Case Title: In re Fairchild

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-02-01T00:00:00Z

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-327


 Petition of                                  Supreme Court
 Robert and Ann Fairchild
                                              On Appeal from
                                              Windham Superior Court

                                              February Term, 1992


 Ellen H. Maloney, J.

 Lamb & Hughes, P.C., Springfield, for plaintiffs-appellees

 William McCarty and Bruce Hesselback of McCarty Law Offices, Brattleboro,
   for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   The Town of Putney appeals from a superior court order
 granting petitioners' motion for summary judgment and issuing a writ of
 mandamus that compels the Town to enjoin the owners of the Mellen Building
 from using the property in violation of the Town zoning regulations.  We
 affirm.
      This case began in June 1984 when the Town's board of adjustment
 granted a conditional use permit for development of three one-bedroom
 apartments on the second and third floors of the Mellen Building.  The
 building, a Putney Village structure, originally housed one apartment on its
 upper two floors and a retail store on its first floor.  Under the zoning
 regulations in effect in 1984, single and two-family dwellings were
 permitted uses in the village district; multi-family dwellings were defined
 as conditional uses.
      Petitioners in this case, adjacent landowners and interested persons,
 appealed the board's decision to the superior court.  At a hearing de novo
 in December 1985, the court reversed the board's decision and denied the
 conditional use permit because the owner's proposed use did not conform to
 the specific and general standards set forth in the Town's zoning regu-
 lations.  Under section 209 of the Town's regulations, a building that
 contains one apartment and a retail store must be located on a lot with an
 area of at least 40,000 square feet, must cover less than 50% of the lot and
 must be set back at least twenty feet from the roadway.  The Mellen Building
 does not meet any of these requirements.  It sits on a lot with less than
 3,500 square feet, covers more than 50% of the lot and does not meet the
 setback requirement.
      Despite the order, the owner developed the second and third floors of
 the Mellen Building into a three-family dwelling.  At the same time, he
 converted an abandoned garage on the property to a second retail store.
      In 1986, petitioners began a series of unsuccessful efforts to compel
 the Town to enforce its zoning regulations and to enjoin the owner of the
 Mellen Building from using the three apartments in violation of the
 regulations.  In September 1986, petitioners informed the Town
 administrative officer by letter that the Mellen building was being used as
 a three-family dwelling without a valid permit.  They requested that he take
 action to enforce the town zoning ordinance.  The administrative officer did
 not take any official action but he encouraged the owner of the building to
 use only two of the apartments.  The administrative officer did not directly
 correspond with the petitioners.
      In June 1987, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. { 4445, petitioners attempted to
 enforce the superior court's order by moving for a permanent injunction
 against the property owner to correct the zoning violations.  The superior
 court refused to entertain the motion and erroneously dismissed the action
 in August 1987 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Next, in October
 1987, the petitioners again notified the Town by letter that the building
 was in violation of the zoning regulations and demanded that the Town uphold
 its laws.  The Town administrative officer told the petitioners, through the
 parties' attorneys, that he believed that only two of the three apartments
 were in use and that both the apartments and the retail store in the
 building were permitted uses and in compliance with the law.  Again, he did
 not directly correspond with the petitioners.
      Finally, in November 1987, petitioners filed suit against the Town
 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Town's administrative officer to
 enforce the zoning regulations.  In May 1990, the Windham Superior Court
 granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment and issued a writ of
 mandamus directing the Town to enjoin the owner of the building from using
 the building in violation of the Town regulations.  The Town is appealing
 this order.
      The Town of Putney first argues that the trial court erred in holding
 that the owner's use of the building had not changed from a permitted use
 under the pre-1989 zoning regulations to a different permitted use under the
 amended regulations.  In March 1989, during the pendency of the petitioners'
 action against the Town, the zoning regulations were amended to allow multi-
 family dwellings as permitted uses.  The Town reasons that the apartment and
 retail store were permitted uses under the old regulations and that the new
 development, which increased the building's use to three apartments and two
 retail stores, were permitted uses under the amended regulations.  The Town
 argues that it is relieved of its obligation to enforce the 1985 superior
 court order denying use of the building as a three-family dwelling because
 the building now complies with the amended regulations.
      The building, however, does not comply with the amended regulations for
 two reasons.  First, the lot at issue should not have been developed at all
 because it is less than one-eighth acre in size and does not meet the
 minimum-lot-size requirements.  Both 24 V.S.A. { 4406(1) and section 701 of
 the town zoning regulations prohibit development of any individually owned
 lot, separate and nonaffiliated with surrounding properties, if it does not
 meet existing regulations as to lot area and size.
      Second, even though its uses were permitted, the Mellen building was a
 noncomplying structure because it did not meet the Town's requirements as to
 minimum lot size, lot coverage and setback specifications.  Pursuant to
 section 240 of the Town regulations, a noncomplying structure cannot be
 developed in any way that would increase its noncompliance with the zoning
 regulations.  Yet, this is precisely what the owner did.
      When the Mellen Building was developed, the one apartment was
 converted to three apartments, the retail store remained, and the existing
 garage was renovated to house a second retail store, thereby increasing the
 building's noncompliance.  The second retail use required an additional
 5,000 square feet of land.  The addition of two apartments and a second
 retail store also increased the number of required parking spaces.  Under
 section 735 of the Town regulations, three apartments require four off-
 street parking spaces; retail businesses require one off-street parking
 space for every 200 square feet of customer floor space.  There was only one
 off-street parking space.  The Town's argument that the owner's different
 use of the building changed from one permitted use to another fails because
 the alterations were illegal and do not satisfy the regulations.
      The Town also argues that the petitioners are not entitled to a writ of
 mandamus.  Although the formal writ of mandamus was abolished by V.R.C.P.
 81(b), relief in the form of mandamus is available under V.R.C.P. 75.  Garzo
 v. Stowe Board of Adjustment, 144 Vt. 298, 299-300,