are well treated. Mr. Mittag said the quality is in the mind of the
person who has the job. He didn’t feel they have to define everything.
Mr. Conner cited the need to integrate the subject and people involved in education. It is a required
component of the plan and is important for the community.
7. Receive Quarterly Planning Commission Report:
Mr. Conner said no action is required; this is just an update. He asked how members feel 25% through
the fiscal year.
Mr. Riehle asked where they fit people into the schedule when they come in for zoning or other
changes. Mr. Conner noted it used to be in the old work plan. He was happy to add the ability to be
“nimble” to add items that may arise during the year.
8. Meeting Minutes of 13 September 2022:
It was suggested that on p. 4, the sentence regarding Butler Farms and a dog park be changed to read:
Butler Farms would benefit from a dog park.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 13 September 2022 with the above suggestion. Mr. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Other Business:
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an email from the Affordable Housing Committee. They have a work group
looking at areas in the city that are ripe for development and are looking for a Planning Commission
members to work with them. Mr. Trombly said they meet “when they can” and function more like
advisors. They want solutions easy to get through and consistent with the Planning Commission’s vision.
Mr. Mittag said he was willing to talk with Mr. Trombly about this.
Mr. Trombly noted that one issue is how ideas would be received within a neighborhood.
5
Ms. Louisos also noted she had heard from the Energy Committee regarding a column in the Other
Paper with a “Green & Clean” focus. A Planning Commission member could possibly contribute an
article to that. Mr. Conner said he will be doing an article on the recently adopted Climate Action Plan.
Mr. Conner then reviewed upcoming meetings. Next month will include potential planning study
requests regarding transportation.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:32 p.m.
________________________, Clerk