STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

In re: Appeal of East Barre 

Mobile Home Park, Inc. and 

Pleasant View Mobile Home 

Park, Inc.

}

}

}

}

}

Docket No. 152-7-00 Vtec

Decision and Order on Pending Motions

Appellants East Barre Mobile Home Park, Inc. and Pleasant View Mobile Home Park, Inc. 

appealed from two decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Barre 

issued on June 21, 2000, granting certain variance requests not at issue in these appeals, and 

denying variances from ' 3.7(c) of the Zoning Regulations. Appellants appeared through their 

vice-president Linda Labrie; the Town is represented by Bruce Bjornlund, Esq.

The Court had already ruled on Appellants= motions for summary judgment, concluding that the 

existing mobile home lots with compacted gravel pads came into existence prior to the adoption 

of the zoning requirement and were entitled to continue under the pre-existing non-conforming 

use provisions of ' 2.7 of the Zoning Regulations. The Court remanded the appeal to the extent 

necessary for Appellants to apply to the ZBA under that section. 

While the ' 2.7 issue was pending on remand, Appellants renewed their motions for summary 

judgment on the remaining questions in the appeal: whether ' 3.7 discriminates against mobile 

homes, and whether ' 2.2 does or does not require a zoning permit to be obtained when a change 

of mobile homes occurs on a mobile home lot, if the size of the mobile home is not enlarged.

On remand, on July 18, 2001, the ZBA denied Appellants= application under ' 2.7. 

Appellants have moved to amend their statement of questions in the present appeal to incorporate 

the merits of their application under ' 2.7 in this case. That motion is GRANTED as the Court 

retained jurisdiction of the appeal and had only remanded the application to the extent necessary 

to allow the ZBA to rule on the issue in the first instance.

Appellants also filed a motion seeking to stay the enforcement of the ZBA= s decision on ' 2.7. 

First, the motion to stay should have been filed with the ZBA ; this Court should only rule on a 

request for stay that has been addressed by the local board. See 24 V.S.A. ' 4466. Also, the 

request for stay appears to have become moot, as the proposed transfers were to have been 

completed by October 1, 2001, and no enforcement action has been taken by the Town to date. 

Appellants= motion to stay is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to its renewal if necessary at 

some later time.

With the renewed motion for summary judgment, Appellants have now submitted the complete 

zoning bylaws and Permit #88-71. 
With regard to Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22 added to the Pleasant View Mobile Home Park by Permit 

#88-71, nothing in the application or permit states that the pads are gravel pads, therefore those 

lots did not acquire any approval of the gravel pads by virtue of Permit #88-71. As to these four 

lots, if Appellants are applying to change mobile homes on these lots, we must reach Appellants=

argument that the zoning ordinance improperly discriminates against mobile homes. As stated in 

the prior summary judgment motion, material facts are in dispute at least as to whether a 

conventional home or manufactured home could be constructed on a foundation consisting of a 

gravel pad and concrete blocks. 

On the other hand, Lots 2 through 18 of the Pleasant View Mobile Home Park and Lots 1 

through 7 of the East Barre Mobile Home Park have all been determined to be pre-existing 

nonconforming lots entitled to continue with nonconforming gravel pads. Section 2.2 of the 

Zoning Ordinance requires a zoning permit for all land or building development. The 

replacement of one building or structure with another falls within the common usage of the term 

A building development,@ which we must apply in the absence of a specific definition in the 

ordinance. However, even if a zoning permit is required each time one mobile home replaces 

another on an existing gravel pad, Appellants can only be required to upgrade the gravel pad to a 

slab if the gravel pad is being enlarged or extended and if Appellants do not qualify to retain the 

gravel pad under ' 2.7. Material facts are in dispute; therefore summary judgment is denied. The 

questions of whether the gravel pad is being enlarged, and, if so, whether any greater detrimental 

effect on the community will result from the somewhat larger gravel pad than from the existing 

gravel pad, are the questions before the court on the merits of the ' 2.7(3) application.

The Court will hold a telephone conference with the parties on December 14, 2001, to discuss 

the scheduling of the hearing on the merits of this appeal, and whether Appellants plan to present 

evidence on the variance criteria as well as the ' 2.7(c) criteria. The notice of the time for that 

conference is enclosed with this decision.

Done at Barre, Vermont, this 10th day of December, 2001.

___________________

Merideth Wright 

Environmental Judge