Title: In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc., & Village Car Wash, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc.,
and Village Car Wash, Inc. (2014-140)
 
2015 VT 65
 
[Filed 17-Apr-2015]
 
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 by email at: JUD.Reporter@state.vt.us or by mail at: 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.
 
 
2015 VT 65
 
No. 2014-140
 
In re Appeal of MDY Taxes, Inc.
  and 
Village Car Wash, Inc.
Supreme Court
 
On Appeal from
 
Superior Court,  
 
Environmental Division
 
 
 
November Term, 2014
 
 
 
 
Thomas
  G. Walsh, J.
 
Karl C. Anderson of Anderson & Eaton, P.C., Rutland, for
Appellants.
 
R. Jeffrey Behm and Diane M. McCarthy of Sheehey Furlong
& Behm P.C., Burlington, for
  Appellee Jolley Associates, LLC.
 
Benjamin W. Putnam of Neuse, Duprey & Putnam, P.C.,
Middlebury, for Appellee 
  Town of Middlebury.
 
 
PRESENT:    Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund, Robinson and
Eaton, JJ.
 
 
¶ 1.            
EATON, J.   This appeal stems from a decision by the Town of
Middlebury Development Review Board (DRB) approving appellee Jolley Associates,
LLC's (Jolley) application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a car
wash to an existing gas station and convenience store within the Town of
Middlebury.  Appellant MDY Taxes, Inc. (MDY) operates an H&R Block tax
franchise in property rented in a shopping center adjacent to the Jolley lot.  Appellant
Village Car Wash, Inc. (Village) operates a car wash located approximately one-quarter
of a mile from the Jolley lot.[1] 
Appellants did not participate in the DRB proceeding, but sought to challenge
the approval of the PUD through an appeal to the Environmental Division of the Superior
Court.  The environmental court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
The court concluded that appellants did not have party status, i.e., standing, to
appeal the DRB decision because they had not participated in the proceedings
before the DRB as required by 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1) and because they
did not meet any of the exceptions to that requirement under § 8504(b)(2). 
On appeal, appellants contend, as they did below, that a procedural defect
prevented them from appearing before the DRB and further that it would be
manifestly unjust if they are not afforded party status to appeal.  We affirm.
¶ 2.            
The basic facts are as follows.  Jolley owns and operates a convenience
store with fuel pumps located within the Town of Middlebury Village Residential
Commercial (VRC) District.  Jolley currently operates a diesel refueling
station for tractor trailers underneath a canopy behind the store.  In September
2013, Jolley filed a zoning permit application with the Town of Middlebury to
remove the diesel refueling station and its canopy and instead erect a two-bay
drive-through car wash.  On September 26, 2014, the DRB published a notice of
public-hearing in the Addison Independent newspaper as follows:
TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
  The Middlebury Development Review Board
will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 14, 2013 beginning at 7:00 p.m.
in the Town Offices Main Conference Room to consider:
  . . . .
  2. The application by Jolley
Associates, Inc. to construct a car wash at 220 Court Street.
  Plans and additional information
regarding these applications may be viewed at the Planning and Zoning Office in
the Town Offices or by [phone].  Participation in this public hearing is a
prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal.
The DRB also
posted a notice of the hearing on a stake on Jolley's property within view of
Court Street; mailed written notification of the hearing to Jolley and all adjoining
property owners; and posted copies of the notice on a bulletin board in the
Middlebury Town Offices and on the Middlebury Town website.
¶ 3.            
On October 14, 2013, the DRB held a public hearing during which it heard
Jolley's application.  The minutes from that meeting reflect that Jolley
provided an overview of the proposed project, explaining that the diesel pumps
and canopy at the back of the store would be removed to make way for the car
wash; diesel fuel would still be available at other pump sites for vehicles
other than tractor trailers; no parking spaces would be eliminated; garbage and
storage facilities would be relocated within the property; and the car wash
would operate the same hours as the convenience store.  Thereafter, the zoning
administrative officer for the Town of Middlebury explained that, although car
washes are not allowable uses in the VRC district, a PUD may be allowable in
the VRC district under Middlebury Zoning and Subdivision Regulation § 550[2]
if certain criteria are met.  The DRB voted unanimously to proceed with the
Jolley zoning permit application as a PUD application and, upon reviewing the requisite
criteria, unanimously approved the PUD application to remove the canopy and
diesel pumps and construct a car wash.  Neither MDY nor Village attended the
hearing; only Jolley and the zoning administrative officer addressed the DRB
regarding Jolley's application.  The DRB issued its formal written decision
approving Jolley's car wash application on November 25, 2013.
¶ 4.            
Following the October 14 hearing, but prior to the issuance of the November
25 written decision, counsel for Village wrote to the zoning administrative
officer and set forth Village's opposition to treating Jolley's zoning permit application
as a PUD application.  The zoning administrative officer responded, explaining
that the DRB had held a public hearing to consider Jolley's application on
October 14 and had unanimously approved it, closing the review process and
triggering the forty-five day time period in which to issue a final written
decision.  The zoning administrative officer also pointed out that only Jolley
and the Town of Middlebury had appeared before the DRB on the application.
¶ 5.            
On December 26, 2013, appellants filed a notice of appeal to the
environmental court and subsequently moved for party status, notwithstanding
their failure to appear before the DRB, pursuant to Vermont Rule for
Environmental Court Proceedings 5(d)(2) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A)
and (C).  Under § 8504(b)(2), an "interested person" who did not
participate at the municipal regulatory proceeding may be allowed to appeal a
decision of a municipal panel if the environmental court determines that either
a procedural defect prevented that person from participating, § 8504(b)(2)(A),
or if the court concludes that some other condition exists that would result in
manifest injustice if the person's right to appeal was disallowed,
§ 8504(b)(2)(C).  Both Jolley and the Town of Middlebury opposed
appellants' motion and moved to dismiss the appeal.  The environmental court denied
appellants' motion for party status, concluding that there had been no
procedural defect so as to prevent appellants from participating in the October
14, 2013 public hearing and that appellants had failed to demonstrate that it
would be manifestly unjust to prevent them from proceeding with their appeal.  Because
the court concluded that neither appellant had standing, the court concluded it
was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed the case.[3] 
This appeal followed.
¶ 6.            
The crux of this appeal is whether the environmental division correctly
concluded that appellants should not be afforded party status under
10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A) and (C).  Put another way, this case is
about whether MDY or Village have standing to appeal the decision of the DRB approving
Jolley's car wash application as a PUD, notwithstanding their failure to participate
in the underlying DRB proceeding.  Appellants claim that (1) a procedural
defect in the DRB's public hearing notice prevented them from participating in
the proceeding before the DRB and (2) manifest injustice would occur if their
appeal was disallowed.
¶ 7.            
Under Vermont law, an "interested person . . . who
has participated . . . in the municipal regulatory
proceeding . . . may appeal to the Environmental Division
an act or decision made . . . by a development review board." 
10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(1).  Thus, participation in the municipal
regulatory proceeding below is ordinarily required in order to have standing to
appeal.  As set forth above, notwithstanding the participation requirement, an
interested person who did not participate in the municipal regulatory
proceeding may nevertheless appeal a decision from a municipal regulatory
proceeding "if the environmental judge determines that: (A) there was a
procedural defect which prevented the person from . . . participating
in the proceeding; . . . or (C) some other condition exists
which would result in manifest injustice if the person's right to appeal was
disallowed."  Id. § 8504(b)(2); see also In re Verizon Wireless
Barton Permit, 2010 VT 62, ¶ 16, 188 Vt. 262, 6 A.3d 713.  "[D]etermination of party status under [10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)]
is discretionary, not automatic, and this discretion is vested in the trial
court."  Id. ¶ 19.  The burden of establishing party status is on
the appellant.  Id. (citing Reporter's Notes, V.R.E.C.P. 5).  Accordingly,
the question on appeal here is whether the environmental court abused its
discretion in concluding that appellants did not meet their burden.  Id.;
see also State v. Savo, 141 Vt. 203, 208, 446 A.2d 786,
789 (1982) (explaining that discretionary rulings will be upheld "if there is a
reasonable basis for the court's action" and that error will be found only where
the court either failed to exercise its discretion or "exercised it for reasons
clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable" (quotation omitted)).
¶ 8.            
We first address appellants' argument that there were procedural defects
with the notice of hearing such that it prevented them from participating at
the DRB hearing on October 14, 2013.  Appellants argue that Jolley's
application and the DRB's notice of hearing "failed to provide any notice to
appellants or any other prospective parties that Jolley would be able to avoid
the prohibition against car washes in this zoning district by characterizing
the project as a planned unit development' and to proceed as such without any
further hearing or evidence."  Appellants concede that the DRB complied with
the statutory requirements for providing notice and also that they did not see
the notice prior to the hearing.  Nevertheless, appellants assert that even if
they had seen the notice, "they would have been well within their rights to
believe that an application for a zoning permit for a non-permitted use,
without more, would be futile and that no appearance by them would be necessary
to defeat an application which was void ab initio."  We disagree.
¶ 9.            
Pursuant to statute, "[a]ll development review applications before an
appropriate municipal panel . . . shall require notice." 
24 V.S.A. § 4464(a).  Under Middlebury Zoning and Subdivision
Regulation § 1090, all DRB hearing notices shall be given as provided in 24 V.S.A.
§ 4464(a)(1).  Section 4464(a)(1) requires that all public notices be
given not less than fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing, and include
the following information:
(A)       
Publication of the date, place, and purpose of the hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality affected.
(B)       
Posting of the same information in three or more public places within
the municipality . . . , including posting within view from
the public right-of-way most nearly adjacent to the property for which an
application is made.
(C)       
Written notification to the applicant and to owners of all properties
adjoining the property subject to development, including the owners of
properties which would be contiguous to the property subject to development but
for the interposition of a highway or other public right-of-way . . . .
 The notification shall include a description of the proposed project and shall
be accompanied by information that clearly informs the recipient where
additional information may be obtained, and that participation in the local
proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal.
¶ 10.        
The environmental court found that all the notice requirements of Middlebury
Zoning and Subdivision Regulation § 1090 and 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)
were met regarding Jolley's application.  Specifically, the court found that the
DRB, on or before September 29, 2013, published a notice in the Addison
Independent newspaper on September 26, 2013; posted a notice on Jolley's
property within view of Court Street; mailed written notifications to Jolley
and all adjoining property owners; and posted notice at the town offices and on
the town website.  Accordingly, the court concluded that the DRB had "complied
with the most stringent content requirements provided by statute" and thus
appellants "had statutory notice and an obligation to participate in order to
take any appeal, regardless of what they considered to be the potential merit
of Jolley's application."  The court further reasoned that the way the DRB had
elected to proceed with Jolley's application at the hearing did not constitute
a procedural defect with the notice such that appellants were prevented from
participating, explaining that "[t]o hold otherwise would result in the waiving
of the participation requirement for those who choose not to participate but
later disagree with the DRB's hearing process, findings, or conclusions."
¶
11.        
As the environmental court found, and appellants concede, the DRB
complied with the regulatory and statutory framework for providing both constructive
and actual notice for the October 14, 2013 hearing as required by
24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1).  See In re Great Waters of Am., Inc.,
140 Vt. 105, 107, 435 A.2d 956, 958 (1981) (distinguishing actual
versus constructive notice).  Appellants do not contest the validity of these
facts.  Thus, regardless of whether appellants had received actual notice, appellants
were on constructive notice of the October 14, 2013 hearing.  There is no
requirement that all interested persons receive actual notice of a hearing. 
See 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C) (requiring that written notification,
i.e., actual notice, of hearing be provided only "to the applicant and to
owners of all properties adjoining the property subject to development").  The
purpose of constructive notice is "to notify
all interested persons of what action is proposed and to afford them reasonable
opportunity to present
facts and arguments, either in support or protest of the action proposed."  See
Town of Mendon v. Ezzo, 129 Vt. 351, 357-58,
278 A.2d 726, 730 (1971).
¶ 12.        
Further, there is no merit to appellants' argument that, assuming they
had seen the notice, the notice failed to apprise them or others of the
potential success of the application.  As a practical matter, the statutory
framework does not mandate a weather report on the likelihood of success on the
merits of any given application.  Simply put, relying on one's subjective view regarding
the likelihood of success of any given application is not a justification for
failing to attend the municipal regulatory proceeding in situations where proper
statutory notice has been provided.  To this end, we agree with the
environmental court that to excuse the participation requirement where an
interested person felt the application had little to no chance of success would
effectively eviscerate the participation requirement and impermissibly expand
the class of persons entitled to seek review of municipal proceedings in the
environmental court.  See In re Verizon, 2010 VT 62, ¶ 7
(explaining that the Legislature has chosen to regulate by statute those who
may seek review of municipal proceedings and that this Court "may not
judicially expand the class of persons entitled to such review" (quotation
omitted)).  The decision by the DRB to treat Jolley's application as a PUD and
approve it as such goes to the merits of the application and not to the
decision by appellants on whether to participate.  The court did not abuse its
discretion in denying appellants party status under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A).
¶ 13.        
Appellants also argue that to deny them the ability to appeal in this
case would be manifestly unjust.  Appellants contend that the DRB, by
converting Jolley's application at the October 14, 2013 hearing from one for a
zoning permit to one for a PUD, without notice that it would do so, "failed to
adequately apprise . . . appellants that a non-permitted
use had any possibility of being allowed."
¶ 14.        
The environmental court concluded that there would be no manifest
injustice for reasons similar to those addressed above.  Specifically, the DRB
provided the statutorily required forms of notice, which stated that
participation at the DRB proceeding was a prerequisite to any appeal to the
environmental court, and that, regardless of the format Jolley's application
ultimately took at the October 14 hearing, the notice stated that Jolley sought
to construct a car wash.  The court did not abuse its discretion.
¶ 15.        
As appellants note, this Court has not yet had the opportunity to
address what might constitute "manifest injustice" under 10 V.S.A.
§ 8504(b)(2)(C).  When we have addressed the "manifest injustice" standard
in other contexts we have recognized that it is an exacting and strict
standard.  See, e.g., State v. Dove, 163 Vt. 429, 431,
658 A.2d 936, 938 (1995) (explaining that motion to withdraw plea under Vermont
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d) made prior to sentencing is to be
liberally granted where the reason is "fair and just" but that where such a
motion is made after sentencing, it may only be set aside to correct manifest
injustice, "a much stricter standard" (quotations omitted)); see also N.
Sec. Ins. Co. v. Mitec Elecs., Ltd., 2008 VT 96, ¶¶ 40-46,
184 Vt. 303, 965 A.2d 447 (finding no manifest injustice under Vermont
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) sufficient to alter or amend final judgment
where party seeking relief could have but did not timely raise claim prior to
entry of judgment).  We need not provide a precise definition of manifest
injustice here, however, because it is sufficient for our purposes to recognize
that, whatever the bounds of "manifest injustice" may be, in this case MDY and
Village have failed to demonstrate that any injustice, let alone manifest
injustice, would result from denying them the right to appeal the decision of
the DRB to approve Jolley's application as a PUD.
¶ 16.        
As described above, the Legislature and the Town of Middlebury have
determined those who are entitled to actual notice in zoning matters and those
who are entitled only to constructive notice.  MDY is a tenant of an abutter;
Village is a business similar to the one proposed in Jolley's application and
located a significant distance from Jolley's property.  Neither is among those
entitled to receive actual notice.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a)(1)(C).  Constructive
notice is thus mandated to be provided to a broader class of persons, i.e.,
those who may be interested in applications but who may not be entitled to
receive actual notice.  See Town of
Mendon, 129 Vt. at 357-58, 278 A.2d  at 730; see also Great Waters,
140 Vt. at 107, 435 A.2d  at 958.  Both MDY and Village fall
within this latter categorythat is, they are persons entitled to receive constructive,
but not actual notice.  In such a situation, the obligation to read the notice
and the decision about participation rests solely with those intended to be
notified by the statutorily mandated notice.  See Great Waters, 140 Vt. at 110, 435 A.2d  at 959
(concluding that where proper constructive notice had been provided as required
by statute, there was no error in denying adjoining landowner party status
where landowner did not comply with procedural requirements for obtaining party
status in timely manner).  It is clear that the constructive notice provided
in this case adhered to the requirements of the law and that it expressly
stated that Jolley was seeking to construct a car wash on its property.
¶ 17.        
To the extent it is asserted that the notice did not "adequately
apprise" appellants that the DRB might convert Jolley's zoning permit
application to a PUD application, there is no error.  This situation precisely
illustrates why, regardless of one's view of the merits of any given zoning application,
participation at the municipal level is of the utmost importance, and further underscores
why the Legislature has mandated the extensive notice requirements contained in
24 V.S.A. § 4464.  Again, that neither appellant actually viewed or
scrutinized the notices provided pursuant to those statutory requirements does
not make it manifestly unjust to deny them the ability to appeal where the
notice was given as required by law and apprised them of the substance of
application.[4]
 No showing has been made of any reason why the appellants here are in a
dissimilar situation from any other citizen who either did not read the provided
notices or read them and elected not to attend.  Indeed, it is difficult to
perceive how additional disclosures in the notice could have made any
difference in this situation when appellants concede that they did not read the
notice that had been provided.  The environmental court did not abuse its
discretion in denying appellant's motion for party status under
§ 8504(b)(2)(C).
Affirmed.
 
 
FOR THE COURT:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Associate
  Justice
 

[1]
 We refer to appellants MDY and Village collectively as "appellants" except
where it is useful to differentiate between the two.
[2]
 Section 550(II) provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ny development involving
three or more acres, or any site located in the [Central Business District] or
VRC [district], may qualify for consideration as a Planned Unit Development."
[3]
 Because the environmental court concluded that appellants' lack of
participation in the DRB proceeding was not excused under either 10 V.S.A.
§ 8504(b)(2)(A) or (C), the court did not address whether appellants
qualified as "interested persons" as defined by 24 V.S.A. § 4465.
[4]
 Because we conclude that neither 10 V.S.A. § 8504(b)(2)(A) nor (C) applies
to appellants, we need not reach the issue of whether either appellant could be
considered an "interested person" as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4465.