Case Title: In re Casella Waste Management, Inc.

Citation: 175 Vt. 335, 2003 VT 49, 830 A.2d 60

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Casella Waste Management, Inc. (2002-324); 175 Vt. 335; 830 A.2d 60

2003 VT 49

[Filed 29-May-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 49

                                No. 2002-324

  In re Appeal of Casella Waste 	          Supreme Court
  Management, Inc. and E.C. 
  Crosby & Sons, Inc. (Sally Mole, 
  et al., Appellants)	                          On Appeal from
                                                  Environmental Court

                                                  January Term, 2003

  Merideth Wright, J.
      
  David W. Gartenstein of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Brattleboro, for
    Appellants.

  Robert F. O'Neill, John R. Ponsetto and Megan J. Shafritz of Gravel and
    Shea, Burlington, for Appellee Casella Waste Management, Inc.

  Mary C. Ashcroft, Rutland, for Appellee Town of Sunderland.

       PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen,
                 C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.  Appellants Sally Mole, Dale Guldbrandsen, Tim
  and Kerry Walker, and Ruth Fuller-White ("landowners" collectively) appeal
  from a decision of the environmental court approving the construction of an
  access road connecting a solid waste transfer station owned by appellee
  Casella Waste Management, Inc. ("Casella") to Route 7A in Manchester. 
  Landowners assert that the access road constitutes an unauthorized
  extension of a pre-existing nonconforming use to an adjacent parcel
  because: (1) Manchester's zoning ordinance does not allow the extension of
  a nonconforming use onto land not previously occupied by the nonconforming
  use; and (2) the purpose of Vermont's zoning statute is to eliminate
  nonconforming uses.  Thus, landowners argue that the trial court erred by
  construing Manchester's zoning ordinance to permit such a use.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Casella owns and operates a solid waste transfer station
  located on a parcel of land straddling the Manchester/Sunderland town line. 
  The transfer station functions as a pre-existing nonconforming use in the
  farming and rural residential zoning district in the town of Manchester. 
  Waste hauling trucks travel to Route 7 or Route 7A via small, rural roads
  such as River Road and Richville Road in Manchester, or Sunderland Hill
  Road and Hill Farm Road in Sunderland.

       ¶  3.  In 1998, Casella applied to the State of Vermont District
  Environmental Commission # 8 for a permit to upgrade its transfer station
  and solid waste hauling operation.  The Commission issued the permit on the
  condition that Casella either construct a new access road to the facility
  or implement a traffic mitigation plan in order to alleviate the adverse
  impacts of the commercial trucks on the rural road system.  In January
  1999, Casella submitted a plan to the Town of Manchester Zoning Board of
  Adjustment (ZBA) to construct an access road through an adjacent parcel of
  land providing direct access to Route 7A from the transfer station.  The
  adjacent parcel was previously owned by E.C. Crosby and Sons, Inc., but
  Casella purchased it during the course of the permit application process.
   
       ¶  4.  Landowners, who live near the transfer station, opposed
  Casella's proposed access road.  After conducting hearings to review the
  project, the Manchester ZBA approved the plan to construct the access road
  and issued Casella a permit in June 1999.  The ZBA found that the proposed
  access road would "improve public health, safety, and welfare by removing
  large truck traffic from the back roads of Manchester and Sunderland."

       ¶  5.  In the summer of 1999, both parties filed notices of appeal to
  the environmental court.  Casella appealed two conditions imposed by the
  ZBA's decision granting permission to build the access road.  Landowners
  cross-appealed, arguing that the ZBA's decision was invalid.  Prior to
  trial, landowners moved for summary judgment, asserting that Vermont law
  prohibits Casella from extending its nonconforming use onto land not
  previously subject to such use unless Casella obtained a variance, and that
  in any event Casella would not be eligible to obtain a variance.  The
  motion for summary judgment was denied.  Evidentiary hearings were held
  over a three-day period in the fall of 2001.  Following post-trial briefing
  in which landowners renewed their request that Casella's application be
  denied and judgment be entered in their favor as a matter of law, the
  environmental court issued a final decision approving Casella's application
  on July 5, 2002.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  Zoning ordinances are interpreted according to the general
  rules of statutory construction.  In re Weeks, 167 Vt. 551, 554,