Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Page 4 - August 10, 1997 Z.B. ,9 due process rights. The town didn't sufficiently inform White that he could request a hearing to challenge the administrator's decision. The notice's statement that White could contact the administrator if he had any questions was not enough to satisfy the demands of due process. Therefore, the judgment for the town was reversed, and the case was returned to the court for additional proceedings. see also: Packard v. Gordon, 537 A.2d 144 (1987). see also: Wilson v. Health and Hospital Corporation, 620 F.2d 1215 (1980). Density - Board and neighboring town disagree about regional plan's forcefulness In re MBL Associates, 693 A.2d 698 (Vermont) 1997 MBL Associates applied to the environmental commission to build a 221- unit housing development in a South Burlington, Vt., agricultural area, border- ing the town of Shelburne. Though the area was agricultural, residential uses were permitted there as well. The commission denied MBL a permit, so MBL appealed to the environ- mental board. To grant a land-use permit, the board had to find that the project met 10 requirements. The last requirement mandated that a project be "in conform- ance with any duly adopted local or regional plan." Apparently, the county's regional plan said that large developments "should" be located in the region's "growth centers." MBL's proposed development was not located in one of these centers. The board eventually granted MBL a permit. It referred to the municipal zoning bylaws, as the future-land-use maps and data directed it to do, to deter- mine whether the project satisfied the plan's density restrictions. According to the bylaws, the project did conform to the regional plan's density requirements. The board also found the project complied with the county's regional plan, the regional plan's provisions regarding project size were not specific enough to deny MBL's permit, and the project complied with the plan under its "greater public good" exception. The town of Shelburne appealed, arguing the plan didn't conform to the county's regional plan. The town argued the project's sheer size would have a "substantial regional impact," which disqualified it from normal density re- quirements and restricted it to specific "growth centers" in the region. The town also challenged the board's assertion that the plan wasn't specific enough to deny the project because it didn't place a numeric limit on housing densities above a certain level outside the designated growth centers. It said the board should have consulted the bylaws only if the plan's density requirements had been vague. DECISION: Affirmed. The project met the region's density requirements, so MBL was entitled to a permit. : : ,c;,t;;