Title: In re Barlow

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_BARLOW.91-491; 160 Vt. 513; 631 A.2d 853


 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.


                                 No. 91-491


 In re Robert Barlow                          Supreme Court
    and Barbara Barlow
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Environmental Board

                                              May Term, 1992



 Stephen Reynes, Acting Chair

 Lon T. McClintock of Jacobs, McClintock & Scanlon, Bennington, for
    appellants

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and John H. Hasen, Assistant Attorney
    General, Montpelier, for State



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      DOOLEY, J.   Petitioners Robert and Barbara Barlow appeal a ruling by
 the Vermont Environmental Board requiring them to obtain an Act 250 permit
 to continue operating their gravel pit.  They argue that their operation is
 exempted from review by 10 V.S.A. { 6081(b) because it preexisted the
 enactment of Act 250.  The State has moved to dismiss this appeal,
 contending that the action is moot because petitioners have now received a
 permit.  We deny the State's motion to dismiss and affirm the Board's
 decision that petitioners' gravel operation is not exempt from the Act 250
 permit requirements.

 

      The land now known as the Barlow gravel pit was purchased in 1959 by
 Joseph and Martha Sarkis.  At that time, the lot consisted of a 122-acre
 parcel on Dean Road in the Town of Pownal.  Some years later, portions of
 the lot were sold, including a four-acre lot now owned by Harriet Burdick.
      Gravel extraction on the parcel occurred as early as 1940.  Prior to
 1970, gravel extraction occurred only on the eastern portion of the lot,
 while sand and dirt, but no gravel, were extracted from the western portion.
 The owners did not operate the gravel pit; independent contractors such as
 John W. Patterson, Sr. and the Town of Pownal worked the pit and paid the
 owners for the gravel they removed.  Exact records were not maintained, and
 the most reliable source regarding the extraction of gravel from the pit is
 Patterson, who took gravel from the property from 1966 through 1978.  The
 Board accepted Patterson's testimony that the annual extraction rate from
 1966 through 1970 ranged between 5,800 and 11,200 cubic meters of gravel,
 sand, and sand and dirt fill, and that the pit was not used on a daily
 basis.  The extraction rate remained approximately the same for the years
 1970 through 1977.
      In 1978, Harwood and Lauretta Moore purchased the property.  In May
 1978, the district coordinator for the District 8 Commission issued to the
 Moores a project review sheet that stated:
         (Tentative as of 5-18-78)  Purchase of existing
         continuously used gravel pit from Joseph Sarkis for
         identical use by Harwood D. Moore.  Currently 2+ acres
         are opened and possibly up to 15-20 acres of the 100
         contain saleable earth resource.  New owner would
         probably be removing 100-200 [cubic yards] per day for
         sale in Massachusetts.  No [Act 250] permit required
         unless operation substantially changes.

 From 1978 to 1982, the Moores increased the extraction rate to approximately
 26,000 cubic yards per year.  In addition, the gravel extraction operation
 
 

 was extended to the western portion of the property because the eastern
 portion was nearly exhausted.
      In 1983, petitioners purchased the western portion of the parcel, as
 gravel extraction had ceased on the eastern portion of the land the previous
 year.  They continued gravel extraction on the western portion and extracted
 from 14,727 to 55,562 cubic yards per year between 1983 and 1990, averaging
 approximately 26,000 cubic yards per year.  Petitioners have operated the
 pit on a daily basis.
      The gravel pit on the western portion has expanded over the years to
 comprise an approximately nine-acre area, and now has approached to within
 150 feet of the Burdick land.  As a result, pit operations have become more
 audible to the residents of that property.  Petitioners plan to continue
 gravel extraction at the same average rate of 26,000 cubic yards per year
 that they maintained during the 1980s.
      While applying for a waste disposal permit, petitioners were advised to
 discover whether they were required to obtain an Act 250 permit.  They did
 so and initially were told they did not need a permit.  On June 14, 1989,
 the district coordinator reconsidered and determined that a permit was
 required.  The Board's executive officer affirmed this determination.
      Petitioners appealed, and the Environmental Board affirmed.  It found
 that there had been three changes in the gravel pit operation: (1) peti-
 tioners used a portable stone crusher where none had been used before; (2)
 the annual extraction rate had greatly increased since 1970; and (3) the
 frequency of gravel extraction had increased, from a sporadic undertaking to
 a daily occurrence.  It found that the latter two changes were "substantial"
 and triggered the need for a permit.  See 10 V.S.A. { 6081(b) ("any

 

 substantial change" to preexisting development triggers Act 250
 jurisdiction).  It explained its rationale as follows:
         In making this determination, the Board is examining not
         whether the impacts actually exist, but whether they
         potentially exist.  The Board is only evaluating whether
         a permit is required because of the potential for signi-
         ficant impacts, and it is for the District #8 Commis-
         sion, following submission of a permit application, to
         review the projects impacts in deciding whether to issue
         a permit.

 (emphasis in original.)  The Board also rejected petitioners' argument that
 it was estopped from finding Act 250 jurisdiction because petitioners
 reasonably relied on the 1978 project review sheet.
      After commencing of this appeal, petitioners applied for and were
 granted an Act 250 permit for their gravel operation, subject to specified
 conditions.  The State has moved to dismiss this appeal, claiming that the
 permit renders it moot.
      Before addressing the merits, we must determine whether this appeal is
 moot.(FN1) As a general rule, a case is moot if "the issues presented are no
 longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
 outcome."  In re Moriarty, 156 Vt. 160, 163, 588 A.2d 1063, 1064 (1991).
 The controversy must remain alive through the course of appellate review.
 Id.  A case can become moot because the appellant obtains relief by another
 
 

 means.  See Town of Cavendish v. Vermont Pub. Power Supply Auth., 141 Vt.
 144, 147,