Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Willowell Foundation received a conditional-use permit to build a community center and related improvements on a large plot of land in the Town of Monkton. Neighbors challenged the permit, arguing the project violated a subdivision condition mandating agricultural use, claimed additional failings of Willowell’s application, and contended the Superior Court, Environmental Division, erred in several ways in upholding the permit approval. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Willowell Foundation Conditional Use Certificate of Occupancy" on Justia Law

The Town of Underhill appealed a trial court order that affirmed a decision of the County Road Commissioners requiring the Town to maintain a segment of Town Highway 26 (TH 26), a Class 4 highway. TH 26 has existed, in some form, for nearly 150 years. In 2001, the Town sought to reclassify a segment of TH 26 between Irish Settlement Road and Pleasant Valley Road as a legal trail, and the remainder of the roadway as a Class 4 highway. Following protracted litigation, these changes became effective in June 2010, and TH 26 became part of the Town’s six miles of Class 4 highways. Prior to the reclassification of TH 26, the Town performed periodic maintenance and repair work to both the roadway and the twenty-two culverts that were installed along and under TH 26 over the past thirty years. Although the ditches along TH 26 do not appear to have been maintained since 2010, the Town has continued to do some work, primarily the addition of base material to the roadway. Appellees David Demarest, Jeffrey Moulton, and Jonathan Fuller owned property on TH 26 in the Town of Underhill. Appellees Fuller and Demarest resided at their properties full time, while two additional residents along the road were part-time residents. In 2012, appellees filed a notice of insufficiency pursuant to 19 V.S.A. 971 requesting maintenance of TH 26, which had been largely deferred following the roadway reclassification. The Town denied appellees’ allegations, asserting that TH 26 was being maintained to the extent required by the necessity of the Town, the public good, and the convenience of the inhabitants of the Town. Appellees then brought an action for the appointment of County Road Commissioners pursuant to 19 V.S.A. 971 et seq. to compel the Town to undertake repairs of TH 26. Specifically, appellees sought repairs and maintenance to drainage, culverts, and the road surface, so as to make it reasonably safe and accessible for appellees’ use as residents of the Town. The Town contended on appeal that the trial court misconstrued and incorrectly applied the statutory provisions for the maintenance of Class 4 roads and erroneously established its own maintenance standard. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Town and reversed. View "Demarest v. Town of Underhill" on Justia Law

The City of Burlington and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) applied for an Act 250 permit amendment to complete a project known as the "Champlain Parkway," a roadway designed to route traffic more efficiently from Interstate 89 in South Burlington to the City of Burlington’s downtown area. The environmental court concluded that the application complied with Act 250’s transportation criterion subject to conditions requiring that applicants monitor and report on the project’s traffic-congestion and safety impacts, and work with the opposing party in this proceeding, Fortieth Burlington, LLC, to resolve any remaining issues. Fortieth appealed, arguing that: (1) the conditions imposed by the court were not supported by the evidence and findings, exceeded the court’s authority, and were insufficient to mitigate the project’s adverse impacts; (2) the court misapplied the burdens of production and proof; and (3) the court erred in rejecting Fortieth’s proposed conditions. After review, the Supreme court "discern[ed] no basis to disturb the trial court’s finding that Fortieth failed to provide sufficient “details of [the alleged] improvement or the corresponding impacts on traffic,” and no ground to disturb the judgment." View "In re Champlain Parkway Act 250 Permit (Fortieth Burlington LLC, Appellant)" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a decision by the Town of Middlebury Development Review Board (DRB) to approve appellee Jolley Associates, LLC's application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a car wash to an existing gas station and convenience store within the Town limits. Appellant MDY Taxes, Inc. operated an H&R Block tax franchise in property rented in a shopping center adjacent to the Jolley lot. Appellant Village Car Wash, Inc. operated a car wash located approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Jolley lot. Appellants did not participate in the DRB proceeding, but sought to challenge the approval of the PUD through an appeal to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. The environmental court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that appellants did not have standing, to appeal the DRB decision because they had not participated in the proceedings before the DRB as required by statute, and because they did not meet any of the exceptions to that statutory requirement. On appeal, appellants argued that a procedural defect prevented them from appearing before the DRB, and that it would be manifestly unjust if they are not afforded party status to appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc., & Village Car Wash, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a decision of the Superior Court, Environmental Division in three consolidated dockets, "all of which carved a very long and circuitous path through the lower tribunals" before presented for the Supreme Court's review. At issue was the proposal of Lathrop Limited Partnership ("Lathrop") to establish a sand and gravel extraction operation on a parcel of land in Bristol. Neighbors of the project appealed the environmental court's decision to approve Lathrop's conditional use and Act 250 permit applications, and raised six claims of error: (1) the trial court erred in holding that sand and gravel extraction was permitted as a conditional use in the Town's Rural Agricultural (RA-2) and Mixed Use (MIX) zoning districts; (2) the trial court erred in holding that the operation would not create a pit within the meaning of section 526(2) of the Town's zoning bylaws; (3) erred in concluding that the court could review Lathrop's 2012 permit application de novo, without regard to the 2004 permit, and that the successive-application doctrine did not apply; (4) the court erred in relying on one-hour average noise levels and ignoring uncontested evidence of large increases in the number of high-decibel noise events in determining impact of traffic on neighbors; (5) erred in admitting and relying on acoustical-modeling software for predicting noise levels emitted by the project; and (6) erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review Lathrop's amended Act 250 permit application without a remand. The Supreme Court affirmed the environmental court's holdings that sand and gravel extraction was permitted as a conditional use in the RA-2 and MIX districts and that the acoustical-modeling testimony was admissible. The Supreme Court reversed holdings with respect to the creation of a pit under section 526(2), the successive-application doctrine, the impact of traffic noise on neighbors, and its jurisdiction to review Lathrop's amended Act 250 permit application. View "In re Application of Lathrop Limited Partnership I, II and III" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether Act 250 jurisdiction extended to the siting and related construction proposed for the Vermont Air National Guard Base at the Burlington International Airport to accommodate the anticipated arrival of eighteen F-35A jets. Following a request for a jurisdictional opinion, the Environmental Division concluded that there was no Act 250 jurisdiction because the development served no state purpose and there was no material change to any existing permit. The requesting individuals appealed that decision, arguing that the proposed changes are development for a state purpose and subject to Act 250 review. Those individuals further contended that the project amounted to a substantial change to preexisting development on the Guard base, which required a permit, and a material change to an existing Act 250 permit, which required application for an amended permit. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded there was no Act 250 jurisdiction, and affirmed. View "In re Request for Jurisdictional Opinion re: Changes in Physical Structure and Use at Burlington International Airport for F-35A" on Justia Law

The subject property was two large parcels of land in the Town of Manchester. Sand, rock, and gravel had been extracted from a portion of one or both parcels for decades. In September 1990, respondents' predecessor-in-interest received an Act 250 permit authorizing a nineteen-lot residential subdivision on the northern parcel. Among other conditions, the Act 250 permit provided that it would expire one year from the date of issuance if the permittee had not demonstrated an intention to proceed with the project in accordance with 10 V.S.A. 6091(b), and otherwise would expire on October 1, 2020 unless extended by the District Environmental Commission. Other permit conditions prohibited any "changes . . . in the design or use" of the project without written approval of the district coordinator or commission, and specified that the permit and all conditions therein would "run with the land and . . . be binding upon and enforceable against . . . all assigns and successors in interest." In September 1992, the district commission issued an amendment to the permit extending the time for construction of the project to October 1994. In June 1994, respondent Dorr Oil Company purchased a portion of the property designated as a residential tract. The warranty deed expressly referenced the Act 250 permit "and any and all amendments thereto." Shortly thereafter, respondent Donald Dorr, on behalf of Dorr Oil applied for and received a further permit amendment extending the time for construction to October 1995. During this period, another company operated by Dorr, respondent MGC, Inc., purchased the southerly parcel (the "adjacent tract"), and continued to operate a gravel pit "most or all" of which the trial court found was located on the adjacent tract. Dorr took no steps to begin the actual subdivision of the project tract or the development of an internal roadway. In March 2006, following a property-tax reappraisal of the tracts by the Town, respondents filed a request with the district commission to declare the Act 250 permit as abandoned through non-use. The commission, in response, issued a notice of intent to abandon the permit. The owners of a nearby residential property filed an objection, asserting that respondents had made a "material change" to the use authorized by the Act 250 permit by expanding gravel extractions activities onto the residential project tract. The commission then "tabled" the abandonment request "pending a jurisdictional opinion from the district coordinator on the material change question." The district coordinator thereupon requested further information from the parties, visited the site with respondent Dorr and his attorney, and issued a draft jurisdictional opinion for comment. In January 2007, the coordinator issued a formal opinion, finding that the "Dorr gravel pit has expanded onto the parcel covered by [the Act 250 permit]," that this constituted "a material change to that permit," and therefore that "a permit amendment [was] required." Respondents neither appealed the jurisdictional opinion to the Environmental Division, applied for a permit amendment, nor abated the gravel extraction activities on the project tract. Following respondents' inaction, in October 2008, the NRB chair issued an administrative order determining that respondents had violated conditions of the Act 250 permit by making a material change to the project without a land-use permit amendment. Respondents appealed the Superior Court, Environmental Division's judgment affirming the NRB's decision that respondents' gravel-extraction activities violated an Act 250 residential-subdivision permit. Respondents argued the ruling was in error because the permit had expired. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nat. Resources Bd. Land Use Panel v. Dorr" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between developer Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC ("K/P") and the Highridge Condominium Owners Association regarding developer's proposal to construct additional units in the Highridge condominium development in Killington. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted declaratory relief to the Association on the ground that the declaration of condominium did not authorize the original developer to add additional units unilaterally, and thus the alleged successor to the original developer's rights, K/P, also had no such right. After its review of the dispute, the Vermont Supreme Court concluded that K/P was the successor in interest to the original developer with respect to development rights, and was entitled to construct the proposed additional units under the declaration of condominium. View "Highridge Condominium Owners Assoc. v. Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants Amherst Realty, LLC, Richard Madowitz, and the personal representatives of the Estate of Douglas Kohl appealed a superior court's grant of summary judgment to The Woods at Killington Owners’ Association on Amherst Realty’s claim of breach of contract based on the Association’s alleged interference with its development rights at The Woods at Killington. The Association cross-appealed the superior court’s decision granting summary judgment to Amherst Realty on the Association’s consumer fraud counterclaim. This controversy the center of this case concerned the consequences of the attempt and ultimate failure to build 40 units at The Woods. But finding no reason to reverse the superior court on either parties' claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Amherst Realty, LLC v. The Woods at Killington Owners’ Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Twelve individuals and the Ferrisburgh Friends of Responsible Growth, Inc. appealed the Environmental Division’s affirming the grant of a conditional use zoning permit to Champlain Oil Company. The permit allowed Champlain Oil to construct and operate a gasoline and diesel station with a retail convenience store and a drive-through food facility, including parking lot and overhead canopies for the gas and diesel pumps. Appellants argued that the proposed uses for a convenience, retail and drive-in facility are explicitly prohibited by the Ferrisburgh zoning ordinance and would not be consistent with the town plan. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division's decision.View "In re Champlain Oil Company Conditional Use Application" on Justia Law