You are on page 1of 5
RBGEE WED} Law orrices OF FEB 10 207 Jonny L. FRANCO, JR, es oan sre, Ste 208 PLANNING § ZONING ecg, Vera O01 “Telephone (802) 36-7207 nai obancolswdea com February 8, 2017 City of Burtington, Vermont Development Review Board City Halt Burlington, VT. 05401, Re: _DRB Proceedings, Permit Application 817-0662CAIMA ‘To Whom It May Concern ‘The undersigned are voters andlor property ovmers inthe City of Burlington who 8s 8 group enter their appearance as interested persons in the proceedings before the Development Review Board in the matter of permit application #17-0662CA/MA. They allege that any relief ‘requested inthe petit application, if granted, will not be in accord withthe policies, purposes of terms ofthe plan or bylaws of the Cty of Burlington. “The group specifically opposes this aplication including, but not limited to, on the following grounds: 1) The Predevelopment Agreement provides that the property owner BTC Mall ‘Associates, LLC will be the develope, but it nt the zoning permit applicant. The permit spplicant is Devonweod Investors, LLC. Devonwood is neither an owner of the subject properties nora signatory tothe Predevelopment Agreement, an is not legally bound by the requirement of the Predevelopment Agreement. 2) The permit application is incomplete because 2.1 It does not address what isto happen with the fecade of the remaining portion ofthe existing BTC Mall to be expased by the proposed demolition of a Portion ofthe existing mall andthe re-establishment of St. Paul Street, 22. __Itsimilarly does not address wiat i to bappen with the exposed fade of the remaining portion of the Macy's building by the re-establishment of Pine ‘Street. 23 It does not include all of the Public Improvements identified in the property owner's Predevelopment Agreement withthe City and the 2016 TIF referendum language. This contradicts the Predevelopment Agreement §4 d, hich provides that “the Owner shall construct all the Pubic Improvements a its 2 ‘own cost and expense, and the City shall reimburse the Over forthe agreed ‘upon cost of constructing the Public Improvements..pon Owner's receipt of & Unified Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I of the Project.” Moreover, the Poblic Improvements which are included the permit application are not scheduled ‘o be completed until mid-2020. This contradicts the Predevelopment Agreement hich provides they ae to be completed and th Unified Centfiete of Occupancy isto be received no later than December 31,2019 24 The permit application has consequently shorted the amount it owes to the ity in the permit application fee. Because the Owner isto be constructing the improvements at his own cost and expense with later rsimbursement by the City only if a Untied Cerificate is obtained, they all must be included inthe permit appliction and the cost ofthe permit pplication fe if they are tobe bil but are ot. 2.5 The permit application is incomplete because it does not address how or ‘here the parking demand tobe reated by Phase Il of the redevelopment project isto be satistie, 26 The permit application is incomplete because it does not address how the existing demand for public parking being satisfied by the public parking spaces in the parking facility which isto be demolished will be accommodsted during the petiod of demolition and construction. “The application fails to comply withthe rrview criteria for Major Impact Review Standards 1,5, 7, 8,9, 10 of §3.5.6 (ofthe zoning ordinance, 3.1 The scale of the proposed project will overwhelm the ability of City’s infrastructure to suppor it, especially parking. 32. The permit application proposes the construction of only 761 parking spaces which contradicts the owner's Predevelopment Agreement which provides thatthe project will provide “9252 " parking spaces. 33, The permit application eliminates the existing public parking spaces inthe parking garage which have for decades been dedicted to publie tse, and to ‘appropriate those spaces forthe parking demand incurred by the development Project. This was never previously disclosed inthe Predevelopment Agreement ot elsewhere, 34 The physical scale and height ofthe projec will block out sir and light and ‘eause enormous congestion in the stress 3.5. The application consequently fils to comply wit the applicable bylaws, ‘with the city masterplan, or the approved Champlain Steet Urban Renevel Plan, ECE ep, FEB 10 any DEPAR) PLANNING TOF 4) __The applicant cannot demonstrat that the 2016 zoning bylaw amendments were lawfully adopted. Kalakowskiw. Town of Clarendon, 139 Vt 519, 521-22 (1981), 5) The applicable 2016 overlay amendments constituted unlawfil and ‘unconstitutional spot zoning 6) The applicable 2016 overlay amendments constituted illegal contact zoning AAG Biocced hn L. Franco Je, Ps fember of and counsel fo the petitioners re DEPARTMENT oF PLANNING & ZONING FEB 10 aap PETITION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BURLINGTON 5 PROCEEDINGS ON PERMIT APPLICATION 17-0662CA/MA; 75 CHERRY STREET ‘The undersigned are voters and/or property owners in the City of Burlington, Vermont. We hereby petition to the Development Review Board (DRB) to participate in the DRB proceedings involving the application 17-0662CA/MA; 75 CHERRY STREET on the grounds that if any of the relief sought in the application is granted, it will not be in accordance with the policies, or terms of the Plan or bylaws of the City of Burlington. We hereby designate Steven Goodkind to serve as our representative of the petitioners regarding all matters relating to the appeal. GNA PRINTED NAME ___ STREET ADDRESS KX |seevew Gooprnn [200 Erm Auew Pla} Acces Geoptinia |260 Grusws Aue Bar| Dah nancy w. dinkel |/37 Neer Ul. a all | Gcecoey WDiuene| 157 Weer Gam SE GIN Eames | ae Munkey <7 filchestec fe. l A W Teremy We Bond P4-WH4B cerry OT | Soucaas Feivoy [17% w. vou st. 3 Gemel | Mivcanm French | 172 Union St Cr} | Eioberntenny _binaple st Ga ypc Lyaa MNactia |101 Clpgp& Fa REGe =p FEB 10 2017 PETITION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BURLING TONAAR Ey PROCEEDINGS ON PERMIT APPLICATION 17-0662CA/MA; 75 CHERRY STREET ‘The undersigned are voters and/or property owners inthe City of Burlington, Vermont. We hereby petition to the Development Review Board (DRB) to participate in the DRB proceedings involving the application 17-0662CA/MA; 75 CHERRY STREET on the grounds that if any of the relief sought in the application is granted, it will not be in accordance with the policies, or terms of the Plan or bylaws of the City, ‘of Burlington. We hereby designate Steven Goodkind to serve as our representative ofthe petitioners regarding all matters relating to the appeal. igure ___ruuvrunnawe sense anon wba Fauna [Pals emt eae pT, Doone Wa thes! 54 Maal St AT 10 Ma arava | Alex Lavin [260 rhein 5 Lappe harles Sraesen | £7 Snaouct Rabe g woken Omen) | houst St oSifo] al Je ork Wer Teens, [C Appletree Pep. OSE Elie Mane, Elis $29 Shore hid 05409 ui Keli Nowe E brig leo Wateb Rosy Hexen, 7. Theresa “Tr Mob ost Maca $Heh ec Ellen Sklac Fnac Baut04 Osos