BRATTLEBORO — Everyone involved seems to agree about the vision of the Putney Road Master Plan: to gradually convert the north end of town from a strip-development wasteland to “a 50-acre, mixed-use center that is pedestrian oriented and provides a rich sense of place,” the document says.
But one hell of a devil in the details - whether to permit "regionally important shopping centers" in District 6, near Exit 3 of Interstate 91 - has created an impasse between the Brattleboro Planning Commission and the Selectboard.
The Master Plan process developed from a vision that emerged from public brainstorming sessions to imagine how to convert the “form and character” of the current developments to a more compatible vision over the next 50 years.
In April 2007, and again at the end of the summer, the Selectboard asked the Commission to address a number of concerns to rework the wording of a proposed zoning ordinance that would create the legal mechanisms that would shape the development of the commercial corridor in a manner consistent with the Master Plan.
The Commission accommodated most of the Selectboard's requests but failed either to remove shopping centers from the permitted uses in District 6, or to provide language blocking strip malls, resulting in the board voting to send the language back to the Commission for the third time.
Shopping centers and truck stops are the two major flash points disrupting consensus over the Putney Road Master Plan; a proposal to allow a small truck stop in adjacent District 7 had been tabled.
When the Commission returned to the Selectboard for a Feb. 5 public hearing, board member Rich Garant touched off a lively debate when Commission members confirmed that the proposed zoning language about shopping centers in District 6 - unchanged from the previous go-around - could allow a mall to be built.
Had the Selectboard passed the ordinance as presented, the hearing would have been the culmination of a lengthy process resulting in a zoning change.
But the board defeated the motion by a 3–1 vote, with Selectboard Chair Audrey Garfield and board member Dora Bouboulis joining Garant in opposition. Dick DeGray cast the lone vote in favor, and Steve Steidle was absent.
After the vote, Putney Road Master Plan Subcommittee Chair Gary Goodemote, who along with Planning Commission Chair Kevin Maloney and Zoning Administrator Justin Bates, had presented the proposed ordinance, offered a warning.
“I don't think I can make a credible request for people to continue to come to meetings if this is the result,” Goodemote said.
Meanwhile, shopping center critics complained that the Commission had returned an ordinance they knew would be shot down based on the results of previous hearings before the Selectboard.
Master plan
In lengthy interviews, Maloney and Goodemote explained that, although the Planning Commission made many of the requested changes, they did not comply with the request to remove shopping centers as a permitted use because they felt such a retail environment is an integral part of the smart growth vision of the Master Plan.
That vision is to use zoning to transform an area threatened with sprawl by encouraging the creation of an attractive, densely populated, mixed-use village center where people can reside within walking distance of workplaces, shopping, and recreation, with areas of decreasing density radiating outward.
The premise follows the principles of “smart growth,” planning strategy that encourages dense pockets of development to bring people closer together and to preserve open space.
The entire Putney Road Master Plan area runs from the bridge by the Marina to Exit 3, and from the Connecticut River to the West River and I-91. The plan calls for bicycle paths, pedestrian walkways, and green space in all districts and a village center at the south end, with the least dense areas up near Exit 3.
Districts 6 and 7, near Exit 3, would be used for more vehicular-oriented activities, such as a shopping center. Maloney pointed out that an area where people get off the interstate is a natural area for vehicles, and a more attractive environment at the interchange could entice highway visitors not only to stay but also to check out downtown.
According to Goodemote, the Master Plan started almost inadvertently when a grant to study transportation and traffic solutions ended up prompting people to think about what would happen alongside the road.
Goodemote said that at public meetings about a future vision for Putney Road, citizens would say: “I don't want it to look like Putney Road.”
Current zoning with big setbacks encourages huge parking lots in front of stores. Consequently, that section of Putney Road has become “kind of anywhere USA, and that was the impetus for the Master Plan,” he said.
The proposed zoning change would require 80 percent of a development's parking to be along the sides and back of buildings, screened from the road, one measure that would make future development conform to the vision of the Master Plan.
Goodemote described three, well-attended public meetings that included brainstorming, discussions of what is important to people and, finally, a set of alternative proposals drafted by local engineering firm Stevens & Associates, and then a nearly four-year process in which an ad hoc Planning Commission subcommittee composed of anyone interested enough to join worked on the specifics.
A mall by any other name
At the recent hearing, Garfield expressed a concern that the language of the proposed zoning changes permitting shopping centers could open the door for a “lifestyle center,” a trendy, upscale collection of small shops or a compact mall without the large anchor stores.
Although Garfield did not say what triggered her concern, one out-of-town developer participated on the Putney Road Master Plan Subcommittee and talked about wanting to build such a lifestyle center.
Russ West, who served five years on the Selectboard and three and a half on the Planning Commission and has been on the Subcommittee from the beginning, recalls the meeting which that developer attended almost four years ago.
“He kept talking about 'the best zoning is no zoning, you let everybody do whatever they damn well please,' ... and we all kind of looked at him and said, 'No, that's not how we do it around here',” West recalled.
West defended the Planning Commission's work on the zoning ordinance and criticized the Selectboard for not accepting the proposal as presented.
"One thing I've learned in all those years in planning and the Selectboard is that when people bring you something to the table, you've got to listen to them because they have to go back to a committee or a group and say: 'they heard us, they didn't agree with us, but we're fine, they heard what we had to say',” he noted.
West said he gets “a little bit bent out of shape” over rumors that the Subcommittee has ignored Selectboard directive or is taking a hands-off approach.
“We're not 'just doing it',” West said. “It's a 50-year plan and we're just on year two.”
Until recently, West lived and worked on Putney Road, but he pointed out that he owns no property there. He explained that since his business and residence have moved, his interest is entirely personal and that he has no economic stake in the outcome.
But what about Subcommittee members who do have an economic stake?
Maloney acknowledged that the Subcommittee's ad hoc membership could be seen as opening the door to people with economic interests.
“We are revisiting the use of subcommittees, what it means to be a subcommittee,” Maloney said, but he pointed out that in a small town virtually everyone has some interest, and that “it is hard enough to get people with a vested interest to volunteer, and it is impossible to get people without a vested interest to volunteer to go to meetings twice a month for three years.”
A subcommittee can focus on a single issue, he pointed out, while the Commission as a whole must divide its attention.
The Commission does not just “rubber stamp” subcommittee recommendations and send them to the Selectboard, Maloney said.
“We do discuss it....There are two [Commission] members on the Subcommittee,” Maloney said. “They basically can update us on what was discussed and why they are taking the positions they are taking.”
Maloney said that on the major issue of substance - clustering development into compact urban areas to keep rural areas free of sprawl - there is consensus, and any conflict can prompt serious discussion leading to better solutions.
He said that he understands both sides of the shopping center controversy, and that the challenge is to fine-tune the town's zoning regulations so that the spirit of the regulations are less likely to be circumvented.
Big boxes
While the Master Plan process brought consensus that the aesthetic and economic impacts of strip development are undesirable, there are serious differences of opinion about the extent of local regulation.
A pivotal question is whether the town should require an economic impact assessment similar to what is required by the current, temporary “big box” store ordinance when there is a changed use for a single store in a large shopping center.
At the hearing, Brattleboro Zoning Administrator Justin Bates argued that making the property owner of a plaza with a number of stores “jump through hoops” each time a vacancy is filled would be overly restrictive.
Planning Director Rod Francis, who began work for the town Feb. 4, said later he is not aware of any town in Vermont with such a requirement and that he has no data on the costs, but speculated that hiring an economic consultant would cost thousands of dollars.
"Each individual store is probably not going to contribute that much of an impact and so then you may end up having a situation where they're paying consultant's fees to verify that there's no impact. It doesn't make for smooth or efficient decision making," Francis said.
Francis said that any cost would be a disincentive for a business, which might then decide to locate or relocate in Keene or Wilmington.
Francis also raised the distinction between corporate chain stores and franchises, which are independently owned.
If a franchise owner has lived in the community for years, "should that person be dealt with differently than, say, another homegrown store that's not part of a franchise?" Francis asked.
Bates added that a cluster of stores built by a distant corporation could help local businesses by providing affordable retail space as an incubator, and by not allowing shopping centers the town will end up with single stores, each with its own parking lot, just like the ones now sprawled along Putney Road.
Also at the hearing, Maloney said that Act 250 could be relied on to control inappropriate mega-malls. The state environmental regulation affects projects on lots larger than 10 acres.
“I simply didn't agree,” said Garant, responding in an interview with The Commons.
“I see no reason to add the layer of 250 because it means getting lawyers involved, development involved, at the state level,” he said. He also said that Act 250 kicking in would not leave citizens with any local say.
Garant said he is puzzled that, after extensive discussion between the Planning Commission and the Selectboard, the planners had consciously chosen to ignore the board's request for language designed to keep local control of development.
Garant explained why he believes local control is worth fighting for:
“If you've got a strip mall... all they care about is shoveling money back to corporate headquarters,” he said. “They don't reinvest in the community.”
“If you can sort of plug in a different franchise every year or two or five years, it really changes the character of the area, and they are not going to want to really care about the community,” Garant added. “They just want to care about doing things as cheaply as possible, getting whatever products they can put there sold, made as cheaply as possible, and if it's made as cheaply as possible it's not going to be made in this area. It's going to be done in a factory in China or over the border in Mexico.”
Planning Commission Chair Maloney - speaking officially for the majority opinion - acknowledged that, with some work to fine-tune ordinance language, it would have been possible for the Commission to have created language addressing the Selectboard majority's concerns: preventing the type of strip development that drains local funds to benefit distant corporations.
Maloney recently said the Selectboard could have passed the ordinance as presented and postponed any needed changes without boding ill .
Earlier in the interview, however, Maloney noted that the recent Cumberland Farms in West Brattleboro could not have been stopped because it complied with existing zoning.
Garant challenged the argument that the ordinance could have been passed and tweaked later.
“Developers could come by, file their papers, and get their development in, and the town won't be able to [tweak the ordinance] in the next month or so. I know that once stuff is put in and grandfathered in under the regulations, you can't go back and change it. So why should I rush to approve something rather than let it go for the next board?” Garant asked.
Garant said he understands that the Commission and its subcommittee have already worked hard on the zoning change but said that he cannot understand why they intentionally avoided local control language.
The Selectboard would have enthusiastically passed the ordinance when, “with the addition of very little extra time and effort, [the Planning Commission] could have dealt with that strip mall issue."
In a discussion with The Commons, Selectboard Chair Audrey Garfield voiced the need for zoning language to create the type of development that will benefit the town.
She attributed her vote against the proposed zoning to the profound, long-term impact of the decision.
“I think it is only prudent for us to take the time which is needed now,” she said.