Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the TDR Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission weighs options to boost TDR market, including lot‑coverage and dwelling caps
Summary
Planning staff presented targeted changes to the city's transferable development rights (TDR) program — such as allowing TDRs to buy additional lot coverage, capping new dwelling sizes with TDRs required above a threshold, and varying TDR value by district — and commissioners gave mixed reactions.
Planning staff presented a packet of specific options Monday for adjusting South Burlington's transferable development rights (TDR) program, asking the commission which ideas it should explore further.
"We thought that this would be a good opportunity for you to continue this dialogue," said the planning staff member presenting the memo, summarizing a set of concepts developed after the council asked the commission to examine TDR use following recent land‑development code changes that increased allowable heights. The staff presentation framed four main levers: allowing TDRs to be purchased for increased lot coverage (to address parking/impervious area), setting a maximum dwelling size and requiring TDRs to exceed it, allowing variable TDR valuation across districts (for example making a TDR worth more along transit corridors), and opening new receiving areas beyond city center.
Commissioners debated legal constraints, likely market demand and policy tradeoffs. One commission member said, "I think encouraging smaller homes is a good thing," supporting a cap on larger dwelling units coupled with TDR requirements. By contrast another commissioner warned against "tweaking the LDRs to create an artificial demand" for TDRs while the market remains below the heights already allowed, arguing the city should avoid regulations that try to force sales where demand does not exist.
Staff noted technical parameters the commission would need to consider. Currently a TDR on the receiving side is defined in the packet as equivalent to about 2,000 square feet per story; staff suggested the commission could increase that value in targeted districts (to 4,000–10,000 sq ft in examples) to concentrate incentives where the city wants additional development. The presenter also described a proposal to cap impervious‑surface ratios (for example using a maximum impervious‑to‑building ratio and allowing purchases of TDRs to exceed that ratio), which staff said could be tailored to avoid sensitive lake watersheds.
Commissioners asked staff to do follow‑up homework on the legal defensibility and likely receiving capacity before the commission pursues any specific code change. Staff said the proposals would be refined and returned to the commission for prioritization; no formal direction or vote was taken on any single proposal at the meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare additional analysis, including district‑level receiving capacity and likely economic impacts, and return options for further commission guidance.
