In November of 2012, Weinberger sought permission to amend the city’s Act 250 permit, which had last been revised in 1994. He wanted to loosen restrictions on when and how often events could occur at Waterfront Park, and to give the city greater control over the park. It’s the only municipal park subject to Act 250 regulations. The grassy expanse along Lake Champlain plays host to concerts, food and beverage festivals, regattas, road races and more.
The mayor proposed doing away with a condition that said the park could host events only for a maximum of 27 days between May 27 to September 15, no more than 22 of which could involve amplified music and no more than 18 of which could fall on the weekend. Weinberger also wanted to relax sound restrictions, in part by extending the cutoff time for amplified music to 11 p.m.
At the time, neighbors protested that the noise and traffic was already intolerable.
When the Act 250 commission approved the administration’s request, Alison Lockwood, a resident of a brick townhouse next to the park, appealed the decision — first to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court, and then to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Both courts essentially concluded that Burlington’s waterfront has changed significantly since 1994 and, given the increased development and activity, the city was entitled to pursue changes to its original permit.
Weinberger called Monday’s decision an important victory for the city. “For nearly four years, at my direction, the city has fought to protect and expand the public’s right to enjoy Waterfront Park throughout the year in response to private attempts to dramatically curtail its use,” he said in a press release.
The city has been operating under the amended permit, allowing events such as the Vermont City Marathon, Oktoberfest and the Penguin Plunge to take place at Waterfront Park during the litigation.
According to Weinberger, increased activity hasn’t led to more complaints from neighbors. Crediting parks director Jesse Bridges with addressing residents’ concerns, he said, “The relationship with the great majority of the neighbors is at a high point.”
Lockwood, contacted via her attorney, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I was skeptical back when they built those townhouses beside waterfront park, as pretty as they are I couldn’t imagine anyone with common sense and ears would want to reside within an environment of so much noise and activity. Then I was proven wrong as people did indeed buy them. It didn’t occur to me that these entitled residents would then try to effectively shut down the park for much of the year. It’s nice that justice has been done but it’s unfortunate that cranky neighbors cost city employees so much time and taxpayer money. I’ll be sure to make extra joyful noise each time we ride by the townhouses enjoying the beautiful scenery of the bike path and waterfront park.
Yes, the question of private versus public use of the Waterfront: I do agree that the park should be for the public, and it’s a bit tricky with those condos down there. So I don’t think all the music should be curtailed for one objection BUT on the other hand has Miro ever seen a building project he didn’t like? (Nope) I agree with someone’s recent suggestion of building or cutting a path from Cherry Street down to the Waterfront, so not everyone has to use College Street. Thousands of people go by (I live there) every time there is an event. They go down sober, come back noisy. It takes hours for people to get there, and hours to return up the hill. It’s a total traffic jam, on foot and in vehicles too. More access to the Waterfront, please.
The permits for the brick townhouses preceded the 1994 permit for the concerts and festivals—go look it up. In fact, 216 Lake Street was already built there, and many of the people living there helped to craft the 1994 permit that reflected a balance between the City’s desire to make money and the taxpayers/area residents’ desires for some balance. No one tried to shut down the park or the activities there. The permit granted to the City had specific parameters that the City chose to ignore. No matter where one lives in Burlington, one has the right to expect that the City will a) follow the regulations that it is bound by, and b) enforce its own noise ordinances. This was not a NIMBY. And just remember, when there are money making activities there, we, the people of Burlington, are fenced out of using the park. It costs $25 or $40 or more to be part of the majority of “activities” there.
The public already had year-round access to the Waterfront. This decision now gives the mayor sole discretion as to what people are allowed to do on the waterfront. Frisbee? Nope, sorry. It doesn’t create tax dollars. Fly a kite? Ditto. Picnic? Only if you buy from approved vendors. Volleyball? Sorry, we’re “creating jobs” that day. If you can pay, you can play.
The decision is now in voters’ hands every three years.
What is with all these “dislikes”? All the negativity? If you hate this discussion why are you reading it? No suggestions? I dislike your disliking. Now you can dislike this! Better yet – give your opinion.
So the public park is now for sale? At some point only the wealthy will be living in Verizon presents Burlington. Thanks Weinberger.
Basically we get to have more fun events at the park and everyone’s upset about it. Typical Vermont.
It seems as though anyone who has an opinion other than “I disagree with the City being able to host more events at the park” have been invited to not participate in the discussion — that is typical Vermont. In Manhattan where I now live, we understand that noise is just part of the game. I lived on Church Street at College and Church and refused to sign on to an effort to “quiet down the neighborhood”. Why? Because I knew what I was getting into when I moved there. You can’t expect to litigate yourself towards the community that you want; after all, community is all about discussion and compromise, whereby you understand that you may not always get what you want because the community belongs to everyone.
It seems as though anyone who has an opinion other than “I disagree with more events at the park” have been invited to not participate in the discussion — typical Vermont. In Manhattan where I live, we understand that noise is just part of the game. I lived at College and Church and refused to sign on to an effort to “quiet down the neighborhood”. Why? Because I knew what I was getting into when I moved there. You can’t expect to litigate yourself towards the community that you want; after all, community is all about discussion and compromise, whereby you understand that you may not always get what you want but you get to be part of the discussion.