STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

Appeal of Matthew and 

Jacqueline Champlin and 

Robert and Barbara 

Broughton

}

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 283-12-02 

Vtec

Decision and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Appellants Matthew and Jacqueline Champlin and Robert and Barbara 

Broughton appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board 

(DRB) of the Town of Jericho, denying their appeal of a building permit 

issued to Appellee-Applicants Glenn and Elouise Martin. Appellants are 

represented by W. Owen Jenkins, Esq.; Appellee-Applicants are 

represented by Vincent A. Paradis, Esq.; the Town is represented by 

Gregg H. Wilson, Esq. Appellee-Applicants moved for summary 

judgment.

The sole questions in the Statement of Questions relate to a dispute 

regarding the location of the common boundary line between 

Appellants and Appellee-Applicants. Question 1 is whether that 

boundary line is as depicted in Appellee-Applicants= application, and 

Question 2 is what are the consequences for Appellee-Applicants=

application for a building permit, if the line is not as depicted (that is, 

if the line is located as Appellants believe it should be located.

The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Appellants=

lot was created in an approved subdivision. At that time a fairly wide 

and old hedgerow existed on what is now the disputed boundary line. 

Appellants appear to take the position that their property line went to 

a fence located on the far side of the hedgerow from their property. 

Appellee-Applicants appear to take the position that the property line 

was located down the middle of the hedgerow.

In April of 1987 the then-Planning Commission of the Town of Jericho 

approved Appellee-Applicants= 32-lot commercial subdivision in the 

Commercial/Light Industrial zoning district, showing the line as 

depicted by Appellee-Applicants. Appellee-Applicants= present 

application for building permit involves Lot 17 of that subdivision, on 

the edge of the subdivision and adjoining the property of Appellants 

Robert and Barbara Broughton. The Broughtons participated in the 
subdivision hearing and had notice of the approved plans for that 

subdivision. Lot 17 also contained an approved building envelope; the 

1987 approval for the size, shape, boundaries and building envelopes 

of the lots in the subdivision, including Lot 17, was not appealed and 

became final.

In April of 1999 Appellee-Applicants received conditional use approval 

for the single-family residential use of seven lots in the subdivision, 

including that of Lot 17. The Broughtons participated in the conditional 

use hearing and had notice of what was approved. That approval for 

single-family residential use of Lot 17 was not appealed and became 

final.

Appellants now appeal the issuance of a building permit to AppelleeApplicants to construct a house within the approved building envelope, 

arguing that the boundary between Lot 17 and their property 

encroaches approximately seven feet onto their property, and that the 

encroachment reduces Lot 17 below the required lot size.

The issue of where the correct boundary is located is beyond the 

jurisdiction of this Court, just as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the 

DRB to adjudicate a boundary dispute. The boundary dispute can be 

adjudicated in Superior Court. We will address the consequences for 

the present application if the boundary dispute is resolved by the 

Superior Court in Appellants= favor.

The subdivision plat was approved fifteen years ago and became final. 

The change of use of the lot in the Commercial/Light Industrial zoning 

district to a residential use was approved with conditions four years 

ago and became final. Both the subdivision and the conditional use 

permit were approved and became final regardless of whether or 

which of the Appellants owned their properties at the time or 

participated in the zoning and subdivision hearings, as they would 

have stepped into the shoes of their predecessors. All that is before 

the Court in the present appeal is what was before the DRB in the 

appeal of the zoning permit: whether the house design or placement 

meets the conditions of the earlier conditional use and subdivision 

permits and the requirements of the zoning regulations.

As there is a dispute as to the location of the boundary line, AppelleeApplicants must either place the proposed house so as to comply with 

the setbacks that would be required if Appellants= position prevails on 

the location of the boundary, or wait until the boundary dispute is 

settled, or proceed as their own risk with respect to the setback on 
that side. But this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate that 

boundary, no jurisdiction now to disapprove the 1987 subdivision, and 

no jurisdiction now to disapprove the use of Lot 17 for a single-family 

residence. The 1987 subdivision approval and the 1999 conditional use 

permit have taken effect and are not subject to appeal or even to 

collateral attack in this proceeding, even if they later turn out to have 

been wrongly issued. 24 V.S.A. ' 4472(d) and see In re Appeal of 

Ashline, Docket No. 2002-063 (Vt. Supreme Ct., March 28, 2003). 

Thus, even if Appellants prevail as to the location of the boundary line, 

and the lot turns out to be slightly undersized for its approved use, 

Appellee-Applicants are entitled to the already-approved use on the 

already-approved lot, even if it turns out to be slightly nonconforming 

as to lot size. That fact may affect any future changes or additions 

Appellee-Applicants may wish to make to the house on Lot 17, but 

does not affect the present building permit to build it.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and 

ADJUDGED that Appellee-Applicants= Motion for Summary Judgment is 

GRANTED. This decision appears to conclude the issues in this case; 

however, this decision DOES NOT BECOME FINAL UNTIL AND UNLESS 

the parties file with the Court the written remittal of disqualification 

which they stated at the pre-trial conference would be filed in this 

matter, and which they have informed the Court Manager is being 

prepared and circulated for signature.

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 23rd day of April, 2003.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge