Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

1 Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 19 deli use such that it would qualify as a preexisting, nonconforming use permissible as a natural expansion of the deli use,and would not create a new and different use. p Mining g—Rock-crushin * operations at a quarry are grandfathered under Vermont's Act 250 Nonetheless, neighbors assert that an Act 250 permit is required due to "substantial change" in the rock-crushing operations at the quarry Citation: In re North East Materials Group LLC Act 250 JO 9[5-21, 2016 VT 87, 2016 WL 4394591 (Vt. 2016) VERMONT (08/12/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether there was a"substantial change"in a grandfathered rock-crushing operation such that it was no longer exempt from Vermont's Act 250 permit requirement. The Background/r,acts: In 1970, the Vermont Legislature enacted Act 250, 10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6093,"to protect Vermont's lands and environment by requiring statewide review of large-scale changes in land utilization."Under Act 250, a permit is ordinarily required prior to the commencement of development. However, there is an exception to this permit requirement; it does not apply to development commenced before June 1, 1970(the day Act 250 became law). That exception,however, is limited by a provision that provides that"any substantial change in such excepted subdivision or develop- ment is subject to the ordinary permit requirement." (10 V.S.A. § 6081(b).) "Substantial change"is defined as "any change in a preexisting development . . . which may result in a significant adverse impact with respect to any of the [ten Act 250 criteria]."(Act 250 Rules 2(C)(7),Code of Vt.Rules 12 004 060-3.) North East Materials Group LLC("NEMG")ran a rock-crushing operation within the Rock of Ages Corporation ("ROA") quarry. Between 2008 and 2012, successive district coordinators of the District 5 Environmental Com- mission issued a series of jurisdictional opinions,which each determined that the initiation of rock-crushing operations by NEMG at the ROA quarry did not require Act 250 permit review "because those operations did not constitute a cognizable change to a development that existed on June 1, 1970." Thirteen individuals,calling themselves"Neighbors for Healthy Communi- ties" (the "Neighbors") appealed the 2012 decision of the Environmental Commission. The Superior Court affirmed the Environmental Commission's conclusions. i The Neighbors again appealed.The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Generally, the Supreme Court accepted NEMG's argument that its rock- crushing activity was grandfathered in and not subject to an Act 250 permit 2016 Thomson Reuters 5 i> E i