Case Title: Brennan Woods Limited Partnership v. Town of Williston

Citation: 173 Vt. 468, 782 A.2d 1230

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Brennan Woods Limited Partnership v. Town of Williston (2000-240); 
173 Vt. 468; 782 A.2d 1230

[Filed 26-Sept-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-240

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

Brennan Woods Limited Partnership      }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
Town of Williston	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S1494-98CnC

                                                Trial Judge: Edward J. Cashman

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

       The Town of Williston appeals the summary judgment decision in favor
  of plaintiff Brennan  Woods Limited Partnership and grant of mandamus
  compelling the Town to allocate sewage  disposal capacity to plaintiff's
  project under the phasing schedule imposed by plaintiff's Act 250  permit. 
  The Town contends: (1) The Town Select Board acted within its discretion
  under the 1990  sewer allocation ordinance in imposing phasing requirements
  to regulate growth in accordance with  its Municipal Comprehensive Plan;
  (2) the Board is not bound by the decision of the environmental  court or
  Act 250 permit regarding the phasing schedule for the Brennan Woods
  project; and (3)  mandamus is not a proper remedy in light of the board's
  discretion.  We affirm.

       The following facts are not in dispute.  Plaintiff's predecessor filed
  a subdivision application  on May 19, 1994 (FN1) with the town planning
  commission to build 174 residential units on a 189-acre parcel on Mountain
  View Road, in Williston, Vermont.  On March 27, 1995, plaintiff's 
  predecessor applied for a sewer allocation of 39,150 gallons per day (gpd)
  to cover the entire project.  On July 27, 1995, the Board granted a partial
  sewer service allocation of 3,600 gpd for the project  to serve the initial
  fifteen homes in the development.  In May 1996, the town planning
  commission  granted subdivision approval for the project, but imposed a
  phasing requirement limiting  construction to fifteen homes a year and
  delayed construction of more houses until July 1998.   Plaintiff's
  predecessor appealed to the environmental court.  

       The issue before the environmental court was whether the planning
  commission was  authorized to impose a phasing limitation on the project. 
  The  court reviewed the zoning ordinance  which requires the planning
  commission to prepare a residential phasing policy to implement the 
  Williston Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance.  The court found that
  this provision of the  zoning ordinance lacked any safeguards or standards
  to which the planning commission must adhere  when creating its phasing
  policy.  Accordingly, the court held that the zoning ordinance was an 
  impermissible delegation of authority to the planning commission, and that
  therefore, the planning 

 

  commission lacked the authority to impose the phasing requirement.  In re
  Snyder Group Inc., No.E  96-099, slip op. at 2 (Vt. Env. Ct. June 19,
  1997).  The Town did not appeal the decision of the  environmental court.

       In September 1996, plaintiff's predecessor applied for an Act 250
  permit.  The Town provided  comment to the District 4 Coordinator about the
  project.  Regarding sewer and water, the Town  represented the following:

    The Williston Selectboard granted a municipal sewer allocation on
    July 27,  1995 to serve the initial 15 dwelling units of this
    development.  The  balance of the sewer allocation must be made at
    a later date.  Normally, the  Selectboard grants priority, as
    additional sewer capacity becomes  available, to a project that
    has already received a partial allocation and is  under
    construction.   Municipal water service is available to serve the 
    project.

  The Town also indicated that the project conforms to its 1995 Comprehensive
  Plan.  The District 4  Commission ultimately granted a permit to plaintiff
  that included a phasing plan commencing July 1,  1996, which allows
  build-out of the project at a rate equivalent to twenty-two housing units
  per year  over a period of eight years.  The Town did not appeal the
  District Commission's grant of an Act 250  permit and phasing condition.

       On May 28, 1998, the State approved an upgrade to the sewage plant the
  Town owns with  Essex and Essex Junction.  The upgrade added 250,000 gpd to
  the Town's share of uncommitted  reserve capacity.  The allocation of sewer
  service is controlled by the Town sewer allocation  ordinance.  The
  ordinance provides a list of allocation priorities under which existing
  facilities which  must be connected, but are not, and emergency pollution
  abatements are afforded first priority.   "Development projects within the
  sewer service area which has [sic] been granted allocation in prior  years
  will have second priority."  On June 18,1998, responding to the expanded
  capacity in the tri-town sewage plant, the Board adopted Attachment A to
  the sewer allocation ordinance allocating  52,510 gpd to residential
  projects with existing partial sewer allocations.  At that time,
  plaintiff's  project was one of four residential projects with existing
  partial sewer allocations.  On October 27,  1998, the Board adopted a
  resolution to allocate 39,240 gpd (FN2) to plaintiff subject to the 
  following phasing requirement:

    The allocation for Brennan Woods shall be for 5 single family
    dwellings  and 4 carriage homes (2130 gpd) in year 1998-1999, 15
    single family  dwellings (3750 gpd) in 1999-2000, 22 single family
    dwellings (5500 gpd)  in year 2000-2001, and a mix of single
    family dwellings and carriage  homes not exceeding 22 units in
    each subsequent year through 2006-2007 

 

    (annual allocations not exceeding 5,500 gpd).  Total allocation
    over the  entire development period shall be 39,240 gpd.

       Plaintiff appealed the allocation phasing requirement to the superior
  court pursuant to  V.R.C.P. 76.  Plaintiff and the Town filed motions for
  summary judgment.  Plaintiff argued that the  October 1998 resolution was
  not authorized by the applicable sewer ordinance and that the Board  failed
  to carry out its non-discretionary duty to release committed disposal
  capacity to Brennan  Woods.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of
  plaintiff reasoning that the sewer  allocation ordinance did not contain
  any objective criteria or procedures for independently  implementing growth
  control policies beyond a standard of available sewer capacity, and
  therefore,  does not authorize the Board to impose phasing conditions.  The
  court also held that the phasing  schedule imposed by the Act 250 permit
  had become the only enforceable limitation on the rate at  which the
  project could be built.  The Town appeals.

       The Town contends it was authorized under the 1990 sewer allocation
  ordinance to grant  plaintiff its sewer allocation subject to the
  Town-imposed phasing schedule.  The Town maintains  the phasing schedule
  imposed by the October 27, 1998 resolution was intended to control the
  growth  and density of the Town's population as directed by the ordinance
  and Comprehensive Plan, and was,  therefore, authorized.  The Town also
  argues that the court erred in ruling that the only valid phasing 
  requirement was that imposed by the Act 250 permit.  Finally, the Town
  contends that mandamus  was an improper remedy.

       The superior court's decision with respect to the legality of the
  phasing requirement rests on  two conclusions: (1) the Town had limited
  power to use the sewer allocation ordinance as a growth-control measure,
  and its actions went beyond that limited power; and (2) through Appendix A,
  the  Town allocated the necessary sewer allocation to plaintiff, and it had
  no power to undo that  allocation in imposing conditions on the permit.  We
  examine the first conclusion in light of the  Town's first contention that
  the sewer allocation ordinance authorized the Board to make sewer 
  allocation decisions and impose conditions based on the goals of the
  Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 

       "[A] municipality has only those powers and functions expressly
  granted to it by the  legislature, such additional functions as may be
  incident, subordinate or necessary to the exercise  thereof, and such
  powers as are essential to the declared objects and purposes of the
  municipality."   Robes v. Town of Hartford, 161 Vt. 187, 190,