Representatives for Amazon are appealing the Essex Development Review Board’s July decision to nix an application to build a 107,000-square-foot warehouse in town.
The applicant “has failed to meet its burden by providing incomplete, contradictory, and unreliable information on critical traffic issues,” the town board’s decision, published July 17, states.
Gravel & Shea PC, representing Scannell Properties and Allen Brook Development Inc., filed the appeal dated Aug. 15 in the environmental division of Vermont Superior Court, according to documents shared with VTDigger.
“We’ve filed an appeal to thoughtfully address the concerns raised by the Essex Development Review Board, because we believe our traffic analysis is thorough and that our proposal fully meets local requirements,” Amber Plunkett, a spokesperson for Amazon, wrote in an emailed statement Friday.
Town officials received notification of the filing from their lawyers on Aug. 21. A hearing date has not yet been set.
Named Project Moose, the site plan for the application outlines a 107,000-square-foot facility and 500 parking spaces at 637 Kimo Drive on 22.94 acres of mostly vacant and wooded land in the Saxon Hill Industrial Park off Thompson Drive. If built, it would be the first Amazon facility in Vermont.
“With the applicant’s appeal of that decision, the project now goes to the State’s Environmental Court and the Town will await the court’s decision,” Town Manager Greg Duggan wrote in an email Friday.
A court hearing would give Amazon “a second bite at the apple” and community members the opportunity to reassert their arguments, this time in a judicial forum, according to Jared Carter, one of two lawyers representing Essex residents opposed to the project. In response to the project, residents have formed a nonprofit called ACRES — Alliance of Concerned Residents Envisioning Solutions.
“Of course we’re disappointed that Amazon has decided to appeal this despite the fact that the DRB, I think, pretty resoundingly said no. It’s certainly their legal right to do,” Carter said.
Starting over
The legal review is independent of the board vote, however, which essentially means starting over, he added.
Residents who remain opposed to the project are ready to argue why the proposed project should be rejected.
“The story unfolding in Essex is nothing short of a modern David vs. Goliath,” said resident Lorraine Zaloom in a statement on behalf of ACRES. “Our town’s Development Review Board made a sound decision in rejecting Amazon’s proposed warehouse, citing serious concerns that remain unresolved.”
After protests, heated debates and objections from residents during extensive public testimony this summer, the town’s project review board issued its 4-2 vote July 17 denying the site plan proposed by Scannell in the Saxon Hill Industrial Park.
The basis for the board’s denial was the project’s failure to comply with town zoning regulations, and particularly, its “failure to meet the burden of proof by providing unreliable traffic data” that “fails to meet the Town’s standards for data quality and methodology,” according to the decision published last month.
The decision further states that the applicant did not provide additional information requested and provided “misleading” information about an alleged state review.
At the July 17 public hearing, the town board “was led to believe that the project’s traffic impacts had been reviewed and accepted by the Vermont Agency of Transportation,” the decision notes. Upon further investigation, town officials found the VTrans traffic engineer had not given an opinion on the applicant’s traffic study.
“This admission revealed that a key state agency with expertise in traffic safety had not, in fact, reviewed the traffic analysis for this specific high-intensity proposal,” the decision states.
Residents who testified against the project remain opposed due to traffic, noise, pollution, stormwater management and other environmental and quality-of-life issues.
Town regulations exist to be implemented, not waived, reads the ACRES statement sent by Zaloom. Residents claim the Amazon proposal is unsafe, and puts drivers, pedestrians and school traffic at risk.
“It is still a terrible location in our community for large scale distribution, far from the interstate,” Zaloom stated. “Yet Amazon presses forward, relying on unlimited financial resources — and the local developer’s outsized influence — to steamroll local opposition under the guise of civic generosity, while acting in pursuit of profit.”
Patty Davis, one of the area residents who testified against the project, said she wants the developer to build an alternate access road to take potential traffic pressure and hazards off the nearby residential neighborhood where she lives.
“We are not moving. A permanent injunction from trucks accessing lower Sandhill Road is personally all I want ASAP no matter what company comes here. Why? Because, we live here!” she added.
Amazon says it is committed to serving the Burlington area with faster delivery and reliable service.
“Beyond improving delivery service for Burlington-area families and businesses, this facility would bring new jobs and contribute to Essex’s economic growth. We look forward to continuing the conversation and sharing more about the positive impact this project can have for the community,” Plunkett wrote in the statement.
