STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT — ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

} In re Vermont Hotel, LLC } Act 250 Appeal } Docket No. 10-1-12 Vtec (Permit Amend. App #4CO757-22A) } (Appeal from Dis t. 4 Comm.) }

Judgment Order

This matter came before the Court for a de novo mer its hearing on July 27, 2012. Applicant Vermont Hotel, LLC (“Applicant”) a ppealed the District 4 Environmental Commission’s (“District Commission”) determination on its application for a permit amendment concerning the development o f a Residence Inn by Marriot Extended Stay Hotel off of U.S. Route 7 in the Town of Colchester, Vermont. Applicant constructed the facility mostly in conformance with the terms and conditions of Act 250 Permit #4CO757-22, 1 although certain landscaping and lighting componen ts were included in the completed project that were not aut horized by the prior permit. Once Applicant submitted a complete application for a pe rmit amendment, the District Commission issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, and Amended Permit on December 14, 2011. The District Commissi on rendered positive Findings and an Amended Permit for most but not all of Appli cant’s requested amendments. Applicant thereafter filed a timely appeal with thi s Court. When the parties were unable to negotiate a full re solution of all legal issues raised in this appeal, the Court scheduled this mat ter for a site visit and trial. The first site visit occurred at about 8:00 p.m. the ni ght before the trial with the parties and their legal counsel present. At the suggestion of the parties, the undersigned judge returned to the site later that evening to ap preciate the full effect of the lighting in the dead of night. At the July 27, 2012 merits hearing, Applicant was assisted by its attorney, John W. O’Donnell, Esq. The Town of Colchester was assisted by its attorney,

1 This permit number may be misleading; Permit #4CO 757-22 is the first state land use permit for this development. The “-22” was assigned becau se this development is on one parcel of a larger commercial subdivision, known as Water Tower Hill commercial subdivision. Several other developments were completed in the Water Towe r Hill commercial subdivision prior to this Residence Inn—Marriott, including the Shaw’s/O sco supermarket depicted on Exhibit 2.

### 2

Claudine C. Safar, Esq. and the Vermont Natural Res ources Board—Land Use Panel was assisted by its attorney, John H. Hasen, Esq. This appeal challenges the District Commission dete rmination that both the ground-based lighting designed to illuminate the fl agpoles in front of the hotel and the internal illumination of the sign secured to the ho tel’s north-facing wall individually constituted undue adverse impacts on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, thereby rendering both components not in conformanc e with Act 250 criterion 8. 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8). The flagpoles are depicted in photographic Exhibit 3; the wallmounted sign is depicted in Exhibit 1. The origina l permit (Permit #4CO757-22) approved both the flagpoles and the wall-mounted si gn. The permit amendment addressed only the illumination of each, and those are the only issues in this appeal. Once the parties were afforded a full opportunity t o present all relevant evidence, including a stipulation of material facts that was filed at trial, the Court took a brief recess to conduct its deliberations, resear ch, and outline of its Findings and

Conclusions. The Court then reconvened the merits hearing, and announced its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. T he Court concluded that neither the ground-based lighting for the flagpoles nor the internal illumination of the wall sign on the northern wall constituted an adverse im pact upon the scenic or natural beauty of the area under the two-part “Quechee Test ”—the test that guides our interpretation of 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8). See Re: Quechee Lakes Corp., Nos. 3W0411- EB and 3W0439-EB, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order slip op. at 17–20 (Vt. Envtl. Bd. Nov. 4, 1985). Based upon these Finding and Conclusions, we remand these proceedings back to the District Commission solely to complete the m inisterial act of preparing and issuing a Revised Amended Permit in conformance wit h this Judgment Order and the Findings, Conclusions, and Order announced by this Court on the record of the July 27, 2012 merits hearing. This concludes the current proceedings before this Court in this appeal.

Done at Newfane, Vermont this 7th day of August, 20 12.

______________________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Environmental Judge