HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - TDR IZ Committee - 03/20/2019Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Commi ee
Mee ng Minutes
20 March 2019
Members Present: Michael Mi ag, Chair, Tom Bailey, Tim Barre , Kelly Lord, Monica Ostby and Andrew Chalnick (clerk)
Members Absent: Michael Albertson
Staff and Guests: Amanda Lafferty, Asst. City A orney
The Mee ng was called to order at 7:04 PM in the First Floor Conference Room of the South Burlington Police Sta on at
19 Gregory Drive.
1. Direc ons on emergency evacua on procedures from conference room
The emergency exit procedures and routes were described.
2. Agenda: Addi ons, dele ons or changes in order of agenda items
Michael asked for addi ons to the Agenda. Monica asked to add to the agenda a discussion around the ques on of the
impact of the transfer of TDRs to a land trust or other conserva on organiza on.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda
No comments unrelated to the agenda
4. Update on op on to use zoning as a replacement for TDR program, Tom Bailey
Tom then laid out his thoughts for agenda item 4 – using zoning as a replacement for the TDR program. The idea would
be to:
o Rezone the SEQ (or some por ons of the SEQ) consistent with rural zoning – i.e., one unit every 5, 10 or 25acres
o Limit subdivision and/or impose a minimum lot size
o Provide that developments should minimize impacts on natural resource areas and that developmentshould be compact on any lot
The benefit of this proposal is simplicity and transparency. It was noted that this would lead to some development in the
NRP areas that are now considered protected. Monica objected that this scheme would be inconsistent with the buildout
of the SEQ at 1.2 units per acre.
Amanda was asked her views on what the impacts of the proposal would be to the City. Amanda responded that she did
not believe any landowner would have a viable cons tu onal “takings” claim against the City if the proposal were
enacted. She also did not think that anyone who had purchased TDRs in a private transac on would have a claim against
the City if those TDRs – by reason of this change – became worthless. She agreed to come back to the Commi ee with
her more considered views on these points.
5. Review of City A orney feedback on possible expansion of market for TDRs, Michael Mi ag
Michael then moved on to item 5 and asked for Amanda’s views on the following:
· Amend or rewrite SB’s TDR ordinance to:
o Expand coverage city-wide.
o Designate all or part of the SEQ and other specific parcels in the city as Sending Areas or parcels.
o Establish Receiving Areas in zones outside the SEQ.
· Establish density bonuses for the use of TDRs for developments in receiving zones. For example, TDRs could beused to substan ally increase allowed density in many of our residen al and commercial zones.
· Amend SB LDRs to establish a maximum square footage per dwelling unit. Developers could opt out and build
larger units in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs.
· Amend SB LDRs to allow for an increase in Lot Coverage in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of
TDRs.
· In circumstances where a developer requests a waiver from the DRB for addi onal building density and/or lot
coverage and the DRB is inclined to grant such waiver the developer is required to purchase a requisite number of
TDRs in exchange for the waiver.
Amanda provided her views that all of the op ons for expansion of the TDR market as laid out by Michael would be – or
could be dra ed to be - consistent with the framework of the Vermont statute. A discussion ensued as to how the
sugges ons could be implemented and whether they could only be implemented through PUDs.
Andrew asked whether there was consensus that any change along the lines of Michael’s dra should be with a view
toward achieving some balance between the possible demand for TDRs and the supply. A er some discussion the
commi ee mostly agreed that it should. Andrew then asked Amanda whether we could achieve that balance by
changing the current TDR formula of 1 TDR per 0.83 acres to 1 TDR per, say, 2, 3 or 5 acres. Amanda responded that we
could, and she did not think such a change would expose the City, but she would come back to the Commi ee with a
considered view on this point. Kelly was concerned that any such change would diminish the value of exis ng TDRs. Kelly
noted that the City should facilitate the TDR market by crea ng a TDR bank.
6. Discuss op on for large-scale acquisi on of TDRs
The mee ng then moved to item 6. The Commi ee noted that the City could use open space funds, issue bonds or try to
enlist conserva on organiza on to purchase TDRs. Kelly noted that purchasing and re ring TDRs would serve
conserva on goals. Andrew ques oned whether this would be the most efficient way to promote conserva on given that
conserved land can only be considered current use if the land itself is transferred to a charity. This ques on was le
open. It was also noted that se ng a market value for the TDRs would be difficult, but perhaps some type of auc on
mechanism could be employed.
7. Status of TDR Registry Project. What can be done in the next 4 to 6 weeks;
This item was moved to a future mee ng
8. Approval of minutes;
This item was moved to a future mee ng
The mee ng adjourned at 9:15 PM.
Andrew Chalnick
Minutes approved by the Commi ee on April 4, 2019