Title: In re Beckstrom

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Beckstrom (H.A. Manosh) (2003-274); 176 Vt. 622; 852 A.2d 561

2004 VT 32

[Filed 08-Apr-2004]
                  

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 32

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-274

                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  In re Appeal of Beckstrom, et al.    }	APPEALED FROM:
  (H.A. Manosh, Appellant)	       }
                                       }
                               	       }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
   	                               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 212-11-98 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

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

       ¶  1.  H.A. Manosh Corp. appeals from a decision of the
  environmental court declaring that a permit to erect a radio tower and
  support building was rendered null and void by its failure to commence
  construction within one year. Plaintiffs, comprised of persons who live in
  the neighborhood of the proposed tower, have cross-appealed from the
  court's determination that the permit was not also rendered void by
  Manosh's alleged misrepresentations in the permit application.  We affirm
  the court's ruling on the misrepresentation claim, but reverse its decision
  that the permit was void for failure to commence construction within one
  year.  

       ¶  2.  This case has a complex procedural history.  Manosh owns a
  radio tower located on what the parties refer to as the Jones property in
  the Town of Hyde Park.  On April 18, 1997, Manosh applied for a zoning
  permit to erect a radio tower and support building on a separate
  twenty-nine-acre parcel that it owns in the Town.  The application
  described the tower as 100 feet high and the building as a "cement block
  structure."  Several witnesses at trial testified that Manosh informed the
  zoning administrator at the time of the application that the company's
  intent was to relocate the Jones tower to the twenty-nine-acre parcel site,
  but that intention was not stated in the permit application, and it was
  established at trial that the Jones tower is closer to seventy-five feet
  tall, measured to the base of the metal structure rather than the foot of
  its concrete base.  

       ¶  3.  The administrator approved the application as a permitted
  use.  In fact, however, the tower was not a permitted use in the zoning
  district where the site was located, but no party appealed the issuance of
  the permit and it became final.  The application form signed by Manosh
  stated that "[a]ny permit issued as a result of this application shall be
  null and void in the event of misrepresentation or failure to undertake
  construction within one year of approval of this Zoning Permit."  The
  permit was issued on April 23, 1997, and showed an expiration date of April
  23, 1998. 
   
       ¶  4.  Within several months after issuance of the permit, Manosh
  became interested in revising its plans in order to relocate a different
  150-foot tower (later determined to be closer to 160 feet), owned by the
  Lamoille County Sheriff's Department, from its existing location in the
  Village of Hyde Park to the new twenty-nine-acre site.  In July 1997, the
  zoning administrator granted Manosh's request to amend the permit to allow
  a 150-foot tower.  The amended permit was appealed shortly thereafter by an
  adjoining landowner, but no hearing before the zoning board of adjustment
  was convened.  In September, Manosh applied for an Act 250 permit to erect
  a 150-foot tower and support building at the new site by relocating the
  so-called Village tower and shifting the antennas from the Jones tower to
  the Village tower, and to upgrade a logging road for access to the site. 
  The permit was granted in November, but was later revoked in February 1999.  

       ¶  5.  In the meantime, in August 1998, plaintiffs appealed the
  original zoning permit to the ZBA, which ruled the appeal untimely. 
  Plaintiffs also appealed the administrator's decision not to institute
  enforcement proceedings based on plaintiffs' allegations that the permit
  was void for failure to undertake construction within one year. The ZBA
  ruled that the permit had not expired, citing Manosh's undertakings in
  laying underground electrical conduits and upgrading the access road.  The
  ZBA later ruled that the initial appeal of the amended permit in July had
  been timely, that the tower was not a permitted use, and that a conditional
  use permit would be required.  In March 1999, the ZBA granted Manosh's
  application to amend the April 1997 permit, and issued a conditional use
  permit and site plan approval authorizing Manosh to relocate the Village
  tower to the new site.  

       ¶  6.  All of the ZBA rulings were appealed to the environmental
  court.  In response to cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled
  that the original April 1997 permit was final, notwithstanding the fact
  that it authorized a non-permitted use in the district, but that material
  facts were in dispute as to whether it had expired for lack of construction
  or was void based on alleged misrepresentations in the application. The
  court further ruled that the July 1997 amendment authorizing a 150-foot
  tower required a conditional use application, but remanded to the Town's
  planning agency for further proceedings, including the filing of a more
  complete application and a determination whether the new permit complied
  with an interim bylaw, enacted by the Town in January 1999, imposing a
  moratorium on  the erection of communications towers (the April 1997 permit
  was exempt from the bylaw in question). 

       ¶  7.  An evidentiary hearing addressed solely to the issues
  concerning the April 1997 permit was then held over two separate days in
  May and November 2002.  In May 2003, the court issued a written decision,
  rejecting plaintiffs' claim that Manosh had made fraudulent
  misrepresentations in applying for the permit, but finding nevertheless
  that the permit had expired and was void because Manosh had failed to
  undertake construction within one year of its issuance.  Both parties have
  appealed from the court's decision.      

       ¶  8.  Manosh contends the court erred in concluding that the permit
  had expired due to the failure to  undertake construction within one year
  of its issuance.  The trial court found in this regard that from January
  1998 to the expiration date in late April, Manosh performed work on the
  road leading up to the site and installed underground electrical conduit
  along the roadway.  The court also found that additional work "may" have
  been done at the tower site itself, including clearing and "some subsurface
  concrete work."  The evidence underlying these findings shows that, during
  the four-month period in question, Manosh committed almost 400 work-hours
  to the tower project, incurring expenses in excess of $26,000. Time-sheets
  and testimony established without contradiction that Manosh installed
  utility lines, graded and graveled the road leading to the site, cleared
  the site, and poured concrete.  Although the evidence does not identify the
  purpose of the poured concrete, it is reasonable to infer that it was
  related to construction of the "cement-block" support building specified in
  the permit.  
        
       ¶  9.  Although we will not - absent clear error - disturb the trial
  court's factual findings, "[q]uestions of law are reviewed de novo,
  allowing us to proceed with a nondeferential, on-the-record review."   In
  re Gulli, 174 Vt. 580, 582,