Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the Carters appealed a decision by the Orleans Superior Court that granted Carole Kashner a variance to construct a summer home on Lot 29, subject to a 150-foot setback from Caspian Lake. Initially, the Greensboro Zoning Board of Adjustment denied Kashner's variance request, citing her ability to comply with zoning regulations due to additional property holdings. The superior court modified the variance, allowing construction 100 feet from the shore without remanding the case to the Board. The Carters challenged this decision, arguing lack of evidence and procedural errors. The appellate court reversed the superior court's ruling, finding that the trial court had misidentified the central issue and failed to consider Kashner’s entire property when assessing the variance request. The court held that merely possessing a small lot does not warrant a variance absent compliance with all statutory criteria under 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a). This decision underscored the necessity to evaluate all property holdings in variance applications and affirmed the superior court's jurisdiction despite procedural errors. An amicus brief from a neighbor highlighted due process concerns but did not alter the outcome.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Entire Property in Zoning Variance Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The superior court erred by not considering all of Kashner’s property holdings when evaluating the variance request.
Reasoning: It emphasized that the evaluation must consider all of Kashner’s property, including Lot 28 and an unnumbered lot, which could be developed in compliance with zoning regulations.
Judicial Review of Zoning Board Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The reviewing court found the superior court's focus on the wrong issue, leading to a reversal of the decision.
Reasoning: The reviewing court determined that the trial court had incorrectly identified the key issue in the case, thus leading to a reversal of the superior court's decision.
Jurisdiction of Superior Court in Zoning Matterssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal confirmed the superior court's jurisdiction over zoning variance appeals, despite procedural errors.
Reasoning: The appeal was reversed, confirming the superior court's jurisdiction over the case.
Variance Requirements under Zoning Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the existence of a small lot does not automatically justify a variance unless all statutory criteria are met.
Reasoning: The court determined that the existence of a small lot does not alone justify a variance under the statutory criteria outlined in 24 V.S.A. § 4468(a).