Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Trigger topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission requires site-plan review for developments with more than four dwelling units on a single lot
Summary
The South Burlington Planning Commission voted unanimously to require site-plan review for any application with more than four dwelling units on a single lot, addressing staff concerns about multiple small structures being built without design, parking and lighting standards.
The South Burlington Planning Commission voted unanimously to require site-plan review for any application proposing more than four dwelling units on a single lot, after a staff memo flagged a gap introduced by last year’s code changes.
City planning staff raised the issue after the commission’s previous amendments exempted a fourplex as a building type from site-plan review while also allowing up to three structures on a single lot under two acres. Kelsey Peterson, city planning staff, said the combination could allow three fourplexes—12 units—on one lot without triggering site-plan standards that cover lighting, screening, parking and pedestrian access. "[The] development review team read our regulations and ... said maybe that shouldn't quite be," Peterson said during the discussion.
Why it matters: site-plan review brings standards and a public review process intended to address design, trash, lighting, parking and pedestrian connections. Staff warned that exempting multiple small buildings could let developments avoid those standards and that some site-plan standards—such as solar orientation—apply only when a site plan is required.
Discussion and options: staff outlined several options ranging from applying site plan to all multiunit configurations to keeping the exemption broadly in place. Commissioners debated thresholds by unit count and by zoning district. Some favored keeping the line at four units for consistency with the prior change; others proposed higher thresholds in higher-density zoning or counting units per acre. Commissioners and staff also discussed an administrative site-plan review process—the same standards applied by staff without review by the Development Review Board (DRB)—as a way to reduce delay and cost while retaining substantive standards. Peterson said administrative site-plan approval could be written into the regulations but would require additional drafting and review and possibly city attorney input.
Cost and timing concerns: staff noted that some submission materials for site plan are items developers generally prepare anyway, so the additional financial cost can be limited, but site-plan review can add weeks or months of delay depending on DRB workload. Commissioners worried both about added delay that might chill small projects and about letting projects proceed without safeguards that would protect future residents and neighbors.
Action taken: a commissioner moved that site-plan review be required for any application with more than four dwelling units. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously in a roll-call vote: Jessica (yes), Michael (yes), Donna (yes) and Colin Lawrence (yes). The commission asked staff to draft regulatory language that would align the chosen threshold with the administrative site-plan provisions so routine cases could be handled administratively while leaving staff discretion to refer complex cases to the DRB.
Next steps: staff will prepare the ordinance revisions to implement the threshold and to add authority for administrative site-plan approval where appropriate, then return the draft to the commission for a future meeting.
