Preseault, Application of
| Decision Date | 04 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 181-73,181-73 |
| Citation | 321 A.2d 65,132 Vt. 471 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Application of J. Paul and Patricia A. PRESEAULT. |
Thomas & Alexander, Burlington, and Gravel & Shea, Burlington, for J. Paul and Patricia A. Preseault.
Paul, Frank & Collins, Burlington, for adjoining property owners.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, KEYSER, DALEY and LARROW, JJ.
The extended history of this litigation is fully disclosed in previous opinions of this Court relating to it. See In re Preseault, 130 Vt. 343, 292 A.2d 832 (1972); Wright v. Preseault, 131 Vt. 403, 306 A.2d 673 (1973); Preseault v. Wheel, 132 Vt. --, 315 A.2d 244 (1974). The case before us is a review of the proceedings after the remand in In re Preseault, supra. The other two cases relate to the rights of the Preseaults under building permits and the renewal thereof.
Procedurally, the issues before us are those raised by a questions of law certified here for review by the Board, through its chairman. There were six certified, but since only three are briefed, we will confine our attention to those:
1. Did the Environmental Board commit reversible error by refusing to apply under 10 V.S.A., Section 6086(a)(10) the local plan of the City of Burlington duly adopted under Chapter 91 of Title 24 on January 8, 1973?
3. Did Chairman Jackson, acting as hearing officer for the Environmental Board, commit reversible error by ruling that the evidence pertaining to the financial data required under Rule 6(i) of the Board would be received confidentially without any opportunity for participation by the adjoining property owners?
4. Did the Environmental Board commit reversible error by failing to make any findings concerning the sufficiency of the applicants' submission of financial data under Rule 6(i) of the Board?
Without entirely reviewing the facts, this case began with an application by the plaintiffs before the district environmental commission to build a 76 apartment complex in the form of duplexes on certain land they owned in the City of Burlington. Certain adjoining property owners objected and, after hearing, the application was denied. The matter was then appealed under 10 V.S.A. § 6089 to the Environmental Board for a de novo hearing. This was held, but the objecting adjoining property owners were not allowed to appear as parties. The Board ordered the issuance of the environmental permit. An appeal was taken to this Court where it was determined that the adjoining land owners had a sufficient interest to participate as parties and the matter was remanded for a new hearing with the adjoining land owners participating. In re Preseault, supra, 130 Vt. 343, 292 A.2d 832.
After rehearing the matter the Board again approved the permit. Between the time of the original hearing and the second one, the subject of this review, Burlington adopted a municipal comprehensive master plan under the provisions of Title 24, Chapter 91, of Vermont Statutes Annotated. This came three days prior to the resumption of hearings under the remand. It is conceded that the Preseault project does not comply with the new master plan. On that basis, at the second hearing, it was argued by the adjoining property owners that the permit could not be granted as a matter of law, since 10 V.S.A. § 6086(a)(10) requires that the proposed development is in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan under Chapter 91 of Title 24. This is their principal argument for setting aside the Board's approval in this Court.
Such a contention is, of course, flatly contrary to the policy expressed in 1 V.S.A. § 213. That section provides that acts of the general assembly, except those relating to competency of witnesses, practice in court or amendments of process or pleading shall not affect suits begun or pending at the time of passage. Since the authority to enact ordinances is considered to be derivatory from State authority, an ordinance stands no better than a statute, certainly, and subject to the same policy limitations. Thompson v. Smith, 119 Vt. 488, 501, 129 A.2d 638 (1957). Thus the intervening adoption of a master plan is, by itself, ineffective to derail proceedings validly brought and pursued in good faith to implement rights available under previous law.
The objecting parties seek to avoid this by reference to the direction of 10 V.S.A. § 6089 that the proceedings before the Board are de novo. They overlook the fact that it is the step from the district hearing to the hearing before the Board that is de novo. That had taken place long previous to the first appeal here and the remand. What the appellants must contend for is that the remand from this Court to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Handy
...the zoning proceedings must be "`validly brought and pursued in good faith,'" id. at 182, 436 A.2d at 762 (quoting In re Preseault, 132 Vt. 471, 474, 321 A.2d 65, 66 (1974)). In fact, jurisdictions keying vested rights to the date of application generally have an exception for cases where a......
-
In re John A. Russell Corp., 2003 VT 93 (Vt. 10/15/2003), DOCKET NO. 1999-418.
...plan. ¶ 12. We start with the undisputed conclusion that the original application was governed by the 1995 plan. In In re Preseault, 132 Vt. 471, 474, 321 A.2d 65, 66 (1974), we held that a project's nonconformance with a town plan adopted after a developer had applied for an Act 250 permit......
-
In re John A. Russell Corp., 99-418, 02-019, 02-102.
...plan. ¶ 12. We start with the undisputed conclusion that the original application was governed by the 1995 plan. In In re Preseault, 132 Vt. 471, 474, 321 A.2d 65, 66 (1974), we held that a project's nonconformance with a town plan adopted after a developer had applied for an Act 250 permit......
-
Hill v. Grandey
... ... that Hill agreed at the February 1965 meeting that 'he needed the coverage as suggested by Defendant Grandey' and that Hill 'signed the application for the liability insurance that Defendant Grandey suggested.' ... The premise that Grandey's promise to insure was intended by him ... ...