Simendinger v. City of Barre

Katz, Supr. J.,

concurring and dissenting. I concur in all but one portion of the Court’s opinion. On the issue of “need,” I would hold, contrary to the Court’s conclusion, that the trial court’s findings were inadequate, and therefore remand for further findings on the issue consistent with the pertinent provisions of the City of Barre’s zoning ordinance.

Under the City’s ordinance, an applicant for a conditional use permit within a planned residential district must demonstrate, among other things, “the need for the use in the district primarily and the City of Barre secondarily.” Although the…