1

STATE OF VERMONT 

SUPERIOR COURT - ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION 

 } 

In re All Metals Recycling, Inc. } 

(DRB Permit Appeal) } Docket No. 171-11-11 Vtec 

 } 

Decision on the Merits 

Before us is the appeal of a discretionary zoning permit allowing Appellee All Metals 

Recycling, Inc. (All Metals) to establish an outdoor storage area and install a scale house and 

scale at 38-42 Dorset Lane in the Town of Williston, Vermont (Property) to conduct a “metals 

recycling operation.” Appellee Riggs Properties and Interested Person the Town of Williston, 

Vermont (the Town) are owners of the properties on which All Metals seeks to conduct its 

proposed project. Appellants Darlene Ashley, John Chandler, James Babcock, Jennifer Ashley, 

William Babcock, Shawn Chapman, William Burnett, Jeannine Burnett, Patty Shortsleeves, 

George Shortsleeves, Gary Boutin, Michael Burnett, and Mark Burnett (hereinafter referred to as 

Neighbors) appeal the Town of Williston Development Review Board’s decision granting the 

permit with conditions. 

In an April 23, 2012 decision, we disposed of Neighbors’ original Questions 1, 2, 6, 7, and 

9 and granted Neighbors’ motion to amend their Statement of Questions to include a Question 

10. In re All Metals Recycling, Inc., No. 171-11-11 Vtec, slip op. at 11–12 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. 

Div. Apr. 23, 2012) (Walsh, J.). Additionally, in an April 4, 2013 decision we granted summary 

judgment to All Metals on Neighbors’ Questions 3, 4, and 5, we dismissed Neighbors’ Question 

8 as beyond our subject matter jurisdiction, and we denied Neighbors’ second motion to amend 

their Statement of Questions, thereby declining to review Neighbors’ proposed Question 11. In 

re All Metals Recycling, Inc., No. 171-11-11 Vtec, slip op. at 12 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 4, 

2013) (Walsh, J.). Only one question, Neighbor’s Question 10, remains for our review: “Should 

Applicants have been denied a Discretionary Permit where Applicants failed to demonstrate 

adequate provision for off-street parking and loading as required by Chapter 14 of the Bylaw?” 

(Neighbors’ Am. Statement of Questions at 3, filed Feb. 23, 2012.) Thus, the scope of our review 

is narrowly limited to whether the project’s off-street parking and loading complies with the 

Town’s Bylaw. 
2

The Court conducted a site visit to the property on July 9, 2013, immediately followed by 

a single day merits hearing at the Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Civil Division 

courthouse in Burlington, Vermont. Appearing at the site visit and trial were Mark L. Sperry, 

Esq. and Hobart F. Popick, Esq., Attorneys for the Appellant Neighbors, Robert F. O'Neill, Esq. 

and David A. Boyd, Esq., Attorneys for Appellees All Metals Recycling, Inc. and Riggs 

Properties, and Paul S. Gillies, Esq., Attorney for Interested Person Town of Williston. 

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, put into context by the site visit, the Court 

renders the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 

Findings of Fact 

1. All Metals maintains a place of business at 38-42 Dorset Lane, Williston, Vermont (the 

Williston facility). All Metals seeks a discretionary permit for the Williston facility 

specifically for outdoor storage, a scale, and a scale house. 

2. The Williston facility is located in the Town’s Gateway Zoning District North (GDZN 

District). 

3. The Williston facility consists of a portion of an existing building and a portion of an 

existing parking lot and associated grounds which All Metals subleases from 

ReSOURCE: A Nonprofit Community Enterprise, Inc. (ReSOURCE). 

4. No physical changes are proposed for the building. The existing parking surface will 

remain unchanged, however, a scale and scale house have been constructed within and 

adjacent to the northern portion of the existing parking surface. 

5. Within its leased area, All Metals proposes to paint parking space lines upon the parking 

lot surface which currently has no lines. 

6. The building is surrounded to the south, east, and north by the existing parking lot. 

7. The eastern and southern sides of the existing parking lot are located within 25 feet of 

James Brown Drive and Dorset Lane. 

8. All Metals does not lease, propose any activity upon, or propose any physical 

modification to the eastern and southern portions of the existing parking lot. 

9. The Town planning commission approved the original building and parking lot in 1982. 

10. Neighbors assert that changes were previously made to the building and parking lot 

without necessary permits. 

11. The building is approximately 180 feet by 60 feet in size and is two stories tall. 
3

12. The building is owned as two separate condominium units. Riggs Properties owns one 

unit and Raymond and Gloria Charbonneau own the other. 

13. Riggs Properties leases approximately 9,600 square feet of building space to ReSOURCE, 

Inc. along with an exterior portion of the lot on the north side of the property. 

14. ReSOURCE, Inc. in turn subleases to All Metals approximately 463 square feet of 

building space as well as a majority of ReSOURCES’ exterior space, including parking 

space, on the north side of the building.1

15. All Metals is one of three tenants in the 38-42 Dorset Lane building. 

16. All Metals occupies two interior areas of the building, including a small office and a 

processing room containing hydraulic shears, mechanized Sawzall saws, and a platform 

scale. 

17. On May 7, 2012, All Metals entered into a written lease with the Town authorizing All 

Metals’ use of 0.27 acres of the Town’s land located directly north of the land leased 

from ReSOURCE. 

18. All Metals formally amended its sublease agreement with ReSOURCE in June 2013 to 

confirm that All Metals has exclusive use of 10 parking spaces available to it within the 

area subleased by All Metals. 

19. Three All Metals employees work at the Williston facility. Additionally, a manager is 

on-site approximately half-time. Williston facility to the general public. 

20. The Williston facility is open for business from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8 

a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. 

21. The Williston facility services between 5 and 10 customers per day, and each customer 

visit typically lasts between 15 and 20 minutes. In the past, when the facility was busy, 

up to 4 or 5 customers may have been at the facility at one time—one in process and the 

others awaiting service. 

22. At the Williston facility, All Metals purchases scrap metals from individuals and 

businesses for resale to third parties. 

23. All Metals advertises its services at the ls does not accept garbage or trash at the 

Williston facility. 

 

1

 In an earlier decision in this case we stated that the approximate size of All Metals’ interior space was 

between 180 and 270 square feet based on the estimates provided by the parties at that time. In re All 

Metals Recycling, Inc., No. 171-11-11 Vtec, slip op. at 2 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 4, 2013) (Walsh, J.). 

At trial the parties presented more specific evidence of the actual building space leased to All Metals. 
4

24. Trucks carrying metals arrive at the facility and are weighed and then unloaded. The 

trucks are then weighed again while empty. In some cases, All Metals will pick up a 

customer’s scrap metal and haul it to the Williston facility. 

25. At the Williston facility, All Metals sorts and aggregates the metals it purchases. All 

Metals aggregates the scrap metal so that it may be shipped in a cost-effective manner. 

Aggregation may include trimming the metals using hydraulic shears and mechanized 

Sawzall saws and compacting the metals using a mechanized compactor. The 

aggregation process may also include the use of a tandem excavator and a skid steer. 

26. Once the metals are sorted and aggregated, All Metals trucks the metals to either its 

location in Hardwick, Vermont or directly to a purchaser. All Metals sells the metals to 

customers who are not “end users,” but who include mills, processors, and refiners. 

27. Prior to the filing of the permit application at issue in this case, All Metals conducted its 

business at the Williston facility without a permit from the Town. 

28. All Metals’ Parking Space Layout Plan, Exhibit C, depicts the 10 parking spaces for All 

Metals’ exclusive use within the area subleased from ReSOURCE. An additional 4 

employee parking spaces are located on the portion of Town property leased by All 

Metals. One handicap space is provided in front of the building space leased by All 

Metals. 

29. All of All Metals’ proposed parking spaces satisfy the dimensional requirements set for 

in Bylaw Table 14.C. 

30. Bicycle parking is not provided for in the Parking Space Layout Plan. 

31. All Metals proposes supplemental plantings along the northern portion of the 0.27 acres 

leased from the Town. 

32. Existing vegetation and the supplemental plantings will result in a landscaped buffer 

between the All Metals operations and the portion of the Town land retained by the 

Town. 

33. This landscaped buffer is located wholly upon the land that All Metals leases from the 

Town. 

34. The Parking Space Layout Plan, Exhibit C, identifies a snow storage area along the 

western edge of the Williston facility. This area does not obstruct access to parking 

spaces. 
5

35. On September 9, 2011, Sanborn, Head & Associates, on behalf of All Metals, submitted a 

discretionary permit application to the Town Zoning Administrator to “[e]stablish an 

outdoor storage area and install a scale house and scale to accommodate [the] existing 

metals recycling operation.” The permit application identifies All Metals as the “Facility 

Operator.” 

36. On October 25, 2011, the DRB considered and approved the discretionary permit 

application. 

37. Neighbors timely appealed the discretionary permit.

Conclusions of Law 

Neighbors’ Question 10 asks whether All Metals’ application for a discretionary permit 

should be denied for failure to demonstrate adequate provision for off-street parking and 

loading as required by Chapter 14 of the Bylaw. Bylaw Chapter 14 sets standards for off-street 

parking and loading and applies to all development for which a permit is required. Bylaw § 

14.1.1. “Existing and proposed parking and loading areas must be clearly shown on the plans 

submitted with any application for a permit.” Id. 

All Metals seeks a discretionary permit for its outdoor storage, a scale, and a scale house, 

to be located within the area it currently subleases from both ReSOURCE and the Town. The 

application before us, and therefore our review, does not include ReSOURCES’ space which is 

not subleased to All Metals. Additionally, our review does not consider the Charbonneau unit 

or the activities associated with that unit. 

In our prior April 4, 2013 decision, we summarized All Metals operations as the 

purchase, sorting, and sale of scrap metal for recycling. We concluded that All Metals seeks a 

permit to operate a materials recovery facility. In re All Metals Recycling, Inc., No. 171-11-11 

Vtec, slip op. at 6 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 4, 2013). Evidence admitted at trial supports 

these determinations. Thus, we continue to conclude that All Metals’ proposed use is a 

permissible use in the Gateway Zoning District North. 

The Number of Parking Spaces: 

All Metals asserts that no new or additional parking beyond existing parking is required 

under the Bylaw. Bylaw Table 14.A establishes the minimum parking requirements for certain 

development types. It does not, however, list a “materials recovery facility” or “outdoor 

storage area, scale or scale house.” Bylaw § 14.2.3 states that if a specific use is not listed in 

Table 14.A, then the Administrator shall determine the number of parking spaces needed based 
6

on similarity of the proposed use to one or more of the uses listed in Table 14.A. All Metals’ 

operations fit most appropriately under the “Industrial” category in Table 14.A. To determine 

the necessary amount of parking for a project in the Industrial category one must “[u]se 1.00 

spaces per 1000 [square feet of gross floor area] as a starting point” but “[t]he actual 

requirement will be set by the Administrator or DRB.” Bylaw Table 14.A. In this de novo

appeal, this Court considers the application as though the Court were the Administrator. 

V.R.E.C.P. 5(g); see also In re Torres, 154 Vt. 233, 235-36 (1990) (noting that “[t]he reach of the 

superior court in zoning appeals is as broad as the powers of a zoning board of adjustment or a 

planning commission” and “whatever the zoning board of adjustment or the planning 

commission might have done with an application properly before it, the superior court may also 

do if an appeal is duly perfected”). 

We consider only All Metals’ leased floor area of 463 square feet to initially determine 

the required number of parking spaces. Thus, as a starting point, using one space for every 

1,000 square feet of floor area, the project requires one parking space to satisfy the Bylaw. As 

the Bylaw directs that the actual number of required parking spaces be set by the 

Administrator, and therefore this Court on appeal, we consider whether the application 

requires more than one parking space. Based upon the evidence received at trail, we conclude 

that more than one parking space is necessary. First, All Metals typically has three employees 

working at the site. Additionally, Randy Towns, one of the owners and a manager of All 

Metals, spends about half of his time at the site. It is also common for All Metals to have up to 4 

or 5 customers at its site at any given time. Finally, Bylaw § 14.3.1 and Table 14.B require one 

handicap accessible parking space. Thus, we conclude that 10 parking spaces are required to 

accommodate potential parking needs under the application. As described below, we conclude 

that All Metals’ application satisfies this requirement. 

All Metals’ June 2013 second amendment to its sublease with ReSOURCE expressly 

provides All Metals with exclusive use of 10 parking spaces located within the area of the 

sublease. All Metals’ Parking Space Layout Plan, Exhibit C, depicts the 10 parking spaces for 

All Metals’ exclusive use, including one handicap space at the front of the building space leased 

by All Metals. All of these spaces satisfy the dimensional requirements set forth in Bylaw Table 

14.C. All Metals’ Parking Space Layout Plan, Exhibit C also depicts 4 employee parking spaces 

located on the portion of Town property leased by All Metals. 
7

Appellants assert that Bylaw § 14.2.7.1 requires all off-street parking to be located on the 

same lot and under the same ownership as the use they serve. As such, Appellants argue that 

these 4 parking spaces on Town land cannot be used to satisfy parking requirements. We find 

this argument unpersuasive. 

All Metals conducts its operations on both the land it leases from ReSOURCE and the 

land it leases from the Town. All Metals’ use crosses the property boundary line and includes 

the proposed scale and scale house on the portion of land it leases from the Town. Thus, the 4 

spaces on the land owned by the Town are in fact located on the same lot and under the same 

ownership as the use they serve. Moreover, we will not interpret zoning regulations in ways 

that lead to irrational results. See Stowe Club Highlands, 164 Vt. 272, 280 (1995) (refusing to 

interpret regulation such that it leads to irrational results). We conclude that reading the 

ownership requirement of Bylaw § 14.2.7.1 to prohibit parking on one of the two leased areas 

but not the other is irrational. Thus, because all 14 proposed parking spaces are located on land 

controlled by All Metals under its leases with ReSOURCE and the Town, and becauseAll Metals 

operates its business on portions of both properties, we find this proposal complies with the 

ownership requirement of Bylaw § 14.2.7.1. 

We also recognize that Bylaw § 14.2.1 states that the number of parking spaces provided 

by Table 14.A is both a minimum and maximum for a particular project. The Bylaw also 

provides, however, that the Administrator or DRB, and therefore this court on appeal, has 

discretion to determine the required parking for Industrial uses. In exercising this discretion 

under these circumstances, we find that All Metals’ proposal for 14 parking spaces is 

appropriate for its particular use, provides a reasonable number of spaces for employees and 

customers, and does not amount to excessive parking. 

Lastly, as required by Bylaw Table 14.A, All Metals must provide for one bicycle 

parking space. While the Parking Space Layout Plan does not depict this space, Brian 

Beaudoin, All Metals’ engineer who contributed to the Parking Space Layout Plan, testified that 

one bicycle parking space could be located in the metals processing area. With this additional 

feature, Table 14.A as relating to bicycle parking is satisfied. 

Thus, we conclude that the number and dimensions of parking spaces specifically 

designated for All Metals use as illustrated on the Parking Space Layout Plan complies with 

Bylaw Chapter 14 if supplemented with a single bicycle parking space. 
8

Parking Lot Setbacks, Buffers, and Snow and Ice: 

Neighbors argue that All Metals’ proposed parking does not comply with the Bylaw 

because of insufficient setbacks and buffers and because the application does not satisfy the 

Bylaw provisions relating to snow and ice. 

Regarding setbacks, Neighbors argue that the site’s parking areas infringe upon the 25 

foot setback from James Brown Drive and Dorset Lane. See Bylaw § 33.3.3.2 (requiring a 25 foot 

setback from all roads except Route 2A in the Gateway Zoning District North). Bylaw § 46.7.4

dictates that where the setback applies to parking areas we are to measure at grade from the 

nearest point on the property or right-of-way line to the outer edge of the parking surface. The 

parking surface along the eastern and southern sides of the existing parking lot is located within 

the 25 foot setback from James Brown Drive and Dorset Lane. All Metals does not lease, 

propose any activity upon, or propose any physical modification to these areas. This 

encroachment into the setback from James Brown Drive and Dorset Lane, although a 

nonconformity, is therefore not fatal to All Metals’ application. 

Under the Bylaw, a nonconforming structure is a structure or part of a structure that 

does not conform to the present Bylaw, but was in conformance with all applicable regulations 

prior to the enactment of the present Bylaw, including a structure improperly authorized as a 

result of error by the administrative officer. Bylaw § 2.6.1. We construe zoning ordinances 

according to general principles of statutory construction, applying the plain language of the 

ordinance where it resolves the issue and comports with the overall scheme and intent. Appeal 

of Weeks, 167 Vt. 551, 554 (1998). The parking lot does not precisely fall within the Bylaw 

definition of nonconforming structure. However, it does not fall outside of this definition 

either. Parking lots are physical improvements to sites, they are associated with buildings, and 

are subject to setback limitations pursuant to the Bylaw.2 We thus consider the parking lot in 

this matter as a nonconforming part of a structure. The parking lot on the eastern and southern 

portions of the site was authorized by the Town in 1982 and the present application does not 

propose to alter these portions of the parking lot.3 

 

2

 The Bylaw provides no general definition of a structure. It does define structure specifically for 

floodplain management and insurance purposes, both of which are irrelevant to our considerations in 

this appeal. See Bylaw § 46.7.8. 

3

 While Appellants assert that portions of the existing building and property may not comply with the 

Town’s 1982 approval, such issues are not within our scope of review. To be clear, this is not an 

enforcement action, and we review All Metals’ application specifically under the question raised to the 

Court. 
9

A notation within the Bylaw at § 2.6 states: 

Is allowing the replacement or enlargement of a nonconforming structure 

good policy? First, remember that a conforming use can be housed in a 

nonconforming structure. This means that the replacement or 

enlargement of a nonconforming structure may not result in a change in 

the nature or extent of a nonconforming use. Second, refusing to allow 

the replacement of nonconforming structures often results in blight, as 

these structures are not maintained. Allowing replacement may result in 

an improvement. Finally, most nonconforming structures are not 

nonconforming in every dimension. Consider a building that is too close 

to a stream or property line. The side nearest the stream or property line 

is nonconforming, but as long as that side doesn’t change, it may be 

possible to expand the building in another direction in full compliance 

with this bylaw...

Again, All Metals does not seek any use, modification, or expansion of the existing parking lot 

on the easterly and southerly sides of the building. The notation quoted above evidences the 

clear intent of the Bylaw drafters that so long as a particular nonconformity is not altered, 

changes can occur within a development as otherwise permitted. Thus, based on this clearly 

evidenced intent, the fact that the existing parking lot encroaches into the setbacks from James 

Brown Drive and Dorset Lane does not render the application non-compliant with the Bylaw.4 

These existing nonconformities of the site may continue.5 See Bylaw § 2.6.2 (allowing for 

continuation of nonconforming structures). 

Although Appellants did not raise the possibility of requiring a correction of this 

nonconformity of the site, we note that Bylaw § 2.8 empowers the DRB, or this Court on appeal, 

to require that nonconformities be corrected as a condition of approval of a discretionary 

permit. This corrective power is limited to requiring work that is reasonably proportional to the 

scale of the proposed development. Because All Metals does not seek any use of or alteration to 

 

4

 Having found that the parking lot fits within the definition of a nonconforming structure we need not

determine whether it is also a nonconforming use. We do note, however, that as All Metals does not 

propose to change the use of the nonconforming parking lot in any way. Our analysis would be the same

under Bylaw § 2.5 allowing for the continuation of nonconforming uses. We also note that our decision

on this issue is based on the Court’s reading and interpretation of the Bylaw alone and we therefore did 

not consider the testimony of the Administrator regarding past implementation or interpretation of the

Bylaw. 

5

 Appellants also argue that All Metals lost any vested rights to use the parking spaces according to the 

Town’s 1982 approval. Vested rights pertain only to an applicant’s ability to have a project reviewed

under the set of regulations in force at the time of a completed application. There is no question raised 

about which regulations govern the application and therefore no issue of vested rights. The ‘right’ to 

keep the southern and eastern portions of the parking lot as they are results only from the permissible 

continuation of preexisting nonconformities under the Bylaw. 
10

these nonconforming areas of the existing parking lot, we conclude that All Metals’ proposal 

does not warrant a correction of the encroachment of the parking lot into the setbacks from 

James Brown Drive and Dorset Lane. 

Neighbors also argue that the application does not satisfy Bylaw Table 23.A regarding 

landscaped buffers. The Bylaw provides specific buffer parameters based on the type of 

landscaped buffer. A Type I buffer is “composed primarily of existing woodland or forest” and 

“must be relatively wide to sustain its habitat value and to function as a woodland or forest that 

needs only minimal maintenance.” Bylaw § 23.3.2.2. Type II landscaped buffers are composed 

of dense continuous screening vegetation and are not permitted in the GZDN. Id. at § 23.3.2.3. 

Type III landscaped buffers are called “Informal Plantings” and “must be composed of a 

planted area that includes a ground cover, a partial understory or shrubs and small trees, and 

major trees.” Id. at § 23.3.2.4. Between the All Metals use and the Town use a Type I buffer 

must be 50 feet and a Type III buffer must be 9 feet. Id. at Table 23.A. 

All Metals proposes supplemental plantings along the northern line of the 0.27 acres it 

leases from the Town to create a Type III landscaped buffer between the All Metals operations 

and the rest of the Town land. This Type III landscaped buffer will be at least 9 feet wide 

between the adjoining heavy commercial/industrial uses and will therefore meet the Bylaw 

requirements. See Bylaw Table 23.A. Although Neighbors argue that a fifty foot Type I buffer 

is appropriate here, they point to nothing in the Bylaw that requires one. As there is not 

currently a fifty foot wide woodland or forest separating these uses, a Type I buffer does not 

apply. 

Nothing in the Bylaw requires this buffer to be measured from the common boundary 

between the ReSOURCE parcel and the Town parcel. Rather, the Bylaw requires that the buffer 

be located between the adjoining land uses. See Bylaw §23.3 

(defining required buffers by the different uses they separate, without reference to parcel 

boundary lines). Furthermore, pursuant to Bylaw § 23.3.5, the inclusion of the landscaped 

buffer eliminates the need for a rear (or side) yard setback for this portion of the proposed 

project. Thus, the definition of setback as emphasized by the Neighbors is irrelevant, as no 

setback is required. Locating the landscape buffer at the parcel boundary line would simply 

bisect All Metals’ single use rather than separate one use from another as required by the 

Bylaw. Thus, the 9 foot wide Type III buffer, created and maintained along the northern 
11

portion of the land All Metals leases from the Town satisfies both the landscaping and setback 

requirements of the Bylaw. 

Neighbors next challenge the adequacy of the application as relating to snow storage. 

Bylaw § 16.6 regulates snow removal and storage. The only provision relative to parking 

dictates that snow storage shall not occur on or obstruct any parking. Bylaw § 16.6.3.3. The 

Parking Space Layout Plan, Exhibit C, identifies a snow storage area along the western edge of 

the property. In accordance with Bylaw § 16.6.3.3, this area does not obstruct access to parking 

spaces. We conclude that our review of snow storage is limited to parking issues, and as such, 

the application complies with the Bylaw with regard to adequate snow storage. 

Lastly, Appellants argue that Bylaw § 22.5.2, protecting parking areas from ice and snow 

sliding off of roofs, applies to this application. We disagree. Chapter 22 is the design review 

portion of the Bylaw. The design review chapter applies to new construction and major 

additions to existing buildings only. Bylaw § 22.2.2. Because the application does not entail 

new construction or a major addition to the existing building, we conclude that the application 

does not undergo design review. Therefore, the application’s compliance with Bylaw § 22.5.2 is 

not before us. 

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that All Metals’ application for a 

discretionary permit provides adequate provision for off-street parking and loading as required 

by Chapter 14 of the Bylaw. As we previously rendered our decision on the other issues before 

the Court, we AFFIRM the DRB’s grant of a discretionary permit subject to the following 

additional condition: 

1. All Metals must provide for one bicycle parking space in the metals processing area. 

All Metals’ application for a discretionary permit is hereby remanded to the Williston 

Zoning Administrator so as to complete the ministerial act of issuing the discretionary permit to 

All Metals in accordance with this Merits Decision and the un-appealed determinations of the 

Williston Development Review Board. 

A Judgment Order accompanies this Decision. This completes the current proceedings 

before this Court. 

Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 1st day of November, 2013. 

_________________________________________ 

 Thomas G. Walsh, Environmental Judge