Case Title: In re Vermont RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Citation: 2007 VT 23

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Vermont RSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (2005-518)

2007 VT 23

[Filed 02-Apr-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 23

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-518

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2006


  In re Vermont RSA Limited Partnership }        APPEALED FROM:
  d/b/a Verizon Wireless                }
                                        }
                                        }        Environmental Board
                                        }  
                                        }
                                        }        Declaratory Ruling No. 441



             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  Several neighbors of St. Mary's Star of the Sea Church in
  Newport, Vermont (collectively, "neighbors") appeal an Environmental Board
  order finding that Verizon Wireless's proposed construction on the land and
  in the towers of the Church is exempt from Act 250 jurisdiction.  Neighbors
  also appeal the Board's preliminary decision to deny them party status
  under certain Act 250 criteria.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  In November 2002, Verizon Wireless requested a jurisdictional
  opinion from the District 7 Environmental Commission to determine whether
  it required an Act 250 land-use permit to proceed with its proposed
  project-installing three cellular-panel antennas and three
  personal-communication-services antennas within the Church's existing bell
  towers and constructing an equipment shelter in the parking lot adjacent to
  the Church.  The Assistant Coordinator issued an opinion, finding that the
  project was exempt from Act 250 jurisdiction under 10 V.S.A. § 6081(b) 
  because it was not a "substantial change" to the preexisting development
  (the Church).  In June 2004, the Assistant Coordinator issued a second
  jurisdictional opinion, in response to Verizon Wireless's decision to move
  the proposed equipment shelter from the back of the Church "to a spot
  adjacent to the rectory" to minimize neighbors' noise concerns, and this
  time found that the project fell within the jurisdiction of Act 250.  Upon
  reconsideration of the second jurisdictional opinion, the District 7
  Coordinator agreed that under Act 250, a land-use permit would be required
  for the project.  
   
       ¶  3.  In November 2004, Verizon Wireless filed a petition for
  declaratory ruling with the Board regarding the Act 250 jurisdictional
  issue.  Neighbors requested party status under Act 250 criteria 1 (noise),
  5 (traffic safety and congestion), 8 (aesthetics and historic impacts),
  9(K) (public investments), and 10 (local and regional planning).  See 10
  V.S.A. § 6086(a) (listing the Act 250 criteria).  In May 2005, the Board
  granted neighbors party status under criteria 8 and 10, but denied them
  status under criteria 1, 5, and 9(K).  After considering the evidence,
  including observation of the Church property on a site visit, the Board
  conducted a substantial-change analysis under 10 V.S.A. § 6081(b), and
  ruled that the "[p]roject is not subject to the jurisdiction" of Act 250. 
  This appeal followed.

       ¶  4.  Neighbors now challenge the Board's denial of party status
  under criteria 5 and 9(K), (FN1) and its ultimate decision that Verizon
  Wireless's proposed project does not amount to a substantial change to the
  Church, the preexisting development, and that Act 250 jurisdiction is
  therefore inappropriate.  

       ¶  5.  First, we consider neighbors' contention that the Board erred
  in denying them party status under Act 250 criteria 5 and 9(K).  Under
  Environmental Board Rule (EBR) 14(A)(5) and (6), the Board may grant party
  status to persons "who demonstrate[] an interest under any of the criteria
  listed at 10 V.S.A. Section 6086(a) [that] may be directly affected by the
  outcome of the proceeding" before the Board.  Here, neighbors filed for
  party status under criteria 5 and 9(K), claiming that the expected loss of
  three Church parking spaces due to the proposed project would result in
  congestion on the public roads in their neighborhood and would jeopardize
  their safety while parking, driving and walking in the neighborhood during
  Church functions.  See 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(5) ("unreasonable congestion or
  unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways"); id. §
  6086(a)(9)(K) (unreasonable interference with "function, efficiency, or
  safety of, or the public's use or enjoyment of or access to" public lands
  and highways).  The Board, relying partly on Verizon Wireless's affidavit
  "to the effect that . . . the Church parking lot could be reconfigured to
  result in no net loss in parking spaces," found neighbors' claims
  unavailing.  It concluded that even despite the proposed lot
  reconfiguration, neighbors failed to "provide sufficient evidence" that the
  total loss of three percent of available Church parking, resulting from the
  loss of three spaces, had any possibility of creating relevant impacts
  under the "values that [c]riteria 5 or 9(K) seek to protect." 

       ¶  6.  We review the Board's decision to deny party status to
  neighbors under Act 250 criteria 5 and 9(K) for abuse of discretion, and
  will reverse only upon finding that the Board " 'withheld its discretion
  entirely or . . . exercised [discretion] for clearly untenable reasons or
  to a clearly untenable extent.' "  In re Putney Paper Co., 168 Vt. 608,
  609,