Court Opinion

ID: 9759902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:32:16.885447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:06.033775
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
concurring and dissenting. I dissent to Part II of the majority opinion in which the Court holds that, under § 5.12.04 of the City of Barre Zoning Regulations, the front setback for residential lots is thirty feet unless the line connecting adjacent buildings on either side of the property in question is less than thirty feet. See 166 Vt. at 172, 688 A.2d at 1315.
“Where the meaning [of a zoning regulation] is plain, courts have the duty to enforce the enactment according to its obvious terms . . . .” Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 137 Vt. 219, 223, 401 A.2d 906, 909 (1979). The majority’s holding that subsection (b) (the line-between-adjacent-buildings rule) was intended to be an exception *173to subsection (c) (the thirty-foot-setback rule) is contrary to the plain language of the regulation. Under the ordinance, subsection (b) is the general rule and subsection (c) is a limitation on that rule. Thus, the minimum setback for residential lots is at the line connecting adjacent buildings. This rule does not apply, however, when that line or a portion thereof is closer to the street than thirty feet. When this occurs, the language of subsection (c), that no building be constructed nearer than thirty feet of the street line, comes into play and limits the general rule set forth in subsection (b). Not only does this interpretation give effect to both subsections, but it also adheres to precedent by following the plain language of the regulation.
Because both permit applications requested setbacks of less than thirty feet, I would affirm the environmental court’s denial of the permits. I am authorized to state that Justice Morse joins in this dissent.