(applicants owned a sand and gravel quarry that had been in operation for 50 years; when applicants purchased the property in 1997, the local environmental commission ruled that a land-use permit was required; applicants appealed to the Environmental Division (ED), and also applied for an Act 250 permit; the ED granted the permit, with conditions, and the applicants appealed that decision as well; in the consolidated appeal, the applicants filed a motion to adopt a settlement agreement; neighbors who owned property across the road from the quarry objected, arguing that the change in location of the access point to the quarry in the settlement agreement was a material change that required remand; the trial court disagreed, finding that the changes were not substantial enough to change the character of the project; the trial court also found that a permit should issue, and the neighbors appealed; on appeal, the court affirmed, remanding only for a clarification of the condition prohibiting vaguely-defined noise levels; given the undisputed evidence that significant traffic already existed near the quarry, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the added traffic would not be adverse; it was in keeping with the existing character of the area; similarly, the trial court did not err in finding that there was no evidence of an adverse impact on any historic site).