South Burlington outlines $30 million Bartlett Bay wastewater rebuild; board presses for wetlands, screening and parklet details

South Burlington Public Works Director Tom DiPietro presented a sketch plan on July 1 for a multi‑phase, 20–25 year refurbishment of the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment plant that would demolish several aging structures, construct new treatment buildings and tanks, relocate the driveway, and update site infrastructure. The city estimates the project cost at “Approximately $30,000,000,” and said financing would come from a voter‑approved bond, a $700,000 congressionally directed spending grant for energy efficiency, and a low‑interest loan through Vermont’s State Revolving Fund.

The Development Review Board’s sketch‑plan review emphasized zoning and environmental compliance that will be required at the formal site‑plan stage. The board and staff asked the applicant to: provide an isometric rendering showing the view from Bartlett Bay Road; clarify how proposed plantings and hedges will screen the new operations building; document compliance or request a modification under the LDR’s wetland buffer rules (including whether the applicant seeks a site‑wide “net” buffer tradeoff rather than wetland‑by‑wetland accounting); and show that a proposed site amenity meets the LDR minimum pocket‑park size.

“The city has 2 treatment facilities … This application only deals with the Bartlett Bay Treatment Plant and this is a planned kinda 20, 25 year refurbishment,” DiPietro said, describing the work as “a critical project for the city” that will increase hydraulic capacity for wet weather events and incorporate more energy‑efficient technology.

Engineer John Olin of Hoyle Tanner confirmed the project has received DEC approval of the 100% design plans and said Army Corps and other permits are nearing completion. Board members repeatedly pressed for clearer visual materials. Multiple members requested a simple, non‑technical depiction of existing vs. proposed site elements and said a street‑level rendering that shows what will be visible from Bartlett Bay Road should be included with the formal site‑plan submittal.

On wetlands, staff recommended the board consider an LDR modification process and reminded members of the board’s option to seek independent technical review. The project team said the state wetlands ecologist had already requested additional plantings and that a formal wetlands report and state permit would be submitted with the site‑plan application. Board members indicated they would likely accept a net‑basis accounting for buffer impacts if the applicant can demonstrate increased vegetated buffer area overall and present a mitigation/planting plan.

Board members and residents raised neighborhood concerns about screening, lighting and odor. One written commenter urged “consideration of using a soft white color hue or even motion sensor lighting,” and a longtime resident who said he has lived near the plant for decades asked how odor controls work. The applicants said the design includes odor control systems for sludge storage and noted there is an odor requirement in the facility’s federal/state permit. The city’s wastewater superintendent, Bob Fisher, confirmed odor controls are part of the permit requirements.

Other direction from the board included: showing how the proposed pocket park will meet the LDR minimum of 600 square feet for a pocket park (staff noted recreation paths and pocket parks are distinct, and a pocket park must meet the 600‑square‑foot threshold); identifying the fence material and height (the applicant proposed a 6‑foot chain‑link deterrent fence without barbed wire); and noting the applicant will submit a narrative addressing whether the multiple buildings proposed constitute multiple principal structures under 24 V.S.A. §4413 and whether that regulation would interfere with the intended functional use of the municipal facility.

Several board members suggested independent technical review could be invoked later if state wetlands materials or design details raise substantive questions, but the board did not direct an immediate outside review at sketch plan. The applicant agreed to include the wetlands scientist’s mapping and the DEC wetland permit status in the next submittal.

The board closed public comment on the item after several residents urged maintaining or improving the existing vegetative screening and minimizing light and odor impacts. The application remains at sketch plan; the applicant said it will return with a formal site‑plan application with the requested renderings, wetlands narrative and permitting materials.