Case Title: Town of Sherburne v. Carpenter

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-481


Town of Sherburne                            Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal From
                                             Rutland Superior Court
Gary Carpenter

and                                          March Term, 1989

Gary Carpenter

     v.

Town of Sherburne,
Board of Adjustment



James L. Morse, J.

John F. Evers of Langrock Sperry Parker & Wool, Middlebury, for plaintiff-
  appellant

Deborah S. McCoy of Keyser, Crowley, Banse & Facey, Rutland, for defendants-
  appellants



PRESENT:  Peck and Dooley, JJ., Springer and Connarn, D.JJ. (Ret.), and
          Katz, Supr. J., Specially Assigned



     DOOLEY, J.   This is an appeal by plaintiff, Town of Sherburne, from an
order by the Rutland Superior Court refusing to grant an injunction against
defendant Gary Carpenter and capping the amount defendant must pay the Town
as a fine.  The injunction sought would have required defendant to remove a
part of a structure that was found to violate set-back requirements of the
Sherburne zoning ordinance.  We reverse and remand.
     Defendant owned a building on Route 4 in Sherburne and used it to
operate his plumbing business.  The zoning ordinance required structures in
defendant's zone to be set back one hundred feet from Route 4.  Defendant's
building represented a nonconforming preexisting use that was set back only
fifty-five feet from Route 4.  In addition, the building had a preexisting
porch that further reduced the set-back, although the actual depth of the
porch (between eight and ten feet) is in dispute.  In 1986, the Town granted
defendant a zoning permit to enclose the porch without changing the amount
of set-back from Route 4.
     Defendant actually tore down the porch and built an enclosed structure
in its place.  During construction work, the Town zoning administrator
viewed the property and determined that the new enclosure would be ten feet
deep even though the plan submitted by defendant showed that the porch had
been only eight feet deep and the new enclosure would retain this dimension.
The zoning administrator sent defendant a letter stating that the new
enclosure would be two feet closer to Route 4 than the former porch and,
therefore, violated the zoning ordinance.  The letter stated that unless
defendant reduced the size of the enclosure the Town would sue to have the
extra two feet removed from the building.  Defendant completed the enclosure
without reducing its size, and the Town brought suit for an injunction to
have the extra two feet removed and for a fine of fifty dollars per day
pursuant to 24 V.S.A. { 4444(a).
     Defendant responded to the Town's action by arguing that the dimensions
on the plans he had submitted were erroneous and the enclosed building front
was only two inches closer to Route 4 than the edge of the roof on the
former porch.  He also testified that the zoning administrator, when he
issued the permit, had assured him that a couple of feet would not matter.
The trial court rejected both of these defenses and found that the porch
violated the set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance.
     Without findings or reasons addressing the law of injunctive relief,
the court determined, however, that it would not require the defendant to
tear down the new enclosure.  The court imposed a daily fine of fifty
dollars per day from the time the enclosure was built, but limited the
overall fine to $1000 plus interest until paid.
     On appeal, the Town argues that it was entitled to an injunction as a
matter of law and that 24 V.S.A. { 4444(a) did not authorize the trial court
to limit the fine to $1000.  We take these claims in order.
     It is clear that 24 V.S.A. { 4445 authorizes the Town to bring an
action to abate or correct a violation of the zoning ordinance.  See, e.g.,
Town of Brighton v. Griffin, 148 Vt. 264, 267,