Title: In re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc. (2002-272); 175 Vt. 613; 833 A.2d 829

2003 VT 59

[Filed 30-Jun-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 59

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-272

                              APRIL TERM, 2003

  In re MacIntyre Fuels, Inc.	       }	APPEALED FROM:
  Vermont Agency of Transportation     }
                                       }
       	                               }	Environmental Board
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. D.R. Request #402

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

       ¶  1.  MacIntyre Fuels, Inc., a Vermont corporation engaged in the
  business of transporting and selling petroleum products, appeals from the
  Environmental Board's assumption of Act 250 jurisdiction over the company's
  proposed project to construct an intermodal fuel transfer facility on a
  spur line adjacent to the main railway line in Montpelier.  We conclude
  that the Board erred in determining that the project is subject to Act 250
  jurisdiction under the 1994 rail siding amendment to 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3). 
  We concur, however, with the Board's determination that MacIntyre's project
  requires an amendment to an existing permit for part of the land upon which
  the project is located.  Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further
  consideration consistent with this opinion.

       ¶  2.  In October 2001, MacIntyre obtained site plan approval from
  the City of Montpelier to construct a facility that would allow the
  transfer of petroleum products from railroad cars to trucks for local
  delivery.  At the time, MacIntyre operated a network of similar facilities
  in Vermont and New Hampshire.  The proposed project required the relocation
  of existing track, the laying of a spur line adjacent to the main track,
  and the installation of a system of fuel tanks, pipes, and pumping
  equipment.  The project also called for the construction of a 30' x 36'
  canopy and the upgrading of an existing gravel driveway leading into the
  railroad yard.  MacIntyre was to construct the project on land that it
  leased from the railroad.  Most of that property, in turn, had been leased
  by the railroad from the State of Vermont.  A small strip of land (40' x
  100') on which the project was to be located, however, had been leased by
  the railroad from a neighboring property owner, Patrick Malone, under a
  reciprocal lease agreement.  Apparently, that strip of land was needed to
  accommodate the canopy and a turnaround area.  In its entirety, the project
  would physically alter approximately 58,000 square feet, or less than two
  acres of land.
   
       ¶  3.  In the fall of 2001, MacIntyre sought a declaratory ruling
  from the district 5 environmental coordinator that an Act 250 land-use
  permit was not needed for the project.  State officials with the Agency of
  Transportation supported MacIntyre's position that the project was outside
  of Act 250 jurisdiction.  That position was based on a 1994 amendment to 10
  V.S.A. § 6001(3) that resulted from an earlier decision by another district
  coordinator requiring an Act 250 permit for a similar railroad project. 
  The district coordinator in the earlier case determined that an Act 250
  permit was needed because, although the project itself would physically
  alter only a few acres, the railroad line serving the proposed facility
  comprised more than ten acres.  The ruling was based on § 6001(3), which
  defines "Development," in relevant part, as the "construction of
  improvements on a tract or tracts of land, owned or controlled by a person,
  involving more than 10 acres of land within a radius of five miles of any
  point on any involved land, for commercial or industrial purposes."  In
  response to this ruling, the Railroad Association of Vermont took its case
  to the Legislature, which then amended § 6001(3) by adding the following
  sentences:

    In the case of a project undertaken by a railroad, no portion of a
    railroad line or railroad right-of-way that will not be physically
    altered as part of the project shall be included in computing the
    amount of land involved.  In the case of a project undertaken by a
    person to construct a rail line or rail siding to connect to a
    railroad's line or right-of-way, only the land used for the rail
    line or rail siding that will be physically altered as part of the
    project shall be included in computing the amount of the land
    involved.

  1993, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 1 (currently codified at 10 V.S.A. §
  6001(3)(c)(iv)).

       ¶  4.  Notwithstanding this amendment and the Agency of
  Transportation's support for MacIntyre's position, the district coordinator
  in the present case concluded in her November 9, 2001 jurisdictional
  opinion that MacIntyre was required to obtain an Act 250 permit.  She found
  Act 250 jurisdiction by including as involved land the entire
  fourteen-mile-long railroad right of way running from Montpelier to
  Graniteville.  In her view, the 1994 amendment did not apply because the
  project entailed more than just constructing a spur track.  She further
  concluded that, even if the railroad right of way was not considered as one
  contiguous property for jurisdictional purposes, the entire Malone
  property, approximately 100 acres, would have to be considered as involved
  land because a small part of the project was located on that property.
   
       ¶  5.  MacIntyre appealed the district coordinator's decision to the
  Environmental Board and submitted a statement of stipulated facts, which
  was joined by the Agencies of Transportation and Natural Resources.  The
  Board held a hearing on April 17, 2002, but no oral argument took place
  because MacIntyre's position was unopposed.  Instead, Board members
  directed questions to MacIntyre's attorney.  On May 21, 2002, the Board
  issued its decision upholding the district coordinator's ruling that the
  proposed project required an Act 250 permit.  The Board concluded that
  because MacIntyre was not a railroad, and because components of the
  proposed project were neither rail lines nor rail sidings, the land to be
  considered in determining Act 250 jurisdiction was all contiguous parcels -
  including the fourteen-mile railroad right of way and the entire Malone
  parcel - and not merely the two acres or so that was to be physically
  altered.  On appeal to this Court, MacIntyre argues that (1) certain Board
  findings are clearly erroneous; (2) the Board erred in concluding that the
  1994 amendment to § 6001(3) exempted only that portion of the proposed
  project involving the laying of track; and (3) with respect to both the
  railroad right of way and the Malone property, the Board should have
  considered only the land that was to be physically altered in determining
  whether an Act 250 permit was required.

       ¶  6.  Because we need not address MacIntyre's challenge to certain
  Board findings to resolve this appeal, we move directly to the central
  question in this case: Did the Board err in concluding that the 1994
  amendment to § 6001(3) exempts from Act 250 review only the component of a
  proposed project involving the laying of track - and not the construction
  of attendant facilities - when the project is undertaken by someone other
  than a railroad?  MacIntyre argues that the phrase "project undertaken by a
  person to construct a rail line or rail siding to connect to a railroad's
  line or right-of-way" should not and cannot be construed as exempting only
  the track component of proposed rail siding projects.  To do so, it argues,
  would effectively negate the amendment because tracks are never built
  without attendant facilities, and would undermine the purpose of the
  legislation to put shippers transporting goods by rail on equal footing
  with shippers transporting goods by highway.  In response, the State argues
  that the term "rail siding" has a narrow, technical meaning that refers
  only to the track itself and cannot be expanded to cover attendant
  facilities.

       ¶  7.  Although we generally defer to the Board's interpretation of
  Act 250 and its "special expertise in determining whether it has
  jurisdiction over a particular development," In re Stokes Communications
  Corp., 164 Vt. 30, 35,