Title: In re Torres

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. 89-523
 
 
In re Glen M. and Lisa Torres                Supreme Court
 
                                             On Appeal From
                                             Washington Superior Court
 
                                             February Term, 1990
 
 
David A. Jenkins, J.
 
Glen M. Torres, pro se, Waterbury, plaintiff-appellant
 
Richard A. Unger, Montpelier, for defendants-appellees Gonyon
 
David A. Barra of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for defendant-
  appellee Town of Duxbury
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     ALLEN, C.J.   Glen and Lisa Torres are residents of the Town of Duxbury
who appeal the trial court's issuance of a conditional use permit for the
operation of an automobile repair and reconstruction business across the
road from their house. (FN1)  We reverse.
     David and Joyce Gonyon, owners of a parcel of land on the westerly side
of Route 100 in Duxbury, filed an application with the Town for approval
under its zoning bylaw to construct a 2,000 square foot automobile body shop
on their property which they would operate as a "home occupation."  Both the
Gonyons' and the appellants' properties are located within the rural agri-
cultural zoning district in which home occupations are permitted.  The
Duxbury Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the permit, and appellants filed
a timely notice of appeal in Washington Superior Court pursuant to 24 V.S.A.
{{ 4471 and 4472(a).  The court conducted a de novo trial and concluded that
the Gonyons' business did not conform to the definition of "home occupation"
in the zoning bylaw.  The court, however, allowed the Gonyons to amend their
application for a home occupation to one for a conditional use and granted
the latter application, with conditions.  The present appeal followed.
     Appellants argue that the issue of a conditional use permit was never
properly before the superior court and that the court was powerless to issue
it.  Appellees, the Gonyons and the Town of Duxbury, stress the broad powers
of the superior court on de novo review and argue that the issues and the
evidence in the proceeding were identical, whether the application was to be
considered as one for a "home occupation" or a conditional use permit.  They
argue that "[t]he submission of a conditional use application was a matter
of form, conforming the pleadings to the evidence."  Appellees cite In re
Poole, 136 Vt. 242, 247,