Tilton Variance ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                    STATE OF VERMONT
    SUPERIOR COURT                                               ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
    Vermont Unit                                                    Docket No. 97-7-14 Vtec
    Tilton Variance Application                                  JUDGMENT ORDER
    This matter concerns property and structures on Maidstone Lake Road in the Town of
    Maidstone, Vermont (the Property) and the application by Larry and Deborah Tilton (the
    Tiltons) for a variance to allow construction of a roof over an existing porch located partially
    within the required 25-foot setback from Maidstone Lake. The Tiltons timely appealed the
    Town of Maidstone Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (ZBA) decision dated June 5, 2014 denying
    their application. The Tiltons subsequently moved for summary judgment in their favor on all
    seven Questions filed in the Statement of Questions.
    In a Decision on Motion issued June 24, 2015, the Court concluded that Question 3, 5, 6,
    and 7 raise issues outside this Court’s jurisdiction. For this reason, Questions 3, 5, 6, and 7 were
    dismissed. Also in the June 24, 2015 Decision, the Court provided notice of our intent to grant
    summary judgment as to Question 1, 2, and 4 in favor of the Town of Maidstone pursuant to
    V.R.C.P. 56(f)(1). The Court reasoned that a variance is not necessary to enable the reasonable
    use of the property; that the hardship has been created by the Tiltons; that further expansion
    of a nonconforming structure within the setback alters the essential character of the
    neighborhood by increasing the degree of noncompliance with the Bylaws; and that the Tiltons
    could achieve their development goals without violating the setback.
    Neither the Tiltons nor the Town of Maidstone responded to this intended action within
    the 15 days the Court provided for the parties to do so. For reasons stated in greater detail in
    the June 24, 2015 Decision, the Court therefore concludes that the Tiltons are not entitled to a
    variance under 24 V.S.A. § 4469(a) as a matter of law, and summary judgment is GRANTED in
    favor of the Town of Maidstone. Questions 1, 2, and 4 are therefore resolved against the
    Tiltons, and the Tilton’s application for a variance is DENIED. This resolves the matter now
    before the Court.
    Electronically signed on July 17, 2015 at 01:47 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).
    _________________________________________
    Thomas G. Walsh, Judge
    Superior Court, Environmental Division
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 87-7-14 Vtec

Filed Date: 7/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018