Title: In re Stokes Communications Corp.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_STOKES_COMMUNICATIONS.94-208; 164 Vt 30; 664 A.2d 712

[Filed 21-Jul-1995]


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, 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. 


                                 No. 94-208


In re Stokes Communications                       Supreme Court
Corporation
                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Environmental Board

                                                  November Term, 1994


Arthur Gibb, Acting Chair

Stephen R. Crampton and Dennis R. Pearson of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for
appellant 

Gerald R. Tarrant of Tarrant & Marks, Montpelier, for appellees

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, John W. Kessler, Assistant Attorney
General, and Kevin Forjette, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for amicus
curiae State of Vermont 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Stokes Communications, Inc. appeals from an Environmental
Board decision, challenging the Board's jurisdiction over its 303-foot 
communications tower and the Board's authority to condition Stokes's Act 250
permit on the installation of light shields on the tower.  We affirm. Stokes
owns and operates a commercial radio station in Randolph, Vermont.  In 1982,

     Stokes leased one acre of a ninety-three-and-one-half acre parcel owned
by Idora Tucker.  The one-acre parcel was located on the crest of a small hill
near Randolph Center, Vermont.  With Tucker's consent, Stokes constructed a 
120-foot radio transmission tower to service its radio station on the parcel.
It did not obtain or apply for an Act 250 permit at that time. In 1992, Stokes
decided to increase the tower's broadcast power by extending its height and 
improving its transmission facilities. After plans for the 303-foot
replacement tower were approved by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), Stokes renegotiated its lease with

 

Tucker.  Stokes agreed to pay an amount equal to the annual real estate taxes
on Tucker's entire tract in exchange for a thirty-year lease, renewable for 
one five-year term.  At the same time, Stokes approached the district
coordinator for Environmental District 3 to discuss whether an Act 250 permit
would be required for the new tower.  The district coordinator suggested that
a permit would be necessary. 

     Stokes applied for a permit in July 1992.  Five adjoining landowners
intervened and were allowed to participate on criterion (1) (air pollution)
and criterion (8) (aesthetics, scenic and natural beauty).  See 10 V.S.A. 
6086(a) (identifying ten criteria for evaluating permit applications).  After
a hearing, the district commission concluded that the taller tower would not
result in undue air pollution, but the tower, equipped with four Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) required aircraft warning lamps, would pose an
adverse aesthetic impact.  The commission granted a permit for the
replacement tower, reasoning that there were "no generally available
mitigative steps that would improve the harmony of the proposed project." 
The adjoining landowners appealed, challenging the commission's decision on
criteria (1) and (8). 

     Stokes commenced construction in January 1993.  The adjoining landowners
moved to stay the construction, arguing irreparable harm. Later that same
month, Stokes moved to dismiss the appeal, challenging the Environmental
Board's jurisdiction.  It argued that because an Act 250 permit was required
only for developments involving more than ten acres of land, its one-acre
leased parcel did not trigger the Board's jurisdiction.  In March, the Board
denied the adjoining landowners' motion to stay, but warned Stokes that in
the event the Board "denies or modifies the permit, [Stokes] will have to
restore the site to its preconstruction condition." The Board also denied
Stokes's motion to dismiss, concluding that the amount of involved land
exceeded the jurisdictional minimum of ten acres. 

     During the pendency of appeal, Stokes negotiated with Contel
Communications to sublease space on the tower for Contel's cellular telephone
service.  As part of the contract, Contel agreed to finance and construct the
tower and antennas, but with extensive modifications. 

 

Stokes neither applied nor received approval for these changes.  The adjoining
landowners filed a motion to revoke Stokes's permit, claiming that the actual 
construction exceeded the scope authorized by the August 1992 permit.  The
Board consolidated the motion to revoke with the underlying appeal. 

     Following a de novo hearing, the Board found that construction deviated
from the permit. The tower was twice the authorized width and was equipped
with four additional "whip" antennas.  A forty-eight square-foot concrete
slab for a back-up generator was embedded near the tower and a
twelve-by-twenty-eight-foot equipment building was erected at its base.  In
addition, a new eight-foot-high, sixty-foot long ice bridge spanned between
the existing utility shed and the new equipment building.  All of the
structures were enclosed by a six-foot high chain-link fence.  After finding
that the district commission had not authorized these changes, the Board
concluded that there were grounds for revocation, but directed Stokes to
apply for and diligently pursue an amended permit. 

     With respect to criterion (1), the Board agreed with the commission that
the taller tower was more efficient and would cause no undue air pollution. 
Under criterion (8), the Board found that the 303-foot tower required four
aircraft warning lights and bright orange stripes to comply with the FAA
regulations for towers over 200 feet.  Because the tower's lights "increase
the visibility of the tower so that it dominates the landscape and unduly
diminishes the aesthetic quality of the nighttime sky," the Board concluded
that the tower would cause an adverse aesthetic impact.  The Board explored
alternatives to mitigate the effect of the warning lights. At the conclusion
of the proceedings, the Board ordered Stokes to install light shields around
the aircraft beacons within sixty days to ensure compliance with criterion
(8).  The Board then issued an amended permit and remanded to the district
commission for further proceedings on the unauthorized changes.  Both Stokes
and the adjoining landowners moved to alter the decision, primarily
challenging the Board's authority to impose the light shield requirement
without prior FAA approval.  The Board denied the motions. 

 

     Stokes now appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and its motion to alter the decision by revising
the light shield requirement.  The adjoining landowners also filed a brief,
requesting this Court to affirm the jurisdictional issue, but reverse and
remand the light shield requirement.  In addition, the Attorney General
requested and was granted status as amicus curiae.  He presented essentially
the same arguments as the adjoining landowners. 

     Before we address the merits, we consider the adjoining landowners'
standing to participate in this appeal. Eligibility to appeal an
Environmental Board order to this Court is strictly limited to those parties
expressly designated in the statute.  In re George Adams & Co., 134 Vt. 172,
174,