Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I ! I I I Z.B. April 10, 1997 Page 3 allowed the developer to build a 100-unit hotel, a 10,000-square-foot confer- ence center, 55 townhouses and a 23-1ot subdivision. The permit included several conditions, one of which limited the meadow to agricultural use for the life of the permit. Since the permit was issued, several changes occurred in the development. A permit amendment allowed waste disposal fields to be built in the meadow, and a 21-unit hotel replaced the 100-unit hotel. Also, Stowe Club Highlands took over the development from the original developer. Highlands applied for a permit to replace the barn with a house and stable. The Environmental Board denied the application, saying the development would violate the original permit. The board found that people had bought lots and built homes next to the meadow, expecting the meadow would remain agricultural and no building would take place on it. The board also rejected Highlands' request to amend the original permit. It would amend a permit only if there were changes in factual or regulatory circumstances beyond Highlands' control, changes in technology or unforeseen changes in the construction or operation of the development. Since the board found that no factual, regulatory or technological changes occurred, it concluded the changes in the development's construction and operation were foreseeable. Highlands appealed, arguing that building a house and stable on the meadow did not violate the original permit. It also contended the board incorrectly decided that only unforeseen changes in construction or operation merited a permit change. But even if that were the case, Highlands claimed the changes in the development were not foreseeable. Finally, it argued the board should not have considered the neighbors' reliance on the meadow, because the neighbors had no right to force it to follow the agricultural-use condition. DECISION: Affirmed. Building a house and stable in the meadow was not consistent with the agricultural-use condition included in the original permit. The permit allowed significant residential construction on the property, but left the meadow for agricultural use. To allow residential construction in the meadow would make the agricultural-use condition meaningless. Furthermore, other courts had said stables were inconsistent with agricultural use. When deciding whether to amend the original permit, the board properly considered the foreseeability of changes in the development. Changes occurred in every project. While large changes were usually unforeseeable, small changes could be expected. To prevent constant permit amendments, the board correctly decided to amend only when unforeseen changes took place. The board properly found the changes to the development were foreseeable. The changes were relatively minor, and Highlands never explained why they were unforeseen. It did not matter whether the meadow's neighbors could force Highlands to follow the agricultural-use condition. The basic concern the board faced was whether an amendment to the permit was appropriate. In this case, the neighbors'