1 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Vermont Unit Docket No. 121-8-14 Vtec

934 North Avenue LLC Conditional Use 

Application DECISION ON MOTION 

Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment 

The matter presently before the Court relates to approximately 0.61 acres of land 

located at 934 North Avenue (“Property”) in the City of Burlington, Vermont (“City”). The 

Property includes three one-bedroom apartments and a commercial space, which has been 

used as a funeral home since 1973. 934 North Avenue, LLC (“Applicant”) now seeks conditional 

use approval for the Property as an “Attached Dwelling(s) —Mixed Use” to allow for continued 

use of the apartments and a change in use of the commercial space from a funeral home to 

general office use. On July 24, 2014 the City of Burlington Development Review Board (“DRB”) 

denied the application and Applicant timely appealed that denial to this Court, filing a 

Statement of Questions consisting of three Questions. Applicant now moves for summary 

judgment in their favor on all three Questions. The City opposes Applicant’s motion. 

Applicant is represented by Daniel P. O’Rourke, Esq. and the City is represented by 

Kimberlee J. Sturtevant, Esq. 

Factual Background 

For the sole purpose of putting the pending motion into context, the Court recites the 

following facts which it understands to be undisputed: 

1. 934 North Avenue, LLC (“Applicant”) owns property consisting of approximately 0.61 

acres located at 934 North Avenue (“Property”) in the City of Burlington, Vermont (“City”). 

2. The Property is located in the Residential Low Density Zoning District (“RL District”). 

3. The Property includes a commercial space and three one-bedroom apartments. 
2 

4. Ready Funeral Services, Inc. has operated a funeral home in the commercial space since 

the Property was acquired in 1973. Ready Funeral Services, Inc. is currently the sole member of 

the Applicant limited liability company. 

5. The funeral home was a permitted use in the zoning district in 1973. A funeral home 

use is now a conditional use in the RL District. 

6. Ready Funeral Services used the commercial space for viewings and wakes, offices for its 

employees, a showroom for products, and a retail space for the sale of stationary and cards. 

7. The Property is located directly across the street from the Burlington Elks Club, to the 

north of a large church, and to the south of a gas station, pharmacy, and bank. 

8. The Elks Club is a non-conforming use, the church is a conditional use, and the bank, gas 

station, and pharmacy are in a different zoning district than Applicant’s Property. 

9. The application seeks to maintain the three existing apartments, a residential use, and 

to change the current use of the nonresidential portion of the property from a funeral home to 

a general office use. Applicant submitted a conditional use application to the City seeking 

approval to use the Property as an “Attached Dwelling(s)—Mixed Use.” 

Discussion 

In the present motion for summary judgment, Applicant asks the Court to conclude as a 

matter of law that its proposed use is allowable as “Attached Dwelling(s) – Mixed Use,” an 

allowable conditional use under the City of Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance 

(“Ordinance”) § 3.5.6(a)(2). (Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 4, filed Jan. 7, 2015). 

Applicant argues that its proposed use fits within the definition of this use category and may, 

therefore, be approved as a conditional use. Applicant further argues that based on the 

undisputed facts it is entitled to a conditional use permit under the review criteria for 

conditional uses established in Ordinance § 3.5.6(a). 

The City opposes the motion and argues that the Court should interpret “Attached 

Dwelling(s) – Mixed Use” to allow only a mix of uses otherwise approvable, that is conditional 

or permitted uses, within the RL District. Because general office use is not an allowed use, 

either permitted or conditional, in the RL District per Ordinance Appendix A – Use Table, the 

City argues the application should be denied. (City’s Opposition at 1, filed Feb. 13, 2015). 
3 

Furthermore, the City argues that Applicant’s proposed use of the Property does not satisfy the 

standards for conditional use under Ordinance § 3.5.6(a)(2). We discuss these arguments in 

turn. 

I. Standard of Review 

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment upon a showing that “there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” V.R.C.P. 56(a). The court accepts as true all factual allegations made in opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment, so long as they are supported by “specific citations to particular 

parts of materials in the record” and gives the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable 

doubts and inferences. Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 356 (internal 

citation omitted); see V.R.C.P. 56(c) (laying out summary judgment procedures). 

II. Questions 1 and 2 

The parties focus their dispute upon the proper legal interpretation of the Ordinance as 

it applies to mixed uses in the RL District. We interpret a zoning ordinance using the familiar 

rules of statutory construction. In re Appeal of Trahan, 2008 VT 90, ¶ 19, 184 Vt. 262. We will 

“construe words according to their plain and ordinary meaning, giving effect to the whole and 

every part of the ordinance.” Id. Where the plain meaning of the ordinance is clear, it must be 

enforced and no further interpretation is necessary. Vermont Alliance of Nonprofit Orgs. v. City 

of Burlington, 2004 VT 57, ¶ 6, 177 Vt. 47 (citing Hill v. Conway, 143 Vt. 91, 93 (1983)). In 

construing statutory or ordinance language, our “paramount goal” is to implement the intent of 

its drafters. Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 61. We will therefore “adopt a 

construction that implements the ordinance's legislative purpose and, in any event, will apply 

common sense.” In re Laberge Moto-Cross Track, 2011 VT 1, ¶ 8,189 Vt. 578 (quotations 

omitted). 

Ordinance § 4.4.5(c) requires an applicant look to the Use Table in Appendix A for “[t]he 

principal land uses that may be permitted, or conditionally permitted pursuant to the 

requirements of Article 3, within the Residential Districts.” The Use Table identifies “Attached 

Dwelling(s) – Mixed Use” as a conditional use in the RL District. The Definitions Section, Article 
4 

13, defines “Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” as “a building containing any combination of 

residential and/or non-residential uses.” 

Applicant argues that their proposed development is permitted in the RL District 

because “Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” is permitted as a conditional use in the RL District. 

(Applicant’s Motion at 4, 5). They suggest that by its plain language, mixed use should “be 

recognized as a separate and distinct conditional use in the City’s RL district.” Id. at 4. The City, 

however, disagrees with this interpretation, arguing that regardless of whether mixed use is 

permitted as a conditional use in the RL District, “Office – General” is not a permitted or 

conditional use in the RL District, “whether or not they are included in a mixed use application.” 

(City’s Motion at 2). They suggest that “[i]t is illogical that the drafters intended for an office 

general use to be allowed in the RL district if it is part of a mixed use when it is not otherwise 

allowed” in that same District. Id. at 4. 

By its plain language, we do not interpret § 4.4.5(c) and the Use Table to contemplate 

“Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” as a separate and distinct conditional use in the RL District, 

irrespective of the uses allowed or specifically dis-allowed in that District. Although Article 13 

defines the use as any combination of residential and/or nonresidential uses, it does not 

indicate that the drafters meant that any use, including a use that is specifically not allowed 

that District, would be allowed when combined with a residential use. As noted above, in 

construing ordinance language, our “paramount goal” is to implement the intent of its drafters 

and apply common sense. For this reason, we consider the Use Table, which sets out those 

uses that are allowed as of right in the RL District (permitted uses) and those uses that are 

allowed only after conditional use review (conditional uses). The Use Table also sets out uses 

that are prohibited and may not be located within the RL District, even subject to conditional 

use review. 

While the Ordinance includes as a conditional use “Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling,” the 

Court can think of no legitimate reason why the City would allow an otherwise prohibited use 

to be permitted under this category, merely because it is attached to a dwelling. No such 

explanation is offered in the Ordinance. Where the City has elected to prohibit a use in the RL 

District, a machine shop for example, regardless of whether an applicant seeking to open a 
5 

machine shop could satisfy the conditional use requirements, it makes little sense to then allow 

a machine shop as a conditional use when it is combined with a residential dwelling. In this 

Court’s judgment, it would contravene the purpose of the Ordinance to allow an applicant to 

establish an otherwise prohibited use by attaching a residential use to it and calling it a “Mixed 

Use, Attached Dwelling.” 

Rather, the term “Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” may reasonably be interpreted to 

expressly permit a mix of otherwise allowable uses in a single building, subject to conditional 

use review. Therefore, because the “Office – General” use category is not allowed as either a 

permitted or conditional use in the RL District, it cannot be one of the uses allowed under the 

“Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” conditional use category. 

Applicant complains that such a reading of the Ordinance, particularly the definition for 

“Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling,” contradicts the express language of that definition. We note 

that the City could have avoided this legal dispute, had this definition included a clarifying 

phrase that the non-residential component of the mixed use must be one that was otherwise 

allowed in the specified District. However, when this Ordinance is read in its entirety, as we are 

directed to do under other precedent governing statutory construction, we conclude that a use 

prohibited in a certain zoning district may not be allowed, simply because it is attached to or 

“mixed” with a residential use. 

When called upon to interpret language that is “part of a larger statutory scheme, we 

‘read operative sections of [the] statutory scheme in context and the entire scheme in pari 

materia.’” In re Paynter 2-Lot Subdivision, 2010 VT 28, ¶6, 187 Vt. 637 (quoting Cushion v. 

Dep't of PATH, 174 Vt. 475, 479 (2002) (mem.)). Applicant seeks to change the use of the nonresidential portion of its property to a general office use. Such a use is specifically listed as a 

“use not permitted” in the RL District. See Ordinance Appendix Table A at 4–5. Thus, were we 

to adopt Applicant’s reasoning, we would allow a use in the RL District that the Ordinance 

specifically prohibits. Since such a use is specifically listed as one that is not allowed in the RL 

District, we decline to adopt Applicant’s interpretation of the applicable Ordinance provisions. 

 
6 

III. Question 3 

Finding that Applicant’s proposed development, which includes three one-bedroom 

residential units and a “general office” use, is not permitted in the RL District, we conclude that 

Question 3 is moot and that such a review is not necessary in connection with Applicant’s 

pending summary judgment motion. If we had concluded otherwise, we would have then 

embarked upon a review of the conditional use standards contained in Ordinance Article 3. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that pursuant to Ordinance § 4.4.5(c) and as 

defined in Article 13, all intended uses proposed as part of a “Mixed Use, Attached Dwelling” 

must be either permitted or allowable as conditional uses and may not be specifically listed as 

“not permitted” in the RL District. We therefore DENY Applicant’s motion for summary 

judgment and are inclined to answer Questions 1 and 2 of Applicant’s Statement of Questions 

in favor of the City of Burlington, thereby denying their application as a matter of law. Since 

such a ruling would be beyond the scope of the pending motion, we will provide that parties 

with an additional thirty calendar days (i.e.: until Monday, August 17, 2015) to file any legal 

memoranda in support of or in opposition to such a judgment, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 56(f). If the 

Court determines that no memoranda is filed that warrants another interpretation of the 

Ordinance, the Court will thereafter issue a Judgment Order in favor of the City. Id. 

Electronically signed on July 16, 2015 at Newfane, Vermont, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d). 

________________________________ 

Thomas S. Durkin, Judge 

Environmental Division