Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 7 time the court had addressed this issue), this case addressed the issue of whether a condition of a permit, which reserved jurisdiction over a pro- ject's stormwater system and allowed a local commission to amend or add conditions, was valid. The Background/Facts: Act 250, codified at 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001 through 6093, was enacted "to protect Vermont's lands and environ- ment by requiring statewide review of `large-scale changes in land utilization.' " Pursuant to Act 250, nine District Environmental Com- missions throughout Vermont consider Act 250 permit applications and amendments in the context of 10 statutory criteria listed in in the Act. (See 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a).) In November 2002, the District 2 Environ- mental Commission (the "Commission") issued an Act 250 Permit to development companies ("Stratton"). The Act 250 permit was issued to Stratton for the construction of 25 three -unit townhouses (the "Treetop Project") in the Town of Stratton. Included in that permit was the ap- proval for the development and construction of certain infrastructure for the Treetop Project, including a stormwater management system. After th.e Treetop Project was completed, the townhouses were sold and conveyed to third -party owners. Each of those owners acquired an undivided percentage interest in the Treetop Project's common areas and facilities, including the stolniwater management systems, which were managed and administered by the Treetop at Stratton Condomin- ium Association, Inc. (the "Association"). In 2009, in response to stormwater management system problems, the Association sued Stratton. The parties ultimately reached a settle- ment agreement. Under that agreement, among other. things, Stratton was required to apply for and obtain corrective permit amendments and pay to bring the stoiiiiwater management systems into compliance with the Act 250 permit. On Stratton's application for corrective permit amendments, the Commission noted a need to bring the failing stormwater system into compliance with the Act 250 permit. The Commission issued an amended permit (the "Amended Act 250 Peiiiiit") in October 2013. The Amended Act 250 Permit included conditions. Condition 14 provided as follows: "The Commission reserves the right to review erosion, the ability of the land to hold water, stormwater management and revegetation issues outlined in these proceedings and to evaluate and impose additional condi- tions as needed." Neither Stratton nor the Association appealed the Amended Act 250 permit. Thus the Amended Act 250 Permit became final and binding on December 15, 2013. A few months later, the Association asked the Commission to impose additional conditions to address problems with the stormwater manage- ©2016 Thomson Reuters 7