Title: In re Ashline

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Ashline (2002-063); 175 Vt. 203; 824 A.2d 579

2003 VT 30

[Filed 28-Mar-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 30

                                No. 2002-063

       						 Supreme Court

  In re Appeal of Todd and Terry Ashline	 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 November Term, 2002
   

  Merideth Wright, J.

  Gary W. Lange of Swanson & Lange, Burlington, for Appellants.

  David A. Barra of Unsworth Powell Barra Orr & Bredice, PLC, Essex Junction,
    for Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, (FN1)  Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.  In this zoning dispute, appellant-landowners
  Todd and Terry Ashline ("Landowners") appeal from an order of the
  environmental court denying Landowners' motion for summary judgment and
  granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, Town of St. Albans
  ("Town").  Landowners appealed to the environmental court from a decision
  of the Town's development review board upholding a notice of violation
  issued after the denial of Landowners' application for conditional use
  approval by the Town's zoning board of adjustment ("ZBA" or "Board"). 
  Landowners contend that the environmental court improperly applied the
  exclusive remedy provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472 to dismiss Landowners'
  questions submitted on appeal, arguing that the ZBA's failure to comply
  with 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) resulted in a non-decision from which they could
  not appeal.  Landowners further contend that the Board's failure to issue a
  decision resulted in deemed approval of the Landowners' application for
  conditional use approval pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4470(a).  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  Landowners hold title in real property on 348 Lake Road in
  St. Albans, a commercial zoning district.  In February 1999, after
  expanding the physical dimensions of the existing house located on their
  Lake Road property, Landowners applied for a certificate of occupancy and a
  certificate of compliance for the as-built construction, indicating that
  the current use of the property was as a "duplex."  In July 1999, the
  Town's zoning administrator notified Landowners that their property was in
  violation of the Town's zoning bylaws and that they must apply to the ZBA
  for conditional use approval or be subject to a notice of violation for
  using their Lake Road property as a duplex.  Landowners then submitted an
  application to the ZBA to "permit a duplex on Lake Road in the Commercial
  District."

       ¶  3.  On August 12, 1999, the ZBA held a public hearing to consider
  Landowners' application for conditional use approval.  Six of the nine
  members of the Town's ZBA were present.  Landowners' motion for "approval
  for the duplex on this property" received four votes in favor and two
  opposed.  Thus, the motion failed because it did not receive a majority of
  the nine-member board.
   
       ¶  4.  On September 16, 1999, the ZBA issued a written notice of
  decision denying Landowners' application for conditional use approval. 
  Landowners did not appeal the ZBA's denial of their  application, nor did
  they request a rehearing before additional members of the ZBA.  Nearly one
  year later, on August 4, 2000, the zoning administrator issued Landowners a
  notice of violation, alleging that Landowners had "continued to utilize
  [their] property as a duplex despite the [ZBA's] denial" of their
  application for conditional use approval.  Landowners subsequently appealed
  this notice of violation to the ZBA.  At this time, the Town was in the
  process of replacing their ZBA with a development review board ("DRB").  A
  hearing before the newly created DRB occurred on October 10, 2000, at which
  time the DRB upheld the notice of violation.  

       ¶  5.  Landowners then appealed the DRB's decision to the
  environmental court.  On June 14, 2001, the court denied Landowners' motion
  for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. 
  The court found that "because [Landowners] did not appeal the ZBA's
  September 16, 1999 decision . . . [that decision] may not now be
  collaterally attacked in the present proceedings."  The court then
  dismissed that portion of Landowners' appeal concerning the Board's
  September 1999 decision.  Landowners then withdrew their sole remaining
  question on appeal before the environmental court, and this appeal
  followed.

       ¶  6.  Our review of summary judgment is de novo.  Springfield
  Terminal Ry. Co. v. Agency of Transp., __ Vt. __, __,