1 STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 46-4-12 Vtec } True North Wilderness Programs } Appeal from District 5 Env. Commission Act 250 Permit Application Appeal } (Case No. 5W1538) }

STIPULATED DECISION ON THE MERITS This appeal has been the subject of numerous effort s by the parties to negotiate a voluntary resolution of all legal disputes concerni ng an application for a state land use (“Act 250”) permit. As the parties and the Court prepare d for an eventual trial, the parties were able to reach a full resolution of their disputes. As a pa rt of the parties’ resolution, they submitted a proposed draft of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, as well as a proposed Act 250 Permit, to be issued by the District 5 Environm ental Commission. We have accepted and adopted the parties proposed F indings, Conclusions, and Order, with only minor formatting changes. In particular, we concluded that what this Court issues should be in the form of a Merits Decision. We hav e also listed the Exhibits referenced in this Merits Decision on the last page of this Decision, for ease of reference and clarity of the Decision itself. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural History On July 2, 2010, True North Wilderness Programs, L LC (“True North”) filed Conditional Use Application 3333-CU with the Waitsfield Develop ment Review Board (“DRB”) for the construction of tent platforms, a yurt/yome, and co mposting toilets to serve a primitive wilderness therapy program (“the Project”) on a 25- acre tract located off Dana Hill Road in the Town of Waitsfield (“the Property”). On December 2 0, 2010, the Waitsfield DRB granted True2

North’s Conditional Use Application, and issued a z oning permit (“the DRB Permit”), attached

as Exhibit 1

. The Waitsfield DRB’s decision was based in part on Wastewater and Potable Water Supply Permit WW-5-5562 (“the WW Permit”), issued b y the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (“ANR”) on September 13, 2010 for the Pro ject’s composting toilets. On March 10, 2011, Ms. Kincaid (Kinny) Perot filed a Notice of A ppeal with regard to Permit WW-5-5562 (“the WW Appeal”). The WW Appeal was assigned Doc ket Number 36-3-11 Vtec. On April 4, 2011, the Court placed the WW Appeal on inactive st atus, pending the outcome of True North’s application for an Act 250 permit. On January 18, 2011, True North filed application 5W1538 with District 5 Environmental Commission (“District Commission”). A minor notice and draft proposed permit were circulated on February 22, 2011. Timely hearing requests were filed by adjoining landowners Russell Chalom and Kincaid Perot on February 27 and March 1 4, 2011, respectively. On April 28, 2011, True North filed a revised application and site pla ns. The District Commission determined that substantive issues had been raised by the adjoining property owners under Criteria 1, 1(A), 1(B), 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 8(A), 9(K) and 10 and convened heari ngs on July 19, 2011 and October 14, 2011. The District Commission issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order on December 30, 2011, ruling against True North on all the Act 250 criteria at issue except Criterion 1 (Water & Air Pollution). True North filed a noti ce of appeal on or about April 2, 2012, with a statement of questions inquiring whether the Projec t complies with criteria 1(A), 1(B), 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 8(A), 9(K), and 10 (“the Act 250 Appeal”). The Act 250 Appeal was assigned Docket Number 46-4-12 Vtec. On May 4, 2012, Ms. Perot filed a cross-appeal in the Act 250 Appeal.3

On May 24, 2012 Ms. Perot filed a motion for party status and a statement of questions. On July 2, 2012, True North moved to dismiss all o f Ms. Perot’s questions and objected to her request for party status. On March 14, 2013, the Court issued its Decision o n Motion for Party Status. The Court granted Ms. Perot’s motion for party status as to A ct 250 Criteria 1, 1(A), 1(B), 1(E), 4, 8, 8(A), and 10, and denied her party status as to Act 250 C riteria 2, 3, 5, and 9(K). The Court’s ruling on party status answered Questions 1-10 and 21, 22, 24, and 25 in Ms. Perot’s Statement of Questions (relating to her motion for party status) , making True North’s motion to dismiss Ms. Perot’s Statement of Questions moot as to those que stions. The Court granted True North’s motion to dismiss Ms. Perot’s Questions 15, 16, 17, and 20. The Court advised that it would address in a subsequent decision True North’s motio n to dismiss the remaining portions of Ms. Perot’s Statement of Questions: Questions 11-14, 1 8, 19, 23, 26, and 27. On November 13, 2013, the Court issued an Entry Re garding Motion which denied True North’s motion for summary judgment. On November 21, 2014, the Parties entered into a s ettlement agreement with respect to Docket Nos. 36-3-11 Vtec and 46-4-12 Vtec (the “Set tlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement is Exhibit 4. Attached to Exhibit 4 is Exhibit A , the agreed-upon overnight use zone (i.e., “green zone”). On January 23, 2015, Thomas Barefoot, III, Joni Zw eig, Plum Creek, LLC, and True North Wilderness Programs, LLC moved to join and su bstitute parties under V.R.C.P. 20 and 25(c). The Court granted the motion on January 26, 2015. In support of the motion, the movants stated, in part, “In both dockets [i.e., Docket Nos 46-4-12 Vtec and 36-3-11 Vtec] substitution is appropriate under the provisions of V.R.C.P. 25(c), as since the commencement of this4

proceeding, Applicants Thomas Barefoot and Joni Zwe ig have transferred their interest in the underlying property to Plum Creek, LLC.” However, it appears that an unintentional mistake was made in the motion for substitution as the conv eyance from Thomas Barefoot and Joni Zweig was to Plum Creek Holdings, LLC by warranty d eed of Thomas E. Barefoot, III and Joni Zweig, dated February 14, 2014, and recorded in Boo k 153, Pages 108-109 of the land records of the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont, and as confirmed b y the February 14, 2014 conveyance of a Vermont Confirmatory Warranty Deed by Thomas E. Bar efoot, III and Joni Zweig to Plum Creek Holdings, LLC which the Waitsfield Town Clerk s Office received for recording on April 10, 2014, and which is recorded at Book 153, Pages 261-262 of the land records of the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont. Exhibit 13

. On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the WW Ap peal, vacated the WW Permit, and remanded the matter to ANR to adjudicate a revised permit application. On the same day, the Court stayed the Act 250 Appeal, pending issuance o f a revised permit by the Waitsfield DRB. On June 23, 2015, ANR issued Wastewater and Potabl e Water Supply Permit 5-5562-2R (“the Revised WW Permit”), attached as Exhibit 6

. On December 29, 2015, the Waitsfield DRB issued Fi ndings of Fact and Notice of Decision 3671-CU, amending the original DRB Permit (3333-CU), and on January 26, 2016, the Waitsfield DRB issued Findings of Fact and Notice o f Decision 3671-CU-R. The Waitsfield DRB Findings of Fact and Notice of Decision #3671-C U-R, January 26, 2016 (“the Revised DRB Permit”) is attached as Exhibit 9

. On June 28, 2016, Ms. Perot filed a motion request ing that the unintentional mistake of making Plum Creek, LLC a party be corrected such th at the proper substitution of parties is for5

Plum Creek Holdings, LLC. True North and the Natur al Resources Board consented to the motion. This matter is now before the Court for final disp osition. General Findings 1. The Project applicants are True North Wilderness Pr ogram, LLC, and its principals, Madhurii Barefoot and Tyler Maves (“True North”).
2. The Project co-applicant is Plum Creek Holdings, LL C. Madhurii Barefoot and Tyler Maves are the member-owners, member-managers of Plu m Creek Holdings, LLC. Plum Creek Holdings, LLC owns the 25.3-acre parcel that is to be used for the Project (the “Project Tract”). Exhibit 13

. 3. The Project Tract has a street address of 1732 Dana Hill Road. The Project Tract is identified as #29032.000 and is located in Waitsfie ld’s Agricultural-Residential and Forest Reserve Zoning Districts. The Project Tract is des cribed at Book 153, Pages 261-262 of the Town of Waitsfield Land Records. Exhibit 13

. 4. The Project’s layout is depicted on the site plan a ttached as Exhibit 7. 1
5. True North Wilderness Program is a wilderness thera py program with a focus on primitive camping for its students. The program us es the Project Tract, along with nearby state and national forest lands, for hiking and camping. 6. Frances Kincaid (Kinny) Perot, f/k/a Kincaid Connel l, f/k/a Kincaid Perot Connell owns approximately 135 acres of land. A portion of Ms. Perot’s land adjoins the Project Tract. Ms. Perot first bought a portion of her land with a camp on December 9, 1983 with her now

1 Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 depicts the so-called “gree n zone,” and is to be used solely for that purpose. Exhibit 7 is to be used to locate all other Project components.6

former husband. Ms. Perot and her now former husba nd made a second purchase on December 10, 1986. Ms. Perot’s land is located in the towns of Warren and Waitsfield.
7. On April 13, 1993, Ms. Perot became the sole owner of her land by Quitclaim Deed of John Connell, Book 65, Pages 409-410 of the Town of Waitsfield land records, and Volume 100, Pages 393-394 of the Town of Warren land records ( Exhibit 14 ); and by Quitclaim Deed of John Bonnefond Connell, Book 65, Pages 411-412 of the To wn of Waitsfield land records, and Volume 100, Pages 397-398 of the Town of Warren lan d records ( Exhibit 15 ).
8. True North Wilderness Programs, LLC, Plum Creek Hol dings LLC, Ms. Perot, and Richard Czaplinski (the current spouse of Ms. Perot ), have reached a settlement agreement regarding the Project. The Settlement Agreement is Exhibit 4 (the “Settlement Agreement”). 9. The Settlement Agreement requires that the terms of settlement shall be made conditions to any zoning permit and Act 250 permit necessary for implementing the terms of settlement. In addition, the terms of settlement s hall constitute critical permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand /“flexibility versus finality” analysis. The Settl ement Agreement also requires that the terms of settlemen t shall be set forth as restrictive covenants. The Settlement Agreement establishes, in part, the basis for affirmative findings under Act 250 Criteria 1, 1(A), 1(B), 1(E), 4, 8, 8(A), and 10.
10. The Settlement Agreement includes attached Exhibit A . The Project’s overnight use of the Project Tract is limited to a portion of the Pr oject Tract, as depicted on Exhibit A , in the color green. The area depicted on Exhibit A is referred to in the Settlement Agreement as the “green zone.” The Settlement Agreement also includes refe rences to “Mod” and “Ty” who are, respectively, Madhurii Barefoot and Tyler Maves.7

11. As set forth at Exhibit 4 , Settlement Agreement, True North Wilderness Progr ams, LLC, Plum Creek Holdings LLC, Ms. Perot, and Mr. Cz aplinski have agreed as follows, and the Court so finds: 1. Usage.

a. There will be a maximum of 20 students and staf f on site for overnight use of the property. Additional staff may be present briefly during the daytime hours and for operationa l purposes. Student ages range from 13–18 years in the adolesce nt groups and 18–22 years in the young adult groups. Both adoles cent and young adult groups may be present. b. So-called “Winter use” may be full time. “Winte r-use” shall be defined as November 1 through May 1. c. During the remainder of the year, overnight usa ge is limited to the periods each week commencing Monday at noon to Friday at 3:00 p.m., with no limits on consecutive night usage within such period. 2. Spatial Representation of Use. a. Overnight use of the property shall be limited to a portion of the property set forth on attached Exhib it A, also referred to herein as the “green zone.” As illustrated on Exhi bit A, it is the area surrounded in green. No structures will be constru cted for use by True North outside of the overnight use area, and t he existing yome and composting toilet outside of this designated ov ernight area will be removed and relocated to an area inside the overnig ht usage area upon True North obtaining necessary permits to do s o. Additionally, no structures or overnight camping activities shall be permitted within 100 feet of the creek in the “Creekside” area of Ex hibit A. The entirety of property may be used for daytime use. b. The True North-related structures on the proper ty shall be limited to two tent platforms, three composting toilets, and one yome or yurt-like structure. No catholes shall be permitted on the property. 3. Safety, security, access and insurance. a. Appropriate liability insurance shall be mainta ined with Ms. Perot, and her heirs or successors, as a n amed insured. b. True North shall at all times oversee and appro priately manage its students and staff. True North will cle arly direct their staff and students that True North staff, students, guest s, invitees, and agents are prohibited from entering onto the Perot property. True North shall not prevent Perot from using the Perot property. Ms.8 Perot as well as Mod and Ty shall mark the boundary lines of their properties and ensure that students and staff know not to enter on the Perot property. c. There shall be no interference with the use of the rightof-way for ingress and egress to the Perot property . Similarly, Ms. Perot and associated family and friends will not in terfere with the ingress and egress to the Plum Creek property by Tr ue North or by Mod and Ty and associated friends and family. 4. Permit Conditions and Declaration of Covenants. a. The terms of settlement shall be made condition s to any zoning permit and Act 250 permits necessary for imp lementing the terms of settlement. The terms of settlement shall constitute critical permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. b. The terms of settlement shall be set forth as r estrictive covenants. 5. Cooperation with True North Permitting. a. Perot shall not object to, oppose, or otherwis e assist any other party to oppose any permit or amendment a pplications as are necessary for implementation and permitting of the project and for implementation of the terms of this settlement agre ement, including any rights of the Applicant to obtain an Act 250 pe rmit from the Environmental Division incorporating the terms of t his settlement agreement. b. In the event that True North, in implementing t he terms of this settlement agreement, seeks any variances i n connection with the relocation of structures within the so-called “ green zone” set forth in Exhibit A, and such variance requests involve se tbacks from the Perot property line, Perot reserves the right to op pose such variance requests. c. Restrictive covenants to be declared and proper ly recorded upon expiration of all applicable permit a ppeal periods and True North obtaining such permits as are necessary for the implementation and permitting of the project agreed to by the settlement agreement. d. The parties agree to request that the current l itigation be stayed pending the outcome of True North’s attem pt to obtain all permits necessary for implementation of this agreem ent. The Parties reserve the right to proceed with the pending litig ation in the event that True North is not able to obtain final permits necessary to fully implement the settlement agreement. 6. Personal Use of Property.9 No part of this agreement shall be construed as li miting the personal use of the property by Madhurii Barefoot a nd Tyler Maves. 12. Exhibit 16

is the Grant of Restrictive Covenants which will b e recorded in the Town of Waitsfield land records in accordance with the Sett lement Agreement. The Project Tract is the “Restricted Property” set forth in the Grant of Res trictive Covenants.
13. Exhibit 7

is the site plan. The site plan, and these findin gs and accompanying permit, depict three camping sites, referred to as the Uppe r, Old Growth, and Creekside Sites. True North is authorized to use any of these three sites , and to dismantle and construct tent platforms on any of these three sites at will, subject to the reclamation/erosion controls included on the Project site plan and the limitation, among others, that there shall be no more than two tent platforms on the Project Tract at any one time.
14. The factual findings contained herein replace and s upersede the permit application and schedules previously submitted by True North. Act 250 Criteria Sections 6086(a)(1)(B) – Waste Disposal 15. True North has obtained five wastewater permits. T hey are: WW-5-5562, 9/13/10; WW-5-5562-Revised, 11/15/10; WW-5-5562-1, 2/11/11; WW-5-5562-1, 2/11/11 “Corrected Permit”; and most recently, Exhibit 6 , Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit 5- 5562-2R (June 23, 2015). 16. The Project will conform to Exhibit 6

. 17. The Project will use 3 composting toilets for solid waste disposal. Exhibit 6

. 18. The composting toilet vaults will be cleaned out by a septic pumping company as needed. Exhibit 5.10

19. True North will practice “leave no trace” primitive camping, which is defined as camping in a forest with no development facilities and leaving the site with little or no evidence of human visitation. Exhibit 10. The Green Mountain Forest allows primitive campin g consistent with the practice of Leave No Trace, whi ch involves seven principles:

1. Plan Ahead and Prepare 2. Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces 3. Dispose of Waste Properly 4. Leave What You Find 5. Minimize Fire Impact 6. Respect Wildlife 7. Be Considerate of Other Visitors 20. The Revised DRB Permit specifies that no “catholes” (shallow holes used to dispose of human waste) will be permitted on the Project Tract

. Exhibit 9

. 21. The Project will conform to the Settlement Agreemen t ( Exhibit 4 ) and the restrictive covenants required by the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides: The terms of settlement shall constitute critical p ermit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand/“flexibility versus final ity” analysis. Conformance with the Settlement Agreement will ensure the Project’s conf ormance with Exhibit 6 , Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit 5-5562-2R (June 23, 2015). Conclusion Under Act 250 Rule 19(E), Exhibit 6 , Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit 5-5562-2R (June 23, 2015), creates a presump tion of compliance with Criterion 1(B). The Project will be operated in conformance with Exhibit 6 . Compliance with Exhibit 6 will include proper maintenance and limitations on the n umber of staff and students present at the Project. The Project will not use “catholes” to di spose of human waste. Compliance with Exhibit 6 will also ensure that the Project’s waste disposal needs comply with the Settlement Agreement ( Exhibit 4 ), and the restrictive covenants ( Exhibit 16 ). In addition, the terms of11

settlement shall constitute critical permit conditi ons under the Stowe Club Highlands/ Hildebrand

/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. According ly, the Project will comply with Criterion 1(B).

Sections 6086(a)(2) – Water Availability, & 6086(a)(3) – Impact on Existing Water Supply 22. Water supply for the Project will consist of a new private drilled well and associated storage tank and piping. Exhibit 6.
23. The Revised WW Permit authorizes a potable water su pply using a new well for a maximum of 820 gallons of water per day. Id

. 24. The Revised WW Permit authorizes three tent platfor m sites and a yurt/yome at the locations shown on the site plan, serving no more t han 20 campers (inclusive of students and staff) per day. Id

. Conclusion In light of the Revised WW Permit, and Exhibit 4 , the Court finds that the Project will not have an undue adverse impact with regard to Criteri a 2 or 3. See Act 250 Rule 19(E)(3)(a) (wastewater and potable water supply permit establi shed rebuttable presumption that a sufficient supply of potable water is available).

Section 6086(a)(4) – Soil Erosion and the Capacity of the Land to Hold Water 25. Two composting toilets have already been constructe d, one of which shall be removed by the Permittees. The Permittees shall notify Ms. Perot prior to the clean-out and removal activity. Two composting toilets will then be cons tructed, consistent with the Revised DRB Permit and the Settlement Agreement ( Exhibit 4 ), for a final total of three. Additionally, True12

North proposes to construct two tent platforms, rel ocate the existing yome, and add a drilled well. The Permittees shall notify Ms. Perot prior to the well being drilled. There will also be a properly maintained non-motorized hiking trail cons tructed in accordance with Trail Fundamentals and Trail Management Objectives (2001 USFS) within the vegetated stream buffer adjacent to the Creekside site, provided tha t it does not result in undue soil erosion and is located within the area depicted on Exhibit 7 . The exact location of said hiking trail will be identified on the site plan and the updated site pl an shall be submitted to the District Environmental Commission not later than 30 days aft er the commencement of construction of the trail, with a copy simultaneously provided to M s. Perot when provided to the Commission. 26. The Project’s compliance with the Settlement Agreem ent, and the restrictive covenants, will prevent any erosion impacts to Ms. Perot’s land. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides: The terms of settlement shall constitute critical p ermit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand/“flexibility ve rsus finality” analysis.
27. The Project site plan includes the following propos ed reclamation/erosion controls, applicable to all soils disturbed during constructi on activities:

All disturbed soils will be stabilized with seed an d hay/straw mulch within one day of completion of construction and no later than 7 days after initial disturbance. All seeding will be with Agway Sun and Shade Mix ap plied at a rate of 80 pounds per acre plus an additional 20 pounds per acre of winter rye seed, hay/straw mulch will be applied to all ex posed areas at a rate of 3 tons per acre (3" minimum thickness). Exhibit 7.
28. These measures will be implemented in the following areas:

Upper Camping Site and Old Growth Site All disturbed soils resulting from the construction of the proposed tent platform and the proposed composting toilet.13 Creekside Camping Site All disturbed soils resulting from the construction of the proposed tent platform, the area surrounding the existing compost ing toilet, the area surrounding the site of the removed tent platform, and the slopes between the removed platform site and the toilet wh ich were eroded during the large spring storms. Drilled Well and Reservoir All disturbed soils resulting from the construction of the new drilled well, reservoir and water line connections, any oth er areas on the plum creek property which are disturbed by true nor th construction activities. Id. Conclusion The Project’s operation is limited to set numbers of students and staff. Thus, the Court finds that the Project’s construction and operation not have an undue adverse impact with regard to Criterion 4, provided that the erosion control m easures incorporated into the plan are implemented, the Project complies with the Settleme nt Agreement, including the recording of restrictive covenants, and that the terms of settle ment shall constitute critical permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand /“flexibility versus finality” analysis for any necessary additional construction activities.

Section 6086(a)(5) – Transportation 29. Access to the Project during the week will be via D ana Hill Road, a Class 4 town road. Exhibit 8.
30. In the alternative, the Project is accessible on fo ot via the Camel’s Hump public trailhead at Tucker Hill Road, a hike of approximat ely 1.5 miles. Id

. 31. The State of Vermont Department of Forests, Parks a nd Recreation (F&P) issued license #17107 on August 9, 2016, which authorized True North to primitive camp within all of14

Camel’s Hump State Park (except for the Stevens blo ck south of Route 17 in Buels Gore and Phen Basin Block north of Route 17 in Fayston), and within the Cram Hill, Rice and Vogt Blocks of Roxbury State Forest. Exhibit 2

. 32. The Project will be accessed via Dana Hill Road eve ry day. Most trips will occur during the week.
33. True North presently owns two vans, one minivan, an d one truck.
34. True North also owns three snowmobiles and one all- terrain vehicle (“ATV”) for site access in snowy conditions. 35. Access on foot from the Camel’s Hump public trailhe ad is at Tucker Hill Road (hike is 1.5 miles). Tucker Hill Road is maintained year-ro und. 36. Therapists usually hike in from Tucker Hill Road to visit groups twice a week.
37. When groups of students enter or leave the Project tract, or pick up a new student, they typically do so via Tucker Hill Road.
38. Student groups rarely walk up Dana Hill Road itself to the Project tract (less than once per month), but can do so when necessary. Student groups usually hike in and out via trails to the Tucker Hill Road Camels Hump trailhead. 39. Because Dana Hill Road bisects the Howe Block of th e Camels Hump State Forest, student groups often cross the road to access other trail systems.
40. True North uses vehicles on Dana Hill Road for such purposes as exchanging field guides, re-rationing student groups, transporting p arents to graduations, transporting an individual student to a doctor’s appointment, etc.
41. Weekly round trips are as follows: 15 trips maximum ; 12 trips average (10–13 trips Monday-Friday and 1–2 trips on weekends).15

42. Other than True North, current traffic on Dana Hill Road varies greatly by the season and is largely recreation driven. Estimates of oth er traffic range from 47–69 weekly round trips during peak (rifle hunting) season to 12–24 weekly round trips outside of hunting season. Thus, True North traffic is about 18–24 percent of total traffic during hunting season and 38–55 percent of total traffic outside of hunting season.
43. The Dana Hill Road traffic estimates are derived fr om the following information. There are 6 camps/homes along the road, two of whic h are close to the bottom of the road and one of which is used infrequently. The three remai ning properties—Plum Creek, Chalom, and Perot—are near the end of the road and, apart from True North’s use of the Project Tract, are accessed on a seasonal basis. These property owner s and the State of Vermont sometimes conduct forestry and other property maintenance ope rations. Weekly estimate: 7–14 round trips during spring, summer and fall.
44. Mountain bikers and others use the road regularly t o recreate, maintain mountain bike trails, and work on the road. Weekly estimate: 5–1 0 round trips during spring, summer and fall. 45. During hunting (rifle) season, it is not uncommon t o see 5–10 trucks parked along the road on any given day. Weekly estimate: 35–45 roun d trips during hunting season. 46. The Settlement Agreement ( Exhibit 4) includes a condition prohibiting interference with ingress and egress to the Perot or Project Tra ct properties. Conclusion The Project will involve approximately 4 round tri ps per day, including for septic removal (and no more than 10 trips per day, except in cases of emergency). This modest traffic will not have an undue adverse impact with regard t o Criterion 5.16

Section 6086(a)(8) – Aesthetics, Scenic Beauty, His toric Sites, & Natural Areas 47. There are no historic sites or rare and irreplaceab le natural areas which will be affected by the Project.
48. The Project Tract consists of fields and woods and is primarily surrounded by forest. 49. The proposed tent platforms are raised flat wooden surfaces that support white fabric tents in the winter. The composting toilets are co nstructed largely of wood. The yome is made of white fabric wall, a dark green fabric roof, and a wooden door. 50. The Settlement Agreement establishes specific limit ations on the Project’s operation, including limits on the number of staff and student s, the days on which they may be present during the seasons of the year, and the areas allow ed for overnight use (the Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 “green zone”). The Project’s compliance with the S ettlement Agreement, including the operational limitations, will mitigate the aestheti c impacts of the Project’s construction and operation in relation to the surrounding rural char acter of the area. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides: The terms of settlement shall constitute critical p ermit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. 51. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Project Tr act boundary lines will be marked to ensure that True North’s staff, students, guests , invitees, and agents are prohibited from entering onto Ms. Perot’s property. 52. True North has developed a Prohibition of Trespass Policy which specifies that “[a]ll staff will be instructed so as to be able to clearl y recognize and identify the boundaries between” the True North and Perot parcels, and specifies tha t all staff and students must “remain on property that they are authorized to use.” Exhibit 3. The policy incorporates a map, agreed to between the parties, delineating the authorized are as. Exhibit 4. The Project will comply with these requirements

.17 Conclusion The Project requires a handful of small structures that are well suited to their environment. The Parties have concluded the Settle ment Agreement. Overall, the Project is subject to limitations on its operation such that t he impact to Ms. Perot will be properly mitigated. The Project will comply with the Settle ment Agreement. In addition, the terms of settlement shall constitute critical permit conditi ons under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand

/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. Thus, the Court finds that the Project will not have an undue adverse impact with regard to Criterion 8.

Section 6086(a)(8)(A) – Necessary Wildlife Habitat 53. The Project Tract is adjacent to deer wintering hab itat. However, a wildlife evaluation by Arrowwood Environmental detected no sign of wint er deer use. Exhibit 11

. 54. The wildlife evaluation concluded that the likely w ildlife impacts of the Project are “all in all minimal” and not unduly adverse. Exhibit 11

. 55. True North requests, and the Court orders, that the permit include the following standard condition:

All employees and guests are hereby put on notice t hat this facility is in the immediate vicinity of a deer wintering area. Domestic dog activity seriously jeopardizes this critical habita t and the existence of the deer in this area. A person who owns or handles a dog that is not leashed or otherwise under the owner’s immediate co ntrol is subject to the penalties of 10 V.S.A. Section 4748 (Dogs Pursu ing Deer) and section 4514 (Possession of Flesh and Game). 56. The Agency of Natural Resources agrees with the add ition of this condition. Exhibit 18

. 57. The Settlement Agreement requires that there not be any use of “catholes.” In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides: The terms of settlement shall constitute critical18

permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hi ldebrand/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. 58. The Project will comply with the Exhibit 6 , Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Permit 5-5562-2R (June 23, 2015). Complianc e with the permit will ensure proper disposal of human wastes so that there is no impact to wildlife associated with the human activity from the Project. 59. The area within True North’s property (and 100 feet beyond) is not actively being utilized during the winter months by white-tailed d eer and is not Necessary Wildlife Habitat for deer. Exhibit 17. Conclusion Based upon the Settlement Agreement, and Wastewate r System and Potable Water Supply Permit 5-5562-2R (June 23, 2015), the Projec t’s construction and operation are of relatively modest scale and impact. While there wi ll be additional human activity due to the Project, the limitations on the Project’s construct ion and operation under the Settlement Agreement will ensure that the Project does not hav e an undue adverse impact with regard to Criterion 8(A). In addition, the terms of settleme nt shall constitute critical permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand /“flexibility versus finality” analysis.

Section 6086(a)(10) – Conformance with the Local or Regional Plans 60. The Town of Waitsfield duly adopted a municipal pla n on June 27, 2005. The plan was re-adopted on July 26, 2010. Exhibit 12

. 61. The Project Tract is located within the Town of Wai tsfield’s designated Agricultural Residential District and the Forest Reserve Distric t.19

62. The Plan specifically sets out provisions intended to be mandatory and to have regulatory effect. In particular, “outdoor recreat ion” uses are permitted in the Forest Recreation District and “land based uses (e.g., recreation, ex traction)” are permitted in the Agricultural Residential District. 63. The Plan is meant to allow for land development in the Town in an orderly way that minimizes any adverse impacts of that development. 64. The limitation on development in the Forest Reserve District to “forestry, outdoor recreation, small seasonal camps, and year-round re sidential dwellings below an elevation of 1,700 feet” is specifically for the purpose of prot ecting significant forest resources. 65. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Parti es have agreed to conditions governing the time, manner, and location of the Pro ject’s operation on the Project Tract. In addition, the same time, manner and location condit ions shall be made restrictive covenants to the Project Tract, and the Settlement Agreement pro vides: The terms of settlement shall constitute critical permit conditions under the Sto we Club Highlands/Hildebrand/“flexibility versus finality” analysis. 66. Camping and hiking uses in the Forest Reserve Distr ict are consistent with the Plan. Conclusion In connection with True North’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court previously ruled on November 13, 2013 that although it appeare d that the Project conformed to the Waitsfield Town Plan, summary judgment was preclude d by the fact that the parties had not had an opportunity to present evidence on the version o f the proposal then before the Court. The parties have since reached agreement on the proposa l and on the conditions listed above, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, th e terms of settlement shall constitute critical20

permit conditions under the Stowe Club Highlands/Hildebrand /“flexibility versus finality” analysis. Accordingly, the Project complies with C riterion 10. Order For all the reasons stated above, we conclude that the Project as now presented and detailed in the parties’ Settlement Agreement (Exhi bit 4) conforms to all applicable Act 250 criteria (10 V.S.A. §6086(a)). We therefore APPROVE the project as proposed. We remand the pending application to the District 5 Environme ntal Commission so that the Commission may perform the ministerial act of issuing an Act 2 50 Permit that conforms to this Stipulated Decision on the Merits and the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Counsel for Applicants is directed to provide the District Commission with courtesy copies of this Stipulated Decision on the Merits, a ccompanying Judgment Order, all Exhibits, and revised site maps. This concludes the current proceedings before this Court concerning this appeal. A Judgment Order accompanies this Stipulated Merits D ecision.

Electronically signed on April 4, 2017 at Newfane, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).

________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Environmental Division21 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Waitsfield DRB zoning permit 3333-CU (De c. 20, 2010). Exhibit 2. Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation lic ense 17107 (August 9, 2016). Exhibit 3. True North Prohibition of Trespass Polic y. Exhibit 4. Settlement Agreement, by and between Tru e North Wilderness Programs, LLC,

Plum Creek Holdings LLC, Kincaid Perot, and Richard Czaplinski, including attached Exhibit A, November 21, 2014 (the “Settlem ent Agreement”). Exhibit 5. Wastewater System and Potable Water Supp ly Permit Application (Mar. 23, 2015). Exhibit 6. Wastewater System and Potable Water Supp ly Permit WW-5-5562-2R (June 23,

2015). Exhibit 7. “Camping Sites Site Plan,” Sheet C-1, da ted 3/20/15, last revised 3/10/17. Exhibit 8. USGS map showing location of Dana Hill R oad and Tucker Hill Road. Exhibit 9. Waitsfield DRB zoning permit 3671-CU-R ( Jan. 26, 2016). Exhibit 10. Primitive Camping Materials. Exhibit 11. Jeffrey Parsons, Arrowwood Environmenta l, Wildlife Evaluation (Nov. 9, 2010). Exhibit 12. Excerpts from Waitsfield Town Plan (200 5). Exhibit 13. Vermont Confirmatory Warranty Deed from Thomas E. Barefoot, III and Joni

Zweig, to Plum Creek Holdings, LLC, Book 153, Pages 261-62, Town of Waitsfield Land Records, April 9, 2014. Exhibit 14. Quitclaim Deed by John Connell to Kinca id Connell, Book 65, Pages 409-410 of

the Town of Waitsfield land records, and Volume 100 , Pages 393-394 of the Town of Warren land records, April 13, 1993. Exhibit 15. Quitclaim Deed by John Bonnefond Connel l to Kincaid Perot Connell, Book 65,

Pages 411-412 of the Town of Waitsfield land record s, and Volume 100, Pages 397- 398 of the Town of Warren land records, April 13, 1 993. Exhibit 16. Declaration of Covenants. Exhibit 17. Jeff Parsons, Arrowwood Environmental, Inc., Letter to True North (July 11, 2016). Exhibit 18. Letter dated February 24, 2017 from Jo hn Austin, Agency of Natural Resources,

regarding DWA related permit condition.