In re Carrigan Conditional Use and Certificate of Compliance, Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Compliance
117 A.3d 788
Vt.2014Background
- Neighbors appeal environmental division ruling upholding DRB certificates of occupancy for two detached decks and a conditional use permit for an enclosed deck at a seasonal camp in Addison’s Shoreland Residential District.
- Camp sits on Lake Champlain; lot is 0.41 acres, with structures within the 100-foot shoreland setback; nonconforming under bylaws.
- Applicant built an attached deck, converted a concrete platform/retaining wall into additional decking, and later added a standalone deck behind the wall.
- In 2003 a roof over the deck was permitted; enclosure of the deck occurred without a permit; in 2012 neighbors complained; DRB granted a conditional use permit without conditions.
- In 2010 a detached deck was permitted; later zoning staff said it violated § 2.3(F)(7)(a) but ultimately treated as detached; 2004 south deck later reconfigured to be part of a larger detached deck.
- Environmental court conducted de novo review and upheld occupancies but reversed on the enclosed deck permit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DRB properly issued a CO for the standalone west deck. | Neighbors: deck exceeded the SR setback limits. | DRB reasonably classified as a detached structure within bylaw §2.3(F)(7)(a). | CO affirmed for west deck. |
| Whether the L-shaped south+west deck is detached. | Neighbors: still attached to camp; significantly increases setback impact. | Decks were freestanding; no shared wall with camp. | CO affirmed for combined deck. |
| Whether enclosure of the deck increased nonconformity volume requiring CUP/variance. | Enclosure increased interior volume, increasing degree of noncompliance. | Volume refers to exterior footprint/height; enclosure did not increase footprint/height. | CUP for enclosed deck reversed; volume interpretation insufficient to justify enlargement. |
| Appropriate deference to DRB/environmental court interpretations of bylaw. | |||
| (Alternative grounds: consistency and reasonableness of DRB’s readings) | ZA and DRB interpretations were ad hoc and nondefinitive. | DRB interpretations were reasonable and consistently applied. | Court refused deference to DRB and environmental court; reversed on the CUP. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Grp. Five Inv. CU Permit, 2014 VT 14 (Vt. Supreme Court (2014)) (de novo review standards for zoning determinations; defer to findings if supported)
- In re Champlain Oil Co. Conditional Use Application, 2014 VT 19 (Vt. Supreme Court (2014)) (defers to municipality's interpretation if reasonable and consistently applied)
- In re Champlain Coll. Maple St. Dormitory, 2009 VT 55 (Vt. Supreme Court (2009)) (defers to agency interpretations; zoning ordinances construed narrowly in favor of landowners)
- In re Beliveau NOV, 2013 VT 41 (Vt. Supreme Court (2013)) (principles of deference to local interpretations unless clearly erroneous or arbitrary)
- In re Pierce Subdivision Application, 2008 VT 100 (Vt. Supreme Court (2008)) (adherence to standards; cautions against ad hoc decision-making in zoning)