Opinion ID: 2074612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: All Nursing Homes are Commercial Dwellings: Community Care Homes are Indistinguishable from Nursing Homes

Text: ¶ 36. This is the actual rationale of the Environmental Board. Since the majority of this Court has not stated an alternative rationale, I assume it has accepted the Environmental Board's rationale without stating so. This rationale involves a construction of the rule that is patently wrong. ¶ 37. The premise of this argument is that all nursing homes are commercial dwellings since nursing homes are contained in the nonexclusive list in the regulation. The logic after the premise is that: (1) community care homes are like nursing homes so all community care homes are commercial dwellings; and (2) S-S Corp.'s homes are community care homes so they are commercial dwellings. The problem with this construction is that the premise is clearly wrong because of the presence of the inconvenient language that is intended to be used and occupied for human habitation on a temporary or intermittent basis. In order to accept the premise, we must accept that the inconvenient language has no independent regulatory significance or that all nursing homes are intended for temporary occupancy as a matter of fact. ¶ 38. Not even the majority of this Court accepts that the language has no independent regulatory significance since it holds that occupancy on a temporary or intermittent basis is a requirement of a commercial dwelling. See ante, ¶ 15. Indeed, such a construction makes the language superfluous, or mere surplusage, contrary to our construction maxim to avoid such a result. See, e.g., In re Estate of Cote, 2004 VT 17, ¶ 13, 176 Vt. 293, 848 A.2d 264. We could sustain the Board's construction of the regulation only if we hold that there is no independent requirement that any facility be intended to be occupied on a temporary or intermittent basis. ¶ 39. Further, such a construction necessarily means that the dependent clause in issue that is intended to be used ... on a temporary or intermittent basis modifies and explains the list of facilities hotels, motels, rooming houses, nursing homes, dormitoriesand not the general description of facilities any building or structure or part thereof. Rule 2(M) (emphasis added). The construction is impossible because the dependent clause is stated in the singular, and thus plainly limits the term any building or structure or part thereof, which is also in the singular. Rule 2(M). The phrase reads: `[c]ommercial [d]welling' means any building or structure or part thereof ... that is intended to be used ... on a temporary or intermittent basis. ¶ 40. Nor is there anything in the record to support the proposition that all nursing homes intend occupancy on a temporary basis. Terms like nursing homes or community care homes are broad umbrellas differentiated only by the extent to which they offer nursing care. I have no doubt that, similar to the community care homes run by S-S Corp., there are nursing homes with long-term permanent residents. In any event, if there are facts on this issue, the Board must find them. It failed to do so here. ¶ 41. Although the Board adopted the rationale that all nursing homes are commercial dwellings, it failed utterly to square that rationale with the wording of the regulation. In response to S-S Corp.'s argument that under the regulation some nursing homes would be commercial dwellings, and others would not depending on whether or not the nursing homes were operated on an intermittent occupancy basisthe Board answered there is no such distinction in the Rule and the Board is empowered to interpret its own Rules. [8] The former statement is totally inconsistent with the wording of the rule. The latter is essentially a statement that the Board can do whatever it wants. [9] ¶ 42. I end where I started. Labeling buildings with tenants who stay in them for at least twenty years as intended for temporary or intermittent occupancy is nonsensical. But equally bad is the fancy footwork it takes to reach such a decision. The Board adopted a rule that contains a regulatory distinction the Board now opposes. The right response to this new opposition is to amend the rule to eliminate the distinction. The wrong answer is to eliminate the distinction under the guise of tortured construction. By upholding a decision based upon the wrong answer because of a narrow standard of review, we abdicate our responsibility to ensure a fair and just adjudication system. ¶ 43. S-S Corp.'s homes are not commercial dwellings as a matter of law. I dissent.