Title: In re Chittenden Solid Waste District

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Chittenden Solid Waste District (2005-217)

2007 VT 28

[Filed 20-Apr-2007]


       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.

                                 2007 VT 28

                                No. 2005-217


  In re Chittenden Solid Waste District          Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Chittenden Superior Court

                                                 March Term, 2006


  Matthew I. Katz, J.
      
  Michael L. Burak and W. Scott Fewell of Burak Anderson & Melloni, PLC, and
    Joseph E. Frank of Paul Frank & Collins, P.C., Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Robert F. O'Neill, Norman Williams and Megan J. Shafritz of Gravel and
    Shea, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.


       PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Company, Inc. (HS&G)
  appeals from an amended judgment of $4 million in damages for the
  condemnation of its sand pit by Chittenden Solid Waste District (the
  District) to create a solid waste landfill.  Following a jury verdict, the
  Chittenden Superior Court granted the District's motion for judgment as a
  matter of law pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50(b).  The court ruled that HS&G
  suffered no compensable business loss, and it set aside that part of the
  verdict that awarded HS&G an additional $4.8 million for business loss. 
  HS&G argues that the court erred in granting the motion and that the court
  should have awarded it interest to make the valuation current.  We hold
  that the superior court properly determined that HS&G was not entitled to
  compensation for business loss or to prejudgment interest.  We affirm. 
   
       ¶  2.  Condemnation proceedings began in 1992 when the District
  filed a petition pursuant to 24 V.S.A.   2299a to condemn a sand pit
  located in Williston, Vermont that is owned and operated by HS&G.  As its
  name suggests, HS&G's manufacturing and processing plant, as well as its
  main gravel pit, are located in Hinesburg, some miles from the sand pit.   

       ¶  3.  The District intends to create a regional solid waste landfill
  at the sand pit site.  The landfill condemnation statute, 24 V.S.A.   
  2299a-2299k, sets forth two separate steps for the District to condemn
  property for a landfill.  First, the District must show, and the superior
  court must find, that the condemnation is necessary.  Id.   2299e.  Second,
  unless the District and any  person "with an interest in the property" can
  agree on damages, the court must assess the damages caused by the taking. 
  Id.   2299f.  

       ¶  4.  In this case, HS&G contested both the necessity for the taking
  and, after necessity was determined, the compensation offered by the
  District.  In the necessity phase, the superior court found that the
  District had satisfied the criteria for necessity set forth in 24 V.S.A.  
  2299b(1), subject to the condition that the District stockpile and make
  sand from the pit available to HS&G for up to thirty years.  The condition
  was included pursuant to a plan presented by the District to excavate and
  stockpile sand, at its expense, for HS&G to transport to its Hinesburg
  plant to process.  To the extent the District excavated and stockpiled sand
  for HS&G, the plan required it to (1) excavate the sand "in a reasonable
  way" consistent with "preserving or enhancing the value of the available
  sand to HS&G," (2) cover it with a "vegetative cover," and (3) handle it so
  as to "prevent any significant contamination by litter or landfill
  leachate."  HS&G appealed the finding of necessity and the court's
  authority to order the stockpiling condition to this Court, and we
  affirmed.  Chittenden Solid Waste District v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co.,
  169 Vt. 153, 154,