HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 03/10/2020South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, March 10, 2020
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 (7:04 pm)
4. Announcements and staff report (7:09 pm)
5. Review and discuss possible regulatory direction of findings of 2020 South Burlington Habitat Block
Assessment and Ranking (7:12 pm)
6. Establish calendar for public outreach plan for Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources
amendments to the Land Development (8:35 pm)
7. Review and approve minutes of prior meetings (8:45 pm) February 19, 2019; January 28, 2020,
February 25, 2020
8. Other Business (8:37 pm)
9. Adjourn (8:40 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
ensure 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: March 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting
NOTE: the Planning Commission’s meeting scheduled for March 3 did not take place as there
was no quorum present. The staff memo for agenda item #5 below is a repeat from the
memo from that meeting.
Those Commissioners present on March 3rd elected to hold a “listening session” in lieu of the
meeting. Summary notes from that session are included in this packet.
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 (7:05 pm)
City Council discussion of IZ Reports & next steps Monday 3/9. The City Council is scheduled
to have a special meeting Monday evening to discuss the results of Earth Economic Report
and discuss the overall status of Interim Zoning reports & projects and next steps. Please see
their agenda & packet for details
Inclusionary & Affordable Housing Amendments public hearing March 16th. The City Council
will hold their public hearing on LDR-19-13A and LDR-19-13B at their meeting on Monday
night, 3/16 at 7:30 pm. Following the public hearing the Council may choose to adopt the
amendments.
Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources Project webpage. A reminder that all of the
PUD/Natural Resources project information, videos & powerpoints of presentations,
committee & project reports, drafts of regulations, and interactive mapping tool are
available at www.sbvt.gov/LDRupdates.
5. Review and discuss possible regulatory direction of findings of 2020 South Burlington
Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking (7:12 pm)
See attached memo, followed by input received to date via listening sessions on 2/19 and
3/3 and letters received. Note that listening session notes from 3/6 will be provided as soon
as they are available.
6. Establish calendar for public outreach plan for Planned Unit Development / Natural
Resources amendments to the Land Development (8:35 pm)
To be provided at the meeting.
7. Review and approve minutes of prior meetings (8:45 pm) February 19, 2019; January 28,
2020, February 25, 2020
Note that one of these sets of minutes is from February 2019. Prior to this point, only “quick
version” minutes – votes only – were posted. Staff asked Sue to create full minutes from the
meeting recording.
8. Other Business (8:37 pm)
9. Adjourn (8:40 pm)
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Commission review of Habitat Block possible regulatory implementation
DATE: March 3, 2020 Special Planning Commission meeting
This past week representatives from Arrowwood Environmental presented their findings and responded to
questions about their recently completed Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking report.
The Report, the powerpoint presentation, and CCTV’s video recording of the presentation can all be found on
the PUD/Natural Resources Project Website.
[as an aside, for ease of use and sharing, we’ve made a new link to this page: www.sbvt.gov/LDRupdates ]
In addition, on that page we have now also posted a link to the Map Viewer that includes all of the different
information: possible hazards, level 1 resources, parcels, habitat blocks (and connections as shown in the
presentation), current zoning, and for reference, the priority parcels recommended by the Open Space
Interim Zoning Committee. For quick access, here is a direct link to that Map Viewer.
Broad Regulatory Perspective to Date
The Commission previously, on February 3rd, broadly affirmed a series of working decisions. The Commission
was clear with its vote that as more information is known and parts of the PUD project come together, there
may be modifications, but this provides a starting point
This Meeting’s Objectives:
• To examine the ranked habitat blocks individually and collectively and determine how the Commission
would like to proceed
• To provide direction, for the purposes of crafting draft regulatory language, on Habitat Blocks:
a) Should certain parts of the City / property circumstances be exempted (or have ability to reduce)
from Habitat Block restrictions?
b) Should certain habitat blocks, either lower-ranked ones or isolated ones, be excluded from
regulation or treated as Level 2 resources?
c) How should properties with significant amounts of Habitat Blocks (and/or Habitat Blocks &
Hazards, combined), be regulated?
d) How should connections, as discussed last week at the presentation, be addressed?
2
a) Habitat Block regulation in certain parts of the City / Property circumstance:
Staff recommends that the Commission consider the following possible exemptions from Habitat Block
regulation in certain parts of the City. These could be exempted altogether or have a reduced standard
for review.
1. Habitat Blocks within the City Center Form Based
Code. In the map below, this area is shown in deep
purple. The habitat block is purple, and the FBC T4
zone is in the rusty brown color. These areas have
been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as priority
areas for development.
Where wetlands, streams, and river corridors exist,
those standards would still apply.
2. Habitat Blocks located on existing parcels of less than
one (1) ( one and a half - 1.5?) acre in size with one
or more existing dwelling units. There are a number
of parcels on the edges of the forest block; most of
them are 0.25 to .05 acres in size. In rare
circumstances, a parcel of between 0.5 and 1 acre
exists with a home on it. In most of these cases, the
property is home to a stream or other similar
feature, which would prohibit development.
Applicable areas would remain subject to stream &
river standards. Staff recommends this exemption for
practical implementation purposes. Staff has found
no cases of a parcel less than 1 acre in size,
developed with a home, that is located in a core
portion of a forest block.
3
Habitat Blocks located within 30’ (50’?) of an existing
principal building on the same parcel. There are a number
of areas where portions of back yards or fringes of
commercial parcels include habitat block edges. In
practice, these areas are often used either as functional
backyards, lunch spots, etc..
As above, these areas would remain subject to stream and
river standards.
Staff recommends this exemption for practical
implementation purposes. Staff has found no cases of a
parcel less than 1 acre in size, developed with a home,
that is located in a core portion of a forest block.
b) Individual habitat blocks, either lower-ranked ones or isolated ones
In developing the concept for forested blocks, the Commission’s natural resources working group had
contemplated two tiers of forest blocks; those with the greatest value and those worthy of a measure of
conservation but not at the same level. The Commission is encouraged to review the entire list of 26
blocks and determine if certain blocks should either be exempted or reduced in regulation due to their
value to the community.
At last Tuesday’s meeting, Arrowwood Staff were asked whether they saw a natural “break” in the
ranked habitat blocks for their value. Their response was that the rankings do provide guidance as to the
value of each block, and that in addition policy makers should review the role they may have in serving as
stepping stones between blocks. Some may be more isolated than others.
Examples: Lowest ranked blocks (purple to lighter blue)
Isolated Blocks (eg: 18, ranked #23; 25, ranked #25)
Blocks entirely contained within public property (16, ranked #10; 15, ranked #13)
1. Staff recommends that the Commission consider first weather there may be two or more tiers (or
certain blocks eliminated).
2. If yes, then staff would recommend a smaller working group meet to review the 26 habitat blocks in
detail and report back with ideas in 1-2 weeks.
c) Properties with significant amounts of Habitat Blocks (and/or Habitat Blocks & Hazards, combined)
Throughout the City there are properties that have significant amount of Habitat Block and/or Hazards
located upon them. On these parcels, the ability for development potential (density) to be relocated from
one portion of a property to another portion is limited and in some cases is not possible if development is
prohibited.
4
Attached are two analysis maps that staff requested the CCRPC prepare for the Commission’s review of
this question. Both highlight properties with greater than 50% of their land area containing Natural
Resources identified by the Commission.
• The first map shows parcels with 50% of more in habitat blocks, in 10% increments
By the numbers. There are approximately 30 parcels that are at least 80% covered by Habitat
Blocks. Of these:
o 8 are publicly owned (City or Winooski Valley Parks District) or conserved (Nature
Conservancy)
o 1 is UVM-owned and designated as open space (east woods)
o 3 are association common land
o 5 are entirely contained with the SEQ-NRP district (separately from lists above)
o 3 are on extremely steep slopes and are effectively inaccessible.
o Approximately 9 do not fall into the categories above. A few of these have significant
amounts of land in the NRP and/or Hazards, however the forest blocks extend beyond those
boundaries.
• The second map shows Habitat Blocks plus hazards, with the same scale as above.
By the numbers. There are a number of additional parcels that exceed 80% of the land when
Hazards are added to the list. Many of these are small single family homes. There are, however,
perhaps 10-12 additional properties that fall outside the categories as described above that due to
the (possible) existence of these hazards, exceed 80% of the parcel.
Evaluation and options
The Planning Commission’s working group on natural resources spent some time on this topic prior to
having the Habitat Block report, in anticipation of findings such as those above.
These areas, and those with less (but still greater than 50% resource land), could be candidates for
Conservation PUDs or as being some form of NRP zoning (allowing for limited development and/or sale
of TDRs). The conservation PUD type is intended to promote a heavy focus on retention of Natural
Resources, but does allow for a portion of the land – that which is least impactful to the resources) to be
developed upon.
Conservation PUD were initially contemplated for properties exceeding 50% “primary” and “secondary”
resources (roughly described as Hazard and Level 1 today). This was developed prior to the
consideration of Level 1 resources (notably Habitat Blocks) as their own designated areas - tentatively
no-build for principal buildings - on a property rather than being considered as part of a PUD in its
overall evaluation. The Commission should now discuss how it wishes to address properties with high
proportions of resource coverage. Possibilities previously discussed:
a) Consider required Conservation PUD type with permitted limited encroachment into Habitat
Blocks in least impactful areas (density allowance TBD)
o Use land allocations (pie chart) to establish amount of conserved resource land and
developable area; consider Conservation PUD standards to establish construction
parameters
5
b) Consider designating as Natural Resource Protection District (LDR article 9)
o NRP allows 1 home on parcels <15 acres & 3 homes on parcels >15 acres
o NRP is a Transfer of Development Rights sending area
1. Staff recommends the Commission review the above, give initial guidance as to what the
Commission is looking for as an outcome in these cases, and direct staff to review and return to the
Commission with detailed review of one or more tools to accomplish Commission objectives.
d) Consideration of connections between Habitat Blocks, as discussed last week at the presentation?
At last week’s presentation by Arrowwood Environment, there was discussion about the role of
connections between the various Habitat Blocks. The presenters discussed that they had performed a
simplified assessment of connections between habitat blocks. These are included on the Map View
above. Aaron Worthley asked that we share the following caveat about the connections a& supporting
habitat:
Important note: These 2 layers (connecting and supporting habitat) were developed as components of a
scoring and ranking method in support of the primary goal- identifying and ranking Forest Habitat Blocks.
These are 2 of the 10 parameters contributing to the ranking. Identification of these features was NOT the
primary goal of this project and therefor we did not spend considerable time reviewing and correcting the
output. The connecting and supporting habitat were derived directly from landcover data provided by
others, and were not field verified, or subjected to thorough QA review or manual correction.
Investigation of potential wildlife corridors with boundaries sufficient to stand on their own in the
regulatory arena would be a separate project.
As part of this discussion, Jessica asked to take a look at how these connections relate to identified
Hazards. Users of the Map View can overlay these. Staff has prepared a rough overlay of these resources.
1. Staff recommends the Commission discuss broadly how it would like to use these findings prior to
discussion of specific tools.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Listening Session Meetings Notes
Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources Standards Proposed Amendments
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Date: February 19, 2020
Time & Location: 5 pm, South Burlington City Hall
Planning Commission members present: Monica Ostby, Ted Riehle, Michael Mittag
Staff present: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner
Attendees: Rosanne Greco, Kelly Lord, Darrilyn Peters, Louise Hammond, Susan Hartman, Sarah Dopp
Meeting summary:
Cathyann LaRose gave a brief overview of the PUD/Natural Resources project: goal is to get into
questions about PUD work, but ultimately Commissioners decide how to spend the time. City website
(www.sbvt.gov/LDRupdates ) has been updated to include latest documents on this project, and the
presentation made to City Council Feb 11th
• Several questions about the role of chapter 12 (environmental protection standards) updates in
this project; description of levels – Hazards, Level 1, Level 2
• Concern expressed that the Open Space Committee work is being “minimized” due to public
response relating to full lots being tagged.
• Request from K. Lord to see Arrowwood mapping overlaid with maps showing connectivity.
• Ms. Ostby described the purpose of the Arrowwood Report – to provide the Planning Commission
with details to define forest habitat blocks, information needed to establish “level 1” natural
resources
• Question about changes to NRP zoning district- will it contract? How does it compare with
Arrowwood mapped Habitat Blocks?
• Comments recommending changes to order of priority- that TDRs should be done before PUDs, or
done altogether
• Question on whether density will or will not be "assigned" to "hazard" land.
• Discussion about whether to remove density from SEQ NRP- Commissioners suggested that we
keep full density for TDR purpose only. Ms. LaRose stated that it will definitely need to be a
discussion point for the Commission before adoption. Mr. Mittag noted that a developer had
suggested that a portion of a value of a TDR be considered for hazard land
Meeting concluded at 6:20 pm
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Listening Session Notes
Planned Unit Development / Natural Resources Standards Proposed Amendments
South Burlington Land Development Regulations
Date: March 3, 2020
Time & Location: 7 pm, South Burlington City Hall
Planning Commission members present: Monica Ostby, Ted Riehle, Jessica Louisos
Staff present: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Attendees: Tom Bailey, Andrew Chalnick, Allan Strong, Ray Gonda, Curt Montgomery, Ed Von Turkovich,
Frank Von Turkovich, Evan Langfeldt, Andrew Gill, Mike Simoneau, Peter Kahn, Chris Jensen
Summary:
• Overview of the work of an informal housing working group:
Tom Bailey provided a summary of a housing working’s group’s efforts to look at undeveloped
parcels in the city. They’ve examined 63 to date – many of the same parcels examined by the Open
Space IZ Committee – and are examining their development potential. They have looked at water,
sewer, and natural gas infrastructure in the City and used the Planning Commission’s Hazards and
Level 1 resources to establish where development would not likely take place.
Staff was asked if the water, sewer, and natural gas data could be put in the interactive map viewer.
Staff to follow up
• Habitat Blocks & Supporting habitat
Andrew Chalnick inquired about the scope of the Arrowwood Study and asked whether should it
include more on the connections between habitat blocks.
Allan Strong spoke about the Habitat Blocks and supporting habitat. He indicated that supporting
habitat was in some respects as a "buffer" to a certain extent. Chris Jensen indicated that in her
reading of the report, the forest blocks themselves included a buffer from development.
Frank Von Turkovich said he would like to learn more about factors in establishing the Habitat
Blocks, especially predator species. He noted that the presenters had indicated that they could live,
hunt, eat, but not breed. He indicated that he has been talking to wildlife experts about viability of
the concept of having predator species thrive in an urban setting. Also looking at deer and problems
of deer concentrations in urban environments.
Peter Kahn said that it seems like what's been missing in this analysis is what is available to be built -
an analysis of likely units and from that, a baseline and when apply new PUD standards and habitat
blocks. Seems like that would be essential.
2
Mr. Kahn recommended using an engineer to look what could realistically be done.H recommended
not just using straight math. Straight math gives a false high on likely development, where in reality
there are roads, open spaces, and other factors that lead to less total development on a parcel.
• Staff was asked to provide a summary of where the Commission is so far on habitat blocks
Curt Montgomery said that in his review of Article 12 (dated November 2019), it shows Habitat
Blocks as being unusable for transfer of density.
Ms. Louisos indicated that has been updated, that development potential in intended to be able to
be transferred within a PUD.
• Habitat Blocks and Regulation
Andrew Gill asked whether the Commission has considered an approach similar to Act 250 where
the habitat block's values are protected but the development may continue. Could even include a
payment for impacts like the Prime Ag soils.
Mr. Bailey recommended that the Commission consider time as a factor. How do we want the
habitat blocks to evolve in our city in the future?
Mr. Gill said that in speaking with other on this, have discussed how the mortality rate for predator
species. Should maybe consider this - proximity to major roadways - as a factor.
Mr. Strong said that it’s important to note that the Arrowwood Report and the Open Space
Committee have relatively similar results. Some similar criteria, some different. These are the most
important areas in the City.
Mr. Strong recommended it be considered that while wildlife is an important factor, also water
quality and other reasons to consider conservation. Recommend think about conservation PUDs
adjacent to these areas. Possibly TDR sending areas. Possibly right of first refusal. Mr. Von Turkovich
said that if this moving in the direction, then that's good. Concerned about simply regulating out of
value. If can reconcile the habitat and the other values - housing - then that would be very good.
Mr. Riehle said - would like to have be a project where there's buy-in across the board. Using the
Inclusionary Zoning as a model.
Evan Langfeldt said all the developers in this room want to build smartly, including natural
resources. Support a collaborative approach.
Mr. Bailey inquired about the source of original NRP zoning, and asked whether the Planning
Commission would consider updating it a part of this?
• Mr. Gill asked what is current thinking on prime ag soils and on steep slopes.
Ms. Louisos said that these would need to be visited soon.
The listening session concluded at 8:20 pm.
Attached to this listening session are two documents:
1. Map shown by Mr. Bailey; 2. Letter from Sandy Dooley, who could not attend in person
1
Paul Conner
From:Sandra Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2020 7:12 PM
To:Jessica Louisos; 'monica ostby'
Cc:Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose; 'John Simson'; vbolduc@smcvt.edu; thomasbracken802@gmail.com;
lblack-plumeau@vhfa.org
Subject:EXTERNAL: Input for this evening's PC meeting
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hello Jessica and Monica,
I will not be attending this evening’s PC meeting as I just got home from working at the
polls and am exhausted.
Here are my comments:
1. Please reconsider your tentative support for not allowing any density or TDR
value for the properties or portions of properties that are protected from
development due to high value as natural resources. Perhaps, you do not want
to give these properties the same base density value as the non-protected parts
of the property; for example, you might want to give these properties one-half the
base density value of the non-protected area. Why do I say this? Two
reasons: (1) Having protected natural resources on a property improves the
investment value of the property. If one were to compare similar developments
on two properties—one that includes a protected natural resource area to one
that does not, in my assessment the former would be more attractive to buyers
than the latter. My second reason is that we need housing and we need to keep
stable or even increase the density allowed if we are to make a dent in
combatting the scarcity of housing available for purchase or rental in South
Burlington. If you place zero value in terms of transferrable density value on the
protected natural resource areas, then you have reduced the number of housing
units that can be built in South Burlington. This is directly in opposition to what is
needed to address the housing crisis. Much of the housing affordability crisis is
caused by lack of supply relative to demand. If the PC were to give zero density
value to the undevelopable parts of the city, then you are in effect contributing to
the problem, which IMHO is not good City policy.
2
2. The second comment relates to a concept that Monica presented at our
affordable housing committee meeting this morning. That concept was that in
some areas of the City, the City might want to disallow the provision of bonus
units (as opposed to offset units) comparable to those available in the proposed
Transit Overlay District Inclusionary Zoning LDRs to developers that choose,
voluntarily, to build more affordable housing than is required. The maximum
achievable density allowed using offset and bonus units is 50% greater than the
base density. I strongly disagree with this concept. If my memory serves me
correctly, the maximum base density permitted in the SEQ is R7. Increasing this
by 50% would produce R10.5. Attractive housing developments can be built,
suitable for specified areas of the SEQ, using the R10.5 density maximum. To
make this level of density consistent with smart growth principles, the LDRs
might require that any density increase beyond that resulting from Offset units for
Inclusionary Housing be built in clusters. Again, not allowing the bonus units is
bad for three reasons: (1) it can be done in an aesthetically pleasing way, (2) not
to allow the bonus units limits the amount of affordable housing that might be
built; and (3) it also limits the allowable density which exacerbates the affordable
housing and overall housing shortage/crisis.
3. Basically, please be mindful that any policy that unnecessarily reduces allowable
density on properties that are appropriate for housing development is simply
contrary to what the City needs to address the affordably housing crisis.
Sandy
March 3, 2020
Kevin Dorn
City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
kdorn@sburl.com
(802) 846-4107
Dear Kevin:
As I'm sure you can appreciate, the recent presentation of the Open Space Report and the Habitat
Block Assessment and Ranking issued by the city's consultant, Arrowwood Environmental, have
raised significant concerns with property owners. As a result, a number of persons and entities
whose lands are affected by the proposals and/or who have concerns with the current direction
and process have decided to organize as a group to participate directly and with a singular voice,
and to organize interested parties and residents around good regulatory outcomes that account
for both the environmental and sustainability goals of the City, but also for the economic and
physical growth needed to sustain future generations of South Burlington, and to ensure a
sufficient tax base to maintain a degree of affordability for existing residents. The organization is
called "Smart Growth South Burlington."
Smart Growth's main purpose is to focus on the city's new planning and zoning initiatives to try
to help make them appropriate and fair.
Smart Growth South Burlington believes in the following principles:
• Fair Treatment. All property owners must be treated equitably; the city should not
threaten to "take" owners' properties without just compensation. The burden of new
regulations should not fall solely on the shoulders of a few property owners whose lands
have been targeted for novel experiments in urban planning, including use as "habitat"
for "predator species."
• Reasonable Growth. The city needs to embrace carefully planned initiatives to provide
new energy efficient housing for residents and their children in both the more urban and
the traditional neighborhood format. South Burlington needs to continue to be a great
community to establish or expand a business and to provide a for future job and
homestead opportunities for our children, not a place where vast sums of time and
money are spent to erect regulatory "walls" to keep newcomers out. It is unconscionable
that graduates of South Burlington's schools have to leave the community because new
housing development is so restricted and obstructed. South Burlington needs to promote
carefully planned growth to accommodate the needs of business and employers in order
to provide jobs and to generate the tax revenues to pay for the amenities that our
community wants to provide.
• Wild Animal Habitat. South Burlington should respect sound science-based practices that
recognize the risk to animals and residents from "habitat" creation plans. The city needs
to hear from residents before it takes action to encourage the migration of large numbers
of white tail deer into the city. Other communities in Vermont and throughout the
country are struggling to cope with the problems caused by rapidly expanding deer
populations. The city needs to hear from other experts and carefully assess the risks of
interactions between animals such as bobcat, fisher and coyotes and pets, adults and
children before it takes steps to promote the arrival of such predator species in corridors
designed to run through our existing neighborhoods.
• Environmental Protection and Ecological Responsibility. Pushing new development away
from the core areas of Chittenden County is unwise and unsustainable from an
environmental standpoint. South Burlington is home to many businesses and a large
percentage of the county's retail establishments. Preventing future residential
development close to those facilities and forcing employees and patrons to drive farther
on crowded roads is ecologically irresponsible.
The group has also decided to consolidate resources and engage legal counsel to analyze and
assess the members' legal rights which we believe are currently being overlooked. All of that
information will be offered to the city in a constructive and professional manner to try to achieve
a better outcome.
We know that the city has been willing to work with other ad-hoc groups in the past to deal with
matters of importance to the community. Smart Growth South Burlington stands ready to engage
constructively with the city to deal sensibly with these issues, and, to that end, is willing to bring
experts, ideas and energy to the table to help with the work. We sincerely hope that the city will
be willing to try to work with us, too.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
Smart Growth South Burlington
Peter Kahn - Bartlett Real Estate, Curt Montgomery - Bartlett Real Estate,
Charlotte and Brad Gardner, Joe Larkin - Larkin Realty, Jeff Nick - JL Davis Realty, Evan
Langfeldt - O’Brien Brothers, Andrew Gill - O’Brien Brothers, Bob Bouchard - Pizzagalli
Properties, Frank and Ed von Turkovich - Spear & Swift Associates, Tom and Laura
O’Connell - Windjammer Hospitality Group
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
19 FEBRUARY 2019
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 February 2019, at
7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag
ALSO PRESENT: C. LaRose, City Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning (arrived near the end
of the meeting); F. Von Turkovich
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:
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form.
5. Reports on Committee Assignments:
TDR Interim Zoning (IZ) Committee:
Mr. Mittag reported on the first three meetings on the TDR IZ Committee. The first meeting was more
of an information session with City Attorney Lafferty. The Committee’s purpose was stated as being as
much to provide housing as to protect open land. The second meeting involved very broad discussion as
to whether TDRs serve a conservation purpose. A member of the public who has sold her land but
retained the TDRs has been attending the meetings. At the third meeting, each Committee members
was asked to work on various assignments: ways to make TDRs more viable; whether to terminate TDRs
and replace them with zoning; conservation values; a fact sheet on the current status of TDRs. Mr.
Mittag noted that the representative from the Economic Development Committee has not been
attending the TDR meetings. He also noted that there are a lot of divergent views about TDRs and how
they may affect climate change.
Ms. Ostby added that one thing that came up at the meetings is that some of the land owned by the City
(e.g., Underwood property) still has TDRs associated with it, and it was noted that the City has to be
careful when they have a financial interest in property under discussion.
2
Mr. Mittag concluded by saying that creating a market for TDRs outside the Southeast Quadrant will be
a critical issue.
6. Status Report on PUD Project:
Ms. Louisos thanked staff for the update and work schedule/time line provided. She also thanked Mr.
Klugo for having pushed to get this information.
Ms. Louisos said the Commission had wanted more information on Traffic Overlay standards and
whether that would follow the IZ work. Ms. LaRose said staff is trying to make sure that the Traffic
Overlay District will cut down on turning movements. She cited the situation at Gracey’s (Hinesburg
Rd/Williston Rd) where nothing can be done because of the traffic “budget.” The hope is to allow for
redevelopment but not to add additional trips. The traffic budget at that location is so low that no
changes can be made.
Ms. Ostby noted that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) say there should be an effort to meet
the “stretchable” code. She asked whether there can be more strict rules such as requiring all buildings
in a PUD to have a solar ready roof. She felt the baseline should be more aggressive. Mr. Mittag noted
this was discussed at the Form Based Code City Center meetings, and an expert told them that having a
solar ready roof adds only 1% to the cost of the building. Ms. LaRose said that at a meeting with the
Energy Committee a year ago, they were more focused on transportation energy (e.g., people getting to
work).
Ms. LaRose said staff is looking at options, possibly having 5 options with developers having to meet 3 of
them. There is also talk about ground-mounted solar. Ms. Ostby said more aggressive requirements
would be for developers to meet all 5 options or if you do only 3, you have to have TDRs involved.
Ms. LaRose said if the Commission spends months on specific items, it could slow down the PUD project.
She stressed that if PUDs become “a pain,” people won’t use them and the city will get bad
development. She noted that a number of new projects will not be subject to PUDs. She also noted that
the Energy Committee member of the IZ Committee should be taking the Committee’s ideas back to the
Energy Committee.
Ms. Ostby noted the possibility of an “all committee meeting” the week of March 25th to bring everyone
up to date. Members felt this would help committees know where to put their emphasis and could
also air some bigger policy questions.
7. Review Specific Items of the Subdivision/PUD project:
Ms. Louisos noted the entire packet is on the website. She said the concept is that a chart would
contain a menu of building types, and each type would have standards. There could be a range of
building types in each PUD type to avoid a ‘monoculture’ look. Some things would be mandated, others
suggested.
3
Mr. Riehle noted that where he lives, there are 6 homes which are “backfills,” and properties are being
subdivided to allow achieve these lots. He felt they could wind up with the same number of acres of
these homes as in a PUD but not built with any coordination.
Ms. LaRose said certain types of buildings are not appropriate in certain types of PUDs. They are trying
to cover the elements that density alone doesn’t address. She said a 12-plex building can look very nice,
but there are no current regulations to keep a 12-plex from looking like a big box. The hope is that the
housing tools will address this concern. She noted that a 6-plex with a single door is different from a 6-
plex with 6 separate entrances.
Mr. Von Turkovich said he would like to see the DRB empowered to have the ability to determine what
is appropriate in a given development. There could be limits on building heights, but architects should
be able to show their creativity.
Ms. LaRose noted the jarring effect of the 30-unit building next to single family home on Allen Road.
Mr. Mittag felt that if the key elements are present in a development, the DRB should have some
leeway. Mr. Von Turkovich said they are committed to meeting the affordability goals, and the way to
do that is with multi-family buildings. Underground parking adds to the cost of the building. He also
noted that adding multi-family buildings can’t be done in their zoning area, and they would like the
option for 6 or 12 unit buildings. Mr. Riehle said the problem is that some developers wouldn’t do that
in a tasteful way. Mr. Von Turkovich said the DRB needs to be strong enough to say “that’s not good.”
Mr. Riehle replied that if there aren’t regulations, the DRB doesn’t have a strong position. Ms. Louisos
said the DRB shouldn’t be in a position where the regulations are so “wishy-washy” they can’t make a
decision. There should be enough checkpoints so the DRB has a framework to work with.
Ms. LaRose said staff does not feel the new regulations will be a detriment to developers. They will
alleviate a lot of fears as to what a building will look like and will prevent “eyesores.”
Mr. Von Turkovich said he felt height, density and parking requirements make sense. He noted that the
Red Rocks buildings are still a design people like. Newer “boxy” buildings people don’t like, even though
they are the same size.
Ms. Ostby stressed that affordable units need to look the same as other units and must be scattered
throughout a development.
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with cottage clusters and where bylaws fit in. She felt there has to be
a structure or there could be problems down the road. There will also be shared property. Ms. LaRose
said there are ways to split up property so that doesn’t happen. Ms. LaRose also noted there is a
question as to whether a stormwater pond should have its own “lot.” They are waiting to see what the
consultant has to say about that.
Mr. Mittag felt the Commission should stay away from architectural design standards. Ms. Louisos said
the question is how to have enough room for creativity. Ms. LaRose said they need to determine the
4
elements that separate “good” from “bad” (e.g., doors, roof treatments, windows, etc.). They can make
a big difference. She noted there are some beautiful 8-plexes and some ugly duplexes. She cited some
old Victorians that are now 8-plexes. She said that anything that breaks up a façade makes a big
difference in how a building feels.
Ms. Louisos cited the Bayberry Commons buildings in Burlington which seem to fit into the landscape.
She noted that people don’t want to drive by something big or a have something big beside them. Ms.
LaRose cited a potential problem with the O’Brien development where there are single family and
duplexes currently and where they will be coming in with a 30-unit building.
Ms. Louisos felt there may be a place for something bigger in the right context, but there have to be
specifics about windows, doors, building breaks, etc.
Mr. Von Turkovich said the concept of garden apartments can be done poorly but in the hands of a good
designer can be very attractive. The same is true of a ranch style. He cited the need to get density in a
building with underground parking, but that means a building has to be 68 feet wide.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission will be hearing about a square footage cap on units. She noted that
“unit” is not now defined. Ms. LaRose said that may have to be a special conversation as it would be a
huge policy change and will impact some people.
Ms. Ostby didn’t feel carriage houses have to be in the rear. They could be placed in front of homes
with large front yards or a home in front could be turned into a carriage home with another home built
behind it.
Ms. Ostby asked whether any of the PUDs would get into urban storefronts. Ms. LaRose said absolutely.
There would be guidance given, especially in PUD types that are predominately residential.
Mr. Conner arrived as members were addressing parking standards. He reminded members that they
had been presented with 5 options. Staff is proposing the middle of these options, eliminating parking
standards except for multi-family residential developments.
Mr. Mittag felt there should be maximums set. He asked whether they can stipulate that parking spaces
should be pervious. Mr. Conner said Public Works has said the technology isn’t quite there yet. They
tried this in one place and it crumbled. The functionality is dependent is maintenance.
Ms. Ostby suggested that over a certain number of parking spaces should require a charging station.
She also suggested the possibility of converting parking spaces into bike parking.
Mr. Conner noted that the literature regarding maximums said it makes sense some of the time. He felt
there would be pushbacks from developers. Ms. Louisos noted the Commission was told that some
retailers won’t come if they don’t get the parking they want. Ms. LaRose stressed that this needs very
careful study because there so many different types of users.
5
Mr. Conner said they would like to get the new parking concept approved now if the Commission is
ready. He cited a number of smaller businesses that can’t expand because they don’t have space for
more parking required by the current standard. Members were OK with moving forward.
8. Consider a possible sub-committee to review potential changes in the Form Based Code City
Center Area:
Ms. Louisos said it would be unfortunate to push this off. The City Manager is in support of it as well.
Members discussed the makeup of such a committee and agreed on 3 Planning Commissioners and
someone from the Form Based Code Committee on the technical side. Messrs. Riehle, MacDonald and
Klugo were suggested as Commissioners.
Mr. Mittag then moved to establish a subcommittee to consider applications for changes to the Form
Based Code. The Committee would consist of 3 Planning Commissioners and a design professional and
would require a vote of 3 members to bring a proposal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
9. Meeting Minutes of 11 September, 25 September, 9 October and 23 October:
Mr. Mittag noted the following amendments:
11 September: His statement was that the SEQ and areas of educational agriculture should be excluded
from Inclusionary Zoning.
25 September: p.1, typo of the words “saying” and “PUD”
9 October: -p. 6, 3rd paragraph should read: There is no sense to have TDR send and receiving areas in
the Southeast Quadrant.
23 October, p. 4: “Noah” should read “Mr. Hyman.”
Mr. Mittag then moved to approve the minutes of 11 and 25 September and 9 and 23 October as
amended. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
10. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:35 p.m.
___________________________________, Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
28 JANUARY 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 January 2020, 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, D. MacDonald
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; S. Dooley, J. Simson,
A. Chalnick, A. Gill, P. O’Brien, R. Greco, S. Dopp, J. Nick, R. Jeffers, P. O’Brien, E. Langfeldt, C. Jensen, P.
Kahn, T. Bailey, C. Montgomery
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:
Ms. Greco asked about public participation. Ms. Louisos said at times the Commission will hold
discussion among themselves, and she then will then ask for public comment.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos noted that she and Ms. LaRose made a presentation to the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He added that the Regional Planning
Commission is undertaking a study of the full I-89 corridor. The first public meeting will be on 30
January, 6 p.m., at South Burlington City Hall.
Ms. Louisos reminded members that their next regular meeting on 11 February will be a joint meeting
with the City Council.
5. Continued Review of Proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendments:
a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing inclusionary Zoning requirements and extend applicability to
include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center
Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm
Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overland District.
b. LDR-19-13B: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce
applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed inclusionary zoning standards
2
(LDR-19-13A), and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued
affordability for all remaining parts of the City:
Mr. Conner reviewed action since the last meeting including language changes (e.g., “habitable area”).
Staff also cleaned up the lot coverage question so additional offset units can be accommodated.
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of correspondence from Janet Bellavance. Mr. Conner showed the land area
she was concerned about on the map. It is excluded from Interim Zoning (along Hinesburg Road).
Ms. Jeffers felt there is still a vagueness in Section 18.02D and there should be more definition regarding
integration of affordable units into a project. She felt the language should indicate who this is
determined by.
Mr. Langfeldt expressed appreciation for the language staff has provided and said they now can support
the amendments.
Ms. Greco questioned the use of “vicinity of” and asked if there will be a map reference. Ms. Louisos
said there is a map reference. Mr. Conner said the City Attorney is comfortable with the language
alongside the map.
Ms. Greco asked why there would be affordable units outside the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Dooley
said this particular area was specifically excluded by the City Council from Interim Zoning because they
felt it was appropriate for affordable housing. There is bus service down Hinesburg Road.
6. Possible Action to approve and submit proposed amendments and Report to City Council:
Ms. Ostby moved to approve Land Development Regulation amendments #LDR-19-13A and LDR-19-13B
as presented and to approve the Planning Commission Report and to submit both to the City Council.
Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Ms. Louisos thanked the Affordable Housing Committee for their work in bringing these amendments to
the Planning Commission.
7. Presentation and discussion of Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Standards:
Ms. Louisos said this is a preview of what will be presented to the City Council on February 11th. Mr.
Conner then explained the purpose and the connection to the work of other committees.
Ms. LaRose showed a map of what coverage looks like now, including built-on lots and various
conservation areas (NRP, Public entity, association land, etc.). She noted that the existing regulations
were not always reflecting the goals for “great places” (affordability, walkability, green space, etc.).
What was needed were “thoughtful patterns” to organize natural resources and create community-
oriented neighborhoods.
3
Resources to be considered include water quality, hazards, wildlife habitat, agricultural sustainability,
climate change impact, and scenic views (a future project). Ways to plan for these resources include
LDRs, public purchase and conservation.
Mr. Conner then addressed the regulating of natural resources. He showed a map of hazards (river
corridors, steep slopes of 20% or more, river corridors, floodplains) and Level 1 resources (habitat blocks
and steep slopes (15-20%). He then showed a map of habitat blocks and surface waters and streams.
The habitat blocks are newly produced from the 2020 Arrowwood Report, which was delivered last
week to the City. Their report will be on the website tomorrow and will be included in the joint meeting
with the City Council. There are 26 habitat blocks of 20 acres or more identified in the report. Some of
these cross borders into adjacent communities. They are ranked from lower to higher.
Ms. Louisos said another discussion will be needed as to how to regulate Level 1 and Level 2 resources.
Mr. Conner said where it relates to PUDs, development rights could be transferred from Level 1 habitat
to elsewhere in the PUD. He then showed a map of what it would look like to respect resource patterns.
Ms. LaRose then showed a slide of other work the Commission has been doing regarding resource
protection (Chapter 12 updates, river corridors, Chapter 15, etc.) and another slide of work being done
by other committees that is feeding into the Commission’s work (Interim Zoning Open Space and TDR
Committees). Mr. Conner showed the map of properties identified by the Open Space Committee for
conservation. He noted that the Committee identified entire parcels, not just the portion containing the
resource.
Mr. Gagnon noted that the habitat blocks are partial parcels.
Mr. Kahn noted that if the 2 maps are combined there won’t be a lot of developable area left. Mr.
Conner showed that map.
Mr. Conner then showed a slide of how hazards/habitat/open space relate to each other. He noted the
possibility of habitat properties becoming sending TDRs.
Mr. Conner said that open space properties will require a decision by the City Council. These could be
acquired or put on the Official City Map (Mr. Conner explained how this process works). The Council’s
decision will be made based on the Comprehensive Plan and a study being done by Earth Economics
regarding the economic value of the 25 identified properties by the Open Space Committee.
Mr. Bailey noted he is part of a group identifying where housing could go in the city. He noted that
housing could be possible on parts of the 25 identified properties.
Ms. Jensen noted that the Open Space Committee’s charge was not related to development, but the talk
now is of using those parcels in a regulatory concept. Ms. Louisos said that decision hasn’t yet been
made. Mr. Kahn added that the Open Space report “blanking out” entire parcels doesn’t mesh with
what he is hearing tonight. Ms. Ostby said the Commission is seeing this for the first time.
4
Mr. Chalnick asked what the charge to Arrowwood was. Ms. Louisos said it was to identify habitat.
Members then addressed the PUD concepts. Ms. LaRose said the intent of the new PUD regulations will
be to create great neighborhoods, not just streets with houses on them. The Commission will try to
reframe the plan, being thoughtful about streets, shared public spaces, transportation connections,
utility connections, transitions between PUD types. Development on Shelburne Road will look different
from Southeast Quadrant development.
Ms. LaRose then showed a chart of the proposed PUD types: Conservation PUD (with large portions of
resources on a property), campus PUD (office parks, research centers, etc.), Traditional Neighborhood
Development, and Neighborhood Commercial Center (near a transit loop). Issues to be addressed
include: what becomes of non-resource spaces in a Conservation PUD, how resources relate,
distribution of residential units, and non-residential distribution.
Mr. Conner said that in each PUD type there is the expectation that small piece of the property will go to
a “civic space” (e.g., a park). Agriculture can plug in as well (possible community farm of 1-2 acres).
With each PUD type there will be a maximum density and also a minimum density for the developable
area. This gives the public an idea of what to expect.
Ms. LaRose cited the need for “trade-offs” in order to be efficient with the land. Some properties will
have choices of a mix of uses, styles, etc. Developers will be given a range of options to choose from. A
4-acre threshold will require a PUD. Subdivision will be very straightforward, and all regulations will
have to be met.
Ms. LaRose noted that a guidebook is being drafted which will show potential neighborhood
components such as open space types (civic open spaces such as parks as well as private open spaces for
such uses as hotels), street types (what happens at intersections), building types (e.g., a neighborhood
store front), etc. There would be a pallet of options assigned to each PUD type.
Ms. LaRose noted there is still work to be done before adoption of the PUD regulations. Site plan
standards will follow adoption of the PUD regulations. There is a draft of Master Plan Standards, which
the Commission has not yet seen. Subdivision standards are currently in legal review. Mr. Conner said
the hope is to get a complete first draft in February, though this may be a push.
For the meeting with the City Council, Mr. Gagnon suggested specific use of slides. Mr. Riehle said it is
important to get the grand picture of the city, then talk about PUDs in context.
Mr. O’Brien asked whether an applicant will be able to field verify what is on a map. Ms. Louisos said
they haven’t looked at that. Some things on the map have a very specific process defined by the State.
Ms. Dopp asked about the role of the Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Conner said the Commission
will be connecting with them and with other committees. He added that the work done by committees
as much as 5 years ago is a part of the grand plan. Ms. LaRose noted that the first draft of Chapter 12
was from work done in 2012 that included the Natural Resources Committee.
5
Mr. Nick noted that he had submitted a plan regarding the Hill Farm a few years ago. He noted that the
Hill Farm is one of the 25 identified open space pieces. He asked if the plan they submitted is still OK.
Mr. Gagnon said several things could happen: the land could be acquired by the city, it could be put on
the Official City Map, or it could be targeting for development with PUD standards applying. Mr. Nick
asked who would make that decision. Mr. Gagnon said if the property is put on the Official City Map,
the city would have the right of first refusal to buy it. If the city did not buy it, the PUD standards would
apply to any development. Mr. Conner stressed that how to address the 25 identified open space
properties is a conversation that is just beginning. Ms. LaRose added that the Planning Commission
hasn’t adopted a plan for addressing those 25 properties.
Mr. Montgomery read from the opening paragraph of the Open Space Report. He noted the difference
of the Arrowwood Study’s use of scientific data. The Open Space Report cites the need for field studies
to verify existing resources. He asked how a report with no scientific basis identify 25 priority
conservation areas. Mr. Montgomery noted that the TDR Report also uses no scientific data because it
used the Open Space Report for decisions regarding sending and receiving areas.
Ms. Louisos said the Commission is very well aware of this and will be very conscious as to how it uses
the maps. She added that the Commission had asked for the Arrowwood study to get a more scientific
approach. Ms. Ostby said the 2 reports say similar things but without lot lines.
Mr. Langfeldt said the Open Space report is not an equitable approach. He felt that if 10% of a property
has a resource, you don’t identify the whole property. Ms. Dopp said the Open Space Committee were
volunteers who highlighted parcels that need a closer look because they have distinctive things on them.
Mr. Conner added that some of the impetus for looking at parcels was to determine how to use the
Open Space Fund to get properties not in a regulatory manner. The Committee’s charge specifically did
not say how to use the results. Mr. Conner noted that Staff and the Committee’s chair are figuring out
how to reach out to the owners of the identified properties.
Mr. Gill said part of the pressure of the Open Space Report is that it appears to be the “third leg” of a
stool for something that will be decided in February. He asked if this is true. Ms. LaRose said the
Planning Commission is trying to hear everything, and it is hard to say where things overlap. The
Commission has not proposed any regulations related to the Open Space Map. They have not identified
them as “no development” areas.
8. Continued Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report:
It was noted that the Commission’s representative to that committee was not present.
Mr. Conner asked if there are “bullet points” that the Commission can agree on to bring to the City
Council.
Members asked for a special meeting at which Mr. Mittag could be present. Staff will poll members for
an appropriate date for that meeting.
6
9. Other Business:
a. City of Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 11 February, 6:45 p.m.
b. City of Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to the
Winooski Unified Land Use and Development Regulations, 13 February, 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Conner noted that both Commissions are looking to reduce parking standards.
10. Meeting Minutes of 10 December 2019 and 14 January 2020:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 10 December 2019 and 14 January 2020 as presented.
Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
25 FEBRUARY 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 25 February 2020, 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
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Dorn, City Manager; City Councilors H.
Riehle, T. Barritt, D. Kaufman; A. Worthley, J. Parsons, D. Crawford, M. Simoneau, A. Gill, A. Strong, R.
Greco, S. Dooley, S. Dopp, D. Murdoch, H. Godin, R. Gonda, other members of the public
The initial portion of this meeting was a Joint Meeting with the City Council.
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:
Ms. Greco showed a brief video regarding “natural climate solutions” that can help eco-systems bounce
back.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
No reports were presented.
5. Presentation and Commission/Council Discussion of completed 2020 South Burlington Habitat
Block Assessment and Ranking:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history of the study and noted that the Planning Commission has given broad
guidance on the use of this tool but has not decided specifics. Ms. Ostby added that there is currently
no specific forest block protection in the LDRs.
Mr. Parsons said Arrowwood’s task for this study was to conduct an analysis of forest blocks which they
expanded to “forest habitat blocks.” They looked at wilder species (bobcat, grey fox, occasional moose
and deer, bear, etc.). They looked at the smallest block that can provide habitat. They settled on
twenty acres, the lowest unit for the State, but some species require more for breeding females. Some
species also require water for support (e.g., wetlands, shorelines attached to forested areas, etc.). Some
species also have very specific requirements such as special trees, heights of trees, etc. These have been
mapped when they are associated with forest blocks, which is what the State is doing.
2
Mr. Worthley then noted that Act 171 defines a forest block. It is not necessarily wilderness and can be
a young or regenerated forest. He showed a State map of forest blocks in the South Burlington area and
said the map is not suited for municipal and parcel level planning. It is also out of date as site-specific
conditions can change. He then showed a map done in the 2004 Arrowwood study and the 2019 Open
Space Committee rough mapping of valued forests.
Mr. Parsons said that what they mapped had to have a forest there to begin with. They added
supporting habitat such as unmapped wetlands and looked at how forest blocks were connected to
other forest blocks.
Mr. Worthley said they identified 26 habitat blocks and forest areas adjacent to shrub land. They
eliminated agricultural and herbaceous areas including ballfields. He noted there are other habitat
types, such as grassland and aquatic areas, but those did not fall into this study. Each of the 26
identified blocks was then scored on a range from 1 to 10. The parameters for each included the
following:
1. Size: the larger the area, the greater the size of species
2. Percentage of Block that was Forested: He noted that the Great Swamp doesn’t score high
on this criterion, even though it is the largest block.
3. Percentage of Core Forest: The farthest from human habitation. This is important for some
species. Forest areas with “long fingers” have less habitat.
4. Percentage of Surface Water: This benefits aquatic animals. In South Burlington, this refers
mostly to streams or to one area near the Winooski River.
5. Percentage of Wetlands: benefits waterfowl and a wide variety of wildlife for food sources.
6. Cover type: Refers to the number of deciduous trees vs. evergreens. A more equal mix
provides for greater species diversity.
7. Fragmentation: the amount of “forest edge” each block contains.
8. Horizontal Diversity: The number of cover types and forest canopy height changes along the
longest axis
9. Supporting Habitat: refers to available habitat fragments adjacent toeh forest blocks (e.g.,
shrub land)
10. Connecting Habitat: Interconnectiveness/isolation relative to other blocks. This is important
for wildlife movement. Streams have the highest values followed by shrublands.
3
Mr. Parsons said they did a drive-through to see where things had changed since the air photos were
taken. He noted that both City Center and the O’Brien property were no longer viable forested areas.
He also noted that some of the smaller habitats continue into surrounding communities, and they didn’t
want to eliminate those.
Each habitat was scored by the 10 parameters. The two that scored the highest were Area and
Connecting Habitat. Mr. Parsons showed a map of the final rankings. He noted the “hot spot” areas in
the Southeast Quadrant and Muddy Brook area.
Mr. Worthley said it is important to thing of the connection between the units for the movement of
wildlife. If those areas are gone, what is being said is that it isn’t important for bobcats to make their
way through the city.
Ms. Ostby asked what the “red” and “pink” areas need to look like and what could be developed. She
noted South Burlington has a need for housing. Mr. Worthley said the most important thing is to
protect the forest blocks. Even if you build in them, development should be clustered to allow the
movement of wildlife. The length and width of driveways should also be limited. Mr. Parsons added
that riparian buffers should be maintained at a minimum of 50 feet. He added that chain link fencing
does not allow for movement of wildlife.
Mr. Riehle noted that 3 roads are planned in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). He asked what wildlife they
will inhibit. Mr. Parsons noted a cut-through planned by South Village which would break up a habitat
block. Mr. Worthley said a lot of east-west roads in the SEQ will inhibit movement of wildlife. He added
that if the city wants those roads, there are things that can mitigate the problem to some extent. Mr.
Parsons said that most wildlife movement in South Burlington is north-south. Mr. Worthley said
appropriate committees should be involved regarding the planned roads. Road crossings will be very
important. There could also be dry culverts. Ms. Louisos noted that is easier to achieve with new roads.
Mr. Riehle said South Burlington is a suburban town that has been identified as a “growth area.” He
asked if the city would be potentially creating a situation with wildlife conflict problems in
neighborhoods. Mr. Parsons said there will always be a problem with skunks. He added that having a
place for wildlife to eat and live can mitigate that to some extent.
Mr. Barritt asked if there should be a 20-foot buffer between housing in areas where you can’t cluster.
Mr. Parsons said “the wider the better.” He added that you have to know where animals come from
and go.
Mr. Worthley suggested possibly eliminating one of the planned roads and enhancing the others.
Mr. Worthley also noted that they didn’t go on the ground for this report. He felt sites, especially
corridors, should be investigated individually and the city should come up with a standard for what it is
looking for. Asked about the detail of the data included in the forest block mapping, he indicated the
resolution was 1 meter.
4
Ms. Dooley noted a number of areas where there is a lot of development that has wildlife corridors
shown on the map. She asked what allows them to co-exist. Mr. Parsons there may possibly be some
deep ravines. He suggested ground exploration to find out why.
Ms. Gordon spoke to the need to protect “hazard areas.” She asked what happened to a study of
wildcats. Mr. Worthley said some studies were written up.
Ms. Greco asked about cutting off access to animals outside the city limits. Mr. Worthley said what is
left in the city isn’t enough t support breeding of wildcats, so the there is dependence on land outside
the city.
Mr. Murdoch said there are people who feel South Burlington is a city, so these things don’t matter. He
asked how Arrowwood would respond to a statement such as that. Mr. Worthley said it’s up to the city
to do what it feels is important.
Mr. Gill asked whether something like wetland standards is envisioned or something more field
delineated. Mr. Worthley said historically, there were features that could be identified on the ground.
More and more thinking is moving to consider things more organically, both statewide and community-
wide. He added if you think forest blocks are important, don’t think you can go more deeply into the
edges than what has been done.
Mr. Long was concerned that the State-designated areas will be put into the South Burlington LDRs, and
these are not accurate. Ms. Louisos said the city currently regulates wetlands based on field delineation.
“Remote designations” are not used.
Mr. Conner inquires as to whether mapped wetland areas were used in determining the boundaries of
the forest blocks, or only in estimating the amount of wetland within a forest block. Mr. Worthley stated
that land cover data was used to determine boundaries. Wetland maps were only used to estimate the
amount of wetland within a forest block.
A member of the audience asked about the value of forest blocks in terms of air quality. Mr. Worthley
said it is “the main thing.” He added that this doesn’t happen with street trees.
Ms. Louisos said there will be a follow-up item to this presentation on a future Planning Commission
agenda.
City Council members left the meeting at this point.
6. Review Planned Unit Development/Natural Resource Project Completion Timeline and
Commission Tasks:
Ms. Louisos drew attention to the draft completion timeline. Mr. Gagnon asked if the Commission is on
track to begin work on a full draft. Mr. Conner said the consultant is working to get a full draft to the
Commission. Ms. Ostby cited the need for very precise language. Mr. Conner said this could be done by
5
the whole Commission or by a working group. Staff will provide the needed resources. Mr. Gagnon
suggested a full discussion with the Commission then a small group to work out the details.
Members agreed to hold a special meeting on Election night (March 3rd).
7. Discuss/approve pubic outreach plan for Planned Unit Development/Natural Resources
amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Mr. Conner distributed information regarding public outreach and asked the Commission what kind of
input they want.
Members liked the idea of the “listening sessions.” Mr. Conner suggested sessions regarding a
particular topic or user group. There could also be specific groups such as large land owners, engineers,
the development community, etc. The regular Commission meetings could then be for discussion on
what was heard from the public. Staff will meet with various committees to urge their input.
Mr. Conner noted that CCTV will be coming to as many meetings as possible.
Mr. Gill said they would like to be involved in the process early as there is a massive amount of detail.
He suggested possibly segregating out various elements so people can work through the details.
Ms. Ostby suggested that a listening session the day before a Commission meeting could make the
meeting more productive.
8. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:40 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk