Title: AEGIS Waste Solutions v. Concerned Taxpayers

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, 
JJ., Poff and Whiting, S.JJ. 
 
AEGIS WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC. 
 
v.  Record No. 001350 
 
CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF 
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, ET AL. 
 
                                        OPINION BY 
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO 
 
 
 
   April 20, 2001 
 
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 
QUALITY, ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No. 001363 
 
CONCERNED TAXPAYERS OF  
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, ET AL.  
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
These appeals stem from a case governed by the 
provisions of the Administrative Process Act, Code §§ 9-
6.14:1 through –6.14:25 (the APA).  In the case, the 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) awarded 
AEGIS Waste Solutions, Inc. (AEGIS) a permit to construct 
and operate a landfill facility in Brunswick County.  DEQ 
later awarded AEGIS two amendments to the permit. 
 
Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County (Concerned 
Taxpayers), an unincorporated association, and eight of its 
individual members who own property adjacent to or nearby 
the landfill (the Property Owners)1 appealed DEQ's award of 
the permit and the amendments to the Circuit Court of 
Brunswick County pursuant to Code § 9-6.14:16, part of the 
APA.2
 
The circuit court affirmed the awards.  Concerned 
Taxpayers and the Property Owners then appealed to the 
Court of Appeals of Virginia.  The Court of Appeals 
reversed the judgment of the circuit court and declared the 
permit and the amendments void.  Concerned Taxpayers of 
Brunswick County v. Department of Envtl. Quality, 31 Va. 
App. 788, 805, 525 S.E.2d 628, 636 (2000).  We awarded 
AEGIS and DEQ separate appeals and consolidated them for 
consideration.  When appropriate, we will refer to AEGIS 
and DEQ collectively as the Proponents and to Concerned 
Taxpayers and the Property owners as the Opponents. 
 
Code § 10.1-1408.1(B)(1), part of the Virginia Waste 
Management Act, Code §§ 10.1-1400 through –1457, provides 
that “[n]o application for a new solid waste management 
                     
1 The Property Owners are J. M. Moseley, Jr., M. K. 
Moseley, Jerry L. Marston, H. Bruce Brandon, Julia Reavis 
Blandford, James F. Hite, Charles M. Bland, and Sidney E. 
Brown.  All are here as appellees. 
2 One of DEQ’s assignments of error raises the question 
whether Concerned Taxpayers had representational standing 
to seek judicial review of DEQ’s decisions.  However, we 
will not address that question.  The Property Owners’ 
standing is not questioned; hence, an opinion on Concerned 
Taxpayers’ standing would be merely advisory.  
 
2
facility permit shall be complete unless it contains," 
inter alia, “[c]ertification from the governing body of the 
county, city or town in which the facility is to be located 
that the location and operation of the facility are 
consistent with all applicable ordinances.”  AEGIS’s 
application for a permit contained a certification by an 
authorized representative of the governing body of 
Brunswick County that “the proposed location and operation 
of the facility [were] consistent with all ordinances.” 
 
The Opponents contend, however, that DEQ was without 
authority to consider AEGIS's application for the landfill 
facility complete or to issue the permit because the 
application included three parcels of land not then owned 
by AEGIS and not certified by Brunswick County as required 
by Code § 10.1-1408.1(B)(1).3  The Opponents also contend 
that DEQ was without authority to consider and grant 
amendments to the permit because it included the three non-
certified parcels. 
 
The three parcels are identified in the record as Tax 
Map Parcels 53-143A, 63-33A, and 63-47.  The parties refer 
to the parcels as "the Outparcels."  We will employ the 
same terminology. 
                     
3 It is undisputed that the certification issued by 
Brunswick County did not include the three parcels. 
 
3
 
The record shows that on September 15, 1993, the Board 
of Supervisors of Brunswick County granted AEGIS a 
conditional use permit (CUP) for the landfill facility on a 
parcel of land estimated to contain 755 acres.4  On October 
22, 1993, the County issued the certification that the 
location and operation of the facility were consistent with 
all ordinances. 
 
As part of the permit process, AEGIS was required to 
file a notice of intent with DEQ providing, inter alia, the 
precise location of the proposed facility.  On October 27, 
1993, AEGIS submitted a notice of intent to DEQ along with 
site and location maps and the certification of consistency 
issued by Brunswick County. 
 
DEQ advised AEGIS to submit a "Part A" application, 
and AEGIS filed such an application on December 6, 1993.  
The purpose of the Part A application is to provide DEQ 
with information necessary to determine site suitability.  
As required, AEGIS furnished a key map and a near-vicinity 
map with the application.  DEQ notified AEGIS on December 
21, 1993, that the application appeared to be complete and 
                     
4 The action of the Board of Supervisors in granting 
the conditional use permit was the subject of an appeal to 
this Court in Concerned Taxpayers of Brunswick County v. 
County of Brunswick, 249 Va. 320, 455 S.E.2d 712 (1995).  
The decision in that case is not pertinent here. 
 
4
that a technical review would be made applying detailed 
“siting criteria.” 
 
During the review process, DEQ required AEGIS to file 
a modified near-vicinity map, and AEGIS filed the 
modification on March 15, 1994.  The Outparcels are marked 
with an "A" inside a circle on the modified map and are 
shown as adjacent parcels outside the "proposed site 
boundary."  A note on the map states that "[p]arcels 
designated by an A [inside a circle] are currently under 
negotiation for inclusion in the site."  On March 25, 1994, 
DEQ approved the Part A application on condition that 
"[t]he facility boundary and the maximum extent of the 
disposal units shall be maintained as shown on the revised 
Near Vicinity Map, submitted to the Waste Division on March 
15, 1994." 
 
AEGIS then submitted a Part B application.  The 
purpose of the Part B application is to provide DEQ with 
detailed engineering design and operating plans for the 
proposed facility.  When the application is complete, DEQ 
conducts a technical review of the application, applying 
design and construction standards. 
 
While the Part B application was being reviewed, AEGIS 
acquired title to the Outparcels and requested a 
conditional use permit from Brunswick County authorizing 
 
5
use of the Outparcels in the landfill facility.  The County 
denied the request. 
 
Apparently aware of the denial, in a letter dated 
October 21, 1994, DEQ reminded AEGIS of the condition 
attached to the Part A approval which provided that "[t]he 
facility boundary and the maximum extent of the disposal 
units shall be maintained as shown on the revised Near 
Vicinity Map [denoted as Figure 3 in the Part A 
application], submitted in the Waste Division on March 25, 
1994."  DEQ indicated that two of the Outparcels, Nos. 63-
33A and 63-47, were included as part of the facility 
boundary in the revised Part B application and would have 
to be removed to make the boundary consistent with Figure 
3. 
 
Later, AEGIS’s engineering firm responded to a letter 
from DEQ dated January 3, 1995, with reference to another 
drawing, No. 3, styled "Proposed Site Features," that was 
filed with the Part B application.  According to the 
letter, DEQ had posed this problem: 
Parcel 53-43A . . . delineated in Figure 3 of the Part 
A [application] is denoted as an adjacent parcel to 
the permitted boundary.  However, Drawing No. 3 [of 
the Part B application] includes this parcel in the 
Part A permitted boundary.  Please clarify. 
 
The engineering firm responded that “Drawing No. 3 has been 
revised to show Parcel 53-143A outside of the Part A 
 
6
permitted boundary.”  A map marked "Drawing No. 3," 
apparently the revised version, is contained in the record.  
It shows all three Outparcels outside the "Part A Permit 
Boundary." 
 
Upon completion of its review, DEQ prepared a draft 
permit and held a public hearing in Brunswick County.    
Following the hearing and the receipt of public comment, 
DEQ issued Permit No. 583 to AEGIS on April 17, 1995.  The 
permit stated that "[t]he total site property consists of 
approximately 854 acres."  However, the permit also stated 
that "[t]his landfill will consist of two separate sections 
for disposal of Industrial waste and Sanitary waste," with 
the “total allowable disposal acreage determined by the 
Part A Application approval," consisting of "approximately 
82 acres for the Industrial Landfill Area (ILA) and 
approximately 137 acres for the Sanitary Landfill Area 
(SLA).” 
 
The Opponents then filed a petition for appeal in the 
Circuit Court of Brunswick County.  While the appeal was 
pending, AEGIS requested two amendments to the permit.  The 
second request sought "a 141-acre expansion of the solid 
waste disposal footprint in the sanitary area," but neither 
amendment involved the Outparcels or effected a change in 
the permitted boundary of the landfill facility. 
 
7
 
However, in comment periods following public hearings 
on the permit and the amendments, questions were raised 
about facility boundaries and complaint was made that the 
original permit included parcels that had not been 
certified by the governing body of Brunswick County.  DEQ 
responded that “[t]he Part A area does not include 
[Outparcel] #s 63-33A, 63-47, or 53-143A” and that while 
AEGIS had acquired the Outparcels since "the time of the 
initial Part A application . . . the Conditional Use Permit 
still does not allow the properties to be included in the 
Part A [permitted] area."  DEQ also stated that "[j]ust 
because a property is shown on a landfill drawing does not 
necessarily indicate that it is included in the facility 
plans for landfilling." 
 
Another question raised during the comment periods 
inquired why the permit states "there are over 800 acres 
when there are only 755 acres approved in the Brunswick 
County Conditional Use Permit?"  DEQ replied that the 
“total site property consists of approximately 974 acres.”  
DEQ explained that the 755-acre figure used in the CUP and 
in the Part A approval was derived from tax maps and deed 
descriptions and did not include the Outparcels.  DEQ 
stated that "a more recent survey of the properties within 
the boundaries that were estimated to be 755 acres" 
 
8
revealed that "the actual acreage is 822 acres."  DEQ said 
it was important to note that "waste disposal activities 
can only take place within the areas designated potential 
disposal areas," consisting of only 428.5 acres. 
 
In another comment, it was asserted that “a note (3)” 
on permit maps “says [the unzoned Outparcels] are included 
in the Part A permit limits,” and the question was asked, 
“[w]hat is to prevent these or any other land in the area 
from being used for waste five or ten years from now?”  DEQ 
responded that “[t]he note 3 has been revised to indicate 
that the [Out]parcels are ‘not’ included in the Part A 
approval limits.”5  DEQ also stated that before the 
Outparcels could be included within the limits of the Part 
A approval they must be declared by Brunswick County to be 
consistent with all applicable ordinances and undergo the 
process of requesting a major permit amendment, complete 
with a public hearing by DEQ. 
 
A final comment posed the question why “[t]he landfill 
office” and “certain groundwater monitoring wells” were 
located on the unzoned Outparcels.  DEQ explained that it 
“does not regulate buildings used as offices.”  An "office 
is not considered a waste management facility [because] no 
                     
5 As indicated previously, a map showing this revision 
is contained in the record.  
 
9
waste management activities occur [where the office is 
located]."  As for the monitoring wells, DEQ said “there is 
no prohibition against these features being located outside 
the limits of Part A approval, as long as they are located 
on land owned by AEGIS and have a permanent easement 
recorded,” which “has been obtained.”6
 
While action on the two amendments was still pending, 
AEGIS submitted a request that an authorized representative 
of Brunswick County sign a certification that the “proposed 
location and operation of the [sanitary landfill] facility 
[are] consistent with all ordinances.”  The County 
Administrator signed the certification on October 9, 1997.  
In a letter of the same date addressed to DEQ, the County 
Administrator stated that "the proposed expanded landfill 
operation and footprint lies within the limits of and is 
consistent with the existing Conditional Use Permit as 
approved by the Brunswick County Board of Supervisors." 
                     
6 DEQ's position on this point is correct.  Code 
§ 10.1-1408.1(B)(1) requires certification of consistency 
by a local governing body for a new solid waste management 
facility.  Code § 10.1-1400 defines a solid waste 
management facility as "a site used for planned treating, 
long term storage, or disposing of solid waste."  The use 
of land for offices and monitoring wells does not 
constitute the treatment, storage, or disposal of solid 
waste and the land does not become part of a solid waste 
management facility.  Hence, the requirements of Code 
§ 10.1-1408.1(B)(1) do not apply. 
 
10
 
DEQ granted both amendments, one on December 10, 1997, 
and the other on May 4, 1998.  By separate petitions, the 
Opponents appealed the amendments to the Circuit Court of 
Brunswick County, contending that the amendments were 
invalid because the original permit included the Outparcels 
and was itself invalid.  The circuit court consolidated 
these appeals with the Opponents' original appeal and 
subsequently dismissed all three appeals with prejudice. 
 
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that 
DEQ "improperly issued the permit and permit amendments 
that authorized the landfill facility operated by AEGIS 
because three parcels which were included in the permit and 
permit amendments were not certified by the local 
government pursuant to Code § 10.1-1408.1(B)(1)."  
Concerned Taxpayers, 31 Va. App. at 805, 525 S.E.2d at 636. 
 
In reaching this conclusion, the Court focused upon 
the statement contained in the initial permit that "the 
'total site property consists of 854 acres,' which includes 
the three after-acquired parcels."  Id. at 804, 525 S.E.2d 
at 636.  The Court also stressed that "[t]he three parcels 
were included within the property boundaries on the map 
submitted with Part B of the application" and that "DEQ 
issued the permit to include the property boundaries 
 
11
represented on the maps submitted with the Part B 
application."  Id. at 804, 525 S.E.2d at 635-36. 
 
The Opponents embrace the Court's rationale and 
support its holding that the three Outparcels were 
improperly included in the permit.  The Opponents also 
focus upon a statement concerning "total site property"  
found in the second amendment to the permit, which reads:  
"The total site property consists of approximately 974 
acres.  Of that acreage, 822 acres are approved by the 
County and the DEQ for potential waste management 
activities."  The Opponents then argue that "on its face, 
the DEQ permit is issued by its own terms for a facility 
site consisting of 974 acres, . . . including all 
Outparcels." 
 
The Proponents disagree with the rationale of the 
Court of Appeals and insist that the Outparcels were not 
included in the permit.  Hence, the crucial question 
becomes whether DEQ included the three Outparcels in the 
permit it issued to AEGIS. 
 
Code § 9-6.14:16, part of the APA, permits judicial 
review of agency action.  Code § 9-6.14:17 provides that 
“[t]he burden shall be upon the party complaining of agency 
action to designate and demonstrate an error of law” on 
issues including “compliance with statutory authority” and 
 
12
“the substantiality of the evidential support for findings 
of fact.” 
 
The Opponents argue that "[t]he question of whether an 
agency acted within the scope of its authority, as in the 
case at bar, is a question of law" involving statutory 
interpretation and, therefore, DEQ's action in determining  
that the Outparcels were not included in the permit "is 
entitled to little deference."  However, whether a given 
parcel of land is included in a permit but not included in 
the certification of a local governing body is an issue of 
fact.  And, since Code § 10.1-1408.1(B)(1) is so clear and 
unambiguous in its provision that “[n]o application for a 
new solid waste management facility permit shall be 
complete unless it contains” the certification of 
consistency with local ordinances, no statutory 
interpretation is required.  In such a situation, “[w]hen 
the decision on review is . . . to be made on [the] agency 
record, the duty of the court with respect to issues of 
fact is limited to ascertaining whether there was 
substantial evidence in the agency record upon which the 
agency as the trier of the facts could reasonably find them 
to be as it did."  Code § 9-6.14:17; see also Virginia Real 
Estate Comm’n v. Bias, 226 Va. 264, 269, 308 S.E.2d 123, 
125 (1983).  In Bias, we said: 
 
13
 
The "substantial evidence" standard, adopted by 
the General Assembly, is designed to give great 
stability and finality to the fact-findings of an 
administrative agency.  The phrase "substantial 
evidence" refers to such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion.  Under this standard, . . . the court may 
reject the agency’s findings of fact only if, 
considering the record as a whole, a reasonable mind 
would necessarily come to a different conclusion. 
 
226 Va. at 269, 308 S.E.2d at 125 (citations omitted). 
 
In their arguments, the Opponents attempt to equate 
the phrase "total site property" with the phrase "facility 
site."  The former phrase was used in the second amendment 
to the permit in this context:  "The total site property 
consists of approximately 974 acres.  Of that acreage, 822 
acres are approved by the County and the DEQ for potential 
waste management activities, with approximately 428.5 acres 
approved for potential waste disposal."  In this context, 
it is clear that the reference to "total site property 
. . . of approximately 974 acres" was intended to define 
AEGIS's total holdings, both approved and unapproved, while 
the reference to the 822 acres was intended to define the 
"facility site," to borrow the Opponents’ terminology, 
meaning the site already approved for potential waste 
management activities.  Hence, we think the phrase "total 
site property" means, in context, something entirely 
 
14
different from the phrase "facility site," and we reject 
the Opponents' attempt to make them synonymous. 
 
On a related point, the Opponents take the position 
that any parcel of land shown on a map submitted in 
connection with an application for a landfill permit is 
automatically included in the permit if the application is 
granted.  The Opponents say:  "A fortiori, if the 
uncertified properties are included in the Part B 
application, they are necessarily part of the Permit."  
This is an unrealistic approach.  The common-sense approach 
would be that, if, in a given case, the intention is made 
clear to exclude from a permit a particular parcel shown on 
a map filed with an application, the permit is valid for 
the remaining portion. 
 
That intention is made clear in this case.  On the 
near vicinity map AEGIS submitted with its notice of 
intent, the proposed site boundary not only served to 
provide the precise location of the proposed facility but 
also clearly excluded the Outparcels, which were depicted 
as adjacent parcels.  The Outparcels were treated in the 
same manner on the revised vicinity map AEGIS submitted on 
March 15, 1994, leading to DEQ’s approval of the Part A 
application on the condition that “[t]he facility boundary 
 
15
and the maximum extent of the disposal units shall be 
maintained as shown on the revised Near Vicinity Map.” 
 
In connection with its Part B application, AEGIS filed 
a map which the Opponents say “now includes all three of 
the previous parcels shown as under negotiation in the Near 
Vicinity Map as part of the property boundary of AEGIS.”  
This is correct; the map does include the Outparcels within 
the property boundary shown on the map but it does not 
include the Outparcels within the “Part A permit boundary,” 
also shown on the map.  The Opponents’ position on this 
point displays a reluctance to distinguish "property 
boundary" from "permit boundary," "site boundary," or 
"facility boundary," as those terms are used on maps 
contained in the record.  It is plain that the marking of 
the property boundary is intended to show all the property 
AEGIS owns in the area while the delineation of the other 
boundaries is intended to serve the entirely different 
purpose of defining the facility site. 
 
If the intention to exclude the Outparcels from the 
permit is not made clear by what has been said so far, the 
intention is made crystal clear by a map the Opponents say 
"will help us understand [the] issues" in the case.  The 
map was filed in connection with one of AEGIS's 
applications for amendments to the permit and purports to 
 
16
represent all the changes that were made in the plans.  The 
map shows that the areas encompassed within the "DEQ 
permitted boundary" and the "conditional use permit limits" 
are identical and that the Outparcels are not encompassed 
within either of those areas.  Furthermore, Note 3 on the 
map states:  "[The Outparcels] have since been purchased by 
AEGIS Waste Solutions, Inc.  They are not, however, 
included in the Part A approval limits." 
 
Finally, we think it is of significance that Brunswick 
County issued a second certification of consistency after  
substantial controversy arose in the local public arena 
over the three Outparcels, with the Opponents contending  
the Outparcels were included in the Part B application and 
DEQ contending they were not.  It will not be assumed that 
the County made the new certification without knowledge of 
the then current status of the DEQ proceedings. 
 
Under these circumstances, we have no difficulty in 
finding there was substantial evidence in the agency record 
upon which DEQ as the trier of the facts could reasonably 
find that the Outparcels were not included in the permit 
issued to AEGIS.  Indeed, we think the evidence of 
exclusion is overwhelming. 
 
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the Court 
of Appeals, reinstate the judgment of the Circuit Court of 
 
17
Brunswick County, and enter final judgment in favor of 
AEGIS and DEQ. 
Reversed and final judgment. 
 
18