In re Beliveau NOV, Town of Fairfax v. Beliveau, 72 A.3d 918

Homeowner owns a residence in Fairfax used as his residence and as rental; he provided sleeping accommodations to roomers beginning around June 2008 for a monthly rent; the occupancy was not limited to a fixed end date and was at-will on a month-to-month basis; the Town issued a May 2008 notice and a June 5, 2008 violation for unpermitted rooming-and-boarding use; the Fairfax Development Review Board found a change of use without permits; environmental court granted summary judgment in 2009 and imposed a $22,770 penalty; on appeal, this Court reversed in 2010 and remanded for further proceedings, after which the environmental court again granted summary judgment and imposed a $63,142 penalty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the property was a rooming-and-boarding house under the bylaws	Beliveau argues no rooming-and-boarding use.	Town argues three elements satisfied (owner-occupied, sleeping accommodations, fixed period).	Yes; property used as rooming-and-boarding house.
Whether the bylaws’ definitions are unconstitutionally vague	Definitions fail to provide sufficient notice.	Regulatory context and DRB processes provide clarification.	Not unconstitutionally vague.
Whether the penalty was proper and properly calculated as an economic benefit/violation sanction	Deso supports measuring only avoided permit costs as benefit.	Economic benefit includes reasonable gain and avoided costs; penalty within statutory range.	Penalty reasonable; economic-benefit approach applied as allowed.

In re Sardi, 170 Vt. 623 (2000) (judicial deference to environmental court interpretations of zoning ordinances)
In re Lunde, 166 Vt. 167 (1997) (avoiding surplusage; fixed period interpretations)
Silsby v. Allen, 43 Vt. 172 (1870) (tenancy at will converted by payment of rent)
Deso, 175 Vt. 513 (2003) (economic benefit includes gain or avoided cost; not limited to competitive advantage in all cases)