Munson v. City of South Burlington

• Decision Date: 02 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-444,93-444
• Citation: 648 A.2d 867,162 Vt. 506
• Parties: Randall G. MUNSON v. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vermont and State of Vermont Agency of Transportation.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 867

648 A.2d 867

162 Vt. 506

Randall G. MUNSON v. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vermont and State of Vermont Agency of Transportation.

No. 93-444.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Sept. 2, 1994.

Leslie C. Pratt, South Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant.

Steven F. Stitzel of Stitzel & Page, P.C., Burlington, for defendant-appellee City of South Burlington.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Atty. Gen. and Scott A. Whitted, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montpelier, for defendant-appellee State of Vt.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.

JOHNSON, Justice.

Plaintiff sued to enjoin the City of South Burlington from using land acquired by eminent domain for a highway project to provide a right-of-way for bicycle paths. The Chittenden Superior Court found that because the City failed to follow the statutory procedure for condemnation of land for a bicycle path, the City's condemnation of plaintiff's land for such a path was invalid. The court also ruled that (1) plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief even though the condemnation was invalid, (2) his property had not been inversely condemned, and (3) he failed to prove a claim as a taxpayer that the City lacked the authority to expend state funds on bicycle paths. We reverse, in part, concluding that the City validly condemned plaintiff's land; and, in all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

In 1984 the City of South Burlington and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) initiated a project to reconstruct a portion of Dorset Street. The project, approximately one mile in length, commenced at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road and extended south to the intersection of Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive. The final proposal included plans for bicycle paths on both sides of Dorset Street, with the paths to run between the travel lanes and the sidewalks. Subsequently, the City Council noticed and held a public hearing on the issue of "necessity," and found necessity for the taking.

Plaintiff owns property on the east side of Dorset Street containing two buildings, one housing his construction business and the other an unrelated retail business. The City Council issued an order condemning a portion of plaintiff's property for the Dorset Street project and awarded plaintiff $36,500 in damages. Plaintiff accepted the award and did not appeal it.

This dispute arose when the boundaries of the property were marked for the commencement of construction in May 1991. It was then that plaintiff alleges he became aware that one of his buildings will stand three feet closer to the right-of-way than was shown on the project map given to him. Both buildings are actually the same distance from the right-of-way. On the map, however, the buildings were not depicted as being equidistant from the right-of-way. Instead one was shown as being three feet farther back from the right-of-way than the other. The result is that both buildings will be set back twenty-two feet, rather than one having a setback of twenty-five feet and the other a setback of twenty-two feet, as the map showed. It is undisputed, however, that the City took no more land than was noticed.

Plaintiff argues that if he had known that the setback distance of the one building would be twenty-two rather than twenty-five feet, he would have challenged the necessity of the taking. He also argues that the loss of the three feet and resulting traffic flow problems will cause him damages in the amount of two to three million dollars over the next ten years. To obtain relief, plaintiff commenced the present action on July 31, 1991, claiming (1) that because of the City's misrepresentation of the setback distance, he was entitled to equitable relief in the form of a twenty-five foot setback, (2) that because the City had not complied with the applicable statutory procedure to condemn land for a bicycle path, the condemnation of that land was invalid, (3) as a taxpayer, that the City and State lacked legal authority to condemn the land of plaintiff and others for a bicycle route, making the condemnation void, and (4) that he is entitled to damages because his land was inversely condemned.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that the condemnation process for the bike path land was void ab initio because the City did not follow the proper statutory condemnation procedures. It ruled in defendants' favor on all other counts and denied plaintiff equitable relief. Thus, the trial court concluded that plaintiff has title to the island of land that was to be the bicycle path, but which is separated from the rest of his land by the property condemned for the sidewalk. Accordingly, it concluded that plaintiff must refund to the City the money paid for the bicycle path land. The present cross-appeals followed.

I.

The first issue we address is whether the City may use a portion of land that it acquired for a highway under 19 V.S.A. chapter 7 to develop a bicycle route. Plaintiff argues, and the trial court found, that the taking, insofar as it relates to the bicycle routes, was void ab initio because 19 V.S.A. § 2307(b) required the City to follow the condemnation procedure set out in 19 V.S.A. chapter 5 (governing highway condemnation by the state through the AOT) rather than that in chapter 7 (governing highway condemnation by cities and towns) to condemn land for a bicycle route. We disagree.

Plaintiff's argument is founded on 19 V.S.A. § 2307(b), which provided that "[i]n the construction ... of bicycle routes which involves the taking of private lands, the legislative body of a municipality shall follow the procedures outlined in 19 V.S.A. chapter 5 for the taking of private land for highways." ¹ The plain meaning of this statute, plaintiff argues, is clear--a municipality must follow chapter 5 to condemn land for a bicycle route; it is powerless to include bike paths within a highway condemnation under 19 V.S.A. ch. 7. Plaintiff's argument fails because it is not consistent with the statutory scheme at issue and could lead to absurd results.

It is a well-established canon of statutory construction that statutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed together and read in pari materia, if at all possible. State v. Murray, 159 Vt. 198, 201, 617 A.2d 135, 137 (1992). As we stated in In re Shepard, 155 Vt. 356, 584 A.2d 421 (1990), that rule applies with particular relevance to highway law:

The statutory scheme on highways is complex, constituting all of Title 19 as well as portions of other titles, with many interrelated provisions.... [T]o effectuate the legislative intent we "look to the whole statute, the subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the reason and spirit of the law."

Id. at 357-58, 584 A.2d at 422 (citations omitted). The provisions of 19 V.S.A. chapter 7 and 19 V.S.A. § 2307 can be construed in harmony with each other.

Chapter 7 grants municipalities broad powers to lay out highways and to acquire the property required for their construction. On the other hand, 19 V.S.A. § 2307(b) relates, in relevant part, solely to "the construction ... of bicycle routes which involves the taking of private lands." Section 2307(b) does not refer to highway construction and does not purport to govern the taking of private lands for highway purposes. It applies where the municipality seeks to construct a bicycle route only. It also does not purport to apply when a municipality seeks to construct a highway that incorporates a bicycle route. This interpretation is supported by 19 V.S.A. § 2304, which provided in relevant part that "[b]icycle routes may be incorporated into designs for the construction ... of state and town highways." ²

Moreover, plaintiff's proposed interpretation has the potential to lead to absurd results. According to plaintiff, a municipality seeking to build a highway, bicycle route, and sidewalks must follow two separate condemnation procedures. Aside from the duplication in effort and waste of resources involved, the existence of simultaneous but independent procedures could lead to inconsistent results. For example, in this case, the municipality might have found itself with a bicycle route without an expanded highway, or a highway and sidewalks where each landowner retained the island of land that was to have been the bicycle route. We avoid interpretations of statutes that lead to absurd results. O'Brien v. Island Corp., 157 Vt. 135, 139, 596 A.2d 1295, 1297 (1991).

Nonetheless, for two reasons, plaintiff argues that the Legislature intended to create separate condemnation procedures. First, plaintiff argues that in 1974 the Legislature considered but rejected a section of a bill that would have provided authority for municipalities to condemn land for bicycle routes using chapter 7. S.49, § 2055, 1973 (Adj. Sess.). ³ The trial court agreed that the significance of the failure to enact that section of the bill was that "the legislature in 1974 was clearly skeptical about granting condemnation authority to municipalities for establishing bike paths." This inference is based on speculation, not on sound principles of construction. Rejection of an amendment alone does not intrinsically indicate legislative opposition to the substance of the amendment. For example, the Legislature might just as well have believed that adoption of the amendment was unnecessary. See 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 48.18 (5th ed. 1992).

Second, plaintiff argues that the 1992 amendment to 19 V.S.A. § 2307(b), adding the language "or chapter 7," is dispositive of this case. The trial court interpreted the 1992 amendment as confirming plaintiff's position:

The legislature could just as easily have changed the section to provide for only chapter 7 procedures or stated that this change was a codification of existing law. It did neither, which leads us to the conclusion that prior to the latest amendment, chapter 5 was...