Title: In re Appeal of Carroll

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Appeal of Carroll (2005-421)

2007 VT 19

[Filed 09-Mar-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 19

                                No. 2005-421


  In re Appeal of Patricia Carroll, et al.       Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Environmental Court

                                                 May Term, 2006

  Thomas S. Durkin, J.

  Norman C. Smith, Essex Junction, for Appellant Carroll.

  Dennis R. Pearson, Pro Se, Jericho, Appellant.

  Daniel P. O'Rourke and Vincent A. Paradis of Bergeron, Paradis &
    Fitzpatrick, LLP, Essex Junction, for Appellees.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Toor, Supr. J.,  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  Appellant Patricia Carroll appealed to the
  Environmental Court from a decision by the Town of Jericho Development
  Review Board (DRB) approving the plan of Mary Alice Rivers and CRC Sand &
  Gravel (collectively, "developers"), for a five-lot subdivision. (FN1)  The
  Environmental Court concluded that because Ms. Carroll did not participate
  in the hearing for final subdivision approval, she did not qualify as an
  interested party under 24 V.S.A. § 4465(b), and dismissed Ms. Carroll's
  appeal.  We conclude that Ms. Carroll's participation in the previous
  hearings regarding the subdivision constituted adequate participation under
  the statute and reverse the Environmental Court's dismissal of her appeal.   
        
       ¶  2.  "In reviewing the trial court's disposition of a motion to
  dismiss, we assume that all pleaded factual allegations in the complaint
  are true, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be derived
  therefrom."  Winfield v. State, 172 Vt. 591, 593,