## Facts

- A landowner applied for approval of a planned residential development (PRD) on a 113-acre parcel in Ferrisburgh, Vermont, spanning three zoning districts: Rural Residential (RR-2), Rural Agricultural (RA-5), and Conservation (Con-25).
- The proposal created twenty-one residential lots plus one lot reserved for common space, with lot sizes ranging from under one-half acre to 25.9 acres, accessed via Pierce Woods Road within an access easement.
- The site included wetlands, woods, Lewis Creek, a stream, and steep slopes; the plan included a 50-foot buffer around water features and placed about 76% of the PRD into open space via perpetual easements.
- The zoning districts imposed minimum lot sizes of 2 acres (RR-2), 5 acres (RA-5), and 25 acres (Con-25).
- To cluster development and preserve open space, the applicant sought waivers from dimensional requirements, including minimum lot size, acreage per dwelling, frontage, width, depth, and setbacks.
- The planning commission approved the PRD; an adjoining landowner appealed to the Environmental Court, which affirmed; the neighbor then appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposal satisfied the bylaw definition of a PRD, including the requirement that the number of dwelling units not exceed what could be permitted under a conventional subdivision conforming to zoning regulations.
2. Whether the Environmental Court correctly determined that the PRD complied with applicable density and open-space constraints under the bylaws.
3. Whether the PRD provisions unlawfully delegated legislative power by granting standardless discretion to approve waivers and nonconforming designs.
4. Whether minimum lot-size requirements independently barred approval despite PRD status and granted waivers.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Court and upheld the planning commission’s PRD approval.
- The Court accepted the Environmental Court’s method for calculating maximum allowable units by dividing acreage in each zoning district by that district’s minimum lot size and summing the results.
- The Court held that the PRD’s unit count did not exceed the number permitted under conventional subdivision as measured by minimum-lot-size conformance.
- The Court upheld the commission’s authority to waive dimensional requirements for PRDs, concluding that sub-minimum lot sizes were permissible where total density stayed within the bylaw cap.
- The Court rejected the non-delegation challenge, concluding the PRD provisions supplied adequate standards to guide decisionmaking.
- The Court found no legal error in the bylaw interpretation and no clearly erroneous factual findings supporting approval.

## Legal Principles

- Where zoning bylaws cap PRD density by reference to what would be permitted under conventional subdivision, a court may compute that cap by allocating acreage by zoning district and applying each district’s minimum lot size, absent contrary bylaw language.
- PRD provisions that expressly authorize waivers of dimensional standards may permit nonconforming lot sizes and setbacks, so long as the project satisfies the bylaw’s density limitation and other stated requirements.
- A PRD scheme does not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power when the bylaws provide meaningful constraints and objectives (including density limits and open-space requirements) that structure administrative discretion.
- Interpretation of zoning bylaws is reviewed as a question of law, while trial-level factual findings are upheld unless clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The Vermont Supreme Court upheld approval of a clustered PRD that used dimensional waivers, ruling that the project met the PRD definition and density cap as calculated by acreage and minimum lot sizes, and that the bylaw standards meaningfully constrained administrative discretion.


In re Pierce Subdivision Application, 965 A.2d 468 (Vt. 2008)