But the council will also let voters have the final say, as they decided to put the question on the November ballot — a move backed by Mayor Miro Weinberger. The decision appeared to be preemptive. Opponents of the project were planning to collect signatures for a petition that would spur a citywide vote.
In the new district, the maximum building height would increase from 105 feet to 160 feet. New developments would also be subject to higher environmental and architectural standards.
Critics of the redevelopment have suggested it will cater to the wealthy. Weinberger, though, argued the opposite: “When we say no to more housing again and again, we don’t force out of our community … the rich people … The people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” Weinberger also noted that President Barack Obama recently made a similar argument, calling on cities to revise zoning to promote growth.
“I think it’s clear that scale has been an issue for a number of us,” countered Progressive Selene Colburn, who was one of the three councilors to oppose the zoning change. She said she objected to the suggestion that “to oppose this scale is to oppose progress, affordable housing, economic development, and now diversity, inclusion, and equity.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I’m glad its going to a vote. But the two issues should be separate. There should be two votes. One for the zoning change and one for whether this proposed development is acceptable, or not. Unfortunately the two issues are now confused because of this exception. This proposal needs to be cut down in size or substantially revised. Frankly, from the artistic renderings this is potentially one of the most ugly buildings ever. It could be a giant carbuncle overshadowing the pretty architecture and businesses of downtown Burlington. Once it is there it would be very difficult to get rid of it, so better to change course before the ship hits the rocks.
To do this properly, there should actually be THREE votes.
The first vote is whether a separate zoning district should be created. Because any planner who looks at this project scenario would consider this “spot zoning”, despite Jane Knodells hilarious spin attempt to say it is otherwise. There is enormous evidence and testimony that shows this is happening here.
The second vote, if the first one passes, is to set the zoning characteristics for this new district. This can only occur after public input and full involvement of the Planning Commission…and not in consideration of the Sinex project itself. By State statute, and accepted policy and process, this is the proper way to accomplish this, and the City is performing this completely backwards.
And lastly, if the above two votes pass through the Council and the public, then the Sinex proposal itself should be considered, with public input through the DRB. With all valid appeal scenarios possible, if the public disagrees with the project or feels it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The Mayor’s stated comments are improper. Just who is saying “no” to more housing? Burlington is in the process of building thousands of units throughout the City, with many already recently built. And his stance trying to make this a “class issue” are downright offensive. Burlington has an inclusionary zoning provision, plus height bonuses, for affordable housing already. All of this can, and must be, included with the current zoning maximums of 10-stories and 105′. The Mayor’s statements are false on their face. Although, I will say, under this Mayor’s leadership, these provisions are often ignored and circumvented.
I fully expect litigation here, as there are multiple improper actions occurring which give impetus to take the project and zoning changes to court.
The attack by 1% real estate developers on community-designed zoning laws now turns Orwellian. Having failed to convince the community, it is time to roll out the favorite tropes of those in power who do not tolerate dissent. You are now apparently a racist xenophobe who hates the poor if you don’t support the further enrichment of the out-of-state 1%er developers.
Obama was not addressing liberal Burlington zoning with over 2,000 rental units built/under development since 2013 equaling over 20% of the 2010 Census of 10,000 rental units. This does not include the Peal Street Bove project (50 rental units), the addition of 300 UVM students moving mostly from downtown area of Burlington to the new campus facility, and excluding a natural 100-150 units in a sensibly scaled Mall redevelopment. Mayor Weinberger knows very well Burlington remarkable accomplishment of one in three non-student rental households living our affordable housing! Shame on you Miro Weinberger saying no to a too large Mall even suggesting “the people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” Your comments insult Cathedral Housing, Burlington Housing Authority, our local private developers of inclusionary housing, and Champlain Housing Trust! Tony Redington TonyRVT.blogspot.com
“When we say no to more housing again and again, we don’t force out of our community … the rich people … The people we’re forcing out when we say no and no again are the poor and the disenfranchised.” The mayor has finally come clean, gentrification is a go, poor people need to go.
In response to VTPolicyAnalyst.. the two are conflated because there is no way to separate them. It’s called spot zoning when the city’s zoning is changed like this to accommodate one developer. If we stay within PlanBTV, we do not get the uglee building you see.. that because there is no above ground parking, and we get a human scale livable city.
Thanks for the coverage, but this article misses the terrible trick the Mayor played on the city councilors last night, bundling approval for the zoning amendment with approval for putting it on the ballot, coercing councilors who were against the zoning change to vote in favor of it if they wanted the question put to a ballot. The mayor said in his speech that he hoped that the council’s vote would send a message to the people, thus revealing his interest in getting as many councilors as possible to vote YES on this unconscionable and probably illegal zoning change. When Councilor Bushor rightly moved to split the vote she was told by the City Attorney that this was impossible, because the two bylaws were contingent upon each other. Absurd! The Council routinely votes on one bylaw and then another and then another, when those separate bylaws are contingent on each other. Just another bit of evidence for the law suit…an appeal that would surely embarrass the planning and zoning department and the councilors who have colluded with this rushed project from the first. Please visit http://coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot for the truth about this process, this overlay district, and the Sinex project. Councilor Shannon insulted the citizens of Burlington by claiming that we are misrepresenting the facts, urging people to trust a city government working in a developer’s interests instead of their neighbors! I know the people of Burlington are smarter than that. If you want to help us get out the vote, please get in touch via the blog or our facebook page: Stop the 14-Story Mall.
Did you see one of Sinex’s lawyers thank Eileen Blackwood after the meeting? Was it really accompanied by a wink? ;-(
Let’s face it, you big shot Mayor Miro Weinberger will have it his way no matter what..He talk out of his butt, does he want to make Burlington another NYC?? Think that’s his goal..You allow 10, story,15 story then next there will be 25 story…SMH..2 face Weinberger is all he is..
Yes, Lea Terhune, I did see Brian Dunkiel, one of Sinex’s lawyers walk over to the city attorney, Eileen Blackwood, directly after the meeting and shake her hand. He said, “thank you”. They did not exactly wink, but I know they both were wearing broad grins. Or maybe smirks? It is increasingly confusing. Does Sinex’s lawyer work for the city or does the city’s lawyer work for Sinex? Or does it even matter? The city had been using tax payer money for months to push a developer’s project and to refute the concerns of conscientious citizens with a wide-range of expertise, asserting that we are misrepresenting facts, when the truth is rather the opposite. It is my understanding that now that the question is on the ballot the city MAY NOT ADVOCATE FOR IT IN ANY WAY. Let’s hope they obey the law on this one and remember, for once, that they were elected to serve us, not Don Sinex.
The way the mayor and proponents of the plan as it is currently laid out characterized it as the last great hope for Burlington’s future was disingenuous and misleading at best… you can’t tell me there isn’t another developer out there in the big big world outside of Vermont that wouldn’t be willing to redevelop the mall in a manner that is amenable to the wishes of Burlington’s citizenry as outlined in Plan BTV and under current zoning??… to characterize the “opposition” as somehow against progress in any form or against development is just a politically motivated lie… it’s about time somebody did some due diligence and pushed back against this mayor a little bit… no one is saying don’t build… just build something better… not simply bigger…
What a disappointing and outrageous rush to sell out the character of Burlington’s downtown! Voters should reject this zoning change and work together to design a city center worthy of our beautiful home.
1. “We want a vote! We want a vote! We want a vote!”
2. OMG! The Mayor is putting it to a vote! This is a trick!”
3. Why is this vote happening before anyone even realizes what is going on?
Thanks for a fine article Alicia Freese but I must advise that the rendering appearing with this piece is preposterously truncated. It appears no higher than three times the current west Cherry St. entrance, which would place it well under the 160 ft. proposal.
CLC has a video featuring the would-be project’s true dimensions. View it here:
https://youtu.be/9fve0joyF1Y
The Coalition for a Livable City has gracefully endured many accusations from city gov’t, business leaders and others stricken with high-rise fever. We are accused of disinformation, and yet no one can identify any mendacity in our resistance.
We are, truthfully, the only entity that has followed this byzantine and frankly furtive process by dedicating countless hours of our time–for no reason other than we love this town more than kool-aid itself.
Join us. We are growing. We are here to stay. This is how you get points on the scoreboard. Don’t sleep.
Thanks for a fine article Alicia Freese but I must advise that the building in the rendering with this piece is preposterously truncated. It appears no higher than three times the current west Cherry St. entrance, which would place it well under the 160 ft. proposal.
CLC has a video featuring the would-be project’s true dimensions. View it here:
https://youtu.be/9fve0joyF1Y
The Coalition for a Livable City has gracefully endured many accusations from city gov’t, business leaders and others stricken with high-rise fever.
We are accused of disinformation, and yet no one can identify any actual mendacity in our resistance. We are, truthfully, the only entity that has followed this byzantine and frankly furtive process by dedicating countless hours of our own time–for no reason other than we love this town more than kool-aid itself.
Join us. We are growing. We are here to stay. This is how we get points on the scoreboard. Don’t sleep.
“3. Why is this vote happening before anyone even realizes what is going on?”
We want a vote! We want a vote! Oh, wait, Burlingtonians are too ignorant to vote on this a month from now, so now we don’t want a vote!
Really? So now it’s your position that Burlingtonians are a bunch of uninformed dopes who don’t “realize what’s going on”? Really? They’re so ignorant that they haven’t been following this debate — a debate that’s been raging loud and clear, in all the papers, in the news, practically every day for the last year? They’re so pathetic that a month from now they couldn’t possibly be ready to decide whether they want a 14-story mixed use building on Church/Cherry/Bank Streets?
Wow. Gotta love your elitism.
Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly.
“Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly..”
Can you identify “all” of the votes you’re talking about? And please define “rather quickly.” And with reference to whenever the issue of a possible vote first came up, please state when the vote was taken. And please describe how the process for each vote was rushed relative to historical norms, and how the rush was accomplished and by whom.
Thanks.
Do your own research. Start by reading past Seven Days articles. Click on any of the links in this story.
In response to the commentator who wanted to know which votes were rushed, I point you to the most egregious rush of all: the planning commission’s alleged approval of the zoning change. The Planning commissioners said over and over that they could not possibly vet a project of this size and importance in the short time allotted to them. One commissioner (who is even in favor of the height), when told they had only a few weeks to analyze the zoning change, said, “You’ve got to be kidding”. Another noted that much simpler projects had taken much more time than this zoning change. Basically, not one planning commissioner was ready to say whether the zoning change was in compliance with our comprehensive plan or to approve it and chose, instead, to provide comments to the city council. The Director of Planning and Zoning rushed ahead and wrote a report in their name, without their knowledge, saying the project was in compliance and that they approved it. They never did. This was all to get the zoning ordinance into the hands of the city council in time to get nearer to meeting Sinex’s 120 day deadline for the zoning change. A zoning change of this magnitude usually takes YEARS of due diligence and examination, not to mention public input. This one was completed in about 150 days! Get informed, read the news stories and visit http://coalitionforalivablecity.blogspot.c… for updates and information.
“All” of the votes? I ask again, which votes? How many were there? When?
“Rather quickly”? I ask again, what’s “rather quickly”?
You can’t make accusations and then, when challenged, tell the other party to “do his own research.” YOU made the accusations. Support them with evidence or withdraw them.
KYA, your typical default mode is playground logic. When a kid tells you Santa is not real you whine and ask for proof. Philo is right about doing your own research. Try reading at least the Seven Days articles on this. This process has been sped up. You can ignore that and focus on the definition of rather if you would like but it doesn’t bode well for whatever point you are trying to make.
Nice try. No, I expect people who continually make broad, sweeping, vague, partisan claims, as Philo and you do, to support them with facts and logic. You never do.
The facts are there even if you would “rather” not see them.
“The facts are there even if you would “rather” not see them..”
Yeah, you and Comrade Philo keep repeating that over and over and over and over, without citing any facts to support it. At this point it’s obvious that you’re just avoiding.
“Really it’s all of the votes that have taken place thus far that have happen rather quickly..”
How many votes were taken “rather quickly”? Exactly which ones? How quickly were they taken? What the normal period for votes?
Philo says to click on the links in the article. There’s no mention of any rushed votes except the pending one that CLC claims is being “rushed.” What are all the other ones Comrade Philo was referring to?
Feel free to be opposed to this project. But don’t make shit up about “all votes having taken place thus far being rushed.”