Hartland Planning Commission takes prosed 9,000-square-foot Sunnymede market to state Supreme Court
By Curt Peterson
Miguel Cervantes, author of the Spanish classic novel “Don Quixote,” once said: “In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.”
Cervantes’s Quixote, who had a questionable grasp of reality, donned a suit of armor and rode the countryside “tilting at windmills,” seeing them as “ferocious giants” threatening civilization.
In 2018 Aubrey Ferrao, owner of 600-acre Sunnymede Farm in Hartland applied for, and obtained, an Act 250 permit to build a “farm store” on Route 5 between Mike’s Store and I-91 Exit 9. The site was once the Lamb Farm, and the level land has been hayed since the farm buildings were leveled.
The three-member Act 250 state district commission, having evolved from responsibility for protecting local town plans, issued a permit for Sunnymede’s 9,000-square-foot market, selling the farm’s meat and produce and ancillary items, store-made sandwiches, deli products, wine and beer. Parking for 45 vehicles would include a dozen electric vehicle charging stations. Detailed plans were made public and Sunnymede representatives attended two public Select Board meetings to answer any questions about the project.
The Hartland Planning Commission (HPC) objected to granting the Act 250 permit, and filed an appeal in Environmental Court, claiming the proposed location was designated “rural residential” in the 2017 Hartland Town Plan, and the Sunnymede’s project, which was like a “strip mall,” was not a “farm store” — it was a retail store that didn’t qualify for the location.
The Environmental Court, a division of the Superior Court, denied the planners’ appeal, saying the project was a farm store, bore no resemblance to a strip mall, and that the Town Plan wording was “suggestive” and not enforceable.
The Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC), had co-appealed the Sunnymede Act 250 permit based on their “Regional Plan’s” prohibition against “sprawl” — spreading commercial businesses into rural or other unsuitable areas. TRORC opted to withdraw their opposition to the project following the court’s decision.
The planners advised the Select Board to withdraw their appeal and they voted to do so, but 24 hours later, according to selectman Tom Kennedy, after a second vote the HPC decided to appeal of the Environmental Court’s rejection in the state Supreme Court.
The issues will be limited to the lower court’s misinterpretation of the wording in the Hartland Town Plan, and definition of a “farm store.”
However, publicly, HPC chair David Dukeshire depicts the commissioners as “saving the village.”
Kennedy said the Supreme Court will hear the case. No official date has been announced. Since the aborted withdrawal announcement, Select Board chair Phil Hobbie told the Mountain Times, there has been no communication from the HPC.
On Nov. 20 the HPC voted to write a press release to be distributed on the Hartland listserv. The Select Board found the release objectionable and divisive, requested some changes and an apology.
The release, signed by David Dukeshire, chair of the HPC was posted on the listserv Monday, Nov. 25.
“This Public Statement is intended to explain the [HPC’s] reason for our appeal and to make future recommendations,” the letter stated.
An HPC survey, sent in 2023 to all property owners and renters, was cited as, “the most common refrain [from respondents] was ‘we like Hartland the way it is’.” However, less than 18% of those sent surveys responded. The HPC has relied on that survey for its actions.
“[The planners] are not trying to protect businesses from competition, but to locate businesses as specified in the Town Plan,” the letter states, although it also says the 3-Corners Village has all the services it needs.
The document, Kennedy told the Mountain Times, is “a list of complaints and unsubstantiated suppositions, with no apparent goal. Frankly, it’s an embarrassment.”
A Supreme Court case requires the Town of Hartland be the litigant rather than the HPC, even though the governing body has taken no position on the farm stand issue. A few people familiar with Supreme Court litigation over zoning issues predict Hartland will lose the case, and have wasted a significant amount of money on legal fees — tilting at windmills, as Cervantes said.
Time will tell.
