Title: In Re Meaker

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. 89-049


In re John Meaker, et al.                    Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal From
                                             Washington Superior Court

                                             May Term, 1990


Alan W. Cheever, J.

Biggam & Fox, Montpelier, for appellants Fox

Valsangiacomo, Detora, McQuesten, Rose & Grearson, Barre, for appellants
  Laundon, et al.

Steven F. Stitzel of McNeil & Murray, Burlington, for appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Residents of the Town of Waterbury appeal the trial
court's issuance of a conditional use permit for the operation of a gravel
pit in the immediate vicinity of their homes.  We reverse.
     The basic facts are not in dispute.  Applicants Thomas W. Meaker, John
P. Meaker, and Nancy B. Laird are co-owners of a parcel of land containing
approximately 260 acres south of what is known as Perry Hill Road in
Waterbury.  They proposed to extract sand and gravel from a 10.2-acre
portion of their property, and filed an application with the Town for
approval under its zoning regulations.  Such approval was required because
Town of Waterbury Zoning Bylaws (bylaws) { 11.2 authorizes sand and gravel
activities only as a conditional use. (FN1)  The Zoning Board of Adjustment
(ZBA) approved the application after a hearing on September 18, 1984, and
granted the permit.  Appellants filed timely notices of appeal and, after
hearing, the Washington Superior Court on March 21, 1987, ordered a remand
to the ZBA.  After an appeal of that superior court order to this Court was
dismissed by stipulation, the matter was remanded to the ZBA under the
original superior court order, and the ZBA again granted the permit.  A
second appeal was timely filed in the Washington Superior Court, and a de
novo trial was conducted on July 7 and 8, 1988.  On December 19, 1988, the
court granted applicants a permit.
     The court concluded that the proposed project met all of the criteria
set forth in { 4.4(2)(A) of the bylaws and granted a permit with conditions
that limited the pit's operation to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and prohibited operation during the period from November 1
to April 15 of each year.  Further, the permit limited the rate of
extraction to ten loads of material per day.  The present appeal is from
that order.
     Appellants argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the
project met the requirements for a conditional use either under 24 V.S.A. {
4407(2) (FN2) or { 4.4(2)(A) of the bylaws. (FN3) They contest the court's 
conclusion on all four of the stated criteria under { 4.4(2)(A).
     The trial court's findings "are to be so read as to support the judg-
ment if they reasonably may be."  First Vermont Bank and Trust Co. v.
Village of Poultney, 134 Vt. 28, 35-36,