Title: ANR v. Handy Family Enterprises

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ANR_V_HANDY_FAMILY_ENTERPRISES.93-367; 163 Vt 476; 660 A.2d 309

[Filed 14-Apr-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. 93-367


Secretary, Vermont Agency                         Supreme Court
of Natural Resources
                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Environmental Law Division

Handy Family Enterprises and                      November Term, 1994
Taft Corners Associates, Inc.



Merideth Wright, J.

Christine Melicharek, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellant

Carl H. Lisman of Lisman & Lisman, P.C., Burlington, for defendant-appellee,
Handy Family Enterprises 

Robert F. O'Neill of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for defendant-appellee Taft
Corners Assocs. 




PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources
(Secretary) appeals a decision of the Environmental Law Division (ELD)
assessing penalties against Handy Family Enterprises (HFE) and Taft Corners
Associates, Inc. (TCA) for violations of their Act 250 Land Use Permits.  The
Secretary challenges the ELD's calculation of penalties, its conclusion that
the permit violations caused only slight environmental harm, and its finding
that the violations did not predate May 17, 1991.  HFE cross-appeals,
claiming that the ELD incorrectly imposed penalties for HFE's use of
temporary banners and its failure to remove light fixtures prohibited by the
permits.  HFE also claims the penalty amount is unsupported by the record. 
TCA, also a cross-appellant, challenges the ELD's calculation and imposition
of penalties against TCA and HFE jointly, as though they were a single
entity, rather than considering TCA separately.  We 

 

reverse the ELD's determination imposing penalties for the placement of
banners prior to October 8, 1991, reverse and remand the calculation of
remaining penalties, and affirm the conclusion that the violations caused
only slight environmental harm. 

     TCA owns a thirty-seven lot industrial park located in Williston.  HFE
is under affiliated ownership with Seven Maples Corporation, which owns and
operates the Ponderosa Restaurant on Lot 30 of the TCA industrial park. 
Under the operating arrangement between HFE and Seven Maples, permits for Lot
30 are in the name of HFE.  On April 27, 1990, HFE and TCA applied for an Act
250 land use permit, 10 V.S.A.  6081, to allow the construction and
operation of the restaurant.  Included in the permit application was a plan
to install signs for the restaurant.  In August 1990, the District 4
Commission issued HFE and TCA Land Use Permit 4C0696-9 (the 9 permit)
approving the construction and operation of the restaurant, but it did not
approve the parties' proposal for four internally illuminated signs
previously sanctioned by the Williston Planning Commission.  Condition 23 of
the 9 permit required the applicants to obtain written approval from the
District 4 Commission for an alternative sign plan prior to the installation
of any exterior signs.  The parties did not appeal the 9 permit. 

     HFE and TCA thereafter discussed the restaurant signs with the Williston
Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission wrote the District 4
Commission, stating that it favored internally illuminated signs over other
types of signs.  On December 27, 1990, HFE and TCA applied to the District
Commission for a permit amendment to allow four internally illuminated signs.

     On February 4, 1991, the District 4 Commission issued an amended permit
(the 9A permit) approving two internally illuminated awning signs and a
freestanding parking lot directional sign.  Condition 7 of the 9A permit
stated "the installation of signs are limited to those approved," and
condition 8 stated "any other signage or change to the signage herein
approved is strictly prohibited" without prior written approval from the
District 4 Commission. 

 

     HFE placed two banners (banners 1 and 2) on the restaurant's exterior on
February 27, 1991.  Both banners were two feet by ten feet in size, and read
"Ponderosa Steak House Now Open."  Banner 1 remained on the restaurant for
eleven months. 

     HFE placed two additional banners (banners 3 and 4) on the building on
May 1, 1991. Banner 3 was two feet by twenty feet, with lettering stating
"Sirloin Tips Special $5.99" and "U.S.D.A. Choice."  Banner 3 was displayed
on the building on May 15 and 20, June 17 and July 5, 1991.  Banner 4, which
remained on the building for twenty days, was two feet by thirty feet, and
advertised "3 Super Sandwich Specials $3.99, includes fries and beverage -
lunch only." 

     On May 15, 1991, the District Coordinator informed HFE and TCA that the
Commission believed the banners violated the 9A permit.  HFE and TCA
immediately requested written approval from the Commission for the banners. 
The Commission denied the request on May 16, informing HFE and TCA that they
should submit their request in the form of a permit amendment application. 
Neither HFE nor TCA submitted an amendment application. 

     On May 20, 1991, the District Coordinator issued a Notice of Alleged
Violation to HFE and TCA.  The notice stated that the restaurant's banners
violated both the 9 and the 9A permits. Nevertheless, HFE installed banner 5
on May 25, 1991.  Banner 5 was similar in size to banner 3 and stated, "New
Charbroiled Chicken Dinners $6.99."  Banner 5 remained on the building for
approximately forty days. 

     In July 1991, HFE and TCA filed a permit amendment application
requesting approval for an internally illuminated, building-mounted sign.  On
October 8, 1991, the District 4 Commission issued a permit approving the
installation of an internally illuminated, building- mounted sign (the 9B
permit), and requiring HFE to remove interior light fixtures that hung above
the dining tables immediately adjacent to the first-floor windows.  This
permit prohibited the installation of any "temporary signs, banners, posters,
or flags . . . without the prior written 

 

approval of the District Commission"; HFE did not remove the banners,
however, nor did TCA take any action to have the banners removed, following
the issuance of the 9B permit. 

     On December 10, 1991, the installation of the internally illuminated,
building-mounted sign was completed.  On February 24, 1992, HFE placed banner
6 on the exterior of the building.  Banner 6 was similar in size and location
to banner 5 and stated, "New! New York Strip, Porterhouse, Filet Mignon -- So
good they're guaranteed!"  Banner 6 remained on the building until March 3,
1992. 

     In March 1992, the Secretary issued an administrative order pursuant to
10 V.S.A.  8008, requiring the parties to remove all signs not allowed by
the 9A permit and assessing a penalty of $25,000.  HFE and TCA requested a
hearing before the ELD, as authorized by 10 V.S.A.  8012(a). 

     Following a hearing, the ELD issued findings, conclusions and an order
on June 13, 1993.  In considering the banners, it decided to look at three
separate periods.  During the last period, between the time the 9B permit was
issued (October 9, 1991) and the time the last banner was removed (March 3,
1992), the ELD concluded there was a clear violation of condition 8 of the 9B
permit.  As to the second period, from the date the District Commission
denied permission to put up the banners (May 17, 1991) to the date of
issuance of the 9B permit (October 9, 1991), the ELD concluded HFE and TCA
violated the permit conditions because they kept the banners up knowing of
the District Commission's permit interpretation.  As to the first period,
from the date the first banner was placed on the building (February 27, 1991)
to the date of the District Commission denial of permission to put up the
banners (May 17, 1991), the ELD found no permit condition violation because
the permits "did not specifically address temporary banners" and other
businesses covered by TCA's umbrella permit were using "temporary banners and
flags without apparent challenge."  The ELD imposed penalties against HFE and
TCA, jointly and severally, for the second and third periods, as well as for
failure to 

 

remove the interior light fixtures as required by the 9B permit, in the
amount of $14,463.  This appeal followed. 

                                I.

     All parties contest the ELD's decision to treat the first and second
periods differently. The Secretary argues that notification by the District
Coordinator does not trigger a violation of the permit and that, if there was
a violation during the second period, there also had to be a violation during
the first period.  HFE and TCA agree with the first part of the Secretary's
argument but claim that if there was no violation for the first period, there
could not have been one for the second period. 

     Before we address the specific arguments, we must first consider the
principles controlling our construction of permit conditions and the standard
of review.   We see no reason to depart from normal statutory construction
techniques in interpreting permit conditions.  We strive to implement the
intent of the draftspersons.  See Conn v. Middlebury Union High School, ___
Vt. ___, ___