Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 505 A.2d 669 (Vt. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 505 A.2d 669 (Vt. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Champlain Oil Co McDuff 19-2-16 Vtec (vtsuperct, 2016-08-01) · Strongest negative: The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee v. The Board of Zoning Appeals Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee (tenn, 2015-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Limited The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee v. The Board of Zoning Appeals Of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee (2×)
Tenn. · 2015 · confidence low
Clearly the city, being interested in the maintenance and development of the city and the property contained therein, has an interest in the real property which may be adversely affected by the wrongful issuance of a variance by the Zoning Appeals Board.”) (citations omitted); Reichard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 8 Ill.App.3d 374 , 290 N.E.2d 349, 353 (1972) (holding that municipality had standing to seek judicial review of its zoning board of appeals’ decision and concluding, in dictum, that municipality was “aggrieved”); Crosby v. Town of Belgrade, 562 A.2d 1228, 1231 (Me.1989) (recogn…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Champlain Oil Co McDuff 19-2-16 Vtec
Vt. Super. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
Sanbourin v. Town of Essex, 146 Vt. 419, 420 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Appeal of 232511 Investments, Ltd.
Vt. · 2006 · confidence medium
The definition of an “interested person” includes “[t]he municipality in which the plan or a bylaw of which is at issue in an appeal brought under this chapter.” 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(2). 2 We have previously held that “[municipalities in Vermont have a limited right to appeal the decisions of their zoning boards; the town plan or a municipal bylaw must be at issue in the case.” Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 146 Vt. 419, 420 , 505 A.2d 669, 670 (1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Appeal of Town of Richmond
Vt. Super. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
Appellee-Applicants argue that the Town has no standing to appeal the DRB= s decision in granting the variance, citing Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 146 Vt. 419, 420-21 (1985) and Rossetti v. Chittenden County Transportation Authority, 165 Vt. 61, 66 (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Appeal of Deptula
Vt. Super. Ct. · 2000 · confidence medium
Appellant argues that the Town has no standing to participate as an interested party, because neither the town plan nor a town ordinance is "at issue" in this case, citing Sabourin v. Town of Essex, 146 Vt. 419, 420-21 (1985) and Rossetti v. Chittenden County Transportation Authority, 165 Vt. 61, 66 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph A. Sabourin
v.
Town of Essex
84-346.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Dec 13, 1985.
505 A.2d 669
Joseph D. Fallon, Hinesburg, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Spokes, Foley & Stitzel, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.
Allen, Hill, Peck, Gibson, Hayes.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

On January 17, 1984, the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Town of Essex granted appellee a variance to allow him to use his property for residential purposes in an area where such use was not permitted by the zoning scheme in effect. The Town appealed the Zoning Board’s decision to the superior court. Appellee moved to dismiss, contending that the Town did not have standing to appeal. The superior court granted the motion, ruling that a municipality was not an “interested person” for purposes of appealing a decision of its zoning board of adjustment to grant a variance. From this ruling, the Town appeals. We affirm.

Under the Vermont statutes, “[a]n interested person may appeal a decision of a board of adjustment to the superior court . . . .” 24 V.S.A. § 4471. The term “interested person” is specifically defined, and it includes “[t]he municipality in which the plan or a by-law of which is at issue in an appeal brought under this chapter . . . .” 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(2).

The Town argues that these provisions give it an unqualified right to contest the determinations of its zoning board. It further contends that this right is necessary to enable municipalities to preserve the integrity of their zoning regulations. We disagree.

Municipalities in Vermont have a limited right to appeal the decisions of their zoning boards; the town plan or a municipal bylaw must be at issue in the case. Here the appellee’s request for a variance was the issue. The Board, empowered to hear and decide requests for variances (24 V.S.A. § 4464(c)), followed the mandate of the legislature and expressly considered each of the five requisite criteria set forth in the statute. See 24 V.S.A. § 4468. At no point during the proceedings was either the town plan or a municipal bylaw at issue.

Although we recognize that some states have granted municipalities “interested person” or “aggrieved person” status under their statutes, we are persuaded that our statutes require us to take the contrary position. In short, we hold that so long as the board acts within the ambit of its variance authority, whether it has acted wisely or not is not a matter which the governing body[*421] can raise on appeal. See Township of Dover v. Board of Adjustment, 158 N.J. Super. 401, 409, 386 A.2d 421, 425 (1978).

Affirmed.