Title: In re South Burlington-Shelburne Highway Project

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re South Burlington-Shelburne Highway Project (2002-071); 174 Vt. 604;
817 A.2d 49

[Filed 12-Dec-2002]





                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-071

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


In re South Burlington-Shelburne Highway Project  }  APPEALED FROM:
                                                  }
                                                  }
                                                  }  Chittenden Superior Court
                                                  }  
                                                  }
                                                  }  DOCKET NO. S0492-00 CnC

                                                 Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

         In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

  ¶   1.  Seven landowners (collectively "Landowners") appeal from the
  superior court's grant of a necessity petition for condemnation filed by
  the Vermont Agency of Transportation ("VTrans") to acquire additional land
  and land rights needed to widen and reconstruct a segment of U.S. Route 7
  passing through Shelburne and South Burlington.  Landowners claim that
  VTrans failed to comply with 19 V.S.A. § 33 and that the superior court
  failed to apply that statutory provision when considering VTrans's
  necessity petition. We find that VTrans was not required to adhere to the
  provisions of 19 V.S.A. § 33 before filing its necessity petition pursuant
  to 19 V.S.A. § 504 and, therefore, affirm.   

  ¶   2.  The underlying dispute in this appeal concerns VTrans's proposed
  project (the "Project") to reconstruct approximately 3.17 miles along U.S.
  Route7, beginning at the intersection of Webster Road in Shelburne and
  extending northward to the highway's intersection with Imperial Drive in
  South Burlington.  Route 7 is the primary north-south highway in western
  Vermont, running from Pownal to Burlington.  The highway is classified as a
  principal arterial highway, meaning that its primary function is to provide
  mobility through traffic, and its secondary, less significant function is
  to provide access to abutting property.  In its present state, the 3.17
  mile segment of Route 7 designated for reconstruction is a 
  highly-congested traffic area and portions are unsafe for pedestrian
  crossing.

        
  ¶   3.  On April 14, 2000, VTrans filed a necessity petition with the
  superior court for the condemnation of land and land rights needed to
  accomplish the Project.  See 19 V.S.A. § 504.  The petition named 100
  affected property owners, sixteen of whom objected to the petition. 
  Following a lengthy period of discovery, five days of hearings occurred in
  late July and early August 2001.  Based on these hearings, the superior
  court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 17,
  2001.  The court found that the Project "will be conducive to the better
  and safer flow 

  

  of traffic" and will create a "reasonably safe and efficient highway for at
  least the next 20 years."  The court determined that VTrans complied with
  the necessity petition requirements set forth in 19 V.S.A. § 506(a) and
  granted the petition, finding that VTrans was entitled to an order of
  necessity for the taking of title in fee or easements of approximately
  seven acres of property along Route 7 and that no other routes were
  preferable.  Seven landowners then appealed the order granting VTrans's
  necessity petition to this Court.  
   
  ¶   4.  Landowners now contend that the superior court improperly granted
  the necessity petition for condemnation because: (1) VTrans failed to
  adhere to the survey provisions of 19 V.S.A. § 33 when conducting its
  survey of the Route 7 segment designated for reconstruction; (2) a survey
  according to the requirements of § 33 is a prerequisite to the filing of a
  necessity petition for condemnation pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 504; and (3)
  VTrans's failure to adhere to § 33 required the superior court to dismiss
  VTrans's necessity petition.  It is undisputed that VTrans did not follow
  the provisions of 19 V.S.A. § 33 in conducting its survey of the Route 7
  segment designated for reconstruction and condemnation.  However,
  Landowners' assertions concerning the consequences of that failure are
  incorrect.  

  ¶   5.  Landowners' claims on appeal require us to construe the relevant
  statutory sections of Title 19.  We must, therefore, determine whether
  VTrans was required to adhere to the survey procedures set forth in19
  V.S.A. § 33 before it filed its necessity petition for condemnation
  pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 504.  Statutory interpretation is a question of
  law, thus our review is nondeferential and plenary.  State v. Koch, 169 Vt.
  109, 112,