Share Email 10 Shares

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Sonya C. Enright, who is senior executive administrative assistant to Donald Sinex, the managing partner of the Burlington Town Center development.

Full disclosure, I work for the Burlington Town Center. But I have to respond to the commentary by Joseph Ament recently published here. While there are many opinions within it that I do not agree with, it is also filled with factual errors which really must be corrected.

Get all of VTDigger's daily news. You'll never miss a story with our daily headlines in your inbox.

Mr. Ament claims there will be “215 luxury condos,” a wholly inaccurate statement. The project as permitted will have 272 apartments for rent. Fifty-five of these will be subject to permanent inclusionary zoning rules in the city.

Mr. Ament claims the project will “cast shadows on Church Street” but this is simply untrue. The project does not impact Church Street even a little. It is set back an entire block from Church Street. There is no development at all adjacent to Church Street. The developer submitted a study tracking the sun and shadows at three different times of day for all four seasons for the project. The assertion that shadows will fall on Church Street from this project is just 100 percent false, yet it is something that opponents continue to assert anyway.

Mr. Ament claims the residents “narrowly approved” downtown zoning changes and a TIF bond for the public improvements associated with the Burlington Town Center project. Fact: Residents voted 54 percent to 46 percent in favor of the zoning changes enacted by City Council, and voted 59 percent to 41 percent in favor of the TIF bond.

Similarly, Mr. Ament’s comment on the project creating a “precedent of 20 story buildings … on the Barge Canal or Waterfront” is another false statement, and obvious scare tactic. The height limit was set by the city’s zoning at 160 feet, or 14 stories – only four stories higher than under the prior zoning maximum. This height applies only to a very limited portion within the dense downtown zone – exactly the place that will a) maximize the benefits of larger mixed use projects; b) without impacting existing residential neighborhoods or open spaces. It in no way applies at the waterfront or along Pine Street.

The developer has stated repeatedly that the point of the new project is to create a relevant and useful mix of retail and services that will help buffer the city from the online shopping trend that is affecting retail.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

Mr. Ament claims that the TIF bond for public roads and sidewalks amount to a “systematic transfer of public wealth.” Mr. Ament neither accurately captures this project nor Vermont’s TIF law. Here, a private developer will deed back to the city land that he now owns, so that the city can create two new streets and associated sidewalk improvements. A TIF bond will be used to pay for the public land and public infrastructure that will be constructed – new, city-owned streets and sidewalks. This was a key city goal – articulated in planBTV – not the developer’s idea. Moreover, the developer will actually advance the money to construct these public improvements, and will only be reimbursed later by the city once the project is up and running. No public funds will be used for the private development.

Similarly, Mr. Ament wrongly claims that “we lose 75 percent of future tax-revenue increases” and “75 percent of future tax revenues are designated to pay off the bond and the remaining 25 percent are used to cover the increased pressure on public utilities …” The TIF statutes in Vermont are carefully and narrowly written, and the Legislature has considered problems that have arisen elsewhere in creating the TIF program here. Only a portion of the new tax revenue generated by the district itself – not the base tax revenue currently generated – will go to help pay down the public infrastructure bond once issued. And it is only a portion of that new revenue that will pay down the bond – the rest of the new revenue generated will be just that: new revenue for the city and state. Plus, it is the developer’s property taxes that will make up that increment of new revenue – the whole point of TIF is to fund public infrastructure with private development, not to ask the city’s property tax payers to pay for it.

“More shopping” – This is not a “14-story mall” as opponents have repeatedly claimed. Instead, the project as permitted takes away the indoor underground mall that currently exists from St. Paul to Pine Street and replaces it with street-accessible retail and services space. The square footage of “shopping” is only modestly larger than currently exists; also the developer has stated repeatedly that the point of the new project is to create a relevant and useful mix of retail and services that will help buffer the city from the online shopping trend that is affecting retail. An early child care center; walk-in medical services; a food and sundries store – not just “shopping” as in the current mall.

Mr. Ament claims that there will be “increased traffic and massive pressure on public infrastructure.” In reality, the Burlington zoning ordinance required a major impact review of traffic and public infrastructure impacts, and this project met these requirements. On traffic, don’t forget that mixed use buildings are specifically designed to help people live, work and play within a footprint that alleviates traffic issues associated with suburban sprawl. On infrastructure, it is wholly inaccurate to claim that this project burdens the water/stormwater systems. In fact, the current mall has zero such controls; the new project, thanks to the zoning passed by the City Council and approved by the voters, will require the most stringent control standards for any such development in the state. The site will have to treat all stormwater collected onsite to as standard as if were an open meadow. It will use state of the art practices that, despite its larger size compared to the existing mall, will actually improve the city’s stormwater control. The zoning also requires LEED Gold standard construction, and the project is a lead partner in the city’s District Energy System initiative.

Another commentator, Mr. Reddington, inaccurately asks, “Does anyone realize that Sinex … never bothered to secure Act 25 review exemption?” In fact, the developer did seek this review and received a favorable jurisdictional opinion confirming that the project as permitted is a priority housing project that does not trigger Act 250 permit review. Mr. Reddington also wrongly claims that the project’s parking is “not even enough to supply the residential housing and new office space.” The city’s zoning requires parking for residential units and office space according to a formula and this project actually exceeds the required formula. The new garage will be about one-third larger than the existing one, which is privately owned and used by the public on an as-available basis. The city has specifically put in place a shared downtown parking management plan – in which many private owners participate – in order to maximize and rationalize parking usage downtown without building oversized lots or garages. The city’s zoning does not support – and its technical review expert specifically rejected the need for – a larger garage in this project.