Title: In re Appeal of Chatelain

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Chatelain  (94-313); 164 Vt 597; 664 A.2d 269  

[Filed 28-Jun-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-313

                              MAY TERM, 1995


In re Appeal of Margaret             }     APPEALED FROM:
Chatelain and Theodore Gabler;       }
Appeal of Daniel Boyd                }
                                     }     Addison Superior Court
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S86/87-92Aca


                    In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


     The Bristol Rescue Squad appeals from an order of the Addison Superior
Court denying its permit application to construct a building to house an
emergency medical response service. We affirm.

     On December 20, 1991 the Bristol Zoning Administrator granted
appellant's construction permit application, and the administrator's
decision was upheld by the Village of Bristol Zoning Board of Adjustment on
February 6, 1992.  Neighboring property owners filed a timely notice of
appeal to the Addison Superior Court, and after a hearing on the merits, the
court held that the proposed building did not meet the definition of a
"community facility" under the Bristol zoning ordinance.  The court also
concluded that the proposed facility did not meet applicable parking and
noise-limitation requirements, but because we conclude that the first issue
is dispositive, we do not address these latter issues.

     The proposed facility is located in a "high density residential"
district, and the only permitted uses by right within this zone are family
dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations and community facilities.
Village of Bristol, Vt., Zoning Regulations  1002(B)(1) (1987).  The
village's zoning ordinance defines "community facility" as "[any] meeting 
hall, place of assembly, museum, art gallery, library, school, church, or
other similar type of establishment which is not operated primarily for
profit, excluding government facility."  Id.  130.  The superior court 
noted that because the proposed facility was designed to serve as a rallying
point for the delivery of emergency services, it did not fit within the
enumerated purposes of the ordinance.

     We agree that the terms "meeting hall" and "place of assembly" could be
construed to encompass a facility in which emergency personnel gather.
Zoning ordinances are construed according to normal rules of statutory
construction.  See Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, ___ Vt. ___, ___,