Brisson Stone LLC, Allan Brisson and Michael Brisson v. Town of Monkton and Claudia Orlandi

2016 VT 15, 201 Vt. 286 (2016) · Supreme Court of Vermont · February 12, 2016 · No. 2014-455

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s denial of a permit for a proposed gravel-extraction operation involving drilling, blasting, and crushing ledge rock. The Court held that the Monkton zoning regulation authorized extraction of naturally occurring soil, sand, or gravel, not the creation of gravel from quarried rock. It also held that deemed approval would not foreclose an interested party’s timely appeal on the merits.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Skoglund, J.; Robinson, J.; Eaton, J.; Morse, J. (Ret.), specially assigned; Burgess, J. (Ret.), specially assigned
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
February 12, 2016
Docket number
2014-455
Procedural posture
Applicants appealed the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division's decisions denying their commercial gravel-extraction permit on the merits and rejecting their claim that the permit was deemed approved under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1).
Standard of review
The court reviewed the Environmental Division's legal decisions de novo and deferred to its construction of a zoning regulation unless clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Deference also extended to a municipality's reasonable and consistently applied interpretation of its own ordinance.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Brisson Stone LLC, Allan Brisson, Michael Brisson v. Town of Monkton, Claudia Orlandi
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

municipal lawstatutory interpretationplain meaning ruleappellate procedureminerals

Practice areas

municipal lawzoning and land useenvironmental lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Monkton's zoning regulation § 564 permitted an operation that drilled and blasted ledge rock and crushed it into gravel for sale.
  2. Whether a permit deemed approved under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1) would foreclose an interested party's timely appeal to the Environmental Division on the permit's merits.
  3. Whether the court needed to decide the precise date on which the forty-five-day deemed-approval period began.

Holdings

  1. Section 564 permitted extraction of naturally occurring soil, sand, and gravel, but did not permit creating gravel by drilling, blasting, and crushing quarried ledge rock.
  2. Even if an application is deemed approved under 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1), the deemed-approval remedy does not foreclose an interested party's timely appeal to the Environmental Division on the merits.

Key quotations

Thus, even if an application is deemed approved pursuant to statute, an interested party must be allowed the opportunity to timely appeal the deemed-approved permit on the merits. (2016 VT 15, ¶ 26)
Although we do not consider the applicability of the deemed-approval remedy, we hold that the deemed-approval remedy does not foreclose an interested party’s timely appeal on the merits of the application. (2016 VT 15, ¶ 28)

Factual background

Applicants leased part of a 324-acre parcel in Monkton to operate a quarry and applied for a commercial gravel-extraction permit. The proposed operation would drill and blast ledge rock, process the resulting material with crushing and sorting equipment, and sell appropriately sized gravel. Monkton's zoning regulations permitted removal of soil, sand, or gravel, but the municipal and environmental tribunals concluded that the regulations did not authorize creating gravel by blasting, drilling, and crushing consolidated ledge rock.

Procedural history

Applicants sought a permit to operate a quarry involving drilling and blasting ledge rock and crushing it into gravel. The Development Review Board denied the application, concluding that the zoning regulations permitted extraction of naturally occurring gravel but not the proposed quarrying operation. Applicants filed a declaratory-judgment action concerning deemed approval and separately appealed the denial; the Environmental Division granted intervenor Claudia Orlandi summary judgment on the merits and ruled that the application was not deemed approved. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial on the merits and held that deemed approval would not bar a timely merits appeal by an interested party.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…