Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 01/10/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; D. Leban, F. Johnston, P. Carpenter, D. Burke, B. Gardner, M. Dumont 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: Ms. Johnston asked when it is appropriate to inform abutting neighbors when a property is to be discussed. Mr. Conner explained that all agendas are posted on the website the Friday prior to a meeting. Anything to be voted out by the Planning Commission or City Council requires a warned public hearing, advertised in the local newspaper, online, and at various places around the city. When there is a project before the DRB, a notification goes to abutting neighbors and neighbors across the street from where the project is. Mr. Carpenter noted that Ms. Johnston’s driveway comes off the street involved in agenda item #4. He asked if she would have received a formal notice. Mr. Conner said there is not a legal requirement for that. If the adjacent property is to be developed, there is a formal notification. Mr. Gagnon added that when the Commission knows something that is being requested, they ask staff to draft regulations and at times ask staff to do other extra kinds of outreach. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Conner: Staff met with the Project Team for the Tilley Dr./Kimball Ave. project, Phase I. There will be a presentation on this to the Planning Commission on 7 February. The City Council passed a resolution at the end of December asked that the FAA help fund/provide information regarding what the noise contours could be when the F-35s arrive. Staff has been meeting with developers in the City Center area regarding projects. The first application for a City Center project is in. It involves 2 properties on Hinesburg Road, south of Price Chopper and is a proposal for a commercial building. Staff is taking a look at impact fees. The Affordable Housing Committee is talking about tools that can be used to get affordable units. Different members of the Committee have different tasks. On Thursday evening, the second committee leadership meeting for committee chairs and vice chairs will be held. Ms. LaRose: Staff has met with 2 architects regarding garage standards. They also met with property owners regarding garages. The Commission will be seeing something on this soon. The Bike/Ped Committee meets tomorrow. At their December meeting, they discussed “end of trip” facilities and are doing work on that. This will also come to the Planning Commission soon. Ms. Louisos: Submitted the Planning Commission annual report to the City Council. Ms. Harrington asked if there have been any follow ups regarding South Burlington Realty’s concern with block standards. Mr. Conner said there haven’t been. They have been doing some master planning to see how to meet the code, etc. 4. Initial Consideration of LDR Amendment Request: Form Based Code T3 street connectivity: Mr. Conner noted that 2 regulations apply: the LDRs and the Official City Map. The concern is the property to the immediate west of Dumont Park. He indicated this on the map and also indicated the old route of the road. That route was updated this past year. Mr. Conner indicated the new proposed route. Staff has been approached by Brad Gardner regarding the city’s intent for the area he owns. Form Based Code requires that if the property is developed, that road has to be built and has to be connected at both ends. Mr. Burke then said they do not have a specific proposal, but they do have concern with the wording in the LDRs that says roads “shall” connect at each end. Their question is whether that “connection” must be a road or whether it can be viewed as a walking path, or not be considered at all. Mr. Burke said the intent of that section is good; however, there are some places where connection at both ends may not be the best thing. He felt that in this case a pedestrian connection would be preferable because of the proximity to a city park. He suggested that a boardwalk across the wetland would be a nice connection to the park. Mr. Gardner then showed the route they would like to take for a city road and also the potential location of a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Burke added that they would have no problem giving the appropriate easements to make that happen. He then showed an overhead photo and indicated the possible location for a bridge. Mr. Gagnon noted that the Commission had been broadening the concept of “connection” to include pedestrian connections. Mr. Conner said the Commission could write that as a pedestrian connection so there would be no questions in the future. Ms. Louisos suggested changing it only on the Official City Map. Mr. Gagnon said they could show a street from the south to the end and show it on the Official City Map. The developer’s only responsibility would be to provide either an easement for the connection. If the property to the west were to be developed, they would have to do the connection. Mr. Burke asked about timing. Mr. Conner said if the Commission likes a pedestrian connection, they could allow for a dead end road. All alternatives would require a language change which could be in the next packet of amendments that goes to the City Council. Ms. Ostby asked if there are any safety concerns requiring the road to be connected at both ends. Mr. Conner said any development would go through a review, including a review by the Fire Department. Mr. Gagnon asked if there could be a pedestrian path wide enough for Fire Department trucks to access. Mr. Conner said he would ask them. Ms. Blanchard indicated the city’s favored connection to the north. She noted that there is nothing that speaks to a connection from San Remo to the Park. Mr. Carpenter indicated his house location. He said the neighborhood is concerned with additional cards from the proposed new housing (as many as 70 units). He added you can’t make a left turn today, and even a right turn is hard. Ms. Johnston said she doesn’t want their road to become an access to Hinesburg Road. She felt a pedestrian pathway to Barrett Street was OK. Mr. Dumont added they had no idea that road was on the map. They don’t want traffic coming through there. Ms. Louisos explained how the Official City Map works. A resident asked if Wesco can be required to allow a right-of-way to cross his property. Mr. Conner said staff’s recommendation would be to write what the Planning Commission wants (e.g., a pedestrian connection). The city could only compel land to be taken for a road and one for “public benefit,” not for economic development. Mr. Burke said they haven’t talked with Wesco. They can only go to the property line. In the future, the city could decide to use eminent domain to cross the Wesco property. Mr. Conner noted the City does not like to do that. Mr. Conner said staff will propose some language, possibly for the first meeting in February. 5. Review and Possible Approval of Draft Purpose & Need Statement for I-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study: Ms. Harrington moved to approve the draft Purpose & Need Statement for the I-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Gagnon abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. 6. Review and Possible Feedback on Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re-Use Plan: Mr. Gagnon recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Conner reviewed the nature of an Airport re-use plan. He noted that the land in question needs to be either for airport use or disposed of (which is rare). Airport use could be for noise buffers, green space, commercial use, etc.). The Airport recently held its second public meeting on this, and staff learned 2 things: 1. The consultant said there is no money for the roadway, and that the draft Plan should use the road as a guideline regarding what the desired land uses are to the east and to the west of the road. 2. There are small areas which are not included in the re-use plan which are in the acquisition area plan (Mr. Conner showed these on the map). The plan is being updated to include these areas. The deadline for feedback on the plan is 31 January 2017. Commissioners reviewed the draft letter that staff had been asked to put together based on prior discussions and input from the city. After some discussion, members agreed to send a copy of the draft letter to former CNAPC Committee members for their feedback prior to their final action, and asked staff to send a copy of this “near final” draft to the City Council so that they can be informed of the Commission’s work and in the event that the Council may also wish to be providing input to the Airport prior to the deadline. 7. Consider FY2018 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program requests: Mr. Conner noted that he and Mr. Rabidoux met with CCRPC. They particularly liked the Part 3 of the Kimball Avenue project and the shared use path scoping. There is also interest in the other an option for park siting, but there are questions as to how they could be tied to the funding source which needs to be directly related to transportation. Mr. Riehle questioned whether the Commission could do the park study themselves and save the money. Ms. LaRose said the study would look at levels of parks, when needed, and what kind of programming is needed. After discussion, members agreed to move item #6 up to #3 and drop the rest down. Mr. Macdonald moved approve the list of CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program requests with #6 moved up to #3 and the rest moved down a place. Ms. Harrington seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 13 December 2016 Ms. Harrington clarified that on -. 5, next to the last comment, her point was that she hoped residents were told how avigation easements work before they accept any funds. She stressed that the easements run with the land. Mr. Riehle then moved to approve the Minutes of 13 December 2016 with the above clarification. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: a. Proposed Amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, public hearing 24 January 2017: No issues were raised. b. Application to Vermont Wetland Program, wetland reclassification, Barrett Street: Mr. Conner said the request is to change the classification from Class 2 to Class 3. No issues were raised. Ms. LaRose noted that staff has put together a full listing of all strategies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:40 p.m. _________________________________ Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: January 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Happy New Year everyone! Kicking off 2017 with some exciting projects! 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:07 pm) 4. Initial consideration of Land Development Regulation amendment request: FBC T3 street connectivity, David Burke (7:15 pm) Enclosed is a request from Dave Burke, on behalf of property owner Brad Gardner, to revise the City’s FBC requirements regarding street connections. As you may recall, at a PC meeting in November, we discussed the issue broadly and noted that the current regulations and official map require a street to connect between Barrett Street and San Remo Drive. The Commission expressed interest in seeing more of a pedestrian connection. Staff has met with the property owners and also the City’s Dumont Park design team. We’ll discuss our findings at the meeting but generally support the concept of a pedestrian connection towards San Remo Drive and houses facing a hardscape that forms a clear delineation from the Dumont Park property. Enclosed you will find the request from the property owner, two drawings of a potential development layout by the property owner, and the City’s conceptual park plan as approved by the City Council. 5. Review and possible approval of draft Purpose and Need Statement for 1-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study (7:35 pm) At the PC’s last meeting, staff was provided a some excellent feedback on the first draft of the Purpose and Need Statement for this project. Specifically, we were asked to make the following revisions: • Note importance of being visible • Recognize commuters and non-commuters as different users • Note that it’s to be a year-round facility 2 • Clarify that Rt 2 isn’t the only connection over the Interstate, it’s the only connection in the vicinity of Exit 14 • Move the priority of item six (creating a downtown) to the top to recognize it’s importance as a centerpoint for city center, not just a transportation link • Tie it to the Comprehensive Plan • Discuss importance to being sensitive to nearby neighborhoods • Note that we’re connecting South Burlington to South Burlington and that we’re stitching the community together • Place the technical reasons second to the community ones • Note as a goal that we’re trying to attract more ped & bike traffic Attached is a second draft of the P & N statement that attempts to address these items. Once the Commission is comfortable with a draft, we request that the Commission take the action of approving it. 6. Review and possible feedback on Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re- Use Plan, (7:50 pm) At the Commission last meeting, staff provided an overview of the Burlington International Airport’s Draft Re-Use Plan. The comment period on this draft Plan runs until January 31, 2017. The Re-Use Plan is the Airport’s required Plan for land that they have or intent to acquire through noise mitigation funds. Staff has prepared a DRAFT letter from the Planning Commission to the Airport for your consideration. Please, as with all documents, feel free to modify as you wish. Also enclosed for your reference is the draft Rr-Use Plan. Its appendices include the letter submitted by the City Council last May as well as the Airport’s responses to that letter in November. 7. Consider FY 2018 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Unified Planning Work Program requests (8:40 pm) Staff is preparing an updated description of the projects that were discussed last month with the Commission. We’ve met with the CCRPC to gather their feedback and will bring an updated list & description to the meeting. 8. Meeting Minutes (8:55 pm) See attached 9. Other Business (8:58 pm) a. Proposed amendments to Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, public hearing January 24, 6:45 pm b. Application to Vermont Wetland Program, wetland re-classification, Barrett Street 10. Adjourn (9:02 pm) 1 Paul Conner From:David Burke <dwburke@olearyburke.com> Sent:Thursday, December 15, 2016 2:31 PM To:Paul Conner; Ilona Blanchard Cc:brad@livingvermont.com; Brad Subject:2014-72: Gardner - Barrett Street Attachments:20161215142450.pdf; 2014-72-S1h.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Paul: We are writing on behalf of Brad Gardner as a follow‐up to our 12/13/16 meeting with  Staff regarding his Barrett Street parcel. We understand that the Planning Commission  recently had a discussion on future access between the parcel and San Remo Drive and their  initial direction would be some form of a pedestrian connection versus a vehicular connection.   As discussed at our 12/13/16 meeting while this is good news, we remain in a Regulatory Box  due to the current language of S 8.04(A)(5). The attached Conceptual Plan which includes  revisions per our 12/13/16 meeting will provide for the best future connection possibilities,  pedestrian or otherwise, but requires revision to S 8.04(A)(5) of the City Regulations, which  currently read “Connectivity. All existing or proposed streets shall connect directly at each end  to another existing public street, or planned or proposed street listed as qualifying street type  in the applicable BES”. The at each end is underlined for emphasis.    For this parcel, access is via a City right‐of‐way from the south end of the parcel to Barrett  Street. Development of the parcel will require construction of a Public Roadway from Barrett  Street within the existing Public right‐of‐way and continuing in a proposed Public right‐of‐way  which will extend to the northerly limits of the subject parcel. In addition, the attached Plan  calls for a Public right‐of‐way to the planned “Street” near the southwest corner of the parcel  and an additional easement near the northwest corner of the parcel. This will thereby allow  for several opportunities for future connection to San Remo Drive.    S 8.04(A)(5) as currently written does not allow for reasonable development of this parcel as  we can’t connect “at each end to another existing public street, or planned or proposed street  listed as qualifying street type in the applicable BES”.    As such, we request the S 8.04(A)(5) be re‐worded to allow for reasonable development of this  parcel, as well as other yet to be known parcels that will suffer from the current  wording.  Rather than propose specific language, we’ll leave that to Staff and the Planning  Commission. However, at a minimum we suggest a connection be required on one end and  that “provision(s)” for vehicular and/or pedestrian connection be provided on the other end.  2   We understand the above / attached can be taken up at the January 10, 2017 or January 24,  2017 Planning Commission hearing to allow for the change to be included in the upcoming  round of Regulation changes. As discussed, I will be out of Town on January 24th, so I request  scheduling for the January 10th Hearing, so I am able to attend. If this is not possible, please  schedule for January 24th and someone from our office will attend.    It is Brad’s intent to follow‐up on Ilona’s pending temporary easement request to the planned  City Park lands following the above. I have attached a Conceptual Plan with Orthophoto  (shows potential connecting areas) as well as without the Orthophoto (Ease of reading text).  Please let us know, when the above / attached will be scheduled so we can plan accordingly.      David W. Burke  DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 33 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: March 17, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Overall Circulation-Preferred Plan Option 0 150’300’600’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community See Conceptual Site Plan-Preferred Option Bike/ped access to Market Street (paths associated with Market Street stormwater feature) Boardwalk See inset Bike/ped access to future Garden Street (assumes Garden Street will include cycle track) 10’ paved multi-use path to Garden St. 10’ paved multi-use path to San Remo Dr. Pre-engineered bridge, approx. 30’ span with headwalls Pre-engineered bridge, approx. 75’ span with headwalls 10’ paved multi-use path with retaining wall INSET: Pedestrian multi-use path & connections 0’50’ DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CITY CENTER | PHASE A ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW: 4.2.15 City Center - Dumont Park DATE: March 18, 2015 LandWorks · Jackie Brookner - Ecological Artist · Engineering Ventures · North Woods Ecological Consulting · Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. DRAFT FOR REVIEW Conceptual Site Plan - Preferred Option 0 50’100’200’ Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Kiosk / gateway element Pedestrian bridge (6’ wide, with railings) Wetland restoration area Outer loop path (4’ wide, gravel/stonedust) Boardwalk (5’ wide, no railings- except on multi-use path- 10’ wide w/ railings) Multi-use path (10’ wide, paved, with lighting) Outdoor classroom w/ seating (stone slabs or seat walls) Natural play area (logs, boulders, etc. w/ bark mulch ground surface) Inner loop path (5’ wide, gravel/stonedust) - “wildflower walk” “Pause place” or destination with natural design/art element(s) Accessible tree house Multi-use boardwalk/bridge (10’ wide, railings, approx. 5’ above wetland water level) Access to Garden Street (to be determined by future City Center development plan) Access path for Market Street stormwater feature Note: benches, wayfinding signs, and interpetive elements to be located throughout the park as appropriate Class II wetland Class III wetland 50’ wetland buffer Existing path 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 5 5 555 5 13 14 13 14 3 3 3 3 11 11 7 7 2 2 10 10 10 6 6 4 4 12 12 8 8 34 I-89 Crossing Purpose and Need Statement Draft #2 for Planning Commission consideration January 10, 2017 1 Purpose and Need Statement I-89 Exit 14 Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Study Purpose The purpose of this project is to create a safe, visible, comfortable, convenient, direct and attractive year-round crossing for pedestrian and bicycle travel across I-89 in the vicinity of the Exit 14 interchange while maintaining safe and efficient vehicular conditions on the I-89 mainline; support healthy and sustainable lifestyles; promote compact growth and economic development in City Center; create attractive public spaces in support of the region’s identity; enhance capacity of the US 2 corridor in a cost-effective manner; and reconnect neighborhoods within South Burlington that have been split apart by regional and national transportation corridors. Need 1. Build an inviting travel corridor that reinforces the City’s and Region’s goals for pedestrian and bicycle mobility. The present bicycle and pedestrian facilities do not reflect the area’s priorities for quality of life of its residents and visitors, mobility, nor commitment to vibrant interlinked downtowns. The 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan sets the following goal: “Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options while accommodating the automobile” (p 1-1). Limitations on access across a broad spectrum of users undermine regional goals for bicycle and pedestrian friendliness. 2. Build attractive public spaces and a distinctive identity for City Center and Chittenden County. Exit 14 is a gateway to the State, the region, and the community. The current facilities lend no distinctive identity to this entry point to some of the State’s premiere destinations and do not meet community goals for such. Exit 14 is a critical area within the region, but fails to be a great place for all users. The 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan states: “Establish a city center with pedestrian- oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community” (p. 1-1). 3. Facilitate use by all age groups, experience levels, and purposes of trips. The current facility is challenging for all users including the most experienced and confident pedestrians and cyclists. This discourages would-be commuters and recreational cyclists and pedestrians needing to cross I-89. 4. Remove a barrier in the regional network. This location has been identified as a principal barrier to within the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. I-89 splits South Burlington neighborhoods and three of the region’s most significant nodes of activity: City Center to the east, and UVM and downtown Burlington to the west. Improvements need to seamlessly link the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian network in South Burlington on both sides and be designed in a manner that is responsive to existing neighborhoods and activity areas. 5. Increase the regional transportation capacity. US2 is the most direct means to travel across I-89 in the immediate vicinity; however, existing conditions reduce the viability of bicycling and walking as a regional transportation choice. This reduces the capacity of the system as existing sidewalks and recreational paths do not connect to places people need to go and they are therefore underused. 6. Create a safe, comfortable, user-friendly, desirable year-round bicycle and pedestrian connection across Exit 14. The cloverleaf interchange configuration results in challenging accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. It favors the high speed movement of many vehicles merging onto and across several lanes. Consequently: I-89 Crossing Purpose and Need Statement Draft #2 for Planning Commission consideration January 10, 2017 2 • Pedestrian and bike crossings occur where it is not easy for drivers to anticipate yielding or stopping for pedestrians and cyclists and which due to higher speeds. This creates an uncomfortable condition for the driver and pedestrian/cyclist due to the potential for collisions. • Inconsistencies in the availability of on-street bicycle lanes, recreation paths, and sidewalk width foster uncertainty and create the potential for conflicts between all users. • Limited real estate results in a lack of buffers between users and traffic, no snow storage and limited flexibility to reconfigure facilities. 7. Maintain Interstate 89 safety and efficiency. Modifications to ramp intersections with US2 have the potential to increase ramp queues which could result in backups on I-89. Modifications that increase the risk of high-speed, rear-end collisions on I-89 need to be avoided. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com January _____, 2017 Mr. Gene Richards Director of Aviation Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive South Burlington, VT 05401 re: Feedback on Second Draft 2016 Burlington International Airport Re-Use Plan / Noise Compatibility Plan Dear Gene, The City of South Burlington Planning Commission welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the Burlington International Airport’s (BIA) draft Re-Use Plan. The items in this letter related to the Draft Re-Use plan are based on the draft Plan released last month and the public meeting hosted by BIA on December 14th, 2016. For ease of reading, the term “the City” in this letter refers to the City of South Burlington unless otherwise noted. The City and BIA appear to have many shared goals – both recognize the important role that careful and comprehensive planning will have in for the physical, social, and economic health of the Airport, neighborhood, and region. We consider this intermediary draft Re-Use Plan to be an important step towards reaching shared goals and look forward to the opportunity to review a revised draft that addresses the feedback below. While supporting shared goals, we also clearly state that neither this letter, nor any city officials’ involvement in this planning process represents an endorsement or approval of this plan or any part thereof by the City. Further, the City retains all rights regarding land in its possession and regulatory authorities it has over land use. Nothing in this Plan that references the City of South Burlington should be construed as the position of South Burlington. This letter is divided into three sections: 1) Key City topics / issues related to the draft Re-Use Plan 2) Follow-up to the City’s letter on the first draft Re-Use Plan and BIA’s response 3) Detailed feedback on the December 2016 Draft Re-Use Plan 1. Key City topics / issues related to the draft Re-Use Plan a) Geographic Scope of the draft Re-Use Plan Page 10 of the draft Re-Use Plan states “The FAA Noise Land Use Program requires all identified noise land parcels to be evaluated for their disposal or potential repurposing.” The figures contained within the draft Report do not include at least 13 properties on the north side of Kirby Road, between Airport Parkway and Patchen Road, which we understand are part of the buy-out 2 program1 and perhaps more. It is our understanding that the Re-Use Plan must include all properties acquired, planned for acquisition, and eligible for acquisition. Without the inclusion, evaluation, and designation of these properties in the draft Report, the City finds the overall Report to be incomplete. The City requests that the draft Report be revised to include these and any other absent properties. Upon completion of this revision, the City requests that a full, updated draft of the complete Re-Use Plan be released for public comment, and that additional public meeting be advertised and held by BIA. b) Designation of land in Mid/Long Term Plan Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Draft Re-Use Plan depict, graphically, designations of land for “Airport Development” and for “Noise Buffer / Green Space” over the medium and long-term. At BIA’s December 14, 2016 Public Meeting on the Draft Plan, the community was urged to look at the planned Airport Road - Airport Parkway connector as the divider between these two future designations and to provide feedback on how much land should be included on each side of the planned roadway. In its May 2016 letter, the City indicated that it supports a connector road that “Is adequately separated from and buffered from the Chamberlin Neighborhood (for noise generated by traffic on the road, and for visibility).” The City finds the land designated as “Noise Buffer / Green Space” to the west of the planned roadway, as depicted in Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 to be insufficient. In some cases, the proposed buffer / green space appears to be 75’ or less in width. The City strongly advocates for all plans – short, medium, and long-term – to incorporate a buffer area sufficiently wide to protect the neighborhood from the impacts of any new roadway or Airport use, and to include sufficient area, where possible, to employ meaningful constructed noise buffering. Land Designated as “Noise Buffer / Green Space” should be at least 300’ in width from the property lines of homes outside the acquisition area wherever the existing roadway segments slated to remain allow for it. The reasons for this are three-fold: First, the existing housing to remain should be adequately buffered from development of all types. Until recently, these homes were located in the center of a neighborhood; they are now the edge of the neighborhood. Second, any impacts from a new roadway, which will come with its own noise and dust impacts, must be sufficiently mitigated to assure no detrimental effects on the housing. Third, sufficient space to the west of the roadway should be allocated to allow for future improvements, such as a linear recreation path or constructed noise mitigation, that may explored in the future. Finally, the City of South Burlington strongly urges the Airport to develop, through this Plan or as a strong recommendation from this Plan, a detailed design document for the implementation of noise buffering and landscape enhancement techniques throughout this area. 1 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “a list of eligible properties can be downloaded here” accessed January 5, 2016 3 c) Ongoing Collaboration The City, again, thanks BIA for the opportunity to provide comment and for hosting the public meetings it has held on the Draft Re-Use Plan. The City further thanks BIA and their consultant, CHA, for attending a meeting of the Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee (CNAPC) in February 2016 as the Committee developed a Chamberlin neighborhood transportation and land-use plan. The City finds it important, however, to note that it was not entirely satisfied with BIA’s engagement in the development of the Chamberlin neighborhood plan, and expresses a measure of disagreement with the draft Re-Use Plan’s characterization of said engagement. Referring to the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, page 2 of the draft Re-Use Plan states: “The airport and consultant team worked with the City to provide input from the airport’s perspective.” Further, page 7 of the draft Re-Use Plan states: “In an effort to expand the outreach this project has been coordinated with the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, conducted by the CCRPC in 2015 and 2016. The study is part of an ongoing effort to improve coordination between the Airport and the neighborhood in an effort to implement land use and transportation improvements for the neighborhood that work in conjunction with the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan.” While BIA’s consultant, CHA, did attend a CNAPC meeting to provide an overview of its work, the City was disappointed that the City of Burlington’s representatives to the Committee attended only 5 of 162 committee meetings, and none of the final 8. In noting this, the City wishes to express its desire for the Airport and City to each engage as full participants in each others’ planning efforts moving forward for the mutual benefit of all involved and for the region as a whole. 2. Follow-up to the City’s letter on the first draft Re-Use Plan and BIA’s response On May 17, 2016, the City offered a series of questions and comments on the initial draft of the Re-Use Plan issued in March 2016. The Airport’s Director of Aviation provided a response to this letter on November 10, 2016. The City thanks the Airport and its Director for taking the time to provide responses to the questions and comments contained in the letter. Many of comments contained in the letter and response underscore the collaborative goals of the City and Airport. The City offers a handful of follow-up items from this letter and response: a) Policy positions. The City’s re-affirms the policy positions that were enumerated in its original letter and incorporates them into this letter by reference. b) Development scenario questions. The City notes that for any Airport or other redevelopment functions to take place on land acquired by the Airport, the Airport will need to seek a zoning amendment from the City of South Burlington. Some of the facilities and uses depicted in the draft Re-Use Plan and/or the Airport’s 2030 Master Plan are not permitted under the City’s present Land Development Regulations. c) Looping of Elizabeth & Patrick Streets. The City thanks the Airport for its clarification of the “preliminary” nature of the ideas and looks forward to future engagement in options to best serve the neighborhood. 2 One additional meeting, for a total of 17, took place but attendance records are not available for that meeting. 4 d) Airport Road to Airport Parkway connector. As noted above, the City finds the present Mid & Long Term figures’ depiction of the planned roadway to be located too close to the neighborhood. 3. Detailed feedback on the December 2016 Draft Re-Use Plan The City offers the following assessment and feedback on the draft Re-Use Plan issues for public review in December 2016: Executive Summary, page 2, paragraph 2 See note under section 1 above regarding collaboration. 1.0 Introduction, page 3, paragraph 1 According to the FAA’s Passenger Boarding (Enplanement) data3, total enplanements at BIA in Calendar Year 2015 were 581,143, not “over 600,000” as listed in the draft Plan. Please confirm and correct as necessary. 1.1 Noise Land & Land Use Compatibility, page 4, table 1 According to the FAA’s Program Guidance Letters website4 it appears that program guidance letter 8-02 was cancelled by PGL-14-05. Please confirm, update the source, and adjust the table as necessary. 1.1 Noise Land & Land Use Compatibility, page 4, graphic: Common Sound Levels by DNL. Citation was inadequate to find the source document. Please provide the full document citation for this graphic. 1.4 Municipal and Public Outreach, Page 7, paragraph 1. See note under section 1 above regarding collaboration. 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 2. The draft report indicates that there are an “additional 37 parcels eligible for acquisition under the existing program.” Please clarify this statement. Specifically: a) Does this 37 figure refer to total properties eligible for acquisition, or total properties eligible for acquisition for which funding has been awarded by the FAA? b) Does this 37 figure include all properties presented in the maps prepared by the Jones Payne Group entitled “Proposed land acquisition properties” [undated], presented on September 14, 2016 to the Airport Sound Mitigation Committee5? c) The Jones Payne Group presentation on September 14, 2016 to the Airport’s Sound Mitigation Committee6 states, on page 2, “Received $16 million grant in September 2016 for 39 homes located in the previous acquisition area.” Please reconcile the 37 and 39 figures. 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 2. The draft report states “There are no apartment buildings… planned for acquisition.” It’s our understanding that there is at least one rental triplex in the noise land area that is planned for acquisition, on Dumont Ave. Please confirm. 3 https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/ accessed January 5, 2017 4 https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/guidance_letters/ accessed January 5, 2017 5 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “a list of eligible properties can be downloaded here” accessed January 5, 2016 6 http://www.btv.aero/airport-guide/neighborhood-connection/, “Jones Payne Group Presentation (Airport Consultant)” accessed January 5, 2016 5 2.0 Noise Land Inventory, Page 9, paragraph 3. The draft report states “Due to significant interest and a large number of potential participants, BTV requested that the South Burlington City Council accelerate the program for FY 2010 and 2011. As a result, the FAA agreed to increase the funding for acquisition of noise land for the subsequent two fiscal years.” The City has two concerns about the above statement: a) First, the statement seems to imply that the “program” was run by the City of South Burlington. It was the Airport’s program, for which the Airport sought feedback from the City of South Burlington. b) Second, this statement appears to be somewhat of a non-sequitur to the remainder of the report. The statement refers to a request by the Airport to gain City Council concurrence on seeking additional funds over a two-year program to accelerate the program and allow the home buy-out program to end more quickly. The report makes no other reference to the pace of acquisition of homes. The City recommends this section be either removed altogether or clarified and explained as to its purpose in the report. 3.0 Noise Land Re-Use Plan, page 10, paragraph 1 See discussion above under Section 1. 3.0 Noise Land Re-Use Plan, page 10, paragraph 2. The draft report includes a table showing past, present, and future Terminal Area forecasts (TAFs). How often are the TAFs updated? When they are updated, are the future years also updated? Based on the declining enplanement in each of the years 2010 through 2015, to a figure of 594,034, what leads the projections to see an increase to 670,947 in just 4 years and to 781,216 by 2030? Historical figures before 2010 could be useful. Absent some information about the projections, South Burlington is somewhat skeptical of these figures. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 1 The draft report states “The property within the 75 dB DNL contour should be reserved for future airport development as well as areas along Airport Drive which fall within the 70 dB – 75 dB DNL contour.” Some of the planned acquisition areas missing from the draft report (see notes above) appear to be within the 70+ dB DNL contour. The report is incomplete without an assessment of those areas and should be added as discussed above. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 3 Land within the 75 dB DNL can also be suitable for Noise Buffer. The City of South Burlington requests that this option, for passive or constructed Noise Buffer, be added to this area. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 4 The draft report states that “Most of the properties in the VLAP that fall within the 65-75 dB DNL range will be retained for noise buffer between the Airport and Chamberlin neighborhood, and will include green space and open lands.” Figure 2, Short Term-Plan, makes no distinction between land reserved for “noise buffer” and land reserved for “aviation-related development.” Please clarify the statement above or depict the area in figure 2 to reflect the statement. 3.1 Short-Term Plan, page 11, paragraph 4 6 The draft Report indicates that this area should be retained for noise buffers such as green spaces and open lands. The City of South Burlington requests that possible constructed Noise Buffer be added to this area as short-term options. Constructed noise buffer may include berming or other landscape improvements to further reduce noise impacts of the Airport on the adjacent neighborhood. Short-Term Plan General Comments: a) The City of South Burlington strongly supports the short-term use of the land for noise buffering, both passive and active. b) The City of South Burlington supports continuation of the Airport’s current landscape maintenance efforts, the planting of additional landscaping, access to the land for the travelling public, c) The City of South Burlington supports the efforts to continue having a public dog park in the vicinity. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 2 The City of South Burlington notes, as it did in its letter of May 17, 2016, that it is not in support of a “limited access” road to reach the long-term scenario. The City has taken no formal position on an Interstate access serving multiple users. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 4 (figure 4) The draft report states “It should also be noted that this road concept would need to be funded by the City or State, as new or improved roads serving the local community are not eligible for FAA funding.” Two comments: a) Please provide a specific reference to the FAA prohibition on use of funds for this purpose if such a statement is to be made. b) This statement is very narrow in its focus. There are multiple Federal funding sources that do or could in the future exist for such a project. If the statement it to be made, it should refer exclusively to the FAA and not all Federal funding sources. 3.2 Mid/Long Term Plan, page 12, paragraph 5 (figure 5) A statement should be added to each of these alternatives indicating that a full traffic study would be required for any such improvements. The statement that “this scenario would remove automobile traffic from the neighborhood, providing access only at Kirby Road and Williston Road” may be accurate, but it does not in any way address the consequences of such an action. An improvement such as this, for example, could have a significant impact on Kirby Road being used as a cut-through for non-airport related traffic coming from or headed to Rt 15 in Colchester. Mid/Long-Term Plan General Comments: a) As noted above, the City of South Burlington does not support a limited access connector to I-89. b) Regarding land use designations, see discussion above in Section 1. 4.0 Implementation Plan, page 13, paragraph 1 This paragraph does not read correctly. Please review and clarify. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, Table 6 As noted above, the City of South Burlington strongly supports moving the planned new roadway closer to the Airport and adding to the land designated as “retain land for noise buffer.” 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, paragraph 3 (short term) See notes above concerning the statement “There are an additional 37 parcels in the VLAP.” 7 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 13, paragraph 3 (short term) The draft report states: “It is recommended that the Airport continue its ongoing Noise Land Acquisition Program by acquiring the remaining, eligible properties and as parcels are continuously being acquired by the Airport, non-compatible land uses should be removed.” The City offers the following comments: a) Until the exact numbers and location of eligible properties is clarified in this report, the recommendation to acquire the remaining eligible properties is too broad. b) The statement should be revised to reflect the voluntary nature of the program. It is our understanding that the FAA’s noise compatibility program is intended to offer acquisition. The statement above indicates an objective of acquiring homes. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 14 (beyond five years) Please include a note that the City of South Burlington has not been formally approached regarding any of the ideas or options related to road rights-of-way acquisition or land exchange, and that the City of South Burlington has taken no position on any of these. 4.1 Noise Land Reuse Plan Recommendations, page 14 (beyond five years) If the Airport is interested in acquiring rights-of-way owned by the City of South Burlington, as indicated in the draft report, the report should be revised to state that the “Airport should approach the City of South Burlington about the possible acquisition…” Such a clarification would be consistent with the statement towards the end of paragraph 3 that notes that this is a voluntary acquisition. 4.2 Implementation Steps, page 15, action steps a) Regarding item (2), please correct as discussed above b) These implementation steps make no reference to the City of South Burlington’s exclusive authority of zoning over the land, nor any steps to approach the City regarding any changes in zoning to facilitate the actions contained with step 9, “implemented master plan improvements”. 4.3 Potential Implementation Schedule, page 16, tentative project phasing schedule Please update the table to reflect the voluntary nature of the programs as described above. Throughout The draft report contains multiple typographical, grammatical, and spelling errors. Please review and correct these are needed. Conclusion We wish, finally, to thank you your continued openness in developing the draft Re-Use Plan, and to thank the Airport’s consultant, CHT, for their work on this project on behalf of the Airport and in the interests of the community, region, and State. We look forward to revising an updated version of this Draft Re-Use Plan in the near future. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City staff. Sincerely, Jessica Louisos, Chair on behalf of the South Burlington Planning Commission, which approved this letter ___ to ___ on ____ 2017. 8 cc: Helen Riehle, Chair, South Burlington City Council; Kevin Dorn, City Manager; Pat Nowak, South Burlington Representative to the Airport Commission; Miro Weinberger, Mayor, City of Burlington NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) FAA AIP NO. 3-09-0000-094-2012 December 2016 Prepared for: Burlington International Airport Prepared by: CHA Consulting, Inc. DRAFT NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 NOISE LAND INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN ..................................................................................................................... 10 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 13 5.0 REPORT FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 17 LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 NOISE LAND INVENTORY 18 2 SHORT-TERM PLAN 19 3 VISION 2030 20 4 MID-TERM ROADWAY ALIGNMENT (MAINTAINED LOCAL ACCESS) 21 5 MID-TERM ROADWAY ALIGNMENT (AIRPORT DEDICATED ACCESS) 22 6 PROPERTY BUNDLING 23 7 POTENTIAL LAND EXCHANGE SITES 24 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 4 2 ACCEPTABLE DISPOSAL METHODS PER FAA GUIDANCE 6 3 ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY 7 4 PROJECT COORDINATION MEETINGS 8 5 ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS 10 6 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF NOISE LAND 13 APPENDICES APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) B MEETING PRESENTATIONS C STUDY CORRESPONDENCE NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Burlington International Airport (“BTV” or “the Airport”) has prepared an update to the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan to satisfy FAA planning requirements, and have retained the services of Clough Harbour & Associates LLP (“CHA”) to perform this study. The purpose of this project is to evaluate properties that have been acquired, and properties planned to be acquired with Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds for land use and noise compatibility purposes. This has been part of an ongoing noise land acquisition program initiated in 1990 when the Airport’s first Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study was completed. The AIP program provides grants to public agencies for the planning and development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). When airport owners or sponsors, planning agencies, or other organizations accept funds from FAA- administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations (or assurances). These obligations require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. When property is acquired with AIP funds for land use and noise compatibility purposes, it is referred to as “noise land” and is subject to AIP Grant Assurance 31 – Disposal of Land. This assurance is based on 49 USC §47107(c)(2)(A), and is intended to assure that optimal use is made of the federal share of the proceeds from the disposal of the noise land property. The noise land may no longer be needed once the incompatible use is removed; typically through purchasing homes, relocating the residents, and removing the houses (or other incompatible development). At this stage, the Airport must determine if the noise land is still needed for aviation related purposes or if it should be disposed of. The assurance requires that when noise land is no longer needed for noise compatibility or future airport development, the land will be disposed of and that the federal share of the proceeds will be either returned to the FAA’s Airport and Airway Trust Fund or will be used for another noise compatibility project. It is the Sponsor’s determination and decision whether noise land is sold, retained by the Airport, leased for a compatible use, or exchanged; however, the decision must be evaluated in a Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan and approved by the FAA. The Burlington International Airport completed a previous Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan in 2009. The 2009 plan included determinations of the Noise Land acquired through the Voluntary Land Acquisition Program (VLAP). This update to the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan will review the previous proposed disposition and future potential use of all noise land listed in the Inventory, as well as any additional properties that have been acquired. Although the study is complete once it is approved by the FAA, the management of noise land will be a continuing process. An implementation plan will be developed and provide a step-by-step guide to the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs of the disposal process. The implementation plan will: 1. Outline the areas of each category of disposal or retention 2. Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling). 3. Illustrate properties that have potential for exchange for noise land. 4. Incorporate the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. 5. Provide a tentative schedule for future activities NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 2 The final piece of the plan is the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan Report. This includes the preparation of the study report with appropriate graphics based on the completion of all the work leading up to this point. The report is submitted in draft form for review by BTV and the FAA, and Public Information Meetings will be held during this part of the process to discuss the Plan findings, implementation, reports, and remaining action items. During the study effort, the City of South Burlington (“the City”) conducted the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, a vision plan geared to guide land use and transportation goals and develop a vision by the residents and community stakeholders in the Chamberlin neighborhood in South Burlington. This neighborhood is bounded generally by Kirby Road to the north, Airport Drive to the East, Williston Road to the south, and Patchen Road to the West. The intent of the plan is to recommend neighborhood improvements that benefit its residents and the community as a whole. The airport and consultant team worked with the City to provide input from the airport’s perspective. The plan incorporates the Airport as an adjacent land use and work to be integrated with the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. Detailed information describing how to satisfy the Grant Assurance No. 31 requirements is specified in the September 30, 2014 Airport Improvement Program Handbook (Order 5100.38D) and the August 5, 1983 Advisory Circular 150/5020-1 “Noise Compatibility Planning for Airports”. The FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming’s Noise Land Management and Requirements for Disposal of Noise Land or Development Land Funded with AIP provides detailed program guidance with regard to Noise Land Management. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION Burlington International Airport (BTV) is a small hub commercial service airport owned by the City of Burlington and operated by the Burlington Airport Commission. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Burlington International Airport had over 600,000 enplanements (passengers boarding aircraft) and over 70,000 total aircraft operations in 2015. The Airport, located in the City of South Burlington, three miles southeast of Burlington, occupies over 950 acres of land. BTV has two runways, Runway 15-33 (8,319 feet) and the secondary, or crosswind runway, Runway 1-19 (4,112 feet). The passenger terminal includes ticketing, baggage claim, surface transportation areas, security services, multiple concession areas, two concourses, air service gates, and administrative offices. In addition to the terminal building, other airport facilities include hangars, a fuel farm, an air cargo facility, ground support facilities, the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility (ARFF) operated by the Air National Guard, an airfield maintenance facility, an air traffic control tower, in addition to an Army and Air National Guard facility. BTV has a large parking garage accommodating approximately 2,700 spaces and a small surface parking lot on airport property. 1.1 NOISE LAND & LAND USE COMPATIBILITY “Noise land” is defined as property that an airport acquires for land use compatibility (i.e. noise) in a noise- impacted area surrounding an airport. Under federal land use compatibility guidelines, residences are generally not compatible with noise levels measured above certain levels or meeting specific criteria. The FAA's primary metric for aviation noise analysis and the level at which the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise exposure of individuals resulting from aviation activities has been established in terms of the day-night average sound level (DNL) in decibels (dB). The 65 DNL is the Federal significance threshold for aircraft noise exposure. In order to reduce or eliminate incompatible uses, an airport may acquire land or provide sound insulation to homes within a certain noise contour; the 65 dB DNL contour is the threshold for these types of action. These standards are defined by the FAA in the “Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports” Advisory Circular (150/5020-1). The FAA has adopted land use compatibility guidelines that specify the noise compatibility parameters for various land uses. As shown in Table 1, residences (along with other sensitive land uses such as churches, and schools) are generally not compatible with noise levels measured at 65 dB DNL or greater. The figure on the following page shows examples of various urban and suburban noises, classified by DNL. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 4 TABLE 1 - RESIDENTIAL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Land Use Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) in decibels Below 65 65-70 70-75 Over 75 Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Yes No* No* No Mobile home parks Yes No No No Transient lodgings Yes No* No* No* *Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes & be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction & normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. The use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. Source: Program Guidance Letter 8-02, Management of Acquired Noise Land: Inventory – Reuse-Disposal Common Sound Levels by DNL Source: City of Milwaukee Office of Environmental Sustainability, 2011. 1.2 NOISE LAND MANAGEMENT As noise land is acquired with AIP grant funds, it is subject to Grant Assurance 31, Written Assurances on Acquiring Land. The assurance requires that when noise land is no longer needed for noise compatibility purposes or for future airport development, the land will be disposed of and the federal share of the disposal proceeds will be either paid to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund or will be used for another noise compatibility project. The purpose of Grant Assurance 31, based on 49 USC §47107(c) (2) (A), is to assure that optimal use is made of the federal share of the proceeds from the disposal of noise land (disposal proceeds). NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 5 However, under any Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan, the sponsor is often obligated to retain sufficient interest in the land in order to ensure that the “converted” land uses remain compatible with the noise levels expected from the continued operation of the Airport. This is typically accomplished with a permanent avigation easement (i.e., a permanent deed restriction) placed on the property. It is at the discretion of the airport to sell, retain, lease or exchange the unneeded noise land. This decision is generally done in accordance with an FAA-approved Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. A decision to retain the noise land property must be based on a documented need which is acceptable to the FAA. After a complete review of existing noise land as described above, a recommendation of whether to retain or repurpose each area or parcel (as needed) is provided in the land reuse plan. If the future use of noise land includes disposal by sale, the property will be subject to the City of South Burlington’s land use and zoning regulations. In addition to compliance with the City zoning regulations the property will also contain an avigation easement preventing the development or reuse for any noise sensitive activity or other activities that conflict with the operation of an airport. Under the FAA Program, BTV is required to identify appropriate repurposing for all noise land and obtain FAA approval through this study. There are several appropriate methods to retain or dispose of noise land. The approved methods are as follows:  Retain Land for Noise Buffer  Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land  Exchange for Development Land  Pending Disposal (Temporary)  Sale In Fee and Repayment of the Fair Market Value Noise land acquired by the airport typically falls into one of the categories outlined in Table 2. The table also provides a brief explanation of each method. Airport Terminal and Chamberlin Neighborhood NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 6 TABLE 2 - ACCEPTABLE RETENTION & DISPOSAL METHODS PER FAA GUIDANCE Retain Land for Noise Buffer Conversion to airport owned noise buffer. Per FAA guidance, a noise buffer may be left undeveloped or developed to compatible land use. Noise land developed to compatible land use must be leased on a long-term basis at the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land. FMV lease proceeds are airport revenue. Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land Examples would be noise land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), land needed access improvements, etc., which must be retained for airport control. Repayment of the FMV of the federal share is not required in this case. Exchange for Development Land Trade or transfer noise land for property needed for airport purposes. Repayment of the FMV of the federal share is not required if the exchanged value of the land meets or exceeds the value of the noise land. If the FMV of the development land is less than the FMV of the nose land exchanged, the Federal share of the difference is subject to repayment under Assurance 31. Pending Disposal (Temporary) An airport sponsor may have ongoing noise land acquisition projects and continue to acquire and assemble land for airport-compatible redevelopment. If these parcels are to be sold or exchanged for development land, once cleared of incompatible development, they may be leased out on an interim basis pending assemblage and disposal or conversion. Sale In Fee and Repayment of the FMV This is a common occurrence where adjacent property is exposed to noise levels not compatible with residential use, but would be compatible for commercial, industrial, recreational, and other activities. Source: Noise Land Management and Requirements for Disposal of Noise Land or Development Land Funded with AIP, FAA Office of Airports Planning and Programming (APP-400), June 2014. The method chosen by BTV is specific to each parcel, based on several factors including:  Adjacent land use, municipal zoning and the City of South Burlington Chamberlin Neighborhood Study (existing and updated);  Airport buffer or other airport requirements;  Airport airspace and FAA design standard requirements;  Existing airport needs for the property (e.g., additional facilities, improved access, etc.); and  Environmental constraints. 1.3 ACQUISTION PROGRAM HISTORY Burlington International Airport has been acquiring property for noise compatibility purposes under the FAA’s Part 150 program since 1985. The FAA Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning outlines the procedures, standards, and methodology governing the development, submission, and review of airport noise exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs. This includes the process for evaluating and approving or disapproving those programs. The original Part 150 Study was completed in 1990 and since that time, there have been several updates to the program. The most recent approved update to the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) was July 2008, which was preceded by updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEM). The resulting 2009 Noise Land Inventory included the acquired properties of the BTV Voluntary Land Acquisition Program (VLAP). In November of 2015, a 2015/2020 NEM Update was presented for public comment and submitted to the FAA for formal review. On December 22, 2015, the FAA approved the new NEMs. Table 3 outlines the Noise Program History starting with completion of the first Part 150 noise study in 1990. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 7 TABLE 3 - ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study Completed 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update (ongoing) Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. 1.4 MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC OUTREACH Public involvement is an integral part of any significant airport planning study. Key stakeholders for this project include the FAA, BTV, local residents, airport users and tenants, the City of Burlington, the City of South Burlington, and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC). In an effort to expand the outreach this project has been coordinated with the Chamberlin Neighborhood Study, conducted by the CCRPC in 2015 and 2016. The study is part of an ongoing effort to improve coordination between the Airport and the neighborhood in an effort to implement land use and transportation improvements for the neighborhood that work in conjunction with the Airport’s Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. Municipal Coordination Meetings During the study preparation, coordination meetings were held with the host community – South Burlington, the CCRPC, and the City of Burlington. In October 2015, the consultant team met with municipal officials and staff for the City of South Burlington and the City of Burlington. In addition to these meetings, the consultant team met with CCRPC throughout the study to address local planning issues, review report components, and integrate the study with ongoing municipal planning activities. A goal of Airport Leadership is to work with the CCRPC and City of South Burlington to coordinate and inform stakeholders of the activities and findings of the Airport Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan Update. Public Informational Meeting There were two Public Informational Meetings (PIM) held as part of the study process to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the study process and recommendations. The PIMs provided an open forum for the presentation of study recommendations to the broad base of the public. The meetings covered the following topics:  Program History  Project Background  Noise Land Disposition  Project Implementation NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 8 Public Web Page A public website was established to provide readily accessible project specific information, such as study reports, meeting agendas and minutes, meeting announcements, contact information, draft and final reports, and mailing list sign up. The website also enables local residents to comment electronically. The website is updated at regular intervals throughout the study duration and can be accessed at www.btvairportlandreuse.com and www.btvairportlandreuse.org. The various Municipal Coordination and Public Informational Meetings to date are listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 – PROJECT COORDINATION MEETINGS Date Meeting 07/20/15 Project Kickoff Meeting 09/29/15 Meeting with City of Burlington 10/13//15 Meeting with City of South Burlington 02/18/16 Meeting with CNAPC 03/24/16 Public Informational Meeting Number 1 12/14/16 Public Informational Meeting Number 2 Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV)    9     2.0 NOISE LAND INVENTORY  The FAA requires airport sponsors keep an up‐to‐date Noise Land Inventory that accurately reflects all of  the parcels that have been acquired with AIP funding. The inventory accounts for all grant‐acquired noise  land, and serves as a tool that will assist BTV with the management of noise land in compliance with the  FAA Grant Assurance 31, which regulates the “disposal” of land.      Since 1985, Burlington International Airport has purchased 162 noise‐impacted residential properties with  AIP funds (as of August 2016), with an additional 37 parcels eligible for acquisition under the existing  program. The ongoing program includes residential homes. There are no apartment buildings, schools, or  other noise sensitive facilities planned for acquisition. All properties included in the program have been  acquired through voluntary means, following the procedures in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and  Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act).   The primary subject area for acquisition has been the portion of the  Chamberlin neighborhood closest to the Airport. The overall  neighborhood is comprised of approximately 800 residential units,  some commercial properties, and an elementary school. The  neighborhood and general area is zoned R‐4 Residential, and is  mostly comprised of single‐family and duplex housing (with density  at four units per acre).  Generally, the parcels acquired for noise  compatibility are single‐family, detached homes on one‐quarter to  one‐half acre lots.   Due to significant interest and a large number of  potential participants, BTV requested that the South Burlington City  Council accelerate the program for FY2010 and FY2011. As a result,  the FAA agreed to increase the funding for acquisition of noise land  for the subsequent two fiscal years, allowing for purchase of  approximately 20 homes per year. An additional 97 parcels have  been acquired since 2010, bringing the total number of acquired  parcels to its current total of 162.     Figure 1 shows a graphical depiction of the parcels in the VLAP, both acquired and eligible for future  acquisition. Appendix A lists the properties acquired under the ongoing VLAP.     2.1 EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE  The development of noise contours is not part of this Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan, but were  previously developed in Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) prepared in 1997, 2006, and most recently in 2015.  The 2006 NEM identifies 115 homes within the 65‐70 dB DNL contour interval, many of which have since  been purchased by the Airport. It is important to note that the updated 2015/2020 NEMs reflect larger  noise contours. These new NEMs identify approximately 556 dwelling units within the 65‐70 dB DNL  contour interval, 372 units within the 70‐75 dB DNL contour interval, and 33 units within the 75 dB or  greater contour interval. This is largely driven by changes in the operating procedures of the Lockheed  Martin/General Dynamics F‐16 fighter jets operated by Vermont Air National Guard’s (VTANG) 158th  Fighter Wing that includes use of ‘after burners’ for takeoff. Future planned operations by F‐35 fighter  jets will result in additional changes in the noise contours.         Acquired and Cleared  Properties Along Dumont  Avenue    NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 10 3.0 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN The FAA Noise Land Use Program requires all identified noise land parcels to be evaluated for their disposal or potential repurposing. In addition to more general standards noted in Section 1.2, the following features and reference documents were reviewed as part of the disposition evaluation for the Noise Land:  Local land use and zoning  Street width, right-of-way width, & street geometry  Access to arterials  FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (2012)  2006 and 2015 Noise Exposure Maps  Chamberlin Neighborhood Study In order to evaluate the existing and future needs of the Airport, the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for BTV was reviewed. The TAF is the official FAA forecast of aviation activity for U.S. airports. Table 5 summarizes the TAF, showing historical and forecasted enplanements (the number of passengers boarding and aircraft) totals. While recent years have shown a decline in total enplanements, the FAA has forecasted enplanements to grow by the year 2020 and beyond. It should also be noted that, with the exception of 2012, each year’s actual reported enplanements have exceeded the TAF projections. TABLE 5 – ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS Year FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) Reported Enplanements 2010 639,323 651,280 2011 634,987 648,195 2012 629,653 623,604 2013 599,351 616,006 2014 605,273 611,805 2015 585,139 594,034 2020 670,947 N/A 2025 728,875 N/A 2030 781,216 N/A Source: Burlington International Airport, FAA Terminal Area Forecast, 2016, Accessed 5/2016. Terminal area improvements such as additional automobile parking, expanded gate areas and new maintenance facilities are included in the FAA-approved Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Although airport traffic has seen a decrease in recent years, the TAF forecasts traffic growth to the year 2030 and beyond. The terminal area improvements depicted on the ALP will support the facilities necessary to accommodate this increased activity. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 11 3.1 SHORT-TERM PLAN In order to best prepare for the implementation of new facilities called for in the Master Plan, special consideration must be given to the repurposing of noise land parcels as well as airport access. The property within the 75 dB DNL contour should be reserved for future airport development as well as areas along Airport Drive which fall within the 70 dB – 75 dB DNL contour. This will allow adequate space for future parking expansion, access to the right-of-way, passenger terminal growth, and other aviation- related facilities. Figure 2 depicts the recommended short-term reuse plan for the parcels and existing right-of-way. The short term plan calls for no immediate development of Airport facilities, however it does involve parcels being retained for one of the following purposes. Retain Land for AIP-Eligible Development The land immediately adjacent to the airfield should be reserved for future aviation-related facilities and activities. These areas are considered unsuitable for non-aviation devlopment by the FAA. This is primarily due to the need for necessary expansion space for the terminal and there are few other uses allowed within the 75 dB DNL. Retention of the Noise Land adjacent to the Airport will provide the Airport with some flexibility as to the use of the property and give the Airport the potential to convert the property to AIP-eligible development land in the future. This would provide property for the improvement of the airport access roadway, public airport facilities, and other non-revenue generating improvements for the Airport should they be needed in the future. This option would also be available for the Airport to convert the land to non-AIP-eligible development land, for revenue-generating development purposes such as parking or a hotel. Retain Land for Noise Buffer Most of the properties in the VLAP that fall within the 65 – 75 dB DNL range will be retained for noise buffer between the Airport and Chamberlin neighborhood, and will include green space and open lands. Near-term development of these parcels would impede long-term development projects associated with the FAA-approved ALP. Retention of the Noise Land adjacent to the Chamberlin neighborhood will allow the land to later be converted a noise buffer. This type of land use consists of greenspace with little-to-no development, but often implements natural foliage to reduce noise between a noise-generating land use, such as an airport or major highway, and a surrounding residential area. This buffer would divide the Airport and access roadway from the Chamberlin Neighborhood. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 12 3.2 MID/LONG-TERM VISION Properties retained for future development will provide necessary space for airport expansion. This expasnion would be consistent with the FAA-approved Master Plan and ALP should enplanement levels continue to rise in the future as forecasted in the TAF. These potential long-term improvements are described below. Approved Airport Layout Plan The 2030 Master Plan vision includes construction of a new limited-access road to reach the passenger terminal as a long-term scenario. Additional improvements include an expanded passenger terminal, additional parking, hotel, and expanded maintenance facilities. All airport access will be directed between Airport Parkway and Airport Drive, along the new access roadway. Additionally, an option for a new connector will link the existing portion of Airport Parkway with Interstate 89, allowing uniform traffic flow from both the Interstate to the north, and U.S. Highway 2, to the south. The FAA-approved ALP improvements are depicted in Figure 3. Alternative Roadway Concepts Figures 4 and 5 show alternative mid-term development scenarios of the Airport. These options provide interim, or scaled-back versions of the long-term development plan depicted in the ALP. A scaled-back development plan may be more financially feasible in consideration of the state and federal funding programs, and if the enplanement levels do not reach those forecasted in the Master Plan. In these scenarios, a new airport access road is built, linking the existing Airport Parkway with U.S. Route 2, providing direct access to the terminal. Lands to the north are reserved for airport development, and a parallel stretch of land to the immediate south is maintained as a noise buffer. The noise buffer area can include a proposed multi-use pedestrian trail. This interim approach is compatible with the 2030 Vision, as space is preserved for the future parking and terminal area improvements. Figure 4 depicts the “Maintained Local Access” alternative. In this configuration, access is maintained between the Airport and the Chamberlin Neighborhood (as it is now). Links to the recommended new Airport Parkway and the neighborhood are preserved at Kirby Road, Hanover Street, White Street, and Maryland Street. This is the desired alternative of the City of South Burlington. It should also be noted that this road concept would need to be a funded by the City or State, as new or improved roads serving the local community are not eligible for FAA funding. The right-of-way could be leased or transferred to the State or City. The multi-use pedestrian trail could be located on noise land property, but also cannot be FAA-funded. This concept includes a green-space buffer between the new roadway and the Chamberlin Neighborhood. Figure 5 illustrates the same new roadway configuration as Figure 4, but is the “Airport Dedicated Alignment” alternative. In this configuration, direct access between the Airport and the Chamberlin Neighborhood is eliminated. This airport-dedicated new roadway would be eligible for FAA-funding, and the new road and right-of-way could remain as an airport-owned and maintenance facility. This scenario would remove airport automobile traffic from the neighborhood, providing access only at Kirby Road and Williston Road (US Route 2). Although eligible for FAA funding, based on recent trends in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding levels and current federal funding priorities, the probability of obtaining FAA funding for the road improvements is very low in the foreseeable future. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 13 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Once all noise land is inventoried and a proper reuse plan is recommended, steps for implementation of the plan must be developed by the Airport, whicha schedule and method for disposal or retention of Airport-owned noise land. 4.1 NOISE LAND REUSE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS As detailed in Section 1, the acquired noise lands have been evaluated using the FAA’s five disposal categories to determine the appropriate land use management method. Based on this evaluation, the noise land at BTV fall within the categories described in Table 6: TABLE 6 – RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF NOISE LAND Noise Land Management Category Acreage Retain Land for Noise Buffer ±20 acres Convert Land to AIP-Eligible Airport Development Land ±50 acres Acquire City Road Right-of-Ways (or Exchange for Development Land) ±9 acres Pending Disposal None Sale In Fee and Repayment of the FMV None Source: Clough Harbour & Associates LLP, 2016. Short Term (3-5 Years) Thus far, the Airport has acquired 162 different parcels, each with a unique street address. There are an additional 37 parcels in the VLAP. It is recommended that the Airport continue its ongoing Noise Land Acquisition Program by acquiring the remaining, eligible properties and as parcels are continuously being acquired by the Airport, non-compatible land uses should be removed. This primarily involves continued removal of exisiting residences. It is recommended that all lands be retained in the Short-Term planning phase. The land will be retained for future AIP-eligible developments, or for future noise buffer. Recommendations: Complete VLAP by acquiring remaining, eligible Noise Land parcels and removing incompatible land uses Retain Noise Land for AIP-Eligible Development including include terminal expansion projects, maintanance facilities, and other improvements recommended on the FAA-approved ALP. Retain Noise Land for Noise Buffer including greenspace and open lands separating the Airport from the Chamberlin neighborhood. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 14 Beyond Five Years As the remaining parcels in the VLAP are acquired and the program comes to an end, it is recommended that the acquired properties are bundled into larger tracts of land. Figure 6 depicts a potential bundling of noise land parcels, including parcels previously acquired by the airport and eligible for the VLAP, into 17 tracts of land. Bundling include combining multiple parcels into larger tracts, to simplfy the redevelopmed or release process. At this time, the Airport should also begin the acquisition of road right-of-ways that no longer contain any homes. In this case, once the VLAP is complete, there would be no homes located on several City streets including, North Henry Court, Dumont Avenue, Delaware Street, etc., thus the road surface can be removed, and the property acquired by the airport. In other locations, some ‘through-roads’ may be converted to cul-de-sacs, such as Elizabeth and Patrick Streets. For this processs, the Airport would acquire these unused and unoccupied right-of-ways from the City of South Burlington, as part of the noise land program. For BTV, Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the potential road closures and associated right-of-way acquisitions, whichh make up an area of approximatley nine acres. The acquistion price would be set by an appraised and negotiated fair markety value (FMV) at the time of acquistion. Thereafter, in addition to removal of curbs and pavements where applicable, the process involves closing off or removal above and below ground utilities. In some cases, the road pavement may be retained where it would assist with future redevelopment. Upon acquistion of the right-of-ways, further bundeling is possible to combine the right-of-way acreage into the other parcels bundels. It is noted that similarly to the VLAP, the acquisition of City road property is voliuntary, and can only occur through coordination between the Airport and the City, and with concurrance on the FMV. The nine acres of right-of-way acquistion would be in addition to the approximately 70 acres included in VLAP. As an alternative to the acquistion of the road right-of-ways from the City, a Property Exchange is also possible. In lieu of the City selling the road right-of-way property to the Airport, an exchange of property is permitted under the noise land program, where the City would transfer the property of the roads to the Airport, in exchange for an equal value of noise land property transferred to the City. Candidate locations for property exchage may include locations to the southwest of the proposed access road. These areas are recommended to be retained for noise buffer land, but could be transferred to the City instead. As part of the transfer (or any release of noise land), the FAA requires that a permanent deed restriction on the released parcels to insure that the City, or any subsequent owner, does not use the property for a noise sensitive purpose. The exact location and size of the exchanged parcels would need to be determined through negotiation with the City, and would include FMV appraisials. Any land exchanged with the City would be located outside of the 75 dB DNL, as FAA guidance prohibits most non-airport activites, including recreation and parks, within that noise level. Figure 7 shows the location of the possible locations for land to be exchanged with the City. If land exchange is not advanced, the subject parcels would be retained by BTV indefinitely as noise buffer land. NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 15 Currently, a small area of airport noise land is being leased to the City for public Dog Park on Kirby Road (approximately 1.5 acres). The dog park currently located on east end of Kirby Road, adjacent to the airport security fence and within close proximity of the Airfield Operations Area (AOA). As such, security is a concern, prompting a recommendation for relocation for the park. The existing dog park is in a location better suited for aviation-related development. Figure 7 includes several potential areas have been identified for potential exchange with the City. These locations may be considered for relocation of the Dog Park. Note that neither the Airport nor the City is obligated to exchange property. If these areas are not exchanges, the airport would retain the property as noise buffer. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS The process explained above, the short-term and mid/longer-term, can be organized into steps, based on parties involved and priority of action. These steps are outlined below and provide a general guideline for the order of actions. 1. Retain existing Noise Land and reserve for either noise buffer or future Airport development 2. Acquire remaining properties in VLAP by purchasing 37 eligible Noise Land parcels 3. Remove incompatible Land Uses by removing residential buildings 4. Acquire right-of-ways from City, may include exchange for land 5. Implement road removals, may include creation of cul-de-sacs 6. Bundle acquired Noise Lands and former City-owned property into larger tracts of Airport- owned land 7. Implement road improvements, such as creation of potential new access road 8. Re-assess Noise Land for disposal by updating Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 9. Implement Master Plan improvements as recommended on the FAA-approved ALP Existing Dog Park located on Kirby Road Recommendations: Assemble Noise Land by bundling parcels into larger tracts Acquire Road Right-of-Ways, add right-of-way to bundled property, which may include Exchange of noise land. Execute Mid/Long-Term Improvements such as airport road improvements and development of Terminal area facilities included on FAA-approved ALP NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 16 4.3 POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The graph below depicts a potential schedule for implementation phasing of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. This schedule is tentative and relies on extensive coordination between the Airport and the City, FAA and other funding, as well as implementation of the Airport Master Plan. TENTATIVE PROJECT PHASING SCHEDULE Task 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2. Acquire Remaining Eligible Properties 3. Remove Non-Compatible Land Uses 4. Acquire City Right-of-Ways 5. Road Removal 6. Bundle Acquired Properties 7. Implement Road Improvements 8. Re-assess Noise Land for Disposal 9. Implement Airport Master Plan Development NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) 17 SECTION 5.0 REPORT FIGURES Noise Land Inventory Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 1 0 500 1000 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) Properties Acquired (1992-2015) Other Eligible Properties(Not Acquired) 2015 Noise Contours 2020 Noise Contours South Properties North Properties 226 222218214210206 238 234236 150-1521204 810 12 237241 6 Picard Cir225 223 221 184 196 141161171 181 191195199 165 127Kirby Rd 110104 53 39 2515 92 98 54 382410 76 72 68 64 60 56 50 Airpo r t P k w y Hanover StN He n r y C t 7773 69 6561 57 47 44811 37 31 25 13 420 400 392 396 384 39061 87 Dum o n t A v e S He n r y C t 11 21 49 35 44 38 32262012 450 2 4 531441 1391138713831379 449405 10 397 Delaw a r e S t Maryland StAirpo r t D r 1270 - 1 3 6 0 451 1375137112651261125726812 20 27231713 1 35 7 Maryl a n d S t Ledoux Ter15/17 5 11 1247 123712331227122312136 Elizabeth St1253 5 3 1 6 4 2 1205119511851181 Patrick St31 1171116511591155115311511141 1111110711031089108510831079/1081 Airp o r t D r Airport Rd1131 Chamberlin School White StDuv a l S t Pet e r s o n T e r Bar b e r T e r Lynn AveLogw o o d S t Fore s t S t Mi l l s A v e U.S.Rte 2 Terminal Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 75 dB DNL 75 dB D NL 65 dB DNL 200/202 251255261 265 285 287 481 1392-1460Airport Drive 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 1020, 1238-42 5 7 11 15 17 19 - 2 9Airport ParkwaySham ro c k Rd Previous65 dB DNL Previous65 dB DNL Previous Noise Contours Short-Term PlanAirport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 20400800GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Land Use Areas2015 Noise ContoursRoadway ClosureRoadway ImprovementParcels Acquired inVLAPEligible Parcels forAcquisition2020 Noise ContoursPicard Cir Kirby RdAirport PkwyHanover St N Henry CtDumont AveS Henry CtDelaware StM a r y l a n d S t Airport DrMaryland StLe d o u x T e r Eli z a b e t h S t P a t r i c k S t Airport DrDuval StW h i t e S t 75 dB DNLChamberlin School75 dB DNL65 dB DNLTerminalRunway 15-33Runway 1-19Airport PkwyReserved for Aviation-Related Developmentand/or Noise BufferReserved for Aviation-RelatedDevelopment and/or Noise BufferReserved for Aviation-RelatedDevelopment and/or Noise Buffer70 dB DNL70 dB DNL Vision 2030Airport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 306001200GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Future StructuresExisting StructuresFuture Roadways2015 Noise ContoursEligible Parcels forAcquisitionParcels Acquired inVLAP2020 Noise Contours(From Airport Master Plan)Fut. HotelFut. CarWash FacilityFut. LandsideDevelopmentFut. ParkingTerminalExistingParkingFut. AirportMaintenance BuildingWhit e S t Maryland StMar y l a n d S t Led o u x T e rChamberlin SchoolAir p o r t R d White St U.S .Rte 275 dB DNL75 dB DNL65 dB DNL70 dB DNL70 dB DNL65 dB DNLRunway 15-33Runway 1-19Fut. Parking 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) Airport Land Use Areas 2015 Noise Contours Roadway Closure Roadway Improvement Parcels Acquired inVLAP Eligible Parcels forAcquisition 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL Reserved for Airport Development Rese r v e d f o r A i r p o r t Dev e l o p m e n t Reserved f o r N o i s e B u f f e r / G r e e n S p a c e 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Airport Drive Right-of-Way Multi-Use Path Hanover St65 dB DNL Mid-Term Roadway Alignment - Maintain Local Access Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 4 Mid-Term Roadway Alignment - Airport Dedicated Access Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 5 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 2015 Noise Contours Roadway Closure Roadway Improvement Parcels Acquired inVLAP Eligible Parcels forAcquisition 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Airport Land Use Areas Airport Drive Right-of-Way Multi-Use PathReserved forAirport Development Rese r v e d f o r A i r p o r t Dev e l o p m e n t Reserved for Noise Buffer / Gre e n S p a c e Property Bundling Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 6 0 300 600 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) All VLAP Properties(Eligible and Acquired) Bundled Property Tracts 2015 Noise Contours 2020 Noise Contours Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Hanover StDum o n t A v e S He n r y C t Delaw a r e S t Airpo r t D r Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Chamberlin School White StDuv a l S t U.S.Rte 2 Terminal Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL70 dB DNL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q TRACT ACREAGE A 10.24 B 3.74 C 2.50 D 4.83 E 5.50 F 2.26 G 2.87 H 9.64 I 3.12 J 1.58 K 2.51 L 1.15 M 2.40 N 3.94 O 3.64 P 2.01 Q 3.54 TOTAL 65.47 Approx. 175 Parcels Bundled Into 17 Potential Tracts Potential Land Exchange SitesAirport Noise LandReuse Plan UpdateFigure 70300600GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET)Existing Dog Park(To Be Relocated)2015 Noise ContoursRoadway ClosureParcels Acquired inVLAPEligible Parcels forAcquisition2020 Noise ContoursPicard CirKirby RdAirport PkwyN Henry CtDumont AveDelaware StM a r y l a n d S t Airport DrMaryland StLe d o u x T e r Duval StWh i t e S t 75 dB DNLChamberlin School75 dB DNL65 dB DNLRunway 15-33Airport Pkwy70 dB DNL70 dB DNLProposed Roadway Closures(Totals ±9.0 Acres ofRight-of-Way)Existing Dog Park(To Be Relocated)±1.5 acres±4.8acresAreas Identified forPotential LandExchange with City±2.4acres±1.3acres±1.1acres±1.6acresPotential Land ExchangeSitesRoadway Improvement 0 600 1200 GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) 2015 Noise Contours Proposed Roadways Retain and Convert toAirport Development Land Retain and Convert toAirport Noise Buffer 2020 Noise Contours 75 dB DNL 75 dB DNL 65 dB DNL 70 dB DNL 70 dB DNL Kirby Rd Airp o r t P k w y Dum o n t A v e Mary l a n d S t Elizabeth StPatrick StAirp o r t D r Duv a l S t White StChamberlin School Airport Pkwy Runway 15-33 Ru n w a y 1 - 1 9 Terminal Hanover St65 dB DNL Land Disposition Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Update Figure 8 Acquire and Convert toAirport Development Land NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX A BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX A - BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND INVENTORY (1985-2016) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 1079/1081 Airport Drive 11/23/2011 BK 1040, PG 278 1083 Airport Drive 7/28/16 BK 1334, PG 311 1085 Airport Drive 6/25/2013 BK 1168, PG 197-198 1089 Airport Drive 9/18/2013 BK 1186, PG 127-128 1181 Airport Drive 7/23/2013 BK 1174, PG 132-133 1103 Airport Drive 5/17/2006 BK 749, PG 204-205 1107A/B Airport Drive 9/1/2004 BK 681, PG 135-356 1111 Airport Drive 5/12/2003 BK 610, PG 663-664 1131 Airport Drive 1/20/2004 BK 695, PG 315-316 1151 Airport Drive 9/25/2007 BK 796, PG 617-618 1153 Airport Drive 3/20/2008 BK 810, PG 26-27 1159 Airport Drive 4/16/2003 BK 606, PG 129-130 1165 Airport Drive 10/6/2010 BK 962, PG 193-194 1171 Airport Drive 10/24/2003 BK 644, PG 367-368 1185 Airport Drive 11/15/2010 BK 972, PG 19-20 1205 Airport Drive 5/29/2003 BK 613, PG 476-478 1213 Airport Drive 9/18/2007 BK 796, PG 131-133 1223 Airport Drive 7/14/2010 BK 944, PG 181-182 1227 Airport Drive 4/2/2010 BK 926, PG 266-267 1233 Airport Drive 11/9/2013 BK 1194, PG 65-67 1237 Airport Drive 4/28/2004 BK 664, PG 336-337 1247 Airport Drive 6/15/2010 BK 939, PG 216-217 1253 Airport Drive 6/28/2012 BK 1085, PG 331-332 1257 Airport Drive 7/24/2003 BK 625, PG 749-750 1261 Airport Drive 2/17/2010 BK 921, PG 15-16 1265 Airport Drive 12/7/2009 BK 909, PG 248-249 1270 Airport Drive 3/25/1992 BK 321, PG 218 1272 Airport Drive 1/17/1996 BK 388, PG 209 1276 Airport Drive 4/21/1992 BK 322, PG 647 1320 Airport Drive 4/22/1992 BK 323, PG 86 1330 Airport Drive 10/24/1994 BK 369, PG 687-688 1340 Airport Drive 10/31/1994 BK 370, PG 199-200 1350 Airport Drive 7/6/1994 BK 364, PG 461-462 1360 Airport Drive 7/16/1985 BK 212, PG 504 1371 Airport Drive 1/26/2012 BK 1054, PG 64-65 1375 Airport Drive 10/21/2009 BK 900, PG 251-252 1379 Airport Drive 9/17/2009 BK 895, PG 50-51 1383 Airport Drive 5/14/2014 BK 1215, PG 310 1387 Airport Drive 12/7/2009 BK 909, PG 251-252 1391 Airport Drive 1/16/2008 BK 805, PG 130-131 1392 Airport Drive 2/6/1997 BK 403, PG 648-649 1396 Airport Drive 12/23/2003 BK 651, PG 534-535 1399 Airport Drive 9/13/1999 BK 188, PG 492-494 1400 Airport Drive 8/25/2005 BK 237, PG 306-307 1401 Airport Drive 6/10/2002 BK 554, PG 408 1407 Airport Drive 7/28/1999 BK 56, PG 378 1412 Airport Drive 10/23/1991 BK 312, PG 218 1413 Airport Drive 12/21/1998 BK 443, PG 568-569 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 1419 Airport Drive 5/16/1998 BK 428, PG 484-485 1425 Airport Drive 9/4/1998 BK 436, PG 524-525 1429 Airport Drive 8/7/1998 BK 436, PG 283-284 12 Dumont Ave 11/1/2005 BK 209, PG 487 13 Dumont Ave 8/11/2011 BK 1020, PG 219-220 20 Dumont Ave 6/28/2005 BK 715, PG 469-470 25 Dumont Ave 1/29/2008 BK 809, PG 574-575 26 Dumont Ave 3/11/2008 BK 809, PG 172-173 31 Dumont Ave 9/10/2009 BK 892, PG 242-243 37 Dumont Ave 6/08/2016 BK 1326, PG 241 47 Dumont Ave 7/30/2007 BK 790, PG 654-655 56 Dumont Ave 6/29/2007 BK 788, PG116-117 57 Dumont Ave 8/2/2011 BK 1019, PG 112-113 60 Dumont Ave 2/18/2016 BK 1309, PG 226 61 Dumont Ave 7/8/2009 BK 877, PG 309-310 64 Dumont Ave 2/12/2010 BK 920, PG254-255 68 Dumont Ave 10/28/2009 BK 902, PG 202-204 69 Dumont Ave 12/19/2013 BK 1199, PG 65-66 72 Dumont Ave 9/16/2011 BK 1026, PG 121-122 73 Dumont Ave 3/9/2010 BK 923, PG 146-147 76 Dumont Ave 4/29/2009 BK 857, PG 305-306 77 Dumont Ave 1/28/2010 BK 917, PG 256-257 392 White Street 9/2/2011 BK 1024, PG 210-211 396 White Street 3/15/2010 BK 924, PG 21-23 397 White Street 10/24/2014 BK 1239, PG 320 400 White Street 4/13/2009 BK 853, PG 337-338 405 White Street 9/11/2015 BK 1288, PG 95-96 420 White Street 7/10/2014 BK 1224, PG 140 441 White Street 4/8/2013 BK 1151, 335-336 448 White Street 7/19/2013 BK 1173, PG 104-105 449 White Street 5/2/2013 BK 1158, PG 94-95 450 White Street 11/5/2004 BK 687, PG 543-544 451 White Street 11/15/2013 BK 1192, PG 91-92 481 White St. Ext. 2/6/1997 BK 403, PG 644-645 1936 Williston Road 11/30/1995 BK 385 PG 250-251 3060 Williston Road 6/28/01 BK 509, PG 338 3062-4 Williston Road 7/6/1994 BK 369, PG 685-686 3080-3092 Williston Road 6/30/2000 Bk478, PG 133 234 Kirby Road 11/18/2004 BK 688, PG 688-689 236 Kirby Road 8/7/2003 BK 628, PG 721-722 237 Kirby Road 5/25/2006 Bk 750 , PG 145 238 Kirby Road 9/30/2005 BK 728, PG 523-524 241 Kirby Road 7/29/2004 BK 677, PG 92-93 251 Kirby Road 6/28/2005 BK 715, PG 648-649 255 Kirby Road 8/1/2006 BK 756 , PG 680 261 Kirby Road 3/10/2006 BK 743, PG 116 265 Kirby Road 7/17/2006 BK 755, PG 600 285 Kirby Road 10/22/2002 BK 575, PG 5-6 287 Kirby Road 8/1/2005 BK 422, PG 124 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 4 Picard Circle 8/29/2008 BK 824, PG 581-583 6 Picard Circle 4/13/2009 BK 853, PG 334-336 8 Picard Circle 10/15/2009 BK 899, PG 275-276 10 Picard Circle 8/14/2008 BK 823, PG 157-158 12 Picard Circle 9/4/2008 BK 825, PG 180-181 104 Airport Parkway 4/12/2013 BK 1152, PG 39-40 110 Airport Parkway 9/1/2009 BK 891, PG 169-170 120 Airport Parkway 8/18/2009 BK 889, PG 49-50 150-152 Airport Parkway 3/14/2008 BK 809, PG 495,496 200-202 Airport Parkway 12/23/2009 BK 912, PG 318-319 206 Airport Parkway 6/18/2004 BK 672, PG 113-114 214 Airport Parkway 10/30/2002 BK 574, PG 776-7 210 Airport Parkway 1/28/2005 BK 696, PG 128-129 218 Airport Parkway 10/22/2002 BK 573, PG 1-2 222 Airport Parkway 5/25/2005 BK 167, PG 464 226 Airport Parkway 8/31/2007 BK 794, PG 422-423 700 Airport Parkway 7/17/2012 BK 1090, PG 136-137 1020 Airport Parkway 8/15/1997 BK 413, PG 297-298 1238-42 Airport Pkwy 2/28/2002 BK 542, PG 242-243 5 Shamrock Road 9/24/2008 BK 819, PG 250-251 7 Shamrock Road 6/29/2009 BK 875, PG 195-196 11 Shamrock Road 7/9/2003 BK 621, PG 746-747 15 Shamrock Road 5/18/2000 BK 139, PG 554-555 17 Shamrock Road 11/18/1999 BK 465, PG 421 19 Shamrock Road 10/18/1998 BK 439, PG 266-267 21 Shamrock Road 8/24/1998 BK 435, PG 347-348 23/25 Shamrock Road 10/16/1998 BK 441, PG 190-191 27/29 Shamrock Road 4/22/1999 BK 435, PG 24-25 2 Delaware Street 5/19/2011 BK 1008, PG 178-179 3 Delaware Street 11/22/2011 BK 1040, PG 248-249 4 Delaware Street 11/30/2011 BK 1038, PG 109-110 5 Delaware Street 3/24/2011 BK 999, PG 279-280 1 Elizabeth Street 12/18/2012 BK 1126, PG 337-338 3 Elizabeth Street 1/20/2010 BK 916, PG 238-239 6 Elizabeth Street 3/25/2011 BK 1001, PG 46-47 1 Maryland Street 3/17/2014 BK 1207, PG 185-187 3 Maryland Street 3/28/2013 BK 1149, PG 192-193 5 Maryland Street 1/27/2010 BK 917, PG 179-80 7 Maryland Street 6/12/2013 BK 1165, PG 202-203 10 Maryland Street 9/11/2015 BK 1288, PG 92-94 13 Maryland Street 12/11/2013 BK 1198, PG 114-115 17 Maryland Street 9/13/2013 BK 1185, PG 20-21 23 Maryland Street 7/14/2012 BK 1015, PG 314-315 2 Patrick Street 4/27/2011 BK 4001, PG 334-335 3 Patrick Street 10/12/2010 BK 963, PG 309-310 4 Patrick Street 8/23/2010 BK 951, PG 319-320 6 Patrick Street 5/3/2011 BK 1005, PG 252-253 87 Pump Lane 4/2/2013 BK 1150, PG 115-116 10 N. Henry Court 4/5/2011 BK 1002, PG 178-180 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) LOCATION DATE OF ACQUISITION RECORDING 24 N. Henry Court 11/6/2014 BK 1241, PG 125 BK 1241, PG 123 25 N. Henry Court 1/27/2015 BK 1252, PG 126 38 N Henry Court 10/18/2010 BK 965, PG 22-23 39 N Henry Court 12/2/2010 BK 977, PG 266-267 53 N Henry Court 4/9/2012 BK 1070, PG 66-68 54 N Henry Court 3/28/2013 BK 1149, PG 190-191 11 S Henry Court 11/30/2011 BK 1042, PG 286-287 49 S Henry Court 4/6/2012 BK 1069, PG 192-193 2 Ledoux Terrace 10/28/2010 BK 967, PG 291-292 5 Ledoux Terrace 12/13/2013 BK 1203, PG 279-280 6 Ledoux Terrace 2/4/2014 BK 1204, PG 323-324 8 Ledoux Terrace 7/22/2014 BK 1225, PG 210 11 Ledoux Terrace 9/24/2013 BK 1186, PG 304-305 15/17 Ledoux Terrace 10/2/2013 BK 1188, PG 243-244 Poor Farm Road 10/9/2008 BK 827, PG 107-111 National Guard Ave 10/9/2008 BK 827, PG 112-114 NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX B MEETING PRESENTATION 12/1/2016 Noise Land Inventory  and Reuse Plan Update Burlington International Airport Public Informational Meeting #1 March 24, 2016 Program History •The last Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan for BTV was completed in  2009.  •The current property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land  acquisition program at BTV.  •The Land Reuse study findings will be presented to the City of South  Burlington and the general public for comment (Public Meeting #2), prior  to consideration for approval by the FAA.   ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re‐Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re‐Use Plan Update (ongoing) 12/1/2016 Project Background •Traditionally, the objective of airport‐related land use planning is to encourage  land uses that are compatible with aviation operations in the airport environs.  •The purpose of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan update is to evaluate  future use of airport noise lands and disposition of properties acquired for noise  compatibility purposes. •Property acquired for compatibility is commonly referred to as “noise land”. •Once noise land is acquired, FAA Grant Assurance 31 requires airports to alleviate  incompatible use of this land.   •The Land Reuse Plan must then document if the noise land:  •Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes, •Is needed for other aviation‐related purposes, or  •If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non‐aviation purposes. Noise Land Disposition •Disposition of property is referred to as “disposal” of the  noise land.  •“Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell  the property if there are other aviation purposes. •Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion  of the noise land for airport purposes or buffer zones.  •Assurance 31 prevents airports from profiting from transfer  or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to  the FAA or used for airport‐related purposes. 12/1/2016 Project Implementation •The study will include an implementation plan with a step‐by‐step guide  of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs.  •The implementation plan could include:  •Recommended disposition for each parcel by category of disposal. •Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining  properties). •Consider if any properties have potential for exchange for noise land. •Consider the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. •Provide a tentative schedule for implementation. Noise Land Inventory 12/1/2016 Proposed Short‐Term  Program  2030 Master Plan Vision 12/1/2016 Alternate Development Scenario NOT TO SCALE Thank You Any questions or comments regarding the BTV Noise Land Reuse Plan Update or any of the  information discussed tonight, please contact: Gene Richards Director of Aviation grichards@btv.aero (802) 863‐2874, ext. 200 Nicolas Longo Director of Planning & Development nlongo@btv.aero (802) 863‐2874, ext. 236 Project Website:  http://www.btvairportlandreuse.com/ NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) APPENDIX C AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE MAY202016southburlingtonVERMONTMay17,2016Mr.GeneRichardsDirectorofAviationBurlingtonInternationalAirport1200AirportDriveSouthBurlington,VT05401re:Feedbackondraft2016BurlingtonInternationalAirportRe-UsePlan/NoiseCompatibilityPlanDearGene,TheCityofSouthBurlington(theCity)welcomestheopportunitytoprovideinputontheBurlingtonInternationalAirport’s(BIA)draft2016Re-Use Plan. Thefollowingquestionsandpolicypositionsare providedtoyouinthespirit ofcollaborationandclarity.TheitemsinthisletterrelatedtotheDraftRe-UseplanarebasedonthepresentationanddisplaysprovidedtothecommunityatBIA’sMarch23communitymeeting.TheCityalsorecognizesthatsomeofthefeedbackandquestionsbelowmaynotbedirectlyrelatedtotheReUse Planitself.ItisourhopethatBIAwillmakeuseofthisfeedbackinitsoverall planningeffortswhetherforthisPlanorothers.FeedbackonthedraftRe-Use Planaredividedintoseveralcategoriesforeaseofreading,andarefurtherbrokenintothemesofquestions,feedback,andpolicypositionsoftheCity.I.DevelopmentScenariosQuestions:1.Pleaseelaborateonwhattheintent, potentialuses,scale, andfunctionsenvisionedforthevariousdesignationsareoneachdevelopmentscenario.Specifically:1.Onthe“ProposedShort-TermProgram”map:i.ReservedforTerminalAreaExpansionii.ReservedforAirportRoadImprovementsiii.Noise BufferArea/ReservedforAviation-RelatedDevelopment2.Onthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”map:i.Aviation-RelatedDevelopmentii.TerminalAreaExpansionsiii.Buffer/GreenSpace2.Towhatisthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”Mapanalternative?Isitan“alternative”totheMasterPlan?575DorsetStreetSouthBurlington,VT05403tel802.846.4106fax802.846.4101www.sburI.com 3.IstheAirport seekinginputontheelementsofthe“2030MasterPlan”versusthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”?4.Whattype/level/feelofBuffer/GreenSpaceisenvisionedinthe“Alternativescenario?”AirportDrive—AirportParkwayConnectorCityPolicyPositions:1.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsanewroadsegmentconnectingAirportDrivetoAirportParkway.TheCitysupportsaroadwaythat:a.ConnectsthesectionofAirportDriveneartheterminaltothesectionofAirportParkwaynearKirbyRoadb.Isatwo-laneroadway,oneineachdirection.TheCitydoesnotsupporta4-laneconfiguration.c.IsadequatelyseparatedfromandbufferedfromtheChamberlinNeighborhood(fornoisegeneratedbytrafficontheroad,andforvisibility)d.Includesattractivespacesforpublicenjoymentofthetravelingpublicalongandadjacenttotheroadwaye.Followscompletestreetsprinciplesandincludea10’recreationpathandsidewalkf.MeetsallCitystreetdesignstandardsDiscussion:TheCitysupportsanewroadwayconnectionto removethrough-trafficfromthelocalstreetnetworkandprovidemoreclearaccesstotheAirport.Anysuchroadway,though,mustbeconsistentwiththeCity’sgoals andobjectivesrelatedtotransportationandneighborhoodqualityoflife.2.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsapublicly-accessiblelinearpark,artpark,park-like,orotherinvitinglandscapedesignbenefittingthetravelingpublic,runningsouth-northtobuilduponthewindingrecreationpaththatexistsadjacenttotheparkinggarage,toincludingamenitiessuchaslandscaping,arecreationpath,artwork,andbenches.TheCitysupportsthisaspartofbothshort-termplanandlong-termplansinvolvingreconstruction&re-alignmentofAirportDrive/AirportParkway3.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportscontinuedlinksofWhiteStreetandRichardTerrace/HanoverStreetinto AirportParkway.TheCitydoesdonotwishtomakeKirbyRoadtheonlyoptionforconnections.4.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnotyettakenapositiononthe“looping”ofElizabethandPatrick.Alternativesarebeingexaminedandconsequencesmustbeevaluatedbeforesuchapolicypositionisadvanced.TheCitywouldbewillingtopartnerinoneormore“trials”iftheneighborhoodwishestotryandevaluate them,however.5.TheCityofSouthBurlingtoncannotandwillnotcloseanyroadwaysthatprovideexclusiveaccesstohomesorotherbuildingsunlessotheraccessisestablished.6.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnoformal positionontheconceptforthe“Exit14N”1-89interchangepresentedintheAirport’s2030MasterPlan.Itisnotincludedinthe2016SouthBurlingtonComprehensivePlan.2 7.TheCityof SouthBurlingtondoesnotsupportanAirport-onlyroadaccessnetwork,separatedfromthecollectorandairport-accessstreetnetwork,asshownonthe“2030MasterPlanVision.”TheCityprefersthe conceptsforhowthe“AlternativeDevelopmentScenario”connectstotheexistingstreetnetworkand any possibleExit14N.Useof AcquiredLandinadditiontoRoadway1.Asnotedabove,theCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsanewAirportDrivetoAirport Parkwayconnection.2.TheCityof SouthBurlingtonsupportsuseoftheacquiredlandfor creatinganattractiveandcontext-sensitivegatewayto Vermont,ChittendenCounty,andSouthBurlington.3.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsattractivefeaturesdesignedtomitigatenoisegeneratedfromtheAirportand/orRoadway.4.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthemaintenanceofviewsoftheGreenMountains,andMountMansfieldinparticular,accessiblefromtheneighborhood.5.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthelocation ofapublicdogparkandotherpublicspacesandparks, andpedestrianaccessesbenefittingthetravelingpublicintheacquiredlandarea.6.Anyfuturechangestotheacquiredlandshouldsupportgoalsof:a.ProvidingmitigationtothesoundsandotherimpactsoftheAirportb.Creatingasafeandattractive transitionfromathrivingresidentialneighborhoodtoanexceptionalinternational airport7.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonhasnot takenaposition of newbuildingsordevelopmentwithintheacquiredland. TheCitynotesthatany suchdevelopmentwouldlikelyrequireachangeinthezoningandwouldbeevaluatedatthattime.Inconsideringanysuchpossibility,theCitywouldbeconsidering,a.Thecontextoftheneighborhoodandquality oflifeofresidentsb.Attractivenessofadditionstotheneighborhoodc.Noisebufferingeffectsoftheactions8.TheCityofSouthBurlingtonsupportsthemaintenanceandenhancementofsignificantlandscapingservingasabufferfromAirport andanattractiveamenitytotheAirport.OnbehalfoftheSouthBurlingtonCityCouncil,whoapprovedthisletteronMay16,2016,thankyoufortheopportunitytocommentonthedraftRe-UsePlan.inDornCityManager3   MEETING NOTES    From: Jeremy Martelle, ACE    SUBJECT: Project Kick‐Off Meeting   BTV Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan    DATE:  July 20, 2015    ATTENDEES: See attached Sign in Sheet    AGENDA    1) Team Introductions  2) Airport Overview, Project Background  3) Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Objectives  4) Scope of Work  5) Describe Next Steps  6) Meet with Staff to collect/review inventory data    MEETING NOTES    The overall purpose of the meeting on July 9, 2015 was to officially kick off the Burlington International  Airport’s Noise Land Reuse Plan Update.     1. Team Introductions  1.1 The members of the CHA Team and BTV staff were introduced. Points of primary  contact were established and the overall communications between the CHA project  Team and BTV Management were confirmed. While N. Longo will be the primary  contact for the project, he requested that all meeting attendees (attendance sheet  attached) be copied on any correspondence in order to keep everyone in the loop.   2. Airport Overview, Project Background  2.1 The 2009 Part 150 Noise Land Reuse Plan was discussed, as well as the goals to this  update. Keeping the resulting documentation simple and easy to understand will be a  key objective.   2.2 A draft agenda was presented and discussed (attached). It was relayed that the project  may move ahead of schedule but given our past experience this schedule should be the  target.      Burlington International Airport  July 9, 2015  Page 2    3. Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan Objectives  3.1 It is the intention of the Airport to retain as much of the noise land as possible to ensure  the continued viability of the Airport.   3.2 The Airport needs to acquire the road right of way within the acquisition areas. The  Airport may consider an “exchange” of noise land with the City of South Burlington for  this property.   4. Scope of Work  4.1 The scope of work (attached) was reviewed and discussed, there were no suggested  changes to the scope of work.  4.2 It was noted that Program Guidance Letter PGL 08‐02 referenced in the scope has been  updated to PGL 14‐05 since the drafting of the document.   5. Next Steps  5.1 The development for the project website will begin. The website should be simple and  easy to navigate.  The Bradley International Airport website for a current project was  provided as a sample. The web address is: http://bradleyairport.caa‐analysis.com/ . The  scope suggests http://www.BTVLandReuse.org.  5.2 Document collection for the study materials will start immediately as this information  will assist the project team with the next steps. The CHA Project team provided a  documents request list for the Airport (attached). In addition to these items the Airport  will provide the following electronically:  5.2.1 BTV will provide updated land records and Exhibit A.  5.2.2 Most recent master plan update.   5.2.3 Most recent highway access study/plan.  5.2.4 Base map with layers from most current ALP  5.2.5 Airport Property Acquisition Plan mapping (2014?) and/or Part 150 Noise  Compatibility Plan mapping.  5.2.6 Summary of Property Purchases in Excel (12.15.2014)  5.2.7 Vision 2030 Aerial Exhibit (2011?) Is this FAA approved?   6. Meet with Staff to collect/review inventory data  6.1 A field visit was conducted. The project team drove around the neighborhoods where  property acquisition has taken place and observed some of the construction results.   Action Items  1. The Airport will provide the CHA Project team with documents from the documents request list  (above).  2. CHA will provide BTV with the sample website for review. (Complete as of 7/9/2015).          Document Request    Airport Noise Land Reuse Plan  Burlington International Airport (BTV)  Project Kick‐Off Meeting  Thursday, July, 9, 2015 9:00 AM    1. Base map with layers from most current ALP  2. Airport Property Acquisition Plan mapping (2014?) and/or Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan mapping.  3. Summary of Property Purchases in Excel (12.15.2014)  4. Vision 2030 Aerial Exhibit (2011?) Is this FAA approved?  Burlington International Airport (BTV) Noise Land Reuse Plan Update SIGN-IN SHEET Meeting Project Kick Off Meeting Location BurLington International Airport Conference Room I Date Thursday,July 9,2015 Time 9:00 am -11:00 am JE(Lt,k&lLL £I - gC I t%’C tôio @ 6&)Z 53 - Con md D (rin Sro-’e4cpp b-4-v.ceco )EL1[t’Y’c ‘ “4 E OZ —77 ?--779 e AUL Pk puiU@ d &ci atj.c 7o3 Z3s- rfl cc-,d —&(4’J&-,‘- ,(1e42c p57/..4iR-D &Z 5’/5 1’?dJ At’l /2,t!1_VW1 -, BURLINGTON INJEI$ABOIAI.AIIPOKT C+IA—          NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE  BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV)  CITY OF BURLINGTON MEETING    Date: September 29, 2015  Time: 1:00 PM  Location: Burlington City Hall    ATTENDEES  Mayor Miro Weinberger, City of Burlington  Brian Lowe, City of Burlington  Gene Richards, Burlington International Airport  Nicolas Longo, Burlington International Airport  Jeremy Martelle, CHA  Paul Puckli, CHA     MEETING NOTES     The study team met with Mayor Weinberger and his staff to brief him on the project, its  objectives, and address any concerns he and his staff may have.   The Mayor expressed concerns regarding resident displacement and maintaining affordable  housing.   The project team explained the overall scope of the project and the potential outcomes.    The airport staff stated they would keep the Mayor’s office updated on the progress of the  project.                   NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE  BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV)  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON MEETING    Date: September 29, 2015  Time: 3:30 PM  Location: Burlington International Airport    ATTENDEES  Pat Nowak, City of South Burlington Councilor  Kevin Dorn, City of South Burlington City Manager  Gene Richards, Burlington International Airport  Nicolas Longo, Burlington International Airport  Erin, Knaap, Burlington International Airport  Jeremy Martelle, CHA  Paul Puckli, CHA     MEETING NOTES     The study team met with City Councilor Nowak and City Manager Dorn to brief both of them on  the project, its objectives, and address any concern they may have.   The project team explained the overall scope of the project and the potential outcomes.    The airport staff stated they would keep the City of South Burlington updated on the progress of  the project.   The project team discussed the coordination and involvement with the Chamberlin Neighborhood  Airport Planning Committee (CNAPC).   The City asked the project team to meet with their consultants who are working on our  Chamberlin Neighborhood study.  The lead consultant is RSG.   Mr. Dorn would also like bring in the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission,  Charlie Baker into the loop as they are providing funding.                      NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE  BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV)  CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (CCRPC)    Date: October 13, 2015  Time: 3:30 PM  Location: Burlington International Airport    ATTENDEES  Pat Nowak, City of South Burlington Councilor  Paul Conner, City of South Burlington  Christine Forde, CCRPC  Lee Krohn, CCRPC  Pat Nowak, South Burlington  Bob Chamberlin, RSG  Charles Baker, CCRPC  Jeremy Martelle, CHA  Paul Puckli, CHA     MEETING NOTES     The study team met with City Councilor Nowak and City Manager Dorn to brief both of them on  the project, its objectives, and address any concern they may have.   The project team discussed the various airport studies and how the Land Reuse Plan project is  different and separate from the on‐going Part 150 study.     The project team suggested that all stakeholders need to work together to come up with a plan  that meets BTV’s needs, complies with FAA guidelines, and satisfies the community’s needs to the  greatest extent possible.   They provided the project team with pertinent documentation that has been developed on their  part to date.  They have also asked the project team be present at the meeting when the new  noise contours are presented – just so that we can get a sense about how the community feels  about BTV and the noise issue.     They asked if we can meet with the CNAP committee after that to hear what they are doing on  their plan and so that we can share with them what is guiding our project (FAA guidelines and  compatibility with airport operations and needs).                NOISE LAND INVENTORY AND REUSE PLAN UPDATE BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BTV) Chamberlin Neighborhood- Airport Planning Committee Meeting Mintues Date: February 18, 2016 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall - South Burlington The Airport and CHA participated and presented at this regular meeting of the Chamberlin Neighborhood – Airport Planning Committee. Full meeting attendees and minutes can be found at the follow in link: http://clerkshq.com/content/Attachments/SouthBurlington- vt/chamb0218_16d.pdf?clientSite=SouthBurlington-vt ATTENDEES (Representing the Airport)  Gene Richard, Airport Director  Nicolas Longo, Director of Planning & Development  Paul McDonnell, CHA MEETING NOTES Airport staff and consultant presented several slides (attached), and highlighted the following issues and goals of the Reuse study:  Presented the study process, goals, and schedule of the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan. The overall study purpose is to guide compatible land use on the noise land acquired by the airport  Informed the committee of the two planned public meetings for the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan (early 2016 and upon release of the Draft Report).  Identified the Study website where study documents will be posted and comments can be submitted at any time.  Study findings will identify the disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. Recommendations will include retaining some property for future airport use, retaining other property for noise buffer, and could also include property exchanges and/or sale for compatible future development.  The airport cannot profit from the sale of noise land; the federal share (90%) of any sale revenue must be returned to the FAA or reserved for other FAA eligible projects.  The airport intends to continue to acquire properties through the existing program – a fixed deadline for completion has not been determined. Property acquisition offers will continue to eligible home owners based on the availability of FAA funding. In the interim, the existing acquire properties will be left undeveloped as noise buffer. Burlington International Airport (BTV) Chamberlin Neighborhood-Airport Planning Committee - presentation Page 2 February 18, 2016  It was highlighted the Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan is a separate effort from the Noise Compatibility Study / Noise Evaluation. The Reuse plan is focus solely on the short and long-term disposition of acquired noise land parcels.  The Reuse Study is interested in the Committee’s plans and recommendations for road improvements. Consistence in studies’ efforts is beneficial where possible.  Airport staff highlighted that although the airport is planning for roadway improvements (Airport Drive / Airport Parkway realignment), funding has become an issue. FAA and local Airport funding for road improvements will not be available in foreseeable future. As much of the traffic on Airport Drive and Airport Parkway is not airport traffic, road improvement could logically be a community effort (state and municipal). Slide presented at the meeting by the Airport are provided below. 9/27/2016 1 1 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.The objective of aviation-related land use planning is to guide incompatible land uses away from the airport and to encourage compatible land uses to locate around airport facilities. 2.Previous Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan was completed in 2009. 3.The purpose of this study is to evaluate the future use and disposition of properties acquired for noise compatibility purposes. 4.Federally Funded Project (FAA Airport Improvement Grant)-Grant Assurance 31 5.Property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land acquisition program-1990 following the Airport’s first Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. 6.Once noise land is acquired, the airport is required to remove the incompatible use; typically through relocating the residents and removing the houses (or other incompatible development). Then the reuse plan must document if the noise land: Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes, Is needed for other aviation-related purposes, or If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non-aviation purposes. 2 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.Disposition of property is termed a ‘disposal’ of the noise land. 2.Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion of the noise land to other necessary airport purposes. 3.The assurance prevents airports from profiting from transfer or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to the FAA or used for another noise compatibility project. 4.“Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell the property if there are other “FAA-eligible” purposes. 5.CHA team is following the guidelines in FAA Program Guidance Letter (PGL) 08-02, the study will recommend whether the noise land is retained, sold, leased for a compatible use, exchanged, etc. 6.The study findings will be presented to the City of South Burlington and the general public for comment, prior to consideration for approval by the FAA. 9/27/2016 2 3 Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan 1.This update will review the previous proposed disposition and future potential use, as well as additional properties that have been acquired. 2.The study will also include an implementation plan with a step-by-step guide of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs. 3.The implementation plan will provide: •Outline the recommended disposition for each property. areas of each category of disposal. •Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining properties) . •Illustrate if any properties that have potential for exchange for noise land. •Incorporate the planning activities of the City of South Burlington. •Provide a tentative schedule implementation. Record of Meeting Page 1 of 5 Record of Meeting Purpose of Meeting: Burlington International Airport - Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan update Date: 03/24/2016 Location: Burlington International Airport, Burlington, VT Time Started: 6:00pm Time Ended: 8:00 pm Participants Gene Richards Nicolas Longo Paul Puckli Paul McDonnell Lee Krohn Linda Brakel Michael Ashton Bernie Paquette Tracey Harrington Rich Joy Carmine Sargent Paul Conner Gordon Lawrence Kristn Schlenter Meaghan Emery Dough Klinefelter Amanda Hanaway-Corrente Judy Kearns Miranda Jaswold Gwen Kjelleren Helen/Ted Riehle Carolyn Chambers Steven Marriott Joel Clements George Maillo Pat/Bob Nowak Margaret Palumbo Tim Barritt Topics to be discussed 1. Introductions 2. Project Background 3. Noise Land Disposition 4. Project Implementation 5. Maps of property acquisition, short-term program, 2030 mater plan, and an alternate development 6. Participants divided into two groups to answer questions Topic # 1. Introductions Meeting participants signed in and were provided project handouts as they arrived. Participants are seated in groups at round tables. Paul McDonnell of CHA introduces himself to the group and begins the presentation. The meeting begins and speaker introduces himself to the group and gives an introduction of the program. Record of Meeting Page 2 of 5 2. Project Background Mr. McDonnell mentions that the last Noise Land Inventory and Reuse Plan for BTV was completed in 2009. The current property acquisitions are part of a continuing noise land acquisition program at BTV. The Land Reuse study findings will be presented to the City of South Burlington and the general public for comment (Public Meeting #2), prior to consideration for approval by the FAA. The following timeline is presented to participants: ACQUISITION PROGRAM HISTORY Year Action 1990 First Part 150 Noise Study 1997 NEM Update (1997 and 2002 Contours) 2006 NEM Update (2006 and 2011 Contours) 2008 NCP Update 2009 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan 2010 Master Plan Update / Airport Layout Plan (ALP) 2015 NEM Update (2015 and 2020 Contours) 2016 Noise Land Inventory and Re-Use Plan Update (ongoing) He then describes the reasons given for why the land is being purchased by the airport. Land purchased by the airport is to be used as what is referred to as “Noise Land”. This land is to be used in ways that are compatible with aviation operations. Typically, the Noise Land is used as buffer zones surrounding the airport which is known as Noise Land Disposal. Once noise land is acquired, FAA Grant Assurance 31 requires airports to alleviate incompatible use of this land. The Land Reuse Plan must then document if the noise land:  Should be retained for noise compatibility purposes,  Is needed for other aviation-related purposes, or  If the property can be transferred, exchanged, or sold for non-aviation purposes Record of Meeting Page 3 of 5 3. Noise Land Disposition Mr. McDonnell describes the disposition of property and notes that is referred to as “disposal” of the noise land. “Disposal” of noise land does not require the Airport to sell the property if there are other aviation purposes. Nationwide, the most common form of disposal is conversion of the noise land for airport purposes or buffer zones. Assurance 31 prevents airports from profiting from transfer or sale of the property, as any proceeds must be returned to the FAA or used for airport- related purposes. 4. Project Implementation Mr. McDonell explains that the study will include an implementation plan with a step-by-step guide of the required actions, anticipated schedule, and associated costs. The implementation plan could include:  Recommended disposition for each parcel by category of disposal.  Identify any area for the assembly of parcels (i.e., bundling or combining properties).  Consider if any properties have potential for exchange for noise land.  Consider the planning activities of the City of South Burlington.  Provide a tentative schedule for implementation. 5. A map is shown of the properties adjacent to the airport labeling which ones have already been acquired and which are other eligible properties possible for acquisition. Record of Meeting Page 4 of 5 6. A map of the proposed short-term program is shown: 7. The master plan is explained using a map overlay for assistance and is set to extend to 2030: Record of Meeting Page 5 of 5 8. An alternative development scenario is also shown on a map overlay including which roadways could be closed and where buffer zones may be created adjacent to the airport: 9. The presentation is concluded and the attendees are asked to split up into two groups to further voice any questions the public may have. Two groups are formed in front of sets of easels that contain maps and other plan details. Each group has representatives from the airport to answer any questions and to make clarifications regarding the plan and its impacts on the public. Meeting is adjourned and people are reminded to sign the sign in sheet if they have not yet done so. There are also comment cards at each table for participants to ask questions or submit comments within a comment box. There is also a mailing address on the comment cards so that participants may mail in questions at a later time. SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 DECEMBER 2016 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 December 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, M. Ostby, D. Macdonald, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. Forde, CCRPC; D. Leban, G. Maille 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos reminded members there would be no meeting during the week leading up to Christmas. The next meeting will be the first one in January. Mr. Conner: The Airport re-use plan meeting will be held tomorrow night at 6 p.m., at the Airport. There is a long list of potential projects for 2017. Mr. Riehle asked about any big projects that may be “fomenting” that the Commission may not know about. Mr. Conner noted the O’Brien project, Larkin Terrace rebuild, an additional 50 units at Cider Mill II, and Spear Meadows (the preliminary plat closed last week. This involves 49 housing units and a 5-acre park near Vail Drive and 4 Sisters Road. 4. Review and Possible Approval of Draft Purpose & Need Statement for I-89 Exit Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Study: Mr. Conner explained the purpose of a “purpose & need” study. The purpose of the current study is to create safe, comfortable, convenient, direct and distinctive crossing for pedestrian and bicycle travel across I-89 in the vicinity of Exit 14 interchange. Mr. Riehle said the designer of the cloverleaf feels there is no safe way to make it safe for pedestrians and bicycles. He hoped they could “magically” come up with something. Mr. Conner said it is possible that the solution is a separate bridge. It could be as “creative” as a gondola crossing over. Mr. Riehle noted that at the workshops, a separate bridge was appealing to the public. Mr. Klugo felt the priorities need to be re-ordered to make the “identity” and “distinctive place” the primary need. Ms. Harrington noted that the document says this is the “only” crossing. It isn’t. It is the only one in the City Center area. Ms. Ostby said no matter what is built, there will still be “hardcore” bicyclists trying to go to work. She also felt there should be no effort the make the cloverleaf friendly for 10 year olds because it wouldn’t work. She asked about an alternative vehicle access near Exit 13. Mr. Conner noted there is a project at the Regional Planning level involving new and different accesses to the Interstate. These are very large projects. He added that if South Burlington wants to pursue the Exit 12B or Exit 13 options, these would have to be elevated to a project to look at significantly. Mr. Riehle said that by South Burlington being a “good neighbor,” it is being compromised by having so many streets going through residential neighborhoods. He would like the RPC to recognize this and to understand that the community is being stressed by all the traffic and by having to make plans to get more people through this corridor. Mr. Conner stressed that this project is about bikes and pedestrians. Ms. Forde added that the days of just moving cars are past. They are now looking at more than just increasing capacity. Mr. Klugo said that sometimes it seems to him that the city’s Comprehensive Plan is not being considered. Mr. Conner said the city needs to make statements more clearly about where it wants to go as a community if that’s not shining through enough. Mr. Klugo said they need to state what the city is really trying to do. Mr. Conner cited the aims of this project: to connect “downtown” to the rest of the community, transportation, safe access, and a tie-in to Quarry Hill. Mr. Klugo said he would re-order the needs to put the “aspirational” pieces first, then the technical ones that say how to achieve the aspirations. Ms. Leban said the Bike/Ped Committee hears over and over again that there is not a single crosswalk in the city where people feel safe crossing. Mr. Riehle said it is too bad the Interstate System didn’t contemplate the growth. He questioned whether “they owe us something.” Ms. Ostby felt the city could bring in a lot of revenue from university people if it was more attractive for them to access the city. This is especially true if the arena is coming to South Burlington. Mr. MacDonald noted there is now a push for the arena to go back onto the UVM campus. Mr. Conner said that with or without the arena, this will be an activity center. Mr. Macdonald asked if UVM has been approached regarding contribution to this and whether there are federal funds available. Mr. Conner said UVM is participating in the discussions. There has been no talk of dollars as yet. Mr. Klugo suggested adding a statement to the “purpose and needs” that ties this back to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Louisos said they may have to identify two groups of users: those who are commuters and those who want a nice experience. Ms. Leban noted that a lot of serious riders are now coming back to using the bike path. This is probably a result of the number of cyclist deaths last year. Members asked to remove the word “comfortable” from the purpose statement. Ms. Louisos suggested added “visible” somewhere as well. Mr. Conner will bring back language at the next meeting for the Commission to consider/approve. 5. Overview for discussion of Burlington International Airport draft 2016 Re-Use Plan; possible feedback: Mr. Conner identified George Maille and Ms. Harrington as members of the former committee studying Airport neighborhood issues (CNAPC). He stressed that ultimately the “re-use” plan is a “land use plan.” He then noted that airports may undertake a noise compatibility plan that consists of noise exposure maps and a noise compatibility program (which includes home buyouts). Mr. Conner explained that with a noise compatibility program, the airport has to have a plan of what it is going to do with the land they acquire. The first goal of a re-use plan is to move the designation of the land out of the category of “noise land.” This can start with land for airport purposes such as buffers and/or ancillary services. If there is no use for the Airport, the land can be disposed of (to another entity). Mr. Maille explained that if the land is sold to another entity, the money from that said has to go back to the federal bucket. So it is generally more desirable for the Airport to find a use for the land. Ms. Louisos asked if there could be a hotel or parking lot. Mr. Maille said not unless the city changes the zoning of the land. Ms. Ostby asked about tax revenue from something like a hotel. Mr. Conner said it would be the same as any other business in South Burlington. Ms. Louisos said the land is now zoned “residential,” and it is “in limbo” until South Burlington makes a zoning change. Mr. Conner then showed the 2009 Airport plan with proposed roadway reconfigurations, connections of streets, and “re-use” areas. He noted that a new plan came out in 2016, but it does not have a lot of detail. It shows the nearly current acquisition area and includes short, medium and long term plans. It includes closing down some city streets. Mr. Conner stressed that city streets are the sole purview of the City of South Burlington. Mr. Macdonald asked what happens to the “holdouts,” those who don’t sell to the Airport. Mr. Maille said his history is that they eventually “relent” and sell. He added that South Burlington can’t exercise “eminent domain” and give the land to the City of Burlington or vice versa. This could, however, happen if the Airport were to be regionalized. Mr. Conner said the City of South Burlington will absolutely not close roads while there are still homes on those roads. Mr. Klugo asked “what is short term”? Mr. Conner said he will ask that question of the Airport tomorrow. Mr. Conner then showed an overlay of the 2011 Airport Master Plan including a future hotel, and road network. He said the road network is based on an “Airport only” Interstate access. The City of South Burlington has not taken a position of that idea, and it is not in the Comprehensive Plan one way or another. The City is not interested in an “Airport only” access but wants access to city streets as well. Mr. Conner then showed plans that could be “midterm.” One shows a concept with a relocated road network connecting Airport Drive to Airport Parkway with local connected streets. Another shows only connections at Williston Road and Kirby Road and not local streets. The Airport likes this plan because they can get additional FAA funds. Another plan shows areas of land “traded” by the Airport to get land they want. Ms. Ostby asked about a possible “sound wall” as a buffer. Mr. Conner said now is the time to ask for this and this may be the document to accomplish it. He noted there is a committee comprised of members of several surrounding communities as well as South Burlington. They are “gearing up” to decide what to propose to the Airport regarding noise issues. Mr. Maille said a wall would have to be high enough and wide enough and of the right density to be effective. It would also have to be inside the Airport fence. He felt it was unlikely to happen as it would take real estate away from the Airport’s desired use. Ms. Harrington directed attention to page 5 which does not acknowledge that all the land “outside the fence” is under the jurisdiction of the City of South Burlington. Ms. Louisos expressed concern that the buyout area is creeping further west. Mr. Conner indicated the extent of the buyout area. Ms. Louisos asked about F-35 contours as neither the 2015 nor the 2020 maps contemplate the F-35s. Mr. Conner said the mapping that includes the F-35s used a different modeling. The city would like to see maps that use the same methodology as the 2015 and 2020 maps. Mr. Maille felt that is doable and reasonable and the right thing to do. It would help the city to know what it is up against and would allow the city to consider potential future development (e.g., the O’Brien project). Ms. Ostby asked about the avigation easement. Mr. Maille explained that basically it would waive a homeowner’s future rights regarding noise from different aircraft if the homeowner accepted home insulation. Mr. Klugo asked if those in the buyout area who haven’t sold their homes could be in the insulation program. Mr. Conner showed all the homes that would eligible for home insulation. It appears that those who are in the buyout area and haven’t sold would not be eligible. Mr. Conner suggested members read the plan and consider a wider buffer from the road to the neighborhood. He noted that the Planning Commission is under no obligation to weigh in on this. He asked members if they wished to. Members felt they would as ultimately they would be asked to deal with the zoning issues. 6. Status report of FY2017 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program and first consideration of FY2018 requests: Mr. Conner said the Commission will be asked for a formal action at their next meeting. He gave members a handout indicating where all existing projects now stand. Ideas for potential future projects include: a. Phase III of Kimball Avenue project b. 4 more bike/ped connections c. Scenic view inventories d. Natural resources standards e. Parks Siting Master Plan (would have to include connection to transportation) f. Bike/Ped Plan Mapping Mr. Conner felt that in this fiscal year the Commission can do the PUD plus the guide or the PUD plus the first Scenic View inventory. Members felt they wanted the latter unless there is money in the next budget for the Guide. He cautioned members to think about their total capacity for work. Members liked the ideas for the last 2 options, which are new. Mr. Conner said members will be asked to “self-rank” all of the possibilities. The City would know by May which projects CCRPC will be funding. 7. Minutes of 8 November and 22 November 2016: Mr. Riehle moved to approve the Minutes of 8 and 22 November 2016 as written. Mr. MacDonald seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Other Business: a. Proposed amendments to Shelburne Zoning Bylaw, public hearing December 15, 7 p.m.: It was noted that a “gentlemen’s club” is under consideration in Shelburne. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Clerk The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188 (for TTY users 865-7142). Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street, City Hall Burlington, VT 05401 www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Phone: (802) 865-7188 Fax: (802) 865-7195 David White, AICP, Director Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner Jay Appleton, Senior GIS/IT Programmer/Analyst Scott Gustin, AICP, Principal Planner Mary O’Neil, AICP, Principal Planner Ryan Morrison, Assistant Planner Anita Wade, Zoning Clerk Lynn Brelsford, Interim Department Secretary TO: South Burlington Planning Director Colchester Planning Director Winooski City Manager Chittenden County Regional Planning Director VT Department of Housing and Community Development FROM: Meagan Tuttle, AICP, Comprehensive Planner, City of Burlington DATE: December 20, 2016 RE: Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance Amendment ZA-17-09 Enclosed, please find a proposed amendment to the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance:  ZA-17-09 Major Impact Review The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:45 pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington. Please ensure this communication is forwarded to the chairs of your respective Planning Commissions. Submit any communications for the Planning Commission’s consideration at the hearing to me by close of business on January 23, 2017. Thank you, Meagan Tuttle CC: Andy Montroll, Burlington Planning Commission Chair Kimberly Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney Burlington Planning Commission 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7144 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz Andy Montroll, Chair Bruce Baker, Vice Chair Yves Bradley Alex Friend Emily Lee Harris Roen Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur vacant, Youth Member PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance ZA-17-09 Major Impact Review Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §4441 and §4444, notice is hereby given of a public hearing by the Burlington Planning Commission to hear comments on the following proposed amendments to the City of Burlington’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO). The public hearing will take place on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 beginning at 6:45pm in Conference Room 12, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington, VT. Pursuant to the requirements of 24 V.S.A. §4444(b): Statement of purpose: This amendment is proposed to the Burlington CDO as follows:  ZA-17-09: The purpose of this amendment is to create varying thresholds that trigger Major Impact Review, based on the location of the proposed development project, rather than the current on-size-fits-all approach. Geographic areas affected: the proposed amendments are applicable to the following areas in the City of Burlington:  ZA-17-09: This amendment applies to all zoning districts and areas of the City. List of section headings affected:  ZA-17-09: This amendment applies to PART 5 Conditional Use & Major Impact Review, Section 3.5.1 Purpose, Section 3.5.2 Applicability, Section 3.5.3. Exceptions; and Section 3.2.1(d) Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting. The full text of the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance and the proposed amendment is available for review at the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 149 Church Street, Burlington Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or on the department’s website at www.burlingtonvt.gov/pz. Department of Planning and Zoning 149 Church Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 865-7188 (802) 865-7195 (FAX) (802) 865-7142 (TTY) www.burlingtonvt.gov//PZ Burlington Planning Commission Report Municipal Bylaw Amendment ZA-17-09 Thresholds for Major Impact Review This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. §4441(c). Explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and statement of purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to create varying thresholds that trigger Major Impact Review based on the location of the proposed development project rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach. This proposal creates five groups based on similar types of zoning districts. Different thresholds for each group are based on the proposed scale of the project relative to the intent of the zoning district and its capacity to accommodate new development. Conformity with and furtherance of the goals and policies contained in the municipal development plan, including the availability of safe and affordable housing: This proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO) directly supports and helps to implement portions of the City’s Municicpal Development Plan by working to ensure that the development review process itself is fair and efficient. Further, ensuring the development review process is as efficient and effective as possible is a contributing factor in supporting the availability of safe and affordable housing throughout the city. Compatibility with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal development plan: This proposed amendment does not impact future land uses and densities of the Municicpal Development Plan. Implementation of specific proposals for planned community facilities: This proposed amendment does not implement a plan for community facilities. Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance PROPOSED: ZA-17-09 –Major Impact Review As recommended for Planning Commission Public Hearing Changes shown (underline to be added, strike-out to be deleted) are proposed changes to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance. Purpose: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to make clear the distinction between the scope and purpose of Conditional Use vs Major Impact Review, and to create varying thresholds that trigger Major Impact Review based on the location of the proposed development project. Instead of the current one-size-fits-all approach, this proposal creates five groups based on similar types of zoning districts. Different thresholds for each group are based on the proposed scale of the project relative to the intent of the zoning district and its capacity to accommodate new development. PART 5. CONDITIONAL USE AND MAJOR IMPACT REVIEW Sec. 3.5.1 Purpose These conditional use regulations are enacted to provide for a more detailed consideration of development proposals which may present a greater impact on the community, based on either the nature of the proposed use and/or the overall scale of the proposed development, in order to ensure that Additionally, it is the intent of these regulations through the creation of a major impact review: To ensure that projects of major significance or impact receive a comprehensive review under established criteria; and, To ensure that the the anticipated impact of such developments on the city’s natural, and physical character, and fiscal resources and city services and infrastructure are adequate to accommodatemitigated the impact of such developments, both individually and cumulatively. Sec. 3.5.2 Applicability (a) Conditional Use Review: unchanged (b) Major Impact Review: In addition, Major Impact Review shall be required for the approval of all development involving any one or more of the following: Commented [DEW1]: Necessary to clarify the difference and distinction between CU and MI generally and not conflict with other language that follows. Commented [DEW2]: Conditional Use Review and Major Impact Review are two different things and serve two different purposes – use vs development scale. PROPOSED: ZA-16-01 – Major Impact Review DRAFT: 12/20/2016 2 Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline Zoning Districts Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use, Institutional, Enterprise, Residential- Medium Density, Residential – High Density Residential- Low Density RCO-A, RCO-C, RCO-RG, UR Dwelling Units Creation of fifty (50) or more dwelling units Creation of twenty-five (25) or more dwelling units Creation of five ten (105) or more dwelling units or the creation through adaptive reuse, substantial rehabilitation or conversion of ten (10) or more dwelling units; Creation of five (5) or more dwelling units NA Land Subdivision NA NA Creation of five ten (105) or more lots; Creation of five (5) or more lots NA Non- residential or Mixed Use Development A development footprint1 of fifty thousand (50,000) s.f. or more, or the creation of one hundred thousand (100,000) s.f. or more of gross floor area. A development footprint1 of twenty thousand (20,000) s.f. or more, or the creation of forty thousand (40,000) s.f. or more of gross floor area. A development footprint1 of eight thousand (8,000) s.f. or more, or the cconstruction or substantial rehabilitation of reation of fifteen thousand (15,000) s.f. or more of gross floor areaof non-residential developmen. A development footprint1 of five thousand (5,000) s.f. or more, or the creation of ten thousand (10,000) s.f. or more of gross floor area. Creation of five thousand (5,000) s.f. or more of gross floor area2 1 Development Footprint: total area of impervious coverage – buildings and parking. 2 Farm structures are exempt per 10 VSA 6001. Commented [DEW3]: Added based on Council Ordinance Committee comments Commented [DEW4]: Added based on Council Ordinance Committee comments Commented [DEW5]: consistent with Act 250 Commented [DEW6]: Thresholds must bear some relationship to the types of impact being evaluated and the context of the proposed location Commented [DEW7]: added based on Council Ordinance Committee comments Commented [DEW8]: Added based on Council Ordinance Committee comments and slightly less than the current threshold PROPOSED: ZA-16-01 – Major Impact Review DRAFT: 12/20/2016 3 Formatted: Font: Bold, Underline 8. In addition, Major Impact Review shall also be required for Mmultiple projects undertaken by the same applicant or responsible party within any consecutive twelve (12) month period on the same property or on aadjacent property within 1000 feet of the subject property that in the aggregate equal or exceed the above criteria. Sec. 3.5.3 Exemptions Neither Conditional Use and nor Major Impact Review shall not apply be required forto applications involving one or more of the following: (a) Temporary structures that do not otherwise involve a conditional use; (b) Substantial rehabilitation that does not expand the floor area of an existing building or the structural capacity of existing development; (c) Projects that do not result in a change of use or increased parking demand; and, (d) Subsurface site improvements including but not limited to underground utility lines and subsurface drainage ways; and, (d)(e) Projects where the scope and authority of municipal regulation is limited by statute pursuant to 24 VSA 4413. . Sec. 3.2.1 Pre-Application Conferences (d) Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting: A Pre-Application Public Neighborhood Meeting shall be required for all development involving the construction of five (5) or more dwelling units and/or fifteen ten thousand (150,000) s.f. or more of gross floor area of non-residential development projects requiring review under Major Impact (Sec. 3.5.2 (b)) in order to allow neighbors to become aware of potential development projects at an early stage of a development’s conceptual design and for applicants to take into consideration neighborhood comments and concerns. Procedures and requirements regarding matters including but not limited to scheduling, location, public notice, and documentation shall be set forth by the department of planning and zoning. Commented [DEW9]: added to not conflict with other language above. Commented [DEW10]: Makes clear that local review is limited for certain types of uses and activities such as schools, churches, hospitals and other public facilities Commented [DEW11]: Separated from association with Major Impact projects generally but consistent with lowest threshold for Major Impact Review