LOCATION: Otter Valley Union High School Auditorium, Brandon, VT

ATTENDEES: 70 people signed in to the meeting. Town, Regional and State officials/representatives that were in attendance are listed below:

2. Highlight Purpose of Meeting

• Present the preliminary findings of the Draft Bypass Scoping Report;
• Discuss the outstanding issues discussed at the May 21, Public Informational Meeting; and
• Receive public input on the Draft Bypass Scoping Report.

• The twelve-mile segment of US Route 7 within the project study area is in need of reconstruction. CLD has designed six projects to make improvements to the existing roadway. The projects will correct many safety and operational deficiencies, add passing lanes where warranted and address drainage issues. The existing concrete slabs under the roadway will be removed. The projects are slated to move to construction, with construction beginning perhaps as early as 2004, on Segment 6 (Brandon Village). Other Segments would follow as they are advanced through the Right-of-Way process.
• Additional US Route 7 Highway Capacity is required. US Route 7 is part of the National Highway System. Its intended function is the mobility of people and goods over long distances, between large centers of population. Within the project area, local access functions conflict with US Route 7’s mobility function. Additional highway capacity is required to preserve US Route 7’s mobility function, yet the Village areas are so tightly constrained by the presence of natural and cultural resources, that widening through the Villages to gain capacity is not possible. Therefore, Bypasses around the Villages are required to satisfy US Route 7’s long-term capacity requirements.

• The Bypass Scoping Study’s Effects on Property Values: At the last Public Informational Meeting, a realtor stated his opinion that the Scoping Study and the locations of the conceptual bypass corridors must be disclosed to perspective property buyers and sellers. The VT Attorney General’s Office has issued a recent opinion, that this Scoping Study is of such a preliminary nature that disclosure is not necessary. Refer to the memo relating to this issue, included at the end of these meeting notes.
• OMYA Rail Spur Study: A rail spur currently under study would remove approximately 115 round truck-trips from Brandon Village. An obvious question is therefore, "Would the spur give sufficient relief to eliminate the need for a Bypass around Brandon Village?" Based on currently available information, the reduction in trucks resulting from the spur would not reduce the overall traffic volume on US Route 7 to a degree that would obviate the need for a Brandon Bypass. Anticipated truck traffic growth alone would offset the effects of the spur within 5-6 years.
• Before and After Studies for Similar Bypassed Towns: Rutland Regional Planning Commission assessed the likely socio-economic effects of the conceptual bypass corridors. To summarize, the majority of businesses in both Villages do not rely on through traffic and, therefore, would not likely be adversely affected. It is likely that some businesses that do rely on through traffic would choose to relocate to locations near where the Bypasses would intersect with VT Routes 3 and 73, and that other businesses would change their focus to compensate for decreased through traffic. It is not anticipated, however, that the Bypasses would result in long-term adverse impacts to either Pittsford or Brandon.

10. Public Input/Discussion (Questions are in Italicized Bold, Responses are in Normal Type)

1. Some impact quantities are given in acres. What is meant by an acre of impact, is it the land directly impacted by the roadway, or does it also account for area adjacent to the roadway (secondary impacts)?

Impact quantities presented in the Draft Bypass Scoping Report pertain to area directly affected by the various conceptual bypass corridor alternatives.

2. Why are some of the conceptual alternatives located within floodplains? Isn't that area off limits for construction?

The 100-year floodplain is a regulatory constraint. Regulations allow development within floodplains, as long as the regulations are adhered to. If an alternative that impacted floodplain area were proposed, it would have to be demonstrated that the alternative did not result in adverse impacts to flood levels.

3. How were the traffic volumes presented in the charts calculated?

CLD used data from existing permanent traffic counters, as well as traffic counts conducted for the US Route 7 Upgrade Projects, to obtain accurate "baseline" information. Projected volumes were obtained by calculating the effects of anticipated levels of growth over time. For this study, a 1.3% per year growth rate was used. This growth rate is felt to be conservative.

4. The focus of this study is too narrow. Why hasn't a more regional approach been taken?

This study was developed to investigate solutions for the problems in the Towns of Pittsford and Brandon, and in the Village areas in particular. Should the study be advanced into the EIS process, more regional alternatives would be considered at that time.

5. A property owner indicated that he had to go through an extensive Act 250 process in order to develop his land. How could this project be constructed and serve the Act 250 process? Does this project require Act 250 approval?

A bypass project would require Act 250 approval, as well as approval form several other permitting agencies. Impacts to social and natural resources are weighed against the public good of constructing such a project. The Purpose and Need for the project defines the public need.

6. If the study moves ahead, why must the environmental resource inventory and documentation processes start over? Why can't the information gathered for this study be reused?

The information gathered for this study will not be "thrown away." However, this Scoping Study was primarily based on existing GIS-level data. This kind of data is of sufficient accuracy for planning level studies such as this, but more comprehensive resource inventory and identification, and natural resource agency coordination efforts are required for an EIS level study. For these reasons, the eventual bypass corridor alternatives proposed in an EIS could differ greatly from those presented in this Scoping Study.

7. How did this study initiate?

The study was initiated by the public. Many concerns were identified in the US Route 7 Upgrade Projects' public involvement process, particularly with regard to the traffic conflicts in the Village areas. Public support for the consideration of Bypasses was documented in independent election-day surveys conducted in both Towns.

8. A more regional approach should be taken. Don't use "band-aid" solutions for regional problems.
9. This project would benefit those in the Villages, but adversely affect people living in the countryside.
10. Who makes the decision whether the Study will move ahead? How long will it take to decide?

The Draft Report will be finalized by the end of September, 2001, and then presented to the Rutland Regional Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) in October, 2001. The Final Report will recommend that the Study move ahead. The TAC will determine this project's priority against others that are also competing for limited funding.

11. Assuming the Study moves ahead, won't the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stop this project anyway?

Neither VTrans nor CLD can speak for the EPA, but at this time it does not appear as though significant issues normally cited by the EPA as justification to abandon a proposed project have been identified. The EPA has only been peripherally involved in this Study, but would be fully involved with a Bypass EIS, as part of the established project development and environmental documentation processes.

12. Would the installation of traffic signals at the intersections along US Route 7 eliminate the need for Bypasses?

The construction of traffic signals at numerous locations within the Villages is not feasible. Traffic volumes from the intersecting sidestreets are not high enough to meet signal warrants. Therefore, signalization is not recommended. This is mostly because the signals would result in more rear-end type accidents, since the signals would not be utilized by sidestreet traffic on a regular basis.

13. It seems as though this study only considers the Quality of Life benefits in the Villages. When will consideration be given to Quality of Life impacts in areas affected by the potential Bypasses?

It is recognized that if a Bypass were constructed, the Quality of Life for people directly affected or those in close proximity to the Bypass would be impacted. Undoubtedly, the majority of those affected would consider the Bypass to be a negative influence on their current Quality of Life. The purpose of this meeting is to receive public input on issues like this, so that they can be addressed in the process.

14. What should a perspective seller of property disclose to a perspective buyer? How will the locations of the conceptual corridor alternatives affect property values?

The VT Attorney General's Office has issued a recent opinion on this issue. The Attorney General's Office considers this study to be of such a preliminary nature that disclosure of the conceptual corridor alternatives by sellers to buyers is not necessary. Property values should not be affected.

15. Has a study been conducted to determine whether existing roads could be improved, so that truck traffic could be routed around the Villages?

This study was intended to look at bypass routes, and so existing roads were not evaluated. It should be noted, however, if existing roads were improved sufficiently to accommodate trucks, impacts to residential properties would increase dramatically.

16. Others?????