I’m writing again about the zoning change, from Residential, to Urban, to the parcel at the Shaw Outdoor Center.

Here is the proposed change, per the Planning Commission’s vote to approve:
“This District is amended in 2013: a portion of the Norwich University
parcel currently zoned Recreation (parcel 011-027.000, commonly
known as the old ski hill) is changed from Recreation to Urban
Residential. The division of the parcel is defined by drawing a line
from the eastern tip of Richard Olson’s property (parcel 017-030.000)
north-easterly to the southeast corner of the Urban Residential zone
and assigning the area to the west of that line to the Urban Residential
district consistent with the zoning district of the adjacent properties,
and the land to the east of that line shall remain Recreation. “

There will be a public hearing held by the Board of Selectmen on Monday, 1/13, at 6 pm.

This change paves the way to the construction of a 10,000
square foot medical office building, together with a parking lot for 52 cars, situated 25 feet from my property line.

I have sent the following comments to the Board of Selectmen. There has been some wonderful
discussion here on FPF and I hope to inspire some with this posting.

There were two phases of the work done to create the outdoor center that were disruptive to me. The first was the trail work, which had chain saws operating near my house before 7 in the morning. The second was the protracted use of heavy equipment for a protracted period of time which created noise, raised dirt that drifted in my windows, and set my lamp shades rattling. I made no complaints about that process because the outcome was a great resource for Norwich and the community.

As an individual, I feel it is asking too much for me to have to go through this upheaval again.

I live in a residential area surrounded on two sides of my home with a recreation area. The proposed project is an unacceptable leap from its present usage. It is a change to an area that has served for years as a ski and sledding hill, providing winter recreation for countless outdoor enthusiasts and town residents. It is a very quiet area and beautiful as well. I had no expectation when I bought my home that this spectacular change would take place.

The impact of this project would negatively affect my property value, my access to my home, my personal enjoyment of my home, my right to peace and quiet, and my sense of aesthetics.

I stand to be adversely affected by the sight obstruction, the lights at night, the noise of people, cars, HVAC systems, etc.

I have had runoff problems from the hill behind my house, and in fact have had to spend quite a bit of money on amelioration, including waterproofing my basement. I am very concerned that the building and parking lot would affect the water table, and potentially my home.

In addition, I am concerned about the impact of access to the medical office building via Crescent Avenue. Currently, the street is short, narrow, and not suited to more than a few occasional cars. It is certainly not suited for the level of traffic that would result from the size of medical office building that is contemplated. At the May planning commission meeting, Dr. Sullivan stated that there would not be more traffic than the amount his clinic currently has. Yet the new facility will incorporate a physical therapy practice (now located in the Gray Building.)
I’m also concerned that the project would adversely affect the small wetland area between the proposed building and the equipment shed that is on the Shaw Circle end of the area.

Since I became aware of the process, I have attended Planning Commission meetings, and carefully followed developments regarding the change of zoning. I object to the fast track that this proposed building has driven. I have been told that the Commission has been working on revising zoning in the entire town for over a year. At the May meeting of the Commission, when E.F. Wall and Norwich presented their site plan, the members expressed a willingness to float the zoning for that area to the top of the priority list. Subsequently I was told that all recreation areas were to be changed. Now it appears that the zoning to this particular area is to be changed for the sole purpose of allowing the building to move forward. I object strongly to being told that recreation areas, as currently zoned are “spot zoning.” This is misleading. Spot zoning is changing a particular property’s zoning status to suit an individual or organization; it is not a term that should be used to refer to allocating multiple sites in a town for recreational use.
It seems to me the new zoning would be spot zoning.

At the May meeting, I was told by Dave Magida of Norwich that I “should have known such a project was coming, as it had been in their plan for some time.” He has also been quoted recently in the Northfield News as saying that development of that area has been in Norwich’s master plan “for years.” Despite his assertions, in fact, I have only been aware of a suggested student lodge for the site, and find no evidence in public documents of a commercial venture like the one proposed. Although I have discussed this plan with Michele Braun, I have not seen it. She has told me the only building suggested is a student lodge, but she does not have a copy for me to look at, and the there is only a broken link on Norwich’s website to the 2011 master plan.

I have found that the Commission members have made obfuscating and erroneous statements in order to support their desire to make this change. At one meeting town representatives and the commission members denied that there was even a project, since E.F. Wall had withdrawn their application, and that the zoning change had nothing to do with that project

I am concerned about the detail and accuracy of the minutes of the meetings when this subject has been discussed. Further, at the October Planning Commission’s public hearing on the zoning change, members of the commission arrived after some community members expressed their concerns about the project. I understand that there was not a quorum at the meeting, and the Commission members were unsure what to do. I subsequently was informed by Michele Braun via an email that the members who missed the meeting saw the video of the comments made. Watching a video is not an appropriate substitute for interacting with members of the public, as the Commission members have a responsibility to do. In fact, the minutes posted regarding this meeting state that the members did not hear anything new! There is nothing in the minutes to indicate the lack of a quorum

I would posit that all options for a new medical facility, including positioning it on the campus, have not been exhausted. I urge you to explore all of these options rather than approving the current proposal.

Thank you for your attention.