Sun and clouds mixed. High near 80F. Winds WNW at 5 to 10 mph..

Mainly clear. Low 53F. Winds WSW at 5 to 10 mph.

POWNAL — Whether businesses can be permitted under Pownal zoning in a rural residential district is central to a dispute involving John Babson’s proposal for a South Stream Road parcel.

During two prior meetings of the town Development Review Board, Babson has sought approvals for construction of a log home and for businesses he operates involving logging and solid waste hauling.

The businesses are based at his office on Gage Street in Bennington, he said Friday. His intention is to store trucks, log skidding gear, dumpsters, refuse containers and other equipment on the Pownal property at 2853 South Stream Road.

Despite meetings in March and April, the board has yet to vote on the proposal, which prompted lengthy debate and numerous questions and concerns from residents. However, board members have discussed approving a variance for the proposed business use in a residential zone.

Among those registering strong objections during those meetings was Realtor Paul Harsch, who represents a neighbor to the site who is attempting to sell her property.

Harsch said this week that the town could face a court challenge if a variance is granted for Babson’s property. He said his client, Deborah Eaton, of 2090 Maple Grove Road, has retained an attorney who plans to attend the next DRB meeting on the Babson application, set for Wednesday at 7 p.m.

“This is quite unusual for me to have to step in to this degree,” Harsch said in an email. “But I am very concerned that the all-new DRB board members were headed in a very troubling direction, by entertaining granting a permit for a use that is explicitly not permitted in the [rural residential] district where Ms. Eaton’s property and the applicant’s adjacent property are located.”

He added that the board and Zoning Administrator Michael Gardner “appear to remain determined to bend and even ignore the bylaws to grant permission for the single applicant. Their reasoning is also troubling, that there are other instances scattered around the town where over the past years a small contractor might keep his equipment at home for example, so they reason this would justify making an example here, too, disregarding entirely the impact this line of thinking has across the entire town.”

Neither the zoning administrator nor Gardner could be reached Friday for comment.

In board meeting minutes for the prior sessions, there is discussion of a 2008 decision, allowing a former owner’s application for a home and garage on the same property.

Harsch argued, however, that “The ‘proposed use’ in the permit clearly states ‘residential.’ There is nowhere on the permit application or approved permit any mention that the intended use of the property was for business purposes.”

He added, “The DRB has suggested that they would be granting a continuation of a business use for the property. This is false and misleading. The prior use was residential and the owner’s occasional practice of keeping a construction vehicle on site was not granted in the permit and would not have been permitted under the bylaw. If such a use did occur, it was either not noticed by the town authorities, or no attention was given if no complaints were filed.”

Reached by phone Friday, Babson said he has owned the parcel for about two years, but there were no complaints until he submitted a permit application for a business use.

Referring to his intent to store vehicles on the property, he said that would be similar to other sites in town where business vehicles are stored on a property. He added that an auto business previously operated on the parcel he now owns, although he is unsure whether a permit was issued.

For Harsch, a key issue is whether the town is enforcing its zoning provisions consistently.

“The town of Pownal DRB members have a legal obligation to thoughtfully and consistently enforce the existing bylaws for the benefit of all town citizens, present and future,” he said. “For the DRB to grant, let alone even entertain, an application for a nonconforming use, flies in the face of reason and law. Were this or similar permits granted, this essentially removes all protections property owners have a right to rely on as to the uses allowed and the uses not allowed in any part of the town.”

Referring to his role in trying to market Eaton’s home, Harsch said she “lost a really great sale opportunity due to Mr. Babson’s property,” contending that any abutting property “would be nearly impossible to sell” if the requested permit is obtained.

Jim Therrien writes for Vermont News and Media, including the Bennington Banner, Manchester Journal and Brattleboro Reformer. Email jtherrien@benningtonbanner.com

Jim Therrien reports for the three Vermont News and Media newspapers in Southern Vermont. He previously worked as a reporter and editor at the Berkshire Eagle, the Bennington Banner, the Springfield Republican, and the former North Adams Transcript.

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.