Case Title: In re Scheiber

Citation: 168 Vt. 534, 724 A.2d 475

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Scheiber  (97-150); 168 Vt. 534; 724 A.2d 475

[Filed 24-Dec-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. 97-150

In re Richard Scheiber                 Supreme Court

                                       On Appeal from
                                       Washington Superior Court

                                       May Term, 1998

David A. Jenkins, J.

Matthew C. Colburn, Law Office of Richard A. Unger, Montpelier, for
Appellant.

Glenn C. Howland of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, P.C., Montpelier,
for Appellees.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Petitioner Richard Scheiber appeals from a Washington
  Superior Court order concluding that respondents Fred and Leonia Pike,
  neighbors of Scheiber, need not obtain a zoning permit to use a shooting
  range on their property.  Scheiber claims that the town zoning regulations
  prohibited such use, or, in the alternative, required a permit for
  continued use.  We affirm.

       Scheiber and the Pikes live in Cabot, about one-half mile from each
  other, in an area zoned as a low density residential and agricultural
  district.  In 1989, the Pikes created a shooting range on their property by
  removing approximately ten trees, moving topsoil to fashion an earthen
  backstop or berm, and erecting a small platform.  The completed range was
  approximately thirty feet wide by one hundred yards long, and could
  accomodate up to four people at a time.  The superior court found that the
  Pikes used the range sporadically, primarily for family use, but that the
  use had increased, especially on weekends.  On three occasions, they used
  the range in connection with a rifle safety course for the benefit of the
  local chapter of the American Pistol and Rifle Association (APRA), and the
  APRA chapter held four annual picnics

 

  at the range.

       In August 1991, Scheiber complained to the Cabot Zoning Administrator
  that the Pikes' use of their land violated the Town and  Village of Cabot
  Zoning Regulations.  His concern was based primarily on the fact that the
  weapons were fired in the general direction of his house and that the
  resulting noise created a disturbance.  The zoning administrator found no
  violation of the regulations.  Scheiber appealed to the Zoning Board of
  Adjustment, which affirmed the zoning administrator's decision.

       Scheiber then appealed to the Washington Superior Court, which
  reviewed the case de novo pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4472(a).  The court
  characterized the firing range as a "private accessory residential  use"
  which did not implicate the zoning regulations, and, therefore,  did not
  require a permit.  This appeal followed.

       We review the trial court's ruling for clear error.  See Route  4
  Assocs. v. Town of Sherburne Planning Comm'n, 154 Vt. 461, 462, 578 A.2d 112, 113 (1990).  Scheiber argues, in the alternative: (1) that the
  shooting range constituted "land development" requiring a permit under
  State law; (2) that the range required a conditional use permit (CUP) as
  either a "private club" or "accessory use" within the meaning of the zoning
  regulations; (3) that even if it did not require a CUP, the range
  constituted a "private recreational use" requiring a zoning permit; and (4)
  that if the range did not fall within any of the foregoing categories, it
  was by definition a prohibited use under § 1.3 of the zoning regulations,
  which states that "[a]ny use not permitted by these Regulations shall be
  deemed  prohibited."  Town and Village of Cabot Zoning Regulations § 1.3. 
  We  address each of these arguments in turn.

       Scheiber first contends that the range constituted land development
  requiring a permit under State law.  The contention is unpersuasive.
  Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4443(a)(1), "[n]o land development may be commenced
  [within any municipality having adopted zoning regulations] within the area
  affected by such zoning regulations without a permit therefor issued by the
  administrative officer."  The term "land development" is defined as the 
  "construction, 

 

  reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or
  enlargement of any building or other structure . . . and any change in the
  use of any . . . structure, or land, or extension of use of land."  24
  V.S.A. § 4303(3).  The statute defines "structure" as an  "assembly of
  materials" for use, including but not limited to a wall or fence.  24
  V.S.A. § 4303(11).  Based on the evidence that the Pikes had cut ten trees
  and constructed a backstop and a shooting stand, the trial court could
  reasonably conclude that the Pikes had not created a structure or changed
  the use of their land within the meaning of the statute.  Accordingly, the
  court's conclusion must be  upheld.  See Vermont Agency of Natural
  Resources v. Handy Family Enters., 163 Vt. 476, 485,