HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 12/11/2018SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
11 DECEMBER 2018
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 December
2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, D. Macdonald, M. Ostby, M. Mittag
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dooley
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:
Ms. Louisos asked to add a brief item to Other Business relating to Planning Commission member
appointments to the Interim Zoning committees.
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: Attended Vermont Energy Conference which was both uplifting and depressing. They
noted that if things are left to senior level of government, nothing will happen. Initiative has to be on
the local level. She has also heard that many communities are having trouble recruiting service people
(EMS, firefighters, public works, etc.). Also noted she has driven 1000 miles on half a tank of gas in her
new electric car.
Mr. Riehle noted a CNN story of the sculpture of “a finger” put up by a man who was denied an approval
by his Planning Commission/DRB.
Mr. Conner: Staff has been assisting the Dog Park Committee regarding properties, characteristics,
etc.
Staff has been coordinating with committees that have a role in development review.
They are also working with PUD and subdivision regulations with the consultant.
Staff is also working on the development review for the new City Hall/Library and Senior
Center building.
2
The new Airport noise maps have been delayed until the end of January. 2018 was an
excellent year for the Airport with a significant increase in commercial flights. They are continuing to
work on a Master Plan.
Ashley Parker is working with the Bike-Ped Committee on scoping for projects.
Mr. Conner met the previous day with St. Michael’s College students regarding the
results of their Election Day survey. Vince Bolduc will make a presentation on this to the City Council in
January.
Mr. Conner met with the CCRPC earlier in the day regarding the potential for assistance
with affordable housing efforts. They will see what they can do.
5. Planning Commission Annual Appointments and Meeting Times:
Mr. Conner presided over the election of officers. He opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Riehle nominated a slate of the following:
Jessica Louisos ………… Chair
Bernie Gagnon ……….. Vice Chair
Monica Ostby …………. Clerk
Mr. Macdonald seconded. There were no further nominations. Mr. Conner advised that Mr. Klugo had
indicated via email that he would support this slate. In the vote that followed, the nominated slate of
officers was approved 6-0.
Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting.
Mr. Gagnon moved that the Commission maintain its same meeting schedule (second and fourth
Tuesdays, 7 p.m.). Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Brief staff update from City Council meeting re: Inclusionary Zoning:
Mr. Conner advised that the Council is very interested in this subject and were also concerned with staff
and Commission time in light of other projects. They noted that if the process is not accelerated in parts
of the city not under interim zoning, it sends a “business as usual” signal.
Ms. Dooley noted that the Fair Housing Project has submitted a grant ($1500 request) application to
help with outreach regarding inclusionary zoning. They will find out this month if they have gotten the
grant.
7. Commission Work Session: Planned Unit Development and Subdivision:
a. Work Session on natural resources/open space classification and regulation
3
b. Possible discussion of other elements of PUDs, subdivisions, and related tools
Mr. Conner stressed that provisions for protection of large-scale natural resources will fall under
subdivisions. Anything that subdivides land should look at its context. He also noted that natural
resources regulations would apply city-wide.
Ms. Ostby felt it would be in the city’s interest to conserve land by acquisition rather than to change
zoning to force conservation via TDRs. She would not favor anything that would add new TDRs.
Mr. MacDonald asked if either of the 2 committees will be looking at other ways to acquire land. Mr.
Conner said they may clarify “sending areas.”
Mr. Gagnon said he would like to go into the process with an open mind and would like to hear what the
committees come up with and then mull that over. He did not want to restrain discussion.
Mr. Riehle said he would like to see a realistic map of what full development would look like. He cited
the Cider Mill development where it had looked like that would be more of a wildlife corridor, but it’s
actually a very “small slice.” He felt density isn’t necessarily the issue in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ),
it’s how a development is laid out and how much land is consumed.
Ms. Ostby asked if there was anything in the 2014 study that staff felt was problematic.
Ms. LaRose noted 2 errors in the Comprehensive Plan map. The Primary Conservation map showed a
riparian area that does not match up with the State designated area (this was also wrong on the 2014
plan). She showed this on the map. The same riparian area also does not appear in the text of the
study. Ms. LaRose felt it was never intended that that particular layer, as shown, was meant to be part
of that map. Ms. Louisos noted that the State uses the term “river corridor” which applies to lands the
State regulates. Ms. LaRose noted the map in question does not match the State designation. Mr.
Gagnon said the committee will have to go back to the source data for accuracy.
Ms. LaRose then presented two sets of questions to the Committee:
a. What are the primary resources? How do you want to regulate them?
b. What are the secondary resources? How do you want to regulate them?
She stressed that these resources may be everywhere in the city and not limited to the SEQ.
Mr. Riehle questioned whether 50 feet is enough of a setback from a stream. Mr. Riehle suggested
there might be more of a setback on sloped land because the runoff would be faster.
Ms. Louisos noted that primary resources are not currently regulated as a whole in the city. Ms. Ostby
suggested just adopting Section 12 of the report. Ms. LaRose noted there are 2 draft sets of
amendments to Section 12, one by the CCRPC and the shorter version in the 2014 report. Staff hasn’t
yet compared them. She urged members to study them before adopting anything wholesale. She also
suggested members read the CCRPC report included in their packet.
Members then reviewed Primary Areas as follows (Ms. Louisos said to think of these are areas where
there would be no buildings):
a. Very steep slopes
b. Surface waters, shorelines
4
c. Class 1 and 2 wetlands
d. Flood hazard areas
e. Fluvial erosion threatened species
f. Habitat
g. Water supply
Ms. Louisos said these areas superseded and overlay other zoning districts and transect zones and are
coded T1. She then drew attention to the Development/Management Considerations for these primary
areas which were indicated on the screen. These include “no build” areas, siting to avoid resource
fragmentation, maintaining contiguous areas, etc.
With regard to Secondary Areas, Mr. Conner said there could be some mitigation and areas could be
carefully managed.
Mr. Riehle noted an area near Van Sicklen which was used as mitigation. It is very swampy. He asked if
this is appropriate.
Ms. LaRose said that is a very good policy question. Mr. Riehle felt mitigation was appropriate but it
should be “like to like” or something of that sort. Mr. Gagnon asked for a definition of “mitigation.” He
noted you can mitigate by constructing a wetland. He questioned whether mitigation is conserving
something or building something to match what was there. Mr. Riehle said he would like to see “a good
deal for both sides.” He also wanted mitigation to be in Vermont, preferably in the City of South
Burlington.
Mr. Conner showed a map indicating prime ag soils, which he noted was most of the city. If you said no
building on prime ag soils, you would have no building at all in South Burlington. He noted that all of
downtown Rutland is built on prime ag soils.
Mr. Gagnon noted that areas you might buy for mitigation could be “a tool.” He cited the importance of
prioritizing resources or there will be no development in the entire city.
Mr. Conner noted that the DRB has gotten more sophisticated about delineation of streams and
wetlands setbacks, requiring demarcation (e.g., split rail fencing) so no homeowner thinks the setback is
part of the home’s yard.
With regard to the list of primary resources, Ms. LaRose noted that South Burlington currently has no
regulations regarding building on slopes. Mr. Riehle felt if there is a stream involved, building should be
very restrictive. Otherwise not. Ms. Louisos suggested getting photos of the 20% and 25% slopes in the
city. Mr. Riehle said he would a consideration of an “exceptional property” that wouldn’t have any
impact.
Ms. Louisos noted that areas that are prone to flooding should remain no-build areas. These are 100-
year and more flood plain areas. Ms. LaRose said the city has good regulations for those. Ms. Louisos
noted the setback from Lake Champlain is 150 feet and 100 feet from the Winooski River (measured
from the center out). Small streams are measured 50 feet from the top of the bank via State
5
regulations. She felt the city should have the same regulation. Members agreed. Mr. Gagnon noted
you can be out of the buffer and still be in the flood plain.
Mr. Conner cited the issue of dealing with “intermittent streams.” This could dictate how development
on a property is laid out. Mr. Gagnon felt this should be a secondary consideration. Those “intermittent
streams” are there for a reason.
Mr. Conner noted that some Class 3 wetlands are now considered Class 2 if they touch a Class 2
wetland. He stressed that there are a lot of little “low spots” that are class 3 wetlands or buffers. You
could have a 15-foot “wetland” and 100 feet of “buffer.”
Members agreed that Class 1 and 2 wetlands should be “primary” resources; Class 3 wetlands should be
“secondary” resources.
Regarding endangered species, Ms. LaRose noted that these areas are specifically not identified in order
to keep the curious public away. She indicated that she would consult with the State Wildlife Biologist
to see what he has to say.
With regard to water supply (drinking water), Mr. Conner said the only area he knows of is Red Rocks
Park. There are also a number of private wells in the city, all of which are identified on a map. Mr.
Gagnon said there should be something to cover a group of people getting together to share a well.
With regard to prime ag soils, Mr. Conner noted these are regulated via Act 250. Mr. Gagnon felt it
should be a secondary consideration and that some areas of prime ag soil may not be viable due to
invasive species having grown up.
Mr. Conner said if you regulate everything based on soil, everything is prime ag soil. The question is
what you regulate and how. There is farmland in active use, but do you regulate it the same as a
neighbor’s “farm” which he gave up farming on 30 years ago? Mr. Mittag questioned whether “haying”
was “farming.” Ms. LaRose said it would be very hard to write criteria for the DRB.
Mr. Gagnon questioned whether there is something the Commission wants to do if someone develops 5
acres…a fee? Or set aside 5 acres somewhere else? He said he had no preference either way. Ms. Ostby
felt if it is prime ag soil and has something on the biodiversity map, it should be looked at.
Mr. Conner questioned whether the Commission wants to regulate development since almost all soil in
the city is prime ag. Ms. Louisos questioned whether a small development should be held to the same
standard as a larger one. She suggested part of a development’s open space could be for a small farm.
Mr. Conner noted that if land is developed, the developer will look for the simplest plan. If you say save
prime ag for farming, they will build in the tree canopy.
6
Mr. Gagnon said they will not get everyone to agree to a list; there will be competing interests.
Prioritization will be needed, but the result won’t be unanimous. Anything that doesn’t get conserved
will have to be developed the way the city wants it to be developed.
Mr. Conner said applicants and neighbors have a right to know on the day an application is submitted
what the outcome is likely to be.
Mr. Conner suggested the Commission share a draft of what is proposed with the Natural Resources
Committee, possibly after the next meeting.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Gagnon will be representing the Commission on the Open Space Committee,
and Mr. Mittag will be on the TDR Committee. However, Mr. Mittag will be gone for 2 months. Mr.
Gagnon noted that Ms. Ostby had volunteered to sit in and provide feedback if anyone is absent.
Mr. Gagnon then nominated Ms. Ostby as alternate to IZ committees. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:13 p.m.
Minutes approved by the Planning Commission December 17, 2019