Supreme Court

Decision Flawed

Thank you for an accurate report on the Supreme Court's decision on the municipal building case. Unfortunately an egregious error crept into that decision: The petitioners did not, of course, "acknowedge that there are commercial structures on Summer Street," because there are none. There are only residences and the municipal building. Indeed, the Development Review Board recently refused a permit for a hair dressing salon.

If the town's lawyer in his description of the village commercial zone left the impression with the Court that there were commercial establishments on the street, it is regrettable. He was referring to the Brooks Pharmacy and the Shell station on Main Street two blocks east of Summer Street but within the same zone that includes the east side of Summer Street. The Environmental Court refused the pertitioners' request for a hearing for oral arguments and for an on-site visit. Had both been allowed it might well have prevented the errors and incongruities that appeared in the court's confirmation of the DRB's approval of the project.

The Environmental Court confused the earlier Black River Design for a building addition with the Dubois & King design which the DRB approved. The Selectboard had previously rejected the Black River Design even though it had been approved by the voters at the bond issue vote in December 2004. The Supreme Court ignored this misconception.

Several other inconsistencies crept into both the DRB decision and the Environmental Court ruling … The rub is that errors and misconceptions of a municipal board were repeated and magnified by an appeals court, and finally found thier way into a flawed decision of the respected highest court in the state.

Leigh Wright

Randolph