Case Title: Richards v. Nowicki

Citation: 172 Vt. 142, 772 A.2d 510

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Richards v. Nowicki  (99-406); 172 Vt. 142; 772 A.2d 510

[Filed 23-Mar-2001]

       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. 1999-406

Stuart Richards	                            Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
     v.	                                    Windsor Superior Court

Paul Z. Nowicki and	                    January Term, 2001
Town of Norwich

Richard W. Norton, J.

       C. Daniel Hershenson and Anthony Z. Roisman of Hershenson, Carter,
  Scott & McGee, Norwich,    for  Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Gary R. Wieland, White River Junction, for Defendant-Appellee, Town of
  Norwich.

       Laura O'Connor, Sharetha S. Marsicovetere and John C. Candon of Miller
  & Candon, LLC, for  Defendant-Appellee, Nowicki.

PRESENT:  Amestoy,C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Stuart Richards appeals from the Windsor
  Superior Court's order granting  the summary judgment motion of defendants,
  Town of Norwich (Town) and Paul Nowicki (defendant),  dismissing
  plaintiff's challenge to a sewage disposal permit issued by the Town to
  defendant.  On appeal,  plaintiff argues that (1) the Town's 1994
  amendments to its septic ordinance are invalid, and, as a result, 
  defendant had to comply with state minimum technical standards for a sewage
  disposal system; (2) plaintiff  has a vested right to consideration of
  defendant's sewage 

  

  disposal system under the 1994 amendments to  the Town's septic ordinance;
  (3) if the 1994 amendments do not apply, the decision to award defendant a 
  permit is inconsistent with the provisions of section IV of the 1973
  ordinance; (4) the Town selectboard  ruled erroneously, and denied
  plaintiff due process of law, when it granted defendant a permit under the 
  standards of the 1973 ordinance, even though the hearing was conducted
  under the standards of the 1994  amendments; and (5) section VII of the
  1973 septic ordinance is unconstitutional because it is vague and  grants
  discretion to the selectboard to issue a sewage disposal system without
  adequate standards to govern  the exercise of its discretion.  We disagree
  and affirm the decision of the Windsor Superior Court. 

       Plaintiff and defendant are adjoining landowners.  Plaintiff has a
  principal residence on his lot.  In  1996, defendant proposed to build a
  residential dwelling on his lot.  Because of the size and typography of 
  defendant's lot, as well as the presence of a stream and water line across
  it, defendant could not comply  with the provisions of the Town septic
  ordinance.  Accordingly, he applied for a special case exception  under a
  specific authorization contained in the ordinance.  Both the Town Board of
  Health, and on appeal  the Board of Selectmen, authorized issuance of a
  sewage disposal permit, the latter on March 11, 1997.   Plaintiff then
  appealed to the Windsor Superior Court, which initially ruled that
  plaintiff lacked standing to  seek court review of the sewage disposal
  permit decision.

       Appeal of the standing decision led to our first opinion in this
  dispute.  In Richards v. Town of  Norwich, 169 Vt. 44,