Case Title: Phillips Construction v. Ferrisburg

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-11-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-098


Phillips Construction Services, Inc.         Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Addison Superior Court
Town of Ferrisburg
                                             November Term, 1989

Hilton H. Dier, Jr., J.

Peter Sidel and Diana Pikulski of Sidel & Associates, Waitsfield, for
   plaintiff-appellant

Geoffrey Commons of Kelley, Meub, Powers & English, Ltd., Middlebury, for
   defendant-appellee

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     PECK, J.  Plaintiff Phillips Construction Services, Inc. appeals from
the superior court's order granting defendant Town of Ferrisburg's motion to
dismiss.  We affirm.
     On March 2, 1987, William Kennerson applied to the zoning administrator
of the Town of Ferrisburg for a zoning permit allowing him to rebuild a
garage and make improvements to his home.  According to the application, the
height of the proposed structure was twenty-one and one-half feet; local
zoning regulations restrict building height to twenty feet in the district
in question.  The applicant also indicated compliance with setback require-
ments in the plans submitted, but when the garage was ultimately built,
plaintiff, an adjoining landowner, maintains that it did not conform to
those requirements.  This latter claim is still disputed by the parties,
since it is based on the existence of an alleged right-of-way which is the
subject of a separate action in superior court.
     The application was approved on March 9, and the permit noted that
pursuant to 24 V.S.A. { 4464(a), interested persons had fifteen days to
appeal the administrator's decision.  The trial court found that notice of
the decision was duly posted in accordance with the statute, 24 V.S.A. {
4443(b)(2).  Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA) on July 1, 1987.  On July 7, plaintiff also appealed to the
ZBA the decision of December 3, 1986, permitting a subdivision of the land
where Kennerson's home and garage are located.
     In both appeals, plaintiff claimed that Kennerson had been allowed an
extension of a nonconforming use without a proper variance under the Town's
zoning bylaws, and that the Town's actions violated the bylaws and various
provisions of Title 24, Chapter 117.  The ZBA dismissed both appeals as
untimely, and plaintiff filed suit in superior court, seeking relief in the
nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Town to perform its ministerial
duties.  The court determined that it had no authority to order the
requested relief, and granted defendant's motion to dismiss.  This appeal
followed.
     The trial court determined that the exclusive remedy available to
plaintiff was a timely appeal to the zoning board under Chapter 117, 24
V.S.A. (FN1)  We agree.  This Court has previously noted a clear "legislative
policy  to deny extraordinary relief, and other collateral remedies" to
plaintiffs who had not availed themselves of the relief provided by statute.
Fisher v. Town of Marlboro, 132 Vt. 533, 534-35,