Case Title: In re Cottrell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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. 91-498


 In re Application of Walter Cottrell,        Supreme Court
 Town of Newbury Planning Commission
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Orange Superior Court

                                              March Term, 1992


 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 C. Daniel Hershenson of Hershenson, Carter, Scott, McGee & Grey,
   Norwich, for appellants

 Peter F. Welch of Welch, Graham & Manby, White River Junction, for
   appellee Cottrell

 Charles D. Hickey, St. Johnsbury, for appellee Town of Newbury


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   This is an appeal from a decision of the Orange Superior
 Court granting a conditional use permit and site plan approval to applicant,
 Walter Cottrell, to operate a veterinary clinic in the Newbury Town Center
 Commercial District.  Appellants, Jack and Veira Anderson, are neighbors to
 the clinic's proposed location.  They argue that the zoning amendment that
 allowed veterinary clinics in the district is invalid because of defects in
 the adoption process.  We reverse.
      The process that led to the zoning amendment began with a petition
 signed by over 5% of the voters of Newbury to amend the boundaries of the
 Town Center Commercial District to reduce its size.  Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. {
 4403, the Newbury Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal
 and submitted it to the selectmen, together with an analysis of the proposal
 as required by { 4403(c).  The commission recommended against the proposed
 amendment and also submitted an alternative change of boundaries they felt
 would be better.  Accompanying the transmission to the selectmen was a
 letter from the planning commission chair recommending that they add an
 authorization to the amendment allowing veterinary clinics in the district.
 The letter indicated that the chair had been contacted by three veterinar-
 ians who were interested in opening such a clinic.  There is no indication
 that this issue was considered by the planning commission.
      The minutes of the selectmen's meeting indicate that they treated the
 veterinary clinic addition as if it had come from the planning commission.
 They amended the proposal to make the changes urged by the planning
 commission, added the authorization for veterinary clinics and published
 notice for a public hearing on the zoning amendment package.  They also
 notified the planning commission of their action.  The planning commission
 discussed the veterinary clinic addition but took no formal action on it.
      Following the public hearing, the selectmen published a warning to town
 voters of a special town meeting for April 9, 1991, to consider the zoning
 changes.  The notice did not set forth the specific amendments but instead
 referred back to the earlier notice of the public hearing and stated that a
 copy of the amendments was available at the town clerk's office.  The
 ballots used for voting at the meeting also failed to contain the specifics
 of the proposal.  The amendments passed by 122 to 35, and the next day
 applicant, pursuant to the amendment, submitted the request for a permit
 for a veterinary clinic.
      Appellants raise four arguments to support their position that the
 amendments are invalid:  (1) the addition of the provision for veterinary
 clinics to the zoning amendments proposed by the planning commission was
 beyond the power of the selectmen; (2) the warning for the vote on the
 zoning amendments was deficient; (3) the voting procedure was deficient
 because the town failed to hold a meeting; and (4) the ballot used for the
 vote was deficient.  In addition, appellants attack applicant's planned
 landscaping and screening as inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.
 Because we agree that the selectmen could not adopt the veterinary clinic
 amendment without its consideration by the planning commission, we do not
 reach the other issues.
      The first issue deals with the power of the selectmen to change a
 proposal that comes from the planning commission.  Our statutes place the
 primary responsibility for proposing zoning ordinances, or amendments to
 ordinances, on the town planning commission.  See 24 V.S.A. { 4325(2).
 Zoning amendments must either be prepared by the planning commission or "be
 submitted in writing along with any supporting documents to the planning
 commission," which then proceeds as if it had prepared the amendment. Id. {
 4403(a), (b).  The planning commission must hold at least one public
 hearing on a proposal.  Id. { 4403(d).  The final result of the planning
 commission process is the submission of a proposal to the legislative body
 of the municipality, in this case the board of selectmen.  See id. {
 4403(f).
      If a proposal is supported by a petition signed by at least five per-
 cent of the municipality's voters, the planning commission must submit it to
 the legislative body without change except to correct a technical
 deficiency.  Id. { 4403(b), (f).  Otherwise, the planning commission has the
 discretion whether to submit a proposal.  If it submits a proposal to the
 legislative body, it normally will prepare a written report.  Id. { 4403(c).
 If the proposal would "alter the zoning designation of any land area," the
 report must address five specified issues.  Id.
      On receiving the proposal, the legislative body must hold one or more
 public hearings on it and make available to the public copies of the
 proposal and the planning commission report.  Id. { 4404(a).  It may "change
 the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal" if it does so at least fifteen
 days before the required public hearing and files a copy of the changed
 proposal with the planning commission.  Id. { 4404(b).  The planning
 commission may submit a report on the change prior to the public hearing.
 Id.  If the legislative body "makes substantial changes in concept, meaning
 or extent of the proposed bylaw, amendment or repeal," it must warn a new
 public hearing.  Id.  In a rural town like that involved here, the action
 of the legislative body forms the proposal on which the town's citizens town
 vote.  Id. { 4404(d).
      Appellants argue that the addition of the provision authorizing
 veterinary clinics created a new zoning amendment and was more than a change
 of the planning commission proposal.  They maintain that the new amendment
 was required to originate in the planning commission pursuant to { 4403(a)
 and could not be initially instituted by the selectmen under { 4404(b).
 Applicant and the town, on the other hand, argue that the new provision on
 veterinary clinics was a change in the commission's proposal, authorized by
 { 4404(b).  They point in particular to the language authorizing
 "substantial changes."  They further argue that it was submitted to the
 planning commission when a copy was filed with the planning commission
 before the public hearing.
      A number of canons of statutory construction are applicable to our
 task.  Essentially, we must review the entire statutory scheme to determine
 the intent of the Legislature.  See Smith v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 150 Vt.
 351, 355,