HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 03/28/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
28 MARCH 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 March 2023, at 7:00
p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, P. Engels, D. Leban, L. Smith, F. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; D. Peters
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos 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. Conner advised that at its 17 April meeting, the City Council will pick up discussion of the remaining
ARPA funds.
Staff has received an application for the south side of Market Street which includes housing and first
floor commercial.
5. City Plan 2024: Water and Public Utilities Section:
Ms. Peterson said the water section related to water as a resource (e.g., drinking water, stormwater).
Capacity numbers are not yet included. There is a little more planning for resources in regard to land
use than there was in the previous plan.
Ms. Louisos asked whether electricity is a utility. Ms. Peterson said it could be included here, but it not
because Green Mountain Power is not a city-controlled utility. Mr. Conner said it would be OK to
consider such things as undergrounding of power lines. Ms. Leban noted that increased use could
become an issue.
Subject headings for this section include: Opportunity Oriented, Climate Resilient, Inclusive, Fair and
Just, and Human-focused.
2
Ms. Leban also noted that in the next 20 years they will have to consider micro-grids and storage. Ms.
Peterson said that will appear more in the Energy Section. Mr. Conner added that he was not sure GMP
and VELCO have plan for sub-stations, and that is a utility issue.
Mr. Smith raised the issue of the number of refuse haulers. He said that everyone in his neighborhood
agreed to go with one hauler (they got a good price) which reduced the number of hauler trucks in the
neighborhood each week. They still have several propane trucks coming in, which is an issue. He noted
that the city did a study about trash haulers, but nothing was ever done about it. Mr. Conner said if the
Commission agrees, this could be a policy issue. Mr. Smith suggested: “Remove redundancy in solid
waste hauling and fuel delivery.”
Mr. Mittag said they should state what they will or plan to do, not just that there had been a study. Ms.
Peterson said there needs to be backing data. She noted that strategies to get to the goals are not yet
drafted. Ms. Leban noted that CSWD has announced that it has not yet reached the goal for trash
reduction. Mr. Smith said plastic waste is a huge issue.
Mr. Conner stressed that the aim is to have the fewest objective that say the most. Ms. Peterson added
that the city has only the power granted to it by the state. Staff would have to check with legal to see
what can be done to limit hauling and deliveries.
Mr. Engels questioned why solid waste and telecommunications are in the same section. Ms. Peterson
said both are necessary services. Mr. Conner noted that the Chamberlin neighborhood is having
Burlington Telecom come in to see what can be done on a neighborhood basis. He suggested there
could be a public works statement about the number of conduits that go into city streets. This could
encourage competition and result in reduced rates. Mr. Conner also noted that there is no idea what
the next technology will bring. Ms. Leban said security is a major issue.
Regarding the siting of telecommunications, Ms. Louisos questioned whether the language is strong
enough as this is the only place the city has input. Mr. Conner said they don’t look to the city’s plan, but
they do take input from the city (i.e., a letter of concern). It is stronger if it is a policy of the city.
Regarding stormwater, Ms. Peterson noted that the Stormwater Department has not yet read this
section. She noted the previous plan has language that is not used any more.
Ms. Louisos noted three things that can affect a stream: temperature, heavy metal and, in South
Burlington’s situation, stormwater. There are things that can be done to make streams less impaired.
South Burlington had to figure out surfaces that weren’t currently being treated (e.g., parking lots), and
the city is now working with grants and other financing to do treatments. Mr. Conner said the city can
also go to neighborhoods to provide expertise, grants, etc., to get a project done. He also noted that the
deadline to get the system ramped up is 2034, which is just about when the new Comprehensive Plan
will expire.
Mr. MacDonald asked whether they can do prevent things from getting onto lawns that eventually get
into the stormwater system. Mr. Conner said the city’s Stormwater Utility has been working with larger
3
properties not to over-salt. He noted the city does not have the authority to regulate pesticides, but
some homeowner groups are doing this.
Mr. Mittag suggested removing some language which he felt was unnecessary. Mr. Conner said he
wants to keep the language regarding the MS4 permit as this may involve raising fees.
Mr. Smith suggested possibly reducing lawn sizes and contributing some of the lawn area to a natural
area. Mr. Conner said this is called a “30’x30’”program with 30% of the land conserved.
Ms. Leban cited the number of trees cut down in stormwater areas, trees that were holding the land in
place. Ms. Louisos said it is part of the stormwater manual to retain and plant trees.
Regarding potable water, Mr. Conner said the tank near the golf course is at 98% capacity, and the city is
moving toward a new site. This involves a big capital project. He noted the language “no suitable
location has been identified” will be deleted and the new location will be identified next to existing
facility.
Ms. Leban asked whether infill housing will affect water and sewer availability. Ms. Peterson said “yes
and no.” That conversation hasn’t been had with Public Works as yet.
Mr. Mittag asked whether all the information regarding tank capacity is needed. Ms. Peterson said it is
an element of inventory. It has been kept because the water system is not common knowledge. Mr.
Mittag asked whether they need to know there is a reserve of 50,000 for City Center. Mr. Conner said it
is critical to know there are ordinances that reserve capacity. That is what the Comprehensive Plan
should be laying out. Ms. Peterson added that it also meets the land use goals.
Ms. Leban noted there is nothing to encourage water conservation, no discount for using less water.
She suggested a possible incentive to reduce water usage. Mr. Engels said the minimum charge is higher
than most people ever use.
Ms. Louisos raised the issue of capital planning for upgrades being done “equitably.” Ms. Peterson said
resources should be used where they impact the most people.
Mr. Conner noted that if there were 2 neighborhoods side by side, the distance between homes can
increase the length of pipes, etc. He said “equity” may not be the right word and suggested “cost
effective.” They could say that the city won’t take over a system if it is not cost effective.
Mr. Smith suggested not having city water and sewer in areas where the city does not want
development. Ms. Louisos said in some conservation areas there can be 1 to 3 homes.
Mr. Mittag suggested saying something about remaining “in compliance” with water standards.
6. City Plan 2024: Economy Section
4
Mr. Conner said the last plan took a stab at this. The aim now is to see what direction the city is headed
in. Ms. Peterson said the Economic Development Committee has provided some thoughts, and much of
the content of this section comes from their input.
Mr. Conner noted that there are very few “professional jobs” in the city’s downtown area and very few
office jobs. Most jobs relate to retail. Mr. Mittag suggested just saying “we plan to have it” instead of
“it doesn’t exist.” Ms. Peterson stressed that the need to provide that space has to derive from the fact
that it doesn’t exist now.
Ms. Leban said that what is missing is a 3-4 story building with one use/one owner that is residential
above and commercial below. This was not allowed in City Center because everything had to be so big.
Mr. Conner said it is allowed but not encouraged. Ms. Leban said she was told it wouldn’t happen
because the land owner won’t subdivide. Mr. Engels said it would be great to have a downtown that
looks like 200 years ago but with today’s technology.
Mr. Conner said they could talk about smaller properties in the San Remo Drive area and some places on
Williston Road that are part of City Center. Ms. Peterson noted that the buildings being built in City
Center now will have the first floor commercial use that doesn’t exist now.
Mr. Engels said the Chamberlin neighbors are very clear that they want nothing built except affordable
housing and nothing Airport related. He cited the 2016 report of a task force which he wanted to see
included as part of this plan.
Mr. Conner drew attention to a policy shift in the objectives regarding the location of businesses “to
integrate housing.” Ms. Leban wondered if that would ever be a consideration for some businesses.
Ms. Peterson noted a request from a business for what was essentially temporary housing related to the
business. She also said there are some businesses that should be separate from residential use.
Mr. Smith suggested adding “high tech businesses” to the bullet point that enumerates the kinds of
businesses the city wants. A member of the audience raised the question of fitting in smaller businesses
that might be run by marginalized people.
7. Other Business:
Ms. Peterson reviewed the schedule for future meetings and indicated the provided list of meeting
dates and topics to be discussed. She noted that the current plan expired in February 2024, and the
objective is to have a plan in the Council’s hands before they are heavily into the budget. This may
require a special meeting to meet the schedule goals.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:34 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission April 11, 2023