Burlington airport seeks approval for new snow-removal equipment building; DRB continues hearing to July 1

The South Burlington Development Review Board on June 3 reviewed a site-plan application (SP 2522) from the Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport proposing a 43,303-square-foot metal snow-removal equipment (SRE) building, a 3,658-square-foot material shed, a fueling area and an expanded paved apron and parking at 698 Airport Parkway.

Why it matters: The project would replace an older SRE building, bring more equipment inside the fence line, add new parking and stormwater controls, and trigger a number of local land-development regulations including parking-location exemptions, stormwater treatment under the city LDRs, and Commercial Building Energy Standards (CBES) EV infrastructure requirements.

Airport managers and their consulting team described the proposal as consistent with the airport master plan and necessary to store large snow-removal equipment inside a secure area. Larry Lackey, identified as manager of planning, engineering and sustainability for Leahy BTV, said the new building “will be enough room to store all our large, large equipment.” Jackie Dejess of EIV Technical Services and Austin Goodwin, design engineer for Pastro Associates, answered technical questions about elevations, stormwater chambers and site circulation.

On building height and profile, the applicant submitted a table of existing grades, finished floor elevation and top-of-building elevations at the four principal corners; those corner heights range from 16.1 feet to 29.83 feet with an average of 24.2 feet. The submitted elevations also show ridgelines: a west ridgeline at 32.22 feet above existing grade and an east ridgeline at 36.92 feet. The applicant reported an average height, including ridgelines, of 27.65 feet and provided plan elevations for review. Staff asked the board to require the applicant to compute building height relative to existing grade at all four corners; the applicant agreed to provide clarifying calculations.

Pedestrian access and ADA parking were discussed at length. The applicant updated the landscape plans to show a 5-foot sidewalk from the north right-of-way of Airport Parkway to the edge of the existing parking lot, a relocated ADA space adjacent to the sidewalk, and a crosswalk to the Enterprise building. The airport team said they had provided the updated sheet to the deputy director of capital projects but that person was unavailable; the applicant requested the board consider final confirmation with the deputy director as a condition of approval so the applicant can meet with that office as soon as possible.

Parking-location rules and exemptions drew detailed review. Staff noted that modifications to parking-location standards are not permitted unless the proposed expansion fits an enumerated exemption; the applicant said the SRE building is inside the airport’s fenced security area and that the project seeks to rely on exemptions numbered 4 and 8 in the staff packet to allow front/adjacent parking in the secure area. The team also said the proposed expansion replaces parking lost elsewhere on the property and that the expanded parking will include 33 relocated/new spaces with a mix of reconfigured existing stalls. The board sought clarity because the application text alternately described spaces as replacement parking for existing operations and as parking for the new SRE building; the applicant clarified that spaces along the fence line would serve the SRE building and other new spaces would serve enterprise operations.

Stormwater and utilities: The applicant reported working closely with the city stormwater engineer and provided HydroCAD modeling and design for two underground chamber systems (one for the air side and one for the new parking expansion). The chambers were sized to hold the one-year storm, meet green-infrastructure requirements and reduce peak runoff rates for downstream discharge points. The applicant added an EcoStream operations-and-maintenance manual and inspection notes to plan sheets and said the airport maintains a stormwater pollution prevention plan (referenced in the packet) and annual reporting required by its MS4 permit. Applicants said they would obtain any required grease/oil/sand-separator permits, wastewater/drinking-water allocations and right-of-way permits from the city prior to work in the Airport Parkway right-of-way.

Site character and materials: The applicant provided photographs of translucent wall panels installed at another airport SRE building and explained the panels provide natural light without glass maintenance concerns. The exterior siding options presented include a brick base and a taupe upper siding; the architect described neutral colors intended to blend with the largely undeveloped, wooded context. The board discussed options for additional screening and plantings; the applicant added supplemental vegetation and a pocket park with picnic tables near the ADA parking as a required site amenity. The landscape plan was revised to replace proposed maples with ginkgo per the city arborist recommendation; two shade trees remain in the city right of way and at least six shade trees will be on airport property.

Other compliance issues: The plans show snow storage areas on the airfield side and in open grassy areas, an oil-water separator and proposed equipment for EV infrastructure. Staff required the applicant to compute EV-capable and EV-ready spaces under CBES Table C405.13.1 and to update electrical sheets; the applicant responded that for 33 replacement spaces the CBES metric equates to one EV charging station and four EV-ready spaces, and the plans were revised accordingly.

Board action and next steps: The board did not close the hearing. Members identified outstanding items: confirmation with the deputy director of capital projects, arborist and DPW follow-up on right-of-way plantings, final height calculations and potential waiver, review of the pocket park for compliance, and review of the stormwater updates. A motion to continue SP 2522 to July 1, 2025, was made and seconded; the board voted to continue the hearing (continuance approved; no roll-call tally in the record). The applicant will return with updated plans and responses addressing the outstanding staff and agency comments.