Case Title: In re 232511 Investments, Ltd.

Citation: 179 Vt. 409, 2006 VT 27, 898 A.2d 109

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re 232511 Investments, Ltd. (2005-183); 179 Vt. 409; 898 A.2d 109

2006 VT 27

[Filed 07-Apr-2006]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 27

                                No. 2005-183


  In re Appeal of 232511 Investments, Ltd. 
  d/b/a Stowe Highlands                          SupremeCourt

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 January Term, 2006

                                                 Thomas S. Durkin, J.


  Harold B. Stevens of Stevens Law Office, Stowe, for
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

  Leighton C. Detora, Pro Se, Barre, Appellant. 

  Amanda S. E. Lafferty of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
    Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.  Appellant 232511 Investments, Ltd., doing business
  as Stowe Highlands (Stowe Highlands), appeals the Environmental Court's
  grant of summary judgment, which upheld a decision of the Town of Stowe's
  Development Review Board (FN1) denying Stowe Highlands' application to
  amend its permit for a Resort Planned Unit Development (Resort PUD).  Stowe
  Highlands argues that both the Board and the Environmental Court erred in
  refusing to allow construction of fourteen clustered houses in place of a
  hotel.  Cross-appellant Leighton Detora appeals from the Environmental
  Court's reversal of a decision of the Board that required all owners of
  property within the Stowe Club to be included as co-applicants for a permit
  to convert the Resort PUD to a Planned Residential Development (PRD).  We
  affirm in part.

       ¶  2.  Stowe Highlands owns a portion of a 236-acre planned
  development in the Town of Stowe, known as the Stowe Club.  The Stowe Club
  is located in an area zoned Agricultural and Rural Residential 3 (RR3),
  which allows for Resort PUDs as conditional uses.  In 1985, the Town
  granted then-owner Nolex Corporation a Resort PUD permit for the Stowe
  Club, allowing it to construct a planned development consisting of
  seventy-eight residential units and a 100-unit hotel.  Since 1985,
  ownership of the Stowe Club has changed hands many times, and plans for
  development have undergone numerous revisions.  Stowe Highlands and its
  predecessors have received permits for and built a number of residential
  housing units, many of which were sold to individual homeowners.  Although
  Parcel 1 of the Stowe Club has been specifically permitted and reserved for
  a hotel and other associated commercial uses, it remains undeveloped.
   
       ¶  3.  In 2003, Stowe Highlands applied for an amendment to its
  Resort PUD permit to allow it to abandon plans to build a hotel and,
  instead, to construct eighteen clustered houses on the 24.3-acre parcel of
  land comprised of Parcel 1 and Lots 21-23 (hereinafter Parcel 1).  After a
  public hearing, Stowe Highlands amended its proposal to include only
  fourteen clustered houses.  Public hearings were held on the new proposal,
  and in May 2004, the Board issued a decision denying Stowe Highlands'
  application to amend its Resort PUD permit.  The Board emphasized that the
  permit for the Resort PUD was issued, amended, and developed with the
  understanding that the Stowe Club would include some kind of resort.  It
  concluded that if Stowe Highlands wished to abandon the resort, it would
  need to either change the entire 236-acre property from a Resort PUD to a
  PRD, or, in the alternative, develop the property as a residential
  development subject to RR3 district requirements.  The Board then stated
  that if Stowe Highlands were to pursue a PRD designation, it would need to
  include all other property owners within the Stowe Club as co-applicants
  for the permit. 

       ¶  4.  Stowe Highlands appealed the Board's decision to the
  Environmental Court and moved for summary judgment.  The Town opposed the
  motion and filed its own cross-motion for summary judgment.  On April 26,
  2005, the Environmental Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
  Town.  It held that the regulatory scheme for a Resort PUD required some
  kind of inn or hotel as a "necessary component" of the development.  The
  court further held that recorded plans showing a hotel on Parcel 1 made the
  hotel a condition of the Resort PUD permit.  It also held that if Stowe
  Highlands wanted to build clustered residential units in place of the
  hotel, it would need to apply for a conditional-use permit to develop the
  entire 236-acre property as a PRD.  Finally, the court held that other
  property owners within the Resort PUD need not be co-applicants in the
  event that Stowe Highlands applies to amend its permit from a Resort PUD to
  a PRD.
        
       ¶  5.  As a preliminary matter, Stowe Highlands contends that the Town
  does not have standing in this appeal.  This argument is without merit. 
  Vermont's municipal planning statute allows an "interested person" to
  appeal the Board's decision to the Environmental Court.  24 V.S.A. § 4471. 
  The definition of an "interested person" includes "[t]he municipality in
  which the plan or a bylaw of which is at issue in an appeal brought under
  this chapter."  24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(2). (FN2)  We have previously held that
  "[m]unicipalities in Vermont have a limited right to appeal the decisions
  of their zoning boards; the town plan or a municipal bylaw must be at issue
  in the case."  Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 146 Vt. 419, 420,