Case Title: In re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc.

Citation: 167 Vt. 75, 702 A.2d 397

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc.  (95-398); 167 Vt. 75; 702 A.2d 397

[Filed 29-Aug-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 95-398

In re Wal*Mart Stores, Inc.                  Supreme Court
and The St. Albans Group
                                             On Appeal from
                                             Environmental Board

                                             March Term, 1996

Arthur Gibb, Chair

       Peter M. Collins and Mark G. Hall of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc.,
  Burlington, for appellants Wal*Mart Stores, Inc. and The St. Albans Group

       David A. Barra of Hill, Unsworth, Barra, Bowles & Gannon, Essex
  Junction, for appellant Town of St. Albans

       Joseph F. Cahill, Jr. and Timothy J. Ryan of Brown, Cahill, Gawne &
  Miller, St. Albans, for amicus curiae Franklin County Industrial
  Development Corp.

       Thomas F. Heilmann of Heilmann, Ekman & Associates, Inc., Burlington,
  for amicus curiae Vermont Association of Realtors , Inc.

       William E. Roper of Neuse, Smith, Roper & Venman, P.C., Middlebury,
  Christopher M. Kilian and Mark Naud, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier,
  for amicus curiae Vermont Natural Resources Council

       Francis X. Murray, South Burlington, for amicus curiae Franklin/Grand
  Isle County Citizens for Downtown Preservation

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Ronald A. Shems and John H.
  Hasen, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae State of
  Vermont

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       GIBSON, J.   Wal*Mart Stores, Inc. and The St. Albans Group (Wal*Mart)
  and the Town of St. Albans (Town) appeal an order of the Environmental
  Board denying Wal*Mart's application, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. chapter 151
  (Act 250), for a permit to build a retail store in the Town.  Wal*Mart and
  the Town claim that the Board erred in:  (1) considering perceived adverse
  impacts on municipal tax revenues arising from Wal*Mart's competition in
  the regional

 

  market, a factor they contend is irrelevant and too speculative to be
  considered; (2) requiring Wal*Mart to produce a study of secondary-growth
  impacts to satisfy several Act 250 criteria; (3) interpreting Criterion
  9(A) (impact of growth) to apply to commercial growth, not simply
  population growth; (4) finding that the proposed store would be "scattered
  development" under Criterion 9(H); (5) requiring, under Criterion 5
  (traffic), a lower level of congestion than is required by the Agency of
  Transportation; and (6) concluding that the proposed store would unduly
  burden local municipalities' ability to provide municipal and educational
  services under various criteria.  We affirm the Board's denial of a permit
  under Criterion 9(A), and do not reach its ruling under Criterion 9(H).

       In September 1993, Wal*Mart filed an application under Act 250 for a
  permit to build a retail store in the Town.  The District #6 Commission
  found that the application satisfied all criteria listed in 10 V.S.A. §
  6086(a), and granted a permit for the project.  Franklin/Grand Isle County
  Citizens For Downtown Preservation (Citizens), the Vermont Natural
  Resources Council (VNRC) and Commons Associates appealed the district
  commission's decision to the Board. Citizens appealed the decision with
  respect to Criteria 5 (traffic), 6 (impact on education), 7 (municipal
  services), 9(A) (impact of growth), and 9(H) (costs of scattered
  development). VNRC appealed the decision with respect to Criteria 9(A) and
  9(H).(FN1)

       After de novo review of the appealed criteria under 10 V.S.A. §
  6089(a), the Board denied Wal*Mart's permit application on December 23,
  1994 under Criteria 9(A) and 9(H).  The Board also concluded that Wal*Mart
  had failed to satisfy Criteria 6 (impact on education) and 7 (impact on
  municipal services), although a permit may not be denied on these criteria
  alone. See 10 V.S.A. § 6087(b).  In response, Wal*Mart moved to alter the
  decision.  The Board denied the motion and issued a final order, with minor
  changes, on June 27, 1995.

       The Board authorized reconsideration of Wal*Mart's application under
  10 V.S.A. §

 

  6087(c), but ordered that, if Wal*Mart chose to seek reconsideration, it
  must provide a credible study of secondary-growth impacts and propose a
  permit condition to alleviate the burden caused by the project for any
  municipality in which the public costs outweigh the public benefits.(FN2)
  The present appeal followed.

       We give deference to the Environmental Board's interpretations of Act
  250 and its own rules, and to the Board's specialized knowledge in the
  environmental field.  Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v.
  Earth Constr., Inc., ___ Vt. ___, ___,