Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 March 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, F. Kochman, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; A. Gagnon, L. Lackey, C. Gendron, M. Brennan 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-25-01 of Beta Technology, Inc., to subdivide an existing 901.6 acre lot developed with an airport complex. PAGE 1  The subdivision consists of creating 3 lots of 3.01 acres (Lot A), 0.92 acres (Lot B), and 0.14 acres (Lot C) for the purpose of leasing the lots to Beta Technologies and retention of the parent lot. The project does not involve land development, 1150 Airport Drive: Ms. Philibert said the Board has discussed this in deliberation and has determined that the applicant can pull out at this time and handle this as an internal matter. Mr. Gagnon asked if this does not require a subdivision. Mr. Kochman said if the applicant is going to have a lease, it is a subdivision; if this can be an easement, it does not require a subdivision. Mr. Gagnon said they would like to move forward as a subdivision and get on with the waiver requests. Mr. Brennan said the basis for each waiver is how FAA regulations apply. Mr. Kochman asked how this lease is an Airport function. Mr. Brennan said the intent is to get as close to the LDRs as possible. The FAA has control over all subdivision, and the shape of the lots is imposed by the FAA. Mr. Kochman noted that the City Attorney has agreed that FAA regulations pre-empt the City’s LDRs. If there is a legal constraint on the applicant that makes it impossible to meet the letter of the regulations, the Board has authority for the waiver. Ms. Keene then showed the waiver standard and said that everyone agreed there are legal restraints. Members then returned to the staff report from the previous meeting as follows: #2. If the Board approves the subdivision, staff recommends the Board provide a condition required to provide a computation of lot coverage. Mr. Kochman asked why the Board has to decide this before the applicant comes in with a plan to build. #3. If the Board says the lease is a subdivision, the Board should require the applicant to submit a plan prior to closing the hearing demonstrating the lots can be redeveloped. Upon receipt of such a plan, staff considers the Board may waive required lot size for lots “B” and “C.” Mr. Brennan questioned whether this applies. There is not a regular parking lot on “C” as it is for aircraft parking. Lot “B” has a lot of other uses. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t see the sense of dealing with setbacks, etc., until someone wants to build something there. Ms. Lesko asked if they could put in the decision that any future use has to come to the DRB. Ms. Keene said the lot could never be approved because of its weird shape. #4. Staff recommends approving the side setback waiver. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2025 PAGE 2  #5. The Board agreed with combining preliminary and final plats. #6. The Board was asked to determine whether they find the criterion met to the degree not modified by legal constraints. The applicant showed a fence line and a secured area line required by the FAA. #7. Staff noted that a 20-foot permanent legal right-of-way is required. Ms. Keene said this about lot “C” and asked if the plat could include an additional 20- foot easement. Mr. Brennan said 18 feet is what the Airport sent to the FAA as it is appropriate here. He asked why there should be a provision for access to a lot that can’t be developed. He added that 18 feet fits the context and what it will be used for. Mr. Johnston suggested just having a line on the plan and not marking it on the ground. Mr. Kochman said he hadn’t heard a legal restriction to expand to 20 feet so necessity wouldn’t be met. Mr. Keene said there is no access shown to lot “C.” The applicant noted there is a 18-foot wide gate. Mr. Gagnon said the lease supports that the tenant has access to lot “C.” Mr. Lackey said they will say “20 feet.” #8. Mr. Kochman said this is fine. #9. The applicant has not demonstrated this subdivision is permanent, and the lot lines are difficult to follow. Staff recommends the Board not modify or waive this requirement and require the applicant to fully comply. Mr. Behr suggested working this out with the engineers. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to close SD-25-01. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Minutes of 19 February 2025: The Minutes of 19 February were not available for passage. 7. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted the State has new ethics standards that supersede the City’s. There is a required 45-minute video that she will send out for members must DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2025 PAGE 3 watch. One difference is that although conflict is defined in the same way, a perceived conflict requires recusal. Ms. Keene said there is a question as to whether this could require having alternates for the DRB in case of recusals. There will be discussion of this at a future meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ______ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2025 PAGE 4