More than 100 people jammed into a meeting room mostly to express dismay and outrage over a proposal to increase the height limit for a swath of downtown from roughly 105 feet to 160 feet, or about 14 stories, in order to accommodate the $200 million-plus proposed redevelopment of Burlington Town Center.
The Planning Commission members listened but did not vote on a zoning amendment proposed for a special district that encompasses the mall and a few surrounding buildings. The commission is under pressure to make a recommendation on the zoning change to the city council by early July in order to stay on a timeline set for the project in a predevelopment agreement. The council approved the agreement May 2.
During public comments that went on for two hours, some speakers supported the height increase as necessary to make a much-needed mall makeover happen. But they were strongly outnumbered by critics, many of whom carried signs that read: “Our Zoning For Our Community!”
The people, and not a developer, should be driving such a significant zoning change, numerous speakers said. “This is backwards,” said Michael Long, a resident of Henry Street. The city should not allow the mall developer, Don Sinex, to demand a new and special set of rules for his project, Long said.
Many speakers said the low-rise profile and little-city feel of Burlington is part of what makes it unique and livable, with spectacular views of Lake Champlain and a sense of proximity to nature. They feared tall new buildings could cast big shadows, create traffic problems and change that character.
“Burlington does not need a Trump tower,” said city resident Sue Burton, adding that a “14-story mega-building is out of the scale of the city.”
A group called the Coalition for A Livable City had distributed 4,000 fliers across Burlington in the week leading up to the meeting to rally opponents of the height change. Many members of the new group were involved in recent battles to preserve open space at Burlington College and fight zoning changes in the South End that they feared could have made artist studio space more expensive.
Genese Grill, an artist and writer who lives in the Old North End, is an active member of the Coalition.* Grill was one of several speakers who suggested that allowing the taller mall would be just the beginning, and many more proposals for buildings above the current height limit would follow. “This is a watershed moment in Burlington history,” she said.
She added: “We have grandchildren and we want them to enjoy Burlington the way we enjoyed Burlington.”
Solveig Overby also objected to the height change and urged the planning commission not to rush into the decision. She said she wanted the mall to be redeveloped, but not as proposed. And not under pressure. “I just am really disturbed by the process,” she said. “Salesmen are really good at telling you the deal is off if you don’t take it right now.”
But others defended both the process and the mall project, pointing out that the developer has held a series of public meetings and taken input for more than a year. Jeff Nick, chair of the Church Street Marketplace Commission, said the project has strong support from downtown merchants. He held up a photo of the Masonic Temple building at the top of Church Street and said the historic structure measures 125 feet — not much shorter than the mall would be. “I believe what we’re talking about is certainly appropriate in the context of our downtown,” Nick said.
Jay Fayette, a senior vice president at PC Construction, said the project would create hundreds of construction jobs, revitalize downtown and boost the economy. “This is a renaissance project for the city and the state, and we must not let this opportunity slip through our fingers.”
The predevelopment agreement on the mall makeover calls for tearing down most of the 1976 urban renewal-era structure that fronts Church Street and runs west along Cherry and Bank. The proposal would transform the aging retail center into a mixed-use project with 274 units of housing, office space, stores and a 925-space parking garage. (The current garage would be demolished.)
The mall design has changed several times. Early renderings showed two 14-story towers. More recent ones show three. Sinex says the design is not done and will change some more.
The predevelopment agreement gives Sinex a certain amount of leeway when it comes to how the proposal looks, but is specific in other areas.
City officials want to restore street connectivity that was blocked when the mall was built, for example. So the agreement calls for the reestablishment of St. Paul Street as a “60-foot-wide, through public street running between Bank Street and Cherry Street.”
Similar language is in place to restore connectivity of Pine Street, “subject to the existence of the building numbered 100 Bank Street.” The multi-story office building there is not part of the mall and juts onto a portion of what would be Pine Street. The restored Pine Street would likely have to run under a portion of the office building.
The project would be built in two phases. The first, to begin in 2017, would include the housing, parking and street improvements.
The Planning Commission’s next meeting on the zoning amendment, a work session, is set for 6 p.m. June 9 at the police department conference room on North Avenue.
*Correction, May 25, 2016: This post was updated to correct Grill’s role with the coalition.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The current configuration in downtown is not the economic draw that the NIMBYs think it is and the down town needs to be improved. Burlington keeps inviting people to live and work in Burlington but what happens? you end up with overcrowded rental apartments because there is no new space, the only way to grow is up. The people of Burlington want to think of Burlington as a big city but they want it to be a frontier town in building size. You cannot have it both ways.
I for one might visit downtown more with the improvements and spend more money there…oh I forgot the way the people want to get money for Burlington is to tax more people instead of having them part with it willingly by shopping and working in Burlington.
Thank you, Molly for a great article. But, the current downtown height allowance is 65 feet (38 feet for Church Street), not 105. David White and the Mayor keep saying 105. This is incorrect, a lie, a misrepresentation, whatever. 65 is the allowable building height. A developer might be able to get up to 105 ONLY IF he or she gives considerable PUBLIC Benefit (a public benefit is something that does not benefit him too, i.e. making the mall nicer is not a public benefit). One of the most striking things that came out of last night’s meeting was that the people already told the city council a while back that we did not want a height increase and at that time the city council VOTED DOWN A HEIGHT INCREASE. The Mayor called that vote “divisive”–a strange word. Divisive because it was not what he wanted? Anyway, Plan BTV followed and the booklet does not give any support for a height increase of more than twice (from 65 to 160!) the allowable height. It says that most people are comfortable with the height as it is now. The people did not ask for this. The mayor and Don Sinex want it. And to give it to them is to hi-jack the public process. Also…I am not the head of Coalition for a Livable City, just a lowly co-member along with all my amazing colleagues! Check out our facebook page, http://carolynbatesphoto.com/stop-the-14-s….
Thank you Molly for an article that spoke what really happened. Ditto Genese about the height.
Also the June 9 is the wrong date. It is the June 14 meeting 6:30 at Police Station that we can go and talk. And then July 9 city council is asking PZ to make a decision. This is totally out of character with all other developments. Eric Farrell just gave a presentation last night too.
and his is the going normal, correct way to process development. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/n…
“Many speakers said the low-rise profile and little-city feel of Burlington is part of what makes it unique and livable…Nancy Kirby…added: ‘”We have grandchildren and we want them to enjoy Burlington the way we enjoyed Burlington.'”
No, it’s not livable. “Livable” implies that a wide variety of people can live here. They can’t. They’re already priced out. And no, Ms. Kirby’s grandchildren won’t be able to live in Burlington, at the rate that housings costs are increasing.
I have the utmost respect for the people who are railing against tall buildings (and I’m sympathetic to the notion that this particular project hinges on a zoning change that may be out of step with the current zoning or future form-based zoning).
But my friends? My dear, fellow Burlingtonians? How are we going to keep housing costs increases manageable for middle- and lower-income people if we don’t create new housing? And how are we going to create the kind of population density that we need to keep the housing in Burlington, and especially, centralized close to or in downtown, if we don’t start putting up big buildings like the project being discussed?
‘Many’ people sounds like a a bit of an understatement listening to the noise and flyers around BTV.
Between shunning Burlington telecom, and embracing the fleets of F-35’s, Burlington’s livability is already on a bit of a downward spiral.
Everyone agrees the mall needs to get blown up, and get a long needed do over, but might be better to not leap from the town we al love to resembling the skyscraper filled Houston’s and Cleveland’s of the north.
There were many proponents of the project present at last night’s meeting and previous city council meetings as well. Take a look at the Free Press article for fairer coverage of both sides of the argument: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/n…
Many questions about the Burlington Town Center mall project were asked at the meeting. Some of these questions are answered in the City’s FAQ, which can be found at this link: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/CEDO/Files/btvmall/City%20FAQ%20Posted%2005232016.pdf. This document will be updated as more questions are received.
Nate, I agree we need more housing. The Mall, however, should fit the zoning of Plan BTV. The Internet has become the new Mall, and physical malls are failing in other cities, not just here. [A woman from Connecticut invited us down to Hartford to see a building exactly like the one Mr. Sinex proposes. Their downtown is now dead, and that building is empty.] We need not only affordable housing, we need it somewhere that is not positioned directly over a multi-floor above-ground parking garage. Inclusionary zoning advises we not segregate people by income, nor by having a College dorm on one floor. I should add that the Free Press article says the proponents “gushed” and that the Coalition for a Livable City described “dystopic nightmares”. It didn’t mention that the Coalition is fine with development – but not with changing the zoning downtown. If you look into it, you’ll see why the zoning should stand. Mr. Sinex’s project would subvert Plan BTV.
I feel quite strongly that Burlington needs a taller height limit. It is a way to create jobs, more housing, more affordable housing, and help to revitalize our city. Burlington is falling apart and is growing less and less livable – not due to increases in height limits, but rather due to stagnation in development and a 10+ year housing crisis that continues to worsen. Allowing the city to grow up will make it a little bigger, but Burlington will still be a small town. 160 feet is hardly a skyscraper, and creating additional street connectivity and pedestrian access will improve the city’s livability. Further, building up allows us to preserve and protect green-space in the city while creating some healthy growth and revitalization in our community. I understand wanting your town to not completely change around you, but to me it seems that passionate resistance to a small height increase is conservative, reactionary, and grounded in both ignorance toward the health of our whole community and personal conceit.
And please don’t take my previous comment as a wholesale endorsement of this mall project – it definitely has some problems, but the height restriction changes are not among them.
Open letter to Planning Commission:
Planning Commissioners:
I urge you to review the duties of PC members and ask you to consider the phenomena of the tail wagging the dog: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/PZ/PC/Positio…
~Prepare municipal bylaws governing land use and development (e.g. zoning, subdivision, official map, etc), and any necessary amendments, for consideration by the City Council.
I urge you to fully exercise your options in regard to the zoning changes demanded by the Sinex pre-development agreement. It’s not only about height! It’s about process, and “land development, transportation, economic and social development, urban beautification and design improvements, capital improvement plans, historic and scenic preservation, the conservation of energy, the development of renewable energy resources, and natural resource protection.”
I urge you to take a step back from the Sinex proposal and undertake an independent survey of current housing stock so we know exactly how much housing we have (built and permitted) in each category, and commercial, and other property, taxable and non-taxable. This would include all institutional housing and properties. By now you have seen Art Wolfe’s correction of the data used by Burlington to determine need for housing.
Related to building height, of course we need a physical model of the zoning changes, and an independent feasibility study of the massive $200 million (value $400 million?) Sinex project as a potential outcome of those zoning changes.
Bottom line is you do not have the information you need to guide City Council regarding the zoning changes. If the Sinex deal is a good as he says it is, it will wait while you do your due diligence. We depend on you to do that. Your independence is unique, and wise judgement draws from that.
There is a reason Boulder, Colorado is cleaning Burlington’s clock in terms of desirability and quality of life. CBS Sunday Morning recently rated Boulder the happiest place in the United States. It is not just the Colorado sunshine. Boulder has a 55 foot height limit, voted in by the people (similar to the 65 foot height limit applicable to the Sinex Tall Mall project). The height limit contributes to Boulder’s livability & desirability by maintaining its small-scale community feel; preserving views; and preserving sun-shine. Sinex and Weinberger have the right idea to invest in downtown but have not convinced me they need a special exemption and waiver to build 2.5 times higher than the legal limits. I have trouble believing Mr. Sinex cannot find an architect to design a project that simply complies with the law.
Believe me, just like the developer and mayor, I would like special exemptions and waivers from many laws as well, be it paying my taxes, following the speed limit, etc., not to mention some of Burlington’s strict code requirements. However, together as a community we have enacted these laws to create a more livable town. When special interests get special exemptions from the law to make more $$$, it undermines the very fabric of civil society and respect for the law everywhere. Bottom-line: the Planning Commission should do their job and enforce our community-enacted planning and zoning.
The height is a diversion to the real issue – spending $22 million in taxpayer money to reopen streets that were closed once with millions in, yup, taxpayer money.
The insanity never stops.
Don’t be fooled by the height – it’s an ancillary issue designed to keep your eyes off the real scandal – $22 million in good tax money after bad.