Title: In re Nott

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Nott (2002-040); 174 Vt. 552; 811 A.2d 210

[Filed 23-Oct-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-040

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  In re Appeal of Raymond Nott	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 141-6-00 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       This is a dispute over the construction of a local zoning ordinance
  pertaining to the operation of a home business.  Town of Hartford (the
  "Town") appeals from a ruling of the environmental court holding that §
  3-12.2 of the Hartford Zoning Regulations requires that "no more than three
  employees who are not full-time residents of the dwelling shall be employed
  at the dwelling."  The Town argues that the environmental court's
  interpretation of § 3-12.2 is clearly erroneous, based on the plain meaning
  of the ordinance.  Appellee Raymond Nott argues to the contrary, and
  further challenges the zoning ordinance as violative of the Vermont
  Planning and Development Act, the Vermont Constitution, and the United
  States Constitution.  We affirm.

       Raymond Nott is the owner of a 90-acre parcel of land in the Rural
  Lands 5 ("RL-5") zoning district of the Town.  Nott lives on the site and
  operates an excavation business from his home.  The business consists of
  building roads, digging cellar holes, installing septic systems, and
  plowing snow.  The business currently employs seven people, none of whom
  live on the premises.  These employees come to the site only as necessary
  to pick up equipment and receive instructions.

       Nott applied for a Conditional Use Approval for approval to operate
  his business out of his  home.  On May 26, 2000, the Hartford Zoning Board
  of Adjustment ("ZBA") granted Nott's request, subject to a number of
  conditions.  Condition 2 provided that, "[n]o more than three persons may
  be employed by the business in compliance with section 3-12.2 of the Zoning
  Regulations."  On June 20, 2000, Nott appealed this decision to the
  environmental court, challenging the ZBA's interpretation of § 3-12.2, as
  well as the legality of the Town's interpretation of that section.  On
  August 9, 2001, the environmental court granted a motion for summary
  judgment filed by Nott, holding § 3-12.2 to mean that "no more than three
  employees who are not full-time residents of the dwelling shall be employed
  at the dwelling."

 
          
       The court asked the parties to attempt to stipulate to language
  altering the original conditions of approval.  After the parties were
  unable to agree upon a stipulation, the Town filed a motion to amend the
  conditional use approval on November 19, 2001, to which Nott filed a
  memorandum in opposition.  The parties apparently abandoned any effort to
  amend condition 2 and agreed on the following language for a new 
  condition 3:

         No more than ten round trips of vehicles may occur in any day
    to the property for business purposes, allocated as four round
    trips by [Nott] and a total of six round trips for the total of
    [Nott's] employees.  All employee trips are confined to the
    business hours articulated in Finding of Fact #15: 6:30 a.m to
    6:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, except during a winter
    snowstorm.  Any vehicle driven by an employee, whether personal or
    business, shall be included in the calculation of the six round
    trips allowed per day.

       Nott, however, objected to the following fourth line suggested by the
  Town: "Any vehicle driven by [Nott] other than a car or pick-up truck will
  be considered to be for business purposes and included in the four round
  trips per day."  On December 17, 2001, the court issued an Entry Order
  deciding the disputed language in favor of Nott.  This appeal followed.

       The Town challenges the environmental court's decision on the grounds
  that its interpretation of § 3-12.2 of the Hartford Zoning Regulations is
  clearly erroneous, as the plain meaning of the ordinance limits the total
  number of employees of a home industry to three, regardless of whether the
  employees work at or out of the home site.

       These positions are to be evaluated under a limited standard of
  review.  This Court will overturn the environmental court's construction of
  a zoning ordinance only if it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or
  capricious.  Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, 162 Vt. 476, 479,