Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2018

Home

January 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 2 Zoning Bulletin The Environmental Division concluded that the Project was a "health care facility." The Neighbors appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Vermont concluded that CBH's Project was a "health care facility" under the Town's Bylaws and, thus, CBH was entitled to a conditional use peunrit. In so concluding, the court first addressed the parties' disagreement about the level of deference the Supreme Court of Vermont should give to the Environmental Division's interpretation of municipal zoning ordinances. The Neighbors contended that the interpretation of a zon- ing ordinance presents a legal issue that the court should review de novo (i.e., starting from the beginning; anew) without deference to the Environmental Division. In contrast, CBH asserted that the deference the court had historically given to the Environmental Division with re- spect to findings of fact extended to the court's interpretation of zoning ordinances. The court admitted that, in prior case law, it had made "arguably in- consistent statements on the subject [of deference to the Environmental Division]." Overruling some of its prior holdings in several cases, here, the court determined that it would "[h]enceforth . . . review the Environmental Division's interpretation of permit conditions and local zoning ordinances without deference." The court explained the basis for that determination: [W]here the outcome of the matter turns not on findings of fact, but on interpretation of a statutory teuu, and where we are not reviewing a deci- sion by an agency charged with promulgating and interpreting its own rules, we employ the familiar de novo standard of review for matters of law. In sum, the court stated that it reviews zoning ordinances and munic- ipal permit conditions according to the principles of statutory construc- tion, approaching the interpretation of such ordinances and permits "as a legal question that we resolve without deference to the trial court." Thus, here, the court concluded that it must review the Environmental Division's determinations regarding CBH's Project de novo. In concluding that the Project was a "health care facility," the court looked at the language and intent of the Bylaws. Because the Bylaws did not define the term "health care facility," the court looked to: the common definitions of "health care facility"; a Veinuont statute defin- ing "health care facility"; and prior caselaw that addressed whether therapeutic community residences were facilities used for "health purposes." The court found that CBH's Project "comport[ed]" with and "align[ed]" with those definitions. The court also noted that under DAIL's licensing authority, CBH's Project would be recognized as a subcategory of "health care facility." 4 © 2018 Thomson Reuters