[T]he Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets says a planned development off Exit 4 of Interstate 89 in Randolph doesn’t conserve enough prime agricultural land.
In formal comments submitted to the District 3 Environmental Commission, the agency says the developer, Jesse Sammis III, must set aside 110 acres of land in order to meet Act 250 criteria for the 1.15 million-square-foot retail and housing project. The Green Mountain Center development also includes a public-private rest area.
Sammis has proposed developing a total of 172 acres near Exit 4. Most of the property is prime agricultural land.
The agency analyzed the soils on about 320 acres of the site and determined that on-site mitigation, or preservation of the prime agricultural land that would be impacted by the development, is not feasible.
Only 55 acres of prime ag land could be protected on the development site, according to Stephanie Smith, chief policy enforcement officer for the Agency of Agriculture. An additional 55 acres would have to be mitigated off site.
“The agency is also not confident that, based on the information provided in the record to date, it could say with certainty that there will be no additional reduction in the agricultural soils or that the land proposed for use as on-site mitigation is appropriate,” Smith wrote.
The agency’s determination is a crucial step in the Act 250 process.
The question now is whether the District 3 Environmental Commission will allow off-site mitigation for the development. The district must now evaluate whether the development meets “appropriate circumstances” for off-site mitigation.
The Agency of Agriculture is neutral on that question, according to deputy secretary Diane Bothfeld. “Our job is to put the facts forward,” Bothfeld said.
An environmental group says the mitigation review is a win for project opponents.
Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, says the agency’s comments “validate” the position of the council and the Conservation Law Foundation. The two environmental groups asked the commission to dismiss the project in August.
“It’s not a victory yet, but we’re pleased with it,” Shupe said.
The applicant doesn’t comply with Act 250 criteria 9B, which requires the preservation of prime agricultural land, Shupe said.
“The project should be denied,” Shupe said. “He’s proposing too much for the site to mitigate the agricultural impact.”
Shupe says the Sammis project is a test case for off-site mitigation, which can only be used in “appropriate circumstances,” based on smart growth principles of development.
If the district grants Sammis the option of off-site mitigation, Shupe says “it would be a bad precedent for Vermont.”
“Any farm in Vermont would be available for this kind of development,” Shupe said.
The agency’s determination is not conclusive. That’s because Sammis has not provided complete plans for the development.
“What we have for information at this point has been a bit of a moving target,” Bothfeld said.
Smith wrote that as a result the agency is not confident that “it could say with certainty that there will be no additional reduction in the agricultural soils or that the land proposed for use as onsite mitigation is appropriate.”
