Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 July 2025, 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, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, T. Lenski, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Brown, Planning Department; T. DiPietro, Public Works Director; B. Fisher, Water Quality Superintendent; L. Bresee, Energy Project Manager; J. Olin, M. DiBiaso, D. Michaelides, L. Cheung, E. Linde, L. Lackey, K. Calibrese, D. Carmen, M. Regan, S. Kushner, A. Goodwin, Paul’s iPad, M. McMahon. 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: Ms. Philibert welcomed new DRB member Ted Lenski to the Board. PAGE 1  5. Election Of Officers: Ms. Keene presided over the election of DRB officers. She opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Kochman moved to appoint Ms. Philibert as Chair, Ms. Mann as Vice Chair, and Ms. Lesko as Clerk. Mr. Johnston seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Philibert resumed the Chair. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SK-25-04 of Hoyle Tanner & Associates, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a wastewater treatment facility. The amendment consists of demolition of 7 buildings and a storage tank and construction of 6 new buildings, one new storage tank, relocation of the driveway, and associated site improvements, 15 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Keene said as far as staff knows, there are no changes proposed to the LDRs by the Planning Commission which would affect this application. Mr. DiPietro said this is a 20-25 year refurbishment. They are removing infrastructure that is no longer needed. This is a critical project for the City, and it has been a long road to get here. Mr. Olin, the project manager, said the project will improve hydrology for weather events. It meets the goals of the City Plan. Mr. Kochman asked how the project is being paid for. Mr. DiPietro said a City bond was passed by voters. There is a $700,000 grant for energy efficiency. The remainder will be from a loan from State financing. Mr. Olin said the project cost is $30,000,000. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. No issues were raised regarding setbacks. #2. Staff asked about appearance of the first building people would see. Ms. Philibert asked where the door is located. Mr. Olin showed an elevation DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 2 of the first building seen from Bartlett Bay Road. It is seen through trees. Those trees are aging and are probably at the end of their life span, so there will probably be less screening. The planting plan addresses screening issues. He also noted that the lower height of the building faces the street. Ms. Mann said a rendering would be helpful in the final application. #3. The Board was asked to discuss buffering and architecture with the applicant. Ms. Philibert said she didn't see a lot about architectural style. Mr. Behr said he thought the architecture was appropriate for what the building is. The City is paying for the technology, not the impact. Mr. Kochman said this is a case where form should follow function. Mr. Johnston asked about the pocket park. Mr. Olin said it is 370 sq. ft. There is also a shared use path that serves as an amenity. He showed the plan indicating the pocket park. He noted that the path could eventually go beyond the property. It now will stop at the property line. Mr. Olin also indicated the nearest home to the project. Mr. Lenski said that from his experience, there is a nice appearance and blend. #4. The applicant was asked to provide details of the pocket park. Staff noted the minimum size for such a park should be 600 sq. ft. Ms. Keene said she wasn’t sure the rec path could meet the amenity requirement. She suggested they could use some of the area around the pocket park. Mr. Olin said they will meet the numbers. There will also be trees around the park. Mr. Behr suggested expanding the paved area a bit and having a landscaped bed in the middle. This would better define the area. Mr. Olin said they are not trying to draw a lot of public to the area as there will be a 6-foot chain-link fence for security. Mr. Kochman said having the park adjoin the path would be a nice feature. #5. The applicant was directed to required modifications regarding wetlands. Mr. Olin said they will comply with 12.06f. They have met with wetlands people and will be pulling the fence back. This is a benefit to the wetlands. Ms. Keene said this can be addressed at site plan review. #6. Staff asked if the Board would accept the removing of wetland impacts. Ms. Keene noted that one impact is more, one is less. The overall result is less. Mr. Olin said this is a Class 3 wetland and is non-jurisdictional. Ms. Mann asked if there is a replanting plan. Mr. Olin said there is. Members were OK with the net calculation. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 3  #7. Regarding the wetland buffer, the Board was asked to discuss whether to seek independent technical review. Staff noted the Board may rely on the State wetland permit which will address the Class 3 wetland. Staff noted that the issue is the proximity to the habitat block. Mr. DiPietro noted that the wetland permit will be part of site plan review. Mr. Johnston said if they have mapping by a wetland expert, there could be a determination by the DRB without technical review. Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Behr added that if it doesn’t look good at site plan review, the DRB could then invoke technical review. #8. Staff asked whether the Board will consider this a repair of a non- conformity. Ms. Keene said the regulation was intended to apply to anything exempt under 44.13. Mr. Kochman questioned what “building density” means. He said one could argue for not permitting more than one building on the lot. Ms. Keene said the regulation refers to multiple principal structures. Mr. Kochman said he believes 44.13 allows the Board to address density of buildings. Ms. Mann noted the wording is “may be regulated.” Mr. Kochman said the “way out” is that it doesn’t interfere with “intended principal use.” He asked if the removal of any structure(s) would interfere with the intended principal use. Mr. Olin said it would. He noted that all the structures are “principal structures.” #9. Staff questioned whether the project will meet the atmospheric requirements. Mr. Olin said they will. There is a system to address this. Mr. Fisher added that this is a requirement under the federal permit. #10. Regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Olin said they will extend it to the edge of the parking space. #11. Regarding effluent, Mr. Kochman said he would consider this an industrial use. Ms. Mann said she would call it “all other uses.” Mr. DiPietro said there will be a bike rack out front. One employee does bike to work. Mr. Olin said there is a locker for bikes in the operations building. #12. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Olin said they incorporated hardscape into the landscaping plan as well as tree plantings. They try to keep leaves away from the plan because they can cause problems. Members asked for feedback from the City Arborist. #13. Staff asked that the landscape plan include one shade tree and screening of parking. Mr. Olin said they will do this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 4  #14. The applicant was asked to indicate any outside storage. Mr. Olin said there is none. #15. The applicant was asked to describe the perimeter fence and gate. Mr. Olin said the fence is on the north side to keep humans and animals out. It is a typical chain link fence. Mr. DiPietro said they would like not to screen it, so they can see into the site for security. Mr. Behr asked if the access way needs to be 24 feet wide. Mr. Olin said it is that wide at the end of the road because of large vehicles turning into the site. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Keene noted receipt of a comment from Eden Suljanovic asking that soft white light be used. Was also pleased with the reduced lot coverage. Mr. Olin said they will provide a lighting cut sheet and will mention the comment to the lighting engineer. Mr. Michaelides said the plant is an eyesore, so the more screening the better. He hoped the plans won’t affect the wildlife in the area. He also asked about the timeframe. Mr. DiPietro said they hope to build in the fall. The pump station will start later this summer (that is outside of this application). Mr. Michaelides asked if there are any waivers. Mr. Olin said there are not except for the wetland item. Ms. Linde said lighting is key. She was also concerned with removal of the cedar trees. She felt the rec path was “kind of silly” and asked to keep the cedars instead for screening. She asked if traffic on Bartlett Bay Road will be affected by construction. Mr. Olin said possible flagging on one day. Mr. DiPietro said the site will be designed so that stormwater is collected and will not go to the brook. 7. Continued 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: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 5 Mr. Lackey said there is nothing new. He provided a handout to answer outstanding questions. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Already addressed. #2. The applicant was asked to update the landscape plan with regard to picnic tables, rec path, etc. Ms. Calabrese show the plan indicating location of picnic table and planting materials. The rec path will connect to the city sidewalk. Cost information was indicated. #3. The applicant was asked to identify tree species and provide a description of the appearance. Ms. Calabrese directed attention to the Plant Schedule. #4. Members were asked whether criteria for landscaping of parking areas are met. Members agreed they were. #5. The applicant was asked about curbing in the revised plan. Ms. Calabrese showed the plan and indicated the location of curbing. Mr. Goodwin said it will be “cast in place.” Ms. Keene asked if there should be curbing on the right side to protect new plantings. Mr. Goodwin said that to do that they would have to regrade the area in order not to cause ponding in the City’s right-of-way. Members were OK with no curbing there. #6. The City Arborist is OK with the plant species. Mr. Kochman questioned the $3500 indicated for the 6-foot picnic table and $4,000 for an 8-foot table. Ms. Keene said it is a commercial-style table, and staff sees this amount all the time. #7. Staff questioned the height of lighting. Ms. Calabrese said it is 23 feet high. Mr. Kushner said they can purchase extra shields so the lighting is not visible from the street. He added that there is virtually no lighting at the street. Ms. Keene said when she inspects the area, she will see if the light is visible from the street, and if it is, she will ask for more shielding. Mr. Lackey was OK with making that a condition of approval. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 6 Mr. Johnston asked whether the applicant provided information regarding the additional parking space which the Board may not be able to approve. Mr. Goodwin said it replaces one space that was removed. He noted that the current user parks all along that area, and it’s become a dirt pit. They would rather pave it so it doesn’t degenerate further. Mr. Lackey added the parking space replaces parking for the existing building which was removed for the new building. Ms Keene said it is a “stretch,” but it is a path forward. Mr. Behr asked about the function of the existing building. Mr. Lackey said it is Enterprise Rental. Returning cars line up for service. Mr. Behr also asked if the gate will be security controlled. Mr. Lackey said it will. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Minutes of 6 May 2025 and 3 June 2025: Ms. Lesko moved to approve the Minutes of 6 May and 3 June 2025. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Lenski abstaining. 9. Other Business: Ms. Keene said there will be no second meeting in August. 15 July is the next DRB meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on August 5, 2025. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 JULY 2025 PAGE 7