Conservation Board

Conservation Board Meeting Public Notice Monday, November 3, 2025, 5:30 PM 311 North Avenue, Conference Room 1. Minutes 1.1. Accept minutes from October 6, 2025 meeting 2. Board Comment 2.1. Copy of BCB letter sent to Office of City Planning regarding New North End development scenarios 3. Public Comment 4. Project Review 4.1. ZP-25-526; 702 Lake St (UR, Ward 2) City of Burlington / Lee Perry Renewal of zoning permit for City of Burlington and Marketplace snow storage. 5. Update & Discussion 5.1. Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 212) Presentation and discussion with Alison Spasyk 6. Executive Session 7. Adjournment 8. Informational and Non-Discrimination Statements 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. The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who require special arrangements, auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Burlington, should contact the office of the Title II Burlington ADA Coordinator at 802-865-7000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. Page 1 of 11 Burlington Conservation Board Rebecca Roman, Chair Ryan Crehan, Vice Chair 645 Pine Street Zoe Richards Burlington, VT 05401 Don Meals http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CB Ethan Ely Telephone: (802) 865-7189 Dale Azaria Evan Horne Kelly Farrell Conservation Board Meeting Minutes Monday, October 6, 2025 – 5:30 pm Remote & In Person Meeting Attendance  Board Members: Zoe Richards (ZR), Rebecca Roman (RR), Ryan Crehan (RC), Dale Azaria (DA), Evan Horne (EH), Ethan Ely (EE)  Absent: Don Meals (DM), Kelly Farrell (KF)  Public: Jill Dixon, Rhiannon Sinclair, Jack Millbank  Staff: Scott Gustin (Permitting & Inspections), Dan Cahill (Parks & Rec) RR, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Minutes September 8, 2025 minutes A MOTION was made by EH and SECONDED by DA: Approve the September 8 minutes as written. Vote: 5-0-0, motion carried. (No EE yet) Board Comment RR said VLCT is hiring a water resource specialist. RC said the Leddy Park bike track is in place now. Dan Cahill said he’s been there. It seems to have been positively received and is being used by the community already. Public Comment None. Open Space Subcommittee RR noted that Sharon Bushor offered support of the Open Space Plan during the Open Space Subcommittee meeting. She’d help advocate for the Tree Ordinance and for expansion of the Legacy Fund. Update & Discussion 1. Open Space Plan Discussion and adoption of Open Space Plan. Rhiannon Sinclair and Jill Dixon appeared on behalf of this item. The programs and services of the Dept. of Permitting & Inspections are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188. Page 2 of 11  Conservation Board Minutes October 6, 2025 - pg. 2 Rhi and Jill presented revisions from the draft Open Space Plan. They’ve added an executive summary, more info about the Conservation Legacy Fund (CLF), more robust urban forest pieces, updated maps, and have included a few new actions. Rhi, the vision and 4 main components remain. We have added additional info where requested. We have elaborated on the reason for the plan and some key actions. There is more information on the CLF. The outreach process and events have been noted. Jill addressed the urban forest content. We have included analysis info and more info on the recommendations. Additional detail has been added about the emerald ash borer, canopy loss, and gain. We have fleshed out the “connect” strategy and have taken a closer look at UVM data as to forest patch age. This content has been supported with case studies at Leddy and Ethan Allen Parks. The revised plan emphasizes and articulates ecosystem services provided by the urban forest. Jill, we have made a number of visual improvements to the maps. A stewardship zone has been added along Englesby Brook. We have elaborated on core ecological lands and waters and have improved the key connections map. Rhi, updated actions include a series of standards to compliment and reinforce the intent of this plan. We have articulated “green planning principles” and included a demonstrative graphic of various green design measures that can accompany infill development. Additional action items relative to community gardens have been included. RC thinks the plan looks great. He’d like to see a breakdown of acreage of the different types of open space. Also, under “conserve,” need to add language around “keep and protect existing open space.” There should be something in the plan about making connections between people and the open spaces in the “connections” section. ZR noted some small things like identifying the natural areas shown in the photos. As to the opening quote referring to the west coast, maybe look at something local (done by Christine). Clarify/revise the land acquisition item in the “Comprehensive Plan” corner. DA referred to subcommittee notes from earlier today. This plan is amazing. She was pleased to see modifications to the plan in response to draft comments. In pg. 50-54, there is description of natural communities, problems facing them, and what restoration measures may be. There’s no indication of where they are in Burlington. Jill, we’ll follow up to see if there is data as to where, exactly, these places are. DA, the plan could even refer folks to resources as to where the natural communities may be. Dan Cahill said we have data from the 2014 Open Space Plan assessment. EH, “Wetland, Woodland, & Wildland” does this well by identifying natural community types and some places they may be. RR, the implementation matrixes by section is great. The information provided is necessary and important. In table of contents, under each item, note pg. # for implementation matrixes. The communication has improved in this revised draft. EH, on the core ecological area map, he understands the large mass that extends into Colchester, but he does not see in the plan why Colchester is included. The shift away from “invasive species” to “aggressive introduced” should be explained. A MOTION was made by DA and SECONDED by EH: Recommend adoption of the Open Space Plan per the comments above. Vote: 7-0-0, motion carried. 2. PlanBTV New North End Page 3 of 11  Conservation Board Minutes October 6, 2025 - pg. 3 Follow up discussion of comments to provide City Planning. RR recapped the discussion of this item at last month’s meeting. Conversion of parks/green spaces to development should be lowest on the list. Put ecology first, not after the plan. We need to account for nature-based climate solutions. It was helpful to hear percentage of open space retained if development were to occur. The various city plans need to be in alignment, including with the open space plan. ZR, we’ve talked about housing and conservation. When Cambrian Rise was permitted, a city park was established as well as the development. We can do both. RC, development is basically permanent. It is a big deal to convert part of a park that has stood for generations to development. He referred to the current Comprehensive Plan that calls for protection of our parks and open spaces and steering development away from them. UVM has land that they planned to develop for student housing. UVM scrapped it because it was too expensive. ZR agrees with citing the current Comprehensive Plan, highlighting the shift in direction. RC noted we have not said “no” to any development. EH, the idea of development improving the ecology of these park lands seems off base. Dan Cahill, in the instance of the Ethan Allen Park concept, as drawn, it would have a lot of open space frameworks that could include green design measures. There is opportunity for enhancement in some aspects. RR concurred with respect to the Ethan Allen Park concept – retention of 99% of the parkland, address a hazardous intersection, and provide housing. RR, converting green spaces should be lowest priority. Even conceptual planning should consider ecology first. Development and protection can be considered together. What’s proposed is a total shift in direction from the current Comprehensive Plan as to protection of parks and open spaces. RC, this is out of order with an analysis of city-owned properties. That should have been done already. DA, point out first that the Conservation Board does not typically say no to development. Doing so helps with credibility in making these comments. Project Review 1. ZP-25-488; 11 Driftwood Ln (RL, Ward 4) Andrew & Tracy Russell / Michael Koch Proposed replacement of deteriorating seawall. Jack Millbank appeared on behalf of this application. Jack Millbank overviewed the project. He noted that the existing seawall abuts Leddy Park and extends onto it. The wall had been stabilized in 2012 with large boulders and smaller shot rock behind it. At that time, the city allowed access for the work from Leddy Park. Unfortunately, the large boulders allowed wave action and erosion through the joints. This started out as just a maintenance project and access through Leddy Park again was requested. Access through the Park was not granted this time. As the initially proposed wall was not an exact replacement, then zoning approval is needed. The plan has been revised to show retention of the existing configuration. The new wall will use something called “Panton” stone that it interlocking to avoid the gaps. A set of wooden stairs will be replaced with stone. Also, we are removing wooden timbers and leaving stone. RR asking about the floating silt fence. Jack, use is dependent on the water height and whether frozen or not. RC asked access. Jack said they’ll access from the subject property and will simply remove and replace. RC, do you expect to use geotextile fabric? RC, referring to ESPC. Jack, yes, we will use erosion control fencing and matting. Jack, will use jute, not plastic mesh. RC, it looks like you’re bringing in topsoil and fertilizing. Is that necessary? Jack, no, we could use organic hydroseed. Page 4 of 11  Conservation Board Minutes October 6, 2025 - pg. 4 EE, take out the comment in the plans about using fertilizer. EE, is there any planting proposed where the wall is being removed from city property? Jack, we’re not touching that portion of the wall. EE, what about soil stockpile locations? It would be good to note no soil stockpile within the lake’s flood zone. A MOTION was made by EE and SECONDED by EH: Recommend approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. Utilize jute EPSC materials (not plastic). 2. Keep soil stockpile out of the lake’s flood zone. 3. Remove reference to fertilizer on the project plans. Vote: 7-0-0. Adjournment 6:54 PM. Page 5 of 11 October 7, 2025 Conservation Board Memo Re: planBTV: New North End Design Concepts The Office of City Planning presented to the Conservation Board (CB) at our September meeting to present the planBTV: NNE Design Concepts.This Phase 2 proposal focused strongly on developing on city owned land in the NNE, specifically our parks. The Conservation Board collectively opposes using our protected green spaces for development. The CB reviews many plans for development for the City. We are responsible for reviewing projects within the natural resource overlay district, all major impact and PUD projects, and projects within the Urban Reserve. We are the trusted body for reviewing projects with the lens for the environment and its role in our community, and we rarely, if ever, say no to a project presented to us. But we do so now. The planBTV: NNE Phase 1 feedback clearly states “Access to Nature” and “Environmental Priorities” as main themes heard from residents. Developing our green spaces does not match that community input. Development is permanent, and losing our green spaces cannot be undone. Further, the adopted 2019 planBTV states clearly on page 29 that “[natural areas, shore lands, floodplains, agricultural areas, recreational resources…] will continue to look and be used primarily as they are today, with relatively few adaptations intended to allow them to maintain their natural functions, remain economically viable, available for recreation, and be well-maintained.” Therefore, if the goal of this neighborhood specific plan is to look at City owned land, look first to already developed lots like Sears Lane. By our count, there are at least seven other properties that should come far before considering development in our community green spaces. Our parks should be the lowest priority when considering development potential. The CB understands that one of the proposals was building on a previously identified need for public safety improvements, the Ethan Allen Parkway proposal. In line with the CB approach that we are not anti-development, we could consider this idea. This project would create a safer intersection, where there have been multiple previous accidents. It would maintain 99% of the open space. And it would create housing in an area blocks from the shopping center. Plus, there could be opportunities for stormwater management improvements and other green infrastructure that could be in line with the updated Open Space Plan, which plan BTV should be referencing and in line with. Thank you for taking the Conservation Board’s concerns into consideration. We feel strongly that development on our green spaces should be the lowest and very last priority in the city’s plan for growth and development. It would not be in line with the Open Space Plan, and the Conservation Board will not support it. Thank you, Rebecca Roman Board Chair Page 6 of 11  11/16/2023 ZP-23-464 SG Page 7 of 11 Page 8 of 11 Page 9 of 11 Page 10 of 11 Reducing Flood Hazards The Flood Safety Act in Your Community Outreach and Education Our Services The Nature Conservancy and Lake Champlain Sea We offer in-person and virtual presentations, Grant are partnering to support the Vermont trainings, workshops, and discussions at Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in official public meetings and events, including: a three-year initiative to provide education and outreach to communities about rivers, as part of Selectboard or Planning Commission the 2024 Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 121). Meetings Our team is available to present to municipal boards and address your questions about the Flood Safety Act Flood Safety Act, explain its implications in your Vermont's historic development patterns alongside community, and gather feedback to share with rivers have left communities vulnerable to flooding. the DEC and legislature. The Flood Safety Act increases flood resilience by Community Events improving dam safety regulations, protecting Presentations at farmers markets, fairs, and wetlands, and regulating development in river other community events to engage the public corridors. River corridors include the land alongside on river science and the Flood Safety Act. rivers that is likely to be eroded by the river over time. Stream table demonstrations may be available. Development in river corridors is largely unregulated, resulting in massive costs in flood damage to communities and to the state. Limiting new development in river corridors is the most cost- effective way for Vermont to reduce future flood related damages and threats to public safety. Images © University of Vermont Shayne Jaquith · Watershed Restoration Manager Alison Spasyk · Flood Resilience Educator Contact Us Shayne.Jaquith@TNC.org Alison.Spasyk@uvm.edu Page 11 of 11