Stowe Club Highlands, In re

• Decision Date: 08 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-341,95-341
• Citation: 687 A.2d 102,166 Vt. 33
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: In re STOWE CLUB HIGHLANDS.

Page 102

687 A.2d 102

166 Vt. 33

In re STOWE CLUB HIGHLANDS.

No. 95-341.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Nov. 8, 1996.

Motion for Reargument Denied

Nov. 22, 1996.

Harold B. Stevens, Stowe, for appellant.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and John H. Hasen, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae State of Vermont.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.

JOHNSON, Justice.

Stowe Club Highlands (SCH) appeals a decision of the Environmental Board denying SCH's application for a permit to develop a twenty-two acre Meadow Lot within the Stowe Club development. Both the District Commission and the Board concluded that the proposed development violated the original permit governing the Stowe Club project, and denied the permit modification under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We reject the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel under these circumstances, but conclude that the Board properly denied the permit amendment in light of the reliance of the purchasers of lots adjacent to the Meadow Lot. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decision.

This case began in 1985, when SCH's predecessor, Stowe Club Associates, sought and received an Act 250 permit to develop the 250-acre tract of land now known as Stowe Club. The original permit authorized construction of a 100-unit hotel, a 10,000-square-foot conference center, fifty-five three-bedroom townhouses and a twenty-three lot subdivision. Condition 13 of the original permit states that: "The 40 acre meadow on the project tract shall be retained for agricultural uses for a period of time at least equal to the life of this land use permit." ^* In addition, the District Commission at the time made findings under 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8) and (9)(B) (Criteria 8 and 9(B)), based on statements in the permit application, that the Meadow Lot would remain open and would be reserved for agricultural uses. Condition 1 of the original permit explicitly incorporates the findings and conclusions of the Commission.

Some changes have occurred in the Stowe Club development since the original permit was issued. Stowe Club Associates and an adjacent farmer, Paul Percy, had entered into an agreement for the sale of the Meadow Lot; that sale did not occur. A 1986 permit amendment allowed construction of community waste disposal fields in the Meadow Lot. Also, the planned 100-unit hotel was replaced with a smaller, 21-unit facility.

In 1990, Stowe Club Associates conveyed the project tract to the Chittenden Bank in lieu of foreclosure. The Bank sold a number of single-family house lots adjacent to the Meadow Lot, and in 1992, sold the remaining portion of the tract to Robinson Springs Partnership, which had knowledge of the land use restrictions in the original permit. Appellant SCH is the direct successor in interest of Robinson Springs Partnership.

The Board also found that Leighton Detora, the owner of a lot adjacent to the Meadow Lot and a party below, relied on the fact that the Meadow Lot would remain undeveloped when he purchased his lot and built his residence. Specifically, the Board found that Detora enjoys the agricultural character of the neighborhood, the cows in the nearby pasture, and the lack of light at night from the barn.

I.

We begin with SCH's threshold argument, that replacing the barn with a smaller residence and stable does not violate the permit condition requiring that the Meadow Lot be retained for agricultural uses. SCH maintains that the smaller residence and stable will increase the amount of open space and not threaten the agricultural potential of the soil. Following this reasoning, the application to develop the Meadow Lot should have been considered independently, and not as an attempt to modify the original permit.

We agree with the Board, however, that building a single-family home on the Meadow Lot is not consistent with preserving the lot for agricultural uses. Merely attaching a stable to a house does not convert a residential development to an agricultural use. In the zoning context, for example, courts have held that ordinances authorizing the use of certain land as a farm do not permit the stabling and training of riding horses. See Borough of Demarest v. Heck, 84 N.J.Super. 100, 201 A.2d 75, 79-80 (App.Div.1964); Incorporated Village of Old Westbury v. Alljay Farms, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 798, 486 N.Y.S.2d 916, 917, 476 N.E.2d 315, 316 (1985). There are significant differences between an open meadow with an abandoned barn and a developed lot with a private home. As the Board found, a neighboring landowner enjoys the lack of light at night in the Meadow Lot. Moreover, SCH's interpretation would render the permit condition nearly meaningless. As we read the original permit, it authorizes significant residential development, but sets aside the Meadow Lot to be preserved for agricultural uses. If residential development is permitted in the Meadow Lot as well, the permit condition serves no purpose.

For similar reasons, we reject SCH's argument that the issue of replacing the barn with a residence was not raised during the original permitting process. SCH's understanding of the issue at stake is unreasonably narrow. The original permit does not specifically address any number of possible uses for the Meadow Lot, from single-family residence to industrial complex to skyscraper. The permit did establish, however, that Criteria 8 and 9(b) required that the Meadow Lot remain as open land preserved for agricultural uses. That condition was suggested by Stowe Club Associates and incorporated into the permit, and is binding on SCH unless the permit is amended.

II.

We turn, then, to considering whether the Board should have granted SCH's application to amend the original permit to allow development of the Meadow Lot. Although Act 250 does not refer to permit amendments, the Board has adopted a rule establishing procedures for applications for permit amendments. Environmental Board Rule 34. The rule provides that "[a]n amendment shall be required for any material or substantial change in a permitted project." Id. The rule does not, however, establish standards that guide the Board in evaluating requests to amend existing permits.

In its decision in this case and in an earlier opinion, In re Cabot Creamery Coop., Permit # 5W0870-13-EB (Vt.Envtl.Bd. Dec. 23, 1992), the Board has applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to review proposed permit amendments. The Board relied on our statement in In re Carrier, 155 Vt. 152, 157-58, 582 A.2d 110, 113 (1990), that the principles of collateral estoppel generally apply in administrative proceedings, although not as an "inflexible rule of law." Here, the Board applied the five elements of collateral estoppel set out in Trepanier v. Getting Organized, Inc., 155 Vt. 259, 265, 583 A.2d 583, 587 (1990). Concluding that each of the Trepanier criteria was satisfied in this case, the Board denied SCH's application.

We are not persuaded that collateral estoppel provides the correct framework in which to evaluate applications for permit amendments. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, applies when a party seeks to relitigate a factual or legal issue previously decided in a judicial or administrative proceeding. The effect of collateral estoppel is that resolution of a specific issue, such as a factual dispute or question of law, is given the same preclusive effect as the final judgment of the court or agency. So, if a federal court has ruled against a plaintiff on the merits of an age discrimination claim, the plaintiff may be collaterally estopped from bringing a separate action under state law that turns on the same allegation of age discrimination. See id. at 266, 583 A.2d at 588.

In a permit amendment case, however, there is no dispute that the applicant is bound by the provisions of the original permit. Here, the original permit, including Condition 13, governs the development of the Stowe Club tract unless the permit is modified. By applying collateral estoppel, the Board in effect evaluated whether the original permit conditions have the force or effect of a judgment; that analysis is unnecessary because the original permit is a prior judgment that without question binds the parties.

The central question in this case is not whether to give effect to the original permit conditions, but under what circumstances those permit conditions may be modified. Under the permit amendment process set up by the Board, permits are not final and unalterable. A party subject to a permit may seek to amend the conditions, and presumably, the Board will sometimes grant the...