STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
} In re Carrigan Waiver and Variance Applications } Docket No. 38-2-10 Vtec (Appeal of Ernst & Supeno) } }
Decision and Order on Appellants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Appellants Barbara Ernst and Barbara Supeno (Appellants) appealed from a
January 25, 2010 decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the Town of
Addison, granting a waiver allowing the construction of an addition to the camp of
Applicants John and Linda Carrigan (Applicants). Appellants are represented by
Robert Halpert, Esq.; and Applicants are represented by Andrew Jackson, Esq. The
Town of Addison is represented by Donald R. Powers, Esq., but has not taken an
active role on the present motion.
Appellants moved for summary judgment on Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the
Statement of Questions: whether the application should be denied because
Applicants failed to obtain conditional use approval for the project; whether the
application should be denied as an expansion of a non-conforming use; whether
§ 6.7 of the Town of Addison Zoning Regulations (Zoning Regulations) complies
with the provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4418(8) allowing municipalities to adopt waiver
provisions; and whether the application is entitled to a waiver under § 6.7 of the
Zoning Regulations.1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Applicants own an existing small lot that is 0.41 of an acre in area, located at
1All references to either a section number or a table number refer to the Zoning Regulations unless otherwise noted.
1 the shore of Lake Champlain at 16 Fisher Point Road in the Shoreland Residential
zoning district of the Town of Addison. The minimum lot size in the district is 2.5
acres, and the minimum lot depth is 200 feet, making the lot a preexisting
nonconforming lot as to lot size and lot depth. Zoning Regulations Table 2.3(D),
§ 3.4; see 24 V.S.A. § 4303(13). The lot is bounded on its westerly side by the lake, on
its southerly side by a neighboring lot unrelated to this litigation, and on its
northerly side by a narrow right-of-way to the lake. The northerly boundary of the
lot measures 151.28 feet; its southerly boundary measures 136.28 feet.
Applicants’ easterly boundary adjoins Appellants’ property, and Applicants’
property holds an easement over Appellants’ property for access to Fisher Point
Road, a private road running on Appellants’ property near Applicants’ easterly
boundary. The road also provides access to other unrelated parcels farther to the
south.
An existing camp (seasonal dwelling) building is located on Applicants’
property. It measures 20’ x 40’ in area and is oriented with the shorter end facing
the lake shore. The camp building is set back approximately 69 feet from the mean
high water mark of Lake Champlain, so that all but the most easterly nine feet of the
existing camp building is located within 100 feet of the lake shore. The camp
building is set back well more than 20 feet, but somewhat less than 50 feet, from the
property’s northerly and southerly boundaries.2 The easterly face of the camp
2 The term “setback” is defined in §7.2 of the Zoning Regulations as “[t]he horizontal distance from a . . . lot line . . . to the nearest structural element of a building . . . .” The measurements as shown on the portion of the site plan provided as Applicants’ Exhibit 4, which are given as 50 feet from the northerly boundary and 51 feet from the southerly boundary, are not shown on the plan as measured perpendicular to the lot lines. Therefore, the actual distance to the closest point on the building is some amount smaller than 50 feet, but, by comparison to the other measured distances on the exhibit, is much more than 20 feet.
2 building is located approximately 68 feet from the centerline of the Fisher Point
Road right-of-way; it is separated from the road by a portion of Appellants’ land
over which Applicants have an easement.3 The measurement from the easterly face
of the camp building to the easterly boundary of the property is more than 20 feet, as
measured by scale from the known measurements on the portion of the site plan
provided as Applicants’ Exhibit 4.
The Shoreland Residential zoning district requires a setback of 100 feet from
the mean high water mark of Lake Champlain, a setback of 20 feet from any side or
rear property boundary, and a setback of 75 feet to the centerline of a road. Zoning
Regulations Table 2.3(D); § 7.2 (Definition of Setback).
An existing septic system serving the existing camp building is also located
on Applicants’ property, to the northeast of the camp building. The Zoning
Regulations require a setback of 200 feet from the mean high water line of Lake
Champlain to any septic system. Id. Table 2.3(D).
In August of 2009, Applicants had applied for a zoning permit to construct a
22’ x 26’ addition to their existing camp building, between the building and the
property’s southerly boundary. That application was denied on appeal by the DRB.
Rather than appealing the DRB’s denial to this Court, on October 30, 2009,
3 Facts have not been provided to the Court by either party as to the width of the Fisher Point Road right-of-way and as to whether Applicants’ property adjoins the right-of-way at any point or is entirely separated from it by the property of Appellants over which Applicants have an easement. If Applicants’ property does actually adjoin the road right-of-way, the road setback of 75 feet from the camp building to the centerline of the road right-of-way would be applicable, measured from the centerline of the road at any portion of the frontage that adjoins the road; otherwise, the setback would be 20 feet from the easterly property line. If the 20-foot setback is applicable, the property building is complying as to its easterly setback. The lack of this information does not affect the analysis in the present appeal, which relies on the issue of noncompliance with the shoreline setback.
3 Applicants submitted a new application for a zoning permit. On November 19,
2009, the interim Zoning Administrator referred the application to the DRB for
Applicants to apply for a variance or waiver from the shoreline and road setbacks.
The form for filing an application to the DRB allowed Applicants to state,
under “Type of Application,” whether they were filing an appeal from a decision of
the administrative officer, an application for a conditional use permit, or an
application for a variance. Applicants checked only the space for “application for a
variance,” and added in handwriting: “or waiver.” Applicants did not apply to the
DRB for conditional use approval.
Applicants’ project was warned for the DRB meeting on January 4, 2010 as
“Variance/Waiver Application #09-40.” The notice stated that the hearing was to
consider an “[a]pplication for a variance/waiver” and that Applicants “[a]lso desire
a building permit to do this.” The notice did not warn the hearing for conditional
use approval.
The minutes of the January 4, 2010 hearing also characterized the application
as “Variance/Waiver Application #09-40” and stated that it must meet the standards
for issuance of a variance in § 6.6 of the Zoning Regulations. (By comparison, the
matter that followed on the meeting’s agenda was a bed-and-breakfast proposal
entitled “Conditional Use Permit #09-42,” and stating that it must meet the
standards in § 5.7 for a conditional use.)
During the meeting, the Interim Zoning Administrator suggested that the
DRB might want to consider granting a waiver under § 6.7 instead of a variance
under § 6.6. The only mention of conditional use approval in the January 4 minutes
is in the context of the Interim Zoning Administrator’s explanation as to why a
waiver should be considered instead of a variance; that “[i]n order for [Applicants]
to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, they would have to meet all of the conditions
under [§] 6.6 for a variance, but can’t due to it being a small, existing lot.” The DRB
4 voted to table the matter until the January 25, 2010 meeting, “since the concept of
issuing a waiver in place of [a] variance is new to the [DRB]” The minutes of the
January 25, 2010 DRB meeting do not mention conditional use approval at all. The
minutes for both meetings reflect that the DRB considered Applicants’ application
for variance or waiver, and that it did not consider any of the criteria in § 3.7(B)(3) or
for conditional use approval under § 5.7. At its January 25, 2010 meeting, the DRB
unanimously approved the application for a waiver under § 6.7.
The “resolution of decision” issued on January 29, 2010, granted the waiver,
stated that the DRB had determined during deliberation that the project would not
be able to meet all of the requirements for a variance under § 6.6 (but did not
analyze the variance criteria), and briefly recited that application met the § 6.7
waiver criteria. Appellants appealed the DRB decision granting the waiver in the
present appeal. Applicants did not themselves appeal any aspect of the DRB
decision, either challenging the DRB’s determination that the proposal would not
qualify for a variance, or challenging the lack of a DRB ruling on conditional use
approval.
Motion for Summary Judgment
A grant of “summary judgment is appropriate when, giving the benefit of all
reasonable doubts and inferences to the nonmoving party, there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 2009 VT 107, ¶ 7 (citing Mooney v.
Town of Stowe, 2008 VT 19, ¶ 5, 183 Vt. 600 (mem.); V.R.C.P. 56(c)).
Questions 1 and 2 of the Statement of Questions: Conditional Use Approval Applicants’ camp does not comply with the applicable shoreline setback and
is therefore a noncomplying structure as defined in § 7.2, regardless of whether it is
5 also noncomplying with the front or road setback, see note 3, supra.4 A
noncomplying structure may be enlarged or expanded (or moved), subject to
conditional use review by the DRB, and so long as the change does not increase the
degree of noncompliance. Zoning Regulations § 3.7(B)(3). Applicants’ addition
therefore requires conditional use approval from the DRB.
Applicants claim that the DRB considered and granted conditional use
approval. Resp. to Mot. For Partial Summ. J. 6–8. They have provided an affidavit
stating that the Interim Zoning Administrator referred to the application at the
January 4 DRB meeting as “com[ing] before you as a Conditional Use Permit” and
have provided the written synopsis presented by the Interim Zoning Administrator
to the DRB members stating that “the permit would be a conditional use permit and
require a variance.” Second Linda Carrigan Aff. ¶ 1; Applicants’ Ex. 7. However,
the DRB hearings were not warned for conditional use approval, and the DRB
minutes and resolution of decision do not grant conditional use approval. They do
not even discuss the § 5.7(B) standards that the DRB would have to analyze and find
to be met in order to grant conditional use approval. The DRB therefore did not
grant conditional use approval for Applicants’ project; it only granted a § 6.7 waiver
from the shoreline and road setbacks.5
4 Appellants also argue that Applicants’ camp is a nonconforming use under § 7.2, applicable to a “use…which does not conform with these regulations.” See also 24 V.S.A. § 4303(15). However, the use category of “[s]easonal [d]welling ([c]amp)” is a conditional use allowed in the district, Table 2.3(C), making it a conforming use in a nonconforming structure. 5 In general, statements made orally at a hearing, whether by an applicant, other
participants, DRB members, or staff members, do not have a regulatory effect unless explicitly incorporated into the DRB’s decision. See, e.g., In re Kostenblatt, 161 Vt. 292, 297–99 (1994) (rejecting argument that discussion at ZBA hearing, including oral representations by applicant, be considered as findings, and ruling that conditions must be expressly stated in the permit to be binding).
6 In the present case, although the Zoning Regulations provide for the
combined review of projects requiring more than one type of DRB approval, Zoning
Regulations § 5.3, nothing requires an applicant to seek such combined review and
nothing requires the DRB to hold a combined hearing. That is, an applicant is free to
seek required approvals in an appropriate sequence. For example, in the present
case, Applicants were free to seek the necessary waiver or variance from the
shoreline setback requirements, prior to applying for conditional use approval for
expansion of a nonconforming building within that setback.6
The Zoning Regulations specifically define “degree of noncompliance” in
§ 7.2 as
[t]he extent to which the footprint, height, or total area (volume) of a structure does not comply with the requirements of these regulations. For example, an addition, the installation of a dormer, or an increase in building height within a setback area would increase the degree of noncompliance. As may be seen from the example specifically given in the definition, Applicants’
proposed addition, within a portion of the shoreline setback that previously was
open, constitutes an increase in the degree of noncompliance of Applicants’ camp
6 Of course, combined review of an application must conform to the same standards of notice for a hearing as for just one type of development review. Id. § 5.3(B). Because neither DRB hearing was warned for conditional use review, the merits of conditional use approval of the project were not before the DRB and hence are not before this Court. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h); In re Maple Tree Place, 156 Vt. 494, 500 (1991) (stating that the “court is limited to consideration of the matters properly warned as before the local board” (citing In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235 (1990))); In re: Kibbe Zoning Permit, No. 173-8-07 Vtec, slip op. at 1–2 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Nov. 6, 2008) (Wright, J.) (“[T]he court sits in place of the [DRB] to consider what was before the [DRB], applying the substantive standards that were applicable before the [DRB].”).
7 building with the shoreline setback. See, e.g., In re: Snelgrove Permit Amendment,
Docket No. 25-1-07 Vtec, slip op. at 8 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. July 18, 2008) (Wright, J.)
(holding that an increase in the volume of the nonconforming structure located
within the setback increased the degree of noncompliance), aff’d, In re Snelgrove
Permit, No. 2009-162 (Vt. Jan. 15, 2010) (unpub. mem.); In re: Legrove and
Paznokaitis Variance Application, No. 19-1-08 Vtec, slip op. at 6 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. July
15, 2008) (Wright, J.) (holding that new deck occupying additional area of formerly
open setback, but not extending any closer to boundary than existing house,
increased the degree of noncompliance); In re: Rouleau Property Appeals, Nos. 231-
12-04 Vtec, 28-2-05 Vtec, 29-2-05 Vtec, 192-9-05 Vtec, 193-9-05 Vtec, slip op. at 6-7 (Vt.
Envtl. Ct. Nov. 17, 2006) (Wright, J.) (holding that relocation of house, causing an
area of formerly clear shoreline setback to be occupied by the structure, increased
the degree of noncompliance).
In the present case, the proposed addition increases the degree of
noncompliance by enlarging the structure into an area of the shoreline setback that
previously was open. Applicants therefore first required a variance or a waiver of
that setback requirement for the addition, before conditional use approval could be
considered for the addition under §§ 3.7(B)(3) and 5.7. The present appeal deals
only with that application for waiver or variance.
Accordingly, Summary Judgment is GRANTED in PART on Questions 1 and
2 of the Statement of Questions, in that Conditional Use Approval is also required
for this application; however, as the merits of conditional use approval are not
before this Court in this appeal, summary judgment is otherwise DENIED and
Questions 1 and 2 of the Statement of Questions are otherwise DISMISSED as
beyond the scope of this appeal.
8 Question 3 of the Statement of Questions: Compliance of § 6.7 with 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8) Appellants argue that the waiver provision contained in § 6.7 is limited by the
state enabling statute authorizing municipalities to adopt waiver provisions, 24
V.S.A. § 4414(8). Section 4414(8)(A) provides that:
A bylaw may allow a municipality to grant waivers to reduce dimensional requirements, in accordance with specific standards that shall be in conformance with the plan and the goals set forth in section 4302 of this title. These standards may: (i) Allow mitigation through design, screening, or other remedy; (ii) Allow waivers for structures providing for disability accessibility, fire safety, and other requirements of law; and (iii) Provide for energy conservation and renewable energy structures. If a municipality opts to provide for “waivers from dimensional requirements” in its
bylaws, § 4414(8)(B) then requires the bylaws to “specify the process by which those
waivers may be granted and appealed.”
Appellants argue that municipalities may only adopt waiver provisions to
reduce dimensional requirements, and argue further that such waivers are further
limited to the situations listed in subsections (i), (ii), and (iii) of § 4414(8)(A). In
interpreting statutes, the Court is directed to give effect to the intent of the
legislature by first looking to the plain meaning of the statutory language. See State
v. Fletcher, 2010 VT 27, ¶ 10.
The plain language of the statute authorizes municipalities to provide for
waivers of dimensional requirements; it does not authorize waivers of any other
types of zoning requirements. However, nothing in the statute limits such waivers
to the types of structures listed in the subsections of § 4414(8)(A). Rather, if a
municipality wishes to provide in its bylaws for dimensional waivers, the statute
only requires the municipality to adopt specific substantive standards for granting
9 such waivers, and to specify the process for ruling on and appealing such waivers.
§ 4414(8)(A), (B). The only statutory limitation on a municipality’s substantive
standards for granting dimensional waivers are that such standards be in
conformance with the municipal plan and with the planning goals found in 24
V.S.A. § 4302.
Subsections (i), (ii), and (iii) of § 4414(8)(A) are written in permissive
language, using the word “may”; they do not impose any requirements on the
standards for dimensional waivers that may be adopted by municipalities.
Subsection (i) allows a municipality to include, in its standards for granting
dimensional waivers, mitigation through methods such as design or screening.
Subsections (ii) and (iii) authorize municipalities to adopt specific standards for
granting dimensional waivers for certain special categories of structures providing
disability accessibility, fire safety, energy conservation, and renewable energy; they
do not limit municipalities in any way.
Section 6.7(A) of the Zoning Regulations allows the DRB to grant “waivers to
the requirements and standards of these regulations where specifically authorized,”
and explains that waivers “are intended to provide additional flexibility” beyond
what is provided by variances. Section 6.7(B) provides the standards for granting
waivers. Under § 6.7(B)(1), the waiver must not negatively affect the character of the
area, must not substantially or permanently impair the use or development of
adjacent property, must not reduce access to renewable energy resources, and must
not be detrimental to the public welfare. Under § 6.7(B)(2), the proposed waiver
must be a reasonable request, and must not result in development or use of property
that would “offend the sensibilities of the average person.” Sections 5.2, 6.5, and
6.7(C) provide the process by which waivers are to be granted and appealed.
Because the Zoning Regulations provide standards for the grant of waivers
and specify the process by which waivers may be granted and appealed, they meet
10 the requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8), as long as waivers are not “specifically
authorized” in the Zoning Regulations for waivers of other than “dimensional
requirements.” Zoning Regulations § 6.7; 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8)(A).
Accordingly, summary judgment is DENIED to Appellants and GRANTED
to Applicants as to Question 3 of the Statement of Questions.
Question 4 of the Statement of Questions: whether the application is entitled to a waiver under § 6.7 As discussed in the educational materials developed by the Vermont Land
Use Education and Training Collaborative after adoption of the 2004 revisions to the
state zoning statutes:
Legislation adopted in 2004 allows municipalities to grant “waivers” to reduce dimensional requirements in accordance with specific standards in the bylaw. [citing 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8)] As envisioned, waivers would be used only to provide relief from dimensional requirements in certain situations spelled out in the bylaws[,] and would permit mitigation of a compliance problem through screening, design, or other remedy. Vermont Land Use Education & Training Collaborative, Essentials of Land Use
Planning and Regulation, 24. On the same page, in discussing variances, the
document advises that DRBs “that seek a lower threshold” than the strict variance
criteria “for allowing applicants to depart from bylaw requirements should consider
adopting waiver provisions, . . .”
The Town of Addison did opt to add a waiver provision to its Zoning
Regulations, by adopting § 6.7. Section 6.7 provides that the DRB may grant waivers
from the requirements of the Zoning Regulations, using the standards provided in
§ 6.7(B), “where specifically authorized.”
Courts construe zoning ordinances in the same manner as statutes, Appeal of
Weeks, 167 Vt. 551, 554 (1998), and seek to avoid a construction that renders any
11 portion of a zoning ordinance ineffective or superfluous. See In re Miller, 2009 VT
36, ¶ 14, 185 Vt. 550. The plain language of § 6.7, limiting the DRB to using waivers
only “where specifically authorized,” must therefore mean that waivers are
specifically authorized elsewhere in the Zoning Regulations, and may only be used
in those instances “specifically authorized.”
However, although the Town adopted the § 6.7 waiver provision for use in
instances specifically authorized in the Zoning Regulations, it did not at the same
time, or since that time, amend the Zoning Regulations to add any specific
authorization for waivers from setback provisions. The Court has found no specific
authorization in the Zoning Regulations for waivers applicable to the shoreline
setback, or to any of the setback or dimensional requirements in the Shoreland
Residential zoning district. In fact, the only instance in the Zoning Regulations in
which waivers have been specifically authorized appears to be in the section
governing parking requirements. Zoning Regulations § 3.8(C).
When an ordinance provision is specifically included in one portion of a
zoning ordinance, such as for parking waivers in the Addison Zoning Regulations,
but is omitted in another, the drafters of the ordinance are presumed to have
intended it to be used only where it has been specifically included in the ordinance.
See Hopkinton Scout Leaders Ass’n v. Town of Guilford, 2004 VT 2, ¶ 8, 176 Vt. 577
(mem.) (citing In re Munson Earth Moving Corp., 169 Vt. 455, 465 (1999)) (where
legislature includes language in one portion of act, but excludes it in another, it is
generally presumed that the legislature did so advisedly).
The Zoning Regulations do not provide for waivers from the dimensional
requirements that apply to the proposed addition to Applicants’ camp; that is, they
do not specifically authorize waivers from the shoreline setback requirements, or
from dimensional requirements in the Shoreland Residential district, or from setback
requirements generally. Accordingly, Applicants are not entitled to a waiver under
12 the present Zoning Regulations, and summary judgment must be GRANTED to
Appellants with regard to Question 4 of the Statement of Questions.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED
as follows:
Summary judgment is GRANTED in PART on Questions 1 and
2 of the Statement of Questions, only in that Conditional Use Approval
is also required for this application; however, as the merits of
conditional use approval are not before this Court in this appeal,
summary judgment is otherwise DENIED and Questions 1 and 2 of the
Statement of Questions are otherwise DISMISSED as beyond the scope
of this appeal.
Summary judgment is DENIED to Appellants and GRANTED
to Applicants with respect to Question 3, in that § 6.7 of the Zoning
Regulations complies with 24 V.S.A. § 4414(8).
Summary judgment is GRANTED to Appellants with respect to
Question 4, in that the present Zoning Regulations do not provide for
waivers from the shoreline setback requirements, or from setback
requirements generally, and that therefore Applicants are not entitled
to a waiver under the present Zoning Regulations.
It appears to the Court that the remaining two questions in the Statement of
Questions do not require the evidentiary hearing now scheduled for February 1,
2011, and that the hearing should be cancelled. Please be prepared to discuss this
13 issue at the telephone conference already scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2010,
at 11 a.m.
Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 13th day of January, 2011.
_________________________________________________ Merideth Wright Environmental Judge