Legislation to Concentrate Development Downtown

Author: Campus Editor in Chief

Historic preservation and anti-sprawl groups recorded a victory last week when the Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill aimed at concentrating commercial development in downtown districts.

The measure, which is now pending before the Senate General Affairs Committee, would extend tax incentives to privately owned businesses that opt to renovate existing downtown space rather than build outside of the town or village center.

Tax credits of up to 50 percent would cushion the expense of bringing aging buildings up to the current fire code and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, encouraging both prospective and current downtown businesses to modernize their facilities.

Chief among the legislation's goals is promoting upper level occupancy in downtown buildings.

By luring more businesses into the downtown area, activists speculate that the bill may help curb the growing phenomenon of suburban sprawl, a popularized term to describe growth that encroaches on surrounding land and disrupts the traditional Vermont settlement pattern of towns interspersed among expanses of farmland.

The development on Route 7 South in Middlebury, where shopping plazas, gas stations and offices line the highway, is widely cited as an example of this trend.

Some local residents have cautioned that relocating Middlebury Municipal Building to the former Maple Manor site off of Route 7 South would only fuel the already burgeoning area of strip development.

In a March interview with The Middlebury Campus, Weybridge resident Bill Roper said he feared moving the Municipal Building outside of the downtown area would serve "as a catalyst to further growth" on Route 7 South, which he characterized as part of "the strip development area of Middlebury."

Associate Director of the Vermont Forum on Sprawl Sarah Judd said her organization lobbied for the downtown revitalization bill in hopes that it would help to contain sprawl. "If we use the existing infrastructure, there is less building out into cornfields," she said.

The Forum's mission — "to preserve "Vermont's unique working landscape and quality of life while encouraging economic vitality in community centers"— hints at the fragile balance between preserving downtowns and cultivating economic growth.

"We can't support [downtown revitalization] initiatives by harming those who locate outside of the downtown," said Chuck Nichols, senior vice president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. "We have to be careful that we don't make it seem like we don't want activity to take place outside of downtown."

Referring to major retailers like Wal-Mart, Nichols added, "Vermonters want those products and services and we can't shut our eyes to that."

The Chamber supports the legislative effort to bolster downtowns, Nichols said, but he added that concentrated development gives rise to concentrated traffic, noise and pollution.

Vermont Preservation Trust Executive Director Paul Bruhn emphasized that downtown revitalization "is not about anti-economic development [and] not about pickling Vermont."

The Trust, which works to keep essential services downtown and awards grants for historic preservation projects, was active in convincing Wal-Mart to locate in downtown Rutland in the mid 1990s.

Bruhn said he advocates "growth and big bucks, but in a way that reinforces existing structures."

When "big box retailers" like Wal-Mart locate outside of the village center, "they suck the life out of downtown businesses," commented Judd.

But Nichols cited the "economic gap" between the costs of locating a business downtown as opposed to on the periphery. "Developers don't go outside because they want to, they do that to meet their client's budget and needs," he said.

From a legislative standpoint, Addison County Senator Tom Bahre said that he "does not see sprawl as a problem," but added he "would just as soon see existing buildings be productive."

He admits, however, that he prioritizes economic growth above containing sprawl.

"I am not at all interested in eliminating economic expansion or job opportunities just because in the planning commission's mind there is a better place for that to happen, said Bahre, a republican.

Senator Gerry Gossens, Bahre's democratic counterpart, expressed firm support of downtown development.

"It is obviously a huge issue because we have some wonderful downtowns [in the county] that were dying as recently as five or six years ago," he said.

Even beyond the current legislation's provisions, Gossens recommended "steering developers downtown" by altering the storm water permitting process, making it "easier to locate downtown rather than put up a big box" outside of the village center.

Downtown preservation "is a big issue with me," said Gossens. "I feel it's very important."

Town Planner Fred Dunnington was reluctant to label sprawl as a problem in Middlebury. "Most development in Vermont happens very incrementally," he said, "and so taken together it may constitute sprawl."

Commenting on the proposed legislation to revive downtowns, Dunnington said it would provide a "marginal but important benefit" to downtown businesses. "By itself it's not a panacea or solution to sprawl," he continued.

He cites language in the Town Plan, which stipulates that development should support "economic and cultural vitality in the downtown."

"Were there to be major out of town developments, that would be contrary to the Town Plan," Dunnington affirmed.

A survey of the Town Plan reveals at least four sections that address downtown development. The document, which serves as the guiding ideology of town planning, specifies, "The town must encourage this tradition of downtown historic investment in public buildings, greens, monuments and other infrastructure within the Historic District."

The Plan, which spans over one-hundred pages, continues, "The downtown shapes the character of the town and maintains its sense of community and place. Downtown is what makes Middlebury special and it has not been diminished by strip or sprawl."

Section 8.4 takes the strongest stance on maintaining the downtown core.

It reads, "Applications for new or expanded commercial or institutional projects outside this downtown area must demonstrate that there will not be an unmitigated, undue adverse impact on the cultural and economic vitality of the downtown."

Dunnington summed up, "[Sprawl] is a problem, but probably a relatively minor one here."

He said he does not foresee "the intensity of growth" that would add considerably to strip development on Route 7 South.