[H]INESBURG — For seven years, Responsible Growth Hinesburg members fought a proposal to build a Hannaford Supermarket on a nearly 5-acre parcel here, saying it would hurt the town’s environment, traffic and atmosphere.
Last week the Vermont Supreme Court handed the group a partial victory, reversing an environmental court decision and sending the project back there for further review.
The 39-page high court ruling upended the project site plan and a portion of the Act 250 permit. The developer’s plan for handling storm water was a key issue.
The justices also vacated the project’s zoning permit, saying it was wrongly granted because the project is too close to a nearby canal. A 75-foot setback from the canal was imposed for the area in 1987, the court said.
“The (site plan) case is over,” said Bristol attorney James Dumont, who represents members of Responsible Growth Hinesburg.
The entire dispute, however, has not been resolved, Dumont said.
An attorney for Hannaford said the ruling leaves the door open for the project to move ahead.
“I think that for the majority of the issues, the court found in favor of Hannaford,” said Chris Roy, of the firm Downs Rachlin Martin. “A number of things could be addressed by slight modifications to the application. We intend to press forward,” Roy said. “One option is to submit a new application.”
The supermarket chain in 2010 proposed a 36,000-square-foot store with 128 parking spots on a 4.56 acre site.
More than 18 months ago, the environmental court ruled in favor of the supermarket project, turning away most of the objections. Responsible Growth Hinesburg then took its appeal to the Supreme Court.
Jean Kiedaisch, a member of the group, said the project site is a wetland that provides clean water for a local brook and river that feed into Lake Champlain. That issue causes storm water problems for Hannaford, Kiedaisch said.
“We cannot destroy wetland after wetland while saying we want to protect Lake Champlain,” Kiedaisch said.
Kiedaisch criticized the overall scale of the proposal. “From a more local standpoint, the project is too big for the site,” she said. “Hence, the setback problem.”
The justices instructed the environmental court to rehear arguments over the storm water control plan in the developer’s Act 250 application. Specifically, the high court said the environmental judge erred in not addressing evidence from an expert for Responsible Growth Hinesburg who says a proposed swale likely won’t work to control runoff.
Other concerns include traffic where motorists would be turning left in and out from Vermont Route 116.
The environmental court had called for a traffic signal to be installed at Route 116. Hannaford and the town opposed that before the Supreme Court. The justices ruled that the issue can’t be resolved unless the Vermont Agency of Transportation becomes a party to the case.
Dumont said his clients will ask to add the agency as a party once the case is reopened at the environmental court level.
When the Supreme Court heard the lawsuit in March, the town of Hinesburg didn’t challenge the case, but supported Hannaford conducting a traffic study after the supermarket was completed.
The high court sided with Hannaford regarding whether the environmental court applied the wrong legal standard when deciding whether there was too much impact on Hinesburg’s canal walk, which runs along one side of the project site.
The justices also rejected arguments that Hannaford’s plan violated the town’s zoning regulations limiting “front yard” parking.
On Friday, the day after the decision was made public, Hinesburg Planning and Zoning Director Alex Weinhagen combed through the ruling. “We’re still mulling over our options,” he said.
Hinesburg’s Development Review Board initially greenlighted Hannaford’s proposal to build a store five years ago, attaching 30 conditions for construction and traffic mitigation. The approval followed a number of meetings where speakers offered an array of opinions. Three years ago, the same board denied three out of four Hannaford applications. The sole plan the DRB approved was appealed.
The project has also received approval from state officials. The Agency of Natural Resources issued a stormwater permit earlier this year, which Responsible Growth Hinesburg has appealed to environmental court. That appeal is pending.
Dumont, the lawyer for the opponents, said his clients will continue their opposition if Hannaford submits a modified project application in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. “They remain steadfast in their belief that this project is bad for Hinesburg’s wetlands, streams and water quality, horrible for Hinesburg’s traffic congestion and safety, and disastrous for Hinesburg’s widely used, beautiful and beloved canal walk,” he said.
Kiedaisch also spoke of what the area means to many who use it.
“We do feel that all of our hard work over seven years was worth it given the decision,” said Kiedaisch. “Many of us love walking on the canal path along the wetland meadow. It would not be the same in the shadow of a huge store.”
