Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

....~ , 104 '1 1 i Z.B. August 10, 1997 - Page 3 determine aesthetic issues, it had to show a factual basis for doing so. The township and its expert could not give any factual reasons for banning neon outright, rather than just regulating it. If "it all depend[ ed]," as the expert said, the neon could be regulated and not simply banned. see also: State v. Mortimer, 641 A.2d 257 (1994). see also: Capitol Movies Inc. v. City of Passaic, 476A.2d 869 (1984). Notice - Did notice's 'call if you have any questions' statement satisfy owner's due process rights? Town of Randolph v. Estate of Mildred White, 693 A.2d 694 (Vermont) 1997 White owned 56 acres in Randolph, Vt., on which he kept junk vehicles. On May 17, 1993, the town's zoning administrator sent White a three-page violation notice stating White's accumulation of junk vehicles and other debris on the land violated the town's zoning regulations. The notice informed White he had to stop accumulating junk and had to have the already-accumulated junk removed by June 1, 1993. According to state law, fines of up to $50 would be assessed for each day of violation, so the letter instructed White to remove the junk by June 15 to avoid penalties. The notice told White to contact the zoning administrator or town attorney with any questions and to inform the administrator when the violation was cor- rected, so the site could be inspected. In August 1993, the town filed a complaint against White, seeking a court order to have the junk removed and to assess fines. The town asked for judgment without a trial, arguing the only issue that required a trial was the amount of the fine. White also requested judgment without a trial, asking the court to dismiss the town's complaint, arguing the notice failed to inform him of his right to request within 15 days a hearing to contest the administrator's decision. The court denied White's requests and granted the town judgment without a trial. It found the notice was properly issued and said White was bound by the administrator's decision because he didn't contest it before the zoning board of adjustment. The court did not directly address White's due process claim. At a later hearing, the court ordered White to remove the junk vehicles within 45 days and said he would be fined for each day he failed to do so. White appealed, arguing the notice violated his due process rights by not informing him that he could file a request for a hearing within 15 days. Due process violations occurred when the state deprived individuals of their inter- est in using property. In addition, White said the notice failed to inform him that the hearing was the exclusive remedy for challenging the administrator's decisions, or that, without his requesting a hearing within 15 days, the decision would become final. The town argued it did inform White of his right to a hearing, but that White failed to take advantage of the opportunity. DECISION: Reversed and returned in part. White had a protectable interest in his junk cars, and the notice violated his