Appletree Point
I spoke these words to the Burlington City Council meeting on February 19, 2008
I went to the Appletree Point meeting held by the developer, Infill Development, last night. That, is an ambitious project for senior housing in a cozy wetland hamlet of a single residential neighborhood of cottages. It is the worst location for a senior housing project.
- Off the beaten path
- Bad access for employees, visitors, emergency vehicles
- More traffic for the neighborhood
- No access to mass transit
- No close shopping or other activities
- etc, etc, etc.
Well, many of you (Burlington City Council) know what I mean and probably agree with me. If this project goes ahead in any capacity, it will make a sham of the concept of zoning.
I’ve heard a couple of times already from good sources that this project will probably go through, in spite of its overwhelming opposition and bad concept because the “city needs this project.” Now, this is interesting. If the city needs this project, why? and why is this not public knowledge? I have seen and heard about many actions by city employees directing the outcomes of projects when “the city” supports a project that is contrary to popular public opinion. I have spoken to commissioners who felt intimidated by CEDO staff, who will line the walls of their meeting rooms during a deliberation of any of CEDO’s favorite projects.
This is a real problem that exists in our city government that needs to be fixed. there is no reason that citizens should have to organize, spend all their spare time and often funds fighting organizations and the city. If the city administration has an agenda let’s hear about it. If there is a problem to be fixed, lets figure it out, agree on it and put all that citizen effort into finding a resolution. The citizens of Burlington should not have to fight city hall.
2 comments so far
Leave a reply
Testimony given to Design Advisory Board, Jan 29, 08.
I am asking you today not to approve the design of this project before you:
· because no waiver has been granted to allow this density
· because the buildings are too large, too tall, and too intrusive
· because the footprints encroach on sensitive natural areas
· because the site is in a low density residential zone in an open space protection area
· because the NNE has designated growth areas known as Neighborhood Activity Centers
· because this is a residential area, not an institutional zone
· and because the character of our neighborhood is our legacy and our pride.
Zoning is the city’s contract with a homeowner, an agreement to protect our property, an agreement that the land use in our neighborhood is stable. To break that contract with a waiver to the zoning requirements – in this case, density of 4.4 units per acre increased to 20 units per acre — must be undertaken very carefully, and must only be done for reasons supported by the residents with whom you made the contract.
The permit request before you is for waivers and CUDs — and that tells you something. Opponents of this project are zoning ordinances, wetland regulations, and locational criteria for senior housing. For example, the AAPR Livable Community report says:
Housing targeted to older residents should connect
directly to public transportation and pedestrian
options for easily getting around without access
to a car. Housing development that does not
follow this design protocol should not be approved.
AARP Livable Communities, p18.
Alternative analysis identifies two excellent sites for senior housing in this area. One is in the Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) at the Ethan Allen Shopping Center (state land next door to the shopping area is for sale). Starr Farm Nursing Home also has adjacent land, near an area designated NAC in the Municipal Development Plan.
Appletree Point Farm’s best land use is conservation of open space and wetlands, historic inn, community gardens on prime ag soil, and single family homes and duplex cottages — all consistent with the Zoning Ordinances, the Open Space Protection Plan, Preservation of Historic Properties, and the Municipal Development Plan. No waivers or CUD’s would be required, and that tells you something!
For all of these reasons, I ask you to rule unfavorably on the design that is before you tonight.
Testimony, Kent Cassella, January 31, 2008
Re: Senior Housing in the swamp — I think NOT!
I have not heard anyone, at this point, say senior housing is a bad idea. Quite the opposite. Carefully planned senior housing is a must. What the N7 group is saying, and rightfully so, is that the Wick Estate is not the appropriate location. Our seniors want to stay in their communities and remain as independent as possible and, at the same time, be close enough to activity centers to not have to be reliant on their own cars or their families for transportation. Ideally we would like to have our seniors be able to walk to the store, pick up a video rental, get your haircut, have a bite to eat, fill a prescription and not have to get in the car. Many of us have been confronted with the question: Should Mom or Dad still be driving? It’s a delicate balance convincing our elderly parents to give up driving. For my family it was rather tricky. In a loving, yet somewhat deceitful, manner we had to let the ‘old man’ decide he didn’t need to drive anymore. We wanted it to be his decision because giving up that part of our independence is a radical change of lifestyle. He was 86 at the time.
This is just one of the problems with the Infill proposal. The traffic study submitted suggests that the occupants of the Commons at Appletree Point will have approximately .2 cars per unit. How many elderly individuals do you know that share a car with 4 other households? That’s just not realistic. The elderly are driving well into their 70’s and indeed, much older. One of my neighbors on Staniford Road told me how upset she was because her son took her car – she’s 93 years old. Whether the occupants of this development are in Assisted Care or Independent living – there will be no shortage of vehicles.
I grew up in a Planning household. My father, who has recently moved into an Assisted Care / Independent Living facility, was the Chair of the Westchester County Planning Association in New York for 25 years. Planning was his vocation. In his field, William N. Cassella, Jr. is renowned. When I mentioned this project to him and showed him the plot plan his immediate reaction was it is just too far from the services seniors require. He felt the size of the proposed structures to be “over the top.” He went on to say to me: ”planning should rethink this isolationist principle that’s at work and not build these ’islands for the elderly’ but rather focus on re-developing existing commercial centers. By default, you’re going to be protecting open space, wood land and wetland from additional sprawl.”
I don’t think anyone has suggested that there be no development on the Wick Estate. It’s a beautiful parcel and if it’s developed carefully and thoughtfully – it will certainly be an asset to our neighborhood. How many of us have walked this property in all 4 seasons? How many of you are aware that the beautiful ponds, filled with turtles, ducks, frogs and fish, are fed by springs and ground water? How many of you have seen the deer, the mink and the other wildlife that inhabit the area? Only eco-friendly development on a realistic scale is appropriate for this gorgeous open space.
Kent Cassella
52 Appletree Point Road
Burlington, VT 05408
802.862.4129