Mad River Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Warren Bd. of Adjustment, 83-596

• Decision Date: 19 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 83-596,83-596
• Citation: 499 A.2d 759,146 Vt. 126
• Parties: MAD RIVER VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. TOWN OF WARREN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Page 759

499 A.2d 759

146 Vt. 126

MAD RIVER VALLEY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. TOWN OF WARREN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

No. 83-596.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

July 19, 1985.

Julian R. Goodrich, Philip K. Dodd and Robert J. Ritchie, of Gibson, Noble & Goodrich, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee.

Corsones & Hansen, Rutland, for defendant-appellant.

William D. Robinson, Colchester, for intervenors-appellants.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ.

HILL, Justice.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, the Town of Warren Board of Adjustment, from an order of the Washington Superior Court granting a conditional use zoning permit to the plaintiff, Mad River Valley Enterprises, Inc. (MRVE). Because plaintiff did not have standing to bring this action in superior court, we reverse and remand this case with instructions to the superior court that it be dismissed.

In March of 1982, MRVE applied for a zoning permit for conditional use approval to build a condominium hotel complex in the town of Warren. Because there was a proposed zoning bylaw change being considered by the town at that time, MRVE's application was referred to the Town of Warren Board of Selectmen. 24 V.S.A. § 4443(c). After hearings, the Board of Selectmen gave its approval subject to certain conditions. The Warren Board of Adjustment then considered the matter and denied the conditional use application. MRVE filed a notice of appeal to Washington Superior Court requesting a de novo hearing on the application. 24 V.S.A. §§ 4471-4472. The superior court granted MRVE a conditional use permit subject to conditions similar to those imposed in the Board of Selectmen's approval. The Town of Warren Board of Adjustment and neighboring landowners who had intervened in the superior court action appealed.

Title 24 V.S.A. § 4471 provides for appeals to superior court of decisions of zoning boards of adjustment. To appeal under this section, "the appellant must be an 'interested person,' as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)." Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 137 Vt. 219, 221, 401 A.2d 906, 908 (1979). Section 4464(b) sets forth six categories of "interested person[s]." Only the first and third categories apply to persons with interests in property affected by a bylaw. The statute is clear, however, in that only the first category applies to the developers here, while the other categories apply to those seeking to attack the granting of a permit. Under that provision, an "interested person" is:

A person owning title to property affected by a by-law who alleges that such regulation imposes on such property unreasonable or inappropriate restrictions of present or potential use under the particular circumstances of the case.

24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(1).

The Town of Warren Board of Adjustment and the intervenors sought to have MRVE's appeal in superior court dismissed because MRVE did not have standing to pursue its appeal by virtue of its failure to satisfy the "interested person" requirement. The superior court held a hearing on this issue and concluded that MRVE was an interested person with standing to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment. It made this determination based "on the nature of the relationship between Sugarbush [Valley, Inc., the record title holder], MRVE, Disick and Pacilli [officers of MRVE who individually contracted with Sugarbush Valley, Inc. for the purchase of the property]." The court determined it was "evident that these parties were working toward a common goal and had a shared interest in obtaining the right to have a hotel built on the subject property, [and that] [i]f the original appeal was defective, ... all the real parties in interest have ratified the action and ... dismissal at this time would be inequitable." No determination was made, however, that MRVE was a person owning title to the property. The court's findings and the evidence presented to the court reveal that MRVE was not a person owning title...