Title: In reÂ Smith

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Smith (2005-062); 179 Vt. 636; 898 A.2d 1251

2006 VT 33

[Filed 24-Apr-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 33

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-062

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2005

  In re Appeal of William Smith        }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }         Environmental Court
                                       }  
                                       }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 263-12-02 Vtec

                                                 Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  The Chittenden County Fish and Game Club ("Club") appeals the
  Environmental Court's decision that neighboring property owners
  ("landowners") may challenge an increase in the frequency of the Club's
  nonconforming use under the Town of Richmond Zoning Regulations.  The Club
  asserts that landowners' opportunity to challenge any expansion in use is
  foreclosed by their failure to timely appeal the town zoning
  administrator's approval of the Club's permit application for previous
  construction.  We affirm.  
 
       ¶  2.  The undisputed facts can be briefly summarized.  The Club has
  been in existence for more than seventy years, operating shooting ranges,
  fishing ponds, hiking trails, and campsites.  When the Town adopted zoning
  in 1969, the area including the Club's location was designated an
  agricultural/residential zoning district, and the Club's use of the land
  became a nonconforming use because private clubs were not allowed in the
  district and outdoor recreational facilities were allowed only if approved
  by the Richmond Development Review Board (DRB).  Since 1969, the Club made
  a number of physical improvements to the property without seeking a zoning
  permit.  In May of 2002, the Club submitted a permit application to the
  town zoning administrator for the previously-built improvements.  The
  application listed nineteen building, construction, and earthmoving
  improvements to the facility, including: replacing shelters and benches;
  adding a target berm; adding earthen berms for safety and noise reduction
  and to restrict access to the shooting area; replacing and moving the rules
  board for increased visibility; installing a chain-link fence to control
  access to the shooting range; increasing the height of target backstop
  berms; installing a gate to the pond; replacing and resurfacing certain
  bridges; improving the parking lot surface; and drilling a new well and
  enclosing it within a pump house.  The zoning administrator approved the
  permit twelve days after it was submitted, with only the following
  notation: "No new work to be completed; Brings site into conformance."  The
  zoning administrator publicly posted the permit as provided by 24 V.S.A. §
  4443(b),  and it was not appealed within the fifteen-day appeal period, as
  required by 24 V.S.A. § 4464(a). (FN1) 

       ¶  3.  On June 18, 2002, landowners sent a letter to the zoning
  administrator, challenging the Club's expansion and the increase in noise
  and activity level.  In a written response, the zoning administrator
  refused to take action on the grounds that he had granted the Club a permit
  and the permit was not appealed.  The zoning administrator also stated in
  his response that because there was no change in the posted hours of the
  shooting range, the use of the range during those hours did not constitute
  a change or an expansion of a nonconforming use.  Landowners appealed to
  the DRB, which affirmed the zoning administrator's decision.  The DRB
  acknowledged that the zoning administrator lacked authority to approve the
  permit application, but concluded that the permit approval nevertheless
  became final when it was not appealed.  Landowners then appealed to the
  Environmental Court.

       ¶  4.  After a merits hearing, the Environmental Court, relying on
  our decision in In re Jackson, 2003 VT 45, ¶ 23, 175 Vt. 304,