Case Title: Richardson v. City of Rutland

Citation: 164 Vt 422, 671 A.2d 1245

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
RICHARDSON_V_CITY_OF_RUTLAND.95-094; 164 Vt 422; 671 A.2d 1245

[Opinion Filed 03-Nov-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 11-Dec-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. 95-094


Earl W. and Pauline L. Richardson           Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
     v.                                     Rutland Superior Court

City of Rutland, McDonald's Corp.           September Term, 1995
and John Kollmer


Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

       William E. Roper of Neuse, Smith, Roper & Venman, P.C., Middlebury,
  for  plaintiffs-appellants

       Henry C. Brislin, Assistant City Attorney, Rutland, for defendants-
  appellees City of Rutland and Kollmer

       Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for
  defendant-appellee McDonald's Corp.

  
  PRESENT:   Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, and Johnson, JJ., and Maloney,
             Supr. J., Specially Assigned



       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs Earl and Pauline Richardson appeal the Rutland
  Superior Court's dismissal of their mandamus action against the City of
  Rutland and its zoning administrator, and further appeal the terms of an
  injunction granted against McDonald's Corporation.  The dispute centers
  around a McDonald's Restaurant parking lot, part of which is located in a
  residential zone, and the denial of a variance for the lot construction in
  the residential zone.  Plaintiffs, who are neighbors, sought to have the
  offending portion of the parking lot returned to its original condition and
  were only partially successful below.  We affirm the mandamus dismissal and
  the scope of the injunction as reasonable and within the court's
  discretion.

       On December 11, 1981, McDonald's sought a zoning permit from the City
  of Rutland 

  

  to build a restaurant in a commercial zone.  It also applied for
  a variance of twenty-five feet to use the part of its lot that fell in a
  residential zone for parking.  This litigation deals with the
  twenty-five-foot residential strip.  Prior to any construction, the strip
  was a swampy wetland lying approximately five feet below the surrounding
  grade.  

       On February 17, 1982, the zoning permit was approved and the variance
  granted by the Rutland Board of Zoning Adjustment.  Plaintiffs, owners of
  land 450 feet from the McDonald's Restaurant, appealed to superior court. 
  Meanwhile, McDonald's sought and obtained a building permit and built the
  restaurant and the parking lot as proposed.  It added earth fill to the
  variance area to bring it up to the elevation of the surrounding grade and
  poured concrete over it.  It installed lights, dry well pipes for a
  stormwater drainage system, and trees and dense hedges for landscaping.

       On April 15, 1987, the superior court denied the variance, and we
  affirmed in In re McDonald's Corp., 151 Vt. 346, 560 A.2d 362 (1989). 
  McDonald's did not, however, discontinue use of the residential strip for
  parking.  On April 23, 1989, plaintiffs wrote to the Rutland Zoning
  Administrator requesting he take action to require that McDonald's restore
  the strip to its original condition.  On March 12, 1990, the zoning
  administrator sent a letter to McDonald's regarding the twenty-five-foot
  strip.  Thereafter, the local manager of the Rutland McDonald's Restaurant
  met with the zoning administrator at the site, measured the zoning
  boundary, and erected a barrier to block any further use of the parking
  area in the residential strip.  The zoning administrator approved the
  barrier as complying with Residence A zoning, although this decision was
  not communicated to plaintiffs.

       On June 8, 1990, plaintiffs filed this action seeking a writ of
  mandamus requiring the City of Rutland and the zoning administrator to
  bring suit against McDonald's for removal of the parking lot from the
  twenty-five-foot variance area.  The city filed a motion to dismiss.  On
  May 24, 1991, the court granted the motion and dismissed the mandamus
  action.

       Plaintiffs also sought an injunction requiring McDonald's to restore
  the variance area to 

  

  its original condition.  Although the court ordered injunctive relief,
  the scope was less than plaintiffs requested.  The court ordered McDonald's
  to remove the concrete and lights from the variance area, to remove or fill
  the drainage pipes, and to place topsoil or other fill over the pavement. 
  McDonald's complied with the injunction.

       Plaintiffs first argue they properly sought enforcement of a
  ministerial duty of the zoning administrator, and therefore, the dismissal
  of the mandamus action was in error.  In contrast, the City maintains that
  plaintiffs do not have a right to issuance of a writ of mandamus because
  the administrator's actions were discretionary, not ministerial.  

       Mandamus is a remedial tool which mandates the performance of a
  nondiscretionary duty.  See State v. Forte, 159 Vt. 550, 555, 624 A.2d 352,
  356 (1993).  Mandamus will not lie for the review of acts that involve the
  exercise of judgment or discretion.  See Bargman v. Brewer, 142 Vt. 367,
  369,