by Meg Campbell, Citizens for a Greater Bennington
 
From the time Act 250 was conceived and established, one of the Act's key principles has been allowing citizen involvement as full participants in the review and permitting process. Citizens and citizen groups have a unique perspective, and under the rules must provide information and analysis based upon Act 250 criteria.  
 
In 2004, a new standard for obtaining party status was included in the permit reform package approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.  Under this new standard, citizens and citizen groups have to show that they have a "particularized interest" in the proposed project. During the process, the Administration's representatives assured Legislators that the Administration would not establish a "high bar" under the new standard. 
 
Unfortunately, the "particularized interest" standard is now being used to limit citizen participation.  
 
Citizens For a Greater Bennington is a group of concerned citizens who want to help make Bennington a great place to live and work.  Our members live, work and recreate in and around Bennington. We are interested in fostering development that preserves our traditional downtown as a center of cultural and economic life and supports locally-owned businesses, historic character, and natural environment.
 
CFGB has existed since 2004, when we initiated a proposal to place a cap on the size of big box retail stores in Bennington. Since 2004, our main goal has been to help the community become aware of the true cost of big box development.  In 2005, we enlisted the support of 409 voters in Bennington and North Bennington and a total of 824 citizens in Bennington County who signed a petition opposing the expansion of the proposed Wal-Mart. We participated in the Development Review Board proceedings which led to a decision to grant a permit to an out-of-state developer to more than double the size of the Wal-Mart.  Subsequently, CFGB appealed that decision, with the assistance of the Vermont Natural Resources Council.  The case now stands in Environmental Court, where we tried to mediate several issues with the developer last summer.  The developer was simply not willing to discuss a smaller store, in a different location, and alternative site plans.
 
This year the developer applied for an Act 250 permit, even though there is still no stormwater permit for the project and there are significant unresolved traffic issues. CFGB and VNRC attended the Act 250 pre-hearing conference in early February and preceded that with a formal request asking the District 8 Environmental Commission if we could participate as parties.  We cited particular concerns including: the negative impacts on water quality of stormwater runoff into the Walloomsac River; the probability that the development would put 10-15% of downtown stores out of business; increased traffic congestion on Route 7A;  and site design that is not in conformance with the Town Plan. 
 
Instead of full party status, the Commission gave us "Friends of the Commission" status and gave us until March 3rd to supplement our party status petitions.  We were not given clear guidance on what they wanted, so we gathered more than 50 signed affidavits from our members who include business people, property owners, and citizens who have legitimate concerns about how this project will impact them.  This is above and beyond what is normally required to establish party status.  The Commission's decision doesn't cite any flaws in our efforts, but simply denied us party status.
 
We did not request Friends of the Commission status.  It is not sufficient to represent our interests and to participate as parties with the same rights of other parties in the proceeding.  It allows participation only at the discretion of the Commission, and it does not afford us the right to appeal.  We believe that our concerns about the project will not be given the same weight or taken as seriously as the positions of "actual parties".  And, why would we want to spend considerable amounts of money on legal and technical experts only to have the Commission dismiss us?  For all of these reasons, it simply does not make sense for us to participate in the proceedings as Friends of the Commission.
 
Shortly after the Commission's decision, we asked the Environmental Court to rule on our request for party status, reasoning that if our appeal is granted now, it could move the case along in a timely fashion without the need to do it all over again. We believe gaining party status would help the Commission arrive at a decision that benefits our community sooner rather than later.
 
Unfortunately, the Environmental Court judge has decided not to hear our appeal now, so we are forced to wait until the end of the Act 250 hearings for our appeal to be heard. If we prevail at the Environmental Court, there is a strong likelihood that the Court will remand the decision back to the Commission to do all over again and include us as full parties.  This outcome would result in more delays and frustration than simply granting us party status at this time.
 
This whole process seems convoluted and unfair.  As envisioned by Governor Deane Davis, Act 250 was designed to be run by citizens for the benefit of citizens.  Those days appear to be over.  And what's happening in Bennington is no longer only about Bennington. It's about curtailing citizens' rights on a statewide level and undermining the substance and spirit of Act 250.
 
-----
Meg Campbell is Co- Chair of Citizens for a Greater Bennington.  She lives in Bennington.
 

 

Save America's Treasures Issues Call for Applications for 2009

The Save America's Treasures federal partners just announced the 2009 Save America's Treasures Grant Round, administered by the National Park Service (NPS) in partnership with the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

 

The Save America's Treasures fund is one of the largest and most successful grant programs for the protection of our nation's endangered and irreplaceable cultural heritage. Grants are available for preservation and/or conservation work on nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures and sites. Intellectual and cultural artifacts include artifacts, collections, documents, sculpture, and works of art. Historic structures and sites include historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects.

Grants are awarded to Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities, and non-profit organizations through a competitive process and require a dollar-for-dollar, non-Federal match. The minimum grant request for historic collections projects is $25,000 Federal share; the minimum grant request for historic property projects is $125,000 Federal share. The maximum grant request for all projects is $700,000 Federal share.  Application forms and guidelines, and a list of previously funded projects can be found at the NPS Save America's Treasures website: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/treasures/

  
 
The deadline is 11:59 pm EST on Friday May 22, 2009.