The large, historic Winooski house that put the “mansion” in Mansion Street might get knocked down. The Main and Mansion Street house — among the city’s oldest — is one of three homes that a developer wants to demolish to make way for a four-story apartment building with 75 units.
About 15 people attended a meeting of the Winooski Project Review Committee at City Hall Wednesday, mostly to speak against the demolition and the apartment building, which they said was grossly out of scale.
Rita Martel, a lifelong Winooski resident in her late 80s, bemoaned the lack of historic preservation codes in the city and the looming loss of the circa 1818 white house at 109 Main Street known by locals simply as “the mansion.”
“We’re just going to tear it down and build this monster,” Martel said.
The developer, Jeff Mongeon, countered that the new building would “bring out the best in Winooski” and help revitalize Main Street. “I see housing. I see restaurants. I see a vibrant corridor up Main Street,” Mongeon told Seven Days after the meeting.
Mongeon’s plan calls for tearing down the mansion, now a six-unit rental; a two-unit rental house next to it at 101 Main Street and a single family home around the corner at 18 Mansion Street. He owns all three properties and lived for a time at 101 Main Street, but he now resides in Colchester. Mongeon is the president of the Winooski Insurance Company.
Once the houses are razed, he would build an apartment building with a rooftop deck and commercial space on the ground floor. It would accommodate 27 studios, 26 one-bedroom units and 22 two-bedroom units. About a third of the apartments would meet the city definition of “affordable units.”
An underground garage would hold 60 parking spaces, and a surface lot behind the building would have 20 more.
Critics said the building wouldn’t fit in with the single-family homes on Mansion Street and that the plans do not include enough parking. They predicted their street would be flooded with cars and parking problems.
“The size is just unbelievable,” said Dave Carter, who owns two houses on Mansion Street — one that he lives in and one that he rents out.
Opponents could be out of luck. The proposal has met most of the requirements needed to qualify for a zoning permit under a streamlined review process embedded in the city’s form-based code zoning. It was instituted in 2016 to encourage growth on city gateways such as Main Street.
Projects in the gateway zone bypass the normal Development Review Board process conducted by appointees who typically hold multiple public meetings for major projects. Instead, the city zoning administrator has the authority to approve or deny a project with input from city staff who serve on the Project Review Committee.
The meeting Wednesday was the only public session that has been held for the project, and no others are scheduled.
Planning and zoning manager Eric Vorwald told the crowd that the project conforms with most of the required regulations and suggested he was likely to approve it. However, small details on the lighting, landscaping and windows still need to be worked out, he said.
Vorwald said he wasn’t sure exactly when he expected to make a final decision. If Vorwald issues a preliminary zoning approval, opponents have 15 days to file an appeal to the city Development Review Board. If no one appeals, the permit is considered final.
Mongeon said he was confident he would obtain the permit soon and hopes to break ground within a month or two. Construction would take about 18 months.
Several people in the crowd expressed frustration with what they saw as a lack of public input in the process.
They also questioned how zoning that is supposed to push growth to main arteries had produced a project that would demolish a home on a side street to make way for parking.
Vorwald approved a lot line adjustment that put the house at 18 Mansion Street onto a single lot fronting Main Street. Without the adjustment, the project as proposed would not conform to the streamlined zoning rules.
Carter said the adjustment sets a worrisome precedent of a developer being allowed to combine lots and thus qualify for an incursion onto a side street that is outside the gateway zoning district. If approved, more side-street properties could be demolished and eaten up by new development, Carter said. “What’s to prevent people from buying up a whole block?”
Vorwald and City Manager Jessie Baker, who was also at the meeting, repeatedly responded that under the streamlined review code, developments that meet regulations are supposed to be approved. As they suggested their hands were tied by the zoning, some in the crowd responded that they didn’t feel city staff were representing the public.
The zoning changes are having an impact, with new buildings going up both on Main Street and East Allen Street.
At least half a dozen houses on city gateways have been demolished or are approved to be demolished under the new zoning. One historic house that was in the path of a new apartment building was moved to Burlington.
Several residents urged city officials to create a local code or ordinance to protect important historic structures from demolition. The mansion’s demise could open the city’s eyes to valuable at-risk properties, said Sarah van Ryckevorsel. “I’m really sad to see that building torn down,” she said.
In a post on Front Porch Forum, Joseph Perron, president of the Winooski Historical Society, wrote that approximately half of the city properties on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places are in the gateway district and suggested they, too, are at risk. He wrote:
The question remains; if 200 year old structures like (the Mansion) are expendable, what is regarded as worthy of preservation in our City? We should not repeat the mistakes of the recent past, and good development should not require us to sacrifice what truly makes this place unique.
Being listed on the state register doesn’t necessarily protect a property from demolition, but it can lead to requirements that discourage tear-downs.
The mansion was listed on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places in 1993 but was delisted last December at the request of Mongeon.
Vermont Advisory Council on Historic Preservation meeting minutes show that state architectural historian Devin Colman recommended that the property be delisted due to “lack of integrity.”
The council voted 4-0 to delist. In an interview Thursday, Colman said the building had been degraded with window replacements and other alterations, and he concluded it no longer met the listing standard to demonstrate both architectural and historical significance.
The 1993 listing says the structure is believed to be the second oldest dwelling in Winooski. “For many years it was a visual landmark looming prominently at the top of the large hill upon which the village was built,” the listing states.
Extensive Italianate alterations during the Civil War added a cupola, a bay window and a large veranda. Originally built for colonel Nathan Rice, it was later owned by merchant John W. Weaver and the Burlington Mills. In 1870, it was sold to the Episcopal Diocese as a rectory and school and became known as the Mansion House. It later was turned into apartments and, as the listing noted, was renovated in ways that obscured its past.
“Recent aluminum siding alterations have had an unfortunate effect on the building’s appearance,” the listing states.
Mongeon said he looked at options to save the building. An architectural salvage company would remove some of the interior’s historic detailing before it is demolished. “Nothing’s going to the landfill,” he said.
Wednesday, a Tibetan prayer flag hung across the long front porch and a Weber grill stood on the front lawn. Although the granite front steps are scarred and some of the original details have long since been concealed, the ample proportions of the house, perched on a steep bank, are evident.
Still, some residents see the proposed apartment building as progress. Eli Harrington lives next to the mansion in the rental at 109 Main Street that would also be slated for demolition. He would be displaced, but still supports the project.
He wrote a letter to city officials explaining why. The “scrappy blue-collar mill town” is evolving, with “new residents, new businesses, and new opportunities such as this development,” he wrote, adding that the modern building would provide “much-needed housing.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Yes! Redevelopment of old worn out housing in Winooski, especially along the Main Street corridor, is a very good thing.
I wonder if Winooski is putting as much emphasis on home ownership as they are rentals in their streamlined zoning process? When we talk about demolishing existing properties to build larger apartment buildings, I continually see one major issue left out of the conversation: ownership. When we as communities make it easy to tear down small buildings and build large structures in the name of infill, but only make the units in them available as rentals instead of affordable condos or housing co-ops, we leave the neighborhoods vulnerable to gentrification and turn over. The condo I live in is part of a three house association. The houseI live in has three units, the house behind us has four units, and the house next to us is a single family and all were converted from rentals to condos in 2006 when the city of Burlington incentivized that transition. All tenants were offered first right of refusal and a couple ended up purchasing the units they lived in. These remain some of the most affordable in the city when they do sell, because we all stay for long periods of time and are invested in selling units at affordable prices to bring in owners who intend to stay. We are a small community in our neighborhood that stabilizes our neighborhood as all the buildings around us are sold off and built up. When a couple of people own a majority of rental properties in a community, they can decide to renovate all of them and raise rents, and gentrify a whole area over the course of a few years. I hope that as Winooski continues to grow, they have equal incentives for small unit ownership as they do small unit rentals. It’s something that all of Chittenden County needs to address.
You can complain about it but its progress. If you drive up Main Street its obvious. These houses are old and run down. Winooski is changing and people need to realize that.
So this Mongeon is the same evil sob who kicked all those poor people out of their leased land camps on East Lakeshore Dr in Mallets Bay last year? If so, Pure Greed in human form… imo!
And if not the same Mongeon (it’s a rather unusual name), then the project deserves to stand, or not, on it’s own merits, the building isn’t particularly distinguished…imo
This is a New Hampshire thing. The developer needs to consider relocating to the east, in Live Free or Die Land.
This is not the same person that was involved in the property transactions in Malletts Bay. Same last name, different person. Many of the renovations that obscured its past were done many years ago, not recently as is suggested by this article. Getting the complete story and facts and dates straight are very misleading here. Oh, the drama of a newspaper article, to get people riled up, report incomplete or inaccurate facts and leaving the viewer with only a one sided opinion.
How short the collective memory is. Refer back to Urban Renewal in the last century. Both Burlington and Winooski lost historic and culturally significant neighborhoods. The architectural fabric of a city is important. If you can not look backwards, looking forward has no point of reference. You only have to look to Montreal. Without the Old Port area the city would be much less interesting, vibrant and diverse.
The City should enlist some help to revamp their planning regulations, clearly they are lacking. Giving them the benefit of the doubt. This may have been an unforeseen consequence.
Miro-itis is contagious and has spread to Winooski. It was only. a matter of time . . . greed mixed with hubris always spreads. This over-sized project in this Winooski neighborhood is just the first of its kind, not the last, just like the catastrophic Burlington City Center. “Permit reform” is paving the way for more of this land rape.
Since Mansion Street is named after this doomed building Winooski will have to re-name the street. How about “Sardine Can Blvd”?
Welcome to the New World Order. Now, shut up and know your place, as those in power who do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce really don’t want to hear from you.
Ahhhhhh, that’s some good NIMBY.
I get that it’s sad to lose older buildings and communities should have protections for historically significant properties, but the housing is needed. Everyone agrees there isn’t enough in Chittenden County. Adding 75 apts with 25 affordable would be great for Winooski. The reason this mansion was chopped in to apartments in the first place is because there isn’t enough housing here. Tradition is important but it can’t come at the expense of young workers who need a place to live.
Is there a link to a rendering of the project anywhere?
I have to wonder if the [lack of planning board] has considered at all, how the water supply and sewage disposal infrastructure in the area is going to handle that significant increase in population density.
Not to mention loss of permeable ground and it’s associated storm water/runoff nightmares. Anyone else remember Hurricane Irene? It wasn’t that long ago… Also electrical power supply, heating fuel issues. Is the local fire dept & other emergency services going to be equipped for this new burden? Schools…
It’s not just the loss of a historic structure, even if it is currently being used as a slumlord rental. It’s the dramatic alteration of an entire neighborhood. A developers wet dream/neighbors nightmare. What is it going to do to all the surrounding property values when this monolith removes the horizon from half the neighborhood?
“Miro-itis is contagious and has spread to Winooski. It was only. a matter of time . . . greed mixed with hubris always spreads. This over-sized project in this Winooski neighborhood is just the first of its kind, not the last, just like the catastrophic Burlington City Center. “Permit reform” is paving the way for more of this land rape.
Since Mansion Street is named after this doomed building Winooski will have to re-name the street. How about “Sardine Can Blvd”?
Welcome to the New World Order. Now, shut up and know your place, as those in power who do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce really don’t want to hear from you.”
Dude, you are an idiot. That is all.
The framing of the house may be old, but the rest of it has been gutted and renovated into an apartment building. It’s not a 200 year old mansion anymore, and there is nothing worth saving.
I am surprised banks are providing lending for any residential development in Winooski? Thanks to the F35 fighter jet basing, virtually the entire city of Winooski is now all in the F35’s new “not suitable for residential use” zone. So what is Mongeon going to do? Build this and then have the FAA and federal government buy him out in a few years, like they have done all over South Burlington? Entire neighborhoods gone. It doesn’t matter even if Mongeon uses state-of-the-art sound-deadening construction methods. It’s still in the F35 zone. Even Bill Niquette’s award-winning Kirby Road “cottage house” development, that was built recently and super energy efficient and with better sound deadening, was all bought out, via our federal tax dollars. What a waste. Beautiful and affordable homes.
Just doesn’t make sense to create new residences in this area. The Congressional delegation and Vermont Democratic Party have made a decision that the F35 has to be based in Vermont’s most densely populated area, even knowing full well of the F35’s expanded “not suitable for residential use” zone. Logically, following the US Air Force Environmental Impact Statement, and basic health and safety standards, the entire zone should be vacated of residences, whether apartment rentals or historic mansions. It seems the City of Winoosi is opening itself up to serious legal liability by allowing this kind of residential development in the F35 zone. And if I was a bank lending officer, would not want the risk.
Back in the 1970’s, my older brother worked to the point of exhaustion to preserve the last remaining buildings of the original settlement that became Idaho Falls as well as the first wooden home built on the eastern side of the river but to no avail-my hometown brought in a consultant who was paid the then princely sum of $3000 whose advice was to just tear it all down. After he left, the town council realized they had no real plans as to what to do with the lots. The site of the old home (built by the Keefer family) became an ugly insurance office which still stands. The site of Eagle Rock became a library, ironically. When I read about the Mansion in Winooski possibly being slated for destruction, I felt the same pang of sadness that I see when a town that chooses to forget their history rather than celebrating it. Where is the logic of building another generic structure in a town that in another era had so many gorgeous buildings? Growth for growth’s sake makes more sense to a cancer cell. Please keep the building there and celebrate it.