Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Donald Gould’s challenges to Monkton’s Unified Planning Document zoning regulations. The court held that statutory challenges to the enactment of municipal zoning regulations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the environmental division, and that adoption of the regulations was a legislative rather than adjudicative act. The court also held that Gould had no constitutionally protected property interest in compliance with the zoning-enactment procedures or in continued application of the prior zoning regulations.
Holdings
- The environmental division has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under 24 V.S.A. chapter 117, including claims challenging the procedural enactment of municipal planning laws; the civil division therefore lacked jurisdiction over Gould's statutory challenge.
- A landowner has no constitutionally protected property interest in strict compliance with statutory procedures used to adopt generally applicable zoning regulations.
- Gould had no constitutionally protected property interest in continued application of the 1978 zoning regulations because he filed his permit application after the UPD took effect; a permit application vests rights only in the regulations in existence when a full and complete application is filed and cannot retroactively vest rights in prior regulations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Vermont Superior Court's civil division had jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action challenging the statutory enactment procedures for municipal zoning regulations under 24 V.S.A. chapter 117.
- Whether a landowner has a constitutionally protected property interest in strict governmental compliance with statutory procedures for adopting zoning regulations.
- Whether a landowner has a constitutionally protected property interest in continued application of prior zoning regulations based on development plans, reliance, or a permit application filed after new regulations took effect.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (16)
- Hopkinton Scout Leaders Ass'n v. Guilford, 2004 VT 2, ¶ 8, 176 Vt. 577, 844 A.2d 753 (mem.)(cited)
- In re D.K., 2012 VT 23, ¶ 12, 191 Vt. 328, 47 A.3d 347(cited)
- Harvey v. Town of Waitsfield, 137 Vt. 80, 83, 401 A.2d 900, 901 (1979)(followed)
- Mohr v. Vill. of Manchester, 161 Vt. 562, 641 A.2d 89 (1993)(noted)
- LaFlamme v. Essex Junction Sch. Dist., 170 Vt. 475, 480, 750 A.2d 993, 997 (2000)(followed)
- Ahern v. Mackey, 2007 VT 27, ¶ 11, 181 Vt. 599, 925 A.2d 1011 (2007) (mem.)(followed)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)(followed)
- Appeal of Stratton Corp., 157 Vt. 436, 442-45, 600 A.2d 297, 300-02 (1991)(followed)
- Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915)(followed)
- Lake Bomoseen Ass'n v. Vermont Water Resources Board, 2005 VT 79, ¶ 12, 178 Vt. 375, 886 A.2d 355(followed)
Showing top 10 of 16.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…