In a 7-4 vote, the council decided to increase the maximum building height permitted on the site of Burlington Town Center from 105 feet to 160 feet. The height limit applies to a new zoning “overlay” district that also includes several surrounding properties such as the College Street and Lakeview parking garages.
The height change has been a major source of contention, with opponents arguing that it’s too tall and that the city shouldn’t change its zoning to cater to one developer’s project.
Councilors Sharon Bushor (I-Ward 1) and Max Tracy (P-Ward 2), with support from Selene Colburn (P-East District) and Sara Giannoni (P-Ward 3), made a number of attempts to reduce the maximum height and scale back the size of the district. After seven other councilors quashed their many amendments, those four councilors ultimately voted against the new district. (Councilor Chip Mason, the Ward 5 Democrat whose law firm is involved with the redevelopment, has recused himself from votes related to the project.)
“The height and the massing are incompatible with what I love about Burlington,” said Bushor. Tracy called the zoning change process a “charade,” suggesting proponents weren’t open to compromise.
Councilor Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4), who spoke at length in support of the zoning change and the mall project, said: “In order for Burlington to grow, we really don’t have a lot of land to grow out, so I think we need to have some room to grow up.”
In creating a new overlay district, the councilors made a number of other changes to the zoning in that area, including requiring buildings to be constructed to the LEED Gold standard, meeting certain environmental requirements.
In total, the council considered 25 amendments from various members during a meeting that lasted about four hours.
Council President Jane Knodell (P-Central District) noted that Monday’s public forum marked the 10th public meeting on the downtown overlay district. There will be at least one more: The council must hold a public meeting on the zoning changes, scheduled for September 29, before taking a final vote.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Burlington has few buildings that are even 10 stories tall, having more structures built to reach this height would provide growth without jumping the shark to building 15- or 20-story buildings downtown. We want growth but it can be a little more reasonable, can’t it? Councilor’s explanations for giving in to this developer do not fly, I will be voting against those who voted to permit this incredible breach of our laws.
Farewell to beautiful downtown Burlington.
The opposition to this project is looking for a philanthropist, not an investor. The idea that Burlington can survive on the backs of farmers markets, low income housing, and good will – all the while paying for social services – is just a fantasy. The opposition’s argument of maintaining character is simply meant to elicit fear of the unknown without providing any measurable standard or viable alternative. The very core of Burlington downtown is an empty, antiquated relic that is rotting from the inside out, with retailers leaving week after week. The adjacent parking garage is a rusty, hulking eyesore. Burlington needs to evolve. One need only look at current data relative to population stagnation, lack of job creation, and shrinking tax base to see the current plan for Burlington, and the state as a whole, is not working. This is not a one and done solution but simply a thoughtful first step toward evolving.
Beautiful Burlington began its descent of creating a walking mall of Church Street, and the commercial development around Pine, Champlain and that area. The only beautification Burlington has undergone since I was born is Battery Street.
Another 14 story building or the Bove Development isn’t going to do much more damage., As a matter of fact the Bove development will improve the looks of that area.
The demise of the beautiful Burlington I once knew reminds me of the tv show with Andy Griffin (Mayberry) when a movie producer stumbled on Mayberry and was in awe of its simple, peaceful town. When he said he would shoot a film there, the whole town, except Andy of course, went wild, they changed their store fronts, dressed themselves up like “city slickers” and were about to cut down the centerpiece of downtown, a big beautiful oak tree. Of course the producer changed all that and dissuaded them. Fiction, sure as hell, but it’s the story of many beautiful communities. There are better ways to keep up to date than destroying the fabric
of “once was.” John L. Bove–the founders of Boves were my Aunt Victroria, and Uncle Louis
Knodell, Wright, Shannon, Paul, Roof, Ayers and Hartnett are now on record as having sold out Burlington to a Wall Street investor. These modern day Tories are a disgrace to our city. Let’s begin now to put together an anti-gentrification slate that dumps everyone of these cretins from city council next March. Build the anti-gentrification movement. Overturn this vote through a referendum ballot
Whereas I agree with your sentiment, Kevin, I disagree strongly that a tall mall is going to address the problems you point out. Farmer’s markets and local artisan shops are not supporting Burlington but a tall mall will not create the type of jobs you envision, either. It does, however, make a few rich people slightly richer. Burlington does not need more stories of parking, student housing, empty office space, and retail shops.
It seems to me that a 7-4 vote is a very divided Council. I am shocked that none of the compromises were incorporated to make this more of a unanimous vote. This shows me that this Council is not willing to work together and come up with something that they all can agree on.
Process-wise, throwing out the hard work that many Councilors, staffers, and residents put into PlanBTV over several years, is also an insult to their efforts. It sends a message that if you volunteer your time and expertise by serving on a board or commission, this Council will simply discard all your efforts. This demoralizes people.
And lastly, while something indeed should be done with the mall, and reopening of Pine Street is a plus, it has not been demonstrated that this cannot be accomplished by simply going to the current maximum of 10-stories and 105 feet. This alone is about 3-4 times taller than the current mall. Why isn’t this enough to accomplish the goals? Maybe it’s best to scale things back a little? This project desperately needs the detailed review of an unbiased panel of residents before any zoning changes are made.
VTPolicyAnalyst, Albert Petrarca … Have you been to any of the hearings? Poems, mimes, talk of “bloodsucker capitalists” and “The Man” coming to rape our city and turn it into the next NYC. The developer could change plans TOMORROW to reduce height to comply with current regs and the opposition would STILL oppose the project. Their vision of downtown is one filled with homeless shelters, detox facilities, convaleascent homes, and bake sales … all paid for and supported by some tax windfall that will materialize out of the kindness of peoples’ hearts. This development isn’t some miracle cure for all that ails Burlington, merely one step toward making Burlington more viable. Cities are like any living organism … evolve or die.
Dear Poor People,
Your desperate attempts to survive in this dysfunctional refuge for burnt-out hippies who went yuppie are amusing, but your pathetic dependence on remedial salves like government assistance and heroin are becoming irritating and those artists among you are no longer generating enough cultural capital in a post-collapse economic environment to justify your stubborn endurance.
Rather than redress the historic flight of wealth from the working and middle classes to the wealthy and super-rich or build a sustainable economy that will curtail youth flight and serve to our extant populations, it’s easier to just price out you scraps of unbearable vitality.
So pack it up now and move to Hinesburg, Richmond or wherever you losers can afford to take shelter while we fly in a super-awesome new population from the bay area, DC, New York and Europe.
If you aren’t already feeling it, just know that this project is the tip of the spear we will drive through you until you’re drained, shrunken and dead on our mantles where we can pause and nostalgically contemplate a more innocent time when actual workers who perform actual labor were foolish enough to believe they had a shadow of a chance in our country club.
With Visceral Disdain,
The Lords of Burlington
Burlington Is a city … not a museum … if you want to see Vermont as it was go to the Shelburne Museum .. Burlington needs to look to the future … and it needs a skyline … BUILD IT NOW!
Mr. Commo……………..we have a skyline. Have you never looked up? What we don’t want is a Manhattan skyline in a quaint New England city. If you want glass and steel cookie-cutter architecture then you should move to NY. If you want to cater to Wall Street investors and the 1% then the devil is waiting for you at the crossroads for your soul. Did you learn nothing from the “urban renewal” failures of the 50s and 60s? Did you learn nothing from the failure of brick and mortar retail? Did you learn nothing from the myth of trickle-down capitalism? Did you learn nothing from the emptiness of the 1% developer class’s empty promises? Did you learn nothing about how they control the political class to serve their interests? Did you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Kevin, “evolve or die” isn’t wrong, but this project is. There is a whole lot of money riding on this project that has nothing to do with improving or evolving Burlington. It is about making a few dozen people rich and richer. The opponents I know (dozens) all want a building that does not destroy the lakeside ambience of Burlington. They ALL want change, and evolution, but as you will find out if this goes through, it is NOT what it seems to be. I agree with the four Council members who voted against it. And by the way (assuming it truly gets built) – if you think it’ll be a great place to live, please buy one of its condos and live there. You will see what we meant. A downtown housing project won’t save Burlington, and neither will a Mall. This whole thing is on shaky legal ground. Let the residents of Burlington vote on it , please.
Yeah… I don’t think any opponents are advocating doing nothing with the space… I, for one, am for some sort of development in that area… just not this particular plan… it’s too big… too ugly… it doesn’t fit… and doesn’t solve any of the problems it purports it’s going to… and actually adds a few problems we don’t need… there is a real opportunity to do this right and guide downtown development in a decently scaled direction… Sinex and Miro’s plan ain’t it…
If this was 1770s, the Green Mountain Boys would have dragged all seven of these turncoat scoundrels through the mud on the way to the public stockade for ridicule and condemnation. All their defenders should look in the mirror and do some serious soul-searching
If they put the four stories of parking underground as PlanBTV envisaged, then the building would only have to be 10 stories. Why doesn’t someone just propose this? Comply with our guiding principles, as developed over many long years of toil by volunteers and city planners, bring the building down four floors so you don’t need the overlay (which is simply spot zoning no matter what clothes you dress it in), Many of the opponents would accept this change. Nobody talking here has the faintest idea how tall 14 stories will look from the ground, because we have nothing like it here. Why make an exception when there’s a way to do it without it? I agree the 7 yes votes are hard to understand unless they’re all in the pockets of Miro and his merry band of builders. Wright, I’mnot surprised at, but Knodell should know better. Thank goodness for the four who sttod true.
Mr. Petrarca, your attempt to recruit Vermont history for your partisan purpose is totally lame.
Ira and Ethan Allen were from Connecticut. They came to Vermont to seek their fortune. They were scoundrels. They cheated people. They stole land. They cut down trees. They put up buildings. In short they were developers. If they were alive today they would be the very proponents of this project, and it would be the naysayers like you whom they would string up.
When you walk on today’s Church Street Marketplace, Mr. Petrarca, you are on a for-profit development project that probably would shock Burlingtonians of prior eras. There were undoubtedly protesters in 1979 who didn’t want their familiar Church Street to change. Should the Marketplace not have been built because it didn’t look like the Church Street that these bygone Burlingtonians grew up with? Should the Empire State Building not have been built in NYC because in 1933 some New Yorkers thought it was too tall?
Life moves on. So should you.
Thanks 7D for covering this issue. I do have some corrections though.
1. To adequately compare current zoning height maximums to proposed zoning maximums, you need to compare apples to apples with regard to the “by right” aspect. This is a maximum without requiring specific “public good” benefits such as more affordable housing or senior housing. Current maximum by right is 65 feet in the overlay compared to the 160 feet by right cited. That is a difference of 95 feet.
2. Another correction and further height complication: 160 feet is the number being tossed around under the proposed zoning – but buildings will be able to go even higher. Another 15 feet for “mechanicals”, a 10% discretionary allowance to accommodate the slope of the site and another x feet for the condo owners greenhouse or whatever. Add that up and it’s pushing 200 feet. This is why Max Tracy and others tried to have a total height “cap”.
I agree wholeheartedly with Sharon Bushor’s words. The height and massing are incompatible with Burlington. To suggest that planBTV supports this kind of height/mass is way off. My guess is that this height/mass was beyond the imagination of the workshop participants. As Sharon wisely mentioned in the council meeting (and why she proposed 135 feet) is that she was able to take off the Sinex rose-colored glasses and think about what would be right for Burlington (without one project’s influence). She came up with 135 based on the Masonic Temple. Agree or disagree with that height, at least it makes good sense.
Great conversation–too bad it comes about today about 130 days since the project was outlined–too short a public involvement for a $250 million redo of downtown. The comment about Ethan Allen being a rougue and scoundrel way off the mark. He spent two winters alone trapping for furs to support his family in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Then as Vermont fended off Yorkers who failed to provide governance, he and his family helped create our State in part by providing quick resolution of disputes.. His success without firing a shot not only was the first revolutionary win but provided the guns which during a winter were manhandled to heights over Boston forcing the British to leave that City. Captured, imprisoned then released he wrote the second most popular book (Bible 1st) of his imprisonment and led the U.S. to ban torture and treat captured combatants humanely. And, yes who is the owner of the Mall, asking to build a $225 million project, none other than a Wall Street Yorker!