Title: In re Molgano

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_MOLGANO.93-017; 163 Vt 25; 653 A.2d 772

[Filed 10-Nov-1994]

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. 93-017


In re Frank A. Molgano, Jr.               Supreme Court

                                          On Appeal from
                                          Environmental Board

                                          March Term, 1994



Elizabeth Courtney, Chair

John M. Ruggiero of McClallen Ruggiero P.C., Rutland, for appellant

Seth B. Bongartz of Witten, Saltonstall & Woolmington, P.C., Bennington, for
appellee 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



  MORSE, J.   Frank A. Molgano, Jr. appeals a decision of the Environmental
Board denying his application for an Act 250 land use permit for the
construction of two professional office buildings on Route 7 North in the
Town of Manchester.  We hold that conformance with a town plan under 10
V.S.A.  6086(a)(10) is to be measured with regard to the zoning bylaws in
effect at the time of application for local zoning permits, and we reverse. 

  Molgano's journey toward obtaining permission to construct two office
buildings took many steps and has involved, so far, seven years of delay.  In
June 1987, he applied to the Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for
a zoning permit to build three office 

 

buildings.  Molgano's property was located on Route 7 North in the "Transient
Commercial Overlay" (TCO) section of the "Farming and Rural Residential"
(FRR) district of Manchester. The erection of professional office buildings
was specifically permitted on Molgano's property under Manchester Zoning
Ordinance 6.34 in effect at that time.   Molgano's project, however, was also
subject to Manchester Zoning Ordinance 6.36, the town's interim growth
management bylaw, because of its size and potential impact on the area.  The
ZBA denied Molgano's permit application under the interim zoning bylaw,
concluding that Molgano had failed to demonstrate that (1) the project
satisfied local and state regulations concerning water supply and sanitary
waste disposal, (2) the project would not result in water pollution or cause
an undue impact on air quality, and (3) the project had an adverse effect on
the scenic and natural beauty of the area because the site was over-maximized. 

  In 1988, after receiving a statement of conditions from the Agency of
Natural Resources allowing him to develop wetlands on the site, Molgano
appealed to the Bennington Superior Court.  That court concluded that Molgano
satisfied his burden of proof under the interim zoning bylaw and Zoning
Ordinance 6.32 that water pollution and adverse effects on the scenic and
natural beauty of the area would not occur, but it denied the permit without
prejudice because Molgano had failed to obtain a water and sanitary waste
disposal permit from the proper state authority.  Molgano applied for and
received the water supply and wastewater disposal permit from the Department
of Environmental Conservation in November 1989. 

  In 1990, after Molgano had complied with all applicable town zoning bylaws,
the Manchester Board of Selectmen issued him a permit, subject to conditions,
to erect two, rather than three, professional office buildings.  One of the
conditions was that the permit would expire 

 

two years from its date of issuance, if Molgano had not demonstrated an
intention to proceed with the project.  Molgano was content with the
two-building permit and began negotiation with the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation for a permit under Vermont Wetland Rules.  That
permit was obtained on August 21, 1991. 

  In October 1991, after redesigning his project based on the conditions in
his zoning permit and obtaining amended approvals from various agencies to
reflect these changes, Molgano applied to the District #8 Environmental
Commission for an Act 250 permit.  Shortly before Molgano entered the Act 250
process, however, the Town amended Manchester Zoning Ordinance 6.34 to
prohibit the erection of new professional office buildings in the immediate
area of Molgano's property.  Molgano and the Town requested the commission to
limit its review to  6086(a)(10), which requires the proposed development
to conform to any duly adopted local or regional plan.  The commission
concluded that the construction of two professional office buildings in
Manchester did not conform to either the Manchester Town Plan or the Regional
Plan of Bennington County.  Accordingly, the commission denied the permit.
Molgano appealed the commission's decision to the Environmental Board, which
also determined that the proposed project did not conform with either the
Town or Regional plan. 

  Molgano now appeals from the Board's decision, essentially claiming that it
erred by concluding that the zoning bylaws were irrelevant to its
interpretation of the Town Plan and that, had the Board given proper
consideration to those bylaws, the Board would have found that his project
was in conformance with the Town and Regional plans.  We review the issues
raised in the appeal, keeping in mind that the Board's interpretations of Act
250 are treated with a high level of deference and, absent compelling
indication of error, will be sustained on appeal.  In 

 

re Killington, Ltd., 159 Vt. 206, 210, 616 A.2d 241, 244 (1992). 

                                        I.

  In In re Green Peak Estates, 154 Vt. 363, 368-70, 577 A.2d 676, 679 (1990),
we affirmed the denial of an Act 250 permit for failure to conform to a
regional plan because the proposed development violated a specific policy
prohibiting residential development on slopes greater than twenty percent. 
In that case, we specifically avoided decision on whether the Board's
conclusions could be upheld on the basis of "more general, abstract policies
in the plan."  Id. at 370, 577 A.2d  at 679-80. 

  Unlike the regional plan in In re Green Peak Estates, the Manchester Town
Plan contains no specific policy that would prohibit the proposed
development. Section 4.2(2) of the Manchester Town Plan, which refers to the
TCO provides: 

A significant portion of Manchester's economy is based on the tourism
industry. The Transient Commercial zones accommodate certain uses related to
the tourism industry (e.g. motels, inns, restaurants), but care must be taken
to prevent such problems as traffic congestion and the loss of scenic open
space which could occur if an excessive number of these businesses are
permitted.  Consideration should be given to increasing restrictions on
pe[r]mitted uses in the TC zone on Route 7 (north) and to provide for a
restricted TC zone from the Sunderland Town line to the Manchester Village
line.  Consideration should also be given to providing mechanisms for
minimizing any negative impacts of commercial 

 

development in the TC zones and to providing innovative zoning techniques to
facilitate efficient site utilization.  Zoning dimensional requirements
should encourage a relatively low density of development while promoting open
space preservation along the highways. 

Based on this broad, non-regulatory language, the Board determined that the
only permitted transient commercial uses in the district were tourist-related
and that all other uses were prohibited.  We think the Board's conclusion
goes too far.  The plan espouses no specific policy of encouraging tourist
businesses nor any specific policy against other types of commercial
buildings.  The plan only notes existing accommodation of tourist businesses
while advising that care must be taken to preserve open spaces and avoid
traffic congestion in the future.  The only clear intent of the Town Plan is
to limit the effects of excessive numbers of tourist-related businesses, not
limiting business to tourism.  Section 4.2(2) of the Town Plan is, at best,
ambiguous regarding what types of transient commercial uses are included in
the plan. 

  Zoning bylaws are more than strong indications of legislative intent in
determining the meaning of an ambiguous town plan; they are the specific
implementation of the plan.  The Board concluded, however, that zoning bylaws
were irrelevant because the Board was required by statute to determine
whether a project conforms with a town plan, not with zoning bylaws that may
or may not implement a town plan.  Bylaws, however, must conform to the plan
that guides their creation.  A town may not adopt zoning regulations unless
it has adopted a town plan. 24 V.S.A.  4401(a).  The law specifically
requires that zoning bylaws "have the purpose of implementing the [Town]
plan, and shall be in accord with the policies set forth therein." Id.; see
Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 137 Vt. 219, 225,