Title: In re S-S Corp./Rooney Housing Developments

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of S-S Corp./Rooney Housing Developments (2004-080); 179 Vt. 302;
896 A.2d 67

2006 VT 8

[Filed 13-Jan-2006]


       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.


                                  2006 VT 8

                                No. 2004-080


  In re Appeal of S-S Corporation/Rooney	 Supreme Court
  Housing Developments
                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Board
  	
                                                 March Term, 2005


  Patricia Moulton Powden, Chair

  Robert A. Gensburg of Gensburg, Atwell & Broderick, St. Johnsbury, for
    Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Kevin Leske, Assistant Attorney
    General, and Jill K. Reymore, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
    Amicus Curiae State of Vermont.
                       

  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   S-S Corporation (FN1) appeals an Environmental
  Board declaratory ruling requiring it to obtain an Act 250 permit for two
  houses it constructed for use as residential care facilities.  The Board
  concluded the construction of the houses was "development" under 10 V.S.A.
  § 6001(3)(A)(iv) and Environmental Board Rule 2(A)(1)(c) because together
  they consist of ten or more units and are "commercial dwellings" under Rule
  2(M).  S-S Corp. appeals both of these conclusions.  We affirm the Board's
  rulings.

       ¶  2.  Yvonne and Catherine Rooney operate residential care homes for
  physically and mentally disabled adults.  Prior to the construction of the
  project at issue, they maintained a facility, known as the Washington
  Street home, in which they provided care and living quarters for thirteen
  adults.  Faced with costly upgrades and residents who found it increasingly
  difficult to navigate the two-story home, the Rooneys sought and received
  funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
  (HUD) to build two new group homes, the Owen House and the Harvey House
  (the Houses).  

       ¶  3.  The Houses are approximately three-and-a-half miles apart and
  are seven-bedroom, ranch-style homes intended to house eight residents who
  pay rent or fees.  Staff members are on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven
  days a week; no staff or owners live in either House.  Visiting nurses
  provide nursing care, and Catherine Rooney is authorized to distribute
  medications.  The average length of stay for residents in the Rooneys'
  homes is twenty years, and at the time of the Environmental Board decision
  in 2003, residents in the Rooneys' homes had lived there for between two
  and thirty-two years.  
   
       ¶  4.  After funding for the Houses was secured and construction of
  the Owen House had begun, the Assistant District Coordinator for District
  Environmental Commission # 4 issued a jurisdictional opinion holding that
  the Houses were a housing project requiring Act 250 approval under 10
  V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(iv).  S-S Corp. appealed the opinion to the
  Environmental Board, which agreed with the jurisdictional opinion in a
  November 2003 decision.  S-S Corp. sought reconsideration of the Board's
  ruling, and the Board reaffirmed its decision in February 2004. 
  Specifically, the Board ruled that the construction fell within the
  definition of "development" under 10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(iv) and
  Environmental Board Rule 2(A)(1)(c) because: (1) there were a combined
  fourteen rooms between the two Houses, thereby exceeding the ten-unit
  requirement; and (2) the construction met Rule 2(M)'s definition of a
  "commercial dwelling."  This appeal followed.

       ¶  5.  This Court reviews Environmental Board decisions with
  deference.  Upon review of administrative decisions generally, this Court
  presumes a given administrative action is valid and correct absent clear
  and convincing evidence to the contrary.  In re Devoid, 130 Vt. 141, 148,