In re Toor and Toor Living Trust NOV
59 A.3d 722
Vt.2012Background
- Appellants John and Margaret Toor own a single-family dwelling in Grand Isle, zoned residentially, permitted as a single-family dwelling.
- Their home is used as a vacation residence by family and friends, with occasional guests even when they are not present.
- In 2009 they began short-term renting for income, eleven rentals that year, including groups of various sizes and durations, with rent and Vermont Rooms & Meals Tax collected.
- Town zoning administrator issued a notice of violation in 2009 alleging a change in use without a zoning permit, citing development as any change in use and proposing Bed & Breakfast or Rooming/Boarding use permits.
- DRB upheld the notice on somewhat modified rationale, concluding the use did not fit a single-family dwelling because occupancy was not a regular family household, and the Environmental Division later affirmed the violation under a different rationale.
- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, holding the current bylaws do not prohibit rental of a single-family dwelling for short-term occupants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renting a single-family home alters its use under the zoning bylaw | Toor: rental does not change use from single-family dwelling | Town: rental creates a non-permitted use (income-producing) without a permit | No violation; renting does not change the defined use |
| Whether the bylaws’ definitions permit commercial activity within a single-family dwelling | Single-family dwelling remains intact regardless of rental groups | Rental constitutes an unauthorized commercial use contrary to the definition | Bylaws permit included uses (bed & breakfast, rooming/boarding) and do not prohibit this rental |
| Standard of review and interpretive approach for zoning bylaws | Drafters’ intent and narrow construction favor landowners; defer to bylaw definitions | Environmental Division’s interpretations were reasonable under general aims | Environmental Division committed clear error; narrow, ascertainable standards required |
| Whether the aggregate impact of multiple rental groups changes the occupancy from a household | Each renter or group constitutes a household; occupancy remained a single family unit | Aggregate occupancy and short-term rentals create impermissible non-household use | Occupancy at any given time was a single household; aggregate use did not negate single-family use |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Pierce Subdivision, 184 Vt. 365 (Vt. 2008) (interpretation of zoning ordinances with deference to drafters’ intent)
- In re Sardi, 170 Vt. 623 (Vt. 2000) (deference in zoning interpretation; ownership vs. use considerations)
- In re Vermont Nat’l Bank, 157 Vt. 306 (Vt. 1991) (reading ordinances as a whole; ascertainable standards)
- Vermont Baptist Convention v. Burlington Zoning Bd., 159 Vt. 28 (Vt. 1992) (limitations on zoning based on use vs. ownership; exclusionary language context)
- Kilburn (Town of Westford v. Kilburn), 131 Vt. 120 (Vt. 1973) (zoning ordinances are strictly construed in favor of landowners)