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!
In response to the commentator who wanted to know which votes were rushed, I point you to the most egregious rush of all: the planning commission’s alleged approval of the zoning change. The Planning commissioners said over and over that they could not possibly vet a project of this size and importance in the short time allotted to them. One commissioner (who is even in favor of the height), when told they had only a few weeks to analyze the zoning change, said, “You’ve got to be kidding”. Another noted that much simpler projects had taken much more time than this zoning change. Basically, not one planning commissioner was ready to say whether the zoning change was in compliance with our comprehensive plan or to approve it and chose, instead, to provide comments to the city council. The Director of Planning and Zoning rushed ahead and wrote a report in their name, without their knowledge, saying the project was in compliance and that they approved it. They never did. This was all to get the zoning ordinance into the hands of the city council in time to get nearer to meeting Sinex’s 120 day deadline for the zoning change. A zoning change of this magnitude usually takes YEARS of due diligence and examination, not to mention public input. This one was completed in about 150 days! Get informed, read the news stories and visit http://coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.c… for updates and information.
Do your own research. Start by reading past Seven Days articles. Click on any of the links in this story.
“Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly..”
Can you identify “all” of the votes you’re talking about? And please define “rather quickly.” And with reference to whenever the issue of a possible vote first came up, please state when the vote was taken. And please describe how the process for each vote was rushed relative to historical norms, and how the rush was accomplished and by whom.
Thanks.
Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly.
“3. Why is this vote happening before anyone even realizes what is going on?”
We want a vote! We want a vote! Oh, wait, Burlingtonians are too ignorant to vote on this a month from now, so now we don’t want a vote!
Really? So now it’s your position that Burlingtonians are a bunch of uninformed dopes who don’t “realize what’s going on”? Really? They’re so ignorant that they haven’t been following this debate — a debate that’s been raging loud and clear, in all the papers, in the news, practically every day for the last year? They’re so pathetic that a month from now they couldn’t possibly be ready to decide whether they want a 14-story mixed use building on Church/Cherry/Bank Streets?
Wow. Gotta love your elitism.
Thanks for a fine article Alicia Freese but I must advise that the building in the rendering with this piece is preposterously truncated. It appears no higher than three times the current west Cherry St. entrance, which would place it well under the 160 ft. proposal.
CLC has a video featuring the would-be project’s true dimensions. View it here:
https://youtu.be/9fve0joyF1Y
The Coalition for a Livable City has gracefully endured many accusations from city gov’t, business leaders and others stricken with high-rise fever.
We are accused of disinformation, and yet no one can identify any actual mendacity in our resistance. We are, truthfully, the only entity that has followed this byzantine and frankly furtive process by dedicating countless hours of our own time–for no reason other than we love this town more than kool-aid itself.
Join us. We are growing. We are here to stay. This is how we get points on the scoreboard. Don’t sleep.
Thanks for a fine article Alicia Freese but I must advise that the rendering appearing with this piece is preposterously truncated. It appears no higher than three times the current west Cherry St. entrance, which would place it well under the 160 ft. proposal.
CLC has a video featuring the would-be project’s true dimensions. View it here:
https://youtu.be/9fve0joyF1Y
The Coalition for a Livable City has gracefully endured many accusations from city gov’t, business leaders and others stricken with high-rise fever. We are accused of disinformation, and yet no one can identify any mendacity in our resistance.
We are, truthfully, the only entity that has followed this byzantine and frankly furtive process by dedicating countless hours of our time–for no reason other than we love this town more than kool-aid itself.
Join us. We are growing. We are here to stay. This is how you get points on the scoreboard. Don’t sleep.
3. Why is this vote happening before anyone even realizes what is going on?
1. “We want a vote! We want a vote! We want a vote!”
2. OMG! The Mayor is putting it to a vote! This is a trick!”
What a disappointing and outrageous rush to sell out the character of Burlington’s downtown! Voters should reject this zoning change and work together to design a city center worthy of our beautiful home.