In re Snowstone Stormwater Discharge Authorization (Michael Harrington, Appellants) , 2021 VT 36 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 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 by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: 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.
    
    2021 VT 36
    No. 2020-076
    In re Snowstone LLC Stormwater Discharge Authorization          Supreme Court
    (Michael Harrington et al., Appellants)
    On Appeal from
    Superior Court,
    Environmental Division
    September Term, 2020
    Thomas S. Durkin, J.
    Merrill E. Bent of Woolmington, Campbell, Bent & Stasny, P.C., Manchester Center, for
    Appellants.
    Lawrence G. Slason and Samantha L. Snow of Law Office of Salmon & Nostrand,
    Bellows Falls, and David R. Cooper of Facey Goss & McPhee P.C., Rutland, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: Robinson, Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ., and Morris, Supr. J. (Ret.),
    Specially Assigned
    ¶ 1.    ROBINSON, J. Neighbors appeal three Environmental Division rulings related
    to their appeal of the Agency of Natural Resources’ (ANR) decision to authorize Snowstone, LLC,
    to discharge stormwater at a proposed project site pursuant to a multi-sector general permit
    (MSGP). First, the court dismissed for lack of statutory standing most of neighbors’ questions on
    appeal and dismissed the remaining questions as not properly before the court. Second, the court
    concluded that neighbors’ motion for a limited site visit was moot, given its dismissal of neighbors’
    appeal. Finally, the court granted Justin and Maureen Savage’s (landowners) motion to intervene
    in the proceedings. We conclude that neighbors have standing to appeal the ANR’s authorization
    to act under a MSGP and that their motion for a limited site visit is not moot. We further conclude
    that the court acted within its discretion to allow landowners to intervene. Accordingly, we reverse
    the dismissal of neighbors’ appeal and the dismissal of the motion for a site visit, and we affirm
    the court’s decision to grant landowners intervention.
    ¶ 2.    This appeal arises from Snowstone’s proposed dimensional stone extraction project
    at a quarry off Tierney Road in Cavendish, Vermont. Snowstone sought to acquire a 0.93-acre
    portion of landowners’ 176-acre tract of land to carry out the project. Specifically, Snowstone
    planned to acquire a 0.64-acre parcel where the stone quarry was located and where extraction
    would take place, along with a 0.29-acre easement over an existing “woods road” running from
    the quarry to a shared portion of landowners’ driveway. Cavendish is a “one-acre town” for
    purposes of determining Act 250 jurisdiction, meaning that any commercial or industrial
    development on more than one acre of land requires an Act 250 state land use permit pursuant to
    10 V.S.A. § 6001(3)(A)(ii).
    ¶ 3.    Snowstone filed a request for a Jurisdictional Opinion (JO) pursuant to 10 V.S.A.
    § 6007(c) to determine whether its proposed project would be subject to Act 250 jurisdiction.
    Neighbors, who were all neighboring or adjoining landowners and residents of Tierney Road,
    offered public comment in the proceedings. The district coordinator acknowledged neighbors as
    interested parties with a “particularized interest” in the outcome of the JO.
    ¶ 4.    In October 2017, the district coordinator determined that in light of the terms of the
    agreement between landowners and Snowstone, the entire 176-acre tract should be considered to
    be owned or controlled by a single person for purposes of determining Act 250 jurisdiction, rather
    than only the 0.93-acre portion that Snowstone contracted to acquire from landowners. Snowstone
    appealed that determination to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court. Neighbors
    timely intervened in the appeal. In addition to supporting the district coordinator’s conclusion that
    the project tract comprises the entire 176 acres, neighbors argued that the project would require
    one or more stormwater discharge permits, which would include conditions making it physically
    2
    impossible to locate and operate the project within the 0.93-acre parcel and thus would likely be
    subject to Act 250 jurisdiction.
    ¶ 5.    In May 2018, following discovery and some settlement discussions, the
    Environmental Division conducted a de novo merits hearing focused on two principal legal issues:
    (1) whether the landowners-to-Snowstone purchase and sale agreement was an “arm’s-length
    transaction” such that the land subject to Act 250 jurisdiction was limited to the parcel and
    easement that Snowstone planned to purchase,1 and (2) whether the evidence presented supported
    Snowstone’s assertion that its activities could be contained within the 0.93-acre parcel that it
    intended to acquire from landowners. After Snowstone presented its case-in-chief, at Snowstone’s
    urging and with neighbors’ consent, the court issued an order bifurcating the two issues with the
    expectation that it would render a decision on the first, while Snowstone sought any necessary
    stormwater and discharge permits.
    ¶ 6.    The court issued an interim order providing a timeline for Snowstone to submit to
    ANR or its subdivisions applications for any necessary stormwater and discharge permits. The
    interim order also required Snowstone to include neighbors on an “Interested Persons List” and
    provided that “Snowstone w[ould] not contest Neighbors’ standing in permitting proceedings
    concerning the proposed quarry or Neighbors’ status as ‘persons aggrieved’ for purposes of
    standing to intervene in the permitting process or to appeal.”
    ¶ 7.    Snowstone submitted an application to the Department of Environmental
    Conservation, a department within ANR, for authority to act under an MSGP. The application
    outlined Snowstone’s proposed stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), as well as the best
    management practices it planned to follow throughout the project operations. The Department
    opened the permit application for public comment, and neighbors participated in the proceedings
    1
    After the district coordinator’s determination, Snowstone and landowners entered into a
    new purchase and sale agreement that was modified to address the district coordinator’s concerns.
    On appeal, the environmental division considered the modified agreement.
    3
    by submitting a number of comments and questions. In response, Snowstone revised its proposed
    plan. ANR approved Snowstone’s revised application, authorizing operations under the MSGP
    (ANR Authorization) in June 2019.
    ¶ 8.    In July 2019, neighbors timely appealed ANR’s determination to the environmental
    division, filing a statement of questions pursuant to the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court
    Proceedings.2 See V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) (“Within 21 days after the filing of the notice of appeal, the
    appellant shall file . . . a statement of the questions that the appellant desires to have determined.”).
    Snowstone moved to dismiss neighbors’ appeal and statement of questions, arguing that neighbors
    lacked standing under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) to raise the legal issues presented in questions 1-18,
    22, 26, and 28 (all dealing with the ANR Authorization to proceed under a MSGP). Snowstone
    argued that neighbors’ remaining questions 19-21, 23-25, and 27 raised issues outside the court’s
    jurisdiction as it related to the ANR Authorization.
    ¶ 9.    On the issue of standing, the Environmental Division concluded that neighbors had
    not presented adequately grounded claims that the ANR Authorization could have an adverse
    impact on their particularized interests, and thus they lacked statutory standing to appeal the ANR
    Authorization. Specifically, the court rejected neighbors’ two assertions of potential impact on
    their particularized interests. First, the court found the record did not support neighbors’ assertion
    that their “interest[s] would be affected by water pollution” if Snowstone were to “improperly
    manage[] stormwater runoff from the Snowstone project.” Noting that there was no basis to
    assume the project would be “improperly managed,” the court said that it could not conclude that
    neighbors’ assertions “create[d] even a possibility of the impacts [they] assert[ed].” Second, the
    court rejected neighbors’ contention that they had “suffered a reduction in their home values by
    2
    This appeal of the ANR authorization is distinct from the JO appeal that remained
    pending at the time, although the court coordinated the proceedings; as reflected below, it issued
    some subsequent orders in both dockets. The trial court’s disposition of the JO appeal is the subject
    of a separately docketed appeal to this Court.
    4
    virtue of the proposed project,” finding no legal authority to support considering impacts on home
    value as a basis for standing to appeal an ANR authorization to operate under an MSGP.3
    ¶ 10.   The Environmental Division also dismissed neighbors’ remaining questions. It
    concluded that questions 19-21 were premised on unsubstantiated speculation that Snowstone’s
    project would exceed the proposed 0.93-acre area. And, the court determined that questions 23-
    25 and 27 sought improper “advisory opinion[s] on the general topics of what other permits may
    be required” for the project.
    ¶ 11.   In a separate order issued the same day, the Environmental Division dismissed as
    moot neighbors’ motion in both dockets (the JO appeal and the ANR Authorization appeal) for a
    limited site visit. The court reasoned that it had determined neighbors lacked standing to appeal
    the ANR Authorization, and neighbors had not requested further hearing in the JO appeal, so a site
    visit was no longer necessary. Finally, in another separate order issued that day, the court granted
    landowners’ motion to intervene in the appeal of the ANR Authorization as well as the outstanding
    appeal from the district coordinator’s JO.
    ¶ 12.   On appeal to this Court, neighbors challenge all three trial court orders relating to
    the appeal of the ANR Authorization. They argue that the Environmental Division erroneously
    dismissed most of their questions for lack of statutory standing without an evidentiary hearing, and
    they challenge the court’s determination that the remaining questions were outside the court’s
    jurisdiction or improperly sought an advisory opinion. Second, neighbors argue that, because they
    have standing and did request further hearing in the JO appeal, the court erred in dismissing as
    moot their motion for a limited site visit. Finally, neighbors contend that the Environmental
    3
    Although the environmental division cited two decisions involving constitutional
    standing in its decision, the bulk of its analysis focused on the related but distinct statutory standing
    requirement in 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a) as applied to the respective questions on appeal. Snowstone’s
    arguments on appeal likewise focus on the statutory standing requirements. We limit our analysis
    accordingly.
    5
    Division abused its discretion in finding landowners’ motion to intervene timely. We address each
    argument in turn.
    I. Snowstone’s Motion to Dismiss
    ¶ 13.   We conclude that the Environmental Division erred in dismissing the lion’s share
    of neighbors’ questions on appeal for lack of statutory standing, and in dismissing questions 20-
    21 as outside the scope of the appeal, but we affirm the dismissal of questions 19, 23-25, and 27.
    First, we conclude that neighbors have standing to appeal the ANR Authorization because
    neighbors have shown a reasonable possibility that the authorization may affect their particularized
    interests. Second, we agree with the trial court’s dismissal of neighbors’ question number 19
    because it was not within the scope of the appeal, but disagree with the trial court’s dismissal of
    neighbors’ questions 20-21 concerning the “off-site” activities identified in Snowstone’s SWPPP
    because they were within the scope of the appeal. Lastly, we affirm the Environmental Division’s
    dismissal of questions 23-25 and 27 because they sought impermissible advisory opinions from
    the court.
    A. Standing
    ¶ 14.   Neighbors argue on appeal that the Environmental Division erred in dismissing
    their questions relating to the ANR Authorization for lack of standing as “persons aggrieved”
    under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a). They contend there is a reasonable possibility that Snowstone’s
    stormwater discharge may affect their interests based on an engineer’s affidavit asserting that
    proper stormwater management was not possible within the proposed project footprint and
    describing potential impact on neighbors’ lands.4 The affidavit stated in part:
    Due to the inadequacy of the design of the proposed stormwater
    system, polluted water runoff from the proposed [p]roject may
    overwhelm the proposed [best management practices], and could
    4
    Neighbors alternatively argue for statutory standing on the basis that the project would
    lead to a reduction in their home values. Because we conclude that they have standing on the basis
    of the potential stormwater impacts on their physical property and abutting road, we do not address
    this alternate argument.
    6
    possibly run down the [landowners’] drive and Tierney Road,
    following the course of the road, and effectively rutting and/or
    creating a sluiceway for polluted water, following the course of
    Tierney Road.
    The polluted runoff may cause damage to Tierney Road, and may
    also enter the properties along Tierney Road.
    [T]he same problem could affect all persons whose property is
    accessed on Tierney Road, or which are otherwise downstream of
    the proposed [p]roject.
    The result of the inadequate stormwater design could result in
    undue pollution to neighboring properties, including the properties
    owned by the various [n]eighbors who are party to this appeal.
    ¶ 15.   We review a dismissal for lack of standing without deference, applying the same
    standard as the trial court. Baird v. City of Burlington, 
    2016 VT 6
    , ¶ 11, 
    201 Vt. 112
    , 
    136 A.3d 223
    . Examining the plain language of the operative statute, we recognize that statutory standing
    under § 8504(a) may be predicated on allegations, and the showing required to establish statutory
    standing under §8504(a) is minimal. We conclude that neighbors’ expert affidavit exceeds this
    threshold by describing a reasonably possible injury to neighbors resulting from stormwater runoff
    from the project.
    ¶ 16.   Under 10 V.S.A. § 8504(a), “any person aggrieved by an act or decision of the
    Secretary . . . may appeal to the Environmental Division” within thirty days of the decision or act.
    A “person aggrieved” is one “who alleges an injury to a particularized interest” protected by one
    or more environmental protection statutes enumerated in § 8503. 10 V.S.A. § 8502(7). In that
    sense, “aggrieved person” status for the purposes of standing to appeal under § 8504(a) is related
    to “particularized-interest” based standing in Act 250 cases. See 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(1)(E)
    (according party status to any “other person who has a particularized interest protected by this
    chapter that may be affected” by a decision of a district commission); cf. In re Green Mountain
    Power Corp., 
    2018 VT 97
    , ¶¶ 17, 24, 
    208 Vt. 349
    , 
    198 A.3d 36
     (construing PUC Rule 2.209, which
    authorizes intervention by persons who demonstrate “a substantial interest which may be adversely
    7
    affected by the outcome of the proceeding” to require a “particularized interest”).                  A
    “particularized interest” for the purposes of these environmental statutes is an interest that sets the
    interests of the would-be party apart from the general interests of others. See Green Mountain
    Power Corp., 
    2018 VT 97
    , ¶¶ 17-20 (concluding that competitor company that was also a ratepayer
    did not have sufficiently particularized interest where company did not demonstrate any interest
    that set it apart from generic ratepayers).
    ¶ 17.   This is the first time we have been called upon to assess the quantum of evidence
    required to establish statutory standing under § 8504, and we conclude that the necessary showing
    is minimal. We base this conclusion on the plain language of the statute defining a “person
    aggrieved” for purposes of statutory standing under § 8504:
    “Person aggrieved” means a person who alleges an injury to a
    particularized interest protected by the provisions of law listed in
    section 8503 of this title, attributable to an act or decision by a
    district coordinator, District Commission, the Secretary, or the
    Environmental Division that can be redressed by the Environmental
    Division or the Supreme Court.
    10 V.S.A. § 8502(7) (emphasis added). Significantly, the statute requires only an allegation of
    injury, and not any measure of proof. While a frivolous or entirely speculative allegation may not
    be sufficient to support statutory standing under § 8504, the statute does not require that a person
    seeking statutory standing to appeal under § 8504 satisfy any evidentiary threshold in showing a
    potential injury to a particularized interest. In construing the statute, “[w]e presume that the plain,
    ordinary meaning of statutory language is intended.” State v. Hinton, 
    2020 VT 68
    , ¶ 11, __ Vt.
    __, 
    239 A.3d 246
     (quotation omitted). “If the plain language is clear and unambiguous, we enforce
    the statute according to its terms.” 
    Id.
     (quotation omitted). This statute authorizes standing based
    on a particularized interest and non-frivolous allegations that are not entirely speculative.5
    5
    We note that the standard for establishing standing to appeal under § 8504(a) may not be
    the same as that for establishing standing to challenge an Act 250 permit as a person with a
    particularized interest. See 10 V.S.A. § 6085(c)(1)(E) (according party status to any “other person
    8
    ¶ 18.   Our understanding of the statute is consistent with the Environmental Division’s
    own persuasive interpretation. See, e.g., In re N.E. Materials Grp. LLC, No. 35-3-13, 
    2013 WL 5288469
    , at *4 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Aug. 21, 2013), https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/
    sites/default/files/documents/NE%20Materials%20%2035-3-13%20Vtec%20Party%20Status.
    pdf [https://perma.cc/F6QJ-48PX] (emphasizing in the context of assessing whether movants had
    established particularized protected interest sufficient to support interested-person status under 10
    V.S.A. § 8504(n) that “the claimant need only show that the impact may occur; whether it will
    occur is a matter to be addressed on the merits”).            In North East Materials Group, the
    Environmental Division concluded that various neighbors had shown a reasonable possibility of
    harm to their particularized interests in the watercourses on their respective properties even without
    expert evidence. 
    Id. at *6
    . The neighbors, whose concerns related to stormwater discharge from
    a proposed plant, stated specifically: that their properties were downhill from the proposed project;
    one was “concerned pollutants from the plant could enter a brook that travels through their
    backyard”; another feared “during storms, runoff from operations at the plant w[ould] contaminate
    a drainage ditch that r[an] across [their] property”; a third movant “fear[ed] contamination of
    wetlands and a groundwater-fed well on [their] property”; and the last was concerned because “in
    the spring, water flows from [a]pplicant’s property through a culvert on [their] property.” 
    Id.
     The
    who has a particularized interest protected by this chapter that may be affected” by a decision of a
    district commission) (emphasis added). Section 6085 includes a detailed set of requirements for a
    person seeking party status on the basis of a “particularized interest,” including a requirement that
    the person provide a description of the potential effect of the proposed project upon the person’s
    interest with respect to each of the relevant criteria or subcriteria under which party status is being
    requested. 
    Id.
     § 6085(c)(2). The environmental division has interpreted § 6085(c)(1)(E) to require
    that a person seeking aggrieved-party status in an Act 250 proceeding before a district commission
    need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that their particularized interest may be affected.
    See In re Bennington Wal-Mart Demolition/Constr. Permit, No. 158-10-11, 
    2012 WL 8898494
    , at
    *6 & n.5 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 24, 2011), https://www.vermontjudiciary.org
    /sites/default/files/documents/Bennington%20Walmart%20Demolition%20Construction%20158
    -10-11%20Vtec%20MSJ%20Party%20Status.pdf [https://perma.cc/XN8P-R53F].                        Because
    neighbors’ standing in this appeal is governed by §§ 8501-04, we need not decide whether
    “reasonable possibility” is the proper standard under Act 250.
    9
    neighbors’ homes were located, respectively, 0.25 miles, 1 mile, 0.34 miles, and 0.54 miles, from
    the proposed project. Responding to the permit applicant’s argument that the neighbors had not
    offered technical or scientific evidence to rebut the presumption that the MSGP in that case created,
    the court recognized that the neighbors might face “a high evidentiary burden . . . on the merits,”
    but that was irrelevant for purposes of a standing analysis. 
    Id.
     The court concluded that the
    movants had shown a reasonable possibility of harm to their particularized interests and afforded
    them standing as persons aggrieved. 
    Id. ¶ 19
    .   In this case, neighbors satisfied the minimal threshold established by statute.
    Neighbors not only alleged that the potential stormwater runoff might injure them, but also
    proffered an affidavit from an engineer who described with specificity the way that the asserted
    inadequacy of the design of the proposed stormwater system might affect neighbors’ particularized
    interests in their property. The affidavit stated that the inadequacy of the stormwater system “may
    overwhelm the proposed [best management practices], and could possibly run down the
    [landowners’] drive and Tierney Road,” that the polluted runoff “may also enter the properties
    along Tierney Road” and “could affect all persons whose property is . . . downstream of the
    proposed [p]roject,” and that the inadequate design “could result in undue pollution to neighboring
    properties,” including that of neighbors. Neighbors have not made frivolous or speculative
    allegations; they have supported their concerns with an expert affidavit that validates their
    concerns that stormwater runoff may impact their properties. Whether neighbors will be able to
    prove their case on the merits remains to be seen, but neighbors have sufficiently alleged that the
    ANR Authorization may affect their particularized interest to attain standing under § 8504(a).6
    6
    In reaching this conclusion, we do not rely on the environmental division’s prior
    bifurcation order, entered with the agreement of the parties, in which the environmental division
    ordered Snowstone not to “contest Neighbors’ standing in permitting proceedings concerning the
    proposed quarry or Neighbors’ status as ‘persons aggrieved’ for purposes of standing to intervene
    in the permitting process or to appeal.” Because we conclude that neighbors have standing to raise
    the challenged questions based on their allegations and expert affidavit, we do not here address
    10
    B. Neighbors’ Remaining Questions
    ¶ 20.   Neighbors argue that the court erred in dismissing their remaining questions as
    improperly before the court. We conclude that question 19 was outside the scope of the appeal of
    the ANR Authorization and therefore properly dismissed, but that questions 20-21 were within the
    scope of the appeal because they sought information about activities Snowstone had included in
    its SWPPP. We further conclude that questions 23-25 and 27 sought advisory opinions from the
    court and were properly dismissed.
    i. Questions 19-21
    ¶ 21.   Neighbors raised several questions concerning statements in Snowstone’s SWPPP
    regarding activities that would occur “off-site,” at locations not identified in the SWPPP.
    Specifically, neighbors asked whether such off-site activity will occur “within 5 miles of the
    project site” (question 19); where the “ ‘offsite areas’ referenced in . . . the SWPPP at which
    industrial activities subject to MSGP jurisdiction will occur” (question 20); and whether all offsite
    activities “have appropriate MSGP permit coverage” (question 21). These questions, according to
    neighbors, are relevant to whether operations under the MSGP were properly authorized.
    Snowstone argues that the questions raise issues relating to “one-acre towns” and “involved land,”
    which are at issue in the JO appeal, but not relevant to this appeal of the ANR authorization. We
    conclude that question 19 was not relevant to the ANR Authorization and was thus outside the
    scope of this appeal; however, questions 20-21 were within the scope of the appeal of the ANR
    Authorization, and we therefore reverse the court’s decision dismissing them.
    ¶ 22.   The MSGP Rules require that an applicant’s SWPPP include “a description of the
    nature of the industrial activities at [an applicant’s] facility”; a “general location map . . . with
    enough detail to identify the location of [applicant’s] facility and all receiving waters for
    whether challenges to statutory standing can be waived, or whether the environmental division’s
    order precluded Snowstone from challenging the factual predicate for neighbors to claim standing
    as “persons aggrieved” entitled to raise the various questions on appeal.
    11
    [applicant’s] stormwater discharges”; and a site map showing, in part, locations of fueling stations,
    vehicle and equipment maintenance, and processing and storage areas “where such activities are
    exposed to precipitation.” Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation, Vermont Multi-Sector General Permits
    for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity 5.1.2 (Aug. 4, 2011),
    https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/stormwater/docs/MultiSectorGeneralPermit/sw_msg
    p_2011_FinalPermit.pdf.
    ¶ 23.   In dismissing these three questions, the trial court relied on the ANR summary,
    which “ma[de] clear that all activities proposed by Snowstone or authorized by ANR will occur
    within the 0.64-acre project site or the 0.29-acre access road.” The court further noted that
    neighbors had not presented evidence that Snowstone’s activities would occur beyond the confines
    of the 0.93-acre area and that if they did, Snowstone would be in violation of its MSGP.
    ¶ 24.   We agree with the court’s decision to dismiss question 19, but for a different reason.
    And we disagree with the court’s decision to dismiss questions 20-21. In considering these
    respective questions, we are mindful of the “general concept that appeal rights must be liberally
    construed in favor of persons exercising those rights.” In re Mahar Conditional Use Permit, 
    2018 VT 20
    , ¶ 17, 
    206 Vt. 559
    , 
    183 A.3d 1136
     (quotation omitted).
    ¶ 25.   We conclude that question 19 was outside the scope of the appeal of the ANR
    Authorization and was therefore properly dismissed. The question asked whether off-site activity
    would occur “within 5 miles of the project.” Based on this Court’s review of the record, whether
    the activities occurred within five miles is relevant to the concept of “involved land” at issue in
    the JO appeal but not at issue in this appeal of an authorization to operate pursuant to a MSGP.
    See Act 250 Rules, Rule 2(C)(5), Code of Vt. Rules 12 004 060, http://www.lexisnexis.com/
    hottopics/codeofvtrules (defining “involved land” as including “[t]he entire tract or tracts of land,
    within a radius of five miles, upon which the construction of improvements . . . will occur, and any
    other tract, within a radius of five miles, to be used as part of the project”). The question of whether
    12
    the off-site activities occurred within five miles of the project is thus outside the scope of this
    appeal.
    ¶ 26.   By contrast, in construing neighbors’ appeal rights liberally, we conclude that
    questions 20-21 were properly before the court.          The questions were expressly limited to
    considerations relevant to the ANR Authorization and appear to question whether off-site activities
    Snowstone identified in its SWPPP have been included within the monitoring and best practice
    requirements of the MSGP. Specifically, question 20 asked about “ ‘offsite areas’ . . . at which
    industrial activities subject to MSGP jurisdiction will occur,” and question 21 sought confirmation
    that off-site areas had “appropriate MSGP permit coverage.” We disagree with the trial court that
    these questions were based on “unsubstantiated speculation” because they targeted activities that
    Snowstone itself identified would occur “off-site” in the SWPPP. Whether these activities were
    subject to the authorization to act under the MSGP is within the scope of this appeal.
    ii. Questions 23-25 and 27
    ¶ 27.   The trial court concluded that neighbors’ questions 23-25 and 27 “appear[ed] to be
    unbridled efforts to seek an advisory opinion on the general topics of what other permits may be
    required for the proposed dimensional stone extraction operations.” On appeal, neighbors concede
    that these questions concern whether additional permitting was necessary but argue that they raised
    the issue in public comment and that the questions were properly before the court because such
    permitting would likely require changes to Snowstone’s SWPPP.
    ¶ 28.   Advisory opinions are those that have no conclusive, legal effect. See Doe v. Dep’t
    for Children & Families, 
    2020 VT 79
    , ¶ 17, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __. Courts are not authorized to
    issue advisory opinions because they exceed the constitutional mandate to decide only actual cases
    and controversies. In re S.N., 
    2007 VT 47
    , ¶ 9, 
    181 Vt. 641
    , 
    928 A.2d 510
     (mem.); see also In re
    Investigation into Programmatic Adjustments to Standard-Offer Program, 
    2018 VT 52
    , ¶ 17, 207
    
    13 Vt. 496
    , 
    191 A.3d 113
     (“[T]he establishment of legal doctrine derives from the decision of actual
    disputes, not from the giving of solicited legal advice in anticipation of issues.”).
    ¶ 29.   Neighbors here effectively sought the court’s advice as to whether Snowstone is
    required to seek additional permits. The interim order required that Snowstone “promptly make
    application to [ANR] . . . for all stormwater and discharge permits required for the proposed
    quarrying operation.” Snowstone only sought authorization to operate under an MSGP, and the
    necessity to seek any other permit was not properly before the court in an appeal of that
    authorization. Any ruling as to what other permits Snowstone needed, besides the one before it
    on appeal, would have been a mere advisory opinion, so questions 23-25 and 27 were properly
    dismissed.
    II. Neighbors’ Motion for a Site Visit
    ¶ 30.   Neighbors argue that the Environmental Division erred in finding their motion for
    a limited site visit moot. In their motion, they had requested that the court allow neighbors’
    engineer or other agents to enter the landowners’ land for a limited site visit to access the land
    surrounding the project site to examine the area. Neighbors’ motion was docketed in both the
    appeal of the ANR Authorization and the still pending JO appeal.
    ¶ 31.   The court concluded that there was no longer a need for the site visit in connection
    with the appeal of the ANR Authorization because the court had dismissed all of neighbors’
    questions on appeal. In connection with the JO appeal, the court concluded that no party had
    requested a further hearing within thirty days of the ANR Authorization and thus no further
    evidentiary hearing would be needed. Because there was no reason for a site visit in either docket,
    the court dismissed neighbors’ request as moot.
    ¶ 32.   “[A]n issue becomes moot if the reviewing court can no longer grant effective
    relief.” Chase v. State, 
    2008 VT 107
    , ¶ 11, 
    184 Vt. 430
    , 
    966 A.2d 139
     (quotation omitted).
    Because we conclude that neighbors have standing to pursue most of the questions raised in their
    14
    appeal of the ANR Authorization, at least in that docket, neighbors’ request for a site visit is not
    moot.7 The neighbors may pursue their motion for a site visit before the trial court.
    III. Landowners’ Motion to Intervene
    ¶ 33.   Neighbors argue that the Environmental Division abused its discretion in granting
    landowners’ motion to intervene in this appeal of the ANR Authorization because the motion was
    untimely and the court’s reasoning in granting the motion was untenable. Specifically, neighbors
    argue that intervention poses time and financial burdens on the parties involved; that landowners
    could have sought intervention sooner and that they “re-tread ground that had already been
    discussed, briefed, and resulted in party stipulations” two years earlier; that landowners were well-
    aware of the years-long litigation; and that landowners had a history of active participation in the
    case prior to seeking intervention.
    ¶ 34.   The trial court has discretion to deny intervention where a motion to intervene is
    untimely, and so we review rulings on timeliness for abuse of discretion. State v. Quiros, 
    2019 VT 68
    , ¶ 15, 
    211 Vt. 73
    , 
    220 A.3d 1241
    .
    ¶ 35.   We conclude that the Environmental Division did not exceed its discretion in
    granting landowners’ motion to intervene in this appeal of the ANR Authorization.8 The court
    properly considered the factors related to timeliness, and its decision to grant intervention did not
    exceed its authority.
    ¶ 36.   If the applicant for proposed development is not the landowner, the owner of the
    land on which development is proposed is a “party by right” under 10 V.S.A. § 8502(5)(B). Where
    a statute establishes a party by right, the party is entitled to intervene in the action “upon timely
    7
    Questions about the effect of the trial court’s ruling declining further evidentiary hearings
    in the JO appeal are the subject of a separately docketed appeal to this Court.
    8
    We note that landowners sought intervention in this appeal from ANR’s Authorization
    (Docket No. 76-7-19 Vtec) as well as in the separately docketed appeal from the JO (Docket No.
    151-11-17 Vtec). We do not address here whether intervention was properly granted in the appeal
    from the JO.
    15
    application.” V.R.C.P. 24(a). We have previously identified four factors for trial courts to
    consider in assessing timeliness: (1) possible harm to plaintiffs; (2) the intervenor’s power to have
    sought intervention earlier; (3) the progress of the case; and (4) the availability of other means to
    join the case. Shahi v. Madden, 
    2010 VT 56
    , ¶ 10, 
    188 Vt. 142
    , 
    5 A.3d 869
    .
    ¶ 37.   In Shahi, we concluded that a motion to intervene filed several years after the
    applicant was aware of litigation was timely. 
    Id. ¶ 11
    . The applicant there sought to intervene in
    a motion to reconsider an injunction that prohibited applicant’s husband from coming within
    twenty feet of the property line between applicant’s and the adjoining neighbor’s properties. The
    applicant had previously filed several motions as an “interested party,” which the trial court
    ignored or denied. The court granted the motion during the pendency of a motion to reconsider
    and prior to a site visit or issuance of a final injunctive order. We determined that the motion was
    timely because intervention would not “slow the proceedings” and was “expressly limited to
    [applicant’s] ‘property interests.’ ” 
    Id. ¶ 38
    .   Similarly here, the court recognized that landowners’ motion to intervene was filed
    two years after they signed the revised purchase and sale contract, but emphasized that it was
    “purely reactionary and limited, such that progress of the case is not affected.” That is—
    landowners only moved to intervene in these ongoing proceedings after neighbors sought
    permission to conduct a site visit to inspect landowners’ land. See Werbungs Und Commerz Union
    Austalt v. Collectors’ Guild, Ltd., 
    782 F. Supp. 870
    , 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding motion to
    intervene was timely where filed once applicant’s direct interest in action was implicated although
    it was two years after applicant was aware of its interest in the action and had been involved
    directly and indirectly throughout litigation). Landowners largely supported Snowstone’s motion
    to dismiss and thus their intervention was not likely to delay proceedings. Cf. Quiros, 
    2019 VT 68
    , ¶ 21 (affirming denial of intervention where significant amount of discovery and settlement
    talks had already taken place such that agreement between existing parties was “imminent”). And,
    16
    unlike in Shahi, landowners here are “parties by right” as defined in 10 V.S.A. § 8502(5)(B) and
    thus entitled to intervene pursuant to 10 V.S.A. § 8504(n)(2). See 7C C. Wright & A. Miller, Fed.
    Prac. & Proc. § 1916 (3d ed. 2021) (“Since in situations in which intervention is of right the would-
    be intervenor may be seriously harmed if intervention is denied, courts should be reluctant to
    dismiss such a request for intervention as untimely, even though they might deny the request if the
    intervention were merely permissive.”)
    ¶ 39.   Further, the court determined that landowners’ motion to intervene did not raise
    new concerns that would require revisiting already-litigated issues.        Landowners sought to
    intervene in the appeal of the ANR Authorization once their direct interest in the matter was
    implicated by neighbors’ request for a site visit, prior to any discovery having been served, any
    hearing having been scheduled, or any evidence having been submitted.
    ¶ 40.   As to potential harm, the only possible harm neighbors allege as a result of
    intervention is general demands of cost and time to the parties. Considering these circumstances,
    we cannot conclude that the trial court acted outside its discretion in granting landowners’ motion
    to intervene in the appeal of the ANR Authorization.
    The trial court’s dismissal of neighbors’ appeal as to Questions 19, 23-25, and 27 is
    affirmed. The court’s dismissal of neighbors’ remaining questions as outside the scope of the
    appeal and for lack of standing and its denial of neighbors’ motion for a limited site visit are
    reversed and remanded for the neighbors to pursue their appeal. The decision granting landowners
    intervention is affirmed.
    FOR THE COURT:
    Associate Justice
    17
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020-076

Citation Numbers: 2021 VT 36

Filed Date: 5/21/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/21/2021