BURLINGTON — Redstone’s legal challenge to the CityPlace downtown development is meeting pushback from city officials and developers.
The Burlington city government and CityPlace developers both filed opposition briefs last week in response to Redstone’s lawsuit against the project, filed in Superior Court in early June. In court filings, the city’s attorney called Redstone’s legal actions an “abuse of process.”
The lawsuit, which also names the city government and various public officials, aims to bar any construction from occurring after CityPlace developers secured new permits from the city in March. Redstone alleges the CityPlace project will attempt to develop land Redstone owns at 100 Bank St. without approval from the landowners.
CityPlace developers are on a tight timeline to begin construction if they want to receive city tax increment financing to fund construction of streets surrounding the project. If construction doesn’t begin within two years, the developer will have to pay for the public improvements, as dictated by a settlement agreement brokered and approved this past February.
The suit claims that BTC Mall Associates — the company overseeing the long-stalled, 400-apartment project that has left a pit in downtown Burlington since 2018 — is trying to build a road on land Redstone owns at its 100 Bank St. building. The road would be an extension of Pine Street, which the city plans to reconnect with St. Paul Street.
“The invasion is not a minor invasion,” the suit states. “The road occupies 2,005 square feet of the 100 Bank property.”
Redstone attorney Matthew Byrne argues in the suit that the Burlington Development Review Board approved the permits even though a road would extend through 100 Bank St.’s property line, violating the building owners’ property rights.
Byrne and Erik Hoekstra, Redstone’s managing partner, did not return requests for comment from VTDigger.
The opposition briefs from the city and BTC Mall Associates state that there are no plans to develop the 100 Bank property without acquiring the right to do so. “100 Bank is well aware of this,” argued attorney Jennifer McDonald on behalf of the city, “and has been in negotiations with BTC to that effect.”
McDonald asserts that the lawsuit is an “abuse of process,” and pointed to various other legal actions that Redstone has taken against BTC Mall Associates.
Redstone has filed an Environmental Court appeal against the permits, filed suit in U.S. District Court over the land disputes, and is involved in an ongoing trespass and property damages case resulting from demolition of the downtown mall that stood on the property until 2018.
McDonald called an “egregious allegation” Redstone’s claim that the Development Review Board “abandoned its duties under the Constitution” by providing a permit that “had a new road running straight through the property of 100 Bank.” She argues it is “well-settled law” that a permit applicant does not need to own the land where a project is proposed.
In the BTC Mall Associates brief, attorneys from Dunkiel Saunders Elliott Raubvogel and Hand argue that Redstone is taking excessive legal action against CityPlace developers to “gain a competitive advantage over BTC.”
Mayor Miro Weinberger told city councilors Monday that he was “surprised and disappointed” by the Redstone lawsuit. He said mediation sessions between CityPlace developers and Redstone have been scheduled for the first half of July.
“The city has become a party in the dispute but a lot of the issues really at stake are private issues between the two,” Weinberger said. “I am hoping the city can play some productive role in helping resolve this dispute.”
