In re Appeal of Chatelain

In re Appeal of Chatelain  (94-313); 164 Vt 597; 664 A.2d 269  

[Filed 28-Jun-1995]

                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-313

                              MAY TERM, 1995


In re Appeal of Margaret             }     APPEALED FROM:
Chatelain and Theodore Gabler;       }
Appeal of Daniel Boyd                }
                                     }     Addison Superior Court
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S86/87-92Aca


                    In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


     The Bristol Rescue Squad appeals from an order of the Addison Superior
Court denying its permit application to construct a building to house an
emergency medical response service. We affirm.

     On December 20, 1991 the Bristol Zoning Administrator granted
appellant's construction permit application, and the administrator's
decision was upheld by the Village of Bristol Zoning Board of Adjustment on
February 6, 1992.  Neighboring property owners filed a timely notice of
appeal to the Addison Superior Court, and after a hearing on the merits, the
court held that the proposed building did not meet the definition of a
"community facility" under the Bristol zoning ordinance.  The court also
concluded that the proposed facility did not meet applicable parking and
noise-limitation requirements, but because we conclude that the first issue
is dispositive, we do not address these latter issues.

     The proposed facility is located in a "high density residential"
district, and the only permitted uses by right within this zone are family
dwellings, accessory buildings, home occupations and community facilities.
Village of Bristol, Vt., Zoning Regulations  1002(B)(1) (1987).  The
village's zoning ordinance defines "community facility" as "[any] meeting 
hall, place of assembly, museum, art gallery, library, school, church, or
other similar type of establishment which is not operated primarily for
profit, excluding government facility."  Id.  130.  The superior court 
noted that because the proposed facility was designed to serve as a rallying
point for the delivery of emergency services, it did not fit within the
enumerated purposes of the ordinance.

     We agree that the terms "meeting hall" and "place of assembly" could be
construed to encompass a facility in which emergency personnel gather.
Zoning ordinances are construed according to normal rules of statutory
construction.  See Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 648 A.2d 864, 865 (1994).  We will uphold a trial court construction unless it is
"clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious."  Id.  To construe "meeting 
hall" and "place of assembly" in a manner that would include the rapid 
gathering of emergency personnel would be incongruous with the other terms
in the definition.  See Vermont Baptist Convention v. Burlington Zoning Bd.,
159 Vt. 28, 30, 613 A.2d 710, 711 (1992) (construing zoning ordinance

 

in accordance with rule of ejusdem generis (FN1)).  Other "similar" uses, such
as museum, art gallery, library, school, or church suggest gatherings of
people for purposes that are quiet and have no adverse impact on surrounding
lands.  In addition, the enumerated activities connote purposes which can be
accomplished within the facility, as opposed to those which occur off- site.
Assemblies for the delivery of emergency services are not consistent with
the residential nature of the zone.  We uphold the trial court determination
that the proposed building is not a community facility.

     Defendant argues that because the Board of Adjustment found that the
proposed building fell within the "community facility" definition, we must
accord great deference to the Board's interpretation of its own ordinance.  
See In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402, 408, 584 A.2d 1140, 1144 (1990).  Here,
however, the Board's finding was conclusory; it failed to offer any reason 
or rationale for its decision.  Moreover, there is no evidence of how the
term "community facility" has been interpreted in other cases.  Thus, there
is "no indication of a consistent interpretation of the [zoning] provision"
to which we must give deference.  In re Vermont Nat'l Bank, 157 Vt. 306, 
313, 597 A.2d 317, 320 (1991).

     Affirmed.



     BY THE COURT:



                                _______________________________________
                                Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

                                _______________________________________
                                Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                                _______________________________________
                                John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
__ Publish
                                _______________________________________
                                James L. Morse, Associate Justice
__ Do Not Publish
                                _______________________________________
                                Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Footnotes


FN1.   Ejusdem generis is a rule of statutory construction that means where
general words follow enumerations of particular items, the general words shall
be construed in a manner consistent with the general nature of the enumerated
items.  Black's Law Dictionary 464 (5th ed. 1979).