Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 2 Notably, the Neighbors had argued that the Project was a "therapeutic community residence," and, consequently, could not be a "health care facility." The court responded to that argument noting that "simply because a particular use, or an aspect of a use, is not expressly listed as permitted in the Bylaws does not mean that use is prohibited." "More- over," the court explained that there was "no reason to conclude that the Project's use as a `therapeutic community residence' and its use as a `health care facility' [were] mutually exclusive." A "therapeutic com- munity residence" can be a subcategory of "health care facility," said the court. Here, the Project was to provide professional mental -health counseling and treatment through on -site, inpatient programs —ser- vices commonly associated with "health care facilities." Therefore, the court concluded that the purpose and plain language of the Town Bylaws provided support for the contention that CBH's Project was a "health care facility" and allowed as a conditional use. In a related argument, the Neighbors had further asserted that each of the proposed facility's uses —as a therapeutic community residence, recreation, and health care facility —must be allowed within the proj- ect's zoning district in order for the facility to be permitted. The court agreed that each of CBH's potential uses —therapeutic community res- idence, recreation, and health care facility —must be allowed under the Bylaws, but noted that the Project did not require conditional -use and site -plan approval for every use. "Where one use is a component of an- other allowed use, additional permitting via conditional -use and site - plan review is not necessary," said the court. Therefore, the court explained, here, the residential use component of the Project did not require separate permitting above and beyond the Project's conditional - use and site -plan approval as a "health care facility." See also: Fletcher Farm, Inc. v. Town of Cavendish, 137 Vt. 582, 409 A.2d 569 (1979) (determining that a licensed therapeutic community residence, which included "group therapy, work, recreation, family - style meals and other related programs," was being used for "health purposes," and was therefore not exempt from real property tax under Vermont law). Case Note: The Neighbors had also argued that the Project "impermissibly reestab- lishe[d] the `therapeutic retreats, conferences, and events' previously hosted [on the same property by a church]," which, the Neighbors asserted were nonconforming uses. Finding the Project was a conditionally approved "health care facility" in its own right, the court determined that it need not consider that argument. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 5