Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2025 T he S outh B urlington Developm ent R eview B oard held a regular m eeting on T ues day, 19 February 2025, at 7:00 p.m . in the A uditorium , City Hall, 180 M arket S treet, and via G o to M eeting interactive technology. M E M B E R S PR E S E N T : D. Philibert, Chair; M . B ehr, F. K ochm an, Q. M ann, J . Les ko, J . M os catelli, C. J ohns ton A LS O PR E S E N T : M . K eene, Developm ent R eview Planner; M . G illies , Developm ent R eview Planner; N . Longo, J . W ilking, K . M arches s ault, J . G reene, N . B rown, T . A ten, M . B rennan, A . G agnon, C. G endron 1. Ins tructions on exiting the building in cas e of an em ergency: M s . Philibert provided ins tructions on em ergency exit from the building. 2. A dditions , deletions , or changes in order of agenda item s : N o changes were m ade to the agenda. 3. Com m ents and ques tions from the public not related to the A genda: N o is s ues were raised. 4. A nnouncem ents : T here were no announcem ents . PA G E 1  5. R econs ideration of conditional us e application #CU -24-07 of Cos entino and M anning to am end a previous ly approved conditional us e approval for a s ingle fam ily hom e. T he am endm ent is to increas e the amount of building that is propos ed to be set back les s than 5 feet from the s ide lot line: S taff advis ed that this item was withdrawn. 6. Continued s ite plan application #S P-25-01 of J ohn W ilking to develop an exis ting 1.88 acre parcel w ith a 5,400 s f one-s tory m edical office building and an as s ociated vehicle parking area, s torm w ater m anagem ent s ys tem , and other site im provem ents , 40 K im ball A venue: S taff com m ents were addres s ed as follows: #1. Previous ly address ed. #2. T he applicant was as ked to dis cus s alternative options for s ite am enities . M r. W ilking s aid they believe the original location is better, but it is not what the B oard wants . Option A is to bring it up to the s treet in the right-of-way where it will get us ed. T hey als o have an optional bike rack at the foot of the s teps . Option B m oves the am enity to the left. T hey would have to build up the area to m ake it work. M r. W ilking s aid their preference is Option A . M r. K ochm an s aid he didn’t think the B oard had the dis cretion to allow us e of city land, s o Option A would not work. M s . K eene s aid if the applicant goes to the City M anager to as k for approval, they m ight be able to do Option A . M r. W ilking said they are in a tim e crunch, s o they will go with Option B . M r. G illies raised the ques tion of a s idewalk to the building. M r. W ilking s aid there will be a s toplight at K im ball A venue, and people can walk from the K ennedy Drive area. He added that nobody walks this far. M r. W ilking noted the effort to s ave the large tree. #3. T he applicant was as ked to provide updated plans to s how there is no im pact on the 100 foot s etback area from the wetland. M r. W ilking s howed the plan with no im pact. He added that the retaining wall will be extended. #4. Previous ly address ed. #5. T he applicant was as ked to s how bike lockers . M r. W ilking said there will be 2 bike lockers in the building’s locker room . He s howed the plan for this . DE V E LOPM E N T R E V IE W B OA R D 19 FE B R U A R Y 2025 | PA G E 2  #6. T he applicant was as ked to replace the A m erican B eech tree. M r. W ilking s aid they have changed this to a S carlet Oak. #7. R egarding parking lot is lands , M r. W ilking s howed how s taff m eas ures this and how everyone els e m eas ures . He noted that by s taff’s proces s , they will lose a m uch needed parking s pace. He als o noted that there is no m eas urem ent m ethodology in the LDR s. M s . K eene s howed the s tandard. M r. B ehr s aid that in his experience, you s quare off the parking lot. He s howed how this would add to the parking calculation. M r. M arches s ault s aid they would like to get a parking s pace back. M s . M ann s ugges ted they dis cus s this in deliberative s es s ion. M r. G illies s aid s taff will need details of the retaining wall. M r. M arches s ault s aid they will provide a des ign. M r. W ilking said they are collecting all the water from the parking lot and sending it to a retaining area. T he S tate has s aid they don’t need a s torm water plan as the area is too s m all. M r. M arches sault s aid the retaining wall will not be above 8 feet high. M r. W ilking as ked how they deal with the tree that will block any s olar ins tallation. M r. G illies s aid that is between s taff and the City A rboris t. T he applicant would jus t have to as k for perm is s ion to rem ove it if that is the decis ion. Public com m ent was then s olicited. T here was no public com m ent. M r. K ochm an m oved to clos e S P-25-01. M s . Les ko seconded. M otion pas s ed unanim ous ly. 7. Final Plat A pplication #S D-25-01 of B eta T echnologies , Inc., to subdivide an existing 901.6 acre lot developed w ith an airport com plex. T he s ubdivis ion cons is ts of creating 3 lots of 3.01 acres (Lot A ), 0.92 acres (Lot B ), and 0.14 acres (Lot C) for the purpos e of leasing the lots to B eta T echnologies , and retention of the parent lot. T he project does not involve land developm ent, 1150 A irport Drive: M r. Longo s aid this is a tenant leas e. T here are unique circum s tances as this property lies within the fence-line/s ecurity s pace. T here are federal obligations to m aintain a free and clear zone. T hes e s paces were funded with Federal funds . T he land could not be built on without the tenant com ing back to the A irport, and thos e protected s paces would s till have to be protected. DE V E LOPM E N T R E V IE W B OA R D 19 FE B R U A R Y 2025 | PA G E 3 M s . M ann as ked why this is a s ubdivis ion. M r. G agnon s aid that for a land leas e it has to com e to the DR B for a s ubdivis ion. M r. Longo s aid the lots are not in the leas e with B eta, s o the A irport can m aintain control. M r. B ehr as ked why this is n’t jus t an internal agreem ent. M r. K ochm an s aid he didn’t think the DR B had any bus ines s m es s ing with a leas e and as ked why they don’t jus t go with a plat and lay out the areas the tenant can’t us e. M r. Longo agreed. M s . K eene s aid the B oard can m ake a jurisdictional decis ion. T here is an option for the applicant to withdraw without B oard action. S taff recomm ends a juris dictional option becaus e of how far this has gone. M r. K ochm an s aid the s ubdivis ion is a total of the 3 lots they are leas ing. T hey are s eparating a chunk of land from the big A irport. He felt it is correctly labeled as a “ ground lease.” M s . K eene s aid s taff does not agree. T here are 3 s eparate lease area boundaries . M r. K ochm an s aid to call them res trictive areas . M r. K ochm an then s aid that becaus e of the res trictive s paces within the larger block, he now believes this is a s ubdivis ion for each of the three lots . M r. J ohns ton agreed. M r. G agnon s aid this is not like other s ubdivis ions . A fter the end of the lease, thos e boundary lines can go away, s o it is not a perm anent s ubdivis ion. M s . Les ko as ked what juris diction the B oard has . M s . M ann s aid there is a s econd s taff report that goes through that, and the plan does not com ply with s ubdivis ion regulations . M r. Longo s aid they do not believe this is a s ubdivis ion. T hey cannot change the lines . He s ugges ted withdrawal. M r. K ochm an s aid he would welcom e an argum ent that m akes this work. M r. G agnon noted that in an ins tance in 2018, a plan was called a s ubdivis ion but the s ubdivis ion regulations were not applied. M r. K ochm an s aid the B oard is s ubordinate to federal regulations which could jus tify waivers. DE V E LOPM E N T R E V IE W B OA R D 19 FE B R U A R Y 2025 | PA G E 4 M r. M os catelli s aid he would like to get a lawyer’s opinion. M r. K ochm an s aid each m em bers brings what he or s he has , and when they need a legal opinion, they s hould get one. M s . M ann s aid if the applicant withdraws and handles it internally, the DR B s hould is s ue an opinion s o there is a his tory in the land records . M r. B ehr s aid every decis ion the B oard m akes s hould be defens ible and go back to the LDR s . M s . Philibert m oved to continue S D-25-01 to 4 M arch 2025. M r. B ehr s econded. M otion pas s ed unanim ous ly. 8. M inutes of 21 J anuary 2025: M s . Philibert m oved to approve the M inutes of 21 J anuary 2025 as pres ented. M s . Les ko s econded. M otion pas s ed unanim ous ly. 9. Other B usines s : N o other bus ines s was pres ented. A s there was no further bus ines s to com e before the B oard, M s . Les ko m oved to adjourn. M r. K ochman s econded. M otion pas s ed unanim ous ly. T he m eeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m . T hese m inutes were approved by the B oard on M arch 18, 2025. DE V E LOPM E N T R E V IE W B OA R D 19 FE B R U A R Y 2025 | PA G E 5