Williston Citizens for Responsible Growth v. Maple Tree Place Associates, 89-568

• Decision Date: 24 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 89-568,89-568
• Citation: 593 A.2d 469,156 Vt. 560
• Parties: WILLISTON CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH v. MAPLE TREE PLACE ASSOCIATES and Town of Williston.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 469

593 A.2d 469

156 Vt. 560

WILLISTON CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH v. MAPLE TREE PLACE ASSOCIATES and Town of Williston.

No. 89-568.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

May 24, 1991.

Harvey D. Carter, Jr., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellant.

Fred I. Parker and Alison J. Bell of

Langrock Sperry Parker & Wool, Burlington, for defendant-appellee.

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

ALLEN, Chief Justice.

Williston Citizens for Responsible Growth (CRG) appeals from a superior court decision upholding the Town of Williston's allocation of sewer capacity to a mall project that Maple Tree Place Associates (MTP) proposes to build at Tafts Corner, Williston. We affirm.

The issue on appeal is whether the sewer commissioners, in granting a sewer allocation to MTP, acted in conformance with Williston's sewer ordinance. The sewer ordinance contains standards to be followed by the commissioners in allocating sewer capacity. The standards address both allocation among the various zoning districts of Williston and allocation, upon application, to individual users within each zone. The standards provide that allocation to projects such as that proposed by MTP are to be considered in the following manner:

2. Allocation Among Projects

A. All proposals for subdivision and or land development must first progress through the Planning Board process and be given preliminary "conceptual" approval by that board prior to requesting future sewer allocation approval from the Board of Selectmen as Sewer Commissioners. The Selectmen will then consider each project on an individual basis to assess the degree to which such project implements the goals and objectives of the Town Plan.

B. In the event there is insufficient zone allocation to satisfy proposed projects within a zone, the Town recognizes that a "first come-first served" method of allocation among projects is not effective, in the goals, objectives, policies and recommendations of the Town Plan. Therefore, the Town has decided that those projects which implement the Town Plan to the greatest degree will be given priority in sewer allocations.

MTP received conceptual approval for its project from Williston's planning commission on March 2, 1988. At a public hearing on March 24, 1988, the sewer commissioners gave final consideration to MTP's requested sewer allocation. At the hearing, CRG's counsel argued that § 2.A of the allocation standards required the sewer commissioners to measure MTP's proposed project against the goals and objectives of the Town Plan. The sewer commissioners declined to do so. Relying on previously solicited opinions from legal counsel, the sewer commissioners determined that, under the ordinance, there was no basis to deny an allocation request unless there was more than one allocation request pending and there was insufficient capacity in the zone to satisfy all pending requests. Because there were no other requests pending and there was sufficient capacity in the zone, the sewer commissioners granted MTP's allocation request.

CRG appealed the sewer commissioners' decision to superior court and moved for summary judgment. CRG argued that the commissioners' failure to measure the proposed project against the goals and objectives of the Town Plan violated the sewer ordinance, rendering the sewer allocation to MTP void. MTP responded with its own motion for summary judgment, arguing that the sewer commissioners had acted in conformance with the ordinance. The superior court granted MTP's summary judgment motion, and CRG appealed to this Court.

Whether the sewer commissioners acted in conformance with the sewer ordinance hinges on interpretation of § 2 of the allocation standards. CRG contends that, by its plain meaning, § 2.A imposes a duty on the sewer commissioners to measure each subdivision proposal against the goals and objectives of the Town Plan, whether or not competing projects and insufficient zone allocation exist. According to CRG, § 2.A clearly provides that, if an individual subdivision proposal does not carry out the Plan's goals and objectives, its sewer allocation request is to be denied. We disagree.

First, § 2.A does not have a plain meaning that is controlling. See Burlington Electric Dep't v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 154 Vt. 332, 335-36, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990) ("Where the meaning of a statute is plain on its face, this Court will enforce the statute according to its terms for 'there is no need for construction; the legislative intent is to be ascertained from the act itself.' ") (quoting Hill v. Conway, 143 Vt. 91, 93, 463 A.2d 232, 233 (1983)). Although § 2.A provides for an assessment of the "degree to...