Opinion ID: 1057317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Setbacks

Text: ¶ 25. Finally, neighbors take issue with the Environmental Court’s treatment of the lot’s setbacks. The court concluded that the boundaries fronting on roads would be subject to the fifty-foot front setback, and that the border with neighbors’ property would be subject to the forty-foot side setback rather than the seventy-five-foot rear setback. Neighbors and the Town contend that the court erred in so concluding. We disagree, and affirm the Environmental Court’s determination regarding the setbacks. ¶ 26. Our standard of review on this question is somewhat deferential. We agree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which long ago noted that the question of which side of a lot, if any, was the “rear” was “largely a question of fact although partaking in some aspects of questions of law.” Bianco v. City Eng’r & Bldg. Inspector of City of North Adams , 187 N.E. 101, 103 (Mass. 1933). As to the findings of fact, we will reverse only for clear error. Our Lady of Ephesus House of Prayer, Inc. v. Town of Jamaica , 2005 VT 16, ¶ 18, 178 Vt. 35, 869 A.2d 145. To the extent that the setback issue raises questions of law, our review is de novo. Id . ¶ 27. As a general matter, “odd-shaped lots raise a variety of legal puzzles involving frontage, yards, and setback lines.” 2 K. Young, Anderson’s American Law of Zoning, § 9.58, at 303 (4th ed. 1996). This case is no exception. As noted, the field here at issue is the shape of a lengthwise-split pear. Its border with neighbors’ property is nearly straight, but the remaining borders, roughly speaking, constitute a gradually curving line of frontage on Stickney Brook Road . The Environmental Court found that this frontage could be approximated as three straight lines, with vertices at Stickney Brook Road ’s intersections with other roads. ¶ 28. The Environmental Court’s application of the setback ordinance to this parcel was not clearly erroneous. The ordinance contains no specific provision governing lots shaped like this one, nor does it specify how more traditionally shaped “corner” lots are to be treated. [4] Our research reveals scant authority on how lots like this one are to be treated, likely owing to the already-noted local differences in the ordinances governing them. One treatise does note that “[a] less commonly used definition of a corner lot includes a lot that fronts on only one street but is located at a bend that is of a sufficiently sharp angle to constitute a corner.” 7 P. Rohan & E. Kelly, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 42.03[2][b], at 42-63 to 42-64. As noted, the ordinance here is silent, and the Environmental Court had to construe it without any such specific guidance. ¶ 29. The construction neighbors and the Town advance would result in a building envelope so small as to be useless, because the seventy-five-foot rear setback coupled with the fifty-foot front setback would consume the entire depth of the parcel for much of its width. Neighbors and the Town argue, however, that because the southern border of the property is “opposite” the front of the lot, it must therefore be deemed the “rear.” The argument is unconvincing. The southern border, although it is roughly parallel to the middle of the curved border with Stickney Brook Road , is also adjacent and perpendicular to the same border at its ends. It was proper for the court to construe the ambiguous bylaw in favor of applicants’ right to build a home on the property. See Weeks , 167 Vt. at 555-56, 712 A.2d at 910; see also Bur v. Schwarten , 264 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Wis. 1978) (“We cannot impose greater restrictions on the use of the land than the ordinance requires and where the ordinance is silent, the interpretation allowing for the greater use of the land must be followed.”). The court’s determination that the southern boundary should be subject to a side setback requirement, absent a specific statute or bylaw to the contrary, was not clearly erroneous. The Environmental Court’s conclusion that the 1.1-acre and 0.9-acre parcels had merged is reversed; the court’s conclusions regarding setbacks and minimum lot size are affirmed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion . FOR THE COURT: