Updated at 3:44 p.m.
Opponents of a redesign to Burlington’s City Hall Park were dealt a blow the day after the city closed the park for construction.
A Vermont Superior Court judge ruled Thursday morning that the project — including tree removal — can proceed despite a lingering legal question over whether the city’s zoning permit for the project is expired.
Members of Keep the Park Green, a coalition opposed to the redesign’s tree plan, argued that the permit itself says it becomes invalid unless “work or action authorized by the permit” started by March 22, 2019. Fencing only went up on Wednesday.
The group asked for a hearing on the matter before tree removal and other demolition could proceed, but Judge Helen Toor ruled against them in a one-page order Thursday morning.
“The court has already ruled that the replacement of older trees with younger ones, and the plaintiffs’ sadness at seeing the changes in the park, do not meet the definition of irreparable harm,” Toor wrote.
City plans call for removing several of the 51 current trees and replacing them with newer, healthier ones. The work will lead to a net loss of three trees.
The ruling was shocking to Keep the Park Green chief organizer Donna Walters, who stood outside the courthouse with a cadre of sign-toting protesters.
“No irreparable harm with cutting down trees that are 45 years old? They’re irreplaceable,” she said. “A five-inch sapling or three-inch sapling does not replace a tree that’s 36 inches in diameter.”
In a press conference Thursday afternoon, Mayor Miro Weinberger noted that the city modified the project design to appease Keep the Park Green, apparently to no avail.
“They’ve made attempt after attempt to obstruct it going forward, and today is another example of them failing to do that,” he said.
Weinberger dismissed claims that the city is operating without a permit. The judge will officially rule on that question after the city files an answer by the court-imposed July 16 deadline. Assistant city attorney Richard Haesler said the city is crafting its response.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Donna Walters and her group apparently have way too much time on their hands. They are obviously a group that are prone to hysteria but really, all of their silly legal challenges are just absurd. Hopefully this is a case where the city can recoup their attorneys fees and costs from this little band of nincompoops. They should be made to pay for their little hissy fit.
Imagine if The Lorax wasted his time on nonsense like this.
Imagine if you proceeded to rip out trees without a valid permit. Well, people do it all the time, and many more will do it now.
Imagine what would happen if you got a permit, let it expire, then made significant changes in the project and proceeded to cut down most of the trees, telling the City no problem because you’re going to replace them with saplings later and the permit issues are nothing to fuss over.
You think City would say ‘ok, go ahead. We’ll sort out the legal issues later’? Can we expect that is how it will be done from now on?
Hello, all the people who think we have nothing better to do,
You think we’re wasting the City’s money? Actually they are wasting ours – this $6,000,000 project comes from our taxes! We want a plan that would cost far less, and fix each and every one of the problems cited as reasons for re-design.
Thank you Roy, for using a real name (I assume it is your name). Most of our attackers use pseudonyms.
The trees – if you can’t see the sense in what we do, so be it. “Nincompoops” – believe it or not, among the many insults hurled at us, no one has used that one before. Two points!
Seriously folks, if you will go to the Park and see how this project goes, it may open your eyes. All we wanted was to organize the new design to save the totally healthy trees that will be cut because the New Design wants to move the paths. And yes, it is already ADA accessible, right now.
From one nincompoop to another, enjoy your Summer!
@leaterhune- whether you want to accept it or not, the permits are valid. Can’t always have it your way.
Wow, logic out rules fanaticism
*Most of our attackers use pseudonyms*
And many of your supporters do as well. But I dont see you complaining about them.
*Seriously, folks, if you will go to the Park and see how this project goes, it may open your eyes.*
I am looking at the project right now and I am looking forward to City Hall Dump being renovated, and I know lots of people who want the dump renovated. It is arrogant for you to suggest that you and your band of aging hippie obstructionists have superior insight and that those of us who want the park upgraded dont *have our eyes open.
Uffff,
Planning processes like the one’s for City Hall Park have many opportunities to be heard. Just because your ideas weren’t incorporated in doesn’t mean you weren’t heard. It means you didn’t have the majority of votes at any point in the process to take charge of the plan that was being pushed. Burlington cannot get consensus on anything, it’s truly a cat herding type of town so the only logical step is to default to majority citywide referendums or to have our duly elected officials vote in our place to again make majorities to decide. If you can’t win the day you have to respect the majority will or else nothing will get done in this town which is what many folks opposing everything in this town want. Cities have to get projects done and can’t please everyone, there will be people who won’t win the day even if it’s close 50% plus one is the only fair way to make citywide decisions without giving minority opposition veto power. If you have a better process than 50% plus for making decisions the minority opposition has an obligation to share it with us. Instead they’d rather hide behind “better plans” and the “process was rigged” rather than deal with the very real numbers that they never had the votes, they then cry foul and commence to hold up projects with lawsuits. This is a real threat to democratic rule in Burlington.
Dear Imagrownass and knowyourassumptions,
I’m done arguing with you guys – just talk about the articles and leave me/us alone. “Lots of people,” my foot. You don’t know a thing you’re talking about. So there. Pile on the dislikes and let’s move on. And do enjoy the new “park.”
Oh, the humanity!
As they say, you can try to fight city hall but good luck winning…. The city will always find a way around things!
As they say you can try to fight city hall but good luck winning! They will always find a way around things….
It’s so peaceful here now! Thank you, Seven Days moderator. There will always be two schools of thought on these things. After all – look at national elections! Both sides are sure they are right, right? So it is with us. I hope all the folks who have become attached to disliking the comments in defense of the trees are happier now. We shall see how it all unfolds in the analogue world…
I will enjoy the redesign of the park! It will be lovely when they are finished with the project. There will always be people who gnash their teeth and wring their hands and get hysterical over every little change but luckily, the courts often, if not always, are able to show common sense and are able to put the kibosh on meaningless, frivolous claims and allow things to move forward and progress to take place. It would be great if people could focus on things that really matter (hunger, homelessness, etc.) but it takes all kinds I guess.
Of course it takes all kinds. People are good at different things. Perspectives change.
“put the kibosh on meaningless, frivolous claims”
This is an example of colloquial nonsense. Researching the actual issues, you will find many reasonable arguments. They cannot be dismissed so easily, as you shall see.
Thank you for honoring our freedom to hold opinions, and make choices in what we support.
“Oh, the humanity,” was spoken by a radio announcer witnessing the disaster of the Hindenberg derigible. I guess the writer meant that this issue was altogether not worth news coverage? He is free to feel that way.
I hope these folks do not mind if I point these things out.
“Researching the actual issues, you will find many reasonable arguments. They cannot be dismissed so easily, as you shall see.”
Reasonable arguments? That cannot be dismissed easily? Really?
Are you a lawyer? Because it took the judge only a few hours and less than a page of text to throw you undemocratic old whiners out of court because your request for an injunction was legally baseless. And this was the second time your gang’s attempt to halt the park renovation plan in court has been rejected. Your gang doesn’t give a damn about majority democracy, public order, or whether your court challenges have a sound legal basis.
Hey there KYA!
I knew I’d hook you with that. Gotcha.
Basically everything I say offends you. Don’t you wish you could delete my comments? Oh well.
I stand by everything I’ve said. Stay cool!
@Charlie Messing, dude I just watched a few of your youtube videos. I have several questions if you have the time. Why did you start the channel? Why did you stop posting videos? Did Mike the harmonica player mentioned in the end of episode 130 ever play music with you? Do you still live in the house with the brown patterned ceiling?
Hi there – this thread is loaded with people who hate me. Can’t talk, but nice to hear from you! Just write my email. OK?
@Charlie Messing
Leave my Humanity alone!
To Brad D:
“Leave my Humanity alone!”
What the ___ does that mean? I have never touched your humanity.
“Of course it takes all kinds. People are good at different things. Perspectives change.”
This comment, a plea for fairness, got 30 dislikes. What does that tell us?
“This comment, a plea for fairness, got 30 dislikes. What does that tell us?”
Try reading closely. It got 20 dislikes.
You say your comment was about fairness. Nothing about the Coalition for Obstruction is about “fairness.”
Hi there Dr. Assumptions,
You are quite correct – the text and numbers were tiny and gray, and a two looked like a three.
That is the only correct statement in your comment. It’s ” The Coalition for a Livable City.”
[How would you know what’s fair?]
Would you like to be the head of the Coalition for Snide Comments? I’d vote for you. Bye now!.