Title: In re Handy

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Handy (98-015 & 98-016); 171 Vt. 336; 764 A.2d 1226 

[Filed 17-Nov-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.
  
                           Nos. 98-015 and 98-016

In re Paul L Handy	                         Supreme Court
In re Jolley Associates
                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Environmental Court

Town of Shelburne	                         September Term, 1998

Merideth Wright, J.

Joseph S. McLean and Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., 
  Burlington, for Town of Shelburne.
	
Howard J. Seaver of Greene & Seaver, Inc., Burlington, for Appellant Jolley 
  Associates.

Douglas J. Riley of Lisman & Lisman, Burlington, for Appellee Handy.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   In these consolidated appeals, we consider the status of
  zoning permit  applications filed during what we will refer to as the
  "pendency period" - the period from the date  that public notice is given
  of proposed amended zoning bylaws and the date that the bylaws come  into
  effect.  At issue is the meaning of 24 V.S.A. § 4443(d), (FN1) which
  provides that, following  public notice of a proposed zoning bylaw
  amendment, a town administrator may not issue a permit 

 

  regarding that amendment during the period between notice and the effective
  date of the adoption or  rejection of the amendment, except with the
  written consent of the town's legislative body after  public notice and
  hearing.  In construing § 4443(d), the environmental court bifurcated the
  pendency  period, ruling that (1) persons filing permit applications after
  public notice but before the town's  adoption of amended zoning bylaws may
  elect to have their applications reviewed under the old  bylaws or petition
  the town's legislative body to consent to review of the applications under
  the  amended bylaws; and (2) applications filed after the town's adoption,
  but before the effective date of  the adoption, of amended bylaws must be
  considered under the new bylaws.  We find no basis in the  plain language
  of the statute to support the court's construction of § 4443(d), but
  conclude that the  statute is unconstitutional because it gives town
  selectboards unbridled discretion to decide whether  to review applications
  under the old or new zoning bylaws, with no standards to limit the exercise
  of  that discretion.  Accordingly, we conclude that the permit applications
  in both cases must be  considered under our vested rights rule.  We affirm
  the court's decision in the Handy case, albeit on  different grounds, and
  vacate the decision in Jolley and remand for further proceedings consistent 
  with this decision.

                                     I.

       The relevant procedural and historical facts are, for the most part,
  undisputed in both appeals.  On December 3, 1996, the Town of Shelburne
  published notice of a December 19 planning  commission hearing to consider
  certain proposed zoning bylaw amendments, including amendments  that would
  eliminate gas stations and fast-food restaurants as conditional uses in the
  Town's 

 

  residential-commercial zone. (FN2)  At the December 19 hearing, the
  planning commission voted to  recommend that the town selectboard adopt the
  proposed amendments.  On January 5, 1997, the  selectboard published notice
  of a January 21 public hearing to consider the proposed amendments.   At
  the January 21 hearing, the selectboard adopted the amended bylaws.  The
  Town's adoption of the  bylaws became effective twenty-one days later, on
  February 11.  24 V.S.A. § 4404(c) (bylaw  amendment shall be effective
  twenty-one days after its adoption).

       With respect to the Handy case, in the summer of 1996 Paul Handy filed
  applications  seeking, among other things, a permit to add gasoline pumps
  to a convenience store on his property  in the Town's
  residential-commercial zone.  The Town denied the applications in August
  1996 for  reasons unrelated to the gasoline pumps, which were permitted as
  a conditional use under the zoning  bylaws in effect at the time.  Handy
  did not appeal the Town's decision, but instead modified his site  plan and
  revised the applications to respond to the concerns that had led to their
  denial.

       On January 13, 1997, after the Town published notice of the proposed
  amended bylaws, but  eight days before they were adopted, Handy submitted
  his revised applications seeking conditional  use and variance approval for
  his proposed project.  On February 10, the day before the new bylaws 
  became effective, the selectboard held a public hearing under § 4443(d) to
  consider whether to give  its written consent for the zoning administrator
  to act on Handy's revised applications under the old 

 

  bylaws.  Following the hearing, the selectboard issued a written decision
  denying its consent for  Handy to proceed under the old bylaws.

       On appeal, the environmental court concluded that (1) this Court's
  holding in Smith v.  Winhall Planning Comm'n, 140 Vt. 178, 181-82,