Case Title: Badger v. Town of Ferrisburgh

Citation: 168 Vt. 37, 712 A.2d 911

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-05-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
Badger v. Town of Ferrisburgh  (96-411); 168 Vt. 37; 712 A.2d 911

[Filed 8-May-1998]

       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. 96-411

Todd and Nina Badger                         Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Environmental Court

Town of Ferrisburgh                          December Term, 1997

Merideth Wright, J.

       Karl W. Neuse of Neuse, Smith, Roper & Venman, P.C., Middlebury, for
  Plaintiffs-Appellants.

       James F. Carroll and Susan P. Ritter of Powers, English & Carroll,
  Ltd., Middlebury, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson, and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.  Todd and Nina Badger (property owners) appeal an
  Environmental Court decision affirming the Town of Ferrisburgh's decision
  to deny them a zoning permit for a three-unit dwelling.  The issue on
  appeal is whether § 512 of the Town's zoning ordinance governing
  discontinuances of preexisting nonconforming uses requires, as a
  prerequisite to discontinuance, an intent to abandon.  We hold that intent
  to abandon is not required by the ordinance, and affirm the Environmental
  Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town.

       The Environmental Court traced the history of the building at issue in
  this appeal to 1963 when it was purchased as a two-family residential
  structure by the Burnets.  Thereafter, the Burnets added a small apartment,
  making the building a three-unit dwelling.  At that time, the town zoning
  ordinance allowed multi-family dwellings in the district in which the
  building is located.

       In 1977, the building was conveyed to John and Ellen Laberge, who
  converted it into a four-family dwelling, again in compliance with the
  zoning ordinance.  In 1980, the Town

 

  adopted a new zoning ordinance allowing only one and two-family dwellings
  in rural residential districts as "By Right Uses."  The building is located
  in such a district.  After 1980, the ordinance prohibited the use of any
  nonconforming multi-family dwellings except through an application for a
  Planned Residential Development (now § 528 of the current zoning
  ordinance). The new ordinance specifically protects preexisting
  nonconforming uses.  As amended in 1988, § 512 of the zoning ordinance
  allows indefinite continuation of nonconforming uses provided the use has
  not been discontinued for one year.

       In 1985, the Laberges conveyed the property to Ira Farnsworth, who
  subsequently conveyed the property to Eppe and Judith Bos in 1988.  Shortly
  thereafter, the Boses found themselves in financial difficulty, and in 1989
  foreclosure proceedings were initiated against them.  In 1991, Associates
  National Mortgage Corporation (ANMC) became the record title owner of the
  property as a result of the foreclosure.  In order to receive payment on
  its loan guarantee, ANMC turned the property over to the United States
  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

       HUD required all tenants to leave the building, and it became vacant
  in October 1992. HUD auctioned the property on May 25, 1994 to the current
  property owners, who planned to use it as a three-family unit.  By the time
  property owners obtained title to the building, it had been vacant for
  twenty-two months.

       When property owners converted the building from four units to three
  units without seeking Town approval, the town zoning officer issued a
  notice of violation for "Land development without a permit; specifically,
  reconstruction of a house into three apartments." The property owners
  unsuccessfully appealed to the zoning board of adjustment.  The board held
  that the preexisting, nonconforming-use status of the building had lapsed
  because the use had been discontinued for twenty-two months.

       The property owners appealed to the Environmental Court, and both
  parties moved for summary judgment.  Rejecting property owners' argument
  that § 512 of the zoning ordinance

 

  requires an intent to abandon before an owner loses nonconforming use
  status by discontinuance, the court held that property owners had to comply
  with the current zoning ordinance, which limits the number of units to two. 
  This appeal followed.

       The appeal centers on the meaning of § 512(2) of the Town zoning
  ordinance, which provides:

     [A nonconforming use s]hall not be re-established if such use has
     been discontinued for a period of at least one year or has been
     changed to, or replaced by, a conforming use.  Intent to resume a
     nonconforming use shall not confer the right to do so.  If a
     nonconforming use is not re-established within one year, the future
     use of the lot or structure shall be in conformance with the
     provisions of these regulations.

  The ordinance provision is authorized by 24 V.S.A. § 4408(b) which provides:

      [M]unicipalities may regulate and prohibit expansion and undue
      perpetuation of nonconforming uses.  Specifically, a municipality
      may control:
                                    . . .

      (3) Resumptions of nonconforming uses, by prohibiting
      such resumption if such use is abandoned for any period of time
      or if discontinued for six calendar months regardless of evidence
      of intent to resume such use; . . . .

  Property owners argue that ordinance § 512(2) must be construed to require
  "discontinuance for a specified period of time supplemented by some overt
  act or failure to have acted, indicating that the non-conforming use has
  been abandoned."  They claim that the facts in this case do not support
  abandonment of the preexisting nonconforming use.  The Town argues that
  nonuse for twelve months, irrespective of abandonment or intent to abandon,
  is sufficient under § 512(2) and that such nonuse occurred here.

       We evaluate these positions under a limited standard of review.  We
  are bound by an Environmental Court construction of a zoning ordinance
  unless it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious.  See Houston v.
  Town of Waitsfield, 162 Vt. 476, 479,