Title: In re Carrier

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-351


In re Application of                         Supreme Court
  Bernard and Suzanne Carrier
                                             On Appeal from
                                             Orleans Superior Court

                                             April Term, 1990


Alan W. Cheever, J.

Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, for appellant

Robert P. Davison, Jr. and Todd C. Hartsuff of Robert P. Davison, Jr., P.C.,
  Stowe, for appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   Richard and Daniel Scott and Bluffside Farms appeal a
superior court order granting site plan approval to Bernard and Suzanne
Carrier for a nine-lot residential subdivision of a 10.5-acre parcel of land
bordering Lake Memphremagog.  We affirm.
                                    I.
     In July of 1985, shortly after purchasing the 10.5-acre parcel, the
Carriers petitioned the Newport Planning Commission for site plan approval
for a nine-lot residential subdivision of the land, which is zoned "general
residential" but also located within a "shoreland control" district.  The
Commission granted its approval for lots 1-6, but withheld action on lots 7-
9 until the applicants could present an amended permit showing permanent
access to those lots.  Abutting property owners Bluffside Farms and its
owners, the Scotts (hereinafter, collectively, Bluffside Farms), appealed
the site plan approval for lots 1-6 to Orleans Superior Court.  Three months
later, the Commission denied the application for lots 7-9, and the Carriers
appealed that decision to superior court.  At the same time, the Carriers
(1) crossclaimed against the City of Newport, contending that the City had
acquired title to Bigelow's Bluff Road ÄÄ a road adjoining the proposed lots
ÄÄ by dedication and acceptance, and (2) counterclaimed against Bluffside
Farms, asserting that Bluffside had no interest in the road since it was a
public road and its recent conveyance to Bluffside had been fraudulent and
without consideration.
     In March of 1986 in a de novo hearing following consolidation of the
appeals, the Orleans Superior Court denied the site plan application and
dismissed with prejudice all the claims of the parties.  The court found,
among other things, that (1) the Carriers had not submitted a survey of the
property showing the features that existed before excavation and landscaping
of the site began; (2) Bigelow's Bluff Road was a public road, but was only
twelve to seventeen feet wide and was not designed to provide safe access to
the Carrier development; and (3) since Bigelow's Bluff Road was a public
road, there was no need to determine whether an interest in the road had
been conveyed to Bluffside Farms.  The court concluded that the site plan
application failed to comply with the Newport Zoning Regulations; specific-
ally, the court stated that the proposed subdivision was not harmonious with
existing adjacent uses and did not provide for maximum traffic safety and
circulation between the site and the street network.
     The Carriers then filed a motion to amend, asking the court to find
that Bigelow's Bluff Road is a Newport City street by virtue of dedication
and acceptance.  The court denied that motion and a subsequent motion for
reconsideration, pointing out that the motion to amend was not timely filed
and that V.R.C.P. 60 was inapplicable.  The court also noted that the use of
a road by the public does not, by itself, show acceptance.
     In May of 1986, the Carriers made a second attempt at gaining site plan
approval.  The Planning Commission denied this application, and the Carriers
again appealed to the superior court.  Bluffside Farms moved to dismiss the
appeal, claiming that the second application was not sufficiently different
from the first and thus was barred by res judicata.  The court denied this
motion.  Moreover, in response to a Carrier motion, the court determined
that the finding in the first appeal that Bigelow's Bluff Road was a public
road had not been essential to that judgment and thus was not conclusive for
purposes of the second appeal.
     On October 26, 1987, the court denied the Carriers' second appeal,
insofar as the proposed development did not comply with Newport Zoning
Regulation { 352(2) and (3), which requires that the Commission consider
"maximum safety of vehicular circulation between the site and the street
network" and "adequacy of circulation, parking and loading facilities with
particular attention to safety."  Although the court found that the
"interior road and Bigelow's Bluff Road are functionally inadequate to
accommodate the flow of traffic that would arise from the development," it
also found that Bigelow's Bluff Road had been dedicated to the public and
accepted by the City of Newport, and, therefore, was a public road as
required by { 502 of the Newport Zoning Regulations.  The court found that
the road had been dedicated to public use since the early part of the 20th
century, and that city maintenance of the road constituted acceptance.
     After several motions from both sides, the court granted the Carriers'
motion for a partial retrial.  On April 11, 1988, following an evidentiary
hearing, the court amended certain findings and conclusions and granted site
plan approval based on the fact that the proposed improvements to Bigelow's
Bluff Road satisfied { 352(2) and (3) of the Newport Zoning Regulations.
The court denied Bluffside Farms' motion for a new trial, and the present
appeal followed.
     On appeal, Bluffside Farms argues that (1) the court's order from the
first litigation, which dismissed all claims of the parties with prejudice,
was res judicata concerning the status of Bigelow's Bluff Road; (2) the
court was required to deny the Carriers' second site plan application
because res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the court from
reconsidering the lack of a survey of preexisting conditions, the forbidden
use of stumps for fill, the unsafe condition of Bigelow's Bluff Road, and
the lack of a harmonious relationship between proposed uses and existing
adjacent uses; and (3) the court, while acting as the Newport Planning
Commission in the second litigation, exceeded its subject matter juris-
diction and acted without necessary parties in determining title to
Bigelow's Bluff Road.
                                    II.
     Bluffside Farms first argues that the dismissal of the Carriers'
counterclaim and crossclaim in the first litigation constituted a final
determination that Bigelow's Bluff Road is not a public road in satisfaction
of { 502 of the Newport Zoning Regulations.  We disagree.
     Under state law, municipal zoning regulations must require development
projects to front on or have access to public roads or waters.  24 V.S.A. {
4406(2).  Accordingly, { 502 of the Newport Zoning Regulations provides as
follows:
            No land development may be permitted on lots which do
          not either have frontage on a public road or public
          waters or, with the approval of the Planning Commission,
          access to such a road or waters by a permanent easement
          or right-of-way at least twenty feet in width.
In the first litigation, the court stated in several findings that Bigelow's
Bluff Road was a public road, noting that the City had maintained it since
1949.  In its last finding, it stated,
            Bluffside Farms . . . claim[s] that a quit-claim
          [deed] by Rudolph Bigelow on July 6, 1985, conveyed the
 road to them.  However, Bigelow's Bluff Road is a public
          road.  There is no need for the court to make a deter-
          mination whether the conveyance from Rudolph Bigelow to
          the Scotts conveyed an interest in the road to the
          Scotts.
The court nevertheless rejected the Carriers' application and dismissed the
claims of the parties, concluding that the site plan failed to meet the
Newport Zoning Regulations' objectives of traffic safety and harmony with
existing uses.
     In no way can this order be construed as a determination that Bigelow's
Bluff Road is not a public road as required by { 502.  To the contrary, the
court's findings clearly state that the road is a public road for purposes
of site plan approval, and that the court did not need to adjudicate a
claimed conveyance of the road.  At best, Bluffside Farms could argue that
the court's findings regarding the status of the road were unessential to
its judgment that the Carriers' application did not satisfy other related,
but distinct, sections of the zoning regulations; in such a case, collateral
estoppel would not bar further litigation of the issue.  See Turner v.
Bragg, 117 Vt. 9, 11-12,