Developers present South End Innovation District proposal: 13-acre site, 1,100–1,500 units and a 20% affordability commitment; infrastructure financing remains—

Developers and Hula representatives presented a predevelopment plan for a 13-acre site in Burlington’s South End Innovation District on April 2, describing a project they estimate could deliver roughly 1,100 to 1,500 residential units and a public-infrastructure ask they described as necessary to proceed.

Adam Nickrassen of Nickrassen Group introduced the presentation and called the plan "what hopes to be the largest housing development in Vermont." Lucia Campriello, team lead at Hula, described the South End campus and Hula’s work incubating entrepreneurship and said the campus currently hosts about 1,200 members and several hundred visiting coworkers annually. Founder Russ Scully said the surface parking lot adjacent to Hula spans three abutting parcels totaling about 13 acres and is owned by three parties (the Scullys' parcel, the City of Burlington, and Champlain College); the team described a coordinated redevelopment across all three parcels.

Developers gave a range of program and financing details. The current predevelopment plan targets between 1,115 and 1,500 units across the site, with a commitment that 20% of units be affordable on the rental side to households at or below 80% of area median income (AMI). The team said Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) will be a partner to help deliver the committed affordable units. Andrew Foley of Jonathan Rose Company, the development partner, said Jonathan Rose focuses on mixed-income, green development and offered precedents from other cities to illustrate design and sustainability approaches.

Speakers emphasized that public infrastructure upgrades are the gating issue. The presenters and committee discussed a combined-sewer overflow (CSO) and stormwater/ wastewater capacity problem near Lakeside Avenue and Pine Street; the developers said the site’s existing utilities and a local wastewater-treatment facility lack capacity to support additional residential units without separation of storm and sanitary flows and other upgrades. The team said recent city bond approvals and zoning changes (rezone in August 2024) and a predevelopment agreement among the city, Champlain College and Ride Your Bike (the major private parcel owner) have advanced the project to a predevelopment phase, but substantial infrastructure funding —including consideration of a tax-increment financing (TIF) mechanism and other state supports— is required for the project to be financially feasible.

Committee members and presenters discussed likely building heights under the new zoning (four to eight stories, with taller buildings located away from single-family blocks), inclusionary-zoning floors and whether the project could deliver permanence for affordable units. Foley said the rental affordability target is for units at or below 80% AMI; he said the question of perpetual affordability would be resolved with partners and funding decisions. Multiple committee members asked whether current construction and financing costs permit the promised affordability levels; presenters said project economics do not currently pencil out without public subsidies and are actively pursuing state and federal funding streams. Presenters said they are considering universal design and accessible units but did not provide a specific accessibility percentage at this predevelopment stage.

The presenters described a predevelopment agreement extended in February (the city, Champlain College, and the private parcel owner), and noted the zoning amendment passed August 2024 that allows residential development on the formerly industrial/parking parcels. Will Fleissig, who has coordinated among the city and partners, said the team is assembling potential funding mechanisms and that municipal and state tools —including infrastructure funding and TIF —will likely be necessary. During questions, a committee member said the developers have sought approximately $60,000,000 for infrastructure; presenters clarified that the $60 million ask is for infrastructure but not necessarily requested from this committee.

Ending

Presenters asked the committee to consider the project and coordinate with Commerce and other committees working on TIF and infrastructure tools; no formal vote or funding commitment was made. The committee paused the hearing for a short break and scheduled additional follow-up materials and documents to be provided by the development team.