Title: In re Huntley

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Huntley (2003-369); 177 Vt. 596, 865 A.2d 1123

2004 VT 115

[Filed 09-Nov-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 115

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-369

                              APRIL TERM, 2004

  In re Richard and Elinor Huntley	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
                                        }	Environmental Board
                                        }	
  	                                }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. Declaratory 
                                                           Ruling 419

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

       ¶  1.  Richard and Elinor Huntley, owners of a five-acre gravel
  mine, appeal a declaratory ruling by the Environmental Board.  The Board
  determined that the Huntleys' mine and associated property remained subject
  to Act 250 jurisdiction even though the site had been fully reclaimed, and
  its former permit had expired.  We reverse and hold that, when a permit
  expires pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1), the land is no longer subject
  to Act 250 jurisdiction absent some activity to trigger the statute's
  application.

       ¶  2.  In 1986, the Huntleys' predecessors in interest applied for
  an Act 250 permit, under § 6090(b)(1) (extraction of mineral resources), to
  extract gravel from a five-acre segment of their approximately 100-acre
  farm in Bethel.  They proposed a three-phase mining operation with detailed
  reclamation requirements to be completed at each phase.  The District 3
  Environmental Commission approved the proposal contingent that it be
  "completed and maintained in conformance with all of the terms and
  conditions of that application, and of Land Use Permit #3W0473."  That
  permit obligated the applicant to "complete and maintain" the project only
  as approved by the district commission and permit conditions.  The
  commission found, that if the project was operated and reclaimed in
  accordance with the permit's conditions, it would "not result in undue harm
  to the environment and [would] result in an area suitable for continued
  agricultural use."  The permit specified that the district environmental
  commission would "maintain[] continuing jurisdiction during the lifetime of
  the permit" and that the permit would expire on July 1, 1995, unless
  extended. 

       ¶  3.  The Huntleys subsequently acquired the property.  In 1995, they
  obtained a permit amendment authorizing minor changes in mining operations
  and extending the completion date for all mining and reclamation activities
  to October 1, 2002. (FN1)  By the October deadline, the Huntleys had ceased
  mining operations, and fully reclaimed and rehabilitated the property in
  accordance with the permit requirements.  A month later, as part of
  preparations to sell the property, the Huntleys requested an opinion from
  the district commission determining whether their property remained subject
  to Act 250 jurisdiction.  In response, the District 3 coordinator concluded
  that, although all mining had ceased, the permit had expired and the land
  had been reclaimed in compliance with permit requirements, the project
  remained subject to continuing Act 250 jurisdiction, and that "[a]ny
  subsequent activity on the land may require a permit." 
   
       ¶  4.  The Huntleys appealed to the Environmental Board, which
  framed the issue as follows:

    Does a sand and gravel extraction project remain subject to Act
    250 jurisdiction when the project's land use permit has expired
    pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 6090(b)(1); and where the project tract
    has been reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of 10
    V.S.A. § 6086(a)(9)(E)(ii); and where said reclamation results in
    there being no potential for future environmental impacts from the
    prior sand and gravel extraction project?  

       ¶  5.  The Board found that it had continuing jurisdiction over the
  project.  The Board reasoned that permit duration and jurisdiction are two
  different concepts: the permit duration determines the life of a project,
  while jurisdiction determines the Board's oversight authority.  In cases
  involving a sand and gravel extraction operation, the Board concluded that
  the need to ensure that future property owners maintain compliance with the
  permitted reclamation plan supported continuing jurisdiction beyond the
  permit's expiration date.  The Board acknowledged, however, that only a
  "material or substantial change" to the permitted project would require a
  permit amendment.  See Environmental Board Rule (EBR) 2(A)(1)(e), 4 Code of
  Vermont Rules 12 003 001-6 (2004).  This appeal followed. 

       ¶  6.  In reviewing the Board's decision, the Board's interpretation
  of Act 250 and its rules control, unless a compelling indication of error
  exists.  In re Rusin, 162 Vt. 185, 188,