Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 June 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; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; L. Lackey, J. Dagesse, L. Chung, D. Carman, S. Kushner, A. Goodwin, C. Gendron, K. Calibrese, D. Mullin, M. McMahon, F. MacDonald, C. Carpenter, J. Hawkins, P. Travers, W. & A. McNamara, J. Bellevance, Wardv, A. Gagnon, CW, M. Korpos, Slava 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. Site Plan Application #SP-25-22 of City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport for the second phase of an approved master plan for an airport complex. The project consists of constructing a 43,303 sf metal building for storage of snow removal equipment, a 3,658 sf shed for material storage, a fueling area, and a large paved apron for vehicle maneuvering, 698 Airport Parkway: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked for the height of the proposed building relative to the pre-construction grade. Ms. Dagesse showed a table of heights ranging from 16.1 to 29.83 with an average of 24.20 feet. Ms. Keene was satisfied that staff had enough information to determine the building height. #2. Staff asked for information regarding planned pedestrian access. Ms. Dagesse said there is a 5-foot pedestrian sidewalk that leads to a relocated ADA parking space. Ms. Dagesse said they have provided the plan to the Deputy Director of Capital Projects which has been out of the office. No one else was available to review the plan. The applicant asked that this be a condition of approval until they can meet with the Deputy Director of Capital Projects. Ms. Keene said she spoke with the Deputy Director of Capital Projects before she left for vacation, and she said this was not simple. Ms. Keene said there would have to be a condition of approval or a continuation of the hearing. #3. Regarding transition elements, Ms. Dagesse said on building was proposed further to the south; however, the community wanted more separation from the neighborhood. It is screened from the residences, and they will be using a shared curb cut instead of a new one. Mr. Lackey said this is as far to the northwest as possible. #4. Regarding parking within the Security Display Area (SIDA), Ms. Dagesse said they feel they meet exemptions #4 and #8. The proposed parking replaces removed parking. Ms. Keene said if the parking is for the building within the SIDA, exemption #8 applies. Mr. Lackey said that lot is already there. Ms. Dagesse said 33 parking spaces are being added. Members were OK with this. #5. Staff asked whether the translucent panel will look like windows or a wall. Ms. Dagesse showed pictures of the appearance from the outside and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 2 the interior of the building. Ms. Keene noted the window side faces the street. Mr. Kochman said it is not harmful in any way. #6. Regarding the building’s appearance being compatible with the environment, Ms. Dagesse said it is a dark brick base with taupe above. It is less likely to stand out. The only other structure in the area is the existing building. Ms. Keene said this is mostly an undeveloped area and questioned whether it is possible to make an acre-size building blend in with the natural environment. Ms. Dagesse said they feel the taupe coloring blends in. Ms. Philibert said that’s what the sky looks like a lot of the time. #7. Staff asked for more information regarding site amenities. Ms. Dagesse said there is a pocket park with picnic tables for employees near the ADA parking space. #8. The applicant was asked to address DPW comments regarding stormwater. Ms. Dagesse addressed each comment as follows: a. They will utilize 2 underground water chambers to meet the requirements for storm events b. They worked with the stormwater specialist to explain how they meet this requirement c. The impact on streams is reduced d. There is a stormwater/pollution plan which has been added to the plan. It complies with CWD specifications e. Regarding migration of salt, it will not migrate because it is completely enclosed f. Snow storage areas were identified g. They will secure grease and sand separator from the Wastewater Department h. They will get a drinking water allocation and wastewater allocation and right-of-way permit from the DPW #9. They did remove the 3 parking space as requested by the Fire Department. They also show the new ADA space. #10. Already addressed. #11. Staff questioned the number of EV reading spaces. Ms. Dagesse showed the sheet indicating the location of EV and EV ready spaces. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 3  #12. Regarding trips, Ms. Dagesse said they propose to follow the same process as for the north concourse building. The Board was OK with this. #13. Ms. Dagesse showed the plan indicating the location of long- term bike storage areas next to the mezzanine stairway and lockers. #14. Regarding head-in curbing on the west side, Ms. Dagesse showed where the curb has been extended. Staff was OK with this. #15. Regarding the location of trees, it was noted that the City Arborist recommended a change of species. Two of the trees are in the city right- of-way and 6 on the Airport property. The applicant will check on this and take appropriate action. #16. Previously addressed #17. And #18. Staff noted the need for lighting cut-sheets. Ms. Dagesse said the cut sheets are provided. They are proposing brackets. Cut sheets for the brackets are also provided. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli moved to continue SP-25-22 to 1 July 2025. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Master Plan sketch plan application #SK-25-03 of City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport to amend a master plan for an approximately 901.6 acre existing airport complex. The amendment consists of adding a 14,200 sf hangar in a location at the south end of the master plan area accessed via Aviation Ave., 240 Eagle Drive: Ms. Philibert asked how this plan fits in with the Master Plan. Mr. Gendron said it is Phase 2 which will begin in July 2025 and run through the spring of 2026. BTV is proposing the location for a future hangar at the south end of the Airport past the Beta hangar. All the details are not yet worked out; they want to be sure it will work. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 4  #3. Regarding the context map upgrade, Ms. Calibrese said they will do that. #4. Ms. Keene drew attention to the currently approved projects and phases and said she heard this will be added to Phase 2. #5. The applicant was asked to explain the management/operation plan for the addition. Ms. Calibrese said it will be the same as for previous plans. #6. The applicant was asked what measures they will take to comply with 3 specific criteria. Mr. Gendron said with regard to setbacks, they cannot move closer to the road. The setback is about 30 feet which is consistent with other buildings. They cannot make changes to the width. The height is consistent with other buildings. #7. The applicant was asked how they will use architectural features. Mr. Gendron said the building will be perpendicular to the Beta hangar, and the goal is to match the look/feel of that adjacent hangar. #8. The applicant was asked what type of amenity they propose and where it will be. Mr. Gendron they will propose something, probably a pocket park. #9. Staff said that for the next review, the applicant should provide a trip evaluation and TDM. Mr. Gendron said potentially there would be 1 visitor per peak hour as this is a storage hangar. #10. Regarding solar roof requirement, Mr. Gendron said they have already begun to look into solar-ready. Ms. Keene asked if there is a point where they will not be allowed more solar. Mr. Lackey said they are going through a planning effort and there is no indication of that. Mr. Lackey also indicated they will work with DPW regarding stormwater. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SK-25-02 of Northeast Agricultural Trust to subdivide an existing 36.2 acre lot developed with a single family home and an accessory shed into 2 lots: Lot 1 consisting of 34.2 acres and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 5  presently undeveloped, and Lot 2 consisting of 2.0 acres and containing the existing single family home and shed, 1720 Spear Street: Ms. Philibert recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Mullin said their intention is to create affordable home ownership. They have been in Vermont for 40 years. They are looking to take the first step with a simple subdivision of a 2-acre parcel. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to provide the intended use. Mr. Mullin said they have looked at options but are not settled yet. #2. The applicant was asked to provide a wetland delineation not more than 5 years old as part of the final plat application. Mr. Mullin said they will do this. #3. The applicant was asked to calculate buildable area of the lot as part of final plat application. Information for Lot 1 will also be required. #4. The applicant was asked to work with Planning and Public Works regarding the location of all rights-of-way. A marked up plan was shown indicating rights-of-way. Mr. Mullin said he didn’t think they’d have a problem with #3, but #1 and #2 are not theirs. Mr. Gillies said the owners of that property should be here to discuss that. Board members questioned whether the property owner should be the one presenting this plan. Ms. Keene said anyone can be an applicant, but the property owner’s signature will be required. Mr. Gillies added that all private rights-of-way must be dedicated to the City. #5. Staff questioned whether there will be any exchange of habitat blocks. Mr. Mullin said that has not yet been discussed. Ms. Keene showed the location of habitat blocks. #6. The applicant was asked how the plan meets any planned pattern of development in the neighborhood. Mr. Mullin said they haven’t decided how the project will look, but anything they do will meet the regulations current at the time. Ms. Keene noted there is a range of options. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 6  #7. The applicant was asked to address connectivity and circulation at the next hearing. Mr. Mullin said they favor a healthy walkable/bikeable connection. They will make sure there are options for connectivity. Mr. Mullin commented that this is why the City doesn’t see more affordable housing. They had been told this would be a simpler process. #8. The applicant was asked to consider the comments of the Director of Public Works. #9. Regarding the option for an “illustrative plan,” the applicant would have to demonstrate that the remaining larger parcel is developable. Staff asked the Board to agree that the wetland division leaves the larger lot is developable with the subdivision. Members were OK with this. #10. Already addressed. #11. The applicant was reminded to take the comments of DPW into consideration. Mr. Mullin said they will. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert rejoined the Board. 8. Minutes of 6 May 2025: Mr. Kochman acknowledged that the Minutes reflect the words he said, but he asked that some clarifying comments be added regarding the meaning. Ms. Keene said she would add Mr. Kochman’s comments and return the Minutes at the next meeting. 9. 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 8:51 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 1, 2025. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 JUNE 2025 PAGE 7