Lidstone Variance & Waiver

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: July 13, 2010
• Docket: 65-4-10 Vtec
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

Superior Court of Vermont

Environmental Division \»lUL 1 3 2010 . VERMONT __“ _____ _SUPHGWGGHR=V=== E N T R Y O R D E R ENV|RONMENTAL D|VlSlON Lidstone Variance & Waiver Docket No. 65-4-'10 Vtec Project: Lidstone West Shore Road Setback/Roacl Change Applicant: Philip Lidstone ` Municipal ZBA

As discussed on the record of the telephone conference held on ]uly 12, 2010, both ZBA decisions appealed in this matter fail to meet the minimum requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(l). That section requires that ”[d]ecisions shall be issued in writing and shall include a statement of the factual bases on Which the [ZBA] has made its conclusions and a statement of the conclusions.”

The variance decision contains no factual findings, and although it does state

Which of the five variance criteria the ZBA concluded Were or Were not met by the '

application, the absence of underlying facts means that it fails to state the factual bases for the ZBA’s conclusions

The Waiver decision also contains no factual findings other than that ”there is considerable opposition, by the neighbors to moving the road.” rl`he Waiver decision does not state the criteria in the zoning regulations for granting a Waiver, or Whether opposition by the neighbors relates to any of the Waiver criteria. lt does not state What the proposal is, and does not state What underlying facts led the ZBA to conclude that the proposal Would be ”unsafe" or that it Would ”undermine the intent” of the zoning regulations

Accordingly, the above-captioned ZBA decision is VACATED and_the matter is hereby REMANDED to the ZBA for it to issue a decision meeting the minimum requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(l).

lt Will be up to the ZBA in the first instance to decide Whether it needs to tal

Page l 0f2

' Any appeal of such future decision of the ZBA will require a new notice of appeal and receive a new docket number. As this remand was not made necessary by any action of the Appellant, if Appellant files`an appeal of the new decision, the Court .will waive the filing fee. Please attach a copy of this entry order to the new notice of appeal if any such request is made.

The Court also notes that an application for an alternative project, also seeking a waiver, has recently been decided by the ZBA but has not yet been appealed lf that case is appealed, it will be charged the filing fee for an additional appeal, as if the above-captioned appeal were still pending Also please attach a copy of this entry order _to the notice of appeal if any such request is made.

M% M July 13, 2010 /

Judqe Date

Date copies Sent to: '7 /C> Clerk's Initials (\ Jk i:¥:

Copies Sent to: Attorney Christopher T. Corsones for Appellant Philip Lidstone Attorney James F. Carroll for Appellee Town of Tinmouth Interested Persons Barbara Leiser and Robert Jeffrey

Page 2 0f2'

fw‘?"