In re Appeal of Chatelain

664 A.2d 269, 164 Vt. 597, 1995 Vt. LEXIS 53
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJune 28, 1995
DocketNo. 94-313
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 664 A.2d 269 (In re Appeal of Chatelain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Appeal of Chatelain, 664 A.2d 269, 164 Vt. 597, 1995 Vt. LEXIS 53 (Vt. 1995).

Opinion

The Bristol Rescue Squad appeals from an order of the Addison Superior Court denying its permit application to construct a building to house an emergency medical response service. We affirm.

On December 20,1991 the Bristol zoning administrator granted appellant’s construction permit application, and the administrator’s decision was upheld by the Village of Bristol Zoning Board of Adjustment on February 6,1992. Neighboring property owners filed a timely notice of appeal to the Addison Superior Court, and after a hearing on the merits, the court held that the proposed building did not meet the definition of a “community facility” under the Bristol zoning ordinance. The court also concluded that the proposed facility did not meet applicable parking and noise-limitation requirements, but because we conclude that the first issue is dispositive, we do not address these latter issues.

The proposed facility is located in a “high density residential” district, and the only permitted uses by right within this zone are family dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations and community facilities. Village of Bristol, Vt., Zoning Regulations § 1002(B)(1) (1987). The village’s zoning ordinance defines “community facility” as “[any] meeting hall, place of assembly, museum, art gallery, library, school, church, or other similar type of establishment which is not operated primarily for profit, excluding government facility.” Id. § 130. The superior court noted that because the proposed facility was designed to serve as a rallying point for the delivery of emergency services, it did not fit within the enumerated purposes of the ordinance.

We agree that the terms “meeting hall” and “place of assembly” could be construed to encompass a facility in which emergency personnel gather. Zoning ordinances are construed according to normal rules of statutory construction. See Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, 162 Vt. 476, 479, 648 A.2d 864, 865 (1994). We will uphold a trial court construction unless it is “clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious.” Id. To construe “meeting hall” and “place of assembly” in a manner that would include the rapid gathering of emergency personnel would be incongruous with the other terms in the definition. See Vermont Baptist Convention v. Burlington Zoning Bd., 159 Vt. 28, 30, 613 A.2d 710, 711 (1992) (construing zoning ordinance in accordance with rule of ejusdem generis

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Moore Accessory Structure Permit
Vermont Superior Court, 2011
Bowen CU Application
Vermont Superior Court, 2011
Musto Cosntruction Permit
Vermont Superior Court, 2011
In re Appeal of Korbet
2005 VT 7 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2005)
In Re Kisiel
772 A.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
664 A.2d 269, 164 Vt. 597, 1995 Vt. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeal-of-chatelain-vt-1995.