Dear Editor,

When the Planning Commission approved the Teens, Inc. SRU proposal for a building on the town shop site, they overlooked many key elements in the discussion. Furthermore, they seemed confused about the “necessity” of approving the request. A comment was made by at least one commissioner that the PC “must” approve the project if they were satisfied it met certain criteria.

While probably everyone at the meeting shared the mutual view that childcare is integral to a functioning society, we differed on whether or not the only flat town-owned property on this side of town would best be utilized for the Nederland residents by covering the area with a building, parking, and other improvements that would alter the scale of the neighborhood, setting the stage for a “build out” on a massive scale this side of town. This proposal, if implemented, would also dramatically alter the impact and feel for our “unique” and “diverse” town upon approach via Hwy 72 South bound by having an institutional scale building right next to the creek. Is this the “I am Ned” vision we want to impart to our children?

There was no discussion at any meeting of our vision as a town in all our planning documents to build in scale, to protect waterways, and whether or not this SRU met those criteria. Nor was there a discussion at any time of the submitted comments by residents for an alternate plan, not only for the town shop site, but for the area including the trailer park. Surely voters deserve a say in the use of public land, and to choose what kind of scale, and to what use this parcel should be put. Do we want another building the size of the fire station or the teen center, on this part of the publicly owned North Beaver Creek waterway, one of the two waterways that go through Nederland?

Here is where the project evaluation was flawed and subject to judicial review. Questions raised about compatibility of the proposed project with adjacent land use such as the RV park, the trailer park, and a horse pasture, were not addressed except by dismissal. Required numerical setbacks, drainage and snow removal plans were not included in the application. Specifically: Setbacks. This is a requirement to be included in the application

The submitted drawings did not contain notated setback numbers or even what the numerical building footprint was on the lot map. These numbers should be included in readable form, ideally, superimposed over a survey or an ILC. The survey on this public piece of property should be public. The SRU site plans must specify setbacks or placement, especially in relation to the road, such features as parking, landscaping, the building itself, with the setback measured in feet.

Despite this lack of information, the Planning Committee majority voted to approve the SRU request without any modification or additional detail. There is no working copy with proposed setbacks printed in black, on the application above or next to it, and in red, the setback that was granted. In other words, the discussion never even started.

Drainage. What expert opinion has determined there is no runoff problem on this lot?

Town Administrator Miranda Fisher advised the board that there were “no issues”. This would include snowplowing, drainage, and bridge considerations over North Beaver Creek.

This is a known flood zone, especially in houses east of Griffith on both 3rd and 4th St., an issue I raised at almost every meeting, and has been discussed numerous times by myself and others with town staff for years prior to this proposal. Given the documented evidence that runoff and snow is already a problem in the neighborhood, the town administrator, having failed to address those problems to date, misspoke by saying there are no issues. Neither she nor the applicant is demonstratibly qualified to assess this complex issue, nor has there been included in the application the necessary and appropriate drainage plan and snowplowing plan, preferably engineered. There is no coherent snow plowing plan, except perhaps to plow it into the creek. This issue has been raised numerous times with Town Administrator Miranda Fisher.

Not enough of the right kind of information

The decision makers in our town have been barraged with comments from the applicant’s extensive mailing list in support of the concept of institutional-scale childcare and their desire to see it happen at 750 W 5th. With so many letters, one of our planning commissioners commented, “I didn’t even get through” all the written letters, many of which were against the proposal. A comment was made by another decision maker that the letters opposed were all sort of the same. This is the opposite of the truth in this case.

Whatever happened to our commitment to senior and low-income housing, the planned intended use for this property for the last 24 years? Residents have crafted an excellent draft of a ballot measure that makes provision for revitalizing the entire neighborhood, in livable scale, and adhering to stated goals of our public planning documents.

Please consider the options, past promises, and the best use of this property, by acknowledging the benefits already articulated in other meetings for green space and waterway protection, given the certain failure of this SRU to meet real requirements as outlined in our town code as articulated here.

May Jarril

Nederland