Quite An Article On The Fairfax Boarding House

The following article was written by Michelle Monroe, St. Albans Messenger Staff Writer and published in the Weekend Edition of The St. Albans Messenger Dated Saturday April 13, 2013

FAIRFAX: Home of contention

Beliveau boarding house really litigiouslandmark

By MICHELLE MONROE
Messenger Staff Writer

FAIRFAX - Since 2008 the Town of Fairfax has been battling in court to force Leon Beliveau to comply with the town's zoning laws. But now that Beliveau has acquired the necessary permits, his neighbors are discussing an appeal to the Vermont Environmental Court that, once again, would extend the long-running battle.
The basis of the complaints goes to the core of zoning regulations and what neighbors call obnoxious behavior that disrupts their otherwise quite home life.

Beliveau owns the 4,000-square-foot home on the corner of Hunt and Main Streets. According to court documents, he has rented out rooms in the house for years without ever applying for a permit to operate a boarding house.

Beliveau told the Messenger he has been renting rooms since 2001, although the town did not issue a notice of zoning violation until 2008.

Last fall, after years of legal battles (see accompanying article), Beliveau complied with a court order
requiring that he either obtain a permit or cease renting rooms. On Jan. 2, the Fairfax Development
Review Board (DRB) granted him both site plan approval and conditional use for a boarding house,
provided he met several conditions.

Having met those conditions, he was granted a permit several weeks ago, according to Fairfax Zoning
Administrator Skip Taylor.

Beliveau's neighbors have hired an attorney and plan to appeal the permit.

During the permit hearings in Fairfax, multiple residents complained about noise, alleged criminal
activity, and a decline in property values resulting from the boarding house.

"The neighborhood is just so frustrated," said Diane Henning, who lives on Hunt Street. "There are
so many police calls, so many problems."

Beliveau said the complaints of poor behavior by his tenants have not been specific enough. "I need to
know when. I need to know what happened, not these vague allegations," said Beliveau.

"If these people are accused of something, they need to face their accusers," he said.
\ Neighbors' views ...
In a Dec. 5, 2012 letter to the DRB, Brett and Michele Phillips and Marc Brunelle wrote of disturbances
caused by fireworks, drinking parties, unnecessary revving of motorcycle and car engines as well as swearing and yelling of obscenities at passerbys.

"Over the past several years Mr. Beliveau has demonstrated a complete disregard for Fairfax zoning laws and is unable to enforce oversight over tenants' behavior," they wrote.

In a separate letter Sue and John Mitchell and Inga and Tim White described the boarding house as "an unmanageable, undesirable use of his property," based on events over the past several years. "It is
detrimental to the neighborhood and the village overall: they wrote. They, too, felt Beliveau's past
behavior indicated he would not comply with the town's zoning laws or any requirements of the DRB.

At a Sept. 27, 2012 meeting of the DRB, Brunelle said his house had been hit by a paint ball. David
- Parenteau spoke of problems with uncontained trash as well as cigarettes and beer cans lying on the ground. The Whites presented the DRB with a photo of a firecracker they said had come onto their
property from Beliveau's building.
Henning is one of 89 residents in Fairfax Village who signed a petition urging the DRB not to grant a permit to Beliveau for a boarding house. According to the petitioners, the boarding house will: "degrade and alter the character of the neighborhood; adversely impact adjacent properties; create a nuisance that will impact the citizens of Fairfax; not fit with the character of the existing usage in the zoned I district."

Other homes in the area have been turned into apartments and rented, according to Taylor.

Beliveau attempted to appeal the minutes of the meeting. He was informed minutes are not appealable.

He also appealed reports from the Division of Fire Safety, claiming the report - which was a required part of his application for a boarding house - "bared of false witness against me" by saying he had been using
the building as a boarding house without a permit.

The report, based on a Sept., 17, 2012 inspection, found eight violations, including the absence of a
sprinkler system, fire and carbon monoxide detectors without batteries, windows that did not meet size
requirements, and handrails that were out of compliance.

Beliveau subsequently reduced the number of rooms he planned to rent in order to eliminate the need
for a sprinkler system and a second inspection was conducted on Nov.' 5, 2012.

Even without the need for a sprinkler system, the building had six violations, including smoke detectors
that were still without batteries, inadequate electrical outlets in bathrooms, kitchens and laundry areas, and
windows not wide enough to serve as emergency exits.

"Occupancy is denied," the report concluded.

Beliveau appealed that report as well, referring to multiple "allegations and convictions against me."
Included in the list of supposed allegations was his name.

In order to get his permit for a boarding house, Beliveau had to correct the problems identified in the fire safety report and provide written evidence from the Division of Fire Safety showing he was in compliance. He also needed to change exterior lighting fixtures secure additional sewer allocations, and
install a 'no parking' sign in the area to assure emergency vehicle access.

At all times, he must maintain parking and emergency access as shown on the site plan approved by the DRB. He must keep garbage covered, live in the building, install a privacy fence and take prompt action to correct any disruptive behavior.

Despite having gotten his permit, Beliveau is on the agenda for the next DRB meeting next Wednesday,
April 17 . He is asking for a change of use to, he said, "a group of six quiet individuals not living as a family
use."

, Beliveau maintains the property is not a rooming and boarding house but "a single non-family dwelling."

Asked about the court history, Beliveau said, "I'm innocent," adding, "What illegal act did I commit?"

Court history
Vermont Environmental Court judge Meredith Wright found Beliveau guilty of operating a boarding house without a permit. She also found him guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order to either return the home to it's approved use - a single family residence - or get the necessary permits for a boarding house.

Beliveau has appealed the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Ironically, it was Beliveau who originally took the matter to' court, appealing a notice of violation of the town's zoning laws issued by Taylor and upheld by the DRB.

Wright ruled in favor of the town, but when Beliveau appealed to the Supreme Court, they ruled the evidence had not been sufficient to establish that he had lived in the property while charging rent to
tenants for a fixed period of time, both elements of Fairfax's definition of a boarding house. The court
remanded the case back to Wright.

With additional evidence, including tax records, and testimony from Beliveau and at least one former tenant, the court again ruled in Fairfax's favor, finding Beliveau had been operating a boarding house without a permit. Beliveau was ordered to pay the town $63,000 and either return the building to a single family home or
get a permit.

In May 2012, Wright found Beliveau in contempt for failing to comply with the court's decision.
Instead of ceasing to rent rooms or getting a permit, Beliveau had moved out of the building. Beliveau argued he was no longer operating a boarding house because he was no longer living in the building, an element of the boarding house definition.

Wright found his actions "against the spirit and intent" of her order. She granted that he was, nevertheless, no longer operating a boarding house. However, Wright found he had failed to return the building to a
single-family use since the tenants were not living as a single household.

Finding Beliveau in contempt, she gave him ·until Oct. 24, 2012 to come into compliance with her order,
with a $100 fine for every day he failed to comply.

Beliveau maintains he did nothing wrong. No change of use really occurred,” he said, although the house was a single-family residence when he moved into it in 2001.

Beliveau insisted that if he was sitting in his living room watching TV before he began renting rooms, it’s the same area as if he’s watching TV after he began renting rooms.

While it may be the same use from his perspective, his neighbors, the town, and the courts clearly disagree.