Case Title: In re Woodford Packers, Inc.

Citation: 175 Vt. 579, 2003 VT 60, 830 A.2d 100

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Woodford Packers, Inc.  (2002-056); 175 Vt. 579; 830 A.2d 100

2003 VT 60

[Filed 26-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 60

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-056

                              MARCH TERM, 2003

       In re Woodford Packers, Inc.     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
                                        }     Environmental Board
                                        }     
                                        }
                                        }     DOCKET NO. 8B0542-EB

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
       
       ¶  1.   Woodford Packers, Inc. (WPI) appeals the Environmental Board's
  decision vacating a land use permit that had been granted to it by the
  District Environmental Commission.  WPI claims that the Board erred by: (1)
  permitting the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to
  determine both the floodway and floodway fringe when no such determination
  had been made by the Agency at the District Commission level; (2) allowing
  the ANR to change the standard for determining floodways and floodway
  fringes without following the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act (VAPA),
  and enabling the Secretary of ANR to determine the floodway and the
  floodway fringe on a case-by-case basis; (3) finding that the proposed
  development project was located in the floodway; and (4) finding that the
  project failed to meet Act 250 criteria concerning floodways, shorelines,
  and soil erosion.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.   WPI proposed to build a thirty-unit retirement village on a
  12.5 acre parcel in Bennington, Vermont, bordered on the north by the
  Roaring Branch River and on the south and east by Route 9.  WPI applied to
  District Commission # 8 for an Act 250 permit, which was granted in October
  2000.  The Commission found that both WPI's and ANR's engineers agreed that
  no proposed buildings or roads would be located within the floodway or
  floodway fringe of the Roaring Branch River.  See 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)
  (requiring the district commission to find that the development will not
  result in undue water pollution and, "[i]n making this determination it
  shall at least consider "the elevation of land above sea level; and in
  relation to the flood plains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their
  ability to adequately support waste disposal . . . .").  The Commission
  further determined that the project would not impinge upon the ability of
  the river to carry flood waters in the event of a 100-year flood, which the
  Commission explained was a "theoretical time frame" for determining the
  frequency of major flooding occurrences.  ANR filed a motion to alter the
  District Commission's decision, which was denied.  ANR appealed the
  Commission's decision to the Environmental Board, asserting that the
  Commission erred in its conclusions regarding criteria 1(D) "floodways,"
  1(F) "shorelines," 4 "erosion," and 9(K) "development affecting public
  investments" under 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1).

        
       ¶  3.   The Environmental Board concluded that WPI's proposed project
  failed to comply with criterion 1(D) for floodways.  See id. §
  6086(a)(1)(D)(ii) ("A permit will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by
  the applicant that, in addition to all other applicable criteria . . . the
  development . . . of lands within a floodway fringe will not significantly
  increase the peak discharge of the river or stream . . . and endanger the
  health, safety, or welfare of the public or riparian owners during
  flooding.").  The Board found that, for the purposes of Act 250, the
  Secretary of ANR determined that the entire project would be situated in
  the floodway.  Consequently, the Board observed that placement of buildings
  and other materials in the floodway would restrict or divert the flow of
  waters in the event of a 100-year flood, resulting in a significant
  increase in peak flow adjacent to and downstream from the project, thereby
  "pos[ing] a safety risk to anyone on the Project site, including but not
  limited to the senior citizens residing at the Project."  The Board also
  concluded that the project did not meet criterion 1(F), pertaining to
  shorelines, because WPI failed to show that the project served some
  water-related purpose necessitating its location on the shoreline of the
  Roaring Branch River, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(1)(F) (applicant must
  demonstrate that the project "must of necessity be located on a shoreline
  in order to fulfill the purpose of the development").  Furthermore, the
  Board found that the project failed to meet criterion 4 for soil erosion,
  due to the presence of substantial erosion at and near the proposed project
  site.  Because WPI's project failed to comply with three separate criteria
  under Act 250, the Environmental Board vacated WPI's land use permit.  This
  appeal followed.

       ¶  4.   When reviewing a decision of the Environmental Board, this
  Court gives deference to the Board's "interpretations of Act 250 and its
  own rules, and to the Board's specialized knowledge in the environmental
  field."  In re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc., 167 Vt. 75, 79,