Title: In re Garen

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Garen (2001-490); 174 Vt. 151; 807 A.2d 448

[Filed 09-Aug-2002]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                No. 2001-490


  In re Appeals of Garen	                      Supreme Court 
  (Katherine Gluck and John Desautels, Appellants)
                                                      On Appeal from
                                                      Environmental Court


                                                      June Term, 2002 

  Merideth Wright, J.

  Michael J. Straub, Bethel, for Appellants.

  Neil H. Mickenberg of Mickenberg, Dunn, Kochman, Lachs & Smith, PLC,
    Burlington, for Appellees Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity, Inc. 
    and Burlington House Authority.

  Kimberlee Sturtevant of McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan, PC, Burlington, for
    Appellee City of Burlington.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.


       MORSE, J.   Intervenors Katherine Gluck and John Desautels appeal from
  an order of the environmental court dismissing the appeal of the final plat
  approval granted applicants Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity and the
  Burlington Housing Authority after the original appellants, David and June
  Garen, voluntarily withdrew.  Intervenors argue that the trial court
  erroneously determined that they could not independently maintain the
  appeal once the original appellants withdrew and that any independent
  issues that intervenors wished to raise were barred because they had not
  filed their own separate timely notice of appeal.  We reverse and remand.

 

       On February 20, 2001, the Burlington Development Review Board granted
  final plat approval to a project proposed by Green Mountain Habitat for
  Humanity for a parcel of land located at 140 Venus Avenue owned by the
  Burlington Housing Authority.  Neighbors David and June Garen filed a
  timely appeal of the approval to the environmental court.  After the time
  for appeal had tolled, Katherine Gluck and John Desautels sought permission
  to intervene in the appeal pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4471(a), V.R.C.P.
  24(a)(1) and 76(a).  The court granted their motion to intervene, but
  stated that they could not add new and independent issues to the appeal as
  the time for initiating appeals had lapsed. 

       Thereafter, the Garens voluntarily withdrew their appeal for reasons
  unrelated to the appeal.  The court dismissed the case.  Intervenors sought
  unsuccessfully to have the appeal reinstated, arguing that they could
  independently maintain the appeal.  They now appeal to this Court.

       Under the statutory scheme governing appeals to the environmental
  court from bodies such as a development review board, "interested
  person[s]" - which include property owners in the immediate neighborhood of
  a subject property such as Gluck and Desautels, 24 V.S.A. § 4464(b)(3) -
  who have participated in the proceedings before the board may intervene in
  appeals before the environmental court as of right.  24 V.S.A. § 4471(a);
  see also V.R.C.P. 76(a)(2) (providing that the Rules of Civil Procedure
  shall apply to proceedings before the environmental court unless otherwise
  provided); V.R.C.P. 24(a)(1) (providing for intervention when statute
  confers an unconditional right to intervene).  The question presented in
  this case concerns their ability to continue with an appeal once the
  original party appealing withdraws from the appeal.
         
       The few courts that have confronted this issue in analogous
  circumstances have consistently concluded that intervenors should be
  allowed to proceed.  In United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, the 

 

  Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the presence of the party
  filing the original petition for review of an EPA action was not necessary
  for continuation of an appeal and that the intervenor could proceed
  following the original petitioner's voluntary dismissal from the suit.  614 F.2d 843, 844-46 (3d Cir. 1979).  The court noted that the petition for
  review had been timely filed and that  the intervenor's motion was likewise
  timely, although outside the time to file a separate petition for review. 
  Id. at 845.  It concluded that, despite the motion to intervene coming
  after the time to file a petition for review, the intervenor should not be
  dismissed from the appeal solely because the original petitioner no longer
  wished to proceed.  Id.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
  has reached similar conclusions in two cases involving zoning appeals. 
  Bates v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 639 A.2d 607, 611 (D.C. 1994)
  (where intervenor participated before zoning board of adjustment and filed
  a timely motion to intervene in appeal from zoning board, he may continue
  appeal following original petitioner's request to dismiss their petition
  for review); Goto v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment,