Planning Commission

Burlington Planning Commission Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM Remote & Virtual Meeting via Zoom In person option available: Bushor Conference Room (Room 102), 1st Floor of City Hall, 149 Church St. To Join the Meeting on a Computer Link:https://zoom.us/j/97941883790?pwd=bGZBNzNyV1liL3p5NkhIL2dqUFIzdz09 Passcode: 658929 To Join the Meeting on a Phone Number:+1 646 931 3860 US Meeting ID: 979 4188 3790 1. Agenda Subject 1.1. Planning Commission and City Council Ordinance Committee to separately adopt the meeting agenda. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 1. Agenda Department Planning Type Recommended Action 2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications Subject 2.1. Planning Commission and City Council Ordinance Committee to separately adopt the draft minutes and accept communications. Any written communications will be added to Civic Clerk up receipt and circulated to the Working Group. If you would like to submit a written communication, please email smorgan@burlingtonvt.gov. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications Department Planning Type 3. Director's Report 4. Public Forum #1 Page 1 of 14  Subject 4.1. The first Public Forum held during this meeting is intended to be for members of the public to speak on items not included on the meeting agenda. While there is not a formal time limit when speaking during Working Group Public Forum, we kindly request that any comprehensive or extensive comments be submitted via email to smorgan@burlingtonvt.gov to be circulated as written comments. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 4. Public Forum #1 Department Planning Type 5. 5/12 Meeting Follow-up Subject 5.1. Staff will respond to follow-up actions and items requested during 5/12 meeting. These responses can also be found in the meeting's staff memo. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 5. 5/12 Meeting Follow-up Department Planning Type Recommended Action 6. Discussion on Proposal #1: Increasing the IZ Project Size Threshold Subject 6.1. Staff will present the proposed change, to be followed by a discussion with the Working Group. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 6. Discussion on Proposal #1: Increasing the IZ Project Size Threshold Department Planning Type Recommended Action 7. Discussion on Proposal #2: Eliminate IZ tiering & replace with uniform approach Subject 7.1. Staff will present the proposed change, to be followed by a discussion with the Working Group. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 7. Discussion on Proposal #2: Eliminate IZ tiering & replace with uniform approach Department Planning Page 2 of 14  Type Recommended Action 8. Public Forum #2 Subject 8.1. The second Public Hearing held during this meeting is specifically for comments related to the Inclusionary Zoning amendment. While there is not a formal time limit when speaking during Working Group Public Forum, we kindly request that any comprehensive or extensive comments be submitted via email to smorgan@burlingtonvt.gov to be circulated as written comments. Meeting June 9, 2026 - Agenda - Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 6:30 PM, Burlington Planning Commission Category 8. Public Forum #2 Department Planning Type Recommended Action 9. Time Permitting: Preview of Proposals #3 and #4 10. Adjournment Page 3 of 14  Burlington Planning Commission Andy Montroll, Chair Michael Gaughan, Vice Chair 149 Church Street Alexander Friend Burlington, VT 05401 Erhard Mahnke www.burlingtonvt.gov/cityplanning Erin Malone Ryan Nick Julia Randall Burlington Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 P.M. Hybrid Meeting via Zoom and in City Hall’s Bushor Conference Room Draft Minutes Planning Commissioners Present: City Staff Present: ☒ Andy Montroll, Chair ☒ Erin Malone ☒ Charles Dillard, Director, City Planning ☒ Michael Gaughan ☐ Julia Randall ☒ Kara Alnasrawi, Director, CEDO ☒ Alexander Friend ☒ Ryan Nick ☒ Kimberlee Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney ☒ Erhard Mahnke ☒ Scott Gustin, Zoning Division Manager, DPI City Council Ordinance Committee ☒ Sarah Morgan, Principal Planner, City Planning Members Present: ☒ Stella Jordan, Senior Planner, City Planning ☒ Councilor Gene Bergman, Chair ☒ Nancy Stetson, Senior Policy & Data Analyst, DFA ☒ Councilor Mark Barlow ☒ Maggie Callaghan, Housing Program Manager, CEDO ☒ Councilor Sarah Carpenter Public Attendance: Eric Farrell, Jak Tiano, Liz Curry, Sharon Bushor, Nolan Rogers 1. Agenda Call to Order: 6:30pm Changes to Agenda: Councilor Bergman and Andy Montroll clarified that those in attendance are not making up a single body, and are instead two bodies that are working collectively, meaning that the two bodies will adopt the same agenda separately, so that both are happening at the same time. Andy and Gene will switch who will act as chair each meeting. Andy proposed that following the adoption of the agenda, those in the room should introduce themselves. Additionally, there would be two Public Forums held during this meeting – the first Public Forum is intended to be for members of the public to speak to things not on the meeting agenda, and the second is to speak on agenda items. Agenda adopted by both City Council Ord. Committee & Planning Commission 2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications Planning Commission Action: No minutes posted to adopt, motion to accept communications Motion by: A. Friend Seconded by: R. Nick Vote: Unanimous Notes or Corrections: N/A City Council Ordinance Committee Action: No Action. Motion by: N/A Seconded by: N/A Vote: N/A Notes or Corrections: N/A 3. Director’s Report C. Dillard shared that the development agreement was adopted the night before at the 5/11 City Council meeting and also highlighted the success of the planBTV 2050 Open House on 4/30, which had over 300 attendees. A. Montroll also echoed this success. The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities, and employment opportunities. For accessibility information or alternative formats, please contact Human Resources Department at (802) 540-2505. Page 4 of 14 Burlington Planning Commission Minutes p. 2 4. Public Forum #1 Nolan Rogers: Chose to speak during this first public forum due to another commitment. Thinks these proposed changes illustrate a great step forward. Likes moving the threshold at which zoning applies up to 16 units, and supports simplifying the tiers is a good step in the right direction. Thinks Burlington needs more housing, and that a lot of people feel that way. If we agree we’re in a crisis, we need to incentivize building the housing. Challenged attendees to build too much housing, because that’s a challenge it probably cannot meet. 5. Review of Collaborative Working Group's Workplan & Process Staff presented on the goals and process of the collaborative working group, which aims to review proposed zoning amendments before the Planning Commission's public hearing. The working group will meet once a month during Planning Commission meetings, with meeting materials to be posted on Civic Clerk ahead of time. Discussion Notes: • No questions or comments from Working Group members 6. Review of Burlington’s current Inclusionary Zoning program & policies City staff presented a comprehensive overview of the ordinance's history, including key amendments and policy updates, highlighting that while the policy successfully produced economically integrated housing, it hasn't kept pace with Burlington's high housing demand. The discussion covered current affordability standards, development thresholds, and challenges in making the program financially feasible for developers. This presentation also noted the importance of nonprofit partnerships and the Housing Trust Fund in supporting affordable housing development, while also noting that neighboring municipalities have higher development thresholds than Burlington's current 5-unit requirement. Discussion Notes: • R. Nick asked about South Burlington’s IZ threshold, which is at 10+ units. • A. Friend asked whether staff looked into how many IZ units have been constructed in South Burlington. Staff doesn’t have this data but will provide it for the next meeting, and G. Bergman requested that we have that information in relation to how much housing is or has been built. S. Carpenter requested that these numbers also be provided for Winooski. • E. Mahnke noted that, in reference to “IZ units built by source” chart, the nonprofit developer brings the affordability significantly lower than thresholds for IZ because they are able to bring additional subsidies. • Also, in reference to “IZ units built by source” chart, M. Gaughan asked whether the application of the IZ requirement was to the affordable housing project. Staff answered that yes, it is 15% of those affordable projects. • G. Bergman requested that numbers being collected for Winooski and South Burlington also include land cost, so we can identify barriers that impact the construction of housing. If their land costs are significantly less, then we need to consider that. C. Dillard said staff would also look at rent across boundaries, impact fees, and other permit fees. • S. Carpenter noted that it won’t be easy to get land costs. It’s a good question, but discussion will need to happen to parse that out. Asked if there is overlap with our density bonuses and other state policies. C. Dillard said that yes, if you are in a designated center, the project can be designated as a priority housing project and receive a 40% density bonus. To become a priority housing project, they need to create an additional 5% at 80% AMI. There is typically a cap on density bonuses, and the developer is typically locked in at a certain FAR or lot coverage bonus. • S. Carpenter had questions about the three groups in the “IZ units built by source” chart and will speak with staff offline about the distinction. Page 5 of 14 Burlington Planning Commission Minutes p. 3 • In response to the questions about statutory provisions for affordable housing, there’s the lower affordability bar at 80%, and it’s a higher overall requirement at 20% of the units as opposed to 15%. It can be added on top of the City’s IZ bonus, so SECORD got 2 extra stories on those buildings. One for City IZ and another for the Priority Housing Project’s statutory requirement. The only reference to this in the CDO is footnote 3 in Table 11.1.5-1 • S. Carpenter requested that, while she appreciates the number of units with partnerships, she would like to see what the projects are. • E. Malone requested a document comparing our IZ policy to South Burlington and Winooski, similar to the peer city analyses that are done as part of planBTV 2050. S. Morgan responded to say that they are working on a peer city comparison matrix for the next meeting. C. Dillard added that in our research, cities that have IZ are amending their regulations every 3 years to keep up with market conditions. G. Bergman requested a link to all of the documents being referenced during this meeting, which staff assured would be posted on the amendment’s online landing page. 7. Overview of Proposed Amendments City staff presented the proposed amendments to inclusionary zoning and also discussed the administration's three-pronged housing strategy, which includes a more strategic use of the Housing Trust Fund, removing barriers to neighborhood code-enabled units, and pursuing public- private partnerships on city-owned land. Staff also noted that while not included in the initial report, there are additional minor technical changes and clarifications to the ordinance were also being considered. Discussion Notes: • Related to Proposal #3, “Allow Off-Site Units Anywhere”: A. Friend more rationale and evidence supporting some of the proposed changes, particularly regarding off-site development policies. • Related to Proposal #6, “Allow Tenure Flexibility in Large Projects”: S. Carpenter stated that 200 units is a lot for a single development, and clarified if staff was intending for this to focus on PUDs. C. Dillard replied that this proposal is intended to apply to phased projects that will take place over multiple years, rather than just one building. 8. Public Forum #2 Jak Tiano: Jak, who currently is a renter, commented that the inclusionary zoning (IZ) amendments appear to acknowledge that the current ordinance is making housing development financially difficult. He stated that IZ currently functions like a regressive affordability fee placed on new housing, with costs ultimately passed on to tenants, while existing property owners contribute little. Jak questioned whether the program delivers meaningful affordability benefits, noting he would qualify for an inclusionary unit but the savings on rent would be less than $100 per month. He also expressed concern that IZ may reduce overall housing production and worsen broader market affordability, and emphasized that increasing housing supply is essential to lowering prices over time and expressed concern that IZ may slow the production needed to achieve that. Jak urged the city to reconsider whether IZ should remain a primary affordability tool and to explore alternatives such as preserving naturally occurring affordable housing. Liz Curry: Liz provided detailed feedback on the inclusionary zoning document, emphasizing that inclusionary zoning should be viewed as one of many tools rather than a primary driver of affordable housing production. She highlighted concerns about the 5-unit threshold, data supporting claims about IZ's impact on development, and inconsistencies in defining affordable housing income levels. Page 6 of 14 Burlington Planning Commission Minutes p. 4 Sharon Sharon raised questions about AMI calculations, speculating that the reason the AMI Bushor: increased was because Burlington was grouped with South Burlington. Sharon proposed that we be separated from South Burlington when calculating that. Related to the Housing Trust Fund, she would like to know how much money we have in the fund and how much the HTF tax raises on an annual basis by itself. As it relates to the amendments, she supports an increase in the development threshold from 5 to potentially 10 units, but is concerned about the 15% tiering and feels that the waterfront should be a higher number. Also expressed the proposed off-site allowances will create neighborhoods of all low-income housing. 9. Adjournment (8:33pm) Planning Commission Action: No minutes posted to adopt, motion to accept communications Motion by: R. Nick Seconded by: A. Friend Vote: Unanimous City Council Ordinance Committee Action: Adjourned by Councilor Bergman. Motion by: N/A Seconded by: N/A Vote: N/A Page 7 of 14  City of Burlington, VT 149 Church Street, 3rd Floor Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: (802) 865-7194 www.burlingtonvt.gov/plan TO: Burlington Planning Commission City Council Ordinance Committee FROM: Sarah Morgan, AICP, Principal Planner Charles Dillard, AICP, Director of City Planning Nancy Stetson, Senior Policy & Data Analyst Maggie Callaghan, Housing Program Manager DATE: June 6, 2026 RE: Proposed ZA-26-04: Inclusionary Zoning The goal of this memo is to summarize the Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning meeting, respond to comments or data requested during that meeting, and provide an overview of the proposals to be discussed at the group’s second meeting on Tuesday, June 9. Summary of 5/12 Meeting – Link to Draft Meeting Minutes The Burlington Planning Commission and City Council Ordinance Committee convened the first meeting of the Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning. During this meeting, staff outlined the purpose, process, and anticipated workplan for the collaborative review, which is intended to provide an opportunity to discuss the amendments across both bodies prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Included in the meeting packet was a report reviewing Burlington’s current Inclusionary Zoning program, overviewing its history, core policy framework, and affordable housing production outcomes. The discussion among the working group members on the policy framework focused on how Burlington’s IZ program compares with nearby municipalities, the roles of nonprofit housing developers and the housing trust fund, affordability standards, and the relationship between Burlington’s IZ policy and state housing incentives. Following this review of the existing policy, staff provided an overview of the proposed package of amendments. Working Group members requested additional data and analysis to better understand the potential impacts of the proposed changes. This information has been compiled below: Follow Up Items Amendment Webpage: In response to requests for easy access to relevant documents, staff created a webpage for this amendment that will serve as a one-stop shop for the working group. In addition to being posted on Civic Clerk, meeting minutes, memos, and other relevant materials can also be found on this webpage: www.burlingtonvt.gov/AmendingIZ. Please use this webpage to review materials and follow updates related to this amendment. Neighboring & Peer City Comparison Matrix: The following table compares key policy factors of Burlington’s IZ ordinance with those of other municipalities in Chittenden County that have adopted Inclusionary Zoning policies. Please use this chart as a high-level overview, given that it does not include specific details for each policy point across municipalities: Page 8 of 14  Burlington South Burlington Winooski Hinesburg Compliance 5 units 10 units 20 units 10 units Threshold Inclusionary Set 15% - 25% 10% - 20% 10% - 20% 15% Aside Income Targets & Rental: 65% AMI Rental: 80% AMI Rental: 60% - 80% AMI Rental: 80% AMI Ceilings Owner: 70% AMI Owner: 100% AMI Owner: 120% AMI Owner: 100% AMI Off-Site Option Yes, but limited Yes, if there is a No No, but allow by geography hardship or conversion of physical limitation existing dwellings Cost Offsets & Fee waivers, Bonuses for Density Bonus, parking Density bonus, Incentives Density Bonus exceeding IZ reduction, expedited requirements, administrative review permitting, fee addt'l compliance reduction/waiver, options for IZ units unit concessions with 3+ bedrooms Payment-in-Lieu $35,000 - Not permitted, Determined by City Not Permitted $80,000 instead allows Council. Only depending on dedication of land. applicable to 50% of project size the req. affordable dwelling units. Additional Comparisons between Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski: Housing Production: During the May meeting, a number of questions were raised about the relative rates of housing production in Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski, and the causes of those differences. Data from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) shows that Burlington has built an average of 77 units of housing per year between 2000 and 2023, South Burlington has built 142 units, and Winooski has built 27 units. On a per- resident basis, Burlington has built far fewer homes than either of these towns and most of the towns in the county. There is limited available data on historic rates of affordable housing production in surrounding municipalities. In Burlington, about 600 of the approximately 2,700 housing units built since 2000 are permanently affordable, or about 20%. Of these affordable units, half were built in affordable housing projects, and the other half are split between IZ units in market-rate projects and IZ partnerships. 2 Page 9 of 14 Land Costs Comparison: One clear difference between Burlington and its neighbors, aside from Winooski, is the density of development. South Burlington has built far more housing than Burlington in recent decades, but that is partly a function of the amount of developable land it has. Land itself is more expensive in Burlington: the median assessed value is roughly $1,000,000 per acre, while South Burlington's median is less than half that at $450,000 per acre. And because Burlington is already dense, developing housing there usually means buying both land and the improvements on it, which pushes costs higher still. Rent Comparisons: While the rental market in Burlington likely overlaps significantly with that in South Burlington and Winooski, we have some limited data on the different rent levels across the towns. The chart below shows rent across the three municipalities as estimated by the census, which uses a survey spanning five years, and aggregated by Zillow in the past year. The estimates vary across these sources, though they both show South Burlington with the highest rents. 3 Page 10 of 14 Impact Fees: Impact fees are charges on new development to defray capital costs directly related to new development. These fees may be spent on improvements needed to serve growth and maintain level of service as the city grows. Importantly, impact fees must be spent on capital projects with community-wide benefit and not on projects that benefit just one development. Impact fees may not be spent on maintenance, operations, existing deficiencies, or project-specific impacts. Burlington first established impact fees in the 1990s and were most recently updated in 2025. Across Chittenden County, impact fees range considerably, with South Burlington assessing significantly higher rates than all other communities. Below are tables identifying impact fees across eight Chittenden County municipalities. Overview of Proposed Amendments: This section is intended to provide an overview of what amendments will be discussed during the June 9 meeting. For information on what amendments will be discussed at future meetings, please review the report compiled by staff. Proposal #1: Increasing the project size threshold at which Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) rules apply Current Policy The Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) threshold establishes the minimum project size at which affordable housing requirements apply under Article 9 of the Comprehensive Development Ordinance. Under the current policy, IZ standards apply to any development containing five or more dwelling units, as well as to multiple projects undertaken by the same applicant within a twelve-month period. Proposal The proposed amendment would increase both the project-size threshold and the multiple-project threshold from five units to 16 units. 4 Page 11 of 14 Rationale A key goal of this change is to remove a significant barrier to implementing the recently adopted Neighborhood Code. Raising the threshold to 16 units would exempt most Neighborhood Code- enabled infill development from IZ requirements, including as-of-right projects of up to eight units on residential lots and most development within the Residential-Corridor district. Small infill developers and property owners pursuing Neighborhood Code-enabled housing often lack the financial capacity to absorb the costs associated with constructing affordable units, as well as the specialized administrative resources necessary to navigate ongoing IZ compliance requirements. Affordable and inclusive neighborhoods will continue to be supported through a more diversified use of the Housing Trust Fund, including the acquisition of existing properties, gap financing for new affordable housing construction, and the pursuit of tax policies that encourage the creation and preservation of quality affordable housing. The proposed threshold would also bring Burlington more closely in line with peer communities. South Burlington applies its inclusionary zoning requirements only to projects of 10 units or more and requires affordability at a higher income level (80% of Area Median Income), while Winooski applies its requirements only to larger-scale developments. Recent housing production data suggest that increasing the threshold would have a limited impact on the number of units subject to IZ requirements. Since 2000, approximately half of all new housing units constructed in Burlington have been built within projects containing more than 40 units, while an additional 19 percent were built in projects containing between 16 and 40 units. A similar share of units were constructed in projects with fewer than five units, which are already exempt from IZ requirements. By contrast, projects larger than the current threshold but smaller than 16 units are relatively uncommon, accounting for only about 10 percent of all units built during that period. Notably, no projects have been constructed at the current five-unit threshold since 2000, suggesting that the requirement to include affordable units at that scale may be a barrier to housing development. 5 Page 12 of 14 Projects completed in the last 20 years with five to sixteen units, affordable housing projects highlighted in blue: Year Address Units Built IZ Units 2025 188 South Champlain 6 1 2024 15 Hungerford Ter 15 0 2024 278 Main St (COTS) 16 2 2022 251-253 South Union St 8 0 2018 441-435 Shelburne St 10 2 2017 87-95 North Ave (COTS) 14 2 2017 109-111 Shelburne St (CHT) 8 1 2016 289 College St (Mansfield Hall) 13 2 2014 196-202 North St 7 1 2013 30-42 King St (BHA) 16 2 2012 371 Pearl St 10 2 2012 142-144 North Champlain St 6 1 2012 155 Plattsburgh Ave 9 1 2010 50 Barret St 8 1 2008 161 Saint Paul St (units off site) 16 2 2008 1554 North Ave (BHA) 11 2 2007 354 Manhattan Dr 14 1 2006 187-191 South Winooski Ave 8 1 Total 195 24 Excluding Affordable Projects 116 14 Proposal #2: Eliminate IZ tiering and replace with uniform approach Current Policy Inclusionary zoning standards typically require the creation of affordable homes in proportion to a project's overall size. Under Burlington's current policy, the percentage of required affordable units is determined by the average sale and rental price of the project. Projects with average sale and rental prices affordable to households earning: • Less than 139% of Area Median Income: 15% • 140-179% of AMI: 20% • 180% or more of AMI: 25% Development within designated Waterfront districts is also subject to a 25% affordability requirement, while off-campus student housing developments must provide 15% affordable units. For reference, a household or family of three earning 140% of AMI has an annual income of approximately $157,300 and can afford a monthly rent of roughly $3,930 using the standard affordability benchmark of 30% of household income. At 180% of AMI, a household of three could afford a monthly rent of approximately $5,054 or less. Proposal The proposed amendment eliminates Burlington's current tiered inclusionary zoning structure and 6 Page 13 of 14 instead establishes a uniform requirement that 15% of units in qualifying projects be affordable to households earning 65% of AMI or less. Rationale: The primary rationale for this change is that the existing tiered system requires developers to forecast future rents and sale prices years before projects are completed and occupied. The current tiered system infeasibly requires that developers project expected rents far in advance of leasing periods and occupancy. Expected rents often fluctuate based on market conditions at time of project completion. Given the lengthy periods of construction for development projects, it is not reasonable to expect that the City or developers can predict with complete accuracy the rents any project will ultimately generate. Related to the above, the complex tiering system creates obstacles to project underwriting, as expected rents and consequential amounts of affordable housing will fluctuate. Additionally, in practice, the higher affordability tiers are rarely triggered because market rents seldom exceed the thresholds associated with 140% AMI or above. Burlington's proposed affordability target of 65% AMI remains lower than that required in many regional and national peer communities, and reducing the required percentage of affordable units to a uniform 15% is expected to improve project feasibility while maintaining meaningful affordability for lower-income households. Establishing a consistent citywide standard would also simplify administration, improve predictability for developers, and bring Burlington's inclusionary zoning framework more in line with regional and national peer cities. 7 Page 14 of 14