Exit 4 Stalemate?

The sudden controversy over permitting retail sales at the Exit 4 interchange could set back any kind of development at Randolph's most strategic location for another decade.

Something similar happened 10 years ago, when an update to the town's zoning map was approved by town officials, but was then voted down at a special Australian ballot called by petition. In the decade since then—perhaps spooked by the voters' reaction—the town planners have been unable to update the zoning ordinance, though everyone agrees it is a dysfunctional ordinance in many ways.

The only concrete proposal that HAS been put forward during those 10 years is a compromise proposal for zoning at Exit 4. The proposal has as its primary focus the creation of a framework that would allow job-creating development on all four quadrants at the interchange, extending down the hill to both Fish Hill Road and Hebard Hill Road.

This property, because of its proximity to the transportation artery of Interstate 89, is an important key to the future of Randolph's economy. Nobody disagrees with that. Right now, however, there is no way that productive use can be made of it. That is simply because there is no legal framework within the current zoning ordinance that will permit such development.

The Exit 4 zoning proposal—a compromise that melded widely divergent views—would provide that framework. It would create more restrictions and more reviews (including design review) than landowners and developers might prefer, but it does set forth a road map to how the property can be made productive.

The proposal also takes care to protect what most everyone agrees is perhaps the most spectacular interchange viewpoint in the entire I-89 system, a welcoming vista of incalculable value to the goal of attracting visitors and new residents. This issue is important not only to Randolph but to the state of Vermont. Indeed, if Randolph does not regulate that interchange with a view to protecting its scenic qualities, the state will surely step in. Vermont already has strict new aesthetic guidelines for development at interchanges (drawn up by the Dean administration), and it will be ready and willing to apply them, if Randolph doesn't do the job itself.

The longtime consensus opinion, expressed in the Exit 4 proposal as well as in current zoning, is that standalone retail—a shopping center, a mall, a big box, for instance—is not appropriate for Exit 4. If the selectboard reverses that provision in its review of the zoning proposal, it is likely that the result will be exactly the opposite of what is intended.

Here's the scenario: The hard-won coalition in favor of the zoning will fall apart, and the zoning ordinance will be passed by the selectboard only to be defeated in a popular vote. There will be not more development, there will be less, or none at all (which would please some folks). Randolph will be left with its current ordinance which, to repeat, offers no guidance or permission for the sort of jobs-oriented, carefully located development that will guarantee a brighter future.