Title: In re Dept. of Buildings & General Services

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Dept. of Buildings & General Services (2002-134); 176 Vt. 41; 838 A.2d 78

2003 VT 92

[Filed 10-Oct-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 92

                                No. 2002-134

  In re Appeal of Buildings and General Services	Supreme Court

                                                        On Appeal from
                                                        Environmental Court

                                                        November Term, 2002

  Merideth Wright, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, William H. Rice, Assistant Attorney
    General, and Stacy A. Butler, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, 
    for Appellant.

  J. Christopher Callahan and Brendan P. Donahue of Brady & Callahan, P.C.,
    Springfield, for Appellee.

  Jon Groveman, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae Vermont League of Cities and
    Towns.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1), Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   The Vermont Department of Buildings and General
  Services (State Buildings) appeals from the environmental court's holding
  that the Town of Windsor (Town) may regulate aspects of certain uses -
  specifically, state or community owned and operated institutions and
  facilities - beyond those specifically enumerated in 24 V.S.A. § 4409(a) so
  long as the Town makes reasonable provision for the location of the use. 
  More precisely, State Buildings maintains that, despite the Town's
  reasonable provision for the location of a state-owned maintenance
  facility, the Town exceeded its regulatory authority under 24 V.S.A. §
  4409(a) by regulating the use of the facility as well as particular
  physical characteristics not enumerated in the statute.  We agree and
  reverse.

       ¶  2.  The State of Vermont owns a parcel of land situated in a
  resource (R5) zoning district in the Town.  The parcel contains two
  facilities, the Southeast State Correctional Facility and the Southern
  District Maintenance Facility, which are operated by different state
  departments.  The correctional facility's fence and perimeter roadway
  separate it from the maintenance facility, which consists solely of an
  office building and an old one-bay garage.  The maintenance facility is
  used by the State Buildings as an office for its southern district and for
  maintenance vehicles and equipment necessary for its maintenance
  activities.

       ¶  3.  On July 10, 2000, State Buildings applied for a zoning permit
  to replace the maintenance facility's existing one-bay garage with a
  three-bay garage.  On July 19, the Windsor Zoning Administrator ruled that
  the application required site plan review by the Planning Commission and
  conditional use review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).  State
  Buildings did not contest this determination.  The Planning Commission
  approved the site plan a month later on August 21, and this approval was
  not appealed.   On August 28, the ZBA approved the conditional use
  application, finding that the garage was an accessory structure allowed as
  a conditional use in the district and met the general standards found in
  the zoning ordinance and 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2).  The findings reflect the
  representations of State Buildings in its application.  The approval was
  subject to six conditions as follows:

    2.  Applicant must construct, maintain and operate the proposed
        30x50' 3-bay replacement garage and related improvements in strict
        conformance with the Site Plan and project description submitted
        by them and specifically identified in the findings of fact.

    3.  The building shall meet all Labor and Industry requirements.

    4.  Landscaping shall be maintained at the standards consistent
        with the surrounding buildings.

    5.  Any exterior lighting added during construction will be
        directional in nature to shine forward and down.

    6.  Any proposed signage will meet the sign regulation of the
        Windsor Zoning Bylaws.

    7.  Applicants shall construct all improvements, including
        landscaping, authorized by this approval within one year of the
        date of this approval or this approval shall automatically become
        null and void.  

       ¶  4.  State Buildings appealed the ZBA decision and the permit to
  the environmental court, arguing that the Town of Windsor exceeded its
  regulatory authority under 24 V.S.A. § 4409(a) by regulating aspects of the
  project, such as the intended use, beyond those enumerated in § 4409(a),
  and by requiring the project to conform to Town zoning requirements and
  bylaws.  Specifically, State Buildings attacked conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, and
  7 as beyond the power of the ZBA.  In connection with its challenge to
  condition 2, it disputed ten of the findings of fact which reflected State
  Buildings' description of the new maintenance building or its use.  State
  Buildings argued that the Town did not have the power to require it to
  adhere to its description through an approval condition.  It also raised
  the more general question of whether the ZBA has the authority to grant
  conditional use approval for a state facility based upon findings of facts
  and conclusions of law that address elements outside the scope of 24 V.S.A.
  § 4409(a).
   
       ¶  5.  State Buildings filed for summary judgment, relying upon  24
  V.S.A. § 4409(a), which provides:

    Unless reasonable provision is made for the location of any of the
    following in a [zoning] bylaw . . . the following uses may only be
    regulated with respect to size, height, bulk, yards, courts,
    setbacks, density of buildings, offstreet parking and loading
    facilities and landscaping or screening requirements:...(2) State
    or community owned and operated institutions or facilities...

  State Buildings argued that § 4409(a) greatly restricts a municipality's
  ability to regulate state-owned land uses.  Specifically, State Buildings
  argued that a municipality can regulate only with respect to the list of
  elements in the statute plus location, but with respect to the latter only
  if the municipality makes reasonable provision for the location of the
  state institution or facility within the municipality.  The Town countered
  with its own motion for summary judgment, arguing that State Buildings read
  the statute too narrowly.  It argued that § 4409(a) allows a municipality
  to regulate state-owned facilities and institutions to the same extent as
  private land uses as long as the municipality makes reasonable provision
  for the location of the state facilities and institutions.  Only if the
  municipality fails to make reasonable provision for these facilities and
  institutions, the Town asserted, is it restricted to the statutory list of
  permissible zoning regulation subjects.  Finally, the Town claimed that it
  made reasonable provision for the location of the correctional center and
  maintenance facility, and, as a result, it could apply its zoning
  regulations fully to the State Buildings' application with no limits
  imposed by § 4409(a).
   
       ¶  6.  Although the parties framed almost exclusively a question of
  law turning on the proper construction of § 4409(a), their filings did
  reveal a dispute over the nature of the development application and the
  review required under the zoning ordinance.  The Town asserted that the
  maintenance facility was part of the correctional facility, which was an
  approved conditional use in the zoning district in which it was sited. 
  Thus, the Town applied conditional use review to the State Buildings'
  development application.  State Buildings claimed that the maintenance
  facility was a separate use, adjoining but unconnected to the correctional
  center.  As the environmental court noted, a difficulty with State
  Buildings' position was that the zoning ordinance did not authorize the
  maintenance facility as either a permitted or conditional use in the
  district in which it was located.  The ordinance did provide for Public
  Building: Maintenance & Storage as a conditional use in other districts. 
  Thus, the court concluded that under State Buildings' theory, the
  application could be allowed only as an expansion to a preexisting
  nonconforming use or as an expansion to a use which holds an erroneously
  issued but final permit.

       ¶  7.  The environmental court did not resolve this conflict because
  it found that § 4409(a) did not limit the Town's ability to regulate the
  proposed replacement of the maintenance facility.  In reaching this
  conclusion, it adopted the Town's interpretation of § 4409(a) and found
  that the Town had made reasonable provision for the location of state-owned
  facilities and institutions in its zoning ordinance.  Thus, it affirmed the
  permit issued by the ZBA.  State Buildings appeals here, making the same
  argument regarding the proper interpretation of 24 V.S.A. § 4409(a).

       ¶  8.  The primary question presented to this Court is whether the
  environmental court erred in interpreting 24 V.S.A. § 4409(a) to mean that
  once a municipality provides a reasonable location for a state facility,
  the municipality may regulate all aspects of the state project, even those
  not enumerated in the statute.  Issues concerning the proper construction
  of a statute are questions of  law, and thus reviewed on a nondeferential
  and plenary basis.  State v. Koch, 169 Vt. 109, 112,