Case Title: In re Richards

Citation: 174 Vt. 416, 819 A.2d 676

Docket Number: 2001-086

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Richards (2001-086); 174 Vt. 416; 819 A.2d 676

[Filed 20-Sep-2002]
[Motions for Reargument Granted 24-Dec-2002]

       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. 2001-086


  In re Appeal of Stuart Richards	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court


                                                 March Term, 2002

  Merideth Wright, J.

  John D. Hansen, Rutland, for Appellant.

  John C. Candon Of Miller & Candon, LLC, Norwich, for Appellee Nowicki.

  Gary R. Wieland, White River Junction, for Appellee Town of Norwich.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.


       JOHNSON, J.   Appellant Stuart Richards appeals from an order of the
  Environmental Court affirming the decision of the Zoning Board of
  Adjustment of the Town of Norwich to grant a permit for appellee Paul
  Nowicki to construct a single-family residence on a parcel of land that
  abuts appellant's property.  Appellant contends that the parcel had merged
  with another parcel owned by Nowicki, which already contains a
  single-family residence, and the combined lot does not meet the minimum lot
  size for the second home.  The court held that the parcels had not merged
  and that each was a pre-existing use that Nowicki was entitled to develop. 
  Appellant also claims that the court erred when it approved a permit for
  Nowicki's septic system because the court made erroneous findings.  We
  reverse the court's determination that the parcels had not merged, but
  affirm, on different grounds, its holding that the septic system was
  properly permitted.

 
   
       This case arose from a long standing dispute between the parties over
  their neighboring properties.  Nowicki's property in Norwich originated as
  two separate, but adjoining parcels of land.  Parcel one is 14,950 square
  feet and parcel two is 24,000 square feet.  Alastair MacDonald acquired
  parcel one in 1950.  It contained a single-family residence that had been
  built approximately one hundred years earlier.  MacDonald jointly owned
  parcel two with Caryl Smith.  Smith also owned appellant's property, which
  is behind and adjoining the two parcels.  In 1967, MacDonald and Smith
  conveyed parcel two to MacDonald alone, and conveyed to Smith and her
  successors a right of way on parcel two to serve as a driveway for Smith's
  property, and a right of first refusal for any future sale of parcel two. 
  Thus, at the completion of these transactions, MacDonald owned both parcel
  one and two, bisected by the driveway to Smith's property, and Smith owned
  the setback property with a right of way, that is the driveway.  Appellant
  currently owns Smith's property and is her successor.  The two MacDonald
  parcels have been in common ownership ever since 1967.  In 1996, Nowicki
  acquired title to both parcel one and parcel two.

       The Town of Norwich first enacted zoning regulations in 1971.  Those
  regulations placed parcel one and two within a residential district in
  which the minimum lot size was 8,000 square feet.  Under these regulations,
  both lots were conforming lots.  In 1981, the town's zoning regulations
  were amended, increasing the minimum lot size in the relevant residential
  district to 20,000 square feet.  The minimum lot size for the district in
  question has not changed since.  Thus, in 1981, parcel one became a
  nonconforming, pre-existing lot that was developed with an existing house. 
  Parcel two was a conforming lot for single-family residential use that was
  undeveloped.
   
       In 1997, Nowicki applied for, and received, a permit to renovate the
  house located on parcel one, within the existing footprint.  At that time
  no question was raised as to lot size because the combined size of the two
  parcels was 38,950 square feet, well in excess of the minimum lot size.

 
   
  Nowicki next sought a permit to develop a residence on parcel two.  That
  permit is the subject of this litigation.  Before the Environmental Court,
  the principal issue in dispute was whether the two parcels had merged as a
  result of Vermont's small lot statute, 24 V.S.A. § 4406(1).  Appellant
  argued that the two parcels had merged and therefore should be treated as a
  single 38,950 square foot lot, in which case a second residence would
  violate the minimum lot requirements.  In seeking the permit, Nowicki
  argued that the parcels had not merged and should be treated independently. 
  According to Nowicki, parcel one remains an existing nonconforming lot,
  protected by §4406(1), and parcel two is a conforming lot of 24,000 square
  feet that meets the minimum lot size requirement.  On joint motions for
  summary judgment, the court ruled in favor of Nowicki.  Citing Lubinsky v.
  Fair Haven Zoning Board, 148 Vt. 47, 50,