Main Menu

The Valley Reporter Newsletter

Hearings are closed following two years of litigation between the town of Moretown and applicant Rich Rivers, who was appealing an Act 250 denial for a proposed quarry project on Route 100B.

The applicant is Rich Rivers, who proposed the quarry that would occupy a portion of the 93 acres north of Moretown Village. Rivers applied for and was denied town Development Review Board permits in 2004 and was denied an Act 250 permit on two criteria (air quality and town plan conformance) in 2007. Rivers appealed both decisions and those appeals were later merged at the Vermont Environmental Court.

THIRTY DAYS

Rivers receives discharge permit for Moretown quarry

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) issued a draft discharge permit for Rich Rivers' proposed quarry on Route 100B in Moretown. That draft prompted a lengthy round of "comments" from project opponents, which the ANR refuted comment by comment for 14 pages.

The type of discharge permit and whether it was issued had previously been under litigation; however, Rivers, the town of Moretown and others participating in this case at the Vermont Environmental Court level reached a settlement on this particular issue late last year. Under that settlement, the discharge permit terms were agreed upon.

The comments submitted in response to the draft of the permit ranged from concerns about run off from the proposed quarry, to suggestions that Rivers' engineers did not craft a system that works with existing hydrology. To each of the 38 comments, the state replied in detail but sometimes referenced a previous answer where the comments reiterated the same information.

The quarry is proposed for 93 acres on the west side of Route 100B north of Moretown Village. Moretown denied Rivers a conditional use permit and the state Act 250 district denied him a permit based on 2 of Act 250's 10 review criteria. He appealed both denials to Vermont Environmental Court while simultaneously pursuing a discharge permit. That discharge permit also became involved in litigation which has settled last month. 

LAL

The town's attorney Ron Shems was present at the January 19 meeting of the Moretown Select Board to update town officials on the status of the litigation. Shems informed select board members that proposed findings are due on March 6 and rebuttal findings are due within the following 30 days.

Findings are submitted to the judge, who has no formal deadline to render a decision. Shems also said that Rivers is seeking a multi-sector general permit; select board members decided against appealing that permit (should it be issued) during executive session deliberation.

HEARINGS ARE CLOSED

Moretown resident Carl Wimble, along with "Moretown Taxpayers for Common Cents" representative Jack Wood, queried town officials and attorney Shems regarding past town expenditures spent in opposition to the quarry project, as well as expected future costs now that the hearings are closed.

Wimble questioned Shem's hours billed as reported to the town and whether select board members had a role in selecting witnesses who took part in the litigation. Shems said he and his associate Jeff Hand were saving the town money by alternating their days spent on the trial, where the two rarely appeared together, saving mileage and billable hours.

NOT A MONEY MAKER

Shems explained that the hours he has billed to the town account for average eight-hour days spent in trial in addition to varying hours spent in preparation for trial, specifically planning witness examinations and cross examinations.

"This is not a money maker for us," Shems said, "The town is getting one hell of deal," he continued. Wimble addressed the select board and questioned the town's past expenditures.

"How much money is the town willing to spend? I don't see how spending this money is helping the town," Wimble said.

A LOT OF WEIGHT

"The town really carried a lot of the weight of this trial," Shems said. Wimble asked whether development on grades greater than 25 percent was permitted in the Moretown Town Plan. Shems confirmed the regulation, and when asked why that rule did not apply to the Moretown Landfill, Shems referenced a state statute that exempts landfills from that particular restriction as specified in the Town Plan.

The town's preliminary budget draft indicates that the town budgeted $25,000 in 2008 to cover Shem's anticipated final bill following the litigation.

{loadnavigation}