Conservation Board — Burlington, VT
Date: 2025-11-03
Time: 17:30

Conservation Board Meeting Public Notice
 Monday, November 3, 2025, 5:30 PM

311 North Avenue, Conference Room

1. Minutes
  1.1. Accept minutes from October 6, 2025 meeting

2. Board Comment
  2.1. Copy of BCB letter sent to Office of City Planning regarding New North End development
  scenarios

3. Public Comment

4. Project Review
  4.1. ZP-25-526; 702 Lake St (UR, Ward 2) City of Burlington / Lee Perry
  Renewal of zoning permit for City of Burlington and Marketplace snow storage.

5. Update & Discussion
  5.1. Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 212)
  Presentation and discussion with Alison Spasyk

6. Executive Session
  6.1. As to real estate.

7. Adjournment

8. Informational and Non-Discrimination Statements

  The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious
  affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
  marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City
  is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities and employment opportunities. The programs
  and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who require special
  arrangements, auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to
  participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Burlington, should contact the office of the Title II
  Burlington ADA Coordinator at 802-865-7000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled
  event.

Conservation Board Meeting Public Notice
 Monday, November 3, 2025, 5:30 PM

311 North Avenue, Conference Room

1. Minutes
  1.1. Accept minutes from October 6, 2025 meeting

2. Board Comment
  2.1. Copy of BCB letter sent to Office of City Planning regarding New North End development
  scenarios

3. Public Comment

4. Project Review
  4.1. ZP-25-526; 702 Lake St (UR, Ward 2) City of Burlington / Lee Perry
  Renewal of zoning permit for City of Burlington and Marketplace snow storage.

5. Update & Discussion
  5.1. Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 212)
  Presentation and discussion with Alison Spasyk

6. Executive Session

7. Adjournment

8. Informational and Non-Discrimination Statements

  The City of Burlington will not tolerate unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of political or religious
  affiliation, race, color, national origin, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
  marital status, veteran status, disability, HIV positive status, crime victim status or genetic information. The City
  is also committed to providing proper access to services, facilities and employment opportunities. The programs
  and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals who require special
  arrangements, auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to
  participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Burlington, should contact the office of the Title II
  Burlington ADA Coordinator at 802-865-7000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled
  event.




 Page 1 of 11
Burlington Conservation Board Rebecca Roman, Chair
 Ryan Crehan, Vice Chair
645 Pine Street Zoe Richards
Burlington, VT 05401 Don Meals
http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CB Ethan Ely
Telephone: (802) 865-7189 Dale Azaria
 Evan Horne
 Kelly Farrell




 Conservation Board Meeting Minutes
 Monday, October 6, 2025 – 5:30 pm
 Remote & In Person Meeting
Attendance
 Board Members: Zoe Richards (ZR), Rebecca Roman (RR), Ryan Crehan (RC), Dale Azaria (DA),
 Evan Horne (EH), Ethan Ely (EE)
 Absent: Don Meals (DM), Kelly Farrell (KF)
 Public: Jill Dixon, Rhiannon Sinclair, Jack Millbank
 Staff: Scott Gustin (Permitting & Inspections), Dan Cahill (Parks & Rec)

RR, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

Minutes

September 8, 2025 minutes

A MOTION was made by EH and SECONDED by DA:

Approve the September 8 minutes as written.

Vote: 5-0-0, motion carried. (No EE yet)

Board Comment

RR said VLCT is hiring a water resource specialist.

RC said the Leddy Park bike track is in place now. Dan Cahill said he’s been there. It seems to have
been positively received and is being used by the community already.

Public Comment

None.

Open Space Subcommittee

RR noted that Sharon Bushor offered support of the Open Space Plan during the Open Space
Subcommittee meeting. She’d help advocate for the Tree Ordinance and for expansion of the Legacy
Fund.

Update & Discussion
1. Open Space Plan
 Discussion and adoption of Open Space Plan.

Rhiannon Sinclair and Jill Dixon appeared on behalf of this item.


 The programs and services of the Dept. of Permitting & Inspections are accessible to people with
 disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188.

 Page 2 of 11
 Conservation Board Minutes
 October 6, 2025 - pg. 2



Rhi and Jill presented revisions from the draft Open Space Plan. They’ve added an executive summary,
more info about the Conservation Legacy Fund (CLF), more robust urban forest pieces, updated maps,
and have included a few new actions.

Rhi, the vision and 4 main components remain. We have added additional info where requested. We
have elaborated on the reason for the plan and some key actions. There is more information on the CLF.
The outreach process and events have been noted.

Jill addressed the urban forest content. We have included analysis info and more info on the
recommendations. Additional detail has been added about the emerald ash borer, canopy loss, and gain.
We have fleshed out the “connect” strategy and have taken a closer look at UVM data as to forest patch
age. This content has been supported with case studies at Leddy and Ethan Allen Parks. The revised
plan emphasizes and articulates ecosystem services provided by the urban forest.

Jill, we have made a number of visual improvements to the maps. A stewardship zone has been added
along Englesby Brook. We have elaborated on core ecological lands and waters and have improved the
key connections map.

Rhi, updated actions include a series of standards to compliment and reinforce the intent of this plan. We
have articulated “green planning principles” and included a demonstrative graphic of various green design
measures that can accompany infill development. Additional action items relative to community gardens
have been included.

RC thinks the plan looks great. He’d like to see a breakdown of acreage of the different types of open
space. Also, under “conserve,” need to add language around “keep and protect existing open space.”
There should be something in the plan about making connections between people and the open spaces
in the “connections” section.

ZR noted some small things like identifying the natural areas shown in the photos. As to the opening
quote referring to the west coast, maybe look at something local (done by Christine). Clarify/revise the
land acquisition item in the “Comprehensive Plan” corner.

DA referred to subcommittee notes from earlier today. This plan is amazing. She was pleased to see
modifications to the plan in response to draft comments. In pg. 50-54, there is description of natural
communities, problems facing them, and what restoration measures may be. There’s no indication of
where they are in Burlington. Jill, we’ll follow up to see if there is data as to where, exactly, these places
are. DA, the plan could even refer folks to resources as to where the natural communities may be. Dan
Cahill said we have data from the 2014 Open Space Plan assessment. EH, “Wetland, Woodland, &
Wildland” does this well by identifying natural community types and some places they may be.

RR, the implementation matrixes by section is great. The information provided is necessary and
important. In table of contents, under each item, note pg. # for implementation matrixes. The
communication has improved in this revised draft.

EH, on the core ecological area map, he understands the large mass that extends into Colchester, but he
does not see in the plan why Colchester is included. The shift away from “invasive species” to
“aggressive introduced” should be explained.

A MOTION was made by DA and SECONDED by EH:

Recommend adoption of the Open Space Plan per the comments above.

Vote: 7-0-0, motion carried.

2. PlanBTV New North End




 Page 3 of 11
 Conservation Board Minutes
 October 6, 2025 - pg. 3


 Follow up discussion of comments to provide City Planning.

RR recapped the discussion of this item at last month’s meeting. Conversion of parks/green spaces to
development should be lowest on the list. Put ecology first, not after the plan. We need to account for
nature-based climate solutions. It was helpful to hear percentage of open space retained if development
were to occur. The various city plans need to be in alignment, including with the open space plan.

ZR, we’ve talked about housing and conservation. When Cambrian Rise was permitted, a city park was
established as well as the development. We can do both.

RC, development is basically permanent. It is a big deal to convert part of a park that has stood for
generations to development. He referred to the current Comprehensive Plan that calls for protection of
our parks and open spaces and steering development away from them. UVM has land that they planned
to develop for student housing. UVM scrapped it because it was too expensive. ZR agrees with citing
the current Comprehensive Plan, highlighting the shift in direction. RC noted we have not said “no” to any
development.

EH, the idea of development improving the ecology of these park lands seems off base. Dan Cahill, in
the instance of the Ethan Allen Park concept, as drawn, it would have a lot of open space frameworks
that could include green design measures. There is opportunity for enhancement in some aspects. RR
concurred with respect to the Ethan Allen Park concept – retention of 99% of the parkland, address a
hazardous intersection, and provide housing.

RR, converting green spaces should be lowest priority. Even conceptual planning should consider
ecology first. Development and protection can be considered together. What’s proposed is a total shift in
direction from the current Comprehensive Plan as to protection of parks and open spaces. RC, this is out
of order with an analysis of city-owned properties. That should have been done already. DA, point out
first that the Conservation Board does not typically say no to development. Doing so helps with credibility
in making these comments.

Project Review

1. ZP-25-488; 11 Driftwood Ln (RL, Ward 4) Andrew & Tracy Russell / Michael Koch
 Proposed replacement of deteriorating seawall.

Jack Millbank appeared on behalf of this application.

Jack Millbank overviewed the project. He noted that the existing seawall abuts Leddy Park and extends
onto it. The wall had been stabilized in 2012 with large boulders and smaller shot rock behind it. At that
time, the city allowed access for the work from Leddy Park. Unfortunately, the large boulders allowed
wave action and erosion through the joints. This started out as just a maintenance project and access
through Leddy Park again was requested. Access through the Park was not granted this time. As the
initially proposed wall was not an exact replacement, then zoning approval is needed. The plan has been
revised to show retention of the existing configuration. The new wall will use something called “Panton”
stone that it interlocking to avoid the gaps. A set of wooden stairs will be replaced with stone. Also, we
are removing wooden timbers and leaving stone.

RR asking about the floating silt fence. Jack, use is dependent on the water height and whether frozen or
not.

RC asked access. Jack said they’ll access from the subject property and will simply remove and replace.
RC, do you expect to use geotextile fabric? RC, referring to ESPC. Jack, yes, we will use erosion control
fencing and matting. Jack, will use jute, not plastic mesh. RC, it looks like you’re bringing in topsoil and
fertilizing. Is that necessary? Jack, no, we could use organic hydroseed.




 Page 4 of 11
 Conservation Board Minutes
 October 6, 2025 - pg. 4


EE, take out the comment in the plans about using fertilizer. EE, is there any planting proposed where
the wall is being removed from city property? Jack, we’re not touching that portion of the wall. EE, what
about soil stockpile locations? It would be good to note no soil stockpile within the lake’s flood zone.

A MOTION was made by EE and SECONDED by EH:

Recommend approval of the application with the following conditions:
 1. Utilize jute EPSC materials (not plastic).
 2. Keep soil stockpile out of the lake’s flood zone.
 3. Remove reference to fertilizer on the project plans.

Vote: 7-0-0.

Adjournment

6:54 PM.




 Page 5 of 11
October 7, 2025



Conservation Board Memo
 Re: planBTV: New North End Design Concepts

The Office of City Planning presented to the Conservation Board (CB) at our September
meeting to present the planBTV: NNE Design Concepts.This Phase 2 proposal focused strongly
on developing on city owned land in the NNE, specifically our parks. The Conservation Board
collectively opposes using our protected green spaces for development.

The CB reviews many plans for development for the City. We are responsible for reviewing
projects within the natural resource overlay district, all major impact and PUD projects, and
projects within the Urban Reserve. We are the trusted body for reviewing projects with the lens
for the environment and its role in our community, and we rarely, if ever, say no to a project
presented to us. But we do so now.

The planBTV: NNE Phase 1 feedback clearly states “Access to Nature” and “Environmental
Priorities” as main themes heard from residents. Developing our green spaces does not match
that community input. Development is permanent, and losing our green spaces cannot be
undone. Further, the adopted 2019 planBTV states clearly on page 29 that “[natural areas,
shore lands, floodplains, agricultural areas, recreational resources…] will continue to look and
be used primarily as they are today, with relatively few adaptations intended to allow them to
maintain their natural functions, remain economically viable, available for recreation, and be
well-maintained.” Therefore, if the goal of this neighborhood specific plan is to look at City
owned land, look first to already developed lots like Sears Lane. By our count, there are at least
seven other properties that should come far before considering development in our community
green spaces. Our parks should be the lowest priority when considering development potential.

The CB understands that one of the proposals was building on a previously identified need for
public safety improvements, the Ethan Allen Parkway proposal. In line with the CB approach
that we are not anti-development, we could consider this idea. This project would create a safer
intersection, where there have been multiple previous accidents. It would maintain 99% of the
open space. And it would create housing in an area blocks from the shopping center. Plus, there
could be opportunities for stormwater management improvements and other green
infrastructure that could be in line with the updated Open Space Plan, which plan BTV should
be referencing and in line with.

Thank you for taking the Conservation Board’s concerns into consideration. We feel strongly
that development on our green spaces should be the lowest and very last priority in the city’s
plan for growth and development. It would not be in line with the Open Space Plan, and the
Conservation Board will not support it.

Thank you,
Rebecca Roman
Board Chair




 Page 6 of 11
 11/16/2023
 ZP-23-464
SG




 Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11
Reducing Flood Hazards
The Flood Safety Act in Your Community
Outreach and Education Our Services
The Nature Conservancy and Lake Champlain Sea We offer in-person and virtual presentations,
Grant are partnering to support the Vermont trainings, workshops, and discussions at
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in official public meetings and events, including:
a three-year initiative to provide education and
outreach to communities about rivers, as part of Selectboard or Planning Commission
the 2024 Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 121). Meetings
 Our team is available to present to municipal
 boards and address your questions about the
Flood Safety Act Flood Safety Act, explain its implications in your
Vermont's historic development patterns alongside community, and gather feedback to share with
rivers have left communities vulnerable to flooding. the DEC and legislature.
The Flood Safety Act increases flood resilience by
 Community Events
improving dam safety regulations, protecting Presentations at farmers markets, fairs, and
wetlands, and regulating development in river other community events to engage the public
corridors. River corridors include the land alongside on river science and the Flood Safety Act.
rivers that is likely to be eroded by the river over time. Stream table demonstrations may be available.
Development in river corridors is largely unregulated,
resulting in massive costs in flood damage to
communities and to the state. Limiting new
development in river corridors is the most cost-
effective way for Vermont to reduce future flood
related damages and threats to public safety.



 Images © University of Vermont




 Shayne Jaquith · Watershed Restoration Manager Alison Spasyk · Flood Resilience Educator
Contact Us Shayne.Jaquith@TNC.org Alison.Spasyk@uvm.edu Page 11 of 11

Burlington Conservation Board Rebecca Roman, Chair
 Ryan Crehan, Vice Chair
645 Pine Street Zoe Richards
Burlington, VT 05401 Don Meals
http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/CB Ethan Ely
Telephone: (802) 865-7189 Dale Azaria
 Evan Horne
 Kelly Farrell
 Alan Reichard




 Conservation Board Meeting Minutes
 Monday, November 3, 2025 – 5:30 pm
 In Person Meeting
Attendance
 Board Members: Rebecca Roman (RR), Ryan Crehan (RC), Zoe Richards (ZR), Dale Azaria (DA),
 Evan Horne (EH), Ethan Ely (EE), Don Meals (DM), Alan Reichard (AR)
 Absent: Kelly Farrell (KF)
 Public: Nick Warner, Lauren Chicote, Alison Spasyk
 Staff: Dan Cahill (Parks & Rec)

RR, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.

Minutes

October 6, 2025 minutes

A MOTION was made by RC and SECONDED by ZR:

Approve the October 6 minutes as written.

Vote: 6-0-2, motion carried.

Board Comment

New board member welcome, Alan Reichard’s first meeting. Board members present went around to do
introductions and share a bit about themselves.

RR shared that she sent the letter to City Planning regarding the Plan BTV North End. The letter is in the
packet for the meeting.

Other board members expressed appreciation for RR doing this.

RR asked RC which parcels he was referencing in regard to impervious surface lots that could be
considered for development before looking at parks.

DM heard a loon overhead recently and was enthused by this.

DA raised a question about Governor Scott’s executive order to promote housing development and if the
board should look at that. One way that it does that is to change the scope of wetland permits so that you
don’t have to have a permit if the wetland is not already mapped. DA asked if we should be looking at
Burlington’s wetlands and discussing. ZR and DM thought it was a good idea, and DM shared we should
become familiar with what the process is for designating a wetland.




 The programs and services of the Dept. of Permitting & Inspections are accessible to people with
 disabilities. For accessibility information call 865-7188.
 Conservation Board Minutes
 November 3, 2025 - pg. 2


RC noted the City has done a wetland mapping exercise and we should look at it. RC offered to do a
review of the existing maps to aid in further board discussion.

RR recommended this be placed on the agenda for the December meeting.

RC shared that he planted some native trees/shrubs (with the support of BPRW’s Conservation Team) to
plant a recent buyout property on Riverside Ave.

Public Comment

None.

Project Review
1. ZP-25-526; 702 Lake St (UR, Ward 2) City of Burlington / Lee Perry
 Renewal of zoning permit for City of Burlington and Marketplace snow storage

Lee Perry appeared on behalf of this application.

RR prefaced the item with an overview that DPW comes before the Conservation Board every 2 years to
get a permit for snow storage at the “flying A” site in the Urban Reserve.

Lee Perry introduced himself and gave an overview of how they use the space for snow storage and
efforts to prepare for the upcoming season.

DM asked if there are any informal uses of the snow piles in the Flying A (kids for sledding or
snowboarding).

A MOTION was made by DM, and SECONDED by RC:

Approve the renewal of zoning permit for City of Burlington and Marketplace snow storage.

Vote: 8-0-0, motion carried

Update & Discussion

1. Vermont Flood Safety Act (Act 212)
 Presentation and discussion with Alison Spasyk

Alison Spasyk appeared on behalf of this item.

Alison Spasyk gave an overview of the flood safety act.

DM asked if there has been consideration of the management of intermittent streams as a part of Act 121.
Alison shared that her understanding is that intermittent streams would fall to municipalities to regulate.

EE asked, what is the new regulation? Is it banning development in river corridors? Alison confirmed that
we don’t know yet. The development of Act 121 is in the early stages.

EE asked what happens with municipalities in the river corridor, if they “undevelop” a downtown area? In
this scenario would they be able to develop again? Alison noted this may be governed more by ACT 181,
but we will soon know more about whether Act 121 will also address this.

RC encouraged Alison to look closely at the delegated authority and ensure that the authority exists
within a local body with the ability to uphold standards (in Burlington’s case Conservation Board reviews
permits yet is advisory and lacks ability to fully uphold its determinations).
 Conservation Board Minutes
 November 3, 2025 - pg. 3


RR asked how Act 121 will affect river corridor easements. Alison noted this is a really good question.

EE asked, if a town chooses not to regulate itself, does that mean development permits in the river
corridor would be a state permit process? Alison confirmed, yes.

Executive Session

As to real estate

A MOTION was made by DM, and SECONDED by EE:

Approve the Board to enter into Executive Session at 6:45pm.

Vote: 8-0-0

The Board moved to leave executive session at 7:35pm

Adjournment

7:36 PM.