The Burlington City Council approved a zoning change that will allow taller buildings in one section of downtown. The vote Thursday night was 8 to 3.
But the council will also let voters have the final say, as they decided to put the question on the November ballot — a move backed by Mayor Miro Weinberger. The decision appeared to be preemptive. Opponents of the project were planning to collect signatures for a petition that would spur a citywide vote.
In the new district, the maximum building height would increase from 105 feet to 160 feet. New developments would also be subject to higher environmental and architectural standards.
Opponents and proponents came out to Contois Auditorium in full force. At one point during the public forum, city council President Jane Knodell reminded the crowd that the subject at hand was the creation of a new zoning district — not the proposed Burlington Town Center redevelopment. But the connection between the two is hard to overlook, given that developer Don Sinex requested the zoning change and insisted on its passage before he’d undertake the $250 million makeover. And speakers — councilors included — continued to address the merits of the project itself.
Critics of the redevelopment have suggested it will cater to the wealthy. Weinberger, though, argued the opposite: “When we say no to more housing again and again, we don’t force out of our community … the rich people … The people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” Weinberger also noted that President Barack Obama recently made a similar argument, calling on cities to revise zoning to promote growth.
“I think it’s clear that scale has been an issue for a number of us,” countered Progressive Selene Colburn, who was one of the three councilors to oppose the zoning change. She said she objected to the suggestion that “to oppose this scale is to oppose progress, affordable housing, economic development, and now diversity, inclusion, and equity.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The way the mayor and proponents of the plan as it is currently laid out characterized it as the last great hope for Burlington’s future was disingenuous and misleading at best… you can’t tell me there isn’t another developer out there in the big big world outside of Vermont that wouldn’t be willing to redevelop the mall in a manner that is amenable to the wishes of Burlington’s citizenry as outlined in Plan BTV and under current zoning??… to characterize the “opposition” as somehow against progress in any form or against development is just a politically motivated lie… it’s about time somebody did some due diligence and pushed back against this mayor a little bit… no one is saying don’t build… just build something better… not simply bigger…
Yes, Lea Terhune, I did see Brian Dunkiel, one of Sinex’s lawyers walk over to the city attorney, Eileen Blackwood, directly after the meeting and shake her hand. He said, “thank you”. They did not exactly wink, but I know they both were wearing broad grins. Or maybe smirks? It is increasingly confusing. Does Sinex’s lawyer work for the city or does the city’s lawyer work for Sinex? Or does it even matter? The city had been using tax payer money for months to push a developer’s project and to refute the concerns of conscientious citizens with a wide-range of expertise, asserting that we are misrepresenting facts, when the truth is rather the opposite. It is my understanding that now that the question is on the ballot the city MAY NOT ADVOCATE FOR IT IN ANY WAY. Let’s hope they obey the law on this one and remember, for once, that they were elected to serve us, not Don Sinex.
Let’s face it, you big shot Mayor Miro Weinberger will have it his way no matter what..He talk out of his butt, does he want to make Burlington another NYC?? Think that’s his goal..You allow 10, story,15 story then next there will be 25 story…SMH..2 face Weinberger is all he is..
Did you see one of Sinex’s lawyers thank Eileen Blackwood after the meeting? Was it really accompanied by a wink? ;-(
Thanks for the coverage, but this article misses the terrible trick the Mayor played on the city councilors last night, bundling approval for the zoning amendment with approval for putting it on the ballot, coercing councilors who were against the zoning change to vote in favor of it if they wanted the question put to a ballot. The mayor said in his speech that he hoped that the council’s vote would send a message to the people, thus revealing his interest in getting as many councilors as possible to vote YES on this unconscionable and probably illegal zoning change. When Councilor Bushor rightly moved to split the vote she was told by the City Attorney that this was impossible, because the two bylaws were contingent upon each other. Absurd! The Council routinely votes on one bylaw and then another and then another, when those separate bylaws are contingent on each other. Just another bit of evidence for the law suit…an appeal that would surely embarrass the planning and zoning department and the councilors who have colluded with this rushed project from the first. Please visit http://coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot for the truth about this process, this overlay district, and the Sinex project. Councilor Shannon insulted the citizens of Burlington by claiming that we are misrepresenting the facts, urging people to trust a city government working in a developer’s interests instead of their neighbors! I know the people of Burlington are smarter than that. If you want to help us get out the vote, please get in touch via the blog or our facebook page: Stop the 14-Story Mall.
“When we say no to more housing again and again, we don’t force out of our community … the rich people … The people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” The mayor has finally come clean, gentrification is a go, poor people need to go.
In response to VTPolicyAnalyst.. the two are conflated because there is no way to separate them. It’s called spot zoning when the city’s zoning is changed like this to accommodate one developer. If we stay within PlanBTV, we do not get the uglee building you see.. that because there is no above ground parking, and we get a human scale livable city.
Obama was not addressing liberal Burlington zoning with over 2,000 rental units built/under development since 2013 equaling over 20% of the 2010 Census of 10,000 rental units. This does not include the Peal Street Bove project (50 rental units), the addition of 300 UVM students moving mostly from downtown area of Burlington to the new campus facility, and excluding a natural 100-150 units in a sensibly scaled Mall redevelopment. Mayor Weinberger knows very well Burlington remarkable accomplishment of one in three non-student rental households living our affordable housing! Shame on you Miro Weinberger saying no to a too large Mall even suggesting “the people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” Your comments insult Cathedral Housing, Burlington Housing Authority, our local private developers of inclusionary housing, and Champlain Housing Trust! Tony Redington TonyRVT.blogspot.com
The attack by 1% real estate developers on community-designed zoning laws now turns Orwellian. Having failed to convince the community, it is time to roll out the favorite tropes of those in power who do not tolerate dissent. You are now apparently a racist xenophobe who hates the poor if you don’t support the further enrichment of the out-of-state 1%er developers.
To do this properly, there should actually be THREE votes.
The first vote is whether a separate zoning district should be created. Because any planner who looks at this project scenario would consider this “spot zoning”, despite Jane Knodells hilarious spin attempt to say it is otherwise. There is enormous evidence and testimony that shows this is happening here.
The second vote, if the first one passes, is to set the zoning characteristics for this new district. This can only occur after public input and full involvement of the Planning Commission…and not in consideration of the Sinex project itself. By State statute, and accepted policy and process, this is the proper way to accomplish this, and the City is performing this completely backwards.
And lastly, if the above two votes pass through the Council and the public, then the Sinex proposal itself should be considered, with public input through the DRB. With all valid appeal scenarios possible, if the public disagrees with the project or feels it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The Mayor’s stated comments are improper. Just who is saying “no” to more housing? Burlington is in the process of building thousands of units throughout the City, with many already recently built. And his stance trying to make this a “class issue” are downright offensive. Burlington has an inclusionary zoning provision, plus height bonuses, for affordable housing already. All of this can, and must be, included with the current zoning maximums of 10-stories and 105′. The Mayor’s statements are false on their face. Although, I will say, under this Mayor’s leadership, these provisions are often ignored and circumvented.
I fully expect litigation here, as there are multiple improper actions occurring which give impetus to take the project and zoning changes to court.
I’m glad its going to a vote. But the two issues should be separate. There should be two votes. One for the zoning change and one for whether this proposed development is acceptable, or not. Unfortunately the two issues are now confused because of this exception. This proposal needs to be cut down in size or substantially revised. Frankly, from the artistic renderings this is potentially one of the most ugly buildings ever. It could be a giant carbuncle overshadowing the pretty architecture and businesses of downtown Burlington. Once it is there it would be very difficult to get rid of it, so better to change course before the ship hits the rocks.