HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 10/03/2023
PAGE 1
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2023
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 October 2023,
at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels, D. Leban, L.
Smith, F. McDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planner;
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:
Ms. Peterson noted the Energy Festival went very well.
5. City Plan 2024: Continued discussion regarding public comments:
It was noted that a number of people were not pleased with climate resilience being
placed above and separate from the other plan goals. Ms. Leban suggested having it
first but not separately. Several members wanted to the “overriding goal” language.
Mr. MacDonald disagreed. Mr. Smith cited the climate challenge which is a global issue
largely caused by North Americans. He said, “If the climate is gone, we are gone.” Ms.
Leban agreed but said all equity issues are equal to environmental issues, and you can’t
have one without the other. Mr. Smith suggested adding equity to the climate piece.
Ms. Louisos suggested moving the “While recognizing…” sentence to the top and
eliminating the word “also.” Members agreed to this.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 03, 2023 | PAGE 2
In the housing section, Ms. Peterson said it sounded like people were concerned that
the Plan was promoting infill housing in older neighborhoods and suggested “existing
neighborhoods” instead. Members opted for “all neighborhoods.”
With regard to building heights, Mr. Conner said “heights” means stories, not physical
heights. Ms. Leban said any way you can get more density without adding footprint is
good. Mr. MacDonald noted that Dan Albrecht was concerned with dumping all the
density into City Center. Ms. Leban said if there is more housing on Dorset Street, the
city could get more public transportation there. Members agreed to density language
“throughout the city.”
Mr. Conner suggested adding “smaller lot sizes” to the list of possibilities for increasing
density.
In Action 83, members agreed to Mr. Albrecht’s addition of Champlain Valley Heritage
Partnership Area and Lake Byway and other similar entities.
Mr. Conner noted that with regard to small scale commercial, those are shown in yellow
on the map (not green). Ms. Leban noted that farmstands can be allowed in green
agricultural-related areas. She also noted that if your farm is protected by a conservation
easement, you can’t do agri-tourism. Ms. Peterson noted that conservation easements
differ in their requirements. She read the list of agriculture-related items.
Regarding “carrying capacity,” Mr. Mittag suggested some language from State statute
and his own language. Mr. MacDonald disagreed with the latter and felt you can look at
the language 2 different ways. He reminded members that the City Plan calls for a 1.5%
annual growth. Mr. Mittag said schools are already over capacity. Mr. MacDonald said
that can be changed with new schools. Ms. Leban said “carrying capacity” is based on
food, water, land, etc. You can always build sewers, schools, water service, etc. Mr.
Smith said if a development is putting so many more cars on Dorset Street at a
particular time, you have to look at that. Mr. Conner said that is a “level of service”
issue, and there are ways to manage that.
Mr. MacDonald and Ms. Leban were uncomfortable with Mr. Mittag’s second paragraph.
They felt it was anti-growth and they didn’t feel there was a way to back it up. Mr.
Engels said it is what can be reasonably be expected in the future given available
resources. Mr. MacDonald had no issue with Mr. Engels’ language. Ms. Peterson
noted there is already a statement in the Population section regarding preparing for
population growth as well as a goal to maintain quality of life. Mr. Conner added that
there are ways to re-allocate resources. Ms. Peterson said that voters have the ability to
determine what they want in the way of facilities and services.
Mr. Smith noted that a member of the public wanted to see more about the city’s
schools in the plan as that is the reason many people are located in South Burlington.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 03, 2023 | PAGE 3
Residential uses in Commercial areas:
Mr. Mittag said he wanted to add Meadowland Business Park to the list of places for
allowable residential use. Ms. Peterson said the front half of Meadowlands is already
shown with potential for residential. The back area is not. Ms. Louisos cited the need to
maintain some areas exclusively for “messy, noisy” uses.
Under housing goals 2 and 3, Mr. Mittag argued against using a specific vacancy rate
goal (i.e., 5%) and other specific numbers. Ms. Peterson noted these are the same
numbers as in the previous Comprehensive Plan. She also noted this is the figure
requested by the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Conner agreed it is a very
ambitious goal. Mr. Smith expressed concern that with that number, a developer might
try to push through a less than desirable plan. Mr. Peterson agreed the goal is
aspirational, but she said it is also how you get more affordability. She didn’t feel the
level of aspiration was out of line with the rest of the plan.
Mr. Smith suggested adding some language from the Airport Task Force Report. Ms.
Peterson showed the language that has already been added.
In the section on noise, Mr. Smith suggested adding something about Airport noise.
Ms. Peterson showed the references to noise in the plan which were added to respond
to public comment. These include the creation of a Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Smith recalled a question being asked regarding the Airport Drive/Airport Parkway
connection plan. Mr. Conner said there is a reason for the alignment as it matches what
the City Council told the Airport the city wants.
Mr. Smith also noted a public comment about putting a park designation on residential
property. Mr. Conner said they specifically don’t draw property lines, and the situation
being referred to happens to show the park designation totally on Farrell property. Mr.
Smith questioned whether to use “proposed” or “planned” to designate such
properties. Mr. Conner recommended used “proposed” all the way through. Ms.
Peterson noted there will be a disclaimer indicating that a “proposed facility” is being
shown in an approximate location.
Mr. Conner then showed some corrections that were made to the Community Facilities
Map to add parks that have been built but have not yet been given to the city. There
were also 2 proposed parks taken off the transportation map.
Mr. Engels said he would like to see something about the need to register pets. A
sentence stating that was added to the Pets section.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 03, 2023 | PAGE 4
Mr. Francis MacDonald asked about adding something regarding ground noise from the
Airport. Mr. Conner read the language from the Plan. Members acknowledged that this
is totally out of the city’s control.
Mr. MacDonald also noted comments regarding use of pesticides and suggested adding
“public health” to Actions 46 and 52 and combining those two actions into one.
Mr. Conner read a note from Ms. Lipson thanking the Commission for their response to
her concerns.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Duncan MacDonald noted a 4-page set of comments submitted by Mr. Simoneau
which the Commission had not addressed because most members don’t agree with
them. Ms. Louisos suggested that they could add doing a “housing needs
assessment” and members agreed to add this to the Housing section.
Mr. Mittag then moved 5to submit City Plan 2024 to the City Council with the
accompanying Planning Commission Report. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
6. Potential Municipal Grant Applications:
Mr. Conner reviewed the potential projects for which the city could apply for grant
funding including the Parks Master Plan development (for which the City Council has
already allocated $150,000 of ARPA money) and by-law modernization. He noted on
possibility that matches the TIF goals involves potential uses on San Remo Drive. The
awards would happen in Winter 2024 with work to happen in that summer.
Mr. Duncan MacDonald moved to approve the grant applications as presented. Mr.
Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Meeting Minutes of 12 September 2023:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 12 September 2023 as written. Ms.
Louisos seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned by common consent at 9:13 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 03, 2023 | PAGE 5
___________________________________
Clerk