Application of 66 North Main Street, 481 A.2d 1053 (Vt. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Application of 66 North Main Street, 481 A.2d 1053 (Vt. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In Re Appeal of Rumsey (vt, 2012-08-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Appeal of Rumsey
Vt. · 2012 · confidence medium
In the context of a zoning appeal, this Court held in In re 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984), that a decision not rendered by a majority of the zoning board was no decision at all.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Appeal of Ashline
Vt. · 2003 · confidence medium
See In re Reynolds, 170 Vt. 352, 353 , 749 A.2d 1133, 1133 (2000) (direct appeal to environmental court following approval of application); Newton, 167 Vt. at 461, 708 A.2d at 916 (direct appeal of adverse zoning decision to environmental court claiming ZBA vote ineffective); Fish, 150 Vt. at 463 , 554 A.2d at 257 (appellants filed a timely appeal from written denial of application for conditional use approval); In re 66 N. Main St, 145 Vt. 1, 2 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1054 (1984) (partnership appealed zoning board decision denying variance following-statutorily defective vote); City of Winooski v. B…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Lionni
Vt. · 1993 · confidence medium
In re 66 No. Main St., 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Papazoni (2×)
Vt. · 1993 · confidence medium
Where the meaning of a statute is unambiguous, it must be. enforced according to its terms, In re 66 No. Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984), and “there is no need for construction.” Paquette v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 83, 86 , 499 A.2d 23, 26 (1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sirloin Saloon of Shelburne, Rutland, & Manchester, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Training
Vt. · 1989 · confidence medium
Paquette v. Paquette, 146 Vt. 83, 86 , 499 A.2d 23, 26 (1985); In re 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Axelrod
Vt. · 1988 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. In re 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 2 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984) (plain ordinary meaning of statutory language is presumed).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vermont Development Credit Corp. v. Kitchel
Vt. · 1988 · confidence medium
In re 66 N. Main St., 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) City of Rutland v. McDonald's Corp.
Vt. · 1985 · confidence medium
McDonald’s cites In re 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Appeal of Reynolds (2×)
Vt. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. at 3 , 481 A.2d at 1055 . 2 This case necessarily adopts a construction of § 172 directly contrary to that urged by the Town.
discussed Cited "see" Blundon v. Town of Stamford (2×)
Vt. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re 66 North Main Street, 145 Vt. 1, 2 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984) (plain and ordinary meaning of statutory language is presumed).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cavanaugh v. Abbott Laboratories (2×)
Vt. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Heisse v. State, 143 Vt. 87, 89 , 460 A.2d 444, 445 (1983); see also In re 66 North Main Street, A Partnership, 145 Vt. 1, 2-3 , 481 A.2d 1053, 1055 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Application of 66 North Main Street, a Partnership
83-616.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Aug 3, 1984.
481 A.2d 1053
Alan P. Biederman and Linda Aylesworth Reis of Biederman & Rakow, P.C., Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Frank H. Zetelski, City Attorney, Rutland, for Defendant-Appellant.
Billings, Hill, Underwood, Peck, Gibson.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Billings, CJ.

The appellant, City of Rutland (City), appeals from an order of summary judgment for declaratory relief by[*2] the Rutland Superior Court in favor of appellee 66 North Main Street, A Partnership (Partnership).

In early 1983, the Partnership applied to the City zoning administrator for a building permit, which was denied. Subsequently, in March, 1983, the Partnership appealed the denial of a building permit, 24 V.S.A. § 4464, and sought a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) for the City. The Partnership sought the variance for the construction of four new office condominium buildings as well as the renovation of a building already located on the 2y% acre site. A hearing was held before the Board in April, 1983; in June the Board issued its findings, conclusions and order denying the variance. Although the Board consists of five members, only three members were in attendance when the vote denying the variance was granted, and only two of those three voted to deny. The third member did not vote.

Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471, the Partnership appealed the decision of the Board to the Rutland Superior Court. The court ruled that: (1) the Board had failed to issue proper findings of fact, as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4470, in that crucial “findings” were actually conclusions without evidentiary support; (2) the Board’s order was invalid because only two members of the five member board signed the order. 24 V.S.A. § 4462 (a). Based on these two grounds, the court ruled that the Board had failed to render a decision within the prescribed time and that, therefore, the variance was deemed granted to the Partnership. 24 V.S.A. § 4470.

On appeal to this Court, the City first argues that the superior court erred in its interpretation of 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a). That statute reads, in pertinent part:

For the conduct of any hearing and the taking of any action, a quorum shall be not less than a majority of the members of the board, and any action thereof shall be taken by the concurrence of a majority of the board.

The City contends that the plain meaning of the statute is that any action taken by the Board must be by a majority of those members present at the time of the vote.

In the construction of a statute, the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language is presumed. In re [*3] Middlebury College Sales & Use Tax, 137 Vt. 28, 31, 400 A.2d 965, 967 (1979). When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, this Court must enforce the statute according to its terms. Marden v. Walton, 142 Vt. 204, 207, 455 A.2d 321, 322 (1982). 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a) does not say, as the City would prefer, that any action of the Board shall be taken by the concurrence of a majority of those members present and voting ; § 4462 (a) clearly and unambiguously requires that there be a “concurrence of a majority of the board.” See 1 V.S.A. § 172 “When joint authority is given to three or more, the concurrence of a majority of such number shall be . . . required in its exercise.”). Since only two of the five member Board signed the order denying the variance, the order “was patently defective under the statute . . . .” City of Winooski v. Barnes, 142 Vt. 27, 30, 451 A.2d 1140, 1141 (1982). As such, we agree with the trial court that the Board failed to render a decision, within 45 days after hearing, as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4470(a). Potter v. Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment, 137 Vt. 445, 446-47, 407 A.2d 170, 171 (1979) (defective decision made within 45 day time period construed as no decision at all). By its failure to comply with the prerequisites of 24 V.S.A. § 4462(a), the variance sought by the Partnership devolved upon it as a matter of law. 24 V.S.A. § 4470(a) (“If the board does not render its decision within the period prescribed . . . , the board shall be deemed to have rendered a decision in favor of the appellant and granted the relief requested by him on the last day of such period.”) ; Potter v. Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment, supra, 137 Vt. at 447-48, 407 A.2d at 172.

Because we affirm based on the invalidity of the Board’s order, we decline to address the other issue briefed on appeal.

Affirmed.