Title: In re Letourneau

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Letourneau  (97-403); 168 Vt. 539; 726 A.2d 31

[Filed 24-Dec-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. 97-403

In re Appeals of Phillip Letourneau	                 Supreme Court

                                                         On Appeal from
                                                         Environmental Court

                                                         September Term, 1998

Merideth Wright, J.

       Charles D. Hickey, St. Johnsbury, for Appellants.

       Glenn C. Howland of McKee, Giuliani & Cleveland, P.C., Montpelier, for
  Appellee.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   Phillip Letourneau (landowner) appeals from a decision of
  the environmental court imposing a civil fine and awarding injunctive
  relief in connection with an addition he placed on his home in Derby
  without a zoning permit and in violation of applicable setback
  requirements.  Landowner raises a variety of constitutional, statutory and
  evidentiary issues in challenging the determination, also taking the
  position that the town should be estopped from bringing this enforcement
  action and that the environmental court exceeded its jurisdiction in
  ordering the removal of the addition before any sale of landowner's home. 
  We affirm.

       Many of the trial court's findings are undisputed and we summarize
  them here:  The home in question is located on landowner's farm of
  approximately 184 acres on Holland Road in an area of Derby designated a
  "rural lands" district by the town's zoning ordinance.  The building, and
  landowner's title to it, antedate the Derby zoning ordinance, enacted in
  1977.  The ordinance contains a 50-foot setback requirement for homes in
  this district.  All but the rear four feet of the house are located within
  the setback zone from Holland Road.  As of the time the zoning 

  

  ordinance went into effect, the house included a roofed porch, six feet
  deep, along the front facing Holland Road and one side of the building. 
  There was also a set of three steps leading to the porch.

       In 1994, landowner's mother lived at his home during a period of
  convalescence and, because of her physical needs, occupied the living room. 
  Anticipating that such a situation might recur, landowner decided in 1995
  to expand the living room.  To build onto the side of the house outside of
  the setback area was deemed expensive and inconvenient because it would
  have required the removal of a garage, woodshed and/or mud room.  Landowner
  therefore decided to expand in the direction of the porch, which by then
  had become dilapidated.

       A neighbor of landowner, Susan Judd, was in 1995 the chair of the
  Derby Planning Commission and had recently served as the town's zoning
  administrator.  Prior to beginning construction on the living room
  expansion, landowner asked Judd if he needed a permit to tear down and
  rebuild his porch.  He did not tell Judd that he intended to enlarge the
  enclosed living space of the house into the area occupied by the porch, nor
  did he tell her that his plan included expanding the building's footprint
  beyond that of the porch structure.  According to the environmental court,
  Judd told landowner "that she did not anticipate a problem with his plans. 
  She did not tell [landowner] that the project did or did not require a
  permit."

       Based upon this discussion, landowner commenced construction.  Judd
  said nothing further to landowner when she drove by his home and noticed he
  was removing the porch.  In place of the porch, landowner constructed an
  L-shaped addition, 12 feet deep, extending 24 feet along the front of the
  house and 21 feet along one side.  The trial court determined that this
  "increased the degree of nonconformity of the porch [with the setback
  requirement] by an additional six feet to the front and to the side (or an
  additional three feet in the area formerly occupied by the front steps[)]." 
  After landowner had made substantial progress on this addition, Judd
  stopped by the house, told landowner he needed a zoning permit, helped him
  fill out an application and told him to see the town's zoning
  administrator.  The zoning administrator denied the application based on

  

  non-compliance with the 50-foot setback requirement and advised landowner
  to seek a variance.  While the application process was ongoing, landowner
  completed work on the addition.

       Following a public hearing, the town's zoning board of adjustment
  denied the variance request on December 15, 1995 and, thereafter, the
  administrator sent landowner a formal notice of zoning violation.  At this
  point, judicial proceedings began with landowner filing a declaratory
  judgment action in the superior court seeking a determination that the
  setback requirement in the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional.  Landowner
  appealed the zoning violation notice to the board of adjustment, which
  affirmed the administrator's decision on January 4, 1996.  Landowner then
  appealed both the board of adjustment's variance decision and its
  determination as to the zoning violation to the environmental court. 
  Finally, the town in March 1996 filed an enforcement action in the
  environmental court seeking the imposition of civil fines and a permanent
  injunction requiring landowner to remove the addition to his home.  These
  four separate proceedings were ultimately consolidated before the
  environmental judge.(FN1)

       Landowner requested a jury trial on the enforcement action, but the
  environmental court denied the motion, and an attempt to obtain
  interlocutory review of this decision was unsuccessful. The trial court
  thereafter conducted an evidentiary hearing on the variance matter and, on
  October 3, 1996, entered an order reaching the same determination as the
  board of adjustment.  The court then heard evidence on the remaining three
  matters and on June 19, 1997 issued an opinion rejecting landowner's
  constitutional claim and determining that he had violated the zoning
  ordinance by building the addition.   On August 22, 1997, the environmental
  court entered its final judgment (a) assessing a civil fine of $3,090,
  amounting to $10 per day for 309 days, and (b) ordering landowner, or, if
  applicable, his heirs and assigns, to remove the addition and to restore
  the house to its previous footprint prior to any transfer of interest in
  the property.

       On appeal, landowner raises seven issues, contending that: (1) the
  setback requirement of 

  

  the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not reasonably
  related to public health, safety, morals and general welfare; (2) there is
  no prohibition in the zoning ordinance or statute against the expansion of
  a non-complying structure; (3) the town should be estopped from enforcing
  the zoning ordinance; (4) the town is guilty of selective enforcement of
  its zoning ordinance; (5) the injunction was improper; (6) landowner was
  entitled to a jury trial; and (7) the environmental court improperly
  excluded evidence of the town's violation of state building requirements. 
  We take these claims in order.

       First, landowner challenges the constitutionality of the setback
  requirement in the zoning ordinance, arguing that the town has not made a
  sufficient showing of relationship of the setback requirement to the public
  good.  Zoning requirements are constitutional if there remains for the
  landowner "some practical use of his land, and the existence of a public
  good or benefit of sufficient magnitude to justify the burdening of the
  affected property."  Galanes v. Town of Brattleboro, 136 Vt. 235, 240,