Case Title: In re Tekram Partners

Citation: 178 Vt. 628, 2005 VT 92, 883 A.2d 1160

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Tekram Partners (2004-049); 178 Vt. 628; 883 A.2d 1160

2005 VT 92

[Filed 28-Jul-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 92

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-049

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 2005

  In re Appeal of Tekram Partners,	}	APPEALED FROM:
  Century Partners and Judge Companies	}
                                        }
                                        }	Environmental Court
                                        }	
  	                                }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 72-5-01 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Stephen B. Martin
                                                             Matthew I Katz 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Appellants Tekram Partners, Century Partners, and Judge
  Companies (hereinafter collectively referred to as Tekram Partners) appeal
  the environmental court's decision upholding three zoning violations issued
  by the City of South Burlington.  Tekram Partners argue that the
  exclusivity-of-remedy provision in 24 V.S.A. § 4472 bars the City from
  raising certain violations because the City approved these disputed design
  features when it issued certificates of occupancy three years earlier. 
  Tekram Partners further contend that nothing on the approved site plan or
  in the City's zoning ordinance imposes a requirement to "stripe" (i.e.
  paint) parking spaces.  As to two of the violations raised on appeal, we
  reverse.  Regarding the third violation, we conclude that the lines
  indicating parking spaces on the approved site plan are sufficient to
  impose a striping requirement, and, therefore, we affirm the environmental
  court's decision to uphold the striping violation.  The City cross-appeals
  from the environmental court's dismissal of an alleged zoning violation
  regarding the unapproved location of one garbage dumpster.  Tekram Partners
  complain that the fifteen-year limitations period under 24 V.S.A. § 4454
  (formerly § 4496 (FN1)) precludes the City's enforcement of this violation
  because the dumpster has been in the same location since 1975.  We reverse
  on this issue.
   
       ¶  2.  We first consider the alleged violations regarding the paving
  of two triangular green areas and the conversion of retail space to storage
  space.  The City alleges these violations on the basis that Tekram Partners
  deviated from the site plan without the necessary approval from the City. 
  Tekram Partners appeal the violations, arguing that the City's zoning
  administrator approved of the disputed areas by issuing certificates of
  occupancy for Tekram Partners' Four Market Street Building.  Tekram
  Partners argue that § 4472(a), therefore, bars the City from enforcing
  violations in these areas because the City failed to timely appeal the
  zoning administrator's decision to issue certificates of occupancy for the
  project.  The environmental court upheld these violations, reasoning that
  the disputed design features deviated from the project as permitted, and
  that Tekram Partners had not received the necessary approval from the City
  for these deviations.  Without analysis of the potential effect that the
  certificates of occupancy had in ratifying the nonconforming design
  features, the environmental court concluded that Tekram Partners' § 4472(a)
  argument was "not persuasive."  After reviewing the record and the
  applicable zoning regulations, we hold that the environmental court's
  conclusion on this issue is not supported.  The City's enforcement of these
  violations three years after its own zoning administrator issued
  certificates of occupancy that apparently cover the entire Four Market
  Street project amounts to the type of untimely collateral attack on the
  administrator's decision that is expressly barred by § 4472(a). 
  Accordingly, we reverse the environmental court's decision to uphold these
  violations.

       ¶  3.  The alleged violations occur at the northeast corner of the
  Four Market Street Building, one of five structures within a larger Planned
  Unit Development (PUD) known as the 100 Dorset Street Complex.  On March
  12, 1996, the City's planning commission issued final plat approval of the
  PUD. (FN2)  Among other things, the City approved a 15,000 square -foot
  building at Four Market Street.  

       ¶  4.  On July 3, 1997, Tekram Partners obtained a zoning permit
  from the City authorizing construction of the Four Market Street Building. 
  During construction, Tekram Partners paved two triangular areas at the
  northeast corner of the building and installed an overhead door for access
  to the part of the building that would be used for storage at this corner. 
  When construction was complete, Tekram Partners requested a certificate of
  occupancy from the City for the Four Market Street Building.  Pursuant to §
  27.20 of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations, once Tekram Partners
  notified the City that the Four Market Street project was ready for use and
  occupancy, the City's zoning administrator then had a duty to make a final
  inspection of the premises and issue a certificate of occupancy "if the
  project [was] found to conform with the provisions of [the] ordinance."  S.
  Burlington Zoning Regulations § 27.202. 
   
       ¶  5.  In December 1997, the City's zoning administrator
  conducted an inspection of the Four Market Street Building pursuant to
  Tekram Partners' request.  On December 11, 1997, the City's zoning
  administrator issued three certificates of occupancy for the retail units
  that comprise the Four Market Street Building.  Attached to the
  certificates was a sketch depicting the floor plan of the building and
  indicating the square footage of each retail unit.  Also included on this
  sketch was an area labeled "Mechanical 580 SF," which corresponded with the
  northeast corner of the building where the paved areas and the overhead
  door had been constructed.  The environmental court found that the two
  paved areas and the storage area would have been visible to the City's
  zoning administrator at the time of inspection.  The court also found that
  at no time during the inspection did the zoning administrator alert Tekram
  Partners to the possibility that the paved areas or the storage area were
  inconsistent with the approved plan and, therefore, in violation of the
  zoning ordinance.  The findings also indicate that Tekram Partners
  considered the issuance of the certificates as final approval of the Four
  Market Street Building for which no further certificates of occupancy were
  required.  

       ¶  6.  Three years later, on September 26, 2000, the City issued a
  notice of violation to Tekram Partners, which alleged, among other things,
  that the paved areas and the storage area located at the northeast corner
  of the Four Market Street Building violated the zoning ordinance.  Tekram
  Partners timely appealed the notice of violation to the City's development
  review board, which upheld the notice of violation.  Thereafter, Tekram
  Partners appealed to the environmental court, which dismissed some of the
  violations, but upheld the violations regarding the paved areas and the
  storage area.  Tekram Partners now appeal from the environmental court's
  decision. 

       ¶  7.  We now consider whether 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a) precludes the
  City from enforcing the alleged violations regarding the two paved
  triangular areas and the storage area at the northeast corner of the Four
  Market Street Building.  When determining whether the trial court's
  conclusions are consistent with the applicable law, we exercise plenary,
  nondeferential review.  Sigler Found. v. Town of Norwich, 174 Vt. 129, 130,