Plain‐Language Zoning Interpretation and Limited Environmental Division Jurisdiction: In Re Dousevicz, Inc.

Introduction

In In Re Dousevicz, Inc. CU & Site Plan Approval (2025 VT 22), the Vermont Supreme Court confronted two interlocking questions arising from a Town of Castleton decision to approve a ninety-nine–unit senior-living building as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Neighbors challenged (1) the Environmental Division’s jurisdiction to entertain certain issues not raised in the geographic scope of the appellant’s “statement of questions,” and (2) the proper classification under local zoning bylaws of the project’s memory-care component and its kitchen arrangements. The Court (a) affirmed the Environmental Division’s limited jurisdiction to issues preserved in the appellant’s statement of questions, and (b) reversed the legal standard applied to the memory-care unit’s classification, holding that an unambiguous local zoning definition controls—even over more detailed state licensing statutes—and remanded for findings under the plain language of the bylaw.

Summary of the Judgment

Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court reviewed de novo the Environmental Division’s determination that it lacked authority to rule on a height-waiver challenge because neighbors did not appeal or join that issue in the appellant’s statement of questions.
Use-Classification: The lower court had imported the state’s “long-term care facility” definitions to decide whether the memory-care unit was a “nursing home” or a “multi-family dwelling.” The Supreme Court held that the local bylaw’s unambiguous definition of “nursing home”—“a place…accommodating two or more…persons…who…require in house nursing care”—must govern. Because the Environmental Division applied the wrong legal standard, the Court reversed and remanded on that question.
Kitchen Condition: The Court also determined that striking the DRB’s requirement of a full kitchen in every unit was proper for the independent- and assisted-living portions, as those satisfied the bylaw’s requirement that residents “do their own cooking in the building.” It left to the remand whether the memory-care units, with their communal cooking arrangements, comply with the same language.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning rested on established principles of statutory and zoning-ordinance interpretation, and on prior Vermont decisions constraining the Environmental Division’s scope of review:

In re Atwood Planned Unit Dev., 2017 VT 16 – The Environmental Division’s authority is limited to the legal issues framed in an appellant’s statement of questions, acting “like a pleading to limit the issues” on de novo review.
In re DJK, LLC WW & WS Permit, 2024 VT 34 – Reinforces that the Environmental Division is a court of limited jurisdiction under 4 V.S.A. § 34, confined to issues properly appealed and framed.
In re JSCL, LLC CU Permit, 2021 VT 22 – Confirms de novo review of municipal zoning bylaws and no deference to the Environmental Division’s interpretations.
In re 232511 Invs., Ltd., 2006 VT 27 – Applies general rules of statutory construction to zoning ordinances, seeking legislative intent and giving words their plain and ordinary meaning.
In re Stowe Club Highlands, 1995 – Prohibits importing definitions from external statutes when the zoning text is clear and unambiguous.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis unfolded in three parts:

Scope of Review: Under V.R.E.C.P. 5(f) and 10 V.S.A. § 8504(h), the Environmental Division can only decide the legal issues identified in the appellant’s statement of questions. Neighbors’ height-waiver challenge fell outside that scope because it was neither appealed nor included in the statement of questions—even though zoning provisions generally require adherence to all district standards, with discrete waiver provisions.
Plain Meaning Controls: When a zoning provision is unambiguous, courts must enforce it “according to its terms, without resort to ancillary rules.” MBL Assocs. v. City of S. Burlington. The bylaw’s definition of “nursing home”—“accommodating…persons…who…require in house nursing care”—speaks for itself. The Environmental Division erred by substituting the state’s nuanced definitions of long-term care licenses.
Unit-by-Unit Kitchen Requirement: The bylaw defines a “multi-family dwelling unit” as three or more families “living independently…and doing their own cooking in the building.” As to the independent- and assisted-living units, shared kitchens and kitchenettes satisfy that requirement. For the memory-care units, however, the question remains whether their communal cooking setup meets the same language or triggers the “nursing home” definition.

Impact

This decision will influence future municipal zoning litigation and approvals in at least three ways:

Strict Adherence to Local Text: Towns can rely on the plain language of their zoning bylaws—even if definitions are shorter or older than state regulatory schemes—whenever text is clear and unambiguous.
Narrow Environmental Division Jurisdiction: Appellants must carefully craft their statement of questions; appellees cannot bootstrap issues outside that framework without filing cross-appeals or motions to clarify.
Hybrid-Use Projects: Mixed residential uses (independent, assisted, memory care) in a PUD must be analyzed component by component. Residual “cooking” or other facility requirements may be satisfied collectively (as in a group house) but the classification of each component must track the precise bylaw language unless an ambiguity invites further inquiry.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Planned Unit Development (PUD): A consolidated zoning and site-plan framework allowing a mix of uses—often residential types—subject to specific bylaws and conditions.
Environmental Division Jurisdiction: A specialized Vermont trial court that hears land-use and environmental appeals de novo, but only on the issues properly raised in an appellant’s statement of questions.
“Nursing Home” (zoning definition): Locally defined as a non-hospital facility accommodating two or more unrelated persons who “require in house nursing care”—a term that must be taken at face value if unambiguous.
“Multi-Family Dwelling Unit”: A building for three or more families “living independently of each other, and doing their own cooking in the building,” akin to apartments or group houses.

Conclusion

In Re Dousevicz, Inc. clarifies two enduring principles in Vermont land-use law. First, courts must interpret local zoning bylaws according to their plain text; absent ambiguity, builders and municipalities may not import external statutory frameworks to alter use definitions. Second, the Environmental Division’s reach is tightly confined by the appellant’s statement of questions, reinforcing the need for precise issue preservation in de novo appeals. On remand, the trial court must apply the bylaw’s unambiguous “in-house nursing care” benchmark to the memory-care units and decide whether they qualify as a nursing home or remain part of the multi-family dwelling. That analysis will shape how senior-living and other hybrid residential developments proceed under municipal zoning regimes across Vermont.