Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 2 district Citation: In re Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC, 2017 VT 112, 2017 WL 6102805 (Vt. 2017) VERMONT (12/08/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a community therapeutic residence qualified as a "health care facility" under a town's zoning bylaws and thus was a permitted use in the ap- plicable zoning district. The case also addressed the issue of whether the Supreme Court of Vermont, when reviewing the Superior Court, Environmental Division's interpretation of permit conditions and local zoning ordinances, reviews with or without deference to the Environ- mental Division. The Background/Facts: Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC ("CBH") proposed to operate a therapeutic community residence ("Project") on property zoned "Rural Residential" in the Town of Thetford (the "Town"). CBH's Project was licensed by the Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living ("DAIL"). The Project was to be "a short-term wilderness therapy program designed to treat young male adults," through the combination of "clini- cal therapeutic services with adventure -based wilderness therapy and agrarian living to help clients address mental -health diagnoses, as well as emotional, behavioral, and relational challenges." The Project was to house 48 patients and 37 staff at any one time. The Town's Development Review Board ("DRB") issued a conditional -use and site -plan approval for CBH's Project. The DRB based its approval on its finding that the Project was a "health care fa- cility," permitted as a conditional use under the Town's Zoning Bylaws (the `Bylaws"). Under the Bylaws, the Rural Residential zoning district was intended to "maintain an area of low average density that is compatible with clusters of high -density, remaining primarily a district of open space, farms, residences, and woodlands, with scattered commercial uses that are either home -based or dependent on natural resources." Under the Bylaws, health care facilities were allowed as conditional uses in the Town's Rural Residential areas. A group of Project neighbors (the "Neighbors") appealed the DRB's decision to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. The Neighbors argued that the Project was not a "health care facility" for purposes of the Bylaws. Rather, they argued, the Project was a "residential facil- ity," "community residence," or "group living facility," which was prohibited in the Town's Rural Residential district. Alternatively, the Neighbors argued that even if the Project was a "health care facility," its additional use as a residential facility was precluded under the Bylaws. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3