Case Title: In re Gulli

Citation: 174 Vt. 580, 816 A.2d 485

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Gulli (2002-037); 174 Vt. 580; 816 A.2d 485

[File 04-Nov-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-037

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2002

  In re Appeal of Nicholas &           }        APPEALED FROM:
  Barbara Gulli, et al.	               }	
                                       }
      	                               }	Environmental Court
                                       }	
                                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 4-1-01 Vtec

                                                Trial Judge: Merideth Wright

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       In this zoning dispute, Nicholas A. Gulli and a group of Ludlow
  landowners ("Gulli group") appeal from the environmental court's grant of a
  motion to dismiss in favor of Okemo Mountain, Inc. ("Okemo").  The Gulli
  group argues that the court improperly granted Okemo's motion to dismiss
  the Gulli group's statement of questions, and therefore the appeal, by
  holding that the issues pertaining to the Town of Ludlow Development Review
  Board's August 8, 2000 decision approving Okemo's planned unit development
  and subdivision plat were not timely filed and thus beyond the scope of the
  appeal, and by incorrectly treating the Development Review Board's November
  27, 2000 evaluation of Okemo's submitted "Final Parcel Map" as distinct
  from a "Final Subdivision Plat" requiring a public hearing pursuant to 24
  V.S.A. § 4407(12) or § 4414.  We affirm.

       In November 1999, Okemo submitted a consolidated application to the
  Ludlow Development Review Board ("DRB") requesting site plan approval,
  subdivision approval, conditional use approval, and planned unit
  development ("PUD") approval of its Phase I Jackson Gore Project
  ("Project").  The Project is a mixed use recreational development involving
  expansion of Okemo's skiing and snowboarding facilities, and a PUD of 120
  acres, including 117 condominium/hotel units, associated commercial
  facilities, parking and infrastructure.  Following public hearings, the DRB
  issued a Notice of Decision on April 21, 2000, approving Okemo's
  application subject to certain  conditions.  On May 16, 2000, Okemo moved
  the DRB for reconsideration and alteration of its  April 21 decision.  A
  hearing was held before the DRB in July 2000 to consider Okemo's motion and
  the DRB issued an amended decision on August 8, 2000.  The DRB incorporated
  the amendments of the August 8 decision into the April 21 decision on
  October 5, 2000.  The amended decision required Okemo to submit to the DRB
  a "Final Parcel Map" ("Map") displaying the Project with the DRB's imposed
  conditions incorporated therein.  Okemo submitted the Map in October 2000
  and the Map received DRB approval on November 27, 2000.  
   
       Throughout the application process, several Ludlow residents exercised
  their statutory right to appeal from the decisions of the DRB to the
  environmental court.  See 24 V.S.A. § 4471 (allowing 

 

  appeals from development review board to environmental court).  On May 19,
  2000, Nicholas A. Gulli appealed from the April 21, 2000 DRB decision.  On
  August 14, 2000, George Dunnett appealed from the August 8, 2000 DRB
  decision. On December 12, 2000, Gulli and a group of fifteen other Ludlow
  residents appealed from what they characterized as a decision of the DRB
  "rendered on or about November 27, 2000, granting Subdivision Plan Approval
  and modification of the zoning regulations" to Okemo.  On December 22,
  2000, Dunnett and a group of ten other Ludlow residents ("Dunnett group")
  appealed from what they characterized as "the November 27, 2000 decision"
  of the DRB granting approval of Okemo's application.  These appeals were
  consolidated by the environmental court.  In January 2001, the Gulli and
  Dunnett groups each submitted a statement of questions in connection with
  its appeal.  

       On March 22, 2001 the environmental court dismissed the individual
  appeals of Gulli and Dunnett  for lack of standing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §
  4464(b)(3).  However, the court found that the Gulli group and the Dunnett
  group had standing to appeal action taken by the DRB in November 2000
  pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(4), which allows "[a]ny ten persons owning
  real property within a municipality . . . [to] allege that any relief
  requested by a person under this title, if granted, will not be in accord
  with the policies, purposes or terms of the plan or bylaw of that
  municipality." Id.  The court excluded from the scope of these group
  appeals any challenges to the August 8, 2000  DRB decision because neither
  group filed an appeal within 30-days of the issued decision as mandated by
  24 V.S.A. § 4471.  On April 30, 2001, the court  reaffirmed its decision to
  dismiss the individual appeals of Gulli and Dunnett and to limit the scope
  of the group appeals to the action taken by the DRB in November 2000.  

       On December 12, 2001, the environmental court granted Okemo's motion
  to dismiss all questions submitted in the Gulli group and Dunnett group
  appeals.  The court found that the proposed questions for both appeals were
  beyond the scope of the November 2000 DRB decision.  The court rejected the
  argument posited by the Gulli and Dunnett groups that the DRB could not
  approve Okemo's submitted Map without a public hearing.  The court noted
  that the DRB had taken all required approval action in the August 2000
  proceedings, but since it had imposed conditions on Okemo's Project, the
  DRB took the reasonable step to require Okemo to submit a "Final Parcel
  Map" containing the incorporated conditions.  The court concluded that the
  DRB required Okemo to submit the Map only so that it could determine
  whether Okemo accurately rendered the DRB's decision, including the imposed
  conditions, into map display form.  This submission, the court found, "did
  not reopen the already approved elements of [Okemo's] application on which
  the DRB had made elaborate and careful findings and for which it had
  imposed detailed requirements and conditions."
   
       On December 18, 2001, the environmental court entered a final judgment
  order dismissing the Gulli group and Dunnett group appeals.  On January 4,
  2002, Nicholas Gulli, ostensibly acting as spokesperson for the
  sixteen-member Gulli Group, filed a notice of appeal with the environmental
  court indicating a desire to appeal to this Court from the environmental
  court's dismissal of the Gulli group's appeal.  The Dunnett group did not
  appeal to this Court.  In response to the notice of appeal, seven members
  of the Gulli group submitted written notification to the Clerks of this
  Court and the 

 

  environmental court indicating that they did not want to participate in the
  appeal to this Court.  On January 28, 2002, Okemo filed a motion to dismiss
  the Gulli group appeal for lack of standing pursuant to 24 V.S.A. §
  4464(b)(4).  On February 11, 2002, this Court issued an entry order stating
  our intent to consider Okemo's motion with the merits of this appeal. 
  While Okemo's motion to dismiss raises interesting questions of standing
  pursuant to § 4464(b)(4), we need not enter that procedural quagmire in the
  present case, but instead affirm this appeal on its merits. (FN1)  

       Okemo moved for and the environmental court granted dismissal of the
  Gulli group's statement of questions as beyond the scope of its appeal, and
  accordingly, dismissed the appeal itself.  The court's decision exhibits
  legal and factual determinations, as well as determinations of mixed
  questions of law and fact.  We will not set aside the court's factual
  findings unless they are clearly erroneous.  Luneau v. Peerless Ins. Co.,
  170 Vt. 442, 444,