Case Title: In re McEwing Services, LLC

Citation: 177 Vt. 38, 2004 VT 53, 857 A.2d 299

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re McEwing Services, LLC  (2003-078); 177 Vt. 38; 857 A.2d 299

2004 VT 53

[Filed 18-Jun-2004]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2004 VT 53

                                No. 2003-078

       In re Appeal of McEwing Services, LLC     Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 January Term, 2004

       Merideth Wright, J.

       Daniel P. O'Rourke of Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick, LLP, Essex
       Junction, for Appellant.

       Paul S. Gillies, Montpelier, for Appellee.

       PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and
                 Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

          
       ¶ 1     JOHNSON, J.  The Town of Moretown Development Review Board
  denied appellant, McEwing Services LLC, a conditional use permit for the
  construction of a telecommunications tower after four months of
  deliberations.  McEwing appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court
  claiming that the permit was deemed approved, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §
  4407(2) and town zoning regulations, on January 28, 2002 - sixty days after
  the board held the final duly noticed public hearing on the application. 
  The town countered that the sixty-day deemed approval period did not begin
  to run until the board "closed the evidence," and because the board did not
  announce closure of the evidence until April 3, its April 10 decision was
  timely and effective to deny McEwing's application.   The environmental
  court granted summary judgment in favor of the town.  We reverse.

       ¶ 2     Pursuant to the Legislature's grant of authority, the Town
  of Moretown has adopted municipal zoning regulations.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4407
  ("Any municipality may adopt zoning regulations . . . ."); see also Town of
  Moretown, Vermont Zoning Regulations § 1.1 (March 7, 2000) (recognizing
  legislative grant of authority to adopt regulations).  Moretown's zoning
  regulations divide the town into five zoning districts.  Town of Moretown,
  Vermont Zoning Regulations § 2.1; see also 24 V.S.A. § 4407(1) (allowing
  for the creation of zoning districts).  Under § 4407(2) and § 5.2 of the
  town's zoning regulations, certain uses, known as "conditional uses," may
  be permitted only by approval of the town's development review board.  Both
  the statute and the regulation require that the board hold a public hearing
  to gather evidence and allow for public comment on the application.  24
  V.S.A. §§ 4407(2), 4467; Moretown Zoning Regulation § 5.2(B).  After the
  final public hearing on the proposed conditional use occurs, the board then
  has sixty days to render its decision; failure to act within the sixty-day
  period results in deemed approval of the application. 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2);
  Moretown Zoning Regulations § 5.2(B).        
   
       ¶ 3     On September 27, 2001, McEwing applied to the board for
  conditional use approval to construct a wireless telecommunications tower
  and a parking area on leased land located within the town's commercial
  district.  The board held the first duly noticed public hearing on the
  McEwing application on October 30, 2001.  Representatives from McEwing,
  various telecommunications companies interested in the project, members of
  the public, and one of the leased land's owners attended the meeting. 
  After questioning McEwing representatives about certain aspects of the
  project, the board moved to go into a closed "deliberative session."  At
  that time, the board informed McEwing that it was not "closing the
  evidence," and that McEwing might be asked to reappear before the board and
  submit additional evidence.  During the deliberative session, the board
  voted to continue the matter to November 28, 2001 and to write to McEwing
  seeking more information.

       ¶ 4     On November 2, the board wrote a letter to McEwing
  requesting more information about various aspects of the application and
  the underlying lease provisions for the project.  McEwing provided the
  requested information by letter prior to the November 28 hearing.  McEwing
  representatives attended the November 28 public hearing on its application. 
  The board accepted the additional information submitted by McEwing during
  the public portion of the hearing.  Before going into deliberative session
  again, the board advised McEwing that additional evidence might be
  requested.  Despite this statement, the board did not subsequently request
  anything further from McEwing.  At the conclusion of the deliberative
  session, the board again moved to continue for further deliberations.    

       ¶ 5     McEwing's was not the only telecommunications tower
  application considered by the board at the November 28 meeting.  The board
  questioned and received evidence from representatives for two other
  applicants and took public comment on those applications as well. 

       ¶ 6     The board conducted a number of deliberative sessions on
  McEwing's application. The first of these occurred on December 19.  During
  the deliberative session, the board considered a motion to consolidate the
  three pending tower applications, but concluded that "it must resolve each
  application separately on [its] respective merits."  The board again
  determined to continue the deliberative session to January 9, 2002 when two
  hearings were scheduled on other applications, including one for a fourth
  tower application.  The minutes indicate that the "[b]oard does not expect
  to make substantial progress on deliberations that evening and will likely
  continue the three pending matters for further deliberation or evidentiary
  hearing in late January or early February."  
   
       ¶ 7     A series of additional deliberative sessions followed
  without any resolution of McEwing's application, solicitation of additional
  evidence from McEwing, or comment from the public on its application. 
  These occurred on January 30, February 13, February 27, March 13 and March
  21.

       ¶ 8     On February 12, 2002, McEwing sent a letter to the board
  indicating that it had secured a commitment from another telecommunications
  company to use the facility in the event that the board approved the
  application.  The letter also included a photographic simulation of the
  tower that McEwing hoped to build.  Though the board had not requested the
  information, it accepted the letter into evidence at the hearing the
  following day.  The minutes indicate that the subject of the February 13
  hearing was a subdivision application unrelated to any of the four
  telecommunication tower applications.  No McEwing representatives attended
  the meeting.  Nonetheless, the board circulated the McEwing letter before
  entering into deliberative session.  

       ¶ 9     On April 3, 2002, the board voted to "close the evidence" on
  all of the telecommunications tower applications including McEwing's.  In a
  decision dated April 10, 2002, the board voted to deny McEwing's
  application.  The board concluded that (1) telecommunications facilities
  are neither permitted nor conditional uses in the commercial district where
  McEwing's proposed facility would be located, and (2) the lot size for the
  project did not satisfy the minimum requirements for uses within the
  commercial district.
   
       ¶ 10     McEwing appealed the decision to the environmental court,
  arguing that its application was approved by operation of law by virtue of
  the board's failure to render a decision within sixty days after November
  28, 2001 the date of the final noticed public hearing on McEwing's
  application.  Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the court ruled
  in favor of the town, holding that the board avoided the application of the
  statute by continuing its deliberative sessions and making clear to McEwing
  that it had not "closed the evidence" on its application.  The court ruled
  that the board's April 10 decision was within the sixty-day period when
  measured from April 3, the date the board pronounced the evidence closed. 
  The court further held that the board's decision was timely even if
  measured from February 13 - the date when the board accepted, during a
  public hearing on other matters, the letter and photograph that McEwing had
  voluntarily submitted to it the previous day.  In the court's view, this
  submission, coupled with McEwing's failure to demand a prompt decision from
  the board, amounted to a waiver of the deemed approval remedy.  We
  disagree.

       ¶ 11     We review the decision on a motion for summary judgment
  using the same standard as the environmental court.  See In re Jackson,
  2003 VT 45, ¶ 11,