Old Brick Store Lawsuit, Charlotte, Vermont Neighbors Sue Owner Jolene Kao Over Well, Septic and Parking Dispute

Old Brick Store Lawsuit: What Happened in Charlotte, Vermont?

The owner of the Old Brick Store, a historic general store at 290 Ferry Road in Charlotte, Vermont, is facing a lawsuit from next-door homeowners. Sarah Beal and David Kenyon say the store’s growth has disrupted their property, affected their water supply and created recurring problems with wastewater, parking and delivery trucks.

According to Seven Days (November 4, 2026), the couple sued owner Jolene Kao in September 2026. Kao disputes that the store has improperly changed its operations and says she has worked with engineers and state regulators on the wastewater problems.

This is three connected legal processes, not one lawsuit:

1. Civil lawsuit. Beal and Kenyon v. Kao and related entities, over alleged impacts on their property.
2. Zoning appeal (DRB 26-103-AZA). The neighbors are challenging the zoning administrator’s August 20, 2026 decision that the store did not violate its January 2024 approval.
3. State environmental matter. Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources issued a Notice of Alleged Violation on April 17, 2026, concerning wastewater and water-system permits.

The zoning appeal returns to the Charlotte Development Review Board on November 11, 2026, at 7 p.m.

As of November 5, 2026, no court has found that Kao or the store caused the neighbors’ well problems, and no damages have been awarded. This is a Vermont property dispute, not a Charlotte, North Carolina case, and it is not a class action. There is no settlement fund or claim form.

Old Brick Store Lawsuit: Key Facts

Detail	Information
Business	The Old Brick Store, 290 Ferry Road, Charlotte, Vermont
Owner	Jolene Kao (purchased July 2023)
Entities named in public case index	KaoHaus LLC and Tian Tian World LLC
Plaintiffs	Sarah Beal and David Kenyon
Civil case	Vermont Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division; indexed September 24, 2026 as a declaratory-judgment case
Reported nature of dispute	Property damage, well and septic problems, parking and access
Zoning appeal	DRB 26-103-AZA
Zoning administrator’s decision	August 20, 2026 (no violation found)
State notice	Notice of Alleged Violation, April 17, 2026
Next hearing	November 11, 2026, 7 p.m., Charlotte DRB
Settlement or final ruling	None reported

A note on the civil case: a public court index lists Beal and Kenyon as plaintiffs against KaoHaus LLC, Jolene Kao and Tian Tian World LLC in a declaratory-judgment matter, while Seven Days reports the couple sued for damages. The full complaint was not available for review, so this article does not attach specific negligence, nuisance or trespass counts to the filed lawsuit.

Who Are Sarah Beal, David Kenyon and Jolene Kao in the Old Brick Store Dispute?

Sarah Beal and David Kenyon, the Neighbors

Beal and Kenyon have lived next to the store for about 11 years. They say they valued having a general store nearby and do not want it to close. Their position is that the business should operate without imposing unreasonable costs on the households next door. Kenyon is an eighth-generation Charlotte farmer who co-owns the Nitty Gritty Grain Company of Vermont.

Jolene Kao, Old Brick Store Owner

Kao bought the store in July 2023 and reopened it on September 29, 2023 after renovations, adding an espresso bar, prepared foods and customer seating. She wanted a community gathering place offering groceries, specialty products, food and coffee. She acknowledges that the store’s popularity has created challenges and says she has tried to address them through parking changes, engineering work and cooperation with regulators. She says she could not substantially scale back without putting the business at risk.

Why the Old Brick Store Matters to Charlotte

A general store has stood at the Ferry Road and Greenbush Road intersection since at least the early 1820s, and the current brick building dates to the mid-1800s. More than two dozen residents wrote to the Development Review Board in support of the store during the October hearings, according to local reporting. Others believe the neighbors deserve protection from added parking, wastewater and infrastructure impacts.

What Happened to Sarah Beal and David Kenyon’s Shared Well?

Beal and Kenyon say their household well, which they share with two neighboring homes, repeatedly failed beginning in May 2024. They say the failures often happened during the store’s morning rush, when the business was drawing from a nearby, deeper well. They suspect the store’s withdrawals affected the groundwater available to their well.

They say they paid for well fracking and a storage tank at a reported cost of about $10,000. Fracking here means stimulating an existing well to improve water flow, not oil-and-gas hydraulic fracturing.

Has the Old Brick Store Been Proven Responsible for the Well Failures?

No. As of the November 4 reporting, testing to establish any connection was still pending. Kao has said store meter readings were affected by leaks that have since been repaired. A court would need technical evidence on well depths and locations, the aquifer serving each property, pumping rates, groundwater levels, timing of shortages and whether the store’s withdrawals materially affected the neighbors’ supply. Using a nearby well does not by itself make a business legally responsible for another property’s low water.

Why Did Beal and Kenyon Complain About the Old Brick Store’s Septic System?

How the Store’s Septic System Uses the Neighbors’ Land

According to the September 2023 wastewater permit application, the store’s septic tank sits on Beal and Kenyon’s property under an easement, and the disposal mound is on a second neighboring property. A failure at the store’s wastewater system can therefore affect land outside the store’s boundaries.

What the Neighbors Say Happened in February and March 2026

Beal and Kenyon say a strong odor developed around the septic tank in February 2026, so bad that their children could not play in the backyard. They say one pumping operation involved dragging a hose across their yard and leaving sewage on the snow, and that in March septic water spilled onto their driveway and front steps. Seven Days reports that Kao apologized after Beal contacted her and offered to buy the family dinner.

What Kao Says About the Septic Replacement

Kao says she brought in engineers after learning the system had failed, and that the decades-old infrastructure had reached the end of its useful life. She says the proposed replacement should solve the problem. According to Seven Days, state regulators have signed off on the replacement design. The neighbors are challenging it, arguing it is sized for the same maximum daily wastewater load as the old system even though they believe actual water use is higher, and pointing to meter data they say showed the store over its permitted level on many days.

Kao answers that the meter measures water drawn from the store’s well, not what reaches the septic system, since much of it goes into drinks, soups and prepared food. She attributes some high readings to leaking fixtures that have been fixed, and says October readings were within the permitted amount. Public reporting does not show that the replacement system has been built and finally accepted.

Did Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources Issue a Notice of Alleged Violation to KaoHaus LLC?

Yes. The neighbors’ zoning-enforcement materials include a Notice of Alleged Violation dated April 17, 2026, issued under 10 V.S.A. §8006(b). It names KaoHaus LLC and refers to wastewater-system and public-water-system permit requirements.

Date	Compliance direction in the notice
May 1, 2026	Contact state officials about a public water system permit and a replacement wastewater plan
June 1, 2026	Submit the required public water system and wastewater applications
November 1, 2026	Construct a compliant replacement wastewater system

The notice cites the Vermont Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules, §1-301(a)(12), which concerns use of a failed system or supply, and the Water Supply Rule on operating a public water system without a permit.

Is a Notice of Alleged Violation a Finding That the Old Brick Store Broke the Law?

No. It is an administrative notice, not a court judgment. If a matter is not adequately addressed, the state can escalate to an administrative order (10 V.S.A. §8008) or a civil enforcement action (10 V.S.A. §8019). The zoning administrator stated on August 20 that the Agency of Natural Resources had not required the store to stop operating while it works to resolve the issue.

Address Discrepancy in the April 17 Notice

The notice lists KaoHaus LLC at 290 Ferry Road, but the description of the alleged violation refers to a business at 57 One Mile Road. The neighbors attached the notice to their July enforcement request, and the zoning administrator also treated it as a notice about the store. Because of the inconsistency, readers should not assume it conclusively establishes every allegation about 290 Ferry Road without clarification from the agency.

What Did Charlotte’s Development Review Board Approve for the Old Brick Store on January 24, 2024?

After buying the property, Kao sought approval for a change in use allowing public seating and dine-in customers. The September 2023 wastewater application described a general store and food market with up to 20 seats and a one-bedroom apartment above. The Development Review Board held a hearing in December 2023 and issued its decision on January 24, 2024, approving a site-plan amendment with conditions. Two matter most:

• Indoor seating: limited to 130 square feet.
• Parking: eight off-street spaces required, counting six on the store property and two at the Charlotte Volunteer and Fire Rescue Service site. The off-site arrangement was to be formalized in a recorded agreement with the fire and rescue service (Condition 4).

What Did the Neighbors Allege in Their July 28, 2026 Zoning Enforcement Request?

Through attorney Peter Raymond, Beal and Kenyon asked the zoning administrator to take enforcement action. They alleged that:

• Restaurant use: the store operates primarily as a restaurant, not a general store with limited food service.
• Seating: it exceeds the approved 130 square feet, with existing seating they estimated at 14 to 17 people indoors plus outdoor seating.
• Parking: only five usable spaces exist on the store’s property instead of six, and the required recorded agreement for the two off-site spaces was never completed.
• Deliveries: four or five deliveries can arrive daily, sometimes blocking roads and neighboring driveways for 30 to 45 minutes.
• Customer parking: customers park on their private property despite signs and requests.
• Safety: traffic and loading near the Ferry Road and Greenbush Road intersection endanger pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

These are allegations in an enforcement request, not findings by the town.

How Kao’s Attorney Responded

Kao’s attorney argued that the store has historically combined retail and food service, and that success alone does not change its legal use. He said Vermont law allows an existing business to increase the intensity of a pre-existing use without necessarily becoming a different type of business needing new approval. Whether a “general store with food service” has become a “restaurant” depends on the actual operation, its history, the land-use definitions and the conditions of the 2024 permit.

Did Zoning Administrator Rebecca Kaplan Find That the Old Brick Store Violated Its Permit?

No. On August 20, 2026, Kaplan wrote that she did not find the store out of compliance with the January 24, 2024 Development Review Board decision. She acknowledged, however, that the formal off-site parking agreement required by Condition 4 had not been completed, and said the store was working to fulfill it. She also said oversight of wastewater permits belongs to the state rather than the Development Review Board, that the state had not required the store to cease operations, and that she saw no change in the store’s historical operations even if its popularity gave that impression.

What Is the Old Brick Store Zoning Appeal, DRB 26-103-AZA, and What Happens November 11, 2026?

Beal and Kenyon appealed Kaplan’s decision to the Charlotte Development Review Board. The central question is whether she correctly found that the store remains within its 2024 approval. The board held a public hearing on October 14, 2026, which drew roughly 100 people, according to The Charlotte News. The matter was continued so members could review additional material and consult the town attorney.

Next Development Review Board meeting: November 11, 2026, 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Charlotte, Vermont. Agenda and appeal documents are posted on the town’s official website.

What the Development Review Board Can and Cannot Decide

The board can uphold or reverse the zoning administrator. A finding of violation could lead to further zoning enforcement or additional permitting, but it would not by itself be an order to close the store. The zoning appeal does not decide damages or whether the store’s well caused the neighbors’ water problems. If either side is unhappy with the board’s eventual decision, the next step is generally an appeal to the Environmental Division of the Vermont Superior Court.

Which Vermont Laws Apply to the Old Brick Store Lawsuit?

Because the full civil complaint was not available, the laws below are potentially relevant legal rules, not verified counts in the filed case.

10 V.S.A. §1410: Vermont Groundwater Right of Action

Vermont recognizes a right to the beneficial use and enjoyment of groundwater free from unreasonable interference by others. The statute allows an action for equitable relief, a tort action for damages, or both, when another person’s withdrawal, diversion or alteration of groundwater unreasonably harms the plaintiff. It does not make every nearby well user liable when another well runs low, so plaintiffs need evidence tying the harm to the defendant’s use. Courts weigh the purpose and social and economic value of each use, the extent of harm, whether the harm was practically avoidable, whether use could reasonably be adjusted, protection of existing investments and fairness in allocating the loss. 10 V.S.A. §1410

Private Nuisance Under Vermont Common Law

Private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another person’s use and enjoyment of property. The Vermont Supreme Court addressed the standard in Myrick v. Peck Electric Company, 2017 VT 4, and Jones v. Hart, 2021 VT 24, weighing the seriousness of the harm against the usefulness of the defendant’s conduct. Recurring sewage odor, spills or access interference could be weighed under this test, but ordinary inconvenience from living beside a busy business is not automatically a nuisance. Myrick v. Peck Electric Company, 2017 VT 4 and Jones v. Hart, 2021 VT 24

23 V.S.A. §1135: Trespass by Motor Vehicle

A person commits trespass by motor vehicle by knowingly obstructing a private driveway, barway or gateway, or traveling over private land or a marked private road without permission. The statute carries civil penalties and bears on the complaints about customers parking on the neighbors’ land and trucks blocking their driveway. It does not automatically make a business owner liable for every customer’s conduct. 23 V.S.A. §1135

Easement Law and the Store’s Septic Infrastructure

An easement is a legal right to use another person’s land for a defined purpose. The scope of the store’s right to keep its septic tank on the neighbors’ property, to pump and maintain it, and to extend the right to a replacement system turns on the recorded deed or easement language. An easement does not give unlimited permission to use the neighbor’s land in any manner.

Vermont Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules, §1-301

These rules generally prohibit operating a failed wastewater system or water supply, with exceptions. Section 1-301(d)(1) lets the Secretary authorize continued use while the landowner is actively pursuing a solution, which helps explain how a business can stay open while a replacement is designed. Separate public water system rules under Vermont’s public water supply law (10 V.S.A. chapter 56) apply when a business serves enough people to be classified as a public water system. Vermont Wastewater and Water Supply Rules

10 V.S.A. §§8006, 8008 and 8019: State Environmental Enforcement

Section 8006 governs notices of alleged violation, §8008 governs administrative orders and §8019 governs civil enforcement complaints. These are state processes separate from the neighbors’ private lawsuit. Vermont Title 10, Chapter 201

24 V.S.A. §4465: Appeals of Zoning Administrator Decisions

An “interested person,” including certain nearby property owners who can show a physical or environmental impact on their interests, may appeal an administrative officer’s decision to the Development Review Board, generally within 15 days. This is why Beal and Kenyon could challenge the August 20 decision through the town. 24 V.S.A. §4465

24 V.S.A. §4471 and §4472: Appeal to the Environmental Division and Exclusive Remedy

Under 24 V.S.A. §4471 and 10 V.S.A. §8504, an interested person who participated in the Development Review Board proceeding may appeal its decision to the Environmental Division of the Superior Court, generally within 30 days. Under §4472, that appeal process is generally the exclusive route for challenging a zoning decision. If the neighbors lose before the board, or the store loses, a deadline will start running quickly after the written decision.

Vermont Declaratory Judgments Act, 12 V.S.A. §4711 and following

The public court index lists the civil case as a declaratory-judgment action. Vermont’s Declaratory Judgments Act lets a court declare the rights and legal relations of parties in a real dispute, which could include the scope of easements or property rights, with other relief added if requested.

12 V.S.A. §511: Limitation Period

Vermont’s default six-year limitation period for most civil actions generally applies unless a more specific statute controls. The well problems date to May 2024, and the lawsuit was filed in September 2026, so timing does not appear to be an obstacle on the reported dates.

How These Laws Fit the Old Brick Store Disputes

Dispute	Potentially relevant framework
Store’s well allegedly affecting neighbors’ water	10 V.S.A. §1410
Sewage odor and alleged spills	Private nuisance; wastewater rules; easement terms
Customers parking on private land	23 V.S.A. §1135; other property-law claims
Seating and restaurant use	Charlotte land use regulations; 24 V.S.A. §4465
Failed wastewater system	Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules
State permit enforcement	10 V.S.A. §§8006, 8008, 8019
Appeal of the Development Review Board’s decision	24 V.S.A. §§4471, 4472; 10 V.S.A. §8504
Scope of the neighbors’ property rights	12 V.S.A. §4711 and following; recorded easements

How Did the Old Brick Store Dispute Develop? (Timeline)

Date	Event
At least the early 1820s	A general store operates at Ferry Road and Greenbush Road
July 19, 2023	Jolene Kao buys the Old Brick Store
September 2023	Wastewater and water-supply permit application prepared for change in use and public seating
September 29, 2023	Store reopens after renovations
January 24, 2024	Charlotte DRB approves site-plan amendment with conditions
May 2024	Neighbors say their shared well begins repeatedly failing
February to March 2026	Neighbors report septic odor and alleged wastewater spills
April 17, 2026	Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issues Notice of Alleged Violation
July 28, 2026	Neighbors request zoning enforcement
August 20, 2026	Zoning administrator finds no violation, notes outstanding parking agreement
September 2026	Beal and Kenyon file civil lawsuit; indexed September 24
October 14, 2026	DRB holds public hearing on the appeal
October 19, 2026	DRB continues proceedings
November 4, 2026	Seven Days publishes detailed reporting
November 11, 2026	Next scheduled DRB meeting on the appeal

Will the Old Brick Store Be Forced to Close?

No order requires it to close as of November 5, 2026. A civil lawsuit does not shut a business down on its own. The zoning administrator found no violation of the 2024 approval, and the state had not required the store to cease operations during the wastewater compliance process. A finding of a zoning violation could lead to enforcement or new permitting requirements, but that is different from a closure order.

What Happens Next in the Old Brick Store Lawsuit?

• November 11 hearing. The board will consider the neighbors’ claims, the store’s response, the 2024 approval and the permit records.
• Wastewater replacement. The key issue is whether the new system is adequately sized for the store’s actual use and meets state requirements; the neighbors challenge its design capacity.
• Groundwater testing. Any groundwater claim will depend on technical evidence of causation.
• Civil lawsuit. The case will move through service, pleadings and discovery. No trial date or final damages figure has been publicly confirmed.

Old Brick Store Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions

Where is the Old Brick Store in the lawsuit located?

At 290 Ferry Road in Charlotte, Vermont. It is not a Charlotte, North Carolina case.

Who sued Old Brick Store owner Jolene Kao?

Next-door homeowners Sarah Beal and David Kenyon sued Kao and associated business entities in September 2026.

Did the Old Brick Store cause Beal and Kenyon’s well to fail?

That has not been established. The neighbors suspect the store’s deeper well, and testing was still pending as of the November 4 reporting.

How much did Beal and Kenyon spend on their well?

They report about $10,000 for well fracking and a storage tank. That is their reported cost, not a confirmed damages award or demand.

Did Vermont find that KaoHaus LLC violated wastewater law?

The Agency of Natural Resources issued a Notice of Alleged Violation on April 17, 2026, requiring corrective steps including a replacement wastewater system. That is an allegation, not a final judgment.

Is the Old Brick Store operating as an illegal restaurant?

That is disputed. The neighbors say food service exceeds what was approved. Kao says the store has always combined retail and food service. The zoning administrator found no violation on August 20, 2026, and that decision is under appeal.

What is the 130-square-foot indoor seating limit in the Old Brick Store’s 2024 approval?

It is a condition of the Development Review Board’s January 24, 2024 decision. The neighbors argue current seating exceeds it.

When is the next Old Brick Store zoning hearing?

November 11, 2026, at 7 p.m., before the Charlotte Development Review Board.

Can Beal and Kenyon force the Old Brick Store to close?

Not automatically. Any restriction would have to come from a court order or a state or municipal enforcement process.

Has Jolene Kao admitted wrongdoing?

No. She says she is working to fix the infrastructure problems and disputes that the business has improperly changed its use.

Has a court awarded Beal and Kenyon damages?

No final damages award has been reported.

Is the Old Brick Store lawsuit a class action?

No. It is a private dispute between neighboring property owners and a business. There is no class fund or claim form.

Is the Old Brick Store lawsuit the same as the zoning appeal?

No. The lawsuit is a private civil case, the zoning appeal is an administrative proceeding before the Charlotte Development Review Board, and the wastewater matter is a state enforcement process.

What the Old Brick Store Dispute Means for Vermont Property Owners and Small Businesses

Many Vermont properties depend on private wells, older septic systems, easements and historic land-use arrangements. A business can grow its activity without enlarging its building and still strain parking, water, wastewater and neighboring properties. For homeowners, the case shows the value of keeping water-system records, repair receipts, photographs and written communications. For business owners, it shows that zoning conditions, recorded parking agreements, easement terms and state wastewater permits are ongoing operating requirements. The outcome will turn on evidence, not on how popular the store is or how unhappy the neighbors are.

As of November 5, 2026, the dispute is unresolved. The November 11 hearing is the next public milestone, and the civil lawsuit has no reported final judgment.

Related Property and Neighbor Lawsuit Coverage

1. Scout Motors Blythewood Plant Lawsuit, Elderly Couple Says Construction Forced Them From Their Home
2. SpaceXAI Mississippi Lawsuit, Judge Denies XAI Dismissal
3. Beaver Lake Land Access Lawsuit, Arkansas Court Upholds $8,000 Easement Route Despite Gorge Dispute

These involve different states, properties and legal claims.

Sources and Official Records

Local reporting

1. Seven Days, Neighbor Dispute Over Old Brick Store Roils Charlotte, November 4, 2026
2. The Charlotte News, Old Brick Store Decision Still Perplexing DRB, October 29, 2026
3. Burlington Herald, Neighbors Sue Charlotte Store Owner Over $10,000 Well Repair and Sewage Issues

Official town documents

4. Charlotte Development Review Board, November 11, 2026 Meeting and Appeal Documents
5. January 24, 2024 DRB Findings and Decision, Old Brick Store
6. Beal and Kenyon Notice of Appeal of August 20, 2026 Zoning Administrator Decision, with Supporting Documents
7. August 20, 2026 Zoning Administrator Response
8. September 2023 Old Brick Store Wastewater and Water Supply Application

Court and statutory references

9. Vermont Judiciary Public Portal
10. 10 V.S.A. §1410
11. 24 V.S.A. §4465
12. 10 V.S.A. §8006
13. Vermont Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Rules
14. Myrick v. Peck Electric Company, 2017 VT 4
15. Jones v. Hart, 2021 VT 24
16. 23 V.S.A. §1135

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. The civil complaint was not available for independent review, so the allegations described here are not findings of fact. Official court orders, recorded easements, permits and state enforcement decisions control over this summary.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Seven Days report of November 4, 2026, the Charlotte Development Review Board’s January 24, 2024 decision, the town’s published July 28 and August 20, 2026 zoning records and the cited Vermont statutes, as of November 5, 2026. Last Updated: November 5, 2026.