This commentary is by Sandy Dooley, former chair of the South Burlington City Council, former member of the Champlain Housing Trust board of directors and vice chair of South Burlington’s Affordable Housing Committee. These comments are her own.
Let’s discuss what S.100 proposes and how its approach differs from South Burlington’s land development regulations adopted in February 2022 when interim zoning ended.
S.100 (if enacted) provides municipalities with tools that create opportunities for property owners to build more housing, at potentially lower cost, than they can under currently municipal land development regulations. Please note that I say “opportunities.” S.100 would not require any South Burlington property to construct a single housing unit.
In addition, it would not require the construction of housing on land protected by South Burlington’s environmental protection standards.
S.100’s drafters assess the housing crisis as so important that some statewide standards, which would allow more housing to be built, are necessary. This is not the first time the state has intervened to influence how municipalities regulate local development (witness Act 250, now 53 years old, among others).
Importantly, S.100 also states that when these new tools are applied, their effect must be inclusive and equitable.
City Council vice chair Meaghan Emery asserts: “South Burlington’s newly adopted land development regulations meet the bill’s housing goals in a much more (emphasis added) thoughtful, site-specific way. . .” (The Other Paper, April 6, 2023).
First, these land development regulations did not increase the number of housing units authorized. While they permit more housing at the southwest corner of I-89 and Hinesburg Road (a change opposed by the property owner), this increase is more than offset by the reduction in housing allowed in the southeast quadrant. How can reducing how much housing can be built align with S.100’s housing goals?
These zoning changes also paved the way for more high-priced, sprawl-like development in our southeast quadrant. Prior to the changes, small parcels (less than 4 acres) in that quadrant could accommodate four housing units per acre, after purchasing transfer of development rights). Now, the same parcels can accommodate only 1.8 houses per acre, after purchasing transfer of development rights.
This is one-house-per-acre zoning. Given the high cost of southeast quadrant land, prices of such houses are sure to approach $1 million — reinforcing the pattern of very high-income households in this part of South Burlington and producing sprawl-like development.
South Burlington’s new zoning disregards the impact of existing water and sewer infrastructure on the cost of developing housing. It is like money in the bank — lots of it.
Removing land with access to water and sewer infrastructure from eligibility for housing development creates yet another barrier to building housing that can be constructed and sold at lower prices than otherwise. Does this approach to zoning reflect a commitment to addressing our housing crisis?
Another barrier is the requirement that most large southeast quadrant parcels (4 or more acres) comply with conservation planned unit development rules. These regulations require that no less than 70 percent of the parcel be permanently conserved. This mandate applies without regard to how much of the parcel comprises land protected under city environmental protection standards.
South Burlington’s leaders went far beyond the findings of the Arrowwood Habitat Block Assessment & Ranking Report (2020) in adding land to natural resource protection zoning and imposing the conservation planned unit development requirement on most southeast quadrant development.
In my assessment, these policy changes are exclusionary and, as a result, indefensible from an equity stance.
City leaders maintains that the citywide inclusionary zoning requirement demonstrates their commitment to affordable housing. Still, with so many new barriers to housing development in the southeast quadrant, the effect is likely to be minimal. Inclusionary zoning comes into play when 12 or more housing units are being built. To be required to build 12 units in a conservation planned unit development, a parcel must include at least 10 acres.
While city zoning allows duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes citywide, the amount of land required for these multi-unit structures often makes them financially infeasible. Southeast quadrant parcels smaller than 4 acres require 1.7 acres for a duplex; 2.5 acres for a triplex, 3.33 acres for a four-plex (assuming no purchase of transfer of development rights).
Allowing greater, not less, density is what S.100 proposes and is a critical tool for addressing our housing crisis.
Finally, it troubles me that folks residing in housing on land that could not be developed as housing today so strongly oppose developing housing on similar land and, at the same time, protecting natural resources so that more people might enjoy similar benefits.
An example is the opposition of South Village residents to the Long family’s proposal to build a mini-South-Village-type development on adjacent property. Note that the South Village development includes 160 acres of conserved land.
None of these comments should be interpreted to mean that I do not recognize and appreciate that a lot of housing has been built in South Burlington and ARPA funds have been directed toward affordable housing development.
Still, in the midst of our unprecedented housing crisis, South Burlington can and should do more. Applying Smart Growth principles, we can allow more housing to be constructed citywide and, at the same time, protect natural resources from development thoughtfully and prudently, with a result in which we can all take pride.
