The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D owned a building for his plumbing business and zoning ordinance required structures in D's zone to be set back one hundred feet from Route 4. D's building represented a nonconforming preexisting use that was set back only fifty-five feet from Route 4 with a preexisting porch that further reduced the setback. In 1986, P granted D a zoning permit to enclose the porch without changing the amount of set-back from Route 4. D then tore down the porch and built an enclosed structure in its place. During construction, the zoning administrator sent D a letter stating that the new enclosure would be two feet closer to Route 4 than the former porch and, therefore, violated the zoning ordinance. The letter stated that unless D reduced the size of the enclosure P would sue to have the extra two feet removed from the building. D ignored the letter and P sued for an injunction to have the extra two feet removed and for a fine of fifty dollars per day pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4444(a). D argues that the dimensions on the plans he had submitted were erroneous and the enclosed building front was only two inches closer to Route 4 than the edge of the roof on the former porch. D also testified that the zoning administrator, when he issued the permit, had assured him that a couple of feet would not matter. The court determined that it would not require D to tear down the new enclosure. It imposed a daily fine of fifty dollars per day from the time the enclosure was built but limited the overall fine to $1000 plus interest until paid. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.