By Curt Peterson
Ever since Sunnymede Farm announced its intention to build a 9,000-square-foot “farm store” on the former site of a lamb farm, 100 yards from Exit 9 on I-91, the Hartland Planning Commission (HPC) has been fighting the project.
The Select Board awarded the HPC $10,000 specifically for “attorney fees incurred in the appeal.”
The HPC’s objections include the expected negative impact on shops in Hartland’s Three Corners, a conflict with the 2017 development plan and an alleged conflict with the definition of a “farm shop” – Sunnymede’s farm is three kilometres from the site and the goods in the shop would not be made on the farm. And the site is not within the commercial development area description in the development plan.
There are no building codes in Hartland, so the HPC is basing its opposition to the project on the town plan. The Two Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC) has also objected, saying it is inconsistent with its regional plan.
HPC Chairman David Dukeshire told the Mountain Times that the city plan has been consistently successful in its implementation.
When Environmental Judge Thomas Walsh ruled in favour of the farm shop in July – partly based on the word “objectives” rather than “must” or “shall” – the HPC was surprised, according to Dukeshire.
Citing the terminology of the HPC objection, he wrote: “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 that the proposed store “is properly classified as a resource-based commercial use and that there are no provisions in the city or county plans that would prevent the project from being rejected.”
Sunnymede has stated that 60-70% of its gross revenue will come from the sale of products from its farm.
On August 7, HPC members voted 5-1 to accept the decision and focus on the city plan. The battle for Sunnymede was over, at least publicly.
The TRORC also accepted Judge Walsh’s dismissal of their appeal.
Select Board Chairman Phil Hobbie told the Mountain Times that selectmen were shaken when the HPC voted again on August 22 to renew its effort due to the perceived vagueness of Judge Walsh’s decision.
“Over time, we reconsidered our situation. Essentially, we were not satisfied with the recognition of the facts in the decision,” Dukeshire said. “We voted to appeal.”
Aides say an appeal to the Supreme Court would be very expensive. Dukeshire said he has about $10,000.
“We believe this is enough to get the process started,” he said. “We’ve only spent a few hundred dollars on the appeal so far.”
Hobbie fears that the HPC’s new appointment could result in high legal fees that he will have to pay from the city.
Dukeshire said any additional spending would require the approval of the Select Board.
The new appeal was filed as the Town of Hartland. Previous litigation was handled by the Planning Commission itself. The Supreme Court website does not make clear who can appeal – it may be that the HPC alone is not qualified as an appellant.
“An appeal on behalf of the city was not approved by the Select Board nor by the voters,” Hobbie said.
Dukeshire was unaware that the call was made on behalf of the city.
This is not the only complication. August 22 was very close to the filing deadline. Unfortunately, her attorney, Peter Raymond, suffered a serious bicycle accident and filed the appeal one day after the deadline.
Due to unforeseen circumstances, the HPC has asked the Environment Court for a one-day extension. If the extension is granted, the appeal can proceed. Otherwise, the appeal will be dismissed.
“We have been told that a response regarding the extension could take a week or six months. All we can do is wait,” Dukeshire said.
If the appeal in the environmental case is deemed timely and the HPC faces the financial realities of an appeal to the Supreme Court, it will have to go to the Select Board, Dukeshire said, and the Select Board could still say no.
