Graves v. Town of Waitsfield
| Decision Date | 06 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 184-71,184-71 |
| Citation | 130 Vt. 292,292 A.2d 247 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elwin S. GRAVES v. TOWN OF WAITSFIELD and Waitsfield Town. |
John M. Kilmurry and John A. Burgess, Montpelier, for plaintiff.
Sten Lium, of Theriault & Joslin, Montpelier, for defendants.
Before SHANGRAW, C.J., BARNEY, KEYSER, and DALEY, JJ., and UNDERWOOD, Superior Judge.
This is a complaint for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The action was brought on November 10, 1971, to restrain the Town of Waitsfield, a municipal corporation with the County of Washington, from interfering with plaintiff's installation of a mobile home on premises owned by him in that town pursuant to a permit granted therefor on November 19, 1970, under an interim zoning ordinance. Plaintiff seeks a declaration of his rights as well as temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
Subsequent to the bringing of the action, but before hearing by the Washington County Court, the mobile home was installed by the plaintiff upon the premises in question. Plaintiff is now threatened by the Waitsfield Zoning Administrative Officer with a penalty of $25.00 per day for each day it remains on the premises.
In view of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to an immediate trial on the merits instead of a hearing on the question of the issuance of a temporary injunction. The case was heard by the presiding superior judge of Washington County Court on November 16, 1971, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 65(b)(2).
The Town of Waitsfield enacted an interim zoning ordinance during the early part of 1969 which was in force and effect on November 19, 1970. In this date Warren Ketcham, Zoning Administrator of the Town of Waitsfield, issued to the plaintiff a permit to establish and maintain a mobile home park of two units on two acres of land owned by him in the Town of Waitsfield.
Section 1 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance authorized the issuance of a permit for one residential structure on a lot of not less than one acre, with certain frontage and setback requirements. The Administrative Officer construed this as permitting two such structures on a two acre lot, which plaintiff's plan showed. All other requirements were met.
No appeal was taken by the town, or anyone else, from the granting of the permit.
Plaintiff installed one unit shortly after the permit was granted. He installed the other unit the week before the court hearing of November 16, 1971.
In reliance on the permit, plaintiff ran a water line from his house to both sites, installed a one thousand gallon septic tank to service both mobile homes and an absorption field. Electricity was installed. All this was done before the first unit was permanently placed on the property. A manhole was provided for the second water service later. His total expense, not all of which would have been required for one unit alone, amounted to about $775.00. The electric installation was done by the utility without cost to the plaintiff.
Later, and before plaintiff erected the second mobile home on his land, the town passed a permanent zoning ordinance. The permanent zoning ordinance of the Town of Waitsfield prohibits the use of mobile homes for dwelling purposes except in mobile home parks, and requires such parks, inter alia, to be at least ten acres in area. Plaintiff's site does not comply with the requirements of this ordinance, now in effect.
Findings of fact were made by the presiding superior judge which, in substance, contained the facts and events hereinbefore related in this opinion.
As on December 3, 1971, the following order was issued from which the defendants have appealed to this Court for review:
'1. That the permit issued to the plaintiff above named on November 19, 1970 is valid and uncontestable.
2. That the defendants above named, its officers and agents are hereby enjoined from interfering with the plaintiff in his use of said premises, as set out in the provisions of the permit issued by defendant town, and they are further enjoined from any action of any nature for the collection of penalties or any action taken by the defendants to attack either the use or the permit granted by the defendants.'
The Town of Waitsfield urges that it should be permitted to enforce the permanent zoning ordinance with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells v. Malloy
...declaratory relief); V.R.C.P. 65 (authorizing issuance of temporary restraining orders and injunctions); Graves v. Town of Waitsfield, 130 Vt. 292, 292 A.2d 247 (1972). There is no exemption from the anti-injunction act relating to state taxes, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, such as there is in the gene......
-
In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance
..." Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Vt. 139, 142, 564 A.2d 1361, 1363 (1989) (quoting Graves v. Town of Waitsfield, 130 Vt. 292, 295, 292 A.2d 247, 249 (1972) ). ¶ 9. In order to "properly appeal[ ]" the decision of a ZA as required under this exclusivity-of-remedy pr......
-
Town of Pawlet v. Banyai
... ... officer become final so that a person may proceed with ... assurance instead of peril." Graves v. Town of ... Waitsfield , 130 Vt. 292, 295, 292 A.2d 247, 249 (1972); ... see also Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of ... Adjustment , ... ...
-
In re Hopkins Certificate of Compliance
..." Levy v. Town of St. Albans Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Vt. 139, 142, 564 A.2d 1361, 1363 (1989) (quoting Graves v. Town of Waitsfield, 130 Vt. 292, 295, 292 A.2d 247, 249 (1972)). ¶ 9. In order to "properly appeal[]" the decision of a ZA as required under this exclusivity-of-remedy prov......