Case Title: In re Lowe

Citation: 164 Vt 167, 666 A.2d 1178

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_LOWE.94-421; 164 Vt 167; 666 A.2d 1178

[Filed 01-Sep-1995]

       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. 94-421


In re Appeal of Beverly Lowe, et al.              Supreme Court
(Town of Colchester, appellant)
                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Chittenden Superior Court

                                                  March Term, 1995



Matthew I. Katz, J.

       Marsha Smith Meekins of Roesler, Whittlesey, Meekins & Amidon,
  Burlington, for appellant

       Philip C. Linton and Robert H. Rushford of Linton & Hobson, Williston,
  for appellees


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   The Town of Colchester appeals from the decision of the
  Chittenden Superior Court that Beverly and Debra Lowe (landowners) do not
  need a zoning or subdivision permit to convert rental camps on a lot near
  Lake Champlain to condominium ownership.  The town argues that the permit
  is required by the town's subdivision ordinance and that the ordinance is
  valid.  We affirm.

       The lot in question borders Lake Champlain and contains six
  single-family camps which have been rented in the past.  The lot does not
  conform to current zoning requirements because it contains multiple
  structures, some of which are too close to the lot boundary.  Landowners
  proposed to transfer legal title to each of the camps to purchasers, who
  would own a camp building and an undivided interest in the surrounding
  land.  The lot would not be subdivided; no change in the camps or their use
  is proposed.

       The town subdivision regulations define subdivision to include
  "condominiums and cooperatives for the purpose, whether immediate or
  future, of sale."  Based on these regulations, the Colchester zoning
  administrator decided that a subdivision permit was required before the

 

  condominium sale occurred, and this decision was upheld by the zoning
  board.  On appeal, however, the superior court held the zoning enabling act
  did not grant the town the power to regulate a change in the form of
  ownership without physical construction, alteration, or modification of the
  buildings or a change in use or occupancy.  It rejected the town's argument
  that the change in title is necessarily a change in use.

       The Vermont Planning and Development Act authorizes a municipality to
  adopt both zoning and subdivision regulations, see 24 V.S.A. § 4401(b), but
  contains no definition of subdivision.  The zoning authority of a
  municipality, however, extends to "land development" which is defined to
  include "the division of a parcel into two or more parcels."  Id. §
  4303(3).

       The town makes two arguments to support its contention that it has the
  authority to regulate condominium sales.   First, the town argues that the
  absence of a statutory definition for "subdivision" gives the town
  discretion to interpret the word's scope and meaning.  Second, the town
  argues that the definition of "land development," the requirement for
  zoning review, authorizes a municipality to regulate condominium sales. 
  Landowners, on the other hand, argue that no permit, whether zoning or
  subdivision, is required in this instance.

       In addressing the town's first argument, we do not see controlling
  significance in the fact that this dispute arose as a ruling that a
  subdivision permit, rather than a zoning permit, was required.  See
  Drumheller v. Shelburne Zoning Bd., 155 Vt. 524, 527 n.3, 586 A.2d 1150,
  1151 n.3 (1990).  In ruling on a subdivision request, the planning
  commission may require that the subdivided plots "at least comply with the
  requirements [of the zoning ordinance]."  24 V.S.A. § 4417(2).  The
  language suggests that the Legislature did not intend that there be
  instances where a subdivision permit was required even though there are no
  applicable zoning requirements.  See Vermont Agency of Transp. v. Mazza,
  161 Vt. 564, 565,