HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2019South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 2019
7:00 pm
South Burlington Municipal Offices, 575 Dorset Street
AGENDA:
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
5. Discuss recommendations of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee (7:15 pm)
6. Land Development Regulations: Review and discuss elements of Article 12, Natural Resources
Standards (8:20 pm)
7. Committee Updates (8:50 pm)
a. Open Space Interim Zoning Committee
8. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm)
a. October 22 & October 29
9. Other business (8:58 pm)
a. Review meeting schedule for remainder of 2019
b. Consider and approve 2020 regular meeting schedule
10. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
South Burlington Planning Commission Meeting Participation Guidelines
1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to
insure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly.
2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to
engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an
item, the Chair will ask for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to
call on each participant in sequence.
3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
4. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making
sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to conduct business items.
5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the
Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully.
6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Commission for a second time.
9. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning
Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters.
Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to
explore an issue, provide input and sway public opinion on the matter.
10. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulation to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official
records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be
included in the record.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
SUBJECT: PC Staff Memo
DATE: November 12, 2019 Special Planning Commission meeting
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm)
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:02 pm)
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:03 pm)
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:06 pm)
Lots happening!
• Market Street Ribbon cutting November 13, 11 am. All are invited to join and commemorate with
a ribbon cutting for Market Street.
• Earth Economics Study. The City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and sign a
contract to conduct a benefit/cost comparison analysis of undeveloped lands using costs &
benefits associated with both development and conservation of existing natural features.
• Land Development Regulation amendments adopted. The Council held a special meeting on 11/8
to consider amendments to the LDRs proposed by the Planning Commission. Following public
hearing, the Council adopted all of the proposed amendments – LDR-19-08, 19-09. 19-10, 19-11,
19-12, and 19-14 – as presented. These amendments will be effective 11/29.
• Inclusionary Zoning meeting with Developers. As discussed at the Commission’s 10/22 meeting,
the Affordable Housing Committee held a meeting this past Monday to gather feedback from the
development community on the draft inclusionary zoning bylaw. Representatives of two
companies attended and provided detailed feedback. The Committee will meet on Tuesday 11/26
at 10 am to review the feedback.
• Penny for Paths webpage updated. For all the latest information on the various Penny for Paths
bike/ped projects, please visit the updated webpage:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/residents/penny_for_paths_initiatives.php
• Citywide Re-appraisal underway. The City Council received a briefing from the City Assessor last
Monday evening, on the eve of the city-wide re-appraisal that began later in the week.
Representatives from Tyler Tech, the selected consultant, will visit each home and business
property in the city over the course of the next few months. For information, please visit the City’s
webpage dedicated to the project:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/residents/city_wide_appraisal/index.php
• Kimball Ave Bridge out indefinitely. Please find below a media advisory that was send out this past
week:
“A temporary bridge spanning the Muddy Brook that links Marshall Avenue in Williston and Kimball Avenue
in South Burlington has been closed indefinitely as a result of damage caused by the October 31 –
November 1 storm.
The culvert the temporary bridge spans
failed in 2017 and sustained additional
damage leading to displacement from last
week’s storm. The stormwater damage
created unstable slopes on both sides of
the Muddy Brook where the bridge rests.
Municipal Officials from both communities
have been advised by the Vermont Agency
of Transportation (VTrans) the bridge is
vulnerable in its current state and unsafe
for use. Therefore, the bridge will be closed
to all vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
traffic until further notice. Municipal Officials will continue to evaluate options with VTrans and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) for possible solutions and funding to reopen the temporary bridge in a safe
condition for travel.
The absence of this crossing on a heavily traveled route between the two municipalities will lead to
increased traffic on alternate routes, especially during the morning and evening commute hours. Travelers
are advised to plan accordingly.
A permanent solution for a new culvert and crossing spanning the Muddy Brook at this location is currently
being designed with an estimated construction completion date of 2021. The temporary bridge was
installed in the summer of 2017 after the crossing was closed in April of that year following damage to the
existing culvert.”
5. Discuss recommendations of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee (7:15 pm)
Enclosed please find the same materials from the previously-scheduled discussion of this
item.
6. Land Development Regulations: Review and discuss elements of Article 12, Natural Resources
Standards (8:20 pm)
See enclosed memo & draft. Current adopted version of this chapter is included with a
diagonal strikethrough for your reference.
7. Committee Updates (8:50 pm)
a. Open Space Interim Zoning Committee
8. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm)
Damage to Muddy Brook and Culvert
a. October 22 & October 29
9. Other business (8:58 pm)
a. Review meeting schedule for remainder of 2019
Staff will review topics proposed for the final two regular meetings of 2019 (November
26 and December 12)
b. Consider and approve 2020 regular meeting schedule
See the attached memo. Staff has reviewed the holiday and religious dates for 2020.
None conflicted with PC meetings.
10. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
General
• Outline TDR bank structure
• Outline TDR registry structure – TBA. Will be designed and administered by City staff
Residential TDRs
• South Burlington TDR Program Evaluation – We already know most of what is and is not
working. It is in TDR Committee report
o What is working and why?
o What isn’t working and why?
• Benchmarking
o Identify cities that have a successful TDR program
§ We have identified a few examples below
o What are the traits/characteristics/mechanisms of a successful program?
o What traits/characteristics/mechanisms would work in South Burlington?
• Evaluate timing of purchase of TDRs
o Purchase for initial units to be built vs. Purchase after base density units have been built
out
Commercial District TDRs
• Benchmarking
o What cities are doing this?
§ Warwick Township PA
§ Seattle WA
§ Hadley MA
§ Calvert County MA
o Are they successful?
§ Yes
o Why are they successful?
o What are the characteristics?
o Are there unintended consequences?
• South Burlington
o Which characteristics would work for South Burlington?
o Where could this be applied?
§ See developer comments
Future Items to Evaluate/Investigate – None identified
• Regional TDR Program
Regional TDR Program – Not our charge. Can and should be looked into by SB in future
• Benchmarking
o Are there similar sized regions that are doing this?
o Has the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) looked into this?
o If yes, what were their findings?
§ King County WA has an interlocal agreement with Seattle
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 1
Warwick Township, Lancaster County PA
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program
Under Warwick Township’s Zoning Ordinance, the Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
Program assigns every farm within the Agricultural zone (sending area) one transferable
development right for each two gross acres of farmland. TDRs are purchased from farmers who
wish to preserve their farmland. The purchase price is based on the fair market value of the
farmland at the time the TDRs are sold. Since 1991, the TDR program has been successful in
preserving twenty-six farms comprised of more than 1,500 acres of farmland.
TDRs are sold for the purpose of increasing lot coverage in the Campus Industrial zone
(receiving area). In order to ensure sound land use practices, the maximum lot coverage within
the Campus Industrial zone is 10%; however, for each transferable development right acquired,
an additional 4,000 square feet of lot coverage is permitted, up to a maximum of 70% coverage.
The Township also partners with developers to review and determine the number of TDRs
needed for a specific project within the Campus Industrial Zone. The number of TDRs needed is
based on the size of the project, and the size of the tract where the project would be located. This
partnership has been successful in selling 446 TDRs since 2001, redirecting more than
$750,000.00 to farmland preservation.
The TDR program has been an effective planning tool in preserving prime agricultural areas,
while directing growth in a responsible and efficient manner.
The Township partners with the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board and/or Lancaster
Farmland Trust to preserve farmland. The funds generated by the sale of TDRs are specifically
used to preserve additional farmland within Warwick Township.
Additional facts regarding farmland preservation in Warwick Township:
• 2,990.91 acres have been preserved.
• 1,547.036 acres have been preserved through the TDR Program.
• Warwick Township has purchased 636 TDRs and has sold 304 TDRs.
• A total of 801 TDRs have been purchased and 446 TDRs have been sold through a
cooperative program with the Lancaster County Ag. Preserve Board and Farmland Trust.
Update September 25, 20019
Talked with Daniel Zimmerman, Township Manager.
TDR sales in his town are booming. Expects to sell 150 TDRs this year. Have now preserved 32
farms. They are focused on the Campus Industrial Zone. Currently has 3 sites under development
in this Zone. TDRs are sold for $3000 and conserves 2 acres. Each TDR is worth 4,000 square
feet of additional lot coverage up to a maximum of 70% coverage (base coverage is 10% lot
coverage). For example, the Township contributes $50,000 to the Lancaster County Agricultural
Preserve Board and/or Lancaster Farmland Trust towards the cost of the land (in this case a 90
acre farm) and gets 45 TDRs which are sold for $135,000 – a profit of $85,000 for Warwick
Township.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 2
City of Seattle and King County WA
Overview
In 2013, King County and the City of Seattle entered into an interlocal agreement for the
implementation of a regional program to transfer development rights from King County farm and
forest land to the South Lake Union, Denny Triangle, and Commercial Core in the City of
Seattle. While establishing a marketplace for TDR credits, this agreement will protect and
maintain the existing character of rural, farm, and forest lands, in turn directing growth into the
region’s largest designated urban center. Regional TDR credits can be used to increase
development capacity in these specific areas of the City of Seattle.
Using Rural TDR Credits in Seattle
The City of Seattle has approved the use of TDRs in the South Lake Union, Denny Triangle, and
Commercial Core areas, as shown in the map. TDRs must originate from agricultural, forest,
and rural zoned sending sites, including sending sites that are part of King County’s TDR
Bank. The City of Seattle allows development projects within specified receiving areas to
increase residential and non-residential square footage beyond the base zoning.
For example TDR credits may be used to increase commercial capacity and residential density as
identified below.
Additional floor area or height or density above base with TDR
Residential +40%
Commercial +25%
I spoke to Michael Murphy, Interim Deputy Division Director, King County Water and Land
Resources Division.
His advice was “keep it simple so that you don’t need a calculator to work out how many TDRs
are needed for a project”.
He also noted that TDR ratios should be “tweaked” to direct TDRs to where you want dense
development or less dense development (e.g. one TDR gets you 2 units in a district where you
want more density but only one unit in a district where you want less density)
Recent market activity in Seattle is shown below.
Regional TDR Transactions Inside Seattle
This is a subset of the "Rural TDR Transactions" shown on the Sales Data page.
Transaction Date # TDRs sold/bought Price per TDR Credit Type Use of TDR
7/15/2016 7 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
6/21/2016 14 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
6/7/2016 6 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial
6/7/2016 4 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
4/5/2016 4 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 3
3/31/2016 5 $24,846 Agricultural (2) residential
3/31/2016 75 $22,725 Forest (2) residential
12/8/2015 66 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
12/8/2015 1 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial
7/24/2015 22 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
7/17/2015 4 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial
7/17/2015 6 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial
7/17/2015 3 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial
4/1/2015 19 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial
10/17/2014* 14 $15,680 Agricultural (2) commercial
10/17/2014* 8 $15,680 Agricultural commercial
12/13/2014* 27 $14,420 Forest (2) commercial
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 4
Town of Hadley MA TDR Program
§ 17.4 Transfer of development rights.
Transfer of development rights provides for increased density of commercial or industrial development
in the designated Receiving District when suitable open space land in the Farmland Preservation
District is permanently preserved from development. The transfer of development rights is
accomplished by the execution of an agricultural preservation restriction, and the increased density is
permitted by the issuance of a special permit, both as hereinafter provided.
The maximum limits on density, lot coverage, and parking reductions permitted to be developed by
special permit in the Receiving District shall be determined by reference to the Table of Exchange
Standards for Transfer of Development Rights, found below in this section.
Table of Exchange Standards for Transfer of Development Rights
[Amended 5-1-2008 ATM by Art. 26; 5-7-2009 ATM by Art. 32]
Farmland
Preservation
District (Sending
District)
Business and
Industrial Zoning
(Receiving District) Notes 1 acre of
developable
farmland1 equals
2,000 square feet of
additional commercial
or industrial floor area2
plus a reduction in
parking of 20 spaces3
1) The Board may allow an increase in lot coverage
from the 30% maximum lot coverage required in
Section IV of the Hadley Zoning Bylaw up to a
maximum 70% lot coverage4
2) The Planning Board may reduce the parking
requirements in § 5.4 of the Zoning Bylaw for off-street
parking area which is equal to twice the floor area of
any commercial or industrial building to be constructed.
The Planning Board may reduce this requirement for
off-street parking area to a minimum of 1.5 times the
floor area of any commercial or industrial building to be
constructed.
1 acre of
developable
farmland1 equals
2 additional bedrooms See §§ 27.5.3.1 to 27.5.3.3 of the Hadley Zoning Bylaw
1 "Developable farmland" is defined in § 17.2 2 "Additional commercial or industrial floor area" shall be defined as floor area
above that which would normally be permitted under the Hadley Zoning Bylaw.
The increased floor area shall be accommodated through either increased lot
coverage or reduced parking requirements as noted in the table above. 3 One parking space is equal to 200 square feet. 4 The requirement in § 5.5 of the Hadley Zoning Bylaw for a minimum of 20%
open space on a lot must be maintained.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 5
Calvert County MA
Calvert County created the first land preservation program in Maryland and currently has the
most active transferable development rights (TDRs) program in the state. The TDR program
allows a landowner to sell the development potential to another party. The sale requires the
recording of restrictive covenants in land records permanently subjecting the property to
development restrictions in perpetuity. Subject to County regulations, a TDR purchaser can use
TDRs to attain higher lot density on another property. The TDR program goal is to deter
development of farms and forest lands to areas targeted for residential and commercial growth.
Transferable Development Right Sales
2016
Qtr. Dates Number of TDRs
Sold
Avg. cost per
TDR
Number of FC TDRs
Sold
Avg. cost per
FCTDR
1 Jan. Feb.
Mar. 40 $3,200.00 7 $4,750.00
2 Apr. May
Jun 0 N/A 2 $4,500.00
3 Jul. Aug.
Sept 0 N/A 0 N/A
4 Oct. Nov.
Dec. 18 $3,000.00 1 $4,500.00
Total 58 $3,100.00 10 $4,583.33
2017
Qtrr. Dates Number of TDRs
Sold
Avg. cost per
TDr
Number of FC TDRs
Sold
Avg. cost per
FCTDR
1 Jan. Feb.
Mar. 6 $3,500.00 2 $4,500.00
2 Apr. May
Jun 41 $2,750.00 3 $4,333.33
3 Jul. Aug.
Sept 88 $2,514.29 2 $4,500.00
4 Oct. Nov.
Dec. 44 $2,916.67 N/A N/A
TOTAL 179 $2,775.00 7 $ 4,400.00
2018
Qtr. Dates Number
of TDRs
Avg. cost per
TDR
Number of FC
TDRs
Avg. cost per
FCTDR
1 Jan. Feb. Mar. 4 $3,200.00 0 $0.00
2 Apr. May Jun 48 $2,843.75 0 $0.00
3 Jul. Aug. Sept - -
4 Oct. Nov. Dec. 186.5 $2,900.00 0 $0.00
TOTAL 238.5 $6,043.00 - -
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 6
TDR Implementation Examples
Case-by-case example
Town A has adopted a plan that will allow TDR on a case-by-case
basis.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 7
Blanket rezone example
Town B has adopted a plan that has mapped sending and receiving
areas, and wishes to complete a blanket rezone petition to
implement the plan. This will make it as easy as possible for willing
landowners in sending and receiving areas to participate in the TDR
program.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 8
TDR Interim Zoning Committee
Interviews with Developers
Developer A 9/3/19
• Can envisage many projects along Shelburne Road that would benefit
from TDR density increases.
• For example the new development at corner of Shelburne Road and
Fayette Drive, could have a 5th floor if that was possible with TDRs. Would
of course depend on compliance with other relevant LDRs.
• Definitely thinks there would be a market for TDRs if they could be used in
receiving areas in the Transit Overlay District.
• Sees a lot of potential when properties come up for redevelopment.
Developer B 9/4/19
• Sees opportunities for commercial developments using TDRs.
• Thinks there is definitely a market for TDRs outside the SEQ.
• There would be residential density and redevelopment opportunities
outside the SEQ.
• Has used TDRs in projects (about 20 from Auclair Trust).
• Will use TDRs in another project now under development (about 26 from
the Vermont Land Trust).
Developer C 9/9/19
• Developer C has been more involved in commercial developments, less in
residential.
• Has a residential project under construction at present in Burlington.
• Sees possible opportunities for redevelopment using TDRs in South
Burlington.
• For example, along the North side Williston Road where land use is very
inefficient – many single story commercial establishments. Redevelopment
in this area could produce multi-story mixed use buildings fronting on
Williston Road and dense residential development behind.
• Similar opportunities along the Sherbrooke Road corridor.
Developer D 9/10/19
• Has used TDRs in a small development.
• Made similar comments to those of Developer C about redevelopment
opportunities along the Williston and Sherbrooke corridors.
• Did not need to acquire TDRs for very large development on Spear Street
and finds the current TDR process cumbersome and complex. Difficult to
bring TDR owners and buyers together.
• Having a TDR bank or registry would be a major improvement.
• Commented that having TDR sending and receiving areas in the same
zone defeats the purpose of moving density into suitable urban areas and
away from rural areas.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 9
TDR Interim Zoning Committee
Interviews with TDR Owners
Owner A 8/23/19
• Acquired 14 acres about 10 years ago.
• Subdivided into 3 lots – one 11.5 acres and two from the remaining 2.5 acres.
• Retained ownership of the 14 TDRs when the properties were sold.
• Sold 3 TDRs (Wildflower Drive?).
• Has 11 TDRs now.
• Objective is to sell these TDRs for a development which is not built on “open
space”.
• Would like to see an expanded market outside the SEQ where those objectives
could be met.
• Needs to use the proceeds to fund college for children.
Owner B 9/3/19
• Has about 40 TDRs.
• Would like to extinguish the TDRs by creating a conservation easement possibly
held by the Vermont Land Trust.
• Will not sell TDRs for development on open space.
• Would sell for suitable development outside the SEQ.
• TDRs could be held in trust for a future owner of the property who might then be
able to use them under the conditions specified in the trust.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 10
Findings
• 114 TDRs were severed and transferred under the TDR program, which conserved 95 acres
o Another 470 TDRs were extinguished as part of the PUD process, but not transferred as
TDRs per se
o An estimated 1,357 TDRs remaining. 116 are owned by the city, 1241 by landowners
• The TDR market has not been as robust as envisioned likely due to
o Limited receiving areas
o Absence of a mechanism to connect TDR holders with potential buyers has not supported
development of a robust marketplace for TDR holders
o No reliable database or registry of TDRs available, sent (severed) and where used in
receiving areas thus making the program less transparent and effective than it could be
• The Committee concluded that the current TDR Program is problematic in that the TDR sending
areas and TDR receiving areas are all in the SEQ which is where almost all of South Burlington’s
remaining open space is located
o The consequence of this can be dense development in the same areas where our LDRs and
Comprehensive Plan encourage open space preservation, natural resource protection,
wildlife habitat preservation and continued agriculture.
o South Burlington residents have expressed growing concern about the pace of development
in the City and the importance of conserving open space and precious natural resources and
have voiced strong concerns about some SEQ defined TDR Receiving areas as lands worthy
of conservation.
o The Committee could find no other TDR program that transfers development rights from
forests, farmlands, meadows and fields to other fields, meadows and farmlands. The
programs examined by the Committee all transferred rights from open space to industrial,
commercial and residential zones.
o Several residents we have spoken to that hold TDRs have stated they will not sell their TDRs
if it means the rights will be used to further develop South Burlington’s remaining open
space
• Based on interviews with several developers, there would seem to be ample demand for TDRs
outside of the SEQ
Recommendations
• Expand the TDR marketplace to Receiving Areas outside the SEQ
• Add new Sending areas in the SEQ and outside the SEQ which are identified as high priority for
conservation
• Re-designate sensitive Receiving areas in the SEQ
• Define a “dwelling unit” by size (maximum square footage or number of bedrooms or other criteria)
• Work to develop a balance between the capacity for TDR usage and the supply in order to create a
fair and well-functioning TDR market.
• Establish a TDR clearing house, registry or bank where holders could list the TDRs they wish to offer
for sale
• As required by 24 V.S.A. § 4423, the City should develop and maintain a map of areas from which
development rights have been severed. This map should show also the areas to which TDRs have
been transferred or used intra-parcel.
• The City could purchase and retire TDRs from select parcels that have the highest conservation
values as indicated by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee.
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 11
Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee
Meeting Minutes
25 September 2019
Members Present: Andrew Chalnick (clerk), Kelly Lord, Michael Mittag (chair), Monica Ostby and John
Simson
Members Absent: Michael Albertson, Tim Barritt
Staff and Guests: None
The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM in the Clubhouse at Ridgewood Estates.
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room
The emergency exit procedures and routes were described.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items
No changes.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda
No comments unrelated to the agenda.
4. Review Planning Commission Action Items proposal
The Committee reviewed Michael’s draft responses and agreed with those responses. A suggestion was
to explicitly indicate in the TDR committee report that industrial/commercial areas should be considered
as new receiving areas. It was noted that other communities with successful TDR programs zone
commercial/industrial with very low lot coverage, requiring developers to purchase TDRs in order to
increase lot coverage. It was further noted that the TDR programs that Michael found all share a
common theme: development rights are transferred from open space to industrial/commercial areas.
None of them transfer developments rights to open space. To further the committee’s work, members
requested that Michael send an email to the planning commission explicitly asking that the PC review
the recommendations of the TDR committee.
5. Identify Receiving Areas on the TDR Overlay map (identify also Receiving Zones and associated
density increases).
It was decided to defer more work on the map pending feedback from the PC.
6. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 8:25PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Chalnick
TDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 12
34
Attachment F – TDR Overlay District Map
Recommended Zoning with TDR Overlay
R2 —> R7 = 1. PURPLE
R4 —> R7 = 7, ORANGE
R4 —> “Transition Zone” = A, B 12 & 13
LIGHT BLUE (when R7/C1)
(LIGHT GREEN when R7 only)
(YELLOW When INSIDE Neighborhood
Like Shelburne RD “secondary”)
R7/C1 —> R12/C1 = 6 DARK RED
R7/C2 —> R12/C2 = 3. LIGHT PINK
IA —> R7 = 14a. DARK GREEN outline
Unassigned But Opportunity = 2, 5, 9,
14, 16, RED OUTLINE
Plann Comm considering changes.
Include TDRs? (Paul’s Pink Map) 17
BRIGHT PINK
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=981146b29160450aa194e05f3104d33b&extent=-
73.2422,44.4126,-73.0416,44.4834 coneptTDR Concepts
For PC Discussion 2019-10-08
Page 13
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
SUBJECT: Chapter 12 Updates
DATE: November 12, 2019 Committee meeting
Background
As part of the City’s comprehensive review of natural resource planning, we are continuing updates to
Chapter 12 of the Land Development Regulations which were begun in 2012 in response to the Supreme
Court’s decision in re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, with the goal of crafting clear, legally defensive standards
for the protection of natural resources associated with development. The City had, and continues to,
contract with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to undertake the work.
The Planning Commission reviewed a very initial draft of these standards in 2012, and a more recent
draft in May 2019, hosting the CCRPC for a productive discussion on draft updates.
Relationship to PUD/Subdivision Work
We expect that the regulation of and planning for natural resources will come to fruition through many
processes, some regulatory and some not. Some resources are planned for protection from incursion
regardless of the tool of impact, while some may be regulated differently under different types of
review (PUD, site plan, subdivision). Where resources are proposed for blanket protections, they are
included in chapter 12. Where more specific standards apply, those will appear within the relevant
chapters- you’ve seen an early draft of standards associated with subdivision lotting.
Additional and related changes will be proposed for Chapter 2: Definitions as well as Chapter 9:
Southeast Quadrant (mostly related to redundancy in 9.06B), chapters 14, 15 related to submission
requirements.
Updates to Adopted LDRs and April 2019 Draft:
The draft herein reflects updates based on the Commission’s May working session, as well as the
Commission’s continued work in natural resource planning from its leadership working group and the
most recent commission discussion on October 29, 2019.
This draft does have some staff and CCRPC notes embedded for PC discussion. There are no major policy
changes in this draft from the May draft, but there are amendments based on PC direction. As a
reminder, because this this a major redraft of the current Chapter 12: Surface Water Protection
Standards, this is not a red line draft, but is proposed as a complete replacement. Understanding that
this may present some challenges to follow, we’ve also attached the adopted Chapter 12. Major
differences include:
• New policy of regulating slopes; agricultural lands; forest and habitat blocks; rare, threatened
and endangered species
• Reservation for text related to tree protection standards
• Reservation for text related to resource restoration
• Consolidated language related to infrastructure encroachment
• Classification of resources for purposes of encroachment
• Removal of resource lands from density calculations in some circumstances
We are also anticipating some amendments to the stormwater provision of this chapter.
Staff will host a guided discussion of this item at Tuesday’s meeting.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
12.01 General Protection Standards and Review Procedures for Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas
12.02 Stream and Surface Waters
12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.04 Stormwater Management
12.05 Steep Slopes
12.06 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
12.07 Forest and Habitat Blocks (RESERVED)
12.08 Tree Protection Standards (RESERVED)
12.09 Resource Restoration and Support (RESERVED)
12.10 Limited Infrastructure Encroachment
12.01 General Protection Standards, Classifications and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to implement a key goal of the City’s Plan: promote
conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources”, as mapped and
delineated for this purpose. This section establishes application requirements and development standards
designed to minimize and avoid adverse impacts to these resources. Specific standards related to
subdivision or planned unit developments, or for which overlay standards apply, may be found in those
relevant sections and, where indicated, may supersede provisions of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of
South Burlington’s adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-2
C. Classification. For the purposes of subdivision and Planned Unit Developments, resources are
grouped into Hazards, Level 1 and Level 2 resource areas.
D. Applicability of Standards. All land uses and development must comply with the provisions of this
Article, to minimize adverse impacts on ecological resources, water quality and working lands, unless
explicitly waived or amended in this section. Exemptions include:
(1) All activities to the extent that they are exempt from local regulation through Section 4413 of 24
VSA Chapter 117.
(2) Construction of fences (i) that enclose cleared areas, such as lawn areas surrounding a
residence, provided the clearing occurred prior to [effective date of this provision] or was approved by
the DRB in accordance with this chapter; or (ii) erected for standard agricultural purposes or, (iii) lower
than 4 feet and that have at least 16 inches of clearance between the lowest horizontal part of the fence
and the ground. In all cases, proposed fences must comply with section 13.17 (Fences) of these
Regulations.
(3) Other exemptions as specified elsewhere in these Regulations.
12.02 Stream and Surface Waters
No build except
limited
infrastructure
encroachment
No build except per
resource specific
stipulations (chapter
12 or overlay stds)
Counts Toward
Buildable Land
Density In
Subdivision
Counts Toward
Buildable Land
Density in PUD
Subject to lot line
restrictions in
subdivision
Hazards
100-year floodplains & floodways X
Streams & 50' buffers X X
Muddy Brook, Potash Brook, Winooski River
and 100' buffers X X
River Corridors X X
Class 1 Wetlands and 100' buffer X X
Class 2 Wetlands and 50' buffer X X
Slopes 20% or greater X X
Level 1 Resources
Class 1 Forest Blocks*X X X
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species X X X
Class 1 Ag Parcels*X X X
Level 2 Resources
Class 3 wetlands and 50' buffer X X
Intermittent streams X X
Class 1 Forest Block buffer*X X
Class 2 Forest Blocks*X X
Prime Agricultural Soils X X
Slopes 15 -20%X X
Other Resources
Scenic Views X X
*To be compiled by City: Forest/ habitat
blocks drafted as part of Arrowwood contract
and ag areas to be identified)
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-3
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection and improvement of the surface
waters and streams within the City of South Burlington, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay, and the
watersheds contained wholly or partially within the City. These regulations and standards are intended to lead
to the establishment and protection of natural areas along the City’s surface waters and within the city’s
watersheds to provide improved protection for water quality and the provision of open space areas and
wildlife habitat. It is the further purpose of this Section to provide for the retention of preexisting residential
neighborhoods located along Lake Champlain and Potash Brook in a manner consistent with the resource
protection goals of this Section and the comprehensive plan.
B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows:
(a) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance from the top of bank or top of
slope of major streams, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology. Major
streams are defined as the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook. These
are mapped and maintained by the City’s Planning and Zoning Department.
(b) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance from the top of bank or top of slope of any
minor stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(c) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance from the top of the bank or top of slope of a
natural intermittent stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(d) Land within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for the purposes of
these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean seal level datum.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. In addition to the submittal requirements for the application
type, the applicant’s Site Conditions Map will include:
• The locations of surface waters and associated buffers
• Major and minor streams and associated buffers may be mapped with data from the Vermont
Natural Resources Atlas. Intermittent streams and associated buffers must be mapped through site-
specific delineation.
• Mapping of these resources must be submitted at the time of initial application; where field
delineations are required, they shall be completed and submitted no later than the preliminary
application.
D. Standards. All applicable development must be designed to avoid adverse impacts to major and minor
streams and associated buffers and to minimize adverse impacts to intermittent streams and associated
buffers.
(1) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to avoid adverse impacts from
development on these resources, promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native
vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, promote
carbon sequestration, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.
Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.02(E)(2) or
(E)(3) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above must be left in an undisturbed,
naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of
vegetation to achieve these objectives will be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and
maintenance of stream buffers are as follows:
Commented [EN1]: The appendix with detailed submission
requirements will be updated with all information from this article
once it’s finalized.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-4
(a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events,
or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in
conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below.
(b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during
construction must be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and
must not be mowed.
(c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date
of these regulations.
(d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review must not be located
within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that:
(i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property.
(ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or
stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff
entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt.
(e) The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within the stream buffer is
prohibited.
(2) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing
structures within stream buffers will be permitted only in accordance with the standards for non-
complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these Regulations.
(3) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land
development activities into the City’s major and minor stream buffers must be avoided. The DRB may
authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions
enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review
without a separate conditional use review.
(a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any
building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer.
(b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly
necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same
property and where the DRB finds that:
(i) There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream
buffer; and
(ii) The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings,
protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures.
(c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
(d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities.
(e) Public recreation paths located at least twenty-five (25) feet from the the top of the bank or
top of slope of any stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of
vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-5
applicable permitting requirements will be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a
stream buffer.
(g) Roadways, access drives, or recreation paths for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to
gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an
approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the
roadway or access drive is located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of the
surface water for all water bodies listed in section 10.01(C)(1)(a) and (b) and ten (10) feet from the
edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams.
(h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to
cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or
extending utility services.
(i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways)
appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.
(j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and
driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.
(k) Hydro-electric power generation
E. Watercourse Alteration and Relocation.
(1) The alteration or relocation of a watercourse is permitted subject to the approval of the
Development Review Board provided the alteration or relocation:
(a) Is needed to accomplish a clear public purpose or objective;
(b) Will not reduce the ability of the watercourse to carry or store flood waters adequately;
(c) Will not have an adverse impact on downstream or upstream water quality;
(d) Will not affect adversely the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties;
(e) Will not affect adversely the habitat value of the watercourse or immediately adjacent areas
or wetlands.
(2) In making findings relative to these criteria, the DRB will invoke technical review by a professional
in hydrology or geomorphology, or will rely on the issuance of a Stream Alteration Permit issued by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation as evidence that the above criteria have been met.
(3) The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee will in a timely manner review and make
advisory comments to the DRB on any application made pursuant to this section.
F. Intermittent Stream Alteration. Where a development will incorporate new Low Impact
Development (LID) practices, such as those detailed in the “South Burlington Low Impact Development
Guidance Manual,” to manage the stormwater that the intermittent stream is managing in pre-development
conditions, the intermittent stream may be altered or relocated as part of that infrastructure, provided the
stormwater management system meets the requirements of Article 12.04. Alteration or relocation of an
intermittent stream is exempt from the Vermont Stream Alteration Rule and is not subject to the provisions
of Article 12.02(G).
G. Floodplain. All development located in the Floodplain Overlay District is also subject to the
requirements of Article 10.01.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-6
H. River Corridor. All development located in the River Corridor Overlay District is also subject to the
requirements of Article 10.07.
I. Protected Shoreland Area. All development located within 250 feet of the mean water level of Lake
Champlain is subject to the provisions of the Vermont Shoreland Protection Act.
(1) Applicants for development in this area shall demonstrate compliance with the State of Vermont
prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
J. Erosion Control Measures and Water-Oriented Development along Lake Champlain.
The installation of erosion control measures and water-oriented development within or abutting the high-
water elevation of Lake Champlain may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the following
standards are met:
(a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such
as wood and stone.
(b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion.
(c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the
lakeshore. In making a determination pursuant to this criterion, the DRB may request renderings or
other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the visual impact of the proposed
improvement.
(d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and
ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and
vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.
12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s wetland resources in order to protect
wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, stormwater treatment, wildlife
habitat, and flood control.
B. Applicability and Wetlands Map.
(1) All Class I and Class II wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified by the
most recent Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory or as identified through field delineation, a buffer
area one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any Class I wetland and a
buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any Class II or Class III wetland,
are subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) All Class III wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, as identified through field
delineation, are subject to the provisions of this section.
D. Application Submittal Requirements
(1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and
on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory or field identified,
in addition to the submittal requirements for the application type, the applicant’s Site Conditions Map will
Commented [PC2]: This has been our practice since the
removal of local standards to assure the property owner is reaching
out to the State; staff proposes to codify this here.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-7
include site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all
wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area.
(2) Applicants will submit a field delineation and wetlands report at the time of initial application, or
in the case of a subdivision or PUD, no later than the preliminary application. During a sketch plan review
for a subdivision or PUD, plans will include the Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory, the Vermont
Significant Wetland Inventory Advisory Layer, and hydric soils.
(3) The DRB has the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of any
field delineation and wetlands report. The City’s wetlands consultant will submit an evaluation of the field
delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development’s consistency with the standards
in (D) above, and outlining the following:
(a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources
without altering the layout of the proposed project.
(b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources
that involve altering the layout of the proposed project.
E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, development must avoid encroachment into Class I
and Class II wetlands and their associated buffers and minimize encroachment into Class III wetlands and
their associated buffers.
(2) Encroachment into Class I and Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Wetlands General Permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and
positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class I and Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland
buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development,
erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood
waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in
the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, or other mitigation measures.
(4) When laying out a subdivision, building lot lines and building envelopes are prohibited within Class
I and Class II wetlands and associated buffers, except as necessary to accommodate resource-dependent
facilities (e.g., water and wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater ponds, public or community
recreation facility).
(5) When laying out a subdivision, the fragmentation of Class III wetlands and associated buffers must
be minimized.
12.04 Stormwater Management
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is:
Commented [CL3]: Will move all of this to subdivision
standards but here for now for PC review of policy
Commented [CL4]: Working with Stormwater Department to
update.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-8
(1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology
through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate,
filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source;
(2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural
aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by
construction activities and post-construction conditions;
(3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from
improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site;
(4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots,
rooftops and other paved surfaces; and
(5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in
removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent
damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls.
B. Scope and Applicability
(1) These regulations will apply to all land development within the City of South Burlington where
one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or
parcel.
(2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial
reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from
requirements in this Section 12.03.
(3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.03(B)(1) and not exempt under section
12.03(B)(2) shall meet the requirements in section 12.03(C) as follows:
(a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than
50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are
being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All
new impervious surface area must meet the requirements of section 12.03(C).
(b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds
50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious
surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All new impervious surface area must meet
the requirements of Section 12.03(C).
C. Site Design Requirements for New Development
(1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual
for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff, and shall be infiltrated
using Low Impact Development (LID) practices including, but not limited to, practices detailed in the
“South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual”.
(c) If it is not possible to infiltrate the volume of stormwater runoff specified in Section
12.03(C)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints:
(i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont
Stormwater Management Manual,
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-9
(ii) Shallow bedrock as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont Stormwater Management
Manual,
(iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour,
(iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A.
§6602(16), as amended,
(v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in Section 2.6 of the Vermont
Stormwater Management Manual, or
(vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and
approval of the Development Review Board, then the WQv shall be retained on the lot using other
LID strategies and practices such as those detailed in the “South Burlington Low Impact
Development Guidance Manual”, or treated by stormwater treatment practices meeting the
Water Quality Treatment Standard as described in the most recently adopted version of the
Vermont Stormwater Management Manual.
(2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1 inch) rain event
shall not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions
existing prior to submittal of an application. LID practices shall be incorporated into the design as
necessary to achieve the maximum allowed runoff rate. If constraints prevent the use of LID practices (see
Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), stormwater treatment practices detailed in the Vermont Stormwater
Management Manual may be used to achieve the required post construction runoff rate.
(3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff
per section 12.03(C)(1) and 12.03(C)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per
section 12.03(B) may utilize “site balancing”.
D. Additional Site Plan Requirements
(1) Applicants required to comply with Section 12.03(C) must include the following information in
their site plan submission:
(d) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment
practices.
(e) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed
stormwater collection systems, culverts, detention basins, LID installations, and other stormwater
treatment practices.
(f) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the results of any soil borings, infiltration
testing, or soil compaction testing.
(g) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management
techniques. Where LID design approaches are not proposed (see Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), the applicant
shall provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of LID approaches is not possible before
proposing to use conventional structural stormwater management measures.
(h) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices.
(i) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv (0.9-
inch) and the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1-inch) rain event. Any TR-55 based model shall be
suitable for this purpose.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-10
E. Drainage Structures
(1) Removal of Runoff – The applicant shall remove any impervious surface runoff that exists as a
result of the proposed land development. Drainage facilities shall be located in the street right-of-way
where feasible. All drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with Public Works Standards and
Specifications. Drainage facilities shall also conform to the provisions of Section 12.01 Surface Water
Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”).
(2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development – Culverts or other drainage
facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage
area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the
application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities must
be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total potential
development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be designed to, at a minimum,
safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event. The applicant’s engineer shall
provide such information as the Stormwater Superintendent or their designee deems necessary to
determine the adequacy of all drainage structures.
(3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures – The applicant shall provide the Stormwater
Superintendent or their designee with such information as the Superintendent deems necessary to
determine the effects of the application on drainage structures located downstream of the applicant’s lot
or the parcel subject to the application, notwithstanding whether these structures are located on land
owned or controlled by the applicant. This analysis shall be conducted using the twenty-five year, twenty-
four hour (4.0-inch) storm event. In instances where the Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff
incident to the application may overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in
damage to private or public infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the
applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such
improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property.
12.05 Steep Slopes
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s areas of steep and very steep slopes, as
mapped and delineated for this purpose, in order to prevent erosion that may cause adverse impacts to water
quality or hazards to life and property.
B. Applicability. All development is subject to the standards below where steep slopes or very steep
slopes are present.
(1) Areas of steep slope (slopes between 15% and 20%)
(2) Areas of very steep slope (slopes greater than 20%)
(3) Measurement of slope.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information and data required for the
relevant application type, the applicant’s Site Conditions Map will include locations of steep and very steep
slopes on the project site, using data from the Vermont Natural Resources Atlas, other contour data or
topographic surveys.
D. Development Standards.
(1) Very Steep Slopes Standards. Development other than Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment is
prohibited on slopes greater than 20%.
Commented [CL5]: To be updated. Staff is working on language
to identify the proper measurement parameters and data source
(ex- lidar).
Commented [EN6]: PC Discussion: You discussed defining
specific exceptions here and requested examples. Some
communities allow recreational trails, limited site improvements
(ex. driveways to allow for development on areas that don’t have
slopes), quarrying or resource specific things like ski lifts.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-11
(2) Steep Slope Standards. All applicable development must be designed to avoid adverse impacts to
slopes between 15% and 20%. Methods for avoiding such adverse impacts include:
(a) Building envelopes must be configured to exclude these features.
(b) When laying out a subdivision, building lot lines and building envelopes must be configured to
avoid fragmentation of areas of steep slopes.
(3) In the event that development will impact areas of these identified slopes in accordance with (1)
and (2) above, the DRB may require the applicant to provide or meet any of the following:
(a) A hydrologic study prepared by a qualified professional, to be paid for by the applicant, to
determine the effects of proposed development on surface waters, wetlands, special flood
hazard areas and downstream facilities in the vicinity of the project, and recommended
mitigation measures.
(b) A stormwater management, erosion prevention and sediment control plan prepared by a
qualified professional
(c) An analysis of slope stability prepared by a licensed engineer to ensure that no erosion hazards
are created
(d) Limit clearing, excavation and filling on such lands to the greatest extent practical
(e) Prepare and implement an erosion control plan for the property, in accordance with Section 16,
as a condition of approval.
12.06 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s rare, threatened or endangered plant
or animal habitat, as identified by 10 VSA Chapter 123 and mapped and delineated for this purpose, in order
to prevent further population loss of these species.
C. Applicability. All development subject to site plan or subdivision review is subject to the standards
below where rare, threatened or endangered species habitat is present.
D. Application Submittal Requirements. In addition to the submittal requirements for the application
type, the applicant’s Site Conditions Map will include the locations of rare, threatened and endangered
species. During Sketch Plan review, data from the Vermont Natural Resources Atlas may be used. If the
Vermont Natural Resources Atlas shows the potential for rare, threatened and endangered species, a
written opinion confirming the presence or absence of rare, threatened or endangered species will be
required from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department or a qualified environmental professional listed on
the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ wetland consultant list. The applicant must provide the Vermont
Fish and Wildlife Department with a map and site plan showing the mapped location of the rare, threatened
and endangered species in relation to the proposed development. If a rare, threatened or endangered
species is present, the applicant must obtain a written opinion from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department indicating what measures must be taken to assure that the proposed development will not
result in adverse impacts to the rare, threatened or endangered species.
E. Development Standards.
(1) Development must not cause adverse impacts to any rare, threatened or endangered plant or
animal habitat identified by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife or through site
investigation.
a. Building envelopes must be located to exclude identified areas supporting rare, threatened and
endangered species.
Commented [PC7]: Reminder that this would be a new
subsection entirely. Per prior PC guidance, applies only to potential
species shown on ANR atlas
Commented [CL8]: Will be redrafted for clarity with respect to
the VNR atlas.
ARTICLE 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
PC Draft for review 11/12/2019 South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-12
b. Specific measures identified by the Fish and Wildlife Department’s written opinion may be
required.
c. Any impact to an endangered or threatened species may require an Endangered and
Threatened Species Permit from the State of Vermont.
12.07 Forest and Habitat Blocks (RESERVED)
12.08 Tree Protection Standards (RESERVED)
12.09 Resource Restoration and Support (RESERVED)
12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Encroachment into the resource may only be permitted by
the Development Review Board if there is a finding that the encroachment:
(1) Is specifically regulated (permitted/restricted) elsewhere in the SBLDRs.
(2) Is necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and
welfare.
(3) Is for a functionally dependent purpose such as critical facilities.
(4) Is a roadway, access drive, or recreation path for purposes of crossing a resource area to gain access
to land on the opposite side of the area, or for purposes of providing safe access in accordance with
City roadway and connectivity standards to an approved use, only in cases where there is no feasible
alternative for providing safe access
(5) In the case of stream buffers, the road infrastructure must be located at least twenty five (25) feet
from the edge of the channel of the surface water for all water bodies listed in section 10.01(C)(1)(a)
and (b) and ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams.
(6) In the case of wetlands, the road infrastructure shall be no wider than 20 feet, or, if accompanied by
a pedestrian path, no wider than 28 feet.
Commented [PC9]: Under development by Nat Res Working
Group & results of Arrowood study
Commented [PC10]: Under development; for upcoming PC
discussion.
Commented [PC11]: This is a section intended to incentivize
restoration of wetland buffer areas, forested areas with invasive
trees, etc. Language under development
Commented [PC12]: This is a definition and standards
intended to apply under specifies resources, to create a consistent
set of rules for infrastructure encroachment. Applicability TBD.
Commented [CL13]: note: this may be amended with more
restrictive guidelines to prevent fragmentation of Class 1 forest
areas
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-1
CURRENT SURFACE WATER STANDARDS TO BE REPLACED
12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards
12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
12.04 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) [Reserved]
12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection and improvement of the surface
waters and streams within the City of South Burlington, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay, and the
watersheds contained wholly or partially within the City. These regulations and standards are intended to lead
to the establishment and protection of natural areas along the City’s surface waters to provide improved
protection for water quality and the provision of open space areas and wildlife habitat. It is the further purpose
of this Section to provide for the retention of preexisting residential neighborhoods located along Lake
Champlain and Potash Brook in a manner consistent with the resource protection goals of this Section and
the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south
Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein.
C. Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”)
(1) Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows:
(a) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Muddy Brook
and the main stem of Potash Brook.
(b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the edge of the channel of the
Winooski River
(c) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of any minor stream
(d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of a drainage way
(e) Land within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for the purposes
of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum.
(2) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of heavily
vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce
sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.
Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3),
(C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an
undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate
species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards for the
vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows:
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-2
(a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events,
or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in
conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below.
(b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during
construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and
shall not be mowed.
(c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date
of these regulations.
(d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within
stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that:
(i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property.
(ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or
stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff
entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt.
(e) The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within the stream buffer is
prohibited.
(3) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing
structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in
accordance with the standards for non-complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these
Regulations.
(4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land
development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following
as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each
use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate
conditional use review.
(a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any
building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer.
(b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly
necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same
property and where the DRB finds that:
(i) There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream
buffer; and
(ii) The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings,
protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures.
(c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
(d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities.
(e) Public recreation paths, located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of channel of the
surface water.
(f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of
vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-3
applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a
stream buffer.
(g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land
on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in
cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive
is located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of the surface water for all water
bodies listed in section 10.01(C)(1)(a) and (b) and ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface
water of all other streams.
(h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to
cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or
extending utility services.
(i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways)
appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.
(j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and
driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.
(k) Hydro-electric power generation
D. Erosion control measures and water-oriented development along Lake Champlain. The
installation of erosion control measures and water-oriented development within or abutting the high-water
elevation of Lake Champlain, may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the following
standards are met:
(a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such
as wood and stone.
(b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion.
(c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the
lakeshore. In making a determination pursuant to this criterion, the DRB may request renderings or
other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the visual impact of the proposed
improvement.
(d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and
ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and
vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.
E. Potash Brook Tributary 3 Requirements. For lands located within one hundred fifty (150) feet
horizontal distance of Tributary 3 of Potash Brook, as delineated in the Potash Brook Watershed Restoration
Plan, the DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review of proposed land development activities
requiring DRB approval. Such technical review shall have the specific purpose of recommending site plan,
stormwater and landscaping measures that will ensure that land development activities are consistent with
the City’s overall plan for ecosystem restoration in the Tributary 3 watershed.
F. Landscaping and Maintenance Standards within Stream Buffers [reserved]
G. Watercourse Alteration and Relocation.
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-4
(1) The alteration or relocation of a watercourse is permitted subject to the approval of the
Development Review Board provided the alteration or relocation:
(a) Is needed to accomplish a clear public purpose or objective;
(b) Will not reduce the ability of the watercourse to carry or store flood waters adequately;
(c) Will not have an adverse impact on downstream or upstream water quality;
(d) Will not affect adversely the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties;
(e) Will not affect adversely the habitat value of the watercourse or immediately adjacent areas
or wetlands.
(2) In making findings relative to these criteria, the DRB shall be authorized to invoke technical review
by a professional in hydrology or geomorphology, and/or to rely on the issuance of a Stream Alteration
Permit issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation as evidence that the above
criteria have been met.
(3) The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee shall in a timely manner review and make
advisory comments to the DRB on any application made pursuant to this section.
12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide appropriate protection of the City’s wetland
resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection,
wildlife habitat, and flood control.
B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south
Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein.
C. Wetlands Map and Applicability of Standards.
(1) All wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified on the map entitled
“Wetlands Map” as set forth in Section 3.02 of these regulations or as identified through field delineation,
and a buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any such wetland, shall
be subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) In the absence of site-specific delineations, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control as to the
location of wetlands and wetland buffer areas subject to the provisions of this section.
D. Submittal and Review of Field Delineation and Wetlands Report
(1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and
on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Wetlands Map, applicants are strongly encouraged to
submit site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all
wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area. In the absence of such site-
specific delineations and information, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control.
(2) Applicants are encouraged to submit a field delineation and wetlands report as early in the
development review process as possible.
(3) The DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of
any field delineation and wetlands report. The City’s wetlands consultant shall submit an evaluation of
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-5
the field delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development’s consistency with the
standards in (D) above, and outlining the following:
(a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources
without altering the layout of the proposed project.
(b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources
that involve altering the layout of the proposed project.
E. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is
generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of
a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and
positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may
be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control,
stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the
following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood
waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in
the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is:
(1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology
through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate,
filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source;
(2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural
aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by
construction activities and post-construction conditions;
(3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from
improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site;
(4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots,
rooftops and other paved surfaces; and
(5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in
removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent
damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls.
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-6
B. Scope and Applicability
(1) These regulations shall apply to all land development within the City of South Burlington where
one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or
parcel.
(2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial
reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from
requirements in this Section 12.03.
(3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.03(B)(1) and not exempt under section
12.03(B)(2) shall meet the requirements in section 12.03(C) as follows:
(a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than
50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are
being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All
new impervious surface area must meet the requirements of section 12.03(C).
(b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds
50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious
surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All new impervious surface area must meet
the requirements of Section 12.03(C).
C. Site Design Requirements For New Development
(1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual
for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff, and shall be infiltrated
using Low Impact Development (LID) practices including, but not limited to, practices detailed in the
“South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual”.
(a) If it is not possible to infiltrate the volume of stormwater runoff specified in Section
12.03(C)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints:
(i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont
Stormwater Management Manual,
(ii) Shallow bedrock as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont Stormwater Management
Manual,
(iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour,
(iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A.
§6602(16), as amended,
(v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in Section 2.6 of the Vermo nt
Stormwater Management Manual, or
(vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and
approval of the Development Review Board,
then the WQv shall be retained on the lot using other LID strategies and practices such as those
detailed in the “South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual”, or treated by
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-7
stormwater treatment practices meeting the Water Quality Treatment Standard as described in the
most recently adopted version of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual.
(2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1 inch) rain event
shall not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm ev ent from the site under conditions
existing prior to submittal of an application. LID practices shall be incorporated into the design as
necessary to achieve the maximum allowed runoff rate. If constraints prevent the use of LID practices (see
Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), stormwater treatment practices detailed in the Vermont Stormwater
Management Manual may be used to achieve the required post construction runoff rate.
(3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff
per section 12.03(C)(1) and 12.03(C)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per
section 12.03(B) may utilize “site balancing”.
D. Additional Site Plan Requirements
(1) Applicants required to comply with Section 12.03(C) must include the following information in
their site plan submission:
(a) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment
practices.
(b) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed
stormwater collection systems, culverts, detention basins, LID installations, and other stormwater
treatment practices.
(c) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the results of any soil borings, infiltration
testing, or soil compaction testing.
(d) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management
techniques. Where LID design approaches are not proposed (see Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), the applicant
shall provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of LID approaches is not possible before
proposing to use conventional structural stormwater management measures.
(e) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices.
(f) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv (0.9-
inch) and the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1-inch) rain event. Any TR-55 based model shall be
suitable for this purpose.
E. Drainage Structures
(1) Removal of Runoff – The applicant shall remove any impervious surface runoff that exists as a
result of the proposed land development. Drainage facilities shall be located in the street right-of-way
where feasible. All drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with Public Works Standards and
Specifications. Drainage facilities shall also conform to the provisions of Section 12.01 Surface Water
Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”).
(2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development – Culverts or other drainage
facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage
area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the
application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities must
be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total potential
development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be desi gned to, at a minimum,
ARTICLE 12 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
South Burlington Land Development Regulations 12-8
safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event. The applicant’s engineer shall
provide such information as the Stormwater Superintendent or his designee deems necessary to
determine the adequacy of all drainage structures.
(3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures – The applicant shall provide the Stormwater
Superintendent or his designee with such information as the Superintendent deems necessary to
determine the effects of the application on drainage structures located downstream of the applicant’s lot
or the parcel subject to the application, notwithstanding whether these structures are located on land
owned or controlled by the applicant. This analysis shall be conducted using the twenty-five year, twenty-
four hour (4.0-inch) storm event. In instances where the Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff
incident to the application may overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in
damage to private or public infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the
applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such
improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property.
12.04 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) [Reserved]
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
22 OCTOBER 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 October 2019, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Ostby, Acting Chair; T. Riehle, M. Mittag, A. Klugo, D. Macdonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; Rep. J. Kalacky, L. Nadeau, A. Chalnick, S.
Dooley, J. Simson, T. McKenzie, A. Gill, P. O’Brien, E. Langfeldt, T. Hess, K. Lord,
P. DeMichele, R. Gonda
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Ostby provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted that the City Council has named October of Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Ms. Ostby noted receipt of a letter from Helen Head regarding the need for affordable housing for
victims of domestic violence who otherwise could not stay in the city.
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form.
5. Public Hearing on Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
a. LDR-19-08: Reduce first story minimum window heights & establish privacy standards in
FBC T4 District
b. LDR-19-09: Modify City Center Open Space locational criteria and options
c. LDR-1910: Allow greater proportion of Landscaping Budget to be used off-site and to be
used for hardscapes in FBC district
d. LDR-19-11: Reduce size of reserved width for future buildings in FBC T3 and T5 districts
e. LDR-19-12: Modify Upper Story Glazing Standards in FBC T4 and T5 Districts
f. LDR-19-14: Expand allowances for Cultural Facilities, Indoor Theaters, Artist Production
Studios, and Community Centers within C1-R15, C1-R12, and C1-Audo Zoning districts
Mr. Mittag moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
2
Mr. Conner noted that no public comment had been received prior to the meeting.
Mr. Conner said 5 of the amendments come from the Form Based Code sub-committee. Number LDR-
19-14 is unrelated and is normal “cleaning up” regulations. These uses are currently not allowed in the
indicated zones, and staff recommends they should be. There have been a few technical edits after
legal review but no policy changes.
Ms. DiMichele asked what the FBC area is and what is “hardscape.” Mr. Conner explained the Form
Based Code area. He Also explained the nature of landscape budgeting this area where there is a limited
amount of space. Hardscape allowed as a portion of landscaping for such things as decorative benches,
art, etc, which add value to the property but are not necessarily “green.”
Mr. McKenzie noted that Appendix F has already been warned. He suggested it would be good to have
that passed at the same time as changes to open space. Mr. Macdonald said the hope is to have that
with the next round.
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Possible Action to Approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve amendments #08 through #12 and #14 and submit them to the City
Council with the Report. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
7. (formerly #10): Minutes of 24 September 2019:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 24 September 2019. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
8. Consider and possibly recommend minor changes to City Center portion of Official Map for a
roadway segment on the north side of Williston Road near Dorset Street:
Mr. Conner said that State law allows minor changes to be approved upon receipt of Planning
Commission and City Council approval. He showed where the line currently exists and where it will be
moved to. It straddles 2 property lines, and both property owners have agreed to the change through a
property deed. Staff has no concerns.
Mr. Conner also explained how the intersection will be cleaned up. He showed a plan of that
intersection and how Dorset St. will be aligned as much as possible. This design is still being worked on.
Mr. Gonda asked if the connection to White Street is a long-term plan. Mr. Conner said it is.
3
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the minor change to the City Center portion of the Official Map as
presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
9. (formerly #7) Review and consider warning public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Land Development Regulations and Associated Report:
a. LDR-19-13: Modify and extend Inclusionary Zoning requirements to encompass all
lands within the Transit Overlay District and portions of land north of I-89 in the
vicinity of Hinesburg Road & Old Farm Road; modify income eligibility in
Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards:
Mr. Conner drew attention to letters received from the public. These will be included in the Minutes.
Mr. Simson said that since the last time the Affordable Housing Committee presented this proposal,
they have had a lot of input from CHT, developers, etc. They are trying to make it advantageous to both
buyers and developers and want to be sure there is an adequate inclusion of housing for working
families.
The proposal now is that in development of 12 or more units, for rental property, what the Commission
saw before remains. It is design for people at 80% or below median income. For each unit, the
developer would get an additional offset unit. For homebuyers, the home price must be set at a price
that a buyer at 80% of median income can afford, but the buyer can be at up to 100% of median income.
10% of the homes must be affordable, and the developer would get 2 offset units for each affordable
home.
Mr. Riehle applauded the incredible effort. He said he fully supports this in parts of the city other than
the Southeast Quadrant where 40 units could become 60. Mr. Simson said that they have not
addressed anything beyond the 2 areas noted in the amendment. With Interim Zoning still in effect, it is
not yet resolved where open space is mandated and what will be left for development. The
committee’s job will be to design an inclusionary plan, and the Commission will have the opportunity to
help design this.
Ms. Dooley noted that the committee mimicked the current rules with what is now proposed.
Mr. Klugo said it feels like they are going down the path of “no growth” in the Southeast Quadrant. He
noted receipt of a letter from a resident who could have bought in an area of the city already developed
but chose to build on a “piece of dirt.”
Ms. Ostby noted that density may not always be offset, and it could be a win-win for everyone. She felt
this was a starting point, to go from City Center to the Transit Overlay District. Mr. Conner said there
could be 2 different LDRs so there is transparency regarding the change outside the Transit Overlay
District.
Mr. Riehle asked who would oversee this process. He noted that Burlington has a person who oversees
all apartments. Mr. Conner said they do anticipate the expansion of Inclusionary Zoning will be
4
additional administrative work, and they have begun options for this to be sure it is done properly.
There is a possibility of a rental registry in the future.
Ms. Lord asked if people in affordable units are re-assessed to be sure they still meet the rules. Mr.
Conner said there is verification only when the person gets the unit. They would not be re-assessed if
they got a better job. This is not done anywhere in the country because rentals turn over within a few
years anyway. Ms. Dooley noted that with subsidized units (which these would not be) there is an
annual evaluation.
Mr. Simson stressed that this is an arrangement between a private developer and a tenant/buyer, and it
would be an invasion of privacy to dig into that.
Mr. Klugo noted that all the other people in the development would be subsidizing the affordable units,
so it is not strictly speaking a one-to-one relationship.
Mr. O’Brien noted that checking income every year would disincentivize someone to get a better job.
Ms. DeMichele noted that a number of people living in The Pines are in a Section 8 apartment. She felt
affordable housing is needed to get more families into the city and keep the schools afloat. She felt that
families are now moving to Milton and other communities where they can afford to live, and South
Burlington is losing its tax base.
Rep. Kalacky said affordable housing is a major topic of conversation in Montpelier this year as it is a
state-wide crisis. He added that others in Montpelier support this proposal.
Mr. Langfeldt agreed with the need for affordable housing, but he felt “the devil is in the details.” He
cited the need to consider what the offsets are and to consider that they have to look at other things
which are increasing the cost of housing. He suggested the possibility of a “tool box” of options for the
developer. Mr. Simson noted they did attach information indicating their willingness to engage in that
discussion.
Mr. Klugo stressed that this is not “affordable housing” in the traditional sense. It is workforce housing
for people who want to come into the city.
Mr. Simson said the real goal is to have more housing.
Mr. Gill said he felt they can provide insight into this process and was concerned that they have not yet
been brought into the process. Mr. Klugo said their comments and suggestions would be welcome at
the public hearing.
Mr. O’Brien said he met with the Committee this morning. He applauded them for bringing this to 100%
of median income. He outlined a few of their concerns including the formula for resale, the definition of
gross floor area, and the need for buyers/renters to be able to afford taxes, homeowners association
fees, insurance, etc.
5
Mr. Mittag then moved to warn a public hearing on proposed amendment LDR-19-13 for10 December
2019, 7 p.m. to be divided into two parts: Inclusionary Zoning for the Transit Overlay District and
changes outside the Transit Overlay District related to density bonus, alongside the Planning
Commission Report. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
10. Discuss Recommendations of TDR Interim Zoning Committee:
Mr. Conner suggested that due to the late hour, the Commission move this to a future agenda.
Members agreed.
11. Other Business:
a. Pre-application notice, AT&T Wireless proposed 34’ telecommunication pole, 255 Quarry
Hill Road:
Mr. Conner noted they have now moved the pole out of the Camel’s Hump view.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:02 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
29 OCTOBER 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 29 October 2019, at 7:00
p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted that a forum on Domestic Abuse will be held on 30 October from 5:30-8:30 p.m.
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He also noted that on 4 November, 10 a.m.,
the Affordable Housing Committee will be holding a forum for developers.
5. PUD/Subdivision/Master Plan Project:
a. Presentation and discussion of Natural Resources Working Group recommendations:
Ms. Louisos reviewed the history of the group’s work and directed attention to a memo in the meeting
packet. She noted that the Arrowwood Report will be updated as part of the project, including Class 1
and Class 2 Forest Blocks which were missing from the original report.
The areas for protection have been divided into three categories: Level 1, Level 2, and Hazards.
The hazards category includes the following:
1. Surface Waters
2. 100-year flood plain
3. Class 1 wetlands and their 100-foot buffer
4. Class 2 wetlands and their 50-foot buffer
Ms. Louisos noted that lands in this protected category do not count toward density calculations.
2
Areas included in the Level 1 category include:
1. Class 1 Forest Blocks
2. Rare/threatened/endangered species
3. Class 1 Agricultural parcels
Ms. Louisos said that for lands in the Class 1 category, the conserved land is not removed from density
calculations.
Ms. Ostby asked whether this will remove land from the total density in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ).
Mr. Conner said that in the SEQ there is a base density and a density of what actually in a development.
This would affect the latter. Ms. LaRose added that since she has been with the city, there have been
only 2 developments in the SEQ that were built to their total allowable density.
Ms. La Rose also noted that “hazards” have a history of being defensible in case law for being non-
buildable. Some other tiers of resources tend to reflect “priorities” rather than hazards
and may be less defensible.
Mr. Mittag asked whether Act 171, related to forest fragmentation, has to be taken into account. Ms.
LaRose said that hasn’t applied yet, but it will have to be taken into consideration and addressed in the
next Comprehensive Plan update.
Ms. LaRose said part of the Arrowwood work will be to look at habitat. The goal is to address al the
“sub-bullets,” how the city is taking care of things in the biggest sense.
Ms. Ostby said she wanted to be sure that Hazards and Level 1 have the same level of protection. Mr.
Conner said that can be addressed in the language.
Ms. Louisos noted that Level 2 is not a complete “no build zone,” but there is some protection in place
for certain areas.
Ms. LaRose said a challenge identified by the consulting team is to look at a neighborhood commercial
development where there is a Class 3 buffer. Is it still fair to say the buffer takes up the land and you
can’t have a central playground? Mr. Conner added that half of the resource should be part of the open
space (protected). The question is much should be for resources and how much for amenities for
people.
Ms. LaRose then showed a draft of a Map of Natural Resources for Consideration for zoning. Mr. Riehle
noted there is nothing that precludes and east-west road. Mr. Gagnon said that’s true with specific
criteria.
Ms. LaRose also showed a map of “endangered species” but noted that it is possible those species are
not where they are indicated on the map.
3
Another map, drawn by the committee, indicated where there are forests that aren’t yet transected as
well as riparian areas, etc. Ms. LaRose said that Arrowwood may come back with something different.
In dealing with prime ag soils, the question that arises is how to deal with already developed prime ag
lands. Mr. Gagnon said one possibility is not to map these soils at all. A map of “soils” and
“undeveloped soils” was then shown.
Ms. Louisos said another issue is how to deal with a property that is almost entirely in one of the
protected areas. Mr. Gagnon said if you take an asset that has value to a property owner and say you
can’t build, this has ramifications of a policy nature. Ms. Ostby noted the Open Space IZ Committee may
come back with something different. Mr. Gagnon said there is a lot of overlap. There will be higher
priority properties that make sense. That is when it becomes a policy issue. Mr. Conner said the
Commission can meet with the City Attorney to discuss policy issues.
Ms. LaRose said there is a tendency to see farms as large areas, but it is possible to have farms on 3-12
acres. Mr. Riehle said people with those 3-12 acres could be encouraged to do some farming on their
land that would not be developed.
Mr. Conner then showed an overall map of what might not be buildable (taking all resources together).
He then added land that is developed and land that is undeveloped/unencumbered. He indicated areas
with “redevelopment” potential. He noted that in developable areas, there should not be low density
because then you can’t meet affordability concerns, especially in areas for single family housing. Mr.
Gagnon said the trade-off for conservation is higher density in other areas. Mr. Conner added this is a
concern for “people next door” to those areas.
b. Review detailed outline of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and
Neighborhood Commercial Development (NCD) PUD Standards:
Mr. Riehle commented that in the TND, there is no common open center possible in the middle which
makes it look “Butlerfarmesque.” Mr. Gagnon said these diagrams are more conceptual. Development
can be done another way and still meet the criteria. Ms. LaRose said they have talked about changing
the graphics to reflect that. She added that staff is building a book to include allowable building types in
different PUD types, types of “civic spaces,” etc. Ms. Ostby questioned whether it is necessary to talk
about frontage width.
5. Consider and Assign New Street Name: Johnson Way:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve Johnson Way as presented. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Meeting Minutes of 22 October 2019:
The minutes were not presented for consideration.
4
7. Other Business:
a. Town of Shelburne Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to
Zoning Bylaw, Thursday, 14 November, 7 p.m.:
Mr. Conner said there is some interesting Form Based Code things in this. Staff will look further at it
when there is time.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
____________________________, Clerk
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
SUBJECT: 2020 Regular meeting schedule
DATE: November 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting
Below is the proposed 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Schedule. Meetings are scheduled
for the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month, beginning at 7 pm, except where noted due to holidays:
January 14
January 28
February 11
February 25
March 10
March 24
April 14
April 28
May 12
May 26
June 9
June 23
July 14
July 28
August 11
August 25
September 8
September 22
October 13
October 27
November 10
November 24
December 8
December 22 – PC typically does not hold this
meeting.