Case Title: In re Jackson

Citation: 175 Vt. 304, 2003 VT 45, 830 A.2d 685

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Jackson (2002-236); 175 Vt. 304; 830 A.2d 685

2003 VT 45

[Filed 9-May-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 45

                                No. 2002-236

  In re Appeal of Martha and Ira Jackson	 Supreme Court
  (Town of Waitsfield, Appellant)
                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 March Term, 2003

  Merideth Wright, J.

  Amanda S. E. Lafferty of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., Burlington, for
    Appellant.

  Christina A. Jensen of Lisman, Webster, Kirkpatrick & Leckerling, P.C.,
    Burlington, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶ 1.  DOOLEY, J.   This case arises from the modification of a barn,
  sited within the setback distance from a watercourse under zoning of the
  Town of Waitsfield (the Town), and owned by Ira and Martha Jackson (the
  Jacksons).  The barn modification was initially permitted by the Town, but
  the owners added another floor to the modified barn without seeking an
  amendment to the permit.  After the Town Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)
  refused to issue a permit for the expanded barn, and ordered that the upper
  story be removed, the environmental court reversed the standard used by the
  ZBA, allowed the owners to litigate whether the watercourse was a stream,
  and held that it was.  Both the owners and the Town appeal, contesting the
  parts of the environmental court decision adverse to them.  We vacate the
  environmental court decisions and remand for issuance of a permit.

       ¶ 2.  Although the foregoing states the case, the primary question
  presented is whether municipalities may authorize zoning boards of
  adjustment to grant special exceptions to deviate from area restrictions,
  and if so, whether there are minimum statutory standards that apply.  We
  find that the so-called area special exception is a type of conditional use
  permit, and, therefore, the statutory criteria for conditional uses apply.

       ¶ 3.  The Jacksons own 7.3 acres of land along Shepard Brook in
  Waitsfield.  The property contains an old mill pond and an
  artificially-created watercourse that once diverted water from Shepard
  Brook to the pond, through a mill, and back to the brook.  The mill is now
  long gone.  The upstream segment of the watercourse - from the brook to the
  pond - has been replaced by a pump and pipeline that the Jacksons sometimes
  use to feed the pond.  Otherwise, the pond fills from precipitation events,
  surface flow, groundwater, and agricultural runoff from an adjacent
  property.  Overflow from the pond intermittently drains through the
  downstream segment - the former millrace (FN1) - which runs past a barn,
  though a driveway culvert, and then back towards Shepard Brook.  It is
  disputed how much and how often water runs through the millrace, and
  whether the water dissipates before it reaches the brook.
                                                
       ¶ 4.  The Jacksons' property is located in Waitsfield's
  Agricultural-Residential zoning district.  The Town zoning ordinance
  requires that all structures in this district be set back fifty feet from
  the top of a stream bank, or seventy-five feet from the edge of the stream
  where there is no identifiable bank.  Town of Waitsfield Zoning Ordinance,
  Art. III, § 3(D) (1995).  In 1998, the Jacksons applied to the Waitsfield
  Zoning Board of Adjustment for a permit to rebuild and enlarge the barn,
  one end of which sits just twelve feet from the millrace.  The proposed
  enlargement would be no closer to the stream than the footprint of the
  existing barn.  Although the Jacksons contested at the time whether the
  millrace was a stream for purposes of Art. III, § 3(D), they also asked the
  ZBA to vary the stream setback requirements under a special provision
  authorizing the ZBA to do so "[i]f the applicant can demonstrate that
  setback of the structure less than the above standard will be accomplished
  in a manner which will not adversely affect water quality or scenic
  beauty."  Town of Waitsfield Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, § 9(A).  After
  providing public notice and a hearing, the ZBA varied the stream setback
  under the ordinance.  It issued a permit authorizing the Jacksons to
  reconstruct the barn using salvaged materials, and to expand it from a 30'
  x 18' x 24' shed/barn into a 30' x 30' x 24' combined barn, garage, and
  storage facility.  The permit expressly limited the reconstruction and
  enlargement of the barn to the plans submitted by the Jacksons on September
  29, 1998.  Additionally, four conditions were included in the permit to
  protect water quality and scenic beauty.  The Jacksons did not appeal the
  permit, and it became final pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §§ 4471, 4472(d).
   
       ¶ 5.  Sometime thereafter, the Jacksons changed their minds about
  the barn's design.  Their architect discussed these changes with the Town
  zoning administrator by telephone.  The Jacksons claim that the zoning
  officer orally advised the architect that the Jacksons could amend their
  permit after construction by submitting as-built plans and payment of an
  additional fee, although the Town disputes this.  The Jacksons then went
  ahead with construction.  The rebuilt barn followed the 1998 permit
  requirements on the ground floor, but the Jacksons added a full second
  story housing a half-court for indoor tennis and basketball, a balcony, and
  a bath plumbed into an existing septic system.  They used all new
  materials, added ten feet in height, and doubled the permitted size of the
  barn to 1,800 square feet (30' x 30' x 34').

       ¶ 6.  After construction, the Jacksons applied for a revised zoning
  permit for the as-built structure.  The zoning administrator denied the
  request for a permit, and served notice that the barn was in violation of
  the 1998 permit.  The Jacksons then appealed to the ZBA, contesting the
  denial of the permit and the notice of violation on the grounds that the
  millrace was not a stream, and therefore there was no basis to deny the
  permit or to enforce the 1998 permit conditions.  Before it heard the case,
  the ZBA informed the Jacksons that because the original barn violated the
  stream setback requirement, it was a noncomplying structure and a
  nonconforming use under 24 V.S.A. § 4408.  Therefore, the ZBA warned, in
  order to receive approval for the as-built barn, the Jacksons had to also
  apply for a variance pursuant to the zoning ordinance's provisions for
  noncomplying structures, Town of Waitsfield Zoning Ordinance, Art. V, §
  11(B), and a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions for
  nonconforming uses, id. Art. V, § 11(A).  The ZBA acknowledged that it had
  not required this review when it approved the rebuilding of the barn in
  1998.  The Jacksons applied as requested "under protest."

       ¶ 7.  Subsequently, in August 2000, the ZBA upheld its 1998 decision
  that the millrace was a stream.  It concluded, however, that its 1998
  decision to apply the Town's stream setback exception, Art. V, § 9, without
  requiring general variance and conditional use review, did not comport with
  state law.  The ZBA denied the permit application primarily because it did
  not meet the requirements of a variance under Art. IV, § 4, which
  incorporates the variance standards of 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a).  It upheld the
  administrator's determination that the Jacksons were in violation of their
  1998 zoning permit, and ordered the Jacksons to remove all portions of the
  barn that did not comply with the September 29, 1998 plans.
   
       ¶ 8.  The Jacksons appealed the ZBA's rulings to the environmental
  court.  Meanwhile, the Town sought an injunction from the environmental
  court to enforce the ZBA's order requiring the Jacksons to remove the
  noncompliant construction.  The two cases were consolidated, and shortly
  thereafter the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  By the
  time of this appeal, both sides had fundamentally changed their legal
  position from that in the 1998 proceeding.  The Jacksons, who were
  originally willing to accept the Town's characterization of the millrace as
  a stream to obtain their permit, were now challenging this
  characterization.  The Town ZBA, which originally ruled that the Jacksons
  must meet only the standards of the special provision in Art. V, § 9 of the
  zoning ordinance to build in the stream setback, were now ruling that the
  Jacksons must additionally meet both variance and general conditional use
  standards.

       ¶ 9.  On October 10, 2001, the environmental court ruled that,
  contrary to the Town's claims, the Jacksons were not precluded by 24 V.S.A.
  § 4472(d) from contesting whether the millrace was a stream.  Next, the
  court held that the stream setback special exception was valid under 24
  V.S.A. § 4407, and therefore ordered the ZBA to reconsider the Jacksons'
  application to revise their 1998 permit.  Lastly, the court held that if a
  special exception was granted, no variance or conditional use permit would
  be required.  Before remanding to the ZBA, the environmental court held a
  hearing on the merits to determine whether the millrace qualified as a
  stream for the purposes of the Waitsfield zoning ordinance.  The court
  found that, although it was originally artificially created and although
  water flow is sometimes intermittent, the millrace is indeed a protected
  stream under the ordinance.  This appealed followed.
   
       ¶ 10.  On appeal, the Town argues that the Jacksons are precluded from
  contesting whether the millrace is a stream because they failed to appeal
  from the 1998 decision to that effect.  Second, it argues that the
  environmental court erred in not requiring the Jacksons to obtain a
  variance and a conditional use permit, in addition to the special
  exception, to convert the barn because it was a nonconforming use within
  the stream setback.

       ¶ 11.  In the decisions we are reviewing, the environmental court
  granted summary judgment finding no disputed issue of material fact.  In
  reviewing a summary judgment ruling, we apply the same standard as the
  trial court and will affirm the grant of summary judgment "if there are no
  genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
  judgment as a matter of law."  Springfield Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp, 172
  Vt. 311, 313,