Case Title: In re Gaboriault

Citation: 167 Vt. 583, 704 A.2d 1163

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Gaboriault  (97-007); 167 Vt. 583; 704 A.2d 1163

[Filed 14-Nov-1997]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-007

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997

In re Appeal of Robert and Marie  }   APPEALED FROM:
Gaboriault, et al.                }
                                  }
                                  }     Environmental Court
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }     DOCKET NO. E96-084

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The Milton Town School District appeals from a decision of the
  Environmental Court that denied site-plan approval for a new school
  addition and parking lot and denied conditional-use approval for the
  parking lot.  The District argues that the court erred (1) by considering
  the impact of the parking lot on the neighbors rather than on the character
  of the general area, (2) by failing to give any deference to municipal
  policies supporting the location of the parking lot, and (3) by finding no
  special circumstances that warrant site-plan waivers of parking-lot
  requirements.(FN1)  We affirm.

       The Milton Town School District currently operates two elementary
  schools.  The Herrick Avenue School serves grades K-4, and the School
  Street School serves grades five and six.  The School Street School is
  outdated, and the District has decided to consolidate the two schools by
  expanding the Herrick Avenue School to accommodate grades five and six. 
  The site consists of two parcels of land, a 30.9-acre parcel on the east
  side of Herrick Avenue and a smaller parcel directly across from it on the
  west side.  The K-4 school is located on the east side of the street, along
  with two parking lots, playgrounds, athletic fields and open areas.  On the
  west side, there is a baseball field and an open area.

       The District proposed an extension to the current K-4 building
  covering most of the current parking lot.  The western parcel is the
  proposed location of the new parking lot.  Both parcels are in the
  high-density residential zoning district of the Town, which allows schools
  as a conditional use.  Town of Milton Zoning Regulations § 303. 
  Accordingly, the District applied to the Milton Zoning Board of Adjustment
  (ZBA) for conditional-use approval.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2).  The District
  also applied to the Milton Planning Commission for site-plan approval. See
  id. § 4407(5).  The ZBA approved the conditional use, and the Commission
  approved the site plan.

       Neighbors are nineteen residents of Village Meadows, a residential
  development located adjacent to and west of the proposed new parking lot. 
  They appealed the decisions of the ZBA

 

  and the Planning Commission to the Environmental Court.  See id. §§ 4471,
  4475.  Following a de novo trial, the court denied site-plan approval for
  the addition, the bus and parent drop-off and the parking lot on the west
  side of Herrick Avenue.  The court also denied conditional-use approval for
  the parking lot.  The District appeals.

       The District first argues that the court erred in its conditional-use
  review by concluding that the location of a parking lot could adversely
  affect the character of the area.  To approve a conditional use, the court
  must find that the proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect
  "[t]he character of the area."  Id. § 4407(2)(B); see Town of Milton Zoning
  Regulations § 500.2.  The court found that the school addition would not
  adversely affect the character of the area, which is composed of a school
  and playing fields surrounded by residential neighborhoods. On the other
  hand, the court found that the parking lot intruded into the residential
  neighborhood on the west side of Herrick Avenue and would adversely affect
  the residential character of that neighborhood; it found that the increase
  in noise, lights and vehicle exhaust would affect the whole neighborhood.

       The District contends that the court construed "area" too narrowly. 
  It maintains that the court should focus on the entire high-density
  residential zoning district rather than on the immediate neighbors.  Under
  the District's construction, locating a school parking lot anywhere on the
  District's two parcels would not affect the character of the high-density
  residential zone because it already contains a school and two school
  parking lots.

       We note that the zoning regulation differs from the statute.  Compare
  24 V.S.A. § 4407(2)(B) ("character of the area affected") with Town of
  Milton Zoning Regulations § 500.2 ("character of the area").  The municipal
  regulation must be read to follow the requirements of § 4407(2), "and those
  requirements will govern whether or not they are expressly set forth." In
  re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639, 588 A.2d 1058, 1059 (1991) (mem.).  Thus, the
  court was required to consider the character of the area affected.  In this
  light, we cannot conclude that the court's finding -- that the proposed
  parking lot would adversely affect the character of the residential
  neighborhood -- was clearly erroneous; the residential neighborhood is the
  area that would be affected.  See In re Meaker, 156 Vt. 182, 185, 588 A.2d 1362, 1363 (1991) (we will uphold court's finding of adverse effect unless
  clearly erroneous).

       Second, the District argues that the court acted as a super-planning
  commission in violation of Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 556 A.2d 103 (1989), by failing to give any deference to the municipal policies
  that support the site plan and were adopted by the Planning Commission. 
  The District contends that the court erred by failing to consider that the
  plan was designed to enhance student safety -- by separating parking from
  student population -- and to preserve municipal resources -- by sparing
  existing athletic fields.  On appeal from a Planning Commission decision,
  neighbors were entitled to a de novo trial before the environmental court. 
  See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a).  For a de novo trial, the court must approach a
  case as if it were the planning commission, without regard to what has been
  done before the planning commission.  In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt.
  272, 275,