Title: In re Appeal of Hildebrand

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Hildebrand (2005-537)
    
2007 VT 5

[Filed 16-Jan-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2007 VT 5

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-537

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006


  In re Appeal of Hildebrand           }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }         Environmental Court
                                       }  
                                       }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 228-12-04 Vtec

                                                 Trial Judge: Thomas S. Durkin

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Joan Hildebrand, and her son James, appeal the Environmental
  Court's denial of their motion for summary judgment.  The court ruled that
  the Waitsfield Planning Commission had appropriately denied the
  Hildebrands' application to amend the subdivision permit because they had
  not demonstrated a change in circumstances.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  A review of the history of the parcel under consideration is
  necessary to understand the case.  In 1992, the Neill family sought
  approval from the Waitsfield Town Planning Commission to subdivide their
  183.5 acre farm, located on both sides of East Warren Road, into four lots. 
  Lots 1, 2, and 4 totaled approximately thirty acres, which the Neills
  intended to sell.  The plan left the Neills with approximately 150 acres,
  known as lot 3.  The Waitsfield Town Plan designates the segment of East
  Warren Road that runs through the Neill farm as a "scenic corridor . . .
  characterized by panoramic views across open fields on both sides of the
  road."  Because of the town plan, the Waitsfield Planning Commission
  originally raised concerns that the proposed development had the potential
  to disrupt an important viewshed.  Concerns were also raised by an adjacent
  landowner whose land had conservation restrictions placed on it.  In
  response to these concerns, the Neills proposed limiting the southern
  two-thirds of lot 4 to agricultural use only, prohibiting further
  development on this acreage.  Lot 4 is approximately sixteen acres.  The
  planning commission adopted the covenants drafted by the Neills, and by a
  written decision dated March 4, 1992, the planning commission approved the
  subdivision subject to seven specific conditions.  Importantly, the written
  decision prohibited further subdivision of lots 1, 2, and 4, and required
  that the agricultural fields in lot 4 be maintained as open fields through
  grazing, cultivation or mowing on a yearly basis.  The decision was not
  appealed.  The Neills sold lot 4 to the Verguras in 1992 with a covenant in
  the deed intended to preserve the meadowland.  Joan Hildebrand and her
  husband bought lot 4 in 1995.  Their deed also contained a covenant
  preserving the meadowland. 
        
       ¶  3.  On April 30, 2004, Joan Hildebrand, through her son,
  submitted a subdivision application to the planning commission to further
  divide lot 4 into two parcels of approximately ten and approximately six
  acres.  James Hildebrand wishes to construct a single family home and
  install a driveway on the six acre parcel, which is currently undeveloped
  meadowland.  The Waitsfield Subdivision Regulations allow for amendment of
  previously issued subdivision permits, but they do not set out standards an
  applicant must meet to gain approval for an amendment.

       ¶  4.  The planning commission expressed its opposition to modifying
  or eliminating the existing permit conditions absent a showing of
  significant changed or mitigating circumstances.  In response, the
  Hildebrands submitted letters from members of the Neill family, original
  grantors and now neighboring property owners of the Hildebrands' parcel.
  The letters indicate that the Neills do not oppose subdivision of lot 4 to
  allow another single family home.  The Hildebrands presented no other
  evidence of changed circumstances beyond the assertion that "times have
  changed."  The Commission denied the application for subdivision approval,
  and the Hildbrands appealed to the Environmental Court.  The Town of
  Waitsfield entered an appearance in the appeal. 

       ¶  5.  The Hildebrands moved for summary judgment and submitted
  affidavits from the Neill family members stating, again, that they had no
  objection to amending the permit.  Both the Hildebrands and the Town agreed
  that there is no clear rule regarding the standard applicable to requests
  to amend previously granted municipal land use permits.  Both parties urged
  the Environmental Court to use Act 250 as a guide and to apply the
  standards articulated by the Environmental Board and upheld by this Court
  in In re Stowe Club Highlands, 166 Vt. 33,