On the agenda: South Burlington meeting — Data Center (Jul 28)

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, July 28, 2026 | 7 PM
Members of the public may attend in person or digitally via Zoom.
Participation Options:

In Person: City Hall, 180 Market Street, Room 301
Interactive Online: https://zoom.us/j/91865377158
Phone: (929) 205-6099 Meeting ID: 91865377158
1. Welcome
Welcome and instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items
Documents:
AGENDA 02 MEMO 2026-07-28.PDF
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda
4. Announcements and staff report
5.

7:10 PM LDR Amendments: Minor Changes and Review of PC Reports
Documents:
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL OF CHANGES TO PC 2026-07-20.PDF
LDR-26-08 MINOR AND TECHNICAL REPORT (AMENDED).PDF

6.

7:20 PM Transferrable Development Rights: Discussion of Potential Options
Documents:
PC MEMO TDRS 2026-07-28.PDF

7.

8:20 PM 802 Homes: Introductory Presentation by Staff

8. Minutes
Documents:
PC MINUTES 2026-07-14 DRAFT.PDF
9. Other Business
(a) Planning for FY27 Organizational Meeting

PC MINUTES 2026-07-14 DRAFT.PDF
9. Other Business
(a) Planning for FY27 Organizational Meeting
(b) City of Burlington planBTV New North End public hearing on July 28, 2026
Documents:
BURLINGTONNOTICE - MDP-27-01_PLANBTVNNE.PDF
10. Adjourn
Respectfully submitted,

Kelsey Peterson, Senior City Planner
*item has attachments

MEMORANDUM
TO:

South Burlington Planning Commission

FROM:

Kelsey Peterson, Senior City Planner
Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning

SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Memo
DATE:

For July 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting

1. Welcome, instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items
3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda
4. Announcements and staff report
•

TIF Update to City Council – the City Council received a presentation on the current
status of the Tax Increment Financing District and changes at the State level that affect
the progress of the TIF. The presentation is included in the Council Packet.

•

Regional Plan - The State Land Use Review Board held its public hearing on the
Chittenden County Regional Plan this week. The Board will issue a decision on the
Plan by August 6th. Approval will initiate the following things:

•

o

Development activity will be subject to the Act 250 Tier 1B thresholds for all
eligible areas

o

The City will become eligible to apply to Act Tier 1A Status

o

The City Center Downtown Center and Shelburne Road Village Center as
shown on the future land use map in the regional plan will be assigned to their
applicable “Steps” in the new “Centers” program that replaces the former
downtown program

o

The City will become eligible to apply for Step 3 in at least a portion of City
Center

DPW Director transition. Tom DiPietro, the City’s Public Works Director for the past
several years and a key member of the Department’s leadership team since joining the
City 20 years ago, is moving on. His last day with the City will be July 29th. He will be
greatly missed! Erica Quallen, Deputy Director for Capital Projects in DPW, will take
over as Interim Director.

180 Market Street

South Burlington, VT 05403

tel 802.846.4106

fax 802.846.4101 www.sb vt.gov

5. LDR Amendments: Minor Changes and Review of PC Reports
On July 20, 2026, the City Council has made two minor changes to the LDR amendments
advanced by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2026. These changes clarify the single-user
complex allowance in Article 3 and correct an incorrect reference in Article 14. The detailed
redline language is included in the attached memo.
Both changes were included in LDR-26-08, Minor and Technical Amendments. With any changes
to the amendments, the Planning Commission is required to review the PC Reports to make sure
the Reports reflect the changes to the amendments. Staff has reviewed the Planning
Commission Report for LDR-26-08 and recommend that no change to the Report is required by
these changes.
Planning Commission Action: Please review the amendments and confirm no changes are
needed to the PC Report for LDR-26-08, or request Staff make changes to the Report.
Potential Motion: “I move that the Planning Commission confirm that the Planning Commission
Report for LDR-26-08 does not require amendment after minor changes to the amendments
were made by City Council on July 20, 2026.”
6. Transferrable Development Rights: Discussion of Potential Options
See attached memo.
7. 802 Homes: Introductory Presentation by Staff
The State of Vermont has been working with municipal partners on developing a set of ten
approvable housing types (with floorplans and outside sketches) based on a variety of sizes and
shapes, unit counts, and styles. The project, 802 Homes, is intended to provide floor plans that
property owners can use and not have to design individual homes for every project. They are
designed to meet building codes and be able to be customized with decorative details. Municipal
regulations would still apply, including setbacks, lot size, and lot and building coverage, but
could be adjusted to be able to use the ten designs in appropriate locations.
At this meeting, this is only an introduction to the project and an orientation to it for the
Planning Commission. It is our understanding that the designs will be finalized in December
2026 or early 2027. After state-level finalization, we will likely bring this back to the Planning
Commission for further discussion, promotion, and any necessary LDR amendments to allow the
use of the designs.
8. Minutes: July 14, 2026
9. Other Business

2

(a) Planning for FY27 Organizational Meeting
The Planning Commission should hold the Commission’s FY27 Organizational Meeting to select
the Chair, Vice Chair, and Clerk for this year. It would be best for all Commissioner’s to be
present, but the highest attendance for the upcoming meetings will be sufficient. Please come to
this meeting prepared with your planned attendance for meetings in August and September.
(b) City of Burlington planBTV New North End – Public Hearing on July 28, 2026 at 6:45
PM at Burlington City Hall, 149 Church Street - planBTV-New-North-End-Draft
10. Adjourn

3

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Holly Rees, City Clerk
South Burlington Planning Commission

FROM:

South Burlington City Council, c/o Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning

SUBJECT:

Minor Changes to draft Land Development Regulations #LDR-26-08

DATE:

July 20, 2026

On Monday, July 20, 206, the City Council took action to make two minor changes to draft
amendment to the Land Development Regulation #LDR-26-08 scheduled for public hearing on
August 3, 2026. The changes were determined to not be making substantial changes in the
concept, meaning, or extent of the proposed amendment.
Pursuant to 24 VSA 4442(b), a copy of the changed proposal is hereby provided to the City
Clerk and to the Planning Commission. The specific minor changes are included in the entirely
below.
In accordance with the Statute, the Planning Commission is requested to review and amend
the Report prepared pursuant to subsection 4441(c) of this title to reflect the changes made by
the legislative body and to submit that amended Report to the City Council at or prior to the
public hearing.
Comparative text of the minor changes:
•

Section 3.09 Single-User Complex.

Draft Warned for approved by the Planning Commission and warned for public hearing on
7/6/2026 by the City Council:
A. General.
There shall be only one principal building or structure on a lot and only one use per lot,
except as otherwise provided in this Section 3.09.
…
D. Single-User Complex
(1) On any size lot in any zoning district except LSN, MSN, QCP, and NRP, multiple
principal structures are allowed in an integrated complex operated by a single
business, institutional, or municipal entity for commercial/industrial, educational, or
municipal use.
(2) All uses in the integrated complex must be owned and operated by the single
entity. Property management or ownership is not considered a use. Buildings or
portions thereof in the integrated complex cannot be leased, rented, or otherwise used
by another entity for any use, except:
(a) Accessory uses directly supporting the primary user may be owned and
operated by another entity; and

180 MARKET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT | (802) 846-4106 | WWW.SOUTHBURLINGTONVT.GOV

(b) Integrated complexes in the AIR district or I-A district are exempt from this
restriction
…
H. Separate Lots Otherwise Required.
All combinations of buildings, structures, and uses that do not meet the above conditions
shall require separate lots.

Minor Change Made by City Council on 7/20/2026:
A. General.
There shall be only one principal building or structure on a lot and only one use per lot,
except as otherwise provided in this Section 3.09.
…
D. Single-User Complex
(1) On any size lot, an integrated complex of multiple principal structures is allowed:
(a) In any Commercial, Other, or City Center Form-Based Code zoning district if:
(i) The principal use of all structures is municipal facility, educational
facility, educational support facility, or any commercial use allowed
in the zoning district under Appendix C; AND
(ii) The integrated complex and all structures within it are operated by a
single entity.
(b) In any Industrial and Airport zoning district if:
(i) The principal use of all structures is any use allowed in the zoning
district under Appendix C; AND
(ii) The integrated complex and all structures within it are operated by a
single entity.
(2) Buildings or portions thereof in the integrated complex cannot be leased, rented, or
otherwise used by another entity for any use, except:
(a) Accessory uses directly supporting the primary user may be owned and
operated by another entity; and
(b) Integrated complexes in the AIR district or I-A district are exempt from this
restriction
(3) Property management or ownership is not considered a use.
…
H. Separate Lots Otherwise Required.
All combinations of buildings, structures, and uses that do not meet the above conditions
shall require separate lots.

•

14.07 Streetscape standards.

Draft Warned for public hearing on 7/6/2026:
F. Streetscape Improvements.
2

A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding
the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.079(BD) (Administrative Review) or (b) Section
8.131(D) (Non-Conformities) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D)
(Alterations to Non-Conforming Structures) in all other zoning districts, shall be required
to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches,
etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope
Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for
additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.

Proposed Minor Change 7/20/2026:
F. Streetscape Improvements.
A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding
the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.049(BD) (Administrative Review) or (b) Section
8.131(D) (Non-Conformities) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D)
(Alterations to Non-Conforming Structures) in all other zoning districts, shall be required
to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches,
etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope
Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for
additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.

3

State of Vermont
Agency of Commerce &
Community Development
Department of Housing &
Community Development
Municipal Planning Commission
Municipal Bylaw Report
This form is issued pursuant to the Vermont Planning & Development Act and
subject to periodic change.
Last updated June 11, 2025
Contact:

Jacob Hemmerick, Community Planning & Policy Manager
[email protected] | 802.828.5249

Overview

Vermont’s Municipal & Regional Planning & Development Act (24 V.S.A. §4441)
requires a municipal planning commission to prepare a written report when considering
an amendment to a bylaw as well as an adoption report upon final action by the
legislative body or voters. This report addresses the necessary content for proposed
and adopted municipal bylaw submissions.
After completion of the prompts below, save the document and upload the report as a
PDF on the State’s Plan and Bylaw Intake Form. The bylaws are also submitted as a
PDF upload on the intake form. The final/adopted submission must include GIS
shapefiles for changes to zoning district boundaries of record on the Vermont Open
Geodata Portal. If you need assistance, please reach out to the contact above or your
municipality’s regional planning commission.
Submission of the intake form and written report serves as notification or final
submission to the Department of Housing and Community Development within the
Agency of Commerce and Community Development under 24 VSA §4414 (e) and (h).
The submitted written report and bylaws are public records published on the Vermont
Planning Data Center and Library. Bylaw submission supports transparency and the

Vermont Municipal Bylaw Report
availability of Vermont’s proposed and adopted bylaws from a central digital source for
statewide access and use.

Bylaw Summary & Statement of Purpose

Provide a brief explanation of the bylaw and a statement of purpose (per 24 V.S.A.
§4441) as required for notice under 24 VSA §4444. Use as much space as needed.
LDR-26-08 Minor and Technical Amendments
The amendment includes a series of minor and technical amendments which have limited
effect on development outcomes or which are mandated by State Statute. There are
technical amendments needed to the LDRs to correct typos, incorrect references,
formatting and numbering errors, and similar. There are also minor amendments that are
more substantial than the technical amendments, but are small amendments that help
the text of the amendments reflect the purpose and policy of the LDR section and/or
clarify the language.
The amendment updates reference errors throughout, correction of typos throughout,
updates to references to zoning districts, improved references between Article 8 and
Article 15A, update title of Article 11.C to "Traditional Neighborhood Development PUD
Building Types", update to required Level of Service for City Center, clarification of the
single-user complex, update to dimensional standards for townhouses, and similar
functional updates.

Findings on Municipal Plan Furtherance

Explain how the bylaw conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the
municipal plan. Use as much space as needed.
The proposed amendments simplify, clarify, and streamline the LDRs. City Plan 2024
includes the following action specifically to this topic:
Action 20: Streamline, simplify, and modernize permitting requirements and processes
to promote land use patterns and uses in this Plan

Vermont Municipal Bylaw Report

Findings on Safe & Affordable Housing

Explain the effect of the bylaw on the availability of safe and affordable housing. Use as
much space as needed.
No specific changes affect safe and affordable housing directly. Cleaning up regulations
and clarifying the standards and references where necessary can help streamline the
regulatory process and make it clearer how to comply, encouraging more housing
development. The regulation of townhouses is changed to specifically allow smaller lots
or allocations of lots for individual units, and different numbers of attached units in
different zoning districts. This could potentially increase the ability to construct
townhouses, which can be a more naturally affordable housing type.

Findings on Required Provisions & Prohibited Effects

Explain how the bylaw conforms with 24 V.S.A. §4412. Use as much space as needed.
This amendment does not affect or prohibit mobile, modular, and prefabricated housing,
mobile home parks, residential care homes or group homes, hotels for emergency
housing, home occupations, childcare, planting projects in floor hazards, heights of
renewable energy structures, communications antennae and facilities, accessory
on-farm businesses, or lot and dimensional standards for minimum dwelling unit
density.

Check each box to confirm the bylaws conform with these provisions in 24
V.S.A. §4412 (as applicable):

 Mobile, modular and prefabricated housing
 Mobile home parks
 Duplex uses
 Multi-unit dwelling uses
 Accessory dwelling unit uses
 Residential care homes or group homes
 Hotels for emergency housing
 Existing small lots

Vermont Municipal Bylaw Report

 Required frontage
 Home occupations
 Childcare home or facility
 Heights of renewable energy structures
 Nonconformities
 Communications antennae and facilities
 Planting projects in flood hazards
 Accessory on-farm businesses
 Lot and dimensional standards for minimum dwelling unit
density
 Density for affordable housing
Findings on Limitations on Municipal Bylaws

Explain how the bylaw conforms with 24 V.S.A. §4413. Use as much space as needed.
The bylaw has no specific effect on the uses provided for in 24 VSA 4413.

Check each box to confirm the bylaws conform with these provisions in 24
V.S.A. §4413 (as applicable):

 State- or community-owned and -operated institutions and
facilities
 Public and private schools and other institutions
 Places of worship
 Public and private hospitals
 Regional solid waste management facilities
 Hazardous waste management facilities
 Emergency shelters
 Required agricultural practices

Vermont Municipal Bylaw Report

 Accepted silvicultural practices
 Solar energy devices
 Ancillary telecommunications improvements and lines
Findings on Permissible Types of Regulation

Explain how the bylaw conforms with 24 V.S.A. §4414. Use as much space as needed.
The proposed amendments are minor and technical in nature and have no effect on the
enabling statutes of 24 VSA 4414.

Municipal Plan Future Land Uses & Density Compatibility

Explain how the bylaw is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of
the municipal plan.
The proposed amendments are minor and technical in nature and have no effect on
future land uses or density, except as noted for regulation of townhouses.

Vermont Municipal Bylaw Report

Planned Community Facilities

Explain how the bylaw carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned
community facilities.
The proposed amendments are minor and technical in nature and have no effect on any
planned community facilities.

Prepared By:

Name, title, and organization of person completing this form.
City of South Burlington Planning Commission
Thank you.

MEMORANDUM
TO:

South Burlington Planning Commission

FROM:

Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Kelsey Peterson, Senior City Planner

SUBJECT:

Continued review, Transfer of Development Rights Possible Expansion

DATE:

July 28, 2026 Planning Commission meeting

Before reading this memo, staff recommends Commissioners re-read the TDR memo
from the Commission’s April 28, 2026 meeting, and look over the minutes from that
meeting.
That memo goes over how the TDR program works, how it has evolved following Acts 47
and 181, what some of the constraints and challenges are, and what some high-level
options are for addressing Council’s request. That memo also links to additional prior
work providing greater depth. The minutes from that meeting indicate the Commission’s
initial guidance and request to staff.
This memo picks up at that point, and so we aren’t duplicating the background here.

Where We Left Off
At the April meeting, the Commission had an initial discussion on Council’s specific
request – to consider requiring TDRs for a portion of the City Center building height
allowed by right under the fall 2025 amendments. The Commission also discussed other
ways in which the program could be adjusted. Commissioners also discussed the
challenges of how TDRs interact with other city Goals.
The Commission asked staff to bring back some more specific potential changes that
could motivate additional purchase and use of TDRs without undermining the goals that
shaped the zoning regulation in effect today.

Project Goal
Council specifically requested the Commission consider changes to the TDR program to
address that there are several hundred unsold and/or un-transferred TDRs and TDR
holders are concerned that they cannot sell them.

180 MARKET STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT | (802) 846-4106 | WWW.SOUTHBURLINGTONVT.GOV

The transfer of a TDR results in a “density reduction easement” being placed upon a
seller-identified 0.83 acres of non-hazard land on a parcel of land in the Natural Resource
Protection zoning district. The TDR is transferred in a private transaction between the
landowner/seller and the buyer/user.

The Challenge
For a TDR to be sold and used, a developer must want to do something on a property that
they are unable to do and that they are willing to spend money in order to do. The City
needs to be comfortable with either outcome - that the otherwise prohibited thing
happens with use of TDR(s), or that the development occurs without any TDRs being used
and the prohibited thing doesn’t occur.
Under Vermont Law, TDRs can be used for narrow purposes: “allowable percentage

decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot
size, or any combination.” That relatively narrow scope is limited to regulations in the
same category.
Meanwhile, the City has spent much of the past two decades right-sizing most of its
zoning in the topics listed in the TDR statute. The LDRs, for the most-part, regulate for
what the City Plan calls for and what State law requires. This includes regulations that
allow for and encourage infill, redevelopment, and additional housing scale in the city’s
developed areas. An effect of this is that there are not many situations that fall into
statutory TDR purposes where the development market is demanding something more
than they can do under the current regulations.
The current TDR program is built, largely, for the market demands of tomorrow.
Currently, TDRs are often needed for project scales that are slightly beyond what the City
is currently seeing happen, so they are not needed for what developers are wanting to
build. This contributing to their limited present absorption.

Options
At the April 28th meeting, the Commission asked for specific suggestions as to how the
LDRs could be adjusted to in a win-win way. We discussed it as “flipping the bonus
structure” at the time, meaning look for ways where the applicant is paying to get
something that is NOT a City priority but that the development community puts value in.
Staff notes that with a closer review of State Statutes, it appears that the applicant must
be buying an “increase”. That would likely eliminate some of the ideas discussed at the
meeting about purchasing TDRs to do something “less intense than” the regulations.

A. Existing constraints that could be alleviated via TDR
There are existing constraints in the LDRs that could be reduced or removed through
use of TDRs. This group would not require addition of new constraints in the LDRs,
2

but would require the Planning Commission to determine the existing constraint is
suitable for reduction in balance of selling TDRs.
1. Allow an additional reduction in minimum lot size below those established in the
LDRs. The minimum lot size for a building type could be reduced from current
minimum by increments of 500 or 1,000 SF through the purchase of a TDR.
•

Current regulations: Current lot minimum lot sizes are 7,000 SF for buildings
with five to twelve units, 5,000 SF for buildings with one to four units, 2,500 SF
for each half of a divided duplex, and 1,000-1,500 SF for each unit in a
townhome.

•

Eligibility. Reduction of lot size is specifically allowed in State statute.

•

Policy considerations:

•

o

The Commission evaluated and updated these minimum sizes following Act
47 in 2024. However, there are home types and infill examples both in our
region and nationally that can be executed on even smaller lot sizes than
South Burlington currently allows.

o

Commensurate with the minimum lot size, the Commission would likely
need to address maximum lot/building coverage and minimum setbacks to
practically enable this type of development and drive sale of TDRs. TDRs
could conceivably “buy” a package of these together.

o

The Commission’s analysis in right-sizing of the minimum lot sizes in 2024
included a GIS analysis of existing sizes throughout the City’s residential
districts. Many neighborhoods are primarily lots over 7000 SF. Some
neighborhoods, especially the earlier neighborhood developments, have
many lots that are 5000 to 6000 SF, and a limited number of lots under 5,000
SF existing today. Neighborhoods with larger typical existing lot sizes
already are allowing smaller lots with recent LDR changes, so additional
infill allowance could feel like a bigger change to those neighborhoods.

o

Smaller lots sizes are one of a handful of significant factors that a developer
would be willing to invest in to achieve greater return and also provide
beneficial additional housing units to the community. This is a potential winwin for creation of smaller homes on smaller lots (that may be naturally
more affordable) and having some TDRs used.

Related policies/precedence: Parking will become a consideration at some point
in lot sizes. The City does not require minimum parking for lower-scale housing
types, and so that is not likely affected. However, the City does prohibit
overnight on-street parking in the winter. At some threshold of lot size the
practical demand for parking may lead to a conflict with this policy.

3

•

Next steps: If the Commission is interested in this approach, we would re-run
the lot size analysis and identify case studies for use of smaller lots. Further, we
would explore opportunities to link this subject to the 802 Homes | Homes for
All model homes project being undertaken by the State.

2. Allow a subdivision creating three to five lots to provide less street and sidewalk
infrastructure through the purchase of TDRs.
•

Current regulations. Today, subdivisions creating more than two lots must have
their access designed to public street standards, including a minimum 40’ rightof-way width, sidewalk or other pedestrian infrastructure, and, in most cases,
being planned and built to the adjacent property line.

•

Eligibility. Requiring less infrastructure would require less total land dedicated
to streets and road, which could be considered a form of lot coverage.

•

•

Policy considerations.
o

The current standards can make infill in existing neighborhoods on some
relatively large lots (otherwise ripe for infill) challenging in terms of cost,
context, and appearance.

o

Staff has seen a handful of examples of proposed development on small
infill properties that could benefit from less infrastructure. It is difficult to
create a tool that generally requires connectivity and allows it to be adjusted
when appropriate, because regulations cannot be so site-specific.

o

Staff considers that while this might be statutorily eligible for TDRs, this
issue may be better addressed by a universal update in the LDRs. In this
instance, electing to “overbuild” the infrastructure [i.e. not buy the TDRs and
build a full road for a small number of lots] may not feel like a “win” to the
community.

Related policies/precedence: This standard is closely tied in with our
subdivision standards and DPW specifications.

•

Next steps: Staff considers this to be a potentially impactful project but
recommends the Commission separate it from the TDR review and pursue as a
“general upkeep and maintenance of the LDR.”

B. Establishing constraints that would potentially be win-win situations
The Commission could choose to add new constraints that do not currently exist in
the LDRs (or increase the current constraint) and then allow use of TDRs to reduce or
eliminate those new constraints.

4

1. Place a cap on the size of new dwelling units (in the range of 1,500 or 2,000 SF)
and then require the purchase of TDRs for increments of additional SF above that
cap. For example, a 6,000 SF new home could require 2 TDRs – 1,500 to 2,000 SF by
right, then 2 TDRs for the additional 4,000 SF using the potential range above.
•

Current regulations. There are no caps on dwelling unit size; caps today are on
overall building height, setbacks, etc.

•

Eligibility: A reasonable case could be made that size of a unit is a version of
building bulk. The specific language would need to be reviewed for
defensibility.

•

Policy Considerations:
o

Single family homes/duplexes/some townhomes:
➢ Generally, these building types have averaged above 1,500-2,000 SF in
South Burlington for the past few decades.
➢ We see ~20-40 dwelling units built annually of these types, with that
number slowly declining year over year.
➢ Given construction costs, we would expect the result of this to be
construction of similar size homes as otherwise planned in most cases
and the developer will to choose to buy the TDRs. In some marginal
cases, a home might be trimmed by a few hundred square feet to slide
into a lower TDR category.
➢ If a developer chooses to not purchase TDRs, this would result in
somewhat smaller homes than the average after about 1995. This could
have a positive effect on individual home prices, but would potentially
reduce taxable value if the same number of units were built instead of
increasing the number of smaller homes on the same land area
➢ TDRs purchased and used in this manner would likely be combination of
a small number of bulk purchases for a neighborhood and a larger
number of one or two TDRs being used at a time, which is not especially
efficient in the TDR market.

o

Larger (multi-unit) building types:
➢ These building types often have smaller units to begin with, and so there
is a smaller market for TDRs for units larger than 1,500 or 2,000 SF.
➢ In the multi-unit market, there has been more interest from the
development community in studio, one-, and two--bedroom units than
in larger ones for a variety of reasons. A TDR program requiring a TDR
for larger square footage might further incentivize these low-bedroom
count units, which could dampen development of units with higher
bedroom counts in larger structures as a tool towards affordable family
housing.
5

➢ TDR purchase in this manner would likely be of a medium number of
TDRs at a time to meet the needs of a building or pair of buildings.
•

Related policies/precedence: School impact fees, water allocations, and
wastewater allocations (in part) are assessed by the number of bedrooms in the
dwelling unit. These attempt to capture the impacts of the difference, but also
likely has an influencing on market.

•

Next steps: If the Commission is interested in this approach, Staff would
analyze home sizes by type using Assessor’s Office data and develop specific
options. The analysis is very do-able, but is a medium-size lift and so we did not
want to assign these resources without Commission consent.

2. Set a maximum ration of total impervious lot coverage to building coverage in
Commercial/Industrial Districts, and allow TDRs to be purchased to exceed this
ratio in increments.
•

Eligibility: Lot and building coverages are specifically eligible TDR uses under
State statute.

•

Policy Considerations:
o

In most commercial/industrial development built in the past 75 years,
building coverage has been a minority component of total lot coverage.
Parking and vehicle circulation are the largest drivers of lot coverage, which
is often much greater in area than the building itself. Other lot coverage
components include walkways, shared use paths, patios and site amenities,
and utilities.

o

A few example case studies of the ratio on existing properties:

o

Property

Lot area

Lot coverage

Building
Coverage

Ratio

Blackrock,
Randall St

154,584 sf

49,700 SF

9,937 SF

5:1

OnLogic,
Community Dr

864,230 SF

305,764 SF

76,916 SF

4:1

Dentist,
Kimball Ave

82,032 SF

20,180 SF

5,414 SF

3.7:1

In Commercial/Industrial areas, the historic cost-to-value of building surface
parking has led developers often to build more than is actually necessary.
Allowances in the LDR to “defer” construction of parking have almost never
been used.

6

•

o

We would anticipate that in most cases, if the TDRs were valued at the same
rate as they are today, there would be a market for their use.

o

If TDRs are not purchased, less surface parking would likely be built on these
sites. As surface parking does not change taxable value, it would have
minimal negative implications to the City.

o

The market for new commercial/industrial buildings is a sporadic. There are
years with several buildings and years with few or zero.

o

Building coverage to lot coverage ratio is a somewhat blunt instrument. As
State statute law reads, we cannot really distinguish between lot coverage
used for parking and lot coverage used for a patio or walkway. It is possible
that desirable project amenities would be cut out of a project faced with the
purchase of TDRs. It may be difficult to deploy in areas where a greater
proportion of the lot coverage is used for amenities, such as in City Center,
than in Commercial/Industrial areas. The Commission could explore whether
any districts outside of the Mixed IC and I/O district could benefit, such as
HSMU or C2.

Related policies/precedence: TDM policies in the city attempt to support a
modal shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. This would be consistent.

•

Next steps: If the Commission is interested in this approach, we would perform
a GIS analysis of the ratios in applicable zoning districts and give some specific
data-driven options for the Commission. The GIS analysis is very doable, but is
a medium-size lift and so we did not want to assign these resources without
Commission consent.

3. Establish a maximum building width or depth in the HSMU and/or C2 and allow
TDRs to be purchased to increase those dimensions. For example, a building with
a length of more than 200’ on any one side would require TDRs for each additional
20’ increment along that side.
•

Eligibility: Likely eligible as a function of building bulk.

•

Policy Considerations:
o

The Planning Commission has expressed an interest in the past is
supporting greater variety of building scale for larger multi-unit and mixeduse buildings. This would potentially enable that function.

o

The City has not delved significantly into this subject in the past. With
quickly-evolving changes in construction costs and methods, the market
effect of a cap/ TDR purchase on building length or width is somewhat
unpredictable. For this reason, staff would recommend that any such tool be
tested in an area such as the HSMU before being brought into the Tax
Increment Finance District in City Center.
7

•

o

Without careful application, such a tool may simply result in buildings being
oriented in non-standard ways. The tool may require that the City set
minimum building frontage requirements in the applicable district(s), as is
the case in the Form-Based Code.

o

The present market for new larger buildings has waned from the early
2020s given factors well outside our control. It’s not clear when this market
will rebound

Related policies/precedence: The HSMU district requires building to be oriented
to the street, and provides greater credit in TDM for buildings with front doors
immediately along the applicable corridors. Further, the regulations contain a
maximum parking-to-building ratio along street frontages that is generally
aligned in how this might work.

•

Next steps: If the Commission is interested in this approach, we would sketch
this out more fully by identifying recent building scales and standard building
width and depth increments. We may need to employ assistance from
architects or engineers.

C. Adjust what a TDR is worth in the Receiving Area.
This subject was included in the April 28 memo, but not discussed in depth.
Under the current LDRs, one (1) TDR provides an additional 2,000 SFSF of allowed
building height (as 2000 SF footprint x 1 story), building coverage, or lot coverage, as
an approximation of a dwelling unit plus a portion of common spaces in multi-unit
buildings (i.e. hallways, mechanical rooms, lobbies, etc.). For example, a building with
a footprint of 10,000 SF could add an additional story, for example, with the purchase
of five TDRs to buy an additional full story up to the maximum allowed, or can add an
additional 2,000 SF to the footprint by one story in height (or five TDRs for five stories
of the 2,000 SF footprint).
TDRs could be given a different value by the City. For example, a TDR could equal
5,000 SF, or 10,000 SF in some or all areas of the City. The Planning Commission has
explored this topic in the past (~2023) and though the Commission did not at the time
choose to vary the value of a TDR by zoning district, the door remains open for future
consideration.
•

Eligibility: State law requires that a TDR be have a numeric value for sending
and receiving. It does not specify the value.

•

Policy Considerations:
o

The City does not set the price of TDRs, and therefore it is difficult to predict
what impact an adjustment will have on purchase price or volume of TDR
sales.

8

•

o

A higher development value could make TDRs more useful to a developer
and increase their attractiveness.

o

However, more value requires more total development size to use all of the
available TDRs.

o

It is also possible that a higher development value could motivate sellers to
raise their asking prices, negating the change.

o

Finally, Staff notes that ultimately individual holders of “Sending Areas” will
make their own decisions about if and at what price it is worth placing the
encumbrance of a “density reduction easement” on their land. Some TDRs
may never sell.

Next steps: If the Commission wishes to explore this further, Staff would
provide a summary of estimated TDR receiving areas available under this and
other scenarios as identified above.

9

SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION
14 JULY 2026
The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
14 July 2026, at 7:00 p.m., in Room 301, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via
Zoom.
MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; M. Mittag, J. Moscatelli, D. Leban, C.
Lawrence, M. Emery
ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; K. Peterson, City
Planner; R. Doyle, J. Davis, T. Burke, M. Buckley, T. Barritt, E. Fitzgerald
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Louisos provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Conner asked to add to Other Business an update on non-substantive changes
to the LDRs. Members agreed.
3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda:
Mr. Barritt noted that gravel is being laid out for the Hubbard Park rec path. It can
be walked on, and paving will happen soon as well as landscaping.
4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report:
Ms. Louisos welcomed Ms. Emery to the Commission. Ms. Emery reviewed her
background and previous service to the City.
Mr. Conner said that when there is a full Commission, members can vote on
officers for the coming year.
5. LDR Amendments: Update to Planning Commission reports:
PAGE 1

Ms. Peterson noted the amendments have already been approved. They just did
not make it into the reports.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve LDR Amendments LDR-26-03 and LDR-26-08 as
amended and include them in the Commission’s Reports. Ms. Leban seconded.
Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Emery said it was wonderful to see the focus on housing and affordable
housing.
6. Long-term Care Facilities, Tweaks to Commercial Use Scales, and mix of
housing types: project charge
Ms. Peterson stressed that this was not to be a discussion of the merits of the
request. Discussion should focus on what is being proposed, the scope, and what
the end result could be.
Mr. Mittag said that there should be a requirement for a variety of building types.
He also felt this use should be allowed in the transit overlay district.
Mr. Laurence liked the project charge as drafted.
Ms. Leban said that if the use is not in the transit overlay district, it should be clear
what needs to be emphasized as there are options within a mile of the transit
overlay district. Mr. Conner asked if “under what circumstances” would cover
that. Ms. Leban said it would. Ms. Emery suggested “car share” as residents can
do this on their own.
Mr. Burke said that their firm was hired by Wake Robin to find a second campus.
He reviewed what services are offered in the Shelburne facility. He stressed that
there are numerous building designs. It is their intention to duplicate what
existing in Shelburne where there is a 10-15 year waiting list to get in. They have
spoken with planning people in several municipalities, but they do not offer the
open space feeling that the Hill Farm in South Burlington offers. They feel they
could create walking paths, an administrative building, cottages, etc., on that site.
They were surprised that this use could be denied because it is not in the traffic
overlay district. Mr. Burke noted they are Shelburne’s biggest tax payer.
Ms. Buckley said the City’s definition of a “long term care facility” is exactly what
they would propose. They provide support services and transportation for their
PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2026 PAGE 2

residents. They also meet all the wonderful objectives of the City Plan. Ms.
Buckley said she would be willing to write a letter to the City outlining all of this.
Ms. Emery asked their time-line, and Ms. Louisos noted the Commission doesn’t
work “fast.” Ms. Peterson said a final amendment would probably not be
achieved until early in 2027.
Mr. Davis, owner of the Hill Farm property, said he fully supports this effort.
Mr. Moscatelli said transit concerns also involve people going to the facility (e.g.,
visitors). Ms. Buckley said they have creative ways to address this.
Mr. Conner noted that the discussion would involve all long-term care facilities,
not only Wake Robin’s model. Anything to address that would be helpful.
Ms. Leban noted that the Beta situation happened quickly and asked how that
happened. Mr. Conner said it could happen within 3 months with public outreach
prior to that. The timing with Beta happened because it was “wrapped around”
other amendments being discussed at the time.
Mr. Mittag moved to approve the Long-term Care Facilities project charge as
presented. Ms. Leban seconded. The motion passed 6-0.
7. Landscaping Update: Project Charge:
Ms. Peterson noted that the current landscaping requirements have been in effect
for decades. The city is now directing and re-directing development away from
undeveloped areas to more redevelopment and infill. Since landscaping
requirements are based on a percentage of a project cost, this creates the problem
of not having room for required landscaping and/or requiring more expensive
species, etc. It is possible to have a building that is being re-used already having
sufficient landscaping to the level of approval. Civic spaces and amenities are
also required, and there is a need to ensure that they all work together to get
really good civic spaces. Mr. Conner added that this is what comes up most often
at the DRB where professional arborists don’t want to have to plant 8 trees so
close together.
Mr. Moscatelli asked if the City could set up a fund for developers to pay into
when they can’t fit the required amount of landscaping. This money could be
used to plant trees elsewhere in the city. Mr. Moscatelli also noted there is a

PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2026 PAGE 3

question of existing shade trees blocking the potential location of solar panels and
whether people should be required to cut those trees down.
Mr. Conner noted that in City Center’s Form Based Code areas, a portion of the
landscaping budget can be used for an art project.
Ms. Leban noted that vegetative landscaping has an impact on climate and can
reduce temperatures on a site. There must also be the right kinds of trees that can
survive higher temperatures.
Mr. Laurence asked if there is an appetite for moving away from the percentage of
a project cost to be the landscaping requirement. Rather than focusing on a dollar
amount, the intent should be to ensure that the site is well-landscaped. He noted
that some beneficial things may cost next to nothing.
Ms. Emery raised the possibility of “green roofs” which could be an option for
existing buildings. She favored being “nimble” and recommended having a list
of options for developers to work with.
Ms. Leban cited the need to address climate issues and make a space much more
tolerable. She noted that green roofs are good for preventing flooding and
suggested a developer could do less of something else if they do a green roof.
Mr. Conner cited the competing interests with solar ready roofs, green roofs, etc.
He suggested that if you do a green roof, you wouldn’t need to be solar ready. He
also noted that the current regulations pre-date anything that is being suggested.
Mr. Mittag noted that on a recent hot day, the temperature as he drove down
Swift Street was 95 degrees while the temperature in downtown Burlington was
100 degrees. He attributed this to the greenery of Swift Street.
Mr. Mittag asked about possibly requiring outside parking to be covered. Mr.
Laurence said that is very expensive and could be detrimental to affordable
housing. Mr. Mittag said that solar on covered parking would address the City
Plan.
Ms. Peterson then raised the question of maintenance of planted trees and
questioned whether a percentage of the landscape bond should be retained for
this purpose.

PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2026 PAGE 4

Mr. Doyle said he liked the idea of getting away from percentages and going with
standards and ecological value. He said you can do things with landscaping that
are good for the climate but are also bad for ecology. He asked the Commission
to keep that in mind.
Ms. Leban raised the possibility of doing something about large “monoculture
lawns.” Mr. Conner said reducing setbacks helps with that. Mr. Laurence said
that is particularly the case in industrial/commercial areas.
Ms. Peterson suggested adding “and the Stormwater Ordinance” to the proposed
language.
Mr. Mittag asked if the Commission will get input from the City Arborist regarding
specimen trees. Ms. Peterson said they can ask him about standards for
specimen trees. She also cited the need to align the LDRs with DPW
specifications.
Ms. Leban moved to approve the Landscaping project charge with the additions
made at this meeting. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Tier 1A Update: Historic Sites:
Ms. Peterson reviewed the history for the benefit of the new Commission
members. She noted that the City does not need an historic preservation
ordinance/regulation; what it does need is more “tricky” than anticipated and has
a lot of complexity.
Mr. Conner said there must be a map of the historic area, and there must be
“thoughtful regulations.” He added that the map is the difficult thing.
Ms. Peterson showed a map that indicates the structures that are in the data base.
The map was done at a regional level and includes building outside of but
adjacent to the Tier1A area. She noted that some things have been demolished in
the past 50 years and there are some where property owners have not applied for
an “historical” designation (e.g., Rice High School). Ms. Peterson noted there are
2 historic districts in the city.
Mr. Conner said one issue is that there can be more than one building on a
property. He said the map has been submitted to the data base. He said it is not
necessarily a compilation of everything in the City that could be called “historic.”
It is a reasonably good compilations of historic things prior to 1940. Nothing has
PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2026 PAGE 5

been done regarding post-World War II neighborhoods, and that would be a very
big project. Mr. Conner noted one building on Springhouse Road that qualifies as
the oldest building in Vermont, but it has not been in Vermont all of that time. It
came from another state in the ‘40s and was rebuilt here.
Ms. Peterson said the first criteria for a building to be historic is that it must be at
least 50 years old. She added that there are many such buildings in South
Burlington, many of which have been renovated.
9. Other Business:
Mr. Conner noted one technical change made to the LDRs: regarding single user
complexes to have multiple buildings on a lot (e.g., UVM, the Airport), staff noted
an ambiguity in the language. He said the City Council can make minor changes
to language before the public hearing. If they do this, the Planning Commission
will be notified.
Ms. Emery noted that Mr. Laurence is a person she not encountered before and
asked if he would “introduce” himself. Mr. Laurance outlined his work as a
transportation engineer for the State of Vermont where he designs intersections.
As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting
was adjourned by common consent at 8:49 p.m.

___________________________________
Clerk

PLANNING COMMISSION 13 JULY 2026 PAGE 6

City of Burlington, VT
149 Church Street, 3rd Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 865-7194
www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan

TO:

FROM:
DATE:
RE:

South Burlington Planning Director
Colchester Planning Director
Winooski Planning & Zoning Manager
Chittenden County Regional Planning Director
Sarah Morgan, AICP, Principal Planner
Charles Dillard, AICP, Director, Office of City Planning
July 9, 2026
Burlington MDP-27-01 planBTV New North End

Enclosed, please find the Public Hearing notice and additional information related to the proposed
planBTV New North End (MDP-27-01), which can be viewed virtually at this link.
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed planBTV New North End on
Tuesday, July 28th, beginning at 6:45 pm in the Sharon Bushor Conference Room at 149 Church Street
and online via Zoom.
Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning
Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the
hearing to [email protected] by close of business on Monday, July 27th.
Thank you.
Sarah Morgan, AICP
Principal Planner, Office of City Planning
CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair
Scott Gustin, AICP, Zoning Division Manager, Department of Permitting & Inspections
Kimberlee Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney

The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place
of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.

Andy Montroll, Chair
Alex Friend, Vice Chair
Michael Gaughan
Erin Malone
Erhard Manke
Ryan Nick
Julia Randall

Burlington Planning Commission
149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401
www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz
Phone: (802) 865-7144

BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
planBTV: New North End
MDP-27-01 planBTV New North End
Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4384, 4387 and §4432, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington
Planning Commission to hear comments on the proposed City of Burlington’s Open Space Plan. The public
hearing will take place during the Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 starting at Time
Certain 6:45 PM. You may access the hearing/meeting as follows:
The meeting will be held in the Sharon Bushor Conference Room at City Hall (149 Church Street) and
online via Zoom
To join virtually from a Computer, please click this URL to join, and enter the Webinar ID if prompted:
Link: https://zoom.us/j/97941883790?pwd=bGZBNzNyV1liL3p5NkhIL2dqUFIzdz09
Passcode: 658929
Webinar ID: 979 4188 3790
Passcode (if needed): 658929
To join virtually by phone, dial this number and enter the Webinar ID when prompted:
Number: +1 312 626 6799
Webinar ID: 979 4188 3790
Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b):
Statement of purpose:
planBTV New North End is intended to guide future public investment, policy decisions, and private
development in a manner that balances housing production, affordability, environmental stewardship, and
quality of life. This document provides guidance for shaping future neighborhood growth over time through
coordinated strategies in transportation, land use, and placemaking.
The plan is organized around three interconnected frameworks: Transportation, Urban Design, and
Placemaking. Together, these frameworks are supported by an implementation strategy that identifies
short-, medium-, and long-term actions to advance the plan's vision of a more connected, inclusive, and
sustainable New North End where residents can more easily access housing, services, recreation, and other
daily needs within their own neighborhood
Geographic areas affected:
While planBTV New North End strategies are largely limited to the area of Burlington north of Institute Road
and North Avenue, the plan also has potential impacts on all of Burlington and the surrounding region.
List of section headings affected:
planBTV New North End is to be incorporated by reference into planBTV: Comprehensive Plan (2019) as
well as planBTV 2050 once adopted.
The full text of the draft planBTV New North End is available online at https://burlingtonvt.gov/planbtv/nne.
The proposed plan can be reviewed in hard copy posted on the third floor of City Hall, 149 Church Street,
Burlington.

The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place
of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic
information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or
alternative formats, please contact the City Planning department or 711 if you are hearing or speech impaired.