In re LaBerge NOV, 152 A.3d 1165

Background

Matthew and Judy LaBerge operate a motocross track on rural residential property adjacent to Gary and Fiona Fenwick in Hinesburg, VT.
On July 22, 2013, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) and the Fenwicks measured motorcycle noise at the Fenwicks’ property line; intermittent peaks exceeded 80 dBA for 10–15 seconds about every five minutes during sessions up to ~2 hours. Fenwicks’ expert later corroborated readings above 80 dBA.
The ZA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) under Hinesburg’s noise ordinance (prohibiting “unreasonable” noises and listing factors: intensity, duration, frequency). The ZA noted the ordinance provided no numeric guidelines and said his application might be arbitrary.
The Development Review Board (DRB) found the activity was a usual residential activity but, given its frequency/duration/intensity, not reasonable; the Fenwicks appealed to the Environmental Division, which reversed the DRB and affirmed the NOV.
The LaBerges appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court arguing (1) the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague (due process/equal protection) and (2) the Environmental Division’s factual findings (decibel levels, frequency, duration) were clearly erroneous.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness (due process) of ordinance proscribing “unreasonable” noise with factors intensity/duration/frequency	LaBerges: ordinance lacks standards, is essentially "standardless," invites arbitrary enforcement and fails to give fair notice	Fenwicks/Town: ordinance supplies an objective reasonableness test and enumerated factors; administrative processes can clarify application	Court: ordinance constitutional on its face and as applied; factors give sufficient guidance and guard against arbitrary enforcement
Preservation of constitutional challenge	LaBerges: raised constitutional claim before Environmental Division	Fenwicks: claim not preserved because LaBerges didn’t cross-appeal DRB decision with a statement of questions	Court: constitutional issue intrinsic to questions presented; properly preserved and considered
Admissibility/use of WHO and other non-binding noise standards	LaBerges: WHO guidelines irrelevant and inadmissible because ordinance has no numeric limits	Fenwicks: expert reasonably relied on WHO standards to form opinion; such standards assist the trier	Court: WHO guidelines admissible as non-binding background relied on by an expert; court did not import them into ordinance
Sufficiency/weight of evidence on decibel levels, timing, frequency, duration	LaBerges: meter evidence unreliable, measurements remote in time, dates/duration findings erroneous	Fenwicks: readings corroborated by witness observations and expert testing; multiple witnesses tied noises to motorcycles	Court: trial court’s credibility and weight assessments entitled to deference; findings (≈80 dBA peaks, multiple similar events, sessions up to 1–2 hours) not clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

In re Appeal of JAM Golf, LLC, 969 A.2d 47 (Vt. 2008) (struck ordinance as essentially standardless where terms gave no workable guidance)
In re Ferrera & Fenn Gravel Pit, 87 A.3d 483 (Vt. 2013) (upheld non-numeric, contextual noise standard; vagueness test relaxed where imprecision is inevitable)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void-for-vagueness principles; expectation of some linguistic imprecision)
Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness challenges require showing statute is vague in all applications)
Reeves v. McConn, 631 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1980) (upheld ordinance proscribing "unreasonably loud" noise as not void for vagueness)