Title: In re Reynolds

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Reynolds (98-580); 170 Vt. 352; 749 A.2d 1133

[Filed 11-Feb-2000]

       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. 98-580

In re Appeal of Philip A. Reynolds	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 December Term, 1999

Merideth Wright, J.

Philip A. Reynolds, Pro Se, South Hero, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

Elizabeth Turner and Gilbert Whittemore, Law Clerk, Montpelier, for
  Amicus Curiae Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   The Vermont Environmental Court, on motions for summary
  judgment,  reversed an action of the seven-member Planning Commission of
  the Town of South Hero  approving an application for a subdivision
  amendment on a vote of three in favor, two against,  one abstention, and
  one member absent.  Philip Reynolds, a neighbor to the development, 
  appealed the issue to the environmental court and is appellee here. 
  Appellant, Town of South

  Hero, claims the court erred in holding that the common law rule regarding
  the effect of an  abstention does not apply in Vermont. (FN1)  We disagree
  and affirm.

       The Planning Commission of the Town of South Hero is composed of seven
  members, six  of whom were present for the hearing and deliberation on the
  project at issue in this case.  The  question was posed whether the project
  should be approved.  Of the six members present, three  voted in favor of
  the application, two voted against it, and one member abstained.  The
  governing  statute in Vermont provides that: "When joint authority is given
  to three or more, the concurrence  of a majority of such number shall be
  sufficient and shall be required in its exercise."  1 V.S.A.  § 172.  The
  number of concurring votes required is a majority of all the members of the
  board - in this case four.  See In re Lionni, 160 Vt. 625, 626,