Title: In re Denio

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 89-214


 In re Chester P. and Bertha G. Denio         Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Environmental Board

                                              September Term, 1991


 Leonard U. Wilson, Chairman

 John D. Hansen, Rutland, for appellants

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Ron Shems, Assistant Attorney General,
   and David K. Mears, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for amicus
   curiae State


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Appellants Chester and Bertha Denio appeal a decision of
 the Vermont Environmental Board granting an Act 250 permit for a three-lot
 subdivision adjacent to an already existing 71-lot subdivision, but
 imposing twenty conditions.  The Denios contest the Board's exercise of
 jurisdiction and claim that the Board (1) misallocated the burden of proof
 on the issue of aesthetics; (2) made findings of fact and conclusions of law
 which were not based exclusively on the evidence before it and were erron-
 eous; and (3) set unreasonable conditions for the new lots.  We affirm.
      In 1972, appellants purchased approximately 263 acres in Shaftsbury and
 received an Act 250 permit for a 71-lot subdivision on 200 acres.  In 1987
 they applied to the District Environmental Commission for a permit to sub-
 divide an additional seven acres of their land into three lots.  The
 Commission considered their application as an amendment to the 1972 sub-
 division permit, and denied it, although it detailed conditions it would
 impose if it were to issue a permit.  Appellants then went to the Board for
 a de novo review of the Commission's decision, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. {
 6089.  After a hearing and visit to the site, the Board issued its findings
 of fact, conclusions of law, and an order permitting the proposed sub-
 division, subject to twenty conditions, on March 27, 1989.  Some of the
 conditions imposed by the Board required that the subdivision conform to
 certain plans stated in the permit application, and to statements made in
 the Board's findings and conclusions.  In part, the conditions were based on
 the Board's finding, under 10 V.S.A. { 6086(a)(8), that, in the absence of
 adherence to the conditions, the subdivision would adversely affect the
 aesthetics of the surrounding area.
      At no point in the proceedings before the Commission and Board did any
 party receiving notice of the requested permit and proceedings, under 10
 V.S.A. { 6085, raise objection or present evidence in opposition to the
 permit's issuance.  And at no point in the proceedings did appellants raise
 an objection to the exercise of Act 250 jurisdiction over the matter by the
 Commission and Board.
                                     I.
      Appellants' first claim is that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the
 subdivision proposal.  Although this issue was not raised before either the
 Commission or the Board, appellants argue that subject-matter jurisdiction
 can be raised at any time, including for the first time in this Court.  See
 Boisvert v. Boisvert, 143 Vt. 445, 447,