Burlington Planning Commission Endorses Rezoning UVM’s Trinity Campus | News | Seven Days

The University of Vermont should be allowed to build more dormitories on its Trinity campus as long as it agrees to be more transparent about its growing student population.

That’s the recommendation of the Burlington Planning Commission, which approved a series of zoning changes for the campus on Tuesday night.

The commission voted 4-1 to move the proposal to Burlington City Council, but will include a memo urging councilors to first negotiate an agreement with UVM to curb off-campus student numbers.

Planning commission chairman Andy Montroll said he hopes the memo will give the council leverage to negotiate with UVM, whose students populate the city’s rental market.

“I doubt they will proceed with this resolution until they address the student body issue,” Montroll said of the council. “I would be surprised if they approved this without a separate agreement.”

The commission’s vote comes in response to a proposal by UVM to build a new student housing complex on its Trinity campus, a 21-acre site off Colchester Avenue in the east of the city. The campus is already home to 600 students, but UVM has proposed developing 520 more beds — 400 for undergraduates and 120 for graduate students — and a dining hall on the campus.

The plans require a zone change. Current rules require structures to be at least 115 feet from the Colchester Avenue property line; The new zoning would reduce that distance to 65 feet, although UVM originally requested permission to build only 25 feet from the property line.

The proposal would also allow UVM to build taller — up to 45 feet at the front of the property and 80 feet at the back, compared to the existing 55-foot limit — and cover 60 percent of the property with buildings, rather than 40 Percent.

Mayor Miro Weinberger supports the zoning change, which is part of a 10-point housing plan he released last year to address the city’s housing crisis. Weinberger’s plan also includes a zoning change to allow residential development in parts of the South End where it is currently banned. On Tuesday, the commissioners publicly commented on this proposal, but postponed a vote until early next year.

UVM has proposed the Trinity plan to alleviate the city’s housing shortage, but residents fear it could make the situation worse. Freshmen and sophomores are required to live on campus, but juniors and seniors are not. Because the Trinity dorms would not be reserved for juniors and seniors, neighbors fear the new dorms would allow UVM to enroll more first-year students who would eventually leave campus.

There is cause for concern. UVM has not built any new student housing since 2017, although enrollment has increased. And while the university once committed to building one new housing unit for each new student enrolled, that agreement with the city expired in 2019, and UVM has refused to negotiate a new one. Meanwhile, this fall, the university enrolled one of its largest freshman courses ever.

UVM officials have dismissed speculation that the Trinity plan would help increase enrollment. At the same time, they haven’t been particularly open about future growth plans.

In light of this, a contingent of city councilors formally asked the commission in May for help to “make UVM a tangible commitment to maximum off-campus student numbers”. Montroll, the commission’s chair, said Tuesday that such language could not be written into the zoning, but that the accompanying memo from the commission showed support for the council members’ request.

Trinity’s rezoning “should not be done in isolation,” Montroll said.

Residents who attended the virtual meeting largely agreed. Loomis Street resident Todd Schlossberg said he thinks the council should push for UVM to agree to only place juniors and seniors in the new dorms.

Otherwise, “we allow the university to increase enrollments without being responsible for it,” Schlossberg said.

Commissioner Andrew Friend suggested not approving the zoning change until UVM negotiates with the city, but he found no support among his peers. Friend cast the sole “no” vote on the proposal.

“It’s like there’s a flood in the city and we’re lining the banks of the tributary with concrete,” he said.