HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_Long Drive Project Provost letterJune 15, 2021
To: DRB
We have lived at 170 Golf Course Road for last 15 years and our home is currently the gateway to the
Long Drive development.
When we purchased our home the project was under appeal in the environmental court. At that time
with the city and environmental court against this project we had all the faith that this project wouldn’t
go forward. But the city chose to give up the fight on this project and made a convoluted side
arrangement and here we are today.
At this point the last thing we want is to live with a construction zone in our backyard for the next ten
years. The “train” has left the station which means the original wooded area has been cleared and
prepared to house a new development. The goal now should be about doing our best to uphold the
wishes of the court order but at the same time being realistic about perhaps having to tweak some of
the guidelines because of what has been discovered during the initial tree removal during the
infrastructure stage.
We think the DRB and neighbors may have to compromise when there are considerations for what trees
need to be removed and/or replaced. It all looked good on paper 20 years ago but we stand here today
with a different view and some obstacles potential buyers may encounter. It’s important the proper
trees are removed now that the wooded area has been opened up.
Everyone needs to keep in mind now that the infrastructure is in place the current court order may need
to be modified whether it’s updating for storm water and/or tree removal on building lots to account for
old, ugly, dead trees that again initially looked good on paper.
By their very nature, trees and green space provide benefits and add value to developments. Together
we should be conscious about the trees that should be preserved and planted to act as either a buffer
for existing Golf Course Road neighbors and/or continuing to add depth to the current trees surrounding
the golf course but be mindful that trees planted to close to the golf course affect the course.
The objective of the original court order was to protect the wooded area around the golf course to
ensure it continued to look aesthetically appealing and maintain to safeguard privacy for neighbors.
With that being said, it shouldn’t matter where trees are removed and/or replaced if DRB and neighbors
work together.
Preserving trees has positive effects on the image and attractiveness of developments and at the end of
the day that should be your goal particularly for those of us that live in this neighborhood. As neighbors
we should want the trees in this development to increases the project's attractiveness, monetary value,
and marketability by providing aesthetic and functional values.
Trees that were originally marked as preserved may now have to be considered for removal because it
makes sense for the improvement of the overall property/neighborhood and surrounding neighbors.
Let’s face it, now that the road is built some of the trees that are deemed “preserved” are dead and
don’t look good – do we honestly want those in the neighborhood. We don’t think so.
We certainly want to continue to enjoy our home and we definitely don’t want to have the Long Drive
project sit vacant for several years as it will decrease the value of all the surrounding homes. There
needs to be common sense and flexibility both now and in the future. What are these trees going to
look like 20 years from now?
We do think as this project moves forward the DRB and/or city needs to hold the developer accountable
for keeping the surrounding landscape tidy and complete.
It was a long year last year and we don’t want to live in a construction zone with debris, etc. in our front
or back yard.
Respectfully yours,
Michael and Heather Provost
170 Golf Course Road
South Burlington, VT