Title: In re Richards

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Richards (2003-543); 178 Vt. 478; 872 A.2d 315

2005 VT  23

[Filed 09-Feb-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT  23

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-543

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2004

  In re Appeal of Stuart Richards      }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
  	                               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 236-12-99 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  This is the second appeal in litigation between neighbors
  Stuart Richards and Paul Nowicki concerning Nowicki's desire to build a
  house on 84 Elm Street in the Town of Norwich. In this appeal, Richards
  claims the environmental court erred by concluding that 84 Elm Street and
  an adjoining parcel Nowicki owns are two separate lots for zoning purposes
  because a right-of-way providing access to Richards's property divides
  them.  We reverse. 

       ¶  2.   In 1996, Nowicki bought 84 Elm Street and an adjoining
  parcel, 76 Elm Street, from an individual who had held title to both
  parcels since 1967.  Richards and his wife live behind 76 Elm Street and
  must access their property by a right-of-way over 84 Elm Street along the
  border with 76 Elm Street.  The 76 Elm Street parcel had been improved with
  a house when Nowicki purchased the property, but 84 Elm Street was an empty
  lot.  Nowicki sought a building permit to construct a house for his mother
  on 84 Elm Street.  Richards opposed the permit, and the present litigation
  ensued.
   
       ¶  3.  Richards continued his challenge to the building permit for
  84 Elm Street all the way to this Court.  See In re Richards, 174 Vt. 416,