1 STATE OF VERMONT
SUPERIOR COURT — ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

{ In re Susan Lee Living Trust Corrective Permit { D ocket No. 94-7-12 Vtec {

Decision on the Merits
Michael Smith, Donna Smith, William Shafer, and Sus an Shafer (Appellants) appeal a June 21, 2012 decision by the Town of Waitsfield De velopment Review Board (the DRB) upholding the Zoning Administrator’s grant of Zonin g Permit #3438 to Susan B. Lee Living Trust (Applicant) authorizing construction of a sin gle family residence at 38 Deerfield Drive in the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont (the Town). The Court conducted a site visit at the subject pro perty and surrounding area on the morning of September 26, 2013 followed by a one-day merits hearing at the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division in Berlin, Vermont. Appearing at the site visit and merits hearing were Appellants Michael Smith, Donna Smith, William Shafer, Susan Shafer, and their attorney Mark Hall, Esq.; Appellee Susan Lee and he r attorney Christopher Nordle, Esq.; and Joe McLean, Esq., attorney for the Town. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, includi ng that which was put into context by the site visit, the Court renders the following Fin dings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Findings of Fact
1. In April 2005, “Susan Lee (Trust)” filed a subdivis ion application with the Town to
subdivide a 2.2-acre lot into two 1.1-acre lots.
2. The two lots are located in the Town’s Agricultural -Residential Zoning District.
3. In a July 19, 2005 decision, the Town’s Planning Co mmission approved the subdivision with conditions (Subdivision Approval).
4. Condition 2 of the Subdivision Approval states: “[a ] screening and landscaping plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission for ap proval by the developer prior to development.”2

5. On June 21, 2011, “Susan B. Lee Living Trust” appli ed for a Zoning Permit to construct a single family home with an attached garage on one o f the two subdivision lots. The Town assigned this application number 3380 (ZP Appl ication 3380).
6. ZP Application 3380 proposed a 27-feet-high structu re with an 18-feet-high attached garage and 2,736 total square feet. This applicati on included setback dimensions which were later determined to be in error. With respect to building height, the application specifically noted that the design was not finalize d and that overall the house would be
less than 27 feet tall.
7. ZP Application 3380 was referred to the DRB for rev iew of the screening and landscaping plan required by condition 2 of the Sub division Approval. 1 While ZP Application 3380 was being processed and considered , Susan Lee, Michael Smith, and Donna Smith agreed to a screening and landscaping p lan with the assistance of Ed Read
of the Mad River Garden Center. A material conside ration in the Smiths’ agreement was the representation that the house height would not exceed 27 feet. The parties filed separate letters with the DRB indicating their agre ement on screening and landscaping. Mr. Read provided a marked-up site plan and e-mail on the details of the screening and landscaping plan to the DRB.
8. On September 24, 2011, the DRB approved the screeni ng and landscaping plan for Zoning Permit 3380 (DRB Approval).
9. On November 18, 2011, the Town Zoning Administrator (the Town ZA) granted Zoning Permit 3380 (ZP 3380).
10. Both the DRB Approval and ZP 3380 expressly describ e the screening and landscaping plan the parties agreed to. In essence, the plan r equired the planting of 5 evergreen trees in a staggered pattern along the 50-foot common bou ndary of the Trust and the Smiths. Finding of Fact number 2 of the DRB Approval states : “[t]he proposed structures in the underlying zoning permit application are permitted uses under Section 2.03 Agricultural-Residential District (Table 2.07) of t he bylaws but the Subdivision Approval required approval by the PC (now the Development Re view Board) prior to development.”

1 Following the Subdivision Approval in 2005, the DR B received jurisdiction over subdivision approvals.3

11. On January 20, 2012, “Susan B. Lee Trust” filed ano ther Application for a Zoning Permit. The Town assigned this application number 3420 (ZP Application 3420). ZP Application 3420 adjusted setback dimensions, increased the hou se height to 32 feet, and increased the total square footage to 3,024 square feet for a n enlarged garage.
12. On January 24, 2012, the Town ZA granted Zoning Per mit 3420 (ZP 3420) with the same conditions as ZP 3380. The Zoning Permit placard e xpressly notes that the approval was for a 288 square foot extension of garage; it does not indicate any change in height.
13. The Town sent a Notice of Violation letter, dated A pril 5, 2012, notifying the applicant that the house, as built, did not comply with the h eight and setback requirements of Zoning Permit 3420.
14. On April 10, 2012, “Susan B. Lee Living Trust” file d another Application for a Zoning Permit. The Town assigned this application number 3438 (ZP Application 3438). This application was filed to resolve the Notice of Viol ation of ZP 3420. This application increased the building height to 35 feet, slightly adjusted the total square footage, and reduced the setback from the Smith’s property from 35 feet to 30.9 feet.
15. The Town ZA granted Zoning Permit 3438 (ZP 3438) on April 12, 2012. The Zoning Permit placard expressly notes that the approval wa s for a 3,015-square-foot, 35-foothigh single family home.
16. As-built, the subject house is wholly within the bu ilding envelope as established by the Subdivision Approval.
17. The height of the as-built house measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the ridge is 30 feet 8 inches. Averaging the heigh t of the house from the highest and lowest finished grades results in an average buildi ng height of 34 feet 11 inches.
18. Michael and Donna Smith and Bill and Susan Shafer a ppealed ZP 3438 to the DRB. In a June 21, 2012 decision, the DRB denied the appeal.
19. Appellants timely appealed the DRB denial to this C ourt.

Conclusions of Law
Appellants’ first two questions within their Revise d Statement of Questions ask:

1. Whether a [sic] zoning permit #3438 authorizing a c hange in location, size, and height of the residence is lawful without corre sponding changes to site plan conditions previously imposed to expressly pro vide screening for a neighboring property?4

2. Whether zoning permit #3438 can be issued administr atively approving material changes to the size and height of a buildi ng that is subject to conditions imposed on the site plan relative to its visibility from a neighboring property? (Revised Statement of Questions at 1, filed Mar. 15 , 2013.) Authorization from the Town to develop the subject site derives from the Subdivision Approval and ZP 3438. 2 The Subdivision Approval, which is final and not on appeal, expressly requires that a screening and landscaping plan be s ubmitted to the Town for approval prior to development. At the time of the Subdivision Approv al, Applicant had not yet finalized plans for the house. Once Applicant finalized house plan s, an application for a zoning permit was filed with the Town. ZP Application 3380, the firs t of a series of zoning permit applications, was referred to the DRB solely for the DRB’s review and consideration of the screening and landscaping plan. Applicant worked cooperatively w ith Appellants and designed a screening and landscaping plan agreeable to all parties. App licant filed this plan with the DRB. At the time the screening and landscaping plan was designe d and agreed to, the proposed house height was 27 feet. Appellants credibly testified that the height of the house was a material consideration in their assenting to the screening a nd landscaping plan. The DRB approved the screening and landscaping plan. Thereafter, the ZA granted ZP 3380. Applicant installed the screening and landscaping and built the subject house. In response to the Town’s letter notifying Applicant o f the ZP 3380 violation, Applicant filed ZP Application 3438 seeking approval of a 35-foot-high house, a slight increase in total square footage, and a reduced setback from the Smith’s pro perty. Appellants raised their concern that due to these modifications, and particularly due to the increased house height, the previously agreed-to screening and landscaping plan was no lon ger sufficient. The Town declined to further review the screening and landscaping plan. Again, the Subdivision Approval, and specifically condition 2 therein, is not challenged in this appeal. Rather, Appellants challenge the a uthority of the ZA to issue a zoning permit which, in Appellants’ view, does not comply with co ndition 2 of the Subdivision Approval. All parties agree that condition 2 was satisfied with r egard to ZP Application 3380. Appellants assert that condition 2 was not satisfied with resp ect to ZP Application 3438 because there was no review of a screening and landscaping plan for t hat application for a taller house.

2 ZP 3438 supersedes the two earlier permits, ZP 338 0 and ZP 3420.5

Applicant argues that the DRB reviewed and approve d a screening and landscaping plan as part of the Town’s review of ZP Application 3380 which did not contain any restrictions on building height. Applicant also notes that the DRB did not impose any conditions regarding the building height as part of its screening and la ndscaping plan approval. While we agree with these facts, we decline to adopt Applicant’s c onclusion that no further review of a screening and landscaping plan for the 35-foot hous e is required. The Waitsfield Zoning Administrator has authority t o issue zoning permits for permitted uses, however, the Town of Waitsfield Zon ing Bylaw (WZB) provides that all development must comply with any prior permits or a pprovals. WZB Art. VI, § 6.01(C)(3). The WZB also expressly states that no zoning permit sha ll be issued until required DRB approvals have been received. Id. at Art. VI, § 6.01(C)(1). Pursuant to condition 2 of the Subdivision Approval, the DRB reviewed a screening and landscap ing plan relating to ZP Application 3380 for construction of a 27-foot-high structure. This plan was acceptable to the Appellants with the understanding that the structure was to be 27 feet high. Thus, Appellants did not contest the screening and landscaping plan during the DRB’s rev iew. ZP Application 3438, which is presently before the Court, seeks approval for a 35-foothigh structure. A taller structure could require d ifferent screening and landscaping to protect Appellants’ interests. The DRB has not considered screening or landscaping needs for the 35- foot-tall structure. Thus, Applicant has not yet r eceived DRB approval, pursuant to condition 2 of the Subdivision Approval, of a screening and lan dscaping plan for the 35-foot structure. We therefore conclude that the Zoning Administrator di d not have the authority to issue ZP 3438 without approval of a screening and landscaping pla n for that application. To hold otherwise could lead to the irrational result of a “screening plan” wholly unrelated to the structures
intended to be screened. See In re Pierce Subdivis ion Application, 2008 VT 100, ¶ 8, 184 Vt. 365 (holding that courts should avoid interpretations t hat lead to irrational results). DRB review and approval of a screening and landscaping plan fo r the 35-foot-high structure is required. For these reasons, we VOID ZP 3438 and remand this matter back to the Town. Question 3 of Appellants’ Revised Statement of Que stions asks:
3. Whether the height of the house complies with the o rdinance? (Revised Statement of Questions at 1, filed Mar. 15 , 2013.)6

The maximum building height for structures within the Agricultural-Residential District is 35 feet. WZB Table 2.07(D). The WZB defines “b uilding height” to be “[t]he height of a building or structure as measured vertically from t he highest point on top of the building or structure . . . to the average (of the highest and lowest) finished grade at the foundation or base . . . .” WZB Art. VII. Definitions. Based upon th e evidence before the Court, the as-built structure has a “building height” of 34 feet 11 inc hes under this definition. We therefore conclude that the height of the house complies with the ordinance. Question 4 of Appellants’ Revised Statement of Ques tions asks:
4. Whether adequate notice was given to interested par ties of changes in the site plan and the home prior to the issuance of a zoning permit? (Revised Statement of Questions at 1, filed Mar. 15 , 2013.) Appellants timely appealed ZP 3438, first to the D RB and then to this Court. The Appellants primarily allege deficient notice as to ZP 3420. ZP Application 3438 superseded ZP
3420. To the extent that deficient notice is also alleged for ZP 3438, that application was timely appealed. Because we remand this matter back to th e Town for the DRB’s review and consideration of a screening and landscaping plan f or the 34-foot 11-inch-high structure proposed by ZP Application 3438, the question of no tice to interested persons is moot.

Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that a lthough the Waitsfield Zoning Administrator has authority to issue zoning permits for permitted uses, under the Town of Waitsfield Zoning Bylaw all development shall compl y with any prior permit or approval and no zoning permit shall be issued until required app rovals of the DRB have been received. Applicant has not yet received DRB approval, pursua nt to condition 2 of the Subdivision Approval, of a screening and landscaping plan for t he 35-foot-high structure proposed in ZP Application 3438. We therefore conclude that the Z oning Administrator did not have the authority to issue ZP 3438. For these reasons, we VOID ZP 3438 and REMAND this matter
back to the Town and direct the DRB to review and a pprove a screening and landscaping plan for the as-built 34-foot 11-inch-high structure. O nce the DRB approves a screening and landscaping plan, the Zoning Administrator may ther eafter re-issue ZP 3438. We also conclude that the height of the house compl ies with the ordinance and that the question of notice to interested persons is moot.7

This completes the current proceedings before this Court.
Done at Berlin, Vermont, this __ day of March, 2014

.

____________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Environmental Judge