Development Review Board — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-04-21
Time: 17:00

Development Review Board
 Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 5:00 PM

645 Pine Street, Front Conference Room or Remote on Zoom:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83225696227?pwd=SGQ0bTdnS000Wkc3c2J4WWw1dzMxUT09
Webinar ID: 832 2569 6227
Passcode: 969186
Telephone: US +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782
or +1 346 248 7799
1. Agenda

2. Communications

3. Minutes

4. Consent
 4.1.
 ZP-26-92; 133 King Street (RH, Ward 5) Champlain Housing Trust / Donal Dugan
 Proposed amendment to ZP-25-553 for conversion of seven room SRO into two apartments, to convert
 seven room SRO into three apartments; retaining existing two apartments in the rear. (Project Manager,
 Mary O’Neil)


 4.2.
 ZP-26-36; 175 Institute Road (I, Ward 7) City School Department / Administrative Offices/EED / David
 Marshall
 Proposed stormwater modifications consistent with objectives of an EPA-administered enhancement
 grant. (Project Manager, Scott Gustin)

5. Public Hearing
 5.1.
 ZAP-26-3; 25 Cherry Street (FD6, Ward 3) Burlington Harbor Hotel GP, LLC / Daniel Seff
 Continued review of appeal of administrative denial of ZPS-26-4 of a sign package. (Project Manager,
 Mary O’Neil)

 5.2.
  ZP-26-100; 43 Front Street (RM, Ward 3) Emily Stone / Emily Stone Living Trust / Jamie Hart
  Variance request for exemption to rear setback requirement for the construction of an addition. (Project
  Manager, Scott Gustin)

6. Certificate of Appropriateness
  6.1.
  ZP-25-616 / ZP-26-125 / ZP-26-126 / ZP-26-127 / ZP-26-128; 29 Intervale Road / 35 Intervale Road / 128
  Intervale Road / 99 Intervale Road (E-LM, & E-APE, Wards 1 & 2) Charlebois Garage / Queen City Iron
  Metal CO, Inc. / Gardens Alive, Inc. / City CEDO / Julia Ursaki
  Proposed construction of retaining wall, installation of swale and pipe to improve drainage, and relocation
  of soil storage bays to accommodate City’s new-shared use path. (Project Manager, Mary O’Neil)

7. Adjournment

8. Informational and Non-Discrimination Statements
  8.1.
  Plans may be viewed upon request by contacting the Department of Permitting & Inspections between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30
  p.m. Participation in the DRB proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. Please note that ANYTHING
  submitted to the Zoning office is considered public and cannot be kept confidential. This may not be the final order in which items will
  be heard. Please view final Agenda, at www.burlingtonvt.gov/dpi/drb/agendas or the office notice board, one week before the hearing
  for the order in which items will be heard.

  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. For accessibility information or alternative formats, please contact Human Resources Department at (802) 540-
  2505.

AJ LaRosa
 Caitlin Halpert
 Evan Gould
Burlington Development Review Board Geoff Hand
Department of Permitting & Inspections Sean McKenzie
645 Pine Street Leo Sprinzen
 Miles Waite
Burlington, VT 05401 Marina Campbell, (Alternate)
www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPI/DRB Chase Taylor, (Alternate)
Telephone: (802) 865-7188
Fax (802) 863-0466



 BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
 Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 5:00 PM
 MINUTES

 Hybrid & In Person (at 645 Pine Street) Meeting

 Board Members Present: AJ LaRosa, Evan Gould, Geoff Hand (5:15 PM), Sean McKenzie, Leo Sprinzen,
 and Chase Taylor

 Board Members Absent: Caitlin Halpert, Miles Waite, and Marina Campbell

 Staff Members Present: Scott Gustin, Mary O’Neil, Kimberlee Sturtevant, and Joseph Cava

 Staff Members Absent: Kirk Dressing and Collin Naheedy

 I. Agenda
 II. Communications
 III. Minutes
 IV. Consent

 1. ZP-26-92; 133 King Street (RH, Ward 5) Champlain Housing Trust / Donal Dugan
 Proposed amendment to ZP-25-553 for conversion of seven room SRO into two apartments, to
 convert seven room SRO into three apartments; retaining existing two apartments in the rear.
 (Project Manager, Mary O’Neil)

 AJ LaRosa: Is the applicant present?

 Mary O’Neil: A memo was uploaded requesting to defer this item.

 AJ LaRosa: Motioned to defer this agenda item to a date to be determined, Evan Gould 2nd. Vote 5-
 0. Motion carried.

 2. ZP-26-36; 175 Institute Road (I, Ward 7) City School Department / Administrative
 Offices/EED / David Marshall
 Proposed stormwater modifications consistent with objectives of an EPA-administered enhancement
 grant. (Project Manager, Scott Gustin)
 David Marshall: Sworn in.

 AJ LaRosa: Is the applicant present? This item is marked as consent. Has the applicant had a chance
 to review the staff report, and do you have any questions or comments?

 David Marshall: Yes, and no questions.

 AJ LaRosa: Would anyone on this Board have an issue with treating this item as consent? Hearing
 none, are there any questions or comments from members of the Board? Hearing none, are there any

 The programs and services of the City of Burlington are accessible to people with disabilities.
 Individuals who require special arrangements to participate are encouraged to contact the Zoning Division at least 72 hours in advance
 so that proper accommodations can be arranged. For information call 865-7188 (TTY users: 865-7142).
 Printed on 100% Recycled Paper
 questions or comments from members of the public in attendance? Hearing none, would someone
 like to make a motion?

 AJ LaRosa: Motioned to approve and adopt staff findings and recommendations, Chase Taylor 2nd.
 Vote 5-0. Motion carried.

V. Public Hearing

 1. ZAP-26-3; 25 Cherry Street (FD6, Ward 3) Burlington Harbor Hotel GP, LLC / Daniel Seff
 Continued review of appeal of administrative denial of ZPS-26-4 of a sign package. (Project
 Manager, Mary O’Neil)
 Daniel Seff and Kimberlee Sturtevant: Sworn in.

 AJ LaRosa: I am recused on this item.

 Evan Gould: This is a continued review of an appeal of an administrative denial. Is the appellant
 present?

 Daniel Seff: Yes.

 Mary O’Neil: The City Attorney, Kimberlee Sturtevant, is also present to speak on this item.

 Kimberlee Sturtevant: I have reviewed the materials and I read it as construed statutory regulations.
 The intent is ultimate to not proceed. The perpendicular façade feature is questioning the definition
 of what an iconic structure feature is. I interpreted it from the Planner’s point of view, and I interpret
 iconic as something historic or monumental. This is a comparison of new versus old features. In
 going through the process, I find that the statutory interpretation to be construed.

 Sean McKenzie: So in order for the sign to be iconic, the mechanism in which the sign is attached to
 needs to be iconic?

 Kimberlee Sturtevant: Correct.

 Evan Gould: Since the mechanism is what makes the proposed sign iconic what would not be
 iconic?

 Kimberlee Sturtevant: That is correct based on the examples outlined in the Comprehensive
 Development Ordinance (CDO) of existing signs. This does not allow the production of new
 features. There are rules about how existing features count towards being iconic.

 Sean McKenzie: If we interpret this type of sign for how it is described, then how do we make it
 iconic?

 Evan Gould: It is the hardware holding the sign.

 Kimberlee Sturtevant: It is difficult to define what is iconic.

 Evan Gould: It is the identifiable structural feature.

 Geoff Hand: I find this ambiguous, which usually finds in the landowners favor.

 Kimberlee Sturtevant: It is the language of intent. I do agree that this is a grey area. It is this Board’s
 interpretation of these regulations.
 Evan Gould: If the description included more detail regarding the dimensional information of the
 iconic structural support features, then could it be included?

 Sean McKenzie: First, we would need to determine if it is iconic.

 Scott Gustin: The code could have been written more clearly, but the intent is not to create any new
 non-conforming signs.

 Evan Gould: So the limitations are based on not creating any new non-conformities.

 Daniel Seff: It is very interesting that the City Attorney and Mr. Gustin are invoking legislative
 intent. The ambiguity must be found in favor of the landowner, as we do not interpret it this way. If
 the sign projects perpendicular from the building, it can be the building and sign that make it iconic.
 The sign itself also needs to be iconic through its design and use of materials. Another ambiguity is
 how to define the word iconic. Pre-existing signs are not intended to be changed, creating further
 ambiguity for any new development. The one conclusion is the proposed signage should be
 approved due to ambiguities. There are many different ways that this provision of the CDO could
 have been written to reduce this ambiguity. My client has spent millions of dollars ensuring that this
 design would meet the rebranding scheduled for early June.

 Evan Gould: Are there any additional questions or comments from members of the Board? Hearing
 none, are there any questions or comments from members of the public in attendance? Hearing none,
 we will close the hearing on this item and deliberate on this item later on this evening.

2. ZP-26-100; 43 Front Street (RM, Ward 3) Emily Stone / Emily Stone Living Trust / Jamie
 Hart
 Variance request for exemption to rear setback requirement for the construction of an addition.
 (Project Manager, Scott Gustin)
 Emily Stone, owner, present, Jamie Hart: Sworn in.

 AJ LaRosa: Is the applicant with us?

 Scott Gustin: Yes, the owner and applicant are present online.

 AJ LaRosa: Can you give us your argument entitling you to a variance?

 Jamie Hart: Our argument is the shallowness of this lot in comparison to other properties along Front
 Street. Because of this shallowness, we are hoping that the Development Review Board (DRB)
 would entertain a variance. Other properties along this street have also encroached within the 15-foot
 setback.

 Evan Gould: Was the addition of the existing house constructed in the setback?

 Jamie Hart: I am not sure. The amount of usable space in this area is limited.

 Evan Gould: Would it be possible to build on the side in conformity with the setback?

 Jamie Hart: The owner has not entertained this type of proposal.

 AJ LaRosa: Scott, can you speak on the existing shed in the side yard?

 Scott Gustin: The proposed second-story porch is what is causing the non-conformity with the
 setback.
 Emily Stone: I appreciate you taking the time to hear my case. Building to the south side would not
 be aesthetically in keeping with the existing house or the neighborhood. My strong preference would
 be to enclose the rear porch for seasonal usage. As my project architect stated, this is based on the
 time, money, and planning has been put into this project.

 AJ LaRosa: I want you to be fully aware that the variance standards are stringent.

 Emily Stone: I understand.

 AJ LaRosa: Hearing no additional questions or comments, we will close the hearing on this item to
 deliberate later on.

VI. Certificate of Appropriateness

 1. ZP-25-616 / ZP-26-125 / ZP-26-126 / ZP-26-127 / ZP-26-128; 29 Intervale Road / 35 Intervale
 Road / 128 Intervale Road / 99 Intervale Road (E-LM, & E-APE, Wards 1 & 2) Charlebois
 Garage / Queen City Iron Metal CO, Inc. / Gardens Alive, Inc. / City CEDO / Julia Ursaki
 Proposed construction of retaining wall, installation of swale and pipe to improve drainage, and
 relocation of soil storage bays to accommodate City’s new-shared use path. (Project Manager, Mary
 O’Neil)
 Corey Mims: Sworn in.

 AJ LaRosa: Can you tell us about this project?

 Corey Mims: The shared-use path has been a long planned project under Plan BTV. There are a
 number of site features that need to be implemented for pedestrian safety and usage. We are
 approaching you to amend existing site features as part of the development.

 AJ LaRosa: How far does this run?

 Corey Mims: Down to the railroad tracks.

 Mary O’Neil: Collectively, these applications could have been reviewed administratively, if not for
 the retaining wall being within two feet of the property boundary line. There has been a lot of
 engineering input as part of these proposals.

 Chase Taylor: Can you clarify the location.

 Corey Mims: Near the soil storage bunkers.

 AJ LaRosa: Is there anyone present online looking to speak on this? Hearing none, we will close the
 hearing on this item to deliberate on this evening’s agenda items.

VII. Adjournment
 Hearing closed at 5:50 PM.



 Plans may be viewed upon request by contacting the Department of Permitting & Inspections between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
 4:30 p.m. Participation in the DRB proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. Please note that
 ANYTHING submitted to the Zoning office is considered public and cannot be kept confidential. This may not be the final order in
 which items will be heard. Please view final Agenda, at www.burlingtonvt.gov/dpi/drb/agendas or the office notice board, one week
 before the hearing for the order in which items will be heard.
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. For accessibility information or alternative formats, please contact Human Resources
Department at (802) 540-2505.