Clarifying “Pattern of Strip Development” under Vermont Act 250 – Supreme Court Defines the Test and Affirms Farm-Store Permit

1. Introduction

In In re SM Farms Shop, LLC Permit Appeal, 2025 VT 33, the Vermont Supreme Court resolved a high-profile dispute over a proposed 9,000-square-foot farm store located on Route 5 near the I-91 interchange in Hartland. The Hartland Planning Commission (HPC) challenged the Act 250 permit on two fronts:

Criterion 9(L) – prohibitions against developments that create or contribute to strip development patterns outside existing settlements; and
Criterion 10 – conformance with the Hartland Town Plan.

The Environmental Division had granted summary judgment to the applicants (SMFVTMGT, LLC & SM Farms Shop, LLC). On appeal, the Supreme Court not only affirmed that decision, but for the first time articulated a definitive, two-step test for determining when a project “contribute[s] to a pattern of strip development.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held, 5–0 on the result (with a two-justice dissent as to remand), that:

The proposed farm store is outside an existing settlement, yet satisfies the “efficient use” prong of Criterion 9(L)(i).
The project meets the statutory definition of strip development, but does not “contribute to a pattern of strip development” because it is agricultural in nature, conditioned to remain such, and unlikely to induce similar linear commercial growth.
The Hartland Town Plan is too internally inconsistent to bar the project under Criterion 10.
Because the record was undisputed, the Court could affirm summary judgment without remand, despite the Environmental Division’s mischaracterisation of the strip-development issue.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

In re Burton Corp. Conditional Use/Act 250, 2024 VT 40 – cited for the general standard of deference after a merits trial, contrasted with de novo review on summary judgment.
In re Mountain Top Inn & Resort, 2020 VT 57 – reiterated the Court’s methodology for statutory interpretation, focusing on plain meaning.
In re Diverging Diamond Interchange SW Permit, 2019 VT 57 – restated the summary-judgment standard.
In re 204 North Avenue NOV, 2019 VT 52, and In re Windham Windsor Housing Trust JO Appeal, 2024 VT 73 – emphasized avoidance of surplusage and use of common-sense reading when text is ambiguous.
In re Application of Lathrop Ltd. Partnership I, 2015 VT 49 – underscored strict construction of land-use regulations in favor of property owners.
Alpine Haven Property Owners Ass’n v. Deptula, 2003 VT 51 – provided authority for affirming on alternate grounds.

These cases furnished the analytical scaffolding: de novo review, strict adherence to statutory text, narrow reading of land-use restrictions, and authority to affirm on alternate grounds when the record is undisputed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a. Three-Part Framework for Criterion 9(L)

Inside or Outside an Existing Settlement? The farm-store footprint lies wholly outside the Village boundary; thus Criterion 9(L) applies in full.
Efficient Use Test – §6086(a)(9)(L)(i).
• Only one acre of the 13-acre parcel will be developed.
• On-site well and wastewater, minimal utility extensions, LED lighting, EV charging, no new roads.
→ Held “efficient” notwithstanding rural location – rejecting HPC’s broader policy argument.
Strip-Development Test – §6086(a)(9)(L)(ii).
Step 1 – Does the project meet three of seven characteristics in §6001(36)? Yes – five of seven.
Step 2 – Will it “contribute to a pattern of strip development”? The Court, for the first time, defined “pattern” using ordinary-language dictionaries and held the inquiry focuses on whether the project would attract additional similar linear development.
Applying the record: agricultural use, revenue cap, prohibition on conversion to general retail, limited developable land nearby → No contribution to a pattern.

b. Criterion 10 – Town Plan Conformance

The HPC relied on one sentence limiting Rural Areas to “low-density residential.” The Court found irreconcilable tensions within the plan: elsewhere it envisions a “rural business area” at the interchange and encourages “traveler services” and “farming heritage.” Under B & M Realty the provision was not “clear and definite,” so it could not bar the permit.

c. Procedural Holding

Because factual disputes were absent, the Court affirmed on alternate grounds rather than remand, overruling the dissent’s view that further fact-finding was indispensable.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

New Precedent for “Pattern” Analysis. The Court’s dictionary-based standard and emphasis on inducement of additional development establish a clear, replicable test that lower tribunals must now apply.
Narrowing of Criterion 9(L) Obstacles. Developers outside designated centers can succeed if they demonstrate agricultural or limited-growth characteristics, even when the project itself is “strip” in form.
Town Plan Drafting Lessons. Municipalities must use unambiguous, mandatory language. Internal inconsistencies will be construed in favor of the landowner.
Summary-Judgment Strategy. Environmental Division findings on mixed questions will get no deference at the summary-judgment stage; parties should build a robust, undisputed factual record.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Act 250: Vermont’s statewide land-use permitting regime. A project must satisfy ten criteria before receiving a permit.
Criterion 9(L): Designed to protect Vermont’s “historic settlement pattern.” It scrutinises large rural developments to avoid the sprawl known as “strip development.”
Strip Development: Linear commercial growth along roads with features such as wide frontage, stand-alone driveways, and poor pedestrian access.
Pattern of Strip Development: Not merely one building with strip traits, but a sequence or tendency for similar projects to spring up because of the initial one.
Existing Settlement: A compact, mixed-use area served by municipal infrastructure (or a formally designated downtown/village). Projects inside such areas face fewer hurdles.
Summary Judgment: A procedural shortcut where the court decides a case without trial because no material facts are disputed.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in SM Farms Shop crystallises two pivotal points in Vermont land-use law:

Definitional Clarity. “Pattern of strip development” now centers on predictive inducement – will the project lure more linear commercial growth? Agricultural-anchored uses with strict operational limits may pass muster even when physically “strip-like.”
Plan Ambiguity Favors the Applicant. Town plans must be unmistakably mandatory to defeat Act 250 permits; mixed messages about allowable rural business uses will be resolved in favor of development.

Beyond rescuing a single farm-store project, the ruling offers a pragmatic path for Vermont’s working-lands enterprises to expand direct retailing without falling prey to the specter of “sprawl.” At the same time, it signals to municipalities that careful drafting—not broad aspirations—controls in the Act 250 arena.