164 North Willard Street Notice of Zoning Violation - Decision on Motion

Page 1 of 3
VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Environmental Division Docket No. 26-ENV-00017
32 Cherry St, 2nd Floor, Suite 303,
Burlington, VT 05401
802-951-1740
www.vermontjudiciary.org
164 North Willard Street Notice of Zoning Violation
ENTRY ORDER
Title: Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion #5)
Filer: Matthew A. Zidovsky, Esq.
Filed Date: May 1, 2026
Response to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 30, 2026, by Melanie
Jannery and Margaret Tamulonis, Pro Se
City of Burlington’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 5,
2026, by Kimberlee J. Sturtevant, Esq.
Appellant’s Response to Jannery/Tamulonis Response to Appellant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed June 11, 2026, by Matthew A. Zidovsky, Esq.
Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 2, 2026, by Matthew A.
Zidovsky, Esq.
The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
This matter involves an appeal by Luke Purvis (Appellant) from the City of Burlington (City)
Development Review Board (DRB)’s denial of an appeal of a notice of violation (NOV) issued for a
property located at 164 North Willard Street, Burlington, Vermont.
Appellant moves for summary judgment, arguing that the NOV failed to adequately “state
the facts giving rise to the alleged violation,” as required by 24 V.S.A. § 4451(a)(2)(B). The City and
Interested Persons Melanie Jannery and Margaret Tamulonis oppose the motion.1 For the reasons
discussed below, the Court concludes that the NOV adequately states the facts underlying the principal
identified violation—allowing zoning permit ZP-21-275 to expire without obtaining a certificate of
occupancy (CO). To the extent that the NOV (and subsequent DRB decision) suggest that any aspect
of the work authorized by that permit and/or the approved project plans violates the terms and
conditions of the permit, plans, or the City’s Comprehensive Development Ordinance (CDO), we
conclude that the NOV inadequately states the facts underlying those other alleged violations.
1 Ms. Jannery and Ms. Tamulonis own neighboring property located at 172 North Willard Street.

Page 2 of 3
By way of background, the Court held a status conference with the parties on July 13, 2026.
During that conference, the Court indicated that it had reviewed the parties’ respective filings relating
to Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court observed that the City’s response to the
motion argued that the NOV was valid in that it stated the facts underlying the principal violation (i.e.,
the relevant zoning permit expired without the owner obtaining a CO), while conceding that additional
language in the NOV (stating “the completed work appears inconsistent with the approved project
plans (fence appears to have been at least partially built upon neighboring 172 Willard St.))” was merely
illustrative of the principal violation. In other words, the City admits that those aspects of the NOV
that address other “apparent” violations related to the work were not properly part of the NOV (i.e.,
they do not state the facts of separate, additional violations) and that the only enforceable part of the
NOV relates to the failure to obtain a CO. Given this circumstance, the Court stated on the record
that, while it had not made a definitive ruling, it would likely grant summary judgment in part and
deny it in part. Based on this preliminary evaluation, the Court laid out two possible paths forward
for the appeal―it could take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision on the motion
for summary judgment or the parties could stipulate to a proposed Judgment Order (JO) regarding
the validity of the NOV, without a written decision. The Court would then issue the stipulated JO,
leaving appropriate next steps to the parties. The parties indicated that they understood these options
and would confer and try to reach agreement regarding appropriate next steps. The Court gave the
parties two weeks to determine how they wished to proceed. Despite inquiry from the Court regarding
the status of their discussions, no stipulation has been filed. Therefore, the Court has determined that
it is appropriate to issue this decision.
While the parties dispute certain facts that are immaterial to the outcome of this matter, the
substance of the NOV is undisputed and material. Dated October 8, 2025, the NOV, which is
addressed to Appellant and references a violation at 164 North Willard Street, Burlington, Vermont,
provides in pertinent part:
Description of Violation: Zoning Permit ZP-21-275 has expired without its
required certificate of occupancy and the completed work appears to be
inconsistent with approved project plans (fence appears to have been at least
partially built upon neighboring 172 North Willard St.).
Appellant argues that this language fails to meet the notice requirements of 24 V.S.A. § 4451(a)(2). In
response, the City states that “[t]he description gives the facts that give rise to the Notice of
Violation―ZP-21-275 has expired and doesn’t have a required certificate of occupancy . . . While the
additional description [noting that the work that is completed appears to be inconsistent with the
approved project plans and giving the example of the fence] gives an example of the inconsistency, it
does not take away from the clear identified violation―there is no certificate of occupancy.” City’s
Opposition at 3. Similarly, the Affidavit of Scott Gustin, the Zoning Manager and Principal Planner
for the City’s Department of Permitting and Inspections, states that “[w]hile the NOV noted that the
fence appeared to have been at least partially built upon neighboring 172 North Willard Street, that
was part of the underlying facts of the violation that the property did not have a certificate of
occupancy to close out the permit after the work was done and the permit had expired.” Affidavit of
Scott W. Gustin, ¶ 9. The Court agrees that the NOV adequately notifies Appellant regarding the
expiration of his zoning permit and his failure to obtain a CO. Therefore, Appellant’s motion for
summary judgment is DENIED to the extent that it argues the NOV does not state the facts

Page 3 of 3
underlying that alleged violation. However, summary judgment is GRANTED to Appellant on the
issue of whether the NOV adequately identifies the facts giving rise to any other violation related to
the “completed work.” It does not do so, and the City concedes that its reference to the work’s
inconsistency with the approved project plans and the fence partially built on neighboring property
simply describes “the underlying facts of the violation that the property did not have a certificate of
occupancy.” Id. In other words, notwithstanding any other language in the NOV, it establishes only
one properly identified violation involving Appellant’s failure to obtain a CO prior to permit
expiration.
Since this matter is an appeal of an NOV, not an enforcement action, this order concludes
proceedings before this Court. Appellant and the City will confer and determine appropriate next
steps. This may include Appellant filing a proper application for a CO with the City, which the City’s
planning and zoning staff would then review to determine whether the property is in compliance with
the relevant zoning permit and whether a CO may be issued.2 As the Court understands it, if the City
denies the CO application, it will detail for Appellant the reasons for denial, identifying all areas of
noncompliance. If Appellant elects not to file an application for a CO, the City may also determine
whether to pursue enforcement action.
Accordingly, because the material facts in this case do not present a dispute, Appellant’s
motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A Judgment Order accompanies this decision.
Electronically signed on September 4, 2026, pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d).
Joseph S. McLean
Superior Court Judge
Environmental Division
2 The Court understands that litigation involving a boundary dispute between Appellant and Ms. Jannery and
Ms. Tamulonis is presently pending in the Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division (Chittenden Unit) in Docket No. 26-
CV-01602. The City may wish to await the outcome of that proceeding before making final determinations regarding any
CO application or related matters that may come before it.