The Essex Town Development Review Board continued taking public comment Thursday evening on a proposed Amazon warehouse facility. Dozens of town residents oppose the project, citing traffic concerns, stormwater runoff and quality of life issues.
According to documents filed with the Essex Town Development Review Board, Scannell Properties is proposing a 107,000-square-foot Amazon distribution facility on nearly 23 acres on Kimo Drive in the Vermont town. The property is currently undeveloped.
The proposal initially came before the review board on March 20th and board members continued the meeting to Thursday evening to hear more public comments. Town Planner Kent Johnson provided a review and update on the proposal.
“Scannell Properties is the applicant, not Amazon, which will be the tenant. However, Scannell and Amazon have a partnership with this project,” Johnson explained. “A staff report has been provided to the DRB which compares the applicant’s proposed project to the town’s regulations. I believe that the only design issue at this point relates to their stormwater management system design within the 50-foot buffer along the roadway.”
Amazon New England Economic Development and Public Policy Director Jonathan Greeley said their goal is to serve existing customers and the businesses that sell products through its website.
“This is not a retail establishment. This is a last mile facility. More than 60-percent of items that are sold on Amazon.com are actually the small and medium sized businesses. So the focus here is to serve our customers and provide better access from across New England, Vermont and the entire country for the small businesses and medium sized businesses that sell on Amazon.com,” Greeley told the crowd. “One other point I just wasn’t to reiterate, Amazon will be the ultimate owner of this building and fully anticipates paying fully assessed property and business personal property taxes at this building. At no point in time have we proposed or considered requesting any amount of relief from that.”
Nearly 100 residents voiced their concerns during the public hearing Thursday.
South Burlington business owner Gwendolyn Heaghney rebuffed the company’s claim that it wants to improve service to small businesses.
“The implications of an Amazon warehouse are enormous regardless of whether or not it’s an actual retail location. As a small business owner, I conscientiously made the decision to not buy Amazon products for a number of reasons,” Heaghney said. “One, I think their ethics are incredibly poor. The other is that there have been a number of fatalities in Amazon warehouses. Additionally, Amazon is going to weasel its way in. Don’t let Amazon kill all of our mom-and-pop shops.”
A number of residents, including Irene Wrenner, said the proposal violates the town plan and zoning regulations.
“The proposed development violates at least three mandatory provisions of our town plan. This proposal also creates liability exposure under Act 250’s ten criteria which require projects to be in conformance with any duly adopted regional or local plan,” Wrenner advised.
Resident Robert Lalancette was among those citing traffic impacts as a key bone of contention.
“There is one road in and that same road is the exit. If Kimball Drive is blocked due to an accident and at the same time a forklift accident, fire or hostile employee conflict happens at the facility emergency personnel and equipment can’t access the scene. Page 7 of the staff report states that the fire department recognizes this as a chokepoint,” noted Lalancette.
While most individuals focused on practical and regulatory concerns about the proposed warehouse, Essex resident David Scopin included criticism of Amazon owner Jeff Bezos.
“Amazon brought a lawyer and I’ve been talking to a lawyer also. It behooves this group of individuals here to get themselves together and decide you’re not the only one with a lawyer and Jeff can find another way to make another billion or two!” Scopin said.
The Development Review Board took no action and unanimously continued the meeting to an undetermined date.
