Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Burlington DRB reviews final plat for 11‑lot master plan; civic garden, stormwater and tree mix detailed
Summary
The South Burlington Development Review Board on March 18 heard the final plat application SD 2503 from WGN Associates for phase 1 of an 11‑lot master plan at 850 Hinesburg Road, focusing on a civic‑space community garden, stormwater features, culvert sizing and tree species diversity.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The South Burlington Development Review Board on March 18 heard the final plat application SD 2503 from WGN Associates for phase 1 of an 11‑lot master plan at 850 Hinesburg Road. Dave Marshall of Civil Engineering Associates described the civic‑space layout and on‑site stormwater features and answered questions from board members and city staff.
The civic space is proposed as a community garden immediately north of the lots. Marshall said the design includes a gravel wetland and a forebay intended to settle solids and to “double use that particular area as some irrigation water” for garden plots downhill. He described a yard hydrant connection and piping to deliver water by gravity, a garden shed, raised beds and a butterfly‑planting area. City staff asked that the applicant identify and label those features on the final plans for board review.
Why it matters: the civic lot occupies a wetland buffer and contains stormwater infrastructure whose management affects downstream receiving waters. Board discussion emphasized labeling and flexible approval language so the city and future stewards can change garden details without reopening the hearing.
Board and staff questions centered on wetland‑buffer protections and construction details. Marshall said the master plan notes that activities in the buffer should be managed to avoid increased runoff into the receiving wetlands and that the garden areas primarily slope south and east. He told the board the design intends to avoid winter tilling or other uses that would increase runoff into the wetland. A board member (not individually identified in the record) suggested the decision require a description of allowed features in the open space rather than a rigid, plan‑only configuration; the board did not object to that approach.
City public‑works concerns and site engineering: staff reminded the board that the public‑works director previously recommended 18‑inch driveway culverts with verified cover, but staff’s review of municipal specifications showed South Burlington’s minimum driveway culvert size is 15 inches. Marshall acknowledged calculation errors in the submitted cover depths but said the site’s slopes should allow modest contour changes to achieve the required cover without changing the overall site layout; he agreed the applicant would correct the cover before seeking a zoning permit. The board agreed a condition to correct culvert cover is appropriate.
Legal/plat items: the applicant provided a draft Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) and an attached draft deed. Staff recommended the board follow usual practice of accepting the draft IOD for decision purposes while making final recording contingent on review and acceptance by the city attorney; the board affirmed that approach.
Tree species and landscaping: staff and the city arborist recommended a mix of species instead of all maples to reduce the risk of losing many trees to a single pest or disease. The meeting record notes that the City of South Burlington Public Works specifications limit any single species to no more than 50% of street trees; a board member suggested an even stricter mix (no more than 25% of any one species) as a condition, and the applicant said it would use the city’s approved list and update the plan to show a mix, including oaks and Princeton elms.
Procedural items and outcomes: the public‑hearing portion of the application was closed by motion and voice vote at the meeting; the record shows the board then addressed minutes and other business. The board approved minutes from the Feb. 19, 2025 meeting. Staff said the next DRB meetings are scheduled for April 1 and April 15; the April 15 meeting is expected to include a code‑of‑ethics discussion and a presentation on the legal counsel’s role.
The board did not adopt a final plat decision on the record at this meeting; outstanding items the board directed staff and the applicant to resolve before final plat recording included labeling civic‑space features on the plans, correcting culvert cover depths to meet municipal specifications before issuing a zoning permit, and city‑attorney review of the IOD and deed.
Quotes quoted verbatim from the hearing: Dave Marshall, Civil Engineering Associates, on the wetland/forebay: “that provides the initial place where all stormwater goes and you, settle out the solids but in this particular case we’re also looking to double use that particular area as, some irrigation water.” A board member (not individually identified in the record) suggested, “it might be wise to have the decision say that these types of features are in this open space and not limit it to exactly the configuration shown on this plan because that might change over time.”
What’s next: the applicant will revise plan labels, confirm culvert cover and pipe sizing in line with city specifications, and deliver the draft IOD and deed for city‑attorney review. The DRB will consider those items as conditions of any future final‑plat decision or zoning permit as required.

