STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

Appeal of Stephen Dana }

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 66-4-03 Vtec

Decision and Order

Appellant Stephen Dana appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of 

the Town of St. Albans, approving Appellee-Applicant Shantee Point Estates, Inc.'s application for 

approval of a relocated private access road under the subdivision regulations. Appellant is 

represented by Brian P. Hehir, Esq.; Appellee-Applicant is represented by Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq.; 

and the Town of St. Albans is represented by David A. Barra, Esq. 

Questions were resolved on summary judgment so that the only issues remaining for trial were 

the project's compliance with § 220(4)(first phrase) and § 221(2). An evidentiary hearing was held 

in this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the 

opportunity to submit written memoranda and requests for findings. Upon consideration of the 

evidence and of the written memoranda and requests for findings filed by the parties, the Court 

finds and concludes as follows.

As discussed in several prior orders in earlier litigation involving this project, Appellee-Applicant 

Shantee Point Estates, Inc. owns a 25.35-acre parcel of land on Shantee Point in St. Albans, 

adjoining Appellant's land. Access from the public road (Maquam Shore Road) runs from the 

north towards the south across one portion of Appellant's property, along a private gravel 

roadway to the boundary with Appellee-Applicant's property. The former roadway then continued 

along Appellee-Applicant's property close to the shore of Lake Champlain, providing access to 

the houses on Appellee-Applicant's property. The roadway then branched at a triangular 

intersection, with one extension continuing towards the south along another portion of Appellant's 

property, to serve property at the end of the point, and another gravel roadway turning to the east 

and providing access to property along Lapan Bay.

Appellee-Applicant sought to relocate the roadway away from the lakeshore but within its 

property, so that the roadway would turn to the east close to the property's northerly boundary, 

and then turn to the south again to the rear of the leased lots, proceeding southerly to rejoin the 

existing roadway branches at the triangular intersection.

Prior litigation established that approval under the subdivision regulations was required for the 

right-of-way for this roadway, as it was the extension of a road to serve more than two lots. See § 

200.2 of the Subdivision Regulations. While nothing in that prior litigation required AppelleeApplicant actually to subdivide the right-of-way of the roadway as a second lot, AppelleeApplicant does propose to do so. This subdivision divides Appellee-Applicant's property into two 

lots: a 1.9-acre L-shaped lot containing the road right-of-way and the remaining 23.5 acres of 

Appellee-Applicant's land. We will refer to the roadway in question as "the subdivided roadway" 

rather than by any other terminology used in prior litigation, to avoid confusion.

A portion of the subdivided roadway was constructed in 1997; the remainder of it (sometimes 

referred to as the " connector" portion) was constructed or reconstructed in 2003. The roadway 

was constructed in conformance with its approved site plan. The traveled way of the subdivided 

roadway is from 14 to 17 feet wide. The radius of the turn from the existing roadway on 
Appellant's property onto the subdivided roadway at its northerly end is 44 feet. The radius of the 

turn from the subdivided roadway onto the branch of the roadway turning to the east at the 

triangular intersection is also 44 feet. At the triangular intersection, the subdivided roadway 

continues straight in a southerly direction onto the other branch of the road serving the point. The 

traveled way of the subdivided roadway is at least equal to and may exceed in quality and width 

the traveled way of the existing roadway across Appellant's property to the north of the 

subdivided roadway. The traveled way of the subdivided roadway exceeds in quality and width 

the traveled way of the existing roadway to the south of the subdivided roadway. 

The subdivided roadway serves a total of approximately 30 residences in the summer season

and approximately five in the winter. None of the structures served by the subdivided roadway is 

tall enough to require a ladder truck for adequate fire protection. A pumper truck is the largest of 

the remaining types of fire equipment that would potentially use the subdivided roadway; it has a 

turning radius of under 44 feet and could negotiate all the turns needed to utilize the subdivided 

roadway for access to any of the 30 lots. It could turn around safely at the triangular intersection 

by executing a three-point turn, as the tree impeding that motion has been removed and 

additional gravel has been placed in its place. No traffic congestion is caused by the existing 

traffic and no congestion would be added by the subdivided roadway as compared with the 

former lakeshore roadway.

Dimensional subdivision requirements

The subdivided roadway meets all the dimensional requirements for a subdivision lot. While if it 

did not contain a roadway it would not have sufficient continuous frontage of 150 feet (although its 

two segments of ' frontage' add to more than that amount); in fact the subdivided roadway lot 

contains a roadway along its entire length and therefore meets the frontage requirement as well. 

Section 220(4)(first phrase)

In determining whether the subdivided roadway avoids causing " unreasonable congestion or 

unsafe conditions on the affected public or private roads," we must compare the traffic conditions 

existing when the former lakeshore road was in use, as compared with the use of the new 

subdivided roadway. The subdivided roadway does not itself create any new lots or any new 

houses or any new conversions from seasonal to year-round use, and therefore does not create 

any additional traffic and has no effect on the nearest public road.

With respect to the private roads to which it connects, the subdivided roadway also does not 

cause any congestion or unsafe conditions. 

Section 221(4)

Section 221(4) requires that " design of roads shall conform to Selectmen approved standards 

and shall be constructed logically in relation to the topography so as to produce safe 

intersections, grades and alignments, and adequate drainage." Prior litigation has already 

established that no selectboard-approved road standards apply, as this roadway is a private 

roadway and is not being proposed to be taken over by the Town. The subdivided roadway is 

constructed logically in relation to the fairly flat topography. Its intersections, grades and 

alignments, to the extent that they differ from those of the former lakeshore roadway, are safe. 

The subdivided roadway has adequate drainage, indeed, it is far more adequate than was the 

former lakeshore roadway. 

Section 221(4) goes on to require that, wherever feasible, roads " shall be laid out (A.) to 

coordinate with existing and future appropriate development of adjacent tracts; (B.) to utilize 

intersections that provide the highest Level of Service (LOS) and safety; (C.) to make driving 
through the development possible (i.e.: to avoid long dead-end streets), but discouraging to 

through traffic in that portion of the Town; and (D.) to enable safe pedestrian and bicycle access 

and movements. Provision for sidewalks and crosswalks shall be required in . . . designated 

growth centers." We take each of these requirements in turn.

The subdivided roadway is laid out to coordinate with existing and future appropriate 

development of adjacent tracts. It is an improvement in quality with respect to the former lakefront 

roadway and connects with the existing roadways on either end.

The subdivided roadway is laid out to utilize intersections that provide the highest Level of 

Service and safety. It improves the triangular intersection by changing the radius of curvature of 

the eastern branch to a 44-foot radius, improving the safety of that intersection1. It improves the 

safety of the roadway as compared to the former lakeshore roadway by adding the 44-foot radius 

turn at its northerly end, slowing traffic down as compared with the temptation to accelerate down 

the lakeshore straightaway.

The subdivided roadway is laid out to make driving through the development possible and equally 

as convenient as the former lakeshore roadway. No through traffic passes over the subdivided 

roadway as both branches of the road beyond the subdivided roadway are dead ends.

The Shantee Point area is not a Town-designated growth center, and therefore sidewalks and 

crosswalks are not required. The subdivided roadway is laid out to enable safe pedestrian and 

bicycle access and movements, in that there is ample room and adequate sight distances on it for 

safe pedestrian and bicycle use and its design causes traffic to be moving more slowly than along 

the former lakeshore roadway.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the subdivided roadway is 

approved as designed and constructed.

Dated at Barre, Vermont, this 18th day of October, 2004.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge

Footnotes

1.

 In winter, snow must be plowed sufficiently far from the intersection so as not to obstruct any 

of the turning movements at the intersection. This is a maintenance issue, however, not an issue 

with the design of the subdivided roadway.