Plans to turn 'eyesore' ex-Pizza Hut location into 30 new homes struck down for bizarre reason despi
EFFORTS to renovate a run-down Pizza Hut have been blocked due to zoning disagreements.
The owners of the former pizza joint were planning to redevelop the spot to create 30 housing units and commercial space.
Now, the owners will face off with the city of Burlington in Vermont Environmental court.
Gary and Irene Bourne had big plans for the dilapidated building and the abandoned next-door gas station.
The couple has been working with architects to write up plans for the last three years.
Their plans came to a halt when the city's Development Review Board rejected the development plans, citing violations in the mix of market rate and affordable housing.
Read more on Pizza Hut
"I’m going to be perfectly honest with you, the board is leaning toward not approving this project,” Dawn Philibert, the chair of the city’s development review board, said at a meeting over the summer.
“We continue to have concerns about the bank drive-in, and also the calculation of the inclusionary units.”
The City's zoning law requires that new housing developments include affordable units totaling 15 percent of the overall number of units.
In the case of the Bourne's property, the plan was to build 30 units with 7 affordable units.
Most read in Money
The City argues that this is 10 units more than the base zoning density unit maximum and that the developer would need at least 10 affordable units to meet requirements, meaning three would need to be added.
Property owner Gary Bourne is refusing to go down without a fight and has since appealed this decision to Vermont Environmental Court.
“I have no interest in starting a project that the city doesn’t want,” he said.
“(But) if this doesn’t go the way we’re hoping, we do have to step back and take a hard look at the whole thing. I’m hoping the Environmental Court will make a decision one way or the other.”
Irene Bourne described the site as an "eye sore" during a development review board meeting.
“It looks horrendous, and I’d really like to know what the board thinks is the best use for that site,” she said.
Phillbert agreed that the property was in a state of disrepair, but did not feel it was the board's responsibility to suggest a plan.
"The regulations exist for a reason (and) I feel like the board has given the applicant plenty of feedback about things we’re concerned about in this proposal as it currently exists,” she added.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEZqqupl6YvK57zKilnrFfbn90gJhsa2ioma%2FHonnHrqtmqJyWu7R50qGsrWWUpMSvecSynGarn6eycA%3D%3D