HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 04/25/2023SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
25 APRIL 2023
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 April 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, D. Macdonald, L. Smith, F. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner; M. Stevens, A.
Chalnick, H. Riehle, K. Epstein, J. Bellavance, J. Harrington, S. Dooley, B. Doyle, D. Peters , V. Solai
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:
Mr. Stevens said he is one of the homes involved in the proposed LDR amendment. He said the 50-foot
setback goes into his kitchen. He wants to improve his deck. He also couldn’t even do any work in his
bathroom now. He stressed that the house was conforming when it was built.
Ms. Louisos asked whether the regulations affect inside upgrades. Mr. Conner said work inside the
home wouldn’t be affected, but the deck could be a different thing. He offered to speak with Mr.
Stevens about it.
Ms. Louisos suggested the possibility of some language for restoration work, etc.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner said he had testified regarding S-100 at the House Committee on Energy and Environment
and proposed some specific language.
Mr. Conner also noted that he and Ms. Blanchard provided the City Council with an update on City
Center.
Regarding the work plan for the next fiscal year, Mr. Conner noted that with or without S-100 passing,
there may be possible amendments to consider.
5. Public Hearing on Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
a. LDR-23-01: Solar Requirement – to require installation of a solar photovoltaic system
associated with any new buildings required to establish a solar ready zone as defined by
2
the Vermont Commercial Energy Standards or Vermont Residential Building Energy
Standards:
b. LDR-23-02: Minor and technical amendments – Clarify a contradictory authority for
setback standards in Section 3.06J and correct numbering errors throughout the LDRs:
Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. D. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Conner noted that a few changes were recommended by the City Attorney, and these should be
recognized in the motion.
Ms. Louisos asked for public comment.
Mr. Epstein said he was happy to see this as putting more solar on commercial roofs will save more land
for housing, etc. He felt that Section C was a little confusing and doesn’t have a title as Sections A and B
have. He suggested adding a fourth item to that section that there would have to be written
confirmation from the utility that it can’t accommodate solar. D. MacDonald said his understanding is
that it is very expensive if you put in the solar and it has not use. You can’t sell it if it isn’t connected.
Ms. Louisos said items 1-3 are additional things you may need as back-up information. She agreed it
was strangely written.
Mr. Conner recommended closing the public hearing and not taking action until the next meeting
because the language should be clear. Alternatively, he agreed to try to do some research while
members discuss the next item to see if he can find out if some language got transposed.
Mr. Mittag said in a case where a utility says it can’t accommodate the solar, it would have to be off the
grid and use the power for the owner’s own purpose. Ms. Peterson said there is no requirement for
anyone to connect to the grid.
Mr. Chalnick said he didn’t think the intent was to require anyone to have an off-grid system. If
someone wants it, that’s OK.
Mr. Conner said what happened was that as the attorney worked on the language, it got a little
awkward. He would feel better if he had a chance to work on it, possibly by the end of the meeting. He
suggested a title for that section: “Submission Requirements.”
Ms. Riehle said she agrees with the intent.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. Smith moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Smith said if Green Mountain Power says someone can’t connect to the grid, they shouldn’t have to
put in solar.
3
Ms. Louisos moved to table discussion to “Other Business.” The motion was seconded and approved on
a voice vote.
6. LDR Amendment Request for 8 Laurel Hill Drive:
Mr. Solai said he has had the property for 20 years, and it has been a struggle from day one. This is a
single family home which was moved from Shelburne Road by the prior owner in the 1980s. The current
zoning is R-4, and the property is .25 acres. It is a walkable area with everything nearby. He showed a
picture of the main building, the connector and the addition. He noted that all the rain and snow water
converges by the side entrance, creating drainage issues that affect the building. The addition and
connector are on a slab. The main house has a basement. He wants to tear down the back building and
rebuild to address multiple issues: squatters, trespassers, theft, vandalism, littering, etc.
Mr. Harrington, the architect, said he did a review. A 4-unit building would be allowed, and they would
like to do that to make the property more viable. “Scheme 1” would be rebuilt without garages and
would have two 2-bedroom units on each of the first and second floors. “Scheme 2: would maintain 2
garages. The first floor would have two 1-bedroom units, and the second floor would have two 2-
bedroom units. They would need a variance for incursion into the setback.
D. Macdonald noted the Commission has discussed infill in R-1 and R-4 neighborhoods. He also noted
that staff is recommending a bigger discussion.
Ms. Peterson said you can’t change zoning for a specific instance. Zoning could be changed to put the
property in the R-15 abutting zone, but that would be part of the larger discussion. Given the timing,
staff recommends having the discussion in the context of the whole zoning area, not on the basis of a
single request. Ms. Peterson noted that variances are very rare. She also noted this is an “odd island”
that has wound up “out of place.” D. Macdonald suggested having the discussion in the fall when work
on the Comprehensive Plan is completed. He felt it was very important as it touches on a number of
vital things. Ms. Louisos noted that the Affordable Housing Committee has been asking about issues
such as this. She also stressed that there is no way the Commission could do an LDR change between
now and the fall.
7. City Plan 2024: Transportation:
Ms. Peterson said the skeleton for this section is from the previous plan, but there are a lot of new
things. The emphasis shifts to public transit pedestrian, bike, etc., with the end goal of creating a
functioning community in South Burlington.
D. Macdonald suggested a goal of having a transit hub in City Center. Ms. Peterson agreed and said that
falls into a strategy which will be the next level of discussion. Mr. Mittag suggested adding Green
Mountain Transit (GMT) where there are concentrations of people. He noted there is now no way to get
from Shelburne Road to City Center.
4
Mr. Smith said that now bus services go in a loop. There is no way to get from Queen City Park to City
Center. A bus route is needed that is “in and out” so it doesn’t take 45 minutes to get somewhere.
Mr. Smith also said there should be 2 forms for reducing vehicle miles, one for personal miles traveled,
one for commercial miles traveled. There could be very different incentives for each of these. Ms.
Peterson said that was a great idea and noted the objective came from the Climate Action Plan.
Mr. Mittag said transportation needs to be designed to avoid adverse impact to and fragmentation of
natural resources. Ms. Peterson said that saying “consistent with the objectives of this plan” covers
that.
Under “road transportation network,” Mr. Mittag suggested adding a line to the 4th paragraph for a
connection from Hinesburg Road to the Airport and also Williston Road. F. MacDonald suggested
realigning the road so it goes past the Airport and goes to Lime Kiln Road and not into the Chamberlin
neighborhood. Ms. Peterson said there is in the long-range Airport Master Plan but has not been
proposed to the city.
Mr. Doyle suggested language that would make it possible for local traffic to be able to cross the
highway. Mr. Mittag recalled there was discussion regarding fixing the exits from I-89, but the decision
was to fix Exit 13 first. Ms. Louisos suggested just making the point that access across the Interstate is
important. D. Macdonald suggested adding Williston Road and Shelburne Road, especially for cyclists
and pedestrians.
Mr. Smith said that when arterials roads are made faster and easier, it keeps people in their cars. He
would like to see more about connecting the bike/ped transportation network. Ms. Peterson said that is
the intent of the first objective. Mr. Smith said it should be clear that e-bikes are in the bike category,
not the motor vehicle category. D. Macdonald noted that in Massachusetts the bike lanes are wider
and the car lanes narrower.
Ms. Peterson noted that a biker going 30 mph needs different things than a 10-year old on a bike path.
She said that north of Rt. 189 there is a significant number of people who bike on the road because they
don’t want to hit walkers on the bike path.
Mr. Doyle felt it is important to give a time-line. Ms. Peterson said this is an overall plan. There can be
smaller, more specific plans. This plan can say something like “by 2028.” Mr. Doyle said safe sight lines
are important as is the distance from traffic and buffering. He noted you can see tire marks where there
are supposed to be pedestrians. He felt an 8-foot sidewalk is needed so people can walk side-by-side,
and there should be sidewalks on both sides of arterials. He added that there shouldn’t be bike routes
in dangerous areas.
Ms. Peterson said some more specific things would not be in the Comprehensive Plan but would go into
the master planning process.
5
Mr. Conner noted that the Public Works Department is creating a procedure for people to bring
questions and issues to be addressed (e.g. traffic calming). The Comprehensive Plan is for a statement
such as “We are designing streets to do the following…” How that happens is for other plans.
Regarding access management, Mr. Smith said he liked the idea of wider bike lanes and narrower car
lanes. He said Kennedy Drive is built for cars and is not a great model. Ms. Peterson said this section is
about distances between driveways. Mr. Smith said longer distances speed up vehicles. Mr. Mittag said
Kennedy Drive was conceives as an extension of I-189.
8. City Plan 2024: Housing:
Mr. Smith raised the question of whether to support continuous growth as opposed to stability. D.
MacDonald felt economic development is very important to the city. Mr. Smith said it is also a cause of
the climate crisis.
Mr. Smith asked if they are willing to discuss residential “tower development.” He said it has worked
well in other areas. Hundreds of people could be housed with green space between towers. He didn’t
feel doing affordable housing with smaller buildings has been very effective. Mr. Conner said that in
appropriate locations, the city is not afraid of heights.
Ms. Dooley was concerned that there is no language about the housing crisis. She said prices are
skyrocketing. There is also no language about short-term rentals and nothing about the effect of the
pandemic. People are buying 2nd and 3rd homes here which are empty much of the year. There are also
people turning down jobs because they can’t find housing. She stressed that this is a very different
situation from the previous Comprehensive Plan and suggested the introduction to this section be
changed to note the challenges the city has to deal with. She added that what is currently there does
not match with reality for her. Ms. Louisos agreed that the housing crisis should be clearly stated up
front.
Mr. Mittag suggested raising taxes on unoccupied houses. Mr. Conner said the city doesn’t have a lot of
them, but it can be acknowledged and tracked.
Mr. Mittag said he is bothered by the method of assessing a family income. With only one household
income, the total income can be only $60,000, not $90,000+. Ms. Peterson said there is a full table for
that. Without including the whole table, they just use the “family of four” indicating what could be
affordable. Mr. Mittag said a developer can’t build a house for a family of 4 making $60,000 a year. Ms.
Peterson said there can be “very low income” housing.
Mr. Conner said the city gets very good data from the census (e.g., 2 income homes, etc.). The data isn’t
perfect, but there is usually more income the more people there are in a home.
Ms. Peterson suggested saying “we are not meeting the affordability needs of our population.”
6
9. Review and possibly update the Planning Commission Report on draft amendments LDR-22-09
to the Land Development Regulations Environmental Protection Standards following changed
proposed by the City Council:
Ms. Peterson said there was a robust discussion at the City Council regarding the amendment. They
were pleased with the language. Because there was a change to the original language, the Commission
has to update its report. Mr. Conner said staff’s assessment is that the report does not change.
Mr. Mittag moved to affirm the Commission’s original report regarding LDR-22-09 and to note that
changes made to the original language does not alter that report. Mr. Smith seconded. The motion
passed 5-0.
10. Meeting Minutes of 11 April 2023:
It was noted that some edits have been circulated. Ms. Louisos noted that minutes are not a word-for-
word reporting of a meeting but convey what the Commission has generally done. Mr. Smith noted that
he had intended to say “developed parks.”
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minutes of 11 April 2023 with the circulated changes. Mr. Smith
seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with D. Macdonald abstaining.
11. Other Business:
Mr. Conner provided amended language under agenda item #6. On page 1, the language in 1A and 2
was updated to match the other language. One page 2, the untitled section was titled “Submission
Requirements.” Simpler language was also provided that refers back to the standard as follows:
#1. Certification by a qualified professional
#2. A written statement from the relevant utility
Ms. Louisos then moved to approve the amendments to LDR-23-01 and LDR-23-02 with the proposed
changes as well as updates written during this meeting, and to submit the report to the City Council.
Mr. Smith seconded. The motion passed 5-0.
It was noted that a few members could attend the schedule 9 May meeting. Members agreed not to
meet on 9 May and that the 23 May meeting be used to review updated sections of the Comprehensive
Plan and that there be a special meeting on 31 May for the first Land Use discussion. The 13 June
meeting would also review updated sections.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:54 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk