Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

July 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin the District Commission to grant or deny permits and to correct application er- rors in certain circumstances." (See 10 V.S.A. § 6025(b)(3) (authorizing Natu- ral Resources Board to create procedures for District Commission to approve Act 250 permits); Act 250 Rules, Rule 30 (directing District Commission to approve, approve with conditions, or deny permit applications); Act 250 Rules, Rule 31 (allowing District Commission to alter Act 250 permits in certain cir- cumstances); Act 250 Rules, Rule 34 (authorizing District Commission to amend permit in certain circumstances).) The court also acknowledged that aggrieved parties could challenge an issued permit. (See 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) (authorizing appeal of District Commission decision to Environmental Division).) However, the court emphasized that such "opportunities are circumscribed; they do not give the Commission open-ended authority to change a permit or an aggrieved party unlimited opportunity to appeal." Here, the court found, in light of the lack of required notice, Neighbor had the legal option of requesting that the court extend or reopen the time to appeal. (V.R.A.P. 4.) The court further found that Neighbor did not do so. "Having failed to appeal through an authorized procedure," Neighbor could not then appeal Applicants' permit "through this alternative second -notice process," determined the court. The District Commission, said the court, "is limited by the applicable statutes and rules and cannot create an alternative mechanism for review." In so concluding, the court recognized "the tension between fair- ness and the finality of judgments that exists in all types of cases," but found that "to protect and balance these competing interests," "existing procedural rules already set the balance between finality and fairness" through avenues which Neighbor here did not take advantage. See also: In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit, 2018 VT 20, 183 A.3d 1136 (Vt. 2018). See also: In re Treetop Development Co. Act 250 Development, 201 Vt. 532, 2016 VT 20, 143 A.3d 1086 (2016). Case Note: In its decision, the court also addressed the procedural issue of whether the issuance of the second permit notice was properly before the Supreme Court for interlocutory review. The court concluded that interlocutory review was appropriate because the matter challenged was whether the District Commission "clearly exceeded its jurisdic- tion," and "delaying review until the final decision would harm the parties." © 2018 Thomson Reuters