Title: In re Miller

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Miller (97-463); 170 Vt. 64; 742 A.2d 1219

[Filed 08-Oct-1999]

       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.

                                 No. 97-463

In re:  Appeal of John Miller	                 Supreme Court
and Maureen Sheedy
	                                         On Appeal from
     		                                 Environmental Court

	March Term, 1999

Meredith Wright, J.

       John Miller and Maureen Sheedy, pro se, Montpelier, Appellants.

       Robert Halpert of Paterson & Walke, P.C., Montpelier, for Appellees.

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

       DOOLEY, J.  Appellants John Miller and Maureen Sheedy appeal from
  decisions of the  Vermont Environmental Court (a) approving a conditional
  use zoning permit for applicant Terrence  Shannon to develop as parking a
  part of his lot adjoining his convenience store, Meadow Mart, in  the City
  of Montpelier, and (b) dismissing as untimely appellants' appeal of site
  plan approval of  the parking project by the Montpelier Planning
  commission.  Appellants argue that the parking  project does not meet
  certain conditional use standards and violates city setback requirements,
  and  that the court erred in one of its permit conditions and in holding
  that the site plan appeal was  untimely.  We affirm the grant of the
  conditional use permit, and reverse and remand the decision  to dismiss the
  site plan appeal.  Applicant Terrence Shannon owns a convenience store at
  284 Elm  Street in the City of Montpelier.  He purchased the store 

 

  and lot in 1990.  A convenience store has existed on the lot since before
  1973, the effective date of  zoning in Montpelier.

       In 1995, applicant purchased 282 Elm Street, an adjoining lot to the
  west.  The lot had been  used for residential purposes, at one point by
  former owners of the convenience store.  At the time  applicant purchased
  the lot, it contained the foundation for a mobile home, but the home had
  been  removed.

       Immediately to the west of 282 Elm Street, on the corner of Vine and
  Elm Streets, is a  residence owned by the Bernard Neill Trust.  The trust
  has participated in this dispute before the  Montpelier Zoning Board and
  Planning Commission and before the Environmental Court, but not  in this
  Court.  Throughout, the trust has opposed applicant's development plans.

       Behind the Neill residence, facing Vine Street, are two residences on
  one lot owned by  appellants and used as rental properties.  The lot is
  quite deep so that it abuts both of applicant's lots  at 282 and 284 Elm
  Street, and the residence at 7 Vine Street lies directly behind these lots.

       After adding gravel so that the grade of the 282 Elm Street lot was
  raised to that of the top  of the mobile home foundation, applicant sought
  conditional use and site plan approval to use 282  Elm Street as a parking
  lot for the convenience store and to reconfigure the parking on 284 Elm 
  Street.  He also sought a variance from the rear setback requirement in
  order to add a storage room  to the back of the store.  Appellants sought
  from the zoning administrator a ruling that the area of  282 Elm Street to
  the front of the former mobile home was not grandfathered for parking in 
  connection with the store and an enforcement action to remove a floodlight
  fixture.  The Montpelier  planning and zoning bodies and officers ruled for
  applicant, and the various rulings were appealed  to the environmental
  court.

       The environmental court ruled that the lots had merged and
  characterized the main 

 

  application as for an accessory use, that is, parking for patrons of the
  convenience store.  Because a  convenience store is a conditional use in
  the district involved, the court held that the accessory use  had to meet
  the conditional use standards under the Montpelier zoning ordinance.  It
  found that the  store, with an expanded and reconfigured parking lot, would
  not increase the number of customers  or the number of deliveries of
  products for sale in the store.  It did find, however, that the added 
  space allowed delivery trucks to drive directly into the parking area so
  they would come much  closer to the Vine Street building.

       The court found that the added parking could meet the conditional use
  standards if the  design minimized any adverse impacts from the use on the
  surrounding residential properties.  The  court concluded, however, that it
  could not approve the proposed plan because the document  showing the
  design was incomplete and inaccurate and "the proposal fails to address
  features and  conditions which could minimize the effect of the redesigned
  parking area on the surrounding  neighborhood, including hours of
  operation, hours of delivery, and the direction of delivery  vehicles, and
  requirements regarding snow plowing, although the Applicant's memorandum 
  suggests that delivery hours of 6:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. would be
  acceptable."  Accordingly, it  granted the application to use 282 Elm
  Street for accessory parking, but denied approval of  applicant's design
  allowing applicant to submit a revised plan to the Montpelier Zoning Board
  and  Planning Commission.

       On the other issues presented, the court denied applicant's request
  for a variance to erect an  addition on the store for storage, and granted
  appellants' request for a declaratory ruling that use of  282 Elm Street,
  between the street and the mobile home foundation, for parking for the
  store was  not grand-fathered.  The court also ruled that the floodlight
  met performance standards of the  zoning ordinance and refused to order its
  removal.

 

       On remand, applicant clarified his plan and detailed the steps he
  would take to buffer  activities on his lot from the neighboring lots and
  houses.  The zoning board again granted  conditional use approval, and the
  planning commission granted site plan approval.  On appeal, the 
  environmental court affirmed the decision to grant conditional use
  approval, and held that  appellants' appeal of the site plan approval was
  untimely.  Appellants appeal to this Court raising  six issues: (1) unless
  applicant seeks and obtains conditional use approval for the store, as well
  as  the parking area, the development is an illegal expansion of a
  non-conforming use; (2) the proposal  does not meet the conditional use
  standard that it not "adversely affect the character of the area 
  affected;" (3) the proposal does not meet other conditional use and zoning
  standards; (4) the court  improperly delegated the power to make approval
  conditions to the zoning board; (5) the court  improperly applied the rear
  setback requirement; and (6) appellants' appeal from the planning 
  commission was timely and, in any event, the court should not have allowed
  the untimely motion to  dismiss the appeal.

                                     I.
        
       Appellants first argue that applicant's proposal to use 282 Elm Street
  as parking is an  improper expansion of a non-conforming use.  Their
  position is that the preexisting store is a non-conforming use because
  convenience stores are allowed only as conditional uses in the district and 
  the store has not gone through conditional use review.  They argue that
  because applicant failed to  seek conditional use approval for the combined
  282 and 284 Elm Street lot and all its uses, and the  court failed to
  consider the combined lot, the permit is improper.
		
       Although appellants initially claimed that applicant's proposal
  involved an improper  expansion of a non-conforming use, we cannot find
  that this claim included the ground it is now  asserting.  Indeed, in their
  rebuttal memorandum to the court, appellants stated: "The court need 

 

  not consider whether the existing store promotes the residential character
  of the neighborhood.  The  issue at hand is whether the new use (a parking
  lot) promotes the residential character."  In their  legal memorandum,
  appellants stated, "since June of 1995, we have not opposed the concept of
  a  parking lot on 282 Elm Street nor sought in any manner to block any
  reasonable development of the  property."  In view of appellants'
  statements, the environmental court never addressed the argument 
  appellants make to this Court, nor did appellants raise it in the second
  appeal to the environmental  court.  We may not consider an appeal issue
  that was not raised in the trial court.  See Town of  Hinesburg v.
  Dunkling, 167 Vt. 514, 523,