In re Shearer Variance
Annotate this CaseENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 88-393 SPECIAL JANUARY TERM, 1990 In re Shearer Variance } APPEALED FROM: } } Chittenden Superior Court } } DOCKET NO. S843-88CnC In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter: The trial court's rulings are not clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious. In re McDonald, slip op. at 3-4 (Vt. Mar. 3, 1989). The rotting and unsound beams and joists constituted "damage" to the structure as that term is commonly understood and was brought about by a cause "similar" to "fire, collapse, [or] explosion." Shelburne Zoning Bylaws. { 1420.2(4). We must read the ordinance strictly resolving any doubts in favor of the landowner. See, e.g., In re Vitale, slip op. at 6 (Vt. Apr. 21, 1989) ("in construing land use regulations any uncertainty must be decided in favor of the property owner"). There is no reasonable way to conclude that the ordinance was intended to permit reconstruction of a noncomplying structure damaged by a catastrophic occurrence as opposed to damage caused by termites or dry rot, for example. Even if we accept appellant's view that the house in issue was a noncomplying structure governed by { 1420.2(4) of the Shelburne Zoning Bylaws, its reconstruction, according to the trial court's findings, conformed with all the zoning bylaws "except the minimum setback of 100 feet from the 102 foot elevation mark." This finding was not clearly erroneous. Bills v. Wardsboro, 150 Vt. 541, 545, 554 A.2d 673, 676 (1988). The fact that the replacement structure was somewhat larger than the original is irrelevant because the only factor rendering the structure noncomplying was its distance from the shore, not its size. Affirmed. BY THE COURT: Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice John A. Dooley, Associate Justice [ ] Publish James L. Morse, Associate Justice [ ] Do Not Publish Lewis E. Springer, District Judge (Ret.), Specially Assigned
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.