South Burlington DRB continues hearing on 5,400 sq. ft. dental office at 40 Kimball Ave.

The South Burlington Development Review Board on Jan. 21 continued a hearing on site plan application SP 2501, a proposal by property owner John Wilking to build a 5,400‑square‑foot, single‑story dental/medical office on a roughly 1.88‑acre parcel at 40 Kimball Avenue.

The board said it would hold the hearing open to allow city departments and staff to complete reviews the board identified as outstanding, including a city arborist review of proposed tree removals, public works and stormwater comments and clarification on whether limited regrading in the city’s river corridor is permissible. The hearing was continued to Feb. 19, 2025.

Why it matters: The staff and board focused on several interlocking policy issues that affect approvals statewide and locally — river corridor restrictions, removal of mature street trees that could block rooftop solar, parking counts for medical uses, stormwater treatment, and how the building will connect to sidewalks and the planned recreational path on Kimball Avenue. Those issues determine whether the site layout, grading and landscaping proposed by the applicant can move forward without structural changes such as a retaining wall or a redesigned parking layout.

Project summary and site details John Wilking, the applicant and owner of the parcel, told the board the site has been a paved parking area for many years and that the proposed project is a single‑story dental office intended to serve Green Mountain Dental partners Tyler Atten and Nushi Brown. He described the parcel as about 1.88 acres, but said roughly half the lot is constrained by the Potash Brook corridor and wooded ravine behind the site. The proposal calls for 37 parking spaces and a building height that peaks at roughly 24 feet 4 inches.

On the record, Wilking said: “We’re asking for the 15 foot setback,” referring to a requested front‑yard setback modification from the standard 30 feet. He added later, “We will not touch the 100 year floodplain,” when the board asked whether any filling would occur in mapped flood areas.

Setback waiver, parking and building siting The applicant requested a front setback modification to place the building 15 feet from the right‑of‑way rather than the typical 30 feet, citing parking needs and site constraints. Staff asked the board to determine whether to grant the modification and, if granted, to attach conditions to mitigate aesthetic and pedestrian impacts. The applicant said the design yields 37 spaces but that a dental/medical office generally requires about seven spaces per 1,000 square feet; at 5,410 square feet the applicant said that guidance implies roughly 37–39 spaces are appropriate and that he had hoped to provide about 45 spaces if possible.

Board members and staff pressed the applicant to state the necessity for the waiver more clearly in findings the board would adopt at decision. At the hearing the board discussed long‑term goals for Kimball Avenue, including future pedestrian and recreational path improvements, but did not deny the waiver at the session; rather, the board left the question to be addressed in deliberations after outstanding technical reviews.

River corridor, grading and tree removal A central technical and legal point in the hearing was the city’s river‑corridor mapping and the DRB’s limited authority to approve “fill” or development in the mapped river corridor (the board referenced the ROC district standard cited in the staff report, including a citation to a provision described at the hearing as “12.g” that restricts fill in the corridor). The applicant seeks to regrade a narrow portion behind the parking area — described at the hearing as roughly 10 feet wide by about 100 feet long — to stabilize the bank and install landscaping and boulders to prevent erosion. City staff and the applicant noted the state ANR small‑stream standard is 50 feet, while the city’s mapped river corridor is approximately 100 feet wide in places; the applicant said the proposed grading would not affect the 100‑year floodplain elevation and that the work was intended to reduce current uncontrolled runoff.

If the board or city staff conclude the river‑corridor rules prohibit the limited grading, the applicant said it would instead construct a retaining wall on the buildable side of the corridor to avoid touching the mapped river corridor, though that option raises cost and landscape‑design tradeoffs.

The applicant disclosed plans to remove a large number of trees to accommodate the site work; in a hearing exchange he estimated about 59 trees of 6‑inch caliper or greater would be removed from the front and the stormwater area, while an extensive wooded ravine farther back would remain largely undisturbed. The board directed the applicant to obtain a city arborist review for trees in the public right‑of‑way and to reconcile proposals for street trees with DPW standards and any right‑of‑way permitting requirement. The applicant noted one large red oak (measured in the plans as an 18‑inch caliper) in or near the right‑of‑way that, if retained, would substantially reduce solar potential on the building’s south‑facing roof; he said the proposed rooftop solar array would cost about $95,000 and that, based on a preliminary solar analysis by Green Mountain Solar, the proposed array is expected to produce roughly 39,130 kWh per year (the applicant said the building’s estimated use would be about 45,000 kWh/year and that the project would be “solar‑ready” to meet the city’s solar standard).

Pedestrian access, ADA and civic amenity Staff raised pedestrian connectivity and front‑door orientation standards. The applicant’s design places primary access from the parking area, not directly from the public sidewalk along Kimball Avenue; the grade between the street sidewalk and building creates a roughly 5‑foot elevation difference that the applicant said makes an accessible route from the sidewalk impractical without moving the entrance or adding a longer ramp. The applicant proposed a short stair down from the sidewalk to a landscaped civic seating area adjacent to the public sidewalk and said ADA access would be provided through the parking/driveway approach.

Staff asked the board to determine whether the project meets pedestrian connectivity requirements or whether the applicant must reconfigure the entrance, add an accessible route from the sidewalk, or rotate the door to provide a direct, accessible connection to the public right of way. The board left that question open pending review and further design detail.

Stormwater, utilities, lighting, and other technical items The project includes a stormwater treatment system despite being below thresholds that would always trigger municipal stormwater control, because state and federal permitting (including Act 250 and ANR) will likely require runoff control. The applicant said the proposed stormwater design includes an emergency spillway and a control structure sized using 1‑, 10‑ and 25‑year design checks and that the modeled disturbed area is about 0.45 acres. Staff also requested final signoffs from Public Works, the water department and the fire marshal (the applicant said no sprinkler system is required for the single‑story dental office and proposed a monitored fire alarm system).

Other items the board asked staff and the applicant to finalize before the continued hearing included: a front setback coverage calculation for the reduced 15‑foot setback; an itemized landscaping budget; confirmation of parking‑lot island area calculations; final bike‑parking dimensions and secure bike locker details; revisions to lighting to meet the city’s maximum illumination standard at property lines; and utility‑cabinet screening.

Public process and next steps The board heard the staff report, questioned the applicant and staff on technical points (river corridor classification, tree protection, stormwater modeling), took public comment (none at the Jan. 21 session), and voted to continue the hearing to Feb. 19, 2025 to allow the city arborist and departmental reviews to be completed and to permit staff to prepare a draft decision for the board’s deliberations. The board chair and staff said the applicant may also proceed concurrently with Act 250 review outside the city process.

Quotes from the hearing • John Wilking, applicant: “We’re asking for the 15 foot setback.” • John Wilking, applicant, on floodplain: “We will not touch the 100 year floodplain.”

Ending The DRB did not reach final findings or a decision on the requested setback modification, tree removals, river‑corridor grading or pedestrian‑access standard at the Jan. 21 meeting. The board left the record open for required department and specialist reviews and will reconvene on Feb. 19, 2025 to take further action on SP 2501 (40 Kimball Ave.).