STATE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
COURT
}
In re: Appeal of
Ross
} Docket No.
137-8-04Vtec
}
}
Decision
and Order on Pending Motions
Appellant
H. Lawrence Ross appealed from a decision of the
Appellant’s
motion for summary judgment concerns only one issue: whether Dr. Levis’ proposed
use of the Old English Inn can be classified under the Village’s Zoning Bylaw
§ 5.12(1) as a permitted
conditional use in the Rural Residential
(RR) zoning
district.
Factual
Background
1.
Appellee-Applicant Dr. Albert J. Levis, M.D., is a Vermont-licensed
retired clinical psychiatrist who specializes in the study of the creative
process and the study of creativity as it relates to self-discovery and
growth. Dr. Levis’ former practice
was located in
2.
Appellee-Applicants purchased the subject parcel and improvements at
3.
The Old English Inn, the centerpiece of the property, was originally
built in 1903 and is a large twenty-two room structure surrounded by trees and
virtually invisible from River Road.
The building’s closest neighbors are approximately two hundred yards to
the west. The Old English Inn’s
former owners used it as a rooming house serving hikers and long-term tenants,
including members of the Target Program at Burr and
4. Appellee-Applicants propose using the Old English Inn as a facility to implement Dr. Levis’ emotional education program entitled “Creativity and Power Management,” which “consist[s] of theory and instruments [sic] . . . incorporat[ing] many therapeutic modalities integrated into one single unified conceptual and therapeutic model that proceeds from understanding behavior to helping the individual to understand oneself and to gradually develop skills.” Aff. of Albert Levis, at ¶2.
5.
Dr. Levis proposes to conduct various programs ranging in length from a
weekend to two weeks or longer, with a variety of activities, lodging, and food
service, all centered on the promotion of Dr. Levis’ psychotherapy study. The facility will be run by a
6. According to Dr. Levis, his program “effectively educates about behavior, assists a person to find [out] about oneself, provides a person with new non-stigmatizing diagnostic information with clarity on what changes are necessary to relieve symptoms, and provides a person with information on how to bring about such changes.” Aff. of Albert Levis, at ¶3.
7. According to a sample schedule, Dr. Levis’ offering will be entitled “Teleion Holon,” (greek for “The Perfect Universe”) and will include classes or seminars. The proposed activities appear to range from studies of science, psychology, morality, and conflict resolution to yoga, tai-chi, and nature walks. Dr. Levis also proposes using nearby museums and art galleries as part of the proposed programs.
8. Possible clients of Dr. Levis’ proposed facility include patients, medical and mental health professionals, and educators. At some point, Dr. Levis intends to conduct conferences for different professionals, possibly in conjunction with his facility at the nearby Wilburton Inn.
9.
Appellee-Applicants presented their application to the Village ZBA to
operate Dr. Levis’ center at the Old English Inn as a conditional use on
Discussion
Appellee-Applicants
moved to dismiss this appeal, alleging that Appellant does not have standing to
appeal because he does not meet the statutory requirement that an interested
person participate in the municipal proceedings in order to have standing to
appeal that municipal panel’s decision.
24 V.S.A. § 4471(a) (2004).
This section became effective on
In this instance Appellant has met the second requirement of § 4464(b)(3). The only issue in the motion to dismiss is whether Appellant has met the first requirement; that is, whether the property owned or occupied by Appellant is “in the immediate neighborhood” of Appellee-Applicants’ project.
This Court
stated in Appeals of National Realty & Development Corp., Docket Nos.
[t]here is no specific physical radius or distance, either as the crow flies or along the roadways, for determining whether an appellant’s property is ‘in the immediate neighborhood’ of a project . . . . Rather, to determine whether a putative appellant is ‘in the immediate neighborhood’ under § 4464(b)(3), we look to the physical proximity of the two properties, and examine other factors as well.
Because
Appellant’s property is located at
Appellant moves for summary judgment on whether Appellee-Applicants’ proposed use can properly be considered as a conditional use permitted in the RR district under § 5.12 of the Village Zoning Bylaw. Section 5.12(1) allows “a museum, art center, clinic or similar philanthropic use, operated by a governmental unit or non-profit corporation, or a community association,” to be permitted as a conditional use in the RR District.
Zoning
ordinances are interpreted according to the general rules of statutory
construction. In re Weeks,
167
Appellant’s
challenge can be characterized as whether Appellee-Applicants’ proposed use of
the Old English Inn is a “clinic or similar philanthropic use, operated by
a . . . non-profit corporation.” Bylaw § 512(1). We must view the facts relevant to
Appellant’s challenge in a light most favorable to Dr. Levis, since he is the
non-moving party. See Toys Inc. v. F.M. Burlington Co.,
155
The dictionary defines the word “clinic” as, “[a] medical establishment run by several specialists working together” or as, “[a] center that offers counsel or instruction.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary 215 (3d ed. 2005). While Appellee-Applicants’ proposed use can be characterized as a “center that offers counsel or instruction,” as Dr. Levis will conduct counseling and teach classes at the Old English Inn, we are not constrained by the dictionary definition of the term “clinic” because § 5.12(1) clearly permits similar uses by way of the phrase “similar philanthropic use.”
The word
“philanthropy” is defined as “an institution established to promote human
welfare.” Webster’s II New
College Dictionary 846 (3d ed. 2005).
Dr. Levis asserts that his proposed center will promote human welfare,
including instruction and programs available to educate the patients about
themselves in an effort to cure their symptoms. Notably, Dr. Levis has already
established the
Given the range of non-profit philanthropic activities similar to a clinic that Dr. Levis represents will be conducted at his facility, including clinical psychology, we cannot find at this time that Appellee-Applicants’ proposed use does not fit within the enumerated uses that may be permitted as conditional uses in the RR district pursuant to § 5.12(1). We therefore conclude that Appellee-Applicants’ request for summary judgment must be denied at this time.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that both Appellee-Applicants’ motion to dismiss and Appellant’s motion for summary judgment are DENIED. A conference will be scheduled by the court manager (see enclosed notice) to discuss any remaining issues in this matter, including the scheduling of a merits hearing.
Done at
Thomas S. Durkin, Environmental Judge