Title: In re Audet

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Audet (2003-060); 176 Vt. 617; 850 A.2d 1000

2004 VT 30

[Filed 01-Apr-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 30

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-060

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2003

  In re Real Audet d/b/a/ Joe Audet    }	APPEALED FROM:
  Auto and Truck Sales, Inc. and       }
  Joe Audet Auto and Truck Sales, Inc. }	Environmental Board
                                       }	
                                       }	DOCKET NO. #409

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

       ¶  1.  Appellants John and Dorothy Mitchell appeal a declaratory
  ruling by the environmental board that appellee Real Audet does not need to
  obtain an Act 250 permit for his vehicle salvage business in the Town of
  Worcester because of his temporary but now abandoned use of a separate
  parcel of land outside of town.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Audet repairs and sells cars and trucks.  His business is
  located on two contiguous tracts of land near the town center.  In January
  2001, Audet purchased a third tract on Hersey Road, about three-tenths of a
  mile away from his main business.  The Mitchells also live on Hersey road,
  and their property surrounds Audet's property on three sides.  Audet's
  Hersey Road tract, named "Parcel 3" in the litigation before the
  environmental board, has a dilapidated house which was condemned in 1989
  after raw sewage was discovered flowing into nearby surface waters. Audet
  initially proposed to build a new house for his daughter on Parcel 3 using
  the old sewage system.  The Mitchells opposed the plan in hearings before
  the Worcester Selectboard, and in later litigation. In that case, the
  selectboard ruled that the property did not have a grandfathered septic
  system and, therefore, prohibited development until Audet constructed a
  compliant sewage disposal system.

       ¶  3.  Shortly thereafter, Audet cleared brush from Parcel 3 and
  began using the cleared area and other parts of Parcel 3 to store junked
  cars, a large pile of used tires, automotive debris, a company truck and a
  flatbed trailer.  Some of the vehicles were owned by the business or
  business clients, and some by family and friends.  In the process of moving
  the vehicles, Audet caused his company pickup trucks and tow-trucks to
  drive to the circle turn at the terminus of Hersey Road directly in front
  of the Mitchells' house, where they would sometimes intentionally spin
  their wheels in the gravel.  In August, Audet told the Mitchells he was
  going to build a garage on Parcel 3 in two weeks, that he was going to
  continue to be a "bad neighbor," and that there was going to be a lot more
  traffic on Hersey Road.  After receiving a permit from the Worcester
  Selectboard in September, Audet graded, filled and graveled portions of
  Parcel 3.
   
       ¶  4.  In response to the impending construction, the Mitchells
  requested a jurisdictional opinion from the District 5 Environmental
  Commission as to whether Audet needed an Act 250 permit to use Parcel 3 for
  his business.  The environmental commission staff determined, on February
  5, 2002, that Act 250 jurisdiction was triggered under 10 V.S.A. §
  6001(3)(A)(ii) because (1) the combined size of all three parcels owned or
  rented by Audet for his business exceeded one acre, (2) all three parcels
  were within five miles of each other, and (3) Audet had improved Parcel 3
  to facilitate his business uses, and had in fact used the improved areas on
  Parcel 3 to store vehicles associated with his business.  

       ¶  5.  Shortly thereafter, Audet ceased using Parcel 3 in any way
  connected with his business.  Then Audet petitioned the environmental board
  for a declaratory ruling that Parcel 3 was not part of his business and,
  therefore, Act 250 jurisdiction did not apply to either Parcel 3 or his
  main business enterprise in the village center.  Following a site visit, a
  three-member panel of the environmental board issued a proposed 2-1
  decision concluding that Audet had used Parcel 3 to store vehicles, which
  was a commercial purpose, and therefore needed to obtain an Act 250 permit
  for his combined business operations.  Audet appealed the proposed decision
  to the full board.  After a de novo hearing, the board reversed the panel
  decision and, in a 5-2 ruling, determined that no Act 250 permit was
  required.  This appeal followed.  

       ¶  6.  Act 250 requires a state land use permit prior to the
  commencement of development.  10 V.S.A. § 6081(a).  In a municipality that
  has not adopted permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, such as the Town
  of Worcester, development is defined as "the construction of improvements
  for commercial or industrial purposes on more than one acre of land."  10
  V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(ii).  Under environmental board rules, "the entire
  tract or tracts of involved land owned or controlled by a person" must be
  used in determining the acreage of a project.  Environmental Board Rules
  (hereinafter EBR) § 2(A)(1)(b), 6 Code of Vermont Rules 12 003 001-5-6
  (2003) (emphasis added). The rules provide four methods for counting
  involved land, three of which are relevant here.  See EBR § 2(F)(1), 6 Code
  of Vermont Rules 12 003 001-11.  First, rule 2(F)(1) counts the "entire
  tract or tracts of land, within a radius of five miles, upon which the
  construction of improvements for commercial or business purposes will
  occur."  Id.  Second, the rule adds to that figure,  "any other tract,
  within a radius of five miles, to be used as part of the project," or,
  third, any other tract "where there is a relationship to the tract or
  tracts upon which the construction of improvements will occur such that
  there is a demonstrable likelihood that the impact on the values sought to
  be protected by Act 250 will be substantially affected by reason of that
  relationship." (FN1)  Id.

       ¶  7.  It is undisputed that Audet recently constructed improvements
  for commercial purposes at his main business location in the village
  center.  That enterprise, however, covers only eight-tenths of an acre. 
  Thus, Act 250 would not apply to his business unless Parcel 3, which is a
  quarter of an acre, qualifies as involved land under one of the three
  counting methods prescribed by Rule 2(F)(1).  The environmental board's
  final decision held, under all three methods, that Parcel 3 was not
  involved with Audet's main business.  The Mitchells appeal the board's
  findings of fact and conclusions of law only regarding its determination
  under the second method that Parcel 3 was not "used as part of the
  project." 
   
       ¶  8.  On this point, the board specifically found that "Audet has
  stored motor vehicles, incidental to his business, on a temporary basis, on
  Parcel 3."  Nonetheless, it concluded as a matter of law that such use was
  insufficient to make Parcel 3 part of the project: "while there may have
  been some vehicle storage on Parcel 3 . . . it was at most only temporary,
  intermittent, incidental and peripheral to Audet's Worcester village
  business enterprise . . . and thus did not rise to the level that caused
  the Board to find that jurisdiction has attached."  The Mitchells argue
  that the board erred because: (1) the conclusion that Audet's use was
  "temporary, intermittent, incidental and peripheral" is not supported by
  the board's findings or the record evidence, and (2) the board's ad hoc
  creation of a "de minimis" exception to rule 2(F)(1) violates the Vermont
  Administrative Procedures Act and the Mitchells' due process rights.   

       ¶  9.  "We give deference to the Environmental Board's
  interpretations of Act 250 and its own rules, and to the Board's
  specialized knowledge in the environmental field.  Absent compelling
  indications of error we will sustain its interpretations on appeal."   In
  re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc., 167 Vt.  75, 79,