Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 11/22/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 22 NOVEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 November 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dopp, other members of the public 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Member agreed to add a discussion of the December schedule to Other Business. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Riehle and Ms. Ostby attended the Regional Planning Commission forum regarding Williston Road bike/pedestrian issues. Short term goals include making the road safer for “heavy” users. Long term visions include better crossings (slowing traffic down). Mr. Conner noted it was the Planning Commission’s support that got this project going. Mr. Conner: The TIF ballot item regarding completion of Market Street and City Center Park was passed by voters. Last Monday, the City Council hosted a very informative meeting with Burlington International Airport officials. The Airport provided answers to questions raised by the Council and the public at a previous meeting. The Council also asked what can be done in terms of future planning (e.g., updating noise exposure maps so the city and residents can make good decisions). UVM has submitted a zoning change request to allow housing on the site of the former dog park. Staff has told them that the area may be an area of noise impact. Staff and UVM have decided to put the request on hold pending learning more about noise exposure maps. Attended the Vermont Planners Association session which focused on planning and the law, including recent Court decisions. At last night’s Council meeting Mr. Conner and Mr. Rabidoux provided an update on capacity at the Airport Parkway Treatment Plant. Due to conservation efforts and a year of less rainfall, usage at the plant is down, although approximately 30,000 gpd gets added per year. The Council began a discussion regarding updating the reserve capacity for City Center. On Election Day, Vince Bolduc worked with some of his students on a survey at city polling places. Some of the results indicate that 75% of the public feel City Center is very important; 95% feel affordable housing is extremely important; 93% favor sharing some services with surrounding communities (e.g., dispatching). 4. Consider Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: a. Continue review of draft Shelburne Road Corridor Form Standards: Ms. LaRose referred to a document with data on every building on Shelburne Road. She said staff wants to review these numbers before presenting a final draft. Staff is also looking for feedback on other places in the city were similar standards could apply (e.g., the corner of Williston Road/Kennedy Drive). Mr. Gagnon suggested using Shelburne Rd. as a “template” for use with other locations. Mr. Conner indicated the section of Williston Road from Kinney Drug to Kennedy Drive and asked if the basic Shelburne Road standards would be appropriate for this area. He noted that it is not anticipated that much will be going on in that area for the next few years. Members looked at this idea favorably. Ms. LaRose suggested that members visit that area and come back with their observations. Mr. Conner then showed a proposed plan for the Larkin Terrace area, including some images of proposed buildings. He noted that this is being shown for informational purposes only, to give the Commission a sense of what types of applications are being considered and to help them consider future regulations. Ms. LaRose noted the plans include waivers for setbacks and height. Ms. Ostby felt people will miss the ‘green spot’ there. She said foregoing the setbacks didn’t seem right to her. Ms. LaRose suggested the Commission consider varying setbacks in different areas and at nodes of activity. b. Initial review: draft garage placement and door standards: Ms. LaRose noted this is in response to a request for parking in front of buildings when there are issues of elevation and terrain. The Commission had asked staff to look at this and to include some design standards. Section 14.4 addresses the developer’s request and requires limiting the size of the garage. This draft will be sent to that developer. Mr. Conner noted that the proposed language applies only to the “upslope” side. Mr. Conner reminded members that single family units and duplexes can have parking in front by today’s standards. The proposed changes affect only triplexes and 4-plexes. What is being recommended would also create consistent standards for single-and two-family homes city-wide. They would preempt what is now the standard for the Southeast Quadrant. It would focus on the relationship between a garage and the front of a building. There would be an exemption for a building set back at least 200 feet from the road. Ms. LaRose noted the language proposes a 4-foot front setback from the house instead of the 8-foot requirement. She felt this gives more flexibility without losing the intent. Mr. Conner said they will try to get someone to do some drawings to provide examples. 5. Continued discussion of Potential Agricultural Enterprise Use in the Southeast Quadrant: Ms. Louisos noted that this use would replace the existing development potential. Mr. Conner said staff has begun to do some “numbers” on the subject of equivalencies per the Commission’s request. (e.g., surface parking, trip ends, etc.). Peak hour vehicle trips appear to be the same for 50 homes as for the agricultural use. Mr. Gagnon noted that previous public concern was for impacts. He said that if the developer goes the TDR route, there would be a greater impact with homes. Mr. Conner said that today some of the impacts would have to be addressed on site and some off site. He added that Citizen Cider is proposing to make the orchard active and vibrant there again. Ms. Dopp noted that homes can be clustered and not spread out all over the property. A resident of Stoneyfield Village said that their concern is with truck traffic, which is not the same kind of traffic as residential. Mr. Gagnon asked if there can limits to the kind of traffic. Mr. Conner said there can. Different streets have different requirements. The city cannot, however, control state roads. Ms. LaRose stressed that this would not be zoning for just this particular lot. She asked members to consider how it would work/not work in other parts of the city. Ms. Louisos felt the Commission should look at Van Sicklen Road regardless of the type of development. She suggested talking with Justin Rabidoux about it. A member of the audience asked what would happen if Citizen Cider failed and another “not so nice” use came in. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is considering that. Mr. Gagnon said it would be a question of what uses would be “allowable.” He noted that the Commission is trying to require a “locally‐grown” component, which would limit uses. An audience member said Van Sicklen is only 20 feet wide. Trucks now use it illegally and no one stopes them. She also felt the Citizen Cider plan would destroy their home values. Another audience member asked about pesticide drift and felt it would affect Stonehouse village. Ms. Dopp noted that pesticides are already being used now. Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an e-mail from Ben Mills of Butler Farms expressing concern with noise, smells and pesticides, and an e-mail from Jeanette Justice opposing commercial development. 6. Discuss Official Map Street Type Designations in the City Center T4 District in the Vicinity of San Remo Drive: Mr. Conner showed a map of the area and indicated a walking path. Mr. Riehle asked if there is a proposal to connect Barrett and San Remo Dr. Mr. Conner said that has been on the City’s official map for a number of years. He indicated where a potential connection is proposed. Mr. Conner noted that for City Center the Form Based Code says that if an applicant is advancing a street, it has to be the type that is labeled or if there is no label, the applicant proposes a type to the DRB. One choice is a “pedestrian pass,” while the others all allow vehicles. In this case, no street type is identified so an applicant can propose one. Given the potential for a vehicular connection, Mr. Conner felt this should be dealt with before there is an application. He asked members if a “wide pedestrian pass Is a goal for this area or whether a vehicular “street” should be required. Ms. Louisos said it seems to her it should be vehicular. Mr. Riehle felt a street would be less desirable to the neighbors. Mr. Conner then showed some alternatives for location of parking for residential development on an adjacent property. Mr. Gagnon said he likes a pedestrian connection at the end and a road to allow for residential development into San Remo. Mr. Conner then indicated other connections which would take place long into the future. Ms. LaRose suggested members keep in mind the width of rights-of-way if they move an official map designation. This right-of-way is 40 feet on a property that is only 80 feet wide. This could render the property unusable and would force the city either to buy it or reimburse the owner. Mr. Riehle asked if it could be a bike path. Mr. Conner said it could, that this is a policy discussion, but noted that a recreation path would fall into a different category under the FBC. Mr. Gagnon suggested moving the “purple line” marking the planned street connection and then connecting across. Mr. Conner noted that can certainly be done, but added that this would put an imposition on a different property owner who has not known this could happen and so some outreach would be encouraged. One suggestion was to do a north/south road and have the existing purple line as a “pedestrian pass.” Mr. Conner noted this would not solve challenges of getting cars off Dorset Street, but that this is all about balancing various needs and interests. Members agreed they did not want a vehicular road. Mr. Conner said he would follow up with the Director of Public Works and come back with follow-ups. 7. Other Business: a. Notice of Williston Planning Commission public hearing on draft Town Plan amendments, December 6: Mr. Conner said the changes are minor and do not impact South Burlington. b. Notice of Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on draft Zoning Regulations amendments, December 6: Mr. Conner said these changes also do not impact South Burlington. c. Upcoming Meetings: Members agreed not to hold the second meeting in December (12/27). As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion November 22, 2016 Concept for Shelburne Road Basic Site / Bldg design features Consider as: Article 10 Overlay Districts. 10.06 Urban Design Overlay District Staff note: Inclusion as an overlay district not identified as specific to Shelburne Road permits future use elsewhere, should the Planning Commission later decide to pursue other geographies of the City where similar standards would be appropriate. It also allows for the standards to be applied across districts, and restrict depth to those properties with frontage on certain corridors, where zoning districts may otherwise be deeper. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. This section implements the community desires established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan desires that new development will occur in subject corridors. The corridors subject to the Urban Design Overlay District are encouraged within the Plan to use public transportation services, inspire pedestrian movement, and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. More specifically yet, the Plan advocates for the creation of one or more nodes of concentrated development and public activity in these areas. C. Applicability. This section shall be implemented in accordance with the geography(ies) shown on the Overlay Districts Map contained in these Regulations. Staff note: for now this shall include the entirety of properties fronting on Shelburne Road within the City. Kennedy Drive is included in the Comprehensive Plan as another area for increased urban form development, along with portions of Williston Road that are already addressed in the adopted Form Based Codes. (1) New construction. (2) Substantial Rehabs- Will reference rehab language from other sections to clarify threshold. D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the underlying dimensional standards, use, and other standards of the Zoning District shall still apply. (1) Entries. Subject properties must have at least one door facing the primary road in the corridor. Will adjust language here.This door shall: (a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations. (b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. This does not preclude additional principal entry doors; (c) Have a direct, separated walkway of at least 8 feet in width to the primary road. This may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian- oriented access. South Burlington Planning Commission Concept for discussion November 22, 2016 (2) Glazing (a) First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building; a minimum of 75% of this shall be transparent. (b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7.5 vertical feet. (c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet. (d) Glazing associated with operable doors shall count towards this requirement. (e) Garage doors may count if they are transparent. (3) Setbacks (a) At corners, minimum setback of 10 feet; maximum setback of 75 feet. (b) Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. There is no maximum setback. Staff would like to hold this as an item for further research and discussion. These setback thresholds are meant to stimulate discussion, but are not intended to reflect staff recommendations at this time. (4) Height (a) At corners, minimum 2 stories of height, maximum 4 stories. (b) Maximum 3 stories height elsewhere. (c) No building shall be more than 3 stories taller than an adjacent building on the same side of the street within 100 feet. (d) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than shortest R4 building on adjacent property. Increases by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum. (e) Maximum building heights remain restricted by important public scenic views. Language to be consistent with what is already included in the LDRS in relation to height waivers. Re-defining this city-wide may be a task for another project in the future, as it is widely reported as problematic by the Development Review Board, applicants, and residents. Staff note: Below is an optional add on for future times. We share this here to inform the big-picture planning for the area. However, given the stated intention of having something ready to adopt in the short term in order to address current trends, the adoption of nodes would be a more time-consuming, thought and participation heavy component. E. Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is required and permitted. (1) Except as noted herein, nodes shall adhere to standards in 8.13 B, C, F & G. (a) Minimum building setbacks of 10 feet. Maximum setbacks of 50 feet. (b) Minimum building height of 2 stories. Maximum height of 5 stories. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: November 22, 2016 Planning Commission meeting On August 9th, the Planning Commission discussed an earlier proposal from a local developer that would permit parking to the front of residential units not currently exempt from the requirement. While the initial letter favored a more general exemption, the request at the August meeting was reduced to request an allowance for homes on steep slopes in higher- density districts. At that meeting, the Planning Commission asked Staff to pursue some language which might permit parking to the front for 3 and 4 unit row homes, pursuant to the spirit of the language which currently prevents parking to the front, to include design controls which would limit the adverse effects of parking and garages along a streetfront. Staff has since analyzed the characteristics of many developments- more recent and older- to get to the specifics of which elements provide the greatest impact on street presence, safety, and the building of neighborhoods. As presented at the August 9th meeting, there is a broad range of design in our region, with some developments perfectly embodying the spirit, and others which appear to create strong walls between neighbors and seas of asphalt between a street and a home. Below are some of these elements, accompanied by a range the Commission might consider as a way to mitigate the impact of front yard parking sought in areas with steep slopes. 1. Garage size. Unequivocally, the best designs for rowhomes with parking and garages facing the street were those with no garage, or one-car garages. 2. Façade composition. Where garages are present, those that consume 1/4 or less of the façade created the greatest symbiosis with the street and surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Porches. Front porches provide a space for residents to interact with their neighborhood. They visually distract from the blank walls and large areas of pavement that are created in front loaded parking areas. 4. Garage design. Where garage doors are visually broken up and aesthetically pleasing, their massing is lessened. Windows are helpful, as are other elements including design components such as carriage or period style doors and decorative hardware. 5. Driveway size. Driveways smaller in frequency and size provide less disruption to adjacent sidewalks and improve safety, stormwater impacts, and aesthetics. 2 6. Driveway and garage location. Where adjacent units combine their front yard greenspace and create useable and meaningful front lawns, the aesthetics are improved. This does also have potential consequences; garages sited at ends of buildings often minimize the number of windows and solar access for units. Staff is working through standards related to each of these with respect to the request in front of the Planning Commission. Attached is a first draft of language (Article 14 amendments are shown in red and underlined) which incorporates some- but not all- of the elements listed above. The approach is to include some level of garage standards for all homes in the City, with an elevated expectation for those structures which would ordinarily not be allowed except for the mitigating circumstance of steep slopes. If you believe we are on the right path, we’ll do a more formal analysis of proposed numbers against existing developments and speak with builders and design professionals. As we took time to dig into the specific request and the impact of front loading garages and parking in multifamily row-homes, we realized just how pervasive the problem is in other buildings and geographies, though admittedly to a lesser degree. There are good and bad designs to be found in duplex style units, and even in single family units. Staff recommends a simple tiered approach, which would create minimal but effective standards for duplex and single family units. We believe there are simple restrictions which could be easily and affordably met, easily enforced, and which would have a dramatic impact on a neighborhood. A draft of these can be found in the attached draft language for Article 3. Though not underlined or made red for ease of reading, the entirety of this language would be new. It is intended that this language would be implemented city-wide, except in the City Center Form Based Code area, and would replace the language for garage standards in the Southeast Quadrant. South Burlington Planning Commission Language for discussion November 22, 2016 3.16 Residential Design & Garage Standards A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to help create high quality streetscapes, foster connections between buildings and those that pass them, minimize unsafe interruption of adjacent sidewalks by driveway entrances, slow traffic, and minimize paved surfaces for better stormwater management. B. Applicability. These standards shall apply to new residential development regardless of whether the development requires site plan review. This includes accessory apartments, single-family, two-family, and larger residential buildings. These standards shall apply regardless of whether a garage is attached or detached to the principal residential building. (1) Exceptions and Notes. (a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the parking location standards specified in Article 14.06 (B). (b) Single-family and two-family buildings set back from a public or private road right of way by at least 200 feet shall be exempt from all aspects of this requirement. (c) Garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line are exempt, provided that both of the following are met: i. the garage is visually integrated into the single or two-family dwelling AND; ii. the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street. C. Standards for Garages and Driveways (1) Rear alleys are encouraged. (2) When garages face the street, they shall be recessed behind the front elevation by a minimum of four (4) feet. (a) Exception. Single car garages may be flush with the front elevation provided they include an architectural pattern that serves to break up the face of the door vertically and horizontally and include either: i. windows covering at least 50% of the width of the door ii. Two colors or two materials used in the design of the door (exclusive of handles and hinges) (3) For garages facing the street, the maximum combined garage width is fifty (50) percent of the total building width facing the street. The garage door(s) width may not be larger than 40% of the total building width facing the street. For example, a twenty-four (24) foot wide dwelling unit may have one twelve foot (12’) wide recessed garage facing the street with a garage door no larger than 9.6 feet. (4) Single unit, two- or three- car garages permitted in accordance with subsection (3) above shall be restricted: South Burlington Planning Commission Language for discussion November 22, 2016 (a) There shall either be multiple doors separated each by a solid column of at least eight (8) inches in width, or have the appearance of multiple doors with decorative door hardware. Carriage-house style garage doors and garage windows are encouraged. (5) Doors for adjacent garages belonging to separate dwelling units shall be separated by a minimum of two (2) feet. (6) For the purposes of this subsection: (a) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12). (b) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide and four feet (4’) deep. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 14-1 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.01 General Purpose 14.02 Definition of Site Plan 14.03 Uses and Actions Subject to Site Plan Approval 14.04 Review and Approval of Site Plans 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure 14.06 General Review Standards 14.07 Specific Review Standards 14.08 Integration of Procedures 14.09 Administrative Review 14.10 Conditional Use Review: General Provisions and Standards 14.11 Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards 14.01 General Purpose …… 14.02 Definition of Site Plan …… 14.03 Uses and Actions Subject to Site Plan Approval …… 14.04 Review and Approval of Site Plans …… 14.05 Application, Review, and Approval Procedure …… 14.06 General Review Standards Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, the following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 14-2 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: (I) The lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot in the subdivision is proposed to be located between the building or buildings on each lot and the public street so that a significant greenspace surrounded by buildings may be incorporated similar to a college campus style “quad”, as detailed below. (II) The parking on any lots that include a part of the greenspace shall be aligned in a similar fashion so that the buildings are located between the greenspace and the parking and so that the parking is located between the buildings and the public street to maintain the integrity and continuity of the greenspace. Prior to gaining approval from the Development Review Board, the applicant for each lot is required to provide a written agreement, such as a shared parking, greenspace and use agreement, from each lot owner in the approved subdivision whose lot will include a portion of the greenspace that provides that each lot owner will comply with this general parking, building and greenspace alignment, layout and design in the future development of each of their lots. (III) The minimum required total area of the greenspace shall be 150,000 square feet. For purposes of this subsection 14.06(B) (2)(b)(vi), “greenspace” shall be defined as a consolidated and continuous landscaped area located across more than two lots in the approved subdivision, similar in nature to a common open space, largely surrounded by buildings, but shall not include building or impervious parking areas. The greenspace may extend between buildings, but shall not extend beyond the building line of the principal building on each lot that includes a portion of the greenspace. The greenspace shall consist ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 14-3 of pervious surfaces such as lawns, trees, plantings, wetlands, and gardens, and may include impervious landscape features, such as path networks, sculptures, gazebos, water features, footbridges, sitting areas, stone walls, and other features and amenities that may be built within and throughout the greenspace in order to create a more attractive and enjoyable environment. The area of the greenspace shall be calculated by measuring and adding the portion of the total greenspace defined on the site plan for each lot in the approved subdivision that includes a portion of the greenspace. (IV) Any parking located between a proposed building and a public street shall include landscape screening at least three (3) feet in height above the grade of the adjacent public street, , except as necessary to maintain adequate sight distances. (vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations of the use(s) on the lot; (I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to: 1. Distribution and related storage 2. Light manufacturing 3. Manufacturing 4. Processing and Storage 5. Warehousing and Distribution (II) The parking shall be limited as follows: 1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street and the building(s); 2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building. 3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 14-4 of $110,000, and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard). 4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. 5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. (viii) For individual residential buildings on a lot, if the proposed structure is a row-style building with three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, parking may be permitted to the front in the following circumstances only: (I) The proposed building is on land where the average slope of the area proposed for development is greater than 10% and where the land rises upslope from the existing or proposed street. This shall be assessed on a structure by structure basis; the average slope shall be assessed using an area no larger than a 50 foot perimeter around the proposed structure. (II) Where more than 75% of the proposed three- and four- family buildings on the street meet the slope standard, all three- and four-family structures on the street may be granted the exemption. (III) Except as noted below, the proposed buildings shall adhere to the garage and driveway design and dimensional standards specified in Article 3 of these Regulations. In addition to the specifications in Article 3, garages permitted as part of this slope exception shall be limited as follows: 1. Garages shall be no greater than 12 feet in width per dwelling unit. 2. Garages must be set back at least 18 feet from the road right of way. 3. The maximum allowable driveway width is 20 feet, with a curb-cut no larger than 12 feet at the street. a) Exception. Two adjacent garages shall share one driveway when individual driveways would otherwise be separated by less than 20 feet. The shared driveway shall be no wider than 12 feet at the curb, and the total width of the drive shall be no larger than 30 feet. b) When a driveway serves more than one lot, the developer shall record an access and maintenance easement/agreement to benefit each lot, prior to zoning permit issuance. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. ARTICLE 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 14-5 (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. C. ……. 14.07 Specific Review Standards …….. 14.08 Integration of Procedures …… 14.09 Administrative Review …… 14.10 Conditional Use Review: General Provisions and Standards …… 14.11 Conditional Use Review: Specific Uses and Standards …… 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Agricultural Enterprise Zoning Use Discussion & Draft Work Plan DATE: November 8, 2016 Planning Commission meeting At the Commission’s last meeting, several items related to a potential Agricultural Enterprise zoning use category were discussed. Below please find a brief summary of staff’s principal takeaways (for your confirmation or change), followed by staff’s recommendation for key questions to pursue next and a draft work plan for this project as requested. Principal Takeaways from Prior Discussions 1. The use being considered, Agricultural Enterprise, is a combination of manufacturing and value- added agriculture, leaning per the outside request towards manufacturing. 2. The Commission is willing to look at this potential use category as its own analysis (as opposed to looking at a Master Plan for the whole area, or to looking at the subject of agricultural from soup to nuts in the city) 3. The Commission does not wish to pursue zoning changes that would allow for Agricultural Enterprise Buildings or Support structures in the Natural Resources Protection District. 4. The Commission is willing to explore allowing Agricultural Enterprise buildings & support infrastructure in the Village Residential (VR) District, which presently allows residential development at a relatively high density. 5. Development in the VR would likely require the application / consumption of density (such as Transferable Development Rights, or TDRs). In other words, there would need to be translate TDRs, which represent one housing unit each, into non-residential development (square feet or something). The Commission has expressed that they would look at a use like this taking up some of the residential development potential of the property, not simply adding to the total development potential. 6. The Commission has requested staff prepare a work plan that would include an evaluation of impacts, consideration of alternatives, and public input into any potential changes in regulations. Staff recommends that the Commission review and affirm these takeaways as they represent some important decisions points for all parties. This week’s meeting 2 It’s staff’s assessment of this proposal that the Commission is interested in this potential zoning change for two main reasons: 1. The opportunity to foster a unique, community oriented business that supports the City’s goals to bring a greater sense of identity to the area while supporting high quality jobs; 2. The opportunity to support agriculture locally and across the region through a 21st Century model that recognizes land value in Chittenden County. Staff encourages the Commission to consider any zoning change through the lens of these (and other) goals as established by the Commission. This will help the Commission to evaluate whether a proposed definition and requirements under a new Agricultural Enterprise use category is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (and whether an amendment to the Plan would be triggered). Determine Important Elements Staff encourages the Commission to have a discussion of the next level of elements of a zoning change that would need to be included. At the last meeting, there was discussion of looking at Agricultural Enterprise as a “different type” of development on land that is presently zoned to allow for relatively high-density construction. 1. How much residential development potential must an Agricultural Enterprise use up? Staff urges the Commission to provide us with general guidance: An equivalent amount to the bulk of the development? A greater amount in recognition of additional impacts? 2. What role must agriculture play on the site and in region and how strong a link to the manufacturing part of the business is necessary? You’ve received feedback on your direction to staff from this past summer from an applicant interested in this discussion. 3. What level of variety in the definition of Agricultural Enterprise is acceptable? (eg, other uses from a cidery?) You’ve received feedback on your direction to staff from this past summer from an applicant interested in this discussion. Potential Work Plan Staff has prepared a first draft of a work plan per the Commission’s request. We’ll provide it to you at the meeting. Staff underscores the importance of looking at this in a manner that provides as much clarity to the community, the property owners, and potential developers as possible. In other words, there may be “non-starters” from any party on this project at any point along the way. Staff urges all parties to identify and make determinations on any non-starters as rapidly as possible. MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM TO: Chair of Planning Commission Milton Burlington Essex Town Essex Junction Winooski Westford South Hero South Burlington Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC VT Department of Housing and Community Affairs FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: November 16, 2016 RE: Notice of Supplement 40 to the Colchester Zoning Regulations and Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendment Continuation Sheet Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 7 P.M. on the third floor of the Colchester Town Hall at 781 Blakely Road for the purpose of considering amendments of the Colchester Zoning Regulations. The proposed amendments are as follows: 1. Amend Section 2.02C Official Map to remove the Lakeshore Drive Bypass and relabel the Circumferential Highway as a future road. Add proposed separated path and emergency access in the vicinity of Malletts Bay Avenue and the Circumferential Highway corridor. 2. Amend Section 2.10B(1) to clarify fence location; 3. Amend Section 2.18B to add exemption for construction signs; 4. Amend Sections 3.04F, 3.05F, and 6.01F to add additional standards for contractors yard landscape; 5. Amend Table A-1 to add contractors yard landscaping as conditional use in R5, R10, & AGR Districts; 6. Amend Appendix F to rezone the following parcels: Portions of Parcel ID #08-021003 AGR to R2 12-022000-0000000 AGR to R5 12-023000-0000000 AGR to R5 Portions of Parcel ID #06-005002-0000000 AGR to R2 2 2 2 These are a summary of the proposed changes. The existing and proposed regulations can be found at the Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road and may also be reviewed on-line at http://www.colchestervt.gov. 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: The relevant portions of this proposal conforms with the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. There are two sites where the proposed rezonings, if approved, create opportunities for additional housing units. On one site up to 70 additional housing units would be possible, and a second site could create up to 8 additional housing units. The specifics about these properties are explained in more detail below. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: The first of two re-zoning requests proposed as part of this supplement that will create additional residential density opportunities is located within the Shipman Hill neighborhood area. The second request is located within the Northeast Quadrant. Shipman Hill Language describing the area is seen on page 22 of the Town Plan: “The level topography, well-drained soils, and proximity to population centers that make this area ideal for truck farms also makes the land very attractive for residential development.. Land use planning for this neighborhood should promote the continued agricultural use of this area while respecting property owner’s needs to access the equity in their land.” Under the “Policies” section for the neighborhood (pg. 23), the following is asserted: “6. Rezoning of this area to a higher intensity district that could not be developed under current State Primary Agricultural Soil restrictions should not be considered …” and “7. Piecemeal zoning of agricultural land in this area to residential use should be discouraged in order to avoid conflicts between residential and agricultural uses.” Portions of the site have been identified by the State as being in “Agricultural Value Group 6”, with groups ranging from 1 (most agriculturally valuable) to 7 (least agriculturally valuable). The applicant has stated that due to the proximity of the site to existing municipal services, they expect that there would be an opportunity to meet Act 250 requirements for Prime Soils through the off-site mitigation process, with 3 3 3 payments due for preservation of other more viable farming lands not central to utilities or amenities. During their 3 month review of this request, the Planning Commission invited adjacent agricultural landowners to explore whether any other large property owners in the Shipman Hill area would be interested in contributing to the conversation. There was no response received and after three meetings discussing the request, the Planning Commission voted to include the rezoning request as part of Supplement 40. Additional information regarding strategies for avoiding conflict between existing agricultural and proposed residential uses can be seen in the Further Analysis section below. Northeast Quadrant This neighborhood is the most rural area of Colchester, with the Town Plan stating “the rural and agricultural character of this area shall be preserved. The area should continue to be zoned as agricultural or low-density residential in order to limit growth” (pg. 30). The proposal is to rezone a 45 acre parcel from Agricultural (AGR) to Residential-5 (R-5), which will provide a limited opportunity for residential development. R-5 is the second lowest density residential zone, with R-10 being the lowest density (the numbers indicate minimum number of acres needed to create a new lot). This rezoning is compatible with the land use plans and densities for this area. Additional discussion of this request can be seen in the Further Analysis section below. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. While this supplement does not propose any new community facilities, there are changes to the Official Map proposed. Due to recent adoptions of new zoning by-laws, there is one future roadway proposed for removal from the Map, Lakeshore Bypass Road, and one to be added for emergency access. The Circumferential Highway will be relabeled as a potential public transportation corridor in the future. Further Analysis When applicants request that their property be re-zoned, the Planning Commission must consider whether the request meets the requirements outlined in Section 2.03(d)(3) of the Town’s zoning regulations. A discussion of how each re-zoning request proposed for approval as part of supplement 40 were considered in light of the established criteria is provided below. 4 4 4 (a) Impact of growth – The proposed request shall not significantly affect the financial ability of the Town to provide services. (b) Public investment –The proposed change shall not significantly diminish the value of public utility investments and present or future government investments. (c) Use impact – The proposed change shall be compatible or complement adjacent land use patterns. (d) Natural Resources–The proposed change shall not result in a decline in water quality from increased urban runoff, or shoreline development or loss of wetlands. The proposed change shall not adversely impact natural resources or create fragmentation of open space or wildlife habitat. (e) Agricultural Resources–Wherever feasible, the proposed change shall not adversely affect the continuation of farming or forestry on the property or adjacent properties. Wherever feasible, the Commission shall do nothing to adversely affect the viability of farming in Colchester. Parcel-by-parcel review of re-zoning criteria: Portions of Parcel ID #08-021003 AGR to R2 a) This parcel, located on Munson Rd at the intersection of Roosevelt Highway and Bay Road, is currently split-zoned between AGR and R2. A recent subdivision further exacerbated this with several child parcels now containing both zonings on each lot (i.e. 08-021023). The financial ability of the town to provide services will not be affected by approving this proposal. b) There will be no effect on public utilities or investments as a result of this proposal as the property is already approved for development and no further density increases will be possible. c) Adjacent parcels to the west that are currently zoned R-2, as well as the parcel immediately east of the site. The parcel at the intersection of Roosevelt Highway and Bay Rd is zoned GD1. This rezoning would be consistent with that of surrounding sites. d) The proposed zoning change is not associated with construction of any new structures, and the area to be rezoned generally is characterized by steep topography with very limited development potential. The proposed change will not adversely impact natural resources or create fragmentation of open space or wildlife habitat. e) Due to terrain, this area has not been used for farming but for the original 1834 farmhouse that would have provided oversight of the farm fields to the southeast. Approving this re-zoning will not adversely affect the viability of farming on this property or in Colchester. It should be noted that there was a substantial on-site set-aside of agricultural lands on the remainder parcel that will not be impacted by the zoning adjustments. 5 5 5 12-022000-0000000 AGR to R5 a) This 45-acre parcel with a single family home and accessory apartment is located off of East Road, is bordered to the west by railroad tracks, and is proposed to be re- zoned from AGR to R5. There will be additional development potential created through this re-zoning request, though the site conditions are limiting. Impact fees would be required for any new housing units. b) There is no municipal water or sewer available in this location, with no current plans to extend existing infrastructure to this location. On-site water and septic systems would need to be provided for any additional structures proposed as a result of this re-zoning. c) The three parcels to the west of this property are already zoned R5, and an adjacent parcel to the northwest is proposed to be rezoned to R5 as part of supplement 40. Other properties adjacent to this site are zoned AGR. Approval of this re-zoning request would complement adjacent land uses. d) The rezoning of this parcel to R5 would allow 8 additional dwelling units to be constructed based on minimum lot size requirements. The lack of public road frontage will require that any additional units be done through the Planned Unit Development process. The PUD process will require clustered development so as to avoid or limit impacts on natural resources. During the PUD process, the preservation of up to 25% of the site as restricted open space or natural areas would be required. With appropriate protections as required by the development process, this change will not adversely impact natural resources, and the clustered pattern of units will protect the surrounding open spaces from fragmentation. e) The applicant took over ownership of the property in 2003 and since that time the property has not been used for agricultural purposes. There will be no impact to agricultural or forestry activities happening in the project vicinity. 12-023000-0000000 AGR to R5 a) This 2-acre parcel is located on East Road and is proposed to be re-zoned from AGR to R5. This re-zoning will not allow for any additional density on this site as there is already a single family residence constructed and the minimum lot size is 5 acres in the R5 district. The financial ability of the town to provide services will not be affected by approving this proposal. The site will become more conforming for minimum lot size purposes for zoning. b) As the re-zoning does not alter the development potential on this site, there will be no effect on public utilities or investments as a result of this proposal. c) The parcels to the west and south of this property are already zoned R5, and the parcel to the east is proposed to be rezoned to R5 as part of supplement 40. Approval of this re-zoning request would make this site compatible with adjacent land uses. 6 6 6 d) With no development potential as a result of this proposal, the proposed change will not adversely impact natural resources or create fragmentation of open space or wildlife habitat. e) With no development potential as a result of this proposal, approving this re-zoning will not adversely affect the viability of farming on this property or elsewhere in Colchester. Portions of Parcel ID#06-005002-0000000 AGR to R2 a) This 48-acre parcel with a single family home is located on Malletts Bay Avenue, and is currently split zoned with approximately 15 acres within the Floodplain District (FP), and the remaining 33 acres within the Agricultural District (AGR). With a minimum lot size of 25 acres in the AGR district, there is no additional density allowed on the site under current zoning requirements. There would be significant development potential created as a result of this rezoning. With a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size required in the R2 zone, there is a total of 71 units allowable on the site. With an existing single family home, the number of additional units allowed on the site would be 70. Due to limited road frontage as well as existing natural resource covenants, it is anticipated that any further development of the site would be through the Planned Unit Development process that would require clustering the development and an open space set aside of up to 25% of the total site. The site’s location on Malletts Bay Avenue is within the municipal water service area and is located within a mile of Colchester Middle and High Schools and the Malletts Bay School. The Town’s financial ability to provide services will not be significantly affected as a result of this rezoning request being approved. b) Any new development would be served by new on-site wastewater systems, with connections made to the existing municipal water system. The site is located next to a property that was recently approved for a 45-Unit PUD and would likely connect to that development and to the planned bike path along Malletts Bay Avenue. Approval of this request shall not diminish the value of present or planned government investments. c) A mix of zoning districts surrounds this property: The properties to the north of the site are zoned R-2, the property to the west is zoned General Development 1 (GD1), properties that share road frontage on Malletts Bay Ave to the east are zoned R3, and the property to the south is zoned AGR. A re-zoning of this parcel to R-2 would be compatible and complement adjacent land use patterns. d) Approximately 15 acres of the western side of the property is zoned FP and is not proposed to be re-zoned as part of this request. The wooded section of the parcel is currently protected by easement as it has been identified as potential habitat for rare threatened or endangered species. This would require construction to take place closer to the road away from the Floodplain District. The lack of public road frontage will require that any additional units be done through the Planned Unit Development process. A PUD would require clustered development and additional protection of 7 7 7 open space especially those areas containing natural resource areas. The proposed rezoning would not adversely impact natural resources or create fragmentation of open space or wildlife habitats. e) The property owners have not used the site for agricultural purposes since 1991 as indicated in their request. They recently began leasing a small portion of the site to an adjacent land-owner who uses it to grow corn to generate income, and the site has been identified as having soils of “statewide” significance, vs. a “local” or “prime” designation. The applicant has stated that due to the site’s excessively well-drained soils and proximity to the Town Services area, they expect off-site mitigation to be an option when moving through the Act 250 process if they receive approval for the re- zoning. While farming and forestry activities on adjacent properties will not be affected by this proposal, there will be attention given to the fact that there are working farms around this area and “Right-to-Farm” language would be included in any new deeds created as a result of subdividing this parcel in the future. The intent would be to inform any prospective buyers of the established location of proximate agricultural uses and minimize any potential conflicts between the potential residential use and agricultural activities within the area. Williston 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan 1 | P a g e November 4, 2016 Memorandum TO: Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission City of South Burlington Planning Commission Town of Essex Planning Commission Town of Hinesburg Planning Commission Town of Jericho Planning Commission Town of Richmond Planning Commission Town of Shelburne Planning Commission Town of St. George Planning Commission Village of Essex Junction Planning Commission FROM: Ken Belliveau, AICP, Planning Director DATE: November 4, 2016 SUBJECT: Town of Williston Town Plan Amendment – Proposed 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan The Williston Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider this proposal to amend the Williston Unified Development Bylaw. The public hearing will take place at on December 6, 2016, at 7:00 PM in the Town Hall Annex Conference Room on the first floor of the Williston Town Hall Annex located at 7878 Williston Road, Williston, Vermont 05495. Any interested members of the public are welcome to attend and participate. Public comment at this hearing is welcomed and encouraged. Attached to this memo is a copy of Planning Commission Report on the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as well as copy of the proposed 2016-2024 Williston Comprehensive Plan. Additional information can be obtained by contacting Ken Belliveau, Director of Planning at the Williston Planning Office by calling (802) 878-6704, or by email to kbelliveau@willistonvt.org . Attachments: 2016-2024 Williston Comprehensive Plan Williston 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan 2 | P a g e November 4, 2016 Town of Williston Vermont Planning and Zoning Williston Vermont Planning Commission Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Scheduled for December 6, 2016 The Planning Commission of the Town of Williston has scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, December 6, 2016 for the purpose of considering a proposed amendment and re-adoption of the town’s 2011-2016 Comprehensive Plan. The public hearing will be held in the Planning office conference room, located on the first floor of the Williston Town Hall Annex, at 7878 Williston Road in Williston Vermont 05495. The public hearing is scheduled to begin at 7:00 PM. The amended plan is entitled 2016-2024 Williston Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with 24 V.S.A.§4384(c), the Williston Vermont Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendment and re-adoption of the town’s Comprehensive Plan states: “When considering an amendment to a plan, the planning commission shall prepare a written report on the proposal. The report shall address the extent to which the plan, as amended, is consistent with the goals established in section 4302 of this title. The Williston Planning Commission is proposing to re-adopt and re-affirm most of the critical elements and direction of the 2011-2016 Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized below. Williston will strive to balance responsible, livable suburban growth with rural character and conservation. To do this, the town will …  concentrate and limit high intensity development to areas within the town’s designated Growth Center in and around Taft Corners;  permit the flexibility and intensity of use necessary to foster creation of a design-conscious, mixed use, pedestrian-friendly commercial center around Taft Corners;  encourage and support the use of mass transit and non-motorized modes of transportation through mixed use development policies and transportation facilities planning;  sustain rural landscapes by requiring an open space pattern for subdivisions, conserving lands identified in Chapter 12 - Open Space and Working Landscapes through acquisitions or easements; and finding ways to help the owners of working lands continue their stewardship;  use design review and public investment to maintain the character of its historic village center;  manage the timing of and pace of new development to ensure that necessary public facilities and services are available when development occurs; Williston 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan 3 | P a g e November 4, 2016  protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses and offer incentives for the provision of a diverse housing stock, including homes that are affordable to working people and their families;  attend to the details of site planning and architectural design, including outdoor lighting, signage, access, and landscaping that give development both market appeal and long-term community value;  invest in new facilities, including utilities, roads, schools, parks, and trails, as necessary, while managing the location and pace of development to ensure that growth does not outstrip the capacity of public facilities and services, including fire protection and law enforcement;  conserve energy in its own operations through energy efficiency, and by incentivizing encouraging builders to meet “green” building standards;  use regulatory and non-regulatory tools, including funding for the acquisition of development rights or land, to protect water quality, wildlife habitat, scenic views, and other natural and cultural resources; and  engage all citizens who are interested and willing to participate in the town’s planning process. There are several significant changes proposed to the town’s Comprehensive Plan. These include the following: Focus of the Plan An important aspect of the Town of Williston’s Comprehensive Plan is that the main aspects of land use, transportation, and public facilities have been very consistent over time. The town has a long-range and focused approach on concentrating new development within the town’s state designated growth center while preserving the town’s rural character and working lands which goes back over 10 years, supported by policies of providing infrastructure consistent with the goals of the growth center. This has not changed. Thus this update of the town’s plan has not endeavored at accomplishing a total revision of the plan, rather a more focused one. The current update has been focused on achieving the following:  Revise the transportation chapter to capture the work of the Circ. Alternative Transportation Planning Process coordinated by CCRPC in light of the state’s abandonment of the Circumferential Highway  Update data on demographic changes and recent development activity  Addition of an Economic Development Chapter as now required by 24 V.S.A 4383(a)  Addition of river corridor language as now required by 24 V.S.A 4383(a)  Other minor changes to update the planning data used in the plan A draft of plan was reviewed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s Planning Advisory Committee on October 12, 2016, and the committee found the proposed plan to be:  Consistent with the general goals of §4302;  Consistent with the specific goals of §4302;  Contains the required elements of §4382; Williston 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan 4 | P a g e November 4, 2016  Compatible with the 2013 Chittenden County Regional Plan, entitled the 2013 Chittenden County ECOS Plan (per §4350); and  Compatible with approved plans of other municipalities (per §4350). Should you wish to comment on any aspect of the proposed Williston Comprehensive Plan please contact the Ken Belliveau, Director of Planning and Zoning, Williston Planning Office at (802) 878-6704, or by email to kbelliveau@willistonvt.org . Williston 2016-2024 Comprehensive Plan 5 | P a g e November 4, 2016 Certification of Service Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs National Life Building, 6th Floor Montpelier, VT 05620-0501 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 110 West Canal Street Suite 202 Winooski, VT 05404-2109 City of South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Town of Essex Planning Commission 81 Main Street Essex Junction, VT 05452 Town of Hinesburg Planning Commission P O Box 133 Hinesburg VT 05461 Town of Jericho Planning Commission P O Box 67 Jericho, VT 05465 Town of Richmond Planning Commission P O Box 285 Richmond, VT 05477 Town of Shelburne Planning Commission P O Box 88 5420 Shelburne Road Shelburne, VT 05482 Town of St. George Planning Commission 1 Barber Road, St. George, VT 05495 Village of Essex Junction Planning Commission 2 Lincoln St. Essex Junction, VT 05452