Other than what's rubbed off from being a member of planning commissions for the past fifteen years or so, I spend little time in the land-use arena. I note this because both SCOV decisions issued on April 12, 2024, deal with land use and you should keep your expectations low (as regular readers of this blog should know to do).
Anywho, let's get to the alphabet soup. First, we have an appeal in a decade-long battle over a natural-gas pipeline. In proceedings below, the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC for a 90s-reality-show vibe) found that Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. (VGS) made unsanctioned and substantial changes to the approved proposal underlying VGS's certificate of public good (CPG) while constructing the pipeline. But the PUC took a no-blood-no-foul approach, reasoning that the changes didn't undermine compliance with the applicable statute and thus VGS could amend its CPG. So the PUC fined VGS and directed it to submit proposed CPG amendments to the PUC. Intervenors said WTF. Intervenors appeal.
SCOV reverses in part, vacates in part, and kicks it back to the PUC with instructions. While it was fine that the PUC didn't require a licensed electrical engineer to sign off on the plan, the PUC lacked authority to let VGS amend its CPG without putting in a new application in light of the five substantial changes and one material change regarding the CPG. And so, we get a deep dive into administrative law and "land" on the concept that you can't have substantial changes without a new application. SCOV notes that there has been a bit of an ad hoc approach in the past and therefore declares: "the Commission may effectuate amendments to a CPG only in a manner that satisfies the requirements of a § 248 proceeding." In other words, time to start the process over again. In re Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., 2024 VT 19.
Second and lastly, just because I enjoy how that sounds, we have a decision on whether a request for reconsideration tolls the appellate window in a conditional-use-permit situation. Spoiler alert: it does not. We could go through a full analysis of why that is legally or we could watch Jack Black play the Sax-A-Boom on the Tonight Show. It's really up to you. The short version on the legal side of things is that a request for reconsideration to a municipal panel just ain't the same as a formal motion to alter or amend a judgment in the superior court in terms of invoking the appellate rule that tolls the appeal period. So, even though the environmental division concluded that the request for reconsideration had tolled the appeal period, SCOV concludes otherwise. Is there more to it? Sure. Am I going to write about it? Nope. But you can always click the link and read all about it. In re 2078 Jersey Street, 2024 VT 20.
Comments
Post a Comment