Title: In re Windjammer Hospitality

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Windjammer Hospitality (2000-446); 172 Vt. 560; 772 A.2d 536

[Filed 11-Apr-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 00-446

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

In re Appeal of Windjammer Hospitality	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
     	                                }	Environmental Court
                                        }	
                                        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 137-8-99 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Meredith Wright

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

       Appellant Windjammer Hospitality Group (Windjammer) appeals from a
  decision of the  Environmental Court which held that split lots must
  conform to the minimum lot frontage  requirements required for each
  district in which they are located.  On appeal, Windjammer contends  that a
  split lot, one that lies in more than one zoning district, conforms to the
  applicable zoning  bylaws as long as it maintains minimum lot frontage on
  one street.  We affirm.

       This case arises out of the City of South Burlington's denial of
  Windjammer's application to  subdivide a 54-acre parcel which it currently
  leases, with a purchase option, from owner Evelyn  Lamplough.  Windjammer
  owns and operates Windjammer Best Western Inn and Conference  Center, and
  Windjammer Restaurant, on the leased property.  Approximately one acre of
  the leased  property may be subject to a neighboring property owner's right
  of first refusal, which has prevented  Windjammer from exercising its
  purchase option.

       To address this concern, Windjammer and Ms. Lamplough submitted an
  application to the  South Burlington Planning Commission seeking to
  subdivide the leased property.  Proposed lot 1,  consisting of a 1.47 acre
  lot, includes that portion of the leased property which is subject to the
  right  of first refusal.  Proposed lot 2, a 52.876 acre lot, encompasses
  all of the buildings and improvements  associated with Windjammer's
  business, as well as vacant land.  As proposed, the subdivision would 
  enable Windjammer to purchase all of proposed lot 2 without triggering the
  right of first refusal.   Windjammer would continue to lease lot 1. 

       The leased property is located in two zoning districts: the southern
  half of the parcel, including  two segments with frontage on Williston Road
  and all of the land occupied by the motel, conference  center and
  restaurant buildings, is located in the commercial zoning district (C-1);
  the northern,  unimproved portion of the parcel, with frontage on Patchen
  Road, is located in the residential zoning 

 

  district (R-4).  Both Williston and Patchen Roads are classified as
  "arterial or collector" streets under  the City's zoning regulations for
  the purpose of measuring minimum lot frontage.  The minimum lot  frontage
  on "arterial or collector" streets is 200 feet in the C-1 district, and 100
  or 170 feet in the R-4  district, depending on use.  

       Under the proposed subdivision, lot 1 would fall entirely in the C-1
  district, and would include  a 234.57-foot segment of Williston Road
  frontage; lot 2 would fall in both districts, and include the  entire
  261.31-foot Patchen Road frontage, but only a 50-foot segment of Williston
  Road frontage.   The minimum frontage required for lot 2 in the C-1 zoning
  district on Williston Road, however, is  200 feet.  Additionally,
  "[h]otels, motels and restaurants are neither permitted nor conditional
  uses in  the R-4 zoning district." 

       The City of South Burlington Planning Commission denied the
  subdivision application on the  ground that proposed lot 2 did not have
  sufficient frontage on Williston Road.  Windjammer  appealed the decision
  to the environmental court, claiming that proposed lot 2 met the minimum 
  frontage lot requirement because it had sufficient frontage on Patchen
  Road, and did not need to  meet the minimum frontage requirements on
  Williston Road as well.  The environmental court  granted the City's motion
  for summary judgment.

       In its decision, the environmental court first noted that, "if the
  proposed Lot 2 . . . were solely  in the C-1 district, or were split
  between districts allowing the use, as long as the frontage on one  street
  is adequate, the lack of sufficient frontage on the other street would be
  no bar to approval of  the subdivision."(Emphasis added).  However, the
  court observed that as a "split lot,"§ 29.007 of the  zoning bylaws was
  controlling.  Section 29.007 states:

    Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in a single 
    ownership at the time of passage of these regulations, the Board
    of  Adjustment may permit, as a conditional use, the extension of
    the  regulations for either portion of the lot not to exceed fifty
    (50) feet beyond  the district line into the remaining portion of
    the lot.

  City of South Burlington, Vt. Zoning Regulations art. XXIX, §29.007.  The
  court held that "the  necessary corollary of that provision is that, other
  than in such extension area, uses on a split lot must  comply with the
  district requirements for the district they are in."

       The environmental court also based its decision on § 25.115 of the
  bylaws, which requires that  "[n]o lot shall be so reduced in size that the
  lot size, frontage, coverage, setbacks, or other  requirements of these
  regulations shall be smaller than herein prescribed for each district." 
  (Emphasis added).  The court found that the proposed subdivision would
  result in a violation of  §  25.115 as "[i]t would reduce the lot size so
  that the frontage required for the commercial use in the  C-1 district
  would be smaller than that prescribed for the C-1 district." 

 

       On appeal, Windjammer contends that the environmental court erred as a
  matter of law in  requiring the proposed subdivision to fulfill minimum lot
  frontage requirements on both Williston  and Patchen Roads.  Specifically,
  Windjammer claims that the environmental court "employed an  overly narrow
  reading" of § 29.007, and asserts that but for the split-lot nature of
  proposed lot 2, it  would satisfy the City's zoning bylaw frontage
  requirements.

       We use "the same standard as the trial court," and will affirm a
  summary judgment "if there are  no genuine issues of material fact and the
  moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."   Granger v. Town
  of Woodford, 167 Vt. 610, 611,