## Facts

- A developer obtained an Act 250 permit authorizing construction of seventy-five townhouse units and related infrastructure, including a stormwater-management system.
- Construction was completed, and the units were conveyed to third-party owners; a condominium association assumed responsibility for common facilities, including the stormwater system.
- The association sued the developer in civil court alleging construction defects, including stormwater-related defects; the dispute settled, with the developer agreeing to seek corrective Act 250 permit amendments and fund work needed to bring stormwater aspects into permit compliance.
- The developer applied to amend the Act 250 permit to authorize deviations and modifications to the stormwater system.
- The district environmental commission issued an amended permit that added “Condition 14,” purporting to reserve the commission’s right to review stormwater issues later and impose additional conditions as needed.
- No party appealed the amended permit containing Condition 14.
- About a year later, the association asked the commission to reconvene under Condition 14 to add further conditions; after a reconvened hearing, the commission declined to impose additional conditions.
- The association appealed the commission’s refusal to the Environmental Division, which dismissed, ruling Condition 14 was an invalid reservation of authority and unenforceable.
- The association appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a district environmental commission may include an open-ended condition reserving continuing jurisdiction to revisit a final Act 250 permit and impose additional conditions without a new amendment application.
2. Whether enforcement of Act 250 permit conditions is within a district commission’s authority or lies exclusively with the Natural Resources Board and the Agency of Natural Resources.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s dismissal.
- The Court held the commission lacked authority to reserve continuing jurisdiction through Condition 14; the condition was invalid and unenforceable.
- The Court held enforcement authority over Act 250 permit conditions rests exclusively with the Natural Resources Board and the Agency of Natural Resources.
- Because Condition 14 was invalid, the commission’s refusal to act under it could not support the association’s appeal; any remedy for noncompliance lay through statutory enforcement channels, not commission action under Condition 14.

## Legal Principles

- Act 250 separates permitting functions (district commissions) from enforcement functions (Natural Resources Board and Agency of Natural Resources).
- District commissions may impose reasonable conditions when issuing or amending permits, but may not create open-ended, self-executing mechanisms to reopen and modify final permits outside the established amendment process.
- Changes to Act 250 permits must proceed through formal amendment procedures, including the governing amendment framework recognized in prior precedent.
- Enforcement of Act 250 permit conditions, including initiation of enforcement actions, is exclusively vested in the Natural Resources Board and the Agency of Natural Resources; private parties may request investigation but do not possess enforcement authority.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that an Act 250 permit condition reserving broad continuing jurisdiction for a district commission to later add conditions is ultra vires and unenforceable, and confirmed that permit-condition enforcement is exclusively the responsibility of the Natural Resources Board and the Agency of Natural Resources.


In re Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 Dev., 2016 VT 20 (Vt. 2016)