DJK was adding a bedroom to an existing residence and needed a wastewater permit from Vermont's environmental agency. The agency has a "presumptive isolation zone" around potable water supplies and septic systems in which a property owner is presumed to be barred from doing anything sewage related. In this case, the isolation zone for DJK's property crossed over onto the property of their neighbors, the Crowleys.
The agency granted DJK the permit, which contained a provision that not only no sewage-related construction could take place in the isolation zone, but that "[n]o buildings" could be construction which "might interfere with the operation of a wastewater system or potable water supply[.]" Remember, the isolation zone was located partially on the Crowley property.
The Crowleys were not very appreciative, so appealed (to a Vermont trial court sitting as the Environmental court). They argued that the permit was invalid because it worked a taking of their land, imposed an unconstitutional condition, and they had not received notice and an opportunity to be heard before the permit was issued.
The Environmental court granted the agency summary judgment, concluding the court lacked jurisdiction over what it called the "property-related issues and rights." But the court continued and considered if the permit imposed an uncompensated taking ("The court did consider if 'the Rules, as applied to [neighbors] by way of the Permit, amount[ed] to a taking due to the State’s placement of potential development limitations on their propert[y].'"). We're not all that clear on the distinction being drawn and how a court without jurisdiction can make a ruling on the substance of the claim, but there it is. The court concluded the permit did not impose a physical invasion taking, and the Crowleys got all the process they were due.
In In re DJK, LLC, No. 22-AP-269 (June 14, 2024), the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. The court rejected the Crowleys' assertion that the case "involves the legality of permit conditions," which would mean that the Environmental court had jurisdiction under the Vermont statute which grants jurisdiction over such claims. Slip op. at 10.
Not so, held the court, "[t]he fact that the Environmental Division [of the trial court] has authority to consider permit appeals does not authorize it to adjudicate private property disputes, such as the existence of easements. The civil division, not the Environmental Division, has jurisdiction over such matters." Slip op. at 11. This is a "private property dispute," slip op. at 12, and thus no jurisdiction. Slip op. at 14 ("Neighbors offer no persuasive authority in support of their assertion that the Environmental Division had jurisdiction to determine if the permit created an easement in their property and we reject their first claim of error.").
Well, okay then. End of this story, no? If the Environmental division doesn't have jurisdiction but the civil division does, the Crowleys can go file their constitutional claims there, right? You might think a "no jurisdiction" conclusion would mean that any rulings by the Environmental division would be ultra vires, yes? Or maybe not:
¶ 35. As referenced above, the Environmental Division did consider if the permit condition effected a taking under the analysis in Cedar Point Nursery, that is, whether the regulation authorized a physical invasion of their property. This was consistent with its authority to consider “property-related issues and rights . . . within the scope of the regulations governing the permit application.”
Slip op. at 14-15.
Wait, what? To get to this conclusion, the Supreme Court had to make a very nuanced distinction: the Environmental court didn't have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the agency's actions, but nonetheless could reach the conclusion that the permit did not impose a physical invasion taking, and this is consistent with its jurisdiction to consider property issues "within the scope of the regulations governing the permit application." See slip op. at 15 ("¶ 37. Neighbors fail to show that the court erred in finding the absence of any physical invasion here.").
There might have been an easement created by the isolation zone (and that is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Environmental court), but the court concluded that there hasn't yet been an "actual physical invasion" of the Crowley's property. Slip op. at 16.
If you can figure this one out in a way that makes sense, please let us know.
In re DJK, LLC, No. 22-AP-269 (Vt. June 14, 2024)
