(Host) A proposed housing project in Windsor has triggered debate over the role of environmental groups in the development review process.
The state Natural Resources Board opposes the groups’ involvement. But the groups say that the case could set a bad precedent. They’re concerned that they could lose their ability to weigh in on similar cases in the future.
VPR’s John Dillon has more:
(Dillon) The proposed Windsor development is not a huge subdivision. A New Hampshire company wants to build 90 units on about 55 acres of land.
But the case could have an impact far beyond this project.
For the first time, the Vermont Natural Resources Board has argued that two statewide environmental groups should not be allowed to intervene in an Act 250 case.
(Groveman) It sends a really chilling signal our there to citizens who want to protect ag soils in Act 250.
(Dillon) John Groveman is lawyer for the Vermont Natural Resources Counsel, one of the two groups involved.
The environmentalists were interested because of the project’s impact on prime agriculture land, which Act 250 is supposed to protect. Groveman is worried that if the board’s position prevails, it could set a precedent for future cases.
(Groveman) We were absolutely shocked, and continue to be shocked that the board’s position, from our perspective, is that nobody in Vermont can have an interest in protecting ag soils under Act 250 based on their continued and vigorous opposition in this case…
(Dillon) But John Hasen, the general counsel for the Natural Resources Board, doubts the impact will be severe. He says that the rulings on party status in Act 250 cases are made based on the particular facts involved. In this case, he says, the groups failed to show that they had members directly affected by the development of agriculture land.
(Hasen) Their claims were of a rather general nature. They are interested in protecting agriculture in Vermont, and that’s a noble cause. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re entitled to participate as a party in a particular Act 250 case.
(Dillon) Sandra Levine is with the Conservation Law Foundation, which also tried to get involved in the case. She said the group is not opposed to the development.
She pointed out that the Agency of Agriculture – which had raised concerns about the project’s impact – abruptly withdrew from the case.
(Levine) Our state agencies don’t always advance the best interests of communities and the environment. And we’re trying to participate to show how development can go forward on this site while still keeping land available for farming. The Agency of Agriculture has withdrawn its appeal and is no longer participating. So it’s only the citizens who will be advancing this particular possibility.
(Dillon) Both environmental groups have asked the state Environmental Court to reconsider, and grant them the right to intervene in the case.
For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.