Title: In re Appeal of Armitage

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Armitage (2004-454)

2006 VT 113

[Filed 09-Nov-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 113

                                No. 2004-454


  In re Appeal of Armitage, et al.               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 October Term, 2005

  Merideth Wright, J.

  Stephanie J. Kaplan, East Calais, for Appellants.

  Vincent A. Paradis and Daniel P. O'Rourke of Bergeron, Paradis &
    Fitzpatrick, LLP, Essex Junction, for Appellees.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.   Interested neighbors ("neighbors") appeal an
  Environmental Court order granting Pittsford Enterprises, LLP and Joan S.
  Kelly ("applicants") a conditional use permit and site plan approval to
  construct a new post office in the Town of Pittsford.  The proposed site is
  located at the intersection of Route 7 and Plains Road.  In 2002, neighbors
  appealed the Zoning Board of Adjustment's (ZBA) grant of a conditional use
  permit to the Environmental Court.  The court reversed the ZBA and denied
  the application, without prejudice, because of erosion, traffic volume and
  traffic safety problems.  Neither side appealed.  In January 2003,
  applicants submitted a revised application which the ZBA approved.  Again,
  neighbors appealed to the Environmental Court.  After trial on the merits,
  the Environmental Court approved applicants' proposal, finding that the
  erosion and traffic issues were resolved by the new application and new
  evidence.  The court's approval was given on condition that applicants take
  additional specific steps to provide for traffic safety.  This appeal
  followed.  Neighbors argue that: (1) relitigation of traffic volume and
  safety issues at the intersection of Route 7 and Plains Road should have
  been barred by collateral estoppel; (2) the Environmental Court's findings
  of fact were not supported by the evidence, nor were the conclusions of law
  supported by the findings; and (3) the conditions imposed by the court were
  invalid.  We reverse.
   
       ¶  2.  In neighbors' first appeal to the Environmental Court, the
  court denied applicants' post office proposal "without prejudice," finding
  that the application did not meet the requirements of § 2.12.1(b) and (e)
  of the town's zoning bylaws governing approval of conditional use permits. 
  The court stated that applicants' proposal did not comply with subsection
  (b) because it did not adequately address potential erosion problems at the
  site, and did not comply with subsection (e) because it presented three
  potentially adverse effects to area traffic: vehicles exiting the project
  driveway could not safely make a left turn onto Plains Road; the additional
  traffic brought by the project turning left from Plains Road onto Route 7
  during peak conditions would deteriorate traffic movement to an
  unacceptable level; and the absence of vegetation or signs to screen the
  proposed emergency access gate to the property from Route 7 posed a traffic
  hazard.  Neighbors argue that some of the problems with the Route 7
  intersection identified in the 2002 decision were not addressed in
  applicants' subsequent application and that relitigation of the same
  problems should have been barred by collateral estoppel.  Applicants reply
  that collateral estoppel does not apply for several reasons, including that
  the Environmental Court's 2002 decision was not a final order because it
  was made "without prejudice" to their right to resubmit their application. 
  We agree with neighbors.  The revised application should not have been
  considered absent substantial modifications to the plans to address or
  alleviate the traffic-flow problems identified in the Environmental Court's
  earlier order.

       ¶  3.  We review the Environmental Court's interpretation of zoning
  ordinances and findings of fact for clear error.  In re Gaboriault, 167 Vt.
  583, 585,