Ketchum v. Town of Dorset
190 Vt. 507
| Vt. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs appeal the Town of Dorset’s reclassification of Upper Kirby Hollow Road from class 3 to class 4, challenging the review method and the evidentiary record.
- The reclassification was based on narrow width, steep incline, and safety concerns for maintenance and emergency access, with limited public use.
- The Town conducted notice, site visit, public meeting, and testimony before issuing a December 2008 decision reclassifying the road.
- Plaintiffs sought Rule 74/Rule 75 review, requesting stay and appointment of three commissioners under 19 V.S.A. § 741.
- The superior court treated review as certiorari under Rule 75 because the statute was silent on review mode, and later denied commissioners and a stay, affirming the Town’s decision.
- The court held the record adequate and that the Town’s findings were supported by the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is review properly under Rule 75 deferential certiorari rather than de novo commissioners review? | Plaintiffs urge de novo commissioners review. | Town contends Rule 75 deferential review governs since statute silent on review mode. | Deferential Rule 75 review governs. |
| Are § 740/741 procedures applicable to reclassification of a class 3 road? | Plaintiffs argue reclassification is within altering/laying out processes. | Court should apply the statutory silent-mode approach; § 740/741 not applicable. | § 740/741 do not apply to reclassification; review under Rule 75 appropriate. |
| Was the request to supplement the record on appeal properly denied? | Plaintiffs claimed supplementing the record was necessary. | Record supplementation not required where deferential review suffices. | Record supplementation denied; on-the-record review adequate. |
| Do the Town’s findings about road width, safety, and snow removal support reclassification? | Argue the findings were not adequately weighed. | Findings supported by foreman’s testimony; within authority. | Findings supported; decision not arbitrary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Village of Bristol, 159 Vt. 439 (Vt. 1992) (review under Rule 75 when statute silent on method for review)
- Sagar v. Warren Selectboard, 170 Vt. 167 (Vt. 1999) (statutory road duties are entirely statutory; governs review framework)
- Whitcomb v. Town of Springfield, 123 Vt. 395 (Vt. 1963) (reclassification not an ‘alteration’ under revised definitions)
- Town of Calais v. Cnty. Rd. Comm’rs, 173 Vt. 620 (Vt. 2002 (mem.)) (accepts legislature’s choice of review procedures; do not insert language)
- Hansen v. Town of Charleston, 157 Vt. 329 (Vt. 1991) (selectboard quasi-judicial role; de novo review not required where statute silent)
- King v. Town of Craftsbury, 2005 VT 86 (Vt. 2005 (mem.)) (de novo panel appraisal not applicable to this reclassification context)
- Chapin Hill Estates, Inc. v. Town of Stowe, 131 Vt. 10 (Vt. 1972) (recognizes possibility of taking evidence in certiorari-like review)