A proposed ordinance that would change Burlington zoning to allow 14-story buildings to be constructed in a section of downtown is now in the hands of city councilors.
Planning Commission members voted Wednesday to send the measure on to councilors, who must ultimately decide whether to approve the ordinance and allow 160-foot-tall structures. The change is being considered to help enable redevelopment of Burlington Town Center, a project proposed by the mall’s owner, New York developer Don Sinex.
The unanimous vote of the four members in attendance came after a marathon public hearing at Burlington City Hall that went on for three hours as more than 40 people made their voices heard. Most spoke against the zoning change, which would allow for taller buildings in an area bordered by Cherry and Bank streets.
Sinex, who has proposed redeveloping the suburban-type mall that dates to the 1970s, wants to build a mixed-use residential, office and retail complex that could include three buildings topping out at 160 feet, or 14 stories.
The $200 million project would also reconnect portions of Pine Street and St. Paul Street, which were segmented when the mall was built.
Only four members of the Planning Commission — Yves Bradley, Bruce Baker, Emily Lee and Jennifer Wallace-Brodeur — were in attendance and voted. Lee Buffinton recused herself early in the process after a representative from her employer, Champlain Housing Trust, spoke out in favor of the zoning change and redevelopment proposal.
Many of those supporting the changes spoke of the increase in city housing stock, the jobs and the vibrancy that such a new development could bring to the city. Several wore pins reading “Say Yes.”
Jason Robinson, owner of LeZot Camera, spoke of losing talented, trained employees to other cities more affordable and welcoming to a young workforce.
“I employ eight people — I’d like to keep them,” he told the commission. “My people are my currency: I train them and I trust them. I want to be able to go home at night, and when they leave [Burlington], I can’t do that. I support this project and whatever you have to do to get it done.”
Others argued that the new construction would only drive more people away by pricing them out of the city. Many speaking against the project painted Sinex as an outsider hoping to capitalize on the plan. They also said the process was rushed, as the zoning changes must be approved by September.
“This sets a dangerous precedent: Anyone can come in and buy zoning now,” said Alex Lavin.
“Changing the zoning to please the developer defeats the purpose of zoning,” added resident Jack Daggitt. “It’s like the tail wagging the dog.”
Earlier Wednesday, a group called the Coalition for a Livable City spoke out against the plan during a press conference outside city hall.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Examine the floor plans. Stand at Pine and Bank Streets, and picture how Pine Street could be re-connected. Stand on Cherry Street and look up 160 feet. Think about what makes Burlington livable. It never has been, and will never be, famous for its skyscrapers and density.
You don’t need to use imagination or towering shoebox models. Computer-facilitated imaging technologies are able to give very realistic views of projects such as this, and there are already files in the CEDO site for this project that you can look at right now.
What these files show is the significant degree to which this project would (a) fit into the downtown skyscape relatively unobtrusively and (b) not even be noticeable –literally, not figuratively– from a lot of downtown and even up the hill.
Please check these out so you can see for yourself (from the project documents page https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Project-…
– “Photo Visualizations- Before and After Views of Project from Locations Throughout City (Includes All views from 3/7 and Edmund’s View from 3/21)”
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default…
– “Animated 3-D Model “Fly Through” (Note: this one’s a little bit dumb in that it’s a >50MEG PowerPoint file, but regardless: Click on slide #2, then give it a minute, and the animation starts up, but you can scroll through as well):
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default…
Some of these before and after “photos” are disingenuous. They imply, and some show, that a building twice the height will not show from street level on several views. Why does it not show the removal of 100 Bank Street? Why is the uphill view from University Place instead of Prospect Street? Because it would be quite visible from Prospect – the building would be as far above the lake level as Prospect Street. A smaller building would be fine. (oh – and the first link goes to Error 404) And what do you mean by “you don’t need to use imagination”? All of this, absolutely all of it, is imagination.
Like I said, examine the floor plans and see if you’d live there. Anyone here grow up in a housing project? And do any of the dislikers have opinions of their own?
Tall buildings do not equal high density. Union City, NJ is the densest city in the country and few, if any, buildings are above 4-5 stories. Just look at it with Google Earth’s 3D feature. … Tall buildings do not equal a vibrant city. Detroit has tall buildings, and it’s no model city. … This will not be a “magic bullet” to solve Chittenden County’s economic problems. Young people don’t stay because buildings are tall. … Why don’t we build 3 story, multi-unit buildings on all of the underutilized parking lots in the county and create more housing supply through that instead.
sell out the city for somone else’s greed- wonderful
This is an appalling abdication of the zoning rules by the Planning Commission. If they are in the pocket of Miro Weinberger, then where is the independence of such an organization? I pray our city council has the brains to realize that the people are appalled by this proposal. Two full streets of the ONE will not get one minute of daylight in the deep winter months with this monstrosity. But then again, it’s only the ONE, so who cares? Bull. Also look at the picture from the lake, if you think these pictures are so good. From the lake the monstrosity is clearly visible, ugly, and a huge encrustation on the Burlington skyline. I think most people would accept a 6 or 8 story building in this space. This developer is greedy, and Miro’s administration is seeing the tax dollars this will bring in. But this city already has difficulty with traffic and parking. Bringing this eyesore into the city won’t help either of those problems. And all this to reconnect two streets? That’s just windowdressing.
It is true that Coalition for a Livable City opposes the Sinex project, but our press conference was about improprieties of the Public Hearing process. Director of Planning and Zoning, David White, rushed the Planning Commissioners to approve a zoning change out of compliance with our comprehensive plan, is spot zoning, and not in character with surrounding buildings. All illegal. He misrepresented positions of planning commissioners,sending out a required report in their name which none of them had ever seen, asserting falsely that they strongly supported the zoning change. See htttp://coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot for more details. It is not a matter of whether you or any other individual thinks that 3 14 story towers with above-ground parking garages are good for Burlington, but a matter of honoring a zoning process that has taken years and money to complete. The city council is about to throw Plan BTV out the window! .The promised complete streets? In a letter written by the developer’s own consultant we read that Pine cannot be a street for cars or bikes because the grade is too steep. Yet this new street is used as justification for the project. People say the housing will help us: but it is the wrong kind of housing, mostly luxury condos and then 80 units for students, leaving only 50 or so “affordable” units. Worst of all, the new zoning eliminates the leverage of returned benefits for height increase, giving a height increase of more than double the current allowance WITH NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS. A terrible deal and terrible precedent for affordable housing.
If the visualizations are accurate the view that is most dismaying is downtown church st. Ruins the beautiful historic line of buildings, ugly front sticking up over the buildings?