"At its heart, the present controversy is about noise - specifically, airport-generated noise and its effects on immediate neighbors." Airport neighbor, George Maille, appealed the Superior Court, Environmental Division's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees City of Burlington and City of South Burlington. The court upheld the South Burlington Zoning Administrative Office's issuance of fifty-four zoning permits to the City of Burlington and Burlington International Airport (BTV) and concluded that applicants were not required to submit a site plan for zoning board approval. Each permit allowed the BTV to demolish, remove, and fill in the cellar hole of a vacant structure on BTV-owned property. Maille contended that the environmental court erred in concluding that site plan review of the applications was not required under the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Although the Supreme Court disagreed with part of the environmental court’s reasoning, it ultimately affirmed its holding that site plan review was not required for the removal of the structures and the placement of fill in the structures' respective cellar holes. View "In re Burlington Airport Permit" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a restitution order requiring him to pay $2,427.36 for damage to a car. On appeal, he argued: (1) the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the victim’s loss was uninsured; (2) the court failed to make a specific finding that the damage was uninsured; (3) the court erred in admitting and using a repair estimate because it was hearsay; and (4) the court erred in calculating the amount of restitution by using the cost of repair rather than the difference in fair market value before and after the accident. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order. View "Vermont v. Morse" on Justia Law

Applicant Alan Bjerke appealed the Environmental Division's affirmance of the Burlington Development Review Board's decision to deny his application for a zoning permit to alter the exterior of his house. Applicant argued that his zoning permit application was "deemed approved" because the municipal zoning administrator did not act upon it within thirty days. Furthermore, he claimed the Environmental Division erred by admitting the municipal zoning ordinance into evidence after trial and putting the burden of proof of compliance with that ordinance on applicant. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the permit denial.View "In re Bjerke Zoning Permit Denial" on Justia Law

Defendant Brian Aubuchon appealed the superior court’s denial of his request under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 for additional credit toward his aggregated minimum sentence. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Vermont v. Aubuchon" on Justia Law

The Town of Monkton brought a consolidated appeal from decisions of the state appraiser in three property tax cases challenging the Town's 2011 assessment. At issue was the manner in which the Town assessed land that had the potential for subdivision and further development. The state appraiser ruled that the Town had treated taxpayers inequitably by adding additional "home-site values" to undeveloped parcels that are subject to a permitted and recorded subdivision plan. The Town did not add this additional element of appraised value to other undeveloped parcels that may be eligible for subdivision without a permit due to their history or configuration. The Town argued it acted fairly in applying different valuation methods to properties with different characteristics. From the Town’s perspective, the appraised value of a parcel of land with a permit for more than one home should reflect additional development value, and land that could be subdivided but is not the subject of a permit is not similarly situated for purposes of tax appraisal. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Town's arguments and reversed the state appraiser. View "Lathrop v. Town of Monkton" on Justia Law

Developer Vermont North Properties (VNP) appealed from the trial court’s decision in favor of the Village of Derby Center. The dispute centered on VNP’s rights, if any, to water and sewer allocations from the systems managed by the Village in connection with a VNP construction project. The trial court determined that: the Village could charge fees for reserved water and sewer allocations; the Village’s fees were reasonable; the Village could revoke VNP’s reserved allocations for nonpayment of fees; and the Village was not estopped from denying water and sewer connections to VNP on account of nonpayment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that VNP had enforceable reserved water and sewer allocations, but the Village could charge equitable fees for these reservations and may revoke the reservations for nonpayment. Furthermore, the Court concluded that VNP failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the unreasonableness of the Village’s reservation fees, and on that basis the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Vermont North Properties v. Village of Derby Center" on Justia Law

In February 2005, tenants Brian Ayer and Debbie Martell began leasing a single-family home from landlord-plaintiff JW, LLC. Tenants resided in the home with their children and animals, including dogs and chickens. At the time tenants moved in, the house was relatively new and in excellent condition. The monthly rent was $1300. Tenants paid no rent in March and April 2012. They paid rent in May 2012 plus $300 in arrears, but made no further rental payments. Landlord filed for eviction in July 2012. The court issued a rent escrow order. Tenants made only a partial rental payment in August, and the court issued an order for a writ of possession. The writ issued on August 10, 2012 and was served ten days later. The writ stated that tenants had to vacate the premises by midnight on September 6, 2012. On the return of service, the sheriff noted that he had explained the writ and tenants had no questions, and, although tenants refused to take the paperwork, the sheriff left it at the residence. Landlord denied tenant further access to the residence to claim property. Landlord also denied tenant access to the items that landlord had retained. Landlord claimed that the justification for retaining tenants’ personal property was based on two statutes. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on the status of tenants’ personal property, which landlord cleared from the leased premises at the time a writ of possession was executed. The trial court concluded that landlord did not rightfully have possession of the property and ordered landlord to return it to tenant. Landlord argued that pursuant to statute he was entitled to retain the property, and, in the alternative, the court erred in denying his request for a writ of attachment for the property. The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial court that 12 V.S.A. 4854a only allowed a landlord who has evicted a tenant to dispose of trash without the threat of liability, and for other property requires a landlord "to make reasonable efforts to find out what tenant plans to do and to store the property for 60 days." Because the dwelling unit was not abandoned and the tenant did not vacate, 9 V.S.A. 4462 did not apply, and there was no statutory basis to require a landlord to store property remaining in a dwelling unit after an eviction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "JW, LLC v. Ayer and Martell" on Justia Law

Employer Maple Leaf Farm Association, Inc. appealed a decision of the Employment Security Board finding that its former employee Katherine Kelley was involuntarily terminated from her position and therefore eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Employer operated an intensive inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program. Claimant worked for employer as a part-time treatment counselor for seven years. Due to a conflict with a supervisor, claimant resigned from her position in writing on August 29, 2013. She stated in her letter to employer that her last day would be September 19, 2013, and employer allowed her to continue working. Four days later, on September 3, employer terminated her employment and escorted her off the premises. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation. The claims adjudicator determined that she was not entitled to benefits for the first two weeks after her termination because the accrued vacation pay that employer paid her during that period was in excess of her weekly benefit amount. The claims adjudicator further determined that claimant was not entitled to benefits because she had left employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer. Employer appealed the referee’s decision to the Employment Security Board, which adopted the referee’s findings and affirmed its conclusions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. View "Kelley v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

The State of New Hampshire attempted to extradite Vermont resident and petitioner William LaPlante for failing to appear at a 2009 hearing allegedly related to a criminal conviction in New Hampshire in 1998. Following a Governor’s warrant from Vermont, petitioner requested a writ of habeas corpus from the Vermont superior court in Rutland, which was granted on grounds that the warrant lacked information required by statute. Vermont appealed this grant of habeas corpus relief, contesting the court’s holding and its findings regarding the contents of the Governor’s warrant. Finding no reversible error, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re LaPlante" on Justia Law

In December 2011, wife Andrea Joseph filed for divorce after twenty-three years of marriage to husband Neil Joseph. In October 2012, the parties entered into a stipulation agreeing to equally divide certain joint Morgan Stanley accounts. They also agreed in the stipulation that husband would continue to pay, out of the portion of the joint accounts designated to him, “those obligations that were being paid prior to the divorce action, which would include but not be limited to: mortgages, taxes, insurance and utilities for the properties that are owned by either one or both of the parties.” The trial court approved the stipulation and entered it as a court order. This issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the effect of an arrearage accrued under a temporary order following a final divorce decree when the arrearage was not incorporated into the final order or otherwise reduced to judgment. Wife appealed the family court’s denial of her motion to enforce husband Neil Joseph’s obligations under the temporary order after the final divorce decree issued. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s analysis as to the impact of the final divorce order on the allegedly unsatisfied obligations pursuant to the temporary order, and affirmed. View "Joseph v. Joseph" on Justia Law