In re Group Five Investments CU Permit
195 Vt. 625
| Vt. | 2014Background
- Appeal from Environmental Division affirming a Ferrisburgh zoning board conditional use permit for a Dollar General store.
- Opponents challenged burden-shifting and the court’s use of Quechee-based undue adverse impact in interpreting local bylaws.
- Trial court found the project complied with conditional-use standards and enabling statute, but required a crosswalk in the parking lot.
- Court analyzed traffic, noise, and compatibility with the surrounding commercial area, concluding no adverse impact.
- Opponents asserted the store is a prohibited use or that the court failed to make requested Rule 52(a) findings; the court’s reasoning relied on the ordinance’s general and catch-all provisions.
- Supreme Court reviews de novo the court’s interpretation of the zoning regulation and defers on factual credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court improperly shift the burden of proof? | Opponents claim burden shifted to show adverse impact. | Group Five contends the court properly weighed evidence and found applicant met standards. | No improper burden shift; findings support applicant’s compliance. |
| May the court use Quechee’s undue adverse impact framework to interpret a municipal adverse-effect standard? | Opponents argue Quechee is inapplicable to Act 250/municipal standards. | Group Five argues Quechee guidance informs interpretation of adverse effects under the bylaws. | Court appropriately used Quechee framework as guidance, not a rigid transfer of standards. |
| Is the proposed Dollar General use prohibited or improperly classified under the Highway Commercial District? | Opponents contend it falls under a prohibited category (convenience, retail) not permitted in the district. | Group Five argues the use fits within retail sales or falls under a catch-all provision. | Common-sense interpretation supports retail sales classification; use permitted or covered by catch-all. |
| Did the court err in failing to make specific findings under Rule 52(a) about the nature of the proposed use? | Opponents sought more detailed findings describing the store’s exact use. | Group Five asserts findings were adequate to apply the ordinance and Rule 52. | Findings were sufficient for purposes of the ordinance and Rule 52. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vill. Assocs. Act 250 Permit, 2010 VT 42A (2010) (de novo review; rational basis for interpreting regulations)
- In re Miller Subdivision Final Plan, 184 Vt. 188 (1999) (adverse-effect standard; burden and credibility considerations)
- In re John Russell Corp., 176 Vt. 520 (2003) (distinguishes rural/industrial cumulative impact analysis)
- In re Walker, 588 A.2d 1058 (1991) (material-adverse-effect concept; flexibility in conditional uses)
- In re Times & Seasons, LLC, 183 Vt. 336 (2008) (Quechee framework guidance for adverse impact)
- In re Laberge Moto-Cross Track, 189 Vt. 578 (2011) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning of ordinance terms)