In re Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC Conditional Use to Operate a Therapeutic Community Residence Program (Jason Albert, et al., Appellants)
No. 2017-071
Supreme Court
2017 VT 112
2017 VT 112
Thomas S. Durkin, J.
September Term, 2017
Thomas S. Durkin, J.
Ronald A. Shems and Abaigeal C. O‘Brien, Law Clerk (On the Brief) of Diamond & Robinson, P.C., Montpelier, for Appellants.
Nathan H. Stearns of Hershenson Carter Scott & McGee, P.C., Norwich, for Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.
¶ 1. EATON, J. The Environmental Division approved the issuance of a conditional-use permit for Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC‘s proposed community therapeutic residence in Thetford. A group of neighbors appeal the decision. Neighbors contend that the Environmental Division improperly concluded that Confluence‘s therapeutic community residence (the Project) was a health care facility, and thus was an allowed conditional use under the Thetford zoning ordinance. Neighbors also assert that the Project‘s residential use requires separate permitting and that it impermissibly establishes a nonconforming use. We affirm.
¶ 2. On January 19, 2016, Confluence Behavioral Health, LLC received conditional-use and site-plan approval from the Thetford Development Review Board (DRB) to operate a
¶ 3. The Gove Hill Road property includes several existing structures, all of which were used by the property‘s former owners, the American Baptist Churches of Vermont and New Hampshire. The Church used the property year-round (between 250 and 275 days per year) to host therapeutic retreats, conferences, and events for various church-related and secular groups, recovery programs and mental-health retreats, older teen camping trips, horseback riding camps, and summer camps for inner city youth. Retreats hosted up to sixty participants plus operational staff.
¶ 4. Confluence plans to house its new Project on the Gove Hill Road property. The Project, licensed by the Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL), is a short-term wilderness therapy program designed to treat young adult males (ages eighteen to twenty-eight years old). The program combines clinical therapeutic services with adventure-based wilderness therapy and agrarian living to help clients address mental-health diagnoses, as well as emotional, behavioral, and relational challenges. The treatment is interdisciplinary and supported by a team of professional providers. A Vermont licensed mental-health therapist oversees the therapeutic program and acts as the bridge between the experiential
¶ 5. The Project involves an inpatient treatment component that takes place on-site. All therapy sessions with licensed practitioners will occur on the property; patients will live in together in groups and participate in the responsibilities of communal, agrarian living; and, while treatment will occur both on and off the property site, patients will reside on the property under Confluence‘s care for an average of nine to twelve weeks. The minimum stay in the program will be eight weeks. Confluence anticipates hosting up to forty-eight patients and thirty-seven staff to stay on the property at any one time to participate in the program. Based on the Project description and facts surrounding property use outlined above, the Development Review Board (DRB) issued the conditional-use and site-plan approval in dispute here.
¶ 6. In its Conditional Use Review Findings and Decision, the DRB approved Confluence‘s Project as a “health care facility” pursuant to Table 2.1 of the Zoning Bylaws. The DRB explained: “Under 6.06 of the Zoning Bylaws, all Conditional Use applications . . . are subject to Site Plan review procedures, criteria, and standards and are automatically incorporated here, in a single conditional use review.” In its review, the DRB evaluated the Project for compliance with multiple sections of the Thetford Zoning Bylaws—vehicular circulation and parking; landscaping, building design, and lighting; noise, odors, smoke, dust, noxious gases, and air pollution; fire and public safety; waste and underground utilities; and compliance with Thetford‘s Rural Residential district standards and the “character of the area.” The DRB found that the “intensity of the proposed use is consistent with, and possibly less intensive than, the intensity of the previous use of the property as a center for therapeutic retreats,” and that the “[P]roject complies with all Town ordinances, bylaws and regulations currently in effect.” Regarding the Rural Residential district restrictions, the DRB determined: “The [P]roject is in compliance with standards addressing the impact of the use on the community at large, adjacent
¶ 7. A group of Project neighbors appealed the DRB‘s decision to the Environmental Division. Neighbors and Confluence filed cross motions for summary judgment, primarily disputing whether the Project was properly permitted as a “health care facility” for the purposes of the Bylaws, or whether the Project is a residential facility that should not be allowed in Thetford‘s Rural Residential district. Neighbors also claimed that the Project impermissibly reestablished the Church‘s abandoned nonconforming use of the property for events and retreats. In July 2016, the parties stipulated that the Church‘s nonconforming use had been abandoned and that Confluence could not receive a permit on the basis that it may continue a nonconforming use.
¶ 8. On January 23, 2017, the Environmental Division issued its decision that the Project was a “health care facility.” In doing so, the Environmental Division relied on its interpretation of the Zoning Bylaws, permitting of the project by DAIL, and extrinsic sources defining and applying “health care facility” in various contexts. The Environmental Division also determined that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of allowing the Project. Neighbors appealed.
¶ 9. On appeal, neighbors contend that the proposed use is not a “health care facility” and that it is more akin to a community residence or group living facility—residential uses not allowed in Thetford‘s Rural Residential district. Additionally, neighbors argue: (1) even if the
¶ 10. The parties disagree about the level of deference this Court should give to the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of the Town‘s zoning ordinance. Neighbors contend that the interpretation of a zoning ordinance presents a legal issue that we review de novo without deference to the Environmental Division. In contrast, Confluence asserts that the deference we have historically given to the Environmental Division with respect to findings of fact extends to its interpretation of zoning ordinances.
¶ 11. The uncertainty as to our standard of review arises from our own arguably inconsistent statements on the subject. On many occasions, including recently, we have stated that we will “uphold the decision on the construction of a zoning ordinance unless it is ‘clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious.’ ” In re Willowell Found. Conditional Use Certificate of Occupancy, 2016 VT 12, ¶ 13, 201 Vt. 242, 140 A.3d 179; see also, e.g., In re Wagner & Guay Permit, 2016 VT 96, ¶ 12, ___ Vt. ___, 153 A.3d ___ (“[W]e must accord deference to the environmental court‘s construction of a permit condition, particularly when the court‘s expertise will assure consistent interpretation of the law.” (quotation omitted)); In re Group Five Inves. CU Permit, 2014 VT 14, ¶ 4, 195 Vt. 625, 93 A.3d 111 (“We uphold the environmental court‘s interpretation of a zoning regulation so long as it is rationally derived from a correct interpretation of the law and not clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious.“); In re Champlain Coll. Maple St. Dormitory, 2009 VT 55, ¶ 13, 186 Vt. 313, 980 A.2d 273 (“On review, we will uphold the Environmental Court‘s construction of an ordinance unless it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious.” (quotation omitted)).
¶ 12. Recently, however, we have stated that we review the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of a regional plan, which we expressly analogized to its interpretation of a zoning ordinance, “without deference to the trial court” because “it presents a legal issue.” Realty, LLC” cite=“2016 VT 114” pinpoint=“¶ 31” court=“Vt.” date=“2016“>In re B & M Realty, LLC, 2016 VT 114, ¶ 31, ___ Vt. ___, 158 A.3d 754. In a lengthy footnote, we explained that because the Environmental Division is part of the judicial branch, “there is no separation-of-powers imperative for deferential review.” Id. ¶ 31, n.2. (quotation omitted). For that reason, we indicated that:
[W]here the outcome of the matter turns not on findings of fact, but on interpretation of a statutory term, and where we are not reviewing a decision by an agency charged with promulgating and interpreting its own rules, we employ the familiar de novo standard of review for matters of law.
Id. (quotation omitted). We did not, however, expressly disavow or overrule our repeated prior statements, noted above, that we review the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of a permit condition or zoning ordinance deferentially. We do so now, overruling prior cases which afforded deference to the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of a permit condition or a local zoning ordinance. Henceforth, we will review the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of permit conditions and local zoning ordinances without deference.1
¶ 13. The caselaw and rationale we relied upon in establishing this exception to the general rule that we review legal questions without deference do not actually support the maxim that we should uphold the Environmental Division‘s interpretation of a zoning ordinance or permit condition unless it is “clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.” This oft-repeated statement can be traced back to Application of McDonald‘s Corp., 151 Vt. 346, 349, 560 A.2d 362, 364 (1989). Two points are significant regarding our use of the statement in that case. First, we were construing a decision of the superior court a year before the specialized environmental court was
¶ 14. Second, in support of the stated standard of review, we cited Brassard Bros. v. Barre Town Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 128 Vt. 416, 264 A.2d 814 (1970), and DeWitt v. Town of Brattleboro Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 128 Vt. 313, 262 A.2d 472 (1970), using a “cf.” signal.2 In Brassard Bros., we reversed the superior court‘s order vacating a decision of a local board of adjustment, stating that “courts should not interfere with the administrative action of the zoning board unless the denial of the variance is shown to be clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.” 128 Vt. at 421, 264 A.2d at 817. Similarly, in Dewitt, we stated that “[c]ourts will not interfere with zoning or administrative action concerning special uses, variances, exceptions or nonconforming uses unless clearly unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory.” 128 Vt. at 319, 262 A.2d at 476. Thus, the foundation for the “clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious” standard for reviewing the Environmental Division‘s construction of a zoning ordinance appears to be nothing more than the unremarkable proposition that we “defer to a municipality‘s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance and will uphold it if it is reasonable and has been applied consistently.” In re Carrigan Conditional Use & Certificate of Compliance, 2014 VT 125, ¶ 10, 198 Vt. 438, 117 A.3d 788.
¶ 15. Our deference to consistently applied municipal decisions stems in large part from separation-of-powers concerns. As we explained in In re Albert, “[w]e defer to agency interpretations of statutes that the Legislature has entrusted them to administer as much out of a concern for the proper separation of powers as in consideration of agency expertise.” 2008 VT 30, ¶ 6, 183 Vt. 637, 954 A.2d 1281 (mem.); see also Town of Victory v. State, 2004 VT 110, ¶ 16, 177 Vt. 383, 865 A.2d 373 (“To preserve the appropriate separation of judicial and executive powers, we presume that judicial review of administrative decisions is deferential unless there is a clear [legislative] statement of contrary intent.“). But because the Environmental Division “is a part of the judicial branch, there is no separation of powers imperative for judicial review” of its decisions. Albert, 2008 VT 30, ¶ 6; see also In re SP Land Co., LLC, 2011 VT 104, ¶ 13 n.2, 190 Vt. 418, 35 A.3d 1007 (stating separation-of-powers concerns did not require giving deference to environmental court‘s interpretation of Act 250 Rule 34(D) where we were not “dealing with an agency‘s interpretations of its own rules” but rather were “reviewing a decision from a part of the judicial branch“).
¶ 16. To the extent that we have suggested other reasons for deferring to the Environmental Division‘s construction of zoning ordinances or permit conditions, those considerations likewise do not warrant a special rule of deference to the trial court with respect to interpretation of zoning ordinances and permit conditions. For example, in Agency of Natural Resources v. Weston, we held that the environmental court‘s construction of an Act 250 permit condition is due deference, “particularly when the court‘s expertise will assure consistent interpretations of law.” 2003 VT 58, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 573, 830 A.2d 92 (mem.). Weston, in turn, relied on language from an earlier case in which this Court afforded deference to the environmental court‘s interpretation of an Act 250 permit provision. See id. (citing Sec‘y, Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. Handy Family Enters., 163 Vt. 476, 482, 660 A.2d 309, 313 (1995)). In Handy, we stated that we must accord “some deference” to the environmental court‘s determination as to whether a permit condition is vague because “[s]uch conclusions necessarily involve mixed questions of fact and law” and because “the division was created to place all environmental enforcement actions, and the appeal of certain environmental orders, before one judge” to assure “more even-handed enforcement of environmental laws.” Handy, 163 Vt. at 482, 660 A.2d at 313 (quotation omitted). We have recently emphasized, however, in the context of zoning matters, that “[w]e
¶ 17. In sum, we review zoning ordinances and municipal permit conditions according to the principles of statutory construction. Wagner & Guay, 2016 VT 96, ¶ 11. We approach the interpretation of such ordinances and permits as a legal question that we resolve without deference to the trial court. See In re Treetop Dev. Co. Act 250 Dev., 2016 VT 20, ¶ 9, ___ Vt. ___, 143 A.3d 1086 (stating that this Court proceeds “with a nondeferential, on-the-record review” of issues of law and statutory interpretation); see also In re Jenness & Berrie, 2008 VT 117, ¶ 26, 185 Vt. 16, 968 A.2d 316 (“To the extent that the setback issues raises questions of law, our review is de novo.“). To the extent that we have suggested otherwise in prior decisions, we overrule those statements. Thus, we review the Environmental Division‘s determinations regarding Confluence‘s Project de novo.
¶ 18. There is no factual dispute in this case; both parties agree on the scope of the Confluence Project. The question is whether Confluence‘s community therapeutic residence qualifies as a “health care facility” under the Thetford Zoning Bylaws. We conclude that it does.
¶ 19. Zoning bylaws are enacted to implement a town plan.
¶ 20. Our goal in interpreting a zoning ordinance is to give effect to the legislative intent. In re Howard Cent. Renovation Permit, 2014 VT 60, ¶ 9 (“[The] paramount goal in construing a zoning ordinance, like any statute, is to give effect to the legislative intent.” (quotation omitted)). To this end, the Court “construe[s] an ordinance‘s words according to their plain and ordinary meaning, giving effect to the whole and every part of the ordinance.” In re Laberge Moto-Cross Track, 2011 VT 1, ¶ 8, 189 Vt. 578, 15 A.3d 590 (mem.) (quotation omitted). We are “bound by the plain meaning of the words . . . unless the express language leads to an irrational result.” In re Tyler Self-Storage Unit Permits, 2011 VT 66, ¶ 6, 190 Vt. 132, 27 A.3d 1071 (quotation omitted). If there is no plain meaning apparent, the Court attempts to discern the intent from other sources. In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 280, 668 A.2d 1271, 1277 (1995).
¶ 21. Here, the Thetford Zoning Bylaws neither expressly permit nor prohibit “therapeutic community residences.” Table 2.1 of the Thetford Zoning Bylaws contains a list of
¶ 22. We begin our examination of the Bylaws’ language by looking to the zoning district‘s purpose. See In re Tyler Self-Storage Unit Permits, 2011 VT 66, ¶ 13 (discussing the importance of reviewing purpose of underlying zoning district when construing zoning ordinance language). The Bylaws state that the purpose of Thetford‘s Rural Residential district is:
[T]o maintain an area of low average density that is compatible with clusters of high-density, remaining primarily a district of open space, farms, residences and woodlands, with scattered commercial uses that are either home-based or dependent on natural resources. This area is characterized by development that has [p]articular sensitivity to agriculture and natural resources[, and] [m]inimal sprawl. . . .
¶ 23. There is some development that by its nature would necessarily be incompatible with the stated purpose of the Rural Residential district. However, a therapeutic residential facility is not, simply because it is therapeutic and residential, in conflict with the stated purpose of the Rural Residential area—to safeguard natural resources and ensure minimal development. It is entirely possible for a therapeutic residential facility to be located within the Rural Residential district without disrupting the district‘s stated purpose. Considering the purpose of the Rural Residential district does not lead us to the conclusion that a therapeutic community residence cannot be a health care facility.
¶ 24. Neighbors argue that the Project is a “therapeutic community residence,” and, consequently, cannot be a “health care facility.” However, simply because a particular use, or an aspect of a use, is not expressly listed as permitted in the Bylaws does not mean that use is
¶ 25. This Court may also look to sources outside the Bylaws when interpreting a zoning ordinance. In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. at 280, 668 A.2d at 1277; see also Pease v. Windsor Dev. & Review Bd., 2011 VT 103, ¶ 17, 190 Vt. 639, 35 A.3d 1019 (looking to dictionary definitions to support statutory interpretation). Here, Confluence‘s Project comports with common definitions of “health care facility,” Vermont statutory provisions employing that term, DAIL licensing regulations, caselaw, and the Thetford Town Plan—all of which are nonbinding, but persuasive, in our analysis.
¶ 26. “Health care facility” includes: “the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of well-being through services offered by the medical and allied health professions,” Healthcare American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=health+care [https://perma.cc/VG4B-QLUJ], and “efforts made to maintain or restore health[,] especially by trained and licensed professionals,”
¶ 27. Confluence‘s Project meets this broad definition by providing a space for young adult males, all of whom must have a diagnosed mental-health condition, to seek therapeutic attention under clinical supervision. Confluence describes its program as:
[A] short-term residential wilderness therapy program designed to treat young adult males 18-28 years old. Confluence‘s program combines clinical therapeutic services with adventure-based wilderness therapy and agrarian living to help clients address mental health diagnosis and emotional, behavioral, and relational challenges . . . . [C]lients will participate in individual and group therapy sessions, counseling and peer support all supervised by a licensed mental health professional . . . . The entire client experience while at Confluence is designed to work together as part of the therapeutic treatment.
(emphases added). As such, the Project fits comfortably within the scope of “health care facility” outlined above.
¶ 28. While not binding, statutory language may aid us in defining “health care facility.” See Sec‘y, Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. Handy Family Enters., 163 Vt. 476, 483-84, 660 A.2d 309 (1995) (looking to Vermont statute regulating outdoor advertising for definition of the word “sign“). Title 18, Chapter 221, which governs health care administration in Vermont, defines “health care facility” as follows: “[A]ll institutions, whether public or private, proprietary or nonprofit, which offer diagnosis, treatment, inpatient, or ambulatory care to two or more unrelated persons, and the buildings in which those services are offered.”
“Health care facility” means all persons or institutions, including mobile facilities, whether public or private, proprietary or not for profit, which offer diagnosis, treatment, inpatient, or ambulatory care to two or more unrelated persons, and the buildings in which those services are offered. The term . . . shall include but is not limited to:
(A) hospitals, including general hospitals, mental hospitals, chronic disease facilities, birthing centers, maternity hospitals, and psychiatric facilities including any hospital conducted, maintained, or operated by the state of Vermont, or its subdivisions, or a duly authorized agent thereof;
(B) nursing homes, health maintenance organizations, home health agencies, outpatient diagnostic or therapy programs, kidney disease treatment centers, mental health agencies or centers, diagnostic imaging facilities, independent diagnostic laboratories, cardiac catheterization laboratories, radiation therapy facilities, or any inpatient or ambulatory surgical, diagnostic, or treatment center.
¶ 29. Confluence‘s Project aligns with these statutory definitions. The Project involves the provision of mental-health treatment to two or more unrelated persons to help patients address mental-health diagnoses, as well as emotional, behavioral, and relational challenges. Confluence will provide mental-health care to patients through individual and group therapy sessions with licensed mental-health professionals, combined with adventure-based wilderness therapy and communal agrarian living, that are clinically designed to work together as part of a therapeutic
¶ 30. The fact that DAIL, which is statutorily responsible for licensing and regulating “long-term care facilities in which medical, nursing, or other care is rendered,” is licensing Confluence‘s Project reinforces the argument that the Project is a “health care facility.”
¶ 31. The Court has not defined “health care facility” in the context of interpreting a zoning ordinance. However, two tax exemption cases, Fletcher Farm, Inc. v. Town of Cavendish, 137 Vt. 582, 409 A.2d 569 (1979), and Kingsland Bay School, Inc. v. Town of Middlebury, 153 Vt. 201, 569 A.2d 496 (1989), have considered whether therapeutic community residences were facilities used for “health purposes.” Again, while not dispositive, these cases aid our analysis here. In Fletcher Farm Inc. v. Town of Cavendish, we determined that a licensed therapeutic community residence, which included “group therapy, work, recreation, family-style meals and other related programs,” established that the property was being used for health purposes, and was therefore not exempt from real property tax under
¶ 32. Neighbors further argue that Confluence‘s Project is impermissible because the Town Plan suggests that extended care facilities should be allowed in Village Residential and
[T]he [town] plan is merely an overall guide to community development. It is a general guideline to the legislative body for its consideration of the municipality‘s land use program and of the community‘s needs and desires. Often stated in broad, general terms it is abstract and advisory. Zoning bylaws, on the other hand, are specific and regulatory. Zoning is properly conceived of as the partial implementation of a plan of broader scope. It must reflect the plan, but it need not be controlled by it. Although the plan may recommend many desirable approaches to municipal development, only those provisions incorporated in the bylaws are legally enforceable.
Kalakowski, 137 Vt. at 225-26, 401 A.2d at 910 (citation omitted). The town plan serves as a guide to outline community development; however, the plan cannot impose mandatory standards on community actors—that is the purview of the zoning bylaws.
¶ 33. Here, the Town Plan offers guidance on development of the Rural Residential district in its recommended policies, but these recommendations are not mandatory unless these policies were expressly implemented through the Zoning Bylaws. The Town Plan suggests:
Consider adding specific ordinances: . . . Residential institutions, such as homes for the aged, rest homes, extended care facilities, convalescent homes, elderly housing projects and similar types of living accommodations should be permitted as conditional uses, rather than permitted uses, close to community facilities and services in the village residential and community business zones.
This language is aspirational and not binding on this Court. The language, “consider adding specific ordinances,” indicates that this section of the Town Plan was not intended to function as a regulatory requirement without adoption into the Zoning Bylaws, but rather as mere thoughts regarding possible future zoning ordinance amendments. Without such adoptions, aspirational language in the Town Plan is not regulatory. See In re Champlain Oil Co. Conditional Use Application, 2014 VT 19, ¶ 5, 196 Vt. 29, 93 A.3d 139 (finding word “should” provides guidance, but does not establish regulatory standards in town plan). The Town Bylaws recognize this
¶ 34. Additionally, the language in the Town Plan does not expressly refer to health care facilities. Even if the Town Plan evidences an intent that “homes for the aged, rest homes, extended care facilities, convalescent homes, elderly housing projects, and similar types of group living accommodations” should only be allowed close to Village Residential and Community Business zones, these facilities serve a different purpose than Confluence‘s Project because they provide long-term care, rather than short-term transitional treatment.5 The Project may still be deemed a “health care facility,” which is expressly permitted in Rural Residential areas with a conditional-use permit under the enacted Bylaws, while the aforementioned examples are not. Therefore, even using the Town Plan to lend persuasive authority to our interpretation, there is no reason to narrowly construe the Town Plan to exclude the Project.
¶ 35. In addition to their “actual use” argument, which we have rejected, neighbors contend that, even if the Project is used to some degree as a “health care facility,” the Project is primarily residential, and those residential aspects should be considered—if not dispositive—in determining whether Confluence‘s Project is allowed in Thetford‘s Rural Residential area. Under
¶ 36. Neighbors argue that the impacts of the Project, rather than the definition of the term “health care facility,” establish that the Project‘s primary use is residential and ought to be prohibited. The impacts that neighbors are concerned with—including human waste, food handling, wastewater, and water supply—are primarily controlled by environmental regulations administered by the Agency of Natural Resources and/or DAIL as opposed to local zoning restrictions. Additionally, Confluence‘s entire proposal underwent a full conditional-use and site-plan review by the DRB to ensure, among other things, that the use would not result in undue adverse effects. The Project‘s impacts were fully reviewed under the same procedures that applied whether the Project was proposed as a health care facility or any other conditionally allowed use. The DRB determined that the Project complied with, and would not have an undue adverse impact under, the applicable criteria. This process is more rigorous than the review required for residential uses in the Rural Residential district. Therefore, to the extent that neighbors are concerned that an additional permit is required for residential use, the conditional-use and site-plan approval will satisfy these concerns.
¶ 37. Neighbors further assert that each of a project‘s uses must be allowed within the project‘s zoning district.
¶ 38. Finally, neighbors claim that the Project impermissibly reestablishes the “therapeutic retreats, conferences, and events” previously hosted on-site by the Church, which neighbors assert were nonconforming uses. Confluence concedes that it cannot reestablish the nonconforming uses previously exercised by the Church. Confluence seeks conditional-use and site-plan approval for the Project, without reliance on prior nonconforming uses. Because we agree this Project is a conditionally approved “health care facility” in its own right, we need not consider this argument.
¶ 39. In conclusion, the absence of a definition for “health care facility” in the Thetford zoning ordinance—the catalyst for this dispute—does not render the term ambiguous or inapplicable to Confluence‘s Project. While any ambiguity in the zoning ordinance must be resolved in favor of allowing the Project,6 here we need not rely on the resolution of continuing
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
Associate Justice