City of St. Albans v. Hayford (In re Benoit Conversion Application)

Decision Date14 October 2021
Docket Number143-7-08 Vtec,148-8-04 Vtec,126-7-04 Vtec
CourtSuperior Court of Vermont
PartiesIn re Benoit Conversion Application v. Hayford, et. al. In re Appeal of Benoit & Kane City of St. Albans

In re Benoit Conversion Application In re Appeal of Benoit & Kane City of St. Albans
v.

Hayford, et. al.

Nos. 143-7-08 Vtec, 148-8-04 Vtec, 126-7-04 Vtec

Superior Court of Vermont, Environmental Division

October 14, 2021


DECISION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Thomas S. Durkin, Superior Judge Environmental Division

This matter originally came to this Court on a stipulated motion for relief from judgment, filed by the Town of Saint Albans and Deborah and Gregory Benoit (collectively "the parties."). The parties sought to modify a 2007 decision, City of St. Albans v. Hayford & Benoit, No. 126-7-04 Vtec, slip op. (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Feb. 17, 2007) (Wright, J.) ("Hayford I"), affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court in 2008, City of St. Albans v. Hayford, 2008 VT 36, 183 Vt. 596 (2008) ("Hayford II") that enjoined the use of the Benoits' property for more residential units than the zoning laws permitted at the time. In Hayford I, the Benoits and their co-defendants from whom they bought the property, the Hayfords, argued that the City's enforcement action was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. While both the Environmental Court and the Supreme Court held against them on this legal issue, they revived this argument through their motion for relief. They claimed that allegedly relevant new law established by the Supreme Court in In re 204 North Avenue NOV, 2019 VT 52, 210 Vt. 572 ("204 North Ave") warranted relief from the earlier judgment.

We first note that our Supreme Court has consistently directed that Rule 60(b) should be "applied guardedly and only in extraordinary circumstances, . . . [given] the important interest in

1

finality of judgments." Miller v. Miller, 2008 VT 86 ¶27, 184 Vt. 464 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Mindful of this caution and concluding that the parties misapprehended the relevance of 204 North Ave to the decisions in Hayford I and II, we denied the original motion for relief. In re Benoit Conversion Application, Nos. 143-7-08 Vtec, 148-8-04 Vtec, 126-7-04 Vtec, slip op. at 11 (Vt. Super. Ct. Envtl. Div. Apr. 20, 2021) (Durkin, J.). The Benoits have now moved unopposed for relief from that order under V.R.C.P. 60(b)(1), which we construe as a motion to reconsider since the order was not itself a final judgment and, in any event, was issued within the 28 days prior to the motion being filed.

We remain concerned about the propriety of revisiting a fourteen-year-old judgment, particularly on a motion to reconsider and particularly after the 2007 judgment was affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court. We initially expressed that concern during the initial conference on the reopening of this matter, held on February 8, 2021, and repeated this concern in our April 2021 Entry Order addressing the parties' Stipulated motion for relief. In re Benoit Conversion Application, Nos. 143-7-08 Vtec, 148-8-04 Vtec, 126-7-04 Vtec, slip op. at 8 ("At a status conference conducted on February 8, 2021, this Court directed the parties to address the Court's authority to modify a judgment when the trial court decision was previously affirmed by the Vermont Supreme Court."). Neither the parties, nor this Court, directly addressed this concern, which may well be insurmountable. Nonetheless, so as to provide the parties with guidance on the Court's analysis of the presented legal issues, we move to a consideration of whether the Benoits' motion for reconsideration should be granted.

We first acknowledge that reconsideration is generally within a trial court's discretion. We therefore have reviewed the additional arguments in the Benoits' supplemental memorandum and motion for reconsideration closely. We conclude, however, that the Benoits have not presented a sufficient basis for amending or reversing our April decision, and thus their motion must be denied. However, we take this opportunity to clarify a few potential points of confusion regarding this Court's 2007 holdings in Hayford I and the cases leading up to it and to elaborate upon our understanding of what the Supreme Court did-and, equally importantly, did not-change in the interpretation of municipal zoning laws through its decision in the 204 North Ave appeal.

2

Background

Hayford I itself had a complex set of facts and a convoluted procedural history. We surveyed both at length in our April order. However, both for convenience, and to clarify several remaining points of understandable confusion, we review them again here: first, the history of the property (as found in Hayford I and II); the relevant zoning laws; and the municipal proceedings and appeals that pre-dated Hayford I. Then we review the legal conclusions in Hayford I and in our April decision. In both instances, we review only the facts and conclusions most pertinent to the currently pending motion.

i. History of the property and enforcement.

The Hayfords purchased the property at 53 High Street ("the property") in 1976, when it consisted of a main apartment building with four units and a rear building used as a print shop and subsequently a nursery school. Hayford II, 2008 VT 36, ¶ 2. At that time, the City of St. Albans ("the City") had not yet adopted a zoning ordinance. In 1977, the City adopted its first zoning ordinance, which required a zoning permit from the Zoning Administrator for any permitted uses, and site-plan approval from the planning commission for any uses other than a single-family or two-family residence. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3; see also 1977 City of St. Albans Zoning Ordinance §§ 205, 401 ("1977 Ordinance"). The 1977 Ordinance made multi-family use a permitted use in the district containing the property and established minimum lot-size and lot area-per-unit requirements for residential properties. Hayford I, No. 126-7-04 Vtec at 3-4 (Feb. 17, 2007)

In 1986 the Hayfords converted the four residential rental units in the apartment building to five units and in 1987 they converted the rear building from a nursery school into a sixth residential unit. In both instances they failed to obtain a zoning permit and site-plan approval for the changes in use. Hayford II, 2008 VT 36, ¶4.

In 1998 the City adopted its Land Development Regulations ("1998 Regulations") that changed the relevant standards for the property in several respects. Most notably, the 1998 Regulations made multi-family use a conditional use in the property's zoning district and increased the minimum area per-unit requirements for residential uses. Under these new area-

3

per-unit, or density requirements, the property could legally support only four residential units. Hayford I, No. 126-7-04 Vtec at 2, 5-7 (Feb. 12, 2007).

Soon thereafter in 1998, the Hayfords applied to the Zoning Administrator for a Certificate of Occupancy for the six units, which was denied for failure to comply with the zoning regulations.[1] This action was not timely appealed and therefore became final. Id. at 7; City of St. Albans v. Alan Hayford et al., No. 161-9-03 Vtec, slip op. at 3 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. June 1, 2004). The Hayfords then applied to the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA") for a variance to convert the Property from 4 dwelling units to 6. In May of 1998, the ZBA denied the Hayfords' request for a variance.[2] This decision was also unappealed and became final. Hayford I, No. 126-7-04 Vtec at 7 (Feb. 17, 2007).

On July 11, 2001, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for the use of six dwelling units where only four were approved. The Hayfords timely appealed this NOV to the City's Development Review Board ("DRB"). City of St. Albans v. Alan Hayford et al., No. 161-9-03 Vtec at 3 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. June 1, 2004). In August 2001, the Hayfords also applied to the DRB for a variance to use the rear building as a dwelling unit and to eliminate one of the 5 dwelling units in the main building. The DRB upheld the ZA's new NOV and denied the Hayfords' variance request. Id. The Hayfords subsequently appealed both decisions to the Environmental Court.

In 2003, the Environmental Court upheld the variance denial, holding that the ZBA's 1998 initial denial was final and binding. Appeal of Hayford, No. 154-9-01 Vtec, slip op. at 1 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Mar. 6, 2003) (Meaker, J); see Hayford I, No. 126-7-04 Vtec at 8 (Feb. 17, 2007). In the same decision, the Court also upheld the July 2001 NOV regarding the 6th residential unit in the rear building and overturned the NOV with respect to the 5th unit in the main building, since the City had previously granted a permit to allow the Hayfords to repair one of the apartments after a fire in 1993. Hayford I, No. 126-7-04 Vtec at 8 (Feb. 17, 2007). This decision was not appealed

4

and therefore became final. In violation of the Environmental Court's 2003 decision, the Hayfords and subsequently the Benoits continued to rent the 6th unit in the rear building.[3]

In June 2003, the Zoning Administrator filed an enforcement action seeking injunctive relief and penalties against the Hayfords, later amended to include the Benoits. That action was transferred to the Environmental Court in September 2003, as Docket No. 161-9-03 Vtec. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations at 24 V.S.A. § 4496 (now § 4454) barred the action. Without deciding that motion, Judge Wright held only that the statute of limitations in § 4496 did not bar the City from pursuing its enforcement action under 24 V.S.A. § 4470(b), which allows municipalities and interested persons to enforce final decisions of municipal panels via complaint to the Environmental Court, but does not provide for penalties (despite the fact that the City had filed its action under 24 V.S.A. §§ 4444 and 4445, to which the statute of limitations at § 4496 did apply). City of St. Albans v. Alan Hayford et al., No. 161-9-03 Vtec at 4 (June 1, 2004). The decision set a status conference where the City could decide whether it wished to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT