Case Title: In re Quechee Lakes Corp.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-108


In re Quechee Lakes Corporation              Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Vermont Environmental Board

                                             May Term, 1989


Darby Bradley, Chairman

C. Daniel Hershenson and Claude T. Buttrey (On the Brief) of Hershenson,
  Carter, Scott and McGee, Norwich, for appellant Quechee Lakes Corp.

Darby, Laundon, Stearns & Thorndike, Waterbury, for appellant Ridge
  Condominiums, Inc.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and John H. Hansen, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Springer, D.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     ALLEN, C.J.   Quechee Lakes Corporation appeals from an Environmental
Board decision requiring substantial modifications in its already-
constructed Ridge condominium project.  We affirm.
     In 1981, Quechee Lakes Corporation (Quechee) obtained an Act 250 land-
use permit to build a twenty-eight-unit condominium project on a high ridge
overlooking the Quechee valley.  During the course of construction, a number
of revisions to the architectural plans were made without additional permit
procedures.  The external changes included the addition of skylights, the
enlargement of sliding glass doors, the addition of clerestory and other
windows, a fourteen-foot increase in the depth of three of the six
buildings, the addition of four-foot overhangs and wrap-around decks, a
reduction of roof pitches, and the relocation of some buildings.
     Only after construction had been completed did Quechee file an
application for an amended land use permit, seeking to bring its original
permit into conformity with the project as built.  By this time, most of the
condominium units had been sold.
     The District Environmental Commission held hearings on the alterations
and approved them in many respects.  Certain of the changes were found to be
objectionable, however, and the Commission conditioned the amended permit on
four mitigating actions:  the removal of the skylights, the installation of
non-glare glass, the addition of tree plantings, and the installation of a
barrier on the access road. (FN1)
     Quechee appealed to the Environmental Board, objecting only to the
skylight removal condition and the Commission's denial of its motion for
reconsideration.  Ridge Condominiums, Inc. (RCI), an association composed of
the project's unit owners, was granted co-applicant status by the Board and
brought a cross-appeal, challenging all of the mitigation conditions imposed
by the Commission.  After a de novo hearing and two site visits, the Board
found that the condominium buildings are "one of the most visually prominent
features in the valley."  The Board found further that, taking the skylights
and additional glazing together, approximately two-thirds more glass was
visible than was approved under the original plans; that light from the
windows and skylights is visible from many points in the valley at night;
and that reflective glare from these sources results in a significant visual
impact even during cloudy days.  The Board also found that some of the other
construction changes increased the perceived mass of the project.
     In its conclusions of law, the Board stated that it was not possible to
judge the adverse impact of the changes "without first considering the
context within which they occur, which is the Ridge project itself."
Concluding that certain of the changes at issue contributed to the overall
negative visual impact of the project, the Board required the following
remedial steps:  the removal of skylights on the western roof slopes of
Buildings 1-5, the limitation of the total glass area or screening by means
of solid balcony railings, and the addition of plantings to break up the
mass of the buildings and to restore the screening effect required by the
original permit.
     Quechee appeals from the Board's decision, (FN2) raising the following
issues:  (1) whether the Board erred in conducting hearings without
requiring that the individual unit owners be made co-applicants; (2) whether
the Board's mitigation conditions are reasonable; (3) whether the Board
erred in basing its decision on observations made during site visits; (4)
whether the parties opposing the permit satisfied their burden of proof; (5)
whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence; (6)
whether the hearing before the Board was fundamentally fair; and (7) whether
the landscaping condition of the permit violates principles of res judicata.
                                    I.
     With respect to Act 250 permit applications, the Environmental Board's
Rule 10(A) provides, in part:
            The record owner(s) of the tract(s) of involved land
         shall be the applicant(s) or co-applicant(s) unless good
         cause is shown to support waiver of this requirement.
         The application shall list the name or names of all
         persons who have a substantial property interest. . . .

Here, most of the condominium units had been purchased by third parties
prior to the filing of the permit amendment application.  Because the unit
owners own the common elements jointly, they were the record owners of the
involved land at the time the amendment application was filed.  Quechee
concedes that it lacks standing to assert due process claims on behalf of
the unit owners, but it argues that the Board's failure to require the unit
owners to be made co-applicants was a violation of its own regulations, that
the violation was jurisdictional and that the Board's decision is fatally
flawed.  It requests a remand to determine whether good cause can be shown
to exclude the record title owners as applicants or co-applicants.
     Rule 10(A) permits a waiver of the requirement that record owners of
involved land be made applicants or co-applicants for good cause shown.
The Board carefully considered the relationship between RCI and the unit
owners and made the following findings and conclusions:
     RCI requested party status as a co-applicant in the Ridge
     proceedings.  RCI is an association composed of the owners of
     units within the Ridge Condominiums.  RCI was formed in 1982 and,
     as of August 1, 1984 when QLC filed amendment application #
     3W0364-1A-EB, 25 of the 28 units within the project had been
     conveyed by QLC to third party members of RCI.  Ridge unit owners
     have designated RCI to represent their interests in the Board
     proceedings.  The issues presented in the Ridge appeal implicate
     the property interests of unit owners: conditions imposed by the
     Commission would require physical changes to condominium units.
     We conclude that RCI can represent the interests of Ridge unit
     owners (see Board Rule 14(D)) and those owners have a substantial
     property interest in the land involved in the Ridge project within
     the meaning of Board Rule 10(A).  We will, therefore, exercise the
     discretion afforded to the Board by the latter Rule and will admit
     RCI as a co-applicant to these proceedings. (FN3)

     The Board recognized that the owners had a substantial interest within
the meaning of the Rule and that the owners had designated RCI to represent
their interests in the Board proceedings.  The admission of RCI as a co-
applicant constituted a waiver by the Board, and it is unnecessary to remand
for a determination that has already been made.  Both practicality and
fairness applaud the Board's action, and we give particular weight to the
interpretation of a regulation by an administrative agency.  In re Hydro
Energies Corporation, 147 Vt. 570, 574,