Title: In re Wesco, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Wesco, Inc. (2005-138); 180 Vt. 520; 904 A.2d 1145
    
2006 VT 52

[Filed 12-Jun-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER
    
                                 2006 VT 52

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-138
    
                             OCTOBER TERM, 2005


  In re Appeal of Wesco, Inc.         }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
                                      }          Environmental Court
                                      }  
                                      }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 209-12-97 Vtec

                                                 Trial Judge:  Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  The City of Barre appeals from decisions of the Vermont
  Environmental Court granting permits to Wesco, Inc. to enable it to convert
  a full-service gasoline station, with automobile repair service, to a
  convenience store and self-service gasoline operation.  The City argues
  that the court's decisions are inconsistent: (1) with an earlier decision
  of this Court providing that the development proposals were modifications
  of a preexisting nonconforming use into another nonconforming use; (2) with
  24 V.S.A. § 4406(1) because Wesco seeks to both develop a preexisting
  undersized lot and do so with a conditional use permit; (3) with the Barre
  zoning ordinance which prohibits increased use of a noncomplying structure;
  (4) with 24 V.S.A. § 4408(b) with respect to the discontinuance of
  nonconforming uses; (5) with the Barre zoning ordinance by allowing an
  additional structure-a canopy over the gas pumps-in a setback area; and (6)
  with the requirement for conditional use approval that the court consider
  the master plan and the economic plan.  We conclude that the court acted
  within its discretion on each of these issues and affirm.
        
       ¶  2.  This case involves an eleven-year conflict over Wesco's plan to
  convert an existing gasoline service and repair station at 169 Washington
  Street into a convenience store that sells gasoline.  In 2001, this Court
  decided some of the issues that had emerged, Simendinger v. City of Barre,
  171 Vt. 648,