Granger v. Town of Woodford, No. 97-200

• Docket Nº: No. 97-200
• Citation: 167 Vt. 610, 708 A.2d 1345
• Case Date: March 10, 1998
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Page 1345

708 A.2d 1345 167 Vt. 610 Dorothy and Raymond GRANGER
v.
TOWN OF WOODFORD. No. 97-200. Supreme Court of Vermont. March 10, 1998.

Page 1346

Before AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ.

ENTRY ORDER

Plaintiff landowners Dorothy and Raymond Granger appeal a Bennington Superior Court order granting defendant Town of Woodford's motion for summary judgment. Landowners contend that the court erred in concluding that town's decision to establish a commercial zone was a constitutional exercise of town's police powers. We affirm.

On March 1, 1994, a majority of town's electorate voted to change the zoning classification of a .82 acre parcel of land owned by David and Rosalie Wright from "Rural Residential" to "Roadside Commercial." This parcel of land is used to operate an automobile repair shop out of a three-bay garage. Until 1994, there were several parcels of land that contained pre-existing, nonconforming commercial uses within Woodford, including landowners' antique business and a motel. There were, however, no parcels of land zoned for commercial use.

Landowners filed a complaint for declaratory judgment with the Bennington Superior Court, alleging that the creation of the "Roadside Commercial" district was unconstitutional because it constituted unlawful spot zoning. Landowners and town filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court, concluding that the rezoning was not unconstitutional, granted town's summary judgment motion. This appeal followed.

Spot zoning consists of zoning that "single[s] out a small parcel or perhaps even a single lot for a use classification different from the surrounding area and inconsistent with any comprehensive plan, for the benefit of the owner of such property." Galanes v. Town of Brattleboro, 136 Vt. 235, 239, 388 A.2d 406, 409 (1978). In an equal protection clause challenge based on the federal constitution ¹ that alleges impermissible spot zoning, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the zoning classification is not "related to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." Id. at 240, 388 A.2d at 410. Furthermore, if the trial court grants a motion for summary judgment, we will apply the same standard as the trial court, in reviewing the grant of summary judgment. See Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306, 309, 683 A.2d 386, 389 (1996). Thus, the granting of summary judgment will be affirmed if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Wesco, Inc. v. Hay-Now, Inc., 159 Vt. 23, 26, 613 A.2d 207, 209 (1992).

In the present case, the trial court relied on the four-factor test that we have previously authorized trial courts to use to assist them in determining whether the zoning classification of a specific parcel of land is unconstitutional. See Smith v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 150 Vt. 351, 360-61, 554 A.2d 233, 240-41 (1988). As we noted in Smith, while "[w]e do not have to adopt a precise definition of spot zoning to decide this case," these four elements will be factors in any test. Id. at 362, 554 A.2d at 241. These elements are: (1) whether the use of the parcel is very different from the prevailing use of other parcels in the area; (2) whether the area of the parcel is small; (3) whether the classification is for the benefit of the community or only to provide a specific advantage to a particular landowner; and (4) whether the change in the zoning classification complies with the municipality's...