SOUTH BURLINGTON — With McMansions on manicured lawns against a backdrop of picturesque farms and rolling hills, the southeast quadrant of South Burlington feels worlds away from nearby densely populated Burlington.
Some people want to keep it that way, but others say the city’s wealthiest neighborhood needs to adapt and change.
After a three-year moratorium on most development — enacted to slow down urban sprawl — South Burlington is rethinking fundamental aspects of its zoning. The development freeze expires Nov. 13.
There’s no shortage of ideas about what should happen next — and not much agreement. Some worry about resilience in the face of climate change. Some cite yawning social and economic inequality in Chittenden County and other parts of Vermont. Many point to Vermont’s housing shortage, which is driving up prices, threatening the state’s economic vitality and leaving too many Vermonters without homes.
In South Burlington, the debate focuses on the city’s southeast quadrant — a racially and economically homogeneous residential area that looks like it could appear in a scene from “Little Women.”
The southeast quadrant, which runs from Interstate 89 south to the Shelburne border and from Williston to Spear Street, boasts a median income of $142,218. That’s more than double the median income for the remainder of the city — which is $61,989, according to 2019 census data. If the southeast quadrant were its own municipality, it would be the wealthiest in the state, followed by Norwich at $121,563.
The Planning Commission is drafting new rules for development, and they define the southeast quadrant as an area to encourage “open space preservation, scenic views and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well-planned residential use in the 3,200-acre area of the city.”
It proposes maintaining the status quo of conserving much of the open land in the southeast quadrant — continuing to protect more than 50% of the land from development almost entirely and limiting the quadrant to a maximum of 3,800 dwelling units, an average of 1.2 units per acre. The rules would also prohibit buildings with more than eight units, and require 70% of any parcel over 4 acres to be permanently conserved, up from 50% in the previous regulations.
Housing in the southeast quadrant is far sparser than in the rest of the city — the quadrant houses 680.9 people per square mile where the rest of South Burlington has 1,814.5 homes per square mile, according to 2019 census data.
The proposed land use regulation changes would lead to less housing in the quadrant, not more, said Jessica Louisos, chair of the South Burlington Planning Commission.
Nature vs. housing
Some conservationists argue the urgency of climate change requires South Burlington to protect as much green space as possible — forests, areas with agricultural soil, the edges of rivers and streams — and say the regulations do not do enough.
“We should not be developing more. We should be conserving more,” said Jean-Sebastien Chaulot, chair of South Burlington’s natural resources committee. “The land-use regulations are a good step, but unfortunately 30% can be developed, which is a pretty big number if you think about it. The policy of developing natural land led us to where we are today, with global warming and our resources being polluted.”
But other groups want to use that land to help solve Vermont’s affordable housing crisis, particularly since the neighborhood already has water and sewer lines and high-speed internet, all of which could shave development time and costs.
In a commentary in The Other Paper, a weekly newspaper in South Burlington, Sandra Dooley wrote that the Planning Commission’s proposals focus too much on protecting natural resources without considering how the regulations could affect diversity, equity, inclusion and opportunity in the city.
The regulations, by making land less available, will increase housing costs, she wrote, and greater density in the southeast quadrant actually would be beneficial to the environment because more urban areas often have lower carbon footprints per resident due to fewer driving miles.
“To protect our environment, we need to support increased residential development, prudently of course, in all parts of our city,” she wrote.
It’s possible, though not simple, to both protect the environment and develop vibrant, mixed-income communities, said Jess Hyman, fair housing project coordinator for the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity.
“If you care about the environment, you need to be open to thoughtful changes in zoning and land development regulations so we can allow carpenters to live next to lawyers, old people on fixed income next to students and young families,” she said. “That’s what a healthy community is.”
The conversation happening in South Burlington echoes a similar debate happening around the city, country and even the globe about how to develop and zone in a way that stymies the effects of climate change, creates affordable housing and starts unraveling decades of policies created to separate rich and poor.
Last year, Vermont legislators proposed a bill that, in its original form, would have outlawed zoning for single-family homes. Ultimately that language was removed, but the bill that Gov. Phil Scott signed into law a year ago makes it easier to build small additional units on existing lots, reduces minimum lot sizes and makes it easier to build apartment buildings.
But the thorny questions of how and where to create affordable housing and how and where to preserve land remain. And in Vermont, it’s up to local elected officials and their constituents to find the answers.
Competing goals
The South Burlington Planning Commission unveiled its latest amendments to land use regulations Sept. 30.
“Under current regulations, there is quite a bit of land that could be developed, and we want to reduce the amount of land that could be developed in the future,” commission Chair Jessica Louisos said.
City Councilor Thomas Chittenden, who is also a state senator, said that to him, the regulations look a lot like greenlining — using the environment and climate to limit development in communities and protect kitchen-window views.
That is completely out of line with what the Burlington area needs, said Chittenden, who has lived in the southeast quadrant his entire life, as did his father and grandfather.
“We need more housing and higher density closer to Burlington, and South Burlington is right next to Burlington,” he said. “We [the quadrant] already have sewer, water and high-speed internet. I’m not saying pave over everything. The area adjacent to the largest city in Vermont — that is where we need to allow growth.”
But others say the southeast quadrant, a cherished parcel of pristine land amid a quickly developing county, should be protected, especially considering the already drastic impacts of climate change.
“Right now the southeast quadrant is green and clean,” said Chaulot, chair of the Natural Resources Committee. “It’s filled with natural habitat, forested land, and animals live and thrive there. I get that clean, healthy feeling when I go there to go biking or mushroom hunting or to the swamp. There’s no suburbia feel. It’s beautiful, and it’s preserved for now.”
Chaulot wants to keep it that way, arguing that even more should be conserved than is currently outlined in Planning Commission regulations.
“We shouldn’t be removing trees that can absorb carbon, impervious surfaces that can protect from floods and water pollution, or fields and open land that support pollinators,” he said.
Chittenden said this seems like a “not in my backyard” issue hidden under a cloak of sustainability.
“Plan for the 500-year storm, but to over-conserve this area is not appropriate,” he said.
Chaulot said preservation and affordable housing need not be enemies, arguing that there are places in the core of South Burlington, near where he lives, that are underdeveloped and could be built up. “I am absolutely for affordable housing, but we need to protect our natural resources.”
Figuring out how to develop isn’t easy, Hyman said.
“There are competing priorities, but we have to balance priorities when thinking about healthy, thriving and sustainable communities. Yes, we need to think about conserving land, and yes, we need to be able to make sure that environmental impacts of development are mitigated. We also need to be realistic about the space we have available and the critical need for everyone to have a home.”