Title: In re Taft Corners Assocs.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Taft Corners Assocs. (99-431); 171 Vt. 135; 758 A.2d 804 

[Filed 11-Aug-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.

                                 No. 99-431

In re Appeal of Taft Corners Associates, Inc.	          Supreme Court

                                                          On Appeal from
     	                                                  Environmental Court

                                                          March Term, 2000

Merideth Wright, J.

Stewart H. McConaughy and Norman Williams of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, 
  for Appellant.

Paul S. Gillies of Tarrant, Marks & Gillies, Montpelier, for Appellee.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   Taft Corners Associates (TCA) appeals from a decision of
  the environmental  court holding that its subdivision permit from the Town
  of Williston does not give it a vested right to  develop its subdivided
  lots under the provisions of a zoning ordinance in effect when the
  subdivision  permit was issued.  The issue arises because the Town has made
  retail uses conditional uses under  interim zoning rules adopted in 1997,
  and, pursuant to the interim zoning rules, has denied TCA a  permit to
  construct a retail store on one of the lots.  We concur with the
  environmental court that  TCA does not have a vested right to develop the
  lots under the pre-1997 zoning ordinance, and  affirm its grant of partial
  summary judgment to the Town.

       In 1983, TCA purchased two adjoining parcels, comprising 223 acres, in
  the Town of

 

  Williston and, thereafter, applied to the Williston Planning Commission to
  subdivide them into  thirty-seven (now thirty-eight) lots.  When asked what
  uses would be placed on the subdivided lots,  TCA's principal answered that
  they would be mixed uses,"retail and light industrial that would 
  compl[e]ment each other."  The subdivision permit was granted in 1987.  The
  TCA land was in  districts in which mixed uses were permitted at the time. 
  Thereafter, in accordance with the permit,  TCA invested approximately 4.1
  million dollars in infrastructure and impact fees, and over 1.5  million
  dollars more for professional services and related costs.

       By 1991, seven commercial buildings were permitted and built in the
  subdivision.  These had  a total square footage of 250,000 feet, with
  153,756 square feet devoted to industrial uses, 68,163  square feet devoted
  to office uses, and 29,185 square feet devoted to retail uses.  From 1995
  through  1998, the development activity was exclusively for retail uses. 
  Seven more buildings were added,  with a square footage in excess of
  460,000 feet, to house stores for Hannaford (super market), Wal-Mart, Home
  Depot, Toys R Us, PetsMart, Circuit City and an "anchor" store.  Each
  building is  separate and of "box design," that is, with one story and a
  parking lot in front.

       TCA's development plans generated opposition in the Town of Williston,
  and by 1990 the  Town modified its town plan and was considering zoning
  amendments that would restrict retail  development in the districts
  encompassing the TCA subdivision.  In July, 1990, TCA and the Town  entered
  into an agreement, which for five years thereafter allowed TCA to develop
  eleven of its lots,  totaling fewer than forty acres, for retail
  establishments of at least 25,000 square feet per building,  and 10,000
  square feet per tenant.  The agreement was a compromise to accommodate
  TCA's  position that it desired "a vested right to develop the lots in
  Tafts Corner Commercial Park for those  uses which were permitted at the
  time of the subdivision approval" and the Town's position that it 

 

  desired "to have the lots in Taft Corners Commercial Park developed for
  those uses contemplated  under the new plan and proposed new zoning
  regulations."  The agreement expired, and no further  agreement replaced
  it.

       In November 1997, the Town selectboard adopted an interim zoning
  amendment making  retail uses conditional uses in the districts in which
  the TCA subdivision is located.  Under the  amendment, retail uses can be
  permitted only by vote of the Town Selectboard, based on conditional-use
  criteria contained in the amendment.  According to the selectboard, the
  interim zoning  amendment was adopted "to allow breathing room to address
  the enormous impacts the scope and  pace of this retail development was
  having on Williston."

       Although TCA took the position it was not bound by the interim zoning
  regulation because it  had a vested right to develop under the zoning
  regime in place when it received its subdivision  permit, it sought
  conditional-use approval from the selectboard for a 31,940 square foot
  retail  building that would fill in the space between two existing
  buildings on lots 27 and 29, and for a  30,020 square foot retail building
  on lot 26.  The selectboard denied conditional-use approval for  both
  buildings, finding that they "would only exacerbate the very problems
  sought to be addressed  [by the interim zoning amendment]" and were
  inconsistent with the town plan and with the capacity  of town services,
  particularly the police and fire departments.

       TCA appealed to the environmental court which, on the parties'
  cross-motions for partial  summary judgment, ruled that TCA does not have a
  vested right to develop its lots under the zoning  ordinance in effect at
  the time the subdivision permit was granted.  Thus, the court ruled that
  TCA  was properly subject to the conditional-use regulation contained in
  the interim zoning amendment,  and did not have a right to consideration of
  its new retail buildings as permitted uses.  We granted 

 

  interlocutory review of this ruling with respect to lot 26. (FN1)  We have
  before us the single issue  of whether TCA has a vested right to develop
  the lots in its subdivision under the zoning ordinance  as it existed in
  1987, when the subdivision permit was issued.

       We start with the statutory scheme.  The Vermont Planning and
  Development Act authorizes  two major types of bylaws to regulate land
  development within a municipality: zoning regulations  and subdivision
  regulations.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4401(b)(1) & (2).  Subdivision regulations
  set forth the  "procedures, requirements and specifications" for the
  subdivision of land and the filing of plats  displaying the subdivided
  land.  Id. § 4401(b)(2).  In this context, the subdivision of land means
  the  division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels.  See In re
  Lowe, 164 Vt. 168, 169,