Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘local permitting’

St. Oswald's Church, Hooe UKTelecom infrastructure developers in Vermont must comply with Act 250, Vermont’s environmental conservation and development law. However, in some very specific situations, developers can avoid complying with Act 250’s requirements through careful siting of a project on preexisting structures. In In re Vermont RSA Ltd. Partnership, 181 Vt. 589, 925 A.2d 1006 (Vt. 2007), Verizon Wireless used the preexisting structure loophole to avoid complying with Act 250.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Maybe we can get through all ten Act 250 criteria in this blog. We already have posts on 8 and 9, and this post will be about criterion 10. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(10) requires the district commission to find that the proposed development is “in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan or capital program under chapter 117 of Title 24.” The test for this criterion was laid out clearly in the Environmental Board’s 1995 opinion in Re: Manchester Commons Associates.[i]

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Infrastructure development, such as telecom towers, can pose aesthetic and safety threats to local communities and as such development in Vermont is often met with vehement opposition. All municipal land use decisions go directly to the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court. Decisions by the environmental court are directly appealable to the Vermont Supreme Court.

If citizen groups do not win at the local level (i.e. a project is permitted) and the environmental court affirms the decision, citizens can appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court. The success of such an appeal hinges on the standard of review the Vermont Supreme Court uses to evaluate the legal reasoning of the environmental court. When the supreme court reviews the environmental court, the supreme court’s standard of review is the amount of deference it affords the environmental court in its decision making.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

The Sheffield Wind Project (also known as the UPC or Vermont Wind Project) has had a long history and is well known among Vermont land use professionals. The responsible company is currently known as “First Wind.” The downsides of wind power are visual blight and noise pollution, and projects are often opposed by local communities. On the other side, the benefits of wind power are numerous—decreased reliance on fossil fuels decreases global warming and energy dependence, and green energy brings jobs to the local economy, as well as profit for the responsible company. This complicated case makes for a fun study of the permitting process for such projects. (more…)

Read Full Post »

The In Re Pierce[i] and JAM Golf[ii] cases, decided within a month of each other, come to different conclusions on whether standards in bylaws provide enough guidance, issues of substantive due process. This blog post provides a summary of each.

In Re Pierce was decided first, in August 2008. The Ferrisburgh Planning Commission approved six waivers for a proposed development and subdivision of a 113-acre parcel. The development would be 21 lots of residences and one lot of common space, with a total of 76% of the land planned to be protected by perpetual easements. The development was opposed by a neighbor, who appealed to the Environmental Court and then to the Vermont Supreme Court. Among other arguments, the neighbor contended that sections 5.21(C) & (D) of the Ferrisburgh bylaws (governing approval of PRDs) provided insufficient standards to guide the Environmental Court’s discretion.  Section (C) provided some general standards (such as conformance with the municipal plan), and some specific standards (such as standard (2), which provided that the overall density of units may not exceed the number which could be permitted if developed in accordance with the bylaws). Section (D) also contained standards, including one requiring 60% of the total parcel to remain undeveloped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I’ve been thinking a lot about takings recently, in various contexts, and I have been surprised in my research about how few takings cases there have been in Vermont. The federal case-law on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment takings, on the other hand, has been fairly broad (after all, it is a federal issue). Two takings cases in Vermont have captured my attention―Chioffi v. City of Winooski* and Killington, Ltd. v. State**

(more…)

Read Full Post »