Case Title: In re Walker

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-584

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 88-584

                            DECEMBER TERM, 1990


In re David and Linda Walker      }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          Washington Superior Court
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. S377-86Wnc


             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

     David and Linda Walker were granted a conditional use permit by the
Waterbury Zoning Board of Adjustment to construct an office and light
industrial building in the Route 100 district of Waterbury.  On appeal by
the Walkers' neighbor, Peter Watts, the Washington Superior Court granted
the permit after a de novo hearing.  Peter Watts appeals and we affirm.

     Appellant argues that since the Waterbury ordinance governing
conditional uses fails to comply with 24 V.S.A. { 4407(2), the ordinance is
invalid.  Specifically, the ordinance contains no requirement that a
proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect the utilization of
renewable energy resources, a requirement added to the statute in 1980.  See
24 V.S.A. { 4407(2).  The failure of a municipal ordinance to enunciate the
mandatory statutory requirements of { 4407(2) does not render the ordinance
invalid.  In re Duncan, No. 90-261, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Nov. 30, 1990).  A
municipal ordinance must be read to include the statutory requirements of 24
V.S.A. { 4407(2), and those requirements will govern whether or not they are
expressly set forth in the ordinance.  In re Application of White, No. 89-
215, slip op. at 6-7 (Vt. Nov. 21, 1990).  In In re Application of White,
the party challenging the ordinance did not contend that the trial court
failed to follow the relevant statutory criteria.  Id.  Similarly, in this
case, the trial court found that neither party raised the issue of the
utilization of renewable energy resources.  The failure of the Waterbury
ordinance to include that requirement does not render the ordinance invalid.

     Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in applying a
"substantially materially adverse impact test" to evaluate the proposed
conditional use.  Title 24 V.S.A. { 4407(2) permits municipalities to adopt
zoning regulations for conditional uses, but requires that a proposed
conditional use "shall not adversely affect" certain enumerated general
standards.  The Court must interpret a statute consistently with legislative
         intent.  In doing so, we presume that the Legislature intended a rational
result.  Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning, 148 Vt. 47, 49-50,