Harvey & Symmes Final Plat Application

• Court: Vermont Superior Court
• Decided: February 22, 2006
• Docket: 95-05-05 Vtec
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } Harvey & Symmes Final Plat Application } Docket No. 96‐5‐05 Vtec (Appeal of Bevan) } }

Judgment Order

This matter came on for a hearing on the merits on February 2, 2006,

Environmental Judge Thomas S. Durkin presiding. There are two appeals pending of

the two lot subdivision approval issued by the Charlotte Planning Commission as of

May 5, 2005. The initial appeal was filed by Appellants John and Rosemary Bevan, who

are represented in this proceeding by Mark G. Hall, Esq. The Bevans own an

undeveloped parcel across a private road—White Birch Lane—from the proposed

development. A cross‐appeal was filed by the Applicants, Jason and Andrea Harvey

and William and Caroline Symmes, who are represented by Michael B. Clapp, Esq. The

Town of Charlotte (Town) entered an appearance through Will S. Baker, Esq.

Upon the close of the Applicants’ case in chief, Appellants and the Town

renewed their respective motions to dismiss and strike the Harveys’ and Symmes’

application and revised site plan. The Court granted these renewed motions, with an

explanation entered on the record and which is reproduced below. To the extent that

this Judgment Order differs in content from the explanation entered in the record on

February 2, 2006, this Judgment Order shall control.

By Order dated Sept 29, 2005, the Court addressed four specific issues that the

parties presented by way of cross motions for summary judgment. Relevant to the

discussion at the merits hearing is whether the Charlotte Subdivision Bylaws (Bylaws)

require the purported easement benefiting Appellants’ property to be shown on the

preliminary and final subdivision plats. By its September 29th Decision, the Court

Page 1 of 4. granted summary judgment to Appellants by interpreting Bylaws §§ 10 and 11 to

specifically require that the preliminary and final subdivision plats show “existing

easements.”

By that Decision, the Court directed Applicants to revise the plat they intended

the Court to consider so that it depicted the Bevans’ easement. In response, Applicants

filed a revised subdivision plat on November 30, 2005, that did not provide further

reference to Appellants’ purported easement. As with the prior plat, it contained the

following general reference in Note #11: “This property may be subject to rights‐of‐

ways [sic], easements, restrictions, and/or reservations that may or may not be found in

the Town of Charlotte Land Records.” The revised plat contained no specific reference

to Appellants’ septic easement.

The revised plat had several other material changes. It significantly expanded

the building envelopes on both Lots 1 and 2 from those presented to the Planning

Commission. It also deleted the hash mark reference to the area in which “R.O.W. #3”

was located on Lot 2.

In response to the Nov. 30th revised plat, both Appellants and the Town filed

additional motions to dismiss and to strike. The Court issued a Supplemental Order on

January 18, 2006. In response, on January 27th, (four business days before trial),

Applicants filed another revised plat. This final revision continued to show the

expanded building envelopes. It now showed “R.O.W. #3” in the same general manner

as the first plat, although Mr. Symmes testified that it may have been relocated slightly,

by sixty feet or so. Of interest to the Court is that the expanded building envelope on

Lot 2 now appeared to encroach upon the area delineated for the approximate location

of R.O.W. #3. The January 27th plat also included a new reference identified as “Area

A,” which is also referenced in a new Note 15.

Area A is shown as having a square dimension of 125 feet by 125 feet. Mr.

Symmes testified that the determination of the location and size of Area A was made

Page 2 of 4. without reference to deeds, prior site maps, or the easement deed that was the origin of

Appellants’ easement. Rather, according to Mr. Symmes, the “Area A” dimensions

were based upon what “may be best” for the siting of the Appellants’ septic system,

particularly from the perspective of Applicants’ future development. This is not a

proper foundation for compliance with Bylaws §§ 10 and 11.

Subdivision regulations often require identification of easements on subdivision

plats. The Charlotte Bylaws specifically require subdivision plats to show “existing

easements.” It appears to the Court that this requirement serves a very practical

purpose: to determine if the proposed development encroaches in any way upon rights

of other parties to the property.

It is unfortunate that the parties, and this comment is directed to all parties, have

been unable to come to a resolution of this apparent dispute concerning easements and

rights‐of‐way. In the absence of some foundation in the record, such as a deed,

recorded plats, or surveys that Applicants can reference, the Court is forced to conclude

that Applicants have not fulfilled their threshold burden of showing easements on their

revised site plat, as required by the Bylaws.

Of additional concern to the Court is the significant change to the size and

expanse of the building envelopes. In this regard, the Court finds merit in the Town’s

assertion that the application reviewed by the Town Planning Commission relied upon

preliminary and final site plats that showed first a building site and then a building

envelope that were significantly smaller than those Applicants presented at trial. The

Planning Commission, in Finding #5 of its May 5, 2005 Decision, specifically referenced

the importance of the envelopes once proposed by the Applicants:

The proposed envelopes are at opposite ends of the property. While the Planning Commission usually seeks to cluster dwellings, the proposed envelopes will result in both dwellings blending to the greatest degree possible with the landscape. The dwelling on the northern lot will be located in a mature planted forested area. The dwelling on the southern

Page 3 of 4. lot will be located adjacent to a wood line near the southern property line and where the grade becomes somewhat more steep, allowing the house to fit into the hillside and to be “backgrounded” by woods to the south.

Applicants’ Statement of Questions contains no basis for this Court to consider

an application on appeal with a significant change to the building envelopes from the

application that was first presented to the Town. It is regrettable that the result of this

determination is that the application, as presented at trial, is DENIED, but such a result

is necessary to respect the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

To the extent that Applicants wish to seek approval of a subdivision plan that

incorporates building envelopes as are now depicted on their January 27, 2006 plat, it is

improper for this Court to review that application without the Planning Commission

first reviewing it. And for those reasons, Appellants’ motion to dismiss Applicants’

application and cross‐appeal is GRANTED. In granting Appellants’ motion, the Court

specifically finds that the application, as currently presented, fails to comport with

Bylaws §§ 10 and 11 and is beyond the scope and significantly different from the

application first presented to the Planning Commission. Therefore, it is improper for

this Court to review and render a decision upon the application presented here.

As a result, the Planning Commission’s May 5, 2005 approval is VACATED.

Appellants’ appeal is GRANTED. In so doing, the Court has determined as a matter of

law that an application put forth for the subdivision of the subject property must depict

all encumbering easements in a specific manner that has some foundation in the chain

of title for the dominant and servient estates. The proceedings over which this Court

has jurisdiction are now concluded.

Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 22nd day of February, 2006.

_____________________________________ Thomas S. Durkin, Environmental Judge

Page 4 of 4.