Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 MAY 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 May 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; C. McNeil, City Attorney; L. Lackey, S. Moncrieff, A. Richardson, M. Korpos, Jake F., J. Dagesse, G. Dixson 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. PAGE 1  5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-25-06 and Conditional Use Application #CU-25-01 of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility (Rice Memorial High School). The amendment consists of Constructing 4 tennis courts and an equipment storage shed, pervious and impervious walkways, 18’ tall bleachers and a 26’ tall accessory structure in proximity to the existing athletic fields that will house concessions, bathrooms, and a press box, 99 Proctor Avenue: Ms. Philibert noted a memo from staff that the last issue is stormwater. Mr. Gillies advised that staff got together with the Stormwater Department, and everything is OK, so the Board is free to close the hearing. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli moved to close SP-25-06 and CU-25-01. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-25-17 of the City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport for a portion of the first phase of an approved master plan for an existing airport complex. The project consists of constructing approximately 4000 linear feet of recreation path and installing landscaping on vacant airport owned properties located between Airport Road and Dumont Avenue, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Behr said he is doing an unrelated project with the airport. There was no objection stated to his participation in this hearing. Mr. Johnston asked why there are changes to the original plan the DRB saw. Mr. Lackey said Public Works had some requirements, specifically raised crosswalks to prevent ponding, avoiding trees, etc. All South Burlington departments are OK with this plan. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked that the rec path be removed from the lot coverage calculation. Ms. Dagesse said they will do this. #2. The applicant was asked to clarify the design of the Aviation Deli and path. They are situating the path on the west side of the driveway, and things get DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 May 2025 PAGE 2 pushed over a bit. They will put the timber guard rail back in because of changes to the Aviation Deli parking lot. These will be on the Aviation Deli parcel. Ms. Keene said staff will need to see that plan. It can be put in as a condition if there are no other reasons to continue the application. Mr. Lackey said there will be a “No Overnight Parking” sing on the Deli parking lot. #3. Staff asked the Board to affirm that the Recreation Path Civic Space can be used as “civic space” and as credit for 100% for the North Concourse Project. Board members voiced no objections to this. #4. Staff recommended the Board assign an area to the rec path open space for the purpose of calculating whether it may be allowed as credit for site amenity requirements for future projects. The applicant was OK with this. #5. The applicant was asked to describe tree locations as “approximate” rather than “conceptual.” Mr. Lackey and Ms. Dagesse were OK with this. #6. Staff requested a breakdown of the landscaping budget. Ms. Dagesse said the total budget is $645,821. The North Concourse part of the budget is $382,000. Ms. Keene noted a page that shows $69,000 for trees. Ms. Dagesse said they will update the plan. Mr. Lackey said they will provide the breakdown. #7. Staff noted the Board can include a condition retaining some trees as a buffer to residential uses. Mr. Behr said he loves the look of it. He asked if there is anywhere that existing vegetation can be maintained he would support that. Mr. Lackey said they, too, support that. Mr. Moncrieff said they are trying to stay out of the tree canopy. Unhealthy trees will come down. Ms. Dagesse then showed a breakdown of the landscaping budget. Members were OK with this. Mr. Lackey said they will be coming back as future projects move forward. This is “banking” some landscaping for those projects. Mr. Moncrieff said the pocket parks are not included in Phase 1 of the rec path. Mr. Lackey noted an agreement with the DPW regarding stormwater. There is a chance they will not build some things until the underground chambers are completed. Public comment was then solicited. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 May 2025 PAGE 3 Ms. Korpos, a member of the Natural Resources Committee, asked if there is a way to see something about the underground water treatment. Ms. Keene said she will connect with Ms. Korpos on this. Mr. Kochman then moved to close SP-25-17. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Presentation on Statewide Municipal Code of Ethics: Mr. McNeil provided an overview of the new Municipal Code of Ethics. The intent was to have a uniform State code. There were no specific issues in South Burlington. The Code addresses what constitutes a “conflict of interest” as an interest in the outcome of an issue or a conflict with the proper charge of an officer’s duties. Mr. McNeil said that if a reasonable person would feel there is a conflict of interest, there is now a conflict of interest. This does not include any interest that is not greater than that of other individuals generally affected by the outcome of a matter. Mr. McNeil said the new code is a little stricter than the Ethics Policy the city previously had. One main difference is that someone used to be able to say, “I can be impartial.” Now that person must recuse himself or herself. If a person feels he or she has “just cause” to remain, there is a process, but it is very hard to meet. Mr. Conner said the practice is to err on the side of caution. Mr. McNeil said if a person has a conflict of interest, that person cannot participate on the matter before the DRB. That person can participate as a citizen. When that issue is over, the person can rejoin the Board. Mr. McNeil then outlined a list of “shall nots” as follows: a. Act in a conflict of interest matter b. Ask anyone else to act for him or her in that matter c. Use information for personal gain d. Accept gifts e. Benefit from a contract entered into by the municipality The “shall nots” does not prohibit lawfully given campaign contributions. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 May 2025 PAGE 4 Complaints will be investigated by the City Attorney or Deputy City Attorney until the State Ethics Committee is functioning again. Members questioned who has the ability to raise a conflict of interest issue. Mr. McNeil said it would have to be someone in the community. With the DRB, “good cause” would have to be proven. Members asked about a conflict of interest raised after a project has been approved. Mr. McNeil said the Code does not yet address that. Ms. Lesko asked if there is any history in South Burlington of a conflict of interest. Mr. Conner cited one instance where a Board member had someone else state his concerns. Mr. McNeil said that since he has worked for the City, there have been no issues. He stressed that each case is unique. He also noted that Vermont is a small state, and very often board or committee members know people who are appearing before them. The issue is whether the board/committee members benefits from what is being proposed. 8. Presentation on City Attorney and Planning & Zoning Staff liaison role with the DRB: Ms. Philibert noted members have a document on this subject and asked if there are any questions. Mr. McNeil said it is the DRB’s duty to interpret regulations. Legal is there to assist when there may be a case outstanding or when a law/statute is involved. Mr. Moscatelli noted that in New Jersey, each board had its own attorney at every meeting to answer questions about interpreting the regulations that arose. He said this DRB “dumps” those questions on Mr. Kochman. Mr. Kochman said the Board is free to disregard what he says. He added he didn’t want an attorney present who would interject when an applicant is trying to talk to the Board; the Board is the review body. Some board members are more informed about some things that others aren’t (e.g., an architect) and presumably this is intentional on the part of City Council. Mr. Johnston asked if the City Attorney is obligated to defend the DRB’s decisions. Mr. McNeil said the City Attorneys’ obligation is to represent the City. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 May 2025 PAGE 5 Mr. Conner said the DRB should always feel empowered to make a decision they feel is the right decision. Staff is empowered to use their professional judgment to help the DRB, including reaching out to others (e.g., engineers). Mr. McNeil noted that City Attorney opinions to the DRB remain confidential. 9. Minutes of 15 April 2025: Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 15 April as written. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Philibert abstaining. 10. 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 8:36 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 1, 2025. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 May 2025 PAGE 6