Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Airport Rezoning Task Force - 01/20/2022AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 The South Burlington Airport Rezoning Task Force met on Thursday, 20 January 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 180 Market Street. Members Present: C. Sargent, K. Robison, I. Bissell, M. Ostby, P. Engels, M. Emery Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; K. Peterson, City Planning; B. Saxton, consultant; J. Richards, J. Leas 1. Agenda Review: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Election of Chair: Ms. Sargent and Ms. Robison expressed willingness to serve as co-chairs. Ms. Emery nominated Ms. Sargent and Ms. Robison as co-chairs. There were no further nominations, and in the vote that followed Ms. Sargent and Ms. Robison were elected unanimously. 3. Comments & Questions from the Public Not Related to the Agenda: Mr. Richards: Introduced himself as owner of Aerodyne at the Airport and said he would like to provide an introduction to “general aviation” at the Airport. He noted that this use represents 50% of Airport operations. They also train pilots and mechanics (where there is currently a shortfall) and provide flight experience, bridging the gap between a pilot’s first solo flight and a commercial flying career. General aviation is also involved with the Air Ambulance. They are currently reducing pollutants and using cleaner fuels to help the environment. They provide hundreds of STEM jobs at salaries above the livable wage. They also pay property and all appropriate taxes. Mr. Bissell asked about “av gas.” Mr. Richards said it is a leaded gas used by small aircraft. There are initiatives to change to lead-free gas similar to what is used in cars. Mr. Richards stressed that these are tough issues and have to deal with safety in the sky. Ms. Peterson noted that since this is not a warned agenda item, staff would be willing to put it on a future agenda, if members are interested in more information. AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 2 4. Discussion on Structure of Meetings: Members agreed to maintain both the in person and remote attendance options as the City Manager has encouraged remote attendance for the time being. Mr. Engels noted that public participation has gone way up with the remote option. Mr. Conner noted that regardless of COVID, city meetings will continue to have a remote option for the foreseeable future. Several members asked for an option to pick up meeting materials rather than printing out length meeting packets. Ms. Peterson agreed to provide print copies to members who request them. Ms. Peterson explained how agendas are set and noted that members can ask for items to be put on future agendas under “other business.” Mr. Conner explained that the process is geared to meeting the open meeting laws. 5. Discussion with Brandy Saxton: Ms. Saxton noted the “homework” portion of the meeting packet involved two words: buffer and transitions. She asked members to share their perspective on those words and what they mean in the context of the Airport. Mr. Engels: A buffer is a space that mitigates the clash between 2 environments. Ms. Ostby: A buffer instills a concept of protection. She questioned whether a buffer needs to be a visual block. Mr. Bissell: He didn’t think a buffer needs to physically block something, especially in this context. There can be a noise buffer. He didn’t feel buildings will block noise. Ms. Sargent: Noted that the Airport Garage serves as a valid buffer though it also blocks a view. She felt buffer would have a different meaning on Kirby Road; it depends on where you are and what is happening. Ms. Emery: A buffer would have no development and not be used for airport operations. It would be an area to create separation visually and acoustically. She felt trees and green space do provide some protection. AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 3 Members then provided their perspectives on “transitions.” Ms. Sargent: A space that is safe to protect visual and audio field from the Airport and its activities. Mr. Bissell: Didn’t see a huge difference from “buffer.” Felt a transition would be neither a residential nor an airport space. He envisions it as a green space to be used as recreation space. Ms. Ostby: A complementary and respectful connection between 2 different “worlds.” Mr. Engels: A change from one environment to another with one environment supplanting the other. Mr. Saxton said people appear to be using the 2 words synonymously, but they do have different meanings from a planning point of view. She said it will be the members’ task to define the 2 words. She asked what members thought a transition between the Airport and the residential neighborhood would look like. Ms. Ostby: It would be great it if isn’t the “back of a garage door” or a big parking lot. She would like to see protection for the school from noise and speeding trucks. It should be mindful of has previously been there and should be causing no harm. Mr. Bissell: It could look like a litany of things. He didn’t think it had to be something new. Ms. Robison: Most of General Aviation now is closer to Williston Road. If you move more of it to Kirby Road, there will be more transitions. People will be going to work in those buildings. S Ms. Sargent: It would be a transition from a residential neighborhood to an industrial complex. She was concerned they would lose what they have gained, and it would all be for the benefit of the Airport. She felt the Airport’s request is way off base and is an invasion of the residential neighborhood. Ms. Emery: From the residents’ point of view, it puts the road close to the fence; from the Airport point of view, it puts the road closer to the neighborhood. AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Engels: Felt that the Airport will eventually take over the buffer between the Airport and the residential neighborhood for hotels, etc. That is the “planned transition.” Ms. Sargent noted that the Airport was given the land, and if they don’t use it, they have to return it. Mr. Bissell felt it can be maintained as a sound buffer. Ms. Saxton reminded members of their charge: to consider the Airport’s request for rezoning, to take public comment, and to prepare a report. She stressed it is not a yes/no situation. The task force can come up with alternatives. The City Council has asked for a report by the end of May. The schedule will involve 2 public input meetings (3 February and 17 March). Ms. Saxton then showed a map of the 11 acres that have been requested for rezoning. They are now zoned R-4 and abut Airport and Commercial-Industrial zoning districts. Ms. Saxton then review what the Comprehensive Plan says. She showed the location of the area within a city map. It is not a transition area which speaks to the need for a buffer or transition. There is no clearly articulated vision for the future use of the adjacent area, but there is a recognition of the need to update this in the future. Mr. Conner noted that at the time there were a lot of things happening at the Airport, and the Planning Commission wanted to wait until there was more certainty. Ms. Ostby felt it would be good to have a person from the Economic Development Committee present. Ms. Saxton noted that John Burton offered to have someone replace him tonight, but she told him it wasn’t necessary for this meeting. Ms. Saxton then reviewed the Chamberlin Neighborhood Plan. She noted the subject area is not entirely in the neighborhood as it was defined. The primary focus of the plan is on transportation improvements and related public amenities. There is also no clear policy on future land use within the subject area. Ms. Robison noted that a dog park was one of the uses considered for part of that land. Ms. Ostby cited the view shed and asked whether the task force has the ability to consider a portion of the 11-acre land and whether they incorporate the view shed as a land use on a portion. Ms. Saxton said they can. What they cannot do is go beyond the 11 acres. Ms. Saxton then reviewed zoning authority and limitations. She noted that municipalities have only the authority granted to them by the state. Zoning must be consistent with policies in the AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 5 community’s municipal (comprehensive) plan. Zoning also cannot deprive a land owner of all economically viable use of the land. Ms. Saxton noted that R-4 allows only uses within the subject area that the FAA considers incompatible with airport operations. FAA regulations of airport operations and air traffic safety preempt city and state authority. She asked members to keep in mind what are the economically viable uses of the land and whether the owner has options. Ms. Ostby asked whether the land the Airport acquired automatically fall under FAA regulations. Ms. Saxton said FAA regulations incorporate Airport operating areas. From the Airport’s perspective they have extended the Airport operating area to include the 11 acres. That doesn’t mean there is no ability to regulate them, but not against FAA regulations. Ms. Ostby noted that the Airport master plan has not been approved by the FAA. Ms. Peterson said that is true. Ms. Saxton noted that process in underway. Ms. Emery said she thought the local community did have control over hours of operation. She noted that Nick Longo said the Airport must engage with local planning and zoning processes and has to show this has taken place. That process has to include public input. Ms. Emery noted that green space and parks are allowable uses. Ms. Saxton said the question is whether green space meets the “economically viable” requirement. Ms. Robison said the area is zoned residential and could stay that way. Ms. Saxton said that is a question. Ms. Ostby noted there are different parcels involved and asked whether they have to consider the economic viability of each parcel or of the 11 acres as a whole. Ms. Saxton said the Airport owns many, many lots. There is a question as to whether some of those lots could have economic value and the remainder be open space. Ms. Peterson said she has asked that question and others of the City Attorney and hoped to have answers for the next task force meeting. Regarding Airport Compatible Uses, Ms. Saxton noted that the FAA can’t regulate land use and can’t tell the city what to do. The FAA can tell the Airport what to do with their land. The FAA gave the 11 acres to the Airport and requires it to be used for ways that are compatible with Airport operations. If the FAA disposes of the land, the easements go with the property that future uses will always be compatible with Airport operations, in perpetuity. AIRPORT REZONING TASK FORCE 20 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 6 Members then discussed the process for the public input meeting. Ms. Robison noted in the past such meetings have resulted in people venting frustrations. Ms. Saxton said she will do her best to point out what can and can’t be solved through zoning. There will also be a process for written submissions. Mr. Engels noted that the Airport is talking about a building for storage of snowplows, but he noted there are 3 other buildings. Ms. Saxton said the “commercial” buildings are not on the plan, and the Airport has not presented a site plan just a conceptual idea. The maintenance building is more thought out. Mr. Bissell noted conversations taking place in the City of Burlington where Mr. Longo is pushing for general aviation to go on this land. He stressed that there was a reason Mr. Richards made his presentation on general aviation at the beginning of this meeting. He felt this is beyond a “conceptual” stage, even though it is not engineered. Ms. Saxton acknowledged this is true. She said the task force has to come up with a “menu” of uses to allow on that property, not a specific plan. Ms. Emery said it is in the neighborhood’s interest to express the concerns and to establish the parameters of what should be allowed there. These should include consideration for air and water quality, especially if underground fuel tanks are being considered next to a stream. Ms. Robison asked if the task force can ask for a site plan. Ms. Saxton said that would be doing it backwards. First you establish the rules. Then you craft a plan that fits within those rules. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Leas said that if there is room on the Airport for a maintenance building, the Airport should be required to build it there. He felt that was grounds for denying the Airport’s request. He felt the task force could maintain the existing zoning. 6. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the task force, Mr. Bissell moved to adjourn. Ms. Robison seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.