In re Stowe Highlands Merger/Subdivision Application
70 A.3d 935
Vt.2013Background
- Permittee Stowe Highlands operates a 236-acre Resort PUD in Stowe; Parcel 1 was originally for a 21-unit hotel on 17 acres before reductions; Lots 21-23 are currently permitted as 3 residential lots on 7 acres; 2010 amendment sought to subdivide Parcel 1 into Lot 1A and Lot 1B, merge Lot 1B with Lots 21-23 and subdivide into 11 residential lots, while Lot 1A would remain for the hotel; DRB denied the amendment as a permit-condition change; Environmental Division reversed, ruling no permit-condition change and remanding for merits review; Detora and the Town appeal arguing DRB was correct; this Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRB correctly treated Parcel 1 hotel condition | Detora/Town: hotel condition restricts Parcel 1 to hotel use | Stowe Highlands: no express restriction; permit allows multiple uses | No express restriction; Stowe Club test inapplicable |
| Whether Stowe Club test governs amendment | DRB applied Stowe Club to justify change | Stowe Club not applicable since no permit-condition change needed | Stowe Club test not applicable; remand proper for merits review |
| Whether Environmental Division erred in reversal/remand | Evidence supports DRB findings of hotel restriction | No binding hotel-only restriction; amend does not change permit conditions | Affirm Environmental Division; DRB merits review remand proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stowe Highlands Resort PUD to PRD Application, 2009 VT 76 (2009 VT) (standard for review of DRB findings; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- In re 232511 Investments, Ltd., 2006 VT 27 (2006 VT) (resort PUD hotel requirement; hotel component of Resort PUD)
- In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272 (1995) (recorded plats may impose permit conditions; restrictions not implied)
- In re Stowe Club Highlands, 166 Vt. 38-39 (1996) (Stowe Club test for permit modification: unforeseen changes; changes in project not reasonably foreseeable; technology)
- In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292 (1994) (non-stated permit conditions may not be imposed; plats not alone restricting uses)