HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/11/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 April 2023, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, P. Engels, L. Smith, F. McDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; A. Chalnick, D.
Peters, M. Simoneau, H. Riehle, K. & T. Easton, B. Doyle, M. Emery
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Mr. Conner 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:
There were no announcements or updates to the staff written report.
5. City Plan 24: Recreation & Culture Sections:
Ms. Louisos reminded members that staff is looking for policy level feedback, not wordsmithing.
Mr. Mittag said there should be something related to Arts & Crafts.
Mr. Smith asked about “engagement with historic sites.” Ms. Peterson said the intention is to promote
interaction with such things, not just have them set aside. Mr. Smith said they should include
identification, restoration and preservation. He asked if this includes “recent history.”
Mr. Conner said this is a relatively new area in Planning. He suggested the possibility of posing the
question: “What does history mean?” Ms. Louisos noted this has traditionally been an At
250 concern. Mr. Smith cited the possibility of the history of indigenous people in the area which could
include the issue of reparations. He felt this was the time to open that conversation.
Mr. Engels noted the log house built in 1840 which he felt should have some recognition. He asked if
there is a way to protect such buildings. Ms. Louisos said there isn’t an active “champion” for this. Mr.
Mittag suggested Sarah Dopp. Mr. Engels suggested the possibility of having an archaeologist or
someone from the Historical Society consult with the Commission. Mr. Mittag added that it would be
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
2
good to have an inventory as well. Ms. Peterson said that the 2016 Plan did have a list of some of these
places.
Regarding “scenic quality,” Mr. Smith noted there is no reference to the waterfront which is very scenic
and in danger of being lost. He said Red Rocks Park is one of the few places that is not developed on the
waterfront.
Ms. Louisos recalled that there was a work plan item to address scenic view, but it hasn’t made it to the
top of the list as yet.
Mr. Smith suggested adding “the few remaining” to the discussion of agricultural lands. Mr. Conner
noted that left to their own, agricultural lands will become forests. Mr. Mittag said there are several
hundred acres that could be farmed now but aren’t.
Mr. Conner noted that at the public sessions, there was a lot of interest in starting to bring community
facilities to the Shelburne Road corridor. As more people are being brought to live and work there,
people felt there should be more available than just housing and jobs. Mr. Conner said he would like to
see a reference to that in the plan.
Mr. Smith suggested “transplanting” the bridge that is not being used to help people cross Shelburne
Road.
A member of the public suggested the use of color to give people a sense of place. He also not that with
so much being built near highways, there should be thought to visual buffers.
Recreation Section:
Mr. Mittag question the chart from the Community Conversations that showed 85% of buildings were
multi-family. Ms. Peterson said that percentage was regarding percentage of development in the Traffic
Overlay District. Mr. Conner added that a large percentage of housing in recent years has been multi-
family.
Mr. Smith noted that almost everything included in this section is “developer provided recreation.” He
said that since COVID, there has been a lot of natural recreation, and areas are showing signs of wear.
There is also a shortage of these areas. Mr. Conner said those areas are known as “passive recreation.”
Ms. Peterson said her conversations with the Recreation Department haven’t gotten into this yet.
Mr. Smith asked what is the farthest distance of a residential area from a park. Mr. Conner said just
about a mile, but they haven’t known how to solve that.
Mr. Mittag said that as a policy matter he didn’t think the city should develop parks such as Red Rocks,
Hubbard and Wheeler. They are for passive recreation. They shouldn’t have buildings on them. Ms.
Peterson cited the need for more developed recreation space, but that it would not be a City policy to
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
3
convert passive/natural recreation currently possessed to developed park. Mr. Mittag also stated there
are several parks for active recreation and sports: Veterans Memorial, Szymanski, Farrell, Jaycee, and
Baycrest (which could possibly be expanded).
Mr. Mittag questioned the 50% for park maintenance which he thought should be 5%. Mr. Conner said
it is actually both. The 5% is in perpetuity. The 50% is a 10-year approved item for maintenance of
Wheeler, Hubbard, Red Rocks, etc. Mr. Mittag felt the 50% should go back to being used to buy land.
My. Mittag stated the 50% for park maintenance was intended to be temporary and, as a matter of
policy, maintenance should be in the City budget when the 10-year period ends.
Mr. Simoneau said there is never enough money. Even with the money being used to maintain parks,
there isn’t enough. He suggested possibly making a distinction between parks and natural areas. He
also noted that the original Hubbard Park task force recommended a public building to host events as a
way of bringing people into the Park. He acknowledged that this may not happen, but part of the next
phase may include some recreation for children on the north side of the park. Mr. Simoneau said the
Recreation Committee looks at parks as places for citizens to recreate, and the disposition of the
community would be to serve more people. He added that there are so many people who are
underserved, and these facilities should be meeting that need. Mr. Mittag suggested an event to teach
people to cross-country ski as an example.
6. City Plan 2024: Environment Section:
Ms. Peterson noted that this section will be framed a little differently from previous plans. She said that
natural resources are a part of a lot of other priorities the city has.
Mr. Conner then showed a series of maps including an approximation of the compilation of conserved
areas through the regulatory process, by a third party, flood plans, parks, etc. He then added wetlands
and the State Biofinder lands to the map. Then he showed the “landscape level” and indicated Potash
and Muddy Brooks, the Great Swamp, and the headwaters of Centennial Brook and noted that the city’s
regulations have a lot of overlap with those areas. The 2016 Land Use Plan map identified agricultural
lands owned by UVM and a map indicating land that is built upon though not necessarily built out.
Mr. Mittag said they should not use the term “conserved” unless there is a conservation easement. He
suggested the term “protected” instead and said there are some “protected” lands that could become
“unprotected” in a heartbeat. Mr. Conner then explained the process that would have to happen for
there to be development on some properties that do not have a conservation easement.
Mr. Smith said it would be good to see what land is suitable for development and what land could be
conserved. Mr. Conner said he thought staff could provide that.
Ms. Louisos asked when staff might come back with some of the things that have been discussed. Ms.
Peterson said the Commission will have the first draft of the geographic area-based land use sections at
the first meeting in May.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
4
Mr. Smith said that in the paragraph regarding “working land,” he would like to see something that says
how important it is to protect those lands. He also wanted to see an introduction to the plan with a
statement regarding climate change and what could lie ahead of us. Ms. Peterson noted that the
introduction section is not yet written. She also noted that “climate resilience” is one of the 4 Vision &
Goals statements of the plan, and that the goals run through every section.
Mr. McDonald said there needs to be a statement that the city doesn’t want topsoil removed from the
city. It should be considered a resource.
Mr. Mittag asked if the remaining prime ag soil is also considered a resource. He noted a soccer field at
South Village is planned for prime ag soil which has agricultural value.
Ms. Peterson said there are ways other than regulation to protect things. She cited a “carrot” incentive
process such as “if you farm a portion of your land, you will receive…..”
Mr. Smith suggested something about the “Neighborhood National Parks” program in which 20% of
people’s lawns is turned into vegetative habitat as something to be aspired to.
Water:
Mr. Mittag said they should include a statement about the benefits of flood mitigation. Ms. Louisos said
it would also make sense to include something about culverts.
7. Re: LDR Amendment LDR-22-09
Ms. Louisos noted that the Council has sent back a question to the Commission regarding proposed LDR
Amendment LDR-22-09. The amendment relates to issues arising from the new 100-foot buffers when
small lots are involved. In some of these lots, people could lose their entire backyards.
Mr. Conner said there are 2 different situations: the first involves land that is already impacted and
whether it can be modified further. The amendment makes it possible to look at the property as a
whole. The second situation involves areas where a homeowner is looking to stabilize a pre-exiting
condition. In this situation, the Council asked for tighter language.
Ms. Riehle said there was a concern that the existing language could open the door to people who
would modify to a greater extent.
Mr. Mittag noted that the case brought to the Commission involves a threat to a home, and the wetland
involved is Class 3. Mr. Conner said staff feels that if that wetland were to be assessed, it would become
Class 2. Ms. Louisos said there are existing conditions that should be addressed. These conditions used
to be outside the buffer but are now within the 100 feet. She added that stabilizing feels very different
from putting something new on a property. She also noted that the Commission did not recommend
that homeowners in this situation get a professional opinion because of the cost.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
5
Mr. Conner said the challenge is learning as things go along. He anticipated that staff and the
Commission will see more circumstances that haven’t been anticipated. He suggested tightening up
some language by adding a criteria that the net impervious area will not be increased. He noted that
often there are parking lots involved, and people want to build something better than a parking lot.
Members agreed to add language that there will not be an increase to the impervious area.
Regarding the stabilization portion of the amendment, Mr. Conner said this would allow for a retaining
wall to be repaired.
Ms. Emery said her concern is the exemption for people who hadn’t developed anything in their yard
prior to the date of the LDRs. She added it is important to think about not opening people up to have to
do stabilization.
Mr. Easton reviewed the history of their property. He said they had hired engineers and wetland
specialists, and they were told the site was buildable. They worked with the city then and created a
stormwater runoff system which they paid for. They have a very small building envelope for the house
and did very extensive site preparation which included a very small patio on the bank. They also built a
sitting wall to define the patio. Stormwater comes down 15 feet from the patio (as engineered by
experts). The project was done under the rules. They want to maintain their property, not expand it.
They have repaired the area twice, but it is still slumping. Experts say rocks are the only way to stabilize
the property. Mr. Easton stressed that they are not intruding on anything. They are far from the
stream.
Ms. Louisos then moved to send LDR-22-09 to the City Council with the agreed upon added language,
subject to review by the City Attorney. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in
favor.
8. Approval of Street Names:
Mr. Conner showed the location of proposed Trails Bend Drive and Brookfield Drive on the map. Ms.
Peterson said the names are acceptable for E-911 purposes.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve Trails Bend Drive and Brookfield Drive as presented. Mr. MacDonald
seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor.
9. Meeting Minutes of 21 March and 28 March 2023:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 21 and 28 March as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded.
Motion passed with all present voting in favor.
10. Other Business:
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 APRIL 2023
6
Members reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule and indicated the days they would not be available.
Mr. Conner will check with other Commission members and advise of the proposed schedule for
meetings.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:07 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission April 25, 2023