City of St. Albans v. Alan Hayford, Beverly Hayfor, Gregory P. Benoit, Deborah Kane, and Occupants/Tenants of Apt. 6 at 53 High St.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 161-9-03 Vtec

Court: Vermont Superior Court; June 1, 2004; Vermont; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The City of St. Albans is pursuing an enforcement action against Alan Hayford, Beverly Hayford, Gregory P. Benoit, and Deborah Kane regarding the use of a sixth dwelling unit at 53 High Street, which the City seeks to prohibit as a residential rental unit under 24 V.S.A. 4445. Additionally, the City is seeking monetary penalties for this alleged zoning violation under 24 V.S.A. 4444. The action does not cite any past orders from the City’s former Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) or current Development Review Board (DRB) as a basis for enforcement.

The defendants, represented by Michael S. Gawne, Esq., argue for summary judgment, claiming that the enforcement action is barred by the statute of limitations set forth in 24 V.S.A. 4496(a). The Hayfords, who owned the property since mid-1976, initially used the rear building for a print shop and garage before converting it into a nursery school after obtaining a building permit on September 22, 1976. The rear building's use has raised questions about its zoning status, as it could be classified either as an accessory building or a second principal building, impacting its conformity with zoning regulations.

The rear building, existing prior to the adoption of zoning, has been determined to be non-conforming regarding property line setbacks. As a principal building, it violates the required 20-foot rear setback, while if treated as an accessory building, it complies with the 4-foot rear setback. The case remains unresolved as no tenants from the rear building have appeared in court, and the City has not sought a default judgment against them.

Changes or expansions of non-conforming uses under sections 602 and 604 of the prior Zoning Regulations required Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) approval. In mid-1986, the Hayfords converted the main building from four to five rental units, which was later validated when Docket No. 154-9-01 Vtec overturned a violation notice concerning the fifth unit, with no appeals filed regarding this decision. By the end of 1986, they acquired additional property and consolidated their day care operations there, leaving the rear building at 53 High Street vacant. In early 1987, discussions about potentially using the rear building as a residential unit occurred with the Zoning Administrator, but the city was not estopped from enforcing zoning regulations regarding that unit, and this aspect is not contested in the current case. 

In approximately spring 1987, the Hayfords began renting the rear building as a sixth residential unit, which city employees were aware of by April 1989. After a fire in 1993, they obtained a zoning/building permit for repairs. In 1998, they sought a Certificate of Occupancy to sell the property, which was denied by the Zoning Administrator due to non-compliance with zoning regulations, including the absence of ZBA approval for the expansion, an area variance due to property size, and required site plan variances. The Hayfords did not appeal this denial, which became final.

Subsequently, they requested ZBA approval to convert the property to six units, which resulted in the need for five variances, all of which were denied in May 1998 without appeal. In July 1998, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Violation for the six-unit use, despite a statutory provision that only allows for filing land use permits in land records, not violation notices. The Hayfords appealed this notice, but the ZBA's failure to act within the statutory period led to the notice being vacated. On the same day, the Zoning Administrator filed an enforcement action in Superior Court, but summary judgment was ultimately granted in favor of the Hayfords due to the invalidity of the Notice of Violation.

On July 11, 2001, the Zoning Administrator issued a Notice of Violation to the Hayfords for using a property with six dwelling units, directing them to cease using two units without specifying the rear unit. This notice was recorded in accordance with 24 V.S.A. § 4496. The Hayfords appealed the notice to the Development Review Board (DRB), which upheld the violation in September 2001. They also applied for a variance to convert the rear building into a dwelling unit while reducing the main building to five units; however, the DRB denied this request.

The Hayfords subsequently appealed both decisions to Environmental Court, which ruled on February 26, 2003, that the Notice of Violation regarding the fifth apartment in the main building was overturned, but upheld the violation concerning the rear building. The court also determined that the statute of limitations for enforcing the rear building's residential use had not expired as of December 31, 2001. The Hayfords continued to rent the sixth unit until transferring the property to Gregory Benoit and Deborah Kane on June 30, 2003. 

Two weeks prior to the transfer, on June 16, 2003, the Zoning Administrator filed a complaint against the Hayfords for injunctive relief and penalties regarding the rear building's residential use, which was later amended to include Benoit and Kane and transferred to Environmental Court. The statute of limitations under 24 V.S.A. § 4496 allows enforcement actions within 15 years of the alleged violation. The burden of proof regarding the timing of the violation lies with the defendant. 

It was established that using the rear building as a residence violated the City’s Zoning Regulations, as the 1998 denial of a Certificate of Occupancy was not contested, and the subsequent Notice of Violation was upheld. The Hayfords had sought variances for the rear unit in 1998 and 2001, both of which were denied and cannot be contested now.

The City has the authority to initiate an enforcement action for injunctive relief under 24 V.S.A. 4470(c) to uphold the denial of variances and the notice of violation concerning the residential use of a rear building, regardless of potential limitations imposed by 24 V.S.A. 4496. The Court plans to conduct a telephone conference with the parties before making any rulings related to the statute of limitations. The building owners may apply for a change in the non-conforming use of the rear building from a day care to a residential unit, which requires DRB approval under more favorable conditions than a variance. The Court will defer its decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment pending this conference, where the parties will discuss the City's intentions and clarify the distinction between construction violations and use violations. Use violations are generally considered ongoing and may trigger the statute of limitations differently than construction violations. A conference is scheduled for June 4, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., but can be rescheduled to June 28, 2004, if the parties need more time to prepare. Additional details include that the status of the rear unit's occupancy is unclear, and there are unresolved legal questions regarding the statute of limitations in relation to the issuance of a Notice of Violation and its implications for enforcement actions.