Members of the city council in neighboring South Burlington are steamed about the vote, which will allow Burton Snowboards to move forward with a plan to host music venue Higher Ground at its Industrial Parkway campus.
In a strongly worded email Tuesday morning, South Burlington City Council vice chair Meaghan Emery chastised all 12 Burlington councilors for not involving their neighbors in the discussion. She explained that SoBu leaders, busy with various projects, hadn’t learned of the plan until last week. At that point, Emery and a colleague emailed her Burlington counterparts, while SoBu council chair Helen Riehle contacted Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger’s office on Monday to voice her concern, according to Emery.
The proposed music venue abuts the South Burlington town line, its popular Red Rocks Park and its historic — and quiet — Queen City Park neighborhood on Lake Champlain’s Shelburne Bay. About 75 residents there signed a petition urging leaders in both cities to oppose the plan for Higher Ground to relocate.
Chief among Emery’s concerns, she told Seven Days in a phone interview later Tuesday, is the possibility that drunken concertgoers will spill into Red Rocks Park, which she called the “crown jewel” of the suburban city. Emery worries the park could be trashed or worse: People could hurt themselves jumping into Lake Champlain off the park’s infamous cliffs, which has led to fatalities.
“It’s a recipe that really spells disaster,” Emery said. “I really would have liked for us to have been able to have a conversation about that, or at least have them reach out and hear from our recreation and parks director, our police, our public works director to really understand the issues that we’re facing at this park.”
She also worries the noise will disturb her constituents, as will the traffic. There are only two ways to access Industrial Avenue: from the north, via Home Avenue, and from the south, via Queen City Park Road, which marks the Burlington-South Burlington line.
Emery said the South Burlington council also met Monday night, and one councilor floated the idea of closing Queen City Park Road to traffic on nights Higher Ground hosts an event. The road includes a narrow one-lane bridge that could be hazardous for drivers leaving Burton, she said.
“When you’re coming back after being at a venue where alcohol has been consumed, you’re having fun — accidents can happen when it’s not the best road conditions,” Emery said. “We’re really looking for that to be addressed, and hopefully, it will be.”
The fraught relationship came to a head in recent years when Burlington approved the purchase and teardown of more than 145 homes under an FAA-funded program to compensate homeowners when airport noise is deemed intolerable under federal standards. South Burlington had no say in the matter, though it lost a chunk of affordable housing stock — and taxpayers.
“It would have been nice if we had had a conversation and been with them at the table before the decision had been made,” Emery said of the zoning issue. “We’re going to be directly impacted, so we should have been at the table.”
Contacted on Tuesday, Burlington City Council President Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) told Seven Days that he hadn’t heard from any South Burlington officials and seemed incredulous that the suburban city would deign to meddle in Queen City affairs.
“Why would South Burlington be advising Burlington about what to do with its zoning regulations?” he said.
“Wherever your town line is, there’s another town right next to it,” he added.
While the zoning change allows Burton to open a music venue, the plans are far from set in stone. The business must first submit a proposal to the Burlington Development Review Board for a conditional use permit.
Justin Worthley, Burton’s senior vice president of human resources, said it’ll take the company three to six months to design the venue and compile all the information needed for the review. Burton must address five criteria: traffic, noise, environmental impacts, neighborhood impacts and the aesthetics of the building, Worthley said.
“[T]raffic and neighborhood is where we need to spend the most time,” he said.
Burton has already gotten bids to have an engineering firm conduct a traffic study that will model how cars will move both with and without the Champlain Parkway. Construction of the road is scheduled to begin by the end of the year. The parkway would likely ease traffic congestion through South End neighborhoods, including around Burton’s campus.
“We’ll definitely be open to talking with neighbors about concerns, and what can we do, and how do we get to a conclusion that keeps this moving forward,” Worthley said.
While the Burton veep said he’d heard from residents of Queen City Park, he hadn’t heard from South Burlington city councilors. Worthley wondered if those officials were motivated to speak out by a desire to keep Higher Ground on Williston Road — though Emery denied that was a factor.
“If they need a better spot, I understand they have to look for a better spot,” she said.
Members of the South Burlington Council will show up at Burlington DRB meetings in the hopes of having their concerns heard, Emery said.
“You can expect to see us there since you rejected our outreach last night,” she wrote in her email. “We will make the strongest case possible in order to persuade the DRB and the public that Higher Ground is not a good fit for the area adjacent to Queen City Park neighborhood and Red Rocks Park. Believe me when I say, I wish it could have been handled differently.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I wonder if this means Burlington gets to weigh in as South Burlington development continues rapidly around Williston Road and Dorset St, causing huge traffic pileups throughout the county. I’m sure So.Burl. would be happy to run its planning and zoning decisions by the BTV Mayor in any areas adjacent to the city, right?
I believe South Burlington is right to complain. It has a real stake in this issue so should have had a voice . Where a venue like that really belongs is in the old KMart plaza (or the soon-to-be vacant Hannaford’s off opposite Lowe’s). A much better use for the Burton warehouse is something like a giant “maker space” or something like that .
Burton’s HQ is not a great place for higher ground but nor is an abandoned movie theater off Williston Road. A large for-profit music venue should be downtown, limiting potential for DUI’s as patrons can walk to other establishments after the show. The problem is a music venue will never be able to afford 15,000 square feet of real estate downtown. (Flynn is a non-profit and it’s mission is programming/education; entertainment is not their business’s primary division).
I can’t believe the SB city council are fear-mongering invalid, unsubstantiated hypothetical safety concerns as a last-ditch effort to keep Higher Ground in South Burlington. No, they simply want to keep their hands on Higher Ground’s substantial gross receipts tax revenue from ticket and alcohol sales. Councilor Emery can whine as she wants. We all see through that and know her only concern is the loss of tax revenue.
Once again if So. Burl has a complaint about the airport then buy it and it will become your problem. No can’t afford that.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Not likely to happen!
Excessive noise is a public health issue and a public nuisance, especially when it comes to low-frequency base. Yet for those who are victimized by this, there is little relief as any complaint occurs AFTER the incident has occurred and their ‘right to quiet enjoyment’ has been disturbed. Just ask the renters and home owners who live within 2-3 blocks of Nectar’s or Lower Church Street about the lack of response for years from the city and local businesses. What again is shocking is that the City Council didn’t stipulate an acceptable noise level for the zoning change (to my knowledge). 75db is quite different than 55db. Hence, this has the potential to negatively affect property values for those living on SouthCrest Drive and Arthur Court and elsewhere, not to mention their quality of life. So, hopefully HG will be a good neighbor and proactively insulate, insulate and insulate again, against sound permeating its structure and negatively impacting its neighbors. As to traffic impact, South Burlington could always have a police cruiser sit at the intersection of QCP Road, Industrial Pkwy and Central Avenue doing sobriety checks in the interest of public safety. Traffic would very soon come to a trickle here as patrons would quickly come to use Home Avenue.
We need regional planning and zoning. It’s not okay that South Burlington and South End residents’ valid concerns can be ignored just because an invisible boundary line passes between them and the potential problem. Kurt Wright’s callousness about the situation is symptomatic. I wonder how he would like it if I moved in next door to him, played loud music audible at all hours in his house, blocked his street with visitors’ cars, littered his lawn, peed in his bushes, and when he complains, I say, “So what? The activity isn’t on your property.”
As a long time patron of HG from its origin to now, I don’t get this move. That space is so far off any beaten path. It has nothing to do with the hip area of the south end (Pine St). I wish HG well but the move is a bummer and a head scratcher.
I agree that if it’s on the border, and will affect S. Burlington so much, they should have a say in this issue. I also agree there could be better spots to place the venue. The Hannaford’s spot is better suited, and larger too. I agree with the person who cited the areas now adjacent to music venues.
As far as the difference between 55 db and 75 db, the difference is 4X the noise level. Every 10 db means twice as loud. If folks exit the venue and drunkenly walk away (having audible fun), we’re talking about 90 db in the street. [We hear it on College St. regularly, from people leaving the waterfront, walking up the hill towards Church St. and beyond. Some of them actually howl.]
I also agree S. Burlington should have a say in Airport issues. There should indeed be a regional planning commission. We’re all in this together.
I guess South Burlington should have thought of things like that before they succeeded from Burlington. Sorry, SoBummers, you dont get a say in what Burlington decides to do, because you chose to give up your say in the affairs of Burlington. You should have thought to buy the airport, too, back then, but you were too busy whipping around Confederate flags and making your high schools mascot a traitorous Confederate Army colonel. The people of South Burlington have no one else but themselves to blame for this. Tough nuggets, Rebels.
I agree that it’s a bad place to move and I’m sure there are more vacant buildings closer to downtown that could be rented out. I think Burton and HG are just looking at the money end of it. Burton would be making money and HG would be saving on money. I don’t think they are thinking with a straight mind!
Neighbors from surrounding residential areas have been trying to communicate many concerns about this zoning change and concert venue proposal for some time, all to no avail. Burlington’s Zoning Ordinance Committee and full City Council have steadfastly igrored residents’ concerns (except for Joan Shannon, who seems to be listening and perhaps understands that this is a huge change in zoning and will have lasting significant impacts which deserve meaningful and careful managing.) Our Ward 5 rep, Chip Mason has close business ties with both Burton and Higher Ground and so was recused from this issue, leaving us without adequate representation on the City Council.
Our concerns include noise both inside and outside, traffic, late-night drunken behavior, increase in crime, lack of supporting infrastructure, small local roads not up to 800 cars per concert, quality of life and property values in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the Burton campus, impact on the serenity people seek and the wildlife in Redrock Park, and more.
The Zoning and Planning office apparently had been working with Burton behind the scenes for months to re-write the zoning laws without any public process. This change to allow performing arts up to 15,000 sq. ft. south of Hme Ave. is in direct conflict with Plan BTV South End – a long term and publicly vetted plan.
It is discouraging and frustrating that in this case this city government is operating without transparency or public inclusion and with a deaf ear.
Also, FYI, many of the pro-Burton folks at the meetings seem to be reps from the Burlington Business Assoc. and Burton employees.
South Burlington doesn’t seem to afford the same courtesy to Burlington, Williston and other localities when they make their decisions. they act with impunity and now expect Burlington to let them dictate how an autonomous municipality chooses to redo its zoning laws. In truth, there are residential units closer to Higher Ground’s present location than there will be if this move takes place. There is no history of riotous conduct by HG patrons, there are not a lot of accidents on Williston Road that can be tied directly to HG and its operations, in fact, Queen City Park road is a lot safer given the fact that it’s not a major thoroughfare like Williston Road. Cars simply will not be exiting into fast moving traffic, there are two ways they can enter and leave the location, so the traffic question is more a red herring than anything else. I have been to HG and the noise level is very reasonable, I doubt that the people who are going to design this will not make sure that sound deadening will be effective. The opposition to it also does not reflect the reality that Queen City Park is at least 1/4 mile from the location and there are more than sufficient trees and other sound buffering/mitigating factors. Even when the trees lose their leaves, people will be shutting their windows seasonally.
@ GI Gripe
OMG! Burton and HG are thinking about money! Oh, no! HG has found a location it likes and might save money! OMG, how could they be so selfish! How dare they consider money! Those thoughtless bastards!
“It is discouraging and frustrating that in this case this city government is operating without transparency or public inclusion and with a deaf ear.”
One small correction: It’s not just “in this case.” The Burlington City Council, and Miro, rarely practice transparency, regardless of the lip service they love to pay to it.
Groan, every change is going to upset someone in the Burlington area. Since there’s never going to be consensus on any change in Burlington the only fair solution is 50% plus one at the council level or citywide-level and then everyone quietly takes it on the chin and it’s the price of change. Nothing stays the same forever and with good sound proofing, no one will notice much difference, even the folks in the precious south Burlington neighborhood. No one is going to drunk cliff dive, not many folks will walk there, the parking is already built. and the south end connection when built will mitigate traffic. Manufacturing is never coming back to Burlington VT so why let this building sit idle, it’s a real opportunity lost if it doesn’t happen and a loss to the tax coffers of Burlington. It’s a good idea to turn a dead after 4pm industrial zone into a place people will visit and likely bike to in droves. People who want eternal peace and quiet should move to the country.
p.s.: We have a hard enough finding consensus in Burlington, we should not open or consider asking adjoining municipalities for extra input as we’re slow and unpredictable enough as it is. It’s an invitation for disaster.
Groanassman, do you know your presumptions?
You make a number of statements that are merely predictions. If folks speak for both sides of an issue, and that irks you, put your energy into other things.
By the way – manufacturing has already returned to Burlington – I think many of the new enterprises in the South End would agree. That is why the Parkway needs a new Environmental Impact Survey, and a re-design. The re-design saves millions of dollars, too.
No one wants to stop progress, they just want it to work for everyone – residents, drivers, bikers, and pedestrians.
@Charlie Messing
I work in the Arts District. Can you fill us all in on where all this manufacturing has come back?
If you consider Beer making manufacturing then yes but other then that tell me more about all the manufacturing that has returned.
“No one wants to stop progress.”
Sorry, Charlie, you’re misinformed. Some people absolutely, positively, totally want to stop anything whatsoever from happening under the Weinberger administration. No buildings, no roads, no bike lanes, no park renovation. No nothing.
@knowyourassumptions
Couldn’t agree more especially with the new Steven Goodkind movement I read about…..
B.A.N.A.N.A. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).
Okay, knowyourassumptions , start talking – facts, figures, dates. Names, if you like, but that might be a bit slanderous. You say I am misinformed? Guess what? PROVE it.
BradD – if you compare the South End that existed when the last EIS was done (2009) with the South End of today, you will find that dozens of facilities have come to the area – and though I am no expert, I can indeed name products other than beer – Records. Also Dealer.com. Your turn.
@Charlie Messing
Dealer.com? Manufacturing? Burlington Record Plant you got me there! You said that manufacturing had returned to the south End. Please name some of the manufacturing that has overrun the Arts District in the last five years.
Okay, Brad,
http://Dealer.com is just a gigantic business with many employees: they don’t make a physical product – got me on that. I don’t have time to roam the neighborhood, but the situation is very different than it was in 2009; I hope you’ll agree. Let’s not make this a taunting match. The Parkway needs a new EIS, as you may have read in last wee’s Seven Days. I’m not making this up. But I didn’t say “overrun,” and I’d rather not be mis-quoted. I am bad enough at wording my opinions.
“The Parkway needs a new EIS, as you may have read in last wee’s Seven Days.”
The Southern Connector does not “need” a new EIS just because some anti-Miro obstructionists say so in a new lawsuit. It will be up to the obstructionists to prove that conditions have changed so much that a new one is needed, and it will be up to the judge to decide whether he or she agrees. The “need” for a new EIS is not an established fact.
Hey there, Sir Assumption,
Darn, I misspelled “week.” Thanks for catching that. As far as the rest of your comment, I don’t think you have looked into the matter very deeply. But I admire your spunk.
PS – As a member of the CLC, I can assure you we are not Obstructionists. People call us that when we get in their way, but we always have alternatives to the plans we fight – better alternatives. Okay, go.
Charles, and everyone using flimsy excuses to trigger more review, manufacturing hasnt come back and is not coming back and there is no need for another environmental impact study. A judge already made that determination and this last ditch effort is just an appeal which wont work. The south end lost one of its largest manufacturers in Blodgett and manufacturing has been leaving Burlington for decades due to the cost of doing business in Burlington with regulations and taxes and this is a generalized trend in Vermont compared to other regions of America.The real irony lost on all the dead-end critics is that all the transformation that people keep referring to in the south end that justifies a new environmental impact study has occurred in a corridor once full of manufacturing. Everything from Dealer com, Maltex, Innovation Center, Soda Plant, Speeder and Earls, and all the breweries and stores in the south end have come at the expense of buildings formerly used for manufacturing. This new change for Burton/Higher Ground is just a logical continuation of this trend and people should know what the writing on the wall is for manufacturing in Burlington and adapt accordingly to make use of some currently dead space. Wake up critics and members of the Coalition Against Everything youre on the wrong side of history and sound reasoning!
If you ask Mitch McConnell and the anti Obama obstructionists what their end vision was for obstructing Obama, theyd say, *Nothing, just obstructing Obama for the sake of obstructing Obama. Because hes not us.* (Wink wink.) The old white hippies of the cannabis-fueled cult known as the Coalition Against Everything would have to give you the same answer for their maniacal obstruction of Miro and the Democrats: hes not us, and we hate that were not in charge anymore.
That’s Charlie.
And that’s the Coalition for a Livable City.
Good night, defenders of the something.
Burlington : Eliminates on street parking on a mission to create a bikeable, green city.
Also Burlington : Buys up and razes an entire neighborhood in South Burlington to create a gigantic parking lot for the Airport.
Well, Mr. Assumptions, and Mr. Grownassman, you have a bunch of fans. I’m glad someone agrees with you, as I find your views pretty much opposed to mine. If you had a Coalition, or organized group, I could say something rude about them, but you don’t. Let me say: we know what we’re talking about. You are certainly welcome to express your opinions.
The more civil you are, the more sense you make and the more I respect your opinions.
I actually got a letter in today’s paper! Why don’t you give that a shot?
Charlie,
My comments are not meant to be rude but it’s more of a severe impatience with a group of self-appointed obstructionist who continually oppose everything Miro wants to accomplish that actually has majority approval. If you truly valued civility you would respect the majority will of the people by referendum or majority will of the city council to make decisions for Burlington. But you don’t, for you and the Coalition Against Everything a rejection of your ideas is just the beginning of the process and you hope to win in the courts what you can’t achieve with democracy. You say you guys know better but as we all know there is no fairer decision making process that respects majority will than 50% plus one. Please present one that meets this bar without giving minority veto power to a motivated few and I’ll eat my shoe. Until then you and your Coalition Against Everything will continue to be on the wrong side of democracy and history.
Hey there Mr. Man,
I appreciate the civility. As far as your statement: “a severe impatience with a group of self-appointed obstructionists who continually oppose everything Miro wants to accomplish that actually has majority approval.” I totally disagree. If you check the facts and figures you will find that when he has received a majority vote, it’s usually only a few percent. We believe that the community is indeed divided, and that those in power are barely in power. As you recall, thousands of voters asked for a ballot question on the park. It was more than enough, but the City didn’t want to consider the opinions of many people – a great many. The Coalition for a Livable City is actually For Everything; we are not Against Everything. We just want different things than the Mayor does. We want public input to matter. The Public is indeed self-appointed. We want to make the city more Livable. Do you? In each and every case, we have proposed fine alternatives to anything we’ve opposed. That doesn’t sound obstructionist to me. We shall see which side of history we are on, and we shall see which side you are on.
“As you recall, thousands of voters asked for a ballot question on the park. It was more than enough, but the City didn’t want to consider the opinions of many people”
You asked for a “vote” after a 7-year very public process on a city park design with dozens and dozens of open public meetings that ended with an open city council vote approving the final outcome of that years-long public, democratic process.
You are anti-democratic if the final decision doesn’t go your way. You are obstructionists to the democratic process. Coalition for Obstructionism Against Democracy.
Dude, get a grip. I quote:
“You asked for a ‘vote’ after a 7-year very public process on a city park design with dozens and dozens of open public meetings that ended with an open city council vote approving the final outcome of that years-long public, democratic process.”
I took part in those “very” public input meetings, and they didn’t really listen to us. The plan hardly changed. We got them to pardon about half a dozen trees. A democratic process might have put the design of the new park out for bids, but that didn’t happen. “Dozens and dozens” is hyperbole. 3,300 voters signed a petition asking for reconsideration. That ain’t hay, and it ain’t hyperbole either. How many voters actually agree with you? What are your assumptions?
We love democracy, though we want to help plan major changes to the city. Do you say that we are obstructionists, when we’ve offered better alternatives to anything we’ve objected to? Are you involved in any of this? My assumption is that you want to hate us. But we’re pro Everything. Sorry, Dude. We ain’t leaving. We want the City to run well. I’ll leave it at that. We shall see who was “on the right side of history.”
*. . . and they didnt really listen to us.*
Translation: The public park commissioners didnt do exactly what we, a handful of old, arrogant, baby boomers, demanded that they do, because we know better than everyone.
*Sorry, Dude. We aint leaving.*
Yes, in fact you are. You arrogant old Soviet-style authoritarian hippies from the Coalition Against Democracy will all be gone soon. The one thing you cant stop with a baseless lawsuit is your own die-off.
Gosh you’re bitter. But I don’t think you’re right.
I’m arrogant? That’s a laugh. And we’ll all be gone someday.
Charlie,
You frustrate people when you say “If you check the facts and figures you will find that when he has received a majority vote, it’s usually only a few percent.” because what you just said constitutes a majority decision that should be respected. Otherwise it’s a recipe for nothing getting done which is probably what you guys want. Just because you’re close doesn’t mean you get to contest everything. It means you lost the vote and the day and that you should respect the will of the people because the will is equal to 50% plus one. It’s not the go ahead to re-litigate your better plan. It means it didn’t make the cut and you have to move on. There’s an interesting article in the huffingtonpost that points out that nationwide many progressive boomers are holding up housing and transportation needs by overwhelming and abusing municipal forums to over represent their points of view. Do you fit into this demographic Charlie? I recommend it to all the Coalition Against Everything members as most of them seem to fit this mold.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cities-figh…
My goodness, Mr. Assman,
You do like to chew on bones!
The Coalition FOR a Livable City thanks you for all your attention to detail and your bitterness, but honestly, we have better things to do than fight over this bone. Please chew on it in private. Have YOU done anything for the City lately (aside from jousting with me)? My advice is to enjoy the Summer. [Especially if, as you say, your side is winning and you’ve naught to worry about.] Go down to City Hall Park and enjoy the chainsaws! Go down to the new Waterfront Park and enjoy the shade – whatever will make you happy – because arguing with me will not. It is hopeless. You can’t win.
[The article you cite does not prove your point. And please -what is Your demographic?]
You crack a beer, I’ll hug a tree – if there are any left.
Charles,
I can chill with the best of them because I’m Grown. I notice you never deal with the substance of majority decision making by 50% plus one. Is there a better system that doesn’t give minority veto power to the animated few? You have no answer for this except my side must be heard no matter what, which is not what the majority agrees with. You also don’t deal with the dysfunction your alternative creates towards getting anything done without appeasing minority opinion stakeholders. I’m not pro anything but pro common sense and the Coalition Against Everything does not traffic in common sense. I’m a generation X’r by the way and I recognize that one of the defining features of any city is that they change. I can logically recognize that the trees in city hall park will be replaced, because none of the trees in the old city hall postcards are there now. You know times change. Also I know that hundreds of trees have been planted by the Miro administration alongside other nonprofits. Lastly, I think my referenced article actually hits the point head on in that many well-intentioned folks still end up being in the way of progress and democratically determined decisions which is what The Coalition Against Everything is, plus most of them are boomers. Here’s a toast to you Charles as I have cold one on my porch.
Mr. Grownassman