Title: Town of Hinesburg v. Dunkling

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Town of Hinesburg v. Dunkling  (96-632); 167 Vt. 514; 711 A.2d 1163

[Filed 10-Apr-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. 96-632

Town of Hinesburg                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Chittenden Superior Court

Paul Dunkling                                September Term, 1997

Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

Philip C. Woodward and Douglas D. LeBrun of Dinse, Erdmann, Knapp &
  McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Liam L. Murphy and Eric M. Knudson of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, for Defendant-Appellant.

Priscilla B. Fox, Montpelier, for Amicus Curiae, Vermont League of
  Cities and Towns.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.  Defendant/landowner Paul Dunkling appeals the Chittenden
  Superior Court's grant of plaintiff/cross-appellant Town of Hinesburg's
  summary judgment motion and grant of Town's request for a mandatory
  injunction and fine for noncompliance with a town zoning by-law.  Landowner
  contends that:  (1) Town's notice that the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)
  had rendered a decision was insufficient to raise the bar of 24 V.S.A. §
  4472 in Town's subsequent enforcement action, (2) because the assessed fine
  was punitive in nature, landowner was entitled to the same due process and
  constitutional safeguards as a defendant in a criminal proceeding, and (3)
  the court exceeded its authority by awarding Town a portion of its actual
  and prospective attorney's fees.  Town cross-appeals contending that the
  court abused its discretion by awarding a fine that is less than Town's
  actual and reasonable expenses incurred while pursuing the enforcement
  action against landowner.  We affirm.

       Landowner owns a parcel of land within Town's boundaries.  In August
  1990, landowner

 

  excavated a hole and then erected an earthen dam, which backed up a stream
  that ran through his property.  This dam created a 0.7 acre pond. 
  Neighbors, downstream from landowner, complained to Town that the stream
  was now dry.  Town investigated and discovered landowner's dam and pond and
  determined that landowner was in violation of a town by-law because he
  failed to obtain a permit for the pond's excavation and dam's
  construction.(FN1)

       In August 1990, Town sent landowner a notice of violation, and
  landowner appealed this determination to the ZBA.  The ZBA upheld the
  violation determination, but permitted landowner to file an after-the-fact
  permit for the pond and dam.  In November 1990, the permit was approved
  with certain conditions, including a requirement that the dam be inspected
  and approved by a certified civil engineer and that there not be an adverse
  impact on water quality and quantity downstream from the dam.  Landowner
  agreed to these conditions and was given until September 1991 to comply.

       By September 1991, landowner had failed to satisfy the permit
  conditions and instead appealed to the ZBA for relief from the permit
  conditions.  The ZBA granted landowner until February 1992 to provide the
  ZBA with either a plan addressing the safety of the dam and water quality
  and quantity issues or a plan to dismantle the dam and return the site to
  its original condition.

       Again, in February 1992, landowner failed to comply with the ZBA's
  demands and the ZBA, on its own initiative, scheduled an inspection of the
  dam by the State Agency of Natural Resources.  The inspection determined
  that the dam's construction failed to meet current engineering standards,
  the spillway was inadequate, and the dam could fail under flood

 

  conditions.

       The ZBA, after receiving the inspection report, scheduled a hearing
  concerning landowner's appeal for June 18, 1992.  Landowner attended the
  meeting and his case was the first to be heard that evening.  Instead of
  providing the ZBA with the requested plan, however, landowner reiterated
  his request that the ZBA remove the permit conditions.  After several
  neighbors voiced their concerns and landowner was given an opportunity to
  speak, the ZBA completed the public hearing on the appeal and informed
  landowner that the ZBA had forty-five (45) days to render its decision. 
  Landowner left the hearing immediately afterwards and the ZBA took up other
  issues on that evening's agenda.  At the end of the hearing, however, the
  ZBA revisited landowner's appeal and unanimously denied landowner's appeal
  for relief.(FN2)

       A copy of the hearing's minutes were sent by certified mail to
  landowner's address. Town had mailed correspondence to this address
  previously without any difficulty.  The minutes of the hearing consisted of
  four single-spaced typewritten pages.  The minutes of the public hearing on
  landowner's appeal appeared in a paragraph denoted "2." that began at the
  top of the first page and ended a little less than half-way down the second
  page.  The remainder of the minutes on page 2 and 3 dealt with other
  matters before the ZBA and each issue was indicated by a
  separately-numbered paragraph.  The ZBA's final decision regarding
  landowner's appeal and the granting of a stay of enforcement began at the
  bottom of the third page, in an unnumbered paragraph, and ended half-way
  down the fourth page just prior to a statement that the hearing was
  adjourned and the signature of the recording secretary.  The ZBA's decision
  was not highlighted nor emphasized in any way to set it apart from the
  other issues discussed at the hearing.  Furthermore, no other information
  or documents were included with the minutes to indicate that the minutes
  contained the final decision of the ZBA.  Landowner claims he never

 

  received the minutes or signed the certified mail receipt.  Town, however,
  received a signed receipt for the certified mail, dated June 30, 1992.

       Landowner never appealed the ZBA's decision.  In August 1992, Town,
  sending landowner a letter to the same address the minutes had been mailed
  and referencing the minutes and the ZBA's decision, informed landowner that
  Town would initiate an enforcement action unless he complied with the
  permit's conditions or removed the dam and pond.  Landowner acknowledged
  receipt of this letter but again failed to satisfy Town's mandate.  In
  January 1993, Town commenced an enforcement action and requested (1) a
  mandatory injunction to require the dismantling of the pond and dam and (2)
  a fifty dollar ($50) per day fine running from June 18, 1992 until
  compliance.(FN3)  Upon learning that Town had initiated an enforcement
  action, landowner again failed to appeal the ZBA's decision.

       After discovery was complete, Town moved for summary judgment,
  claiming that landowner, because he failed to timely appeal the ZBA's final
  decision, was now barred from presenting any defenses to the enforcement
  action.  The court granted Town's motion for summary judgment, and
  landowner appealed to this Court.  Because the court failed to address the
  issue of relief to be accorded to Town, however, both parties requested the
  matter be remanded for determination of that issue.

       At the hearing after remand, landowner, asserting that Town's
  requested fine was punitive, claimed he should be afforded the same range
  of constitutional protections as a criminal defendant, i.e., a right to (1)
  a jury trial, (2) a presumption of innocence, (3) have the violation proved
  beyond a reasonable doubt, and (4) be free from compelled
  self-incrimination. Furthermore, landowner contended that because of the
  punitive aspects of the sought relief, he

 

  should be allowed to contest the underlying merits of the violation, and
  not just be restricted to challenging the issue of relief.  Therefore, he
  requested that he be allowed to present a defense and call witnesses in his
  own behalf.  The court, while declining to re-open the court's granting of
  Town's motion for summary judgment, granted landowner's request for the
  limited purpose of determining whether Town's requested injunction and fine
  were appropriate.

       At the hearing, landowner attempted to prove that the alleged
  violation was de minimis and innocent in nature and, hence, injunctive
  relief would be inappropriate.  The court found, however, that the
  violation was substantial and landowner's "failure to obtain a permit
  initially and his failure to comply with the conditions of the
  after-the-fact permit are neither innocent [nor] unknowing."  Thus, the
  court ordered landowner to comply with the permit's conditions within
  thirty (30) days or dismantle the pond and dam and restore the site to its
  original condition within sixty (60) days.  Furthermore, the court ordered
  landowner to pay a fine, which would be "remedial in nature."  This fine
  would permit Town to recover its significant, reasonable, and necessary
  costs amassed while trying to resolve the case.  The fine would be
  determined "by dividing the number of days of noncompliance, (beginning
  June 19, 1992), into the final amount of reasonable attorneys fees and
  costs (to be determined at the conclusion of this action) less $4000.00 [--
  the cost that landowner had incurred in attempting to comply with the
  permit conditions.]"  These appeals followed.(FN4)

                                     I.

       Landowner first contends that the court erred in granting Town's
  summary judgment motion.  Landowner claims that the ZBA's reliance on the
  minutes of the hearing to serve as notice of the ZBA's final decision was
  both statutorily and constitutionally defective.  He asserts the court
  erroneously found that he had received adequate notice that the ZBA had
  rendered a

 

  final decision and, therefore, he was impermissibly barred from asserting
  any affirmative defenses to the enforcement action.  We disagree.

       When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard
  as the trial court.  See Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 308, 309,