HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/31/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
31 JANUARY 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 31 January 2023, at 7:00
p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Mittag, P. Engels, A. Chalnick, D. Leban
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; L. Kupferman, S. Dooley, M. Simoneau, V.
Bolduc, A. Chalnick, S. Dopp, R. Gonda, D. Seff, L. Bailey, R. Greco, H. Riehle
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Conner provided instruction 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:
There were no announcement or staff report.
5. Discuss and possibly provide input on Vermont House Bill H68 and companion bill in Vermont
Senate:
Mr. Chalnick said there are certain provisions of H68 that are impactful to South Burlington. He added
that he didn’t have expertise some of the provisions of the bill. He noted the bill appears to be moving
fast and he questioned what the Commission can do. Since the Council will be discussing this next week,
he suggested discussing what information the Commission can provide to the Council.
Mr. Mittag suggested that concurrently the Commission could send a letter to the Legislative Counsel
indicating what members don’t understand. He noted there is a lot of good in the bill but also a lot of
issues for South Burlington.
A straw poll of members indicated interest in moving forward.
Mr. Mittag said the city needs to be on the testimony list by 16 February. He felt the letter to the
Legislative Counsel should come first. Mr. Conner said the Commission should address a letter to the
city’s Legislators who can then bring it to the Legislative Counsel.
2
Mr. Conner then enumerated some of the issues that need clarity including the reduction of required
parking spaces from 1.5 to 1, the definition of a “district” that is served by water/sewer, the inability of
municipalities to adopt more stringent energy codes than the State as of June (which could challenge
some of what the Commission has been discussing), the inability of the DRB to arbitrarily lower density
unless the issue is related to a wetland (does this affect conservation easements and/or habitat blocks?).
Ms. Leban said the bill doesn’t mention fuel choice and she questioned whether that would affect the
city’s fossil fuel regulations or whether the State could prevent South Burlington and Burlington from
having those regulations. Ms. Leban noted that the Governor’s office is totally opposed to any
enforcement of residential codes. She added that if builders would build to the State’s energy code,
that would be a good thing, but they are not doing that. She stressed that the standard should not be
reduced.
Mr. Riehle questioned whether this would prevent creativity by being a “one size fits all.”
Mr. Chalnick suggested having 3 members get together and craft something to get to the Council by
Friday.
Mr. Riehle asked what the issue is with water and sewer. Mr. Conner said the language reads “district
served by water and sewer” and it is not further defined. It could mean the entire Southeast Quadrant
zoning district. Mr. Mittag noted there are towns that are not served by water and sewer (e.g., Jericho)
and they are not addressed by this bill. Ms. Louisos added that just because South Burlington has water
and sewer all over doesn’t mean there should be development all over the city.
Ms. Leban said one thing that will cause problems for State building inspections is that the bill is asking
them which regulations can be eliminated to reduce the cost of housing. She stressed that reducing
safety for affordable housing shouldn’t even be considered, especially since the safety codes are
national codes.
Ms. Leban said the bill does have a definition of “accessory dwelling unit” that she felt the city should
adopt: 30% of the total habitable floor area of the primary unit or 900 sq. ft. Mr. Conner said South
Burlington already has that standard.
Mr. Conner noted that another part of the bill would reduce the approval for water from both State and
local approvals to only local approval.
Ms. Leban noted that on p. 7, Section 13, the bill allows the ability to add an additional floor above the
height limitations. She questioned whether you could add a floor to a 4 or 5 story building. Mr. Conner
said that one tricky area regarding building standards is that each type of house has its own standards
(e.g., town house, cottage). He added that the bill could say if the standard today is 3 stories, it can be
4.
Public comment was then solicited.
3
Mr. Gonda: Noted that both VLCT and the Vermont Chamber of Commerce have been trying to
oppose/weaken Act 250, and it is Act 250 that is under attack in this bill. He felt the forces behind it are
the business community.
Mr. Seff urged getting the city’s Legislators to “sign on.” He felt the bill is problematic regarding the
water/sewer issue. He also said that part of the SEQ that is no 1.2 units per acre could not become 5 per
acre, so a 16 house development could become 160. One question is whether there is enough water,
roadway, school space, emergency services, etc., to accommodate that number. He felt South
Burlington has done more than its share for affordable housing, and that should be conveyed.
Mr. Chalnick questioned whether 5 units per acre would be allowed or would be a minimum. Mr. Seff
said he read it as a minimum. He added that if there is water/sewer in the NRP zone, you would go from
1 unit per acre to 50.
Ms. Leban said there are so many places in Vermont that don’t have zoning or administrators. She felt
communities that have already done some of this work should be exempted.
Ms. Louisos said one good thing in the bill is that a multi-unit building could have the same dimensions
as a “McMansion.”
Mr. Mittag said development should be directed to where there is an “urban core,” not water and
sewer.
Mr. Seff said the housing crisis is being caused by rented houses, second homes, and people working for
non-Vermont employers. It would be better to deal with those issues. Mr. Mittag suggested tripling the
taxes on houses where the owners don’t live in them for at least 180 days a year.
Ms. Dopp expressed concern with “going over the deep end to solve a current problem.” She noted that
a few years ago South Burlington was concerned with how the schools were going to be filled. Now
there will be students in trailers. She was also concerned that there was no talk of the character of a
neighborhood. She was concerned that neighborhood associations would lose the ability to regulate the
character of their neighborhoods.
Mr. Mittag felt the bill is a usurpation of local control.
Ms. Greco said she hoped the Legislature would consider the unintended consequences that threaten to
undo the wonderful work the Planning Commission and hundreds of volunteers have done and will
destroy natural resource land.
Ms. Leban said something should also be said about protection of architecture so builders don’t create
atrocities in historic areas.
Mr. Conner showed a map of zoning districts and indicated where there are water and sewer lines. He
showed the R-4 areas which are mostly built out (all have water and sewer). He also indicated R-2 areas
4
where zoning would be 4 per acre with a PUD and 5 acres. He then pointed out the various R-1 areas,
some of which are on septic systems and some on city water/sewer. The SEQ is a zoning district with
sub-districts and explained the various zoning options. Mr. Chalnick said the proposed bill would change
all of that.
Mr. Conner then explained the nature of “new town centers” and “neighborhood development areas.”
He noted that City Center is both a “new town center” and a “neighborhood development area” which
exempts it from Act 250. Currently, a community can have only one neighborhood development area.
He suggested the possibility of allowing more than one. Mr. Chalnick said it would make sense to say
that 5 units per acre applies to a “neighborhood development area.”
Mr. Chalnick said he wouldn’t want any of South Burlington’s zoning districts to be overridden, but the
alternative wasn’t clear to him.
Ms. Leban felt the bill is aimed at places like Jericho which have 1 unit per 5 acres zoning. She thought
that limiting development to “neighborhood development areas” sounded exclusionary to her. Mr.
Mittag said Jericho may be a target, but it won’t be affected by the bill because it doesn’t have water or
sewer in its town center.
Members then enumerated some of the things that South Burlington has done to achieve affordable
housing: inclusionary zoning (including a bonus on top of that), multiple levels of affordable housing
(requiring 10% of development of more than 12 units to be perpetually affordable), compact
development in exchange for conservation.
Mr. Conner noted that the bill is also addressing towns that previously allowed 5 or 6 units an acre but
today are allowing less. Ms. Leban said Vergennes is an example of that.
Ms. Leban stressed that any message sent to the Council should speak to maintaining safety codes. She
suggested the South Burlington safety inspector weigh in on this.
Ms. Riehle suggested mentioning the city’s Comprehensive Plan which speaks to resource protection
and affordable housing and the amount of work done by the city to achieve both of those goals.
Ms. Louisos suggested requesting that communities with zoning and significant affordable housing
programs be exempted if they meet the intent of the bill.
Ms. Louisos, Mr. Chalnick and Mr. Mittag agreed to put together information for the City Council.
Mr. Riehle moved to authorize Ms. Louisos, Mr. Chalnick and Mr. Mittag to provide the City Council with
information addressing House Bill H68. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Other Business:
5
Ms. Louisos noted that two of the Comprehensive Plan sessions do not have a Commission member
indicating he/she will attend to represent the Commission. These are 16 February (central
neighborhoods) and 16 March (southwest neighborhoods).
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:39 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission March 21, 2023