The City of Burlington has approved changes to the Burlington Town Center redevelopment project that will add 16 additional apartment units and eliminate 40,000 square feet of planned retail space. The changes for developer Don Sinex’s project were approved administratively, with no public input.
Sinex described the alterations to CityPlace Burlington plans as an inevitable part of the development process. “We didn’t change any aspect of the design. We didn’t change the square footage,” he said.
“We would expect a project of this size to make changes,” said Mary O’Neil, a city planner.
The 16 new units will be constructed on the second, third and fourth stories of the planned building, under the original footprint. The 14-story development will now include 288 units, up from 272 in the original design.
Project opponents aren’t taking the changes lightly.
Attorney John Franco had sued to stop the redevelopment on behalf of the grassroots Coalition for a Livable City. He argued that the changes violate a settlement agreement that Sinex signed last July.
Franco said that the project originally called for 761 parking spots, but that the settlement added 200, for a total of 961. But the current plan calls for 22 fewer parking spaces, and Franco alleged that Sinex had surreptitiously decreased the amount.
“It’s an increase in units, and a decrease in available parking,” Franco said. “That’s a problem.”
Both Sinex and O’Neil contended that the changes have not eliminated parking. Both said the plan adheres to the legal settlement. Sinex said the original plan called for a parking capacity for 761 vehicles — not spaces, and that tight valet parking can accommodate more vehicles.
Franco, who first heard of the changes from Seven Days, said he would ask Sinex not to pursue them. Franco said he could take the developer back to court. “A settlement agreement with these guys isn’t worth the powder to blow it to hell,” said Franco.
Demolition of the existing mall is underway.
Sinex attributed the new plans to the “prohibitive” cost of excavating for underground parking; now, he will dig a half — rather than one full — story below ground. It will save nearly $5 million in construction costs, though it will also force him to eliminate 40,000 square feet in underground retail space.
“In the field, you find conditions that are not economically or practically conducive to the original thought,” Sinex said. “You have to be flexible.”
Sinex said he increased the number of housing units after the state lifted a cap of 275 that once triggered additional environmental review.
The project has had a setback. Construction fell behind schedule after a contractor in late January found asbestos in the glue used for a rubber roofing membrane, according to Sinex. He said he worked with the state Department of Health to develop an abatement plan to dispose of the material, contained in an adhesive layer about a millimeter thick.
It should be removed in April, but the discovery has put the project nearly two months behind schedule. Foundation work is now expected to begin in early June, Sinex said, with construction scheduled for next September.
A few more tweaks to the plan are possible.
Sinex recently applied for permits for leisure space for tenants, including a pool, dining room, workout room, sauna and spa on the seventh and 12th stories. That proposal is subject to the approval of the Development Review Board.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
@NorthOldEnder: so true. Hopefully Katie Jickling will heed the investigative call and follow up on this story. I’m particularly interested to hear from the mayor Himself (though I can almost predict the canned talking points).
@critikboy
7 Days will never be confused for Mother Jones or The Intercept. They want us to admire the fancy, artsy curtain, not look behind it.
I also think the Sturm and Drang over these 16 apartments is more about the fact that it is just another example that Sinex cannot be trusted to keep his word.
The luxury pools and saunas and spas and whatever just prove that this is a project for wealthy folks and little more. Burlington is sadly getting in tune with the rest of the nation and not resisting the more deletrious trends of community wealth disparity. Denser, busier, angrier, and uninteresting. The public benefits remain to be seen. Seeing the open space as the old mall gets knocked down it’s sad it couldn’t remain a Central Park of some kind instead of a haunt for the wealthy.
I’m also not surprised that this article only got what a half a day of coverage on the carousel before other “important” stories pushed it to the back burner. 7D stands to gain a lot of readers and advertisers from increased growth. Their coverage has been a bit lax on this sort of stuff.
“The whole point of building housing downtown is that people don’t need cars.”
This is one of the basic false assumptions the proponents of higher density development in Burlington make.
High end residential units of any kind: condos or apartments serve high end people. What do high end people own? High end cars. Thy will not only have one, but they will afford two.
I will grant that a few hardcore idealists will try and live in Burlington on a bike and avail themselves of more public transportation, etc.
But after two weeks of exploring the two or three really good restaurants and biking the bike path and saying “now what?!?!”, they are going to want to go visit and explore the rest of Vermont. If they have the dough, they are going to buy a car. The vast majority of those who will be able to afford these apartments downtown (or anywhere in Burlington really) will have them already.
More units downtown mean more cars. Stop tricking yourself into believing it will be otherwise.
Mt. Philo,
Not to mention while I was canvassing folks did not understand what they had already voted on via mail-in/early voting and were surprised when informed of the details of the zoning overhaul and Sinex deal. Those developer PAC mailers were intentionally misinformating people. Many people thought it was a small regular “update to zoning” and also thought a park was going in because the mailers depicted the area where the mall was as a big green lawn-looking area with trees around it. Dirty dealing from start to end.
That pac spent $30,000, roughly 1/4 the price of winning the mayoral election, to get those ballot items passed. Is that truly representative of what Burlington voters want?
But you see, Mt.Philo, that doesn’t matter because there had been a “robust public process” on the project during which it was clear the outcome had already been decided.
Miro may claim he’s preventing Burlington from becoming a “boutique city,” but he sure has a funny way of showing it.
If I remember, those mall ballot items went to vote on relatively short notice with a super pac backing it.
Oleander:
I mean the 53.9% and the 58.6% over voters who voted yes on ballot items for this redevelopment during the 2016 Election. Not during some March election with low turnout, but during a general election where over 19K people voted in BTV. Not that it mattered because the opposition sued afterward because they didn’t like the outcome of the vote that they pushed to make happen.
“I’m just glad the voters of Burlington disagree with you.”
You mean the 48 percent of the 30 percent of Burlingtonians who actually voted? So, by generous estimates, 6,200 of 43,000? Hardly representative. Not even close.