In re Snowstone, LLC Act 250 Jurisdictional Opinion

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s conclusion that a proposed dimensional stone quarry occupying 0.93 acres did not constitute “development” under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(ii) and therefore did not require an Act 250 permit. The Court held that the one-acre threshold refers to land actually used for construction of improvements, rather than the size of the larger parcel, and declined to read “involved land” or “owned or controlled by a person” into the statutory provision on the facts presented. The Court also upheld enforcement of the deadline for requesting an additional hearing and held the landowners’ intervention issue moot.

Holdings

1. In a municipality without permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, the phrase "construction of improvements for commercial or industrial purposes on more than one acre of land" refers to the land actually used for construction of the improvements, not the size of the parcel on which the improvements are located. Because the proposed improvements occupied no more than 0.93 acre, the project was not development requiring an Act 250 permit.
2. The motion to consolidate the jurisdictional-opinion and stormwater appeals did not qualify as a timely request for an additional hearing because it was filed forty-four days after the stormwater permit determination, beyond the thirty-day deadline imposed by the Environmental Division.
3. The intervention issue was moot because the Court could no longer grant effective relief on that issue after affirming the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether construction of commercial or industrial improvements on 0.64 acre, or at most 0.93 acre including the access road, constitutes development under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(ii) when the project is located within a larger parcel.
2. Whether the retained portion of the landowners' 176-acre parcel had to be treated as involved land or otherwise included in calculating the acreage subject to Act 250 jurisdiction.
3. Whether the neighbors' motion to consolidate the Act 250 jurisdictional-opinion appeal and the stormwater-permit appeal constituted a timely request for an additional hearing.
4. Whether the Environmental Division erred by permitting the landowners to intervene.

Disposition

affirmed