Title: In re Spring Brook Farm Foundation, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_SPRING_BROOK_FARM_FDN.94-332; 164 Vt 282; 671 A.2d 315

[Filed 27-Oct-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. 94-332


 In re Spring Brook Farm                           Supreme Court
    Foundation, Inc.
                                                   On Appeal from
                                                   Environmental Board
 
                                                   February Term, 1995
 

Arthur Gibb, Chair

Stephen R. Crampton and Dennis R. Pearson of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, 
  for appellant

John D. Hansen, Rutland, for appellee

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Mary L. Borg, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for amicus State of Vermont


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Today, we conclude that the exchange element of the
  commercial purpose test for determining Act 250 (10 V.S.A. §§ 6001-6108)
  jurisdiction incorporates projects where a third person pays the provider
  of the facility goods or services for the benefit of another.  Accordingly,
  we affirm the Environmental Board's decision requiring Spring Brook Farm
  Foundation, Inc. (Foundation), a charitable organization, to obtain an Act
  250 land use permit prior to constructing a dormitory/residence hall on a
  44.5-acre tract.

       The Foundation is a New York not-for-profit corporation recognized by
  the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a public charitable foundation.  The
  Foundation was formed "to receive and administer funds for scientific,
  educational, and charitable purposes within the meaning of Section
  501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code . . . and in this connection to
  bring underprivileged children to a rural setting."  The Foundation is
  registered to do business in Vermont for the purpose of providing
  inner-city children "the opportunity to visit a working

 

  farm and observe animal husbandry, crop cultivation and harvesting
  and, through this, to expose the children to usable, practical skills in
  farming and related areas."  In 1992, consistent with its stated purpose,
  the Foundation purchased the 569.5-acre Spring Brook Farm from the Vermont
  Land Trust with the intent of establishing its "Farms For City Kids"
  program there.

       Members of the Hagedorn family, the owners of Stern's Miracle-Gro
  Products, Inc., provided most of the initial funding for the Foundation. 
  The president of the Foundation's Board of Directors, James Hagedorn, is
  also the Executive Vice-President of Stern's Miracle-Gro Products. 
  Intending to become self-supporting, the Foundation plans to solicit
  charitable donations from the general public and business community.  The
  Foundation refuses to accept any payments or funds from the students, their
  parents, or the schools involved in the program.

       Because of restrictive covenants governing the farm property, the
  Foundation purchased an adjacent 44.5-acre tract on which it proposes to
  construct a two-story classroom/residence hall containing 5425 square feet. 
  The proposed building is intended to house the children and their teachers
  in six four-person bedrooms, two single bedrooms, and numerous common
  areas.  The building would also serve as a classroom for the program.

       Once in operation, the Foundation expects to bring groups of up to
  twenty students, advertised in the Foundation's promotional literature as
  "Miracle-Gro kids," along with two teachers, to Spring Brook Farm.  The
  students, primarily from grades four to six, will stay at the Farm for one
  to three weeks.  During this time, they will participate in the daily life
  on the Farm, learning about agriculture, forestry and the environment.  The
  program is expected to run up to nine months each year.

       In June 1993, the Foundation requested an advisory opinion from the
  District 2/3 Environmental Commission Coordinator to determine whether the
  proposed classroom/residence hall would be subject to Act 250 jurisdiction. 
  The Coordinator concluded that the project required an Act 250 permit, and
  the Foundation appealed to the Environmental Board.  The Board also
  concluded that the project triggered Act 250 jurisdiction.  It reasoned
  that the project

 

  was a development because it was a construction of improvements on a
  tract of land involving more than ten acres for a commercial purpose.  See
  10 V.S.A. § 6001(3).  The Board concluded that the commercial purpose test
  was satisfied, within the language of Board Rules 2(L) and 2(M), because
  the Foundation would provide facilities to the students in exchange for
  contributions and donations by third parties.  The Foundation appeals.

       Vermont's land use law, Act 250, requires a permit prior to the
  commencement of any development.  10 V.S.A. § 6081(a).  A development
  includes the construction of improvements on a tract of land involving more
  than ten acres for commercial or industrial purposes.  Id. § 6001(3).  The
  Board has defined "commercial purpose" as "the provision of facilities,
  goods or services by a person other than for a municipal or state purpose
  to others in exchange for payment of a purchase price, fee, contribution,
  donation or other object having value." Environmental Board Rule 2(L).  The
  Board includes a commercial dwelling within the concept of a commercial or
  industrial purpose.  Id. 2(A)(2).  A "commercial dwelling" is

  any building or structure or part thereof, including but not limited
  to . . . dormitories and other places for the accommodation of people, that
  is intended to be used and occupied for human habitation on a temporary or
  intermittent basis, in exchange for payment of a fee, contribution,
  donation or other object having value.

  Id. 2(M).  These Board Rules were ratified by the Legislature in 1985;
  therefore, they have the same force and effect as any other law passed by
  the Legislature.  1985, No. 52, § 5; In re Spencer, 152 Vt. 330, 336, 566 A.2d 959, 962 (1989).

       On appeal, we will defer to the Board's interpretation of Act 250 and
  its own duly promulgated rules, unless there is a compelling indication of
  error.  In re BHL Corp., 161 Vt. 487, 490,