Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 April 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: Q. Mann, Acting Chair; M. Behr, F. Kochman, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; G. Dixon, J. Wagner, A. Nagy 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Mann 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. Site Plan Application #SP-25-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU- 25-01 of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington to amend a PAGE 1  previously approved plan for a 126,875 sf educational facility (Rice Memorial High School). The amendment consists of constructing four tennis courts and an equipment storage shed, pervious and impervious walkways, 18-foot tall bleachers, and a 25-foot tall accessory structure in proximity to the athletic fields that will house concessions, bathrooms, and press box, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Dixon showed an overview of the property. He noted they have removed the pervious track and bleachers. The baseball field is not yet completed. This is phase 2 of the upgrades to the fields. It includes adding new bleachers, test rooms, tennis courts, wrap-around sidewalk, and an equipment shed. Mr. Behr asked if there will be lighting. Mr. Dixon said there will not. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted that the previous approval mandated that the fields be used only for school-related activities. That mandate applies to this application as well. The applicant agreed to this stipulation. #2. Staff asked the Board to determine if this is an expansion of a non- conforming use. Their feeling is that it is an accessory use to an educational facility use as Rice is not expanding capacity. Mr. Moscatelli questioned how far that would go – could they put a roof over the tennis courts, for example. Ms. Keene said the test is whether they are changing the core curriculum and adding to it. This application does not add students to the school. Mr. Kochman asked why it is a non-conforming use. Mr. Gillies explained that all residential zoning districts (R1-R4) were consolidated, and the Planning Commission said there could not be school in that new district. Mr. Gillies added that there is now consideration to correct that with regard to Rice High School. The only non- conformity here is the use. Members agreed this was not an expansion of a non- conforming use. #3. Staff asked that the applicant indicate the height of the bleachers. Mr. Dixon said it would be less than 15 feet from the elevation of the tennis court. The shed is a one-story structure 8 to 8-1/2 feet high with a pitched roof that will bring it to 15 feet. It will not stand out in the area. The bleachers will conform to the slope and will exist on the 4-foot drop. #4. Staff asked that the applicant demonstrate that the structures will relate to other structures in the area. Mr. Dixon said they are consistent with a sports DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2025 PAGE 2 facility, not very tall buildings, what you would normally see at a high school. The building will be pre-fab with a color that blends in. He showed an example of what the building could look like. The second story would be for the press box. #5. The applicant was asked to indicate the location of the screened dumpster. Mr. Dixon said they will show this on the plan. It is located right above the baseball field. #6. With regard to whether the proposed alteration of the existing grade requires a conditional use, staff feels it is in conjunction with the tennis courts and therefore does not require conditional use review. Members agreed. #7. The applicant was asked to confirm that the bleachers are secondary to the principle structure. Mr. Dixon provided that confirmation. #8. The applicant was asked to update the EPSC plan for the tree at the edge of the track. Mr. Dixon said that tree was taken down as part of the last project. They replaced it with 3 trees in the same area. Construction will not get near them. #9. The applicant was asked to address comment #1 of the Stormwater Superintendent. Mr. Dixon said they have not been able to get in touch with him, and the State is “dragging” on the State Permit. They have every intention to comply with the Superintendent’s comment. Ms. Keene said this can’t be a condition of approval, so the hearing will have to be continued so the applicant can submit information as to what they plan to do. Staff will come back with a draft motion at the continued hearing. Mr. Dixon said their application has been working its way through the State for 2 years. The plan is to use impervious pavers and grass under the bleachers. #10. The applicant was asked to update the sheets regarding stabilization control. Mr. Dixon said they will do so. #11. The applicant was asked to confirm the height of both parts of the retaining wall. Mr. Dixon showed where the wall will be 8 feet. They expect it will be 10-11 feet in one corner. The retaining portion is 8 feet. Mr. Moscatelli said it makes sense to call it 12 feet and do they necessary review. Mr. Kochman said nobody will ever see it in that corner, and there is no aesthetic element involved. It also doesn’t rise more than 8 feet above grade. He favored not treating it as a conditional use. Mr. Behr felt that however you look at it, it needs conditional DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2025 PAGE 3 review. Mr. Gillies directed attention to the conditional use criteria. Mr. Dixon confirmed that a certified engineer will be designing the wall. Members were OK that the conditional use criterial have been met. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to continue SP-25-06 and CU-25-01 until 6 May 2025. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Minutes of 4 March 2025, 18 March 2025, and 1 April 2025: Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 4 March, 18 March and 1 April 2025 as written. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:46 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on May 6, 2025. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 APRIL 2025 PAGE 4