DRB closes hearing on after‑the‑fact Tesla outdoor display; staff cites non‑waivable gated‑access rule

The South Burlington Development Review Board on Aug. 5 closed the public hearing on Tesla’s after‑the‑fact site plan amendment for an outdoor display area at 218 Hannaford Drive after the applicant described the change as an oversight and staff identified a non‑waivable gated‑access restriction.

What was before the board: Tesla applied for an after‑the‑fact amendment (SP2529) to add an outdoor display area at its Hannaford Drive site. The draft decision in the packet noted that the applicant had installed lockable gates across some vehicular access points and that “15 a, 10 a, 5 c prohibits gated access to neighborhoods in all circumstances and is not a waivable criteria.” The draft directed that the gates be removed prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for the outdoor storage.

Applicant response: Kevan (applicant, development/planning representative) said the display was not included in the original filing due to “a mistake…a misunderstanding of what would and what wasn't allowed.” Michael Seager, who identified himself as part of the Tesla team, estimated the display area might need space for about “75 to a 100” unregistered vehicles as a conservative upper bound but said the site typically moves vehicles quickly and that it would be “pretty much always be under that number.” William Port also appeared for the applicant.

Zoning and nonconformity: Planning staff explained that the frontage parking/layout was a preexisting nonconformity inherited from the site’s prior use as a Hannaford supermarket, developed before the current rule prohibiting front‑of‑building parking. Staff told the board that converting the front area to an outdoor display for unsold vehicles does not increase the degree of nonconformity; the board discussed that framing but did not take a final position at the hearing.

Security and compliance: Staff read the draft decision language requiring removal of the gates prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant said the gates had already been removed at the time of the meeting.

Public comment and outcome: No members of the public offered comment. The board closed the hearing; staff will prepare a final written decision clarifying conditions for the display, including the requirement that any retained gates be removed before final occupancy certification.