Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Planning Commission - 05/20/2021South Burlington Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sburl.com Special Meeting Thursday, May 20, 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: https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc-2021-05-20 Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3112 Access Code: 886-368-509 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. *Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations: (7:15 pm) LDR-20-01, modifications to Environmental Protection Standards, including existing 100-year floodplain, river corridor, stream buffer, wetland & wetland buffer, and stormwater management standards; establishment of standards regarding 500-year (0.2%) floodplain, habitat block, habitat connector, steep slope, and very steep slope standards; establishment of criteria to evaluate undue adverse effect; and related amendments referencing the above-listed resources. 5. Review public input on draft amendments; consider any possible changes; possible action to approve draft amendments and submit to the City Council (8:15 pm) 6. Minutes: May 4, 2021 (8:55 pm) 7. Other Business (8:58 pm) a. Review upcoming meeting schedule 8. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Respectfully submitted, Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning South Burlington Planning Commission Virtual Meeting Public Participation Guidelines 1. The Planning Commission Chair presents these guidelines for the public attending Planning Commission meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. 2. In general, keep your video off and microphone on mute. Commission members, staff, and visitors currently presenting / commenting will have their video on. 3. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Commission. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all commissioners first. After the Commission has discussed an item, the Chair will ask for public comment. 4. Please raise your hand identify yourself to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. To identify yourself, turn on your video and raise your hand, if participating by phone you may unmute yourself and verbally state your interest in commenting, or type a message in the chat. 5. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Commission. 6. If the Commission suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Commission to to complete the agenda. 7. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other participants or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. 8. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others. You may indicate that you support a similar viewpoint. Indications of support are most efficiently added to the chat. 9. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow all participants who are interested in speaking to speak once to allow other participants to address the Commission before addressing the Commission for a second time. 10. The Planning Commission desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Planning Commission meeting is an opportunity for commissioners to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Regular Planning Commission meetings are not “town meetings”. A warned public hearing is a fuller opportunity to explore an issue, provide input and influence public opinion on the matter. 11. Comments may be submitted before, during or after the meeting to the Planning and Zoning Department. All written comments will be circulated to the Planning Commission and kept as part of the City Planner's official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. Email submissions are most efficient and should be addressed to the Director of Planning and Zoning at pconner@sburl.com and Chair at jlouisos@sburl.com. 12. The Chat message feature is new to the virtual meeting platform. The chat should only be used for items specifically related to the agenda item under discussion. The chat should not be used to private message Commissioners or staff on policy items, as this pulls people away from the main conversation underway. Messages on technical issues are welcome at any time. The Vice-Chair will monitor the chat and bring to the attention of Commissioners comments or questions relevant to the discussion. Chat messages will be part of the official meeting minutes. 13. In general discussions will follow the order presented in the agenda or as modified by the Commission. 14. The Chair, with assistance from staff, will give verbal cues as to where in the packet the discussion is currently focused to help guide participants. 15. The Commission will try to keep items within the suggested timing published on the agenda, although published timing is a guideline only. The Commission will make an effort to identify partway through a meeting if agenda items scheduled later in the meeting are likely not be covered and communicate with meeting participants any expected change in the extent of the agenda. There are times when meeting agendas include items at the end that will be covered “if time allows”. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo DATE: May 20, 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. *Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations: (7:15 pm) Tonight will be the formal public hearing on the draft amendments. Draft regulations: Enclosed with your packet are the draft Amendments & accompanying Report as warned for the public hearing (mark-up version). A full CLEAN version [showing the draft with amendments “accepted” for easier readability) is available on the project web page: https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/planning_and_zoning/draft_environmental_protection_st andards.php Legal Review and minor policy recommendations: Deputy City Attorney Amanda Lafferty is wrapping up her detailed legal review of the draft LDR amendments. This will be completed Monday, sent to Commissioners, and posted to the City’s website at that time. In the meantime, the enclosed packet has the following summaries of proposed legal & minor policy recommendations: 1. Memo from Taylor Newton, CCRPC, regarding a handful of relatively minor changes he is recommending. These are based on technical input he heard at the initial listening sessions as well as on follow-through on a handful of items that he had been awaiting hearing back from the county forester on. 2. Memo from Amanda Lafferty, Deputy City Attorney. Amanda’s memo outlines areas she will be making recommended legal edits to. 5. Review public input on draft amendments; consider any possible changes; possible action to approve draft amendments and submit to the City Council (8:15 pm) Per the Commission’s request, staff has compiled the public comments received to date on the draft LDRs into a single spreadsheet and grouped the comments by topic area. This includes comments received from 2 the start of the input period through May 14 and includes the oral comments provided at the two listening sessions as well as those received in writing. As always, following the hearing you are welcome to make any changes you see fit and then may take the action to submit the amendments and accompanying Planning Commission Report to the City Council. If the Commission decides to make any changes of significance, we would request the ability to complete a legal review before the Commission takes action. 6. Minutes: May 4, 2021 (8:55 pm) 7. Other Business (8:58 pm) a. Review upcoming meeting schedule 8. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Page 1 of 1 To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Taylor Newto n, Senior Planner Date: May 11, 2021 Re: Article 10 and Article 12 Edits – Post Listening Sessions The following is a summary of edits to Section 10.01 and Article 12 completed by CCRPC in early Ma y 2021: Summary of Edits by Section Definitions 1. Added a definition for “Core Habitat Block Area ” based on the Arrowwood Environmental Habitat Block Assessment. Section 10.01 Floodplain Overlay District 1. Removed a reference to the stream and surface water buffer in Section 10.01(G)(4). This buffer no longer exists because it has been combined with River Corridor. Section 12.03 Wetland Protection Standards 1. Revised Section 12.03(D)(4)(a) to allow for roadways up to 24 feet in width instead of 20 feet. This better reflects typical roadway width. Section 12.05 Habitat Blocks 1. Revised Section 12.05(D)(2) to clarify that areas subject to a small on-site Habitat Block exchange can be separated from the existing Habitat Block on -site. Also, clarified that those areas with larger, mature trees on-site should be prioritized for retention if the property owner requests a small on-site Habitat Block ex change. Section 12.06 Habitat Connectors 1. Rephrased the standard in Section 12.06(C) to better explain the intent of a restoration plan if an applicant applies to relocate a Habitat Connector. Section 12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment 1. Inclusion of a project on the Official Map has been explicitly included as a “Qualifying Criteria” under Section 12.10(C). 110 West Canal Street, Suite 202 Winooski, VT 05404-2109 802-846-4490 www.ccrpcvt.org Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 100 ‐ foot setback vs. 50 ‐ foot ‐ what is the rational and what would be accomplished? Does not take  into account the topography of the land, stormwater systems, etc.? Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Wetlands Policy Wetland regulations: Why is it necessary to have greater restrictions than the state mandates? The state rules are  already different than the federal rules so this would create greater confusion. Wil there be flexibility in allowing a  certain percentage of class III wetland encroachment.  Sometime a small sliver of wetlands can cause a big  problem for a project that could normally proceed under the state regulations. Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Wetlands Policy For the  town to have its own definition and rules for wetlands on top of federal and state rules again seems  overly restrictive and confusing. This seems very unnecessary especially when it could negatively impact individual  small lot property owners and impinge on their property rights. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Wetlands Policy 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.  Personally, 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)? Roseanne  Greco 4/23/2021 Wetlands Policy 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/23/2021 Wetlands Policy 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. Chris Shaw 5/3/2021 Wetlands Policy 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. Alan Long 5/3/2021 Wetlands Policy 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? Alan Long 5/3/2021 Wetlands Policy 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. Alan Long 5/3/2021 Wetlands Policy 1 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 3rd “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.   Alan Long 4/27/2021 Wetlands Policy Mr. O’Brien stressed that he does not like to fill wetlands.  The intent should be to have the new LDRs fall in line  with the regulations in other layers of the process.  He noted that Vermont wetland rules don’t taken Class 3  wetlands under their jurisdiction.  The Army Corps of Engineers doesn’t require buffers even around a Class 2  wetland.  The State used to regulate Class 3 wetlands but stopped because their realized that so much of state  land would qualify as Class 3.  He noted that you can technically have a Class 3 wetland on your front lawn.  He  felt the City should align with the State or Federal requirements.  The Federal requirements allow up to ½ acre  which is more meaningful than 300 sq. ft.  Mr. O’Brien said, “300 square feet is ridiculous.”  He also noted that it  won’t be possible to get verification of a delineation, and the DRB will ask for that and have to hire someone to  do it.  Mr. O’Brien said an area starts to function as a wetland at half an acre.  He also noted that if you are close  to that half acre, you have to have the State come out.   Patrick O'Brien 5/4/2021 Wetlands Policy Mr. O’Brien noted that had testified in Montpelier as to whether to allow for stormwater treatment in buffer  zones.  He urged that all buffer zones be treated the same, and that if the 100‐foot buffer is kept, to allow for  stormwater treatment in the buffers. Patrick O'Brien 5/4/2021 Wetlands Policy Mr. O’Brien also said he understands the need to allow farming to continue and noted that farming is  regulated/allowed under different wetland rules.  He asked the Commission not to handicap the DRB so it can’t  allow farming in a wetland or in open space areas in the future as this could lead to unintended consequences. Patrick O'Brien 5/4/2021 Wetlands Policy it would be great to get some tweaks in the regulations so they would be more in line.  He said that in a perfect  world, the LDRs would mimic the rules of the State, Reds, and Army Corps of Engineers.  He specifically noted that  under the 500‐year flood plain regulations regarding steep slopes, the Commission is allowing clarification by the  applicant via Lidar data instead of an on‐ground survey.  Mr. O’Brien said he has found Lidar to be inadequate.  An  on‐ground survey would bring in another level of accuracy. Patrick O'Brien 5/4/2021 Steep Slopes Policy Infrastructure encroachment: Would the new regulations prevent, or allow a party to appeal, a future project  such as Swift Street extension and Exit 12B? Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Restricted  Infrastructure Policy Additionally provisions should be included in the PUD/LDR’s that make it clear that future infrastructure projects  such as roads, bike paths, utility easements, etc., will be allowed to be built across habitat and forest blocks  without the threat of a permit appeal. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Restricted  Infrastructure Policy 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? 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? Loretta  Marriott 4/30/2021 Restricted  Infrastructure Policy Ms. Marriott said the road goes through a wetland and crosses Potash Brook.  She asked if that is permitted.  She  wondered how that fit with the regulations.   Loretta  Marriott 5/4/2021 Restricted  Infrastructure Policy Invasive species may be removed in any situation?Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Will private land ownership be restricted for forest blocks and habitat areas? What are the impacts to  activities like kids playing in the woods, tree houses, leaf piles, composting, climbing ropes in trees,  removal of rotten trees, etc.  (discuss Deer Run neighborhood in Shelburne experience with Trees and  habitat) Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy May any portion of a habitat or forest block be developed? This is especially important if it represent a significant  portion of the entire lot. Jeff Nick 3/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy It is not apparent that Article 12 reflects the designation of  types of buffers (or does it have much narrower  buffers?) for habitat blocks. Ray Gonda,  NRCC 3/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Do the draft regs provide protection for the valuable buffer areas highlighted by the IZ‐commissioned report from  Arrowwood? Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Do the habitat blocks align with those identified in the Arrowwood report?  Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy What was the reason for deleting the words “conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan” from the  draft regs.  These areas are referenced in the current LDRs. Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy The definition of Habitat Block from the draft LDR amendments dated March 11, 2021 stating: “Contiguous  forested areas and adjacent unmanaged shrubby areas of old field, young forest and unmanaged wetlands as  demarked on the Natural Resources map” is extremely concerning. Does this mean the boundaries of the natural  resources map will be expanded to capture this broader definition? As a corollary to this concern it seems counter  intuitive to encourage habitat along the interstate corridor for obvious reasons. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy The PUD regulations should allow for some development within forest blocks especially those properties with  large percentage of forested areas. Otherwise, overly restrictive regulations could be seen as a taking. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 2 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 To prevent individual homeowners from owning woodlands and instead demand that these areas be held in  common seems counter to individual property rights. Surely the town can trust each homeowner to be  responsible owners of mature trees especially if the house lots include ample open yard space. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Specifically, for the Hill Farm at 835 Hinesburg Rd., the Environmental Hazards level 1 map does not conform with  what is actually on the ground and appears to be instead an attempt to block a future interstate exit if that idea  were to move forward. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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.  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. Francis  MacDonald 5/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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.  Francis  MacDonald 5/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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.  Francis  MacDonald 5/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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.  Frani 5/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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 3 rd 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. Chris Shaw 5/3/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy §12.01 (A): This section states that “[w]here there is conflict between subdivision or planned unit development  standards, and the standards in this article, the standard that imposes the greater restriction shall apply.” To the  extent that the Planning Commission (PC) is relying on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards to provide  relief from the adverse consequences of the prohibition against any development within Habitat Blocks, this  removes the PUD standards as a source for relief. See additional comments on PUD provisions below. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 3 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 §12.01(C)(1): UVM has requested guidance from the City on its interpretation of how §4413 restricts the  Development Review Board’s (DRB) review of UVM applications, particularly the applicability of Article 12 and the  Habitat Block standards. Some understanding of the City’s position is critical to UVM’s consideration of the  Environmental Protection Standards and how they will restrict its ability to use its lands within South Burlington. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Technical §12.01(D): As discussed in more detail in comments below, the PUD standards are not currently available for  several of the UVM parcels most affected by the Habitat Block restrictions since PUD review does not apply in the  I‐A district. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 7. §12.05(B): As shown on the Natural Resources Map, Habitat Blocks cover nearly 100% of the following UVM  parcels: a. Centennial Woods/Patchen Road Parcel ‐ 87 acres b. Edlund/Martin Parcel – 44 acres c. East Woods –  50 acres Hazards, Level 1 and II Resources, Habitat Blocks, and Habitat Connectors cover significant portions of  several other UVM parcels, including the Wheelock West and UVM Farm parcels. How would the presence of  extensive coverage of a parcel by a Habitat Block affect the applications of the LDRs requirements for density, lot  coverage, building coverage, setbacks, and other dimensional requirements? UVM parcels in the I‐A district are  not entitled to PUD consideration, which would allow some flexibility in the application of these standards. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy §12.05(B)(3): This section refers to Conservation Planned Unit Developments, which would not exist under the  LDRs with the proposed amendments. UVM understands that the PC has deferred discussion of modifications to  the PUD standards until after it has completed its work on the Environmental Protection Standards (EPS). This  deprives UVM of the relief from the adverse impacts of the Habitat Block restrictions that it has been relying on in  prior conversations with the City and the PC. Consideration of the EPS without the modifications to the PUD  standards puts UVM in an impossible position. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy §12.05(D): This section allows modifications to mapped Habitat Blocks as one form of relief from the Habitat  Block restrictions. The modification option, however, in not available under certain circumstances. “Land located  within the SEQ‐NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously approved as open space or  conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting development, subject to a conservation or density  reduction easement, or owned by a public entity shall not be eligible for any of the modification methods for  habitat blocks subject to this section.” (Emphasis added) We would assume that UVM would be considered a  “public entity”, and not eligible for this relief. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 10. §12.05(E): This section provides relief for parcels containing a combination of Hazards and Level I Resources  exceeding 70% of the total lot area, which would apply to at least three of the UVM parcels. UVM has several  concerns about this provision: a. Under (2), the DRB “may” approve exclusion of land within the Habitat Block  “not to exceed” 30% of the total lot area. This relief is entirely discretionary. Although it provides priorities for  lands to be excluded, it contains no standard for the DRB to apply in deciding whether to exclude any land or, if it  does decide to exclude land, how much up to the 30% maximum. If the intent is to have the DRB use the “undue  adverse effects” standard based on §12.01(A), that should be made clear. For the reasons contained in the  discussion of §3.04(H) above, the undue adverse effect standard provides little comfort or predictability for  owners with large Habitat Blocks, like UVM. b. It contains standards and terms that are subjective and undefined:  i. Since Habitat Blocks are defined as Level I Resources, this first priority would not allow the exclusion of any land.  ii. UVM agrees with the note indicating that “not characterized by a preponderance of mature trees” requires  definition. iii. Is “Core Habitat Block” defined? c. Subsection (b) Special Circumstances contains a vague reference  to an exclusion that “does not allow for a unified PUD consistent with the purposes of these regulations”. As  discussed elsewhere in these comments, the PUD standards are not available for the UVM parcels most affected  by the Habitat Block restrictions. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy §12.05(F): The general standard for Habitat Blocks is that “all lands within a Habitat Block must be left in an  undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition”. Particularly for the UVM parcels with 100% or near‐100% coverage  by Habitat Blocks, this removes all development potential for the parcel. UVM 5/11/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Mr. Nick said the definition of a habitat block is also very broad.  He noted that what is identified as a habitat  block on his land is not. Jeff Nick 5/4/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Mr. F. MacDonald questioned the procedures used for habitat blocks.  He was disappointed that the buffer was  subtracted from the block when typically the block is increased by the buffer.  It seemed to him that the buffer  was removed if the area was OK for development.  He cited 3 specific blocks (near South Village, Hill Farm and  Meadowland which are all planned for development. Francis  MacDonald 5/4/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy Mr. Nick also noted that habitat blocks don’t follow the edge of the forest on his land.  Mr. Nick noted they just  removed some invasives at the edges of the field, and that may be why they are showing up.  He asked that  corrections be made.  Jeff Nick 5/4/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Technical .  Mr. Nick said the habitat blocks seem to him like a “taking.” Jeff Nick 5/4/2021 Habitat Blocks‐ Connectors Policy 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. Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy 4 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 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 ” Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy 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.”  Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy 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. Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy 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.” Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy 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. Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 Grasslands Policy Ms. Dopp was concerned that grasslands don’t seem to be adequately addressed in the regulations.  Sarah Dopp    4/27/2021 Grasslands Policy 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. Sandy Dooley 4/27/2021 Grasslands Policy Include an Executive Summary written in lay terms for each Article which states the goals for the Article and how  the Article achieves those goals. SBLT 2/17/2021 General Technical Re‐draft the Articles using non‐technical and straightforward language; or add a supplemental layperson  version—similar to what is now required with other explanatory documents dealing with legal and medical  matters. SBLT 2/17/2021 General Technical 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 properties which could be developed using these new regulations, and how  these properties would look if maximally developed under Article 12 and 15. SBLT 2/17/2021 General Technical Spell out all acronyms before first using them, and include a glossary with these commonly used acronyms and  terms. SBLT 2/17/2021 General Technical Do the articles result in more land being conserved? Where is this land? SBLT 2/17/2021 General Policy Do the articles list stronger environmental protections? What are these measures? SBLT 2/17/2021 General Policy Will all of the future developments in the SEQ be conservation PUDs?  It would seem appropriate and in  agreement with the Comp Plan and the intent of IZ for any development in the SEQ to be a conservation PUD.   The Comp Plan (and the residents) want the SEQ to be, in large part, conserved.   Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 General Policy First and foremost the proposed regulations are exceeding complex and will likely lead to future litigation when  permits are appealed or development proposals are either denied or approved with extremely restrictive  conditions. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 General Policy 5 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Secondly, the mapping for forest blocks, habitat, and wetlands do not always follow the actual boundaries on the  ground. Therefore, to avoid confusion, I would urge the city to be more precise in the delineation of these areas  and allow applicants to bring in their own expert testimony when defining these boundaries. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 General Policy These are some of my concerns that I wanted to have on the record. While the PUD regulations seem  encouraging as they relate different areas of South Burlington and specifically to the Hill Farm, the LDR’s appear  overly restrictive. On a regional level the restrictive LDR’s could easily result in numerous unintended  consequences as development leapfrogs over South Burlington to more rural locations resulting in sprawl and  greater traffic. Given South Burlington’s location and Chittenden county’s future growth it seems that smart land  use policies should encourage growth closer to employment and commercial centers as well as the interstate. Jeff Nick 5/11/2021 General Policy Balance: the proposed rules balance two objectives essential to sustaining the City’s vitality ‐ conservation &  growth. Aff Housing  Com 4/2/2021 General Policy 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. Aff Housing  Com 4/2/2021 General Policy 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. Aff Housing  Com 4/2/2021 General Policy Stability and Permanence: inclusionary zoning brings stability to households having lesser means because they  can count on “forever” affordable rents or mortgage 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. Aff Housing  Com 4/2/2021 General Policy 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. Aff Housing  Com 4/2/2021 General Policy 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. Andrew  Chalnick 4/4/2021 General Policy 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. Andrew  Chalnick 4/4/2021 General Policy 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. UVM 4/6/2021 General Technical 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. UVM 4/6/2021 General Technical 6 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 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. UVM 4/6/2021 General Technical 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? Roseanne  Greco 4/22/2021 General Technical 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? Roseanne  Greco 4/22/2021 General Technical 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? Roseanne  Greco 4/23/2021 General Policy 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/24/2021 General Technical 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? Roseanne  Greco 4/24/2021 General Technical .  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. Roseanne  Greco 4/24/2021 General Policy 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.   Andrew  Chalnick 4/25/2021 General Technical 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). Andrew  Chalnick 4/25/2021 General Technical 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. Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 General Policy 7 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 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.  Alyson  Chalnick 4/26/2021 General Policy 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. Andrew  Chalnick 4/26/2021 General Technical 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 General Technical 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. Janet  Bellavance 4/27/2021 General Policy Let’s rethink the “location” of development in our city.  Why are we building on our remaining open  spaces?  Why aren’t we incentivizing 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 redevelopment, or a  combination of the two.  In neighboring towns we see many creative examples of redevelopment of  commercial space for housing.  Janet  Bellavance 4/27/2021 General Policy 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.”). Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 General Policy 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). Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 General Policy 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). Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 General Policy 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. Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 General Policy 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. Loretta  Marriott 4/30/2021 General Technical 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 .  Sarah  Dopp/SBLT 5/2/2021 General Policy 8 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 Even though some of us have been reading LDRs for years, the language used in these draft Articles 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 articles or their implications. This could  result in fewer comments. Or, it may take a considerable amount of time during the public comment period  to explain the meaning of the Articles. Since these LDRs will have significant impacts on South Burlington’s  future land use, it is essential they are understandable and have no unintended consequences. SBLT 5/2/2021 General Technical Include an Executive Summary written in lay terms for each Article which states the goals for the Article and how  the Article achieves those goals. SBLT 5/2/2021 General Technical Re‐draft the Articles using non‐technical and straightforward language; or add a supplemental layperson  version—similar to what is now required with other explanatory documents dealing with legal and medical  matters. SBLT 5/2/2021 General Technical 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 properties which could be developed using these new regulations, and how  these properties would look if maximally developed under Article 12 and 15. SBLT 5/2/2021 General Technical Spell out all acronyms before first using them, and include a glossary with these commonly used acronyms and  terms. SBLT 5/2/2021 General Technical The answers to these general questions are fundamental for the public to know in order to understand the issues  and the implications of the proposed Articles. 1. Do the articles result in more land being conserved? Where is  this land? 2. Do the articles list stronger environmental protections? What are these measures? 3. Do the articles  continue to protect the land areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as “Primary and Secondary Conservation  Areas” (Maps 7 and 8)? How do the new regulations do this? 4. Do Articles 12 and 15, as well as Articles 10 and  18, complement each other? Have any contradictions among them been resolved? Are they completely in synch  and supportive? 5. Would new PUD regs effectively "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 Conservation PUD, where 70% of  the acreage would be conserved, is that 70% of 6. In a Conservation 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? SBLT 5/2/2021 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 9 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Past environmental standards based on older science, or before climate change impacts were understood, need  to be updated. The amount of bu ffer 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. SBLT 8/18/2020 General Policy 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. Chris Shaw 5/3/2021 General Policy Outreach – actively seek out comment, input and feedback from large parcel owners.Chris Shaw 5/3/2021 General Policy Some of the terms are not defined in the draft documents. Are you using the definition of “Forest Block” from Act  171, and “Habitat Block”, and “Habitat Connector” from the Arrowwood Report? Is “Forest Block Connector”  defined elsewhere? UVM 0511/21 General Technical 3.04(H): Definition of “Undue Adverse Effect”: The definition is not entirely clear, and seems subjective. It is  almost impossible to imagine an encroachment into a Habitat Block that would not create an “unfavorable  impact” upon the natural resource in question. What site or design modifications, mitigation or conditions of  approval would serve to “avoid” an unfavorable impact? UVM 5/11/2021 General Technical The standard for determining whether an adverse impact is “undue” is, in application, unclear and seems  subjective. UVM 5/11/2021 General Technical Article 15 – Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review 12. General: As discussed above, there are no  proposed amendments to the PUD provisions that would provide any relief for the adverse consequences of the  Environmental Protection Standards on UVM parcels wholly or substantially covered with Habitat Blocks. This  form of relief is essential and UVM will want to have the opportunity to participate in any further consideration of  the PUD standards. UVM 5/11/2021 General Policy §15.02(A)(4)(d): If the City intends to allow applicants to use the PUD process for relief from the Environmental  Protection Standards, including the Habitat Block restrictions, this subsection could be interpreted as prohibiting  any modification to the Habitat Block restrictions since Habitat Blocks are defined as a Level I Resource. UVM 5/11/2021 General Policy 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.) Daniel Seff 4/5/2021 General Technical Commenter provided comments including text from other sources. See letter of 4/27 Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 General Policy UVM provided history/usage/planned projects for parcels they own in SB. See letter of 5/11 UVM 5/11/2021 General Policy 10 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 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.   Lani  Ravin/UVM 4/27/2021 General Policy Mr. Thrall, who lives near Mr. Jiminez, asked for a definition of “substantial improvement.” Mr. Thrall  asked what a “fully enclosed area below grade” is.  He said they have an unfinished basement they were  hoping to finish.  C. Thrall 4/27/2021 General Technical Mr. O’Brien said that in some hazard areas, field delineation can be introduced, but in some (e.g., habitat blocks)  it can’t.  He felt that it should be allowed or that a field specific delineation occur and a new map be generated  every 5 years.  He noted that in 3 large projects he is work on, when you go to the maps, 100% of the time the  map of reference won’t match the field delineation. Patrick O'Brien 5/4/2021 General Policy Mr. Nick, owner of the Hill Farm, noted he had been assured this wasn’t “a back door taking,” but his feeling is  that it is.  He noted little blue dots on the maps which he thought were wetlands, and he knows there are no  wetlands there.  He said he would like not to see a map go out with incorrect mappings that will set the city up for  endless appeals.  Ms. Louisos said those blue dots may be steep slope areas.  On the interactive map, these can  be identified.  She also acknowledged that in some cases the maps are inaccurate.  Mr. Nick said there should be  language to that effect. Jeff Nick 5/4/2021 General Technical Mr. Nick said he looked at the interactive map.  The light blue dots appear to be “drainage areas.”  He said that on  his land, they are around where a house has been removed, and there are no wetlands there.  He asked how that  map can be corrected. Jeff Nick 5/4/2021 General Technical 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 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.’ Daniel Seff 4/5/2021 General Why was a land area connected to The Great Swamp — THE highest valued natural land in South Burlington —  eliminated from protection? Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 Floodplains Policy 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. Chris Shaw 5/3/2021 Floodplains Policy 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? J. Jiminez 4/27/2021 Floodplains Policy Do the articles continue to protect the land areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as “Primary and Secondary  Conservation Areas” (Maps 7 and 8)? How do the new regulations do this? SBLT 2/17/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy The Comprehensive Plan designates Grassland, Shrublands and Farmlands as “secondary conservation areas … in  which limited encroachment may be allowed in accordance with siting and management practices that are  intended to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse impacts of development.”  But, it is not apparent where  these areas have any protection in Article 12.  The Secondary Conservation Areas map in the Comp Plan  (attached) shows the respective grasslands, shrublands and farmlands. In Arrowwood’s presentation to the City  Council they said “supporting habitat (undeveloped, unmanaged non‐forest) plays a big part in the success of  habitat blocks” (page 22 of the Arrowwood presentation, attached) and in their report to the City stressed the  importance of supporting habitat (report is also attached).  It does not appear that these supporting habitat areas  have any protection in Article 12. Ray Gonda,  NRCC 3/3/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy The Comp Plan also has as goals (page 2‐123): *Continue the designation of a three hundred foot buffer around  the perimeter of the Great Swamp and Cheese Factory Swamp as an additional primary natural area subject to  the same limits on disturbance, development or subdivision. *Continue the designation of lands within a three  hundred foot buffer area around the perimeter of the other Primary Natural Areas, and the lands within  Secondary Natural Areas, as a supplemental restricted area with limitations on development, subdivision, and  disturbance Ray Gonda,  NRCC 3/3/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 11 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 Are all of the areas currently listed as “conservation areas” (Maps 7 and 8) in the Comprehensive Plan still  protected? Rosanne Greco 4/1/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 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.   Janet  Bellavance 4/27/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 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.”). Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 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). Daniel Seff 4/27/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 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 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.  Sarah  Dopp/SBLT 5/2/2021 Comprehensive  Plan Policy 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.”  Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy Moreover, soil has benefits beyond providing healthy food.  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.  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, 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 12 of 13 Public Comments Recived on Draft  Amendments LDR‐20‐01 Comments trhough May 13, 2021 1 ABCDE Question/Comment Source Received Subject Type 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 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.  Janet  Bellavance 4/27/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.” Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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. Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.   Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.”  Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.  Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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.  Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy 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  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.   Roseanne  Greco 4/26/2021 Agricultural  Soils Policy Ms. Greco said that agricultural land should also be protected.Roseanne  4/27/2021 Agricultural  Policy 13 of 13 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: City of Burlington Planning Commission Chair Town of Shelburne Planning Commission Chair Town of Colchester Planning Commission Chair Town of Williston Planning Commission Chair City of Winooski Planning Commission Chair Town of Essex Planning Commission Chair Village of Essex Junction Planning Commission Chair Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Proposed Land Development Regulation Amendments DATE: April 13, 2021 Enclosed please find a series of proposed amendments to the City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations, as well as a report from the Planning Commission, as required under Chapter 117. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on these amendments on Thursday May 20, 2021 at 7:00 pm via GoToMeeting. Participation options: Interactive Online: https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc-2021-05-20 Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3112 Access Code: 886-368-509 A copy of the proposed amendments are enclosed, and available on the City’s website. Feedback on the draft amendments is welcome, either at the hearing, or in writing in advance of the hearing date. Should you have any questions, feel free contact the Department of Planning & Zoning at planning@sburl.com. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Public Hearing Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:00 pm PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:00 PM to consider amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The amendments affect all parts of the City unless otherwise specified below. The hearing will be held via remotely via GoToMeeting. Participation options: Interactive Online: https://www.gotomeet.me/SouthBurlingtonVT/pc-2021-05-20 Telephone (audio only): (571) 317-3112 Access Code: 886-368-509 The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following: LDR-20-01: Modifications to Environmental Protection Standards, including existing 100-year floodplain, river corridor, stream buffer, wetland & wetland buffer, and stormwater management standards; establishment of standards regarding 500-year (0.2%) floodplain, habitat block, habitat connector, steep slope, and very steep slope standards; establishment of criteria to evaluate undue adverse effect; and related amendments referencing the above-listed resources. Specific Articles / Sections to be Amended: Section 2.02 Definitions Section 2.03 Definitions for Flood Hazard and River Corridor Purposes Section 3.01 Establishment of Districts and Description of Certain Districts Section 3.02 Official Maps and Other Maps Section 3.03 District Boundaries Section 3.04 Applicability of Regulations Section 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All [Southeast Quadrant] Sub-Districts Section 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations Section 10.01 Floodplain Overlay District (FP) Section 10.07 River Corridor Overlay District (RCO) Article 12 Environmental Protection Standards [Replaces Surface Water Protection Standards] Section 15.02 [Subdivision and Planned Unit Development] Authority and Required Review Section 15.18 Criteria for Review of PUDs, Subdivisions, Transect Zone Subdivisions, and Master Plans Appendix E, Submission Requirements Natural Resources Map [Replaces Wetlands Map] Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning & Zoning, City Hall, 2nd Floor, 575 Dorset Street, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov. Jessica Louisos, Planning Commission Chair April 13, 2021 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing Thursday, May 20, 2021 In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 7:00 pm, via GoToMeeting electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: LDR-20-01: Modifications to Environmental Protection Standards, including existing 100-year floodplain, river corridor, stream buffer, wetland & wetland buffer, and stormwater management standards; establishment of standards regarding 500-year (0.2%) floodplain, habitat block, habitat connector, steep slope, and very steep slope standards; establishment of criteria to evaluate undue adverse effect; and related amendments referencing the above-listed resources. Brief Description of the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments include the following: • Enhancement of standards and/or geographic area for protection of natural resources currently regulated by the City: notably 100-year floodplains, class I and II wetlands, streams, and river corridors • Mapping and establishment of standards for newly-regulated natural resources: habitat blocks, habitat connectors, steep slopes, and 500-year floodplains • Update of stormwater management and 100-year floodplain standards to current best practices and streamlining of review for public stormwater restoration projects • Update of references to natural resources throughout the regulations to be directed to the Environmental Protection Standards of Articles 10 and 12 • Establishing thresholds and consistent standards of review applicable to limited allowances for impacts to regulated natural resources, including infrastructure • Categorization of regulated natural resources into three tiers 2 Below is a table summarizing the proposed changes / additions to natural resource Hazards Section Status Summary of Proposed Changes How boundary is established 100 year (1%) Floodplain 10.01 Existing Updates for consistency with State guidelines, provision for historic structures FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 500-year (0.2%) Floodplain B2 Area 10.01 New No new buildings in the 500-year floodplain; substantial renovations must meet floodproofing standards State River Corridor Map or applicant measurement using LiDAR data River Corridors and Surface Waters 10.07 Existing Consolidates two overlapping sets of current standards: Stream Buffer and River Corridors. Geographic areas includes areas previously included under each, and unform measurement from top of bank/slope for buffers. Allowable incursions into buffers are reduced. State-mapped River Corridor Flood Insurance Rate Maps Class I, II Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 Existing, Expanded Buffer for Class II wetlands expanded from 50’ to 100’ in residential and conservation districts. Allowable incursions in areas outside City Center FBC limited to only certain infrastructure and exemptions. Updated standards within City Center FBC. [Class I wetland buffers also expanded, none presently identified in South Burlington] On-site field delineation using City/State maps as indicator Very Steep Slopes (25+%) 12.09 New No new development except certain infrastructure and exemptions Applicant measurement using LiDAR data Level I Resources Section Status Summary of Proposed Changes Habitat Blocks 12.05 New No new development within City-mapped Habitat Blocks except certain allowances to exchange land certain infrastructure, parcels with >70% Hazards/Level 1, and exemptions Boundary as shown on City Natural Resources Map Habitat Connectors 12.06 New Habitat connector function must be kept intact, mapped location may be modified with approval Boundary as shown on City Natural Resources Map Level II Resources Section Status Summary of Proposed Changes 500-year Floodplain B1 Zone 10.01 New New development and substantial renovation must meet floodproofing standards FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps where they exist or applicant measurement using LiDAR data Class III Wetlands, Buffers 10.03 Existing Wetlands under 300 s.f. are exempted. Updated standards for review of proposed impact On-site field delineation Steep Slopes (15 to 25%) 12.09 New New development must demonstrate slope stabilization Applicant measurement using LiDAR data Intermittent Streams, Buffers 10.07, 12.08 Existing Clearer definition. Specifically excludes human- created drainage systems. Updated standards for relocation On-site field delineation 3 Categories of Natural Resources Resources are grouped into three (3) categories: Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resources. • Hazards are resources for which impacts can have significant effects on safety of property or life. They are often regulated at the State or Federal level. They may be large or small in area. Very limited incursions into these resources, particularly for certain infrastructure, may be permitted following review. • Level I Resources are locally-identified natural resources that are typically larger in area and cross multiple properties. The draft regulations allow for limited adjustment of boundaries in certain circumstances and limited incursions under specific circumstances. Credit may be provided for the conservation of these areas through density transfers in certain Planned Unit Development types. • Level II Resources require specific review for any impact, but are not necessarily excluded from development parcels. They are typically smaller in area and/or can be mitigated through careful site design. Background and Context of the Proposed Regulations The proposed modifications to the Regulations draw on the research work of prior Planning Commission efforts, the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, and several studies undertaken by the community in recent years, including the 2015 Open Space Plan, the 2020 Habitat Block and Assessment and Ranking, and the 2020 Interim Zoning Open Space Committee Final Report, among others. Standards and geographic boundaries established by these Regulations were developed based on mapping, research, and consultations with subject area experts. Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors included in the proposed Regulation used the 2020 Habitat Block Assessment and Ranking as their starting point. Geographic boundaries, thresholds, standards for allowed modifications or incursions were subsequently established. These draft amendments are proposed to function as one of a collection of tools to support natural resource conservation and thoughtful development in the community in support of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: (1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. (2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. 4 The 2016 Comprehensive Plan establishes four (4) principal Goals for the City: Vision & Goals. Here and into the Future, South Burlington is… Affordable & Community Strong Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our residents and visitors. • Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life; • Keep unique features, and maintain or enhance the quality of life of existing neighborhoods; • Be a recognized leader in public education offerings and outcomes; • Provide quality public safety, infrastructure, health, wellness, and recreation services; • Ensure transparent and accessible government. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure. • Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options while accommodating the automobile; • Establish a city center with pedestrian-oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community. Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South Burlington. • Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational assets; • Reduce energy consumption city-wide and increase renewable energy production where appropriate. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and statewide community. • Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas identified within this Plan; • Support a diverse and vibrant economy built on quality jobs, employment centers and a supportive educational and research system; support markets for local agricultural and food products. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan also includes the following objectives and strategies specific to ecological resources in the community: Ecological Objectives Objective 30. Proactively plan for a network of interconnected and contiguous open spaces to conserve and accommodate ecological resources, active and passive recreation land, civic spaces, scenic views and vistas, forests and productive farmland and primary agricultural soils. Objective 31. Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical wildlife resources, and that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open space. 2-107 Ecological Strategies Strategy 67. Substantially restrict new subdivision and development from primary resource conservation areas to include hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas identified, mapped and regulated by the City. Minimize the adverse impacts of new subdivision and development, including resource fragmentation and encroachment, within secondary resource conservation areas, to include those resources of state or local significance as indicated on available resource maps, identified in available inventories and studies, and confirmed through site investigation. Strategy 68. Redefine open space in new developments such that usable, quality open space shall be required. Qualifying open space should include civic spaces, recreation, wildlife habitat, and usable agricultural lands. 5 Strategy 69. Retain healthy and high-quality existing trees, vegetation, and publicly owned natural areas and woodlands. Develop long-range management plans for each area to foster their continued health and use. Strategy 70. Encourage public education about tree functions and tree disease inspection in urban areas through cooperation with the UVM Horticultural Farm and Vermont Department of Forest Parks, and Recreation, Urban and Community Forestry Program. Strategy 71. Maintain the City’s wildlife diversity, including making use of available planning and legal tools such as buffers, transfers of development rights, overlay zoning districts, conservation easements and other tools as appropriate. Strategy 72. Work with adjoining municipalities and regional entities to enact complementary land use policies where wildlife habitat areas cross City boundaries. Strategy 73. Maintain existing overall tree canopy. Set targets to increase overall tree canopy, with a focus on increasing tree canopy in urban areas and residential property parcels as identified in the Report on Existing and Potential Tree Canopy in the City of South Burlington (2014). Strategy 74. Foster passive recreational use of natural areas and identify areas that may be appropriate for an “off -limits” designation due to their fragile nature. And finally, the Comprehensive Plan establishes a series of five categories of Future Land Use, as depicted on Map 11, along with the following statement: “Together, these broad categories are intended to encompass key issues and areas addressed in this Comprehensive Plan and provide an overall framework for implementation of the plan.” • Very low intensity, principally open space. • Lower intensity, principally residential • Medium intensity, residential to mixed use • Medium to higher intensity, principally non-residential • Medium to higher intensity, mixed use The proposed Regulations substantively and substantially advance the ecological goals and strategies enumerated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, and do so in the context of the overall Vision and Goals for the City and the designations within the Future Land Use Map. The proposed regulations have been prepared following detailed evaluation of each individual resource as well as their collective and coordinated roles in support of the objectives and strategies above. The specific resources included within the draft Environmental Protection Standards are not intended to be a precise replication of the individual resources as described or mapped in the Comprehensive Plan; South Burlington-specific study and analysis of these resources, consideration of best practices in resource conservation, and consideration of the geographic context of natural resources across the City were important factors in developing regulatory tools to implement these objectives and strategies. The amendments have been considered for their impacts on the availability of safe and affordable housing. Establishing restrictions on certain land as priority areas for conservation of natural resources can affect the total land area available for the construction of new housing. The existing and proposed regulations mitigate the effects of this conservation, through several means: 6 • Existing regulations allow for the re-allocation of allowable housing density within a property through the use of Planned Unit Developments. • The draft Regulations accommodate circumstances where certain natural resources – notably Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors - are present across the substantial majority of the land. • The draft regulations provide for reduced standards, exemptions, or allowable modifications within areas designated as Medium to Higher Intensity in the Future Land Use Map • Recent prior amendments to the Land Development Regulations have increased building height allowances along principal transportation corridors, established inclusionary zoning requirements, and reduced or eliminated minimum parking standards • The proposed regulations are intended to provide greater clarity and certainty for all parties involved in land development (3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments do not directly affect planned community facilities. Planned Community facilities are specifically addressed through reference to the Official Map. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 1 LDR-20-01: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS & RELATED KEY TO AMENDMENTS: Text in underline are proposed additions ore relocated text Text in strikethrough are proposed deletions or text that has been moved Text in yellow highlights are notes to the draft ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS … 2.02 Specific Definitions … Building Envelope. A designated area or portion of a lot, delineated on a subdivision plat, within which all structures, parking and loading areas, and clearing of land must be located, with the exception of driveways and utility lines. A building envelope shall be defined by minimum setback and maximum height requirements unless otherwise specified in these Regulations. Environmental Restoration Project: A project authorized under the MS4 General Permit, TS4 General Permit, or Municipal Roads General Permit (MRGP), that address a primary pollution source identified in a Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation approved watershed implementation plan (i.e. TMDL, Flow Restoration Plan, or Phosphorus Control Plan) and is not required for the purpose of developing or redeveloping impervious surfaces. Additionally, any floodplain reconnection or stream channel restoration projects that are not included in a Flow Restoration Plan or Phosphorus Control Plan, but are necessary to meet the required pollutant reductions in a TMDL. Habitat Block. Contiguous forested and adjacent unmanaged shrubby areas of old field, young forest, and unmanaged wetland as demarked on the Natural Resources Map. Includes areas large enough to provide habitat, either permanently, or seasonally for wider ranging species of wildlife such as bobcat, red and grey fox, white-tailed deer, river otter and fisher. These species of wildlife require larger areas (than squirrels or rabbits for example), and a variety of appropriate habitat to fulfill their daily, seasonal, and yearly habitat needs. These needs include security for breeding activities, a variety of food resources, secure cover for raising young, and the presence of water- either for drinking or in the case of aquatic species, as a general habitat. Habitat Blocks fall within a matrix of land-uses that include urban, residential, agricultural, transportation, and rural uses. Habitat Blocks at time of establishment in these Regulations are greater than 50% forested and totals at least 20 acres in size (area may, however, extend beyond City boundary). Portions of contiguous forest or shrubland that cannot be connected by an area wider than 160’ are not considered habitat blocks. Habitat Connector. Areas in the providing wildlife served by Habitat Blocks the ability to move across the landscape in stepping-stone fashion between Habitat Blocks as demarked on the Natural Resources Map. For species such as fox, fisher, and bobcat, accessing multiple Habitat Blocks make up for the smaller, more fragmented nature of the Habitat Blocks in the community. Hazard: Floodplain overlay districts A, AE, A1-30, and 0.2% B2, River Corridors except those along intermittent streams, Very Steep Slopes, Class 1 and Class 2 wetland and associated buffers Level I Resources: A Habitat Block or Habitat Connector. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 2 Level II Resources: River Corridors along intermittent streams, Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1 (500- year floodplain, Class 3 wetlands (greater than 300 square feet in size) and associated buffers, and steep slopes. Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. A wildlife or plant species identified by the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife as being rare, threatened or endangered. Significant Wildlife Habitat. Those natural features that contribute to the survival and/ or reproduction of the native wildlife of South Burlington. This includes: (1) habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species (state or federally listed); (2) River Corridors as defined in these regulations; (3) wetlands and wetland buffers as defined in these Regulations; (4) Habitat Blocks, and (5) Habitat Connectors. Site Balancing. Where stormwater control and/or treatment of certain limited areas of new, redeveloped, or substantially reconstructed impervious surface area are not possible, the impact from these areas of untreated impervious surfaces will be compensated on an equivalent basis by controlling and/or treating other impervious surfaces on the lot, parcel, or property. This can be accomplished by providing additional control and/or treatment beyond what is required for impervious surface areas already subject to the requirements of 12.083(C) or by providing control and/or treatment for impervious surfaces that are not otherwise required to meet the requirements of 12.083(C). The applicant must own or otherwise control the impervious surfaces used for site balancing. Steep Slopes. Any land formation, aside from individual rocks, with a measured slope of between 15 and 25% containing a vertical drop of at least three (3) feet. Steep Slopes, Very. Any land formation, aside from individual rocks, with a calculated slope of over 25% containing a vertical drop of at least three (3) feet. Stream. A watercourse having a source and terminus, banks, and channel through which waters flow at least periodically. Stream, intermittent. Streams with a drainage area smaller than .5 square miles that are not subject to the River Corridor regulations. This definition shall not include ditches and other constructed channels primarily associated with land drainage or water conveyance. Substantial reconstruction. The reconstruction of an impervious surface where an impervious surface currently exists when such reconstruction involves site grading, subsurface excavation, or modification of existing stormwater conveyance. Substantial reconstruction does not include maintenance or management activities on impervious surfaces including any crack sealing, patching , cold planning, resurfacing, or reclaiming, or grading treatments used to maintain pavement and, bridges, or grading treatments used to maintain and unpaved roads. Undue Adverse Effect. An impact that 1) violates a clear, written community standard under these regulations, and that 2) cannot be mitigated through siting or design modifications or conditions of approval. Wetland. An area that is inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support vegetation or aquatic life that depend on saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Such areas include, but are not limited to, fens, marshes, swamps, sloughs, potholes, ponds, but excluding such areas as grow food or crops in connection with farming activities. The boundary of a wetland shall be delineated by the methodology set forth in the 1989 edition of the Federal Manual for Identifying and LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 3 Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, or any subsequent amendment or revision of that document. Wetlands are classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands by the most recently adopted Vermont Wetland Rules. 2.03 Definitions for Flood Hazard and River Corridor Purposes Average grade level. The average of the natural or exiting topography at center of all exterior walls of a building or structure to be placed on site. Substantial damage. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30, Ddamage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before -damaged conditions would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2, damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged conditions would equal or exceed 75 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30, Aany repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure after the date of adoption of this bylaw, the cost of which, over three years, or over the period of a common plan of development, cumulatively equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred “substantial damage”, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or (b) Any alteration of an “historic structure”, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure”. In Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2, any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure after the date of adoption of this bylaw, the cost of which, over three years, or over the period of a common plan of development, cumulatively equals or exceeds 75 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred “substantial damage”, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or (b) Any alteration of an “historic structure”, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure”. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 4 ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.01 Establishment of Districts and Description of Certain Districts … B. Description of Certain Districts. (1) Floodplain Overlay District. The boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District shall include those areas that are identified as areas of special flood hazard (Zones A, AE, A1-30, and 0.2%) in and on the most current flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Home land Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, as provided by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, which are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be part of these regulations. Zone 0.2% has been further divided into Zone B1 and Zone B2 on Map ****, and Map *** is hereby incorporated into these Regulations .The location of the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer (AO). If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the AO, a Letter of Map Amendment from FEMA shall constitute proof.) (a) Floodplain Overlay District (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. The boundaries of these Zones Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict shall include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as Zones A, AE, or A1-30. (b) Floodplain Overlay District (sZones 0.2% B1A and B2) Subdistrict. The boundaries of these Zones Floodplain Overlay (Zone 0.2%) Subdistrict shall include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the above referenced studies and maps as Zone 0.2%, and are separated into a zone that reflects generally developed and priority development areas, and a zone that reflects generally undeveloped areas. 3.02 Official Maps and Other Maps … D. Wetlands Map. The Wetlands Map identifies wetland areas throughout the City that are subject to the restrictions set forth in Article 12 of these regulations. The Wetlands Map is filed in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by reference. Natural Resources Map. The Natural Resources map identifies Hazards, Level I Resources and Level II Resources that are subject to the restrictions set forth in Articles 10 and 12 of these F. Open Space Plan Areas Map [reserved] 3.03 District Boundaries … D. Wetland Boundaries. The boundaries of wetlands shall be as shown on the Official Wetlands Map unless alternative information is submitted and reviewed pursuant to the standards and procedures for review set forth in Article 12, Section 12.02(C) and (D) of these Regulations. All wetland delineations submitted for review by the City shall be delineated by the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This methodology employs three parameters: vegetation, soils and hydrology. The Development Review Board may use the most recent edition of The Wetland Plant List of the State of Vermont published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the frequency of vegetation occurrence in wetlands. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 5 3.04 Applicability of Regulations … H. Undue Adverse Effect. Where the terms Undue Adverse Effect or Undue Adverse Impact are used in these Regulations, the Development Review Board shall apply the test enumerated in Figure 3-0, Determining Undue Adverse Effect Figure 3-0 Determining Undue Adverse Effect The following test shall be used by the Development Review Board in all circumstances when the South Burlington Land Development Regulations requires the Development Review Board to determine whether or not an undue adverse effect is being created. 1. First, the Development Review Board shall determine if a proposed project will have an adverse effect upon the resource, issue and/or facility in question. The Development Review Board shall determine such by responding to the following question: (a) Will the project have an unfavorable impact upon the resource, issue and/or facility in question? 2. If it is determined by the Development Review Board that an adverse effect will be being created by a project, the Development Review Board shall then determine if the adverse effect is “undue.” To determine whether or not an adverse effect is undue, the Development Review Board shall respond to the following two questions: (a) Will the project conflict with a clear, written standard in these regulations or the Municipal Plan applicable to the resource, issue or facility in question? (b) Can the unfavorable impact be avoided through site or design modifications, or mitigation, or other conditions of approval? The Development Review Board shall conclude that adverse effect is “undue” if the answer to 2(a) is YES OR the answer to 2(b) is NO. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 6 ARTICLE 9 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT – SEQ 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts … B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, creating or enhancing stream buffer areas, or creating or enhancing buffers for primary or secondary natural communities. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district, allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. In making this finding the Development Review Board shall use the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of this bylaw related to Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resources wetlands and stream buffers. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. The use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. Chain link fencing shall be prohibited except: (a) fencing for agricultural purposes, and (b) fencing for recreational purposes, such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts, dog parks, or similar activities. Any chain link fencing installed for these purposes sh all be plastic coated in either dark green or black. In all cases, proposed fences shall comply with this section and section 13.17 (Fences) of these Regulations C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 7 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to the following supplemental regulations: (1) Such lot shall be conveyed to the City of South Burlington as dedicated open space or to a qualified land trust and shall not be developed with a residence, or (2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan approved by the Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below. (3) Such lot may be developed with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C-1, subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and conservation. Such lot may also include the following additional development/activities: (a) Driveways, roads, underground utility services, or other appurtenant improvements to serve approved development or uses. Utility service components, such as transformers and amplifiers, may be installed at ground level where such accords with standard industry practices. (b) Landscaping, regrading, or other similar activities necessary to the creation of a buildable lot. B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards: (1) Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if: (a) The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations, and; (b) The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community Hazard, Level I Resource, Level II Resource or itstheir related buffers. (2) Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family dwelling unit on each of these lots only if: (a) The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations. (i)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, no subdivisions of land or construction of new dwelling units shall be permitted in the NRP subdistrict; (ii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of two (2) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to one (1) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 8 (iii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of one (1) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to two (2) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; (iv)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of any single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to three (3) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; and, (b) such lots shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit , and, (c) the location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community Hazard, Level I Resource, Level II Resource or its their related buffers, and, (d) The location of structures and access drives are clustered such that no dwelling unit is located more than one hundred (100) feet from any other structure, and, (e) The dwelling units shall be detached single family dwellings, and, (f) Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development. C. A single tax parcel existing as of the effective date of these regulations which exceeds one hundred (100) acres and is located entirely within the NRP sub-district, as shown on the South Burlington Tax Maps last revised 6/05 (June 2005), whether such lands are contiguous or not, may be subdivided at an average overall density for the entire tax parcel of one (1) single-family dwelling per ten (10) acres. Any new lots so created shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Such lots shall be clustered in a manner that maximizes the resource values of the property and shall have no portion wit hin a Hazard or Level I Resource Area designated primary natural community or its their related buffers. All dwelling units shall be detached single family houses. Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 9 10 OVERLAY DISTRICTS FP, TR, SVP, IHO, TO, UDO, RCO 10.01 Floodplain Overlay District (FP) [NOTE TO DRAFT: SECTION 10.01 IS DISPLAYED A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TEXT. EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING SECTION] A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Floodplain Overlay District to: 1. Avoid and minimize the loss of life and property, the disruption of commerce, the impairment of the tax base, and the extraordinary public expenditures and demands on public services that result from flooding; 2. Ensure that the selection, design, creation, and use of development is reasonably safe and accomplished in a manner that is consistent with public wellbeing, does not impair flood plain services or the stream corridor; 3. Manage the flood hazard area designated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, the municipal hazard mitigation plan; and make the City of South Burlington, its citizens, and businesses eligible for federal flood insurance, federal disaster recovery funds, and hazard mitigation funds as may be available. B. Authority. In accordance with 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32, and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 §4424, §4411 and §4414, there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of flood damage in the City of South Burlington Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington identified as within the Floodplain Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B). C. [reserved] D. Administration 1. Floodplain Review. All development in the City of South Burlington located within the Floodplain Overlay District shall be subject to Floodplain Review. The Floodplain Overlay District overlays other existing zoning districts. All other requirements of the underlying district shall apply in addition to the provisions herein, unless otherwise indicated. The Floodplain Overlay District is composed of two areas: a. Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30. The boundaries of these Zones include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program and mapped as Zones A, AE, or A1- 30. b. Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2. The boundaries of these Zones include those areas of special flood hazard designated in and on the most current flood insurance studies and maps published by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, and on Map ****, and Map ***, and mapped as Zone 0.2% B1 and Zone 0.2% B2. Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1 is composed of areas of the 500-year floodplain that are already substantially developed and where additional opportunities for infill development is appropriate. Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B2 is composed of areas of the 500-year floodplain that are not developed and where future development is not appropriate. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 10 2. Interpretation. The information presented on any maps, or contained in any studies, adopted by reference, is presumed accurate. However, if uncertainty exists regarding the Floodplain Overlay District boundary, the following procedure shall be followed: a. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1-30 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer. If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the Administrative Officer, a Letter of Map Amendment from FEMA shall constitute proof that the property is not located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. b. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1 and B2 the location of the boundary shall be determined by the Administrative Officer. If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the Administrative Officer, the applicant may appeal the determination in accordance with Article 17. 3. Base Flood Elevations and Floodway Limits. a. Where available (i.e. zones A1-A30, AE, AH, and 0.2% B1 within the floodplain of the Winooski River), the base flood elevations and floodway limits (or data from which a community can designate regulatory floodway limits) provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying maps shall be used to administer and enforce the provisions of these regulations. b. In Zone A of the Floodplain Overlay District where base flood elevations and floodway limits have not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying maps, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to develop the base flood elevation at the site using data available from state or federal agencies or other sources. 4. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered by this overlay district will be free from flood damages. These regulations shall not create liability on the part of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any flood damages that result from reliance on these regulations, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 5. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this Floodplain Overlay District shall not in any way impair or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where these regulations imposes a greater restriction the provisions here shall take precedence. 6. Exempted Development. The following types of development are exempt from Floodplain Review. The following types of development may also still be subject to other standards in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations including Section 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards: a. The removal of a building or other improvement in whole or in part, so long as the ground elevations under and adjacent to the removed structure remain unchanged. Please be aware that for damaged structures where FEMA mitigation funds may be used, the damaged structure may be required to remain in place until funds are granted. b. Routine maintenance of existing buildings in the usual course of business required or undertaken to conserve the original condition, while compensating for normal wear and tear. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 11 c. Routine maintenance includes actions necessary for retaining or restoring a piece of equipment, machine, or system to the specified operable condition to achieve its maximum useful life and does not include expansions or improvements to development. d. Interior improvements to existing buildings that cost less than five-hundred (500) dollars. e. Maintenance of existing sidewalks, roads, parking areas, or stormwater drainage; this does not include expansions. f. Maintenance of existing bridges, culverts, and channel stabilization activities; this does not include expansions. g. Streambank armoring and stabilization, retaining walls, and abutment work that do not reduce the cross-sectional flow area of the river or stream channel and have coverage under a Stream Alteration Permit, if required, under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 and the rules adopted thereunder. h. The following activities are exempt from Floodplain Review, but may require a permit under the State’s “Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule” (Environmental Protection Rule, Chapter 29): i. State-owned and operated institutions and facilities. ii. Forestry operations and silvicultural (forestry) activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont or other accepted silvicultural practices, as defined by the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation. iii. Agricultural activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Market’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs). iv. Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248. i. Telecommunications facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248aPlanting projects which do not include any construction or grading activities in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424(c). E. Floodplain Review Application Requirements 1. Application Submission Requirements. All applications for Floodplain Review shall include: a. Floodplain Development Plan. A Floodplain Development Plan that depicts the proposed development, property boundaries, all water bodies, all boundaries (Floodplain Overlay District boundaries – all zones), the shortest horizontal distance from the proposed development to the top of bank of any river, any existing and proposed drainage, any proposed fill, pre- and post-development grades, and the elevation of the proposed lowest floor as referenced to the same vertical datum as the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and b. Project Review Sheet. A completed Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Project Review Sheet. The Project Review Sheet shall identify all State and Federal agencies from whi ch permit approval is required for the proposal, and shall be filed as a required attachment to the municipal permit application. The identified permits, or letters indicating that such permits are not required, shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer and attached to the permit before work can begin. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 12 2. Supplemental Application Requirements. Some applications may require additional information based on the location and type of the development. The following information shall be developed and provided with an application, as required below: a. Base Flood Elevation (BFE). BFE information is required for applications that include the following development located in Zones A, A1-A30, AE, AH, and 0.2% B1 within the floodplain of the Winooski River: i. New, substantially improved, or substantially damaged structures; ii. Projects requiring elevation or dry-floodproofing above BFE; iii. Additions to existing historic structures; and iv. Any accessory structure proposed to have building utility systems that will need to be protected from flood waters through elevation above the BFE. b. Floodway Data. The following information is required for development proposed to be located in the floodway. All floodway data shall be certified by a registered professional engineer. All submitted proposals shall include electronic input/output files mapping showing cross-section locations and the following information: i. Hydraulic calculations demonstrating no rise in BFE or velocity for proposed new or expanded encroachments within the floodway. ii. In accordance with 44 C.F.R. § 60.3(c)(10), where BFE data has been provided by FEMA, but no floodway areas have been designated, the applicant shall provide a floodway delineation that demonstrates that the proposed development, when combined with all existing and anticipated future development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot at any point within the community. c. Average Grade Level. Information about average grade level is required for development involving all structures proposed to be located in Zone 0.2% B1 and Zone 0.2% B2. d. Erosion Control Projects. For projects involving erosion control measures within the floodplain on Lake Champlain, the applicant shall submit: i. Renderings or other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the aesthetic or visual impact of the proposed improvement. ii. A landscaping plan. 3. Waiver of Application Requirements. Upon written request from the applicant, the Development Review Board may waive specific application requirements when the data or information is not needed to comply with these regulations. F. Floodplain Review - Development Review Process. All applications for development in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be reviewed according to the following procedures: 1. Referrals. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 13 a. NFIP Coordinator. Upon receipt of a complete Floodplain Review application for a substantial improvement or new construction the Administrative Officer shall forward a copy of the application and supporting information to the State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner. The Administrative Officer, and/or Development Review Board shall consider all comments from ANR. b. Stream Alteration Engineer. If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies of the application shall also be submitted to the adjacent communities, the Stream Alteration Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Copies of such notice shall be provided to the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, whichever is sooner. 2. Review Process. a. Administrative Review. Floodplain Review may be completed administratively by the Administrative Officer for the following types of development in the Floodplain Overlay District provided that the application is complete and the proposed development can be approved administratively under all other sections of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: i. Changes from a permitted land use to another permitted land use provided that any other changes to the site may also be administratively reviewed. ii. Above grade development, which has not been elevated by the placement of fill, that is two feet above base flood elevation and documented with field-surveyed topographic information certified by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor (Elevation Certificate). iii. Open fencing and signs elevated on poles or posts that create minimal resistance to the movement of floodwater. iv. Municipal transportation infrastructure improvements designed and constructed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation that have written confirmation from the ANR Regional Floodplain Manager that the project is designed to meet or exceed the applicable standards in these regulations. v. River and floodplain restoration projects, including dam removal, that restore natural and beneficial floodplain functions and include written confirmation from the ANR Regional Floodplain Manager that the project is designed to meet or exceed the applicable standards in these regulations. vi. Improvements or repairs of damage to structures that do not expand the existing footprint and do not meet the definition of “substantial improvement” or “substantial damage.” LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 14 vii. Accessory structures less than 500 square feet in size in the Floodplain Overlay District Zones 0.2% B1. viii. Building utilities. ix. Recreational vehicles. See Section 3.08 Temporary Structures and Uses for additional applicable standards. b. Development Review. All development in the Floodplain Overlay District that cannot be approved through administrative Floodplain Review shall require Floodplain Review by the Development Review Board. 3. Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined in Section 2.03 (Floodplain Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay District. A permit shall only be issued for development meeting the standards in Section 10.01(G) and the following the review process outlined in Section 10.01(F) and Article 17. a. Within 30 days of receipt of a complete application per Section 10.01(E), including all application materials and fees, the Administrative Officer shall act to either issue or deny a permit in writing, or to refer the application to the Development Review Board. If the Administrative Officer fails to act with regard to a complete application for a permit within the 30-day period, a permit shall be deemed issued on the 31st day, unless the permit is for new construction or substantial improvement, in which case a permit shall not be issued until the Administrative Officer has complied with the requirements of Section 10.01(F)(1)). b. No zoning permit shall be issued by the Administrative Officer for any use or structure which requires the approval of the Development Review Board until such approval has been obtained. For permit applications that must be referred to a state agency for review, no permit shall be issued until a response has been received from the State, or the expiration of 30 days following the submission of the application to the State, whichever is sooner. G. Floodplain Review Standards. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be reviewed to ensure that it complies with the following standards: 1. Prohibited Development. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in this section, the following types of development are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay District: a. New principal structures, both residential or non-residential (including the placement of manufactured homes), except within Zone 0.2% B1 of the Floodway Overlay District; b. New accessory structures except within the Zone 0.2% B1 of the Floodplain Overlay District. c. New critical facilities; d. Excavation of earth products shall be prohibited in such cases where it is anticipated that such excavation will lower the level of the water table, interfere with natural flow patterns, or reduce flood storage capacity; e. Storage or junk yards; f. New fill except as necessary to elevate structures above the base flood elevation. g. Within the floodway: new encroachments, except for minor improvements to existing structures or relating to bridges, culverts, roads, stabilization projects, public utilities, river and/or LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 15 floodplain restoration projects, or health and safety measures. Minor improvements are those that would not affect base flood elevations, consistent with the provisions of FEMA P-480; Desk Reference for Local Officials. 2. Development in the Floodway. Within the floodway, the following standards apply to all development: a. New encroachments are prohibited within the floodway, except for the following, which also shall comply with subsection (b) below: i. New encroachments relating to bridges, culverts, roads, stabilization projects, public utilities, functionally dependent uses, and river or floodplain restoration projects; and ii. New encroachments relating to health and safety measures, such as replacement of preexisting on-site septic and water supply systems, if no other practicable alternative is available. b. For all proposed new encroachments and above-grade development, a hydraulic analysis is required to be provided for review. The analysis should be performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, by a registered professional engineer, and shall certify that the proposed development will: i. Not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood; ii. Not increase base flood velocities; and iii. Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or flooding. c. For development that is either below grade or will not result in any change in grade, the hydrologic & hydraulic analyses may be waived, where the applicant will provide pre and post- development elevations demonstrating that there will be no change in grade, and that the development will be adequately protected from scour. d. For any new encroachment that is proposed within the Floodway where a hydraulic analysis is required, the applicant may provide a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) in lieu of a hydraulic analysis, to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not have an adverse impact. 3. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District. All development in the Floodplain Overlay District shall comply with the following standards: a. All development shall be reasonably safe from flooding, as determined by compliance with the specific standards of this subsection. b. All development shall be designed (I) to minimize flood damage to the proposed development and to public facilities and utilities, and (II) to provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. c. All development shall be (I) designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure during the occurrence of the base flood, (II) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (III) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage, and (IV) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 16 d. Water Supply and Wastewater. New and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. e. Stream Alteration. The flood carrying capacity within any portion of an altered or relocated watercourse shall be maintained. f. Manufactured Homes. Replacement manufactured homes shall be elevated on properly compacted fill such that the top of the fill (pad) under the entire manufactured home is above the base flood elevation. g. Structures. i. Residential Structures a) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least two (2) feet above base flood elevation; this must be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate. b) Residential structures to be substantially improved in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zones B1 & B2, and new structures in Floodplain Overlay District Zone 0.2% B1, shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least two (2) feet above the average grade level on-site; this must be documented, in the proposed and as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Average grade level means the average of the natural or exiting topography at center of all exterior walls of a building or structure to be placed on site. ii. Non-residential Structures. Non-residential structures to be substantially improved, and new non-residential structures in the Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1, shall meet the following standards: a) Meet the standards in Section 10.01(G)(3)(g)(i) Residential Structures; or, b) Have the lowest floor, including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that two (2) feet above the base flood elevation (for structures in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH), or two (2) feet above the average grade level on-site (for structures in Zones 0.2% B1 and B2), the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. A permit for flood proofing shall not be issued until a licensed professional engineer or architect has reviewed the structural design, specifications and plans, and has certified that the design and proposed methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. An occupancy permit for the structure shall not be issued until an "as-built" plan has been submitted and a licensed professional engineer or architect has certified that the structure has been constructed in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. h. Basements. For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below grade on all sides (including below grade crawlspaces and basements) shall be prohibited. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 17 i. Areas Below Base Flood Elevation. For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas that are above grade, below the lowest floor, below Base Flood Elevation and subject to flooding, shall be (i) solely used for parking of vehicles, storage, or access, and such a condition shall clearly be stated on any permits; and, (ii) designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Such designs must be certified by a licensed professional engineer or architect, or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings on two walls having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. j. Impact to Base Flood Elevation. In the AE Zone, where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have not been determined, development shall not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated encroachment, will not increase the base flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point within the community. The demonstration must be supported by technical data that conforms to standard hydraulic engineering principles and certified by a licensed professional engineer. k. Recreational Vehicle. All recreational vehicles shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use. l. Accessory Structures. In Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1, a small accessory structure of 500 square feet or less in gross floor area that represents a minimal investment need not be elevated to the base flood elevation in this area, provided the structure is placed on a site so as to offer the minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters and shall meet the criteria of 10.01(G)(3)(i). Accessory structures are prohibited in all other parts of the Floodplain Overlay District. m. Critical Facilities. Critical facilities that are to be replaced, substantially improved, or meet the definition of substantial damage shall be constructed so that the lowest floor, including basement, shall be elevated or dry-floodproofed at least two (2) feet above the average grade level in Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B1 and Floodplain Overlay District 0.2% Zone B2, or three (3) feet above base flood elevation in Floodplain Overlay District Zones A, AE, and A1- 30. A critical facility shall have at least one access road connected to land outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain that is capable of accommodating emergency services vehicles. The top of the access road shall be no lower than the elevation of the 0.2% annual chance flood event. n. Historic Structures. For historic structures that would meet the definition of substantial improvement or substantial damage if not for their historic structure designation, the improved or repaired building shall meet the following mitigation performance standards for areas below the base flood elevation: i. Utility connections (e.g., electricity, water, sewer, natural gas) shall be protected from inundation and scour or be easily repaired; ii. The building foundation shall be structurally sound and reinforced to withstand a base flood event; iii. The structure’s historic designation shall not be precluded; iv. The likelihood of flood waters entering the structure during the base flood is reduced; and LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 18 v. There shall be no expansion of uses below base flood elevation except for parking, storage, building access, or, in the case of non-residential buildings, where the space is dry floodproofed. o. No Rise Requirement. No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development, that would result in any increase in flood levels within the regulatory floodway during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, shall be permitted unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, by a licensed professional engineer, certifying that the proposed develop ment will: a) Not result in any increase in flood levels (0.00 feet) during the occurrence of the base flood; and b) Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or flooding. p. Erosion Control Measures on Lake Champlain. The installation of erosion control measures within may be approved by the DRB provided the following standards are met: i. The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. ii. The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. iii. The project will not have an undue adverse effect on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. iv. The project shall preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation to the greatest extent possible. 4. Other Applicable Standards. Development in the Floodplain Overlay District may be subject to these additional standards: a. All land lying within a River Corridor as defined in these regulations is subject to the standards of Section 10.07 in addition to the standards of this section. b. All land lying within a stream or surface water buffer, and all land within the 0.2% B1A Zone, is subject to the standards of Section 12.02 in addition to the standards of this section. H. Nonconforming Structures. 1. A nonconforming structure in the Floodplain Overlay District that has been substantially damaged or destroyed may be reconstructed in its original location only if it is rebuilt to comply with all requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and these regulations; 2. Nonconforming structures and uses shall be considered abandoned where the structures or uses are discontinued for more than 6 months. An abandoned structure shall not be permitted for re-occupancy unless brought into compliance with these regulations and Section 3.11(G). An abandoned use shall not be permitted unless brought into compliance with these regulations. I. Variances. 1. A variance for development in the Floodplain Overlay District may be granted by the Development Review Board only in accordance with Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated and 44 CFR Section 60.6. 2. Any variance issued in the Special Flood Hazard Area shall not increase flood heights, and shall inform the applicant in writing over the signature of a community official that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation increases risk to life and property and will result in increased LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 19 flood insurance premiums up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of coverage. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. J. Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all new structures or substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay District. 1. Upon receipt of the application for a certificate of occupancy, the Administrative Officer shall review the permit conditions and inspect the premises to ensure that: i. All required state and federal permits that have been obtained by the applicant; ii. All work has been completed in conformance with the zoning permit and associated approvals; and iii. All required as-built documentation has been submitted to the Administrative Officer (e.g. updated FEMA Elevation Certificate, dry floodproofing certificate, as-built volumetric analysis, or as-built floodway encroachment analysis). K. Enforcement. Enforcement shall be conducted by the Administrative Officer. All enforcement action related to property in the Floodplain Overlay District shall be performed in compliance with Article 17 and the following procedures: 1. The State NFIP Coordinator shall be provided a copy of all notices of violation issued by the Administrative Officer for development that is not in conformance with this section. 2. If any appeals have been resolved, but the violation remains, the Administrative Officer shall submit a declaration to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program requesting a denial of flood insurance to the property pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. 10.01 Floodplain Overlay District (FP) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Floodplain Overlay District to: (1) Avoid and minimize the loss of life and property, the disruption of commerce, the impairment of the tax base, and the extraordinary public expenditures and demands on public services that result from flooding; (2) Ensure that the selection, design, creation, and use of development is reasonably safe and accomplished in a manner that is consistent with public wellbeing, does not impair flood plain services or the stream corridor; (3) Manage the flood hazard area designated pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32 § 753, the municipal hazard mitigation plan; and make the City of South Burlington, its citizens, and businesses eligible for federal flood insurance, federal disaster recovery funds, and hazard mitigation funds as may be available. B. Authority. In accordance with 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32, and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117 §4424, §4411 and §4414, there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of flood damage in the City of South Burlington Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington identified as within the Floodplain Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B). C. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant portions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. D. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered by this overlay district will be free from flood damages. This regulation shall not create liability on the part of LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 20 the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this regulation, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. E. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this Floodplain Overlay District shall not in any way impair or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where this regulation imposes a greater restriction the provisions here shall take precedence. F. Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict (1) Development Review in Hazard Areas (a) Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined in Section 2.03 (Floodplain Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. (b) Submission requirements. In addition to all information required for permitted and conditional uses, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Project Review Sheet to Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. The Project Review Sheet shall identify all State and Federal agencies from which permit approval is required for the proposal, and shall be filed as a required attachment to the municipal permit application. The identified permits, or letters indicating that such permits are not required, shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer and attached to the permit before work can begin. (c) Referrals. (i) Upon receipt of a complete application for a substantial improvement or new construction the Administrative Officer shall forward a copy of the application and supporting information to the State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner. (ii) If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies of the application shall also be submitted to the adjacent communities, the Stream Alteration Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Copies of such notice shall be provided to the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, whichever is sooner. (d) Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. Structures associated with any of the permitted uses below shall be allowed only as Conditional Uses subject to the provisions of this Section 10.01. (i) Park; (ii) Recreation path; (iii) Outdoor recreation facility; (iv) Non-substantial improvements of existing structures; (v) Development related to on-site septic or water supply systems; (vi) Building utilities; (vii) At-grade parking for existing buildings; and, (viii) Recreational vehicles. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 21 (e) Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board in accordance with the provisions of this Section 10.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards. (i) Substantial improvement, elevation, relocation, or flood proofing of existing structures; (ii) Accessory structures; (iii) New or replacement storage tanks for existing structures; (iv) Grading, excavation; or the creation of a pond; (v) Improvements to existing roads; (vi) Bridges, culverts, channel management activities, or public projects which are functionally dependent on stream access or stream crossing; (vii) Public utilities. (f) Prohibited Uses. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in this section, the following uses are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict: (i) New residential or non-residential structures (including the placement of manufactured homes); (ii) Storage or junk yards; (iii) New fill except as necessary to elevate structures above the base flood elevation; and, (iv) Accessory structures in the floodway. (2) Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict, all structures shall be subject to the area, density and dimensional requirements of the Residential 1 District as set forth in Section 4.01 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards of these regulations. (3) Additional Standards. (a) No encroachment, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, or other development, that would result in any increase in flood levels within the regulatory floodway during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, shall be permitted unless hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, by a licensed professional engineer, certifying that the proposed development will: a) Not result in any increase in flood levels (0.00 feet) during the occurrence of the base flood; and b) Not increase any risk to surrounding properties, facilities, or structures from erosion or flooding. (b) Within the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict, excavation of earth products shall be prohibited in such cases where it is anticipated that such excavation will lower the level of the water table, interfere with natural flow patterns, or reduce flood storage capacity. (c) All development allowed as Conditional Uses pursuant to Section 10.01(F)(1)(e) above shall meet the following additional standards: (i) All development shall be reasonably safe from flooding, as determined by compliance with the specific standards of this subsection. (ii) All development shall be designed (I) to minimize flood damage to the proposed development and to public facilities and utilities, and (II) to provide adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood hazards. (iii) All development shall be (I) designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure during the occurrence of the base flood, (II) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (III) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage, and (IV) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 22 plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. (iv) New and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. (v) On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. (vi) The flood carrying capacity within any portion of an altered or relocated watercourse shall be maintained. (vii) Replacement manufactured homes shall be elevated on properly compacted fill such that the top of the fill (pad) under the entire manufactured home is above the base flood elevation. (viii) Structures to be substantially improved in Zones A, A1-30, AE, and AH shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least one (1) foot above base flood elevation; this must be documented, in as-built condition, with a FEMA Elevation Certificate. (ix) Non-residential structures to be substantially improved shall: (I) Meet the standards in Section 10.01(F)(3)(c)(viii); or, (II) Have the lowest floor, including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that two (2) feet above the base flood elevation the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; A permit for flood proofing shall not be issued until a licensed professional engineer or architect has reviewed the structural design, specifications and plans, and has certified that the design and proposed methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. An occupancy permit for the structure shall not be issued until an "as-built" plan has been submitted and a licensed professional engineer or architect has certified that the structure has been constructed in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of this subsection. (x) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below grade on all sides (including below grade crawlspaces and basements) shall be prohibited. (xi) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas that are above grade, below the lowest floor, below Base Flood Elevation and subject to flooding, shall be (i) solely used for parking of vehicles, storage, or access, and such a condition shall clearly be stated on any permits; and, (ii) designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Such designs must be certified by a licensed professional engineer or architect, or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings on two walls having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. (xii) In Special Flood Hazard Areas where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying maps, it is the applicant’s responsibility to develop the necessary data. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 23 (xiii) In the AE Zone, where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have not been determined, development shall not be permitted unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated encroachment, will not increase the base flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point within the community. The demonstration must be supported by technical data that conforms to standard hydraulic engineering principles and certified by a licensed professional engineer. (xiv) All recreational vehicles shall be fully licensed and ready for highway use. (xv) A small accessory structure of 500 square feet or less in gross floor area that represents a minimal investment need not be elevated to the base flood elevation in this area, provided the structure is placed on a building site so as to offer the minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters and shall meet the criteria of subsection (xi) above. (4) Administration and Enforcement. (a) The Zoning Permit issued for any development pursuant to this Section 10.01(F) shall include: a record of the elevation, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new construction or substantial improvements of structures. (b) Upon issuance of a zoning permit, the Administrative Officer shall properly file and maintain a record of: (i) Elevation Certificates with the as-built elevation (consistent with the datum of the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the community) of the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substantially improved structures (not including accessory structures) in the Special Flood Hazard Area; (ii) All flood proofing and other certifications required under this regulation; and, (iii) All decisions of the Board (including variances and violations) and all supporting findings of fact, conclusions and conditions. (c) Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be required for all new structures or substantial improvements to structures in the Floodplain Overlay (Zones A, AE, and A1-30) Subdistrict. (d) Enforcement (i) A copy of any notice of violation of this section shall be mailed by the Administrative Officer to the State NFIP Coordinator. (ii) If any appeals have been resolved, but the violation remains, the Administrative Officer shall submit a declaration to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program requesting a denial of flood insurance to the property pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. (iii) Any proposed agricultural structure that does not meet the criteria and process in the Accepted Agricultural Practices will be in violation of this bylaw. Such violations shall also be immediately reported to the Secretary of Agriculture for enforcement under 6 V.S.A. Section 4812. (e) Variances (i) A variance may be granted by the Development Review Board only in accordance with Title 24, Vermont Statutes Annotated and 44 CFR Section 60.6. (ii) Any variance issued in the Special Flood Hazard Area shall not increase flood heights, and shall inform the applicant in writing over the signature of a community official that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation increases risk to life and property and will result in increased flood insurance premiums up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of coverage. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 24 G. Floodplain Overlay (Zone 0.2%) Subdistrict (1) Permits. A permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined in Section 2.02 (Definitions), in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict. (2) Permitted Uses. Those uses allowed as permitted uses in any underlying zoning district within the City may be permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict only in accordance with the provisions of this section. (3) Conditional Uses. Those uses allowed as conditional uses in any underlying zoning district within the City may be permitted in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict only in accordance with the provisions of this section. (4) Prohibited Uses. In addition to any uses not specifically listed in the underlying zoning district, new Critical Facilities are specifically prohibited in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict. (5) Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict, all structures shall be subject to the area, density and dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district as set forth in Article IV and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards of these regulations. (6) Additional Standards. (a) Any Critical Facilities to be expanded or substantially improved in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict shall be located such that the lowest floor is at least one (1) foot above base flood elevation. (b) In the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict, where base flood elevations and/or floodway limits have not been provided by the National Flood Insurance Program in the Flood Insurance Study and accompanying maps, it is the applicant’s responsibility to develop the necessary data. (7) Administration and Enforcement. Administration and enforcement of development in the Floodplain Overlay (0.2% Zone) Subdistrict shall be subject to all requirements of Article XVII (Administration and Enforcement) of these Regulations. … 10.07 River Corridor Overlay District (RCO) [NOTE TO DRAFT: SECTION 10.07 IS DISPLAYED A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TEXT. EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING SECTION] A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the River Corridor Overlay District to: (1) Establish protection of the river corridor to provide rivers and streams with the lateral space necessary to maintain or reestablish floodplain access and minimize erosion hazards through natural, physical processes; (2) Allow for wise use of property within river corridors that minimizes potential damage to existing structures and development from flood-related erosion; (3) Discourage encroachments in undeveloped river corridors; (4) Protect and improve the quality of surface waters and streams within the City of South Burlington; and (5) Provide sufficient space for wildlife habitat along rivers and streams. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 25 (4) Provide allowances for infill and redevelopment of designated centers that are within river corridors. B. Authority. In accordance with 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, §4424, and §4414, there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of erosion damage in the City of South Burlington Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington identified as within the River Corridor Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B). C. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant portions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. D. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered by this overlay district will be free from erosion damages. This regulation shall not create liability on the part of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any erosion damages that result from reliance on this regulation, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. E. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this River Corridor Overlay District shall not in any way impair or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where this regulation imposes a greater restriction, the provisions in these regulations shall take precedence. F. District General Provisions (1) Establishment of RCO District. The RCO is an overlay district. All other requirements of the underlying district, or another overlay district such as the Flood Hazard Overlay District, shall apply in addition to the provisions herein, unless it is otherwise so indicated. If there is a conflict with another such district, the stricter provision shall apply. (2) RCO District Boundaries. The boundaries of the RCO District are as follows: (a) All River Corridors as published by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (including the Statewide River Corridors and refinements to that data based on field-based assessments which are hereby adopted by reference). (b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal of the top of bank or top of slope, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology, along the reaches of the main stem of Potash LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 26 Brook where a mapped River Corridor has not been developed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. (c) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance from the top of bank or top of slope, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology, of all other perennial rivers and streams. (d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance from the top of the bank or top of slope of a natural intermittent stream, whichever is applicable given the stream’s fluvial geomorphology. (e) Requests to update a River Corridor map shall be in accordance with the procedure laid out in the ANR Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedure. (3) RCO District – Classification. River Corridors shall be classified in the following manner per Section 12.01: (a) River Corridors on Intermittent Streams. River Corridors on intermittent streams are Level II Resources. (b) All Other River Corridors. River Corridors on all other streams shall be considered a Hazard resources. (4) Jurisdictional Determination and Interpretation. The information presented on any maps, or contained in any studies, adopted by reference, is presumed accurate. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the RCO the location of the boundary on the property shall be determined by the Administrative Officer (AO). If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the AO or the river corridor as mapped, the applicant has the option to either: (a) Hire a licensed land surveyor or registered professional engineer to stake out the RCO boundary on the property; or (b) Request a letter of determination from ANR which shall constitute proof of the location of the river corridor boundary. In support of a letter of determination request, applicants must provide ANR a description of the physical characteristics that bring the river corridor delineation into question (e.g. the presence of bedrock or other features that may confine lateral river channel adjustment. When ANR receives a request for a letter of determination, ANR evaluates the site and existing data to see if a change to the river corridor delineation is justified, necessitating a river corridor map update. An ANR letter of determination will either confirm the existing river corridor delineation or will result in an update to the river corridor delineation for the area in question. If a map update is justified, an updated map will be provided with the letter of determination. G. Prohibited, Exempted, and Permitted Development in River Corridors (1) Prohibited Development in the RCO District. The following types of development are prohibited in the RCO District: (a) All development, including new structures, structure additions, fill, accessory dwelling units, and any other development that is not expressly listed as at least one of the Exempted Activities or Permitted Development as described below; (b) Creation of new lawn or landscaped areas; and (c) Snow storage areas. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 27 (2) Exempted Activities. The following activities do not require a permit under this section of the bylaw: (a) The removal of a building or other improvement in whole or in part, so long as the ground elevations under and adjacent to the removed structure remain unchanged. (b) Any changes, maintenance, repairs, or renovations to a structure that will not result in a change to the footprint of the structure or a change in use. (c) Maintenance of existing sidewalks, roads, parking areas, or stormwater drainage; this does not include expansions. (d) Maintenance of existing bridges, culverts, and channel stabilization activities; this does not include expansions. (e) Construction or repair of stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts), associated transportation and utility networks (new transportation or utility development that runs parallel to the river is not exempt and shall meet the Development Standards in section 10.07(I) below), dams, dry hydrants, and other functionally dependent uses that must be placed in or over rivers and streams that are not located in a flood hazard area and that have coverage under a Stream Alteration Permit, if required, under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 and the rules adopted thereunder. (f) Activities exempt from municipal regulation and requiring a permit under the State’s “Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule” (Environmental Protection Rule, Chapter 29): (i) State-owned and operated institutions and facilities. (ii) Forestry operations or silvicultural (forestry) activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont or other accepted silvicultural practices, as defined by the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation. (iii) Agricultural activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Market’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs). Prior to the construction of farm structures, the farmer shall notify the AO in writing of the proposed activity. The notice shall contain a sketch of the proposed structure including setbacks. (iv) Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248. (v) Telecommunications facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248a. (g) Planting projects which do not include any construction or grading activities in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424(c). (h) Subdivision of land that does not involve or authorize development. (i) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails and puncheons not to exceed ten (10) feet in width. (j) Maintenance of Existing Gardens, Lawns, Driveways, and other public infrastructure. Maintenance of existing gardens, landscaped areas/lawns, driveways and other public infrastructure within the River Corridor in existence as of the effective date of these regulations. (k) Invasive Species, Nuisance Plants, and Noxious Weeds Removal. The removal of invasive species, nuisance plants, and noxious weeds, as identified by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets, within the River Corridor is an exempt from these regulations. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 28 (3) Permitted Development. The following development activities in the RCO District are permissible upon approval, provided they meet all other requirements of the LDRs and the standards of this section. (a) Encroachments necessary to repair damage from a Federally-declared disaster and necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (b) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, upon demonstration of compliance with Section 12.10 and the standards of this section. (c) Replacement of on-site septic systems. H. Development Review Classification & Referral to Outside Agencies (1) All land development proposed in the River Corridor is subject to review standards outlined in Section 12.01(D). (2) Referrals to outside agencies (a) Upon receipt of a complete application for development in the River Corridor, the Administrative Officer shall submit a copy of the application and supporting information to the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner. The AO and DRB shall consider all comments from ANR. (b) If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies of the application shall also be provided to the following entities: affected adjacent communities, the River Management Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, whichever is sooner. I. Development Standards. The criteria below are the minimum standards for development in the RCO District. (1) New development in the River Corridor, including the creation of new lawn areas, is generally prohibited. (2) Natural Vegetation Requirement. All lands within the River Corridor must be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. The clearing of trees and other vegetation is generally prohibited. This standard also does not apply to forestry operations or silvicultural (forestry) activities exempt from local zoning regulation or the removal of trees that are dead, diseased, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or identified as an invasive species. The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation is also prohibited. (a) Pre-existing Non-conforming Lawn Areas. The following section pertains the applications for new development on lots with pre-existing non-conforming lawn areas located within the River Corridor. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 29 (i) Single-Household Dwelling and Two-Household Dwelling Land Uses. Development on lots with existing single or two-household dwelling uses, and pre-existing non-conforming lawn areas in the River Corridor, shall not be required to brought into conformance with the natural vegetation requirement in these regulations. (ii) All Other Land Uses. Development on lots with any other land use (beside a single or two- household dwelling), and that also includes pre-existing non-conforming lawn areas in the River Corridor, shall only be approved if the applicant removes at least 50% of the pre- existing non-conforming lawn area within the River Corridor and completes site remediation. Site remediation shall include re-seeding the subject area with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass and returning the area to a natural state (no mowing). (3) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be allowed in the River Corridor provided the proposed land development conforms with the following standards: (a) The facility shall comply with the standards in Section 12.10; (b) The facility must be located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of the surface water for all water bodies listed in Section 10.07(F)(2)(b) above and ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams. This standard shall not apply to the intake of municipal or community water system, or the outfall of a municipal wastewater treatment or stormwater treatment projects, all of which are functionally dependent upon access to surface waters. This standard shall also not apply to road crossings, driveway crossings, public sidewalks and recreation paths (including bridges and boardwalks) intended to connect parcels and neighborhoods, or provide recreational opportunities, approved under Section 12.10; (c) Stream crossings shall provide sufficient space for the passage of small amphibian and mammalian wildlife typical to the environment in water and on land beneath the structure; and, (d) The facility shall comply with Section 10.07(I)(5). (4) Landscaping and Fencing. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the outside of the River Corridor to clearly identify and protect the River Corridor. The DRB may waive this requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or landscaping along the border of the River Corridor. The design and installation of any such landscaping or fencing must accommodate wildlife passage. (5) All land development in the River Corridor shall also comply with the following standards: (a) Within Designated Centers. Development within Vermont designated centers shall be only allowed within the River Corridor if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development will not be any closer to the river than existing adjacent development. (b) Outside Designated Centers. Development outside of designated centers shall meet the following criteria: i.Infill Development. Infill development must be located no closer to the channel than the adjacent existing principal buildings, within a gap that is no more than 300 feet (see Figure 1); or, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 30 ii.Down River Shadow. Development shall be located in the shadow area directly behind and further from the channel than the existing structure, or within 50 feet of the downstream side of the existing habitable structure and no closer to the top of bank or slope, as applicable. Below-ground utilities may also be placed within the same shadow dimensions of an existing below-ground system (see Figure 2); or, iii.River Corridor Performance Standard. The proposed development shall: (a) not be placed on land with a history of fluvial erosion damage or that is imminently threatened by fluvial erosion; and, (b) not cause the river reach to depart from, or further depart from, the channel width, depth, meander pattern or slope associated with natural stream processes and equilibrium conditions; and, Figure 1: In-fill Development Standard Figure 2: Shadow Area Development Standard LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 31 (c) not result in an immediate need or anticipated future need for stream channelization that would increase flood elevations and velocities or alter the sediment regime, triggering channel adjustments and erosion in adjacent and downstream locations. (d) In making its determination, the DRB may request or consider additional information to determine if the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard, including a description of why the criteria for infill development above cannot be met, data and analysis from a consultant qualified in the evaluation of river dynamics and erosion hazards, and comments provided by the DEC Regional Floodplain Manager on whether the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard. J. Submission Requirements. In addition to all information required for permitted development, the application shall include: (1) Plan. A plan that depicts the proposed development, all water bodies, all River Corridor Overlay District boundaries, the shortest horizontal distance from the proposed development to the top of bank (and/or top of slope, if applicable) of any river, any existing and proposed drainage, any proposed fill, pre- and post-development grades, and the elevation of the proposed lowest floor as referenced to the same vertical datum as the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps; (2) Supplemental Application Requirements. (a) Information clearly demonstrating how the proposed development meets the requirements for infill development and certain non-habitable and accessory structures in subsection 10.07(I) Development Standards above; or (b) A narrative and supporting technical information from a qualified consultant that demonstrates how the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard in subsection 10.07(I) Development Standards above, or (c) Evidence of an approved major or minor map update issued by ANR in accordance with the process outlined in the DEC Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure, finding the proposed development is not located within the river corridor. (3) Waiver of Application Requirements. Upon written request from the applicant, the Administrative Officer or DRB may waive specific application requirements when the data or information is not needed to comply with Section 10.07 of this bylaw. K. Permit Conditions (1) Permits for public water accesses and unimproved paths that provide access to the water for the general public and promote the public trust uses of the water shall include a condition prohibiting the permittee from actively managing the applicable section of river solely to protect the public water access from lateral river channel adjustment. (2) The DRB may require mitigation, such as reduction or elimination of curbing to promote wildlife passage for any Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment projects approved within the River Corridor. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 32 10.07 River Corridor Overlay District (RCO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the River Corridor Overlay District to: (1) Establish protection of the river corridor to provide rivers and streams with the lateral space necessary to maintain or reestablish floodplain access and minimize erosion hazards through natural, physical processes; (2) Allow for wise use of property within river corridors that minimizes potential damage to existing structures and development from flood-related erosion; (3) Discourage encroachments in undeveloped river corridors; and (4) Reasonably promote and encourage infill and redevelopment of designated centers that are within river corridors. B. Authority. In accordance with 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, §4424, and §4414, there is hereby established a bylaw for areas at risk of erosion damage in the City of South Burlington Vermont. These regulations shall apply to development in all areas in the City of South Burlington identified as within the River Corridor Overlay District designated in Section 3.01(B). C. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant portions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. D. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This bylaw does not imply that land outside of the areas covered by this overlay district will be free from erosion damages. This regulation shall not create liability on the part of the City of South Burlington, or any municipal official or employee thereof, for any erosion damages that result from reliance on this regulation, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. E. Precedence of Bylaw. The provisions of this River Corridor Overlay District shall not in any way impair or remove the necessity of compliance with any other local, state, or federal laws or regulations. Where this regulation imposes a greater restriction, the provisions in these regulations shall take precedence. F. District General Provisions (1) Establishment of RCO District. The RCO is an overlay district. All other requirements of the underlying district or another overlay district such as the Flood Hazard Overlay District, shall apply in addition to the provisions herein, unless it is otherwise so indicated. If there is a conflict with another such district, the stricter provision shall apply. (2) RCO District Boundaries (a) Section 10.07 shall apply to the Statewide River Corridors in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, as published by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) including refinements to that data based on field- based assessments which are hereby adopted by reference. (b) On perennial streams with a watershed size greater than half a square mile for which River Corridors have not been mapped by the State of Vermont, the standards in this Section shall apply to the area measured as fifty (50) feet from the top of the stream bank or slope, whichever is applicable LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 33 based on a field determination consistent with the Vermont ANR Flood Hazard and River Corridor Protection Procedure. (c) Requests to update a river corridor map shall be in accordance with the procedure laid out in the ANR Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Protection Procedure. (3) Jurisdictional Determination and Interpretation The information presented on any maps, or contained in any studies, adopted by reference, is presumed accurate. If uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of the RCO the location of the boundary on the property shall be determined by the Administrative Officer (AO). If the applicant disagrees with the determination made by the AO or the river corridor as mapped, the applicant has the option to either: (a) Hire a licensed land surveyor or registered professional engineer to stake out the RCO boundary on the property; or (b) Request a letter of determination from ANR which shall constitute proof of the location of the river corridor boundary. In support of a letter of determination request, applicants must provide ANR a description of the physical characteristics that bring the river corridor delineation into question (e.g. the presence of bedrock or other features that may confine lateral river channel adjustment. When ANR receives a request for a letter of determination, ANR evaluates the site and existing data to see if a change to the river corridor delineation is justified, necessitating a river corridor map update. An ANR letter of determination will either confirm the existing river corridor delineation or will result in an update to the river corridor delineation for the area in question. If a map update is justified, an updated map will be provided with the letter of determination. G. Prohibited, Exempted, and Permitted Development in River Corridors (1) Prohibited Development in the RCO District The following are prohibited in the RCO District (a) New structures, fill, accessory dwellings and any other development that is not expressly listed as at least one of the Exempted Activities or Permitted Development as described below. (2) Exempted Activities The following activities do not require a permit under this section of the bylaw: (a) The removal of a building or other improvement in whole or in part, so long as the ground elevations under and adjacent to the removed structure remain unchanged. (b) Any changes, maintenance, repairs, or renovations to a structure that will not result in a change to the footprint of the structure or a change in use. (c) Maintenance of existing sidewalks, roads, parking areas, or stormwater drainage; this does not include expansions. (d) Maintenance of existing bridges, culverts, and channel stabilization activities; this does not include expansions. (e) Construction or repair of stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts), associated transportation and utility networks (new transportation or utility development that runs parallel to the river is not exempt and shall meet the Development Standards in section 10.07(I) below), dams, dry hydrants, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 34 and other functionally dependent uses that must be placed in or over rivers and streams that are not located in a flood hazard area and that have coverage under a Stream Alteration Permit, if required, under 10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 and the rules adopted thereunder. (f) Activities exempt from municipal regulation and requiring a permit under the State’s “Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule” (Environmental Protection Rule, Chapter 29): (i) State-owned and operated institutions and facilities. (ii) Forestry operations or silvicultural (forestry) activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Department of Forests and Parks Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont or other accepted silvicultural practices, as defined by the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation. (iii) Agricultural activities conducted in accordance with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Market’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs). Prior to the construction of farm structures, the farmer shall notify the AO in writing of the proposed activity. The notice shall contain a sketch of the proposed structure including setbacks. (iv) Public utility power generating plants and transmission facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248. (v) Telecommunications facilities regulated under 30 V.S.A. § 248a. (g) Planting projects which do not include any construction or grading activities in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424(c). (h) Subdivision of land that does not involve or authorize development. (3) Permitted Development. The following development activities in the RCO District are permissible upon approval, provided they meet all other requirements of the LDRs. (a) Construction of or additions to accessory structures that do not exceed, cumulatively, 500 square feet, and are not used for habitation. (b) Improvements to existing utilities that are within or immediately adjacent to an existing right of way and serve a building. (c) Replacement of on-site septic systems. (d) Construction of or additions to an unenclosed deck or patio attached to an existing structure, where such construction or additions are cumulatively 200 square feet or less and are located no less than 100 feet from the top of bank (or top of slope, if applicable). (e) River or floodplain restoration projects that do not involve fill, structures, utilities, or other improvements, and which the ANR Regional Floodplain Manager has confirmed in writing are designed to meet or exceed the applicable standards in this bylaw. H. Development Review Classification & Referral to Outside Agencies (1) A zoning permit is required from the Administrative Officer for all development, as defined in Section 2.03 (Floodplain and River Corridor Definitions), in the River Corridor Overlay District. All permits shall require that a permittee have all other necessary permits from state and federal agencies before work may begin. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 35 (a) If a permitted development activity listed in subsection G(3) above meets the criteria for infill development and/or certain non-habitable and accessory structures in subsections I(2)(a) or I(2)(b), below, then the activity shall require an administrative review by the AO and may receive a Zoning Permit from the AO. (b) If permitted development activity listed in subsection G(3) above does not meet the criteria for infill development and certain non-habitable and accessory structures in subsections I(2)(a) or I(2)(b) then the proposal shall be reviewed by the Development Review Board as a Conditional Use and the DRB must find that the proposed development meets the River Corridor Performance Standard outlined in subsection I(2)(c) prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit by the AO. (2) Referrals to outside agencies (a) Upon receipt of a complete application for new construction or a substantial improvement, the Administrative Officer shall submit a copy of the application and supporting information to the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4424. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Agency, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Agency, whichever is sooner. The AO and DRB shall consider all comments from ANR. (b) If the applicant is seeking a permit for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse, copies of the application shall also be provided to the following entities: affected adjacent communities, the River Management Engineer at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the State National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Coordinator at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation. A permit may be issued only following receipt of comments from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, or the expiration of 30 days from the date the application was mailed to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, whichever is sooner. I. Development Standards. The criteria below are the minimum standards for development in the RCO District. Where more than one district is involved, the most restrictive standard shall take precedence. (1) Development within designated centers shall be allowed within the river corridor if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development will not be any closer to the river than existing adjacent development. (2) Development outside of designated centers shall meet the following criteria: (a) Infill Development must be located no closer to the channel than the adjacent existing principal buildings, within a gap that is no more than 300 feet (see Figure 1); or, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 36 (b) Down River Shadow: A non-habitable addition (garage, deck, patio, stairs, etc.) to an existing habitable structure, or an accessory structure that is adjacent to an existing structure, shall be located in the shadow area directly behind and further from the channel than the existing structure, or within 50 feet of the downstream side of the existing habitable structure and no closer to the top of bank or slope, as applicable. Below-ground utilities may also be placed within the same shadow dimensions of an existing below-ground system (see Figure 2); or, (c) River Corridor Performance Standard. (i) The proposed development shall: a. not be placed on land with a history of fluvial erosion damage or that is imminently threatened by fluvial erosion; and, b. not cause the river reach to depart from, or further depart from, the channel width, depth, meander pattern or slope associated with natural stream processes and equilibrium conditions; and, Figure 31: In-fill Development Standard Figure 42: Shadow Area Development Standard LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 37 c. not result in an immediate need or anticipated future need for stream channelization that would increase flood elevations and velocities or alter the sediment regime, triggering channel adjustments and erosion in adjacent and downstream locations. (ii) In making its determination, the DRB may request or consider additional information to determine if the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard, including: a. Description of why the criteria for infill development and certain non-habitable and accessory structures in sub sections I(2)(a) and I(2)(b) above cannot be met; b. Data and analysis from a consultant qualified in the evaluation of river dynamics and erosion hazards; c. Comments provided by the DEC Regional Floodplain Manager on whether the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard. J. Submission Requirements. In addition to all information required for permitted development, the application shall include: (1) Plan. A plan that depicts the proposed development, all water bodies, all River Corridor Overlay District boundaries, the shortest horizontal distance from the proposed development to the top of bank (and/or top of slope, if applicable) of any river, any existing and proposed drainage, any proposed fill, pre- and post-development grades, and the elevation of the proposed lowest floor as referenced to the same vertical datum as the elevation on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps; (2) Project Review Sheet. A Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Project Review Sheet. The Project Review Sheet shall identify all State and Federal agencies from which permit approval is required for the proposal and shall be filed as a required attachment to the municipal permit application. The identified permits, or letters indicating that such permits are not required, shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer and attached to the zoning permit before work can begin. (3) Supplemental Application Requirements. (a) Information clearly demonstrating how the proposed development meets the requirements for infill development and certain non-habitable and accessory structures in subsection 10.07(I) Development Standards above; or (b) A narrative and supporting technical information from a qualified consultant that demonstrates how the proposal meets the River Corridor Performance Standard in subsection 10.07(I) Development Standards above, or (c) Evidence of an approved major or minor map update issued by ANR in accordance with the process outlined in the DEC Flood Hazard Area & River Corridor Protection Procedure, finding the proposed development is not located within the river corridor. (4) Waivers. Upon written request from the applicant, the Administrative Officer or DRB may waive specific application requirements when the data or information is not needed to comply with Section 10.07 of this bylaw. K. Permit Conditions Permits for public water accesses and unimproved paths that provide access to the water for the general public and promote the public trust uses of the water shall include a condition prohibiting the permittee from actively managing the applicable section of river solely to protect the public water access from lateral river channel adjustment. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 38 12 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS [NOTE TO DRAFT: ARTICLE 12 IS SHOWN AS A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING TEXT. THE EXISTING TEXT IS SHOWN WITH A STRIKETHROUGH FOLLOWING THE ARTICLE]. 12.01 General Protection Standards and Review Procedures 12.02 Reserved 12.03 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures 12.04 Reserved 12.05 Habitat Blocks 12.06 Habitat Connectors 12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment 12.08 Stormwater Management 12.09 Steep Slopes 12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment 12.01 General Protection Standards, Classifications and Review Procedures A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Article to implement, from a regulatory perspective, the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of “emphasizing sustainability for long -term viability of a clean and green South Burlington” and objective to “promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational assets” in balance with the overall goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. This Article establishes application requirements and development standards designed to avoid or minimize undue adverse effects on these natural resources. The natural resources regulated in this article may also be subject to specific subdivision or planned unit development standards. Where there is conflict between subdivision or planned unit development standards, and the standards in this article, the standard that imposes the greater restriction shall apply. B. Classification. For the purposes of these Regulations, resources are grouped into Hazards, Level I and Level II resource areas. Table 12-01 – Classification of Natural Resources Location in Regulations Initial Identification Field Verification / HDA Hazards Floodplain (1% and 0.2% B2), Floodway 10.01 FEMA FIRM Yes River Corridor except intermittent streams 10.07 ANR Atlas Yes Class I, II Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 ANR Atlas Yes Very Steep Slopes (25+%) 12.09 ANR Atlas If impacted Level I Resources Habitat Blocks 12.05 City LDR Map HDA Optional Habitat Connectors 12.06 City LDR Map HDA Optional Level II Resources Floodplain (0.2% Zone B1) 10.01 FEMA FIRM If Impacted LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 39 Class III Wetlands, Buffers 12.03 ANR Atlas If impacted Steep Slopes (15 to 25%) 12.09 ANR Atlas If impacted River Corridor - Intermittent Streams 10.07 Site Mapping If impacted C. Applicability of Standards. All development must comply with the provisions of this Article, unless otherwise exempted, in order to prevent undue adverse effects on ecological resources, water quality and working lands, unless explicitly waived or amended in this section. Exemptions include: (1) Uses and structures exempt from local regulation pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4413. (2) Construction of fences (i) that enclose cleared areas, such as lawn areas surrounding a residence, provided the clearing occurred prior to [effective date of this provision] or was approved by the DRB in accordance with this Article; or (ii) erected for standard agricultural purposes or, (iii) lower than 4 feet and that have at least 16 inches of clearance between the lowest horizontal part of the fence and the ground. In all cases, proposed fences must comply with section 13.17 (Fences) of these Regulations. (3) Exemptions as specified elsewhere in these Regulations. D. Development Review Process. All development that may encroach upon a natural resource regulated in Article 12 shall be subject to Site Plan Review by the Development Review Board (see Article 14). However, if the encroachment is proposed as a part of a subdivision or Planned Unit Development application, the proposed encroachment shall be reviewed under those procedures instead of Site Plan Review. Other exceptions include: (1) Applications for proposed development that solely include development related to stormwater management (Section 12.08) may be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09). (2) Applications involving development on Steep Slopes between 15% and 25% grade (Section 12.09) shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the application is for a single- household dwelling or two-household dwelling or associated accessory structures, in which case the application may be approved via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer. (3) Applications involving an Environmental Restoration Project may be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09). 12.02 [Reserved] 12.03 Wetland Protection Standards A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s wetland resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, stormwater treatment, wildlife habitat, and flood control. The City intends to strictly protect Class I wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their respective buffers via the standards of this section. The City also intends to provide protection that offers limited flexibility for larger class III wetlands (over 300 square feet in size) and their respective buffers, and to Class II wetlands and their respective buffers in specific identified areas of the city. B. Applicability. All development in the City of South Burlington shall comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements of this Section will apply to all lands described as follows, collectively referred to as Wetlands Areas and Related Buffers: (1) Class I Wetlands and Related Buffers. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 40 (a) In all City Center Form-Based Code, Commercial, Industrial and Airport, and Other (Institutional and Agricultural and Municipal only) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01 of these Regulations, all Class I wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland one-hundred (100) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section. (b) Residential Districts and the Park and Recreation Districts. In all Residential and Other (excepting those enumerated in Subsection B(1)(a)) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01, all Class I wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland two hundred (200) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section. (2) Class II Wetlands and Related Buffers. (a) In all City Center Form-Based Code, Commercial, Industrial and Airport, and Other (Institutional and Agricultural and Municipal only) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01 of these Regulations, all Class II wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland fifty (50) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section. (b) In all Residential and Other (excepting those enumerated in Subsection B(1)(a)) zoning districts, as established in Section 3.01, all Class II wetlands, and their related buffer areas as measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland one hundred (100) feet, are subject to the provisions of this section. (3) Class III Wetlands. All Class III wetland areas 300 square feet or larger in size, and their related fifty (50) foot buffer areas measured in horizontal distance from the boundary of the wetland, are subject to the provisions of this section. Class III wetlands less than 300 square feet in size are not regulated by the City. C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. (1) Per Section 17.08, the DRB may require independent technical review of any field delineation and wetlands report. (2) For applications involving Class I and/or Class II wetlands, the applicant’s application may include a wetlands delineation approved by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources as a part of the State Wetlands Permit. The DRB may defer to this delineation in their review of the application instead of requiring an additional or separate delineation. D. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Class I and Class II Wetlands. Development is generally prohibited within Class I wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their associated buffers. All lands within a Class I wetlands, Class II wetlands, and their associated buffers, shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. However, an applicant may seek approval for a Limited Infrastructure Encroachment under this section or to modify this standard per the regulations in Section 12.03(E) (2) Class III Wetlands. Development in a Class III wetland (meeting 300 square foot threshold), and associated buffer within all zoning districts, is generally prohibited and shall be left in an undisturbed, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 41 naturally vegetated condition. However, an applicant may seek approved for a Limited Infrastructure Encroachment under this section or to modify this standard where allowable per the regulations in Section 12.03(E). (3) Landscaping and Fencing. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be installed along the outside perimeter of the wetlands buffer to clearly identify and protect wetlands buffer. The DRB may waive this requirement, if petitioned by the applicant, if there is existing forest and/or landscaping along the border of wetland buffer or other clear, existing demarcation. The design and installation of any such landscaping or fencing must accommodate wildlife passage. (4) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment may be allowed within Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands, and their associated buffers, without a waiver or modification provided that the applicant demonstrates the project’s compliance with Section 12.10 and the following supplemental standards: (a) Roadway paved surfaces shall be no wider than 20 feet; and, (b) Roads that bifurcate a wetland or wetland buffer shall propose appropriate mitigation, such as reduction or elimination of curbing and installation of cross culverts, to enable wildlife passage. E. Modifications (1) An applicant may request a modification, in writing, from the rules of this section for any development in the following areas only: (a) Development in a Class II wetland and associated buffer within the Form -Based Code Zoning Districts. (b) Development in a Class III wetland exceeding 300 square feet in area and associated buffer within all zoning districts. (2) The DRB may grant a modification from the rules of this Section only if all the following standards are met: (a) The modification shall be the minimum required to accommodate the proposed development; (b) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the planned character of the area, as defined by the purpose statement of the zoning district within which the project is located, or on public health and safety; (c) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect on the ability of the property adequately treat stormwater from the site; and, (d) The proposed development will not have an undue adverse effect upon specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation. 12.04 [Reserved] 12.05 Habitat Blocks A. Purpose. It is the purpose of these Habitat Block standards to avoid undue adverse effects from development on these resources, promote the natural succession of vegetated areas of native vegetation LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 42 in order to support wildlife habitat and movement, promote carbon sequestration, filter air, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain. B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to all development proposed in areas indicated as “Habitat Blocks” on the Natural Resources Map, except as follows: (1) On lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre in size existing as of the effective date of these Regulations; (2) On land located within 50’ horizontal distance of a principal building on the subject parcel existing as of the effective date of these regulations; (3) On land authorized by the Development Review Board to be removed from or added to a Habitat Block pursuant to the modification options of this section or as part of a Conservation Planned Unit Development. C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. Where an applicant elects to perform a Habitat Disturbance Assessment, the submittal requirements of Section 12.07 shall apply. D. Modification of Habitat Block. An applicant may request approval from the Development Review Board to modify a mapped Habitat Block in any of the following manners. An applicant may select any one of the options three modification methods below. A development application may not include more than one option for any application. Land located within the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously approved as open space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting development, subject to a conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public entity shall not be eligible for any of the modification methods for habitat blocks subject to this section. (1) Minor Habitat Block Boundary Adjustment. An applicant may apply to modify the boundary of a mapped Habitat Block by up to fifty (50) feet in any direction to account for site-specific conditions, upon written request by the applicant as part of the requisite application. Any proposed modification in Habitat Block area must be offset with an equal addition elsewhere within the same subje ct parcel or Planned Unit Development that is contiguous to the Habitat Block. In no case shall the Development Review Board approve a net reduction of a Habitat Block. (2) Small On-Site Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat Block area not to exceed two (2) acres or ten (10) percent of the application’s total land area, whichever is less, for an equal amount of land within the same Planned Unit Development or Site Plan upon written request, without requiring a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment. Such land exchange must not include Core Habitat Areas and shall not eliminate existing Habitat Connectors. To approve a small on-site habitat block exchange, the Development Review Board shall require the applicant to: (a) Retain a similar or greater quality and maturity of vegetation within the proposed areas for exchange; and (b) Retain mature and/or prominent tree stands. (3) Larger Area Habitat Block Exchange. An applicant may apply to exchange a mapped Habitat Block area in exchange for an equal amount of land within the same Habitat Block upon written request, and pursuant to the standards of this Section. The exchange of land within the same Habitat Block may occur within one parcel or on separate parcels. (a) Supplemental submittal requirements. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 43 (i) Indicate, on the Master Plan and all subsequent plans, all proposed alterations to the Habitat Block. (ii) Submit, as part of the preliminary plat application, a Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA) pursuant Section 12.07 and a written assessment of compliance with the standards contained within this subsection. (b) Supplemental Standards of Review. The Development Review Board may approve a re- designation of a portion of a Habitat Block if it finds all of the criteria below to be met: (i) The HDA demonstrates that the alteration will not result in a reduction in the Habitat Block’s function as a significant wildlife habitat as defined in these Regulations; (ii) Wildlife movement connectivity is retained between mapped Habitat Blocks; and, (iii) Proposed adjacent development and infrastructure must be designed to have no undue adverse effects on habitat functions. (c) Exchanged Land. Land to be added to the Habitat Block pursuant to this section must be set aside and identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as one or more “Conservation Lots” as established in Section 15A, to be maintained and managed in s ingle or common ownership, or under a conservation easement held by the City or qualified third party, such as an established land trust, that is contiguous to the habitat block and unseparated by roadways, railways, or other impeding infrastructure. (i) Land located with the SEQ-NRP zoning subdistrict, Hazards, Level I resources, previously approved as open space or conserved land, subject to a deed restriction prohibiting development, subject to a conservation or density reduction easement, or owned by a public entity shall not be eligible to be used for a land exchange. (ii) Any land proposed to be added / conserved shall be accompanied by a restoration plan, prepared by a landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist, or equivalent, that will result in the land functioning as a significant wildlife habitat such that within a period of ten (10) years and being classified as transitional forest / forest by a land use / land cover assessment at that time. E. Substantially-Habitat Block-covered lots. A lot or parcel containing a combination of Hazards and Level I resources exceeding seventy (70) percent of the total lot area is eligible for relief from Habitat Block standards as follows: (1) [Reserved] (2) The Development Review Board may approve exclusion of an area of land within the Habitat Block not to exceed thirty (30) percent of the total lot area. Where applicable, land shall be excluded in the following order: • First: Land not a Hazard or Level I resources; • Second: Land that is not characterized by a preponderance of mature trees; • Third: Land within Habitat Blocks, excluding Core Habitat Block areas or which would sever a Habitat Connector. • Fourth: Land within Habitat Blocks, avoiding core habitat block areas to the greatest extent possible; LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 44 (a) Calculation: Land shall be selected from first to fourth If all applicable land on the lot or parcel from one category is excluded, and the thirty (30) percent allotment of excluded land has not been reached, then land from the next category land shall be selected next. (b) Special Circumstances: Where the DRB finds that exclusion of land pursuant to the priority order above is in conflict with the purposes of this section, or where it finds that strict adherence to the priority order does not allow for a unified PUD consistent with the purposes of intent of these regulations, it may approve modifications to the land selected. Any such modifications shall be minimized in terms of land area and modification to the priority order. (c) Any land excluded from Habitat Blocks regulated under this subsection shall remain subject to all other provisions of these Regulations. F. Standards for Habitat Block Protection. (1) General standards. Except as specifically exempted pursuant to Subsection (2) below, approved by the DRB pursuant to subsection (3) below, or modified in accordance with Section (D) above, all lands within a Habitat Block must be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Specifically: (a) The clearing of trees and understory vegetation is prohibited except as specified in this section. (b) The creation of new lawn areas within Habitat Blocks is prohibited. (d) Snow storage areas within Habitat Blocks are prohibited. (e) Building envelopes shall not contain any land within Habitat Blocks. (f) Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve the objectives of this Section is permitted. G. Exempted Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are exempt from review under this section: (1) Establishment and maintenance of unpaved, non-motorized trails not to exceed ten (10) feet in width, or their width prior to adoption of these regulations, whichever is greater; (2) Removal of invasive species, removal of diseased vegetation, and removal of dead or dying trees posing an imminent threat to buildings or infrastructure; and, (3) Uses and activities enumerated in Section 12.01C. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to modify the boundary of a Habitat Block as shown on the Natural Resources Map. H. Development within Habitat Blocks. The encroachment of new development activities, clearing of vegetation, establishment of lawn, or other similar activities into Habitat Blocks and Habitat Block buffers is prohibited. However, the DRB may allow the following types of development within a Habitat Block where a modification option has been approved pursuant to 12.05(D) and subject to the standards in Section 12.05(F): (1) Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment, pursuant to Section 12.10 and the following supplemental standards: (a) The facility shall be strictly limited to be minimum width necessary to function for its intended purposes; LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 45 (b) The clearing of vegetation adjacent to the facility shall be strictly limited to the minimum necessary width to function for its intended purposes). Street tree requirements shall not apply in these area). Street lighting shall be prohibited in these areas except as necessary to meet State or Federal law; and, (c) Appropriate measures shall be taken to promote safe wildlife passage, including the reduction or elimination of curbs, reduced speed limits, and/or signage altering users, and underpass or culverts. (2) Outdoor recreation uses, provided any building, parking and/or driveways appurtenant to such use is located outside the habitat block. (a) Within a public park, structures not exceeding 500 square feet gross floor area are permitted. All such structures must be consistent with the adopted management plan for the park, if one exists. Where a management plan has been adopted for the park, the (3) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the Habitat Block. (a) Research and educational structures not exceeding 500 square feet gross floor area, such as seating areas made of natural materials, storage sheds, or climbing structures, may be allowed within a Habitat Block or Habitat Block buffer. 12.06 Habitat Connectors A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to maintain the functionality of identified Habitat Connectors, allowing species to travel between identified Habitat Blocks, wetland areas, water bodies, and other natural resources within and adjacent to the City. B. Applicability. The requirements of this Section will apply to all areas indicated as “Habitat Connectors” on the Habitat Blocks and Connectors map, except as follows: (1) Lots or parcels of less than one (1) acre existing as of the effective date of these Regulations. (2) Land located within 50 feet horizontal distance of a principal building existing on the same parcel as of the effective date of these regulations. C. Standards. (1) The applicant shall retain a 150-foot wide Habitat Connector where indicated on the Habitat Blocks and Connection Map. (2) Contiguous Hazards, or other contiguous protected natural resources regulated in Article 12, may be used to count towards the connector width. (3) Habitat Connectors shall be subject to the provisions of 12.05(F) Habitat Blocks Standards. (4) Relocation of Habitat Connector. An applicant may apply to relocate a Habitat Connector from its location on the Habitat Blocks and Connection Map but must connect to mapped Habitat Connectors or Habitat Blocks on adjacent parcels. Any relocated portion shall be accompanied by a restoration plan, prepared by a qualified consultant (e.g. landscape architect, professional wildlife biologist or LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 46 equivalent). The restoration plan shall consist of planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in caliper) within areas of the relocated Habitat Connector and shall result in the land functioning as wildlife habitat within a period of ten (10) years time. (5) Restoration of Habitat Connector. The DRB shall require restoration of a Habitat Connector on parcels where development is proposed and pre-existing conditions consist of Habitat Connectors that are less than 150 feet in width along their entire length of the Habitat Connector. Restoration shall consist of planting native tree species (at least 2 inches in caliper) within areas of the Habitat Connector less than 150 feet wide. The applicant may request, in writing, to waive this requirement. The DRB may grant a waiver only if restoration of the Habitat Connector is not possible due the placement of pre-existing structures on the subject parcel. 12.07 Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA) A. Purpose. The Habitat and Disturbance Assessment (HDA) is a tool to inventory and quantify significant wildlife habitat, and the existence of rare, threatened and endangered species (RTEs), within subject properties with mapped Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors (Section 12.05 and Section 12.06) where an applicant is seeking to relocate a portion of the Habitat Block or Habitat Connector. B. HDA Content Requirements. Where an HDA is required by these regulations, the applicant shall contract with a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist to prepare the HDA. The HDA prepared for the Development Review Board shall include the following information: (1) Site Conditions Map including all Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors as indicated on the Habitat Block and Connectors map on or within 200 feet of the project site. (2) An inventory of existing (pre-development) wildlife habitat found on the site, including the presence of rare, threatened, and/or endangered species and significant wildlife habitat, and an inventor y of the specific types of habitat found on the parcel and their relative importance to the various wildlife species that rely on that habitat for one or more life-cycle function; (3) An assessment of the relationship of the habitat found on the site relative to other significant wildlife habitat present in the City (e.g., does habitat found on the parcel provide for connectivity between mapped habitat blocks; is the parcel located contiguous to other significant wildlife habitat, or part of a habitat block); (4) Identification of the distance of all proposed development activities (as permitted), including clearing, driveways and infrastructure, and areas of disturbance, from the significant wildlife habitat and, if significant habitat is proposed to be disturbed, the total area of disturbance and the total area of the remaining (undisturbed) habitat; (5) An assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development, including associated activities (e.g., introduction of domestic pets, operation of vehicles and equipment, exterior lighting, introduction of non-native species for landscaping) on the ecological function of the significant wildlife habitat found on the site. This shall include an assessment of whether travel between areas of core habitat will be disrupted; (6) An assessment of the anticipated functionality of the Habitat Block with proposed mitigation measures and a statement identifying specific mitigation measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed development’s impact on the habitat, including buffers of habitat for specific identified species, possible replacement or provisions for substitute habitats that serve a comparable ecological LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 47 function to the impacted habitat, and/or physical design elements to incorporate into the project. 12.08 Stormwater Management A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is: (1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source; (2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by construction activities and post-construction conditions; (3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site; (4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, rooftops and other paved surfaces; and (5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls. B. Applicability (1) These regulations will apply to all development within the City of South Burlington where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applicant’s lot or parcel. (2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from requirements in this Section 12.08. (3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.08(B)(1), and not exempt under section 12.08(B)(2), shall meet the application requirements in Section 12.08(C) and the site design requirements in section 12.08(D) as follows: (a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.08(D). All new impervious surface area must meet the site design requirements of section 12.08(D). (b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds 50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.08 (D). All new impervious surface area must meet the site design requirements of Section 12.08(D). C. Application Requirements. Applicants required to comply with Section 12.08 shall provide the following information in their application: (1) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment practices. (2) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed stormwater collection systems, culverts, and stormwater treatment practices. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 48 (3) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the location and results of any soil borings, infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing. Infiltration testing shall be completed using methods identified in the VSMM (see section 4.3.3.2 in the 2017 VSMM, or as updated). (4) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques. Where Tier 1 practices are not proposed (see Section 12.08(C)(1)(a)), the applicant shall provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of these practices is not possible before proposing to use Tier 2 or Tier 3 practices. (5) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices. (6) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv storm event, the one-year, twenty-four hour rain event, and the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution). Any TR-55 based model shall be suitable for this purpose. The intent of the twenty-five year storm event analysis is to ensure the proposed project does not overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property. The analysis is also intended to ensure that stormwater infrastructure installed as a part of a development can accommodate future upstream development. (7) The applicant’s engineer must provide such information as the stormwater superintendent or designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage infrastructure. D. Design Requirements - On-Site Treatment. Applicants shall meet the following standards for on-site treatment of stormwater: (1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff and shall be treated using Tier 1 practices as detailed in the VSMM. (a) If it is not possible to treat the volume of stormwater runoff using a Tier 1 practice as specified in Section 12.08(D)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints: (i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater, (ii) Shallow bedrock, (iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour, (iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A. §6602(16), as amended, (v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in the VSMM, or (vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Board, then the WQv shall be treated on the lot using Tier 2 practices as described in the most recently adopted version of the VSMM. A site with an existing Tier 3 practice is allowed to evaluate retrofitting/expanding this practice to meet the requirements of Section 12.08(D)(2). Existing Tier 3 practices shall only be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 12.08(D)(1) in accordance with the Water Quality Practice Selection Flowchart in the VSMM. (2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution) rain event shall not exceed the LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 49 existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions existing prior to submittal of an application. (3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff per section 12.08(D)(1) and 12.08(D)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per Section 12.08(B) may utilize Site Balancing as defined in these Regulations. (4) New drainage structures shall comply with the following standards: (a) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution); (b) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure elevation. (c) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them. E. Design Requirements – Impacts to Municipal System. Stormwater runoff from sites meeting the requirements of Section 12.08(D), or sites that are exempt from §12.08(D), may discharge to the municipal stormwater system, or a stormwater system within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, provided that the stormwater system has adequate capacity to convey the twenty-five year storm event from the contributing drainage area. All applicants shall meet the following standards if it is determined that their project may have impacts to municipal stormwater system: (1) New drainage structures connected to the municipal stormwater system, or a stormwater system within a proposed future municipal right-of-way, shall comply with the following standards: (a) New drainage structures should be located within the street right-of-way (b) All drainage structures must be designed to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event (rainfall amounts to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 data and a type II rainfall distribution); (c) Drainage pipes must have a minimum diameter of 15” and be connected to drainage structures using booted connections. (d) Concrete risers, not brick and mortar, must be used to achieve the necessary drainage structure elevation. (e) House footing drains shall only be connected to drainage facilities located in the street right-of- way when a suitable location to daylight the footing drain cannot be found. (f) Footing drains must not be connected to road underdrain. (g) Any footing drains connected to drainage facilities in the street right-of-way shall be provided with a backflow preventer. (h) Driveway culverts must have a minimum diameter of 18” and 12” of cover above them. (2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development. Culverts, pipes, or other drainage facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 50 potential development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour rain event (rainfall data to be determined using NOAA, Atlas 14 and a type II rainfall distribution). (3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures. In instances where the Stormwater Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff incident from a proposed development may overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property. F. Intermittent Stream Alteration and Relocation Standard. (1) Alteration of Intermittent Streams. When a development incorporates Tier 1 or Tier 2 stormwater treatment practices (as defined in the VSMM) to manage the stormwater that an intermittent stream is conveying in pre-development conditions, the intermittent stream may be altered or relocated as part of stormwater treatment, provided the stormwater management system meets all standards in this Section. An alteration or relocation of an intermittent stream is exempt from the Vermont Stream Alteration Rule. 12.09 Steep Slopes A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to protect the City’s areas of steep and very steep slopes, as mapped and delineated for this purpose, in order to: (1) Prevent erosion and avoid stream sedimentation that may cause undue adverse effects on water quality. (2) Prevent hazards to life and property resulting from slope instability or failure, including rock falls, slides, slumps and other downslope movements of materials or structures. (3) Maintain and re-establish vegetation on steep slopes to stabilize soils. (4) Ensure that development on steep slopes is constructed and maintained in conformance with best management practices for construction, stormwater management and erosion control. B. Applicability. All development is subject to the standards below where steep slopes or very steep slopes are present. C. Application Submittal Requirements. Submittal of a preliminary and/or complete Site Conditions Map (as applicable to the stage of application) pursuant to Appendix E. An analysis of slope stability prepared by a licensed engineer shall also be submitted to ensure that no erosion hazards are created that would have an undue adverse effect on surface waters, wetlands, areas of special flood hazards, or downstream facilities, and any recommended mitigation measures D. Review Process. Per Section 12.01(D), applications involving development on Steep Slopes between 15% and 25% grade shall be reviewed via administrative Site Plan Review (Section 14.09), unless the application is for a single-household dwelling or two-household dwelling, in which case the application may be approved via a zoning permit reviewed by the Administrative Officer. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 51 E. Standards. (1) Very Steep Slope Standards. Development other than Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment is prohibited on slopes greater than 25%. (2) Steep Slope Standards. All development must be designed to avoid undue adverse effects on slopes between 15% and 25%. Clearing of vegetation, excavation and filling on steep slopes shall be minimized. All recommendations of the slope stability analysis submitted with the application shall be required by the DRB or Administrative Officer. F. Exemptions. (1) Removal of Earth Products. Slopes exceeding 15 percent that are created by an approved earth products removal use shall be exempt from the regulations of this subsection. 12.10 Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to define specific types of “restricted infrastructure” that may be allowed to encroach upon a natural resource regulated in Article 12 and to define the standards that shall be met in order for an encroachment to be allowed. B. Types of Development. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments are limited to the types of development listed in this subsection: (1) Underground public utilities systems (e.g. water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, broadband, telephone). (2) Public sidewalks and recreation paths (including bridges and boardwalks) intended to connect parcels and neighborhoods, or provide recreational opportunities within areas containing Hazards, Level I, and Level II resources. (3) Public and Private Street crossings designed to cross Hazards, Level I, and Level II resources. (4) Public and Private Driveway crossings designed to cross Hazards, Level I, and Level II resources. (5) Stormwater Facilities specifically identified as a part of an Environmental Restoration Project. C. Qualifying Criteria. Encroachment into the resource may only be allowed if there is a finding that the proposed Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment meets one or more of the following qualifying criteria: (1) Is necessary to repair impacts from a Federally declared disaster, mitigate the future impacts of hazards, and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; (2) Is for a functionally dependent purpose or use; (3) Is a part of an Environmental Restoration Project; (4) Is for purposes of crossing a natural resource area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the area; or (5) For purposes of providing safe access in accordance with City roadway and connectivity standards to an approved use. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 52 D. Development Review Process. Applications involving Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall be subject to the development review process outlined in Section 12.01(D). E. Standards. All Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments shall meet the following standards: (1) The encroachment shall not have an undue adverse effect on the subject natural resource and meet all specific, applicable standards for Restricted Infrastructure Encroachments into River Corridors (Section 10.07), Wetlands Buffers (Section 12.03), and Habitat Blocks (Section 12.05). (2) Street and Driveway Crossings Not On Official Map. Restricted Infrastructure Encroachment projects involving streets and/or driveways crossings of River Corridors (Section 10.07), Wetlands Buffers (Section 12.03), and/or Habitat Blocks (Section 12.05) that are not shown on the City Official Map may be allowed only upon a determination by the Development Review Board that all resource -specific standards and following standards have been met: (a) There is no feasible alternative for providing safe access to the developable portion of the property; (b) Alternative accesses through adjacent properties have been considered and, where fewer or no constraints exist, property owners have been contacted; (c) The requirements of the applicable restriction will cause unnecessary or extraordinary economic hardship; (d) The area served by the encroachment represents more than thirty (30) percent of the total developable land on the parcel; and, (e) The encroachment represents the least impact feasible to the specific resource. 12 SURACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection and improvement of the surface waters and streams within the City of South Burlington, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay, and the watersheds contained wholly or partially within the City. These regulations and standards are intended to lead to the establishment and protection of natural areas along the City’s surface waters to provide improved protection for water quality and the provision of open space areas and wildlife habitat. It is the further purpose of this Section to provide for the retention of preexisting residential neighborhoods located along Lake Champlain and Potash Brook in a manner consistent with the resource protection goals of this Section and the Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”) (1) Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows: (a) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Muddy Brook and the main stem of Potash Brook. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 53 (b) All land within one hundred (100) feet horizontal distance of the edge of the channel of the Winooski River (c) All land within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of any minor stream (d) All land within ten (10) feet horizontal distance of the centerline of a drainage way (e) Land within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for the purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum. (2) General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows: (a) The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below. (b) Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn grass, and shall not be mowed. (c) The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective date of these regulations. (d) Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that: (i) There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property. (ii) Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt. (e) The placing or storing of cut or cleared trees and other vegetation within the stream buffer is prohibited. (3) Expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre-existing structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in accordance with the standards for non-complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these Regulations. (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 54 (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: (i) There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and (ii) The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. (e) Public recreation paths, located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least twenty five (25) feet from the edge of the channel of the surface water for all water bodies listed in section 10.01(C)(1)(a) and (b) and ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water of all other streams. (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation D. Erosion control measures and water-oriented development along Lake Champlain. The installation of erosion control measures and water-oriented development within or abutting the high-water elevation of Lake Champlain, may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the following standards are met: (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. In making a determination pursuant to this criterion, the DRB may request renderings or LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 55 other additional information relevant and necessary to evaluating the visual impact of the proposed improvement. (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. E. Potash Brook Tributary 3 Requirements. For lands located within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of Tributary 3 of Potash Brook, as delineated in the Potash Brook Watershed Restoration Plan, the DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review of proposed land development activities requiring DRB approval. Such technical review shall have the specific purpose of recommending site plan, stormwater and landscaping measures that will ensure that land development activities are consistent with the City’s overall plan for ecosystem restoration in the Tributary 3 watershed. F. Landscaping and Maintenance Standards within Stream Buffers [reserved] G. Watercourse Alteration and Relocation. (1) The alteration or relocation of a watercourse is permitted subject to the approval of the Development Review Board provided the alteration or relocation: (a) Is needed to accomplish a clear public purpose or objective; (b) Will not reduce the ability of the watercourse to carry or store flood waters adequately; (c) Will not have an adverse impact on downstream or upstream water quality; (d) Will not affect adversely the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; (e) Will not affect adversely the habitat value of the watercourse or immediately adjacent areas or wetlands. (2) In making findings relative to these criteria, the DRB shall be authorized to invoke technical review by a professional in hydrology or geomorphology, and/or to rely on the issuance of a Stream Alteration Permit issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation as evi dence that the above criteria have been met. (3) The South Burlington Natural Resources Committee shall in a timely manner review and make advisory comments to the DRB on any application made pursuant to this section. 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedures A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to provide appropriate protection of the City’s wetland resources in order to protect wetland functions and values related to surface and ground water protection, wildlife habitat, and flood control. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of south Burlington adopted comprehensive plan and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Wetlands Map and Applicability of Standards. (1) All wetland areas within the City of South Burlington, whether identified on the map entitled “Wetlands Map” as set forth in Section 3.02 of these regulations or as identified through field delineation, LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 56 and a buffer area fifty (50) feet horizontal distance surrounding the boundary of any such wetland, shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (2) In the absence of site-specific delineations, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control as to the location of wetlands and wetland buffer areas subject to the provisions of this section. D. Submittal and Review of Field Delineation and Wetlands Report (1) For all properties for which any application for development requiring DRB review is made, and on which any wetland areas are indicated on the Wetlands Map, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit site specific field delineations indicating the location, classification, functions and values of all wetland areas (Class I, II and III) and an associated fifty (50) foot buffer area. In the absence of such site - specific delineations and information, the City’s Wetlands Map shall control. (2) Applicants are encouraged to submit a field delineation and wetlands report as early in the development review process as possible. (3) The DRB shall have the authority to invoke technical review by a qualified wetlands consultant of any field delineation and wetlands report. The City’s wetlands consultant shall submit an evaluation of the field delineation and wetlands report addressing the proposed development’s consistency with the standards in (D) above, and outlining the following: (a) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources without altering the layout of the proposed project. (b) Measures that can be taken to improve the overall effect of the project on wetland resources that involve altering the layout of the proposed project. E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 57 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is: (1) To promote stormwater management practices that maintain pre-development hydrology through site design, site development, building design and landscape design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate and detain stormwater close to its source; (2) To protect water resources, particularly streams, lakes, wetlands, floodplains and other natural aquatic systems on the development site and elsewhere from degradation that could be caused by construction activities and post-construction conditions; (3) To protect other properties from damage that could be caused by stormwater and sediment from improperly managed construction activities and post-construction conditions on the development site; (4) To reduce the impacts on surface waters from impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, rooftops and other paved surfaces; and (5) To promote public safety from flooding and streambank erosion, reduce public expenditures in removing sediment from stormwater drainage systems and natural resource areas, and to prevent damage to municipal infrastructure from inadequate stormwater controls. B. Scope and Applicability (1) These regulations shall apply to all land development within the City of South Burlington where one-half acre or more of impervious surface area exists or is proposed to exist on an applica nt’s lot or parcel. (2) If the combination of new impervious surface area created and the redevelopment or substantial reconstruction of existing impervious surfaces is less than 5,000 s.f. then the application is exempt from requirements in this Section 12.03. (3) Applications meeting the criteria set forth in section 12.03(B)(1) and not exempt under section 12.03(B)(2) shall meet the requirements in section 12.03(C) as follows: (a) If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All new impervious surface area must meet the requirements of section 12.03(C). (b) If the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds 50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C). All new impervious surface area must meet the requirements of Section 12.03(C). C. Site Design Requirements For New Development (1) The Water Quality Volume (WQv) as defined in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual for the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces shall not leave the lot via overland runoff, and shall be infiltrated using Low Impact Development (LID) practices including, but not limited to, practices detailed in the “South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual”. (a) If it is not possible to infiltrate the volume of stormwater runoff specified in Section 12.03(C)(1) due to one or more of the following constraints: LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 58 (i) Seasonally high or shallow groundwater as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, (ii) Shallow bedrock as defined in Appendix D1 of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, (iii) Soil infiltration rates of less than 0.2 inches per hour, (iv) Soils contaminated with hazardous materials, as that phrase is defined by 10 V.S.A. §6602(16), as amended, (v) The presence of a “stormwater hotspot” as defined in Section 2.6 of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, or (vi) Other site conditions prohibitive of on-site infiltration runoff subject to the review and approval of the Development Review Board, then the WQv shall be retained on the lot using other LID strategies and practices such as those detailed in the “South Burlington Low Impact Development Guidance Manual”, or treated by stormwater treatment practices meeting the Water Quality Treatment Standard as described in the most recently adopted version of the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. (2) The post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1 inch) rain event shall not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event from the site under conditions existing prior to submittal of an application. LID practices shall be incorporated into the design as necessary to achieve the maximum allowed runoff rate. If constraints prevent the use of LID practices (see Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), stormwater treatment practices detailed in the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual may be used to achieve the required post construction runoff rate. (3) Applicants who demonstrate that the required control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff per section 12.03(C)(1) and 12.03(C)(2) cannot be achieved for areas subject to these regulations per section 12.03(B) may utilize “site balancing”. D. Additional Site Plan Requirements (1) Applicants required to comply with Section 12.03(C) must include the following information in their site plan submission: (a) Sub-watershed boundaries and drainage area delineations for all stormwater treatment practices. (b) Location, type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all existing and proposed stormwater collection systems, culverts, detention basins, LID installations, and other stormwater treatment practices. (c) Soil types and/or hydrologic soil group, including the results of any soil borings, infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing. (d) A brief written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques. Where LID design approaches are not proposed (see Section 12.03(C)(1)(a)), the applicant shall provide a full justification and demonstrate why the use of LID approaches is not possible before proposing to use conventional structural stormwater management measures. (e) A detailed maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater treatment practices. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 59 (f) Modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv (0.9- inch) and the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1-inch) rain event. Any TR-55 based model shall be suitable for this purpose. E. Drainage Structures (1) Removal of Runoff – The applicant shall remove any impervious surface runoff that exists as a result of the proposed land development. Drainage facilities shall be located in the street right-of-way where feasible. All drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with Public Works Standards and Specifications. Drainage facilities shall also conform to the provisions of Section 12.01 Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”). (2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development – Culverts or other drainage facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for which drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain event. The applicant’s engineer shall provide such information as the Stormwater Superintendent or his designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage structures. (3) Responsibility for Downstream Drainage Structures – The applicant shall provide the Stormwater Superintendent or his designee with such information as the Superintendent deems necessary to determine the effects of the application on drainage structures located downstream of the applicant’s lot or the parcel subject to the application, notwithstanding whether these structures are located on land owned or controlled by the applicant. This analysis shall be conducted using the twenty-five year, twenty- four hour (4.0-inch) storm event. In instances where the Superintendent anticipates that additional runoff incident to the application may overload an existing downstream drainage structure(s) and result in damage to private or public infrastructure or property, the DRB shall impose conditions requiring the applicant to incorporate measures to prevent these conditions, notwithstanding whether such improvements are located on or off the applicant’s property. 12.04 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) [Reserved] LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 60 15 SUBDIVISION and PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW … 15.02 Authority and Required Review A. Authority (1) Pursuant to Section 4413 through Section 4421 of 24 VSA Chapter 117, as amended, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for subdivision of land pursuant to the standards in these Regulations. (2) In accordance with the provisions of Subsections (3) and (12) of Section 4407 of Title 24 VSA Chapter 117, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny Planned Unit Developments and Planned Residential Developments (PUDs). Planned Unit Developments shall not be permitted within The City Center FBC District. (3) In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of these Regulations. (4) Notwithstanding section 15.02(A)(3), however, the following standards shall apply to all PUDs: (a) in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary, and, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a structure not in compliance with Section 15.03(D). (b) In no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. (c) In no case shall the DRB permit the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (B) (2). (d) PUD review does not provide for modification of standards related to Hazards, Level I Resources, or Level II Resources beyond those specifically enumerated in Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations. (5) Pursuant to this Article, the South Burlington Development Review Board shall have the further authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny a Master Plan reviewed in conjunction with a PUD. A Master Plan shall be a binding sub-part of a PUD approval and shall not be construed as a separate land development review procedure from the PUD procedures set forth in this Article. (6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 18.01 and 18.02 of these Regulations. … 15.18 Criteria for Review of PUDs, Subdivisions, Transect Zone Subdivisions, and Master Plans A. General Standards. In all zoning districts of the City, the DRB shall make findings of fact on a PUD, subdivision Transect Zone subdivision, and/or Master Plan in keeping with the standards for approval of subdivisions in Article 15 and/or site plans and conditional uses in Article 14 For PUD, subdivision and/or LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 61 Master Plan applications within the SEQ, IO and R1-Lakeshore districts, the DRB shall also make positive findings with respect to the project’s compliance with the specific criteria in this section. The general standards applicable to all PUDs, subdivisions, Transect Zone subdivisions, and Master Plans are, except as noted below: … (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resources wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of these Regulations related to Hazards, Level I Resources, and Level II Resourceswetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. … (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels, habitat blocks, habitat connectors, wetlands, and/or river corridorsstream buffer areas. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Articles 10 and XII12 of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington. LDR-20-01: Environnemental Protection Standards Draft LDR Amendments For Planning Commission Public Hearing 62 APPENDIX E SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Site Plan Sketch Plan Master Plan Major Prelim Major Subdi vision Final Minor Final Subdiv Sketch Subdiv Final DRB Non- subdiv. Admin / Site Plan Submittal requirement √√√√√√√√√√Existing water courses & buffers, wetlands & buffers, base flood elevations if located in an area of special flood hazard, wooded areas, ledge outcrops, and other natural features. √√√√Initial Site Conditions Map Surface waters & buffers. Existing mapped data for permanent surface waters; estimates for top of bank/stream; estimated locations of intermittent streams. Wetland areas and buffers. Exsting mapped data from Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory, Vrmont Significant Wetland Inventory Advisory Layer, Hydric Soils, and other known sources. Applicant-estimated areas for potential Class III areas. Habitat Blocks: City-Mapped Habitat Blocks. Habitat Connectors: City-Mapped Habitat Connectors. Steep Slopes: Existing mapped data of steep and very steep slopes √√√√√√√Complete Site Conditions Map Surface waters & buffers. Field verification/ delineation of top of bank / top of slope for permanent and intermittent surface waters by a qualified professional Wetland areas and buffers. Field delineation and report of functions and values of all wetland areas prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant Habitat Blocks: Mapped Habitat Blocks or Habitat and Disturbance Assessment if applicable. Habitat Connectors: Mapped Habitat Connectors or Habitat and Disturbance Assessment if applicable. Steep Slopes: Mapped data of unaffected steep or very steep slopes; Field or LiDAR-derived delineation of steep and very steep slopes with a vertical drop exceeding three (3) feet proposed to be impacted All Districts Except City Center FBC City Center FBC District … LANDSCAPE FEATURES Natural Resources Map South Burlington, Vermont Effective INSERT DATE 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.38 Miles Disclaimer: This map is for planning purposes. The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is not responsible for these. Questions of on-the- ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by a registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. Data Source: Special Flood Hazard Area, Wetland, River Corridor (2019)-ANR Parcel Boundary, Zoning District-City of South Burlington Map Prepared by M. Needle using ArcGIS Pro. All Data is in VT State Plan NAD 1983. B1: 500 Year Flood/0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard Level II Resources Habitat Connector Habitat Block Very Steep Slopes (25% + Slope) Steep Slopes (15% to 25%) Level I Resources River Corridor B2: 500 Year Flood/0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard 100' Buffer on Potash Brook Wetland and 50' or 100' Buffer Special Flood Hazard Area or 100 Year Flood Stream or River Centerline Hazards Legend Date:3/24/2021 DRAFT South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 11, 2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 4 MAY 2021 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, 4 May 2021, at Noon, via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; B. Gagnon, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald, ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; T. Newton, CCRPC; R. Gonda, L. Marriott, S. Dopp, D. Long, P. O’Brien, S. Dooley, J. Nick, F MacDonald, Wayne 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. Presentation and Public Input Forum on Draft Environmental Protection Standards Amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Ms. Louisos noted that the Commission is also collecting comments sent via email. Ms. Ostby said mail coming in shows people need more clarity. She asked how to handle that. Mr. Mittag felt people deserve a response as soon as possible. Ms. Louisos felt this should be part of the next agenda as she did not feel she should respond on her own. Mr. Mittag suggested members read the mail and send their comments to Ms. Louisos. Mr. O’Brien thanked the Commission for its work. He noted that when you are in position and have different targets to hit through the permit process, it would be great to get some tweaks in the regulations so they would be more in line. He said that in a perfect world, the LDRs would mimic the rules of the State, Reds, and Army Corps of Engineers. He specifically noted that under the 500-year flood plain regulations regarding steep slopes, the Commission is allowing clarification by the applicant via Lidar data instead of an on-ground survey. Mr. O’Brien said he has found Lidar to be inadequate. An on-ground survey would bring in another level of accuracy. Mr. Newton noted that with steep slopes, either method can be used. He didn’t think the steep slopes issue applies to the 500-year flood plain, and that any issue has to be resolved by FEMA. Mr. O’Brien said that in some hazard areas, field delineation can be introduced, but in some (e.g., habitat blocks) it can’t. He felt that it should be allowed or that a field specific delineation occur and a new map be generated every 5 years. He noted that in 3 large projects he is work on, when you go to the maps, 100% of the time the map of reference won’t match the field delineation. Regarding wetlands, Mr. O’Brien stressed that he does not like to fill wetlands. The intent should be to have the new LDRs fall in line with the regulations in other layers of the process. He noted that Vermont 2 wetland rules don’t taken Class 3 wetlands under their jurisdiction. The Army Corps of Engineers doesn’t require buffers even around a Class 2 wetland. The State used to regulate Class 3 wetlands but stopped because their realized that so much of state land would qualify as Class 3. He noted that you can technically have a Class 3 wetland on your front lawn. He felt the City should align with the State or Federal requirements. The Federal requirements allow up to ½ acre which is more meaningful than 300 sq. ft. Mr. O’Brien said, “300 square feet is ridiculous.” He also noted that it won’t be possible to get verification of a delineation, and the DRB will ask for that and have to hire someone to do it. Mr. O’Brien said an area starts to function as a wetland at half an acre. He also noted that if you are close to that half acre, you have to have the State come out. Mr. Newton agreed with Mr. O’Brien. Mr. O’Brien then asked why there is a different buffer for residential and commercial uses. Ms. Louisos said the Commission is talking about increasing the buffer city-wide because 50 feet often gets encroached on. But they didn’t want to increase the buffer in City Center and also felt it didn’t make sense in an industrial area. Mr. O’Brien noted that had testified in Montpelier as to whether to allow for stormwater treatment in buffer zones. He urged that all buffer zones be treated the same, and that if the 100-foot buffer is kept, to allow for stormwater treatment in the buffers. Mr. O’Brien also said he understands the need to allow farming to continue and noted that farming is regulated/allowed under different wetland rules. He asked the Commission not to handicap the DRB so it can’t allow farming in a wetland or in open space areas in the future as this could lead to unintended consequences. Mr. Newton said the city doesn’t have jurisdiction over farming. New farming, under the Army Corps would require a permit. He thought that language could be cleaned up. Mr. Nick, owner of the Hill Farm, noted he had been assured this wasn’t “a back door taking,” but his feeling is that it is. He noted little blue dots on the maps which he thought were wetlands, and he knows there are no wetlands there. He said he would like not to see a map go out with incorrect mappings that will set the city up for endless appeals. Ms. Louisos said those blue dots may be steep slope areas. On the interactive map, these can be identified. She also acknowledged that in some cases the maps are inaccurate. Mr. Nick said there should be language to that effect. Mr. Nick said the definition of a habitat block is also very broad. He noted that what is identified as a habitat block on his land is not. Mr. Marriott said according to the CCRPC, there are 2 new roads planned: Tilley Drive Extensions and a road from Tilley Drive to the Airport. She asked if these have been approved. Mr. Newton said they have not been approved by anyone. They would have to be approved by the DRB. Ms. Ostby said there may have been some progress on the southern one. Ms. Marriott said the road goes through a wetland and crosses Potash Brook. She asked if that is permitted. She wondered how that fit with the 3 regulations. Mr. Newton cited Section 12.03(d) which says a road is possible if it complies with the rule (e.g., 20 feet wide and allows for wildlife passage). Article 12.10 also has rules. Ms. Louisos said that if those roads are on the Official City Map, they would be allowed within the rules. Mr. MacDonald said the road from Tilley Drive is on the map. There is also a road across the field to Kimball Ave. So it appears both roads are on the Official City Map. Mr. F. MacDonald questioned the procedures used for habitat blocks. He was disappointed that the buffer was subtracted from the block when typically the block is increased by the buffer. It seemed to him that the buffer was removed if the area was OK for development. He cited 3 specific blocks (near South Village, Hill Farm and Meadowland which are all planned for development. Mr. Nick said he looked at the interactive map. The light blue dots appear to be “drainage areas.” He said that on his land, they are around where a house has been removed, and there are no wetlands there. He asked how that map can be corrected. Mr. Nick also noted that habitat blocks don’t follow the edge of the forest on his land. Ms. Louisos said with habitat blocks, the “line is the line,” and it is not field delineated. But there are ways to adjust it during an application process. It could be adjusted to better follow the edge of the forest. Mr. Nick noted they just removed some invasives at the edges of the field, and that may be why they are showing up. He asked that corrections be made. Ms. Louisos said the Commission can look at any recommendation Mr. Nick may have. Mr. Nick said the habitat blocks seem to him like a “taking.” As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 1:20 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk