Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

· :. Z.B. : April 1995 -- Page 5 of the ordinance to him failed because the Superior Court had to apply the ordinanc~ according to its unambiguous terms. State O. Williams, 324 S.E.2d 557 '(1984). Conditiooal Use. ,, Vermonter Can' Tap Maples But Not Spring Water HoustOn v. Town of Waitsfield, 648 A.2d 864 (VermonO 2994 HoustOn owned 1,631 acres in the town of Waitsfield, Vt. Her property was zoned agOcultural-residential. The zoning ordinance allowed Houston to use her property for agricultural uses including: growing or harvesting crops, rais- ing livestO~ck, operating orchards, and selling, processing, or storing farm prod- ucts. As alconditional use, Houston c6uld engage in small-scale processing of raw agriculture or forestry products. The ordinance prohibited any use not spe- cifically p~rmitted. , Houstbn wanted to extract spring water'from under her property and trans- port it for !bottling. The town zoning administrator recommended that she ap- ply for a Conditional use permit, which she did. Believing her plan involved processing raw agricultural products, the town planning commission gave her a prelimin~ary site plan approval. The town attorney later told the Zoning Board of Adjustment that he thought Houston's intended use was an agricultural one, which wa~ acceptable. The town Zoning Board of Adjustment analyzed Houston's application under both perm~itted and conditional use standards and denied her permit. HoustOn appealed, agreeing with the town that the only issue the court had to decide ~vas whether her proposed 'use was agricultural. The court agreed with the b{~ard's decision, and granted the town judgment without a trial. Houst~, n appealed again, arguing water was a renewable food product which was cultiv~ated and "raised" from the ground. Therefore, 'extraCting spring wa- ter was ag!iculture, and she was entitled to a permit. She also argued the town plan was qonsistent with her intention to extract spring water. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the town. Extrac!ing spring water was not an agricultural use. The ordinance clearly used the V~ord agriculture in its traditional sense, which did noLinclude "rais- ing'' water, In the agricultural context; raising meant growing, not elevating. Even i{~ the town plan was consistent with Houston's proposal, the board's .decision h.hd to be based on the zoning ordinance. Town plans were typically broad and hdvisory. The zoning laws were often narrower than the town plan, and did no! have to permit all activities that appeared consistent with the town plan. BlundOn v. Town of Stamford, 576A.2d 437 (1990). Smith ~ Town of St. Johnsbury, 554 A.2d 233 (1988).