Case Title: In re Bennington School, Inc.

Citation: 176 Vt. 584, 2004 VT 6, 845 A.2d 332

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-01-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Bennington School, Inc. (2002-367); 176 Vt. 584; 845 A.2d 332

2004 VT 6

[Filed 15-Jan-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2004 VT 6

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-367

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2003

  In re Appeal of Bennington           }	APPEALED FROM:
  School, Inc.	                       }
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 85-4-00

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Bennington School, Inc. appeals an environmental court
  decision in favor of the Town of Bennington finding that BSI's proposed use
  of a single-family home as a residence for students required a conditional
  use permit.  Despite finding that BSI's proposed residential use met the
  statutory requirements of a permitted group home under § 4409(d), the
  environmental court ruled that it was the functional equivalent of a
  boarding school or college dorm and thus, was properly subject to the
  conditional use process.  Because we find BSI's use of the residence under
  the first of two proposed scenarios operates as a permitted group home, we
  reverse.  We decline to rule on the second proposed scenario, however, as
  doing so would require us to render an impermissible advisory opinion.

       ¶  2.  This case was presented to the environmental court on
  stipulated facts which can be summarized as follows.  BSI is a
  state-licensed, residential-care facility for adolescent children with
  special educational needs, including learning disabilities, moderate
  intellectual and physical handicaps, and emotional and social disorders. 
  The parties stipulated that all of BSI's students are developmentally
  disabled.  As part of its mission, the school provides educational, mental
  health, and living skills services to all of its students.  

       ¶  3.  BSI students reside on one of the two main campuses or in one
  of the school's small residences.  The residences are designed to provide
  eligible students with a healthy, family-style living experience in which
  they can learn day-to-day living skills and develop bonds with small groups
  of students and staff before returning to their homes and communities.  No
  more than six students live in these residences, which are staffed by two
  or three BSI employees during the day when the children are in the homes,
  and at least one awake staff member throughout the night.  

       ¶  4.  The residences are located in the Bennington community on
  land zoned as Rural Residential or Village Residential under the Town's
  Bylaws.  There are no other residential-care facilities within 1,000 feet
  of any of BSI's residences.  
   
       ¶  5.  Some of the typical home-owner functions at the residences
  are performed by BSI staff such as maintaining the property and grounds
  around the residences.  Although the residences have functioning kitchens,
  most of the meals are prepared on the main campus and delivered to the
  residences by van each day.  

       ¶  6.  This dispute initially arose when BSI tried to purchase a
  single-family home to use as an additional residence.  In connection with
  the transaction, BSI applied to Bennington's Zoning Board of Adjustment for
  a permit.  Relying on 24 V.S.A. § 4409(d), which prohibits municipalities
  from excluding certain residential facilities and group homes from
  residential areas, BSI argued that it was entitled to a single-family
  residence permit.  The ZBA disagreed, concluding that BSI's proposed
  residence was not a permitted group home and therefore required a
  conditional use permit.  BSI appealed to the environmental court. (FN1) 

       ¶  7.  During the pendency of the appeal before the environmental
  court, the owner of the single-family residence at issue sold his home to
  another buyer.  The environmental court agreed to hear the appeal, however,
  once it determined that the case was not moot because, under the standard
  established in Doria v. Univ. of Vt., 156 Vt. 114, 118, 589 A.2d 317, 319
  (1991), the question was capable of repetition, yet evading review.  This
  issue was not appealed to this Court.  We accept the environmental court's
  conclusion and find the case is not moot on the facts presented.

       ¶  8.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, BSI proposed opening
  two different types of residences and asked the environmental court to
  evaluate whether they would be considered permitted single-family
  residences under 24 V.S.A. § 4409(d) or subject to conditional use review. 
  The first scenario depicts current operations at BSI's existing residences. 
  There, students leave the residences in a van to go to school on the main
  campus each weekday.  While on campus, they attend classes and group and
  individual counseling sessions.  The children have lunch at school and
  participate in after-school recreation and extra-curricular activities on
  campus or in the community.  Each evening, students return to their
  residences for dinner, homework, chores, and social time.  Students do not
  attend class on campus on weekends, but maintain similar schedules with
  respect to extra-curricular activities.  Besides evening homework and the
  occasional tutoring from BSI staff, however, no educational instruction is
  provided in the residences.  Nor does BSI staff provide routine clinical
  counseling in the residences except in the infrequent event a staff member
  needs to meet with a child or with the residents in a group to address
  specific issues.

       ¶  9.  The second scenario describes BSI's proposed alternative use
  of its residences.  In this hypothetical situation, BSI students would to
  go class and attend counseling sessions in rooms within the residences. 
  Teachers and clinicians would come to the house each day to provide these
  services, eliminating the need for any additional adult supervision during
  the day.  The students would still go to the campus to participate in
  recreational and extra-curricular activities, but they would receive all of
  their educational instruction and counseling within the residences.
        
       ¶  10.  Given the parties' stipulations, the environmental court
  began its analysis by "assuming that the [group homes] meet the statutory
  exemption for consideration as a permitted single-family residence."  The
  court then looked beyond 24 V.S.A. § 4409(d) to determine "whether anything
  else about the operation of the residence in connection with the school
  requires it to be treated as a school use rather than a permitted
  single-family use."  After reviewing the characteristics of each option,
  the court determined that under both proposed scenarios, the operation of
  the residences was so closely involved with the school that they were the
  functional equivalent of boarding school or college dormitories and thus
  subject to conditional use approval.  The court illustrated its point by
  comparing BSI's proposed uses of the residences to dance classes or an auto
  repair shop that, although operated out of a traditional single-family
  residence, nevertheless require conditional use approval.  The court then
  concluded that "[t]he statutory protection for group homes for the
  developmentally or physically disabled entitles such homes to be treated
  the same as a single-family residence, not to receive more protection than
  a single-family residence would receive under the same circumstances."  

       ¶  11.  The environmental court's findings of fact will be upheld if
  based on relevant, admissible evidence that a reasonable person would
  consider as supporting the conclusion.  In re Wal*Mart Stores, 167 Vt. 75,
  80,