HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 03/23/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, March 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 (audio & video): https://www.gotomeet.me/SBCity/pc-2021-03-23
Telephone (audio only): (872) 240-3212; Access Code: 110-311-437
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 (7:10 pm)
4. Swift Street / Spear Street Intersection improvement scoping study presentation and feedback (7:12 pm)
5. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:40 pm)
a. Continued review of updated Environmental Protection Standards following Commission guidance
and related amendments
6. *Minutes: March 3, March 9, March 10, 2021 (8:55 pm)
7. Other Business: (8:57 pm)
a. *Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations, Thursday, April 8, 2021 6:30pm via Zoom https://zoom.us/j/97701613338
8. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Conner, AICP,
Director of Planning & Zoning
* item has attachments
South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public 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. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently
presenting / commenting will have their video on.
3. 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.
4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant
in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute
yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat.
5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission.
6. 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 to complete the agenda.
7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not
interrupt others when they are speaking.
8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint.
Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat.
9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to
allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time.
10. 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 influence public opinion on the matter.
11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All
written comments will be circulated 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. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning
and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com.
12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items
specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message
Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages
on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of
Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official
meeting minutes.
13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission.
14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently
focused to help guide participants.
15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published
timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda
items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any
expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end
that will be covered “if time allows”.
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: March 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 (7:10 pm)
4. Swift Street / Spear Street Intersection improvement feasibility study presentation and feedback
As you know, the City has initiated a scoping study to assess alternatives to improve the function and
safety of the Swift/Spear Intersection. The Planning Commission is the designated “host” public body,
meaning that the Commission is hosting public input, providing feedback, and ultimately, consider the
Project Team’s recommendations and take a formal action to approve a “preferred alternative” for the
advancement towards being included in the Capital Plan, possible grant applications, and City Council
final approval.
At this meeting, members of the Project Team will provide an overview of the work to date and solicit
input from the Commission and public.
We encourage you, in advance of the meeting, to visit the project’s online interactive story map &
survey. It contains a survey, but it’s much more than that, using an interactive map to show the issues
and considerations associated with the intersection.
5. *Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session (7:40 pm)
a. Continued review of updated Environmental Protection Standards following Commission guidance
and related amendments
The Commission will pic up where it before off this past week, just after section 9.06 from the SEQ. The
enclosed memos & text are unchanged from last week.
6. *Minutes: March 3, March 9, March 10, 2021 (8:55 pm)
7. Other Business: (8:57 pm)
a. *Winooski Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use and
Development Regulations, Thursday, April 8, 2021 6:30pm via Zoom https://zoom.us/j/97701613338
8. Adjourn (9:00 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: Environmental Protection Standards & Related Amendments
DATE: March 16, 2021 Planning Commission meeting
Enclosed is a revised version of the draft Environmental Protection Standards & Related Amendments. There
are two versions of these amendments:
• A “clean” version, enclosed with this packet
• A “redline” version, showing all proposed additions & strikethroughs, on the City’s website.
Also enclosed is a map showing the proposed set of regulations1. I am pleased also to present an updated
interactive online map with each of these resource layers, so Commissioners and the public can view the
information in greater detail.
Taylor Newton of the CCRPC has completed revisions as directed by the Commission last month, including
applying the decisions made by the Commission and continuing to refine language so that it is functional and
readable. Taylor prepared a summary memo of the revisions made to Articles 10 & 12; it is enclosed within
this packet.
The packet also contains the proposed complete set of “related revisions” to the Environmental Protection
Standards, based on the Commission’s direction this past week to prioritize these specific amendments
ahead of other ongoing work before the Commission. These amendments are restricted to those
amendments directly connected to the regulation of natural resources.
Related Amendment Notes:
1. Definitions [Articled 2]. Definitions have been included as used in the updated Environmental
Protection Standards
2. Description of Districts [Article 3]. Revised to include floodplain references and to remove the
reference to the outdated city wetlands map, which has been replaced
3. Undue Adverse Effect. [Article 3, Previously shown in article 12]. This “test” provides the DRB with
direction on how to evaluate the term “undue adverse effect” within the LDRs. The term is most
frequently used in Articles 10 & 12, but is referenced in a handful of other instances as well unrelated
to natural resources. The “test” would apply to all circumstances where the term is used.
1 Actual locations of certain resources, including wetlands and river corridors not mapped by the State, are subject to field delineation.
See note on page 4 of this memo about rare, threatened and endangered species.
2
4. Southeast Quadrant Open Space and Resource Protection [Article 9]. The current regulations
include the following standard applicable to PUDs in the Southeast Quadrant:
A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be
established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and maintenance of each area.
Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use an d
maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the
development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands,
floodplains, conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic
features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. In making this finding the
Development Review Board shall use the provisions of Article 12 of this bylaw related to wetlands and
stream buffers.
Staff has reviewed the history of this standard. The standard was first included in the Land
Development Regulations in 2006, commensurate with an update to the Comprehensive Plan. The
SEQ chapter of both the Plan and Regulations were revised concurrently. The Plan included a map of
“Southeast Quadrant Natural Communities and Buffers,” showing three areas as primary natural
communities: the “Great Swamp” the “Van Sicklen Woods”, and the “Cheesefactory Woods”. The
source of these mapped areas was the 2004 Arrowwood Environmental Report.
In 2016, the City’s Comprehensive Plan was again revised re-adopted. The map listed above was
replaced with the present “Map 7, Primary Conservation Areas,” and “Map 8, Secondary
Conservation Areas,” which are based on a series of State data layers of potential natural resources
and have the 2015 Open Space Report as their source.
The areas depicted in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan are significantly greater in area than the limited
three areas from the 2006 Plan.
Staff recommends that the Commission address and resolve the Regulatory implications of the
standard shown above having been drafted to refer to a Comprehensive Plan whose maps and
description now differ significantly.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider a replacement of the language above with one that
refers directly to the Hazards, Level 1, and Level 2 Resources that have been developed by the
Commission over the past two years following detailed analysis and review of each resource:
A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be
established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and maintenance of each area.
Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and
maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the
development plan. In making this finding the Development Review Board shall use the provisions of
Articles 10 and 12 of this bylaw related to Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resources.
The section above also includes reference to demarcation of wetland buffer boundaries through
fencing, etc. Staff has relocated those standards to Article 12 so that they can apply citywide and not
solely in the SEQ.
5. SEQ-Natural Resources Protection District [Article 9]. The current regulations include the following
standard within the SEQ-NRP:
3
The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary
natural community or its related buffer.
See above for a review of the history of this standard; it was also first included in the Land
Development Regulations in 2006. One additional note that the term “designated primary natural
community” was (and still is) not defined in the Regulations.
The three areas shown in the 2006 Plan map (the Great Swamp; the Van Sicklen Woods; and
Cheesefactory Swamp) almost entirely overlap with the Hazards and Level 1 Resources identified in
the proposed regulations; of the handful of locations where they do not overlap entirely, the majority
of that land has been either been permanently conserved via the VT Land Trust was previously
developed (Dorset Farms), or was acquired or conserved by the City using Conservation Funds, (Scott
and Goodrich Parcels).
Staff therefore recommends that the standard above be replaced with the following:
The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a Hazard, Level 1 Resource,
Level 2 Resource or their related buffers.
6. PUD Review Authority [Article 15]. With the current PUD language remaining for the time being,
staff is recommending the following addition to the current standards:
(4) Notwithstanding section 15.02(A)(3), however, the following standards shall apply to all PUDs:
…
(d) PUD review does not provide for modification of standards related to Hazards, Level 1 Resources,
or Level 2 Resources beyond those specifically enumerated in Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations.
The purpose of this text is to be clear that a PUD, which authorizes broad authority to modify the
standards of the Regulations, may not override the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 with respect to
Hazards, Level 1 Resources, and Level 2 Resources.
7. General Standards applicable to PUDs, Subdivisions, transect subdivisions, and master plans. [Article
15]. The current standards require that:
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making
this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands
and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the
project’s impact on natural resources.
And
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. For Transect
Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article
XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington.
The Open Space Strategy was prepared in 2002. Since that time the City has prepared multiple updated
studies, established the SEQ’s Natural Resource Protection District, and is presently proposing
standards for Hazards, Level 1, and Level 2 Resources, which will expand the specific review standards
above. Staff also notes that the general text above has not been revised since the Vermont Supreme
4
Court’s JAM Golf decision, ruling a prior standard requiring the protection of “scenic views, wildlife
habitats, and special features such as mature maple groves” violated due process rights as it provided
no guidance as to what be fairly expected from landowners.
Staff therefore recommends the standards above be replaced with the following:
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to Hazards, Level I Resources,
and Level II Resources, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall
utilize the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations related to Hazards, Level I Resources,
and Level II Resources, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to
the project’s impact on natural resources.
…
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, habitat blocks, habitat connectors,
wetlands, and/or river corridors. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the
location of natural resources identified in Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations and proposed open
spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington.
8. Submission requirements. [Appendix E]. Requirements updated to reflect preliminary and complete
requirements for applicable applications related to Articles 10 and 12.
Article 12 Note on Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species:
You will note that Taylor’s memo (and the accompanying text) removed the subsection on Rare, Thre atened,
and Endangered Species (RTEs). This section was included from the start of the Commission’s work but has not
been the subject of a great deal of discussion. The standard as initially drafted required that all projects, other
than single- and two-family homes, not place an undue adverse effect on any RTE Species
After further researching this subject area, and meeting with staff from the Vermont Department of Fish and
Wildlife, staff has the following findings:
9. The geographic area of “potential” RTE species is significant. See the enclosed “Natural Resources
Map” [which staff is recommending be updated to remove the RTEs].
10. The majority of the RTE species’ actual habitat areas are found in forested areas, wetland areas, and
stream corridors.
11. In South Burlington, much of types of development that would require mitigation efforts are likely to
fall under Act 250 or Section 248 jurisdiction, which addressed RTEs.
12. Review, establishment of conditions, and enforcement for avoidance and mitigation standards
applicable to RTEs at the municipal level would require application of species-specific guidance and
action would be very significant.
Staff also met with the Natural Resources Conservation Committee earlier this month and discussed the subject
generally, including the City’s capacity to oversee a regulation of RTEs. Committee members recognized the
issue and are exploring ideas.
Based on all of the all of the above, and with consideration of the Commission’s goal of completing the
Environmental Protection Standards as its top priority, staff and Taylor Newton have proposed that RTEs NOT
be regulated in-and-of themselves at this time. However, staff is proposing that where an applicant is proposing
to modify a Habitat Block requiring a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA), the HAD include an inventory
of RTEs on the site as part of the analysis.
Page 1 of 2
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Taylor Newton, Senior Planner
Date: March 10, 2021
Re: South Burlington – Article 10 and Article 12 Edits
The following is a summary of edits to Section 10.07 (River Corridor) and Article 12 completed by CCRPC
in early March 2021:
Summary of Edits by Section
Section 10.07 River Corridor Overlay District (RCO)
1. Clarified that all River Corridors are considered “Hazards,” except River Corridors on
intermittent streams which are considered “Level 2” resources.
2. Revised specific restricted infrastructure encroachment River Corridor standards to more clearly
allow for road/driveway crossings and sidewalks/paths to provide connection between
neighborhoods and access for recreational opportunities.
3. Removed the application requirement for a State Permit Review Sheet because it the
municipality is not enabled in statute to require this document for development in the River
Corridor.
Section 12.01 General Protection Standards
1. Clarified the types projects regulated under Section 12.08 – Stormwater Management that may
be reviewed via administrative site plan review.
2. Added “accessory structures” to the list of types of development that may be approved
administratively if located on steep slopes (15% to 25% grade)
Section 12.03 Wetland Protection Standards
1. Revised the purpose statement to clarify the intent of the regulations.
2. Matched Zoning District names listed in section with names used in Article 3.
3. Clarified conditions in which development may be allowed, via waiver, within a Class III wetland
and associated buffer.
Section 12.04 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
1. Removed standalone section and rolled regulations into Section 12.07 – Habitat Disturbance
Assessment and Section 12.10 - Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. This is a new
approach, but still aims to protect rare, threatened and endangered species (RTEs) in South
Burlington. This new approach is proposed to streamline regulations and reflects that RTEs in
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404-2109
802-846-4490
www.ccrpcvt.org
Page 2 of 2
South Burlington primarily exist in areas with other existing resources (e.g. habitat blocks,
wetlands, river corridors) that are already strictly regulated by the City.
Section 12.05 Habitat Blocks
1. Clarified that large area habitat blocks exchanges may occur within one parcel or across multiple
parcels.
2. Revised the list of land to be excluded under the substantially-habitat block-covered lots
regulations to provide additional clarity.
3. Clarified that small structures under 500 square feet are permitted within public parks that
include habitat blocks.
Section 12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA)
1. Added language to purpose statement of the subsection to clarify that part of the intent of this
assessment is to protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.
2. Clarified the content requirements subsection to ensure that an HDA include an inventory of any
existing rare, threatened, or endangered species on the subject parcel.
Section 12.08 Stormwater Management
1. Revised, in concert with City of South Burlington stormwater staff, to clarify the location of new
stormwater infrastructure within rights-of-way.
Section 12.09 Steep Slopes
1. Added the ability for the DRB to impose recommendations from the required slope stability
analysis that is submitted with the application.
2. Retitled “Quarries and Natural Resource Extraction” land uses as “Removal of Earth Products” to
reflect the definition used elsewhere in the regulations.
Section 12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
1. Clarified that street and driveway crossings are allowed as restricted infrastructure
encroachments, not just street and driveways generally.
2. Clarified that sidewalks and recreation paths may provide access to recreational opportunities.
3. Added a supplemental application standard requiring that all applications for restricted
infrastructure encroachments projects include a Habitat Disturbance Assessment.
4. Clarified that the specific standards for utility, street, and driveway crossings shall only apply to
those crossings that are not shown on the Official Map.
Definitions
1. Revised definition of “Level 1 Resources” and “Level 2 Resources” in Article 2.
LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards
Draft LDR Amendments March 11, 2021 1
LDR-20-01: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS & RELATED
KEY TO AMENDMENTS:
This version depicts draft text only. A mark-up version is available.
Text in yellow highlights are notes to the draft
ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS
…
2.02 Specific Definitions
…
Building Envelope. A designated area or portion of a lot, delineated on a subdivision plat, within which all
structures, parking and loading areas, and clearing of land must be located, with the exception of driveways
and utility lines. A building envelope shall be defined by minimum setback and maximum height requirements
unless otherwise specified in these Regulations.
Environmental Restoration Project: A project authorized under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit,
or Municipal Roads General Permit (MRGP), that address a primary pollution source identified in a Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation approved watershed implementation plan (i.e. TMDL, Flow
Restoration Plan, or Phosphorus Control Plan) and is not required for the purpose of developing or
redeveloping impervious surfaces. Additionally, any floodplain reconnection or stream channel restoration
projects that are not included in a Flow Restoration Plan or Phosphorus Control Plan, but are necessary to
meet the required pollutant reductions in a TMDL.
Habitat Block. Contiguous forested and adjacent unmanaged shrubby areas of old field, young forest, and
unmanaged wetland as demarked on the Natural Resources Map. Includes areas large enough to provide
habitat, either permanently, or seasonally for wider ranging species of wildlife such as bobcat, red and grey
fox, white-tailed deer, river otter and fisher. These species of wildlife require larger areas (than squirrels or
rabbits for example), and a variety of appropriate habitat to fulfill their daily, seasonal, and yearly habitat
needs. These needs include security for breeding activities, a variety of food resources, secure cover for raising
young, and the presence of water- either for drinking or in the case of aquatic species, as a general habitat.
Habitat Blocks fall within a matrix of land-uses that include urban, residential, agricultural, transportation, and
rural uses.
Habitat Connector. Areas in the providing wildlife served by Habitat Blocks the ability to move across the
landscape in stepping-stone fashion between Habitat Blocks as demarked on the Natural Resources Map. For
species such as fox, fisher, and bobcat, accessing multiple Habitat Blocks make up for the smaller, more
fragmented nature of the Habitat Blocks in the community.
Hazard: Floodplain overlay districts A, AE, A1-30, and 0.2% B2, River Corridors except those along intermittent
streams, Very Steep Slopes, Class 1 and Class 2 wetland and associated buffers
Level 1 Resources: A Forest Block or Forest Block Connector as regulated under Article 12.
Level 2 Resources: River Corridors along intermittent streams, Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1 (500-
year floodplain, Class 3 wetlands (greater than 300 square feet in size) and associated buffers, and steep
slopes.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 2
Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. A wildlife or plant species identified by the Vermont Department of
Fish & Wildlife as being rare, threatened or endangered.
Significant Wildlife Habitat. Those natural features that contribute to the survival and/ or reproduction of the
native wildlife of South Burlington. This includes: (1) habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species (state
or federally listed); (2) River Corridors as defined in these regulations; (3) wetlands and wetland buffers as
defined in these Regulations; (4) Habitat Blocks, and (5) Habitat Connectors.
Site Balancing. Where stormwater control and/or treatment of certain limited areas of new, redeveloped, or
substantially reconstructed impervious surface area are not possible, the impact from these areas of untreated
impervious surfaces will be compensated on an equivalent basis by controlling and/or treating other
impervious surfaces on the lot, parcel, or property. This can be accomplished by providing additional control
and/or treatment beyond what is required for impervious surface areas already subject to the requirements
of 12.08(C) or by providing control and/or treatment for impervious surfaces that are not otherwise required
to meet the requirements of 12.08(C). The applicant must own or otherwise control the impervious surfaces
used for site balancing.
Steep Slopes. Any land formation, aside from individual rocks, with a measured slope of between 15 and 25%
containing a vertical drop of at least three (3) feet. Steep Slopes, Very. Any land formation, aside from
individual rocks, with a calculated slope of over 25% containing a vertical drop of at least three (3) feet.
Stream. A watercourse having a source and terminus, banks, and channel through which waters flow at least
periodically.
Stream, intermittent. Streams with a drainage area smaller than .5 square miles that are not subject
to the River Corridor regulations. This definition shall not include ditches and other constructed
channels primarily associated with land drainage or water conveyance.
Substantial reconstruction. The reconstruction of an impervious surface where an impervious surface
currently exists when such reconstruction involves site grading, subsurface excavation, or modification of
existing stormwater conveyance. Substantial reconstruction does not include maintenance or management
activities on impervious surfaces including any crack sealing, patching, cold planning, resurfacing, or reclaiming
treatments used to maintain pavement and bridges, or grading treatments used to maintain unpaved roads.
Undue Adverse Effect. An impact that 1) violates a clear, written community standard under these regulations,
and that 2) cannot be mitigated through siting or design modifications or conditions of approval.
Wetland. An area that is inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support
vegetation or aquatic life that depend on saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and
reproduction. Such areas include, but are not limited to, fens, marshes, swamps, sloughs, potholes, ponds, but
excluding such areas as grow food or crops in connection with farming activities. The boundary of a wetland
shall be delineated by the methodology set forth in the 1989 edition of the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, or any subsequent amendment or revision of that document. Wetlands
are classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands by the most recently adopted Vermont Wetland Rules.
2.03 Definitions for Flood Hazard and River Corridor Purposes
Average grade level. The average of the natural or exiting topography at center of all exterior walls of a building
or structure to be placed on site.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 3
Substantial damage. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30, damage of any origin sustained by
a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged conditions would equal or
exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. In Floodplain Overlay
District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2, damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the
structure to its before-damaged conditions would equal or exceed 75 percent of the market value of the
structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial improvement. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30, any repair, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure after the date of adoption of this bylaw, the cost
of which, over three years, or over the period of a common plan of development, cumulatively equals or
exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement.
In Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2, any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or
other improvement of a structure after the date of adoption of this bylaw, the cost of which, over three years,
or over the period of a common plan of development, cumulatively equals or exceeds 75 percent of the market
value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement.
This term includes structures which have incurred “substantial damage”, regardless of the actual repair work
performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to
correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been
previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure
safe living conditions or (b) Any alteration of an “historic structure”, provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure”.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 4
ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.01 Establishment of Districts and Description of Certain Districts
…
B. Description of Certain Districts.
(1) Floodplain Overlay District. The boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District shall include those
areas that are identified as areas of special flood hazard (Zones A, AE, A1-30, and 0.2%) in and on the most
current flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, as provided by the Secretary of the
Agency of Natural Resources pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, which are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be part of these regulations. Zone 0.2% has been further divided into Zone B1
and Zone B2 on Map ****, and Map *** is hereby incorporated into these Regulations. The location of
the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer (AO).
(a) Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30. The boundaries of these Zones include
those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as
Zones A, AE, or A1-30.
(b) Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2. The boundaries of these Zones include
those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as
Zone 0.2%, and are separated into a zone that reflects generally developed and priority development
areas, and a zone that reflects generally undeveloped areas.
3.02 Official Maps and Other Maps
…
D. Natural Resources Map. The Natural Resources map identifies Hazards, Level I Resources and Level II
Resources that are subject to the restrictions set forth in Articles 10 and 12 of these
3.04 Applicability of Regulations
…
H. Undue Adverse Effect. Where the terms Undue Adverse Effect or Undue Adverse Impact are used in
these Regulations, the Development Review Board shall apply the test enumerated in Figure 3-0, Determining
Undue Adverse Effect
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 5
Figure 3-0 Determining Undue Adverse Effect
The following test shall be used by the Development Review Board in all circumstances when the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations requires the Development Review Board to determine whether or not an undue adverse effect is being
created.
1. First, the Development Review Board shall determine if a proposed project will have an adverse effect upon the resource,
issue and/or facility in question. The Development Review Board shall determine such by responding to the following
question:
(a) Will the project have an unfavorable impact upon the resource, issue and/or facility in question?
2. If it is determined by the Development Review Board that an adverse effect will be being created by a project, the
Development Review Board shall then determine if the adverse effect is “undue.” To determine whether or not an adverse
effect is undue, the Development Review Board shall respond to the following two questions:
(a) Will the project conflict with a clear, written standard in these regulations or the Municipal Plan applicable to the
resource, issue or facility in question?
(b) Can the unfavorable impact be avoided through site or design modifications, or mitigation, or other conditions of
approval?
The Development Review Board shall conclude that adverse effect is “undue” if the answer to 2(a) is YES OR the answer to 2(b) is
NO.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 6
ARTICLE 9 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – SEQ
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts
…
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, creating or enhancing stream buffer
areas, or creating or enhancing buffers for primary or secondary natural communities.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district, allowing carefully planned development at the average
densities provided in this bylaw.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall
be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and maintenance of each area.
Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and
maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the
development plan. In making this finding the Development Review Board shall use the provisions of
Articles 10 and 12 of this Bylaw related to Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resources.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the
subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely
on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that
create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations
and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil
group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall
neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly
encouraged.
9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations
A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to the following supplemental
regulations:
(1) Such lot shall be conveyed to the City of South Burlington as dedicated open space or to a qualified
land trust and shall not be developed with a residence, or
(2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan
approved by the Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below.
(3) Such lot may be developed with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C-1, subject to the
Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land
utilization and conservation. Such lot may also include the following additional development/activities:
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 7
(a) Driveways, roads, underground utility services, or other appurtenant improvements to serve
approved development or uses. Utility service components, such as transformers and amplifiers, may
be installed at ground level where such accords with standard industry practices.
(b) Landscaping, regrading, or other similar activities necessary to the creation of a buildable lot.
B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a
SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject to
conditional use review and the following supplemental standards:
(1) Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no
more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if:
(a) The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate
the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations, and;
(b) The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a Hazard, Level 1
Resource, Level 2 Resource or their related buffers.
(2) Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board
may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family dwelling
unit on each of these lots only if:
(a) The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is
sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units
on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations.
(i)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots
approvable in compliance with these Regulations, no subdivisions of land or construction of new
dwelling units shall be permitted in the NRP subdistrict;
(ii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of two (2) single family dwelling units on lots approvable
in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to one (1)
new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these
Regulations;
(iii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of one (1) single family dwelling units on lots approvable
in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to two (2)
new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these
Regulations;
(iv)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is insufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of any single family dwelling units on lots approvable in
compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to three (3)
new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these
Regulations; and,
(b) such lots shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit , and,
(c) the location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a Hazard, Level 1
Resource, Level 2 Resource or their related buffers, and,
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 8
(d) The location of structures and access drives are clustered such that no dwelling unit is located
more than one hundred (100) feet from any other structure, and,
(e) The dwelling units shall be detached single family dwellings, and,
(f) Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a
conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land
against further land subdivision and development.
C. A single tax parcel existing as of the effective date of these regulations which exceeds one hundred
(100) acres and is located entirely within the NRP sub-district, as shown on the South Burlington Tax Maps last
revised 6/05 (June 2005), whether such lands are contiguous or not, may be subdivided at an average overall
density for the entire tax parcel of one (1) single -family dwelling per ten (10) acres. Any new lots so created
shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Such lots shall be clustered in a manner
that maximizes the resource values of the property and shall have no portion within a Hazard or Level I
Resource Area or their related buffers. All dwelling units shall be detached single family houses. Such
subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and
development.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 9
10 OVERLAY DISTRICTS FP, TR, SVP, IHO, TO, UDO, RCO
10.01 Floodplain Overlay District (FP)
[NOTE TO DRAFT: SECTION 10.01 IS DISPLAYED A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TEXT.
EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING SECTION]
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Floodplain Overlay District to:
1. Avoid and minimize the loss of life and property, the disruption of commerce, the impairment of the tax
base, and the extraordinary public expenditures and demands on public services that result from
flooding;
2. Ensure that the selection, design, creation, and use of development is reasonably safe and accomplished
in a manner that is consistent with public wellbeing, does not impair flood plain services or the stream
corridor;
3. Manage the flood hazard area designated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, the municipal hazard
mitigation plan; and make the City of South Burlington, its citizens, and businesses eligible for federal
flood insurance, federal disaster recovery funds, and hazard mitigation funds as may be available.
B. Authority. In accordance with 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32, and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 §4424, §4411 and §4414,
there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of flood damage in the City of South Burlington
Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington
identified as within the Floodplain Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B).
C. [reserved]
D. Administration
1. Floodplain Review. All development in the City of South Burlington located within the Floodplain
Overlay District shall be subject to Floodplain Review. The Floodplain Overlay District overlays other
existing zoning districts. All other requirements of the underlying district shall apply in addition to the
provisions herein, unless otherwise indicated. The Floodplain Overlay District is composed of two
areas:
a. Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30. The boundaries of these Zones include
those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current flood insurance
studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program and mapped as Zones A, AE, or A1-
30.
b. Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2. The boundaries of these Zones include
those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current flood insurance
studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, and on Map ****, and Map ***, and
mapped as Zone 0.2% B1 and Zone 0.2% B2. Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1 is
composed of areas of the 500-year floodplain that are already substantially developed and
where additional opportunities for infill development is appropriate. Floodplain Overlay
District Zone 0.2% B2 is composed of areas of the 500-year floodplain that are not developed
and where future development is not appropriate.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 10
2. Interpretation. The information presented on any maps, or contained in any studies, adopted by
reference, is presumed accurate. However, if uncertainty exists regarding the Floodplain Overlay
District boundary, the following procedure shall be followed:
a. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District Zones A,
AE, and A1-30 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer.
If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the Administrative Officer, a Letter
of Map Amendment from FEMA shall constitute proof that the property is not located within
the Special Flood Hazard Area.
b. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District Zones
0.2% B1 and B2 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative
Officer. If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the Administrative Officer,
the applicant may appeal the determination in accordance with Article 17.
3. Base Flood Elevations and Floodway Limits.
a. Where available (i.e. zones A1-A30, AE, AH, and 0.2% B1 within the floodplain of the Winooski
River), the base flood elevations and floodway limits (or data from which a community can
designate regulatory floodway limits) provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in
the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying maps shall be used to administer and enforce
the provisions of these regulations.
b. In Zone A of the Floodplain Overlay District where base flood elevations and floodway limits
have not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study
and accompanying maps, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to develop the base
flood elevation at the site using data available from state or federal agencies or other sources.
4. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered
by this overlay district will be free from flood damages. These regulations shall not create liability on
the part of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any flood
damages that result from reliance on these regulations, or any administrative decision lawfully made
hereunder.
5. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this Floodplain Overlay District shall not in any way impair or
remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where
these regulations imposes a greater restriction the provisions here shall take precedence.
6. Exempted Development. The following types of development are exempt from Floodplain Review.
The following types of development may also still be subject to other standards in the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations including Section 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection
Standards:
a. The removal of a building or other improvement in whole or in part, so long as the ground
elevations under and adjacent to the removed structure remain unchanged. Please be aware
that for damaged structures where FEMA mitigation funds may be used, the damaged
structure may be required to remain in place until funds are granted.
b. Routine maintenance of existing buildings in the usual course of business required or
undertaken to conserve the original condition, while compensating for normal wear and tear.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 11
c. Routine maintenance includes actions necessary for retaining or restoring a piece of
equipment, machine, or system to the specified operable condition to achieve its maximum
useful life and does not include expansions or improvements to development.
d. Interior improvements to existing buildings that cost less than five-hundred (500) dollars.
e. Maintenance of existing sidewalks, roads, parking areas, or stormwater drainage; this does
not include expansions.
f. Maintenance of existing bridges, culverts, and channel stabilization activities; this does not
include expansions.
g. Streambank armoring and stabilization, retaining walls, and abutment work that do not
reduce the cross-sectional flow area of the river or stream channel and have coverage under
a Stream Alteration Permit, if required, under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 and the rules adopted
thereunder.
h. The following activities are exempt from Floodplain Review, but may require a permit under
the State’s “Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule” (Environmental Protection
Rule, Chapter 29):
i. State-owned and operated institutions and facilities.
ii. Forestry operations and silvicultural (forestry) activities conducted in accordance with
the Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Acceptable Management Practices for
Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont or other accepted silvicultural
practices, as defined by the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation.
iii. Agricultural activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture
Food and Market’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs).
iv. Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30
V.S.A. § 248.
i. Telecommunications facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248aPlanting projects which do not
include any construction or grading activities in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424(c).
E. Floodplain Review Application Requirements
1. Application Submission Requirements. All applications for Floodplain Review shall include:
a. Floodplain Development Plan. A Floodplain Development Plan that depicts the proposed
development, property boundaries, all water bodies, all boundaries (Floodplain Overlay
District boundaries – all zones), the shortest horizontal distance from the proposed
development to the top of bank of any river, any existing and proposed drainage, any proposed
fill, pre- and post-development grades, and the elevation of the proposed lowest floor as
referenced to the same vertical datum as the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate
Maps; and
b. Project Review Sheet. A completed Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Project Review
Sheet. The Project Review Sheet shall identify all State and Federal agencies from which
permit approval is required for the proposal, and shall be filed as a required attachment to
the municipal permit application. The identified permits, or letters indicating that such
permits are not required, shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer and attached to the
permit before work can begin.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 12
2. Supplemental Application Requirements. Some applications may require additional information
based on the location and type of the development. The following information shall be developed and
provided with an application, as required below:
a. Base Flood Elevation (BFE). BFE information is required for applications that include the
following development located in Zones A, A1-A30, AE, AH, and 0.2% B1 within the floodplain
of the Winooski River:
i. New, substantially improved, or substantially damaged structures;
ii. Projects requiring elevation or dry-floodproofing above BFE;
iii. Additions to existing historic structures; and
iv. Any accessory structure proposed to have building utility systems that will need to be
protected from flood waters through elevation above the BFE.
b. Floodway Data. The following information is required for development proposed to be located
in the floodway. All floodway data shall be certified by a registered professional engineer. All
submitted proposals shall include electronic input/output files mapping showing cross-section
locations and the following information:
i. Hydraulic calculations demonstrating no rise in BFE or velocity for proposed new or
expanded encroachments within the floodway.
ii. In accordance with 44 C.F.R. § 60.3(c)(10), where BFE data has been provided by
FEMA, but no floodway areas have been designated, the applicant shall provide a
floodway delineation that demonstrates that the proposed development, when
combined with all existing and anticipated future development, will not increase the
water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot at any point within
the community.
c. Average Grade Level. Information about average grade level is required for development
involving all structures proposed to be located in Zone 0.2% B1 and Zone 0.2% B2.
d. Erosion Control Projects. For projects involving erosion control measures within the floodplain
on Lake Champlain, the applicant shall submit: [note to draft: need to further refine]
i. Renderings or other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the
aesthetic or visual impact of the proposed improvement. [from Taylor Newton: See
note below. Consider removing this requirement and accompanying standard.]
ii. A landscaping plan.
3. Waivers. Upon written request from the applicant, the Development Review Board may waive specific
application requirements when the data or information is not needed to comply with these
regulations.
F. Floodplain Review - Development Review Process. All applications for development in the Floodplain
Overlay District shall be reviewed according to the following procedures:
1. Referrals.
a. NFIP Coordinator. Upon receipt of a complete Floodplain Review application for a substantial
improvement or new construction the Administrative Officer shall forward a copy of the
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 13
application and supporting information to the State National Flood Insurance Program
Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. 4424.
A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration
of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner. The
Administrative Officer, and/or Development Review Board shall consider all comments from
ANR.
b. Stream Alteration Engineer. If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation
of a watercourse, copies of the application shall also be submitted to the adjacent
communities, the Stream Alteration Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,
and the Army Corps of Engineers. Copies of such notice shall be provided to the State National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,
Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only following receipt of
comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from
the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, whichever
is sooner.
2. Review Process.
a. Administrative Review. Floodplain Review may be completed administratively by the
Administrative Officer for the following types of development in the Floodplain Overlay
District provided that the application is complete and the proposed development can be
approved administratively under all other sections of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations:
i. Changes from a permitted land use to another permitted land use provided that any
other changes to the site may also be administratively reviewed.
ii. Above grade development, which has not been elevated by the placement of fill, that is
two feet above base flood elevation and documented with field-surveyed topographic
information certified by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor
(Elevation Certificate).
iii. Open fencing and signs elevated on poles or posts that create minimal resistance to the
movement of floodwater.
iv. Municipal transportation infrastructure improvements designed and constructed by the
Vermont Agency of Transportation that have written confirmation from the ANR
Regional Floodplain Manager that the project is designed to meet or exceed the
applicable standards in these regulations.
v. River and floodplain restoration projects, including dam removal, that restore natural
and beneficial floodplain functions and include written confirmation from the ANR
Regional Floodplain Manager that the project is designed to meet or exceed the
applicable standards in these regulations.
vi. Improvements or repairs of damage to structures that do not expand the existing
footprint and do not meet the definition of “substantial improvement” or “substantial
damage.”
vii. Accessory structures less than 500 square feet in size in the Floodplain Overlay District
Zones 0.2% B1.
viii. Building utilities.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 14
ix. Recreational vehicles. See Section 3.08 Temporary Structures and Uses for additional
applicable standards.
b. Development Review. All development in the Floodplain Overlay District that cannot be
approved through administrative Floodplain Review shall require Floodplain Review by the
Development Review Board.
3. Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined in Section
2.03 (Floodplain Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay District. A permit shall only be issued for
development meeting the standards in Section 10.01(G) and the following the review process outlined
in Section 10.01(F) and Article 17.
a. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete application per Section 10.01(E), including all
application materials and fees, the Administrative Officer shall act to either issue or deny a
permit in writing, or to refer the application to the Development Review Board. If the
Administrative Officer fails to act with regard to a complete application for a permit within the
30-day period, a permit shall be deemed issued on the 31st day, unless the permit is for new
construction or substantial improvement, in which case a permit shall not be issued until the
Administrative Officer has complied with the requirements of Section 10.01(F)(1)).
b. No zoning permit shall be issued by the Administrative Officer for any use or structure which
requires the approval of the Development Review Board until such approval has been
obtained. For permit applications that must be referred to a state agency for review, no permit
shall be issued until a response has been received from the State, or the expiration of 30 days
following the submission of the application to the State, whichever is sooner.
G. Floodplain Review Standards. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be reviewed to ensure
that it complies with the following standards:
1. Prohibited Development. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in this section, the following
types of development are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay District:
a. New principal structures, both residential or non-residential (including the placement of
manufactured homes), except within Zone 0.2% B1 of the Floodway Overlay District;
b. New accessory structures except within the Zone 0.2% B1 of the Floodplain Overlay District.
c. New critical facilities;
d. Excavation of earth products shall be prohibited in such cases where it is anticipated that such
excavation will lower the level of the water table, interfere with natural flow patterns, or reduce
flood storage capacity;
e. Storage or junk yards;
f. New fill except as necessary to elevate structures above the base flood elevation.
g. Within the floodway: new encroachments, except for minor improvements to existing structures
or relating to bridges, culverts, roads, stabilization projects, public utilities, river and/or
floodplain restoration projects, or health and safety measures. Minor improvements are those
that would not affect base flood elevations, consistent with the provisions of FEMA P-480; Desk
Reference for Local Officials.
2. Development in the Floodway. Within the floodway, the following standards apply to all development:
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 15
a. New encroachments are prohibited within the floodway, except for the following, which also shall
comply with subsection (b) below:
i. New encroachments relating to bridges, culverts, roads, stabilization projects, public utilities,
functionally dependent uses, and river or floodplain restoration projects; and
ii. New encroachments relating to health and safety measures, such as replacement of
preexisting on-site septic and water supply systems, if no other practicable alternative is
available.
b. For all proposed new encroachments and above-grade development, a hydraulic analysis is
required to be provided for review. The analysis should be performed in accordance with standard
engineering practice, by a registered professional engineer, and shall certify that the proposed
development will:
i. Not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood;
ii. Not increase base flood velocities; and
iii. Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or
flooding.
c. For development that is either below grade or will not result in any change in grade, the
hydrologic & hydraulic analyses may be waived, where the applicant will provide pre and post-
development elevations demonstrating that there will be no change in grade, and that the
development will be adequately protected from scour.
d. For any new encroachment that is proposed within the Floodway where a hydraulic analysis is
required, the applicant may provide a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in lieu
of a hydraulic analysis, to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not have an adverse impact.
3. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District. All development in the Floodplain Overlay District
shall comply with the following standards:
a. All development shall be reasonably safe from flooding, as determined by compliance with the
specific standards of this subsection.
b. All development shall be designed (I) to minimize flood damage to the proposed development
and to public facilities and utilities, and (II) to provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to
flood hazards.
c. All development shall be (I) designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement of the structure during the occurrence of the base flood, (II) be
constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (III) be constructed by methods and
practices that minimize flood damage, and (IV) be constructed with electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are
designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during conditions of flooding.
d. Water Supply and Wastewater. New and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems
shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and
discharges from the systems into flood waters. On site waste disposal systems shall be located to
avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
e. Stream Alteration. The flood carrying capacity within any portion of an altered or relocated
watercourse shall be maintained.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 16
f. Manufactured Homes. Replacement manufactured homes shall be elevated on properly
compacted fill such that the top of the fill (pad) under the entire manufactured home is above
the base flood elevation.
g. Structures.
i. Residential Structures
a) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District Zones
A, A1-30, AE, and AH shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least two (2) feet
above base flood elevation; this must be documented, in the proposed and as-built
condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate.
b) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2%
Zones B1 & B2, and new structures in Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1, shall
be located such that the lowest floor is at least two (2) feet above the average grade
level on-site; this must be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with a
FEMA Elevation Certificate. Average grade level means the average of the natural or
exiting topography at center of all exterior walls of a building or structure to be placed
on site.
ii. Non-residential Structures. Non-residential structures to be substantially improved, and
new non-residential structures in the Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1, shall meet
the following standards:
a) Meet the standards in Section 10.01(G)(3)(g)(i) Residential Structures; or,
b) Have the lowest floor, including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary
facilities be designed so that two (2) feet above the base flood elevation (for structures
in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH), or two (2) feet above the average grade level on-site
(for structures in Zones 0.2% B1 and B2), the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components
having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
buoyancy. A permit for flood proofing shall not be issued until a licensed professional
engineer or architect has reviewed the structural design, specifications and plans, and
has certified that the design and proposed methods of construction are in accordance
with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. An
occupancy permit for the structure shall not be issued until an "as-built" plan has been
submitted and a licensed professional engineer or architect has certified that the
structure has been constructed in accordance with accepted standards of practice for
meeting the provisions of this subsection.
h. Basements. For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below
grade on all sides (including below grade crawlspaces and basements) shall be prohibited. [note
to draft: ensure that this is clear that pre-existing enclosed areas below grade would need to be
removed or closed in in the instance of a substantial improvement].
i. Areas Below Base Flood Elevation. For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully
enclosed areas that are above grade, below the lowest floor, below Base Flood Elevation and
subject to flooding, shall be (i) solely used for parking of vehicles, storage, or access, and such a
condition shall clearly be stated on any permits; and, (ii) designed to automatically equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Such
designs must be certified by a licensed professional engineer or architect, or meet or exceed the
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 17
following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings on two walls having a total net area of
not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be
provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings
may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they
permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
j. Impact to Base Flood Elevation. In the AE Zone, where base flood elevations and/or floodway
limits have not been determined, development shall not be permitted unless it is demonstrated
that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing
and anticipated encroachment, will not increase the base flood elevation more than one (1) foot
at any point within the community. The demonstration must be supported by technical data that
conforms to standard hydraulic engineering principles and certified by a licensed professional
engineer.
k. Recreational Vehicle. All recreational vehicles shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use.
l. Accessory Structures. In Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1, a small accessory structure of
500 square feet or less in gross floor area that represents a minimal investment need not be
elevated to the base flood elevation in this area, provided the structure is placed on a site so as
to offer the minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters and shall meet the criteria of
10.01(G)(3)(i). Accessory structures are prohibited in all other parts of the Floodplain Overlay
District.
m. Critical Facilities. Critical facilities that are to be replaced, substantially improved, or meet the
definition of substantial damage shall be constructed so that the lowest floor, including
basement, shall be elevated or dry-floodproofed at least two (2) feet above the average grade
level in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1 and Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B2,
or three (3) feet above base flood elevation in Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-
30. A critical facility shall have at least one access road connected to land outside the 0.2% annual
chance floodplain that is capable of accommodating emergency services vehicles. The top of the
access road shall be no lower than the elevation of the 0.2% annual chance flood event.
n. Historic Structures. For historic structures that would meet the definition of substantial
improvement or substantial damage if not for their historic structure designation, the improved
or repaired building shall meet the following mitigation performance standards for areas below
the base flood elevation:
i. Utility connections (e.g., electricity, water, sewer, natural gas) shall be protected from
inundation and scour or be easily repaired;
ii. The building foundation shall be structurally sound and reinforced to withstand a base
flood event;
iii. The structure’s historic designation shall not be precluded;
iv. The likelihood of flood waters entering the structure during the base flood is reduced;
and
v. There shall be no expansion of uses below base flood elevation except for parking,
storage, building access, or, in the case of non-residential buildings, where the space
is dry floodproofed.
o. No Rise Requirement. No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvement, or other development, that would result in any increase in flood levels within the
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 18
regulatory floodway during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, shall be permitted unless
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are performed in accordance with standard engineering
practice, by a licensed professional engineer, certifying that the proposed development will: a)
Not result in any increase in flood levels (0.00 feet) during the occurrence of the base flood; and
b) Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or
flooding.
p. Erosion Control Measures on Lake Champlain. The installation of erosion control measures
within may be approved by the DRB provided the following standards are met:
i. The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural
materials such as wood and stone.
ii. The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion.
iii. The project will not have an undue adverse effect on the aesthetic integrity of the
lakeshore. [Taylor Newton notes this is subjective and advises removal]
iv. The project shall preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover
vegetation to the greatest extent possible.
4. Other Applicable Standards. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District may be subject to these
additional standards:
a. All land lying within a River Corridor as defined in these regulations is subject to the standards
of Section 10.07 in addition to the standards of this section.
b. All land lying within a stream or surface water buffer, and all land within the 0.2% B1 Zone, is
subject to the standards of Section 12.02 in addition to the standards of this section.
H. Nonconforming Structures.
1. A nonconforming structure in the Floodplain Overlay District that has been substantially damaged
or destroyed may be reconstructed in its original location only if it is rebuilt to comply with all
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and these regulations;
2. Nonconforming structures and uses shall be considered abandoned where the structures or uses
are discontinued for more than 6 months. An abandoned structure shall not be permitted for re-
occupancy unless brought into compliance with these regulations and Section 3.11(G). An
abandoned use shall not be permitted unless brought into compliance with these regulations.
I. Variances.
1. A variance for development in the Floodplain Overlay District may be granted by the Development Review
Board only in accordance with Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated and 44 CFR Section 60.6.
2. Any variance issued in the Special Flood Hazard Area shall not increase flood heights, and shall inform the
applicant in writing over the signature of a community official that the issuance of a variance to construct
a structure below the base flood elevation increases risk to life and property and will result in increased
flood insurance premiums up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of coverage. Such notification shall be
maintained with a record of all variance actions.
J. Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all new structures or substantial
improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay District.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 19
1. Upon receipt of the application for a certificate of occupancy, the Administrative Officer shall review
the permit conditions and inspect the premises to ensure that:
i. All required state and federal permits that have been obtained by the applicant;
ii. All work has been completed in conformance with the zoning permit and associated approvals; and
iii. All required as-built documentation has been submitted to the Administrative Officer (e.g. updated
FEMA Elevation Certificate, dry floodproofing certificate, as-built volumetric analysis, or as-built
floodway encroachment analysis).
K. Enforcement. Enforcement shall be conducted by the Administrative Officer. All enforcement action related
to property in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be performed in compliance with Article 17 and the
following procedures:
1. The State NFIP Coordinator shall be provided a copy of all notices of violation issued by the Administrative
Officer for development that is not in conformance with this section.
2. If any appeals have been resolved, but the violation remains, the Administrative Officer shall submit a
declaration to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program requesting a denial of flood
insurance to the property pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended.
…
10.07 River Corridor Overlay District (RCO)
[NOTE TO DRAFT: SECTION 10.07 IS DISPLAYED A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TEXT.
EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING SECTION]
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the River Corridor Overlay District to:
(1) Establish protection of the river corridor to provide rivers and streams with the lateral space
necessary to maintain or reestablish floodplain access and minimize erosion hazards through natural,
physical processes;
(2) Allow for wise use of property within river corridors that minimizes potential damage to existing
structures and development from flood-related erosion;
(3) Discourage encroachments in undeveloped river corridors;
(4) Protect and improve the quality of surface waters and streams within the City of South Burlington;
and
(5) Provide sufficient space for wildlife habitat along rivers and streams.
(4) Provide allowances for infill and redevelopment of designated centers that are within river corridors.B.
Authority. In accordance with 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, §4424, and §4414, there is hereby established a
bylaw for areas at risk of erosion damage in the City of South Burlington Vermont. These regulations shall
apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington identified as within the River Corridor Overlay
District designated in Section 3.01(B).
C. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant portions of the City of South
Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 20
D. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered
by this overlay district will be free from erosion damages. This regulation shall not create liability on the part
of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any erosion damages that
result from reliance on this regulation, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
E. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this River Corridor Overlay District shall not in any way impair
or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where this
regulation imposes a greater restriction, the provisions in these regulations shall take precedence.
F. District General Provisions
(1) Establishment of RCO District. The RCO is an overlay district. All other requirements of the
underlying district, or another overlay district such as the Flood Hazard Overlay District, shall apply in
addition to the provisions herein, unless it is otherwise so indicated. If there is a conflict with another
such district, the stricter provision shall apply.
(2) RCO District Boundaries. The boundaries of the RCO District are as follows:
(a) All River Corridors as published by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (including the
Statewide River Corridors and refinements to that data based on field-based assessments which are
hereby adopted by reference).
(b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal of the top of bank or top of slope, whichever
is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology, along the reaches of the main stem of Potash
Brook where a mapped River Corridor has not been developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources.
(c) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance from the top of bank or top of slope,
whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology, of all other perennial rivers and
streams.
(d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance from the top of the bank or top of slope of a
natural intermittent stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology.
(e) Requests to update a River Corridor map shall be in accordance with the procedure laid out
in the ANR Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedure.
(3) RCO District – Classification. River Corridors shall be classified in the following manner per Section
12.01:
(a) River Corridors on Intermittent Streams. River Corridors on intermittent streams are Level 2
resources.
(b) All Other River Corridors. River Corridors on all other streams shall be considered a Hazard
resources.
(4) Jurisdictional Determination and Interpretation. The information presented on any maps, or
contained in any studies, adopted by reference, is presumed accurate. If uncertainty exists with respect
to the boundaries of the RCO the location of the boundary on the property shall be determined by the
Administrative Officer (AO). If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the AO or the river
corridor as mapped, the applicant has the option to either:
(a) Hire a licensed land surveyor or registered professional engineer to stake out the RCO
boundary on the property; or
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 21
(b) Request a letter of determination from ANR which shall constitute proof of the location of the
river corridor boundary. In support of a letter of determination request, applicants must provide ANR
a description of the physical characteristics that bring the river corridor delineation into question (e.g.
the presence of bedrock or other features that may confine lateral river channel adjustment. When
ANR receives a request for a letter of determination, ANR evaluates the site and existing data to see if
a change to the river corridor delineation is justified, necessitating a river corridor map update. An
ANR letter of determination will either confirm the existing river corridor delineation or will result in
an update to the river corridor delineation for the area in question. If a map update is justified, an
updated map will be provided with the letter of determination.
G. Prohibited, Exempted, and Permitted Development in River Corridors
(1) Prohibited Development in the RCO District. The following types of development are prohibited
in the RCO District:
(a) All development, including new structures, structure additions, fill, accessory dwelling units,
and any other development that is not expressly listed as at least one of the Exempted Activities or
Permitted Development as described below;
(b) Creation of new lawn or landscaped areas; and
(c) Snow storage areas.
(2) Exempted Activities. The following activities do not require a permit under this section of the
bylaw:
(a) The removal of a building or other improvement in whole or in part, so long as the ground
elevations under and adjacent to the removed structure remain unchanged.
(b) Any changes, maintenance, repairs, or renovations to a structure that will not result in a
change to the footprint of the structure or a change in use.
(c) Maintenance of existing sidewalks, roads, parking areas, or stormwater drainage; this does
not include expansions.
(d) Maintenance of existing bridges, culverts, and channel stabilization activities; this does not
include expansions.
(e) Construction or repair of stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts), associated
transportation and utility networks (new transportation or utility development that runs parallel to
the river is not exempt and shall meet the Development Standards in section 10.07(I) below), dams,
dry hydrants, and other functionally dependent uses that must be placed in or over rivers and streams
that are not located in a flood hazard area and that have coverage under a Stream Alteration Permit,
if required, under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 and the rules adopted thereunder.
(f) Activities exempt from municipal regulation and requiring a permit under the State’s
“Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule” (Environmental Protection Rule, Chapter 29):
(i) State-owned and operated institutions and facilities.
(ii) Forestry operations or silvicultural (forestry) activities conducted in accordance with the
Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining
Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont or other accepted silvicultural practices, as defined by
the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 22
(iii) Agricultural activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture,
Food and Market’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs). Prior to the construction of farm
structures, the farmer shall notify the AO in writing of the proposed activity. The notice shall
contain a sketch of the proposed structure including setbacks.
(iv) Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A.
§ 248.
(v) Telecommunications facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248a.
(g) Planting projects which do not include any construction or grading activities in accordance
with 24 V.S.A. § 4424(c).
(h) Subdivision of land that does not involve or authorize development.
(i) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails and puncheons not to
exceed ten (10) feet in width. [note to draft: Have ANR review]
(j) Maintenance of Existing Gardens, Lawns, Driveways, and other public infrastructure.
Maintenance of existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, driveways and other public infrastructure
within the River Corridor in existence as of the effective date of these regulations.
(k) Invasive Species, Nuisance Plants, and Noxious Weeds Removal. The removal of invasive
species, nuisance plants, and noxious weeds, as identified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food
& Markets, within the River Corridor is an exempt from these regulations.
(3) Permitted Development. The following development activities in the RCO District are permissible
upon approval, provided they meet all other requirements of the LDRs and the standards of this section.
(a) Encroachments necessary to repair damage from a Federally-declared disaster and necessary for
the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
(b) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, upon demonstration of compliance with Section 12.10
and the standards of this section.
(c) Replacement of on-site septic systems. [note to draft: review against state regulations]
H. Development Review Classification & Referral to Outside Agencies
(1) All land development proposed in the River Corridor is subject to review standards outlined in
Section 12.01(D).
(2) Referrals to outside agencies
(a) Upon receipt of a complete application for development in the River Corridor, the
Administrative Officer shall submit a copy of the application and supporting information to the State
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in
accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from
the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency,
whichever is sooner. The AO and DRB shall consider all comments from ANR.
(b) If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies of
the application shall also be provided to the following entities: affected adjacent communities, the
River Management Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only
following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 23
30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources,
whichever is sooner.
I. Development Standards. The criteria below are the minimum standards for development in the RCO
District.
(1) New development in the River Corridor, including the creation of new lawn areas, is generally
prohibited.
(2) Natural Vegetation Requirement. All lands within the River Corridor must be left in an
undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. The clearing of trees and other vegetation is generally
prohibited. This standard also does not apply to forestry operations or silvicultural (forestry)
activities exempt from local zoning regulation or the removal of trees that are dead, diseased,
heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or identified as an invasive species. [note
to draft: review exemptions with County Forester] The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees
and other vegetation is also prohibited.
(a) Pre-existing Non-conforming Lawn Areas. The following section pertains the applications for
new development on lots with pre-existing non-conforming lawn areas located within the River
Corridor.
(i) Single-Household Dwelling and Two-Household Dwelling Land Uses. Development on
lots with existing single or two-household dwelling uses, and pre-existing non-conforming
lawn areas in the River Corridor, shall not be required to brought into conformance with
the natural vegetation requirement in these regulations.
(ii) All Other Land Uses. Development on lots with any other land use (beside a single or two-
household dwelling), and that also includes pre-existing non-conforming lawn areas in the
River Corridor, shall only be approved if the applicant removes at least 50% of the pre-
existing non-conforming lawn area within the River Corridor and completes site
remediation. Site remediation shall include re-seeding the subject area with a naturalized
mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass and returning the area to a natural state
(no mowing).
(3) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be allowed
in the River Corridor provided the proposed land development conforms with the following
standards:
(a) The facility shall comply with the standards in Section 12.10;
(b) The facility must be located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of the
surface water for all water bodies listed in Section 10.07(F)(2)(b) above and ten (10) feet from
the edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams. This standard shall not apply to
the intake of municipal or community water system, or the outfall of a municipal wastewater
treatment or stormwater treatment projects, all of which are functionally dependent upon
access to surface waters. This standard shall also not apply to road crossings, driveway crossings,
public sidewalks and recreation paths (including bridges and boardwalks) intended to connect
parcels and neighborhoods, or provide recreational opportunities, approved under Section
12.10;
(c) Stream crossings shall provide sufficient space for the passage of small amphibian and
mammalian wildlife typical to the environment in water and on land beneath the structure; and,
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 24
(d) The facility shall comply with Section 10.07(I)(5).
(4) Landscaping and Fencing. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of
the outside of the River Corridor to clearly identify and protect the River Corridor. The DRB may
waive this requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or
landscaping along the border of the River Corridor.
(5) All land development in the River Corridor shall also comply with the following standards:
(a) Within Designated Centers. Development within Vermont designated centers shall be only
allowed within the River Corridor if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development
will not be any closer to the river than existing adjacent development.
(b) Outside Designated Centers. Development outside of designated centers shall meet the
following criteria:
i.Infill Development. Infill development must be located no closer to the channel than the
adjacent existing principal buildings, within a gap that is no more than 300 feet (see Figure 1);
or,
ii.Down River Shadow. Development shall be located in the shadow area directly behind and
further from the channel than the existing structure, or within 50 feet of the downstream side
of the existing habitable structure and no closer to the top of bank or slope, as applicable.
Below-ground utilities may also be placed within the same shadow dimensions of an existing
below-ground system (see Figure 2); or,
Figure 1: In-fill Development Standard
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 25
iii.River Corridor Performance Standard. The proposed development shall:
(a) not be placed on land with a history of fluvial erosion damage or that is imminently
threatened by fluvial erosion; and,
(b) not cause the river reach to depart from, or further depart from, the channel width, depth,
meander pattern or slope associated with natural stream processes and equilibrium
conditions; and,
(c) not result in an immediate need or anticipated future need for stream channelization that
would increase flood elevations and velocities or alter the sediment regime, triggering channel
adjustments and erosion in adjacent and downstream locations.
(d) In making its determination, the DRB may request or consider additional information to
determine if the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard, including a
description of why the criteria for infill development above cannot be met, data and analysis
from a consultant qualified in the evaluation of river dynamics and erosion hazards, and
comments provided by the DEC Regional Floodplain Manager on whether the proposal meets
the River Corridor Performance Standard.
J. Submission Requirements. In addition to all information required for permitted development, the
application shall include:
(1) Plan. A plan that depicts the proposed development, all water bodies, all River Corridor Overlay
District boundaries, the shortest horizontal distance from the proposed development to the top of bank
(and/or top of slope, if applicable) of any river, any existing and proposed drainage, any proposed fill, pre-
and post-development grades, and the elevation of the proposed lowest floor as referenced to the same
vertical datum as the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
(2) Supplemental Application Requirements.
(a) Information clearly demonstrating how the proposed development meets the requirements
for infill development and certain non-habitable and accessory structures in subsection 10.07(I)
Development Standards above; or
Figure 2: Shadow Area Development Standard
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 26
(b) A narrative and supporting technical information from a qualified consultant that
demonstrates how the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard in subsection 10.07(I)
Development Standards above, or
(c) Evidence of an approved major or minor map update issued by ANR in accordance with the
process outlined in the DEC Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure, finding the
proposed development is not located within the river corridor.
(3) Waivers. Upon written request from the applicant, the Administrative Officer or DRB may waive
specific application requirements when the data or information is not needed to comply with Section
10.07 of this bylaw.
K. Permit Conditions
(1) Permits for public water accesses and unimproved paths that provide access to the water for the
general public and promote the public trust uses of the water shall include a condition prohibiting the
permittee from actively managing the applicable section of river solely to protect the public water
access from lateral river channel adjustment.
(2) The DRB may require mitigation, such as reduction or elimination of curbing to promote wildlife
passage for any Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment projects approved within the River Corridor.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 27
12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
[NOTE TO DRAFT: ARTICLE 12 IS SHOWN AS A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE
EXISTING TEXT. THE EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH A STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING
THE ARTICLE].
12.01 General Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.02 Reserved
12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures
12.04 Reserved
12.05 Habitat Blocks
12.06 Habitat Connectors
12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment
12.08 Stormwater Management
12.09 Steep Slopes
12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
12.01 General Protection Standards, Classifications and Review Procedures
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Article to implement, from a regulatory perspective, the
Comprehensive Plan’s goal of “emphasizing sustainability for long -term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington” and objective to “promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces,
aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and
recreational assets” in balance with the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
This Article establishes application requirements and development standards designed to avoid or minimize
undue adverse effects on these natural resources. The natural resources regulated in this article may also be
subject to specific subdivision or planned unit development standards. Where there is conflict between
subdivision or planned unit development standards, and the standards in this article, the standard that
imposes the greater restriction shall apply.
B. Classification. For the purposes of these Regulations, resources are grouped into Hazards, Level I and
Level II resource areas.
Table 12-01 – Classification of Natural Resources
Location in
Regulations
Initial
Identification
Field Verification /
HDA
Hazards
Floodplain (1% and 0.2% B2), Floodway 10.01 FEMA FIRM Yes
River Corridor except intermittent streams 10.07 ANR Atlas Yes
Class I, II Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 ANR Atlas Yes
Very Steep Slopes (25+%) 12.09 ANR Atlas If impacted
Level I Resources
Habitat Blocks 12.05 City LDR Map HDA Optional
Habitat Connectors 12.06 City LDR Map HDA Optional
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 28
Level II Resources
Floodplain (0.2% Zone B1) 10.01 FEMA FIRM If Impacted
Class III Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 ANR Atlas If impacted
Steep Slopes (15 to 25%) 12.09 ANR Atlas If impacted
River Corridor - Intermittent Streams 10.07 Site Mapping If impacted
C. Applicability of Standards. All development must comply with the provisions of this Article, unless
otherwise exempted, in order to prevent undue adverse effects on ecological resources, water quality and
working lands, unless explicitly waived or amended in this section. Exemptions include:
(1) Uses and structures exempt from local regulation pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4413.
(2) Construction of fences (i) that enclose cleared areas, such as lawn areas surrounding a residence,
provided the clearing occurred prior to [effective date of this provision] or was approved by the DRB in
accordance with this Article; or (ii) erected for standard agricultural purposes or, (iii) lower than 4 feet and
that have at least 16 inches of clearance between the lowest horizontal part of the fence and the ground.
In all cases, proposed fences must comply with section 13.17 (Fences) of these Regulations.
(3) Exemptions as specified elsewhere in these Regulations.
D. Development Review Process. All development that may encroach upon a natural resource regulated
in Article 12 shall be subject to Site Plan Review by the Development Review Board (see Article 14). However,
if the encroachment is proposed as a part of a subdivision or Planned Unit Development application, the
proposed encroachment shall be reviewed under those procedures instead of Site Plan Review. Other
exceptions include:
(1) Applications for proposed development that solely include development related to stormwater
management (Section 12.08) may be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09).
(2) Applications involving development on Steep Slopes between 15% and 25% grade (Section 12.09)
shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the application is for a single-
household dwelling or two-household dwelling or associated accessory structures, in which case the
application may be approved via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer.
(3) Applications involving an Environmental Restoration Project may be reviewed via administrative
Site Plan Review (Section 14.09).
12.02 [Reserved]
12.03 Wetland Protection Standards
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s wetland resources in order to protect
wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, stormwater treatment, wildlife
habitat, and flood control. The City intends to strictly protect Class I wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their
respective buffers via the standards of this section. The City also intends to provide protection that offers
limited flexibility for larger class III wetlands (over 300 square feet in size) and their respective buffers, and to
Class II wetlands and their respective buffers in specific identified areas of the city.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 29
B. Applicability. All development in the City of South Burlington shall comply with the requirements of
this section. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows, collectively referred
to as Wetlands Areas and Related Buffers:
(1) Class I Wetlands and Related Buffers.
(a) In all City Center Form-Based Code, Commercial, Industrial and Airport, and Other (Institutional
and Agricultural and Municipal only) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01 of these
Regulations, all Class I wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance
from the boundary of the wetland one-hundred (100) feet, are subject to the provisions of this
section.
(b) Residential Districts and the Park and Recreation Districts. In all Residential and Other (excepting
those enumerated in Subsection B(1)(a)) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01, all Class I
wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of
the wetland two hundred (200) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) Class II Wetlands and Related Buffers.
(a) In all City Center Form-Based Code, Commercial, Industrial and Airport, and Other (Institutional
and Agricultural and Municipal only) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01 of these
Regulations, all Class II wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance
from the boundary of the wetland fifty (50) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section.
(b) In all Residential and Other (excepting those enumerated in Subsection B(1)(a)) zoning districts,
as established in Section 3.01, all Class II wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in
horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland one hundred (100) feet, are subject to the
provisions of this section.
(3) Class III Wetlands. All Class III wetland areas 300 square feet or larger in size, and their related fifty (50)
foot buffer areas measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland, are subject to the
provisions of this section. Class III wetlands less than 300 square feet in size are not regulated by the
City.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as
applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E.
(1) Per Section 17.08, the DRB may require independent technical review of any field delineation and
wetlands report.
(2) For applications involving Class I and/or Class II wetlands, the applicant’s application may include a
wetlands delineation approved by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources as a part of the State
Wetlands Permit. The DRB may defer to this delineation in their review of the application instead of
requiring an additional or separate delineation.
D. Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Class I and Class II Wetlands. Development is generally prohibited within Class I wetlands, Class II
wetlands, and their associated buffers. All lands within a Class I wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their
associated buffers, shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 30
(2) Class III Wetlands. Development in a Class III wetland (meeting 300 square foot threshold), and
associated buffer within all zoning districts, is generally prohibited and shall be left in an undisturbed,
naturally vegetated condition. However, an applicant may seek to waive or modify this standard per
the regulations in Section 12.03(E).
(3) Landscaping and Fencing. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the outside perimeter of
the wetlands buffer to clearly identify and protect wetlands buffer. The DRB may waive this
requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or landscaping along the
border of wetland buffer or other clear, existing demarcation.
(4) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be allowed
within Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands, and their associated buffers, without a waiver or
modification provided that the applicant demonstrates the project’s compliance with Section 12.10
and the following supplemental standards:
(a) Roadway paved surfaces shall be no wider than 20 feet; and,
(b) Roads that bifurcate a wetland or wetland buffer shall propose appropriate mitigation, such as
reduction or elimination of curbing and installation of cross culverts, to enable wildlife passage.
E. Waivers and Modifications
(1) An applicant may request a waiver or modification, in writing, from the rules of this section for any
development in the following areas:
(a) Development in a Class II wetland and associated buffer within the Form -Based Code Zoning
Districts.
(b) Development in a Class III wetland exceeding 300 square feet in area and associated buffer
within all zoning districts.
(2) The DRB may grant a waiver or modification from the rules of this Section only if all the following
standards are met:
(a) The waiver or modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed
development;
(b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned character of the
area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the project is located,
or on public health and safety;
(c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the property
adequately treat stormwater from the site; and,
(d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland functions
and values identified in the field delineation.
12.04 [Reserved]
12.05 Habitat Blocks
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 31
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of these Habitat Block standards to avoid undue adverse effects from
development on these resources, promote the natural succession of vegetated areas of native vegetation
in order to support wildlife habitat and movement, promote carbon sequestration, filter air, and increase
infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain.
B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to all development proposed in areas indicated as
“Habitat Blocks” on the Natural Resources Map, except as follows:
(1) On lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre in size existing as of the effective date of these Regulations;
(2) On land located within 50’ horizontal distance of a principal building on the subject parcel existing as
of the effective date of these regulations;
(3) On land authorized by the Development Review Board to be removed from or added to a Habitat Block
pursuant to the modification options of this section or as part of a Conservation Planned Unit
Development.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as
applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. Where an applicant elects to perform a
Habitat Disturbance Assessment, the submittal requirements of Section 12.07 shall apply.
D. Modification of Habitat Block. An applicant may request approval from the Development Review Board
to modify a mapped Habitat Block in any of the following manners. An applicant may select any one of the
options three modification methods below. A development application may not include more than one
option for any application.
Land located within the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously approved as
open space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting development, subject to a
conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public entity shall not be eligible for any of
the modification methods for habitat blocks subject to this section.
(1) Minor Habitat Block Boundary Adjustment. An applicant may apply to modify the boundary of a
mapped Habitat Block by up to fifty (50) feet in any direction to account for site-specific conditions,
upon written request by the applicant as part of the requisite application. Any proposed modification
in Habitat Block area must be offset with an equal addition elsewhere within the same subject parcel
or Planned Unit Development that is contiguous to the Habitat Block. In no case shall the Development
Review Board approve a net reduction of a Habitat Block.
(2) Small On-Site Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat Block
area not to exceed two (2) acres or ten (10) percent of the application’s total land area, whichever is
less, for an equal amount of land within the same Planned Unit Development or Site Plan upon written
request, without requiring a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment. Such land exchange must not include
Core Habitat Areas and shall not eliminate existing Habitat Connectors. To approve a small on-site
habitat block exchange, the Development Review Board shall require the applicant to:
(a) Retain a similar or greater quality and maturity of vegetation within the proposed areas for
exchange; and
(b) Retain mature and/or prominent tree stands.
(3) Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat Block area
in exchange for an equal amount of land within the same Habitat Block upon written request, and
pursuant to the standards of this Section. The exchange of land within the same Habitat Block may
occur within one parcel or on separate parcels.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 32
(a) Supplemental submittal requirements.
(i) Indicate, on the Master Plan and all subsequent plans, all proposed alterations to the Habitat
Block.
(ii) Submit, as part of the preliminary plat application, a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment
(HDA) pursuant Section 12.07 and a written assessment of compliance with the standards
contained within this subsection.
(b) Supplemental Standards of Review. The Development Review Board may approve a re-
designation of a portion of a Habitat Block if it finds all of the criteria below to be met:
(i) The HDA demonstrates that the alteration will not result in a reduction in the Habitat Block’s
function as a significant wildlife habitat as defined in these Regulations;
(ii) Wildlife movement connectivity is retained between mapped Habitat Blocks; and,
(iii) Proposed adjacent development and infrastructure must be designed to have no undue
adverse effects on habitat functions.
(c) Exchanged Land. Land to be added to the Habitat Block pursuant to this section must be set aside
and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as one or more
“Conservation Lots” as established in Section 15A, to be maintained and managed in s ingle or
common ownership, or under a conservation easement held by the City or qualified third party,
such as an established land trust, that is contiguous to the habitat block and unseparated by
roadways, railways, or other impeding infrastructure.
(i) Land located with the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously
approved as open space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting
development, subject to a conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public
entity shall not be eligible to be used for a land exchange.
(ii) Any land proposed to be added / conserved shall be accompanied by a restoration plan,
prepared by a landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist, or equivalent, that will result
in the land functioning as a significant wildlife habitat such that within a period of ten (10)
years and being classified as transitional forest / forest by a land use / land cover assessment
at that time.
E. Substantially-Habitat Block-covered lots. A lot or parcel containing a combination of Hazards and Level 1
resources exceeding seventy (70) percent of the total lot area is eligible for relief from Habitat Block
standards as follows:
(1) [Reserved]
(2) The Development Review Board may approve exclusion of an area of land within the Habitat Block not
to exceed thirty (30) percent of the total lot area. Where applicable, land shall be excluded in the
following order:
• First: Land not a Hazard or Level 1 resources;
• Second: Land that is not characterized by a preponderance of mature trees; [note to draft: Seeking
Input from County Forester to define – 3/2021]
• Third: Land within Habitat Blocks, excluding Core Habitat Block areas or which would sever a
Habitat Connector.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 33
• Fourth: Land within Habitat Blocks, avoiding core habitat block areas to the greatest extent
possible;
(a) Calculation: Land shall be selected from first to fourth If all applicable land on the lot or parcel
from one category is excluded, and the thirty (30) percent allotment of excluded land has not been
reached, then land from the next category land shall be selected next.
(b) Special Circumstances: Where the DRB finds that exclusion of land pursuant to the priority order
above is in conflict with the purposes of this section, or where it finds that strict adherence to the
priority order does not allow for a unified PUD consistent with the purposes of intent of these
regulations, it may approve modifications to the land selected. Any such modifications shall be
minimized in terms of land area and modification to the priority order.
(c) Any land excluded from Habitat Blocks regulated under this subsection shall remain subject to all
other provisions of these Regulations.
F. Standards for Habitat Block Protection.
(1) General standards. Except as specifically exempted pursuant to Subsection (2) below, approved by the
DRB pursuant to subsection (3) below, or modified in accordance with Section (D) above, all lands
within a Habitat Block must be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Specifically:
(a) The clearing of trees and understory vegetation is prohibited except as specified in this section.
(b) The creation of new lawn areas within Habitat Blocks is prohibited.
(d) Snow storage areas within Habitat Blocks are prohibited.
(e) Building envelopes shall not contain any land within Habitat Blocks.
(f) Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve the
objectives of this Section is permitted.
G. Exempted Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are exempt from review under this
section:
(1) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails not to exceed ten (10) feet in width,
or their width prior to adoption of these regulations, whichever is greater;
(2) Removal of invasive species, removal of diseased vegetation, and removal of dead or dying trees posing
an imminent threat to buildings or infrastructure; and,
(3) Uses and activities enumerated in Section 12.01C.
H. Development within Habitat Blocks. The encroachment of new development activities, clearing of
vegetation, establishment of lawn, or other similar activities into Habitat Blocks and Habitat Block buffers
is prohibited. However, the DRB may allow the following types of development within a Habitat Block
where a modification option has been approved pursuant to 12.05(D) and subje ct to the standards in
Section 12.05(F):
(1) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, pursuant to Section 12.10 and the following supplemental
standards:
(a) The facility shall be strictly limited to be minimum width necessary to function for its intende d
purposes;
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 34
(b) The clearing of vegetation adjacent to the facility shall be strictly limited to the minimum
necessary width to function for its intended purposes). Street tree requirements shall not apply
in these area). Street lighting shall be prohibited in these areas except as necessary to meet
State or Federal law; and,
(c) Appropriate measures shall be taken to promote safe wildlife passage, including the reduction or
elimination of curbs, reduced speed limits, and/or signage altering users, and underpass or
culverts.
(2) Outdoor recreation uses, provided any building, parking and/or driveways appurtenant to such use is
located outside the habitat block.
(a) Within a public park, structures not exceeding 500 square feet gross floor area are permitted. All
such structures must be consistent with the adopted management plan for the park, if one exists.
Where a management plan has been adopted for the park, the
(3) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including par king and
driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the Habitat Block.
(a) Research and educational structures not exceeding 500 square feet gross floor area, such as
seating areas made of natural materials, storage sheds, or climbing structures, may be allowed
within a Habitat Block or Habitat Block buffer.
12.06 Habitat Connectors
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to maintain the functionality of identified Habitat Connectors,
allowing species to travel between identified Habitat Blocks, wetland areas, water bodies, and other
natural resources within and adjacent to the City.
B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section will apply to all areas indicated as “Habitat Connectors” on
the Habitat Blocks and Connectors map, except as follows:
(1) Lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre existing as of the effective date of these Regulations.
(2) Land located within 50 feet horizontal distance of a principal building existing on the same parcel as of
the effective date of these regulations.
C. Standards.
(1) The applicant shall retain a 150-foot wide Habitat Connector where indicated on the Habitat Blocks and
Connection Map.
(2) Contiguous Hazards, or other contiguous protected natural resources regulated in Article 12, may be
used to count towards the connector width.
(3) Habitat Connectors shall be subject to the provisions of 12.05(F) Habitat Blocks Standards.
(4) Relocation of Habitat Connector. An applicant may apply to relocate a Habitat Connector from its
location on the Habitat Blocks and Connection Map but must connect to mapped Habitat Connectors
or Habitat Blocks on adjacent parcels. Any relocated portion shall be accompanied by a restoration
plan, prepared by a qualified consultant (e.g. landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist or
equivalent). The restoration plan shall consist of planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in caliper)
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 35
within areas of the relocated Habitat Connector and shall result in the land functioning as wildlife
habitat within a period of ten (10) years time. [note to draft: staff reaching out to ANR to review]
(5) Restoration of Habitat Connector. The DRB shall require restoration of a Habitat Connector on parcels
where development is proposed and pre-existing conditions consist of Habitat Connectors that are less
than 150 feet in width along their entire length of the Habitat Connector. Restoration shall consist of
planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in caliper) within areas of the Habitat Connector less than
150 feet wide. The applicant may request, in writing, to waive this requirement. [note to draft: staff
reaching out to ANR to review] The DRB may grant a waiver only if restoration of the Habitat Connector
is not possible due the placement of pre-existing structures on the subject parcel.
12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA)
A. Purpose. The Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA) is a tool to inventory and quantify significant
wildlife habitat, and the existence of rare, threatened and endangered species (RTEs), within subject
properties with mapped Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors (Section 12.05 and Section 12.06) where
an applicant is seeking to relocate a portion of the Habitat Block or Habitat Connector.
B. HDA Content Requirements. Where an HDA is required by these regulations, the applicant shall contract
with a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist to prepare the HDA. The HDA prepared for the Development
Review Board shall include the following information:
(1) Site Conditions Map including all Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors as indicated on the Habitat
Block and Connectors map on or within 200 feet of the project site.
(2) An inventory of existing (pre-development) wildlife habitat found on the site, including the presence
of rare, threatened, and/or endangered species and significant wildlife habitat, and an inventory of
the specific types of habitat found on the parcel and their relative importance to the various wildlife
species that rely on that habitat for one or more life-cycle function;
(3) An assessment of the relationship of the habitat found on the site relative to other significant wildlife
habitat present in the City (e.g., does habitat found on the parcel provide for connectivity between
mapped habitat blocks; is the parcel located contiguous to other significant wildlife habitat, or part of
a habitat block);
(4) Identification of the distance of all proposed development activities (as permitted), including clearing,
driveways and infrastructure, and areas of disturbance, from the significant wildlife habitat and, if
significant habitat is proposed to be disturbed, the total area of disturbance and the total area of the
remaining (undisturbed) habitat;
(5) An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development, including associated activities (e.g.,
introduction of domestic pets, operation of vehicles and equipment, exterior lighting, introduction of
non-native species for landscaping) on the ecological function of the significant wildlife habitat found
on the site. This shall include an assessment of whether travel between areas of core habitat will be
disrupted;
(6) An assessment of the anticipated functionality of the Habitat Block with proposed mitigation
measures and a statement identifying specific mitigation measures taken to avoid or minimize the
proposed development’s impact on the habitat, including buffers of habitat for specific identified
species, possible replacement or provisions for substitute habitats that serve a comparable ecological
function to the impacted habitat, and/or physical design elements to incorporate into the project.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 36
12.08 Stormwater Management
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is:
(1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology through site
design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store,
evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source;
(2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural aquatic
systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by construction
activities and post-construction conditions;
(3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from
improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site;
(4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots,
rooftops and other paved surfaces; and
(5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in
removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent
damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls.
B. Applicability
(1) These regulations will apply to all development within the City of South Burlington where one-half acre
or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or parcel.
(2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial
reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from
requirements in this Section 12.08.
(3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.08(B)(1), and not exempt under section
12.08(B)(2), shall meet the application requirements in Section 12.08(C) and the site design
requirements in section 12.08(D) as follows:
(a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50%
of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are
being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.08(D).
All new impervious surface area must meet the site design requirements of section 12.08(D).
(b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds
50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious
surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.08 (D). All new impervious surface area must
meet the site design requirements of Section 12.08(D).
C. Application Requirements. Applicants required to comply with Section 12.08 shall provide the following
information in their application:
(1) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment practices.
(2) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed
stormwater collection systems, culverts, and stormwater treatment practices.
(3) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the location and results of any soil borings, infiltration
testing, or soil compaction testing. Infiltration testing shall be completed using methods identified in
the VSMM (see section 4.3.3.2 in the 2017 VSMM, or as updated).
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 37
(4) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques.
Where Tier 1 practices are not proposed (see Section 12.08(C)(1)(a)), the applicant shall provide a full
justification and demonstrate why the use of these practices is not possible before proposing to use
Tier 2 or Tier 3 practices.
(5) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices.
(6) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv storm event,
the one-year, twenty-four hour rain event, and the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event
(rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution). Any
TR-55 based model shall be suitable for this purpose. The intent of the twenty-five year storm event
analysis is to ensure the proposed project does not overload an existing downstream drainage
structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property. The analysis is also
intended to ensure that stormwater infrastructure installed as a part of a development can
accommodate future upstream development.
(7) The applicant’s engineer must provide such information as the stormwater superintendent or designee
deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage infrastructure.
D. Design Requirements - On-Site Treatment. Applicants shall meet the following standards for on-site
treatment of stormwater:
(1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM)
for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff and shall be treated
using Tier 1 practices as detailed in the VSMM.
(a) If it is not possible to treat the volume of stormwater runoff using a Tier 1 practice as specified in
Section 12.08(D)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints:
(i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater,
(ii) Shallow bedrock,
(iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour,
(iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A. §6602(16),
as amended,
(v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in the VSMM, or
(vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and
approval of the Development Review Board,
then the WQv shall be treated on the lot using Tier 2 practices as described in the most recently
adopted version of the VSMM. A site with an existing Tier 3 practice is allowed to evaluate
retrofitting/expanding this practice to meet the requirements of Section 12.08(D)(2). Existing Tier
3 practices shall only be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 12.08(D)(1) in accordance with
the Water Quality Practice Selection Flowchart in the VSMM.
(2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (rainfall amounts to be
determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution) rain event shall not exceed the
existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions existing prior to
submittal of an application.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 38
(3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff per
section 12.08(D)(1) and 12.08(D)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per
Section 12.08(B) may utilize Site Balancing as defined in these Regulations.
(4) New drainage structures shall comply with the following standards:
(a) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0
inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall
distribution);
(b) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure
elevation.
(c) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them.
E. Design Requirements – Impacts to Municipal System. Stormwater runoff from sites meeting the
requirements of Section 12.08(D), or sites that are exempt from §12.08(D), may discharge to the municipal
stormwater system, or a stormwater system within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, provided
that the stormwater system has adequate capacity to convey the twenty-five year storm event from the
contributing drainage area. All applicants shall meet the following standards if it is determined that their
project may have impacts to municipal stormwater system:
(1) New drainage structures connected to the municipal stormwater system, or a stormwater system
within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, shall comply with the following standards:
(a) New drainage structures should be located within the street right-of-way
(b) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour
(4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II
rainfall distribution);
(c) Drainage pipes must have a minimum diameter of 15” and be connected to drainage structures
using booted connections.
(d) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure
elevation.
(e) House footing drains shall only be connected to drainage facilities located in the street right-of-
way when a suitable location to daylight the footing drain cannot be found.
(f) Footing drains must not be connected to road underdrain.
(g) Any footing drains connected to drainage facilities in the street right-of-way shall be provided
with a backflow preventer.
(h) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them.
(2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development. Culverts, pipes, or other drainage
facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream
drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel
subject to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 39
drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system
assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall
be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour rain event (rainfall
data to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 and a type II rainfall distribution).
(3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures. In instances where the Stormwater
Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff incident from a proposed development may
overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public
infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the applicant to incorporate
measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such improvements are located on
or off the applicant’s property.
F. Intermittent Stream Alteration and Relocation Standard.
(1) Alteration of Intermittent Streams. When a development incorporates Tier 1 or Tier 2 stormwater
treatment practices (as defined in the VSMM) to manage the stormwater that an intermittent stream
is conveying in pre-development conditions, the intermittent stream may be altered or relocated as
part of stormwater treatment, provided the stormwater management system meets all standards in
this Section. An alteration or relocation of an intermittent stream is exempt from the Vermont Stream
Alteration Rule.
12.09 Steep Slopes
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s areas of steep and very steep slopes, as
mapped and delineated for this purpose, in order to:
(1) Prevent erosion and avoid stream sedimentation that may cause undue adverse effects on water
quality.
(2) Prevent hazards to life and property resulting from slope instability or failure, including rock falls,
slides, slumps and other downslope movements of materials or structures.
(3) Maintain and re-establish vegetation on steep slopes to stabilize soils.
(4) Ensure that development on steep slopes is constructed and maintained in conformance with best
management practices for construction, stormwater management and erosion control.
B. Applicability. All development is subject to the standards below where steep slopes or very steep slopes
are present.
C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map
(as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. An analysis of slope stability prepared
by a licensed engineer shall also be submitted to ensure that no erosion hazards are created that would
have an undue adverse effect on surface waters, wetlands, areas of special flood hazards, or
downstream facilities, and any recommended mitigation measures
D. Review Process. Per Section 12.01(D), applications involving development on Steep Slopes between 15%
and 25% grade shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the
application is for a single-household dwelling or two-household dwelling, in which case the application
may be approved via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 40
E. Standards.
(1) Very Steep Slope Standards. Development other than Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment is
prohibited on slopes greater than 25%.
(2) Steep Slope Standards. All development must be designed to avoid undue adverse effects on slopes
between 15% and 25%. Clearing of vegetation, excavation and filling on steep slopes shall be
minimized. All recommendations of the slope stability analysis submitted with the application shall be
required by the DRB or Administrative Officer.
F. Exemptions.
(1) Removal of Earth Products. Slopes exceeding 15 percent that are created by an approved earth
products removal use shall be exempt from the regulations of this subsection.
12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to define specific types of “restricted infrastructure” that may be
allowed to encroach upon a natural resource regulated in Article 12 and to define the standards that shall
be met in order for an encroachment to be allowed.
B. Types of Development. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments are limited to the types of development
listed in this subsection:
(1) Underground public utilities systems (e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, broadband,
telephone).
(2) Public sidewalks and recreation paths (including bridges and boardwalks) intended to connect parcels
and neighborhoods, or provide recreational opportunities within areas containing Hazards, Level I,
and Level II resources.
(3) Public and Private Street crossings designed to cross Hazards, Level I, and Level II resources.
(4) Public and Private Driveway crossings designed to cross Hazards, Level I, and Level II resources.
(5) Stormwater Facilities specifically identified as a part of an Environmental Restoration Project.
C. Qualifying Criteria. Encroachment into the resource may only be allowed if there is a finding that the
proposed Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment meets one or more of the following qualifying criteria:
(1) Is necessary to repair impacts from a Federally declared disaster, mitigate the future impacts of hazards,
and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare;
(2) Is for a functionally dependent purpose or use;
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 41
(3) Is a part of an Environmental Restoration Project;
(4) Is for purposes of crossing a natural resource area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the
area; or
(5) For purposes of providing safe access in accordance with City roadway and connectivity standards to
an approved use.
D. Development Review Process. Applications involving Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall be
subject to the development review process outlined in Section 12.01(D).
E. Standards. All Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall meet the following standards:
(1) The encroachment shall not have an undue adverse effect on the subject natural resource and meet
all specific, applicable standards for Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments into River Corridors
(Section 10.07), Wetlands Buffers (Section 12.03), and Habitat Blocks (Section 12.05).
(2) Street and Driveway Crossings Not On Official Map. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment projects
involving streets and/or driveways crossings of River Corridors (Section 10.07), Wetlands Buffers
(Section 12.03), and/or Habitat Blocks (Section 12.05) that are not shown on the City Official Map may
be allowed only upon a determination by the Development Review Board that all resource -specific
standards and following standards have been met:
(a) There is no feasible alternative for providing safe access to the developable portion of the
property;
(b) Alternative accesses through adjacent properties have been considered and, where fewer or no
constraints exist, property owners have been contacted;
(c) The requirements of the applicable restriction will cause unnecessary or extraordinary economic
hardship;
(d) The area served by the encroachment represents more than thirty (30) percent of the total
developable land on the parcel; and,
(e) The encroachment represents the least impact feasible to the specific resource.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 42
15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
15.02 Authority and Required Review
A. Authority
(1) Pursuant to Section 4413 through Section 4421 of 24 VSA Chapter 117, as amended, the
Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with conditions or
deny an application for subdivision of land pursuant to the standards in these Regulations.
(2) In accordance with the provisions of Subsections (3) and (12) of Section 4407 of Title 24 VSA
Chapter 117, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with
modifications, or deny Planned Unit Developments and Planned Residential Developments (PUDs).
Planned Unit Developments shall not be permitted within The City Center FBC District.
(3) In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is
permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of these
Regulations.
(4) Notwithstanding section 15.02(A)(3), however, the following standards shall apply to all PUDs:
(a) in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any
property boundary, and, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a structure not in compliance
with Section 15.03(D).
(b) In no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding
the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the
coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.
(c) In no case shall the DRB permit the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06
(B) (2).
(d) PUD review does not provide for modification of standards related to Hazards, Level 1
Resources, or Level 2 Resources beyond those specifically enumerated in Articles 10 and 12 of these
Regulations.
(5) Pursuant to this Article, the South Burlington Development Review Board shall have the further
authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny a Master Plan reviewed in
conjunction with a PUD. A Master Plan shall be a binding sub-part of a PUD approval and shall not be
construed as a separate land development review procedure from the PUD procedures set forth in this
Article.
(6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only
as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing pursuant
to Section 18.01 and 18.02 of these Regulations.
15.18 Criteria for Review of PUDs, Subdivisions, Transect Zone Subdivisions, and Master Plans
A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD,
subdivision Transect Zone subdivision, and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of
subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14 For PUD, subdivision and/or
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 43
Master Plan applications within the SEQ, IO and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive
findings with respect to the project’s compliance with the specific criteria in this section.
The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions, Transect Zone subdivisions, and Master Plans are,
except as noted below:
…
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to Hazards, Level I Resources,
and Level II Resources, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall
utilize the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations related to Hazards, Level I Resources, and
Level II Resources, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the
project’s impact on natural resources.
…
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, habitat blocks, habitat connectors, wetlands,
and/or river corridors. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of
natural resources identified in Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be
dedicated to the City of South Burlington.
LDR-20-01 Environnemental Protection Standards
DRAFT LDR Amendments March 12, 2021 44
APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Site
Plan
Sketch
Plan
Master
Plan
Major
Prelim
Major
Subdi
vision
Final
Minor
Final
Subdiv
Sketch
Subdiv
Final
DRB
Non-
subdiv.
Admin
/ Site
Plan
Submittal requirement
√√√√√√√√√√Existing water courses & buffers, wetlands & buffers, base flood elevations
if located in an area of special flood hazard, wooded areas, ledge outcrops,
and other natural features.
√√√√Initial Site Conditions Map
Surface waters & buffers. Existing mapped data for permanent surface
waters; estimates for top of bank/stream; estimated locations of
intermittent streams.
Wetland areas and buffers. Exsting mapped data from Vermont Significant
Wetland Inventory, Vrmont Significant Wetland Inventory Advisory Layer,
Hydric Soils, and other known sources. Applicant-estimated areas for
potential Class III areas.
Habitat Blocks: City-Mapped Habitat Blocks.
Habitat Connectors: City-Mapped Habitat Connectors.
Steep Slopes: Existing mapped data of steep and very steep slopes
√√√√√√√Complete Site Conditions Map
Surface waters & buffers. Field verification/ delineation of top of bank /
top of slope for permanent and intermittent surface waters by a qualified
professional
Wetland areas and buffers. Field delineation and report of functions and
values of all wetland areas prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant
Habitat Blocks: Mapped Habitat Blocks or Habitat and Disturbance
Assessment if applicable.
Habitat Connectors: Mapped Habitat Connectors or Habitat and
Disturbance Assessment if applicable.
Steep Slopes: Mapped data of unaffected steep or very steep slopes; Field
or LiDAR-derived delineation of steep and very steep slopes with a
vertical drop exceeding three (3) feet proposed to be impacted
All Districts Except City Center FBC City Center FBC District
…
LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Natural Resources Map
South Burlington, Vermont
Effective INSERT DATE
0 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.40.42
Miles
Disclaimer:
This map is for planning
purposes. The accuracy
of information presented
is determined by its
sources. Errors and
omissions may exist. The
Chittenden County
Regional Planning
Commission is not
responsible for these.
Questions of on-the-
ground location can be
resolved by site
inspections and/or
surveys by a registered
surveyor.
This map is not sufficient
for delineation of features
on-the-ground. This map
identifies the presence of
features, and may
indicate relationships
between features, but is
not a replacement for
surveyed information or
engineering studies.
Data Source:
Special Flood Hazard
Area, Wetland, River
Corridor (2019)-ANR
Parcel Boundary, Zoning
District-City of South
Burlington
Map Prepared by M.
Needle using ArcGIS Pro.
All Data is in VT State
Plan NAD 1983.
B1: 500 Year Flood/0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard
Level II Resources
Habitat Connector
Habitat Block
Very Steep Slopes (25% + Slope)
Steep Slopes (15% to 25%)
Level I Resources
Rare Threatened Endangered Species Habitat
Current River Corridors, including 50' buffer on streams draining to >0.5 mile area
B2: 500 Year Flood/0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard
100' Buffer on Potash Brook
Wetland and 50' or 100' Buffer
Special Flood Hazard Area or 100 Year Flood
Stream or River Centerline
Hazards
Proposed Natural Resource Protection
Park/Recreation
Conservation Zoning Districts
Legend
Date:3/9/2021
DRAFT
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
3 MARCH 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 3 March
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; J. Nick, A. Luzzato, C. Long, S.
Dooley, F. Von Turkovich, A. Jensen-Vargas, S. Partilo, A. Chalnick, R. Greco
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:
There were no announcements or staff report.
4. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Review of provisions for waivers/alternative development standards in the draft
LDRs:
Mr. Nick noted that the Hill Farm has a lot of forest blocks, wetlands, etc. He asked if there is
some flexibility. He also noted a fair amount of invasives on the edges. One concern is that if
there are house lots, there is a question of who owns the woodlands. He wanted to encourage
kids to get outside, and there is an opportunity to have house lots with some woodlands (50
feet into the woods). He cited the Deer Run development where very few trees were removed.
There are no pools in the woods, and there is plenty of wildlife. Another concern is that he
wouldn’t want the regulations to preclude Swift St. Extension or Exit 12B. He noted the number
of times he has heard “what you’re saying makes sense, but that’s not what the regulations
say” in his work in various communities. He asked members to keep that in mind. Ms. Louisos
thanked Mr. Nick for that feedback.
2
Regarding waivers, Ms. Louisos questioned how much flexibility to allow. She felt flexibility for
better design was OK and suggested that “waiver” may not be the best word. Mr. Conner
agreed and said “waiver” usually means doing away with something. A modification is more
typical of what is done (e.g., reducing a setback by a foot or so for a better project). There is
also a provision for “alternative compliance” as in City Center. “Show us something better.”
Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission had decided that 25 percent will be the number
for steep slopes for Level 1. Mr. Conner said that is in the draft, but it can be changed if the
Commission chooses to. Ms. Ostby felt they would have to circle back to that at some point.
Mr. Riehle said he doesn’t care what the angle is as long as it doesn’t create erosion. He felt
they may not need a percentage.
Mr. Riehle then asked about zoning district boundaries and the ability to apply the regulations
of one district 50 feet into an adjacent district. He asked about buffering. Mr. Conner said
there is a buffer required from a commercial to a residential district. If the uses are the same,
there is no buffer required. Mr. Riehle asked about 4-plexes put down behind single family
homes. Mr. Conner said the rule is that a building can’t be more than one story higher than
buildings in an adjacent area.
Mr. Macdonald asked if there is any other district other than City Center where there can be
impact to a Class 2 wetland. He cited the proposed industrial park on Rt. 116 which is targeted
for office/commercial use. He asked if development would be eliminated there because of the
wetland. He saw that as an “unintended consequence” since that’s where the city is looking for
jobs, etc. He would like to see that area lumped in with the City Center regulations. Ms. Ostby
noted that area would also be involved if the 12B interchange is built. She felt it might have to
be revisited in the future, but in the meantime supported sticking with the wetland plan.
Mr. Gagnon noted they had talked about this and agreed regarding wetland buffers and
whether to allow any disturbance in the buffer. Currently this can happen with mitigation, but
the Commission decided not to allow impact on the buffers. He was concerned with saying one
area is different from another and having people ask for more exceptions. Ms. Louisos noted
they went with a moderate approach by not making the buffers any wider.
Ms. Louisos asked for public comment. There was none made.
b. Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD Type Review: debrief on
presentation/illustrations from 2/23, feedback on the results of TND development
calculator; discuss potential adjustments to the “levers” affecting development
and other TND design elements; overview of “mixed-use” component:
3
Mr. Mittag questioned the 11C table and said he was concerned with making things more
comfortable for people who may continue to work from home. Mr. Conner asked Mr. Mittag to
share his thoughts with him directly to help with drafting.
Mr. Conner asked members if anything from Mark Kane’s presentation “jumped off the page”
that they weren’t expecting.
Mr. Riehle said he still has an issue of tri and quad plexes and the purpose of the Southeast
Quadrant (SEQ). He felt inclusions of those units could change the SEQ so it is no longer the
rural part of the city. He noted that 3 Burlington City Council members have “fled” to South
Burlington’s SEQ. Mr. Riehle also felt the tri and quad plexes would also probably be rental
units, and he didn’t feel that renter support the city with taxes, etc.
Ms. Louisos said if they break up the land into 1.2 acre pieces, you can see the houses, but you
use up more land. She acknowledged that a quadplex in the middle of nowhere could look
imposing.
Mr. Gagnon said one of the things used to address the quadplex is the construction style which
would have the buildings look like single family homes. There would also be a matched look
and feel of the houses in the neighborhood. He felt they should make sure building types
match a neighborhood. Regarding renters, Mr. Gagnon said this can be great or not so great,
and he didn’t know how to address that. He noted that there are single family homes rented to
students, and that can’t be banned.
Ms. Louisos suggested a possible limit on some types of houses in a location. The multi-family
homes could be in the center, and certain groupings could create a homogeneous sense.
Ms. Ostby urged members to be more open-minded about renters. She noted that 40% of
South Burlington residents are renters, and they pay taxes through their rents. She added that
it is very difficult to be homeowners these days, and renters can be very vibrant members of
the community.
Mr. Mittag was concerned with crafting regulations that anyone can understand. Ms. Louisos
said that Mr. Kane had said it was a junior person in the company who drew the plans from the
text.
Mr. Conner said he had a debrief with Mr. Kane after the presentation. They felt it might make
sense to cap the percentage of multi-family homes and to stress that multi-family buildings
types would have the form and feel of a single family home. Mr. Conner also noted that the
biggest challenge the drafter had was to hit the numbers exactly. The suggestion is to give the
4
DRB a 3-4% ability to deal with unique circumstances. Ms. Ostby felt that was a good idea. She
noted that everything she tried always had a little land left over.
Ms. Jensen-Vargas said she is a renter, and the ability of not having to deal with upkeep (e.g.,
mowing, plowing, etc.) gives her more time to do more for her community. It also reduces
heating costs, which makes it more affordable.
Ms. Dooley noted there are already places in the SEQ with multi-family units (e.g. South
Village). She also pointed out Bayberry Commons in Burlington which has some interesting
streets. Some buildings look like duplexes, but in the back there are 2 more units. She cited
the importance of the neighborhood feel.
Mr. Riehle asked about the 10 units mentioned on one page. Mr. Conner said that is a total of
housing units: two 3-plexes and one 4-plex.
Ms. Ostby reminded members that development can be more dense because they are
conserving more land. Mr. MacDonald said that is a good point, but he wasn’t sure how to
explain that to the public. He was concerned that the building type approach still leaves gaps as
to density. Mr. Conner said the maximum allowable density isn’t necessarily what developers
are looking for. Having building types, percentages, etc., is providing more certainty.
Mr. Chalnick said some properties won’t look very different. If they don’t have hazards, etc.,
there could be a huge number of houses. He wasn’t sure that much more land is being
conserved. Mr. Mittag took issue with the word “conserved.” It is not necessarily more
conserved space but more open space in the development. Ms. Ostby said they have also
added hazards and level 1 resource areas that can’t be built on. People can build more in the
buildable areas. Ms. Louisos added that there is also civic space that is not lawn. It is usable
open space.
Mr. Von Turkovich said he is very interested in building typology. He tends to be drawn to the
“stacked flat” building of 3-5 stories. He asked if you can build a 2-story building of that type.
Mr. Conner said possibly. Typically, it would be located in the higher density area or in a
transition area. He will bring that idea to the consultant. Mr. Von Turkovich said it is a very
efficient building design. He noted that 3 story buildings become expensive because of
elevators. He asked whether the DRB would be allowed to modify a building type and noted
the need to make room for “evolution.”
Ms. Louisos said that each PUD would have to have multiple building types. In a TND, there
would be a more traditional neighborhood feel. Buildings would like more like single family
homes. Mr. Gagnon added that there will be percentages of each required building type, and
the Commission is still working on those percentages.
5
Mr. Conner said in the current draft, with 10 acres, a developer would select a minimum of 3
building types and a percentage of each, with no more than 50% of any one type. Developers
would have the flexibility to do something that will fit well in a neighborhood context. Ms.
Ostby said that where they are being proscriptive is with the need to have a cohesive
neighborhood with flexibility in design. Mr. Conner said the rules say very little about
architectural style other than having a building present a front door to the street or to a center
green.
Ms. Ostby said that South Village and the new O’Brien development are following a lot of what
the new PUDs will have. She also noted that Mr. Von Turkovich’s new development does this
as well. Mr. Conner added that the Kirby Cottages are a good example of what a cottage block
could look like.
Ms. Ostby said the 1.2 units per acre has never been an average in a specific development. It is
an average for the whole SEQ.
Mr. Riehle was concerned with having 90% multiplexes (e.g., 40% duplex and 50% higher
multiplexes) with only 5% single family. Mr. Conner said it may be appropriate to put a cap on
the multiplexes in a neighborhood. He noted that in the Rye development, there are 12
“cottages,” 12 4-plexes, and 27 single family homes. Mr. Riehle said the neighborhoods cited
are lovely. He is just concerned with the potential.
Ms. Louisos noted that some housing types are very similar. The proposal is for a minimum of
15% of a type and a maximum of 50%. She suggested that possibly the sum of multiplexes
should be 50%. Mr. Conner added that they may want to lump town homes and multiplexes.
Mr. Gagnon agreed with capping multiplexes with possibly a higher cap in the Transit Overlay
District, lower elsewhere. Ms. Ostby asked if a development commits to a “tighter”
neighborhood, could there be flexibility for 2 types, duplex and single family. Ms. Louisos
suggested that another type could be a small house on a small lot. Mr. Conner showed photos
of what “small lots” look like in South Burlington including City Center, Village at Dorset Park,
Kirby Cottages, and also 5 Sisters in Burlington. He also noted there is a range of building types
and sizes in Queen City Park, Blackberry Lane (off IDX Drive) and South Village. Southpoint has
small single family homes.
Mr. Conner then asked if members wanted to “play around” with allocations. Mr. Gagnon said
he wanted caps, with higher caps in the Transit Overlay District. Ms. Ostby suggested
decreasing the minimum lot size from 5000 sq. ft. to 3800 sq. ft. Mr. Conner asked to let staff
toy with that idea and possibly suggest an additional building style.
6
A straw poll of members indicated a positive response to caps.
Ms. Louisos noted that the minimum for civic space is now 10%, but 15% has been suggested.
Mr. Conner said that is achievable, especially with smaller lots.
Members gave a thumbs up to 15%.
Ms. Ostby asked if there should be an allowance for a larger house. Mr. Conner said they
shouldn’t go beyond 10,000 sq. ft. because then you lose the neighborhood feel. He added that
there could be a “peculiar parcel” where there is some flexibility.
Mr. Riehle asked if the intent is to preclude houses such as those at Butler Farms. Mr. Conner
said generally yes, in the sense that the lots are somewhat larger and there are no focus points
to the neighborhood, but you can still get a large house on 10,000 sq. ft.
Ms. Ostby asked about accessory apartments. Mr. Conner said that State law allows a single
family home to have an accessory apartment in the same or an appurtenant building. In an
adjacent building, you must meet the required setbacks, etc.
Ms. Dooley applauded the inclusion of smaller houses, especially from an energy point of view.
Mr. Conner then addressed how commercial uses fit into the TND. He said there are a few
options. There could be a community building for use by the neighborhood. There could also
be some authorized non-residential uses such as small retail, restaurant, personal instruction,
but it would be capped at 5000 sq. ft. per use. There could also be a vertical mixed use with a
store and apartments above it.
Ms. Ostby said she has heard people ask to allow for childcare. Mr. Conner said staff was 100%
supportive of that, and indicated he thought it was in the current draft but would confirm.
Members gave a thumbs up for childcare inclusion.
Mr. Gagnon said that in addition to a square foot limitation, there should be a standard that the
commercial building matches the architecture of the neighborhood. Mr. Conner said there are
guidelines for that and they have worked fairly well.
Ms. Dooley noted there are some uses protected by the State including a group home for no
more than 6 people with developmental disabilities. Registered child care can go up to 6 full-
time in-home.
Ms. Louisos also noted accommodations for home businesses and people working from home.
7
5. Review/possible action on possible updated meeting participation guidelines:
Ms. Louisos showed the list of proposed guidelines for public participation.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the guidelines for public participation and Commissioner
guidelines as shown. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Ostby asked about the procedure to get something on an agenda. Ms. Louisos said to ask
her or Mr. Conner. There can also be a short discussion under “other business” about adding
something to a future agenda. Mr. Conner said the “other business” discussion would not
violate the open meeting law. He also noted there is some authority for the Chair to delay
addressing an item if it interrupts another discussion.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Conner reminded member that their next meeting is 10 March, 7 p.m. The next night is the
joint meeting regarding the I-89 corridor study at 5 p.m.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:05 p.m.
___________________________________Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
3 MARCH 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 9 March 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; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; R. Gonda,
M. Cota, V. Bolduc, I Genzhiyev, A. & A. Chalnick, S. Dooley, S. Dopp, R. Greco, J. Bellavance, S.
Partilo, A. Jensen-Vargas, D. Peters, L. Yankowski, R. Brinkerhoff, C. Trombly, D. Seff, D.
Crawford, B. Sirvis, J. Simson
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. Cota introduced himself as the new City Council member and invited Commission members
to reach out to him at any time. Ms. Louisos commented that it is good to have another City
Council member with a DRB background.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby noted that the renovation of the People’s Bank building will result in half of the
building becoming residential. She thanked Mr. Conner for spending time to explain how TDRs
would work with building types. She also noted that she held another phone information
session regarding the “calculator” concept.
Ms. Louisos said she spoke with the City Council Chair and they will look to schedule a joint
session with the Council in the next few weeks regarding the “calculator”, planned unit
developments, and other work under Interim Zoning.
4. Commission reflections on Open Meeting guidance: Q & A. with City Attorney Andrew
Bolduc:
Ms. Louisos advised that Commission members had watched a video on the Open Meeting Law
before this meeting.
2
Mr. Mittag asked if it is a requirement that all documentation that is to be discussed is available
to the public before a meeting. City Attorney Bolduc said yes it should be but is not “fatal” to
the meeting warning if it isn’t as long as the public has a chance to see it and respond to it. This
is a Constitutional requirement. The Commission is at all times accountable to the public.
Mr. Riehle asked about reaching out to other Commission members to get feedback from them.
Mr. Bolduc said that is a “chain meeting” and should be avoided.
Mr. Gagnon asked about email and sending something of interest to other members. “Reply
all” is a violation. Mr. Bolduc said that just distributing information is OK. A member can ask
“should we address this at a future meeting?”, and that can be discussed over email as it is only
about what will be on the agenda.
Ms. Louisos asked whether they are still OK with virtual meetings and whether there will be a
time limit. Mr. Bolduc said that for the time being, all virtual meetings are OK. He would advise
if that changes. He did not that there is a move in the Legislature to make that a permanent
option. Mr. Conner noted that if the Legislature doesn’t extend the time limit, there can be a
“hybrid” option in which at least one Commission member would need to be physically present
at the “live” meeting site.
Mr. Conner asked whether any other requirements have been made by the Legislature other
than those which are pandemic-related. Mr. Bolduc said the Legislature hasn’t changed
anything regarding social media at this time. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns and the
Secretary of State’s office have pamphlets and guidance on the Open Meeting Law. Both talk
about social media and conversations between members. He cautioned members to be very
careful about commenting. Ms. Louisos said members should be careful about posting
anything and to make it clear you are speaking as an individual, not as a Planning Commission
member. Mr. Bolduc added that this applies on the staff level as well. He further cautioned
members to know what “hat” they are wearing and whom they are addressing.
Mr. Conner said that in his 12 years with the city he is most proud of how the community takes
these things seriously. He felt it reflects well on the community.
5. Continued Land Development Regulations Work Session:
a. Review overall Project Schedule and discuss possibility of advancing
Environmental Standards (Articles 10 & 12 and related amendments) in advance of
others:
Mr. Conner said that although a lot of things are intertwined, he was comfortable with
advancing Articles 10 and 12 along with some definition updates, etc. These Articles were
3
designed to stand along and are fairly self-contained. Some subdivision standards support
Articles 10 and 12 but don’t rely on them. Taylor still has a few questions for the Commission,
and these could be warned in the next couple of meetings.
Ms. Ostby said it seems the Commission will want the opportunity to do a last connection of
Articles 10 and 12 with the PUDs. This could result in a conversation regarding density. She
was concerned with releasing 10 & 12 too soon.
Mr. Gagnon felt that if the PUDs are just 2 or 3 weeks behind, he would like to keep everything
together. Mr. Conner said he expects the last pages of the PUDs later this month. There is still
a discussion to be had as to how the pieces worth together. He noted a potential gap in April
(re: impending parenthood) when the Commission can have some discussion of things on the
“to do” list without him being present. All in all, he felt the PUDs were likely a few moths
behind rather than a few weeks.
Mr. Riehle said it gets confusing to go from one topic to another. He felt the process shouldn’t
have taken so long.
Mr. Mittag said that as they have moved to Article 15, it has become more complex with
unintended consequences from the impact of the regulations. And some things haven’t been
touched on yet. He felt everything is intertwined. He added that he’d never looked at Chapter
9 until a few days ago and didn’t know that was connected to Article 12. He felt they should
complete Article 12 and then look at that.
Mr. Macdonald agreed with Mr. Riehle and Mr. Mittag and felt he didn’t have a full wrap-up on
Article 12.
Mr. Conner reminded members that if they adopt something, it can be changed. He didn’t
recommend doing that too often, but regulations can always be adjusted. Mr. Mittag noted
there will likely be changes after the public hearing. He favored focusing on one thing at a time.
Ms. Ostby said the benefit of the City Council getting Articles 10 and 12 is that they may have to
make a decision about certain parcels and may have some other open space conversations.
Ms. Greco said it is easier to absorb one article at a time. She added that if the Commission is
having a hard time grasping things, imagine the public.
Ms. Dooley was concerned about how much time is left in Interim Zoning and was worried
about having separate processes as each can have more or less time. She felt the Commission
had a head of steam on the PUDs. She didn’t see separating things as a time-saver.
4
Mr. Gonda said he has tried to follow the progress of the proposals but has found it confusing.
He noted that Mr. Conner gave 2 updates to the Natural Resources Committee, and they are
also befuddled. Concerns include: not seeing that the Open Space Report was taken into
account, and the focus on “acreage” as opposed to “quality” when considering protections.
Ms. Louisos felt there would be more productive public comment if the Commission were more
focused.
Mr. Mittag said he has a lot of questions to get clarified. He didn’t feel there had been a
decision as to whether some of his recommendations were accepted or not. He also said there
are things in Mr. Conner’s memo that he hadn’t thought about. Mr. Conner suggested having a
“straw poll” on recommendations so there is a record of the Commission’s decisions.
Mr. Gagnon then moved to proceed with completing Articles 10 and 12 and related items in
order to advance them to public hearing and to the City Council as a first priority. Mr.
Macdonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gagnon said it would be good to have a final mark-up before warning for public hearing.
Mr. Conner said the next step will be as clean a draft as possible. Mr. Gagnon said he would
like to see a clean version without “bubbles.” Mr. Conner said the Commission can make any
changes after the public hearing, as long as they are not things the Commission has never
discussed.
Ms. Greco asked if the public will get a clean version before the public hearing. Mr. Conner said
the public hearing will be warned 15 days in advance, and the document must be available to
the public.
Ms. Louisos reminded members of the possible joint work session with the Council. She
suggested this take place after a clean version is released but before the public hearing. Mr.
Conner noted that the Commission would not have to warn a second public hearing if they
make changes after its public hearing. If the City Council makes changes after their public
hearing, they must warn a new public hearing.
Mr. Engels said it would be good to have a document accompany what is sent to the City
Council to explain what is being sent and to include pictures. Mr. Conner said there is a 2-page
document that described things. He will consider pictures.
Mr. Mittag said the deletion of Article 9 will have a big impact on Article 12. He felt there is
more work to be done than they think.
5
b. Continue discussion of options for how to integrate Inclusionary Zoning where
currently applicable into PUDs; consider possible expansion/replacement of
current affordable housing density bonus structure:
Mr. Riehle asked if there is an option to donate land in lieu of inclusionary units. Mr. Conner
said there is. Then if the city has land available for housing, developers could be solicited to
develop it without having to consider the cost of the land. This has not yet been done.
Ms. Louisos said she was comfortable with what is in Mr. Conner’s memo. It doesn’t feel like
they would be layering density on density.
Mr. Macdonald expressed concern about incentives and the statement that incentives could
alter the planned character of a PUD. Mr. Conner said incentives can be part of the regulations.
He cited how this works in City Center. This satisfies both the State statute and the intent of
the statute.
Mr. Mittag asked if he is required to build 16 inclusionary units and builds 3-bedroom units,
does he have to build only 8. Mr. Conner said yes but with “an asterisk.” The justification is
that this provides family housing. Mr. Mittag felt it was counterintuitive as the city wants as
many units as it can get. Mr. Conner said housing studies identify affordably family housing as a
big gap. He noted the popularity of 4-bedroom units on Market St. Mr. Ostby added that the
new O’Brien development has 3-bedroom homes as inclusionary, and they will be perpetually
available to families.
Ms. Dooley corrected the above statement and noted that three 3-bedroom inclusionary units
count as 2 inclusionary units.
Mr. Riehle asked what happens with TDRs in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Conner said
that today affordable units don’t have to buy TDRs. That could be continued as an incentive.
Mr. Riehle asked what then happens to TDRs. Mr. Conner said this would only apply to the
affordable units. You could still use TDRs in the rest of the SEQ. There is also thought of
expanding TDRs throughout the whole city. Mr. Gagnon said that at this point he would
support TDRs in the whole city.
Mr. Conner said it would be helpful to have Commission guidance as soon as the Commission is
comfortable with that. Inclusionary requirements need to be incorporated the sooner the
better.
Mr. Macdonald asked if inclusionary units would be dispersed among building types. Mr.
Conner said they need to be thoroughly integrated into the neighborhood but can be in one
6
building type. They cannot all be in one 20 unit building if there is only one such building. They
also need to have the same average number of bedrooms as the rest of the development.
Mr. Mittag said he wasn’t ready for city-wide inclusionary zoning until he knew the impact on
the SEQ. He felt it was a big change to go from voluntary to mandatory.
Ms. Louisos stressed that density is not being increased with inclusionary zoning, and the city is
not giving up anything. There is no reason not to consider expanding it further. Mr. Mittag felt
that combined with PUDs it could make a huge difference. Ms. Ostby said that today the only
way to get affordable housing is to tie it to a density bonus. With inclusionary zoning,
affordable units are tied into the underlying density. Mr. Conner said that is correct. Under
State law, there must be an “incentive,” but that does not necessarily have to be a bonus. Mr.
Conner noted that where inclusionary zoning exists in City Center, it does not increase density.
Mr. Gagnon moved to direct staff to move ahead with exploring “a” and “b” on staff’s
memorandum to have something ready for when work on Articles 10 and 12 is complete. Ms.
Ostby seconded.
Members discussed the option to remove “increase base density” from the list of incentives.
Mr. Conner said he would ask the City Attorney about that. No one element must be in there,
and he comfortable there is a good slate of options. The Court might say the city is not meeting
the standard. Mr. Conner also noted that the consultant may have other ideas. Mr. Mittag said
a property owner might not want to increase the base density. Ms. Ostby was comfortable
with removing that option, if possible.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously.
c. Consider proposal from Commissioner Ostby to consider a basic vs. expanded
Conservation PUD:
Ms. Ostby said she was concerned with people who have 50% of their acreage in hazards or
level 1 resources in the SEQ. The focus was to be on those parcels being most impacted. She
was concerned with expanding it to take out buildable land so that it would never be
developed. She said some people would say they shouldn’t conserve anything permanently
because the world changes.
Mr. Mittag said that once something is on the books, it’s hard to get rid of it. He felt they need
every square inch of meadow, etc. from a climate mitigation point of view. He wouldn’t
support Ms. Ostby’s idea.
7
Ms. Louisos said this would be a great conversation when they have the Conservation PUD
language in front of them.
Mr. Chalnick felt a landowner should have the option to conserve land.
d. Overview of related amendments to PUD/Subdivision/Environmental Protection
standards updates; Commission prioritization:
Mr. Conner asked members to review the memo and think about which subject areas they want
to delve deeper into. There are some site plan amendments (e.g., many towns give
modification authority to the DRB, especially regarding dimensions). Mr. Conner noted that
much of Article 9 (SEQ) is based today on how a PUD should be arranged. If you adopt the TND
form of PUD, very little remains in Article 9. What does remain is how TDRs and environment
protection work. He has heard that some of the SEQ design elements should be city-wide. Mr.
Mittag didn’t see how they could delete such an important part of the LDRs unless those
protections are transferred to Article 12. Ms. Louisos suggested putting this on a future
agenda.
Mr. Conner noted the SEQ is almost self-contained. His suggestion would to place rules where
they are logically found. The Commission wanted Article 12 to address natural resources in the
city.
Ms. Ostby said she couldn’t find the portion of the minutes where there was a recommended
change from Industrial-Open Space zoning to Mixed Use. She felt they would need to discuss
the Official City Map and in particular Swift Street Extension. Mr. Conner said the area referred
to in the memo is immediately south of the Interstate. Article 12 standards on that property
would have the western portion in a forest block.
Ms. Dopp questioned potential development in the NRP. Mr. Conner said that as drafted
nothing about the amount of development is proposed to change in the NRP. There might be a
slight modification to the building envelope.
Mr. Riehle asked when they would get to the items on Mr. Conner’s memo. Ms. Louisos said
these will be addressed when they get into PUDs more. Some items are updates; some are new
items. Mr. Conner said they are most closely related to PUDs, though some (e.g., changes in
State rules regarding subsidiary dwellings) are not.
6. Provide direction on selection of name for new street adjacent to Library/City Hall:
Ms. Ostby suggested going to the Marcotte School students for ideas. Members liked that idea.
8
Ms. Dooley spoke to the issue to naming streets for individuals to erase prior racial injustice.
She cited Lavinia Bright, the first woman of color to serve in the Vermont Legislature was from
South Burlington. Ms. Dopp noted the possibility of former Librarians.
Members agreed to go to the Marcotte students with two topic areas: names that are
complementary to Garden Street & Market Street, and names for people of historical
significance to South Burlington.
7. Meeting Minutes of 23 February 2021:
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 February 2021 as written. Mr. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
Mr. Conner reminded members of tomorrow’s I-89 study meeting to provide feedback to
CCRPC on evaluation criteria. He encouraged members to attend.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:22 p.m.
__________________________________Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
I-89 BREAKOUT SESSION MEETING MINUTES
10 MARCH 2021
1
A quorum of the South Burlington Planning Commission participated in a Joint Meeting/Working Session
regarding the I-89 Corridor Study facilitated by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission on
Wednesday, 10 March 2021, at 5:00 p.m. via Zoom remote technology. Minutes for the joint meeting
are with the City Council minutes. The Planning Commission held a “break-out” sessions afterwards with
the same Zoom remote technology.
Present: Eleni Churchill, Paul Conner, Jessica Louisos, Duncan Macdonald, Michael Mittag, Monica
Ostby, Charlie Baker (attended part of the meeting)
1. Breakout room to have individualized conversations and feedback regarding I-89 Corridor
Study Interchange Evaluation Criteria
Mr. Mittag stated concern regarding impact to wetlands, particularly at the 12B location. Requested
wetland impact metrics be included. Ms. Churchill stated that there is a wetland metric and an updated
12B concept seemed to address wetland issues but will review.
Ms. Louisos requests economic access impact as the interchanges connect to areas of growth. She
would like to see a sub set metric of how each exchange contributes and/or detracts from supporting SB
City Center. Ms. Churchill indicated that she will discuss this with the consultant team.
Mr. Mittag suggested underlying assumptions might expect more working from home thus taken into
account. Also a lack of transit for rural residents. Ms. Churchill explained that due to the uncertainty of
how people will travel in a post-pandemic world, the study will recommend monitoring travel patterns
and develop triggers to identify when major roadway capacity improvements are needed so they can
move forward.
Ms. Ostby stated disappointment that a version of exit 14 with the inclusion or assumption of a separate
bike/ped bridge to it's south was not presented. Ms. Churchill explained that the isolated bike/ped
bridge is being reviewed as part of the I-89 corridor "bundle" and evaluated separately (in the next
phase of the study). That it might be a mid-way project that is constructed prior to an exit 14
reconstruction. And that any exit 14 option should include safest bike/ped facilities even if a separate
bridge is constructed.
Ms. Ostby also asked if truck/commercial traffic impact not only on each exit but the surrounding city
roads be considered. Are there areas of SB that would see a rise in commercial traffic? Ms. Churchill
indicated that the regional model provides data on overall vehicle traffic but not necessarily on
commercial traffic. The project team already developed maps indicating change in volumes for each of
the five interchange concepts. Note: The maps are available on the project website
(www.envision89.com) and were shared with the City Council Feb 16, 2021.
Regarding exit 13, Ms. Ostby stated safety concerns of heavy truck/commercial on a 4 lane boulevard
design connecting I-89 to Shelburne Road. She also asked if the land connected to the southern portion
of the current 189 might be converted to bike/ped use. Ms. Churchill explained that since it is Federal
land it would have to be invested. They will review how to identify commercial traffic safety impact.
Mr. Conner suggested that all exits review what Federal lands would be no longer needed with the new
designs and what might happen to that land. That even if the land ownership continued to be Federal
and was left alone, what impact would it have on a potential quality of life improvement. He suggested
2
adding a metric of "Return of Valuable Land." Ms. Churchill stated that such questions will be directed
to the Vermont Agency of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Mittag asked about the cost impact of creating 12B, how many acres would have to be purchased as
is this part of the cost estimate. Churchill confirmed the construction estimates do not include ROW or
land acquisition expense.
Mr. Mittag supported exit 13 given its direct access to the airport, reducing traffic load to exit 14, and
asked that this be considered in a weighted evaluation.
Mr. Macdonald asked for clarification of the process. Ms. Churchill explained that while the final
decisions on which interchange concepts to move forward for further evaluation are made by the I-89
Advisory Committee, they will give preference to the direction received by the City Council. As part of
the process the committee will look at midway options such as bike/ped bridge before final interchange
work. That major interchange improvements (permitting, design and construction could take 15 to 20
years. Mr. Macdonald suggested that timing to completion is an important metric that should be
included.
Mr. Macdonald asked for clarification regarding the two future roads shown on the 12B draft,
connecting Tilley Drive to Kimball Ave and to Community Drive.. Mr. Conner confirmed both roads are
currently on the Official Map, and one, connecting to Kimball Ave, has its northern half currently under
consideration as part of a proposed development.
Ms. Louisos reminded that there was a suggestion to consider how the scoring might be weighted. This
is a topic the full PC will discuss in an upcoming meeting. Further, should any goals be weighted? Ms.
Churchill also ask the committee to review the scoring methodology and offer any comments.
Mittag asked how to best engage the community. Churchill reviewed the public sessions already held,
and future sessions planned including 3/18 and mid April.
Ms. Ostby stated that while reviewing exits 14 and 13 can be clear and constructive, evaluating whether
to support a new 12B will be highly political, making it more challenging to be objective. Mr. Macdonald
stated reviewing a new construction at exit 12B partial vs a partial reconstruction (such as 14 and 13)
would be a much heavier left.
Ms. Ostby asked if a metric considering the benefit of each interchange to the surrounding cities can be
useful. Mr. Baker stated that earlier research confirms that 12B is not more helpful to Hinesburg
residents' access to 89 than using the current 12. Considering the fuller option for exit 13 might review
benefits to supporting Burlington.
Mr. Baker asked that the PC further contemplate if something more can be weighted, and if any
considerations are missing. He also mentioned as an example that in the City Council sub group this
evening safety was seen as a higher concern than cost.
The meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:09 p.m.
__________________________________Clerk
Memorandum
To: The City of Burlington Planning Director
The City of South Burlington Planning Director
The Town of Colchester Planning Director
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
The Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development
From: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning and Zoning Manager
RE: Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations including Articles III and X; and Sections 4.9 and 6.6
DATE: March 12, 2021
________________________________________
Enclosed with this memo, please find proposed amendments to the City of Winooski’s Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations. The amendments relate specifically to:
• Article III - Specific Use Standards – Downtown Core Zoning District
• Article X - Maps
• Section 4.9 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures Right of Way (ROW) or Drive, and Uses
• Section 6.6 - Site Plan Review
• All Sections - Referential Changes to replace “Appendix C” with “Article III’
• Appendix C - Deleted in its entirety
The City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, April 08, 2021 at
6:30pm to take public comments on the proposed amendments. This hearing will be held by electronic
means only via Zoom Webinar. Use https://zoom.us/j/97701613338 to join by computer or
646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 977 0161 3338.
Please ensure this information is provided to the chair of your Planning Commission. Comments
related to these amendments should be submitted in writing to me by the close of business on Monday,
April 05, 2021.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF WINOOSKI
UNIFIED LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
In accordance with 24 V.S.A §4441 and §4444, the City of Winooski Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Thursday, April 08, 2021 beginning at 6:30 p.m. This hearing will be held by
electronic means only using Zoom Webinar. Use https://zoom.us/j/97701613338 to join by computer
or 646.558.8656 to join by telephone (toll charges may apply). If prompted, the webinar ID for this
meeting is 977 0161 3338.
Amendments to the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations
• Article III - Specific Use Standards – Downtown Core Zoning District
• Article X - Maps
• Section 4.9 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures Right of Way (ROW) or Drive, and Uses
• Section 6.6 - Site Plan Review
• All Sections - Referential Changes to replace “Appendix C” with “Article III’
• Appendix C - Deleted in its entirety
Statement of Purpose: The purpose of these amendments are as follows:
Article III – Incorporate the specific regulations for the Downtown Core Zoning District currently
included in Appendix C into the Unified Land Use and Subdivision Regulations including interim
zoning related to the Downtown Core Zoning District boundaries.
Article X – Add the “Building Height and Location Map” currently included in Appendix C
Section 4.9 – Incorporate language from Appendix C related to non-conformities in the
Downtown Core
Section 6.6 – Clarify site plan review requirements for all zoning districts
All Sections – Replace references to “Appendix C” with “Article III” to reflect the change of
location for the specific use standards of the Downtown Core Zoning District
Appendix C – Delete in its entirety as language is incorporated into relevant sections of the
Unified Land Use and Development Regulations for clarity and consistency
Geographic Area Affected: the proposed amendments will apply to the entirety of the City of
Winooski.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
ULUDR Amendments
April 08, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Section Headings Impacted:
Article III – Incorporates the specific use regulations for the Downtown Core Zoning District
thereby eliminating Appendix C. This includes clarification on the district boundaries to
incorporate an interim zoning change, updates to cross references throughout the Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations, and adds language related to the process of review for
projects in the Downtown Core Zoning District including the City Council review for design
consideration in the Act 250 permitting process including references to the master sign plans
that have been adopted for the Downtown Core Zoning District. Article III is currently reserved.
Article X – Adds the “Building Height and Location Map” currently included in Appendix C. Minor
map changes update road names and incorporate the entirety of Cascade Way, but do not
change any of the specific regulatory requirements associated with the building heights,
locations, or development areas.
Section 4.9 – Adds a new subsection H to include language previously contained in Appendix C
regarding non-conforming uses in the Downtown Core Zoning District. This also includes
editorial changes for clarification.
Section 6.6 – Adds new language for clarification on site plan review requirements for specific
zoning districts and uses. Also includes editorial changes for clarification related to change of
use standards.
All Sections – Replace references to “Appendix C” with “Article III” to reflect the change of
location for the specific standards of the Downtown Core Zoning District and the elimination of
Appendix C.
Appendix C – To be deleted in its entirety. The regulations in Appendix C will be codified into
Article III and other relevant sections throughout the Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations for clarity and consistency.
The full text of these amendments is available at the Winooski City Hall, 27 West Allen Street, during
normal business hours or by contacting Eric Vorwald, AICP, City of Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
by calling 802.655.6410 or evorwald@winooskivt.gov.
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Eric Vorwald, AICP
Planning & Zoning Manager
RE: Report on Proposed Amendments to the City’s Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations including Articles III and X; and Sections 4.9 and 6.6
DATE: March 12, 2021
________________________________________
This memo provides information related to proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Unified Land
Use and Development Regulations. These amendments specifically impact the following articles and
sections:
• Article III - Reserved
• Article X - Maps
• Section 4.9 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures Right of Way (ROW) or Drive, and Uses
• Section 6.6 - Site Plan Review
These amendments also replace references to “Appendix C” with “Article III”, move the “Building Height
and Location Map” from Appendix C to Article X, and delete Appendix C in its entirety.
Background
In 2016, the City undertook a comprehensive update to the Unified Land Use and Development
Regulations (ULUDR). This was the first update in over 20 years. A major component of this update
included a new Appendix B, which provides regulations for the Gateway Zoning Districts through the
form-based code. While these changes modernized the regulations, staff has identified additional
amendments to provide clarity and improve the interpretation of the regulations. Additionally, several
conflicts exist that need to be rectified. With this in mind, staff has been reviewing each section of
the ULUDR and proposing amendments to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
Purpose of Amendments
These amendments are being proposed to provide clarity for interpretation of the regulations, and to
update and incorporate specific regulations related to the Downtown Core Zoning District, including
regulatory references contained within the standards. The City developed and adopted regulations
related to the Downtown Core Zoning District over several years including multiple interim zoning
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 2 of 16
changes. With the complete update and codification of the regulations, the standards for development
in the Downtown Core Zoning District were included as Appendix C, but did not include referential
updates.
The proposed amendments will incorporate the specific use standards for the Downtown Core Zoning
District into Article III (which is currently reserved) and adds language related to the process of review
for projects in the Downtown Core Zoning District including the City Council review for design
consideration in the Act 250 permitting process including references to the master sign plans that have
been adopted for the Downtown Core Zoning District. These amendments also add clarification related
to site plan review, including properties in the Downtown Core, as well as clarification for non-
conformities including properties in the Downtown Core.
Finally, the amendments would replace references to “Appendix C” with “Article III” to recognize the
relocation of these regulations. These amendments also add the “Building Height and Location Map”
currently included in Appendix C to Article X, which includes other zoning maps. Minor map changes
update road names and incorporate the entirety of Cascades Way, but do not change any of the
specific regulatory requirements associated with the building heights, locations, or development areas.
If approved, these changes will result in the elimination of Appendix C as all information will be
relocated to other sections of the Unified Land Use and Development Regulations.
Proposed Amendments
The following pages include the text of Articles III and X; and Sections 4.9 and 6.6 including proposed
changes. Proposed additional text is shown in red and underlined. Text that appears with a strikeout
is proposed to be deleted. If specific sections are not included, no changes are being proposed in these
sections. For the purposes of this amendment, language contained in Article III has been transposed
from Appendix C. While all of this text is new to Article III, the construction of the amendments are
intended to reflect existing regulatory language that will remain in the context of changes that are
being proposed.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 3 of 16
ARTICLE III – SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS - DOWNTOWN CORE ZONING DISTRICT *
SECTION 3.1 - DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT
A. Applicability. The Downtown Core Zoning District is depicted on the zoning map (Article X, Map 1) and
is generally described as:
1. The properties south of the center line of East Allen Street; west of the 2019 wetland delineation
as approved by the State of Vermont (located in the Casavant Natural Area); north of the
Winooski River; and east of the centerline of Main Street (on the west side of Rotary Park).
2. Any questions regarding the specific boundary of this zoning district will be determined based on
Section 2.1.
3. “Except as set forth in Section 5.402 (Maximum Height), 5.500 Green Space Limitation, 5.600
(High Density Requirements) and Section 5.700 (Building Locations), there shall be no
dimensional requirements in the Downton Core District, including but not limited to lot size, lot
frontage, lot depth, setbacks, or floor area ratios.”
B. Amendments. Any amendments to the Downtown Core Zoning District boundaries shall follow the
process outlined in Section 1.4.
11.600 Downton Core District.
11.601 The boundaries of Downtown Core District are as follows:
(a) Northerly Line: the centerline of East Allen Street
(b) Easterly Line: a lined created by the following:
- from the center line of the Winooski River follow the line marked “Green Space Boundary” as shown on the
Building Height and Location Map generally northerly to the point where the line tuns almost ninety degrees
easterly; then
- turn westerly and connect the point to the most easterly point of Parcel “G” as shown on the Building Height
and Location Map;
- then turn northerly and follow the easterly edge of Parcel “G” and then an extension of such line to the center
line of East Allen Street;
(c) Westerly Line: the centerline of Main Street between the centerline of East
Allen Street and the Centerline of the Winooski River.
_____________________
* It is understood that all text herein is new to Article III, however the construction of this amendment is done to identify
changes to the standards of the Downtown Core Zoning District that exist in Appendix C and are being transposed to
Article III. New text for regulating the Downtown Core Zoning District not currently included in as part of the existing
regulations is shown in red and underlined, while existing text to be deleted is shown with strikeouts.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 4 of 16
(d) Southerly Line: The centerline of the Winooski River between the District’s
easterly and westerly lines above described.
The Downtown Core District is generally shown on the Building Height and Location Map which is attached as
Downton Core District Appendix 1.
11.602 The Downtown Core District boundaries shall supersede any inconsistent boundaries of districts shown
in the Section 11.000 Official Zoning Map, Section 11.100 Official PUD Overlay Zoning Map and Section 11.200
Official DRD Overlay Zoning Map.
11.603 Section 11.400 Table of Dimensional Requirements is amended to add at the end:
11.604 Section 11.500 Design Review District Signs, Dimensional Requirements shall be inapplicable to the
Downton Core District.
11.605 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
The required quantity of parking for a proposed use shall be provided in accordance with the Minimum
Off-Street Parking Schedule, Downtown Core District Appendix II.
The locations of the areas designated on the Building Height and Location Map shall be determined by the
distances designated on the Map; these shall be construed as distances measured from the edges of highway
rights-of-way. If the designated distances are not applicable due to curving right-of-way lines or otherwise, or
if the location of the Green Space Boundary shown on the Map is in question, the locations of the areas or
location of the Green Space Boundary shall be determined from the scale of the official Building Height and
Location Map in the Zoning Admonitor’s office.
2.054 Master Plan
The Master Plan for the Winooski Falls Riverfront Downtown Project which the City created with an intent to
recreate a transitional urban environment in the downtown core and riverfront of the City, with a high -density
mix of uses, including offices, basic retail and services, and a range of housing options. The Master Plan was
approved by the State of Vermont District Environmental Commission in Land Use Permit 4C1065 (revised) July
6, 2001 and Land Use Permit 4C1065-1 (Corrected) dated November 1, 2002, and which may be further revised
by the City.
SECTION 3.2 - USES
5.300 Downtown Core District (DCD).
5.301 Intent
The Downtown Core District is composed of the core of the City’s downtown and has been the subject of a
Master Plan which has been developed by the City over many years after extensive public input and hearings.
The Master Plan was approved by the Development Review Board and the City Council l and by the State of
Vermont District Environmental Commission under “Act 250”. The Maser Plan permits a range of uses within
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 5 of 16
pre-approved vertical and horizontal building envelopes as shown on the Building Height and Location P=Map.
Approval of the exterior design details must be submitted by the applicant, with the City as a co-applicant, and
must be approved by the District Environmental Commission under Act 250 as complying with the approved
Master Plan. The regulations associated with the district are intended to protect the public health, safety and
welfare and to provide for orderly physical and economic growth by allowing and encouraging high density,
mixed use land development within the downtown core, while recognizing the previously approved Master Plan
and the requirement that further submissions to the District Environmental Commission under Act 250 must
include the City as a co-applicant.
5.302 A. Permitted Uses. In addition to the uses listed in Section 2.4, the following uses are permitted in
the Downtown Core Zoning District
The following uses are permitted in the Downtown Core District, upon issuance of a Zoning Permit by the Zoning
Administrator:
1). Accessory Uses
2). Banks without drive-in thru windows.
3). Child care facilities.
4). Community Centers.
5). Dwellings, multi-unit.
6). Fitness centers.
7). Governmental offices.
8). Grocery stores, supermarkets, and pharmacies.
9). Hotels, motels, inns, and bed and breakfasts.
10). Job training centers.
11). Libraries, museums, art galleries, art centers.
12). Offices.
13). Outdoor parks.
14). Outdoor recreation.
15). Parking garages and outdoor parking.
16). Police stations.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 6 of 16
17). Post offices.
18). Restaurants without drive-in thru windows, whose aggregate annual gross receipts from Alcoholic
Beverages do not exceed forty percent (40%) of total annual restaurant, gross receipts.
19). Retail sales of goods and services, but excluding motor vehicle sales, repair, service, and washing, sales
of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products, auto body painting and repair, and building
materials.
20). Schools and educational facilities.
21). Theaters and cinemas.
5.303 B. Outdoor Use. All permitted sales and servicing activities in the Downtown Core District shall be
conducted inside building, except for customary accessory uses involving sidewalk sales of retail goods
for periods of time not exceeding five (5) days per event; seasonal sales of retail good within wholly open
sided rooftop structures identified as Area “D” on the “Building Height and Location Map”; and seasonal
outdoor restaurant uses.
SECTION 3.3 – DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
A. Intent. The Master Plan approved for Downtown Winooski through State Act 250 Permit C4 -1065 (as
amended) provides prescribed dimensional standards for all developments in the Downtown Core. This
section provides additional detail as to how building heights and locations are calculated and determined.
B. Applicability. Except as set forth herein, there shall be no dimensional requirements in the Downtown
Core District, including but not limited to lot size, lot frontage, lot depth, setbacks, or floor area ratios.
5.400 Dimensional, High Density and Building Location Requirements.
5.401 Dimensional Requirements Only as Stated in 5.402 – 5.700.
Except as set forth in Section 5.402 (Maximum Height), 5.500 Green Space Limitation, 5.600 (High Density
Requirements) and Section 5.700 (Building Location), there shall be no dimensional requirements in the
Downtown Core District, including but not limited to lot size, lot frontage, lot depth, setbacks, or floor area ratios.
C. 5.402 Maximum Height. Within the Downton Core District, a person shall not commence any land
development which would result in a building or structure exceeding the elevation or height above street
grade level, as the case may be, designated on the “Building Height and Location Map: ; for the area
where such building or structure is or will be located.
5.4031. Determination of Elevation. Where elevation controls maximum height, the point shown on the “Building
Height and Location Map: at the intersections of the centerlines of Main Street and East Allen Street,
having an elevation 190 feet, shall be used as the control point and the following standards shall apply:
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 7 of 16
a. If maximum elevation shown on the Map for an area exceeds the elevation at the control point,
the difference shall be added to the 190-foot elevation at the control point, and a horizontal
plane extended from the point so calculated shall establish maximum building or structure height
for the area.
b. If a maximum elevation shown on the Map for an area is less than the 190-foot elevation at the
control point, the difference shall be subtracted from the 190-foot elevation at the control point,
and a horizontal plane extended from the point so calculated shall establish maximum building
or structure height for the area.
5.404 2. Determination of Street Grade Level. Where street grade level controls maximum building or
structure height, and the street grade Leve or levels fronting a building slopes, the highest grade level
along the entirety of the building or structure frontage shall be used to determine the maximum building
or structure height of the building.
5.405 3. Measurement of Maximum Height. Maximum building or structure height shall be determined by
vertical measurement to the highest point of the building or structure, exclusive of the building
components which are not to be included in measuring height, as listed on the Building Height and
Location Map.
D. 5.600 High Density Requirements. In order to maximize development density in the Downtown Core
Zoning District, the following high density requirements will apply.
1. 5.601 Minimum Floor Requirements. Within the Downtown Core District, except as provided in
5.602Section 3.3. D. 2. (Parking Garages and Public Spaces), and 5.800Section 3.6. F. (Non-
complying Structures) no building shall be constructed, enlarged, or used unless the construction
or enlargement results in a building which contain at least three floors used for one or more uses
permitted in Section 5.3023.2. A., excluding of cellars, basements, attics, and floors used for
below street grade parking garages.
2. 5.602 Parking Garages and Public Spaces. The requirements of 5.601 Section 3.3. D.1. shall not
apply to buildings in the areas designated on the Building Height and Location map as “Public
Spaces”, or to parking garages, but such requirements shall apply to any building area
constructed over and/or connected to a parking garage.
SECTION 3.4 – BUILDING LOCATIONS
A. 5.701 Building Locations. All buildings within the Downton Core District shall be located only in Areas
“A” through “H” inclusive and in the Champlain Mill Building Area as shown on the Maximum Building
Height and Location Map. Building and improvements may be located in, on or over the streets or other
public areas and parks as shown on the Maximum Building Height and Location Map, provided they do
not interfere with the passage of traffic.
B. 5.500 Green Space Limitation. The “Green Space Boundary” as depicted on the Building Height and
Location Map is intended to provide a 50 foot buffer against a Class II wetland complex in the Casavant
Natural Area.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 8 of 16
1. This 50 foot buffer shall be measured from the 2019 wetland delineation, as approved by the
State of Vermont and may be updated through an amendment to these regulations as outlined
in Section 1.4 to recognize any future delineations to this wetland boundary.
2. No building shall be constructed easterly of the line designated as the “Green Space Boundary”
on the Building Height and Location Map, except to the extent the Master Plan is amended and
such structures are consistent with such plans or as the boundary and wetland area is updated
to depict a revised delineation as approved by the State of Vermont and adopted as an
amendment to this bylaw.
5.700 Building Locations.
SECTION 3.5 – SIGNS
A. Intent. The Downtown Core is intended to have a consistent look, feel, and design for signs to create
consistency, uniformity, and a sense of place in Downtown Winooski.
B. Applicability. This section shall apply to all properties within the Downtown Core Zoning District.
C. All signs within the Downtown Core Zoning District shall be subject to the following documents
incorporated into Act 250 Permit Amendment 4C1065-08:
1. Master Sign Plan
2. Sign Design Guidelines
3. Sign Code
“The requirements imposed by the Planned Unit Development Districts, Overlay and the Design Review District,
DRD, shall not apply to the Downtown Core District”
“The requirements for Site Plan review shall not apply to the Downtown Core Area District.”
8.408 Non-Complying Structures, Non-Conforming Uses in the Downton Core District
Within the Downton Core District, a non-complying structure or a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged or
extended nor all or any part of a non-complying structure replaced if voluntarily demolished, unless the resulting
building complies with the minimum floor requirements of 5.601.
“c. When a sign is to be located in the Downton Core District, it shall be subject to the master sign policy
established under the Master Plan and the requirements of Section 8.100 shall not apply.”
9.304 Downton Core District.
In the Downtown Core District, Sections 9.301, 9.303 b, f and g shall not be applicable provided the following
conditions are met:
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 9 of 16
“The requirements of this Section 9.400 shall not apply to the Downton Core rea District.”
SECTION 3.6 – PARKING
A. Intent. Development in and around Downtown Winooski is intended to create a vibrant mixed -use
pattern that promotes walkability and pedestrian oriented activities. The diversity of uses will promote
centralized parking locations that accommodate multiple uses based on the time of day and the day of
week.
B. Applicability. These regulations will apply to any new development or redevelopment in the Downtown
Core Zoning District.
C. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The required quantity of parking for a proposed use shall
be provided in accordance with the Minimum Off-Street Parking Schedule, Downtown Core District
Appendix II to these regulations following:
DOWNTOWN CORE DISTRICT APPENDIX II
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING SCHEDULE
Use Minimum Parking Requirements
Residential – General
Elderly
Student1
1.0 spaces per bedroom
1.0 spaces per unit
0.3 spaces per bedroom
Commercial, Retail, or Restaurant 3.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet
Office 3.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet
Hotel/Bed & Breakfast 1.0 spaces per room
Theatre 100 spaces per screen/stage
Municipal Uses 3.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet
1 Student residents in buildings attached to municipal parking garages only. Otherwise, student housing is calculated the same as
general residential.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 10 of 16
ADJUSTMENTS FOR SHARED PARKING
IN MUNICIPALLY CONTROLLED OR RELATED PARKING GARAGES2
Use Minimum Parking
Requirements X Daytime/Weekday X Week Night X Weekend/Holiday
Residential –
General
Elderly
Student1
1.0 spaces per
bedroom
1.0 spaces per unit
0.3 spaces per
bedroom
X 0.60 = X 1.00 = X 1.00 =
Commercial, Retail,
or Restaurant
3.2 spaces per
1,000 gross square
feet
X 0.75 = X 0.50 = X 1.00 =
Office
3.2 spaces per
1,000 gross square
feet
X 0.90 = X 0.30 = X 0.20 =
Hotel/Bed &
Breakfast 1.0 spaces per room X 0.25 = X 1.00 = X 0.50 =
Theatre 100 spaces per
screen/stage X 0.25 = X 1.00 = X 1.00 =
Municipal Uses
3.2 spaces per
1,000 gross square
feet
X 0.90 = X 0.30 = X 0.20 =
D. Location of Parking. All parking spaces for uses in the Downtown Core District shall be located within
the Downtown Core District, and shall either be located on the land where the use is occurring or the
parking spaces shall be in a municipally owned or controlled parking facility, in which event, the applicant
shall provide a written contract with the municipality which guarantees the continuous use of the
required parking spaces for the identified uses(s) for the reasonable expected duration of the use(s).
E. Changes or Expansions of Use. In the Downtown Core District, whenever there is an alteration or
conversion of a building or a change or expansion of a use of a building, which increases the parking
requirements, the total additional parking requirements for the alteration, conversion, change, or
expansion shall be provided in accordance with the Minimum Off-Street Parking Schedule. Downtown
Core District Appendix II to these regulations.
F. Non-Complying Structures. Any building in the Downtown Core District which is a non-complying
structure as to off-street parking requirements shall not be subject to the requirements of this section
2 The minimum parking requirements for uses which are utilizing parking spaces in a municipally controlled or re lated parking garage
may be adjusted for shared parking using the following adjustments. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit the applicant shall
provide a calculation of the parking spaces allocated in the garage for each use and time period to demonstra te sufficient parking
is available in the garage for the proposed use during the requisite time periods and that the applicant has a contract with the
municipality for such parking.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 11 of 16
9.304 Section 3.6 so long as the kind or extent of use is not changed, and provided further that the
number of parking spaces legally required to serve at the time such uses were approved shall not in the
future be reduced.
“The requirements of this Section 9.1600 shall not apply to the Downton Core Area District.”
SECTION 3.7 – ZONING PERMITS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE
A. Intent. Projects in the Downtown Core Zoning District are subject to both a local zoning permit and a
State Act 250 Land Use Permit. 11.201 Zoning Permits in the Downtown Core District.
B. Applicability. The standards set forth under this section apply only to projects in the Downtown Core
Zoning District.
C. An application for a zoning permit for land development in the Downtown Core District shall contain
include the following:
1. Plans and specifications for any proposed improvements to be made;
2. A narrative description of the proposed uses;
3. A certification of a registered architect or surveyor that the proposed improvements comply with
the requirement of the Building Height and Location Map;
4. A narrative description of how the proposed uses and improved comply with the Master Plan and
with the applicable provisions of these regulations;
5. A copy of the approval by the State of Vermont District Environmental Commission of the
improvements or a Jurisdictional Opinion from the District Environmental Commission indicating
that an amendment to the Act 250 permit is or is not required for the project;
6. A certification, along with any required contracts, showing compliance with the parking
requirements of Section 9.3043.6;
D. Upon a determination that the proposed land development within the Downton Core District Meet meet
the requirements of these regulations, the Zoning Administrator shall issue a zoning permit.
E. No other permit, except a building permit, shall be required for land development in the Downton Core
District.
1. Specifically, aA proposed improvement, building or use in the Downton Core District shall not
require site plan, design review, or planned unit development approval under these regulations
2. and nNo approval shall be required under the City of Winooski Subdivision OrdinanceSection 6.2
of these regulations.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 12 of 16
F. An application for an amendment to the State Act 250 Land Use permit shall include the following:
1. Review and approval of all design details by the City Council.
a. At their discretion, the City Council may refer the development proposal to the
Development Review Board for comments and input.
i. Comments from the Development Review Board would be advisory only and not
require a public hearing.
ii. The City Council may establish a timeline for comments to be returned from the
Development Review Board.
b. Based on comments from the Development Review Board or any other entity, the City
Council may request additional information or alterations to the designs of a proposal.
2. Authorization of the City Council as co-applicant to any Act 250 Land Use Permit amendment
prior to submission to the District Environmental Commission.
12. Add to Article X, Administration and Enforcement, a new section:
Section 11.201 Zoning Permits in the Downton Core District Involving Alcoholic Beverages.
Any zoning permit issued and any certificate of occupancy issued under this Article X, for a us e which includes
the sale of “alcohol beverages” in the Downtown Core District, shall contain a condition requiring the certifications
set forth below. In the event such condition is not so included or otherwise not a pert of the permit or certificate
of occupancy, such certification requirement shall apply in any event.
Annually, not later than April, the owner of a restaurant business authorized under 5.302(18) shall file with the
Zoning Administrator a certification by an independent certified public accounting firm that the aggregate gross
receipts at the restaurant from Alcoholic Beverages did not exceed forty percent (40%) of total annual gross
receipts at such restaurant during such person’s period of ownership in the calendar year just ended. Fo r
purposes of this section:
“Alcoholic Beverages” means malt and vinous beverages and spirituous liquors sold pursuant to first and third
class licenses issued under 7 V.S.A. Ch. 9.
12. Add to Article XI, Appendix, a new section:
************
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 13 of 16
Map to be Added to Article X.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 14 of 16
************
SECTION 4.9 - NONCONFORMING LOTS, STRUCTURES, RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) OR DRIVE, AND
USES
A. Purpose. Any lot, structure, part of a structure or use that is not in compliance with the provisions of
these regulations, but was lawfully established prior to the effective date of these regulations, shall be
deemed a nonconformity. It is the goal of the City of Winooski that nonconformities shall over time cease
to exist, become conforming or at a minimum continue to be used in a manner that does not increase
their degree of nonconformity. Nonconformities shall be regulated and only allowed to continue
indefinitely as outlined in this section.
B. Development of Preexisting Nonconforming Lots. An undeveloped preexisting nonconforming lot may
be developed in accordance with the standards of the district in which it is located if the lot:
1. Was in existence on or before the effective date of these regulations; and
2. Is at least 1/8 acre in area; and
3. Is at least 40 feet wide and deep.
C. Use of Nonconforming Lots. A lawfully developed nonconforming lot:
1. May continue in its current use and configuration.
2. May, after receiving all applicable approvals and permits, be further developed and used in
accordance with the standards of the district in which it is located.
D. Nonconforming Right of Way or Drive. Pre-existing, lawfully established, nonconforming Right of Way
or drive that was in existence on or before the effective date of these regulations:
1. Shall Conform with Public Works material and construction standards for public or private ROW
right-of-way – See Section 5 of the City of Winooski Public Works Standards and Specifications
12. May be used, expanded or improved in accordance with fire department dept., police department
dept., and public works approval.
23. May, after receiving all applicable approvals and permits, be further development and used in
accordance with the standards of the district in which it is located.
************
H. Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures in the Downtown Core Zoning District. Within
the Downtown Core Zoning District, a noncomplying structure or a nonconforming use shall not be
enlarged or extended nor all or any part of a noncomplying structure replaced if voluntarily demolished,
unless the resulting building complies with the minimum floor requirements of Section 3.3. D.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 15 of 16
************
SECTION 6.6 - SITE PLAN REVIEW
A. Intent. Site plan review is intended to ensure that site layout and development design are functional,
safe, attractive, and consistent with the purpose and character of the district(s) in which the
development is located. Standards specifically relate to the internal layout of the site, its physical design,
and the functional and visual integration of the site with adjoining properties, uses and infrastructure.
B. Applicability. Unless otherwise noted in these regulations, Site plan review is required for all “permitted
uses” listed by zoning district under Article II, except for property located in the Downtown Core Zoning
District and the Gateway Zoning District; single (one) and two family unit dwellings, ; associated
accessory structures and accessory dwellings as specified under Section 5.1, ; home occupations and
home child care facilities as specified under Sections 5.2 and 5.7, ; signs if not associated with a
development proposal, ; and other uses specifically exempted from these regulations under Section 6.13.
Unless otherwise specified, site plan review is required for changes of use as regulated under Section
4.3 when site modifications are proposed that result in changes to curb cuts or access d rives; additions
to existing structures; new structures; or similar changes that will alter the overall layout or function of
the existing site. Uses listed as “conditional uses” under Article II do not require separate site plan review
and approval, but must meet applicable site plan review standards under Section 6.6.
************
Consistency with the Winooski Master Plan
The following information is provided to address the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4441 regarding
consistency of the proposed amendments to the City of Winooski Master Plan, adopted March 2019.
Specifically, statute requires municipalities to consider three parts when reviewing proposals for new
or amended bylaws. These considerations include:
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing.
The City updated their Master Plan in 2019. The master plan includes multiple components that
discuss housing options and affordability, and protection of existing stable neighborhoods. The
proposed changes are primarily administrative in nature and would not adversely impact the
availability of safe and affordable housing. Additionally, these changes would all be consistent
with the goals and polices in the Master Plan.
Memo to Planning Commission
Proposed ULUDR Amendments
March 12, 2021
Page 16 of 16
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The future land use map included in the Master Plan identifies development density along the
corridors and in the downtown core. The proposed amendments would further clarify the
development options and processes for projects located in the Downtown Core Zoning District,
consistent with the future land uses included in the City’s 2019 Master Plan.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.
No adverse impacts to planned community facilities have been identified as a result of the
proposed amendments.