In Re Laberge Moto-Cross Track
15 A.3d 590
| Vt. | 2011Background
- Laberges built a private backyard moto-cross track on their 18-acre rural residential property in Hinesburg, Vermont.
- Track developed gradually from 2002, expanding to roughly one acre with berms and jumps by 2007 without any zoning permit.
- Environmental Court found track constituted a structure and land development requiring a permit; court reversed.
- Neighbors alleged nuisance noise; prior town DRB found track not a customary use but acknowledged noise-reduction efforts.
- Track remains private, primarily used by family; use was not converted to public or commercial activity.
- Court notes the dispute centers on noise compliance and the permissible scope of local zoning authority over incidental private recreation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the track is a 'structure' requiring zoning permit | Laberge argues track is not a structure under §9.1 or §4.1.1 | Town contends track is a structure causing land development | No; track not a structure under the ordinance. |
| Whether the track constitutes a substantial change in use | Laberge contends no substantial change since use remains private | Town argues land development or change in use may require review | No; track does not amount to a substantial change in use. |
| Whether de minimis incidental recreational use exemptions apply | Laberge asserts use is de minimis and incidental; not proscribed | Town treats any private track as potentially permit-triggering | Yes; track is a de minimis incidental use not requiring permit, absent expansion. |
| Whether outdoor recreational facility or customary accessory use provisions apply | Laberge argues not a zoneable outdoor facility; not a customary accessory use | Town restricts uses not expressly permitted | Track not required to be a zoneable facility or customary accessory use; expanding use could change status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Champlain College Maple Street Dormitory, 186 Vt. 313 (2009 VT) (court defers to Environmental Court, adopts strict construction; deems zoning reasonable and not arbitrary)
- Scheiber, 168 Vt. 534 (1998 VT) (private shooting range not a zoneable structure; de minimis recreational uses not regulated by zoning)
- Lashins, 174 Vt. 467 (2002 VT) (zoning to be interpreted with common sense; strict construction favors property owners)