Blood Deck ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                    STATE OF VERMONT
    ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
    }
    In re: Blood Deck                          }       Docket No. 154-7-07 Vtec
    (Appeal of Dann)                   }
    }
    Decision and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment
    Appellant Joyce Dann appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board
    (DRB) of the Town of Colchester regarding a deck on the property of Appellee Ernest
    Blood. Appellant is represented by Beth A. Danon, Esq.; Appellee is represented by Mark
    G. Hall, Esq. The Town of Colchester has not entered an appearance in this matter. The
    following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
    In July of 2006, Appellee purchased the house and 0.44-acre lot at 1101 Red Rock
    Road, in the Shoreland overlay zoning district; the underlying zoning district has not been
    provided to the Court in connection with the present motions. Appellant owns the
    adjoining 0.31-acre residential property to the east, at 1097 Red Rock Road. Both lots are
    located on the southeasterly side of a peninsula of land that extends southwesterly into
    Lake Champlain, so that the southeasterly side of each property faces the lake. Both lots
    slope downwards from the road to a cliff at the edge of the lake.
    In connection with home insurance issues, Appellee undertook certain construction
    or repairs involving the existing decks or patios, stairs, landings, and retaining walls on the
    slope downward from the house towards the lake. The work included the construction of a
    four-foot-high fence along a forty-foot-long retaining wall that has an eight-foot drop-off;
    the rebuilding of four separate short outdoor stairways; the resurfacing with wood and
    addition of a three-foot-high railing to an L-shaped existing but deteriorated concrete patio-
    pad (the upper patio-deck) running along the southeasterly (lake) side of the house and
    1
    along a portion of the northeasterly side of the house; and the resurfacing with wood and
    replacement of a rusted metal fence with a three-foot-high railing on a 17’ x 15’ existing but
    deteriorated concrete patio-pad (the lower patio-deck). The upper patio-deck is connected
    to the lower patio-deck by a short stairway at the westerly corner of the lower patio-deck,
    closest to Appellee’s house. The lower patio-deck also serves as a landing for a long set of
    existing stairs that extend from the lower patio-pad towards the lake.
    All the work appears from the sketch plan to have been located within one hundred
    feet of the shoreline, that is, within the shoreline setback applicable to the Shoreland
    overlay zoning district. The easterly portion of the lower patio-pad is also located within
    the minimum required ten-foot side setback established for preexisting lots in § 2.05(J)(1) of
    the Zoning Regulations, and in fact extends nearly to Appellant’s property line. Only the
    lower patio-deck construction is at issue in this appeal.
    Appellant had not been living at her property in the fall of 2006; she had been living
    in Woodstock, Vermont and spending the winters in Mexico. Sometime during the late fall
    but before November 10, 2006, on a visit to her property, Appellant observed a carpenter
    putting up railings on the lower patio-deck adjacent to her property line, and that a
    wooden decking surface had already been installed. She asked the carpenter if Appellee
    had obtained a building permit for the lower patio-deck and was informed that he had not.
    The Town of Colchester Director of Zoning and Planning, Ms. Brenda Green, serves
    as the Town’s Zoning Administrator. The Planning and Zoning Department also has a
    Building Inspector, Mr. Gerald Kittle. Appellant’s affidavit states that Appellant “then
    began calling the Town to determine whether or not a permit was necessary.” Facts are in
    dispute, or at least have not been provided to the Court, as to which person within the
    Town’s administration received Appellant’s telephone calls or spoke with Appellant, or
    what information, if any, was conveyed from or to her before Appellant left Vermont for
    Mexico on November 10, 2006. Facts are in dispute, or at least have not been provided to
    2
    the Court, as to what arrangements Appellant made to receive mail related to her
    Colchester property while she was in Mexico. However, based on the reasoning of this
    decision with regard to the November 15, 2006 permit, these facts may not be material to
    the present case.
    Upon realizing that the total cost of all the repairs would exceed $2,5001, Appellee
    applied for a permit on November 13, 2006, covering all the construction listed above. The
    application form is entitled “Application for Zoning and Building Permit,” and has
    signature lines for both the “Building Inspector or Life Safety Officer” and for the “Zoning
    Administrator.” Permit #20352 was issued by the Zoning Administrator on November 15,
    2006.   It contains the following statement or permit condition next to the Zoning
    Administrator’s signature: “[r]eplacement of existing – no increase in enroachments to
    setbacks.”
    Appellee received the required large “Z” sign from the Town, and posted the sign
    on his garage window visible from Red Rock Road for a period in excess of the fifteen days
    required by 24 V.S.A. §4449(b). The Zoning Administrator’s affidavit states that the town
    also complied with 24 V.S.A. §4449(b), which requires posting of the permit in a public
    1 Appellee’s affidavit refers to repairs in excess of $2,500 as triggering the requirement for
    a zoning permit, however, no such requirement is found in the excerpts from the Zoning
    Regulations provided to the Court in connection with the present motions. One of the e-
    mails from Appellee to Appellant provided in Exhibit 1 to Appellant’s affidavit refers to
    “section 4-25 of the Code” as containing such a requirement. No section numbered “4-25”
    appears in the excerpts from the Zoning Regulations. Appellee’s reference to “the Code”
    may instead be to some other town ordinance triggering the requirement for a building
    permit rather than a zoning permit. Appeals of zoning permit decisions must be made first
    to the DRB and then to this Court under 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117; building permits and their
    appeals are governed by 24 V.S.A. Chapter 83.
    3
    place, and also requires that the permit contain a “statement2 of the period of time within
    which an appeal may be taken . . . .” The time period to appeal the issuance of the permit
    to the DRB expired on November 30, 2006.
    On December 6, 2006 Appellant e-mailed Appellee regarding the lower patio-deck,
    stating that “[i]t is not right that it does not respect the set back required by zoning,” and
    that she knew “that there was existing cement but that does not mean that a wooden deck
    can be built with a new wooden railing.” Appellee responded by e-mail that evening that
    he had obtained a permit the only condition of which was that he not “increase the
    encroachments beyond the existing patio,” and suggested that Appellant “call the zoning
    administrator, Brenda Green, who handled my permit” if Appellant had any further
    questions about the law.
    The following morning, December 7, 2006, Appellant e-mailed Ms. Green, with a
    copy to Attorney Danon, again agreeing that the preexisting concrete pad or slab had been
    located within the setback, but stating that “a substantial deck with a railing to my property
    line . . . should not be considered repairs.” In that e-mail, Appellant did not ask to appeal
    the permit; rather, she stated her preference to “work it out in a reasonable way directly
    with” Appellee.
    On December 13, 2006, Appellant wrote an e-mail from Mexico to the Building
    Inspector, referring to having been in touch with the Zoning Administrator and laying out
    the situation, stating that Appellant would call the Building Inspector on the following day.
    In that e-mail Appellant did not ask to appeal the permit. That e-mail was treated as a
    complaint and given to the Building Inspector to investigate.
    On December 14, 2006, the Building Inspector filled out a “Request for Action
    2 The portions of the permit provided to the Court in connection with this motion do not
    on their face contain that statement.
    4
    Investigation Report,” after inspecting the property and discussing the matter with
    Appellee and another neighbor. The report concluded that the “concrete foundation and
    concrete decks were existing [and] under new wooden decks with no further
    encroachment.”
    Based on that inspection report, on December 18, 2006, the Zoning Administrator
    wrote a letter of determination to Appellant, informing her that the Building Inspector had
    found “that there was an existing concrete patio and that [Appellee] constructed a wooden
    deck with rails over it with no further encroachment to the setbacks.” Based on the
    inspection, the letter stated that the Zoning Administrator “find[s] that at this time, there is
    no evidence of any violations of local [o]rdinances.” The letter informed Appellant that she
    had the right to appeal the determination letter to the DRB within fifteen days of the letter’s
    date of December 18, 2006. Also on December 18, 2006, the Zoning Administrator sent an
    e-mail to Appellant (at the same e-mail address from which Appellant had written on
    December 6 to the Zoning Administrator), informing her of the determination, that she
    should receive the letter of determination “this week,” and that she had the right to appeal
    the determination letter.
    Appellant’s affidavit states that she sent the Zoning Administrator “an e-mail letting
    her know that mail will not get to me in Mexico and that she should send her letter to my
    daughter, Jordan Dann,” but also acknowledges that she cannot locate this e-mail. The
    Zoning Administrator also has no electronic or paper copy of this e-mail.
    On January 17, 2007, Appellant e-mailed the Zoning Administrator, telling her in
    full: “I sent my daughter’s address to you, but she has not received a letter. Please send it
    and I guess you could consider all my emails as a reply to date.”                 The Zoning
    Administrator responded within fifteen minutes as follows: “I’m afraid it must have been
    deleted [as] Spam. Would you kindly send it again?”
    On January 25, 2007, Appellant again e-mailed the Zoning Administrator, stating
    5
    that Appellant’s daughter had just gotten the letter and had just read it to Appellant.” The
    January 25, 2007 e-mail stated: “I guess my responses, as I said last time, need[] to
    constitute an appeal,” and requested that the appeal form be scanned and e-mailed to her.
    The January 25, 2007 e-mail also stated “[s]ince we have been in touch and the letter was
    virtually just received, I think it is necessary to consider that I have appealed . . . ,” and
    essentially asked for the fifteen-day appeal period to be disregarded.           The Zoning
    Administrator forwarded the series of e-mails to Lisa Riddle, the Development Review
    Coordinator in the Planning and Zoning Department, and asked her to help Appellant out.
    Appellant provided an undated and unsigned written appeal statement to the Town
    by e-mail and sent a paper copy by an unidentified person who was leaving Mexico for the
    United States. Facts are in dispute as to when either the e-mail or the couriered copy was
    sent, as no cover e-mail, dated cover letter, or courier or mailing receipt has been provided
    to the Court. The signed “Application for Appeal” form is dated as having been received
    on March 30, 2007.
    Neither the Zoning Administrator, the DRB, or any other party to the DRB
    proceedings challenged the appeal to the DRB as untimely filed. Rather, it was treated as a
    timely appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s December 18, 2006 determination letter,
    apparently based on the delayed date of the actual receipt by Appellant of that letter.
    The DRB held its hearing on Appellant’s appeal on June 13, 2007. The parties have
    not provided the warning of the June 13, 2007 hearing, or whether any earlier hearings
    were warned for this appeal, and have not provided the minutes of the June 13, 2007
    hearing, except as they were excerpted in the June 27, 2007 written decision. Both
    Appellant and Appellee attended the hearing and provided testimony and other evidence;
    other witnesses also testified. On June 27, 2007, the DRB issued its written decision, finding
    that the November 15, 2006 permit “was issued in accordance with [§ 7.03(C)(5)] of the
    Zoning Regulations and there is no compelling reason to overturn the issuance of the
    6
    permit.” Section 7.03(C)(5) allows as a permitted use, for properties within the Shoreland
    overlay district, and in accordance with the dimensional standards in Table A-2 of the
    Regulations, the “[e]nlargement of residential structures that does not increase the degree
    of encroachment within 100 feet of the mean water mark,” that is, the setback from the
    shoreline.”
    The DRB concluded that “[c]onstruction of a deck and rails over an existing concrete
    patio did not increase the encroachment into the setback.” It is apparent from the findings,
    as well as from the excepted minutes, that the DRB did not consider the issue under § 2.12
    but only under § 7.03, and also that the provisions of the Zoning Regulations with respect
    to fences were not discussed.
    The scope of the present appeal is governed by the scope of what was before the
    DRB. Based on the affidavits of the Zoning Administrator and Appellant, both the Town
    and Appellant performed all the notice and posting that was required by 24 V.S.A. §
    4449(b) in relation to the November 15, 2006 issuance of the Zoning Permit. No notice or
    posting of the November 13, 2006 zoning permit application was required, nor is any
    actual notice to neighboring landowners required by the state statute or by any sections of
    the Zoning Regulations provided in connection with the pending motions. Compare 24
    V.S.A. § 4449(b) with 24 V.S.A. § 4464 (required notice of development review applications
    filed with the DRB) and 10 V.S.A. § 6084 (required notice and posting of Act 250
    applications).
    Because no appeal was filed with the DRB from the November 15, 2006 issuance of
    the Zoning Permit, as of December 1, 2006 the November 2006 Zoning Permit became final
    and cannot now be challenged, either directly or indirectly,24 V.S.A. § 4472(d), even if it
    was issued in error or ultra vires. Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment,
    
    152 Vt. 139
    , 143 (1989); In re Ashline, 
    2003 VT 30
    , ¶¶ 10–11, 
    175 Vt. 203
    , 207–08; In re
    7
    Appeal of Smith, Docket No. 263-12-02 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Apr. 14, 2003), aff’d
    
    2006 VT 33
    , 
    179 Vt. 636
     (mem.) (appeal of zoning permit was out of time, DRB did address
    appeal of zoning administrator’s letter declining to take enforcement action). All of
    Appellant’s e-mails were sent after December 1, 2006, after the time for appeal had already
    expired. Moreover, none of them contained a request to file a late appeal, until the January
    25, 2007 e-mails requesting to appeal the December 18, 2006 determination letter.
    On the other hand, Appellant’s appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s December 18,
    2006 determination letter was treated as timely by the DRB, apparently based on the date of
    Appellant’s actual notice of it on January 25, 2007 and e-mail request to appeal it on
    January 27, 2006. No one contested its timeliness before the DRB, and the Court will treat it
    as having been timely filed with the DRB.
    Material facts are in dispute, or at least have not been provided to the Court in the
    context of the present motions, as to the height of the former lower concrete patio-pad and
    the height and location of its former metal fencing, as compared to the volume of the
    setback area occupied by the new lower patio-deck. Nor does the Court have before it all
    of the Zoning Regulations relating to fences (as fences installed at the property boundaries
    must by definition be within the side setbacks); the Court has a portion of § 2.10 found on
    page 14 of the Zoning Regulations, but the section begins on an earlier page not provided
    in the parties’ excerpts. Based only on the sections provided by the parties, it appears that
    a fence under six feet in height requires a permit, while a fence over six feet in height
    requires conditional use approval and must meet the accessory structure setback
    requirements for the zoning district, suggesting that a fence under six feet in height does
    not have to meet the accessory structure setbacks. § 2.10(B)(4)–(6).
    Moreover, we note that in general zoning regulations do not restrict landowners
    from using the full extent of their property within the setbacks, that is, up to their boundary
    lines, for permitted uses in the district. The restrictions in the Zoning Regulations govern
    8
    the construction or maintenance of structures within the district. That is, Appellee would
    have been free to use the area of the lower patio-pad to carry on residential accessory uses,
    such as outdoor seating, in the area occupied by the lower patio-deck, regardless of the
    new construction.
    Therefore, the only nonconformity at issue in the present case relates to structures
    within the side setback. The only remaining questions in the present case are whether
    Appellee has enlarged the nonconforming structure within the side setback area so as to
    trigger § 2.12(B), and whether or not the fence or railing is otherwise allowed to be
    constructed within the setback area within the property boundary. If § 2.12(B) applies and
    if the fence or railing is not otherwise authorized, then the Zoning Administrator’s
    December 18, 2007 determination letter was incorrect, and the lower patio-deck
    construction should have been referred for a variance as an enlargement of the
    nonconforming structure, leaving the status of the lower patio-deck as a nonconforming
    structure approved by error of the zoning administrator. 24 V.S.A. § 4303(14); Regulations
    § 12.02, “Nonconforming Structure.” As the lower patio-deck is allowed to remain in place
    due to the unappealed November 2006 Zoning Permit, it is not clear to the Court whether
    the parties wish to pursue this remaining issue regarding the Zoning Administrator’s
    December 18, 2006 determination letter. We have scheduled a telephone conference at
    which the parties should be prepared to discuss how they wish to proceed.
    Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
    Summary Judgment is Granted to Appellee in that the zoning permit became final without
    appeal as of December 1, 2006, and could not thereafter be challenged.
    However, as discussed above, material facts are in dispute, or at least have not been
    provided to the Court, as to the Zoning Administrator’s December 18, 2006 determination
    letter. The Zoning Regulations applicable to fences or railings within the setback have not
    9
    been provided to the Court. Material facts are in dispute as to whether the new decking or
    railings of the lower patio-deck occupy any more of the setback area than did the previous
    fence and the existing concrete patio, and therefore whether the application should have
    been referred to the DRB. Accordingly summary judgment is DENIED as to Question 2 of
    the statement of questions.
    A telephone conference has been scheduled (see enclosed notice) to determine
    whether the parties wish to proceed with the remainder of the appeal, as a practical matter,
    in light of today’s decision. A courtesy copy of this decision is also being sent to the
    attorney for the Town of Colchester so that the Town may determine whether it wishes to
    participate in the scheduled conference, given the issues discussed in this decision.
    Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 31st day of July, 2008.
    _________________________________________________
    Merideth Wright
    Environmental Judge
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 154-07-07 Vtec

Filed Date: 7/31/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018