Title: Simendinger v. City of Barre

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Simendinger v. City of Barre (98-144); 171 Vt. 648; 770 A.2d 888 

[Filed 08-Jan-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1998-144

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1999

David Simendinger and Wesco, Inc.	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
     v.	                                }	Environmental Court
                                        }	
                                        }
City of Barre	                        }	DOCKET NOS.  E96-010 & E96-075 

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright   

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The City of Barre appeals from a decision of the Environmental Court
  granting two  conditional use permits to WESCO, Inc. and David Simendinger
  to convert an existing service-station garage to a convenience store and
  to alter the four existing gasoline dispensers, from full  service to
  self-service in the first application, and from four to one dispenser in
  the second  application. The City contends the court erroneously: (1)
  approved the conditional use applications  without prior consideration by
  the City's zoning board of adjustment; (2) failed to give due 
  consideration to the City's Master Plan and Economic Action Plan; (3) found
  that there was a need  for the proposed use despite the presence of other
  convenience stores in the vicinity; and (4)  construed the zoning ordinance
  to effectively preclude  the regulation of single-dispenser gasoline 
  service to the public. We reverse and remand.

       WESCO and Simendinger (hereafter WESCO) own property at 169 Washington
  Street, an  area zoned as a planned residential district.  Washington
  Street, also known as Route 302, is a  primary east-west route though the
  City.  At its eastern end, where the subject property is located, it 
  contains a mix of residential and commercial uses. The WESCO property
  contains an automobile  repair garage and four full-service gasoline pumps.
  The garage and gasoline dispensers pre-date the  zoning ordinance and
  qualify a pre-existing non-conforming structure and use within the
  district.      

       In November 1995, WESCO filed a conditional use application with the
  City to convert the  garage to a convenience store and to convert the
  full-service pumps to self-service.  Following a  hearing in December, the
  City planning commission denied approval, finding that the proposed use 
  would increase traffic and diminish safety, and that WESCO had failed to
  demonstrate a sufficient  need for the use. WESCO submitted a second
  application in February 1996, seeking to convert the  garage to what it now
  styled a neighborhood grocery store, to convert the four existing gasoline 
  dispensers to one dispenser, and to add an overhead canopy. Following a
  hearing in April, the 

 

  planning commission again withheld approval, finding that no need for the
  proposed use had been  demonstrated, and that the proposed convenience
  store and canopy would alter the residential  character of the
  neighborhood.  The board of adjustment issued a brief decision the same
  day,  indicating that the application had been denied based upon a lack of
  positive findings by the  commission.  

       WESCO filed separate appeals from the denial of both applications with
  the Environmental  Court, which consolidated the matters for hearing.  At
  the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the  court issued an oral ruling
  in favor of  WESCO.  In a subsequent written decision, the court noted 
  preliminarily that under the City's zoning regulations, three positive
  rulings were required for the  project.  First, the proposal required
  approval from the planning commission under specific criteria  for
  non-conforming or conditional uses in a planned residential district.
  Second, and following such  approval, the proposal must receive conditional
  use review and approval from the board of  adjustment.  And finally, the
  proposal must receive site plan approval from the planning commission.  The
  court observed that WESCO's applications had been warned for a hearing
  before both the  planning commission and board of adjustment, and therefore
  concluded that it could sit as both  bodies. Applying the criteria for
  preliminary review by the planning commission, the court found that  the
  proposals would not add a commercial use to the district, detrimentally
  affect the district's  residents, or tangibly increase traffic, and would
  offer conveniences not offered by other convenience  stores in the area. 
  Sitting as the board of adjustment, the court also found that the proposal
  satisfied  the criteria for conditional use review, but imposed certain
  conditions to mitigate glare from the  canopy lighting, limit the hours of
  operation, and provide for gasoline deliveries during off-peak  hours.
  (FN1)  This appeal by the City followed.

                                     I.

       The City contends the court erred in evaluating the element of "need"
  in connection with the  planning commission's pre-approval process.  In
  reviewing matters on appeal, we set aside factual  findings of the trial
  court only if they are clearly erroneous, viewing the evidence in the light
  most  favorable to the prevailing party, and disregarding modifying
  evidence.  See Bianchi v. Lorenz, 166  Vt. 555, 562,