By Guy Page

The Town of Essex Development Review Board (DRB) has been met with significant public opposition regarding a proposal for a 107,000 square foot commercial warehouse building at 637 Kimo Drive, off Saxon Hill. The facility is intended to be a distribution center for Amazon, the first in the Green Mountain State.

It is not known how many jobs the new center would provide, nor how much it would pay in property and other taxes. It would be built on 23 acres of woods and meadows known as Saxon Hill Forest. 

Most of the comments and letters addressed environmental and quality of life factors on which the DRB makes its decision – which it has not yet made. 

Concerns by both Essex and non-Essex residents were voiced both at a March 20 meeting and through subsequent letters. Many residents requested that Scannel Properties, the developer, withdraw the application. 

Key concerns raised by the public include:

• Increased traffic and congestion, particularly on Sand Hill Road and North Williston Road . Residents questioned the findings of the traffic analysis and the potential for significant increases in vehicle traffic, including large trucks and vans, at all hours.
• Noise pollution from trucks and the facility’s operations.
• Environmental impact, including concerns about the clearing of the 50-foot buffer area, stormwater management , potential harm to the ecosystem and habitat displacement, and the lack of EV charging stations and renewable energy proposals.
• Impact on local economy and small businesses, with some residents expressing a preference for supporting Vermont-based businesses. Concerns were raised about Amazon’s labor practices and the potential for the facility to negatively impact local retailers.
• Community character, with some residents feeling the large warehouse is not in line with the town’s rural character.
• Decreased property values.
• Safety concerns related to increased traffic, especially for pedestrians and children.

Several emails submitted to the Town of Essex Community Development also conveyed strong opposition to the proposed Amazon warehouse. These letters echoed the concerns voiced at the public hearing, emphasizing the potential for increased traffic, pollution, and negative impacts on the local community and economy. Some writers urged the DRB to deny the application, citing concerns about Amazon’s reputation and labor practices.

One resident, Zachary Key of Essex on Margaret St., expressed concerns about the project’s scale and potential impact on local life, stating, “All of these pieces flashed before me as I read the troubling news that a large, disruptive, high traffic, warehouse notorious for poor labor conditions and 24/7 operations was moving in. Essex is a beautiful place where people come to raise families and connect to their community and to nature. The thought of a massive project which is already asking for concessions and accommodations to zoning laws begs the question, ‘who is the town prioritizing with this potential sale?’”

Sean Redmond, a Chittenden County resident, urged the town to reconsider, emphasizing the importance of local businesses. “This project poses significant concerns about its potential harm to our local economy and community. As Amazon’s shipping speeds are currently slow, more consumers are opting to shop locally rather than endure long wait times. Establishing an Amazon facility in Vermont would disrupt this positive shift, pulling business away from our hard working local retailers who depend on community support to thrive.”

Nick Stanton, an Essex Junction resident, expressed distrust of Amazon and its potential impact on the area, stating, “As a resident of Essex Junction, I wanted to thank you for holding the forum on the topic and I would like to express my concern with allowing Amazon to create a warehouse at Saxon Hill. I believe it would negatively impact the area, with traffic and corporate interests that have not historically benefited communities. Saxon Hill and Thompson Drive is one of the few areas in Essex with an abundance of outdoor recreation and this warehouse would not help enhance the experience of using the area, particularly with the parking being so close to the proposed location. … I do not trust Amazon to enhance our community and they are more likely to provide unsuitable work conditions, low wages, and more pollution.”

Katie Loesel echoed concerns about traffic and environmental degradation, writing, “Dear Development Review Board, I strongly oppose the proposed Amazon facility in Essex. There are many local factors to consider that would make this a bad site. The size and scope of the building and parking is too big for the area. The much beloved Saxon Hill trails and nature area would be negatively impacted. These woods need to be protected for recreation; this is why we live in this great state of Vermont! Route 117 is not prepared for that much traffic, which is right in my backyard! What would that additional traffic do for noise, river pollution and the rapid degradation of an area that is already dangerously close to the frequently flooding Winooski? 

Josie Barber’s message was direct: “To whom it may concern, Say no to the proposed Amazon warehouse coming to Essex! Our people don’t need an employer known for exploiting their workers. Furthermore, Vermonters don’t support this terrible company’s morals. We are a state who wants to protect the environment and our people. Say no and do the right thing.”

Nina & Stacy Jolles, residents of South Burlington, also voiced their opposition simply stating, “We are writing to say we do NOT support an Amazon facility coming to VT In Essex.” 

Similarly, Dre Garritano wrote, “I’m writing in hopes that the town of Essex will not move forward with the proposed Amazon warehouse. They oppose and create borderline slave labor conditions for warehouse workers requiring them to wear ‘fit bit’ like devices that track productivity. They encourage the most wasteful and cyclical consumption with cheap products, too fast delivery and endless returns. Not to mention the underpaid workers in other countries that are exploited to make these products. We need less of that in our world today and bringing this distribution center into Vermont encourages more waste and consumption and puts a stain on our beautiful state.”

Conor Boehm, a Chittenden County resident, urged the DRB to reject the proposal, stating, “Hello Essex DRB, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Amazon building in Essex. As a resident of Chittenden County, I am concerned about bringing in a warehouse job center from a company known to violate labor laws, pay their workers poor compensation, and actively work against any labor unions or worker’s rights groups. I think Vermont can be a leader for the rest of the nation in standing up for our community, quality jobs and pay, and deny Amazon territory in our great state. Thanks for your time.”

Ira K. Glasser, an Essex resident, summarized the sentiments of many, stating, “I write now as a generally quite contented, local, voting resident and as an experienced commercial real estate professional. In my work I have often seen the Amazon ‘last mile’ distribution hubs in operation, and unlike FedEx or UPS, which have busy periods alternating with quiet periods, usually centered around weekdays, the Amazon hubs of this proposed size (actually small relative to their typical, much larger industrial footprints), usually have an ongoing frenzy of activity seven days a week.” 

Glasser also raised concerns about negative impacts despite assurances, writing, “I could go on and on with negative-sounding comments, just as some folks might be inclined to do with positive-sounding arguments, however, I will end with stating my agreement with some Front Page Forum comments that I have seen that really sum up the pros and cons for me, as well as many of my neighbors: ‘we can and must do better here in Essex on behalf of ourselves and all Vermont residents.’”

John Sargis, another Essex resident, expressed concerns about the local economy and the impact of large corporations, writing, “My opposition is rooted in a mentality of ‘why grow?’ My wife and I moved to Vermont 23 years ago from Austin TX because we hated the huge number of people, the crime, the filthy streets, pollution, and general decline in civility and quality of life.” Sargis further noted, “I’m advocating for no growth. Growth sounds great to many people, but I don’t think they realize what a truly great place this is to live. Maybe they think it will simply raise our taxes or increase opportunities, but neither of those aspects are necessarily true. Growth in population brings growth in schools as well.”

Danielle Hammond also called for the denial of the application, emphasizing the potential negative consequences for the local economy and quality of life, stating, “I am writing to urgently request that you deny Amazon’s application to build a massive distribution warehouse on Kimo Drive in Essex. As a concerned resident, I implore you to consider the severe negative consequences this development would have on our local economy and quality of life.” 

Hammond further argued against prioritizing large corporations, writing, “Instead of granting Amazon yet another foothold, I urge you to champion developments that support small businesses, invest in sustainable economic development, and prioritize infrastructure that benefits the community rather than burdens it. Local entrepreneurs create jobs, keep wealth within our state, and contribute to the long-term resilience of our economy—unlike a multinational corporation that funnels profits elsewhere while leaving communities to deal with the consequences.”

The DRB’s decision on the Scannel Properties LLC application is pending, with the board having continued the discussion to a future meeting.