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 facts are there even if you would “rather” not see them..”
Yeah, you and Comrade Philo keep repeating that over and over and over and over, without citing any facts to support it. At this point it’s obvious that you’re just avoiding.
“Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly..”
How many votes were taken “rather quickly”? Exactly which ones? How quickly were they taken? What the normal period for votes?
Philo says to click on the links in the article. There’s no mention of any rushed votes except the pending one that CLC claims is being “rushed.” What are all the other ones Comrade Philo was referring to?
Feel free to be opposed to this project. But don’t make shit up about “all votes having taken place thus far being rushed.”
The facts are there even if you would “rather” not see them.
Nice try. No, I expect people who continually make broad, sweeping, vague, partisan claims, as Philo and you do, to support them with facts and logic. You never do.
KYA, your typical default mode is playground logic. When a kid tells you Santa is not real you whine and ask for proof. Philo is right about doing your own research. Try reading at least the Seven Days articles on this. This process has been sped up. You can ignore that and focus on the definition of rather if you would like but it doesn’t bode well for whatever point you are trying to make.
“All” of the votes? I ask again, which votes? How many were there? When?
“Rather quickly”? I ask again, what’s “rather quickly”?
You can’t make accusations and then, when challenged, tell the other party to “do his own research.” YOU made the accusations. Support them with evidence or withdraw them.