Case Title: Fenwick v. City of Burlington

Citation: 167 Vt. 425, 708 A.2d 561

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Fenwick v. City of Burlington  (95-554); 167 Vt. 425; 708 A.2d 561

[Opinion Filed 12-Dec-1997]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 26-Jan-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 95-554

Edward Fenwick, et al.                      Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
     v.                                     Chittenden Superior Court

City of Burlington, et al. 

George F. Procopio, Intervenor              September Term, 1996

Matthew I. Katz, J. (Intervenor's request for injunction and mandamus)

Linda Levitt, J.    (Attorney's fees and order requiring City to issue
                    all permits) 

       Douglas D. LeBrun of Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C.,
  Burlington, for  plaintiffs-appellees

       Janet Murnane, Burlington, for defendant-appellee City of Burlington

       Robert S. DiPalma of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for
  intervenor-appellant

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Cashman, D.J.,
          Specially Assigned

       DOOLEY, J.   Intervenor-defendant George Procopio and plaintiff Edward
  Fenwick (FN1) appeal from the Chittenden Superior Court's decisions
  resolving a longstanding dispute over plaintiff's construction of a house
  in Burlington, on a lot adjacent to intervenor's home.  Intervenor appeals
  from the superior court's decision to (1) award plaintiff occupancy,
  building, and zoning permits; (2) deny intervenor damages; (3) deny
  intervenor an injunction against plaintiff to remove the house; and (4)
  deny intervenor a writ of mandamus against the City of Burlington to remove
  the house.  Both parties appeal from the court's award of attorney's fees
  to intervenor.  We affirm the court's decisions to deny injunctive relief
  and mandamus.  We reverse the decision to require the City of Burlington to
  issue permits and a certificate of 

 

  occupancy, and the calculation of the attorney's fees.  We remand for
  further proceedings.

       To follow the facts in this case more easily, we have detailed them by
  relevant date:

       1)  October 13, 1988:  Plaintiff's permit to build an additional house
  on a 1.40-acre lot, which contains his home, was denied by the Burlington
  Planning Commission.  The Commission treated the application as a request
  for a planned residential development (PRD) and denied it because (a) a
  zoning amendment pending before the Burlington Board of Aldermen increased
  the lot size requirement for a PRD to two acres; and (b) the access
  right-of-way was only twelve feet wide, and the zoning ordinance required a
  twenty-five-foot right-of-way.  Intervenor opposed the permit at the public
  hearing, thereby qualifying as an "interested person" under Vermont's
  zoning act.

       2)  December 12, 1988: Allegedly on the advice of the planning
  commission, plaintiff appealed to the Burlington Board of Aldermen,
  pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4443(c), for relief from the pending ordinance
  amendment increasing the minimum lot size for a PRD.  The board refused to
  grant relief.

       3)  January 10, 1989:  Plaintiff appealed to the superior court within
  thirty days of the denial of the board of alderman, but almost ninety days
  from the planning commission action.  He filed the notice of appeal with
  the planning commission as required by 24 V.S.A. §§ 4471, 4475, but neither
  he, nor the planning commission, sent a copy to intervenor.  Intervenor was
  unaware of the appeal and did not enter an appearance.

       4)  May 21, 1990:  The superior court granted plaintiff summary
  judgment on his planning commission appeal, without opposition from the
  City of Burlington, which had notice of the appeal.  Based on the court
  order, the City gave plaintiff building and zoning permits on May 31.

       5)  August 1990:  Intervenor discovered that plaintiff had been
  granted zoning and building permits when plaintiff moved heavy equipment
  onto his lot in order to begin construction.  Intervenor petitioned the
  superior court for relief on August 14, arguing that he had been improperly
  denied notice of the appeal and that the summary judgment order was
  improper.

       6)  October 31, 1990: The superior court granted intervenor relief
  from the May judgment.  Intervenor immediately requested that the City
  revoke the permits, but the City failed to act.  By this time, plaintiff
  had dug the cellar hole and was building the new house.

       7)  November 1990:  Intervenor first counterclaimed against plaintiff
  for an injunction to remove the house and prohibit use of any new
  construction, damages, and attorneys fees; and cross-claimed against the
  City for an injunction to revoke all permits nunc pro tunc, and an
  injunction to enforce the City's zoning and planning ordinances. 
  Thereafter, intervenor moved to dismiss plaintiff's appeal as untimely.

 

       8)  March 6, 1991: The superior court dismissed plaintiff's appeal
  because it was not filed within thirty days of the planning commission
  decision.  The order did not specify its effect on the permits.  Plaintiff
  appealed to the Supreme Court.

       9)  May 1991:  The City issued plaintiff a notice of zoning violation
  because he had constructed, and was using, the new house without a zoning
  permit.  It also issued a stop work order.  Plaintiff apparently continued
  work on the house despite the city notice and order.  This action led to
  skirmishing through the Fall and Winter, with plaintiff relying on the stay
  caused by the notice of appeal to allow him to continue using the new
  house, and intervenor continuously demanding that the City take action
  against plaintiff.

       10)  April 2, 1992: In response to a motion by intervenor, the
  superior court ordered that plaintiff "cease and desist all further
  construction and improvement, use and occupancy of the premises that are
  the subject of this proceeding . . . unless and until expressly permitted
  to do so by an order of a court."

       11)  November 12, 1992:  This Court decided Fenwick v. City of
  Burlington, No. 91-503 (Vt., Nov. 12, 1992) (mem.) holding that plaintiff's
  appeal from the planning commission to superior court was untimely and
  affirming the dismissal of the appeal.

       12)  April 8, 1993: The planning commission considered plaintiff's new
  application for zoning and building permits and denied it because the
  proposal did not meet the PRD two acre minimum-lot-size requirement, as
  specified in the current zoning ordinance.  The commission rejected
  plaintiff's argument that he had a vested right to use the ordinance
  provision in effect in 1988, which had no minimum lot size.

       13)  May 4, 1993:  Plaintiff appealed the planning commission's second
  denial to the superior court, and intervenor intervened.

       14)  July 27, 1993:  Intervenor filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
  second appeal and for summary judgment on his counterclaim and cross-claim.

       15)  September 2, 1993:  City also moved to dismiss the second zoning
  appeal, and for the first time sought an injunction to remove the house. 
  In response, plaintiff amended his complaint to allege that the City had
  violated his civil rights by directing him to the board of aldermen and, as
  a result, denying him the ability to appeal the original denial of a PRD
  permit.

       16)  January 6, 1995:  The superior court granted intervenor's motion
  to dismiss plaintiff's appeal from the second planning commission denial. 
  The court, however, denied intervenor's request for injunction and
  mandamus,  and set a hearing date to decide the amount of damages.  The
  court did not address the City's request for an injunction, nor plaintiff's
  civil rights complaint.

 

       17)  May 11, 1995:  The superior court found that intervenor had
  suffered no damages, but awarded attorney's fees from November 12, 1992
  (the decision date of Fenwick v. City of Burlington in this Court).

       18)  June 1, 1995:  The superior court ordered the City to grant
  plaintiff all building, zoning, and occupancy permits.  Upon denying a
  motion to reconsider, the court stated that "Judge Katz had assumed that
  the house would be occupied.  It was an oversight not to have dealt with
  this issue explicitly."

       The three decisions that are the subject of this appeal are the
  January 1995 decision denying intervenor a mandatory injunction to force
  plaintiff to tear down the new house and a writ of mandamus against the
  City to force it to seek such relief; a May 1995 decision awarding
  attorney's fees;(FN2) and a June 1995 decision requiring the City to issue
  all permits.  Before addressing the specific challenges to these orders, it
  is helpful to look at their rationale.

       The January 1995 order was issued to resolve all outstanding issues
  between intervenor and plaintiff.  This decision dismissed plaintiff's
  attempt to obtain a permit through appeal of the Burlington Planning
  Commission's second decision against him.  The superior court ruled that
  the second permit request was substantially identical to the first one and,
  for that reason, could not be heard by the planning commission.  Plaintiff
  has not appealed this decision.

       The decision also addressed intervenor's request for a mandatory
  injunction against plaintiff and a writ of mandamus against the City.  The
  court held that intervenor's arguments "fail to support a balancing of
  equities and relative injury which would justify removal of the structure,"
  primarily because plaintiff acted pursuant to zoning and building permits
  that were not revoked until after the structure was erected.  It held,
  however, that intervenor was entitled to damages if he could show a
  diminution in the value of his property as a result of plaintiff's
  construction.

       As to the writ of mandamus, the court ruled that such relief was
  inappropriate when intervenor had other remedies at law which he did not
  use.  The court held that  intervenor 

 

  should have appealed the inaction of the zoning administrator to the zoning
  board, and failing that action, could not obtain mandamus.  Alternatively,
  the court ruled that mandamus could not be used when plaintiff acted
  pursuant to a facially valid permit.
  
       In the May decision, the superior court ruled that intervenor failed
  to show that he suffered any damage from plaintiff's construction.  It
  ruled that intervenor was not entitled to attorney's fees for his original
  successful effort to have plaintiff's untimely appeal dismissed, but when
  plaintiff refused to abide by the decision of this Court affirming the
  denial, intervenor was entitled to attorney's fees for his subsequent
  enforcement actions.
  
       In the June decision, the superior court ordered the City to grant
  plaintiff all necessary building, zoning and occupancy permits.  The court
  issued the occupancy permit after recognizing that Judge Katz had not
  explicitly dealt with the occupancy issue in his earlier order, and had
  just assumed that the house would be occupied. 
  
                                     I.

       We begin with intervenor's claim that the court erred in failing to
  award him a mandatory injunction requiring plaintiff to tear down his new
  house.  Intervenor's position is that plaintiff acted in bad faith, failing
  to give him notice and going forward with construction after it became
  clear that he no longer had valid building and zoning permits.  Plaintiff
  responds that the denial of the injunction was within the court's
  discretion.

       The standards for issuance of mandatory injunctions in zoning cases
  were first established in Thompson v. Smith, 119 Vt. 488,