Corey Acres Rd. Variance & Change of Use Applications

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, ruled on the Village of North Bennington’s motion to dismiss the appellants’ Statement of Questions in an appeal involving variance and change-of-use applications. The court dismissed Questions 1, 6, and 11, recognized the voluntary withdrawal of Questions 5 and 10, and denied dismissal of Question 12 while requiring clarification. The court ordered the appellants to file a clarified Question 12 by April 14, 2026, and scheduled a later status conference.

Holdings

1. The court declined to dismiss the Statement of Questions solely because it was filed untimely, exercising its discretion not to dismiss under the circumstances because the questions were filed before the continued initial status conference and before the appeal moved forward in earnest.
2. In a de novo appeal from municipal permitting proceedings, the Environmental Division's jurisdiction is limited to issues concerning the application under review and matters properly warned and within the municipal panel's authority. Questions seeking rulings on unrelated property activity or agreements, rather than whether the underlying variance applications comply with applicable regulations, must be dismissed.
3. Questions 5 and 10 were dismissed because Appellants affirmatively withdrew the appeals associated with those permit applications.
4. The court denied the motion to dismiss Question 12 at that stage because it was unclear whether the question improperly sought review of lower-level actions or instead raised an issue affecting the court's jurisdiction. Appellants were ordered to file a clarified Question 12.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Statement of Questions should be dismissed as untimely.
2. Whether Questions 1, 6, and 11 were outside the Environmental Division's jurisdiction because they sought rulings on matters unrelated to the variance applications and potentially requested advisory opinions.
3. Whether Questions 5 and 10 should be dismissed based on Appellants' withdrawal of the corresponding appeals.
4. Whether Question 12 should be dismissed because it appeared to challenge actions taken by the zoning administrator or DRB in a de novo appeal.
5. Whether Appellants should be required to clarify Question 12.

Disposition

other