Last week, CityPlace developers received unanimous support from Burlington’s Development Review Board on new zoning permits for the downtown apartment and retail complex.
But the latest version of the project — which has been stalled since 2017 — is drawing pushback from a group of residents and local attorney John Franco, who has brought legal challenges against CityPlace developers in the past.
Franco and residents Barbara McGrew, Steven Goodkind, Michael Long and Lynn Martin argue that the project won’t have enough parking. The proposed 426-apartment building, plus retail space and a restaurant, includes 422 parking spaces.
In a letter sent to the Development Review Board, the challengers complain that there are fewer spaces than there are apartments, not counting the spaces for employees and customers at the new retail spaces.
The opposition came up as the project seemed to be moving forward under a new settlement agreement with the Burlington city government, which includes a newly revised development agreement. When the project was proposed, it was 14 stories high and included far more office and retail space. Now it’s 10 stories high and primarily an apartment complex.
Franco also challenged that previous version for numerous reasons, most central being that the project’s scale was not right-sized to Burlington. Those conflicts were eventually resolved in a 2017 settlement agreement brokered by former Burlington mayor Peter Clavelle.
Franco says the current project’s proposed parking capacity violates what was agreed to in the 2017 settlement. The legal agreement required that CityPlace developers add 200 parking spots to their original plan, which Franco says was an effort to make up for the loss of the parking garage that was torn down to make way for the new complex.
Franco says this agreement cleared the way forward for demolition. Now that the project has been revised, he argues, the developers need his clients’ consent to change the parking plan that was agreed to.
“We had a deal with this guy four years ago,” Franco said, referring to CityPlace developer Don Sinex. “And as a result of that deal, he tore down the garage, and now he wants to be absolved of responsibility for having done that. And we’re saying, ‘No, you can’t do that.’”
Franco said he has tried to reach out to Sinex to broker a compromise on what’s dictated in the 2017 agreement, which developers have rejected. He said his clients don’t need all 967 parking spaces lost to the demolition of the old parking garage; they’re willing to meet in the middle.
But Franco declined to give any details about what that number might be. If a compromise can’t be reached, Franco said. he’ll appeal the newly awarded zoning permits to the Vermont Environmental Court, which he predicts would happen in early to mid-April.
In a letter sent to Development Review Board members in response to Franco’s claims, CityPlace lawyer Brian Dunkiel said the project is fully aligned with what’s required under city ordinances. He pointed out that, according to city laws, this project is not required to provide any parking.
“But the current design nonetheless includes parking space for 422 vehicles,” Dunkiel wrote, “which is only 25 short of the maximum allowed under the ordinance.”
In an emailed response to VTDigger, Sinex called Franco’s latest opposition to the project “sheer and utter nonsense” that is an “insult to the other 45,000 people of Burlington.”
“How is it that City Council nor the [Development Review Board] consider the parking to be inadequate, but because John Franco considers it inadequate, I and the city should bend to his wishes?” Sinex wrote. “Was he elected the parking guardian of all of Burlington, and everyone forgot to inform the rest of us?”
He said the traffic and parking experts the developers hired say the parking plan is adequate and complies with all city laws.
Sinex said he thinks Franco is “mistaken” in his interpretation of the settlement agreement and said the document does not mention the old parking garage. He did not say whether he would seek a compromise with Franco.
Franco said this challenge isn’t in opposition to the essence of the project. The challenge aims to hold Sinex accountable to his past legal agreements, Franco argues.
“We support the project,” Franco said. “Don Sinex’s demonization of us notwithstanding, we support the project. The problem is that the parking is screwy here, and it needs to be right-sized.”
