In re Gaboriault

In re Gaboriault  (97-007); 167 Vt. 583; 704 A.2d 1163

[Filed 14-Nov-1997]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-007

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997


In re Appeal of Robert and Marie  }   APPEALED FROM:
Gaboriault, et al.                }
                                  }
                                  }     Environmental Court
                                  }
                                  }
                                  }     DOCKET NO. E96-084


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

       The Milton Town School District appeals from a decision of the
  Environmental Court that denied site-plan approval for a new school
  addition and parking lot and denied conditional-use approval for the
  parking lot.  The District argues that the court erred (1) by considering
  the impact of the parking lot on the neighbors rather than on the character
  of the general area, (2) by failing to give any deference to municipal
  policies supporting the location of the parking lot, and (3) by finding no
  special circumstances that warrant site-plan waivers of parking-lot
  requirements.(FN1)  We affirm.

       The Milton Town School District currently operates two elementary
  schools.  The Herrick Avenue School serves grades K-4, and the School
  Street School serves grades five and six.  The School Street School is
  outdated, and the District has decided to consolidate the two schools by
  expanding the Herrick Avenue School to accommodate grades five and six. 
  The site consists of two parcels of land, a 30.9-acre parcel on the east
  side of Herrick Avenue and a smaller parcel directly across from it on the
  west side.  The K-4 school is located on the east side of the street, along
  with two parking lots, playgrounds, athletic fields and open areas.  On the
  west side, there is a baseball field and an open area.

       The District proposed an extension to the current K-4 building
  covering most of the current parking lot.  The western parcel is the
  proposed location of the new parking lot.  Both parcels are in the
  high-density residential zoning district of the Town, which allows schools
  as a conditional use.  Town of Milton Zoning Regulations § 303. 
  Accordingly, the District applied to the Milton Zoning Board of Adjustment
  (ZBA) for conditional-use approval.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4407(2).  The District
  also applied to the Milton Planning Commission for site-plan approval. See
  id. § 4407(5).  The ZBA approved the conditional use, and the Commission
  approved the site plan.

       Neighbors are nineteen residents of Village Meadows, a residential
  development located adjacent to and west of the proposed new parking lot. 
  They appealed the decisions of the ZBA

 

  and the Planning Commission to the Environmental Court.  See id. §§ 4471,
  4475.  Following a de novo trial, the court denied site-plan approval for
  the addition, the bus and parent drop-off and the parking lot on the west
  side of Herrick Avenue.  The court also denied conditional-use approval for
  the parking lot.  The District appeals.

       The District first argues that the court erred in its conditional-use
  review by concluding that the location of a parking lot could adversely
  affect the character of the area.  To approve a conditional use, the court
  must find that the proposed conditional use shall not adversely affect
  "[t]he character of the area."  Id. § 4407(2)(B); see Town of Milton Zoning
  Regulations § 500.2.  The court found that the school addition would not
  adversely affect the character of the area, which is composed of a school
  and playing fields surrounded by residential neighborhoods. On the other
  hand, the court found that the parking lot intruded into the residential
  neighborhood on the west side of Herrick Avenue and would adversely affect
  the residential character of that neighborhood; it found that the increase
  in noise, lights and vehicle exhaust would affect the whole neighborhood.

       The District contends that the court construed "area" too narrowly. 
  It maintains that the court should focus on the entire high-density
  residential zoning district rather than on the immediate neighbors.  Under
  the District's construction, locating a school parking lot anywhere on the
  District's two parcels would not affect the character of the high-density
  residential zone because it already contains a school and two school
  parking lots.

       We note that the zoning regulation differs from the statute.  Compare
  24 V.S.A. § 4407(2)(B) ("character of the area affected") with Town of
  Milton Zoning Regulations § 500.2 ("character of the area").  The municipal
  regulation must be read to follow the requirements of § 4407(2), "and those
  requirements will govern whether or not they are expressly set forth." In
  re Walker, 156 Vt. 639, 639, 588 A.2d 1058, 1059 (1991) (mem.).  Thus, the
  court was required to consider the character of the area affected.  In this
  light, we cannot conclude that the court's finding -- that the proposed
  parking lot would adversely affect the character of the residential
  neighborhood -- was clearly erroneous; the residential neighborhood is the
  area that would be affected.  See In re Meaker, 156 Vt. 182, 185, 588 A.2d 1362, 1363 (1991) (we will uphold court's finding of adverse effect unless
  clearly erroneous).

       Second, the District argues that the court acted as a super-planning
  commission in violation of Chioffi v. Winooski Zoning Bd., 151 Vt. 9, 556 A.2d 103 (1989), by failing to give any deference to the municipal policies
  that support the site plan and were adopted by the Planning Commission. 
  The District contends that the court erred by failing to consider that the
  plan was designed to enhance student safety -- by separating parking from
  student population -- and to preserve municipal resources -- by sparing
  existing athletic fields.  On appeal from a Planning Commission decision,
  neighbors were entitled to a de novo trial before the environmental court. 
  See 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a).  For a de novo trial, the court must approach a
  case as if it were the planning commission, without regard to what has been
  done before the planning commission.  In re Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt.
  272, 275, 668 A.2d 1271, 1274 (1995).  Contrary to the District's claim,
  Chioffi explicitly states that the court is not required to give deference
  to the decision of a local zoning board.  151 Vt. at 11, 556 A.2d  at 105. 
  We find no error.

       Third, the District claims the court erred by finding that no special
  circumstances warranted the requested site-plan waivers from parking-lot
  regulations.  The Town of Milton Zoning Regulations set forth the number of
  parking spaces required for specific uses and various other parking-lot
  requirements such as size of parking spaces and width of aisles.  See Town
  of

 

  Milton Zoning Regulations §§ 810-817.  Section 817.1 states, however, "The
  Planning Commission may alter the number of parking spaces and other
  requirements of this Section when justified in its judgment by special
  circumstances."  The court found no evidence of any "special circumstances"
  that would justify alterations from the regulatory requirements.  The court
  concluded that the waivers were necessary only because the District decided
  to build the parking lot on the west side of Herrick Avenue, an area that
  is not large enough to accommodate a parking lot in compliance with the
  regulations.

       We will uphold the trial court's construction of a zoning regulation
  unless it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, In re Stowe Club
  Highlands, 164 Vt. at 280, 668 A.2d  at 1277, and findings of fact unless
  clearly erroneous.  Meaker, 156 Vt. at 185, 588 A.2d  at 1363. The District
  maintains that the municipal policies relating to student safety and
  preserving recreational resources are special circumstances that
  necessitate the requested waivers.  It also claims that the reduced number
  of parking spaces and reduced size were intended to minimize the impact on
  neighbors, and screening was limited to minimize vandalism.  There is no
  clear error in the court's finding these factors do not constitute "special
  circumstances," justifying waivers.  There was no evidence to show that a
  conforming lot would jeopardize student safety and recreational resources. 
  The policies may be sound but the District did not show that the
  nonconforming lot promoted these policies any more than a conforming lot
  would.  Based on the evidence presented, the location of the parking lot on
  the west side of Herrick Avenue was the only reason that waivers were
  necessary.

       Affirmed.



                              BY THE COURT:



                              _______________________________________
                              Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                               _______________________________________
                              James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Marilyn R. Skoglund, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice (Ret.)
                              Specially Assigned


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Footnotes



FN1.  It its brief, the District also argued that the court erred by
  rejecting the site plan for bus and parent drop-off areas.  At oral
  argument, the District indicated that it was not pursuing the issues
  pertaining to the site plan for the east side of Herrick Avenue, in
  particular the site plan for the bus and parent drop-off areas.  Thus, we
  do not address this issue.