A Local
Official’s Guide to Developing
Better Community Post Offices
A project of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns,
the Preservation Trust of Vermont,
and the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
PREFACE
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | PART
I: INTRODUCTION | PART II: THE RULES
& HOW TO USE THEM US | PART
III: THE VERMONT MODEL & CASE STUDIES | SUMMARY
| APPENDIX
PART THREE: THE VERMONT MODEL AND CASE REVIEWS
In an effort to strengthen our existing communities, avoid
sprawl and maintain our rural landscape, the State of Vermont
has adopted a number of policies designed to encourage
communities to reinvest in existing town centers or, when
appropriate, to develop new town centers according to
traditional land use patterns. Many communities have invested
significant time and resources into planning for growth and
revitalization. It is no surprise then when citizens and local
officials resist efforts to relocate an anchor tenant, like the
post office, outside of the town center or to endorse an
inappropriate design.
There are many good examples of post office projects in
Vermont that are in historic buildings or in new buildings that
are compatible with the architecture of Vermont towns. However
these projects have only been accomplished because of strong
community involvement and many communities feel that postal
officials often have to be forced to cooperate.
In an effort to reach an understanding with the USPS
regarding the special needs and concerns of Vermont communities,
state and federal representatives from Vermont have been meeting
regularly with officials from the USPS. Through this process
there is hope of creating a “Vermont Model” for post office
projects. If and when the Post Office Community Partnership Act
of 2001 becomes law, local communities will have significantly
more leverage to insure that post office projects are customized
to meet their community’s unique needs. In the meantime, the
dialogue will continue as the Vermont Model develops.
The “Vermont Model”
The USPS now uses national building designs and
specifications when expanding or building new post office
facilities. These standard designs work best for newly
constructed buildings in suburban settings and may be
inappropriate for “Main Street” locations in Vermont city,
town or village contexts. Although the national design standards
may work to reduce costs and create standardized working
environments in some parts of the country, this model is often
not cost effective or easily adapted to the Vermont context.
Vermont is generally a rural state with a population of just
over 600,000, the largest city having about 40,000 residents.
Most of our communities are relatively small and many towns have
multiple village centers, often just a few miles apart. Vermont
is unique and requires unique solutions to growth and
development problems.
Vermont’s state and federal representatives have asked the
USPS to consider adjusting the standard guidelines in the
following ways when siting and designing Vermont post offices:
· Develop new methods of projecting growth to calculate
expansion needs - the national model currently used does not
generally reflect Vermont’s reality. Local growth
projections and new census data may be more reliable.
· Redefine parking requirements for both employees and
customers. Consider on-street parking, shared parking and
assume pedestrian access - not everyone will be driving if the
facility is located on the main street.
· Assess the feasibility of regionalization or
consolidation of rural carrier functions in a rural state like
Vermont. Can several towns share a rural carrier/mail sorting
and distribution facility located in an industrial park, for
example, with the retail facility in the downtown? This would
reduce the space needs, the number of employees and rural
carrier parking spaces and the need for large truck access in
the downtowns and perhaps reduce costs.
· Encourage post offices in multi-story, mixed-use
buildings (both new and historic structures).
· Encourage and facilitate the use of historic buildings
by not only allowing but institutionalizing flexibility in the
design standards. For example, for many years state and
national fire and life safety codes favored new construction
over rehabilitation, making reuse of historic buildings a
challenge. Many states, including Vermont, now allow for
alternative treatments for historic buildings, encouraging
reinvestment in these important resources.
· Consider Certified Postal Units in general stores in
smaller communities.
Local officials should continue to advocate for these
considerations when working on post office projects. Most of
Vermont’s successful post office relocation projects reflect
this customized approach.
Case Reviews
1. Arlington, Vermont
Arlington, with a population of approximately 2,300, is
located in the southwest corner of the state, in Bennington
County. The town is 12 miles north of Bennington, 7 miles south
of Manchester, and 50 miles east of Albany, New York.
In early 1998, the USPS announced that problems with the
existing Arlington post office required either an expansion or
relocation of the facility. The problems identified included:
customer and employee parking, safety of customers getting out
of their cars on busy Route 7A, safety of employees working in a
cramped space, overcrowding in the building resulting in
insufficient work space and inefficient work product, growing
population and workload as a result of expansions at two large
employers (Mack and Orvis) and the inability to accommodate
large mail trucks.
Initially, The USPS indicated that it needed to increase its
square footage from about 850 to between 5,000- 6,000 square
feet and, it needed to increase parking from no designated
parking to over 50 spaces and the ability to accommodate large
(53’) tractor-trailers.
In September 1998, the Arlington Planning Commission held a
public hearing to discuss possible locations for the new post
office. At that meeting the USPS identified three sites which
could meet their needs. Each site was located in or near the
town center. The public expressed unanimous support for keeping
the post office as close to the town center as possible, but
there was not consensus about one site.
Another public meeting was held in December 1998 at which the
public was updated on the continuing research and planning for
the new post office. The developers vying for the job presented
their plans for the different locations. At that meeting,
Arlington residents made it clear that, of the options
available, the former Sunoco gas station on Route 7A was their
first choice for the town’s new post office.
The site eventually chosen was the old, dilapidated and
slightly contaminated Sunoco gas station about two-tenths of a
mile south of the existing post office and the village center.
In April 1999, the Keelan Company, a locally based developer,
was awarded the USPS contract. The Keelan Company worked very
closely with the USPS facilities officials to design a building
that was compatible with the character of the area. The Sunoco
building was razed, the site cleaned up and the new post office
facility was constructed and opened for business in March, 2000.
During the site selection process, the Developer called upon
the Governor, Vermont’s Congressional Delegation and state and
local leaders for support and assistance in dealing with the
USPS and with state permitting agencies. According to the
Developer, the success of the project was due to the hard work
and cooperation between the Developer and the USPS. In the end,
the USPS was willing to pay a premium to stay close to town, to
have the exterior of the building conform to the Town’s
architecture and to cut back on parking spaces from 53 to 40. In
addition, the Developer and the Town were willing to build
sidewalks (700 linear feet) to connect the site to the town’s
sidewalks and the seller’s of the land (a local bank) were
willing to stay with the project for the long haul.
- Information about the Arlington project was provided by Don
Keelan, The Keelan Company.
2. Westminster, Vermont
Westminster, a town of 3,200 people is served by two post
offices. One of the two, the Westminster Station Post Office,
provides a full range of over the counter postal services, has
206 post office boxes and no rural delivery. The other facility,
the Westminster Village Post Office provides over the counter
services, 333 PO boxes and one rural route. At 800 square feet
there is universal agreement that the Westminster Village Post
Office needs to be enlarged. Most of the residents in this rural
community have their mail delivered out of the post offices in
either Putney or Bellows Falls and they wanted to change that.
In late 1999 the USPS informed the Town of its intention to
construct a new post office in town. A public hearing was held
in December during which the townspeople citing the importance
of the post office to the vitality of the village, stated a
preference that the new facility be located at the same site as
the current Westminster village post office. As a second
preference, attendees stated that they felt it was important to
construct a new post office within the historic district in the
Village of Westminster.
In a January 6, 2000 letter from the USPS to the Chair of the
Westminster Selectboard Mr. Chris Madden, Real Estate
Specialist, stated: “...we believe that the existing location
may be retained and enlarged to meet our future operational
requirements by expanding the existing space. Our present lessor
will be invited to submit a proposal for USPS review and
consideration...”
The USPS then proceeded to advertise for potential sites for
the new facility, apparently without first investigating the
option of using the existing site despite what was said in the
January 6th letter. On April 24, 2000 the Town of Westminster
received a letter from Mr. Madden listing the properties that
had been reviewed by the USPS Site Review Committee as possible
locations. The site of the current post office was not on that
list. In fact, the only site that was on the list was a 3.9 acre
site located along a private residential road in a protected
agricultural use district.
On May 9, 2000 the USPS presented its proposal for a new
postal facility at its preferred location. In addition to being
able to comment about the proposed location, this was the first
time the town was given the opportunity to comment on the
proposed size of the facility. On matters relating to the
location, the USPS seemed unaware that the road accessing their
proposed site was private and that the abutting landowners were
extremely reluctant to grant the permission necessary to widen
the road sufficiently to allow for access by postal vehicles.
They also seemed unaware that Westminster zoning regulations
forbade the type of development they were proposing since it had
previously been identified and protected as prime agricultural
soil. At this meeting the Selectboard reaffirmed its preference
that the new facility be constructed at the location of the
current facility.
The size of the proposed structure was even more alarming. At
the meeting of May 9th, the United States Postal
Service proposed replacing the 800 square foot facility with a
3,630 square foot facility. The 333 post office boxes at the
current facility would be replaced with 535 boxes at the new
facility and the proposal called 35 parking spaces: 23 for
customers and 12 employee spaces. The plan presented was post
office building plan #30. What was presented was, in many ways,
the exact opposite of what local officials and residents wanted
and what was appropriate for a small village: a standard
suburban cookie cutter model surrounded by a large expanse of
asphalt.
Local officials voiced the following concerns about the USPS
proposal:
At 3,630 square feet the footprint of the building would
be 50% larger than the footprint of the largest building in
the historic district, destroying the scale of our district.
It seemed unreasonable that the facility would require 12
employees, and thus 12 employee parking spaces. The current
post office was staffed by one full time postmistress, one
part time counter person and one part time delivery driver.
At times the USPS stated that residents served by rural
routes originating from other post offices would be
consolidated into the new facility. Even so it was hard to
calculate how more than 6 employees could be necessary.
The 23 customer spaces seemed unreasonable. Town residents
have noted that they have never had even half that number
visiting the post office at any one time.
A 60% increase in the number of post office boxes seemed
out of sync with demographics and growth projections.
During the summer of 2000 local officials attempted to obtain
information from the USPS. For the most part they wanted to know
the assumptions that were used to reach the conclusion that the
proposed building size, with 35 parking spaces, was needed in
Westminster. While they did obtain some information, little of
it came from the USPS. From a property owner they obtained a set
of specifications for building #30. By visiting other recently
constructed post offices in Vermont and New Hampshire they
discovered something of the considerations that were made for
ensuring that new facilities met the needs of the communities in
which they were located. By interviewing rural route carriers
local officials discovered the space needs of these workers and
the number of residences that could be served by each carrier.
State officials were very helpful in providing background
information and assistance. However, in spite of the fact that
the USPS was not forthcoming, they kept requesting information.
At this same time, local officials attempted to present USPS
officials with relevant information. Believing that USPS
research had overstated the need for postal services in
Westminster, town officials spent quite a bit of time refining
projections of population and commercial growth for the next 20
years. These projections took into account not only historical
data but also the ability of Westminster’s infrastructure to
support rapid growth, local land use restrictions and
geographical information. This data was presented to USPS
officials with a request that the agency explain how these
factors impacted their projections for the growth in demand for
postal services. No direct response was ever received.
On September 11, 2000 the USPS presented a proposal to
construct building #30 at the location of the current postal
facility. Prior to this presentation the Executive Director of
Windham Regional Planning Commission and the Westminster Town
Manager visited USPS employees at their offices in Windsor
Connecticut to discuss the proposal. Several adjustments
discussed in Windsor were not included in the September 11th
presentation. At that meeting, the plan met with considerable
opposition because of its size. The USPS was not able to
satisfactorily explain why it needed such a large building in a
small town of 3,200 with limited growth potential.
In November of 2000 a new potential location became available
that met both the needs of the USPS and addressed the concerns
of the town and the townspeople. After almost a year it looked
as if progress could be made.
In December 2000. in a meeting with community members and
state officials USPS planners stated that they could ‘get by’
with a building of 2100 square feet and with 12 parking spaces.
This was welcome news to residents and local officials because
this would be in keeping with the character of Westminster’s
historic district, and local officials looked forward to the
next site plan proposal. Unfortunately, the USPS announced a
moratorium on postal construction projects before this could
happen.
- Information about the Westminster project was provided by
Glenn Smith, Westminster Town Manager.
3. Morrisville, Vermont
Morrisville is located in the heart of Lamoille County in
Northwest Vermont. Morrisville is the village center of
Morristown and Morristown, with 5,139 residents, is the
population center of Lamoille County. The post office in
Morrisville serves a number of the surrounding towns and
villages.
The old post office was located in a small building on Main
Street. Like many post offices its size, the old Morrisville
post office was bursting at the seams. Postal officials notified
local officials that a relocation was necessary. Early on in the
process the Morrisville Selectboard made it clear that they
wanted the post office to remain downtown. Efforts to revitalize
downtown Morrisville were in full swing and the loss of the post
office would have been devastating to the town. Many people
involved in the process agree that the USPS seemed to be, from
the start, equally committed to finding a suitable location in
the town center.
A request for proposals was issued and 19 proposals were
received. Presentations on each proposal were made at a joint
meeting with the Selectboard and postal officials. The public
was also invited to comment. The proposal ultimately selected,
submitted by a local developer, was to relocate the post office
into a multi-story building nearly across the street from the
existing post office. The project would renovate a vacant
department store space on the first floor of a historic building
to house the post office and also develop housing units on the
top two floors.
The developer, in this case, also happened to own the vacant
department store. In addition, he had extensive experience
working with the USPS developing post offices, primarily in
Southeast, U.S. His ownership of the building, experience with
the USPS and his commitment to the vitality of Morrisville were
essentially ingredients in the success of this project. In his
own words, the project was not exactly a “cash cow.”
With all parties on board and cooperating, many of the
obstacles that postpone or inhibit success in other projects
were readily overcome in the Morrisville project. That is not to
say that the project was quick and easy, it took nearly two
years to complete, it was an expensive historic rehabilitation
project and the financing was very complicated.
The developer was able to accommodate an interior design that
almost exactly met USPS specifications (plan #50-A). The
historic characteristics of the building and the building codes
did present some challenges, but they were satisfactorily
overcome. The USPS did compromise on their parking requirements,
agreeing to share some spaces with the municipal parking lot,
use on-street parking and utilize parking on the side of the
building. In exchange for the shared parking with the town, the
developer agreed to make some infrastructure improvements to the
existing lot.
The State and a local non-profit housing developer
collaborated on the housing piece and were able to put together
a financing scheme that made the project work. The developer did
utilize some tax credits for the project, but, as stated
earlier, the project has a very thin margin.
Overall, the Morrisville project is a great example of what
can be accomplished when everyone is committed to the same goals
- the USPS, local officials, the developer, the state, and the
community. Morrisville now has new housing units and a new
downtown post office both located in a wonderful rehabilitated
historic building.
- Information about the Morrisville project was provided by
Louis Ferris, the developer and property owner, and by Lucy
Leriche of the Lamoille Housing Partnership.
A Local
Official’s Guide to Developing Better Community Post
Offices
A project of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the
Preservation Trust of Vermont, and the Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation, June 2001
Prepared by: Jessica Oski,
Esq. with Editorial Assistance from (in alphabetical order):
Paul Bruhn and Ann Cousins, Preservation Trust of VT; Jim
Condos, state senator and South Burlington city councilor; Karen
Horn, Vermont League of Cities and Towns; Don Keelan, The Keelan
Company; Fred Kenney, Senator Leahy’s Office; Jeff Munger,
Senator Jefford’s Office; Jenny Nelson, Representative Sanders’
Office; John Rehlen, private developer; Glenn Smith, Westminster
Town Manager; John Taylor, Governor Dean’s Office; Emily
Wadhams, State Historic Preservation Officer; and David
Weinstein, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.
