Glenn Eames carries a cardboard coffin to City Hall in protest of the Burlington College development agreement. Credit: James Buck
Monday night may have been the first time in Burlington’s history that the city council convened around a coffin. Residents who oppose a development agreement for the land behind Burlington College placed the cardboard replica, adorned with woodland creatures and a bouquet of reeds, in front of councilors.

Despite the objections, the city council voted unanimously to approve the agreement.

Eric Farrell, the developer who purchased the land from Burlington College, plans to build as many as 770 units of housing on the lakefront site. After an outcry from residents, he agreed to negotiate with the city to preserve some of the open space. 

In early December, Mayor Miro Weinberger announced that his administration — along with the Vermont Land Trust and the affordable housing developer Champlain Housing Trust — had reached a deal with Farrell.

Under the plan the city council approved Monday, Burlington and the land trust will purchase and preserve 12 acres from Farrell for $2 million. Housing, including 160 affordable units, will occupy the remaining 15 acres. That development is still contingent on passing the city’s normal zoning review and the state environmental review. 

Open-space advocates congregate outside City Hall ahead of the city council vote. Credit: James Buck
The pallbearer-protesters — who led a mock funeral processional down Church Street that ended at Burlington City Hall — told the council that the deal wasn’t good enough. Jen Berger, shrouded in a black hood, predicted that replacing open space with a large neighborhood would contribute to climate change. Others cited more concrete problems, making the case that the plan would worsen Lake Champlain’s water quality and that animals would lose their habitat. 

“It’s a bad deal for the environment,” concluded Charles Simpson. Andy Simon argued that it was a raw deal for the city, too, in part because some of the land it’s purchasing is not suitable for development.

Proponents of the plan articulated an opposing environmental perspective. “Density is green,” said Housing Vermont President Nancy Owens, making the case that urban development offers a preferable alternative to suburban sprawl.  

The mock funeral procession makes its way down Church Street. Credit: James Buck
While preservationists came bearing their coffin and cutouts of birds, a who’s who of affordable housing advocates showed up armed with statistics in support of the development. 

Kim Fitzgerald, CEO of the senior housing developer Cathedral Square, told councilors that her organization has 1,000 applicants on a waiting list. Under the agreement, Cathedral Square would build senior housing on the site. Others described the deal as a huge opportunity to address the “desperate” need for affordable housing. 

“This project is really cause for celebration and not mourning,” said Brenda Torpy, CEO of Champlain Housing Trust, which receives  an average of 140 applications a month for roughly a dozen available apartments. 

Before the council voted, Tom Ayres, a Democratic councilor representing Ward 7, thanked residents for  an “extraordinary display of the democratic process.” 

Related Stories

Got something to say?

Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!

Alicia Freese was a Seven Days staff writer from 2014 through 2018.

5 replies on “Despite Protests, Burlington City Council Approves Development Agreement”

  1. The plan on the table is to build 170 affordable units and nobody can deny the urgent need. Yet the hecklers are worried about climate change, impacts to water and wildlife and loss of open space. (FYI, when the diocese owned the property it wasn’t a park or playground…)

    They must have all their shopping done and presents wrapped…

  2. First, unanimous support for the racist profiler del Pozo and now unanimous support for this pro-developer project designed to kill a wild area to provide mostly market value housing for the 1%. Likely unanimous support for the $220 million Church St mall boondoggle. Where’s the left opposition to this stuff? The Progressive Party and their supporters ought to dissolve their organization. They’re simply pro-Miro neo-liberals shucking for the 1% They’re an embarrassment to this city

  3. Not a fan, unless they also provide needed day to day services on site such as grocery store and other retail. can you imagine 1000+ new residents in an area with a current walkscore of 38? This development may be in Burlington, but it doesn’t increase non car-dependent density. At this point it’s just more sprawl, cars, and traffic.

  4. To me, this is a huge loss for our community, and my gut level feeling is that one of the reasons the development won approval is because it is in a poorer neighborhood, a neighborhood whose residents are often disconnected from the political process. It takes a great deal of political savvy to preserve a large area of undeveloped land – many of the residents of the O.N.E. have much of their attention centered around simple survival needs.

    As far as I know, traffic studies have not yet been done – approving the addition of almost 800 units to an area which already experiences traffic congestion and tight parking without doing basic impact studies is short sighted at best.The undeveloped land is a treasure for the area, and that will be lost forever..

    Yes, Burlington needs additional housing, particularly additional affordable housing. I don’t see this as being a workable solution, and the cost is far too great.

Comments are closed.