Burlington Planning Commissioner Lee Buffinton resigned from her position Thursday, hours after she recused herself from a hearing on a controversial zoning change that would allow 14-story buildings to be built in a section of downtown.
The six-year commissioner told Seven Days that her job at Champlain Housing Trust made a conflict of interest inevitable. At Wednesday’s commission meeting, Sarah Muyskens, the chair of CHT’s board, read a statement in favor of the zoning change, meant to enable redevelopment of Burlington Town Center.
Her recusal came after Commissioner Emily Lee read a letter, cowritten by Buffinton, that questioned the legality of Wednesday’s public hearing at City Hall and urged a slowdown in examining the proposed mixed-used residential, retail and office complex.
CHT has an employee conflict-of-interest policy that prohibits “public opposition of any CHT mission-related activity or project.”
“When Lee first joined the planning commission, folks told her this could be an issue from time to time,” Chris Donnelly, CHT’s director of community relations, told Seven Days. When she heard the statement from CHT in support of the development, “she realized that was a trigger,” Donnelly added.
Only four of seven commissioners ultimately voted on the proposal, and each of them supported sending the proposed zoning ordinance to the city council.
The $200 million project, headed by mall owner Don Sinex, includes plans for 160-foot-tall buildings on land bounded by Cherry and Bank streets. It would also reconnect portions of Pine and St. Paul streets, which were segmented when the mall was built in the 1970s.
Buffinton said CHT’s role in this and other upcoming projects, such as the one proposed on land once owned by Burlington College, meant she would frequently have to recuse herself from meetings and discussion.
“The planning commission deserves a full slate of seven engaged members to deliberate on these important issues,” she told Seven Days.
Buffinton also cited “personal reasons” for resigning — but did not elaborate.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Something is fishy here.
My compliments to Ms. Buffington for stepping down and to publicly state that she cannot “serve two masters”. She was in an untenable situation, in which her integrity and impartiality would be questioned, regardless of how she voted or participated. That is why in many communities people who work for development companies or in real-estate do not serve on boards related to zoning decisions. While it is not technically illegal for them to serve, their biases and occupations always made their decisions suspect.
In a similar position, the PC Chair, Yves Bradley, as well as other boards members, also should not be serving. They will always have conflicts-of-interest that VLCT labels “indirect personal interest”, in any zoning change or development proposal. Even if Mr. Bradley does not have a direct financial stake in the mall proposal, clearly his friends, business associates, organizations in which he is a member, and other connections, obviously do. And it is highly likely he or his firm WILL have a direct involvement in a property related to this proposal at a later date, in some fashion or another. Of course, if Mr. Bradley or another voting member of the board would have recused themselves on this vote, the proposal would have failed. They only had the minimum four votes to pass it (a quorum of a seven member board). The proposal would have died right then and there.
I hope Ms. Buffington will publicly testify to the pressures and conflicts her board members function under, and clearly state that several of the PC members have obvious biases and/or conflicts-of-interest. What’s currently going on in Burlington rivals the corruption of the Gordon H. Paquette Mayoral days, and Mr. Weinberger will be judged accordingly. There is zero trust in the local government currently.
“Something is fishy here.”
And your evidence is . . .?
We were all waiting on pins and needles to hear your thoughts. Anytime a deeply unpopular notion passes with the bare minimum of vote and the only dissenters, for one reason or another, not taking part in the voting process, I find it fishy. VTPolicyAnalyst does a good job of elaborating.
You just don’t get it.
What VTPolicyAnalyst did was totally refute your assertion that “there was something fishy.” He explained why it was perfectly appropriate for Ms. Buffington to step down.
I know it’s sad and confusing to you whenever there isn’t a conspiracy. And I know that whenever a policy issue doesn’t go your way (which apparently is almost all the time) you believe there’s a hidden corrupt or illegal reason. But sometimes there isn’t a conspiracy or “something fishy.”
And what’s your evidence that the Town Center Mall development plan is “deeply unpopular”? That’s entirely your unfounded statement.
It’s not fishy that Ms. Buffington stepped down. The process by which the vote came to pass is fishy. What VTPolicyAnalyst did was outline that. I understand you have the type of narrow mind that would draw one to support candidates like Hillary Clinton so I’ll leave you to that.
To address your second question I’ll point to the previous story on this topic.
“The unanimous vote of the four members in attendance came after a marathon public hearing at Burlington City Hall that went on for three hours as more than 40 people made their voices heard. Most spoke against the zoning change, which would allow for taller buildings in an area bordered by Cherry and Bank streets.”
There are many other examples of the public’s opposition to this project.
So, at one hearing a bunch of constant anti’s like you show up. That’s always the case, no matter what the issue is.
Can you cite a poll showing that a majority of Burlingtonians are against this project, which you unilaterally claim is “deeply unpopular”? What’s the definition of “deeply unpopular? The fact that you don’t like it?
The question on the Mall change of the zoning of he most important downtown real estate to meet the needs of a single developer in just 62 days without a single minute of discussion and with only four of seven available commissioners (did you notice both of these facts!) in just 65 days from the outline of a project was firmed by City Council is not only fishy–yes it is–but as our Coalition for a Livable City points out in chapter and verse are both failures of open process and very likely illegalities–risked illegalities on the part of the Mayor and Sinex at this point in hopes they will not lose at court.
The question asked, is the zoning change (not the project but the project is the zoning change for Sinex and the Mayor) consistent with the City Master Plan and Plan BTV? We all have our opinion. But that is the very question which obviously needs to be discussed thoroughly and then votes yes or no by the Planning Commission itself before moving onto the the details of the zoning changes. That is the job of the Planning Commission, that is their charge as I understand it in law–and they never discussed and came to a conclusion. It two years to complete the planBRV process–it took 65 days and the Planning Commission ducked the zoning change being consistent–and needed–to fulfill the purpose of the plan. Clearly hundreds of housing units and mixed use are very possible in six to ten story buildings–look at pp 110-111 of PlanBTV, a future vision for the Mall redevelopment visualized earlier this decade!
Unfortunately, Lee Buffinton’s contract will precisely not allow her to speak anymore about what is fishy. But she had serious legal concerns about aspects of the mall redevelopment project, and the proposed zoning changes enabling it,. See her letter at: coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.com/2016…. She also maintained that the Planning Commission was not following Vermont law for the recent Public Hearing ( See second letter written by Buffinton and Lee also at coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.com.
Ms. Buffinton’s contributions will be missed. She was the conscience of the Planning Commission.
How can Champlain Housing Trust support this project which is an affront to their mission of providing affordable housing in Burlington? Not only does the project offer 80 of its units to Champlain College students . Not only are the majority of units going to be unconscionable expensive (why else so tall?!). Not only is the developer offering the bare minimum of affordable units, but these units are segregated from the others, which is against the fair housing guidelines. But the zoning that would enable this development does away with the leverage with which we normally get more affordable housing in the city, by requiring it as a public benefit in exchange for increased height. A developer, once this is passed, will be able to offer the same percentage of affordable units for a 160 foot building as he is required to provide for a 65 foot one. Why force the one strong advocate for affordable housing to resign from the Planning Commission to support this and other unconscionable projects?
As to Yves Bradley’s conflict of interest, his job is to find commercial, office, retail space for his clients- so the more such space is created in the city, the more he benefits financially.
What is fishy about the process is most clearly evidenced by the fact that Mr. White, director of planning and zoning filed a report which is required to be prepared and filed by the Planning Commission 15 days before a public hearing. This report was written in the name of the Planning Commission, but they never saw it, never knew about it, never voted on it. As the letter written by Lee Buffinton and Emily Lee evidences, it was not at all representative of their positions as planning board members. See this letter at coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.com under the post Communication by Emily Lee and Lee Buffinton on Improprieties surrounding the public hearing (a document in the public record). While the City Attorney defended Mr. White’s act, saying that it is fine for the Director to present this report instead of the Planning Commission, Vermont Law says otherwise. In fact, the Vermont Zoning Adminsitrator’s Handbook says, “to avoid an unhealthy mixing of roles, the ZA [zoning administartor]should not write the
board or commission’s decision”. Leaving aside the probable illegality of Mr. White’s action, it is clearly unethical to misrepresent the positions of Planning Commissioners in an official document. Not fishy?
The only thing that is fishy is the paranoia and bitterness of a small handful of complaining, anti-development Burlingtonians. Oh, wait. That’s not fishy. That’s normal. The photo of the seven ancient “Coalition” hippies across from City Hall with their handmade sign is funny.
@ Philo:
“I understand you have the type of narrow mind that would draw one to support candidates like Hillary Clinton so I’ll leave you to that.”
I’m supporting the exact same candidate as your god Bernie Sanders. Does he have a narrow mind? Or is it you who does?
By the way, I find it ironic that by not voting for the Democratic nominee (in defiance of Bernie’s preference), you are effectively voting for Trump, since you are against “towers” and he builds them.
What has been lost in the discussion is the Planning Commission without discussion or consideration sent pre-dated material they did not agree, i.e., an OK on zoning changes to the City Council for Council consideration without even talking about how those changes fit with the City Master Plan/planBTV.
The question asked really
, is the zoning change (not the project but the project is the zoning change for Sinex and the Mayor) consistent with the City Master Plan and Plan BTV? We all have our opinion. But that is the very question which obviously needs to be discussed thoroughly and then votes yes or no by the Planning Commission itself before moving onto the the details of the zoning changes. That is the job of the Planning Commission, that is their charge as I understand it in law–and they never discussed and came to a conclusion. It two years to complete the planBRV process–it took 65 days and the Planning Commission ducked the zoning change being consistent–and needed–to fulfill the purpose of the plan. Clearly hundreds of housing units and mixed use are very possible in six to ten story buildings–look at pp 110-111 of PlanBTV, a future vision for the Mall redevelopment visualized earlier this decade!