Planning Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-05-12
Time: 18:30

Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee - Collaborative
 Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning

 Tuesday, May 12, 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. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 1. Agenda

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Minutes & Accepts Communications
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications
  Department Planning


  Type

3. Director's Report
4. Public Forum

5. Review of Collaborative Working Group's Workplan & Process
  Subject 5.1. Staff will provide an overview of the purpose of this working group,
 meeting schedule, and intended topics of each meeting.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 5. Review of Collaborative Working Group's Workplan & Process

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

6. Review of Burlington's current Inclusionary Zoning program & policies
  Subject 6.1. Staff to present on and facilitate a discussion of current IZ policies &
 programmatic strengths and challenges. See attached Report on IZ prepared
 by staff.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 6. Review of Burlington's current Inclusionary Zoning program & policies

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

7. Overview of proposed amendments
  Subject 7.1. Staff to present a high-level overview of proposed amendments that will
 be discussed by the working group over the coming months. An overview of the
 proposed amendments can be found on pages 14 - 22 of the IZ Report
 prepared by staff.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 7. Overview of proposed amendments
  Department Planning


  Type

8. Adjournment

Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee - Collaborative
 Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning

 Tuesday, May 12, 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. Motion to amend/adopt agenda
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 1. Agenda

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications
  Subject 2.1. Adopt Minutes & Accepts Communications
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 2. Adopt Minutes & Accept Communications
  Department Planning


  Type

3. Director's Report


 Page 1 of 27
4. Public Forum

5. Review of Collaborative Working Group's Workplan & Process
  Subject 5.1. Staff will provide an overview of the purpose of this working group,
 meeting schedule, and intended topics of each meeting.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 5. Review of Collaborative Working Group's Workplan & Process

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

6. Review of Burlington's current Inclusionary Zoning program & policies
  Subject 6.1. Staff to present on and facilitate a discussion of current IZ policies &
 programmatic strengths and challenges. See attached Report on IZ prepared
 by staff.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 6. Review of Burlington's current Inclusionary Zoning program & policies

  Department Planning


  Type

  Recommended Action

7. Overview of proposed amendments
  Subject 7.1. Staff to present a high-level overview of proposed amendments that will
 be discussed by the working group over the coming months. An overview of the
 proposed amendments can be found on pages 14 - 22 of the IZ Report
 prepared by staff.
  Meeting May 12, 2026 - Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning - Tuesday, May 12, 2026, 6:30 PM,
 Planning Commission & City Council Ordinance Committee -
 Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
  Category 7. Overview of proposed amendments
  Department Planning


  Type

8. Adjournment

 Page 2 of 27
Page 3 of 27
 CITATION/NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL CONDEMNATION HEARING
 STP5000 (29): Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, Mill Street Intersection
 Project

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that—pursuant to 19 V.S.A. Chapter 7 —the City of Burlington plans

to hold a public hearing to consider condemning certain parcels of land for the purpose of

reconstruction and alteration of the Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, and

Mill Street intersections, and, if so, to determine the damages sustained by those owning or

interested in the parcels. Based on municipal records, such parcels are located in Burlington,

Vermont at 448-450 COLCHESTER AVENUE, 457-459 COLCHESTER AVENUE, and 465-

467 COLCHESTER AVENUE. Pursuant to such condemnation, the City of Burlington will

consider whether it is necessary for public use and benefit to take the subject parcels on both a

temporary and permanent basis for use in alteration and reconstruction of the intersections. Such

temporary basis will last until a project completion date of July 1, 2030, but may be extended

depending on project needs. The permanent basis will be needed to accommodate the altered

intersection configuration and associated geometry changes as well as utility relocation and

undergrounding. The necessity and compensation due to those owning or interested in such

property for such condemnation will be addressed at the hearings held at a meeting of Burlington

City Council, Mayor Presiding, on Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. EST, located at 149

Church Street, Burlington, Vermont. There will be a site visit beginning at 8:30 a.m. EST on

May 21st starting at the corner of Mill Street and Colchester Avenue. No testimony will be taken

at the site visit. Testimony will be accepted at the hearing from interested parties. Meeting

information and instructions for remote participation are posted here once the agenda is

published: https://burlingtonvt.portal.civicclerk.com/




 Page 4 of 27
 CITATION/NOTICE OF MUNICIPAL CONDEMNATION HEARING
 Burlington-Winooski BF RAIZ(2) – Winooski River Bridge


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that—pursuant to 19 V.S.A. Chapter 7 —the City of Burlington plans

to hold a public hearing to consider condemning certain parcels of land for the purpose of a

bridge to replace the current Burlington-Winooski Bridge over the Winooski River, and, if so, to

determine the damages sustained by those owning or interested in the parcels. Based on

municipal records, both parcels are located in Burlington, Vermont at 1 Mill Street. Pursuant to

such condemnation, the City of Burlington will consider whether it is necessary for public use

and benefit to take the subject parcels on both a temporary and permanent basis for use in

construction of said bridge replacement. Such temporary basis will last until a project completion

date of July 1, 2030, but may be extended depending on project needs. The permanent basis will

be needed to accommodate the new bridge configuration and associated geometry changes. The

necessity and compensation due to those owning or interested in such property for such

condemnation will be addressed at the hearings held at a meeting of Burlington City Council,

Mayor Presiding, on Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. EST, located at 149 Church Street,

Burlington, Vermont. There will be a site visit beginning at 8:30 a.m. EST on May 21st starting

at the corner of Mill Street and Colchester Avenue. No testimony will be taken at the site visit.

Testimony will be accepted at the hearing from interested parties. Meeting information and

instructions for remote participation are posted here once the agenda is published:

https://burlingtonvt.portal.civicclerk.com/




 Page 5 of 27
A Review of Burlington’s Current
Inclusionary Zoning Policies &
Proposed Amendments




Date Posted: May 8, 2026
This report was prepared by City of Burlington’s Internal Cross-Departmental Working Group
on Inclusionary Zoning in advance of the Collaborative Working Group on Inclusionary Zoning
and ZA-26-04.


 Page 6 of 27
Page 7 of 27
Table of Contents
Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
About the Inclusionary Zoning Collaborative Working Group ����������������������������������������������������� 5
An (Abbreviated History) of Burlington’s Inclusionary Zoning Policies ������������������������������������� 6
2017 – 2019: Comprehensive Assessment & Adoption of ZA-19-10 �����������������������������������������������������6
2022 – 2024: Ongoing Policy Discussions & Targeted Amendments �����������������������������������������������������7
Building a Network of Affordability Strategies��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7
Strategy 1: A Modernized Inclusionary Zoning Policy ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������8
Strategy 2: Strengthening the Housing Trust Fund ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8
Strategy 3: Strategic Use of Public Land and Partnerships �����������������������������������������������������������������������8
Strategy 4: Activation of the Neighborhood Code �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8
About Burlington’s Current Inclusionary Zoning Policy ����������������������������������������������������������������� 9
How is Affordable Housing defined in Burlington? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9
Area Median Income – Who is the Affordable housing being built for? ������������������������������������������������9
Applicability – Who is required to build the Affordable housing? ��������������������������������������������������������� 10
Inclusionary Set-Aside – How much Affordable housing needs to be built? ����������������������������������� 10
Income Targets & Affordability Standards – How is Affordability Calculated? �������������������������������� 11
Development Incentives – How does Burlington incentivize IZ? ������������������������������������������������������������ 11
What are alternative options for compliance? �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11
Strengths & Challenges of Burlington’s IZ Policy ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12
Development Feasibility in Burlington’s Market ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 12
Importance of Incentives & Flexibility ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 12
Role of Nonprofit Partnerships & the Affordable Housing Trust Fund ������������������������������������������������ 13
Proposed Amendments ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14
Proposal 1: Increase IZ threshold (Sec. 9.1.5) ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15
Proposal 2: Eliminate IZ tiering & replace with uniform approach
(Sec. 9.1.8)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 16
Proposal 3: Allow Off-Site Units Anywhere (Sec. 9.1.13)������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17
Proposal 4: Allowing Payment-in-Lieu Anywhere (Sec. 9.1.13) ������������������������������������������������������������ 20
Proposal 5: Reconfigure Calculation of Payment-in-Lieu Fees
(Sec. 9.1.13) �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21
Proposal 6: Allow Tenure Flexibility in Large Projects (Sec. 9.1.14(d)) ������������������������������������������������ 21
Proposal 7: IZ home ownership opportunities for households at 100% AMI (Sec. 9.1.11(b)) ����� 22




 3
 Page 8 of 27
Introduction
The City of Burlington has maintained a mandatory inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance since
the early 1990s as part of a comprehensive housing strategy to address long-term affordability
and supply constraints. As one of the first locally initiated IZ programs in the United States,
Burlington’s ordinance established an early framework for integrating affordable housing
production into market-rate residential development.
The ordinance requires that all new residential developments of five or more units include a
proportion of permanently affordable housing. The required set-aside ranges from 15 to 25%
of total units and is structured on a tiered basis tied to market conditions. Specifically, the
required affordability percentage increases as the average market-rate price of units exceeds
140% of Area Median Income (AMI), thereby calibrating requirements to project economics and
anticipated returns.
Burlington’s Inclusionary Zoning program includes several features that have been influential
in shaping national inclusionary zoning practices. Burlington was the first municipality to
explicitly index affordability requirements to market-rate pricing, a tiered approach that, while
uncommon, has since been adopted in some other jurisdictions. In addition, the ordinance
established a 99-year affordability control period, effectively ensuring permanent affordability,
an approach that has become more common among more recent IZ programs. The ordinance
also permits density and lot coverage bonuses ranging from 15 to 25% and allows these
bonuses to be applied flexibly within mixed-use developments, including for commercial floor
area.
Modernizing the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance stands as one of three cornerstone
initiatives in Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak’s people-first housing agenda, announced on January 13,
2026. This strategy provides a roadmap for accelerating housing production while prioritizing
equity, affordability, community stability, and democratic participation.
Over the last several months, City staff have prepared a comprehensive package of
amendments to significantly update the existing IZ ordinance. These proposed changes are
designed to promote high-quality development, ensure sustainable funding for affordable
housing better reflect current market realities, and align with the Administration’s broader
housing strategy, all while simplifying the structure to reduce administrative burden and
uncertainty. The updates also draw on national best practices and aim to align with
Burlington’s community goals and values. This report offers context and rationale for the
amendment package, drawing on previous reports, stakeholder feedback, market analysis, and
an extensive review of program performance data.

This report was prepared by City of Burlington’s Internal Cross-Departmental Working
Group on Inclusionary Zoning in advance of the Collaborative Working Group on
Inclusionary Zoning and ZA-26-04. 
Staff involved in the Internal Cross-Departmental Working Group on IZ include:  
 • Charles Dillard, AICP, Director, Office of City Planning
 • Sarah Morgan, AICP, Principal Planner, Office of City Planning
 • Maggie Callaghan, Housing Program Manager, Community & Economic Development Office
 • Nancy Stetson, Senior Policy & Data Analyst, Department of Finance & Administration
 • Scott Gustin, AICP, Zoning Division Manager, Department of Permitting & Inspections



 4
 Page 9 of 27
About the Inclusionary Zoning Collaborative Working
Group
The Office of City Planning has proposed the formation of a Collaborative Working Group on
Inclusionary Zoning, bringing together members of the City Council Ordinance Committee and
the Planning Commission to undertake a coordinated zoning amendment process related to the
City’s existing Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) standards.
The Collaborative Working Group on IZ is set to kick off on Tuesday, May 12th at 6:30pm, and
continue over the next six months. The process is intended to create a shared forum for both
bodies to review, discuss, and refine a comprehensive set of amendments to the IZ ordinance,
as developed by staff.
The Working Group will meet regularly to review the proposed amendment package, discuss
and refine changes, and help develop a recommendation that will be referred by Planning
Commission to City Council for its consideration and adoption in November or December of
2026.
Both the Planning Commission and the Ordinance Committee bring important perspectives
and institutional knowledge related to inclusionary zoning in Burlington. The proposed
Collaborative Working Group is also intended to leverage this expertise through a coordinated
review process and ensure that the proposed amendments are thoroughly discussed prior to
formal consideration by the full City Council.
To support this effort while maintaining momentum on other City priorities, including the
comprehensive planning process, staff proposes utilizing one of the Planning Commission’s
regularly scheduled monthly meetings for this work from May to November 2026,
supplemented by additional special meetings as needed. This structure is designed to
streamline review, promote shared understanding between bodies, and integrate policy,
technical, and implementation considerations early in the process.
Collaborative Workin Group meetings will be hybrid meetings, with the in-person meeting
option taking place in City Hall at 6:30pm. The following are the scheduled meeting dates for
the Collaborative Working Group:
 • Tuesday, May 12
 • Tuesday, June 9
 • Tuesday, July 14
 • Tuesday, August 11
 • Tuesday, September 22
 • Tuesday, October 13




 5
 Page 10 of 27
An (Abbreviated History) of Burlington’s Inclusionary
Zoning Policies
During the 1980s and early 1990s, Burlington became a center of innovation in affordable
housing policy. Faced with declining federal housing support and escalating housing costs,
local leaders developed community-driven solutions to expand affordability and make housing
accessible in neighborhoods undergoing redevelopment. Key initiatives from this era included
the establishment of the Champlain Housing Trust, the launch of a locally funded Housing Trust
Fund, and, by 1990, the adoption of one of the nation’s earliest inclusionary zoning ordinances.
Initially, Burlington’s inclusionary zoning program operated without explicit state authority,
relying instead on Vermont’s planning statutes that require municipalities to address residents’
housing needs. This changed in 2005 when Vermont formally authorized inclusionary housing
policies as part of a broader set of affordable housing initiatives. These actions were driven
by a growing recognition of statewide housing needs and the link between housing access,
economic growth, and job creation.
Burlington’s IZ ordinance was designed to fulfill 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117, ensuring housing
opportunities for all Vermonters, particularly those with low and moderate incomes. The policy
also aimed to support a diversity of income levels by discouraging the exclusive development
of market-rate housing on the city’s limited buildable land. Further, it promoted the creation
of economically integrated neighborhoods to enhance the quality of life and foster social and
economic diversity. Finally, the ordinance sought to prevent overcrowding and deterioration of
the affordable housing supply, advancing public health, safety, and general welfare.
Today, six municipalities in Vermont use Inclusionary Zoning as a tool for building affordable
housing in their communities, including South Burlington, Winooski, Hartford, Hinesburg, and
Shelburne. Several of these policies, including Winooski’s and South Burlington’s, have only
been adopted in the last two years.
2017 – 2019: Comprehensive Assessment & Adoption of ZA-19-10
The 2015 Housing Action Plan called for a comprehensive assessment of Burlington’s IZ
ordinance. Completed in 2016 by czb, the evaluation found that while the policy succeeded in
producing economically integrated housing, it did not keep pace with housing demand. The
report estimated that since 1990, Burlington had underproduced approximately 2,500 housing
units, identifying both structural and market factors behind this shortfall and offering guidance
for policy updates.
In response, the City Council established the Inclusionary Zoning Working Group (IZWG)
in 2017, a 10-member panel of local housing experts. The IZWG reviewed the czb findings
and developed recommendations on key elements of the ordinance, such as applicability
thresholds, set-aside requirements, affordability definitions, and compliance alternatives. These
recommendations were formally documented and sent to the City Council.
In 2018, a joint Council committee refined the IZWG recommendations before forwarding them
to the Planning Commission. The Commission made additional revisions and submitted a final
package, which the City Council adopted as ZA-19-10 in October 2019 as a comprehensive
update to Burlington’s IZ ordinance. Recommendations made by the IZWG are included as an
attachment to this report.




 6
 Page 11 of 27
2022 – 2024: Ongoing Policy Discussions & Targeted Amendments
Following the adoption of ZA-19-10, City staff in Planning, CEDO, and DPI have identified
several technical clarifications and policy issues in the IZ Ordinance, including questions
regarding evolving state law. At the same time, elected officials, developers, and community
stakeholders have proposed additional adjustments in response to post-pandemic shifts in
Burlington’s housing market and development conditions.
Targeted amendments were adopted to address immediate concerns. ZA-23-02 increased
flexibility in bedroom mix requirements, while ZA-24-01 clarified that intensity bonuses apply
only to projects with on-site IZ units, restricting off-site or in-lieu payments after occupancy.
These changes resolved key technical and policy issues without reopening the entire ordinance.
Since mid-2023, CEDO, Planning, and DPI staff have worked on a package of amendments to
address construction costs and add flexibility, while preserving the policy’s core affordability
goals. In 2024, these ideas were presented to the Planning Commission, with the subsequent
action calling for continued research by City staff.
Further study included a 2024 report conducted by Economic & Systems Planning, Inc. Titled
“Inclusionary Housing & Development Feasibility: Initial Assessment”. This report included
a pro-forma feasibility study of typical Burlington housing prototypes and evaluated how
possible changes could impact development feasibility and public benefit. Early results showed
that development feasibility is already extremely challenging, even before factoring in IZ
requirements.
Separately, in March 2024, the Council directed the Planning Commission to review the
payment-in-lieu (PIL) option for complying with the IZ program. The resolution was later
broadened to include additional IZ-related amendments, with recommendations requested
within the year. Former Mayor Weinberger’s signing statement underscored the challenge of
balancing affordability goals and project feasibility.

Building a Network of Affordability Strategies
On January 13, 2026, Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak launched Burlington’s 2026 Housing Strategy,
establishing a comprehensive framework to accelerate housing production while focusing on
equity, affordability, community stability, and democratic participation. The strategy is designed
as a coordinated system of complementary policies rather than reliance on any single tool.
Modernizing the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Ordinance is a key pillar of the Mayor’s people-
first housing agenda. Over the coming months, the City will update the IZ Ordinance (Article
9) to better reflect current market conditions, incorporate national best practices, and align
regulatory requirements with Burlington’s housing goals. The goal is to support high-quality
development while ensuring sustainable production of affordable housing.
However, IZ reform is just one piece of a broader, integrated housing strategy. The City is
advancing a multi-pronged approach that coordinates regulatory tools, funding sources, land
use policy, and public assets within a unified framework for housing affordability. Inclusionary
zoning has historically carried much of the responsibility for advancing affordable housing
production on its own. The current strategy acknowledges that no single policy can address the
complexity of the housing crisis.
Instead, Burlington is taking an integrated approach in which zoning policy, funding tools,
land assets, and development regulations are intentionally coordinated to improve housing
production, strengthen affordability outcomes, and ensure that policies reinforce rather than
work against one another.


 7
 Page 12 of 27
This systems-based strategy moves away from siloed interventions toward a unified approach
that strengthens and aligns all available tools. Together, the following initiatives reflect a shift
from isolated policy actions to a coordinated housing system designed to maximize overall
effectiveness.
Strategy 1: A Modernized Inclusionary Zoning Policy
The proposed amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance are designed to better align
with today’s housing market realities and development feasibility while maintaining strong
affordability outcomes. The updated framework aims to keep IZ an effective tool for delivering
permanently affordable housing, without unintentionally limiting overall housing production.
Additionally, IZ policy functions as a critical funding source for the Housing Trust Fund
through payment-in-lieu contributions, further strengthening its role within the City’s broader
affordability strategy.
Strategy 2: Strengthening the Housing Trust Fund
The Burlington Housing Trust Fund (BHTF) provides grants and loans to support the
production, preservation, and retention of long-term affordable housing for very low-, low-, and
moderate-income households. Eligible recipients include nonprofit organizations, municipal
entities, cooperatives, for-profit developers, and individuals.
The BHTF also supports capacity-building grants for nonprofit housing providers, including
staffing, planning, and organizational development. The City is currently working to revamp
the Housing Trust Fund to increase its financial capacity and strategic impact, enabling greater
leverage for affordable housing investment citywide.
Strategy 3: Strategic Use of Public Land and Partnerships
The City is advancing efforts to leverage publicly owned land to support affordable housing
development through public-private partnerships. By making underutilized land available for
housing development, the City aims to reduce one of the most significant barriers to production:
land acquisition costs.
This approach is intended to work in coordination with updated IZ policies and an enhanced
Housing Trust Fund to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing projects while improving
efficiency and project feasibility.
Strategy 4: Activation of the Neighborhood Code
Adopted in 2024, the Neighborhood Code establishes a new zoning framework for residential
districts that enables a broader range of housing types, including single-family homes,
accessory dwelling units, duplexes, small multi-unit buildings, and townhouses.
A primary goal of the Neighborhood Code is to support thoughtful infill and neighborhood-
scale densification. While infill development can be difficult to build in Burlington, the City is
working to address barriers, including regulatory constraints and public awareness, to unlock
additional housing opportunities within existing neighborhoods.




 8
 Page 13 of 27
About Burlington’s Current Inclusionary Zoning Policy
Inclusionary Zoning uses several tools to regulate the creation of affordable units, including
the number of units developers must build and where those units must be built. This section
outlines key requirements and standards associated with Article 9 of Burlington’s CDO:
Inclusionary and Replacement Housing.
How is Affordable Housing defined in Burlington?
Sec. 9.1.4 of the IZ ordinance defines “Affordable” as housing in which the total cost of the
housing, including principal is not more than thirty per cent (30%) of the household’s gross
annual income.
For renters, housing costs include the total rent, utilities, and condo fees. For home ownership,
these costs include the principal, interest taxes, insurance, and condo fees.
All inclusionary units must remain affordable for a minimum of 99 years. The affordability
requirement is enforced through deed restrictions and legally binding agreements satisfactory
to the City Attorney’s office. Additionally, the resale of ownership units is subject to limitations
on the appreciation of equity.
Area Median Income – Who is the Affordable housing being built for?
Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of household incomes in a defined region.
Burlington’s AMI is based on the Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and is
calculated annually by the US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD).
AMI represents the income level at which half of families in a region earn more than the
median, and half earn less. Burlington, like many other federal housing policies and programs,
uses AMI to determine eligibility for affordable housing and to set rent and sale price limits.
The current AMI of the Burlington/South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area is $123,400.
This figure is then adjusted based on household size using standard HUD ratios (for example,
a 1-person household is set at 70% of the 4-person base, a 2-person household at 80% of the
base). Affordable rents are calculated based on 30% of a household’s monthly income, based
on these levels.

 2 Person Household 4 Person Household
 Income Affordable Rent Income Affordable Rent
 65% AMI $64,850 $1,621 $81,050 $2,026
 100% AMI $99,800 $2,495 $124,700 $3,118
 140% AMI $139,700 $3,493 $174,600 $4,365




 9
 Page 14 of 27
Applicability – Who is required to build the Affordable housing?
Burlington’s IZ ordinance applies primarily to larger residential developments, as well as certain
smaller projects under specific conditions:

 Project Type When IZ Applies Unit Threshold Intent of Applicability
 New New construction 5 or more units in a Captures most mid- to large-scale
 Residential or substantial single structure development, ensuring affordable
 Development rehabilitation creating housing is integrated into new
 housing units projects
 Phased / Multiple projects by Combined total of Prevents developers from avoiding
 Multiple the same applicant 5 or more units requirements by splitting projects
 Projects within a 12-month into smaller phases
 period

 Residential Conversion of non- 10 or more units Ensures large adaptive reuse
 Conversions residential buildings created projects also contribute to
 to housing affordable housing supply

 Off-Campus New or rehabilitated Applies regardless Brings student-focused
 Student housing intended of unit count developments into the program,
 Housing exclusively for threshold helping mitigate pressure on the
 students broader housing market

 Voluntary Developer chooses to Fewer than 5 units Provides flexibility and allows
 Participation opt into the IZ Policy smaller projects to access
 incentives tied to the ordinance


Inclusionary Set-Aside – How much Affordable housing needs to be
built?
The inclusionary set-aside is the portion of housing units in a new residential development
that must be designated as “Affordable”. Projects where IZ applies are required to provide a
certain percentage of affordable housing units based on the relative cost of development. If the
average sale and rental price of project units is affordable to a household earning a certain AMI
threshold, then a specific percentage of units are subject to the required:

 If the units built are affordable Then the following percent of
 to a household earning... units must be affordable:
 Less than 139% of AMI 15% of project
 Between 140 and 179% of AMI 20% of project
 At or above 180% of AMI* 25% of project
 Off-campus student housing 15% of beds
 *Developments that are built in the Waterfront districts (NAC-CR
 and FD5 west of Battery Street) are also subject to a 25% set-aside.




 10
 Page 15 of 27
Income Targets & Affordability Standards – How is Affordability
Calculated?
Burlington’s IZ ordinance regulates how to determine the maximum rent or sale price for
inclusionary units with the goal of ensuring that they are and remain affordable to income-
qualified households. in general, per Burlington’s definition of Affordability, housing costs
cannot exceed 30% of the household’s income. More information about price calculation and
the relationship between unit and household size when calculating rents is located in Sec.
9.1.11 of the Ordinance.
Under the current ordinance, pricing of units is tied to specific income levels:

 When pricing... Cost includes... Cost must be affordable to...
  Rental Units Rent, utilities, and condo fees 65% of AMI
  Home Ownership Principal, interest taxes, 70% of AMI
  Units insurance, and condo fees


Development Incentives – How does Burlington incentivize IZ?
Burlington’s IZ ordinance offers density bonuses and other zoning incentives for projects that
meet inclusionary zoning requirements, specifically linking these benefits to the construction
of affordable units within market-rate developments. This approach encourages physical
integration and allows qualified projects to exceed base dimensional standards when on-site
inclusionary units are provided.
These incentives, located in Sec. 9.1.12(a), allow for increases in building height, floor area ratio
(FAR), and lot coverage, depending on the zoning district. If DRB approval is granted, these
incentives include flexibility within mixed-use developments, allowing some residential units to
be converted to non-residential uses.
What are alternative options for compliance?
The default expectation for complying with Burlington’s IZ regulations is to build affordable
units on-site. However, provided that a project has not benefited from additional density or
development allowances in Sec. 9.1.12 of the ordinance, developers may utilize the following
options to comply with the IZ regulations.
 • Off-site construction within the City (See Proposal 3, p. 17 of this report for current policies
 related to off-site construction)
 • Payment-in-Lieu fees allow developer to pay a fee instead of constructing affordable
 housing units within a project. These payments go towards Burlington’s Affordable
 Housing Trust Fund, where they are then used to support the creation of affordable housing
 elsewhere in the city. (See Proposal 4, p. 20 Of this report for the current policies related to
 Payment-in-Lieu)




 11
 Page 16 of 27
Strengths & Challenges of Burlington’s IZ Policy
Two studies, from 2017 and 2024, found that Burlington’s inclusionary zoning program has
been a major driver of affordable housing, but the following market barriers and other factors
have limited its long-term impact and slowed new development.
Development Feasibility in Burlington’s Market
Both studies identified development feasibility is the primary challenge for building affordable
housing in Burlington’s market, with major barriers to new residential development being high
land and construction costs and limited land availability.
The 2017 czb study highlighted that land costs near downtown, located near jobs and
amenities, were often higher than $500,000 per acre, making high density development
necessary for a project’s financial feasibility. In addition to this challenge, the 2024 study
conducted by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) Inc. noted that higher interest rates and
post-COVID construction costs have placed additional stress on project feasibility and slowed
housing development citywide.
Vermont’s small market compounds these development challenges, as limited contractor
capacity, labor shortages (particularly in specialized trades), and reliance on outsourced labor
all contribute to Burlington’s rising development costs.
Importance of Incentives & Flexibility
These reports, along with comments collected from Burlington’s affordable housing experts,
note that for the policy to be effective, inclusionary zoning must be paired with meaningful
incentives and regulatory flexibility. Density bonuses, like those described in Article 9, Sec.
9.1.12, help developers offset the costs of complying to IZ regulations.
While infrequently used, alternative methods of compliance like payment-in-lieu and off-site
unit construction have the capacity to improve development feasibility while still ensuring the
creation of affordable housing.
Development Threshold Considerations
The 2017 report questioned whether Burlington’s 5-unit applicability threshold creates
unintended barriers to small-scale infill development and suggested exploring a higher
threshold and additional monitoring to understand its impact on housing production.




 12
 Page 17 of 27
Role of Nonprofit Partnerships & the Affordable Housing Trust Fund
A notable strength in Burlington’s affordable housing landscape is the opportunity to partner
with nonprofit housing developers. These partnerships are viewed as an effective way to
produce, manage, and monitor IZ units. The 2024 EPS study noted that developers are often
better off financially when they partner with a nonprofit developer. If the City improves the
feasibility of this strategy, more housing will be created.
EPS’s study also identified Burlington’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a major asset and
program strength, citing that this dedicated funding allows the City to support affordable
housing production independent of private development cycles.
City data shows that as housing production accelerated in the 2010’s, IZ unit production rose
as well. This production can be largely attributed to public-private partnerships at Cambrian
Rise and Thayer Commons. However, as the development environment has grown more
challenging, fewer IZ units have come online.




 13
 Page 18 of 27
Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments are one component of a coordinated and proactive response to
the growing demand for affordable housing. Importantly, these amendments do not exist in
isolation. They have been developed in coordination with other City housing strategies and
investments, including expanding and diversifying the Housing Trust Fund, accelerated pursuit
of public-private partnerships and use of city land for housing, and addressing persistent
barriers to the recently adopted Neighborhood Code. Each of these tools plays a distinct role
in shaping Burlington’s housing landscape. By aligning inclusionary zoning with these ongoing
broader efforts, the City can create a more cohesive and effective housing ecosystem.
At a high level, these recommendations are designed to add flexibility, reinforce accountability
and predictability, and respond to current market conditions and long-term community needs.
The proposed amendments address the following topics or standards:
 Program Feasibility & Structure
 1. Increase the project size threshold at which Inclusionary Zoning rules apply
 2. Eliminate IZ tiering with a uniform approach
 Opportunities for Flexibility in Compliance
 3. Allow off-site units citywide
 4. Allow payment-in-lieu citywide
 5. Reconfigure Calculation of Payment-in-Lieu Fees
 Large Project Tenure & IZ Home Ownership
 6. Allow Tenure Flexibility in Large Projects
 7. Allow IZ home ownership opportunities for households at 100% AMI
Together, these proposed changes aim to reduce administrative complexity, provide clearer
pathways for compliance, and ensure that the program remains both effective and feasible.
This balanced approach acknowledges the financial realities developers face—particularly in a
high-cost construction environment—while directly responding to the urgent and growing need
for affordable housing across the community.
At the same time, expanding the supply of housing quickly cannot come at the expense of fair
and thoughtful affordable housing implementation. A balanced framework, one that combines
incentives with clear requirements, is essential to encourage development while ensuring
meaningful community benefits.
An additional goal of these amendments is to contextualize Burlington’s affordable housing
strategies within the broader region. Without ignoring Burlington’s values and interest in
fostering inclusive, affordable neighborhoods, these amendments must acknowledge that
Burlington often does compete for scare housing resources. If inclusionary zoning requirements
are overly burdensome or unpredictable, development may shift elsewhere, ultimately
undermining the City’s housing goals.




 14
 Page 19 of 27
Proposal 1: Increase IZ threshold (Sec. 9.1.5)
The IZ threshold is the minimum project size at which affordable home construction is required
under Article 9 of the CDO.
Current Policy
Inclusionary Zoning standards apply in the following cases:
 • Any project containing five or more units
 • Multiple projects by the same applicant within any twelve-month period
Proposal
• Increase the project size threshold to 16 units
• Increase the multiple project threshold to 16 units
Rationale
• Increasing the threshold to 16 units would remove a primary barrier to Neighborhood Code
  implementation. As-of-right development of up to eight units on any Residential lot and
  most projects in the Residential-Corridor district would be exempted from Inclusionary
  Zoning standards.
• Small infill developers, typically those pursing infill projects enabled by the Neighborhood
  Code, typically cannot absorb the costs associated with developing affordable units. These
  same developers, and residential district property owners pursing Neighborhood Code-
  enabled infill, lack the specialized administrative staff necessary to ensure IZ compliance
• Affordable and inclusive neighborhoods will be maintained through diversified use of
  the Housing Trust Fund, including purchase of existing properties, gap financing for new
  affordable construction, and pursuit of tax policy to encourage quality, affordable housing.
• A 16-unit threshold would bring Burlington into policy parity with Winooski and South
  Burlington. Winooski requires IZ for “large projects” only, while South Burlington’s threshold
  is 10 units. Of note, South Burlington requires affordability at a higher income level – 80% of
  AMI.
• Half of all new units built in Burlington since 2000 have been built within larger projects
  of more than 40 units. Another 19% have been built in mid-sized projects of 16 to 40, and
  a similar share have
  been built in small-scale
  projects under five units
  that do not require IZ.
  Projects larger than the
  threshold yet smaller than
  16 units are relatively rare,
  accounting for 10% of all
  units built within the city.
• No projects have been
  built in Burlington at
  the current threshold of
  five units since 2000,
  suggesting including an
  IZ unit at that scale is a
  barrier to development.

 15
 Page 20 of 27
Proposal 2: Eliminate IZ tiering & replace with uniform approach
(Sec. 9.1.8)
Inclusionary zoning standards typically require creation of affordable homes relative to the
project’s overall size.
Current Policy
The number of required IZ units, expressed as a percentage of the project’s overall unit count,
is determined by the project’s average sale and rental price, as follows:
• If the average sale and rental price of project units is affordable to a household earning:
 • Less than 139% of Area Median Income: 15%
 • 140-179% of AMI: 20%
 • 180% or more of AMI: 25%
• Development in any Waterfront district (RM-W, RL-W, NAC-CR and FD5 west of Battery St)
  requires 25% of units to be affordable
• Off-campus student housing: 15%

For reference, a family of three making 140% of the area median income has a household
income of $157,300 and can afford a monthly rent of $3,930, according to the standard limit
of 30% of a household’s monthly income. At 180% of AMI, a household of 3 could afford a rent
of $5,054 or less.

Proposal
• Eliminate the inclusionary zoning tiering system
• Require 15% of units to be affordable to households at or below 65% AMI
Rationale
• 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.
• The current tiered system places an administrative burden on City staff
• Burlington’s 65% AMI requirement is relatively low in comparison with regional and national
  peer cities but is important in ensuring affordability for lower-income households. Reducing
  the percentage of units required to 15% across the board will increase project feasibility.
• In practice, the current higher tiers are rarely required, as market rents rarely reach the
  140% AMI threshold
• Establishing a uniform approach will bring Burlington in line with regional and national peer
  cities.




 16
 Page 21 of 27
Proposal 3: Allow Off-Site Units Anywhere (Sec. 9.1.13)
Some IZ policies provide developers choice when it comes to where and how they build their
project – often because off-site construction is cheaper to deliver. In others, an off-site option
is not allowed or only allowed in some cases. The policy rationale for prohibiting off-site
construction is to facilitate or require “more inclusive” neighborhoods. Indeed, inclusion can be
considered the fundamental goal of all IZ policies.
The map on the following page indicates where the provision of off-site units is not allowed.
Current Policy
 Off-site construction of IZ homes is permitted only in the following cases:
  • Where the project is within a “more inclusive” census block, defined as one where more
 than 51% of residents are below 80% of Area Median Income
 Off-site construction is expressly prohibited in the following cases:
  • Where the project is within a “less inclusive” census block, defined as one where fewer
 than 51% of residents are below 80% of Area Median Income
  • Within the South End Innovation District, the Neighborhood Activity Center – Cambrian
 Rise District, and any property west of Battery Street in the Downtown Form District 5
  • Where the project is an off-campus student housing project
 Additional standards regulating off-site IZ unit construction are as follows:
  • Development bonuses (Floor Area Ratio, Building Height, and Lot Coverage) are not
 available to projects providing IZ units off-site
  • Off-site IZ units must be constructed within the City of Burlington
  • Waiver of Housing Trust Fund provisions related to minimum square footage and bedroom
 count relative to average size and bedroom count, respectively, are not permitted
These “less inclusive” neighborhoods have historically been populated by a preponderance
of higher-income households. The initial goal of this policy was to require to development of
affordable units in those neighborhoods as to promote economic diversity and prevent further
economic disparities or gentrification.

 IZ Projects with Offsite Units
 Year Source Project Destination Units
 1993 Queen City Park Valade Park & Venus Ave 1
 2006 1044 North Ave. 354 Manhattan 1
 2016 Hinds Lofts, 161 Saint Paul St. 88 King St 2




 17
 Page 22 of 27
  Low to Moderate Income
Population by Block Group
 Data Source: US Department of
 Housing & Urban Development,
 US Census Bureau




18
 Page 23 of 27
Proposal
Staff recommends the following amendments:
 • Allow the off-site construction of IZ units anywhere within the City of Burlington, regardless
 of the project’s location
 • Require off-site IZ units to be constructed by the project’s developer. Where partnership
 with an affordable housing developer is proposed, the developer must contribute a fee to
 the affordable housing developer equal to the revised Payment-in-Lieu fees proposed in this
 amendment.
 • Allow the off-site option to include purchase of existing units, provided they are not already
 preserved through covenant or other mechanism, as affordable housing. Such units must
 then be preserved through covenants as affordable housing, in perpetuity and subject to IZ
 Area Median Income standards. If allowed, this off-site option must also ensure that such
 units are rehabilitated and of relative high quality to new construction.
 • Remove the prohibition of off-site construction in the NAC-CR district
Rationale
 • Allowing the off-site option anywhere will support the Administration’s accelerated
 pursuit of public-private partnerships and use of city land for housing and community
 development, for the following reasons:
 • As the City identifies parcels feasible and appropriate for housing, it could offer ground
 leases to development partners interested in construction affordable housing on city
 land. At the same time, the City cannot guarantee that a given development-ready
 parcel will be in the same census block as a proposed private sector housing project.
 • Offering ground leases of city land for off-site IZ construction could increase both
 market rate and affordable project feasibility.
 • In offering ground leases on its land, the City can exert greater control over an
 affordable housing project’s program, design, and sustainability performance.
 • Areas defined today by the CDO as less inclusive do not necessarily, and frequently do
 not, offer greater access to jobs, services, and amenities than those considered more
 inclusive. For example, the New North End, where the off-site option is not allowed, offers
 lesser access than areas such as the Old North End or Downtown to jobs, mobility options,
 transportation infrastructure, commercial uses and other elements that enhance quality of
 life in a city.
 • While integration among higher income households has been shown to confer some
 benefits to lower-income households, especially children, there are several notable
 negative consequences of social mix imperatives in inclusionary zoning policies:
 • Affordable housing residents in some recent studies have expressed lack of comfort
 and safety as visible minorities based on racial, class, and/or religious identity
 • Residents moving to new affordable IZ units may experience loss of community and the
 many mutual aid benefits that it confers
 • Allowing purchase of existing units could preserve affordable housing in areas
 experiencing gentrification pressure




 19
 Page 24 of 27
Proposal 4: Allowing Payment-in-Lieu Anywhere (Sec. 9.1.13)
The most common alternative to on-site affordable home construction in IZ programs
nationally is the fee-in-lieu option. Typically, IZ policies establish both the fee amount and an
annual recalibration formula to ensure the fee adjusts relative to market conditions.
Current Policy
The Payment-in-Lieu option is permitted only in the following cases:
 • Where the project is within a “more inclusive” census block, defined as one where more
 than 51% of residents are below 80% of Area Median Income (see map on p. 18)
 • Where a project of 16 or fewer units is within a “less inclusive” census block, defined as
 one where fewer than 51%tof residents are below 80% of Area Median Income
The Payment-in-Lieu option is expressly prohibited in the following cases:
 • Where a project of more than 16 units is within a “less inclusive” census block, defined as
 one where fewer than 51% of residents are below 80% of Area Median Income
 • Within the South End Innovation District, the Neighborhood Activity Center – Cambrian
 Rise District, and any property west of Battery Street in the Downtown Form District 5
Additional standards regulating Payment-in-Lieu are:
 • Development bonuses (Floor Area Ratio, Building Height, and Lot Coverage) are not
 available to projects providing IZ units off-site
 • Off-site IZ units must be constructed within the City of Burlington
 • Waiver of Housing Trust Fund provisions related to minimum square footage and bedroom
 count relative to average size and bedroom count, respectively, are not permitted
Since 1998, the city has received over a million dollars in payment-in-lieu fees over 5 projects:

 Year Project PIL Units Replaced
 1998 40 College $165,000 16
 2007 354 Manhattan $25,000 1
 2011 Westlake $371,250 8
 2021 77 Pine $70,000 2
 2024 157 South Champlain $490,000 8
 2024 15 Hungerford $140,000 3
 Total $1,261,250 38

Proposal
 • Allow the Payment-in-Lieu option anywhere within the City of Burlington, regardless of the
 project’s location
 • Remove the prohibition of off-site construction in the NAC-CR district
Rationale
 • Allowing the Payment-in-Lieu option will support the Administration’s goal of growing and
 broadening the uses of the Housing Trust Fund.
 • Through such Housing Trust Fund evolution, the City will retain greater control over
 housing design, location, and typology.
 • Growing the Housing Trust Fund through increased access to the Payment-in-Lieu option
 will allow the City to fund affordable infill projects enabled by the Neighborhood Code.
 20
 Page 25 of 27
Proposal 5: Reconfigure Calculation of Payment-in-Lieu Fees
(Sec. 9.1.13)
Payment-in-lieu fees are charged as a “replacement” for required IZ unit construction. In
Burlington, such fees go directly to the City of Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund.

Current Policy
Fees are established relative to project size:
 • 5-16 units: $35,000 per required affordable unit
 • 17-49 units: $70,000 per required affordable unit
 • 50+ units: $85,000 per required affordable unit
Proposal
 • Eliminate the tiered approach that relates the fee amount to the project size
 • Establish a FY27 fee of $80,000 per unit but remove the fee from the CDO
 • Establish in the CDO a formula for annual recalibration of the fee amount. The formula
 should be based on inflation and prevailing interest rates and construction costs.
Rationale
 • The current fee-in-lieu amounts have not been adjusted since 2019.
 • The proposed fees are identical to those recently established in Winooski and are relatively
 similar to those in the CDO today
 • Annual recalibration is a standard best practice and ensures fees remain sensitive to
 market conditions
 • Removing the fee from the CDO and instead establishing a formula eliminates the need to
 amend the CDO annually in updated fee amounts
 • Increasing the fee amount marginally for projects containing between 17 and 49 units
 could help grow the Housing Trust Fund
 • In eliminating the IZ requirement for projects with fewer than 16 units, the amendment will
 facilitate construction of infill housing enabled by the Neighborhood Code

Proposal 6: Allow Tenure Flexibility in Large Projects (Sec. 9.1.14(d))
Housing tenure refers to the structure under which housing is secured. Broadly speaking, the
two categories are ownership and rental. Within the ownership form, there are subcategories,
including fee simple, condominium, cooperative, and limited equity (i.e. community land trust)
ownership.
Current IZ policy requires parity in all projects, meaning that if you are building for rentals
then the IZ units must also be rentals and vice versa. However, large-scale, multi-phase
developments are subject to fluctuating development costs and market demands.
By allowing flexibility, developers and community partners developing the units would be
able to change their project demographic depending on supply and demand. The hope is that
developers who are often working with affordable housing partners in these projects will be
able to shift their projects to better meet the needs of the community.

Current Policy
Projects including both rental and owner-occupied dwelling units have to provide inclusionary
units proportionate to the numbers of rental and owner-occupied dwelling units.


 21
 Page 26 of 27
Proposal
 • In projects of 200 or more units, allow inclusionary units to be rental or owner-occupied.
 • When a project includes market rate owner-occupied units, require that 20% of the
 required inclusionary units or a proportion equivalent to the number of market rate owner-
 occupied units, are owner-occupied, whichever is less.
Rationale
 • In large projects including owner-occupied units, the proposal would ensure that some
 much-needed owner-occupied ownership units are constructed
 • Increases project feasibility and predictability in large, multi-phase projects that are
 constructed over several years

Proposal 7: IZ home ownership opportunities for households at 100%
AMI (Sec. 9.1.11(b))
Current Policy
 • Owner-occupied inclusionary units must be sold at a price affordable to households
 making 70% of AMI
 • When unable to sell to households earning 70% AMI, the unit may be sold to the lowest-
 earning household that qualifies, up to 100% AMI
Context
What is currently affordable to someone making 100% AMI?
• 1 bedroom: $295,5000
• 2 bedroom: $354,500
• 3 bedroom: $409,500
What income % do you need to be to afford the current median?
• Median home price 2024-2025 is $500k
• Needs household income of ~$155kWhat % of homes sold in the last year were affordable
  to 100% AMI?
• Since the beginning of 2024 there have been 690 condos or sfh sold in Burlington
• 19% have sold for less than $354k, 31% less than $409k
Proposal
 • Require that at least 75% of owner-occupied inclusionary units be sold at a price
 affordable to households making 70% of AMI
 • Allow 25% of owner-occupied homes to be sold at a price affordable to households
 making 100% of AMI.
Rationale
 • The proposal could create new ownership opportunities for the median household in
 Burlington, a population that is currently and increasingly unable to afford homes on the
 market
 • Could help modestly decrease the gap between construction and sale price for inclusionary
 ownership units




 22
 Page 27 of 27

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.
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.
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.
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