328 A.3d 1225
Vt.2024Background
- Windham & Windsor Housing Trust proposed a 25-unit mixed-income residential development on two adjacent lots (separated by a public road) in Putney, Vermont.
- 19 of the 25 units would be restricted as affordable housing under Vermont law.
- The project received local zoning approval, which was affirmed on appeal, and then was deemed exempt from Act 250 review as a “priority housing project” by a District Coordinator.
- Neighbors (Campbell & Lazar) challenged the exemption, arguing that the two lots separated by a town road did not meet statutory requirements for a “single tract or multiple contiguous tracts of land.”
- The Environmental Division granted summary judgment in favor of the Trust, holding the lots were contiguous under the statute; neighbors appealed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory interpretation of "contiguous" and the purpose of the priority housing project exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two lots separated by a road are “multiple contiguous tracts of land” under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(35) | Campbell & Lazar: The road between the lots breaks contiguity, so the project is not a priority housing project and is subject to Act 250 review. | Windham & Windsor Housing Trust: "Contiguous" should be interpreted broadly given legislative purpose; a road does not break contiguity in this context. | “Contiguous” should be defined loosely for statutory purposes; road does not break contiguity here; exemption applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcox v. Manchester Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 159 Vt. 193 (terms “parcel” and “lot” are used interchangeably in land use law)
- Route 4 Assocs. v. Town of Sherburne Planning Comm’n, 154 Vt. 461 (meaning of “contiguous” can be narrow or broad depending on legislative intent; roads do not necessarily break contiguity)
- In re Weeks, 167 Vt. 551 (parcels may be analyzed as single or multiple tracts depending on use and statutory context)
- In re Vitale, 151 Vt. 580 (uncertainty in land use regulations must be resolved in favor of property owners)