landowner from taking advantage of § 4406(l)’s small lot exception to treat [76 Elm Street] separately from [84 Elm Street], For the purposes of development, therefore, the parcels had merged into one property subject to a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement at the time Nowicki purchased them in 1996. Id. at 420-21, 819 A.2d at 680. Notwithstanding that conclusion, we remanded the case to the environmental court so that it . could consider, in the first instance, Nowicki’s argument that the right-of-way between 76 and 84 Elm Street effectively separated the parcels, preventing the merger that otherwise took place by operation of law in 1981. Id. at 426, 819 A.2d at 684; see Wilcox v. Vill. of Manchester Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 159 Vt. 193, 197, 616 A.2d 1137, 1139 (1992) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 4. The court took evidence on the issue and
recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law holding that where there is common ownership of two parcels there could be noeasement in favor of one lot operating as a burden to the other recognizing that in some circumstances an afterthefact remedy under state law may be adequate recognizing that as long as the lots belonged to the same owner there could be no easement in favor of one lot or servitude upon the other holding that in some circumstances a rightofway because of location and function may separate two parcels so that they cannot be used as one lot