LETTER: Proposed Shutesville Hill project conflicts with Waterbury town plan, bylaws

March 10, 2023

To the Community: 

Regarding the proposed Shutesville Hill 50-unit development: This project is out of character with the written goals and objectives of Waterbury’s town plan and town bylaws. 

  • Shutesville Hill Wildlife Corridor – The Planned Unit Development will bisect one of the most important wildlife crossings in Vermont, the only viable ecological connection between the Green Mountains and the Worcester Range. 

  • Town Plan and Town Bylaws – The Planned Unit Development is not compatible with Waterbury’s traditional pattern of Smart Growth and Growth Centers. It does not encourage new development in specified Growth Centers in a manner that retains Waterbury’s unique culture and image. It does not meet Waterbury’s traditional pattern of concentrated settlements surrounded by rural countryside. It is not located close to public transportation or any other public services. 

  • Safety – The property abuts the long-established and active Waterbury Fish & Game Club of over 400 members. 

  • Traffic – With the proposed 50 units, approximately 100 cars will be entering and exiting in the vicinity of, but not opposite to, Spruce Haven Road, a road that is already difficult to make turns in and out of. According to VTrans official accident reports, in 2021 and 2022 there were 43 total accidents on Route 100 in Waterbury with approximately 15 occurring in the Shutesville Wildlife Corridor. 

  • Route 100 Corridor – The Planned Unit Development is incompatible with the scenic byway.

There is a need for affordable housing in Waterbury. But these units at approximately $3,000 per month for a 3-bedroom apartment are not the solution to the housing problem. 

The next hearing is March 15, 6:30 p.m., at the Waterbury Municipal Building, Steele Community Room (next to the library).

 

Kate Carter

Waterbury Center

Previous
Previous

Sen. Bernie Sanders shares student ‘State of the Union’ essays

Next
Next

Gov. Scott: Vision, priorities, leadership needed to capitalize on historic funding