New Plan For Exit 4 Hits Snag

By M. D. Drysdale

An attorney's opinion has cast doubt on the proposed Exit 4 zoning proposal, just as the Randolph Planning Board formally adopted it.

The planning board officially approved the draft of the long-awaited zoning proposal on Sept. 12 and sent it to the selectboard for final action. It made few changes from the proposal that was subject to a supportive public hearing in June.

The proposal represents a delicate balancing act between strong economic interests and a desire to protect the scenic qualities of the interchange area. It would protect viewsheds and prohibit stand-alone retail stores but would permit homes, offices, outdoor recreation, light manufacturng, and similar uses in certain areas.

The proposal was hammered out by special committees and then by the planning commission over a period of seven years. Its approval by the commission this month seemed to indicate that the long process was nearing a conclusion.

Once a zoning proposal is approved by the planning commission, it goes to the selectboard, which must hold at least one hearing and then can approve it, make minor changes, or disapprove it. Larger changes must go back to the planning commission.

When the measure was approved Sept. 12, two planning commission members voted against it, according to Zoning Administrator Mardee Sanchez. One was Charles Russell, who doesn't approve of zoning in general, and the other was former planning commission chair Julie Iffland. Iffland was in favor of the proposal, but she objected that the commission should wait until receiving a legal review by Atty. Stephen Stitzel of Burlington, a zoning expert who had been sent a draft of the proposal.

Iffland's objection was validated Monday, when Stitzel's review was received by the zoning office. The attorney, apologizing for his delay, sent a six-page letter that laid out what he said were significant flaws in the drafting of the zoning proposal.

The four quadrants of the Exit 4 interchange area, Stitzel noted, were treated differently in the zoning proposal- residences, for instance, are permitted in two of the quadrants but not the other two.

Within a single zone, he opined, regulations should be consistent. Thus, he recommended that the single Exit 4 zone be divided into four zones.

The attorney also objected that the proposal does not sufficiently spell out the reason for the regulations. Any zoning regulations must be directly connected to the stated purpose of the zoning district- and that purpose must be specifically connected to "a legitimate public purpose," Stitzel wrote.

If sufficient reasons are not part of the law, it could be challenged as "arbitrary," he said.

In Randolph's proposal, he pointed out, the stated purpose of the Exit 4 zone appears to comtemplate only commercial, industrial and institutional uses that create good jobs. However, the actual zoning also permits residential uses.

The zoning proposal also establishes three kinds of development areas- "preferred," "Limited," or "restricted." However, there are no stated reasons for establishing them, and no explanation for how the lines were drawn, he said.

To solve this problem, Stitzel recommended a separate section be written into the zoning law.

The attorney also had various problems with the treatment of retail sales and the complicated rules governing lot coverage in the various development areas.

He offered that "given the substantial nature of my comments," he would take a trip to Randolph free of charge to meet with the planning commission.

Zoning Administrator Sanchez said she sent out copies of Stitzel's letters to commission members but wasn't sure what would happen next. Commission Chair Scott Berkey said Tuesday evening that he had not yet read the report. He said he hoped that any difficulties noted by Stitzel could be resolved at the selectboard level.