HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes - City Council - 09/16/2024
PAGE 1
DRAFT MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
16 SEPTEMBER 2024
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16
September 2024, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to
Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; A. Chalnick, E. Fitzgerald, M. Scanlan
(arrived late), L. Smith
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; P.
Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Machar, Finance Director; T. Warren, B.
Gracey, S. Dooley, C. Frisbie, J. Louisos, R. Doyle, B. Sirvis, C. Thorp. R.
Dahlstrom, M. Mittag, D. Little, J. Chalot
1. Pledge of Allegiance:
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of
technology option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and
reviewed technology options.
3. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
4. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
No comments or questions were presented.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 2
5. Announcements, councilors reports from committee assignments and City
Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent
weeks.
Ms. Baker: There will be a budget “listening session” at the next Council
meeting. This will include a survey for those who cannot attend the meeting.
“Coffee with a Councilor” get togethers will be held with Mr. Smith
on 19 September and with Mr. Barritt on 19 October.
The RFP for a consultant to work on the Economic Development Plan
has received responses from 23 interested firms.
125 community members attended the first “Park Hop Brews” event
and 180 people attended the second.
The water line on Brewer Parkway will have to be replaced next
summer.
The Steering Committee will meet on Wednesday at the School
Department.
6. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Authorize the City Council Chair to sign the Certificate of Authority
for SEI Private Trust Company, the vendor that manages and
administers our South Burlington Retirement Income Plan
c. Appoint Jessie Baker to serve as the City’s VLCT voting member on
Town Fair
d. Approve an application to the Equitable & Inclusive Communities
Program to fund Juneteenth activities in South Burlington in 2025
e. Approve an application to a VTLIB Courier Grant to offset costs of
the inter-Library loan program
f. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for
construction inspection services with GPI for the South Burlington
RAIZ(1) – Pedestrian Bicycle Bridge over I-89 Project
g. Approval and authorize execution of a License Agreement for a fence
in City water and wastewater easement o Queensbury Road
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 3
Mr. Chalnick moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Smith
seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Note: Some Agenda items were heard out of order but are recorded in numerical
order.
7. Public Hearing: Hold a Second Reading and Public Hearing of Land
Development Regulation Amendments LDR-24-01 to LDR-24-10 as
recommended by the Planning Commission and related to the
requirements of Acts 47 and 181 and City goals on housing, climate change
and transportation:
Mr. Conner said there are 3 themes to the amendments: Thriving Neighborhoods,
Transportation, and LDR process/standards. The Planning Commission worked on
the amendments for 9 months. The amendments took effect when warned.
Mr. Conner then reviewed the history of what the city is required to do and what
is prohibited. He stressed that the amendments must implement the City Plan.
He then showed a one page review of the city Plan’s key principles.
Acts 47 and 181 required provisions and limitations to bylaws with the aim of
increasing housing in areas served by sewer and water services. Mr. Conner
noted that many of the State goals align with the City Plan.
Ms. Louisos then reviewed some of the provisions of the Thriving Neighborhoods
amendments including:
a. Meets or exceeds statutory requirements for housing
b. Implements City Plan 2024
c. Enables right-sized infill housing and neighborhood commercial
uses
d. Aligns with city water and sewer services
e. Makes the LDRs more accessible
f. Addresses housing for the “missing middle”
g. Provides for walkable neighborhoods
One significant change is that currently housing is regulated by density. In the
draft, housing is regulated by building type (e.g., single family, duplex, etc.) with
associated dimensional standards.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 4
The amendments also reduce the number of zoning districts and created
consistence among residential standards, eliminating lot size and density
standards.
Ms. Louisos then showed a map of the new “low-scale,” “medium-scale,” “higher
scale” and Queen City Park districts. She also noted that the prior “floating zone”
in habitat blocks didn’t work, and areas where development makes sense have
been identified. Dedicated park land is now designated as a Parks District.
Conserved land is now part of the NRP District.
With regard to Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), Ms. Louisos showed the
current and proposed processes. Sending areas have been more clearly
identified, and receiving areas now include commercial areas. Low and medium-
scale housing areas are no longer receiving areas for TDRs.
Ms. Louisos then showed current and proposed Inclusionary Zoning regulations.
Maximum density and bonuses have been removed from the LDRs. The
requirement for inclusionary units is triggered at 10 proposed units which
requires 10% of the units to be inclusionary for developments of 10 to 25 units.
About 25 units, the percentage increases to 20%.
With regard to the Transportation section, Ms. Louisos showed the goals from the
City Plan and the current transportation regulations. She noted that these
regulations have not worked as they have inhibited growth in the City Center. The
new regulations employ a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) process
which includes credits that can be earned for certain traffic reduction methods.
This reduces a lot of the process for applicants.
The Transportation section also addressed EV charging, and the proposed
amendments are somewhat ahead of the State regulations. Where the State
requires “EV Capable,” the City is now requiring “EV Ready.” The amendments
also provide an EV exemption for small commercial sites.
Ms. Louisos noted that the Process and Standards section is about streamlining.
It consolidates uses in the Use Table. It also allows for administrative approval for
minor subdivisions and clarifies that Master Plans are required for multi-year
and/or multi-phase projects. It requires that a subdivision has reserved enough
space for access to accommodate minimum density of 4 to 6 dwellings per
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 5
buildable area. Master Plans are limited to areas where they make sense. They
also include a “carve out” to allow for some small development.
With regard to PUDs, the Conservation PUD has been removed, and the TND PUD
is now optional. The General PUD is limited to use in amending existing PUDs.
Mr. Conner explained the nature of a PUD and noted that Act 47 made PUDs a
little more difficult.
Mr. Conner then reviewed the Council’s previous request for options related to the
Master Plan process. The Planning Commission was asked to address a situation
in which the owner is not ready to determine what to do with remaining acreage
(i.e., land reserved for future use). The options agreed upon by a majority of the
Commission are:
Option 1: Demonstrate that development potential is not reduced
Option 2: Prepare an Illustrative Plan showing hazards, habitat blocks, civic
spaces, streets, rights-of-way, etc. This can be accomplished with a “bubble
diagram” showing the potential arrangement of buildings, roads, etc., and
allowing for stormwater practices on at least 5% of the land.
Mr. Conner noted that the DRB can require Option 2 if Option 1 is not clear
enough.
Ms. Louisos added that if the applicant chooses to designate an area for future
use, it has to remain so for the duration of the Master Plan (10 years) before it can
be re-evaluated.
Mr. Chalnick then moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion passed 4-0.
Public comment was solicited and received as follows:
Mr. Thorp: Noted that he had served on a CCRPC transportation committee that
was asked to look at where I-89 meets I-189 because the federal government was
not going to allow change to I-189 because it was too close to Exit 14. They
looked at Hinesburg Road as a direct route to the Airport. He then cited the
importance of industry as a community asset and noted that though they need
water and sewer they don’t add to the cost of schools and other taxpayer
expenses. Mr. Thorp said he was speaking on behalf of Happy Tails and showed
a map identifying its location on Hinesburg Road. He said the Planning
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 6
Commission has converted this property from an asset to residential use. He
added that everything that used to protect them is now gone. They are a small
business and will now lose the ability to sell their business to a different
commercial use as the only thing the building could now be is a house, and a
buyer would have to tear the building down to build housing. The new use would
now cost the community in services where the current use would make money for
the community. And the current owners will end up as poor old people when they
had counted on the income from the future sale of the property for their
retirement.
Mr. Dahlstrom: owns 44 acres with a single family house on the property. He
wants to build a home for his son using the 2-acre cut-out option. He said that his
lawyer has told him he is excluded from that option because of the NRP. He said
his whole property was taken from him by the LDR that made it all NRP. The
property contains no endangered species, and he mows most of it. He said that if
everyone would agree to contribute 95% of their property to the NRP, he would
withdraw his comments. He said the LDRs do not protect property owners like
himself. Mr. Barritt asked about subdividing. Mr. Dahlstrom said his son’s house
would have to be 100 feet from his own house, and he felt that rule was vague
because it doesn’t say 100 feet from where to where. When he tried to pursue ad
ADU, the bank would not give his son a loan because he wouldn’t own “the dirt.”
Ms. Dooley: Was pleased with the TDM and supported the minimum density
requirements. She asked why the definition of “motel” has been removed. She
also noted that the Table of Contents says Article 18 is “Housing Standards,” and
she felt it would be nice if it also said “Affordable Housing Standards.”
Mr. Mittag: A possible unintende4d consequence of the minimum density
requirement is that if you divide an acre into 8 parts and put a 4-plex on each part,
you could have 32 units, which he feels is too much. Regarding land reserved for
future use, he noted that he voted against this. He feels the bubble diagram is a
lot of work (identifying hazards, Level 1 resources, etc.). He also felt it was not
equitable for a land owner to have to pay for all that work. There should be a
better way to protect a land owner who doesn’t want to develop now or ever and
wants to leave the land wild.
Ms. Little: Also representing Happy Tails, she noted that after the Planning
Commission special meeting, they were asked to present what they would like for
permitted uses. They sent letters to Planning Commission members, City Council,
town officers, and State Representatives giving them the whole story. Not one
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 7
person replied to them. She reviewed the history of the property including the
first change in zoning that happened without notification to them. There is now
another change which allows even fewer uses and a severe reduction in the value
of the property. She felt their concerns have been ignored.
As there was no further public comments, Mr. Chalnick moved to close the public
hearing. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Discussion and Possible Action to adopt Land Development Regulation
Amendments LDR-24-01 to LDR-24-10 as recommended by the Planning
Commission and related to the requirements of Acts 47 and 181 and City
goals on housing, climate change, and transportation, or set a Public
Hearing for 21 October 2024 at 7:00 p.m.:
Regarding Happy Tails, Mr. Barritt noted it is now a non-conforming use. If they
sell it as a pet day care, it can continue as a non-conforming use. Mr. Conner said
that is true, but they also could not expand the use. Mr. Smith added they also
could not convert it to an engineering business. Mr. Conner said the allowable
uses in the zone are indoor and outdoor recreation, personal instruction, small
scale retail, family child care, and artist production studio. He added that the
Planning Commission thought it could be a discussion for the future.
Mr. Scanlan asked the time frame for adding more uses. Ms. Louisos said the
Commission has a large back order of requests, but would address it if the Council
felt it was important. Mr. Conner added there are some projects in the work plan
including a Hinesburg Road industrial uses discussion, but that would be a broad
discussion. Separately, the Commission had said they could discuss what other
uses were appropriate in the medium scale neighborhoods, but this would be on a
city-wide basis.
Mr. Smith asked if a change was made within the 150 days the Council has to act,
could it be done without a big process. Mr. Conner said a new change would
have to start with the Planning Commission. The Council would have to decide if
this change is part of this set of amendments.
Mr. Barritt then asked Mr. Conner’s opinion about Mr. Dahlstrom’s situation. Mr.
Conner said nothing in the 100-foot regulation of NRP boundary changed in this
set of amendments. Ms. Louisos said the aim is to have the 3 buildings clustered.
Mr. Chalnick said 100 feet sounds tight to him. He felt the DRB should be given
some discretion. Mr. Barritt agreed.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 8
Mr. Smith said there should be a way to notify people of a proposed zoning
change.
Mr. Smith then asked if there is anything in the LDRs that would allow more than
7 stories. Mr. Conner said 7 is the maximum. Mr. Smith said he would hope to
revisit that in the future.
Mr. Chalnick said he would have drafted something simpler regarding the
“options,” but he was OK with what was presented. He then asked if someone
can cover a large lot at 50%. Mr. Conner said they can, and that is the intent of
Act 47. Mr. Chalnick said that 50% of a one-acre lot would upset him. He didn’t
want to generate a lot of asphalt the city didn’t anticipate. He asked if they can get
closer to 20-40% for larger lots. He asked if there are requirements for parks, etc.,
in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Conner said there must be 10% “civic space.”
Mr. Chalnick asked that the Planning Commission consider a provision to split out
rent for residential and parking spaces as the City of Burlington does. Mr. Conner
said a challenge for that would be keeping administrative response low, and this
would entail a lot of follow-up. Ms. Louisos said it would also catapult the
Commission into parking issues. People will park in neighborhoods. It will also
affect the winter parking ban.
Mr. Chalnick asked how many TDRs are left. Mr. Conner said 650, half of which
are owned by one entity. Mr. Chalnick asked if there is sufficient capacity to
absorb them. Mr. Conner said they have thought of that. The regulations allow
one or 2 stories additional on Shelburne Road as well as other commercial
benefits. There are actually more options than before.
Mr. Chalnick noted the minimum 6 per acre density on larger properties. He
asked where those properties are located and said that density seems like a lot.
Mr. Conner said under Act 181, any place served by water and sewer a minimum
4-plex is allowed. If you are building in an area, you must build to the minimum
density. For what land you are reserving, you must show that building to density
is possible. Ms. Louisos noted this is untested state law, and the city will have to
try something and see what happens. A builder can come in with a plan to build 6
units and build only 1 in phase 1 and take 30 years to build the rest.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 9
Ms. Fitzgerald said a second public hearing will be needed and recommended to
hold that hearing on 21 October. Ms. Baker said the Council should warn any
change they want to make in that hearing. She suggested having a continued
conversation and then warning the hearing. Members agreed to continue the
discussion at the next Council meeting. Ms. Baker asked that questions be sent to
her in advance.
9. FY26 Budget: Receive initial financial projections for the FY26 budget
(7/1/25-6/30/26) and establish budget goals:
Ms. Machar said staff will need the Council’s priorities for the FY26 budget.
Considerations include:
a. How to address the level of service the community expects and
the issue of affordability
b. Information data (budget history since 2019, what property taxes
have generated, revenues of a typical budget
c. Regional/municipal tax rate
Ms. Machar showed a pie chart of property tax amounts for surrounding
communities and noted that South Burlington falls in the middle. She provided
fixed expenses and an estimate of what other expenses would be. She noted that
most increases align with the CPI which is 3.4% this year.
Staff is assuming a 1.5 increase in the Grand List and that one cent on the tax rate
will raise $434,000. The estimate income from local option taxes has been
increased as have health insurance cost increases which have been estimated at
16%. A line has been included to capture staff vacancies which amount to a
savings of $400,000. There is also an estimate for $100,000 increase from utility
costs.
The capital budget includes $535,000 for the Climate Action Plan (this is not a
separate line in the CIP). This was paid for last year from ARPA funds. Ms.
Machar noted that the Council had approved a “step down” plan for $180,000 that
was to be spent from ARPA funds and is now in the general fund.
Ms. Baker said the city will need $1,000,000 of new General Fund dollars to fully
fund the currently adopted Capital Improvement Plan. She questioned whether it
is OK to take the risk of having the salary “lag” money. She also noted the
potential for unanticipated capital projects such as the Brewer Parkway issue.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 10
Mr. Barritt suggested working backwards from a tax increase number.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted the average increase has been 4%, and that is what has been
projected.
Mr. Barritt noted that the city can’t get information on where Local Option Tax
income is coming from (e.g., specific businesses). Burlington doesn’t have this
problem because it collects its own taxes at a higher rate. Mr. Scanlan said that
means South Burlington can’t know what types of businesses generate the most
money.
Members said it will be important to hear from the School District at the Steering
Committee meeting. They could be proposing 18%.
Mr. Barritt said he could go with 5.39%. Mr. Chalnick suggested going with the
CPI at 3.4%. Ms. Fitzgerald said she would like to see something at the inflation
rate and see the impact of that. Members said it would be helpful to see different
scenarios.
Ms. Baker asked if the Council is open to more aggressive revenues (e.g., permit
fees, fines, etc.). Mr. Scanlan said he would be if the rates compare to other
communities.
Mr. Smith said he was worried that at 5.39% it would be more than can
reasonably be expected from taxpayers. He stressed the need to focus on how to
explain the budget to taxpayers.
Ms. Baker said staff will prepare scenario charts. She stressed that she is
intending to fill open positions. She did feel that filling 10 Police openings would
be a challenge.
Mr. Smith questioned whether using the surplus to buy down the tax rate was
something they should consider. Ms. Machar and Ms. Baker expressed concern
with this and a financial sustainability strategy.
10. Receive the FY24 Year End Financial Reports:
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 11
Ms. Machar said expenses will come in at 100% with $1,128,000 to be spent on
one-time projects. Revenues are at 105% of projections which addressed a lot of
deferred expenses. Some notable revenues were:
a. Interest …………….. $980,000.00
b. Local Option Taxes.. 251,000.00
c. Ambulance …………. 238,000.00
11. Receive and Possibly Approve Proposals to Use FY24 Surplus Funds for
operations critical one-time needs:
Ms. Machar said staff is recommending the following:
a. $103,000.00 for Fire Department projects including addressing
upcoming retirements and bringing younger Firefighters up to the
first level of leadership
b. Dispatch – paying fees through 2026 including picking up half the
cost of migrating to the cloud system which is more reliable
c. $100,000 for paving projects
d. 19 Gregory Drive – need to upgrade in order to lease more space
for more revenue as well as a training space. Chief Locke said
each of those items would cost $100,000. Without the upgrade,
the city would lose a tenant. That tenant is now paying $103,000
which will increase with the renovated space.
e. There is also an expense of $25,000 for safety/door repairs.
f. Permitting software for finance and payroll. The current system is
obsolete with a lot of hand-entering and duplication with a vendor
that is less than ideal. The new system would be cloud-based.
Mr. Chalnick said to skip the paving projects. Other members did not agree.
Ms. Fitzgerald said she was more open to approving time-sensitive issues and
holding others for budget discussion to see if there are better uses.
Chief Locke noted that items “c” and “d” won’t be spent for some time.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the list of recommended items minus “c” and “d.”
Mr. Chalnick seconded. Ms. Fitzgerald asked to amend the motion to include all
items. In the vote that followed the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Chalnick voting
against.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 12
12. Review and Possibly Approve the FY25 Policy Priorities and Strategies:
Ms. Baker said that all “1” and “2” priorities have been combined as well as the
green dot “3” items. This includes the growth discussion. The other #3 items are
a lower priority.
Mr. Chalot questioned why the Tree Ordinance was moved off the priority list. He
cited the need to better regulate and control city trees and said it was at the same
level as “chipping.” He was concerned with waiting one more year. Ms. Baker
said it has been moved to the FY26 “bike rack.”
Mr. Smith moved to approve the FY25 Policy Priorities and Strategies as
presented. Mr. Scanlan seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
13. Review the significant agenda items for the Council’s regular meeting on 7
October 2024: FY26 Budget listening session and Annual update from
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission:
Mr. Smith said he would like to bring forth a Resolution to support Winooski and
Burlington related to ballots items concerning the F-35s. He said the
Congressional delegation is waiting to hear if South Burlington joins this effort.
Members agreed to add that item to the 7 October agenda.
14. Other Business:
Mr. Barritt said he would like to talk about the snow parking ban at some future
dates.
Mr. Smith expressed concern with an anonymous letter identified only as “a
resident of South Village.” He felt it was shocking and needed a response,
possibly in The Other Paper. Ms. Fitzgerald suggested approaching their HOA.
Mr. Barritt said anonymous mail should go in the trash. Ms. Baker said the best
thing to do is to keep talking about South Burlington being a welcoming
community for all.
Ms. Fitzgerald asked if there is a date to go to ZOOM. Ms. Baker said by 1/1/25.
CITY COUNCIL 16 September 2024 PAGE 13
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved
to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk