In re All Metals Recycling, Inc.
107 A.3d 895
Vt.2014Background
- Thirteen Town of Williston residents appeal a Superior Court Environmental Division grant of a discretionary permit to All Metals Recycling, Inc. to establish outdoor storage, a scale, and a scale house at 38-42 Dorset Lane in Williston.
- All Metals operates a scrap-metal recycling business, purchasing, sorting, processing, and shipping metals; it does not accept garbage.
- The facility sits in Williston's Gateway Zoning District North (GZDN); the owner/sublease structure involves ReSOURCE and Riggs Properties; a portion of land for the scale house was later found to be Town land.
- The DRB issued the discretionary permit with conditions, including a lease for land containing the scale and scale house; residents appealed to the environmental court.
- The environmental court held the use permitted in the GZDN under NAICS definitions (materials recovery facility) and later addressed parking plan adequacy under the Bylaws, including a revised plan submitted before trial.
- Residents argue the parking plan and use are inconsistent with the Bylaws; the environmental court denied remand and granted the permit, which the residents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the use is a permitted use in GZDN under the ByLaws | Residents contend the operation is not permitted in GZDN. | Williston and All Metals argue it fits NAICS 562 materials recovery facility, a permitted use. | Use is permitted as a materials recovery facility. |
| Whether the environmental court should have remanded for DRB review due to a revised parking plan | Changes to plan before trial should have remanded for DRB notice/hearing. | Changes were not truly substantial and supplemented existing information; remand unnecessary. | No remand required; court could consider amended plan. |
| Whether the parking plan conforms to the Bylaws | Parking, setbacks, ownership, and buffers do not meet Bylaw requirements. | Proposed plan complies with landscaped buffers and ownership provisions; setbacks are satisfied. | Parking plan complies with Bylaws; affirmance of permit. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Miller Subdiv. Final Plan, 2008 VT 74 (2008) (de novo review standard for summary judgment in zoning appeals)
- In re Champlain Oil Co. Conditional Use Application, 2014 VT 19 (2014) (statutory interpretation of zoning bylaws)
- In re Carroll, 2007 VT 19 (2007) (statutory interpretation approach; purposive construction)
- In re Sisters & Bros. Inv Group, LLP, 2009 VT 58 (2009) (remand denied for non-substantial changes)
- Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494 (1991) (remand when new evidence changes scope of project)
- In re Chaves Act 250 Permit Reconsider, 2014 VT 5 (2014) (discretion on remand when permit changes are analyzed)
- In re Stokes Commc’ns Corp., 164 Vt. 30 (1995) (interpretation of ownership concepts for zoning)
- In re Albert, 2008 VT 30 (2008) (de novo review related to standing in zoning appeals)