In the article titled “Bear Mountain housing development in Killington receives Act 250 permit” published June 7, we wrote “the Act 250 commission has not yet approved the master plan for the entire three-phase project.”
It has subsequently been brought to our attention that this characterization was incomplete and could be misleading. A more detailed reading of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law revealed that certain aspects of the Masterplan were affirmed. The excerpt below provides additional clarity to what Criteria were reviewed for the Masterplan and what criteria were not reviewed and will be subject to review and approval in subsequent phases.
“The Commission commenced their review of this Project pursuant to Act 250 Rule 21 Master Plan and Partial Review (adopted on February 25, 1998, and amended March 29, 2000).The objective of the Master Permit Policy and Procedure is to provide guidance and greater predictability to the Applicant and all parties in the review of complex and/or phased development projects. Pursuant to Rule 21, the Applicant may seek permission from the Commission to proceed with review under specific criteria in order to gain a greater degree of assurance that future phases of a Project may be approved on a proposed Project Tract. See Re Killington Ltd., #1R0835-EB, Memorandum of Decision at 5-8 (Vt. Envt’l Bd. Oct. 22, 1999)
“Commission can conduct a partial review of a master plan voluntarily submitted by applicant despite fact that applicants are not ready to commence construction on any aspect of the project.” The master permit process and partial findings are therefore intended to provide a ‘roadmap’ in terms of preparation of final plans and the requirements to be met for the permitting process for future phases of the Project; this procedure allows for greater efficiency in the environmental review process. However, the Commission notes that the Master Permit Policy and Procedure does not assure approval for the individual development components of a project; those individual development projects are subject to review in future individual permit application proceedings. In re SP Land Co., et. al. Act 250 Permit Amendment, Docket No. 257-11-08 Vtec, Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Dismissal at 9 (Vt. Envt’l Ct. Dec. 1, 2009), rev’d on other grounds, 2011 VT 104 (Sept. 22, 2010).
“In most instances, the initial review of a master plan application will focus on the project’s scale, location, and impacts under the so-called “natural resource” criteria of the Act, including but not limited to, Criteria 1(A), 1(D), 1(E), 1(G), 8, 8(A), 9(B), 9(C), 9(D) and 9(E). As stated in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 1R0322-15…
“Master Permit Policy and Procedure, it is generally not possible for a Commission to make final findings of fact and conclusions of law for a phased Project under certain criteria, including Criteria 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(A), 9(K), and 10, until a final decision is issued for a particular phase or for the entire project based upon the review of a complete application.”
