HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 02/23/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, February 23, 2021
7:00 pm
IMPORTANT:
This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and
members of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone.
There will be no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-02-23
Telephone (audio only): 1 (571) 317-3122, Access Code: 552-403-685
AGENDA:
1. *Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:08 pm)
4. Review of possible updated meeting participation guidelines, Jessica Louisos (7:12 pm)
5. Visualization and calculation of development in Traditional Neighborhood Planned Unit Development,
Mark Kane, SE Group, Paul Conner, staff (7:25 pm)
a. *Discuss/ review of principal “levers” that shape the form of Traditional Neighborhood
Developments, options for Commissioners
6. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (8:15 pm)
a. Discuss options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently applicable into PUDs;
consider possible expansion / replacement of current affordable housing density bonus structure
b. *Summary / review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in the draft LDRs
[time permitting]
7. *Minutes: December 15, 2020; January 26, 2021; February 9, 2021 (8:55 pm)
8. Other Business: (8:58 pm)
a. Discuss upcoming Commission schedule and deadlines
9. Adjourn (9:15 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: February 23, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm)
2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm)
3. Announcements and staff report (7:08 pm)
Staff Report:
• Garden Street TIF Town Meeting Day ballot item. For information about the project being
considered, visit: http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/residents/city_center_tif_district/index.php
• City Newsletter. The City is now publishing a bi-weekly e-newsletter. Spread the word! Join the list
by contacting Andrea Leo at aleo@sburl.com
• Staff met with the Affordable Housing Committee on Tuesday 2/16 to provide an update on the
Commission’s work on Conservation PUDs.
• Staff will meet with the Recreation & Parks Committee on Monday 2/18 to discuss the Commission’s
work on PUDs, Environmental Protection Standards, and the civic space types included in the draft
• Last week the CCRPC’s Planning Advisory Committee received an update on the new Cannabis law in
Vermont. In South Burlington, the City Council has tasked the Economic Development Committee
with reviewing the options available to the City for possible consideration on a City Ballot (as
envisioned by the state law). Depending on their work, there may be a zoning-related piece later in
2021 or early 2022. This update was accompanied by a presentation put together by the Chittenden
Prevention Network entitled “Prioritizing Health in the Built Environment: A Municipal Planning Look
at Preventing Substance Use in Chittenden County.”
• The Vermont Agency of Transportation last week distributed a series of recommendations for
municipalities to consider related to private airstrips and helipads. This guide was put together over
the past year with the help of a statewide panel which included Dalila Hall, our Zoning Administrator.
The guide does include actions that municipalities may wish to consider.
4. Review of possible updated meeting participation guidelines, Jessica Louisos (7:12 pm)
Jessica will discuss a possible update to the Commission’s meeting participation guidelines, for public,
staff, and Commissioners, in light of the advent of the ongoing digital means of holding meetings.
5. Visualization and calculation of development in Traditional Neighborhood Planned Unit Development,
Mark Kane, SE Group, Paul Conner, staff (7:25 pm)
Mark Kane from SE Group will join the Commission meeting to provide a presentation and discuss on
visualizing the scale and character of a Traditional Neighborhood PUD, based on the City’s draft
2
regulations and case studies from elsewhere. Staff will then walk through a worksheet calculating the
output of development in terms of dwelling unit type and density.
a. *Discuss/ review of principal “levers” that shape the form of Traditional Neighborhood
Developments, options for Commissioners
Following the presentation/discussion, staff will discuss the principal “levers” that affect the form,
character (and density) of a Traditional Neighborhood Development. Included in your packet are
two supporting documents:
• Summary of Principal Levers (with draft standards), and ways in which the Commission
could adjust these to achieve the development form & pattern being sought
• Most recent version of the “Building Types” spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is the source of
the standards noted above and referenced in the TND PUD type. The complete version of
this will be graphical (Commissioners saw a draft layout previously), but we’ve been holding
off on this graphical version until we had some certainty in design. The work Mark Kane is
preparing for this week’s presentation will help inform and be used for the graphical
version.
6. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (8:15 pm)
a. Discuss options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where currently applicable into PUDs;
consider possible expansion / replacement of current affordable housing density bonus structure
This is a bit of reset from the prior meeting’s agenda item. There are two subjects in this item, and
the Commission may elect to take up one or both.
The first is in regards to the current Inclusionary Zoning standards/appliable area. With the
proposed TND and NCD Planned Unit Development Types, within the transit overlay district and
other applicable areas, the Regulations will need to be amended to adapt existing Inclusionary
provisions to the new building-based density, or removed from applicability.
Separately, the Commission can determined whether to (a) extend Inclusionary provisions outside
the current applicable area, (b) adapt the existing affordable housing density bonus structure to
TNDs in those, or (c) another approach.
Staff can present some concepts on how the above could be done to meet the Commission’s
objectives.
b. Summary / review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in the draft LDRs
[time permitting]
[Carried over from last meeting]: See the enclosed summary. Staff has compiled these so that
Commissioners can review and let staff know if this lines up with your expectations. We can
schedule a discussion for your next meeting should Commissioners have questions or wish to make
modifications to the approaches.
7. *Minutes: December 15, 2020; January 26, 2021; February 9, 2021 (9:12 pm)
Note: this packet includes two sets of minutes that were in the last packet (12/15 and 1/26). Due to the
late hour, the Commission did not vote on the minutes then, so all three sets are included here.
8. Other Business:
3
a. Discuss upcoming Commission schedule and deadlines
We’d like to review some possible special meetings over the next month or two. The purpose would
be to complete you current work on under Interim Zoning and also make room for a handful of
significant, time-sensitive subjects that would strongly benefit from Commission input and action.
For consideration: reserving each Tuesday evening (except Town meeting day, which could be
moved to another night) through the end of March for a possible meeting.
9. Adjourn (9:15 pm)
Principal Components Affecting the Shape of a TND Options/AlternativesFebruary 21, 2021TND Land Use Allocations (of buildable)Min% Max%Residential 65% ‐Mixed Use 5% ‐Civic Space 10% ‐Civic space minimum is often 15% in a TNDResource Lands ‐ ‐Staff recommends civic be increased to 15%, unallocated reduced to 15%Unallocated 20% ‐Note: This would limit the % that could be assigned to mixed use, residential, or resourceUnits/LotHousing Type (Units/Lot)Min MaxDetached 5,000 10,000 1PC could consider an additional building type, for example a "small house on a small lot"Duplex‐‐Attached 2,500 5,000 1which could also address cottage court‐style neighborhoodsDuplex‐‐‐Stacked 5,000 10,000 2Staff recommends this be considered.Townhouse‐‐Attached* 2,000 2,500 1Multiplex, Small (3‐plex) 10,000 20,000 3PC could make small adjustments to lot sizes of various typesMultiplex, Small (4=plex) 10,000 20,000 4Staff recommends PC leave as presented for now through testing & hearingsHousing Type MixAmntMinimum Housing Types in TND 3PC could set a maximum % of a specific building type (eg, townhomes maximum 30%)[infill TND] 2PC could set a minimum % of certain types (eg, 30‐40% min single or two‐family)Maximum percent for any one type 50%Note: TND standards do already limit the location (and therefore the amount) ofMinimum percent of units to qualify 15%certain buildings types in a TND. Townhomes are allowed ONLY in the "center" of a TND.Four‐plexes are allowed only on corner lots in order to accommodate parking.Building Lot AreaStaff recommendation: That said, PC could limit the proportion of larger building types within a TND or require that some proportion of units be of a particular type
South Burlington Building Typologies Working Draft 1/20/2021ARTICLE 11C BUILDING TYPESNOTE: ALL TEXT IN THIS ARTICLE IS PROPOSED NEW.Building Type Description Frontage Type Lot Area (Min‐Max) Lot Width* HeightSetbacks/ Building Location [note: front setbacks may move to street types]Glazing Supplementary Design NotesAllowed Street CategoriesDetached House A single unit dwelling or group home, consisting of one detached principal dwelling unit per lot. May include one accessory dwelling and/or a home occupation, as allowed under the regulations. Residential front yard; Porch, stoop; Main pedestrian entrance to the house shall be accessed directly from and face the street or green. 4,000‐10,000 SF 40'‐80' lot width 1.5‐2.5 stories •BTZ 10‐25 ft (exceptions for arterials and irregular lots approved by DRB); may be reduced to 5 feet for porch•Min side setback: 5 Ō• Min rear setback: 10 ftNo requirements. South facing windows to living space encouraged.Maximum lot coverage 70% Local, CollectorCarriage House A small, detached, accessory building located on the same lot as a detached house or owner‐occupied duplex, respecting required setbacks. This type of housing is intended to provide affordable housing and home‐based businesses within the context of a walkable, residential neighborhood.At ground level or above a detached garage. Not permitted in the front yard.Must be on a shared lot with a detached house. Must be on a shared lot with a detached house. For detached ADUs in accessory structures, 15 feet maximum. May increase by 2 feet in height for every 10 feet from property line, not to exceed 2 stories. •Typically located at the rear of a lot. May not be to the front of the main structure• Minimum 10' rear and side setbacks for single story. Two stories shall meet all setbacks for principal buildings.No requirements. South facing windows encouraged.Architecture shall be complementary to that of the principal building.Local, CollectorDuplex (stacked or side‐by‐side)A two‐unit dwelling, consisting of a small to medium sized detached residential structure that contains two principal dwelling units, either stacked or side by side, which are entirely separated by a vertical dividing wall or floor. This housing type has the appearance of a single family dwelling and is typically scaled to fit within a primarily single family neighborhood. It is intended to provide additional, housing options within the context of a walkable, residential neighborhood. Each dwelling unit has its own primary entry that faces the street and is accessed from a porch or stoop.5,000‐10,000 SF lot area per building; Individual units in side by side duplex may be sited on lots equivalent to half of the minimum and max range listed here.•50'‐80' lot width; •May be located on one lot, or two lots sharing a side property line along the dividing wall, with front, side, and rear yards. 1.5‐2.5 stories •BTZ 10‐25 ft(exceptions for arterials and irregular lots approved by DRB); may be reduced to 5 feet for front porch•Min side setback for outside walls: 5 Ō•Min side setback for inside or shared walls: 0 Ō• Min rear setback: 20 ftNo requirements. Maximum lot coverage for structure 70%Local, CollectorMultiplex, Small A housing type consisting of 3 to 4 principal dwelling units within a detached, residential building that has the appearance of a large single family dwelling (detached house), with front, side and rear yards. This housing type is typically scaled to fit sparingly within a primarily single family neighborhood, or within medium density residential neighborhood. It is intended to provide additional housing options within the context of a walkable, residential neighborhood.Porch; stoop. The units may share a common main entrance or have separate residential scale entrances. At least one main entry must face the street. 8,000‐15,000 SF •50'‐100' lot width2‐2.5 stories BTZ 10‐25 ft (exceptions for arterials and irregular lots approved by DRB)•Min side setback for outside walls: 10 Ō•Min side setback for inside or shared walls: 0 Ō• Min rear setback: 20 ftLocation and amount of glazing should be typical of a large single family dwelling, with ample residential scale windows. Large windowless walls are not permitted.Front entry shall be principal design feature of front facing facade. Maximum lot coverage TBDLocal, Collector, ArterialCottage Cluster A series of small, detached, one‐unit structures arranged to define a shared courtyard that is typically perpendicular to the street. A cottage cluster is scaled to fit within primarily single‐family or medium‐density neighborhoods, and includes 3 to 9 buildings. The shared central green space takes the place of a private rear yard and serves as a community‐enhancing element.Porch; shared couryard with units adjacent to the street having direct entrance from the street2,000‐5,000 SF per unit 80'‐125' lot width at street [review for consistency with T3]1‐2 stories Setbacks: 5 foot minimum front, side, and rear . Outermost perimeter must meet 10 foot side and rear setbacks from adjacent properties.No requirements. Varies, but are internally consistent. Maximum lot coverage TBDLocal, Collector1
South Burlington Building Typologies Working Draft 1/20/2021Building Type Description Frontage Type Lot Area (Min‐Max) Lot Width* HeightSetbacks/ Building Location [note: front setbacks may move to street types]Glazing Supplementary Design NotesAllowed Street CategoriesRow House/Townhouse A structure that contains 3 to 10 very narrow to medium‐sized dwelling units connected to one another side‐by‐side by a party wall. Each dwelling unit has an individual entry facing the street, and groupings of units often share uniform plans, fenestration and architectural treatments. Each unit has an individual entrance that faces the public street and is accessed from a porch, stoop, or lightwell2,000‐4,000 SF per unit 20'‐30' per unit lot width2‐2.5 stories BTZ 10‐25 ft (exceptions for arterials and irregular lots approved by DRB) •Min side setback for outside walls: 10 ft Min side setback for inside or shared walls: 0 ftNo requirements. Groupings of units should generally share uniform fenestration and architectural treatmentsCollector, ArterialMultiplex, medium A large, detached structure that contains 5 to 8 dwelling units. Has a single building massing and may often have the appearance of a traditional large single‐family home or duplex. The structure has several residential style entries, several of which must face the street and are accessed from a porch, or stoop10,000‐18,000 SF 60'‐125' lot width 2‐2.5 stories BTZ 10‐25 ft, 5‐15 feet to the sides.Minimum front glazing of 30% for all sides facing the public street. South facing windows encouraged.See description. The Board may approve a single, shared entry is careful thought is given to make the building appear as though it is a large/estate home. Local, Collector, ArterialMultiplex, large A large, detached structure that contains 9 to 12 dwelling units. Designed and massed to appear as one or more large single‐family homes. Large multiplexes can be located in a location that transitions from a primarily single‐family neighborhood into a higher‐density or mixed‐use neighborhood.The structure has several residential style entries, several of which must face the street and are accessed from a porch or stoop 20,000‐35,000 SF 80'‐150' lot width 2‐3 stories BTZ 15‐35 ft, 5‐15 feet to the sides.Minimum front glazing of 30% for all sides facing the public street. South facing windows encouraged.See description. The design of the structure to resemble single family homes distinguishes it from a multistory flex building. Collector, ArterialStacked Flat Building A large detached structure that contains 12‐60 dwelling units. Building must be oriented with its narrowest dimension at the street, fitting in line with the street rhythm. 80'‐150' lot width [note: still be evaluated]3‐5 stories BTZ 15‐35 ft, 5‐15 feet to the sides.Minimum front glazing of 30% for all sides facing the public street. South facing windows encouraged.Civic Building Medium to large attached or detached building dedicated to a civic use and designed to stand apart from its surroundings due to the specialized nature of its public or quasi‐public use for public assembly. Examples include libraries, places of worship, schools, centers of government, performing arts, community centers, and museums. Private building types also permitted: poolhouse, clubhouse or other spaced dedicated to gathering of neighborhood residentsThe applicant shall plan for and demonstrate a pedestrian access plan.NA NA Public: per underlying zoning; private: 2 stories max.Private civic buildings should be centrally located so that they are accessible to all parts of the surrounding neighborhood. No requirements Collector, ArterialCottage Commercial Intended to provide for a wide mix of uses in a building with the physical characteristics of a small scale residential building. The building is versatile and could easily accommodate either residential or non‐residential uses, distinguishable only through signage. May also serve as a live‐work space. Buildings are expected to reflect the character of the surrounding area.Porch ; shopfront. Publicly accessible entrance at streetfront.6,000‐15,000 SF 60'‐100' lot width 1.5‐2.5 stories •BTZ 10‐50 ft (exceptions for arterials and irregular lots approved by DRB)•Min side setback: 10 Ō• Min rear setback: 10 ft•Minimum on first floor: 40%•Residential scaled or treated windows•Residential doors and residentially scaled windows on public street•Pitched or gabled roof required•Porches, stoops, and covered entryways are strongly encouragedLocal, Collector2
South Burlington Building Typologies Working Draft 1/20/2021Building Type Description Frontage Type Lot Area (Min‐Max) Lot Width* HeightSetbacks/ Building Location [note: front setbacks may move to street types]Glazing Supplementary Design NotesAllowed Street CategoriesNeighborhood Storefront Attached or detached building intended to serve people and businesses at the neighborhood or village scale. While the upper stories may provide for office space or residential occupation, the first floor is clearly intended for non‐residential use. Shopfront, gallery, arcade. •Building entries emphasized with special architectural treatment; A walkway in front of the building, connecting the tenant spaces is required•Commercial entry door6,000‐15,000 SF 60'‐100' lot width May range from 1‐3 stories but must demonstrate an average minimum of 1.5 stories and must have a varied roofline.•Setback no more than 30 feet from road right of way; attached units may have a zero side setback•Restaurant uses are encouraged to provide outdoor dining space•Minimum on first floor: 40%•First floor windows minimum 7.5' in height•Blank walls not to exceed 30' in length at street levelLocal, Collector, Arterial?MultiStory Flex Building Multi‐purpose building. May be interchangeable between residential and commercial in use and appearance. Gallery; arcade; storefront. If intended primarily for residential use, may also (permit?) a large porch. additional entrances may be located to the rear to align with parking areas.25,000 SF‐50,000 SF 100'‐250' lot width NCD: per underlying and overlay zoningCampus: 4 stories maxBTZ 10‐50 ft, 15 feet side yard minimumMinimum of 30% of area of façades facing a street•Required window treatments, facade breaks and roof height variations (details to be added here)Collector, ArterialUrban Storefront Intended as commercial or mixed use for higher density non‐transect areas with higher traffic volumes. Can include freestanding buildings or shared wall buildings. Gallery; arcade, storefront. 25,000 SF‐50,000 SF 150'‐300' lot width•2‐5 stories•Maximum height determined by zoning districtBTZ 10‐30 ft, 15 feet side yard minimumMinimum transparent glazing on street facing first floor: 50%Buildings should have a recognizable base, middle and top and balance vertical and horizontal proportions. Buildings should also employ horizontal building breaks for every 80 feet.Local, Collector, Arterial*Special NotesStandards for all types•Lot widths are measured at the primary street. •12 feet additional lot width is permitted for SF and Duplex buildings where access is needed to the side or rear of the lot for parking's. 18 feet additional is permitted per all other housing types where access is needed to the side or rear of the lot. No additional width is permitted where garages are proposed to be front loaded. Curbcuts at street shall not exceed 12 feet in width. Important note‐ just because a type is allowed in a particular PUD type, doesn't meet it is permitted anywhere, on any street type, and without limitation. Language is under development by our consulting team to use these types in context. There may be a required mix of housing types within a PUD. applicable. For pre‐existing lots with less than 200 feet of frontage on a public street and where the depth of the lot is more than 2x the width of the lot's frontage, the design may instead treat the access drive or new private street as the primary frontage. See design for mews (TBC)When used in CC FBC district, standards of Chapter 8 take precedentHome occupations permitted in accordance with LDRS3
Summary of Waiver Provisions in Draft LDRsWORKING SUMMARYFebruary 3, 2021Area of Review Type of Flexibility Standard Change from current standard LocationSubdivision1. Waiver or modification of applicable subdivision dimensional standards (blocks, lots, streets, etc.)Allows modification or waiver due to physical site constraints or due to Hazards or Level 1 ResourcesSpecifies applicability, establishes standards that are separate from a PUD15.A.01B2. Modification of allowed street types and standards in a subdivisionAllows modification of types or standards where DRB finds alternate proposal achieves purpose & goals; provide DRB with guidanceCurrent standard applies in City Center FBC. Provides greater direction to applicant and DRB as to when to allow modifications15.A.14C(7)Master Plan1. Waiver of certain project elements (summary statistics) to be determined.New standard Article 15.B2. Authority to establish / waive certain process steps for applications receiving Master Plan approvalGeneral authority based on the master plan Similar to current Article 15.BSite PlanWaiver of dimensional standards, such as building heights and setbacksAllows for minor adjustments to a site plan if purposes are metCurrently, waivers other than height must be via PUD; this allows for minor site adjustments14.04Planned Unit Development1. PUD Type supersedes underlying zoning district and subdivision standards for overall arrangement, block size & streets, allocations of land (residential, non‐residential civic, resource), lot size & dimension, building types, density, allowed uses, setbacks, heights, street types PUD type establishes applicable minimums / maximums. Flexibility is within these parametersFlexibility is spelled out in the minimums/maximums; replaces general "waiver" allowance that applied to all aspects of a PUD & Site Plan15.C.01A2. Transition area allowance for modification of specific PUD‐type standardsAllows for adjustments to lot, block, building type requirements to create a transition from existing developmentNew standard 15.C3. Alternative Compliance for design standards regulated by the PUDNew standard See above 15.C.04C(3)4. Specific to the PUD Type, waiver of applicability of certain standards for "infill" versions of the PUDDemonstration of applicability New standard Article 15.CEnvironmental Protection StdsGeneral exemptionsExempts uses/activities not subject to local review, unimproved paths, and removal of invasive species, diseased plants, hazardsMinor changes restricting certain previously permitted activities such as snow storage, etc.ThroughoutRestricted Infrastructure Encroachment & Stormwater RestorationAllows for infrastructure (streets, paths, utilities, stormwater) to be placed within areas regulated by Environmental Protection Standards under limited circumstancesMust demonstrate need and lack of alternative options; must also meet specific supplemental standards for each resource. Stormwater restoration projects have greater flexibilityAt present there is no standard establishing appropriate circumstances for encroachments.12.10Habitat Blocks1. Applicant may modify boundary of habitat block with DRB approval. In all cases, net amount of land in Habitat Block must be equal or greaterThree options for applicant based on scale of proposal; greater size includes more substantial reviewNew standard 12.05D2. For parcels with >70% habitat block coverage, allowance for up to 30% of the parcel to be designated as buildable area via site plan, subdivision, or Conservation PUD.Prioritization of habitat block areas to be retainedNew standard 12.05E, 15.CHabitat ConnectorsApplicant may relocate the connector from the mapped location; DRB may accept narrower connector if existing conditions do not allow for full widthDemonstration that Habitat connector remains functionalNew standard 12.06C
Area of Review Type of Flexibility Standard Change from current standard LocationRiver Corridors / Stream BuffersAllows for renovations to existing buildings Per Federal & State guidelines Impacts subject to Restricted Infrastructure standards10.07Wetlands ‐ Class I and IIAllows for impacts to class II wetlands/buffers within City Center FBC district if criteria are metAssessment of functions and values of the wetland/bufferProhibits impacts to class I & II wetlands & buffers outside City Center FBC district; presently allowed if functional & values are retained / mitigated12.03Wetlands ‐ Class IIIAllows for impacts to class III wetlands/buffers Assessment of functions and values of the wetland/bufferAdditional specify on standards. Exempts impacts to class III wetland buffers for wetlands <300 s.f.12.03Floodplains ‐ 100 yearAllows for maintenance of pre‐existing buildings/structures/utilitiesPer Federal & State rules Specific standards for historic structures added 10.01Floodplains ‐ 500 yearZone B1: allows substantial renovation/new construction that is floodproofed; Zone B2 allows renovation of existing buildingsBased on Federal & State rules for 100‐year floodplainsNew standard 10.01Steep Slopes15‐25% allows new construction with appropriate stabilization/erosion control; 25% only with Restricted InfrastructureEngineering analysis New standard 12.09Design standardsGarage setbacks standardRequirement for garage to be set back from principal façade may be waived by DRBApplies if garage is side‐loaded and has appearance of a frontNo change 3.16, Article 9Civic Buildings / Places of Worship in FBCBuilding Envelope Standards height, glazing, entry standards may be waived by the DRB due to specific nature of the facilitiesNo change 8.06A,BEntry Spacing, FBC T4 DistrictAlternative Compliance may be granted by the DRB Demonstration that the alternative compliance meets specific pedestrian‐oriented objectivesNo change 8.06HGeneralNonconformitiesAllows for certain modifications to pre‐existing nonconforming uses, buildings, lotsSpecific nonconformity circumstances; limits on expansionNo change 3. 11, 8.11Process/SubmittalProcess /submittal waivers Authorizes DRB to waive certain process steps and submittal materials if not relevant to the applicationClarifications ThroughoutZoning District BoundariesApply rules of one zoning district up to 50' into adjacent zoning districtBoard may grant where this modification achieves purposes and results in more consistent designNo changeLots/Buildings in existence prior to 1972Reduced setbacks & increased lot coverage, authority for further setback reduction as conditional useAuthorizes additional reduction in setbacks if certain specific criteria are metNo change 3.06JVarianceState Law allows an applicant, on appeal, to seek a variance from the strict standards of a regulation.State law establishes five criteria, all of which must be met. The "bar" is very high for granting of a variance.No changeNOTES:1. Legal Review has not yet been completed. Consultant has specifically requested that City Attorney review applicability of Alternative Compliance under VT Enabling Statutes2. Staff has requested consultant double‐check this list for completeness / confirmation. Underway as of writing.
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 15 2020
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Gonda, D. Seff, S. Dooley, R. Greco, J.
Bellavance, S. Dopp
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Gonda noted that the Natural Resources Committee is working on identifying habitat connectivity.
They will assign a priority to the areas they map. The result would be a satellite map. They hope to
finish this be mid-February/early March.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Mr. Conner said that in the next few meetings, the Committee will see a recommendation from the
Affordable Housing Committee regarding matching the city’s regulations to the new State regulations
regarding accessory dwellings. The Energy Committee is considering having the city adopt the energy
stretch code for commercial as well as residential buildings.
4. Continued Review of Land Development Regulations changes:
Mr. Gagnon suggested the information sent out by Mr. Conner regarding stream buffers be part of any
discussion regarding changing stream buffers so as to be consistent with state and federal standards
especially where setbacks are measured from (e.g., the top of the banks).
Mr. Macdonald asked whether the figures in Article 12 prior to Mr. Mittag’s proposal are those from the
state. Mr. Conner said that generally speaking, South Burlington standards mirror State Class 1 and
Class 2 wetland standards. The State does not regulate Class 3 wetlands and South Burlington does.
The Army Corps of Engineers does regulate Class 3 wetlands of an acre or more, but they do not
regulate buffers.
Ms. Louisos said changing the regulations to measure from the top of the stream bank results in a wider
buffer. She added that 50 feet is relatively consistent in State regulations. Fish & Wildlife recommends
100 feet from larger streams.
2
Mr. Mittag said his suggested buffers are because of climate considerations and what can be expected.
Buffers do more than prevent floods. They reduce volumes of overland flow, provide shade and
maintain habitat and corridors for species. He said he didn’t care about what the State does but what
South Burlington should do.
Members then reviewed specific passages.
Ms. Ostby said she had a concern with 12.1(b). She felt it may be oversimplifying and be of concern to
the public, especially if this is the only thing some people read. Mr. Conner suggested coming back to
it, and he would make a note to make it clearer.
Ms. Ostby asked whether the 500-year flood plain protects buffer areas. Mr. Conner said in some cases
it does. He said he would be willing to map what is in some of the proposals. Mr. Gagnon felt it was
“apples & oranges.” The flood plain measures flooding. Buffers are a measurement from the top of the
bank. Ms. Louisos said many areas overlap. She said there are other benefits of flood storage and are
concerns with where the water may migrate to. Benefits overlap as well. There is a wide range of
stream functions (water quality, shading, flood storage, etc.), and there are suggestions as to what the
buffer number should be to protect each function. Some say just protect the 500 year flood plain and
you’ll be good. Very few articles talk about intermittent streams. Ms. Louisos felt some of the areas
should overlap.
Mr. Gagnon said he felt the numbers were a little arbitrary, and he would like to know their basis. Mr.
Mittag said he just looked at Arrowwood because it is specific to South Burlington. The 50-foot and 100-
foot were arbitrary, he added. He also noted that a flood plain is mainly to protect property. Ms.
Louisos said there is new national literature in which FEMA notes that there are other values to flood
plains, not just to protect property.
Mr. Gagnon asked what are considered major streams. Mr. Conner said that in South Burlington the
major streams are the Winooski River, Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook.
Ms. Louisos said she was not convinced that intermittent streams need that much more buffer.
Mr. Macdonald agreed. He said he would like to see what 300 feet looks like on the 3 major streams.
Mr. Gagnon said he would like that as well. Mr. Mittag said there may be places along the major
streams where a 300-foot buffer in not available.
Ms. Greco said they should save as much as possible because climate change is accelerating much more
quickly than was thought. She was concerned with paragraph 2 which says other provisions could
supersede these provisions. She felt that made things “murky.”
Mr. Albrecht said the Commission also has to think about land use patterns. He noted the challenge of
mixing residential with commercial, specifically with a lot of residential areas not near the core so
people have to drive for groceries, the Post Office, etc. That is not good for global warming.
3
Ms. Bellavance asked how the standards are addressing the Open Space Committee report and the
recommended 25 parcels. Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Gagnon was on that committee. She stressed
that what is different about the Land Development Regulations is that they do not go “parcel by parcel.”
The Commission can talk about the resource, regardless of where the parcel lines are. Ms. Ostby said
that the habitat blocks complement the Open Space Report.
Mr. Conner said the work done by the Open Space Committee helped inform the Commission to hire
Arrowwood. On regulatory rules, the Commission can’t look at parcels because zoning has to be “blind
to ownership.” They can look at resources. He also stressed that a property could have resources on
only 10% of the property, and the Open Space Report identified the whole property.
Members agreed to send the buffer recommendations to Taylor Newton at CCRPC to review and
comment on.
Regarding snow storage in the stream buffer, Ms. Louisos said she agrees it is not a reliable location.
Other members agreed as there could be toxins in the snow.
Members discussed the possibility of paths in the buffer. Mr. Gagnon noted the path at Technology
Park that crosses the wetland. He could see some clearing for a path. Mr. Conner said crossings are
identified elsewhere. He was concerned with a path having to be 25 feet outside the buffer which could
discourage a path from ever being there. Mr. Conner noted that unpaved trails are not subject to rules
and he recommended allowing them. Members agreed.
Regarding crossings, Mr. Conner said there are general standards that apply to stream buffers. Ms.
Louisos said she liked how it was written before Mr. Mittag’s comments. There are times when a
crossing makes sense, if it done correctly. She also noted there are strong criteria when a crossing is
allowed. Members agreed.
Members then considered the question of recreation uses in buffers. Mr. Mittag felt they should remain
natural buffers. Mr. MacDonald felt there could be an issue with prohibiting someone from walking
along the stream or fishing. Ms. Ostby felt people would create their own paths by walking there. She
felt it was OK if they put down a blanket and had a picnic, but not to allow structures. Mr. Conner
stressed that the clearing of vegetation would not be allowed. Mr. Gagnon said if a rotten tree fell, it
would be allowed to be cleared as “maintenance.” Mr. Conner said it would.
Regarding wetlands, Mr. Mittag said the guidance is that “bigger is better.” Restoration can happen
naturally if the buffer is big enough.
Ms. Louisos noted that Mr. Mittag’s proposal is more stringent than State or Federal regulations, and
the city’s regulations were already more stringent because the city regulates Class 3 wetlands. Mr.
Gagnon asked if the State is considering any more stringent regulations regarding buffers. Ms. Louisos
said she did not believe so. Mr. Gagnon said he was hesitant to change if there are no State plans to
expand the regulations.
4
Mr. Conner noted that Class 3 wetlands have a significantly lower function/value. Requiring a significant
buffer around Class 3 wetlands would bump up against what the Commission is trying to do with other
design standards. He suggested eliminating the buffer around any Class 3 wetland of less than 300 feet.
Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald supported keeping the regulations as written before Mr. Mittag’s
changes. Mr. Mittag said Vermont has lost half of its wetlands. If you widen the buffer, you make it
more resilient over time. Mr. Gagnon said he wants to be consistent with current State regulations. He
noted that developers are often required to get State permits, and he wanted to stick with what the
State has. Ms. Ostby said that makes sense.
Ms. Louisos noted there were notes in the “chat” regarding balancing protection and development.
She said she favored leaving #1 as is to get public comment and having #2 with a 50-foot buffer for Class
3 wetlands more than 300 feet. She also indicated she would like to see this mapped to see what it
looks like. Mr. Conner said he would be happy to map it but noted that mapping wetlands on a city-wise
basis is not a perfect science.
Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible to contact land owners involved in this to be sure they go to the public
hearing. Ms. Louisos said they are widely spread across the city.
Mr. Conner noted that currently the DRB can look at Class 1 & 2 wetlands and buffers more stringently
than Class 3.
Mr. Macdonald asked what getting a wetland permit from the State involves. Ms. Louisos said wetland
scientists are very strict in the state. It has to do with function and value. They look at other ways to
avoid impact. Mr. Gagnon said there is a mitigation piece as well. Mr. Conner noted there are times
when impacts to buffers are allowed. He cited City Center development which was a Class 2 wetland.
Mr. Riehle asked if there are cases in South Burlington where permits were denied. Mr. Conner said it is
hard to say. If an applicant didn’t get a State permit, they did not apply to South Burlington.
Mr. Riehle asked Ms. Louisos if she had seen development that shouldn’t have happened. Ms. Louisos
said she hadn’t. Wetland scientists are so committed to their work. She felt they were doing a good job.
Ms. Ostby said where they can keep things streamlined for owners where the State is doing a good job,
she felt they should leave things as they are.
Mr. Mittag felt they should lead the State. Ms. Louisos felt they are already doing that by regulating
Class 3 wetlands.
Under Section 12:05(b) Mr. Mittag what if it is an environmentally sensitive piece of land. Ms. Louisos
said this means that someone can clear a tree that is threatening a house. This is allowed only to 50 feet
around an existing building. Mr. Mittag asked what about a tree on another owner’s property. Mr.
Conner noted that any land within 50 feet of a house can be cleared. He said there is significant case
law regarding a tree threatening another person’s property and the responsibility for removing that
tree.
5
Mr. Conner then noted that there are about 10-12 privately owned parcels that are more than 70%
forested. The regulations could say “here is an area where we are OK with an impact” rather than just
say 30% is OK. Ms. Louisos asked how that would work with other resources that aren’t mapped. Ms.
Ostby felt the land-owner should make the decision.
Regarding modifications/possible exceptions, Mr. Mittag said he added a few qualifications.
Ms. Louisos said that in #1, you would not be able to reduce the amount of land. Ms. Ostby said they
had discussed that depending on the layout of the blocks, an owner should be able to alter the block as
long as the whole of the block remains. Mr. Conner suggested keeping some judgment for the DRB for a
quirky situation. Ms. Louisos said one instance could be to get a well.
Ms. Ostby felt it was important to say that Arrowwood removed anything less than 20 acres. She felt
that as long as there is no net reduction to a block and a buffer is added elsewhere on the block, the net
effect would be the same. Mr. Mittag felt it was a huge job to create a habitat block elsewhere. Ms.
Louisos said they don’t have perfect mapping, and it might actually be better habitat if the line is moved
over.
Mr. Gagnon said the purpose was to allow latitude for what is on the site, especially invasives. Ms.
Louisos agreed.
Mr. Gagnon noted that at the beginning of the meeting Ms. Ostby had drawn 2 lines of possible
connectors. He felt it would be good to see that mapped. Mr. Conner said he spoke with Jens who said
those 2 specific ones were not at the same priority level to restrict development there. It could be a city
goal to work with the landowners on those areas to restore the connections, but that would be separate
from the regulations. Jens also cautioned about “sightings” being used to determine regulations. Ms.
Greco said she has hundreds of video clips of wildlife in her backyard. Mr. Mittag noted that where her
house is was once a major connector and habitat block.
Members agreed to hold a special meeting to continue the discussion during the first full week of
January.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
26 JANUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 26 January 2021, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Dorn, City Manager; I. Blanchard, Project
Manager; T. Newton, CCRPC; V. Bolduc, S. Dopp, D. Long, S. Dooley, C. Long, C. Trombley
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos reminded members to attend to the Open Meeting Law Training they received via email. If
all members have completed it by the end of February, there can be a session in March regarding any
questions. Mr. Conner said he would re-send the link.
Mr. Riehle noted an article in the Williston Observer about Taft’s Corners. It said there will be no more
big box stores, and they are hiring a consultant to look into Form Based Code. Mr. Conner noted that
Taylor Newton of CCRPC is part of that process.
4. Presentation of Upcoming March Ballot Item for Tax Increment Financing Garden Street
Section Completion:
Mr. Dorn reviewed the history of the ballot item to connect two sections of Garden Street.
Ms. Blanchard then showed an overview slide of the project. She noted that Sections “A” and “C”
represent this project. Section “A” includes the area between Trader Joe’s and Healthy Living. The
project there includes lighting, utilities, curbing and bicycle facilities. Section “C” is for full construction
of the street through to Midas Drive with lighting, curbing, utilities and bike facilities. Ms. Blanchard
showed plans with a cross section at each end of the street.
Ms. Blanchard then explained that this project is 100% TIF eligible and explained the nature of tax
incremental financing. She showed a chart for debt authorization. The total bond is for $4,002,550.
Passage of the ballot item will not increase the city’s tax rate; however, if the increment does not occur,
the city would have to service the debt.
2
Mr. Dorn noted that this will be the fourth time the city has taken TIF debt to the voters (others are
Market Street completions, the Library/City Hall building, and City Center Park). Mr. Dorn also noted
that the city has authorization to incur debt only until the end of 2022. He explained that there are
already 2 additional City Center projects fully approved. Dover Place will have 30 units of mainly
affordable housing. Prospect Place will be a mixed use project to be built right after Dover Place. The
incremental taxes from both of these projects will become part of the financing for the two sections of
Garden Street.
Mr. Conner noted that Dover Place and Prospect Place developments include requirements to complete
Garden Street.
5. Continued Planning Commission Work Session: Draft Amendments to the Land Development
Regulations:
a. Updated Environmental Protections Standards
b. Review, Summary and Status of Complete Working Draft of LDRs
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of public comment asking for strong natural resource standards to be adopted
before the end of Interim Zoning.
Ms. Ostby noted receipt of comments from Patrick O’Brien and Vince Bolduc to discuss when the
Commission gets to the relevant sections.
Mr. Newton then said that there are 3 big policy issues to discuss: buffers, wetlands, and Class 3
wetlands.
With regard to stream and surface water buffers, Mr. Newton suggested combining river corridors and
stream buffer standards as mapped, as they are roughly the same area. Mr. Gagnon noted the
Commission had defined buffers by distance from the top of the bank. He asked if that would go away
under Mr. Newton’s suggestion. Mr. Newton said the geographic area is mapped by the State. For
major streams, the geographic area is mapped by the State according to the size of the river, type of
soils, and area prone to erosion. The city’s 3 streams that fall into this category are Muddy Brook,
portions of the Potash Brook and the Winooski River. Mr. Gagnon asked whether the State standard is
less than the measured distance. Ms. Louisos noted that for smaller streams, the measure is currently
from the centerline of the stream in South Burlington but proposed to be measures from top of bank.
The City can just adopt that buffer if it wants to. The current local measurement from major streams is
100 feet.
Mr. Conner referred to the Potash Brook chart and noted the closeness of the 50/100-foot buffer and
the defined river corridor. He noted that with the Winooski River, the State’s standard is more
substantial. He also noted that all of Muddy Brook is mapped by the State.
Ms. Ostby asked if combining the stream buffer and river corridors impacts the 500-year flood plain.
Mr. Newton said not at all.
3
Ms. Louisos said she fully supports the State’s mapped river corridors. Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Macdonald
said they support what Mr. Newton has presented. Mr. Gagnon added that he is concerned with
property that is an asset for its owner who has paid taxes on it for a long time. Mr. Conner asked
whether an addition to a home would be allowed. Mr. Newton said no new structures could be built.
Ms. Ostby said she agrees with Mr. Gagnon that measuring from the top of the bank provides more
protection than what exists now. Ms. Louisos said that because there will be habitat blocks, she was OK
to go with what Mr. Gagnon is saying.
Ms. Dooley asked whether the 50-foot buffer had bad results and added that if it isn’t broken, don’t fix
it.
Mr. Mittag said he was concerned with what is coming in 10-15 years regarding climate change. He felt
it was a resiliency concern. Ms. Ostby felt there were protections in multiple layers. Mr. Gagnon felt
the 100 and 500 year flood plains address resiliency.
Mr. Riehle asked about a section through Butler Farms. Mr. Conner showed a map with the current
buffer and a 100-foot buffer. Mr. Bolduc asked whether 20-30 of the homes would not have been able
to be built with the 100-foot buffer. Ms. Louisos said they couldn’t have been built in their current
location.
Mr. Conner said there is one other feature of the proposed regulations. The backyards of people’s
homes go directly to the street. In the future regulations, hazards and Class 1 resources can’t be
included in people’s house lots. People now are mowing right to the stream.
Mr. Conner showed a map indicating the 100 and 500 year flood plains.
Ms. Louisos noted the substantial overlap of resources and buffer areas around streams.
Mr. Engels asked what happens to Potash Brook at Dorset Street. Mr. Conner said it goes underground
next to Healthy Living and reappears at the UVM Miller Farm. It briefly goes into Burlington at the golf
course. Eventually, it meets up with the main line of Potash Brook at 150 Swift Street, goes through
Queen City Park and into the Lake. Ms. Louisos noted that the city would not longer allow a long section
of a stream to go underground.
Mr. Engels then asked about water in City Center. Mr. Conner explained there are substantial
stormwater facilities being built. Water is being treated at Market Street. Mr. Conner added that he
actually saw some ducks going through there.
Mr. Newton said he removed some language regarding stream alteration. That is not in the city’s
jurisdiction. There is a section of the regulations to provide a referral to a stream alteration engineer.
Mr. Conner said the State has jurisdiction over where water is. The city regulates everything beside it
(e.g., buffers).
4
Members were in favor of combining river corridor and stream buffer standards, with the more
restrictive of each applying.
For buffers, in a straw poll Messrs. Gagnon and Macdonald and Ms. Louisos and Ms. Ostby favored using
the river corridors where mapped by the state, 100 foot buffers from larger streams and 50 feet from
smaller streams measured from the top of the stream bank. Messrs. Riehle, Mittag, and Engels favored
larger buffers.
Regarding buffers related to wetlands, Mr. Newton said his recommendation is to think about them by
zoning district. In the Commercial/Form Based Code/Industrial/Airport zones, he recommended
maintaining the existing wetland buffers. In the Residential and SEQ zones, increase the buffers to 100
feet from Class 1 and 2 wetlands.
Mr. Newton said he does not recommend regulating Class 3 wetlands for administrative reasons. The
city cannot rely on the state, which does not regulate Class 3 wetlands at all. There is often a “self-
verification” process from the homeowner, and the city would have to hire someone to verify this. Class
3 wetlands are also generally smaller with less function, and there may be too many of them.
Mr. Conner showed a map of Class 2 wetlands and their buffers. He stressed that these are estimates
and that wetlands require field delineation.
Mr. Gagnon said it seems like what you should want is a wider buffer in a developed area than in a
residential area where you don’t have runoff from parking lots, etc. He felt that what is being proposed
is “backwards.” Ms. Louisos said the concern with industrial areas is a good one when there is more
pavement (e.g., parking lots). That could be a policy decision. She added that it is important to have
absorption upstream and cited the Middlebury situation where this was the case, and there was no
downstream flooding during Irene.
Mr. Conner noted there is a challenge with wide buffers in some commercial areas. He cited Technology
Park where development sites are getting squeezed on all sides by wetlands and buffers. He felt they
could say “restricted infrastructure allowed” if it meets all standards. The exception would be Form
Based Code/Market Street where offsite mitigation might be appropriate.
Mr. Gagnon said he was good with what is proposed, now that it has been explained.
Ms. Ostby asked if it is possible for a Class 3 wetland to become Class 2, and would it then be added to
the Class 2 map. Mr. Conner said wetland delineation in Vermont is good for only 5 years; then it has to
be remapped. The regulations don’t go to a map. You have to delineate the wetland.
Mr. Mittag said he preferred regulating Class 3 wetlands in some “lighthanded way.” Mr. Riehle said he
thought Class 3 wetlands have a place. He wouldn’t want them all covered with development. He felt
they could be determined by species and plants. Mr. Macdonald agreed. Mr. Conner expressed
concern that the buffer could be larger than the Class 3 wetland. Mr. Mittag suggested a 10-foot buffer
5
in such instances. Mr. Conner cited the challenge to the DRB. Applicants say the Class 3 wetland has
few functions/values, and this puts the DRB in a tight spot.
Mr. Newton said Class 3 wetlands tend to be small. If they get larger, they become Class 2. It is also
hard to know where they are.
Mr. Conner cited the example of a property off Gregory Drive. It is a Class 3 wetland. An applicant said
they met with the State wetlands people who agreed it was not a Class 2. Mr. Conner said that is usually
the best they can get unless the city hires its own person, and that can be tricky because wetlands can
be delineated at only a certain time of year. He added that he would advocate for the ability to work on
a case by case basis to allow for some flexibility.
Ms. Louisos noted there is a physical separation between Class 3 wetlands and other waters.
Mr. Mittag noted that the city now regulations Class 3 wetlands of 300 feet or more.
Mr. Gagnon summarized the Commission’s thinking regarding wetland buffers as follows:
Industrial zones, etc. – keep the 50-foot buffer, more stringent regulations and allow only
restricted infrastructure
Rural areas – 100-foot buffer from Class 2 wetlands, 200 feet from Class 1
Class 3 wetlands – as previously drafted, with standards for the DRB to review
Mr. Conner said he can work with that. He also asked that the same allowances as now be allowed for
Class 2 buffers in City Center. Members agreed.
Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Newton did a good job cleaning up the standards in habitat blocks as to what
happens with forestry operations. There appears to be an inconsistency in State rules which say that
forestry is exempt from local regulations but also say that this does not preclude wildlife management
by communities. Staff has reached out to the Chittenden County Forester to get a determination. He
felt this was a “good question.”
Mr. Gagnon drew attention to Vince Bolduc’s letter regarding invasive species. Mr. Gagnon noted there
was a project to do a mass removal of invasives to improve habitat for birds, and he wanted to allow for
that kind of activity in forest blocks. He added that proper management can improve a habitat. Mr.
Conner said that Mr. Bolduc proposed some good language for that. Ms. Ostby felt the city should
encourage people to maintain these habitat blocks. She noted that East Woods is overgrown with
buckthorn. Mr. Gagnon said this should definitely happen on lands the city has purchased. Mr. Newton
said a tax stabilization agreement could help accomplish that.
Mr. Engels noted that a while ago the Commission discussed a page in the draft about waivers and the
DRB. He felt they should get back to that. Mr. Conner said that based on the Commission’s guidance at
its last meeting, staff was clarifying the authority for “alternative compliance” in Planned Unit
6
Developments and taking a look through the rest of the waivers for the Commission. In Article 12, the
only flexibility for the DRB is what is contained in the Article.
Ms. Ostby said that definitions need to be strengthened and other definitions (e.g., core) need to be
added. She noted that Tom Bailey’s letter expressed confusion as to what a habitat block is.
Mr. Macdonald asked whether Article 12 would be released separately to the public. Mr. Conner said
that those who have concerns regarding development may feel better if they get the whole document.
Mr. Conner said they almost now have a full draft. The only piece not in the Commission’s hands is the
Neighborhood Commercial PUD section. He hoped that in the upcoming month the Commission will get
public feedback on the whole thing, even if it isn’t perfect. He noted that the Commission can make
changes after a public hearing.
Mr. Conner then enumerated some “housekeeping” considerations including consolidating zoning
districts and considering Article 9 a TDR section. He noted that the Affordable Housing Committee
recommends that TDRs be used more widely in the city. He would like Commission guidance on that.
Ms. Ostby suggested holding off on infill PUDs until after Interim Zoning.
6. Meeting Minutes of 7 and 12 January 2021:
Mr. Mittag presented a correction to the 7 January minutes in written form.
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 7 January as amended and the Minutes of 12 January as
written. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Other Business:
Mr. Conner said the next meeting will include a return to the PUD discussion, a clear description of
where there is flexibility and under what circumstances, and what is the likely density in PUDs.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:42 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
9 FEBRUARY 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 February 2021, at 7:00
p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, P.
Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; E. Cherington, Stormwater Project Manager;
V. Bolduc, K. Ryder, A. & A. Chalnick, C. Trombley, S. Dooley, J. Bellavance, S. Dopp, A. Strong, S. Partillo,
D. Seff, J. Simson
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Mittag suggested removing Item 5C from the agenda and postponing it until Interim Zoning work is
finished. Mr. Macdonald said he thought it made sense to incorporate that into the PUD process. Ms.
Louisos recommended keeping it on the agenda, and she would explain why when they get to it.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether discussion on Article 12 was closed. Mr. Conner questioned whether to
hold it from public distribution if the Commission is going to revisit. Ms. Ostby was OK with whatever is
clear for the public.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
No announcements were made and no report presented.
4. Presentation of Proposed Design for Lindenwood Drive Stormwater Treatment System:
Ms. Cherington said this project is in the Potash Brook area, in the heaviest developed part of the city.
Because Potash Brook is impaired, the city has to reduce the flow by 16-1/2%.
Ms. Cherington showed an image of the drainage area. She noted there is significant flooding with small
storms. She then showed a photo of the erosion caused by that flooding.
The project will install a collection system on Lindenwood Drive which will also capture flow from
Brookwood Parkway. It is being funded by a grant from VTrans which requires a 20% city match. It will
provide channel protection by slowing runoff and detaining the flow from one-year storms.
Ms. Cherington then showed a photo of the dry basin and noted the bike path located just outside the
project limit. The whole project is within the city right-of-way or city-owned land.
2
There are some large beautiful trees in the area, so a tank was removed in the hope that they can get
through without too much damage to the trees. There is a landscape budget in the plan, and the hope is
to incorporate some native plants. There will probably also be a split rail fence for safety.
The project has all its permits, and the anticipation is it will go to bid next winter with construction in the
spring of 2022.
Mr. Mittag asked if there is allowance for “critters.” Ms. Cherington said they are concerned with
muskrats which cause erosion. Mr. Conner suggested talking with Dave Wheeler who may have some
ideas for that.
5. Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Continue Commission Review of Planned Unit Development/Traditional Neighborhood
Development PUD type draft key questions
b. Consider Conservation PUD Key questions
c. Consider expansion of inclusionary Zoning to apply citywide to housing exceeding 12
dwelling units to replace existing affordable housing density bonus
d. Staff summary of waiver/modification/alternative compliance elements of draft LDRs:
Mr. Conner reminded members there were some items they did not get to in the January discussion of
the TND PUD type:
There is a sub-group of the Affordable Housing Committee looking at the “housing types” proposal so
they can provide the Commission with some feedback.
Regarding infill, Ms. Ostby suggested delaying addressing it until after Interim Zoning because it needs a
lot of community input, and the Commission should be thorough with it. Mr. Gagnon asked how infill is
currently handled. He was OK with delaying discussion as long as they’re not leaving a gap or having
things go in a direction the Commission doesn’t want.
Mr. Conner said that on the residential side, future development would be a straight subdivision. The
most significant piece that wouldn’t exist would be a “cottage court” on 3+ acres. On the commercial
side, a developer may choose PUDs to get waivers or t combine 2 lots for density purposes. Some
changes are being proposed to eliminate the need for waivers. With regard to combining lots, in the
future a developer would have to do more than combine lots to gain the density. Mr. Conner said he
would like to run these concepts by the consultant.
Ms. Ostby then moved to remove 15c.08 from the current draft until after Interim Zoning. Mr. Riehle
seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Conner said he was Ok with this as long as he didn’t find a major “side effect” to bring back to the
Commission.
3
Mr. Mittag referred to the beginning of 15C and asked for a statement that when there is a conflict with
this section and Article 12, Article 12 should control. Mr. Conner said the Conservation PUD creates
some allowance, but that is covered in Article 12. He will make a note to make that clear. Mr. Mittag
also said the statement with regard to the Comprehensive Plan is not there. Mr. Conner said the
statement is at the beginning of the entire LDRs and does not need to be repeated over and over again.
There is also a reference in the PUD section that conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is a State
requirement.
On p. 2, line 14, Mr. Mittag suggested using “encourage” instead of “allow” compatible infill. Members
were OK either way.
On p. 3, regarding “uses” in the TND, Mr. Conner referred to a short list of allowable uses in addition to
residential (e.g., a small restaurant). Otherwise, the only things allowed are what the underlying district
allows. He asked members whether uses should stay with the district or, when there is more than one
district in the TDN, should the uses be allowed throughout. And should the density also be a blend?
Mr. Mittag suggested applying the higher density of the 2 zones.
Mr. Gagnon was OK with that unless there are unintended consequences. Mr. Conner said the only big
disparity would be if an R-4 becomes an R-12. Mr. MacDonald asked if there is a transition zone to
address that. Mr. Conner said typically the transition is to what is next to it. You could build in a
transition area and “either density could apply.”
Ms. Ostby suggested staying with intended uses in underlying zoning. Regarding density, she felt giving
some flexibility would be good to create the best integrated neighborhood with different types of
housing.
Mr. Riehle felt that in circumstances where there is a very dense proposal in a not dense area, there
should be a transition, so there isn’t so much of a “start.” Mr. Gagnon said he liked the idea of a
transition. Ms. Ostby felt the building types would almost require a transition. Mr. Mittag suggested
looking at the language of Sharon’s percent concept.
On p. 4, #2, Mr. Mittag asked to add “or consists of grassland, hayfields or shrubland or other
agricultural land.
Ms. Ostby suggested implementing a plan like a TDR method. If someone uses a Conservation PUD and
is not over the 50% in hazards, etc., if they don’t want to have the minimum number of units, they could
buy out of the density with a contribution to type of housing trust fund bank. Mr. MacDonald suggested
that would be similar to “an estate block.” Mr. Conner reminded members that the overall purpose of
the Conservation PUD is that you can still build the number of allowable units per acre, but you can build
them on only 50% of the land. Ms. Ostby suggested the owner could still have those number of units
but provide them somewhere else.
4
Mr. Macdonald asked whether Conservation PUDs are not allowed in some districts. Mr. Connor said
Sharon suggests to limit them to certain districts so you don’t have big commercial zones where
Conservation PUDs are not allowed (e.g., along Shelburne Road). Ms. Louisos directed attention to the
chart of districts that could qualify for Conservation PUDs.
At the bottom of p. 4, Mr. Conner raised the question of a PUD development that is non-contiguous to
itself or one that has multiple owners. Members suggested not allowing them to be non-contiguous.
On p. 5, Mr. Mittag suggested adding a statement of conformance with Article 10 and 12. Mr. Conner
noted that C-1 on the next page addresses that concern. Members were OK leaving the language as it is.
On p. 8, Mr. Conner directed attention to the section that says within your buildable area, the area
designated as buildable must be at least 4 per acre or whatever the underlying density of the district is
within the residential portion. He asked whether members wanted higher density within a transit area
or in the middle of a TND to allow for 8 units per acre. He noted there are two R-12 areas which are
very small and built out. Everywhere else, the highest minimum density is 7 per acre in a TND.
Mr. Riehle felt this was an important issue and that a maximum density should be provided. Ms. Ostby
said if they go to “building type,” it becomes how many units you can fit. She added that the community
has to understand that the developer can create a neighborhood with the maximum number of building
types that can fit. No one can say what the maximum would be; it would depend of the building types.
Mr. Conner said a range can be provided, but within that range, it’s to the design that’s chosen.
Mr. MacDonald said he struggles with that. He felt it will be very hard for the public to understand and
asked if this can be put in more understandable terms. He was concerned that people will “holler”
when they see what is going up.
Ms. Louisos said 8 per acre seems like a high number. Mr. Conner said they could restrict this to a PUD
of 20 acres or more.
Ms. Louisos suggested having a concept of what these areas would look like would make it easier to deal
with.
Mr. Riehle asked why ½ mile instead of ¼ mile. Mr. Conner said that is a good question. Mr. Mittag
supported ¼ mile. Ms. Ostby said she would support a ½ mile. She noted that people who were living in
the Larkin building on Shelburne Rd. moved because of noise. And there are people on Market Street
with no safe place for their children to play. Mr. Gagnon favored ½ mile as they are trying to encourage
walkability.
Mr. Chalnick said that having what was the maximum density become the minimum density seems like a
big jump.
Traditional Neighborhood Design:
5
Mr. Conner stressed that these will become design standards. He noted the need to update the
standard requiring homes to face “arterial streets” as list those streets as they are not necessarily what
you would think they are. He suggested possibly just listing the roads you can’t face onto.
Mr. Conner suggested delaying the discussion of “units per acre” until the next meeting.
Ms. Ostby raised the issue of heights and noted that with more height you can have a smaller building
footprint. She said she would hate to block a good idea because of a height maximum. Ms. Louiso s
suggested that they tie heights to building types. Mr. Gagnon noted receipt of a letter asking them to be
careful not to block anyone’s views. Mr. MacDonald suggested this could be addressed under “alternate
compliance.” Mr. Conner said he had no problem going a little talker or with some “alternate
compliance” as long as it doesn’t change the building type. He noted there is some current language
regarding transitions as to height and what can go next to it.
Mr. Conner said that currently in an R-4 district, there is a maximum of 4 units per acre. In a TND,
hazards and level 1 resources would be deleted from a PUD. Then the top 4 rows of the chart would get
applied. He said he would try to figure a way to say this so it is not confusing to people. Mr. Gagnon
suggested pie charts which might be easier to understand than a table. Mr. Conner said that is in the
work plan.
Mr. Conner noted that Sharon had a question regarding the amount of space dedicated to “civic space.”
Currently it is 10% of developable land. Sharon thought to bump that up. This will be added to next
week’s discussion.
Conservation PUDs:
Mr. Conner said there is a question as to what the 70% should be. It is drafted so that density excludes
the hazards. He asked whether it is 70% after hazards.
Mr. Conner also asked what the Commission wants to do about “estate lots” or “small cluster
allowances.”
Ms. Louisos suggested that with “estate lots,” a landowner could put aside land for future development
or dedicate land for a future park or for greater conservation. Mr. MacDonald asked how many
properties fall under this scenario.
Mr. Conner noted that the Commission had said that everywhere that could be a TND could be a
Conservation PUD. He didn’t think there would be many “estate lots.” There are a handful set up by
deeds as to how many homes can be on a property. That kind of deed restriction is no longer legal
unless the land is to be donated to an entity like a Land Trust. Mr. Bolduc said he would like to know the
possibilities for that.
6
Ms. Ostby said she would like to reserve a right for future development. She said if someone does less
than what is in the regulations, but the Comprehensive Plan spells out other goals (e.g. housing),
reserving land for the future does that.
Mr. Gagnon said his concern would be a piecemeal development which would result in the whole thing
eventually being built out. He felt there should be a conjunction with a PUD type or some such thing.
Ms. Louisos said if someone isn’t meeting minimum housing goals, they could meet another goal like a
park or a dog park or other recreation space. Ms. Ostby said that removes housing, and there is a
housing crisis, and the Comprehensive Plan has housing goals. She felt there should always be an option
to support housing goals. Mr. Mittag said there is also a climate crisis. He felt the two goals aren’t
mutually exclusive and there was a place for each.
Mr. Conner asked what could make an “estate lot” different from a PUD. It doesn’t follow a traditional
block layout. He asked if members were comfortable with a circumstance like that. He suggested there
could be an option that with 20 acres someone could cut off several acres for a small subdivision site
plan instead of a PUD and then say that any more than that would be subject to the PUD standards. The
problem is if the “estate acres” are right in the middle of the property, precluding future use of it.
Mr. Gagnon said there needs to be delineation of what the Commission wants for the future. There
needs to be constraints on the remaining acreage. He was OK with future development, but it has to be
some kind of PUD, park, etc. Ms. Louisos asked what the city gets for this flexibility. Mr. Gagnon said
the land is private until the owner decides what to do with it. Mr. Conner asked what if the owner
doesn’t allow future development on the remaining acres. Mr. Gagnon said it could be willed to the kids
and could remain undeveloped unless/until someone decides what to do with it. Till then it’s just like
any other land.
Ms. Louisos said there needs to be language so the carved out piece is not in the middle.
Mr. MacDonald asked if there would be a size restriction. Mr. Conner said there probably would be a
minimum size, probably 15-20 acres with no more than 10% being “cut off.”
Mr. Conner then raised other questions regarding the Conservation PUD:
a. Should there be a density minimum PUD (typically there is not)?
b. Do we have the right order of ranked importance?
Members felt the answer to “b” is yes. Mr. Gagnon favored no minimum. Ms. Ostby felt there should
be a minimum but there would have to be something “to the greater good.” Mr. Riehle said he was
leaning toward no minimum density. Mr. Mittag read other goals from the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Dooley had several questions:
7
a. Where in the Comprehensive Plan does it say the city should encourage preservation of
grasslands? She said taking land that is otherwise appropriate for development and
removing it from availability for development via a Conservation PUD is not a win-win
proposal.
b. With regard to “estate lots,” she asked how keeping the remaining acres private is
consistent with goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bolduc felt “estate lots” should be discouraged.
Ms. Dooley said that in light of the dramatic difference between households in the Southeast Quadrant
and those in the rest of the city, it seems to her that providing for estate lots will increase existing
inequities. She asked how this can be a constructive public policy. If you are essentially providing for R-
1 instead of R-4, it is enabling very large homes, whether you call it an estate lot or not.
Ms. Ryder said that climate issues are as important as housing goals.
Ms. Chalnick said she looks forward to further discussion about infill development, particularly regarding
vacant commercial space.
Regarding item 5c (expansion of Inclusionary Zoning), Ms. Louisos said this is on the agenda because of
what happens when they move to a building-based density and affordable housing bonuses no longer
apply. She asked if there are other “carrots” that could apply. She felt it might make sense to include
Inclusionary Zoning in PUDs instead of coming back to it in a year. She also noted there are certain areas
of the city that are “better off” economically and the Commission could be disproportionately
representing groups of people. She asked members to consider this as part of what the Commission is
doing.
Item 5d was not discussed due to the late hour.
6. Staff overview of next meeting & overall project schedule & hearing dates
Item 6 was not discussed due to the late hour.
7. Consider and possibly approve request for new street name: Rosita Lane:
Mr. Riehle moved to approve Rosita Lane as presented. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
8. Minutes
No action was taken on minutes due to the late hour.
9. Other Business:
8
a. Burlington Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to
Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 23 February, 6:45 pm via Zoom.
b. Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Limited Land
Use and Development Regulations, Thursday, 25 February 2021, 6:30 p.m. via Zoom
Items for information only.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:01 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk