After 18 months of discussion, Mayor Miro Weinberger and developer Don Sinex announced Wednesday that they’ve reached a preliminary agreement to redevelop the Burlington Town Center.
They still need City Council approval, which they hope to get by May 2. City Council President Jane Knodell, who was in the audience at Wednesday’s press conference, suggested the council may need more time before weighing in.
Sinex, who bought the downtown mall in 2013, plans to spend $200 million to turn it into a mix of offices, retail stores, restaurants and up to 274 housing units. He announced Wednesday that he has a letter of intent from Champlain College to lease up to 110 of those units to its students.
Under the agreement, the city would spend up to $21.9 million in public infrastructure improvements, funded through tax increment financing. As part of that work, two streets currently segmented by the mall — St. Paul and Pine — would be restored. Sidewalks, streetlights and below-ground utilities would also be added.
Sinex has agreed to pay construction workers a livable wage and to adhere to the city’s inclusionary zoning requirement, which in this case mandates that 54 of the units are affordably priced.
City officials are mindful of the EB-5 scandal revealed last week that threatens projects in the Northeast Kingdom. The civil fraud charges against Bill Stenger and Ariel Quiros seem likely to leave Newport with an empty hole in its downtown for the near future. Weinberger made assurances that safeguards in the agreement protect against a similar scenario, but Knodell said the council wants to make sure that’s the case.
She also wants the council to review the administration’s TIF estimates to make sure the city won’t take on more debt than it can handle. This financing tool allows municipalities to pay for projects with a public benefit by taking on debt, which is later repaid through the additional tax revenue generated by the projects.
Knodell said she personally is “not on board with the current version” of the agreement. She’d like to see less student housing and a firm commitment to owner-occupied housing that would meet the needs of “empty nesters.”
The agreement also depends on the Development Review Board and the council signing off on zoning changes that would allow Sinex to construct a 160-foot tall building, which would make it the state’s tallest. Weinberger and Sinex defended what’s been a controversial part of the plan. Weinberger noted that Vermont would still have the “shortest tallest building” of all 50 states, while Sinex insisted that, if done right, “it’s not that big of a deal.”
If they get the zoning changes, the project would still have to go through the city’s standard permitting process.
Voters will be asked to approve the TIF allocation this November. Before that, Weinberger needs the state legislature to extend the deadline for using this funding mechanism. He emphasized that the agreement requires Sinex to pay for improvements up front, with the city reimbursing the developer only after the project has created enough additional tax revenue for it to pay the debt service.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This proposal sounds like a rotten long-term deal for Burlington and for the taxpayers
Yes Mr. Sinex. Whatever you need Mr. Sinex. I’m sure I can get $22 million out of tax payers. Thanks for the campaign donation, Mr. Sinex.
My understanding (which could be flawed), it that Burlington will hold a vote in November to approve the 22 mil in funds and if the initiative does not pass, the whole deal is off. Does anyone know of this? It would be nice…. if we still had a say that mattered.
A bigger question needs to be asked: what are the long-term land use goals for Burlington? Is the idea for Burlington to become more like skyscraper cities such as New York and Chicago? Or is it to be like low-rise cities such as Washington, DC? The latter is lauded for its height restrictions that allow for sunlight and an airy, open feel. No one would say that about mid-town Manhattan. Both are thriving cities. The question is what does Burlington want to become? It would not happen overnight but once the precedent is set by waiving the height restriction, the horse will be out of the barn for all future projects in the years ahead.
I certainly agree with the goals of the mayor and developer to enhance our already excellent walkable and vibrant downtown. But see no reason why those goals cannot be accomplished within the existing zoning. If we are not going to follow zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan, why bother having any Planning and Zoning department to begin with? The taxpayers have spoken in designing these laws and plan – let’s listen to the residents!
Less than a decade ago, during the Burlington zoning rewrite, there was furious debate about going to 10 stories. This is after the Westlake condominiums were built, which at 8 stories many consider the ugliest and most monolitic building that has ever been built in Vermont. Several of the Councilors at that time (some who still sit on the board) objected to the way building heights were getting out of hand in Burlington.
Academic studies have shown that buildings above 3-4 stories take away from a sense of community, and make residents feel claustrophobic. In the northern zones, they also cast exceedingly long shadows in the Winter time, as the sun barely gets to 20 degrees on the horizon. This makes for dark, dreary cities, especially those that get a fair amount of snow or are cold.
Before that, folks objected to the proposed 10-story building at the corner of Bank and College, and WON their case in Environmental Court. The building was never built. And prior to that, many people objected to the six-story condominiums at Battery and College, because they obstructed the view of Lake Champlain. Similarly, many people objected to Main Steet Landing for exactly the same reason.
Now Burlington is going to 14 stories, with a structure that is incredibly massive. Not to mention beyond unattractive. It’s only saving grace is that it will make the Westlake condominium building almost seem palatable. Which it should never be.
The City is destroying its charm. In the eyes of many, most of whom have now moved away, it has gone completely nuts.