South Burlington DRB continues review of proposed BTV hangar after concerns about trees, appearance and utilities

The South Burlington Development Review Board continued two linked applications — master plan amendment MP2501 (Burlington International Airport) and site plan SP2527 (Beta Technologies) — to its Aug. 5 meeting after the board and staff requested clearer drawings and more detail on landscaping, building appearance, and screening for utilities.

The amendment would add a new BTV hangar to the airport master plan; application materials described the hangar as roughly 13,800–14,200 square feet and located at the south end of the airport campus with access from Aviation Drive/DaVinci Drive. Alex Gagnon, with Beta Technologies, described the building as "an aircraft storage hangar" that will provide "overflow for space that we are running out of right now." The board did not take final action and voted to continue both items to Aug. 5 to allow the applicant to revise drawings and respond to staff comments.

Why it matters: board members and city staff said the proposals raise safety and design issues that need clarification before a decision. Key questions include whether proposed trees conflict with FAA approach/transitional surfaces, how to break up the hangar's long, windowless facades, whether site furnishings in a designated parklet should be fixed or movable, and how above-ground utility equipment will be secured and screened.

Most of the exchange focused on landscaping and aviation safety. Airport representative Larry Mackey said the project site sits near runway approach transitional surfaces and cautioned the board that "we cannot have any high trees in that direct area right there." Board members said they want the applicant to identify specific tree species and maximum heights that will not conflict with approach surfaces, and to coordinate with airport operations before the next hearing. The applicant's landscape designer said the team intends to favor low-growing, sterile cultivars that do not attract birds and will review species choices with airport staff.

Appearance and glazing: staff and several board members asked the applicant to break up the building's long white wall with architectural variation. Gagnon said the team had added a few windows on the west (Eagle Drive) elevation and planned to match the hangar siding to adjacent Beta buildings using insulated metal panels, but noted constraints: "we actually don't want to have too many windows in a hangar just due to the aircraft degradation," he said, adding that the team placed windows near lobby areas and will consider high clerestory glazing or high-performance films to reduce UV exposure.

Landscaping and the parklet: the applicant described a roughly 900-square-foot site amenity (parklet/snippet) with a fixed bench, movable cafe tables, shrubs, pavers and a small lawn area for occasional overflow. Staff asked whether landscaping would be the amenity's primary component and whether seating should be fixed; the applicant said the bench is fixed and that movable furniture could be replaced with fixed cafe-style elements.

Utilities and screening: the plans show an above-ground equipment enclosure currently protected by a small roof; when the fence line changes the applicant proposes to secure the equipment. Beta staff proposed using a painted shipping container consistent with other campus uses but the board and staff asked for screening options and suggested less visible enclosures or chain-link with plant screening. The board also asked the applicant to show dumpster arrangements (applicant said the MXT facility dumpsters would be used) and to confirm locations of two above-ground telecom/utility cabinets on the site plan.

Other technical items: staff recommended the applicant update the context map to show parcels, streets and transit routes within a quarter mile (the applicant provided an updated map and noted there are no transit routes within that radius), confirm that the new hangar and access are outside mapped wetlands and buffers (applicant said the hangar sits outside the Class 2 wetland buffer), revise a table that mis-labeled phase statistics (the applicant said area shifted from phase 3 into phase 2 but the total area remained unchanged), provide required short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces (applicant proposed nearby racks and interior lockers and agreed to meet the board's minimums), submit photometric/lighting cut sheets (applicant provided fixtures consistent with adjacent buildings), and designate a solar-ready zone on the roof to meet CBES requirements (the applicant added a solar-ready exhibit).

Board action and next steps: the board made a motion to continue both MP2501 and SP2527 to the Aug. 5 meeting; the voice vote was in favor and the motion passed. The board asked the applicant to return with revised drawings at least two weeks before the continued hearing so staff and interdepartmental reviewers have time for comment. The applicant and airport representatives said they will refine tree species and heights with airport staff, provide revised elevations that reduce the appearance of a blank white box, finalize the parklet furnishings and location, confirm screening for utilities, and show required bike parking and lighting details.

The continuance preserves further review time for aviation safety checks (approach/transitional surface studies), interdepartmental review of landscaping near airfield operations, and finalization of site amenity and utility screening details ahead of the Aug. 5 hearing.