1 STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT — ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club } Docket No . 190-11-10 Vtec } (appeal from Town of Shaftsbury } Development Review Board } determination)
Judgment Order
Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club (“Hale Mountain”) is a pre-existing not-for-profit Club that operates rifle, pistol, and clay pigeon-s hooting ranges in the Town of Shaftsbury, Vermont (“Town”). Hale Mountain’s property at 684 Rod and Gun Club Road has been the subject of multiple litigations before the former V ermont Environmental Board, the Vermont Supreme Court, the Environmental Division, and the Civil Division of the Vermont Superior
Court. 1 In this Division, in the proceedings just prior t o the above-referenced Docket, this Court
concluded that Hale Mountain needed to obtain munic ipal land use approval for fourteen specific pre-existing improvements which the Court identified as follows: (1) installing a cover over the rifle-range shooti ng station between 1989 and 1991; (2) installing a cover over the pistol-range shoot ing station in 1995; (3) erecting a storage unit into the rifle-range s hooting station in 1992; (4) installing wooden walls around the rifle-range shooting station in 1999; (5) improving the well serving the clubhouse and c aretaker’s trailer by removing tile and installing a steel cover and culvert in 2002; (6) installing a caretaker’s trailer in 1994; (7) installing a clay-target storage trailer in 19 97; (8) replacing the trap-house pad in 1991; (9) replacing the trap-field pavilion in 1991; (10) . . . removing of red pines on the property in 1992 [by the Pittstown Beagle Club]; (11) constructing rabbit pens in 1992; (12) extending a culvert for the Beagles in 1992; (13) installing a portable toilet on the Beagles’ p roperty; . . . and (19) erecting a berm around three sides of the pist ol range in the mid-1990s.
In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec and 259-12-05 Vtec, slip op. at 8 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Dec. 15, 2009) (Durkin, J). 2

1 We included a summary of the Factual and Procedur al Background for these multiple litigations in our 2009 decision on the parties’ cross-motions for sum mary judgment. See In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec and 259-12-05 Vtec, s lip op. at 2–6 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Dec. 15, 2009) (Durk in, J).

2 Items No. 14-18 are omitted from the above list b ecause this Court concluded that those enumerated improve-ments did not require additional municipal land use approval. Id. at 11–12.2

In an earlier decision in the same consolidated pro ceeding, the Court also determined that the parties were collaterally estopped from ra ising anew certain factual and legal issues that had been resolved by final determinations made in prior proceedings. See In re Hale Mountain Fish & Game Club, Nos. 149-8-04 Vtec and 2 59-12-05 Vtec, slip op. at 9–16 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 21, 2008) (Durkin, J). Hale Mountain thereafter submitted an application f or a zoning permit for the enumerated improvements; that application was grant ed by the Town of Shaftsbury Zoning Administrator (“ZA”), but the ZA’s approval was tim ely appealed to the Town of Shaftsbury Development Review Board (“DRB”) by Owen and Kathy Beauchesne (“Neighbors”). When the DRB vacated the ZA’s approval, Hale Mountain ap pealed to this Court. The Neighbors appear as interested persons in the present appeal, as does the Town. When the parties were unable to resolve their dispu tes, the appealed application was set for trial, which was completed in one day of testim ony on August 28, 2012 at the Civil Division of the Bennington Superior Court. At the conclusio n of the evidentiary proceeding, the Court recessed to complete its deliberations, including l egal research, and then reconvened the hearing to render its Findings of Fact and Conclusi ons of Law on the record of the August 28, 2012 merits hearing. This Judgment Order is issued to memorialize the Court’s order and
decree. The Court first noted in its rulings from the bench that this litigation, the most recent in a long line of litigation in multiple forums betwee n Hale Mountain and Neighbors, is unfortunate on two levels: first, that a palatable level of acrimony continues to exist between the parties, even after nearly two decades of litigatio n and, second, that the improvements being reviewed for permit approval were constructed befor e a permit for the work was sought. There is one reality that appears clear to this Cou rt: that Hale Mountain will continue to operate its facilities on Rod and Gun Club Road and that the Beauchesnes will continue to be its neighbors. Only the parties here have the ability to completely resolve their disputes; not this Court, not the former Environmental Board (n/k/a th e Vermont Natural Resources Board), not the Supreme Court, and not the Town, through either its ZA or DRB. But, in the absence of the parties’ voluntary resolution, this Court must fulf ill its obligation to decide the specific factual and legal issues presented in this appeal. The Cou rt did so by rendering its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the record of the August 28, 2012 merits hearing, which the Court
summarizes as follows:3

1. Each of the improvements, enumerated above, conform to the height, setback and other dimensional requirements for the applicable zoning district.
2. The enumerated improvements constitute uses that ar e included within the definition of permitted “group service uses” pursuant to Town of Shaftsbury Zoning Bylaw (“Bylaw”) § 4.1.1.4.3.
3. Group service uses are permitted in all Rural Resid ence Zoning Districts (“RR Districts”), provided they first receive site plan approval by the DRB. Bylaw § 4.1.1.4. The Hale Mountain enumerated improvements are locat ed in one of the RR Districts.
4. Hale Mountain did not apply for and the DRB did not review the enumerated improvements for site plan approval. No notice was provided for site plan approval before the DRB, since no such application was submi tted.
5. There were no facts presented that would trigger co nditional use review under the applicable provisions of Bylaw.
6. Hale Mountain is a not-for-profit corporation, lice nsed with the Vermont Secretary of State and registered to do business in the State of Vermont. I.R.C. § 501(c)(7) (2010).
7. Bylaw § 3.6 governs site plan review; subsection 3. 6.2 defines the application requirements, which include submitting “[c]opies of all state permits and licenses required of the proposed project.” Bylaws § 3.6.2. 4. Neighbors asserted at trial that the Court should interpret this Bylaw provision to requ ire that Hale Mountain’s pending application be denied. Neighbors’ assertion is pre mised upon their allegation that the Hale Mountain improvements require a further review under Act 250, the state land use law. 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. No credible facts we re presented to support Neighbors’ assertions. We specifically reject, based upon the evidence presented, that Hale Mountain’s enumerated improvements require further state land use review and reject that Bylaws § 3.6.2.4 acts as a bar to review and a pproval, conditional or not, of Hale Mountain’s permit application.
8. No credible evidence was presented to show that the enumerated site improvements require conditions or safeguards, pursuant to Bylaw § 3.6.1.1, with respect to traffic access, circulation, parking, landscaping, screenin g, or the protection or utilization of renewable energy resources.
9. Hale Mountain presented credible facts to show that the enumerated improvements are permitted, conditioned upon site plan approval bein g issued.4 Conclusion Hale Mountain’s application for a zoning permit for the enumerated improvements is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Hale Mountain submitting a site plan applicatio n and supporting documents for review and approval by the Town of Shaftsbury Development Review Board. Once such approval is received and b ecomes final, Hale Mountain will be entitled to request that the Town of Shaftsbury Zon ing Administrator complete the ministerial act of re-issuing a zoning permit for the enumerate d improvements that were the subject of Hale Mountain’s original application. This completes the proceedings before this Court on the pending application.

Done at Newfane, Vermont, this 4th day of October 2 012.

___________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge