Editor’s note: This story by Sandy Vondrasek first appeared in the Herald of Randolph on Jan. 7, 2016.
[I]n late November, the District 3 Environmental Commission agreed to put on hold for three months any conclusion about a pending Act 250 review of Jesse “Sam” Sammis’ proposed development at Exit 4 in Randolph, in order to allow Sammis and two project opponents time to explore possible resolution of their differences.
Sammis’ team and representatives from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resources Council were given until Feb. 18 “to explore informal and non-adversarial resolution on contested issues in this matter,” commissioners said in their decision.
The commissioners had earlier granted party status in the review to both of the environmental nonprofits.
At this time, Sammis’ plan is being reviewed only for its conformance with the Act 250 sub-criterion governing development of primary agricultural lands, and with Criterion 10, conformance with local and regional plans.
Even if Sammis gets approval on these two, his project will still need to be reviewed and approved under the balance of Act 250’s multiple criteria and sub-criteria before anything could be built.
Two weeks after the commissioners granted the extension, another group opposed to Sammis’ project, the Randolph-based Exit 4 Open Space, or E4OS, challenged the commission’s decision.
Brooke Dingledine, an attorney working with E4OS, argued in a written filing that allowing time for a non-adversarial resolution is not appropriate to the permit review process, and, further, that the Act 250 review should not become a forum for redesigning a project.
Earlier this month, the District 3 Commission, in a one-sentence memorandum, acknowledged receipt of the E4OS submission and stated that it “has decided not to change its previous decision dated November 20.”
No matter what sort of issues Sammis and CFL and VNRC might agree to, the District 3 Commission will still be responsible to weigh the evidence presented during five months of Act 250 hearings and to decide whether the Sammis plan conforms with sub-criterion 9B and criterion 10.
