By Curt Peterson
Ever since Sunnymede Farm announced its intention to build a 9,000 sq. ft. “Farm Store” on former Lamb Farm land 100 yards from Exit 9 on I-91, the Hartland Planning Commission (HPC) has been fighting the project.
The Select Board transferred $10,000 to the HPC, specifically for “legal fees incurred in pursuit of the appeal.”
HPC objections include expected negative effect on Hartland’s Three Corners businesses, conflict with the 2017 Town plan, and alleged conflict with definition of a “farm store” – Sunnymede’s farm is two miles from the site, and the wares in the store would not be produced at the farm. And the site isn’t within the town plan’s description of the commercial development area.
Hartland has no zoning ordinance, so HPC opposition to the project relies on the town plan. The Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC) also filed an objection based on conflict with its regional plan.
HPC chairman David Dukeshire told the Mountain Times the town plan has always been successful when applied.
So, when environmental court judge Thomas Walsh decided in July in favor of the farm store, partly based on the word “objectives” rather than “must” or “shall,” Dukeshire said, the HPC was taken by surprise.
He cited terminology in the HPC appeal, writing “The Farm Store makes efficient use of land, energy, roads, and other infrastructure without contributing to a pattern of strip development.”
The judge also wrote the proposed store “… is properly classified as a Resource-Based Commercial Use and there are no provisions within the Town or Regional Plans upon which to deny the project.”
Sunnymede has declared that 60%-70% of its gross revenue will come from sale of products from its farm.
On Aug. 7, members of the HPC voted 5 to 1 in favor of accepting the decision and to focus on the town plan. The Sunnymede fight was over, at least publicly.
The TRORC also accepted Judge Walsh’s dismissal of their appeal.
Select Board chair Phil Hobbie told the Mountain Times selectmen were shaken when the HPC revoted on Aug. 22 to renew their efforts, based on perceived vagueness in Judge Walsh’s decision.
“Over time we re considered our situation. Basically, we weren’t satisfied with the decision’s recognition of the facts,” Dukeshire said. “We voted to pursue a further appeal.”
Advisors say a Supreme Court appeal would be very expensive. Dukeshire said he has about $10,000.
“We feel that’s enough to get the process started,” he said. “We’ve spent only a few hundred dollars on the appeal so far.”
Hobbie is worried that the HPC’s new appeal might incur hefty legal fees and expect the town to cover them.
Dukeshire said any additional spending would require Select Board approval.
The new appeal was filed as Town of Hartland. Previous litigation was pursued by the planning commission itself. The Supreme Court website is vague as to who can file an appeal – it might be that the HPC on its own isn’t qualified to be the appellant.
“An appeal in the Town’s name was not authorized by the Select Board,” Hobbie said, “or by the voters.”
Dukeshire wasn’t aware the appeal had been in the town’s name.
This isn’t the only complication. Aug. 22 was very close to the filing deadline. Unfortunately, their attorney, Peter Raymond, suffered a serious bicycle accident, and filed the appeal one day beyond deadline.
The HPC has asked the environmental court for a one-day extension on the basis of unforeseen circumstances. If the extension is granted, the appeal can go forward. If not, the appeal will die.
“We’ve been told an answer regarding the extension may take a week, or it might take six months. All we can do is wait,” Dukeshire said.
If the environmental appeal is deemed timely, and the HPC is facing the financial reality of a Supreme Court appeal, the Select Board will have to be approached, Dukeshire said, and they can always say “No.”
