Chris Khamnei v. Burlington Public Works Commission
183 A.3d 1157
Vt.2018Background
- Applicant Chris Khamnei (non‑occupant owner) applied for two plumbing permits in Burlington: (1) connect hot/cold supply to a new Jacuzzi instant hot water heater, and (2) replace a deteriorated cast‑iron sewer/waste pipe.
- He did not identify a licensed plumber on the permit applications; the city plumbing inspector denied the permits as work requiring a licensed plumber.
- Khamnei appealed to the Burlington Public Works Commission; the inspector testified the heater connection would require shut‑off and anti‑scald valves and an expansion tank, and the sewer replacement would require disconnecting branch lines and updated fittings.
- The Commission (effectively affirming the inspector) found the proposed work exceeded “maintenance, repair, or alteration” and required a licensed plumber; the superior court affirmed on on‑the‑record review.
- Khamnei appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing two statutory exemptions (26 V.S.A. § 2198(a)(3) and (a)(5)) allowed the work without a licensed plumber.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Khamnei) | Defendant's Argument (City/Burlington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2198(a)(3) (work by person who employs a maintenance person) exempts "installation" | The 1994 session law mistakenly removed "installation and"; the exemption should include installation so he need not hire a licensed plumber | The statute as written excludes installation; changes in 1994 were intentional and consistent with other amendments and public‑protection purpose | Court held § 2198(a)(3) unambiguous as written: it exempts maintenance only, not installation; no judicial insertion of words |
| Whether § 2198(a)(5) (owner doing miscellaneous manual labor) covers the proposed heater connection and sewer replacement as "repairs or alterations" | Owner’s exemption for manual labor includes plumbing repairs/alterations he proposes, so no licensed plumber required | The proposed work (new valves/expansion tank/new water heater; disconnecting branch lines and updated fittings) exceeded "repairs or alterations" and implicated public protection, so licensing required | Court held there was a reasonable basis to find the heater installation and sewer work were not mere repairs/alterations; § 2198(a)(5) does not exempt this work |
Key Cases Cited
- State Dep’t of Taxes v. Tri‑State Indus. Laundries, Inc., 138 Vt. 292, 415 A.2d 216 (Vt. 1980) (judicial review of agency findings limited to whether record supports a reasonable basis)
- In re Agency of Admin., 141 Vt. 68, 444 A.2d 1349 (Vt. 1982) (agency factual findings affirmed if supported by evidence)
- Tarrant v. Dep’t of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 733 A.2d 733 (Vt. 1999) (statutory construction seeks to effectuate legislative intent; plain meaning controls)
- State v. Papazoni, 159 Vt. 578, 622 A.2d 501 (Vt. 1993) (give plain meaning to unambiguous statutory language)
- In re C.S., 158 Vt. 339, 609 A.2d 641 (Vt. 1992) (courts may correct statutes for clerical/transcription errors only in limited circumstances)
- Woerner v. City of Indianapolis, 177 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. 1961) (discussing narrow test for supplying omitted words in legislation)
- Cave City Nursing Home, Inc. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 89 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. 2002) (courts reluctant to rewrite legislative enactments absent clear drafting error)