Environmental groups have asked state regulators to reject a massive development proposed for off Interstate 89 in Randolph that would, if built, be one of the largest projects ever in Vermont.
In a letter to the District 3 Environmental Commission, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resources Council say that Connecticut developer Jesse “Sam” Sammis has repeatedly failed to show that his proposed Green Mountain Center complies with Act 250 protections for farmland and open space.
Sammis wants to transform 178 acres of forest and farmland into a development with 274 homes, a 180-room hotel and conference center, more than 500,000 square feet of office and light industrial space, a 10,000-square-foot fitness center and an interstate rest stop with an attached retail outlet.
“This sprawling project is a enormous waste of agricultural soils,” said Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, in a prepared statement. “If this project gets approved, in this location, no farmland in Vermont is safe.”
“The applicant utterly failed to show that the proposed project meets the clear Act 250 standards for protecting valuable farmland,” said Sandra Levine, senior attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, in the same statement. “The appropriate action is to dismiss the applicant’s request.”
The filing comes two weeks after the commission voiced serious reservations about the Green Mountain Center and asked Sammis to come back with a new plan.
The commission was not convinced that the plan fit Vermont’s land-use regulations, commission chair Tim Taylor wrote. “We invite the applicant to present a new plan showing a more compact design,” he wrote. Taylor also asked Sammis to present the commission with a full list of his extensive land holdings in Randolph. Critics of Sammis have argued that any new development should occur on his other properties.
But environmental groups say the time for discussion is over. To allow Sammis to return with updated plans would drag out the process and encourage developers in the future to submit “poor project plans,” they said in their letter. “Act 250 is a process to submit a proposal and get a decision,” the environmental groups wrote. “That is what applicants frequently say they want. It is not a process to design a project by committee.”
Sammis did not respond immediately to a request for comment Monday afternoon. He has previously told Seven Days that his project would bring needed economic activity to Randolph and that he intentionally left several fields open to placate his opponents’ concerns. “They ought to have their arms around me saying, ‘Holy smokes, what a good job you’ve done!'” Sammis said. “I’m a conservationist. I’ve saved the most valuable land as open space.”
The Green Mountain Center, which has been in the making for several years, has won the backing of the Randolph business community, the town’s selectboard and its development review board. However, in recent months, a coalition of citizens, Exit 4 Open Space, and environmental groups have begun to fight the project.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“If this project gets approved, in this location, no farmland in Vermont is safe.”? From what I’ve read maybe “If this project is rejected, in this location, then no property owner in Vermont is safe,” would be more accurate.
I absolutely believe that there are community and statewide resources that do need to be considered and minded through inclusive processes. But in our state of 6.15 million acres, to prevent someone from investing in and improving their land because adding 254 homes is not commensurate with the loss of the potential agricultural use of 178 acres is ludicrous.
If there are not homes built here, instead they will be built elsewhere in Vermont on 1,2 or even 10 acre lots on the edges of active farms, causing far more environmental impact than this development will. Heck, think about how much gasoline all these families will save because of the proximity to the interstate! The VPR commentator yesterday spoke truthfully when he talked about the beautiful view from I-89 being sullied – this might go against some people’s aesthetic taste, but I do not want his aesthetic taste to dictate land use and property rights in our state.
Real environmentalism is more than a postcard view from the interstate.
all planning encourages development in actual towns ans cities. Put it in Randolph, an it could make sense. But on a mountaintop that is just trees and fields? (no roads, no infrastructer, etc) no.
Not trying to stir up the hornet’s nest, but if Vermont wants to attract jobs and make it’s way into at least the 20th Century…baby steps people 😉 , then they need to stop with this aesthetic whining because you can’t have 21st Century luxuries and jobs if you demand Colonial aesthetics and laws and lifestyles like we do here in Vermont. Get real Vermonters you’re trying to defy logic and reap the gains of modern day luxuries with Colonial tactics. Do you really believe that Vermont cares about Vermonters! They only care about the flatlanders! They have the money that this state DEPENDS on to survive. That is why they charge just as much and most times MORE for the SAME products here in Vermont as they charge down in Boston! Yet Vermont jobs don’t pay nearly as good as jobs down in the Boston area? Our food and gas prices here in Vermont are ridiculous compared to down in the Boston area. I heard a gallon of gas in my old hometown of Woburn is $2.37 a gallon! Why are we paying .30+ cents more a gallon up here…because we are a TOURIST STATE and the flatlanders will pay that much for gas to visit us and therefore WE must also pay that much :(. If this state really cared about Vermonters it would have (2) prices for everything. (1) price for the TOURISTS and if you can produce a valid Vermont driver’s license with proof of address, then a discounted price for our own since we don’t get paid as well as the tourists who can obviously afford our “TOURIST STATE” prices 😉