Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-343,84-343 |
| Citation | 148 Vt. 47,527 A.2d 227 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert and Jeanette LUBINSKY v. FAIR HAVEN ZONING BOARD. |
Smith Harlow & Liccardi, P.C., Rutland, for plaintiffs-appellants.
DeBonis & Wright, P.C., Poultney, for defendant-appellee.
Before ALLEN, C.J., HILL, PECK and GIBSON, JJ., and BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
BARNEY, Chief Justice (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
The plaintiffs, Robert and Jeanette Lubinsky, own a house and lot in Fair Haven which they are seeking to convert to a two-family dwelling. An unsuccessful application to the Fair Haven Zoning Board was followed by an appeal to Rutland Superior Court for a de novo hearing in accordance with V.R.C.P. 74. The facts were stipulated and that court also determined that the requested zoning permit for remodeling was properly refused. We affirm.
The building lot involved has characteristics which make it subject to special treatment under Vermont statutes. The issue in the case relates to the measure of that special treatment. 24 V.S.A. § 4406(1) provides:
Existing small lots. Any lot in individual and separate and non-affiliated ownership from surrounding properties in existence on the effective date of any zoning regulation ... may be developed for the purposes permitted in the district in which it is located, even though not conforming to minimum lot size requirements, if such lot is not less than one-eighth acre in area with a minimum width or depth dimension of forty feet.
Although the statute would supersede any contrary zoning regulations of Fair Haven in any event, the town's regulations do incorporate the statutory requirement.
The lot in question falls short of the 20,000 square foot Fair Haven minimum lot size requirement; however, it is larger than one-eighth acre in area and it is more than forty feet in depth or width. Moreover, it has been a single, undivided lot not owned by any of the surrounding property owners since before the effective date of Fair Haven zoning. Thus it is a "small lot" within the terms of the statute and the Small Lot Provision of the Fair Haven Zoning Regulations (FHZR § 5.1.1).
Those zoning regulations also provide that a zoning permit is required for remodeling that increases the number of dwelling units. In order for a permit to issue for the zoning district in which the plaintiffs' property is located, there must be 10,000 square feet of lot area per family dwelling.
The decision of the lower court and the zoning board both rested on the impossibility for plaintiffs' premises to fulfill the 20,000 square feet of lot size required for the proposed two-family remodeling. The plaintiffs contend that this area requirement also comes within the range of the statute's relaxation of minimum lot size requirements, and this contention is the basis of their appeal.
The first recourse in applying a statute is to examine the plain meaning of the language used in light of the statute's legislative purpose and in terms of its impact on the factual circumstances under consideration. If that plain language resolves the conflict without doing violence to the legislative scheme, there is no need to go further, always bearing in mind that the paramount function of the court is to give effect to the legislative intent. Hambley v. Town of St. Johnsbury, 130 Vt. 204, 206-07, 290 A.2d 18, 20 (1972). This concern is so fundamental that, although application according to the plain language is preferred when possible, the letter of a statute or its literal sense must yield where it conflicts with legislative purpose. State v. Baldwin, 140 Vt. 501, 510-11, 438 A.2d 1135, 1140 (1981).
Thus it is apparent that all rules of construction rely on a determination of legislative intent or purpose. That intent is most truly derived from a consideration of not only the particular statutory language, but from the entire enactment, its reason, purpose and consequences. Andrews v. Lathrop, 132 Vt. 256, 261, 315 A.2d 860, 863 (1974). Only with such an examination can an interpretation be carried out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kerwin-White, Bankruptcy No. 88-179.
...Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442, 453 (1917). Accord, Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Board, 148 Vt. 47, 49-50, 527 A.2d 227 (1986); Cavanaugh v. Abbott Laboratories, 145 Vt. 516, 529-30, 496 A.2d 154 (1985) (citing, Heisse v. State, 143 Vt. 87, 89......
-
In re Mayo
...used by the legislature in the enactment must yield to a construction consistent with legislative purpose. Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Board, 148 Vt. 47, 49-50, 527 A.2d 227 (1987) (citations omitted). See, Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Compensation Plans v. ......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Carpenter
...should not construe statutes to reach unreasonable results manifestly unintended by the legislature."); Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 148 Vt. 47, 49, 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1986) ("[T]he letter of a statute or its literal sense must yield where it conflicts with legislative 11. As far as w......
-
S.B.L., In re
...144 Vt. 37, 42, 470 A.2d 1191, 1194 (1984). We must avoid results that are irrational or unreasonable. Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Board, 148 Vt. 47, 50, 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1986). A statute can be construed as changing the common law only where that intent is expressed clearly and unambig......
-
Georgia's Children on Our Minds - Nicole Sheppe
...Sec. 448; B.L.V.B., 628 A.2d 1271. 294. B.L.V.B., 628 A.2d at 1274. 295. Id. 296. Id. 297. Id. (citing Lubinsky v. Fair Haven Zoning Bd., 527 A.2d 227, 228 (1986)). 298. 153 Misc. 2d 844 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1992). 299. Id. at 851. 300. Id. at 846. 301. Id. (citing Wise v. Del Torro, 505 N.Y.S.2d......