Title: Calais, Town of, v. County Road Commissioners

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Town of Calais v. County Road Commissioners  (2000-194); 173 Vt. 620;
795 A.2d 1267

[Filed 25-Feb-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 09-Apr-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-194

                               JUNE TERM, 2001

  Town of Calais                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }	Washington Superior Court
                                       }	
  County Road Commissioners            }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 322-6-99 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

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

       The Town of Calais appeals from a superior court order affirming a
  decision of the County Road Commissioners requiring the Town to repair
  portions of Still Brook Road, a class 4 highway.  The Town contends the
  trial court: (1) lacked jurisdiction; (2) misconstrued the controlling
  statutory scheme; (3) erroneously failed to conduct a de novo hearing; and
  (4) improperly excluded certain evidence.  We agree with the contention
  that the trial court misconstrued the governing statutes, which vest the
  Town selectboard with broad discretion to determine the necessity of making
  repairs to class 4 highways.  Accordingly, we reverse.

       Appellees Sylvia and Steven Spooner brought this action to compel the
  Town to repair the portion of Still Brook Road which leads to their house
  and is classified as a class 4 highway.  The road had washed out in a storm
  and, as a result, contained very deep ruts.  The Town declined to make the
  repairs, relying on its class 4 road policy, enacted by the Town
  selectboard in 1996, which provides that maintenance of class 4 highways
  will be done by adjacent landowners who "shall bear all costs associated
  with said fourth class road . . . project," except that the Town Road
  Commissioner will evaluate each class 4 highway annually and "as time
  permits will perform minimal [summer] maintenance."  Appellees appealed to
  the County Road Commissioners who eventually found that the Town should
  "provide reasonable access and safety" for appellees by spending up to
  $1,500 to fill in washes and restore waterbars.

       On appeal by the Town, the superior court required it to go further,
  and return the road to its former condition with no cost limit.  The trial
  court held that the Town had not fulfilled its statutory responsibility to
  promote the public good, necessity, and convenience under 19 V.S.A. §
  310(b), which provides:

       Class 4 highways may be maintained to the extent required by
       the necessity of the town, the public good and the
       convenience of the inhabitants of the town, or may be
       reclassified using the same procedures 

  

       as for laying out highways and meeting the standards 
       set forth in section 302 of this title.
       
       This appeal followed.

       The Town relies on the plain language of § 310(b), and its road
  maintenance policy adopted pursuant to that section.  We agree that the
  statute supports the Town's road maintenance policy, which in turn
  authorizes exactly the position the Town took here.  It is axiomatic that
  in construing a statute our objective is to effectuate the legislative
  intent.  See Sagar v. Warren Selectboard, 170 Vt. 167, 171,