Title: Chittenden Solid Waste District v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Chittenden Solid Waste District v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co.  (97-063); 
169 Vt. 153; 730 A.2d 614

[Filed 9-Apr-1999]

       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. 97-063

Chittenden Solid Waste District	            Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
     v.		                            Chittenden Superior Court

Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. and	    March Term, 1998
Delford & Barbara Janes

Stephen B. Martin, J.

       Brian J. Sullivan and Jon T. Anderson of Burak, Anderson & Melloni,
  PLC, and Joseph E.     Frank of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington,
  for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Charles T. Shea and Robert F. O'Neill of Gravel and Shea, Burlington,
  for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, and Skoglund, JJ., Allen, Chief		
         Justice  (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

       MORSE, J.  Hinesburg Sand & Gravel Company, Inc. (HS&G) appeals from a
  judgment  of the Chittenden Superior Court condemning its land in Williston
  for use as a landfill.  HS&G  claims that the trial court erred by:  (1)
  not deciding whether a publicly-owned landfill was needed  in Chittenden
  County; (2) considering and imposing a condition on Chittenden Solid Waste 
  District (CSWD) to make sand available to HS&G after condemnation (the
  "stockpile plan"); (3)  excluding evidence that CSWD acted in bad faith by
  seeking to condemn the property; and (4)  making clearly erroneous findings
  of fact.  We affirm. 

       In March 1987, CSWD was organized as a union municipal district in
  response to 24  V.S.A. §§ 4861-4868.  Its statutory purpose under 10 V.S.A.
  § 6601(e) was to provide for  efficient, economical and environmentally
  sound management of solid waste produced by the  member municipalities. 
  All of the municipalities of Chittenden County are members of CSWD  except
  for Underhill and Bolton.  Included in the approval of CSWD by the
  Legislature was a 

  

  grant of authority "to exercise the power of eminent domain within the
  District."  Municipal  Corps., No. M-12 (1989 Adj. Sess.), Art. I, § 5(i). 
  After a lengthy process to determine  appropriate landfill sites within
  Chittenden County, CSWD selected land owned by HS&G as the  most suitable
  site.  HS&G is a family-owned business, processing sand and sand aggregate. 
  The  selected site for the landfill has significant reserves of "Redmond
  sand," a unique sand utilized  by HS&G in its processing of specifically
  formulated sand blends. 

       After CSWD adopted a resolution authorizing condemnation of this land
  for purposes of  developing a long-term regional landfill, condemnation
  proceedings were commenced in  Chittenden Superior Court under 24 V.S.A. §
  2299a-k.  This case was previously before us,  where we reversed dismissal
  of the petition and remanded for trial on the merits.  See In re 
  Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 163 Vt. 185,