HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 09/13/2022SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
13 SEPTEMBER 2022
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 September
2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote
technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Macdonald, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, P. Engels, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Auerbach, Stephen L., L. Murphy,
Y. Bradley
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Macdonald provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Engels noted that the City Charter Committee is meeting tomorrow, and one of the items
on the agenda is a proposal from the City Council to expand the membership of the Planning
Commission. Ms. Ostby said that issue came up when she was interviewed for reappointment.
There is now state legislation that would allow that expansion to happen. Mr. Riehle said he
would support adding 2 members to facilitate having sub-committees. Mr. Engels said the City
Charter Committee is also looking at possibly expanding the City Council, voting in wards or
districts, and “gender neutral” language in the Charter. Mr. Engels added that the Council now
consists of 4 of its 5 members living within less than a mile of each other. There is also the issue
of expense is campaigning city-wide.
Ms. Ostby said she attended the bike-ped bridge meeting. Three different designs were
considered. There will be one more public meeting to work through a final design. She asked
for solar powered heaters on the bridge for use in winter.
Mr. Chalnick reported that the Climate Action Task Force has finalized its draft report which will
be presented to the City Council on the 19th. That report also asks for a Charter change.
2
5. Discuss possible amendment to the Land Development Regulations enabling green
business or modifying auto sales applicable area for Shelburne Road corridor:
Mr. Macdonald asked for feedback on the options proposed by staff.
Mr. Riehle asked if the “green” has to be 100% green or just a percentage. Mr. Conner said it
would have to be assessed by staff, but he noted that less than 100% would be challenging. Mr.
Macdonald said the Commission hasn’t yet defined “green business.” He added that he was
leaning toward Option 2 as Option 1 has a lot of loose ends and potential for unintended
consequences.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether option 2 would lead to a sea of selling cars rather than the
walkable community the Commission is trying to create. She liked the idea of shifting some
auto use, but she noted that even this new dealership will be painting cars, and there will be
fumes. She added that she was told they have very strict codes regarding health, etc. Ms.
Ostby expressed concern with the dealerships near the school and children being exposed to
fumes. She would like to see any business in that zone have a very strict code for safety near an
area where there will be homes. This would apply to anything, not only car dealerships and
service centers.
Mr. Chalnick felt they should do everything possible to move this request through quickly
because it is a good reuse of an existing building. Ms. Ostby cited the need to be more
thoughtful of potential issues and cited the Beta fire from lithium batteries.
Mr. Murphy said they would be satisfied with the option to expand the zone. Their issue is
timing. They would like to do it in the narrowest way, having it apply only to vacant buildings.
He noted the application would still have to go through the DRB which would deal with specific
issues. He added that if the Commission can’t move quickly, Tesla will look at another site.
Mr. Bradley, a commercial real estate broker, said Tesla has immense resources, and building a
new building on a piece of land would not be an issue. (“They can go to Williston and build a
monstrosity across from Berlin Auto”) They have been convinced that going green by reusing
an existing building is a good thing. Mr. Bradley also said that without this use, that building
won’t see another development. With Tesla, it could be a catalyst for other businesses of that
type.
Mr. Riehle questioned how this use would benefit South Burlington. Mr. Murphy said it would
create important jobs and would train a work force for electric vehicles. Mr. Riehle asked if
they would pay a sales tax. Mr. Murphy said not beyond the automobile tax. Mr. Riehle said a
retail business would pay more to the City of South Burlington via the local option sales tax.
Mr. Murphy said Hannaford would never allow any competitor into that building.
3
Mr. Conner noted that Option 2 would add Lowes and the Hannaford property to the C-1 Auto
District. Everything south of that district would become C1-R15, which doesn’t allow for auto
use. Audi and Volkswagen properties would become C-2, which allows auto use.
Ms. Ostby supported option 2 with a requirement to meet a more stringent environmental
code. Mr. Conner felt that requirement falls between an ordinance and performance
standards. There are performance standards in the LDRs; if the city implements them more
strongly, there would have to be a mechanism for compliance, and that is a budget issue.
Mr. Chalnick was OK with option 1 or 2 and asked to accelerate the process.
Mr. Engels felt that having Tesla in the city would have an enormous psychological impact.
Mr. Riehle opposed the use.
Mr. Macdonald favored option 2.
Mr. Conner noted that Ms. Louisos was leaning toward option 2 but was also interested in the
concept of reuse. Mr. Mittag did not cite a preferred option.
Mr. Murphy was concerned with imposing performance standards and that would slow down
the process.
Mr. Conner noted that if the use were to be abandoned for six months, the use would go away.
Ms. Ostby then moved to approve the concept of Option 2/map 2 and pursue a public hearing
at the earliest time and come back to discuss whether to continue auto use in the zone. As a
secondary step, make it a priority to discuss and environmental code within the new C-1 area.
Mr. Chalnick seconded.
Mr. Chalnick then moved to amend the motion to delete “and come back to discuss whether to
continue auto use in the zone.” Mr. Macdonald seconded. The motion to amend passed 4-1.
The vote on the amended motion then passed 4-1 with Mr. Riehle voting against.
Mr. Murphy asked for a special meeting to move this forward. Mr. Conner said they can spend
5 minutes at a special meeting to warn a public hearing.
6. Comprehensive Plan: discuss themes for facilitated pubic discussion and primary
objectives from draft Climate Action Plan:
4
Mr. Conner said this is a chance to brainstorm areas where there could be good, rich
community discussion and also present some key findings of the Climate Action task Force.
Mr. Macdonald said he felt a community discussion is needed on the issue of infill in R-1
districts.
Mr. Riehle cited the darkness of Kennedy Drive area and felt it was important to light up
walkways. Mr. Conner noted there is funding for a study to get more lighting onto Kennedy
Drive.
Mr. Engels cited the importance of neighborhoods and bringing the 2016 Chamberlain
neighborhood report into the Comprehensive Plan. He favored lots of public participation, a
grass roots up process. Mr. Conner cited the importance of giving people something to work
with and have a conversation about. Mr. Engels felt technology can accomplish that and make
it easy for people to participate.
Mr. Chalnick cited the importance of environmental protection.
Mr. Riehle noted the need for parks and dog parks. He said Butler Farms would benefit from a
dog park.
Mr. Conner said the prediction is that the majority of homes in the city will be multi-family, and
there will have to be discussion about amenities. Ms. Ostby asked what can be done to make
clustered living as robust as possible. Mr. MacDonald suggested asking people in the Farrell St.
area what works and what doesn’t as that is what things will look like in the future.
Mr. Engels cited the need for a huge public relations outreach to get as much public
participation as possible.
Regarding the Climate Action Plan, Mr. Conner encouraged members to read it. He noted there
are measurable objectives related to transportation and buildings including residential
electrification and homes to be retrofitted each year.
Mr. Riehle asked if the Task Force discussed the incentivizing of planting trees. Mr. Chalnick
said they did.
Mr. Chalnick noted 2 important parts of the report: a rental ordinance which would require
periodic upgrades, and a Charter change to give the city the power to regulate heating in
existing buildings. Without those 2 things, it will make the goals hard to meet.
5
Ms. Ostby asked about the process for addressing “supporting actions” for such things as
preserving remaining meadows, forests, etc., from further encroachment. Mr. Conner said the
Climate Action Plan would become a supporting plan which will help inform the Comprehensive
Plan. It would be considered by policy-making groups as to what to do in the future.
Ms. Ostby noted it is very difference from the results of Interim Zoning.
Mr. Engels said he hoped the Comprehensive Plan would be more critical of the Airport. He
said they burn an enormous amount of fossil fuel every day. He was disappointed there was no
mention of this in the Climate Action Plan. Mr. Chalnick said South Burlington has no control
over the Airport. There is also a question of how emissions should be counted. This was too
much for the Task Force to take on. Mr. Chalnick added that the Airport is doing a study and is
coming up with its own plan.
Mr. Conner stressed that one thing the Task Force felt strongly about was ensuring that the
actions recommended in the plan were those that South Burlington could advance.
7. Meeting Minutes of 23 August 2022:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 23 August 2022 as presented. Mr. Chalnick
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
8. Other Business:
a. Colchester Planning Commission public hearing, Tuesday, September 20 at 7 p.m., at
the Colchester Town Offices, 781 Blakely Road, for the purpose of considering
amendments to the Colchester Development
No action was taken.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 8:55 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk