By STEVEN JUPITER
BRANDON—The proposal to rehabilitate the old Brandon High School on West Seminary Street (see the 9/27/23 issue of The Reporter) is now facing some procedural hurdles as well as resistance from surrounding landowners.
At a hearing of the Brandon Development Review Board (DRB) on Wednesday, October 11, the principals behind the project—Frank Briscoe, Jr., Jeff Dardozzi, and Joy Marcotte—sought a Conditional Use Permit in order to begin work on the building. The principals are eager to complete initial phases of the project, previously referred to as “ReBHS” by its organizers, in order to take advantage of state tax credits that expire next summer. Missteps in the permitting process may now put those plans—and credits—at risk.
The DRB hearing was intended to give the principals a chance to explain the project to the Board to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, which is necessary when a change is planned for the use of a building or parcel. In this case, the school building is not currently being used and the proposed uses—residential and community spaces—will differ markedly from its educational use in the past.
The meeting was attended by several of the surrounding landowners, who expressed their concerns about the proposed use of the building, noting that the project would increase traffic in the neighborhood to dangerous levels, given the topography of the streetscape.
The building sits at the juncture of West Seminary Street, East Seminary Street, and River Street, and is just steps from downtown Center Street. The traffic patterns in the neighborhood are already a concern to residents.
Kevin Thornton and Maureen O’Reilly, who live next door to the high school at 7 West Seminary and share a driveway with the building, wrote in their submitted “Abutter Concerns” that the proposed parking design, which shows cars parking on the street in front of the high school, would necessitate that they back out of their driveway without being able to see cars coming around the corner from River Street, in putative violation of Brandon Land Use Ordinance (BLUO) Section 605, which stipulates that all new driveways must allow room for cars to turn around and enter traffic facing forward.
Thornton and O’Reilly also claimed that the proposed design violates a 1916 deed agreement between the properties granting an easement to 7 West Seminary to use as a driveway property that is legally part of the high school’s lot.
Faith Daya, who lives across the street at 12 West Seminary, expressed in her written statement that the proposed parking design would hinder the ability of cars to navigate the cluster of streets at the intersection, specifically mentioning school buses. She also noted that residents of Neshobe House (32 West Seminary) who use motorized wheelchairs or other conveyances, often have to travel in the road because of insufficient sidewalks. The increased traffic in the neighborhood (the principals stated that there would likely be 15 new residents in the building and up to 50 visitors for events) would pose a major risk to those people, Ms. Daya wrote.
Janie Young, who lives across the street at 8 West Seminary, also submitted written concerns. Ms. Young also circulated a petition in opposition to the project that garnered more than 20 signatures in the neighborhood. Moreover, she wrote a letter to the editor that was published in The Reporter on October 11 in which she voiced opposition to the project not only because of concerns she shared with her neighbors, but also because, she claimed, the principals (Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Dardozzi, and Ms. Marcotte) lack the funds to see the project through to completion.
Mr. Briscoe, who owns the building, has had a long and rocky relationship with the building, having owned it since the early 2000s but also having had to surrender and repurchase it because of foreclosure.
DRB Chair Samantha Stone noted in the hearing that the DRB does not take applicants’ financial situation into account determining whether a proposed use will be permitted.
“The permit that is issued is for the property and not the owner,” said Ms. Stone. “For the purpose of this hearing, financials are not relevant. They may be important to [neighbors], but that does not have any bearing on our decision.”
In order to determine whether a new use will be permitted, however, the DRB does take into account the impact of the proposed changes on the surrounding community.
There was also concern on the DRB about the unresolved status of the property with regard to Act 250, which regulates land use in areas deemed environmentally sensitive. Act 250 reviews can be expensive and lengthy. It was unclear, even to Jeff Biasuzzi, Brandon’s Zoning Administrator, whether Act 250 applied to the property in question. The high school is within a Central Business District, which might exempt the property from review, but it also abuts the Neshobe River, potentially necessitating review because of adjacent wetlands.
“This is a unique project in my experience,” said Mr. Biasuzzi.
Two former clients of Mr. Dardozzi and Ms. Marcotte’s construction firm, Livingstructure, spoke in favor of the project. Both clients worked with the firm on their personal residences and praised the process and results. Both clients are also now involved in the high-school rehab project.
Ultimately, the DRB did not take any action on the application. Aside from the neighbors’ concerns, the Board found procedural issues with the application itself. The application had been publicized as asking for a Commercial I Conditional Use Permit but, the Board believed, it should have been publicized as Commercial II, given the building’s size and the proposed residential uses.
Mr. Dardozzi attempted to explain the discrepancy by stating that the site plan that was submitted to the DRB for the hearing had not been prepared in time to warn the public of the hearing. In fact, the DRB had not received those plans before the night of the hearing, either.
Ms. Stone advised the principals that they would need to re-submit their application with proper public warning and return to the DRB for another hearing.
“The hearing notice would be considered defective,” said Ms. Stone. “The permit and hearing need to be started from scratch.”
In an email to The Reporter, Ms. Marcotte of ReBHS wrote,
“All of the ReBHS group would like to thank everyone who came to the hearing and shared both concerns and support. We may have over-prioritized meeting tax credit deadlines to our detriment, and in our excitement to make this happen we ran when we should have walked. Expect in coming months for us to take a breath, continue the conversations, and put our ducks in a row.”
Judging from the verbal and written comments of their neighbors, however, it seems as if ReBHS will have a tough row to hoe in trying to win over neighborhood support regardless of the outcome of the permitting process.
