Opinion ID: 2074612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Intent and Record of S-S Corporation is Irrelevant

Text: ¶ 33. In fact, both the majority and Board appear to be talking out of both sides of their mouths on this point. Although the Board said it would not rely on the subjective particulars [6] of the operation of the homes, it went on to do just that where it thought those subjective particulars supported its result. The majority has followed that same path. This is particularly apparent in the Board's findings that some residents leave the care of the S-S Corp. homes for periods of time and some of those do not return. [7] Having ruled that the specific intent and track record of S-S Corp. is irrelevant, these facts are also irrelevant if one accepts the Board's rationale. ¶ 34. Yet, the Board spends a third of its reconsideration decision quibbling over these irrelevant facts. The point for the Board is not that residents leave the homes for some periods, and some do not return, but that these facts differentiate the residents from others and warrant Act 250 review. Although the facts are entirely against it, the Board wants to raise the inference that the residents of S-S Corp. homesor mentally disabled residents of community care homes generallyare transient and temporary. The inference is wrong, transparently an attempt to evade the permanency of occupancy in S-S Corp. homes without a factual basis. Rather than adding to the Board's decision, the unexplained caviling over the facts of occupancy in S-S Corp. homes raises questions about its confidence in its primary rationale. ¶ 35. Assuming that the majority of the Board remained true to its point that S-S Corp.'s current operations were irrelevant, this position is plainly inconsistent with the wording of the regulation. Again the holding of the Board was that the permanency of occupancy of the residents, or S-S Corp.'s intent with respect to that permanency, could not be considered. Thus, the exact determination that the regulation required the Board to makethe same determination the majority of this Court states is a requirement to find that S-S Corp.'s homes are commercial dwellingsis found to be irrelevant by the Board. The rule specifically requires that the buildings being constructed be commercial dwellings. That requirement is simply not met by a generalization that community care homes are commercial dwellings without examining the particular buildings involved.