Title: In re Rinkers, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

2011 VT 78













In re Rinkers, Inc., and Shepard Act 250 Land Use Permit
(2010-446)
 
2011 VT 78
 
[Filed 13-Jul-2011]
 
ENTRY ORDER
 
2011 VT 78
 
SUPREME COURT
  DOCKET NO. 2010-446
 
JUNE TERM, 2011
 
In re Rinkers, Inc. and Shepard Act
  250 Land Use Permit
}
}
APPEALED FROM:
 
}
}
Superior Court, 
Environmental Division
 
}
 
 
}
DOCKET NO. 302-12-08
  Vtec
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Judge: Merideth Wright
 
In the above-entitled
cause, the Clerk will enter:
 
¶ 1.            
 The question this case presents is whether a 180-foot
telecommunications tower in the town of Hardwick would have an undue adverse
effect on the aesthetics of the area in violation of Criterion 8 of Act
250.  Neighboring landowners appeal the issuance of an Act 250 land-use
permit for the project.  Specifically, they contest (1) whether the
project violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the
aesthetics of the area, and (2) whether a reduction of the tower's height is a
mitigating step that the developer should have taken to improve the harmony of
the project with its surroundings.  We affirm the decision of the
Environmental Division of the Superior Court (Environmental Court) in
determining that the tower will not have an undue adverse effect under
Criterion 8.
¶ 2.            
The town of Hardwick is located in northeastern Vermont, amidst a
backdrop of farms, rolling hills, and distant mountain ranges.  It is a
rural-agricultural setting devoid of any industrial or major commercial
development.  Bridgman Hill Road runs north out of town through a wooded
residential area and into open farmland divided by hedgerows and stands of
trees.  Rinkers Communication, Inc., (Rinkers) proposed building a 180-foot
telecommunications tower 1.27 miles from the village of Hardwick on a property
located on Bridgman Hill.  The proposed site is in a field near the height
of the land, surrounded on three sides by a dense band of trees, some of which
are as tall as eighty-five feet.  There is a farm silo located nearby, as
well as a wind turbine mounted on a one-hundred-foot tower.
¶ 3.            
The proposed site has been used for telecommunications equipment for
approximately twenty-five years; a forty-three-foot wooden pole equipped with
antennas for pagers, cellular telephones, and emergency personnel dispatch is
currently located there.  Rinkers leases the land, but owns the pole and
equipment and wishes to replace it with a taller structure in order to maximize
the signal distance and coverage and to allow for the co-location of other
antennas.  The proposed tower will be 180 feet tall, and with affixed
antennas the overall height of the structure will be just under 200 feet. 
Since the base of the tower will be located on a slope, it will sit
twenty-three feet below the elevation at the property boundary.  At the
present height of the treeswhich may grow up to one-hundred feet
tallapproximately the top ninety-five or one-hundred feet of the structure
will be visible when viewed from the north or the west.  The tower will be
built out of galvanized steel that weathers to a grey color and will be of an
open lattice-type construction.  These design details have the effect of
minimizing the tower's visual impact.  
¶ 4.            
Telecommunications technology requires a line of sight between
antennas.  An unavoidable consequence of this reality is that effective
towers are tall towers, and tall towers can be visible additions to a
landscape.  The portion of the tower above the trees will be visible from
various points in the village and along the roadways through town; however,
other than to travelers on Bridgman Hill Road, views of the tower will be brief
in duration.  From the village itself, the distant tower will be unobtrusive
when seen between nearer commercial structures such as signs and gasoline
station canopies.  To travelers on Bridgman Hill Road, the tower will be a
more significant but not overwhelming presence as it would be frequently
screened by roadside trees or off to the side of the road and not directly in
view.  The view of the tower will be the most obtrusive to those who live
near it, as the top half of it will be visible from their homes and
farms.  
¶ 5.            
Rinkers has provided paging services for over twenty-five years.  A
substantial portion of its clientele is emergency responders.  Because of
its height, the existing tower cannot send a dependable paging signal into the
town of Hardwick, nor can it provide reliable dispatching service for the police
or adequate cellular telephone service.  The proposed tower will remedy
these deficiencies and provide greater coverage to the surrounding area.
 In order to provide its paging service, Rinkers will place a transmission
antenna at the 180-foot level of the pole and a receiving antenna at the
100-foot level.  This placement is necessary because each twenty-foot
antenna must be placed above the surrounding trees and have sixty feet of
vertical separation to avoid interference.  One cellular phone company, AT&T
Mobility, plans to place cellular telephone antennas at the 160-foot level in
order to provide greater coverage to the Hardwick area, and at least one other
cellular provider has expressed interest in locating antennas on the tower.
 Additionally, Hardwick emergency service dispatch hopes to use space on
the tower, as does the Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO). 
¶ 6.            
On June 1, 2004, Rinkers submitted a zoning permit application to the
town of Hardwick for the construction of the tower.  The Town issued a
conditional-use permit, and a group of neighbors appealed this decision to the
Environmental Court.  We subsequently affirmed that decision.  In
re Shaw, 2008 VT 29, 183 Vt. 587, 945 A.2d 919 (mem.).  Rinkers then
applied for an Act 250 land-use permit, which the District 7 Environmental
Commission issued to Rinkers and the owners of the proposed site in November
2008.  Several neighbors appealed the permit to the Environmental
Court.  The sole issue in their de novo appeal was the impact of the tower
on the area's aesthetics, assessed under Criterion 8 of Act 250.  See 10
V.S.A.§ 6086(a)(8).  The court ruled that, while the tower would have an
adverse effect on the surroundings, the effect would not be undue.  It
specifically concluded that the tower's impact would not be undue because its
construction would not violate a clear, written community standard intended to
preserve the aesthetics of the area, the tower would not offend the
sensibilities of the average person, and Rinkers had taken generally available
mitigating steps to improve the harmony of the tower with its
surroundings.  The court then issued the permit to Rinkers.[1]  After the court denied neighbors'
motion to reconsider, neighbors appealed.  AT&T filed a brief as
amicus curiae in support of Rinkers.[2]
¶ 7.            
Neighbors argue on appeal that the Environmental Court erred in granting
the permit because it failed to adequately consider Rinkers' ability to
mitigate the aesthetic impact of the tower by shortening its height.  They
further challenge the court's finding that the project did not violate a clear
written community standard.  We find no error in the Environmental Court's
conclusions or findings, and thus we affirm.
¶ 8.            
Our review of Environmental Court decisions is generally
deferential.  See In re Eastview at Middlebury, Inc., 2009 VT 98, ¶
10, 187 Vt. 208, 992 A.2d 1014.  Because the Environmental Court
determines the credibility of witnesses and weighs the persuasive effect of
evidence, "we will not overturn its factual findings unless, taking them in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party, they are clearly
erroneous."  Id. (quotations omitted).  We will overturn
factual findings only "where the party contesting them demonstrates that there
is no credible evidence to support them," and not "merely because they are
contradicted by substantial evidence."  Id. (quotations
omitted).  We likewise uphold the court's legal conclusions with respect
to compliance with Act 250 criteria when they are reasonably supported by the
findings.  Id.
¶ 9.            
Criterion 8 of Act 250 requires that proposed projects "[w]ill not have
an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area,
aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas."  10
V.S.A. § 6086(a)(8).  Of these elements, the only one at issue
below and on appeal is whether the proposed tower will have an undue adverse
effect on aesthetics.  In analyzing whether a project will have such an
effect, the Environmental Court properly applied the two-part Quechee
test, first determining "if the proposed project will have an adverse aesthetic
impact," and, because it did, second considering "whether the adverse impact
would be undue."  Eastview at Middlebury, 2009 VT 98, ¶ 20
(quotations omitted).  The second prong of this test requires evaluating
three factors to determine whether the adverse impact is undueit is this
weighing that neighbors challenge on appeal.  In performing this
evaluation, the court must examine if the project: 
(1)
violates a clear, written community standard intended to preserve the
aesthetics or scenic, natural beauty of the area, (2) offends the sensibilities
of the average person, or (3) the applicant has failed to take generally
available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to improve the
harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings.
Id.  Neighbors challenge only the
first and third elements of this second prong, and we address these claims in
turn.
¶ 10.        
In determining whether the project would violate a clear, written
community standard, the Environmental Court looked to the Hardwick Town
Plan.  In the "Land Use" section of the Plan in effect at the time of the
application, the stated "Goal" was to "[m]aintain Hardwick's present patterns
of land use: dense residential and commercial uses . . . and sparsely
developed agricultural and forest land outside the[] village centers, with a
rural and natural skyline."  Hardwick Town Plan at 12.  Neighbors
argue that the final phrase of the goal section presented the court with a
clear community standard to protect "a rural and natural skyline."  Even
assuming that this phrase was sufficiently "clear" for consideration under the Quechee
test, neighbors' reading of the standard is too broad and is contradicted by
the Plan as a whole.  If considered a clear community standard,
"[m]aintaining . . . a rural and natural skyline" would effectively
preclude the construction of any nonrural structure that disrupted the skyline,
including any telecommunications antennae or towers.  As the Environmental
Court recognized, "the Town Plan states a policy balancing the Town's need for
modern telecommunications facilities and the inherent intrusiveness of towers
in the landscape by promoting co-location and allowing taller tower structures
to achieve co-location."  Adopting neighbors' reading of the Plan to
create an absolute prohibition on disruptions to the rural skyline would
contradict the Plan's clearly stated policy favoring some
telecommunications towers which must necessarily reach above the tree- and
ridge-lines.  The court properly concluded the project would not violate a
clear standard.  Thus, we find no error, and neighbors' reliance on
previous Environmental Court cases does nothing to sway our opinion.  
¶ 11.        
The remainder of neighbors' appeal focuses on Rinkers' failure to "take
generally available mitigating steps that a reasonable person would take to
improve the harmony of the proposed project with its surroundings," Eastview
at Middlebury¸ 2009 VT 98, ¶ 20, specifically the fact that Rinkers failed
to reduce the height of the tower.  They claim: (1) the evidence
demonstrated that the height of the tower could be reasonably reduced while
still providing sufficient coverage and sufficient opportunity for co-location;
(2) the Environmental Court erroneously relied on the Town Plan's preference
for co-location rather than proliferation of towers as support for the tower's
height; and (3) the evidence does not support the court finding that the trees
surrounding the project site will reach one-hundred feet tall at maturity.
¶ 12.        
When a project is found to have an adverse impact on aesthetics, the
applicant must "take generally available mitigating steps to reduce the
negative aesthetic impact of a particular project," otherwise, "[f]ailure to
take advantage of available alternatives may render an aesthetic impact unduly
adverse."  In re Stokes Commc'ns Corp., 164 Vt. 30, 39, 664 A.2d 712, 717-18 (1995).  Ordinarily "a generally available mitigating step is
one that is reasonably feasible and does not frustrate [either] the project's
purpose or Act 250's goals."  Id. at 39, 664 A.2d  at 718.  In
assessing the impact of the proposed tower's height, the Environmental Court
recognized that Rinkers had not taken mitigating steps to reduce the height of
the tower from the maximum height permitted by Hardwick's regulations. 
That said, the court held that Rinkers demonstrated that "reducing the height
of the tower would frustrate both the project's purpose of providing coverage
in all directions and the Town Plan's preference for co-location of such
services rather than the proliferation of towers."  
¶ 13.        
The heart of neighbors' argument is a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence and the findings of the court.  They claim that while they,
as opponents to the project, had the burden of proving that the adverse effect
of the tower would be undue, 10 V.S.A. § 6088(b), Rinkers failed to
prove the tower needed to reach 180 feet in height.  This contention is
contradicted by the record before the Environmental Court, and we will not
disturb that court's findings on this record.  See Shaw, 2008 VT
29, ¶ 10 ("The fact that neighborsor even this Courtmight have weighed the
evidence differently is not grounds for reversal.").  The court had before
it testimony regarding Rinkers' need for adequate spacing between its two pager
antennae, its need to have both the sending and receiving antennae above the
surrounding trees, and its need to maximize the tower's height to increase
signal coverage.  Neighbors never challenged this testimony or presented
any countervailing testimony.  See id. ¶ 7 ("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."
(quotation omitted)).  Their citation to potentially contradictory
evidence in the record is unpersuasive, even if we considered it
substantial.  See Eastview at Middlebury, 2009 VT 98, ¶ 10 ("[F]actual
findings will not be disturbed merely because they are contradicted by
substantial evidence." (quotation omitted)).  Their argument on appeal is
that a shorter tower would still provide "sufficient" or "adequate" coverage
but they did not show that such coverage would satisfy the project's purpose of
expanding coverage to areas of the village and surrounding roadways that
currently lack reliable service for pagers, cellular phones, or
emergency-response communication.  Regardless, the Environmental Court
concluded that a shorter tower would not adequately meet these needs, and this
conclusion was not clearly erroneous.  
¶ 14.        
 Neighbors next claim the court lacked sufficient evidence
to find that reducing the tower's height would frustrate the Town Plan's
preference for co-location.  Assuming that the Environmental Court relied
on this rationale as heavily as it did the fact that a lower height would
frustrate the project's purpose, we address this claim.  Neighbors
essentially argue that Rinkers has shown that only two cellular companies are
interested in locating on the tower and because each would require ten feet of
vertical space, the tower could be significantly shorter.  They also
suggest that the Environmental Court erred in considering VELCO and Hardwick emergency
services as users of this additional vertical space.  Again, this is an
unsupported challenge to the court's findings.  The court never found that
VELCO's or Hardwick emergency services's use of the tower necessitated a
greater height.  In fact, the court was explicit that the 180-foot height
would permit up to six other users to co-locate.  The fact that
only two such users had come forward at the time of the permit application does
not render this reasoning faulty.  Additional space on the tower for future,
albeit unknown users is precisely what the Town Plan envisions in aiming to
limit the total number of towers built around the town.
¶ 15.        
Finally, neighbors attack the Environmental Court's finding that the
trees in the vicinity of the project will reach one-hundred feet in
height.  The court did not clearly rely on this finding to support its
conclusion that the tower's height could not reasonably be reduced.  It
does not appear in the conclusions of law regarding height.  Regardless,
neighbors themselves point to the fact that there was
testimonyunchallenged belowregarding the potential mature-height of the
neighboring trees; they simply malign its credibility.  As stated above,
we will not second-guess the Environmental Court's assessment of truthfulness
in this tribunal.
           
Affirmed.
 
 
BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Reiber, Chief
  Justice
 
 
  
 
 
John A. Dooley, Associate
  Justice
  
 
 
 
 
Denise R. Johnson, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Marilyn S. Skoglund,
  Associate Justice
 
 
 
 
 
Brian L. Burgess, Associate
  Justice
 
 
 

[1]  The owners of the proposed site did
not enter an appearance in the Environmental Court and are not appellees before
this Court.
 
[2]  In their reply brief, neighbors
complain that AT&T failed to file a motion to appear as an amicus. 
See V.R.A.P. 29.  AT&T was granted amicus status below; in any event,
we do not rely on the amicus brief in our decision.