In re Brownell/LaMarche Discretionary Permit

• Decision Date: 01 November 2021
• Docket Number: 20-ENV-00015
• Court: Superior Court of Vermont
• Parties: In re: Brownell/LaMarche Discretionary Permit

In re: Brownell/LaMarche Discretionary Permit

No. 20-ENV-00015

Superior Court of Vermont

November 1, 2021

DECISION ON MOTION

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge Superior Court, Environmental Division

Appellants Craig and Chiuho Sampson (Appellants) seek partial summary judgment in this appeal, pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471, of a decision made by the Town of Williston's Development Review Board (DRB). In its October 15, 2020 decision, the DRB approved a discretionary permit application submitted by Applicants Randee Brownell and Jo LaMarche (Applicants) for a 4-lot subdivision. The proposed development (the Project) would subdivide a portion of the property at 4354 South Brownell Road, Williston, VT, creating three residential lots with access to the Project along Rosewood Drive. Appellants are residents of Rosewood Drive and oppose the Project at least in part because of concerns over the planned use of Rosewood Drive to access the Project. Appellants seek judgment as a matter of law on Questions 1 and 2 of their Statement of Questions which regard access to the Project from the intersection of State Route 116 and Rosewood Drive.

Appellants are represented by Attorney Alexander J. LaRosa and Attorney Elizabeth J. Filosa. Applicants oppose the motion for summary judgment and are represented by Attorney Brian P. Hehir.

Legal Standard

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

1

matter of law." V.R.C.P. 56(a), applicable here through V.R.E.C.P. 5. The nonmoving party "receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences," but must respond with more than unsupported allegations in order to show that material facts are in dispute. Robertson v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2004 VT 15, ¶ 15, 176 Vt. 356. For the purposes of the motion, the Court "will accept as true the allegations made in opposition to . . . summary judgment, so long as they are supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material." Id.; Pettersen v. Monahan Safar Ducham, PLLC, 2021 VT 16, ¶ 9.

Findings of Fact

After reviewing the facts proposed in the parties' filings, the Court finds the following to be undisputed. The facts set out below do not constitute factual findings with relevance outside of this summary judgment decision. See Blake v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 VT 48, ¶ 21, 180 Vt. 14 (citing Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 170 Vt. 632, 633 (2000) (mem.)). The Court relies on these facts for the sole purpose of deciding on the request for summary judgment.

1. Appellants Craig and Chiuho Sampson own and reside on property located at 120 Rosewood Drive in Williston, VT.

2. Applicants Randee Brownell and Jo LaMarche own and reside on property located at 4354 South Brownell Road in Williston, VT (the Property).

3. The Property is about 51 acres and...