Title: In re Newton Enterprises

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Newton Enterprises  (97-105); 167 Vt. 459; 708 A.2d 914

[Opinion Filed 23-Jan-1998]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 12-Feb-1998]

       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. 97-105

In re Appeal of Newton Enterprises           Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Environmental Court

                                             October Term, 1997

Merideth Wright, J.

Andrea L. Gallitano of Otterman and Allen, P.C., Barre, for Appellant.

Richard A. Cawley, Bradford, for Appellee.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   The Town of Fairlee appeals from a decision of the
  environmental court that (1) appellee Newton Enterprises, Inc. received a
  zoning permit by operation of law because a majority of the zoning board of
  adjustment failed to act on its request to change its non-conforming use
  and (2) the Town is not entitled to an injunction against appellee s
  multiple uses. We agree that the permit was not granted by operation of law
  and remand for consideration of the merits.

       Newton Enterprises operates a business, commonly known as Newton s
  Texaco, on a .9 acre lot at the intersection of U.S. Route 5 and the Lake
  Morey Road in the Town of Fairlee. The business was in place before the
  Town adopted a zoning ordinance.  According to the Town, the number of uses
  on this lot have increased since zoning was adopted to the point where
  there are too many uses for the size of the lot.  Newton Enterprises agrees
  there are multiple uses, but asserts they existed before the Town adopted
  the zoning ordinance.

       The matter came to a head in 1995 when Newton Enterprises received a
  state permit to add a grill and food preparation to the convenience store
  it operated on the premises.  On

 

  receiving notice of the permit, the planning commission decided that Newton
  Enterprises operated three independent businesses on the site, but did not
  meet the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning ordinance for this
  intensity of use.  On November 8, 1995, following a meeting between the
  Fairlee Planning Commission and the owners of Newton Enterprises, the
  zoning administrator advised Newton Enterprises that it was in violation of
  the zoning ordinance. The zoning administrator suggested that Newton
  Enterprises apply for a variance, but also informed it that it could appeal
  the violation determination to the zoning board.  When Newton Enterprises
  failed to respond, the zoning administrator issued a cease and desist order
  on January 11, 1996.  When Newton Enterprises again failed to respond, the
  Town, on February 22, 1996, filed an injunction action in the environmental
  court seeking an injunction against the multiple uses.

       The injunction action finally induced Newton Enterprises, on April 3,
  1996, to appeal from the zoning administrator s action to the zoning board. 
  The board denied that appeal on April 26, 1996.  Newton Enterprises
  appealed that decision to the environmental court, but also sought
  zoning-board approval to alter or expand its non-conforming uses from 
  large & small engine repair, sales & service and convenience store  to 
  large & small engine repair, sales & service and convenience store with
  grill and enhanced food preparation and service.

       The zoning board held a hearing on Newton Enterprises  request on
  August 1, 1996. Five of the seven members of the board were present, but
  one member abstained from participating because of a conflict of interest. 
  Following the hearing, the remaining four members of the board voted to
  deny the request on a vote of three to one.  The board notified Newton
  Enterprises of the decision on August 5, 1996, and Newton Enterprises
  appealed this decision to the environmental court.

       The environmental court considered cross-motions for summary judgment
  in each of the three cases before it.  The court granted the Town summary
  judgment in Newton Enterprises appeal of the zoning administrator s cease
  and desist order, ruling that the appeal to the zoning

 

  board was untimely.  It granted summary judgment for Newton Enterprises in
  its appeal of the decision to deny it approval to modify its multiple uses. 
  The court ruled that the zoning board s vote was ineffective because it was
  not joined in by a majority of the board.  As a result, the court further
  ruled that the board had failed to take action within forty-five days and
  Newton Enterprises was entitled to a permit by operation of law pursuant to
  24 V.S.A. § 4470(a). Because it ruled that Newton Enterprises was entitled
  to a permit, it dismissed the Town s request for an injunction, reserving
  decision on the Town s request for a civil penalty.

       On appeal, the Town argues first that the court erred in denying the
  injunction because Newton Enterprises is collaterally estopped from
  claiming that it is not in violation of the zoning ordinance because it
  failed to file a timely appeal from either the non-compliance decision or
  the cease-and-desist order of the zoning administrator.(FN1)  We note, at the
  outset, that this issue involves part of the relief requested in the
  enforcement action and that the enforcement action is still pending before
  the environmental court on the Town s request for civil penalties.  Thus,
  there is not yet a final judgment in the enforcement action; nor has the
  environmental court made the determination required by V.R.C.P. 54(b). 
  Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the
  denial of the injunction.  See Hospitality Inns v. South Burlington R.I.,
  149 Vt. 653, 656,