HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 05/11/2021South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
www.sburl.com
Meeting Tuesday, May 11, 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-2021-05-11
Phone (audio only) (669) 224-3412 Access Code: 819-975-189
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. Presentation and responses to Public Input on Draft Environmental Protection Standards Amendments to
the Land Development Regulations [LDR-20-01] (7:20 pm)
5. *Minutes: March 23, March 31, April 6, April 13, April 27, 2021 (8:55 pm)
6. Other Business: (8:57 pm)
a. *Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Colchester
Development Regulations, Thursday, June 15, 2021 at 7:00 pm via Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9359846003
7. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E,
Deputy 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: Marla Keene, Deputy Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE: May 11, 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. Presentation and responses to Public Input on Draft Environmental Protection Standards Amendments
to the Land Development Regulations [LDR-20-01] (7:20 pm)
The Planning Commission will respond to questions and provide clarifications on LDR-20-01. This
presentation will be factual rather than policy making. Policy making discussion will occur at the Public
Hearing on May 20, 2021. Public comments received prior to packet publication are included as
attachments.
5. *Minutes: March 23, March 31, April 6, April 13, April 27, 2021 (8:55 pm)
6. Other Business: (8:57 pm)
a. *Colchester Planning Commission public hearing on proposed amendments to Colchester
Development Regulations, Thursday, June 15, 2021 at 7:00 pm via Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9359846003
7. Adjourn (9:00 pm)
1
Paul Conner
From:Ray Gonda <gonda05403@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 5:33 PM
To:Paul Conner; Kevin Dorn
Subject:EXTERNAL: Fw: Letter from Jeff Parsons - Arrowwood
Attachments:Arrowwood Parsons SBurlBuffers 3_28_2021.docx
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Kevin and Paul,
My apologies, I should have had you on the original copy list.
Attached is the letter from Arrowwood.
Best regards,
Ray
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ray Gonda <gonda05403@yahoo.com>
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021, 11:08:33 AM EDT
Subject: Letter from Jeff Parsons - Arrowwood
Hi Jessica,
Listed below are references to accompany the letter sent to you today from Jeff Parsons of
Arrowwood
Below are several references which point to the importance of forested habitat blocks and the
transitional areas from them to other landscape vegetative types such as grasslands and shrublands.
The first one is from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, The second one is a research study
in the Balkans. The third is management of transitional areas. The remaining articles are from hunting
article discussing such areas' importance to hunters - the people most familiar with such transitional
areas. because of the needs of the hunting pursuit, i.e., where are the best places to hunt.
Now the point of all these is that such areas are conducive to a greater diversity of rodent family prey
species including mice, rabbits and often squirrels, (as well as a greater diversity of birds and insect
life) providing protection to them while become hunting grounds for predators. Thus all classifications
of wildlife benefit from more sustaining landscapes.
Please share these with Planning Commission Members.
2
And thank you for all you do.
Respectfully,
Ray Gonda
Chair, South Burlington Natural Resources Committee
(802) 264-4886 H
(802) 488-4054 C
1) Grassland and shrublands from BioFinder Vermont (a great first-read primer)
https://anrmaps.vermont.gov/websites/BioFinder2016/Documents/ComponentAbstracts/GrasslandsC
omponentAbstract.pdf
2) A study of diversity of forested edges in the Balkans
Plant composition and diversity at edges in a semi-natural forest–grassland mosaic
Plant composition and diversity at edges in a semi‐
natural forest–grassl...
László Erdős
As key components of landscapes, edges have received
considerable scientific attention in anthropogenic ecosyste...
3) Managing Grasslands, Shrublands, and Young Forests for Wildlife: A Guide for the Northeast
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/neuplandhabgd.pdf
4) The preferred habitat types for various small game species.
https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/sites/default/files/downloads/SmallGameHuntingProspects.pdf
3
5) A hunter article which demonstrates the importance of edge habitats.
Creating Habitat for Small Game - The blog of the gritroutdoors.com
Creating Habitat for Small Game ‐ The blog of the
gritroutdoors.com
By Robin Follette Creating, maintaining and improving habitat
for hunting will help small game move into an area...
6) Creating habitat for small game - the prey species for predators
https://blog.gritroutdoors.com/creating-habitat-for-small-game/
7) What Edge Habitat means for whitetails
Edge Habitat - by DeerBuilder.com
Edge Habitat - by DeerBuilder.com
What Edge Habitat means for whiteatils
To: City Council and Planning Commission, City of South Burlington
From: Jeff Parsons, Arrowwood Environmental
Subject: Habitat Block Buffers
Date: March 26, 2021
This memo is in response to a request by Ray Gonda, the Chairperson of the South Burlington Conservation
Committee to provide some general information regarding the wildlife values of buffers as they relate to habitat
blocks in South Burlington.
In 2020, Arrowwood Environmental mapped habitat blocks for the City of South Burlington (see City of
South Burlington Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking 2020). Within that document forested areas at least 20
acres in size were mapped and their relative values as wildlife habitat were assessed.
Each habitat block was assessed for several wildlife habitat elements such as: size, connectedness with other
blocks, the presence of wetlands and surface waters, and the diversity of tree canopy types and heights. The
habitat blocks were assessed both for their own individual habitat characteristics and for their connections to
other blocks. In addition, the supporting habitats surrounding each block were assessed.
Ecologists, including those at Arrowwood Environmental, recognize the value of viewing habitat blocks (both
in South Burlington and elsewhere) within a broader landscape context. When broadening the context,
especially in areas where habitat blocks are relatively small (like those in South Burlington) – the lands
surrounding habitat blocks become important.
The undeveloped lands adjacent to habitat blocks serve to add wildlife value to the mapped habitat blocks.
Undeveloped buffers adjacent to habitat blocks provide a greater separation between wildlife populations and
more intense human activities and human intrusions. These buffers help filter out intrusive noise, lights, and on
the ground human activities – many of which can disturb and disrupt a wide-variety of wildlife species. Buffers
also serve to provide some separation between roaming pets and wildlife. Buffering habitat blocks from
disruptive human activities can enhance wildlife diversity within blocks.
Undeveloped buffers can also facilitate access to some wildlife habitat elements that can increase overall
wildlife diversity within a block. Wildlife may seek out space, cover, breeding, and feeding opportunities in
nearby old fields, orchards, herbaceous wetlands, and shrublands. This non-forest habitat potentially provides
abundant feeding opportunities for predator and prey alike.
In conclusion, providing buffers to habitat blocks goes a long way towards ensuring the success of South
Burlington’s habitat blocks in enhancing wildlife diversity and populations within the town.
1
Paul Conner
From:Chris Trombly <ctrombly@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 2, 2021 5:24 PM
To:Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Jessica Louisos; Bernie
Gagnon; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Monica Ostby; Ted Riehle; Michael Mittag
Cc:Kevin Dorn; Paul Conner; Sandy Dooley; John Simson; Leslie Black-Plumeau; Vincent Bolduc; Patrick
O'Brien
Subject:EXTERNAL: 4/6 Special Joint Meeting
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
To the City Council and Planning Commissioners,
We applaud the Planning Commission on developing a map that clearly depicts South
Burlington’s natural resources. The map allows for more fact-based decision-making
about future land use. Identifying the location of the City’s natural resources will instill
more predictability for future neighborhood development. We also appreciate the
progress the Planning Commission has made toward completing the revised PUD
regulations.
As you enter the final stages of interim zoning, we offer these thoughts for balancing
the affordability of homes for South Burlington residents and protection of important
natural resources.
Balance: the proposed rules balance two objectives essential to sustaining the City’s
vitality—conservation and growth.
Clarity and Goal Alignment: the proposed rules make clear (1) where and how
natural resources are to be protected and (2) that new residential developments shall
include elements demonstrated to support healthy neighborhoods, including compact
development, which uses less land.
Inclusion and Diversity: requiring multiple housing types produces homes that vary
in design and price, thus, increasing opportunities for households with varying incomes
to live throughout the City; inclusionary zoning also increases the variation in housing
prices.
Stability and Permanence: inclusionary zoning brings stability to households having
lesser means because they can count on “forever” affordable rents or mortgage
2
payments; this improves their quality of life. Inclusionary zoning’s perpetual
affordability requirement adds to the stability of the City’s housing stock, thus improving
the quality of life in the City, overall. Because inclusionary housing units are
perpetually affordable, when they change hands, they are not transformed into high-
priced units or short-term rentals. The proposed rules incorporate inclusionary housing
units without increasing density.
Population and Property Tax Revenue Growth: the proposed density minimums are
consistent with the proposed PUD-defined neighborhood development patterns; they
also promote housing that requires less land per unit, thus decreasing the per unit cost
of land while preserving more space and natural resources. Young families are more
likely to be able to afford and be attracted to the neighborhoods that the proposed
density minimums and PUD regulations produce. These neighborhoods are
anticipated to accommodate population growth. In addition, more dense development
generates more property tax revenue and is less costly in terms of roads, water, sewer,
and utility services and their maintenance. With respect to property tax revenue, a
five-acre neighborhood developed on the basis of two units per acre with average
assessed value of $600,000 per unit adds $6,000,000 to the Grand List. A five-acre
neighborhood developed on the basis of four units per acre with an average assessed
value of $375,000 per unit adds $7,500,000 to the Grand List.
Best regards,
South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee: Chris Trombly, chair; Sandy Dooley,
vice chair; John Simson, immediate past chair; Leslie Black-Plumeau, Vince Bolduc
and Patrick O’Brien
1
Paul Conner
From:andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 4, 2021 4:15 PM
To:Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Jessica Louisos; Monica
Ostby; treihle@sburl.com; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Michael Mittag; Bernie Gagnon
Cc:Kevin Dorn; Paul Conner
Subject:EXTERNAL: 4/6 Special Joint Meeting
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
To the City Council and Planning Commissioners,
South Burlington residents petitioned for IZ out of a concern that the LDRs do not sufficiently protect South
Burlington’s precious natural resources.
While the Planning Commission has done a careful and professional job on the draft LDRs, and the volunteers
on the commission deserve our respect and thanks for their hard work and dedication, the current drafts of
Articles 10 and 12 unfortunately do not adequately address those concerns, and need to be modified before
the end of IZ to provide more protection for South Burlington’s natural resources, including buffers around the
habitat blocks, and protection for rare grasslands and vanishing farmlands.
How much of South Burlington’s remaining natural resources should be protected, and how much should be
developed? What is the right balance? It’s pretty clear we have already consumed most of South Burlington’s
natural resources, and “balance” was likely achieved some time ago.
With the 9500 existing homes, commercial and municipal infrastructure, around 75 percent of the agricultural
soils that at one time existed in South Burlington have already been paved over with highways, airport
runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or fragmented into tiny parcels (see page 21
of “South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture / Food Security Action Plan, 2013”). On top of this, there are at
least (even with IZ, and according to City staff) an additional 1150 new additional homes in the pipeline to be
built on mostly rural lands. Over‐development has left every watershed in South Burlington impaired.
Our few remaining open spaces provide extensive public health, social and economic benefits that include
energy conservation and climate cooling, habitat for pollinators, carbon sequestration, water filtration,
absorption of air pollutants, improved wildlife habitat, recreational enjoyment, aesthetic relief and noise
reduction. The earth economics report commissioned by the City confirmed the vast economic benefits of
preserving our remaining open space. Our open spaces provide life and nourish our souls.
More broadly, the world is facing an ecology crisis. Studies show that 41 percent of insect species have seen
steep declines in the past decade in the US; North American butterflies have declined by 53 percent,
grasshoppers and crickets by 50 percent and bee species by 40 percent. The planet has also lost nearly 60% of
its mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians in the last few decades. Human sprawl is top of the list for
2
these declines. "Only decisive action can avert a catastrophic collapse of nature's ecosystems," the authors of
one report caution. South Burlington must play its part in addressing this crisis.
To fulfill our commitment to future generations as stewards of the natural resources under our care, and to
protect this precious and special place that we all cherish, I urge that the City strengthen Articles 10 and 12.
Economic development, jobs and housing in the City should then be focused on infill and re‐development of
the failing commercial areas around City Center. With online shopping, commercial retail will continue to
decline. Re‐purposing failing commercial areas is a win‐win for the environment and the economy, and can
provide dynamic and attractive housing opportunities for people across all income levels. “Case Studies in
Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Strategies for Urgent Challenges” (2021) by June Williamson and Ellen
Dunham‐Jones describes how defunct shopping malls, parking lots, and other obsolete suburban development
patterns across the country are being retrofitted to address current urgent challenges they weren’t designed
for: improving public health, increasing resilience in the face of climate change, leveraging social capital for
equity, supporting an aging society, competing for jobs, and disrupting automobile dependence.
Looking forward to the PUDs, I also urge the City Council to consider the impact of new development on
property taxes. Once the number of students exceeds the carrying capacity of our school system, we will need
to pay for new school infrastructure. That will mean higher budgets – as we saw last year ‐ and higher
education taxes. We may already be at that point.
Respectfully,
Andrew Chalnick
670 Nowland Farm Rd
Daniel A. Seff
210 Meadowood Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403-7401
April 5, 2021
Via Electronic Mail
Ms. Helen Riehle, Chair
City Council
City of South Burlington, VT
Email: hriehle@sburl.com
Jessica Louisos, Chair
Planning Commission
City of South Burlington, VT
Email: jlouisos@sburl.com
Dear Chairperson Riehle and Chairperson Louisos:
I write as a longtime South Burlington resident who has attempted to follow the recent
online-only Planning Commission proceedings concerning draft revisions to the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”).
I am a practicing attorney with thirty years at the bar. My work involves interpreting
statutes and regulations, including the SBLDR. The current online-only format for Planning
Commission meetings has made it extremely challenging for this experienced legal professional
to understand the Planning Commission’s proposed changes to SBLDR concerning the
protection of natural resources, both in terms of the changes being suggested and the reasoning
behind the proposed changes.
By way of example, during a recent online-only Planning Commission meeting, Director
of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner gave a presentation. Mr. Conner displayed numerous maps
in an effort to show the Planning Commission and the small handful of us watching online which
natural resource areas are protected by the SBLDR currently as compared to the natural resource
areas which would be protected under the proposed SBLDR amendments under consideration.
With the utmost respect to my friend Mr. Conner, the presentation was extremely difficult to
follow on a computer screen. The complex color-overlayed maps were way too small to begin
with, and the rapid switching from map to map made it impossible for online viewers to refer
back to maps that had been displayed earlier. (I can only imagine the difficulties experienced by
those who were watching on a smartphone or tablet.)
Toward the end of this meeting, I attempted, via a post in the online “chat box,” to
encourage the Planning Commission to hold off on any public hearings concerning proposed
natural resources-related amendments to the SBLDR until such time as we are able to meet in-
Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair
April 5, 2021
Page 2 of 2
person once again. Given the seemingly miniscule level of public attendance during the online-
only Planning Commission SBLDR amendment proceedings to date, given the even lower level
of public participation in those proceedings (the “chat box” is an ineffective public participation
tool, as I have witnessed repeatedly), and given the critical importance of the subject matter
under discussion, which will have profound effects for many years to come, it is, I believe, a
moral and ethical imperative than any public hearings take place in-person. It would be a
travesty if SBLDR amendments concerning critical natural resource protection issues were
rushed though during this time of widespread ‘Zoom fatigue.’
In conclusion, I want to thank the Planning Commission members for their efforts to date
concerning the draft SBLDR amendments. The City is fortunate to have dedicated volunteers
who are willing to devote long hours to a meticulous (and I imagine sometimes tedious) process.
The Commission’s work deserves a full and robust public discussion – which is something that
can occur only during in-person public hearings.
Thank you for your consideration and courtesies.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
dseff@yahoo.com
Richard H. Cate
Vice President for Finance and Administration
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
350B Waterman Building
85 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405
phone (802)656-0219 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Helen Reihle, City Council Chair
City Council of South Burlington
Jessica Louisos, Planning Commission Chair
City of South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
(via email)
April 6, 2021
Dear Chair Reihle and Chair Louisos:
Thank you for all the work that you and others at the City Council and Planning Commission have put
into drafting the new provisions of the Environmental Protections Standards, and all the other
components of the South Burlington rezoning process.
As a landholder in the City, UVM has been trying to follow the process as closely as we can. As we
stated in our letter last March, we are open to discussions about zoning on our land, but we will not
support regulations that limit the use and potential use of our land in a manner greater than the current
zoning allows.
UVM owns four parcels of land that the Arrowwood report identified as containing Habitat Blocks as
well as others that contain Habitat Connectors and these are now included in the draft Environmental
Protections Standards that you are considering moving forward to a public hearing.
Throughout the process, it has been conveyed that the Environmental Protection Standards and the PUD
standards would work together to allow property owners to retain a certain level of development rights,
including on parcels containing Habitat Blocks and Connectors.
We are reviewing the current draft of the Environmental Protection Standards, dated March 26th, on the
City’s website, and working to assess what the potential impact will be to the use of our land.
Given that the latest draft was posted late last month, we do not feel we have had enough time to fully
review and provide comment to the Planning Commission. Further, without the Commission completing
its work on the PUD Standards, it is very difficult to have a full understanding of what the impact on our
land will be should the Environmental Protection Standards move forward separately from the PUD
standards.
It is possible that the University is not alone in trying to quickly assess what the intended and unintended
consequences of the Environmental Protection Standards might be. These are significant changes to the
Page 2
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER
350B Waterman Building
85 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405
phone (802)656-0219 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
existing regulations. It will be difficult to give meaningful feedback at a public hearing before UVM and
potentially others have had time to adequately review this draft.
Ideally, if we want to address an issue (intended or otherwise) we would like the opportunity to give
feedback prior to a completed draft going through the public hearing process. This will save time and
effort in that the public hearing will address a more rounded and well-reviewed product.
Therefore, UVM requests that the Planning Commission delay the public hearing for the draft
Environmental Protection Standards until we can see these together with the new proposed PUD
standards. This will give the Commission, the University and others more complete information and the
ability to review this more comprehensively as an interrelated package of new regulations.
We understand the time constraints that you are under, having been in Interim Zoning for quite some
time, but feel that it is more important to ensure that the proposed changes provide a complete and clear
picture for you, landowners, and members of the public to be able to assess and provide comment.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Cate
Vice President for Finance and Administration
1
Betsy Brown
To:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM
To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels
Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery
Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Jessica and Commissioners,
I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to Monica for spending the time helping us understand
how to use the maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all of the papers that Paul Conner
prepared, including the “By the Numbers” spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages of text.) I came
away with two basic questions that should be very easy to answer. One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres
citywide; the other has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in the SEQ
I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from.
1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the newly
protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading the
map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected land .
So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected?
2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that the
residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing developments.
Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been turned into
housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them on the map?
Thank you for all of your work on this.
Rosanne
1
Betsy Brown
To:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: An inconsistency
________________________________________
From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 3:20 PM
To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels
Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery
Subject: EXTERNAL: An inconsistency
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi, Commissioners,
It’s me again. I love map reading (I used to do quite a bit of that in the military). After attending the map training with
Monica, I’ve been spending time looking at the maps to see the LDR changes. But, I’ve found what looks to be an
inconsistency. It has to do with wetlands and riparian areas.
At the map training session on Wednesday, I asked why some of the riparian areas, which were protected under the old
LDRs are no longer protected under the new LDRs (the map showed them as unprotected). Monica said it was because
anyone who wanted to develop in those areas would have to do a field delineation; so therefore, riparian areas didn’t
need to be shown as protected on the map. I take that to mean, someone would have to physically walk around the
area to see if there were riparian areas present. And ... if riparian areas did exist—even though they are not listed on
the map, then they could not build in that area. I think what Monica was saying, in other words, was that reality
rules…not the map. Do I have that correct? But how would a developer know they couldn’t build there?
But why then were protection areas shown for wetlands? The same thing applies to wetlands as it does for riparian
areas. They have to be field delineated. Moreover, wetlands are protected under state regulations, so, actually there is
no need to show them on our maps. (I am not suggesting these protections be removed from the city maps. Persona lly,
the more protections we show for natural resources, the better. I’m just pointing out what appears to be an
inconsistency.) If both wetlands and riparians areas have to be field delineated, why is one category of water resources
shown as protected on the map and not the other? What was the rationale for showing wetland areas on the map
(which are protected by the State) but not riparians areas (which are not protected by the State)?
Speaking of wetlands. The new maps show a much larger area of wetlands than the previous maps. Did someone walk
the land and discover that we had grossly under-shown the wetland areas on the prior maps? And, if there was a field
delineation done for the wetland areas, why was it not done for riparians areas at the same time? Both are incredibly
important natural resources.
Maybe I am not understanding this properly. Would someone please explain this? I doubt I will be the only one with
these questions.
Rosanne
1
Betsy Brown
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:13 AM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>
Cc: Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sbu rl.com>;
Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>;
Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>; Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com>; Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
Jessica,
Thanks so much for your kindness in responding so promptly to answer the questions I asked in this email…and the
second email I sent on riparian areas and wetlands.
I spent time looking at the slides (maps) that you sent. I’ve come to the conclusion that the technology is hindering the
understanding of some basic, fundamental facts. The many layers and colors and acronyms make it very complicated. I
know you and the Commissioners are very familiar with all of this, as you have been working on it for years. There are
zoning and topology terms that you all probably take for granted; but, for the general public, I fear the text will be
unintelligible, and the current interactive maps won’t help very much. That is why I tried to ask—what I thought were
simple questions requiring “yes or no” responses; such as “Are there any riparian area which were once protected, but
are no longer protected?” I confess that I don’t know enough about the various waterways to know how your response
on river banks relates to my question. Or Monica’s response that a field delineation will make sure riparians areas won’t
be disturbed by housing developments.
I defer to you on how and when to address my questions (and I know that others have the same questions). I had
thought by sending you questions in advance it would save time at the listening session. I do plan on attending these
sessions, but didn’t want to monopolize the meeting time.
Here is a suggestion, which I think will go a very long way in showing the public all the work you have done on adding
974 additional acres of protected land: use a few paper maps of SB without any colors. On one map, draw an outline on
all of the previously protected lands. On the second map, draw an outline around all of the newly protected lands. And
on a third map, draw a line around all of the lands which once were protected but are no longer protected (if this is the
case). We can then see—without any of the colored clutter—where the new 974 areas are located. Would it be
possible to show these on Tuesday?
I confess that often times I do not understand the answers I get from the staff on land planning matters. Too many
times in the past, I kept silent after getting a non-answer. I am not embarrassed to admit my ignorance, nor am I going
to stop asking about these important matters. How we use our land has huge consequences for the future of our city
and our planet. I intend to keep pushing for the answers on whether the new LDRs end up accomplishing what we, the
people, requested of our city almost three years ago: stop allowing housing to be built on the rural lands in the SEQ.
Thank you again for all you and the other Commissioners do for our city.
Rosanne
2
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 16:25, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roseanne,
>
> Great questions. I will attempt to clarify below:
>
> Parks are NOT included in the 974 acres citywide and 142 acres in the SEQ that would be newly protected.
>
> The areas that are both in the LDR protection area AND a city park are included in the numbers called "Area restricted
by Article 10/12" = a total restricted area of 4,449 acres.
>
> The next category down on the page then subtracts the areas that are parks or other forms of protection (all the green
areas on the mapping) = "Area restricted by Article 10/12 OUTSIDE of Areas in a Form of Conservation" = 2,740 acres. of
that 1,766 acres were already covered by the existing LDRS, so the change is the 974 acres you reference.
>
> The map slide show that I presented at the joint meeting with Council is the easiest for me to see the change in area:
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/presentation/index.html?webmap=c378ecfe8e7
> a47e69855ba704582861f Slide 8 is a good starting point. The areas
> that show up in blue are the newly protected areas (orange overlap =
> already in LDRS and green has a different type of protection) One issue with Slide 8 is that some of the green NRP land
is under the blue and hard to see. To differentiate the blue areas that are on top of the NRP, I toggle between slides 3
and 4. The area calculations do not have this issue.
>
> A lot of the newly protected acreage 142 acres represent areas that could be developed or redeveloped at a higher
intensity. Some areas are within existing neighborhoods, this is most common where a buffer width has been expanded.
You can see this best on Slide 9 of the presentation I reference above. These locations within existing neighborhoods
are less likely to be redeveloped. You can see these where the blue areas overlap with the grey "built" areas.
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
> Jessica Louisos
>
> South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
>
>
>
> Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM
> To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag;
> Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels
> Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery
> Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training
> session
3
>
> This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>
>
> Dear Jessica and Commissioners,
>
> I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to
> Monica for spending the time helping us understand how to use the
> maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all of
> the papers that Paul Conner prepared, including the “By the Numbers”
> spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages of text.) I
> came away with two basic questions that should be very easy to answer.
> One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres citywide; the other
> has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in the SEQ
>
> I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from.
>
> 1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the newly
protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading the
map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected land.
So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected?
>
>
> 2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that the
residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing developments.
Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been turned into
housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them on the map?
>
> Thank you for all of your work on this.
>
> Rosanne
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
1
Betsy Brown
To:Marla Keene
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 9:59 PM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>;
Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle
<triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>
Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Jessica –
A lot of folks – including me – are very confused as to the location of the newly protected 974 acres in the City. I tried
all the various mapping tools and just have not been able to get a “clean” version of the new acreage because the new
habitat block layer over-writes the current layers in all of the tools that I could find. Without being able to understand
with clarity where these acres are I am finding it very difficult to meaningfully comment on the draft regulations.
So, I spent a few hours creating my own map (attached, “change”) in which I try to show all the currently protected
areas in the City, and then the newly protected areas in a new color (bright green).
Can you let me know if you think this looks about right, or do you think there are newly conserved areas not shown on
the “change” map in bright green.
Two important caveats:
I did not include anything “new” with respect to new wetlands mappings on the basis that wetlands will need to
be delineated (and have typically always been delineated), so a new wetland mapping would not actually change
any wetland protections on the ground.
I also have not tried to show any new areas attributable to the steep slopes or the newly widened buffers
around the wetlands and streams as it was just too hard for me to tease those out separately.
If the “change” map I created is not accurate, I think the community would really benefit from a map which shows what I
am attempting to show. That is, a map which starts with all of the currently protected areas and then just shows just the
changes in a new color.
FYI, I created the attached maps based off of the mapping layers at the following link:
https://ccrpc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0f2e3ae2b7ab41b9a7339a72e9d87add
On the first map (“current”), I selected all of the layers which show, I believe, the current zoning, including:
2
The Major Stream (Muddy/Potash) Current 100’ Buffer
Major Stream (Winooski) current 100’ Buffer
Minor Stream Current 50’ Buffer
Park and Recreation Zoning
River Corridor (2019)
SEQ Natural Resource Protection
Park Zoning
Conserved Land by Type of Conservation
On the second map (“new”) I selected, in addition:
Habitat Block Revisions 2020-10-20
Staff Draft Habitat Connectors 2020
Using photoshop, I created a third map (“change”) in which I highlighted the areas shown as conserved on the new map
that were not shown as conserved on the old map. I then removed some small amounts of the newly conserved areas
to the extent the maps showed wetlands on those areas (since the wetlands would already have been conserved under
the current regulations).
Best, Andrew
Dear Planning Commission,
During this past year, technology has given me the opportunity to attend many more city
meetings than previous years. I have been regularly attending the PC meetings, and I am
grateful for your commitment to the City, your hard work in drafting the new LDRs and the
countless hours you spend as volunteers. As a relatively new resident to South Burlington,
attending these sessions has been a tremendous education. After carefully reading the
proposed Article 12, I am concerned that there is no mention of, or protection for, grasslands.
While I am aware that grasslands do not compromise a significant portion of the city, shouldn’t
even a small amount of this important habitat warrant protection? It would seem that the
smallest important habitats, which are at the greatest risk, should receive a voice and
maximum protection so they do not disappear forever.
On March 29th, 2021 VPR had a wonderful interview with Scott Weidensaul. He is a leading
naturalist who has written over thirty books and has spent decades studying migratory birds.
Mr. Weidensaul shared that since 1970, 30% of North American birds have disappeared
totaling more than an astounding 3 billion. Even with that staggering number, he was hopeful.
At the end of the interview he stated,
“and, so for the groups of birds in North America that are in the worst shape today, like
grassland birds - species like meadowlarks and bobolinks and upland sandpipers – that
depend on natural grasslands, if we did the same thing for grasslands that we did for
wetlands, we can bring those birds back. So, I mean, there are ways that we can turn this
around. We just need to have the political will and the wherewithal to make it happen.”
What he was referring to, with regards to wetlands, was the dramatic increase in water fowl
and water birds over the last 40 years because “starting in the 1980’s, we as a society poured a
tremendous amount of money and political will into restoring and protecting wetland
habitats.”
Here in our own backyard, in 2004, the city commissioned a study of breeding birds in the SEQ
prepared by Wings Environmental. The study also cites widespread threats to grasslands and
their inhabitants, and suggested that grasslands should have the highest conservation priority
in the SEQ. The 2016 Biofinder Update Report states the ecological importance of grasslands
(and shrublands) “whether of natural origin or resulting from active land management, are
critical to the survival of a suite of bird species in Vermont.” Additionally, “with conversion of
natural grasslands elsewhere in the Northeast and especially the Midwest has led to the decline
of grassland birds in their historic natural habitats. This has given Vermont, and the Northeast
in general, greater importance for the conservation of grassland birds. The North American
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) has designated grassland birds as a priority suite of
species in Vermont.”
The Wildlife Heritage Foundation describes Grasslands as “globally important because they are
a natural Carbon Sink and natural carbon sinks are an important part of a natural process
called Carbon Cycle. In the carbon cycle, earth both emits and re-captures and stores large
quantities of carbon dioxide, also known as CO2, from the earth’s atmosphere thereby keeping
the global temperature more or less in balance.” Now more than ever this is critically
important. Natural carbon sequestration cannot be replaced.
The U.S. Forest Service states that grasslands “also deliver other important services that are
often perceived to be free and limitless. Taken for granted as public benefits, ecosystem
services lack a formal market and are traditionally absent from society’s balance sheet. As a
result, their critical contributions are overlooked in public, corporate, and individual decision-
making. The Forest Service is working to promote public awareness of the importance of
forests and grasslands to human well-being.”
Just in today’s Vermont news, Bald Eagles will soon soar off the endangered species list.
Margaret Fowle, a conservation biologist with Audobon Vermont also added this to the
discussion:
“And that’s not the only species [of concern] out there … grassland birds are declining,
shrub land birds are declining. So, there’s lots to think about. But it’s basically going to
come down to making sure there’s enough habitat for these birds, as well as making
sure some of the impacts, like chemical impacts, aren’t there.”
The bald eagle's story is a hopeful message that humans can undo damage to nature. It’s also a
reminder of our continuing impact on other species.
Finally, offering a completely different perspective, in a recent interview the Dali Lama stated
“we must develop a sense of universal responsibility-for the earth and all humanity.” Our
world is deeply interdependent, and he further explains “we have to appreciate that local
problems have global ramifications from the moment they begin.” We now have the
opportunity to set an example as leaders on the local level.
From President Biden’s new initiatives to the upcoming g7 Summit to the U.N. Earth
Economics Report to the Dali Lama, one thing is clear, the world is beginning to focus on our
ecology crisis at all levels. What will be South Burlington’s role in confronting this threat?
Every decision made in these LDRs will have a significant impact on future generations long
after we are gone.
My question for the PC is whether South Burlington has the foresight to do what is right for the
City, all of our children as well as our neighbors who will ultimately be affected by the decisions
that we make today?
Thank you for your all of your hard work and consideration of these issues.
Respectfully,
Alyson Chalnick
1
Betsy Brown
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:06 PM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>;
Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle
<triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>
Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
Jessica – many thanks for the reply. It would be great to enhance the information in the viewer that you
linked.
To show the “newly” conserved land clearly, I think the viewer would need to be enhanced to be able to show
the "conserved/park/etc", the NRP, all the mapped wetlands (with existing buffers), rivers, streams and other
currently protected areas on top of the areas protected by the draft.
Best, Andrew
From: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:54 AM
To: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>; Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby
<mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>; Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted
Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>
Cc: Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>; Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
Hi Andrew,
I don't feel comfortable "approving" the map accuracy. I think the wetlands information is important, as we
have draft changes to some of the buffer widths.
I am going to ask the PC on Tuesday if they agree that the NRP areas and the green parcels that are shown as
"conserved/park/ect" on the slide maps be added to the interactive viewer. We would need the NRP to be able
to be shown on top of the LDR changes to be able to see this- I believe this is what is missing on the slide
maps. I think then all the information would be in the same location. I am referring to adding this information
to this viewer:
2
Current and Draft Environmental Standards (arcgis.com)
Thanks, Jessica
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of
documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff,
or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be
inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this
message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: andrew@chalnick.net <achalnick@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 9:58 PM
To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels
Cc: Marla Keene; Paul Conner
Subject: EXTERNAL: Map of the Newly Conserved Acreage
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Jessica –
A lot of folks – including me – are very confused as to the location of the newly protected 974 acres in the City. I tried
all the various mapping tools and just have not been able to get a “clean” version of the new acreage because the new
habitat block layer over-writes the current layers in all of the tools that I could find. Without being able to understand
with clarity where these acres are I am finding it very difficult to meaningfully comment on the draft regulations.
So, I spent a few hours creating my own map (attached, “change”) in which I try to show all the currently protected
areas in the City, and then the newly protected areas in a new color (bright green).
Can you let me know if you think this looks about right, or do you think there are newly conserved areas not shown on
the “change” map in bright green.
Two important caveats:
I did not include anything “new” with respect to new wetlands mappings on the basis that wetlands will need to
be delineated (and have typically always been delineated), so a new wetland mapping would not actually change
any wetland protections on the ground.
3
I also have not tried to show any new areas attributable to the steep slopes or the newly widened buffers
around the wetlands and streams as it was just too hard for me to tease those out separately.
If the “change” map I created is not accurate, I think the community would really benefit from a map which shows what I
am attempting to show. That is, a map which starts with all of the currently protected areas and then just shows just the
changes in a new color.
FYI, I created the attached maps based off of the mapping layers at the following link:
https://ccrpc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=0f2e3ae2b7ab41b9a7339a72e9d87add
On the first map (“current”), I selected all of the layers which show, I believe, the current zoning, including:
The Major Stream (Muddy/Potash) Current 100’ Buffer
Major Stream (Winooski) current 100’ Buffer
Minor Stream Current 50’ Buffer
Park and Recreation Zoning
River Corridor (2019)
SEQ Natural Resource Protection
Park Zoning
Conserved Land by Type of Conservation
On the second map (“new”) I selected, in addition:
Habitat Block Revisions 2020-10-20
Staff Draft Habitat Connectors 2020
Using photoshop, I created a third map (“change”) in which I highlighted the areas shown as conserved on the new map
that were not shown as conserved on the old map. I then removed some small amounts of the newly conserved areas
to the extent the maps showed wetlands on those areas (since the wetlands would already have been conserved under
the current regulations).
Best, Andrew
1
Betsy Brown
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:24 PM
To: Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>
Cc: Bernie Gagnon <bgagnon@sburl.com>; Monica Ostby <mostby@sburl.com>; Michael Mittag <mmittag@sburl.com>;
Duncan MacDonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>; Ted Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>; Paul S. Engels <psengels@sburl.com>;
Helen Riehle <hriehle@sburl.com>; Meaghan Emery <memery@sburl.com>; Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training session
Thank you very much, Jessica. I hope the staff is able to produce simple….non-interactive maps…for folks with poor
eyesights and/or with poor computer skills in the coming week or so. I have a problem seeing details on a computer
screen; and I know others in my age bracket have similar problems. Frankly, there is too much “clutter” on the
interactive maps…and …. pardon the pun… but the forest is getting lost in the trees.
Given that I think there is overlap between the existing protection areas and the newly protected areas, I think it would
be much easier to compare the changes with two (or three) maps as I suggested: one with existing protections, one
with only the newly added protections, and one (if true) with any deleted protection areas.
Rosanne
> On Apr 26, 2021, at 11:58, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roseanne,
>
> Thank you for the suggestions on the mapping. I am going to ask the PC on Tuesday if they agree that the NRP areas
and the green parcels that are shown as "conserved/park/ect" on the slide maps be added to the interactive viewer. We
would need the NRP to be able to be shown on top of the LDR changes to be able to see this- I believe this is what is
missing on the slide maps. I think then all the information would be in the same location.
>
> It is not possible to produce maps ahead of our meeting, but we can discuss additional map needs at the meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jessica Louisos
>
> South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
>
>
>
> Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
2
> ________________________________________
> From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 9:12 AM
> To: Jessica Louisos
> Cc: Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Duncan MacDonald; Ted
> Riehle; Paul S. Engels; Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Marla Keene
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training
> session
>
> Jessica,
>
> Thanks so much for your kindness in responding so promptly to answer the questions I asked in this email…and the
second email I sent on riparian areas and wetlands.
>
> I spent time looking at the slides (maps) that you sent. I’ve come to the conclusion that the technology is hindering
the understanding of some basic, fundamental facts. The many layers and colors and acronyms make it very
complicated. I know you and the Commissioners are very familiar with all of this, as you have been working on it for
years. There are zoning and topology terms that you all probably take for granted; but, for the general public, I fear the
text will be unintelligible, and the current interactive maps won’t help very much. That is why I tried to ask—what I
thought were simple questions requiring “yes or no” responses; such as “Are there any riparian area which were once
protected, but are no longer protected?” I confess that I don’t know enough about the various waterways to know how
your response on river banks relates to my question. Or Monica’s response that a field delineation will make sure
riparians areas won’t be disturbed by housing developments.
>
> I defer to you on how and when to address my questions (and I know that others have the same questions). I had
thought by sending you questions in advance it would save time at the listening session. I do plan on attending these
sessions, but didn’t want to monopolize the meeting time.
>
> Here is a suggestion, which I think will go a very long way in showing the public all the work you have done on adding
974 additional acres of protected land: use a few paper maps of SB without any colors. On one map, draw an outline on
all of the previously protected lands. On the second map, draw an outline around all of the newly protected lands. And
on a third map, draw a line around all of the lands which once were protected but are no longer protected (if this is the
case). We can then see—without any of the colored clutter—where the new 974 areas are located. Would it be
possible to show these on Tuesday?
>
> I confess that often times I do not understand the answers I get from the staff on land planning matters. Too many
times in the past, I kept silent after getting a non-answer. I am not embarrassed to admit my ignorance, nor am I going
to stop asking about these important matters. How we use our land has huge consequences for the future of our city
and our planet. I intend to keep pushing for the answers on whether the new LDRs end up accomplishing what we, the
people, requested of our city almost three years ago: stop allowing housing to be built on the rural lands in the SEQ.
>
> Thank you again for all you and the other Commissioners do for our city.
>
> Rosanne
>
>
>
>> On Apr 23, 2021, at 16:25, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Roseanne,
>>
>> Great questions. I will attempt to clarify below:
3
>>
>> Parks are NOT included in the 974 acres citywide and 142 acres in the SEQ that would be newly protected.
>>
>> The areas that are both in the LDR protection area AND a city park are included in the numbers called "Area restricted
by Article 10/12" = a total restricted area of 4,449 acres.
>>
>> The next category down on the page then subtracts the areas that are parks or other forms of protection (all the
green areas on the mapping) = "Area restricted by Article 10/12 OUTSIDE of Areas in a Form of Conservation" = 2,740
acres. of that 1,766 acres were already covered by the existing LDRS, so the change is the 974 acres you reference.
>>
>> The map slide show that I presented at the joint meeting with Council is the easiest for me to see the change in area:
>> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/presentation/index.html?webmap=c378ecfe8e
>> 7a47e69855ba704582861f Slide 8 is a good starting point. The areas
>> that show up in blue are the newly protected areas (orange overlap =
>> already in LDRS and green has a different type of protection) One issue with Slide 8 is that some of the green NRP
land is under the blue and hard to see. To differentiate the blue areas that are on top of the NRP, I toggle between
slides 3 and 4. The area calculations do not have this issue.
>>
>> A lot of the newly protected acreage 142 acres represent areas that could be developed or redeveloped at a higher
intensity. Some areas are within existing neighborhoods, this is most common where a buffer width has been expanded.
You can see this best on Slide 9 of the presentation I reference above. These locations within existing neighborhoods
are less likely to be redeveloped. You can see these where the blue areas overlap with the grey "built" areas.
>>
>> I hope this is helpful.
>>
>> Jessica Louisos
>>
>> South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:40 PM
>> To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag;
>> Duncan MacDonald; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels
>> Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery
>> Subject: EXTERNAL: Two questions arising from the map training
>> session
>>
>> This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>>
>>
>> Dear Jessica and Commissioners,
>>
4
>> I attended Monica’s map training session last evening. Thanks to
>> Monica for spending the time helping us understand how to use the
>> maps. I spent some time going over the maps as well as reading all
>> of the papers that Paul Conner prepared, including the “By the
>> Numbers” spreadsheet and graphic. (I’m still reading the 45+ pages
>> of text.) I came away with two basic questions that should be very
>> easy to answer. One has to do with the newly protected 974 acres
>> citywide; the other has to do with the newly protected 142 acres in
>> the SEQ
>>
>> I reattached the sheet that you are referring to in case others want to reference where the acres came from.
>>
>> 1. Unless I am mis-interpreting the maps (it’s hard to assess acreage from the maps), it appears that most of the
newly protected 974 acres are the city parks: Red Rocks, Veterans, Eastwoods, Centennial, Symansky, etc. Am I reading
the map correctly? Certainly you are not counting the acreage in our city parklands as part of the 974 newly protected
land. So, would you please tell me where I could find on the map the 974 acres that are protected?
>>
>>
>> 2. How much of the 142 newly protected acreage in the SEQ is formerly developable land? The MAIN reason that
the residents asked the city to conserve land was to protect rural lands in the SEQ from turning into housing
developments. Therefore, would you please tell me how many acres of land there are in the SEQ that could have been
turned into housing under the old LDRs but are now protected under the new draft LDRs? Also, where can I find them
on the map?
>>
>> Thank you for all of your work on this.
>>
>> Rosanne
>>
>>
>> <winmail.dat>
>
> <winmail.dat>
1
Betsy Brown
To:Jessica Louisos
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Comments for the PC listening session
From: Rosanne Greco <rosanne05403@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Monica Ostby; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels
Cc: Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery
Subject: EXTERNAL: Comments for the PC listening session
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Commissioners,
I drafted a lengthy 2-page email, which I’m including below, but then feared you might not read it all. So, here
is a “Reader’s Digest” version.
If I am understanding what I’ve seen so far (the text of the proposed changes is still VERY hard to decipher)
I’m concerned that you have dropped protections for a critical natural resource: agricultural soils.
South Burlington once had a “Path to Sustainability” effort which included protecting our agricultural soils so
that we would be able to provide food for our residents. There are numerous references in multiple city-
commissioned studies on the importance of preserving the agriculture soils in South Burlington. Key among
them is the 2013 South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Action Plan. It reported that
“It would be possible to grow enough fruit and vegetables on several hundred acres to provide all city
residents with a good portion of the fruit and veggies we should be eating each day. Growing that
amount of food could generate more than $9 million in farm revenue each year.” We currently have
around 1,400 acres of ag land.
Common Roots has since demonstrated we can grow large quantities of healthy produce on small plots of
land. Food insecurity (hunger) is a problem in our city. One out of four people in South Burlington struggle to
put food on their tables. Half of households experiencing food insecurity ate less fruits and vegetables since the
start of the covid pandemic.
Scientists report that “Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to
offer. Unlike chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute
rivers and groundwater, it preserves soil and it can restore the climate.”
Moreover, soil has benefits beyond providing healthy food. From a global perspective, di rt pulls carbon dioxide
out of the air. It fosters 99 percent of the world’s food and close to half of our oxygen. Good dirt nurtures
vegetables because it is full of minerals and beneficial bacteria. Healthy soil boosts crops, filters water, and
stores water during droughts and floods. Soil specialists tell us that soil can help us through the tough times,
2
mitigate nutrient losses, slow down climate change, and soil-friendly practices could improve water quality in
the Lake Champlain Basin.
This is more important than ever because experts now recognize that the way our food is currently produced is
having negative effects on the environment (pollution and soil erosion), human health (obesity) and rural
economies (farm consolidation and mechanization). Whereas, a food system that is founded on principles of
sustainability and food security has vast potential to improve public health, the environment, and society.
But…first you have to save the soil.
I believe that you could not possibly have been aware of this, otherwise, you would not have removed
protections for South Burlington’s arable soils. Please listen to the science on the value of soil, in particular
arable soils, and then take action to preserve as much as possible. When we learn more, we have the
opportunity to make better decisions. I ask you to reinstate protections for our agricultural lands.
Rosanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ full email follows~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for offering the training sessions on how to use the maps and for holding listening sessions on the
draft Environmental Protection LDRs. I’m sending this in advance of the first listening session for your early
review.
I’ve read the three papers that the staff prepared, looked at the maps multiple times, and I am part-way through
the 45+ pages of text of the draft LDRs. I hope to be able to read them in their entirety before
Tuesday. However, my initial reaction—if I am understanding what I’ve seen so far—has me concerned, in
particular about a specific natural resource that appears to have lost protection: agricultural soils.
During the last Interim Zoning period, I chaired the Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security Committee. At the
time (and since then) I did a considerable amount of reading and research on this subject. As a result, I learned
the importance — make that criticality in light of the climate crisis — of preserving arable soil.
At the time of the last Interim Zoning period, South Burlington had a strategic vision of a sustainable
future. Our now-abandoned “Path to Sustainability” effort was to transform the city for the challenges
and opportunities of the 21st century. Part of the vision was to find a way to foster a diet of affordable,
healthy, locally-grown food for city residents. To that end, the city hired experts to show us how to utilize
our remaining farmland to produce healthful food without compromising future generations’ ability to
do the same.
Sustainable Agriculture integrates three main goals: environmental health, economic profitability, and social
equity (sometimes referred to as planet, profit and people). But it all starts with saving the soil. One of the
surprises from the analysis was how a relatively small amount of fertile soil can produce large amounts of
healthy fruits and vegetables. They reported:
“There are 2,200 acres of undeveloped agricultural soils in the city, 1,400 of which are suitable for cultivating
crops. It would be possible to grow enough fruit and vegetables on several hundred acres to provide all city
residents with a good portion of the fruit and veggies we should be eating each day. Growing that amount of
food could generate more than $9 million in farm revenue each year.”
3
Since that was written, Common Roots, in a few short years, has demonstrated some of those
possibilities. They have successfully grown large quantities of healthy produce on small plots of land, and are
helping feed South Burlingtonians. In case you think food insecurity (hunger) is not experienced by our
residents, one out of four people in South Burlington struggle to put food on their tables. Half of households
experiencing food insecurity ate less fruits and vegetables since the start of the covid pandemic.
Even before city residents were aware of the threats to our food systems and the impacts it was having on their
neighbors, they supported saving our farmlands. Multiple surveys conducted of South Burlingtonians showed
their support for protecting agricultural lands. Here are some statistics from a few surveys conducted in recent
years: 82% supported protecting agricultural lands; 66% supported keeping farmland available for farming in
the Southeast Quadrant; 73% agreed that more of the Open Space Fund should be dedicated to farmland
protection; 67% favored conserving farmland.
South Burlington used to have a lot of high quality fertile soil. Unfortunately, we paved over most of it. But,
what we have left has the potential to provide healthy food for most of our residents. This will become
increasingly important as irresponsible ways of industrial farming is depleting not only the amount of fertile
agricultural land, but it is also degrading the nutritional quality of the soils. The effects of human-caused
climate change is threatening our food sources even further.
There are far-reaching benefits of preserving agricultural soil. A recent article in Independent Science News,
stated, “Sustainable, local, organic food grown on small farms has a tremendous amount to offer. Unlike
chemical-intensive industrial-scale agriculture, it regenerates rural communities; it doesn’t pollute rivers and
groundwater…it preserves soil and it can restore the climate.”
Moreover, soil has benefits beyond providing healthy food. There is power in dirt. From a global perspective,
dirt pulls carbon dioxide out of the air. It fosters 99 percent of the world’s food and close to half of our
oxygen. Without dirt, none of us would be here. Good dirt nurtures vegetables because it is full of minerals
and beneficial bacteria. Healthy soil boosts crops, filters water, and stores water during droughts and
floods. Soil quality is a really important entity as the climate changes. Heather Darby, an agronomic and soil
specialist at UVM Extension said, “The function of soil can help us through the tough times, mitigate nutrient
losses, feed the world, and slow down climate change… and soil-friendly practices could improve water quality
in the Lake Champlain Basin.” She and other experts are urging decision-makers to educate themselves about
soil.
There are numerous references in multiple city-commissioned studies on the importance of preserving the
agriculture soils in South Burlington. Key among them is the 2013 South Burlington Sustainable
Agriculture/Food Security Action Plan.
The consultants examined South Burlington’s geomorphic setting, climate, soils and hydrology and identified
the soils suitable for agriculture in South Burlington. The analysis showed that most of the city’s best quality
agricultural soils have been developed. Of the 10,600 acres of land in South Burlington, 78% were covered
with soils that are classified as prime or statewide (the best types of soils). But the majority of these are now
under highways, airport runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports fields, solar farms, or
fragmented. However, they found that what we still have is enough.
Why does this matter now more than ever? The report stated that there was a growing recognition that the way
our food is currently produced is having negative effects on the environment (pollution and soil erosion), human
health (obesity) and rural economies (farm consolidation and mechanization). A food system that is founded on
principles of sustainability and food security has vast potential to improve public health, the environment, and
4
society. Sustainable Agriculture is a way to foster a diet of affordable, healthy, locally-grown food for city
residents. But…first you have to save the soil.
I believe that you could not possibly have been aware of all of this information, scientific warnings, and expert
advice on the importance of saving soil. Otherwise, you would not have removed protections for South
Burlington’s arable soils. Please do what global and local environmental experts are urging: educate yourselves
on the value of soil, and then take action to preserve it.
When we learn more, we have the opportunity to make better decisions. I ask you to reinstate protections for
our arable lands.
Rosanne Greco
1
Betsy Brown
To:Jessica Louisos
Subject:RE: EXTERNAL: Listening Session: location, location, location -- a case for open space
From: Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 8:04 AM
To: Helen Riehle; Tim Barritt; Matt Cota; Meaghan Emery; Tom Chittenden; Jessica Louisos; Michael Mittag; Monica
Ostby; Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Paul S. Engels; Bernie Gagnon
Subject: EXTERNAL: Listening Session: location, location, location -- a case for open space
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear City Councilors and Planning Commissioners,
Our City, Our future
When I walk in Red Rocks Park with friends or watch my grandchildren play in the streams and
sandboxes at Wheeler Nature Park, I am so grateful that someone had the foresight to advocate to
keep these once private lands open to the public. We can’t take any open space for granted.
With 9,500 existing homes, most of the agricultural soils that at one time existed in South Burlington
have already been developed with highways, airport runways, parking lots, buildings, lawns, sports
fields, solar farms, or fragmented into tiny parcels. On top of this, there are at least an additional
1150 new homes in the pipeline to be built on mostly rural lands. This is a 12% increase in our
housing stock while we are still in interim zoning.
The 2016 Comprehensive Plan anticipated and prepared for a growth rate of 1.5- 2% in average
annual dwelling units. Our current rate of growth is unsustainable and has serious consequences for
the citizens of South Burlington and the quality of life we hope to maintain. A Cost of Community
Services in VT study shows that increased residential development actually increases per capita tax
rates as municipal taxes are inadequate to cover services. We will need new schools, roads,
increased municipal services, etc. The Earth Economics Report commissioned by the City confirmed
the vast economic benefits of preserving our remaining open space.
Our Interim Zoning Bylaws state: “With the delicate ecosystems and preparedness of both our
natural and constructed infrastructure in mind, the City needs to determine what locations, types,
and densities of development are most desirable in order to maintain the balance between natural
and developed spaces and sustainability and to avoid a fiscal crisis -- not when it is upon us, but
before we reach that point.”
2
Our few remaining open spaces provide extensive public health, social and economic
benefits. “Science shows us that leveraging the power of nature is one of the most effective tools we
have to address the climate emergency. Healthy forests, grasslands and wetlands can deliver up to a
third of the global emissions reductions needed by 2030.” (Nature Conservancy) As climate change
scientists are imploring, now is the time to act. Yet, we are targeting much of this existing open space
for development.
Let’s rethink the “location” of development in our city. Why are we building on our remaining open
spaces? Why aren’t we incentivising redevelopment of existing structures for housing? These
underutilized properties already have infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, utilities). The city should
make it easier to redevelop already existing land than to develop on green space. This could be done by
making it harder and more expensive to develop green space, by removing barriers/costs to re development, or
a combination of the two. In neighboring towns we see many creative examples of redevelopment of
commercial space for housing.
Now is the time for South Burlington to recognize open space as the asset and finite resource that it
is. Now is the time for citizens of South Burlington to speak up and advocate for the strongest
Environmental Protection Standards in our new Land Development Regulations.
Janet Bellavance
25 Brewer Parkway
Daniel A. Seff
210 Meadowood Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403-7401
April 27, 2021
Via Electronic Mail
Ms. Helen Riehle, Chair
City Council
City of South Burlington, VT
Email: hriehle@sburl.com
Ms. Jessica Louisos, Chair
Planning Commission
City of South Burlington, VT
Email: jlouisos@sburl.com
Dear Chairperson Riehle and Chairperson Louisos:
Section 9.06(B)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“SBLDR”)
states that “existing natural resources shall be protected through the development plan,
including (but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, [and]
conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis
added).
The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan identifies “primary conservation areas” on Map 7
and the Comprehensive Plan states (at page 2-103) that “Primary conservation areas (Map 7)
include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are off limits to development,
regardless of their setting or context. . . .” (emphasis added).
The Comprehensive Plan also mandates that only “limited encroachment” may be
allowed in “Secondary Conservation Areas” (see Comp. Plan, page 2-103 (emphasis added), and
Map 8).
A planned unit development (“PUD”) must be “consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10). One of the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for the City, including the Southeast Quadrant (“SEQ”), is
“conservation of identified important natural areas” (Comp. Plan, p. 1-1 (emphasis added)).
And one of the objectives for the SEQ is prioritizing and conserving existing contiguous and
interconnected open space areas (see Comp. Plan, p. 3-38, Objective 60). The Comprehensive
Plan has identified important natural areas on Maps 7 and 8. Residential and commercial
development in these important natural areas is inconsistent “with the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan,” SBLDR § 15.18(A)(10).
Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair
April 27, 2021
Page 2 of 4
One of the protected “primary conservation areas” depicted on Map 7 is “Riparian
Connectivity.” It is no accident that the City designated these riparian connectivity areas as off-
limits to development. “Surface Waters and Riparian Areas” include not only rivers, streams,
lake, ponds and wetlands but also the floodplain and land surrounding these water bodies that are
impacted by the waterways. See “ANR Fish & Wildlife Department, Mapping Vermont’s
Natural Heritage: A Mapping and Conservation Guide for Municipal and Regional Planners in
Vermont,” 2018, at p. 48, available at:
https://vtfishandwildlife.com/sites/fishandwildlife/files/documents/Get%20Involved/Partner%20i
n%20Conservation/MVNH-web.pdf (last visited Apr. 27, 2021) (hereafter, “ANR Guide”)
(“Surface Waters and Riparian Areas maps the entire area impacted by these waterways,
including not only the water itself but also the surrounding land. This surrounding area is
referred to as the riparian area.”).
The ANR explains that the BioFinder tool maps “outline the areas of land that need to
remain healthy and intact if we want to provide plants, animals, and natural resources the best
chance of survival over time.” ANR Guide, at p. 78. The ANR has instructed as follows:
Maintaining a vegetated riparian area may be the single most
effective way to protect a community’s natural heritage. The
riparian area provides high quality habitat for a great diversity of
both aquatic and terrestrial species. . . . Terrestrial animals use
riparian areas as travel corridors, while many plant and tree seeds
float downstream to disperse. Streamside vegetation helps to
control flooding, and it is crucial in filtering overland runoff –
which protects water quality – and stabilizing stream banks, which
prevents excessive streambank erosion and sediment buildup.
What’s more, maintaining the riparian area is one of the most cost-
effective ways to provide resilience for a changing climate.
ANR Guide, at p. 49 (emphasis added). The ANR goes on to state:
Not sure where to begin conserving your community’s natural
heritage? Consider starting with riparian habitat. Among
conservation actions taken at the community level, maintaining
riparian habitat has one of the greatest impacts for wildlife.
It’s also an area of great benefit for a community, since conserving
the riparian area not only protects wildlife habitat but also
maintains water quality, reduces erosion, provides flood resilience,
and can support recreational opportunities.
ANR Guide, at p. 32 (emphasis added).
Map 8 shows additional critical natural resources, including Prime Agricultural Soils,
Grasslands and Farmlands.
Letter to Helen Riehle, Chair & Jessica Louisos, Chair
April 27, 2021
Page 3 of 4
The conservation areas depicted on Maps 7 and 8 need protection now more than ever. And yet,
the latest draft of the Planning Commission’s proposed SBLDR revisions weakens the
protections afforded by existing SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3). In fact, that Planning Commission
draft omits completely the reference to protection for the “conservation areas shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. . . .” SBLDR § 9.06(B)(3) (emphasis added). To date, I have not heard
any reason – much less a good reason – for removing the incorporation of Maps 7 and 8 into
SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3).
Section 9.06(B)(3)’s incorporation by reference of the Comprehensive Plan is consistent
with Vermont Supreme Court case law holding that a municipal zoning bylaw can incorporate
aspects of a town plan by reference. See In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 2008 VT 110, ¶ 16,
185 Vt. 201, 969 A.2d 47 (“Here, the City has chosen to incorporate the city plan into its bylaws.
See § 26.151(1) (a PRD ‘will [c]onform with the City’s Comprehensive Plan’). Due to the broad
authority granted to towns to implement their city plans, we cannot conclude that § 26.151 is an
unauthorized method of zoning regulation.”).
The Comprehensive Plan details the protected conservation areas on Maps 7 and 8.
These Maps are designed to avoid vagueness issues such as the one that came up in the JAM
Golf case. See South Burlington Open Space Committee, Open Spaces, Special Places: Our
Legacy, Our Future 13 (Apr. 2014) (in light of JAM Golf, “[i]t is now recommended that
regulations clearly identify those resources to be protected – e.g., through maps. . . .”)
(emphasis in the original), available at:
http://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/2014%20Open%20Space%20Report.pdf (last visited Apr. 27,
2021).
Moreover, SBLDR Section 9.06(B)(3) is consistent with State statutory law, which
provides that municipalities can “identify, protect, and preserve important natural and historic
features of the Vermont landscape,” including “significant natural and fragile areas” and
“outstanding water resources, including lakes, rivers, aquifers, shorelands, and wetlands.” 24
V.S.A. § 4302(c)(5)(A), (B).
In conclusion, I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to maintain SBLDR
Section 9.06(b)(3)’s incorporation of Maps 7 and 8. And if the Planning Commission fails to do
so, I would urge the City Council to reject the proposed SBLDR revisions.
Thank you for your consideration and courtesies.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel A. Seff
Daniel A. Seff
dseff@yahoo.com
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 9:47 PM
To:Betsy Brown
Cc:Marla Keene
Subject:Fw: EXTERNAL: Planned road through a wetland
Public input received.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Loretta Marriott <lmarriot@uvm.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Marla Keene
Cc: Paul Conner; Paul S. Engels; Bernie Gagnon; Jessica Louisos; Duncan MacDonald; Michael Mittag; Monica Ostby; Ted
Riehle; Helen Riehle; Meaghan Emery; Tim Barritt; Tom Chittenden; Matt Cota; Kevin Dorn
Subject: EXTERNAL: Planned road through a wetland
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi Marla,
Thank you for your message.
Is there really a "planned road Tilley Drive Extension" across Potash Brook, through the wetland, to
Community Dr. and then on to Kimball Ave? See CCRP envision I-89 map below.
Currently there is pedestrian/bike path and wooden bridge there.
I have read South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan and the City's proposed Environmental Protection Standards update
including Article 12 and the Interactive Map Viewer. Also I am familiar with the CCRP envision I-89 document and
Burlington International Airport’s 2030 Master Plan.
Kevin Dorn sent me the Mission, Vision and Values statement for the City of South Burlington which is
different than that in the Comprehensive Plan. I can send it to you if you want.
Re: the Interactive Map Viewer…
2
*Does (yellow) existing mean these areas will not change?
*How accurate are the color boundaries?
I find the interactive map…unclear (as well as difficult to use). It would be helpful to clarify not only what is
existing but what is proposed to stay existing. I understand blue is proposed and yellow is existing. I hope my
question is clear.
The narrative of Article 12 says (in a general sort of way) roads through wetlands are permitted if they are
necessary and there is a plan to mitigate damage. Is this really correct?
For example:
*The CCRP envision I-89 map has a “planned road Tilley Drive Extension” across Potash Brook, through the
wetland, to Community Dr. and then on to Kimball Ave? See the CCRP envision I-89 map.
*Again the CCRP envision I-89 map has a “Planned City Street Connection” from Tilley Drive heading north
roughly parallel to Old Farm Road (to the airport according to last evening’s zoom meeting presenter).
I have added some screen shots to help. Will these roads be permitted?
Thank you,
Loretta Marriott
13 Mills Ave
3
4
On Apr 30, 2021, at 1:06 PM, Marla Keene <mkeene@sburl.com> wrote:
Hi Loretta, from a planning perspective, our Comprehensive Plan might be the document you’re looking
for. https://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/document_center/planning/SB_Comprehensive_Pl
an_Complete_Adopted_2-1-2016.pdf
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
(802) 846-4106
From: Loretta Marriott [mailto:lmarriot@uvm.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 10:10 AM
To: planning <planning@sburl.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Does South Burlington have a unified mission and core values statement?
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Greetings,
I received a message that Paul is out of the office and a suggestion to use this email address for
messages.
Thank you,
Loretta
Begin forwarded message:
5
From: Loretta Marriott <lmarriot@uvm.edu>
Subject: Does South Burlington have a unified mission and core
values statement?
Date: April 28, 2021 at 9:39:19 AM EDT
To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Cc: Paul Engles <psengels@sburl.com>, Bernie Gagnon
<bgagnon@sburl.com>, Jessica Louisos <jlouisos@sburl.com>, Duncan
Macdonald <dmacdonald@sburl.com>, Michael Mittag
<mmittag@sburl.com>, Monica Ostby <monicaostby@gmail.com>, Ted
Riehle <triehle@sburl.com>
Hi Paul,
Here is a message that I sent to Kevin Dorn with a cc to the SB City council
yesterday. Thank you for all the work you and the Planning Commission do. The
work on updating the Comprehensive Plan and the natural resources map is
remarkable!
Loretta
Forwarded message:
It seems to me that the proposed I-89 12B interchange is backward thinking and
counter to the values supporting work of various South Burlington departments
and committees.
To evaluate my thinking I searched the South Burlington City website and found
the Mission Statement and core values for the South Burlington Police
Department which I have included below.
Does South Burlington have a unified mission and core values statement?
Thank you,
Loretta Marriott
13 Mills Ave
Welcome to the South Burlington
Police Department
MISSION STATEMENT
It is the mission of the South Burlington Police Department to foster a safe
environment which promotes a high quality of life within our community.
We will accomplish this by reducing the level and fear of crime and facilitating
safe highways; by addressing community concerns; by actively seeking input
and responding to issues brought to our attention; by managing our
organization responsibly utilizing effective efficient, and rational planning; by
recruiting, retaining, and nurturing the development of the most qualified
personnel to meet the needs of the community and the police department.
We will abide by a core set of values, being: integrity, loyalty, dedication to
duty, professionalism, teamwork, fairness, and respect.
Dear Councilors,
We have been following the good work of the Planning Commission as they revise and dra<
land regula=ons, in par=cular Ar=cle 12 and Ar=cle 15. In an=cipa=on of this being discussed at
Tuesday’s council mee =ng, and in the interest of clarity, we offer some observa=ons and
sugges=ons, and have a few ques=ons.
Even though some of us have been reading LDRs for years, the language used in these dra<
Ar=cles is confusing, and in some places, seemingly contradictory. We even heard a Planning
Commissioner admit he didn!t understand the meaning of some of the provisions. If people
who deal with LDRs are confused, one can assume that many of the general public will not
understand these ar=cles or their implica=ons. This could result in fewer comments. Or, it may
take a considerable amount of =me during the public comment period to explain the meaning
of the Ar=cles. Since these LDRs will have significant impacts on South Burlington’s future land
use, it is essen=al they are understandable and have no unintended consequences.
Sugges=ons
1.Include an Execu=ve Summary wriQen in lay terms for each Ar=cle which states the goals
for the Ar=cle and how the Ar=cle achieves those goals.
2.Re-dra< the Ar=cles using non-technical and straighSorward language; or add a
supplemental layperson version—similar to what is now required with other explanatory
documents dealing with legal and medical maQers.
3.Include a graphic or photo of selected parcels of land which depicts what the proposed
language would allow. For example, give one or two examples of proper=es which could be
developed using these new regula=ons, and how these proper=es would look if maximally
developed under Ar=cle 12 and 15.
4.Spell out all acronyms before first using them, and include a glossary with these commonly
used acronyms and terms.
Ques=ons
The answers to these general ques=ons are fundamental for the public to know in order to
understand the issues and the implica=ons of the proposed Ar=cles.
1.Do the ar=cles result in more land being conserved? Where is this land?
2.Do the ar=cles list stronger environmental protec=ons? What are these measures?
3.Do the ar=cles con=nue to protect the land areas iden=fied in the Comprehensive Plan as
“Primary and Secondary Conserva=on Areas” (Maps 7 and 8)? How do the new regula=ons
do this?
4.Do Ar=cles 12 and 15, as well as Ar=cles 10 and 18, complement each other? Have any
contradic=ons among them been resolved? Are they completely in synch and suppor=ve?
5.Would new PUD regs e ffec=vely "up-zone" the SEQ from a base of 1.2 to as much as 16 units
per acre, vs. the 4 or 8 per acre now allowed in certain circumstances?
6.In a Conserva=on PUD, where 70% of the acreage would be conserved, is that 70% of
buildable land (excluding hazards and level I and II resources) OR the total land in the
parcel?
7.What is the difference between density based on Building Type and density based on
District or Zone Density?
South Burlington Land Trust
dedicated to preserving South Burlington’s forests, wetlands, farmlands and oth-
er natural areas through landowner preservation agreements and other conser-
vation vehicles to maintain city residents’ high quality of life.
August 18, 2020
South Burlington Planning Commission
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Commissioners,
The South Burlington Land Trust (SBLT) welcomes the Planning Commission’s invitation to
comment on the draft Article 12 of the Land Development Regulations (LDR). As an
organization whose mission it is to preserve natural resource lands in South Burlington, we are
well suited to provide input to this “Environmental Protection Standards” chapter of the LDRs,
and we look forward to partnering with the city in crafting this environmental article.
In line with the Planning Commission Chair’s direction, we will relegate our comments in this
letter to only high-level topics and general areas. Overall, we applaud the work done on this
article and are grateful that at long last there will be a chapter in the LDRs devoted to measures
which will result in the protection and preservation of our natural resources. Every other
chapter/article in the LDRs is devoted to various aspects of development. Having one chapter
in the LDRs which enumerates specific environmental protection standards is not only welcome,
but necessary in light of the destruction and damage to the environment from habitat loss and
climate change. Preserving our natural environments becomes THE highest priority that
responsible planners and citizens should have. No other issue or cause, regardless of their
merit, rises to the priority of saving our environment. Therefore, we approach article 12 with the
serious threats and dangers of habitat degradation and climate change in mind.
1.While Article 12 goes into detail on water issues, this chapter should be broadened to
become a comprehensive document addressing all areas of our natural environmental. It
rightly devotes considerable treatment to wetlands, forest blocks, and habitat areas. But
there are other natural resources needing environmental protection, such as riparian areas,
fields and meadows, soils, etc. Past studies commissioned by the city address these areas
and are a source to be drawn from to make this chapter complete.
South Burlington Land Trust Inc. is a 501 (c) (3) non profit organization:
Tax ID # 75-3133866. 500 Cheese Factory Rd., South Burlington VT 05403
Board of Directors
President
Sarah Dopp
Treasurer
Michael Mittag
Secretary
Karen Ryder
Janet Bellavance
Alyson Chalnick
Rosanne Greco
Allan Strong
Page 2
2.The rationale and purpose for drafting Article12 as stated in the Article and in the cover
memo from Paul Conner, provide valuable insights into the need for environmental
protections. However, in many areas of the current draft there is a lack of specificity
needed in a regulatory document. As currently written, decisions on environmental
protections are frequently left to the subjective opinions of the members of the
Development Review Board (DRB). We have heard many times from DRB members
that they are there to make sure that development applications comply with city
regulations. They are not supposed to create or interpret regulations. They have
stated that without clear and specific regulations, they are left to deduce what the
planners intended, or to come up with their own interpretation. General or ambiguous
terminology in LDRs has led to confusion and uncertainty among DRB members and
has even resulted in legal challenges—the JAM Golf lawsuit being one prime example
among others.
3.In the cover memo, Paul Conner states that the Environmental Protection Standards
draft is “intended to be clear and user-friendly”. This is refreshing to read. However,
some of the foundational terminology used is confusing and ambiguous. In particular,
using the word “hazard” for high-value natural resource areas is problematic. The
common dictionary definition of that word is “potential source of danger”. It is likely
that the average citizen would think that hazard areas are dangerous areas. Other
nomenclature, such as “level 1 and level 2” are ambiguous. Without a clear definition
and specific regulations associated with these numbers, they are merely numerals.
Using “clear and user-friendly” words, such as “high or medium or low priority” along
with the statutes associated with each will make these levels understandable.
4.The recent Arrowwood study is cited as a source for some of the draft. As valuable as
the study was, it focused on only one area of the environment. Regarding our first
comment on having this article provide protections for the total natural environmental,
more environmental areas need to be addressed using more environmental studies and
reports. There are dozens of past environmental studies commissioned by the city,
including the recent studies done under Interim Zoning. To ignore them would be
foolhardy and a waste of taxpayer money.
5.Past environmental standards based on older science, or before climate change
impacts were understood, need to be updated. The amount of buffer areas is an
example. Even in Vermont, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, Lake
Champlain is in peril, as are all of South Burlington’s waterways. Further, arable land is
being lost, wetlands and riparian areas have been damaged, wildlife is disappearing,
and more. More stringent protection measures based on improved and enlightened
assessments need to be incorporated into this Article.
6.It is unclear what role the city’s Natural Resource Committee plays in this Article. As
the only city entity devoted to natural resources, we think it appropriate that this
committee have input on all developments which threaten to impact the natural
environment.
Page 3
The SBLT firmly believes that South Burlington needs to put in place clear and powerful
standards to protect our natural environment. The city’s Comprehensive Plan, as has
every environmental study commissioned by the city in the past, advocates for land
preservation. It is past time to codify these requirements into the city LDRs. Article 12 is
the ideal way to do that. The SBLT will use our knowledge and experience to partner with
the Planning Commission in drafting the necessary language to accomplish this. We look
forward to hearing how we can best support making Article 12 a successful environmental
protection document. Thank you for giving us this opportunity.
Sincerely,
The Directors of the South Burlington Land Trust
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 9:49 PM
To:Ted Riehle; Duncan MacDonald; Monica Ostby; Paul S. Engels; Michael Mittag; Bernie
Gagnon
Cc:sarah.morganhouse@comcast.net; Marla Keene; Betsy Brown
Subject:Fw: EXTERNAL: Please share with the Planning Commission before Tues., Thanks!
Attachments:LDR comments 2-15-21 (pdf).pdf; Letterhead version of article 12 sblt email 8-17-2020
pdf - Shortcut.lnk.pdf
Please see attached and below public comment received.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Sarah Dopp <sarah.morganhouse@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 10:56 PM
To: Jessica Louisos
Subject: EXTERNAL: Please share with the Planning Commission before Tues., Thanks!
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Planning Commissioners: Thank you for holding the listening sessions for the public to weigh in on the
proposed LDR's, Chapters 9, 10 and 12, related to Environmental Protection Standards. We in the So.
Burlington Land Trust are grateful to have had opportunities to share our perspectives in person and in
writing. I am attaching two pertinent communications sent earlier and hope you will review them, because
they are still pertinent to your process. We fervently hope that they have been or will be incorporated in your
final product.
Several other important items for consideration are: protections of agricultural soils, protection of grasslands
and shrub lands, and inclusion of the "supporting habitats" surrounding the habitat blocks, as articulated by
Arrowwood Environmental .
Since the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2016 is the plan under which we operate until the next cycle (2024),
the LDR's adopted now must regulate and relate to the vision for the City as articulated there, we also feel
that there is a need to reference and explain some changes in terminology which now differ between the
Comp Plan and the proposed LDR's, namely "Level I, Level II and Hazards" and how they relate to the still
2
current Maps 7 and 8, which speak instead of "Primary and Secondary Conservation." It should be clear to any
reader of the new LDR's how these differ and how they remain similar. One additional comment is to note that
these are LDR's for the whole City, not just the SEQ. There are remaining open lands all over the City, though it
is true that the majority of open space is in the SEQ.
1
Betsy Brown
From:Jessica Louisos
Sent:Monday, May 3, 2021 9:59 PM
To:Betsy Brown; Marla Keene
Subject:Fw: EXTERNAL: Review of Habitat Blocks
Received public comment below.
Jessica Louisos
South Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents
received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing
information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person
upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Francis MacDonald <fmacdonald@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 4:10 PM
To: Jessica Louisos; Bernie Gagnon; Michael Mittag; Ted Riehle; Paul S. Engels; Duncan MacDonald; Monica Ostby
Subject: EXTERNAL: Review of Habitat Blocks
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Dear Commissioners,
I am disappointed in the Planning Commission’s assessment of the Forest Habitat Blocks identified in the Arrowwood
Environmental LLC report. The review of 20 blocks during working sessions on September 29 and October 13, 2020 seemed
biased in favor of land development rather than looking at the value for conservation, habitat and open space.
The Forest Blocks reviewed were identified by using two different shades of green: dark green for “core”; light green for
“buffer”. The “buffer” used was 100 meters (300 feet) and was subtracted from the Arrowwood block. Using two shades of
green creates two different “values” of forest block– “important” and “not so important”–in place of the single shade of green
used by Arrowwood.
Also, the concept of “buffer” has taken on two different meanings depending on who is interpreting the value of the Forest
Block. The Arrowwood report first uses “buffer” as a “ranking” parameter to compare blocks in order of importance by
comparing the size of the core with the size of the outer 300 feet. A large roundish block has a higher rating than a long thin
block. In a March 26, 2021 letter to the City Council and Planning Commission, Arrowwood adds clarification and indicates a
“buffer” as “undeveloped lands adjacent to habitat blocks”. And states that “these adjacent lands serve to add wildlife value to
the mapped blocks”. This would indicate a “buffer” area be used as an addition to the outer edge of the block. The Planning
Commission uses “buffer” as a 300-foot subtraction from the identified block reducing the size and importance of areas within
the block. And as a tool for “lopping off” or removing areas of the originally identified habitat area.
2
During the review of the 20 blocks, the phrase “is this change likely to affect development?” was often heard. In those areas
where “it is not likely to affect development”, the buffer was kept. In areas where “this land is suitable for development”, the
buffer was removed.
In the evaluation of the 20 blocks, 9 blocks had sections removed allowing development, and in 11 blocks no changes were
made. In many of these 11, other restrictions such as steep slopes, river corridor or flood plain were also present. The
following are three examples where protections were removed by “lopping off” the light green “buffer” area in favor of
development:
1. 1720/1730 Spear St – Property between South Pointe and South Village: A “light green” forested buffer was removed
to allow development of 49 homes.
2. Wheeler/Hill Farm – “Light green” buffer areas with trees and shrub were removed to “straighten the demarcation”
and allow future development.
3. Meadowland – A large “light green” buffer of shrub and grassland was removed to allow future development.
During these discussions, the commissioners seemed to be advocating for development rather than for wildlife habitat and open
space. This seems contrary to the intent of Interim Zoning where the City paused development to identify and protect open
space and natural resource wildlife habitat.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis MacDonald
57 Moss Glen Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
South Burlington Planning & Zoning
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Commissioners:
RE: SB Proposed Environmental Protection Standards update
This update shows detailed work. As a piece of a larger puzzle, it should be presented in context with
important/attendant PUD updates. Perhaps the PC/Council being “on the clock” (with IZ considerations)
requires something to be delivered this month. As a stand-alone, this update shows an earnest map
exercise that creates new categories of indeterminate need.
Habitat blocks/habitat connectors – Be mindful of the 2003 Arrowhead study that supported NRP
protections and resulted in a 10 year battle with JAM over golf course homes -- costing the City 7 acres
of the 3rd highest ridgeline in town in exchange for 21 acres of unmitigated stormwater swamp that JAM
could absolve itself of responsibility for. Long litigation and contention with large parcel owners may
not always end well.
The protections are for what exactly? Mammals, reptiles, birds, or all of them? For this level of
categorization, there should be an explicit determination of whether 5 flocks of turkeys are worth the
potential living space of 50 human mammals. 50 humans commuting from Georgia displace as much
wildlife there, if not more, and contribute vastly more to the degradation of the planet. Marking
sightings on the map ignores that humans can cohabit with turkeys – many big cities see turkeys and
coyotes in their streets now (especially during the reduced traffic times of the pandemic quarantine) –
coexistence works. South Burlington shouldn’t treat habitat as a zero-sum scenario; we’ve created
sufficient public, park and open space to achieve balanced goals. This step encourages further
destruction of Vermont’s unique landscape, settings, and lifestyles in outer towns that have not
managed their planning and zoning as well as South Burlington.
Worry that this is a selected sampling that misses the larger discussion of what value humans have for
living space within the same realm – is there a specific level at which animals become more important –
what is that level (acreage per animal? Population count of animal?)? Humans have learned to live with
less space and most animals have shown the same ability. Unlike cars, is it harmful to push a percentage
of the less-adaptable animals/habitat to other towns? These aren’t the same issues of social inequity
that are involved as when SB plans to limit development beyond its present practical limits and pushes
humans, rather than animals, to other towns.
Floodplains – Why throw another layer of regulation on top of homeowners? If an existing structure is
within the floodplain and seeks a permit for expansion, then it goes to the state review. This does not
happen now. Labelling neighborhoods and industrial areas such as Dorset Farms, Dorset Village, Butler
Farms, Ethan Allen Drive, White St/Pine Tree Terrace, Brookwood Drive, and CCRCF unnecessarily
clamps down on in-fill and redevelopment. It will aggravate existing owners – introducing burdens, both
perceived and real. Opens the City to more potential litigation.
This update unnecessarily labels neighborhoods – based on modeling in 2011 by FEMA but not LIDAR.
Hard to understand whether actual claims data is being extrapolated and included to achieve the
percent probability that forms the “500 year” mark. The whole City was underwater at one time (20x
longer than the “500yr mark”), so it’s hard to see the value of reaching back for a 500-yr benchmark
when our crisis has shortened the 100-year floods to 50.
Wetland/Riparian buffers – More of the same concerns under floodplains. If the state isn’t requiring SB
to make these changes, then why are they being done? These appear targeted to large parcel owners
and not to the local Zoning Administrator enforcement, although that is a first concern. The Vermont
thing to do is to be talking with the various (and few) large parcel owners first before telling them what
they can and cannot do. This practice is often omitted in a rush-to-judgement.
Larkin with the lakefront property that is bisected by river corridor should have a conversation with the
planning director or commission. Similarly, a former PC member John Belter who stands to have his
whole farm designated as a hazard should be communicated with on a personal level. The last IZ
neglected him and his expertise entirely for farming and for the use of the Underwood Property. This is
not the Vermont way. The AuClairs and LeDucs have been consulted and included to a certain extent but
may also feel dictated to. You’ve seen concerns from large parcel owners on Spear and Dorset who
discuss their plans and the legacy they want for their families from their property holdings and how the
City disrupts this with these updates. The personal touch is still important and even more so with this
kind of update and where it leads. More conserved property is acquired and happens because of
relationships and common communication than in dictating terms. We have a few large landowners and
generational families left in SB and we should be categorizing and cultivating our planning discussions
with them first and foremost. It would be good to identify these folks and the commercial developers to
develop good communication pathways with them as a concurrent way forward in these goals. This has
often been missing from good planning practice. Their numbers are few. We have the time. It costs little
and can achieve so much – and it is more in line with our ability to personally connect here.
Outreach – actively seek out comment, input and feedback from large parcel owners.
Thank you for the many hours of work and consideration that go into this. Hope my thoughts can help
shape it more.
Chris Shaw
864-1515
43 Great Road
Bedford, MA 01730
May 3, 2021
South Burlington Planning Commission
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I write to express my concerns about the changes to the City’s wetland guidelines in the
proposed new Land Development Regulations. As in my previous communications, my
concerns are both general and specific – my family are South Burlington landowners and
taxpayers, but we also have a development proposal for our property that is currently before
the Development Review Board and the City Council.
My general concern is that expanding the buffer around Class II wetlands from 50’ to 100’ and
decreasing the size of exempted Class III wetlands from ½ acre to only 300 sq. ft. are changes
that skew the already delicate balance between conservation and development. The new
proposed LDRs are already removing almost 950 acres from potential development via
adoption of the Arrowwood “habitat block” concept, and adding 50’ to the width of wetland
buffers will remove a significant amount of additional acreage. It is easy to argue that wider
buffers benefit wetland flora and fauna, but the undesirable side effect is that development
must be squeezed into smaller plots, which often limits the diversity of building types that the
new PUD standards are designed to provide. It is not clear why South Burlington needs to be
an outlier in Chittenden County, where no other city or town requires wider buffers or smaller
Class III wetland sizes than are specified in the Vermont Wetlands Rules. It also isn’t clear why
the new LDRs propose a different standard for residential development than for commercial.
Are houses more threatening to wetlands than office buildings? My understanding is that both
are subject to the same regulations around pesticides, fertilizers, etc. if they are close to
wetlands.
A couple of your members toured our property on Spear Street last week and reminded the
other members of the importance of site visits to assess the effects of the LDRs in real-life
situations. In our particular case, for example, though we await an “official” wetlands
certification, preliminary findings suggest that there are two narrow “fingers” of possible Class
II wetland that extend close to or even into our proposed development. For these fingers,
which are approximately 50’ wide, adding 100’ of buffer on each side will create two
undevelopable swaths 250’ wide. Certainly a buffer doesn’t need to be four times as wide as
the wetland finger it’s protecting, and I would hope that the PC could reconsider its proposal
for the wider buffer, at least in the case of narrow fingers like these. It is also worth noting that
one of the fingers on our plan crosses the right of way for a road connection and a bicycle path
that the City has long anticipated as connections between the adjacent developments, South
Village to the south and South Pointe to the north. Would those connections now be
prohibited?
Shrinking the threshold for exempting Class III wetlands from the same constraints as Class II
areas is also troubling in our particular case. There is a small wet area in the center of our
property, probably less than ½ acre, that would be developable under the appropriate State
permit. There is a huge difference between ½ acre (approximately 20,000 sq. ft.) and 300 sq.
ft., which is only about as big as two parking spaces. Why is the Commission suggesting such a
radical change? I suspect that it will be difficult to even find a 300-sq. ft. wetland in the City, so
the new proposed regulation effectively throws away the State’s Class III categorization.
Our family has been responsible stewards of the property on Spear Street for 70 years now; the
development we’re proposing will continue to conserve 22 of our 39 acres under the 2006 NRP
statute and another ~6 acres of Arrowwood habitat block. Expanded buffers and recategorized
Class III wetlands would restrict even more acreage. I hope that the Commission will reconsider
these overly restrictive new regulations for wetlands. Their negative effects on responsible
development far outweigh their positive attributes.
Sincerely,
Alan Long (on behalf of the Long family)
Alanklong56@gmail.com
781-521-5429
SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
31 MARCH 2021
1
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, 31 March 2021, at
7:00 p.m., via Go to Meeting remote technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. MacDonald, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; A Crocker, D. Peters, F. Von Turkovich, R.
Gonda, R. Greco, A. Jensen-Vargas, L. Ravin, S. Dooley, A. & A. Chalnick, C. Trombly
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Ms. Louisos asked to add 2 items to Other Business: an update on scheduling and an update on
correspondence.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Crocker asked the Commission to add item to an agenda to consider removing the Swift Street
Extension from the Official City Map. She felt it would be a “commercial highway” through an
environmentally sensitive area and would increase traffic near the entrance to Veterans Park. She also
felt it would drive development away from City Center. She noted Swift St. Extension was planned as a
second egress from Village at Dorset Park, but since that time, other east-west roads have been added
or remove from the Official City Map. There was a petition in 2015 to remove the road from the map
and there was an agreement by the Planning Commission to study this. That study has not been done.
Mr. Mittag said this is long overdue, and somehow the Commission never got to it.
Mr. Mittag moved to place the issue of Swift Street Extension on one of the next 2 or 3 agendas and deal
with this problem. Ms. Ostby seconded.
Mr. Macdonald noted there had been an agenda item regarding all east-west roads and asked if the
Commission was going to review all of them or just Swift Street Extension.
Ms. Louisos said her only issue regarding scheduling is the need for background data and the fact that
the Commission may not have staff support in the next few meetings. She asked for a friendly
amendment to change “2 or 3” to “few.” Mr. Conner added that even with a focus on Swift St., the
Commission needs to look at the context. He also noted this is a transportation issue as well as an
environmental issue.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Louisos said she will mention this as part of the joint meeting with the City Council.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
2
Mr. Riehle noted that the Long property will be in front of the DRB. Ms. Ostby said she saw their
presentation to the City Council and to the Affordable Housing Committee. She noted the Longs are
aware of Article 12.
Mr. Conner noted the City Council had a work session on Monday regarding interchanges and will
continue their discussion on 19 April. The Council also considered options to seek funding to build the
pedestrian boardwalk to connect City Center to park areas. Ms. Louisos noted she had signed a letter of
support for the funding application on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Conner also noted that the Council had a conversation regarding completion of Interim Zoning and
whether they want to consider Articles 10 and 12 separately. The sense was to have Interim Zoning in
place for the Commission to complete work on Articles 10 and 12 and the PUDs.
4. Review and possible action to approve advancing LDR-20-01, draft Environmental Protection
Standards amendments to the Land Development Regulations, and accompanying Planning
Commission Report for the purposes of holding a public hearing on same:
Mr. Macdonald asked the pros and cons of putting Articles 10 & 12 out alone or with the PUDs. He
noted that Ms. Dooley favors the latter option.
Mr. Conner said the benefit of doing them together is you get to look at all the pieces, and if one affects
the other, things can be adjusted. The benefit of doing them separately is that one big piece of the
puzzle would be complete and the Commission would have a lot of feedback. With that behind them,
they could get more feedback on the PUD part.
Ms. Louisos said even if they don’t warn a public hearing, they should release what they have with a
report in order to get comments.
Ms. Ostby noted that because there may not be staff available after the 4/6 meeting, they may not be
able to address comments right away.
Mr. Mittag said both the environmental and PUD documents are complex. He felt they should get
Articles 10 & 12 done and then focus on Article 15. He felt it would be hard to get public input if both
documents were done together.
Ms. Louisos cited the need to have a enough of a block of time for public comment. She felt the
Commission should finish their draft tonight and decide what goes into the packet for the joint meeting
with the Council. She added that one of the April or May meetings would be good to have a listening
and mapping session, look at the maps together with the public. She proposed that as part of the path
moving forward.
Ms. Ostby felt good about the separate path. She thought the Council wants to do their hearing during
Interim Zoning and do both parts together.
3
Mr. Riehle said the Commission should be through the pubic hearing process by May. Mr. conner
agreed. He didn’t know if there were substantial things the Commission would want to change after
that hearing. Most times in the past, the Commission has advanced a document soon after a public
hearing. He also noted the Commission will have to warn a public hearing regarding the PUDs by mid-
September in order to meet the Interim Zoning deadline.
Ms. Ravin said she was representing UVM, and the University is trying to follow this process. She noted
the University does not support regulations that would limit the use of UVM land any more than it is
limited now. She reminded the Commission that UVM owns lands identified as habitat blocks. She
understood it would be possible to develop portions of those blocks. She said the University hasn’t had
enough time to really understand the implications of the new regulations, and it was hard to understand
the impact on University land without the PUD standards, both intended and unintended consequences.
She thought moving one forward without the other could wind up taking more time if the Commission
has to go back and change something. She suggested there not be an official public hearing until the
Commission has both pieces.
Mr. Conner noted that UVM is a large landowner in the city, including the Wheelock parcel on the north
side of Spear Street, the property on Patches Road and some agricultural properties now zoned
Residential.
Ms. Dooley said her reading of Articles 10 & 12 is that habitat blocks apply to all land in the city,
including UVM land. Mr. Conner said that is correct, except where there is an exemption beyond local
authority. Those articles re “ownership neutral” and reflect only where the resources are.
Members then reviewed the new draft which Ms. Louisos noted includes updates since the last
Commission meeting.
Mr. Riehle said he agonizes over 12:10 and felt allowing a road is a negative. He could not support that
section. He cited the road across the Great Swamp as “an abomination.” He felt allowing the crossing
of wetlands could lead to many east-west roads the city doesn’t want. Mr. Conner urged the
Commission to look at the Official City Map as a whole. Mr. Mittag agreed with Mr. Riehle. Mr. Conner
showed the list of alternatives that would have to be considered before a wetland could be crossed.
Ms. Ostby said the Commission has to decide on shifting NRP boundaries. Mr. Mittag felt the map was
hard to distinguish between the NRP now and what is proposed. Ms. Ostby said she felt it made sense
to change the NRP and let the habitat blocks be established. Mr. Conner said the current thinking is that
a TND must exclude any lands in the NRP. There is also the option for a Conservation PUD. Mr.
MacDonald agreed with Ms. Ostby. He felt they would lose flexibility by putting those land into the NRP.
He noted there is already a landowner who wants to use the ‘swap” ability. Ms. Louisos agreed. Ms.
Ostby said it doesn’t seem right to add to the NRP when a TDR proposal hasn’t been considered.
Mr. Mittag asked whether the South Village Master Plan shouldn’t conform to the NRP rather than vice
versa. Mr. Conner explained the timing issue.
4
Ms. Ostby then moved to keep NRP zoning intact until a later stage. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion
passed 6-0.
Members then considered the Report that accompanies the changes. Mr. Conner said some pieces of
the report will be part of the public outreach. What he is presenting meets State law. Ms. Louisos
stressed the need to be sure they are not misleading the public to think every inch of what is not
conserved is going to be built on. Ms. Ostby agreed and said they need to indicate that what they are
doing adds so much more protection for natural resources and will make it clear to people what can and
cannot be built on.
Mr. Mittag noted the paragraph near the bottom of page 2 and cautioned care with that statement
because he had an objection to something removed from what is now in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Conner then asked to what extent members would be interested in having a brief discussion in
“plain English” on what each of the categories in the environmental standards does, possibly a ½ or 1/3
of a page, something like: “Here is what it is, here is where it comes from, here is what can happen with
it,“ explained in layperson’s terms. Ms. Louisos felt that was a good idea.
Ms. Ostby noted that Strategy 138 of the Comprehensive Plan is said so nicely that she recommended
including it.
Ms. Louisos questioned whether language in the Table regarding river corridors is confusing. Mr.
Conner said he will look to clarify it. Ms. Louisos also noted that for the 500-year flood plain, language
should say FEMA Insurance Maps, not State Reiver Corridor Mapping. Mr. Conner agreed.
Mr. Mittag suggested a list of what is in the package.
5. Consider Topics for Discussion at Upcoming Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting:
Ms. Louisos listed the Report, Revised Standards for Articles 10 and 12 and related items, mapping (to
be provided in the packet). Mr. Conner said he has available interactive mapping which shows previous
and new standards. Mr. Mittag said the CCRPC map is a lot more user friendly than other maps. Mr.
Conner said staff will be looking at making maps more “tidy.”
Ms. Louisos suggested as talking points: details of mapping regarding environmental protection
standards, overview of PUD work including the concept of minimum density, high-level policy items
related to potentially developable lands as part of the PUD portion of Commission work, and a target
update to Comprehensive Plan to insure consistency with city policy.
Ms. Ostby suggested maximum density as well as the Council may want that. Mr. Conner said the
Southeast Quadrant as a whole has a maximum density that could be retained. There could be very
compact development in some areas or possibly target some areas for development. He noted the
current 9-lot development that doesn’t take conservation into account.
5
Ms. Louisos felt there was more on the list than they could get feedback on. Mr. MacDonald felt it was
important to get feedback on the density issue as it might surprise people how dense some
development could be.
Mr. Conner urged members to think about “the tool” and “the applicability of the tool.” For example,
something may be a “good tool,” but “not here.”
Ms. Louisos said it is important to stress that the total number of units in the SEQ isn’t increased.
Mr. Engels said he would like to see some hard numbers. How many acres would be conserved after the
changes are made? Mr. Conner said he will see what can be done with that. It is on a list for CCRPC to
do as soon as possible.
Ms. Ostby felt the Council should be reminded of things they can do that are out of the Commission’s
purview (e.g., inclusionary offsets, TDR marketplace, etc.). She felt there is grant money available to
accomplish some of those things. Ms. Dooley said that may be something for the new City Manager to
take on; it may be hard to add to Kevin’s load at this time.
Members briefly discussed remaining after the joint meeting and summarizing what they gathered from
the Council.
6. Minutes of 3 March, 9 March, 10 March and 16 March 2021:
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Minutes of 3, 9, 10, and 16 March as written. Ms. Ostby seconded.
Mr. Macdonald noted that the minutes of March 9 say March 3 in the header. Mr. Conner said he
would correct that. The motion passed 6-0.
7. Other Business:
a. Winooski Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Unified Land Use
Development Regulations, Thursday, 8 April 2021, 6:30 p.m.
b. Burlington Planning Commission Public hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive
Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 13 April 2021, 6:45 p.m.
c. Upcoming meeting schedule
Mr. Conner noted the Burlington amendment address short-term rentals and suggested members take a
look at this.
Members agreed on a “listening session” for members of the public prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Conner said he will send out information on the I-89 alternatives. The question is which alternative
to support. The Council wants to address this in the first part of next month.
Ms. Louisos cited the possible need to meet every week.
6
Mr. Conner said he will also get information to members on the Tilley Drive Study as it relates to the
Swift St. Extension.
Members agreed to hold a short “debriefing” session following the joint meeting with the Council.
Ms. Louisos noted receipt of an email from Ray Gonda regarding buffers and a letter from Arrowwood
regarding habitat buffers. There are also emails regarding the appropriateness of a person reaching out
to a consultant on behalf of the city. Ms. Louisos said there may be some correspondence on that issue
coming forth. The concern is that this could incur an expense. Ms. Louisos said she would never do that
on her own. Mr. Mittag asked if it’s OK to reach out to State resources. Ms. Louisos said she has done
that, and it feels different to her. Mr. Conner agreed there is a difference but still encouraged having an
individual confer with his/her committee before doing that so there are no surprises and so the person
can speak on behalf of the group.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:15 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MEETING MINUTES 6 APRIL 2021
1
The South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on Tuesday, 6 April
2021, at 5:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting Interactive Technology.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; D. Macdonald, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M.
Mittag, P. Engels
ALSO PRESENT: T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Baker, L.
Ravin, J. Bellavance, A. & A. Chalnick, A. Strong, B. Sirvis, R. Gonda, A. Jensen-Vargas, C. Trombly, S.
Dooley, Wayne, R. Greco
1. Agenda: additions or deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made.
2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Announcements/Staff Report:
There were no announcements or Staff report.
4. Presentation of Draft Environmental Protection Standards; Council questions and
feedback:
Ms. Louisos said they have set 27 April for a listening session for the public. That will be followed by a
formal public hearing.
Ms. Louisos noted the Commission began work on these standards in 2012 to the standards were more
legally defensible. In 2016, maps were added to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also
commissioned a study from Arrowwood to define habitat blocks and to set standards for how to address
them.
Ms. Louisos then defined the 3 categories of environmental protection:
a. Hazards: areas where there should be no development due to some danger (e.g.
100-year flood plain) and/or are regulated at the State and Federal level. The
Commission added the 500-year flood plain to this category and streamlined rive
and buffer standards. The Class 2 wetland buffer was also expanded in certain
areas, and steep slopes have been regulated.
2
b. Level 1 Resources: These include habitat blocks which, with a few exceptions, would
not be built on, and habitat connectors. These resources are based on the
Arrowwood study.
c. Level 2 Resources: These include the 500-year flood plain, Class 3 wetlands, some
steep slopes, and a definition change for stream buffers.
Ms. Louisos noted the Commission is working with CCRPC to help review and be consistent with State
and Federal standards.
Ms. Louisos then showed a series of maps as follows:
a. Current protection standard areas and SEQ-NRP zoning where very little, if any
development is allowed
b. Current environmental protection areas, SEQ-NRP, conserved and public land (e.g.,
parks) and areas already built/approved/in review
c. Draft Environmental Protection Areas (hazards, Level 1 & 2 and current SEQ-NRP)
d. The above map with the addition of conserved and public lands (e.g., parks)
e. The above maps plus built/approved/in process areas
f. Draft of current environmental protection areas and current NRP zone (it was noted
that the protected areas go from 17% of the city to 26%, not including existing
conserved and park lands
g. The above map including conserved & park lands bringing the percentage of land
with some level of protection to 42%. Ms. Louisos stressed that the maps are
approximate and require on-ground delineation.
h. The above map plus built areas and areas still available for development
Mr. Conner then explained the zoning of the NRP and what can/cannot be built there.
Sen. Chittenden asked whether people who own newly designated nondevelopable lands have TDRs
now. Mr. Conner said that depends on where things go with PUDs. Development can occur on a
developable portion of a property. Mr. Conner stresses that nothing in this draft changes anything
about the use of TDRs and which areas are sending or receiving.
Mr. Conner also noted there is now a higher bar for crossing a stream. “Restricted infrastructure
encroaching” is granted only when there is no other access to a piece of land, and an applicant would
3
have to meet a number of criteria including hardship, 30% of the property is on the other side of the
stream, failure of other methods to access the property, etc. The crossing would then have to be
narrow.
A question from the Council focused on the total land covered by Articles 10 and 12. Mr. Conner said
that figure is 4,449 acres, a portion of which is already conserved.
Ms. Louisos then explained how the new regulations relate to the Comprehensive Plan, one of the legal
tests for LDRs. She showed the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and explained the various
areas for low, medium, and high intensity residential and commercial development. She then showed
the same map with the conserved areas indicated.
Sen. Chittenden asked whether there is a map that shows neighboring communities. Mr. Conner noted
that the RPC has mapping for villages and downtowns, etc.
Ms. Emery asked why housing isn’t allowed in business parks. Ms. Louisos explained that there is land
reserved for uses that are not compatible with residential for various reasons (i.e. noise, hours of use,
outside storage, commercial traffic). Mr. Conner added that the nature of business parks is evolving.
The Commission discussed how much land should be reserved for uses that can only locate away from
housing. Ms. Ostby noted that these are areas for jobs.
Ms. Louisos then showed other maps from the Comprehensive Plan and noted areas where rare species
have been found. These are regulated by the State and by Act 250. She also indicated some agricultural
lands and grasslands that are not covered by Article 10 and 12 due to the concern to meet other goals.
She noted changes to Article 9 where references to Maps 7 and 8 have been removed so there is no
longer confusion.
Mr. Cota said he was glad to see that last change as it is very important for the DRB. He asked if there is
field delineation so it can be determined what resources are actually on people’s land. Ms. Louisos said
that because the Arrowwood study was done by remote observation, there are options for landowners
as to how a line can be adjusted without damage to a habitat block. There are specific criteria to do this,
and major changes would require a biologist to weigh in. Mr. Conner noted that field delineation is very
good for wetlands, but habitat blocks and forested areas are new. He said the draft tries to create
certainty so there aren’t “battling experts.”
Mr. Barritt asked if there is anything to prevent logging in habitat blocks. Mr. Conner said there isn’t,
but any logging has to be part of a forestry operation. The State would look at any logging to be sure it
is ongoing (not just to create a lawn) and that the staging area is appropriate.
5. Overview of proposed Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and related subdivision and
master plans: function, role, and appearance of different types:
Mr. Conner showed the guidelines for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) type of PUD.
These include:
4
a. Principally residential development over 65% of the buildable area
b. Fairly compact development
c. Removal of NRP, Level 1 and Hazards from the developable area
d. 15% “civic space” (e.g., park, central green area)
e. 5% mixed use (e.g., a community building)
f. 15% unallocated (e.g., wetland, stormwater pond, etc.)
Mr. Conner then showed a chart of what a TND could look like, how it could be laid out with a mix of
building types, central civic space, etc. He said that density in a TND is dependent on the lot layout. A
mix of building types would be required, and there would be a minimum density to set a target pattern
on a neighborhood scale to ensure that the infrastructure is financially sustainable and to provide
certainty.
Mr. Conner then explained the nature of a Conservation PUD where 70% of the land must be conserved.
The land owner is then entitled to build on the 30% the total amount of development that would have
been allowed on the entire property based on the underlying zoning. Ms. Louisos noted that the
footprint of development in a TND and a Conservation PUD would be different. Mr. Conner said that for
properties with a lot of resources, a Conservation PUD may be the more appropriate choice.
Ms. Emery asked how a TND would work with TDRs. Mr. Conner said it would remain the same as
today. A person could reserve some portion of a property for future possible development. Ms. Emery
asked if there are any new TDRs. Mr. Conner said there may be, but that hasn’t been fully sorted out
yet. Ms. Louisos added that they are not currently adding TDRs.
Ms. Emery said she would like to see more industry and “noisy” manufacturing along Shelburne Road.
She also wants to bring residential close to Tilley Drive, including employees for nearby businesses. She
felt that residential development should go near transit, and she was all for density in areas with transit.
She wasn’t comfortable with 10 units per acre where there is no mass transit. She felt there were many
ways to bring in affordable housing. She added that areas further out should be left for future
development.
Ms. Greco said she did not agree with short-term planning.
Mr. Barritt noted he had seen more electric cars on the road today and anticipated seeing many more in
the future which could affect the concern with fossil fuels. He said he supports both the TND and
Conservation PUDs and felt they would lead to new, responsible development and protection of
resources.
Mr. Riehle said one question that needs to be addressed with the School Board is how many more
homes can be built before there is a need for a new school. Ms. Riehle said that can be a topic for a
Steering Committee meeting.
5
Mr. Cota asked whether a property owner/developer can choose between a TND and a Conservation
PUD. Mr. Conner said there are circumstances when an option makes sense (e.g., when there is 80%
wetland). Elsewhere it is open for discussion: should it be a developer’s choice?
Mr. Cota asked if there are mitigating factors such as “meet these criteria and you can have a TND.” Mr.
Mittag said he would like to see a choice to build fewer units and conserve more.
Mr. Cota cited the Ewing plan to conserve a portion of the land and have the rest for development.
Mr. Strong asked about protection for riparian connectivity. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is looking
at every location where there is a water resource and are creating buffering, actually the largest buffers
in the state. Also, instead of using state-level data, the Commission looked at where there is actual
habitat. This goes beyond what was done in the past.
Ms. Riehle said she had some concerns with aspects of what the Commission is recommending and was
puzzled by allowing a road across a resource even though there are standards.
When questioned, the Council asked to receive Articles 10 & 12 first and then get the PUDs as a second
package.
The joint portion of the meeting ended here by common consent at 7:03 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION 13 APRIL 2021
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 April 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. Rabidoux, Public Works Director;
D. Leban, T. Woodard, G. Babcock, R. Greco, Wayne, D. Peters, Ewelina, A. Crocker, E.
Sutherland, E. Borsellino, K. Borsellino D. Weaver, S. Dopp, M. Janusczyk, C. Trombly, J. Stinnett,
G. Kjelleren, D. & S. Haggerty, J. Necrason, T. Doyle, C. Chamberlain, D. Weaver, J. Dahls, L.
Ravin, Laura, S. Dooley, Sue, Ted, T. Doyle
1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Ostby said she did a summary on South Burlington Community Watch comparing Article 12
mappings.
Ms. Louisos said she will do another submission to The Other Paper with one of the maps.
There was no staff report.
4. Consider changing the date of Public Hearing on LDR-20-01 (Environmental Protection
Standards) to avoid conflict with another city meeting:
Mr. Mittag moved to change the previous 18 May public hearing date to Thursday, 20 May, due
to a conflict with the DRB meeting. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Discuss and prepare feedback to City Council on I-89 Corridor Study Interchange
alternatives: weighing of objectives and preferred options:
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
2
Mr. Conner noted the City Council had a presentation from the RPC with updated metrics and 7
new criteria. There is a question as to whether all 7 goals should be weighted equally; the City
Council seemed to feel the Safety should be weighted more.
Mr. Rabidoux said the attempt now is to narrow down alternatives. The Committee has spent
dozens of hours getting to this point. The Council is looking to advance certain designs and
would prefer input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Rabidoux noted he is on the project
technical committee.
Ms. Louisos noted that the new information provided includes total scores which point to one
of the alternatives. She presented the scoring page on the screen.
Ms. Ostby asked if a change to Exit 14 is a “given.” Mr. Rabidoux said it would be a leap to
assume there will be two $40,000,000 projects located 2 miles from each other. He felt the Exit
14 and either 12B or 13 will be competing for the funding pot.
Mr. Mittag said his take is for something at 14 and one of the other two. If that’s not the case,
the job gets harder. Mr. Rabidoux said 14 is an existing asset. It will need some level of
investment at some time.
Mr. MacDonald said that makes the decision easy. 14 is functional. 13 is existing, and
completing it is a no-brainer. However, the cost is astronomically higher than the other two.
Mr. Rabidoux said it is easier to build from scratch than to ‘retro.”
Mr. Engels said he was glad to see the scoring was high for a diamond interchange at 13. He
felt that was the best thing they could do. 14 has been redone a few times. It is time for 13 to
be fully viable in all directions.
Mr. Riehle said he would lean that way as well as it is better for City Center. He was not sure he
was comfortable with all the forecast numbers for jobs, etc.
Mr. Mittag felt 13 was the best option as it gives quick access to City Center and a direct line to
the Airport. The total cost is less than 12B. Mr. MacDonald said he was just looking at the
construction costs.
Ms. Ostby said the second best thing for South Burlington would be the bike/ped crossing south
of 14. She asked if retail could be included if that crossing were fully enclosed. Mr. Rabidoux
said that would be a pipe dream in Vermont. The State doesn’t have full-service rest areas. He
would be surprised if the city got permission to commercialize that space in any way.
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
3
Members supported telling the City Council of their support for an enclosed bike/ped crossing.
Mr. Engels asked Mr. Rabidoux if the city is tracking the infrastructure bill in Congress. Mr.
Rabidoux said both he and Mr. Conner have provided testimony to Chittenden County
representatives. There is a list of projects queued up. Mr. Rabidoux added that the current list
has some “strange strings” attached to it.
Mr. Rabidoux noted that the State wants the city to take over Routes 7 and 116. He said that
before that happens, he would want the State to increase the “per mile” compensation the city
gets from the State.
Mr. Conner asked members if they want to push for one of the alternatives at Exit 13. Ms.
Louisos noted that almost all members mentioned the diamond option, and it had the highest
score.
Public comment was then solicited.
Both Ms. Dopp and Ms. Leban supported the diamond option at Exit 13.
Ms. Ostby the moved that the Planning Commission support the Exit 13 single point diamond
option as its top priority. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Gagnon then moved that the Planning Commission support continued study and
implementation of a pedestrian crossing at Exit 14. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
6. Review and discuss Swift Street Extension and other east-west connections currently
included in the Comprehensive Plan and/or Official City Map:
Mr. Conner reviewed the history and noted that since the road was put on the official map, a
number of issues have arisen including forest blocks, transportation goals for bikes, and access
for emergency vehicles.
Mr. MacDonald asked what would trigger that road being built. Mr. Conner said significant
development on the Hill farm property will trigger the requirement for that road because it is
on the official map. He added that the Hill Farm is a very large property and would require
multiple accesses. Mr. Mittag said there could be 2 accesses from Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Conner
acknowledged that to be correct. Mr. Mittag also noted that when the official map was done
there was really only one east-west road. There are now others including Midland Avenue.
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
4
Ms. Ostby said a lot has changed in 40 years. The west side of Dorset Street has become a
gathering place. She felt that anything that cuts through will create safety issues for children
and change the tone of the area. Mr. Riehle agreed. He felt that Kennedy Drive is
underutilized.
Mr. Gagnon agreed with not continuing with Swift St. Extension because of its closeness to
Kennedy Drive. But he noted it is quite a distance from Kennedy Drive to Cheesefactory Road
and wondered if another normal speed cut-across is appropriate in that stretch. He asked Mr.
Rabidoux whether that would be appropriate from the point of view of Fire Department access,
plowing, etc.
Mr. Rabidoux said the more connectivity you have, the better. He urged the Commission to
decide on what is the greater good. He said that as the city grows, there will need to be money
for city employees and vehicles or there will be less service.
Mr. Gagnon said he would opt for looking at an efficient way to get across.
Mr. Conner said that is a good observation. Swift Street Extension would take traffic from a
road not at full capacity. He said he wouldn’t advocate for a high-speed east-west road, but
connectivity is important.
Ms. Ostby said she supports what Mr. Gagnon recommends, but the challenge is that any
alternative will go through the NRP. She favors better access for the Fire Department. The
question is which habitat block will be the least impacted. She also noted that such a road
could reduce Shelburne Rd. traffic.
Mr. Mittag asked about Old Cross Road Extension and noted the city has a right-of-way almost
all the way through. He added that Swift St. Extension would have a significant Class 2 wetland
to cross. He felt it was not the right place for a road.
Mr. MacDonald agreed that Swift Street Extension doesn’t make sense any more, but he agreed
with Mr. Gagnon about the need for a functional east-west connection between Kennedy Drive
and Cheesefactory Rd.
Ms. Louisos noted there is another such road shown on the map almost half-way between
those 2 roads.
Mr. Conner showed the map with an approved connection that is beginning construction now.
It is very circuitous. He also indicated other planned connections.
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
5
Mr. Gagnon then moved to proceed with steps to remove Swift Street Extension from the
Official City Map. Ms. Ostby seconded.
Ms. Louisos said it might be helpful to retain a path right-of-way to accomplish walkability
goals. She wanted to be sure that option isn’t removed.
Mr. MacDonald asked what the negatives are about removing Swift St. Extension. Mr. Conner
enumerated these as follows:
a. There is only one emergency access in/out of Village at Dorset Park
b. People who live in Butler Farms and want to take kids to hockey practice
have to take the long way around
c. With fewer connections, there is more pressure on existing roads over time
Mr. Conner said the negatives may not outweigh the positives. He urged the Commission to be
as clear as possible as to whether they want a right-of-way or a path, etc.
Mr. Gagnon then amended his motion to include the words: but retain accessibility for a
bike/ped use path for connectivity.
Mr. Mittag noted that in 30 years there have been no problems at Village at Dorset Park. Mr.
Engels asked what is there now. Ms. Ostby said there is a stream that is not passable, but there
is a path on the other side of the stream.
Ms. Louisos then reviewed comments in the “chat box” as follows:
Ms. Greco: More roads is counter to the Comprehensive Plan.
Donald: We owe it to future generations to oppose the Extension.
Cathy: It is safer to remove the road.
Kelly: Remove it.
Tom: What is the procedure to remove the road?
Ms. Louisos said there would be a draft at a future meeting. It would then be warned for public
hearing by the Commission and then for public hearing by the City Council. That would take
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
6
several months. Mr. Conner said there would also have to be an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan so things line up.
Mr. Riehle asked if the DRB would have to take into account a path. Mr. Conner said until there
is an official change, the DRB is in a tricky situation.
Ms. Dopp said she supports removing the road and agrees with a bike/walking connection.
Mr. Conner said he would advise the owners of the Hill Farm, and they can weigh in at the
same time as everyone else.
In the vote that followed, the motion was passed unanimously.
Mr. Gagnon then moved to ask staff to put the question of alternate connections on an agenda
after work on the LDRs and PUDs is complete. Ms. Ostby seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Conner noted that when the Commission adopted the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the road
connection from Deerfield to IDX Drive was determined to be removed. It is still on the Official
City Map. He suggested removing that road at the same time as Swift St. Ext. Members agreed.
7. Meeting Minutes of 23 March and 31 March 2021;
Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 23 and 31 March. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
8. Other Business:
A. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the
Shelburne Zoning Bylaw, Thursday, 22 April 2021, 7 p.m. via zoom:
Mr. Conner noted Shelburne is trying to streamline things. They are no longer going to require
a zoning permit for interior renovations. He noted that staff is looking at things learned from
COVID, like letting small changes happen quickly (e.g., outdoor seating).
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 8:52 p.m.
Planning Commission
13 April 2021
7
These minutes were approved by the Planning Commission on ____________________.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 1 of 6
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 April 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: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; T. Newton, CCRPC; C. Shaw, C. Thrall,
D. Long, C. & A. Long, F. MacDonald, A. Strong, D. Kaufman, C. Trombly, J. Jimenez, J. Bellivance,
R. Greco, S Dopp, Dave, K. Ryder, S. Dooley, A. Chalnick, A. Hart, L. Ravin, D. Seff, Larry K., D.
Martinez, Michael
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:
Mr. MacDonald reported that he attended the third meeting of the Swift/Spear Streets
Committee. The consultant came back with the results of the survey and presented 3
alternatives. Mr. MacDonald said he suggested the consultant report to the Planning
Commission in late June.
Ms. Ostby noted she attended the Economic Development Committee meeting last night. The
Committee asked why they had not heard from the Planning Commission. Mr. Mittag, who also
attended that meeting, said he thought the Committee expected the Planning Commission to
do some work that he feels the Committee should do. He also asked them always to consider
integrating climate change into their discussions.
Ms. Louisos noted that the City Manager had asked her to attend the Economic Development
Committee meeting. She was surprised when the agenda made it seem like she was
participating in discussions regarding the airport. The Committee seemed disappointed that
the Planning Commission hadn’t done anything about the airport in the past. There is a request
from the Airport to look at areas now zoned residential. Ms. Louisos said she is looking to bring
forward a proposal to form a sub-committee to include Planning Commission and City Council
members and others. This will be on one of next month’s agendas.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 2 of 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL2021
PAGE 2
Ms. Louisos also announced that Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner is now a father.
Mr. Engels noted that he and Ms. Ostby visited the Long property that is being proposed for
development. He felt field trips should be mandatory as there is nothing like being there and
seeing the property. He noted the same family has owned and lived on the property since the
late 1800s.
Mr. Engels also said he would be happy to serve on an Airport committee.
4. Presentation & pubic input forum on draft Environmental Protection Standards
Amendments to the Land Development Regulations:
Ms. Louisos noted this was a public input session, not a place for Commission members to
debate. She also noted that Taylor Newton from Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission was present to help with technical questions.
Mr. Gagnon asked that there not be repetitive comments. Ms. Louisos added that emailed
comments and comments in the “chat box” are gathered and will be distributed to members
following the meeting.
Ms. Ostby noted there had been a question as to whether farming is allowed in a Class 3
wetland. Mr. Newton said he would check on this. He assumed it would have to be a larger
farming operation to meet the agricultural exemptions.
Ms. Ravin, representing UVM, said UVM has been following the Commission sessions. The
University has several large parcels, almost all covered with habitat blocks. They want to be a
good steward of the land but also a good steward of UVM which raises the question of UVM’s
expectations to use those parcels over many years. Ms. Ravin stressed that UVM is anxious to
work with the city regarding protection and usable value of UVM land.
Mr. Jiminez, a resident of Butler Farms, said he is alarmed by the floodplain overlay district as it
seems like it’s going right up to his property. He asked why a floodplain would change so that
they are limited as to what they can do with their property. Are they prohibited from putting
up a shed or greenhouse?
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 3 of 6
Ms. Louisos said the 500-year flood plain already exists and is identified by FEMA. What is new
is that it is now included in city regulations. The aim is to protect a homeowner’s investments
and to avoid having new homes with that risk. Mr. Newton said the 500-year floodplain is
considered a “B-1 Flood Plain.” It was previously not regulated by the city. He noted that page
10 of the LDRs has a list of exempted development (e.g., maintenance of existing structures,
etc.). New accessory structures are allowed in the B-1 area but would have to meet standards
(pages 13-14) including being less than 500 sq. ft. in size, securing a zoning permit, and being
“flood-proofed.” No DRB hearing would be required.
Mr. Thrall, who lives near Mr. Jiminez, asked for a definition of “substantial improvement.” Mr.
Newton said it is a FEMA definition: an improvement that is greater than 50% of the value of
the structure. He added this may be a higher percentage in the B-1 area. Mr. MacDonald said
it is 75%. Mr. Thrall asked what a “fully enclosed area below grade” is. He said they have an
unfinished basement they were hoping to finish. Mr. Newton said “fully enclosed” is anything
with a door to it that is below grade. There is a technical bulletin from FEMA that defines what
is/is not a fully enclosed basement. Mr. Newton said the rules would allow finishing the
basement as long as it is not a “substantial improvement,” meaning it does not exceed 75% of
the value of the home.
Mr. Chalnick asked what is newly protected on the interactive mapping. Ms. Louisos
acknowledged it is hard to see where new areas are beyond the NRP areas. Ms. Greco
suggested a map of the city with magic marker tracing around the newly protected areas. She
also wanted to see any current protections that have been taken away. Ms. Ostby noted that
on one map there are some blue-hatched areas of riparian that are not now protected. She
noted that the maps do the best they can, but areas would have to be field-delineated.
Mr. Strong asked what newly protected areas are wetlands. Ms. Louisos said she would see if
that can be provided.
Mr. Long thanked Ms. Ostby and Mr. Engels for coming to look at the Long property. They are
planning to develop the 39 acres they own on Spear Street. 22 of those acres are already
conserved. The new regulations take away 6 more acres, and they are concerned that with the
wetland buffer increase, they will lose value of their property. He cited the need to have a
balance as there is also a citywide need for housing. There has been a decrease of 55,000
people under the age of 25 in Vermont. The state now has the 3 rd “oldest population” in the
country. There is a need for young people to stay in Vermont. He could not understand why
South Burlington has to have wider buffers than the State regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 4 of 6
Ms. Dopp was concerned that grasslands don’t seem to be adequately addressed in the
regulations. Ms. Louisos said some of those lands do have protection as buffers and other
protections thought they are not separately protected.
Ms. Greco said that agricultural land should also be protected.
Ms. Dooley noted that there was a statement made at a different committee that technically
there are no grasslands in Vermont. Mr. Strong said that is incorrect.
Ms. Louisos explained how the Commission addressed protection of riparian areas under the
direction of the person who came up with Biofinder.
Ms. Greco asked whether time of year matters for wetland designation. Ms. Louisos said you
cannot do a wetland delineation outside the growing season.
Ms. Dooley asked if there is native grassland in Vermont. Ms. Louisos said Mr. Strong says the
Champlain Valley has 360,000 acres of managed grasslands, some of which is in New York. It is
managed mainly for dairy.
Mr. Seff asked if South Burlington has had a disproportionate amount of development in the
past. Mr. Newton said CCRPC has been tracking the number of new homes in past years. There
have been a lot of new housing starts in South Burlington in the past 5 years. Whether this is a
disproportionate share depends on how you look at political boundaries. The goal is to look at
housing and environmental protection regionally. There are also reasons for development in
South Burlington. Mr. Newton stressed that CCRPC has no regulatory authority over
communities. Their aim is to help communities meet their goals and to try to concentrate
development in areas already developed, not in rural areas. Mr. Gagnon suggested checking
the CCRPC website for housing starts per town.
Ms. Ravin asked when UVM’s comments will be addressed. Ms. Ostby asked if the Commission
is waiting for something from UVM. Ms. Ravin said UVM will get something specific to the
Commission. Ms. Louisos said as the regulations are written, UVM is not treated any differently
than any other property owners. Mr. Riehle noted the Commission has been waiting for years
for UVM plans for their properties. Ms. Ravin noted the UVM master plan is currently being
updated. Ms. Ostby added that Arrowwood did not look at ownership of land, just the
resources on the land.
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 5 of 6
5. Review of possible questions to share with City Council as follow-up to the joint
Council/Commission meeting:
Ms. Louisos noted the City Council will be having a follow-up discussion on 3 May regarding the
joint meeting. She felt it would be helpful if the Commission could give the Council a “prompt”
for that discussion. She referred to a draft of different options and a map of what would still
have development potential.
Mr. Reihle said his preferred would be to give a landowner a choice of a TND or a Conservation
PUD.
Mr. Mittag said he thought the northern end of the SEQ is not correctly shown. Ms. Louisos
said that is not part of the SEQ zoning district. It is Industrial-Open Space zoning. She noted
that there is a difference between what is called the Southeast Quadrant and what is in the SEQ
zoning district.
Ms. Ostby noted the Affordable Housing Committee has suggested adding a review every 25
years which could change what is conserved with specific criteria. Mr. Riehle said that in reality
it could change every year with changes on the City Council.
Mr. MacDonald questioned whether 70% of a Conservation PUD has to be covered with Level1
or hazards. Ms. Louisos said she didn’t think the Commission had a specific level of resources.
Mr. MacDonald said that should be a question for the Council.
Ms. Ostby questioned whether the Commission is comfortable with someone with no Level 1 or
hazards to have a Conservation PUD. Ms. Louisos said it is clear that would be taking otherwise
developable land and making it a Conservation PUD.
Ms. Dooley noted that comments from the Affordable Housing Committee will be forwarded to
the Council separately. The Committee is particularly concerned with the option to have only
Conservation PUDs in the SEQ, as this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In a straw poll of members, there was unanimous approval of continuing to offer the choice of a
TND or Conservation PUD. Ms. Ostby did express concern that this could lead to
“unpredictability.”
PLANNING COMMISSION
27 APRIL 2021
Page 6 of 6
Ms. Dooley was concerned that the “choice paragraph” was not balanced, and you get the
negative sides of the choice, not the positive.
6. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned
by common consent at 9:17 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Planning Commission on …..
1
MMMEEEMMMOOORRRAAANNNDDDUUUMMM
TO: Chair of Planning Commission
Milton
Burlington
Essex Town
Essex Junction
Winooski
Westford
South Hero
South Burlington
Charles Baker, Executive Director, CCRPC
VT Department of Community Development
FROM: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning
DATE: April 26, 2021
RE: Notice of Supplement 43 to the Colchester Development Regulations and
Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendment
Continuation Sheet
Pursuant to Title 24 VSA, Chapter 117, the Colchester Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7 P.M. via Zoom at
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9359846003 for the purpose of considering ame ndments of the
Colchester Development Regulations. The proposed amendments are as follows:
1. Added Section 2.07E(10) exempting small chicken coops from permits.
2. Clarified in Section 2.09A standards for accessory buildings exceeding
50% of principal structure size.
3. Amend Section 2.09B(1)(e) to exclude unenclosed structures from max
allowable sq. footage of accessory apartments.
4. Modify Section 4.03 Table 6A(d) residential garages with doors facing a C
Street.
5. Amend Section 6.03F(1) from one foot to two feet.
6. Clarified Section 8.03B to reference 24 V.S.A. Section 4413.
7. Clarify Section 9.07D(4) exemption is for all GD Districts and not just
GD3.
8. Clarify pavement types in Section 10.01C and added 10.01C7-9 regarding
electric vehicle charging.
9. Clarified bike rack location in Section 10.01K.
10. Add to Section 10.01M that additional commercial vehicles may be
permitted on residential properties in conjunction with a home business
2
use.
11. Amended Section 10.08B(3) to be 10 ft. max height for solar panel instead
of 8 ft.
12. Amended Section 9.02 and 9.04 to require parcel ids on plans subdivision
plans.
13. Add Section 10.01M(5) for commercial vehicles in home businesses.
14. Clarified Section 11.05A expirations to be for tank wastewater permits.
15. Amend Section 12.20 definitions for Congregate Housing, Hospice Care
Home, Nursing Care Institution, Mental Health Facility, and Residential
Care Home to reference 33 V.S.A Section 7102
16. Amend Section 12.02 to add a definition of Group Quarters and Lowest
Horizontal Member. Amend the definition of Dormitory to reflect Group
Quarters.
17. Amend Table A-1 to add Group Quarters. Add 4.230 Landscape
contractor’s yard as conditional use to GD Districts and Lumber
contractor’s yard (4.210) as a conditional use to GD2. Add 9.210
Warehousing and 9.230 Archival Facility as conditional use to GD2.
18. Rezone parcel id# 64-004002-0000000 IND to R1.
19. Rezone parcel id# 64-005002-0000000 IND to R1.
These are a summary of the proposed changes. The existing and proposed regulations
can be found at the Town Offices at 781 Blakely Road and may also be reviewed on-line
at http://www.colchestervt.gov.
1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal
plan, including the effe ct of the proposal on the availability of safe and
affordable housing:
The proposed amendment includes mostly housekeeping clarifications that specify
existing processes.
2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal
plan:
The proposed amendment clarifies existing regulation and does not change densities
or land use with the exception of two parcels that are proposed to be rezoned from
Industrial to Residential One. These two parcels are each developed with single-
fa mily residences within an existing residential neighborhood and the rezoning will
make these residential uses conforming without impacting density.
3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community
facilities.
The proposed changes to the regulations will not impact planned community
facilities.