Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed an appeal concerning a proposed merger and subdivision of lots within the Stowe Highlands Resort Planned Unit Development. The court held that the existing permit required inclusion of a hotel or resort component but did not restrict Parcel 1 exclusively to that use, and that the proposed amendment did not require a permit-condition change subject to the Stowe Club test. The court affirmed the Environmental Division's reversal and remand to the Development Review Board for further review.
Holdings
- The permit and recorded plat required Parcel 1 to include a hotel or inn as part of the Resort Planned Unit Development, but did not restrict the parcel to nothing other than a hotel or inn.
- The proposed amendment did not require a change in a permit condition because it preserved the same permitted 21-unit hotel on Parcel 1A; therefore, the Stowe Club test for modifying permit conditions did not apply.
- The Supreme Court could suspend the appellate rules in its discretion and decide the fully briefed issue despite the absence of a final judgment and permission for an interlocutory appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Resort Planned Unit Development permit or recorded plans imposed a condition restricting Parcel 1 to development solely as a hotel or inn.
- Whether the proposed subdivision and merger reduced or otherwise changed the previously permitted 21-unit hotel component so that the Stowe Club test for permit modification applied.
- Whether the Supreme Court could reach the merits despite the Environmental Division's interlocutory remand order and the absence of permission for an interlocutory appeal.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- In re Stowe Highlands Resort PUD to PRD Application, 2009 VT 76, 186 Vt. 568, 980 A.2d 233(followed)
- In re 232511 Investments, Ltd., 2006 VT 27, 179 Vt. 409, 898 A.2d 109(followed)
- In re Stowe Club Highlands, 166 Vt. 33, 687 A.2d 102 (1996)(applied)
- In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 668 A.2d 1271 (1995)(followed)
- In re Hildebrand, 2007 VT 5, ¶¶ 7, 13-15, 181 Vt. 568, 917 A.2d 478(followed)
- In re Cliffside Leasing Co., 167 Vt. 569, 570, 701 A.2d 325 (1997)(followed)
- In re Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28, ¶ 3 n.2, 187 Vt. 637, 996 A.2d 219(followed)
- In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292, 299, 640 A.2d 39, 44 (1994)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…