Case Title: In re Mutschler

Citation: 180 Vt. 501, 2006 VT 43, 904 A.2d 1067

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Mutschler (2004-457); 180 Vt. 501; 904 A.2d 1067

2006 VT 43

[Filed 25-May-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 43

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-457

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2005

  In re Appeal of Mutschler, Canning   }         APPEALED FROM:
  and Wilkins                          }
                                       }
                                       }         Environmental Court
                                       }  
                                       }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 260-11-02 Vtec

                                                 Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The Vermont Environmental Court granted applicant a variance
  from setback requirements for a proposed commercial building on an existing
  small lot.  Neighboring landowners appeal, arguing that the court
  misapplied 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a)(5) (FN1)  by granting a variance that does
  not represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and the least
  deviation possible from the applicable zoning bylaws and the town plan.  We
  agree and reverse.  

       ¶  2.  Applicant is a contractor seeking to relocate his contracting
  business from Massachusetts to the Town of Burke, Vermont.  He currently
  maintains a home in Burke and operates his business from his Massachusetts
  residence.  He stores his tools and equipment in the basement of that
  residence, and generally completes all necessary woodworking on the job
  site.  He now seeks to live full-time in Vermont and construct a "business
  location" for his company that consists of office space, a storage area,
  and a wood shop.  To this end, he purchased a small parcel of land in Burke
  at the intersection of Kirby Road and Maple Road.
   
       ¶  3.  The roughly triangular parcel is approximately one-third of
  an acre in size, and is bounded on the north by Dish Mill Brook, on the
  east by neighboring property, and on the southwest by Kirby Road.  The
  surrounding neighborhood is essentially residential in character, with a
  number of home occupations.  At the time of the purchase, the lot contained
  a nonconforming blacksmith's shop.  Applicant originally intended to
  renovate this shop for his own use, but found it to be beyond repair.  He
  then planned to construct a two-story building with a basement on a new
  footprint.  In this plan, the basement was set aside for storage space, the
  office and wood shop were on the first floor, and a three-bedroom rental
  unit was proposed for the second floor.  Upon advice from his engineer that
  the on-site septic capacity was only sixty to ninety gallons per day-far
  short of the 420-gallon-per-day capacity the proposed residential unit
  would require-applicant modified his plan again and proposed a
  similarly-sized two-story building without a basement.

       ¶  4.  In this new plan, which was ultimately submitted to the
  zoning board of adjustment, the office was located on the second floor, and
  the storage space took up approximately one third of the first floor.  The
  rest of the first floor was given over to the wood shop.  In the shop,
  applicant proposed to install a drill press, a grinder stone, and other
  basic woodworking machinery, and he would not rule out the possibility of
  installing noisier machines, such as planers, shapers, and molders.  The
  plans called for sliding doors on both sides of the wood shop to allow for
  the handling and processing of over-sized lumber.

       ¶  5.  Within the Town, certain uses are permitted as a matter of
  right, and certain uses require a conditional use permit.  Town of Burke,
  Zoning Bylaws § 203 [hereinafter Burke Zoning Bylaws].  Applicant agrees
  that his proposed wood shop constitutes "light industry" under the bylaws.
  (FN2)   Light industry is a conditional use requiring a minimum setback of
  one hundred feet from the front, side, and rear boundary lines.  Id. § 203,
  Conditional Use Table, entry no. 22.  Because the site of applicant's shop
  is only twenty-five feet from the rear and side boundaries of the property,
  and thirty-five feet from the front, applicant was required to obtain both
  a conditional use permit and a variance from the setback requirement. (FN3) 
   
       ¶  6.  The Board granted applicant's variance request, and
  neighboring landowners appealed to the Environmental Court.  At the de novo
  hearing, neighbors challenged the inclusion of the wood shop in applicant's
  proposal, arguing that the shop was not the minimum variance necessary to
  afford relief to applicant and was likely to generate an unreasonable
  amount of noise.  The court, in applying 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a), found that
  most of neighbors' concerns about the proposed shop could be addressed
  through the conditional use permitting process.  The court also concluded
  that the proposal was the minimum necessary to afford relief because the
  lot "could not be used for a farm stand as that would have much more
  traffic than the proposed use."  Accordingly, the court granted the
  variance.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  7.  Variances have historically been employed as "an escape hatch
  from the literal terms of an ordinance which, if strictly applied, would
  deny a property owner all beneficial use of his land and thus amount to
  confiscation."  Lincourt v. Zoning Bd. of Review,