Just as soon as the Burlington Town Center received the go-ahead from the Development Review Board Monday night, the opposition group Coalition for a Livable City announced that it would appeal the decision.
Burlington Attorney John Franco, who represents 57 Burlington residents who oppose the project, said Tuesday that he will file a challenge to the zoning permit by mid-April.
Franco said this latest appeal is not merely a Hail Mary effort to halt the development. He ticked off a laundry list of complaints, including the setup of proposed parking lots and the impact of the project on local businesses.
They’re issues that have been “completely overlooked by the media,” he said. Franco compared the project to putting “a size-14 foot into a size-10 shoe,” a reference to the 14-story towers included in the project design. “This thing is going to be a disaster,” he stated matter-of-factly.
Mayor Miro Weinberger called the DRB approval “a major milestone for the project.”
In an interview with Seven Days on Tuesday, he took the subsequent news of the appeals in stride. “It is neither frustrating nor surprising to me,” said Weinberger, who has thrown his support behind the project. “Many if not most of our projects in Burlington have an appeal … I understand that this is part of the process.”
Following the board’s decision, developer Don Sinex told reporters that construction of the $250 million project could begin as early as June.
Not if Franco and the coalition have anything to say about it.
Franco’s DRB appeal would mark the third challenge put forward by the coalition to oppose the multiuse development. Monday, Franco sent a request to the area Act 250 coordinator arguing that the 14-story development should in fact be subject to an Act 250 review.*
The initial ruling on whether the project qualifies for the Act 250 exemption should be finalized within six weeks. “It’s pretty straightforward,” said Keibel. But, “If it’s appealed, all bets are off for how long it takes.”
Franco is also representing the Coalition for a Livable City in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the validity of a $21.8 million tax increment financing measure that voters approved in November to help fund the project. The city is seeking to dismiss that suit.
“God only knows” how long the dispute will drag out, Franco said. He indicated that he and the residents he represents will fight to the end.
Weinberger and Sinex have suggested that “it’s a foregone conclusion and it’s a done deal,” Franco said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
*Correction, March 16, 2017: A previous version of this story misstated the status of an Act 250 review of the project proposal.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I had to smile at the picture of the old hippies . They look like they are celebrating their protest or a good bowel movement . Don’t know which would make this crowd happier .
The mayor is right. Appeals are part of the process. If the process was rigged, careless, or scammy, it likely comes out on appeal.
The original mass model of the project had incorrect data that CLC questioned, and recently CLC learned that the sun/shadow analysis was, well, the word used was fraudulent. It’s important to catch errors, and when a process has been pushed and politicized, mistakes happen. It’s wise to “measure twice, and cut once.”
Having lived through the creation of the Church Street Marketplace, I recall the opposition to that project, a venture that ended up reinvigorating and saving the downtown. Looks like previous arguments didn’t cut it, so now, there are new complaints. A laundry list that includes, “the set up of proposed parking lots”? Please.
The continued nit-picking by CLC, (a group that includes the city’s previous Director of Public Works) and Franco sounds like the old guard partnering with a group of anti-change chain rattlers to stick it to business and the current administration at any cost, to the detriment of Burlington’s future. If only we all had so much time on our hands.
How is more housing for UVM, more housing that will out price residents, some “affordable housing,” more retail jobs at $10/hour, more empty office space, and parking going to help the city?
Redeveloping the mall is a great idea but the mayor sold the project off and made a whole lot of sacrifices to do so. I just don’t see this plan as one that will help Burlington long term or even short term.
It’s weird to hear someone complain about both housing prices and efforts to build more housing in the same comment. Housing demand is high, housing supply is low, thus high prices. You can either reduce demand or increase supply to cut back or stabilize prices. Increasing supply is what the town center redevelopment will do, which is a pretty unmitigated Good Thing for housing access in Burlington.
The developer could amend the current plans to meet all of this motley group’s demands and they would STILL find a reason to oppose it. They’re not looking for a developer, they’re looking for a philanthropist. The very core of Burlington is rotting in front of their eyes and they’re whining about a developer who wants to invest $200mm? In their eyes Burlington’s future rests on the backs of farmers markets, homeless shelters, and good will, with city services paid for by magic. Burlington needs to evolve or its future will be dim indeed: anemic economic growth, aging and shrinking population, cost of living higher each year, etc etc. Unless this band of naive contrarians has a viable alternative to present other than vague scare mongering, they need to step aside. The voters have spoken.
Who is paying for this ridiculous law suit?
The type of housing being added by this project is not the magic fix for the high cost of housing. Somehow people need to be able to hold jobs that will allow them to afford the housing. Retail jobs, empty offices, and some token affordable units are not going to help balance things out.
Once again, opponents to this plan are made to appear to be opponents to any and all development downtown. Not really the case. They just have valid concerns about this particular plan, its assumptions and the process which helped push it through. I won’t argue the overly simplistic understanding some people have of supply and demand when it comes to housing that has been bandied about through this whole process; more housing does not always mean lower prices.
My one real suspicion through this whole business: This plan started out as a promised 250 million dollar development. Then after Sinex analyzed the “prohibitive” cost of putting the parking underground he refused to do so. The cost: around 50 million dollars. This was the start of the problems because the extra layers of parking above grade created the mass and height concerns that opponents dislike and caused the developer’s “requirement” for the zoning change or else he was going to walk. During that whole fight, the development investment was scaled back to 200 million bucks. Now I am seeing that’s back up to 250 million? Is this correct? I just find it a little suspicious that the difference between what he would spend at first, and then wouldn’t spend, and then now will spend again, is almost the same amount of money that he didn’t want to spend on the parking that caused all the fuss in the first place…Classic bait and switch.
What should have happened when this out-sized development proposal was presented was for the Planning Commission and the DRB act to preserve the public interest. That includes preserving adequate parking–virtually all parking will go to tenants–lake views and the skyine–roof structures could bring the effective height so these buildings above 180 ft.–and true “street vitality”. The current BTC plan has blank walls on the east side of the new St. Paul street and little or no consideration of the east wall of Macy’s. As a result, Macy’s may well close. This faulty design was approved even though the public is expected to pay for these two streets. Thankfully the IZ provisions dating from the Bernie years will keep some housing units below-market, the 80 unit college dorm doesn’t move us toward “affordable housing.” The smaller footprint for “increment financing”–phase two is now off the table–puts the public at greater risk in the case of a default since paying the banks comes first.
All in all, with Council having locked the city into a “pre-development agreement” a year ago and DRB approving the altered design this month. the City has mismanaged the review process and failed to defend the public interest in appropriately-scaled development while ignoring the city’s empty storefronts and surface parking marring the downtown core. We need new city leadership.
The big selling point of this project to both the public and some City Councilors who admitted concerns about scale, was the affordable housing. 55 units out of 270 units are proposed as “affordable” but reports on their actual cost have me feeling that people have been duped. Is $950 for a studio and $1050 for a one-bedroom affordable? The housing crisis is actually an affordability crisis. In the last 2 years the vacancy rate has increased from around 1.5% to over 3% due to the many new buildings that have popped up in Burlington and surrounding areas. There seems to be a lot of market-rate housing available but it’s not helping most people, and the beefed up supply isn’t creating more truly affordable housng. There is a large segment of our population who are not eligible for subsidized housing but can’t afford Burlington’s market rate. The BTC does nothing to help that problem. The housing discussion needs clearer language. The term “affordable” is used far too casually to be descriptive of reality.
An interesting comment from Don Sinex in another article saying the pending TIF lawsuit would not stop the project so it makes me wonder if the city leaders really needed to give him the $21M all along? Sounds like the Mayor and City Councilors gave away $1.7M in potential annual tax revenue for the next 20 years and didn’t have to.
Charles Simpson warns, regarding BTC, there’s “…little or no consideration of the east wall of Macy’s.
As a result, Macy’s may well close.”
Before making ‘Chicken Little’ pronouncements about the retail sky falling, it might be nice to offer some evidence. Is Macy’s corporate whispering in CLC’s ear? Whatever the case, it might do well for the group to note Macy’s has been closing stores all over the country, so it would be tough to lay the folding of their BTV tent at the feet of Sinex and Weinberger.
I’m amazed by they way CLC continuously misleads the public in both large and small ways. If you want people to pull your way, you do it with concrete (pun intended) visions, but theirs are consistently not practical for a city that needs to figure out how to get past its growing pains to become a serious economic draw as well as a cultural one.
As the last election indicated, they are a squeaky wheel going nowhere.
The latest private report shows rental vacancies in “healthy range” of 3-5% (Chittenden Regional Planning figure), first time in a generation–about 500 empty rentals in BTV today!–and likely to grow as student numbers drop at UVM/Champlain, 600 student beds get added at those two by summer 2018, and 75 new units come online at the BC orphanage building, many more at S. D. Ireland on Grove St;–part of over 2,000 units since 2013 building season jumping rental supply in BTV by 20%. Landlords are suffering from no tenants! Rents have plateaued–all without a single unit from Sinex where not one apartment will come in at 25% of a low income household. We need “livable rents” not the misleading “affordables” pedaled by the City Administration which start t $950 a month! Sinex rents if project were ever built–now very unlikely–might nudge into $2,000 a month–we do no know for sure because the rent numbers were censored in the economic study handed out the the public.
Tony Redington http://TonyRVT.blogspot.com