Title: In re Jolley Associates

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Jolley Associates (2005-196)

2006 VT 132

[Filed 15-Dec-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 132

                                No. 2005-196

         
  In re Appeal of Jolley Associates              Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 December Term, 2005


  Merideth Wright, J.

  Joseph S. McLean of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
    Appellant.

  Howard J. Seaver of Greene, Seaver & Carver, P.C., Burlington, for
    Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.  The Town of Shelburne appeals an Environmental
  Court ruling on summary judgment that allows Jolley Associates ("Jolley")
  to proceed with its application for a proposed gas station and convenience
  store on Route 7 in Shelburne.  The Town argues that the court exceeded its
  jurisdiction and that further consideration of Jolley's proposed
  development should be precluded because its conditional use application was
  already once denied on the merits.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  This is the second appeal arising from Jolley's application
  for this project.  Jolley submitted its conditional use application five
  days before the effective date of a 1997 amendment to the Town's zoning
  scheme that excluded gas stations from the residential-commercial district
  at issue.  The filing included a site plan but no formal site plan
  application.  The Environmental Court ruled that the conditional use
  application, filed after enactment of the amendment but before its
  effective date, should be reviewed under the terms of the new regulation
  rather than the old.  We reversed, holding that a permit applicant enjoyed
  a vested right to review under the rules still in effect at the time of
  application, provided that the application is "validly brought and pursued
  in good faith."  In re Handy, 171 Vt. 336, 351,