Title: In re White

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

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. 89-215


In re Application of Bruce White             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Orange Superior Court

                                             February Term, 1990


Linda Levitt, J.

John D. Hansen, Rutland, for plaintiff-appellant

W. John McNally, III and Frank H. Olmstead of Teachout, Brooks, Moore &
  McNally, Norwich, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.

     MORSE, J.  Appellant Bruce White applied for a zoning permit to
construct a farm stand and greenhouse and to grow produce on a 2.45-acre
lot he owned in Randolph, Vermont, where one residence existed and another
was planned to be built.  The Randolph Board of Adjustment denied the
permit, as did the superior court on appeal.  We affirm.
     The material facts are substantially undisputed.  In late June 1988,
Mr. White applied to the Randolph zoning administrator for a zoning permit.
He had purchased a 2.45-acre lot with the intention of connecting a retail
farm stand to the existing house.  The Randolph Zoning Regulations (RZR)
place Mr. White's lot in two different zoning districts: the front 200 feet
in the Apartment Residence District (AR); the rest of the property in the
Residence District (RES).
     Upon reviewing Mr. White's zoning permit application, the zoning
administrator determined that it required conditional use approval by the
board.  In late July 1988, the board held a conditional use review hearing
and denied approval.  The board notified Mr. White orally of its decision,
but it never put the decision in writing.
     In early August 1988, Mr. White appealed the board's decision to
superior court.  While the appeal was pending, but before trial de novo, he
applied for and received a zoning permit to construct an additional single-
family house on the property at issue here.  After trial, the court denied
conditional use approval to Mr. White.
                             I.  Jurisdiction
                                    A.
     As a threshold issue, appellant challenges the superior court's
jurisdiction to rule on the merits of his appeal.  Relying on Nash v.
Warren Zoning Board of Adjustment, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 569 A.2d 447, 451
(1989), and In re Knapp, 152 Vt. 59, 65, 564 A.2d 1064, 1067 (1989), Mr.
White contends that the board's oral denial of his permit request was not a
"final decision."  He argues that the board was required to issue a written
decision including findings of fact, that its failure to do so meant that
there was no final appealable order, and that his appeal, which was taken
from the board's vote, was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the
superior court.  Finally, he asserts that because the board did not issue a
final written decision, his permit was deemed approved by operation of law.
24 V.S.A. { 4470(a).
     We addressed these issues in Hinsdale v. Village of Essex Junction, ___
Vt. ___, 572 A.2d 925 (1990).  In that case, we held that a "landowner with
actual notice of a decision . . . can file a notice of appeal, relying on
the oral decision even though entry of judgment comes later."  Id. at ___,
572 A.2d  at 929.  Essentially, by acting on the board's oral decision, Mr.
White filed a premature notice of appeal, which will be treated as if it had
been filed on the day of entry of judgment.  V.R.A.P. 4; State v. Kennison,
135 Vt. 238, 239-40,