[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6243283,"mediaKeyId","3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce","parentId",3240975,"title","Planning commission approves sign package tied to bike‑ped bridge project","audioSeconds",90,"startMs",11855000,"endMs",11945000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce&start=11855&end=11945","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce/thumbnail_11855000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6243283/South-Burlington-City/Chittenden-County/Vermont/Planning-commission-approves-sign-package-tied-to-bikeped-bridge-project","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6243283-38a398d7f0c99b51823518d17ab5d47b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412946&Signature=jV0uWlZVVCFuQGE9BKlhwH1RN8SrrAoPnkwXEQXzyhzVcr07dE-SSOsEQziXSf6aLH9j1yTykH~ot8Yrg6A-DICNnCxkm1H~PLdQMxtMLmjVDjtMgD8HlJKKJCYLh2yKQv3CA6X2mVuk0YCVNlTdUcOdGoNwfZ3PcCJH9YGzXzGSjfXdgxUNkmMx-feYrxSWmACpnMH8WAXudrSP9hdIx4biDo5CqH277hN3fcp58pZ3n0RmU0dJRw9fOQV1UBgrr2m0Nl2c-5spoe6EMHg4C1xDwI5vM6P4phrAMvfKl1Pr1FfwwS24pTzZRUV2blDsbvgElB6rGH58AAAIzlX6Vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","South Burlington City, VT","date","2025-05-08T17:32:58Z","article","The Planning Commission voted to approve an updated citywide sign package that staff said is substantially similar to a package approved roughly a decade ago but includes additional, pedestrian‑scale sign types to support the proposed bike‑pedestrian bridge.

Staff said state rules require the planning commission and council to approve the package because of the bridge crossing and signage associated with it. A motion to approve the sign package passed in the meeting.

Staff will forward the approved sign package language to the next step in the city’s review process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","South Burlington Planning Commission - 7/30/2024","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission approved a sign package that staff described as materially similar to a prior package and necessary to support a streetscape/bridge project; the motion passed and staff will forward preference for council consideration where applicable.","taxTitle","South Burlington City, Chittenden County, Vermont","taxId",2752,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6243287,"Commissioners narrow e‑bike credit to long‑term parking, flag EV code and parking size issues",3808,630000,4438000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce&start=630&end=4438","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce/thumbnail_630000.jpg","/articles/6243287/South-Burlington-City/Chittenden-County/Vermont/Commissioners-narrow-ebike-credit-to-longterm-parking-flag-EV-code-and-parking-size-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6243287-762a00facde0b217857522e5ff39314d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412946&Signature=QhjzZ5FQMhiLc5M9PVfCPa8aLx1M2PY1FtfMepZi3~-ymeJ7k9EUFVySvYxhjO52pdGYgEX7HPILC2I~wkQdBkwwRldeV4zasr1SfHcxsIMeICqEfFeecHRky6Lr1~YeolkSQ6jUgd6HIQkUCGIOHa5PlZazTzUCw~mYCNfXK5U1FhHHaKrDzIYkLlx9rI0uqjT9Y1jB6X70GSCeNpgVfNhVyKWcyKQ2FYwIHdsl8R45clL4cO7uZQbG3nhL6b1WwS0lhw2xsmfOi3W2xu5WF6AFMhWSaXurrMI5u7IMV3aBbhE7ZY1-tSBWWP8X3zMetMvqxi-BbLMh2J~WY0SbVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the public hearing on the LDR amendments, staff and several commissioners discussed transportation items included in the draft, including proposed language for EV charging requirements and credits for e‑bike charging under the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.

Staff said they had received written comments from an “EV Charging for All” coalition and from local stakeholders and that those recommendations were included in the packet. Discussion among commissioners and members of the public focused on whether a credit toward TDM requirements should be available for short‑term (outdoor) bike racks that include electrical outlets. Commissioner Colin Lawrence flagged a practical concern: “the chargers are basically glorified laptop chargers,” and he and others observed that most e‑bike chargers are not weatherproof and rely on removable batteries or indoor charging.

Because short‑term bike racks are usually outdoors, multiple commissioners and staff supported limiting the TDM credit for e‑bike charging to long‑term bike parking (covered or indoor) where batteries and chargers are protected. Staff took a straw poll of the commission and recorded support for restricting the credit to long‑term parking.

Parking‑stall size. Commissioners also discussed the LDR table that sets a new standard parking stall size of 9 by 18 feet, and staff noted a recent state law that constrains local regulation of parking stall dimensions. Commissioners asked staff to make the local language flexible enough to allow larger stalls where needed (for example for parallel parking) while adhering to the state statute’s limits on mandating larger minimums.

Next steps. Staff said they will amend the draft to limit e‑bike charging credit to long‑term parking, to clarify the definition of long‑term bike parking, and to revise the parking‑stall language to reflect the state statute and to allow larger stalls where applicants propose them.","The Planning Commission discussed EV‑charging code recommendations and e‑bike charging credit for transportation demand management; staff and commissioners agreed to limit e‑bike charge credit to long‑term (covered/indoor) bike parking and to clarify parking stall size language to remain consistent with state law.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6243292,"Happy Tails owners say rezoning to 'medium scale neighborhood' narrows future reuse options",745,1276000,2021000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce&start=1276&end=2021","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce/thumbnail_1276000.jpg","/articles/6243292/South-Burlington-City/Chittenden-County/Vermont/Happy-Tails-owners-say-rezoning-to-medium-scale-neighborhood-narrows-future-reuse-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6243292-c743ff61d33e3ba40b8e41c5978c6eef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412946&Signature=Gw0A4aVXLsfrxDIxeiQMFpWv3-xyISKX89jS6e14gtVDdPvVZRgH64HHkHK4XAIypzInDsv8DNmxKDS0VMtYjoOzsa3sfEN8ECO43u5ZNoMAjMwJ9nfO0cvgZtGpTIfU~mJAoLnQziRWiZs0LqLlCJxpc6QPn363IQXg9NuFj-2aZkcVwh82Giyuk1mw8Y2Hx7QC~5Rtf43V58cFUrVkMbDdKq9FG00NfImw0w~Jhyztqp1K5Nx6FErkOGiRalg2r6Ssuj438zhBB4Ull1SuHlyyapincp3ZwR1HzNNCIoEw1x~Hc0M7OwaRw6EQOn9bzfQ3LSIn~YaWF0zR4h80CQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Owners of Happy Tails Pet Resort and Spa told the South Burlington Planning Commission they were surprised and concerned that prior zoning changes have left their commercial kennel and daycare operation nonconforming and that the proposed new Medium Scale Neighborhood (MSN) district may narrow future reuse options for the site.

Donna Little, co‑owner of Happy Tails, told the commission that she and her co‑owner had purchased the property as commercial/industrial and said: “We were never ever told that it was done. We were never consulted. We were never notified that that was happening.” Little asked what would happen if the business were sold and whether a new owner could operate a different commercial use.

Staff member Paul Connor answered that, at a high level, the existing use would be a preexisting nonconformity: “As long as the business or a replacement business doing the same thing exists, you can continue indefinitely.” He added that if the property were transferred to someone who wanted to establish a use not allowed in the MSN district, that new use would be limited to the uses that are permitted in the district at the time of the proposed change.

Key details raised at the hearing. Little and co‑owner Heather Soren said the lot is “just under we're just over 1 acre” and the building footprint is about “10,000” square feet; they said the site has roughly 14 parking spaces. Those physical factors shaped their concern that the building “would never facilitate any kind of residential use” and that prospective buyers might struggle to reuse the property under the new district rules.

Staff response and options. Planning staff reviewed the draft permitted‑uses table and noted that some commercial uses remain permitted in the proposed MSN district (for example limited neighborhood commercial uses on arterial streets), while other uses were proposed to be removed during consolidation. Staff identified three specific uses that shifted in the consolidation: general office, pet grooming, and financial institutions were the only permitted uses called out in the memo that were proposed to be removed from some consolidated districts; the staff presentation to commissioners noted where similar uses moved from permitted to conditional or vice versa.

Public perspective and next steps. Owners said they understood the nonconforming status but asked for clarity and the opportunity to present a short list of uses they would like to see allowed on their parcel; staff invited them to submit suggested uses in writing for the record and said commission and council deliberations would follow before any zoning is final.

No formal change to the draft was adopted specifically for the Happy Tails parcel at the hearing; commissioners encouraged the owners to provide written suggestions and noted the consolidated permitted‑use table is available for review.","Owners of Happy Tails Pet Resort and Spa told the Planning Commission that recent rezoning of their property leaves the business a nonconforming use and could limit future sale or reuse; planning staff explained nonconforming use protections but said future change of use would be governed by the new district's permitted uses table.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6243297,"South Burlington planning commission forwards large package of land‑use changes after housing, transportation debate",11552,200000,11752000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce&start=200&end=11752","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3240975-842fc7b2f5273d36bbe56f32e30002ce/thumbnail_200000.jpg","/articles/6243297/South-Burlington-City/Chittenden-County/Vermont/South-Burlington-planning-commission-forwards-large-package-of-landuse-changes-after-housing-transportation-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6243297-e0c204dc73d14bfe08a441ee3dedc0f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412946&Signature=Ucp4YIx41-vTvUsHzvx0NIio18tzYCgpkI-C3otdSvzHkWyVPUXnQlqsRQXnkPsa9T74FqDUESMpwf0f60zvKrxgvfO7-A-xkL5X8FPgXxXZCJOq7RE18z5thVgES37dl-KH9Rknie1ph-YNZQWhZBoTug9AEXWsqHxD4Zc5wuWA64o17V3l~eFTLjSvrWk29b9GfWHKZEK88W8x2yTUJ-mztnS8KK-h7BCOQVAjErWPYBVmRbMcRibtzgIkRniPs9Q~lmvciA~3UETBvN1ClbUIap6sSQYKqstkzlJ1KkEljCeX86C92OLQQfJJ97v1K2TsucjaS3kLqScGWkxhSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The South Burlington Planning Commission voted to forward draft amendments to the city’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to the City Council after a public hearing and extended discussion on housing, zoning consolidation, transportation requirements and technical updates.

Staff opened the hearing by saying the package aims to bring the city into compliance with recent state laws: “1 is called S 100 Act 47 or the HOME Act” and “H 687, or the Be Home Act of 2024,” Staff member Kelsey told the commission, describing the package as “10 amendments that are then clustered into 3 groups.”

Why it matters: the changes rework permitted uses and district consolidation, revise inclusionary zoning and transferable development right (TDR) mechanics, alter minimum lot sizes for small multifamily buildings, and adjust height/bonus rules tied to state incentives. Those changes affect where housing of different types can be built, how developers may earn bonus building height, and what local approval pathways apply for larger subdivisions.

Most important actions and outcomes. After public comment and staff and legal input, the commission voted to approve the draft LDR amendments and send the package to the City Council with the edits and clarifications agreed at the hearing. The commission also voted separately to change the city’s optional bonus threshold tied to the state inclusionary program: the commission reduced the threshold for a developer to qualify for an extra bonus floor from the draft 40% of on‑site affordable units to 30% (motion approved by commission majority). The commission directed staff to include the edits and updated reports when forwarding the package to council.

Key components of the package. Staff summarized the amendments as three broad clusters: transportation (including EV charging and transportation demand management); “thriving neighborhoods” (consolidation of multiple residential districts into a smaller set of low/medium/high scale districts, updates to the city’s inclusionary zoning approach, and changes to Transferable Development Rights); and a set of process‑and‑technical streamlining changes (subdivision, master plan, table of uses and formatting).

Inclusionary zoning and bonuses. Staff explained the draft aligns the city’s inclusionary rules with the optional state program while keeping a local mandatory requirement for certain project sizes. The commission debated the draft bonus structure, which ties an additional story to a developer meeting an extra percentage of permanently affordable units. Resident Sandy Julie argued the draft’s higher bonus threshold was unlikely to entice market‑rate developers to provide substantially more affordable units. Commissioners then voted to reduce the extra‑floor threshold to 30% (from the draft 40%) to increase the likelihood the bonus will be used.

Minimum lot sizes and density. The package sets a uniform minimum lot size for 1–4 unit buildings at 5,000 square feet, meeting a requirement in recent state legislation that 1–4 unit building types be treated consistently. The commission also approved recommended minimum planned densities for larger subdivisions intended as an alternative to a mandatory TND (traditional neighborhood development): 4 units per acre for smaller subdivisions and a split pattern (including an 8 units/acre component) for larger tracts, with details to be reflected in the forwarded materials.

Traditional neighborhood development and master‑plan carve‑outs. Staff recommended, and the commission agreed, to make the TND optional rather than mandatory for the affected parcels; commissioners also retained a procedural carve‑out allowing a property owner to subdivide up to 2 buildable acres without a full master‑plan process. Staff said that change reflects how prior conservation PUD options were removed and aims to preserve a limited, low‑cost path for small subdivisions while keeping density expectations on larger parcels.

Transportation, EV and e‑bike measures. The amendments include EV‑charging standards and transportation demand management (TDM) credits. Commissioners and public commenters asked staff to tighten how the code awards TDM credit for e‑bike charging: staff and commissioners agreed in a straw poll to limit e‑bike charger credit to long‑term (covered/indoor) bike parking because typical e‑bike chargers are not weatherproof \"—the chargers are basically glorified laptop chargers,\" new commissioner Colin Lawrence said during the discussion.

Legal and technical clarifications. City legal counsel recommended removing a broadly framed “alternative compliance” pathway that appeared in the initial redline because the state supreme court has required predictability in local development standards; the commission accepted the recommendation and asked staff to pursue narrower tools (waivers and modifications with tighter standards) that are consistent with state case law.

What’s next. The commission’s vote forwards the draft LDR package and the commission’s updated reports and recommendations to the City Council for its deliberation and hearings. Staff and legal will prepare the clean redline and updated materials that reflect the motions and straw polls taken at the hearing.

Ending note: commissioners and staff framed the package as a compliance‑focused update that leaves open a number of design and policy choices for further planning–level work (for example, a future review of the city’s height table and a more comprehensive look at commercial uses along Hinesburg Road).","The Planning Commission voted to send draft amendments to the city’s Land Development Regulations to the City Council after public comment and commissioner discussion on inclusionary zoning, lot sizes, traditional neighborhood rules, EV and e‑bike charging, and other technical edits required to comply with recent state laws.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission approves sign package tied to bike‑ped bridge project

Commissioners narrow e‑bike credit to long‑term parking, flag EV code and parking size issues

Happy Tails owners say rezoning to 'medium scale neighborhood' narrows future reuse options

South Burlington planning commission forwards large package of land‑use changes after housing, transportation debate