Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport presents sketch-plan for small south-end hangar; board flags stormwater, setbacks and solar items
Summary
Burlington International Airport presented a sketch-plan amendment to its master plan for a hangar at the airport’s south end. The board and staff discussed phasing, setback constraints caused by an existing stormwater tank under the site, a July 2025 construction target and minor items (TDM, solar readiness) to supply at the next review stage.
The South Burlington Development Review Board heard a sketch-plan presentation (SK 2503) on June 3 from the Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport seeking to add a hangar to the airport master plan at the south end of the complex.
Why it matters: The item would amend the airport master plan for a 901.6-acre complex and add a proposed hangar; the board sought guidance on whether to include the hangar in an existing approved phase or create a new phase, and requested technical follow-up on setbacks, structural constraints and solar-readiness analysis.
Stantec and airport staff described the proposal as a test fit. Chris Gendron of Stantec and Katie Calabrese (EIB technical services) said the Meyer hangar test fit falls within phase 2 of the airport master plan. The applicant indicated construction could begin as early as July 2025 with an expected 6–8 month schedule and potential occupancy or further work in spring 2026.
Setback and site constraints: The applicant reported a below-grade stormwater tank under the proposed footprint. Because the building must span the tank on piers, the hangar width and horizontal location are constrained; the applicant said the resulting setback would be about 30 feet, comparable to nearby hangars (example: 38 feet for a cross reference, 25 feet for an existing hangar referenced in the packet). The design team said building length and height will be consistent with surrounding hangars and that architectural materials will be chosen to match adjacent hangar character.
Other items staff asked to see at the next stage: an expanded context map and an individual context map for the proposed addition; an explicit, itemized project-description narrative responding to master-plan submission requirements; a short evaluation of trips and a TDM approach (the board agreed not to over-engineer trip analysis for an aircraft storage hangar with few daily staff trips); confirmation of whether a reduction to solar-roof requirements will be requested or justified (applicant said they will not seek a reduction at this point and will provide a solar-ready analysis at the next stage); and an explanation of management and operations (applicant said the airport will maintain control and manage the facility under existing master-plan arrangements).
Board action: No formal vote was taken. The board requested the applicant return with the itemized narrative, updated context maps, and the solar/TDM/stormwater details at the next application stage.
